One solution to the "Black problem"

Lawrence Auster's blog is one of the few places to report, and discuss, the "Black problem".

Of course, before we proceed, we have to define what this problem is.

The problem is that blacks are statistically more violent and more racist than whites are.

In my estimation, however, any rational definition has to avoid both polar extremes -- of a simplistic condemnation (however implicit and gingerly may be its insinuation) of all blacks, on the one hand; and of an undue minimization of its disturbing dimensions, on the other hand.

In terms of the former, readers (and apparent fans) of Auster bruit about the solutions of re-instituting slavery; or short of that, of re-instituting the de facto segregation of the century roughly spanning the end of the Civil War to the Civil Rights era of the 1960s. Meanwhile, Auster himself persists in affecting an agnosticism about any concrete proposals even while he regularly adverts to the problem (highly ironic and inconsistent of him, considering how he (rightly) frequently has taken Robert Spencer and others in the AIM (the Anti-Islam Movement) to task for only talking about the problem of Islam, without actually offering any proposals for what to do about that problem).

The latter of Auster's readers' solution -- re-instituting segregation -- has some slender merits; a major one being that blacks seemed to have had a relatively more orderly and productive existence during the century between 1865 and 1965 than they have had since that time and, pace certain suspect descriptions by tendentious PC historians, seemed to have enjoyed quite a bit of freedom and opportunity (particularly in Northern enclaves, such as New York). That era, however, organically developed; it was not artificially instituted. And it required a cultural paradigm to be held by the dominant white society. It would be preposterous to think it could be renewed and instituted by force of law (and even more preposterous to think it could re-grow voluntarily).

Similarly, needless to say, slavery is out of the question.

Mass deportation (shades of Marcus Garvey) suffers from an arguable fact about the problem of blacks that distinguishes them from Muslims: As bad as sporadic black-on-white violence is, and however much it may seem to be escalating, it is still persuasive that the vast majority of blacks are sufficiently peaceable (even if among that vast majority of non-violent blacks there is a sizeable minority of socially counter-productive individuals in terms of addictions, dereliction of family cohesion; poor work habits; etc. -- but then, one could say approximately the same about whites). It's simply wrong to deport en masse a people whose vast majority are peaceable. And among blacks we do not have the problem of being unable to distinguish the dangerous ones from the harmless ones to anywhere near the same degree, quantitatively or qualitatively, as we do with Muslims.

So what do we do then?

I propose the simplest, most elegantly rational solution: simply enforce the law in a color-blind fashion, as our PC dictates allegedly claim to support. Such a policy, of course, would -- if consistently applied -- result in the effect and appearance of unduly focusing on blacks, only because they are the ones predominantly indulging in brutal racist attacks, wildings, flash mobs and riots (not to mention some other categories of crime).

All we have to do as a society is continue to insist that we are simply enforcing the law without respect to color, and only with respect to the evidence of who the perpetrators are. This in turn may well entail additional preventative measures (such as, for example, stopping and searching blacks whose behaviors fit various profiles for potential violence) -- all of which can be reasonably defended as emanating from a rational policy of profiling in order to prevent. But it wouldn't have to go beyond that to begin segregating and/or quarantining whole subpopulations of blacks.

Indeed, in certain respects, our law enforcement already does this to some extent. The problem is only that they have been increasingly hampered over the past few decades by PC bureaucratic rules regulating their conduct and too often inhibiting them from properly doing their job in a rational way that responds to the data (which is, in this regard, that blacks are statistically more violent). And this in turn is exacerbated by a mainstream media that tends to whitewash (pun intended) the problem by avoiding the racial complexion of various crimes if they tend to be too dominated by black perpetrators.

Conclusion:

I didn't say my proposal would be easy to institute: it would require a relatively major re-orientation of our dominant and mainstream PC mentality. But it certainly wouldn't require the herculeanly unrealistic transformation which the other aforementioned solutions would entail. And it has the advantage of maintaining an ostensibly non-racist rationale. We are simply enforcing laws against criminal behavior, we would say; and the burden of explaining why such a neutral and rationally color-blind policy of law enforcement nets more blacks, over time as the paradigm shifts, would become shifted onto the shoulders of the black community and their PC enablers.

Crucially, then, this paradigm shift would center on shifting the explanation from an axiomatic white racism alleged to be systemic (for which there is no overt evidence) still supposedly justifying black criminality, to the recognition of a significant sociological dysfunction in the black community and in black culture that needs to be owned by blacks, and addressed by them.

And, unlike Muslims, I think black people show that they have the capacity for such hopeful reform.

In the meantime, we would enforce the law consistently and rationally, no matter how "racist" the results appear, and thus do a better job of protecting our citizens.