Why I no longer care about the "black on black" crime rebuttal. (Canada, March)

[EDnurse]

Originally Posted by branh0913

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.

You sound like one of those "experts" on Arab/Muslim/Middle East affairs. Every time they are asked why those oil rich countries are so poor and backwards, they blame EVERYBODY else except themselves.

Honestly, there are many, many police departments out there that are poorly run. Cops need better training. You can punish the cops all you want, that is not going to solve crime in the black community. Please don't minimize "black on black" crime to me. I've seen too many of its consequences.

The black community needs to rebuild the black family. Watching mama and her latest boyfriend get high in front of the kids is downright despicable to me. Constructive mores and values are learned at home, not in churches. That is where you begin.

BTW, rappers in the 80's were bums and all they did was promote laziness and sorryness.

Don't tell me about what other demographics do or don't do. Solve your own problems and let the others solve theirs.

Yes, this may be news to you: there are problems in the black community and only blacks can solve them. Stop blaming other people.

[xray731]

Originally Posted by branh0913

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.



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.



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.

See - you're just talking in circles - you state: "Actually I do support black people removing police out of their community, and policing themselves. But that's another topic for another time." You then post that "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" so with the absence of police - why then did the blacks not do something about it themselves? You talked about a block being bad - certainly those living in the area knew what the problem was and chose to do nothing about it.

[wildflower82]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

1. I wonder how many feel that way as you state in the first bolded section. My guess is a minority of a minority.

The minority that Hillary supports.

2. Yes, I always hear American Indians state how much they love the United States of America and how much they love their living status on the reservations. (Sarcasm, in case it got past you).

I happen to live in Indian country.......those Native Americans are NOT stuck on the reservation. Matter of fact, many are doing VERY well, the horse ranches are amazing. You ought to get out and visit those who live on the reservation and actually are making a fine living. Some are poor, but not near as many as you are led to believe. Matter of fact, Native Americans are their own government, so why are the leaders not making it better for their people? You do know this don't you?

3. You always complain a lot about how things are going in this country. When are you planning your move?

I don't like the new phrase of Democrats, "this is the new norm!" Being an American, I would never stand with a party who believes things can't change, that we are stuck with chaos. Dems politicians are sucking the life out of society. I have never thought of moving and never will.......I am too American to go any where!

[branh0913]

Originally Posted by xray731

See - you're just talking in circles - you state: "Actually I do support black people removing police out of their community, and policing themselves. But that's another topic for another time."

Because if there is anyone who understands their needs is other black people. So why not give them control over their own security? Certainly black people will come up with far better solutions than bureaucrats can. In most cases it's not even a priority for bureaucrats. You leave police services to the free market, you create jobs, people have confidence and trust in the people in their neighborhood, you actually get rid of crime. The issue with the current police force is that they're not concerned with crime prevention, they're concerned with generating revenue

You then post that "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" so with the absence of police - why then did the blacks not do something about it themselves? You talked about a block being bad - certainly those living in the area knew what the problem was and chose to do nothing about it.

There are plenty of cases where people "do something about it". For example there was a situations where an old guy shot a gang member trying to break into his house. This old man went to prison like any common criminal. That's how it works. The government has a monopoly on law enforcement. The police will sit around and suck all day, but the minute you take matter into your own hand, they'll treat you like any normal thug. People keep asking "well, why aren't black people doing anything"? Because the minute you pick up a gun and start taking the fight to the gangs, the government will step in and treat you like an enemy of the state.


We live in a society where the government has a monopoly over force. What if there was a terrorist attack, and someone picked up a gun and brought down a terrorist themselves? The government would just treat you like a thug with a gun. The message is quite clear, "We're not going to do anything, but it's not your job to do our job".

This is why I am a Libertarian, this is why I believe in people. This is why anytime people say "go to your local government to fix the problem" I just laugh.

[manteca man]

Originally Posted by branh0913

There are plenty of cases where people "do something about it". For example there was a situations where an old guy shot a gang member trying to break into his house. This old man went to prison like any common criminal. That's how it works. The government has a monopoly on law enforcement. The police will sit around and suck all day, but the minute you take matter into your own hand, they'll treat you like any normal thug. People keep asking "well, why aren't black people doing anything"? Because the minute you pick up a gun and start taking the fight to the gangs, the government will step in and treat you like an enemy of the state.


We live in a society where the government has a monopoly over force. What if there was a terrorist attack, and someone picked up a gun and brought down a terrorist themselves? The government would just treat you like a thug with a gun. The message is quite clear, "We're not going to do anything, but it's not your job to do our job".

I wholeheartedly agree with you here OP.

[petch751]

Originally Posted by branh0913

Yet they try to act like they are. So it's ok for them to act like your parents when it comes to making your life as inconvenient as possible.

May be if their parents would act like parents, even not accepting baby daddy's who take off as the norm, not accepting single mother households as the norm than their would be less of a problem.

[mtnbkr5]

Originally Posted by boneyard1962

I think whites care about black on black crime about as much as black people care about white on white crime.

[branh0913]

Originally Posted by petch751

May be if their parents would act like parents, even not accepting baby daddy's who take off as the norm, not accepting single mother households as the norm than their would be less of a problem.

Again, take it up with the US Government. The US government created all of the incentives in the world for poor black women to have children out of wedlock. The lack of black fathers has never been an issue until the US Government started "getting involved" with the black community. You can blame the government for black culture. We can talk about how black people can fix this cultural issue, but we must FIRST recognize the role of the CIA in creating this subculture. Because it's not the organic creation people seem to believe.

[wildflower82]

Originally Posted by branh0913

None of the are really conservatives. They're just mouthpieces and apologist for statism, authortarianism, and the status quo. But these days, conservatism is all about defending oppression than embracing freedom and conserving the ideas of liberty. This is why the Republican party has become a joke, and are really just "progressives who like war".

You are lost...... now tell me Hillary really isn't a Progressive Liberal! Yet, Feinstein, Pelosi and Hillary are all invested in foreign money, leading to foreign wars.

[branh0913]

Originally Posted by 3~Shepherds

You are lost...... now tell me Hillary really isn't a Progressive Liberal! Yet, Feinstein, Pelosi and Hillary are all invested in foreign money, leading to foreign wars.

She is a progressive liberal. And so are most Republicans. You will never hear me defend democrats. They're part of the problem too. But so-called "black conservatives" have proven time and time again that they don't even know what conservatism is. You can be critical of liberalism in the black community, and not be a total ***** for status quo. There is a balance. I consider myself more conservative than ANY of these mainstream black conservatives, and I don't engage myself on pro-statist rhetoric. But again, "conservatism" is steep in partisanship and has no value in intellectual honesty.