Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Question Of The Moment

How does black-on-black violence in the US compare to that of African countries?

7 comments:

Solgenique said...

Does it compare? In the US, aren’t the perps and vics the same people (Black/African-American) on the same socio-economic stratum (lower-income)?

Is much known about African intra-ethnic/tribal/clan conflicts?

Brother Spotless said...

Well, I am sure there are complexities that are country specific. However (someone correct me if I am wrong), those that I have followed have concern a "rebel" group attempting to overthrow the current government, which overthrew the previous government. How does that affect your thoughts, Solgenique?

solgenique said...

Rebel groups based in different African countries have more in common with the goings on in Northern Ireland, Kosovo or Sri Lanka than with blackness or anything in America.

I’ve been sitting here trying to think up of a response and I can’t. I think I’m confused by your choice of the term “black-on-black violence” and it’s really making me think. I don’t know if this makes sense but it seems that I just don’t believe black-on-black violence occurs in the few African countries I’m familiar with. Are there black perpetrators who are committing crimes against black victims? Mos def. But why should this be called black-on-black violence? It’s just violence. The blackness of the perps and vics are incidental and (in my opinion) irrelevant.

...Was that a tangent?

Brother Spotless said...

No, very relevant.

Is the blackness of the individuals who commit crimes on one another in the US incidental as well? I originally posed this momentary question because I wonder if a major reason for the violence in our urban centers (read: places black people live) is based on actual "self hate," or if tha is simply a made-up idea.

The battles in Ireland, Kosovo, Sri Lanka, etc are seemingly based on ethnic differences, and I'm not sure that we have those same differences here in the US...

solgenique said...

Since I don't believe that being black means having a predilection for crime, the skin tone of those involved in a crime in the US is also irrelevant.

If most criminals do their crimes where they live, isn't it to be expected that the majority of crimes by black people in urban centers would be against other black people in urban centers? Does black-on-black crime mean a black person from the hood is going to go to travel to the nice part of town and look specifically for a black household to break in to and disregard the white neighbor’s place because he has his heart set on robbing some black folks? No. When used it’s about a guy killing a boy walking in his neighborhood because he wanted his sneakers, but it was a black neighborhood and the people involved where black.

Crime is still about means, motive, and opportunity.

Brother Spotless said...

Sounds to me as if you, Solenique, feel as though some black scholars have it all wrong when discussing the root of gang violence among black folks in the US ("some black scholars" is referring to those who believe the root of the problem is based on the loathing of being black.)

While certain points in other conflicts (such as the historical aspects of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict) are based in beliefs, aren't all of the "ethnic wars" currently being fought on the same grounds (means, motive, and opportunity)?

Solgenique said...

Loathing being black is a symptom of a larger problem. I believe that had history played itself out differently with the roles that black and white people play today being switched, the whites clustered in urban centers would have the same issues. To believe otherwise would be for me to believe that somewhere in the very constitution of black folks there’s something in our DNA that makes us different and inherently less-than the human race and “loatheful.”

So, if it’s not within us it must be from without and the real problem: Societal perception of what it means to be black. Some people (black and white) internalize(to different effect and consequence) that mess so much that it might as well be part of their DNA the way they embody it and pass it down like a dominant gene through to their children.

I wouldn’t say that the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is based on belief. Religion just happened to be the broadest category they could divide themselves into. And then, like in Iraq, when you’re all the same people with the same common religion, you divide along sectarian lines. When that’s done, you find something else. All conflicts boil down to people fighting one another for domination over resources (land, food and/or sexual reproduction). The Mideast one is over land.