What is Reddit's opinion of
The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The following content includes affiliate links for which I may make a small commission at no extra cost to you should you make a purchase.
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
131 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
> people get thrown in jail for unpaid fines/fees and other minor violations in 13 states,
So is this a space where we can discuss the excellent book The New Jim Crow because it seems highly relevant.
For a deeper understanding of the War on Drugs as it pertains to the U.S. putting more of its citizens in prison than any other nation: The New Jim Crow, by Michelle Alexander.
> Colton said he didn't view it racially
Using racially charged terms and then saying, "No, I didn't mean it in a racist way," is the hallmark of racists (SEE: Donald Trump). No one self-identifies as a racist. They see their views as justified because they aren't against a particular race; they're against crime, poverty, drugs, etc. The main problem is, they overlook that behavior in the majority groups they belong to. White frat boys doing coke at a college party are just kids having fun, but black people doing crack in a poor neighborhood are violent criminals. Colton wouldn't have labeled a struggling white stand-up comedian as ghetto, so let's stop pretending like him calling Bill ghetto isn't racist.
tl;dr Colton is a racist.
EDIT: If anyone's interested in looking into this topic more, The New Jim Crow is a great book about how racism has evolved since the days of "Whites Only" water fountains and segregated schools.
There is a seedy underbelly within the federal prison system and this is one of the major issues. For starters I highly encourage people to read The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander (Amazon)
States and private state contractors rake in loads of money on prison labor, often at the expense of normal citizens who would both work these jobs, and contribute financially from their income.
[edit: careful, if you don't pay attention and type posts they'll come out retarded, like mine was - fixed]
Yeah but he's black. The US criminal justice system was literally made for black men.
Prisons are needed but yeah all our current prison system does is provide slave labor, maintain segregation and class divides, and make better/more fucked up criminals
But that's like... a whole discussion worthy of a book
..."The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness" by Michelle Alexander, a civil rights advocate and legal scholar, is an amazing resource if you want to see how much of the American law system is based around maintaining class divides and segregation.
>Working for a dairy company doesn’t require an advanced set of skills in which qualifications would come into question, so using that as an analogy to modern day conversations over affirmative action stances, which revolve entirely around jobs that require advanced degrees or college admittance race rates, isn’t legit.
There's no 'analogy' being made at all -- only a description of King's position and it's irreconcilability with what Hughes' claims it is. Moreover, you're just factually wrong here:
>Their requests include jobs, advertising in Negro newspapers, and depositing funds in Negro financial institutions.
...
>you’ll hear leftist activists claiming it’s just like the days of slavery or Jim Crow or MLK.
Sure, no doubt. Every semester when my students read <em>The New Jim Crow</em> and I ask them what the argument of the book is, at least one of them will say something like "Racism is just as bad as ever" or "Mass incarceration works just like Jim Crow" or something similar. Of course, the book doesn't actually say that, and in fact says something directly contradictory: that each of these is a distinct racial caste system with its own set(s) of philosophical rationalizations, political formations, material consequences, etc. etc. etc. I do my best to patiently walk them through this argument, but I'm sure some of them still walk away with the mistaken impression (and, obviously, I'm not in the room every time someone outside of my classes reads the book).
Saying that "nothing has changed" isn't just incorrect; frankly, I think it's an insult to the folks who spilled their blood, sweat, and tears to fight for change. I fully agree with you here.
You desperately need to read this book: https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
The entire system (the drug war and tough on crime laws) were basically designed to relegate black people and political opponents into a lower caste (the "felon" caste) and keep them there (by stripping them of rights and ability to work).
It's literally Jim Crow redesigned to meet constitutionality tests - i.e. color blindness. It sweeps up everyone indiscriminately, and unjustly - but it affects colored people disproportionately because... hey it turns out that's what it was meant to do in the first place.
Eh, while I appreciate your reasoned approach to the issue, I think you’re misrepresenting the severity of the issue of racial disparities in policing. I can’t recommend The New Jim Crow highly enough as a meticulously researched, data-packed analysis of the issue and its historical precedents.
>Every semester when my students read <em>The New Jim Crow</em> and I ask them what the argument of the book is, at least one of them will say something like "Racism is just as bad as ever" or "Mass incarceration works just like Jim Crow" or something similar.
Not sure what kind of course you teach, but I'm curious what other materials you assign to your students in this course on the topic of race and mass incarceration.
Stopping political information primarily helps maintain the status quo.
Most of the problems that have led to civil unrest amongst the white poor and minorities of all income brackets have been going on for generations but generally the wealthy, older, Protestant, white controlled news wouldn't talk about the subjects. Or when they would mention them, they would purposely paint incidents in a way the non-white, and/or, non-wealthy, and/or non-Protestant, members of whatever story as the villains.
I mean, for a clear example, just go read up on serial killers and research the concept of the "less dead." Almost every serial killer who has a high body count got there because cops simply do not investigate certain types of victims and the media does not cover that same grouping. Poor, minority, LGBTQ+, and "ungodly" professions like sex work, are almost always the majority of victims.
Even with best selling books, such as the fantastic New Jim Crow, plenty of people in this country simply do not know just how widespread or long term these types of disparities in media/police coverage are because the media does not report on it.
You're inherently making a political statement of "this doesn't matter" when you refuse to cover something.
r/videos could have easily made an auto-comment on "political" videos that stated something to the effect of "remember videos of incidents only show one perspective from a very limited time frame and point of view. Further more, remember how easily videos and be edited and manipulated before you form opinions"
Instead, they just chose to be a part of the problem that is causing civil unrest in the first place.
I guess. Something kind of trolling about this. I mean, you have a lot of pretty uninformed views and you're not coming at this in an open way but with your views in bold, backed up by really questionable alt-right stuff or your own supposed experiences.
So: recent high school grad confirmed; black not confirmed.
If you are for real, though, I would suggest reading the new jim crow and then writing again.
link: https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
good luck.
?
You're comparing some innocuous shit that Ozzy Osbourne did to the complicated nature of rap music that reflects (as well as glorifies) the perceived moral shortcomings or cultural failures of African Americans mired in inter-generational poverty.
Are you originally from the U.S.? Did you not learn about destructive government practices like redlining and the War on Drugs (you should read The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by legal scholar Michelle Alexander).
This is the problem I have with white rap fans that passively consume this music while being completely oblivious to the real circumstances that produce said music.
I'll just leave this quotation from Cornel West below for you think about:
>"American mainstream is obsessed with black creative genius – be it music, walk, style – but at the same time puts a low priority on the black social misery which is the very context out of which that creativity flows."
god i hate when morons co-opt language that they don’t understand to make themselves feel smart.
And while you’re at it, read some Coates, Ture, Baldwin, Hughes, Jimenez, Ngozi-Adichie.
Educate yourself before you make this big a fool of yourself in public
It definitely is a legal thing in America. Do you want to read one of the most recommended books on this topic?
I know you are going to keep on mocking me so there is no point to engage you further, but this book might be informative for you if you are interested in American history and contemporary politics.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
Well, you can start by understanding that race is a social construct, meaning it’s not biological. And to create a social construct like racism, this had to be implemented over an extended period of time to be accepted. Really think about that definition and what that means.
If you’re going to be writing heavy racial themes, I highly recommend educating yourself with books like The New Jim Crow. What most people don’t understand is how deep and how far racism is manipulated by the system, and how that bleeds into society. Slavery is only the tip of the iceberg, which is why when people complain and say that slavery is a “thing of the past” and “why can’t we just move on” it’s really an uneducated comment. Because racism is deeply rooted in our system.
Also note you don’t have to be a racist person to be racist, even if you don’t mean to be.
If you’re going to be writing a story with heavy racial themes, then I will once again say I highly recommend educating yourself. I think everyone should, but especially if you’re making this a heavy topic, you should understand it. It’s heavy and dense to read about, but if it’s hard for you, imagine how it is for the people living it. Maybe that can even help translate to your book as well. Best wishes and happy writing!
Instead of listening to the media's idea of oppression, I would recommend an excellent book that details the historical legal battle that Black people in America face
This has book has exactly what you are asking for.
Why do you need a fixable scenario? If someone is harming someone now, just because we don't have a detailed plan to 'fix' it (whatever that means in this very shades of grey, opinionated world), doesn't mean we shouldn't try to immediately stop the harm being done.
You judge a people by the most extreme cases but judge the police force by the most peaceful. The problem is much more complicated than "look as this single event here or there". I felt the way you did until I read The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. I really recommend taking a cursory read through it from an unguarded perspective.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
>snarky ignorance is not a good look, friend.
Then you should apply this to yourself and walk your talk.
​
>If you actually care about good law enforcement, you should educate yourself.
A link to a book on Amazon? Is that the height of your wisdom on the subject?
Sorry, but you will have to do better if you want to convince anyone blacks are not committing the crimes they are convicted for...or that whites get a free pass to commit crimes because they are white.
What idiotic race demagoguery.
You think you sound deep but it's really naive. I don't know what your past is but I can tell you don't know what it means to feel that kind of pain and have it thrown in your face. It's not some dead history and I hope some day you take some time to educate yourself there's a lot of great works out there to explain it.
& for the last time, assault is not okay, but don't instigate and expect not to get a reaction.
Also read a book about racism because it's clear your state's education system clearly fucked you - read The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, Director of the Racial Justice Project of the ACLU, 4.5 stars over 3 thousand reviews. It was banned from US prisons from fear of causing riots. https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
if anyone is seriously interested in this question (and doesn't just want to give edgy hot takes on the internet), one small thing you can do is read a book- the new jim crow .
when you give your uninformed opinion in a public forum, it has a (small) effect on the world. acknowledge if you're not the target of that effect. a willingness to gamble regardless is... pretty weak.
> Get rid of that shit, or use it when you suspect brigading. It's rankly insulting to label someone as a "donald user". I read and post there occasionally, and it's usually a dissenting opinion.
Yeah, and that's why I responded to you. I didn't mean to insult you, but you have to recognize that you're the 1/100 I clicked into and didn't find something horrific. It's a useful tool so I don't waste time digging up links just so someone can respond "lol retard libcuck." And that happens often enough that someone made a tool to stop it.
Anyway, I'm glad that you seem like the rare conservative who seems repulsed by police brutality. If you're interested in the subject of our (in)justice system, check out Michelle Alexander's "The New Jim Crow." It really opened my eyes as to the iniquity inherent in our policing systems.
I would highly recommend reading “The New Jim Crow” by Michelle Alexander. I had to read it for one of my classes freshman year of college and it was extremely eye-opening! It’s also written in a way that’s easy to understand and like the author wants to help and teach us.
This isn't a fucking game where after I "get" to play the race card you then get to say something ignorant, lazy and wrong. Race is a serious deadly issue that requires deep empathy and knowledge. Things you lack. You think that comment makes you look good because you whitewashed history and appealed to classic liberal values? You look like a cocksure child in University. Ignorant to the depths of your own ignorance.
> based on a non statistically supported total bullshit argument
TBF you didn't refute anything either. Having a conversation about race relations is extremely difficult to have with an internet stranger. If you're genuinely curious about what white privilege is, and how it has affected this countries history, then I'd highly recommend The New Jim Crow. You might actually understand exactly what Kaep is trying to fight for, and why it's so important. Yes, Watt did something amazing. No one is taking that away from him. Kaep is trying to change what has been a problem for this country for centuries.
The New Jim Crow Highly recommend you read this book.
Oh got it. They shouldn't speak because their opinions are "wrong" according to you, plus you apparently don't even understand their positions. You think anyone is saying "the white man" is the problem? The problem is systemic racism which is way bigger and harder to tear down than personal racism. You talk about only wanting to hear from experts, look up some research on the factor race plays in every aspect of the criminal justice system and it is pretty clear. I'd recommend the book "The New Jim Crow" by Michelle Alexander as a starting point. That book opened my eyes to racism exists way beyond individuals.
I think it is misguided (and insulting) to suggest they don't care about the issues and are just using it as a marketing ploy, especially as it seems to benefit one more to stay out of politics as an entertainer or athlete. As to celebrities mostly being left leaning, what about most coal miners being right leaning? There is nothing mathematically impossible (nor improbable) about people who share similar financial and social conditions being aligned politically.
> The war on drugs is about cash and if you think anything else you really don't understand it and how the government works.
I have little hope for you actually doing this if a movie is asking too much (and I'm almost certainly wasting my time even interacting with you), but if you want to consider yourself an informed person on the subject there's a great book called The New Jim Crow which explains in painstaking, completely cited detail how the war on drugs began a racist response to the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's and hasn't changed since.
/u/psychicoctopusSP just told you about a book that is very short, easy to read, and might make you think about this differently.
http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
The system definitely punishes blacks more than whites for the exact same crimes. If we are talking about drugs, assume the exact same situation. Same car, same container for drugs, same type of drugs, same quantity of drugs, same demeanor to the officer and in court, same everything. Different sentences. This is well documented at this point.
> 67% of all black children have single parents. Usually the state acts as a surrogate while the fathers are in jail.
And here is a very well researched book explaining why:
http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
Institutionalized racism is still a huge problem. But it is not a failing of the victims, it is the fault of the oppressors.
Now, stop deflecting (if you're capable of that) and answer the question: how much "blackness" makes one more prone to violence?
That is the most racist and ignorant comment I've read in a long time "The way we FIX African Americans is by supporting them with contraception and encouraging them to marry". WOW. You can just go bury your head in the sand now. Wow. That took my breath away and left me speechless. No wonder we have the BLM movement.
You should really read this book if you really are reading political science books. It's called "The New Jim Crow". And BTW, the Seattle Police Department is using this book to train their officers. A couple of takeaways from the book are 1) certain demographics do not commit more crimes. Period. That's a fallacy. 2) We have created criminals by labeling them as such 3) We have created an economic and judicial system that creates "criminals".
There are many takeaways from the book, but it's highly recommended reading. Blacks don't need "fixing" as you state. The system we've created needs fixing.
> Typical White Girl.
You are so far off the mark it's not funny. But really, show this thread to one of your black friends and ask them what they think. What you said is in fact racist and presumptuous. Telling someone how to "fix" their issues. Unless you grow up black here, and especially black in the south or a large city, you won't understand how the cards are stacked against you. A black man in America has a higher chance of going to prison than going to college. The Federal government spends more on prisons than college, as do many states. Read the book below. It will give you a whole new appreciation for what the word "criminal" really means, who becomes one, and why- who goes to prison, and who doesn't.
Please read "The New Jim Crow". http://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1451709658&sr=8-1&keywords=the+new+jim+crow
This book discusses your question at length. It's a comprehensive and scathing analysis of the causal links between racialized poverty, mass incarceration, and the War on Drugs. Highly recommended for anyone who is interested in the subject - it will radically transform your worldview.
If you have any doubt at all the we need to end the war on drugs completely, please read "The New Jim Crow". The lives we continue to devastate every year is heartbreaking.
The book The New Jim Crow shows how black people get the shit end of the stick at every step of the justice system. Highly recommend. Even if you disagree with the conclusions, the data presented is very interesting.
I'd argue that it was the war on drugs.
The War on Drugs...
- allowed cops to stop you for whatever reason in search of drugs
- created the SWAT team, and allowed it to be used on the slightest of information
- created a profit motive for cops to arrest citizens for drugs in the form of property seizures and huge government grants
Then again, I'm currently reading The New Jim Crow at the moment so the effects of the drug war are top of mind.
Start with this book The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
Once you understand the legacies of discrimination, then the issue comes back to how to solve the issue of discrimination when stereotypes and myths exist that people refuse to give up on (similar to how people cling to the idea that humans only use 10% of our brain or their are left and right brain people).
Hijacking the top comment to repost this:
To elaborate on how prison has replaced slavery as a means of racial control, here's an excerpt from a book called The New Jim Crow.
It's written by a legal scholar named Michelle Alexander, and it explains how mass incarceration in America has replaced slavery and the Jim Crow laws as a racial caste system.
> Mass incarceration in the United states has emerged as a stunningly comprehensive and well-disguised system of racialized social control that functions in a manner strikingly similar to Jim Crow. > > This is, in brief, how the system works: The War on Drugs is the vehicle through which extraordinary numbers of black men are forced into the cage. The entrapment occurs in three distinct phases. > > The first stage is the roundup. Vast numbers of people are swept into the criminal justice system by the police, who conduct drug operations primarily in poor communities of color. They are rewarded in cash — through drug forfeiture laws and federal grant programs — for rounding up as many people as possible, and they operate unconstrained by constitutional rules of procedure that were once considered inviolate. Police can stop, interrogate, and search anyone they choose for drug investigations, provided they get “consent.” Because there is no meaningful check on the exercise of police discretion, racial biases are granted free rein. In fact, people are allowed to rely on race as a factor in selecting whom to stop and search (even though people of color are no more likely to be guilty of drug crimes than whites) ‒ effectively guaranteeing that those who are swept into the system are primarily black and brown. > > The conviction marks the beginning of the second phase: the period of formal control. Once arrested, defendants are generally denied meaningful representation and pressured to plead guilty whether they are or not. Prosecutors are free to load up defendants with extra charges, and their decisions cannot be challenged for racial bias. Once convicted, due to the drug war’s harsh sentencing laws, drug offenders in the United States spend more time under the criminal justice system’s formal control — in jail or prison, on probation or parole — than drug offenders anywhere else in the world. While under formal control, virtually every aspect of one’s life is regulated and monitored by the system, and any form of resistance or disobedience is subject to swift sanction. This period of control may last a lifetime, even for those convicted of extremely minor, nonviolent offenses, but the vast majority of those swept into the system are eventually released. They are transferred from their prison cells to a much larger, invisible cage. > > The final stage has been dubbed by some advocates as the period of invisible punishment. This term, first coined by Jeremy Travis, is meant to describe the unique set of criminal sanctions that are imposed on individuals after they step outside the prison gates, a form of punishment that operates largely outside of public view and takes effect outside the traditional sentencing framework. These sanctions are imposed by operation of law rather than decisions of a sentencing judge, yet they often have a greater impact on one’s life course than the months and years one actually spends behind bars. These laws operate collectively to ensure that the vast majority of convicted offenders will never integrate into mainstream, white society. They will be discriminated against, legally, for the rest of their lives ‒ denied employment, housing, education, and public benefits. Unable to surmount these obstacles, most will eventually return to prison and then be released again, caught in a closed circuit of perpetual marginality.
The American criminal justice system is rigged against black people, black men in particular. It's a disgusting injustice, and nobody in mainstream society seems to really care. I'm glad Kanye is shining a light on it though.
>Indulge me in the systemic injustices of the black community from the last 40-50 years after the civil rights movement ?
There are entire books you can read about this. Here's one: https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
​
And then the rest of your post is just taking your incorrect premise and running with it.
Yeah, then go read The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander.
He's a prison guard. He is part of the problem. The "prison industrial complex" is modern day slavery - prisoners are forced to work for pennies per hour.
> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Some articles on the subject:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/angela-f-chan/america-never-abolished-slavery_b_6777420.html
The NCAA uses this loophole to explain why college athletes cannot be paid:
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/ncaa-cites-13th-amendment-slavery-loophole-arguing-shouldnt-pay-student-athletes/
> Though state law differs, in some states prisoners that refuse to work receive write-ups, segregation, solitary confinement, or have time added to their sentences. Meanwhile, prison laborers are paid extremely low wages and in some states they are not paid at all. Thus, if injured on the job, no worker’s compensation exists to cover injuries, even those injuries that persist after release.
> Since prisoners are not “employees,” corporations do not have to pay them a fair wage. Private industries are incentivized to employ prison labor as a cost-cutting measure; it may also contribute to unemployment because prison laborers take jobs that otherwise would be filled by unskilled workers that are not incarcerated.
Many of the firefighters fighting wild/brush fires in California are prisoners, earning $1/hour and because they have felony convictions, are prohibited by law from working as firefighters after their prison terms are finished.
> When they work, California’s inmates typically earn between 8 cents and 95 cents an hour. They make office furniture for state employees, state license plates, prison uniforms, anything that any state institution might use. But wages in the forestry program, while still wildly low by outside standards, are significantly better than the rest. At Malibu 13, one of three conservation camps that house women, the commander, John Scott, showed me a printout: Inmate firefighters can make a maximum of $2.56 a day in camp and $1 an hour when they’re fighting fires.
> C.D.C.R. says that the firefighter program is intended to serve as rehabilitation for the inmates. Yet they’re being trained to work in a field they will probably have trouble finding a job in when they get out: Los Angeles County Fire won’t hire felons and C.D.C.R. doesn’t offer any formal help to inmates who want firefighting jobs when they’re released.
> This institutional disinterest makes more sense when inmate firefighters, who are on-call continuously, are considered as a state resource. The Conservation Camp Program saves California taxpayers approximately $100 million a year, according to C.D.C.R. Several states, including Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming and Georgia employ prisoners to fight fires, but none of them rely as heavily on its inmate population as California does. In the fall of 2014, as the state’s courts were taking up the issue of overcrowded prisons, the office of California’s attorney general argued against shrinking the number of inmates. Doing so, it claimed, ‘‘would severely impact fire camp participation, a dangerous outcome while California is in the middle of a difficult fire season and severe drought.’’
> Cal Fire firefighters make at least $10.50 an hour, according to the agency, and inmates make only $2 a day plus $1 an hour.
Book on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
Reviews:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/books/michelle-alexanders-new-jim-crow-raises-drug-law-debates.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/mapping-the-new-jim-crow/381617/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2012/02/28/is-drug-war-driven-mass-incarceration-the-new-jim-crow/#2c5da7db6c82
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/new-jim-crow-banned-jail-changed-my-life
These companies use prison labor:
https://www.ranker.com/list/companies-in-the-united-states-that-use-prison-labor/genevieve-carlton
I'm glad you gave it a shot, even if I disagree with your conclusions. If you're willing to stick with me, I had a reason beyond snark for asking you to do a bit of legwork.
>They're not more corrupted than bankers, secretaries or firefighters. why would they be.
You're probably a reasonable person, and it sounds reasonable to think that a given police officer is no more or less reactionary than any other profession. In fact, we know empirically that police and prison guards are some 4X more likely to commit domestic violence. We shouldn't read correlation as causation, which would be to say that being an authority figure induces abusive behaviors in otherwise normal people, but it is surely reasonable to say that police in the US have a problem with violent people abusing their power.
Let's look at those other questions you asked. >>What do they do?
It's no secret that police exist to protect private property and to maintain social control. They have no legal duty to stop crimes they see being committed, or to assist a person they see being harmed. Google these for yourself if you don't believe me. What they mostly do, is arrest young PoC for relatively trivial offenses, locking them into a pipeline ending in total State dependence. See Michelle Alexander's "The New Jim Crow" for more on this.
>>what do they believe, what do they stand for?
You're right again, we cannot know what an individual police officer believes. We can, however, recognize their historic and contemporary role as violent oppressors. The saying "All Cops Are Bastards" is a pithy slogan that encapsulates a piece of somewhat deeper radical critique; police are, by virtue of their jobs, forced to do terribly inhumane things to people who deserve the compassion and kindness due any living being. It's bad for the people they police, and it's bad for the police officers themselves.
Systemic racism does affect different groups in different ways, and to different extents. Asian Americans didn't have to deal with the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, and mass incarceration like Black folks did, and do still. Asian people definitely experience discrimination, but in different ways. And the most infamous example of anti-Asian racism in US history, the Japanese internment camps, were a relatively isolated event compared, again, to something like slavery and Jim Crow.
Add to that the fact that a great amount of immigration to the US from Asian countries happened well after that era (Hmong immigrants arriving mostly in the 80s and 90s, for example) and you've got a recipe for an ethnic group that just didn't face as much historical brutality as other groups did.
I don't think these things are as hard to reconcile as it seems. I'm always a shill for YouTube's Some More News, but if you've got time sometime soon, this is a great video about how systemic racism goes ignored. I know you didn't come here to join a book club, but if you're interested in learning more about systemic racism as a subject, I really recommend The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, and How to Kill A City by Peter Moskowitz. Both great, in-depth looks at what systemic racism is, and how it manifests in real life.
You probably won't find someone to talk to you about feminism or BLM randomly in Starbucks, even in Harvard Square. Democracy center may be a good place, but I think the internet and books can be a pretty good source for to start with, so your in-person learning can be more meaningful for both you and the person who ends up taking the time to help you grow into it.
Feminism and BLM are both possible solutions to problems within society. Learning about the problems from the bottom up is a good way to have the necessary context to understand the movements.
The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander is a must read. amazon link Michelle also has a good bit of writing on the internet that is accessible.
Speaking of writers on the internet, the tireless journalism of Shaun King has had a real impact in bringing police injustice and BLM to the mainstream, so I think he is a good place to start, too. His Soul Snatchers series, particularly his most recent installment about the NYPD and Bronx DA's criminal conspiracy against Pedro Hernandez is a must read.
Feminism can be hard on the internet, too, because there are so many kinds/sects/schools of thought, but I think it's still a good place to start. I think a good launchpoint is from a context that is close to you, as a man. This guide to how feminism is relevant to men seems like a good starting point. From there, I think learning about feminism by reading articles from a feminist perspective might be a good approach. Academic analyses about feminism are boring and probably won't keep your interest. My favorite source as far as trans-inclusive, pro-gay, pro-safe space feminism is Autostraddle. Yes, it's heavy on queer lady content, but I think it's a good website with years and years and years of content so you can find things that interest you. The politics tab is probably a good place to start, as you can read about issues you may have already read about from mainstream sources, from a more casual and feminist lens.
Good luck.
The guy who wrote "All men are created equal" in the declaration of independence was a slave owner who raped a little girl who was legally his property. ^([Source]) Also, Jefferson was inspired by Cyrus the Great, a Persian emperor who expressed this sentiment centuries before the birth of Christ. ^([Source])
The flag that flew for a black president? Don't you think the fact that you think this is somehow impressive is evidence of how much of a white supremacist America is as a country?
America was designed and created on white supremacy and that hasn't changed since the revolution. ^([Source])
I would recommend one more, to describe why so many black fathers aren’t present: The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.
As for schools? Racism-based policies such as redlining and using property taxes to fund public schools, along with white flight have left predominantly POC public schools significantly lacking in resources and money to educate our children. If given the choice, and the money to purchase a house wherever you want, would you send your kids to school in Cherry Creek or the 5-Points area?
Once we divest education from 1) how much money your parents make and 2) the historical prevention of black homeownership in desirable neighborhoods, we can begin to set schools on more even ground.
OK world, let me say this again and again: (1) Everyone is 100% responsible for their decisions, including the punks in the video, and (2) we as a nation and we in our communities are 100% responsible for foisting generations of suppression and segregation on Black Americans. Here's some reading to get you started. Sorry if you makes you white people feel uncomfortable:
Racial pay gap in the US
Generational loss of wealth among black Americans "Black people in America have been systematically stripped of the wealth they have produced."
Imprisonment rate of Black Americans
Why American Prisons Owe Their Cruelty to Slavery
And here's an absolutely fundamental book for every white American (who gives a shit) to read: The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.
I'm not even liberal, I'm an Independent. But I'm a white American who actually tries to figure it out, and put myself in the shoes of poor and marginalized Black Americans, because it's the right thing to do for them and for our country. Do better. All of you.
Sorry, I'm a white guy who doesn't toe the white privilege line. My apologies.
Generation loss of wealth among black Americans "Black people in America have been systematically stripped of the wealth they have produced."
Imprisonment rate of Black Americans
Why American Prisons Owe Their Cruelty to Slavery
And here's an absolutely fundamental book for every white American (who gives a shit) to read: The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.
I'm not even liberal man, I'm an Independent. But I'm a white American who actually tries to figure it out, and put myself in the shoes of poor and marginalized Black Americans, because it's the right thing to do.
So, as I said, unless you want to say that black Americans are genetically inferior (of course not), then let me know what your explanation is, if the above links aren't getting you started on that.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
https://www.amazon.com/End-Policing-Alex-S-Vitale/dp/1784782890
I 100% don't believe that you're asking good faith questions, but if you really care, there are two good starting places to understand why cops are a problem and should be abolished.
To everyone saying he got arrested for armed robbery 3 years later.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
and
https://archive.org/details/discipline-and-punish-michel-foucault
are some good reads on the topic.
> to do more work at lower cost is smart business. So the amount of money allocated per slave continually decreases while the living conditions in the work camps deteriorate.
The jim crow era was way worse than slavery, because the state would lease out workers at alarmingly low costs to private businesses. Well, in slavery, if you worked your slave to death you're out of a slave and they were expensive to get. Under the convict leasing system, they could work the slaves to death or nearly so without incurring the cost of having to buy a new slave. And that's exactly what happened. There were slaves down in the mines being worked under such harsh conditions that many of them died. To see it happening again is terrifying.
There is a book called The New Jim Crow which talks about exactly this. How we have a modern day form of slavery, disguised as simply "prisoners have to do work while serving their term."
> the State of Tennessee made homelessness a felony. Not a misdemeanor, a felony
Jesus. There is no reason for such a harsh punishment unless you wanted to...
remove their right to vote
remove their ability to legally own a gun
put them in prison instead of jail, and of course, it will be a private prison at that.
> The latest Supreme Court decision to elevate the CBP above all laws, empowering them to become secret police, is part of this progression and is not surprising to me. But the speed is.
This too, is deeply unsettling as I think our system is falling apart faster and faster. And what's replacing it is ominous and dark.
> The Fed's removal of reserve banking requirements, which allowed banks to effectively print their own money and flood the economy with it via bad loans. Right now, 80% of the currency in circulation entered the economy in the last two years.
YES. I often try to tell people that banks basically create money out of nothing and then require you to come up with money derived from real work on your part to pay it back. I often get told that, no, banks can't just invent money out of the air. I'm glad to see someone else recognize this fact too.
> The second great depression will make the first look like nothing and the capitalists, if they're smart, will be anticipating mass civil unrest.
During the first great depression, 90 % of people lived on farms and could at least provide some level of housing and food for themselves. Today, that number is 2 %. Meaning 90+ % of people are vulnerable to losing their housing if they lose their job.
> The likelihood and severity of mass migration will grow worse and worse as each year passes. They are preparing for the mass slaughter of Latin Americans to stem the tides of climate refugees heading north and they need authoritarian power to do so.
That is especially worrisome given, like you said, the border patrol agents immunity. And not even just the midwest, the far west is running out of water at alarming pace and when that water is finally dried up, you are gonna have a ton of people that need to leave that area. I'm talking something on the order of 40 million people or more.
> The old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born. Now is the time of monsters.
This is one of my favorite quotes, and I use it often when talking about this exact kind of stuff. The decay of our current way of life and the horrors that wait in the near future due to the rise of fascism and climate fallout.
Very informative post.
I hate it, lol.
: )
>It's clear that the state is willing and allowed to play dirty when it wants to, and I'm scared that the only reason we don't see stuff like this all the time is simply because we haven't been watching.
Many of us have been watching for many years. Prosecutorial misconduct, lack of funding for public defenders and court-appointed defense lawyers - these are huge issues in Wisconsin and across the country. Kyle Rittenhouse is extremely lucky to have benefitted from circumstances that allowed him to raise several million dollars to defend himself.
If interested, a great resource is Michelle Alexander's book - The New Jim Crow.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
This is seriously one of the most eye opening books I have ever read. I highly recommend reading it if you can find a copy.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
Crime rates are defined by disproportionate enforcement, resulting from racist policing.
Plenty of studies demonstrate similar rates of committal of most crimes across races despite disproportionate enforcement targeting people of color (particularly marijuana use and sales).
If you're interested in learning the truth about systemic racism in the US criminal justice system, this is the gold standard.
My comment deleted while I was writing it so that's annoying, so I'll keep it short. I disagree and find it inherently immoral, but I think others can make the argument on this better than I.
If you're interested in exploring this topic I have some resources you could check out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_by_Another_Name (book and documentary)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_(film) ( Streaming on Netflix)
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/prison-labor-in-america/406177/
https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
I have autism and have communication difficulties.
The beauty of this is that there are people with immense amounts of accolades in the field who will basically say what I said but with further sourcing and better communication skills.
Your post is a reminder that I may need to read up again on these 3 very influential books in my personal library on the topic at hand.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
The New Jim Crow by Civil Rights Attorney Michele Alexanded.
Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse by Todd R. Clear. He has a PHD in the field.
https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577
Rise of The Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces by Radley Balko.
Did I put together a criminal justice paper worthy of peer review for my reddit post? No I did not. But these 3 sources + my degree were very influential on my INFORMED opinion on this topic. I didn't make it up willy nilly. No we have major fucking problems that are effectively being constantly ignored in American society and it's tearing at the fabric of this country.
I am not the best messenger on the topic at hand, but these 3 books in tandem with each other imo really establish what is wrong here. In my 18 wheeler I have bothered to listen in on their lectures, they make solid points that can't be ignored, kick the can and not addressing these issues cause it to fester and stagnate worse, until they truly can no longer be ignored.
novelty_Poop_Corn wrote:
Hey, my reddit gold told me you mentioned me (but not OP's post. weird.).
Could you, and anybody who sees this, do me a favor and check if you can see this comment of mine (that's a screenshot I took), which is right located right here?
When I log out, it disappears. It is extremely odd that it is gone. My paranoia is telling me there's a really shitty mod in [/r/AskReddit](/r/AskReddit) that deleted this comment. That's a really scary thought that a mod is abusing their power to support racism and destroy evidence. Can we contact the admin about this? There's gotta be a way to track each mod's history to find out which one did this.
Here is the post copied and pasted, so you can check the links:
> Actually, racial inequality hasn't changed since the 60's:
http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
Edit: test occurring at 12:48 AM EST to see if this is deleted or not.
Note that I added that edit in just to see what would happen. I can see it but nobody else can.
Thank you very much to whoever follows through with this. I hope it's just a bug and not what I think it is.
TL;DR: Mod in [/r/askreddit](/r/askreddit) may be abusing power.
Edit: I took initiative and messaged the admin and [/r/askreddit](/r/askreddit) mods about this. I also posted about this in [/r/SRSDiscussion](/r/SRSDiscussion). Apparently there's an automod that bans Amazon links. Ignore all of this.
>No definition of 'confession' is applicable because 'confession' is the wrong word to describe one's acknowledgment of a social phenomena.
This is getting very silly. People use phrases like "national apology" all the time. But sure, let's say he used the wrong word; frankly, I'm over it.
>Note that the reports recommendations are all structural level. It doesn't recommend that individual cops confess being racists.
Noted!
>But this id politics woke ideology is illogical and therefore counter productive.
Other than blind judges -- which is new to me, but I think could be a great idea! -- I'm reasonably confident that we could find every suggestion in that paragraph pushed consistently by proponents of "id politics woke ideology" for the last ~20-30 years. I'll be teaching The New Jim Crow again in a few weeks; I can try to pull relevant page numbers for you if you'd like.
May seem unrelated but it’s not-
The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander
She discusses poor-whites (& all whites, but that’s who gets most manipulated) as maintaining the system because, no matter how low they go, “at least [they’re] not a nigger”.
That combined with Dying of Whiteness paints a good picture, but here’s an article that sums up the story of that book well.
These are all mixed in with the pure-consumerism (ie “customer is king) has bred multiple generations of ignorance & entitlement (but that part is my own two-cents)
>What illegal things are these heroes doing?
>What things got us to this point?
Killing unarmed civilians seems to be at the top of the list. There's plenty more but that's why all the protests are happening right now. Have you bothered listening at all?
>>You think a police presence in rough neighborhoods reduces crime there?
>Yes
>>I take it you’ve never been to one.
>Why?
You answered your own question there.
>>All it does is raises the tensions of everyone there while they wonder who it is that is most likely to shoot them.
>Tension between criminals and cops?
Tension between literally everyone. Yes, there's the risk that they're going to get shot by a criminal. Yes there's also a risk that a cop is going to take them for a criminal and shoot them for going about their business. Since you are alluding to having been to these high crime areas go around to one of them. Ask any of the people who live there if they've ever had a positive police interaction. Ask them if police there make them feel safer. Ask them if the police have ever bothered to investigate a mugging or robbery that they've experienced or witnessed? You don't get positive police interactions in these areas. Everyone is afraid of them as much as they are of the criminals.
>Why don’t they do that?
Who knows. I'm sure there's lots of reasons. But not being a cop a couldn't tell you.
>>And that doesn’t even touch on the racism that’s part of the enforcement of the system.
>What racism would that be?
Ah, you're one of the systemic racism people doesn't exist people.
I can send you a whole reading list if you'd like. Here's a good starting point
>Incorrect, sure there needs to be reform as everyone agrees but an overwhelming majority of cops are doing their job and are good at it. That’s the poi t is the banner you’ve still failed to grasp.
The system is broken and you keep pointing at the system like it's going to make it less broken. If the system still protects these bad cops it doesn't matter that there's good cops mixed in there. It is still a broken system and needs to be removed. The point of the banner is wrong because one is a state sponsored system, and the other is a random group of civilians. They cannot and should not be held to the same standards as you are trying to push.
>No, you don’t. You’re are truly ignorant to what the point of this all is and continue to parrot misinformation and ignorance
You call me the misinformed and ignorant one? You should try looking inward there.
I mean this book
The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness https://www.amazon.com/dp/1595586431/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_KiQcFb2J83VRJ
What are your thoughts on the contents of this article?
Are you familiar with the book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness? (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1595586431/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_4bTQCbKZPQ5ZK)
i think that today's political landscape provides people with different senses of reality. Many americans go through life seeing little discrimination, and see the opportunities everyone shares. the fact of the matter is that while there is certainly less systematic discrimination discrimination than there used to be, in actuality there are many systems that deeply discriminate. as an example, when you look at racial discrimination in regards to higher conviction rates for POC that have committed the same crimes as a white counter part, in addition to housing and employment discrimination. there are some good books and studies out there on these topics. just because people you may know aren't racist doesn't mean that the system isn't still isn't overall more discriminatory for certain groups. that's not to say that it doesn't swing the other way sometimes. I can recall a case where a large tech company had pressure on them to hire more diversely and it led to unfair hiring practices in favor of people of color. But those cases are much fewer compared to the discrimination faced, and overall are certainly still on the short end of the stick in regards to their opportunities in the US.
All of this is to say that if someones stance on an issue is to support those being being discriminated against and oppressed, and they hold political events, rallies, etc. then the "attack" they are making is against their oppressors. they are asking for equality. We can call this "punching up", because the oppressors are holding them down. So when a group with other views protests against their cause, they are siding with the status quo, maybe they don't think the racism is really playing a role in the outcome of their lives. ultimately they are siding with the oppressors. If they are actively trying to oppose their efforts, they are "punching down".
regardless of what race Joey Gibson is, there are three actions one can take in this situation. actively support the oppressed, take no action, or actively work against the cause of the oppressed. the fact of the matter is that Patriot Prayer has fallen into the last category in regards to race issues and anti-muslim issues. Sure, they also stand up for milquetoast right wing positions (and i certainly share an anti-gov sentiment with them), but they also actively work against the oppressed. i'm not trying to be snarky or anything, just my thoughts here.
> In my opinion, the fact that many of the people who voted for Trump also voted for Obama should showcase that there wasn't any racial intention behind the casting of their vote, rather the welfare of their country and their family was at the forefront.
I've thought a lot about this phenomenon over the past two years and while it would seem that way on its face, (how could voter animated by racial grievance to back Trump have voted for Obama in 2008 or 2012?) I think the answer is more complex.
I think this ignores the types of campaigns Obama and Trump ran and the political atmosphere that existed at the time of their election. One of the ways Obama was able to thread together the winning coalition he did was his ability to allow his racial identity to serve as a stand-in for concern for minority issues. Meanwhile, while campaigning and governing, Obama didn't have to talk at length about culture war issues because maintaining high turnout among African Americans was not a concern of his campaigns. Additionally, his opponents, McCain and Romney, did not substantially contrast themselves with Obama on racial/identity grounds preferring to portray their difference as ideological disagreements on the direction of Federal policy. This allowed Obama to portray himself as a populist defender of all working Americans standing up against wealthy plutocrats who just wanted to gut the welfare state to give tax cuts to wealthy people and corporations.
In 2016 on the other hand, Clinton (who knew that maintaining Obama levels of turnout among non-whites was going to be critical to victory) needed to make a more concerted effort to emphasize her progressivism on social and racial issues. Trump also played into white identity politics far more than either McCain or Romney did.
For non-religious, non-college educated white voters (textbook Obama-Trump voters and critical components to the latter winning OH, IA, MI, WI, and PA) who tend to be economically progressive but still prone to cultural and demographic anxiety, the election in 2012 was a choice between an incumbent who campaigned on helping working people and a pro-business conservative but the election in 2016 was a choice between a multicultural America concentrated mostly in cosmopolitan, global cities that spoke of a future that was unfamiliar and perceived to be hostile to their values and an outsider who promised to MAGA and address their anxiety through his actions and rhetoric. That would seem to explain why Clinton caused certain voters anxiety about the state of American culture and its demographic future in a way that Obama, paradoxically, didn’t (at least not enough for some to vote against him).
> You claim that the two sides of racism are not equal and that racism against non-whites is worse than that of whites because it is systemic, thus having a greater affect on the livelihood of those affected. Are you suggesting that we have laws that discriminate or pick favorites based on skin color? I've heard many people speak of systemic racism but I don't quite understand the notion of its existence. Or are you suggesting that those in power are white supremacists? Please elaborate on how America is home to systemic racism for me.
Sure, let me go into more detail about each point I made before because I think it will better explain where my thinking on this has been and where I come down.
So, first, I want to clarify what I mean when I say "racism" vs. "bigotry." Bigotry is simply the act of casting prejudice on another person based on their membership in a characteristic group (race, gender identity, religion, first language, national origin, etc.). Anyone is capable of being bigoted towards anyone else, for any reason. In fact, bigotry (or at the very least suspicion towards people not like yourself) is pretty universally human and a clear byproduct of how evolution has shaped our understanding of tribal identities to favor familiar groups and avoid (or treat with suspicion) unfamiliar groups as a means of protecting oneself from danger. As I said in my parent comment, judging any individual without knowing anything about their personal views or beliefs, on the basis of a non-mutable trait, is a textbook example of bigotry and anyone who argues that it's something that only applies to certain groups and not others is incorrect.
"Racism" on the hand is when systemic and institutionalized (and often subconscious) discrimination occurs across a myriad facets of life in a society that positively benefit the majority ethnic/cultural/racial group at the cost of the minority group(s). In America (and other countries with a history of European colonization and settlement like Canada, Brazil, Australia, and South Africa), this means a legacy racial caste system that has it's roots first in slavery, then in outright discrimination, segregation, and apartheid, and now in the effects of several centuries of divergent basic human rights, access to public services, educational attainment, etc. between the majority and minority racial populations that perpetuate the negative consequences of such overt discrimination into future generations.
Since the 1960s, there hasn't been negative discrimination against racial minority groups explicitly written into law. However, given that there has been European colonization and racial discrimination in North American since the end of the 15th Century, we've only had less than eighty years out of several centuries to rectify the crimes of the past and develop a truly post-racial society. It's not really a surprise that we still have a long way to go. This also says nothing of the ways that Americans of color have suffered systemic discrimination in the years since the Civil Rights Movement even if such racial discrimination was technically prohibited by law.
Just take a look at the wealth gap between white and black Americans or a glance at de facto segregation with the racial dot map and see the ways that redlining, loan discrimination, over-policing, sub-par educational opportunities, disparate sentencing, mass incarceration, and discriminatory hiring practices still perpetuate institutionalized systemic racism against Americans of color even to this day.
To tie this back to bigotry against whites vs. bigotry against non-whites. When a white person calls a black person the N word, it's not simply a prejudicial personal attack between individuals. It carries with it the entire centuries long legacy of systemic racial discrimination, violence, and oppression that defines America's racial caste system. As opposed to simply being a bigoted statement, it is a reminder for nonwhite Americans that for most of this country's history, the narrative that was re-enforced from womb to tomb was that they were sub-human and fundamentally inferior to people who believed themselves to be white. The gravity of such a legacy is why, in the American context, bigotry against a white person by non-white people doesn't carry the same baggage with it and therefore inherently should not be treated with the same severity and to equate it as such is to deny how bigotry against non-white people by white people is backed up by the legacy of institutionalized, systemic racial discrimination.
Finally, to your question of whether I'm suggesting that those in power today are literally white supremacists, the answer is certainly not. In fact, when most scholars nowadays talk about "white supremacy" and "systemic racism" in the American context, it's mostly meant in the ways that deep-seated subconscious attitudes towards people based on their race or ethnicity color (no pun intended) individual interactions between Americans that results in sometimes subtle (not getting a job interview based on one's name) and sometimes not so subtle (unarmed black men getting shot by the police) outcomes that when measured at a societal level, depicts consistent discrimination against Americans of color.
Although this feels like a deflection from you internalizing your personal failings, I will assume good faith and answer your questions with good faith in turn.
Black people have been systematically denied building wealth through a process known as redlining. Poverty does not breed virtue. Also, they have been subject to violence upon themselves since they were forcibly brought across the Atlantic. Internalizing violence and generational scaring are a real thing. Don't confuse understanding with excuse making. Only fringe extremists think this history trumps personal accountability.
> Do they catch too many murderers of black people, but when white people are killed they say: nah, let it go?
Not that explicitly, but yes, white people receive lighter sentencing for the same crimes than black people.
Further reading: https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
> but American "justice" confuses and terrifies me regularly.
American Criminal Law is basically about domination, conquest, ostracism, and systemic alienation by the "Master Race" just like almost all of our nation's history. At least the official history which tends to condone such behavior if not lionize it. "after all just look, the master race is still in charge and we still don't have to play by the rules." We've never had a "Magna Carta" moment in our history. The master race being rich white male landowning Europeans. If you weren't at least four of those, Americans don't care about your history if not outright hating and fearing you.
Read for example "Slavery by Another Name." by Douglas A. Blackmon (bit of an appropriate name) or "The New Jim Crow" by Michelle Alexander.
It's systematic abusive behavior written into the laws. It's basically the same kind of stuff that abusers do to their kids. The only reason why we're not a third world country like, say the Phillipines, is that we were the only major country not destroyed by both world wars, so all the scientists and technicians in europe moved over here in the early 20th century.
So, imagine an impoverished alcoholic who abuses his wife and kids, living in one of europes many slums in the 18th's century. Image he gets dissillusioned by his lack of any kind of career sucess (because he's an abusive drunk sociopath) Now, Imagine he decides to ship it over the pond to seek his fortune (partially because his wife and family all hate him.
These are America's founding fathers. Abusive nasty classless wife beating fucks. Seriously. These are the people who wrote out earliest legal system.
We're sentimental about our roots in Europe despite the fact that everyone hated our ancestors often for good reasons over there. We think this makes us awesome that we were willing to take this grand misadventure, when we didn't actually have a choice.
It wouldn't have happened if the actual americans hadn't been devastated by several pandemics introduced a century before.
> Why the US ? It's one of the most diverse and free countries in the world. Not a big fan of the government but there's a reason everyone wants to live there.
If I'm going to ring Israel up for defacto discrimination via social norms rather than obvious race based law, then I certainly have to accept that America also fits that definition. Some argue (and I'm amenable to the argument) that features of the current implementation of the American legal system amounts to modern "Jim Crow" laws. The popular book making this argument is Michelle Alexander's: The New Jim Crow. I assume you're not super familiar with American history, so just a quick summary of what I'm talking about:
- Africans are brought to America during the slave trade. These people have no rights despite America proclaiming that "all men are created equal."
- Though the American constitution doesn't use the word "slave" there is what's called the "3/5ths compromise" where the founders agreed that, when conducting the census, slaves would count as 3/5ths of a person. This is important because the American House of Representatives is based on population numbers and slave states wanted to get as many representatives as possible while non-slave states argued that slaves can't vote and have no rights, so why should they be part of the count that determines how many representatives a state gets in the legislative body.
- After the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery, America got rid of the 3/5ths compromise and passed the 13th amendment ('Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.') Notice how that's written? What's the loophole?
- "Jim Crow" laws start to spring up in the former slave states. These are laws specifically designed to disenfranchise black voters without directly specifying race. The law might be something like: you can only vote if your grandfather voted (being 'grandfathered in'). Newly freed slaves may not even know who their grandfather is (slaves were routinely separated from their family sometimes for simple economic reasons and other times as a purposeful tactic to keep familial strength down), and even if they did... their grandfather certainly never had the right to vote. At best, apartheid South Africa could have claimed to be in this phase.
- A sort of equilibrium is found where the slave states essentially found ways to continue being slave states without violating the 13th. There was a system of "separate but equal" where slave states would claim that blacks have all of the same rights but have to remain segregated. This is the nearest historical comparison for where I think Israel is right now. In my opinion, you're in your "separate but equal" phase.
- A lot of time passes, and black people slowly gain rights eventually culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which attempted to deal with the remnants of Jim Crow and the failed effort after the Civil War to integrate southern slave society with the rest of America (we basically put reunifying the country ahead of actually stamping out the core issue... 13th amendment was "good enough" even if it wasn't really respected in the south).
- Remember that loophole? With Jim Crow being mostly defeated and black people beginning to vote and elect representatives again, then President Nixon implements the "southern strategy" which include "law and order" with the result being (some would argue) essentially a new Jim Crow system where you find reasons to arrest and charge your opponents (blacks and hippies in Nixon's eyes) and if you can pin a felony on them, then you can take away their right to vote. This is why American black people are so sensitive to the police issue, because they see it as, essentially, the continuation of an effort to disenfranchise them even if there isn't a law written that specifically targets them.
Ok, so I'm basically arguing that, like I believe to be the case in Israel, in America we're trying to live up to our ideals, but we've historically fallen short and continue to do so based on deep seated human feelings about "us" and "them." We may say that all men are created equal and that justice is blind, but in both of our countries the data says our legal systems produce worse outcomes for minorities than can be accounted for through normal variables. I'm not sure that I'd say American or Israel are the most racist western countries, but I think it's fair to say that we're up there in terms of how out of place and hypocritical our racism is. America, because we're a country of immigrants ... and Israel for the same reason (don't flip out, it's just true by modern definitions) combined with the recent experience of what can be the result of extreme "us" vs "them" thinking with the Shoah. In other words, we're not the worst ... but we should be the most ashamed.
> I still really like your argument and the way you put it. I can't bring myself to disagree with you anymore.. lol
Thanks! It always feels good to hear you made a good argument. That said, I've found my arguments over the years only because people like you attack them and show me where the weaknesses/mistakes/inaccuracies are. I hope that you'll come at me in good faith, and we can continue to make each other smarter and more capable of articulating our respective positions.
>No, you aren't. You are desperate to blame your bogeyman and don't want to speak to the people in question.
I speak to these people every single day.
>Look, I appreciate this is a ballache to deal with. I had the same problem when we voted to leave the European Union over here. We've had to come to terms and unpick the stupid, myriad but ultimately not racist reasons people chose to Leave.
It's not the same thing.
>Like it or not, that's what you have to do now. You can't just blame it on fucking white supremacy for gods sake. You are NEVER going to get people voting for you if that's the line you take! You can't shame people anymore. It doesn't work! They don't identify as white supremacists. If they don't, your line of attack has no effect because they know themselves better who they are than you do!
I'm not trying to get anyone to vote for anything. I am observing that I believe a substantial percentage of the American public would accept authoritarianism at this point in history. I believe that the willingness to accept authoritarianism is linked to our long and deep history of white supremacy that infuses everything here: economics, politics, real estate, education. Everything. In short, the white population that has enjoyed a privileged position in society is resentful when it has to compete for crumbs with people of color. This is true, whether or not the people themselves deny being racist. It is a sense of entitlement that the "jobs" are "our jobs" to be taken by "them" who are not qualified but get the job due to laws created to ensure equal access to opportunity.
It is the sense that schools are filling up with undesirables so we need more choice, more options to flee the public education (such as private school vouchers).
It's the sense that led real estate agents to redline certain neighborhoods, keeping our residential areas segregated.
>They don't identify as white supremacists.
My argument isn't what they identify themselves as. My argument is that living in the United States is living in a society in which the environment is white supremacist. It's an environment in which white privilege was built on the back of black chattel slavery. It is a legacy that persists. To understand this better, you might want to read these books:
Without that, it's somewhat pretentious to lecture an American on American society when you don't live in and weren't raised in America. Don't you think? (ETA: In fact, you really don't know anything about me, do you?)
>If they don't, your line of attack has no effect because they know themselves better who they are than you do!
I'm not attacking anything. I am not trying convince them of anything. I am making observations about American society. Very few people are openly racist or even admit to themselves that they are racist. Yet racism is rampant. How often have you heard, "I'm not racist, but..." You might as well tattoo "racist" on your forehead when you say that.
well without getting too in depth I'd like to first say you should look into and read up on the issue because I will undoubtedly get something wrong here. It's overwhelmingly complicated and I'm not an expert. If you want a quick easy intro you could start with netflix's 13TH. Many of the authors you should be reading if you're interested in the theory of structural racism are quoted or interviewed in that documentary.
The New Jim Crow - Michelle Alexander
Not in my Neighborhood - Antero Pietila (caveat: I read about redlining quite a few years ago now, from someone interviewed in 13th. forget who. would cite them instead but in a rush RN. I think I read a snippet of this book at one point but tbh it's been a long time since I went to school)
are both probably good places to start. I have a collection of academic journals and sources from undergrad I might be able to find at home too (although my life is busy this holiday season so no promises). the basic idea is that after the civil rights movement many things aligned to marginalize minorities in place of the more openly racist system of segregation. After WWII vets were given houses, but black vets were encouraged to move into new houses in black neighborhood, which were "redlined" - essentially the houses in black neighborhoods were deemed less valuable and if you lived in these neighborhoods it became progressively harder to get good loans and build your financial assets. so white vets sent their kids to free using the assets their GI bill houses gave their family, while black vets watched their neighborhoods slowly fall into poverty and marginalization.
Meanwhile a rhetoric of "criminality" was cultivated in politics - Nixon ran on an anti-crime platform and his adimistration allegedly used drugs and crime to split up hippies and black, keeping them from unifying politically. Reagan grew these policies and next thing you know The New Jim Crow emerged - sorry for wiki but incarceration skyrocketed and disproportionately hit minorities and the lower classes. Check the sources at the bottom of the wiki it's a much more complex issue than one sentence and I don't have time to cite you a million sources. Although democrats don't like to talk about it, Bill Clinton actually resided over a very large part of this trend of mass incarceration and even enacted some of the harshest laws - like three strikes and you're out and mandatory minimums. It's possible this hard stance on crime helped win back the presidency for the Democrats - by then crime had become such an integral part of campaigning that the only way to beat the republicans was to join them.
during this time you can actually also find some strong examples of more direct violence against major outspoken black voices - there was the time philadelphia bombed itself - here's an op-ed on that one too and there was the assasination of Fred Hampton while he was asleep next to his wife
complicating matters is the privatization of prisons. With so many people in prison states were slow and overcrowding became an issue so profits started to be had in the private prison sector. it didn't take long for other industries to join the party -Lots of big names in American consumerism use or used labor in prison camps to cut labor costs and stay local. Which just makes it more profitable to be tough on crime and run prisons.
tl;dr: it pays to have cheap labor and infrastructure/governement can be used to maintain the status quo with a new spin
As a criminal defense attorney, The New Jim Crow is a wonderfully illuminating book about what my answer to this would be.
> Depends how its used. Most SJWs are right white people are typically more privileged. But the rhetoric around that concept has twisted it unfortunately... kind of how "you're just an SJW" has become a way to shutdown conversation, "check your privilege" does the same. Sometimes checking facts is a lot more useful to resolve a debate.
I wouldn't disagree with this. I think when people use phrases like "you're just an SJW" or "check your privilege" they're simply trying to shut down the discussion instead of trying to engage in healthy dialog. Which is what our society really needs IMO.
When it comes to white privilege I've found many people dismiss it because they're white and grew up poor, or vice versa and grew up as a wealthy minority. Of course exceptions exist for everything. IMO white privilege has more to do with how American society was constructed. Everything from slavery, the Jim Crow era, segregation and the militarization of police forces in largely black communities was done by white people. Sure, we've fixed some of these issues. However I feel a lot of well-intentioned people suffer from colorblindness. It's not like a magic switch was turned on that made everyone equal overnight. Racism is still a huge problem in America. I'd recommend checking out this book for more information on the subject.
> Well, the way its generally used. No. I don't. If they claim its simply admitting there are people that contribute to helping rapists get away with it or influence people to not understand the importance of consent... sure. But then the term is deceptive since we then live in a murder culture, a cooking culture, a lying culture, etc. The type of arguments generally used to show we live in a rape culture are based on false information or complete misunderstanding regarding how alleged rapists get convicted.
We're probably going to disagree here. But here's a great article/summary on why we live in a society that perpetuates rape culture.
> EDIT: Am I safe to assume you won't provide any evidence to counter me?
Nah man. I mainly only use reddit when I'm bored at work. So it takes some time for me to respond sometimes.
Read https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431/
It's certainly not perfect but you may like it. Alexander shits on the Bill Clinton and I'm sure you'll get a kick out of that.
There are, in fact, many, many facts to support my position. Just because class (which happens to be closely tied to race) also plays into the equation doesn't mean that racism isn't at the heart of the problem. Educate yourself, my friend:
https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
https://www.amazon.com/Ghettoside-True-Story-Murder-America-ebook/dp/B0062OCN4E
https://www.amazon.com/Just-Mercy-Story-Justice-Redemption/dp/081298496X
Okay, since it seems like your serious as most people who would say what you said are actually being disingenuous, but since you do seem to be honest I do have more for you:
The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander
You've made an empirical claim with no data. You accuse the protesters of irrationality, but you call a claim "bullshit" with no evidence to support your statement.
Here's a bit of evidence: http://facultyhiring.uoregon.edu/special-concerns/
I'd highly recommend you read The New Jim Crow. Hell, I'll buy you a copy if you promise to read the whole thing.
You should probably read the New Jim Crow and educate yourself, buddy. You know, real scholarly work, instead of a random reddit post.
http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Jim_Crow
edit: more currently, http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/
I'm pretty sure I'm more educated on this than you are.
>I never once touched on Jail
I touched on incarceration and you're still not being honest here.
>and how black perpetrators has proportionally done a lot more of this than other races,
Great bias
>I never mentioned police being killed on the job, but police killing black people (in self defense, malicious, accidental etc.)
Moving the goalposts when you asked particularly about police killed on the job and the majority are not killed by civilians, black or white. But you're already on a dishonest streak so I wasn't expecting much...
>You have presented no such thing, and yes, I blame the group doing the violence, most of the violence happens to it's own group.
Again, bullshit. But you want to assert stuff with your own ignorance, you're free to do so.
>I told you, you linked to the guardian, they are not a credible source, I will believe it once it's from a credible source
"I believe it when I see it but I don't see the facts in front of me as credible so I'm going to ignore it."
Whatever floats your boat, but it proves the point that your "empiricism" is nothing more than faith based bullshit to assert your own view with nothing backing it up but your own beliefs.
>it's just you refusing to believe what I'm presenting for you
That's pretty rich coming from you who rejects anything that goes against what you believe...
>I'm not skewing data, black people on average represent the perpetration of violence, murder and rape in a greater proportion than other races, this is a fact, and it's been an ongoing trend which I have traced back to 1984~ (because teh fbi released a 20 year report)
Based on an institution that's more or less responsible for their incarceration and gets paid on that... Yeah, no bias at all...
No conflict of interest at all that law enforcement hasn't targeted minorities. Not at all... They're all responsible for their own crimes. Like stop and frisk so when bigoted statistics come out and say "black on black crime is the worst" we can just Listen and Believe. Smartest thing to do...
>How is it stupid and ignorant?
Because your argument is factually inaccurate and it's more bullshit you're throwing out to see what sticks.
>I wouldn't cite them as a credible source, like ever.
Oh look, you want to ignore researchers when they don't fit your view.
>found this
Why in the fuck do you listen to press releases when the gaming industry ones are bullshit, and you refuse to look at actual facts?
All you did was listen to the damn highlights that even the Washington Post pointed out was a scathing report
Quit listening and believing the cops and think for yourself! Even Holder said a lot more about that when he was in charge and you've deluded yourself on a bad argument based on not enough data or context.
>This is getting old.
Either prove it's false or don't. You haven't shown that the data is erroneous, just that you want to put your hands in your ears and scream "LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU" when you have no argument. Do or do not. There is no try.
>Don't try to shift the burden of proof
Don't have to. You're ignoring other arguments for your own narrative. I doubt you're read something like The New Jim Crow which disproves what you're selling along with testimony by Mr Smith (Yep, I'm a jackass by showing Democracy Now again just to piss you off) and that prisons can be brutal for those incarcerated while innocent men don't get justice. But of course, with murders, everything is perfect and the people accused are always the right suspect and they're always black.
No innocent people are put into the system for crimes they didn't commit, and prosecutors are never overzealous
Everything to plan, right?
Get back to me when you're serious. You're so deluded that you refuse what's in front of you just because of your own biases and ignorance.
The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness https://www.amazon.com/dp/1595586431/
That accusation is absolutely false. One of the primary driving factors behind institutional racism in the criminal justice system is the war on drugs, and libertarians universally advocate ending it. Civil libertarians like Radley Balko are the ones leading the charge against overcriminalization, militarization of police, erosion of constitutional rights, and asset forfeiture, all of which disproportionally affect blacks and other disadvantaged minorities.
I will add that you are entirely correct in that libertarians do not hesistate to describe unjust state actions as coercion. When a cop arrests a person for a victimless crime such as drug possession, and the prosecutor and judge punish the person according to the law, that is state coercion and an injustice. When property is stolen from people using asset forfeiture, that is state coercion and an injustice. When cops detain a person and intimidate them into permitting a search of their person or property, that is state coercion and an injustice. All of these things happen daily, frequently, throughout every part of the US. Libertarians are strong advocates for ending all such coercive and abusive practices and the racial disparities which accompany them. Don't falsely accuse libertarianism of having no solution to racial bias in the criminal justice system. As I see it, the libertarian solution is the only solution which will actually solve the root problems.
> the New Jim Crow,
Just in regards to the drug war, I'm currently reading the New Jim Crow and I highly recommend it.
If you haven't already, read The New Jim Crow.
"Criminal" is a dehumanizing term. We are all much more than one or a dozen of our actions. We are always human before anything else. The vast majority of society has committed crimes, so you could argue everyone is a criminal to some extent. Instead of vilifying people, contemplate how they get to the point of murder (or any other violence offense). What causes humans to commit murder? If you value science, you believe there is a measurable answer to this question. We can begin by noting that murder is historically not a capacity unique to a select few. The murder rate fluctuates in societies not because of the genetic make up of its citizens or the number of "bad" people. The picture is much more complicated. Meanwhile, in the US we do not live in a society where everyone is treated equal and fairly and has the same opportunities and access to strong mental health services, so it's no surprise we have violence. Without understanding how decision making physiologically/socially occurs or from where the action originates, we cannot predict whether we can help a person not to reoffend.
These are all logical statements. Morality can be logical. If you want to talk pragmatics:
- Everything about execution is more costly than life in prison - the trials, appeals, housing on death row vs. life in prison and lethal injection itself
- Murder rates are lowest in societies that humanize their prisoners - those that recognize the dignity of humans focus efforts on rehabilitation
- Our prison system in general is costly, racist, sets prisoners up for recidivism and is a for-profit industry - read The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexandar for further info
It's not surprising that recognizing there are problems and attempting to solve them leads to better outcomes than state-sanctioned murder of whomever seems most "evil". But people are too wrapped up in their own hate to think rationally, which leads to more hate and violence.
Same actually. I picked up this book yesterday and I'm excited to crack it open.
I will preface by saying that there are two points that I'd like to make:
- There is no reason we, as a community and institution, can't address bigger issues and smaller issues at the same time. People have been presenting this false dichotomy consistently throughout this debate and it's just flat out wrong.
- No one (that I know of) is suggesting that renaming Tillman is a panacea for race/diversity issues at Clemson. To suggest otherwise is a misleading straw man argument.
> I can't believe the answer is so obvious, and here I was thinking there was some bigger issue within society causing those numbers.
Of course it's not so simple or obvious, but /u/Sound_of_Science asked for data and logic to the exclusion of narrative history. This is, of course, absurd, but I did the best I could on short notice when confronted with a ridiculous debate constraint.
If you had read my other reply in the same thread you'd have seen a more fleshed out summary of "bigger issue[s] within society causing those numbers":
>> but it is meaningless without knowing why those numbers are different. Does Clemson not accept as many minorities as they should? Or do minorities perform more poorly in high school and thus do not qualify for entry to Clemson? Or do minorities have more financial strain that prevents them from affording enrollment at Clemson? It could be a number of other reasons or any combination of them.
> I'm not sure if it's meaningless, but you're quite right that it's almost certainly a combination of factors.
> Allow me to rewind a little.
>In the wake of desegregation, southern whites flocked toward private schools. This trend persists to this day. When I came to Clemson (from Pennsylvania) I was shocked at how many in-state and adjacent students attended private schools. Where I came from, children of prominent politicians and the absurdly wealthy went to private school. It was exceptional and exceptionally expensive. In SC, NC, GA it was/is apparently pretty normal. This general tactic was a practical (and legal) response to avoid actually integrating. Simultaneous to the shift toward privatization, funding for public schools (at least at the state-level) was largely retracted and has stayed consistently low across the south. This exacerbated an existing educational lag and made many public school systems (that were marginal to begin with) downright dysfunctional. As you might expect, the worst schools were generally in areas with larger-than-average black populations (see "Corridor of Shame"). South Carolina has done very little to help blacks and possibly/probably actively worked to set them up for failure by systematically undermining the educational system along economic instead of blatantly racial lines. So, while you may correlate poor performance to income and test scores, you have to understand that higher income and test scores are often preceded by educational opportunities that accumulate over generations. Certainly, we can't lay all the blame for the disparities at the feet of white South Carolinians, but... a significant amount can be traced back to policies that were unquestionably driven by racism and institutional injustice.
>> Without specifics, though, we can't be sure what needs improvement and what we should address.
> So do nothing because we're unsure what's the most efficacious pursuit? We are sitting here exchanging comments about a clear and specific issue that (at least some people believe) needs improvement! Whether or not you think the name should change is up to you, but, perhaps, at least, try not to be so quick to dismiss the argument and shut down the conversation
We could add the thesis from The New Jim Crow into the mix as well:
> In the book Alexander deals primarily with the issue of the current mass levels of incarceration in the United States (with 5% of the world's population, the U.S. incarcerates 25% of the world's prisoners) and what she perceives as societal repression of African-American men and, to a lesser degree, Latino men. She discusses the social consequences of various policies for people of color, as well as for the US population as a whole. According to Alexander, the majority of young black men in large American cities are "warehoused in prisons," their labor no longer needed in the globalized economy. Alexander maintains that many young black men, once they are labeled as "felons," become trapped in a second-class status that they find difficult to escape. The conventional point of view holds that discrimination has mostly ended with the Civil rights movement reforms of the 1960s. However, Alexander claims the U.S. criminal justice system uses the “War on Drugs” as a primary tool for enforcing traditional, as well as new, modes of discrimination and repression. From Wikipedia because I'm lazy.
So, yeah, there are other dynamics and bigger issues but their existence doesn't preclude us from addressing the symptoms or focusing the low-hanging fruit first. Can't always swing for the fences.
> If we rename Tillman hall then more blacks will want to attend/will be able to afford Clemson. [/sarcasm]
You're implying that even if we renamed Tillman, there will continue to be financial and cultural barriers? In other words, "why bother changing the name if black students aren't going to be able to afford Clemson and won't like it here anyway?" If that's your message, I have to admit it sounds like an incredibly shitty attitude.
Certainly there are black students who have the financial means to attend Clemson but who are going elsewhere for any number of reasons. Why add another reason to the list when it costs nothing to remove a reason. Similarly, it costs SC nothing to remove the confederate flag from the state grounds (which has lead to long-standing boycott). Nothing to lose and everything to gain. Yet, we're stubbornly resisting the change because...? And please don't say "denying history" or some such. That argument has so little merit, it's an insult to both our intelligences. I could opine on what I think the reasons are, but it really doesn't matter when the benefits outweigh the costs no matter how we look at it.
I think we are pretty clear on most of the topics at hand and mainly disagree on semantics, but I would likely to clear up one point: I don't mean to say that all individual, white people agree with unfair discrimination against minorities; in fact, I would argue that most individuals are against that sort of discrimination. I think that the racism lies in the structures of our current systems (educational, judicial, whatever), and that it takes more than passive disavowance of racism to undo those systems. Most people do not know these disadvantages even exist; I consider myself to be fairly educated and I allowed myself to be blind to the inequality all around me until it was blatantly pointed out to me. I did not reply to your comment in order to tell you that you were wrong or anything like that (and just to be clear, I'm not accusing you of accusing me of doing that), but rather to present this point of systemic discrimination, primarily in our system of mass incarceration. These systems will not change until there is a realization by most members of our society that they are unfair and need to be corrected, and the only way that will happen is by having discussions such as these. The crack vs cocaine is the clearest example of blatant systemic racism. Up until 2011, minimum sentences for crack were 100x as harsh as cocaine, when they are the exact same chemical compound. The difference? Crack is cheap and mostly found in low income neighbors while cocaine is expensive and is primarily used by white people. It wasn't until 2011 when it was changed to 18-1, which is still ridiculous for the same drug. Link
Basically, individual white people don't know it is going on, but since we do live in a democracy, we hold at least partial responsibility for the systemic discrimination that exists. It's not just white people, either; many blacks and Hispanics also support the systems in the name of law and order (which is BS but the war on drugs has perpetuated that drug addicts are criminals through the act of being caught with a drug, when anyone who has experience knows it is more of a healthcare issue than a law enforcement one). Isn't it strange how the President of the United States can admit that he snorted coke or smoked weed and it is no big deal, but if he were caught he would never be eligible to run? We as individual people say we don't think the act of doing a drug should be illegal, but yet our systems destroy lives everyday because some people are unlucky enough to get caught (and it isn't even luck: cops hang out in low income neighborhoods inhabited by minorities and unfairly target them via stop and frisks and other underhanded tactics with the sole goal of increasing department revenue). The people who are caught, no matter how qualified to be the president or any other profession, often times get hit with felony and have a hard time working for minimum wage. I have gotten way off point, but, whatever, I think they are important points to be made and to be thought about. If by chance you are interested, this is an excellent book on the topic that is explained way better than I ever could: The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander
"the only racism is anti-white racism."
I didn't write that. I wrote the only institutional discrimination is against whites via affirmative action, quotas, bonus SAT points, and racial preferences.
Read <strong><em>this</em></strong> and let's discuss.
OK, lets discuss. Blacks are in prison more than whites for several reasons: The commit exponentially more crime, their sentences are tougher due to recidivism, they are much more likely to be busted for drugs since they're more likely to be taking, possessing, or selling drugs.
The US Department of Health and Human Services does regular surveys, and asks people if they take illegal drugs. Blacks are only about 10 to 20 percent more likely than whites to SAY that they do.
www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUHresultsPDFWHTML2013/Web/NSDUHresults2013.pdf
But if you look at the arrest data, blacks are 2-1/2 times more likely to be arrested for drug possession and 3.7 times more likely than whites to be arrested for trafficking. So, is this proof of police discrimination?
www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aus9010.pdf
Do police suddenly go nuts if drugs are involved? Every mayor in Wash DC has been black since 1975. Two thirds of the police officers are black. And yet, the ACLU itself black reports a black DC resident was 8 times more likely than a white resident to be arrested for marijuana possession.
www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu-thewaronmarijuana-rel2.pdf
The idea that blacks don’t use illegal drugs much more often than whites comes from surveys. But when you ask people if they take illegal drugs do they tell the truth? Researchers ask people if they have taken drugs and then take urine or hair samples to find out. And almost every time, blacks are a lot mowhite pre likely than whites to say they haven’t taken drugs but the test then proves they were lying. A study in the Journal of Urban Health, for example, found that blacks were ten times more likely than whites to lie about cocaine. Hispanics were five times more likely. When it came to marijuana, not one of the 109 whites in the sample lied, but one in eight of the 191 blacks lied.
link.springer.com/article/10.1093/jurban/jti065
A study of Vietnam-era veterans in the journal Addictive Behaviors found that blacks were more than 20 times more likely than whites to lie about cocaine, and twice as likely to lie about marijuana.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495080/
This behavior goes back a long way. In 1994, more than 20 years ago, a large study of young people, aged nine to 20, found that blacks were six times more likely than whites to claim they didn’t use cocaine–but have it show up in a urine test.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7960302/
Want more data? Every year, the US Department of Health and Human Services tells us how many people went to the emergency room because they took an illegal drug and got sick or went crazy. Since the government tabulates these numbers by race, we can calculate rates. Blacks are 3-1/2 times more likely than whites to go to the emergency room because they took an illegal drug.
archive.samhsa.gov/data/2k13/DAWN2k11ED/DAWN2k11ED.pdf
Damn, that's fucked up to bring up Affirmative Action as your only example of racial discrimination... This says to me you are only concerned about issues that hurt white people. I'd suggest reading this book if you wish to learn more on the subject.
We stole Africans from Africa. Yes, we "bought" the slaves from locals... at the point of a gun. The locals had little to no say in whether they sold to us.
Whether or not we were early adopters of abolition does not matter. Our country was founded with slavery written into it. Southern religion still clings to most of the ideas that justified it.
Lastly, "someone with a brain" can understand that "we criminalize being poor" means that we unfairly target the poor with our laws. We have harsh sentences for crimes of desperation like dealing or even possessing drugs, which is common when you barely have money to feed your family.
If you want to understand a tiny bit of what it is to be black in America, read The New Jim Crow or watch 13th on Netflix.
That'll get you started. Click on each link, ctrl+f "homicide", and salt the earth.
Not gonna lie, I fucked up calling Chicago the capital. Had to google to find out Springfield was the capital.
Like I said, I'm not going to give you a criminology lesson. Get off your dumb shit and read a fuckin book that isn't the Turner Diaries and stop watching fucking youtube. I've looked at plenty of your guys' shit, go take a criminology class and take a look at mine. Or, go protest on the front lines instead of flexing in random cities you have no qualms with.
You want some real shit, read this. I dare you to read that, all of it, and not learn tons of shit.
> I'm arguing that you shouldn't dwell on that emotion,
i directly answered this when i wrote "its not like black people are walking around everyday being bitter. but, just try to see how it can bubble over when you can trace your ancestry to a receipt....."
Implying that no black person is continuously and consciously walking around dwelling on slavery. But rather, there are events (outside of your control) that remind you of this fact. Your response to this is to "stop dwelling on it". You flat out don't know what you're talking about. Stop here.
Since I don't like leaving you empty handed here is a great book to get you started
Why don't you read /u/Cumbox15 or /u/lawrnk comment history, then get back to me. Also, what you're saying has merit, and I'm not saying everyone in here is racist. Racist does get thrown around a lot. However, as is apparent in our current political climate, racism is still going very strong in this country and a lot of accusations that people are racist is right on the money, despite what most will say in response to being called racist. The cognitive dissonance is astounding. Waving a Nazi flag and demanding segregation, but they aren't racist. They just believe in ethnic purity. Fuckin serious?
Some people just don't like the content, and that is their prerogative. But "thug" and "he got what he deserved" are low blows, especially considering the content and the message that was being expressed in the video.
If you want a better idea on subtle racism and how destructive it can be, read The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. Don't just write it off, that book is a game changer and is met by unanimous praise in the legal community, taught in colleges around the country, and will leave you disgusted at the state of our prison industrial complex and lamenting the state of inequality across the sociological spectrum. I'm open to reading material you suggest; all I ask is that it is from a reputable author. Michelle Alexander is a Stanford Law School graduate and has an extremely impressive resume if you look into her.
All of those things don't even come close to counteracting hundreds of years of systemic, official racism, and the unofficial "soft" racism that's largely taken its place. Those things make as much difference as a fish pissing in the ocean.
>Unless you can point out to me how blacks are now being disadvantaged?
Here's one of many possible examples: The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness
... and so, if someone made a compelling enough argument that Jim Crow is still functionally extant you'd say that violent uprisings are justified today?
wow, a link. again, you didn't read mine.
>Again, I did, and I had to correct you as to what was contained within them.
no, you didn't correct me. what you said was:
>you'd see Hispanics are largely subject to the same rates of search and arrest - dun dun dun - which also coincides with their own crime rates.
what... does this prove? that there is racism against latinx people too? that's not news. that arrest rates correlate with crime rates? given that crime rates are largely calculated by convictions, we should not be impressed by this. difficult to see how a conviction can happen without an arrest rate. that search rates should correlate with crime rates should not impress us when the accusation is police corruption, because in such cases, we should not be surprised when there are false arrests disproportionately targeted at certain populations, or anything of the like. what does this change? it does not change that black crime rates are going down faster than white crime rates, which was what i said. it does not change the point this makes, that is, that this is a separate trend to general crime reduction, and that violent crime is uncorrelated with police shootings, which the data i showed - that you didn't read - also said. it does not change the fact that there is a disproportionate amount of black people killed by polcie because "i thought his phone was a gun" or similar reasons, which is what i said, and what my links said. the numbers clearly demonstrate this. you keep saying "actually it's only poverty and nothing else". the numbers don't demonstrate this. poor white people get fucked around by legal systems, and are less often just killed on the spot. your 'correction' does not affect my points at all.
in fact, you wouldn't be saying it's "just poverty" if you had read my other link, which indicates that residential segregation is a key factor. if you had read that link, you would have seen for yourself, that there's unique situations in terms of how police don't address black communities properly, and it's that specifically which leads to them being a better target for criminals.
if you wanted to prove that it was Just Poverty that lead to black people being killed, you would need to prove that police kill black people at a rate equal to the black poverty rate. this remains to be proven.
i genuinely can't get over your "you should stop being such an aggressive blind shitbag you racist" tact, while encouraging me to somehow be more rational and less aggresive in my sentiments or something, making a "good image" for "my side". you aren't even listening to me. you keep saying i'm "racist". why? well, you haven't explained, but i imagine you'd say it's because i'm trying to "divide" or something. and yet,
- http://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/NYPD-Officers-Arrest-Quota-Exclusive-Interview-Pressure-Numbers-374077091.html
- http://www.vox.com/2015/5/28/8661977/race-police-officer
- http://www.vox.com/2016/7/8/12128858/police-racism-officers-admit
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/06/i-was-a-st-louis-cop-my-peers-were-racist-and-violent-and-theres-only-one-fix/
- http://theconversation.com/slow-death-is-the-trauma-of-police-violence-killing-black-women-62264
black people from serena williams, zendaya, beyonce, jesse williams (hey they have the same last name that's weird), sports teams and athletes are recognizing this as another issue of standing up for their rights against racist institutions. they've written countless shit on the subject, and i have to imagine, you haven't read it, just like you haven't read or properly understood what i'm linking to or saying, or engaging with it. you're pretty piss poor at arguing, because even the bad points you're making could be made a lot better.
>“These killings come on top of other forms of oppression black people face. Mass incarceration of nonwhites is one of them. While African-Americans constitute 13.1% of the nation’s population, they make up nearly 40% of the prison population. Even though African-Americans use or sell drugs about the black rage hillsame rate as whites, they are 2.8 to 5.5 times more likely to be arrested for drugs than whites. Black offenders also receive longer sentences compared to whites. Most offenders are in prison for nonviolent drug offenses.”
see, interestingly enough, my link pointed this out, about the sentencing disparity between black and white suspects. if you say "there's a disparity between hipsanics too", then that just proves the point that it's racism. if you actually want to say "the disparity is just due to higher poverty rates", you would have to prove that specifically, but i find it hard to believe that there are no poor white drug dealers/minor offenders receiving lighter sentences.
what you linked to me is a very out of date article, 2013, which feels like a life time ago when it comes to these issues. in 2013, data on police violence was much less prominent than it is now, and taken much less into consideration because it was much less of an issue. in addition, the data that there was was much less accurate, due to even more drastic underreporting and less pressure to map it. so, this doesn't change any of my statistics about that. however, here are some more quotes from your source.
>A growing body of scholarship suggests that a significant portion of such disparity may be attributed to implicit racial bias, the unconscious associations humans make about racial groups. Implicit biases (commonly referred to as stereotypes) are activated when individuals must make fast decisions with imperfect information; biases—regardless of their accuracy—“fill in” missing information and allow individuals to make decisions in the limited time allowed.
unfortunately, they don't look very good when copypasted.
>Extensive research has shown that in such situations the vast majority of Americans of all races implicitly associate black Americans with adjectives such as “dangerous,” “aggressive,” “violent,” and “criminal.”
huh. interesting.
>The effects of racial bias are particularly well demonstrated in the areas of traffic stops and drug law enforcement. Between 1980 and 2000, the U.S. black drug arrest rate rose from 6.5 to 29.1 per 1,000 persons; during the same period, the white drug arrest rate increased from 3.5 to 4.6 per 1,000 persons.15 Yet the disparity between the increase in black and white drug arrests does not correspond to any significant disparity in black drug activity. In 2012, for instance, the National Institute on Drug Abuse published a study surveying drug usage among secondary school students in the United States from 1975-2011. The study found that white students were slightly more likely to have abused an illegal substance within the past month than black students. 16 Yet from 1980- 2010, black youth were arrested for drug crimes at rates more than double those of white youth.
you seem to understand this. whatever your confused about, you're not saying, because you're not good at arguing but you feel the need that you have to respond anyway because you can't let me have the last word, even if you can't make a good response. do you just have trouble considering ideas that are counter to what you learned from children's/young adult tv shows?
>4 The police practice of targeting minority drivers has become so widespread that many black communities have begun referring to the phenomenon as “DWB” or “driving while black.”
>The most widely publicized example of racial profiling in recent times is the “stop and frisk” tactic employed by the New York Police Department (NYPD). African Americans constitute 25% and Hispanic Americans constitute 29% of New York City’s population.
so, just to be clear. this report also supports what i said in my links.
you seem to have copypasted that passage as though it was saying "it's not racism that's the problem, it's poverty". it seems that it's more saying "the poverty is the result of racism." it does not deny the role of racism. it says it's deeper than "explicit racial discrimination" and then goes on to describe implicit racial discrimination. ironically, i am correcting you about your own link.
>Contact with law enforcement officials and arrests are merely the first step in minority defendants’ journey through the criminal justice system. Once racial minorities enter the system, they continue to confront racial bias at every stage of litigation. This section highlights the influence of racial bias on all the major actors in a criminal trial: defense counsel, prosecutors, judges, and juries.
if this report was actually arguing "racial bias is just from poverty influenced high crime rates", it would not keep talkign about racial bias so explicitly. it does not talk about police violence, i notice.
perhaps you should read The New Jim Crow and educate yourself some more.
Dude are you even fucking serious? Sit down, read through a couple of these, and get back to me in a day or two: Nixon's Domestic Policy Advisor on the War on Drugs >"You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander
Why Hillary Clinton Doesn't Deserve the Black Vote and 90's era 3 Strikes laws
CIA Brought Cocaine/Crack to Black Communities to fund Contras
Yep, no power structures oppressing people of color at all.
Read this book, and get back to me on that.
Relevant reading: The New Jim Crow
I am a strong proponent for law enforcement reform. Would recommend EVERYONE (on all sides of the political aisle) read The New Jim Crow. Regardless of political affiliation, every friend who's read this agrees it's worth sparking painful discussion.
Having said that... Michael Brown should NOT be the name that the (in my eyes, rightful) cause should put on banners. Even Walter Scott is a far better case to put forward.
> But everyone else seems to be interpreting it the way I had intended.
If it agrees with their bias.
> You seem to have only read those words and pounced with a completely irrelevant point -- ignoring the context of the whole post.
I mean, I can take the time to go through with you point-by-point about the real reasons why racism, the war on drugs, law enforcement, and a host of other reasons why episodes like Ferguson happen, but it shouldn't be my job to inform you of the world you live in. I recommend you read a book called "The New Jim Crow" as that's a good start.
This is precisely the argument of Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness:
You should read The New Jim Crow:
http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
> Its the chicken or the egg issue. All I know is that if you work hard, reguardless of race you can be successful, and it wasn't always like that.
And some races receive much fairer treatment under the law than others. I don't understand why you're pretending this isn't the case.
You don't have to listen to me. Do your own research, vet your own facts, account for biases. Just don't be willfully ignorant.
this is funny because it's completely fucking true.
read a book. specifically this one: http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
Black people are stopped by police more, arrested more for crimes they commit at the same rate as whites, ect ect.
Basically they're treated as criminals by default. And more.
Hey, my reddit gold told me you mentioned me (but not OP's post. weird.).
Could you, and anybody who sees this, do me a favor and check if you can see this comment of mine (that's a screenshot I took), which is right located right here?
When I log out, it disappears. It is extremely odd that it is gone. My paranoia is telling me there's a really shitty mod in [/r/AskReddit](/r/AskReddit) that deleted this comment. That's a really scary thought that a mod is abusing their power to support racism and destroy evidence. Can we contact the admin about this? There's gotta be a way to track each mod's history to find out which one did this.
Here is the post copied and pasted, so you can check the links:
>Actually, racial inequality hasn't changed since the 60's:
>http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
>Edit: test occurring at 12:48 AM EST to see if this is deleted or not.
Note that I added that edit in just to see what would happen. I can see it but nobody else can.
Thank you very much to whoever follows through with this. I hope it's just a bug and not what I think it is.
TL;DR: Mod in [/r/askreddit](/r/askreddit) may be abusing power.
Edit: ~~I took initiative and messaged the admin and [/r/askreddit](/r/askreddit) mods about this. I also posted about this in [/r/SRSDiscussion](/r/SRSDiscussion).~~ Apparently there's an automod that bans Amazon links. Ignore all of this.
>So what actually gets accomplished in prison that is so valuable to law enforcement to target one entire race and not another? Why not target anyone, why blacks? Your nutty conspiracy might have a small shred of truth to it if the prisoners were actually doing something instead of rotting in their cells. Sadly for you, this "prison industrial complex" is just a huge burden on taxpayers that doesn't produce anything.
Free labor. Its not a nutty conspiracy, either. Its a very commonly held belief by those who investigate the issue. Please at least skim over this some time. It explains everything in much more detail than I can.
"too many fathers abandon[ing] their families" is CAUSED by this, no the cause of it. Black people are prosecuted at a rate much higher than white people for any given crime, and sentenced to much more time in prison. Seriously, look at stop&frisk in NY, where people of color were targetted 10x more than white people, despite white people being MORE likely to be holding the contraband that they are looking for.
And I assume you are talking about Jewish people.... That's really really really obvious. I'm not going to spell out for you, but take a look at how another group was persecuted in the holocaust, and what happened to Alan Turing after the war. If you don't get it, it might have a little something to do with the UN giving Jewish people their own country. Whoops, there I kind of said it. On the other hand, look at how other groups, like gays, continued to be persecuted. Black people in America are STILL persecuted.
> fantasy world that exists in your head where cops magically target blacks
The fantasy world is one where cops DON'T do this. Look up the statistics, if you don't believe me. NY Stop&Frisk is a great example of something recent. Its fucking ridiculous. I'm guessing you're white, and don't have to deal with the police so much. Ask one of your black friends about the cops and I bet you'll find the two of you have a radically different experience with them.
> in order to have cheap labor, even though the labor is not used to produce anything.
Oh come on, you've got to be kidding me. Never heard of these guys
Do you have absolutely any evidence besides anecdotal evidence? Because I can link you to mountains of studies, essays, etc. that will explain to you why you are.
The phrase "Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple" comes to mind.
It is true, and it is supported by statistical data and evidence:
The poor and working classes are being oppressed by the state. The reason why the poor make low wages or are unemployed, forcing them onto the welfare state, is because of government policies. Low wages are a result of a lack of skills. Nearly 50 percent of the people of Detroit are illiterate. Part of the problem is that teacher pay is not meritocratic and tenure prevents teachers from being fired, so dropping out of school would be as good an option as staying. Occupational licensing traps the poor in mcjobs or unemployment when they could be making money as cab drivers, food venders, or hair braiders. Agricultural price supports, tariffs, and quotas are the reason why food is so expensive, and zoning laws prevent cheap high density housing from being built in suburbs. Thousands of poor minority youths are sent to gulags because of the war on drugs, and once released into the jobs market, they have no skills. The war on drugs also inflates drug prices and incentivizes gang warfare. Most of the poor have access to refrigerators, microwaves, x boxes, TV sets, washing machines, cell phones, and computers, and these goods get cheaper every year while quality improves because they are produced by the private sector. Schools get more expensive every year while quality worsens, and public housing are derelict gang overrun crack houses, because were made and managed by politicians and bureacrats. Politicians have the incentive to support policies that create a permanent underclass so that the poor will be dependent on pro welfare politicians, winning them votes. A real solution to poverty, not a band aid that exacerbates the problem, is to eliminate occupational licensing laws for certain professions, the war on drugs, farm subsidies, anti high density zoning laws, and other legislation that oppresses the poor.
First, I want to address the tone of your question:
>people who deny it are ignorant knee-jerkers
>So I'm forced to believe that the people calling me ignorant and hateful are themselves either ignorant, dishonest, or so absurdly and uniquely skeptical that they're worthy of ridicule.
See, shit like this is a rhetorical device. You aren't arguing there. You're preemptively engaging in ad hominem attacks against people who disagree with you in order to try to discredit them. You need to clean up your hostile language if you want a serious debate.
I'm not sure if you're here in good faith, but a lot of white supremacists trying to get racism brought into serious discussion without it getting immediately dismissed use rhetorical device like this. I'm sure you don't want to give the impression that you should be lumped into that category.
I highly recommend reading The New Jim Crow. It goes over why crime statistics are higher among black people (hint: racism, lack of education opportunities, lack of economic opportunities). It's also got sources coming out of its metaphorical ears.
If you don't want to, bullet point list:
If you correct for stuff like poverty and education, there's not a racial dimension to violent crime.
Stuff like poverty and education are caused by the aforementioned New Jim Crow.
Your opinion that black people have more run ins with the law might not be wrong, but it might be because the law is super racist (also see The New Jim Crow).
That's not to say the laws are super racist. They're technically color blind. But there are a lot of different ways racism is institutionalized in the penal system. That's actually how it's been for a very long time. Poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses following the failure of Reconstruction were all technically race neutral - and had to be, due to the 14th amendment.
Finally, some thoughts on why the cause of the differing statistics, no matter how puzzling, cannot possibly be natural differences: there is no genetic difference between the races. At least, that's what The Human Genome Project thinks.
The war on drugs is discriminatory. Rates of marijuana use are roughly the same for blacks and whites, but blacks are over three and a half times as likely to be arrested- and then sent to a prison, often a for-profit prison (the industry around which lobbies for these drug laws and mandatory minimum sentencing in the first place), and frequently are then put to penal labor. This is the new Jim Crow.
In fact, that very term is recognized already to describe what's going on:
>no they aren't
Source? Because they certainly are. Here is a book that is required reading for everyone at my top-20 law school: http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
>gender vs race violence
I need a source, but you don't? Typical. Very well: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449156/
>We conclude that the large racial/ethnic disparities in violence found in American cities are not immutable. Indeed, they are largely social in nature and therefore amenable to change.
>Yet the majority of the Black–White gap (over 60%) and the entire Latino–White gap were explained primarily by the marital status of parents, immigrant generation, and dimensions of neighborhood social context. The results imply that generic interventions to improve neighborhood conditions and support families may reduce racial gaps in violence.
I'll await your credible sources supporting your racist conclusions.
There's simply no replacement for education and books, wolf. You are beginning with the assumption that blacks are violent as a race, and then working backwards.
You need to ask yourself, in what context is this violence occurring? The vast majority is black-on-black. That necessarily implies geographic, economic, racial, and cultural factors. I am not going to spend another minute educating you on why you shouldn't be blaming genetic race for this violence, because the question itself-when you truly think about it-should do that for you.
Why are these violent crimes being committed, and by whom? Are they being committed by fresh-eyed, black youth who have hope for their futures- exactly the same as a white their age except for skin color? Or are they being committed by "ghettoized youth" and adults who have disproportionately been in contact with the justice system?
Do you consider the effect being arrested for one crime at a young age might have on being violent later in life? Because if that does matter, if being jailed early on matters, then you'll need to consider why black you are DISPROPORTIONATELY ARRESTED AND PUNISHED at young ages- which sets them up for failed and violent lives as ex-felons.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-jones/are-blacks-a-criminal-rac_b_8398.html
I'm done giving you education you could find at a college. Please read books and try to think why this is happening beyond blacks waking up and going "hmm, I sure feels like ima do me some violence today, because my genetics tells me so!!"
http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431
> How?
this book goes into great detail about it, but I'll give you the highlight reel (without citations, as those are easy enough to google, or just read the book as it has a large bibliography.)
The statistics consistently paint a picture that the war on drugs is not only failing to stop people from doing drugs, but that it appears to also not be for stopping people from doing drugs. If it were actually concerned with it, we'd see SWAT team raids and stop-and-frisk techniques in Cambridge, not the ghetto. (Or better yet, we'd see all these funds diverted to rehabilitation centers.) When everything is laid out in front of you, including the history of the "get tough on drug crime" movement which started very shortly after segregation ended, by the same politicians and party, it becomes like one of those "can't unsee" pictures. It's clearly a system of social control directed at black and brown communities, even though it is officially colorblind. Poor, urban black people live in a police state. The 4th amendment has been in shambles for decades.
The reason it can be officially colorblind is that 90% of people break these laws at some point in their lives. Recreational drugs are almost ubiquitous. Did you know that white people do and sell drugs just as much as black people? In fact, where statistics differ, it is suggested that the demographic most likely to do and sell drugs is college-aged white people.
And yet black and brown people are incarcerated at between 4 and 12 times the rate, depending on county. It is not possible to catch everyone. So, "discretion" is required to determine who should and shouldn't be targeted. That discretion is a) entirely legal, and b) overwhelmingly racist.
Every study that has ever been done has shown a hugely disproportionate way in which the war on drugs has been fought. However, law enforcement and prosecutors have complete and utter discretion. The only way to get them convicted of racial bias is if they admit to it. Statistics are not valid, according to the supreme court, because only conscious bias is banned by the 14th amendment. How does a civil rights lawyer prove that someone has conscious as opposed to unconscious bias (as if that were better anyway?) The answer is they can't. Law enforcement and prosecutors have to basically admit openly that they are racist in order to be challenged.
And this isn't a "normal" amount of racial bias, like the kind you see in studies of resume callbacks. In some communities, over half of the young men are either on parole, in prison, or ex-cons.
The U.S. imprisons a higher percentage of its population than any country in the world - even Russia. The majority of them are incarcerated for nonviolent offenses. The majority of them are not white.
This is recent, not historically. It's mostly due to the war on drugs. In 1980, our prison population was 1/5th of what it is today, and that's not even counting the massive numbers of citizens who are "free" but on parole and/or labeled felons.
And there's something funny about that "felon" label - all the ways in which it is now illegal to discriminate based on race, are perfectly legal to use against a felon. Convenient? For racists, yes.
> Umm not to be obstreperous... but you started the entire conversation with a straw man of the white community.
It's a forum, I don't think commenting is considered unruly. Nice 2 dollar word though.
A straw man is a misrepresentation of an argument or position. Of course, being neither of those things, it would be impossible to set up a straw man of "the white community".
> The most blood thirsty, throw Zimmerman to the wolves people I know are all white. It's as if they wanted to condemn him without even hearing the evidence as some kind of sacrifice to atone for past digressions of white people (despite him not being white).
Okay, that's an interesting observation. Have you considered the selection effect as one possible cause?
As for the past digressions (surely you meant transgressions, but I digress) of white people, maybe we should ask what this case says about the justice system's current transgression against people of color, particularly young black men. Lots of good info out there, including Bryan Stevenson's Ted Talk and Michelle Alexander's book The New Jim Crow.
Edit: bad night for my articles.
Edit 2: Another great watch related to this is Fruitvale Station, which just came out this weekend. That makes me really, really sad.
They had definitely put all their eggs in one really immoral basket, for sure. Unfortunately I think you were spot on when you pointed out that there was no alternative--the regional economy required lots of nearly-free labor, so that's what they stuck with. Robots would have made everything so much easier...until their own uprising, at least.
>seems like the southern whites wanted to keep slavery so they wouldn't be in the social toilet.
This is key. In The New Jim Crow, the author lays out a pretty compelling argument that basically goes: in order for the wealthy to consolidate and maintain their power in America, they've implemented a series of control mechanisms (chattel slavery, Jim Crow, and now the War on Drugs) to ensure that black people remain a social underclass and poor white people continue to see things as "white vs. black" instead of "rich vs. poor." Really interesting book, by the way.
Edit: I'm curious to know why this comment being downvoted. I figured bringing that book up would be controversial, but an actual argument would be nice.
Did you click the link? Try this one: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Color%20Blind
Basically it's a combination of the war on drugs and mass incarnation have kept black people as second class citizens. A good summary is below.
> As the United States celebrates its “triumph over race” with the election of Barack Obama, the majority of black men in major urban areas are under correctional control or saddled with criminal records for life. Jim Crow laws were wiped off the books decades ago, but today an extraordinary percentage of the African American community is warehoused in prisons or trapped in a parallel social universe, denied basic civil and human rights—including the right to vote; the right to serve on juries; and the right to be free of legal discrimination in employment, housing, access to education and public benefits. Today, it is no longer socially permissible to use race explicitly as a justification for discrimination, exclusion, and social contempt. Yet as civil-rights-lawyer-turned-legal-scholar Michelle Alexander demonstrates, it is perfectly legal to discriminate against convicted criminals in nearly all the ways in which it was once legal to discriminate against African Americans. Once labeled a felon, even for a minor drug crime, the old forms of discrimination are suddenly legal again. In her words, “we have not ended racial caste in America; we have merely redesigned it.”
> Alexander shows that, by targeting black men through the War on Drugs and decimating communities of color, the U.S. criminal justice system functions as a contemporary system of racial control, even as it formally adheres to the principle of colorblindness.
I would highly suggest checking out the book if you wish to learn more though.
Edit - this got downvoted on this sub? That’s disappointing as hell. This isn’t some obscure book or philosophy, hell it was required reading for my wife’s criminal justice degree.
Popular alternatives to The New Jim Crow: Mass Inca...
