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.
And if all this is caused by discrimination, lack of opportunity, lack of jobs, and the other usual excuses, then someone needs to explain how the Appalachian region of the USA, very depressed, poor, neglected, and little opportunity, has some of the lowest violent crime rates in the nation. (region is 95% white, BTW). Funny how that works.
Perhaps because white Appalachians are predominantly rural, whereas the violent crime linked to African-Americans tends to be an urban problem? (Not sure, but violent crime among rural blacks in the South is possibly comparable to violent crime among rural Appalachians.)
And perhaps because discrimination, lack of opportunity, lack of jobs, etc. among Appalachians is not as severe compared to what is found among African-Americans?
Most Appalachians come from families that voluntarily settled in specific regions, and for the most part, stayed in those regions. Their communities evolved over lots of time, not haphazardly like the communities of many African-Americans. Though life has been tough for Appalachians, many have been able to carve out an existence by hunting, foraging, and other rural ways of life. Many earlier Appalachians were indentured servants (though not slaves), and poverty, alcoholism, drugs, violence, and other factors have troubled Appalachians for generations. You don't hear about violent crime among them in the modern urban sense of gangs, guns, and such, but you don't hear that so much regarding rural blacks, either. But there has been a lot of talk of Appalachian violence in the form of feuds (the Hatfield-McCoy thing is famous), fistfights, bar brawls, incest, and so on. A lot of this is stereotype, but a lot of it is true. From what I understand, meth and heroin are changing things for the worse in terms of violence among Appalachians.
Though Appalachians and other poor whites (Okies, sharecroppers, etc.) have had a hard time in life--over many generations--they haven't had to deal with the level of historical and other factors (slavery, lynchings, Jim Crow, attempted repatriations to Africa, race-based segregation in urban spaces, etc.) that blacks have dealt with. Appalachians have also had the benefit of "white privilege"--they may have been seen as undesirable by more well-heeled whites, but such whites have deemed them preferable to blacks. They could sit at the same lunch counter or ride in the same section of the bus, if they wished. As far as I'm aware, no equivalent to the KKK has existed to scare and oppress Appalachian whites.
Many Appalachians can lose their accent and take other steps (like cover up their family history) to blend into mainstream society to a large extent. When a black person tries to do this, he is still black, and is known as such, and is subject to the bias and manipulation that his ancestors were treated to. This is not an insignificant difference.
You know the truth is there will always be discrimination of some sort as long as this earth is in existence. It's not wrong to fight against it, however one is delusional if they think they are going to totally eradicate it. That being said, discrimination should not be as prevalent as it is in the year 2015.
Prejudice and discrimination are still out there. There are people who do discriminate. I have always agreed that we should fight against it. This idea of simply being acquiescent towards it is stupid. If people were acquiescent towards racism and discrimination, Jim Crow would still exist.
Skin tone is only a small part of the equation, there are vast genetic differences between groups. However, I know you aren't interested in the truth, but would rather dismiss anything uncomfortable as racist. It's much more convenient to blame whites and their racism, than for blacks to take personal responsibility for their criminality as a group.
Not to mention all of that precious diversity, and cultural enrichment! After enough "misunderstandings" I think even the most stubborn liberal would reject this.
.
[b]THE TRUTH IS THAT THERE ARE FEW GENETIC DIFFERENCES AMONG RACIAL GROUPS.[/B ]Humans are [b]HUMAN,[/ basically genetically analogous.
Please inform us of what these vast genetic differences are. Inquiring minds would like know.
Perhaps because white Appalachians are predominantly rural, whereas the violent crime linked to African-Americans tends to be an urban problem? (Not sure, but violent crime among rural blacks in the South is possibly comparable to violent crime among rural Appalachians.)
And perhaps because discrimination, lack of opportunity, lack of jobs, etc. among Appalachians is not as severe compared to what is found among African-Americans?
Most Appalachians come from families that voluntarily settled in specific regions, and for the most part, stayed in those regions. Their communities evolved over lots of time, not haphazardly like the communities of many African-Americans. Though life has been tough for Appalachians, many have been able to carve out an existence by hunting, foraging, and other rural ways of life. Many earlier Appalachians were indentured servants (though not slaves), and poverty, alcoholism, drugs, violence, and other factors have troubled Appalachians for generations. You don't hear about violent crime among them in the modern urban sense of gangs, guns, and such, but you don't hear that so much regarding rural blacks, either. But there has been a lot of talk of Appalachian violence in the form of feuds (the Hatfield-McCoy thing is famous), fistfights, bar brawls, incest, and so on. A lot of this is stereotype, but a lot of it is true. From what I understand, meth and heroin are changing things for the worse in terms of violence among Appalachians.
Though Appalachians and other poor whites (Okies, sharecroppers, etc.) have had a hard time in life--over many generations--they haven't had to deal with the level of historical and other factors (slavery, lynchings, Jim Crow, attempted repatriations to Africa, race-based segregation in urban spaces, etc.) that blacks have dealt with. Appalachians have also had the benefit of "white privilege"--they may have been seen as undesirable by more well-heeled whites, but such whites have deemed them preferable to blacks. They could sit at the same lunch counter or ride in the same section of the bus, if they wished. As far as I'm aware, no equivalent to the KKK has existed to scare and oppress Appalachian whites.
Many Appalachians can lose their accent and take other steps (like cover up their family history) to blend into mainstream society to a large extent. When a black person tries to do this, he is still black, and is known as such, and is subject to the bias and manipulation that his ancestors were treated to. This is not an insignificant difference.
I would add something more. Many Appalachian Whites migrated to cities like Chicago and Detroit. Many ended up in blight and violent crime similar to Blacks. Appalachian migrants were quite hated. One major difference, that you noted, is the ability to blend in. White Appalachian migrants were identified by their accents. With Blacks, all you have to do is look.
I have been told this before. Someone once commented that if I were talking to said person over they phone, they wouldn't know I was Black.
I would also put this in. Appalachian Whites are often poor. However, I also notice a sense of ownership. I watched a documentary about Appalachia by Diane Sawyer, who is from Kentucky. Someone mentioned "once Appalachia is in your blood, it's there forever".
There are alot of problems that you mentioned. However, with open spaces and a much more rural setting ,well, it makes a difference. As I mentioned earlier, murder rates rose among Appalachian migrants when they moved to the cities.
I will point to something. Wisconsin has one of the highest Black murder rates in the nation. 7 out of 10 Blacks live in one (1) city, Milwaukee. Mississippi's Black murder rate is much lower, despite Mississippi having the 2nd highest murder rate in the nation. Mississippi is also a state where a large amount of the Black population is rural.
One big difference between the Appalachian Whites and Blacks is the aspect of racial discrimination.
Is "criminality" among blacks a primarily "group" thing?
Well, by group I was specifically talking about how blacks are disproportionately represented in nearly every category of crime in relation to their population size. Of course not every black person is a criminal, that's obvious. However, in contrast to whites, blacks are many times more likely to commit the same exact crimes. I believe the stats have been linked in previous posts by me and others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empidonax
There's a lot of work to be done in both realms. How do we change the minds of criminals or criminally-inclined people so that that they have the same values as the lawfully-minded folks?
First, liberals must stop giving them excuses. We must recognize and understand that they may or may not ever have the same values whites have as a whole, but that criminal behavior won't be tolerated at all. You'll be labeled and treated accordingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empidonax
Unfortunately, racism is one of the things (but not the only thing) standing in the way of these changes. If you want criminals to change their ways and care about society, and respect themselves and others on the terms set by lawfully-minded people, then there has to be incentive.
Yes, racism may play a role, but a very minor role at that. Many of the more significant factors that affect them are of their own doing. Excluding the genetic ones of course. I personally believe that the use of the death penalty en mass would be a great incentive. If you knew your execution would be mere hours after your crime, you might think twice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empidonax
But racism (among other things) does interfere in that process. One message often communicated to vulnerable blacks (now, generations of vulnerable blacks) has been: "please shape up, but do it in your own neighborhood, because I don't particularly want you in mine." This does happen to some extent: the negative stats we hear about (57% unemployment rate among black males in Milwaukee; nearly 55% incarceration rate among black 30-year-olds in Milwaukee; etc.) have a bleakly positive flip side (43% are employed and 45% haven't been incarcerated, etc.). Even in the most distressed neighborhoods, a significant segment of people are reasonably law-abiding, though not all are that way out of some great allegiance to larger society.
I'd have to respectfully disagree here. The message I've seen more often than not communicated to blacks is essentially, that it's not their faults and that they're victims of some supernatural white devil who seeks to oppress them at every opportunity. It's only recently that the message of "shape up, and get your **** together" has began to be more mainstream. After decades of affirmative action, "generous" quota systems, and a plethora of other benefits, white people are tired of hearing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empidonax
Yet regarding the people who are criminals, criminally-inclined, or vulnerable in that regard: Why should they care about society and its laws when their lawless peers don't care, when many of their more-or-less law-abiding peers tend to be law-abiding for unidealistic reasons, and when they hear messages from outside that essentially tell them to stay in their own neighborhoods and survive as best they can?
That's an easy one. They should care because the longer it continues, the longer law abiding blacks will carry the burden, stigma, and label alongside them. Is that fair? Of course not, but it's the reality. The sentiment of "survive in their own neighborhoods" would be far less prevalent if their criminal elements were kept more in check. This isn't an easy situation by far, but if they expect for any significant change in public opinion to happen then they should really work on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccjarider
Black leadership IS required. I don't mean whiny "we are victim" noise. That's not leadership, that is just ginning up the masses for $ and power. i.e Sharpton and Jackson.
We've had enough of that since the 60's. Has not helped in any way shape or form.
This won't happen because there's too much money to be made promoting this mindset. Also, God forbid blacks stopped depending on the left, they can't have that now? They're just pawns in a much larger game. They've always been pawns, from slavery, to the civil rights movement, and even now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chocisful
.
[b]THE TRUTH IS THAT THERE ARE FEW GENETIC DIFFERENCES AMONG RACIAL GROUPS.[/B ]Humans are [b]HUMAN,[/ basically genetically analogous.
Please inform us of what these vast genetic differences are. Inquiring minds would like know.
It has been well documented, but of course leftist forces in academia have tried their best to obfuscate the facts. This post is long enough, but here's just one of many sources:
"Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors. The Black-White difference has been found consistently from the time of the massive World War I Army testing of 90 years ago to a massive study of over 6 million corporate, military, and higher-education test-takers in 2001.
"Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect. That's why Jensen and I looked at the genetic hypothesis in detail. We examined 10 categories of evidence." Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic
First, liberals must stop giving them excuses. We must recognize and understand that they may or may not ever have the same values whites have as a whole, but that criminal behavior won't be tolerated at all. You'll be labeled and treated accordingly.
I think a distinction has to be made between (liberals, or anyone else) giving them excuses versus specifying reasons for criminal behavior: liberals, like most humans, are not fond of violence and crime. When people say things like "black crime is rooted in racism" and such, it isn't meant to dismiss the issue and explain it away, but rather to find solutions. People on both sides of the aisle tend to talk past each other without realizing that they're all really trying to grapple with the issues, albeit in distinct ways.
Quote:
Yes, racism may play a role, but a very minor role at that. Many of the more significant factors that affect them are of their own doing. Excluding the genetic ones of course. I personally believe that the use of the death penalty en mass would be a great incentive. If you knew your execution would be mere hours after your crime, you might think twice.
I personally think it's a blend of both: external forces as well as internal abilities are responsible for the circumstances of most people. Part of the problem is that many Black communities, like many communities everywhere, are quite insular. Much of the success and failure, respect and ostracism come from within--from peer pressure, local role models, the presence and absence of family values. Some influences come from outside the community, and it's probably mass media in first place.
Furthermore, much of the crime committed is out of a need to survive. And I don't mean "survive" just in the most basic sense, for food and shelter. It also refers to dealing (not always getting along) with peers, neighbors, etc. It's the same for middle class kids in the suburbs, though the terms of survival are very different.
I'm not so sure about your idea about the death penalty. Who would be executed mere hours after a homicide is committed? Most criminals already know better than that: due process, bureaucracy, money, lawyers, etc. ensure that justice is slow in this country. And the mass slaughter (genocide?) of criminals, especially skewing towards Blacks and other minorities, would make this country and its alleged humanitarian values the laughing stock of the world. This nation would have no credibility when talking to other countries about their abuses. It would also show that we've given up, sending the message that as long as most violent criminals are minorities, they're not worth the effort of rehabilitation.
Many other countries already perceive the U.S. as a very racist nation, and this sort of "final solution" would only reinforce that. I can just see the narrative: we removed the Blacks from Africa, brought them here as slaves, "liberated" them on paper but not in practice, tried isolating and forgetting about them through segregation, created cultures of dependency via entitlements and voting blocs, sold them guns and used them for drugs, and now we're gonna just make the worst ones disappear. This sounds like Robespierre, Pinochet, and Mugabe--not the U.S.
Quote:
I'd have to respectfully disagree here. The message I've seen more often than not communicated to blacks is essentially, that it's not their faults and that they're victims of some supernatural white devil who seeks to oppress them at every opportunity.
There are certainly those who say and believe such things, but I think most Blacks have a stronger grip on reality. Like I said earlier, even in the most troubled neighborhoods, most African-Americans are at least reasonably law-abiding and understand that personal responsibility as well as social cooperation are necessary for survival.
But realistically, racism is a thing, and not just a minor thing. Many Blacks feel like they have to work extra hard and prove themselves in order to achieve what Whites achieve with less work and effort. Many feel that the system (not just "Whites," but laws, practices, policies) is rigged against them, and there is evidence that such is sometimes (perhaps often) the case.
Quote:
It's only recently that the message of "shape up, and get your **** together" has began to be more mainstream. After decades of affirmative action, "generous" quota systems, and a plethora of other benefits, white people are tired of hearing it.
The idea of "shape up or ship out" has been with African-American communities for generations; it is nothing new. What is new is the rise of predominantly urban African-American slums since the 1960s and 1970s, reinforced by segregation after failed attempts at integration, all accompanied by the decline of manufacturing jobs and other livelihoods that were supposed to be gateways to a good living and an escape from the rural South. Many of the poor Blacks in Milwaukee trace their roots to ancestors in the 20th century who came to the city to work in factories, but became unemployed or underemployed when the bust happened. Instead of building generations of upward mobility like Milwaukee's Poles, Irish, and Germans did, many of Milwaukee's Blacks went into a downward spiral.
Is that an "excuse"? Yes and no. It's a "reason," because it explains how the rug was pulled out from under the feet of thousands. Most Blacks affected by this phenomenon have, over generations, managed to survive and live reasonably lawful lives. Some have climbed out of poverty and experienced great careers or other trajectories. Many have become part of the service-industry working class. Many, as we know, have turned to other options entailing violence. Most of these people, probably including many of the criminals, think they have their act together. Most Blacks have not benefited much or at all from the "benefits" you talk about, but they still manage.
Quote:
That's an easy one. They should care because the longer it continues, the longer law abiding blacks will carry the burden, stigma, and label alongside them. Is that fair? Of course not, but it's the reality. The sentiment of "survive in their own neighborhoods" would be far less prevalent if their criminal elements were kept more in check. This isn't an easy situation by far, but if they expect for any significant change in public opinion to happen then they should really work on it.
Yes, the longer it continues, the longer others bear the burden...but most people in general, including Blacks, do not think very much in the long term. A disproportionate number of the criminals are in their teens and 20s--like kids and young adults anywhere, they're not thinking about later in life or about their grandkids. Like most young people everywhere, they are primarily concerned with the here and now, and their sense of the long term is heavily biased by their everyday activities. Crime rates tend to decline when the demographics get older; maturity does often kick in for those who live long enough.
And do the criminals involved "expect for any significant change in public opinion," as you say? Gangs are all about reputation and public opinion. That's the immediate reality and audience for many criminals. They don't care what people in Whitefish Bay think about them.
Quote:
This won't happen because there's too much money to be made promoting this mindset. Also, God forbid blacks stopped depending on the left, they can't have that now? They're just pawns in a much larger game. They've always been pawns, from slavery, to the civil rights movement, and even now.
I do somewhat agree with this, but it does imply that Blacks are not the only masters of their fate; that the rest of (White) society is at least partly responsible for what has happened to Blacks.
Quote:
It has been well documented, but of course leftist forces in academia have tried their best to obfuscate the facts.
It's unfortunate that you distrust people who study things for a living, and it's also unfortunate that you dismiss some studies because of alleged political leanings rather than on the studies themselves. There is good and bad science from both sides of the issue: the goal should be to find the best of both realms and reconcile them, if possible.
The idea of "shape up or ship out" has been with African-American communities for generations; it is nothing new. What is new is the rise of predominantly urban African-American slums since the 1960s and 1970s, reinforced by segregation after failed attempts at integration, all accompanied by the decline of manufacturing jobs and other livelihoods that were supposed to be gateways to a good living and an escape from the rural South. Many of the poor Blacks in Milwaukee trace their roots to ancestors in the 20th century who came to the city to work in factories, but became unemployed or underemployed when the bust happened. Instead of building generations of upward mobility like Milwaukee's Poles, Irish, and Germans did, many of Milwaukee's Blacks went into a downward spiral.
Is that an "excuse"? Yes and no. It's a "reason," because it explains how the rug was pulled out from under the feet of thousands. Most Blacks affected by this phenomenon have, over generations, managed to survive and live reasonably lawful lives. Some have climbed out of poverty and experienced great careers or other trajectories. Many have become part of the service-industry working class. Many, as we know, have turned to other options entailing violence. Most of these people, probably including many of the criminals, think they have their act together. Most Blacks have not benefited much or at all from the "benefits" you talk about, but they still manage.
Do you think that blacks will ever be able to create upward mobility in their communities? As a whole, not just some small percentage that can break out and then leave the community.
Do you think that blacks will ever be able to create upward mobility in their communities? As a whole, not just some small percentage that can break out and then leave the community.
From a historical standpoint, there are more Blacks in positions of power, with higher levels of education, more Blacks in the middle and upper class, more Blacks in the professional ranks than ever. There is more than a small amount of Blacks being upwardly mobile. The issue is this. What is up with the underclass?
And something else I want to mention. There are some predominantly Black areas that consist of large middle upper class populations. I notice most Blacks who make it into the middle/upper class don't want to be around a large underclass or large amounts of crime. Blacks who have made it are doing what Whites have done when they had the opportunity: Leave bad areas behind. How many Whites from Appalachia return when they get a college education/get into the middle upper class?
Do you think that blacks will ever be able to create upward mobility in their communities? As a whole, not just some small percentage that can break out and then leave the community.
I'm not optimistic. A lot of the current urban communities first developed during the old-school manufacturing era, but the number of honorable and reasonably well-paying jobs implied in that has declined drastically. The same is true with other rust belt cities. These jobs have not been replaced with anything similarly promising; fast food work and dollar store jobs are fine, but don't yield a living wage even at full time (which for many employees is hard to get). Jobs in sustainable industries such as high tech and other "new-school" industries tend to be found in other neighborhoods, especially hard-to-reach suburbs that have been historically prohibitive (for cost and other reasons) for Blacks to relocate to. And it isn't like there are lots of such jobs in the rust belt anyhow. Milwaukee as a city and metro continues to struggle, and the loss of old-school manufacturing has affected all sorts of people, especially those in the underclass. The rub is that Milwaukee's underclass is largely Black and Hispanic now. Earlier in the 20th century, the underclass--also known for violent crimes and other criminal behavior--was predominantly White.
The current situation needs to be fixed, but who really knows how that can be done. Decades have gone by, and things just get worse.
I'm not optimistic. A lot of the current urban communities first developed during the old-school manufacturing era, but the number of honorable and reasonably well-paying jobs implied in that has declined drastically. The same is true with other rust belt cities. These jobs have not been replaced with anything similarly promising; fast food work and dollar store jobs are fine, but don't yield a living wage even at full time (which for many employees is hard to get). Jobs in sustainable industries such as high tech and other "new-school" industries tend to be found in other neighborhoods, especially hard-to-reach suburbs that have been historically prohibitive (for cost and other reasons) for Blacks to relocate to. And it isn't like there are lots of such jobs in the rust belt anyhow. Milwaukee as a city and metro continues to struggle, and the loss of old-school manufacturing has affected all sorts of people, especially those in the underclass. The rub is that Milwaukee's underclass is largely Black and Hispanic now. Earlier in the 20th century, the underclass--also known for violent crimes and other criminal behavior--was predominantly White.
The current situation needs to be fixed, but who really knows how that can be done. Decades have gone by, and things just get worse.
It is getting bad mainly for the underclass.
One thing I do want to touch upon is something I found a few years ago. There has been a Black brain drain out of Wisconsin, more than many other states. The educated go wherever they can find employment. In many cases, it might mean leaving the state. The underclass has stayed.
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.
