Violence in US and Britain/Europe

I stumbled upon this piece by British Pop-Meister Michael Stephens on the nature and prevalence of violence on either side of the pond. Much of what he says about the UK applies to other European countries as well.

Quote:

---

The major difference in the American and British experiences of violence is that violence in Britain tends to be more public, so that the average person is much more likely to experience or witness violence at first hand. In America, although violence often takes more extreme and deadly forms than in Britain, only a tiny minority experiences violence directly, and the knowledge of violence is mainly spread through the media. This may partly be explained by the gun culture in America.

The prevalence of guns in America means that violence is more serious when it occurs, but gun violence also tends to occur in private. Although guns are common in America, people rarely brandish them in public and gun deaths almost always occur behind closed doors.

---

Discuss please. Mind you: this is not just about murder statistics, it is also about personal impressions, cultural production (film, music) and historic issues. And please, let's not get into a "your culture sux" discussion.

He may be onto something when he talks about the US middle-class's desire for "safe danger".

I think his attempted link to violence and media are a bit strained however - as evidenced by this very forum - There are very few movies, TV shows, or video games discussed here that one continent knows about, but another does not.

I think here in Italy the form of violence that involves lots of ordinary people is the one related to soccer, which is our national sport. Italian society is still unable to prevent death on the way to the stadiums and the whole country is close to the abyss of anarchy because of a sport(!).

Recent serious events concerning soccer violence have led officials to think whether social issues are the real cause of the problem rather than traditional soccer rivalries between groups of supporters. Corruption probes involving soccer officials (especially match-fixing investigations) happen more often in Italy than in other European leagues and have alienated most of the normal and rational fans.

This caused the whole soccer thing to fall into the hands of wild hordes of fanatics who have nothing to do with sport and whose real intention is just creating trouble. Every Sunday it’s like civil war here: these gangs of hooligans give vent to their anger by attacking anybody they can get hold of, including authorities, government institutions, the police, regular fans just longing to watch the match with their families, and the people who are not interested in soccer at all, but unluckily happen to find themselves near the stadium at the wrong time. As for me, I belong to this latter category, considering that I’ve always liked (and played) basketball the most. Unfortunately, the shortest way to the basketball stadium runs straight through the area surrounding the soccer stadium, and the matches usually start at the same time. So all the basketball fans like me are forced to take a less direct route to get to the basketball arena without running into the danger caused by the soccer riots.

As a matter of fact, when violence breaks out, like in Rome last November when a police barracks was trashed after an officer shot a fan dead (which police said had been accidental), or when an officer was killed in riots in Catania in February 2007, it often happens away from stadiums. Fortunately (but I think this is not the most appropriate word), only the police carry firearms in Italy, otherwise every Sunday there would be dozens of casualties lying on the way to the soccer stadiums. According to the situation I’ve just described, I agree with the author of the article on the point that here “the average person is much more likely to experience or witness violence at first hand”.

However, I think it’s really important to point out that soccer is not the real enemy in Italy. I mean it doesn’t carry all the responsibility because the dramatic events I reported are actually the mirror of a social problem. Regional tensions also play a significant role in soccer trouble, with fans from Italy’s more flourishing north and much poorer south often fighting over social status as much as soccer. Offensive chants aimed at southerners are often heard at stadiums. Immigrants in Italy are not as common on the streets as they are in other European countries, and comments made by some Italians can really sound xenophobic to some people in Europe.

Many of the groups of hooligans just use soccer as an excuse for imposing their fanatical beliefs. As a matter of fact, they are loosely attached to soccer teams but have a strong political leaning, with the greater part definitely on the far right wing :fainting: . Violent banners are often seen at matches, supporting a level of intolerance which would probably shock fans in Germany or even England, where soccer officials have worked hard to wipe out racism.

Italy holds the World Cup but the whole country is still seething with the most poisonous soccer related virus anywhere (as far as I know). I’m afraid that the fabric of a society deeply relying on strong family values (I’m not talking about Mafia here ~;) ) has been torn by now, with violent elements getting sucked into soccer as an outlet.

Probably some of us, if not all, must be re-educated that other people are sacred. Today my country seems to have lost the sense of limit and has gone too far; the social tension has reached danger point. Fortunately, most Italians still have a conscience and have clearly realized the country hooligan problem reflects social issues in Italian cities which have little to do with soccer. After all the presence of fanatics and organized groups doesn’t represent what the ordinary fan feels about soccer. Unfortunately, it also stands to reason that whatever problems exist at a social level will continue to find their natural way to the stadium, as long as soccer maintains a central place in the life of the country. This is the reason I firmly believe that soccer urgently needs to be taken off the agenda for a couple of years at least, in order to teach the extremists that death is intolerable. But as you all may expect, this topic seems to hold very little interest for most of my fellow-citizens.

Regards

NOT reading that post! Paragraphs man!

This issue has actually been researched in some depth. I've read some articles back in my undergraduate days and recommend research using JSTOR. I'm sure you'll find it in other places too. A lot of historical influences are involved.

My theory is that everyone in Europe with the will to fight had been Darwinized by centuries of warfare. :shrug:

Well, my typical impression of 'violence' in the UK is the rowdy masses of teens coming home and getting into fistfights after they've had too much to drink. My typical impression of violence in the US is an armed robbery evolving to 2nd degree murder (usually due to fear/incompetence on the part of the perpetrator, but sometimes due to sheer malice). So the article somewhat confims my hitherto unexplored assumptions on violence.

I believe the author seems to be confusing correlation and cause however. I don't think gun ownership in America makes Americans tend to be more violent. I think it has more to do with the nature of crime. Crimes in the UK (and Europe) tend to be more crimes of negligence... drunken teens brawling as I said before, or victimless crimes such as embezzlement.

Not that we don't have plenty of that, but there's a certain 'nihlism' for lack of a better word, in American society that puts an edge on criminals in particular but society in general that I don't see in Europe (though I do recognize it in Asia, despite their lack of access to firearms). Europeans respond to crime predicatably... that if somebody is robbing you, he wants your money so just give it to him and get it over with. But to a not so small faction of American criminals, such a sign of weakness will seal one's doom, as it would be perceived as an advertisement that you will not defend yourself and inviting a brutal attack, and a serious (hospitalization required) beating, or even shooting/stabbing would be the result.

Some American criminals are out there just because they want to hurt people. They don't have a cause (terrorists) and they don't have a goal (robbers who really are after money). They just want to hurt people. Think of them as pain-rapists as opposed to the more traditional sexual ones. I don't think Europeans understand that, as you don't have an experience with it.

If the U.S. and Europe consisted entirely of "Whites", our violent crime rates would probably be around equal - with our without the second amendment.

Like it or not.

The most malicious people I have ever known in my life have been white, so I don't see what huge difference it could possibly make.

Much like the author, I think you're confusing correlation and cause, my dear friend, Mr. McGruff. The eternal statistical pitfall ensnares us all at one point or another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

The most malicious people I have ever known in my life have been white, so I don't see what huge difference it could possibly make.

---

look at the numbers.

I'm not saying anything about nature, just numbers. Over 50% of the murders in this country are committed by Blacks! That is staggering, considering that they make up 12.4% of the population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Much like the author, I think you're confusing correlation and cause, my dear friend, Mr. McGruff. The eternal statistical pitfall ensnares us all at one point or another.

---

Who would commit those murders if not for the variable? Would whites go into overtime killing double the amount of people?

What is wrong with people when they cannot see the obvious? Do the math.

Culture largely affects crime rates here, particularly violent crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

look at the numbers.

I'm not saying anything about nature, just numbers. Over 50% of the murders in this country are committed by Blacks! That is staggering, considering that they make up 12.4% of the population.



Who would commit those murders if not for the variable?

---

poor white people. your correlation skills need some work.

Well as soon as all the darkies go away, I guess half of all murders will be done by some other group. I'm actually more terrified the "gang" ethos, rather than the individual within it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

poor white people. your correlation skills need some work.

---

Poor Black people, they suffer the most from it, statistically.

You mean to tell me that 12.5 percent of the population committing over 50% of the murders is an unfair correlation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

Well as soon as all the darkies go away, I guess half of all murders will be done by some other group. I'm actually more terrified the "gang" ethos, rather than the individual within it.

---

I'm not calling for "the darkies to go away", but look at the numbers.

Something needs to be done, but ignoring the problem because we are wearing race filtering goggles has proven to be a pretty crappy answer. Every time Europeans bring up our violent crime rates they never take into consideration the difference in non-european sub-populations.

- OFF TOPIC -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

NOT reading that post! Paragraphs man!

---

Now you got your paragraphs. ~;)

You are right, sorry. I just concentrated my attention on the content of the post and I forgot to give the text a structure easy to read.

Hope the problem is solved now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I'm not calling for "the darkies to go away", but look at the numbers.

Something needs to be done, but ignoring the problem because we are wearing race filtering goggles has proven to be a pretty crappy answer. Every time Europeans bring up our violent crime rates they never take into consideration the difference in non-european sub-populations.

---

So a couple of things can be done; We could take the totalitarian route and squash the Violent Sections of our country out. We could make a desolation and call it peace.

We could take away guns, which I actually think would have a positive impact, but not for the right reasons.

Or if the money were available, you could set up cultural institutions within local school systems that play more of a watch dog on Children to examine behaviors indicative of having been abused, or being abusive towards others. Because usually violent criminals start out as one of the two.

Just a few examples of what could be done.

Were there some genetic link that actually made it such that black people's blackness and not their socio-economic standing made them criminals, it would stand to reason that largely white urban areas would be more crime free than other area. Last I checked, there were just as many violent crimes being committed on a per capita basis in Anchorage as in Atlanta.

I think if you investage not only the percentage of violent crimes that are committed by black people, but also the percentage of crimes committed by poor people (of any color) as well as the percentage of crimes committed in predominately white urban areas compared to crimes commited in predominately black areas, you might start to see a different picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Something needs to be done, but ignoring the problem because we are wearing race filtering goggles has proven to be a pretty crappy answer. Every time Europeans bring up our violent crime rates they never take into consideration the difference in non-european sub-populations.

---

Europe is just as much an immigration area as the US ever was. And coincidentally, most crime also here appears to be limited to (different!) sub-populations. Doesn't that possibly imply that the problem lies with the formation of such sub-populations, rather than the race of those considered? Might be interesting to read about the treatment and perception of the Irish in nineteenth century Britain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Poor Black people, they suffer the most from it, statistically.

You mean to tell me that 12.5 percent of the population committing over 50% of the murders is an unfair correlation?

---

minorities are a different situation, no doubt. a historically disempowered and impoverished population that also happens to be "them" and not "us" will most likely tend to resort to criminality. what's the dominant correlative here? socio-economic? genetic?

Quote:

---

I'm not calling for "the darkies to go away", but look at the numbers.

---

then what are you calling for? what are "the numbers" of black doctors/ceos that commit crime compared to white doctors/ceos? what do you propose is the "why" behind the race effect?

i'm sure a quick and clean answer is appealing to certain mentalities, but the sad truth is it's a very complex issue.

Without knowing too much about the cultural situation in the U.S. I'll say that I believe a fairly homogenous society is necessary for smaller groups of society not to be overrepresented in the criminal statistics. Subcultures are bound to bring problems. In Oslo there are alot of gangs consisting of immigrants of one generation or the other. These engage in street shoot outs, something not seen elsewhere in Norway. In Oslo the immigrants are so "many" that they do not really have to integrate.
In other parts of Norway the immigrants comes from different places and are generally few such that integrating into the society is not a question, they just have to. The result is that we see none of these gangs anywhere but Oslo and the surrounding areas where they group together in special parts of the city etc. Conflicting cultures are what causes these sort of crimes I'm inclined to believe.

Spin it all you'd like. There are more poor white people in the U.S. than there are black people, yet somehow we still only commit around 47% of the murders. You can't simply put it down to poverty - although that is a huge contributor. A better question is why are they still so impoverished? Why isn't giving them things for free and trying to be their best friends not working?

There is a real problem - I'm not saying it is genetic, that it isn't because of poverty, or that it can't be fixed, but there is a big problem that starts and ends with minorities (particularly black minorities).

Heterogenaity creates serious problems - when you throw a people into a country who have no real ties to the legal system WOW - They have no respect for the legal system? Why is that? I can't figure it out

Theory that crimes are not being connected with races or imigration nowadays cannot be prooved. I dont want investigate results of situation (its different topic) but today non white people communit much more crimes than white.
I'm not sure but similar situation should be into Non-racial gogle put into media is does not help to resolve situation. However we should divide racial/imigracy crimes on two groups - crimes commited by members of race on members on race or by imigrants on imigrants and crimes commited by imigrants or members of race on others.
I think situation into USA, GB, Sweden, France is similar. Into countries I mentioned we have both groups - imigrants or minorities commit crimes while mayority cannot perform good reaction because of "tolerant policy". This tolerance (which depend on treating mayority worse than minority) cause ... racism. When people see that newbies are being treat better than they and keep commiting crimes - they take issues into their own hand.
Poland has this problem but into lower scale. Problem here are gypsies and middle-level crimes commited by them. Other gypsies almost always help criminals, so that most people are very suspicious to them. Furthermore crimes commited by gypsies are changing good opinion about Poles (example could be murdering young boy on railways station into Brussel - commited by 2 gypsies). And what is most annoying - they form organised groups of beggers. They do not beg because of poorness, they just want more cash.

On the other hand we have Vietnameese imigrants. They probably have big scale crime too, however there are mostly crimes commited by imigrants on imigrants - not aimed into polish mayority. Vietnamese people are respected here - they are integrating with Poles, work hard and does not expect any help from state. Their children are walking to same schools, with same conditions like polish ones. They are learning polish - I can hardly believe how fast. When people are talking about them, sometimes say yellows - just to identity them, without racial connections. Same like calling us whites. No agression from calling them yellows, no agression while calling us whites - and after some weeks you forgot that someone has different colour of skin.
Maybe thats why we have so low racial crime level here.

Comparing these two minorities I must tell that I have deep respect for Vietnameese - they are valuable citizens who want be part of polish community and community can be pround from them. I don't like Gypsies - worst person for me is person who does not work for community and want everything from community.

I've lived in eight of the fifty United States, and I want to point out that there's huge variation on the etiquette of violence within our own nation. In Kentucky, public fistfights were not unheard of, and rarely very bloody. In Chicago, on the other hand, people have that Midwestern sense of cultural norm, so by the time you hear shouting, somebody's wounded or dead.

I moved to New York City after an eight-year spell in Chicago, and the change was startling. First week living in Brooklyn, I saw two men screaming at each other on the street. Based on my previous experience, I figured this meant there would be blood on the sidewalk. But no, they just kept shouting. And then they walked away. Unheard-of in Chicago, but apparently the norm in NYC.

It's a darn big country, the United States. People sometimes forget just how big and varied it really is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guildenstern

I think here in Italy the form of violence that involves lots of ordinary people is the one related to soccer, which is our national sport. Italian society is still unable to prevent death on the way to the stadiums and the whole country is close to the abyss of anarchy because of a sport(!).

Recent serious events concerning soccer violence have led officials to think whether social issues are the real cause of the problem rather than traditional soccer rivalries between groups of supporters. Corruption probes involving soccer officials (especially match-fixing investigations) happen more often in Italy than in other European leagues and have alienated most of the normal and rational fans.

This caused the whole soccer thing to fall into the hands of wild hordes of fanatics who have nothing to do with sport and whose real intention is just creating trouble. Every Sunday it’s like civil war here: these gangs of hooligans give vent to their anger by attacking anybody they can get hold of, including authorities, government institutions, the police, regular fans just longing to watch the match with their families, and the people who are not interested in soccer at all, but unluckily happen to find themselves near the stadium at the wrong time. As for me, I belong to this latter category, considering that I’ve always liked (and played) basketball the most. Unfortunately, the shortest way to the basketball stadium runs straight through the area surrounding the soccer stadium, and the matches usually start at the same time. So all the basketball fans like me are forced to take a less direct route to get to the basketball arena without running into the danger caused by the soccer riots.

As a matter of fact, when violence breaks out, like in Rome last November when a police barracks was trashed after an officer shot a fan dead (which police said had been accidental), or when an officer was killed in riots in Catania in February 2007, it often happens away from stadiums. Fortunately (but I think this is not the most appropriate word), only the police carry firearms in Italy, otherwise every Sunday there would be dozens of casualties lying on the way to the soccer stadiums. According to the situation I’ve just described, I agree with the author of the article on the point that here “the average person is much more likely to experience or witness violence at first hand”.

However, I think it’s really important to point out that soccer is not the real enemy in Italy. I mean it doesn’t carry all the responsibility because the dramatic events I reported are actually the mirror of a social problem. Regional tensions also play a significant role in soccer trouble, with fans from Italy’s more flourishing north and much poorer south often fighting over social status as much as soccer. Offensive chants aimed at southerners are often heard at stadiums. Immigrants in Italy are not as common on the streets as they are in other European countries, and comments made by some Italians can really sound xenophobic to some people in Europe.

Many of the groups of hooligans just use soccer as an excuse for imposing their fanatical beliefs. As a matter of fact, they are loosely attached to soccer teams but have a strong political leaning, with the greater part definitely on the far right wing :fainting: . Violent banners are often seen at matches, supporting a level of intolerance which would probably shock fans in Germany or even England, where soccer officials have worked hard to wipe out racism.

Italy holds the World Cup but the whole country is still seething with the most poisonous soccer related virus anywhere (as far as I know). I’m afraid that the fabric of a society deeply relying on strong family values (I’m not talking about Mafia here ~;) ) has been torn by now, with violent elements getting sucked into soccer as an outlet.

Probably some of us, if not all, must be re-educated that other people are sacred. Today my country seems to have lost the sense of limit and has gone too far; the social tension has reached danger point. Fortunately, most Italians still have a conscience and have clearly realized the country hooligan problem reflects social issues in Italian cities which have little to do with soccer. After all the presence of fanatics and organized groups doesn’t represent what the ordinary fan feels about soccer. Unfortunately, it also stands to reason that whatever problems exist at a social level will continue to find their natural way to the stadium, as long as soccer maintains a central place in the life of the country. This is the reason I firmly believe that soccer urgently needs to be taken off the agenda for a couple of years at least, in order to teach the extremists that death is intolerable. But as you all may expect, this topic seems to hold very little interest for most of my fellow-citizens.

Regards

---

Seen a documentory on italian hooligans, there guys are hardcore alright.

Here in Rockford Illinois (wee bit west of chicago, and for gods sake, this is the second or third largest city in illinois, not a freakin' suburb!) most of our violence is interracial, or between the two prominant hispanic gangs. We usaully dont have many killings here, but there is plenty of violence, even in the schools. Hell, just a couple weeks ago, a group of 12-13 year old girls were arrested for physically assaulting a policeman.

We only have 150,000 odd peope, and our first killing was about 1-2 am new years day. But seriously, the gang and drug problems here are pretty bad right now. To be honest, if I really wanted to, I have connections that could get me hundreds of pounds of cocaine and into both of the involved latin gangs, and Im 14 for gods sake (granted, I am white, and I am nerdy, but I can scrap and I get along well with hispanics, probably beacause I am a hillbilly). A few years ago, someone was shot on our front lawn, though he lived by escaping through our backyard. (Squished our largest watermelon, by the way).

With alot of them, it is racism, and that they just want money, or drugs, or women. Some of them are just lazy, and dont want to do any real work. And yet more of them are pushed into it by rowdy peers, and get caught up in the middle of with no way to leave. Its quite sad, actually, I have some good friends who are stuck in the middle, and they dont really know what the hell to do.

If I go any longer, Ill get repetitive, so I will just have to leave it at that.

Fascinating discussion and admirably handled so far.

Just a gentle reminder that race and crime are sensitive subjects, and one's vocabulary should be carefully and precisely chosen.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Europe is just as much an immigration area as the US ever was. And coincidentally, most crime also here appears to be limited to (different!) sub-populations. Doesn't that possibly imply that the problem lies with the formation of such sub-populations, rather than the race of those considered? Might be interesting to read about the treatment and perception of the Irish in nineteenth century Britain.

---

Subcultures certainly contribute to marked statistical differences.

There are other factors at work though. Drug trafficking for instance is something of a statistical factor in itself. In The Neds, this became evident in the early 1980's. When our home-grown, comparatively sedate white mob turned to major international drug dealing (Colombia, Triangle) they suddenly became extremely violent. Almost overnight traditional 'gang ethics' and notions of 'street honour' (such as: never snitch to the police) disappeared and internecine violence reached unheard of levels. Competing bosses had eachother shot in broad daylight. Tying members of other gangs to radiators and beating them to a pulp with baseball bats became the norm. Was this an outside influence (say: cholo rules) on Dutch society, or was it just a natural reaction of our traditional 'criminal industry' to an influx of easy money? In any case it did change the face of Dutch society.

Quote:

---

Seen a documentory on italian hooligans, there guys are hardcore alright.

---

Have you ever seen Russia, Turkey or Brazil - check on youtube famous fight
Spartak - CSKA or Spartak - Zenit.

It has to do more with culture. In my city which is about 65% Mexican the "whitest" mexicans come from the most mexican parts of town (downtown) while the La raza people are FAR FAR more prevalant in the Burbs. Not to say there aernt excpetions but genrally thats how it works. While I dont really think there is a black experince in the US they deffintly have there own culture that they hold fast to. Much moire so than thge asians or jews or hispanics and Im not sure why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guildenstern

- OFF TOPIC -

Now you got your paragraphs. ~;)

You are right, sorry. I just concentrated my attention on the content of the post and I forgot to give the text a structure easy to read.

Hope the problem is solved now.

---

:laugh4: That's OK. To me it implies that you were passionate about your post.

It is a pity that no one addresses Stephens' view of American society as being separated along class lines much more than British society. Now that is remarkable, right? There is clearly a difference of traditions ar work here. Maybe class boundaries in British society used to be so water-tight that different classes could meet in the same place without any chance of intermingling, whereas in the US with its greater social mobility classes had to be physically delineated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

It is a pity that no one addresses Stephens' view of American society as being separated along class lines much more than British society. Now that is remarkable, right? There is clearly a difference of traditions ar work here. Maybe class boundaries in British society used to be so water-tight that different classes could meet in the same place without any chance of intermingling, whereas in the US with its greater social mobility classes had to be physically delineated.

---

As you allude, I suspect it is quite difficult to equate the two. Class means something quite different in Europe and the UK.

American writers tend to use class as a differentiator of income bracket. In Europe, it is a differentiator of breeding, that is education and culture - which has a correlation with income, but that is not a main driver.

It has always been almost impossible to move within classes in Europe, except over several generations. It is both possible and a normal aspiration to move through the classes in the USA.

There are shared attributes in both systems of course, and the disenfranchised working class has similar characteristics in poverty/lack of choice, but on this side of the pond, the newly well-off will always be arriviste. Crikey, I know people that would describe any family ennobled post-Charles I as trade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

As you allude, I suspect it is quite difficult to equate the two. Class means something quite different in Europe and the UK.

American writers tend to use class as a differentiator of income bracket. In Europe, it is a differentiator of breeding, that is education and culture - which has a correlation with income, but that is not a main driver.

It has always been almost impossible to move within classes in Europe, except over several generations. It is both possible and a normal aspiration to move through the classes in the USA.

There are shared attributes in both systems of course, and the disenfranchised working class has similar characteristics in poverty/lack of choice, but on this side of the pond, the newly well-off will always be arriviste. Crikey, I know people that would describe any family ennobled post-Charles I as trade.

---

This is my experience as well. It's more than just culture and education though. You might shift up half a class bracket with that but if you don't have good family to begin with no matter how well they prepare you for society the fact that your grandfather wasn't class X will always hold you back.