Tuesday, September 8, 2020

I'm Always Red, But Sometimes I'm Blue


Friends, my latest article addresses the hot topic in my hometown of Rochester, New York: whether BLM or the Rochester Police Department ought to rule the streets of the Flower City.  It will come as no surprise to those of you who follow this blog faithfully that I reject the race-baiting, the anti-police hysteria, and the undisguised Marxism proferred by BLM, and I support, unreservedly, the men and women of law enforcement.  The following article lays out exactly where I'm coming from:

Rochester Riots Prove Once Again that “Black Lives” Don't Matter to BLM

For almost a week, BLM and like-minded activists have been marching in the streets of Rochester, New York, protesting the death of Daniel Prude at the hands of police. BLM zealots even harassed diners and overturned tables at two restaurants located next to the apartment building in which I live, creating a social media firestorm. Events in Rochester have even attracted the notice of none other than President Donald Trump.

We Rochesterians are not used to playing a starring role in the national news cycle. Well, now we are, like it or not.

The curious thing? Daniel Prude died months ago, and under circumstances that hardly suggest that racial animus played any role in his demise. He was a mentally deranged man on drugs, whom the police had to restrain, as best they could. And restrain him they did, based on the policies and procedures of the RPD. Unfortunately, based on a variety of circumstances, some of them completely outside the control of the police officers who detained him, Prude later died. This makes the recent decision of the police chief and his entire command staff to retire baffling and unfortunate, since it will only reinforce the (false) perception that the RPD was culpable in Mr. Prude's death.

The facts be damned, however — the media and the anti-police outrage industry can turn almost any questionable incident caught on camera into an instant scandal. In fact, as we see in this case, a police “killing” need not even be fresh to excite “anti-racist” fervor. Nor must it be demonstrably racist, as events this summer have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The unfortunate truth is, however, that it is not just left-wing crazies who are being sucked into this maelstrom of anti-police rage and racial fear-mongering. It is also many well-meaning, compassionate Americans who are laboring under the misconception that there is a sudden epidemic in America of police slayings of innocent black men.

What is abundantly clear is that the loss of blacks lives, per se, is not what is driving public attitudes and media coverage. For one thing, there is zero evidence that the summer of 2020 has seen any more police-involved killings of black men than would be normal in a country of 330 million people — and nor, not that anyone is even bothering to ask the question, have police killings of white suspects (which are always more numerous) increased.

In fact, what we know for certain is that police departments, especially in big cities, have undertaken unprecedented efforts to improve training, reduce the potential for violent confrontations with suspects and with the public, and recruit new officers from historically disadvantaged communities. As a result, police forces, including the RPD, are more restrained in the use of force, and more representative of and respectful towards communities of color, than they have ever been.

What's more, BLM's, and the media's, raging obsession with police “slayings” of black men is an absurdity, if one's concern is, as the name of the movement implies, the preservation of black life. BLM shows no inclination to protest or draw attention to other scourges which routinely claim far more black lives. In terms of violence, domestic disputes and drug gangs are infinitely more likely to take black lives than the excessive use of force by the police. Statistically, this is beyond questioning.

Rochester, New York has a murder rate three times higher than the national average. In Rochester, just this year, dozens have been murdered, most in circumstances related to family violence or gang activity. Over the July 4th weekend, no less than 13 people were shot in Rochester — a city of just 200,000 people. But has BLM organized marches on the homes of notorious domestic abusers or on drug dens? No, certainly not. They would not waste their time with deaths, and with causes, so trivial — in their eyes.

We must also keep in mind that far more black lives are taken by natural causes, including heart disease, cancer, and the coronavirus, than by police violence. Most of these health threats impact communities of color and poor neighborhoods disproportionately. Do these dangers — statistically, far more menacing than the police — excite BLM's fury? Not in the least.

Moreover, the problems that people of color encounter are by no means restricted to dangers which end lives. Poverty, under-performing schools, shuttered factories and businesses, drug and alcohol abuse, and broken homes, to name just a few blights on many communities of color, are every bit as serious, in terms of their ability to erode quality of life.

These are all phenomena, I hasten to add, that are fostered, to one degree or another, by misguided public policies supported by the same kind of left-wing radicals and neo-Marxists who find a happy home in the BLM movement. They are also problems that find the most fertile ground of all in deep blue, Democratic-led urban centers like Rochester.

The only conclusion we are left with is that BLM, and those who march with it and lend it their support, no matter how well-meaning, are not motivated first and foremost by the preservation of life, black or otherwise. Instead, they are obsessed with the exploitation of death — in this case, the deaths of black men at the hands of the police.

Theirs, in other words, is a cause propelled not by caring, but by animus — animus towards law enforcement, certainly, and often animus towards white people, who are seen as being at the root of America's “original sin”: racism.

What is ultimately notable about Black Lives Matter, therefore, is how little black lives matter to those who wave its banners and shout its slogans.

We should call BLM what it is, based on the pattern of its beliefs and behaviors: it is a hate group determined to malign the police, white people, and America itself.

It cares not a whit whether, in a particular instance, the police, white people, or America have done anything wrong.

It is the cause of hate, in and of itself, that sustains the movement.

Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: He appears weekly on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480.


And here it is in slightly edited form at American Greatness: 


And, while you're at it, don't miss this article about Hollywood's (unsurprising) embrace of quotas.  "Race-blind" is now history.  Granted, most Hollywood productions were already trash, but now that skin color and wokeness are prized more highly than competence and artistry, how much worse will American cinema get??? 


  1. We must always remember that the film industry has always moved to The Left since it was founded, which was mostly by people from Eastern Europe who migrated to The United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and who were mostly Socialists, and later closet Communists.

    The entire industry was reinforced by this Leftist ideology when large numbers of Leftists were kicked out of Europe during the 1930s.

    Supposedly there was a "Golden Age" of the industry, which might have been during the 1950s and as late as the 1980s. The industry went from entertaining to presenting messages, preferably of the Leftist ideological variety. Now, even that has been abandoned to cater to the neurotic needs of various groups.

  2. Dr.Waddy from Jack: Your essay on BLM and its thuggish allies is brilliant and comprehensive! I cannot add anything to it.

  3. Dr.Waddy et Al from Jack : The American entertainment industry is of course overall proven beneath contempt. Luckily,adults can just snap it off. Parents must be far more attentive,courageous and selective. Being a parent ,I say that is their job. As for the industry itself, it is our national shame before the world and the entertainment gang's apparent delight in this redounds all the more to their limitless disgrace. They are the shills of the American Taliban far left and appear not to know that should that murderous faction achieve total sway (with their drug addled succor) it will take much pleasure in eradicating them forthwith .

  4. Ray, you're absolutely right that hardcore leftists burrowed themselves into the film (and television) industries long, long ago. There have been times, of course, when Hollywood was forced to adopt a veneer of patriotism. Heck, America being what it was, perhaps it wasn't always a veneer. Now, Hollywood is about as lost to us as higher education is. This makes our task, as right-thinking Americans, infinitely harder.

    Jack, thanks for the high praise! You're right, of course, that we can turn off Hollywood's droning propaganda, and's not so easy. Cutting ties with the popular culture as a whole is not a simple task. One would lose many opportunities for connection with one's fellow man in the attempt. Hollywood abuses its privilege of entertaining the masses partly because it knows it has us over a barrel. We all want to laugh, cry, and experience thrills and chills. Realistically, they KNOW most of us will always come back for more, even if what they produce is saturated with Marxist undertones. Really, the entertainment and broadcasting industries ought to be seen as something like a public trust. They should be accountable to the American people. They are, in fact, regulated, but thus far none of these regulations inhibit them from civilizational sabotage. It's a pity.

  5. Dr.Waddy from Jack: In an earlier time our culture regarded actors as lowlife's. Some non western cultures still do keep them at arm's length, while yet enjoying their product. There must be some common factor which accounts for their so often dysfunctional lives. But as a culture we just don't care;we are infested with moral relativists and unapologetic, aggressive hedonists band antihero worshipers.As General Powell said "we need to regain a (constructive) sense of shame "

  6. Dr.Wady from Jack: People who are able to discern marxist intent should boycott entertainment and information settings discredited thus. Eg. I boycott all of "PBS".

  7. You are 100% correct in thoughts about Mr. Prudes predicament that he found himself in. Being married to a former MP/Marine, they do indeed train to treat such folks who are hyped up on drugs to do what they did. NOW, I would argue perhaps its time to perhaps update the training. That is here or there. Unfort. your mayor is part of the problem, isn't she?

    Perhaps, time to sell and get out of there? Plenty of properties here or near campus, grin. But, wait, you don't want to live in cow country do you? (thinking of King Cuomo's thoughts on us out here in the Southern Tier)

  8. Jack, I couldn't agree more: actors ARE lowlifes (and let's be honest, this is country that KNOWS lowlifes -- we're overflowing with them). I also concur about the "constructive sense of shame". We seem to be completely lacking in the faculties of self-doubt and self-reproach these days. That's the purpose of media and social media "bubbles", I suppose: to insulate us from even the possibility of critical thought.

    So you boycott PBS? Well, so do I, in the sense that I find nothing there worth watching. However, I watch the major networks, I use Netflix, and I occasionally buy from Amazon. I'd rather not, believe me, but even I need the occasional bread and/or circus to keep me fed and amused.

    Linda, I basically agree -- it's high time to get out of Dodge. NYS is bad enough. The City of Rochester is a lost cause. It has its moments, and it has a storied history, but it's not where I want to be, long-term.

    As for Mr. Prude, I'm not sure what the police could have done differently... They could have NOT restrained him physically. In that case, he would have stood up and charged around like a raving lunatic -- because he WAS a raving lunatic. Eventually they would have had to taze him and get him back on the ground. And that video wouldn't have looked any woker, would it?