Are Black kids to blame for street robbery?

[pooka]

Adam: Are we living in parallel universes of something? On my reading, Hipipol is disagreeing with you!

Look. I have no obsession with ethnicity and street crime, it doesn't "get my juices flowing" as you suggest, and I'd guess that's true for most other posters here. But that's the issue raised by this thread. I doubt you would find any reference to race in anything else I've posted on these boards.

Editor posted a notice of this debate. It could equally have been "Street crime: causes and solutions" or "Street crime in Lambeth" whatever. As it happens, its Street Crime and Ethnicity (albeit provactively titled). It's likely that most of us would have noted that it was happening and some would have turned up, given that we live in a borough with very high levels of street crime. End of story.

But yourself and TopCat leapt in feet first to denounce it as racist and having a malicious intent. Others, myself included, said (basically) "Not necessarilly, it should be addressed". From there on your posts have been progressively more and more insulting to other posters. You've denounced people as racists, right wing, having racist motivations, eugenic, stupid, lightweight, "bullied geek crowd" (whatever that means). You've also made the condescending assumption that we are statistically innumerate. That's disappointing - whilst I might not agree with you, your posts elsewhere (and the sources you cite) are usually cogent and thought provoking. Not surprisingly, people have responded. And not with insults, certainly nothing on the scale you've trotted out.

Your comparison with the experience of the Irish in 19th century Britain has a resonance. There was widespread street crime at that time, with similar ethic dimensions and with similar social and economic bases. I'm first generation Irish and I've tried hard to envisage how I would have felt if such a debate were being staged in that context. I guess I'd be suspicious and wary, but would much prefer that the issue were thrashed out rather than left as a hostage to racist detractors.

I shan't be picking randomly on dissaffected youths, black or white, in the street to engage in this debate. Any more than I'd pick on random homeless people to discuss homelessness. I'd expect, at the very least, to be treated as some crank or axe grinder. But I shall talk, and have talked, about this stuff with people I know, where I live - far more constructive.

But you make a useful point. We know that the majority of kids don't get involved in street crime. We also know that they are in fact most at risk - particularly young men. They know better than we do what's going on. But where are the avenues for their input?

 

[hatboy]

That seems very cogent Pooka. My points earlier were more to do with how this subject gets chewed over generally than your personal views, although it was one of your posts that I disected as an example. Perhaps you didn't deserve that. I am still concerned about this feeling of "them and us" here however. I mean, doesn't anyone on here talk to any black youth?

Adam - don't get too abusive wil you mate (not saying you have) otherwise I'll be forced to do some, er, moderating.

"Are white bulletin board users to blame for online fury?"

 

[ats]

I do agree with one thing that Adam says, when he states that the term mugging was introduced to refer to street robbery by black men. I remember it happening, led by right-wing papers such as the Standard, and I thought it was racist at the time. When talking about street robbery, suddenly a term was being used that had the implication that black people were responsible - one of those things that's very difficult to argue against, because it doesn't actually say upfront what it's implying.

But I think it's very odd to forbid any discussion of the possibility that there might be any phenomenon working there that means young black men are over-represented in this sort of crime.

Recognising a phenomenon is the first step to understanding it and working out what to do about it. So it's perfectly fair for us to discuss whether such a thing is true.

And I don't see why it shouldn't be. Are all groups of society equally represented in all kinds of crime? I think that's very unlikely.

For example, it's not racist to suggest that gypsies are more likely to be horse thieves than young black man, just a recognition that horse dealing isn't a very big thing in areas like Brixton. (I'm not working from any statistics there, but if anyone could come up with evidence to the contrary it would indicate a very surprising phenomenon.)

And - to move slightly away from crime - it's observable that the kids who live and beg on the street in Brixton are almost entirely white. (We can discuss why somewhere else.) Is that a racist and reactionary observation?

If there are factors pushing black kids towards crime, we don't do the kids any favours by refusing to recognise the fact.

Blanket denials simply stop us thinking about the issues. If we did think about them more carefully than Adam seems to want, we'd be more able to provide a good response to the right wing journalists who want to imply that black automatically equals criminal.

 

[pooka]

It's certainly the case ats that street homeless appears to be overwhelmingly white - as seen on the streets and at projects - why is that? A (black) friend of ours claimed that it was because white families are less cohesive and less extensive (caring aunties and such). And no, I didn't put her down as racist!

I'm not sure about the racial undertones of the term mugging. Certainly it's long been used nationwide and in places where I've lived and there could be no conceivable racial connotation.

 

[detective-boy]

Am I missing something?

I am at a bit of a loss here.

Adam suggests that it is wrong for white middle-class liberals (I'm paraphrasing a bit) to worry about whether or not black kids are to blame for street robbery.

But, so far as I understand it, the debate originates within the concerned black community, worried about the observed fact that lots of their kids (regardless of whether lots of other kids as well)get involved in street robbery.

And then he suggests it would be better if some white middle-class Chief Constables got the debate together.

If the Jewish community were worried about the number of their jewellers who engaged in fraud, or the Pakistani community worried about their overcharging shopkeepers (not that I subscribe to either of these crass stereotypes by the way), surely it would be their perogative to debate the issue.

And if the white community in Bootle or wherever were concerned about their youth and it's propensity to crime, likewise.

It is a concerned community, asking some difficult questions. They've got off their arses and done something. Surely the least the rest of us can do is listen to their debate (and, if we have something relevant to add, to join it).

 

[William of Walworth]

I am relieved to read the excellent posts above

Because I was so taken aback by Adam's outburst yesterday, I wasn't really able to articulate the cogent thoughts above put by pooka ats and detective-boy, thanks for those thoughts!

Adam join in this discussion .. surely you can see there is more of value to it than the dodgy motives you have tended to assume. You seem to me to have come close to trying to STIFLE debate here by laying all this unnecessary guilt trip on some posters ... but in fact there is scope for more constructive dialogue than that. Including from you, you're knowledgeable enough to be more positive and have more to contribute I'm sure.

 

[TinyCrendon]

.

 

[William of Walworth]

Good post Adam .. more later .... sorry for harshness ...

 

[pooka]

Well, went to this and bumped into Peter - not sure who else was there. I had to leave at the scheduled finish time 9:30, but it was still going on.

And I guess you were about 70% right in terms of how it ran, Adam. There were some angry voices and they're the ones that dominate the show. Partly I gues because that makes good radio and partly because they demand the mic. The panel were'nt especially impressive (although not an easy job).

Overall, just about worth going to but disappointing.

 

[TinyCrendon]

Its often said that in the USA after MLK jr and Malcom X (and many others like the Panthers) were murdered by the state and its supporters that it became (socially) obvious that the system will kill any black man who stands up to it - you can even lie that at the door of far less exciting people, like Biggie Smalls. Killed by the police, like Shakur ditto.

From that point the `hope` dissappears and the cynicism and fury emerge so that now we end up listening to Dr Dre's LP and "all the niggers and ho's in here someone sure gonna fuck" so that black men are niggers and black women are whores. back to pre 1960s values. the ultimate victory for white supremacist systemics. so you create a situation in which people behave badly because NOTHING matters, its obvious that even if you practice peace, love and so on (MLKjr) that if you cause enough trouble you will be killed. So why bother starting ? Just do it, for yourself instead.

Kids realise that our socities are based on money and money alone. Money CAN buy you everything, including love. So why do anything else ? But at this point - when a kid decides to commit crime - race is irrelevent, utterly. After all they are only copying our masters, they want money and power without having to work for it. If it is OK for Cherie Blair why not them.

I dont think (quite obviously coz ive never met any of you) that anyone on this thread is `a racist`. But agendas can be very subtle forms of it and it does no one any favours not to extract the maximum you can from it. To put yourself in the position of a `black kid` (to quote the debate title) and so on. But above all to me, and i cant find another way to express it, to RACIALISE an agenda. So instead of looking at the crimes of young men you partition them and so on. One could for example attack the young men in South Wales who are taking and supplying and passing on heroin, no doubt they are, but it wont do any good.

but I have to say at the heart of this is a `moral` piety and righteousness that I cannot stand. it comes from a (and please dont think this is aimed at anyone) a `liberal` desire that `of course we can discuss this you can't stop me why are you trying to stop us talking about it` nonsense which is just daft.

We had a big mouse problem this winter in all the houses in our block. They came from my mates house who is Irish, he's not exaclty Mr Interior decoration. But we didnt have an Irish mouse probelm we had a mouse problem - its not a strict analogy but you get my drift. We have a crime situation (vastly overplayed) and a situation with young men (like we've always had) but we don't have a black situation. The black kids I knew who were trouble were the same as the white kids I knew who were trouble. Simple. No different.

 

[William of Walworth]

Some of the nastiest and dodgiest wideboys I'm aware of round my way (and more particularly Old Kent Road way) are not black, and as Adam says, this is of no significance whatsoever. you have a dodgy young men problem ...

 

[dr256]

did anyone go?

So did anyone go to the meeting at the fridge last night?

ps top posts by adam.

 

[Peter Matisse]

I went to the meeting at the Fridge last night.

Adam you were right in what you said about the title of the debate. After I read your impassioned response I realised that I had not taken the words literally, but as a starting point for the debate. To say 'Are Black youth to blame for street crime' as the debate was headed on the information that was handed out, was, in my view, unnecessarily inflamitory. Black youth is no more to blame for street crime than any other group that commits the offence.

I took it as read that the discussion would look at what seems to be a higher number of black young people commiting crime, and what causes and possible solutions might be found. Understandably there were a lot of angry people there and I wondered why a title had been chosen that was bound to cause offence. The only thing that I can think of is that someone wanted to make sure that there would be some heated exchanges for the camera.

I bumped into Pooka and as he said the panel were not very inspiring. The gentleman on the panel from the Met for me needed to be a bit more dynamic. I thought that the black policeman who spoke from the floor, and was the chairman of the Black Police Officers Association, was much more forceful. But the panel did not have an easy task.

The evening for me was mostly disappointing from the point of view that there still seems to be such disharmony and aggression between groups. As a white person it seemed to me that much time was wasted arguing rather than trying to form a cohesive whole to tackle the issues. But there were some inspiring comments. mostly, it has to be said, from young black women, who seemed to have realised that the way forward is from within society rather than trying to break down the barriers from the outside.

It was sad though to find that in many ways things have not moved very far from where they were a few years ago.

 

[Spud Murphy III]

But there were some inspiring comments. mostly, it has to be said, from young black women

Just as well those young black women didn't have to ask Adam's permission to speak, otherwise they'd have been able to say nothing.

I can see how disgusting and crap it is have white people pontificating about 'black crime'. You can just imagine them all in a row: Hans Eysenck, Arthur Jensen, Rushton, that prick Sampson from Sussex University . . .

But if black people - more precisely people from Caribbean cultures - want to discuss an issue which disproportionately affects their young, then who the hell are you or me to say they shouldn't?

Adam, you have cited some good examples about the Irish and other groups being labelled as deviants, as ne'er-do-wells, or 'hooligans'. But there is a difference here. These were abusive arguments and ideologies which the dominant members of the dominant culture were heaping on the heads of underdog groups. They certainly weren't coming from those groups themselves.

Yet on the other hand there was a very big debate in working-class circles in the 19th century about alcoholism. Much of the teetotal movement had its roots in early trade-union activity. Many working-class people recognised that rampant alcoholism was destroying their own communities, lining the pockets of wealthy brewers and distillers, and making it very hard to organise.

Teetotalism strikes us as nowadays as quaint. But there was a time when it was part of a legitimate debate within the working-class about an issue which had a special impact on them. That was a debate from the bottom-up, running at the same time and in opposition to the contempt and scorn from the elite for the 'drunken masses', pictured so luridly in Punch cartoons.

I do not see much essential difference between that, and those Caribbean people wanting to debate issues which they feel weigh down on them in particular. Surely there are ways they can do that without implying exclusive ownership of the problem - yes, most muggers *are* white - while at the same time addressing the fact that Caribbean lads are several times more likely to get involved in that particular kind of crime.

Good luck to them.

 

[detective-boy]

Er ... there Adam - you said it there!

Originally posted by Adam Porter
PB said "It would be a more interesting debate if the Commissioner of the Met, City Police, Merseyside Police, Greater Manchester Police the home secretary debated this notion of 'black' crime, for the camera without any 'black involvement' then maybe we would find out what the agenda is."

Exactly.

And maybe our U75 brethern would do the same ? Coz it's all gone quiet again...

 

[detective-boy]

Agree with the comments about the evening being a bit of a disappointment. On the plus side most of the contributions from the floor came from black people, so it remained a black community debate. And many of the most articulate were from young people (some of who would have been a bonus on the panel!)

Courtney Griffiths didn't turn up and Imran Khan was on the platform instead - very disappointing - didn't stray beyond his "All coppers are bent and useless" allegation, even when the issue of lawyers came up ...

DAC Godwin was invited repeatedly to comment - too much so in my opinion, it gave the impression of police driving the show - and his principle message was that police can't do it on their own when it comes to crime - many of the causes are (probably, due to lack of definitive research) social. That view was echoed from the floor repeatedly.

Lively section when Arlene Mundles daughter was invited on to the platform and pointed out that she had gone to one of the worst schools in Lambeth (Lillian Bayliss) and got all her exams and so if she could do it, so could anyone else who put their mind to it.

This got mucho support from some white members of the audience and the black police officers but a few other contributors pointed out that other things may also impact (not everyone has a mum like Arlene, other disfunctional members of immediate family, housing difficulties, extreme poverty ...)

Several older members of the audience identified a need for black men to take a better role (andy role in some cases!) in bringing up their children - role model sorts of issues.

The portrayal of black youth in the media came up from the floor ("why are all black people in soaps buffoons who want to go out with white girls ...") as did fear of crime issues (the media impact heavily on this as well) with elderly black people fearing groups of young black youths when that never used to be the case.

Some guy from Channel 4 (Simon Israel, I think) put himself up as a fall guy ... and boy did he fall. Also received some anti-semitic shouting from some black members of the audience (who says you need to be white to be racist!).

The lack of positive role models leading to a feeling of inability to succeed, leading to a lack of effort to succeed, leading to a self-fulfilling prophesy was a central theme I think.

General consensus of institutional racism in most if not all national organisations - public or private. And as much, if not more, criticism for other agencies such as social services, education, housing, etc. as for the police.

Lots of point making (regardless of relevance) and showboating (especially from Lee Jasper who did not contribute until near the end and when he got heckled as a "sell out" he went and fronted the group heckling him and made his point "in their faces" - followed by lots of high fives and "all right!"s)

Overall I found it useful and interesting and it was a worthwhile effort. I think the organisers may do things a bit differently next year (by the way, why use a white establishment format (the formal debate/panel) for a black community occasion. I would have thought an alternative format may have suited the occasion better).

Oh, and as for the title, it appears it was meant to reflect the view portrayed by the mainstream media and police/Home Office, etc. in their use of statistics.

And the debates answer was a unanimous ... No! (not that anyone made even a token effort at suggesting it should be Yes).

And best of all, once it was finished, I went to the Albert and eventually met Mrs M and some other u75 regulars.

 

[hipipol]

Well it was ever thus, eh?
The role model thing is crucial- specifically a Carribean thing this father 16 kids by different women makes you a man shit..
I say Carriben cos not that many kids with Nigerian parents seem to get into trouble... I say it again-CULTURE not colour.

 

[TinyCrendon]

boogie

 

[John Wisehammer]

"Where is the `Which Eastern European and Central Asian Governments Import The Most Heroin into the Uk` debate?"

I'd like to hear more about this (perhaps in another thread) - certainly there's loads of heroin coming to Europe from Central Asia (much of it being produced by our new democratic friends in Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance ), and certainly Eastern European states are transit states for heroin, and definitely there's bribery and corruption at all levels, but if there's evidence (or even articles) saying that states themselves are responsible for it, I'd be more than interested to read them. (i.e. I don't think that Bulgaria or Kazakstan have shown themselves to be Burmas or Americas).

Do you have any links?

And are there any links or articles around about who exactly are Britain's major criminals (speaking from Adams turf here...)?

 

[hipipol]

Adam,
A massive generalisation I know, but-just listen to some of the lyrics of some Ragga-Dancehall tunes-not exactly tolerant with its view of all women being whores and a gun the best way to money. Jamaica is an extremely violent society-I do not subscibe to the idea that slavery is the sole cause of this though it can hardly have helped- and Trinidad is going the same way.
It is important to differentiate between the good and bad in any culture-just look at the one we live in- personally I can spot rather a lot about it that needs change. The colour of some ones skin is no indicator of whats going on in that persons head- BUT, sometimes the culture they espouse can.

 

[adi baby]

Would that make culturalism acceptable?

 

[William of Walworth]

"Culturalism" ???

 

[ats]

Like multi-culturalism, but less so.

 

[Spud Murphy III]

Yeah, fair do's Adam, that statement was a tad naff.

I wrote that cos you were coming on a bit strong. Just a little dig, the sort of thing I'd do in real life.

 

[TinyCrendon]

boogie

 

[hatboy]

But societies and cultures do vary Adam. I think hipipol is just speaking plainly. Yes he is generalising, but there is no denying for instance that Jamaica is quite a macho society. And there is a problem with homophobia there (ten years hard-labour!).


PS Of all people, you do not need to come back to me saying that "many Jamaicans don't fit this stereotype". I know. My philosophy is to speak as I find. Stereotypes should be looked upon as just that, but there is no point pretending that national characteristics don't exist atall.

 

[TopCat]

Lots of revisionistic editing on this thread!

 

[paul boateng]

First thing Jamaica is not a violent society, how many of here have been to my Island? This macho culture hatboy speaks is prevelant in all societies. Just look at English football culture, american militatism. soviet gang warfare for examples there are many more and you know it.

This thing of Jamaican culture and the family. That is Jamaicas issue, and i dont see the problem with having children for different women as long as they loved and taken care of. The family did not start in the UK and British values have no place in Jamaican society.

This debate has run its course for me, have to agree with WoW on wide boys down the elephant and castle. strange why the dibble arent debating 'white boy' crime.

Wonder why that is?

 

[hatboy]

Fair point Paul - there is plenty of "macho" here too. Is it not true that homosexual acts in Jamaica can result in a penalty of ten years hard labour? I thought that was correct.


From "Home World News"

Jamaica has a reputation for being deeply troubled by male homosexuality, more than any other Caribbean country. It is a situation Jamaicans readily acknowledge.

"It's a culture that's compulsively homophobic," says Michael Linden, a Jesuit priest in Kingston who has worked at the two prisons. "The population is so insecure about many of its common mating practices and gender roles, that homosexuality just ends up being an unfortunate target."

While there is a homosexual underground, and some tolerance for gay men who stay deeply closeted (lesbianism is mostly just invisible), there is no public gay culture in Jamaica.

What homosexual networks do exist function in the shadow of violence. Somewhere between six and 15 men are lynched in Jamaica's cities every year simply for being gay, estimates Linden. Such lynchings are typically conducted, not by mobs, but by small neighborhood posses. The spark may be offense at a perceived pass, or a sense that a gay man's behavior has gone over the line. Lynchings are not infrequent in Jamaica, for alleged thieves and other malefactors. Vigilante killings almost never make the news.

What are the sources of this homosexual anxiety? Jamaicans and students of Jamaican society give a variety of answers. One factor is the confluence of West African and English cultures, together with a heavy overlay of God-fearing Christianity, says Prof. Jean Fuller Stanley, coordinator of the Jamaican Reality program at Roxbury Community College in Boston. Others note a tendency for Jamaican boys to be highly feminized during childhood, cared for disproportionately by women, with fathers tending to be distant and, when present, harsh. Some cite the distortions of slavery, the Jamaican form of which was especially brutal, on family and gender relations.

Whatever the underlying causes, Jamaican's sexual antennae tend to be highly sensitive. "When I was there I sensed that sexuality was very much on the top of the scale of things that people are aware of all the time," says Richard Landoli, an immigration attorney and former priest who worked at the General Penitentiary in the 1970s. "It gets mixed up right at the top of the soup."

But the situation of homosexuality in Jamaica isn't simply one of hostility and repression. "There is a lot of what I call gender and age-group socialization," says Prof. Stanley. "Boys of a certain age group, for instance, will all tend to play together, go the river together, or whatever." It is in part the intensity and implicit erotic charge of male same-sex and same-age relationships, she suggests, that makes overt homosexuality so threatening.

"The anti-gay sentiment in Jamaica is there, but that's where I came out myself, and I was always overwhelmed by the homoeroticism that could be found all around," says Joseph Owens, an ethnographer who has lived on the island and has written about the Rastafarians. "In the 14 years that I've been in the Caribbean and Central America, I've found nothing comparable to it. "

 

[Billy joe]

Originally posted by paul boateng
how many of here have been to my Island?

'MY' Island ?
What an incredabily pretentious thing to say.

Do you own them ? Do you even live and work there ?
Have they been gifted to you by Mr Patterson ?

If it is such a fantastic place why dont you piss off and live there, it might stop you attempting to stir up such racial hatred here.

Originally posted by paul boateng
First thing Jamaica is not a violent society, This macho culture hatboy speaks is prevelant in all societies. Just look at English football culture

Yes indeed. The young males on the football terraces also have a life expectency of 30. There is quite often gun fights and acid being thrown after matches.
I'd imagine rival political parties also supply the guns here as well.

What colour is the sky in your world Paul ?