'Whites Can Be Black if They Wish' says Lecturers' Union

[little bongo]

A good example of this is the difference between "black lives matter"- the idea and "Black Lives Matter" -the political organization. All of the population who aren't white supremacists (probably 99% of the population) agree with the idea  but reject many of the positions of the political organization. (One of those ideas is the defunding of police.) This is illustrated by people saying "all lives matter". Since "all" includes black people, then it absolutely supports the idea, while implicitly rejecting support for the political organization.

If I say 'Save the whales!', I'm not saying 'Save only the whales and let everything else in the ocean die'. I'm expressing particular concern for a particular segment of marine life, and advocating for solutions which will help it and other marine life too. If I say 'save the whales!' and you respond with 'save all marine life', while the content of your utterance is unobjectionable, its function in context is to deny that there's anything special to worry about with respect to whales.

The same is true of the Black/all lives matter talk. When people are protesting in the streets and saying 'Black lives matter', they're responding to particular events which indicate the extent to which Black lives don't matter. They're responding to events in which police murder Black people for no good reason. That's not to deny that white and Indigenous and Latinx people are also murdered by the police; it's just to express concern about the disproportionate rate at which Black people experience this kind of violence. The solution everyone is calling for is less police brutality in general, and a recognition of the particular harms visited upon Black and minority communities. Those are solutions which will benefit everyone who interacts with the police. When you respond to that by saying 'all lives matter', although the content of your utterance is unobjectionable, its function in context is to deny that there's a particular problem. It's a distraction, an attempt to shift the conversation in another direction. 'Black lives matter' is a call for equality of treatment; 'all lives matter' is a hollow, pedantic correction.

In other words, if we want to plug 'all lives matter', we need to start by showing that it's true. And that means taking particular care where some lives are disproportionately affected. If it's sincerely meant, then great: when I look at the people saying it, I should be looking at people who are actively trying to change law enforcement culture, prosecute police brutality, etc. But that's not what I see when I look at that crowd. I see widespread misunderstanding and mischaracterization, and I see too many white supremacists for comfort. It's fine if you mean well, but then show it. And maybe take a moment to worry about your well-meaning message of solidarity being hijacked by the ghost costume brigade.

The evidence from the world around me, right now, indicates that it's simply not true that all lives matter. Some lives clearly matter more than others.

Yes, this, this, this, 1,000 times this. But as clear as Parasaurolophus has made this point, it's just not going to land with everyone.

As for systemic racism and individuals, it's also worth noting the way people casually expressed themselves not all that long ago. Looking at popular plays and entertainment from the 1920s, for example, you'll come across variations on treating somebody "white," being white, or "say, that's white of you!" A great deal of people, with no particular malice, accepted and used that way of expression to mean treating somebody with respect or being the best kind of person one could be. In the play "They Knew What They Wanted," (which formed the basis of the later 1950s musical "The Most Happy Fella") the heroine toward the end says of her much older Italian husband something along the lines of, "Poor Tony! He's a white guy if he is a wop." And that connects us to the myriad racial and ethnic slurs of the period, all having to do with not being white, but instead being a wop, sheeny, paddy, and so on. The book "How the Irish Became White" by Noel Ignatiev has some great information on how the Irish (and other groups) gradually climbed a "ladder of whiteness" to gain acceptance--and one way to do that was to gang up on black folks.

The point, or at least one point, is that in 2020, most people would now object to what was once considered a pretty normal, everyday way of speaking. So people agree to systemic racism, put it in place, and eventually absorb it without too much thought--but it's also possible to raise awareness and say, "Hm, maybe 'mighty white of you' is NOT the best way to express my complimentary intentions in this case..." That requires a bit of soul-searching and yes, discomfort.

[marshwiggle]

Specifically, black lives taken by white people matter much more than black lives taken by other black people.

It's a call for an end to police brutality, not white police brutality.

The Washington Post has a searchable database

From 2019:
The number of shootings of unarmed people by police: 55
The number of shootings of black unarmed people by police: 14 (25%)
The number of shootings of white unarmed people by police: 25 (45%)
The number of shootings of Hispanic unarmed people by police: 11 (20%)
The number of shootings of other unarmed people by police: 5 (9%)

Of those people, 11 had some sort of mental illness.

Of the black people shot, 3 were fleeing by car.
Of the black people shot, 5 were fleeing on foot.

You can go on and on; it's pretty cool to be able to apply filters, and the associated stories show up at the bottom of the page. (The database doesn't have filters for characteristics of the police officers, and the stories often don't contain details either.)


At any rate, if the issue is "police brutality, not white police brutality", then there should be roughly twice as much focus on white unarmed people being shot by police as on black unarmed people shot by police.

The deflection to 'Black-on-Black' crime is a red herring. Tellingly, I don't remember anyone going around on September 12, 2001 saying "but what about white-on-white crime?!", even though it's true that white people are most often killed by other white people.

It's not deflection; it's pointing out that coverage is not proportional to data; there are certain narratives that get much more coverage for ideological reasons.

[mahagonny]

Specifically, black lives taken by white people matter much more than black lives taken by other black people.

It's a call for an end to police brutality, not white police brutality.


The deflection to 'Black-on-Black' crime is a red herring. Tellingly, I don't remember anyone going around on September 12, 2001 saying "but what about white-on-white crime?!", even though it's true that white people are most often killed by other white people.

I can't believe I'm reading something as stupid as this.

[little bongo]

Specifically, black lives taken by white people matter much more than black lives taken by other black people.

It's a call for an end to police brutality, not white police brutality.

The Washington Post has a searchable database

From 2019:
The number of shootings of unarmed people by police: 55
The number of shootings of black unarmed people by police: 14 (25%)
The number of shootings of white unarmed people by police: 25 (45%)
The number of shootings of Hispanic unarmed people by police: 11 (20%)
The number of shootings of other unarmed people by police: 5 (9%)

Of those people, 11 had some sort of mental illness.

Of the black people shot, 3 were fleeing by car.
Of the black people shot, 5 were fleeing on foot.

You can go on and on; it's pretty cool to be able to apply filters, and the associated stories show up at the bottom of the page. (The database doesn't have filters for characteristics of the police officers, and the stories often don't contain details either.)


At any rate, if the issue is "police brutality, not white police brutality", then there should be roughly twice as much focus on white unarmed people being shot by police as on black unarmed people shot by police.

The deflection to 'Black-on-Black' crime is a red herring. Tellingly, I don't remember anyone going around on September 12, 2001 saying "but what about white-on-white crime?!", even though it's true that white people are most often killed by other white people.

It's not deflection; it's pointing out that coverage is not proportional to data; there are certain narratives that get much more coverage for ideological reasons.

Well, lies, damned lies, and statistics, as the saying goes. (Fun fact: the saying most likely did not originate with either Mark Twain or Benjamin Disraeli.) If we're just counting numbers, we're missing a lot of perspective with regard to proportion. But I think there's a bigger issue. Let's say you've gone through this database very carefully and found all the numbers you need to find to say, "Aha! These acts of protest are not supported by data!" So... why? What exactly did that accomplish? Have you made institutional racism disappear in a puff of logic? And why is it so important for you, or anybody, to do so? What's at stake for you? Why not just say, "These people should not have been killed. Let's find a solution." Are you bothered by some young "wokester" and their lecturing tone? It seems to me I've been reminded by a number of Scut Farkases* and Grover Dills* on these fora that the tone shouldn't matter if the substance is important. So in other words, yeah, this is most definitely a deflection. And again, the question arises--why?

*the chief antagonists from "A Christmas Story." I could also just stick with "rudesbies" and "mockingbird-killers."

[apl68]

Specifically, black lives taken by white people matter much more than black lives taken by other black people.

It's a call for an end to police brutality, not white police brutality.

The Washington Post has a searchable database

From 2019:
The number of shootings of unarmed people by police: 55
The number of shootings of black unarmed people by police: 14 (25%)
The number of shootings of white unarmed people by police: 25 (45%)
The number of shootings of Hispanic unarmed people by police: 11 (20%)
The number of shootings of other unarmed people by police: 5 (9%)

Of those people, 11 had some sort of mental illness.

Of the black people shot, 3 were fleeing by car.
Of the black people shot, 5 were fleeing on foot.

You can go on and on; it's pretty cool to be able to apply filters, and the associated stories show up at the bottom of the page. (The database doesn't have filters for characteristics of the police officers, and the stories often don't contain details either.)


At any rate, if the issue is "police brutality, not white police brutality", then there should be roughly twice as much focus on white unarmed people being shot by police as on black unarmed people shot by police.

The deflection to 'Black-on-Black' crime is a red herring. Tellingly, I don't remember anyone going around on September 12, 2001 saying "but what about white-on-white crime?!", even though it's true that white people are most often killed by other white people.

It's not deflection; it's pointing out that coverage is not proportional to data; there are certain narratives that get much more coverage for ideological reasons.

The statistics on shootings you cite are worth bearing in mind for proportion's sake, not least because to hear some tell it police officers are gunning down people in the streets by the hundreds.  The thing is, though, the shootings are only the sparks that set off the powder kegs.  What has filled up the powder kegs is a long-term pattern of aggressive policing in black communities in many cities.  For example, the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri came on top of years of heavy-handed enforcement that aimed at maximizing revenue from fines for misdemeanor offenses.  The members of the black community there had legitimate grievances.  Rioting is always wrong, but communities don't riot for no reason.

Quite a few other cities have similar problems even now with police forces that have spent years burning their bridges with the local black community.  So far as I'm aware, there aren't any white communities in the U.S. that feel a similar sense of large-scale alienation from the local police force.  If a white person gets shot by the police, local white residents--except maybe for the shooting victim's close friends and family--are inclined to give the police the benefit of the doubt.  A disturbingly high number of black Americans don't feel that the police have earned that benefit of the doubt from them.

That's why police reform to rebuild relations with black communities is such an urgent need.  These reform efforts don't need to be hijacked or derailed by groups pushing more radical agendas.  Not long ago I noticed an article in the New York Times that observed that many rank-and-file black protestors do NOT want to see the police de-funded.  They're well aware that their communities still need serious policing.  But they want major changes in how it is done.  A lot of the calls to de-fund, or even disband, police departments come from outside the communities that are most directly impacted by police brutality.

[marshwiggle]

Specifically, black lives taken by white people matter much more than black lives taken by other black people.

It's a call for an end to police brutality, not white police brutality.

The Washington Post has a searchable database

From 2019:
The number of shootings of unarmed people by police: 55
The number of shootings of black unarmed people by police: 14 (25%)
The number of shootings of white unarmed people by police: 25 (45%)
The number of shootings of Hispanic unarmed people by police: 11 (20%)
The number of shootings of other unarmed people by police: 5 (9%)

Of those people, 11 had some sort of mental illness.

Of the black people shot, 3 were fleeing by car.
Of the black people shot, 5 were fleeing on foot.

You can go on and on; it's pretty cool to be able to apply filters, and the associated stories show up at the bottom of the page. (The database doesn't have filters for characteristics of the police officers, and the stories often don't contain details either.)


At any rate, if the issue is "police brutality, not white police brutality", then there should be roughly twice as much focus on white unarmed people being shot by police as on black unarmed people shot by police.

The deflection to 'Black-on-Black' crime is a red herring. Tellingly, I don't remember anyone going around on September 12, 2001 saying "but what about white-on-white crime?!", even though it's true that white people are most often killed by other white people.

It's not deflection; it's pointing out that coverage is not proportional to data; there are certain narratives that get much more coverage for ideological reasons.

The statistics on shootings you cite are worth bearing in mind for proportion's sake, not least because to hear some tell it police officers are gunning down people in the streets by the hundreds.  The thing is, though, the shootings are only the sparks that set off the powder kegs.  What has filled up the powder kegs is a long-term pattern of aggressive policing in black communities in many cities.  For example, the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri came on top of years of heavy-handed enforcement that aimed at maximizing revenue from fines for misdemeanor offenses.  The members of the black community there had legitimate grievances.  Rioting is always wrong, but communities don't riot for no reason.

That's the kind of nuanced statement I have no objection to.

Quite a few other cities have similar problems even now with police forces that have spent years burning their bridges with the local black community.  So far as I'm aware, there aren't any white communities in the U.S. that feel a similar sense of large-scale alienation from the local police force.  If a white person gets shot by the police, local white residents--except maybe for the shooting victim's close friends and family--are inclined to give the police the benefit of the doubt.  A disturbingly high number of black Americans don't feel that the police have earned that benefit of the doubt from them.

Regarding white communities; there seems to be increasing unrest when police are called in to deal with someone with mental health issues. An argument is often made that police shouldn't be the ones dealing with this. It's true that mental health professionals or social workers would have more appropriate training, but often police are called by family members, because the person is unstable. As long as there is a risk of violence, it's unlikely other professionals are going to risk going in alone, but even if police accompany them, the police will be blamed if anything goes badly.

That's why police reform to rebuild relations with black communities is such an urgent need.  These reform efforts don't need to be hijacked or derailed by groups pushing more radical agendas. 

Recently many of these efforts to get police involved in positive ways in struggling communities have been criticized by BLM and their supporters. In Toronto, a couple of years back, BLM shut down the Pride parade and demanded that police be forbidden from participating.

Not long ago I noticed an article in the New York Times that observed that many rank-and-file black protestors do NOT want to see the police de-funded.  They're well aware that their communities still need serious policing.  But they want major changes in how it is done.  A lot of the calls to de-fund, or even disband, police departments come from outside the communities that are most directly impacted by police brutality.

i.e. from self-righteous white people.

[Parasaurolophus]

At any rate, if the issue is "police brutality, not white police brutality", then there should be roughly twice as much focus on white unarmed people being shot by police as on black unarmed people shot by police.

Do the statistics show that white people are twice as brutalized as Black people are? Because it doesn't look to me like that's how the numbers shake out.

It also looks like now we're bringing in media coverage and community organizing. I don't know why white people don't care more about police brutality, but they should. But the fact that they're not as mobilized to protest against excessive violence does not imply that there's no problem with institutionalized violence against Black people, or that it should not be addressed.

The deflection to 'Black-on-Black' crime is a red herring. Tellingly, I don't remember anyone going around on September 12, 2001 saying "but what about white-on-white crime?!", even though it's true that white people are most often killed by other white people.

I can't believe I'm reading something as stupid as this.

You're right, it would have been a stupid response. And transparently so, since it's clearly irrelevant. It shouldn't be hard to see that when people are protesting police brutality and, in particular, the way that their communities are singled out for brutality, talking about "Black-on-Black" crime is just as stupid and irrelevant.

[mahagonny]

I fully agree with this.  However, the tone of so much commentary on racial matters gives the definite impression that guilt and self flagellation and a generally abject attitude are what is being demanded of whites who want to be considered acceptable citizens and allies.  Attitudes like that are not helpful. 

Well, and some people are willing participants. Some whites are having a blast with the guilt and self-flagellation, without much clear thought going into it, so in that case, I guess my attitude is 'let them.' In our free country one has the right to follow the herd or to be silly of his own accord.
But, worthy of comment, these requirements cross into anti-intellectualism. Too often guilt and self flagellation also include the requirement that white people must not have any judgmental attitudes (do any thinking) about black people's behavior. Where would we be if we couldn't judge our own behavior? How would we be helping raise our children or our neighbor's by being that way?
The demand is, you can't analyze; you can't think, unless your thought culminates with the apologetic not-daring-to-keep-silent-not-daring-to-observe-anything-that-doesn't-fit-the-narrative-of-how-humans-of-color -find-setbacks... or even self-construct them. We have to wait for the occasional, resolutely out-of-fashion black writer to do it. And so, again, I show you John McWhorter. It's not a new piece, and sadly, was never listened to enough. Maybe that will change if people are finding out who he is.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/how-hip-hop-holds-blacks-back-12442.html

[mahagonny]

The deflection to 'Black-on-Black' crime is a red herring. Tellingly, I don't remember anyone going around on September 12, 2001 saying "but what about white-on-white crime?!", even though it's true that white people are most often killed by other white people.

I can't believe I'm reading something as stupid as this.

You're right, it would have been a stupid response. And transparently so, since it's clearly irrelevant. It shouldn't be hard to see that when people are protesting police brutality and, in particular, the way that their communities are singled out for brutality, talking about "Black-on-Black" crime is just as stupid and irrelevant.

Let's say we know they are 'singled out' for brutality. When  police are required to work in a neighborhood with lots of crime, it seems reasonable that they would experience more stress, fear, and perhaps make more mistakes.

[Parasaurolophus]

So would the residents, but they never get a pass. Only the cops get away with assault, battery, and murder. The problem is not just that cops do it, but that they do it with impunity. Even when hundreds of thousands of people protest, it's incredibly hard to hold them to account.

[marshwiggle]

So would the residents, but they never get a pass. Only the cops get away with assault, battery, and murder.

As I quoted above, there were a total of 55 shootings of unarmed people by the police in 2019, and only 14 of those were black people.  There were 25 white peole shot.

The problem is not just that cops do it, but that they do it with impunity. Even when hundreds of thousands of people protest, it's incredibly hard to hold them to account.

With impunity? Really???? Pretty much every time an unarmed black person gets shot by police it makes national (and often international) news. Shootings of unarmed white people by police may not get beyond the local newspaper.


That kind of hyperbole makes it hard to have a meaningful discussion. (As I've said, I'm all for things like bodycams and dashcams to make these things easier to investigate.)

[ergative]

So would the residents, but they never get a pass. Only the cops get away with assault, battery, and murder.

As I quoted above, there were a total of 55 shootings of unarmed people by the police in 2019, and only 14 of those were black people.  There were 25 white peole shot.

The problem is not just that cops do it, but that they do it with impunity. Even when hundreds of thousands of people protest, it's incredibly hard to hold them to account.

With impunity? Really???? Pretty much every time an unarmed black person gets shot by police it makes national (and often international) news. Shootings of unarmed white people by police may not get beyond the local newspaper.


That kind of hyperbole makes it hard to have a meaningful discussion. (As I've said, I'm all for things like bodycams and dashcams to make these things easier to investigate.)

Well, Brett Hankison, John Mattingly, and Myles Cosgrove still haven't been charged with anything. And Eddie Gallagher was pardoned. And no charges were ever brought against Daniel Pantaleo.  I don't really think my statement was hyperbolic.

I agree that as an academic, it's on us to "examine issues deeply and consider all of the nuances to arrive at a rational, if necessarily complex interpretation." But 'How dare you be so hyperbolic! Just for that I'm out of here!' doesn't sound like that.

If you don't want to engage I can't make you. But I'll never approve of it, and I'm not going to accept any responsibility for 'look what you made me do'.

I feel like these conversations are going in circles.

[Parasaurolophus]

As I quoted above, there were a total of 55 shootings of unarmed people by the police in 2019, and only 14 of those were black people.  There were 25 white peole shot.

How many of those were justified? How many of those which weren't resulted in charges? How many of those charged resulted in a conviction? If people are asking for accountability, the number of unarmed shootings isn't the number that's relevant. And, as before, you seem to be suggesting (1) that white people are twice as likely as Black people to be shot by police, and (2) that because of (1), the issues raised by protesters are somehow misguided. But (1) is just bad maths, and (2) is a weird straw man, if not a whole red herring.

Also remember two things: (1) that database is incomplete (it's based on news headlines, but even other, more rigorous databases are acknowledged to be substantially incomplete), and (2) it's a tally of police shootings. It doesn't count deaths in custody as a result of choke-holds, kneeling on someone's neck, battery, tasering, vehicle use, or other suspicious deaths in custody. It doesn't count deaths due to "excited delirium", which isn't a thing but which is still used to exculpate police.

A better tool is https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/states, since it counts most of these other causes of death, not just shootings. There, I count 108 unarmed deaths by police for 2019, 26 of them Black people. That's pretty high for 13% of the country. You can also see the rate of police killings per 1 000 000 people.

With impunity? Really???? Pretty much every time an unarmed black person gets shot by police it makes national (and often international) news. Shootings of unarmed white people by police may not get beyond the local newspaper.

"Impunity" means "without punishment or adverse consequences". If it takes national-level protests to hold someone accountable for their actions, then your system of accountability doesn't work very well. Officers who violate regulations or commit crimes should be disciplined or charged as a matter of course, as any other citizen would be. But they aren't.

Also, it's simply not true that every unarmed Black person who's shot makes the headlines. They sometimes do, and when we're in a period of protests, as we currently are, more do because we're paying more attention. But months and years can easily go by, and headlines aren't the same as investigations, charging, prosecuting, etc. Headlines =/= accountability.

Well, Brett Hankison, John Mattingly, and Myles Cosgrove still haven't been charged with anything. And Eddie Gallagher was pardoned. And no charges were ever brought against Daniel Pantaleo.  I don't really think my statement was hyperbolic.

I agree that as an academic, it's on us to "examine issues deeply and consider all of the nuances to arrive at a rational, if necessarily complex interpretation." But 'How dare you be so hyperbolic! Just for that I'm out of here!' doesn't sound like that.

If you don't want to engage I can't make you. But I'll never approve of it, and I'm not going to accept any responsibility for 'look what you made me do'.

I feel like these conversations are going in circles.

Yeah, really.

[downer]

I feel like these conversations are going in circles.

That seems a generous interpretation.

[marshwiggle]

A better tool is https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/states, since it counts most of these other causes of death, not just shootings. There, I count 108 unarmed deaths by police for 2019, 26 of them Black people. That's pretty high for 13% of the country. You can also see the rate of police killings per 1 000 000 people.

That's an interesting database. I was interested to see in the secriptions of the "unarmed" cases, how frequently the person was in possesion of a replica weapon. Unless police are psychic, it's no surpise if the response is the same as it would be to a "real" gun.

As far as the rate of 26/108 for 13% of the population, correcting for income and/or employment status would probably reduce the disparity. (Higher rates of poverty and unemployment in black communities is a societal problem, but not specifically a police problem. In other words, changes to policing will not by itself change the employment rate or income in those communities.)

With impunity? Really???? Pretty much every time an unarmed black person gets shot by police it makes national (and often international) news. Shootings of unarmed white people by police may not get beyond the local newspaper.

"Impunity" means "without punishment or adverse consequences". If it takes national-level protests to hold someone accountable for their actions, then your system of accountability doesn't work very well. Officers who violate regulations or commit crimes should be disciplined or charged as a matter of course, as any other citizen would be. But they aren't.

Since police (like the military) are called on by society to enter dangerous situations that ordinary people are unwilling to face, there has to be a higher bar for the level of force that counts as "criminal" than for regular people. That doesn't mean they can do what they want, but it does mean that investigations need to be thourough since their actions will necessarily entail behaviour that would not be acceptable by ordinary citizens.