Detroit in Ruins

I don't know the particular study you are talking about, so it's hard for me to comment on it.

In the grand scheme of things, I'm inclined to agree that it's social control from families, neighborhoods, and governments that determines crime. In the case of the decline of Detroit, the lack of social control was intricately tried to race in all sorts of way (ex. a history of societal neglect under Jim Crow that gave rise to an underclass culture, the black power movement that gave young black men a rationale for beating on whitey, racist policing that failed to police the black projects). Again, we're not discussing race to lay blame, we're trying to understand what happened. And in the context of this discussion, I had to emphasize and highlight the racial aspect, because the parent comment to my comment specifically denied that there was any racial aspect at all.

Imagine we are talking about slavery. I can certainly imagine a study that proves that slavery is not innately based on race, but rather has to do with relations of power (black on black slavery in Africa was really common, white on white slavery used to be common in Europe, a few slaveholders in the antebellum south were black, slavery has been common in virtually all civilizations, etc). Now imagine someone denies that "whiteness" had anything to do with slave owning in the American south, and that anyone who discusess it should be shunned. Someone else replies extensively and highlights that slave owning and oppression of slaves in the American south of the 1800's was "almost entirely white" and was intricately tied to race. Is that person racist against "white" people? No. Is that blaming all whites living now for what happened then? No. Should we not talk about the racial aspect of slavery, because some racist young black men might use it has a justification for violence? No. Understanding the racial aspect of slavery in that particular time is essential for understanding what happened in that time. Similarly, understanding the racial aspect of crime in the 1960's and 1970's is essential for understanding what happened to Detroit.

> It seems to me stunning that anyone can dispute the statement that "black people played a role in the decay of Detroit".

That statement, as it stands, is ambiguous, and that its implications depend a lot on what it's taken to mean.

Statement 1: Many of the people involved in the decay of Detroit were black.

Statement 2: Many of the people involved in the decay of Detroit were black, and their blackness was an important factor in the decay.

Statement 3: Many of the people involved in the decay of Detroit were black, and their blackness was an important factor in the decay because of some actual difference between black people and white people.

Statement 4: Many of the people involved in the decay of Detroit were black, and their blackness was an important factor in the decay because black people are stupider or nastier or crazier than white people.

Statement 1 is clearly true. Statement 2 is not clearly true. Statement 3 is very likely false. Statement 4 is almost certainly false. (These are of course all my own opinions; I am not claiming that they are self-evident.)

Statement 4, if true, might well have implications like "We should try to get rid of the black people" or "We should make it easy for white people to keep black people away from them" or "Black and white people should be segregated". Statement 1, on its own, would not.

There are plenty of people around who would endorse something like statement 4, and who would be happy to draw such conclusions. It is widely considered (and I agree) that these are not very nice people, and that the policies they prefer would be socially harmful, and that many of the things they believe about black people are factually wrong, and that if their ideas were more widely believed it would be a very bad thing.

That is why expressing views like statement 4 may "get you shunned". For the same reason, if what you intend is (say) only statement 1 then it seems to me that you ought to make that clear.

(I must say that I don't see why anyone would find statement 1 interesting, unless they think that what's really true is one of those later statements. And if someone finds such statements worth making, I am going to suspect that they may have in mind some conclusions of the sort I mentioned above. I suspect I'm not alone in this.)

It has been a great experience to live in Germany, to walk the streets downtown during nights or the weekend and not worry about getting jumped by thugs. There are blacks but they are well behaved. There is crime - particularly bike theft - but violent crime is an order of magnitude below the USA.

People of all ethnic groups and economic status could be living such a better life if only they had cities and societies with better organization as in Germany.

Disclaimer: I'm biracial (Black and white).

People misunderstand the issue at hand in these conversations a lot so I figured I'd chime in a bit. Is there a difference between blacks and whites? Yes and no, it's complicated. The real differences at hand, as I think some commenters below pointed out is the difference between affluent and those that are less so. These are cultural differences and tend to manifest themselves as racial differences because of the disparate wealth numbers for the different demographics (25% of Blacks are in poverty and the median income amongst blacks is about 16k less than that of the national average).

It would be more correct to refer to this group as a sort of sub-culture, the group includes people of other ethnicities also. Sadly, this doesn't answer the original question. We have a subculture in America, one made up of primarily African Americans, that the glamorizes drugs, violence, and a victim mentality; While simultaneously villainizing education and success. Is this a trait of "blacks"? No, absolutely not. It is however the traits of the culture many blacks have aligned themselves with.

I actually live about 1/2 mile from a great grocery store but regularly (~once per week) drive 2.5 miles to the greatest grocery store. It's not so bad. It's even easier to go that far or farther for people in the suburbs with fast roads or highways that go to their neighborhood-ish grocery store, rather than my town of Berkeley which has weird traffic calming patterns to try to actively discourage me from driving to the Berkeley Bowl West.