Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Violent crime is another thing to consider. I will look that up, along with other things I need to look up.
I always thought that violence related to cocaine(and crack) was something from the 1980's. Florida and Georgia both had a record number of murders in 1981. 1,522 for Florida and 960 for Georgia. I figured the cocaine trade might have had something to do with it. Atlanta has been a major distribution center for drugs and Miami was one of the stops along the way.
Interesting you mention the mid 1970's in South Carolina. 1974 saw the highest recorded numbers of murders in South Carolina(at least between 1960-2008). The number was around 452. 1972 saw the highest murders per 100,000 with 16.8. Maybe cocaine might have hit SC. I don't know for sure.
well, crack and crack-cocaine should be treated as two different and distinct drugs. cocaine was the expensive raw material, and the process of cooking crack-cocaine makes it cheaper, just as potent, and more dangerous.
Cocaine I believe became popular in 1970 or so, and was seen as a "rich man's drug". Crack-cocaine did not become popular until 1980 or so, and was always associated with urban ghettos.
I am currently the age now, that my dad would've been in South Carolina in 1975. To hear that generation tell it, they make it seem like cocaine was growing on trees, and there was little social stigma about it. I know far more 60-year olds with cocaine-related stories, than I do people of my own generation.
I believe this is notable, not just in the sense of trafficking-related violence, but also in the way that the drug makes people aggressive or violent.
That is one thing to consider. I found this in a newspaper article regarding the murder rate in the USA. One thing mentioned was the "honor culture" in the South. What was meant by that was the "honor killings" in the olden days, such as the duels. From what I read in that paper, antebellum South Carolina had a higher murder rate than Massachussetts.
And Virginia has rapidly become more affluent since 1960, so it would make sense for it to have some of the lowest murder rates in the South.
Not just the olden days. Here is a good book/study on the subject:
I read it once and perhaps the bottom line is that Southerners (i.e. natives of the Old Confederate and border states) are not inherently more violent than their non-Southern counterparts when it came to actual crime...but likely to be more violent when matters of personal and family honor were at stake. It explored the history and reasons behind such.
It has been a while since I read it but as I recall, there were two studies which seemed to bear this out. The first involved a contrived situation --in whereby a "plant" was in a narrow hallway of a university where students from all over the country attended. At random, as the "subject" walked by, the other fellow would deliberately bump him, and say something mildly provocative. Native Southerners were more to respond in an aggresive manner.
The other involved a certain hypothetical question asked. It went along the lines of: You are playing a card or board game with a friend when an issue comes up. He calls you a cheater and damn liar....then strikes a blow. He then apologizes for both. Which would you find the more difficult to get over, the name calling or the blow? By a noteable majority, Southerners said the name-calling would be the hardest to forgive.
Just as an aside here, out of curiosity, I put that question to some of my friends here in Texas, both black and white. It verified what the study concluded (and I share in it, myself)
I read it once and perhaps the bottom line is that Southerners (i.e. natives of the Old Confederate and border states) are not inherently more violent than their non-Southern counterparts when it came to actual crime...but likely to be more violent when matters of personal and family honor were at stake. It explored the history and reasons behind such.
It has been a while since I read it but as I recall, there were two studies which seemed to bear this out. The first involved a contrived situation --in whereby a "plant" was in a narrow hallway of a university where students from all over the country attended. At random, as the "subject" walked by, the other fellow would deliberately bump him, and say something mildly provocative. Native Southerners were more to respond in an aggresive manner.
The other involved a certain hypothetical question asked. It went along the lines of: You are playing a card or board game with a friend when an issue comes up. He calls you a cheater and damn liar....then strikes a blow. He then apologizes for both. Which would you find the more difficult to get over, the name calling or the blow? By a noteable majority, Southerners said the name-calling would be the hardest to forgive.
Just as an aside here, out of curiosity, I put that question to some of my friends here in Texas, both black and white. It verified what the study concluded (and I share in it, myself)
Anyway, it was an interesting read...
That was part of the point. No one is "inherently violent". Violence is often a nature of situation.
That was part of the point. No one is "inherently violent". Violence is often a nature of situation.
Well, I wouldn't go that far...because some people really are naturally violent and it usually manifests very early. I am talking about the sociopaths amongst us. From early on they have a history of bullying, cruelty to others, using violence to get what they want, and without any sense of guilt or remorse.
Believe me, I know. Not only from just street/bar experience in my younger, wilder, days, but in that the majority of my teaching career has been spent in special education dealing with the worst behavior problems in the district. Many of them would probably have turned out different if certain environmental circumstances had been different (and these can usually be reached and turned around), but there are some -- and it spans the spectrum from poverty to upper-class -- who really are just "bad kids." I can use prettier words, but that is what it amounts to.
I did more research on violent crime. As far as both violent crimes per 100,000 and raw numbers, 1992-1993 appear to be the most violent in the South.
In New England, it came in two waves. 1977-1980 for VT,NH,and ME. 1990-1993 were the most violent years for southern New England(MA,CT,RI). New Hampshire had a record number of murders in 2004.
For the Mid-Atlantic states, NY and NJ had their most violent year in 1990. PA in 1996.
The Midwest, well, I notice that the main year for violence is 1991. I notice this in the urban Midwest. 1996 seems to be the main year in Indiana. 1994-1995 and then 2006-2007 is when the Upper Midwest(Iowa, Minnesota,Wisconsin) sees its most violent years.
The Great Plains region, well, it varies alot between 1992 and 2008, with Kansas reaching its record high amount of violent crime and North Dakota reaching it in 2008.
The Southwest, like the Great Plains, is spread out through the 1990's with no particular concentration in a particular time, with 2006 seeing the most violent crimes in Arizona.
The Rocky Mountain West, I notice a unique pattern. 1992-1995 has the highest concentration of states reaching their individual record levels of violent crime. The main outliers are Nevada in 2007(highest number of violent crimes) and Wyoming in 1981(highest number of violent crimes and violent crimes per 100,000). Utah also had its most violent year in 1997.
The Pacific Coast states: I noticed overall that 1995 is when the most states of this region has its highest levels of violence. 1992 has the second highest number of states reaching their highest levels of violence. In general, 1992 and 1995. Oregon, however, has its highest number of murders per 100,000 in
1985.
In general, the pattern I see when it comes to the USA as a whole is this: the early 1990's is when many of the USA states sees their individual record amounts of violent crime.
I did more research on violent crime. As far as both violent crimes per 100,000 and raw numbers, 1992-1993 appear to be the most violent in the South.
In New England, it came in two waves. 1977-1980 for VT,NH,and ME. 1990-1993 were the most violent years for southern New England(MA,CT,RI). New Hampshire had a record number of murders in 2004.
For the Mid-Atlantic states, NY and NJ had their most violent year in 1990. PA in 1996.
The Midwest, well, I notice that the main year for violence is 1991. I notice this in the urban Midwest. 1996 seems to be the main year in Indiana. 1994-1995 and then 2006-2007 is when the Upper Midwest(Iowa, Minnesota,Wisconsin) sees its most violent years.
The Great Plains region, well, it varies alot between 1992 and 2008, with Kansas reaching its record high amount of violent crime and North Dakota reaching it in 2008.
The Southwest, like the Great Plains, is spread out through the 1990's with no particular concentration in a particular time, with 2006 seeing the most violent crimes in Arizona.
The Rocky Mountain West, I notice a unique pattern. 1992-1995 has the highest concentration of states reaching their individual record levels of violent crime. The main outliers are Nevada in 2007(highest number of violent crimes) and Wyoming in 1981(highest number of violent crimes and violent crimes per 100,000). Utah also had its most violent year in 1997.
The Pacific Coast states: I noticed overall that 1995 is when the most states of this region has its highest levels of violence. 1992 has the second highest number of states reaching their highest levels of violence. In general, 1992 and 1995. Oregon, however, has its highest number of murders per 100,000 in
1985.
In general, the pattern I see when it comes to the USA as a whole is this: the early 1990's is when many of the USA states sees their individual record amounts of violent crime.
Interesting topic for sure, PirateL, but can you be more specific in exactly what states constitue the different regions you outline?
What are the titles of these books you mention which make such groupings in terms of the subject you introduced (which is a good one, far as that goes)?
What are the titles of these books you mention which make such groupings in terms of the subject you introduced (which is a good one, far as that goes)?
I got most of this out of World Book Encyclopedia. Some of it I got from my geography books and National Geographic. I even hear some of this mentioned on The Weather Channel.
I got most of this out of World Book Encyclopedia. Some of it I got from my geography books and National Geographic. I even hear some of this mentioned on The Weather Channel.
With all due respect, PL, I am not really following you here. If you want to make a case that the Southern states have a higher/lower "murder" rate than the rest of the country...then first of all there has to be established authority beyond the Weather Channel as in regional groupings. I mean, the National Weather Service Office "Southern Region" consists of all the Old Confederate States plus Oklahoma and Kentucky...but includes New Mexico and excludes Virginia! LOL
I am not trying to be a smart-aleck, JL, not at all. And if you were to say and present the case that Southern states have a higher murder rate and make it clear the definition of the Southern states is based upon this or that consideration of yours, then that is great. But you need to define it right off the bat. Because in considering the big picture, others may have a totally different notion of what exactly is the South in order to comment. Just saying!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
