you are a kuhn if you agree with him. truth hurts. What you are promoting is a racist interpretation of crime and statistics. Basically you extract away all other meaningful variables that influence crime, and singularly focusing on the social construct of race as the one and only meaningful variable in your mind (and your conclusion is not in agreement with hundreds of years of American history with extreme violence perpetrated against black folks by whites simply for being black)
Socio-economic status is the variable you want to follow. Look at atlanta, as socio-economic status has improved, so has its crime rate to the point where it has an overall lower rate than Salt Lake City Utah in 2010. Last time I checked, Atlanta has a whole lot of niqqas, and there aint so much in Utah, so whats the theory there? Does Atlanta have a different species of blacks? Do they suddenly operate with a different genetic code than other blacks around the country?
No, its the basic common sense approach that because more Atlanta blacks are living better, they have less inclination towards violence, and to expand that whites have been committing economic violence towards black americans to their benefit for centuries, so that they can put themselves in a collective environment where life is good for them and there is little provocation for violent outcomes. When people have a lot to lose, they act accordingly. Thats human nature.
You say I must realize a problem? What problem is that, niqqa? That blacks are somehow genetically predisposed to violence? Thats some nazi germany sht, doggy. Again, history disagrees with that assessment, but we never let the facts get in the way of racism, especially if it makes white folks look bad.
:foh:
at Chicago not making this list, I always wonder why that city gets singled out when it comes to national media coverage of their crime rate
your comparing a whole region to 1 state and pretty much all of the southern cities on here are in shytty states to began with.
hard.
