The Myth of Black-on-Black Violence As we head into another long, hot summer, the media -- and black folks -- need to retire this loaded term. By: Natalie Hopkinson Posted: June 16 2010 6:22 AM ThinkStock This year's Black History Month was a particularly bloody one in Shelby County, S.C. Sergio Leary, Ja'cole Wilson, Karon Barrow and Leon Thurman Jr., all young people in their 20s, were all shot dead, according to local news reports. The Shelby Star's analysis of the burst of violence, hit on all the usual crime reporting clichés: ''black,'' ''at-risk youth,'' ''subcultures that don't value'' life. And then, there's the clincher. ''Despite overall crime numbers falling in recent years, black-on-black [emphasis added] violence remains a prevalent issue,'' the newspaper reported. You can expect to hear these key phrases on a local television news report near you as temperatures--and tempers--rise this summer. Black clergy like Al Sharpton, prominent black thinkers like Kevin Powell, and writers at black journals like the Urban Politico will shake their heads at this ''black'' scourge, self-flagellating that ''we gotta do better.'' Of course, any loss of life is cause to scream from the mountaintops. But explaining the tragedies by using loaded phrases like ''black-on-black'' violence is dangerously wrong. First, in a country that is essentially still segregated (and not necessarily by black people's choice) what race do you expect for both victim and perpetrators to be? Language like ''black-on-black violence'' effectively smacks a racial label on problems that are socioeconomic and thus the collective, moral responsibility of every American. At this particular moment in our history, it is more important than ever to reject these kinds of racialized explanations. They are being used to slander public school children as incapable of learning; to deem affordable housing a hopeless cause. In gentrifying cities, ''black-on-black crime'' is used as a weapon to encourage public policies that treat black people as blights on the new urban aesthetic. There is a moral imperative to challenge these assumptions. Every. Single. Time. ''It's as though there is something defective about black culture and moderate income, and low-income, working-class kids and families live in different worlds,'' said the University of Illinois geographer David Wilson, who traced the origins of the term in the early 1980s in his brilliant book, Inventing Black-on-Black Violence (Syracuse University Press). ''Supposedly we saw youth that were going astray and that was the problem,'' Wilson continued. ''The media imposed this narrow [black-on-black] lens that looked at the category of culture. The culture was deemed as problematically different than the mainstream.'' In his most recent book, Cities and Race (Routledge 2007), Wilson looked at how prevailing public policies in cities have taken these racialized arguments to some very scary places. According to Wilson, city planners in gentrifying cities now argue that there is a new global reality afoot. As such, prominent urbanists such as Richard Florida argue that what we need in our cities more than ever are creative people. People who are highly educated--people who can find their niche in the world economy. This might be all well and good, if we lived up to the ''post-racialism/colorblindness'' everyone keeps crowing about. You know, that notion that you are not judged by your skin tone. That in America, everyone has an equal chance. No need to bring up the nastiness of the past. http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2010/06/the_myth_of_blackonblack_violence.2.html .