Open Salon may again be more worthy of respect than its parent – Salon.
Today, Salon is full of the suicide of a famous comic. This may be a saving grace, because, were it not for the distraction of the death of the famous, Salon may have populated its front page with more articles such as this one.
Written by Ms. Brittney Cooper (Instructor in Women’s and Gender Studies and Africana Studies at Rutgers University), the headline of the article proclaims a defence of the black rage of those in Ferguson, Missouri, who are protesting the killing of Michael Brown, a black, 6’ 4”, 300-pound, teenage boy. He was shot to death by a local, on duty, policeperson.
The police version of this story is that Brown, after being approached by police in a car, attempted to reach into the police vehicle in order to seize the weapon of the police officer who eventually shot him. Part of the ensuing fight took place inside the vehicle; and the police allege that at least one shot was fired inside the car during this initial confrontation.
The police story is, at the least, incomplete and, at the most, nonsense. The unarmed victim was shot multiple times, mostly outside the police car. His body lay uncovered for several hours during the subsequent investigation on the pavement where he died.
The outraged black version of this story is that Brown, while walking with a friend in the street, was approached by police in a car and told to walk on the adjacent sidewalk. When the boys indicated that they would be home in one minute, and thereby out of the street at that time, one or more policemen exited the vehicle.
The boys ran. During this foot chase, a white policeman shot Michael Brown. The victim then raised his hands, while still standing, to surrender. The policeman who shot him then fired several more times until Michael Brown fell. Thereafter, this same officer shot the victim at least one more time as Michael lay on the ground.
The outraged black story is, at the least, inaccurate and incomplete. At the most, it is the fiction derived from witnesses under peer pressure to depict the specific victimization of Michael Brown in the best possible light in order to support a community narrative of general victimization. It’s neither likely that the police would claim a fight took place inside the police car unless they had solid evidence nor is it likely that the police would use deadly force against an unarmed citizen who had been fully cooperative.
Neither version of this story is relevant to the point, however. The point is that Ms. Cooper, along with Al Sharpton, are ignoring all black shootings this past weekend, including 26 in Chicago, in favor of placing their sentiments, if not their bodies, in Ferguson, MO, where only one shooting of a black occurred this past Saturday.
Statistically, in every 100 shootings involving black victims in America, 94 will be perpetrated by blacks. The remaining six will be perpetrated by non-blacks, of whom most will be Hispanic, fewer will be Caucasian, and practically none will be police officers, much less white police officers. Yet, as common as it is for a black to shoot a black, Ms. Cooper and Mr. Sharpton will neither write, nor speak, about such “black-on-black” incidents. Instead, they will pounce on the rare case where a black is shot by a (allegedly) white policeman.
Such suspicious activity begs a a review of Ms. Cooper’s titles at Salon. This yields the result that almost all contain the words “white”, “black”, or “racial” in their names.
A reading of several of her two dozen contributions seems to confirm that her perspective on the world is informed almost solely by race. She writes about events where she believes the outcomes are determined by race. She writes about people whom she believes are racial antagonists of blacks or protagonists of white racism.
What escapes Ms. Cooper is that the unjustified homicide of an African American is as tragic whether shot by a black, white, man, woman, Catholic, Mormon, lawyer, doctor, or police officer. Thus, she fails to write about the most common manner in which blacks become victims (by being attacked by other blacks) in favor of writing only about blacks becoming victims at the hands of whites.
This makes Ms. Cooper a racist. Based on what inspires her to write, the only black deaths important to her are the statistically rare ones in which the perpetrator is white.
It’s not only nearly 16 times more probable that a black will be victimized by a black than a non-black, but it’s also true that blacks are the perpetrators in 53% of all shootings in America, while forming only 13% of the American population. Yet, Ms. Cooper writes:
“But the answer . . . isn’t preaching to black people about “black-on-black” crime without full acknowledgment that most crime is intraracial (sic).”
Clearly, Ms. Cooper is correct in her claim that crimes against blacks are mostly “intraracial” (sic). Such crime, at least with respect to weaponized murder, both attempted and realized, is predominantly “black-on-black”. Theredfore, why does she only write on the victimization of blacks when the perpetrators are allegedly white?
Again, according to the foregoing, this is also irrelevant. The black victim is just as dead no matter who did the shooting – a distinction either lost on, or unimportant to, Ms. Cooper.
The comparative absence of articles such as Ms. Cooper’s on Open Salon is a credit to those who write here. The child is once again more intelligent than the parent.
In addition, it’s nice that Al Sharpton condemned the looting and rioting in Ferguson, Missouri over the past two days. On the other hand, Ms. Cooper approved the looting.
Unfortunately, both claim that blacks must “fight back”.
The best summation here might be to observe that there is a clear racial component to homicidal violence perpetrated against blacks. Unfortunately, neither Ms. Cooper, nor Mr. Sharpton, nor Salon can deduce, or recognize, what it is.