Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's discuss this statement you made. One block was an extremely bad block - did the surrounding citizens work with police to get out these undesirables.
Police were not concerned with stopping crime or violence in the community. This has been stated a billion times. I don't know how much more I need to state it. At the end of the day, police response back then was an absolute joke. And if the mayor didn't make these blocks a priority, they weren't going to be. I am no political expert, but I can imagine that police were encouraged to ignore these bad neighborhoods because I don't think fighting crime here affords much of a political advantage or economic advantage for police.
you can send all of the complaints you want, but police aren't going to work with people, especially if there is not initiative set by the mayor itself.
That's reality.
Quote:
Was a neighborhood watch started to see what was going on that made this block so bad. Was it gang turf, drug houses? If the surrounding areas were good - why would the people in his neighborhood want to tolerate this and not work with the police to make it better?
No one knows why the violence was bad in certain areas except the people in those areas. Contrary to popular belief, most black people have no idea why people are fighting each other. I'm imagining it had something to do with drugs, but who honestly know but the people in the thick of it at the time? And again, neighborhood watch was pointless. Normal people were caughtt up in the violence, but weren't targets for itt. Generally drug dealers and gang members target each other, normal people just happen to get in their way. I'm not sure what a neighborhood watch could do to prevent this.
Quote:
I'm not here to refute your statement but just trying to find out why it existed in the first place. I've had friends living in bad areas - but we're talking about entire neighborhoods not just a street. Some do work with the cops - while others are fearful - not of the cops - but retribution by these bad people if found out who squealed on them.
A lot of the problem is lack of fathers in these youths lives - because these kids now a days do not have any responsibility for their actions.
If you want to know why violence existed in black inner cities in the first place, then you probably should ask the CIA. They definitely manipulated the situation to be violent. Their goal was obviously to destabalize any sort of economic growth in these communities. This could be because communist sentiments were growing in the black community. And the whole "divide and conquer" playbook the CIA uses all over the world was employed here. If you really care about getting to the bottom of it, it's very hard to not look at the CIA's role in all of this.
So I'm one of those people who actually sat back and thought about how someone solves an issue with black on black crime. What does this strategy look like? What is the gameplan? No one will answer this? Because stopping black on black crime is basically stopping crime itself. And if we could stop all crime, then what good are police? so this is where the argument breaks down.
Why are black people even responsible for stopping black on black crime? In theory isn't that what we pay police to do? So if it is up to black people to stop black on black crime, then essentially what you're saying that black people should police themselves? Since this responsibility OBVIOUSLY don't fall on cops, and falls on black individuals.
Actually I do support black people removing police out of their community, and policing themselves. But that's another topic for another time.
I appreciate your post, well thought out and presented. I may not agree 100%, but I enjoyed looking at your reasoning.
The specific piece above reminded me of Missouri in the 1870s after the Civil War. Even though Missouri never joined the Confederacy, there were a lot of Southern sympathizers there who saw the Federals as the enemy.
For one example, the James gang. They were just a bunch of back shooting thugs, but they had the support of the locals so they had a place to hide from the law, nobody informed on them, they could operate with impunity.
Because the local populace saw the Feds as the enemy, they supported the James Gang because they both hated the feds. The people in Missouri at that time blamed others for what had happened, the loss of their family and friends, property, homes, lives, and saw the James Gang as fighting the Federals instead of as the bloodthirsty thugs and thieves they really were just taking advantage of the attitude of the people around them for their own profit.
Once the government had been in place for a while, people rebuilt from the war, tensions and old hatreds eased, the James's lost their hideout.
I see a lot of parallels to what you indicated above in that example, and because the thugs are also seen as fighting "the man" or whitey, they get support from the community that excuses what they do. Until the community stops supporting that behavior and makes it unacceptable, it will continue.
I don't live in the city, (can't stand a city myself), but I've had to live there and seen what goes on. Solving the problem would require a culture shift from the gangsta to uplifting heroes that inspire, Clarence Thomas, Dr. Ben Carson, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Thomas Sowell, there are a lot of excellent people to choose from that could inspire kids to greatness.
But to do that shift would require a move away from the current stereotypes and attitudes that Obama has fomented for the past several years. It's easy to hate, it's hard to forgive and move on.
I don't see people wanting to do that until we can get away from the hatred of the BLM and New Black Panthers, and race baiters like Al Sharpton that make their living from it.
Actually in terms of economics, the raw number of whites on the system is a much more severe fiscal drain than blacks on welfare. So it's actually pretty relevant to bring up.
When you are making comparisons like this you need to use rates or ratios. Because of the higher population you should expect whites would make up a higher total of welfare benefits, they are also the ones paying into the system the most...
Population ratio:
6:1
Snap benefit ratio:
6:3.*
*not getting the calculator out to figure it but it's point something, probably about 2 or 3.
Africa is one big hell hole, and Middle East Arabs aren't giving you equal rights.
Committ less crime and see less of the Police.
Lastly, stop listening to the Democrats who discourage you to achieve your dreams by telling you; you can't do it.
Oh please. A number of nations in Africa are rising, and there are other predominantly African-descended nations that are nice to live in. It's all about what you value.
I am a libertarian, thus I am against armed agents of the State imposed upon everyone. A "protection" force that is imposed upon everyone that represents the interests of the State is absurd anyway. People should police themselves or be able to freely purchase a protection force for themselves that serves their interests.
"Our" system of "protection" by police is no different than the "protection rackets" run by the mafia. The State is always the adversary of the people, rather "subjects", that it rules over.
That agents of the State abuse their power against those whom their "service" is imposed upon is only natural. They are not "our" police, but rather the State's police. If blacks (or anyone) wants protection that serves their interests, they need to either protect themselves, band together with their neighbors voluntarily to form a protective force, or singly or in voluntary association hire others to serve their interests.
The State is, and has always been, the biggest Slave Owner, murderer, and abuser of mankind.
I never gave that rebuttal any weight anyway. I always dismissed it out of hand. Whites don't care one bit about that issue except to use it in an argument to justify police brutality.
When they say it, it's like I don't even hear it, so it's a non starter. They may as well change the topic.
As a black Libertarian, who has spent majority of his life as a black conservative, I am no stranger to going against mainstream or accepted "black opinion" and viewpoints. And till this day, I have many positions about the black community that most black people would not agree with. Butt I have noticed a very disturbing viewpoint when it comes to addressing police brutality in the black community, and it's often "what about black on black crime".
Now at one time, I took this position. On the surface it seems quite logical. It's the old "clean up your own backyard, before you tell someone else to clean theirs" mentality. Except the argument doesn't hold up to deeper evaluation, and once one look deeper, it is unsupportable as a rational point of view. I do not attempt to speak for all black people who are against the entire "black on black crime" rebutttal, since I'm sure my POV is much different than theirs.
1. How EXACTLY do you fight black on black crime?
So I'm one of those people who actually sat back and thought about how someone solves an issue with black on black crime. What does this strategy look like? What is the gameplan? No one will answer this? Because stopping black on black crime is basically stopping crime itself. And if we could stop all crime, then what good are police? so this is where the argument breaks down.
Why are black people even responsible for stopping black on black crime? In theory isn't that what we pay police to do? So if it is up to black people to stop black on black crime, then essentially what you're saying that black people should police themselves? Since this responsibility OBVIOUSLY don't fall on cops, and falls on black individuals.
Actually I do support black people removing police out of their community, and policing themselves. But that's another topic for another time.
2. Black on black crime isn't ACTUALLY that bad
The bizzare narrative is that black on black crime hasn't been lower in over 50 years than it is today. As a whole black on black crime is down, and has gone down continously for 20 years. So the common rebuttle is this:
"Crime is still disproportionately high in the black community" - Except it's not, since crime is low overall in America relative to the population. This would mean that majority of black people aren't likely to be directly impacted by "black on black crime".
"Crime has gone up in Chicago" - This is also quite irrational. So because black on black crime is up in 1 city, does this automatically mean it's every black person's problem? So one has to ask, what is the assumed values of such a system?
Do we assume that because people in Chicago are black, and commit crime, and if you happen to be black, that crime local to Chicago is somehthing a black person could do anything about?
Again, how does a black person in LA fight crime in Chicago?
Isn't this more of a function of the failures of the Chicago PD than the black race as a whole?
3. There actually was a community effort to stop violence when violence was high in every black community
Before hip hop was just a whored out art form for corporate record companies, it was actually part of a huge social movement. It was an amazing way that people in the streets organized, talked about life in poverty, and mostly had positive messages. People who think rap has always been gangsta "shoot em up" should listen to 80s hip hop before it became mainstream. In many cases reformed gang members and gang leaders used hip hop as a medium for peace. And in many cases it reached out to black people, caused many cease fires in gang wars in LA, and I feel was instrumental in the drop in black on black crime from the 80s and 90s. Yet the main people who talk about black on black crime has no sense of history, because if they did, the black community does respond when black on black crime is at epidemic levels.
In conclusion. The "black on black crime" is a convenient rebuttal, and it speaks to ignorance about the history on black on black crime, unfair assumptions about black people's responsibility, and the lack of responsibility on the behalf of police.
While I'm not a big fan of libertarianism, I really appreciate your post because it is so thoughtful.
While I don't agree with removing the police from Black on Black crime neighborhoods, I think you ask a very legit question about why Blacks should be any more responsible for stopping Black on Black crime than Whites have been held responsible for stopping White on White crime. That's not to say, however, that the members of any community can't band together to improve their neighborhoods, often in partnership with local government, local organizations, and businesses.
Africa is one big hell hole, and Middle East Arabs aren't giving you equal rights.
Committ less crime and see less of the Police.
Lastly, stop listening to the Democrats who discourage you to achieve your dreams by telling you; you can't do it.
I don't care too much about conditions in Africa or the Middle East. I'm most concerned about people's lives right here in the United States. After we get our act together, then we can join you in putting down the lives of people in other countries.
The environment many of these kids grow up in is horrendous, until that changes nothing else will. As long as some 20 year old thinks it's perfectly reasonable to go kill some ten year old as retaliation in gang war you will continue to have these problems. Part of the solution is policing but you can't have it both ways. The local NAACP leader in a city near me in one breath is complaining the city is not doing enough to combat crime and then complaining about profiling in the next. You either do or do not want cops to target high crime areas, take your pick.
If you had two communities of 100K, one white and one black. Annually there will be about 2 murders in the white community, there will about 12 in the black one. This enormously disproportionate. In 2013 the murder rate among blacks in the same city I mentioned above was so high a young black man would have been safer being the lead man on a patrol in Afghanistan.
This thread was supposed to be different. You're just slinging around the same old data. You're like one of our presidential candidates -- good at pointing out problems, woefully short on suggestion concrete, reasonable way of changing the status quo.
For example, how can we get police departments and community members more into a mode where there is some mutual respect?
For example, how can we get police departments and community members more into a mode where there is some mutual respect?
When the community is free to protect themselves or to hire a protection service that serves their particular interests. Agents of the State serve the State's interest, not the community's. If the community had its own protectors or own protective service, then there would be mutual respect. The State does not respect its "subjects". It rules over its "subjects". An owner does not respect its slave.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
