However, ask why the situation is like it is for blacks?, — TheMadFool

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.

The police activity that is missing in many communities is detective-led investigations leading to the arrest of people committing murder and manslaughter. — Bitter Crank

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

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. — “Brennan Center”

Do you have sources you find compelling to counter narratives such as this?

…

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.

… — “Atlantic Interview of Patrick Sharkey”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/is-americas-great-crime-decline-over/618381/

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. Geez! What a mind job! — TheMadFool

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.

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. — Bitter Crank

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.

In 1960, the murder rate was 5.1. Today it is 5.0. There was a peak in 1980 of around 10. — Ennui Elucidator

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.

Most crimes are prevented by people feeling the need to be law-abiding. That's true for every community. out 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. — Bitter Crank

: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?

I’m curious why this is of such concern to you. — Ennui Elucidator

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.

Like 5 per 100,000? Maybe nationally, but not by state, and not by city. — Bitter Crank

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?

In 1990 the population of New Orleans was 497,000. In 1910 it was 343,000; today it is 384,000. In addition, the racial and economic mix has changed considerably. These changes can be laid at the doorstep of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

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.

I'd very much like to see the revenue statistics for fines levied on criminal activity from traffic transgressions — TheMadFool

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.

Sure, ruling with an iron fist sounds amusing — Ennui Elucidator

Not to me.

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. — Bitter Crank

: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:

Sure, ruling with an iron fist sounds amusing
— Ennui Elucidator

Not to me. — Bitter Crank

:up:

Incendiary Art

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

Sure, ruling with an iron fist sounds amusing
— Ennui Elucidator

Not to me. — Bitter Crank

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. — 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.

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. — Ennui Elucidator

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.

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. — Ennui Elucidator

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.

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. — ToothyMaw

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

The problem in the American inner city is not white supremacy but the failure to socialize young males—a problem that is a direct result of family breakdown. As businesses and apartment buildings in the nation’s big cities board themselves up in anticipation of postelection rioting, many Americans may decide that if being “racist” in the eyes of the media, academics, and other elites means worrying about their community being looted or their children being shot, they will simply have to endure that slander.

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? — Ennui Elucidator

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?

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. — 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.

The problem in the American inner city is not white supremacy but the failure to socialize young males—a problem that is a direct result of family breakdown. As businesses and apartment buildings in the nation’s big cities board themselves up in anticipation of postelection rioting, many Americans may decide that if being “racist” in the eyes of the media, academics, and other elites means worrying about their community being looted or their children being shot, they will simply have to endure that slander.

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.

Those links were along the line of LMGTFY. You can find people discussing the issue to your heart's content.

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):

#BlackLivesMatter was founded in 2013 in response to the acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s murderer. Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc. is a global organization in the US, UK, and Canada, whose mission is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes. By combating and countering acts of violence, creating space for Black imagination and innovation, and centering Black joy, we are winning immediate improvements in our lives. . . .

We are working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically targeted for demise.

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.

. . .

Airing those viewpoints is a service—and there’s a lot to chew on that I won’t address here.

But it seems to me that the debate about whether to focus on police killings or “black-on-black” killings presumes that reducing the former will not help to reduce the latter.

What if the opposite is true?

Black Lives Matter calls for 10 specific changes to policing policy, including body cameras, an end to “policing for profit,” better training, and stricter limits on the use of force.

. . .

Black Lives Matter activists are often silent about black-on-black killings. Perhaps that is a P.R. mistake. But the reforms they are urging strike me as a more realistic path to decreasing those killings than publicly haranguing would-be murderers to be peaceful.

Black Lives Matter participants are civic activists, not respected high-school teachers or social workers or reformed gang members who can influence their former brethren.

Since police departments are ultimately responsive to political institutions, fighting for police reforms with civic activism is a relatively straightforward project. . . .

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?

... Let’s stop losing focus and changing the subject when it comes to police and or vigilante violence against blacks. That is what the Black Lives Matter movement originally brought focus to. A person randomly killing someone is a totally and completely separate issue. For those so concerned about these murders, you need to offer some solutions to stop them. . . .

Here was my search terms for these articles: "black lives matters response to black on black violence"

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. — Ennui Elucidator

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?

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 . . . only one of those deaths resulted in the mobilization of millions of people in one of the largest political movements ever. — ToothyMaw

but black-on-black crime is also worth paying attention to — ToothyMaw

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. — ToothyMaw

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. — ToothyMaw

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? — ToothyMaw

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. — 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

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 racis — ToothyMaw

while you say

I am arguing in good faith. — 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...

↪180 Proof


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. — ToothyMaw

↪180 Proof


I mean did you even read the OP? — ToothyMaw

↪180 Proof


You didn't even make an argument, bro. You just listed a bunch of examples of white-on-white violence

...

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? — 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, awhile ago, I read this article on the the black roots of Shoegaze. As tempting as it may be to compare the "scene that celebrates itself" to the former "British invasion", what I, instead, post is that this calls for a black artistic savant to take a leaf from so-called "world music", a decisive influence from free jazz, echoes of musique concrète, a style of production that proceeds from both the wall of sound and contemporary Hip Hop, and, of course, soaring epochal feedback-driven guitar sounds and to create an immanent plane of good vibes.

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, ☮!