In reference to towns like Ferguson and an event where a violent criminal was shot dead by a police officer, Obama says…
“this is tragic, because nobody needs good policing more than poor communities with higher crime rates.”
It seems to me the phrase ‘higher crime rates’ is one of those abstractions that serve to obscure facts that could be more clearly expressed. Why not say “poor communities with more criminals?”
Anyway, you don’t say ‘criminals’ because that would suggest there is such a thing as a criminal. That the difference between someone who commits crimes and someone who doesn’t is possibly not ‘deprivation’ or ‘marginalisation’ or ‘institutional racism’ or any other immeasurable force invented by left-wing academics in the 1970s.
Much better to say ‘higher crime rates’ because that paints a picture where the poor innocent communities are undermined by a dastardly abstraction they can do nothing about. And the little darlings get caught between this horrid abstraction and an institutiuonally racist police force. Poor things.
The facts, however, are that ‘higher crime rates’ are not caused by a collection of left-wing mystical forces but by criminals. Who can, if they wish, choose not to engage in crime.
The problem is that when you stop using strange abstractions and mystical forces as your explanation for criminality and violence you have to explain it by looking at the people instead.
And then you’re a short step away from being a horrible racist. Best go back to the abstractions.