Black-on-White Violence: Why It Matters

Last week, while walking through Union Square in Manhattan, 62-year-old Jeffrey Babbitt, a retired train conductor who was the caretaker for his 94-year-old mother, was killed by Lashawn Marten, a black man over 20 years his junior who declared his intention just seconds before he punched Babbitt in the head to hurt the first white person he encountered.

Two days later, a white passenger on a bus passing through Harlem was assaulted by another passenger for being a “cracker.” The 31-year-old assailant struck his victim so hard that, according to the New York Post, “he smashed the bones in his face,” “breaking his nose and eye socket.”

Both the rate and ferocity of black-on-white violence is nothing short of a national scandal. All decent Americans, and certainly all those who claim to care about race relations, should be as attentive to and concerned about this phenomenon as they are attentive to and concerned about anything else.

Not everyone sees it this way. Below are three objections that are commonly stated.

Objection #1: Blacks don’t have a monopoly on violence and whites don’t have a monopoly on being the victims of violence. Violence is part of the human condition. So, why should we attach more importance to this kind of violence than we attach to all sorts of other kinds?

Reply: Of course, what is said here is true. Still, that blacks constitute a small minority of America and yet comprise, overwhelmingly, the majority of perpetrators of interracial crime is, or should be, more than enough to convince the thoughtful that black-on-white violence is a very real problem.

Moreover, it isn’t just the interracial violence here itself that is a grave cause of concern, but the especially savage character that this violence all too often assumes. Just a cursory perusal of any random selection of black-on-white attacks readily reveals the mercilessness that an alarming number of black predators show toward their white prey.

Objection #2: Granted, black-on-white violence is a reality, but it is a reality begotten by a legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. If there are blacks who hate whites, it is because there were first whites who hated blacks. As the title of a 1960s television broadcast on The Nation of Islam put it, black animus toward whites is “the hate that hate produced.”

Reply: As scholars black, white, and other have repeatedly demonstrated, the dysfunction that marks the black underclass today was either non-existent or far less pronounced in years past—i.e. at times not as far removed from slavery and during which racial discrimination against blacks was both more ubiquitous and more overt.

This consideration aside, if the proponents of this objection were made to say aloud the implications of their position, the shame and ridicule that it invites just might force them to abandon it.

According to this line of reasoning, the following victims of black-on-white violence would still be alive and unharmed had it not been for a history of racial oppression:

-Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, a young white couple that had been abducted, repeatedly raped, tortured, and murdered by five blacks;

-Brad Heyka, Jason Befort, Aaron Sander, and Heather Muller, four whites who were robbed, beaten, sexual humiliated, raped, and murdered by two black brothers;

-Kristen Huggins, a 22-year-old college graduate and aspiring artist who was carjacked, sodomized, robbed, and killed by a bullet to her head fired by a black career criminal;

-Antonio Santiago, a 17-month-old baby shot dead in the face by two black thugs;

-Jonathan Foster, a 12-year-old white boy taken from his home and killed by a blowtorch wielding black woman;

-Delbert Benton, an 89-year-old WWII veteran beaten to death by two black teenagers; and

-Fannie Gumbinger, a 99-year-old woman beaten to death by a 20-year-old black man who burglarized her home.

It is with the greatest of ease that to this list, scores of other names could be added. But the point is this: If “the legacy of slavery and discrimination” argument is to be believed, then we are expected to believe that in the absence of this “legacy,” legions of innocent white children, white women, and the elderly who have been brutalized by black thugs would be with us today.

Objection #3: The race of the perpetrators and victims of these horrible crimes is irrelevant.

Reply: If this is true, then so too is race irrelevant while discussing America’s past. After all, if it is slavery that is immoral, then the races of master and slave are immaterial. And if it is immoral to segregate people along the lines of race, then it is irrelevant whether the segregationists are white or non-white.

There is no point mentioning that the Ku Klux Klan consisted of white supremacists who sought to torment blacks. Deserving of condemnation is not white supremacy, but any sort of supremacy, not the tormenting of blacks, but the tormenting of anyone.

But if race is relevant to discussions of American slavery and segregation, then it most certainly is relevant to speak of race in connection with most interracial violence in America at present.

And it most certainly is mandatory that all morally committed people start assigning this issue the priority that it deserves.

And that is why there is no “white solidarity”. Because a gentleman of honor can be of any color, race, sex, age, etc. What distinguishes them is not who they are, but how they behave.

Exactly right. Western culture has always been individualistic rather than collectivist, which is why Communism has always been alien to the west and has always collapsed. The attitude is "me vs. my personal enemies" or "me and my family/personal friends vs. our personal enemies," not "my race/tribe vs. their race/tribe." In contrast, African and Middle Eastern cultures DO think in terms of race, tribe, or creed trumping all other loyalties and values.

There is this nastly little booger in law called the “Suspended Imposition of Sentence”. It is NOT a conviction; which is why so many chitheads and their accompanying chithead attorneys seek it out.There is this nastly little booger in law called the “Suspended Imposition of Sentence”. It is NOT a conviction; which is why so many chitheads and their accompanying chithead attorneys seek it out.

Good point. We have a system of anarcho-tyranny: where the legal system tyrannizes law-abiding citizens with bureaucratic red tape, gives draconian sentences for minor or victimless crimes, while doing little or nothing about truly dangerous and violent criminals. Suspended Imposition of Sentence allows many violent thugs to walk the streets while someone else rots away in Federal Prison for driving some pot over state lines or failing to report additional income from doing odd jobs on a tax return.

Probably the most destructive “booger in the law” is what is known as concurrent sentencing. When a person is arrested on a felony and released into the public awaiting trial, he can commit endless crimes of a lesser penalty value because he will know with confidence that all of his offenses will be merged into one concurrent term of incarceration. If he is already getting 12 years for a robbery where the victim is injured, he can commit assaults, burglaries, drug offenses galore and he will never do more than the 12 years to which he will be sentenced on his primary offense.

A simple way around this would be to always give consecutive sentences, i.e. if you have a 10-year sentence for armed robbery, and commit a crime that carries a 1-2 year sentence (assault), make it a 12 year sentence. Yet this rarely happens in cases where it matters. Instead, it’s done in purely symbolic cases of consecutive life sentences and the like, where it really doesn’t make a bit of difference.

Oh, and was Cain genetically violent as well? Or is sin more of an equal opportunist?

Genesis 4
1 ¶ And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
3 ¶ And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
6 ¶ And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
8 ¶ And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

James 2
8 ¶ If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

If you judge by outward appearance, you commit sin.

Would you fight to save your life? Is your wife and kids worth putting yourself in danger? Does America mean anything to you? Please go back and read the main article where a white man who cared for his 94 year old mother was killed by some black just for the sake of providing that black with five minutes of amusement. Properly directed hate can be a very good thing. Nobody advocates joining the Klan but I sure advocate we recapture an exclusionary attitude that we are the bright ones, the happy ones the glorious ones, this is our country not yours etc. To hell with them!

Unfortunately, all too many Republicans have imbibed the political correctness Kool-Aid. So they bury their heads in the sand, ignoring black on white crime and the transformation of the US into a third world country by immigration, all the while pretending to be "conservatives."

What we can't use is arguments based on falsehoods.

Do I care what they are in jail for? Nope. The link between drugs and drinking and violence is close enough that I don't need to worry the details. So that bit of your argument is just another strawman.

Can we use that info? Even Jesse Jackson, in a brief moment of honestly, noted that he uses it when deciding who to worry about when walking down the street.

Even Jesse Jackson, in a brief moment of honestly, noted that he uses it when deciding who to worry about when walking down the street.

Liberals talk about the ideal of a color-blind society, but they don't believe it for a second. If they did, your typical white liberal would just as soon live in a black inner city neighborhood as in their lily-white suburbs and gated communities. But they don't.

Sometimes it seems as though the only people who do believe that race has nothing to do with crime are a handful of Republicans who bend over backwards at every opportunity to prove to liberals and to the media how enlightened and non-racist they really are.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.