>It can only mean one thing, the elephant in the room, black-on-asian violence
Is there anywhere I can read about this elephant in the room? I'm not sure why the label is important here; is the implication that black people are ideologically motivated to attack Asians? Are you sure this was a hate crime (the driver was attacked because was Asian) or a crime of oppurtunity (the driver was attacked because he was an easy target)? Unless you are sure it was the former, the rhetoric sounds awfully close to the 13/52 dog whistle.
>Named after a 2015 tweet from provocative conservative political commentator, Ann Coulter, Coulter's Law states that the longer it takes the news media to identify a mass shooter in the United States, the less likely it is to be a white male.
That seems like a useless corollary, nor does it answer my question. I can't tell if you are intentionally trying to erase the motivations and replace them with skin color. There is an ideological difference between a white teenager shooting up a black church and a black teenager shooting a gang. Only in one did race play a motivation in the shooting. Coming back to my point, the GP is claiming there is an ideologically motivated uptick in crime where black people, specifically, are attacking asians. I'm not even arguing that he might be wrong, but I'm seeing this trope a lot more and I want to find out if there's any actual theory behind it or if I'm just going to find more 13/52.
Just to explore this: what exactly is your objection to the often-cited observation that black people, who are 13% of the population, commit 52% of the violent crimes? I don’t even know if that’s accurate - if not, then surely that’s the biggest problem with it. But if it’s true, then why is it a dog whistle?
I’m not challenging you here, I’m trying to understand why it’s wrong to state it in this kind of context.
Why is it wrong? Well for one thing, it skates too close to implying direct causation between skin colour and a propensity to engage in violence, when there's a far more obvious line of indirect causation: skin colour –> poverty –> propensity to engage in violence.
The link between skin colour and poverty is undeniable—it's right there in the aftermath of slavery and Government-sanctioned racism in the decades hence. The link between poverty and a propensity to engage in violence is also clear.
So if poverty is the critical link, if poverty is the underlying cause, why would it ever be useful to talk about levels of violent crime associated with a tangential correlate?
It's not poverty or skin color that's the issue. It's the culture that encourages violence, promiscuity (attack on the nuclear family) and unaccountability.
Other groups, especially first generation immigrants, manage to rise above the challenges of poverty and skin color. I am not only talking about Asians, but black Africans who immigrated in the US recently. Totally different culture, a much better outcome.
Because most people who use that rhetoric will always imply the disparity exists because of genetic disposition rather than a social one. The logic tree goes from "black people commit a lot of violent crime" to "black people are dangerous" (then from there to other various racist tropes), while ignoring the mountain of other socioeconmic issues.
Consider this, if I told you Koreans only make 1% of Japan but they make up 70% of the Yakuza, what would you take away from that? The observation is true. But do you think I'm making a fair implication about Koreans in general? What if I said next that the Japanese police should be free to treat Koreans anyway they fit? Would you agree to that? I hope you would see that as insane, but that is line of reasoning that always happens with 13/52.
So currently when I read "black on asian violence is increasing" I'm not sure yet whether I can believe the author is making a fairly reasoned observation about black people ideologically attacking asians, or if they are calling for a "force" to "take a closer look at those black people".
Would you say that your Korean example is an apt comparison to 13/52? Most people here recognize the trope about lies, lies and statistics and it feels like it now.
In a more practical sense, does this statistic matter to an individual on a dark night? Will I fear being called racist as I walk down South Side Chicago on a dark night or 13/52? The choice here is not a choice at all.
If I’m walking down Nishinari on a dark night will I fear being called a racist or 1/70?
Upon hearing that I don’t think anyone would focus on the statistic (that I’m implying Koreans are violent) and instead focus on the fact that it’s dangerous because is a high crime neighborhood.
Somehow you have missed the point entirely; it’s strange you bring up the lies, damn lies quote but continue to argue the statistic point. In a practical sense, if I were to travel to high crime area in Mexico or Belarus, would it be logical for me to not fear getting mugged because there are no black people? You’ve presented a false choice - you created a situation where you are a likely to mugged for socioeconomic factors and then have walked that back into carrying water for a racist trope.
You make a very good point. Regarding the Korean example, I’d conclude that Koreans are more likely to get involved in organized crime in Japan because of structural factors of Japanese society and economy.
They are factually incorrect about 70% of the Yakuza being Korean.
"While ethnic Koreans make up only 0.5% of the Japanese population, they are a prominent part of Yakuza ... The Japanese National Police Agency suggested Koreans composed 10% of the Yakuza proper"
The problem is that the BLM movement is unnecessarily built on an idealized view of black people. This is neither useful nor essential but many people (many of them white) feel better and more entitled with this idealized narrative. It's also a taboo to mention that it's not just white corporations f'ing over African people but that they are actually doing business with local criminals and those are the ones actually f'ing over their peers. Same thing with slavery. Which was totally accepted in Africa and partially still is. Black people sold other black people to white people.
It seems to me that the RAM available to many people is too small to fit in a complexer perspective. That's why public discussions seem to stabilize with time on some dumbed down equilibrium that can be expressed in maximum three barely grammatically complete sentences.
>Black people sold other black people to white people.
Slavery was banned in the major kingdoms in Africa, the slave trading minority were empowered, funded, and armed by foreigner traders. They were able to take control of a large portion of the continent this way.
Just like opium trading was banned in China, the drug trading minority were empowered, funded, and armed by foreigner traders...etc
Much of the 'slavery' in Africa was actually mislabeled, it is better described as 'human adoption'. These so called slaves lived and ate in the same house as 'owners', had wives/children (sometimes more than the 'owner'), were not forced to work, and would intermarry with the adoptive family freely. Many rose to prominence and wielded tremendous power/influence in the families/communities/tribes they were adopted into. This form of 'adoption' (which includes adults) is still common in war torn countries in Africa where families are broken apart and family members lost prematurely.
In America, the modern day equivalent would be going to a homeless tent city, moving some of the individuals into your home and sharing resources.
Chattel slavery was considered abhorrent and only arrived in certain parts of the continent after a certain point.
There were also POWs that were treated poorly and initially they were the people sold to foreign traders... preferable to leaving enemies of a tribe in jail, which posed a security risk and caused many other problems.
"The black people sold black people" line is popular in the US because it sidesteps the details and on some level freed slave owners and their descendants from moral/social burden and guilt. This retort was/is also useful in denying the case for reparations when African Americans raised/raise it.
> The problem is that the BLM movement is unnecessarily built on an idealized view of black people.
No, its not. At all. (It includes people which hold such views, and excludes some part of the other extreme, but that’s true of any organization less hostile to Blacks than the general society.)
I don't think it's constructive to talk about ideological motivation; the elephant is that most of the increase in anti-Asian violence over the past year _is_ black-on-asian. Which is a narrative incompatible with pinning it on white supremacy.
A lot is clearly crime of opportunity, but a lot of the high-profile cases appear to be completely unmotivated by theft (ie, the assaults on elderly asians are often just sucker-punches by a suspect who leaves immediately without taking anything).
>I don't think it's constructive to talk about ideological motivation;
It is. If you are going to label the problem as black-on-asian, I'd like to at least know what black people, specifically, are attacking asians. When the media uses labels about white supremacy it's usually because white mass shooters are usually ideologically motivated; they aren't killing people to steal money or eliminate competition, they are committing these crimes specifically because the victims aren't white.
What I'm trying to see if there is a common motivation (rooted in, lack for a better-term "black" supremacy), or if this just an uptick in crime by an economic class that skews black. I'm not even saying its false, and I'm passing no judgement; but I've seen this rhetoric increase and I'm wondering what the source of it is.
One proximal but surely insufficient explanation is that assaulting Asian people has become a trope in hip-hop over the past couple of years (e.g. “ling-ling boppin’”).
>assaulting Asian people has become a trope in hip-hop over the past couple of years (e.g. “ling-ling boppin’”).
It's hard for me not to believe you just made this up. "ling-ling boppin" doesn't return any Google results.
Secondly, a trend in hip-hop would be a trend in American pop culture. Hip hop, is currently the biggest music genre in America - if what you say is true I can't imagine how I would have missed it. A quick Google search doesn't mention anything from the top Spotify artists about it.
>And hip-hop is a subculture of pop culture that is dominated by and mostly caters to young black people.
It's not, and thats why I am pressing this point. Billboards top 5 artists of last year were all hip hop[1]. Saying hip hop only caters to black people is like saying Soccer caters to the british. There is no way such a tiny demographic could drive international recognition for the medium.
Next the results you provided don't show any sort of trend. The only relevant results link to the same subreddit which calls out a single racist rapper who made a racist tweet in 2013. The rapper Drakeo is hardly relevant (he has less than 100k followers on Twitter). I don't know how a barely known rapper tweeting out a racist remark, since 2013, constitutes a trend in the largest music genre in America right now.
I'm pushing back because I want to know how these narratives are being created. I don't think it was your intention to inflate the nature of the trend, but I'm wondering why these memes are starting to grow all the sudden.
Post Malone, The Weeknd, Drake ... Those are all commercial pop singers, they are associated with hip hop culture in the same sense that Sum41 or Blink182 is associated with punk culture.
Yeah, so are we talking the recipe site or the Kirby 3DS letsplay video here?
> And hip-hop is a subculture of pop culture that is dominated by and mostly caters to young black people.
What year is it?
We can assume the best but let's also not casually throw out significant claims without evidence and correlations based on things that haven't been true since like 1990.
Asians are the only racial group who is more likely to be a victim of crime by someone outside their own race (i.e. non asian), predominantly black perpetrators. It's insane.
It's not predominately black. Blacks are the biggest class of perpetrators, but between white/black/Asian, they are all relatively close. Typically each between 23-30%. You can say blacks are the plurality.
It is critically important in a political climate where one side is using the spectre of white supremacy as a political cudgel. When a complicit media makes a consistent effort to paint a false picture. This censorship is not an isolated incident. News articles regularly leave out the perpetrator's race unless it's white. Reddit regularly deletes and locks threads on inconvenient articles/videos such as this, including on default subs. Right leaning sources are effectively forbidden from wikipedia and stackexchange. A dangerous narrative is being manufactured across the social, news, and entertainment media sphere.
It's obvious but you can't say anything about it. Either don't mention race or always mention it.
Media should educate us on issues. And if white supremacy is a problem, black-on-asian violence is as well. No group should be above scrutiny.
It's obvious which comments are made in cowardice, as they will generally be from brand new accounts.
Your premise is pretty flawed, as it would be ridiculous to blame all men during MeToo, much like it would be ridiculous to blame all members of a race.
It’s just stats, easily searchable on FBI website, check them out if you’re interested in the topic.
Also pls leave these “dog whistle” or “gaslighting” labels to ideological moshpits and echo chambers. It’s considered a bad tone to use agitprop language in civil conversation.
Is there anywhere I can read about this elephant in the room? I'm not sure why the label is important here; is the implication that black people are ideologically motivated to attack Asians? Are you sure this was a hate crime (the driver was attacked because was Asian) or a crime of oppurtunity (the driver was attacked because he was an easy target)? Unless you are sure it was the former, the rhetoric sounds awfully close to the 13/52 dog whistle.