Why do dark skinned males commit so much crime?

Post Reply New Topic

As I recall, it wasn't all that long ago that white Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Muslims were at each others throats in the Balkans with the collapse of Yugoslavia and the expansionism of Serbia. While in North Ireland, white Catholics and Protestants until recently had inflicted endless acts of terrorism against each other. And that's not counting the innumerable acts of violence between individuals of differing faiths and political affiliations, or against their own over suspicions that the victim is a snitch.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I referenced the evangelical Christian minority of the Republican party. If you've seen videos of the Tea Party in the US, you've seen a portion of this demographic. I also referenced patriarchal cultures in the Middle East as well, that are influenced by similar cultural factors. These cultural factors are influenced by organized religious associated traditions, they are not factors specific to country of origin.

Many of these individuals are averse to other subcultural elements, as well as being group bound in their cultural activities, and exhibit strong patriarchal cultural traits. These are not necessarily traits associated with crime, but they are definitely factors of cultural division among others.

It appears you are suggesting that Nubians are not the same as other Africans because of the influence of other cultures in history. All African cultures have been influenced by Western Developed nations to some degree.

The research I provided did not indicate there was an issue with juvenile crime among Somali's in the Netherlands. So unless you have evidence that there is a significant problem, there is no evidence of it that has been presented anywhere in this thread, and none to be found with a thorough search on issues of ethnic minorities and crime in the Netherlands.

Issues have been associated with Somali's in Sweden; issues of religious associated cultural differences are the focus, not country of origin.

Interestingly religious cultural traditions in the US are an inhibiting factor for crime in African American communities because they provide social cohesion in an avenue where individuals can share resources. This is not an issue, that is specific to African Americans, either. Some religious traditions are divisive and some aren't.

And per statistics, and as evidenced earlier in this thread, per the phenomenon of single parent households, much of African American culture is dominated by maternal influence, where women hold the power in the household. Patriarchal elements exist in some areas of the culture, and it is not as evident in other areas.

All the issues you address in your criticism of the Global Peace index are considered in the rating by that organization. Some of the countries in Africa have the problems you describe but some don't.

Western developed nations with nukes and other heavy weapons, per developments like the MOAB, are the most dangerous to the world, per heavy weapons, and the potential for violence. One need look no further than Iraq, to see the results of legalized violence, and heavy weapons, that is not clearly warranted.

The global peace index, measures these factors that are not measured in incarceration rates, that are specific to the issue of peace and violence. It's a factor you don't take into account in your indictment of those of African American origin, and the tendency toward crime. There is no greater crime than the potential of wiping out tens of thousands of human beings; while it may not be considered a crime by those who feel justified in it, it is not viewed the same way by the victims.

It is part of the reason there are international organizations that measure these indexes, so a level of objectivity will be maintained.

The major problems in African countries that lead to violence and crime, are over-population and reduced access to resources. In those areas where these elements of conflict do not exist, the problem is not as great. One sees this issue across the world; definitely not one specific to one geography of the world. Urban development is strongly associated with these factors in developed countries, for those that do not have adequate access to resources that live in over-populated areas. It is just a part of animal nature, that humans are not exempt from regardless of their country of origin.

Take away the safety net for subsistence, and crime will increase for every ethnic population in Scandinavian countries. It's already been evidenced in other European countries, and continues to be evidenced in the US, among economically disadvantaged males of all ethnic groups that do not have access to a safety net. If the US had a much smaller capacity for prisoners, the story on crime would be different. It is in effect a social safety net of last resort for some, regardless of country of ancestral origin.

...not to mention all those white land owners over a century ago that got away with human trafficng and stealing land from the Indians. Nobody put them in prison or charged them with any crimes cause they were the ones writing the laws and controlling the government.

We're not talking about the situation as it was over a century and a half ago. If we were, I would have called Cesare Lombroso as an expert. We're talking about the situation as it is now, where dark-skinned males are extremely over-represented in crime, both subjectively and objectively. We're also discussing explanations and possible solutions, so feel free to contribute your views on the current situation.

Now, as this discussion seems to have diluded into a discussion about whether the amount of peaceful societies or the amount of members of peaceful societies matters, I'll try to reboot this discussion by rewriting my opinion and putting it in a clear, brief post. Feel free to discuss everything I say here.

1) African-Americans and other groups that descended from Africans are over-represented in crime.
2) This is a common occurence throughout the world; in Europe, the Caribbean, parts of South America, and even in Africa.
3) It is impossible that poverty is a major independent cause in that; other cultural groups have worked their way out of poverty with relative ease over the course of two generations, while African-Americans have been going for about fifteen decades after slavery was abolished, and are at a level of wealth and education well beneath that of other cultural groups that arrived three or four decades ago.
4) It is impossible that discrimination and racism is a major independent cause in that; in Africa, where dark-skinned people are the majority and light-skinned people are often openly discriminated against, there appears to be a similar pattern of violence. In South Africa, the average woman is more likely to be raped than to complete secondary school.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 44,00.html

Note the skin colour and cultural adherence of those in a protest against rape (they could just as well be protesting in the whitest neighbourhoods of Amsterdam or Los Angeles, both in terms of skin colour and in terms of cultural preference - these are not people in traditional African clothing), then note that white people are 18.75% of Cape Town's population. The article discusses culture as being a major underlying cause of South Africa being dubbed "rape capital of the world".

you arent taken a fraction of the variables needed into account to make these assumptions about a single group of people, let alone the several thousands you are trying to do.

Last edited by Oodain on 19 Jun 2012, 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You are misstating the statistics in the first point. I have already demonstrated to you that race is a less significant independent variable correlating to crime, but you persist in your blinkered prejudice. Pay attention to the evidence, not merely interpretations of the evidence that confirm your biases.

You have not proved point three. Poverty continues to be a demographic reality in every racial and cultural group. Being born white is not an assurance that you won't be born poor.



And where did this culture arise? Under apartheid. It has been less than a generation since apartheid was dismantled. You cannot expect a population to pull itself out of subordinate economic and educational position in an instant. Why are these the faces in the picture of the pride parade in Cape Town? Because whites continue to hold a disproportionate level of economic freedom, and thus the willingness to come out and be identified as LGBT without fear of reprisal.

You are imposing the cultural biases of your European existence on a population for whom your culture cannot and does not work. There are precious few protections for people with marginal employment, and even moreso for women with marginal employment. But you sit in your ivory tower and expect that what works in the Netherlands should work everywhere.

Just another example of your closed minded search for bias confirmation.

How have you demonstrated it? By misrepresenting my point, accusing me of racism, and agreeing with liberal sentiment that it's actually poverty. What causes poverty in African-descended groups throughout the world? Why are they in the lower tiers in terms of wealth even where they're a majority? Why is it that the end of white culture-dominated economies and political systems in Africa signalled the end of stability, prosperity and even economic equality?



Being born white isn't an assurance that you're not born poor. However, that says very little about your actual chances. Chances are a plane will crash into your house tonight, but they're slim. There's a chance of everything, but at least acknowledge it's traditionally been African-descended groups who have been stuck in this pattern, while other groups moved out and integrated relatively quickly.

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases ... tml#tablea

Here is an interesting little table.

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases ... tml#tableb

Here is another one. Apparently, in the century and a half that they've lived here, black people haven't been able to catch up with white people at all. Or with Asians. Or even with Hispanics, who are also much more recent in terms of arrival. As I said, being black is not an assurance for being poor, and being white isn't an assurance for being rich, but being any group but African-American means your chance of being poor is significantly lower, as is your chance of being born out of wedlock, as is your chance of having a criminal record. And it has been like that for a long time.



And you're accusing me of misstating things? As the article mentions, it's a problem across Africa that has, in recorded history, never not existed. It's blamed by Africans themselves on culture, and I agree with that analysis. There is, very simply put, a problem in African culture regarding acceptance of homosexuality (or, as Martin Ssempa would put it, homosexualitay).

After Apartheid was abolished, South Africa didn't really improve economically or even socially, as evidenced here.





Can you tell me which continent had hundreds of billions of dollars poured into it in emergency aid, much of it stolen by the ruling elite before the ruling elite was overthrown? Can you tell me which continent's inhabitants seem to have banning Skype and persecuting homosexuals and witches as a priority above having a stable food supply? Can you tell me, also, why Asia and South America were able to fix many of these issues with less foreign help? Poverty doesn't only exist with people adhering to African-based cultures in other countries. It exists in the very countries ruled according to the standards of those cultures.



What does poverty have to do with corrective rape and murder, sometimes combined and gang-related? They're not making any money by raping and killing teenage girls for being lesbian. They're not doing anything about their economic situation by clubbing men to death for being homosexual. If you're truly blaming violent, non-economic hate crimes within their own ethnic group on inter-ethnic differences in poverty rates, I think you're extrapolating. Can you provide me with a source for that? A source that says the reason even Africans blame their culture for violent anti-gay hate crimes is a result of poverty in any way?



Did you really - did you really just say that? I'm even more effective than I thought. You've admitted the role of culture in all of this. That's a start. So, if you're saying cultures can conflict, why not admit that they're conflicting in Europe and the United States? Here, anti-gay hate crimes are extremely prevalent in dark-skinned minority groups, especially if they have close ties to their country of origin.



Wait a minute. The Netherlands is the worst possible model you can follow. It consists of being forced to accept unskilled people moving here even with rising unemployment. It means throwing aside your standard building regulations for mosques and islamic-inspired architecture. It means giving Antilleans free sailing trips to the Caribbean. It means paying for their houses, cultural events, health care, enough welfare for them to buy luxury cars, retirement even if they haven't worked a day in their entire lives, free education, universal grants for universities, funding for islamic schools if they so insist, and sinking billions into anti-discrimination programmes.

Where has that landed us? Arguably, in a worse position than the United States. Crime rates in young black men in the United States don't nearly seem to approach crime rates in young black men here. Multiculturalism, a large safety net, and acceptance even of violent parts of their culture has led to their culture spiralling out of control. For the past years, there have been approximately 150,000 immigrants each year, many of whom import brides because muslims don't like western women for long-term relationships, preferring them only for quick sex. Learn from us - crack down on crime with violence if you have to, and don't take racism or poverty as an excuse.

If you want to compare us to Scandinavia, go ahead. Even Scandinavia has a comparatively xenophobic immigration policy, and is extremely ethnically homogenic compared to the Netherlands.

No, by pointing you to an economic study using regression of reports of index crimes against 17 independent variables, that's how. Pay attention.

I have left open the question of the causes of poverty, and indeed, have suggested to you that this would be a much more productive use of our time. But you persist in your prejudices, keeping us locked in this dialectic merry-go-round.



But the point remains that white people living in poverty are just as likely to commit violent crimes as black people living in poverty.

I, for one, would love to dive into the question of the causes of poverty and the barriers to egress from poverty. But until you are prepared to recognize poverty as a factor, it's a pointless exercise.



Corruption is not unique to Africa--and it certainly is not foreign to Europe. If you keep a population uneducated and underemployed, you cannot be surprised when that population fails to bring themselves out of poverty.

But let's look at South Africa: it's GDP per capita at PPP is $10,977 USD. China's is only $8,394. Indonesia's is only $4,668. India's is $3,703. While there are certainly challenges that the government has failed to address, the country is significantly more prosperous on a per capita basis than China or India--those Asian giants that you pretend have been more successful at pulling themselves out of poverty.

I don't deny for a moment that homophobic culture is widespread in Africa--but that is not unique to Africa and should not be characterized as such. You are trying to fit a racial lens on things where you cannot establish the connection. Yes, things are bad in most of Africa. But things are also bad in much of Eastern Europe. And much of Asia. And much of central and latin America.

Corruption, poverty and repression exist all over the world, and by focussing on black populations and Africa you are giving a free pass to the white populations that no better.




Because poverty goes hand in hand with poor standards of education.



Oh, for heaven's sake, can you not read?!? I have never denied the role of culture. What I have denied is that race is a relevant factor.



What utter nonsense.

The Netherlands has the third highest human development index on the planet, behind only Norway and Australia. Your GDP per capita is $42,183 USD, which places you ninth (behind only Luxembourg, Norway and Switzerland in Europe). Your GINI index is 31, making your income equality among the best in Europe and in the world. By any measure the Netherlands is a prosperous, peaceful, successful nation.

Even when it comes to crime, while rates have increased in the Netherlands, victimization surveys and hospitalization statistics have not. This suggests that the incidents of violent crime are not increasing, but rather that the police and the courts are becoming more effective at responding to it.

If you cannot even recognize the success of your own nation because of your prejudices, then there truly is no hope for an intelligent conversation.

The countries in the European Union studied with the lowest demographic of citizens of African origin, and the highest demographic of citizens whom are Caucasian have the highest percentage of population at Risk of Poverty and the highest reported rates of Crime, Violence, and Vandalism. These countries are Bulgaria and Latvia, per the charts below that study the factor of population density, and demographics associated, in the European Union.

Percentage of higher reported rates of Crimes, Violence, Vandalism associated with higher population density, is consistent among all countries studied in the European Union, except for Cyprus.

Risk of poverty is associated with crime in this data, but association of population density is the dominant factor predicting reported cases of crime, violence, and vandalism.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Population_density_effects_on_living_conditions

[img][800:561]http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/8/89/Share_of_population_reporting_crime%2C_violence_or_vadalism%2C_by_degree_of_urbanisation%2C_2009.PNG[/img]

[img][800:577]http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/2/20/Share_of_population_at_risk_of_poverty%2C_by_degree_of_urbanisation%2C_2009.PNG[/img]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria

It's all about me? It's about culture.



I'll assume that to be true, even though I haven't really seen a good source for that. They could be just as likely to commit violent crimes - but they're much more likely to make good use of education and opportunities and raise themselves from poverty. Just like Asians, and even Hispanics, a much more recent arrival. African-Americans, much less.



It's a factor, and I've recognised it, but I think it's a factor originating in culture. Poverty by itself exists, but poverty seems to be more often than not the result of culture. Some cultural groups have raised themselves out of poverty with almost no problems, while one general cultural group (care to guess which?) has been in that situation for over 150 years now. Once again, I really like the view expressed in Culture Matters.



Africa is very corrupt. And that's what we're talking about. Europe, and North America, and Australia, and New Zealand, are all doing much better than Africa. Most parts of Asia are doing better than Africa. Much of South America is doing better than Africa. In almost every instance, Africa is simply as low as it gets. They've had hundreds of billions in aid, though, while Asia and Europe worked their way back to the top without being on life support for a century.



GDP per capita is a very poor measurement for wealth. It's not median income. It's not mean income. It's a country's gross domestic product divided by the population. It says absolutely nothing. As that article and the articles related to it describe, Africa has more people with extreme wealth, especially within the ANC, but also many more people living in extreme poverty. A much better way to show the actual income situati- whoa, wait, whoa.

Why aren't homosexuals clubbed to death and lesbians raped and murdered on such a scale in China? Why isn't India known as 'Rape Capital of the World'? Why isn't Asia a red spot on a world map for gay rights? Why do several African countries punish homosexuality by death while we're pouring money in just to keep their population alive? Following your reasoning, I'd expect China to have a system of education worse than South Africa's. I'd expect there to be gangs raping and murdering people for being homosexual. I'd expect the government to have little control over most of the country. I'd expect there to be widespread violence against homosexuals and women while the government is preoccupied with giving the ethnic majority more legal rights than wealthier ethnic minorities.

That's not China. That's South Africa. A wealthier country, you say.



It's not a racial lens. It's a cultural lens. And Africa is the worst place in the world in many respects.

If you're so happy to make comparisons, the situation in Eastern Europe would be considered an example to the rest of Africa if it was a situation in Africa. It's all relative - Europe's lowest tier of development and human rights is roughly equal to Africa's highest tier of development and human rights.



Of course I can read. You, clearly, can't. I'm not saying it's about race. Race matters Jacques Merde to me.

However, what I do acknowledge is that the types of culture that coincide with poverty and higher crime rates are, throughout the world, cultures adhered to mostly by people with darker skins. And that was the question. Why do dark-skinned people commit so much crime? My answer to that: because dark-skinned people are most represented in cultures or subcultures that coincide with poverty and crime throughout the world, full stop.



I'll start, again, by questioning your methodology in determining that. Human Development Index - and I've looked into that - is a bad way of determining development. I've never visited a country that looked arguably poorer than the country where I live. As for GDP per capita being a good measure, I don't think it is. According to a lot of sources, Luxembourg would be the world's wealthiest country. I've been to Luxembourg several times, and most of it can hardly be distinguished from the dirt poor Wallonia region of Belgium next to it. What makes it so extremely high-ranked, I think, is that it served as a tax haven and corporate headquarters for a long time. Before commercial television was legalised here, the illegal commercial television market in the Netherlands was based mostly in Luxembourg. Even today, many commercial channels are called RTL, and are owned by a company based in Luxembourg.

Luxembourg itself, though, appeared to me in the time I spent there to be dirt poor. They certainly weren't all driving Audis and Mercedes-Benz luxury editions. A rural version of Dutch inner cities, only with fewer restrictions on building and more questionable roads. Germany, which is arguably much 'poorer', appeared wealthier to me.



Crime rates are a publicly-kept secret. It's much worse than anyone would like to admit. The truth depends on politics. Until last year, the official amount of Antillean young men who had been held by police was not allowed to exceed 30-40%, until a report was finally released early this year saying it was actually 55% for Antilleans, and 65% for Moroccans. The truth is a bit beyond that, I suppose. Bike theft generally isn't considered serious enough for police investigation. Sometimes, even cases of sexual abuse are let go because there isn't enough capacity. There's a lot of frustration with police over that - millions being spent on cultural events for over-represented minorities while there's no capacity to investigate serious crimes and arrest known criminals.

That, I suppose, is why we have a shortage of prisoners to fill our cells with. If people were automatically transferred to prison the moment they committed a crime, they'd have to tear down walls and build impromptu new cells and hire more people for cultural programmes.

Interestingly, and unsurprisingly, there have been newspapers that went investigating, and pieced together information into a map. What they found was that, even within large cities, white-dominated neighbourhoods had crime rates significantly lower than black-dominated neighbourhoods. It's not all that hard to believe that if you've had a bicycle stolen, seen a car being stolen next to your house, and your mother called a white whore with only three families of these people living in this neighbourhood.

Personally, I live in a relatively poor, but white-dominated part of town. There's also a slightly-wealthier part with luxury apartments, villas, public transport, larger cultural subsidies - and a lot of Antilleans and Moroccans put there because 'mixing people from different backgrounds is good and multicultural'. Guess which part has much higher crimes rates, parents refusing to allow their children to play on the streets after harrassment by gangs, and even featured our town's first murder in twenty years, incidentally next to a drug farm?

Economist Walter Williams, who is black, took on that topic more or less, in his article today. For what ever reason, in todays America we have two different standards for white and black Americans.

"Judging Blacks, Whites By Sliding Scale Is Racist"

http://news.investors.com/article/61536 ... andard.htm

excerpt from his article:

Do any of you people know the difference between cause and correlation?

ruveyn

That may be your statement, but your posts put the lie to that.

Your definition of culture is rooted in race. You talk of "black culture" as if there was a singular culture to which all black people were connected, and of which all black communities form a part.

Until you stop talking about "black culture" your claim that race doesn't matter to you is not going to be credible.

If your town has only had one murder in 20 years, that's pretty good evidence that homicide rates are not higher among individuals of African origin, than any other origin, including Dutch.

The crime rates as studied per those in your country, of foreign heritage, are associated with minor crimes like vandalism, and small property theft; there is no evidence of a significant problem of crime among the adult population of individuals of African origin, in your country that can be found anywhere, that I have looked.

And overall, in the US immigrants from Mexico, have been the overriding issue per Multiculturalism, as African American Culture, is really not seen as a multicultural issue, per many cultural elements of African American culture, that are part of mainstream US culture, on the national level, that is a fairly recent development in the last several decades.

There was a point in time, where a bi-racial couple and bi-racial children would have turned many heads in my community, but that time is several decades old, as well.

Per the the actual research that has been done on the issue and presented, violent crimes are committed more by young individuals of Turkish descent in the Netherlands than individuals descended from other countries, such as Moroccans, Surinamese, and those individuals originating from the Antilles.

The Native population of the Netherlands has 3 to 4 times, less unemployment than all other ethnic groups of foreign origin, however there is only a small percentage of these individuals overall studied as unemployed per their perspective groups in the census study linked here, from 2001.

http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/D1716A60-0D13-4281-BED6-3607514888AD/0/b572001.pdf

While overall reported rates of crime, violence, and vandalism in the Netherlands are evidenced as high in the graph in the previous post, the overall homicide rate is still on the low tier among all European Union countries. The percentage of individuals of Antilles, Surinamese and Moroccan heritage is about about 5 percent of the general population, which actually exceeds most other European countries per the percentage of those of African origin.

The number of incarcerated individuals of African origin is very high in the UK, per the 2 percent identified number of individuals of African origin in that country. However, similar disparities in the Justice system, have been evidenced in that country.

From the available evidence, as it exists, the Netherlands dedicated efforts to assimilate Multicultural individuals appears to be making a difference that is not seen in the UK or the US.

There are petty crime issues associated with adolescents, that have been identified, but overall the Netherlands is a peaceful country per the only crime statistic that can be compared between different countries, with significant reliability, Homicide.

The fact that your town, and your area that is impoverished and hasn't had a murder in 20 years provides some evidence that Multiculturalism is working well in the Netherlands, and your society as a whole, is a healthy one, already evidenced in larger measures of global health per country linked earlier in another post.

It appears obvious that the Netherlands is unique among most countries in controlling discrimination among ethnic groups, as well as providing a dedicated effort to assimilate those of different cultures, in a peaceful manner that works, per the statistics on homicide in the Netherlands.

So overall, while one might see significant problems here and there, among the adolescent age group, in petty crimes/vandalism, the Netherlands appears to be one of the strongest examples of a country, that homicide statistics are not specific to individuals of African origin. The humanitarian effort there, appears to make the difference, as I understand it does in some other Scandinavian countries, as well.

Discrimination against those of African origin is extremely high in Russia, but in that country it is the individuals of African origin, whom exist as a very tiny percentage of the population, evidenced as the victims of crime, more so that the perpetrators of crime in that country.

You've focused quite a bit on the US, and I can see why, as the cultural factors related to discrimination, and a limited safety net, are the factors that don't exist nearly as strongly in the Netherlands, in comparison to the US.

You have expressed a desire for racial profiling, and removal of the safety net for those individuals of African origin in your country, but it appears, those are elements that contribute to the fact that there has only been 1 murder in your town and impoverished area, in 20 years. That is unheard of in the US, and likely the UK as well. Those of African origin have been there for decades, so one can't associate that homicide, that has happened recently, in 20 years, on the overall group of individuals of African origin in your locality, regardless of who committed that one homicide.

I've provided evidence for you, in my last post, that there are likely much higher reported rates of vandalism in your country considering the extremely low levels of homicide there, as opposed to many other European Union countries, but it is a crime that often does not result in arrest or conviction, because of the nature of the offense.

There is no evidence of a problem of crime among adult individuals of African origin, significant above other individuals in your country, so unless you can provide that, there is no real evidence of what your are suggesting is a problem in the US, specific to African origin, in the Netherlands.

There is no conclusive evidence that more crimes are committed by African American individuals in the US, as a census percentage, because statistics only capture those crimes that have been observed and reported, of which discrimination in the Justice system is evidenced, as playing a role both in the US and the UK, as a factor in the number of individuals of African origin, incarcerated in both countries, per evidenced racial profiling, different handling of those arrested, and different sentencing among those whom are convicted.


Beyond that the criminal code in the US is extremely complex, and there are individuals who break the law everyday that either ignore it, or are not aware of it. This certainly isn't an issue specific to those of African Origin. There is no conclusive evidence that males commit more crimes overall than females, only approximated attempts to determine it.

Criminology science, is extremely complex; results from research in overall crime are not determined from one factor such as incarceration rates or homicides. The rates of homicide are the crimes among those that are the most reported, and most reliable one, but homicides and incarceration rates are only one small piece of the complete crime pie.

This is seen in the Netherlands, where an attempt was made across the population to determine actual rates reported per all offenses, including vandalism. But with that information, it is impossible to determine specific ethnic data, because arrests and convictions were not made in many of the offenses reported.

So this topic could be why are more African Americans Incarcerated, or why are the Homicide rates higher among African Americans, per factors that could be reliably evidenced. But, per the homicide rates and incarceration rates in the Netherlands, those specific factors are not evidenced as part of the general problem of crime you suggest exists among individuals of African origin in the Netherlands.

Overall the Netherlands is one of the best case studies, from the evidence that actually exists, of a location where Multiculturalism works fairly well. The rest of the world could learn from that example, but there aren't likely the resources to make that happen in countries with a much larger, population than the 16 million individuals whom live in the Netherlands. That number comes close to matching the population in my state alone.

As opposed to the Netherlands with 5 percent of individuals with African origin, my state has close to 20 percent of individuals of African Origin. In my county, the same percentage exists as the Netherlands, overall, at about 5 percent. There are close to four times the number of African American individuals just in my state as opposed to the entire country of Denmark.

There are not many multicultural issues that have been nationally publicized in my area, and only pockets of problems in urban areas across the state. The issue of multiculturalism is more of an Hispanic one, because of the differences in language, and recent immigration of those in that demographic. However, even per those differences, they do not rise to the level of more significant controversial problems identified in other states, close to the Mexican boarder, reported at the national level. Reluctance to provide social services is the re-occurring theme, above and beyond crime, as it is with other economically disadvantaged minorities, no longer seen as multicultural individuals.

Thanks to the same discussion taking place elsewhere, I've finally found this one again.

No. Actually, most Moroccans and Antilleans - we don't have many Surinamers here - moved in during the past thirteen years, and especially in the neighbourhood where that murder was committed in the past two years. The town has literally more than doubled in size since 1997 due to new neighbourhoods being built 'with a multicultural and modern character'. Thankfully, it's like two different towns, because a highway separates the criminal part from the other part. We've also seen, for the first time, street gangs, people being threatened and sexually assaulted on the street in broad daylight. We're finally becoming a multicultural town.



If the police reads this, they have the right to arrest me for hate speech. Some information is not considered clean, and consensus remains that the public shouldn't know everything. However, every time some information seeps through, it invariably opposes what you're saying. Homicide is mostly committed in cities with a foreign majority or near-majority. They're not always allowed to register those things, and we can only estimate.



They can be quite violent also, yes. They combine a different religion, a hatred of Kurds and an unhealthy type of Balkans-style nationalism.



This demonstration was held late last year in The Hague, with police protection. At first, it was against terrorism by the PKK. However, soon after, it descended into several people shouting that the Kurds should be exterminated, and a couple of young men started rioting. To this day, very few of us understand why they'd want to yell that while living here, hundreds of miles from their homeland and in a country with very few Kurds.



That's rather inconclusive about their share in all homicides. Frankly, there is no way of determining that, because ethnicity of people committing murders is something that still seems to be somewhat hidden from sight. It's very ugly, no doubt, but we can't know. The police probably aren't keeping track of it either, because they are not allowed to. I could go through court records, but many of them seem to censor the names of the people committing the crimes, and occasionally also the names of victims. Our media don't help that much either. If we want to see the names of high-profile killers, we need Belgian or German newspapers, because they somehow manage to publish their actual last names whereas our media can only publish their first name and the first letter of their last name.

And it's hard to find out about these things if we can only know a first name, the first letter of their last name, and most high-profile criminal justice cases are completely closed from the public, with court records, first names and proceedings only occasionally being released years after the sentence has been published.



That's quite interesting, because that's not actually what's happening. We're not at all dedicating any efforts to assimilate them, because that's considered intolerant and racist, and people were sentenced to jail terms for saying we should until the 1990s. We appease them, which is something completely different. We give them the right to live in their own neighbourhoods and communities, that have all turned out to be hotbeds of crime and intolerance until now. At one point, the government even had the idea of building Arab-styled social housing with a mosque to accomodate them and 'make them feel welcome'. I'll repeat this - by the time they're 22, sixty-five percent of Moroccan men have been arrested. They're feeling too welcome, it seems.



As I said, most of them moved here in recent years. When I was born, there was one black businessman in the entire town, and one black woman who was a teacher at my primary school. They, however, were not Antillean, and not from Suriname. They were both ethnically from Africa, and they were both skilled immigrants, unlike the bulk of what we're letting in now. Currently, we're letting people by the tens of thousands a year in for no other reason than "we are legally obliged to by the European Union". There are no houses for these people, there are no jobs for these people, and our taxes are at a record high and rising in order to pay for them. But we're letting them in regardless of education, criminal record and, until recently, literacy.



Scandinavia is great, but it can't be compared. While Scandinavia has humanitarian efforts, they are not the reason Scandinavia is doing very well. Scandinavia has always kept a good distance from the type of cultural relativism and open-everything policies still worshipped by European Union leaders. Sweden and Denmark said no to the euro, which means they don't have an acute risk of speculation and bankruptcy. Norway has managed to stay out of the European Union altogether, meaning they can determine their own border policies and police their own country without being fined and ordered to demolish prisons that have cells without windows and serve non-halal food.

Meanwhile, their cultural and religious situation is one I envy. Sweden has a mouthwatering number of only 25,000 active muslims. Denmark, Norway and Sweden are all much less multicultural in practical terms. That means they have much fewer non-western immigrants and smaller islamic congregations. They seem to have avoided the pitfall that the Netherlands, Belgium and France specifically have made.



I'll display it again. 65% of Moroccan men. Sixty-five percent. A majority. Arrested before the age of 22. That was not a random poll, or a survey. These were internal police statistics and census figures. All Moroccan men were included there. These are statistics ordinary civilians do not have access to, but for some reason the government agency drafting a bureaucratic heavy-text report about immigration and integration was allowed to access them, only to find that a majority of all Moroccan and Antillean men had been arrested. They dutifully included those figures, and they caused minor outrage. Outrage because it was true, minor because we were all expecting figures to be like that.



The rest of the world must be a bloodbath, then. We have muslims saying we should introduce shariah law and that Geert Wilders should die, we have people murdered for their beliefs and for insulting the prophet Muhammad, we have neighbourhoods where white women are advised to wear long dresses and possibly headscarves, we have people saying women should wear rings so muslim men will respect them and not assault them, but yeah - multiculturalism, lovely. In reality multiculturalism by now means that, in demographic terms, 80% of the country is Netherlands, 10% is Rif Mountains, 5% is Anatolia and 5% is Paramaribo.

More precisely, they are discovered committing more crime because the police watch them far more closely than they do anyone else. Take drug crime; they are taken in far more for that but when it comes to surveys on who uses and deals drugs, there is no difference but the cops are watching one group and not the other.