How many of those black people can't vote because they've been given a felony for drug possession? Or can't vote on a Tuesday because they have to work? Lastly, why are you assuming black people will vote for the black guy? Maybe they voted for whom they thought is the better candidate?
"They've been given" a felony? Felonies are EARNED. At what point does the nonsense stop and accountability and personal responsibility take over? This is, after all, a country where black Americans can and do run successfully for President of the United States, Senator, Representative, the CEO of my business is an African American... Even if the "latent racism" argument is accurate, it doesn't PRECLUDE any of the things I'm saying even if it makes it harder.
In Atlanta in the late '90's and early 00's, the churches in South Atlanta would have "voting parties". What would happen is, the pastor of the church would convene everyone at the parish, and there would be food, and drinks, and services... and every hour or so, the bus would take the parishoners to the voting booth to vote. This would run from when the polls open at 8:00a to when they closed (I think it was 10:00 pm then). Now, the only proviso was that the parishoners would have to vote for the candidate that the pastor recommended, but that's a small point. ;0 Either way, I'm white and it's funny, I have to work on a Tuesdays as well, but when I am inclined to do so, I find a way. I have, in my life, walked, driven, and ridden my bike to the polling place.
As for the last, then it isn't latent racism if they have the choice, they made the choice and the numbers of black elected officials represents the will of the community. I only assumed that they would vote for the black candidate, because the other assumption de facto rules out the notion of "latent racism".
There's certainly an economic element to this, but even when that's in play, you can't just ignore race. Why are blacks economically disadvantaged? There's also things like Crack-Cocaine. If you read through my links earlier in the thread, you'll notice that whites make up the majority of Crack-Cocaine users. Yet blacks are the vast majority of people in prison for crack-cocaine. Not only that, but crack-cocaine had (until Obama) harsher punishment, with the only distinguishable characteristic being that powder cocaine was not as common in the black communities. Time after time, studies show black people are more likely to be pulled over, arrested or questioned as opposed to whites, even in the same neighborhoods, which directly refutes the idea that it is purely an issue of economics (I also pointed out earlier how, in Fergusson, blacks were more likely to be pulled over and arrested for the same thing as whites).
Those facts are all over the map, and DON'T point to the "grand conspiracy" that you are trying to paint. Over 70% of the population is white; no wonder "more whites use crack cocaine". The actual PERCENTAGES tell a different story: FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/quicktables/quickoptions.do
, 5% of blacks have ever used crack, only 3% of whites. The "prison" stat is every bit as much an economic issue as it is a race issue. And not as common because why? To get to crack you NEED powder; so it isn't availability. Might it not be an economic issue? You can stretch a unit of powder a LONG way (and therefore make more money) with the rock. Don't see "race" in that equation either.
There's also the history of why drugs became illegal in the first place, which was often founded upon racial prejudices and issues. So once again, just talking about drug incarceration and the reasons for it being illegal, you run into the issue of race.
Now here's where I think what you say has import: in how to deal with the problem. The solution to the problem is one that doesn't deal with race, mention race, or anything like that. Ending the War on Drugs is the right thing to do, and the reasons for it have nothing to do with race. This one rather simple thing would dramatically change so much, that it's mindboggling to me at times.
Is racism the only reason? No. And I doubt most police officers involved in the circumstances are racist. You can have instituionalized racism and practices that are unfair and target people without the individual actors being racist or necessarily unfair. I think El Barto has explained how this works in other ways, and I think it applies here.
If it matters to you, I agree with you on the war on drugs (though probably for other reasons). I think it is asinine that we are spending the resources we are spending on fighting that. I don't think people quite understand how massive a shift that would be economically by ending that debacle.
And I am not suggesting race places NO part. I just think the emphasis is out of whack and often misleading. There has to be some rigor and some substance to looking at the numbers, so that we are on firm ground with respect to "cause", "effect", "correlation" and "coincidence".
And as a general thought:
I also want to bring up something I feel like I would in other circumstances. Let us say the cops story is 100% accurate. Brown went for the cops, and his life was in imminent danger. Well, what about if our cops weren't armed with guns? Then there would be no gun to potentially threaten his life. In the Trayvon Martin case, I harped on the fact that Zimmerman brought the gun into the situation, and as such, bears responsibility for it. The same is true in this case. I can see the rational behind saying a citizen has the right to defend himself with a gun, even though I generally disagree with it, but a cop is doing the job on his own free will, and as such, should take on danger, instead of making situations where citizens are in danger. Officers should have non-lethal weapons on hand, with guns being held in reserve and requiring approval to be handed out (like Norway).
Police not having a gun would dramatically change the relationship and dynamics of a relationship between citizens and officers. Officers would be more cautious, maybe more respectful. Citizens would know that the cop is more on an equal footing.
That is absolutely not how it would go down. El Barto has it right of course. That solution would just make sitting ducks of the police.