Sooo...Why Aren't We Talking About Heaven Sutton?

downtown

Crafternoon Delight
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
19,541
Location
Chicago
My old employers posted a particularly thoughful blog post that I thought I'd share with ya'll...tell me what you think.

Teach for America said:
In the wake of the Aurora shooting, our nation rightfully felt compelled to speak, sparking important dialogue surrounding violence, gun control, and mental health. It has become clear to the general public yet again—as it did after Virginia Tech and Columbine—that gun violence is a crisis in the United States. The Aurora tragedy is undoubtedly one of the most-talked-about American news stories of the year.

Between 8 p.m. July 20—the Friday of the Aurora shooting—and 9 a.m. July 23, 31 people were shot on the South and West Sides of Chicago. Three of them were killed. This news received little attention outside of local media outlets.

A memorial to the 406 homicide victims in Philadelphia over the course of one year (Courtesy of Tony Fischer Photography).


The next night, in the same neighborhoods, 13 people were shot. Six were shot within a span of 15 minutes, including one 17-year-old boy who died. He was reportedly hanging out with friends in the park.

As of July 25, Chicago has surpassed 300 murders and 1,500 people shot in 2012. Why hasn’t this violence received the same media attention that Aurora has rightfully received? Are we able to tolerate a couple of shooting deaths every night? Does our nation reserve its grief and anger for isolated incidents? Numbers alone may influence public perception of these shootings, but the real answer is elsewhere: race and class.

When fatal shootings occur relentlessly in the black and Latino neighborhoods of the South and West Sides of Chicago, they are accepted as inevitable. As everyday news. When non-fatal muggings occur in Chicago’s white and affluent downtown shopping areas, there is outrage and demand for swift justice. We have deemed certain cities, institutions, and neighborhoods as acceptable places for violence to occur, while others are not. We have perpetuated the construction of spaces for violence through a racial lens.

Why does this matter for education? Leonetta Sanders, the principal of Harper High School in the Englewood neighborhood of Chicago, kept track of the number of current and former students who had been shot during this past school year: 27. She has attended eight of their funerals.

During the 2011-12 school year, 319 Chicago Public Schools students were shot, 24 fatally. This is just while class is in session—violence spikes radically during the summer. Black and Latino children on the South and West Sides are surrounded by gun violence on a daily basis, meaning their most basic need of safety is being brutally ignored. How can our students achieve their highest potential when their reality is permeated by violence?

Heaven Sutton, a 7-year-old girl in Chicago’s Austin neighborhood, was shot to death in front of her home on June 27. She was a rising second grader. Let’s talk about her.
http://www.teachforamerica.org/blog/after-aurora-why-aren’t-we-talking-about-heaven-sutton

First, pretty crazy that in that one day, one city had 31 shootings! Even here, where the shootings start only a few blocks from my apartment, its very easy to sweep things under the rug and not talk about. Not many people my age regularly read The Tribune, and their back pages are really the only time you hear about this.

Crime may have been trending downwards nationwide over the last decade, but several cities have seen upward ticks of violent crimes. Do you think that the author's thesis (we're decided that violence is okay in these areas because their residents are poor and black/brown) is accurate? What do you think?
 
We still tolerate terrible things for the colored that we never would for the white.
 
It has nothing to do with race or class, it has to do with shock factor. Obviously anthing endured over a period of time is not going to be as noticeable as a large single event.

How many people died from terrorism around the world from Jan 1st 2001 through September 10th 2001? How about from September 12th 2001 to December 31st 2001?

If 31 innocent poor black Chicago citizens were gunned down in a single confined space built for entertainment in the span of a few minutes it would have gotten the exact same attention.
 
It's both shock value and reverberations of racism.
 
31 people being shot in basically three neighborhoods in 12 hours is pretty shocking to me, and I think it should be shocking to everybody. One missing white girl outrage > 2 dozen poor black kids.
 
31 people being shot in basically three neighborhoods in 12 hours is pretty shocking to me, and I think it should be shocking to everybody. One missing white girl outrage > 2 dozen poor black kids.

There's a few of us who tend to share those "missing" photos on facebook. It's annoying to see them until you realize the majority of missing people would be found if they sufficiently spread through the networks.

A guy I knew personally, hung out with a bit, thought he was an awesome dude, died a couple of months ago. I re-shared his photo when I saw it, to my shock. None of the people I know who share those photos re-shared it. He was a black man. All the others shared had been and continue to be white.

Tell me that isn't racism, conscious or unconscious. Especially when the one I put up about this buddy of mine was blatantly person.
 
31 people being shot in basically three neighborhoods in 12 hours is pretty shocking to me, and I think it should be shocking to everybody. One missing white girl outrage > 2 dozen poor black kids.

Very concerning, yes. Shocking no. Shocking means it is a shock, if these are neighborhoods with high crime rates and shotting rates all the time then that one day is not exceptional, thus not news.

Additionally, are they claiming all the 31 gun shot victims were innocent victims? I know the mentioned one boy shot in a park, but they certainly made no claim that it was all a bunch of innocents out to have a safe good time in a movie theater.

On top of that, it was 31 shooting victims dispersed over half a city. 31 different situations and circumstances, 31 different motivations and goals, etc. etc. What makes the en mass killing in the theater exceptional is the group aspect.

Also,

Population of Aurora CO = 332,354
Population of Chicago = 2,707,120

Statistics are statistics, Aurora and Chicago are simply not the same.

So no, race and class have nothing to do with the disparaging of the reporting of each event (more accurately one event and 31 other events). The causes of the violence in these very different events? Probably a major factor, but that is a different question.

I also take issue with the idea that the violence in Chicago is either ignored or not reported. I have visited Chicago once in my life and for my entire adult life I have known about and read about constantly gang and violence issues there. From SC and VA. It is constantly on the top of news feeds, especially since Obama brought some attention to the city When I finally did visit last New Years, Chicago violence was on the top of my mind.
 
So no, race and class have nothing to do with the disparaging of the reporting of each event (more accurately one event and 31 other events). The causes of the violence in these very different events? Probably a major factor, but that is a different question.
If 31 well off white people in Chicago's north side were murdered in one day, that would be national news. 31 shot in 31 places. It would need a congressional hearing. People would be drawing up conspiracy theories. I'm being a bit hyperbolic but the spirit of my point holds.

Of course race and class have to do with it. And you are also right, it's also an issue of shock value and desensitization.

I also take issue with the idea that the violence in Chicago is either ignored or not reported. I have visited Chicago once in my life and for my entire adult life I have known about and read about constantly gang and violence issues there. From SC and VA. It is constantly on the top of news feeds, especially since Obama brought some attention to the city When I finally did visit last New Years, Chicago violence was on the top of my mind.
This is slightly ironic. When I lived in Chicago I didn't even know it had a reputation for it... and I definitely remember finding myself in the hood. Not the hood but the hood. Chicago is pretty safe, but there's still a lot of violence in certain pockets, almost entirely of which is in poor black neighborhoods and is almost entirely reported in a way of "there they go again".

That's the point. In the case of more affluent white people murdered it's "omg people murdered!" In the case of poorer black people murdered it's "Chicago's Southside is dangerous!" See the difference here? One style of reporting more often leads people feeling upset/sad/angry, the other more likely leading people to feel fearful/judgmental.
 
To be fair, it's the West Side AND the South Side...so the heavily Latino areas as well. I actually think the single most dangerous neighborhood is Austin, which is on the Westside. Basically, the "non white" areas are the most dangerous.

If 31 people got shot in Boystown or the Gold Coast, there would either be a congressional hearing, or the national guard would have moved in. I don't think that is hyperbole at all.

We shouldn't be desensitized to this sort of thing, but we have been, and that may be part of the problem. Folks accept it as just the way things are.
 
If 31 well off white people in Chicago's north side were murdered in one day, that would be national news.

Is the North Side of Chicago known nation wide as bastion of criminal violent behavior?

Nope.

So the news wouldn't be 31 white people died, it would be 31 people died in an area that would be totally unexpected to happen.

31 shot in 31 places. It would need a congressional hearing. People would be drawing up conspiracy theories. I'm being a bit hyperbolic but the spirit of my point holds.

Your point stands, but not as you think it does. Conspiracy theories abound, but they are coming from the OP and now you.

Of course race and class have to do with it. And you are also right, it's also an issue of shock value and desensitization.

So if 31 black movie goers died tonight in a theatre rampage you are telling me there would be no reporting of it? Totally what white washed eh?

You are comparing apples and oranges, try comparing apples and apples.

This is slightly ironic. When I lived in Chicago I didn't even know it had a reputation for it... and I definitely remember finding myself in the hood. Not the hood but the hood.

Like anything you get desensitized if you are around it to often. People in in war torn countries carry on with their lives while you or I would be cowering in fear the second we were dropped in there.

Chicago is pretty safe, but there's still a lot of violence in certain pockets, almost entirely of which is in poor black neighborhoods and is almost entirely reported in a way of "there they go again".

The bolded part is the key. You are talking about areas known for constant violence, thus more violence is not shocking.

I hate to tell you this, but black people live and work in affluent neighborhoods too. If a black bell hop was gunned down on the streets of North Chicago, it would be news. The reason? Its the violence that is the shock, not the race or the class of the person.

That's the point. In the case of more affluent white people murdered it's "omg people murdered!" In the case of poorer black people murdered it's "Chicago's Southside is dangerous!" See the difference here? One style of reporting more often leads people feeling upset/sad/angry, the other more likely leading people to feel fearful/judgmental.

No, it leads me to the very factual conclusion that the South side of Chicago has more crime, and the North side has less.

I am going to point out there are plenty of poor violence ridden white neighborhoods, and their violence is not reported as national news. When is the last time you heard about a murder in from the north side of Mobile Alabama?

On the other hand, we very often do hear about heinous murders from small town, but poor, America because despite being poor murder is very often uncommon.
 
Also, and I hate to point this out because its sad, but the simple fact that the movie this happened in was "Batman" ensured this shooting got far more attention than it would have. It would have gotten plenty attention regardless, but...
 
Remember the other thread, on "stop and frisk"?

It was the people complaining of the supposed racism of the operation who claimed that gangs shooting each other is no big deal.

In other words, those that don't care about blacks and latinos shooting each other are not mainstream, "law and order" types, but rather the "progressive" left.
 
I do love how you can make such sweeping generalizations about so many people.
 
Violence is much more common in areas with high concentrations of low-income blacks, so it isn't really newsworthy―how many days in a row are they going to tell you that poor areas have high rates of violent crime? The movie theater mass killing was unique and unexpected.
 
The Aurora shooter would have neber gotten so many kills in a theater in the poor parts of Chicago. Some hero would have shot him and then been arrested for felon-in-possession or something.
 
As I have already shown in other similar threads, violent crime and homicide continues to decline in Chicago, as it does everyplace else.


metrotrends-homicide1.jpg


murderrate.JPG


Again, let's take one Chicago reporter's recent hyperbole as an example:

Reporting as the “carnage and mayhem”

On Wednesday May 5th Chuck Goudie from ABC 7 News did his absolute best to use hyperbolic reporting and an extremely poor use of statistics to lend support to a recent call for the National Guard. (You can view the report below.) I will take the time Goudie didn’t to show you how the numbers and language used in the report where nothing short of totally horrible.

Baghdad & Bosnia

We've been to Baghdad and Bosnia, in hurricanes and earthquakes, at riots and at Ground Zero. But how the I-Team could safely report on one night in Chicago prompted just as serious discussions in our newsroom.

Really Chuck? Are you seriously equating entering the Gresham neighborhood in Chicago at night with going into a war zone? I must have missed the bombings, missile attacks, mortars, and in the case of Baghdad suicide bombers and car bombs. This type of language only feeds the extremists views Chicagoans have about these neighborhoods and is why politicians can get on television and call for the National Guard rather than seeking real long-term solutions.

The Chi’s Image

“Chicago's image has been defined by shots heard - and seen - around the word, usually snippets of carnage and mayhem.”

Once again here, there is no basis for Goudie’s claim other than it fits perfectly with the hyperbolic reporting that seems to be the agenda of the entire piece. Also, from the last reports I have seen despite a few horrible incidents, which every urban center experiences as the weather warms up, Chicago had an increase from 101 to 113 homicides. Obviously this 11% increase in homicides is enough to get the white television reporters to “parachute” into communities of color. If you take a more long-term perspective you will see that homicides are down significantly in Chicago since the late 80s. So does this mean that what we are experiencing in Chicago is better now and thus should be tolerated? Well, yes and no. Yes, homicides are down significantly: 52% since 1992; but no because now it seems like the only people being murdered are young men of color in Chicago.

Typical Victim:

“In 2008 the typical murder victim was 17 to 25 years of age, male, black, and had a prior arrest history,” (CPD 2008 Murder Analysis Report, pg. 44).

Typical Offender:

“In 2008 the typical murder victim was 17 to 25 years of age, male, black, and had a prior arrest history,” (CPD 2008 Murder Analysis Report, pg. 44).

Clearly, anybody being murdered is an unacceptable tragedy. But what is clearly needed are more police in the high-crime areas, not even more hysteria.
 
I've never posted that graph before. There is no "spike" that comes close to the 70s level of homicides, much less the spike in 1993 which was the high point for homicides nearly everywhere in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago

Homicides 1990-2010

1990: 851
1991: 927
1992: 943
1993: 931
1994: 929
1995: 827
1996: 789
1997: 759
1998: 704
1999: 641
2000: 628
2001: 666
2002: 647
2003: 598
2004: 448
2005: 449
2006: 467
2007: 442
2008: 510
2009: 458
2010: 449
2011: 440

After adopting crime-fighting techniques in 2004 recommended by the Los Angeles Police Department and the New York City Police Department,[6] Chicago recorded 448 homicides, the lowest total since 1965. This murder rate of 15.65 per 100,000 population is still above the U.S. average, an average which takes in many small towns and suburbs. This homicide rate is similar to that of Los Angeles in 2004 (13.4 per 100,000), and twice that of New York City (7.0 per 100,000). Chicago's homicide tally increased slightly in 2005 and 2006 to 450 and 467, respectively, though the overall crime rate in 2006 continued the downward trend that has taken place since the early 1990s, with 2.5% fewer violent crimes and 2.4% fewer property crimes compared to 2005.[7]

But I did post the article on the obvious hysteria permeating the Chicago media recently, which is what the word "again" signfies above.
 
Back
Top Bottom