- Joined
- Aug 14, 2012
- Messages
- 43,274
- Reaction score
- 38,775
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
The 1960s Civil Rights Era was supposed to be one of expanding voting rights and economic opportunities. Yet the 1960s ended with America's cities in flames and almost completely hollowed out after the rioting and looting and massive rise in homicides, rapes, and burglaries.
The notion that the insane levels of black crime in the US inner cities is due to oppression is simply not borne out by the facts, otherwise one would think the amount of violent crime would go down following the expansion of black political power. Which I am absolutely not opposed to. Just don't try and pretend that Baltimore or Chicago or St Louis or Detroit or Cleveland or Oakland are extremely violent because of a lack of black political power.
As I've pointed out already, Nigerian immigrants do extremely well in the USA.
If Group A and Group B have the same skin tone, and Group A is successful while Group B is not, it stands to reason that Group B is not unsuccessful due to their skin tone.
It might be because so many members of Group B are shooting each other over absolutely idiotic cultural beefs they have with one another.
Group A and B don't have the same background. Obviously those who migrate to the USA often have entrepreneural drive and/or the resources to make it. That is nowhere comparable to a group that has been oppressed for centuries (keep in mind, many of those living today lived through the Jim Crow South and redlining.) You think this shit just disappears overnight?
The Civil Rights Movement often saw violence. No shit. Almost every movement against oppression and injustice sees violence. You also seem to ignore the reality that densely populated cities with high rates of poverty have high levels of crime as a symptom. This was no different when the cities were full of poor whites.