That everyone in Americanow knows the names of Trayvon Davis and George Zimmerman is a tragic commentary on the times. It is tragic because it is a bold-faced confirmation that the Racism Industrial Complex (RIC) is the hegemonic power of our generation.
The agents and officers of RIC include the majority of journalists and commentators in corporate media; most academics in the liberal arts and humanities departments of America’s colleges and universities; entertainers; and politicians. In concert, they labor fast and furiously to ensconce within the American consciousness the idea that blacks and other racial minorities are perpetual victims of “white racism.”
But because it has become all but impossible to any longer find instances of white-on-black brutality to exploit, the agents of RIC, from sheer desperation, have resorted to creating, not just “white racists,” but whites. In spite of the fact that no one who has seen any photographs of George Zimmerman would think to identify him as a Caucasian, and even though Zimmerman himself identifies as Hispanic, RIC agents insist on depicting him as white.
The fatal confrontation that transpired in Sanford, Floridabetween Zimmerman and Martin was a confrontation between two “persons of color,” two racial minorities. However, precisely because the story of a brown-on-black attack frustrates the aims of RIC, the story is transformed into one that serves the industry’s purposes.
Not only, however, is it false to describe Zimmerman as a white person (and, more ridiculously, a “white Hispanic”); it is just as irresponsible to claim that it was some disdain for blacks that motivated him to pursue Martin. At the very least, contrary to what RIC agents would have us think, there is zero evidence to think that Martin’s color factored at all into Zimmerman’s now fateful decision.
From everything that we have been able to gather thus far, it appears that Zimmerman did nothing illegal. This is why those authorities at the local level who have investigated this situation did not arrest him. But this is not good enough for RIC agents.
An entire industry is mobilized against Zimmerman, demanding his arrest—and, with it, his conviction. And what if authorities do not concede its demands? Its agents have already answered this question: unless Zimmerman is arrested and convicted for the shooting death of Martin, there will be violence.
For approximately the last half-of-a-century or so, American history has been episodically punctuated by eruptions of black riots. Such riots almost always arise as responses to some unrequited grievance or other, whether imagined or real. Perhaps it is because we have become habituated to this phenomenon that many Americans are all too ready to acquiesce in it. Unfortunately, Republican politicians and establishment right-leaning commentators are no exception here. Whether it is nationally syndicated talk radio show host Mike Gallagher or Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, corporate “conservative” media personalities appear to be just as willing as anyone else to permit injustice as long as it placates the leviathan that is the Racism Industrial Complex.
By now, most reasonable people who have been following the Martin/Zimmerman story are nearly, if not totally, convinced, that Zimmerman did not act in violation of the law on the night that he shot Martin. This would include the likes of Gallagher and O’Reilly. Yet there doesn’t seem to be any readiness on their part to speak out against the injustice that is about to befall a man who, by their own lights, is innocent of any wrongdoing. Unless Zimmerman is arrested, tried, and convicted, they have promised us, there will be, as O’Reilly put it on his show on Monday April 2, “racial violence”—i.e. black violence.
Peaceful co-existence between blacks and whites, or maybe just between decent people and indecent people of all colors, is difficult enough as long as the Racism Industrial Complex maintains its monopoly over the national “dialogue” on race-related matters. Peaceful co-existence becomes impossible once the agents of this industry can undermine the historical achievement that is the American legal system by simply threatening violence.
As the great conservative theorist Edmund Burke famously said, “The only thing that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” Strangely, when it comes to fighting Islamic evil doers over seas, there is no cost that those in the Republican-dominated media are willing to spare. But when it comes to those right here at home in the Racism Industrial Complex who are doing the Devil’s work, these same people assume a much more reserved posture. This is more than a bit ironic, for the threat to American civilization posed by the agents of RIC eclipses any that Islamic jihadists throw up.
None of what has been said here should be mistaken for hyperbole: the Racism Industrial Complex is truly villainous. But because it has been with us for all too long, we have become desensitized to its character. Think about it: for the purpose of serving themselves, RIC agents are willing to sacrifice innocent human beings, to say nothing of the well being of their country, so as to stoke the flames of the most inflammatory of topics—“racism.” There is no lie that they aren’t willing to purvey, no distortion that they won’t commit, if it serves this end.
This is evil. And everyone, both those within RIC as well as those who would comply with its wickedness through their silence, has innocent blood on their hands.
Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.
As Americans, we have a tendency to speak of morality as if it were one and the same thing for all people at all places and at all times. The popular notion that “everyone knows right from wrong” is a function of this propensity. It also manifests itself by way of other popular expressions: “There is right and there is wrong;” “Moral values are absolute;” “All human beings have rights;” “Everyone everywhere values liberty,” and “We are all equal,” to reference but a few.
The pervasiveness of this tendency aside, it is misplaced. There is indeed a very real sense in which it can be said that human beings are moral beings. However, this is just like saying that human beings are linguistic beings: just as the linguistic realm encompasses a rich, even a dizzying variety, of mutually distinct and incompatible languages, so too is the ethical landscape replete with a multiplicity of moralities.
From this analogy between morality and language we can actually get much mileage, for there is more than one respect in which the two resemble one another.
Morality, like a language, is essentially a tradition. In fact, a “natural” language supplies us with a model of tradition at its best.
After years and years of laboring indefatigably to undercut the institutions of the lands within which they were reared, radicals of all stripes are now reaping the fruits of their labor. One of these fruits is the delusional assumption, uncritically embraced by far too many, that tradition—any tradition—is an antiquated, possibly even superstitious, way of attending to matters. To observe a tradition is to act thoughtlessly. Tradition is static.
In reality, though, as we learn from the example of a language, we rely on tradition because we have nothing else to rely upon. We are no freer to extricate ourselves from tradition than we are free to relieve ourselves from language. So, the radical’s first error lies in his belief that there are alternatives to tradition; there are not. Of course it is true that there are always other traditions to which we can turn, just as we can always avail ourselves of the study of other languages; but this is far different from abandoning tradition altogether. And even then, the adoption of other traditions and languages is possible only because there is an original tradition or language by way of which we approach them.
Yet the radical’s first error is by no means his last.
Tradition is no more and no less static than a language. This is to say that it isn’t static at all. As one philosopher once put it, if tradition is “blind,” it is “blind as a bat.” The same can be said for language. Language, like tradition, is the present generation’s inheritance, a magisterial estate that its ancestors, over the course of centuries and millennia, worked continuously, even if mostly unconsciously, to erect. For as expansive, as palatial, as this property is, however, it remains incomplete. By using and reusing what has been handed down to us, we preserve it while re-imagining it. Our legacy—the words and phrases of our language—is pregnant with possibilities for the present and future that each use of the language goes at least some distance in unlocking.
Tradition is just as stable, and just as open-textured, as language. This is no less so than when the tradition in question is a moral tradition.
To this line of thought many, including and especially those who regard themselves as conservative, will object that it is a species of “relativism.” The critics are wide of the mark.
For starters, “relativism,” is supposed to refer to a family of views that holds that in a contest of moral judgments where the contestants are different cultures, all are victors—or at least none are losers. There is nothing in what I said that lends support to this position.
If “relativism” is true, then the moralities (if this is what we can still call them) of different cultures must be incomparable. Yet on the view that I offer, there can be and has always been commerce between moral traditions—just as there is exchange between languages. What this in turn means is that it is most certainly possible, as well as desirable, that we judge them against one another: some traditions, in other words, are superior or inferior to others.
Yet our evaluations transpire against the backdrop, not of some supra-historical standard of Reason, but the standards peculiar to each tradition. For instance, let us say that we have a choice to make between Christianity and Islam. We need to determine which of the two is more defensible as a tradition. This is a judgment that can be made, but it obviously can’t be made from the standpoint of one or the other. Each of these traditions—like every other morality—has some conception of human happiness. To this end, they have developed standards—catalogues of virtues and vices and precepts of various sorts—by which their adherents are to abide. It is by the standards of Islam that we judge Islam, and the standards of Christianity that we judge Christianity.
If there are tensions within the set of standards in question that have not been satisfactorily resolved, or if those standards have failed to promote the tradition’s ideal of the good life, then on its own terms, that tradition must be deemed inferior to that tradition or those traditions that are free, or at least not as burdened, by such problems. At the present moment, with revolution spreading throughout the Islamic world, it appears that Islam just might be undergoing a crisis of epic proportions. If so, this could very well be as powerful an indication as any that it is a tradition in ill repair, a tradition that is suffering from some mounting incoherence to which its own standards have given rise.
An ethical tradition is like a language in another crucial respect.
From a living language we abstract rules and principles, what we call its “grammar.” Ethical traditions can also be summarized in terms of principles. But this is the point: “moral principles” constitute a summation of the tradition from which they have been distilled. Contrary to what all of the talk of “natural rights” and “human rights” and all of the rest would have us believe, “moral principles” no more precede the tradition from which they have been abstracted than do grammatical principles exist in advance of the language to which they owe their being.
Linguistic principles constitute a language’s grammar. Similarly, moral principles constitute a tradition’s ideology. Both linguistic and moral principles are their respective traditions’ cliff notes.
There are many folks, from across the political spectrum, for who my account of morality will be unsettling. In a future article, I will explain why.
Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.
There is much talk these days about something called “Judaeo-Christian values.” This is the name that is invariably assigned to the morality to which America is supposed to have traditionally subscribed. America, we are told, is a “Judaeo-Christian” nation, a nation “founded” upon “Judaeo-Christian principles” or “ideals.”
Now, it is, of course, true that there is an especially close relationship between Judaism and Christianity. The latter spun out of the former. The first Christians were Jews, and the Man who the Christian world—approximately one-third of the planet’s population—recognizes as God Almighty was a Jew. To those writings that Jews regard as sacred Christians attach the same importance. In fact, though he doesn’t often think of himself in exactly these terms, if pushed, the Christian would be the first to acknowledge that he is indeed a Jew, but a perfected Jew, a Jew who lived to witness the coming of the Messiah—the Christ.
Yet for all of these similarities, the expression “Judeao-Christian morality” is, ultimately, a fiction that does an injustice to both Judaism and Christianity.
The “values,” “principles,” or “ideals” encompassed by “Judaeo-Christian morality” are to the traditions from which they have been abstracted what a portrait is to the whole life of the person of whom it is a depiction. The values, principles, and ideals of “Judeao-Christian morality” stand in relation to the faiths from which they’ve been distilled as the principles of a grammar stand in relation to the living language to which they belong. Just as a portrait and a grammar derive their value from their usefulness in summarizing the vastly more intricate phenomena to which they owe their being, so too are “the principles” of any morality nothing more or less than bloodless, lifeless abstractions, static abridgements of the living tradition of which they are cliff notes.
Strictly speaking, neither Judaism nor Christianity is a “morality” at all. Both are religions. It is true that from these religions we can extract principles, values, and ideals. It is even true that we can, with some justice, gather them up and label them “morality.” But what we cannot do is think of them solely in terms of morality, or think that this label is anything other than a term of convenience, a term with all of the short-hand value and literal truth as the expression, “the sun rises.” The sun does not literally rise. Nor can it literally be said that Judaism and Christianity are “systems” of morality.
The principles, ideals, and values of Judaism and Christianity are intelligible only because of the unmistakably theological context within which they take their place. In short, if we insist on speaking of Judaism and Christianity as “systems” at all, we should be clear that they are systems, not of morality, but of religion. Their principles assume meaning only because they are carefully situated within a narrative of which no less a being than God Himself is at the center. It is for the purpose of shaping themselves into the kind of person who will love self, neighbor, and God for God’s sake that their adherents are expected to observe “the principles,” affirm “the values,” and pursue “the ideals” of these two great religious traditions.
Once these principles, ideals, and values become disembodied, as it were, once they are boiled down into a doctrine of “natural rights,” say, or some fixed set of principles alleged to be “self-evident” or “innate” or demanded by “human nature” or “Reason,” they lose their identity and, with it, their power to inspire and motivate.
Now, the concept of “Judaeo-Christian” morality is even more of a distortion than the concepts of “Jewish morality” and “Christian morality.” Judaism and Christianity are both religious traditions, but there is a very real respect in which we can say that they affirm different deities.
With a few exceptions here and there, Christians the world over essentially agree on the triune nature of God. That is, in stark contrast to Jews, Christians believe that God is Three Divine Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. To Jewish ears, this doctrine of the Blessed Trinity can only smack of the worst of sins, the sin of idolatry, for to non-Christians of all faiths it appears to be an affirmation of polytheism. And Judaism is noted for nothing if not its fierce monotheism.
Christianity, of course, is not a version of polytheism. It is as monotheistic as Judaism. But Christians have arrived at their peculiar conception of God because of another that they embrace, one in the absence of which Christianity would not be the religion that it is. From this doctrine Jews and other theists recoil in sheer horror. It is called the Incarnation. Inasmuch as it embodies the conviction that, not this or that “god,” but the one and only God of all that is, from sheer love, chose to became a human being, it is truly unique.
Yet this isn’t all.
It isn’t just that God became a man. According to the story of the Incarnation, God became a man who, for the sake of the human race, both bore unimaginable suffering as well as the most humiliating of deaths. To put it mildly, the God of Christianity strikes non-Christians as insufficiently transcendental. To put it more bluntly, such a God comes across as scandalously immanent.
But the God of Christianity is the Person of Jesus of Nazareth.
The God that Christians worship entered human history and, as the prologue to John’s Gospel states, “dwelt among us.” Like that of any other human being, Jesus’ identity was the product of the historical and cultural circumstances in which He lived. This He appears to have known better than anyone, for in order to thrust His significance upon His contemporaries, Jesus carefully—masterfully—weaved His image from the various threads of His own Jewish tradition. Unlike, say, Muhammad, who gathered together a series of allegedly divinely inspired orders and commands devoid of any narrative framework, Jesus saw to it that His life, or at least His public ministry, was nothing less than a dramatic reenactment of the collective self-understanding of His (Jewish) people. Yet it was also something more than this, for in reenacting the past, He also revised popular conceptions of it. And in doing the latter, there is a real sense in which He recreated the present and re-envisioned possibilities for the future.
Jesus is what in another idiom we may describe as a “moral exemplar.” For Christians, it would be said that he is a moral exemplar par excellence. Here is a man who immersed Himself in the tradition within which He was born and reared. Jesus wasn’t content in achieving mere fluency in His tradition; He successfully sought connoisseurship in it. Jesus made no ringing affirmations of such abstract notions as “human dignity,” “rational nature,” “personhood,” and “human nature,” much less “self-evident” “human rights.” He knew that human flourishing could occur only within the concrete context of tradition—His tradition, the theological tradition of Judaism. It was this tradition that Jesus sought to reshape and fulfill in His own Person, but ultimately in His passion, death, and resurrection from the dead.
For Christians, then, “morality” is not essentially, or even primarily, a matter of observing “principles,” pursuing abstract ideals (like Equality or Justice), or following rules and commands. “Morality” consists in the emulation of a person, or a Person. Jesus is indeed the exemplar of stellar conduct for Christians. But the conduct in question is not, strictly speaking, moral conduct; it is godly conduct. Christians (and Jews) aspire toward godliness. The religious are concerned with religiosity, not “morality.”
“Morality,” especially when it is a morality of abstract universal “principles” and “ideals,” is “the desiccated relic,” as one philosopher once put it, the residual fragments, of a tradition.
More specifically, it is, at least in the West, the traces of a religious tradition.
Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.
originally published at The New American
On the night of February 26, an irrational, gun-totting, white racist named George Zimmerman went out in search of trouble. Not before long, he found it. Neither Zimmerman nor his neighbors much appreciated the presence of racial minorities in their gated community inSanford,Florida. So, when Zimmerman laid eyes on baby-faced Trayvon Martin, a young black boy from out of town who innocently—haplessly—careened through this exclusive neighborhood in pursuit of a box of Skittles that he planned on purchasing from the local 7-Eleven, Zimmerman found his target. A short while later, Martin was dead, shot by Zimmerman. The latter, though, has yet to be charged with any crime.
This, at any rate, is the account that has now become national news. It invites several comments.
First, given the frequency with which commentators from across the political spectrum are speaking of this case, and given the moral certitude with which they condemn the Sanford Police Department and George Zimmerman, one could be forgiven for assuming that all of the facts of this situation are known. In reality, the public, as well as the pundits, know very few details about what actually happened.
Second, this case is already a month old. But it has only been within the last few days, since legions of angry black demonstrators began demanding “justice” for Martin, that the usual talking heads, with lightning speed, have assembled a remarkably bipartisan consensus regarding the “racism” of Zimmerman and the Sanford Police. What this suggests is that it is most certainly not a desire for truth and justice that informs the expressions of indignation that drop from the mouths of the chatty. Rather, it is much more likely a desire to jump on the proverbial bandwagon, an aching need to placate the “politically correct” Zeitgeist, that most wrathful and jealous of gods, that explains their readiness to declare their outrage from the rooftops.
Third, according to the Zeitgeist (the spirit of the times), something called “white racism” is the most abominable of all of the abominations from which the planet Earth has ever suffered. It is the cancer of the human species. More accurately, it is the colon cancer of humanity, for it is a “silent killer”: because of its ubiquity, “white racism” is not easily detected. Well, it is not easily detected by whites. Non-white minorities who have been made to endure its ravages from time immemorial, on the other hand, know it all too well; they can see it from miles away.
Sometimes, it is true, this “white racism” asserts itself bluntly, overtly, through acts of sheer, raw violence. More often than not, however, it expresses itself more subtly—through the most fundamental institutions of Western civilization. Thus, even the kindest, gentlest, most benevolent intentioned of whites are nevertheless “racist” just by virtue of having been reared within the framework of Western institutions. This is what we call “institutional racism.”
Fourth, given the prevailing orthodoxy, then, the popular account of the Sanford, Floridaincident makes all of the sense in the world. It is what we should expect in a “racist” society like America. In fact, the story of a white man satiating his bigoted lust to slaughter a black person—any black person—by gunning down a naïve, innocent black youth seems tailor-made to fit the conventional politically correct narrative. And this brings us to our next point.
Fifth, this story is shaped to gel with the prejudices of the self-appointed guardians of contemporary political virtue, for you see, it is not true.
Granted, it is indeed tragic that Trayvon Martin lost his life in what seems to have been an unnecessary confrontation. But the idea that George Zimmerman is some hate-filled “white racist” who was on the hunt for any blacks that might dare to pass through his plush neighborhood is a fiction of the first order.
For one thing, to judge from his picture, one would swear that Zimmerman hailed from Latin America. There is a good reason for this: Zimmerman is part Hispanic. Yet while only one of his parents is non-white, he looks not at all like a Caucasian. Rather, he appears to be just as much “a person of color” as the young man who he killed. But the crass opportunists who are already exploiting this tragedy for all that it is worth know full well how this game is played. They know that the promotion of the image of one person of color killing another promises no political dividends. From the story of a “white racist” shooting down a harmless black youth, on the other hand, the fruits that they can reap are potentially boundless.
Another falsehood is the notion that Zimmerman is this lawless vigilante who was just itching to extinguish the existence of any minority on whom he could set his sights. In reality, he had been part of a neighborhood watch group for years. That is, insofar as he devoted no small part of his life to watching out for the well being of his neighbors, he embodied the ideal of the good citizen extolled by the very same self-described “conservatives” who have abetted their leftist counterparts in purveying the idea that he is a trigger-happy trouble maker. This, of course, doesn’t mean that Zimmerman didn’t overreact when he encountered Trayvon Martin. Maybe he did overreact, and maybe he didn’t. We just don’t know yet, contrary to what those who insist that he did would have us believe.
There is a final regard in which this story is contrived. The one picture of Martin that is being most circulated by the media is five years old. What this means is that although Martin was pushing 18 when he was killed, the Martin with which the public is now acquainted was about 12. This is obviously by design. When I first heard of this story and saw that photograph of a smiling 12 year-old Trayvon Martin, I thought immediately: how could anyone, much less any man, think for a moment that this kid posed any sort of threat? During this time in a boy’s life, the difference between 12 and 17 is the difference between a boy and a man.
For example, when I was 13 I had just barely over 11 inch arms (biceps) and weighed about 115 pounds. I was about twenty pounds short of being able to bench press my own body weight. After ten months of weightlifting, I had over 14 inch arms, weighed 145 pounds, and could put up 215 on the bench. And I still wasn’t quite fourteen. By the time I was 17 years old, I was well over 200 pounds, had 17 inch arms, and was handling about 300 pounds on the bench press. The thing is, when I was 17, I wasn’t even lifting all that often, yet my strength and size increased through nothing other than the process of physical maturation.
Again, Martin may very well have been minding his own business on the night that his life was lost, but if we are to achieve a balanced perspective on this situation, it isn’t to dated photos of him as a pre-adolescent that we should be exposed.
Sixth and lastly, the popular media depiction of this incident is a fiction, yes, but the conventional political orthodoxy for the sake of which it was devised is a vastly larger, more invidious fiction. In fact, it is a lie.
Hatred, when it is directed toward persons, is poisonous. I fail to see how or why racial hatred is worse than any other. But if it is racial hatred that is supposed to be the Mother of all Evils, if it is racial hatred around which the Martin shooting is supposed to coalesce, then it is toward the end of combating black racial hatred that we should be devoting the lion’s share of our resources.
As far as interracial crime and violence are concerned, blacks are overwhelmingly the perpetrators and whites the victims—a fact that no one who has attended to the data disputes. Even the agents of the Racism Industrial Complex (RIC), the professional “anti-racists,” do not take issue with the numbers; they simply—and disingenuously—seek to explain away this inconvenient phenomenon by shifting attention from it to “the root cause” of—what else?—the “white racism” from which it allegedly takes flight.
If the masses of demonstrators in the streets, and their abettors in the media, were really concerned about “racism” or racial hatred or whatever we choose to call this thing that we treat as the one unpardonable sin, then they would have spent the last so many decades screaming from the rooftops against the evil of the anti-white animus that consumes legions of blacks—and, evidently, whites as well.
Where were the “anti-racists” when two black brothers, Reginald and Jonathan Carr, massacred four whites inWichita,Kansas? Did they storm the streets of America and suspend coverage of all other events to focus solely on this event? Did the President feel the need to make a show of racial solidarity with the victims? Where were the “anti-racists” in the days following the unimaginably barbaric slaying of the young white couple, Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, in Knoxville,Tennessee?
In Wichita,Kansas, on December 14, 2000, at about 11:00 P.M, the Carr brothers brought their months-long crime spree to a climax that resulted in the deaths of four young white adults.
Upon invading the home of Jason Befort, a science teacher and football coach, they beat him and his two male friends, Brad Heyka, a director of finance at Koch Financial Services, and Aaron Sander, a former employee with Koch who had decided to change course in careers by entering the priesthood. In addition to Heyka and Sander, two women were also at Befort’s house: Heather Muller, a pre-school teacher who aspired to become a nun, and an unnamed woman to whom Befort planned on becoming engaged.
This last woman remains anonymous because she is the lone survivor of the unspeakable acts of savagery that unfolded over the next several hours.
The Carr brothers not only beat Befort and his male friends; they repeatedly raped and sodomized the two women and made them engage sexually with one another as well as with the other men. This nightmare of an ordeal was punctuated with multiple visits to the victims’ ATM accounts. At night’s end, Reginald and Jonathan Carr drove the five victims to a snow covered field where they had them kneel before shooting them, execution-style, in the backs of their heads. While fleeing this massacre, the Carr brothers drove over the naked, scarred bodies of their victims with a pick up truck.
Incredibly, one of the victims managed to survive. In subzero temperatures, in snow and ice, half-naked, tormented, injured, and traumatized, one brave, resilient soul trekked nearly a mile to get help. Had she been black and her tormenters white, rather than the reverse, there isn’t a person in America who wouldn’t know of her—or her story—by now. In any case, because of her Herculean efforts, these two predators were captured, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death.
This never became national news. There were no demands that the Justice Department investigate, no comments from the President, no demonstrations calling for the heads of the monsters that brutally discarded four lives and forever traumatized a fifth.
On Saturday January 6, 2007, inKnoxville,Tennessee, a young college couple, Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, were carjacked. They were taken to a nearby home and, until the wee morning hours, made by their captors to endure unimaginable terror. Christopher Newsom was continuously sodomized with an object of some kind. Once his victimizers had tired of him, they blinded, gagged, and bound him. Christopher was led to a set of railroad tracks where he was shot in various parts of his body and then set on fire.
Channon Christian was repeatedly gang-raped. In his court testimony, the medical examiner spoke to the vaginal, anal, and oral trauma that she suffered. Yet she was also violently penetrated by an object, perhaps a broken chair leg. So as to eliminate any traces of their DNA, her assailants poured a chemical of some sort down her throat, scrubbed her bloody and scarred genitalia with the same, and then “hog tied” her with ripped curtain and bedding. They covered her face tightly with a small trash bag, stuffed her inside five larger trash bags, and left her in a garbage can covered with sheets.
Christian was alive while all of this was transpiring. She died, slowly, of suffocation.
Where was the outpouring of national outrage over this explosion of sheer racial hatred?
There is another reason, though, why those who are genuinely concerned with injustice must talk about black criminality. If innocent blacks, innocent young black males in particular, are more often than not suspected of being up to no good, it is because there are far too many guilty black males who definitely are up to no good. Black criminals reflect poorly on other blacks and make life exponentially more difficult for the latter.
This, too, is a topic that is never touched upon by “anti-racists.”
As at all times and places, decent people of all walks of life can only hope that justice is done in Sanford,Florida.
Yet decent people also know that there can be no justice as long as it is left to irrational mobs and dishonest commentators to intimidate authorities into giving them the outcome that they want.
Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.