Recently, in one of my classes, I presented students with two texts, each of which argued a position on the problem of race, crime, and incarceration, neither of which was compatible with the other.
I lean towards the latter explanation, but it doesn't really provide one; it's simply a negation of "this isn't just about systemic racism". The first explanation probably is on to something.
On the other hand, I have a hard time thinking:
a) "It's all downstream of slavery". Sowell presents a *lot* of data about the status of blacks in the 1940s. Despite Jim Crow, crime and incaceration rates were lower then.
b) "It's current racism". Then why do 1st generation immigrant blacks not show this pattern? Why do Asian Americans have the lowest crime rate of all? Is American racism selective enough to only discriminate against native blacks, but not immigrant ones?
I think there are systemic forces at work, and they may be (probably ARE) due to historical injustices, but I think that at least some of the forces are (at present) endogenous to the black community. The incarceration feedback is likely real, but it's unlikely that it can be broken by any method that (even temporarily) leads to increased crime or reduced social stigma associated with crime.
It is my understanding that most murder victims are killed by someone they know. So it is not surprising that black victims are murdered by black perpetrators, and white by white. I have always found it hard to believe that a black person would murder another black because of racism by whites.
Perhaps we should acknowledge that concentrated and generational poverty cannot be fixed by the status quo and that both propositions are talking about different things, and that in this instance both are wrong? That progressives ignore broad success in minority communities to justify their position by the exception, and conservatives ignore the reality that segments of our community are separated, both physically and morally, from that broader public and have no ability to fix the problem themselves.
You can talk all you want, set up all the programs you can find someone else to fund, wring your hands over the homicidal mayhem, or wash your hands of the whole thing, but at the end of the day, this is as good as it gets.
I'm not convinced of that. There are a variety of forces at work here, on multiple levels that exert influence over different time constants that cause things to change and effloresce in surprising ways. Even a cursory review of history provides contrary examples, at different scales. Certainly idle talk, programs (especially bureaucratic ones), and hand wringing are unlikely to be effective, but they aren't the only avenues.
At the simplest level, we need to hold all thugs accountable for what they do or else they'll do more of it and hurt more people. What's interesting is that Lowry loves to have a prime example of an immoral thug in the White House. No social pathology for an excuse. No black ghetto. Only a privileged life of crime and grift, exploiting the weak, stiffing contractors and creditors en masse, sexually assaulting women, committing treasonous acts. Where is the moral compass and the hand wringing when it comes to a white billionaire?
I so appreciate this post, because it focuses on an issue that I care deeply about, and because it presents credible and incredible arguments from multiple perspectives. I would love to see more posts on this subject, especially some that focus on what the "cultural" and socioeconomic forces are that lead young black men to associate violence with manliness, success or other attractive images.
I don't want to steal any of Glenn's thunder, but on 'the "cultural" and socioeconomic forces are that lead young black men to associate violence with manliness, success or other attractive images", Thomas Sowell has also done some excellent work.
I love Thomas Sowell! I haven't read him recently. If you can name any of his books or other references that speak to the above topic, please share. :-)
In view of your feelings for Thomas Sowell, you may already know of it, but the book (and essay) that immediately comes to mind (and proved hard for me to get at one point, likely due to the provocative title) is "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" (2005). In it, he discusses links between founding Southern White culture and the culture of the Scottish borderlands prior to the transformation of Scottish society, from which the settlers of the southern colonies generally came.
It's a brief discussion and therefore necessarily top-level (thus subject to nitpicking), but insightful (in my view) nonetheless.
Somewhere, perhaps in Black Rednecks . . ., Sowell points out that crime or incarceration rates of whites and blacks as late as the 1930’s were similar. So something happened in the 50’s or early 60’s that caused there to be a large difference.
Maybe it's because I haven't had my coffee yet, but I'm not entirely sure that neither text was compatible with the other. I have a tendency toward "quadratic reasoning": the reality that two solutions to an equation are both provably true, but different. Or perhaps I might say no picture is complete without its opposite (or compliment), or maybe I'm just coffee deprived and need to reread later. But in this AM-fogged moment, were I Glenn's student, I think might come to class and answer his question "Both" and seek to find the proper path in the serpentine border between these two seemingly "incompatible" positions.
It’s a hard thing , I imagine it’s made worse by the family and communal overlap of victims and perpetrators . It’s going to take a lot of time to get this right .
I lean towards the latter explanation, but it doesn't really provide one; it's simply a negation of "this isn't just about systemic racism". The first explanation probably is on to something.
On the other hand, I have a hard time thinking:
a) "It's all downstream of slavery". Sowell presents a *lot* of data about the status of blacks in the 1940s. Despite Jim Crow, crime and incaceration rates were lower then.
b) "It's current racism". Then why do 1st generation immigrant blacks not show this pattern? Why do Asian Americans have the lowest crime rate of all? Is American racism selective enough to only discriminate against native blacks, but not immigrant ones?
I think there are systemic forces at work, and they may be (probably ARE) due to historical injustices, but I think that at least some of the forces are (at present) endogenous to the black community. The incarceration feedback is likely real, but it's unlikely that it can be broken by any method that (even temporarily) leads to increased crime or reduced social stigma associated with crime.
It is my understanding that most murder victims are killed by someone they know. So it is not surprising that black victims are murdered by black perpetrators, and white by white. I have always found it hard to believe that a black person would murder another black because of racism by whites.
Perhaps we should acknowledge that concentrated and generational poverty cannot be fixed by the status quo and that both propositions are talking about different things, and that in this instance both are wrong? That progressives ignore broad success in minority communities to justify their position by the exception, and conservatives ignore the reality that segments of our community are separated, both physically and morally, from that broader public and have no ability to fix the problem themselves.
You can't fix this.
This is as good as it gets.
You can talk all you want, set up all the programs you can find someone else to fund, wring your hands over the homicidal mayhem, or wash your hands of the whole thing, but at the end of the day, this is as good as it gets.
I'm not convinced of that. There are a variety of forces at work here, on multiple levels that exert influence over different time constants that cause things to change and effloresce in surprising ways. Even a cursory review of history provides contrary examples, at different scales. Certainly idle talk, programs (especially bureaucratic ones), and hand wringing are unlikely to be effective, but they aren't the only avenues.
At the simplest level, we need to hold all thugs accountable for what they do or else they'll do more of it and hurt more people. What's interesting is that Lowry loves to have a prime example of an immoral thug in the White House. No social pathology for an excuse. No black ghetto. Only a privileged life of crime and grift, exploiting the weak, stiffing contractors and creditors en masse, sexually assaulting women, committing treasonous acts. Where is the moral compass and the hand wringing when it comes to a white billionaire?
I so appreciate this post, because it focuses on an issue that I care deeply about, and because it presents credible and incredible arguments from multiple perspectives. I would love to see more posts on this subject, especially some that focus on what the "cultural" and socioeconomic forces are that lead young black men to associate violence with manliness, success or other attractive images.
I don't want to steal any of Glenn's thunder, but on 'the "cultural" and socioeconomic forces are that lead young black men to associate violence with manliness, success or other attractive images", Thomas Sowell has also done some excellent work.
I love Thomas Sowell! I haven't read him recently. If you can name any of his books or other references that speak to the above topic, please share. :-)
In view of your feelings for Thomas Sowell, you may already know of it, but the book (and essay) that immediately comes to mind (and proved hard for me to get at one point, likely due to the provocative title) is "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" (2005). In it, he discusses links between founding Southern White culture and the culture of the Scottish borderlands prior to the transformation of Scottish society, from which the settlers of the southern colonies generally came.
It's a brief discussion and therefore necessarily top-level (thus subject to nitpicking), but insightful (in my view) nonetheless.
Somewhere, perhaps in Black Rednecks . . ., Sowell points out that crime or incarceration rates of whites and blacks as late as the 1930’s were similar. So something happened in the 50’s or early 60’s that caused there to be a large difference.
"The Great Society" by Lyndon Johnson is what happened.
Thank you! Sounds fascinating, and I have not read it.
More than welcome.
Discrimination and Disparities
Thank you, Glenn.
I love you so much Glenn.
Maybe it's because I haven't had my coffee yet, but I'm not entirely sure that neither text was compatible with the other. I have a tendency toward "quadratic reasoning": the reality that two solutions to an equation are both provably true, but different. Or perhaps I might say no picture is complete without its opposite (or compliment), or maybe I'm just coffee deprived and need to reread later. But in this AM-fogged moment, were I Glenn's student, I think might come to class and answer his question "Both" and seek to find the proper path in the serpentine border between these two seemingly "incompatible" positions.
It’s a hard thing , I imagine it’s made worse by the family and communal overlap of victims and perpetrators . It’s going to take a lot of time to get this right .
Indeed.