Why the British may be less frank about black violence than Americans

Philip M. writes from England:

I have read your post concerning the frankness of the Heather Mac Donald article on black gun crime as compared to the less frank approach in the British press. British attitudes to race and what you can and cannot say are complicated, particularly because of the distorting effect that class still plays on British society and attitudes. There are things certain classes can get away with saying that others could not, and likewise certain things that you are not allowed to say in front of, or to, the working classes that would be ok around more “enlightened” people (in the media, I mean). The hypocrisy and two-facedness I spoke about is largely a middle-class phenomena.

But it seems to me that you and the other posters overlooked one of the most important reasons that the debate on race, crime and the police is different in America and Britain—legalised guns.

If guns are legal, then armed police are bound to have to face the reality of the black propensity for violence in a very direct and life-threatening way. There simply cannot be any room for political correctness when someone is pointing a gun at you. Imagine if the American police were ordered to stop shooting so many black people—what would happen? Many more police would be shot, and the police would end up on strike or leaving the force. Crime would be rampant as police would feel they could not defend themselves against armed blacks. Quite simply, this is an issue that your establishment has to leave alone, for fear of opening an even bigger can of worms.

The same applies to society as a whole. How could any American government start telling its armed white citizens that they are racist if they shoot a black man who is trying to kill, rob or rape them? Even in the PC West I think this would enrage people. So they have to leave the subject alone. But in Britain the subject never comes up because the police and ordinary citizens are not armed. We can still labour under the illusion that there can be a peaceful way out.

Liberal Americans need Heather Mac Donald to make this argument. Being able to criticise blacks in this context is perhaps something like one of your “unprincipled exceptions” that prevents liberalism from literally destroying American society were it to be followed to its logical conclusions. What I think she is saying is, “Yes, races are equal, and it is terrible that poverty and racism have created a large black criminal class, but as long as they exist we have to have the right to defend ourselves against them, much as I wish we did not have the need.” Only if she stated the true reasons for black propensity to crime would this be a truly honest article, on either side of the Atlantic.

I would be interested to know what you think of this theory.

LA replies:

It’s an interesting theory, but I’m not convinced. It seems to me there are sufficient violent crimes other than gun violence to lead society to the same conclusion. How many of the stabbers in the epidemic of stabbing attacks in London have been black? Something like 75 percent? Yet the racial component of the stabbing crimes is never mentioned.

Philip M. replies:

But the article in question was about shoot-outs with the police. Knives are rarely used in this context. How many policemen have been stabbed to death in Britain? Very few, it is not the kind of crime that is done by someone with a knife. The stabbings in Britain are mostly black-on-black, mostly unimportant teenagers, and they take place in areas that the middle classes avoid anyway. Knife crime will never affect the people the establishment really has to care about—agents of the State (the police) and the middle classes, safe in gated communities and suburbs that warring teenage blacks can rarely be bothered to go to. Rightly or wrongly most British people would feel that black teenagers with knives can be contained on their “sink estates,” or “ghettoes” as you call them. Do Americans feel the same about blacks with guns?

Furthermore, you are overlooking the other side of the equation—that the law abiding do not have guns. Seeing as we do not have the means to defend ourselves, there is no debate to be had about the extent to which we are justified in harming others whilst defending ourselves. If Brits had guns, maybe we would use them on blacks with guns-but we don’t, and they don’t, have them.

Karen writes from England:

I think the lack of police arms is a bit of a red herring. The black population is crime ridden in the UK, not only with guns, but with knives, machetes, drugs and every other kind of criminal disorder and weapon.

The reticence in being frank about black violence and disorder is due to a misplaced sentimentality and paternalistic view of primitive peoples. This is due to the history of empire and the collapse of traditional religion. The English upper middle classes have been predominantly liberals for over a century and they have harboured delusions of “civilising” primitive races. With the virtual collapse of traditional religion in the upper middle classes, the activity of “civilisation” of primitives has taken on a quasi religious character. It is almost a duty. They enjoy having a population of primitives on whom they can look down, and at the same time indulge in their pseudo religious works. Social programmes for deviants, promotion of primitives to positions of influence far beyond their capabilities, involvement in primitive cultures and traditions, denial of savage behaviour. There is no pressure on the primitive to adapt to Western society as that would be too “oppressive.” The primitive is thus indulged as a spoilt child whilst his pathology proliferates and deviates.

LA replies:

This is very insightful and well put—the way you combine the upper class paternalistic motivation with the loss of religion.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 15, 2008 12:39 PM | Send