Nearly Half of All Murder Victims are African-American

RAMSTORIA

RAMSTORIA

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (100%)
Nearly half the people murdered in the United States each year are black, part of a persistent pattern in which African Americans are disproportionately victimized by violent crime, according to a new Justice Department study released yesterday.

The study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics also found that from 2001 to 2005, more than nine out of 10 black murder victims were killed by other blacks, and three out of four were slain with a gun. Blacks, who make up 13 percent of the population, were victims in 15 percent of nonfatal violent crimes.

The new findings underscore the enduring problem of crime that plagues many African American communities, even during a period when the incidence of violent crime dropped or held steady overall, according to criminologists and other experts.

Some experts said the study also illustrates that encounters with criminals are often more likely to turn deadly for black victims than for victims of other races, in part because black victims are more likely to be confronted with firearms.

"Black victimization is a real problem, and it's often black on black," said David A. Harris, a law professor at the University of Toledo who studies crime trends. "That aspect has to be brought into any attempt to address the crime problem, and the community itself must be called into the process."

The Justice study is primarily drawn from two sets of data: FBI homicide reports and the National Crime Victimization Survey, which attempts to measure the actual prevalence of crime through scientific polling. The Justice Department has not done a study on black victimization in more than a decade, but outside researchers have reached similar conclusions, officials said.

In 2005, the study found, blacks were victims of an estimated 8,000 homicides and 805,000 other violent crimes, including rape and aggravated assault.

The study found that black males were more likely to be crime victims than black females; that black murder victims tended to be younger than white or Hispanic homicide victims; and that blacks in poor or urban households were more likely to be victimized than those in higher-income or rural areas.

There was at least one piece of relative good news in the review: Black victimization rates dropped at about the same pace as white victimization rates from 1993 to 2001 as part of a historic decline in crime. The rate then held steady from 2001 to 2005, the study found. In 2005 and 2006, the overall number of homicides and other violent crimes rose slightly, according to FBI reports.

Blacks were still more likely than whites, Hispanics or Asians to be victims of violent crime from 2001 to 2005. "American Indians were the only group that had rates higher than blacks," according to the study written by Justice statistician Erika Harrell.

Blacks were also more likely than any other group to be victims of "serious violent crime," which is defined as rape, other sexual assault, robbery or aggravated assault.

Overall, the new Justice findings jibe with previous studies. For example, a review of FBI data from 2004 by the Violence Policy Center, a liberal-leaning group that campaigns for stricter gun controls, found that blacks accounted for about half of the nation's murder victims that year.

The group's executive director, Josh Sugarmann, said the new data underscore the unique problems posed by illicit firearms in black communities. The Justice review found that blacks were more than twice as likely as whites to be confronted with a firearm during a crime.

"Blacks in America are facing a unique gun culture," Sugarmann said. "Blacks are disproportionately likely to be confronted with guns, and that leads to the results that we're seeing."
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/09/AR2007080901964.html?hpid=topnews

I don't even know where to begin with this. How can 13% of the population account for 49% of all murder victims? And what can we do to change it?

Most of the murder victims were in poor urban areas, so that's what we need to fix, but there's so much to fix. I think the schools are the first thing we need to tackle. Up here in Sacramento I remember a couple of years ago when they were going to close Sacramento High School in Oak Park (a well known "rough" neighborhood here) and people were fighting to keep it open. It's now a charter school. Around the same time Folsom (a suburb of Sacramento) has a spankin' new high school and when I saw it I thought, "this is the nicest high school I've ever seen." How can two schools so close to each other be so drastically different. Well until we can get all schools on the same level I don't see much improvement in urban areas, you can add all the police and neighborhood watches you want it doesn't address the heart of the problem.

Oh, and I was googling to find when Folsom High was built, and come to find out Folsom is getting a second high school this year, and the new one is even nicer than the old one, ONLY 600 STUDENTS ARE GOING THERE. Give me a break,
 
That's the legacy of racism my friend. A lot of the rich suburbs were made with the intention of getting away from black people (and other minorities) and while that racism may have let up quite a bit in recent times that doesn't suddenly mean that black people can afford to live in the suburbs where the more wealthy white people concentrate and where people have more opportunities to succeed.

Then of course since the wealthier people move out to the suburbs they don't pay taxes to the city, so the city doesn't have the money to build good schools, etc. especially since they require far more money than a suburb just for maintenance.
 
Thats all I see in the news...African Americans getting killed by street violence. Of course, I live near Oakland so that has to account for something...
 
[quote name='SpazX']That's the legacy of racism my friend. A lot of the rich suburbs were made with the intention of getting away from black people (and other minorities) and while that racism may have let up quite a bit in recent times that doesn't suddenly mean that black people can afford to live in the suburbs where the more wealthy white people concentrate and where people have more opportunities to succeed.

Then of course since the wealthier people move out to the suburbs they don't pay taxes to the city, so the city doesn't have the money to build good schools, etc. especially since they require far more money than a suburb just for maintenance.[/QUOTE]

I think you are being quite unfair to say that most people who moved to the suburbs did so for racist reasons. In fact, I would say that is a ridiculous statement. The reason people moved to the suburbs was to get away from crime-ridden cities and to have a house with a yard with a white picket fence.

On schools, this is another reason why we should shut down the public schools and completely privatize the system. A poor inner-city black kid would then get the same amount of money for any school they choose as a rich white kid in a gated community. Of course, the latter may pay more in addition, but it would help things a lot to do them this way IMO.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I think you are being quite unfair to say that most people who moved to the suburbs did so for racist reasons. In fact, I would say that is a ridiculous statement. The reason people moved to the suburbs was to get away from crime-ridden cities and to have a house with a yard with a white picket fence.[/quote]

Well I didn't say that most people moved there for racist reasons, I said a lot of suburbs were made for that reason :razz:. While plenty of people did move there for racist reasons, what I was talking about was the actual creation of many suburbs (mostly in the north) that explicitly excluded minorities (Jews in the East, Asians more in the West, and blacks pretty much everywhere).

Although it didn't last as long in suburbs as small towns since the whole suburb development thing came later, but it was an explicit part of the rules of a lot of suburbs as well as an "unwritten" rule in many others since blacks would be removed via intimidation or violence and then gain the reputation that made it unneccesary for having explicit rules (which were made illegal later on, although the people's racist views weren't changed by the legality of their rules). Rules also weren't (and still aren't) necessary due to realtors that would (and will) steer the minorities away from those neighborhoods.

While many people didn't necessarily move to the suburbs for racist reasons it was part of the attraction since of course black people = crime in the views of many people then and now even if those people "have black friends". But more importantly blacks (and other minorities) weren't allowed in, regardless of whatever reasons whites moved there, and so they weren't able to form the same connections or have the same opportunities and we're still living in the legacy of that.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I think you are being quite unfair to say that most people who moved to the suburbs did so for racist reasons. In fact, I would say that is a ridiculous statement. The reason people moved to the suburbs was to get away from crime-ridden cities and to have a house with a yard with a white picket fence.[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restri...f_segregation_in_the_United_States_of_America

Considering how overtly racist our society was when the suburbs were established, I don't see where you can claim that it has nothing to do with racism. Segregated neighborhoods are a logical extension of Jim Crow - moreso when evidenced by ideas such as restrictive covenants, which were legally binding contracts that specified who you would and would not sell your home to (and guess who, more often than not, would be on the "would not" list?).

I also think it's ridiculous to claim that people moved to the suburbs to escape "crime," because it's foolish to treat it as a concept separable from race. Given the disproportionate involvement of blacks in violent crime in the US, when we talk about "crime," it does have a race attached to it. Not entirely, of course, but somewhere between those absurd ideas like "crime is an entirely black phenomena" and "crime is completely separable from race."

Lastly, the 49% is consistent with prison populations for the past several decades. This gets a big ol' *YAWN* from me.

On schools, this is another reason why we should shut down the public schools and completely privatize the system. A poor inner-city black kid would then get the same amount of money for any school they choose as a rich white kid in a gated community. Of course, the latter may pay more in addition, but it would help things a lot to do them this way IMO.
Click to expand...

Where in the world did this come from? First, the privatization argument has never been proven. Go take a look at private prisons as a means of comparison - no cheaper than public institutions, no better than public institutions, has no appreciable change on inmate recidivism one way or another. What is the privatization argument if something is done, privately, just as well as the government handles it, and for just as much as the government does it for? Another example of the intermingling of privatization and skyrocketing expenditures can be found in our military spending. I can't see where you "the answer to everything is Adam Smith" people get off. Yes, government spending is apeshit crazy; I'll agree with that. Now, if we see several examples of where spending is higher where private interests come in, that completely nullifies the argument.

Well, way OT. As for education, I think it is one arena where both parties have it dead wrong. Privatizing education is one plan; dousing public schools in money is another. Neither, of course, change the culture of the inner city, where education is not valued, using proper grammar will label one a "sell out," "Uncle Tom," or "white," and those few who succeed are often vilified for not staying "true" (whatever that means). There is a substantial anti-education attitude in the inner-city, due to the volatile combination of poor opportunities (it's easy to see why people don't care for education when they see it as a dead-end street based on the few people they know in the community, if any, who did something worthwhile with their education) and resentment towards what is viewed as the "oppressive white establishment." Education won't change a thing, IMO, while the culture languishes in the idea that dropping out of school is acceptable, using a particular dialect is better than speaking using proper grammar, and while a legacy of poorly educated parents have to shoulder the burden of their children's education.

Above and beyond the costs that middle-class white families can supplant over school vouchers, they already have the built-in cultural advantage of parents who are far more likely educated, and thus able to help out with education, promote and foster it better, and recognize pathways to success. While that's related to class/income, it doesn't necessarily have to be. Culturally, we have lots of work to do before we decide to close our schools or privatize them. Neither will work well in the cultural climate of the modern day inner-city.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restri...f_segregation_in_the_United_States_of_America
[/quote]

Wikipedia? Ugh. But I wasn't aware of the laws in place that that page indicates, so at least I learned something (if it was accurate).

[quote name='mykevermin']Considering how overtly racist our society was when the suburbs were established, I don't see where you can claim that it has nothing to do with racism.[/quote]

In fairness, I said "most" people didn't move to the suburbs for racist reasons, so saying I claimed it has "nothing to do with racism" is incorrect.

[quote name='mykevermin']Where in the world did this come from?[/quote]

It's something I've advocated for a long time, including on this board in other threads about education and schools. It hasn't been tried, so it's pretty silly to say it hasn't been proven.

I certainly agree with you that there are huge cultural barriers and huge advantages given by educated/successful parents. That is a no brainer.

I'm sure also you support state-enforced busing to desegregate schools. While I am against such government interference, perhaps you would be intrigued with the argument that the system I advocate will hopefully result in more diverse school populations.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Wikipedia? Ugh. But I wasn't aware of the laws in place that that page indicates, so at least I learned something (if it was accurate).[/quote]

Yeah, sorry 'bout that. It was quick and dirty. You should hunt down the Louisville, KY court case where restrictive covenants were made illegal. A pretty clever story, actually.

In fairness, I said "most" people didn't move to the suburbs for racist reasons, so saying I claimed it has "nothing to do with racism" is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

It's something I've advocated for a long time, including on this board in other threads about education and schools. It hasn't been tried, so it's pretty silly to say it hasn't been proven.

I certainly agree with you that there are huge cultural barriers and huge advantages given by educated/successful parents. That is a no brainer.

I'm sure also you support state-enforced busing to desegregate schools. While I am against such government interference, perhaps you would be intrigued with the argument that the system I advocate will hopefully result in more diverse school populations.
Click to expand...

Nah. I don't agree at all. The more inner-city minorities that move into better schools using vouchers, the more privileged white kids will be yanked out of those schools by their parents, citing the "poor education" of the schools. The quality of the school will deteriorate as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Just like (going back to neighborhood arguments again) those communities where white folks left in droves (half a century ago, to be clear) when 1-2 black families would move in. I think that was known as "blockbusting" (you may double check me on that, if you like).

It's embarrassing for me to argue that people's attitudes towards integration are so sour in this day and age, but I believe they are. It's like public attitudes towards more prisons or nuclear power planets - fine, they are all well and good and need to be done, but NIMBY.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Just like (going back to neighborhood arguments again) those communities where white folks left in droves (half a century ago, to be clear) when 1-2 black families would move in. I think that was known as "blockbusting" (you may double check me on that, if you like).[/quote]

Well afaik the realtors suggesting that the people move is "blockbusting" and the actual mass movement is called "white flight".

I only remember terms that rhyme.

What's funny with that is the nice mix of good capitalism where the realtors scare people into thinking the property values will decline and then sell the house way above market to the black people moving in since they so desperately want to live there (until it turns into a shithole after everybody leaves and it's neglected).
 
[quote name='elprincipe']On schools, this is another reason why we should shut down the public schools and completely privatize the system. A poor inner-city black kid would then get the same amount of money for any school they choose as a rich white kid in a gated community. Of course, the latter may pay more in addition, but it would help things a lot to do them this way IMO.[/QUOTE]

Why not just integrate the lessons that work from private schools into public schools (as it's been done here in various inner city schools with outstanding results)? I'd think it'd be far easier to change the lesson plans and what not then to shut down the entire system and replace it with the lowest bidding educational contractor.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well afaik the realtors suggesting that the people move is "blockbusting" and the actual mass movement is called "white flight".

I only remember terms that rhyme.

What's funny with that is the nice mix of good capitalism where the realtors scare people into thinking the property values will decline and then sell the house way above market to the black people moving in since they so desperately want to live there (until it turns into a shithole after everybody leaves and it's neglected).[/QUOTE]

Yes. I wasn't clear, but "blockbusting" refers to realtors taking advantage of white attitudes and fear of black residents. A "there goes the neighborhood" kind of feeling. Buy the homes low from people who want to get out before the community goes to shit, sell/rent high to those minorities who foolishly look at the community as becoming "open" to blacks, and the self-fulfilling prophecy commences. Meanwhile, realtors laugh all the way to the bank.
 
[quote name='Cheese']Why not just integrate the lessons that work from private schools into public schools (as it's been done here in various inner city schools with outstanding results)? I'd think it'd be far easier to change the lesson plans and what not then to shut down the entire system and replace it with the lowest bidding educational contractor.[/QUOTE]

Because the schools would still be under control of the government. Obviously I'm not saying shut down all public schools tomorrow; it would have to be done over time. But all private schools would create an intense competition for the money flowing in from new students and would drastically cut the biggest cost in education -- administration -- in favor of more useful things (better teacher training/salaries/etc., better buildings, equipment, books, and so on).

If a school became that much more efficient in the government owned and operated system, the money saved would be plowed into an inefficient school to try to bring it up to snuff. In the private sector, the school that did a bad job would go out of business, thus allowing a new, better school to fill the void or other existing and successful schools to expand.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Because the schools would still be under control of the government. Obviously I'm not saying shut down all public schools tomorrow; it would have to be done over time. But all private schools would create an intense competition for the money flowing in from new students and would drastically cut the biggest cost in education -- administration -- in favor of more useful things (better teacher training/salaries/etc., better buildings, equipment, books, and so on).

If a school became that much more efficient in the government owned and operated system, the money saved would be plowed into an inefficient school to try to bring it up to snuff. In the private sector, the school that did a bad job would go out of business, thus allowing a new, better school to fill the void or other existing and successful schools to expand.[/QUOTE]

What is it about public schools that gets republicans and libertarians in a tizzy? You realize that the competition would also be between states, more populous ones having more money, states with higher tax rates would get better teachers, equipment, etc., right? New Jersey would have palaces while Kansas would have dumps, if any schools at all seeing how it just might not be financially viable to have one there, bottom line and all. Believe it or not, the free market isn't the solution to everything.
 
[quote name='Cheese']What is it about public schools that gets republicans and libertarians in a tizzy? You realize that the competition would also be between states, more populous ones having more money, states with higher tax rates would get better teachers, equipment, etc., right? New Jersey would have palaces while Kansas would have dumps, if any schools at all seeing how it just might not be financially viable to have one there, bottom line and all. Believe it or not, the free market isn't the solution to everything.[/QUOTE]

That's the case right now. The federal government only funds a small portion of education, it's mostly funded by states and localities. So that is moot unless you are arguing for a federal takeover of the educational system in this country, something very few are arguing for...in fact, more are upset about federal meddling in local school decisions a la No Child Left Behind.

See here for reference: http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html#2

And the free market may not be a solution to every ill that afflicts us, but it's a far better remedy than the government in the vast majority of cases.
 
[quote name='Cheese']Why not just integrate the lessons that work from private schools into public schools (as it's been done here in various inner city schools with outstanding results)? I'd think it'd be far easier to change the lesson plans and what not then to shut down the entire system and replace it with the lowest bidding educational contractor.[/QUOTE]

Lesson plans are irrelevant when children:

1. don't attend school regularly.
2. are suspended regularly to the point of automatic failure
3. have behavioral problems resulting in suspensions or expulsion
4. do not have parental support in the home
5. Do not have 2 parents in the home, or have 1 parent who is primarily absent.
6. Did not receive parental support in the formative learning years from 18 months to 5 years of age.

Public schools are also required by law to deal with trouble makers, the physically and mentally handicapped (in most states) which is a huge drain on resources. Private schools just pick from applicants, from households that obviously already have parents that are involved in their child's education. There's a big difference in your student body's potential just becuase of that fact.

[quote name='cheese']
What is it about public schools that gets republicans and libertarians in a tizzy? You realize that the competition would also be between states, more populous ones having more money, states with higher tax rates would get better teachers, equipment, etc., right? New Jersey would have palaces while Kansas would have dumps, if any schools at all seeing how it just might not be financially viable to have one there, bottom line and all. Believe it or not, the free market isn't the solution to everything.[/QUOTE]

principe already beat me to it but I'll add an anecdote. In the Detroit public schools, they spend over 10,000 per student with poor results. Brighton, where I live, we give more tax money to the state than we receive so, de facto, we subsidize the Detroit school system. Brighton schools are some of the best in the State and we only receive $6700 per student. The amount of surplus money given to Detroit isn't making other districts go "out of business" and isn't inticing teachers to work there. So, believe it or not, state confiscation of wealth and redistribution to the "needy" isn't the answer to everything.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/09/AR2007080901964.html?hpid=topnews

I don't even know where to begin with this. How can 13% of the population account for 49% of all murder victims? And what can we do to change it?

,[/QUOTE]

And this is some of the most racist shit I've ever heard. We're supposed to be concerned because murder victims are black? WTF? Shouldn't we be concerned becuase they are human beings being murdered? Are you implying that it's not as important when white people get murdered? Because that's what it sounds like.


Before taclking the school systems look deeper. We need to fix the pervasiveness broken family. Children need good role models to emulate in order to become adults. Parents today, aren;t doing their job, and most times aren't even present, much less interested in their children's lives. That's the real problem, not the schools.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Lesson plans are irrelevant when children:

1. don't attend school regularly.
2. are suspended regularly to the point of automatic failure
3. have behavioral problems resulting in suspensions or expulsion
4. do not have parental support in the home
5. Do not have 2 parents in the home, or have 1 parent who is primarily absent.
6. Did not receive parental support in the formative learning years from 18 months to 5 years of age.

Public schools are also required by law to deal with trouble makers, the physically and mentally handicapped (in most states) which is a huge drain on resources. Private schools just pick from applicants, from households that obviously already have parents that are involved in their child's education. There's a big difference in your student body's potential just becuase of that fact. [/quote]

And privatizing the education system will fix any of that how? What's to become of those kids who the private school turns away? What does the number of parents have to do with lesson plans? How has suspension ever caused a behavioral problem?

principe already beat me to it but I'll add an anecdote. In the Detroit public schools, they spend over 10,000 per student with poor results. Brighton, where I live, we give more tax money to the state than we receive so, de facto, we subsidize the Detroit school system. Brighton schools are some of the best in the State and we only receive $6700 per student. The amount of surplus money given to Detroit isn't making other districts go "out of business" and isn't inticing teachers to work there. So, believe it or not, state confiscation of wealth and redistribution to the "needy" isn't the answer to everything.
Click to expand...

And my federal taxes pay for schools in Kansas, it's the way we work in a modern society; all together to raise the bar for everyone. You wanna cut them off, fine, I'll build my superschools and they might get new books by 2099.

Again, how would privatizing the system fix Detroit's poor results any better then just swiping their administrative and educational regimens? Could private schools kick out the disruptive kids, sure, but what becomes of them then? I think it was Dateline or 60 Minutes did a thing on inner city public schools that have converted to using modern educational techniques, much like private schools do; more of a focus on technology, more strict rules (but offering students more freedom in class), even all organic lunches. From one in here in Jersey City to one in LA to one in Chicago, all had dramatic results. Going from terrible schools to amazing institutions of learning in just a few years. Did it cost a little more money? Sure, but it also proved that the public school system is not broken beyond repair.

PS - Y'know, your two last posts, with a little reading between the lines, are pretty embarrassing.

PPS - the "state confiscation of wealth" thing is AWESOME. Don't forget "Taxes infringe on my Financial Liberty!" That was popular when McKinnley was president too.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']And this is some of the most racist shit I've ever heard. We're supposed to be concerned because murder victims are black? WTF? Shouldn't we be concerned becuase they are human beings being murdered? Are you implying that it's not as important when white people get murdered? Because that's what it sounds like.[/quote]
13% of the population are 49% of murder victims. Pointing that out isn't racist. You can't say that isn't fucking terrible.
 
[quote name='SpazX']13% of the population are 49% of murder victims. Pointing that out isn't racist. You can't say that isn't fucking terrible.[/QUOTE]


That's nothing. I have seen the stats that show the percentage of total murders commited by that 13%. It's huge, although I can't remember the exact number. There is just no excuse for it.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']And this is some of the most racist shit I've ever heard. We're supposed to be concerned because murder victims are black? WTF? Shouldn't we be concerned becuase they are human beings being murdered? Are you implying that it's not as important when white people get murdered? Because that's what it sounds like.[/quote]

You just made me laugh, honestly.

But really, I live a mile out of Newark, and the killings of those Delaware State kids was one of the most horrible things I've ever heard. I've heard talk of this uniting the city against violence, in memory of the three who died, and that would be great.
 
[quote name='Puzznic']That's nothing. I have seen the stats that show the percentage of total murders commited by that 13%. It's huge, although I can't remember the exact number. There is just no excuse for it.[/QUOTE]

Well, you can come to two conclusions about such a concentration of crime:

1) Blacks are biologically inferior, intellectually inferior, or crime prone

or

2) There are systemic issues that place blacks at higher risk of criminal offending

As for the latter, ever wonder why *every* city you go into has a poor, poor section of town populated solely by blacks? Why black unemployment is so high (even amongst those with no criminal history/substance issues)? Now, there are cultural issues that bmulligan brings up that do exist (family, education), but the fact remains that isolating poverty into a geographic area (inner-city ghettos), providing few incentives to work (think the "Calvin" series of ads from McDonalds from years ago, and the subsequent, genuinely-felt parodies of that), high incentives to crime (since legitimate avenues to success are blocked due to geography, racism, and other factors), and a culture that not only has no interest in education, but one that calls out and creates exiles of those who are educated, and you have one substantial problem on your hands.

A few weeks ago, I likened the structural/cultural/social problems to Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown to kick. Like Lucy, our society claimed that they would allow the football to be fairly kicked - people would get jobs regardless of race, and solely on merit. Nevertheless, ample research shows discrimination in hiring, promotion in jobs, housing rental, credit and loan approval, and other things many of us take for granted. Society, like Lucy, is promising to hold the football, but, as has always been the case, they yank it away.

Now, as for Charlie Brown, he's just jaded. He wants to kick the football and show the world he's capable of kicking it as hard and as far as anyone else. However, he finally gets fed up with Lucy yanking at away time and again. No matter how sincere Lucy is about holding the ball, if Charlie Brown isn't willing to kick the ball, nothing's going to happen. That's not a very exciting or progressive Peanuts strip, now, is it?

In short, the worst part about this social problem is that it requires substantial changes on everyone's behalf: inner-city blacks, middle-class whites, government programs and committees. If any one element refuses to change, then we'll never see progress made in this regard.
 
I saw on the news last night some program in Philadelphia that plans to "scare kids straight" by showing them what it's like to be a murder victim.

Now, I'm sure this will help some people, but I really don't think the reason why kids get caught up in street violence is because they don't know what it's like to get shot. If only they knew that getting shot hurts like a bitch and/or kills you! Then they'd never carry a weapon!

I think part of the problem is that people like to act like racism doesn't exist anymore. Affirmative Action or similar programs aren't necessary because all that racism was so long ago. Nobody wants to hear or talk about racism seriously.

Add to that the fact that the inner-city poor blacks are so jaded by what they're taught as they grow and their social situation. The young black kids now are only two or three generations removed from socially accepted systematic segregation. They're still told the stories and many blacks still fear going into some towns, taking some jobs, etc. that aren't even hostile to them anymore.

It's just a terrible situation...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']In short, the worst part about this social problem is that it requires substantial changes on everyone's behalf: inner-city blacks, middle-class whites, government programs and committees. If any one element refuses to change, then we'll never see progress made in this regard.[/quote]

Give me a break. America is the land of people who have receieved no help from the government and the powers-that-be, but somehow prevailed in spite of this.
 
Even though I'm a big fan of private school, I don't think public schools need to be privatized. Maybe more attention needs to be paid to college and the way that getting a college degree is generally perceived to help in getting good jobs.

Myke mentioned the McDonalds Calvin commercials that basically told Black people they could become financially successful by working their way up in fast food. I've never seen any mcdonalds ads like this targeted at any other racial groups, which is interesting. McDonalds claims to only hire people who have their GEDs, so you can get a job that allows for upward mobility without having to get a college degree. This actually makes working for McDonalds an unusually attractive offer considering it's in fast food. Most jobs don't have room for more than 1 promotion in today's market, especially for those without college degrees. And yet, those with college degrees don't actually find themselves in a position much better than those without, because most college degrees don't teach you any skills that directly relate to a job. Vocational schools actually offer much more relevancy, but are never considered to be "good" schools.

Most established businesses are aware of this, so they tend to hire most college graduates to jobs that don't actually require college education and are at the bottom of the totem pole. Recent grads get into the workforce only to find that the big banks are hiring them to work in phone banks or at teller windows with 19 year olds that never even thought about college and don't owe thousands in student loans. To top it off, these high school grads are in a better situation because they've been working while you were in college and have learned how to do the job college didn't prepare you for. They get promoted before you and end up going farther because when you've got a 21 year old doing as well or better at a job than a 26 year old the company tends to forget that you're older because you cared about the importance of a college education. You would think that they get paid less, and they do, but that's only at the time of hire. So they got hired at $10/hour and you got $11, but the person you were in high school with that passed on college got hired 4 years before you. Bet they're making way more than $11 now and are probably your boss.

The lie that they spread is that college means you get to skip the entry level position that the high school grad must settle for. Truthfully, only specialized degrees or those from the "better" universities will allow you to level up with no experience. So many college grads end up going to grad school after going into the workforce hoping that additional degrees will allow them to advance past the mediocrity from which they thought their BA would spare them, and that's not even a guarantee. Turns out the best way to get a good job is to know someone, to have a hook-up. Truthfully, most young black people don't have a hook-up in legal jobs because their parents have low-level or menial positions if they work at all. So previous generations can't give us anything to strive for in the legitimate world outside of sports, the only job field that evaluates solely based on talent and racial hiring discriminations have been abandoned long ago in order to maximize profitability.

If people were more realistic about college and worked to fix the myriad problems with that system, it'd go a sight farther than any changes made at the k-12 level. It also would require no legislation or tax increases.
 
Atreyue - you do know that college grads on average earn a large amount more than high school grads or high school dropouts, don't you? You seem to be trying to make it seem as if college grads don't have any advantage over those who didn't go to college in the labor market, and that is far from true according to the statistics (I'm sure you or I could easily find them if you'd like).

[quote name='SpazX']I think part of the problem is that people like to act like racism doesn't exist anymore. Affirmative Action or similar programs aren't necessary because all that racism was so long ago. Nobody wants to hear or talk about racism seriously.[/QUOTE]

I think that most people accept what is true: racism still exists, obviously, but to a much, much smaller extent than it did back when Jim Crow was in full effect. I doubt anyone with half a brain would claim no racism exists in America; it will probably be with us in some form or another for the foreseeable future because people are free to be idiot bigots in our country if they choose. But I do think you're right in pointing out that the remaining racism in our society is not near the top of most people's concerns, and unfortunately stupidity breeds when the spotlight is not shining on it.

You use bogus logic when you say "affirmative action" (aka state-approved racism) is the answer to racism. You are saying that everyone of certain ethnic/racial groups should suffer because in the past there were wrongs against certain ethnic/racial groups -- wrongs in the vast majority of cases not perpetrated by the people being punished for them. I just don't see how continuing this kind of cycle is going to solve the problem, not to mention how it is morally acceptable.**

**I'd note on that last sentence that I am not trying to compare levels of being wronged, in case anyone gets the erroneous idea that I just compared slavery to job preferences. Obviously that would be a foolish equation.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']
You use bogus logic when you say "affirmative action" (aka state-approved racism) is the answer to racism. You are saying that everyone of certain ethnic/racial groups should suffer because in the past there were wrongs against certain ethnic/racial groups -- wrongs in the vast majority of cases not perpetrated by the people being punished for them. I just don't see how continuing this kind of cycle is going to solve the problem, not to mention how it is morally acceptable.**

**I'd note on that last sentence that I am not trying to compare levels of being wronged, in case anyone gets the erroneous idea that I just compared slavery to job preferences. Obviously that would be a foolish equation.[/quote]

Affirmative Action is meant to counter the existing bias favoring whites over blacks. In order to overcome the discrimination you have to make an extra effort to bring them in. I think that's the point of Affirmative Action and one of the points of misunderstanding between those that support it and are against it. It's not discriminating against other people, it's trying to help even things out.

There should be a point in time where that's no longer necessary, but now there are still major differences between employment for whites and blacks as well hispanics, women, etc. White men have the advantage when it comes to education and jobs since white men run pretty much everything. It doesn't mean they're necessarily racist or even consciously deciding based on race, but that's just how it goes.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Atreyue - you do know that college grads on average earn a large amount more than high school grads or high school dropouts, don't you? You seem to be trying to make it seem as if college grads don't have any advantage over those who didn't go to college in the labor market, and that is far from true according to the statistics (I'm sure you or I could easily find them if you'd like).[/QUOTE]

I do realize that statistics say that. For one, I don't put much faith into statistics because they can easliy be misleading. Are these statistics pertaining to college grads and high school grads in their 1st year of work or is this based on age? Also if it's not actually the degree that leads to a good job as much as your connections (which are probably familial and so have no relation to going to college), then those stats carry much less weight. For example, rich kids are much more likely to go to college than poor and much more likely to have connections. Which of those 2 play a bigger factor in their getting a good job? Affirmative action placing blacks students in good colleges doesn't help if it's all due to pre-existing connections. And in the regular labor market (since I work in it) I've seen very little to suggest that college graduates really do have an edge over high school graduates who have been working since school.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Affirmative Action is meant to counter the existing bias favoring whites over blacks. In order to overcome the discrimination you have to make an extra effort to bring them in. I think that's the point of Affirmative Action and one of the points of misunderstanding between those that support it and are against it. It's not discriminating against other people, it's trying to help even things out.

There should be a point in time where that's no longer necessary, but now there are still major differences between employment for whites and blacks as well hispanics, women, etc. White men have the advantage when it comes to education and jobs since white men run pretty much everything. It doesn't mean they're necessarily racist or even consciously deciding based on race, but that's just how it goes.[/QUOTE]


If you really believe that, I mean REALLY believe that then you should be petitioning the government to make bias against fat people disappear. Also, affirmative action for women should be next- and don't forget the Chineese who were long time objects of discrimination.

The fact is that life isn't fair. No amount of government fingers on the scales is going to make everyone the same as anyone else. Deep seeded racist attitudes aren't going to be erased no matter how many black people are given jobs for the sake of their blackness. In fact, it engenders even more white racism. People always tend to resent anyone who gets special treatment- for any reason. Basing it on race will foster resentment for that criteria even more.

And who decides when this special treatment ends? You? Do blacks all get together and say "Ok, whitey, you've given us enough" ? Somehow I doubt that would ever happen. How many people do you know who would give up a gravy train on general principle ?

I think most black people would rather have their positions in life be earned by their own merit, in spite of the racism they encounter, not given to them by a bunch of guilty white people and bureaucrats. Why would black people want to live their lives thinking the only reason they have anything of value is becuase whitey gave it to them? That isn't a good recipe for self-respect, it's another ingredient for resentment.
 
[quote name='bmulligan'] And who decides when this special treatment ends? You? Do blacks all get together and say "Ok, whitey, you've given us enough" ? Somehow I doubt that would ever happen. How many people do you know who would give up a gravy train on general principle ?[/QUOTE]

The welfare state pretty much proves your point.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']If you really believe that, I mean REALLY believe that then you should be petitioning the government to make bias against fat people disappear. Also, affirmative action for women should be next- and don't forget the Chineese who were long time objects of discrimination.[/quote]

There are affirmative action policies for women and other minorities, they're usually not that specific, generally affirmative action is for women and minorities. Black people are simply the minority that have been around the longest in large numbers and the Civil Rights Movement was mainly about black people (although feminist movements were occuring around the same time) and it was from that movement that affirmative action policies were adopted. There are different policies in different places at different levels.

[quote name='bmulligan']The fact is that life isn't fair. No amount of government fingers on the scales is going to make everyone the same as anyone else. Deep seeded racist attitudes aren't going to be erased no matter how many black people are given jobs for the sake of their blackness. In fact, it engenders even more white racism. People always tend to resent anyone who gets special treatment- for any reason. Basing it on race will foster resentment for that criteria even more.[/quote]

Yes, life isn't fair, but it shouldn't be less fair for women and minorities, that's the point of affirmative action. Women and minorities still make less money compared to white men with the same education in the same positions.

I don't think anybody is more racist because of affirmative action, it simply gives them a more acceptable justification so they'll use it.

[quote name='bmulligan'] And who decides when this special treatment ends? You? Do blacks all get together and say "Ok, whitey, you've given us enough" ? Somehow I doubt that would ever happen. How many people do you know who would give up a gravy train on general principle ?[/quote]

We're talking about affirmative action here. If allowing somebody to get a job or an education is being on a "gravy train" then what isn't?

[quote name='bmulligan'] I think most black people would rather have their positions in life be earned by their own merit, in spite of the racism they encounter, not given to them by a bunch of guilty white people and bureaucrats. Why would black people want to live their lives thinking the only reason they have anything of value is becuase whitey gave it to them? That isn't a good recipe for self-respect, it's another ingredient for resentment.[/quote]

They still have to have qualifications. Although obviously it depends on how the policies are enacted the point is simply to pay and hire (and give educations to) minorities and women at the same rate as whites and men.

There are deep social problems that have caused women and minorities to get less education and have less opportunities than white men and these policies are intended to correct that, not to erase racism and sexism.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']And what can we do to change it?
[/quote]
Seems that WE can't do anything. 9 out of 10 are murdered by other blacks. So looks like the blacks are going to have to work out there own problems. (And by that, I don't mean bitching about repirations and that it's the white man's fault. :bomb:)
 
[quote name='SpazX']Affirmative Action is meant to counter the existing bias favoring whites over blacks. In order to overcome the discrimination you have to make an extra effort to bring them in. I think that's the point of Affirmative Action and one of the points of misunderstanding between those that support it and are against it. It's not discriminating against other people, it's trying to help even things out.[/QUOTE]

I understand the logic behind it and sympathize with the goal (to make things even), but I would argue that the only way these kinds of issues will ever be behind us is to stop creating new ones and enforce anti-discrimination laws as stringently as possible. And it is discriminating; if it isn't, what is it?

[quote name='SpazX']There are deep social problems that have caused women and minorities to get less education and have less opportunities than white men and these policies are intended to correct that, not to erase racism and sexism.[/QUOTE]

Very telling. Why do you feel government-imposed discrimination based on skin color is preferable to college scholarship assistance and education reform?
 
[quote name='atreyue']I do realize that statistics say that. For one, I don't put much faith into statistics because they can easliy be misleading. Are these statistics pertaining to college grads and high school grads in their 1st year of work or is this based on age? Also if it's not actually the degree that leads to a good job as much as your connections (which are probably familial and so have no relation to going to college), then those stats carry much less weight. For example, rich kids are much more likely to go to college than poor and much more likely to have connections. Which of those 2 play a bigger factor in their getting a good job? Affirmative action placing blacks students in good colleges doesn't help if it's all due to pre-existing connections. And in the regular labor market (since I work in it) I've seen very little to suggest that college graduates really do have an edge over high school graduates who have been working since school.[/QUOTE]

Firstly, don't mistake your anecdotal personal experience for the full picture. You may have that experience, but that doesn't mean that's true overall.

And in fact, the stats, as you acknowledge, say far differently:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-132852683.html
In 2004, bachelor's degree-holders earned an average $51,206 a year, compared with $27,915 a year for those with a high school diploma only, according to the Census numbers.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='bmulligan']If you really believe that, I mean REALLY believe that then you should be petitioning the government to make bias against fat people disappear.[/QUOTE]

It SHOULD disappear, but that doesn't mean they have to be favored. Which is my whole point.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']Seems that WE can't do anything. 9 out of 10 are murdered by other blacks. So looks like the blacks are going to have to work out there own problems. (And by that, I don't mean bitching about repirations and that it's the white man's fault. :bomb:)[/QUOTE]

We are all in this society together. "Their" problems are everyone in this society's problems.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Firstly, don't mistake your anecdotal personal experience for the full picture. You may have that experience, but that doesn't mean that's true overall.

And in fact, the stats, as you acknowledge, say far differently:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-132852683.html[/QUOTE]

If by anecdotal personal experience you mean what I have personally observed working at a wide variety of jobs this decade, I'm sorry that I will have to take that information far more seriously than what any statistic says. I am speaking specifically about jobs that do not require advanced degrees. The numbers in the partial article you linked seem to clearly include advanced degree salaries with undergrad ones. We could spend lots of time hazarding guesses as to how much that number is inflated by the inclusion, bu it seems like a waste of time. The bottom line is that the American public seems to believe that all one needs to do is go to college and get a B.A. to get jobs that are higher level and around the $50000 mark. I think that many are entering the workforce and discovering that they need to go back to school for advanced degrees to get many of those jobs if hey were relying on the strength of their degrees alone to secure them. If your experience is different, then please enlighten me. I will respect your anecdotal personal experience and consider it quantifiable evidence, factoring it into my own. But I will never rely on statistics, even from such a presumably unbiased source as the census bureau. They are all suspect without having all the data available because you can't see what's being included in calculations and what's being passed over. And that's without taking account people's propensity for lying for any number of reasons. I'll stick to reality.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I understand the logic behind it and sympathize with the goal (to make things even), but I would argue that the only way these kinds of issues will ever be behind us is to stop creating new ones and enforce anti-discrimination laws as stringently as possible. And it is discriminating; if it isn't, what is it?

Very telling. Why do you feel government-imposed discrimination based on skin color is preferable to college scholarship assistance and education reform?[/quote]

I need to explain this better. If an employer or educational institution is discriminating against a certain race, religion, gender, whatever, and you tell them that the ratio of that race, religion, etc. should be X statistically is that discrimination in favor of that race, etc. or anti-discrimination?

When does it change from one to the other?
 
[quote name='SpazX']I need to explain this better. If an employer or educational institution is discriminating against a certain race, religion, gender, whatever, and you tell them that the ratio of that race, religion, etc. should be X statistically is that discrimination in favor of that race, etc. or anti-discrimination?

When does it change from one to the other?[/QUOTE]

Of course if you tell them it has to be a certain % that's racial/etc. it's discrimination. You aren't judging people by their skills, experience and/or character, you are judging them based on their skin color/gender/religion/etc.

Stick to nailing people for doing just that: judging people based on those things instead of what they should be judging them on, skills/experience/character. There are laws prohibiting it. I know it's harder to prosecute people who are racist/sexist/whatever in their hiring practices than it is to just say "hire X number of Y race," but this is a case where the easy thing is not the right thing (these cases are common, BTW).
 
Public schools are a mess. Here in Chicago at mine (going to be a senior), a lot of the kids selling drugs and stuff are blacks and spanish (some white kids here sell drugs but do it outside the school). Some of the black kids just do it out in the open in front of teachers, LOL. A lot of the teachers go out of there way to help kids but I mean, if a kid doesn't want to learn he isn't going to learn. Kids continually get suspended (even cops come to my school to pick up kids) but they never get expelled. It's a pretty dumb system. I think the teachers are just too afraid to do anything about it, because if they do they'll be labeled a bigot, racist, etc.

Teachers and staff spend all their time and energy on kids who just don't care, and the parents usually side with the kid against the teacher, rather than the other way around. A good portion of the suspensions and stuff at my school has been black and spanish kids, either selling drugs, gang fights, fighting teachers, etc. Black kids call the teachers "white bitch", etc. A lot of the kids also bring up false accusations of racism (I can't wear this but "other" people can, it's cause I'm black, etc). It's really pretty messed up, and I don't know how you would fix it. It's not white racism causing all these problems. It's messed up that good teachers are leaving the school because it just sucks balls, and kids who need attention who are actually smart are not getting it.


Racism still exists but I mean, racism is a two way street. White people are not the only ones capable of being a racist. It seems when you talk about "racism", it's only about the white man on *insert race here*.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Of course if you tell them it has to be a certain % that's racial/etc. it's discrimination. You aren't judging people by their skills, experience and/or character, you are judging them based on their skin color/gender/religion/etc.

Stick to nailing people for doing just that: judging people based on those things instead of what they should be judging them on, skills/experience/character. There are laws prohibiting it. I know it's harder to prosecute people who are racist/sexist/whatever in their hiring practices than it is to just say "hire X number of Y race," but this is a case where the easy thing is not the right thing (these cases are common, BTW).[/quote]

Alright, I understand that, but then what is evidence of discrimination? How can you tell if a place is discriminating or not?
 
[quote name='SpazX']Alright, I understand that, but then what is evidence of discrimination? How can you tell if a place is discriminating or not?[/QUOTE]

You have to gather evidence like any other criminal prosecution, such as instructions by supervisors not to hire/promote certain people based on their race/ethnicity/gender/etc., patterns in behaviors of certain employees with regard to this or other personnel matters, etc. Like I said, it's certainly a lot more difficult than just saying "hire X number of Y skin color," but then again it doesn't have the drawback of being racism in an of itself.

And these cases have been prosecuted successfully. Here's an article on one of the most high-profile ones:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1996/05/13/212386/index.htm
 
[quote name='elprincipe']You have to gather evidence like any other criminal prosecution, such as instructions by supervisors not to hire/promote certain people based on their race/ethnicity/gender/etc., patterns in behaviors of certain employees with regard to this or other personnel matters, etc. Like I said, it's certainly a lot more difficult than just saying "hire X number of Y skin color," but then again it doesn't have the drawback of being racism in an of itself.

And these cases have been prosecuted successfully. Here's an article on one of the most high-profile ones:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1996/05/13/212386/index.htm[/quote]

Yes, I'm not saying it's impossible to find out, I'm walking through the logic. You find out by observing their hiring policies (and as shown in the third paragraph, a reasonable, and easy to find, indicator is the percentage of minorities working for that company).

So how do you fix it and check to see that it is fixed? If a decent indicator of discrimination is the percentage of minorities working for that company, then it seems reasonable to me to check that percentage against a norm.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Yes, I'm not saying it's impossible to find out, I'm walking through the logic. You find out by observing their hiring policies (and as shown in the third paragraph, a reasonable, and easy to find, indicator is the percentage of minorities working for that company).

So how do you fix it and check to see that it is fixed? If a decent indicator of discrimination is the percentage of minorities working for that company, then it seems reasonable to me to check that percentage against a norm.[/QUOTE]

I am not complaining at all that in an investigation this data would be looked at. Obviously it would be directly relevant. I've got no beef when investigators, when receiving a complaint of racist hiring practices, find something suspicious when a company located in an area that is 50% black has 0/100 black managers -- even if this doesn't necessarily prove illegal hiring practices, it's suspicious and therefore warrants further investigation.

But after all, this is a long way from affirmative action, which dictates that you prefer people with a certain skin color or people of a certain gender (even if they are the majority!) etc etc to people with other traits.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Considering how overtly racist our society was when the suburbs were established, I don't see where you can claim that it has nothing to do with racism.[/QUOTE]
What a riddiculous statement.

How do you know the didn't move to the suburbs because smoking was so popular back then? Or because people only had Black & White televisions? Or because they had poor dental care?

America was widely racist back then? Seriously? NO fuckING SHIT.


"Considering how overtly our society liked knit sweaters when the suburbs were established, I don't see where you can claim that it had nothing to do with people wearing knit sweaters."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top