If you were truly serious about this suggestion, you’d already be aware of the vast amount of work already ongoing in this area, particularly as it gets mentioned often on this board whenever someone makes the same sort of statement you just did. Indeed, such efforts were referred to earlier in this thread. In fact, most of your points could be addressed by simply reading the thread.
Right. It’s no coincidence that Chicago is also the second-most racially segregated city in the country with one of the worst, most corrupt police departments in the country. Both of those things preceded the murder spike, consistent with the theory that racialized policing is a major contributor.
Consider this: Do you believe good cops lower crime rates? If so, you must necessarily believe bad cops raise crime rates.
You seem to have mixed up the problems of inner-city violent crime and extrajudicial killings of unarmed civilians by police officers.
There is nothing “unserious” about protesting the latter problem even while the former problem remains unresolved. Nor is there any requirement that you have to address the former problem before you’re allowed to protest the latter.
No it’s what we would expect to see when law enforcement is enforcing bad laws and behaving like scoundrels. In my experience, “law enforcement” is far more accessible in Black urban/ suburban communities than in Appalachian ones. The two populations share socioeconomic conditions, yet one is granted relative freedom from state henchmen.
I do not accept the first, but in any case the second does not follow.
It was a frontier. Communities had scarcely enough time to establish themselves. The East includes huge swaths of old, developed communities that benefitted from social trust, padding out your numbers rather conveniently. Compare the frontier with the equally dynamic portions of the East, like Hell’s Kitchen, that were under leviathan states by comparison and get back to me. Hell, the West was saturated with military personnel, Native Americans defending land, and Texans. It’s a miracle the land could even be settled under those conditions.
You’ve posted a series of false statements in this thread, and this is among the worst. It is ENTIRELY false.
What you and the propagandists who you used to get this idea from failed to recognize, is that there are MANY MANY factors that affect an economy. Simply saying that poverty got worse after government actions began (even if it wasn’t a lie), would still require the same sort of proof of a linkage that anything does. You have to directly show HOW the EXACT government interventions directly caused increased poverty, in order for this to be anything more than a blind propaganda assault on factuality.
Please either withdraw these claims, or provide supporting proof. That is, coincidence is not proof of causal link.
After all, poverty and underemployment and jobs being shifted overseas and general falling middle class standards of living have been increasing in the United States since the Republicans launched their ongoing supply side economics program, lowering upper level taxes again and again. So that means by your reasoning, that REDUCING government intervention causes poverty to increase as well.
Yes, Sowell will do the heavy lifting for me on this topic:
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nationalreview.com/article/392842/legacy-liberalism-thomas-sowell
“Despite the grand myth that black economic progress began or accelerated with the passage of the Civil Rights laws and “War on Poverty” programs of the 1960s, the cold fact is that the poverty rate among blacks fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent by 1960. This was before any of those programs began.”
What were the other “false” claims?
As for the causal links, I could rattle off 80 years of free-market talking points, but apparently you’ve managed to avoid hearing them for this long, why spoil your fun?
The most obvious false claim was your ridiculous assertion that “If they hadn’t started fighting it, it makes sense to assume that trend would have continued and poverty would be lower today in that alternate scenario than it is today.”
No, it does not make any kind of sense to “assume” that because black poverty rates fell sharply between 1940 and 1960, in a period when there was a major war whose economic impacts lifted the country out of the most serious depression in its history to a temporary interval of high economic equality and wealth redistribution, the trend would necessarily have continued absent the “Great Society” programs of the 1960s.
That’s an absolutely egregious abuse of logic. You can’t just “assume” that the period 1940-1960 would have had the same economic effects as the post-1960 period if only the one variable of government antipoverty efforts hadn’t been different. That’s nonsense.
So,if I read you right, you are offering the proposition that because America won WWII and everybody else lost, this spurred an economic boom of major proportions? And because the pie got so much bigger, even black people got better off? Seems a sensible enough idea. Maybe too simple for complex economic thinkers.
There is no black-on-black crime in America.
What there is is criminal-on-black crime. And responsibility for stopping criminals is borne by the police, not civilians, black or white.
Yeah, it does. You cannot maintain that good policing reduces crime while maintaining that lack of good policing has no effect.
Cite?
Cite?
Cite?
A question that I would like addressed is does the fact that young Black males kill each other at such ridiculous rates, inform us that young Black males are significantly more criminally violent than any other demographic / population segment in the USA? The police who are detailed to predominately Black, high crime areas will encounter far more violent criminals just in incidental civilian contact. Are they really expected to treat every person as non-threatening?
Just to put the numbers in perspective, if the rest of the nation killed each other at the same rate as Black males aged 15-24 die, there would be over 240,000 murders a year . . . Just 1.15% of the population experiences nearly 16% of the murders.
Well, now you and Sowell have both used post hoc reasoning and have failed to show HOW government programs caused an increase in poverty. You might just as logically have claimed that the moon landing in 1969 caused the harsh winter that followed or, to use a classic example, the flashing lights at a railroad crossing cause a train to pass. Providing dates and statistics don’t prove causation. Try again.
Just to be clear, the two options for police are (a) treat every person as non-threatening, including armed and violent criminals, or (b) shoot everyone they see, just in case?
I was serious about my suggestion. READ IT AGAIN, and this time read it for comprehension. It was aimed at the NFL players, since you apparently missed that the first time around. Nobody denies that there are organizations trying to get something done.
It’s much more about classthan race
mc
You may have missed this from another thread.
There is no correlation between black-on-black homicide rates in a community and the rate of police killing black suspects, which is a bit of a problem for the people trying to use black homicide rates to explain police killings.
Instead, the one of the best correlations for police killing is measures of the disparity in the proportion of white officers on the police force compared to the black population that is being policed.