High Crime White Dominated Communities (residential, cars, racism)

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by IndieIndy

2.8% white
35.4% black
3.1% asian
16.6% mixed or other
27.8% hispanic

That White percentage seems to be a bit too low. Here's info. from the census: US2010

[ckhthankgod]

Perhaps parts of South Boston.

[HoustonTexas1]

Just face the facts that a white crime dominated area in the United States is very rare.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by HoustonTexas1

Just face the facts that a white crime dominated area in the United States is very rare.

They weren't really during the first half of the 20th century. What do you think happened?

[montanamom]

I haven't seen much in the news about groups of young white male "flash mobs' lately, have you?

On the other hand...

I would say that the highest concentration of crime committed by white people is in the general vicinity of the Wall Street, New York area, with the Halls of Congress and K Street in Washington, D.C. a close runner up.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by montanamom

I haven't seen much in the news about groups of young white male "flash mobs' lately, have you?

On the other hand...

I would say that the highest concentration of crime committed by white people is in the general vicinity of the Wall Street, New York area, with the Halls of Congress and K Street in Washington, D.C. a close runner up.

It goes back to White collar vs Blue collar. Poor people are more likely to committ blue collar crime while the wealthy and professional class are more likely to committ white collar crime. African-Americans tend to have disproportionally more poor people. That and other socioeconomic issues often mean more blue collar crime. Whites tend to have more wealthy people and professionals, so for this reason, I higher amount of white collar crime.

As bad as these violent "flash mobs" are, they are easier to deal with. Just get the police and put them behind bars. My surgeon could have killed me while I was under anesthesia. He could have said he made a mistake. We should be outraged by all violent crime and work to curb the violence. No argument from me on that. I've been affected by violence myself, by both Blacks and Whites. That being noted, more people are getting killed from medical quacks than from murder. 4X as many people people die from environmental toxins than from homicide. It is just a way of putting things in perspective. More people die from White collar crime than from blue collar crime.

The difference is that blue collar crime is more there in your face and more tangible. White collar crime is more untouchable. Blue collar criminals make up the bulk of the prison population. Blacks make up a plurality in the prisons, majority of it related to drugs. Blue collar criminals make up the largest part of the prison population because they are the easiest to catch. Blue collar criminals tend to be more myopic in their behavior, meaning they tend to not plan ahead and are more messy about their crimes. They are more likely to not have the legal representation most middle class people have. White collar criminals have more money, tend to plan in advance more, and aren't easily caught. If caught they can work out some kind of deal, in most cases. Martha Stewart went to prison for insider trading, and her sentence was short considering the amount of money involved. I know two criminals who did at least a year in prison over $10 being stolen.

[BlackShoe]

Eureka, Ca. Capitol of the weed growing empire of the Emerald Triangle counties of Northern California, although many smaller towns in the area might have a claim to that title. In addition, very high unemployment and a large homeless population make this a dangerous place. About 75% white.

[Thomas R.]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

They weren't really during the first half of the 20th century. What do you think happened?

I don't think the person's statement is entirely true, but if there's some truth in it here is some ideas popping in my head. Not saying they're true or totally valid, they're more like hypotheses.

White-crime is more alcohol-related than Black or Hispanic crime. (Which is more drug related I suppose. American-Indians are the only group that commits alcohol-related-crime as much or more than whites going by what I've read) Before Prohibition you had a "saloon culture" and there's apparently reason to think that saloons were more aggressive/violent than most of today's bar culture. During Prohibition you had the underground-alcohol gang stuff.

In the first half of the century the immigrant population was "whiter" I believe. There were quotas for that even. Immigrants aren't necessarily more crime ridden, but sometimes dislocations cause alienation or exploitation. Also immigrants at times have a tendency to be disproportionately young men and young men commit the plurality/majority of the crime in any country.

Which kind of makes me wonder about gender in general. Although medicine had improved the white population in the first half of the century might have been younger and more male than now. What with childbirth-related deaths and lower life expectancy.

Also I seem to recall that the "War on Poverty", to an extent, disproportionately focused on whites. Appalachia is like a Special Development Zone or something, the "Black Belt" of the South or the border-area near Mexico isn't. So white poverty is much less now than it was in the early 20th c. (Not that poverty is that related to violent crime. I remember finding some poor Black towns, poor Hispanic towns, etc with low crime on other threads)

On the other side blacks underwent, in some ways, a more rapid and thorough urbanization than whites. In particular many went to cities they had not experienced before. This caused dislocations in the "extended family" structure that might have caused social difficulties. (Daniel Patrick Moynihan dealt with some of this)

The "Sexual Revolution" and certain policies lead to an increase in fatherlessness in all races, but for poorer people that can be a worse thing as more affluent single moms can get better daycare or afford more structure. Also it's possible the ratio changed. Maybe in the early 20th c. whites and non-whites were more similar in rates of fatherless homes.

[rnc2mbfl]

What about hate crimes? White folk seem to be pretty well represented in those ranks.

[BiggDaddyDroid]

There is less white crime dominated areas because poor white typically have less access to illigal trades that are profitable, its all about the money.

Most poor black people live in the ghetto, on the other hand poor whites have a different philosophy. Where as poor blacks will live in a bigger house in a dangerous area and be eating well, poor whites would rather cram into a smaller studio or 1 bedroom apartment in a nicer area and go without. Despite the misconceptions most poor white people live in suburs and nice neighborhoods and spend almost all there money on rent an eat a lot of rahmen noodles.

Than you have to factor in a lot of poor white people are also rural folks.

The suburbs and the country provide less oppurtunities to commit crimes and get away with it. There are no dope blocks, you can't just stand on a corner an make some money seling drugs, there's no dealers to rob, and the police are bored and militant. This gives poor whites much less incentive to get involved in criminal activity cause crime just doesn't pay where they live like it does in does in the hood.

With that being said with its an environment with less criminals which means the police have an advantage, your just not a dopeboy you are the only one. Also it means there is less violence because dealers and gangmembers are not fighting for territorry because there is no territorry.

The inner city is complete opposite. If you can get your hands on some cocaine you can go over to the block and it will sell itself fast. So more kids get involved in it because the payoff is greater. With that being said it is 100 times more dangerous because there is more competetion because there's more criminal oppurtunity.