Aaron Baker wrote:
JWarren, it's not worth getting into the discussion if you can't read between the lines at all.
Oh, I can read between the lines. I just draw my line prior to putting words in other people's mouths.
First of all, the Punisher-like Goetz that's being lauded by the mall ninjas of this thread used racist language himself to complain about the crime in NYC just months before he shot 4 black men. To pretend that race is a non-issue is unrealistic.
Defense of self and/or property is "Mall Ninja?" Wow.
One must remember one simple fact:
REGARDLESS of Goetz' attitudes, HE wasn't the one who CHOSE to assault anyone. Being in a place and able to defend himself DOES NOT CAUSE the assault.
If so, I would fully expect you to blame a women wearing a mini-skirt for getting raped.
Those guys on the subway CHOSE to create this situation.
If Geotz was out like some Charles Bronson, he STILL was the passive party in this equation. Plain and simple.
Just because FLA2760 didn't specifically mention race doesn't mean he didn't raise the issue, either. He specifically mentioned "wilding," which is a term applied almost exclusively to the alleged activities of young black males. If you can find a citation where it's using to refer to white males, I'd like to see it.
Yeah, but it was you who changed his quote to materially include words he didn't say.
As for wilding, well, I am 37 years old, and like to think I have a decent grasp on current (and not so current events.) I have a fair vocabulary.
And I simply do not hear the word "Wilding." I can't say if I heard it during the Central Park incident, but I may or may not have. What I do know it that is clearly isn't a common term in any circles that I've run through-- and I've walked through some rather colorful ones.
While the term may have had some connetation, I will surmise that it has been practically relagated to obscurity. But I suppose someone remembers it.
So you tell me how I'm putting words in someone's mouth. FLA2670 knows very well the race of the people involved. But I didn't attribute any comment to him that he didn't make. All I did was point out that his facts were wrong.
Actually you did change the statement. I quoted it in my first post.
But let's get this out. If they were black, they were black. End of story. I wrote something a bit back on here about a guy that tried to attack me in traffic. He was white. And that's about it.
I won't pretend that the black community does have a more acute problem with crime. The FBI crime statistics show that. Roughly half the violent crime in the US is commited by black persons where roughly half is committed by white persons. On the surface that sounds expected.... until you realise that the per capta is off. Black persons comprise roughly 13% of the US population and White persons comprise roughly 78%.
What does this tell me? It tells me that there is a crime problem in the black community-- one that I hope can be addressed and taken off that path.
But you know what? I really don't believe that it will.
From anadoctal observations, I see a crime problem creating itself among other groups as well-- the US society across the board. If we are seeing a deterioration or ethics and morals in EVERY demographic in the US, how the hell can we expect ONE group to somehow reverse thier own sitution independantly of the US society?
Now, we HAVE had years where violent crime rates have dropped. But I don't think that tells the tale of what is going on. Sheer numbers of incidents is not what I could consider a true barometer of the situation. It is the intensity of the crimes that we are seeing an increase in. It is the callousness that he are seeing on the rise. I see our society having a certain percentage of it losing its empathy and/or respect for others.
And when you use wrong facts to provide examples of crime waves, and all those examples involve ONLY black males, then I don't see how race HASN'T become an issue. He's perpetuating the myth that "wilding" black males committed a crime that they didn't actually commit.
He probably should not have included the Central Park rape-- it was a miscarriage of justice in the extreme.
However, I just re-read his post again. Again, he NEVER mentioned a race.
But I have a question....am I to understand that crimes cannot be mentioned unless they contain more than one ethnic group? I'd rather focus on the event. If it turns out that the group is black, so be it. If it is a bunch of white people, so be it. Or whoever else.
Attributing things based upon race is so passe' these days.
We have Black gangs, we have Hispanic gangs, we have Cuban gangs, we have Asian gangs, we have Biker gangs, we have Skinheads, we have Aryan Nations. And let's not forget the two most notorious gangs: The Democrats and Republicans.
So unless you can show me:
a) a case where wilding refers to anything but black males
b) a real case where "wilding" actually occurred, rather than being fabricated completely out of whole cloth as a trait of young black males
c)where I accuse anyone in particular of being racist
a.) Addressed. Lexicon be damned, the word is practically esoteric.
b.) Addressed. There has been crimes associated with groups homogeneously made up of all groups. They are all pretty damn wild if you ask me.
c.) Addressed. I never said you called anyone anything. I made an observation. Any more would have required me to read between the lines and/or put words in someone's mouth.
Excuse me?
All I'm doing is pointing out that if you breed a culture of fear by perpetuating myths, then you generate more vigilantism. Which is bad.
I'll contend that it was a bit more than that. But PRIMARY problems we face is NOT having a culture of fear-- it is the things you HAVE to realistically fear. Read THR for a bit and you will see a plethera of links showing EXACTLY what you need to worry about-- Home invasions, rape, murder, robbery, etc.
We don't need myths.
EDIT: ADD
However, I do think that it is important to realize that race has not magically disappeared. When someone like Bernie Goetz says that the solution to the crime problem is to get rid of black people and Latinos (and uses racial slurs to say it) and then 18 months later, he kills 4 black men and appears to be willing to finish what began as self-defense by intentionally executing one of them, then race IS an issue.
Valid point.
I will, however, remind you that-- regardless of Goetz' views or attitudes, HE didn't create the situation where he would be in a position to do such a thing. It was the persons who chose to attack HIM.
If he had made those statements and then went out stalking and excuting black persons, we would have have a very different story. However, from what I can remember, he was passive to the ordeal-- until those persons CHOSE to make a mark of him.
His actions are debatable, as are his attitudes. But they-- in no way-- should gloss over the issue of how then incident occured.
Lloydkristmas, you missed my point entirely. I am not defining wilding at all, and I didn't give a definition. It is a word that entered the American lexicon as a direct result of the hysterical media coverage of the Central Park jogger case, which turned out NOT to have been committed by young black males.
Let's drop this whole "wilding" thing. It seems that Aaron and FLA are the only ones that even remember the term. Whatever the origins, it is a pretty idiotic notion to attribute it to any one race. I've see an lot of kids of a lot of demographics who would exhibit what could be called "wilding"-- because they are wild kids-- and not because of race.
When we make an assessment about whether a situation is a laudable exercise of self-defense rights or bloodthirsty vigilantism, let's make sure that we're not taking into account the race of the perpetrators. Black criminals and white criminals both deserve what they've got coming in a true self-defense situation, but neither race should be subject to vigilante justice. My concern is that by referring to the myth of "wilding," we're somehow justifying a different standard of use of force when the criminal is black, since they're somehow less human and more prone to illogical bursts of violence.
I don't think anyone I know -- in my community or on THR has seperate rules of response based upon race. A thug of any race gets a response based upon his choice of creating the situation and as the situation merits. Period.
I'm white. I cannot fathom me treating a white intruder ANY different than any other one. It defies logic. For that reason, it seems that an argument is created and argued against that -- in my opinion-- doesn't exist. Therefore, it is a waste of mental bandwidth.
-- John