It’s time for those who wish to protect themselves from this thuggish tyranny to put up 6′ steel fences around their property with excellent locks, harden all doors with solid steel industrial doors with steel jambs, and harden all windows with bars that only open from the inside to keep these feckin criminals OUT and off your property. I did and I don’t even do anything wrong, but the way things are going (and a long standing history of them lying under oath, AND changes in the laws that virtually NULL our 4th amendment rights) they can make up anything they want and just come in and start taking things and making things up as they go along.

Earlier I accused you having bought into a narrative that is blinding you to some important features of the drug war. What I should have said was: “People like Michelle Alexander and Tim Wise and my younger sister and it seems about 75% of everyone who graduated from a humanities program after 1994 have bought into a narrative that sees race as the great one and only in American life – please don’t be like them.”

While droning along at work today, I had much occasion to think about what that narrative is, and what I don’t like about. Here’s how it sounds to me:

“The history of all hitherto existing American society is the history of racial oppression. Racism is the most evil thing that has ever existed, and it is the only thing that still deserves to be called evil in a post-modern world.

Every idea I don’t like is most likely an encoded manifestation of racism. Everyone I disagree with on political issues is most likely a racist. Everyone who is not an anti-racist activist, is a racist. Everyone who is not a racist, is a closeted racist. Being against racism is roughly the same as being a good person. When I tell you how much I am against racism, you should take that as evidence that I am a good person.

Racism admits no scale; all racial incidents are equally important. Racism never goes away, even when it does. The progress made on race relations since 1960 is not enough, and is mostly an illusion, and by the way, there has been no progress on race relations since 1960. Racism is the leading problem of blacks and hispanics, and in fact the only problem anyone should be allowed to talk about, where those two groups are concerned.

Racism explains everything, and when it doesn’t, the definition of racism can be changed until it does. Racism is whatever I need it to be, and whatever I say it is. Racial tensions are not tragic or complicated; they are simple and clear, and they involve a straightforward clash between good people like me and bad people who are not like me.

Most important of all, when I start talking about racism, you start agreeing with me. That’s how this works.”
——————————————————————-

Of course it’s not fair because you didn’t say all of these things, but…I thought I saw the tip of this iceberg, in what you did say.

Maybe TNT visited the Miami New Times?

What a colossal load of unmitigated crap!

“Also, overt racism is not necessary for the maintenance of such a system. Sheer indifference to racial injustice can provide the moral intertia that allowed a racial caste system to re-emerge.”

If it is racist not to care enough, I’d disagree with Other Sean that it isn’t a racial suppression system. These problems of disparate impact are obscenely well documented. If it isn’t, well, I put most of the impact down to “sheer indifference” (or more precisely, the strength of empathy not being enough to outweigh the ignorance bought by money, fear, and laziness), so I’d say it’s an unintentional Jim Crow. And having written those last 3 words, I’m going to go vomit.

The slave owners and overseers in my comparison would be with the police and police chiefs (add in prison guards here, if you like) from your post.

As for Holder and Obama, what would you be saying if Obama had lost the election? This system of racial social control, as I see it, was in place before Obama came on the scene, and thus does not depend the color of the person holding the highest office.

Michelle Alexander doesn’t think that Obama’s election has changed much:

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175520/best_of_tomdispatch%3A_michelle_alexander,_the_age_of_obama_as_a_racial_nightmare/

Poor neighborhoods tend to be more densely populated, making it easier to police. Drive through a suburban area and then through a poor area and it seems obvious–you will see more people outdoors in the poor area. More pedestrians, more people getting away from crowded homes. Maybe that is simplistic thinking but cops need more bang for their buck, so to speak. Poor people are unable to hire attorneys so they are more likely to be convicted. Conviction rates are the important data point for law enforcement. Poor people are a great target.

Which makes me wonder if legalization will change anything, really. Will something else pop up to take the place of drugs as a conduit for oppression?

Child porn is the new easy target. The number of convictions of child porn receipt/possession have climbed dramatically–drastically, tragically–in the last decade. In child porn, law enforcement (led by DOJ) may have found the perfect “indefensible crime.” Everyone loves to hate a pervert so public outcry is practically an impossibility. Who would defend CP? I do not defend sexual abuse of children, but I DO defend those charged with the crime of looking at pictures, the crime of maybe thinking bad things.

You’re obviously a serious and thoughtful person, but man…you have bought into a narrative that is totally impervious to nuance and new information.

Remember: if a theory appears to explain everything, and works equally well with ANY set of facts, that is a weakness of the theory, not a strength. Usually it means the theory derives its power from word equivocation. (For example, In your response to point 4 above, you casually compared Eric Holder to a slave “overseer” without any apparent sense of irony. Don’t you see that destroys the meaning of the word?)

I must concede one point of fact: I was wrong about how the prison population is divided. I thought whites were still a slight majority in the system overall, when in fact they’ve fallen to 35%. Shame on me for that. Although still, you would need to explain why whites are willing to tolerate a “Jim Crow system” that also puts 500,000 of their own in the slammer for drug offenses.

I hope you’ll stick around to continue this conversation, because passions aside it really is very interesting. I’ll write a more thorough post tonight, after I get back from work.

Also true of Jim Crow era segregation. Also, overt racism is not necessary for the maintenance of such a system. Sheer indifference to racial injustice can provide the moral intertia that allowed a racial caste system to re-emerge.

2.) In absolute terms, the drug war produces more white victims than black ones.

This is simply false. More blacks are imprisoned, both in absolute terms and in relative numbers, for drug offenses:

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/drugs/war/key-facts.htm

3.) The drug war exists in countries where racial tensions are trivial or non existent.

In some countries, the drug war is partly the result of US foreign policy (Central America etc.) We can’t know whether or not they would still be fighting it if massive US weight weren’t being thrown behind it. In others, like Brazil, which have huge prison populations, I think that something similar is true there as in the US.

Also, what country can I visit where “racial tensions are trivial or non existent”? Iceland?

4.) Millions of drug warriors are black – usually about 35% of the cops in big city police departments, and a whole bunch of police chiefs, not to mention Barack Obama and Eric Holder.

Also true of slavery and Jim Crow. Blacks were responsible for capturing slaves in the African kingdoms that were selling the slaves in the first place. Many slave owners were black. Among slaves, many were assigned to duties (like overseeing) that required them to inflict punishment upon their fellow blacks.

There were many blacks who were pro-segregation, particularly in the earlier part of the twentieth century. Many (most famously Booker T. Washington) were opposed to movements pushing for civil rights, because they were afraid of the backlash against it.

5.) If the drug war is just a continuation of Jim Crow by other means, why is it every bit as virulent in Northern cities than it is in Southern ones?

The answer is that the system of racial social control has spread northward since the time of the Civil Rights act. There is no reason why it should be explicitly confined to the South. However, it appears to be generally worse in the South.

Why can’t we observe a difference between Blue State drug policies and Red State drug policies?

Because you haven’t bothered to look? Sentencing alone is markedly different between the conservative deep south and the liberal northeast.

Why don’t cities with majority black populations, and black mayors, show less energy in prosecuting the drug war?

On this question Michelle Alexander has this to say:

In a nation still stuck in an old Jim Crow mind-set—which equates racism with white bigotry and views racial diversity as proof the problem has been solved—a racially diverse police department invites questions like: “How can you say the Oakland Police Department’s drug raids are racist? There’s a black police chief, and most of the officers involved in the drug raids are black.” If the caste dimensions of mass incarceration were better understood and the limitations of cosmetic diversity were better appreciated, the existence of black police chiefs and black officers would be no more encouraging today than the presence of black slave drivers and black plantation owners hundreds of years ago.

When meaningful change fails to materialize following the achievement of superficial diversity, those who remain locked out can become extremely discouraged and demoralized, resulting in cynicism and resignation. Perhaps more concerning, though, is the fact that inclusion of people of color in power structures, particularly at the top, can paralyze reform efforts. People of color are often reluctant to challenge institutions led by people who look like them, as they feel a personal stake in the individual’s success. After centuries of being denied access to leadership positions in key social institutions, people of color quite understandably are hesitant to create circumstances that could trigger the downfall of “one of their own.” An incident of police brutality that would be understood as undeniably racist if the officers involved were white may be given a more charitable spin if the officers are black. Similarly, black community residents who might have been inspired to challenge aggressive stop-and-frisk policies of a largely white police department may worry about “hurting” a black police chief. People of color, because of the history of racial subjugation and exclusion, often experience success and failure vicariously through the few who achieve positions of power, fame, and fortune. As a result, cosmetic diversity, which focuses on providing opportunities to individual members of under-represented groups, both diminishes the possibility that unfair rules will be challenged and legitimates the entire system.

6.) How do you explain Prohibition? Was that a racist conspiracy against Jews, Irishman, and Italians? And what happened, did American just decide to stop being racist against those groups one morning in 1933?

Alcohol was indeed tainted with strong racial bias, but it did not amount to a racial caste system because it didn’t need to, since a full-blown racial caste system was already legally in place. The War on Drugs only became central to state sponsored racial discrimination after open, legal discrimination was outlawed by the legislation and court rulings of the 60′s. Drug prohibition comes in as a proxy conduit for such discrimination, since more blatant discrimination is outlawed.

Perhaps we need a new version of Hanlon’s razor: “Never attribute to racism what can adequately be explained complacency.”

Take the famous crack vs powder sentencing disparity. That law was signed amidst a moral panic triggered, in no small part, by sorrow over the death of a black athlete named Len Bias. Back then people would have told you it was racist NOT to join the panic. “How can you refuse to support tougher crack laws, don’t you know this stuff is killing black people?” The law then remained on the books for 25 years. Must be pure racism, right?

Not so fast, because guess what…every moral panic law stays on the books long after its founding hysteria has been deflated. What makes that possible is the same thing that has allowed farm price supports to keep going since 1932: most people have a tiny stake in the matter, and the few people who actually like the status quo are very well organized.

Hell, if crack sentencing had NOT had a disparate racial impact, it would probably NEVER have been overturned. The only reason sufficient resources were brought to bear against it was because an established interest group saw fit to mobilize itself.

Even the allegedly simple examples are complicated like that.

I think we agree in how we analyze each argument, I just saw that the psychological biases and fear of arresting Senator’s kids wasn’t looked at. While I agree with you that Alexander and Krishnan are probably wrong, I don’t know that you can throw out their arguments as naive lacks of understanding. I’ll play devil’s advocate to show you the line of reasoning that makes me consider it plausible to call it an act of racial suppression.

I agree that there is a lack of overarching discriminatory intent, but I think it could be argued that the laziness in fixing a known discriminatory system. One of the more horrifying stories in the book is actually of a guy who got off easily, a white redneck drug dealer with a gun who wasn’t charged with the ridiculous firearm charges because “he wasn’t some gun toting drug dealer, just a good ol boy” (paraphrase, not a quote). As with all drug war arguments, honest statistical data is very hard to come by, but there are enough of these kinds of stories that you could make the argument that at the very least people are negligent in equal enforcement, and that this is systemic racial discrimination. I emphatically don’t buy a nationwide COORDINATED conspiracy, but is it ridiculous to call the lack of change in a set of laws that are known to be unequally enforced among races an act of racial suppression? Even if the primary motivation for the lack of change is greed? I think that’s a judgement call, while I would call it a miserable clusterfuck I wouldn’t call it racist, but I can’t say that Alexander or Krishnan are wrong to do so.

tl;dr: Is it racist to let your greed and apathy (intellectual and emotional) allow you to not fight the inertia with which the drug war cranks on?

I think you speak for just about everybody there, since no one can deny that the drug war has had a massively disparate impact on minorities, and on blacks more than any other minority. And most of us would readily grant you that the war wouldn’t have gone on this long, if a majority of its victims were middle class whites.

It’s just the lazy, automatic inference from “disparate impact” to “discriminatory intent” that drives me crazy. Those are two different things, requiring different types of evidence, and neither Krishnan nor Michelle Alexander seem to understand that.

Michelle Alexander’s book basically reads “every step of the process drug offenders go through is rougher on minorities than white people, from who is looked at as a possible offender to sentencing to parole to post-prison life.” She draws much the same conclusion as Krishan, though with no offense intended, I’d say she made the point much better than Krishan (or me), though she did it in a book rather than a sentence.

I agree with many of the posters here that it’s indistinguishable from a race war (or racial suppression policy, or New Jim Crow) in its effects, but is not one. I think it’s really about money and fear. Money in the unending spigot that are the drug war grants (as Alexander points out) and fear. A cop who fucks up and arrests a Senator’s son for pot is not welcome in upper management. Going after poor (in the United States “poor” is strongly associated with “black”) people is safer for departments. The Senator whose kid is busted might not be a fan of the drug war in the profoundly unlikely case that significant consequences came of it. There are also the stereotypes of criminality, a study is cited in the book saying that while black and white people use drugs at the same rate, upwards (perhaps well upwards) of 80% of people think of a black guy when hearing “drug criminal.” So there are psychological biases, financial incentives, political reasons, and convenience that make minorities a target of the war. I’m obviously not positive of my argument (not omniscient or psychic yet), but think it makes general sense. Also, while I disagree with some conclusions, Alexander’s book is a must read for people opposed to the drug war.

Does anybody know the story of Nancy Genovese who was abused at the hands of Long Island cops and is suing for 70 million?

I’m trying to get some background on this story and coming up dry.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?376425-An-infuriating-story-of-police-abuse

I don’t agree with Krishan on the details, but I think he’s hit onto a basic truth, which is that the ward on drugs isn’t really about drugs, it’s about oppression.

Which makes me wonder if legalization will change anything, really. Will something else pop up to take the place of drugs as a conduit for oppression?

There are two pathways leading in different directions. Legalization of drugs as a policy (The repercussion of the current Drug War.) and the ultimate failure of the US Dollar and it’s economic system.

The evil brilliance of the policies tracking the ultimate failure of the US Dollar and it’s economic system is their inherent flexibility. If the “Drug War” fails due to the pressure to legalize drugs (Which is unlikely… look at the brilliant wording of New York City’s statutes. Marijuana is a “Civil Ticket”, yet hundreds of thousands have been jailed due to the rent seeking addition of “Public Display” in the statutes.) another mechanic will just take it’s place. There are literally tens of thousands of ways for Americans to become “Felons” under the current legal system.

If “Drug Criminals” falls out of vogue as the “Oppression du jour” Something else will take it’s place.

As such, in my opinion, there are two primary driving forces that will converge at some point in the future.

Force one: The inevitable failure of our economic system.

Force two: The “Power Elite Conspiracy” that is driving our Law Enforcement system towards Martial Law.

At some point, these two forces will meet. Society will collapse to anarchy, devolve to a dictatorship, or reconstruct in some combo platter of the two. It all depends on how far Force two has advanced when Force one hits.

I’m certainly not saying “there’s no such thing as ulterior motives”, nor would I claim that such motives have never found their way into public policy. But your particular hypothesis has screamingly huge problems. In no special order:

1.) Tens of millions of people who are not racists support the drug war, including plenty of liberals.

2.) In absolute terms, the drug war produces more white victims than black ones.

3.) The drug war exists in countries where racial tensions are trivial or non existent.

4.) Millions of drug warriors are black – usually about 35% of the cops in big city police departments, and a whole bunch of police chiefs, not to mention Barack Obama and Eric Holder.

5.) If the drug war is just a continuation of Jim Crow by other means, why is it every bit as virulent in Northern cities than it is in Southern ones? Why can’t we observe a difference between Blue State drug policies and Red State drug policies? Why don’t cities with majority black populations, and black mayors, show less energy in prosecuting the drug war?

6.) How do you explain Prohibition? Was that a racist conspiracy against Jews, Irishman, and Italians? And what happened, did American just decide to stop being racist against those groups one morning in 1933?

(By the way, your canon law example fails to move me. The Catholic Church in the middle ages was an actual conspiracy – i.e., it was ruled from the top down by a tiny group totally insulated from public opinion, centered in a single town, acting in near perfect secrecy. So I am quite willing to believe that group could carry out a conscious and hidden agenda, and get away with it for years.)

Which makes me wonder if legalization will change anything, really. Will something else pop up to take the place of drugs as a conduit for oppression?