Comitting Crimes is Self-Respect

 In Dark Ghettos, Shelby argues that members of the ghetto poor are entirely justified in committing crimes against people who unfairly benefit from the unjust systems at hand. This is because the failure of reciprocity warrants committing crimes against people who are unfairly benefiting from current systems. 

Shelby states that "Persons with a strong sense of self-respect sometimes refuse to co-operate with the demands of an unjust society. They stand up for themselves, are defiant in the fact of illegitimate authority, refuse to comply with unjust social requirements, protest maltreatment and humiliation, and so on, even when they know that such actions will not bring about justice or reduce their suffering. Self-respect, then, can be a matter of living with a sense of moral pride despite unjust conditions." I would argue this means that for members of the Black ghetto poor, committing crimes is an act of self-respect. Black people see the ways in which their suffering is used to benefit certain people and decide that this dynamic is unjust. When they commit crimes, members of the Black ghetto poor are acting as agents and creating and taking reparations for the injustices they were forced to experience. 

For example, a constituent in West Virginia is entirely entitled to ransack Joe Manchin, because Joe Manchin's current position is at the expense of the constituents he was supposed to serve. Their suffering lead to his gain. When Joe Manchin's constituents rob Joe Manchin, they are taking the benefits they were supposed to be entitled to in the first place. In that sense, it is morally righteous for members of the Black ghetto poor to commit crimes against privileged people in society, because their privilege stems from the suffering of the Black ghetto poor. 

When you are suffering from injustice, self-respect compels you to stand up for yourself. Therefore, committing crimes is conducive to self-respect. Committing crimes is exercising agency and taking up space, in a way where it forces your oppressors to acknowledge your existence and allows you to assert your stake. This is a philosophy that I would argue many people of color and oppressed people agree with. For example, many white people will talk about Gandhi and how inspiring he was as a freedom fighter for India. They respect his philosophy of non-violence and passivity. On the other hand, Indian people resonate with Ambedkar and other Dalit activists who were unabashed in taking freedom and direct action against the British. They align with the agency that is inherent in Ambedkar rather than the passivity of Gandhi.