Yes, WASHINGTON POST, White Men Do Have "Much To Discuss About Mass Shootings"—Starting With Your Selective Reporting
Print Friendly and PDF

When the Washington Post put up an op-ed titled "White men have much to discuss about mass shootings." [by Charlotte Childress and Harriet Childress, March 29]. Steve Sailer linked to it without comment, figuring our readers could figure out what was wrong with it for themselves. But in case there's anyone anywhere who can't, here are my helpful hints.

The article said:

Nearly all of the mass shootings in this country in recent years — not just Newtown, Aurora, Fort Hood, Tucson and Columbine — have been committed by white men and boys. Yet when the National Rifle Association (NRA), led by white men, held a news conference after the Newtown massacre to advise Americans on how to reduce gun violence, its leaders’ opinions were widely discussed.

Unlike other groups, white men are not used to being singled out. So we expect that many of them will protest it is unfair if we talk about them. But our nation must correctly define their contribution to our problem of gun violence if it is to be solved....

“Unlike other groups, white men are not used to being singled out”? Not in my world!

Kathy Shaidle’s comment looked like this:

Alternative WaPo: ‘Black Men With Guns: Our nation must confront why we didn’t pick our own damn cotton’

Fixed it for ya!

Note: The original article has 5000+ comments.

Ann Althouse commented in response that

I would have thought white men were the one group that American elite media does feel free to single out... as evidenced by this article. And I didn't know we were calling the Fort Hood killer a "white man." But I'm sure you can find some other problems with this piece.

The main problem with the piece is that it’s completely insane—white people, in spite of being the majority, commit very few murders compared to non-whites.

And blacks and immigrants commit mass shootings, too, they just don’t get promoted in the Main Stream Media, any more than black serial killers do. I have a  long list of immigrant mass murders, few of them even white immigrants.

I could make you a long list of Asian shooters: the Virginia Tech shooter, the Binghamton shooter,  the Oikos University shooter, and a good many school shootings. (Asians are very good students—but they’re also  very good school shooters.)

Think about it—if one cause of mass shooting is “being a disgruntled employee”, then only on Law And Order are all the killers going to be white. Here are the pictures I put up for a Fulford File on the subject, when Jezebel posted a similar article saying Have You Noticed That White Dudes Keep Mass Murdering People?

Have I noticed that white dudes keep mass murdering people? No, I've noticed that when there is a rare crime committed by a "White Dude" it's massively promoted in the MSM. Crimes of the same kind, committed by blacks or Asian and Hispanic immigrants, do not receive this promotion.

Here are some photographs you may not have seen in the Washington Post. (Victim numbers include wounded.)

 Maurice Clemons +5  victims  Charles Lee Thornton  +8 victims
 Colin Ferguson +25  victims  Clifton McCree  +5 victims
  Hastings Arthur Wise +7  victims William D. Baker + 9 victims
 Omar Thornton + 11 victims  Nathan Dunlap +4 victims


So allow me to ask the Washington Post if "White men have much to discuss" about these shootings? And what would the Washington Post think, and say, if they they did?

Print Friendly and PDF