^I agree that the anger over black on black crime is there, but doesn't get much play in the media.  The common meme of "Where's Jesse?  Where's Al?" always seems to ignore the multiple rallies/marches/etc. against crime in the inner city which never get any play.  The point I think Morris' opinion misses is that, when a black guy is killed by another black guy, there is no rushing to the defense of the shooter...... there is no hesitancy to prosecute...... there is no sense that justice won't be served so long as the suspect is identified and caught.  There certainly are not any rallies or fundraising efforts in support of the shooter.  There never is any debate over whether the killing was justified.

I think the term "inner city" is outdated. Today that's like... where the rich people live. Half of the crime prone areas in C-Bus are full of '70s ranches and split-levels.

 

I also think that in a lot of these cases the problem with the media skimming over black-on-black crime has to do with the media's for-profit nature. Those stories don't sell as many ads as stories about attractive 19-year-old wealthy white girls dying in car crashes.

 

Cleveland’s Race Problem

 

How longstanding injustice could cripple the city’s rebirth.

 

By DAN MOULTHROP

February 19, 2015

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/cleveland-segregation-115320.html#ixzz3SGNXf9LQ

 

That's a great article. I was expecting the worst when I saw the headline.

 

Ironically, he mentions James Robertson.  Who allegedly has had to move due to highly stereotype-reinforcing behavior by his neighbors.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2958001/Man-received-350-000-donations-story-walked-21-miles-work-day-forced-house-threats-life-windfall.html

^^Then let's say they do start going more in-depth on crime. Then crime goes up because all the TV talks about is crime. Frankly, I think TV should talk about crime of all types a lot less.

^I agree that the anger over black on black crime is there, but doesn't get much play in the media.  The common meme of "Where's Jesse?  Where's Al?" always seems to ignore the multiple rallies/marches/etc. against crime in the inner city which never get any play.  The point I think Morris' opinion misses is that, when a black guy is killed by another black guy, there is no rushing to the defense of the shooter...... there is no hesitancy to prosecute...... there is no sense that justice won't be served so long as the suspect is identified and caught.  There certainly are not any rallies or fundraising efforts in support of the shooter.  There never is any debate over whether the killing was justified.

 

*I started writing this earlier but had to go do something.  Apologies if the topic has run cold by now.

 

That's a good point but we are often dealing with a slightly different inquiry when a police shooting happens, right?  I don't have any statistics on it but I would assume the vast majority of shootings between civilians happen absent a valid purpose of self defense - they are offensive shootings.  So justification and reflexive defense for the shooter would be the exception, not the rule.

 

Conversely, I would then assume the vast majority of shootings by police are done with the valid purpose of self defense (or within the slightly higher self defense standard police officers are afforded).  This presumption in favor of the police officer's action can be and is abused as is the presumption against the civilian shooter.  That said, I can understand, along broad lines, why these presumptions exist given the different position of the parties.

 

Morris and Philpot each do a good job attacking from both ends but both makes some missteps.  Here are the ones that jumped out at me:

 

I think Philpot makes a routine but elementary mistake when discussing the prevalence of black on black crime.  She states:

 

According to data collected from 1980 to 2008 by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 93 percent of black victims were killed by black offenders; however, 84 percent of white victims were killed by other whites. Why is this? Most crime is committed by people who live in the same communities, which even in 2015 remain quite racially segregated. This statistic is mirrored amongst Latinos and Asians as well. So why aren't we also being rallied by Mr. Morris to march against the evils of white-on-white crime in America?

 

While the facts behind her claim are correct she misses the point that the volume of black on black crime is largely disproportionate to black people's proportion of the population.  I think that stat is black Americans comprise 13% of the population but 51% of the murders.  There is an article with an interesting graph that I've posted in the past in an article here:  http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21617019-who-gets-murdered

 

The causes for black on black crime can be argued at length, and often are.  But her implication that murder touches all segments of the population equally is just not true.

 

Next, I think Morris makes a classic mistake by assuming "the black community" exists as a monolith and that this monolith lacks the responsibility to voice their contempt.  It would be hard to argue that the black community is a single group with similar opinions.  Eugene Robinson, makes the point that what may have once been the "black community" has long since splintered into many divergent groups.  I read his book a couple years back and he makes the case well: http://www.amazon.com/Disintegration-The-Splintering-Black-America/dp/0767929969

 

Would we require an upper middle class black person in Beachwood to express indignation about a murder on St. Clair and E. 90th when they have no ties to the neighborhood?  That would make as much sense as requiring a white person in Beachwood to denounce and protest a murder in the trailer park in Euclid.  Sharing skin color is not a nexus that can serve as a proxy for "community."

 

And I agree that some neighborhood groups do aim to impact violence but there is very little media incentive to cover it.  Here is an article about a group aiming to help find the suspect in Cleveland quintuple homicide: http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/12/new_years_day_march_will_focus_1.html

 

But I think the ire Morris aims to capture is the frustration that countless national and local "activist" groups find endless time, money, resources, and energy to expend when there is even the slightest indication of white aggression against a black victim but these same groups are virtually invisible when faced with "third world level" body counts as long as the trigger-man is black.  Notice that the fine students of Oberlin expended 0 time or resources to bring attention to our recent triple and quintuple homicides.

 

People protest to bring attention to certain issues.  While the protesters may not have an immediate solution to the problem at hand, there is an understanding that exposure brings about discussion which brings about the discussion of solutions which can bring about change.  Why does this logic/tactic apply to police violence but not neighborhood violence?

 

So while the outrage over unjustified killing at the hands of police is called for to bring about more accountability - why is there no hint of national outrage over the routine slaughter of young black men by other young black men?  The attention does not have to be mutually exclusive but for some reason, it is.

 

*I'm getting altitude sickness up here on this soapbox.

I agree with many of your points. But I think the efforts of those who are not personally affected by a homicide in response to any given homicide is almost always in response to some perceived injustice being carried out by the government or judicial system..... The failure to arrest, charge, prosecute, and/or punish the offender, whether it be a police officer (Wilson) or a private citizen (Zimmerman). Protests are almost always in response to systematic issues, not concerns with the actions of single individuals. As for the lack of any 'national outrage' over black on black crime, that's evryones fault if it is indeed lacking. I would however argue that the outrage over such crime is much louder than outrage over crime in general

Sharing skin color is not a nexus that can serve as a proxy for "community."

 

Slow clap in your honor.

 

We are all unique individuals first. Plus, being automatically categorized as a member of a "disadvantaged group" is a tremendous burden to carry around.

This is what happens when you assign values solely on the basis of skin color....you get a ridiculous article filled with third rate pseudo sociology that's in itself borderline racist, like this one, from ASIAN-AMERICAN-WHITE-GUILT-APOLOGIST Clevelander Arthur Chu.

 

 

Kanye West vs. white mediocrity: The real story behind Beck, Beyonce and “SNL” 40

Kanye takes more heat than anyone. Post-Grammys and "SNL" 40, we're finally seeing his critics for what they are

ARTHUR CHU

 

There was a lot to criticize about the “Saturday Night Live” 40th anniversary celebration–Jerry Seinfeld’s #SorryNotSorry joshing around about “SNL’s” 40-year history of whiteness, cringeworthy reminders of the show’s tendency to run dubiously funny gags into the ground, and the mystifying continued relevance of Sarah Palin.

 

So it was strange–though not surprising, for Internet junkies–that Kanye West came in for an avalanche of criticism for doing what was basically a competent, if flawed, music video that was as good or better than any other musical act that night.

 

But this is par for the course with the ever-rolling tide of Kanye West hot takes. It’s never really about the last thing he did, it’s about the thing he did before–the (sigh) 2015 Grammygate incident–and whether that thing reminds you of something else he did before (the 2009 VMAgate incident), and so on, and so on, ad infinitum.

 

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/17/kanye_west_vs_white_mediocrity_the_real_story_behind_beck_beyonce_and_snl_40/

Starbucks Scene 1:

 

That will be $1.93. Hey, you're white.

 

Yeah, and you're.......bi-racial?

 

Yeah. My mom is Latino, my dad is Asian.

 

Oh, that's cool, I guess.

 

What do you mean "I guess".

 

....Oh, nothing.

 

No no no, tell me what you mean by "I guess"

 

I'm sorry man. I better go.

 

Oh, so now you're too afraid to talk to the bi-racial guy working at Starbucks. You know what you're problem is?

 

Um..

 

(The whole Starbucks staff says in unison): YOU'RE A RACIST!

 

^ That story is obviously made up...  $1.93 for something from Starbucks? pssh

White Appreciation Day? Are they gonna do this every year?? lol

 

Restaurant to host 'White Appreciation Day'

 

http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2015/05/07/restaurant-white-appreciation-day/70976410/

 

The Hispanic owners of the restaurant in Milliken say "all Americans should be celebrated."

^Are Italians allowed to attend?

^of course. At least I think anyone can still eat there. But I don't know if they'll get the discount. Don't you have your "white card?"

A discount based on race is illegal. I have no idea how this is going to go...not.

White Appreciation Day? Are they gonna do this every year?? lol

 

Restaurant to host 'White Appreciation Day'

 

http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2015/05/07/restaurant-white-appreciation-day/70976410/

 

The Hispanic owners of the restaurant in Milliken say "all Americans should be celebrated."

This should be in the racism thread not this thread. 

 

This is the most ridiculous BS as white "appreciation" day is everyday!  ::) ::)

White Appreciation Day? Are they gonna do this every year?? lol

 

Restaurant to host 'White Appreciation Day'

 

http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2015/05/07/restaurant-white-appreciation-day/70976410/

 

The Hispanic owners of the restaurant in Milliken say "all Americans should be celebrated."

This should be in the racism thread not this thread. 

 

This is the most ridiculous BS as white "appreciation" day is everyday!  ::) ::)

I think you're just anti-Latino! Seriously, there's got to be more to this story. I suspect what's going on is that this promotion is an effort to attract a more affluent (read "white," at least in the eyes of the owner) clientele. He mentioned Black History and Hispanic Heritage Months, but as far as I know I've never heard of a case in which businesses have offered discounts to anyone based on those respective backgrounds (I could be wrong, maybe this happens all the time). The owner knows he could never get away with (or even propose) something like this if he was white himself. That said, how can bars continually have "ladies' nights," etc. offering discounted or free drinks to them while denying them to men?

Ladies nights have been found to be illegal.  I haven't seen one in years, actually.  I think people just remember them from the good old day.

White Appreciation Day? Are they gonna do this every year?? lol

 

Restaurant to host 'White Appreciation Day'

 

http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2015/05/07/restaurant-white-appreciation-day/70976410/

 

The Hispanic owners of the restaurant in Milliken say "all Americans should be celebrated."

This should be in the racism thread not this thread. 

 

This is the most ridiculous BS as white "appreciation" day is everyday!  ::) ::)

I think you're just anti-Latino! Seriously, there's got to be more to this story. I suspect what's going on is that this promotion is an effort to attract a more affluent (read "white," at least in the eyes of the owner) clientele. He mentioned Black History and Hispanic Heritage Months, but as far as I know I've never heard of a case in which businesses have offered discounts to anyone based on those respective backgrounds (I could be wrong, maybe this happens all the time). The owner knows he could never get away with (or even propose) something like this if he was white himself. That said, how can bars continually have "ladies' nights," etc. offering discounted or free drinks to them while denying them to men?

I find this business owner to be idiotic!