The Real Blame Game: The Fictitious Black Assailant
October 23, 1989 - In Boston, MA, Charles Stuart blames "a black gunman with a raspy voice" for carjacking, robbing and shooting Stuart and his pregnant wife Carol. After his wife and baby son died -- she on the night of the incident and the infant 17 days later -- Stuart continued his lie that there was an unknown black assailant. Stuart concocted a description of the alleged assailant and on December 28, he picked Willie Bennett out of a lineup. Bennett had nothing to do with the crime. Stuart's brother Matthew confessed to being part of Stuart's insurance fraud scheme a few days after Bennett's arrest and implicated Stuart in the murders. Charles Stuart jumped to his death off the Tobin Bridge on January 4, 1990.
October 25, 1994 - Susan Smith tells the police in Union, SC that an unknown black man carjacked her and sped away with her two young sons, Michael and Alexander, still strapped in their car seats. After appearing tearfully begging for her children to be returned to her on every morning news show, notably saying, "your mama loves you..." and keeping the story going for nine days, she finally confessed that there was no black man, no carjacking at gunpoint, that she had actually rolled her car into a local lake. The apparent motive was to facilitate a relationship with wealthy local businessman who didn't want her children from a previous marriage.
April 23, 1994 -- Six Yonkers, NY police officers got into a fight over which of the officers would have to do the paperwork necessary to report a burning car. The fight spilled over from teh scene of the burning car to the precinct house. One of the officers was beaten so badly he had to go to the hospital for treatment of his injuries. To cover their tracks, the officers claimed that a tall black man in a blue jacket had assaulted the white officer. There was no black man in a blue jacket.
May 29, 2005 -- While on an unofficial school graduation trip to Aruba with 124 other seniors from her high school in Birmingham, Alabama in Natalee Holloway disappeared after a night of partying. She was last seen with Joran van der Sloot and brothers Deepak and Satish Kalpoe. As the investigation unfolded, van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers blamed, "a dark man in a dark shirt" similar to the uniforms worn by hotel security guards. The police arrested two dark-skinned Arubans former security guards apparently on the basis of an identification by van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers. The men were released and all charges dropped. Holloway has never been found. Van der Sloot remains the primary person of interest in the case.
April 26, 2005 - Jennifer Carol Wilbanks ran away from her fiance, looming nuptials and her home and family in Duluth, GA. A nationwide search for the 'runaway bride" ensued with tearful family and finace pleading for the safe return of Jennifer, who turned up days later in Albuquerque, NM claiming she had been kidnapped and sexually assaulted by a Hispanic man and his white woman accomplice. No such persons existed. One supposes had she been in a community with a larger black population she wouldn't have strayed from the script.
October 22, 2008 -- Ashley Todd, a campaign volunteer for Republican presidential candidate John McCain, told Pittsburgh, PA police investigators that a 6 foot 4 inch black man assaulted her as she was withdrawing money from an ATM. Todd claimed that when the man saw her McCain bumpersticker he knocked her to the ground, punching her and then carving a "B" for Barack into her cheek. Two days later, Todd admitted she carved the "B" into her own face, and that there was no black assailant.
May 29, 2009 - Bonnie Sweeten dials 911 to report she and her 9 year old daughter were carjacked and stuffed into the trunk of a black Cadillac driven by two black men. Several days later, she turns up in Disneyland. She was never carjacked or kidnapped or held against her will. There were no mystery black men who tried to boost her vehicle. She went to Disneyland. On someone else's dime. To the tune of between $300,000 and $700,000. Of money she had allegedly embezzled from a local Bucks County, PA charity.
These are just a few in the long list of fictitious black assailant stories where the accuser's lies are discovered early. We also know that there are hundreds of cases where the falsely accused black "assailant" ended up in prison, convicted on the basis so-called "eye witnesses" or by false testimony offered by the victim. Just this morning, catching a rerun of a Law & Order episode where the victim/perp blames his gunshot wound on the unknown black assailant to hide his actual involvement in the rest of the crime. (I know someone will bring up the infamous Tawana Brawley case. Fine. It's one example of the reverse "blame game.")
The question we must ask ourselves is: What does it say about our society that one group of people routinely finds it acceptable to blame persons of another race for their crimes? To get to the heart of question I'd like you to consider -- how we feel about one another -- we must set aside from this discussion the standard worn and tired arguments of which race commits more crime, and who is in prison and true inequities in our justice system, and return to something much more basic.
How do we really feel about each other? When, where, why and how did you learn that initial response -- when in trouble, when you want to get away with something -- blame the other race? How is this something that is so entrenched in being "an acceptable ruse" that it is not just the stuff of television scripts, but real life repeated again and again? Where did you learn that response? Is it racist behavior? Is that gut reaction counter-balanced by "white guilt?" What assumptions do you carry with you that you are unaware of? Have centuries and generations of racism become so second nature that you don't even realize you're doing it? How did we get here?
I wouldn't say it is "routine" at the level of making criminal complaints but I do agree that it's an identifiable practice and one which is endemic in large parts of society -- and it goes far beyond false criminal complaints.
What most or all of the examples have in common is someone with an existing motive to lie. The basic distinction in human political affairs is "us vs. them", so some people will reflexively pick a strawman from the "them" category. A more careful look at the distinction is that it's always "not me". A more sophisticated lie doesn't go for the cheap shot. Thus "whipping boy" and 'scapegoat'... Of course sometimes there are more sinister motives, as in propaganda attempts.
The history of one group (or class) of people being "easy to blame" is a sad fact of human affairs which goes beyond "white vs. black".
May 30, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jade: If I had half a self-preservationist brain I would wait, a while, to respond. But I want to reply spontaneously because, if I do, perhaps we can have a spontaneous, mutually-respectful dialogue.
There is not one item from the news items you cite that does not make me cringe now, as each made me cringe when it occurred.
So what, you say. Who cares whether you (I) cringe or not? That is not the question I (you) asked. Fair enough. So, in answer to the question(s) you asked, I offer these opinions, if not answers:
1) it did not even occur to me to wonder, much less to find or cite statistics about which race commits more crimes. Why should I, or anyone else? Why? When we already know the answer -- crime is not race specific; nonetheless, black perpetrators, as well as they who are only black suspects, are arrested, tried and convicted more often than are their white or Hispanic counterparts in the same situation.
2) Because I know that discrepancy is a fact (as compared to accepting it as acceptable), I do not bother, anymore, to keep score -- I know the score -- which does not mean that it is not fundamentally unfair, unjust and not only bewildering but also anguishing.
Does this mean that I am adopting a Cheney shrug-and-so? No it does not. It means that I feel helpless, defeated before I even begin because I recognize that I, though I am white, am a female, which means that, today, I have no persuasive power whatsoever to change this dynamic.... unless I am joined by legions of other women, JADE -- white, black and whatever -- who join in common cause to stop inequities for the greater good. I believe we can do that. Women have done it before. But we cannot do it when we are divided and conquered, when we are factionalized into demographic identities that parse whether we are white females, or southern white females, or world citizen black females or Hispanic females... and at this point, I pointedly change the subject because:
All that you say is true and offensive. But. Hello. Would you like to support not a black woman nor a white woman but an Hispanic woman -- Judge Sotomayor -- who just might, over time, influence the balance of judgement that leads to the injustices you cite and deplore?
Work with me Jade. There are really important issues at hand. Join with me in finding and highlighting and supporting a move forward, through the actual avenues we have at hand.
THE END.
(pity Judge Sotomayor for what crap she faces, from women as well as men, from whites and blacks as well I mean it, Jade. Tell me what I can do about this? Because my theory is that until the male/female disparity is fixed --regardless of race, these inequities will continue. When I said in another post that I want to know what I can say that will convince you we are more or less on the same page, it was to this problem that I was alluding: until white males decide, or all males decide, that womens' voices and opinions have actual intellectual merit, how do you imagine that the domination and subjugation of black, or any other minorut
3) if Wall Street, or K Street or Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld at whatever street (or avenue) commit crimes, and get away with them, then, of course, that exacerbates the feeling of wrongdoing that is experienced not only by black men in the so-called "justice" system, but also that that is recognized by any human being, black, white, or whomever, who notes and feels the pain of that discrepancy. cohesion and analogous underpinnings in all the examples you raised but two.
May 30, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently not the end, in the sense that I persist in the insanity of not proofing before I submit. MEA CULPA.
May 30, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
An "acceptable ruse?" I don't think you made a case here for this to be considered acceptable, or is your point that to all white people this is acceptable?
Maybe it is just that homicidal, fratricidal, attention-seeking, Disneyland-loving maniacs also do despicable things and are also often racists.
I don't know who the "you" is in that sentence, but it isn't me, and I don't feel the slightest bit of guilt (disgust, anger, and revulsion yes - guilt, no) about what those people did. I hope you don't feel guilty for any of the crimes of people you share a race or gender with have done either.
I guess I'm saying that I don't get your point; or maybe I'm really saying that I hope I don't.
May 30, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
New York City, May 28, 2009 -- An off-duty NYPD officer (black) was fatally wounded by a fellow NYPD officer (white) while the black officer was in pursuit of a suspect that had broken into the officer's car. (Not the first time this has happened; won't be the last.)
My question to those of you who are white is how did we (or should I say "you" -- not all of you, but some) become a society where it is considered an acceptable practice, so much so that it borders on "routine," and so commonplace that it is a typical plot twist in movies and television, to fabricate a non-existent assailant who fits a standard profile?
My question to those of you who are not white, is the same, but from the other side of the equation, as a member of the group falsely accused. How did we come to this?
The reason I specifically asked people to avoid getting bogged down in crime statistics (most of which are inaccurate) is so that we might ponder the ease in which that lie rolls so trippingly off the tongue. It is not just that the persons in the examples above lied, it is that they went to great effort to concoct a specific profile they knew would buy them at a minimum a certain amount of time, and at the maximum, would mean they get away with it completely.
How did we get here? What does it say about us? you? them? Is there an inherent or long-ingrained belief -- even when not specifically taught -- that minorities can be scapegoated with minimal consequences? When did we get to the place where "hey, just pin the blame on a made-believe black guy," Is an acceptable action? If not, why is it so common? If people claim to be "color-blind," why are these falsehoods so color-specific?
Questions to ponder. All part of our great national discussion on race.
May 30, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't "acceptable," which is one of the reasons they are so newsworthy. Do you hear, or read about the thousands of crimes that are committed every day? No, because they are basically dog bites man. These cases are extreme examples of terrible people doing horrible things; they are not an example of what we all (white people, that is) call acceptable.
Common? I don't think they are common either. The last year I could get numbers for was 2007. There were around 17,000 murders that year. Don't know about kidnappings, but the fact is that the cases you bring up are several standard deviations from the norm.
What is accepted is that people assume that these "victims" are telling the truth. But the fact is that the police in all these cases became skeptical of their stories and that is how they were broken. How many cases just went on through the system without the skepticism? Probably PLENTY.
I don't know what the answer is either.
Color-blindedness is a worthy goal. I like to think I'm there. Are you?
May 30, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't want to be "color-blind" because that means I cannot appreciate you or anyone else fully, if I am overlooking -- being artificially blind to -- an essential facet that makes you who you are.
May 31, 2009 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
methinks, Cville Dem, thou dost protest too much.
you may not understand that the acceptable ruse works most of the time, but it does, and that you couldn't figure that obvious fact out on your own shows the most shallow thinking possible on the subject, the thinking of someone who believes they have a vital stake in the continuance of the white-dominated "color-blind" society which doesn't exist in the real world, but only in the minds of people such as yourself who still want to blame the victim.
I can only deduce that the world you inhabit doesn't exist either, except in your biased minds.
lastly, your acceptable ruse as a 'conservative' concern troll is transparent and therefore not acceptable, or effective.
May 31, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is nothing I have written here, or anywhere else that would give a normal thinking person the conclusions you have drawn about me. Nor do you state one single specific thing. Your projections are ignorant and shallow.
May 31, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
NewsNag has appointed him/herself as attack dog. Not exactly a dangerous breed, but kind of annoying with its repetitive pathetic bark.
May 31, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see you just recently joined this party. As of today. Unless you are just a new screen name for someone else. Who knows?
Anyway, you are obviously a one-note-johnny. Welcome! We don't discriminate on the basis of poor logic and intelligence; we just keep trying to educate. Stick around. Maybe you'll learn something.
May 31, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding this week's NYPD killing--I don't think it belongs with the other incidents enumerated here. I've read two online NYT accounts. Very preliminarily, repeat preliminarily, it would seem that the shooter followed protocol and the victim didn't. Let's wait to see what the investigation reveals.
Sharpton is acting at this demagogic worst at the moment.
May 30, 2009 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
With regard to the NYPD case, you're right, it doesn't belong in this list. It belongs in the list of "black man with gun is never an off-duty cop chasing suspect." That's a whole different category of stuff to deal with.
May 31, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
First there is a pathology associated in blaming anyone, for one's own transgressions. Assuming you haven't come to terms with that, then I suppose one can proceed to targeting specific ethnic groups. My first response as a white person was to deny my culpability in such. On reading the question,
my take was that the group who apparently finds it acceptable, is a group of murderers, liars, and other morally deficient people, with whom I don't identify. As cVille said above, perhaps such people are prone to racism. In that sense I question whether, if by 'one group' you mean 'whites', the assumption is valid. The question stabs at some intriguing truths nonetheless regarding prejudice, ethnicity, and tribalism. That primitive, lizard brain sense of 'the other' is not totally rehabilitated, certainly not in all of us. I felt that the Ashley Todd incident was playing to a very real, if small, audience that might be swayed by the caricature image of a white, female, being attacked by a black man, (and a large one at that). The stereotypical fear being drawn upon would be laughable, had policemen not proven their own eagerness to embrace the lie in the past, (thankfully not in the case with Ashley Todd).
The motivations these sociopaths seem to share are aimed at garnering sympathy/support. Their success in playing that 'game' stands the best chance of helping them not so much in the press, as when their cases come to trial. Unless they are caught outright in the lie, they may be able to sway a similarly inclined member of the jury with the lie, and so avoid conviction. There is historical evidence to support such a strategy in a court of law. I imagine that therein lies the greater evil of this particular blame game. That is, whatever bias one has to lend more credence to a member of your own ethnic group over another. In the end, I think it's a reflection on the continuing, de facto segregation of our culture, and the more those social barricades are eroded, (and I believe they will be), the less we will have to contend with this in life or the legal system. There is substance to your question, Jade, but I don't think the inclination to smear the 'other' is universal or even of a majority.
May 30, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The stereotypical fear being drawn upon would be laughable, had policemen not proven their own eagerness to embrace the lie in the past..."
Except that in the Ashley Todd case or the Charles Stuart case, as in the others, they did start searching for someone who fit the description.
If I understand you correctly, you cast the burden on sociopaths, murders, liars, criminals for the promulgation of this behavior. In your last paragraph you speak of how the lie might affect the jury -- but if the white perpetrator who has blamed the fictional black assailant is before the jury, the affect of the lie is impeach the defendent's credibility. A very different circumstance is presented if the lie is successful and based on the fiction, the lie, a black suspect is facing trial and conviction.
You may not identify with the murders and sociopaths, but would you have identified with the tearful Bonnie Sweeten, or Charles Stuart or Susan Smith on the stand identifying the black "suspect" that carjacked them had their lies been successful? And what would your reaction be if 2 years or 26 years later the falsely accused were exonerated? You see them as "sociopaths" today because their lies were exposed early. But what if they weren't?
May 31, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
good post and comments, Jade.
what Cville Dem and other illusory "color-blind" utopianists don't want to clearly see is the society at large and how they fit into it as part of the racially dominant oppression.
it makes them uncomfortable to even think about it. oh, the headache. it CAN'T be true. there MUST be some other reason. yeah, like we haven't heard from their "side" for hundreds of years.
I think it's both lack of awareness and lack of empathy, though I think the second lack causes the first lack. it's a mild form of neurosis based on fear of losing one's position in society. but a neurosis nonetheless, a neurosis they'll defend to their intellectual death, which is apparent from their myopic transparent arguments.
I try to pity the poor fools, but it still just ticks me off.
May 31, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You really are an ass.
May 31, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think police "searching for someone who fit the description" of a 'victim's' reported assailant is incumbent in the duties of police investigators unless there is evidence to the contrary. Until that evidence is confirmed, I would argue it is their duty to pursue all avenues of investigation. When rather than investigating, the police fail to follow leads, fabricate evidence, or withhold evidence, while trying to make a case you can fault them. I think the major point I was trying to make is that rather than
as you stated, which I think strains credibility, the operative issue is as I sad above, that
probably makes the strategy of blaming 'the other' a successful strategy in terms of avoiding conviction, and even prosecution for one's crimes. So, while I do think the act of 'blaming other races', which is as I understand it, your premise, is sociopathic, I don't "cast the burden on sociopaths, murders, liars, criminals for the promulgation of this behavior" as regards the operative reality of the behavior in society and the court system. That, I think is a result of the "prejudice, ethnicity, and tribalism" inherent in any society that remains in "de facto segregation of our culture". The same would likely hold true of any segregated cultures or ethnicities, be they Sunni/Shia/Kurd/ or black/white. I realize there are vast functional differences between the former and latter examples, so let's no get sidetracked enumerating them. Call me naive, but were I to be in a jury box during the trial of Bonnie Sweeten, or Charles Stuart or Susan Smith, I think I would be objective regarding the evidence. If you want me to argue that racism doesn't exist, I can't do that Jade. It does. Any member of a minority ethnic group in any society is going to suffer more from that fact than those in the majority. You asked who we are and how we got here. Racism is not just ours, but seemingly, the worlds heritage. As I said above, our best hope for removing or diminishing racism is removing the social barricades and integrating society. The more one is exposed to positive social contact with 'the other', the less we demonize them. Education doesn't hurt either.
May 31, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jade, this is one hell of a blog. And you generated one hell of a comment from Belle.
Just remember, statistically, white collar crime is usually performed by whites. Serial killers are usually white. Bank robbers, incidentally are usually white.
We had one guy up in these parts with a ski mask, i think..23 banks. I never heard if he was caught.
Framing the issue--the repubs are masters at this. They are the ones who need to protect their gated communities after all--that is the key.
Why are 69% of all Georgians in prison today African American. Is it genetic. NOOOOO.
It is the Georgian 'Justice' System. no doubt about it.
Crack and cocaine....Same 'crime' different sentences.
I will not bother you any more on this.
Just to say, fine, fine essay.
May 30, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dick, I specifically didn't want people to focus on crime statistics because, in addition to the "urban mythology" inaccuracy of them, they distract from what I'd like people to consider: how did we get a society in which it is commonplace and casual to offer up this lie?
This is not a new phenomenom. I didn't document cases earlier than the Stuart case, but it existed before then. It continues to exist even in the light of the tremendous publicity surrounding the cases I documented, which one might think would be a deterrent to the behavior but seems to work in the opposite fashion.
It's something more than just convenience. It's something more than just semantics. It's something more than just a lie.
Is it a learned behavior or action? Maybe. Think about it. Bonnie Sweeten told her "lie" in the presence of her 9-year old daughter, who is old enough to know there was no car accident, no carjack/kidnap by two scary black men, and that they weren't in the trunk of a Cadillac. How many other parents have told the lie -- even in the "little white lie" sense -- in front of their kids? About something far more mundane? ("I didn't get promoted at work because some unqualified black guy took my job. Or "Honey, you didn't get into college because some unqualified black kid took your spot.")
Think about how many times you've watched TV or a movie, and see the tough "good guy" cops use "enhanced interrogation techniques" on the scary (or not so scary) black guys, even when the black guys had nothing to do with the crime in question? How many times have you seen the real suspect in the cop drama tell the lie?
How has it become so commonplace as to be predictable (at least from where I sit)?
May 31, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Think about how many times you've watched TV or a movie, and see the tough "good guy" cops use "enhanced interrogation techniques" on the scary (or not so scary) black guys, even when the black guys had nothing to do with the crime in question? How many times have you seen the real suspect in the cop drama tell the lie?"
As a side note, the torture factor in tv drama or hollywood drama, drives me nuts. The tricks during interrogation get to me.
A Supreme Court case was just handed down the other day giving the police more power vis-a-vis
ignoring the plea for an attorney by a suspect.
But our propaganda system does provide more minority police as well as prosecutors. That certainly has changed over the past five decades since I started viewing this mass media.
May 31, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any individual must answer as to how or why s/he wears rose colored glasses -- that would be specific to personal experience.
"I'd like people to consider: how did we get a society in which it is commonplace and casual to offer up this lie?"
It might be common in fiction, but not so common in fact. In fact it's never casual, but it might be convenient.
Perhaps one thing you're looking for besides the obvious is that the fraction of black men in prison is very high.
May 31, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
About 10 years ago, I lived on the next block from a high school. While walking the dog, I would generally see the same kids over and over and after awhile we would smile and they would pet the dog. It was fun. Then one day I noticed that most of the dog petters were girls of all races or white boys, although not nearly as many of them as girls.
At some point I realized the lack of color in the boys department was my fault. Through body language and eye contact, I was open and welcoming to all the girls and white boys, but tended to look down or shy away from the boys of color.
So I deliberately changed and made eye contact and smiled at all the boys. It took awhile, but I finally got some diversity in the boys group, and it too was fun.
I've thought about that often as it forever changed my interactions with people, but to this day I'm unsure about where or why I picked up this unconscious bias. Best guess is the media and TV/books/magazines programming. But I'm thinking that many white people have it. I noticed that it's always black males beating up on whites in the examples Jade provided. Not a woman of color in the bunch of the falsely accused, and only one white woman from the screwy bride.
Whenever I hear that a tall black man (or men) "did it" these days, my first thought is "hmmmm, maybe, but I'm not putting money on it." When I first heard the campaign worker's story, I knew that one was going south fast. And it righteously did.
May 30, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Mh20 is correct in saying that the problem lies in the perception and blaming of "other." In which case, my out-take castigation of conservative white men, or any other man who belittles women, is more than a Freudian slip -- it is also wrong in this context. Which means I am wrong. (Oh, how I hate it when that happens, but there you are.) There's an irony here, Jade. You blame whites and I blame misogynistic men and we are both just blaming, blaming in a rather wholesale fashion....even though the people we identify as being the "other" may well be those who have hurt us in the past, might be hurting us now or might hurt us in the future.
Now I have to go into a blame recovery program. You?
May 30, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
speak for yourself, Staebler. your shallow psychobabble about Jade is insulting and hypocritical. remove the mote from your own eye before starting in on what you perceive is someone else's. clear case of projection on your part. I'm beginning to doubt you can actually walk a mile in someone else's shoes.
May 31, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see you got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. Have you ever considered bringing up particular points rather than just bloviating with insulting comments? You are not doing yourself any favors; you have no argument except argumenting. Go back to sleep and try the other side of the bed when you get up.
Oh, and you really shouldn't accuse someone ELSE of being condescending -- talk about projection!
May 31, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're being pompous and unreasonably close-minded. And that is a universally colorless affliction.
May 31, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nag: Did you read my second reply to your second comment to me on my thread about being southern/ southern progress or lack thereof???? Apparently not, or surely you would have responded to a direct question asked of you. Easy to cast stones, when you won't do the work of engaging dialogue -- heated, civil or otherwise.
PS redux -- if you wish to call me "Staebler" in a derisory way, then man, or woman up; I shall call you "Nag" rather than a more respectful "NewsNag."
May 31, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Third take, if a sidenote, on your responses to me, NewsNag:
You may accuse me of all the indulgence in pop psychology you want, but isn't it interesting that my replies to Jade were uniformly civil, whether heartfelt and serious, or at worst, shying away from the serious to try to establish rapport by carrot of shared experience of being women.... while, on the other hand, Quinn and a few others directly challenged Jade's views and/or attitudes.... and yet, whom did you attack? Why, I believe I was your target. Why would that be? Hmmmm - mebbe because it is easier for you to attack a white southern woman than it is for you to attack any man. Where would you have learned that? Just maybe from the attacks of conservative men, whether southern or not, on demographic groups that include African-Americans, foreigners and women of all demographic categorization. The abused may become the abuser.... yes? or no?
May 31, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wendy, Nag is a coward, and not very smart, either. He/she/it doesn't bring up one specific example; just strings insults together like Sarah Palin. Not one single constructive criticism; not one actual idea. And silent to every male here. You're right; it was you and me who he/she/it attacked. Among those who falsely accuse others, I'm sure Nag feels right at home with them. Now, I don't know what race Nag is, so who knows if he/she/it is only doing what is acceptable.
May 31, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa whoa whoa, don't be triflin' with my gal Sarah. She hardly stooped to that low. Just gave a good speech, all she's guilty of.
May 31, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not ask Tawana Brawley or Crystal Mangum? There are many reasons why people make false accusations; attention, money prospects, misdirection, malicious mischief and generally when they do, they tend towards making the perpetrator as alien as possible from their own, personal world and yet familiar such as a stereotype. Which is why when the investigator begins to move them beyond the stereotype into the particulars of the crime the story begins to fall apart.
May 30, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bev, Almost no one is more against the elite of this world then I am. If it was up to me, the wealthy's money would be confiscated and the privelages that come from attending Yale, etc. would end. Everybody would go to college free and who your father is would have nothing to do with what college you get into.
Yet, what happened to the 3 young men at Yale was atrocious. Absolutely wrong and obviously wrong.
So why don't you answer BevD, Jade? We are waiting for your response. You are absolutely right that black men, especially young black men are falsely accused. Yet, there is a conspicuous absence in your post. Why do you not equally condemn the Crystal Mangums of this world?
Why do you not condemn O.J. Simpson? If you make any excuses for O.J. or Crystal, then you are as wrong as they are.
May 30, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the danger we encounter when we stereotype other people - someone is always bound to point out the plank in your eye. We are all capable of inflicting pain and misery on others and then rationalizing it.
May 31, 2009 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
While it is always wrong to lie about someone having committed a crime, I think this is somewhat of a case of apples and oranges.
On the one hand you have vast numbers and literally hundreds of years of scapegoating of black people, especially black males, for committing crimes they plainly didn't commit. On the other hand, we have some notable exceptions to the rule where a black person creates a fictitious perpetrator. The two things are not equal or analagous except in that a lie was being told about who caused the crime/accident/distress.
The shear volume demonstrates it isn't equitable to equate the negative stereotyping, the racism, etc... that has occured with an isolated instance or two. We can all agree that false accusations are always wrong, but it isn't necessary for those concerned about the ongoing, nationwide, relentless pursuit (whether right or wrong) of young black males as criminals to have to denounce Tawana Brawley, etc...
May 31, 2009 2:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Oleeb, for saying what I would say.
To BevD and Faroff:
This is not a "tit for tat" situation. There is a pattern and a consistency to the fictional black assailant story. The Tawana Brawleys and Crystal Magnums are few and far between. And you look at who is exonerated for crimes they did not commit after hard work by the agencies involved in the Innocence Network, the depth and breadth of problem is even more apparent.
(Pity that you stoop to bring OJ (the new universal poster child for black criminality) into this. OJ did not call the police claiming to have been a victim of a non-existent crime perpetrated by a white person.)
I had forgotten about the "motive" for the Sharon Tate (Charles Manson family) murders: "Manson believed that he would bring about the race war by having his followers slaughter wealthy people in their homes and cast suspicion on black militant groups such as the Black Panthers. In his carefully thought out scenario, Manson saw the blacks winning the war, but being too inept to run the nation. Manson reasoned that the blacks would then turn to him for help and make him ruler. [Wikipedia]"
The "fictional black man" figures in the Jeffrey McDonald murders also.
May 31, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I hope you're not putting Manson's thought processes out there as an example of how all white people see the world. I get that you are bitter, and I get that you are angry; do you get that these examples make me and millions of others angry as well?
May 31, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear some poor black dudes got duped into thinking they could/would overthrow the government through some harebrained attack. What far-sweeping conclusions can we draw from that?
May 31, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know. A bunch of white guys stole an election in 2000 and again in 2004, and did more damage than any person of color has ever done to our country. Got clean away with it too. They even got to pretend that THEY were "colorblind," what with all their appointments and such.
May 31, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should have written "whether innocent or not" instead of "whether right or wrong". Sorry!
May 31, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jade doesn't want to discuss statistics, because discussing statistics might skew her theory.
There are, according to the census bureau 293,000,000 people living in this country. According to the FBI there were a little over 1,000,000 crimes reported in the U.S. last year. Now if we're going to pronounce a trend in false allegations made by white people against black people, let's see the numbers.
She gave us 7 (seven) cases and then asks why white people think it's acceptable to accuse black people of crimes. Seven cases is not even a statistical anomoly, it is a rare event, it is not a trend, it is not an accepted practice and the fact that it is used in movie plots is completely meaningless accept as a stereotype in and of itself. Perhaps it is a stereotypical plot in which a white person accuses a black person of a crime and then the black person must find a way to exonerate himself/herself. There is also the new stereotype in fiction film where the Arab is now the stereotypical villain/victim of crime and false allegations.
Now, there are many reasons why people make false allegations of which I have alreadly listed - misdirection, diversion, mental illness, attention and probably as many reasons as there are people making them. Generally, when people make false allegations as misdirection, they tend to fasten on a stereotype that is as opposite of them as possible. They think that by doing so, they're diverting the attention of law enforcement from them in such a direction that no characteristic of them can be implanted in the minds of law enforcement - the person committing the crime wasn't even the same race. They don't consciously choose a stereotype out of animosity to any particular race, but one that is familiar to them, that won't trip them up on details but still provide enough diversion to deflect attention from them.
So where do people learn stereotyping? From the same place where we learn most or our knowledge of the world - our own environment and our limited exposure to the world of the people we stereotype so that those stereotypes are our sum knowledge of them. Stereotyping is learned behavior - if children are taught by parents and their community that black people have their own culture, their own traditions and their own society away from them, they learn that black people are different. If part of that limited exposure is seeing only those black people who have committed crimes then they will make that assumption that all black people are criminals and this is accepted wisdom of society as a whole.
Black people can learn that same behavior by their own limited exposure and environment - if all they see are white cops as oppressors, then they tend to think that all white people are like white cops as oppressors. The cops themselves are limited in their exposure to black people, by the nature of their work, their exposure to black people is of the criminal element. They don't see black people going about their business, taking care of families, celebrating and grieving in turn and being human in the same way we're all human.
This is why Susan Smith made false allegations about a black man stealing her children and why Tawana Brawley made false allegations about white cops. They had limited exposure to the culture at large so they relied on stereotypes to misdirect attention from their own misdoings.
As long as we believe that groups have different cultures, different social mechanisms, different traditions and morals, then we will always have stereotypes and stereotyping will be acceptable as knowledge of others.
I used to believe that black and white people could overcome these stereotypes that with knowledge of each other as human beings first and colour being only part of what we are and not the definition of who we are, we might move forward. I don't think that is possible now, white people can never atone for the crime of slavery and black people will never be able to forgive the crime of slavery so we will continue on as have for many more generations to come. The Palestinians will never forgive the Israelis, the Kurds will never forgive the Turks, the Iraqis will never forgive the U.S., the Chinese will never forgive the Japanese and it will go on and on and on.
May 31, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
7 cases going back 20 years, to 1989 (not 1994 as I mistakenly stated below) to somehow sum up 1 million crimes a year. Plus another case that's not an example but somehow shows white cops are killing black cops off-duty or something. Must be a slow Sunday.
May 31, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, what part of "commonplace and casual" don't you understand?
Do the math.
Urp.
May 31, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know that alien implants have become so "commonplace and casual that they are a typical plot twist in movies and television", and I wonder how we've gotten to this prejudicial attitude. I was hoping you as our resident non-resident alien could help us figure out the nuances, such as how we get back to the mothership and what we did with the keys.
May 31, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting: NewsNag has no history here. Writes as though he/she does. Wonder who it is?
May 31, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm bad enough that I don't even remember bloggers' names unless they're part of their handle. Am I engaged enough to match up dog tags of attack hounds past and present? Grrrr, aarrrff, down boy, pant pant pant. Toss 'em a biscuit and see if they roll over. I just notice they seem to come with a bad case of distemper and fleas.
May 31, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just checked on Ashley Todd - seems she also got fired from the Ron Paul campaign for impersonating a Mike Huckabee worker - the things people think they can get away with.
May 31, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get what you mean by that, Quinn? Are you saying that 7 cases over that period of time is common?
May 31, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Naw, I was bein' snarky, Cville. I just find this post really frustrating. To discuss this phenomenon would be fine, but to describe it as 'commonplace' and 'casual' and 'accepted' is just... weird (and wrong.) It damages the discussion Jade says she wants - on why racism exists, how it perpetuates itself, etc.
It's the same reason I got angry on those "Southern" posts. People were having kneejerk reactions, assuming that if Des was raising questions, then he MUST be a GOP lover of slavery and racism etc. Jade actually said it outright - called him an "apologist for slavery." Which is about the most severe form of calling someone a racist that there is - you're not just quietly racist, you actually agree with SLAVERY.
See, for me, the fact that the North - like Britain and Canada and other societies - HAD slavery for so long, is really important. It meant that racism got deeply entrenched in a lot of people and communities, and in the culture itself, not just in the South, but in the North as well. But after the Civil War, a lot of Northerners were able to effectively "whitewash" their racism BECAUSE they could say they were from the North, and had shed blood to "free the slaves." I've seen the same mental move elsewhere, in countries that fought the Nazis (like Britain), and THEREFORE felt they could claim they had no part in anti-Semitism. When, in fact, they were still anti-Semitic as hell.
I think it's only by honestly looking at what happened during these chapters that we're able to grasp what happens. There was racism throughout the North, and it came out in brutal fashion - even during the Civil War - against, for instance, Native people. And seeing that helps us better understand WHY racism came back in the South, and came roaring up in Northern cities, and so on. For me, to understand racism, I find it useful to look at white indentured servitude, and the economic underpinnings of slavery, and the multiple forces which helped pull the North free of slavery first, and how Lincoln had to deal with very very mixed political forces. If people actually WANT a long-term working Democratic majority, including Southern votes, I think we have to look at all these strands, and then figure out how to make it work WITHOUT playing to racism.
Cheers Cville.
May 31, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, you are a much nicer snarker that I am. But your points are valid, and I actually give Desidero props for even showing up here -- definitely a brave soul! This is a loaded thread and the treading on eggshells has limited the debate, but I appreciate your comments as always.
May 31, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero is not just a 'brave soul'. He's known as the 'Komogator' in some circles. Kinda a cross between a komodo dragon and a 'gator. The first, recently found to have a poisonour bite, and the second the bane of southern golfers for, well, some time now. Cuidado, CVille.
May 31, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear that Komodos are getting very aggressive lately; almost bit someone's leg off in Japan. Alligators, not so much; I have swum with them myself, but I wouldn't trust a crocodile any farther than I could throw one.
May 31, 2009 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
My golf handicap is getting much better though.
June 1, 2009 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remember in Bowling for Columbine the cartoon section about the history of white and black people and guns? Remember how outrageous and how true it was? Do you also remember how in the movie Michael Moore focused on the portrayal of black people and crime on local newscasts nationwide? Well, those images, those stories, and those scare tactics are, in large part, to blame for the willingness of society to believe that black people generally, but black men particulary and especially young black men are prone to committing crimes of all kinds. Thus, when even absurd charges are made with no foundation whatever about blacks being involved in or committing any sort of crime, it often is accepted without any question at all by police, citizens, the media, etc...
It is a complicated subject in many ways, but it is also fairly simple in others. The constant portrayal of black people, but especially young black males as dangerous, violent and criminal is an ancient fear that has existed for centures, ever since the beginning of African slavery. This negative stereotype has been and continues to be perpetuated in the modern media.
Plenty of violent crime by whites takes place all the time, but it is far more likely that on any given day, the violent crime story on your local newscast will be about what some young black guy did.
So, in part, like all stereotypes, there is a kernel of truth, but it is distorted beyond all recognition and proportion. Given our highly racially segregated living arrangements in US cities, after a while it becomes common wisdom that the caricature of black crime shown over and over again is more or less true even though it isn't. The news stories help to create their own reality and people tend to accept it.
Humans, being the creatures of habit they are, and with the tendency to rank and judge that they have, then start to sort all this information out easily and quickly. Humans prefer (pardon the pun) black and white scenarios that are easy, clean and clear. Humans tend to prefer this sort of either/or choice or categorization of people. They then predictably arrive at the distorted, erroneous conclusion that black people are involved in crime more often than whites, that blacks do lots of bad things and are likely to commit crimes, often violent crimes and they often carry firearms.
So often, when an accusation is made by anyone that fingers the perpetrator of a particular crime as having been committed by a black man, it is instantly accepted as plausible and even probable. Are people racist for making these decisions/judgements? No. I don't think it is consciously so for most white people. It is a result of conditioning, combined with belief in erroneous stereotypes and lack of exposure to black people overall.
It is difficult for most whites to really examine alot of the assumptions they have and see through all the racist and bigotted responses. It is difficult for whites to recognize when they themselves are judging and treating black citiens more negatively than they do people of their own race.
It is very difficult to assess people different from one's self on their own merits and equally. It may be harder here in America since our horrendous racial past has focused us so much and so often on classifying and evaluating people according to their race and/or ethnicity.
May 31, 2009 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid that I don't understand the question Jade is posing. She says that "one group of people routinely finds it acceptable to blame persons of another race for their crimes" and asks how this tactic of blaming one's own criminal acts on a non-existent assailant of another race or "standard profile" came to be "an acceptable ruse" or "an acceptable practice."
But among whom is this practice considered acceptable? Seemingly only among some criminals desperately seeking to avoid detection, prosecution and conviction. There is no reason at all to think this practice is regarded as acceptable by law-abiding people. The fact that some practice is depicted dramatically on the show Law and Order doesn't show that that practice is regarded as normative and acceptable. Law and Order routinely depicts criminals doing all manner of depressingly commonplace, but completely unacceptable things, like killing their spouses, raping women and abusing children.
Maybe the question is this: How did these criminals learn that the tactic of blaming the non-existent black guy is a desperate ruse that sometimes works? How does the criminal attempting to escape detection know that this is something they might try? Well it seems to me that we all learn very quickly about the social classes and prejudices that prevail in our society, and understand that when people leap to conclusions, there are certain conclusions they are most likely to leap to than others. It's not such a mystery.
May 31, 2009 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan, that is pretty much the same thing I said above, and some Nag called me a "concern troll!" But your point about knowing that you are more likely to get away with a false accusation if you point the finger at a minority is really the heart of the issue here, in my opinion. Miguel alluded to it when he talked about blaming "the other."
Well, if I were one of "the other" I would most likely feel more vulnerable to and resentful of the fact that it just could happen to me or someone like me.
Some interesting ideas here, no doubt about it.
May 31, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except that is is "acceptable."
It's not just a figment of some screenwriter's imagination -- it is pervasive in all aspects of culture. It affects both sides of the judicial equation: those who commit crime and seek to scapegoat and the jurors who may very well be convicting a person innocent of the crime for which he is charged.
But the critical question stems from this:
"Well it seems to me that we all learn very quickly about the social classes and prejudices that prevail in our society..."
Where and how did you learn this? Who taught you this? When did you learn it? Why do you believe it?
May 31, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have a point here, Jade. When my daughter was a baby we lived in a mixed race, blue-collar neighborhood. My neighbors were black and the "mom" came over to introduce herself after we got settled in. My baby girl, (about 10-11 months at the time), had never seen a black person. She was intrigued and all smiles and reached out to touch her. It occurred to me at that time that there was no fear of the "other" in her, only wonder and acceptance. She immediately accepted my neighbor as part of the family, and they were until we moved away when she was 3. They were great neighbors, as were the Mexican immigrants behind us. I really miss them.
Now my daughter is 17, and we live in a mixed race blue-collar small city. Her friends are kids from all races and nationalities.
I think--although I can't be sure--that kids nowadays aren't as hung up on race as we were, or our parents were.
At least, I hope so.
May 31, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bwak, they've done these implicit bias tests on children recently, and the tendency, among both black and white kids from an early age (pre-school), is to find faces of white children more appealing/friendly than those of black children. I don't know what the theories on this are, but probably just goes to show social stereotyping having an influence very early...
May 31, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jade, I blame hack screenwriters (TV and movies both) for the pervasiveness of the "black male attacker" stereotype. Not for originating it, but for amplifying it a thousand-fold. Maybe I should say I blame sensationalist media, including hack newspaper reporting, because I know the press was full of this same shit long before TV and movies existed - whipping up hysteria that helped to spur lynchings and perpetuate Jim Crow.
But TV and movies have pumped up this stereotype worldwide. At various times in my life, I have been startled to hear people who immigrated to the US from other parts of the world say they were scared upon first encountering American blacks, because viewing American TV and movies in their home countries had led them to believe that American blacks were angry, violent and criminal.
May 31, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, obviously it is not the figment of a screenwriter's imagination. It does happen all the time. So does murder and robbery. And yet Law and Order depicts murder and robbery all the time without portraying them as acceptable. The same is true of blaming the innocent for one's own crimes. Although this particular form of wrongdoing clearly happens fairly often, there is no evidence that there is any widespread social attitude according to which blaming the innocent for one's own crimes is regarded as acceptable. Nor does the show portray it as acceptable.
As for how someone accused of a crime might have gotten it into their heads that the desperate gambit of blaming a fictitious person of color for one's own crimes might work, I would say this is something easily learned from experience. Everyone saw that Susan Smith almost got away with this gambit; and most people have encountered plenty of racism and prejudice in their lives, and thus know that there are many racist and prejudiced pigeons out their whose attitudes can be exploited to one's own advantage.
May 31, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cowboys and Indians
Please don’t leave out Cowboys and Indians. I think racism and violence are embedded in our own Declaration of Independence. When language like this is read by millions but never discussed, it just leaves the message without other comments. Or it drops the comment with the message inherent.
Racism lives in our “sacred” document. Maybe it wasn’t born there, but it still procreates. The “movies” just took up the theme, once given, and transferred it to other races. Stereotypes are indeed distasteful but they are a primary tool of our early instruction. Racism is learned.
Jade, thank you for this discussion. Language is the problem and the answer.
May 31, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two things that these people seem to have in common besides being white: They are criminals and they are really stupid. But then most criminals are really stupid.
As to why they choose to fabricate a black male as their imaginary perpitrator, they probably think that will be more likely to be believed. And they may be right but if there is one thing I imagine police are used to spotting it is liars, particularly stupid liars. Notice these stories (the lies) seem to take a few days to unravel as these people must answer and elaborate on the same questions again and again.
So maybe this boils down to stupid people being more likely to be racists. That is probably true but I know some very intellegent racists and they seem to be the most stupidly hateful about it.
But if your question is, 'Do we live in a racist society?' my answer is yes. But I think things are getting better. Not as fast as it should but there is more progress than I dared hope a year ago. Witness the man we elected president.
May 31, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Being white, I can never fully appreciate what it means to be a person of color. No matter how much I try to put myself in that person's shoes, I'll never really KNOW.
I know what it feels like to be discriminated against because I'm a woman. I know what it feels like to be marginalized because I'm a Christian, and because I'm a grandmother. None of those feel very good, but I'm sure those feelings are infinitesimally small in comparison.
I grew up in a terribly racist environment. I never met a black person until I was 16 when I discovered they weren't scary at all, just people who happened to be a different color. I rose above my upbringing.
I don't consider blaming ANYONE else for my actions to be acceptable. Why any white person would blame a minority for their crime is beyond me. But acceptable? Maybe in a few warped minds, but as a generality? I don't think so.
I know we still have a long way to go before we reach a point where race is no longer a factor, but the time IS coming. Some day down the road, the world will be full of brown people...then they will have to find something else to hate each other for.
May 31, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I liked Michael Moore's turnabout, in "Stupid White Men", where he recounts his unreasoning fear, the tendency to switch the side of the street he's walking on, the assumption of risk to his person, when he sees white men, since they are responsible for anything bad that ever happened to him.
May 31, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aaargh, made the mistake of more than 2 URL's and the software ate my longer comment, so shorter to the point.
US murders peaked in 1991 at 28,000 - 16,000 comitted by blacks. I can't find DOJ figures by race for other crime categories, but I imagine not any more flattering to blacks. The worst thing is the victims are often women - acquaintances and frequently live-ins with the criminals, suffering home violence they can't escape.
In any case, tracking down 8 cases of white-cries-black-wolf back to 1994 seems pretty petty in the face of horrendous violent crime volumes in the US. And as one CNN commentator notes, you're better off being a dog to get attention than a black or white woman raped and violently murdered.
May 31, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is those numbers are reported but not necessarily true. That is the danger of the fake black assailant, cops go after the black person and grab the wrong person. It's easy to understand blacks will be convicted more often than their white counterparts by their fellow White jurors and get caught since blacks are stopped more.
poverty probably does not help either, more Blacks probably commit a disproportionate number of crimes being poor, what else could be the answer.
black people's genes make them steal and kill? Just like white people's genes make them slave, abuse and treat other people bad like segregation, injustices and lynchings?
August 14, 2009 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink