"Associating minorities with crime is irrational, unjust and completely normal"

[synthesis]

http://www.slate.com/id/2272262/


The left is wrong to wish the association away only by pointing out how unfair it is, because that denies the reality of how our minds work. The right is wrong to believe the association must be accurate merely because it is widespread.

Thoughts?

[WeAreReborn]

It is only normal in a society which actively points out race and class differences. Race was just used and is used to separate on group from another. It is purely visual and yes it is somewhat natural in that sense. But to associate themselves with anything be it crime, or another negative or positive stereotype is absolutely wrong and shouldn't say it is right just because it is "natural". That is just the same as the eugenics movement.

[Apoi_Viitor]

It is only normal in a society which actively points out race and class differences. Race was just used and is used to separate on group from another. It is purely visual and yes it is somewhat natural in that sense. But to associate themselves with anything be it crime, or another negative or positive stereotype is absolutely wrong and shouldn't say it is right just because it is "natural". That is just the same as the eugenics movement.

Basically this. However, I'll add a quote from Sartre that sums up by viewpoint:

"I was not the one to invent lies: they were created in a society divided by class and each of us inherited lies when we were born. It is not by refusing to lie that we will abolish lies: it is by eradicating class by any means necessary."

We can only get so far by challenging the illusory assumptions that are mind upholds; we have to target the systems producing such assumptions.

Of course, as many on this site have stated, class struggle alone won't end racism - but it is still an important part of the struggle.

[La Comédie Noire]

Isn't the idea of race as a biological category and people of the same skin color as part of one race something relatively new to history?

[Amphictyonis]

http://www.slate.com/id/2272262/



Thoughts?

Poverty ie scarcity creates conditions for crime. Equal access to the means of production and an end to capitalism would solve the problems of "crime". There's a causal relationship between capitalism, the false scarcity it creates and crime. Racism has been a factor as well, as far as placing much of the black population in the realm of the perpetually unemployed but even if we rid the US of racial discrimination the sad fact that under capitalism a 4% to 6 % perpetual unemployed population must exist would remain. Meaning, without racial discrimination, which is horrible, there would simply be a more diverse prison population (and thats exactly what we're beginning to see).

The answer is to end capitalism.

Any community living in scarcity will indeed turn to "crime". The real criminals aren't kids selling weed in the streets or robbing a WalMart for something to eat- the real criminals wear 6 thousand dollar suits and have hit men we call police. The real criminals are the ones who profit from the current social system but they get to hold their heads up high like the good god fearing patriotic businessmen they are.

[WeAreReborn]

Isn't the idea of race as a biological category and people of the same skin color as part of one race something relatively new to history?
In terms of biology, yes. In terms of social no. People have always seen people of different skin color and view them differently. An example is when a few Native Americans saw a black person for the first time they skinned him, I'm not saying all or most did just a few Native Americans. So it is just curiosity, and when answers don't come fear kicks in and irrationality takes hold. Similar to every religion and how it is just to give an answer, so if one says they are different then us therefore they are inferior people will jump on board because it is the easy answer. I'm sure someone could have put it better but I believe this is correct nevertheless.

[lines]

Isn't the idea of race as a biological category and people of the same skin color as part of one race something relatively new to history?

As far as I know historically the term race referred to ones ancestral lineage. And so for example members of a royal family would describe their particular bloodline as a race and members of royalty would be considered of a different race than the common people even though they both had the same skin color. Race would basically mean ones particular genealogy.

It wasn't until the age of exploration and imperial conquests that race came to be defined as skin color. When many of the European countries conquered various land areas of people with darker skin or differently shaped eyes.

Personally I prefer the definition of race where it is defined as family bloodline.

[Obzervi]

In terms of biology, yes. In terms of social no. People have always seen people of different skin color and view them differently. An example is when a few Native Americans saw a black person for the first time they skinned him, I'm not saying all or most did just a few Native Americans. So it is just curiosity, and when answers don't come fear kicks in and irrationality takes hold. Similar to every religion and how it is just to give an answer, so if one says they are different then us therefore they are inferior people will jump on board because it is the easy answer. I'm sure someone could have put it better but I believe this is correct nevertheless.

Actually humans didn't even notice "race" until it was invented by power seeking European men centuries ago. Its called divide and conquer. Race doesn't exist, its a social construct. It has ZERO biological significance. All human beings are 99.99% related. There is more genetic diversity within one chimpanzee family than within all 6 billion humans.

[Decolonize The Left]

http://www.slate.com/id/2272262/



Thoughts?

The quote in the OP title, "Associating minorities with crime is irrational, unjust and completely normal," is completely absurd and a poor analysis of psychology.

The quote calls into question, or rather, completely avoids and ignores the question of, 'how normal is defined, and who defines it.' Hence the claim made is rather interesting as it assumes a 'majority' perspective - namely, that of a heterosexual white male. So given that this perspective is the dominant social paradigm, it would seem to the writer that associating minorities with crime is normal.

In fact, this is not the case. It may seem such as a result of many years of social conditioning, etc... but it is socially constructed. As a counter example, a minority may not associate another minority with crime and may find this claim to be insulting. Yet this person is occupying a minority perspective and hence is in a position of subordination in regards to the dominant discourse which aggressively portrays him/her as a criminal.

As for this quote:

The left is wrong to wish the association away only by pointing out how unfair it is, because that denies the reality of how our minds work.
I don't see anyone 'wishing' anything away. If we were sitting still closing our eyes with our fingers crossed, we wouldn't really be typing here would we?

I already explained how 'the reality of how our minds work' is a load of crap.

- August

[NecroCommie]

Making a connection between race and crime is one thing, but even if it were accurate and useful (it is not) it would not mean that we should target crime fighting on certain "races". If we fight crime, we fight crime, but targeting a race is targeting a race no matter the statistics. This goes especially if some other race's crimes are left unchecked.

If you want to ban all rapists, fine, but ban the white rapists too, least it turns from crime fighting into racism.