you're just slightly altering the plot of finding forrester but taking out the positive white influence on the story. i'm onto you nom!
very true, parker. the truth of the matter is that we live in a society where the older generation are the highest concerntration of voters and they support a war on drugs and believe in being tough on crime. fbi statistics point to a disproportionate volume of violent crime centered in black neighborhoods. we can argue about it's origins until we are blue in the face: disadvantage, poverty, racism, genetics, etc, etc. but the reality is that it's there. the crime is real. in any case, we as a society are in a paradox as to how to deal with the crime and violence. it seems we meet this violent behavior with more violent behavior and it perpetuates itself. i am reminded of the story on ben tre, from the vietnam war, where america mercilessly shelled and bombed this town full of viet cong fighters regardless of how many innocent civilians were killed. the officer in charge of the operation was interviewed and said the following: i guess what i am trying to say is that for as long as there is a problem perceived in this community by the rest of society, then society will continue to do whatever they think is right to fix it, regardless of community feedback, unless the community decides to stand up and fix it for themselves.
the problem with the unproportional attention in prosecuting and imprisoning black men is that it hollows out the community center. it's similar to what happens to communities with large percentages of immigrants: they tend to be young, productive men and their absence is dramatically felt. that is the first stage in the depressive effect: in every other community, these men are among the most productive members of society. the second problem is that politically, ex-cons are invisible at best. they can't vote, so they have no voice and no group of activists is going to embrace them. the third problem is that these two situations combine to form fertile ground for an informal (at best) or black market (at worst) for goods and services because they simply become excluded from the main economic functions of the community. when that hits a critical mass, then it starts to repulse traditional businesses, because they (the businesses) view it as a threat or sign of insecurity. these effects in conjunction depress the wider social network of the community. for example, lt. fiance worked at verizon with a girl who lived in a "not-so-nice-neighborhood". verizon paid her quite well, better than a lot of people in her community. however, all that meant is that her babysitter charged her more, her family members used her resources (car, phone, computer, food) more and her baby daddy relied more heavily on her. she was actively concerned about getting a raise because it meant her community would rely on her more. it also explained why she wasn't as concerned about plunking down tons of money for a flashy car: it tied up money in something that she could control, rather than something that was spread out. it's not that the black community doesn't value education. education provides access to higher-level jobs. those jobs are out of reach to people with criminal records. if you stand a 1 in 4 chance of becoming a criminal, why would you plunk down the time, money and effort to earn a degree? how horrible would it feel to be the most educated convict in the neighborhood? this is a key thing: social mobility is a huge part of resolving this issue. if you can't easily move out of that situation, if there's no social support in the form of housing, childcare, food, and employment then those communities fester. the sad part is a lot of towns find it easier to consolidate the poor into one or two areas than to provide the support necessary to interrupt a poverty cycle.
at what point will everything be equal to the point where systematic racism isn't a catch all explination? do we have to wait for everyone born pre 1960's to die off? i'm not attempting to be snarky either. i legitimately don't understand how half a century after the civil rights movement these things are thrown out rather than "fuck them, we'll fix this on our own."
in what way do you mean this? productivity potential? or active productivity at that point? cause one could argue if they are making the decisions and perpetuating the actions that lead to incarceration, they aren't a very productive member of "progressive" society. not shading, just curious so i can grasp your full argument.
it means that if beyond a certain percentage of the population are imprisoned, economically the community hollows out and development slows or regresses. for the sake of internet conjecture, let's say that no more crimes occur in black neighborhoods than in white ones, but they are much more aggressively prosecuted. (this is important, because it avoids the chicken/egg discussion of "do they commit crimes because there's no opportunities/are there no opportunities because of all the crimes"). let's also assume that people in all communities want to actively participate in the economy legally. no one looks at their choices and logically compares being an investment banker to selling crack: people make bad choices because of bad options. with that in mind, there is a critical mass of "economically disabled" young men that the community depends on. men from 18-65 are the most economically productive members of a community, doubly those from 25-55. if they are disadvantaged, through lost time spent incarcerated, lost opportunities due to being chewed through a system, or even if the resources that would otherwise go to furthering their productivity (education, training, tools, etc.) are used to keep them out of jail, then the larger community suffers. if it reaches critical mass (again, i think it's 20% but it varies), the whole value system changes and the community can't recover. for most of us, a few people go to jail? so what. when it's every other person you know, your beliefs and values are drastically changed, especially towards police and larger authorities. let me compare it to speeding. if everyone has to drive, and the police try to stop 125% of people speeding in one neighborhood, then people with certain cars are at a huge disadvantage. eventually, people with those cars feel unjustly targeted and they stop trying to obey other laws or they acknowledge that they can't drive at all. they either become an easy target or they simply can't participate in a necessary activity. then basic survival functions (getting food, earning money, etc.) are brought into question, when before it wasn't even a consideration.
i said 125% of speeding to indicate it's more than a natural or reasonable estimate of criminal activity. in other words, they are being targeted beyond what constitutes a concern to public safety or well-being.
not sure if this is derailing, or too political, but... is this a clear cut case of local/state governments absolutely failing the people? between the institutional racism, and astounding fumbling of the situation afterward, it seems like a situation where letting the locals run things how they want, without falling under national standards (they don't even wear name tags?), is a bad thing. i bring this up because of the consistent message that comes from interviews with military members, all of whom seem appalled at how this local department is acting. they don't agree that departments should even have the military-grade equipment, and they state clearly that walking around with rifles aimed at civilians isn't what they do during an actual military occupation. which isn't to say the u.s. military is without racism and other problems, but from an outsider-yet-nearby observer's perspective, there seems to be way too big of a gap between military and police standards, in terms of regulations and protocol. a 'strict chain of command and orders,' versus a 'we make our own rulez' mentality.
except that the exact situation you're describing exists. speed traps are policed more aggressively than rural roads in montana.
right. but couldn't they just not speed? if we're talking a deliberately falsifying reports thats one thing, but if they're just over enforcing laws you could just not break them.
sorry if i'm not explaining this well. the point of the speeding example is they are specifically targeting people beyond normal parameters. it's more "crime" than exists naturally...it's not a question of "don't speed", it becomes a question of "do you know how fast you were going?" and then using that answer as admitting to a crime.
but if you know this getting into the car you don't have to speed. that is where i'm feeling the disconnect. i get that it is unfair, but if you know whats going on why wouldn't you comply with the laws on the books instead of waving the white flag? the crime either exists or it doesn't. if you know you're under extra scrutiny, why wouldn't you act accordingly rather than give up?
two responses, gamecocks: (1) sometimes you gotta speed. maybe you work two jobs, and your shifts are ten minutes apart while the drive is 12 minutes. a parallel to the real world here would be the fact that subway fare-jumping arrests in nyc are disproportionately likely to be minorities. sure, you can say "fare jumping is a crime and you shouldn't do it," but at the end of the day, sometimes you're broke and need to get on the subway. (2) that advice is fine and good at the micro/individual level. nobody wants their loved ones to commit crimes, and mothers and fathers should tell/teach their children not to do so. no one really disputes this. but it doesn't work when you're talking about population-level responses. when you're talking about entire populations, responding to policing discrepancies with "well, just don't commit crimes" unfairly takes the burden off of the policing entity and those who direct the institutions that create these environments (schools, for example). these discrepancies don't arrive by coincidence.
think about it this way. your car is considered by police to be a car that has a higher than normal likelihood of being pulled over for speeding. knowing this, you decide to make sure you don't speed. however, because you have a 'speeder car', cops will pull you over for suspicion of speeding even when you're not speeding and ticket you. having to deal with this reality, what is your incentive to drive within the limits? if you're going to be busted for speeding regardless of whether or not you're actually speeding, why not just speed anyway, because you might as well enjoy the benefits for behavior that you're already being punished for.
just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. still seems to me the best way would be to work within the given laws to achieve change rather than just throw hands up and say fuck it.
the point is you are a target and existing within the law is impossible once police scrutiny is on you. think about how subjective things like "drunk and disorderly", "disturbing the peace" or "resisting arrest" are. think about how often the police issue warnings to a rich white kid who has a lawyer on speed dial versus a black kid whose car is worth less than the ticket. the cop isn't stupid, they will go for an easy case every time. why risk pissing off someone powerful and influential, when the black kid is an open and shut case with no grief. once you are highlighted by police as a) likely to be committing a crime, b) less likely or capable of "lawyering up", understanding your rights and fighting the charge or calling in a high-powered friend (judge uncle) and c) more likely to view police with animosity thus making their jobs easier by resisting arrest, failing to attend hearings, breaking parole, etc. then you are easy pickings for a predatory system. you say don't speed, but i got pulled over for going too slow. or a turn signal that magically worked properly when i stopped. or tread on my tires that was unsafe. i fit a profile that screamed "easy dui" and until i changed vehicles and schedules, i was functionally harassed. once you are a target, people take shots.