Why Black-on-Black Crime isn't a Racist Deflection.

ToothyMaw

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.

ToothyMaw

In before someone accuses me of writing claptrap

Ennui Elucidator

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

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.

180 Proof

Northern Ireland during "The Troubles".

The violent break-up of the former Yugoslavia.

The Italian, Irish & Jewish gangs in e.g. Chicago, New York, Boston & Philadelphia during (& after) the Prohibition Era.

Post-Civil War era gold rush claim-jumpers vs settlers vs ranchers vs railroads in violent disputes in the US "Wild West".

Majority white-owned opioid "pill mills" in majority white counties, small towns and suburbs/exurbs throughout the southeastern US since the 1990s.

: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:

ToothyMaw

↪Ennui Elucidator

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. — Ennui Elucidator

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.

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. — 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.

ToothyMaw

↪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?

180 Proof

↪ToothyMaw

Uh huh. You can't reply to my content which is telling and consistent with the specious OP. Sorry you feel entitled to less punctuation ...

Maw

I find your comments to be self-indulgent and poorly written. — ToothyMaw

lol

ToothyMaw

↪180 Proof

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

NOS4A2

↪ToothyMaw

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.

Wheatley

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. — ToothyMaw

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?

180 Proof

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. — ToothyMaw

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:

ToothyMaw

crime is an act of individuals, not groups, so it would make more sense to look at individual circumstances rather than invent racial ones. — NOS4A2

I did emphasize that it is a choice for each murderer to murder at the end of my OP.

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. — 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.

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. — 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.).

ToothyMaw

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? — Wheatley

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.

ToothyMaw

This non-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 far more "concerned" about communities of color exploited and discriminated against – ghettoed for centuries – by a white-controlled socioeconomic structure that reinforces the social pathologies in said communities (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: — 180 Proof

I'll read it and get back to you. No need to draw assumptions.

NOS4A2

↪ToothyMaw

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.

ToothyMaw

↪NOS4A2

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?

NOS4A2

↪ToothyMaw

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.

ToothyMaw

↪NOS4A2

"Any grouping is arbitrary => groups other than the human mind do not exist" makes no sense to me. The items in a group do not have to be identified with themselves or be identical to be in a group. They must merely be classed together.

ToothyMaw

↪NOS4A2

I agree that in a perfect world no one would integrate their race into their identity.

NOS4A2

↪ToothyMaw

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.

ToothyMaw

↪180 Proof

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.

Ennui Elucidator

If one is concerned with people of color being murdered, then black-on-black violence is relevant; — ToothyMaw

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.

ssu

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. — ToothyMaw

I wouldn't say it's a cultural issue, but more of a wealth and prosperity issue.

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. — 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.

BC

↪ToothyMaw

The "chattering classes" and their social media followers have been absolutely obsessed with race, gender, identity, et al. A lot of the talk, regardless of the source, is a deflection from the material facts of life.

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.

Ennui Elucidator

a relative lack of police services in black communities. — Bitter Crank

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.

180 Proof

↪ssu

:up:

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. — Bitter Crank

:100:

TheMadFool

Indeed, one can't argue against the numbers: black-on-black crime is out of proportion. That's the current situation, the state of affairs, the reality as it is now. From the now perspective it might seem as though blacks are their own worst enemy and racism has no/a small role to play in the misery of blacks.

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.

BC

This is painful, BC. — Ennui Elucidator

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.

TheMadFool

What is painful is that black communities are over-policed and under-policed at the same time. — Bitter Crank

:brow:

Or heavily policing traffic offenses--both of which are revenue producers (not for the police, necessarily, but for the municipality). — 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!

Why Black-on-Black Crime isn't a Racist Deflection.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions