Extremely important question, from a confused black teenager

Great Debates
1

Hi… I’m Alostsomeone, and I like science and history and getting straight A’s (this intro is really unnecessary, but hopefully it’ll provide some context to the rest of what I’m about to say). For the past year or two I’ve dedicated much of my online resources to disproving racist claims about black people and why “we” do and don’t do certain things, because upon first hearing many of these claims, being a sheltered home schooled kid formerly engrossed in white suburban culture, they were extremely alarming and destroyed much of my self-confidence and pride in my identity, despite none of the common black stereotypes applying to me. I’ve managed to clear up much of the mystery surrounding the IQ debate for myself, something I may or may not go into later (I don’t really feel the need to attract any more of the stormfront trolls I’ve seen on this board before than this thread already will) but not the crime rates… I’ve heard a lot of people say that the high crime rate of afro americans is mainly due to lack of economic opportunities, fatherless homes and racism; that was what I believed for a while, but now, I’m not so sure. I came across a few blogs (extremely biased ones) where people were posting crime states from 1904-1960s showing that even then, black men were grossly overrepresented in crime despite comprising even less of the population back then, and despite single-parent homes being extremely uncommon in the black community during that time frame. I found the stats suspicious immediately; first off because there was little evidence for where the documents originated, as they seemed to have been circulating around the same cluster of extremely racist blogs; secondly because of course during that time frame, many black people were falsely accused, arrested and lynched for crimes they played no part in; so naturally, I wrote it off as bullshit. The only thing that made me question whether or not I was wrong for doing so was when I read the writings of W.E.B Dubois on subject; he seemed to agree even then that there was a violent crime problem in black communities, wrote of it almost extensively, and didn’t think it could be explained by the racist bias of the time. That was disturbing to me; to be clear, I still don’t think it’s genetic, in-part because the so-called “warrior gene” so many claim we possess is also, according to studies, extremely common among chinese men, who’s crime rates are low. My question is: If the crime rates aren’t because of fatherless homes, poverty, or racism, then why has been like this for so long? Obviously racism and poverty were much worse prior the 1960s, and yet as those have decreased (but not gone away) crime in the black community has risen every decade (discounting between now and the 90s, where overall crime declined). If it were high even then, when single parent homes were not the norm, then what could be the cause?

Note: I have considered the possibility that W.E.B Dubois could’ve been wrong or overly optimistic to assume that racism and false reports were not inflating the black crime rate, in fact, I wonder why he would think such a thing at all. I do think his writings however give us reason to question whether or not “the break-down of the black family” is really responsible.
Sources upon which I base my conclusions and statements (some of them questionable, but you decide):

W. E. B. Du Bois, THE SOULS OF BLACK FOLKS: CH09 << Quote from Dubois (I consider him about the only trustworthy source I’m listing here, he’s the only one who made me even consider what those wacky blogs were saying)
Violent Crimes: Black On White & White On Black: Black Males & Their Historical Crime Rates
^ Some sketchy documents here and on a few other similar blogs that seem as if they were spawned by the same person…
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1261
^ This wasn’t originally where I saw the claim for 11 percent single-parent rate prior to the 70s, and I don’t agree with all the other crap it says about the left; but I’ve seen the 11 percent stat touted by a lot of black and white conservatives alike who say that before fathers left the community, crime was supposedly so much lower, which doesn’t match up of course with what Web Du bois thought.

But yeah, I’d like to know what you guys think; about what Du Bois said, possible causes of the crime rate, etc.

I will entertain a genetic explanation IF:
-Provide a plausible explanation for why the “warrior gene” would not produce the same effects in chinese males
-Provide a plausible explanation for why within group heritability for IQ would apply between groups which follow completely different sets of social cues and receive vastly differing treatment in nearly ever aspect of life.
-Prove that the IQ gap hasn’t been closing (more recent reports suggest that it has reduced by roughly 5 points, based on statistically representative samples and controlling for the renorming of tests)
-Explain why many social interventions have been relatively successful in reducing teen pregnancy and propensity for crime, while improving academic performance even when they don’t raise IQ
-Explain why some interventions have produced permanent gains
-Explain why recent evidence suggests that the fade out effect seen with most interventions is not due to a failure to raise ‘g’ (in other words, interventions can raise general intelligence for children, but because they are limited effects don’t last).

To summarize my entire questions: Why does it seem that black people have been overrepresented in crime for so long? If it’s reliable; then why is this, and how can we fix it? I’m open minded, will entertain all perspectives as long as you have compelling evidence that I have not already reviewed :dubious:. Thank you.

2

You don’t seem confused at all.

I think by independent thought you have reached the same conclusions as a racist white guy, and as he would, seeking to offer those conclusions in the interests of science; whether or not they rile up the liberal masses.
Your motivations are understandable. But as a British guy, not obsessed with race as are Americans ( we just dislike people ), I would say it all doesn’t matter a rush. So long as you are not criminal, or racist, it doesn’t matter if others are.

3

This is a great debate not “General” which is for getting to the facts not honing your debating skills.

You have the basics right… how can you do anything ? all you can say is that a racist needs to prove his claims that its not biased rantings…

Bian can be selecting facts.
(eg An african boy kills another… thats gang violence it counts.
eg a white boy shoots 20 school kids… his parents abused him and didnt help him, its a medical illness, it doesn’t count.)

Bias can be because the start conditions are not equal.
If the white boy grew up living on the streets of the Bronx…with police who punished him when he wasn’t doing anything wrong…

Well here’s one one to prove the racists wrong.

Ask them to show their nobel prize… or ask them if Nobel prize laureats are somehow crippled to be of a low IQ mind ?

Also Morgan Freeman, Will Smith, Obama, Oprah, Whoopie, the list goes on.

4

I don’t really want to debate, because I’m not trying to prove that black people are inherent criminals. I have a question about why the crime rates are the way they are :confused:

5

Alostsomeone, have you read The New Jim Crow? I am convinced systemic bias is playing a huge role in how life works for black Americans (and everybody else), but I’d be interested to know if you see the same thing after all your study on this subject. If it’s true that biased systems are the common denominator underlying the different time frames and circumstances you discuss, the answer is to fix our biased systems. That’s easier said than done, of course, because systems are complex and are created and maintained by people – who are biased. I wish I had an answer to that, I truly do. I look around the world and see in-group bias exists everywhere, and I wonder if that’s the genetic part – perhaps humans are hard-wired to prefer people who look and act, at least superficially, like themselves – and that’s how we seem to constantly end up in this situation regardless of time and place.

Thanks for your post. These are extremely important questions.

6

I haven’t read your entire post, because this is not a topic that is of consuming interest to me. But it just happens that last night I finished reading a short, quick book in which I think you will find a great deal of illumination. It is V S Naipaul’s “The Crocodiles of Yamoussoukro”, which might be found included in a book titled “Finding the Center”. Naipaul is a Nobel laureate author who grew up in Trinidad, and this book is about his exploration of African culture in Cote d’Ivoire.

If you haven’t already done so, you need to get a good footing of the culture of Africa. You might find a lot of clues about some of the origins of African culture. Another essential read would be “False Start in Africa”, the English translation of a work by Rene Dumont, written about early years of post-colonial Africa.

In my estimation, if you cannot fully understand Africa, you will be following false or incomprehensible leads through your discovery of African Americans.i I don’t have a lot of answers for you, but I have traveled to nearly all the countries of Africa, and I can assure you that there is a great deall of bedrock there, to be considered in your pursuit of understanding. Plane fares are very cheap nowadays. When you have a couple of weeks off, jump on a flight to Nigeria, and just go with the flow for a while.

7

This is more suitable for Great Debates than General Questions.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

8

The thing is, the reasons for that are debatable. :wink:

9

The highest crime rates in the world are in Central America, not in Africa or the “blackest” parts of the USA. And those crime rates are so high for reasons of economics, resources, society, culture, etc. If we look back in history, we can find times in which nearly every modern racial/ethnic group was on “top” at some point in some place, with associated relative wealth, power, and comfort, and we can find time in which nearly every modern racial/ethnic group was at the “bottom” at some point in some place, with associated poverty, despair, and associated things like criminality. All of this was due to various factors in economics, society, culture, geography, resources, and similar factors that had nothing to do with the intrinsic/genetic nature of the ethnic/racial groups involved.

I see no reason to believe that present outcomes are the way they are for any other reasons than past outcomes… now isn’t special. The black Nubians ruled Egypt for a century in ancient times, but it wasn’t because of any inherent superiority or inferiority – it was just instances of temporarily better military/economic/etc. skills and technology. And outcomes now, whether in economics, criminal statistics, educational outcomes, or any other such groupings, are similarly based on past events and conditions related to economics, geography, history, society, culture, and the like.

10

Where did you source your concept of the “warrior gene” shared between Chinese and Afrcian populations that supposedly leads to higher crime rates? That smacks of the sort of eugenic thinking from the early 20th century that passes an initial nodding test, but rarely has any scientific background.

11

Welcome to the boards. I will be happy to see your further posts.

Now, I ask you, did any of those studies compare crime rates in lower class ghettoized white neighborhoods with those in the same kind of black communities? I’m guessing not because I’m guessing that those stats would not prove what the researchers wanted to prove. Did they compare the black and white crime rates in middle class integrated communities? My son lived in such a community for a couple years and no one talked about crime. In fact the houses on either side of his were black owned. This was in the Mt. Airy section of Philadelphia and had been integrated for 50 years, he was told. What were the crime rates there?

There are all sorts of other questions you can raise: differential policing, differential chances of getting out of the ghetto, availability of drugs, etc.

Above all, don’t let any of this affect your life.

12

Hi, Alostsomeone, and welcome to the SDMB.

I expect the higher rates of crime in the black community as compared to other groups are caused primarily by single parenthood, lack of economic opportunity, racism, and possibly genetic factors.

Racism, particularly institutional racism like Jim Crow, began to disappear in the 50s and 60s. Crime rates, however, for blacks and all other groups. rose dramatically. So did single parenting, in all groups but among blacks particularly. Since then, the rates have dropped, but remain higher for blacks than for other groups. Again, probably because of single parenthood, lack of economic opportunity, racism, although to a much lesser degree, and possibly genetic factors.

It appears to me that you might be subjecting yourself to some degree to the fallacy of the excluded middle.

If IQ is affected both by environment and culture, then it is possible to raise or lower average IQ by changing the culture even if genetic factors are held constant. That doesn’t prove that IQ is affected only by environment - it shows that IQ is affected by environment.

To run over your points in order -

  • I haven’t read your cites closely enough to comment on the idea of a “warrior gene”. Thus I wouldn’t know if or why it affects Chinese males or black men or both or neither.

  • Group heritability for IQ isn’t affected by culture. Performance is, but the part of IQ that is controlled by genes isn’t.

  • Likewise for the IQ gap. It can be closing due to cultural changes. It persists nonetheless. One theory for this is that genes don’t change as fast as culture.

  • The other points I would need more details. Which interventions have produced permanent gains, which temporary, and which have raised performance without raising IQ?

But again, welcome.

Regards,
Shodan

13

You also need to be circumspect about statistics. Only a very small number of Americans commit violent crimes. This is such a small number, that criminality is an outlier in every subset of people. You cannot draw any general conclusions about an entire community by simply measuring size of the outlier fringe – they are still outliers who do not represent the general population. In any study, the width of a fringe can expand or contract for a varied complex of reasons, and will also have nebulous borders which allows for a great deal of subjective inclusion.

14

Crime is not a self-explanatory variable.

Crime is defined loosely as violation of the law (ignoring for the moment distinctions between violations, misdemeanors, and felonies etc). The law is defined by the political and judicial systems that formulate them, and the political and judicial systems are defined by the larger social structure in which they are embedded. These are institutions of tradition, with much of the body of law having been handed down from previous systems of government, so they are only loosely of our specific culture and its specific history, although they are certainly tied to that and are in part part products of that.

For the most part, our system of laws is written in such a way that rather than there being one set of laws that applies to one set of people and a different set that applies to others. But race has historically been a category by which differential treatment has been accorded (among others, such as gender and age). Distinctions by race have been culled out of the body of law over the last 150 years as fundamentally unfair anachronisms, but be that as it may, the “one law for everybody” form of fairness can often manifest itself as “It is illegal for either wealthy people or poor people to sleep under the town bridge” —i.e., the laws as written affect some populations quite differently even though they apply to everyone.

Black people have, in general, not been in the comfortable situation of being settled people, where they would not be particularly vulnerable to social situations either individually or as black-majority communities. Instead, things that the law permits to happen would disproportionately exploit or mistreat them; things that the law renders illegal would be opportunties that black people and their communities would disproportionately be driven to engage in in order to survive.

As a consequence of the above, within black-majority communities it would be more normative than elsewhere for people to harbor cynical attitudes towards the inherent rightness of being law-abiding. The law would be perceived less as an intrinsic good and as the mutually binding social contract that we all acknowledge, and more as “their law, the law of the people running this society, which they use to justify what they do to us and to directly keep us down”.

Those perceptions add to the situational pressures to make it even more likely that folks in that environment would break the law on occasion more often than people of other social identities living in other communities.

That’s my take on it.

15

The TL;DR is that the higher crime rate is a soup of many factors - cycle of poverty, cycle of crime, single-parent families, culture, historical/societal factors etc. Politicians and sociologists may try to boil it down to one factor but it’s a mix of many.

16

Let me throw one more factor into the mix (and I’m not citing this at the moment because I’m off in a few minutes but will dig if absolutely necessary): there is a subtle but fundamental bias against blacks - and specifically black boys - in modern American society that manifests itself in a variety of ways:

  • Black children are more likely to be punished for misbehaviour in school than white children engaged in the same or similar behaviour. This effect has been recorded even at **pre-school **level.
  • Black children are likely to be punished more severely that white children being punished for the same or similar behaviour, and particularly are more likely to receive suspensions from school (which will have a disruptive effect on their schooling).
  • Black people are more likely to be stopped by the police than white people engaged in the same or similar behaviour.
  • Black people are more likely to be arrested than white people engaged the same or similar behaviour.
  • Black people are more likely to be convicted than white people arrested for the same or similar crimes.
  • Black people are likely to receive heavier sentences than white people convicted for the same or similar crimes.

And all this is true even if the authority figures (teachers, principals, police officers, judges) are black themselves. It’s no wonder so many fall by the wayside.

Add that on to the historical effects of much more overt racism - economic and social exclusion, much more severe systemic treatment, ghettoization, etc - and you’ve got a recipe for a lot of young black men in jail. The “breakdown of the black family” remains a significant factor inasmuch as having a stable homelife with strong positive role models is a good counter to many of these problems, but it’s not the only factor by a long way.

17

Due to malaria and climate the American south was poor and sparsely populated until the mid part of the 20th century. Because of this it was very hard to police and people had to settle disputes and crimes amongst themselves. This led to a culture that was honor based and people had to respond to slights and offenses harshly or be thought of as a potential victim. Freed slaves lived and adapted this culture. After reconstruction they had even less of a recourse to the authorities and so had to have even more of an honor culture. Honor cultures are prone to violence.
During the great migration black people took this honor culture to the northern cities. The harsh policing practices of the cities and the tight culture of the black migrants suppressed the crime rates somewhat. After the war the culture changed. The zeitgeist of the time was anti-authority and led to some to label criminals as rebels. Black culture reflecting this change such as the blaxploitation movies celebrated the tough criminal, Mohamed Ali was celebrated for taunting his opponents and refusing to serve in the military, the rise of rap music with its celebration of toughness and violence.
During the sixties court cases and lenient judges made effective policing much harder. Also This caused an explosion of crime rates as the doubled in the sixties, doubled again in the seventies, and almost doubled again in the eighties. Black areas in inner cities were hit the hardest.
Since 1992 the crime rate has plummeted and most of this is due to the reduction of crime among blacks. Part of the reason is better policing and less lead in the environment but much of it is that the culture of honor has started to fade.
What is to be done is that the government needs to continue to fight crime as well as possible. This will encourage marginal cases to not try crime and with every year there will be less crime. The more important part is changing black culture to glorify violence and toughness less. Another is to think of yourself as an individual and not as a representative of your race. Why should it matter to your self esteem if people you have never met and live thousands of miles away from you act in a good way or a criminal way?

18

Because poverty/income inequality has always been correlated with high crime rates ; and non-white people tend to enjoy more of that in Western societies for a number of socio-cultural reasons.

Moreover, crime rates are typically calculated based on police statistics, and white folks are more likely to report non-white crimes, just as justice is more likely to thump harder on non-whites, again for a variety of socio-cultural reasons. Which in turn has a knock-on effect on the next generation if Daddy never was home.

Note that this self-reinforcing cycle is not reducible to “white folks are just racists !”, because both sides of the fence have a role in the tendency - peer pressure within non-white communities, mistrust or outright rejection of institutions, self-reinforcing negativity (“the game’s just rigged, there’s no point in playing it anyway”) all play into the stereotype. And, well, the stereotype itself, too : if society’s going to look down on you like you’re a criminal anyway, you might as well just be one, get something out of it.

As to how you fix it : you keep your head down and hope for the best, mostly. There’s no magic bullet. Oh, and you implement full communism too, obviously :smiley:

19

Here’s a thought experiment - do away with all plea bargaining so that every felony charge must be given a full trial. Aside from the glitch of causing the criminal justice system to grind to a halt, you could eliminate one aspect of the wealth angle in which poorer defendants (disproportionately black) can’t afford lawyers who are better at negotiating plea bargains, reducing felonies to lesser felonies or even misdemeanors.

Alternately, allocate $50 billion/year to public-defender funding so that anyone who doesn’t have an attorney of their own can get, at state expense, high-quality representation.

20

But then they get public defenders who can only afford 5 minutes to their felony trial plea. Not much of an improvement there.

If you want to reduce the economic factor on the outcome of trials, make all trial attorneys randomly assigned public defenders. Just nuke private lawyers from orbit. Equality of chances, right there. You’d have to double-up on corruption investigations of course.