I don't understand how no one talks about the systemic, generational poverty that a large proportion of the US black population lives in. It's just incomprehensible to me how people can't see how this leads to crime.
Because there are lots of instances of people living in deep poverty without killing each other at ridiculously high rates. Most people in China or India are more materially deprived than those living in the American inner-city, yet the neighborhoods there are much, much safer. Philadelphia in 1890 was much poorer, and much more unequal, yet the homicide rates were 10X lower. Also Edwardian England is a compelling counter-example. Read "The Classic Slum" by Robert Roberts. British society around 1900 was massively unequal and lots of people were desperately poor. But their homicide rates were 100X lower than the rates seen in the contemporary ghetto. The poor working class areas of England during that period had intact families, schools that provided discipline, strict policing, and strong institutions.
We are a savage species and crime is the default. What prevents crime is civilization. What you see in the black inner-cities is an utter void of civilization.
Um, from taking walks a few blocks from my apartment and doing volunteering in such communities. Also just reading the local news. Also reading lots of ethnographies. Go read American Millstone (http://www.amazon.com/American-Millstone-Examination-Permane...) or Ghettoside and maybe you will rethink those scare quotes. I'm not sure how "void of civilization" is an unfair label for what is described in those books.
There were white (mostly Irish) inner city areas with a complete void of civilization, such as old southie, but those areas are less prevalent these days. That said there is lots of degeneracy among the white population in some areas too. I'd call those areas more of a partial void of civilization rather than an utter void of civilization.
They aren't scare quotes, they are merely direct quotation marks. "Black inner-cities" is fine as an observation. But, it's hard for me to read your post above and not come away thinking that your implication is 'being black makes one more prone to crime and uncivilized behavior.' Could you clarify to what extent you think race (as opposed to poverty from birth) contributes to one's predilection for "civilized" behavior?
There is a saying that every generation is invaded by a horde of savages -- they're called children. Humans are savage by default, civilization is not natural. It took generations to build the institutions, the social mores, the web of reinforcing family and peer influences, the culture, the churches/schools, etc, that make civilization possible. The existence of these elements vary by people, vary by ethnicity (ethnicity being a combination of tribe and culture and institutions). If you look at the worst inner-city, ethnically African-American neighborhoods, those elements are all missing. Kids are raised from the cradle to the jail-cell without civilizing influences of parental discipline, good peer influences, and peer role models. Again, read American Millstone, or The Corner or Ghettoside. That is what I mean by a void of civilization.
You've described the scene: poor and predominantly African-American neighborhoods oftentimes lack stabilizing social networks. I mostly agree with this description. I might not call it a "void of civilization," but I will agree that there's a difference between West Oakland and Berkeley.
I am asking a different question. To be blunt, which contributes more to the current lack of "civilizing influences" in inner-cities: that the actors involved are black, or that the actors involved were born into the same lack of "civilizing influences" 20 years earlier?
I didn't answer your question because it was not germane to the discussion. Whether or not there is are innate differences in tendency, behavior is quite malleable via the proper culture, institutions, and law enforcement. But if you really want an answer I will try to humor you.
"I am asking a different question. To be blunt, which contributes more to the current lack of "civilizing influences" in inner-cities: that the actors involved are black, or that the actors involved were born into the same lack of "civilizing influences" 20 years earlier?"
To be even more blunt, I take it you asking whether black genes matter more or whether the environmental conditions matter more? It is not really possible to answer that question along a comparative axis of "more or less." With most human traits, genes determine both the slope of the improvement curve and where the improvement curve plateaus. Environment determines where one is along that curve. I cannot throw a javelin 80 meters. Which matters more, genes or the fact that I have never trained to throw the javelin? That's not really a well put question. I'm sure with training I could throw it 40 meters, I highly doubt I have the genes to ever be able to throw it a world-class 80 meters.
Similarly with African-American neighborhoods -- I think they have the genes to have peaceful, orderly neighborhoods because such neighborhoods have existed in the African-American population before. I am pessimistic that there will ever be an African or African-American Pudong or Silicon Valley, because I don't think the concentration of genes are there. I would love to be proven wrong, but I think more evidence backs that view than not ( https://jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-i...https://liberalbiorealism.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/the-likel... )
Most likely, there are statistical differences in gene frequency that make average behavioral traits differ between the races, all things being equal. I say that, because the world looks exactly like you would expect, were that hypothesis to be true. When you compare races, such as the Han Chinese, the Irish, and Africans, the Chinese tend to be the most orderly, regardless of where they live (China, Singapore, Taiwan, the American Chinatowns, etc) whereas those of African descent tend to have higher rates of crime and disorder, no matter whether it be Johannesburg, Belize, Rio, Liberia, Jamaica, Haiti, or Madison, Wisconsin. Worldwide, race predicts crime better than anything else.
But given the right conditions, Chinese can be quite disorderly. And we have proven cases in the past of black communities being quite disorderly. So regardless of the genetic tendencies, the outcomes are malleable.
Because there are lots of instances of people living in deep poverty without killing each other at ridiculously high rates. Most people in China or India are more materially deprived than those living in the American inner-city, yet the neighborhoods there are much, much safer. Philadelphia in 1890 was much poorer, and much more unequal, yet the homicide rates were 10X lower. Also Edwardian England is a compelling counter-example. Read "The Classic Slum" by Robert Roberts. British society around 1900 was massively unequal and lots of people were desperately poor. But their homicide rates were 100X lower than the rates seen in the contemporary ghetto. The poor working class areas of England during that period had intact families, schools that provided discipline, strict policing, and strong institutions.
We are a savage species and crime is the default. What prevents crime is civilization. What you see in the black inner-cities is an utter void of civilization.