Why the Phrase "Black-on-Black Crime" Suggests Inherent Criminality

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The American Prospect By Jamelle Bouie

I’ve written here, and elsewhere [3], that “black-on-black crime” as a specific phenomena isn’t a thing. Yes, the vast majority of crimes against African Americans are committed by other African Americans, and yes, black men face a higher murder rate than any other group in the country. But those facts are easily explained by residential segregation and proximity—people commit crimes against those closest to them—and the particular circumstances of many black communities, which are marred by concentrated poverty and nonexistent economic opportunities.

“But what’s the big deal?”, you might ask. “Why can’t we use ‘black-on-black crime’ as a shorthand for these particular problems?” The answer isn’t difficult. Violent crime in hyper-segregated neighborhoods doesn’t happenbecause the residents are black. Their race isn’t incidental—the whole reason these neighborhoods exist is racial policymaking by white lawmakers—but there is nothing about blackness that makes violence more likely. Focusing on the “black” part of the equation takes this violence out of the realm of policy, and into the world of cultural ills. “Black-on-black crime” describes apathology—a social abnormality—that can’t be fixed by political action. “Those people are just that way,” and as such, we should leave them to their devices, and defend ourselves if necessary.

Indeed, if criminality is inherent to African Americans, then it doesn’t matter who you’re defending yourself against. At any and all times, you’re stopping someone who is, or could become, a criminal. It’s how you get policymakers like Michael Bloomberg and policies like “stop and frisk,” which says, in effect, that if you are black and male, New York City is justified in treating you as a potential offender.

Now, you could try—as Richard Cohen attempts [4] in the Washington Post—to put limits on this suspicion. We only have to worry about urban African Americans, he argues. They are the criminal threat:

I’m tired of politicians and others who have donned hoodies in solidarity with Martin and who essentially suggest that, for recognizing the reality of urban crime in the United States, I am a racist. The hoodie blinds them as much as it did Zimmerman.

But stereotype creep is inevitable, and within a few paragraphs, “urban crime” becomes “crime,” hoodies are the universal uniform of “thugs” [5], and all black men become justified suspects of either the law, or interested citizens:

Again, when black pathology is your frame for understanding crime, any decision to pursue black men is justified, because by definition they are suspects. It’s why Cohen doesn’t have a problem with George Zimmerman’s fateful decision to stop and follow Trayvon Martin. It doesn’t matter that Sanford, Florida is a small town, or that the two were in a gated community—the only important variable, for Cohen, is Martin’s blackness.

Where is the politician who will own up to the painful complexity of the problem and acknowledge the widespread fear of crime committed by young black males?

American life is already defined by a steady fear of black men. The Monkey Cage, for instance, highlights a study [6] that finds a plurality—40 percent—of white Americans who say that “many or almost all black men were violent,” compared to the less than 20 percent who said the same of black women and white men. The focus on “black-on-black crime” intensifies that, while ignoring the extent to which the things that drive black crime rates–including the hugely disproportionate share of murders committed by African Americans—aren’t particular to blackness.

Of course, if we were to acknowledge that African American crimes rates aren’t just a case of black people being black, then we would have to do something about it. And, in general, white Americans aren’t fond of devoting national resources to fixing racial problems.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Funny how we love to throw that around, but if a white person guns down 40 people, it isn't white on white crime.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Funny how we love to throw that around, but if a white person guns down 40 people, it isn't white on white crime.

Right wingers like to use the term whenever there's focus on a particular incident when a black person has been the victim of violence by a non-black. The RW media openly questions why blacks would be upset over one act of violence while seemingly ignoring the large violence among blacks.

[Karee 4,191]

Funny how we love to throw that around, but if a white person guns down 40 people, it isn't white on white crime.

I'd agree with that. We should stop classifying crime based on race. Crime is crime. That's why all the attention the recent trial in Florida received was such a joke.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Karee

[Teddy B 17,252]

Funny how we love to throw that around, but if a white person guns down 40 people, it isn't white on white crime.

Because white on white crime is just considered crime, we don't have a special name for it. We never had "hate crime" either, until certain groups of people decided they needed special names to draw attention to themselves. Black on white crime gets little to no attention either.

If you're going to constantly insist on making an issue of white on black crime, even when the racial aspect is not the issue of the crime, then you open up that line of thinking yourself. If you want special treatment, you take the good and the bad that comes along with it.

There is no doubt in my mind that the way the black community reacted and continues to react in the GZ case has damaged race relations in this country..

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Right wingers like to use the term whenever there's focus on a particular incident when a black person has been the victim of violence by a non-black. The RW media openly questions why blacks would be upset over one act of violence while seemingly ignoring the large violence among blacks.

We don't ignore it, the problem is, the light only gets shone when there is violence in a white community. Before Colorado and Sandy Hook, no one cared about Chicago. It's as if this is a way for White America to rest easy, by saying look at the urban cities, they're worse off than we are. This ensures that white people don't start fearing other white people with guns.

Just like folks ask where is Al and Jesse in this recent case of the 71 year old that killed that 13 year old. He was arrested and sentenced to the maximum time allowed in prison. There is no reason to protest when the system works the way it's supposed to for all parties involved.

[Teddy B 17,252]

We don't ignore it, the problem is, the light only gets shone when there is violence in a white community. Before Colorado and Sandy Hook, no one cared about Chicago. It's as if this is a way for White America to rest easy, by saying look at the urban cities, they're worse off than we are. This ensures that white people don't start fearing other white people with guns.

Just like folks ask where is Al and Jesse in this recent case of the 71 year old that killed that 13 year old. He was arrested and sentenced to the maximum time allowed in prison. There is no reason to protest when the system works the way it's supposed to for all parties involved.

As long as the outcome agrees with your opinion.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I'd agree with that. We should stop classifying crime based on race. Crime is crime. That's why all the attention the recent trial in Florida received was such a joke.

That would be great if killing a black person could carry the same sentence as killing a white person.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

The system did work in the TM/GZ case. When there's so much doubt surrounding the actual events, and a serious lack of evidence ... how can anyone claim it didn't?

[GandD 5,966]

Because white on white crime is just considered crime, we don't have a special name for it. We never had "hate crime" either, until certain groups of people decided they needed special names to draw attention to themselves.

Um, I disagree with this. Its worse in my mind to beat someone nearly to death or to death for being gay than because they owed you money or something.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We don't ignore it, the problem is, the light only gets shone when there is violence in a white community. Before Colorado and Sandy Hook, no one cared about Chicago. It's as if this is a way for White America to rest easy, by saying look at the urban cities, they're worse off than we are. This ensures that white people don't start fearing other white people with guns.

Just like folks ask where is Al and Jesse in this recent case of the 71 year old that killed that 13 year old. He was arrested and sentenced to the maximum time allowed in prison. There is no reason to protest when the system works the way it's supposed to for all parties involved.

I agree. Those who try to make it into some kind of false dichotomy are ironically demonstrating how racial stereotypes continue to permeate within society.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Um, I disagree with this. Its worse in my mind to beat someone nearly to death or to death for being gay than because they owed you money or something.

Why? What makes it different?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Because white on white crime is just considered crime, we don't have a special name for it. We never had "hate crime" either, until certain groups of people decided they needed special names to draw attention to themselves. Black on white crime gets little to no attention either.

If you're going to constantly insist on making an issue of white on black crime, even when the racial aspect is not the issue of the crime, then you open up that line of thinking yourself. If you want special treatment, you take the good and the bad that comes along with it.

There is no doubt in my mind that the way the black community reacted and continues to react in the GZ case has damaged race relations in this country..

I agree that we shouldn't have hate crimes because crime is crime, but you keep ignoring that when black people are involved, the same rules don't apply.

You and a few others love to tout OJ as the case that a black man got away with murder. But what about Sean Bell, Oscar Grant, Emmitt Till, Medgar Evans, and the countless other black men who are gunned down and their killers walk? Does OJ balance the scale since he got away with it? Does his case make us even so to speak? Because that's how you are making it sound. Oscar Grant was shot in the back, unarmed, it was on film, plus about a dozen witnesses. How much time did the police officer get for killing him? 2 years, he served 11 months. Mr. Diaz was shot around 41 times, for reaching for his wallet. His shooters all were aquitted.

Do me a favor, link me the page where it says black people ask for special treatment. I keep hearing about it, but I have never seen it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_law

Both AA and hate crime laws were enacted to try to even out things, since back then and obviously now, being non white carries a heavier burden. But black folks didn't ask for it.

And lastly you know why race relations are bad right now? Because the folks that are dancing on TM's grave, the ones with the mean and vicious comments that TM was some type of animal, the ones that swear he was up to no good. It's funny how in this case disrespecting TM causes no loss of credibility because in your mind he was nothing more than a common criminal, it's become a staple by some of our more "colorful" members here, but trying to defend him is a moot point. The Boston bomber is on the cover of Rolling Stones magazine, they are trying to humanize him. He killed 4 people and wounded over 300, yet he gets more sympanthy that the black kid walking home from the store.

http://www.theroot.com/views/how-not-derail-dialogue-race?page=0,0&wpisrc=root_lightbox

Take a read at this Teddy, maybe it will shed some light as to why this has become a nation issue.

[Karee 4,191]

Right wingers like to use the term whenever there's focus on a particular incident when a black person has been the victim of violence by a non-black. The RW media openly questions why blacks would be upset over one act of violence while seemingly ignoring the large violence among blacks.

I wouldn't limit that thinking to "right wingers" I think alot of people left/right white/black wonder the same thing. Why all the attention given to this one particular case, while seemingly ignoring the 100s if not 1000s of victims of crime committed within the black community itself? It's a valid question. Blaming that on Fox news or Rush Limbaugh, or ilovemygunmorethanmywife.com is pretty irresponsible. But hey, any scapegoat out there where you can blame someone else for the internal problems of your community, go for it. Just stop blaming your problems on racism and other people. Maybe when that changes, the real issues will be addressed.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

As long as the outcome agrees with your opinion.

And what evidence do you have to support your statement? You keep overlooking how many black men are killed and their killers are aquitted. Try some context every once in a while.