Why do dark skinned males commit so much crime?

Post Reply New Topic

Because it's more rural. The largest city, Charleston, is just barely 300K population.

But within Charleston:

With a crime rate of 66 per one thousand residents, Charleston has one of the highest crime rates in America compared to all communities of all sizes - from the smallest towns to the very largest cities.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/wv/cha ... escription

The whole Appalachian area has lower crime rates than the rest of the nation, as well as higher rates of poverty. Per US Department of Justice study funded below this phenomenon is related to the fact that there are fewer metropolitan/urban areas, where one finds higher rates of crime across the country.

Population density with the added ingredient of disparity in access to resources equals conflict among most species in the Animal Kingdom. It is a factor that moves well beyond race, culture, and a single species.



The 25 societies identified by anthropologists and social scientists evidenced earlier in this thread, have low per capita incomes and lower density populations, comprised of those whom are willing to share resources with each other. 24 out of 25 of those societies consist of individuals with dark skin. The Amish in the US, is the only Caucasian society identified among those societies. All of the societies have something in common with the communities of the Appalachians, a lack of metropolitan areas.

The factor of per capita income is associated with crime statistics but not necessarily a predictor of it by that factor alone.

Wasn't always. Just remember how the inbred Hatfields and McCoys would get liquored up and start shooting each other on sight.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I'm not promoting anything as objective. What I did observe was that research into genetic factors is full-out banned in many academic environments, and that people are quick to blame poverty over culture, even though poverty in itself hasn't stopped other ethnic and cultural groups from succeeding where African Americans as a group failed. My theory is that it's their cultural approach, in this case to poverty, but also in general.



Of course any undergraduate in sociology would be more careful about what they say. People were hounded from universities for questioning multiculturalism until a few years ago. Nowadays, the people who gave perfect scores for essays accusing right-wing politicians of fascism while hiding genetic research are questioning multiculturalism themselves. It's a cruel world we live in, and one piece of paper isn't going to make for a wise critic if the only way to attain that piece of paper was to agree to what others said. It seems less a matter of questioning beliefs, and more a matter of picking the right camp in sociology.



Somaliland isn't the happiest place on earth. Assuming you're right, and poverty is just as bad there, it's not poverty. What Somaliland is doing right is that they've succumbed to the idea of clans. It's not safe, either. I'd like to read the source that gave you these anecdotes, as I'm very interested in what they apparently did right that most of Africa is doing wrong.



Were they allowed to do that? Were they allowed to compare genetic material from several different ethnic groups? That's very progressive.



It was a joke. I'll avoid doing that next time I'm arguing on this forum. You'll have to admit, though - a lot of these people look like they have genetic defects.



Possibly. Again, don't draw conclusions about what I'm saying. I didn't say white people couldn't have been arrested in groups. However, a lot of black people seem to have been.



How exciting. First, you said they were equally-represented. Now, you say they're over-represented, but it's probably a result of racial profiling. It's my turn to ask for a source on that, as you seem to be basing that theory on thin air. You don't have statistics, but you had me look through dozens of pages, and when I concluded African-Americans were still over-represented, you tried to explain using more non-existent statistics. Where are the documents saying it's racial profiling at the cause of their over-representation?



Presented and evidenced is a bit of an exaggeration. It was a link to a website, and I counted it. Here are the results. The amount of Africans I've been able to detect in the list is 182,000. That's less than the amount of Caucasians on there, and much less than the amount of Asians on there. They're nicely spread, and to increase the number, you added a lot of Malay and Indian tribes as being 'dark-skinned'. I'm specifying the group I mean as being African-Americans, Afro-Caribbeans and Africans. Relatively, they're under-represented compared to Caucasians on that list.

Additionally, I'd like to question the relevance of this nifty little list to what I'm saying - African and African-American and Afro-Caribbean culture being a major factor in crime. Again, you seem to be forgetting that I'm not saying there is a direct causal link between skin colour and crime. It's culture. African-American culture. African culture. Afro-Caribbean culture. However, it seems people find it hard to respond to that, and instead construe the preposterous idea that I'm basing this on race.

I'll only base it on race itself if research into that is finally allowed and happens to show that it is.



I'd like to see a credible source for that.



Surprise, surprise. What I said is true. That surprises me, as I've been accused of lying throughout this thread. The truth is hard. The greater number of single-parent households can certainly contribute to that. And let's look at the reasons for that. What's causing black people to split up where white and Asian people suffer from fewer incidents in that respect? It starts with a C, and it's not a rude word for female genitalia.



Glad you admit to the entire point of all of my posts so far.



If racial profiling works, I'm all in favour of it. If you see three people - two African-Americans and a caucasian, and you only have two policemen to inspect people, it's not a good idea to send one after an African-American and one after the caucasian because doing anything else would land you an accusation of racism. If you know a group is much more likely to commit a certain type of crime, I see nothing wrong with basing preventive measures with limited means on the common characteristics of that group, even if it's skin colour.



My situation isn't that bad. There are only three African or Afro-Caribbean families in my neighbourhood. However, what I've noticed was that they and their friends, most of whom live in Rotterdam, are guilty of almost all crime committed here. It's absurd.

And stop blaming it on me. Don't say I've never met any good ones. I know a friendly Moroccan man. He's a bit extreme in his religious conservatism, but he forcibly detached his family from Moroccan-Dutch street culture, and he's a teacher now. What I must admit, though, was that I've encountered dozens of 'bad ones' before that. I also met a black Caribbean man who had become relatively succesful by - again - detaching himself from the culture he grew up in.



What you're saying there isn't true, either. A small minority of members of that culture are African. There are more caucasians, as I've counted, than Africans on that list. And a majority of the list seems to consist of Asians. That's not a good track record for Africa, and completely irrelevant to African-American culture, which I blame crime on. Even here, most criminal foreign groups listen to American rap music, wear American caps, American jeans, golden teeth, cheap jewelry and large sunglasses while skipping school.



The original post presented the question why dark-skinned individuals were so over-represented in crime. My answer: culture. All other explanations didn't apply to other groups. Poverty didn't apply to Asians and Europeans, dependency didn't apply to Asians, lack of work didn't apply to Hispanics. My answer remains.

I suppose I could ask you, if crime is an issue related to Africa and dark skinned individuals, why is it that 6 of the most peaceful societies in the world exist in that country. It is clear evidence that problems that exist with crime are entirely cultural and not specific to skin color or continent. The societies that exist one country over from some of these peaceful societies have a great deal of internal conflict, with no difference in skin color.

Six out of 25, in a biased report, with a total amount of members much smaller than the amount of caucasian North Americans residing in these societies. Additionally, these people comprise less than 1/1000th of Africa's total population, so bringing them in as evidence of it not being a widespread culturally-related problem is like me saying white people can't be involved in crime because four out of 13-14 million white Dutch people haven't been imprisoned.



It's great how the 'other camp' contradicts itself so I don't have to do much more than call them out on it. Low per capita incomes? Then where's poverty as an explanation? Lower-density populations? Fine. Comprised of those willing to share resources? Why, that's a cultural thing! Thank you for proving my point once more!

there has been and is currently plenty of research between ethnic groups, genetic differentation is extensively used in modern medicine because some medicines work better for some people.

however all the research done shows no actual link between skin colour and actual genotype and often locale can be contradictory as well and even then, the only actually meaningfull way today to differentiate people is to home in on a single gene or group of genes with a specific relevance
(for example in india there is a group of people where their caste system left almost an entire caste with a possibly fatal allergy to a common anaesthetic used in surgery)
so in the context of that gene they are a seperate genotype, untill now we simply didnt have the oppertunity to go beyond that and i dont see how anyone can stop people from doing the research they want to do, especially when most of the leg work and data collection has already been done for you

no one disputes a culture can be fundementally wrong, only that the reason why its so are so complex that any and i really mean any macro generalization with our current level of knowledge is premature.

also your paranoia about the "multiculturalist agenda" are in the very least based on fantasy.

multiculturalism is non existant as a coherent and laid out ideology, i hear as many variations as i ask people regarding the issue of immigration and i see no conscious effort to unify,
what i do see is people trying to own up to reality instead of hiding behind blatantly black and white ideologies and memes, something the world could use.

Because universities ban it. They refuse funding, they refuse to provide means for research. At one point, a man at a local university had done two sets of research. One indicated that giftedness might be hereditary, and he was lauded. Then, he published his second set, which indicated that there were also noticeable differences between black, white and Asian people in terms of intelligence. The research was either censored or removed completely, and I've spent a lot of time piecing together the results of the original research by reading details provided by people without any qualification who dismissed it as racism.

It seems to have indicated something that didn't fit in with the idea that differences are only skin-deep. Meanwhile, another puzzle piece fell into place. A lot of criminals are, apparently, a bit dim-witted. So there's censored research saying there are differences in intelligence between black and white people, there's research saying less intelligent people are more likely to be criminals, and there's research saying black people are over-represented in crime.

However, for a fair game, I'll assume the genetic explanation to be false until it's been proven true. And that depends on the availability of research.



In fact, it forms a part of the ideology that has run and ruined our country for the past thirty years. The idea was that cultures would influence each other in a positive way, people would interact, and minorities would be able to keep most of their culture. They said, basically, that there'd be a Caribbean restaurant next to a Turkish pizza store with people of all colours holding hands and singing traditional African songs. Thirty years later, and with less than eighty per cent of our population being ethnic Dutch, the situation has turned out to be a bit different. We have two cultures now - the one that works, pays taxes and has social mobility, and the one that stays holed up in self-segregated neighbourhoods, is over-represented in welfare and crime, and has been for generations. The latter has also developed a street culture similar to the African-American 'gangsta' culture.

Even the parties that were most vehemently pro-multiculturalism have now turned on it, but the European Union is still keeping us from having a good immigration and integration policy. Because of some European treaty, for example, we can't force Turkish people to integrate, learn our language, work, or go to school after the age of 18. And they know it - they have Turkish nationalist displays and riots every now and then.



Stop taking those mushrooms, then. That's a personal insult to both camps here, and irrelevant to the discussion.

Inbreeding in context with rednecks is an ethnic slur whether it is in joke form or not. While it is possible that anyone may have a genetic defect and not be aware of it, appearance is not necessarily indicative of it. Many of the individuals in the photos have highly masculine facial features, and are aged from sun exposure and the stresses of life without a safety net, but that is not necessarily evidence of a genetic defect, but reflective of genetic differences.

Autism is considered, in part, to be caused by genetic defects, per mutations on genes, but I wouldn't state that you look like you have a genetic defect based on your picture, even though statistically speaking per the number of gene mutations that are linked to autism, it's possible that it is the case regardless of your facial features.

And, per research Autistic Individuals with ADHD symptoms are studied to bully others 2 to 4 times more than the general population, so if your neighbors and the rest of the population start to profile the autistic population based on those statistics, they would have the same reasons to assume things about you as an individual, as does your Op, per geographic location and dark skin color.

There are several cultural factors that, in part, provide an explanation for the bullying among autistic individuals; as there is in most human behavior. But it isn't the Autism alone that causes the bullying behavior.

This is the type of thing that African Americans encounter in their daily life, because of the preconceived notions of others based strictly on their physical characteristics, specific to the adaptations to the environment that they continue to possess from their ancestors from Africa, because they have been associated with higher statistics among a portion of that population because of crime convictions and incarceration rates.

What you have in your country is a limited demographic of individuals from other countries that have problems that are specific to their life experiences in your country. That is not specifically indicative of any other demographic than those whom live in your country.

Every set of problems among every demographic, and every individual is significantly different based on their life experience.

There is no one African Culture, Moroccan Culture, or American culture.

That was my point on providing the diversity among culture and behavior that exists among people in similar locations. The cultures that work for Amish individuals for reduced conflict are similar to the others spread across the world, 6 of which exist in Africa.

The hip-hop stuff, gold teeth and other cultural behaviors associated with that subculture is not restricted to African Americans. There are Caucasian individuals that are part of that subculture. And there African Americans that will have no part of it.

Similar cultural factors associated with Crime apply across all skin colors.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that bias exists in the criminal justice system in the US, against African American, whether intentional or unintentional:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/am-i-right/201206/racial-profiling

If it works, I'm fine with it. In order to effectively combat certain types of crime, it makes sense to admit ideological defeat rather than to blindly follow ideology if you know you'll be less effective.



There's a problem with that. Wherever you go, people with African cultural 'roots' tend to be among the most problematic demographics. Even in black-majority countries. Discrimination based on skin colour is hardly an issue there, except for the white people in Zimbabwe whose farms were taken just before Zimbabwe's agricultural exports went to near-zero and their economy collapsed. And perhaps the white people in South Africa who are discriminated against in employment regulations. And Asians descended from labour migrants who lived in parts of Africa before being chased out of their homes. And albino people murdered for their precious body parts.



Wasn't saying they were. What I said was that it fits right in with the global pattern - people who adhere to a culture tied to Africa do worse in almost every field than the rest of the population. Even in Africa itself.



No. However, there are similarities. Group-bound culture, masculine culture, aversion against other types of culture - those are a pattern across all African-descended groups I've observed so far.



Unless you're a troll, I must assume you can't read. As I've said plenty of times in this thread, and you're not excused for failing to read that, it's culture. Indeed, white people who fancy African-descended culture are doing badly as well. That's African-descended culture working its magic. Almost my entire point of view in this thread so far. Thank you for acknowledging that.



That's one article about racial profiling. And it makes sense to have racial profiling.

No, I am not agreeing with your point of view that the cultural factors that I have identified associated with the statistics of Incarceration of African American males is specific to their continent of ancestral origin or cultural factors specific to any continent of ancestral origin.

While the suggestion that African American racial profiling is acceptable as a law enforcement methodology, supports the practice of discrimination of African Americans, discrimination of African Americans is also supported, based on their continent of origin, in a suggestion that individuals descended from Africa who have African Cultural roots are more likely to commit crimes.

The suggestion also supports discrimination of individuals native to Africa, in suggesting that there is an overall African culture that promotes crime.

There is no evidenced overall African Culture that promotes crime. Africa is a continent that has a diversity of cultural elements that vary among the many countries of Africa.

The cultural factors you suggest are common to African descended groups: "Group-bound culture, masculine culture, aversion against other types of culture." mirror 30% of the republican party in the US, the Evangelical Christian subculture. Those factors reflect other patriarchal leaning sub-cultures/cultures in the world well beyond the boarders of the Continent of Africa, among individuals that do not trace their ancestral roots to Africa.

But, for example, there are many cultural differences among Middle Eastern Muslim Patriarchs and American Evangelical Christian Patriarchs, even though individuals in each subculture reflect attributes of "group bound culture, masculine culture, and aversion against other types of culture".

There are countries in Africa that have high crime rates that are considered not peaceful and there are countries in Africa that have lower crime rates that are considered peaceful, per the Global peace index.

As already evidenced in the thread, the Nubian Society, is one of most peaceful societies that exist in the world, as a small society separate from mainstream Egypt, that has retained deep African Cultural Roots. Those in mainstream Egypt do not share the same subcultural elements in their way of life, even though they are both groups of individuals living in Africa with African Ancestry.

Crime, conflict, and violence is not an issue specific to any one ethnicity, nation, race, or culture. Copious amounts of it are spread across the world. The measurements of the issues associated vary across the world.

The factors of single parent households, the vicious cycle of deep poverty, substance abuse, discrimination/bias, and urban populations, are the cultural factors that have been identified as associated with crime in this thread, but those are cultural factors associated with crime that are common across the world, not specific to any one nation, continent, culture, ethnicity, or described race.

The individuals of Moroccan ancestry heritage are the only individuals identified from the continent of Africa in the research on problems in the Netherlands, however the Moroccan culture is unique, and complex, with most people considering themselves as part of Arab culture in that country.

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

Suriname is part of South America, and comprised of a rich heritage of individuals per native South American Indians, East Indians, Indonesia, Dutch, West African, Chinese, and mixed heritage. However there is not an African Culture in that country, it is unique and influenced by mixed heritage.

The people of the Antilles also have a rich mixed culture from those native to the Caribbean Islands, Latin America, East Asia, West Africa, and Dutch.

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

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

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

Perhaps a bigger view of the world, per the global peace index, might provide perspective that there are some countries in Africa that are considered peaceful and some are not.

Botswana a country comprised of 97% of individuals native to Africa, ranks at 31 out of 158 countries, above many countries in Europe where there are only tiny percentages of individuals with African Ancestry. Morocco at 54 rates at a significantly higher level than the US, at 88.

The continent of Africa is represented by the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, and Somalia at the bottom of the list, but countries of Northern Europe, Asia, and the Middle East with very few people of African roots, are represented as well, including Russia the largest country in the world.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jun/12/global-peace-index-2012

152 Korea, North
153 Russia
154 Congo, Democratic Republic of
155 Iraq
156 Sudan
157 Afghanistan
158 Somalia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Peace_Index_2011.png

Countries colored Dark Green are rated with at the highest Peace index and countries shaded in Black are rated at the lowest Peace index. As one can easily see by looking at the map, the index of high levels or low levels of peace is not an issue specific to continent, nation, ethnicity, described race, or culture.

Seriously,(I apologize for not reading the whole thread) I think you might be getting yourself into a fight here.

oh and in case you didnt know, HDM, somaliland is not somalia, try reading up on it a bit or even better, watch a couple of hours on the subject with some of the grade A people of this planet before you let your assumptioms come into effect.

Not specific to it. But certainly based, in part, on that ancestry, and sometimes distinguishing itself through ancestry. In 'gangsta' culture, there's certainly a lot of attention for Africa. Some have even taken on African or African Islamic names.



It's true. Why is it so hard to see that? Almost anywhere in the world, it's true. People with African ancestry commit more crime than other ethnic groups, even in Africa.



Indeed, African cultures vary. However, they usually have some basic characteristics.



This is something entirely different we're discussing. The Republican Party is not nearly as masculine and group-bound as a lot of African cultures. We're talking about groups that prefer not to communicate with other groups. Aversion against other types of culture is something different, too. Usually, the United States doesn't feature ethnic riots in which people are attacked and killed for their ethnicity (except, of course, when African-Americans started looting Los Angeles). A lot of African countries do, and that was another thing contributing to food shortages in Kenya, one of the most fertile regions in Africa.



Their ancestry is different. It hasn't mixed too much with technology, hasn't found a place in a more feminine culture, and they're generally left alone by the rest of Africa. Additionally, if you hadn't heard, most of them converted to Islam and now speak Arab, and a large part of them live in North Sudan. Another part of their population was influenced by the Byzantine Empire more than a milennium ago, and a lot of them were Christian in the Middle Ages.



There is crime, conflict and violence specific to a certain region. In Nigeria, there will be fights between Christians and Muslims. In Sudan, there will be fights between Christians and Muslims. In Rwanda, the Hutus and Tutsis will not suddenly forgive each other. In Libya, there will be tribal warfare. In Egypt, there will be sectarian violence. In West Africa, there will be political groups fighting for power. In Congo, there will be civil war or foreign invasions for decades. In Uganda, homosexuals will remain in danger. In some parts of Africa, albinos will be murdered because the local population believes it can make potions out of their body parts. In Zimbabwe, there will be violence against white people.

Those are certainties I can offer you, based on the cultural elements of those areas.



More common in some ethnic and cultural groups than in others. Care to guess?



Must have forgotten about the Somalians - remember, Al-Shabaab has branches here, and there are more and more Somalians living here. There are also large amounts of Cape Verdians. For the rest, there are a lot of black people who actively like to remind us of 'their' past as slaves in Suriname and the Antilles, even though we don't own that land anymore and even the grandchildren of the original slaves have died out by now.



Descendants of West-African slaves make up 10% of their population. Creoles - who, for a large part, have black African ancestry - form over 30% of their population. Compare Suriname to the rest of South America, and you'll find, unsurprisingly, that it's not the best part of South America. After we released it in 1975, it took them five years before there had been a coup, and people were murdered for political reasons. They then re-elected the same man, Desi Bouterse, as president two years ago. We're finally going to stop development aid now that Bouterse has messed up completely.



Here are some of their criteria.

"Number of external and internal wars fought" - if an African country went without invading another for a year, good for them.
"Political instability" - if you have a dictator who's been in power for ten years, you're doing well. Zimbabwe must have scored well there.
"Number of jailed persons" - not if you shoot them, or fail to document them.
"Exports of major conventional weapons" - this is why the Netherlands is relatively low on that list. Indeed, exporting weapons makes you less peaceful.
"Number of heavy weapons" - if your country owns heavy weapons, I got news for you son - you got 99 problems, and the nuke is one.
"Ease of access to small arms and light weapons" - United States? United States.

It's not just a peace index. It's a pacifism index that you can cheat by shooting prisoners and having a dictatorship. We're hardly politically stable, because our coalition governments are usually voted out within three years. We export large amounts of weaponry, which is apparently just as bad as getting people killed in internal wars.



I didn't say Somaliland was Somalia. However, I'd like to know where you got that information. Provide me with your sources. At the moment, I'm seeing very little of any of them.

start here

then go and spend some time watching the people and projects down there, plenty of talks on TED about somaliland as well.

if you really want to know more you should spend some time watching simon reeve, internationally recognizzed for some of his work precisely in shedding light on lesser known situations around the world.

as i see it there has been plenty of evidence of other cultures as well.

even then you purposefully ignore the cumulative evidence provided several times through this thread by other members.
in the end im posting simply because if ind your estimations to be wildly speculative and often based on questionable or selective data, no single person will know everything but that is no excuse for ingorance, willfull even more so.

Read that article. What I immediately noticed was that they only have effective control over half the territory they claim, and that they have had several violent border disputes in the past five years. Other than that, I found absolutely nothing to indicate that their social and criminal situation is any better than the situation anywhere else in the Horn of Africa.



"Ideas worth spreading". I've heard of that website before, and it appears to me to be very politically-motivated from a solely-liberal perspective. What I'm asking for here is hard facts. Not anecdotes, not politically-motivated reports about a part of Africa hardly ever visited by foreigners, not personal insults, and not a Wikipedia article completely lacking in relevant information about their social and criminal situation. I'm asking for facts.



Yes, other cultures exist. That's why we have internet now, and electricity, and proper housing, and roads, and telephones, and a stable food supply, and relative safety.



That, again, is an assumption more akin to a personal insult than to a bona fide analysis of my character. What didn't I specify? I linked to books, research - part of it banned because it didn't sparkle with cultural relativism and liberalism - and I compared several cultures and regions to show that poverty isn't the cause of African-descended people being over-represented in crime. It might contribute - a lot, even - but why have they been poor for 40,000 years and counting around the world, even where they're a giant majority of the population, while other poor groups have been able to help themselves within sixty years? I blame culture.

I have something to add about poverty. I had predicted a famine in Africa for this summer, but it's early. Apparently, eighteen million people in the Sahel area are at risk again.
And guess what? They're not exactly helping themselves - Europe is forced to help them out by sending 40 million worth of food.

And you'll know the cause for poverty when you see it - a lot of them are wearing ornate clothes, and they sit around having cultural events, and they've banned Skype with a 15-year prison sentence as punishment, and they're looking at introducing anti-homosexual legislation, but they're not working on increasing their food supply at all, instead growing their population at the mercy of foreign aid. It's a cultural thing.

You can't blame the individuals in the Sahel. Many of them are subsistence farmers and their soils are parched due to a drought. The blame really lies with both the government and uncontrollable climactic factors (which may be linked to climate change caused largely by Westerners). Blaming individual Africans for the famine is like blaming me for football hooliganism because I'm British. You can't even blame the culture. It's not like negelecting marco-agricultural development across a multinational region is intrinsic to African culture. The democracies in that region aren't very well developed, and that's why their agricultural policy sucks. There are negative aspects to African cultures as there are to any culture, but to blame the famine on that, I think, is unfair.