It doesn't help that so many people on the Northside actually believe in the "don't snitch" policy. And they wonder why crime is out of control in their community! 
Instead of attacking me personally, actually put forth a counterargument.
- 120
Doug wrote:Instead of attacking me personally, actually put forth a counterargument.
Doug, who here attacked you personally?
All I see from you is avoidance of questions being asked of you to support your claims. There are no answers, nor are there solutions. It's mostly just criticisms that ignore what anyone else says. But yet someone somehow attacked you? Please show me where.
- 1,768
He was called naive.
Ouch.
Oh, and young, too.
Ouch.
Oh, and young, too.
It wasn't intended as an attack, it was more of a ribbing. I believe public services, specifically police protection, is applied equitably. I haven't seen any hard figures from Doug to indicate there is any inequity. Show us budget and manpower disparity instead of a load of hot air.Doug wrote:Instead of attacking me personally, actually put forth a counterargument.
Why should the city pay a disproportionately higher amount for police protection in some areas vice others (eg, high crime areas?) That is inequity.
The root cause of crime is not the police. Research has not definitively proven that more police presence above a certain threshold reduces crime.
The answer to neighborhood problems must come from within. Passing blame solves nothing.
here's your answer as to why crimes don't get solved in certain areas of the city:
![]()
^The stop snitching idea is due to a mistrust of the police and general alienation felt by African Americans. Why would they assist a system which has only undermined their community? "Stop snitching" is a bad idea, but why should they trust the police when officers don't even live in the neighborhood? The police are seen more as an oppressive force than one for change.
Really, drug policy has only served to undermine the African American community and promote the privatized prison industry. Would you want to snitch and see your neighbors, which don't have any legitimate employment options, sent to prison? Rationally the idea of not snitching seems rather understandable considering the system only works to undermine the African American community. Police, with community control, would create ties with it and put the criminals behind bars. And if we can provide employment options, through a better educational system, then perhaps we can turn the tide of discrimination.
Really, drug policy has only served to undermine the African American community and promote the privatized prison industry. Would you want to snitch and see your neighbors, which don't have any legitimate employment options, sent to prison? Rationally the idea of not snitching seems rather understandable considering the system only works to undermine the African American community. Police, with community control, would create ties with it and put the criminals behind bars. And if we can provide employment options, through a better educational system, then perhaps we can turn the tide of discrimination.
innov8ion wrote:
The answer to neighborhood problems must come from within. Passing blame solves nothing.
Without providing the means, asking the sick to cure their ills is rather callous.
I'm not so sure, Doug. Friends of drug users can do all they can to help them kick the habit, but nothing will change unless the user wills themselves to change. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Ergo, the means must come from within. Ever study behavioral science?Doug wrote:innov8ion wrote:
The answer to neighborhood problems must come from within. Passing blame solves nothing.
Without providing the means, asking the sick to cure their ills is rather callous.
By the way, you didn't dispute the police disparity argument.
Doug, I'm confused. First you say the problem is that there's not enough police presence on the North Side, but then you say the problem is that the police are seen as an occupation force by those very North Side residents.
Anecdotally, I see far more cop cars in "high crime" crime areas than I do in relatively safe areas of the city.
Anecdotally, I see far more cop cars in "high crime" crime areas than I do in relatively safe areas of the city.
- 2,093
Doug, you seem to believe the problems in high crime areas are always someone else's fault than those who live in the neighborhood. Is it hard work to turn a neighborhood around? H*ll yes! Is it worth it, Yes again!
And why should more police be in these neighborhoods if you believe the residents are correct in thinking the police aren't to be trusted? The po-po ain't perfect. But if I were picking sides between them and the "stop snitching" crew I pick the 5-0 six days a week and twice on Sunday.
And why should more police be in these neighborhoods if you believe the residents are correct in thinking the police aren't to be trusted? The po-po ain't perfect. But if I were picking sides between them and the "stop snitching" crew I pick the 5-0 six days a week and twice on Sunday.
- 2,772
It is always THE MAN that causes these problems, they don't create the problems themselves. Just like on "Boyz N The Hood" where Cuba Gooding's movie-dad Laurence Fishburn said that there is a liquor store and gun store on every corner because they are "trying to destroy us." Yeah, I always thought it was because someone saw it as "Man, a liquor store would do really well there..." not the president writing an executive order to open a liquor store. It really, truly is a tired argument.
In fairness to Doug, "society" is in some senses to blame. It cannot be denied that a history of racial prejudice and segregation has resulted in a high concentration of impoverished minorities in a crumbling--literally and figuratively--environment. What you have then in that community is at the very least the perception of being disenfranchised and neglected. This is a breeding ground for crime.
But this is not to exonerate the individuals who do, in fact, choose a life of crime. They may be more inclined to it, but it does not eliminate their will.
But what, then, is the solution? I have no clue. I know what's it's not, and that's more government programs, which if anything else have exacerbated the problems.
But this is not to exonerate the individuals who do, in fact, choose a life of crime. They may be more inclined to it, but it does not eliminate their will.
But what, then, is the solution? I have no clue. I know what's it's not, and that's more government programs, which if anything else have exacerbated the problems.
The police are seen more as an oppressive force than one for change.
I thought the job of the police was to enforce the law. I didn't know they were supposed to be "instruments for change".
Now don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are plenty of crooked cops that take advantage of poor people who don't know their rights, but you can't blame the police for the criminal activity in these neighborhoods. Blame the occupants of the neighborhoods causing the crimes.
- 1,517
These arguments have become really tired.
It's as if no one can accept the following, and to me, logical premises:
People are responsible for their own actions.
People act ("behave") in response to various social constructs (black, poor, light-skinned, gay, etc.) and social/physical environments they were born into (parents, peer groups, physical environment, educational opportunities, job opportunities, ability to move, etc.).
Therefore, blame the person who commits the crime FOR SURE. But recognize that disparities (racism, classism, extreme segregation from the rest of society) may be the root cause of the very behavior. Therefore, it makes less sense to use the "stick" side of the equation on the individual than it does to use the "carrot" for improving social structures that have a large role in crafting individuals who make poor decisions.
There's a profoundly racist statement involved in denying that social structures that the dominant society creates and maintains perpetuate inequality. If we posit that the only true culprit for extreme conditions of poverty in cities across the U.S. is poor choices by individuals, there is the implicit argument that the denizens of poor areas must simply be more prone to bad choice (i.e., genetically). When you see that these areas are primarily minorities (African Americans and Latinos), it becomes a revival of social Darwinism. Clearly, under the rubric of "personal responsibility" alone, blacks and Hispanics, as a whole, are simply poor decision makers who prefer poverty and inequality.
Sorry. Too simplistic. Too racist. Don't buy it.
It's as if no one can accept the following, and to me, logical premises:
People are responsible for their own actions.
People act ("behave") in response to various social constructs (black, poor, light-skinned, gay, etc.) and social/physical environments they were born into (parents, peer groups, physical environment, educational opportunities, job opportunities, ability to move, etc.).
Therefore, blame the person who commits the crime FOR SURE. But recognize that disparities (racism, classism, extreme segregation from the rest of society) may be the root cause of the very behavior. Therefore, it makes less sense to use the "stick" side of the equation on the individual than it does to use the "carrot" for improving social structures that have a large role in crafting individuals who make poor decisions.
There's a profoundly racist statement involved in denying that social structures that the dominant society creates and maintains perpetuate inequality. If we posit that the only true culprit for extreme conditions of poverty in cities across the U.S. is poor choices by individuals, there is the implicit argument that the denizens of poor areas must simply be more prone to bad choice (i.e., genetically). When you see that these areas are primarily minorities (African Americans and Latinos), it becomes a revival of social Darwinism. Clearly, under the rubric of "personal responsibility" alone, blacks and Hispanics, as a whole, are simply poor decision makers who prefer poverty and inequality.
Sorry. Too simplistic. Too racist. Don't buy it.
^Personal Responsibility was the justification for Reagan to cut services to cities. This argument was created by the right because, after leaving thus divesting in cities, they couldn't understand why things got so bad. The white suburb and chocolate city division is inherently what caused the problem. Yet questioning land use policy, and its negative externalities, is equatable to questioning their lifestyle.
As Anthony Downs says in my quote below, most Americans don't do this. The ones that even attempt any analysis look at proximate causes, like being irresponsible, rather than addressing the root causes. The right's arguments wholly ignore the root causes. It is a way for the racist and classist elites to continue their pillaging of our country.
The elites have turned the middle class against the poor. When in fact the middle class is equally in the same boat as the poor. Real Wages are falling, household debt is rising, and yet productivity is up. Why are workers not getting a wage increase? It is because unions have been destroyed thus workers have less of an argument for wage increases. Shareholders demand that they, not the workers, receive the benefit of increasing share prices. This is one demonstration of how the elites tricked the middle class into believing the rich were on their side. Their doctrine of anti-union rhetoric goaded the middle class into hating the unions, saying they were bad for business.
In the same manner the elites convince the middle class that blacks and the poor are dangerous. We shouldn't live near them or give them any government aid. Any assistance and they will surely purchase a truck load of Newports and buy a Cadillac Coupe De Ville! Welfare queens riding around town with their 20 children, three male partners, and fleet of Cadillacs. Live near them, or even have mass transit, and they will steal your T.V.!!!
Such racism. It was propagated by Ronald Reagan, your President.
Yet no proof of this was ever shown. None, not one report showed a correlation of AFDC and a tendency to have more children or buy Cadillacs. Yet Reagan said it numerous times! It was a racist and sexist attack upon those which were slaves and remained marginalized for decades. Slaves that, from the plantation to the midwestern factory, made these elites rich. They were beasts of burden, and even after their emancipation, were the last to be hired and first to be fired. They received the lowest wages. Now, through structural unemployment and spatial mismatch, the situation is far worse. Yet since some African Americans are achieving, we claim that all African Americans can do this.
Sorry, but when one lives in concentrated poverty, the chances of achieving what middle class African Americans have is low. People must understand that a great schism exists within the African American community. Malcolm X pointed it out and so does William Wilson. Simply because some rich black guy is on Fox saying we don't need Affirmative Action doesn't mean he's right. He got his position through the program!
Beware of hypocrisy and the hegemony of racist and classist actors. They blame the victim and divide the people only to consolidate their own power.
The middle class and poor are consistently losing. Middle Class Whites in the suburbs think they have the good life, yet they are actually losing wages and getting into more debt in order to maintain their lifestyle. The elites have screwed the poor and the middle class. You have much more in common with a guy in JVL or St. Louis Place than in Ladue.
As Anthony Downs says in my quote below, most Americans don't do this. The ones that even attempt any analysis look at proximate causes, like being irresponsible, rather than addressing the root causes. The right's arguments wholly ignore the root causes. It is a way for the racist and classist elites to continue their pillaging of our country.
The elites have turned the middle class against the poor. When in fact the middle class is equally in the same boat as the poor. Real Wages are falling, household debt is rising, and yet productivity is up. Why are workers not getting a wage increase? It is because unions have been destroyed thus workers have less of an argument for wage increases. Shareholders demand that they, not the workers, receive the benefit of increasing share prices. This is one demonstration of how the elites tricked the middle class into believing the rich were on their side. Their doctrine of anti-union rhetoric goaded the middle class into hating the unions, saying they were bad for business.
In the same manner the elites convince the middle class that blacks and the poor are dangerous. We shouldn't live near them or give them any government aid. Any assistance and they will surely purchase a truck load of Newports and buy a Cadillac Coupe De Ville! Welfare queens riding around town with their 20 children, three male partners, and fleet of Cadillacs. Live near them, or even have mass transit, and they will steal your T.V.!!!
Such racism. It was propagated by Ronald Reagan, your President.
Yet no proof of this was ever shown. None, not one report showed a correlation of AFDC and a tendency to have more children or buy Cadillacs. Yet Reagan said it numerous times! It was a racist and sexist attack upon those which were slaves and remained marginalized for decades. Slaves that, from the plantation to the midwestern factory, made these elites rich. They were beasts of burden, and even after their emancipation, were the last to be hired and first to be fired. They received the lowest wages. Now, through structural unemployment and spatial mismatch, the situation is far worse. Yet since some African Americans are achieving, we claim that all African Americans can do this.
Sorry, but when one lives in concentrated poverty, the chances of achieving what middle class African Americans have is low. People must understand that a great schism exists within the African American community. Malcolm X pointed it out and so does William Wilson. Simply because some rich black guy is on Fox saying we don't need Affirmative Action doesn't mean he's right. He got his position through the program!
Beware of hypocrisy and the hegemony of racist and classist actors. They blame the victim and divide the people only to consolidate their own power.
The middle class and poor are consistently losing. Middle Class Whites in the suburbs think they have the good life, yet they are actually losing wages and getting into more debt in order to maintain their lifestyle. The elites have screwed the poor and the middle class. You have much more in common with a guy in JVL or St. Louis Place than in Ladue.
People are responsible for their actions. According to their circumstances, they will be judged accordingly. Work to break up the concentration of poverty. It is better to do good than to simply spout philosophical diatribes.
Additionally, when you make excuses for others, you cause discord among everyone. Everyone should work to improve their situation and help others as they can.
Additionally, wealth disparity is greater in socialist Europe than in capitalist America. Perhaps you could stand to do a bit more research.
Additionally, when you make excuses for others, you cause discord among everyone. Everyone should work to improve their situation and help others as they can.
Additionally, wealth disparity is greater in socialist Europe than in capitalist America. Perhaps you could stand to do a bit more research.
I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that everything Doug and Matt are saying is true. What then are the proposed tactical solutions? General solutions like "fix society" and "end racism" aren't helpful. Once we all admit we're total jerks, what next?
It seems to me that we need to bring real economic development to the City. By "real economic development" I mean services/products go out of the City and money comes into the City. Only then will we have the jobs to help people move into the middle class. If a significant segment of the City's African American popultation can move into the middle class, I think you'll see a reduction in racism in the City, because so many people currently mistake socio-economic issues for race issues.
It seems to me that we need to bring real economic development to the City. By "real economic development" I mean services/products go out of the City and money comes into the City. Only then will we have the jobs to help people move into the middle class. If a significant segment of the City's African American popultation can move into the middle class, I think you'll see a reduction in racism in the City, because so many people currently mistake socio-economic issues for race issues.
- 6,775
Matt Drops The H wrote:These arguments have become really tired.
It's as if no one can accept the following, and to me, logical premises:
People are responsible for their own actions.
People act ("behave") in response to various social constructs (black, poor, light-skinned, gay, etc.) and social/physical environments they were born into (parents, peer groups, physical environment, educational opportunities, job opportunities, ability to move, etc.).
Therefore, blame the person who commits the crime FOR SURE. But recognize that disparities (racism, classism, extreme segregation from the rest of society) may be the root cause of the very behavior. Therefore, it makes less sense to use the "stick" side of the equation on the individual than it does to use the "carrot" for improving social structures that have a large role in crafting individuals who make poor decisions.
There's a profoundly racist statement involved in denying that social structures that the dominant society creates and maintains perpetuate inequality. If we posit that the only true culprit for extreme conditions of poverty in cities across the U.S. is poor choices by individuals, there is the implicit argument that the denizens of poor areas must simply be more prone to bad choice (i.e., genetically). When you see that these areas are primarily minorities (African Americans and Latinos), it becomes a revival of social Darwinism. Clearly, under the rubric of "personal responsibility" alone, blacks and Hispanics, as a whole, are simply poor decision makers who prefer poverty and inequality.
Sorry. Too simplistic. Too racist. Don't buy it.
Look what I learned in Sociology class today.
Ask your professor this - how does he (or you) explain the behavior of the hundreds (thousands?) of other poor, black Meachem Park residents who didn't kill 5 people?
It's amazing to me what hoops guilt-ridden whites are willing to jump through to excuse the actions of anyone of color. If "Cookie" was from a poor, white area, they wouldn't be making all these excuses for him. Not only is it the height of arrogance, but it's incredibly racist too.
- 10K
JCity wrote:here's your answer as to why crimes don't get solved in certain areas of the city:
I prefer:
- 6,775
DeBaliviere wrote:I prefer:
Funny, but about 15 years(?) too late?
Ask your professor this - how does he (or you) explain the behavior of the hundreds (thousands?) of other poor, black Meachem Park residents who didn't kill 5 people?
You are supposing that the cause of crime is EITHER the choice of the criminal OR the social context. It is always the former, but that doesn't mean that you can ignore the influence of the latter. If you are born into an extremely poor family without any role models and have a lot of experiences with corrupt policemen, you can choose to overcome these things and fight your way out of it but it is obviously going to be a lot harder than it is for someone else who has already been born into better conditions. It's like saying person A has to run the same race as person B only with 60 hurdles. Yes, they can do it if they want to but there are bound to be many more that give up and take a short cut. It always boils down to personal responsibility, but it's difficult to ignore the handicaps people have in making choices. It doesn't excuse the crime, but it is enough to make me recognize that something needs to change.
- 8,922
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
It's amazing to me what hoops guilt-ridden whites are willing to jump through to excuse the actions of anyone of color. If "Cookie" was from a poor, white area, they wouldn't be making all these excuses for him. Not only is it the height of arrogance, but it's incredibly racist too.
sad but true.