Why do dark skinned males commit so much crime?

Post Reply New Topic

Bad acts are invariably preceded by bad ideas.

ruveyn

So only those who are poor are in gangs or commit gang related crimes?

I attempted to explain something tantamount to that earlier, although it probably didn't come out very well as my verbal and written communication is one of my worst skills.

That's extremely true, there are certain things now ingrained in the psyche of certain cultures, and it is a cycle and a self reinforcing one at that, as I have been trying to say all along in this thread. The racism today is not to blame, but it helps reinforce the many of the negative attributes that seem to contribute to the ongoing problems that exist within certain cultural groups.

That is why we must address the cultural attitude in the African American, Latino and Caribbean communities, as well as the overall attitude in the dominant culture. Addressing one group (either group), without addressing the other will not solve anything.

Uh...NO. Why do you ask?

Shift focus for a moment... Only the wealthy have access to certain people and things that would allow them to commit certain types of crimes. Take Bernie Madoff, for example. His scheme targeted a specific group with which he had common ties: Jews with money. Very few people could have gotten away with the same crime for so long.

Poor people, by nature of being poor, lack the same access to the kind of people that rich crooks do. Therefore, the nature of the crimes are different. It's not that they CAN'T commit the same crimes, but they do have to work harder to establish the same kind of credibility as someone like Madoff.

Gangs tend to attract low-income youth, and gangs are involved in organized crime. Now, given experience, a gang member can accumulate wealth through the drug trade and/or prostitution. So they certainly wouldn't be poor, but they wouldn't be legit, either.

And that's another thing...how do we define "poor"? I define poor as being related to the poverty line, which my family is well below. But we aren't doing anything illegal to earn money, either. Is illegal wealth still wealth? It's possible for money earned through pimping and dealing to be seized. Also, money earned illegally can't be reported for tax purposes because that would incriminate the one filing taxes. But it's also tax evasion and someone suspected of hiding wealth can be audited. Take away someone's means for procuring wealth and they're right back where they started. If they have a lot of illegit money and no legit means of making money, are they still wealthy or are they still poor?

I'm glad you came to your senses and continued reading. However, noticeable genetic and hormonal differences between races have been documented, and they're not stereotypes. They've been established. Further research, though, is banned. To be honest, those three types of research would be a better use of public money than research that consists literally of sending two letters to an employer, one signed with George and one signed with Tyrese, then over-analysing the result to come to the conclusion that employers are racist.

And yes, that research was funded by our government. Enough money to build good housing for all homeless people in the country, but their priority was to show through pseudo-scientific experiments (either sending two identical letters, the latter of which is seen as fake, or two letters varying in quality) that white people with money are racist.



I'm pretty sure blaming it on poverty is not what I was doing. That's most of the liberals here. I'm blaming high crime rates among African-Americans on their cultural interpretation of poverty. With the same starting conditions, Asians throughout the world gained an economic and political foothold, while African-Americans and Africans hardly managed to.



Indeed, I've noticed this. The man next door isn't feeding his family by seemingly being at the head of a criminal organisation. If it was just about feeding his family, they'd all be morbidly obese by now. Instead, he has a new car every three months, a giant television and very expensive clothes. Meanwhile, he lives in a house paid for by the government that I couldn't apply for, even though my net income is probably much lower.

I don't think anyone has said that "poor people commit crimes."

What I have said is that the incidence of crime is most closely linked to poverty among all of the independent variables studies. So in a given community, if the number of people living below the poverty line increases by 1% you can expect that the number of reported crimes will increase more than by a 1% rise in any other factor.

That does not mean that crime is exclusive to people living in poverty. It does not mean that crime is universal among people living in poverty. It means simply that crime is more closely linked to poverty than to any other social factor.

Now casting aside the dross in HDM's posts, we can find an interesting nugget of discussion: do people who are born into poverty tend to remain in poverty; and if so, why is that? From there we can then turn to the social implications of having large, culturally homogenous communities that are substantially poorer than the average within a given community.

Where HDM and I certainly agree is that restrictions on research are intolerable. When communities are remaining in poverty, it is a legitimate question as to whether that is due to internal factors (for example a cultural refusal to participate in public programs that combat poverty), or external (for examply public programs that include barriers to access that prevent members of the community from participating).

To my mind (and I readily admit this is opinion), there is nothing inherent in race that creates these internal factors. They can be observed in insular communities regardless of race. It's a more unsettled question on external factors, though.

But I still object strongly to drawing conclusions before the research is done. The position that I have argued for all the way along here is that the original question is based on a false premise, and that the explanations presented by HDM are unproved conjecture.

Thank you for clearing that up for me I had to deal with those sterotypes growing up poor.

I'll be reading that book soon. It's bound to explain some very interesting things. It's not really conjecture - the information I have is not available on the internet, but I've read it nonetheless. It's unfortunate that the idea of poverty being a deal breaker for social mobility is considered so important. Different cultures have a different set of rules in approach to that. Some subcultures immediately disqualify education as a way to get ahead.

I don't think you can blame either poverty, culture, or racism/prejudice alone. It's most likely a combination of all three mutually reinforcing each other. Alleviating any one of the three helps with each of the others.

I also don't think all poverty is equal in it's tendency to lead to violence. Urban poverty leads to more violence than poverty in rural or small town communities. I don't think it's just population density either. It's party the fact that the urban lower class is dependent on economic forces out of their control and this causes a lot more angst and hopelessness. When industry moved out of cities people were left to languish with nowhere to go. This is a problem left in the wake of the destruction of industrial centers all over the western world and it has effected all races to some degree, not just minorities.

Poverty isn't always a deal breaker in social mobility, but if you combine poverty with a couple of other factors (2 or 3, for instance) that are considered inherently negative, you have just increased the likelihood by a very large amount.

Different cultures do have different rules.

In Brazil, for example, the only truly socially acceptable form of money is "family money". In their society, if you are self made, it usually isn't good enough and as such, is still looked down upon by a large majority of them. It matters to them much more where you came from, rather than where you are now.

Shifts have been made in the last 40 years, largely due to government policy and changes in the economy.

Thankfully, the Brazilian government has a policy that those who score highest on their SAT equivalents, go to the public universities (which have the higher standard) and which are free. That alone has gone a long way to combating that cultural attitude and is a very clear attempt to level the playing field, and one that has clearly been working.

Although it is something that is working, it is something that levels the playing field rather than addressing cultural attitudes. I think if they were really to succeed, they need to address both sides of the cultural attitudes and well as having policies and programs that level the playing field.

One without the other is only going to solve half the problem and while it will create a shift, it will still not address the underlying causes of the problem.

I know you have severe Aspergers and other possibly mental issues, but you are really bad at reading comprehension.

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jun/13/news/mn-46201

There were approximately 14,000 African-Russians living in Russian in 1999, making up 1 one hundredth of 1 percent of a population of 146 Million people.

In the year 2000, as linked below, 50% of the economy of Russian was estimated associated with organized crime.

Homicide rates in Russia were measured at the highest in the world per 2005 statistics, surpassing Brazil, and the US.

Russia has one of the lowest populations of Black individuals in the world, and has the second highest number of prisoners incarcerated per capita, of any country in the world, except for the US.

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

Crime has no color, and culture has no color.

There are many different African American subcultures that exist in the US; not just one. And there are hundreds of different cultures that are comprised of black individuals across the globe.

http://historyofnonviolence.wiki.lovett.org/Peaceful+Societies

Anthropologists and Social Scientists have identified 25 peaceful societies across the globe, where there is little internal or external violence.

All of these societies except for one, the Amish, the only "peaceful society" measured in the US, have one physical characteristic in common.

They are all comprised of Dark Skinned Individuals.

6 of them exist in various areas of Africa, per the map in the link above.

While one can certainly say there are different cultures and different ethnic groups within cultures, identified and measured as having higher crime or incarceration rates, it is definitely not an issue specific to the color of skin. That is an evidenced fact

If one wants to point to an association with crime, from the evidence as it exists, it appears to be an unavoidable aspect of modern civilization, not the color of one's skin.

Those in societies that treat each other in an eqalitarian way, are the most likely to cooperate and avoid crime. It is not an issue specific to the color of one's skin.

Denmark is perhaps one of the healthiest societies, per societial health in the western developed world, as well as one of the most homogenous caucasian societies, but it didn't make the top twenty-five societies, per peaceful ones, measured by anthropologists and social scientists, per the link above.

Most are among developing countries, comprised of people that are willing to share the resources that exist. They all appear to be homogenous societies as well. Again, 24 out of 25 societies consisting of homogenous dark skinned individuals.

If it were not for Caucasian Amish Folks, in the US, one could argue the point from the data, why are there no light skinned peaceful societies that exist in the world.

There are rural, predominately African American neighborhoods, not of particular economic advantage, much larger than the typical subdivision, that exist in my area, bound by roots of generations of family, as well as ties through small churches and short distances between neighbors. There is likely occasional crime and domestic violence, but no publicly identified issues of strife, specific to these neighborhoods.

Interestingly, this advantage of peace has roots similar to those in peaceful societies around the world. A similar social collective effort is evidenced per neighborhood advantage, not limited to skin color or economic advantage, in research by a respected Harvard social scientist, quoted and linked below:

http://coglab.wjh.harvard.edu/soc/faculty/sampson/articles/1997_Science.pdf



There are safe and dangerous neighborhoods in my regional area. It's not an issue limited to the color of skin. I suspect a similar advantage exists in different neighborhoods somewhere in your country as well. In the real estate business, in the US, a common slogan is "location location" in making a sale.

It sounds like you live in a neighborhood with problems. At least where I live, that's not an issue specific to skin color. The only likely positive personal solution that I can see, if there is the potential, is to move to another neighborhood, as evidenced with fewer problems.

My understanding is the Afro-Dutch consist as 5% of the population of the Netherlands, orginating from Dutch colonies in South Africa and the Carribean. There doesn't appear to be the significant race relation problems noted there, as compared to the issues that have been noted in Sweden in the media.

There is a long list of notable Afro-Dutch Athletes listed per that demographic in Wiki. I noticed that some of these Afro-Dutch Athletes were defended by the people in the Netherlands in a recent incident, where fans from Poland chanted "monkey" against the Afro-Dutch players, as a racist insult.

From listening to your descriptions, I was expecting to see some type of significant race issue, but I really couldn't find one, with a google search that seemed too much of a concern, except for a rape reported recently, involving a Afro-Dutch individual.

Certainly no results like one would find, if searching for african americans and crime.

1. You don't know how severe his ASD is.
2. There's a nicer way of saying that.

1. Judging from his posts, pretty severe. Of course, there's only so much you can know about a person based on what he posts on the internet.
2. Probably.

I don't understand punctuation and grammar. I am better at talking then writing.

I haven't read the entire thread but in all honesty this explanation is a load of garbage.

Prior to the Government Welfare insanity, African Americans had a pretty close knit family structure. A lot of kids knew their fathers and their mothers, and as such they saw more stability and they weren't as likely to be involved in criminal activity.

When the Government Welfare system started up, people in poverty were denied welfare checks if there were any hints of an adult male being in the house, apartment, etc. This encouraged the break-up of the family unit, and therefore left children with a more unstable environment and in the case of young boys, no adult male role model.

While slavery was something that everyone will agree was a heinous crime, it is also something that has been abolished generations ago, furthermore the break up of the family structure was in the last 30 to 40 years.

Native Americans however see their problems dating back further to the Reservations and taking children away from their families so they lost a lot of their cultural heritage. Granted Native Americans are doing better now, but they still have a ways to go in order to recover. Additionally, rampant alcoholism doesn't help matters.

Thing is there are many politicians that want this situation to continue so they continue to have a group of people that will blindly vote for them so the welfare checks keep coming.