Gregory Kane’s Modest Proposal on Flash Mobs
We’re all wondering how to react to the scariest iterations of "flash mobs." On Sunday, a flash mob—an organized group that emerges and then disappears quickly, usually with the help of social media—reportedly descended on a 7-Eleven in Germantown, Md., where members allegedly stole snacks. It's a criminal activity we all want to see the end of.
One way to stop the phenomenon, at least when the flash mobs involve black youths attacking whites, is simple: Shoot at them. Or at least, that's the solution conservative black Examiner columnist Gregory Kane came up with yesterday.
Kane called out the "villainous mob of black youths" who allegedly attacked whites at a Wisconsin State Fair on Aug. 4 for being racists, as well as concocting a theory about how the mob assumed that because black athletes "dominate" the NBA and NFL, white people are "soft targets."
Getting even wackier, Kane pulls the Rev. Jesse Jackson into it, claiming Jackson's okay with the mobs because, in the past, Jackson has offered a power analysis that says racism acts institutionally, and so can only be inflicted by whites, because they're in control.
"With such a failure of leadership, is it any wonder you have crowds of young blacks attacking whites in Chicago, Wisconsin and Baltimore?" Kane wrote. "Jackson, with his words, condoned the racist practice of black mobs attacking whites."
Kane, who waves the Second Amendment whenever possible, is ready for marauding black youngsters to encounter white people capable of hurting them back:
... I guarantee you that these mobs will run into a Jack Dempsey or Rocky Marciano type one day. I hope they run into several at one time. Here's what else I hope: that the black flash mobs will run into a white or group of whites who take seriously the Second Amendment and their right to carry.
I don't often take Kane too seriously; he's a paid polemicist who pushes the same kind of sensationalistic rhetoric Ann Coulter does, except under the protection of a black identity. Black thinkers like him mine the id of white right-wingers to emerge with a scandalous argument they defend by claiming to push against racial group-think.
That's fine—I'm all for widening the public conversation, even when it makes a nerdy black leftist like myself uncomfortable. But hoping an already violent situation will escalate to gunfire, and likely, mass casualties, crosses a line.
The doomsday clamor about flash mobs a Google search currently turns up isn't unlike the clamor about "wilding" in 1989, when the city of New York was convinced that a group of 30-40 youths from Harlem had raped and beaten a morning jogger while participating in some chaos dubbed "wilding." The idea that violent teenagers were taking to sunny parks en masse likely helped usher in the controversial tenure and racially-tainted policing policies of Mayor Rudy Giuliani years later. That means flash mobs are dangerous in more ways than one.
People certainly have a right to self-defense, but hoping wrong-headed black youths encounter a hail of bullets instead of arrest is blood lust, maybe even hate, that could operate as the pretext for darker times.
Which brings up a point: If Kane is eager to expand the definition of “racist” so that it can be applied to black flash mobs, might it also apply to race-baiting black columnists?