 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:35
|
|
Kid - quote:
Your remarks are simply classist. You are implying that rich people work hard and poor people are lazy. I'm not in the mood to argue with you about that right now. |
There is no mention of laziness, etc in my post, I was citing the argument often given by liberals - that poverty is a major cause of crime. So what did you say within a few posts of mine?
quote:
Some how though, poverty has resulted in gangs shooting each other though. |
Now who is being "classist"? Want more?
quote:
Poverty certainly has to be in the mix. Sure there are poor neighborhoods where there are no gangs shooting each other, but there could very well be something else that is working together with poverty to cause gang violence in the inner cities. Maybe it's the cities, because living in a rural setting seems to prevent this. |
 Now answer my question, you weenie.  Here it is again:
quote:
Is taking the risk or not taking the risk reckless behavior if it leads to poverty which leads to crime? If poverty leads to crime, which is your rationale for punishing drug users, i.e., drug use leads to crime, then being poor is reckless. Paint yourself out of that corner, Kid. |
And Kid, the drug war you love is the primary cause of inner city violence. Poverty may indeed be a factor, but give poor people in the inner city the chance to make lots of money selling drugs and don't be surprised if many do exactly that. But since they don't have the courts and police to protect their business endeavors, they employ gangs and violence for protection just as the Mafia did during alcohol prohibition.
Ted - quote:
Fine. Mix those 3 with a poor neighborhood and see what happens. |
What is the difference between a poor and middle class neighborhood that accounts for this ruination in the former and little or no effect in the latter?
quote:
Or take those 3 away from a middle class neighborhood and watch the neighborhood improve. |
You mean people in my neighborhood won't venture out of the neighborhood to buy alcohol or watch strippers?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:35
|
|
Kid - quote:
Look up the word imply in the dictionary. And check your bias. |
So you were implying poor people are lazy? YOU Classist!
quote:
How about giving poor inner city youth a chance to make a living not commiting crime. |
I'm all for it, stop the drug war since it induces violence. Otherwise, we'll continue to see thousands of inner city youth say no to your "living" and opt for the expectation of big money involved with illegal drugs. Oh yeah, the country with arguably the highest rate of alcoholism was the Soviet Union under communism.
quote:
Capitalism is the problem weenie. |
Yeah, it's always capitalism.
quote:
That doesn't mean that we should commit injustice by allowing people who are reckless with public safety to continue. |
Notice the word "public" there? You keep arguing that sitting in your home using a drug threatens public safety even though millions do it without even going outside.
Ted - quote:
Because in the poor neighborhoods people have worse conditions, and less access to alternatives. They have a harder life, so the temptation to turn to things like booze is way higher. Put a nice available liquor store there and bam, you've go them hooked. |
So didn't poverty ruin the neighborhood? Alcohol is a symptom, not the cause.
quote:
Yes, they will.
Outside of your neighborhood. |
Well thank God they're ruining someone else's neighborhood and act civilised when they get home.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
quote:
How many Canadian cultures for instance are as different statistically as say African-Americans (and by that I mean the descendents of slaves in the U.S., not African or Carribean immigrants) and European descended Americans? The difference between lower class African-Americans and middle class African-Americans is enormous. |
"Different statistically"?
What does that mean? |
In an already enumerated (typically by government or academic studies) fashion as opposed to an anecdotal "sense" of the culture.
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
We have people in Canada from across the world. We have more people who have been living with each other for a shorter period than the US does. We accept over twice the number of immigrants per year per capita than you do. Most of these immigrants are not from Western Europe. Most are from the developing world, speak very little English upon arrival and are visible minorities with very different attitudes about what a normal society is. |
If you include illegal immigration to the U.S. I think you'll find that we are closer to one another than this, and we too are awash in developing world immigrants from Latin America in particular. The sheer numbers of people from Latin America make assimilation more difficult, as it is easier for those who weren't born here to remain barely assimilated in large and thriving ethnic enclaves. From what I've heard there is a similar situation occurring in BC, though with mostly Chinese immigrants who tend to have a good deal less difficulty in making their own way economically.
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Why is it that these immigrants have not become the same type of underclass that much of the black population of the US has? We have a much stronger policy of multiculturalism than the US does and have much more diversity in terms of culture. Socioeconomics is a separate, though related, subject. |
That's the $64,000 question. For starters the population which is having and has historically had the most difficult time in the U.S. are the descendents of slaves. African and Carribean immigrants who might also be categorized as "blacks" have far higher levels of economic and academic achievement than the descendents of American slavery (for lack of a better term).
Comparing the descendents of American slavery to immigrants is really inaccurate, as they have roots in this country which go back farther than the average "white" person. They are a perpetual underclass and have seen almost every group in the U.S. save the earliest white settlers and the Indians come, struggle and prosper one after another, always leaving them in the dust. Things finally seemed to be turning the corner for the DoAS in the 1950s with the beginning of the rollback of segregation and Jim Crow. Then between the mid 1960s and the 1980s something seemed to fvck everything up. All sorts of statistical indicators which had been trending up for this group for decades suddenly began a downward spiral. Even indicators that didn't show an absoulte decline registered an relative decline. I've yet to receive a convincing argument as to why this took place.
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If you want to argue that the US is socioeconomically more diverse than Canada is then I tend to agree with you. If you want to argue that this has something to do with the higher rates of certain crimes then I'll agree with you too.
But a difference in culture does not necessarily imply a difference in socioeconomic status. Two Pakistanis (if they have not melted completely into North American society) living in Toronto are members of the same culture. If one is a doctor and one is a janitor, however, then they are members of different socioeconomic spheres.
I think this is probably what you meant, but I think it's important to draw a distinction between multiculturalism and socioeconomic inequality. I'm for one and against the other... |
Point taken about socioeconomic status vs culture. Perhaps your terminology would have been better. But there is a connection between the two nonetheless. Hunter-gatherer cultures are going to tend to have lower socio-economic status than trader cultures for instance. Populations which are resistant to the dominant culture making inroads and which also have a culture less attuned to material and educational accumulation are going to lag. Conversely, cultures which are more attuned to material and educational accumulation are going to soar, much as the Vietnamese immigrants to the U.S. have done since their arrival in the 1970s.
I'd say that two important factors have exacerbated (I always smile when I get to use that word) the socioeconomic gap in the U.S. vs Canada. The first is the resistance to assimilation in particular of Latin American immigrants to the U.S. due to their concentration in time and space in certain regions of the U.S. The second is the intractability of the problem of bringing the DoAS into the economic mainstream of the U.S. Everything else is probably easily explained by the differences in values and social and economic policies etc.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-07-2004 08:01
|