Shelby's Discussion of Crime and the Crip Alliance

In this post, I will apply Shelby to the founding of the Crips.

Raymond Washington is considered the founder of the Crips. Washington was a teenager living in a "dark ghetto" in Los Angeles in the wake of the Watt's Riots. He joined a gang for protection. He got into fist fights with other gang members after they held a gun to his brother's head. Washington quickly developed a reputation as a skilled street fighter who was not afraid to take on large gangs. He formed his own gang, which grew and came to control other gangs. Eventually, he formed an alliance with other gangs in LA in an attempt to establish a confederation of gangs and monopolize crime in LA.

Shelby's account in Chapter 7 is helpful in understanding the early history of the Crips. He identifies that "[the] norms that govern the world of street crime also have an enormous impact on ghetto residents who want to avoid participating in and being the victims of crime" (206). This explains why Washington got involved in gangs at a young age. 

Shelby goes on to say, "To avoid being victimized, one must appear shrewd and capable of defending oneself, with deadly violence if necessary." This perfectly captures Washington's reputation to be able to defend himself and those close to him. Washington developed a "survival [strategy]... similar to or mimic[ing] the strategies of gangsters or hustlers," which manifested in the form of his alliance (207).

Washington's attempt to unite LA street gangs failed. Some gangs resisted the new alliance and formed the Bloods in opposition. The Crips and Bloods fought a brutal gang war lasting decades. Washington cannot be blamed for the failure of the alliance, however. The gang violence his alliance attempted to quell would not have even existed if the underlying structure was just. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Development as White Saviorism

Sen’s take on viewing development as freedom seems coherent when the developing body is a part of the community that is being developed. There are troublesome aspects (like the implicit acceptance of unequal distribution of freedoms), but those can be justified and or fixed with minor alterations. However, the account’s flaws become prominent when applied to situations where the developing body is external to the community that is being developed. Because Sen does not factor in the context of when the development occurs and does not outline who can even be a developer, his account would allow for white saviorism.  The issue is not with what Sen’s account includes, but what it does not. Sen’s account does not argue for an equal distribution of freedom. While he believes we should expand freedoms in the most effective way, if this does not expand freedoms equally, it is not clear that Sen would view that as a bad thing. This leaves room for marginalized people in society to be even...
Read more

I used to be a libertarian and i think Nozick is full of shit

In Anarchy State and Utopia, Nozick argues that patterned principles of justice will require “continuous interference with people’s lives” to continually realize their pattern of distributive justice (162). As an alternative, he argues for an unpatterned principle of distributive justice (PDJ) based on the principle of entitlement. I want to examine some of the key assumptions and concepts he makes in his account in this blog post.  Nozick’s entitlement theory views just modes of interacting with one’s holdings as necessarily leading to a just pattern of distribution. Namely, once justice in acquisition and justice in transfer have been achieved, the resulting distribution is just. As Nozick puts is “whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just” (151). He also touches on “the rectification of injustice in holdings” but goes on to say that the exact nature of that principle is unclear and not discussed by him or others (152). This seems like a bit of a dodge to...
Read more

The other face of the father of capitalism?

I found reading Smith's theory of Moral Sentiments interesting because a lot of it felt nothing like what he's purported to be according to all the "father of capitalism" stuff. I see how he developed something like the invisible hand because of how he develops his theory: based on observation. He makes empirical claims above human behavior in relation to which actions we approve and disapprove based on how much we can sympathize with the actor. Both this theory and the one about the invisible hand seems to be an explanation about an observed phenomena.  While I think that the method he uses to develop his theories are similar, the ideas present in this piece seems radically different than ideas on capitalism. The ideas that he present in Chapter two remind me a lot of Kantian ethics. The specific passage that reminded me of this was:  "When he views himself in the light in which he is conscious that others will view him, he sees that to them he is but one of the...
Read more