The book is simply a series of reports of Black flash mobs crashing into stores, grabbing, insulting, robbing, beating, and occasionally sending whites to hospital or to the morgue. On one level, this book is quite boring, for it is the same story told and retold again. It is the same story in Philadelphia, San Francisco, New York, Miami, Myrtle Beach, Indianapolis, Charlotte, Texas, New Jersey, Milwaukee, etc. The stories are variations on the same theme, how can young Blacks humiliate whites, destroy their property, steal, beat, and then run away. Black racism, Black on white hatred, Black on white crime, Black on white violence is an epidemic in America. This part of Flaherty's book is solid.
Unfortunately, the response to these crimes is usually as repetitious as the crimes themselves. Local newspapers generally refuse to identify the race of the perpetrators. The author is able to do so by using Youtube videos, often posted by the criminals. They are proud of their violent crimes against whites (sometimes, against Asians). One amazon reviewer dismissed the content of the book, maintaining it was anecdotal and not accord with the FBI's hate crime statistics. In Milwaukee on July 3, 2011, a groups of Blacks ransacked a gas station's convenience store. They then rampaged in a nearby park beating and stealing from whites, who were there to view the fireworks. Police were called and came to the scene. However, because of the politically correct sensitivity to minorities, even sensitive to those engaging in crime, the officers refused to file reports of the crimes. If there are no police reports of the Blacks attacking whites, then the crimes do not exist, and these crimes are not included in FBI or any other statistics. Does one expect the Eric Holder Justice Department (the one that dropped the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party) to investigate possible anti-white racism in a police department that permitted them to ignore the violent crimes by Blacks against whites? Only after some of the whites were treated at hospital and called talk radio did local TV reports begin to expose the Black racist assaults. Finally, [white] Police Chief Ed Flynn conceded that some "fights" had occurred. Flaherty snidely commented, "'fights,' which is a curious way to describe a race riot where some of the victims actually tried to defend themselves."(p. 120) One of the white gals was slugged so hard, that her blood evoked the comment that inspired the title of this book. Mayor Tom Barrett, a liberal Democrat, and Chief Flynn, an import from New York, denied these were hate crimes, assured the city that crime was colorblind, and decried those who sought to "sensationalize" the occurrences.
Flaherty has amassed a book of crimes - crimes by Blacks against whites, and a few of Blacks against Asians. Flaherty recounts page after page of Black on white hostility, insults, theft, beatings, some of which may have led to emergency treatment, and sometimes to the grave. Page after page. Boring to read; painful to read, distressing to read of such injustice perpetrated so often by violent, Black racists, depressing to read how the crimes are not reported in the press, or not reported as racist crimes.
Josef Stalin, the Soviet dictator, observed that the death of one person is a tragedy; the death of a million is a statistic.
Unfortunately, in the US it becomes harder to acquire accurate statistics of Black on White crime. If you simply read the local newspaper accounts of most of these incidents, all of the racial animosity and motivation is removed, deleted, expunged, censored. Why are Americans not supposed to read about the massive hatred and violence against whites committed by Blacks?
Black mobs are not identified as such; they are roving groups of "youths," "teens," "young people," indulging in unseemly behavior. These are not hate crimes, and race has little or nothing to do with it. Of course, the reality is NOT what is reported. The reality is that young Blacks engage in insulting, threatening, beating, and robbing whites. But the major media do NOT want to reveal this basic fact. Flaherty finds the facts - on Youtube, where the color of the crime is visible and often posted by the proud Black racist criminals themselves.
Why do the national and most local media cover up the criminality of Black mobs? On this question Flaherty is silent. He clearly exposes the media cover-ups, but fails to ask why.
To answer this question, an older book might be more helpful, William McGowan's Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism. Beginning with the large-scale Black riots in hundreds of American cities in the mid- to late-1960s, the liberal analysis of events was encapsulated in the report of the Kerner Commission. Basically, the blue-ribbon panel blamed the riots on white racism, excused the rioters, and urged changes to prevent future outbreaks. Universities, which became the think-tanks of the Left developed theories to exculpate Black violence; they were "culturally deprived," they were victims of institutional racism, and their outbursts were simply a means to cope with such oppression. Furthermore, Blacks could not, by definition, be racists. They might show prejudice, but racism required power, and since Blacks in America lacked power, they were incapable of being racist. Only white racism was the problem. Of course, if you walk alone on a street at night, who has the power, a Black with a pistol, or you? And in the era of President Obama and Attorney General Holder, who does have the power? Moreover, if this definition made any sense and were applied elsewhere, then Afrikaners, by definition, can no longer be racists in the new South Africa.
The Left-wing theories of race spun by academics were popularized by the media. In the journalism and communications departments of universities, students were taught that as reporters they were to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Objective reporting was deemed not merely old fashioned, but immoral. The reporter was to take the side of the oppressed. And in race reporting, that meant coloring the news for the benefit of Blacks, who were by definition, the oppressed. And so academe and the media melded into the academedia complex.
Other issues were also fused with the new, politically correct mission of the communication majors. For example, as the method of affirmative action became clearer in practice, (basically a way to give the job or scholarship to a lesser qualified or unqualified minority and deny it to the best qualified, if he were white.) To justify these practices of denying equal opportunity to whites, the Left developed the theory of "white male privilege." According to this, all whites were privileged, and to create a level playing field, preferences had to be granted to minorities, even rich ones. The whites who did not understand this justification, were clearly racists, and probably deserving of a Fanonesque tutoring session (i.e., violence).
The curriculum of schools has changed drastically to incorporate many of the Leftist theories. No longer is the West applauded as the center of a civilization that freed many men and women of drudgery, that provided light throughout the night, that sped people and goods across a continent on rail, and even in the air, - now the West is depicted as oppressive. Whites smashing the wonderful civilizations of the Aztecs, of Africa, of wherever. And white oppression must be fought. Multiculturalism is the glorification of all cultures - except oppressive, colonial, racist, white culture. The West became the enemy in many of America's schools.
So the "youths" who roam about lurking to beat whites (and sometimes Asians) are simply affirming what they have been taught in their multicultural curriculum and in the general media. So, poor, raped, Tawana Brawley - persecuted and raped by the KKK policeman, for a year was a page-1 story for Rev. Al Sharpton to inform reporters about the evils of whites. It was a hoax; but the Left did not care. Think of all the educational material that Rev. Sharpton could present to the cameras during that year. And poor, O. J. Simpson - that white bitch of a wife was receiving OJ's alimony to squander on that Jewish waiter! They surely deserved what happened to them - whoever might have killed them. Another big racial even occurred in the Howard Beach section of New York City in which a Black was killed by autos as he fled a group of angry white youths. Even a year following the event, there was a television movie about it to remind America of white racism and its murderous consequences. Yet, at about the same time, in Milwaukee a white youth, fleeing a group of Black youths, jumped in Lake Michigan, and drowned. There was no publicity about the death of Maldonado in Milwaukee. Maldonado was just a white. Instead of running to the lake, he should have simply let the Blacks beat the s___ out of him, and then he might still be alive. The media and those who control it could not state blatantly the main difference between these stories. One is a rare example of white racism; the other an all too common example of Black racism. The media choose the spotlight the rare example, hoping to convince that it is the common type of racism. The media also dismiss the more common type of racist attacks, because that would show Blacks in an unfavorable light. The media rationally choose the stories that they will emphasize. They choose those stories that fit their ideology. So, they provide massive coverage to one story, and bury the other.
Even though his mother was white, most people view Barack Obama is Black.
Read more ›
