How we knew it was a black riot

Howard Sutherland writes (August 8):

In the Telegraph, Katharine Birbalsingh commits truth about the riots in Tottenham, Brixton and elsewhere. The title of the column is: “These riots were about race. Why ignore the fact?” Of course, Birbalsingh has sufficient pigmentational protection to be somewhat frank about what is really going on.

Also note jwhite3’s comment—the most recommended in the thread by far—which has not been removed, as one might have expected. If jwhite3 is British, then there are Brits who get it.

LA replies:

She noticed the very same thing I did—that there was only one photo of Mark Duggan, in the Daily Mail, and that in the absence of that photo, one could not have been positive that this was a black riot.

- end of initial entry -

James P. writes:

Oh, but see Mary Riddell in the Telegraph—in her view, these are NOT race riots. This is the “underclass” lashing out because the greedy rich stole the nation’s wealth! She says we need more, not less “social democracy”:

The failure of the markets goes hand in hand with human blight. Meanwhile, the view is gaining ground that social democracy, with its safety nets, its costly education and health care for all, is unsustainable in the bleak times ahead. The reality is that it is the only solution. After the Great Crash, Britain recalibrated, for a time. Income differentials fell, the welfare state was born and skills and growth increased. That exact model is not replicable, but nor, as Adam Smith recognised, can a well-ordered society ever develop when a sizeable number of its members are miserable and, as a consequence, dangerous. This is not a gospel of determinism, for poverty does not ordain lawlessness. Nor, however, is it sufficient to heap contempt on the rioters as if they are a pariah caste.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 09, 2011 12:41 PM | Send