Not in Conflict, Not in Competition

[IM2]

That's a lot of paper work, but when you are dealing with the law, paperwork is certainly a part of it.

I don't begrudge a second of it. Police are the morally sanctioned use of force on the civil populace. It is imperative that everything they do be documented and accounted for. But, police will often use discretion in giving out a warning when a citation is justified if a warning will stop the violation.

I am not going to comment on the police misuse of force. but I am glad you like your job.

 

[LOIE]

The myth that black men choose to be criminals must be resisted. African Americans are not significantly more likely to use or sell illegal drugs than whites, but they are made criminals at drastically higher rates for precisely the same conduct.

Speaking from my extremely low-level perspective as a two-year transit cop, I would have to agree with you. Transit division is a different, I think more old-school, policing than regular metro policing. We are almost always on foot. We patrol regularly the same venues. We get to know the names of regular transit passengers, workers, merchants and criminals.

Public transit is somewhat of a magnet for people looking to cause trouble. Lots of robbery, lots of shop theft, lots of drugs sales, lots of assaults, lots of drunks and drug affected. While the demographics of ridership changes throughout the day, night time brings a lot of those troublemakers and their victims to our shop. Ridership in general is overwhelmingly non-white, but non-whites do not make up a significant majority of the crime I deal with on a daily basis.

Crime, it would seem, is truly color-blind.

If crime is colorblind we get blamed a lot for it. The reality is that while people of all colors commit crime, the fact is that whites actually do commit more. This means that while we in the black community have worked to reduce crime and have done so even as we still face most of the same things that create crime not being addressed in our communities, whites who do not face any of these things in the large majority of their communities, still commit a higher rate of crime

Ms. Alexander writes that the budgets of federal law enforcement agencies soared from 1980-1984 during the war on drugs. Antidrug funding, Department of Defense, DEA spending and FBI allocations grew by the millions. At the same time, funding to agencies responsible for drug treatment, prevention and education was dramatically reduced.

I personally find it interesting to see right now, on television, government programs for help with opioid addiction being advertised. Now, when different communities, not of color, are effected, they are offering to help with treatment. Where was the help for inner cities with largely minority populations?

Ms. Alexander writes: "As a nation, we had a choice of how to respond to the crack epidemic. Some countries faced with rising drug crime chose the path of drug treatment, prevention and education or economic investment in crime-ridden communities. Portugal, for example, responded to persistent problems of drug addiction and abuse by decriminalizing the possession of all drugs and redirecting the money that would have been spent putting drug users in cages, into drug treatment and prevention. Ten years later, Portugal reported that rates of drug abuse and addiction had plummeted and drug-related crime was on the decline."

 

[LOIE]

I would like to share in short form and excerpts, what Michelle Alexander’s book, “The New Jim Crow” states and documents in detail:

Most of us understand the Jim Crow era. We’ve seen pictures of “Whites Only” signs on rest rooms and water fountains. Following the collapse of THAT Jim Crow system, another one took its place – a new Jim Crow, a new racial caste system - a well-designed system of racialized social control. People who still believed they were superior, decided they could put in place a new racial caste system without violating discrimination laws. They did that by demanding “law and order” rather than “segregation forever.”

The pitting of low-income whites against low-income blacks intensified the view among many whites that the condition of life for the disadvantaged, particularly the blacks, was their own fault. The racially segregated, poverty-stricken ghettos that exist in inner cities across America would not exist today if it weren’t for racially biased government policies. Slavery defined what it meant to be black (a slave) and Jim Crow defined what it meant to be black (a second-class citizen). Today mass incarceration defines what it means to be black (a criminal).

The myth that black men choose to be criminals must be resisted. African Americans are not significantly more likely to use or sell illegal drugs than whites, but they are made criminals at drastically higher rates for precisely the same conduct. Studies suggest that white professionals may be the most likely of any group to engage in illegal drug activity, yet they are the least likely to be made criminals.

Putting together being black with being criminal did not happen by itself. It was constructed by political and media elites as part of the broader project called the war on drugs.

Mass incarceration, like Jim Crow, was born when white elites exploited the racial hostilities, resentments and insecurities of poor and working-class white voters. The genius of the current caste system is that it appears voluntary. People choose to commit crimes and they get locked up. But here’s the truth. All people make mistakes. Yet there are people in the United States serving life sentences for first-time drug offenses, something unheard of anywhere else in the entire world.

Martin Luther King envisioned a society in which all human beings of all races are treated with dignity, and have the right to food, shelter, health care, education and security. This vision could open the door to meaningful alliances between poor and working-class people of all colors, to begin to see their interests as the same, not in conflict, not in competition.

I had hoped responses to this thread would concentrate on the vision of meaningful alliances between people and about how a better society could come about by people coming together around common interests.

Ms. Alexander quotes what Tom Watson said in a speech advocating a union between black and white farmers many years ago. "You are kept apart that you may be separately fleeced of your earnings. You are made to hate each other because upon that hatred is rested the keystone of the arch of financial despotism that enslaves you both. You are deceived and blinded that you may not see how this race antagonism perpetuates a monetary system which beggars both."

I agree entirely.

 

[IM2]

The myth that black men choose to be criminals must be resisted. African Americans are not significantly more likely to use or sell illegal drugs than whites, but they are made criminals at drastically higher rates for precisely the same conduct.

Speaking from my extremely low-level perspective as a two-year transit cop, I would have to agree with you. Transit division is a different, I think more old-school, policing than regular metro policing. We are almost always on foot. We patrol regularly the same venues. We get to know the names of regular transit passengers, workers, merchants and criminals.

Public transit is somewhat of a magnet for people looking to cause trouble. Lots of robbery, lots of shop theft, lots of drugs sales, lots of assaults, lots of drunks and drug affected. While the demographics of ridership changes throughout the day, night time brings a lot of those troublemakers and their victims to our shop. Ridership in general is overwhelmingly non-white, but non-whites do not make up a significant majority of the crime I deal with on a daily basis.

Crime, it would seem, is truly color-blind.

If crime is colorblind we get blamed a lot for it. The reality is that while people of all colors commit crime, the fact is that whites actually do commit more. This means that while we in the black community have worked to reduce crime and have done so even as we still face most of the same things that create crime not being addressed in our communities, whites who do not face any of these things in the large majority of their communities, still commit a higher rate of crime

Ms. Alexander writes that the budgets of federal law enforcement agencies soared from 1980-1984 during the war on drugs. Antidrug funding, Department of Defense, DEA spending and FBI allocations grew by the millions. At the same time, funding to agencies responsible for drug treatment, prevention and education was dramatically reduced.

I personally find it interesting to see right now, on television, government programs for help with opioid addiction being advertised. Now, when different communities, not of color, are effected, they are offering to help with treatment. Where was the help for inner cities with largely minority populations?

Ms. Alexander writes: "As a nation, we had a choice of how to respond to the crack epidemic. Some countries faced with rising drug crime chose the path of drug treatment, prevention and education or economic investment in crime-ridden communities. Portugal, for example, responded to persistent problems of drug addiction and abuse by decriminalizing the possession of all drugs and redirecting the money that would have been spent putting drug users in cages, into drug treatment and prevention. Ten years later, Portugal reported that rates of drug abuse and addiction had plummeted and drug-related crime was on the decline."

Oh yeah, they are acting quick on opioids because it's affecting white communities. But had this been an epidemic specific to blacks we'd get the same old treatment and the same old sermons from the same old tired people about cultural and moral decay. They had "help" for us, it was called prison.

 

[IM2]

I would like to share in short form and excerpts, what Michelle Alexander’s book, “The New Jim Crow” states and documents in detail:

Most of us understand the Jim Crow era. We’ve seen pictures of “Whites Only” signs on rest rooms and water fountains. Following the collapse of THAT Jim Crow system, another one took its place – a new Jim Crow, a new racial caste system - a well-designed system of racialized social control. People who still believed they were superior, decided they could put in place a new racial caste system without violating discrimination laws. They did that by demanding “law and order” rather than “segregation forever.”

The pitting of low-income whites against low-income blacks intensified the view among many whites that the condition of life for the disadvantaged, particularly the blacks, was their own fault. The racially segregated, poverty-stricken ghettos that exist in inner cities across America would not exist today if it weren’t for racially biased government policies. Slavery defined what it meant to be black (a slave) and Jim Crow defined what it meant to be black (a second-class citizen). Today mass incarceration defines what it means to be black (a criminal).

The myth that black men choose to be criminals must be resisted. African Americans are not significantly more likely to use or sell illegal drugs than whites, but they are made criminals at drastically higher rates for precisely the same conduct. Studies suggest that white professionals may be the most likely of any group to engage in illegal drug activity, yet they are the least likely to be made criminals.

Putting together being black with being criminal did not happen by itself. It was constructed by political and media elites as part of the broader project called the war on drugs.

Mass incarceration, like Jim Crow, was born when white elites exploited the racial hostilities, resentments and insecurities of poor and working-class white voters. The genius of the current caste system is that it appears voluntary. People choose to commit crimes and they get locked up. But here’s the truth. All people make mistakes. Yet there are people in the United States serving life sentences for first-time drug offenses, something unheard of anywhere else in the entire world.

Martin Luther King envisioned a society in which all human beings of all races are treated with dignity, and have the right to food, shelter, health care, education and security. This vision could open the door to meaningful alliances between poor and working-class people of all colors, to begin to see their interests as the same, not in conflict, not in competition.

I had hoped responses to this thread would concentrate on the vision of meaningful alliances between people and about how a better society could come about by people coming together around common interests.

Ms. Alexander quotes what Tom Watson said in a speech advocating a union between black and white farmers many years ago. "You are kept apart that you may be separately fleeced of your earnings. You are made to hate each other because upon that hatred is rested the keystone of the arch of financial despotism that enslaves you both. You are deceived and blinded that you may not see how this race antagonism perpetuates a monetary system which beggars both."

I agree entirely.

I agree with you . But most of these people aren't here to get an understanding, they just want to freely express their racism.