There are several statements that have been oft repeated in response to claims of racial disparity, especially in light of widely controversial incidents involving race. These make up major component in race debate on the “conservative” side:
Why no outrage of blacks at their own “problems” (killings, etc)
This is a completely false assumption:
Actually, Blacks Do Care About Black Crime
Panelist Michael Eric Dyson, a professor of sociology at Georgetown University points out the difference between blacks committing crime, and officers sworn as an agent of the state to uphold the law.
More whites are shot by police than blacks
The issue here is the deaths as within the larger context of police harassment (which of course includes all of the incidents that don’t lead to death). So you may be able to produce a larger number of whites, but there have been examples shown of whites being arrested, resisting violently, and even going as far as having their weapons drawn, and the police will still manage to detain them without shooting. (sometimes, they’ll even be begging and pleading with them). With the blacks, a young kid can get shot for having a toy gun! So some whites may get shot, and even if it is technically more than blacks, still, the overall treatment is vastly different, and this is what will make the black deaths stand out.
Turning groups of people into monolithic entities, for broad sweeping judgments
That’s the whole basis of the focus on “black crime”, or “the black community” or “culture”. It’s like one group is “up to par”, which the other falls far below, and they thus want to upbraid for their “problems”, like angry, stern parents or bosses. (Which arrogates a position of superiority!)
They are the ones claiming we should now be “post-racial”, and that it is the other side “playing the race card”, but they themselves are still attributing crimes essentially to RACES.
As the article http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/11/rudy_giuliani_doesn_t_understand_crime_the_former_new_york_city_mayor_is.single.html points out, the rhetoric “collapses a whole world of distinctions, circumstances, and situations into a single frame“.
Denial of Southern Strategy (splitting all evil onto one “party”)
Every conservative argument appeals to “the Democratic Party” as “the real racists”, since this was the party that favored slavery and segregation, while the Republicans opposed those institutions.
This ignores that these earlier “Democrats” were the conservatives, defending the Constitution and fighting against liberalism, as their premise against the blacks, whom they said the same things about (i.e. them being lazy and violent) as today’s conservatives.
It was in the 1960’s, that the Southern Democrats felt obviously betrayed by the party, and were eventually lured en-masse into the Republican party by a strategy begun by Nixon.
Here’s a couple of good rundowns of the Southern Strategy:
Lincoln and the North were racist and slaveowners too
No one denies that there was racism in the North.
The difference, being that blacks were regarded as less then human across the board, could be comparable to one of “be kind to animals” versus “cruelty to animals”. The one favoring “kindness” is will look moderate if not egalitarian when compared to the ones being cruel. And with no other choice, the blacks would look to the ones who at least tried to give them some amount of freedom.
Africans sold each other into slavery, Black and Native Americans owned slaves (and slavery also in the Bible)
Some may have had or sold slaves, but for the European and American sellers and purchasers, it was big business and maintained for the sake of profit, and thus trying to prolong the institution based on race in itself. (And with a deliberately constructed philosophical basis added as justification). That is NOT the same as one tribe selling its slaves to someone else.
(Which was usually the spoils of war, and not based on any notion of inherent “inferiority”).
What the Confederate Flag has come to symbolize (What was “taken from” them, and they want “back”?)
Defenders maintain the flag is only about “heritage” rather than a “legacy” of racism.
The strongest case against this can be read here: “Here’s the Racist Meaning Of the Confederate Flag, In the Words of the Man Who Designed It” http://mic.com/articles/121082/here-s-the-racist-meaning-of-the-confederate-flag-in-the-words-of-the-man-who-designed-it
(Down with the Confederate Flag
The widespread use of the Confederate battle flag during the Civil Rights era, to defend white supremacy, removed the benefit of the doubt that might have been extended to those displaying the flag in memory of the war dead. In other words, modern white supremacists robbed the flag, as a symbol, of a plausible claim of innocence.
KKK and other hate groups used the USA flag
Here, it is pointed out that all the evils done under the Confederate flag were also done under the American flag.
But America as a whole changed its position on those things. (Even though there may be a lot of room for improvement in race relations). The Confederacy’s leaders on the other hand tried to mantain slavery and other forms of oppression. Those who resurrected the flag in recent generations did so in the context of racial hatred.
Most Confederate soldiers (and Southerners in general) weren’t slave owners
It’s true that most people didn’t own slaves. Slavery was the “big business” of the time. The article “Not a Tea Party, a Confederate Party” (http://weeklysift.com/2014/08/11/not-a-tea-party-a-confederate-party) mentions how the economic aspect of the situation led to the phenomenon that “whites who owned little land and had never owned slaves had become the shock troops of the planters’ bid to restore white supremacy.” There is far more evidence of this, as shown by the article
“Five myths about why the South seceded” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html)
Conservatives have the answer and are only giving the hard “truth”
Conservatives are saying the other side “doesn’t want to address” (or fix) the problems.
The liberals may not have solved all black problems, and some may have had self-serving agendas. Yet the same thing occurs on the conservative side.
(But don’t forget, with the blacks, it’s not just the motives of the politicians, but also the character of the entire voting base; the entire race, that’s being questioned; i.e. only voting for them “because they want free stuff”).
If people want to raise awareness of problems politicians aren’t solving, great; but if it’s about just blaming one side for everything, while ignoring any wrong on any other base, then all anyone is doing is tickling the ears of the choir.