Quote: Blackness’ first and most important task

kirk-anderson-cartoon-racism

Naval officer Theodore R. Johnson:

This is what it feels like to be black in America. It sounds like the symphony of locking car doors as I traipse through a grocery store parking lot, armed with kale chips and turkey bacon. It looks like smiling when I don’t feel like it. It’s the instinct to enunciate differently, to use acceptable methods of signaling that I am safe to engage, or at least to disregard. “We wear the mask that grins and lies,” wrote the poet Paul Laurence Dunbar. I feel that mask covering my soul, never allowing me to just freely exist.

I could argue that any negative reaction to my skin is a problem for others to grapple with and of no concern to me. I’ve tried that approach before; one memorable attempt ended with me being pulled out of my car by two police officers and handcuffed for the felonious infractions of having a blown headlight and insufficient self-abasement. It is an unspoken rule that blackness’ first and most important task is to make everyone feel safe from it. We ignore this mandate at our own peril, realizing that a simple misunderstanding is a life or death proposition.

Jonathan Ferrell ran towards police seeking help after a car accident and was given a hail of bullets for his troubles. Renisha McBride went in search of a Good Samaritan after her accident and a shotgun blast answered her knock. Teenager Trayvon Martin walked home with candy and tea and was greeted by the nervous trigger finger wrapped in an adult’s gun. Jordan Davis sat in a car outside a convenience store listening to music and a man who objected to the volume cut his life short with the boom of a firearm. The principal crime all of them committed, like countless others over the centuries, was being black and not sufficiently prostrating themselves to ensure the comfort of others.

This entry posted in Race, racism and related issues. Bookmark the permalink. 

32 Responses to Quote: Blackness’ first and most important task

  1. 1
    gin-and-whiskey says:

    This is especially obvious lately w/r/t Open Carry. Open Carry is the group of (white) NRA folks who walk around openly flaunting weapons in support of their 2nd Amendment rights. Want to guess what would happen if a bunch of black dudes did the same thing?

  2. 2
    Iseter says:

    Since every group commits crime, I’m curious if anyone has any suggestions as to why black men are singled out for prejudice vis-a-vis crime in this way? Why not Asian men or white women or any other group?

  3. 3
    gin-and-whiskey says:

    Iseter says:
    June 16, 2014 at 6:19 am
    Since every group commits crime, I’m curious if anyone has any suggestions as to why black men are singled out for prejudice vis-a-vis crime in this way? Why not Asian men or white women or any other group?

    Simple: because black men account for a disproportionate %age arrests/convictions. (Note that I am talking about a RATE, i.e. “how many ___ per 1000 _____” and not about a VALUE, i.e. “how many _____ were committed by ____.”)

    Also, not only is this true in general, but black men account for a disproportionate %age of arrests/convictions for crimes which people talk about more (rightly or wrongly; not all of them are actually so bad) which makes it even more noticeable.

    Now, you might reasonably wonder “Hey, wait a gosh darned second. Isn’t this a self-fulfilling prophecy? If cops arrest and surveil black men all the time because they think of them as dangerous, wouldn’t that tend to artificially inflate their arrest records? And if the rest of the judicial system is biased against black men, and against poor people, which we know to be the case… well, wouldn’t that tend to artificially inflate their conviction records?”

    The answer is yes, of course, at least to some degree. Those stats are not accurate as a comparison tool. If you started following every white BMW-driving college kid around, and searching them (or their cars) on a pretext, you’d find reasons to arrest a lot of them, too.

    However, even if you account for arrests it is still probably true that black men, on average, have a higher rate of committing certain crimes.** That, too, is largely a byproduct of the effect of being black (poverty, segregation, lack of economically viable alternatives to crime, bad education, hostile police, structural barriers like lack of access to banking, and the continued effects of those things across generations.)

    But even when you eliminate comparative effects you still treat folks differently who are black. Because, of course, racism. E.g., you see a blond blue-eyed 16 year old kid do a snatch and grab. You feel one way about it. But if you see a black 16 year old kid do the same thing–oh wait, those folks are “young men” if they’re black–you probably feel differently. For many people the first one makes them mad and the second one makes them scared. That’s a problem.

    Anyway that’s the short basic answer. There’s plenty online.
    **Like, say, selling crack. Then again, look at “people who were responsible for the mortgage lending debacle which led to a gajillion foreclosures, suicides, people homeless, etc.” or “people responsible for deciding to invade Iraq” or other equally-atrocious things, and you’d start to believe that everything was the fault of white men. Like I said, it’s all in the numbers.

  4. 4
    gin-and-whiskey says:

    ETA: Not sure how basic you really need. I didn’t explain–perhaps should have–that actual racism in the police itself is incredibly common and well documented. I sort of assume folks here already know that part.

  5. 5
    Iseter says:

    Thanks for an answer gin-and-whiskey.

    I see two responses from you (please correct me if I’m wrong):

    1. The police are biased against blacks, so they arrest blacks more often. I assume the DAs and the rest of the criminal justice chain are also biased against blacks, so they go to jail more often than other groups. That causes the general public to think blacks are more violent and criminal than other groups.

    2. Blacks are more criminal because of their upbringing. They don’t get the same chances as other groups, so they become more criminal.

    ———————

    Argument 1 seems to be circular to me. Cops are part of society, but they are biased and make the rest of society biased. Which makes cops more biased. Rinse, wash, repeat. I don’t really buy that one without something further. Once again, why just randomly pick blacks if there is nothing further? Why not Amish people or Asian men?

    Argument 2 makes more sense, but it is opposed to Argument 1. You seem to be saying that blacks may be more violent and criminal, but their upbringing led to it. That could be the case.

    But then – avoiding a larger argument about free will etc. – you have to wonder if society is at fault if it takes steps to avoid a group that IS more violent or criminal.

    If a woman is beaten in a marriage, is she responsible for just taking it because the man was beaten by his mother as a child – and that made him violent? Or does she simply have the right to take measures to not be beaten again?

    Similarly, does society have the right – regardless of whether a black man was raised poorly as a child – to see that there is an increased risk and to take appropriate measures? Does a woman have the right to think that men in general are more violent, so she is allowed to take defensive measures in walking to her car in the parking lot at night?

  6. 6
    Ampersand says:

    Hey, lseter, what’s your explanation? You seem a bit coy.

  7. 7
    Hector_St_Clare says:

    Re: Since every group commits crime, I’m curious if anyone has any suggestions as to why black men are singled out for prejudice vis-a-vis crime in this way? Why not Asian men or white women or any other group?

    Black men commit more violent crimes than white women, Asian men, etc.. That’s the reason they are singled out.

    It’s not a *good* or *moral* reason, of course. Just because members of a particular group commit more violent crimes *in general*, doesn’t give you licence to treat any individual Black male as a potential criminal. That would be unfair to the ones who are law-abiding and nonviolent (who are, actually, the majority). In exactly the same way, men commit more violent crimes than women (possibly for some of the same reasons that explain the Black-White gap), but I wouldn’t think highly of a woman who thought of every man as a potential assailant.

  8. 8
    gin-and-whiskey says:

    1. The police are biased against blacks, so they arrest blacks more often

    Yup. That said, the correct term is “black people.”

    . I assume the DAs and the rest of the criminal justice chain are also biased against blacks,

    Yup. As are juries. Also, irrespective of actual bias, black people are also less likely to be able to afford a good defense.

    so they go to jail more often than other groups.

    Yup.

    That causes the general public to think blacks are more violent and criminal than other groups.

    That is ONE of the things which affects public perception, but by no means the only thing.

    2. Blacks are more criminal because of their upbringing.

    Not really. It would be more accurate to say that black people share the same propensity as anyone else to commit crimes. But they are concentrated in areas of the country, and in social settings, which contain a lot of crime. IOW if you looked at “white dude living in poverty in a rundown area of the city” and “black dude living in poverty in a rundown area of the city” they wouldn’t be different, it’s just that blacks are more likely to be in that situation.

    Argument 1 seems to be circular to me.

    Then you don’t understand what a circular argument is.

    It is true that this is a feedback situation. And there are plenty of those in life. Just ask a teacher: Treat a kid badly and they will often act out, which makes you treat them badly, and so on. But feedback is normal, while a “circular argument” is a logical point.

    Cops are part of society, but they are biased and make the rest of society biased. Which makes cops more biased.

    Eh. not really. But I don’t think you get it at all, as indicated by:

    I don’t really buy that one without something further. Once again, why just randomly pick blacks if there is nothing further? Why not Amish people or Asian men?

    I will posit that you were born after the Civil Rights movement. You may not be aware that the world existed prior to your birth. Whether or not you “buy” probably depends on your knowledge of history prior to 2014.

  9. 9
    Hector_St_Clare says:

    Re: IOW if you looked at “white dude living in poverty in a rundown area of the city” and “black dude living in poverty in a rundown area of the city” they wouldn’t be different, it’s just that blacks are more likely to be in that situation.

    I’m going to need a citation for that.

  10. 10
    gin-and-whiskey says:

    Similarly, does society have the right – regardless of whether a black man was raised poorly as a child – to see that there is an increased risk and to take appropriate measures?

    generally not, for a variety of reasons including but not limited to: (a) “society” doesn’t really have rights, individuals do; and (b) “society” has responsibilities to its members which may require balancing, and the promotion of long term gains over short term gains; and (c) to the degree that “society” caused a problem it may have a responsibility to fix it.

    You can be personally prejudiced against POC (or anyone else, for that matter.) I won’t argue against it. You have the right to live your life as you choose, and if you think it’s worthwhile to write off 1/3 of USians because you might potentially encounter a person who might be a member of a group which has an increased risk profile for certain particular–albeit rare–crimes, that’s your call. It’s sorta like the folks who would rather starve than eat GMO food; or who would rather get sick than take antibiotics, etc. Life your life as you choose.

    Does a woman have the right to think that men in general are more violent, so she is allowed to take defensive measures in walking to her car in the parking lot at night?

  11. 11
    Abbe Faria says:

    …doesn’t give you licence to treat any individual Black male as a potential criminal. That would be unfair to the ones who are law-abiding and nonviolent (who are, actually, the majority).

    That’s likely a minority. 1/6 black men are in prison. 1/3 will be at some point. Even under a very modest 2/3 conversion to jail rate, the majority of black men are criminals.

    Open Carry is the group of (white) NRA folks who walk around openly flaunting weapons in support of their 2nd Amendment rights. Want to guess what would happen if a bunch of black dudes did the same thing?

    This happened, so we know. The NRAs current gun rights position is directly inspired by the work of the black panthers. Open carry is mild in comparison, the panthers were doing stuff like getting bunches of armed guys into cars and trailing police patrols around. Following the various assassinations and armed riots at around the same time, there was an attempt at gun control in response, supported by a moderate NRA. This resulted in a libertarian coup at the organisation, the NRA adopting the panthers gun rights position, and we ended up with the open carry movement today.

  12. 12
    Harlequin says:

    1/6 black men are in prison. 1/3 will be at some point. Even under a very modest 2/3 conversion to jail rate, the majority of black men are criminals.

    There are something like 15 million adult black men in the US, and less than 1 million black men in prison. The 1/6 number is flat-out wrong.

    Also, the “1/3 will serve time in prison” statistic is from this report from the Bureau of Justice, which you may note says “based on constant 1991 rates of first incarceration”–ie right at the peak of the mid-80s to early-90s crime wave.

    The majority of people are criminals: 40% of Americans have tried marijuana, and that was true even before it was legal anywhere, and that is one crime. So if–say–the police are more likely to perform a car search during a routine traffic stop if the people in the car are black (and they are), they’re going to find more black people who have drugs, because that’s where they’re looking. In other words, at least part of the difference in incarceration rates is that white people are more likely to get away with being criminals.

    Similarly, does society have the right – regardless of whether a black man was raised poorly as a child – to see that there is an increased risk and to take appropriate measures?

    In addition to what g&w said, it’s worth pointing out that inasmuch as black people commit more crimes than white people (for various definitions and reasons as described in this thread), they’re also more likely to commit them against other black people. I don’t know the statistics for all varieties of crime, but the racial distribution of murderers of white people pretty much traces the racial distribution of the US as a whole.

    ETA: And all of this elides the difference between “person who has been convicted of a crime” and “person who might harm you”, which is a big elision when ~60% of the people sentenced in any given year are sentenced for nonviolent crimes.

  13. 13
    Abbe Faria says:

    The 1/6 is have ever been, not are. Very few people are in jail only for marijuana possession.

    The criticism of the Justice report is just a incredibly weird zombie argument. When the 1/3 figure came out in ’97 everyone wanted to downplay it, so the ‘assuming 1991 incarceration rates’ complaint was propounded, but this still gets trotted out as a rebuttal.

  14. 14
    Sarah says:

    The NRA-was-inspired-by-the-Black-Panthers thing seems somewhat… inaccurate. The gun control effort that the Black Panthers protested and the moderate NRA supported was California’s Mulford Act, passed in 1967.

    The Cincinnati Revolt in which the NRA overthrew moderate leadership and shifted in favor of libertarian ideals with a focus on the 2nd Amendment was in 1977. Ten years later.

    So, not exactly the next political cycle, or anything.

    By that time, the Black Panther Party was no longer a party of any national significance and were a handful of years from total dissolution.

    Instead, looking at the culture of the NRA during the early and mid 70s, the Revolt at Cincinnati appears to have been a reaction to the creation of the ATF and its ensuing attempts to control firearms, combined with many members’ move away from the attitude of sports shooters and toward the attitude that guns were weapons of personal protection. Mixed, in the case of some members (Clifford Knox, namely), by a healthy amount of conspiracy theorization that posited all those assassinations and protests during the 60s (such as the BPP’s) as having been staged specifically in order to get the nation to support gun control measures.

    http://m.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-nras-true-believers-converted-a-marksmanship-group-into-a-mighty-gun-lobby/2013/01/12/51c62288-59b9-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html

  15. 15
    closetpuritan says:

    Hector:
    Re: IOW if you looked at “white dude living in poverty in a rundown area of the city” and “black dude living in poverty in a rundown area of the city” they wouldn’t be different, it’s just that blacks are more likely to be in that situation.

    I’m going to need a citation for that.

    I’m thinking that this is probably snark, since if you understand g&w’s argument you will understand that if the part you quoted is true, there would still be different arrest and conviction rates for the two due to institutionalized racism. Note that if you did find a study looking at this, it would need to control not just for income level, but for the poverty level of the neighborhood as a whole–when you control for the income of the individual family, black families are much more likely to live in neighborhoods with a high poverty rate than white families.

  16. 16
    Charles S says:

    There is something particularly ugly about the fact that this post, which is actually about the damage that the ideology of racist paranoia does to the lives of black men, draws out the nasty little ideologues to insist that indeed black men are dangerous and that most of them are criminals and don’t we have a right to fear and avoid them.

  17. 17
    Ampersand says:

    Abbe Faria, you’ve now had 49 comments on “Alas,” and I’m sorry to say that your comments aren’t what we’re looking for here at all.

    In the unlikely event that we find ourselves badly in need of a racist twit, we might give you a call. Until that time, I’m afraid we won’t be reading any more of your comments here on “Alas.” Good day to you.

  18. 18
    Ampersand says:

    An article in the Huffington Post usefully nutshells a report put together by the Sentencing Project. Here’s an excerpt:

    Central to the report’s argument is the simple fact that African-American and, to a lesser extent, Hispanic men, are more likely to spend time behind bars than their white counterparts, according to recent data from the U.S. government.

    The reasons for this discrepancy are widely debated, but the report discourages readers from blaming either the higher-than-average crime rate among blacks and Latinos in the U.S. or the presence of deliberate racism in the criminal justice system.

    While those factors may contribute to the problem, the reasons go much deeper, the report contends.

    The problem begins with police activity. According to Justice Department data cited in the report, police arrested black youth for drug crimes at more than twice the rate of white youth between 1980 and 2010, nationwide. Yet a 2012 study from the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that white high-school students were slightly more likely to have abused illegal drugs within the past month than black students of the same age.

    Blacks are also far more likely than whites to be stopped by the police while driving. The Sentencing Project report largely attributes the racial disparities in both traffic and drug arrests to “implicit racial bias” on the part of the police.

    “Since the nature of law enforcement frequently requires police officers to make snap judgments about the danger posed by suspects and the criminal nature of their activity, subconscious racial associations influence the way officers perform their jobs,” the report contends.

    The disparities don’t end with arrests. Because blacks and Latinos are generally poorer than whites, they are more likely to rely on court-appointed public defenders, who tend to work for agencies that are underfunded and understaffed. In 2012, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, more than 70 percent of public defender offices reported that they were struggling to come up with the funding needed to provide adequate defense services to poor people. By last March, the problem was so bad that Attorney General Eric Holder declared the public defense system to be in a “state of crisis.”

    Racial disparities within the justice system have been exacerbated by the war on drugs, the report argues. The drug war led the country’s population of incarcerated drug offenders to soar from 42,000 in 1980 to nearly half a million in 2007. From 1999 to 2005, African Americans constituted about 13 percent of drug users, but they made up about 46 percent of those convicted for drug offenses, the report points out.

  19. 19
    Iseter says:

    Ampersand asked above what I personally believe. I think both major propositions here are correct:

    1. Many blacks have absolutely gotten a raw deal in many cases with the police and justice system. I have seen that with my own eyes. I also fully get the concept that a black man who is born into this world has no control over what other people of his race do, and he should not be held accountable for that. You have to see the individual.

    2. I also think that blacks commit more crime of a serious nature than other groups in society, and I think some (“some”) of the problems in 1 are based on an attitude and feedback problem. Cops *should* always remain neutral and unbiased. In the real world, constantly getting an attitude probably affects their ability to do that. By the way, Jesse Jackson famously made the statement that when he hears footsteps behind him at night on the sidewalk, he is a bit relieved if he sees it is white guys and not black guys.

    Having said that, I am definitely open to real evidence or new insight as to what is really going on here.

    I also noticed that gin-and-whiskey started out with me with an objective discussion, but then turned to ad hominem. I’m probably not old enough to understand the problem (“You may not be aware that the world existed prior to your birth.”). It’s my choice if I want to write off 1/3 of Americans because I’m a racist etc. Mix with snark and condescension and bake for 30 minutes.

    Finally, I want to find out what the “truth” is here. I’m not here to be a racist or to demean any groups. I will likely get banned eventually for not accepting everything that is taken as holy here, but you don’t have to do the childish mocking thing I see above. You can act like Biggy Boys even if you don’t want someone around who interferes with the echo system.

  20. 20
    Hector_St_Clare says:

    Re: I’m thinking that this is probably snark, since if you understand g&w’s argument you will understand that if the part you quoted is true, there would still be different arrest and conviction rates for the two due to institutionalized racism

    I understand it quite well: what makes you think I don’t? I don’t see any reason to think the part I quoted is true, and I’d like to see some evidence that higher violent crime rates among people of African descent goes away when you correct for poverty, segregation, and so forth. Maybe he’s right, but I want to see the evidence.

  21. 21
    closetpuritan says:

    I understand it quite well: what makes you think I don’t?

    Well, I didn’t say you didn’t understand it; I was trying to say that in order for the question to be sincere rather than snark, you would have to not understand it.

    That said, maybe you did intend it as a serious question, and maybe you don’t understand it, based on this:
    I’d like to see some evidence that higher violent crime rates among people of African descent goes away when you correct for poverty, segregation, and so forth. Maybe he’s right, but I want to see the evidence.

    But there’s no way to correct for racism–which leads to higher rates of arrest and conviction when people commit crimes at the same rate.

    However, based on a very quick search, I did find find this paper, which says that when controlling for structural factors such as poverty, poverty level of the neighborhood, unemployment, and single-parent homes, the racial disparities in crime are much diminished. (It’s 26 pages; I only read up to page 5.)

    Iseter:
    Cops *should* always remain neutral and unbiased. In the real world, constantly getting an attitude probably affects their ability to do that.

    Getting an attitude from who? Black people? I’ve seen a lot of attitude from white people, too. And of course implicit bias means that black people are more likely to be read as “having an attitude” when they’re doing the same things. Implicit bias from growing up in our society certainly does affect their ability to remain neutral and unbiased, though.

    I’m not here to be a racist

    Between the “having an attitude” thing, and jumping to “how they were raised” when g&w was actually talking about economic conditions, and wondering “Once again, why just randomly pick blacks if there is nothing further? Why not Amish people or Asian men?” (gee, I wonder; either black people are inherently more criminal, or it must be totally random! It couldn’t be the legacy our need to justify segregation as a measure to protect white people!)…. I kind of doubt that. Maybe you’re not trying to be racist, but have you considered trying not to be racist?

  22. 22
    Hector_St_Clare says:

    Re: Well, I didn’t say you didn’t understand it; I was trying to say that in order for the question to be sincere rather than snark, you would have to not understand it.

    I’m confused.

    As I understand it, Gin and Whiskey said that higher violent crime rates among African Americans are due to poverty, and if white Americans had the same poverty rates as African-Americans, other things being equal, then they would have equal violent crime rates. That’s the part that I don’t think I agree with (though of course I’d be open to being convinced otherwise).

  23. 23
    Hector_St_Clare says:

    Re: However, based on a very quick search, I did find find this paper, which says that when controlling for structural factors such as poverty, poverty level of the neighborhood, unemployment, and single-parent homes, the racial disparities in crime are much diminished.

    By half, which still leaves a pretty large and glaring gap that can’t be accounted for by ‘structural factors’.

  24. 24
    Ampersand says:

    As I understand it, Gin and Whiskey said that higher violent crime rates among African Americans are due to poverty, and if white Americans had the same poverty rates as African-Americans, other things being equal, then they would have equal violent crime rates

    I don’t think you understood what G&W said. If I understood his comment, he was saying that higher violent crimes rates among Blacks are in part due to “poverty, segregation, lack of economically viable alternatives to crime, bad education, hostile police, structural barriers like lack of access to banking, and the continued effects of those things across generations.” He also talked about other factors, notably the racism of the justice system, having an effect.

    What he wrote was very different from a claim that poverty alone accounts for 100% of the difference, which is what you seem to think he wrote.

  25. 25
    Charles S says:

    I think Hector is focusing on g&w statement:

    IOW if you looked at “white dude living in poverty in a rundown area of the city” and “black dude living in poverty in a rundown area of the city” they wouldn’t be different, it’s just that blacks are more likely to be in that situation.

    As Hector says, closetpuritan’s cited study (the Phillips paper) does not fully support that claim. g&w’s claim would need to be expanded a bit to fit that study.

    Let’s say: if you looked at “white dude living in poverty in a rundown area of the city, as an oppressed minority under a soft apartheid system, in an area that is particularly likely to have been highly contaminated with lead” and “black dude living in poverty in a rundown area of the city, as an oppressed minority under a soft apartheid system, in an area that is particularly likely to have been highly contaminated with lead” they wouldn’t be different, it’s just that blacks are more likely to be in that situation (and whites in the US are never completely in that situation). Phillips is not actually able to resolve the additional factors, but would not be in disagreement with that statement.

    Of course, some of the prior literature cited in Phillips did find that (e.g.) in Columbus, Ohio, where conditions of poverty for white and black people were similar, that controlling for poverty etc was sufficient to account for differences in murder rates. While those studies are not as strong or drawing from as large a sample set, they do point to the likelihood (which Phillips also points out) that the worst conditions in which many black people in the US live have no match for white people or Latinos, but that those worst conditions are not found in Columbus.

    So yes, the system of anti-black oppression is more than just a happenstance of black people being poorer and living in poorer neighborhoods. g&w acknowledged that outside of that one statement, but that one statement could be read out of context to claim that the only difference was the difference in distribution of obvious conditions.

  26. 26
    gin-and-whiskey says:

    What he said (thx Charles)… I apologize for taking a shortcut as I was feeling too lazy to try to summarize an incredibly complex area of study in a blog post.

  27. 27
    Iseter says:

    Here’s something interesting to think about:

    The city of Detroit, Michigan, has been a black enclave for quite some time. A white mayor was very recently elected for the first time in many decades, but otherwise the city has had completely black administration starting with a black mayor, a 100% black city council, a predominantly black police force, predominantly black judges in the municipal courts, predominantly black teachers in the schools etc.

    It’s harder to make the claim there that black people are just being arrested because of racism and nothing to do with crime. As far as I know, the same percentage patterns of black arrests and convictions shake out there, taking into account that the population is overwhelmingly black.

    Do black people feel less harassed in Detroit than they would in, say, white Traverse City? I don’t know. Probably, but the same patterns shake out.

  28. 28
    Jake Squid says:

    All I can say is…. This is an awful, awful comment thread.

  29. 29
    Charles S says:

    Yeah, acknowledging the subjectivity of black people seems to really bring out the racism. Big surprise that.

    Oh, and here’s something for you to think about Iseter. The Bantustans of South Africa were internally administered by black South Africans, and yet they were part of a profoundly racist system. How, in your vision of the world, could that possibly be true? Do black people in Detroit feel that they are members of a profoundly oppressed class, and that the city that they live in has been abandoned and systematically destroyed by a racist system, even more than they would if they lived in Traverse City? I’d guess yes. Additionally, you know how I mentioned harassment by people in positions of power in the other thread? Institutional racism is not carried out only by white people.

  30. 30
    Ampersand says:

    What Charles said.

    Furthermore, Detroit isn’t exactly the prejudoce-free paradise you describe. For instance, although the police force is 34% white, until only five years ago the majority of executives in the police have been white. And the change only happened after a whole bunch of discrimination lawsuits forced the police department to change.

    It’s harder to make the claim there that black people are just being arrested because of racism and nothing to do with crime.

    Please try harder to understand the arguments of people you’re disagreeing with. No on here has made the claim you say you’re responding to.

  31. 31
    Hector_St_Clare says:

    Re: Let’s say: if you looked at “white dude living in poverty in a rundown area of the city, as an oppressed minority under a soft apartheid system, in an area that is particularly likely to have been highly contaminated with lead” and “black dude living in poverty in a rundown area of the city, as an oppressed minority under a soft apartheid system, in an area that is particularly likely to have been highly contaminated with lead” they wouldn’t be different, it’s just that blacks are more likely to be in that situation (and whites in the US are never completely in that situation). Phillips is not actually able to resolve the additional factors, but would not be in disagreement with that statement.

    I think lead is much more important than poverty or racism, but fair enough, that amends the statement. I still disagree with it, but I also acknowledge that until we completely equalize the social and economic environment, it’s unlikely that either of us is going to prove the other wrong. I’ll just stay content with registering my disagreement and pointing out that G&W’s claim is unproven.

  32. 32
    closetpuritan says:

    Re: Detroit has a predominantly black police force:
    Implicit bias: it’s not just for white people.

    Minority officers are stricter on minorities
    For the most common violation, speeding 10 to 15 miles per hour over a 30 m.p.h. limit, white officers ticketed 30 percent of white Bostonians and 38 percent of minorities.

    Minority officers were less lenient overall, issuing fewer warnings to all drivers.

    And the racial gap was wider, with minority officers ticketing 43 percent of whites and 54 percent of minorities at the same speeds, the Globe found.

    Note that this is all for people breaking the law in the same way.