http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7091231.stm

Crime in South Africa

“One of the favourite sweeping statements of the pessimists is that South Africa has the highest crime rate in the world, or that our cities are the murder capitals of the world. This is simply not true.

“According to the United Nations, Columbia has the highest rate of intentional homicide per 100 000 people, Australia has the highest burglary rate, Spain has the highest robbery rate, and Norway has the highest rate of drug offences. Homerton Hospital in the London district of Hackney treats more gunshot and knife wounds per capita each month than the Chris Hani Baragwanath hospital in Soweto. Almost twice as many cars are stolen in Buenos Aires than in Johannesburg, three times more breaking and entering happens in Dar es Salaam, and twice as much robbery happens in Rio de Janeiro.”

- South Africa: Reasons to Believe! by Guy Lundy and Wayne Visser , 2003 (Aardvark Press, Cape Town)

So surprisingly, S. Africa is not doing too badly… it does still have a higher crime rate than most places however. I think it is a good start. Sadly enough though, the trend is not anywhere near as optimistic in the rest of the continent.

the breakdown is: Black African: 79%, White 9.6%, Colored (which is their definition for mixed) 8.9%, Indian/Asian 2.5%

That’s not a relatively large population of white, Indian, and other mixed races.

I understand what you’re saying. Even still, you’re trying to define a race from a relatively small and specifically picked data.

Anyway, I’m not trying to intentionally reinforce negative stereotypes or racism or indeed define a race. But my question still stands; why is it black majority countries aren’t doing as well as the other races. The answer might well that be white people continue to oppress them in the world economy and disenfranchise them at other levels. Then again it might not be. I don’t know.

I suppose to me the question is of utmost relevance, yet no one has been able to answer it.

China suffered immensely during the Mao purges. India during the British (indeed most of S. East Asia). The far East and South East have massive populations in poverty and yet do no exhibit the same issues with crime and other self-defeating behaviors. Indeed, within 30 years both will be superpowers economically (thereby elevating nearly 1/3 the population of the planet out of poverty). So, what is the difference?

This isn’t a racist comment. It’s just a fair question.

Hell, they’ve even legalized same-sex marriage, which even our great country hasn’t been able to pull off.

You guys are defining a whole RACE of people on a few traits and generalizations. Jesus Fucking Christ.

Why don’t we add in Indians work in quickie marts, Polish are maids, and Jamaicans smoke pot.

Yeah, stereotypes -are- true to a point, but for fuck’s sake, isn’t the 20th century about getting away from negative stereotypes and seeing each other as what we all are: human?

On the issue of black countries, it does seem that there are not any that I can think of that are flourishing. Haiti, Nigeria, Sudan… the list goes on. I am not a sociologist so I really have no theory on this phenomenon. One could also draw the same comparison from U.S. cities too. Detroit, New Orleans, DC, Atlanta, Richmond, and several others have the highest rates of violent crime.

Very, very interesting observation that mostly Central American manpower rebuilt the city. I never considered that the local population was offered the chance to participate in the reconstructions i.e. accept federal tenders for construction work.

I was contemplating writing an article on the following subject, but it appears this discussion thread is heading there slowly so I’ll post here instead.

I cannot think of a single black-majority country that is doing well. To be somewhat callous, they are either engaged in genocide, unable to feed themselves or listening to gangsta rap. Granted, an oversimplification, but what are the implications?