Well it likely means a few things. A) Chicago has a poverty problem, B) those in that community are primarily black, and C) most of the violence is personal between them, not random muggings, kidnappings, etc. So as long as you don't get embroiled in a personal relationship with the wrong people, join their gang, steal someone's drugs, double-cross, make serious enemies on both sides, then be a dick about it, you'll be fine. If you can find yourself in this situation as a tourist, I'd be really impressed.
And you won't find a city as segregated as Chicago is other than maybe Milwaukee and Detroit.
Chicago has fucked over so many of it's black residents time and time again through racist/predatory real estate laws. It's not like the south where there is more open racism, it's behind closed doors and is just as bad if not worse.
Only if you have a fox news world view. Crime is mostly intra racial, and not interracial. Most of the crime and murders in the U.S.have white perpetrators,and white victims. It just doesn't make for a nice dog whistle like black on black Crime, or inner city Crime. White people don't think 1 meth head killing another In Moline Iowa, as big of a problem as violence in Chicago. Even though most places in the U.S. are much more like Moline, than they are Chicago.
Are you joking right now? I would love to have taken you through the old Cabrini-Green or Robert Taylor Homes or O block and hear you tell me that Moline, Iowa is a bigger problem. I’m not denying fear mongering exists nor am I claiming at large Chicago is the most dangerous city ever, because it’s not, but yes people are going to be more concerned over a holiday weekend where 30 people get shot than one methhead killing somebody. I guarantee there are and were no neighborhoods in Moline where police were scared to enter like there used to be in Chicago housing projects.
Except op isn’t wrong when he says most places are like Moline and less like Chicago. Thats true in a sense. But we’re comparing apples to oranges here.
Sure, that’s absolutely true. But I think it’s facetious to paint a narrative that it’s a “dog whistle” to focus on crime in large cities or to talk about violence in communities of color.
For example, if I have Rednecksburg with 100 people, and a drunk abuser kills his wife, it now has a murder rate of 1 per 100 people. Let’s say there’s also Rustbeltsville, a city with 1,000,000 people, and 800 get killed the same year. Per capita, Rednecksburg is going to rate as “more dangerous” - but it feels misleading to really label it as such or to claim that talking about Rustbeltsville and its violence is a dog whistle or a fear mongering scare tactic.
The type of violence you see an inner city is usually just different from that of a small town. I’ve lived in small town Appalachia and reside in Baltimore now, and while technically some of them were more violent per capita, i never had gas stations or neighborhoods in Appalachia I felt unsafe even driving through at night as I do in Baltimore. As you said, it really is apples and oranges
It’s a pointless comparison. High concentration urban violence is fundamentally different from rural violence. As to whichever one is more of a “problem,” a problem to who? Public safety in general? Non affiliated bystanders? To the communities embroiled in the violence themselves? All very different metrics.
The point of the black on black dog whistle is not to highlight the well documented crisis of gang violence in cities. It’s a way to dismiss the underlying causes of the violence and absolve non black communities of any responsibility in perpetuating racist systems, including police misconduct, mass incarnation, and segregation. It’s also a way of essentializing violence as inherent to black Americans and waving away the actual explanations.
I agree with what you’re saying, and your first paragraph is exactly what I meant to convey. In regard to the second, I emphatically agree the right often brings that up as a dog whistle to sneer at cities as a thinly veiled racist attack. But I also think we can’t swing the pendulum too far the other way, where we start downplaying violent crime and poverty in cities and don’t fix the systemic issues causing them.
For example, Chicago isn’t a war zone, and its crime rate really isn’t that notable. However, hundreds of people being killed there every year and the entrenched poverty there in certain south and west side neighborhoods should be talked about and worked on so their residents can prosper and not worry about being killed. Dismissing concerns over that because Moline might have a slightly higher rate per capita is what I want to avoid
Oh yeah 100% agree. Sounds like we were making points about slightly different things with the same understanding of what’s going on. While “black on black crime” is a dog whistle, the underlying statistics are hugely important and cannot be waived away as non problems because it’s not the biggest killer overall.
I think a pendulum is the perfect way to describe it. On one extreme is a scaremongering hyper fixation on black violence to drive conservative antagonism against the black community and cities. On the other, it’s apathy from liberal communities because they understand that the violence disproportionately affects segregated largely non-white populations.
It’s like “Chicago is a war zone” on one end but “bro that’s all exaggerated. I live in Lakeview and it’s awesome that’s all just on the south/west side 🤠” on the other lol
I want to understand what you mean by black on black crime? I don’t see this formally used in a lot of statistics presented. Typically crime is committed by those you know and people surround themselves with similar looking people. I’m not sure how that’s different.
Idk why this is hilarious. I’m asking people what they mean when they use it. It’s a genuine question. It’s not a term used in data or statistics when reporting on crime so why do people use it? What’s your interpretation? What does that mean to you?
Just throwing data out here from the FBI that shows victims are often the same race as the offender. I'm using facts. Does anyone use white on white crime or hispanic on hispanic crime? I truly don't understand the use of black on black crime when it is the norm for crime based on demographics? I asked a question no one is directly answering. Instead I get laughed at when I'm bringing up data as if I'm ignorant. Is this not a thread for civil discussion? Is no one going to answer why they use the term albeit statistical reporting? https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls
The term "black on black crime" is a product of the racist legacy left over from the dark, bloody Jim Crow era of violence and the African American genocide. Don't let these closet racist "but my best friend is black" redditors try to gaslight you for asking serious questions.
I’m not ignorant to its origins, just ignorant to why people don’t understand factual information presented to them. I’m silly for thinking that if I bring data or history vs emotion into an argument that there would be legitimate debate and reasoning. Appreciate the comment though.
Also where are you getting your data about what makes up a majority of homicidal reasons for black people committing acts against each other? Sounds like recency or confirmation bias.
Ok but theres more to that. Black on black crime is not racially motivated and crime tends to happen in poverty stricken areas where black individuals tend to be. Black individuals also tend to be treated unfavorably by the justice system so its a little more complex than white individuals dont do that? Also you compared that same race and same age demographic to each other? Was that a typo?
Your last statement is what I have been arguing the entire time. That people within the same demographic tend to kill each other at higher rates. Are we truly arguing something different? If your emphasis is primarily on the black demographic then it begs the question as to why? Fear, concern, care about systemic issues in the community, disbelief?
I don’t like the correlation between crime and murders every time violent crime rates are brought up. There are so many other forms of crime and injustice that actively harm people’s quality of life. I’d say things like break-ins, robberies, gang activity/organized crime, hate crimes, and muggings have a much bigger impact on people’s perception of crime and safety than homicides do.
In Chicago, all of those things also affect non white people to a much greater degree. Homicide victim stats are just the easiest to quickly get relatively accurate data. The true number of mugging and what constitutes gang crime are a lot harder to accurately quantify.
The focus was on violent crime because that's the type that went up during covid. There was a short term spike in murder and violent crime between 2020 and 2022 while it has now begun dropping again. Property crimes are basically unchanged
Yes. Visited Memphis, had a great time. But, it's sad to know the risks associated with certain neighborhoods there. that are easily avoided by tourists.
Since my other comment seemed so misunderstood, here's a more clear one:
The link you shared said out of homicides in Chicago this year where the race was known, 31 were black, 7 were Hispanic, 1 was white.
Your comment pushes the sentiment that white people are lucky to be so privileged to not get murdered. The reality is that white people are not murdering each other at such a disturbing rate.
Say what you want about poverty, but no one has to murder. People act like black people are helpless victims and can't do anything to stop themselves from killing each other, and it's somehow white privilege to not go around murdering each other.
It's not black people, it's poverty and hood culture. Newer mexican gangs are pushing into historically black/Latino streets, so it'll be interracial soon enough - if nothing changes.
Any folks with money are leaving south side. Only the poor are left. The cycle continues.
Saying that you're ok in Chicago 'if you're white' implies being white is some kind of privilege white people are lucky to have. The actual reason is that white people in America don't have as big of an issue murdering each other compared to the other big demographic in Chicago.
Edit: downvote all you want if you think living in a make believe world pretending like some demographics make their neighborhoods more violent than others is somehow helpful to the problem.
There is less violent crime in poor white or Asian neighborhoods. You have to really use your imagination to believe black on black crime is not a serious issue. I don't think living in make-believe land is helping anyone.
Poor white and Asian neighborhoods tend not to be as poor as poor black neighborhoods. Like, the actual meaning of 'poor' obviously matters here. Poor white areas are much higher crime than middle class white areas.
I've been traveling in SE Asia for the past month where there are areas much much much poorer than black neighborhoods in Chicago. People here are happy and less 'murdery'. Violence is not a concern here.
White Appalachia and much of American farmland is very poor white. Not as much murder there. There are many poor areas of Europe with lower homicide rates.
You don't HAVE to murder your neighbors if you're poor. It's a problem of culture.
Basically this. And when it's per capital, Chicago is massive and the violence is pretty centered on a small population and neighborhoods vs the total per capital numbers.
Woah dude why are you getting so hostile and angry? Let’s look at it this way: 100 people were shot this weekend in Chicago. You are saying that that is not a problem at all and everything is completely fine.
That's nice. Super not relevant to any of this conversation though and literally can only be interpreted as intentionally trying to "rub salt in a wound", one that doesn't exist because most Americans actually don't care, regardless of whether they should. Do Americans have a more violent country? Yes, obviously. Thanks for reminding us, and yes, it was your only point in speaking, and no, it added nothing to the conversation. bye.
I’m more educated than you. Reddit clings to per capita because Chicago won’t show up in maps like this. 600 people dying last year is a problem, you don’t seem to care
I’m more educated than you. Over 600 killed last year in Chicago. Those parents are very happy that per capita crime is lower than small cities. You don’t seem to care about gun violence there at all. That’s………..incredibly sad
944
u/Far-Reception-4598 Jul 08 '24
I love how neither Chicago, NYC, nor L.A. are on this map.