Why Black-on-Black Crime isn't a Racist Deflection.
I would like to get this out of the way before there is any discussion of “black-on-black” crime: white privilege exists and manifests itself in many people’s lives in many different, and often insidious, ways. Furthermore, the concept of “white fragility”, although fraught with issues (why associate fragility with whiteness, especially considering some CRS authors who write about race claim that whiteness is a property possessed by all whites; it wouldn’t be considered okay to predicate criminality, for instance, to all people of color via their darker skin), might have some merit. But none of this changes the fact that people of color kill each other disproportionately - and we should treat it the way we would treat it if they were white.
I have heard a number of times that any mention of black-on-black crime is a deflection from white racism and a fallacy; surely black-on-black crime in the US has nothing to do with police brutality and murder; black lives really are undervalued by society if those with authority kill and maim and the only recourse available is one’s vote in a corrupt, racist, and fundamentally broken political system. I agree with this.
However, I do not think every mention of black-on-black crime is fallacious or a deflection from white racism. If one cares about the suffering and death of George Floyd, for instance, then they should care as much about Robert Sandifer - another unfortunate victim. I’m not saying that these two murders are equivalent; one was committed by a man who was supposed to protect and serve the public, whereas the other was committed by two hardened criminals. But both are still murders, and both constitute a loss of life that could have been prevented - but only one of those deaths resulted in the mobilization of millions of people in one of the largest political movements ever.
I also, of course, do not believe that people of color are inherently more criminal. I think that it is largely a matter of culture, and that many of these cultural influences can be blamed almost solely on historical inequalities and institutional and personal racism. But this does not excuse Sandifer’s, and many other black boy’s and men’s, murderers; there is a reason we try to keep the courts almost totally colorblind; it is within the power of people of color who live in crime-ridden areas to pick themselves up and make something better for themselves than rampant violence. In fact, they are the only ones who can do it. This might be a greater expectation than we have for privileged white men who leverage their free speech to harm minorities - but I think it is reasonable.
I understand that George Floyd’s murder was a breaking point, a manifestation of everything wrong with the way people of color are treated in our country, but black-on-black crime is also worth paying attention to; it is not only white people who have some sort of free will (if anyone really has it); murder is always a choice for the sane.
I have heard a number of times that any mention of black-on-black crime is a deflection from white racism and a fallacy; surely black-on-black crime in the US has nothing to do with police brutality and murder; black lives really are undervalued by society if those with authority kill and maim and the only recourse available is one’s vote in a corrupt, racist, and fundamentally broken political system. I agree with this.
However, I do not think every mention of black-on-black crime is fallacious or a deflection from white racism. If one cares about the suffering and death of George Floyd, for instance, then they should care as much about Robert Sandifer - another unfortunate victim. I’m not saying that these two murders are equivalent; one was committed by a man who was supposed to protect and serve the public, whereas the other was committed by two hardened criminals. But both are still murders, and both constitute a loss of life that could have been prevented - but only one of those deaths resulted in the mobilization of millions of people in one of the largest political movements ever.
I also, of course, do not believe that people of color are inherently more criminal. I think that it is largely a matter of culture, and that many of these cultural influences can be blamed almost solely on historical inequalities and institutional and personal racism. But this does not excuse Sandifer’s, and many other black boy’s and men’s, murderers; there is a reason we try to keep the courts almost totally colorblind; it is within the power of people of color who live in crime-ridden areas to pick themselves up and make something better for themselves than rampant violence. In fact, they are the only ones who can do it. This might be a greater expectation than we have for privileged white men who leverage their free speech to harm minorities - but I think it is reasonable.
I understand that George Floyd’s murder was a breaking point, a manifestation of everything wrong with the way people of color are treated in our country, but black-on-black crime is also worth paying attention to; it is not only white people who have some sort of free will (if anyone really has it); murder is always a choice for the sane.
Comments (77)
If we are paying attention to systemic racism, do you respond what about breast cancer? Surely breast cancer is something worth paying attention to. And what about feminism generally and the plight of children in Eastern Europe? Bringing something unuseful up in an unrelated context because that unseful thing is important is a waste of time, i.e. a deflection. I think you’d find it unlikely that serious people exclaim that black on black violence is always a deflection, but that the only time they hear certain people talk about it is in response to a conversation about (or action against) systemic racism.
:point: examples of white-on-white violence & crime.
Under sufficient duress, any community will turn on itself and folks will prey on their own due to proximity and familiarity. Sociology / Criminology 101. In fact, most wars are civil wars just like most crimes consist of (petty) neighborhood crimes & domestic violence.
Systemic racism is, IMO, wholly different – higher level – topic, and thus perpetuated by rhetorically rendering it invisible by talking about "black-on-black crime" as if that is an aberration devoid of wider socioeconomic structures and stressors. :brow:
Some people do in fact dismiss all mentions of black-on-black violence as racist merely because it is sometimes a deflection, such as when discussing systemic racism, like you say. But even when it isn't dismissed outright as a deflection it is systematically down-played when it overlaps with systemic racism and other issues affecting people of color.
Quoting Ennui Elucidator
I'm talking about some somewhat serious people, and some very unserious people here - mostly college age and steeped in social justice.
If one is concerned with people of color being murdered, then black-on-black violence is relevant; far more black men die to other black men, for instance, than police officers. Insofar as systemic racism relates to people of color being murdered, black-on-black violence eclipses it and it is not a deflection to mention it.
I find your comments to be self-indulgent and poorly written. I shouldn't have to deal with all of that unnecessary punctuation. And I never said there was no severe white-on-white crime; I'm talking strictly about the here and now in the US.
I mean did you even read the OP?
lol
You didn't even make an argument, bro. You just listed a bunch of examples of white-on-white violence
Quoting 180 Proof
Did I or did I not say that culture plays a part and that many cultural influences are affected by racism? Did I say black-on-black violence existed in a vacuum?
I can’t help but cringe when someone brings up “black-on-black crime” for the same reasons I cringe when I hear about “white privilege”. Two racist assumptions occur the moment we consider such propositions: that human beings can be demarcated on grounds of race, and that this arbitrary demarcation has some bearing on individual behavior. From there it isn’t long before we’re talking about essences like “blackness” and “whiteness”, and other absurdities. But crime is an act of individuals, not groups, so it would make more sense to look at individual circumstances rather than invent racial ones.
And if they don't "pick themselves up"? What is the solution? Lock them up? Do you know that the United States has the highest prison population the world? Do we really want to start a crusade locking people up?
This "not a deflection" reminds of when someone says "I'm not racist or prejudice, but ..." or "Some of my closest friends are black, but ..." I'm one of those blacks who is far more "concerned" with communities of color (out-groups) being exploited and discriminated against – ghettoed for centuries – by a white-controlled (in-group) socioeconomic structure that reinforces the social pathologies in said communities which is (re)producing internecine violence. I elaborate further in the link in my first post but you don't want to read all that, toothless, do you? Typical. :shade:
I did emphasize that it is a choice for each murderer to murder at the end of my OP.
Quoting NOS4A2
This arbitrary demarcation is useful because of the shared culture and experiences of people of color and how it affects the disproportionate amount of crime they commit. I would never claim that someone is automatically a criminal because they are black, or automatically likes F.R.I.E.N.D.S. because they are white.
Quoting NOS4A2
I agree that crime is an individual choice and that individual circumstances are most important, but the group becomes relevant when you see a disproportionate amount of crime coming from said group; it is likely that there are some commonalities that can be abstracted (whiteness, blackness, etc.).
We should start by releasing all of the non-violent drug offenders, institute some necessary police reform, and maybe increase the police in some particularly rough areas. That's what I would do.
I'll read it and get back to you. No need to draw assumptions.
It’s not a group, is my only point, because no such group exists outside of the human mind. It’s as arbitrary as grouping people by shoe size. Any commonality of skin-color or eye color or height cannot serve as a basis for meaningful conclusions because arbitrary demarcations necessarily lead to arbitrary statistics. This can only serve to distort the real problems. Worse, the use of such statistics can justify injustice, as we’ve seen. Culture is formed through proximity and interaction, regardless of the superficial characteristics of those involved, so we should avoid making such specious connections.
But people do indeed divide themselves into groups, even if they are based on somewhat specious connections. And some experiences are more common to people of color than whites. Your argument appears to be that groups don't exist because any grouping is fundamentally arbitrary and any statistics on said group, thus, are also arbitrary. Is this correct?
That is true. Insofar as these false identities are freely chosen one can hardly avoid to use them. It’s in the census, for Christ’s sake. This is the legacy of racism.
I agree that in a perfect world no one would integrate their race into their identity.
I don’t know if it’s a problem with the way I think but I cannot imagine a group where I cannot see one. I prefer to speak in terms of reality, where a group or community is an actual, physical grouping of people rather than a thought. A real group implies proximity, interaction, and relation, which are wholly absent from human taxonomy and classification.
I read some of that thread. I saw nothing in it that I do not agree with - especially some of the policies you outlined. That being said no attention is given to the reality that the bystanders cannot fix this alone. We can't just legislate away the preponderance of black-on-black crime in black communities - even if it may indeed be an expression of internecine violence stemming from a pseudo-apartheid state in which people of color are systematically oppressed. So while we can change some stuff - have some sense.
Again, why are you mentioning it? If it is to stop systemic forces legitimizing/creating the circumstance of power in which violence is unethically directed towards particular oppressed (or politically weak) groups, then black-on-black violence isn’t relevant unless you can directly tie it to the systemic forces being discussed. If you believe that discussions of systemic racism are wholly coequal with discussions of how to stop people of color being murdered, I believe you are mistaken. An ethically just system of power will likely have problems with people acting unethically - a situation it shares in common with ethically unjust systems of power. Indeed, as the social circumstance of entrenched racism is redressed, you may very well find that crime against all people (POC or otherwise) decreases.
You need to focus not on whether black-on-black violence is an issue (of course it is), but whether it is a helpful topic in the context of the discussion at hand. I would imagine that if you find yourself in a room full of people discussing systematic racism, you should probably be pointing them towards POC engaged in self-advocacy that are identifying what features of systemic racism are important to them and, in the fortunate circumstance that you are talking to POC, you should encourage them to continue speaking without telling them what you believe they should be speaking about. If you are a POC and you think that the more important issue is something other than what they are discussing, you might exercise the general level of appropriate social decorum and talk about the topic that the organizers intended, talk about the topic that others have already introduced, or, when made aware that others don’t believe that your topic of choice is useful for the group, move on.
The “you” here is intended to be generalized and not about you as an individual. I know nothing about you nor do I pretend to. What I do know is that the people talking about systemic racism have made it abundantly clear that black-on-black violence is not something they want to spend time discussing and that it categorically comes across as deflection.
I wouldn't say it's a cultural issue, but more of a wealth and prosperity issue.
Quoting 180 Proof
I would add the lack of social cohesion and alienation, the feeling that the society is not made for you and never was intended for you, will make things more ugly very quickly.
FOR EXAMPLE, the police have been identified as public enemy #1 by people not in immediate need of police service. One of the reasons the rate of black-on-black murders is so disproportionately high is, among other things, a relative lack of police services in black communities. Blacks are not randomly murdering each other. (Well, bullets flying during gun flights may well cause random deaths.). A lot of the black-on-black murders occur in the conduct of criminal activity. If the criminal activities are not investigated and prosecuted, then the disproportionate rate deaths will continue. The rate of black-on-black murder case clearance is unacceptably low. (It's much better for white-on-white murder cases.). In other words, too many black-on-black murders remain unsolved, unprotected.
Lack of effective policing is one problem. A second very big problem is the well-documented economic isolation of the black population. It is, in very practical terms, more difficult for young black people to launch themselves into good employment. People trapped in economic isolation (like unskilled white men in the rust belt) also resort to socially destructive behavior at a disproportionate rate. If crime is the most open avenue, that's the route some people will take
Poverty begets more poverty, because children raised in chronic poverty accumulate less cultural capital from day one.
People perform much better (regardless of race) when avenues to economic opportunity are open. In the United States (among other places) social mobility is quite high among the beneficiaries of previous social mobility -- specifically, the relatively small prosperous middle class. I hate to break the bad news to you, but most Americans are not middle class. Social mobility lags among the working class, who have experienced less previous upward mobility.
What's my point? Follow the money. It accounts for what happens to people much more reliably than critical race theory, intersectionality, queer theory, et al.
This is painful, BC. The solution to very little is increasing police presence in over-policed communities. How about we legalize drugs and end the non-sense monopolies we keeping giving to rich folk to legally sell the same drugs that the non-rich folk have had their lives destroyed for selling. You might find that as we create a freer society (you know, one in which people can sleep with/marry whomever they want and put whatever substances they want into their bodies) the extra-social organizations (like crime rings), lose funding and power. Throw in a bit of social services (including support of women and children) and see what that does for domestic violence.
We have enough people incarcerated. We can’t keep jailing people to solve the problems the criminal laws were (in theory) instituted to avoid.
Quoting Bitter Crank
:100:
However, ask why the situation is like it is for blacks?, and the answer, the explanation, will/might take us back to America's history of slavery, systematic racism.
Particular dates, e.g. 18 Dec. 1865, have gone down in history as important landmarks in the abolishment of serfdom as if the effects of centuries of oppression and privation could be reversed overnight. Facts as they stand - continued racial inequality even to this day, centuries later - demonstrates how naïve it was/is to think so.
What is painful is that black communities are over-policed and under-policed at the same time.
A lot of police effort is directed at relatively minor stuff. Collecting people for warrants for unpaid fines, for instance. Or heavily policing traffic offenses--both of which are revenue producers (not for the police, necessarily, but for the municipality). The upshot of these sorts of police activities are disruption when fines turn into jail terms.
The police activity that is missing in many communities is detective-led investigations leading to the arrest of people committing murder and manslaughter.
:brow:
Quoting Bitter Crank
Amazing! So, we need criminally-oriented people - traffic violations being a first step towards becoming an outlaw - to fund our municipality? :chin: So, the legal system inclusive of the guardians of the law (the police) are not there to actually prevent crimes but only to ensure that the perps are caught after the crime has been committed. Geez! What a mind job!
Slavery may be an ultimate--but distant--cause of blacks circumstances. The efforts of (mostly southerners) to suppress the black population, especially through the 'Jim Crow' laws of the 1890s, and the terrorism of the KKK in the1920s and 1930s is an early proximal cause. The Great Migration northward in the 20th century led to intense racial discrimination in northern industrial cities -- another proximal cause.
A third proximal cause is the mid-century flight of capitalists from unionized to un-unionized states. Off-shoring of industry in the latter third of the 20th century (to Japan, China...) is a third proximal cause. Steady attacks on the organized labor movement broke many unions, and helped wages fall during decades of inflation--a fourth proximal cause.
These and other several other proximal causes (re-segregation of schools, for instance) have resulted in significant economic disability for black communities.
However, de-unionizing, falling wages, inflation, and industrial flight have hurt the entire working class (75% of the population at least). Conditions ARE worse for blacks than for most whites because of their longer period of economic suppression. It's hard to argue, though, that unskilled white workers are better off. "Nobody knows you when you are down and out", regardless of your skin color.
We can natter away about racism until hell freezes over and it won't change much.
I’m curious why this is of such concern to you.
https://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
In 1960, the murder rate was 5.1. Today it is 5.0. There was a peak in 1980 of around 10.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/americas-faulty-perception-crime-rates
It seems an aweful lot like sociological factors are behind the change in crime rates far more than particular policing theories or interventions.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/what-caused-crime-decline
[quote=“Brennan Center”]
More important were various social, economic, and environmental factors, such as growth in income and an aging population. The introduction of CompStat, a data-driven policing technique, also played a significant role in reducing crime in cities that introduced it.
The report concludes that considering the immense social, fiscal, and economic costs of mass incarceration, programs that improve economic opportunities, modernize policing practices, and expand treatment and rehabilitation programs, all could be a better public safety investment.
[/quote]
Do you have sources you find compelling to counter narratives such as this?
[quote=“Atlantic Interview of Patrick Sharkey”]
…
My work looks most closely at where crime is happening, not at individual victims. But there are some things we think we know. Intimate-partner violence increased in 2020. So did hate crimes against Asians. But the overall demographics of victims is incredibly consistent over time. It’s young people of color, particularly young men of color. I don’t see anything yet to indicate that’s changed dramatically.
…
My argument is that in areas where communities go through periods of disinvestment and where institutions break down, people feel like they’re on their own. This creates conditions where violence becomes more likely. As a place becomes more violent, people change their behavior. They become more likely to interpret uncertainty in an aggressive way, more likely to carry a weapon, more likely to act quickly or first if they feel threatened. This is how the presence of violence creates more violence. This cascading effect, where violence begets violence, has been reinforced in the past year.
Last year, everyday patterns of life broke down. Schools shut down. Young people were on their own. There was a widespread sense of a crisis and a surge in gun ownership. People stopped making their way to institutions that they know and where they spend their time. That type of destabilization is what creates the conditions for violence to emerge.
…
When a social order depends on the police dominating public spaces, and that form of social order is questioned and starts to break down, it can lead to a surge in violence. It doesn’t mean that protests cause violence. It means that when you depend on the police to dominate public spaces and they suddenly step back from that role, violence can increase.
…
[/quote]
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/is-americas-great-crime-decline-over/618381/
Most crimes are prevented by people feeling the need to be law-abiding. That's true for every community. Most people are law-abiding. If someone isn't law abiding, they will choose a time and place to commit a crime where the police will not be present -- OBVIOUSLY. Police reduce crime by arresting repeat offenders, and by maintaining a certain level of intimidation (make that necessary intimidation).
To paraphrase Mao, law enforcement is not a tea party.
It's all about money it seems. The racial theories thought up to justify discrimination were/are just a smokescreen to make the dehumanizing of fellow humans easier on the conscience. I feel bad.
Like 5 per 100,000? Maybe nationally, but not by state, and not by city.
Here: The murder rate varies from 1 or 2 per 100,000 on up.
:ok: I'd very much like to see the revenue statistics for fines levied on criminal activity from traffic transgressions to felony fraud. How much does the government actually earn from people breaking the law?
Well, the rate of "cleared cases" is an important number for public safety. If few murder/manslaughter cases are cleared, it means that individuals who are ready, willing, and able to kill are still in the community. A certain percentage of murders are one-off. Another percentage are repeaters. The percentage of repeat killers is not huge, and it doesn't have to be for great harm.
"cleared cases" are solved cases.
That nasty place of Louisiana? High was 20 in 1993 and is like 12 today.
https://www.disastercenter.com/crime/lacrime.htm
Do you think it was the police force that halved the murder rate?
Katrina wasn't and won't be the last disaster to hit NOLA. When the poor are displaced, they usually do not have the resources to return and rebuild. Some did, but many didn't. So, if the level of violence is less now, this can't be credited to law enforcement.
I think the people doing the stats have found that the police are largely neither to blame nor praise when it comes to movement in violent crimes. While I agree with you that deterrence is something important, it isn’t the act of policing that drives deterrence (or many other kinds of deterrence policy), but the perception of being caught and/or actual imposition of consequences. So yes, arresting domestic abusers would be great, but I am not that concerned about low levels of murderers not getting arrested. I am interested in seeing people called into society and given a vested interest in its success. Putting lots of cops in the street could increase a murderer’s sense that he (because it is generally a he) will be caught, but the cost of increased police presence to prevent a murder or three (rather than to solve a murder or three) is the increased policing of POC for meaningless low level crimes combined with the continuation of seeing the system as an oppressor rather than a vehicle for personal and familial success.
Sure, ruling with an iron fist sounds amusing, but it isn’t based in the sorts of policy that I would hope animate policy in the United States.
Hennepin County (where I live--population 1.3 million) collects $60,000,000 in (mostly) traffic related fines. 17% of the total is a result of moving violations. Please come to Minneapolis and flout our traffic laws. Pay up when you get to court. We weary taxpayers need your help.
20% of the fine revenue is remitted to the state; Hennepin county keeps 80%. A small amount ($3 from a $145 fine) goes to the county law libraries. The percentages vary by county. In most counties in Minnesota it's a 2/3 - 1/3 split.
Federal courts issue billions of dollars in fines for fraud; that is not the same as actually collecting the money from the evil doers.
Not to me.
:chin: I recall a thread a coupla weeks ago (for better or worse I can't find it) about how it might be important, even necessary, to maintain a certain minimum level of criminal population so that criminal-on-criminal violence will keep them occupied, leaving good folks alone. I didn't realize that there were direct benefits in hard cash too. It seems one can contribute to the community more by breaking the law than following it. Paradoxical.
I'll come to Minneapolis in a speeding truck...one day! :grin:
Kurt Gödel (mathematician & logician) comes to mind - it's said that he confided to Albert Einstein and one other whose name I forgot that the American constitution has a dangerous loophole that makes dictatorship constitutional. Gödel asked Einstein whether he should inform the judge presiding over his American citizenship about it and the latter gently dissuaded him from doing so. :smile:
:up:
The city’s streets are densely shelved with rows
of salt and packaged hair. Intent on air,
the funk of crave and function comes to blows
with any smell that isn’t oil—the blare
of storefront chicken settles on the skin
and mango spritzing drips from razored hair.
The corner chefs cube pork, decide again
on cayenne, fry in grease that’s glopped with dust.
The sizzle of the feast adds to the din
of children, strutting slant, their wanderlust
and cussing, plus the loud and tactless hiss
of dogged hustlers bellowing past gusts
of peppered breeze, that fatty, fragrant bliss
in skillets. All our rampant hunger tricks
us into thinking we can dare dismiss
the thing men do to boulevards, the wicks
their bodies be. A city, strapped for art,
delights in torching them—at first for kicks,
to waltz to whirling sparks, but soon those hearts
thud thinner, whittled by the chomp of heat.
Outlined in chalk, men blacken, curl apart.
Their blindly rising fume is bittersweet,
although reversals in the air could fool
us into thinking they weren’t meant as meat.
Our sons don’t burn their cities as a rule,
born, as they are, up to their necks in fuel.
-Patricia Smith
Quoting Bitter Crank
This certainly didn’t come across as your advocating for a reduction in policing to increase social cohesion. Maybe you can explain what “necessary intimidation is” on your view. Or maybe you think it is necessary but not amusing.
I would say that if we are concerned with saving the lives of people of color, then black-on-black crime is far more relevant than police brutality, for example (something I believe is the result of both personal and systemic racism). We should target the largest source of these murders if all we care about is stopping them and giving black lives the value they deserve.
If I told you that I murdered another black man because of a legacy of racism, would you accept that? If not, would I not be devaluing that man's life by deciding to murder him of my own free will? It seems to me that many murderers of other people of color devalue each other's lives as much as any racist police officer. This might be a bitter pill, but I don't really care.
I seem to remember a certain man calling out another for not recognizing good intent, when really many people's well-intended actions lack any consideration for the wellbeing of those affected by said actions - which might be considered evil. I think many of the people who deny the relevance of black-on-black crime fall into this camp (although I would not say that they are evil; perhaps just confused).
Great poem.
Consider Ireland after it became independent. The Irish people were liberated from British control, but the state fell short of its aspirations to be an ethically just system of power; mere liberation was not enough; the Irish people were brutalized by internecine violence and civil war for years after writing up their constitution.
I don't believe, like I have said elsewhere, that we can just legislate this away; abolition is likely not enough, as in Ireland's case. Neither are good motives - which appear to be plentiful on the forum.
Furthermore, we are only a part of the problem if we refuse to accept the reality of the situation and act accordingly.
Again, the people who are talking about systemic issues seem to be focused on systemic issues rather than eliminating the harms of specific violent crimes. They are also talking about the systems of government and not focusing on extra-governmental (private) behavior. If those talking about systemic racism (the sorts of people that you would consider informed on the issue) are not discussing black-on-black crime, do you suppose they are ignorant? If you aren't an insider to the conversation (or in a position of power to respond to the advocacy coming from the conversation), what difference does it make if you don't understand why people aren't discussing your preferred issue?
Lay out a narrative of how it is that you are privilege to this critical issue, the systemic racism folk are unable to identify critical issues to their values, and that your bringing it up is helpful to their agenda rather than a deflection from the agenda they are already advancing.
P.S. Here are some random articles in response to a google inquiry of "systemic racism black on black crime"
https://www.afterschoolalliance.org/afterschoolsnack/VOX-5-Reasons-why-Black-on-Black-crime-is-not-a-valid_09-08-2020.cfm
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/black-on-black-crime-myth
https://www.cleveland.com/news/2020/06/stop-using-black-on-black-crime-to-deflect-away-from-police-brutality.html
https://www.vox.com/2016/7/12/12152772/rudy-giuliani-black-on-black-crime-police (from back in 2016)
And here is a random bit from someone that wants to talk about the issue:
https://www.city-journal.org/media-silence-on-black-on-black-violence
I understand that most of those who write or talk about systemic racism are specifically talking about systems of oppression, not private behavior. But people approach systemic racism from the angle that black lives are devalued and, if we are are talking about the devaluation of black lives, then black-on-black crime is relevant (a murder is a murder; murderers almost always devalue their victims by the very nature of the act). And it very much seems to me that the conversation is indeed about the devaluation of black lives. Why else would the slogan "black lives matter" have been chosen?
Quoting Ennui Elucidator
I think it is worth bringing up because it is difficult to acknowledge that many of the admittedly oppressed people you self-identify with are responsible - at least partially - for their own horrific behavior. Acknowledging this reality would do much to bridge the gap between some hardliners on crime and those more sympathetic to the plight of impoverished people of color. And, more importantly, it would save lives.
That Cleveland article was garbage; they cited the ratio of whites killed by whites to refute the preponderance of black-on-black violence.
I can respect that, however.
The after-school alliance article made the same mistake. But it is a good point that people of color rarely kill each other because they are people of color; it is usually just people murdering those in proximity to themselves. But that is even worse, imo; there is not even any real criteria for who is murdered other than something arbitrary like that.
As for BLM, at some point I begin to question your good faith. BLM isn't about telling someone's neighbor not to kill them, it is about reminding government (you know, a system) about something. Yes, it would be great of the racist next door also stopped being racist, but how about we start with our systems of power no longer perpetuating racism.
Here is an excerpt from BLM's official description (from their page):
Notice whose violence they are focusing on and that they are discussing systems.
Here is a random conversation on the topic of BLM and black-on-black violence from six years ago.
If you want to educate yourself on why black on black violence is not an overarching concern of those discussing systemic racism, the tools to do so are readily accessible.
And one more, because why not?
Here was my search terms for these articles: "black lives matters response to black on black violence"
You didn't respond directly to the point I made about devaluation being fundamental to many people's arguments about systemic racism. And I have read about this, yes. I just wanted to start a conversation here even if it isn't breaking that much new ground.
Furthermore, I am arguing in good faith. While the everyday supporters of BLM might not be able to influence the actions of gang members and other criminals, the people of color who support BLM can at least make it possible to talk about black-on-black violence as as it is relevant without immediately being labeled a racist. And even if BLM wasn't formed for that, and they want to keep their message singular, there should be a coequal movement to stop black-on-black crime if we value black lives the way we value white lives.
And I believe we do not value black lives as much as white lives. I guarantee that if young white men were jailed at the rates young black men are for non-violent drug offenses, for example, there would be a significant change in the judicial and prison system.
And yeah, I want to tear down racist institutions as much as anyone, but I don't think it will solve everything.
And I find the suggestion that I haven't done enough reading a little condescending. How do you know I haven't seen these arguments? How do you know what I have or haven't googled?
Quoting ToothyMaw
Quoting ToothyMaw
Quoting ToothyMaw
Quoting ToothyMaw
Quoting ToothyMaw
Yes, these are excerpts, but I don't think they are particularly off base about what you have said. BLM, which came to be some twenty years after Sandifer's murder, was developed in a non-comparable social context for reasons that are both complex and simple - the internet and instantaneous decentralized messaging that can be effortlessly re-broadcast. To suggest that people care about Floyd but not about Sandifer by virtue of the social response each aroused is, I believe, misleading at best.
Regardless, BLM is not about the abstracted killing of people of color, but about the system's disparate treatment of people of color (especially black men). You keep putting words in the mouths of people that are responsible for the mass organization that you bemoan in order to discuss something that they are not interested in discussing. When BLM (and similar public policy advocates) discuss systemic racism and not black on black violence, it isn't because they are stupid or ignorant. Yet you act as if they are and that you repeating that black on black murders is somehow illuminating and not precisely what they say it is - a deflection from what they want to discuss.
Some of the links I posted mentioned the themes that make black on black violence unworthy of significant attention in the context of systemic discrimination - that the violence occurs in contexts created by (exacerbated by) the racist systems and that addressing the systemic issues will likely secondarily result in a reduction of black on black violence. So the advocates tell you both that they care about people of color suffering (at the hands of themselves or others) and that they are focused on systemic issues which contribute to such suffering.
No matter the inter-generational suffering, the current institutional obstacles, the historical systems of oppression, or anything else, when people of color come together to advocate for themselves, you have the audacity to say
Quoting ToothyMaw while you say
Quoting ToothyMaw
Who are you arguing with? Why are you telling them what to do? Who are you that anyone should care what you think?
What is racist on the face of what you are doing is that rather than listening and supporting POC as they advocate for themselves, you appear to be deciding that your way is better for them regardless of what they say or think and that they should make room to hear from you. You don't have to look at the content of what you are saying, just look at the context in which you are saying it.
As I said earlier, if you are a POC and you are having an in-group conversation such that your advocacy is the same as self-advocacy, then go for it. If the group you are speaking to still says that you are being racist, you might want to consider whether they are the ones that are missing the point or you are.
In seriousness, outside of discussion of systemic-racism, do you ever go to advocacy meetings and start talking about the scourge of black-on-black violence and your solutions for it? It it the sort of thing that impacts you or the sort of thing that you are advocating for "them"?
It isn't about what you know or what you have read, it is about whether you are trying to be a part of the system of liberation for blacks from the unjust systems or just another person choosing to ignore the unjust systems in favor of focusing on the bad behavior of individuals.
Food for thought...
Quoting ToothyMaw
Quoting ToothyMaw
Quoting ToothyMaw
I wonder how you might analyze those comments in light of your "racist" detection skills.
Lazy white anti-racist activist with an opinion, here:
Afro-futurism is the solution to this crisis. In point of actual fact, afro-futurism is the solution to all black crises.
@thewonder, promoting black positivity and space-related aesthetics, ?!
Also, in political discourse in the 90s, black on black crime was used to deflect from conversations on institutional racism. It's an exceptionally serious problem, but was just kind of way for news pundits to highlight the danger of certain neighborhoods so as to skirt actually addressing inherent racial inequalities most particularly pronounced within the United States, which is a shame, as it's very sad and something that people ought to be willing to think well enough about so as to change such a state of affairs.
Anyways, though I'm fairly keen on getting around to reading Necro-Politics, Slavery and Social Death, and The Undercommons eventually, I still stand by what I said about afro-futurism. It's just good all around.
Note:
I lied when I said that I was an activist and have further done so by pretending to be a philosopher. I'm mostly just interested in Shoegaze. Black Shoegaze will just sound awesome, though. Someone should really take me up on this.
It could also, perhaps, dabble in Dub and utilize Samuel R. Delany references, but I fear that I may have taken this too far.
Before this objection is even raised, I have undertaken to put this hypothetical musical act out there out of an interest in the pure production of an aesthetic and, most importantly, of a sound. To counter tokenism within the Shoegaze community, an act could very easily deploy some form of détournement. I don't necessarily speak for the Shoegaze movement as a whole, but, this is not an effort on our part to make the genre appear more multicultural. This is a decision that I have made out of the sole interest in getting very high. Clearly, I can't expect for black artists to pander to such a desire, but will say that the creation of this band is just a good idea. Upon reading that article, I did immediately think, "not you, too", but, then quickly discovered the potential for a radically new musical genre and near perfect musical act.
Also, as to why I wouldn't just do this, no matter what I did, people would just say that it's appropriative, and they wouldn't just keep telling me how to make it sound even doper. If it seems like too monumental of a task to create, if you figured out how to make it sound dope enough to be promising, then, people would just keep telling you how to make it sound even doper.
Also, should a black artistic savant discover this and decide to take me up on it and happen to want to help me get my Drone label, Tellurian, off of the ground, hmu. I can't promise that it would, but feel kind of like this could take off like Apple Records. The tagline for Tellurian is "music for the people of Earth". Otherwise, I'd just be happy for this to somehow exist in the world.
Despite what vested interest I may or may not have in this, I do, in full sincerity, think that this theoretical act could actually be good enough to bring about what would be like another golden age of Jazz. Don't not do this because of that some alienated hipster came up with it here. It's too good of an idea not to take as far as you possibly can.
Anyways, that's all that I came here for.
As before, ?!
Talking about X doesn't automatically mean you are deflecting Y, rendering Y invisible, denying Y, and so on. X and Y are separate topics. Black on black crime is local, it bleeds and leads, and is very concrete. Institutional racism, sexism, or some other 'ism' is general, usually blood-free, and is abstract. it usually is a political construct (whether it is real or not).
Topic deflection certainly occurs. If I am talking to you about how "banking has historically discriminated against blacks", and you respond by saying, "Yeah, but blacks kill each other at much higher rates than whites kill each other"--that is deflection. if you hold a conference on the history of banking discrimination in black communities, that is not deflecting the question of black on black violence. You are simply talking about something else.
Back in the 70s, if a heterosexual feminist gave a speech about the problems of women in the workplace, one could count on a lesbian activist standing up and accusing the speaker of "rendering lesbians invisible". Lesbians faced workplace problems that were different than, and the same as, those faced by heterosexual women. Then a minority woman would accuse the white woman of rendering minority women invisible. The lesbians and minorities could agree that heterosexual white men were oppressing them, as long as they didn't have to acknowledge each others' suffering. Sometimes race would trump sex, and white women would be grouped with white men as a common enemy.
No matter your political stance, sex, sexual orientation, age, race, ethnicity, class (working, middle, ruling), or your personal history -- someone will always accuse a speaker of devaluing, rendering invisible, ignoring, deflecting, denigrating, and so on. (We could get into how the aristocracy of suffering works, but that's another can of worms.)
Honestly, I only entered this thread in the hopes that someone will take me up on creating black Shoegaze.
It's fine to talk about black on black crime, but it was kind of a deflective talking point in the 1990s.
I'm a no one, and I don't think anyone should care what I have to say on the matter, really. People of color are the only ones who can really do anything about this. The rest of us can only be allies, support movements like BLM, and try to end systemic racism.
I feel like I'm bashing my head against a brick wall here.
Quoting Ennui Elucidator
I can be part of the system of liberation of people of color from unjust systems and also try to empower those people of color who feel the need to advocate for greater measures against black-on-black crime by bringing it up when it is relevant - even if I can only get a few progressive white people to recognize that it is not racist to bring up black-on-black crime in this context.
I mean, do you want to talk about the destruction of black lives and property? Do you want to talk about the most significant problems facing people of color? Or do you want to virtue signal?
Look, I have nothing but love for black people - I'm even in favor of some form of reparations. But abolition isn't enough.
What are you even talking about here? My "racist" detection skills?
Anyways - what do you think of Ahmed Muhhamad, the first black male valedictorian of his school in Oakland? Do you think he achieved this because of anti-racist policies or through hard work? My bet is that he would've achieved highly regardless of whether or not he were the beneficiary of any social programs or initiatives.
The guy's a fucking hero in my book. Would you tell him to his face that black boys and men need white people's help to achieve highly? To extricate themselves from the violence plaguing their communities? He predicates his success not to anti-racist fanatics, but the community that raised him.
You started a thread with the following:
Quoting ToothyMaw
All I tried to address is that when you are writing to a non-specific audience (especially when the people/groups that are the presumable target of your message is exceedingly unlikely to read what you are writing), your arguments are fairly meaningless and presumptuous. It isn't that I question whether you are trying to be helpful, but that your methods are ineffective. Further, I tried to highlight the way in which your methods are a performative contradiction of sorts - you say that "talking about x is not always a deflection" and want to focus on X, but you don't really stop to consider what x is alleged to be a deflection from. So yes, black on black crime is an important issue (though perhaps not for the reasons that some might suggest), but is it more important than the issue that people were otherwise discussing? In the right context, it may very well be more important. In the context of systemic racism? You have yet to make your case.
And it isn't just that you keep declining to make a case, but that when you gesture in the direction of a case, you change the conversation from systemic racism to things like stopping blacks from being murdered or that any harm to the black community is equal such that the thing causing the most criminal suffering should be the focus of conversation. In any event, instead of talking about the issue (systemic racism), we are instead talking about whether something is a deflection. Not just are we not talking about what a particular person was saying when the claim of deflection was made, but we have entirely abstracted that person's message away such that the only thing we can discuss with specificity is black on black crime.
So without going round and round the bush, what context are you talking about where someone brings up black on black crime, the other audience members accuse that person of deflecting, and you believe that the mention of black on black crime was actually material to the context? And in that context, do you believe that the audience was unaware of black on black crime prior to the person bringing it up?
Do you know what farce is? Where do you think he would be if not for the 14th amendment, Brown v. Board, and the Civil Rights Act? Which levers of state power were pulled by non-whites to make them happen? It may be offensive that whites wield power in the US sufficient to change the course of someone's life based upon skin color alone, but it doesn't change the fact that US society was largely created at the expense of non-whites for the benefit of the powerful (the whites). Sure, we can tell lots of stories about how to divide the powerful from the powerless, the exploiters from the exploited, etc., but pretending like individuals are responsible for themselves based on merit alone doesn't even approach a level of serious conversation.
This is a philosophy forum, and I'm not a columnist; obviously no one is probably reading this stuff. Does that mean I can't talk about it on said forum? No. Neither does it make my arguments meaningless. I think the word you are looking for is "ineffective".
Quoting Ennui Elucidator
I have said it isn't a racist deflection, yes, because if we are talking about how black lives are undervalued, then the incredible amount of black-on-black crime is relevant. When discussing consequences, such as the loss of black lives - something that is indeed being addressed somewhat by BLM and anti-racist activism - the source is not relevant unless it is being considered for remediation. Thus, black-on-black crime eclipses police brutality when discussing consequences.
A claim you keep making but have yet to demonstrate. When you look to the sociologists, they seem to be suggesting that creating a more just society where there is social buy-in would do even more to reduce black-on-black crime than trying to focus on typical crime reduction techniques (policing, punishments, etc.). It is like lancing a boil instead of giving antibiotics. Symptomatic treatment is fine so far as it goes (sometimes treating the symptoms is enough), but systemic treatment might very well solve the underlying problem even if it takes a bit more time to be effective and precludes symptomatic treatment in the meanwhile.
Never said they were. But we have to recognize that merit matters a lot, even if it is not the sole-determinant of success.
Quoting Ennui Elucidator
I'm starting to question your good faith. Obviously those changes were necessary, but the US is, as many people acknowledge, less racist than it has ever been; that was a totally different time, and issues of race were far clearer.
When did I say that there shouldn't be a greater social buy-in? I have said very little about actual strategies for solving black-on-black crime; I would just approach it from whatever angle is most effective.
And you are not refuting my claim by listing strategies for reducing crime. I am merely claiming that there should be movements coequal to BLM to end black-on-black violence via whatever means are most effective - be they symptomatic or systemic.
Question it all you want. I neither started nor am responsible for any of the various anti-racist conversations/groups presently in existence. Tell them they are wrong and that there is no disparate impact that is presently measurable and meaningfully associated with race (rather than other categorizations such as socio-economic status). You can also educate them on how the levers of power in the US (government and corporate) are not dominated by whites and generally indifferent to remediating contemporary racial injustice.
Did I say there was no systemic racism, or did I say that we are less racist than ever? You are being obtuse.
You asked me to tell an 18 year old that he needs white people to succeed as if that isn't patently obvious. Last I checked, black separtism isn't the driving ideology of Stanford's treatment of undergrads.
My point, obviously, is that successful people of color are doing it almost entirely on their own without being given any of the advantages a young white woman or man might, and oftentimes totally devoid of governmental initiatives or aid. While we can't all be valedictorians, we can all at least finish high-school given we put our minds to it (usually). If we invested in the communities of people of color like we should, there would be more Ahmed's.
I'm not saying you are being obtuse again, but you are being a little obtuse. Of course I know he isn't a black separatist, or that he need be one; it is relevant however that he said he was successful because of other people of color, and not woke white people and the gobbledygook they often spew.
Is 2,574 greater than 241?
Is 1,000 greater than 800? Or 2,500 greater than 1,800? It is nice that we know how to use comparative operators, but that is exactly not the point. We could reduce the number to 0 murders (for all races) if everyone is isolated in a cell. The question is, in which world do you want to live? One in which the murder rate in a community slowly declines because of increasing social buy-in or one in which it instantly goes to 0 because everyone is in a cell?
Focusing on a metric like the murder rate is swell, but has little to do with combating systemic racism except where the system is murdering people, e.g. police killings. I don't not understand how math works, I simply disagree that your numbers are particular useful when figuring out how and when to address systemic problems. I am taking a longer view of the consequences than you are.
Did I say we should throw more people of color in prison? Or did I say we should address violence in the black community in the most effective way possible?
Quoting Ennui Elucidator
Perhaps. I'll have to do more research; you are likely correct about how to best decrease crime.