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

[GHook93]

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.

The USA started out in dire straits and built itself up! Germany was nearly leveled as a country. The Arabia peninsula country, while wealthy in oil, have low GDP, high poverty rates, lower literacy rates etc and they aren't violent places (murders per 100,000 that is).

Haiti was the 2nd nation to gain independence in the Western Hemisphere, yet they are always the armpit of the Western Hemisphere. Why do these countries and people never seem to take a step forward.

As for GDP! Mexico and Brazil have high GDPs, but they are utterly violent places! Especially Brazil!

Your theories stink of the liberal philosophy that people (esp minorities) do not have to take responsibility for their own misfortunes. That they can blame others, esp the white man!

 

[IanC]

yet another social trait that is intimately connected to intelligence. smart people typically have enough to lose that they stay away from escalating violence and the ability to see how things can turn bad.

thanks for the stats on Israel and Palestine. very interesting.

 

[Ravi]

Americas 16.2



What is the Americas?

 

[Foxfyre]

To Epsilon Delta, Walter Williams is a PhD ecnomist, professor of economics--actually headed the economics department of George Mason University for I believe six years--has authored numerous books most of which deal with history, black history, and economics including those of under developed countries.

His work has been supported by a number of other economists and historians who have done similar research.

And, if you followed the link I provided, you found his excellent essay on WHY some countries are more violent, less prosperous, less free etc. than others and it has nothing to do with colonization. Reading other of his essays and his books, as well as listening to his verbal commentaries gives one an excellent education on the subject.

He is generally dismissed by the Left as being unrealistic or wrong headed or stupid. He is not any o those things. He IS politically incorrect in that he identifies the root causes of poverty and backwardness and those causes don't support the general ideas of Leftist sociopolitical ideology.

I go elsewhere, however, to identify the root causes of why most countries populated by mostly black or brown people are poorer and often more violent than others. And that doesn't support Leftist sociopolitical ideology either.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I go elsewhere, however, to identify the root causes of why most countries populated by mostly black or brown people are poorer and often more violent than others. And that doesn't support Leftist sociopolitical ideology either.

Well, I'm all ears. What do YOU think?

 

[Foxfyre]

I go elsewhere, however, to identify the root causes of why most countries populated by mostly black or brown people are poorer and often more violent than others. And that doesn't support Leftist sociopolitical ideology either.

Well, I'm all ears. What do YOU think?

Okay, without going into a great deal of detail, let's go with the fact that I have spent quite a number of years now studying and writing on Church history and, while not an authority on the subject, do have a degree of expertise. I have been writing a comprehensive adult curriculum on that and have an editor interested.

It may or may not go anywhere, but I am claiming myself as my source so ya'll won't be clamoring for links.

Now then, we all know that the Roman Empire comprised mostly Mediterranean countries, what is now Eastern and Western Europe, and the near East. The indigenous populations of most of those countries are Caucasian. It was also much of that same general area to which Alexander the Greek mostly benevolently conquered and introduced to Hellenistic concepts--Hellenism being an enlightened and intellectual concept that introduced the Classical Age.

Hellenism was embraced and incorporated into much of near East Judaism and subsequently Chrsitianity which also would permeate the region, more particularly after Emperor Constantine made Christianity the favored religion of the region.

Followed the Medieval period with feudal lords, unscrupulous Popes, and ambitious Monarchs squelching and inhibiting much human freedom, but the spark of freedom and self determination and rationality had been planted. It was set free by the Reformation and flowered into full bloom in the Renaissance. And though by that time, the Roman Empire was no more, all this was still taking place mostly in what is now Europe, Northern Africa, and the near East.

So it was in those areas, mostly populated by Caucasians, in which the seeds of human worth and the yearning for freedom was most able to flourish. And thus, it was there that people demanded more freedom to determine their own destinies. An appreciation and desire for freedom that was transported to the New World. And because the seeds were there, it was mostly those areas that eventually incorporated human rights, free markets, and governments that protected those.

Conversely, the areas largely untouched by Hellenism and subsequently JudeoChristian influences were left unenlightened and uninspired and still operated with survival of the fittest mentality meaning that the most savage, brutal, and strong would be in control--or the rising Islamic nations imposed their own rigid rules that also did not include appreciation for life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. No free markets. No human rights. No personal freedoms guaranteed. And, by the luck of the draw, most of those places were populated by black and brown peoples.

And there, in my opinion, you have it.

 

[Godboy]

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?

The answer is simple and obvious. They have an inferior culture. The culture of "black America" is inferior too, thats why they have so many social problems, not because of the pigments in their skin.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I go elsewhere, however, to identify the root causes of why most countries populated by mostly black or brown people are poorer and often more violent than others. And that doesn't support Leftist sociopolitical ideology either.

Well, I'm all ears. What do YOU think?

Okay, without going into a great deal of detail, let's go with the fact that I have spent quite a number of years now studying and writing on Church history and, while not an authority on the subject, do have a degree of expertise. I have been writing a comprehensive adult curriculum on that and have an editor interested.

It may or may not go anywhere, but I am claiming myself as my source so ya'll won't be clamoring for links.

Now then, we all know that the Roman Empire comprised mostly Mediterranean countries, what is now Eastern and Western Europe, and the near East. The indigenous populations of most of those countries are Caucasian. It was also much of that same general area to which Alexander the Greek mostly benevolently conquered and introduced to Hellenistic concepts--Hellenism being an enlightened and intellectual concept that introduced the Classical Age.

Hellenism was embraced and incorporated into much of near East Judaism and subsequently Chrsitianity which also would permeate the region, more particularly after Emperor Constantine made Christianity the favored religion of the region.

Followed the Medieval period with feudal lords, unscrupulous Popes, and ambitious Monarchs squelching and inhibiting much human freedom, but the spark of freedom and self determination and rationality had been planted. It was set free by the Reformation and flowered into full bloom in the Renaissance. And though by that time, the Roman Empire was no more, all this was still taking place mostly in what is now Europe, Northern Africa, and the near East.

So it was in those areas, mostly populated by Caucasians, in which the seeds of human worth and the yearning for freedom was most able to flourish. And thus, it was there that people demanded more freedom to determine their own destinies. An appreciation and desire for freedom that was transported to the New World. And because the seeds were there, it was mostly those areas that eventually incorporated human rights, free markets, and governments that protected those.

Conversely, the areas largely untouched by Hellenism and subsequently JudeoChristian influences were left unenlightened and uninspired and still operated with survival of the fittest mentality meaning that the most savage, brutal, and strong would be in control--or the rising Islamic nations imposed their own rigid rules that also did not include appreciation for life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. No free markets. No human rights. No personal freedoms guaranteed. And, by the luck of the draw, most of those places were populated by black and brown peoples.

And there, in my opinion, you have it.

Ok, well, I appreciate the effort. Nevertheless, cultural theories for development fell out of favor some 50 years ago and have pretty much been lambasted by every subsequent theorist, but hey, at least it's better than blatantly racist 'theories' like others here have put forward so that's good.

I disagree with this point of view for a number of reasons, the first being the starting proposition that "Judeo-Christian" beliefs somehow are inherently tied to "a desire for freedom." There is little in history to support this claim; the Christian world was decidedly quite the OPPOSITE, which you just vaguely go over until the Reformation (Crusades, Inquisitions, etc). From the adoption of Christianity by Rome to the Reformation is some 1300 years of brutally dark history in which Europe was one of the most backward, violent places on Earth (You chalk up these 1300 years to some 'unscrupulous popes'). It was not until after religion was de-emphasized in the Enlightenment that this stopped happening, but that could only really be said of the Protestant Areas of Europe, which leads me to the second reason I disagree:

During the Age of Imperialism, these so-called Judeo-Christian values were exported everywhere. Spain and Portugal imposed these values on the whole of the Americas in a very brutal way; where the 'yearning for freedom' that is supposedly transplanted from Christianity, as you claim, seem like they have not paid off, despite the fact that the vast majority of Latin Americans have been Catholic for centuries. Even Catholic Spain, Portugal, and Ireland were relatively poor, violent, authoritarian regions up until some 30 years ago. Where the supposed "freedom bonus" from Judeo-Christian values were at this point, is a mystery. The same could be said of orthodox Greece (with all its 'Hellenistic values'), hardly a liberal democracy even through the vast majority of the 20th Century. Africa today hosts millions of Christian converts from the Age of imperialism; Ethiopia which was not even colonized, as you say, but has had its own Christianity for centuries, somehow also magically missed this freedom bonus from Christianity.

And what about Japan? A Japan which developed on the other side of the World (relatively uncolonized). You could say that Japan is democratic by extension of the occupation it underwent by a JudeoChristian US after the War, but Imperial Japan was hardly less liberal than equally fascist and decidedly illiberal protestant Germany or catholic Italy; today all three of them are liberal democracies - religion played no factor. Likewise, up until the 80s the regimes in South Korea or Taiwan were hardless less liberal (perhaps more so) than those in judeo-christian Chile or Argentina. And that's not even to talk about Orthodox Soviet Europe.

In short, your theory first of all would work better limited to northern, Protestant culture, as per Max Webber's arguments. Even limiting it to that has various holes and limitations which have been discarded at many points. What the cultural arguments boil down to is to a simple ethnocentrism, and the claim that one religion is more or less liberal than another have only a very superficial reach; whether one religion is "good" or "bad" depends on who and how many place more emphasis on the "love your brother" parts or the "kill the unbeliever" parts; which is itself more or less influenced by what's going on around and the conditions of the era.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Epsilon Delta
In short, your theory first of all would work better limited to northern, Protestant culture, as per Max Webber's arguments.

LOL... exactly what I thought.

Foxfyre's ideas sound a little like an ecumenical version of Webber's concepts.

I'm in no way mocking her beliefs. They vaguely remind me of Webber but with most of the emphasis put on the Judeo-Christian values instead of the Protestant work ethics.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Godboy
The answer is simple and obvious. They have an inferior culture. The culture of "black America" is inferior too, thats why they have so many social problems, not because of the pigments in their skin.

This is exactly what she said...

Caucasians have a superior culture = Judeo-Christian values.

But you inadvertently brought up what could be another hole in her theory, since black americans were exposed to and accepted the same Judeo-Cristian values.

 

[Godboy]

Originally posted by Godboy
The answer is simple and obvious. They have an inferior culture. The culture of "black America" is inferior too, thats why they have so many social problems, not because of the pigments in their skin.

This is exactly what she said...

Caucasians have a superior culture = Judeo-Christian values.

But you inadvertently brought up what could be another hole in her theory, since black americans were exposed to and accepted the same Judeo-Cristian values.

I dont believe that Judeo-Christian values have any impact on our overall culture today. Most people i meet and know arent very religious. If anything, some of those values are counter to our culture today; gay marriage, abortion, teaching evolution, etc.

 

[Borat]

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!

good points you zionist piece of shit.

i agree this country would be best off if only whites lived here.

let me ask you this however bitch - do you consider yourself european or middle eastern ?

 

[GHook93]

i agree this country would be best off if only whites lived here.

I don't think I ever stated that, two of my favorite Americans happen to be Black: Fredrick Douglas and MLK! I do think we should be more selective in our immigration policies. Whether it be from European, Latin American, African or Asian countries, we should allow those to immigrant that bring something very valuable to this country. Guess what bud many of those people are Indian, Japanese, Chinese and Korean.

I don't think we should take the bottom of the barrel from any country! That is where trouble lies!

i let me ask you this however bitch - do you consider yourself european or middle eastern ?

Neither I only consider myself American! But glad you asked shit head!

 

[Foxfyre]

Originally posted by Godboy
The answer is simple and obvious. They have an inferior culture. The culture of "black America" is inferior too, thats why they have so many social problems, not because of the pigments in their skin.

This is exactly what she said...

Caucasians have a superior culture = Judeo-Christian values.

I said absolutely nothing even remotely like that, and only those with a decidedly biased or prejudiced point of view would suggest that I did. And both you and Epsilon appear to intentionally be ignoring my specific argument for why race is NOT a factor in why some countries prosper and others do not.

But you inadvertently brought up what could be another hole in her theory, since black americans were exposed to and accepted the same Judeo-Cristian values.

But America has flourished and done quite well a nation hasn't it? As have all cultures exposed to and which have embraced the basic concepts of Hellenism, the Reformation, the Rennaisance or which have benefitted from that heritage.

But cracking prejudice and ingrained judgmental fixations has always been a tough one. At least I tried.

Have a good night.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

yes... compare average income and IQ... across the major races...


and the sign says 'welcome to Square One'

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I said absolutely nothing even remotely like that, and only those with a decidedly biased or prejudiced point of view would suggest that I did. And both you and Epsilon appear to intentionally be ignoring my specific argument for why race is NOT a factor in why some countries prosper and others do not.

Absolutely incorrect. I specifically said that the cultural argument you were putting forward was better than the 'theories' on the racists of this board. I mentioned that it was similar to Webber's thesis on protestant values and development, which is a legitimate point of view.

Furthermore, I didn't ignore anything. I rebutted and explained why I think the cultural argument you put forward is wrong, in a very long and drawn out paragraph above (in case you missed it). Regardless of that, I understand that we both agree that race is not a factor. That's a step forward.

 

[Foxfyre]

I said absolutely nothing even remotely like that, and only those with a decidedly biased or prejudiced point of view would suggest that I did. And both you and Epsilon appear to intentionally be ignoring my specific argument for why race is NOT a factor in why some countries prosper and others do not.

Absolutely incorrect. I specifically said that the cultural argument you were putting forward was better than the 'theories' on the racists of this board. I mentioned that it was similar to Webber's thesis on protestant values and development, which is a legitimate point of view.

Furthermore, I didn't ignore anything. I rebutted and explained why I think the cultural argument you put forward is wrong, in a very long and drawn out paragraph above (in case you missed it). Regardless of that, I understand that we both agree that race is not a factor. That's a step forward.

If you feel I misrepresented you, I apologize. But you did seem to make the same error that Jose' made in assuming that I was attributing JudeoChristian values or influence as the reason the nations discussed prospered when I did not do that. It was that point you seemed to be disagreeing with and went into some detail to explain why you disagreed with it when I never made that point. JudeoChristian influence was a factor in the nations flourishing, yes, but was not the underlying basic causation.




And Japan's demographics includes very few black or brown people so that falls outside the scope of the thesis for this thread.

 

[José]

We understood your words perfectly, Foxfyre.

"BY THE LUCK OF THE DRAW", the areas exposed to Judeo-Christian values happened to be inhabited by Caucasians.

You made it abundantly clear those values would have the same beneficial effects in Africa, Asia and Australia. Nothing to do with race.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Foxfyre
If you feel I misrepresented you, I apologize. But you did seem to make the same error that Jose' made in assuming that I was attributing JudeoChristian values or influence as the reason the nations discussed prospered when I did not do that. It was that point you seemed to be disagreeing with and went into some detail to explain why you disagreed with it when I never made that point. JudeoChristian influence was a factor in the nations flourishing, yes, but was not the underlying basic causation

And Japan's demographics includes very few black or brown people so that falls outside the scope of the thesis for this thread.

OOOPS... sorry... disregard my last post, Foxfyre... Seems like I DID misunderstand you

I could swear you did say Judeo-Christian values was the main factor.

 

[Foxfyre]

We understood your words perfectly, Foxfyre.

"BY THE LUCK OF THE DRAW", the areas exposed to Judeo-Christian values happened to be inhabited by Caucasians.

You made it abundantly clear those values would have the same beneficial effects in Africa, Asia and Australia. Nothing to do with race.

No. That is not what I said. You are making it abundantly clear that you want me to have said that though.