There are different things that feed racism. It’s no surprise that an 18th century view that considered blacks to be less than human would cause/feed racism. But it’s not the only thing. If you moved to planet Zenon that was inhabited but red, yellow and green people, and green people committed more crimes per capita, it would not be surprising if there was an anti-grew bias or a heightened suspicion of green people.
I do agree that our past does play a role. But can you imagine any point in time when we might move away from that? If so, I would argue that at that point in time there will not be the disparity in crime. As long as you have it—especially with our past, and the fact that we’re not starting from a flat baseline of zero racism—you will continue to have one group looked upon as being suspect.
Directionally the disparities are consistent. That makes sense.
Premise: X causes Y of some unknown quantity.
Conclusion: If X increases, Y should increase, in some unknown quantity.
So far, that seems sound. But this is not what you are saying, instead, your position is more like this:
Premise: X causes Y of some unknown quantity.
Conclusion: If X increases, Y should increase in the same proportion.
That is not a sound argument. We know that the rate of crimes committed is disproportionate among blacks than whites. As a result it is expected that the response would also be disproportionate. We do not know that the rate of disproportionality should be the same, nor do we know that if it isn’t the same, the cause is due to race. Those two items are where you are making the leap and that is why it looks like a problem. Maybe it is a problem, but not based on what you presented.
Can you support 1.) why you think the disproportionality should be the same, and 2.) why you think the disproportionality is due to race?
I’m certainly hopeful. What you describe seems to me to be a Catch-22, since I think it’s very likely that mistreatment of black people makes their children more likely to act as if the police are their enemy. Further, what you describe seems to put the onus of change on people who are doing nothing wrong (most black people) rather than people who are (anyone who mistreats black people).
So yes, I think it’s much more likely and reasonable to demand that mistreatment of black people stop. It’s also fine and dandy to demand that crime stop – I support telling criminals “stop doing crime”. But the problem here isn’t crime (that’s a separate problem) – the problem here is, in my view, mistreatment of black people due to race. Someone might, after the fact, try to justify their actions that mistreated black people on the black crime rate… but I don’t think that’s how most racist mistreatment has worked in this country. The blame for most racist mistreatment in American history falls solely on the one who did the mistreating. I don’t believe that there’s anything special about now that means that the blame now falls on someone else.
I hope someday they will crash a Dopefest brunch, just to see their faces at the cries of “Cite?”
Which was weaker than ditchweed anyway.
But I agree with you - one cannot simply lump together all the police shootings and say “here is a problem”. Police shootings fall on a continuum of justification that runs from “terrible tragedy and everyone involved should do time” to “Darwin Award candidate” up to “Whoever popped a cap in that asshole deserves a medal and free blowjobs for life”.
This isn’t a problem that can be solved with equations. We, as a society, decide what sorts of response is appropriate. Someone might be okay with “kill ten of theirs for every one of ours”. I’m not. Someone might be okay with police killing 1000 times more black men than white men because black men commit 6 to 9 times more crimes. I’m not. I think police killing young black men at a rate of 21 times more than young white men (as the limited statistics suggest we do), when young black men commit crimes at a rate of 6 to 9 times more, is not appropriate. I think it’s an indication that some cops are treating black people differently due to race. So far, I’ve heard no other argument (beyond the extremely vague ones like yours that suggest that we have to find out the exactly correct disparity ratio before we can make a judgment) that suggests it’s not.
I apologize that it may seem that I am engaging you in a gainsay of contradictions, but I think that you misunderstand my disagreement.
I can’t think of any statistic that you might base your position on that isn’t either arrest reports, or incarceration rate per capita. I am absolutely certain that there are circumstances in my past where I have interacted with police shortly after, or even in the process of performing a crime, including felonies (which have long passed their statute of limitations, thankfully). In these encounters, my flimsy explanations and general atmosphere of benign loonyness would not have been nearly as useful were I of considerably darker hair and skin. If I had not seemed that I was at least part of their tribe at the right moment, I would have become part of the statistics against your argument more often than I have. As it is, I have been arrested once, and found guilty of a misdemeanor the same number of times.
TL;DR: Arrest rate is the closest you’ll get to crime rate by race, and it’s not even close.
Plus, it’s a bullshit statistic. Every 28 minutes equates to 18771 people per year, which is absurd. Everything I can find says that it’s more like 750-1000 per year killed by police, including as John Mace said, knuckleheads pulling guns on cops, being extremely violent, etc…
And that’s not even mentioning that not all of the 1000 per year are black.
It’s odd you think this isn’t a problem of equations, but simultaneously rely on the proportionality of the data (equations) to illustrate your point. I believe you that you are not okay with the level of disproportionality. Essentially this is the leap that I’ve identified that you are making. You think the difference should be proportional, or at a minimum, less disproportionate, and that the current level is due to race, among other things.
Consider street A and street B. Both are policed equally, arrests and convictions are pursued and achieved with equal gusto, etc. Upon analysis we find that street A experiences a level of crime at a rate that is 10% higher than street B. The residents of street B are unhappy and lobby the police to assist. In response, the leadership at the police direct their efforts towards street A. They say, police the shit out of street A, go after every single infraction big and small and run the tightest ship possible. So far, that seems fine and a valid response with no racist motivations.
If the residents of street A are majority black and the police activity matches the population of street A, is the action suddenly racist? If the residents of street A change and then are majority white and the police activity matches the population of street A, is the action suddenly not racist? My point is, a disproportionate response does not necessarily indicate racist motivations.
I know it might not be due to racism. I’m open to any data that suggests it’s not. And even if it’s not racism, it doesn’t mean it’s okay – it might be problematic for other reasons. So far, all you seem to be saying is “it might not be, because the ratios don’t have to match”. That’s not good enough for me to be fine with the disparate ratios (even if the ratios were identical, I’m still not sure if I’d be fine with it). I want more data from the police, for one thing, in addition to an explanation of the disparate ratios.
I’m suggesting that there’s something wrong with how we do things if we shoot that many young black men compared to young white men. I might be wrong – I await data that suggests that 21 times is the perfect and justifiable ratio for killing them. Without this data, I think it’s appropriate to ask for more data from police departments, and ask for an explanation of the data we have.
I’m not calling for heads to role, or revolution, or all police chiefs to be fired. I’m saying “this looks wrong – please give me more data, and tell me why if you don’t think it’s wrong”.
It seems your default position is that the disproportionality is due to race. You say you are open to data that suggests it’s not due to racism. The way you couch it is as if the position that needs to be rebutted is the one that says it is in fact due to racism. It’s begging the question on the reason for the disproportionality. On the contrary, I see no reason to favor the racism explanation vs. the non racism one for this particular statistic.
To be clear - I want more data from police as well. I love data.
I favor the “racism” explanation because that has been the best explanation for most of American history when there was apparent disparate treatment of black people. It’s possible there’s something else, and I’m very open to that – the amount of data we have is pretty small. But based on what we know, I think individual, societal, and institutional racism (and related phenomena) is the most likely explanation.
Even if they are accurate, what % are killed while committing a crime?
It’s disingenuous to look at the police killing a man who just committed several violent felonies and punched a cop while trying to escape and calling it a problem with the cops.
Poverty. Blacks largely being concentrated in inner cities. The isolation of the black family. A celebrated sub-culture in which crime is glorified (not to mention misogyny). These all, expectedly lead to more crime. It’s really, really not that hard to understand.
Maybe. Maybe not. You’re assuming parity of behavior.
You’re assuming that the correct number would be perfectly proportional. Why must the curve have a straight relationship. Why not one in which the curve bends upward?
Also, blacks make up about 15% of the population. Do you think racism is afoot when we see that the NFL and the NBA have black participation many times that percent?
I think you’re assuming it’s wrong. More important, I go back to my earlier posts.
This isn’t an explanation for the data about police shootings – it’s an explanation for the disparity in crime statistics (not that I think the “sub-culture” stuff is a cause – I think it’s an effect, not a cause).
I don’t understand, but I don’t think I’m assuming anything. I’m making a preliminary, but not final, judgment, based on a limited amount of data about police shootings. I think 21 times appears too high to be justified.
I assume that there’s some value that would appear too high to you, as well – maybe if police shot young black men 100 times more than young white men, or 1000 times more, or some other value. For me, 21 times seems too high, and I want more data and an actual explanation from the police.
I don’t know if it would be perfectly proportional – but 21 times seems too high. So far, I haven’t heard any explanation why 21 times is an appropriate disparity.
As far as the NFL and NBA, no, I don’t believe racism is the best explanation for differing racial representations – neither do I think it’s the best explanation for the very low number of black NHL players. I think this is primarily cultural.
Based on the limited data so far, I lean towards “it’s wrong”. I’m open to more data.
I lean towards racism, from both individuals and society/institutions at large, because historically racism has been the best explanation for most instances in this country in which black people appear to have been treated differently.
You seem to be infatuated with two notions. One is that you believe that the ratios should be more equal. The other is that racism is the cause of the disparity because it was the cause of disparity in treatment of blacks in the past. I don’t hunk anyone is going to dissuade you from those positions. They’re comfortable positions for you. It places the onus away from blacks. As far as the ratios, do you really not understand what I mean when I say you’re assuming a straight linear relationship should exist. Why? All around us we have relationships that are both linear and those that demonstrate a geometric progression. I’m guessing here, but there’s probably not a straight liner relationship between temperature and deaths due to heat. Meaning that if there are 2 deaths in a city when the temperature reaches 100 for a week, and 4 deaths when it reaches 105, there will likely be more than 8 deaths when the temperature reaches 110.
The disparity in crime statistics is also behind the data about police shootings.
What proportion would be low enough to challenge your assumption that it is due to racism? You have said it does not have to be perfectly proportional - what would it be?
No. The onus should be on those black people who are doing things wrong. Those who are doing nothing wrong and commit no crimes and treat people well do not have to change their personal behavior one iota. You seem absolutely intent in making this a problem that can be fixed by people aren’t black. The problem are those committing the crimes, at a disproportionate rate. As long as that is a reality, there will be racism. And understandably so.
Look, we all agree that people should be treated equally. And that Groups A-Z should be equally. That’s the baseline. But if Group B, M or Y demonstrate a negative behavior in excess of the proportional representation, the other Groups are going to be of the mind, What the fuck? What’s wrong with them. And if that particular Group doesn’t like being thusly stigmatized, then it is up to them to change the fact of their excessive negative behavior. Restricting your thinking only to this paragraph, how else do you think the stigmatized group may shuck the stigma?
YEESH! You’re assuming mistreatment. And your also assuming that it is for the same reasons the mistreatment occurred in the past. As I’ve said, I do not doubt that we have vestiges of racism. And there are some racist cops. But looking at that alone is not helpful. Again, tell me, do you really think that racism can be eliminated while blacks commit crimes at a disproportionate rate? Describe this world where the crime rate is so out of whack and the group with the greater propensity for crime is not stigmatized and racism goes away.