6 ms·

If we are going to bring into account how many African-Americans are being killed by police we need to also bring into account the FBI's violent crime statistic

by ght 4y ago

If we are going to bring into account how many African-Americans are being killed by police we need to also bring into account the FBI's violent crime statistics. Blacks made up 56% of known murder offenders. While European Whites were 28% of known murder offenders while making up 60-65% of the population. Remember, African-Americans are only 11% of the population. That is a huge discrepancy that needs to be brought up while discussing the amount of African-Americans killed or arrested by police. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

hikingsimulator 4y ago
https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/1352-1390 https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/1352-1... Numbers are cool and all, but they can't be divorced from context: intergenerational poverty, police brutality and surveillance, the prison industrial complex. And so on.
- chitowneats 4y ago
  Correct. And yet, the original comment is strongly implying that the discrepancy is due to contemporary white racism, and not these structural issues you've helpfully pointed out. Issues that certain "white" populations, such as rural Appalachians, also struggle with to similar effect.
jmyeet 4y ago
I'm going to assume good intent here and say you've been sucked into some white supremacist propaganda. This falls under the umbrella of "1350" [1]: > The number 13 used in conjunction with either the number 52 or the number 90 is a shorthand reference to racist propaganda claims by white supremacists against African-Americans to depict them as savage and criminal in nature. If anything, it's evidence of overpolicing. But this continues a centuries-old narrative that black people are violent and white people are a civilizing force. Both of these provided moral cover for slavery. This include religious figures justifying slavery as the slaves were being converted to Christianity and it would save their immortal souls. I hope, for your sake, you can deconstruct this propaganda you've been exposed to. [1]: https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/1352-1390 https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/1352-1...
- Veen 4y ago
  I too will assume good faith, and point out that you have not responded to the point about disparities in violent crime rates. All you've said is: "some white supremicists make the same argument". That's not a refutation, it's an attempt to brush the stats under the rug while smearing the person who asked the question.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- JamesBarney 4y ago
  No one is arguing that Black Americans are inherently violent. They are arguing that "historical travesties" -> "current situation for Black Americans" -> "increased risks of criminality and violence" -> "more interactions with cops" -> "more deaths by police". Which requires different tools to solve than "cops are racist" -> "cops shoot more Black Americans". And if our goal is to actually help Black Americans than we need to be clear eyed about the causes even if that makes us uncomfortable.
- at_a_remove 4y ago
  Don't forget 8, 14, and 88. Soon, we shall fear all numbers as dogwhistles.
lijogdfljk 4y ago
I never understand these types of statements. What is the attempted statement here? To imply that black people are inherently violent? What are you getting at? The way i see it, those numbers reflect the state of racially focused stunted development in many communities. It's like when people throw single-parent household statistics around with blacks. What do we think is the root cause here? That their skin color inherently made them do this? Or maybe, just maybe, the living conditions are not prone to healthy structured families and healthy individuals.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 4y ago
  If someone says that “teachers are racist” and points to differing graduation rates of white and Black kids, do you take that assertion at face value? Or do you point out that the kids aren’t similarly situated. Obviously the latter. It doesn’t make sense to blame teachers for disparities that exist at more basic levels. So why don’t you apply the same logic to OP’s statement above? The data shows that there is no difference in police killings by race on a per incident basis: https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-the-data-say-about-police-11592845959 https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-the-data-say-about-police-.... Blaming police racism is like blaming teachers. Maybe some are racist, but to a large extent you’re blaming them for problems in the communities they’re serving that are outside their control. Note that there is a five factor difference in incarceration rates between white people in Oregon and white people in Massachusetts. Reducing disparities in criminal justice to race blinds you to the myriad factors involved. This is an instance of what I call the “liberal conflict of interest” with respect to racial justice. Liberals have taken up racial justice as their cause, but like everyone have strong incentives to view the facts on the ground as vindicating their own ideologies. Liberals don’t like law and order, and they do like teachers, so for disparities involving police they blame “racist police” but for disparities affecting education they don’t reach for “racist teachers.” In the long run this liberal conflict of interest hurts minorities, by obscuring the “root causes.” Your comment about “single parent household” statistics is another example of a liberal conflict of interest. Let’s stipulate that the “cause” of disparities in single parenthood is generations of slavery and segregation destroying the social structure of these communities. But what about the effect? Countries all over the world with high levels of fatherlessness suffer from high levels of violence by young men. Conversely, the single parenthood rates among white people in Appalachia would be cause for alarm and panic in a number of African countries. But liberals don’t want to explore that avenue (which could lead to solutions) because they’re invested in social theories that reject patriarchy and the importance of fathers in socializing boys. Hence liberals bankrolling outfits like BLM that push not to shore up, but to deconstruct notions of traditional families.

by ght 4y ago

hikingsimulator 4y ago

https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/1352-1390 https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/1352-1... Numbers are cool and all, but they can't be divorced from context: intergenerational poverty, police brutality and surveillance, the prison industrial complex. And so on.

chitowneats 4y ago
Correct. And yet, the original comment is strongly implying that the discrepancy is due to contemporary white racism, and not these structural issues you've helpfully pointed out. Issues that certain "white" populations, such as rural Appalachians, also struggle with to similar effect.

jmyeet 4y ago

I'm going to assume good intent here and say you've been sucked into some white supremacist propaganda. This falls under the umbrella of "1350" [1]: > The number 13 used in conjunction with either the number 52 or the number 90 is a shorthand reference to racist propaganda claims by white supremacists against African-Americans to depict them as savage and criminal in nature. If anything, it's evidence of overpolicing. But this continues a centuries-old narrative that black people are violent and white people are a civilizing force. Both of these provided moral cover for slavery. This include religious figures justifying slavery as the slaves were being converted to Christianity and it would save their immortal souls. I hope, for your sake, you can deconstruct this propaganda you've been exposed to. [1]: https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/1352-1390 https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/1352-1...

Veen 4y ago
I too will assume good faith, and point out that you have not responded to the point about disparities in violent crime rates. All you've said is: "some white supremicists make the same argument". That's not a refutation, it's an attempt to brush the stats under the rug while smearing the person who asked the question.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
JamesBarney 4y ago
No one is arguing that Black Americans are inherently violent. They are arguing that "historical travesties" -> "current situation for Black Americans" -> "increased risks of criminality and violence" -> "more interactions with cops" -> "more deaths by police". Which requires different tools to solve than "cops are racist" -> "cops shoot more Black Americans". And if our goal is to actually help Black Americans than we need to be clear eyed about the causes even if that makes us uncomfortable.
at_a_remove 4y ago
Don't forget 8, 14, and 88. Soon, we shall fear all numbers as dogwhistles.

lijogdfljk 4y ago

I never understand these types of statements. What is the attempted statement here? To imply that black people are inherently violent? What are you getting at? The way i see it, those numbers reflect the state of racially focused stunted development in many communities. It's like when people throw single-parent household statistics around with blacks. What do we think is the root cause here? That their skin color inherently made them do this? Or maybe, just maybe, the living conditions are not prone to healthy structured families and healthy individuals.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 4y ago
If someone says that “teachers are racist” and points to differing graduation rates of white and Black kids, do you take that assertion at face value? Or do you point out that the kids aren’t similarly situated. Obviously the latter. It doesn’t make sense to blame teachers for disparities that exist at more basic levels. So why don’t you apply the same logic to OP’s statement above? The data shows that there is no difference in police killings by race on a per incident basis: https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-the-data-say-about-police-11592845959 https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-the-data-say-about-police-.... Blaming police racism is like blaming teachers. Maybe some are racist, but to a large extent you’re blaming them for problems in the communities they’re serving that are outside their control. Note that there is a five factor difference in incarceration rates between white people in Oregon and white people in Massachusetts. Reducing disparities in criminal justice to race blinds you to the myriad factors involved. This is an instance of what I call the “liberal conflict of interest” with respect to racial justice. Liberals have taken up racial justice as their cause, but like everyone have strong incentives to view the facts on the ground as vindicating their own ideologies. Liberals don’t like law and order, and they do like teachers, so for disparities involving police they blame “racist police” but for disparities affecting education they don’t reach for “racist teachers.” In the long run this liberal conflict of interest hurts minorities, by obscuring the “root causes.” Your comment about “single parent household” statistics is another example of a liberal conflict of interest. Let’s stipulate that the “cause” of disparities in single parenthood is generations of slavery and segregation destroying the social structure of these communities. But what about the effect? Countries all over the world with high levels of fatherlessness suffer from high levels of violence by young men. Conversely, the single parenthood rates among white people in Appalachia would be cause for alarm and panic in a number of African countries. But liberals don’t want to explore that avenue (which could lead to solutions) because they’re invested in social theories that reject patriarchy and the importance of fathers in socializing boys. Hence liberals bankrolling outfits like BLM that push not to shore up, but to deconstruct notions of traditional families.