I'm Trying To Understand The Gang Problem In LA...

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by Cyanna

Good article. Thanks

I still can't understand how so many parents of gang members can just turn a blind eye to what is happening. I would find it hard to believe that ALL the parents are completely unaware and in the dark.

Some parents have no control over their kids and in Latino families if the father is absent often the mother will take a secondary role to her oldest son, as strange as that may sound. It is old fashioned thinking that the males know better even if it is a teenage son. But some gang members come from families where their parents, especially their fathers, were or still are in gangs. Not as common but some families are thug gang members of uncles and cousins. When a parent realizes their son is a gang member they generally try to curb it and a judge may make the family go to counseling and try their best to stop the kid's gang affiliation. But poor families don't have much to offer a kid who gets his ego shaped by gangs; an inferiority complex is fed by the power and prestige of belonging to something that makes the kid feel important and powerful. It is the same among other cultures; gangs are basically poor kids who want something to make them feel important.

[CaliDude1]

How exactly are you all defining "gang members?" I ask because I am reading comments about the kind of people they are, what they can and can't do, etc. It just got me curious.

Due to circumstances completely out of my control I grew up in a neighborhood that was gang identified. And before anyone asks I never participated, nor did I have any desire to. Back then (1980's) one had to be formally initiated in the gang. This was most commonly done by taking violent action against one of the gang's so-called enemies.

The reason I bring this up is because there are a lot of people who have adopted the style of dress, lingo, and general look of a gang member while not actually taking part in the violent side of the lifestyle. In short, there are a lot of "wanna be" gangsters running around. Usually, there are few members of any large gang that are indeed the real deal. The rest simply live off the other guys' violent reputation. Many of these guys are not as violent or as tough as the project themselves to be. As a result, many neighborhoods that strike fear in some people are not as bad as their reputations would have you believe.

When I think of my childhood years in the 1980's and my teen years in the 1990's, the gang problem is LA was MUCH worse back then. The 1980's were especially bad.

[West of Encino]

Originally Posted by CaliDude1

How exactly are you all defining "gang members?" I ask because I am reading comments about the kind of people they are, what they can and can't do, etc. It just got me curious.

Due to circumstances completely out of my control I grew up in a neighborhood that was gang identified. And before anyone asks I never participated, nor did I have any desire to. Back then (1980's) one had to be formally initiated in the gang. This was most commonly done by taking violent action against one of the gang's so-called enemies.

The reason I bring this up is because there are a lot of people who have adopted the style of dress, lingo, and general look of a gang member while not actually taking part in the violent side of the lifestyle. In short, there are a lot of "wanna be" gangsters running around. Usually, there are few members of any large gang that are indeed the real deal. The rest simply live off the other guys' violent reputation. Many of these guys are not as violent or as tough as the project themselves to be. As a result, many neighborhoods that strike fear in some people are not as bad as their reputations would have you believe.

When I think of my childhood years in the 1980's and my teen years in the 1990's, the gang problem is LA was MUCH worse back then. The 1980's were especially bad.

And I thought the gang problem was worse in the 2000s. So tell me, was gang violence spread throughout the city even in affluent communities, apart from South or East LA?

[majoun]

Originally Posted by West of Encino

And I thought the gang problem was worse in the 2000s. So tell me, was gang violence spread throughout the city even in affluent communities, apart from South or East LA?

There were gang problems in communities in the '90s that don't have major gang problems now, like Atwater Village - its gang problem grew out of its out of control drug problem, now it's no more dangerous than Brentwood is.

There were also areas that had much larger gang problems in the '80s and '90s than today, like Venice. Venice's current problems are more related to the homeless problem, which is as bad as it's ever been, than the gang problem, which is nowhere near what it was 15-20 years ago.

Now, for those in the Valley, it's different. There are gang areas in the Valley which were not gang areas in the '80s.

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by West of Encino

And I thought the gang problem was worse in the 2000s. So tell me, was gang violence spread throughout the city even in affluent communities, apart from South or East LA?

Gang members are poor guys for the most part though there are so-called gangs in middle-class or more affluent areas like Armenian gangs in Glendale. Even some surfer groups are sort of gangs and have done violent things. But the classic definition of gangs in Los Angeles are Latino and Black guys [and some Asians] who strongly identify with their neighborhood, wear gang clothing, have tattoos and are involved in gang activities like drug trafficking and shootings of other gang members. Just because gang attire may be popular with some young guys does not mean that they are gang members.

[CaliDude1]

Originally Posted by West of Encino

And I thought the gang problem was worse in the 2000s. So tell me, was gang violence spread throughout the city even in affluent communities, apart from South or East LA?

Honestly, I really can't speak on the affluent communities. Growing up I spent very little time in the affluent areas of Los Angeles County. When I think of things being worse I am specifically thinking of South Los Angeles, Compton, and the surrounding areas. I see a big difference between the late 80's/early 90's and the current state of those neighborhoods. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying it is paradise now. However, it is a lot better than it used to be.

Of course, certain neighborhoods may be worse than before. There could be an up tick in areas that did not have much gang activity at all in the past. Still overall violent crime has been down near historic lows in Los Angeles as a whole for a good while now. I really hope it can remain that way as we work through this economic downturn.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by CaliDude1

Of course, certain neighborhoods may be worse than before. There could be an up tick in areas that did not have much gang activity at all in the past.

I.e. the Valley. (And I don't just mean those Valley neighborhoods with long histories of gang activity but others which didn't)

[silverkris]

Originally Posted by CaliDude1

Honestly, I really can't speak on the affluent communities. Growing up I spent very little time in the affluent areas of Los Angeles County. When I think of things being worse I am specifically thinking of South Los Angeles, Compton, and the surrounding areas. I see a big difference between the late 80's/early 90's and the current state of those neighborhoods. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying it is paradise now. However, it is a lot better than it used to be.

That was when the crack epidemic hit - and other cities nationwide had the same problem, such as Washington, DC, Miami, NYC, etc.