Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Have rape allegations been substantiated?

Women are raped all the time. Most don't report it even in 'normal' circumstances. If I were in a life and death situation like post-hurricane and got raped I don't think I'd be rushing to report it, I'd just be getting on with staying alive.
 
Women are raped all the time. Most don't report it even in 'normal' circumstances. If I were in a life and death situation like post-hurricane and got raped I don't think I'd be rushing to report it, I'd just be getting on with staying alive.

This is a fair point. But so far, from what I can make out, there have been no direct witnesses either that have come forward. Also in terms of murders and babies having their throats cut, no bodies have been found.

I don't think anyone is saying that it is definate that nothing has happened, but what is for sure is that the media has put forward unsabstantiated claims as if they were fact, and has done this for an agenda.
 
The reason that rape is very hard to prove, even with DNA etc is that rapes hardly ever are witnessed. Unless there is actual obvious (usually serious) injury to back it up, it's always one persons word against another that there was no consent. Which is why most women don't report rape.
 
Mrs Magpie said:
The reason that rape is very hard to prove, even with DNA etc is that rapes hardly ever are witnessed. Unless there is actual obvious (usually serious) injury to back it up, it's always one persons word against another that there was no consent. Which is why most women don't report rape.

Also the city was pitch black due to no electricity.
In this case it might be several people against one victim. That was the suggestion of some of the reports- the criminal drug gun-shop looting gangs raping any lone females.

It'll be very hard to find out what's happened would be my guess.
 
The incidences of rape and baby killing that were reported that I was talking about were in the Superdome. I should have thought it would have been quite difficult for someone to murder someone or rape someone without anyone noticing and no bodies showing up.

As said though, I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is no chance that anything happened, or that because no-one makes an allegation it didn't happen. But why the media was reporting things as if they were fact when so far no-one knows either way.
 
cockneyrebel said:
As said though, I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is no chance that anything happened, or that because no-one makes an allegation it didn't happen. But why the media was reporting things as if they were fact when so far no-one knows either way.

Some media were some weren't. Some merely reported that survivors from the Superdome and elsewhere in NO said in front of cameras that people were murdered and raped.
 
Joe Reilly said:
I don't think reaching for ready made stereotypes like 'racist media' does any favours. In tone and delivery this is remarkably like the stories carried immeditaly after Hillsborough, drunken rampage, pissing on the dead, groping dead or unconscious women. 'Bestial' yes, but no racial connotation whatsoever.

But this is the US not the UK...
 
Paul Marsh said:
The rape stuff appears to be unsubstantiated, which naturally begs the question why it was reported in the first place.

I do notice however that Gary Younge, in his Guardian article posted above, does not manage to comment, or even mention the racist abuse and threats several Britons who were inside the stadium say they were subjected to by black Americans.

Had it been black Britons being abused by white Americans, can anyone imagine Gary Younge being unable to squeeze in even a mere mention of the accusation?

I don't think "racist abuse" is a particularly major issue given the circumstances although obviously the writer has an agenda. On the other hand, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4214746.stm - Europeans helicoptered out of stadium days before everyone else, showing how low a priority rescuing the remaining NOLA population was.

They later told them they would be secretly smuggled out in groups of 10 under cover of darkness as it had become too dangerous for them to remain in the stadium, she told BBC News.
 
LLETSA said:
I'll be interested to see your examples, because it's usually the case that any comment about the kneejerk habits of the far-left are followed up with explanations of why so many of their assumptions are redundant.

I hope you can be arsed, because another feature of the 'old left' on here is that they are the ones who make statements they can't substantiate and then bad-temperedly flounce off, announcing something like they 'can't be arsed' continuing the argument.

Not saying you're doing this, of course.
having had a few pints to think on it....

avoiding the argument was the wrong phrase to use. tho i think it happens sometimes, it isn't the general rule, and who can blame anyone for not beng arsed to go over the same ground time after time.

However, I do think that it is used as a kind of cover for you doing exactly the same thing as you criticise the 'old left' for. That the ideology of trotskists or leninists o whoever contains a number of assuptions is, of course, true. But so does your oppositin to it. Joe's blanket assertion that race had nothing to do with the castigation of those who have remained in NO is at least as based in ideology and assumption as any view to the contrary - and it also "reduce contemporary society to a far less complex entity than it actually is."

Equally your assertion that cockneys mention of the 'racist media' is a blanket condemnation of ALL [US] media as racist is an assumption. It could do, or it could be a reference to that part of the US media which (as I've no doubt you would agree) is explicitly racist.

What, I think, it comes down to, is that in rejecting the all too frequent proposition that the central factor in an[y] issue is race, you rule out the fact that race plays any role at all, almost to the pont of seeming to deny that racism still exists in this country (nevermind the US).
 
888 said:
But this is the US not the UK...

I've not been to US but there is certainly a difference in political culture. I say this only from reading stuff online.

Lawrence Auster who writes for pro-Republican FrontPage Magazine edited by David Horowitz in his blog quotes from
American Renaissance self-confessed White Nationalists (anti-semitic ones at that too).

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/004052.html

Frontpage columnist Lawrence Auster said:
When we remember that white society is inevitably going to be blamed for the incompetence of New Orlean’s black-run government and the general mayhem, and that this will lead to renewed demands for a massive effort to equalize the conditions of the races in America, we are obligated to say frankly that the racial deficit in civilizational abilities so dramatically on display in New Orleans is not the fault of whites, and cannot be changed by whites. What can be changed is our suicidal refusal to face these facts. It is whites’ fantasy of a complete racial equality of abilities that liberates and privileges black incompetence and criminality instead of restraining them, as was done by the more racial-realist America of the pre-Civil Rights era

This is him in FrontPage
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14164

As a rough comparison:-
In Britain it much less likely for someone supporting the Conservatives to quote fairly approvingly from BNP for instance.
 
belboid said:
having had a few pints to think on it....

avoiding the argument was the wrong phrase to use. tho i think it happens sometimes, it isn't the general rule, and who can blame anyone for not beng arsed to go over the same ground time after time.

However, I do think that it is used as a kind of cover for you doing exactly the same thing as you criticise the 'old left' for. That the ideology of trotskists or leninists o whoever contains a number of assuptions is, of course, true. But so does your oppositin to it. Joe's blanket assertion that race had nothing to do with the castigation of those who have remained in NO is at least as based in ideology and assumption as any view to the contrary - and it also "reduce contemporary society to a far less complex entity than it actually is."

Equally your assertion that cockneys mention of the 'racist media' is a blanket condemnation of ALL [US] media as racist is an assumption. It could do, or it could be a reference to that part of the US media which (as I've no doubt you would agree) is explicitly racist.

What, I think, it comes down to, is that in rejecting the all too frequent proposition that the central factor in an[y] issue is race, you rule out the fact that race plays any role at all, almost to the pont of seeming to deny that racism still exists in this country (nevermind the US).




Talk about splitting hairs. How about you and cockney posting up some evidence that racism has been a factor in the coverage of the US media? I'm not saying that it hasn't been, in many cases, but I notice that cockney has backtracked from his initial beligerance to there now being a racist AND ANTI- WORKING CLASS bias in the coverage.

I don't recall me nor anybody else ever 'denying that race plays any role at all' in any issue, let alone 'denying that racism still exists in this country'. Where, for example? Or have you come to this conclusion simply from my comments about the contemporary media not being racist right across the board? There is a big difference between acknowledging that racism is still a big problem that needs to be fought, and the far-left's semi-hysterical need to play the race card without a moments thought in every issue where non-white people are a feature.
 
sihhi said:
Some media were some weren't. Some merely reported that survivors from the Superdome and elsewhere in NO said in front of cameras that people were murdered and raped.

As I've said elsewhere, a woman was interviewed in the Superdrome on C4 and when asked about rapes she was adament that was a lie.
 
cockneyrebel said:
But this is the point. It's a knee jerk response from you. Rather than ask what I mean, you just go into one. As it happens I think you make some valid points.

Of course I don't think the US media is one homogenous lump. But I do think that a lot of the media coverage has been driven by a combination of a racist and anti-working class agenda. I also think that if it has been mainly white people who were suffering the Bush regime would have responded in a different way.

But rather pick up JR on the bollox comment that there was "no racial connotation whatsoever", you pick me up for (in your eyes) exagerating the racism in the media's response.

One Briton today who claims he rescued 60 people the majority black became so dissillusioned by constant accusations of racism, he gave up.
 
belboid said:
having had a few pints to think on it....

avoiding the argument was the wrong phrase to use. tho i think it happens sometimes, it isn't the general rule, and who can blame anyone for not beng arsed to go over the same ground time after time.

However, I do think that it is used as a kind of cover for you doing exactly the same thing as you criticise the 'old left' for. That the ideology of trotskists or leninists o whoever contains a number of assuptions is, of course, true. But so does your oppositin to it. Joe's blanket assertion that race had nothing to do with the castigation of those who have remained in NO is at least as based in ideology and assumption as any view to the contrary - and it also "reduce contemporary society to a far less complex entity than it actually is."

Equally your assertion that cockneys mention of the 'racist media' is a blanket condemnation of ALL [US] media as racist is an assumption. It could do, or it could be a reference to that part of the US media which (as I've no doubt you would agree) is explicitly racist.

What, I think, it comes down to, is that in rejecting the all too frequent proposition that the central factor in an[y] issue is race, you rule out the fact that race plays any role at all, almost to the pont of seeming to deny that racism still exists in this country (nevermind the US).


Your credibility in terms of accuracy is particularly low, so if you wish to continue the argument, the onus is surely on you to produce the actual quote you claim I made. A paraphrase (as with the infamous case of Walter Chamberlain) simply will not do. Incidentally you have still to apologise for that one I understand.
 
That was RICO, not belboid. As you attribute comments to the wrong poster, maybe your credibility could be questioned.

LLETSA as said above your knee jerk response means you don't have a debate. You just assume what I mean and see me then mentioning an anti-working class bias in the media as "back tracking". At the same time don't pick up JR on the bollox comment that there was "no racial connotation whatsoever".

I've already said one aspect where I thought the media was racist. I frequently saw black people described as looters, and white people doing the same thing, as people searching for food.
 
Joe Reilly said:
One Briton today who claims he rescued 60 people the majority black became so dissillusioned by constant accusations of racism, he gave up.
So do you think that this makes it more or less likely that there is a lot of racism in america? If you think it's a 'PC' attitude, you are wildly wrong.

Your point about the US media not being racist is wrong too. Race relations in the US are very very hostile indeed and are nothing like the UK. In particular there is a visceral and irrational terror of the ghetto blacks running througout almost all mainstream US society, which is naturally reflected by its institutions (the media being one in particular). It's not exactly simple racism (since the terror is shared by wealthy blacks for example and wealthy blacks are lauded by the media as a way of showing their lack of racism) but to all intents and purposes it might as well be, given the socio-political make up of the urban poor in the US.

The feeling is reciprocated. I used to live with a black woman on the edge of a black US ghetto. She'd get abuse all the time for hanging out with honkies.
 
Joe Reilly said:
One Briton today who claims he rescued 60 people the majority black became so dissillusioned by constant accusations of racism, he gave up.

Accusations by who? The rescued, or other people?
 
cockneyrebel said:
That was RICO, not belboid. As you attribute comments to the wrong poster, maybe your credibility could be questioned.

Did you challenge your mate on his source? Did you fuck?

At the same time don't pick up JR on the bollox comment that there was "no racial connotation whatsoever".

That comment was in relation to the media's attitude to Hillsboroughonly.

Muppet.
 
gurrier said:
So do you think that this makes it more or less likely that there is a lot of racism in america? If you think it's a 'PC' attitude, you are wildly wrong.

Your point about the US media not being racist is wrong too.

Check your facts a tad more carefully before developing your thesis.


Race relations in the US are very very hostile indeed and are nothing like the UK. In particular there is a visceral and irrational terror of the ghetto blacks running througout almost all mainstream US society, which is naturally reflected by its institutions (the media being one in particular). It's not exactly simple racism (since the terror is shared by wealthy blacks for example and wealthy blacks are lauded by the media as a way of showing their lack of racism) but to all intents and purposes it might as well be, given the socio-political make up of the urban poor in the US.

The feeling is reciprocated. I used to live with a black woman on the edge of a black US ghetto. She'd get abuse all the time for hanging out with honkies.

Do people still use 'honkie'? Sounds like a Shaft movie.
 
cockneyrebel said:
LLETSA as said above your knee jerk response means you don't have a debate. You just assume what I mean and see me then mentioning an anti-working class bias in the media as "back tracking.



Tch. More clumsy language from the bard of the revolution. 'You don't have a debate'? No I don't-not with myself at any rate.

This is what you said:

cockneyrebel said:
Agree with belboid. And it's my impression that there is a lot of anger among the black population in America who think that both the response from the Bush government and the media's coverage has been racist, but they're probably all mugs and just trotting out far left mantra.

For instance I agree with the sentiments of hip-hop artist Kanye West when talking about the media:



Even on the UK media I've noticed how black people have been portrayed as looters, while white people have just been trying to survive.

For someone to say there has been "no racial connotation whatsoever" is a joke.



If I assume that what you prioritise there is race over class, I don't think any but the ideologically controlled could blame me. But there you go.
 
Joe Reilly said:
Do people still use 'honkie'? Sounds like a Shaft movie.
Yes. Or at least they did in 1992 (when the events I recount occured).

Joe Reilly said:
my comments about the contemporary media not being racist right across the board?
That is what I was responding to. As I say the issues of class and race are intermingled but racism is always used to create fear of the working class as a whole. There are a fair number of white people in the "terrifying" ghettoes of the urban US, but it's always a black face that's used to personify that 'terror' in the media. The mainstream media in the US is racist (or more accurately uses racism) right across the board.
 
LLETSA said:
Talk about splitting hairs. How about you and cockney posting up some evidence that racism has been a factor in the coverage of the US media? I'm not saying that it hasn't been, in many cases, but I notice that cockney has backtracked from his initial beligerance to there now being a racist AND ANTI- WORKING CLASS bias in the coverage.

I don't recall me nor anybody else ever 'denying that race plays any role at all' in any issue, let alone 'denying that racism still exists in this country'. Where, for example? Or have you come to this conclusion simply from my comments about the contemporary media not being racist right across the board? There is a big difference between acknowledging that racism is still a big problem that needs to be fought, and the far-left's semi-hysterical need to play the race card without a moments thought in every issue where non-white people are a feature.
splitting hairs? you're not making sense.

As to denying the role of race, that was what Joe Reilly's comment, the one he now says was only about Hillsborough (tho that would actually make a mockery of his initial point) did do - the comment which kickstarted this whole bit of discussion

Joe Reilly said:
I don't think reaching for ready made stereotypes like 'racist media' does any favours. In tone and delivery this is remarkably like the stories carried immeditaly after Hillsborough, drunken rampage, pissing on the dead, groping dead or unconscious women. 'Bestial' yes, but no racial connotation whatsoever.

& as to the impression I get about your 'over-rejection' of the role of race in any particular issue, its probably because I only evr notice you mentioning race to when denying that it is an issue. Simple as that.
 
belboid said:
& as to the impression I get about your 'over-rejection' of the role of race in any particular issue, its probably because I only evr notice you mentioning race to when denying that it is an issue. Simple as that.



I take it you thought all this through over a few pints again?

I think you'll find that I have not denied that race is an issue in this thread. Can you point to where I've done this in other threads?

In future, maybe I should join in with those who want to place race at the forefront of every issue, whether it belongs there or not. Don't know if I'll care for the company too much, however, consisting as it does not only of sections of the left, but Islamist fanatics, black separatists and the BNP.
 
gurrier said:
The mainstream media in the US is racist (or more accurately uses racism) right across the board.

From my distant perspective, that's a better way of describing it. As I see it depends on the media:
Conservative newspapers and radio attack the poor- white, Puerto Rican, black, white whatever- when it tries to organise in unions or demand changes in Medicare or Welfare-- for "playing the complaining card", occasionally "playing the sympathy card", and only on the most extreme of occasions "playing on class hatred". Class is only very rarely mentioned in US mainstream media.

Liberal media gives voice to liberals (!) and NAACP Southern Baptist "carrying on the flame of MLK" black leaders (Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton) are also unwilling to talk about class because it ultimately runs against their agenda which seeks to wed a higher proportion of blacks into the liberal capitalist system (a process they have done well out of with lots of black middle-classes supporting their foundations and charities)- and so they are the ones interviewed and given airtime because it suits capital to have an oppositional voice based on "general racism" not class.

Because there is such a large proportion of blacks in poverty
the conclusion from such reporting and opinionating is either:

Poor people are basically lazy and worthless- and the only logical conclusion from this is that black people are more lazy and worthless since a larger proportion of them are poor and criminal etc

OR

General racism committed by whites against blacks is the problem- suggesting a vast white conspiracy between rich and poor alike to keep black people down (rather than the workings of unreformed capital(most poor stay poor))- utterly absurd and deeply offensive- [One could say effectively racist against the majority of white people who are not racist as the conservative position argues].

********
The only people the majority of poor blacks and poor whites talking about class are "communists/progressives", Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders- who are in the main middle-class.
The proportion of middle-class people being what it is means most of these voices are white middle class ones.
Not surprisingly it doesn't really wash with either- because these types tend to talk the talk and not walk the walk.

Even worse "communists/progressives" also talk a lot in essentially liberal Jesse Jackson terms about a "racist to the core society" when race is not the central dynamic- as a result many poor whites are very sceptical of this talk- since poor whites are the majority.

Physical segregation of society is also problem I'd agree there:
An eighth of Southern black students attend a school that is 99 percent black. About a third attend schools that are at least 90 percent black.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31604-2004May16.html
 
That comment was in relation to the media's attitude to Hillsborough only.

Well as you are the only one who has mentioned Hillsborough, and no-one has ever said there was a racial connection to Hillsborough, this seems a bit of an odd point to make and a pointless comparison. Also a totally over the top comment in a situation where racism is obviously a massive factor (as gurrier has outlined).

And as it’s you who throws insults at people because you’ve mixed up posters, I think you need to check out who is the muppet.

If I assume that what you prioritise there is race over class, I don't think any but the ideologically controlled could blame me. But there you go.

If you’d asked, instead of having a knee jerk reaction, I would have explained.

In terms of clumsy language, you haven’t been setting a very good example recently, so general standards might be slipping as a consequence.

I think you'll find that I have not denied that race is an issue in this thread. Can you point to where I've done this in other threads?

He wasn’t talking to you.
 
LLETSA said:
I take it you thought all this through over a few pints again?

I think you'll find that I have not denied that race is an issue in this thread. Can you point to where I've done this in other threads?

In future, maybe I should join in with those who want to place race at the forefront of every issue, whether it belongs there or not. Don't know if I'll care for the company too much, however, consisting as it does not only of sections of the left, but Islamist fanatics, black separatists and the BNP.
well done, your last paragraph perfectly marks out why you are a hypocritical waste of space.

Off you go, carry on pretending you are at the forefront of a bold new political experiment, and not just a rehash of more failed idea's from the last century.
 
sihhi said:
Class is only very rarely mentioned in US mainstream media.

]

Check the reaction when class is introduced on this thread. Lefties following the same agenda as the US media. On another thread their policy on immigration is shown to identical to that of the neo-liberals. Then we have multiculturalism. Something of a pattern don't you think?
 
belboid said:
well done, your last paragraph perfectly marks out why you are a hypocritical waste of space.

Off you go, carry on pretending you are at the forefront of a bold new political experiment, and not just a rehash of more failed idea's from the last century.

Whereas as far as I can tell, like a lot of others, you tend to identify with the
failed ideas of the previous century.
 
Check the reaction when class is introduced on this thread.

What reaction would that be then? That everyone agrees that class is the thing that defines society, but that racism is also a massive factor. As opposed to yourself who seems to want to go out of their way to say that race isn't a factor.

On another thread their policy on immigration is shown to identical to that of the neo-liberals.

Only if you think that tbaldwin repeating the same point over and over again means the above is true.

Then we have multiculturalism.

Who on this thread agrees with the liberal ideology of multiculturalism then?
 
Back
Top Bottom