IT IS NOT BLACK HISTORY MONTH SO ALL YOU BLACK PEOPLE NEED TO BE QUIET

St. Louis Is Full of Racists Presents: Fake Guest-Blogging From Fake Tim O'Neil, Not-Really PD Writer!

Oh, hi. Didn't see you there. It's me, Tim O'Neil. I'm just working on a story for the PD. It's about a prominent black lawyer from the early twentieth century, Homer G. Phillips. His story is pretty interesting, really. He was an early civil rights leader, advocating for blacks even when segregation was mandated by law. He is perhaps best known for

Oh, good. The racists are here. Hi, cardinals_99. Weird how the logo in your avatar is from the wrong Cardinals. Or maybe you're from Arizona. They appear to have plenty of racists there. Anyway, yes, you're right, February is Black History Month, but I'm really quite sure that doesn't mean that February is the only month in which we can discuss history involving black people. The other eleven months aren't, like, reserved for discussing the history of white folks. I just happened to find this guy interesting and thought I'd share his story with the readers of the PD.

Anyway, Phillips is probably best known for the time he proved insurance fraud by bringing the actual coffin used in the fraud into the courtroom. Turned out it was filled with cement and . . . Oh. Oh dear, it's shamwow.

Well, it seems that you all are just directing your claptrap at one another, which okay. But I feel compelled to let you know, shamwow, that not every story about a black person that portrays him or her in a positive light is about white guilt. Having good people as members of your race is not a zero-sum game, after all. It's really pretty stupid to assert that a positive article about a historical black person of note is about white guilt. It's like you racist weirdos just look for excuses to make racist com-

Sigh. -ments. drumming umpire! So glad to see you again! Your ruminations on "negro culture" are insightful and valuable. It's really neat how you can say, with a straight, racist face, "I'm not a racist!" since you praise the "good work" of MLK and Homer Phillips. Why, back in the olden days, blacks were better. Not like they are today, with their devolved culture and all. Thanks for your contribution, DU.

Now, back to Homer Phillips: sadly, he was murdered on Delmar Boulevard in 1931. His killers were unsurprisingly acquitted, which exemplifies the "justice" that existed in our country back then.

jaminator, you're not funny. I really don't understand the tone of your comment, but I do think it's sort of interesting how you're kind of arguing with drumming umpire, above, who was waxing nostalgic about the way black folks used to be, before they had equal rights to whites. Ah, those were the days. Not in your mind, of course. Blacks were even getting shot on Delmar back then! HA HA HA! Never mind that Homer Phillips was probably killed by a couple white guys. BLACK PEOPLE SHOOT EACH OTHER LULZ.

God, you racists make writing an article really hard when I'm forced to reply to you in the middle of it. Can't you just pipe down for a min-

"Big White Daddy"? Seriously?

I give up.

If They'd Just Stop Committing All Those Crimes, They'd Stop Getting Pulled Over When They're Innocent

In 2009, blacks were 62% more likely than whites to be pulled over in Missouri. Countenance Blog, predictably, doesn't think this is a problem. Noticing that this has occurred, in fact, is just "peddling the no-snitching culture." He actually argues that to vote for a Democrat is to do that, but his argument is mostly unintelligible to me (the person writing Countenance Blog refers to him/herself as "Blogmeister," which leads me to believe he's a he, but I could be wrong). It seems to go that many Democratic policies, like ending racial profiling, "[support] black crime." How, he doesn't say, which, I suppose, is why the argument is unintelligible. I think the next tortured leap goes something like "supporting black crime is what no-snitching does, so Democrats, who support black crime, are basically not snitchin'." Or something. Behind the whole post seems to be the idea, popular among white people, who don't have to deal with the negative effects of racial profiling, that if those damn minorities would just stop committing crimes, they wouldn't get pulled over when they're innocent.

Predictably, this view is espoused ineloquently in the comments on the stltoday.com article.

jeepmom is back, and she's characteristically ugly:

Her reasoning proves way, way too much. If, as she claims, a person having a particular characteristic makes him or her more likely to have committed a crime, then it would be okay to seize on that characteristic and ONLY harass people who have it. After all, it's just good police work to hassle the people who are more likely to have committed a crime. Why have the cops been wasting their time pulling over any white folks at all? Doing so will only MAYBE net you a bad guy. But running a black guy through the system is much more likely to come up with something good. It's like making sure all the brown-skinned people in Arizona have their papers in order. It's not like the red-head with the sunburn just hopped the border fence, after all. jeepmom's twisted logic, carried to its endpoint, would have one race (or people having some other characteristic deemed to have a correlation with crime) harassed by the cops to the exclusion of all others.

And the crazy thing is that I'm not sure that jeepmom would object to living in that world, provided that white skin was not the characteristic in question.

molly3, who is a horrible person, probably wouldn't object to a policy like that either:

Ick.

If you want more examples of racists cheering on racial profiling, read the rest of the thread. Then, if you're really brave, you can move on to the "discussion" that resulted from this article about young car thieves.

I had plans to write a long post about why racial profiling is wrong, but suddenly I've realized that a) you've most likely read that post before somewhere else and b) I sound ridiculous above, making arguments that refute jeepmom's "logic." So I'll just say that racial profiling is wrong for many reasons, but, since St. Louis is full of racists, it's going to continue to happen here, with the support of a large portion of the community. And that sucks.