Why are the Countries Primarily Made of Black and Brown People the Most Dangerous?

[GHook93]

I try to argue with Willian Joyce when he goes into rants about Blacks and Latinos being overly violent people, so I had some time today and I researched it. Someone please explain facts! Please do it other then saying the WHITE MAN keeps them down, because that is bullshit and you know it.

What region of the world has the highest murder rate in the 2000s?

Interesting Note: Out of 20 regions, the 9 out of the top 10 are composed of Latin America or Africa Regions!

http://www.genevadeclaration.org/fileadmin/docs/Global-Burden-of-Armed-Violence-full-report.pdf
Intentional homicide rates per 100,000 population by region and subregion, 2004
Southern Africa 37.3
Central America 29.3
South America 25.9
West and Central Africa 21.6
East Africa 20.8
Africa 20
Caribbean 18.1
Americas 16.2
East Europe 8.1
North Africa 7.6
World 7.6
North America 6.5

Interesting the HATE-America-All-The-Time-Liberals always say America is the most dangerous place, but look at North America (composed of Canada, US, Mexico and Central America). Even with high murder rate countries like like Honduras #1 (67 m), El Salavador #3 (59), Venezuela #4 (45) Guatemala #5 (41), Belize #6 (33.4), Panama #15 (12.9), Mexico #17 (23) and Nicaragua #18 (12), North America (with USA as its biggest country) has a murder rate of 6.5, which is under the world murder rate!

It seems like the African and Latin America fight for the murder rate capital of the world!

Interesting note: Its funny how the socialism paradise in Latin America have the highest murder rate: Honduras is #1, El Salavador is #3, Venezuela is #4 (good job Hugo Fat Ass - when you bitch about other countries, you should start to look inward first) and Nicaragua at #18!.

It is also interesting that Africa and Latin America (two regions of the world that contribute to the most crime in the US) are far and away the murder rate contenders of th world!

Notes On Top 25 Murder Rate Countries:
(1) The Top 10 are all Latin American or Africa (or African decendent countries aka Jamaica and Trindad)
(2) Top 15 is composed of all Latin American or Africa (or African decendent countries aka Jamaica and Trindad), except for Mother Russia at 15!
(3) Top 25 is composed of all Latin American or Africa (or African decendent countries aka Jamaica and Trindad), except for Mother Russia at 15, Mongolia at 20, Kazakhstan at 21 and Kyrgyeshi at 25.
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
NOTE: Yes I went to wikipedia for this, but click on the wikie sources and they are legit!

Interesting note about the USA:
Homicide, Robbery, Rape and Battery rates are all the highest per capitia in the large cities aka LA, SD, Chicago, D.C., PHX, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami etc. The racial make up of these cities are primarily made up of minorities: African-American (who trace back to Africa) and Latin America.

See the most dangerous parts of the country in the charts below in the chart. The chart shows the number of violent crimes committed per 100,000 people. Meaning violence per captia. The South runs away with this, specifically the ones with the highest Latin American immigrants. FL for example has a significant number of Mexican, Haitian, Cuban, Jamaican and other Latin American immigrants and its the most dangerous.

Take the Northwest and it has the lowest Latin American and African Population and its the safest by far!

 

[Foxfyre]

You do know Ghook, that for whatever purpose you ask the question 'why' about this, you will be branded a racist. That is of course unless you happen to be Hispanic or Black in which case you will simply be branded a discredit to your race.

You might as well ask why no country of mostly black citizens or why so few countries of mostly brown citizens are economically prosperous or grant much in the way of human rights.

And since I have now made myself a target by simply suggesting such a question I will say unequivocably:

1. No country is poor because of the race of its people.
2. No country is short on human rights because of the race of its people.
3. And no country can point to white people as the reason it is poor and short on human rights.

So there should be other answers, yes?

 

[ConHog]

The difference is the sanctity we and western Europe put on life is simply absent in most of the world. I would argue that this is because of our Judeo/Christian heritage, but that's an argument for another thread.

 

[GHook93]

The reason I ask WHY, is because I have had many discussion with Willian Joyce on this and he says look to the stats. Then I Hellbitch aka Bones posted a truly horrendous story about South Africans Men with AIDS raping virgins to cure themselves of AIDS!

So I took WJ up his challenge and I see these stats! Can someone answer some of these questions for me:
(1) Haiti was the 2nd country in the Western Hemisphere to receive its independence, but it remains the armpit of the Western Hemisphere?
(2) Venezuela is a top oil producing country, yet its a shithole?
(3) The only 2 non-violent countries of Latin America are Argentina and Chile, yet they are the two countries composed of most White Spanards!

There is a trend here!

You do know Ghook, that for whatever purpose you ask the question 'why' about this, you will be branded a racist. That is of course unless you happen to be Hispanic or Black in which case you will simply be branded a discredit to your race.

You might as well ask why no country of mostly black citizens or why so few countries of mostly brown citizens are economically prosperous or grant much in the way of human rights.

And since I have now made myself a target by simply suggesting such a question I will say unequivocably:

1. No country is poor because of the race of its people.
2. No country is short on human rights because of the race of its people.
3. And no country can point to white people as the reason it is poor and short on human rights.

So there should be other answers, yes?

 

[ConHog]

The reason I ask WHY, is because I have had many discussion with Willian Joyce on this and he says look to the stats. Then I Hellbitch aka Bones posted a truly horrendous story about South Africans Men with AIDS raping virgins to cure themselves of AIDS!

So I took WJ up his challenge and I see these stats! Can someone answer some of these questions for me:
(1) Haiti was the 2nd country in the Western Hemisphere to receive its independence, but it remains the armpit of the Western Hemisphere?
(2) Venezuela is a top oil producing country, yet its a shithole?
(3) The only 2 non-violent countries of Latin America are Argentina and Chile, yet they are the two countries composed of most White Spanards!

There is a trend here!

You do know Ghook, that for whatever purpose you ask the question 'why' about this, you will be branded a racist. That is of course unless you happen to be Hispanic or Black in which case you will simply be branded a discredit to your race.

You might as well ask why no country of mostly black citizens or why so few countries of mostly brown citizens are economically prosperous or grant much in the way of human rights.

And since I have now made myself a target by simply suggesting such a question I will say unequivocably:

1. No country is poor because of the race of its people.
2. No country is short on human rights because of the race of its people.
3. And no country can point to white people as the reason it is poor and short on human rights.

So there should be other answers, yes?

I gave you an answer, maybe not one you wanted though.

 

[strollingbones]

in all fairness..there are many theories on why the south is so violent...is it our love of guns....our love of land...we can be very territorial....some say the heat makes us insane...

the shocking part of the article on men raping virgins ....in africa..they were raping babies....

hey ghook what is the murder rate in israel? inquring minds wanna know

 

[Luissa]

I don't know a lot of liberals who say the US is the most dangerous place... I am confused as to where you even got this??

 

[Tank]

Low IQ's and High testosterone levels.

 

[ConHog]

Low IQ's and High testosterone levels.

Well, that explains Ravi, but what about everyone else.

 

[Greenbeard]

Why are the Countries Primarily Made of Black and Brown People the Most Dangerous?

Have you considered exploring what other variables distinguish different nations or regions on your list? Perhaps look at GDP per capita/poverty rates, stratification and Gini coefficients, things like that. You could also stray away from the quantitative a bit and consider recent history, the strength and structure of political institutions in those nations, and things to that effect.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Why are the Countries Primarily Made of Black and Brown People the Most Dangerous?

Have you considered exploring what other variables distinguish different nations or regions on your list? Perhaps look at GDP per capita/poverty rates, stratification and Gini coefficients, things like that. You could also stray away from the quantitative a bit and consider recent history, the strength and structure of political institutions in those nations, and things to that effect.

Too much effort. Easier to just say that Black and Brown people are inferior. It also makes them feel better about their own inadequacies.


And can someone merge this with Ghook's other thread? Why he had to make two threads about virtually the same thing is a mystery. http://www.usmessageboard.com/immig...n/124041-guatemalas-out-of-control-crime.html

 

[Foxfyre]

Why are the Countries Primarily Made of Black and Brown People the Most Dangerous?

Have you considered exploring what other variables distinguish different nations or regions on your list? Perhaps look at GDP per capita/poverty rates, stratification and Gini coefficients, things like that. You could also stray away from the quantitative a bit and consider recent history, the strength and structure of political institutions in those nations, and things to that effect.

I considered that with a pretty explicit post and folks are pretty well avoiding that as if it was radioactive.

It doesn't matter which, what, or how many different factors you drag into it whether that be crime, violence, GDP, poverty, etc., the fact remains that you are more likely to have negatives in all these things in countries in which the populations are predominantly black or brown.

I have specifically ruled out race as a factor in any of that.

So we are still left with the question: why?

 

[Greenbeard]

It doesn't matter which, what, or how many different factors you drag into it whether that be crime, violence, GDP, poverty, etc., the fact remains that you are more likely to have negatives in all these things in countries in which the populations are predominantly black or brown.

I have specifically ruled out race as a factor in any of that.

You've shown that this isn't a spurious relationship? How did you do that? Crosstabs or something?

 

[Foxfyre]

It doesn't matter which, what, or how many different factors you drag into it whether that be crime, violence, GDP, poverty, etc., the fact remains that you are more likely to have negatives in all these things in countries in which the populations are predominantly black or brown.

I have specifically ruled out race as a factor in any of that.

You've shown that this isn't a spurious relationship? How did you do that? Crosstabs or something?

No. I simply made what I believe is an accurate observation no matter how politically incorrect it is - or - however much those who find this subject uncomfortable will try to twist it to avoid dealing with it.

So if somebody asked you point blank:

Why is it that the countries that are currently rated the most violent, the most crime ridden, substandard GDP, and/or have high poverty rates have populations that are mostly black or brown?. . . .AND we have ruled out race as being a factor in that. . . .

how would you answer it?

 

[R.C. Christian]

It's economic people. It's also to a much lesser degree the welfare state. Generations of minorities learn to live on just enough to survive and they pass that on to their kids. Unfortunately, for the planet there is one thing that the poor do well and that is reproducing mass copies of themselves, especially the latino fools. You can blame the goddamned catholic church for that bullshit.

So it's a never ending cycle. To get ahead all those kids have A LOT of pressure on them to turn to crime because it is more profitable than working a job. If whites were economically disenfranchised they'd do the exact same thing.

Listen to minority rap music or sports to a lesser degree for more proof. It's all about the money, and if you never had any then you just want it more and more.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Why is it that the countries that are currently rated the most violent, the most crime ridden, substandard GDP, and/or have high poverty rates have populations that are mostly black or brown?. . . .AND we have ruled out race as being a factor in that. . . .

how would you answer it?

Colonialism. More specifically, colonialism and the socio-economic patterns that develop thereon. I'd go into detail, but at its core there's nary a more encompassing reason. You could take it back further, "Why did countries with White people become so good at exploiting countries with black, brown, and yellow people?" Well, there's many books on the subject. I'd recommend Guns, Germs, and Steel for a fun read. The causes for all of these things are quite complex, perhaps even too complex to waste an hour and a half writing a 3 page expose on this message board which nobody's going to read.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why is it that the countries that are currently rated the most violent, the most crime ridden, substandard GDP, and/or have high poverty rates have populations that are mostly black or brown?. . . .AND we have ruled out race as being a factor in that. . . .

how would you answer it?

Colonialism. More specifically, colonialism and the socio-economic patterns that develop thereon. I'd go into detail, but at its core there's nary a more encompassing reason. You could take it back further, "Why did countries with White people become so good at exploiting countries with black, brown, and yellow people?" Well, there's many books on the subject. I'd recommend Guns, Germs, and Steel for a fun read. The causes for all of these things are quite complex, perhaps even too complex to waste an hour and a half writing a 3 page expose on this message board which nobody's going to read.

Nope. That theory won't hold up under an objective analysis of the histories.

Borrowing a paragraph from Walter Williams who has devoted a great deal of study to the economics of under developed countries:

African leaders, and many people on the left, blame Africa's problems on the evils of colonialism. They sometimes blame the violence on the borders colonialists created that ignored ethnicity. Many African nations have been independent for four decades. If colonial borders were a major problem, how come they haven't changed them? And, by the way, colonialism cannot explain Third World poverty. Some of today's richest countries are former colonies, such as: United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong. Some of today's poorest countries were never colonies, such as: Ethiopia, Liberia, Tibet, Nepal and Bhutan. The colonialism argument is simply a cover up for African dictators.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams.html

 

[Samson]

Skin color is the simplest of distinguishing characteristics between humans.

It is therefore the easiest distinguishing characteristic for the simple-minded.

Atrocious behaviour, e.g. crime, mass murder, etc., is a common denominator of humans, regardless of their color, when their basic human needs are not satisfied.

Presently, countries "primarily [inhabited] by caucasians have declining populations, and their people easily have resources that keep them happy. Generally, this is not the case in nations with minority caucasion demographics whose population growth exceeded the resources available to satisfy the people.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Why is it that the countries that are currently rated the most violent, the most crime ridden, substandard GDP, and/or have high poverty rates have populations that are mostly black or brown?. . . .AND we have ruled out race as being a factor in that. . . .

how would you answer it?

Colonialism. More specifically, colonialism and the socio-economic patterns that develop thereon. I'd go into detail, but at its core there's nary a more encompassing reason. You could take it back further, "Why did countries with White people become so good at exploiting countries with black, brown, and yellow people?" Well, there's many books on the subject. I'd recommend Guns, Germs, and Steel for a fun read. The causes for all of these things are quite complex, perhaps even too complex to waste an hour and a half writing a 3 page expose on this message board which nobody's going to read.

Nope. That theory won't hold up under an objective analysis of the histories.

Borrowing a paragraph from Walter Williams who has devoted a great deal of study to the economics of under developed countries:

African leaders, and many people on the left, blame Africa's problems on the evils of colonialism. They sometimes blame the violence on the borders colonialists created that ignored ethnicity. Many African nations have been independent for four decades. If colonial borders were a major problem, how come they haven't changed them? And, by the way, colonialism cannot explain Third World poverty. Some of today's richest countries are former colonies, such as: United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong. Some of today's poorest countries were never colonies, such as: Ethiopia, Liberia, Tibet, Nepal and Bhutan. The colonialism argument is simply a cover up for African dictators.

WALTER WILLIAMS

Explains it better than anything else, and you have not disproved anything. I don't know who this "Walter Williams" character is, but taking a few isolated examples does not deny the the fact that the biggest determinant for underdevelopment is Colonialism/Imperialism plain and simple. The examples you post there are not characteristic of most imperial-colonial relationships. The type of Colonialism that the US went through is very different from that that say, El Salvador or Bolivia went through. If you really wanted to, we COULD go through each of those case by case.

The US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand do not fit the typical Colonial type that was the norm in much of Africa or Asia. It was settler colonialism. The indigenous were decimated and destroyed. Relations between the settlers and the Mother country are undoubtedly of a different character than those of Indigenous-Settler relations; they cannot be compared. There was no inherent racial bias, because they were dealing with the same race. The institutions transplanted were not foreign to settlers.

What about countries that weren't colonized? The examples given are also of a different character. Liberia was founded by freed American slaves who went on to enslave the native Liberians (do onto others...). Tibet, Bhutan and Nepal are small and isolated throughout most of their histories. Iran, Thailand, and Ethiopia, never formally colonized, were nevertheless under neo-imperial influence, surrounded by colonial states with monarchies which had to succumb to imperial pressure at any point it was necessary. Iran's case is perhaps the most obvious of these.

In either case its clear that each type of Imperialism would affect each country different. Spanish colonialism was not the same as later French And British, likewise radically different from Japanese imperialism.

"A simple look at history" doesn't explain anything. If one really wants to understand why, it would pay off to actually look at and understand the histories of the countries one is talking about. Just looking at a list of countries that were or weren't colonized and comparing them to GDP doesn't cut it. Devil's in the details.

 

[GHook93]

hey ghook what is the murder rate in israel? inquring minds wanna know

Israel is very low - 1.87 murders per 100,000!
http://www.cbs.gov.il/shnaton59/st11_03.pdf

But so is Palestine's for that matter. 3.85 per 100,000!
http://www.cbs.gov.il/shnaton59/st11_03.pdf

When you look at it, most of the Arab countries like UAE, Jordan, Kuwait, Tunsia, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Lebanon, Morocco, Qatar, Syria, Yemen and yes even Iran are not that violent of places. They have few murders per 100,000!

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia