Tony Blair Blames Murders On Black Culture
Uh, oh. Is Great Britain’s Tony Blair heading into Imus territory?:
Tony Blair yesterday claimed the spate of knife and gun murders in London was not being caused by poverty, but a distinctive black culture. His remarks angered community leaders, who accused him of ignorance and failing to provide support for black-led efforts to tackle the problem.One accused him of misunderstanding the advice he had been given on the issue at a Downing Street summit.
Black community leaders reacted after Mr Blair said the recent violence should not be treated as part of a general crime wave, but as specific to black youth. He said people had to drop their political correctness and recognise that the violence would not be stopped “by pretending it is not young black kids doing it”.
The problem for Blair is (a) we are in an age when a blanket statement such as that must be iron clad or it’ll come under fierce attack, and (b) there is not unanimity on his contention:
It needed to be addressed by a tailored counter-attack in the same way as football hooliganism was reined in by producing measures aimed at the specific problem, rather than general lawlessness.Mr Blair’s remarks are at odds with those of the Home Office minister Lady Scotland, who told the home affairs select committee last month that the disproportionate number of black youths in the criminal justice system was a function of their disproportionate poverty, and not to do with a distinctive black culture.
Will MSNBC fire Blair, too?
Giving the Callaghan lecture in Cardiff, the prime minister admitted he had been “lurching into total frankness” in the final weeks of his premiership. He called on black people to lead the fight against knife crime. He said that “the black community – the vast majority of whom in these communities are decent, law abiding people horrified at what is happening – need to be mobilised in denunciation of this gang culture that is killing innocent young black kids”.Mr Blair said he had been moved to make his controversial remarks after speaking to a black pastor of a London church at a Downing Street knife crime summit, who said: “When are we going to start saying this is a problem amongst a section of the black community and not, for reasons of political correctness, pretend that this is nothing to do with it?” Mr Blair said there needed to be an “intense police focus” on the minority of young black Britons behind the gun and knife attacks. The laws on knife and gun gangs needed to be toughened and the ringleaders “taken out of circulation”.
If researchers look at the problem they’ll likely find that it isn’t really due to one cause — but a combination of factors. The days of blanket statements or generalizations (especially about race or religion) being taken without being challenged are rapidly drawing to an end in the increasingly-politically correct West.
32 Responses to “Tony Blair Blames Murders On Black Culture”
It is always interesting to see that politicians suddenly get brave, shortly before they resign / retire.
That being said, Blair is right on.
No, MVDG, Blair is spot off.
A culture evolves due to multiple factors, but skin color is not one of them.
I’m sure Blair’s understanding and meaning are more nuanced than his blunt words, but to say something so inflammatory in order to avoid politiacal correctness is every bit as damaging as political correctness itself.
Speaking like a statesman is a highly undervalued commodity.
Joe said:
Joe’s observation is very true here. But this is nothing like the disgusting comments of that Imu fella.
Blair was stating the bankruptcy of the Home Office view that “the disproportionate number of black youths in the criminal justice system was a function of their disproportionate poverty”.
The UK has a generous welfare state structure…FAR more generous than anything in the US. Poverty is insufficient to fully explain the issue. There are cultural determinants as well.
If you happen to know anyone from the Caribbean, ask about Jamaican culture. It is a culture that – partly as a consequence of the plantation system, and the desire of planters to break up Black families – has linked high levels of male irresponsibility with high levels of violence. Jamaican society is a matriarchical one where fathers are rarely in the house, and mothers and grandmothers raise children. There is considerable debate in the field of Carribbean studies over this issue, but the extraoridinarily high levels of crime in Jamaica as opposed to the other islands (save, as always, Haiti – which is an anomaly) are widely acknowledged.
If one broke down the stats on Blacks and crime in the UK according to ethnic origin, there is an extremely high likelihood that one would find a disproportion from Jamaica as opposed to…for example, Trinidad, or Somalia.
The Somalian community is a classic case in point, since they represent one of the most recent – and most impoverished! – Black refugee communities in the western nations . . . yet have EXTREMELY LOW levels of violence and crime.
A number of my clients specialize in immigration and refugee issues, and so this is an area of great familiarity.
Criminal activity is not a matter of race…but largely a mix of poverty and culture (i.e., lack of familial support structures, privileging of violence as a way of resolving issue etc.).
Very politically incorrect (at least in the UK). But this crime is largely Black on Black (parts of cities like Manchester are notorious no-go areas), and Blair knows that throwing more money at the problem won’t make it go away.
I know this is a hot button issue. Terms like “Black” are catchalls and inexact, often including a wide range of cultures and groups.
Again: Criminal activity is NOT a matter of RACE…but, I would argue, largely a mix of poverty and culture.
In the UK there are problems in specific subgroups. I get Blair’s point, but he was being inexact and blundering. Still, he could hardly focus on subgroups without similar controversy.
It will be interesting how this is received.
Race is a very different issue in the US, with the legacy of slavery being more immediate. I wonder how folks here at TMV would see it?
Somewhat OT:
There have been a lot of threads here at TMV about changing British society lately.
If folks are interested, there is a current BBC series focusing on this issue – “Life on Mars” – which has received considerable critical and popular acclaim. (BTW: the show’s title is a reference to the David Bowie song “Life on Mars”).
The frame of the show is a police drama with a twist…it concerns a present-day Manchester cop who was hit by a car, and wakes up as a Manchester cop in 1973!
I know it sounds odd, but look it up on the Web, and buy or download some episodes. The soundtrack is deadly, based around music from the period…and it deals with issues like Britain confronting racism at home, social dislocation, etc.
The core of the drama is how the main character (a Blair era, intense liberal) relates to his boss – DI Hunt – who is a hard-core cop of that era, who manufactures evidence, doesn’t give a shite about rights, beats suspects to pulps in questioning etc.
It is a pretty complex drama, but it has gained a huge following in the UK as it deals with how the country has been transformed in a generation.
I would encourage anyone who has not seen it to check out the first season. Clips can also be seen on YouTube.
It has become a ‘black problem.’ That doesn’t mean that it’s due to race, it is not, but it is a black problem mostly, just like most terrorism is committed by Muslims. This does not make all Muslims terrorists, nor most Muslims, but, if one wants to fight a problem, one has to recognize and accept certain patterns.
There is nothing even remotely racist about that. It is simply noting the facts.
This morning I happened to think of the wonderful musical “Little Shop of Horrors.” I doubt that it could be done today due to PC issues.
MVDG-
‘Stating the facts’ can be accomplished by choosing words other than those maximally confrontational, After all, you expect something different from a statesman than from Barat.
It is totally unnecessary to veer from political correctness to in-your-face provocation. Surely, there is a reasonable way to speak without resorting to either?
In this case, the important thing is to acknowledge that there is a violent subculture.. That it happens to be largely black is a subtext and should not be the headline.
The important thing is to recognize the threat of terrorism. That it is embraced by many Mulsims is a subtext, not the headline.
Speaking frankly should not exclude keeping a sense of balance.
Blair isn’t being provocational. That people feel insulted is truly their problem, it does not make Blair’s words any less true. Besides, it might even be a good thing that people are insulted: perhaps they will get used to it so we can say farewell to political correctness.
And if one wants to fight terrorism one first has to recognize that it is mostly a Muslim problem. If one denies that, one will never ‘win’ the battle.
Same goes for a “violent subculture”.
Imagine, the Brits gave up slavery decades before we did. They are now headed toward their own Watts riots decades after ours. I guess American Liberal thought has not a damn thing to teach the world.
Wait, I’m supposed to be a capitalist. There must be some way of making money off of being able to see the future like this. Special bullet proof vests for firemen? Lead lined TV sets so they are to heavy to carry away in a riot?
This story is funnier than Tony Blair in black face. Anybody care for a Golly Wog?
So if the rash of violent crime in the UK is a “black problem” and somewhat associated with poverty, please explain the UK neo-Nazis and UK soccer hooligans causing death and riots outside England. MvdG – Tell the Irish in Northern Ireland and the victims of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka that terrorism is Muslim.
This reminds me of what I constantly see in public education (where I work) – we are constantly harangued about the “minority gap” between blacks (especially males) and other groups (especially but not only whites). After years of all sorts of “fixes” being introduced – almost all involving changing teaching methods and punishing/rewarding teachers – many of us have begun voicing the obvious, namely, that the black youth culture has fetishized violence to such an extent that the only real solutions are going to have to come from a change in that environment and stemming mostly from the family.
And when you say that out loud the same people who are constantly failing academically and constantly causing violent outbreaks and disruptions start screaming that you’re racist.
So we have a national record of overwhelming academic and social failure among the same culture that brazenly promotes violence, drug abuse and (to a shocking and horrific degree) mysogony. But if you point that out and suggest the remedy to the solution lies within that community and its efforts you get the treatment Blair received. No wonder few politicians – or school boards – display any real backbone on the issue.
MVDG said:
“And if one wants to fight terrorism one first has to recognize that it is mostly a Muslim problem. If one denies that, one will never ‘win’ the battle.
Same goes for a “violent subculture�.
———————–
I don’t for one second accept that putting things in perspective is the same as denial,
no more than I accept that being confrontational is the same as being strong.
From what I’ve observed, people with true strength have no need to thump their chests to prove their strength of conviction They understand that being firm and forthright is perfectly compatible with stating facts in a tactful way.
How something is said is as important as what is said, more often than not. The most important of messages can be lost by stating them inappropriately. IMO to deliver the message and have it heard is by far more important than insisting on a tone-deaf way of stating it.
If not, then I don’t see why disregard for how the message is heard should be applied to only certain groups. When voicing disagreement with an Israeli policy, for exampe, I absolutely support a careful manner of expression to ensure that the message will not be heard by the sensitive ears of Jews as anti-semitism. In exactly the same way, I support a careful choice of words when criticizing a particular group of blacks to ensure that it is not heard by blacks as across the board racism.
�.
In a previous thread I mentioned one of the most maddening aspects of PC; the false outrage people express in an attempt to seem more virtuous than anyone else. Here we have an example of PC being harmful outright. PC becomes harmful when attention is diverted to non-PC wording and therefore takes attention away from the actual issue addressed. Violence is a problem, a big one. If that violence disproportionately is caused by and affects blacks that needs to be addressed. But it’s much easier to gasp and mutter about how Blair said in such a mean way than actually discussing a problem that almost certainly exists.
It’s very simple to ascertain how true his statement is. For example: is violence perpetrated in equal numbers by poor people of OTHER races? If not, you have a problem. Once you do that, you can look to see, like Marlow suggests, exactly WHICH blacks are involved. If it’s the Jamaicans, concentrate your efforts there.
Not being mean is fine, but being honest trumps it, especially with lives at stake. If PC is getting in the way of more effective crime prevention, then sorry, it’s something we will live without.
Picture this; someone comes up to you in a dark street with a knife. They hold it to your throat and demand your wallet. Once they have it they run away.
How many of you imagined a man? I’m gonna bet ALL of you did. Does it make you sexist? Does giving “male� as a descriptive on a police radio make them guilty of “gender-profiling�? Is recognizing that violent crime is a mostly male phenomenon wrong? Does any man really feel offended by it?
LOOK! I used to be soul brother #1. That term meant, as a black man, defending all things black no matter if it’s right or wrong. When I stopped that mode of thinking, I’ve been able to deal with issues pertaining to American black folks directly and fully.
I also work part-time in public education in inner city Detroit, Michigan USA. The public school system is full of criminals and thugs (that’s the administration) leading confused young people that live near, at, or below the poverty line. But I see how young black females (on average) are still able to keep their heads above the fray and achieve. While young black males just are sucked into the whirlpool of violence and despair. I see this sub-culture of “hood rich” (gaining wealth by illegal means at the expense of those immediately around you). All rooted in poverty and lack of resources. It’s sickening. I frequently can’t talk to young black males without resorting to a confrontational tone because that’s all they know.
As a black man in America, I work hard in my little corner at blowing away this negative sub-culture in Black America. So I’m not upset with what Tony Blair said. We don’t live in a vacuum. Everyone sees everyone. Let’s just deal with the damn problem.
Rereading the comments, I find that political correctness (not stating what is true) and wording the message carefully, so as to minimize a misconstural of the words are treated as one and the same hing.
They are not the same thing, not by a long shot. It’s also important to note who is doing the speaking. A head of state bears more responsibility for the impact of his message than almost anyone else, and thus the importance of choosing words carefully.
domajot assuming that it’s true that violence in Britain is disproportionatly a black problem, tell me how you would state that, clearly, in such a way that would NOT be accused of being racist.
Bully for Blair.
Bravo. Its about time someone took the position that this friggin political correctness is getting out of hand and is getting mighty borish.
If its an apple, call it an “Apple.” Dont call it a red piece of fruit that entices one to commit sin in a ficticous book written by ignorant savages 2500 years ago.
I get enough of that in the new liberal version of Jack n Jill.
Jack N Jill went up the hill after seeking a permit and insuring that no bugs were squashed and that they were not infringing upon any wetlands or national habitats for endangered species.
To fetch a pail of water. That is if the water is drinkable. In these troubling times pollution from Fascist Industries continue to dump pollutants into the rivers and streams while people like Jack N Jill try very hard to prevent them from endangering the nations waterways.
Jack Fell down. The social services of today are seriously lacking and poor Jack just might have to wait for longer then 35 minutes to see a doctor who could very well turn him away if Jack refuses to pay for his care.
And broke his crown. Jack is the shinning example of Americas society. His cultural upbringing has emboldened him to seek out new ways of doing things and make him open to cultural adaptation and social experimentation. It is the crowning achievement of man that one should spend his days and nights learning to be open and honest with his inner feelings.
And Jill came tumbling after him. Jill in her haste to help jack forgot the basic rule of social engineering. Do not forget to put several lifelines in place before attempting to fetch water from the top of a hill. This very tenet has become the foundation upon which our social services in this country are built. Lifelines. Here is the classic example of how a nation must always offer a helping hand to the needy as Jill was attempting to do for her Friend Jack.
Rudi said,
Article said:
There are many forms and causes of violence. Never did Blair say, or even come close to saying that all violence was caused by Black Culture. If you want to remedy the situation you need to understand the causes.
I second Lynx’s question. Maybe you talk about geography? There is a bad culture in x y and z towns? I’m not 100% sure, but I think the problem is more wide spread. I think the general point that domajot is trying to get at is that we are always going to be lumping in someone innocent with the guilty in any generalization. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a useful generalization, but the most useful description should lump the least number of innocent people in with the bad.
Lynx -
I would have to know more about London and the exaxt group involved to propose a really meaninggul alternative, but off the cuff –
“…subculture of violence embraced by SOME blacks…..’
Eural-
The school problem you mention is discussed openly in public forums already, even on C-Span.
Black cicic groups also talk abaout it, expressing exactly your sentiments.
————
Nobody-
The problem of PC in literature for schools is by far the most hazardous. I don’t know who is responsible for initiating it, but I do know that echelons of editors are employed to erradicate all ‘questionable’ references.
Most classical literature has become unacceptable, because a depicted woman might actually be a housewife, a role taboo.
I totally agree that this is grotesque.
——————–
My point is that tact and civility (which I see as a plus) should not be confused with
PC (a minus).
Nobody – thanks for the new J&J!
Your welcome!!
> That being said, Blair is right on.
Of course he is, and those denying it are delusional or dishonest.
Culture matters. Underclass culture (which even Democrats in the USA have taken pains to say is harmful — “widespread illegitimacy, substance abuse, crime as a socially acceptable means of acquiring ready cash” — not only conservatives or Republicans) is destructive.
I’m not a “cultural determinist,” but culture matters, period. And I’m concerned about the permeation of underclass-style behavior into more and more of society here in the USA, sometimes defended by liberals.
Someone mentions Detroit, well Detroit has a similar problem with violent crime. A few years back the border city’s (Warren) mayor blame his crime on the people(black) south of “8 Mile”. Detroit has a serious crime problem, and many border towns like Warren, Ferndale and St. Clair Shores have similar problems. Blaming the problems on Detroit as opposed to declining populations and incomes is just an excuse.
Prior to WWII Detroit didn’t have a large black community. During Prohabition and the Depression crime was a big problem in Detroit. The “gangsta’s” causing much of the crime was due to the Purple Gang. Google “Detroit Purple Gang” if you doubt this story. The Purple Gang was a Jewish organized crime group. Because the Detroit Jews lacked access to power and faced racism/bias one way out was rum running and helping Capone with the St Valentines Massacre. In the 1920′s and 1930′s Detroits crime was a”Jewish” problem. I doubt if MvdG or Holly would appreciate that. Other Prohabition cities blamed the Irish and Italians, all groups just like the “blacks” of todays UK and US.
Domajot, I think that is exactly what he said…
I can’t seem to find a full transcript of what he said but in at least that quote he’s quite clear he’s not lumping in every single black person…
There is a separate question that needs to be addressed here. How does one change a culture? Do you make sure the ringleaders “taken out of circulationâ€?? That doesn’t seem to affect the Culture very much, it seems to encourage new leaders to step up. It seems like you need people from within the culture to change the culture. However, this seems to present a bit of a catch-22. If you say ‘your cultured is messed up’ then you offend people in the culture. Also, if you manage to convince a person from within the culture that you are right, the become at least partially ostracized from that culture, limiting their effectiveness.
Kevin H said:
Kevin H. notes the key question, I think. T-Steel’s point above is interesting, as it suggests how even though people in a community know there is something wrong, leader often refuse to acknowledge it.
I do think it is important to emphasize that its culture, not race, that we are focusing on here.
Obviously, as Rudi notes, Black subculture is not unique in its tendency to violence. Many white subcultures (and Asian) are as well.
I remember a few years back seeing an interview the crumudegeonly US Black comic Bill Cosby, who was criticizing how Black women are often disrespected as “ho’s” in gangsta rap.
But, as Kevin H. asks, how can one change a culture? At least, and maybe this was Blair’s purpose, the leaders of communities have to recognize there is something wrong.
Perhaps it is like the European Muslim leaders who are averse to conceding the radicalism in their communities…at least in the UK?
I’m an African-American expat whose a qualified social worker in a London borough which has a significant Afro-Caribbean population. Before coming here I worked exclusively with black inner-city youth in the US for 15 years. I have witnessed that the elements of crime and criminality are multi-faceted. It’s the same in London. For PM Blair to make an absurd and ignorant statement as he did reflects a hidden agenda on his part. Given Tony Blair’s ignominious ouster it appears that he ‘s determined to sabotage the Labour Party. Given David Cameron’s enlightened approach to social problems, what better way to disrupt the political party than by putting an intolerance label on it.
Blair is a scoundrel!
Making the distinction between race, and the culture which most members of a race follow, is obscure but important. Fact is, blacks are very disproportionately both murder victims and perps. You can explain it away, you can ignore it, or you can deal with reality. Only the latter option will do anything to abate the problem, thousands of dead and incarcerated black people. Thanks to Tony Blair for a reality check.
Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report
Making the distinction between race, and the culture which most members of a race follow, is obscure but important. Fact is, blacks are very disproportionately both murder victims and perps. You can explain it away, you can ignore it, or you can deal with reality.
Do you have any clue as to the demographics or patterns of crime in the UK? I live and work here. For Blair to make a blanket statement as he did does not hold water.
As far as your site goes, it’s not hard to discern what camp you’re in. Keep your Neo-Nazi propaganda in Northern Idaho!
Britain is not alone in noticing the same problem.
In Toronto, Canada about 80% of all violent crimes and murders, involving guns are committed by Jamaicans. African immigrants tend to be frightened of the Jamaicans and do not seem to be involved in violent activity.
Jamaicans have a culture based in drugs and violence and most of the criminals’ fathers deserted their mothers before they were born.
While the mothersw are at work, the young children are ‘adopted’ by drug dealers, who initiate them into street crime.
Round up the guys with the guns and drugs, throw them in jail for life or deport them and you will have half a chance of retraining these kids. If you leave these predators on the streets and allow them to corrupt kids with easy money, fast cars and drugs, you have no hope of stopping the black crime spree that is spiraling out of control around the world.
About 80% of the murders in Canada are drug related.
I should point out that there are many Jamaican families, who are not involved in any acts of violence and they abandoned their country for a better life away from the terrorists, who have followed them to their new homeland.
We have a similar problem with the Tamil Tigers, who are terrorising the Indian community and the police are unable to do anything because of ‘political correctness’ that does not allow for their deportation.