For lo these many years, the mainstream media have pretended that only whites commit violent crimes, but the people who read newspapers weren't fooled quite as thoroughly as the MSM hoped. Consider this Dec 8, 1993, article from the New York Times:
A taciturn gunman opened fire without warning inside a crowded Long Island Rail Road train during rush hour yesterday, killing at least five people and wounding 19 others, the police said. ...
The man, a New York City resident whose name was not released by 1:45 this morning, was eventually tackled by a passenger, who held him down with the help of two others.
In keeping with their policy of political correctness, the Times decided that the fact that the gunman was black was not "fit to print." I have an acquaintance who heard the story on the radio as it happened. "I knew the shooter was black," he said, "if he'd've been white, they'd've said so."
As with their foolish notion that men and women were totally alike in all respects, the MSM can ride an untruth only so far. Time magazine had to abandon that particular falsehood back in 1992. It took a lot longer for New York Times to fall off its political-correctness bandwagon enough to point out that minorities commit more crimes than whites do:
Blacks are only 23 percent of the city’s population. Whites ... make up 35 percent of the city’s population. ...
Based on reports filed by victims, blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crime in New York in 2009, including 80 percent of shootings and 71 percent of robberies. Blacks and Hispanics together accounted for 98 percent of reported gun assaults. And the vast majority of the victims of violent crime were also members of minority groups. [emphasis added]
Non-Hispanic whites, on the other hand, committed 5 percent of the city’s violent crimes in 2009, 1.4 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies.
Blacks are 23% of the population but commit 66% of the violent crimes; whites are 35% of the population and commit 5% of the violent crimes. Let's see how that works out.
Suppose there were 100 people in the city and 100 crimes were committed in the city. The 23 blacks would commit 66 crimes, or 2.8 crimes per black. This is an average, of course - almost all of the crimes would be committed by a handful of habitual offenders, but the cops don't know who they are.
The 35 whites would commit 5 crimes or .14 crimes per white. The Times is saying that, on average, any given black is twenty times (2.8/.14) more likely to commit a violent crime than any given white person.
We've known this for a long time. Even the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who's as black as anyone, said
I hate to admit it, but I've reached the stage in my life that if I am walking down a dark street late at night and I see that the person behind me is white, I subconsciously feel relieved.
The Times points out that the "vast majority" of the victims of violent crimes committed by blacks and minorities are themselves blacks and minorities. Given this slaughter of blacks by blacks, it comes as no surprise that a black leader would eventually say the unsayable:
Fernando Mateo, president of the New York State Federation of Taxi Drivers, is telling cab drivers that for their own protection they should profile potential passengers who are black and Latino. Mateo, who identifies himself as both black and Hispanic, made his comments this week after a livery cab driver was shot several times by a man police describe as Hispanic. [emphasis added]
"I don't care about racial profiling. You know, sometimes it is good we are racially profiled, because the God's honest truth is that 99 percent of the people that are robbing, stealing, killing these drivers are blacks and Hispanics," said Mateo, who is Hispanic and has a black father. [emphasis added]
"So if you see suspicious activity, you know what? Don't pick that person up."
Mr. Mateo and the Times are on substantially the same page - Mr. Mateo says 99% of armed thugs are blacks and Hispanics; the Times says 98%.
Given that blacks and Hispanics account for 98% of gun crime in New York City and that the "vast majority" of their victims are black or minority, one would think that Mr. Mateo's remarks would be regarded as sweet reason. Since he himself is both black and Hispanic, he cannot possibly be motivated by racist intent.
But not so:
Mateo's comments have been denounced by many, including Taxi and Limousine Commissioner David Yassky, who said that "choosing which passengers to serve on the basis of race is illegal, downright wrong and simply unacceptable."
What a hypocrite! The Limousine Commissioner has a taxpayer-funded limousine, he never takes cabs and he certainly doesn't drive one at 2 AM. He's unlikely to be attacked, what does he care about dangers to taxi drivers?
This reminds us of Mayor Bloomberg's diatribe against citizens wanting to arm themselves for their own protection. As he made his smarmy remarks about citizens not needing guns to protect themselves, we couldn't help notice that he was surrounded by his squad of heavily-armed taxpayer-funded bodyguards. Why should the mayor carry a gun? He doesn't take taxis and all New Yorkers are forced to pay guards to carry guns for him.
The expected race-baiters said the expected things:
The Rev. Al Sharpton called Mateo's remarks "absurd."
But Mateo told The Post, "I'm asking black and Hispanic people to profile their own, so how the hell can this be racist?
"It's our own committing these crimes against us. It's weeding out the criminal element." [emphasis added]
The Times has impeccable credentials for political correctness. If the Times says that 98% of the violent crimes in New York are committed by blacks and Hispanics, it's probably true. If the number were too much smaller, we might think it an understatement, but it's hard for 98% to be an understatement.
Mr. Mateo may not have access to as much statistical data as the Times, but he talks to his union membership. He attends funerals and bedside vigils for his drivers who've eaten a bullet fired by, yes, a fellow black or Hispanic. He'd better know what's going on with them and he'd better get some answers for them if he expects to be re-elected as head of the union. He speaks out because he has to.
The inconvenient truth is that the overwhelming majority, if not quite 99%, of violent crimes in New York City are committed by blacks and Hispanics and most victims are blacks and Hispanics. Not only that, Mr. Mateo has a point in saying that blacks and Hispanics will have to weed out the criminal elements from their communities. Who else can?
As with non-violent Muslims who tend to get blown up by their coreligionists in terrorist attacks, as long as the non-violent blacks and Hispanics are fooled into thinking that the forces of justice are prejudiced against minority criminals, they'll continue to cover for the crooks. As long as they cover for the crooks, they'll continue to be victimized.
Political correctness can cover the truth only for so long, however. With the help of honest speakers like Mr. Mateo and even (occasionally) the Rev. Jackson, the facts about both Muslim terrorism and black and Hispanic criminality are leaking out. As long as these groups continue to cover for their criminals, they'll continue to be victims and the rest of society will quite rightly look upon them all with suspicion, not being able to easily tell them apart.
Will these folks rat out the criminals among them and do us all a favor? Or will they continue their fraying cover-up even though it costs them most of all?