Texas “crowd” kills passenger in car that injured child
posted at 1:43 pm on June 20, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
It’s the top story at FoxNews.com right now, but the AP may be overselling it a bit.
Police believe 2,000 to 3,000 people were in the area for a Juneteenth celebration when the attack occurred Tuesday night. The man who was killed had been trying to stop the group from attacking the vehicle’s driver when the crowd turned on him, authorities said.
Did “the crowd” kill him, or did a few members of the crowd kill him? From CBS-Austin:
Police say preliminary investigation indicates that Morales was a passenger in a car that may have hit a small child in the parking lot of 900 Thompson Street. Immediately after the accident, somebody assaulted the driver of the car that struck the child. The child was taken to a hospital with non-life threatening injuries.
Witnesses said several black males assaulted Morales when he stepped out of the vehicle to try and stop the crowd from assaulting the driver of the car he was in. Police believe there were 2,000 to 3,000 people in the area when the driver and Morales were attacked.
The American-Statesman says the victim’s sister found him at the scene bleeding from the head. Obviously, the “crowd’s” culpability depends on what they were doing when it went down. Watching? Cheering? Or was the event spread out over such a wide area that only a few people in the immediate vicinity knew what was happening? I can’t find any details online.
Needless to say, if they were watching and/or cheering, this story will head straight down the memory hole with the Christian-Newsom murders, rejected on account of Improper Narrative.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
Somebody get Al on the line.
bloggless on June 20, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Obama’s “Quiet Riot”.
RushBaby on June 20, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Most people don’t even know what Juneteenth is….
unamused on June 20, 2007 at 1:50 PM
I’m truly SHOCKED - that CBS Austin would make any reference to the race of the assailants.
peski on June 20, 2007 at 1:50 PM
It is precisely because it was a Juneteenth celebration that this will be ignored by the MSM.
Brat on June 20, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Juneteenth is a celebration of the Emancipation Proclamation, or something to that effect. I think.
I wonder what the story will end up being reported as and what it’ll actually be.
Bad Candy on June 20, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Hmmmm… hate crime???
Oh… wait… no white heterosexual nonhandicaped in shape males were involved… nope.. not a hate crime…
Romeo13 on June 20, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Improper Narrative or White Guilt? But the name sounds Hispanic.
It wasn’t just wilding was it? Juneteenth is a celebration of the announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation.
Perhaps, they were being Emancipated when they killed him?
Kini on June 20, 2007 at 1:56 PM
I have to believe these deaths are the result of conservative talk radio
tomas on June 20, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Apparently, beating the man is a Juneteenth tradition. They got one in Milwaukee, too. How nice.
bloggless on June 20, 2007 at 2:00 PM
If the victim had been white, the race of the assailants would not have been relevant.
Labamigo on June 20, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Immigration “Black”lash???
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on June 20, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Yes. We have to do something about that.
Matticus Finch on June 20, 2007 at 2:02 PM
My money’s on global warming.
RedWinged Blackbird on June 20, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Juneteenth (June 19th) is the day that slaves in Texas found out about Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation - two years after he signed it. It is celebrated by the black community in Texas each year. It’s a pretty big deal.
Does anyone know if the guy killed was white?
pullingmyhairout on June 20, 2007 at 2:05 PM
I’m in Austin, and as far as I can tell the local media is trying very hard to ignore this story. Our only 24-hour local news station is News8Austin, and I couldn’t find the story on their website at all. They front-paged the Juneteenth celebration, which they covered in rosy terms of a sunshiny happy day of parades and community bonding. Nothing about how it ended.
Of the 81 news stories returned from my Google news search, the vast majority seem to be straight pick-ups of the brief AP article, which is of course very light on details. CBS Austin was the only one I saw that identified the assailants as black men. None of them so far identify the driver or his race. The passenger who died was apparently hispanic.
A side note is that the black community in Austin is currently in an angry tizzy over a recent officer-involved shooting. A young black man was shot and killed by a white police officer. The officer has been suspended and probes and investigations are ongoing. But the black community continues to simmer about it.
aero on June 20, 2007 at 2:05 PM
it’s a right-wing conspiracy - some grand Rovian plot.
pullingmyhairout on June 20, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Bush’s fault.
Mob rule could have been quelled by National Guard troops, had they not been foolishly deployed to Iraq.
fogw on June 20, 2007 at 2:07 PM
As soon as I saw the word “Juneteenth” in that first sentence, I knew exactly what races were involved - and how the media would react.
Does that make me a racist … or a realist? You decide.
Professor Blather on June 20, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Just being typical democrats. Welcome to the jungle.
roninacreage on June 20, 2007 at 2:15 PM
What gets me the most is this asinine Juneteenth garbage? The so-called emancipation proclamation freed no one! I suggest people read it for once! Such as page 3 paragraph 3 which reads…
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Palquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebone, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northhampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.”
Slaves were no free in this country until the 13th amendment was passed in Dec. 1865 almost 2 years after that bogus emancipation crap!
“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
Abraham Lincoln, 1858 stated in a debate with Stephen Douglas in Illinois.
The above is the TRUE feelings of the man that clowns out there think “freed da slaves!” Yah Right, and Hitler loved the Jews
Confederate on June 20, 2007 at 2:19 PM
So some animals killed a guy for defending his friend (who hit a child and inflicted non-life threatening injuries)………..yawn…..non-story.
/bigotry of MSMs low-expectations
omnipotent on June 20, 2007 at 2:22 PM
You make the call!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on June 20, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Um … interesting.
Professor Blather on June 20, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Video:
WildcatFan on June 20, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Sorry about above, link did not show up. Here is the link to video:
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/1962.html
WildcatFan on June 20, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Yep… and true… revisionist history wants us to believe that the Civ War was about slavery… when all the major players, and the populace, at the time was talking about either “Saving the Union”, or the power grab by the Federal Government…
Its kinda like the popular conception that we somehow lost Viet Nam militarily… just cause its a popular myth… and even taught in school, it does not make it true.
Romeo13 on June 20, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Well, I’m sure all the witnesses are cooperating with police to identify the assailants.
-Cam’ron
reaganaut on June 20, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Though the Emancipation Proclamation had been issued on September 22, 1862, with an effective date of January 1, 1863, it had little immediate effect on most slaves’ day-to-day lives, particularly in Texas, which was almost entirely under Confederate control. Juneteenth commemorates June 19, 1865, the day Union General Gordon Granger and 2,000 federal troops arrived on Galveston Island to take possession of the state and enforce the emancipation of its slaves.
The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially abolished, and continues to prohibit, slavery, and, with limited exceptions, those convicted of a crime, prohibits involuntary servitude. Prior to its ratification, slavery remained legal only in Delaware and Kentucky; everywhere else the slaves had been freed by state action and the federal government’s Emancipation Proclamation. Abraham Lincoln (who had issued the Emancipation Proclamation) and others were concerned that the Emancipation Proclamation would be seen as a temporary war measure, and so, besides freeing slaves in those two states where slavery was still legal, they supported the Amendment as a means to guarantee the permanent abolition of slavery.
Brat on June 20, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Suddenly Drudge has a bunch of Juneteenth violence stories. Milwaukee? Syracuse? This is the first time I have heard of Juneteenth.
reaganaut on June 20, 2007 at 2:54 PM
*snicker*
The Ugly American on June 20, 2007 at 2:55 PM
If it happened in ATL the headline would be:
“Promising Rap musicians involved in questionable assault”
or “Just another Friday night in Buckhead without the NFL players”
LakeRuins on June 20, 2007 at 2:55 PM
I blame Whitey
RightWinged on June 20, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Actualy an interesting question… under what Constitutional Authority did Lincoln have the ability to Free the Slaves?
From encarta:
The president issued the proclamation under the powers granted during war to seize the enemies’ property. Lincoln only had the authority to end slavery in the Confederate states, and then the slaves were freed only as the Union armies made their way throughout the South. In the states that remained loyal to the Union slavery was protected by the Constitution.
Constitution:
Article the sixth [Amendment IV]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
He had no Constitutional right to seize property (slaves) and thus free them without an Oath or affirmation, and particulars of place to be seized…
Whole thing was unconstitutional.
Romeo13 on June 20, 2007 at 3:00 PM
I just read the reports on Drudge . . . it certainly sounds like a wonderful holiday.
rplat on June 20, 2007 at 3:01 PM
It’s beyond me why other states, and why also there’s a movement to make it a national holiday when it is commemorative only of emanicipation being enforced in Texas.
Brat on June 20, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Booker T. Washington Apartments … unfortunately it’s a bad area to say the least.
I wish I could say more but I can’t.
ar_basin on June 20, 2007 at 3:08 PM
Or long, lost (hopefully forgotten) memories of Freaknik. Um, that was originally “Freedom Picnic” and look what it turned into before finally getting thrown down to Daytona.
Brat on June 20, 2007 at 3:10 PM
I think it’s obvious that a crowd of people gathering on June 19th, celebrating Juneteenth, would be black.
That said, it’s horrible that the man who died, died doing what everyone else in that crowd should have done but apparently didn’t.
I hope everyone, including those who watched and did nothing, are punished as serverely as possible under the law.
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 3:18 PM
I know how ya feel. Kinda like why do so many people celebrate Cinco de Mayo and St. Patrick’s Day? These have nothing to do with the USA.
BigOrangeAxe on June 20, 2007 at 3:20 PM
It’s long been a Texas thing.
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 3:21 PM
One wonders whether some of the reactions of the posters here would have been different had they known that the victim’s name was ‘Morales.’
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Do I really need to explain why Americans want an excuse to drink?
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 3:24 PM
One wonders why you’re even asking this question.
Does it somehow change the crime, or are you just trying to provoke the racism you’re sure is hidden here?
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 3:25 PM
The video on Drudge looks like the overhead shots of Mogadishu fighting from Black Hawk Down.
Why are they all hopping like that? They look like the little kids who used to rap with their pants backwards, Criss Cross, I think were their name. Remember “Jump! Jump!”
Alden Pyle on June 20, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Brat, do you understand why Jewish people everywhere celebrate Passover? While I don’t condone the creation of a national holiday, I do understand a desire to elevate the awareness of, and respectful comemoration of the freedom of human beings in America.
Confederate, just because Lincoln (may have) believed that negros were inferrior to caucasians doesn’t mean that he did not play a major role in freeing the slaves. There is a difference between believing, for instance, that people with autism are inferior to you intellectually and believing said persons should be whipped, raped, sold like cattle and forced to labor all day under the hot sun so that you can have a nice cotton tennis shirt.
Anyway, what’s way more interesting than what Licoln might have thought 140 years ago is what you think today.
This nation has a serious problem to which Obama famously aluded in his “Quiet Riot” speach. I applaud Barrack for at least bringing up the issue; although he directed his remarks toward the wrong target audience.
The day “we” stop focusing on Imus and start focusing on Snoop; stop focusing on George “War on AIDS in Africa” Bush and start focusing on Ray “Chocolate City” Naygin; stop focusing on what the man did to our great, great, great grand parents 200 years ago and what we do to ourselves and our communities today… well that will be the day the slaves have finally been freed.
Or, put simply:
41 And why do you take note of the grain of dust in your brother’s eye, but take no note of the beam which is in your eye?
Luke 6:41
12thman on June 20, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Where in the Constitution are human beings defined as property?
Brat on June 20, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Are you trying to read my mind? You’re not doing a very good job of it.
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 3:50 PM
If you’re not a racist, don’t squeal. My name is not Linda Chavez.
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 3:51 PM
Allahpundit linked to two sources that reported the victim’s name in his original post at the top of this thread. Also quoted from one of the articles that specifically included the name Morales.
RushBaby on June 20, 2007 at 3:52 PM
BTW, Esthier, I’d be willing to answer any non-presumptuous question you have about my statement.
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 3:54 PM
How could you not it’s my Birthday?! This is the first I have heard of this. I was born in Ausitn live in Dallas. Have to ask some relatives. Juneteenth is really big in Houston.
Drtuddle on June 20, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Elevate awareness, yes, which must be preceded by educating what the date actually is and means - for all people - black, white, yellow or green. Take a look at those articles on Drudge. I’d say most of those people DON’T KNOW what they are supposed to be celebrating. Like Cinco de Mayo, just another reason to go out and drink.
And those pictures/videos on Drudge don’t exactly entice me to find my local celebration next year.
Brat on June 20, 2007 at 3:58 PM
What percentage of Hot Air threads end up with at least one Hitler reference.
Inquiring minds want to know!
JayHaw Phrenzie on June 20, 2007 at 4:05 PM
I would like you to clarify, please, Baldilocks.
RushBaby on June 20, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Yes, I know that. And as you probably know also, everyone doesn’t necessarily read the article linked to a post. I’m guessing that more than a few of them are commenting here on this article.
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Ohh… maybe the part where for census purposes a slave was counted as 3/5th of a person? (since ammended…).
My point was that Lincoln used powers he didn’t have… I applaud why he did it… but he oversteped his Presidential powers by the way he did it.
It would be like Bush, by Presidential decree, granting amnesty to ALL the illegal aliens here… crap… actualy… under his pardon powers, I guess he kinda could…. dam… now I’m depressed…
Romeo13 on June 20, 2007 at 4:08 PM
One wonders why you would think that no one actually followed the link to the original report, wherein the victim’s name was prominent.
Maybe this will help you with your racist conspiracy-mongering:
- I didn’t assume anything about the victim’s race; my first thought was that he was probably black, since this was a “Juneteenth” casualty. I fixed this by reading the story.
- I focused instead on the murderers, and since the story was headlined a “Juneteenth”, a race-grievance/black gang street festival, I figured they were black males. What a surprise, I was right!
- The notion of white paranoia never really entered my mind, as I don’t imagine my White-Male self to be under physical attack, in particular. I try to stick with reality, which leads back to point #2, the shocking narrative of young black males in XXXL white t-shirts killing people in the street.
Yawn.
Jaibones on June 20, 2007 at 4:08 PM
RushBaby,
What I wondered was if they had know that the victim was (probably) Mexican-descended, would they had have assumed that the driver was drunk and, possibly an illegal. After all, people are discussing this widespread phenomenon in today’s immigration post.
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Then answer the question. Does the victim’s race change the crime?
If I was trying to read your mind, I wouldn’t have put two options out there for you. Personally, from my limitted scope, I can see no reason for you to make your statement.
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 4:15 PM
Thanks for asking, RB.
It happens all the time, Jailbones it’s called being human.
You’re a crappy mind-reader, too. Why did you assume that I was talking about some sort of “white paranoia?”
Is there a computer virus going around that causes users to have chips on their shoulders?
And if you’re sleepy, Jailbones, I’d suggest a nap. Perhaps that’s why you’re in such a pissy mood.
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 4:17 PM
So it was the racist angle then. Nice to know.
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Baldilocks,
Oh I see, and I fervently hope not.
RushBaby on June 20, 2007 at 4:18 PM
That was a strike against slavery, not for it.
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 4:18 PM
I saw the name immediattely and guessded that he may have been Latino. I had no idea what Juneteenth is (until I read the comments section. Thanks All) so I assumed the crowd was mainly caucasion.
I thought the act was repugnant, the perpetrators have no business in a civilized society and what a terrible shame it will bring on the state of Texas.
If I assume the crowd is mostly black, due to the Juneteenth thing, my opinion does not change in the slightest.
I hate liberal racists that try to project their racism on me.
JayHaw Phrenzie on June 20, 2007 at 4:18 PM
BALDILOCKS IS A LONG TIME H. A. POSTER, ONE OF US, NOT A RACE BAITER.
Benefit of the doubt, please, friends!
RushBaby on June 20, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Neither of your options is correct, Esthier, and the fact that both options implied some racism (or accusation of racism) on my part says a lot about you.
I’ve already responded to RushBaby’s polite request for a clarification.
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 4:21 PM
What is racist about that?
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Lots of Mexicans (legal and not) do drive drunk. It’s like saying that lots of black children are born out of wedlock.
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 4:23 PM
I recognize the name and tried to assume the best (hence I asked the question); however…
You’re telling me that’s not race baiting?
Give me a break. Clearly Baldilocks is upset at something that was on a different thread and wants to pick that same fight here.
Again, why is the victim’s race relevant?
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 4:23 PM
So do I. What liberal racist have done that to you?
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Telling the truth isn’t race baiting.
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 4:25 PM
What the hell are you talking about?
You must have me confused with someone else.
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 4:26 PM
And what’s that got to do with this?
1. The passenger was killed, not the driver.
2. There’s no reason to believe the driver was drunk in the first place except for an opinion on the man’s race.
And yeah, the 2nd is racist. It would also be racist to assume a black person’s kid was born out of wedlock simply because black people have a high percentage of such births.
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Your statement has nothing to do with the crime and was not intended to expose any racism?
So why bring it up? Why would you think the man’s race would affect the posters here?
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 4:39 PM
The truth being, what, that posters here would assume the victim was a drunk illegal?
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Bullsquat. That’s just ordinary, run of the mill jumping to conclusions.
RushBaby on June 20, 2007 at 4:41 PM
And when you jump to conclusions based on racial stereotypes, that’s labelled racism.
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 4:45 PM
false.
rac·ism
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
RushBaby on June 20, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Watch it, don’t diss the real holidays.
right2bright on June 20, 2007 at 4:47 PM
LOL… no…
But if it was a group of white males who had pulled either a Latino or Black from the car and beat them to death, it would be all over the media and labeled as a Hate Crime… Feds would be all over this already.
Romeo13 on June 20, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Hey, Al…
Crickets
Hey, Jesse…
Crickets
maybe it’s better that way.
mattshu on June 20, 2007 at 4:50 PM
And down further on that same page…
Unless you’d like to argue that being an illegal immigrant, a drunk, and/or illegitimate is not at all related to “human character.”
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 4:52 PM
I’m not denying that. I’m sure you’re right.
I just don’t like the assertion that somehow the conversation would change if everyone knew the victim’s last name.
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Um, I have said that.
I was commenting in light of the other post about illegal Mexican drunk drivers.
And it’s not racist to play the probabilities or to profile–whether it involves good preconceptions or bad ones. Sure, somebody’s feelings may get hurt, but logic isn’t about feelings. Here’s another example: does anyone here not think that we shouldn’t profile Arabs/Muslims at airports?
Pretty “liberal” of me, eh?
And I’d still like to know where you picked up the idea that I was “upset” about something in another post. The only other place that I’ve post here today was in the “Deport the Criminal first” post in which I pointed out that a black mob killing a Hispanic man was a harbinger of worse things to come wrt black-Hispanic relations. After that comment, AP, pointed me here and, I’m sure is LHAO at the notion of me being a liberal.
You see, here in LA, there’s a simmering tension between black Americans and Mexican-descended people. For example, there’s an East LA neighborhood in which black residents have been terrorized by their brown neighbors into moving.
My original statement above was to wonder how the perceptions of the incident might play out were everyone paying attention to the details of the story and how each side would spin it.
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 4:55 PM
I don’t have a lot of interest in this, but I have to disagree with you both slightly here.
Not the same at all… It’s an extreme majority of black children born out of wedlock… You’d have a tough time making the case that the vast majority, a slight majority, or even a significant minority of Mexicans drive drunk.
No, it wouldn’t be racist to assume that… because odds are the kid was born out of wedlock. The same way the BLACK MUSLIM beltway snipers were assumed to be middle aged angry white males by criminal profilers.
As for Juneteenth… lol… funny story, but funnier if you knew my friend who told me about it. He’s a black dude in his mid-40s who was one of my best friends the 5 years I lived in Nashville. He’s an old drunk from Dallas, TX (but been in Nashville for 15 years of so), and has I think like an elementary school education. Those flaws aside, he’s a great friend who would do anything for anyone. We hung out all the time and probably the first year I was in Nashville he told me about something he called “Black folks’ day” that happens every June 19th. He never said “Juneteenth”, always “Black folks’ day, June 19th!”
Anyway, we’d always be hanging out at a bar and it would occasionally come up, so we’d have him explain it to anyone there who hadn’t already heard him explain it. I recall him listing items that were necessary for any “Black folks’ day” party… (and I’m not kidding, this is what HE said, not me)… Watermelon, Big red soda, collard greens, cabbage, etc. etc.
It wasn’t until I’d been there for 3 or 4 years, that I one time thought to look it up on the internet… and quickly found out why no one (including our other black friends in Nashville) had ever heard of such a holiday… Because it’s only a holiday in Texas (as explained by others earlier in this thread). And it wasn’t called “black folks’ day”, but Juneteenth. I teased him about it when I found out… of course he didn’t understand what I meant and said “well, yeah… some folks does it on June tenth, but we did it on June nineteenth”. He was also oblivious as to what was being celebrated.
Anyway, just had to give my own personal Juneteenth story… it will forever be known to me as “black folks’ day”!
RightWinged on June 20, 2007 at 4:56 PM
…and how it might worsen black-Hispanic relations and, therefore, make life worse for all Americans.
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 4:56 PM
I was pulling for you, you had esthier on the ropes…then you pulled out the dictionary card.
I have to give this one to esthier, by way of a TKO.
You can’t win an argument like this using Webster.
right2bright on June 20, 2007 at 4:57 PM
That’s because you thought you knew the nature of how the conversation would change, but you didn’t.
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Exactly!
BTW, sorry, all, for the misspellings and grammar mistakes in my last long post. I’m multitasking.
baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Actually, St. Patrick’s Day is a non-holiday in Ireland. They’ve started celebrating it in recent years because they had so many Americans showing up in Ireland in March for a ‘genuine St. Pat’s celebration’, but, that’s just for the money.
The parade/drinking/holiday celebration itself is a purely Irish-American invention (one which plenty of non-Irish descended folks proudly celebrate each year with a Guinness). :)
JadeNYU on June 20, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Everyone is a racist or bigot in some way! Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
I am a white man but believe the few bad apples can turn a crowd to act in a crowd mentality. Where I see the problem is that even after the fact, nobody will step up and do the right thing and identify the killers. I think this more than anything is a black thing, that I do not understand. I think some of it is fear of a reprisal but I believe it is more that blacks, as a group are against the white man and what they see as his laws. So they do not want to see other blacks held responsible by white law. IMHO I am sorry if I offend anyone.
abinitioadinfinitum on June 20, 2007 at 5:06 PM
My impression is that the black community in general are not great fans of hispanics these days. Demographically speaking, hispanics are on the rise and getting more and more attention, preferences, and jobs in some areas. This shift can only slow down the black community’s efforts to achieve equality because they are being marginalized by a larger and faster-growing minority group.
That said, there is no direct evidence in the sparse details of this Austin Juneteenth murder story to indicate that the group of black men threatened the driver and killed the passenger because of their race(s). I would say there’s a strong chance of it, but that’s not the point to be made here. I think the main point is that the media is unlikely to highlight this story at all, much less explore the role of racism in it because, as Allah said, it doesn’t fit the media narrative.
aero on June 20, 2007 at 5:07 PM
I know I liked you. By your own definition, you have explained why you owe baldilocks an apology for accusing her of “provoking racism”.
RushBaby on June 20, 2007 at 5:12 PM
I’m so glad you’ve finally answered my question.
I sincerely wished you’d only said that at first.
Odds say many things. They say that white people are oppressive bigots, because really, history and stats are on their side with that one. But somewhere along the way, we decided to treat people as individuals instead of just looking at their skin.
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 5:13 PM
Wasn’t my intention. I really was just asking a question.
Which again, is why I asked.
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 5:15 PM
I was pulling for you…then you pulled out the dictionary card.
I have to give this one to esthier, by way of a TKO.
You can’t win an argument like this using Webster.
right2bright on June 20, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Yeah, especially when I fail to scroll down and get the rest of the definitions. Lesson learned. Fast reaction by Esthier, felt it on the chin. From my viewpoint here on the mat, she’s still wrong!
RushBaby on June 20, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Besides which, assumptions like that are just lazy.
While it makes sense for law enforcement to focuss on the most likely perps, it makes no sense for civilians to assume things about a person’s character based on race.
There’s no reason to assume the driver was illegal or drunk. So why should we bother assuming that?
Similarly, there’s no reason to assume your black coworker is illegitimate. There’s simply no benefit there.
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 5:20 PM
You can think that. It doesn’t bother me. I just don’t see why assumptions like that are even helpful.
Racial stereotypes by any name are still just as useless. Unless you’re a social worker, or Bill Cosby.
Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Because I make a distinction between racism and stereotyping, even if Webster doesn’t.
RushBaby on June 20, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »