Duong Nge Ly is fortunate only in this: that he's not "white." And so his story can be told - in The Washington Post, no less:
"PHILADELPHIA -- Duong Nghe Ly can't wait to begin his senior year at South Philadelphia High School. A day of violence there last year changed his life, and he wants to learn if his school has been transformed as well.
"Last Dec. 3, after years of attacks on Asian immigrant students, something finally snapped.
"Fueled by rumors, a group of students roamed the halls searching for Asian victims until one was attacked in a classroom. Later, about 70 students stormed the cafeteria, where several Asians were beaten. About 35 students pushed past a police officer onto the so-called 'Asian floor,' but were turned back. After school, Asians being escorted home were attacked anyway by a mob of youths.
"Almost all the attackers were black - but..."
...hey, wait for it, you know it's coming, since this is, after all, The Washington Post:
"...few observers believe the violence was due to racial hatred. [emphasis added] Instead, they cite isolation of different groups within the school, certain students' warped 'gangster' values, and for some, simmering resentments over perceived benefits for Asian students."
May the hails of derisive laughter begin, now?
Comments (16)
It's impossible that race could have anything to do with these incidents.
(1) Franz Boas and the Cultural Marxists said race doesn't exist
(2) Something that doesn't exist cannot cause something else
Ergo
(3) Race cannot be a factor in these incidents.
It's a simple deduction.
Posted by M.A. Roberts | September 5, 2010 7:24 PM
...few observers
I love those quaint little catch phrases, that indicate that the following comment cannot actually backed up by hard data, only by "impressions" and "feelings" of the reporter.
What about asking some of the blacks who participated? See if they have any hatred for the people they picked, and see if the reason they picked them is race. No, that would be too factual for the fact-wary Post.
Posted by Tony | September 5, 2010 8:12 PM
I was thinking of blogging about this separately but have so far found it too depressing to begin, so perhaps I will only put it here: When "observers" make even the mildest, most amusingly understated statements, statements so understated as to put the British to shame, about "possible" connections between OBVIOUSLY RACIAL ATTACKS and race, there are penalties. See here:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100903/NEWS01/9030368/Police-spokeswoman-moved-after-remarks-on-fairgrounds-fights
This sort of thing might help to explain the self-induced idiocy of "observers."
Posted by Lydia | September 5, 2010 8:50 PM
"...few observers..."
"The observers who did attribute the violence to racial hatred were all Asian students who have been beaten by black students while those black students shouted racial epithets. But it is unclear if devious Asians intent on world domination are to be trusted when it comes to opinions about black folks.
Posted by Jeff Singer | September 5, 2010 9:26 PM
That's a five-star comment, Jeff Singer. Very much on-point. (I wonder why more of such Asians aren't conservatives, given the way they get the short end of the stick in the liberal universe.)
Posted by Lydia | September 6, 2010 9:25 AM
What are "gangster values"? Is it possible that "gangster values" could include racist attitudes?
Maybe the idea is that if the racism is part of a larger complex of gangster attitudes, then the racism isn't an important part? But if that's so, then presumably racism would almost never be a driving value.
Posted by Bobcat | September 6, 2010 1:25 PM
"I wonder why more of such Asians aren't conservatives, given the way they get the short end of the stick in the liberal universe."
Sailer has suggested that Asians tend to mimick the attitudes and voting patterns of the middle and upper middle class whites they live around and, based on what states they tend to live in, tend to live around liberal middle class whites.
Also, they're still a visible minority (even though they're successful and pleasant to be around)so they may still see their interests as conflicting with those of the traditional American majority.
Posted by Bruce | September 6, 2010 1:54 PM
Nah. Couldn't be.
Posted by Lydia | September 6, 2010 3:10 PM
Lydia, the Des Moines story was very much on my mind, as I wrote this. Racially motivated black-on-white & black-on-Asian hate crime is just a huge problem, in America, today. But it is relentlessly ignored/denied/minimized/excused by the MSM.
Posted by steve burton | September 6, 2010 7:40 PM
When I was about 20 a friend of mine was beat up (not mugged, not robbed, just beat up) by a group of black kids while he was waiting for a bus in downtown Pittsburgh. At the time, I thought that if a black kid had been beat up by a group of whites it would have been all over the news, with the NAACCP (National Association for the Advancement of Certain Colored People) getting involved and who know what else kinda sh*t.
As a result of that incident not once in the ensuing 25+ years have I not believed that there's a double-standard regarding reporting of these types of occurences.
Posted by Rob G | September 6, 2010 8:04 PM
When I was in the Army, one of the soldiers in my company, a white soldier, was jumped in the latrines by 5 black soldiers and beaten severely. The reason given was that they had just watched the movie "Malcolm X" and were angry and wanted to take it out on a white person. He was the first they found. Of course, we threw the UCMJ at them, but what happened next sickened me. We had a parade of black NCOs coming to see the commander pleading for leniency, because their feelings were understandable and he should have sympathy for them. That just pissed off the CO even more and all those soldiers got severely punished.
Posted by Steve K. | September 7, 2010 12:50 PM
It's not the crime, it's the criminal. Offenses are judged by who commits them, what class or type they fit into. Some crimes are therefore understandable, or not really crimes at all. Others may be minor, but subject to the arsenal of invective and retribution.
All of this is the product of unbalanced minds, under the label, don't laugh, of liberalism.
Posted by johnt | September 7, 2010 2:27 PM
On a related note...
(Long Island man arrested and charged with a felony for shooting 4 warning shots from a AK-47 into his front lawn as ~20 members of MS13 assembled in his driveway; I didn't see anything about the police arresting any of THEM).
I seriously wonder how long law enforcement is going to continue hiding behind the facade of "we don't make the laws, we just enforce them" when it comes to stuff like these cases. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who commented that making a principle out of the rule of law is dangerous because the law is often merely the current whim of a tyrant that has no bearing on justice or public order...
Posted by Mike T | September 8, 2010 10:02 AM
I read about that too, Mike T. The danger the police run is that at some point, the population are going to conclude that the police and MS-13 in this case are in cahoots, that the gang has bought the police off or something like that, and are thus co-belligerents, not law enforcers.
I have a hard time imagining this happening though in Virginia (well, maybe in NoVA) or most other Southern states.
Posted by Steve K. | September 8, 2010 3:24 PM
Problem is that Virginia and North Carolina are "duty to retreat" states.
As far as I am concerned, a government that requires victims to flee their assailants is a government that might as well be in cahoots with violent criminals. A rightly ordered, just society always takes the side of the aggressed against the aggressor except in cases where the aggressed party solicits the behavior.
Posted by Mike T | September 8, 2010 3:41 PM
But the guy was in his home. To where was he supposed to retreat?
Posted by c matt | September 10, 2010 4:25 PM