The ridiculous violence in N.O. (9 Viewers)

[RazorOye]

I find something conspicuously absent from the list.

In this thread, we've talked about how important it is for people within the communities to contribute to changes in the neighborhood, culture, attitude contributing to nature/frequency of crime, esp violent crime.

And yet, when someone cites an improvement/reduction (depending on the issue) - that's not often a listed reason. It's not just BHM's post, either. I've seen it elsewhere.

I don't know why that is.

I don't know why the reluctance to consider that the change is in part due to something internal. Every reason above is external (except the crack demand and, possibly, the Obama election).

Why can't a/the reason be (or at least include) a decision by those in the community and the stakeholders that enough is enough?

We want to see that. And people argue (even in this thread) that if we see that, we'll see a reduction.

Yet, when we see the reduction, we aren't all that convinced to list that as a reason. And we start considering all of these other factors.

It's strange.

I think we - meaning researchers, advocates, as well as those of us who are more or less bystanders from the outside - would do well to explore and highlight those changes from within to provide an exemplar for how a community can reclaim itself, esp its youth.

I think that mobilizes optimism while, at the same time, attacking the assumptions around criminality.

 

[DaveXA]

I find something conspicuously absent from the list.

In this thread, we've talked about how important it is for people within the communities to contribute to changes in the neighborhood, culture, attitude contributing to nature/frequency of crime, esp violent crime.

And yet, when someone cites an improvement/reduction (depending on the issue) - that's not often a listed reason. It's not just BHM's post, either. I've seen it elsewhere.

I don't know why that is.

I don't know why the reluctance to consider that the change is in part due to something internal. Every reason above is external (except the crack demand and, possibly, the Obama election).

Why can't a/the reason be (or at least include) a decision by those in the community and the stakeholders that enough is enough?

We want to see that. And people argue (even in this thread) that if we see that, we'll see a reduction.

Yet, when we see the reduction, we aren't all that convinced to list that as a reason. And we start considering all of these other factors.

It's strange.

I think we - meaning researchers, advocates, as well as those of us who are more or less bystanders from the outside - would do well to explore and highlight those changes from within to provide an exemplar for how a community can reclaim itself, esp its youth.

I think that mobilizes optimism while, at the same time, attacking the assumptions around criminality.

I think the problem with citing internal reasons as a positive contributing factor is because it's difficult to define and measure. I also think that people have a natural aversion to admitting they're part of the problem. So often I hear people say "If only 'they' would stop using drugs, drinking irresponsibly, and so on, things would get better." Yet, rarely acknowledging that they need to own up to their own behavior.

Playing the blame game never improves anything, and I think more people need to look in the mirror and ask themselves what they're doing to make the world a better place.

FWIW Oye, I appreciate your contribution to the thread. Critical thinking is an element sorely lacking in much of today's discussions of issues.

 

[RazorOye]

I think the problem with citing internal reasons as a positive contributing factor is because it's difficult to define and measure.

of course it is - well, a problem. Not the problem.

and it should be difficult

but it can also be done. I've done it. So have many others.

just to elaborate a bit... in my field, there's still an emphasis on empirical evidence and positivism. Quantifiable. Quantitative data and research.

But that sort of inquiry is not the best means for exploring this question/phenomenon.

And when it is done, it's slower. It's less generalizable. It's tougher to parse and therefore communicate.

I think it's crucial, though. But when it comes to research approval and funding and publication in journals, it's a lot less sexy than tables, charts, statistical significance, etc. So that kind of research doesn't happen enough and when it does, the results aren't easily or often disseminated.

It's much easier to cite statistics and then use those to drive attitudes and assumptions. The result are usually generalizations that, while generally accurate, don't really move beyond that to discussions of causality. Or that causality is legitimated by/through numbers. It can be confusing and convoluted.

But qualitative research has this subjective stigma attached to it that people don't associate with quantitative research because it's numbers and science. That's misleading, though, I think. They can be biased. The methodology can be so poorly conceived and executed or selective, that the results are questionable.

They aren't questioned often enough, though. Because the stats become a truth themselves and whatever they point to is somehow self-evident. For a discussion like this, I think that's dangerous. And that's the easiest route for removing critical thinking from these discussions. There's no need for it because the statistics are Truth, so no further discussion is necessary (one example I've mentioned - the use of drugs b/w blacks, Latinos, whites is about the same for youth offenders. But - statistically - minorities will be arrested and incarcerated for those charges at rates much higher than whites. So someone looks at the statistics about youth incarceration for drugs and the assumption is "Well, minority kids are just more criminal, more likely to do drugs." But that's not necessarily the case).

 

[Thick and Thin]

I live in NWA, in the corridor, of Fayetteville, Springdale, Bentonville. Wal-Mart and Tyson Foods HQ. Considered a mostly "safe" place to live. Just this past week there has been two drive by's and 2 or 3 child molestations. IMO, it doesen't matter where you live, the devil is everywhere. Some times, I think, we feel, it's worse here than anywhere which is'nt true. Crime is omnipresent and part of everyone's daily life and until we all make a stand against it, it will continue to be! GEAUX SAINTS!! Thruough Thick and Thin

 

[BHM]

There are a lot of young single mothers who shouldnt be having babies but they do for whatever reason. With so many young black males getting killed or locked up or addicted to drugs, dad is often not around to influence the kid's life in a positive way. Most observers recognize that this is a problem but how do you fix it? The same people criticizing the young single motherhood epidemic as a problem, are the same people saying to lock up young black men on drug offenses and throw away the key. Louisiana is the most incarcerated place in the ENTIRE WORLD, so its no wonder dad isn't around. Again, its a closed loop.

Yes, there are a lot of young single mothers having babies. I have my thoughts on why but that is not the point. The fact is that for whatever reason, they are.

The question is, if we stop arresting black men for selling drugs, will anything change? First we have to ask if drug selling black men are good parents? Are they good role models?

Lets assume we go ahead and stop arresting them. Will they stop selling drugs? Probably not. Is having a dad that is a drug dealer going to provide any beneficiary improvements to the children? Will it remove the children from the violent life of drug dealing?

I know you question the thought of locking up these dads on drug charges. I think you make the assumption that if these dads are home, the children will somehow have better role models and a better upbringing.

The whole "get a job, get married and start a family" model is gone. It has been replaced with "get knocked up, jobless dad sells drugs, kid is left on street" model.

The problem is, these mommas keep having babies under these circumstances. The black women in these areas know the guy they are banging is a drug dealer and a gang banger. They know that chances are, the dad will never be in the kids life.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

I live in NWA

and they are ok with that?

 

[BHM]

of course it is - well, a problem. Not the problem.

and it should be difficult

but it can also be done. I've done it. So have many others.

just to elaborate a bit... in my field, there's still an emphasis on empirical evidence and positivism. Quantifiable. Quantitative data and research.

But that sort of inquiry is not the best means for exploring this question/phenomenon.

And when it is done, it's slower. It's less generalizable. It's tougher to parse and therefore communicate.

I think it's crucial, though. But when it comes to research approval and funding and publication in journals, it's a lot less sexy than tables, charts, statistical significance, etc. So that kind of research doesn't happen enough and when it does, the results aren't easily or often disseminated.

It's much easier to cite statistics and then use those to drive attitudes and assumptions. The result are usually generalizations that, while generally accurate, don't really move beyond that to discussions of causality. Or that causality is legitimated by/through numbers. It can be confusing and convoluted.

But qualitative research has this subjective stigma attached to it that people don't associate with quantitative research because it's numbers and science. That's misleading, though, I think. They can be biased. The methodology can be so poorly conceived and executed or selective, that the results are questionable.

They aren't questioned often enough, though. Because the stats become a truth themselves and whatever they point to is somehow self-evident. For a discussion like this, I think that's dangerous. And that's the easiest route for removing critical thinking from these discussions. There's no need for it because the statistics are Truth, so no further discussion is necessary (one example I've mentioned - the use of drugs b/w blacks, Latinos, whites is about the same for youth offenders. But - statistically - minorities will be arrested and incarcerated for those charges at rates much higher than whites. So someone looks at the statistics about youth incarceration for drugs and the assumption is "Well, minority kids are just more criminal, more likely to do drugs." But that's not necessarily the case).

I gave you a thumbs up even though I have no clue what you said but you said it with amazing style. I am also convinced a few of the words in your post are made up but I am not educated enough to prove it. So, I am giving you the benefit of doubt and going out on a limb here, I agree with what you said.

 

[BHM]

and they are ok with that?

He has been brain washed.

 

[FuzzyDunlop]

Yes, there are a lot of young single mothers having babies. I have my thoughts on why but that is not the point. The fact is that for whatever reason, they are.

The question is, if we stop arresting black men for selling drugs, will anything change? First we have to ask if drug selling black men are good parents? Are they good role models?

Lets assume we go ahead and stop arresting them. Will they stop selling drugs? Probably not. Is having a dad that is a drug dealer going to provide any beneficiary improvements to the children? Will it remove the children from the violent life of drug dealing?

I know you question the thought of locking up these dads on drug charges. I think you make the assumption that if these dads are home, the children will somehow have better role models and a better upbringing.

The whole "get a job, get married and start a family" model is gone. It has been replaced with "get knocked up, jobless dad sells drugs, kid is left on street" model.

The problem is, these mommas keep having babies under these circumstances. The black women in these areas know the guy they are banging is a drug dealer and a gang banger. They know that chances are, the dad will never be in the kids life.

He kind of left it open to interpretation, but I don't think he said anything about not locking up drug dealers.

I could be wrong, but I thought he was just talking about not locking people up for personal possession amounts of drugs.

I think there is, and should be, a pretty big line between the two.

 

[Bayouboy]

That's it?

So you repeatedly ask people for reasons why the situations are different, but when I actually take the time out for a thoughtful response, you just label it as excuses?

There is nothing convenient about the truth. If there is something you disagree with in my post, feel free to tell me why. But otherwise, it just seems like you already had an answer stuck in your head, and weren't actually trying to have an honest discussion at all.

I wasn't trying to "disrespect" your post....only to say that the points you made that rural and city life are completely uncomparable is wrong IMO. Poverty, poor schools, and drugs exist everywhere....including the rural parishes. Yet, some parishes see one homicide a year! I see more cohesive families, neighbors that care, and better overall respect of others in the boonies. That's a big deal if you ask me.

Whether or not this is a mirage or not, the perception is violence in New Orleans is now spilling over into "touristy" areas. Thugs are more brazen....they will pop a cap in an enemy on Bourbon Street in front of tens of witnesses now....when in the past (it seems like) they would only pull off something like that in a dark alley or where they would not get caught so easily. The shootings in broad daylight are especially worrisome. Flinging lead at noon in the middle of a kid's birthday party??? Really?

It makes people that do not understand inner city life scratch their heads. I just don't understand.

 

[You]

Fwiw

I'm only partially educated and I am not a criminal...


Yet

 

[BHM]

I find something conspicuously absent from the list.

In this thread, we've talked about how important it is for people within the communities to contribute to changes in the neighborhood, culture, attitude contributing to nature/frequency of crime, esp violent crime.

And yet, when someone cites an improvement/reduction (depending on the issue) - that's not often a listed reason. It's not just BHM's post, either. I've seen it elsewhere.

I don't know why that is.

I don't know why the reluctance to consider that the change is in part due to something internal. Every reason above is external (except the crack demand and, possibly, the Obama election).

Why can't a/the reason be (or at least include) a decision by those in the community and the stakeholders that enough is enough?

We want to see that. And people argue (even in this thread) that if we see that, we'll see a reduction.

Yet, when we see the reduction, we aren't all that convinced to list that as a reason. And we start considering all of these other factors.

It's strange.

I think we - meaning researchers, advocates, as well as those of us who are more or less bystanders from the outside - would do well to explore and highlight those changes from within to provide an exemplar for how a community can reclaim itself, esp its youth.

I think that mobilizes optimism while, at the same time, attacking the assumptions around criminality.

Oh my, this may be one of my all time favorite Oye posts.

You are dead on correct. We never consider that it is not an outside force reflecting change. Maybe it is the workings of inner community centers, religious organizations and an over all desire for change by these groups of people that are resulting in the reductions.

Allow me to cogitate on that revelation for a compendiary time.

 

[BHM]

He kind of left it open to interpretation, but I don't think he said anything about not locking up drug dealers.

I could be wrong, but I thought he was just talking about not locking people up for personal possession amounts of drugs.

I think there is, and should be, a pretty big line between the two.

Perhaps you are right. He said drug offenses which may or may not mean dealing. I do question how many are sent away for having half a joint in their pocket.

I also do not think many people really want others locked up and the key thrown away because they had a half a joint in their pocket.

 

[FuzzyDunlop]

I wasn't trying to "disrespect" your post....only to say that the points you made that rural and city life are completely uncomparable is wrong IMO. Poverty, poor schools, and drugs exist everywhere....including the rural parishes. Yet, some parishes see one homicide a year! I see more cohesive families, neighbors that care, and better overall respect of others in the boonies. That's a big deal if you ask me.

Just because they exist everywhere, doesn't mean that they are equal. Are you really going to tell me that the drug culture in these areas that you are talking about is the same as in Central City or Hollygrove? Have you ever been to those areas? Are there people standing on the corners selling drugs in your rural areas?

No, there aren't, so they aren't the same. You said it yourself, which is why I'm not understanding your point. You say that there is family structure, neighbors that care.

Don't you think that those kinds of things rub off on children growing up? Don't you think that a kid growing up in Central City or Hollygrove has a lot less of a chance to turn into a positive member of society than these rural areas?

Are there aggressive police forces, like the NOPD, roaming around these rural areas, picking up random people walking down the street to stop and frisk them? Nope, that doesn't really happen there either. And this is how people end up with records at an early age, even if they just have a joint in their pocket, while their young counterpart in the rural parishes wouldn't be bothered by the police walking down the street.

There are actual role models in these rural areas. There are more complete families, with a working mother and father. There are more parents that actually graduated from high school. There are more parents that aren't drug addicts.

How many more differences do you really need? Both areas have problems, really, but they aren't remotely on the same level of severity.

Whether or not this is a mirage or not, the perception is violence in New Orleans is now spilling over into "touristy" areas. Thugs are more brazen....they will pop a cap in an enemy on Bourbon Street in front of tens of witnesses now....when in the past (it seems like) they would only pull off something like that in a dark alley or where they would not get caught so easily. The shootings in broad daylight are especially worrisome. Flinging lead at noon in the middle of a kid's birthday party??? Really?

That stuff has always happened. It didn't happen often then, and it doesn't happen often now. No way for me to prove it I suppose, but you just hear about it now so much more often because of the internet.

You really think New Orleans is more dangerous now than the early to mid 90's? Not even close.

It makes people that do not understand inner city life scratch their heads. I just don't understand.

So why worry about it? I'm not sitting here wondering why people want to live in the middle of nowhere.

I love New Orleans. I love living in here. Every time I get off the interstate into one of the NOLA neighborhoods I get an indescribable bolt of energy. I've never felt that feeling anywhere else that I've been to. So I wouldn't trade living here, for living in the middle of nowhere, even if the murder rate was twice as high as it is now.

New Orleans isn't for everyone. No great city is.

 

[El Caliente]

People in prison are funny. Breaking rocks, making license plates, wearing black and white jump suits, digging holes in walls, getting their caricatures put on Monopoly boards.

Sounds like a hoot.