Black football team disbanded after wilding attack on white referee during game

The story, from baynews9 in Florida, consists of both a text article, which is confusedly written for the most part but toward the end describes the event with reasonable clarity, and a TV news segment including video of the attack.

Here’s what happened. An entire black football team, led by its black coaches (and of course we only know the team is black from the video, not from anything said in the article or the TV segment), chases at high speed after a white referee. A player then leaps on the referee at uncredible speed and brings him down. Then the mob—excuse me, the team—proceeds to rain blows on the referee as he lies on the ground, until he manages to escape. Apparently the attack was set off by a call that the team didn’t like.

The team, the Sarasota Gators, has been suspended from the Mid-Florida Football and Cheerleading Conference and disbanded as a team, though it may apply to be readmitted in a future season. However, as the Conference president, James Hogan, said in his statement, “At that time an assessment will be made on the Gator Organization structure and whether a repeat of this incident is likely to re-occur.”

So now it’s not just feral black street gangs doing wildings of whites and other non-blacks; now it’s a black sports team, led by its adult coaches, that did a wilding during an organized football game. Incorporated into a civilized setting under the civilized rules of football, these blacks manifested as a tribe of savages.

But is “savages” the most accurate description of what we see on this video? I get no pleasure from saying what I’m about to say. I have always resisted describing certain black behaviors in animalistic terms. But when we see this mob (a.k.a. “the Sarasota Gators football team”) surging with incredible rapidity into a single mass and chasing wildly after their victim (a.k.a. “the referee”) and bringing him down and swarming all over him, they appear like wild chimpanzees in a group attack. Blacks are not animals. They are human beings. But how can the problem of such behavior among blacks, which is a growing threat to society, be solved or even dealt with, unless it is identified?

- end of initial entry -

John Dempsey writes:

I understand your reluctance to describe blacks in animalistic terms. You are always quite fair-minded about such things. But I don’t think you are wrong in doing so. Black behavior has become like that of aggressive animals. There is no humanity evident in this kind of behavior. Are we to continue pretending there is?

Shrewsbury writes:

Shrewsbury can no longer endure the feeling of utter futility which overcomes him when liberals call conservatives racist and conservatives respond indignantly to such a vile, outrageous slander, blah, blah, blah. What is more, he finds himself in full agreement with those university programs which portray all white people as racists.

Because of course all white people are racists. And do you know why all white people are racists? Because they have to be in order to stay alive. C’mon, let’s cut the crap: there is not a single white person in the country who would permit himself to be strolling alone through a black neighborhood at 11:00 p.m. And if you won’t do that, then you’re a racist.

So when black people accuse whites of being racists, they are really saying, “You are correctly perceiving us,” and when white people accuse other whites of being racist, they are saying, “You are correctly perceiving black people.” And, oddly enough, we do not find, say, leftist academics wandering around Bedford-Stuyvesant at night. No, they stay in their well-appointed condos writing articles blasting Republicans for racism. So their continual frenzy about racism begins to seem like classic projection; they cannot accept their own racism, but neither can they expunge it, since it is necessary to their survival, so they conduct witch hunts to discover it in others, such as the terrible Tea Partiers.

(Suggested Republican campaign slogan for 2012: “Yes, we’re racist. What choice do we have?”)

And whether 50 percent, or 30 percent, or only 10 percent of blacks represent mortal threats to whites is not especially relevant. Say there was a cage with snakes in it, and someone urged you to put your hand into it, saying, “Only 10 percent are cobras,” would you say, “Oh, okay, no problem, 90 percent of them won’t try to kill me, that’s great!” and put your hand in the cage? Nobody would do that. And no white person will walk through a black neighborhood at night.

All this can of course also be seen as a corollary of Auster’s First Law. Since liberalism requires that we cannot admit that both white people and black people have the same problem,—black people—all the fault must be placed upon the whites in the form of “racism.” And, given the meanings with which liberalism has infused the word, it is quite correct. All whites are racist—because all whites are threatened by blacks. But we can’t let ourselves know that, so let’s everybody call Rush Limbaugh a racist some more.

LA replies:

“there is not a single white person in the country who would permit himself to be strolling alone through a black neighborhood at 11:00 p.m. And if you won’t do that, then you’re a racist.”

I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say that not wanting to walk through a black neighborhood at night is proof of racism.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 02, 2011 09:32 AM | Send