Comments on White Relief

What are the odds of getting pulled out of a car and beaten mercilessly by a white cop while the black cops are busy killing the black groom at the bachelor party across the street tho?

But Charles, in and of itself that statistic is meaningless.

What percentage of those black murder victims KNEW their killer?

Are you in a gang? Do you hang out with people in gangs? Are you 19? Do you wear gang-signified clothing?

The likelihood that YOU will be shot by a random stranger is fairly low.

OTOH, my ex still gets pulled over with alarming frequency for Driving While Black in nice neighborhoods.

Charles, you dumbass, the chances of a white person being a victim of a black man are equally higher than the chances of them being victimized by a white man. The prisons are full of black men for a reason, and it has nothing to do with racism: black men commit most of the crime in this country.

I am usually just concerned if they are male and I am walking alone at night.Maybe thats a chic thing.

Statistics sometimes are an indicator of truth Charles.

It's a sad fact that on average most of the time you hear of a violent crime being committed in the area, it invariably involves a black male. It is a very disproportionate statistic.

Any explanation on why that is? A glorification of the black gangsta mentality? Laziness as a general attribute that then causes the need to commit a crime to achieve wealth/prosperity?

What are your thoughts Charles?

When does society get to say enough is enough? How come we never hear of Asians, whites, or Middle Eastern Indians causing violent harm to society in the same frequency?

And people wonder why suburbs will continue to flourish? If for no other reason than to have a safe refuge from those who can't afford to live in their neighborhoods. They'll commute great distances and put up with paying higher gas prices for that type of peace of mind for their families.

I know I will.

As a woman, if I heard footsteps behind me and turned around and it was a white male I'd still be on alert. If I turned and it was another woman, regardless of race, I'm not sure I'd be alarmed, and yet women commit opportunistic crimes as well. Damn, I lost my train of thought, did I have a point?

@2:
But Charles, in and of itself that statistic is meaningless.

...

Are you in a gang? Do you hang out with people in gangs? Are you 19? Do you wear gang-signified clothing?

...

The likelihood that YOU will be shot by a random stranger is fairly low.

...so, you're suggesting that Charle's reading of the data is wrong, because black-on-black violence is statistically biased by most black males being in gangs?

I'd imagine a lot if not a majority of those murders are drug related. Considering that 20% of all state and half of all federal incarcerations are drug related, a serious look into this country's handling of drug offenses is desperately needed.

As a man, if I heard footsteps behind me and turned around and it was a white women, I'd know that she probably had better reflexes and was a more accurate shot than either a black man or a white man, and could easily conceal a pistol or carbine in her day-glo purse, so I'd not let down my guard.

Um, what were we talking about again? I seem to have drifted off.

On a strongly related note, it's a damn shame that whenever anti-racist folks try to enlighten the populace about white privilege and its role in the racism dynamic, stupid shit like this happens.

@7: I think you're reading that wrong. The deal is this: while black men who are gang members may be a small part of the population of black men, they are very much disproportionately violent, to the extent that it skews statistics for the whole population of black men. This would be clearer if black men in gangs were broken out and made into a separate population.

how is that more related than this.

Yawn.

Understanding conditioning is at the heart of understanding statistics. @2 is there. Others, apparently, are not.

They are broken out into a separate population - it's called prison, the breeding ground for even more crime.

Maybe if we spent more money on education we'd save a lot of people from dying?

you dumbass, the chances of a white person being a victim of a black man are equally higher than the chances of them being victimized by a white man.

Not true at all. A white man is over 5x more likely than a black man to commit a violent crime against a white person. The likelihood that your attacker is a white man goes up much more than that if you're a white woman.

Black-on-black crime is the only racial category in which black men are more disproportionately violent than white men.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_05.html

@5 the reason you dont hear of other minorities having these kinds of statistical problems is because they arent as downtrodden and abused as the black race in general. Historically, just like in all parts of the world, the group that has received the most animosity is the group most likely to retaliate. Blacks in this country get involved in drugs and crime stemming from revenge for being put in that position in the first place. Median salary, demographic positioning, and pre-conceived notions (as the post is suggesting) all contribute to the retaliation of the black man against his surroundings. And so the viscous cycle continues.

@5 - And what's the long-term effect of generation after generation of scared non-black people fleeing to the suburbs because they're afraid of blacks?

Look, if you emotionally abuse a child by telling them "you're stupid, you're worthless", by adulthood it's pretty much burned in that person's brain that they're stupid and worthless. I know, it's happened to people very close to me.

So, when an entire society sends the message to generation after generation of black men that "you're angry, you're violent, you're all criminals" is it really any wonder that so many of them never aspire to be anything else?

I'm not letting the black community off the hook here - I firmly believe that people choose their own destinies, but I am saying that, by hiding in the 'burbs because you're so scared of every single black man you see, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

@10 no joke. Caprice Hollins was a BIG mistake. A racist heading an anti-racism office spells disaster.

@10, planning for the future, encouraging individuality, and speaking and writing English well is "racism?" Only in ooga-boogaland.

@3,

White people commit the majority of crime. Yes, black people commit a disproportionate share, but they only make up 12 percent of the population.

Dumbass.

This effect disappears when socioeconomic status is controlled for. 25% of the black population lives under the poverty line, and the vast majority of those who live above it aren't criminals. But vivid anecdotes have always shaped racial views much more than statistics anyway.

Why is it that the same folks who cry "bias" at the media for its treatment of religion or the Iraq war can't see that their fear of blacks results from the same underlying process?

Yeah, right. That would explain why 60% of the prison population is black. Silly me.

On a slightly digressive note, someone really needs to call out Mudede for constantly trolling himself under the pseudonym "Bwana." Not to mention calling out Sandeep Kaushik, whatever alias he's been using on Slog all this time. I'd call out Mudede myself, but I'm afraid to. I once heard a rumor that he's a Scary Black Male.

I'm afraid if I piss him off, he might foreclose my house while snorting premium coke in the back seat of his limo.

Oddly enough this made me think of NOLA and Katrina. Does anybody else think that maybe the guvmint would've got their butts down there more quickly if it were say pictures of white people rather than black people on the evening news or do you think it's more of a white republicans instead of black democrats sort of thing?

No, Y.F., the only thing that would have gotten GWB off his butt would have been if there were pics of ultra-rich donors in trouble.

I once went to look at an apratment in Harlem. What a great deal -- several rooms for just about $800 I think it wass. A steal!!

Then on the way back to the subway three black guys intruded into my space and thoughts, saying hostile things and grabbing at me, saying "hey whitey what you doin' up here in Harlem you don't want to get high? come on in here and try my stuff man [trying to pull me into doorway] . hey where you goin'?"

I break free and hustle into a pharmacy, wait 20 minutes they go away, then skeedaddle to the subway, and get the fuck out of there, heart pounding.
After that I got a place on the upper west side south of that color line everyone in NYC knows about.

So I guess I reinforced racial boundaries and displayed great prejudice by perceiving "white" neighborhoods to be safer and living there, not in Harlem.

And no, I never did get attacked living in the "white" neighborhoods that I "perceived" as being safer despite walking home at 5 am all the time.

I guess I was tkaen over by "ideas that we may not endorse—for example, that a black stranger might harm us but a white one probably would not" -- that somehow became lodged in my mind, without my permission or awareness, and those false thoughts colored my perceptions, expectation and judgment that somehow it would be safer to be a white guy not living in the middle of Harlem, than to be a white guy living in the middle of Harlem. Meanwhile my cousin got raped in NYC inside her apartment in a "white" neighborhood by a person not of her race....so I guess jee whiz, I should have realized that she, too would have been better off living in the middle of Harlem, as her expectation of being safer in a "white" neighborhood didn't exactly play out.

Forunately, later on in life I read some posts in a Pacific Northwest blog site that set me straight and made me and my cousin realize what racists we were....that somehow, our thoughts based on race were causing those black guys to commit more crimes.....

@7 "...so, you're suggesting that Charle's reading of the data is wrong, because black-on-black violence is statistically biased by most black males being in gangs?"

What I'm suggesting is that most black-on-black violence is gang related. That if you are a black person who is not in a gang, then your chances of getting murdered by a random African-American are relatively low.

What I'm saying is that there is a dfference between RANDOM black-on-black violence and gang related black-on-black violence.

If most of the black-on-black violence was random, Charles would have a reason to be worried. If it's mostly gang related, he doesn't. Unless he's in a gang.

are you kidding, jessie? when i hear footsteps behind me and turn around to see it's a black man, i sigh in relief. a black man didn't date rape me, fire me from any job, or make my life hell at work and in junior high school. i feel much safer around the brothers and in the central district than i do in whitey mcwhiterson neighborhoods. that's what growing up in a mult-racial neighborhood and having african-american men as in-laws does to you.

p.s.: stop smoking, my brothers! cigarettes are just the man's way of getting rid of black people!

The other thing nobody pays attention to is that whites are frequently:

a. not charged (lawyers r fun if paid lots)
b. if charged, found not guilty (see the lawyers)
c. if found guilty, pardoned (again its cash)

Is it fair? No.

Does it work? Hell yeah!

Good one, Bwana! They represent 60% of the prison population so they must be responsible for 60% of the badness in this country.

Fucking genius.

This is the dumbest thread ever.

@16 Interesting raw numbers, but shouldn't that be combined with @21's comment about proportional representation?

For example: In the most traditional "white people are afraid of black people" way, the FBI numbers would seem to debunk this, since black-on-white crime (by the numbers) seems to be about 5x less numerous than white-on-white crime.

However, the fact that there are SIX times more white PEOPLE in the U.S (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity) , would mean that strictly statistically-speaking and from just those numbers, a white person WOULD be more likely to be murdered by a black person than a white one.

-----

Of course, this is mostly moot because, as @2, 7, and 11 alluded to, there are disproportionately (and visually identifiable) violent people clouding the demographic pool, and given the economic-based indicators @22 mentioned are much more telling.

-----

As it relates to "fear of black people" though... Human brains are not wired in a way that makes statistical sense. The things that stick the most indelably to our reptile brains are visual representations of things that could "pose an immediate danger at any given time".

Crimes of passion, accidents, "gang-related" murders, and so on don't register the same way that robberies. muggings, or "it could happen to ME" crimes do. And the simple fact is that regardless of the actual numbers and correlations, young black males are wildly over-represented in this area, both in the media and anecdotally (like @27)

Evolution has trained us to hardwire visual circumstances with danger. And while economic indicators may be a MUCH more accurate indicator of crime rates it doesn't seem to shortcut as easily as race when walking down an unfamiliar street..

Anyone ever notice the unspoken number of deaths by blowgun from Asian Hispanics around here?

It's almost as bad as the number of white people killed by fixies.

@27: when was this, 1975? Harlem's one of the safest city neighborhoods in the US. Maybe you wouldn't have so much trouble up there if you'd ditch the Aryan Nations tattoos.

@19,

Oh, Christ. I am so, fucking, sick of hearing white people accuse black people of "racism" whenever said black people merely point out the existence of racism as a systemic phenomenon.

Okay, shameless self-promotion: I wrote about the whole "future time orientation is racist" stupidfest in Eat The State! back in the day. It was tough enough then to explain why the concept of black-on-white "racism" is so crazy stupid. I'm not gonna try again from scratch within the cramped confines of Slog, so, here's the link.

"Oppressed" white male heterosexual conservatives can suck it.

In related news, Americans were more likely to be killed by other Americans.

News at 11!

@35

if u r joking it is not funny; if ur not joking then FYVM.
Seriously dude, I tried to do my little bit to break down color barriers and went apt. hunting in Harlem and the reward was to fear for my life -- and now you call me a nazi? It was 1981. FYI a few years later I was also hassled going to work in Harlem. I also worked in the Bronx in bombed out neighborhoods -- and got hassled there, too (physically threatened) -- robbed in DC -- You sit in ultra white, ultra safe Seattle and judge others when (I'd bet) you have never lived nor worked in any minority neighborhood such as Harlem or the Bronx. Perhaps you should call up my cousin and tell her she's a racist nazi, too, going and getting raped like that. OR should I give you the contact info on my NYC Jewish relatives who warned me against going to Harlem -- perhaps you'd like to tell them they're nazis, too?

Smug piece of shit.

1981 is a looooooooong loooooooong looooong time ago.

Like, at least 3 decades and almost 4. It's not just last century, babies conceived that evening have already graduated from college and their babies are now in daycare ...

I have looked and looked but can anyone give me a net reference for exactly when Jesse Jackson made that speech. I think it was around '94 but I'm not sure. Is there a transcript? Is the transcript backed up by a recording of some sort or is it all popular culture.

@10 Um, Charles Mudede is a huge fucking racist! What are you talking about! Jesse Jackson is a huge racist! Someone like Muded really ought to just go back to Zimbabwe and offer his help where it's really wanted and needed.

Has anyone noticed that this Jackson quote is at least 14 years old? Mike Royko used it in his column "Politically Incorrect, But Right On Target" on November 30, 1993. My respect for Jackson has done nothing but go downhill since. This might also be the LAST time he said anything truly critical of the black community, and CERTAINLY I can't remember him saying anything meaningfully critical of black church leaders who spew anti-homo or anti-white rhetoric. Notice how Jackson's been completely silent in the whole Jeremiah Wright crap? One could almost see him nodding his head watching Wright's interview.

@36: If you can't explain in 10 weeks why future time orientation is a contributor to institutional oppression, maybe it's because you haven't got a good argument?

@36 Jeff Stevens

you're a punk bitch. don't EVER call me - a very liberal queer low income Mexican American - an "oppressed white male heterosexual conservative". I'm low income because I chose a career that makes me happy. but keep spewing your prejudices and assumptions about how all (enter non-black race here) males are privileged.

it's fuckers like you and Caprice Hollins that use these stereotypes to justify your victimized mentality. but sure, continue on your quest to punish low income white children for other peoples prejudices.

has anybody considered that parenting and peers - not race - is the most important part of child's development? nope. in your mind it's some racist teacher\racist book\racist school board that's keeping the low income brothers down. fuck that.

seattle people are weak.

@36

Dear Jeff,

Having just finished the article that you linked in your previous post, I got a tickle out of the way you copped to writing it as “shameless self-promotion”. Maybe you should change that to “courageous admission of guilt.” Seriously. If that was intended to elucidate the aims of Caprice Hollins and her Equity & Race Relations department and extol the value of teaching anti-racism, then you failed on all counts.
You blame the negative reactions to Hollins and her methods on reactionary conservative backlash and unsophisticated, uneducated jingoism. I would agree that there is an element of that in some of the discussions that I have witnessed. But here’s the thing: It’s not just uneducated conservative jingoists who objected to the tone and content of Hollins and her website….it’s EVERYONE, save a handful of ideologically-driven individuals with dubious academic credentials.
I am consistently described as everything from a bleeding heart liberal to a “pinko” by my grandfather, but I have to say that the methods and rationale used by the aptly-named Caprice Hollins are simply vacuous and counterproductive.
You make much of the fact that her website was roundly criticized by detractors. But you admit that the terms were poorly defined and that adequate context was not provided to promote a real understanding of the issues. Stop me if I’m wrong, but if she and her organization cannot make themselves understood on a web page, WHY should we have any faith that they can do so in a classroom setting? An individual who makes $90,000 annually and allegedly has a PhD ought to be able to make cogent, convincing arguments to support her contentions, yes?

Oh, but then you get to the heart of the matter: That comprehending the complexities of the social constructions of racism are far beyond the understanding of unsophisticated laypersons. Yes, I forgot to get my Masters degree in Unearned White Privilege, therefore I simply don’t get it.
The problem for you (and Ms. Hollins) is that for your endeavor to be successful, you must somehow educate the unwashed masses about your ethereal concepts.
Here it is in a nutshell: At no point in your article are you able to actually explain the significance of the much discussed “future time orientation” idea. You spin around in circles talking about it but appear unable to define it. Ms. Hollins was similarly unable to give a meaningful definition. It appears to most of us that you and Hollins are pseudo-intellectuals blowing very wordy but meaningless hot air up our collective asses.
If you cannot explain and justify your goals and your reasoning, don’t expect anyone to buy your ideas. Plus, the smug, arrogant and dismissive tone of your writings does not invite understanding.

Will,

It's all a game of telephone, isn't it?

You've interpreted my article as claiming that "comprehending the complexities of the social constructions of racism are far beyond the understanding of unsophisticated laypersons."

On the contrary, I strongly believe, and was trying to argue in the article, that the ability to comprehend the complexities of the social construction of racism, and race, should be made publicly accessible to the understanding of laypersons.

And, yes, I'll maintain that it wasn't merely Hollins's (admittedly fumbled) attempts to provide that necessary education to Seattle's K-12 students that rankled certain people. It was the concept of white privilege itself which frustratingly makes such people react and rile and claim that white people are being "oppressed" by black people's attempts to bring real philosophy into the discourse on race and racism in America.

And so it goes.

@44,

Thanks for the feral invective, but really, no thanks. FYI, I'm a white male heterosexual who was raised by a single mother on food stamps. I guess that makes me an elitist, just like Barack Obama, right?

It's like this, okay: All white people have white privilege, all men have male privilege, all heterosexuals have straight privilege, etc. That's all I'm gonna say, lest we get further into misinterpretive and reactionary quicksand, with all the cheap and impotent epithets ("elitist punk faggot breeder slut etc.") that go with it.

Please think about it instead of merely knee-jerk reacting, okay?

@43,

Oh, Jeeeeeeezus. Caprice Hollins never fucking said that! She claimed on the SPS web page that future time orientation is one of several "aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as 'other,' different, less than, or render them invisible."

She did not make a direct link between future time orientation and institutional racism. Andrew Coulson did.

On a related note, would you like to explain Karl Marx's theory of alienated labor to me in 10 minutes? Or would you agree that maybe that, too, might take a little more time. Like, say, a 10-week academic course?