A city at war or a city infested with crime?
CC99
Say yes to the sex industry!
Monday, April 22, 2019 3:05 PM
If you were to ask most people which one is more dangerous, at city in the midst of war or a city that is infested with crime, most people would probably say the city at war is more dangerous. However, this is only because the most major and destructive wars going on are the ones that come to mind. When you say, "a city at war," most people envision Aleppo Syria during the Syrian Civil War or Baghdad in 2006-2007 or Mosul Iraq in 2016 and 2017. However, its not really accurate to compare the two concepts by only looking at the most extreme examples of the two concepts. Syria and Iraq are the two deadliest conflicts of the 21st century. But there's many more conflicts going on than just Iraq and Syria, and most conflicts going on today are actually surprisingly tame when it comes to casualties. The majority of wars today kill less people in an entire year than a single typical battle in Medieval Times would've killed. If you look at this article for example...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_on…
At first you see the major wars that have killed 10,000+ people in the past year. There are four going on right now and these are the most destructive ones people tend to think about when they envision a war. If you scroll down, you see wars on a moderate scale that are killing 1,000-9,999 people per year. There are six wars on that level going on. Scroll down further and you will see "minor conflicts" that kill 100-999 people per year, there are 27 of these going on. Given that there are significantly more "minor conflicts" going on than major wars. It stands to reason that "The Central African Republic Civil War," with 838 fatalities last year is actually much more representative of a typical modern conflict than Syria is. By the same logic, I will not compare the homicide rates of Central America's most violent cities to the CAR conflict but rather compare it to America's largest cities in the early 1990s.
Given the Central African Republic's population of 4.6 million, it stands that the population of it is similar to one of America's biggest cities. Because homicide rates in America's largest cities have dropped so much, a good comparison can't really be made in the modern day as they do not really count as "crime infested" anymore. Good comparisons would be to compare the CAR conflict to the homicide rates of NYC, Los Angeles, and Chicago during the early 1990s. Los Angeles with a population of 3.4 million experienced 1,100 homicides in 1992 and 1993. In 2009-2013, this had dropped to about 300 instead. Chicago continues to have major problems with gang violence. So instead of comparing Chicago's violence in the early 90s, I decided to use 1960 instead where Chicago's population was 3.6 million and they had 372 homicides in comparison to 1992 when it had 943 homicides with a population of 2.8 million. In 1990, NYC experienced 2,700 homicides with a population of 8 million compared to 2017 when it had 290 homicides with a population of 8.5 million.
So how does this compare to the CAR conflict? For a point of comparison, I'd like to measure out "excess homicides" that come as a result of turf wars between gangs and discount the "natural homicides" which would happen regardless of an increase in gang violence. To do this I compared violent years in these cities' history compared to relatively peaceful years. In Los Angeles, with a population 1.2 million people lower than the Central African Republic, we had 800 excess homicides. In Chicago, with a population nearly half the size of the CAR, we have 600 excess homicides. In NYC with a population nearly doubling the CAR, we have 2,400 excess homicides. Adjusting everything by assuming the population of all these major cities was 4.6 million and we would have this many excess homicides...
Los Angeles: Approximately 1,100 excess homicides.
Chicago: Approximately 1,000 excess homicides.
NYC: Approximately 1,400 excess homicides.
This means that the "excess homicides" in all three of these major cities was actually worse than the 800 fatalities caused by the CAR civil war. For this reason, I will conclude by saying that widespread gang violence and turf wars are actually more destructive in terms of human lives and a bigger threat to public safety than a typical civil war would be. One might be tempted to conclude that crime and gangs are just out of control now. But what this really shows is the tremendous progress we've made in reducing the destructive nature of armed conflicts that gangs and turf wars are actually a bigger concern now than war is. Somebody living a century ago could definitely have not said the same thing despite the world at large having higher homicide levels a century ago than today.
TOO MUCH TO READ SUMMARY: Gang violence on average is a bigger threat to public safety and kills more people than typical civil wars do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_on…
At first you see the major wars that have killed 10,000+ people in the past year. There are four going on right now and these are the most destructive ones people tend to think about when they envision a war. If you scroll down, you see wars on a moderate scale that are killing 1,000-9,999 people per year. There are six wars on that level going on. Scroll down further and you will see "minor conflicts" that kill 100-999 people per year, there are 27 of these going on. Given that there are significantly more "minor conflicts" going on than major wars. It stands to reason that "The Central African Republic Civil War," with 838 fatalities last year is actually much more representative of a typical modern conflict than Syria is. By the same logic, I will not compare the homicide rates of Central America's most violent cities to the CAR conflict but rather compare it to America's largest cities in the early 1990s.
Given the Central African Republic's population of 4.6 million, it stands that the population of it is similar to one of America's biggest cities. Because homicide rates in America's largest cities have dropped so much, a good comparison can't really be made in the modern day as they do not really count as "crime infested" anymore. Good comparisons would be to compare the CAR conflict to the homicide rates of NYC, Los Angeles, and Chicago during the early 1990s. Los Angeles with a population of 3.4 million experienced 1,100 homicides in 1992 and 1993. In 2009-2013, this had dropped to about 300 instead. Chicago continues to have major problems with gang violence. So instead of comparing Chicago's violence in the early 90s, I decided to use 1960 instead where Chicago's population was 3.6 million and they had 372 homicides in comparison to 1992 when it had 943 homicides with a population of 2.8 million. In 1990, NYC experienced 2,700 homicides with a population of 8 million compared to 2017 when it had 290 homicides with a population of 8.5 million.
So how does this compare to the CAR conflict? For a point of comparison, I'd like to measure out "excess homicides" that come as a result of turf wars between gangs and discount the "natural homicides" which would happen regardless of an increase in gang violence. To do this I compared violent years in these cities' history compared to relatively peaceful years. In Los Angeles, with a population 1.2 million people lower than the Central African Republic, we had 800 excess homicides. In Chicago, with a population nearly half the size of the CAR, we have 600 excess homicides. In NYC with a population nearly doubling the CAR, we have 2,400 excess homicides. Adjusting everything by assuming the population of all these major cities was 4.6 million and we would have this many excess homicides...
Los Angeles: Approximately 1,100 excess homicides.
Chicago: Approximately 1,000 excess homicides.
NYC: Approximately 1,400 excess homicides.
This means that the "excess homicides" in all three of these major cities was actually worse than the 800 fatalities caused by the CAR civil war. For this reason, I will conclude by saying that widespread gang violence and turf wars are actually more destructive in terms of human lives and a bigger threat to public safety than a typical civil war would be. One might be tempted to conclude that crime and gangs are just out of control now. But what this really shows is the tremendous progress we've made in reducing the destructive nature of armed conflicts that gangs and turf wars are actually a bigger concern now than war is. Somebody living a century ago could definitely have not said the same thing despite the world at large having higher homicide levels a century ago than today.
TOO MUCH TO READ SUMMARY: Gang violence on average is a bigger threat to public safety and kills more people than typical civil wars do.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
57 comments
But then you have contemporary situations like the US - Mexican Drug Cartel Wars.
https://www.democracynow.org/2014/9/1/ch…
https://www.amazon.com/Murder-City-Ciuda…
There are deep economic and political issues which underlie this.
And then as some US Cities do have extremely high violent crime rates, again, deep economic and political issues underlie this. So while these are not yet being interpreted as civil wars, they are clearly desperate attempts to maintain law and order amidst a deteriorating situation, so you could see them as continuing colonial oppression, which gets interpreted merely as a high crime rate.
The real issue is Neo-Liberal Capitalism. So I don't think you can separate the situations so easily. And also, the developing world is quite different from the industrialized world, and Mexico in right on the boundary between the two.
SJG
Carpenters - Ticket To Ride
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsgj4xcx…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70-WSgZn…
I've heard some anecdotal reports online saying that in NYC from 1970-1995, certain areas were so bad you could find dead bodies in trash cans or in alleyways. Not anywhere in NYC but in the worst parts of it. Now NYC has impressively turned into one of the safest cities in America despite having possibly been the biggest warzone in 1990. But yes its interesting how, the violence in cities rife with gang conflict are not interpreted as civil wars yet contain violence that is as extreme or worse than what is going on in actual warzones. Of course, what's going on in Mexico is a very good example of this, as the Mexican Drug War is actually listed under being one of the deadliest armed conflicts currently going on at this current moment, with a similar number of fatalities in 2018 as Syria, Yemen, and Afghanistan and easily surpassing all the other armed conflicts on the list.
With Mexico though its only because the violence there is very steady. Although it does increase and decrease, it does it relatively slowly by year. Syria, on the other hand, had 50,000 fatalities in 2012, 130,000 fatalities in the year of 2013, 110,000 fatalities in 2014, and then in 2018, only had about 25,000-30,000 fatalities. Mexico does not have this kind of wild fluctuation but rather has been experiencing about 20,000-35,000 fatalities each year in connection with the drug war since 2010. Course this doesn't count forced disappearances though.
As far as the deadliness of typical civil wars go. That is actually what surprised me is that typical civil wars aren't usually that bad now. If you only focus on the major wars, they look awful. But in the example I gave of the conflict in CAR, with 800 fatalities in the past year, this is actually significantly less people killed over the course of an entire year than would happen in say, a single day battle in the 18th and 19th centuries when thousands of people were typically killed over the course of a single day. The Third Battle of Panipat, taking place in India circa 1761, killed an astonishing 150,000-200,000 people in 1 day of battle.
SJG
You need to experience the real world. Numbers and articles don't mean anything.
You cite Congo vs LA.... In Congo, women are afraid of being gang raped by militias, people afraid of their homes and fields destroyed coz they're in another militia's territory. People fear being murdered at any time since a battle can erupt at any time. None of that is the case in Los Angeles...
American cities are violent and dangerous. You're in Virginia, that's not far from Washington DC or Philadelphia, Baltimore...Camden or Patterson New Jersey....
Its nice to live a sheltered life....
Well 18th century warfare is more violent than current gang conflicts and modern wars. But the point was that gang wars are actually in a lot of cases more violent than regular wars are now.
And you can't compare 18th century or medieval warfare to today's carpet bombing strategies.
Street gangs are not nearly as violent now as they used to be. As I pointed out, in the past, deaths from gang wars were actually worse than the level of deaths occurring from insurgencies. Street gangs essentially occupied certain neighborhoods and waged turf wars on each other, and yes, commit plenty of rapes. Its actually worse because all this violence becomes sown into the very fabric of the neighborhood whereas military occupation is typically very temporary.
Gangs in the early 90s absolutely had what essentially amounted to foot soldiers that waged gun battles on the streets. The crips and bloods feud, waged primarily during the 80s and 90s, killed about 20,000 people according to "Crips and Bloods: Made in America" documentary. That's 1,000 people per year, worse than the CAR conflict and doesn't even count the other gangs in the area.
Street gangs occupy certain neighborhoods but the strategy they use to keep order isn't based solely on fear.
Statistics don't mean anything in this matter.... its not just about numbers. You can manipulate stats out of context to prove anything. The social and psychological and economic, etc impact of civil wars and street gangs aren't comparable.
Gangs don't engage in burning down enemy territory, gang rapes, forcing children into warfare, occupying cities, open gun battles on city streets with the military, don't quarter troops in people's homes, don't turn off utilities to make territories comply, don't disrupt people's livelihoods and don't take over food distribution. They don't hold mock trials and extrajudicial killings of enemy officials. They don't displace hundreds if not thousands of people.
Gangs absolutely do what essentially amounts to forcing children into warfare. In the Crips and Bloods documentary, many of the gangsters mentioned having been a part of the gang and having guns since they were 12 or 13 and being prepared to use them. Certain gangs have terrorized neighborhoods for decades by turning violence, criminal behavior, and murder into a lifestyle and sow that lifestyle into the very fabric of the neighborhoods they occupy so that they can recruit new members. They push hard drugs onto kids and then try to use those kids as pushers to avoid getting in trouble with LE.
And uh, as far as battling with police and military. Just wanna leave this here...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_A…
You can't base your whole knowledge of American street gangs on a documentary.
The riots in LA started when Korean business owners started shooting at Black protesters. Its ludicrous to blame what happened on "gangs"
Street gangs rely on support from the people in their hoods. More will have affinity with a gang than LE coz the gang is made up of their relatives, kids they saw grow up, etc. Its more complex than a sensationalized documentary or white America's fear mongering
So you basically just confirmed what I said in terms of them brainwashing entire neighborhoods into thinking their behavior is kind of normal and then lowkey occupying them as "turf?" At least a military occupation only lasts for a few months but street gangs continue poisoning the social fabric and daily lives of these neighborhoods for years and even decades. Yes let's be thankful to gangs for providing young men a group of people to be around that make a career out of shooting people, robbing stores, committing crimes, and then being proud of it and bragging about being a thug like its a good thing. Most people just join a club at their high school.
That's not how gangs function. They're a byproduct of racism and economic decline. Kids look for a place to belong, gangs are like surrogate families that provide what society won't...opportunity, a feeling of belonging, etc. The criminal aspect is exaggerated by white America and its fear mongering. Community development does more to prevent gangs than injunctions ever can.
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/04/w…
LAPD: Why Young People Join Gangs
http://www.lapdonline.org/top_ten_most_w…
Teen Gangstas
How can you protect your teen from gangs?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/…
When LA Erupted In Anger: A Look Back At The Rodney King Riots
https://www.npr.org/2017/04/26/524744989…
L.A. 1992: How Race Riots Have Shaped America
From Harlem to South Central to Ferguson, how the riots of our past are a glimpse into America’s future
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/cul…
The US has a higher violent crime rate than many other industrialized nations. But this never occurs in a vacuum. There is a history of racial injustice, and of extreme poverty. And then today, the mental health system and then recovery programs are used to keep a lid on discontent. Or so they try.
I believe that here in the US we in what could be the beginning stages of a civil war. It might not happen. The center and reason could hold, and we could move in a very progressive direction.
But if that does not happen, then tensions and violences will only increase.
real good:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/184467…
Today, the crimes and violences are not seen as revolutionary acts. And they aren't, the people doing them are living in a state of isolation created by our politics, and backed up by religion. But this could change. We could see a politically aware movement, using violence in order to bring about change.
So the way the OP laid out his terms is not something I agree with.
SJG
and Akon got it right, what one needs is Money, Power, and Respect
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSOzN0ei…
But the high US crime rate cannot be discounted as the beginnings of a civil war.
SJG
Our US high crime could be seen as the opening of a civil war.
SJG
In a civil war its not about conquering territory, its about killing off the supporters of an ideology.
SJG
And of course there are political motives to Mexico's drug war. The cartels sometimes act like Colombian para-military groups.
The high US crime rate is not just happenstance.
SJG
I think a key point will always be when a community decides that it is not going to deal with police, and then when the scope of that increases, so that they never call police and never talk to them.
In the movie Battle of Algiers (1965) they are executing police, until they can't have police, but have an occupying paratrooper unit.
Full film in on youtube.
Here is some analysis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u62kSLNP…
In the mid-60's, Hoover and the FBI were terrified of the "Black Messiah". A way of looking at this is that MalcolmX and MLK were moving closer together. Thta could have meant a revolution. 1968 was the most intense year, world wide.
SJG
Real good:
"Five Directors on The Battle of Algiers" (2004)
But here, Battle of Algiers (1965) english subtitles, everyone should watch this!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_N2wyq7…
SJG
I am sheltered, I would be in serious trouble without the police. It takes a special kind of naivety to think we would all be completely fine without the police.
Then the next step is when they start executing them.
Today in the US, crime is used as a way of keeping people mistrustful of each other,and dependent on the police.
SJG
Watch Battle of Algiers
SJG
April Wine - I Like to Rock
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlcY_enz…
'This is personal for me': Hillary Clinton urges caution on Trump impeachment
https://news.yahoo.com/apos-personal-apo…
Frantz Fanon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ThoGtS-…
and most of the time people accept this.
But when things get too extreme:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ThoGtS-…
SJG
We have to start from the bottom and raise political consciousness.
Marx felt that the Lupenproletariate is incapable of political consciousness. And yes, I would say that sometimes this is true. But 100 years later in Algeria, Frantz Fanon built revolution on the lumpenproletariate.
Many feel that the Occupy Movement is one of the most constructive precedents we have seen yet.
Here in San Jose, some were working their day jobs, and then driving their cars to the Occupy Zone at City Hall, and taking out tents to sleep with the homeless and other protestors.
I think also, even on this forum, people are starting to see that inflating the stock and real estate markets benefits no one. We want that money paid out as Universal Basic Income, as that lets people have jobs and businesses, and rebuild our society.
SJG
But I agree that crime is a form of protest. Its a form of every day rebellion where people take action for their plight into their own hands, but its misdirected. Violence in and of itself isn't the problem in society, its that the said violence isn't political and is unorganized. If directed at the institutions of the oligarchy and plutocrats, we'd have a revolution.
SJG
SJG
SJG
SJG
SJG