re: Well Dak done got woke. No surprise .

Ah, data. Thanks for sharing. This is helpful. And really helps to make my point.

From the article you posted:
“Among the cases examined by The Times were 39 domestic violence shootings, and they largely involved white attackers and victims. So did many of the high-profile massacres, including a wild shootout between Texas biker gangs that left nine people dead and 18 wounded.” —> So, what counts as a mass shooting is constructed, defined. My point still remains—why are the major domestic terrorism events in this country carried out by white men? If we change the definition of mass shouting like the NYT did (and I can’t argue with the definition), we get the 75% number you quoted.

But we also get this from the NYT article you shared: “Most of the shootings occurred in economically downtrodden neighborhoods.” —> Yes, here we have the beginning of an explanation for (some) violence that gets tied right back to the larger context I was describing. If you have compounded disinvestment in communities (healthcare, jobs, education, wages, overpolicing and the violence that comes with it, housing policies, banking policies), then you have informal economies that pop up to provide money and status, resulting in the kind of violence the article talks about. Now, I want to be careful here: some of you might read this and think that some racial groups are culturally impoverished. But the alternative takeaway is that these are political and structural forces of disinvestment and systematic removing of capital from Black communities, which is indeed well-documented (e.g., contract loans, wage theft, health care, air pollution). And this is done by monied interests, protected often by both political parties (although you’ll find that some Democrats actually do at least talk about these issues).

I wrote “(some) violence” above because I want to return my main claim: We focus on gun violence, in part because, as another poster pointed out, it’s the kind of crime we can see. It plays out spatially and temporally in ways that allow us to ascribe simplified causes. However, the other kinds of violence I’ve tried to describe in my posts, are best described as structural and political violence perpetuated by monied interests, which largely (although not completely) are the interests of rich white people. That kind of violence is something that the rest of us should be paying more attention to. It’s tougher to pin down because it’s complicated, requires us to apply both class and race analyses. But it’s violence nonetheless—and it begets the other kind of violence that folks are decrying in this thread.

quote:

---

Huh? It's very much tied to race. On a number of levels. First, the rich folks who do those things would prefer that poor white folks hate Black folks so they can simultaneously feel superior and blame someone other than rich folks for their economic problems. This is an old playbook in America. Second, that white people are often in charge of these schemes and that the schemes disproportionately affect people of color is by definition tied to race. Or are you arguing that these different classes are just random or coincidental? Third, that we can "easily see" robbery, rape, and killing—these media images are very much racialized. Depictions in the media of crime and criminals is all racialized. And, again, those depictions are controlled by...rich white people.

---

Either a troll or someone who is wholesale devoted to critical race theory

A rarity for adult men

Let’s start with schools because I do have other work to do today.

quote:

---

Parents wanting their kids to go to non-failing, non-violent schools is not violence.

---

So odd that your story is silent about race. Can you name *why* you think schools with children in them are violent (using your narrow definition of violence)? What’s the cause? Certainly you have some racial theory that explains this...

quote:

---

how is removing the state flag going to benefit any person in the state of Mississippi

---

There have been revenue generating businesses, organizations, and events that have expressly stated that they would not conduct business in Mississippi due to the flag. Probably just a convenient excuse but it was one they could throw out there. More money generated in Mississippi would obviously benefit Mississippians.

Why does there have to tangible benefit to make the right decision?

quote:

---

My point still remains—why are the major domestic terrorism events in this country try carried out by white men? 

---

Maybe white men are just more prone to "terrorist" activity.

Blacks are so easy to manipulate

quote:

---

So odd that your story is silent about race. Can you name *why* you think schools with children in them are violent (using your narrow definition of violence)? What’s the cause? Certainly you have some racial theory that explains this...

---

No, because I'm not a critical race theorist (or a woke child unknowingly regurgitating CRT). As a result, I acknowledge the existence of non-racial motivations for human behavior. I understand you do not, which is the norm for like-minded folks.

So it's not odd my "story" is "silent about race." The huge majority of social narratives, when discussed candidly and truthfully, would be silent as to race. That's because the concept of near-universal racial hegemony as the boogeyman behind all societal machinations is pseudo-academic silliness.

Your question:

"Can you name why you think schools with children in them are violent? What's the cause?"

Answer:

Irrelevant. This began with your labeling of disinvestment as violence. Even if you could objectively argue that some form of systemic racism is the cause of violence in schools (you don't believe in objectivity, so this is circular), this doesn't render the reaction to the resulting violence "racism" and it certainly doesn't amount to "violence."

You'll need to bridge the gap on the motivation and intentionality questions to make this work. It's a common pitfall for your worldview. Actually, it's the reason that the concepts of "complicity" and "white fragility" were invented.

Best of luck.

quote:

---

"Can you name why you think schools with children in them are violent? What's the cause?"

---

In this day and age, school is the first place where kids are finding out they aren't a special, little genius that can have their way all the time.

Whew, you're giving me a lot to work with. For one, it's striking that you keep wanting to bundle up my arguments as some easily dismissible CRT so that you can brush my points aside. That sure is efficient and effective for keeping your worldview intact.

And speaking of worldview, your entry into this thread was an invocation of (your) identity:

quote:

---

Either a troll or someone who is wholesale devoted to critical race theory

A rarity for adult men

---

Indeed, you've given away the game. For you, the points I make are tied directly to your identity, as a man. And while you were once again silent on race with your comment, it's implicit that you meant "white" man/men. You avoid naming race directly (at times but not others) in a thread that has both explicity (ChexMix: "Blacks are so easy to manipulate" ) and implicitly (You: "Parents wanting their kids to go to non-failing, non-violent schools is not violence.") been about race. And this point is even more clear when we compare that last quote from you about schools with the one that preceded it: "White businesses and citizens fleeing and disinvesting from shitty areas is not violence."

So, I was/am asking, why did you name race here (i.e., White businesses) and in the very next sentence (i.e., Parents) leave it out? (I'm also leaving out that you are ignoring part of the equation that I am trying to get us to consider...what violence begot the violence you think citizens are fleeing?) Specifically, why didn't you write "[Mostly but not exclusively white] Parents wanting their kids to go to non-failing, non-violent schools [away from large numbers of Black students] is not violence." Why couldn't you write that? I mean, that's the story you're telling, right? So, why not say it? You say that the unspoken parts of your narrative and the underlying theory that you have as tied to race are "irrelevant"...but you've given yourself away by replying to this thread and leveraging race explicitly in at least part of your response.

And even if you deny that it's the narrative you're spinning (that Black children are violent and white families are right to not want to be in school with them) and instead say that "I acknowledge the existence of non-racial motivations for human behavior," the filled in racist narrative certainly would be one that would get plenty of upvotes on this board. And it's certainly relevant to the white men on this board who flock to this thread to decry CNN, wokeness, Biden and to air their white grievances ("I wasn't hired for a job a few years ago because I wasn't the right color"). Indeed, you try to literally remove race from the story/motivations/behavior...but when you put the tacit racial elements of the story in, dudes on this board are in total agreement.

So, I must ask, can we not recognize that many of the motivations and behaviors, while not wholly race-based, may still be connected in some way to race as evidenced by the reactions to almost anything on this board? I imagine that may be too much nuance for some, so let me be clear: Everything isn't about race...but race is always lurking around our American psyches, institutions, and narratives. For instance, one can say "it's just football; it's not political" but then the threads on this board suggest that at least part of football in this country is inextricable from considerations of race and racism. This thread and the responses herein are evidence of that.

Let's keep going...you wrote:

quote:

---

Even if you could objectively argue that some form of systemic racism is the cause of violence in schools (you don't believe in objectivity, so this is circular), this doesn't render the reaction to the resulting violence "racism" and it certainly doesn't amount to "violence."

---

A few points:
- "The cause" is so dang simplistic, dude. Can you be a little sharper than that? We're looking for causes, plural.
- I do believe in objectivity. In arguing that we should recognize that violence can come in a range of forms is very much playing toward the notion that we can objectively call something what it is. I'm just doing the work of naming something, objectively. That you dismiss the definition is likely tied to your subjective experiences and identity (which I've already pointed out you gave away early on).
- Looking for causes that are part of cycles and systems is not "circular." Systems can have self-reinforcing components. So, I guess they may be circular. But the logic I'm using to explain the self-reinforcing system is not circular. Or, at least, you haven't supported that accusation.
- In terms of the [largely white] "reaction to the resulting violence," I'll say that the white reactions have been violent in the past, in response to some specter of violence that [white] families thought would emerge from integration (e.g., see "liberal" Boston). And the more recent responses from "liberal" [white] families in Manhattan and racial/racist comments by [white] people on news articles about St. George separating from Baton Rouge may not result in physical violence. But it doesn't take a history professor to connect the arguments/sentiments about integration and investment across our racialized American history. That history and this present are violent in that they contribute to racial disparities in wealth, employment, educational attainment, and health.

At the end of the day, I do not subscribe to the idea that the construction of race as category and property (Harris, 1993) is the beginning and end of all social analysis. Nah, there are plenty of historical and social and psychology threads in play here. But white Americans, in setting up slavery as an institution, made sure that race was intertwined in our policies and psychologies in ways that have been hard to shake. You try to dismiss this point as if it doesn't include "motivation and intentionality." But I think my early points in this thread provide some clear examples. The identities of dudes in this thread are deeply tangled up in these threads. One (but not the only) motivation at play here is that these men have developed identities and reactions tied to worldviews that are threatened by the very mention that there might be some aspects of our American society that involve racism. There's quite a bit of motivation, then, to keep that worldview intact! It's powerful.

And finally, in terms of intentionally, any institutional theorist would point out that institutions are not "iron cages." People aren't totally constrained by institutions. Instead, their individual actions are informed and influenced by those institutions...and the combined actions of individuals both reinstantiate and reform the institutions. I'm not seeing how this is incompatible with any analysis of our social structures that point to the many ways that race is one pervasive—but not the only—issue at play. I'm imagining Isabelle Wilkerson's new book Caste will help us see that more clearly.

quote:

---

I'm imagining Isabelle Wilkerson's new book Caste will help us see that more clearly.

---

No offense, but I can't take anyone who compares the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO to a Jim Crow era lynching very seriously.