Monday, January 14, 2008

Remembering the Central Park Jogger

By Nicholas Stix
Published in Toogood Reports, July 12, 2000.
Published in FrontPageMagazine.com, Thursday, July 13, 2000.

"I love black women," said a white comedienne recently in the Manhattan comedy club, Catch a Rising Star. "You're all so confident. You know what you think and what you want ... and Lordy, Lordy, do you hate me!"

The comic told of how she had once had a black boyfriend. Black women who saw the two together on the subway would shoot looks of unadulterated hatred the woman's way.

The comic spoke a truth that is typically censored by New York's mainstream media. Journalists perpetuate the myth that white and black women are natural allies. But as any New Yorker knows, the majority of American black women hate white women. And so, it would seem, do many black men.

When the news broke of the June 11 "wilding" attacks in Central Park following this year's Puerto Rican Day parade, everyone who was old enough immediately thought of another "wilding" attack in 1989, which had had left a 28-year-old Wall Street executive, known ever since as "the Central Park Jogger," near death.

The two attacks were intimately connected.

On April 19, 1989, a group of up to 50 black and Hispanic Harlem teenagers had planned to go "wilding" in Central Park. Detectives had never heard the term before, which meant going out in wolfpacks and assaulting, and generally terrorizing whites. In the park, the gang split into three separate groups, each of which would lay in wait for, and ambush, white joggers and bicyclists.

One group of eight to twelve 14 and 15-year-old boys chased down the Jogger, who fought furiously. The boys dragged her 200 yards to a secluded place, where they fractured her skull with a plastic-wrapped, four-foot lead pipe, and some large rocks. The boys ripped the Jogger's clothes off of her, tying her hands behind her back with her sweatshirt, gagging her, and taking turns beating, stomping, and raping the unconscious woman, as 75 per cent of her blood oozed into the Central Park grass. They left her, with bruises, welts, and wounds literally from head to toe, for dead.

A Nexis search revealed that only one lengthy article following this year's June 11 attack was devoted to recalling the events of that long-ago April night. That article, by Heidi Evans in the June 18 Daily News, was as notable for its omissions, and for one glaring falsehood, as for what it actually recounted.

Evans' article was largely a positive one, focusing on the Jogger's miraculous recovery, her participation in the New York Marathon, her 1997 wedding, and on the charitable foundation she has set up and runs.

It contained one glaring falsehood: "The woman's real name has never been disclosed..." In fact, the Jogger's name was "disclosed" ... and disclosed ... and disclosed.

During her attackers' trial, the Jogger's real name was shouted on busy Manhattan streets, and on live, network TV. Virtually every one of New York City's 1.8 million black residents knew the Jogger's name. Almost none of New York's over four million non-Hispanic white residents knew it.

New York's black newspapers had published the Jogger's name every week, in every single article they ran about the case. White New Yorkers didn't know her name, because mainstream, white-owned newspapers and TV stations refused to divulge it.

The white victim was the object of a relentless, black campaign of lynch mob-style hatred. No matter that her remorseless attackers had all confessed to police, in their parents' presence.

The rapists were perversely turned into victims, and even folk heroes, by American blacks from all walks of life. This was not because blacks believed the boys had been "framed," but because - as would later be the case regarding O.J. Simpson - they were convinced that the boys had committed the heinous acts with which they were charged.

Meanwhile, media and police denied that the attacks had been racially motivated. The mainstream media's non-reporting of blacks' embrace of the rapists and hatred towards the Jogger was duplicated by the academic "race experts" who wrote on the case, most notably Queens College Distinguished Professor of Political Science Andrew Hacker.

The corruption in the treatment and coverage of the Jogger case represented a turning point. People in positions of responsibility and power had been derelict in their duties. We have been paying the price ever since.

Central Park II cannot be properly understood without coming to grips with the story of Central Park I.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

You left out the detail that one or more of the rapists was/were muslim. They were released from jail early, probably as a result of political correctness. It's hard to find out what happened, because the msm has always covered up so much. I was living in NYC at the time, and I always assumed the rapists were Puerto Rican, due to the complete silence of the MSM about the attackers' ethnicity. Only years later, when they were released early, did I read that some were muslim, and one of the guys said something like, all a muslim has is his word. The reasons for the early release seemed like complete b.s. I think someone from VDare needs to write about this case in more depth. It's so typical of how anti-white violence is covered in the MSM, and how this attitude extends to the police and prosecutors.

Anonymous said...

"Almost none of New York's over four million non-Hispanic white residents knew it."

We wonder at your use of "non-Hispanic white residents." If you sincerely advocated use of the technical US census vocabulary, you would also use "non-Hispanic black residents" and "non-Hispanic Asian residents." Unfortunately, and tellingly, you use the negative definition only for European Americans where it denigrates, smothers diversity, and signals a lack of real peoplehood.

In case that isn't clear, consider how you would like to see the Semites from southwest Asia called "non-Arabic Semites" or "non-Jewish Semites." Those terms are every bit as accurate as the one you have chosen to use, and equally revealing of how you view European Americans.

Anonymous said...

latte island wrote:
"You left out the detail that one or more of the rapists was/were muslim."

Actually one was Muslim at the time of the rape. Yusuf Salam was his name I believe. Not sure how that is relevant though.

"I was living in NYC at the time, and I always assumed the rapists were Puerto Rican, due to the complete silence of the MSM about the attackers' ethnicity."

I was born and raised in New York and living in the city at that time, and I knew that most of them were black. Indeed if one paid attention to most of the media coverage it would be difficult not to know that most of the alleged rapists were black. What wasn't clear was the fact that many of the youths involved were Puerto Rican.


“They were released from jail early, probably as a result of political correctness. It's hard to find out what happened, because the msm has always covered up so much.”

Many were released in the late 90s I believe; ten years after their conviction. I’m not familiar with the law, but I assume the lack of witness testimony (the victim wasn’t able to identify her attackers and was, at the time of the trial, still recovering from her severe injuries) may have had something to do with the comparatively light sentences for many of them.

But if the MSM covers up so much as you allege, what do you base your assertion that they were released for politically correct reasons?

Anonymous said...

Hmm I wonder what would have happened if it was a gang of white boys raping and beating a black woman almost to death? But then we all know that white people can't be victims of hate crimes, right?

Anonymous said...

I belive the kids were found out to be inocent and the only reason they were convincted is because African Americans are always sterotyped as animal like. And if you kept up with what happend you would know that because of the way the media sensationalized the events, this lead to attacks by whites against African Americans, which lead to some being killed. And also remeber that there is hatred between African Americans and whites since there is the whole slavery deal and the fact that to this day Africans have been keept down by every aspect of US society.

Nicholas said...

Anonymous said...

"I belive the kids were found out to be inocent"

There's your first lie.

"and the only reason they were convincted is because African Americans are always sterotyped as animal like."

There's your second.

"And if you kept up with what happend you would know that because of the way the media sensationalized the events, this lead to attacks by whites against African Americans, which lead to some being killed."

Lie #3.

"And also remeber that there is hatred between African Americans and whites since there is the whole slavery deal"

Lie #4.

"and the fact that to this day Africans have been keept down by every aspect of US society."

Lie #5.

Congratulations! You have proven yourself as racist, stupid, and dishonest as an alleged human being can be. Thus, I hereby welcome you into the So Dishonest That You Can't be Trusted to Give the Correct Time of Day Club!

Nicholas Stix