If black crime rates are so high due to socio-economic conditions...

You also have to add in the fact that black neighborhoods/areas are more heavily crime ridden than white areas.

Black people are more likely to be arbitrarily mugged, beaten, murdered, etc. by fellow black people than whites are in their own communities.

I used to work for the mayor of a city in New Jersey as a kid during the summer. Any time we were sent into the black areas, the city had to arrange a police escort for us. This wasn't some sinister plan to target blacks by the black mayor, it was to keep us from becoming walking prey. People are doing the left no service by jumping through all kinds of mental hula hoops to endlessly shift the blame to everybody but blacks when it comes to their abhorrent social behavior. We're at the point of this kind of rhetoric becoming even more reactionary than the racists themselves. They'd all be dead without your "increased police presence." There's a reason for the police presence, to call it "targeting" is laughable when we have the reality of black culture and crime statistics right in front of us.

Ask yourself why is this the case, given the history of black people in America?

and yet you cry that they are out to get whitey when they mostly get themselves

Ask yourself why most other ethnic groups, many of whom also faced vast ethnic discrimination and started out from far more horrific conditions than the black communities (i.e. penniless Irish escaping famine and state sponsored genocide or Chinese who just came out of the cultural revolution) have thrived while black communities have actually regressed as they've received more government assistance and less racism over the years.

Irrelevant nonsense from an overly emotional liberal

I won't repeat what anyone else has said, but blacks in the U.S are more likely than any other race to have lead poisoning, and there is a theory that lead poisoning leads causes violent behavior.

And of the people who do have lead poisoning African Americans are more likely to have really high levels

blackness exists as a culture, not as a race. Blackness seems to encourage a crime-ridden lifestyle.

Yeah, it's because they're black, not because of the material circumstances effecting them, because the only factor is racism and not the socioeconomic system that benefits from keeping them as an underclass.

Is somehow more horrific than actually undergoing slavery as it was during the period of the golden triangle. Bitch please.

While the Irish were treated like shit, it is nowhere near close to being enslaved and deported to a foreign country.

Sure, the signs said no blacks no Irish but the Irish came willingly.

>Irrelevant nonsense from an overly emotional liberal

what exactly is emotional about my post? I stated some historical facts about inter-generational crime.

This is an ad hominem designed to discredit me rather than the case I put forward. My emotions on the issue have nothing to do with it.

I am not a liberal in any case. I believe in Anarchist Communism.

why are you discussing politics with a person that thinks that anyone who didn't vote for trump is a liberal?

I hope to vocalise the opposing case over and over until it sinks it.

Once the basic concepts are down, the rest fills itself in. He just has to understand that niggers today are societies commupence for the slavery of yesterday. He has to understand that the only way to end this cycle is to end the slavery of today.

he doesnt think dialectically, he doesn't understand that phenomena in society don't just sprout out of nowhere and that there's always socio-economic and historical background to everything.

maybe we will make him understand

cause poor whites are just temporarily embarrassed petit-bourgs

socio-economic conditions, you said it yourself.

What about the higher murder rates? How would murder statistics be changed by the increased focus on blacks by police?

because poor blacks live in cities and many are a part of gangs

Because material conditions don't affect everyone the same, and often shape the superstructure, i.e. social norms. What did you think it was like?

Also I would take crime surveys with a grain of salt, actual FBI data on crime shows smaller disparities.

ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43

There is also the fact that violent and property crime has been steadily dropping for decades, despite astronomical recidivism rates. Good luck explaining that with biological racism.

Are there any stats that compare crime rates of poor whites in cities to that of poor blacks in cities? They should be quite equal, no?

I haven't seen too much organized crime in the suburbs fam

I know, which is why I was asking if there were stats exclusively for the poor in cities.

Many of the nationwide stats are distorted by the fact that whites live in more suburbs (where, as you note, there is less crime) than blacks. This makes the blacks overrepresented in crime rates. I'd like to see stats without the suburban and rich whites.

I don't have nationwide statistics but here is one work on the subject.

Lmao, stop being so fucking nitpicky. You lose sight of the obvious truth. Of course you will never accept the truth because your ideology doesn't allow you

sad! you are hopeless!

There are other factors though, gang culture is far more active among blacks and Hispanics. Other minorities are culturally distinct though.

Populations that get more strictly will get caught committing crimes more often.
Black people could be searched at random just for walking down the street for a long period (violating the Constitution)
Blacks are discriminated against by police and the Justice system, recieving harsher penalties for the same crime (like men are vs women) as a white person
Black populations centered in urban areas, more density relates to increased crime
People commit more violent crimes of anger when it's hot (look it up seriously), and cold northern areas are largely white
Most urban proles don't have guns, whereas most rural proles do have guns, preventing crime like robbery/breaking and entering in rural areas, while urban criminals are able to acquire guns to commit crimes against a largely unarmed urban populace
Urban police forces have more resources
more cameras in urban environments aid in catching criminals
Blacks with the same resume but a black sounding name are less likely to get hired for the same job (this has been tested) as the same resume with a white name
Black people beat the children more than white people
Black people have a more patriarchal culture (more violence against women)
Aspects of black culture glorify criminality or violence (although it seems like most rap now is about partying, whereas gangster rap was more hip in the 90s)

Right wing answers, maybe with a kernel of truth but not enough to be ideologically significant:
Black people have some kind of crime gene? Which is baseless and not scientific
Black people may be slightly less intelligent, but we don't actually know what intelligence is biologically, so Autism Level tests don't mean much

Even if black people did have lower Autism Levels and increased aggression, that doesn't make them subhuman
I'm pretty sure when you study right-winger they have lower Autism Levels and heightened aggression

I'm not that guy, and I understand your position but there's just no way it can be proven either way. The explanation that social conditions are the cause of black behavior is a good one, and I do believe that it is a contributor. However, it does not explain everything about the history of black behavior and achievement. For example, why were Europeans able to completely dominate blacks from the moment they made contact in the first place? You can't explain the almost infinite cultural and technical disparity that existed between the races before they lived in our societies with the theory of oppression. And while it is certainly the case that environmental conditions led to differences in culture between the peoples of different continents, I think this is evidence that a biological divergence must have occurred while the races developed in isolation, not a theory that supplants the biological explanation. We know that some divergent evolution took place between Africans and Europeans, as evidenced by differences in skin color, stature, lung capacity, bone density, cranial shape and other differences that cannot be refuted in good faith. It is also a fact that some divergence occurred besides those purely physical features, with things like predilection to certain diseases, alcohol metabolization and lactose intolerance. Now I know those things in and of themselves don't prove that cognitive and behavioral differences also exist, but what they do prove is that the races existed in isolation long enough that minute differences in selective pressures were able to exert a radical influence on the their phenotypes. The reason I find it likely that cognitive and behavioral differences developed on a biological level is because the differences in culture between African and European peoples were present for almost as long as the differences in environment that were able to exert such influential selective pressures on their physical appearance, as the cultural differences developed as a direct result of the differences in environment. Because culture influences behavior and determines what kinds of behavior lead to reproductive success, I find it kind of ridiculous to suggest that those differences in behavior did not also exert a significant selective pressure over time. Of course, the differences in culture persist today, so obviously an African black person will behave more like a European if raised in a European cultural environment and end up more intelligent if put into European academic institutions from a young age, but I have never seen any convincing evidence to make me doubt my belief that there are underlying genetic differences that widen the gap. As a (ridiculous) example, note that dogs and gorillas raised in a human environment and "educated" by humans from birth are much more docile than wild animals, and are able to achieve a greatly advanced level of intelligent behavior and problem-solving than their wild counterparts. Clearly an introduction to "human culture" has a profound effect on the cognitive potential of animals and reduces the biological gap between us, but nobody would suggest that differences in environment and the matter of human dominance over the earth creates 100% of the disparity in behavior. I will admit, again, that the comparison between humans and dogs is wildly disproportionate to the comparison between Africans and Europeans, and I do not mean with this example to suggest that African people are not human, but only as an example of another disparity that is similar in kind but not in degree.
I invite good-faith responses to my line of reasoning. As a disclaimer, I know that "race" is a social construct, in that there is not some number of clearly distinct races, and that geopolitical events have been responsible for determining the the way in which the "pie" of human diversity has been sliced up into culturally defined groups. This has nothing to do with my belief that cognition and behavior vary (gradually) depending on the geographical place of a person's ancestry.

poor blacks tend to be concentrated in the inner city where there are more opportunities for violence, while white poverty is more rural

or because they're dumb niggers with inferior nigger genes

Yes but implicit in what I was saying was a reason why that might be the case.

Great, is New Jersey the whole nation and the history of the united states? Anecdotal stuff aside. I'll say i believe your story, I'm aware black areas can be dangerous, the whole point of this thread is the "why" question though. Some people are just violent and they'd be violent no matter what system we're in. The point of public policy or for political revolution is to try and change the material means of existence to such an extent that all else being equal you have a fair chance at life. Even conservatives on the street believe this is what their policy is aiming for or at least that's what they tell themselves.

New Jersey was one of the states most hit by anti-union legislation. Ir had several large companies that employed thousands of people and when they left they cratered the economy and gave nothing back to the workers. Camden is one of the most racially diverse areas of the state, it has the most poverty and by all rights it is the most dangerous city in the state. There isn't even a viable police force in it. It was also the city most destroyed by the exodus of large companies. The lack of money and social policies to stop businesses from leaving and further lack thereof in helping the poverty stricken populace is one of the main reasons why the city is a rotting carcass now. No black Mayor could save it as is or make the people there less likely to loot you. The whole point is, we know why this happened and it wasn't because blacks in Camden and Detroit like living in rubble and not having the same social policies whites benefit from. It's because greed took the heart of the city and no one in the rest of the New Jersey cared about the left overs.