The "myth" of black-on-white crime?
In “Reinforcing the Self-Serving Myth that Blacks Kill Whites Because They’re White,” Earl Ofari Hutchinson—Huffington Post writer, MSNBC contributor, and a co-host for Al Sharpton’s radio show—addresses the cold-blooded murder of white Australian Christopher Lane by black teenagers in Oklahoma.
Although “there is not a shred of evidence or even the hint that [the] killing of Lane was racially motivated,” Hutchinson asserts, right-wingers imply otherwise. Theirs is a “false, self-serving,” and “cheap ploy” to marginalize “civil rights leaders” while promoting the “myth” of a national press determined to conceal an “epidemic” of black-on-white killing.
In reality, the “miniscule” number of whites murdered by blacks each year consists of victims of “garden-variety street crime” who are “perceived to have valuables…that poor blacks aren’t likely to have.”
To Hutchinson’s analysis several replies are in order.
First, contrary to his assertion, there most certainly is evidence that the punks that murdered Lane were motivated, at least in part, by animus toward whites. According to The Daily Caller, one of the suspects, James Edwards, had tweeted the following just a few months ago: “90% of white ppl are nasty. #HATE THEM.” Shortly after George Zimmerman was acquitted of any wrongdoing in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, Edwards tweeted that he had “knocked out 5 woods”—i.e. “peckerwoods,” a derogatory term for whites.
Second, Ilana Mercer, the daughter of a South African rabbi and former anti-apartheid activist, is also a World Net Daily writer who recently established beyond doubt that, sadly, the “epidemic” of black-on-white violence is anything but a myth.
In “Who’s Killing Whom? Speak Up, O’Reilly!” Mercer commends Bill O’Reilly for noting that blacks, at just 13 percent of the population, constitute nearly 40 percent of those convicted of violent crimes and 36 percent of all murderers in America. However, she is quick to castigate the Fox News star for failing to comment on the color of interracial crime, of “deflect[ing] from the white-hot issue of black-on-white violence.”
“You see,” Mercer remarks, “blacks are also more likely”—far more likely—“to murder whites than the reverse.” Citing Bureau of Justice Statistics data, she concedes Hutchinson’s point that whites and blacks both are much more likely to be murdered by members of their respective races than by those of another race. Yet she immediately observes that “a hell of a lot of whites are killed by blacks, while few blacks are offed by whites.”
Regarding “stranger homicide”—you know, the kind of killing to which Chris Lane succumbed—Mercer draws our attention to the fact that “blacks murder whites four times more often than whites murder blacks.” The real white-on-black murder rate is most definitely even lower than statistics suggest, for Hispanics are identified as “white” when they are perpetrators. However, when they are the victims of interracial violence, Hispanics are treated separately from whites.
The phenomenon of black-on-white murder is no myth. It is a reality as pronounced as it is hideous. Doubtless, the Hutchinsons of the world identify it as “myth” because it fails to accommodate their self-serving myth, the fiction that always and forever blacks are the prey, not the predators, of whites.
This brings us to the next point.
Even in conceding that blacks do indeed murder whites more often than the reverse, Hutchinson still can’t resist interpreting this fact in the light of his myth of perpetual black suffering: Whites “are perceived to have valuables… that poor blacks aren’t likely to have.”
Notice, Hutchinson is hereby legitimizing what he in other contexts he would surely decry as “racial profiling.” He tells us that black criminals seek out white victims because they “perceive”—they assume—that, because the latter are white, they will also have “valuables.”
So, without realizing it, Hutchinson undermines his own argument and inadvertently acknowledges that, after all, there is a racial angle to black-on-white murder.
Hutchinson’s analysis is also wide of the mark in his predictably leftist compulsion to identify criminality, including the most cold-blooded and horrific of murderous activity, as a function of poverty. But while poverty can account for why a poor man would rob another, it emphatically does not account for why one would murder another.
Nor, for that matter, does it account for other species of black-on-white violence—like rape.
In her World Net Daily article, Mercer reiterates some telling figures that she first visited in her book, Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2005, blacks “were responsible for 36 percent of the 111,490 incidents in which whites were raped.” At the same time, “not one black woman or man—0.0 percent—was ravished by a Caucasian.”
If only Mr. Hutchinson was right, if only the black-on-white violence of which the poor, unsuspecting Chris Lane was the most recent victim, was a myth. It is not. It is an evil of the first order that all decent people, and God-fearing folks especially, must repudiate unequivocally.
And we must be just as resolved to repudiate Hutchinson and his fellow ideologues—people like Barack Obama, Al Sharpton, and, yes, Oprah Winfrey—who, in spite of being well positioned to decry this wickedness, have actually sought to fuel the flames.
Dripping from their hands is the blood of many innocents.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.