sycasey said:
It seems like there's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem with the "rise in black crime" argument. Is it that black people actually started committing more crimes, or is it that the criminal-justice system started cracking down more on black people?
It's an assumption... Which also raises the question: disproportionately responsible or disproportionately prosecuted?
No, there isn't. And you're painting yourself into a narrower and narrower corner.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you;re suggesting (or more accurately, in your words, "assuming") that cops basically ignored, and thus didn't report, large swaths violent crimes (but only for blacks) pre-1960, then post 1960 started taking calls on violent black crime? This is an amazing theory. I'm not even sure YOU actually believe that, which is why I'm hesitant to assert that is what you believe.
The noted "rise in black crime" during that time period is not an "argument". It's a fact. The conclusions reached as to how and why "arguments". Some are more reasonable than others. Some follow logical consistency and others work backwards from an ideologically driven maxim.
And given that the facts are clear -- that for a span of roughly half a century, as equality, access and socio economic conditions improved dramatically in the black community, so did its violent crime -- it, by definition, cannot be fully, or even primarily, explained by socio economic status. You literally cannot credibly say that the alarmingly high black crime rates are only the result of historical oppression/racism/household income because they were much more profound 80 years ago when the crime rates were lower.
You didn't actually address the rising crime rates or what a reasonable assumption would be. You simply pivoted to a wild and unfounded theory in order to avoid addressing the issue of cultural impact on crime given the data didn't align with your ideological presuppositions.
Do you acknowledge cultures are different and that they generate different outcomes? And that behavior and attitudes drive larger cultural forces that produce disparate outcomes due to different values systems and priorities? (e.g., blacks with comparable incomes as whites spend
17% less on education and 32% more 'visible goods' i.e. cars, jewelry, etc.; this is a cultural trend that hinders the accumulation of wealth and resources relative to other groups)
This sort of cultural marxism that renders culture and its impacts beyond reproach -- but only for select groups -- is a phenomenon that, as far as I can tell, has ramped up in the last decade, and was not part of the Liberal lexicon growing up.
But if we want to break cycles, and help groups to reach the levels of their peers, identifying their cultural strengths and liabilities, and talking openly about how to improve them through changes in behavior -- graduate HS, don't have children out of wedlock, keep a job, and avoiding felonies is a start according to the Brookings Institute -- is not just prudent its essential. It will never happen with echo champers professing culture doesn't matter, only external circumstanes determine the choices you make and thus your destiny.
(Good reads and vid IMO)
Black American Culture and the Racial Wealth Gap w/links to its cited studies
Sam Harris Podcast featuring author of above piece discussing the topic (both are liberals)