We Don't Hold Other "Groups"Responsible For People Who Share A Characteristic

As frustrating as it sometimes is, it’s impossible to be sure how an article will be received or how widely it’ll be read.

Sure, you can edit and elucidate and express yourself as eloquently as possible, but in the end, you have to accept that you only have so much control over how many people see your work. Still, now and then, you make a point you really wish more people could hear.

In my article, There Is No Such Thing As Black Crime, I wrote about the state of discourse on “black crime.” I pointed out that it’s ridiculous to describe crime committed by a tiny fraction of black Americans (0.008% in the case of homicide) as “black crime,” and equally ridiculous to claim that talking about these crimes is racist. 

A regular reader, David, expanded on the point in a way that I wish even more people would take on board.

---

David:

In the criminology class I teach, there's a question that shows up in an assignment that seems relevant here: "Why do young black men in the U.S. have such high rates of homicide, both as offenders and as victims?" To the unititated, the question might seem to reenforce the very stereotyping and race essentialism you're arguing against. But with luck, by that point in the quarter, my students can get something much more out of it.

It's a trick question, of a sort. What it does is gives a list of characteristics each of which is correlated with higher homicide rates, to create a "group" which has higher homicide rates. But of course this isn't a group in any real sense, just a cross section of different characteristics and statuses, which, taken together, reflect above average homicide rates. Each of the others factors is as important as race, if not more so, in predicting homicide rates.

"Why do YOUNG black men in the U.S. have such high rates...?"

"Why do young black MEN in the U.S. have such high rates...?"

"Why do young black men in the UNITED STATES have such high rates...?

The question shows the power of adding correlations to get a much stronger correlation, how several factors create a larger effect than only one factor would.

Young people commit most homicides, with homicide peaking at age 23 (and overall violence at age 21 and property crime at age 18).

Men commit around 90% of all violent crime, and about 93% of homicides.

Homicides rates in the U.S. are higher than in any other modernized country, and by a significant amount. We have about 16,000 homicides per year. The UK has about 600.

African-Americans are heavily concentrated in both the South and urban centers in the US, two areas that have higher homicide rates, even controlling for race.

And that's before we even talk about spurious correlations with poverty or negative experiences with law enforcement.

So yeah, young Black men in the US have very high homicide rates. People tend to focus on the word "black" in the description as the relevant factor, but that's the trick. Statistically, we'd be better off blaming men for homicide. Or Americans. Or Southerners. Or young people. But for some reason, we don't ask those other "groups" to be responsible for other people who share some charactieristic. At its core this is the logical mistake of assuming that sharing some status or characteristic equates to being part of some group or team, responsible to one another and collectively deciding on the actions of the individuals in that group, which of course isn't how any of this works.

The good news is, at least some of my students do manage to understand all this! At least until someone complains to a college administrator and we're not allowed to discuss race in sociology classes any more.

---

---

Steve QJ:

“But for some reason, we don't ask those other "groups" to be responsible for other people who share some charactieristic.”

Absolutely fantastic David. Thanks for this. I wish I'd gone further into the nuance you lay out here.

And yes, it's that "some reason" that more people need to examine.

---

There’s a lot of talk about how racism is so ingrained in our psyche that it's impossible to escape. I don’t think that’s true. But David’s comment is a perfect example of how some factors attract our attention more than others. 

Far too many people read the question, “why do young black men in the U.S. have such high rates of homicide?” and only really notice the word “black.” 

This is why racists argue that black people are inherently criminal and why so-called anti-racists argue that talking about black-on-black crime is racist.

To be clear, “young,” “men,” “in the U.S.,” and “black,” are all essential pieces of this puzzle. The people who claim that talking about the “black” part is racist are just as wrong as those who claim that everything except the “black” part is irrelevant. 

You can’t solve a problem unless you’re willing to look at the whole of it.

Now there’s a message I wish more people would take on board.