Article #6: Race Relations

Stupidity or purposeful ignorance?

Choose one.

Those are the only words that we currently have to describe the mind-boggling origin from which the words that came out of Fox “News” host Bill O’Reilly’s mouth when discussing “Race & Crime in America” derived.

Before we discuss this, we want you to watch and hear his jaw-droppingly-narrow-visioned conclusions for yourself:

**VIDEO NO LONGER AVAILABLE**

Now, before you do anything with your hands or feet, because we know how violent you are, please read the following instructions:

1. Take a break, because you’re probably seething like the Incredible Hulk® and just want to smash, smash, smash.

2. REMEMBER: Breaking the computer screen while O’Reilly’s on it doesn’t make him go away. It just temporarily stops you from being able to get on Facebook® and type with your fingers instead of your thumbs.

3. *Insert random act of violence that Bill O’Reilly knows you’re going to do HERE*.

Totally disingenuous and insulting.

Firstly, did you notice how O’Reilly didn’t say that 91% of blacks in 2011 were killed by young black men? He said they were killed by “other African-Americans,” which is a completely different premise and includes all black people, not just young black men. However…

…he prefaced it with the young black man argument and, as smart a man as he is, he knows that people will instinctively equate the 91% to young black males only.

Secondly, beyond the highly offensive nature of his subliminal intellectual insults and obvious condescension, it absolutely amazes us how an individual can talk about the statistics of situations, but not take into serious consideration how those statistics were even able to come to be.

Don’t get us wrong. We all have to take responsibility for our actions. However, others cannot act like the decision to take those actions don’t stem from somewhere, and, in this case, somewhere deep. And if you understand the cause, then you can fix the effect.

Tell us Bill:

• Were “young black men” violent back in the days when they were slaves?

• Were they violent immediately after they were no longer allowed to be slaves?

• Then how did young black men become so so-called “violent, or does that even matter to you”?

In fact, let us ask you this, Bill:

• What is the percentage of white murders that are caused by whites?

• What is the percentage of Hispanic murders caused by Hispanics?

• Why is it that you called the defendant, who has a Peruvian mom and a white father, “a light-skinned Hispanic”, yet, sitting right across from you, the black Baptist minister, when responding to your statement about the potential acquittal of the defendant and people possibly “burning buildings down”, eluded to the situation being a white-on-black thing when he said, “…There’s gonna be a problem when people feel that it’s open season for whites to shoot blacks…”?

Which is he, white or Hispanic?

Now let’s take it even deeper and farther back:

• Before and during the civil rights movement, were the police approaching young black men with caution, or were they approaching them arrogantly, knowing that they could beat on them (and even kill them) and have a great chance of getting only a “slap on the wrist” repercussion?

• But now you’re saying that “…there’s a reason why police are more cautious while approaching a black man…”?

So, in other words, there’s a reason for the police’s change from arrogant to cautious, right O’Reilly? Well, don’t you think there is a reason for the change in young black men from the fearfully-subdued, racially-tense days of old police beatings of black Americans to these aggressively-defensive and violent, racially-tense days of new police beatings of black Americans?

Failed to ask that obviously-relevant question or even make an equally-similar statement about young black men, didn’t you? Of course you did.

Things that make you say “Hmmmm…”, huh Bill?

(Continue to Part 2…)