NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok. Sinuhue said to make a better post than "rap music sucks".

We'll start with this bit of information from the US Department of Justice.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

The question for this post is: Given that the statistics below show increased rates of black victimization (far greater than that of other groups such as Hispanics and whites), is it legitimate to question sociological conditions within the black community itself (in its various forms and locations), specifically patterns of parenting, community norms, cultural norms, as well as economic and educational patterns within the community itself - rather than blaming all of the problems on whites?

And by extension, is it fair for people to criticize prominent blacks such as Bill Cosby and Morgan Freeman for asking this very question?

For nonfatal violent crimes, offenders were more likely to
have a firearm than a knife or club. From 1993 to 2001 the
rate of firearm violence fell 63%

* Approximately half of all robberies, about a quarter of
all assaults, and roughly a twelfth of all rapes/sexual
assaults involved an armed assailant. About 90% of
homicide victims were killed with a weapon.

* Firearm violence rates for blacks age 12 or older (8.4
per 1,000 blacks) were 40% higher than rates for Hispanics
(6.0)

200% higher than rates for whites (2.8 per
1,000).

* Blacks were about 9 times more likely than whites to be
murdered with a firearm.

* On average black victims of firearm violence were 3
years younger than white victims -- 29 versus 32.

* From 1993 through 2001 blacks accounted for 46% of
homicide victims and 54% of victims of firearm homicide but
12% of the U.S. population.

From 1993 through 2001 violent crime declined 54%; weapon
violence went down 59%; and firearm violence, 63%.

Males, blacks and Hispanics, the young, and those with the
lowest annual household income were more vulnerable to
weapon violence in general and firearm violence in
particular than their respective counterparts.

For the 9-year period beginning with 1993, 23% of white
victims of violence and 36% of black victims were victims
of violence involving an offender armed with a weapon.
About 7% of white victims and 17% of black victims were
involved in incidents in which an offender was armed with
a gun.

Forty-five percent of all violence with a weapon involved
victims between ages 25 and 49, and 38% involved victims
between ages 15 and 24.

Blacks were about 9 times more likely than whites to be
victims of gun-related homicides (25 per 100,000 blacks
age 12 or older versus 3 per 100,000 whites.)

This has what to do with the opinion "rap music sucks"? Oh yeah, nothing.

This has what to do with the opinion "rap music sucks"? Oh yeah, nothing.
That's right, Sinuhue said there were deeper issues that I had touched on in the other thread that should be discussed in another thread.

So I posted this thread. I apologize that I didn't use a simpler vocabulary so that you would understand what I was trying to achieve.

A good statistic to compare with this would be the rate of black poverty compared with white poverty or the rate of black inner-city / slum upbrining compared with white inner-city / slum upbringing.

Its important to make sure that the statistics are framed the same way these ones are, comparing blacks to blacks and whites to whites.

If the rate is ~ 200% higher for blacks, we might solve this riddle pretty quickly.

If not, there is more to delve into.

That's right, Sinuhue said there were deeper issues that I had touched on in the other thread that should be discussed in another thread.

So I posted this thread. I apologize that I didn't use a simpler vocabulary so that you would understand what I was trying to achieve.
Maybe next time you should be far more ambiguous than making a thread about black crime ratios based around expanding on the phrase "rap music sucks."
Something ambiguous like why sesame street is gay based on why earthworms are called earthworms.

A good statistic to compare with this would be the rate of black poverty compared with white poverty or the rate of black inner-city / slum upbrining compared with white inner-city / slum upbringing.

Its important to make sure that the statistics are framed the same way these ones are, comparing blacks to blacks and whites to whites.

If the rate is ~ 200% higher for blacks, we might solve this riddle pretty quickly.

If not, there is more to delve into.


So being poor justifies being violent?

So being poor justifies being violent?


Dont make these sorts of implications in reference to quoted posts of mine.

Dont make these sorts of implications in reference to quoted posts of mine.


*rereads your post*

good statistic to compare with this would be the rate of black poverty compared with white poverty or the rate of black inner-city / slum upbrining compared with white inner-city / slum upbringing.

Its important to make sure that the statistics are framed the same way these ones are, comparing blacks to blacks and whites to whites.

If the rate is ~ 200% higher for blacks, we might solve this riddle pretty quickly.

If not, there is more to delve into.

I'm not making implications......just responding to your post.

So being poor justifies being violent?

No. But being poor, you're more likely to resort to violence to satisfy your needs, because you don't have a socially acceptable method of doing so.

Poverty rates remained unchanged for Blacks (24.7 percent) and Hispanics (21.9 percent), rose for non-Hispanic Whites (8.6 percent in 2004, up from 8.2 percent in 2003) and decreased for Asians (9.8 percent in 2004, down from 11.8 percent in 2003).

From http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty04/pov04hi.html

No rational person is going to say that poverty justifies violent crime, however an argument can be made to say that being poor makes you more likely to commit a crime. If you're middle class, why would you think you need to mug someone for the $35 he has in wallet?

A good statistic to compare with this would be the rate of black poverty compared with white poverty or the rate of black inner-city / slum upbrining compared with white inner-city / slum upbringing.

Its important to make sure that the statistics are framed the same way these ones are, comparing blacks to blacks and whites to whites.

If the rate is ~ 200% higher for blacks, we might solve this riddle pretty quickly.

If not, there is more to delve into.

Sadly there aren't too many Black rolemodels for black youths to admire nowadays. Ones that stay out of trouble, that is.

So being poor justifies being violent?

Doesn't justify it, but might explain it.

Further to the point, if more black people are disproportionately poor in comparison to whites and hispanics (I'm not saying that they are, or aren't) it might explain such skewed results.

Sadly there aren't too many Black rolemodels for black youths to admire nowadays. Ones that stay out of trouble, that is.

Very true.

*rereads your post*



I'm not making implications......just responding to your post.

Seems to me you're asking "so you think that being poor justifies being violent?"

Obviously not.

Something more reasonable would be "so poverty and violence corrolate?"

Doesn't justify it, but might explain it.

Further to the point, if more black people are disproportionately poor in comparison to whites and hispanics (I'm not saying that they are, or aren't) it might explain such skewed results.


Bingo.

Would be nice if Researcher Rabbit would scrounge us up these statistics so we could check.

Bingo.

Would be nice if Researcher Rabbit would scrounge us up these statistics so we could check.

Apparently you didn't notice that I found them and posted them in post #10.

Seems to me you're asking "so you think that being poor justifies being violent?"

Obviously not.

Something more reasonable would be "so poverty and violence corrolate?"


Youre right.....this is more reasonable. I apologize if I came off as attacking your words.

Apparently you didn't notice that I found them and posted them in post #10.


Well, you posted a *link* to them.

Thanks anyways though, R. Rabbit.

Poverty rates remained unchanged for Blacks (24.7 percent) and Hispanics (21.9 percent), rose for non-Hispanic Whites (8.6 percent in 2004, up from 8.2 percent in 2003) and decreased for Asians (9.8 percent in 2004, down from 11.8 percent in 2003).


So the poverty rate for blacks is... SAVE ME JESUS... ~200% the poverty rate for whites!

mystery solved.

I don't have the exact numbers handy and my home landline won't let me get them w/i this lifetime. If you want exacts, I'll post them when I get to work in the morning. That said....

For murders, blacks account for about 41%, Hispanics about 5% and generally Whites the rest.

Blacks account for about 8-10% of the population, hispanics about 13%, whites and asians the general rest.

Demographically, the rates of poor for blacks and hispanics are equal.

Over 90% of the murder is black on black and white on white.

Black males 18-35 make up about 2.5% of the population and account for 28% of all murders.

There's more than just being poor. I look towards Bill Cosby et al for good insight.

Well, you posted a *link* to them.

Thanks anyways though, R. Rabbit.

If you look at my post link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11211150&postcount=10) and look above the link, you'll see one of those handy quote boxes with the relevant statistics.

From http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty04/pov04hi.html

No rational person is going to say that poverty justifies violent crime, however an argument can be made to say that being poor makes you more likely to commit a crime. If you're middle class, why would you think you need to mug someone for the $35 he has in wallet?
Of course, the causes of the poverty might be related to the causes of the crime. Don't want to confuse a common cause. Perhaps we might find that the poverty is caused by a third factor, maybe it's drugs, maybe it's cultural. I don't know, I'm not a sociologist.

Indeed, Researcher Rabbit, I must have missed that.

One possibility I think might be worth looking at is the prevalence of drug use, espescially the harder drugs, such as heroin, cocaine and crack. Marijuana will have virtually no effect, because it's pretty damn harmless. Alcohol should also be considered as a factor, because of the effects that it has on some people. Then I'd imagine we could get an improved picture of the situation.

I know that when my car got broken into (by a white guy), the motivation for doing so had to do a lot with drugs.

So being poor justifies being violent?
Crime is higher in poor communities. That's reality.

The sad part is the vast majority of that Black crime is against other Black people.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

Crime is higher in poor communities. That's reality.




Yes and its sad as hell. But it's just a cop out for people to *excuse it* because they are poor. Not even excuse it, just explain it away under the rug. I grew up extremely poor and I didnt go out slinging drugs and guns and turn my neighborhood into a war zone.

For every 1 black person who wants to clean up their neighborhood, there are 5 more who continually piss on it. A black friend of mine said those exact words to me one day. It's terrible.

Ok. The question for this post is: Given that the statistics below show increased rates of black victimization (far greater than that of other groups such as Hispanics and whites), is it legitimate to question sociological conditions within the black community itself (in its various forms and locations), specifically patterns of parenting, community norms, cultural norms, as well as economic and educational patterns within the community itself - rather than blaming all of the problems on whites?

And by extension, is it fair for people to criticize prominent blacks such as Bill Cosby and Morgan Freeman for asking this very question?

Of course its legitimate to to question community and cultural norms, along with education and economic factors. Most people who really want to solve these problems don't blame it all on "whites".

There does seem to be a correlation between poverty and crime, so while being poor doesnt excuse crime, it does offer a possible solution - easing poverty may very well reduce crime.

What we need are better schools in inner-city areas, after school and summer programs as well as rec areas so that kids have a safe place they can spend their time, instead of getting into trouble, and better gun control laws so that it is more difficult for a criminal to own a gun. That would reduce violence and crime.

Another point to consider about poverty and violence is the demographics of poverty. One might assume that in densely populated areas there are higher chances of gang related violence. Are poor black people more likely to be concentrated in urban ghettos then say whites or hispanics?

Again, I don't think it's necessarily true, but there would seem to be a higher chance of crime in urban sprawl vs. rural poverty. (No stats to back me up here; all suposition.)

Again, I don't think it's necessarily true, but there would seem to be a higher chance of crime in urban sprawl vs. rural poverty. (No stats to back me up here; all suposition.)

It isn't consistent with what we see in Canada.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/c050721e.gif

It isn't consistent with what we see in Canada.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/c050721e.gif

Hmmm....

Is that a breakdown of 'violent' crime? Or does that also include cow-tipping and sleeping with your first cousin?

The sad part is the vast majority of that Black crime is against other Black people.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

Shhh. Don't point that out - they'll call you a racist. Everyone knows that it's all whitey's fault.