We've covered School shootings. Now lets tackle Chicago.

I dunno if I'd call Russians Caucasian though, they were pretty much a mix of White and Asian when the Mongol went through and now we have Slavic out of that.

 

Leave it to a German to suggest Russians aren’t Caucasian because they’re a slight mixture of other Asiatic races

 

Again it stands to reason that if the majority population is one race, it's pretty likely that race is the one committing the most crime. At least logic should suggest that.

But I do like the reality of far less guns yet far more crime. You might want to share that with the gun control argument over on the School Mass shooting thread. The left is convinced that more guns is the reason for more deaths by crime.

 

So when you mix yellow and red which makes green it's still correct to call green, yellow or red?

 

They are probably as Caucasion as we are.

 

Silly logic. We have Slavic culture because they aren't white and they aren't Asian, that's why they're called Slavics. Lol.

 

Thats why race is such an arbitrary notion anyways

 

All I got to say to that is...

LOL.

 

Black people aren't inherently violent, but urban black culture within black communities is very much inherently violent.

This is a cultural issue that also happens to be a racial issue because the culture is so strongly associated with a single race.

 

Of course they’re as white as you but a product of the lebensborn program would reject that notion - and as a matter of fact Irmi did ~ sigh ~

 

The illicit drug trade in the US is estimated at 100 Billion annually; do you honestly think that if black street dealers suddenly decided to emigrate to Africa
to find their roots (myself included, although I’d never do anything illegal) the void wouldn’t quickly be filled by white street dealers who would form gangs
whose rivalries would quickly lead to open warfare in the inner-city

 

If we were debating this subject in the 1920s, Chicago would still be a violent place, but it wouldn't be blacks we'd be talking about. The Irish were the first mobsters in the U.S and Chicago., and the bigots of the day thought they were inherently violent. But then the Italians and Al Capone's Chicago Outfit took over violently. Gun violence back then was connected with bootlegging. The Irish and Italians, being white, moved onward and upward through politics and other endeavors. Today it's the African-Americans, and hard drugs have replaced bootlegging as the problematic occupation. For further reading.check these out:
Chicago’s gun violence crisis is also a mental health crisis
FACT CHECK: Is Chicago Proof That Gun Laws Don't Work?
Has Everyone Given Up On Gun Violence In Chicago? | HuffPost
Chicago’s Murder Problem
Is Chicago proof that gun laws don't work? | The Tylt

 

Well yeah, cause I don't see Slavics as Caucasians. That's why they're Slavics. I don't get why that's so hard to understand? That's like me saying Jamaicans and Ethiopians are the same because they're black, like that's the only basis I have for saying that.

I guess I'll just never understand why it's interpreted as racist and politically incorrect to correctly idenify a person to their cultural background.

It's like hearing "oh he/she looks European". What the hell does that mean? You ask why? Oh they just have that Italian look with the olive skin. They come out with that and you just gotta LOL but on the inside. I don't think Italians look like Germans and I don't think Germans look like Polish and I don't think Polish look like Russians. And the two latters shouldn't look like the others, they're Slavic. Yet we are European. and we look different. I don't even know what a European should look like and if we mix the whole lot I reckon that be one weird looking person lol. But we already have, we call them the Dutch.  lol I'm just kidding.

So anyway where was I going with this? I can't remember. But if I kept calling Somalian, hey man you must be from Jamaica. I'd expect him to after a while get the shits with that. And darn tootin' he should get the shits too.

 

Good point to some extent. If there was a void left AND the drug market was still there, no doubt it would be filled by another race. Someone would sell them.

 

I don't know why the other link isn't working. This table American FactFinder - Results (if the link will work) will show the number of people of each race. I can type it all out if it doesn't work, but I would rather show you the table. I think what you'll find is that there is some intersectionality at play when it comes to street crime. There is race connected to poverty. There is poverty connected to limited education. There is joblessness connected to poverty. There is some kind of disadvantage, whether it's being neglected by their parents, or not getting attention from their teachers in school.

I am not asking you to give them a pass. No one should commit crime. We have a judicial system, with many racial problems of its own. Be that as it may, those problems can be addressed as well, though perhaps not very easily.

Here is an excerpt from a recently written sociology textbook that talks about "who commits crime". There is a section on race and ethnicity that I will bold for you. You don't have to read it, but I think it's interesting.

 

If black people would stop having so many babies they cant support, that would be a start.

 

What about those Irish and Italians who were the Chicago crime problem in the 1920s? Did they solve the problem by stopping having so many babies? But they were white and were able to move onward and upward--through politics, mainly.

 

I did read it and I do appreciate the bolded portion. It says a lot that I think we can mostly agree on.

So it would be interesting to see crime statistics on poor whites in a relatively similar demographic model.

Further it would be interesting to see what is proposed is the reason why every ethnic group that has entered into our nation seems to be able to assimilate into our American fabric and become like the working American culture by the second generation ie: Parents came here as poor Irish, or Asians etc., with no money and hated by the Americans, yet by the time their kids grew up, they (the kids) were as much a part of the successful American process and needed no further assistance or excuses of poor socio economic standing? I have been hearing the same argument that poverty is the reason for our crime problems, and I do agree to a large extent. By why is poverty the driving force for so many generations of blacks and not so for other ethnic groups?

 

If you type in 60634, American FactFinder and then click where it says "2016 American Community Survey Demographic and Housing Estimates (Age, Sex, Race, Households and Housing,...)" It will tell you how many white people, how many black people, how many and what tribe of Native American. It's interesting. For 60634 it seems like there are only a few African American people (1,235) vs. quite a few white people (58,222). Also, the median income (the number in the middle if numbers are grouped in order from least to greatest, thus 12345) is $58,184. That's not really high but it probably means that each parent in a three person household (2.65 if we're honest) is bringing home $29,092. I don't know if that's counting taxes. But if that's the middle number there are 50% below it making less, and 50% above it making more. So the median is comfortable I think. It's not a low number. I don't know if this area would be considered low income. And the proportion of white to black suggests that it's a white neighborhood. Interesting.

 

Yep...I am glad you concur with what I was trying to express when I discussed the 11.5% poverty rate there. Unless the entire population of that 11.5% was black, it would suggest that this zipcode which we know isn't all black in make-up, and we know isn't poor. Yet the vast majority of crimes committed were by the same race, it sort of lends itself to ask, maybe it isn't about poor socio economic lack of opportunity as has been suggested for decades.