There’s a whole world out there apart from the internet. You do realize that this was a national news story, right? There were protests. The protesters got air time on television. The protester’s claim that this incident was an example of pervasive white on black rape was reported, quoted and repeated ad infinitum for a couple weeks before the thread was created.
Are you saying that if we see something on television, we can’t discuss it unless we can find an internet link to it? Is that some new guideline I didn’t get the memo on?
I personally saw the claim mentioned on different shows no fewer than a dozen times.
“The history of white men and black women, and the special fantasies and exploitation, is old and ancient,” the Rev. Jesse Jackson said when asked about the case. “The historical pattern of this behavior arouses so many fears and conjures up so many bad memories."
Thanks for such lovely word choice. That was brilliant.
Okayyyyy. You do know “masterstyle rape” (a term coined by your john, as you may recall) was quite the thing back in the day, right? If not, in addition to Stats 101 you might want to enroll in a black history course or two.
Please also note Jackson’s use of the words “history” and “old and ancient” as opposed to “presently” and “here and now”. This cite does nothing for you except reveal your desperation.
Well, i’m not especially interested in joining in the whole debate that started in that other thread, but it seems to me that you’ve slid from one issue to another here.
In your post above (post #161) you say:
Then, in post #163, to back up your claim, you cite Jesse Jackson saying:
It seems to me that this doesn’t support the point you’re trying to make.
Jackson is not saying that white on black rape is currently pervasive. He is saying that there is a history of white men sexually exploiting black women in America, and that this history results in fears and bad memories. I’m not sure how anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of American history could dispute this.
Whether white on black rape is currently common or not, the fact is that for a long time in America—both before and after the end of slavery—the consequences for a white man who sexually assaulted a black woman were virtually zero. And this fact means that the issue has resonance for many African Americans in the United states, and the feelings that emerge in cases like this.
This historical legacy says nothing about what happened in this particular instance; it has no relevance to whether the alleged rape actually occurred or not. But it is completely understandable that such issues come to the surface when issues like this are discussed in the public sphere.
Thanks, you seemed to be so enamored with your sister’s wording that I opted for an insult she slung at me.
Nice spin on that quote. Obviously, Jackson did nothing to inject race into the case. And no media outlets took his words and ran with it. Nope, not a single one. Nobody talked about it one bit.
I guess that’s a strike against the media outlets covering his quote, plus quotes from some of the protesters.
Are you all seriously trying to convince me that I didn’t see the stories that I saw? Or are you saying that I did see them, but Huerta could not possibly have, and that he came to the idea purely out of his own prejudice?
Seriously, the slant in the media included the angle that white on black rape was an ongoing problem. It was generally framed as this case being an example of the history that Jesse was talking about.
The thing with taking people at their word is that when they are combative and rather unpleasant, it’s very hard to trust them.
I don’t know what you saw. I didn’t follow the original story at all. But telling people that you’re fighting with and insulting that they have to accept your word for something is usually not effective.
Generally, when something starts popping up on TV, it also starts popping up online and examples can be found. If this was so prevalent a TV phenomenon, it seems likely that it would be an internet phenomenon as well.
See how statistics and likelihoods and citations can come back and bite you?
The Jackson quote was all over tv, and it popped up on the internet. The “man in the street” interviews of the protesters are unlikely to migrate online.
But it’s obvious that you and the wonder twins didn’t follow the story at all outside that thread. That’s fine, there’s obviously no problem with that.
The problem is that ywtf is accusing Huerta of introducing race into the discussion out of whole cloth. He didn’t. If you had followed the story, you would know that.
No, I think the problem is that you misrepresent your opposition in order to “win”.
The more you post, the more obvious that is.
Have you forgotten that the words are all there for us to see? Banquet Bear was nice enough to give us a quick run down from start to finish, and yet you still act as if you can make up things up without us finding out the truth.
At one point, this behavior of yours irritated me. But now it’s freaking hilarious.
I was going to ask why Bricker didn’t just send an email, since, you know, its better to not call public attention to this, lest you yourself look like an ass.
But then I realized Huerta88 doesn’t even have his email specified. The same person who gave both his yahoo and hotmail email in this thread alone. (So I must assume, and hope, that Bricker actually tried the email route first)…
I’m not trying to convince you of anything, except that the quote from Jesse Jackson does not, by itself, demonstrate the point you are apparently trying to make.
I’ve read the report and I disagree with your analysis. I will, however, spend a little more time on the report. That said, most posters (myself included) were fairly clear that any such statistics are irrelevant to the specific case we were discussing. The debtate went off on a tangent but the stats really weren’t used by most posters to suggest that the lacrosse players are innocent (there’s a pelthora of actual evidence that suggests that they are).
No, they were used to justify skepticism about the allegation. Which to me is essentially the same thing as saying the stats support the lacrosse players innocence. I request someone to explain the difference, because I don’t see one.
If most posters were clear that the stats are irrevelant, I’m wondering why they were brought up in the first place. And why then was there such a loud uproar when you with the face challenged their worth?
If I or you with the face come across as hysterical, it’s because we’re tired of people denying the existence of certain views expressed in that thread. I don’t pick fights over nothing. I didn’t imagine the ignorance in that thread.
Reread the thread and the excerpts that Banquet Bear posted if you don’t believe me.
I don’t claim that the statistics have any relevance to probable guilt or innocence in this case. However, Huerta88 and others made a big deal about the incidence of white on black rape being negligible. His cite does not support that. I don’t see how there can be any doubt that the asterisked figures in the table are called out because they have low statistical significance. Huerta is certainly wrong to believe that the table shows that less than 10 of 24010 rape/sexual assaults with black victims had white perpetrators.
I slogged thru most of that thread. And I have to say that I agree with **YWTF **concerning those statistics-- they simply don’t have any relavence to this particular case.
Just because we choose to slice and dice some data along racial lines does not mean that race is a good way of looking at the issue-- not the least of which is that the national breakdown for race is going to be significantly different than the breakdown in North Carolina (13% African-American vs 22%). But we’v known from day 1 more facts about this case than the race of the individuals involved. This is not some random case drawn from the general populace, but a stripper at a frat party with a bunch of drunk college guys. Those are the bare-bones relavent facts that if we know nothing else, we should be looking at. (And yes, I would be extremely supsicious of data telling us that there were 0 rapes of Black women by White guys in the US during any given year.)
To suggest that the police might doubt the woman’s story more or less because of her race is absurd. A charge of rape is serious, and needs to be taken seriously. There was opportunity and motive aplenty, regarledss of the race of anyone involved. The fact that the nurse’s report confirmed the plausability of rape would, I 'd have to think, require the police and the DA to take some action.
Now, I have to say that this whole media circus created a poisoned atmosphere that the DA did nothing to try and quell. In fact, he seemed to feed off it and to design his investigation to appeal to the basest emotions of the mob. So I’m not going to comment on particular action or timing of action by the DA. I haven’t paid much attention to this story precisely because of the media circus it turned into early on. I’m not condoning any of his actions, I’m just saying that we should take our racial blinders off and let the charge stand or fall on its own merits.
This is something I missed, and I find it to be a very credible and persuasive point. Wimbledon-fashion, I’d now look back to Huerta88 for his response.
(And I would point out to you with the face that she should be taking notes: THIS, zagloba’s post, is how you respond to a citation you wish to rebut. Hysterical hand-waving gets you nowhere; reasoned response is almost universally recognized and given its due weight.)
