Search Box

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Rioting, by race

While reading about the Baltimore riots, I tried to think of recent cases when white people just spontaneously got out of control.

The closest analogy I could think of was the English soccer hooliganism from 20 years ago. Those guys would get liquored up and cause all sorts of mayhem at whichever soccer matches they chose to attend.

I then Googled "white people rioting," and stumbled across this article, by Becca Stanek, who listed several more recent examples of white mobs committing vandalism. She had this to say (in reference to the Ferguson riots):

Many labeled the protesters savages, animals, hoodlums and thugs…..But the thing is, riots happen all the time, and often over significantly less terrible events — and we talk about them very differently when those involved are white.

She has a point: when white college kids go on a rampage because of the outcome of a sporting event, they are rarely characterized as thugs or savages.

But Stanek also seems to miss a crucial qualitative difference. When the white students at the University of Kentucky, for instance, "rioted" last month after their team lost in the Final Four, the nature of their behavior was completely different. There was no widespread smashing of store windows or looting, no one hurled bricks and rocks at the police, and cars weren't set on fire.

As Lexington police spokesperson Sherelle Roberts said afterward, although 31 were arrested, police were “thankful no one was seriously injured and that there was no major destruction of property.”

Here are some pictures from the Kentucky "riot":



For Stanek to equate Ferguson with a large, unruly crowd of drunken college students is disingenuous at best. 

This isn't to say that whites aren't capable of more destructive behavior: those English soccer hooligans were famous for their boozy brawls. 

But here's the most telling difference between white mobs and black ones: when large groups of whites misbehave, there's almost always liquor involved. Sober white people simply don't riot, at least not these days. (They wage war, but that's another thing entirely.) 

When blacks riot in Ferguson, or Baltimore, or elsewhere, alcohol is generally not a factor. Black rioters don't need Dutch courage.

Whether this is a good or bad thing I'll leave up to you.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

It seems that many blacks are having major temper tantrums (a sign of immaturity) and all hell breaks loose. Society is paying a price for their massive dysfunctional, twisted thinking. They should be arrested for their crimes. If I experience an injustice, it never occurs to me to commit crimes in retaliation.

-birdie

John Craig said...

Birdie --
You're right, it's incredibly immature, self-destructive behavior. Roughly twice as many whites are killed by cops as blacks, yet I've never heard of a group of whites rioting to protest. The worst part is, the blacks are encouraged to riot whenever the Obama, or Eric Holder, or the media talk about such killings as an "epidemic."

Anonymous said...

This should tell us something about our "leaders," their mental state. Sociopaths are vindictive, so they will retaliate, get even. They could care less about the chaos that they create. There is no good, sane reason for destroying a city because of an unfortunate incident that involved a member of your race.

-birdie

John Craig said...

Birdie --
Yes, the rioters are bad enough, but their leaders who tell them that their cause is just are the ones who are really to blame.

Anonymous said...

You're correct (about the leaders). When it comes to the clean-up of these destroyed, vandalized places, who pays for it all? All of the mayhem that occurred was totally unnecessary.

-birdie

Anonymous said...

That a white "riot" and a black "riot" are the same is a little lie.

It is a little lie in service to the BIG lie.

To support the BIG lie, you must constantly tell yourself these little lies to help make sense of the BIG lie.

Without them, the BIG lie -- and your whole world view -- comes crumbling down. That is very frightening.

Gardner

John Craig said...

Gardner --
Exactly, you understand perfectly.

I have a question for you: what percent of journalists secretly know the score when it comes to these types of questions, but feel obliged to toe the party line in order to hang on to their jobs?

Steven said...

re the soccer hooligans, that still can't really be characterised as spontaneous. They were reasonably organised gangs that represented their team. An away match to another club that had a notorious gang of hooligans was like an incursion into enemy territory, a raid. They also tended to fight other hooligan groups, even arranging meetings for pitch battles.

You could look at the riots in England in about 2011. I think it actually began in London with black protesters but it quickly became a multi-racial affair with plenty of whites involved. It involved a lot of ethnic minorities but also a lot of (low class/underclass) whites and they did go on a rampage, burn stuff and loot. It spread to several cities.

Here is a little montage for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YYcAmSJu8A

John Craig said...

Steven --
Yes, that was my impression of the soccer hooligans, that they were almost like gangs.

My understanding of the '11 rioters was that they were mostly black. I saw a number of pictures back then, even wrote about the riots on this blog, here:

http://justnotsaid.blogspot.com/2011/08/come-take-tour-of-merrie-olde-england.html

and two posts before that.

Steven said...

"My understanding of the '11 rioters was that they were mostly black"


I didn't realise how true that was, John. That's because the media really never mentioned it, instead focusing on social class. There were enough whites in the crowd for me not to notice but looking at it now, I think you are right.

I just found this informative analysis:

http://humstats.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/uk-riots-ethnicity-statistics.html

And here are CCTV images:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024120/London-riots-2011-suspects-Photos-released-know-looters.html

These CCTV images show more blacks than whites I think.

Steven said...

note: according to his data, in London and Birmingham, there were more blacks than whites on CCTV footage. In Manchester, more whites (but still with blacks much more likely to be invovled when you consider demographics). Probably same in Liverpool as Manchester.

This seems accurate to me.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Actually, I'm surprised by how many images there are of whites in those pictures. IN the US, poor whites don't riot, or at least haven't in the past 50+ years. College students get drunk and get out of control, but as I pointed out in the post, it's not really the same thing.

Steven said...

Yeah there was definitely a substantial white involvement in the '11 riots, although there may have been more blacks than whites involved in London where it started.

Poor whites in Britain have increasingly got the social problems you associate with ghettos such as single parenthood, high unemployment and drug abuse.

There is also the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_UEFA_Cup_Final_riots

A lot of Glasgow Rangers fans went to Manchester for an important football match. I was there at the time and they were drunk and rowdy quite early on (nobody quite does drunken aggressiveness like Scottish men). This involved a) football and b) alcohol but there was quite a serious riot. Article says: "In addition to property damage, fifteen policemen were injured and ambulance crews attended 52 cases of assault". The Rangers fans are almost 100% white.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Yes, the rates of single parenthood have been going up in the US for all of the races for the past 50 or 60 years.

I put those Rangers fans in the category of soccer hooligans, and, as you describe, alcohol was involved. I remember reading about some of the damage they caused 20 or so years ago, including some stampedes which left many people who were caught in the crowds crushed to death.

Anonymous said...

You ask "What percent of journalists secretly know the score when it comes to these types of questions, but feel obliged to toe the party line in order to hang on to their jobs?"

From my estimation, in the mainstream press, maybe ten percent, maybe.

Journalists are by and large very, very liberal. They are crusaders and turned off by power and anything that smacks of "the system."

Hence, most have fully bought into the orthodoxy (the BIG lie) that modern American politics, culture and education are built on.

One of the most basic tenets of this orthodoxy is that White Wester Europeans have raped, ravaged and pillaged the earth in past centuries and all of today's problems can be traced to that simple fact. To deny that is to be a racist. One must constantly atone, if one is of white descent, and one of those ways you atone is by sticking it to the cold, soulless system, which embodies the very cruelty and disregard for human life and suffering that white cultures have for centuries.

You can do this through journalism, the law, education -- many different arenas. It is a death (of a civilization) by a thousand cuts. Each one so seemingly small and annoying, but cumulatively fatal.

Gardner





John Craig said...

Gardner --
Thank you for answering my question. I suppose that makes sense. There have been polls taken which have shown that 90% of journalists vote Democratic. Which means, as you say, that they've swallowed the Big Lie hook, line, and sinker.

Do the other 10% have to stay in the closet, so to speak? I"m talking of those journalists who work at places like the NY Times, or the Washington Post, or at any of the non-Fox networks.

One of the most amazing things about those journalists who rail against the system is their refusal to acknowledge the extent to which they now ARE the system. Liberals dominate the media, the colleges, and much of government. (I'm not talking about being ascendant in Congress here, or even in the White House, but of the millions of people who work for the IRS, for the Departments of HHS, Education, Interior, HEW, Labor, State, and Justice. I suppose those who work in the departments of Commerce, Defense, and Agriculture are a little less so. But most of the rest are liberal, and they express that in all sorts of little ways that rarely reach the public eye, as we saw with the IRS recently.

I understand your pessimism, and to a certain extent I share it, but I think the liberals have overplayed their hand, and there seem to be increasing numbers of people who both see through them and are fed up with them. And I'm not just talking about people who frequent the same dark corners of the internet that I do, but people I meet in various walks of life, people who aren't particularly political but who have enough common sense to see what's going on.

And in fact, all you have to do is read the comment sections on a place like Yahoo to take the temperature of the reading population. It's rising, and it seems to be rising because the Left has pushed so far that its hypocrisies are galling even the nonpolitical types.

Just took a look at my reply to you; boy, am I long-winded..

Anonymous said...

John--isn't the bottom line here that we live in a victim society and that victims are given lots of attention by the media? Poor me. Mostly blacks and women, as well as other "marginalized" groups. The paradox is that (because numbers don't lie) blacks are actually less victimized than whites but seize every opportunity to blame others for their character defects. And I'm sure you've noticed that every "victim" the media reports about is a serial felon. Which leads me to say, sadly, that such people create their own reality. But, then again, maybe I'm all wrong and that I just don't understand because I'm not one of them. Thanks, Brian

John Craig said...

Brian --
Yes, it's exactly as you say. The victimhood sweepstakes are everything. And the media just plays along with this game, or, worse, creates it. And just as you say, a closer look at most of these "victims" shows that in fact they've spent most of their lives as victimizers.

Mark Caplan said...

When white American sports fans riot, it's "wild, uncontrolled revelry" (a secondary definition of riot). Black rioting is actually a mass uprising, rebellion or intifadah.

John Craig said...

Mark --
I agree completely with your definition of white college students "rioting." I'm not so sure I'd characterize he black riots as a rebellion, though; yes, it borders on that, but it's not as if they have any plans for an alternative form of government in mind. it has a more anarchic feel to it, and the fact that they would riot and loot after a hurricane (Katrina) or a power outage (in NYC) shows that it's more just an opportunity to vandalize and get some free stuff.