It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Elephant in The Room - The Culture of Minority Violence

page: 14
67
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
www.city-journal.org... this is this links take on the matter i am no familer with them so not sure of their political leanings

Backing up this bias claim has been the holy grail of criminology for decades—and the prize remains as elusive as ever. In 1997, criminologists Robert Sampson and Janet Lauritsen reviewed the massive literature on charging and sentencing. They concluded that “large racial differences in criminal offending,” not racism, explained why more blacks were in prison proportionately than whites and for longer terms. A 1987 analysis of Georgia felony convictions, for example, found that blacks frequently received disproportionately lenient punishment. A 1990 study of 11,000 California cases found that slight racial disparities in sentence length resulted from blacks’ prior records and other legally relevant variables. A 1994 Justice Department survey of felony cases from the country’s 75 largest urban areas discovered that blacks actually had a lower chance of prosecution following a felony than whites did and that they were less likely to be found guilty at trial. Following conviction, blacks were more likely to receive prison sentences, however—an outcome that reflected the gravity of their offenses as well as their criminal records. Another criminologist—easily as liberal as Sampson—reached the same conclusion in 1995: “Racial differences in patterns of offending, not racial bias by police and other officials, are the principal reason that such greater proportions of blacks than whites are arrested, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned,” Michael Tonry wrote in Malign Neglect. (Tonry did go on to impute malign racial motives to drug enforcement, however.) The media’s favorite criminologist, Alfred Blumstein, found in 1993 that blacks were significantly underrepresented in prison for homicide compared with their presence in arrest.
so their is this articles point of view


dash.harvard.edu... here is the most recent and seemingly most credible study done on this topic its a 66 page pdf so slow internet users be forwarned


Although racial discrimination emerges some of the time at some stages of criminal justice processing-such as juvenile justice-there is little evidence that racial disparities result from systematic, overt bias. Discrimination appears to be indirect, stemming from the amplification of initial disadvantages over time, along with the social construction of "moral panics" and associated political responses. The "drug war" of the 1980s and 1990s exacerbated the disproportionate representation of blacks in state and federal prisons. Race and ethnic disparities in violent offending and victimization are pronounced and long-standing. Blacks, and to a lesser extent Hispanics, suffer much higher rates of robbery and homicide victimization than do whites. Homicide is the leading cause of death among young black males and females. These differences result in part from social forces that ecologically concentrate race with poverty and other social dislocations. Useful research would emphasize multilevel (contextual) designs, the idea of "cumulative disadvantage" over the life course, the need for multiracial conceptualizations, and comparative, cross-national designs.
pretty good read and from a scientific point of view seems well sourced and cited and seems to be the premire paper on this topic

faculty.washington.edu... another PDF of a comparable study and i guess the author has a book out on this topic so keep that in mind when reading it

journalistsresource.org... this one covers the topic from a journalistic point of view and gives advice for navigating the mine feild that this topic is

www.colorado.edu... this paper focuses on youth violence and is some what related to this topic at hand




posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
What does everyone expect when the majority of offenders are brought up in a violent, degrading culture? You think any of this is an accident?

It is all by design.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Everyone in America is allowed to live the life they want. Simple as that! Just blaming white people for all of your issues makes us laugh at your stupidity !! I'm going back to college this fall I filled out the papers saying I'm black and gave an e mail address and have all kinds of free money. But I look WHITE!!!

edit on 17-7-2015 by mikell because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   
This is not direct data on violence. This is data on a specific subset of violent incidents including only cases wherein the police were called, offenders were identified, one of multiple conflicting narratives was proven to the satisfaction of authorities, and the data was forwarded for inclusion in federal statistics.

In short, this data is not about violence, but about government efforts to punish violence, and it bares out the obvious reaction to your thread title, which is, "Why doesn't the majority gang up and do even worse to the minority"- the statistics reflect that is exactly what is happening. The arrests themselves v aren't being counted as violence, but you can bet that 90% of the black inmates in your statistics were punched by a white man just before being taken to jail, and were probably beaten up a couple more times while in jail- and that's hardly the only area of uncounted violence which explains the disparity.

But you know, statistics are never really an elephant in the living room. Statistics are numbers about things that are probably outside your immediate field of vision. So unless there are black people trying to get into your house at this very moment, what we really have here is a book about elephants sitting on the coffee table. And it would be very inconspicuous if you had not opened it up and started a conversation about it. Surely when you do that, somebody is bound to ask, why are we suddenly discussing elephants.

Have you in fact observed an immediate danger of black people attacking you and actually felt endangered by a false media narrative that dismisses clear and present danger to yourself?
Or did you hear about blacks feeling threatened on tv and just not find it very interesting until they implied that you personally were in danger, which got you thinking about all of this stuff in terms of statistics and theories with very little relevance to what will actually happen when you walk outside?

Because the last time I heard of a threat of mob violence actually happening in my neighborhood, it was when a black stand-up comedian asked a white audience if it's true that their town does not observe Martin Luther King Day. I know another guy who is included in your statistics, because he was attacked in his own home for telling someone who to get out when they used the N-word. Arrested bleeding in his own home because he wouldn't be trampled on.

In the real world, I meet bullies addicts and criminals everywhere I go, no matter what color our class the people are, and it's a fair bet they'll target an outsider. That means that in most places, the majority is safer than the minority.

Let's deal specifically with mob violence in real world terms. It happens when an obvious outsider goes into a place and attracts attention, gets into a confrontation, and doesn't realize when the time has come to let discretion be the better part of valor. It can and does happen anywhere.

Gay guys from the east coast do end up leaning against a jukebox as a duct tape mummy in a redneck bar outside 29 Palms, black teenagers do get rousted from pool parties by paramilitary thugs called in by the local good ol boys club, and white guys who can't shrug of an insult do get layed out at that gas station you've been warned not to stop at after dark. It's all universal and easy to understand and fairly rare.

But the places where it happens to the majority instead of the minority are localized and gain infamy, while it could happen to a minority almost anywhere and it's taken as a background noise rather than a pattern because its diffused over a large area.That concentration increases the likelihood of taping, of police intervention, etc in inner city cases.
Other cases will be treated differently. The cops had a good laugh about what happened to the gay guy in 29 palms and wrote the paper work up to protect the guilty, and the cops joined the mob at the pool party in Texas, but in the inner city you can bet they make a statement to the press and try to find somebody to punish.
Nobody asks why black kids ganged up on a white man. But if the cops find three white guys on a black guy, they gotta ask some questions to determine whether it's really mob violence or a legit citizens arrest that got out of hand.

Take those three real world incidents of mob attacks on gays blacks and whites- they will reflect three attacks on whites in your statistics- a white guy beat up by black kids as shown on camera at the gas station, a white lady attacked by black teenagers heroically defended by a cop (who is actually in big trouble now, but there is no checkbox on federal crime reporting forms to indicate when the paperwork is full of lies the officer told before he was fired over video of the incident), and a white guy in 29 palms whose attackers were never identified (but a bar full of guilty people tells the cops there were some black guys hanging outside before we found the victim, maybe go look for them).



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
There is an inverse correlation with respect to ethnic household incomes and incarceration rates.

It is a simple case between the haves and the have nots.

Until the standard of poverty becomes uniform and the conditions of living actually become "liveable" for those who are seeking assistance, no one has the right to complain about the percentages of incarceration of certain ethnicity groups especially in the african american community.

Need I remind you that America is 239 years old and of the first 82 years black people were enslaved! never mind that slavery had existed in north america for 245 years before abolishment. For the next hundred or dare I say currently even they have been discriminated against.

Someone explain to me please, now that black people are actually seen as whole human beings instead of 3.5ths of a person how do you make them equally entitled to the opportunities that their suppressors have had for over 400 combined years?

But black people are violent, say's then numbers.
And white people are wealthy, because numbers don't lie.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: The Vagabond
I respect you're point of view, but man you have to take a look at the beginning of your post, while no doubt grounded in reality, is completely hypothetical and on the boarder of denial.


This is not direct data on violence. This is data on a specific subset of violent incidents including only cases wherein the police were called, offenders were identified, one of multiple conflicting narratives was proven to the satisfaction of authorities, and the data was forwarded for inclusion in federal statistics.

...This is specifically direct data on violence. By what other means than people committing violent acts against the law, which they are in turn rightfully arrested for, are we to gather these statistics?



"Why doesn't the majority gang up and do even worse to the minority"- the statistics reflect that is exactly what is happening. The arrests themselves v aren't being counted as violence, but you can bet that 90% of the black inmates in your statistics were punched by a white man just before being taken to jail, and were probably beaten up a couple more times while in jail- and that's hardly the only area of uncounted violence which explains the disparity.

This is a pretty convoluted line of reasoning. It's as if you're dismissing the violent crimes being committed and some how turning it around on the cops for doing their job... what? This kind of stuff happens of course, but not nearly to the degree of being statically relevant on a cumulative scale. Take a look at the research provided by RalagaNarHallas at the top of the page.



Let's deal specifically with mob violence in real world terms. It happens when an obvious outsider goes into a place and attracts attention, gets into a confrontation, and doesn't realize when the time has come to let discretion be the better part of valor. It can and does happen anywhere.

You're examples while relevant, are incomparable to the frequency and scale of the "real world" examples within the 5 videos I provided (Correct Macon vid posted below OP), all instances in different cities that have occurred within just the past two months involving groups between 20 to 60+ youths, not just 4 or 5 individuals. Again, these are not acts of protest or righteous cause, this is simply a youth culture "seeing how much damage they can do." If you can find comparable and relatable examples of another culture in the US behaving with the same intent, frequency and scale, please post. If fact, I challenge anyone. I'd honestly like to see it. I'm not being facetious, it would counter and relieve a perception often reinforced by the examples we're used to seeing.

edit on 17-7-2015 by rexsblues because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   
When we examine the algorithm of crime and violence we should input in the equation that the average white family has 100 thousand dollars as assets and the average black or Latino family has 5 thousand dollars to their name.


Of course this is not the only curve in the equation that determines the crime rate but it has a big effect on the formula.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
When we examine the algorithm of crime and violence we should input in the equation that the average white family has 100 thousand dollars as assets and the average black or Latino family has 5 thousand dollars to their name.


Of course this is not the only curve in the equation that determines the crime rate but it has a big effect on the formula.


We have a winner.



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: christophoros

Nah, that would be a gross strawman. In the threefold time I have been Chinese and Indian time and time again. I was a pagan while the heathens were speaking in Latin. I was a shaman in the New World and in the ancient one. I was with the great mother in the outer darkness before humanity when the seas were born. You think I care about the mundane pettiness of skin colour? I only care for my people and I believe in the idea of biodiversity and resist the idea of institutionalised demographic replacements of targeted groups since the Western world is the only major culture on the planet that is currently being displaced on all fronts. I'm not into the heresies of the mind that you subscribe to so you can miss me with that. I do acknowledge cultural and even racial differences though - even if they are taboo.



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: rexsblues
By what other means than people committing violent acts against the law, which they are in turn rightfully arrested for, are we to gather these statistics?


Your question presupposes the utility of statistics, then affirms the value of those statistics because they are the best representation we can get. That's circular reasoning.

The reality is that we lack the means to objectively quantify and accurately sample violence, so we cannot apply statistical methods to draw useful conclusions about the phenomenon as a whole.

If me measured violence by the prison population then Jews would be the leading cause of violence in Nazi Germany. See how bass awkwards government statistics will make your world view now?



This is a pretty convoluted line of reasoning. It's as if you're dismissing the violent crimes being committed and some how turning it around on the cops for doing their job... what?


We're not talking about crime we're talking about violence. All violence must be counted, because if we make exceptions for violence done to protect us without questioning the possible justification of others then we aren't measuring violence as a whole, we're measuring violence against people we don't want violated- in other words measuring our control over other people. Now we're getting somewhere aren't we?

Now you can direct me to more slanted statistics and claim that anecdotes you had to cherry pick on a national scale are less random and more common than the things that I actually see with my own eyes in day to day life without making any special effort to collect data that supports a given conclusion, but that would be beside the point, which is not the murky conclusions you draw but the flawed questions you asked before arriving at those conclusions, and as has been well covered already, this is really about affirming the social standing of the enfranchised classes that are intended to be green-zoned out of violence and justifying the continued existence of the underlying problem as something created by and for the disenfranchised classes which ought not touch you Fox News viewers.

In short you are repeating propaganda that was designed to make people support police who can't protect them and blame the most victimized people for it. Before we go any further with why you are wrong perhaps we should discuss what value there would be in you proving yourself right. What exactly is your final solution to the problem you are attempting to define with statistics?
edit on Sat 18 Jul 2015 by The Vagabond because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: The Vagabond
The reality is that we lack the means to objectively quantify and accurately sample violence, so we cannot apply statistical methods to draw useful conclusions about the phenomenon as a whole.

If me measured violence by the prison population then Jews would be the leading cause of violence in Nazi Germany. See how bass awkwards government statistics will make your world view now?

No we don't lack the means, we have a justice system for trying criminals in a court of law, who break the law by committing violent crimes. The Jews we're legitimately innocent people who were kidnapped and herded by the hundreds of thousands for no other reason than their religion. The Jews weren't committing violent crimes, ...I mean seriously man, come on.



We're not talking about crime we're talking about violence. All violence must be counted, because if we make exceptions for violence done to protect us without questioning the possible justification of others then we aren't measuring violence as a whole, we're measuring violence against people we don't want violated- in other words measuring our control over other people. Now we're getting somewhere aren't we?

Yes we're talking about violence, CRIMINAL VIOLENCE. The people who commit the violence are criminals who are violating the law and by doing so, must answer to the law, initially in the form of an officer who is sworn to uphold the law to protect the innocent people from those committing the criminal violence. The violence explicitly belongs to it's origin, the criminal. Any violence on the officers part is only the engaging reaction to that of the criminals, and is in defense of the law, himself and the innocent people he's sworn to protect. Are we getting somewhere?



Now you can direct me to more slanted statistics and claim that anecdotes you had to cherry pick on a national scale are less random and more common than the things that I actually see with my own eyes in day to day life without making any special effort to collect data that supports a given conclusion, but that would be beside the point, which is not the murky conclusions you draw but the flawed questions you asked before arriving at those conclusions, and as has been well covered already, this is really about affirming the social standing of the enfranchised classes that are intended to be green-zoned out of violence and justifying the continued existence of the underlying problem as something created by and for the disenfranchised classes which ought not touch you Fox News viewers

I didn't 'cherry pick' the data, I literally copied and pasted the data as a whole part from the Wikipedia source link I provided. I think you need to make a special effort to collect data based on a national reality (which these stats represent), not just your local day to day life.



In short you are repeating propaganda that was designed to make people support police who can't protect them and blame the most victimized people for it. Before we go any further with why you are wrong perhaps we should discuss what value there would be in you proving yourself right. What exactly is your final solution to the problem you are attempting to define with statistics?

Violent criminals aren't victims. As many within this thread have proposed, we have to quit promoting, popularizing, commercializing and glorifying a violent criminal culture.
edit on 18-7-2015 by rexsblues because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: rexsblues

Your argument is basically that the government is always right, therefore black people are in jail disproportionately because black people are violent criminals disproportionately, therefore whatever government or the majority does to blacks is irrelevant and probably even just because criminals can't be victims, and criminals are who the government says.

The government reports in Nazi Germany didn't say Jews were innocent though. They said they were enemy collaborators making war on the state, they said they were rapists defiling people's bloodlines, they said they were greedy and unintegrated and dangerous criminal elements preying on the mainstream population. They said exactly the same nonsense people say about minorities in America, and based on that they started a program of mass incarceration, where they could do whatever they wanted out of sight and out of mind, and rationalize it through bureaucracy to a public that didn't really care anyway, because they thought they were being protected from a group that would otherwise be preying on them.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlongCamePaul
There is an inverse correlation with respect to ethnic household incomes and incarceration rates.

It is a simple case between the haves and the have nots.

Until the standard of poverty becomes uniform and the conditions of living actually become "liveable" for those who are seeking assistance, no one has the right to complain about the percentages of incarceration of certain ethnicity groups especially in the african american community.

Need I remind you that America is 239 years old and of the first 82 years black people were enslaved! never mind that slavery had existed in north america for 245 years before abolishment. For the next hundred or dare I say currently even they have been discriminated against.

Someone explain to me please, now that black people are actually seen as whole human beings instead of 3.5ths of a person how do you make them equally entitled to the opportunities that their suppressors have had for over 400 combined years?

But black people are violent, say's then numbers.
And white people are wealthy, because numbers don't lie.




YOU don't make them equal. They have to make themselves equal. For the most part, there is very little real racism. But when a small portion of the population commits a large portion of the crime...you lean that as a generalization, you are safer elsewhere. No one can give anyone a continual "leg up" without destroying that person's ego. You have to allow them to meet their own challenges, beat those problems and come out saying "look what I did".



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
When we examine the algorithm of crime and violence we should input in the equation that the average white family has 100 thousand dollars as assets and the average black or Latino family has 5 thousand dollars to their name.


Of course this is not the only curve in the equation that determines the crime rate but it has a big effect on the formula.

But unless you can conclusively prove that this difference is ONLY because of skin color, it doesn't matter. Maybe the poorer person is lazy, maybe they are happy where they are or maybe they have a bad attitude and no one wants to hire them. Unless you have some information that I don't...that proves it was someone EVERYONE else's fault...I have to believe it is the individual's fault.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 12:11 AM
link   
The chart is clear, and the statistics are accurate. The question is, why can't we discuss it without people claiming racism? What if it isn't about racism, but is simply about the facts? What if more people of certain skin colors are arrested and jailed because more of them actually commit crimes? That is as possible as racial profiling.

If that is the case, then what should be examined is the reasons that is so. If that is the case, then refusing to allow anyone to look for the reasons is a real problem. Claiming that the numbers are what they are because of racism, if that isn't true, means we can never find the real causes, and never solve the problem.

So, instead of going the usual route, an assuming racial profiling, an unfair justice system, and so forth, how about we look for other possible reasons?

That said what possible reasons exist?

1. Poverty. This one is thrown out frequently. Is it valid? Maybe, to a point. In a home with little money, with a single parent, or both parents working, children will have less supervision, at times. Lower income people can have a hard time getting any childcare, much less good childcare. So, the kids are left on their own, and can then get into more trouble. They can be easily drawn into gangs. They can become bored, and join up with so-called "flash mobs" to commit various crimes. However, is the poverty really the cause? Do poor kids everywhere join gangs and take up crime? How much crime, for example, is there among the extremely poor youths in Appalachia? Generation poverty there, for certain, and far worse, usually, in terms of degree, but we don't hear about waves of crime there. So, poverty cannot be blamed. It might add to other factors, but it doesn't act alone.

2. Race. Some groups claim that alone is the issue. Typically, that claim is made because of real racism. That said, is it possible there is some correlation? We know that some things are inherited, such as tendencies to alcoholism, for example. Is it possible that there are other behaviors for which the tendency is hereditary? How can we study that, without the "racist" label getting in the way, from either side? Without one side screaming that it's racist to even consider, and without the other side allowing racist tendencies to taint the results? If there is such a genetic problem, knowing about it could help someone avoid the issue.

3. Culture. This is the one I lean toward. We all know that people tend to group together, for various similarities between them. Sometimes, it's beliefs, or work, or shared entertainment interests, and sometimes, it's race. It's just a fact of human nature. Therefore, cultural influences can and do affect racial groups, especially in any place where the people group by race. When the entertainment culture preferred by one such group promotes and glorifies violence, then it's not really a surprise when the group becomes more violent.

Of course, many factors probably contribute to the issue, but being allowed to actually consider all of them is the ONLY way we will ever resolve the problem. Otherwise, the crime will continue, the hate crime from one side will be ignored, and things will get worse.




top topics



 
67
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join