Like Criminals Respect their Communities' Wishes?

A New Orlean's protest against Black on Black violence, January 11, 2007. There have at least nine other major protests in that city since 2006, and hundreds in most major US cities.

I'm picking this up from my last entry, where I defined the term ARWP, short for Ambiguously Racist White People. I'll alternately call them sometimes ARs for Ambiguous Racists, or ARRs for Ambiguously Racist Reactionaries. 



There were several tragic murders, Black-on-Black violence this week. In the RFT commentaries, ARWPs can't refer to these killings without complaining about the Ferguson/Shaw protesters. The charge the ARs make is that the activists don't protest those crime victims. Instead, they protest the deaths of unworthy Black people, e.g. Michael Brown and Vonderitt Myers, who--as their petty crimes and police magnetism prove--completely deserved to die. ARWPs incessantly point out the lack of Black protests for Black-on-Black crime. Therefore, any protest made over a White policeman shooting a bona fide Bad Black Male can only be explained by reverse racism, that is hypocrisy.

Problem is, that well-known fact is a falsehood that can be debunked in three minutes on Google. Yet, ARWPs either pull it out of their asses minted brand new for their next commentary, or receive from a fellow ARWP and then pass it on as truth without as much as a sniff test. "Why would my buddy lie about that?" (Perhaps because he's Ambiguously Racist, too?)


But, says the ARWP, they must not be trying hard enough, because all these protests aren't stopping Black-on-Black crime. Those lazy bastards!

How could it succeed? How could it have any real effect on crime? It's a racist misconception that Blacks somehow have more influence over the criminal element than Whites do. The very fact that ARWPs would assume that Blacks have more sway over "their own criminals" is racist to the core. A more subtle assumption behind the demand of protesting BoB violence is that neighborhoods be so heavily segregated that the race is the community. If a Black is murdered by a Black criminal in Ferguson, which is about 20 percent White, how can Whites assume that only those of certain complexion are must take responsibility? With racism. That's the only way.

A more practical failure such protests is that criminals aren't constitutionally obligated to listen to their communities. In contrast, the police--who are civil servants, after all--are supposed to, in theory. (It turns out now to be very theoretical with Ferguson/Shaw.) Or else the City, County State or Federal governments are obligated to make police respond to their communities. If we were in a functioning democracy, that's what would happen.   

Blacks do protest Black-on-Black violence, though it's ineffective. MSM does not report it, perhaps knowing too well that ARWPs aren't interested in having their best whitesplained wisdom corrected. (If it came out of my ass, it must be gold!) Definitely, on the RFT comments, ARWP's resent me setting them straight. It's funny how they then hedge. One bigot demanded that I name one time it happened in St. Louis where people rioted and burned their neighborhoods down over Black on Black crime. (Just as Whites do over WoW crime. And Ferguson protesters didn't do that over Michael Brown's killing.) Another who said, "Oh, Black leaders have founded those organizations, but they never meet and never have any protests." Actually, there have been hundreds over the decade. In New Orleans alone, there have been ten since 2006.  

There's a larger problem. People don't gather facts these days as much as they buy fictions. Who needs knowledge when they have ignorance? Ignorance is easier, more pleasing and more interesting. Why choose fact when fiction can be manufactured at will? The story that you and your team (race) are the good guys and are winning is too good to check against facts. Everyone tries to make a narrative of the world, and then makes a narrative of their lives within it. Our minds depend on a narratives, a "real world" as key function of consciousness.

In the narratives, most people consider themselves to be the hero, the protagonist. Unfortunately, the hero in the story would the last character to ever admit the plot is fiction. 

The fiction hides a sad truth from ARWPs: they have lost their rights, too. I mean, they know they're screwed when they get hit with a false drug bust, or their property gets forfeited due to some bullshit charge. They know it when a heavily armed SWAT team shows up at their homes to cite them for having an un-mowed lawn. They don't take as much police harassment, brutality and downright murder, but they know their rights are gone or at least tattered, unless they are wealthy, too. The fact that police don't treat Whites as badly as Blacks only confirms privilege. They think police wouldn't kill so many Blacks if they'd only take it like Whites do.

Problem is ARWP's are too proud to protest. Protesting is what minorities do. It's what the unemployed do. It's proof of unhappiness, and successful people are happy. It's for "those people" who just want attention and really don't care about the cause. This pride, this denial, is wrapped up in privilege.

There's nothing special about the rights the protesters want.  Like unions at the beginning of the 20th century, the Ferguson/Shaw protestors are doing the heavy lifting for all people's rights. If they win, everyone will be better off.