The murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, MN last Monday, May 25

[Wahoo Redux]

More than one thing can be true at a time.

It is possible that AA communities, after centuries of systematic institutionalized violence, wealth disparity, and oppression, are now more crime-ridden than white communities.

And it is possible that police react disproportionately to black perpetrators---sometimes because of lingering racism. 

It is not illogical to think that these two things go together.  In fact, it would be surprising if they didn't.

All power to you, Treehugger.

[Treehugger]

So far so good. However, when I read the material on the #shutdownSTEM website (which was sent to my husband, who shared it with me), I saw that not only were they calling for anti-racist action on June 10th, but they were calling academia in general and STEM in particular "white supremacist." I'm sorry? What? What are your grounds for calling institutions and departments who are already doing their best to be inclusive "white supremacist?" From what I have read, I suspect that it is in part because the number of specifically black professors does not match the percentage of blacks in the general population. However, they are many possible reasons for this and I actually think that a supposed "culture of white supremacy" is one of the least plausible ones.

(First of all, sorry to hear about your horrible experience in high school.)

Some of my thoughts to illustrate the points above:

My experience is also that the vast amount of male faculty in STEM want to encourage young women and non-white students. Smart, keen students don't grow on trees so any that you find are valued. In the labs I do for an electronics course only about 20% of students are women. Some of them really enjoy the labs, and I tell all of the students about my follow-up course which they might enjoy.  There are usually less than 20% of women in the follow-up course. I realized that it's not a question of whether they think my course would be interesting; it's whether they think my course would be the most interesting option for them.

(When students apply to programs, they indicate 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices. Statistics over the years have established that when offers of admission are made to students, of the people who rated the program their 1st choice they accept at a very high rate, like 80% or something. When they rated it their 2nd choice, the acceptance rate is much lower, like 30% or so, and if they rated it their 3rd choice, it's only around 5%. So even if something is their 2nd favourite choice the uptake will be much lower than if it's their first.)


To sum up: when people make choice based on their preferences, small differences can make notable differences in outcomes, without having to invoke any nefarious motives.

And this is without getting into differences between different ethnic groups in career expectations for their children, which vastly affects student choices.

This has been exactly my experience. I originally got my BS in Computer Science and went on to become a software engineer because I really needed the $$. As soon as I did not need the $$ anymore (I got married to a high-earning man), I changed career paths to something I liked more, something in the humanities. So, yes, I was good at CS and enjoyed the work. But I am better in the humanities and enjoy it even more.

[mahagonny]

It is possible that AA communities, after centuries of systematic institutionalized violence, wealth disparity, and oppression, are now more crime-ridden than white communities.

They could also be more crime ridden because people like George Floyd are present in them. After serving five years for being the ringleader in a home invasion (a pregnant black woman's home), he was again a free man, and continued buying illegal drugs, hanging out in public stoned out of his mind, and probably passing counterfeit bills, and who knows what else. But what you read about him is stuff like this: 'the changed man.' 'Joined the ministry.' "Determined to change.' 'The Gentle Giant.'

https://www.the-sun.com/news/931741/did-george-floyd-have-criminal-past/

I don't know any gentlemen who are capable of running an armed home invasion.

[Parasaurolophus]

More than one thing can be true at a time.

It is possible that AA communities, after centuries of systematic institutionalized violence, wealth disparity, and oppression, are now more crime-ridden than white communities.

And it is possible that police react disproportionately to black perpetrators---sometimes because of lingering racism. 

It is not illogical to think that these two things go together.  In fact, it would be surprising if they didn't.

Yes.

Intersectionality is a real phenomenon. What we find, time and again, is that crime is clearly tied to poverty, childhood lead exposure, lack of legal recourse to solve your problems (e.g. because the police are largely absent or don't care to act--or because they routinely and actively act against your community), one-sided interventions and record-keeping, etc. And unfortunately, historical, environmental, and economic factors all come together in a negative way when we're talking about Black communities, and these problems are self-reinforcing (and inter-reinforcing).

Just consider the environmental side of things. In the 1990s, for families earning less that $6000, 68% of African American children had lead poisoning, compared to 36% of white children; for incomes over $15 000, it was 38% compared to 12%. We know childhood lead poisoning leads to more violent adults. And, as we saw in the city of Flint, it's not that some mustachio-twirling man actively decided to poison Black families; rather, all it took was an ill-advised economic decision to switch their water supply in a city whose finances were not capable of addressing the ensuing problem (or, indeed, of removing existing lead pipes, as wealthier cities have done). Well, that, and a total abrogation of their duty of care for their citizens (since the corrosion could have been foreseen with adequate study). Combine those environmental and economic factors with a police department that doesn't have the resources to adequately police the city, so that citizens cannot rely on police assistance, and you've got the makings of a bad situation that isn't going to get better. Those can will move out, leaving behind those who are unable to finance a move. That further reduces the city's tax base, reducing their ability to address these issues. And the low property values will mean an influx of people who have been pushed out of other areas and can only afford to live there, thus compounding the area's already dire needs.

But we know all this. It's not new. And it doesn't indicate that some group of people are inherently more violent than others.

This is especially true when you're talking about things like arrest rates for particular offenses, especially when we know that the police are more likely to let the offenses slide where some kinds of people are concerned. Just look at their tolerance of armed white militias during these current protests, as opposed to the violent crackdown on peaceful Black protestors just feet away. Or consider how hard it is for sex workers to be treated as normal citizens when they report crimes--or, indeed, consider how blasé the police are about the murders of people in "at risk" categories, like sex workers, drug users, or LGBTQ+ people (and let's not forget how those categories often overlap, or why), or indeed anyone who isn't a "respectable" citizen.

Or, if you want a personal anecdote: in my last year of university, I was attacked by five white teens (late teens) armed with beer bottles, who screamed racial slurs and told me to go back home during the assault. (I'm white, but I often pass for another race among ignoramuses.) This was in a small university town with good town-gown relations. The cops took hours to show up, and when they did they shrugged their shoulders and chalked it up to boys being boys. So even though it was a violent hate crime, it never entered into anyone's statistics. I'd be surprised if they even bothered to file a report.

[marshwiggle]

Just consider the environmental side of things. In the 1990s, for families earning less that $6000, 68% of African American children had lead poisoning, compared to 36% of white children; for incomes over $15 000, it was 38% compared to 12%. We know childhood lead poisoning leads to more violent adults. And, as we saw in the city of Flint, it's not that some mustachio-twirling man actively decided to poison Black families; rather, all it took was an ill-advised economic decision to switch their water supply in a city whose finances were not capable of addressing the ensuing problem (or, indeed, of removing existing lead pipes, as wealthier cities have done). Well, that, and a total abrogation of their duty of care for their citizens (since the corrosion could have been foreseen with adequate study). Combine those environmental and economic factors with a police department that doesn't have the resources to adequately police the city, so that citizens cannot rely on police assistance, and you've got the makings of a bad situation that isn't going to get better. Those can will move out, leaving behind those who are unable to finance a move. That further reduces the city's tax base, reducing their ability to address these issues. And the low property values will mean an influx of people who have been pushed out of other areas and can only afford to live there, thus compounding the area's already dire needs.

But we know all this. It's not new. And it doesn't indicate that some group of people are inherently more violent than others.

This still raises the question of how (or even whether) it makes more sense to treat these as issues of racial discrimination rather than socioeconomic inequality. It's like the issue of hate crimes; shouldn't people be appalled that some completely innocent person got beaten up, regardless of the victim's ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.?  The intent of tying it to discrimination of some sort is understandable, but it has the side effect of suggesting the crime itself is somehow "not so bad" under other circumstances.

[Treehugger]

Just consider the environmental side of things. In the 1990s, for families earning less that $6000, 68% of African American children had lead poisoning, compared to 36% of white children; for incomes over $15 000, it was 38% compared to 12%. We know childhood lead poisoning leads to more violent adults. And, as we saw in the city of Flint, it's not that some mustachio-twirling man actively decided to poison Black families; rather, all it took was an ill-advised economic decision to switch their water supply in a city whose finances were not capable of addressing the ensuing problem (or, indeed, of removing existing lead pipes, as wealthier cities have done). Well, that, and a total abrogation of their duty of care for their citizens (since the corrosion could have been foreseen with adequate study). Combine those environmental and economic factors with a police department that doesn't have the resources to adequately police the city, so that citizens cannot rely on police assistance, and you've got the makings of a bad situation that isn't going to get better. Those can will move out, leaving behind those who are unable to finance a move. That further reduces the city's tax base, reducing their ability to address these issues. And the low property values will mean an influx of people who have been pushed out of other areas and can only afford to live there, thus compounding the area's already dire needs.

But we know all this. It's not new. And it doesn't indicate that some group of people are inherently more violent than others.

This still raises the question of how (or even whether) it makes more sense to treat these as issues of racial discrimination rather than socioeconomic inequality. It's like the issue of hate crimes; shouldn't people be appalled that some completely innocent person got beaten up, regardless of the victim's ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.?  The intent of tying it to discrimination of some sort is understandable, but it has the side effect of suggesting the crime itself is somehow "not so bad" under other circumstances.

Exactly! This is why I support broad-based social economic reforms for all troubled communities regardless of the race and ethnicity involved. I realize that there are all kinds of sophisticated theoretical and historical justifications for prioritizing black communities, but the fact is that blatantly favoring one race over others, no matter how great you think the justification is, is not going to bring racial harmony to this country. No matter how you spin it, there are going to be whites who take offense (whether or not you personally think this offense is justified). If we truly focus on floating all the boats, the radical right will have much less traction and black communities will be helped (or allowed to self-empower).

[Wahoo Redux]

It is possible that AA communities, after centuries of systematic institutionalized violence, wealth disparity, and oppression, are now more crime-ridden than white communities.

They could also be more crime ridden because people like George Floyd are present in them. After serving five years for being the ringleader in a home invasion (a pregnant black woman's home), he was again a free man, and continued buying illegal drugs, hanging out in public stoned out of his mind, and probably passing counterfeit bills, and who knows what else. But what you read about him is stuff like this: 'the changed man.' 'Joined the ministry.' "Determined to change.' 'The Gentle Giant.'

https://www.the-sun.com/news/931741/did-george-floyd-have-criminal-past/

I don't know any gentlemen who are capable of running an armed home invasion.

None of that gives the police the right to murder him.

[Parasaurolophus]

I think it's important to notice and remember how these issues intersect with race, and create perfect storms whose impacts disproportionately fall on people of colour. Not doing so is a recipe for the same old externalization of costs that we see happening over and over again.

This still raises the question of how (or even whether) it makes more sense to treat these as issues of racial discrimination rather than socioeconomic inequality. It's like the issue of hate crimes; shouldn't people be appalled that some completely innocent person got beaten up, regardless of the victim's ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.?  The intent of tying it to discrimination of some sort is understandable, but it has the side effect of suggesting the crime itself is somehow "not so bad" under other circumstances.

Exactly! This is why I support broad-based social economic reforms for all troubled communities regardless of the race and ethnicity involved. I realize that there are all kinds of sophisticated theoretical and historical justifications for prioritizing black communities, but the fact is that blatantly favoring one race over others, no matter how great you think the justification is, is not going to bring racial harmony to this country. No matter how you spin it, there are going to be whites who take offense (whether or not you personally think this offense is justified). If we truly focus on floating all the boats, the radical right will have much less traction and black communities will be helped (or allowed to self-empower).

Taking race out of the equation and tackling the underlying problem makes sense in some cases, but not in others. It makes sense, for example, where healthcare is concerned: universal healthcare would be a net boon for everyone, but especially for people of colour, whose economic conditions seriously limit their access to quality care. You could institute any number of race-based or means-tested versions of healthcare, but the overall outcomes will just be worse. And it will be more expensive and less effective. Everyone would just be better off with some kind of universal healthcare. (You might still need to enact particular race-oriented reforms, however; Black women, for example, are routinely assaulted, or have their pain minimized, or their concerns dismissed, by physicians. This recently happened twice in a row to a Black friend of mine visiting two different gynecologists, one male and the other female. The way she was treated was unconscionable, and I would characterize it as assault. But it's utterly commonplace, and it derives in part from being explicitly trained, in medical school, to believe that Black people have higher pain thresholds than white people.)

It doesn't make as much sense for something like pipeline construction and other undesirable land uses, where race is a clear and direct player and where the costs are routinely externalized onto people of colour. Adequate reform on that front would require, e.g., taking Indigenous land claims seriously and actively seeking consent from Indigenous peoples to exploit resources on their lands. Taking race out of that means ignoring historical and contemporary treaty obligations, and a long history of violations of those obligations.

It also doesn't make sense where a lot of criminal justice reform is concerned, since what we're talking about are issues where race is in the driver's seat. Forgetting about race in a conversation about stop and frisk in NYC, for example, is a recipe for misunderstanding (or worse, ignoring) the harms that policy perpetuates.

[Wahoo Redux]

It is possible that AA communities, after centuries of systematic institutionalized violence, wealth disparity, and oppression, are now more crime-ridden than white communities.

They could also be more crime ridden because people like George Floyd are present in them. After serving five years for being the ringleader in a home invasion (a pregnant black woman's home), he was again a free man, and continued buying illegal drugs, hanging out in public stoned out of his mind, and probably passing counterfeit bills, and who knows what else. But what you read about him is stuff like this: 'the changed man.' 'Joined the ministry.' "Determined to change.' 'The Gentle Giant.'

https://www.the-sun.com/news/931741/did-george-floyd-have-criminal-past/

I don't know any gentlemen who are capable of running an armed home invasion.

I've also got to say, my friend, since there has been a fair amount of personal anecdote of late on this thread, that you are positing to a recovering alcoholic and drug addict.

I never did anything that would have put me in prison, and this was well before crack, meth, of fentanyl, but things were going very badly for me.  I seriously doubt I would have turned to a life of crime; nevertheless, I was a rip-roaring disaster in every way possible. 

After one particularly horrific night I went to my parents and told them I was in trouble, and the first thing they did, God bless them, was to find the best in-house treatment center they could find and sent me there.  I had a very bad year and a half after that---and not just the cravings, which were terrible, but I also had no idea what to do with my self, how to interact with sober people, and had to deal with the personal rubble I'd left in my wake. 

And throughout it I had a huge support network of friends, family, and even college faculty behind me.  I never went hungry or had to fight off a drug-dealer, a drunken family member, or explain to a gang-banger why I was going straight. 

When I needed and wanted help, wealth, security, and a place to hide out when I was feeling weak, it was all there.  I am the perfect example of white privilege in action.  In fact, I could be the poster-boy for white privilege.

The funny or ironic thing about recovery is that people really admire and support you----which is fair; people only recover from this dreadful illness under their own steam---yet I always tell people that I was one of the very lucky ones who, when he needed it, had help.

And now, my sibling, who is as lilly white as I am, and has had all the benefits and actually a good deal more help through life than I have, is living in a park in a tent.  Hu has not done any home invasions that I am aware of, but lots of laws have been broken----I can look up my sibling's mugshot on Google.  I've had to intervene personally in a couple of circumstances to keep my aged parents safe from this person.  So understand that the kind of judgment you are meting out has its limits and a limited rational, particularly under the circumstances this thread is talking about.

[mamselle]

Per Mahagonny: After serving five years for being the ringleader in a home invasion (a pregnant black woman's home), he was again a free man, and continued buying illegal drugs, hanging out in public stoned out of his mind, and probably passing counterfeit bills, and who knows what else. But what you read about him is stuff like this: 'the changed man.' 'Joined the ministry.' "Determined to change.' 'The Gentle Giant.'

+1 to WR. Strength to you.

@Mahagonny: Are you, then, suggesting that an individual policeman is empowered to be investigating detective, prosecuting attorney, jury, judge, and executioner because of any one or all of these things (if he even knew of them--and if any or all are true?)

Due process? Right to an attorney? Right to self-defense?   

And, as it now appears, two of the three other officers were so new to the job that they were either so shocked, stunned, or unaware of what they could do to stop it that even some of the more usually operant checks on extremely out-of-hand policing were not in place. And since he'd had something like 18 past accusations of undue force either ignored or only slightly reprimanded, his own internal systems of limitation had never been re-calibrated, either.

I'm not saying that excuses them, it doesn't. Humanity itself should have come into play somewhere in those eight-plus minutes.

But the simple elegance of a jury would have been nice.

M.

[mahagonny]

It is possible that AA communities, after centuries of systematic institutionalized violence, wealth disparity, and oppression, are now more crime-ridden than white communities.

They could also be more crime ridden because people like George Floyd are present in them. After serving five years for being the ringleader in a home invasion (a pregnant black woman's home), he was again a free man, and continued buying illegal drugs, hanging out in public stoned out of his mind, and probably passing counterfeit bills, and who knows what else. But what you read about him is stuff like this: 'the changed man.' 'Joined the ministry.' "Determined to change.' 'The Gentle Giant.'

https://www.the-sun.com/news/931741/did-george-floyd-have-criminal-past/

I don't know any gentlemen who are capable of running an armed home invasion.

None of that gives the police the right to murder him.

Of course not, Wahoo. We already have a consensus on that. It does appear that the public could have been deprived of his contribution to society by keeping him in prison without suffering too much. I expect his children to stick up for him, but when the media starts saying he was turning over a new leaf, I would say it doesn't look that way.
Although I live in an urban area, I did not demonstrate. I could have. I'm not that much of a wimp, but my wife would have objected, because I am higher risk for COVID-19. If I had demonstrated, I would have been tempted to carry a sign that says "DAVE'S LIFE MATTERED."

upthread I posted

A friend of mine's son was shot to death by an off duty police officer. They claimed he had held up the off duty (or was it plain-clothed)  cop and his wife at knife point and was shot because the policeman feared for their lives. The family asked, how did he he get a knife on the plane with him (he was on a two day vacation.) I don't know what happened, but I don't see why he had to be shot to death. White guy. There were no marches. Investigation cleared the cop.

@Mahagonny: Are you, then, suggesting that an individual policeman is empowered to be investigating detective, prosecuting attorney, jury, judge, and executioner because of any one or all of these things (if he even knew of them--and if any or all are true?)

Of course not.

[marshwiggle]

Taking race out of the equation and tackling the underlying problem makes sense in some cases, but not in others. It makes sense, for example, where healthcare is concerned: universal healthcare would be a net boon for everyone, but especially for people of colour, whose economic conditions seriously limit their access to quality care. You could institute any number of race-based or means-tested versions of healthcare, but the overall outcomes will just be worse. And it will be more expensive and less effective. Everyone would just be better off with some kind of universal healthcare. (You might still need to enact particular race-oriented reforms, however; Black women, for example, are routinely assaulted, or have their pain minimized, or their concerns dismissed, by physicians. This recently happened twice in a row to a Black friend of mine visiting two different gynecologists, one male and the other female. The way she was treated was unconscionable, and I would characterize it as assault. But it's utterly commonplace, and it derives in part from being explicitly trained, in medical school, to believe that Black people have higher pain thresholds than white people.)

But this creates a very fine line; if you require medical professionals to be especially sensitive to pain of black women (for instance), then they are open to the criticism of over-medicating black women.

The same thing goes for police response to crime. If you discourage police from intervening heavily in poor black neighbourhoods, you become open to the charge of abandoning black neighbourhoods to gangs.

When you use "systemic" all over the place, it creates a predisposition to ascribe bad motives to every action and its opposite. There is no possibility of doing anything to refute it.

[evil_physics_witchcraft]

It is possible that AA communities, after centuries of systematic institutionalized violence, wealth disparity, and oppression, are now more crime-ridden than white communities.

They could also be more crime ridden because people like George Floyd are present in them. After serving five years for being the ringleader in a home invasion (a pregnant black woman's home), he was again a free man, and continued buying illegal drugs, hanging out in public stoned out of his mind, and probably passing counterfeit bills, and who knows what else. But what you read about him is stuff like this: 'the changed man.' 'Joined the ministry.' "Determined to change.' 'The Gentle Giant.'

https://www.the-sun.com/news/931741/did-george-floyd-have-criminal-past/

I don't know any gentlemen who are capable of running an armed home invasion.

None of that gives the police the right to murder him.

Exactly.

[delsur]

Second, I realize that there is a #shutdownSTEM, #shutdownacademia movement afloat. If I understand correctly, the idea is to take one day (just one day!!) June 10th to become anti-racists, to actively work to bring racial equality to the workplace. Hello? I know that my husband who is the department chair in a STEM field has always supported and actively worked to make his department more inclusive and diverse. When they hire a woman or POC, he is genuinely thrilled. When women or POC have any complaint about discrimination, he is on it. Seriously. And, seriously, it is not just him. It is by far the majority of the professors in the department who feel the same way (and I hear about the very few who don't). Also, they don't just react, they are doing their absolute best to be proactive and think about how to get more women and POC interested in the field.

So, as you might imagine, my husband doesn't have any problem with taking June 10th to continue the work they are already doing and, who knows, maybe learn something new.

So far so good. However, when I read the material on the #shutdownSTEM website (which was sent to my husband, who shared it with me), I saw that not only were they calling for anti-racist action on June 10th, but they were calling academia in general and STEM in particular "white supremacist." I'm sorry? What? What are your grounds for calling institutions and departments who are already doing their best to be inclusive "white supremacist?" From what I have read, I suspect that it is in part because the number of specifically black professors does not match the percentage of blacks in the general population. However, they are many possible reasons for this and I actually think that a supposed "culture of white supremacy" is one of the least plausible ones.

I don't think this is against your husband who seems to be doing the right thing or any other individual person. For a long time, the term "white supremacy" was used to talk about Jim Crow-style racism, Nazism, white nationalism, etc. Recently, however, this term has been revived as a broader theoretical concept to examine the long-standing global system of power that privileges whiteness. I have to say I too was confused when I first saw the term white supremacy being used this way. However, having done some reading, my understanding is that it aims to talk about this system, and how we and our institutions may be implicated in maintaining this system of white privilege, and not so much about individuals being good or bad.

[Parasaurolophus]

But this creates a very fine line; if you require medical professionals to be especially sensitive to pain of black women (for instance), then they are open to the criticism of over-medicating black women.

Not really. I just require them not to dismiss reports of pain, to give appropriate doses and not cut them in half because of some magic tolerance conferred by skin colour, to give adequate and full information about procedures before they're performed, and not to perform procedures for which consent was not given or for which consent was explicitly denied.

Plus, it would be nice if a single visit to the gynecologist didn't feature violations of all of the above.

The same thing goes for police response to crime. If you discourage police from intervening heavily in poor black neighbourhoods, you become open to the charge of abandoning black neighbourhoods to gangs.

Nobody is discouraging police from policing Black neighbourhoods. What's being discouraged are the "heavy" responses whose euphemism covers for unwarranted aggression, one-sided enforcement of misdemeanours, seeking out particular neighbourhoods to meet quotas, non-random random checks, etc. We're also calling for actual accountability.