Jun 1, 2007
Are We Too Tolerant?
USA Today’s article “Some see Boston shrines as nuisances” gives an informative discussion about the appearance of memorial shrines in Boston and other inner cities. While they may look similar to the 9/11 memorials, they are in fact an ode to all sorts of proles. Most of the ‘victims’ are gang members and serial criminals. Residents who live near these shrines find them both psychologically draining and physically dangerous – they tend to attract violent crowds. Since every day more people die, every day there are more shrines. If you look at the pictures, it is beginning to look like a war zone.
Unfortunately, attempts to remove these shrines have met with upheaval. One woman comments that “In the black and Hispanic inner city, this is how we grieve.” So minorities grieve by enshrining criminals? The article correctly asserts that these memorials are sending the wrong message, but it doesn’t seem likely that Boston will be cleaned up anytime soon. The problem (in my opinion) is that we are too tolerant. Boston is the classic liberal North Eastern city that is divided between the black and Hispanic inner city, and the wealthier surroundings. Unfortunately, those areas which are not crime ridden tend to be filled with people who believe that violence in poor neighborhoods is somehow their fault *.This is the so called ‘white guilt’ phenomena. People are willing to accept worse behavior from minorities than they would from each other in order to avoid any accusations of racism or intolerance. But would we allow memorials for the 9/11 hijackers? I hope not.
Perhaps we can learn something from game theory. Game theory holds that the most successfully strategies are those which are initially cooperative, but are willing to punish others if someone ‘defects’. Strategies that are always cooperative work well with each other, but will be exploited in the long run. In order to prevent this from happening, we as Americans should not allow such ridiculous memorials on public property. If we do, it is just giving the mouse another cookie.
* I want to make it clear that I am not accusing all or most or even many of the people in the inner city of being criminals. Just that there are proportionately more. However, many of the people who die from violent crimes are criminals because deaths frequently come from inter gang conflict.
The shrines mentioned, are similar to the burned out cars and graffiti that used to litter and desecrate the streets of NYC in the 80′s. Along with squeegee men and panhandlers, the city was a challenging place to visit. The authorities decided at some point that it was to noone’s advantage to permit this to continue and put a stop to it. And the city was transformed. Shrines in no way add to a sense of community, but they must be removed by the civil authorities, and this should be a consistent policy for all neighborhoods. It can not be done by people in the neighborhood; this would be risky and dangerous. This is the point of government; to do what is in the best interest for all, and not to be cowered by the most vocal and violent. Where is Richard Nixon and his silent majority? BB
The liberal position is not that inner city crime is the fault of white people. The liberal position is that policies and attitudes create the conditions in which individuals are more likely to turn to crime to express outrage, frustration, greed, etc.
An individual of whatever personal circumstances is responsible for every act he or she commits, including those defined by our laws as criminal, and liberals are likely to agree with this as anybody else. But society, the built environment, culture, upbringing and a thousand other influences external to a person’s will do restrict and shape the choices available to a person.