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.
It's just easier for people to find an excuse to identify and ostracize people as "outsiders" based on superficial factors (like ethnic appearance and what religion they publicize themselves as) in order to hoard power and hence resources. It's a quick 'n' dirty attempted shortcut to designating "friends" and "enemies". In places like El Salvador where there is less racial/religious diversity, gang affiliation takes that role instead.
In a place with an abundance of resources to go around, people are more willing to take the time to be a little more thoughtful and intelligent about determining their allies/rivals. Skin colour and religion become irrelevant in favour of more individual factors. Additionally, the necessity of breaking down an overall alliance into smaller rivalling groups is diminished or dormant, and in the broad scope of the population, everyone is more or less one alliance.
Last edited by ohhwanderlust; 03-06-2018 at 12:28 AM..
The Black Culture for whatever reason accepts violence more than many others here. There I said it. Look at the murder stats, their music, etc. Black on Black violence is extreme here, especially in big cities. What other ethnic group has more murders, and violent crime than Africans? This is not a "racist" comment it is fact.
That's also driven in part by low IQ and high testosterone within that population. (collectively, doesn't refer to any specific person)
The Black Culture for whatever reason accepts violence more than many others here. There I said it. Look at the murder stats, their music, etc. Black on Black violence is extreme here, especially in big cities. What other ethnic group has more murders, and violent crime than Africans? This is not a "racist" comment it is fact.
But that has nothing to do with the color of their skin, other than the fact they were subject to oppression based on that color for generations. Which led to poverty and substandard education. Which leads to violence.
Yes in part in America's case. The violent crime rate began to rise sharply in the 1960s when multiculturalism was made policy and although it's began to come down since about 1993 it is still much higher than 1960.
What multicultural does more than effect the crime rate is just increase inequality and decrease social cohesion.
I looked at this a couple of weeks ago - might be able to find the data page I was using - will post it if I can, because I recall thinking (starting out with that as a working hypothesis, of sorts) that it had to be that as well, but it looked to me like the increase actually began prior to the passage of the 1965 Hart-Celler Act. So, while increased immigration certainly would only tend to increase the violent crime rates, I suspect there were additional factors that were more significant:
1. increasing racial unrest prior to 1965 probably has impacted violent crime data
2. lead pollution built up significantly over the 3 past decades within urban areas due to increased adoption of motor vehicles
3. final migration of blacks from rural to urban and south/central to north for manufacturing job opportunities brought more people into proximity and conflict with each other.
But the reality is the current rates over the last decade have not been THAT much higher than the 1960s, and I recall seeing the low points were 1962 and 1963 (think it was homicides per 100K at around 4.6) which was only a couple of tenths where we opened the current decade. The worst was 1980 , likely due to the crack cocaine epidemic following years of stagnation.
Id be really curious to see studies, but it seems likely to me that the biggest factors in bringing that back down have been advances in law enforcement and surveillance technology, expanded economic and academic opportunity for blacks, (and some decriminalization of street drugs), and the phaseout on leaded gas. Black murder rates are still way off the charts, at 2-3x the rates of other races but they aren't as high as they were in the 80s with open gang warfare on a large scale in most major metros.
30,000 gun deaths a year 20,000 are suicide 10,000 are homicide 50% of which are committed by blacks, who are 13% of the population leaving 5,000 gun homicides a year in a country that doesn't differentiate between whites and hispanics / latinos in crime data. Let's blame video games tho.
Something tells me if you were to control for just the whites committing gun-related homicides, the number would look similar to Norway on a per capita basis. But hey, I'm not a statistician.
White, non-hispanic homicide match Switzerland on a per capita population basis.
DC, Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, etc are actually statistically more dangerous than the crappiest craphole countries on the planet....by an order of magnitude. In 2002, DC was the second most dangerous place on earth. Black communities here in the US are literal warzones. I can't find a single high-pop black city that doesn't exceed or match every African nation's homicide rate.
Legal abortion accounted for half of the violent crime rate drop from 1991 to 1997. Fewer undesired children raised by reluctant parents, fewer criminals.
If you look at the 5 most dangerous countries in the world (Colombia, Yemen, El Salvador, Pakistan and Nigeria), with the arguable exception of Pakistan, they are less diverse than the U.S but with higher levels of violence.
What they also have in common is high levels of poverty.
Therefore, I would consider poverty to be a bigger driving factor as a contributor to crime, than multiculturalism.
No. IMO, You really don't have to look that far when you live in a glass house
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,587,616 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
Yes in part in America's case. The violent crime rate began to rise sharply in the 1960s when multiculturalism was made policy and although it's began to come down since about 1993 it is still much higher than 1960.
What multicultural does more than effect the crime rate is just increase inequality and decrease social cohesion.
If you look at the 5 most dangerous countries in the world (Colombia, Yemen, El Salvador, Pakistan and Nigeria), with the arguable exception of Pakistan, they are less diverse than the U.S but with higher levels of violence.
What they also have in common is high levels of poverty.
Therefore, I would consider poverty to be a bigger driving factor as a contributor to crime, than multiculturalism.
Mexico is extremely more violent than the US and is also less diverse in terms of race and religion. Poverty might be a better guide as you suggest. However, there have been historically poor areas with less violence.
For example, Japanese neighborhoods use to be really poor out west and they had below average crime rates. So it could be more cultural too. Not all cultures are equal.
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.
