I feel like it's 1987... I thought all these "crime in black communities" "black on black crime" etc arguments had been knocked down a long time ago. Crime follows poverty and desperation. Does it follow drugs or are drugs a co-conspirator? IDK. I've seen and heard of plenty of white folks on meth, heroin and opoids who did some pretty criminal shit and there are lots of rural white communities that have been decimated by this. The only reason there are even "black neighborhoods" is because of the history of redlining, which can hardly be blamed on black folks. If we've learned anything from the BLM movement, it's that black folks are disproportionally targeted by police. More arrests-More data-More black folks on the rolls.
@Thomas you asked a question that puzzles me: "The problem is, when you criticize a poor black community you are called a racist, but when you criticize a poor white community, nobody cares. Why?" - Would you expect to be called a racist when criticizing a poor white community? Does that jive with anyone's understanding of race in this country?
And a bigger picture question I have for you is - Why is it important for you to "criticize" anyone's community? People who are in dire situations don't need your criticism.
Criticizing and critiquing allows for honest answers that point to issues others are too politically afraid to ask. I watched a black kid get his skull cracked open and my buddy saved his life. 10 minutes later another black guy pulled a gun on us and said the dude we saved was from a different gang...am I not allowed to criticize that culture? because I am white?
Can any of you honestly say that culturally there are no differences between poor, crime riddled black, white, native american, and hispanic communities? Native Americans are probably a better example. Are we supposed to just ignore it and carry on for fear that we will offend someone who is already in a bad situation?
The problem is that someone who's not a member of that community should be more careful with their criticisms than someone who is in that demographic, how many times have you seen black people call out some really racist white guys only to have the white guys further entrench their viewpoints? People are inherently pre-disposed to distrust someone unfamiliar to them especially with the centuries of racial prejudice already stacked up in this country. If you want people to actually listen to you and have a conversation you need to be more tactful, it doesn't matter if that's fair or not it's simple reality. Look the basic facts are if you haven't had much traction in engaging in a helpful debate with people of other demographics so far then maybe you should try and change your tactics, otherwise you're going to continue to not accomplish anything other than complaining to yourself.
I work within the criminal justice system and run into the issues that you're talking about every day. I'll offer this - when you see the racial makeup of a community as it's unifying characteristic in relation to crime, whether you intend for it to be racist or not, it has racist overtones. From a criminological perspective, those areas aren't unified by their blackness, they're unified by their poverty - and poverty (not race) is a much stronger indicator of crime.
A perfectly well meaning person (like I think that you are!) could ask with all sincerity and concern "why is the crime rate so much higher in the black community?" and have their best intentions side tracked by accusations of racism.
A more pro-active question might be "why is the crime rate so much higher in poor areas, and why is there such a disproportionate number of poor black people?" That generates the same discussion that you want to have, allows you to address the same issues etc. but instead of being mistaken for a racist, your approach to the problem addresses the inherent racism that is a part of the problem.
I agree with you, I think poverty is arguably the biggest factor in the crime. But the culture in black communities that are full of crime is not the same as white communities that are full of crime. I grew up in the Midwest with towns overrun by meth and heroin and I also lived for 10 years in Georgia, as well as multiple large cities across the US. The cultures are different. Very different. The problem is, when you criticize a poor black community you are called a racist, but when you criticize a poor white community, nobody cares. Why?
I can tell you without question that the two biggest predictors of crime are poverty and something called the Gini Coefficient (in short, it measures relative poverty as opposed to absolute poverty). Other variables exist but for the most part they're too insignificant to measure or consider. Think of poverty (absolute and relative) as being 80% of the problem and every other factor in the world making up some part of that remaining 20%....I think that I'm being super generous, the real spread is probably 95% and 5%
Cultural differences aren't seen as a contributing factor because there are very few (perhaps almost no?) cultural differences that we can point to that promote crime. If there was a cultural component to crime, we'd see it express itself through out the whole culture and not just a (poor) segment of it. If for example you wanted to argue that there's an intrinsic characteristic in the black community that promotes crime, then we'd see that across all segments of the black community and we don't. When Jay-Z was poor, he was a criminal - now that he's rich he isn't. His culture didn't change, his income level did.
As for cultural differences between poor blacks and poor whites (I'm assuming you mean "poor" when you say "full of crime" - correct me if I'm wrong), I'd have to know more specifically what you're referring to, but I suspect that the answer lies in the Gini Coefficient. Typically (although by no means absolute) poor white people tend to live in rural areas and are surrounded by other poor or moderate income people - the overall regional income gap is low. Poor black people tend to live in urban areas and are surrounded by people who have MUCH more wealth and the overall income gap is very high (in a city like Los Angeles, you can have some of the poorest people in the country living within miles of the richest people in the country).
Gini predicts that we'll see a much higher crime rate among that poor urban community than in the poor rural community because of the relatively small income gap in the rural areas and large on in urban areas.
Here's an example, the Canadian province of NewfoundLand is both historically poor and white. It's also one of the safest places in the world to live with a miniscule crime rate. The low crime rate isn't a reflection of their whiteness, superior Newfie culture or a higher level of civilization, its because it's a bunch of poor people surrounded by other poor people so their Gini Coefficient is low - which predicts low crime.
On the flip side, the Toronto neighbourhood of Jane & Finch (mixed race, but predominantly black) has a much higher crime rate. Jane & Finch is also within a few miles of some of the most expensive real estate in the world and they have a high Gini Coefficient - which predicts high crime.
In both cases the relative poverty rate probably expresses itself in each of those communities, which probably points to what you're categorizing as a 'cultural difference'. As a possible example (this is off the top of my head, not something I've pulled from research) because Newfies are "all in the same boat" economically speaking, there probably isn't a cultural expression of greed or resentment that can promote crime. In Jane & Finch, being economically depressed while constantly being exposed to people who have much more probably builds a sense of anger and injustice that boils over into criminal desire.
In both cases, it's not an intrinsic race-related characteristic, it's how their relative poverty impacts their communities.
I work within the criminal justice system and run into the issues that you're talking about every day. I'll offer this - when you see the racial makeup of a community as it's unifying characteristic in relation to crime, whether you intend for it to be racist or not, it has racist overtones. From a criminological perspective, those areas aren't unified by their blackness, they're unified by their poverty - and poverty (not race) is a much stronger indicator of crime.
A perfectly well meaning person (like I think that you are!) could ask with all sincerity and concern "why is the crime rate so much higher in the black community?" and have their best intentions side tracked by accusations of racism.
A more pro-active question might be "why is the crime rate so much higher in poor areas, and why is there such a disproportionate number of poor black people?" That generates the same discussion that you want to have, allows you to address the same issues etc. but instead of being mistaken for a racist, your approach to the problem addresses the inherent racism that is a part of the problem.
I agree with you, I think poverty is arguably the biggest factor in the crime. But the culture in black communities that are full of crime is not the same as white communities that are full of crime. I grew up in the Midwest with towns overrun by meth and heroin and I also lived for 10 years in Georgia, as well as multiple large cities across the US. The cultures are different. Very different. The problem is, when you criticize a poor black community you are called a racist, but when you criticize a poor white community, nobody cares. Why?
I can tell you without question that the two biggest predictors of crime are poverty and something called the Gini Coefficient (in short, it measures relative poverty as opposed to absolute poverty). Other variables exist but for the most part they're too insignificant to measure or consider. Think of poverty (absolute and relative) as being 80% of the problem and every other factor in the world making up some part of that remaining 20%....I think that I'm being super generous, the real spread is probably 95% and 5%
Cultural differences aren't seen as a contributing factor because there are very few (perhaps almost no?) cultural differences that we can point to that promote crime. If there was a cultural component to crime, we'd see it express itself through out the whole culture and not just a (poor) segment of it. If for example you wanted to argue that there's an intrinsic characteristic in the black community that promotes crime, then we'd see that across all segments of the black community and we don't. When Jay-Z was poor, he was a criminal - now that he's rich he isn't. His culture didn't change, his income level did.
As for cultural differences between poor blacks and poor whites (I'm assuming you mean "poor" when you say "full of crime" - correct me if I'm wrong), I'd have to know more specifically what you're referring to, but I suspect that the answer lies in the Gini Coefficient. Typically (although by no means absolute) poor white people tend to live in rural areas and are surrounded by other poor or moderate income people - the overall regional income gap is low. Poor black people tend to live in urban areas and are surrounded by people who have MUCH more wealth and the overall income gap is very high (in a city like Los Angeles, you can have some of the poorest people in the country living within miles of the richest people in the country).
Gini predicts that we'll see a much higher crime rate among that poor urban community than in the poor rural community because of the relatively small income gap in the rural areas and large on in urban areas.
Here's an example, the Canadian province of NewfoundLand is both historically poor and white. It's also one of the safest places in the world to live with a miniscule crime rate. The low crime rate isn't a reflection of their whiteness, superior Newfie culture or a higher level of civilization, its because it's a bunch of poor people surrounded by other poor people so their Gini Coefficient is low - which predicts low crime.
On the flip side, the Toronto neighbourhood of Jane & Finch (mixed race, but predominantly black) has a much higher crime rate. Jane & Finch is also within a few miles of some of the most expensive real estate in the world and they have a high Gini Coefficient - which predicts high crime.
In both cases the relative poverty rate probably expresses itself in each of those communities, which probably points to what you're categorizing as a 'cultural difference'. As a possible example (this is off the top of my head, not something I've pulled from research) because Newfies are "all in the same boat" economically speaking, there probably isn't a cultural expression of greed or resentment that can promote crime. In Jane & Finch, being economically depressed while constantly being exposed to people who have much more probably builds a sense of anger and injustice that boils over into criminal desire.
In both cases, it's not an intrinsic race-related characteristic, it's how their relative poverty impacts their communities.
I am not arguing with you. I think you are right. I just can't believe people don't think that poor, crime riddled areas have different cultures based on their racial make-up. I also don't think anyone has offered an argument to how every major cities most violent neighborhoods are usually predominantly black. Sure, people can name a couple I am sure, but the majority I bet are black.
I work within the criminal justice system and run into the issues that you're talking about every day. I'll offer this - when you see the racial makeup of a community as it's unifying characteristic in relation to crime, whether you intend for it to be racist or not, it has racist overtones. From a criminological perspective, those areas aren't unified by their blackness, they're unified by their poverty - and poverty (not race) is a much stronger indicator of crime.
A perfectly well meaning person (like I think that you are!) could ask with all sincerity and concern "why is the crime rate so much higher in the black community?" and have their best intentions side tracked by accusations of racism.
A more pro-active question might be "why is the crime rate so much higher in poor areas, and why is there such a disproportionate number of poor black people?" That generates the same discussion that you want to have, allows you to address the same issues etc. but instead of being mistaken for a racist, your approach to the problem addresses the inherent racism that is a part of the problem.
I agree with you, I think poverty is arguably the biggest factor in the crime. But the culture in black communities that are full of crime is not the same as white communities that are full of crime. I grew up in the Midwest with towns overrun by meth and heroin and I also lived for 10 years in Georgia, as well as multiple large cities across the US. The cultures are different. Very different. The problem is, when you criticize a poor black community you are called a racist, but when you criticize a poor white community, nobody cares. Why?
I can tell you without question that the two biggest predictors of crime are poverty and something called the Gini Coefficient (in short, it measures relative poverty as opposed to absolute poverty). Other variables exist but for the most part they're too insignificant to measure or consider. Think of poverty (absolute and relative) as being 80% of the problem and every other factor in the world making up some part of that remaining 20%....I think that I'm being super generous, the real spread is probably 95% and 5%
Cultural differences aren't seen as a contributing factor because there are very few (perhaps almost no?) cultural differences that we can point to that promote crime. If there was a cultural component to crime, we'd see it express itself through out the whole culture and not just a (poor) segment of it. If for example you wanted to argue that there's an intrinsic characteristic in the black community that promotes crime, then we'd see that across all segments of the black community and we don't. When Jay-Z was poor, he was a criminal - now that he's rich he isn't. His culture didn't change, his income level did.
As for cultural differences between poor blacks and poor whites (I'm assuming you mean "poor" when you say "full of crime" - correct me if I'm wrong), I'd have to know more specifically what you're referring to, but I suspect that the answer lies in the Gini Coefficient. Typically (although by no means absolute) poor white people tend to live in rural areas and are surrounded by other poor or moderate income people - the overall regional income gap is low. Poor black people tend to live in urban areas and are surrounded by people who have MUCH more wealth and the overall income gap is very high (in a city like Los Angeles, you can have some of the poorest people in the country living within miles of the richest people in the country).
Gini predicts that we'll see a much higher crime rate among that poor urban community than in the poor rural community because of the relatively small income gap in the rural areas and large on in urban areas.
Here's an example, the Canadian province of NewfoundLand is both historically poor and white. It's also one of the safest places in the world to live with a miniscule crime rate. The low crime rate isn't a reflection of their whiteness, superior Newfie culture or a higher level of civilization, its because it's a bunch of poor people surrounded by other poor people so their Gini Coefficient is low - which predicts low crime.
On the flip side, the Toronto neighbourhood of Jane & Finch (mixed race, but predominantly black) has a much higher crime rate. Jane & Finch is also within a few miles of some of the most expensive real estate in the world and they have a high Gini Coefficient - which predicts high crime.
In both cases the relative poverty rate probably expresses itself in each of those communities, which probably points to what you're categorizing as a 'cultural difference'. As a possible example (this is off the top of my head, not something I've pulled from research) because Newfies are "all in the same boat" economically speaking, there probably isn't a cultural expression of greed or resentment that can promote crime. In Jane & Finch, being economically depressed while constantly being exposed to people who have much more probably builds a sense of anger and injustice that boils over into criminal desire.
In both cases, it's not an intrinsic race-related characteristic, it's how their relative poverty impacts their communities.
The other thing I rarely see discussed is, in a large city with a base of wealthy people, there's usually more resources and more willingness on the part of better off people to go to the police when crime occurs.
Where I live, which is a more diverse area then one might think, Mason County has a significant Guatemalan population but that's aside the point, there's much fewer resources for both the police and courts, so many crimes that would be proseucted in cities such as drug possession, carrying a concealed handgun, various vehicle violations, etc are not prosecuted because there's no resources to, and many crimes that are crimes in the city, like carrying knives, or burglary tools (really just hardware that a cop thinks you're using for burglary) don't exist, which I believe in part drives the disproportionate rate of arrests between whites and blacks as a whole in this country.
@Thomas But we have though, there are more poor black people than white people, thus there are more poor black communities, thus most violent poor communities are predominantly black. There's a lot of violence and gang activity in predominantly poor Hispanic communities as well, who also have a much higher poverty rate than white people, it has nothing to do with Hispanic or African American poor people being worse than white poor people, there's literally more of them so they make up a larger percentage of violent poor people, you're arguing what your gut feeling is against statistics that say otherwise. Here's a challenge, find me a country where white people have the highest poverty rate by demographic and the majority of poor communities in cities are predominantly white but have lower crime rates than other poor communities.
I work within the criminal justice system and run into the issues that you're talking about every day. I'll offer this - when you see the racial makeup of a community as it's unifying characteristic in relation to crime, whether you intend for it to be racist or not, it has racist overtones. From a criminological perspective, those areas aren't unified by their blackness, they're unified by their poverty - and poverty (not race) is a much stronger indicator of crime.
A perfectly well meaning person (like I think that you are!) could ask with all sincerity and concern "why is the crime rate so much higher in the black community?" and have their best intentions side tracked by accusations of racism.
A more pro-active question might be "why is the crime rate so much higher in poor areas, and why is there such a disproportionate number of poor black people?" That generates the same discussion that you want to have, allows you to address the same issues etc. but instead of being mistaken for a racist, your approach to the problem addresses the inherent racism that is a part of the problem.
I agree with you, I think poverty is arguably the biggest factor in the crime. But the culture in black communities that are full of crime is not the same as white communities that are full of crime. I grew up in the Midwest with towns overrun by meth and heroin and I also lived for 10 years in Georgia, as well as multiple large cities across the US. The cultures are different. Very different. The problem is, when you criticize a poor black community you are called a racist, but when you criticize a poor white community, nobody cares. Why?
I can tell you without question that the two biggest predictors of crime are poverty and something called the Gini Coefficient (in short, it measures relative poverty as opposed to absolute poverty). Other variables exist but for the most part they're too insignificant to measure or consider. Think of poverty (absolute and relative) as being 80% of the problem and every other factor in the world making up some part of that remaining 20%....I think that I'm being super generous, the real spread is probably 95% and 5%
Cultural differences aren't seen as a contributing factor because there are very few (perhaps almost no?) cultural differences that we can point to that promote crime. If there was a cultural component to crime, we'd see it express itself through out the whole culture and not just a (poor) segment of it. If for example you wanted to argue that there's an intrinsic characteristic in the black community that promotes crime, then we'd see that across all segments of the black community and we don't. When Jay-Z was poor, he was a criminal - now that he's rich he isn't. His culture didn't change, his income level did.
As for cultural differences between poor blacks and poor whites (I'm assuming you mean "poor" when you say "full of crime" - correct me if I'm wrong), I'd have to know more specifically what you're referring to, but I suspect that the answer lies in the Gini Coefficient. Typically (although by no means absolute) poor white people tend to live in rural areas and are surrounded by other poor or moderate income people - the overall regional income gap is low. Poor black people tend to live in urban areas and are surrounded by people who have MUCH more wealth and the overall income gap is very high (in a city like Los Angeles, you can have some of the poorest people in the country living within miles of the richest people in the country).
Gini predicts that we'll see a much higher crime rate among that poor urban community than in the poor rural community because of the relatively small income gap in the rural areas and large on in urban areas.
Here's an example, the Canadian province of NewfoundLand is both historically poor and white. It's also one of the safest places in the world to live with a miniscule crime rate. The low crime rate isn't a reflection of their whiteness, superior Newfie culture or a higher level of civilization, its because it's a bunch of poor people surrounded by other poor people so their Gini Coefficient is low - which predicts low crime.
On the flip side, the Toronto neighbourhood of Jane & Finch (mixed race, but predominantly black) has a much higher crime rate. Jane & Finch is also within a few miles of some of the most expensive real estate in the world and they have a high Gini Coefficient - which predicts high crime.
In both cases the relative poverty rate probably expresses itself in each of those communities, which probably points to what you're categorizing as a 'cultural difference'. As a possible example (this is off the top of my head, not something I've pulled from research) because Newfies are "all in the same boat" economically speaking, there probably isn't a cultural expression of greed or resentment that can promote crime. In Jane & Finch, being economically depressed while constantly being exposed to people who have much more probably builds a sense of anger and injustice that boils over into criminal desire.
In both cases, it's not an intrinsic race-related characteristic, it's how their relative poverty impacts their communities.
I am not arguing with you. I think you are right. I just can't believe people don't think that poor, crime riddled areas have different cultures based on their racial make-up. I also don't think anyone has offered an argument to how every major cities most violent neighborhoods are usually predominantly black. Sure, people can name a couple I am sure, but the majority I bet are black.
To your bold point: I'm confused by what you mean. If you're saying that there are cultural differences between white people and black people, broadly speaking you're probably right - but those differences aren't just evident in poor, crime riddle areas - they'd be the same in middle class and wealthy people too. So if you're saying that there are different cultures, I'd say "sure" - but if you're saying that those different cultures contribute to a crime rate, I'd say "no". What's far more likely is that poverty shapes/influences all culture in all people, and what you're viewing as a race-based cultural difference is just an expression of poverty in a given culture (ie the problem is the poverty, not the race, or racial expression of that poverty).
To your italicized point: Racism and the legacy of slavery. Those areas aren't crime ridden because they're black, they're crime ridden because they're poor, and there's a disproportionate number of poor, ghettoized black people.
Tips for white people who want to be helpful in discussions of race, by me, a white dude:
1. When people tell you they are being oppressed or victimized, believe them. It takes a lot of courage to speak out.
2. As a white person, you should be listening WAY more than you are talking, because:
3. The history of being black in America is a history of horrors large and small, inflicted by (sometimes well-intentioned) white people. This is really crucial to understand; Black America has been through slavery, lynching, jim crow, mass incarceration, decades of economic oppression, etc. We all know this history but somehow forget that it affects people who are alive today because it's still happening.
4. Avoid "whataboutism." When the topic is racism towards immigrants or African-Americans, don't butt in with "well what about this awful thing white people have to deal with?" or "What about this awful thing Al Sharpton said?" Yes, there are ways in which life has been unfair to you, but that's not what we're talking about right now.
5. This is the toughest one: When you read or hear something that makes you feel defensive, stop and ask yourself why. There's a difference between being personally racist and benefiting from a racist system, and guess what? If you're white in America, you've benefited from a racist system. That defensive feeling is your brain telling you that you are guilty because you benefit. Does it mean that you are a racist? No. Does it mean that you need to listen to that defensiveness and decide to learn more and speak out when you can? Yes. You might even read this and feel defensive and want to argue with me about it, and that's fine, but my only response will be "See #5."
I work within the criminal justice system and run into the issues that you're talking about every day. I'll offer this - when you see the racial makeup of a community as it's unifying characteristic in relation to crime, whether you intend for it to be racist or not, it has racist overtones. From a criminological perspective, those areas aren't unified by their blackness, they're unified by their poverty - and poverty (not race) is a much stronger indicator of crime.
A perfectly well meaning person (like I think that you are!) could ask with all sincerity and concern "why is the crime rate so much higher in the black community?" and have their best intentions side tracked by accusations of racism.
A more pro-active question might be "why is the crime rate so much higher in poor areas, and why is there such a disproportionate number of poor black people?" That generates the same discussion that you want to have, allows you to address the same issues etc. but instead of being mistaken for a racist, your approach to the problem addresses the inherent racism that is a part of the problem.
I agree with you, I think poverty is arguably the biggest factor in the crime. But the culture in black communities that are full of crime is not the same as white communities that are full of crime. I grew up in the Midwest with towns overrun by meth and heroin and I also lived for 10 years in Georgia, as well as multiple large cities across the US. The cultures are different. Very different. The problem is, when you criticize a poor black community you are called a racist, but when you criticize a poor white community, nobody cares. Why?
I can tell you without question that the two biggest predictors of crime are poverty and something called the Gini Coefficient (in short, it measures relative poverty as opposed to absolute poverty). Other variables exist but for the most part they're too insignificant to measure or consider. Think of poverty (absolute and relative) as being 80% of the problem and every other factor in the world making up some part of that remaining 20%....I think that I'm being super generous, the real spread is probably 95% and 5%
Cultural differences aren't seen as a contributing factor because there are very few (perhaps almost no?) cultural differences that we can point to that promote crime. If there was a cultural component to crime, we'd see it express itself through out the whole culture and not just a (poor) segment of it. If for example you wanted to argue that there's an intrinsic characteristic in the black community that promotes crime, then we'd see that across all segments of the black community and we don't. When Jay-Z was poor, he was a criminal - now that he's rich he isn't. His culture didn't change, his income level did.
As for cultural differences between poor blacks and poor whites (I'm assuming you mean "poor" when you say "full of crime" - correct me if I'm wrong), I'd have to know more specifically what you're referring to, but I suspect that the answer lies in the Gini Coefficient. Typically (although by no means absolute) poor white people tend to live in rural areas and are surrounded by other poor or moderate income people - the overall regional income gap is low. Poor black people tend to live in urban areas and are surrounded by people who have MUCH more wealth and the overall income gap is very high (in a city like Los Angeles, you can have some of the poorest people in the country living within miles of the richest people in the country).
Gini predicts that we'll see a much higher crime rate among that poor urban community than in the poor rural community because of the relatively small income gap in the rural areas and large on in urban areas.
Here's an example, the Canadian province of NewfoundLand is both historically poor and white. It's also one of the safest places in the world to live with a miniscule crime rate. The low crime rate isn't a reflection of their whiteness, superior Newfie culture or a higher level of civilization, its because it's a bunch of poor people surrounded by other poor people so their Gini Coefficient is low - which predicts low crime.
On the flip side, the Toronto neighbourhood of Jane & Finch (mixed race, but predominantly black) has a much higher crime rate. Jane & Finch is also within a few miles of some of the most expensive real estate in the world and they have a high Gini Coefficient - which predicts high crime.
In both cases the relative poverty rate probably expresses itself in each of those communities, which probably points to what you're categorizing as a 'cultural difference'. As a possible example (this is off the top of my head, not something I've pulled from research) because Newfies are "all in the same boat" economically speaking, there probably isn't a cultural expression of greed or resentment that can promote crime. In Jane & Finch, being economically depressed while constantly being exposed to people who have much more probably builds a sense of anger and injustice that boils over into criminal desire.
In both cases, it's not an intrinsic race-related characteristic, it's how their relative poverty impacts their communities.
The other thing I rarely see discussed is, in a large city with a base of wealthy people, there's usually more resources and more willingness on the part of better off people to go to the police when crime occurs.
Where I live, which is a more diverse area then one might think, Mason County has a significant Guatemalan population but that's aside the point, there's much fewer resources for both the police and courts, so many crimes that would be proseucted in cities such as drug possession, carrying a concealed handgun, various vehicle violations, etc are not prosecuted because there's no resources to, and many crimes that are crimes in the city, like carrying knives, or burglary tools (really just hardware that a cop thinks you're using for burglary) don't exist, which I believe in part drives the disproportionate rate of arrests between whites and blacks as a whole in this country.
These things are factors for sure, and influence things in other ways too. For example, marginalized people (or people who feel marginalized) are less likely to report a crime because they've lost faith in the system and don't think that anything will be done about it. When you're talking about a Guatemalan community, a victim of crime might be an illegal, or live with an illegal or live in an apartment complex with illegals and the ramifications of bringing law-enforcement attention to your community (ie a friend being deported) might be considered worse than getting justice for being victimized by a crime. Also, if you're talking about a poor area the victims of crimes are often criminals...a drug deal can't call the police if some robs him, he also can't take it on the chin otherwise he'll been seen as weak and robbed again so crime perpetuates crime and little of it is reported and prosecuted.
I am not arguing with you. I think you are right. I just can't believe people don't think that poor, crime riddled areas have different cultures based on their racial make-up. I also don't think anyone has offered an argument to how every major cities most violent neighborhoods are usually predominantly black. Sure, people can name a couple I am sure, but the majority I bet are black.
To your bold point: I'm confused by what you mean. If you're saying that there are cultural differences between white people and black people, broadly speaking you're probably right - but those differences aren't just evident in poor, crime riddle areas - they'd be the same in middle class and wealthy people too. So if you're saying that there are different cultures, I'd say "sure" - but if you're saying that those different cultures contribute to a crime rate, I'd say "no". What's far more likely is that poverty shapes/influences all culture in all people, and what you're viewing as a race-based cultural difference is just an expression of poverty in a given culture (ie the problem is the poverty, not the race, or racial expression of that poverty).
To your italicized point: Racism and the legacy of slavery. Those areas aren't crime ridden because they're black, they're crime ridden because they're poor, and there's a disproportionate number of poor, ghettoized black people.
I am saying some cultures that are crime riddled will deflect and blame other things for their crime. When the black gang member pulled a gun on my friend and me for saving a different gang members life, that is the culture of that community. On a native american reservation, I have been screamed at and threatened simply for being white. Culturally there are different things that I think reenforce their criminal behavior.
I shouldn't have to keep saying I don't think it is the race causing the problems, but the culture. The culture of a poor black community is different than the culture of an affluent black community. Same goes for white, hispanic, and native american.
My question is, what does putting the blame on everyone and everything else other than the people committing the crimes do? I am not saying they deserve 100% of the responsibility, but you have to put some of it on them.
The problem with blaming the culture is that it typically directly leads to blaming the race behind the culture, it's literally the first steps in a racist argument to go from blaming poor black culture to blaming poor black people to blaming black people in general,it doesn't matter if you don't intend it that way because that's what it sounds like to people who have heard the same argument from actual racists. It also doesn't take into account the reasons why the culture developed in the first place and why it continues to persist. All of this is besides the point since clearly this isn't a winning argument for you so far, if you can't get people to engage with you by arguing with them over what you perceive as cultural issues then you need to start from somewhere else, this is literally how trial and error works, if your previous approach isn't getting you anywhere then try a new one.
The problem with blaming the culture is that it typically directly leads to blaming the race behind the culture, it's literally the first steps in a racist argument to go from blaming poor black culture to blaming poor black people to blaming black people in general,it doesn't matter if you don't intend it that way because that's what it sounds like to people who have heard the same argument from actual racists. It also doesn't take into account the reasons why the culture developed in the first place and why it continues to persist. All of this is besides the point since clearly this isn't a winning argument for you so far, if you can't get people to engage with you by arguing with them over what you perceive as cultural issues then you need to start from somewhere else, this is literally how trial and error works, if your previous approach isn't getting you anywhere then try a new one.
So you don't think we should put any responsibility on black communities who are glorifying the gang life and culture? We should blame the government and racists? I think we should put responsibility on them. Just like we should put it on poor white communities that are violent and criminal.
Maybe it is because I have more dealings with Native American reservations that my view is skewed. See, with Native American reservations there are typically a group of tribal elders that are wealthy and they make it a point to keep their people poor and hooked on drugs and alcohol. When asked, they usually blame the white man or the government, which in 2017 is slightly true still, but most of it has too do with their leaders being power and money hungry.
I'm just curious what you mean by continuing to try to differentiate between the "culture" and the "race." It's been pointed out to you, many times over, the research, facts, and academic theories as to why there are higher concentrations of poor people in "inner cities," and why those people tend to be black (redlining, white flight to the suburbs, etc.).
Now you're bringing up an incident that clearly had a personal effect on you - but what does it have to do with the point you keep trying to make? Again, it's poverty (and maybe drugs) that are the best indicators of the type of crime you keep referring to. A white drug dealer or gang member, or a Hispanic one, would likely have done the same thing to you. Black people are not a monolith. I would also like to say that black culture, poor or not, does not glorify crime nor does it encourage it.
Lastly, I'm not sure that anyone in this thread is "putting the blame on everyone and everything else other than the people committing the crimes." Black men and women are disproportionately arrested and jailed in this country - so if as you say the person committing the crime puts the blame on everyone else it doesn't seem to be working out so well does it? Others in this thread have said it much more eloquently and thoroughly than I can, but it seems to me that you're looking at these problems with a flawed hypothesis, that you seem to not want to let go of. Especially since you say you agree with poverty and other factors being the best indicators of crime - but yet you continue to bring up "communities" with no evidence supporting that hypothesis. And I wouldn't dare discuss Native issues without a better grasp on them, but from what I've read they have some of the worst support when it comes to government, infrastructure, funding, etc. So that may be another thing you're unaware of.
The simple fact that more black people are incarcerated than other races definitely suggests that most people aren't trying to blame everyone other than black people. It might actually suggest we tend to overly blame black people compared to others.
I'm just curious what you mean by continuing to try to differentiate between the "culture" and the "race." It's been pointed out to you, many times over, the research, facts, and academic theories as to why there are higher concentrations of poor people in "inner cities," and why those people tend to be black (redlining, white flight to the suburbs, etc.).
Now you're bringing up an incident that clearly had a personal effect on you - but what does it have to do with the point you keep trying to make? Again, it's poverty (and maybe drugs) that are the best indicators of the type of crime you keep referring to. A white drug dealer or gang member, or a Hispanic one, would likely have done the same thing to you. Black people are not a monolith. I would also like to say that black culture, poor or not, does not glorify crime nor does it encourage it.
Lastly, I'm not sure that anyone in this thread is "putting the blame on everyone and everything else other than the people committing the crimes." Black men and women are disproportionately arrested and jailed in this country - so if as you say the person committing the crime puts the blame on everyone else it doesn't seem to be working out so well does it? Others in this thread have said it much more eloquently and thoroughly than I can, but it seems to me that you're looking at these problems with a flawed hypothesis, that you seem to not want to let go of. Especially since you say you agree with poverty and other factors being the best indicators of crime - but yet you continue to bring up "communities" with no evidence supporting that hypothesis. And I wouldn't dare discuss Native issues without a better grasp on them, but from what I've read they have some of the worst support when it comes to government, infrastructure, funding, etc. So that may be another thing you're unaware of.
Putting the blame on the race is saying that they are doing something because of their race, while putting the blame on the culture of that community is saying they are doing something because of the influence and social structure of the people around them. This is where the glorified gang culture comes from in high crime communities in many inner-cities.
I will gladly talk about Native American reservations after having worked with and spent a lot of time on them. This is the problem though, without having any idea of reservation life, you put the blame on the government and outside influences rather than look in and say "what are they doing that hurts themselves?" I think you have to look at outside influences, but you can't let it shield you from the responsibility that might lie with that community.
Again, gang culture is not glorified. Trust me. Regardless of what you may have seen on tv or in the movies, it's as much a horror for the people living there every day as it was for you with your singular experience. For a not exactly parallel, but similar example: I don't think with the current opioid crisis, that anyone is describing it as problem of "white culture." It's being treated as it should, as a societal problem that stemmed from a number of factors, poverty being one of them.
As for Natives, like I said, I defer to someone else that can bring the facts and statistics - but it does boggle my mind that you would expect blame not to be laid on the government when the government is the reason Natives were forced onto reservations in the first place. Or am I wrong? Wasn't all of the land we live on now theirs?
Edit: I grew up in Hawaii and am part Native Hawaiian, so I don't have directly the same experience as Native Americans but I can give you plenty of reasons why we put the blame on the government and white businessmen for why our Natives are not doing great.
Unless you believe the communities are literally keeping themselves in poverty on purpose then I think solving the poverty issue takes precendence to cultural issues since that's more directly related to crime rates. You don't start off with trying to solve racism by focusing on the relatively few black people who irrationally hate other black people, you start with the neo nazis and the white supremacists.
Again, gang culture is not glorified. Trust me. Regardless of what you may have seen on tv or in the movies, it's as much a horror for the people living there every day as it was for you with your singular experience. For a not exactly parallel, but similar example: I don't think with the current opioid crisis, that anyone is describing it as problem of "white culture." It's being treated as it should, as a societal problem that stemmed from a number of factors, poverty being one of them.
As for Natives, like I said, I defer to someone else that can bring the facts and statistics - but it does boggle my mind that you would expect blame not to be laid on the government when the government is the reason Natives were forced onto reservations in the first place. Or am I wrong? Wasn't all of the land we live on now theirs?
I haven't had a limited experience, I lived in Savannah GA and Durham NC for 10 years. But I will concede the gloried gang culture remark to you, that could very well be bias received from the media, you are right on that. As of now though, I don't see the communities doing a whole lot to fix the problem except blame others or remain silent.
Re-read what I said, I said the government does deserve a portion of the responsibility for the state reservations are in, but the reservation leaderships usually has a FAR bigger part of the responsibility. You act like what I am saying about reservations is racist, but I am literally echoing the concerns and thoughts of personal friends on the reservations that I have worked on. Would you call them racist? It is an observable fact.
@Alkaid13 neo-nazi's and white supremacists make up a pretty small part of the population. The media made Charlottesville seem like half the population were neo-nazi's, when you are actually talking about a fraction of a percent. If you are going to say we have to go after white supremacists first, then why not include organizations such a BLM? Why not include Westboro Baptist Church? I would argue radical Islamic groups in New York and Minneapolis pose a far bigger threat than any of them, yet you still say neo-nazi's first?
I am not arguing with you. I think you are right. I just can't believe people don't think that poor, crime riddled areas have different cultures based on their racial make-up. I also don't think anyone has offered an argument to how every major cities most violent neighborhoods are usually predominantly black. Sure, people can name a couple I am sure, but the majority I bet are black.
To your bold point: I'm confused by what you mean. If you're saying that there are cultural differences between white people and black people, broadly speaking you're probably right - but those differences aren't just evident in poor, crime riddle areas - they'd be the same in middle class and wealthy people too. So if you're saying that there are different cultures, I'd say "sure" - but if you're saying that those different cultures contribute to a crime rate, I'd say "no". What's far more likely is that poverty shapes/influences all culture in all people, and what you're viewing as a race-based cultural difference is just an expression of poverty in a given culture (ie the problem is the poverty, not the race, or racial expression of that poverty).
To your italicized point: Racism and the legacy of slavery. Those areas aren't crime ridden because they're black, they're crime ridden because they're poor, and there's a disproportionate number of poor, ghettoized black people.
I am saying some cultures that are crime riddled will deflect and blame other things for their crime. When the black gang member pulled a gun on my friend and me for saving a different gang members life, that is the culture of that community. On a native american reservation, I have been screamed at and threatened simply for being white. Culturally there are different things that I think reenforce their criminal behavior.
I shouldn't have to keep saying I don't think it is the race causing the problems, but the culture. The culture of a poor black community is different than the culture of an affluent black community. Same goes for white, hispanic, and native american.
My question is, what does putting the blame on everyone and everything else other than the people committing the crimes do? I am not saying they deserve 100% of the responsibility, but you have to put some of it on them.
You're getting hit from all angles here so I don't want to keep piling on...just a few things to consider:
I work as a criminologist for the Ontario Ministry of Justice and my girl friend is a Crown attorney (a "prosecutor" in America)...I'm not mentioning that to say "I know more than you", I'm bringing it up as context - the issues that you're talking about are what I've dedicated my professional life to. There's no 'politics' or 'political correctness' in my office...our job is to find solutions wherever they come from, it's a results-based line of work, not an ideological one. I get paid to look at all of these problems from every possible angle and the relationship between race, culture and crime is essentially a non-factor. In might be an influencer and shape how the problems are expressed in a given culture, but doesn't contribute to the crime problem in a significant way.
The things that you're saying about elements of black culture (correct me if I'm wrong) - like gangsta rap as a possible example - have been said about other things in the past - comic books in the 60's, horror movies in the 70's, heavy metal in the 80's, hip-hop in the 90's, video games in the 2000's etc - and they've all been proven wrong. I can tell you that all of the research shows that culture has an impact on expression of crime, but not on crime rates. For example, someone might commit a murder in a way that's similar to what they saw in a movie, but watching that movie won't turn someone into a murderer. So if you're pre-disposed to being a criminal (via poverty, perhaps) you might get criminal ideas from culture but it's not the culture that creates the criminal.
Another point on race-related cultural differences...these examples are true in Canada, if the exact ones don't apply to America I'm sure that there are equivalent examples. If you go back about 100 years, Irish people were treated like crap here. There were editorials in the Toronto Star (you can access them online!) about how Irish people were 'savage', 'less evolved' and - I kid you not - "a mongrel race". Irish neighbourhoods in Montreal (Le Point) and Toronto (Cabbage Town) were terrible places to live. My dad grew up poor in Montreal, but considered himself lucky because he didn't live in an Irish neighbourhood - it was that bad. I can point to similar examples of Jewish people, Italians and Chinese people - they lived in crime infested ghettos, and were the subject of public scorn and outrage. Now, if you live in a Jewish neighbourhood - lucky you! And one of the richest areas in Toronto is a suburb called Markham and it's almost all Chinese people - if you can afford to live there, count your lucky stars!
The point is, there wasn't anything racially inherent in any of these groups that made them criminals. And their cultural expression of that time didn't contribute to their problems...and as those communities prospered over time, their culture didn't change...an Italian person is still intrinsically Italian, they can still have a 'macho' culture, and a historical interest in something like the mafia but those things don't produce mass number of Italian criminals because for the most part most Canadians of Italian descent live middle-class-ish lives.
If you have an honest interest in crime, poverty and wanting to improve things for yourself and fellow Americans, a good starting point for a discussion would be - why were the Irish (or whoever in America) able to rise up out of poverty and why hasn't African American community?
Let me point you in the right direction...it wasn't because Irish people are white and have 'better' culture or because African Americans are black and have a 'problematic' culture. There are systematic, institutional problems in place in America that keep marginalized people disenfranchised - those effect all people to some degree or another, but effect African Americans on a VASTLY different, disproportionate level. Why? There a lots of things in place, but the two biggest (and related) issues that over-shadow everything else are racism and the legacy of slavery. If you could fix those problems, the others would be such non-factors that they wouldn't matter.
My last post took a pause on the culture argument. I will accept that it might be bias from the media, although my personal experiences are valid I believe.
Your last question about the Irish is a good one. My problem is I don't see these communities that are riddled with crime doing a lot collectively to get out of it. They seem to expect the government will take care of them eventually (which Democrats especially have proven they won't).
You make a lot of good points, but Canada also prosecutes people who call a student by the wrong gender pronoun or refuse to take their shoes off in their own home where Islamic people live, so you, working for one of the most radically liberal governments in the world, are extremely biased.
@CretanBull your perspectives on crime and poverty are always so good! I feel like I learn a lot from your posts. You seem to have a pretty good grasp of what's going on here even as a Canadian, which is cool. I did read an article recently on The Outline about how Canada is not the racial utopia we make it out to be here. Would you say that the Native community in Canada was/continues to be treated badly? I don't know much about how reservations, etc. work up there.
I wouldn't call Canada a "radical left" country. I wonder if you've ever been to Canada?
I have been there quite frequently, their politics swing on a left right pendulum and change every few election cycles or so just like ours do. There's maybe less social conservatism in Canada but they're definitely to the right of many US states on that front, but economic conservatism is very much alive and well. and alot of the environmental activism isn't present, even the Liberal Party supports resource extraction and development, living in WA state I can point to you the number of projects our state has basically lost to BC because we let an extreme fringe drive our environmental policy whereas BC is very welcoming of industrial development, hell I made a lot of money in a past life working in Canada (legally, as an American). Hell compared to some US states owning a gun isn't even that difficult! I went to the annual Historic Arms Collectors of BC show last spring and all the same cool stuff we like in America like AR rifles and glock pistols were lining the tables being sold. I wouldn't call them a radical left society, not like say many countries in Western Continental Europe. Their politics are not an exact parallel to ours, but their not full on socialists like many American conservatives seem to believe.
I don't know what you're referring to with the Moslems in the house, but the transgender protection law, while I fundementally disagree with it for reasons we need not discuss now, does not criminalize use of pronouns or expressing opinions about transgendered people. Canadian law makes it illegal to publish hate propaganda, but that's far above gender pronouns, so you either have to be advocating violence or discriminating on that basis in areas like employment or housing. As a libertarian I don't care for those kinds of laws, but you won't be put in handcuffs and taken to prison for calling someone by their biological pronoun.
My last post took a pause on the culture argument. I will accept that it might be bias from the media, although my personal experiences are valid I believe.
Your last question about the Irish is a good one. My problem is I don't see these communities that are riddled with crime doing a lot collectively to get out of it. They seem to expect the government will take care of them eventually (which Democrats especially have proven they won't).
You make a lot of good points, but Canada also prosecutes people who call a student by the wrong gender pronoun or refuse to take their shoes off in their own home where Islamic people live, so you, working for one of the most radically liberal governments in the world, are extremely biased.
Wait, what? I think I've found the issue here: you are basing your opinions on virulently right wing websites. I googled your claim about prosecuting people for not removing their shoes. A bunch of extreme anti-Muslim websites made the same claim you did. But when you read the actual case, you see that it is something very different:
So once you actually read the case, you see that the landlord wasn't "prosecuted" for refusing to take his shoes off. The Muslim tenants simply asked that they'd be notified when the landlord was about to arrive for showings (since they were about to vacate the place) so that they could do their prayers before they got there. He also asked that when the landlord got there to show their apartment to potential new renters they'd wait by the door a bit before entering so that his wife could put on her Hijab. The tenants also requested that the landlord not wear his shoes when entering the area for the daily prayers (not the entire apartment). The landlord not only ignored all of that, but decided to walk across the prayer area in shoes even when prospective tenants had agreed to take their shoes off. And then for good measure he shared jokes about Muslims on facebook.
So no, no one was "prosecuted for wearing shoes in their own home."
Likewise, the whole thing about being prosecuted for using the wrong pronoun is only found in extreme right-wing websites. It refers apparently to bill C-16:
And the whole interpretation by the extreme right wing websites are nothing but falsehoods intended to create hysteria.
So perhaps rethink some of the sources you are relying on in the future.
As for what brought us here, let me ask you the following:
It turns out that white collar crime costs substantially more to society than property crime. As a society, we lose more money to fraud, embezzlement, insider trading, corruption and so on than we do to arson, burglaries, robberies, etc. As you can imagine, white collar crime is concentrated among the wealthier classes and are more likely therefore to be committed by white people. Enron, WorldCom, Madoff, the Barclays scandal were all committed almost entirely by white people. Should we ask what is wrong with white culture? Or is it more likely that the issues were caused by things beyond the color of their skin?
As we can see, plenty of Antifa fun going on in Berkeley. Let me first point out that I hate the Alt right, my grandfathers both fought the Nazis in WWII and white supremacy is pretty fucking stupid. That said, I don't know how folks can continue to defend Antifa and say the violence they are perpetrating is ok. They want to have a fight with the alt right that's fine...go find a park and throw down like they did in The Outsiders or West Side Story.
But when you have conservative people, who have clearly stated they denounce racism and are trying to have a peaceful demonstration, getting beaten by Antifa then that's too far my friends. If Antifa wants to have a peaceful protest or try and have a dialogue with people they disagree with then I applaud them (and when I say "have a dialogue" I mean with regular conservatives and not white supremacy nuts)....but when you beat reporters for doing their jobs and wear masks because you're too chicken shit to show your face then it's time for the left to disavow these people and call them out.
Also, shows how dedicated you are to your cause that you won't let your face be seen because you are too worried about catching hell from your bosses, friends, family, etc....be an adult and live with the consequences of your actions instead of hiding behind a mask you wankers! Protesters in the 60s knew they would get arrested and didn't hide behind masks.
Oh, and I loved the GoT finale...my wife is sad we have to wait 18 months or so for the last 6 episodes!!!
Your last question about the Irish is a good one. My problem is I don't see these communities that are riddled with crime doing a lot collectively to get out of it. They seem to expect the government will take care of them eventually (which Democrats especially have proven they won't).
It's way more difficult that you're making it out to be. There are lots of programs, groups, organizations, charities etc that are doing amazing work to improve things, but they're up against massive resistance. The...I'll call it the 'dominant' culture, by which I don't mean 'white' per se, just the prevailing influence in the culture (which is wealth, far more than it is colour)...don't concern themselves with moderate, slow change that doesn't threaten their power, but when a group tries to really assert itself and fight for a more authentic or immediate change - like the Black Panthers - they're portrayed as terrorists and bogey men. Essentially, they're allowed to make small, incremental improvements in isolated areas, but if that coalesces into a movement that might threaten power structures, they're demonized as dangerous extremists.
Something that's difficult to quantify but is a huge problem is understanding the psychological impact of generational poverty. If you're poor, your parents were poor, your grandparents were poor, your great-grandparents were poor and your great-great grandparents were slaves it shouldn't be hard to understand why you're not glowing with optimism. Now factor in that everyone around you has the same story and history. That creates entire communities without much hope. Its hard to give those people a "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" conversation and to expect results.
If you've ever known anyone who's clinically depressed, you can't just say "I don't get it, it's easy - just be happy" and expect that to cure them. You're talking about a community that's been burdened by hundreds of years of oppression there's no quick-fix easy way out.
The first and most basic step is simple recognition, and the (broad) African American community can't even get that. Any mention of slavery is met with cries of "it was hundreds of years ago, get over it!". They can't get over it when the first step towards that is getting a simple "I'm sorry, not only for what happened hundreds of years ago but also for the legacy that you're living with today." When Black Lives Matter makes a really, really simple claim "I count too, my life matters also" they're talked about as if they're the Taliban hell-bent on destroying America. All they really want is simple, basic recognition. When they say "black lives matter" they're hit with a chorus of 'all lives matter' and other non-sense that's only said to deny their claim. All they really want is a simple validation - "yeah, you do matter" and they can't even get that. It's hard to criticize someone for not being able to run when someone trips them every time they try to take their first step.
You make a lot of good points, but Canada also prosecutes people who call a student by the wrong gender pronoun or refuse to take their shoes off in their own home where Islamic people live, so you, working for one of the most radically liberal governments in the world, are extremely biased
I think @joepinetree already covered this perfectly. The I was unaware of the whole muslim shoe thing, it wasn't a story that got any traction here at all. Point of interest though - it's customary in Canada for people to take their shoes off when they go into anyone's house. I didn't realize that was a Canadian thing until I visited some friends in Ohio and they thought me taking my shoes off at their front door was unusual. It's not at all an exaggeration for me to say that I've never gone to someone's house and not taken my shoes off at the front door, nor has anyone ever visited my house without doing the same.
You can google it, Canadian's taking their shoes off at the front door is a thing...here's a few links if you're curious:
I'm pointing this out because there's an added level to the rudeness of the landlord not taking his shoes off that probably wouldn't occur to an America. So on top of the things that he did in the apartment (as Joe pointed out), the very act of not removing his shoes was disrespectful on its own.
As for Jordon Peterson...he's a sad story. He's genius level smart in some areas, but (IMO) intention obtuse in others. Everything that he's said about Bill C-16 is complete and utter non-sense. Not a single thing that he's said about it is true. I've heard him lie his face off on Joe Rogan's podcast and on other US media outlets. My reply is already too long and Joe provided a great link to this already, so I'll just make this one point: If what Peterson says about adding gender identity to the Human Rights Code was true, and that not calling someone "Ze" (or whatever one of the new pronouns are) then he'd be able to point to hundreds of example prosecutions of things already protected by the same law (colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability) and there are none. Not one. The law prevents someone from advocating genocide and inciting public hatred, that's it. If - under the existing law - it's not illegal to call a woman the "c-bomb", a black person the "n-bomb" or a gay person the "f-bomb" it is beyond intellectually dishonest for Peterson to insist that not calling someone "Ze" will somehow be illegal.
@CretanBull your perspectives on crime and poverty are always so good! I feel like I learn a lot from your posts. You seem to have a pretty good grasp of what's going on here even as a Canadian, which is cool. I did read an article recently on The Outline about how Canada is not the racial utopia we make it out to be here. Would you say that the Native community in Canada was/continues to be treated badly? I don't know much about how reservations, etc. work up there.
Thanks for the kind words
I think Canadians pat themselves on the back a little too much when it comes to racism. I'd say that things are better here (especially in big cities) but being 'better here' doesn't necessarily mean "great". If someone gets a D grade, and you get a C, you've done "better" but shouldn't lose sight of the fact that a C isn't anything to brag about.
Canada is a big country (geographically) and opinions really do vary across the country. For example, Alberta is known for being very Conservative (it's Canada's Texas, right down to the cowboys and oil industry!), but where I live it's very socially liberal (there are plenty of conservatives here, but not many who care about abortion, gay marriage etc).
Toronto is a pretty unique city. In the Greater Toronto area there's around 6 million people and 1/2 of them weren't born in Canada. That's 3 million immigrants who make up a city of 6 million people! If you're racist, this is a terrible place to live! Statistically, it is the most diverse city in the world - there are more than 200 different distinct ethnic origins represented in Toronto's population.
It's anecdotal, but here's one outsider's experience:
As for the 'native community' - we call them "First Nations" people, recognizing that their "nations" - the Iroquois Nation, the Mohawk Nation etc were here "first", before Europeans arrived - IMO our treatment of them is a national embarrassment. The Conservatives don't care about them at all and the Liberals pretend to care (Justin Trudeau even has a First Nation's tattoo on his arm) but don't do anything to help. The party that I support is called the NDP (we're to the left of the Liberals, we're democratic socialists - like Bernie Sanders) and we're in the process of electing our new leader. The guy that I'm supporting has prioritized First Nations issues towards the top of his list. We'll see if he wins, and what he does about it if he does.
Living conditions in some First Nation communities is horrific, especially in geographically isolated places like WAY up north. Substance abuse is epidemic, suicide rates are shocking, dozens of First Nations women have gone missing and haven't been investigated, there issues with access to clean drinking water, health care etc. It's shameful, if not criminal.
On the flip side of that, there are reserves (especially in and around Montreal) that are no different from any other suburb...there are town houses, schools, hockey rinks, parks etc. that don't look any different from where I grew up.
Basically, there are highs and lows, but the highs aren't very high and the lows are tragically low.
In Western Canada, there's much more open racism directed at First Nations people. In Western Canada, First Nations people make up a disproportionate percentage of the prison population - badly. Across Canada, First Nations people represent about 5% of the population and about 22% of the prison population. That's bad, but in the worst province - Saskatchewan - they make up 8% of the population and 80% of the prison population. It's actually worse being First Nations in Saskatchewan than it is being black in America.
Comments
I can tell you without question that the two biggest predictors of crime are poverty and something called the Gini Coefficient (in short, it measures relative poverty as opposed to absolute poverty). Other variables exist but for the most part they're too insignificant to measure or consider. Think of poverty (absolute and relative) as being 80% of the problem and every other factor in the world making up some part of that remaining 20%....I think that I'm being super generous, the real spread is probably 95% and 5%
Cultural differences aren't seen as a contributing factor because there are very few (perhaps almost no?) cultural differences that we can point to that promote crime. If there was a cultural component to crime, we'd see it express itself through out the whole culture and not just a (poor) segment of it. If for example you wanted to argue that there's an intrinsic characteristic in the black community that promotes crime, then we'd see that across all segments of the black community and we don't. When Jay-Z was poor, he was a criminal - now that he's rich he isn't. His culture didn't change, his income level did.
As for cultural differences between poor blacks and poor whites (I'm assuming you mean "poor" when you say "full of crime" - correct me if I'm wrong), I'd have to know more specifically what you're referring to, but I suspect that the answer lies in the Gini Coefficient. Typically (although by no means absolute) poor white people tend to live in rural areas and are surrounded by other poor or moderate income people - the overall regional income gap is low. Poor black people tend to live in urban areas and are surrounded by people who have MUCH more wealth and the overall income gap is very high (in a city like Los Angeles, you can have some of the poorest people in the country living within miles of the richest people in the country).
Gini predicts that we'll see a much higher crime rate among that poor urban community than in the poor rural community because of the relatively small income gap in the rural areas and large on in urban areas.
Here's an example, the Canadian province of NewfoundLand is both historically poor and white. It's also one of the safest places in the world to live with a miniscule crime rate. The low crime rate isn't a reflection of their whiteness, superior Newfie culture or a higher level of civilization, its because it's a bunch of poor people surrounded by other poor people so their Gini Coefficient is low - which predicts low crime.
On the flip side, the Toronto neighbourhood of Jane & Finch (mixed race, but predominantly black) has a much higher crime rate. Jane & Finch is also within a few miles of some of the most expensive real estate in the world and they have a high Gini Coefficient - which predicts high crime.
In both cases the relative poverty rate probably expresses itself in each of those communities, which probably points to what you're categorizing as a 'cultural difference'. As a possible example (this is off the top of my head, not something I've pulled from research) because Newfies are "all in the same boat" economically speaking, there probably isn't a cultural expression of greed or resentment that can promote crime. In Jane & Finch, being economically depressed while constantly being exposed to people who have much more probably builds a sense of anger and injustice that boils over into criminal desire.
In both cases, it's not an intrinsic race-related characteristic, it's how their relative poverty impacts their communities.
Where I live, which is a more diverse area then one might think, Mason County has a significant Guatemalan population but that's aside the point, there's much fewer resources for both the police and courts, so many crimes that would be proseucted in cities such as drug possession, carrying a concealed handgun, various vehicle violations, etc are not prosecuted because there's no resources to, and many crimes that are crimes in the city, like carrying knives, or burglary tools (really just hardware that a cop thinks you're using for burglary) don't exist, which I believe in part drives the disproportionate rate of arrests between whites and blacks as a whole in this country.
But we have though, there are more poor black people than white people, thus there are more poor black communities, thus most violent poor communities are predominantly black. There's a lot of violence and gang activity in predominantly poor Hispanic communities as well, who also have a much higher poverty rate than white people, it has nothing to do with Hispanic or African American poor people being worse than white poor people, there's literally more of them so they make up a larger percentage of violent poor people, you're arguing what your gut feeling is against statistics that say otherwise. Here's a challenge, find me a country where white people have the highest poverty rate by demographic and the majority of poor communities in cities are predominantly white but have lower crime rates than other poor communities.
To your bold point: I'm confused by what you mean. If you're saying that there are cultural differences between white people and black people, broadly speaking you're probably right - but those differences aren't just evident in poor, crime riddle areas - they'd be the same in middle class and wealthy people too. So if you're saying that there are different cultures, I'd say "sure" - but if you're saying that those different cultures contribute to a crime rate, I'd say "no". What's far more likely is that poverty shapes/influences all culture in all people, and what you're viewing as a race-based cultural difference is just an expression of poverty in a given culture (ie the problem is the poverty, not the race, or racial expression of that poverty).
To your italicized point: Racism and the legacy of slavery. Those areas aren't crime ridden because they're black, they're crime ridden because they're poor, and there's a disproportionate number of poor, ghettoized black people.
You're getting hit from all angles here so I don't want to keep piling on...just a few things to consider:
I work as a criminologist for the Ontario Ministry of Justice and my girl friend is a Crown attorney (a "prosecutor" in America)...I'm not mentioning that to say "I know more than you", I'm bringing it up as context - the issues that you're talking about are what I've dedicated my professional life to. There's no 'politics' or 'political correctness' in my office...our job is to find solutions wherever they come from, it's a results-based line of work, not an ideological one. I get paid to look at all of these problems from every possible angle and the relationship between race, culture and crime is essentially a non-factor. In might be an influencer and shape how the problems are expressed in a given culture, but doesn't contribute to the crime problem in a significant way.
The things that you're saying about elements of black culture (correct me if I'm wrong) - like gangsta rap as a possible example - have been said about other things in the past - comic books in the 60's, horror movies in the 70's, heavy metal in the 80's, hip-hop in the 90's, video games in the 2000's etc - and they've all been proven wrong. I can tell you that all of the research shows that culture has an impact on expression of crime, but not on crime rates. For example, someone might commit a murder in a way that's similar to what they saw in a movie, but watching that movie won't turn someone into a murderer. So if you're pre-disposed to being a criminal (via poverty, perhaps) you might get criminal ideas from culture but it's not the culture that creates the criminal.
Another point on race-related cultural differences...these examples are true in Canada, if the exact ones don't apply to America I'm sure that there are equivalent examples. If you go back about 100 years, Irish people were treated like crap here. There were editorials in the Toronto Star (you can access them online!) about how Irish people were 'savage', 'less evolved' and - I kid you not - "a mongrel race". Irish neighbourhoods in Montreal (Le Point) and Toronto (Cabbage Town) were terrible places to live. My dad grew up poor in Montreal, but considered himself lucky because he didn't live in an Irish neighbourhood - it was that bad. I can point to similar examples of Jewish people, Italians and Chinese people - they lived in crime infested ghettos, and were the subject of public scorn and outrage. Now, if you live in a Jewish neighbourhood - lucky you! And one of the richest areas in Toronto is a suburb called Markham and it's almost all Chinese people - if you can afford to live there, count your lucky stars!
The point is, there wasn't anything racially inherent in any of these groups that made them criminals. And their cultural expression of that time didn't contribute to their problems...and as those communities prospered over time, their culture didn't change...an Italian person is still intrinsically Italian, they can still have a 'macho' culture, and a historical interest in something like the mafia but those things don't produce mass number of Italian criminals because for the most part most Canadians of Italian descent live middle-class-ish lives.
If you have an honest interest in crime, poverty and wanting to improve things for yourself and fellow Americans, a good starting point for a discussion would be - why were the Irish (or whoever in America) able to rise up out of poverty and why hasn't African American community?
Let me point you in the right direction...it wasn't because Irish people are white and have 'better' culture or because African Americans are black and have a 'problematic' culture. There are systematic, institutional problems in place in America that keep marginalized people disenfranchised - those effect all people to some degree or another, but effect African Americans on a VASTLY different, disproportionate level. Why? There a lots of things in place, but the two biggest (and related) issues that over-shadow everything else are racism and the legacy of slavery. If you could fix those problems, the others would be such non-factors that they wouldn't matter.
I wouldn't call Canada a "radical left" country. I wonder if you've ever been to Canada?
I have been there quite frequently, their politics swing on a left right pendulum and change every few election cycles or so just like ours do. There's maybe less social conservatism in Canada but they're definitely to the right of many US states on that front, but economic conservatism is very much alive and well. and alot of the environmental activism isn't present, even the Liberal Party supports resource extraction and development, living in WA state I can point to you the number of projects our state has basically lost to BC because we let an extreme fringe drive our environmental policy whereas BC is very welcoming of industrial development, hell I made a lot of money in a past life working in Canada (legally, as an American). Hell compared to some US states owning a gun isn't even that difficult! I went to the annual Historic Arms Collectors of BC show last spring and all the same cool stuff we like in America like AR rifles and glock pistols were lining the tables being sold. I wouldn't call them a radical left society, not like say many countries in Western Continental Europe. Their politics are not an exact parallel to ours, but their not full on socialists like many American conservatives seem to believe.
I don't know what you're referring to with the Moslems in the house, but the transgender protection law, while I fundementally disagree with it for reasons we need not discuss now, does not criminalize use of pronouns or expressing opinions about transgendered people. Canadian law makes it illegal to publish hate propaganda, but that's far above gender pronouns, so you either have to be advocating violence or discriminating on that basis in areas like employment or housing. As a libertarian I don't care for those kinds of laws, but you won't be put in handcuffs and taken to prison for calling someone by their biological pronoun.
Wait, what?
I think I've found the issue here: you are basing your opinions on virulently right wing websites.
I googled your claim about prosecuting people for not removing their shoes. A bunch of extreme anti-Muslim websites made the same claim you did. But when you read the actual case, you see that it is something very different:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2017/2017hrto436/2017hrto436.html
So once you actually read the case, you see that the landlord wasn't "prosecuted" for refusing to take his shoes off. The Muslim tenants simply asked that they'd be notified when the landlord was about to arrive for showings (since they were about to vacate the place) so that they could do their prayers before they got there. He also asked that when the landlord got there to show their apartment to potential new renters they'd wait by the door a bit before entering so that his wife could put on her Hijab. The tenants also requested that the landlord not wear his shoes when entering the area for the daily prayers (not the entire apartment). The landlord not only ignored all of that, but decided to walk across the prayer area in shoes even when prospective tenants had agreed to take their shoes off. And then for good measure he shared jokes about Muslims on facebook.
So no, no one was "prosecuted for wearing shoes in their own home."
Likewise, the whole thing about being prosecuted for using the wrong pronoun is only found in extreme right-wing websites. It refers apparently to bill C-16:
http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/
And the whole interpretation by the extreme right wing websites are nothing but falsehoods intended to create hysteria.
So perhaps rethink some of the sources you are relying on in the future.
As for what brought us here, let me ask you the following:
It turns out that white collar crime costs substantially more to society than property crime. As a society, we lose more money to fraud, embezzlement, insider trading, corruption and so on than we do to arson, burglaries, robberies, etc. As you can imagine, white collar crime is concentrated among the wealthier classes and are more likely therefore to be committed by white people. Enron, WorldCom, Madoff, the Barclays scandal were all committed almost entirely by white people. Should we ask what is wrong with white culture? Or is it more likely that the issues were caused by things beyond the color of their skin?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/08/27/berkeley-calif-protesters-arrested-left-right-wing-demonstrators-scuffle/606675001/
http://www.dailywire.com/news/20287/again-berkeley-anti-fascist-protest-turns-violent-emily-zanotti
As we can see, plenty of Antifa fun going on in Berkeley. Let me first point out that I hate the Alt right, my grandfathers both fought the Nazis in WWII and white supremacy is pretty fucking stupid. That said, I don't know how folks can continue to defend Antifa and say the violence they are perpetrating is ok. They want to have a fight with the alt right that's fine...go find a park and throw down like they did in The Outsiders or West Side Story.
But when you have conservative people, who have clearly stated they denounce racism and are trying to have a peaceful demonstration, getting beaten by Antifa then that's too far my friends. If Antifa wants to have a peaceful protest or try and have a dialogue with people they disagree with then I applaud them (and when I say "have a dialogue" I mean with regular conservatives and not white supremacy nuts)....but when you beat reporters for doing their jobs and wear masks because you're too chicken shit to show your face then it's time for the left to disavow these people and call them out.
Also, shows how dedicated you are to your cause that you won't let your face be seen because you are too worried about catching hell from your bosses, friends, family, etc....be an adult and live with the consequences of your actions instead of hiding behind a mask you wankers! Protesters in the 60s knew they would get arrested and didn't hide behind masks.
Oh, and I loved the GoT finale...my wife is sad we have to wait 18 months or so for the last 6 episodes!!!
@Thomas
Thanks for the kind words
I think Canadians pat themselves on the back a little too much when it comes to racism. I'd say that things are better here (especially in big cities) but being 'better here' doesn't necessarily mean "great". If someone gets a D grade, and you get a C, you've done "better" but shouldn't lose sight of the fact that a C isn't anything to brag about.
Canada is a big country (geographically) and opinions really do vary across the country. For example, Alberta is known for being very Conservative (it's Canada's Texas, right down to the cowboys and oil industry!), but where I live it's very socially liberal (there are plenty of conservatives here, but not many who care about abortion, gay marriage etc).
Toronto is a pretty unique city. In the Greater Toronto area there's around 6 million people and 1/2 of them weren't born in Canada. That's 3 million immigrants who make up a city of 6 million people! If you're racist, this is a terrible place to live! Statistically, it is the most diverse city in the world - there are more than 200 different distinct ethnic origins represented in Toronto's population.
It's anecdotal, but here's one outsider's experience:
https://www.thestar.com/life/relationships/2017/06/27/a-uk-writers-love-letter-to-toronto.html
---
As for the 'native community' - we call them "First Nations" people, recognizing that their "nations" - the Iroquois Nation, the Mohawk Nation etc were here "first", before Europeans arrived - IMO our treatment of them is a national embarrassment. The Conservatives don't care about them at all and the Liberals pretend to care (Justin Trudeau even has a First Nation's tattoo on his arm) but don't do anything to help. The party that I support is called the NDP (we're to the left of the Liberals, we're democratic socialists - like Bernie Sanders) and we're in the process of electing our new leader. The guy that I'm supporting has prioritized First Nations issues towards the top of his list. We'll see if he wins, and what he does about it if he does.
Living conditions in some First Nation communities is horrific, especially in geographically isolated places like WAY up north. Substance abuse is epidemic, suicide rates are shocking, dozens of First Nations women have gone missing and haven't been investigated, there issues with access to clean drinking water, health care etc. It's shameful, if not criminal.
On the flip side of that, there are reserves (especially in and around Montreal) that are no different from any other suburb...there are town houses, schools, hockey rinks, parks etc. that don't look any different from where I grew up.
Basically, there are highs and lows, but the highs aren't very high and the lows are tragically low.
In Western Canada, there's much more open racism directed at First Nations people. In Western Canada, First Nations people make up a disproportionate percentage of the prison population - badly. Across Canada, First Nations people represent about 5% of the population and about 22% of the prison population. That's bad, but in the worst province - Saskatchewan - they make up 8% of the population and 80% of the prison population. It's actually worse being First Nations in Saskatchewan than it is being black in America.