Chris Marschner, a grandmaster of the Ethics Alarms Comment of the Day feature, issued another deserving one with his thoughts on the Milwaukee riots. It is a highlight of the threads generated by this topic, but there are many other highlights amid the 90+ comments, including an Alamo-like stand against overwhelming odds (and logic) by that prolific, embattled, and adamant EA progressive, deery. The whole discussion is well worth reading. Deery also authored the comment that inspired Chris’s response below.
Here is his Comment of the Day on the post, “Sarcasm-Tainted Observations On The Milwaukee Riots”:
For the life of me I cannot see how any rational human being can justify rioting and the looting businesses because they feel they are owed something for being “oppressed”. What the hell did the gas station or auto parts store do to them? Does that case of Cheezits being carried out of the store address all of your complaints, or is it just a partial down payment on a never ending invoice for the injustice you perceive? Sorry I have no sympathy for anyone who had myriad opportunities to become educated in a manner that would permit them to read, write, perform arithmetic calculations, and just plain think.
No amount of funding can overcome community apathy. Especially, when apathy is the root cause of the need for funding in the first place. The community needs to recognize that if it wants things to be different then it needs to come to grips with the idea that they must take on the lion’s share of the work to enjoy a better life; it cannot be bestowed upon them. It must pool its own resources first before it requests resources from others. It must demonstrate that it is committed to being responsible for the work of changing the situation. Any one who thinks jobs and opportunities will simply emerge with more government spending in areas that suggest crime is rampant needs his/her head examined. No amount of tax abatement will overcome the cost of rebuilding a business that has been burned to the ground. It should be noted that the police did not spray paint tags all over other people’s buildings. It’s not urban art, it’s vandalism. The police did not create the need for security grates over the glass windows of shops. The police did not throw litter all over the street and dump furniture and tires wherever they pleased. More importantly, within the BCPD, the officers charged with various felonies while on the force were predominantly non-white so it not always a racial issue.
I grew up in Baltimore City. I lived there from 1956-1989. I went to Balto. City public schools (BCPS). I went to Woodbourne Jr. High and graduated from Northern High in 1974. Both schools were integrated and each had its share of bad actors be they white or black. In those days black parents wanted to keep their kids away from the “element”. I don’t think that is the case today. Today we celebrate the gangsta persona.
I was neither a star pupil nor a bad student. What I did learn from my father was that college was not something I could ask for help with and no school counselor ever suggested that I consider college. I saw the battles my older brother went through to get him to fill out the financial information on the financial aid applications. My father hated to disclose his income. Perhaps it was because he felt inferior to what others made or maybe he just did not like the idea of getting government assistance. I don’t know. I just learned not to ask about college. To this day I don’t remember either parent talking to me about college except for when I was in 8th grade and I could not pass the foreign language class which was required for college prep.
I did not go to college immediately after high school. Ironically, both my parents were Baltimore City Public School teachers for much of their lives. My mother who taught English was known as that white honky bitch at Northern Parkway Junior High. That’s what the parents called her when she called them to discuss a student’s lack of progress. She got called that a lot. I saw the tears of frustration.
There were no good jobs for me in 1975. I started out with nothing but I worked unloading trailers for $25/day. My family moved away when my father took a job in Western MD in 1977. I had no mentor, no male role model as I entered the world of work but I knew right from wrong. There was no support group for me. Eventually, I saved enough to buy my first truck. I operated that business in the Canton section of city. I did the best I could growing the business but sold it in 1983 because I was not doing as well as I thought I should. I got out before the economy took a nose dive. Nonetheless, it was painfully apparent that despite my experience in the operating my own business I needed a degree if I was going to advance.
After graduating from a community college and then the University of Baltimore in 1987, with no debt and receiving no financial assistance except for an academic fellowship to UB, I went to work in West Baltimore to help the local business community grow and create quality shopping and employment opportunities. My job title was Merchant Organizer. A community organizer of sorts. The focus of my efforts was to get the private sector economic interests working toward a common goal. The problem that I found was that the community – both residents and commercial interests – were of the belief that the government should provide all the resources, that the community would decide how they would be distributed, and that no consequences would occur if the claimed outcome did not materialize.
No one felt that they needed to invest anything. I saw little fiefdoms emerge. Community engagement really meant fighting to be a power broker. I was actually disciplined by the “Community Board” because I suggested that they consider incorporating the hired technical experts opinions into the plans they were making. I decided that this was not going to be job with any future. That community group eventually became ACORN. I think that because ACORN had the same Carrollton Ave. address when it was making news over a decade later.
The fact is that not much has changed since I went to BCPS except that the idea that everybody else is to blame for whatever hardship they might endure is much more entrenched. If the African American community is frustrated by the treatment they feel they are getting from those who are employed to enforce the laws, perhaps it is because the police are frustrated by the communities that they serve. I am reminded of the “Don’t Snitch” programs which gained national exposure in Baltimore. When I had my delivery business, my trucks were robbed several times in broad daylight around the city yet no one saw any thing – imagine that.
We have spent trillions of dollars on anti-poverty programs. We have made available numerous academic support programs for what are termed special populations under Title IX funding. Special populations are students who identify as a special class with some special needs; typically they are single mothers, minorities, students where English is not their first language, etc. Yet, the problems and resentment are rising.
Poverty rates are still climbing. We have children in Head Start who are the grand kids of other Head Start kids from years ago. Per pupil spending in Baltimore City is second only to Worcester County and it should be noted that most of Worcester County’s funding is local compared to less than 25% of BCPS coming from local tax revenues. BCPS spends 15% more than its neighbor in Baltimore County and gets much less in terms of outcomes. You cannot argue that student performance is related to the wealth of the community when the wealthiest communities spend less per pupil. In BCPS the 2016 average spending per pupil is $16,713. Consider an average class of 25 students – that’s nearly $425,000 per class unit annually. Even if we assume that average teacher compensation is $100K /year where is the rest of the money going? For $325,000/ year I can buy a lot of ancillary materials to aid instruction, maintain safe learning conducive buildings, and fund new school construction. Who are the stewards of the funds of BCPS?
I don’t want to hear about poor public school funding from the district that is fourth in the nation in spending. The argument that inner city kids don’t have educated parents that can help them achieve is a cop out. Every kid I see has a smart phone provided for them under universal access fees or some other source. There are plenty of online resources and public libraries available at no cost. l would also predict that many of their grandparents went to school with me and got the same education I did. What their grandparents did for their children is debatable but that has no bearing on resource allocation decisions. The days of blacks getting an inferior education because of segregation are long past. Today, any inferior education of African Americans must be laid directly at the feet of the school systems, the communities in which they operate, students who do not value academic rigor and their parents who instill apathy into those kids. Money cannot fix ignorance or stupidity. Frederick Douglas educated himself in spite of real discrimination and dangerous racism.
I want to know what individuals in the communities are going to do to help themselves to escape the horrors of ghetto life. No one is condemned to such a life, it is by choice that one remains an uneducated peasant bound to serve their political kings and queens for mere subsistence. Perhaps it is time for a new paradigm with respect to government programs. We should redirect funding to communities that can document self help programs that reduce the number of people in poverty or show increases in median incomes. Reward schools systems which can demonstrate real increases in attendance rates, college admissions etc. Make college admissions tougher. Forget free college for everyone but provide scholarships for academically deserving students. Financial need is not a predictor of student success. If they prove themselves worthy in public schools help them progress but don’t financially reward those who squander the first opportunity at a free education. Even if funding is tied to something as simple as keeping the area in front of one’s home neat and orderly could create the basis for an economic renaissance in those areas.
Why not create a program in which CDBG funds are reduced with increases in shootings or other violent crimes? Make everyone accountable for getting the criminals off the street. When funding for that new community center for at risk kids is jeopardized by the level of shootings and drug sales in the area maybe the community might just get involved. School funding should gradually become tied to real student achievement. If student achievement gaps help administrators acquire more funding then it stands to reason that they don’t want the problem to go away. If funding is tied to success then the incentives are changed. Our current system is upside down. It’s like getting paid off to throw the game so someone else gets a big payday.
In short, stop reinforcing the behaviors and conditions that helps get them more funding and start rewarding those communities that actually are making progress on their own. The current methods are not working and may be making things worse. Furthermore, it would force race-baiters to adopt more positive leadership practices
Ethics Alarms 
Yesterday, the son of the late Marion Barry, icon and hero to a disturbing number of citizens of Washington, DC, died of a drug overdose. Of course he did. This was the son of the man who on the same day spoke to DC children about the evils of drugs, and smoked crack with an old girlfriend, caught on tape. “Bitch set me up!” he said, his most famous quote in 40 years as an elected official and a civil rights leader.
Yet he was the most influential political leader in DC since the Sixties..still is.The seeds of shameless corruption that he planted are flourishing.
The failure of the black community to produce honest, sincere, uncorrupt and capable leaders across the nation is part of this tragedy…a big part. Barry was a gifted leader, smart, charismatic, skilled in politics, and racist down to the bone. Still, if he had not been thief and a drug-user, I’d much prefer him as President to Barack Obama..he had the skills to be a great one.
(Deery, it seems like it makes more sense to continue our conversation here, seeing as how the other posting has quickly become dated…)
Interesting that you lecture me about using anecdotes, and then prove your point by using one of your own (re: Castille). Even more noteworthy is why you did not use an anecdote related to the original posting by Jack, of the shooting of Sylville Smith…y’know, the police shooting that led to the looting that you rationalized?
“Or is it because you speak Standard English, and dress in a white societally-approved way that you are the “Exceptional Negro””
You mean, because I speak like I am educated and proud of it? Or because I care about the way I present myself to others? Like or not, how you dress sends a bright-as-a-flashlight signal to the world about how you choose to present yourself. The way we dress often is a reflection of the styles of people we want to emulate. I choose not to emulate certain types of groups, in part, because I don’t want anyone thinking that I align myself with the behaviors of those groups…like, the KKK, metrosexuals, skinheads, goth people, and yes, gang members.
And why is it a “white societally-approved way”? I approve of that way of presenting oneself to the world. I won’t go as far as labeling that statement a subtle way of calling me an “Uncle Tom”, but to the naked ear, it comes pretty close. And to me, that label is equally as bad as the N-word (sorry Jack, but I flat out refuse to use that word…but, it doesn’t lessen my feeling that both are equally offensive when used towards me)
“But the data is far too voluminous to think that police abuse does not happen disproportionately (note, not exclusively and not invariably) to the black community.”
Damn right it does. Look: A) police abuse is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. B) Regardless of proportion, police can and does happen to people of all races. C) Including proportion, police abuse absolutely happens more frequently to people of color.
And….
D) People of color, in Baltimore as well as most inner cities, find themselves engaged with police more often that other races. Blacks commit crimes at a rate disproportional to their representation in the population. So, because blacks commit more crimes than they “should”, and find themselves engaged with police more than they “should”, they are also on the receiving end of police abuse, more than they “should”.
You don’t want me using anecdotal evidence, fine:
From the DOJ:
“Based on available data from 1980 to 2008—
Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and offenders…The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000)”
Incidentally, people of my race committed 52.5% of the murders during this time period, despite comprising roughly 13% of the population. And considering males commit almost 90% of violent crime, most murders are being committed by 6.5% of the population. And considering children and the elderly are committing a tiny fraction of these crimes (but make up 45% of the population), take them out and you’re down to under 4%.
~4% of the US population…committing roughly half of all murders over a 28 year period.
So why don’t these stats outrage you as much as they do me?
~4% of the US population…committing roughly half of all murders over a 28 year period.
Something I wanted to address quickly. Actually way less than 4% of the population. Probably closer to some infinitesimal percent. Most black men of the correct age are not murders.
Point taken.
We would have 12 million murders per year in the U.S. if four percent of the population was committing murder.
Yikes! I’m having my groceries delivered from now on!
Damn right it does. Look: A) police abuse is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. B) Regardless of proportion, police can and does happen to people of all races. C) Including proportion, police abuse absolutely happens more frequently to people of color.
Ok, so we have no disagreement then.
) People of color, in Baltimore as well as most inner cities, find themselves engaged with police more often that other races. Blacks commit crimes at a rate disproportional to their representation in the population. So, because blacks commit more crimes than they “should”, and find themselves engaged with police more than they “should”, they are also on the receiving end of police abuse, more than they “should”.
ah, so this is the nut of the disagreement. There is some red herring in there, but I will ignore it for the moment. People of color, in Baltimore as well as most inner cities, find themselves engaged with police more often that other races. This is a chicken/egg argument. It has been shown, like in the mass arrests of Baltimore, the traffic stops in Ferguson, the stop and frisks in NYC, the Rampart Scandal in LA, etc that black people were not “finding themselves engaged with police more often.” Instead they were specifically targeted by police as prey, whether to raise revenue or gin up arrest statistics. In Baltimore, as a specific example taken from the report, police arrested Blacks for minor crimes far more often than whites, but the charges were more likely to be dismissed. The same for actually finding contraband after a police search of a vehicle.
It is no accident that police abuse happens to those vulnerable groups like blacks, Hispanics, the poor, and the homeless, even keeping in mind greater contact with the police with those populations. As I’ve said in the previous thread, members of the police force are well aware of who they are allowed to bully and apply force to, and who they cannot. Being a member of one of those groups is no excuse for the police to abuse their authority towards an individual, which I think we can agree.
So why don’t these stats outrage you as much as they do me?
This is where the red herring part comes back up. Who is to say that crime doesn’t outrage me? But it is entirely possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. People can decry police abuse, and fight crime, and do both, all at the same time. I think some people have particular outrage for police abuse because the feeling is that these are public servants, who prey on the very same communities whose taxes go to support these depredations. Criminals commit crimes, that’s what they do. Public trust is not violated in quite the same manner as when the police commit crimes against community members, and then are never punished. People have every expectation that your standard criminal, if caught, will face the law. There is no such trust that the law will be followed through with police officers who commit abuses.
“Who is to say that crime doesn’t outrage me? But it is entirely possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.”
Ah, but the real question is, can you stand still and chew gum? In other words, can you point to a posting made by you on EA, where you are just chewing gum (decrying an insanely disproportional rate of violent crime by young black males…not just talking about generically “fighting crime”), without qualifying if by walking (decrying police abuse). I mean, you’ve proven that you’re perfectly happy doing vice versa.
“Criminals commit crimes, that’s what they do. Public trust is not violated in quite the same manner as when the police commit crimes against community members, and then are never punished.”
Never punished? NEVER punished? I will assume you are still referring to how “some people” feel about the police, not how you feel. In which case, “some people” have chosen to remain ignorant of the facts, or ignore them. Regardless, by actively choosing either path, they severely diminish the relevance of their opinion.
“People have every expectation that your standard criminal, if caught, will face the law.”
Again, these people are ignorant of facts:
From Heyjackass.com (yeah, stupid name, but they closely track all shootings in Chicago):
Thru July 31:
Of roughly 400 shootings Y-T-D
302 had No Suspect Charged
80 had Suspect Charged
8 were Self Defense
6 were Police Involved
4 were Murder/Suicides
Why “people” blindly place their trust in the satisfactory resolution of one type of circumstance and not in the other, when facts can help point them in the right direction is beyond me, but it doesn’t make their opinions worth rioting over.
Ah, but the real question is, can you stand still and chew gum? In other words, can you point to a posting made by you on EA, where you are just chewing gum (decrying an insanely disproportional rate of violent crime by young black males…not just talking about generically “fighting crime”), without qualifying if by walking (decrying police abuse). I mean, you’ve proven that you’re perfectly happy doing vice versa.
I just described in my previous post the chicken/egg problem. Though honestly I can’t recall offhand a standalone post on EA about black crime. It Is usually the “go-to” deflection response when talking about police abuse rather than a subject that people are natively interested in.
But I have talked previously about organizations like Stop the Violence, My Brother’s Keeper, and the like that work in inner cities to prevent crime. I think most people think that crime is bad. White crime or black crime is no difference. It’s all bad. But as I’ve noted before, I find it a red herring, bordering on cliché that when someone brings up police abuse, people pirouette to black crime, as if that makes police abuse ok or understandable. It’s a way of changing and ignoring the subject, and not having to grapple with the issue.
“I find it a red herring, bordering on cliché that when someone brings up police abuse, people pirouette to black crime, as if that makes police abuse ok or understandable. It’s a way of changing and ignoring the subject, and not having to grapple with the issue.”
And as strongly as I do not doubt you feel this way, I feel exactly the opposite, that any talk of black-on-black crime is squashed, and immediately changed to “but what about police on black crime?”. Any mention of black-on-black crime usually gets one branded a racist, and the topic is rarely dived into deeply, or at least not nearly as often as it deserves, especially if a solution is actually desired.
And as strongly as I do not doubt you feel this way, I feel exactly the opposite, that any talk of black-on-black crime is squashed, and immediately changed to “but what about police on black crime?”. Any mention of black-on-black crime usually gets one branded a racist, and the topic is rarely dived into deeply, or at least not nearly as often as it deserves, especially if a solution is actually desired.
I’ve said before that I don’t think there is any such thing as “black on black crime.” here is just crime. Black people commit crimes against other black people at about the same ratio as white people commit crimes against other white people, yet we have no concept of “white on white crime”, curiously enough. And the only way to reduce the black on black crime rate would be to…have black people commit more crimes against white people (and people of other races). Which I don’t think you are consciously advocating for, but in fact you are. If black people committed only ten crimes a year, but all of them were against black people, the black crime rate would still be 100%. You see how that works, correct?
Disproportionate crime rates is a separate issue from the black on black crime rate. Just to distinguish the two concepts before they become further conflated.
(Pasted in your fix, and trashed your two replies and mine about the garbling)
“Any mention of black-on-black crime usually gets one branded a racist,..”
Funny you should mention that.
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/14/1412131/-Don-t-you-ever-say-black-on-black-crime-again
I KNEW I had read that somewhere, but couldn’t remember where. Though, I think it’s become a pretty popular sentiment.
Did you notice the flaws in his logic?
I haven’t read that article, so thanks for the link But yes, at this point, I think people do see the fallacy of “black on black” crime. Read some articles by Coates over at The Atlantic as a prominent example.
I know you’ll hate this, but Coates is a race-baiting, biased, anti-white activist, and what he says is pure advocacy, not fact.
I’ve found Coates to be a very careful scholar, curious, and willing to admit to the limits of his knowledge. His series on housing segregation in the United States was particularly great, as well as his long-form article advocacy article on reparations.
Some of his articles are meant to persuade, some are meant to inform, and some are meant to be informed. He makes no secret of that.
I don’t what you mean by “race-baiting”, but it seems to mean “bringing up inconvenient racial facts that I don’t really agree with”? What, precisely do you mean by that, as you use the phrase frequently, almost invariably against black people?
Race-baiting is resorting to the accusation of racism as a default explanation for every problem, misfortune, lack of success, pathology or failure or a significant segment of the black community. Coates’ entire living is articulate, semi-scholarly race-baiting. He writes well. He’s a racist,
And there are many, many white race-baiters. Chris Matthews is a classic.
When has he blamed problems and faults by some white people on blacks?
So it’s basically synonymous with “playing the race card”? Ok. Thank you for clarifying your definition for me.
Playing the race card is a subset of race-baiting.
A review of “Between the World and Me” that very eloquently describes the many levels of race baiting Coates engages in:
“Coates, the son of a Black Panther, has the gift of beginning with any random premise and concluding with his own racial victimhood. Coates blamed “Segregation” for his difficulty learning French. He accused the New Republic of “neo-Dixiecratism” and claimed that he “could never work at TNR”. When a cab in Amsterdam failed to pick him up, it was somehow Paul Ryan’s fault.
Ta-Nehisi Coates is the literary version of Kanye West; an absurdly privileged second-generation radical stuck on self-pity, touring European capitals while whining about racism, responding to white liberal adulation with fresh reserves of victimhood.
…When the Washington Post claims that, “With Atlantic article on reparations, Ta-Nehisi Coates sees payoff for years of struggle”, you can’t help but ask, what struggle?
Coates is the beneficiary of big liberal media privileges. He turned down a New York Times column while getting paid to blog about his thoughts on Spider-Man for The Atlantic… He was a visiting professor at MIT despite not having a degree in anything. He’s a success story whose topic is his own oppression.
“Between the World and Me” takes his self-righteous bloviating about “black bodies” constantly being victimized by the police, capitalism and people who criticize his writing, and turns it into a book. It’s a “letter to his son” (but available to everyone for only 24 bucks) about an America where black people are still victimized by the slavery and segregation of a white supremacy that has never gone away.
…White supremacy is Coates’ religion. It causes all things and explains all things as Ta-Nehisi Coates attempts to peddle the shopworn Afrocentric ideas he grew up with to a modern audience. White people represent the omnipotent evil that Ta-Nehisi Coates needs in order to pretend to be an oppressed man engaged in a struggle while marketing that same struggle to the evil white people.
Any interaction between Coates and a white person becomes invested with racial tension. A white woman pushes his son on an elevator and to Coates; it’s a case of her invoking her “right over the body of my son.” “Between the World and Me” is a fountain of such pseudo-Marxist legalisms in which “black bodies” are the engines of commerce and culture on which a vast evil white conspiracy squats
…White evil is a remorseless historical force that has taken everything from black people while giving them nothing except visiting professorships at MIT.”
(The entire review is really fascinating, and I won’t lie…I cannot stand Coates, and others who think like him, who perpetrate the eternal victimhood of blacks; who widen the gulf between the races, under the guise of speaking truth to power, so as to profit off of that continued gulf: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259590/ta-nehisi-coates-americas-next-top-victim-daniel-greenfield)
“Between the World and Me” is rather self-consciously styled as a next-generation sequel to James Baldwin’s “The Fire Next Time”, and is done in that epistyle manner. I found it fascinating, if not particularly illuminating. He is obviously talking to white people who have only a passing familiarity with race and historical racial issues. So he feels the need to educate from the ground up.
I always find the compulsion to point out individual success as a counter to wholesale data that shows those successes tend to be outliers to be a fascinating human (or just American?) instinct. Coates individual success says very little about the data he cites showing that on the whole, outcomes of African-Americans from his neighborhood, and those that resemble his tend to be quite different than his own individual outcome.
Well, if you start accumulating more and more of those individual data points, it starts painting a picture, that maybe, success from difficult beginnings is not only not impossible, but also not just luck of the draw…that perhaps, some people just understand how to to make lemonade out of lemons. Having been one of those poor blacks, it wasn’t nearly as hard (for me) as it’s made out to be, provided one has a stable upbringing.
Good summary.
That review is hilarious. Coates’ style reminds me of an article I read once in Grantland in which the author attempted to blame the abuse of women by the Leftist owners of two hyper-liberal businesses on George Bush, solely because the abuse happened during the early 2000s, when Bush was president. You can’t not turn stupid taking that kind of thing seriously.
Upon re-reading this, I realized that you stated “if caught”, which my stats from Heyjackass.com does not address (I could talk about “stop snitching” movements making sure those “Suspect Charged” numbers says low, but that would be a non-sequitur).
The first 2/3 of my post still stands.
But..but, California Attorney General Kamala Harris assures us that “[l]ocal law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon,”
http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/02/27/attorney-general-challenges-sd-concealed-weapons-ruling/
She is the Attorney General of California. Surely she can not be wrong on this issue!
http://www.aim.org/special-report/black-criminals-white-victims-and-white-guilt
A really quick honest question for deery:
Please define how you would define the word abuse when related to the direct contact of police with citizens?
Please define how you would define the word abuse when related to the direct contact of police with citizens?
A non-thorough, quick working definition: Police abuse occurs when the police violate a citizen’s Constitutional rights and/or commit crimes against a citizen.
deery said, “A non-thorough, quick working definition: Police abuse occurs when the police violate a citizen’s Constitutional rights and/or commit crimes against a citizen.”
That’s a reasonable working definition. Thanks.
The first half is pretty clear, as long as you are meaning that if they are found guilty of violating a citizen’s Constitutional rights; but, can you elaborate to clarify the second half of that working definition, “when the police…, …commit crimes against a citizen.” Commit what crimes?
Please completely ignore my question above about what constitutes a police crime against a citizen, it is relevant but it is far less relevant than this question:
Who or what is the arbiter(s) that makes the final decision whether a crime has been committed or a Constitutional right has been violated?
Like most democratic governments, the people are the final arbiters ultimately. That will take various forms, all the way from an individual asserting his rights directly to a police officer who tries to abridge them, judges, juries (and jury nullification), legislatures, political executives, to constitutional amendments, to political uprisings and revolutions.
Ultimately it would come down to whoever has the most firepower and willingness to use it who would decide what was legitimate or not, as loathe as we are to admit that basic fact.
deery said, “Like most democratic governments, the people are the final arbiters ultimately. That will take various forms, all the way from an individual asserting his rights directly to a police officer who tries to abridge them, judges, juries (and jury nullification), legislatures, political executives, to constitutional amendments, to political uprisings and revolutions.
Ultimately it would come down to whoever has the most firepower and willingness to use it who would decide what was legitimate or not, as loathe as we are to admit that basic fact.”
You’re an idiot; you took the bait.
The question was very specific; you’re intentionally trying to muddy the water and in doing so you’ve revealed a serious problem – you don’t trust the courts, or the laws, or the police, you probably don’t trust any authoritative figure, and you’re quite likely a revolutionary anarchist that will justify any level of violence to achieve your illogical chaos. Are you a “card carrying” member of Anonymous?
According to the Constitution of the United States of America we the people (through our normal lawmaking process) make laws that govern the people and the United States court system is tasked to be the arbiter that makes the final decisions whether a crime has been committed or a Constitutional right has been violated.
The people make the laws, the legal system identifies if a crime has been committed and takes that to court, and the court system is the final arbiter and tasked to make the final decision based on the law and then enforce the law if necessary; no one gives a damn whether you like the process or not.
You want a revolution, then you better be willing to fight toe-to-toe with those that will fight to protect the United States of America from all enemies, foreign or domestic, and that includes illogical revolutionary anarchists.
You actually asked a very general philosophical question Zoltar- “Who decides whether a law is constitutional?” Not “Under the Constitution, which branch of government is tasked with determining constitutionality?” Which may have been the question you *intended* to ask, but not the one you actually did.
Ultimately, as even you indicated, the people decide. The courts can issue all the orders and decisions it wants, but if no on will enforce it, t is useless. The legislation can make laws and change amendments, but if most people ignore the law/amendment, it is useless (see Prohibition for example).
And to get even more specific, even with democracies, it comes down to force and the willingness to use it. The government is composed of enough people who agree that certain things should be enforced with force, at its base and most basic level. That isn’t anarchy. That’s how pretty much any government has to work to be effective. The government dissolves when there aren’t enough people to enforce their will through force to be effective. It is an uncomfortable thought, but that is how it works.
It’s shocking, absolutely shocking, that you are now exhibiting reading comprehension problems and dumping more mud in the pond.
Willful ignorance just makes you look stupid and I can’t fix stupid.
Never mind.
“Black people commit crimes against other black people at about the same ratio as white people commit crimes against other white people,” Actually, I’m pretty sure they don’t, unless you are comparing ratio’s weirdly.
To clarify, here’s what it sounds like you are intending to compare: The ratio of number of black on black crimes to the number of blacks in the populace, compared to the ratio of white on white crimes to the numbers of whites in the populace.
“Black people commit crimes against other black people at about the same ratio as white people commit crimes against other white people,” Actually, I’m pretty sure they don’t, unless you are comparing ratio’s weirdly.
The “black on black” crime rate (or the white on white crime rate) merely compares the amount of intraracial crime committed as compared to the amount of interracial crime committed by a given racial group. If the black on black crime rate is 94%, that means that black people commit 94% of the crimes they do commit against other black people, and only 6% of the crimes they commit against whites and others. That was my point.
A different statistic measures criminality rates from groups as percentage from the total crime. I don’t know percentages offhand, but lets say that black people commit 26% of crime overall. That would be twice the expected rate. You can then probably delve further into the numbers and see how many of those crimes were committed against black people by other black people (giving you the black on black crime rate), and further subcategories by types of crime. But overall “black people committing crimes disproportionately” and “black on black crime rates” are two different statistics. Black people could commit only three crimes a year in total, but if two of the three were against other black people, the black on black crime rate would still be 67%.
Another potentially useful statistic: there have been studies that indicate that there are 19 black-on-white violent crimes for every 1 white-on-black violent crime.
Out of the total violent crime numbers? Cite? That would be a huge number. Remember that the white on white crime rate is actually lower than the black on black crime rate (by a few points). That implies that when white people do commit crimes that they are slightly more likely to commit crimes against racial minorities than the other way around. So your number might be possible for a very small subset statistic, (say black guys 48-52 are 20 times more likely to commit armed robbery against white people than white guys 48-52 are to commit armed robbery against black people as a made up example), but it doesn’t seem likely overall. I can’t find anything offhand to support your numbers.
http://www.amren.com/news
That was the very first of many such articles.
? I don’t see the article you reference. The link takes me to a collection of news stories.
Damnit!!
https://infogr.am/Black
That is a blank link too.
Grrrr!
I am surprised that you are making sure a simple math mistake, as you did earlier in your reply to me. Intra-race crime rates, when not taken with the content of the total number of crimes committed, is completely meaningless. If 90% of white violent crime is inter-race, and 90% of black-crome is inter-race, but the white total numbers were 9/10, and the black totals were 900/1000, then that would mean that out of 101 intra-race crimes, 100 were black-on-white, even though inter-race crimes were happening at the same rate.
Joe68 is spot on (I don’t know about the actual ratio, but with the assertion that intra-race crimes are overwhelming committed by blacks towards whites.
The attached link, with the chart of the “Distribution of Violent Victimizations, by Race” show that in 2012, whites were the victims of violence 4,090,000 times, and blacks were the perpetrator 13.7% of the time, for a total of 560,600 victimizations of whites at the hands of blacks.
The chart also shows that blacks were the victims of violence 956,000 times that year, and whites were the perpetrator 10.4% of the time, for a total of 99,400 victimizations.
Which also means, in a total of 660K inter-race victimizations, between whites and blacks, blacks are the attacker 85% of the time. And, before you go blaming the gross disparity on the chance of opportunity (the fact that there are 5x more whites than blacks, the intra-race crime stats between blacks and Hispanics are similarly warped (211,000 to 45,000), though Hispanics are marginally more represented in the population
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420565/charleston-shooting-obama-race-crime
I actually saw that chart earlier when trying to find joed’s info Chris. As the commentators on the article point out, it seems to be entirely made up, whole cloth, a fabrication. In the article the author states that this particular statistics stopped being kept in 2008, but offers up a chart from 2013. Her link does not take you the table she allegedly is copying from, and as near as anyone can tell, the table does not exist on the original site. I confirmed that myself. It doesn’t seem on the original site that those particular statistics were ever tracked and compiled at all to begin with.
Despite the fabrication, that article and table seem to enjoy a wide currency on several white supremacist sites, fir obvious reasons.
Okay, let’s try this again.
http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/
Infogram
I’ll admit I didn’t sit down and crunch the numbers, but just from eyeballing the charts, it looks there is no category for which the black crime rate exceeds 5-1, let alone an overall violent crime rate of 19-1.
It does when you consider the relative population sizes and crime rates.
They actually equalized the population sizes on one of the charts at the bottom. Still not a 19-1 rate.
Hah. I read this wrong. I’m wrong. Mea culpa.
Fair enough, I neglected to do proper fact checking, though I have a hard time believing Heather MacDonald would make up statistics. Mea Culpa.
Here is intra-race murder statistics from a more reliable source (https://goo.gl/FEp2Cp):
Black-on-white murders in 2014: 446
White-on-black murders in 2014: 187
Thus, 70% of intra-racial murders in 2014 were black-on-white.
“I’ve said before that I don’t think there is any such thing as “black on black crime.” here is just crime. Black people commit crimes against other black people at about the same ratio as white people commit crimes against other white people, yet we have no concept of “white on white crime”, curiously enough. And the only way to reduce the black on black crime rate would be to…have black people commit more crimes against white people (and people of other races)”
My initial argument wasn’t about black-on-black crime ratios vs. whites, and Im not sure why you would think that it was (about inter-crime ratios). You can dismiss the notion of ““black on black crime” all you want; I brought it up, because black-on-black crime is the greatest threat facing blacks today, not white racism. But, that is a subject that must be treaded on lightly, if at all, and I hate that. I could care less about the ratio of black inter-race crime vs white inter-race crime, especially without the total numbers to provide context.
So, I don’t (and never claimed to) care about reducing the intra-crime rate, since, as you pointed out, that would be counterproductive and stupid. I do care about reducing levels of crime that are grossly disproportionate to a group’s representation in the population though.
Do you plan on addressing my initial point regarding the use of ratios without totals?
Here is intra-race murder statistics from a more reliable source (https://goo.gl/FEp2Cp):
Black-on-white murders in 2014: 446
White-on-black murders in 2014: 187
Thus, 70% of intra-racial murders in 2014 were black-on-white.
My initial argument wasn’t about black-on-black crime ratios vs. whites, and Im not sure why you would think that it was (about inter-crime ratios). You can dismiss the notion of ““black on black crime” all you want; I brought it up, because black-on-black crime is the greatest threat facing blacks today, not white racism. But, that is a subject that must be treaded on lightly, if at all, and I hate that. I could care less about the ratio of black inter-race crime vs white inter-race crime, especially without the total numbers to provide context.
So, I don’t (and never claimed to) care about reducing the intra-crime rate, since, as you pointed out, that would be counterproductive and stupid. I do care about reducing levels of crime that are grossly disproportionate to a group’s representation in the population though.
I think you mean interracial where you put intra-racial and vice-versa. Otherwise I’m confused. I’ll proceed as if that is the case.
Yes, you care about reducing the crime rate of black people in total (correct?), in which case the black on black crime rate is non sequitor, as I’ve noted. The figure to cite and work upon reducing would be the overall black crime rate, which the black on black crime has very little to do with.
I think people cite the black on black crime rate because it sounds like a huge scary number (94%!!!), without knowing what it actually signifies.
You know, I misspoke earlier…comparing B-o-B crime rates to W-o-W crime rates does serve a purpose: to illustrate to the way-too-many-ignorant people who still minimize black capability for evil, which is exactly on par with white capability for evil. Too many people, like the ladies who recently refused to live with non-whites, treat blacks as if they can do little harm, when compared to white capability for harm:
Quotes from the students involved in the black-roommates-only situation:
“White people have cause[d] so much trauma on these campuses … why in the world would I want to bring that into my home? ”
“White people always mad when they don’t feel included but at the end of the day y’all are damaging asf”
‘We are fighting to exist,’
‘Our people are being killed. Every which way, through every which angle.
Again, because these students truly believe that whites are the biggest threat to blacks, and that just isn’t true.
“Yes, you care about reducing the crime rate of black people in total (correct?)”
I care about reducing the crime rates of blacks, AS WELL AS the victimization rates of blacks, AS WELL AS changing the black mindset regarding race relations. So, as long as black misbehavior continues to be minimized, rationalized, and scapegoated, (and I cannot repeat this enough, failing to treat black people as every bit as capable of evil as whites is as racist and patronizing as failing to treat blacks as being as smart as whites) and not viewed as the most legitimate threat towards people of my race, then I will continue to treat B-o-B crime as a relevant issue.
Do you plan on addressing my initial point regarding the use of ratios without totals?
I’m sorry, which use of ratios without totals were you specifically referring to?
You: “If the black on black crime rate is 94%, that means that black people commit 94% of the crimes they do commit against other black people, and only 6% of the crimes they commit against whites and others. That was my point.”
Me: “(Inter)-race crime rates, when not taken with the content of the total number of crimes committed, is completely meaningless. If 90% of white violent crime is inter-race, and 90% of black-crome is inter-race, but the white total numbers were 9/10, and the black totals were 900/1000, then that would mean that out of 101 intra-race crimes, 100 were black-on-white, even though inter-race crimes were happening at the same rate.”
Saying, “hey, blacks commit crimes within their own race at the same rate as whites! Which means, they commit crimes against the other race at the same rates too!” is meaningless* without the total numbers.
*-Except, as I’ve since mentioned, to show biased anti-white people that “yes, blacks can and will physically harm you, a member of the same race, more than whites will. So stop with the ‘‘Our people are being killed. Every which way, through every which angle’ rationale for not wanting to live with someone”
“Black-on-white murders in 2014: 446
White-on-black murders in 2014: 187
Thus, 70% of intra-racial murders in 2014 were black-on-white.”
Then when you adjust for population, it looks even worse.
” according to data from the National Crime Victimization Survey provided to the author.” This suggests that she made a direct request for it, which fits the label of ‘special tabulation’ They don’t publish them any more, but that’s not the same as not having the data. Given some other issues with the numbers, I believe it’s not quite the same criteria as the numbers from 2008.
From the 2008 data, table 42, which you can verify yourself, you get 90,717 white on black violent crimes and 429,444 black on white, which is 4.7 to 1. Which is still quite large, but much smaller than the 19 to 1 someone mentioned earlier. Using the same source, 95% of white crimes are commited against whites, but 45% of black crimes are committed against blacks, so the comparison you state above also doesn’t work. If you look at percentage of victims rather than crime, which is weird if you are trying to compare crime rates, and was NOT what you described, then they are comparable. I believe homicide numbers are distributed much differently than other crimes.
according to data from the National Crime Victimization Survey provided to the author.” This suggests that she made a direct request for it, which fits the label of ‘special tabulation’ They don’t publish them any more, but that’s not the same as not having the data. Given some other issues with the numbers, I believe it’s not quite the same criteria as the numbers from 2008.
Yes, the numbers seem fishy overall. The 2008 crime rates overall say about 3 million victims of crime overall. The 2013 numbers she tabulates say there are over 6 million victims of violence, a doubling of the violent crime numbers in 5 years. I don’t see anything in BJS’s 2013 tables to support her self-verified table numbers, even if she supposedly asked directly from the source. Her calculations (if she did them) must have been wildly off.
From the 2008 data, table 42, which you can verify yourself, you get 90,717 white on black violent crimes and 429,444 black on white, which is 4.7 to 1. Which is still quite large, but much smaller than the 19 to 1 someone mentioned earlier.
Which was my original point to joed. 19 to 1 of an overall violent crime rate would be just enormous.
Using the same source, 95% of white crimes are committed against whites, but 45% of black crimes are committed against blacks, so the comparison you state above also doesn’t work. If you look at percentage of victims rather than crime, which is weird if you are trying to compare crime rates, and was NOT what you described, then they are comparable.
Yes, agreed the black on black crime rate and the corresponding white on white crime rates are pretty nonsensical and irrelevant for the most part. Which was my original point to Chris. You want to look at the black crime rate overall. The black on black crime rate is a complete red herring, and useless on its own.
It’s not a complete red herring, because blacks are vastly over-represented in crimes against blacks, at 65% or so despite being only 12-14% of the populace, while white intraracial crime is roughly proportionate to the population numbers, possibly a little under-represented. It would really be helpful for comparison purposes to separate out stranger crimes from acquaintance crimes.
Meant to add: focusing on the black overall crime rate is probably more effective in trying to identify the primary problem. It’s nonetheless valid that a black person has more to fear from a random other black person than from a random white.
Most people commit crimes against relatives, friends, and acquaintances. So if black people were randomly distributed across the US and were unrelated to other black people, then yes, then you should expect other black people to commit only 12-14% of crimes against other black people. But since black people tend to be related to other black people, and due to the legacy of segregation tend to live around other black people, the numbers should be unsurprising.
As I’ve previously noted, we could undoubtedly drive the black on black crime rate down by having more black people marry, live around, and work around whites. Then they will inevitably commit more crimes against whites (it naturally follows). This would dramatically drive down the black on black crime rate. It would also drive down the white on white crime rate, for the same reasons, but less dramatically, since they are a much larger group numerically, the effect would be diluted. I doubt anyone would celebrate that result though. I don’t people really want to drive down the black on black crime rate (the only way to do that is for blacks to start committing more of their overall crimes against whites). They want to drive down the black crime rate overall.
Statistics aside, would the two Chris’s or Deery’s approach to solving these problems be more sound? My money is on the Chris’s. That’s really all that should matter.
I’ll take that bet
http://www.amren.com/the
Sorry for the many replies. I’m on my mobile phone, and every time I go to another browser to copy and paste, I have to re-cue EA.
http://crimeresearch.org/2014/10/inflammatory-and-misleading-claims-about-black-teens-being-vastly-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-police-than-whites-even-after-adjusting-for-crime-rates/
Incredibly moving comment, Chris. The discussion between deery and CB kind of swept you under the rug. I think your comment is the comment of the blog. Thank you. Nice work.
Magnificent comment. And life story.
Agreed. 100%.
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2016/08/10/the-decline-of-civility-n2202993
I’m not sure if there was more “civility” in the past if we have someone openly waxing nostalgic about the times when people were allowed a free hand to beat children in schools.
High school graduation rates and literacy are up sharply since those times as well. Of course the flip side of that is we have more people in school who would have been openly encouraged to drop out back in those times (unskilled labor still paid a living wage, so it wasn’t quite the disastrous choice it is now), but everything comes at a cost.
Relevant to this: there are literally hundreds of individual and composite studies correlating church attendance and involvement with better general well-being and less criminal involvement in Black and poor communities. I recall one study that compared various positive factors that buffered criminal behavior, and church was #1. (#2, you might have guessed, was having a father in the home.)
There is virtually no doubt that the cultural shift away from those family/church structures, and towards state structures designed by (mostly White) liberal academics, has damaged these communities. The family disintegration of the 70s and the decline of religious influence are a lethal combination, with nothing competently replacing them.
Relevant to this: there are literally hundreds of individual and composite studies correlating church attendance and involvement with better general well-being and less criminal involvement in Black and poor communities. I recall one study that compared various positive factors that buffered criminal behavior, and church was #1.
Black people are far more likely to attend church, have a formal religious affiliation, believe in god, etc. than the nation as a whole. They are the most religious population group in America. So that isn’t it.
While the U.S. is generally considered a highly religious nation, African-Americans are markedly more religious on a variety of measures than the U.S. population as a whole, including level of affiliation with a religion, attendance at religious services, frequency of prayer and religion’s importance in life. Compared with other racial and ethnic groups, African-Americans are among the most likely to report a formal religious affiliation, with fully 87% of African-Americans describing themselves as belonging to one religious group or another, according to the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted in 2007 by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life.
*************************************************************
Additionally, several measures illustrate the distinctiveness of the black community when it comes to religious practices and beliefs. More than half of African-Americans (53%) report attending religious services at least once a week, more than three-in-four (76%) say they pray on at least a daily basis and nearly nine-in-ten (88%) indicate they are absolutely certain that God exists. On each of these measures, African-Americans stand out as the most religiously committed racial or ethnic group in the nation. Even those African-Americans who are unaffiliated with any religious group pray nearly as often as the overall population of mainline Protestants (48% of unaffiliated African-Americans pray daily vs. 53% of all mainline Protestants). And unaffiliated African-Americans are about as likely to believe in God with absolute certainty (70%) as are mainline Protestants (73%) and Catholics (72%) overall.
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/01/30/a-religious-portrait-of-african-americans/
I think Chris Marschner and Chris Bentley should start a major push in their old stomping grounds to encourage responsible adults to be mentors, and yes, role models as Big Brothers. Show some of these youngsters that it’s truly possible to get out of their neighborhoods and give them some real hope, not that political bull shit propaganda that politicians sell us. Don’t expect miracles, but change and hope can be achieved one child at a time, but remember the change must start with you.
Achieving goals could be waiting for many them around the corner and you could be a little piece of that; just be who you are, no facade. Take that first step and reach out to Big Brothers and Sisters of America. Get off the fence and actually be that inspiration that might make the difference in someone’s life.
It’s “usually” a rewarding experience for both participants, but sometimes you just don’t click with the child and you have to move on. It’s been a while for me, but even though I’m now the active Grandpa type, I’m thinking about doing it again.
Okay, I’m done “preaching”.
Thanks Zoltar…I meant to reply to you post on the other thread, but forgot to. Until recently, i lived in Frederick, MD for several years, and actually did look up their big brother program, but weirdly, they had just shut down the program for the area. But, since I’ve moved, I had forgotten about trying again in the Baltimore area; thanks for the reminder!
Z
I still work coach and advise young people. One missing element of my life that was irrelevant to the point I was making but relevant here is that I spent 5 years running a prison education program in Hagerstown. I spent countless hours talking to felons who were everything from drug traffickers to murderers. Many young black and white males never had anyone actually sit with them and work out problems or evaluate issues using the Socratic method. I used my training in Economics to help them evaluate the choices they have made in life. I gained valuable insight from them and how they viewed the world. When held to high standards most were up to the challenge. When I talk about a new paradigm it really is not new it is simply appropriate reinforcement techniques. If the non-profits would stop asking for money to alleviate some problem but instead promoted themselves as real successes with real examples then we change the message from negative to positive. When non-profits ask for $$ we should be asking . . I don’t care how many at-risk kids are served I want to know how many kids you helped are now doing great things on their own without your help.
CM
Small world! After living in Frederick for 3 years, I lived in Hagerstown for the past year, until the end of July. Is it me, or does it seem like a larger than average number of participants in this blog are in the DMV area?
It does seem that way, at least in the comments. I am guessing that’s the effect of my immediate professional and personal group in this area, and those who they have made aware of the blog. Also I do about 40% of my seminars in this area, and attendees often come here.
Ever thought of hosting a commenters convention? That might be more fun than a barrel of monkeys.
I like that idea – a gathering of EA commenters – except, I would have to have someone attend for me. It’s unavoidable, part of the Eeyore curse.
Streamlining the adoption process, allowing more black children to find their way into families (of any race) that will genuinely love and treasure them would probably help too.
That’s kinda the same “one child at a time” concept I was talking about, just a different approach. Both require a leap of “faith” that you can make a difference.
We need a divorce. Complete separation. Its just not working out and it never will.
A nice piece by Jabari Parker: http://www.theplayerstribune.com/jabari-parker-chicago-gun-violence/ I think he even uses the phrase one child at a time.
I’m sure deery will just dismiss this as anecdotal evidence, but Jabari clearly knows what he’s talking about. Plus, anecdotal evidence is my favorite kind of evidence. I’m a story teller. Anecdotes are my stock in trade.
This comment by Chris Marschner is definitely the best comment I have read on this blog in 2016. In almost five years of my reading the blog, it has to be in the top three of all the comments I have read here.
I do not find Deery’s argument compelling, mostly because he is spending a lot of time deflecting mountains of data while providing nothing substantial as a counterpoint.
Let’s look at just Chicago this year, the site of the Paul O’Neal shooting. There have been over 440 murders there this year. They are about to beat last year’s number and it’s only August. Combine all the mass shootings nationwide that President Obama is wringing his hands about, and they won’t equal that number. And that’s just ONE city.
In that same city, there have been just a handful of officer involved shootings, including O’Neal’s. That’s all races, all situations, justified or not.
Urban crime, particularly Black-on-Black crime, is not one problem among many. It is THE problem. It is epidemic, exploding, an emergency…you really can’t use too much hyperbole.
Urban black-on-black violence is EXPLODING. Right now.
Cop-on-suspect killings have been trending down for years.
Cops who kill unjustly are almost always known and investigated.
Street murderers in Chicago are USUALLY not even identified, and get away clean.
Why is Black Lives Matter, a movement focused on a tiny percentage of Black victims of violence, so disproportionately huge? Why does it dominate the media, social media, and college campuses? If Black lives matter to these people, in what universe does ANY of this make sense?
Why would you mention a few local organizations that care about inner-city violence, as if to say “oh, that issue is covered,” when NONE of those organizations equal the scope and magnitude of Black Lives Matter? You’re proving the opposite point; if there was any mobilization even coming CLOSE to the size of BLM that focused on the real problem, we’d actually be talking about the real, massive problem instead of the few abuses of the cops trying to respond to that real, massive problem.
There are plenty of explanations for the blind insanity and lack of perspective of BLM and its supporters, but none of those explanations flatter the movement:
-Progressives can’t work themselves up to care about a problem unless it appeals to their hatred of other groups?
-Progressives would rather let thousands of poor people continue to die in ghettos than bring attention to the fact that their policies haven’t helped those people?
-The media and politicians are so keen on sensationalism and irresponsible journalism that they really don’t care if they manufacture a needless race war with hundreds of casualties?
-Leftist politicians actually WANT a race war, for what they perceive will be the ultimate good of the country?
I’m serious, someone present a reason for the current hysteria over evil racist cops, happening at a time when inner-city violence is increasing and getting out of control, and actual violence against Blacks by cops is in no way increasing.
Im sure any response to your inquiry in your last paragraph will involve something along the lines of, “I don’t believe in black on black crime, therefore, it doesn’t exist”
Having said that, (and to piggy back on your frustration with BLM), while I don’t like telling other people what causes to support, for a group that purports to want to make sure others understand that black people matter, I don’t understand why there is no branch of the movement that is dedicated to shining a flashlight on inner-city violence. Alluding to the “walk-and-chew-gum” theory of social justice crusading that Deery mentioned earlier, why haven’t BLM activists marched with the same intensity down the streets of South Chicago to protest senseless murders of young black men at the hands of other black men, while ALSO protesting cops killing black men? You don’t even need to change your theme; just, expand it, y’know, to include the lives of the victims you ******* claim to care about.
From the Chicago Tribune:
Tell that to the mother of 9-year-old Tyshawn Lee, who was lured from a playground and executed in an alley in a gang-related dispute. Tell that to the family of 3-year-old Devon Quinn, who is paralyzed after getting shot last month while sitting in a car with his father. Tell that to the parents of 6-year-old Tacarra Morgan, who was shot in the stomach by a stray bullet on her porch as she was scrambling for cover. Tell it to the mother of 4-year-old Kavan Collins, who was shot in the jaw while walking down the street holding his mother’s hand.
http://goo.gl/RE4SgS
Let me repeat that last one: “Tell it to the mother of 4-year-old Kavan Collins, who was shot in the jaw while walking down the street holding his mother’s hand.” Why have there been no marches or protests about any of these shootings? Why, when I google “Kavan Collins” along with “Chicago Black Lives Matter” has there been no STATEMENT denouncing this violence, which would almost literally be the least they could do?
The Tribune went on to say that “In Chicago so far this year, more than 2,200 people have been shot.” This article was written on July 22nd. So in 6 2/3 months, or 202 days, Chicago had over 2,200 whose lives came close to ending, or did end, senselessly. That is almost 11 people per day. That is absolutely mind boggling.
Considering Chicago is a city where 75% of the murder victims are black, assuming the same percentage of shooting victims are black, that’d be 1650 black victims. 1,650 black people, whose lives did not matter to another human being. But BLM has its floodlights focused on a black cop who legally shot a black man, who was attempting to point a gun at him. Because “oppression”.
“blind insanity and lack of perspective of BLM”
You hit the nail on the head, Issac.
As I’ve noted before, there are a plethora of groups that focus on crime and the inner-city. I’ve even named some of them upthread. BLM is focused on police brutality and the extra-judicial killings of black people at the hands of police officers. As there is substantial overlap in membership in those anti-crime groups and BLM, you can often find BLM members marching against street crime, but that is not the main mission of BLM itself. It’s like why asking why Greenpeace isn’t out there marching against sex trafficking. That’s not really their mission.
Luckily, there are so many “All Lives Matter” people out there protesting and marching against violence and murder that they don’t need anyone else’s help. Funny how absolutely no one ever asks where they are.
People are working hard in these communities. They are marching.
But just because those marches don’t have the resonance of the ones that followed Freddie Gray’s death in Baltimore, don’t think that people are sitting still. Don’t think they aren’t angry and hurt and devastated. Don’t think that they aren’t fighting for change in strategic ways.
They want their children to be as safe and secure as yours.
You would be mistaken if you think that just because you don’t see the marches that they aren’t happening.
So when a child such as Tyshawn Lee is gunned down, stop asking, “Why don’t blacks march when children die at the hands of gangbangers?”
We do.
It’s just that there is no one way to march, just as there is no one way to mourn, especially for the death of a 9-year-old boy.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-tyshawn-lee-the-march-turner-20151104-column.html
Black Americans do find violence within the black community troubling: A YouGov poll from April shows a plurality of black Americans think it’s a bigger problem than racial injustice, as Vox’s Victoria M. Massie notes.
“(The) survey underscores what the people in these communities have long argued — that police brutality and crime are not mutually exclusive concerns for African Americans,” she wrote.
Black Americans have launched anti-violence efforts in their communities (Ramsey mentions a PBS documentary about them, The Interruptors). But many in the Black Lives Matter movement have described “black-on-black” criticisms a diversion that ignores underlying issues like poverty.
“What we know is that gun violence absolutely presents tragedy every single day,” said Brittany Packnett, a prominent voice in the movement, on PBS NewsHour in December. “But if black life really matters to people … who insist that black-on-black crime is the real issue, then pay attention to poverty.”
Poor white Americans experience violent crimes at rates virtually equal that of poor black Americans, as Massie points out in a 2014 Department of Justice study. Black and white Americans kill members of their own races at similar rates, too.
According to 2014 FBI data, 90% of African-American homicides were committed by African Americans. Similarly, 82% of white American homicides were committed by white Americans—what we might, but don’t, call “white-on-white” crime.
The difference: More than one in four black Americans live in areas of extreme poverty, according to a 2015 Century Foundation study. Only one in 13 whites live in such areas.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/07/27/why-doesnt-black-lives-matter-doesnt-focus-talk-about-black-black-crime/87609692/
Greenpeace not marching against sex trafficking is the equivalent of Black Lives Matters not marching about black lives? There are a million snaky comments I could write here, but I’ll shelve all of them, and simply say…”Ok”
I don’t ask where All Lives Matter groups are, because there are no All Lives Matter groups. There’s no organized All Lives Matters chapter of Chicago. If there were, then yeah, I’d question where they are…but there’s not. Pretty sure if anyone wanted to try and organize one, BLM would clamp the hell down on that, toot sweet, regardless of what the ALM’s stated goal was.
“But many in the Black Lives Matter movement have described “black-on-black” criticisms a diversion that ignores underlying issues like poverty.”
BS. B-freaking-S. It was not a diversion. Just like you assumed Jack’s definition of race baiting to be “bringing up inconvenient racial facts”, BLM loves to avoid the same inconvenient facts. Just because there are underlying causes, such as poverty (which I am not denying) does not change the end result..people making the conscious choice to take a life. One can acknowledge distressing black poverty/unemployment rates AND acknowledge the autonomous choice of many young inner city blacks to choose a life of violent crime and easy money over the alternative, regardless of the plethora of noble choices in front of them. To pretend that the violent streets are caused solely because of circumstances beyond the control of those who thrive in that environment, and not at all because of a conscious choice to choose that lifestyle, because it is glamorized in the media that many youths consume, is insanely ignorant.
“It’s just that there is no one way to march, just as there is no one way to mourn, especially for the death of a 9-year-old boy.”
Yet, somehow with the infinite ways available to march, BLACK LIVES MATTER never can seem to find the path that includes BLACKS LIVES lost to black perps. And you don’t see something wrong with that?
Greenpeace not marching against sex trafficking is the equivalent of Black Lives Matters not marching about black lives? There are a million snaky comments I could write here, but I’ll shelve all of them, and simply say…”Ok”
BLM was founded to protest the extra-judicial killing of black people by law enforcement. It was not established as a protest against street crime in general. So your confusion seems to lie there. There more than a few dozen well-established groups with the explicit mission of fighting crime in the inner city. Their membership inevitably overlaps with some of the membership in BLM, though people are allowed to concentrate their efforts in area or another. But as far as I know, BLM is the only group with the explicit mission that it has. This may change as BLM slowly morphs into a general civil rights organization through the years. But it is an organization that is less than 4 years old, and started as a Twitter hashtag.
don’t ask where All Lives Matter groups are, because there are no All Lives Matter groups. There’s no organized All Lives Matters chapter of Chicago.
Yeah, that was my point. All that hand-wringing and criticizing from people who don’t think that Black Lives Matter people are doing *enough*, when at least BLM is doing *something*. They are actually putting their money and efforts where their mouth is. And all those people who proudly declare “ALL LIVES MATTER!!” are doing nothing at all, except derailing the conversation.
The black community is out there, protesting not just police shootings, but crime in general. Just because you don’t see it on the 5pm news doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/04/why-dont-black-people-protest-black-on-black-violence/255329/
“BLM was founded to protest the extra-judicial killing of black people by law enforcement…BLM is the only group with the explicit mission that it has. ”
Their website explicitly says otherwise. See below.
“All that hand-wringing and criticizing from people who don’t think that Black Lives Matter people are doing *enough*”
Who’s hand wringing that they’re not doing “enough”? My issue with them is that they are doing the wrong thing; seeding distrust between the races, inciting hate against ALL cops, and establishing an environment where acts of violence and vandalism routinely occur. But my earlier statement, about “I don’t understand why there is no branch of the movement that is dedicated to shining a flashlight on inner-city violence” isn’t because I don’t think they aren’t doing enough; it’s because I can’t understand why a groups that claims to care about black lives, doesn’t appear to care about the black lives that are objectively (this is absolutely undeniable) most at risk.
“at least BLM is doing *something*”
-BLM led the initial riots in Baltimore
-These riots led to pressure for Mosby to over-charge the 6 officers, as well as significant damage to the community and violence against members of the community.
-None were convicted, tax payer money was wasted over an outcome that was easy to predict, and Mosby has lost significant credibility, as well as the support of the BPD.
But, thank goodness BLM did SOMETHING!
I don’t think anyone from BLM started riots. Protesting the Freddie Gray killings is not the same as starting a riot. Most watchers believe that letting schools out early, but not letting the kids leave the area is what led to the initial unrest and mayhem.
Sharing the words of someone else who is also deflecting is not data.
When whites kill whites, of COURSE it’s white-on-white crime. How else would you describe it? There is no corresponding mass epidemic of white-on-white crime destroying entire cities, however, which is why we don’t talk about white-on-white crime much. I feel dumber just having to explain this.
Black Lives Matter is orders of magnitude more passionate, bigger, more in the media, more organized, and involves more people than any and all anti-violence movement going.
The amount of time actual Black Lives Matter members are making any noise about the actual violence epidemic is negligible by comparison. “Look, see how I care a little bit sometimes about the gigantic beam in my eye? Now let me get back to caring 10,000% more about the speck in my neighbor’s eye.” And it gets more insane when the beam in your eye means thousands and thousands of innocent people being mowed down while you go after that speck.
“…a plurality of black Americans think it’s a bigger problem than racial injustice…” Yup. Because they have common sense. Now would that be true if they polled only Black Lives Matter spokespeople? Would MOST BLM activists admit, on camera, that street violence is a much, much bigger problem than racial injustice? It’s the truth by any measure, but would they say it?
The use of “extra-judicial” is so dishonest, fantastic and subversive that I can’t get past it. The word implies execution without due process and suggests that this is an policy, systemic, and intentional. How many of the police shooting or killings of blacks (because whites who are shot don’t matter) qualify as “extra judicial” any more than a car crash or a perp shot to death in a hostage situation SWAT attack? Not Mike Brown. Not Eric Garner. Not Tamir Rice. Not Trayvon Martin. Not Freddie Gray. Not Sandra Bland. And certainly not the guy with the gun in Milwaukee.
I’m sure there have been some that weren’t self-defense, or a reaction to stress and anger by an overwhelmed cop, or a mistake, or an accident, or excessive force, but not enough for anyone to call it a societal trend or conspiracy. It’s a lie, flat out.
When names like Martin and Brown are no longer on the website and “extra-judicial” is erased, then I’ll consider looking at BLM as something other than a violence-seeding, racist hate group. Not before.
Sharing the words of someone else who is also deflecting is not data.
If the statement is that black people do not protestor care about black on black crime, specifically in Chicago, and you have an eyewitness who shares that in fact, black people have in fact protested black on black crime, specifically in Chicago, that is data. It is a fact that can be analyzed and used as evidence to rebut the specific charge.
When whites kill whites, of COURSE it’s white-on-white crime. How else would you describe it? There is no corresponding mass epidemic of white-on-white crime destroying entire cities, however, which is why we don’t talk about white-on-white crime much.
Yet when we have a terrorist attack, do people ever say, “Hey, we know that attack is sad and all, but what about white on white crime, huh? Until white people stop killing other white people, which is a far greater number than terrorist attacks in America, we shouldn’t address terrorist attacks?” Of course not, that would be ridiculous. It’s a total red herring. So it is with black on black crime and police brutality.
The notion that violence within the black community is “background noise” is not supported by the historical record—or by Google. I have said this before. It’s almost as if Stop The Violence never happened, or The Interruptors never happened, or Kendrick Lamar never happened. The call issued by Erica Ford at the end of this Do The Right Thing retrospective is so common as to be ritual. It is not “black on black crime” that is background noise in America, but the pleas of black people.
There is a pattern here, but it isn’t the one Eugene Robinson (for whom I have a great respect) thinks. The pattern is the transmutation of black protest into moral hectoring of black people. Don Imus profanely insults a group of black women. But the real problem is gangsta rap. Trayvon Martin is killed. This becomes a conversation about how black men are bad fathers. Jonathan Martin is bullied mercilessly. This proves that black people have an unfortunate sense of irony.
The politics of respectability are, at their root, the politics of changing the subject—the last resort for those who can not bear the agony of looking their country in the eye. The policy of America has been, for most of its history, white supremacy. The high rates of violence in black neighborhoods do not exist outside of these facts—they evidence them.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/08/black-people-are-not-ignoring-black-on-black-crime/378629/
Black Lives Matter is orders of magnitude more passionate, bigger, more in the media, more organized, and involves more people than any and all anti-violence movement going.
BLM consumes a lot of media attention, precisely because of the subject matter, and the incendiary videos that often accompany the most notorious cases that BLM has brought to light. Demonstrating against crime will probably never bring such media attention, because there really isn’t much to disagree about. Everyone agree\s that crime is bad, that criminals that kill should go to jail, and so forth. People tend to be pretty passionate on the subject of whether police brutality exists, if so, is important enough for people to care, and how much leeway law enforcement should have when it comes to people looking the other way when police brutalize citizens. Such disagreements drive ratings, and thus the media focus and attention. That isn’t the fault of BLM as much as it is the way the modern media works.
I think some people would just rather have BLM focus on something that they can feel freer to ignore than what BLM”s actual stated mission is, which deals with the extrajudicial killing of black people by law enforcement and police brutality.
Do you understand what a “red herring” actually is? No one, from what I’ve seen on this site, and certainly not me, is denying that a) Police brutality is wrong, and should not happen; b) White people kill each other in significant numbers; c) Black poverty and lack of stable role models for black youths is a serious contributor to the decline of inner cities d) Terrorism is bad. No one disputes these, because they are all true. No one is attempting to deflect, mislead, trick, confuse, or in any way cause you or others to think these aren’t real problems.
(breath)
AND SO IS black people, with independent agency and free will, who are choosing to take the lives of other black people. White people who are the victims of murder is sad; no snark, it truly is. But accepting that there are bad people of all races, who will choose to take the lives of other people, is a given. When these terrible crimes happen in what has been accepted as a level that is to be expected, then these crimes aren’t particularly noteworthy. But when they happen, as they currently are, at levels that are outside of what we are willing to accept, as a society, then in becomes an issue that is front and center. And so it is, with black victimhood of violent crime. And when (inconvenient fact time) statistics point out that the perps of these inflated levels of crime are also black, that’s an issue.
Yes, whites commit violent crime against one another at the same rates as blacks. But the rates of these white crimes overall has not reached the unacceptable level that are causing people to clutch their pearls and faint.
So discussing black on black crime, while acknowledging root causes, and white criminality, and black poverty, et all is. Not. A. Red. Herring. It is simply another subject to be discussed, and corrected. What makes it especially noteworthy, is that EVERY DAMN TIME it is broached, people, like yourself, find some way to pivot away from it as fast as possible. As I’ve asked repeatedly, please stop denying black people’s ability to be as great, and as evil, as every other white person out there. Stop avoiding the topic.
So discussing black on black crime, while acknowledging root causes, and white criminality, and black poverty, et all is. Not. A. Red. Herring.
Discussing them on their own is not a red herring. Discussing them anytime someone brings up police brutality is what makes the subject a red herring.
Yes, but as you’ve previously acknowledged, on EA, we are constrained by the topics that Jack writes about. And since he has not specifically written about B-o-B crime (to my knowledge), then the only time I can talk about it (on here) is in connection to other race related posts. Still doesn’t change the fact that it MUST be discussed (along with police brutality), and done so without accusations and name callings, which, incidentally, actually are red herrings.
I don’t think I’ve called you any names, but if I have, please accept my apologies.
You might have implied a few times, in a subtle way, that he is an Uncle Tom.
“BLM is focused on police brutality and the extra-judicial killings of black people at the hands of police officers…you can often find BLM members marching against street crime, but that is not the main mission of BLM”
On the Black Lives Matters homepage, under “Guiding Principles”, you know how many times the words police, officer, or cop shows up? 0.
Know what IS there? This statement:
“We are committed to collectively, lovingly and courageously working vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension all people”
So, you say their focus is not on the black victims of street crime…but their website says that they are “working vigorously for .. justice for Black people and…all people”. Your statement and theirs does not seem to jive.
And on their Who We Are page, it states: “Black Lives Matter is a unique contribution that goes beyond extrajudicial killings of Black people by police”.
But you said “BLM is focused on police brutality and the extra-judicial killings of black people”. Again, your statement and theirs does not seem to jive.
How do I put this…BLM is not an organization in the traditional sense. It isn’t like the NAACP where people have formal membership, people elect a president, and other formal leaders, there is a spokesman who is tasked with talking to the media and so forth. It is a deliberately diffuse, leaderless organization by design. Anyone can call themselves Black Lives Matter. That is the weakness, and the strength of the organization.
Well then…I suppose in that case, you can just make up any darn fact you want to about BLM and what their supposed goals are, and I can’t dispute it, even after pointing you to their website.
It’s like trying to box a ghost…why bother?
Lol. You can too. Tweet out all your rhetoric about “black on black crime”, and just put the hashtag #blacklivesmatter after it. Voila! You have now involved Black Lives Matter in the conversation about black on black crime. Congratulations!
No thanks. I don’t need my Twitter inbox blowing up with ignorant accusations of racism, Trump support, or questioning whether or not Im really black.
The goofiest thing about all this is that I’ve been in these affected communities. I just spend the last month visiting places like Detroit and Akron. I’ve seen the kind of people who march against street violence. They have nothing in common with Black Lives Matter people, except that they’re black. I’m sure there’s SOME overlap there, but it isn’t as much as the criminally deflective, apologist USA Today article Deery posted claims (while providing nothing in the way of data, as usual.)
I’ve got a picture in my phone of a cop, a biker, and a Black man laughing and having fun together while serving hot dogs to the poor at a community outreach. I talked to African Americans of all ages who get angry or roll their eyes at the BLM protests and news of the Milwaukee riots, etc. It makes them angry that those people routinely act like idiots while claiming to represent them. Of COURSE most Blacks are aware that street violence is a bigger problem than racial prejudice. They aren’t dodging stray bullets from drunken cops every day. They are dealing with the reality every day; they don’t profit from the fantasy the way people like Jonathan Butler do. They don’t have the money to go to a $50,000 a year university and protest against microagressions. They just want to be able to take a walk in the park with their kids.
The poverty thing isn’t even a very good argument either. Some Black (and White, etc.) communities are dirt poor and actually quite safe; some towns are filled with depressed junkies, but have relatively little crime. In Wellsville, Ohio, no one is afraid of getting shot; kids and teens all play in the streets and you can walk in the boarded-up downtown in the middle of the night. The problem is that everyone is jobless, bored, and wrecked by heroin. LA’s Skid Row is filled with thousands of homeless, but it’s safe to walk around in the daytime. Not so in tiny Westmont, where the gangs are. Wear the wrong color and they will shoot you. It’s not a direct correlation between poverty and murder. The murder problem is in specific areas. In fact the recent homicide surge is happening in just a few cities.