by Jenab6 » Wed 04 Jan 2006, 10:23:08
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('orz', 'N')ice job ignoring the economics. Race, poverty and crime go hand in hand. A poor person from a poor, crime-ridden neighborhood probably ain't going to do too well in school and get the grades and money to move up. Not too many blacks get a chance to be raised in suburbia like whites or asians, and the few I've met wouldn't pocket gum from a convenience store. You find a statistic saying middle class blacks commit more felonies than middle class whites and then we'll start talking about race.
The case you're making is to not be in any city that is full of poor people, which is pretty obvious.
And considering you're european, I don't even see why you should even care.
I frequently hear a liberal (or a non-White) saying something like this:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he leading cause of criminal behaviour is poverty.
I'm sorry, but that's false. In 1995, the resident population of the United States included 218.3 million Whites and 33.1 million Blacks. Of those, 11.2% of the Whites and 29.0% of the Blacks lived below the federal poverty line. There were, therefore, 24.4 million
poor Whites and 9.5 million
poor Blacks living in the United States, that year. Poor Whites outnumbered poor Blacks by a ratio of 2.57 to one.
If poverty were the leading cause of criminal behavior, as you say, then for each 100 murders committed by Blacks in 1995, about 257 murders would have been committed by Whites. But that's
not what happened. About 55% of US murders in 1995 were committed by Blacks, meaning that for each 100 murders committed by Blacks that year, only 82 murders were committed by
all non-Black groups combined.Even if you were to assume that Whites committed all of the murders in the United States that Blacks did not commit, the Whites could only be responsible, at most, for 82 murders for each 100 murders committed by Blacks. The observed facts contradict the prediction implicit in the liberal notion that poverty causes crime, and therefore the liberal notion is wrong.
The much blandished "poverty causes crime" hypothesis is a myth.There are other ways of demonstrating the same thing. The two most rural states in the United States are West Virginia and Mississippi. That is, both states are more-or-less comparable in the socioeconomic sense. But the two states differ demographically, with West Virginia being less than 5% Black, whereas Mississippi is about 36% Black. It comes as no surprise, to someone who has studied race for long, that Mississippi has a far higher rate of violent crime than West Virginia does.
If you think that the comparison is atypical, then feel free to replace West Virginia with
any other, mostly rural, state-sized region having fewer than 5% of Blacks in its population. Or feel free to replace Mississippi with
any other, mostly rural, state-sized region having more than one-third of Blacks in its population. You'll get the same answer every time.
http://www.jabpage.org/images/correlate2.jpgThen, try comparing cities instead of rural areas, and examine
that side of the rural-urban spectrum. The same pattern emerges, regardless of the degree of urbanization. Cities with high percentages of resident Blacks have high per capita rates for violent crime. Cities that are nearly all-White have low rates for violent crime. Contrast, for example, Detroit with St. Paul. Or Washington DC with Colorado Springs. Or Atlanta with Anchorage. If it's too much work to check, don't worry: I've already done it for you.
http://www.jabpage.org/images/uscitymu.jpgYou can carry the comparison to counties (subdivisions within a state), and the same thing goes. You can go outside North America to get your comparison regions: it's not just an American thing. Choose Johannesburg. Choose Haiti. Choose Rwanda. It doesn't matter.
Poor Whites do not behave as badly as poor Blacks do. The data are so clear on that point that no liberal has ever been able to cherrypick his way out of it.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('trespam', 'S')ome of you folks are so damn stupid and ignorant sometimes. Not a word about slavery. Not a word about tradition. Not a word about a race pulled up from its family and cultural roots, sold like property, worked to the bone, and thrown away like garbage. Not a word about the importance of family traditions and the values that are passed down through families. And the problems that will develop when those values are completely emasculated and gutted by ripping the communities apart and throwing what remains of the voyages onto plantations to work as slaves.
The idea that Blacks are unique as a people having a history as slaves is yet another myth upon which liberals build their theories. It's pure fiction. Lots of White people were enslaved in ancient times. Julius Caesar killed millions of Celts and enslaved millions more. After Caesar was finished, the Saxons became the Celt's overlords in Britain. In Spain, Whites were dominated by Arabs. In Eastern Europe, the Slavs were under the heel of the Mongols, the Turks, the Communist Party, and others, at various times.
In colonial America there were very many White slaves. Some historians estimate that the White slaves were more numerous than the Black slaves were. And worked harder, with less regard for whether they survived their indentures or not.
When a period of slavery is finished, it usually doesn't take long for a free people to rebound to their potential. Are Blacks some kind of exception? Not really, I think. They're just not the kind of people that liberals expect they should be. The liberal doctrine of racial equality leads liberal expectations astray.
And why should we expect that different races would be equal in all of the socially important ways? Nature made each race what it is. And nature has never been under any compulsion to make them all equal. And the odds of equality happening by chance are so small as to be negligible. So...what motivates the liberal adherance to this strange doctrine?
I think that liberals are people who have confused the proper roles of perception, reason, and moral sense. Thoughtful people assess the world by perception and by reason. Only when they learn what they are "up against" do they turn to their moral sense in order to decide what should be done. And their notions of "what
should be done" is always circumscribed by "what
can be done."
Not so for liberals. Liberals assess the world by their moral sense alone. They form sort of a religion around their moral judgments, such that facts in conflict with them must be (and are) ignored and denied, and anybody who doesn't play along with their fantasies gets called nasty names and screamed at and treated to bombastic sanctimony.
Jerry Abbott
by Specop_007 » Sat 07 Jan 2006, 22:20:06
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', 'N')o, the racist remarks are highly interesting.
When these cities (ghettos) "erupt", the problem is that the White Man panicks, and takes out his war guns, while the black man does the same. And they start shooting each other. This is the history of the U.S. in a nutshell.
When ghettos like those around Paris erupt, you only see symbolic action, no guns (notwithstanding a few exceptions).
That's the big difference. The US is a racist society with guns. Which is of course much more troubling than having a racist society without guns.
I suppose that depends on the type of glasses your using to see through.
i dont consider torching thousands of cars and not doing anything about it as "symbolic", I see it as "surrender".
You think they would have had those problems if the general population of France was armed, and sitting on the lawn in a chair with a gun saying "You can torch any car you want, but torch MY car and it'll be the last car you torch"
Of course not. These rioters arent stupid, there not going to get gunned down trying to riot. They would either move to the next street, or stop rioting.
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."
Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
-

Specop_007
- Expert

-
- Posts: 5586
- Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
-