Loved your framing-especially this part at the end, "We shouldn’t be saddling people with our preconceptions, entering a conversation with the political equivalent of a facial recognition algorithm, trying desperately to match them to a preconceived archetype so we can decide whether or not to discard them. These are maps—let’s not confuse them with the terrain itself, especially when we’re surrounded by so much common ground."
This is truly thought-provoking, wise, and informative.
One slight critique I might offer is the characterization of "generational wealth" as being impacted by legacy systems of oppression. If, by that term, you mean per capita or per household or per worker wealth, then you might want to leave the word "generational" wealth out. If, by that term, you mean the accumulation of wealth over generations, then I would submit that until very recently (~the last 20 years) little to no wealth was transferred from one generation to the next. My family has been in the northeast since the 1630s one one side and the 1920s on the other. One side was certainly more well-off than the other, but neither parent started with any accumulated wealth from their parents. They bought a house for $12k in 1965 and did not start saving for retirement outside of pension until around 50 years of age. They were typical. The vast majority of wealth is generated by the people who hold it, not passed down. As you emphasize, it is the "human and social capital required to grow and retain wealth," that differs among groups of people. Efforts to close wealth gaps must therefore focus on human and social capital.
Those are fair points. I like you emphasize human and social capital over fiscal capital but the latter seems to be the obsession of most equity minded folk so I felt I needed to at least mention it.
I would add that the Japanese had to start from scratch after their interment during during WW II. In face of extreme anti-Japanese bigotry, they succeeded. Let's remember, the Japanese had sufficiently different physical features to be instantly recognizable as Not White.
As I write this I’m the heart of the Castro in San Francisco and I am watching “Gay Community” diffuse and disappear. The gay political system which emerged in the 50’s and 60’s has dismantled gay oppression, some heterosexisms, and simultaneously remove well-preserved distinctions and culture which helped with geoupnand individual survival in a previously hostile world. “Camp”, Bar Culture, intricate varieties of sexual “outlawism” are have become somewhat nostalgic or quaint, even collectible perhaps - “Mineshaft” tee-shirts are au courant with certain straight teenage boys and girls. Systemic heterosexism still exists but it’s dissipating like covid, slowly and with flare-ups in strange places.
Wokism to me is the hopeless struggle to maintain racist distinctions which helped with survival in a previously hostile world. Today, as wokeness morphs black culture into a tool to combat “white fragility” (the ultimate co-opt) instead of aiding cultural and individual flourishing, with every whine of “cultural appropriation” everyone knows original systems of oppression are over, except for bizarre flare-ups in odd places. BLM itself will be a collectible NFT perhaps, and au-courant teenagers of all backgrounds will Rap on Chinese-owned Tik-Tok. The game is over.
If we don’t look at why poor are getting poorer and rich richer, we’re not looking at the real problem.
I am completely in harmony with you, though the devil's advocate in me recalls the shift in SF gay culture from the post-hippie freakiness of Polk St. to the sometime disparaged "Castro Clones" in the 70s, so there may be an element of "the more thinge change..." Humans are prone to it.
Thank you. I find so many of my thoughts in your article, but now expressed coherently. I've re-read and re-read, to integrate and find ways of expressing my thoughts in discussions with some of my 'woke with the crowd' friends. I wish I'd known the 'parable of the pedestrian' the other day.
It is a very powerful insight, it’s too bad other things Amy Wax has said more recently can make it difficult to reference her in conversation (tread carefully). Humans are complicated.
Thanks. Point taken. But humans change - in both directions - and who someone may act as today doesn't necessarily negate something they said 10 years ago. Just as what someone said 10 years ago doesn't necessarily reflect who they are today.
Thank you. Very helpful. Nuanced. And I agree completely. The slogans had their uses, now let's move on to doing some real work to deal with the divide.
I’m all ears. No worries on disagreeing, I don’t agree with thoughts I held 6 months ago. It has to be ok again to disagree without being disagreeable.
You're a kind man to ask, Sir. Unfortunately, at the moment, I'm too sleep-deprived to say much that would be worth Your time. I'll reread Your essay a couple times in the morning. And, hopefully, make a long story short. We Shall See. No hurry, nor need, for You to get back with me anytime soon, or at all.
All that to say... Hope You have a GREAT day, and TY again for Your fine essay and Your reply.
Oh! I don't agree with some things I thought yesterday, so there is that. :)
If only more people were open-minded enough as you are to realize that there is room for reasonable disagreement concerning complex issues, and that differences of opinion on complex issues shouldn't degenerate into insults, it would transformnthose proppe's lives and would make life more sane in general.
Why did school integration basically fail? I will address one example from personal experience. In 1968, The Claremont Colleges had a Upward Bound Program for high school students who, for one reason or another, were not prepared to attend college and thus needed some additional formal help to overcome whatever deficits they had. While there were disadvantaged Whites and Orientals (before they became Asians), over 90% were either Black or Mex Am.
Within a couple days, it was obvious that the Blacks only associated with Blacks and Mex Am only associated with each other, and animosity between the two groups was escalating. The director had been hired due to his ethnicity and was clueless, but in desperation to avoid physical violence, he did allow one staff member to run the program. His change was to reassign each student to new groups of mixed race and then to confront the groups with challenges which they had to overcome. Within a day, the students formed friendships due to the forced cooperation to achieve a common goal and the program continued to have mixed groups solve problems to provide a context for the friendships to continue. The self-imposed segregation vanished and the program was recognized as the most academic West of the Mississippi.
In other places, there was often a total laissez faire approach or students were indoctrinated into the special grievances of their own group.
The other Great Society disaster was the govt 's resort to racial quotas where merit was classified as racist and the schools and employers had to satisfy strict quotas. That was a horrible injustice to the minorities as it relegated them to an inferior education and faux evaluations so that the schools and employers could process the right number of minorities.
The switch to strict quotas had two motives: (1) The Dems wanted a national patronage system sooner rather than later, and quotas which were divorced from merit were faster, (2) people who improved their skills and advanced via merit had a harder and longer path, but once they did succeed, they would be self-reliant and not part of a solid Dem voting block. Pelosi's Identity Politics and the Wokers are heirs to this polarizing philosophy.
For their part, the GOP are still stuck the White is Right philosophy.
Your experience at Claremont reflects a well-understood dynamic discovered by Gordon Allport and discussed in his 1954 book, The Nature of Prejudice. He wrote that prejudice “may be reduced by equal status contact between majority and minority groups in the pursuit of common goals.” Such work toward common goals “leads to the perception of common interests and common humanity between members of [different] groups.”
Yes, it is sad that so many people refused to help groups get along with each other when both groups were filled with wonderful people, but who had legit anxieties
>>> Let’s be serious though: what exactly do we mean by “woke”? How about “a set of political ideals centered around social justice and allyship with disadvantaged groups”?
I think this is OSTENSIBLY the concept of "woke." I believe a better definition is that the woke are "blacks and other minorities, and their white enablers, who seek political, economic, and cultural POWER." That's why there's such an emphasis on POWER, from top to bottom. What seems to have gone unnoticed is that there are less than zero institutions that aren't already owned by the woke. So the woke ARE the POWER to be reckoned with, right? In today’s culture, the people ACTUALLY disadvantaged are white males, right?
>>> “Persistent disparities between black and white Americans are caused by systems of oppression not solely found in history books, but acutely present today as well.”
See, here's the problem with that. If one is woke, and views everything revolves around POWER then, yeah, everybody can be reduced to oppressed and oppressors. That's truly ONE way to look at it and, clearly, the woke are the oppressors today. As far as "systems of oppression," I have two quibbles: One is that implies "systemic racism" which doesn't exist anymore. As far as racists currently oppressing black people, I don't think that can be denied. The problem I have in that sentence is the word "acutely" present today. You can always say I dunno what I'm talking about, because I'm white. But I can make rough estimate and take the actions of the racists and balance them out against affirmative action. ICBW, but I'm guessing they are closer to balancing each other (tho still unbalanced) to say that "acutely" present doesn't take into account the benefits derived from affirmative action, right?
Now, the carrot, Sir:
>>> Imagine instead you think the story is more tragic than that—one far too complicated to be remedied by political intervention.
I agree. And I don't hafta imagine, because I've read a little of Thomas Sowell. From what he's "said," political intervention has CAUSED a lotta the problems we see today, right?
>>> Sure, we can just give people stuff and watch disparity disappear, only to have the chasm return a decade or so later because the human and social capital required to retain and grow wealth are things we cannot endow. This isn’t a criticism of black people in particular.
No, I agree again. I'd say the same thing would happen if we just gave poor white people stuff.
>>> They didn’t exactly roll out a welcome mat for Ruby Bridges. Children know when they’re not wanted and they find ways to cope.
The initial efforts at integration didn't work out as planned, nor later efforts, AFAIK. It's a difficult proposition, because blacks are generally gonna be a minority in most integrated schools. Does that make them "outsiders?” It depends on the attitudes all the kids decide to take.
>>> On top of that we can layer a welfare system that unwittingly incentivized single parenthood by economically penalizing families with live-in fathers. ... Regardless, it wasn’t necessary for this financial aid to serve as a substitute for a breadwinner; these systems could have been designed as supplements instead.
I recall reading that LBJ promoted the welfare system as being necessary so blacks wouldn't come to DEPEND on the government for their money. Funny that. And nowadays You get all kinds-a crazy people talking about UBI. Yeah, when AI (Artificial Intelligence) and Robotics take over, we'll need UBI. But until then? We know what that will result in, right?
>>> (see James Forman, Jr.’s Locking Up Our Own).
I bought the book, but can't say if/when I'll get a chance to read it.
>>> Tragically, what comes to replace poor law enforcement policy is far worse.
Yeah, agree again. Like I've "said" before, what people need is MORE law enforcement, done by increasing the number of WOMEN in the forces. VASTLY more women. For one thing, if You wanna change the attitude of police forces, You'll need to clean house in a lotta cases. Besides that, there was a study. I don't always take much interest in studies, but this one just stands to reason. Women police officers were less likely to escalate a conflict into a physical altercation. And when they did, it was less likely to be lethal.
Doesn't that accomplish what the woke (by any name) want?
At the same, I think it bears looking at the Reality of the situation: You ask liberals how many unarmed black men were killed in a year, they'd say 1,000. Some up to 10,000. I've seen various numbers, by different people. The actual numbers are less than two dozen (24) a year. So BLM is working to get peoples cash based on a fantasy, right?
As always, ICBW.
At any rate, You can see I agree a lot more than I disagree. I still haven't read the rest of the essay a third time, but suspect my views would be similar. I'll disagree with some things, but agree on other things. Lemme know if You want them, M. Knight-Laurie.
And TYTY again for writing such a thought provoking essay. And, of course, to FBT for publishing it.
I actually don’t disagree with this, and they do in my opinion view human interactions primarily through the lens of power while conveniently ignoring their own inordinate sway within elite institutions. That said I try to avoid any arguments that verge on telepathy, so that leaves me sifting through the least objectionable version of the opponents argument (steelmanning). If someone wants to know what I think the least scrupulous among them are up to, basically what you’re saying. My goal ultimately is to dilute the influence of the worst actors, which means targeting fellow travellers. The ones who’s beliefs are closer to the ostensible version. Thank you for following up and I do welcome any further insights.
Sorry, M. Reinard, but I got distracted so was later than I’d planned. I generally plan for nobody to read the junk I write, so don’t bother if You’ve moved on to other pastures. IF (italics) anybody reads it, apologize it’s so long. A lot is quotes from the essay.
<All CAPS are ITALICS.>
First the carrot, M. Knight-Laurie:
<Your quote prefaced by ">>>" Sir.>
>>> This is all very tragic and very understandable, given the history, but nevertheless not something to be solved by transactions or collective guilt, such as reparations.
Personally, it’s a non-starter for me because reparations based solely on skin color is racist itself, right? Not only that, but it would PERMANENTLY and IRREVOCABLY drive a wedge between poor whites and poor blacks. I wish I could state that this is entirely unintentional on everybody’s part. But...
>>> I guess what I really mean by “wokeness” is being obsessed with slaying dragons in the present, while remaining oblivious to concepts like social and human capital that more aptly describe what the underprivileged really lack today.
That definition suits me to a “T.”
>>> Are you convinced, even in part, by this more complicated version of the story?
>>> In comparison, the “end systems of oppression” message has some built-in advantages. It’s much simpler: end racism.
I guess I’d be harsh to say only a simpleton would think along these lines. Plus, I’m not at all certain that it isn’t INTENDED to be so simplistic that it can’t be argued against. Who’s actually gonna be in FAVOR of racism?
Now, I suppose this is gonna be controversial. AFAIK, “systemic racism” is a strawman. I couldn’t find the link, but my memory is good on this one. Pew did a study, and these are the FACTS: In 1990, 86% of white people wouldn’t want a black person to get married to a close relative. They didn’t define “close,” but You get the point. In 2016, that was 14%.
I dunno who did the study or what the question was, but latest number I saw (but didn’t save the link)? SIX percent.
If people gave about two seconds thought on these numbers, one thing would be perfectly clear. PERFECTLY clear: The number of white supremacists has been so exaggerated that nobody should take “systemic racism” or the woke in general seriously, right? Whites MORE than comfortable having a black person as a close relative. Yeah, yeah, yeah... There will be a few white supremists mixed in with the 84% who said they were okay with it, I s’pose. So few I’d imagine it wouldn’t amount to a pimple on a gnat’s arse.
The whole PURPOSE of the “systemic racism,” AFAIK, is twofold. Keep the $6 BILLION DEI industry going. And gives the Marxists and other fill-in-the-blanks a reason to destroy the institutions of our society and rebuild from scratch. Build WHAT, nobody’s even dreamed up yet. But somehow that seems to be a laudable goal for ALL the “woke.”
>>> The “end oppression” camp disagrees, and instead wants to institute a set of reforms in facets of society proximal to the disparate outcomes we all find so frustrating—ending “racist” gifted programs and standardized testing, for example. These are diagnostics: discarding them is like throwing out the thermometer because it’s telling you that you have a fever.
I’m jumping the gun a little bit, but this is why I come pretty close to SERIOUSLY DISLIKING the “woke.” We’re heading into a time in history where the competition with our future overlords, the Chinese, will revolve around STEM subjects. Primarily AI and Robotics, right?
So the “woke” decide THIS is the PERFECT time to bring all our students to the lowest common denominator of mediocrity. Oregon, who developed the SJW curriculum for Math? Them who decided You didn’t even NEED to have any MINIMAL knowledge of reading and writing and ‘rithmetic to get a high school diploma? That doesn’t even come close to passing the smell test, except mebbe in places like CA. Weeeel, actually all over, come to think on it.
>>> Drawing parallels between horrible racist events in the past and unfortunate ones today is an exercise in revisionist history. It distorts the past and the present in one fell swoop.
I’d probably end up quoting the majority of what You wrote, M. Reinard, for this carrot part. But THIS I had to agree with EXTRA strongly.
>>> If we know what people actually agree on—a lot, to be frank—we can chart a path forward.
I agree with the principle. I’m not sure how much we agree on, tho.
>>> In return, the people formerly known as “woke” need to cut it out with the witch hunts. I hope they understand by now that politics by inquisition is unsustainable.
Weeeel, I’m afraid just about the whole PURPOSE of the “woke” is to enforce The Narrative. You alluded to that as being the reason so few speak against it, right? So although I agree with the sentiment, AFAIK, it’ll be sustainable until more people like You DO have the courage to speak out. A lot MORE than You and Professors Loury and McWhorter. Dunno if it’ll ever happen, but I can dream.
Like I “said,” agree pretty much down the line, until the last paragraph, which inspired my initial query if You wanted to “hear” a different view of things. This is the stick portion:
>>> Eventually, the guillotine finds its way to you. As a description of a set of ideas, “wokeness” is somewhat serviceable. As a pejorative to bludgeon someone with, not so much. We shouldn’t be saddling people with our preconceptions, entering a conversation with the political equivalent of a facial recognition algorithm, trying desperately to match them to a preconceived archetype so we can decide whether or not to discard them.
AFAIK, “wokeness” is such an amorphous set of ideas, that I dunno I’d give them much credit for HAVING any. So, I guess I’ve matched them to a preconceived archetype, mebbe. I was gonna get into specifics about Coates, and Nicole Hannah-Jones at Howard. Kendi. DiAngelo. The trait in common I see from a lot is that they’ve, most-a them, CASHED IN. Kimberlé Crenshaw not as much in the way of money, mebbe. But she’s gotten the Prez of Columbia bending over backwards to kiss her feet, so there is that.
If I ever met any-a these people PERSONALLY, I’d probably hug them and tell them their dumber than a rock, for all their degrees. All four of them, but especially KenDiAngelo.
But here’s the REAL problem I have with them, besides them being black supremists: Could You get any ONE-a them to agree that we need more PoliceWOMEN? That the primary REASON blacks get such a poor education happens to be the teacher’s UNIONS? Therefore the need for school choice? That education funding needs to go with the STUDENT, so people aren’t paying twice for their private-if-necessary good education.
Can You find a SINGLE.. I’ll just call them RadLibs for being RADICAL (IL)liberals.. I just don’t see ANY-a the RadLibs agreeing to a SINGLE DAGGONE THING that would actually SOLVE problems of poor blacks. Because their whole SELF is tied up with them being saviors, right? You’d hafta change the RadLib’s view of themselves for them to give up the GOOD FIGHT, right?
Or mebbe You know one or two whose purpose in life extends BEYOND fighting tooth and nail. I don’t get around much, but I’ve never HEARD-a anybody along those lines. There won’t be many because most-a these people are WHOLELY INVESTED in just FIGHTING it out, right?
And, if You need proof: (Or mebbe You can educate me and tell me I’m wrong.) How many of them have engaged in an honest debate about the issues? They can’t, because their views are so self-contradictory that they amount to a house of cards. And I’ve studied their “logic” a bit, so I don’t think I’m guessing about that.
So, my PERSONAL OPINION is that if You want to actually IMPROVE the lot of poor blacks (and, incidentally, as a coincidence, a lotta poor whites who suffer a lotta the same symptoms).. Well, face it: The President of the U.S. is the Pope of the Fundamentalist Woke-ianity Religion, so I have a hard time seeing the kinds of changes that would actually HELP anybody out. That’s just me. And ICBW, and I hope I am.
As far as choosing a name to call ‘em, I’m not really particular. They’re an shifting, amorphous group, but they ARE a group. And I believe about any term is gonna quickly become a pejorative because of the harm this group of people INTEND to cause. Again, that’s just me.
Again, I agree with most of this. I’m not interested in reparations whatsoever. In fact that understates my aversion. The injuries it’s meant to address weren’t inflicted on me. There’s no tortworthy claim here, no delineation of the debts’ inheritance. The most coherent way I can rationalize it is as an opportunity for today’s black Americans to personally receive a cut of the proceeds from slavery. Safe to say I’m not for it. I think systemic racism is more often than not a means to obfuscate. To reach into the ether and have it provide a palatable placeholder for an actual explanation of societal problems. Whenever someone proffers systemic racism I always ask them to parse what they mean by that explicitly. More often than not it’s an empty shell. In regard to the last part, is this or is this not a fairly homogeneous group of disingenuous actors. The answer is I don’t know. I’m hopeful. When I converse with people from that constituency I rarely encounter people who are totally immune to reason and evidence. In my opinion they overindex on sociological explanations but they aren’t irrational. The most irrational people I encounter are those who owe their livings to the enterprise. I’m optimistic that they don’t represent the majority. Acrimony is good business for them but it’s not for laypeople. So it’s not that I disagree with your assessment, I just see no other option than to talk to them before deciding whether the person I’m speaking to is ultimately hostile.
Historical oppression is absolutely a factor in today's disparities. It's interesting, though, that we are now unwinding the horrible consequences of modern attempts to address social injustice (welfare, integration, urban renewal) with potentially more of the same (reparations, racial reckoning, universal childcare, etc.). Top down solutions are probably just great ways to get money into the hands of grifters.
Also, it's very hard to ignore the behavioral outliers within black communities that cannot persist if there is to be progress. Out of wedlock births, criminal offending rates, educational attainment. Amazing to see the stats on social mobility for black americans that simply follow behavioral norms. They're doing great.
Regarding the Washington Post's August 2015 study that found police had shot and killed 24 unarmed black people so far that year, and related matters:
"Unarmed" includes people with knives, someone bashing in a cop's jaw with the cop's equipment, people trying to grab guns from cop, people using their fists to severely injure cops who had no choice but to save their own lives, getaway car drivers who are killed when the person in the passenger seat shoots at a cop and the cop returns fire, and people accidentally hit by bullets that ricocheted or missed in circumstances where an officer was justified in shooting at someone who was trying to shoot the officer. The Washington Post conveniently withheld those details when it found that police killed 24 unarmed black people from January to August 2015. The WP also failed to mention that the number for the entire year was 36, leaving people to assume the rate had been stable for the rest of the year (as if shooting deaths of "unarmed" black people were a legitimate category upon which to judge officers' conduct). All but one of those "unarmed" black people who died in police shootings were teenage or adult males. The only exception was a woman hit by a bullet that ricocheted far from its intended target. The total black male population was nearly 19 million people at the time. Almost every intentional shooting of an "unarmed" black suspect in 2015 appears to have been justified, because those shot were violently endangering someone's life. In two or three instances, it was debatable whether a cop had made a mistake or used poor judgment. When people read that an unarmed black person was killed as a result of a police shooting, they assume police committed murder. That is what the Washington Post wanted them to assume. That is the same motive behind the NYT's absurd claim in 2014 that "the killing of young black men by police is a common feature of African-American life and a source of dread for black parents from coast to coast." In fact, police homicides of black people were very rare when the NYT made that claim.
Black people are killed by police at an enormously lower rate than their threat to police officers' lives would predict. Of course, I am not saying that most black people present that threat to police. But almost every black person killed by police presents that threat. In 2013, blacks made up 42% of all cop killers whose race was known. In 2014, black criminals murdered 52 law enforcement officers performing traffic stops, serving warrants, and carrying out other duties. There were 628,000 full-time law enforcement officers working that year.
Compare the statistics on police shootings of black criminals and unintentional shooting deaths of bystanders to 6,000 black on black homicides using guns in 2015, and 10,000 such homicides in 2023.
On top of that, from 2005 to 2014, 40% of cop killers were black males in their teens and adult years, although black males in their teens and adult years constiturlted roughly four percent of the population.
I realize that only a small percentage of black people--a small subset of black males--commit these black on black murders and murder police officers. I am not making a racist claim that black people in general are violent. But that small percentage is concentrated in locations in poor black neighborhoods where police frequently need to respond to 911 calls concerning violent crime. Cops responding to such a call in such a locations are understandably afraid of being shot or attacked, which has an influence on their behavior. Cops are human just like the rest of us. It is not surprising that they are hyper-vigilant when arriving at lications where thrir is a reasonable possibility that their lives are at risk. But cops who intentionally shoot black and white suspects (as opposed to dtray bullets) are significantly more likely to kill white suspects: they are far more careful to attempt to avoid fatalities among black people than white people whom they shoot.
I am not an apologist for police misconduct: I sued cops for six years before doctors decimated my health (more about that below). I am only addressing factors here that are ignored in most news coverage of police shooting deaths of black people.
The Justice Department had forced New Jersey and North Carolina into consent decrees around 2000 because state troopers in both states were presumed to be pulling over a higher percentage of black than white drivers for speeding on the basis of racial profiling. Soon afterwards, studies in both states using traffic cameras to analyze driving patterns of about 40,000 drivers proved that black drivers exceeded the speed limit by more than 15 mph on the NJ Turnpike and the largest interstate highway in NC. Of course, they did not speed at such rates because they were black. The explanation is that a far higher percentage of black than white drivers are 23 and under, which is the age range of a disproportionate share of reckless drivers. The mass media provided intensive coverage of the consent decrees that "proved" racial profiling was rampant, but ignored the studies proving that the consent decrees were based on false assumptions.
In 2001, I was the only white member of an otherwise all-black 30 person grand jury in DC that convened eight hours per day for a month to hear testimony from prosecutors seeking indictments for alleged murder and rape. The rest of the members on the grand jury would have imposed Saudi style punishments on black criminals terrorizing their neighborhoods. People in these communities seldom agree with the self-appointed activists who want police presence to be reduced.
I spent six years representing plaintiffs in police misconduct cases. As a law clerk, I spent four years helping to represent DC prisoners at the former maximum security facility in Lorton, VA in civil rights cases against corrections officers and prison administrators. A very low percentage of cops are responsible for almost all the violent abuses. Other cops are often afraid to speak out. A former Seattle cop told me that if he spoke out, the subset of thugs on the force would put on masks and find an opportunity to catch him alone to throw a blanket over his head and use rubber truncheons to give him a vicious beating.
Those out of control cops are equal opportunity abusers. They frequently target white people, but the mass media does not deem it newsworthy.
My statements pertain to the years I mentioned. I realize that anti-black racism in police forces was far more pervasive and extreme 35 years ago than it is now. And I am not saying it no longer exists today. I'm not out of my mind.
Most of the information I cited above is straight out of Heather MacDonald's book, The War On Cops (2015). But I double checked the data myself, since I never feel comfortable relying on secondary sources for statistical data or characterizations of contoversial events.
Loved your framing-especially this part at the end, "We shouldn’t be saddling people with our preconceptions, entering a conversation with the political equivalent of a facial recognition algorithm, trying desperately to match them to a preconceived archetype so we can decide whether or not to discard them. These are maps—let’s not confuse them with the terrain itself, especially when we’re surrounded by so much common ground."
Beautifully written!
Thank you for taking the time to read it and for the kind words
This is truly thought-provoking, wise, and informative.
One slight critique I might offer is the characterization of "generational wealth" as being impacted by legacy systems of oppression. If, by that term, you mean per capita or per household or per worker wealth, then you might want to leave the word "generational" wealth out. If, by that term, you mean the accumulation of wealth over generations, then I would submit that until very recently (~the last 20 years) little to no wealth was transferred from one generation to the next. My family has been in the northeast since the 1630s one one side and the 1920s on the other. One side was certainly more well-off than the other, but neither parent started with any accumulated wealth from their parents. They bought a house for $12k in 1965 and did not start saving for retirement outside of pension until around 50 years of age. They were typical. The vast majority of wealth is generated by the people who hold it, not passed down. As you emphasize, it is the "human and social capital required to grow and retain wealth," that differs among groups of people. Efforts to close wealth gaps must therefore focus on human and social capital.
Those are fair points. I like you emphasize human and social capital over fiscal capital but the latter seems to be the obsession of most equity minded folk so I felt I needed to at least mention it.
I would add that the Japanese had to start from scratch after their interment during during WW II. In face of extreme anti-Japanese bigotry, they succeeded. Let's remember, the Japanese had sufficiently different physical features to be instantly recognizable as Not White.
As I write this I’m the heart of the Castro in San Francisco and I am watching “Gay Community” diffuse and disappear. The gay political system which emerged in the 50’s and 60’s has dismantled gay oppression, some heterosexisms, and simultaneously remove well-preserved distinctions and culture which helped with geoupnand individual survival in a previously hostile world. “Camp”, Bar Culture, intricate varieties of sexual “outlawism” are have become somewhat nostalgic or quaint, even collectible perhaps - “Mineshaft” tee-shirts are au courant with certain straight teenage boys and girls. Systemic heterosexism still exists but it’s dissipating like covid, slowly and with flare-ups in strange places.
Wokism to me is the hopeless struggle to maintain racist distinctions which helped with survival in a previously hostile world. Today, as wokeness morphs black culture into a tool to combat “white fragility” (the ultimate co-opt) instead of aiding cultural and individual flourishing, with every whine of “cultural appropriation” everyone knows original systems of oppression are over, except for bizarre flare-ups in odd places. BLM itself will be a collectible NFT perhaps, and au-courant teenagers of all backgrounds will Rap on Chinese-owned Tik-Tok. The game is over.
If we don’t look at why poor are getting poorer and rich richer, we’re not looking at the real problem.
“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
Eric Hoffer
I am completely in harmony with you, though the devil's advocate in me recalls the shift in SF gay culture from the post-hippie freakiness of Polk St. to the sometime disparaged "Castro Clones" in the 70s, so there may be an element of "the more thinge change..." Humans are prone to it.
Thank you. I find so many of my thoughts in your article, but now expressed coherently. I've re-read and re-read, to integrate and find ways of expressing my thoughts in discussions with some of my 'woke with the crowd' friends. I wish I'd known the 'parable of the pedestrian' the other day.
It is a very powerful insight, it’s too bad other things Amy Wax has said more recently can make it difficult to reference her in conversation (tread carefully). Humans are complicated.
Thanks. Point taken. But humans change - in both directions - and who someone may act as today doesn't necessarily negate something they said 10 years ago. Just as what someone said 10 years ago doesn't necessarily reflect who they are today.
Totally agree, many don’t though
Thank you. Very helpful. Nuanced. And I agree completely. The slogans had their uses, now let's move on to doing some real work to deal with the divide.
Nuanced. TYTY. Don't quite agree, but that's a long story.
I’m all ears. No worries on disagreeing, I don’t agree with thoughts I held 6 months ago. It has to be ok again to disagree without being disagreeable.
You're a kind man to ask, Sir. Unfortunately, at the moment, I'm too sleep-deprived to say much that would be worth Your time. I'll reread Your essay a couple times in the morning. And, hopefully, make a long story short. We Shall See. No hurry, nor need, for You to get back with me anytime soon, or at all.
All that to say... Hope You have a GREAT day, and TY again for Your fine essay and Your reply.
Oh! I don't agree with some things I thought yesterday, so there is that. :)
Ooops. I'd meant to reply here, but didn't. Some things might seem outlandish, but I was trying to keep it short.
If only more people were open-minded enough as you are to realize that there is room for reasonable disagreement concerning complex issues, and that differences of opinion on complex issues shouldn't degenerate into insults, it would transformnthose proppe's lives and would make life more sane in general.
Why did school integration basically fail? I will address one example from personal experience. In 1968, The Claremont Colleges had a Upward Bound Program for high school students who, for one reason or another, were not prepared to attend college and thus needed some additional formal help to overcome whatever deficits they had. While there were disadvantaged Whites and Orientals (before they became Asians), over 90% were either Black or Mex Am.
Within a couple days, it was obvious that the Blacks only associated with Blacks and Mex Am only associated with each other, and animosity between the two groups was escalating. The director had been hired due to his ethnicity and was clueless, but in desperation to avoid physical violence, he did allow one staff member to run the program. His change was to reassign each student to new groups of mixed race and then to confront the groups with challenges which they had to overcome. Within a day, the students formed friendships due to the forced cooperation to achieve a common goal and the program continued to have mixed groups solve problems to provide a context for the friendships to continue. The self-imposed segregation vanished and the program was recognized as the most academic West of the Mississippi.
In other places, there was often a total laissez faire approach or students were indoctrinated into the special grievances of their own group.
The other Great Society disaster was the govt 's resort to racial quotas where merit was classified as racist and the schools and employers had to satisfy strict quotas. That was a horrible injustice to the minorities as it relegated them to an inferior education and faux evaluations so that the schools and employers could process the right number of minorities.
The switch to strict quotas had two motives: (1) The Dems wanted a national patronage system sooner rather than later, and quotas which were divorced from merit were faster, (2) people who improved their skills and advanced via merit had a harder and longer path, but once they did succeed, they would be self-reliant and not part of a solid Dem voting block. Pelosi's Identity Politics and the Wokers are heirs to this polarizing philosophy.
For their part, the GOP are still stuck the White is Right philosophy.
Your experience at Claremont reflects a well-understood dynamic discovered by Gordon Allport and discussed in his 1954 book, The Nature of Prejudice. He wrote that prejudice “may be reduced by equal status contact between majority and minority groups in the pursuit of common goals.” Such work toward common goals “leads to the perception of common interests and common humanity between members of [different] groups.”
This insight has been tested, re-tested, and elaborated upon. As you note, it works! https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/josi.12423#:~:text=If%20contact%20occurs%20under%20reasonably,research%20conducted%20throughout%20the%20world.
Yes, it is sad that so many people refused to help groups get along with each other when both groups were filled with wonderful people, but who had legit anxieties
<All CAPS are ITALICS.>
First the stick, M. Knight-Laurie:
<Your quote prefaced by ">>>" Sir.>
>>> Let’s be serious though: what exactly do we mean by “woke”? How about “a set of political ideals centered around social justice and allyship with disadvantaged groups”?
I think this is OSTENSIBLY the concept of "woke." I believe a better definition is that the woke are "blacks and other minorities, and their white enablers, who seek political, economic, and cultural POWER." That's why there's such an emphasis on POWER, from top to bottom. What seems to have gone unnoticed is that there are less than zero institutions that aren't already owned by the woke. So the woke ARE the POWER to be reckoned with, right? In today’s culture, the people ACTUALLY disadvantaged are white males, right?
>>> “Persistent disparities between black and white Americans are caused by systems of oppression not solely found in history books, but acutely present today as well.”
See, here's the problem with that. If one is woke, and views everything revolves around POWER then, yeah, everybody can be reduced to oppressed and oppressors. That's truly ONE way to look at it and, clearly, the woke are the oppressors today. As far as "systems of oppression," I have two quibbles: One is that implies "systemic racism" which doesn't exist anymore. As far as racists currently oppressing black people, I don't think that can be denied. The problem I have in that sentence is the word "acutely" present today. You can always say I dunno what I'm talking about, because I'm white. But I can make rough estimate and take the actions of the racists and balance them out against affirmative action. ICBW, but I'm guessing they are closer to balancing each other (tho still unbalanced) to say that "acutely" present doesn't take into account the benefits derived from affirmative action, right?
Now, the carrot, Sir:
>>> Imagine instead you think the story is more tragic than that—one far too complicated to be remedied by political intervention.
I agree. And I don't hafta imagine, because I've read a little of Thomas Sowell. From what he's "said," political intervention has CAUSED a lotta the problems we see today, right?
>>> Sure, we can just give people stuff and watch disparity disappear, only to have the chasm return a decade or so later because the human and social capital required to retain and grow wealth are things we cannot endow. This isn’t a criticism of black people in particular.
No, I agree again. I'd say the same thing would happen if we just gave poor white people stuff.
>>> They didn’t exactly roll out a welcome mat for Ruby Bridges. Children know when they’re not wanted and they find ways to cope.
The initial efforts at integration didn't work out as planned, nor later efforts, AFAIK. It's a difficult proposition, because blacks are generally gonna be a minority in most integrated schools. Does that make them "outsiders?” It depends on the attitudes all the kids decide to take.
>>> On top of that we can layer a welfare system that unwittingly incentivized single parenthood by economically penalizing families with live-in fathers. ... Regardless, it wasn’t necessary for this financial aid to serve as a substitute for a breadwinner; these systems could have been designed as supplements instead.
I recall reading that LBJ promoted the welfare system as being necessary so blacks wouldn't come to DEPEND on the government for their money. Funny that. And nowadays You get all kinds-a crazy people talking about UBI. Yeah, when AI (Artificial Intelligence) and Robotics take over, we'll need UBI. But until then? We know what that will result in, right?
>>> (see James Forman, Jr.’s Locking Up Our Own).
I bought the book, but can't say if/when I'll get a chance to read it.
>>> Tragically, what comes to replace poor law enforcement policy is far worse.
Yeah, agree again. Like I've "said" before, what people need is MORE law enforcement, done by increasing the number of WOMEN in the forces. VASTLY more women. For one thing, if You wanna change the attitude of police forces, You'll need to clean house in a lotta cases. Besides that, there was a study. I don't always take much interest in studies, but this one just stands to reason. Women police officers were less likely to escalate a conflict into a physical altercation. And when they did, it was less likely to be lethal.
Doesn't that accomplish what the woke (by any name) want?
At the same, I think it bears looking at the Reality of the situation: You ask liberals how many unarmed black men were killed in a year, they'd say 1,000. Some up to 10,000. I've seen various numbers, by different people. The actual numbers are less than two dozen (24) a year. So BLM is working to get peoples cash based on a fantasy, right?
As always, ICBW.
At any rate, You can see I agree a lot more than I disagree. I still haven't read the rest of the essay a third time, but suspect my views would be similar. I'll disagree with some things, but agree on other things. Lemme know if You want them, M. Knight-Laurie.
And TYTY again for writing such a thought provoking essay. And, of course, to FBT for publishing it.
I actually don’t disagree with this, and they do in my opinion view human interactions primarily through the lens of power while conveniently ignoring their own inordinate sway within elite institutions. That said I try to avoid any arguments that verge on telepathy, so that leaves me sifting through the least objectionable version of the opponents argument (steelmanning). If someone wants to know what I think the least scrupulous among them are up to, basically what you’re saying. My goal ultimately is to dilute the influence of the worst actors, which means targeting fellow travellers. The ones who’s beliefs are closer to the ostensible version. Thank you for following up and I do welcome any further insights.
Sorry, M. Reinard, but I got distracted so was later than I’d planned. I generally plan for nobody to read the junk I write, so don’t bother if You’ve moved on to other pastures. IF (italics) anybody reads it, apologize it’s so long. A lot is quotes from the essay.
<All CAPS are ITALICS.>
First the carrot, M. Knight-Laurie:
<Your quote prefaced by ">>>" Sir.>
>>> This is all very tragic and very understandable, given the history, but nevertheless not something to be solved by transactions or collective guilt, such as reparations.
Personally, it’s a non-starter for me because reparations based solely on skin color is racist itself, right? Not only that, but it would PERMANENTLY and IRREVOCABLY drive a wedge between poor whites and poor blacks. I wish I could state that this is entirely unintentional on everybody’s part. But...
>>> I guess what I really mean by “wokeness” is being obsessed with slaying dragons in the present, while remaining oblivious to concepts like social and human capital that more aptly describe what the underprivileged really lack today.
That definition suits me to a “T.”
>>> Are you convinced, even in part, by this more complicated version of the story?
>>> In comparison, the “end systems of oppression” message has some built-in advantages. It’s much simpler: end racism.
I guess I’d be harsh to say only a simpleton would think along these lines. Plus, I’m not at all certain that it isn’t INTENDED to be so simplistic that it can’t be argued against. Who’s actually gonna be in FAVOR of racism?
Now, I suppose this is gonna be controversial. AFAIK, “systemic racism” is a strawman. I couldn’t find the link, but my memory is good on this one. Pew did a study, and these are the FACTS: In 1990, 86% of white people wouldn’t want a black person to get married to a close relative. They didn’t define “close,” but You get the point. In 2016, that was 14%.
I dunno who did the study or what the question was, but latest number I saw (but didn’t save the link)? SIX percent.
If people gave about two seconds thought on these numbers, one thing would be perfectly clear. PERFECTLY clear: The number of white supremacists has been so exaggerated that nobody should take “systemic racism” or the woke in general seriously, right? Whites MORE than comfortable having a black person as a close relative. Yeah, yeah, yeah... There will be a few white supremists mixed in with the 84% who said they were okay with it, I s’pose. So few I’d imagine it wouldn’t amount to a pimple on a gnat’s arse.
The whole PURPOSE of the “systemic racism,” AFAIK, is twofold. Keep the $6 BILLION DEI industry going. And gives the Marxists and other fill-in-the-blanks a reason to destroy the institutions of our society and rebuild from scratch. Build WHAT, nobody’s even dreamed up yet. But somehow that seems to be a laudable goal for ALL the “woke.”
>>> The “end oppression” camp disagrees, and instead wants to institute a set of reforms in facets of society proximal to the disparate outcomes we all find so frustrating—ending “racist” gifted programs and standardized testing, for example. These are diagnostics: discarding them is like throwing out the thermometer because it’s telling you that you have a fever.
I’m jumping the gun a little bit, but this is why I come pretty close to SERIOUSLY DISLIKING the “woke.” We’re heading into a time in history where the competition with our future overlords, the Chinese, will revolve around STEM subjects. Primarily AI and Robotics, right?
So the “woke” decide THIS is the PERFECT time to bring all our students to the lowest common denominator of mediocrity. Oregon, who developed the SJW curriculum for Math? Them who decided You didn’t even NEED to have any MINIMAL knowledge of reading and writing and ‘rithmetic to get a high school diploma? That doesn’t even come close to passing the smell test, except mebbe in places like CA. Weeeel, actually all over, come to think on it.
>>> Drawing parallels between horrible racist events in the past and unfortunate ones today is an exercise in revisionist history. It distorts the past and the present in one fell swoop.
I’d probably end up quoting the majority of what You wrote, M. Reinard, for this carrot part. But THIS I had to agree with EXTRA strongly.
>>> If we know what people actually agree on—a lot, to be frank—we can chart a path forward.
I agree with the principle. I’m not sure how much we agree on, tho.
>>> In return, the people formerly known as “woke” need to cut it out with the witch hunts. I hope they understand by now that politics by inquisition is unsustainable.
Weeeel, I’m afraid just about the whole PURPOSE of the “woke” is to enforce The Narrative. You alluded to that as being the reason so few speak against it, right? So although I agree with the sentiment, AFAIK, it’ll be sustainable until more people like You DO have the courage to speak out. A lot MORE than You and Professors Loury and McWhorter. Dunno if it’ll ever happen, but I can dream.
Like I “said,” agree pretty much down the line, until the last paragraph, which inspired my initial query if You wanted to “hear” a different view of things. This is the stick portion:
>>> Eventually, the guillotine finds its way to you. As a description of a set of ideas, “wokeness” is somewhat serviceable. As a pejorative to bludgeon someone with, not so much. We shouldn’t be saddling people with our preconceptions, entering a conversation with the political equivalent of a facial recognition algorithm, trying desperately to match them to a preconceived archetype so we can decide whether or not to discard them.
AFAIK, “wokeness” is such an amorphous set of ideas, that I dunno I’d give them much credit for HAVING any. So, I guess I’ve matched them to a preconceived archetype, mebbe. I was gonna get into specifics about Coates, and Nicole Hannah-Jones at Howard. Kendi. DiAngelo. The trait in common I see from a lot is that they’ve, most-a them, CASHED IN. Kimberlé Crenshaw not as much in the way of money, mebbe. But she’s gotten the Prez of Columbia bending over backwards to kiss her feet, so there is that.
If I ever met any-a these people PERSONALLY, I’d probably hug them and tell them their dumber than a rock, for all their degrees. All four of them, but especially KenDiAngelo.
But here’s the REAL problem I have with them, besides them being black supremists: Could You get any ONE-a them to agree that we need more PoliceWOMEN? That the primary REASON blacks get such a poor education happens to be the teacher’s UNIONS? Therefore the need for school choice? That education funding needs to go with the STUDENT, so people aren’t paying twice for their private-if-necessary good education.
Can You find a SINGLE.. I’ll just call them RadLibs for being RADICAL (IL)liberals.. I just don’t see ANY-a the RadLibs agreeing to a SINGLE DAGGONE THING that would actually SOLVE problems of poor blacks. Because their whole SELF is tied up with them being saviors, right? You’d hafta change the RadLib’s view of themselves for them to give up the GOOD FIGHT, right?
Or mebbe You know one or two whose purpose in life extends BEYOND fighting tooth and nail. I don’t get around much, but I’ve never HEARD-a anybody along those lines. There won’t be many because most-a these people are WHOLELY INVESTED in just FIGHTING it out, right?
And, if You need proof: (Or mebbe You can educate me and tell me I’m wrong.) How many of them have engaged in an honest debate about the issues? They can’t, because their views are so self-contradictory that they amount to a house of cards. And I’ve studied their “logic” a bit, so I don’t think I’m guessing about that.
So, my PERSONAL OPINION is that if You want to actually IMPROVE the lot of poor blacks (and, incidentally, as a coincidence, a lotta poor whites who suffer a lotta the same symptoms).. Well, face it: The President of the U.S. is the Pope of the Fundamentalist Woke-ianity Religion, so I have a hard time seeing the kinds of changes that would actually HELP anybody out. That’s just me. And ICBW, and I hope I am.
As far as choosing a name to call ‘em, I’m not really particular. They’re an shifting, amorphous group, but they ARE a group. And I believe about any term is gonna quickly become a pejorative because of the harm this group of people INTEND to cause. Again, that’s just me.
TYTY. (Know I should-a proofread it, but alas...)
Again, I agree with most of this. I’m not interested in reparations whatsoever. In fact that understates my aversion. The injuries it’s meant to address weren’t inflicted on me. There’s no tortworthy claim here, no delineation of the debts’ inheritance. The most coherent way I can rationalize it is as an opportunity for today’s black Americans to personally receive a cut of the proceeds from slavery. Safe to say I’m not for it. I think systemic racism is more often than not a means to obfuscate. To reach into the ether and have it provide a palatable placeholder for an actual explanation of societal problems. Whenever someone proffers systemic racism I always ask them to parse what they mean by that explicitly. More often than not it’s an empty shell. In regard to the last part, is this or is this not a fairly homogeneous group of disingenuous actors. The answer is I don’t know. I’m hopeful. When I converse with people from that constituency I rarely encounter people who are totally immune to reason and evidence. In my opinion they overindex on sociological explanations but they aren’t irrational. The most irrational people I encounter are those who owe their livings to the enterprise. I’m optimistic that they don’t represent the majority. Acrimony is good business for them but it’s not for laypeople. So it’s not that I disagree with your assessment, I just see no other option than to talk to them before deciding whether the person I’m speaking to is ultimately hostile.
TYTY, Sir. And:
Ah. Glad to hear. If You find any that AREN'T hostile, then You must move in good circles. I guess I just hear the loudest, and that's my problem.
Your points are well-taken, M. Rienard. Couldn't agree more. (Sleep-deprived again, tho.) TYTY for reply, Sir.
Substantial, reasoned food for thought here. I've been needing a new way of looking at the issue. Thanks.
Solid piece
Historical oppression is absolutely a factor in today's disparities. It's interesting, though, that we are now unwinding the horrible consequences of modern attempts to address social injustice (welfare, integration, urban renewal) with potentially more of the same (reparations, racial reckoning, universal childcare, etc.). Top down solutions are probably just great ways to get money into the hands of grifters.
Also, it's very hard to ignore the behavioral outliers within black communities that cannot persist if there is to be progress. Out of wedlock births, criminal offending rates, educational attainment. Amazing to see the stats on social mobility for black americans that simply follow behavioral norms. They're doing great.
Regarding the Washington Post's August 2015 study that found police had shot and killed 24 unarmed black people so far that year, and related matters:
"Unarmed" includes people with knives, someone bashing in a cop's jaw with the cop's equipment, people trying to grab guns from cop, people using their fists to severely injure cops who had no choice but to save their own lives, getaway car drivers who are killed when the person in the passenger seat shoots at a cop and the cop returns fire, and people accidentally hit by bullets that ricocheted or missed in circumstances where an officer was justified in shooting at someone who was trying to shoot the officer. The Washington Post conveniently withheld those details when it found that police killed 24 unarmed black people from January to August 2015. The WP also failed to mention that the number for the entire year was 36, leaving people to assume the rate had been stable for the rest of the year (as if shooting deaths of "unarmed" black people were a legitimate category upon which to judge officers' conduct). All but one of those "unarmed" black people who died in police shootings were teenage or adult males. The only exception was a woman hit by a bullet that ricocheted far from its intended target. The total black male population was nearly 19 million people at the time. Almost every intentional shooting of an "unarmed" black suspect in 2015 appears to have been justified, because those shot were violently endangering someone's life. In two or three instances, it was debatable whether a cop had made a mistake or used poor judgment. When people read that an unarmed black person was killed as a result of a police shooting, they assume police committed murder. That is what the Washington Post wanted them to assume. That is the same motive behind the NYT's absurd claim in 2014 that "the killing of young black men by police is a common feature of African-American life and a source of dread for black parents from coast to coast." In fact, police homicides of black people were very rare when the NYT made that claim.
Black people are killed by police at an enormously lower rate than their threat to police officers' lives would predict. Of course, I am not saying that most black people present that threat to police. But almost every black person killed by police presents that threat. In 2013, blacks made up 42% of all cop killers whose race was known. In 2014, black criminals murdered 52 law enforcement officers performing traffic stops, serving warrants, and carrying out other duties. There were 628,000 full-time law enforcement officers working that year.
Compare the statistics on police shootings of black criminals and unintentional shooting deaths of bystanders to 6,000 black on black homicides using guns in 2015, and 10,000 such homicides in 2023.
On top of that, from 2005 to 2014, 40% of cop killers were black males in their teens and adult years, although black males in their teens and adult years constiturlted roughly four percent of the population.
I realize that only a small percentage of black people--a small subset of black males--commit these black on black murders and murder police officers. I am not making a racist claim that black people in general are violent. But that small percentage is concentrated in locations in poor black neighborhoods where police frequently need to respond to 911 calls concerning violent crime. Cops responding to such a call in such a locations are understandably afraid of being shot or attacked, which has an influence on their behavior. Cops are human just like the rest of us. It is not surprising that they are hyper-vigilant when arriving at lications where thrir is a reasonable possibility that their lives are at risk. But cops who intentionally shoot black and white suspects (as opposed to dtray bullets) are significantly more likely to kill white suspects: they are far more careful to attempt to avoid fatalities among black people than white people whom they shoot.
I am not an apologist for police misconduct: I sued cops for six years before doctors decimated my health (more about that below). I am only addressing factors here that are ignored in most news coverage of police shooting deaths of black people.
The Justice Department had forced New Jersey and North Carolina into consent decrees around 2000 because state troopers in both states were presumed to be pulling over a higher percentage of black than white drivers for speeding on the basis of racial profiling. Soon afterwards, studies in both states using traffic cameras to analyze driving patterns of about 40,000 drivers proved that black drivers exceeded the speed limit by more than 15 mph on the NJ Turnpike and the largest interstate highway in NC. Of course, they did not speed at such rates because they were black. The explanation is that a far higher percentage of black than white drivers are 23 and under, which is the age range of a disproportionate share of reckless drivers. The mass media provided intensive coverage of the consent decrees that "proved" racial profiling was rampant, but ignored the studies proving that the consent decrees were based on false assumptions.
In 2001, I was the only white member of an otherwise all-black 30 person grand jury in DC that convened eight hours per day for a month to hear testimony from prosecutors seeking indictments for alleged murder and rape. The rest of the members on the grand jury would have imposed Saudi style punishments on black criminals terrorizing their neighborhoods. People in these communities seldom agree with the self-appointed activists who want police presence to be reduced.
I spent six years representing plaintiffs in police misconduct cases. As a law clerk, I spent four years helping to represent DC prisoners at the former maximum security facility in Lorton, VA in civil rights cases against corrections officers and prison administrators. A very low percentage of cops are responsible for almost all the violent abuses. Other cops are often afraid to speak out. A former Seattle cop told me that if he spoke out, the subset of thugs on the force would put on masks and find an opportunity to catch him alone to throw a blanket over his head and use rubber truncheons to give him a vicious beating.
Those out of control cops are equal opportunity abusers. They frequently target white people, but the mass media does not deem it newsworthy.
My statements pertain to the years I mentioned. I realize that anti-black racism in police forces was far more pervasive and extreme 35 years ago than it is now. And I am not saying it no longer exists today. I'm not out of my mind.
Most of the information I cited above is straight out of Heather MacDonald's book, The War On Cops (2015). But I double checked the data myself, since I never feel comfortable relying on secondary sources for statistical data or characterizations of contoversial events.