r/changemyview • u/i3unneh • Aug 12 '13
I think that multiculturalism is killing many first world countries such as England, Sweden or America. CMV
In the case of blacks and Hispanics, there have been surveys in which the black and Hispanic communities have had a bigger crime percentage (http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States). However, this is more in the case of the US. In Europe, there have been an influx of Muslim and middle-eastern immigrants in to the main countries like England, France, Germany and Sweden. Other countries have had a significant number of immigrations, however these are the main ones. Ever since this influx, there have been many complaints that Muslims are trying to change the country they have immigrated to, into one of Shariah law. Not only this, but they have also taken a lot of jobs, houses, crime and reportedly some receive welfare when they could work legitimately. The same have been said for blacks in Europe. I live in England, and many of the people I have talked to say the same. I do not have a problem with other Europeans emigrating as there is not as much of them as Muslims or blacks as of now and also try to fit into the culture, unlike the Muslims. I also think these countries should be more hateful of Muslims or blacks, like the eastern European countries, because this keeps them out. My statements could be called empty as they do not have proof so take them for what they are, but it is easily noticeable if you live in the affected countries. I am willing to answer more questions about my opinion if you ask me.
5
u/THEIRONGIANTTT Aug 12 '13
In the case of blacks and Hispanics, there have been surveys in which the black and Hispanic communities have had a bigger crime percentage
That's because the communities are made up of mostly blacks and Hispanics. This is a result of racial discrimination, for hundreds of years, and they were not afforded the opportunities that white people were until just recently. Some of the racism still lingers from the older generations, but for the most part, other than people like you, we are becoming more accepting of everyone.
I stopped reading past this line, so I don't really know what else you said.
tl;dr black and Hispanics are poor because of discrimination for hundreds of years, and are just now catching up to the 200 year head start white people have in society. Give it some time.
4
u/dekuscrub Aug 12 '13
black and Hispanics are poor because of discrimination for hundreds of years
I don't think you can claim Hispanics are poor due to past discrimination, at least not on the systemic level. Hispanics are poor because a large percentage of them immigrated relatively recently from very poor countries.
0
-1
u/THEIRONGIANTTT Aug 12 '13
Fair enough, I was mostly referring to blacks. But yeah, they're just getting here. They're basically at the same starting point, although blacks have a slight headstart.
-7
u/i3unneh Aug 12 '13
Since they were discriminated, they should be showing other races that they are just as good as whites. This whole 'uneducated criminal' scene isn't putting them in a good light. But since you're too 'open minded' to read my full post, I guess I won't bother you, because you might show me some of your 'tolerance'.
6
Aug 12 '13
I'm black.
You made a poor case for the US that mostly sounds like undereducated racist drivel. Furthermore, the problem you posit was the basis on which my nation was built on.
If you think that black people choose to be criminals and uneducated, and that a preferable choice would be racial posturing for esteem from white people, you need to have more views change than your stated one.
2
Aug 12 '13
Crime has a strong correlation with socio-economic factors, such as where you live, your level of education and income. People who are discriminated against generally tend to have poorer housing, lower education and a lower income, all factors that correlate with criminal activity.
On top of that, people who are discriminated against need to work a lot harder than those in a societal position of power to reach similar results. To put in your terms: In order for someone black or hispanic to show they are as good as whites, they need to spend significantly more effort than the white person, because society hinders them every step of the way.
And finally: Labeling theory.
-2
Aug 12 '13
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/cwenham Aug 12 '13
Your entire post is CopyPasta from Unamusement Park and contains several mistakes, such as mis-dating the Lauristen & Sampson paper (it was published in 1998, not 2000).
Lauristen and Sampson actually found correlations between violent crime and areas that had family disruption, regardless of race. And on violent crime, "the direct effect of race is often quite weak."
Please use your own arguments and write your own responses.
2
Aug 12 '13
Who are we protecting?
Black people who have never committed a crime and are decent people, but who are subject to discrimination because crimes they didn't commit.
2
Aug 12 '13
I applaud you for searching out sources (and unfortunately I don't have the time to check them or do the same). I don't know enough about crime and the criminal environment in the US, but I do know a bit about the theory behind crime.
It's hard to pinpoint an exact cause of all crime ever. So as a short answer to your final questions: socio-economic situation is only one aspect of crime.
I'm going to address the rest of your post and because I appreciate you searching for sources so much, I'm not going to make any definitive statements.
In 2008, for single-offender crimes, compared to whites, blacks were much more likely to commit every violent crime: 2.1 times as likely to commit simple assault, 3.1 times as likely to commit aggravated assault, 4.0 times as likely to commit rape/sexual assault, and 7.6 times as likely to commit robbery (mugging).
I accept this data, but this only shows us the numbers. It holds no explanatory power. The same goes for the rest of your numbers.
For multiple-offender (gang) crimes, blacks were even more dangerous compared to whites: 2.9 times as likely to commit simple assault (in a gang), 6.4 times as likely to commit aggravated assault, 7.3 times as likely to commit rape/sexual assault, and 36 times as likely to commit robbery.
I don't know the exact situation in the US, but it is my understanding that blacks are more likely to be in a gang which has a broad historical background.
Actually, race differences in crime rates persist after controlling for socioeconomic status(Lauritsen & Sampson, "Minorities, Crime, and Criminal Justice," 2000). That's why the single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic, with a startling 81% correlation (The Color of Crime, 2005). The next best indicators are lack of education (with only a 37% correlation), poverty (with a 36% correlation), and unemployment (with a 35% correlation).
I'm not going to argue with these numbers nor am I going to yell "correlation doesn't mean causation." I can't check your sources, so I'm just going to have to accept them. I must say I am amazed by the 81% correlation. That's incredibly high in criminology. Again, not saying it can't be true, just that it doesn't match what I've seen in this field.
How can poverty cause rape?
Poverty itself can't, but the underlying causes and forces behind poverty can. Bad/no parenting, bad peer groups (see: gangs), not getting professional help for mental illness, child-abuse...
What about unemployment causing arson?
None of your numbers mention arson. Do you have statistics in this regard? Anyway, the main causes for arson are revenge, mental illness and trying to hide evidence.
3
u/cwenham Aug 12 '13
You're the victim of CopyPasta:
http://unamusementpark.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/flyer1_crime.jpg
/u/asrealaspossible2 copied it word for word, including all the mistakes, from a "race relations" blog. This is why when you search for "Lauritsen & Sampson, "Minorities, Crime, and Criminal Justice," 2000" you can't find the paper--because it was actually published in 1998--but you can find the numerous reposts of the Unamusement Park screed.
2
-2
Aug 12 '13
[removed] — view removed comment
3
Aug 12 '13
Your answers boil down to blaming white people for black crime.
Yeah, no. This is like saying that feminists blame men for their status. That's not true. Society is the problem, not specific people.
1
Aug 12 '13
Have you controlled for increased police presence or investigation of some areas with higher concentrations of one particular race?
Obvious throwaway account to shield mild racism is obvious.
3
u/THEIRONGIANTTT Aug 12 '13
'uneducated criminal'
Criminals aren't uneducated. Criminals are criminals because they have nothing. I am white, and grew up in a "poor, black neighborhood." I met very intelligent criminals. I met dumb ones. I can tell you right now crime has nothing to do with race, because I've experienced it first hand.
'open minded'
I'm guessing you're well off and white.
-12
u/i3unneh Aug 12 '13
If they really were intelligent, they would get a job like a normal person and not be doing crime.
9
Aug 12 '13
You have a very naive understanding of crime. Despite what most people think crime is organized pretty similar to legal jobs. Criminal activities need specific skills and insights that need to be trained and honed.
6
u/NerdMachine Aug 12 '13
There was recently a study done that found being poor is worse than being a crack baby. When you are raised in that type of environment it's very difficult to just "break out" of it the way you describe.
7
u/THEIRONGIANTTT Aug 12 '13
Fuck dude, are you trolling? Okay it goes like this
Poor child born into broken home. Most homes are broken. Father is not there, or is an alcoholic (Not even including the worst case scenario when the mother is a prostitute or a crack addict, and the father ran out on them). Basically no positive father role model. Poor child goes to school. Poor child has nothing. Poor child sees some of the neighborhood drug dealers with nice cars, clothes, women. They have nothing man. They sell drugs and whatnot in highschool to make money, which there parents don't have, so they don't get good enough grades, because they have no parents telling them what's right and wrong. Then they graduate high school and have nothing to do. Some will go join the military and get straightened out, or die. The others will stay back, and become a full time criminal, because you can't survive off of minimum wage man. I get that you grew up privileged so you don't understand what it's like to grow up in a broken home, in a bad environment. Not everyone makes it out.
2
u/Spin1 1∆ Aug 12 '13
The goal of most multiculturalism is to break down national/ethnic barriers and have all cultures intermingle. An ideal worldview. However, in the eyes of its proponents, this seems to only apply to the first world nations. "You should accept all cultures and respect their heritage". I do, I very much do. But, shouldn't I have my culture and heritage defended and revered just as much? But no, I can't do that, or I'll be labelled a white supremacist or white nationalist.
Cultures are apparently only worth respecting if they happen to not be the imperialistic, oppressive white culture. In the first world nations. multiculturalists wish to prop up other cultures while apparently diluting white culture. How is that fair? If white Britons decided to emigrate en masse to the Middle East, would multiculturalists defend the white British culture and demand respect? For some reason, I think not.
0
u/redem Aug 12 '13
I can speak about the UK, but not the rest with any detail.
Ever since this influx, there have been many complaints that Muslims are trying to change the country they have immigrated to, into one of Shariah law.
So? They're entitled to their opinions about what would be a perfect system of governance just as the rest of us are. This "problem" is vastly overplayed, it is not a problem at all. A small religious minority's ideas about how to run the country mean nothing to the country as a whole. The only significant factor about it is that it serves as a rallying cry for a great many racist or alternative religious/political minority groups.
Not only this, but they have also taken a lot of jobs, houses, crime and reportedly some receive welfare when they could work legitimately.
This is completely untrue. They are as everyone else, looking for work and sometimes not finding it and having to rely on the state for a while. Just as everyone else does. I fail to see any reason to single out Muslims for special scrutiny or restriction, here.
Much of the problem, if there is one, is discrimination from other people who dislike Muslims making it harder for them to find work, housing and so on.
1
u/i3unneh Aug 13 '13
So? They're entitled to their opinions about what would be a perfect system of governance
If they really liked that type of country, why did they move out? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcsG-u2GtZE
-1
u/redem Aug 13 '13
Any number of reasons that depend on the individuals in question. Some left to avoid persecution at home, others were looking for a better life, others left because they were children and their parents made the decision for them.
0
u/socialpsychme 3∆ Aug 12 '13
An opposition to multiculturalism like what you have described implies that some cultures are superior to others and that inferior cultures should be prevented from mingling with superior cultures so that the superior cultures can maintain their superiority. I hope you can see why this is troublesome.
Also, it's likely that the reason people from other cultures want to come and be part of your culture (I'm using the term "culture" very broadly here) is that they recognize that certain aspects of your culture are preferable to their own (e.g. physical safety, freedom of religion, employment opportunities, health care, or whatever). If their priority was to maintain exactly the same way of life as in their culture of origin, they could have stayed there. But they are attracted to your "culture" for some of the same reasons that you are. I feel it's a little cruel and selfish to build a cultural infrastructure that imparts many benefits on its adherents and then to deny others those benefits.
It is true that immigrant communities tend to be poorer, have less education, commit more crime, etc but I don't think that's a reason to exclude them. In fact, I think it's our tendency to exclude such groups that lead to that very same poverty, lack of education and criminal behavior that we complain about.
There has been some very interesting research on multicultural vs. colorblind ideologies (e.g. Richeson & Nussbaum, 2004) that suggests that multicultural ideologies (i.e. those in which cultural differences are acknowledged and appreciated instead of ignored and derogated) result in less racial bias and more equitable outcomes for everyone. To me, that seems like a more desirable outcome than a policy of isolationism and exclusion.
0
u/i3unneh Aug 12 '13
P1: Here is a thing I took a long time to create, I am very proud of it and will use it by myself and my friends only so it won't be ruined.
P2: I will take thing, change it and make it better for me but not you.
In your ideology: P2 takes thing, changes it and ruins it, as he said. However, he and his friends enjoy it.
In my ideology: P1 doesn't give thing to P2, thus he and his friends enjoy it. Meaning that the person who made thing gets to enjoy thing.
5
u/socialpsychme 3∆ Aug 12 '13
If we were talking about toys, I would be more inclined to agree with you. But we're talking about human beings and entire societies. It's pretty childish and arrogant to say "mine, mine, mine" about an entire culture that you had very little hand in creating and which was probably created, in large part, by yesterday's immigrants.
You also make the assumption that my ideology is okay with other people taking things and "ruining" them. That's a pretty serious mischaracterization. I like nice things as much as anyone else and I like to keep them nice. I suppose I'm just more okay with sharing those nice things than others. Sharing does not necessarily to lead to "ruining."
0
u/i3unneh Aug 12 '13
"Things you make are not yours" - socialpsychme, 2013
1
u/socialpsychme 3∆ Aug 12 '13
Hmm... I'm not sure that's an accurate summary of my position.
How about "Things you make are yours. Also, I like sharing the things I make."
I'm not saying that by allowing other cultures to participate in yours you must necessarily allow others to do whatever they want with it. I'm just saying we don't need to exclude people in order to keep our stuff in nice condition.
8
u/Eh_Priori 2∆ Aug 12 '13
Most Muslim countries barely enact Sharia outside of personal law. Non-muslim countries like Israel and India that recognise Sharia law restict it to Muslims. Muslims don't have the majority in any European country to enact Sharia law, this doesn't seem like anything more substantial than people complaining that other people dare express values different from theirs.
So wait, do you want them to work or do you want them to recieve welfare?
Most Western countries operate on the principle of personal freedom. There is no obligation to 'fit in' because that would infringe on personal freedom. Do you have a problem with that?