Recently, another mass shooting in the U.S. hit the news. It occurred in the next state south of me, in Oregon. The city where the shooting occurred, Roseburg, is a nice area about 80 miles inland from the Pacific coast. Roseburg is in a small rain shadow, and the countryside resembles parts of Northern California more than it does the rest of Western Oregon -- broad, grassy hills with big oak trees. It's a beautiful area.
The economy there used to be timber based. Now -- like much of the rest of timber country -- it is economically depressed.
The young man in Roseburg who was the shooter was apparently disenchanted with his life, and held a lot of anger inside him before taking it out on innocent civilians at a community college where he apparently was a student. Like many such shooters -- the young man took his own life after the police showed up (in this case, the police shot him a couple times before he ran off to kill himself).
It's a common thread in many of these shootings: a usually young, disaffected man -- often emotionally or mentally disturbed (but sometimes not) -- writing a manifesto or saying dangerous things online before procuring a few guns and then going out to kill as many people as possible before killing himself.
Here in the United States discussions of these shootings always turn political -- on one side, you have those who blame the shooter's mental illness, medications, or some deficiency the shooter may have had -- usually defending the gun. On the other side, you have those who blame the gun above all else. Then the two sides throw names at each other and there is a lot of hate and discontent all around.
Granted, there are many guns here in the U.S. Granted, there is a lot of gun violence.
But no one seems to want to breach the idea that much of the reason for such shootings -- and other gun violence as well -- is economic in nature. I for one do not think that the fact that this most recent shooting took place in one of the most economically depressed areas of Oregon is a coincidence. While I don't think it's the factor, I think the lack of job opportunities for the young man in question was a contributing factor -- even psychologists I heard interviewed on the radio last week mentioned that he felt alienated and disenchanted with his prospects for a good life.
Recently, while at a thrift store, I saw this book, "Monster", written by an ex-gang member named Sanyika Shakur (former name, Kody Scott). Mr. Shakur was a member of one of the prominent gangs in South Central Los Angeles, and in his book he describes in fine detail the mechanics of gang warfare. I have read about three quarters of the book so far -- it is a grim read, but also a fascinating one.
Mr. Shakur doesn't necessarily tell us what the root cause of gangsterism is -- aside from his perception and belief that it is economic and racial in character -- a consequence of the U.S.'s history of economic warfare on black people.
The adage "there are more young black men in prison than in college" is an indicator of this. Our incarceration rate is devastating, even compared to the 1970's. King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg mentioned this in a Seattle Times opinion piece Oct. 15: "If we were to return to the incarceration rate of the 1970's, we'd have to release 80 percent of all inmates in America." (Emphasis added).
Imagine that: The implication is that 80 percent of the inmates in the U.S. probably shouldn't be there. Either that, or there has been 80 percent more serious, felonious crime.
However, in the same article, Mr. Satterberg says that crime in the U.S. has been on a "downward trend", and has reached "lows not seen for half a century" -- 50 years.
Yet we also have a massive violent crime problem in urban America and an awful incarceration rate. And although incarceration reform can help part of the problem, the greater problem is that there are too many Americans who clearly feel they have no stake in society.
Young men who feel they have no future are prime recruits for crime, drugs, and gangs. And as we have seen in the mass shootings -- many young men who see that they have no future will turn to violence to lash back at society.
In the 1950's and 1960's, when the United States economy was at its apex, there weren't so many mass shootings, and less gun violence in general. And yet there were still a lot of guns per capita -- probably more than anywhere else in the world, save Switzerland or Israel.
Unfortunately, governmental trade and labor policies shifted manufacturing to other countries. A lot of good, well-paying jobs were lost. This hit the Rust Belt before it spread to the rest of the country.
California Governor Jerry Brown, when he was running for President in 1992, stated that during the 70's and 80's nearly 250,000 manufacturing jobs left South Central Los Angeles. Governor Brown blamed that job loss for much of the rise in gangs and poverty in L.A.
We have a large problem here in the U.S., and it's not just guns. And it's not just violence. There is something wrong with our economy, where not enough people feel they have a future.
Here in the U.S., our government seems to be rudderless when it comes to jobs and the ability to buy a home, support a family, have a future. Home ownership is on the decline. Even rental apartments are unaffordable for many.
This mostly bleak economic picture may not be the only cause of gun violence, but I think that it is a contributing factor that no politician, no pundit, and no press editorialist is talking about.
Which takes us back to "Monster". It's an excellent book. At the same time, it's a sad book. It's about a young man who got caught up in a gang because that's where his friends were, that's where his neighborhood was, and the gang, the 'set', was his identity. And -- it also provided him with a sort of living.
College was not an option. Education was not an option, either. In one part of the book, Mr. Shakur describes being bused to a high school in the San Fernando Valley, 15 miles from his home. He liked the school, but stopped going after the third or fourth day because the gang that held the territory just north of him shot up the school bus as it went up the road, and he didn't want to get killed on the way to school.
When I first heard of the shooting in Oregon, I was reading "Monster". It was like deja vu all over again. When a man shoots up a community college, it's national news. But large scale shootings take place nightly in economically depressed areas of major cities of the U.S. every day. Often such shootings don't get a mention.
Reading Mr. Shakur's book was a revealing look at a culture that a large percentage of Americans just hear about or read about. Mr. Shakur refers to the inter-gang violence in terms of war -- describing the clashes (wars, actually) between Los Angeles area gangs in terms of geopolitics -- the expansion of territory, street by street. Sending out scouts, and sending out carloads of shooters who are like the first prongs of an invasion.
His book is set in the late 1970's through the early 1980's. For much of it he was a teenager.
It was a bit discomforting to read about it, because in many parts of Urban America, this is still a very real situation.
The biggest thing I got out of it was that it was a picture of a young man who felt compelled to join a gang -- not just because of the camaraderie, but because there weren't really any other viable options. There were no jobs, and education was ineffective or unavailable.
One gets the feeling from reading his book that it's not just a race issue: it's also an economic issue.
Gun violence is everywhere -- and I can't help but think that much of it is because so many young American men feel they have no future.
Politicians can try to curb or ban gun ownership. Good luck. There are nearly 300 million guns in the U.S. With that number of guns available, it would take a long time to stop gun violence. Meanwhile, the root causes are still there.
Perhaps government leaders should try to improve the economy instead. Provide more opportunities for disaffected people to climb up the economic ladder. Improve education in depressed areas, combined with creating more decent paying jobs closer to home. And while they're at it, improve mental health care.
Try something that may work. Restricting gun access may help, but it's only a bandage on a much worse problem. If we really want to stop all kinds of violence in the U.S., we need to improve the economy.
People with good jobs, good homes and good futures generally don't want to shoot up the place. They usually want the opposite.
PS -- My thoughts and prayers go out to the French people after hearing of the terrorist attacks on innocent civilians in Paris. I have at least one reader who is from France. I hope you and your family are safe.
CC
No comments:
Post a Comment