"Rajiv is critical of many of these policies, not because he doesn’t want to reduce gun violence but because he thinks the policies won’t be consequential enough. Much gun violence takes place amongst African Americans, but Rajiv wants to separate, to de-essentialize, race and violence. He draws on some of my own work on these issues to ask how we can look at the conditions that render acts of violence in high-crime areas, in some sense, rational. Certain conditions must make violence seem like the right solution to a given problem. Rajiv argues that we’re all—all Americans—involved in creating those conditions, and so we cannot simply say that the problems of high-crime black communities are their problems and not ours."
After reading the above from the synopsis given by Glenn (above), I went to the Youtube to watch and listen. I did want to hear what Rajiv had to say about a couple of issues stated above. And now I must confess that I cannot understand much of what was said because of his accent. I did slow down the playback speed and that helped but not enough to get a grasp of his thinking. I wish CC was available.
On to a couple of questions: What was meant by "he thinks the policies won’t be consequential enough". What does he think would be acceptable "consequences".
I am not an "intellectual" coming from our university system so what does "to de-essentialize, race and violence." mean? Does it mean to separate race and violence?
"Certain conditions must make violence seem like the right solution to a given problem." When people cannot accept their own responsibility for their own life, I guess this is what happens. The only scenario that would apply to the above is when one is defending one-self or a loved one from a perpetrator. There is NO justification to instigate violence.
"Rajiv argues that we’re all—all Americans—involved in creating those conditions, and so we cannot simply say that the problems of high-crime black communities are their problems and not ours."
If Rajiv actually said that, I disagree. I, as a private citizen, have only one way to try to right wrongs - and that is at the ballot box. And what does that get us. What I say is that the problems of high-crime black communities are the problems created over the past 60 years by those in Washington DC. All of the vast amount of policy passed through the years have absolutely nothing to do with those in Washington, they are unaffected by those policies. They do not care to actually look at the devastating results caused by the hundreds/thousands of policies passed to "help" the intended recipients. The percentage of incredibly high single mother households is the results of just one policy.
"Rajiv is critical of many of these policies, not because he doesn’t want to reduce gun violence but because he thinks the policies won’t be consequential enough. Much gun violence takes place amongst African Americans, but Rajiv wants to separate, to de-essentialize, race and violence. He draws on some of my own work on these issues to ask how we can look at the conditions that render acts of violence in high-crime areas, in some sense, rational. Certain conditions must make violence seem like the right solution to a given problem. Rajiv argues that we’re all—all Americans—involved in creating those conditions, and so we cannot simply say that the problems of high-crime black communities are their problems and not ours."
After reading the above from the synopsis given by Glenn (above), I went to the Youtube to watch and listen. I did want to hear what Rajiv had to say about a couple of issues stated above. And now I must confess that I cannot understand much of what was said because of his accent. I did slow down the playback speed and that helped but not enough to get a grasp of his thinking. I wish CC was available.
On to a couple of questions: What was meant by "he thinks the policies won’t be consequential enough". What does he think would be acceptable "consequences".
I am not an "intellectual" coming from our university system so what does "to de-essentialize, race and violence." mean? Does it mean to separate race and violence?
"Certain conditions must make violence seem like the right solution to a given problem." When people cannot accept their own responsibility for their own life, I guess this is what happens. The only scenario that would apply to the above is when one is defending one-self or a loved one from a perpetrator. There is NO justification to instigate violence.
"Rajiv argues that we’re all—all Americans—involved in creating those conditions, and so we cannot simply say that the problems of high-crime black communities are their problems and not ours."
If Rajiv actually said that, I disagree. I, as a private citizen, have only one way to try to right wrongs - and that is at the ballot box. And what does that get us. What I say is that the problems of high-crime black communities are the problems created over the past 60 years by those in Washington DC. All of the vast amount of policy passed through the years have absolutely nothing to do with those in Washington, they are unaffected by those policies. They do not care to actually look at the devastating results caused by the hundreds/thousands of policies passed to "help" the intended recipients. The percentage of incredibly high single mother households is the results of just one policy.