Dodgy racial 'Low Income Group' discussion re: Regent Park

[theman23]

I have a hard time believing that Regent Park would have been crime-infested had it been occupied by first-generation Eastern European Jewry and East Asians.

Well see, that's the thing. As has already been pointed out, there are many east asians and whites and jews in regent park. Well, maybe not jews, but that probably has to do with the fact that there aren't many of them to begin with.

 

[human person]

Yes, "people do" breed crime, but the flaw in your argument is that you are implying that there is a genetic factor, as indicated in your mention of certain races.

Eastern European Jews and East Asians are cultural groups as well as racial groups, from what I understand (though there is of course genetic and cultural variation within each group). In citing them I thus wasn't implying a causal link between race and crime. I'm not convinced that there is such a connection. As I said, I don't think I understand very well what the causes of crime-propensity among groups of people are. But of course if genetics are a factor, it wouldn't be a case of "skin colour" causing criminality.

It could very well be that the causes of criminality are purely socio-cultural, but that these causes are more deeply entrenched in some groups than in others. The trick then becomes determining precisely what those socio-cultural causes are. I doubt that it boils down primarily to "poverty", and my citation of low-income immigrant groups who, from what I understand, have historically had low rates of criminality in North America, was partly meant to justify this scepticism. I also doubt that the insularity of a neighbourhood is in itself causally significant, though it may, as some of you argue, be a tipping point if other factors are present.

 

[theman23]

I see what you're saying, but you're really stepping into what is a sensitive issue for many people here. I don't want to get into a full fledged debate about it, but I do have to take issue with your dismissal of poverty as the primary factor. I don't know about the situation with Eastern European Jews since most of them arrived before my time, but many of the East Asians that arrived in this country in the late 80s and 90s, particularily those from Hong Kong, were fairly affluent even before they arrived in Canada.

 

[Admiral Beez]

...but many of the East Asians that arrived in this country in the late 80s and 90s, particularily those from Hong Kong, were fairly affluent even before they arrived in Canada.

Which is the exact sort of immigrant we should be accepting. My parents arrived on the plane from Britain in 1976 through an office transfer at my Dad's work and bought a house and started working and contributing to the system right out of the gate, much like our immigrants from Hong Kong, western Europe, Israel, etc.

Unless there is a culture of family cohesion with value on education and hard-work combined with a sense of self and more importantly family respect, poor immigrants will continue to be poor when they get here, and will produce poor children who become poor adults. Thus, our poverty numbers will never improve if we only import those in poverty, unless they hold these positive attributes I list above.

 

[tkip]

You're kidding, right?

We shouldn't allow poor immirgants IN because they'll continue to be poor. Is this what I read in one of the earlier posts?

Plenty of working class immigrants have come over here in waves and their children for the most part have gone on to bigger and better futures. Some segments of certain communities do less well and yes, a breakdown in the family unit plays a huge factor in how well children do later in life.

I should know.

I come from one of those families yet I was born here. All of my immigrant co-workers have sent their kids to school, bought more than one property and done quite way for themselves in end.

My white, canadian family has come nowhere close in matching these goals.

Immigrants tend to have more motivation and possess a better work ethic on average compared to a lot of born canadians. I don't think that most would dispute this. As well, another factor when considering the success of immigrants is skin colour. To be blunt, have lighter= more acceptence/opportunities.

Skin colour to a certain extent still greatly determines how well you are accepted in this society and the opportunities that are available to improve your life.

And let's not forget that plenty of business owners want poorer people here so they can employ them and with their limited knowledge and lack of room to work elsewhere, keep them in low paying jobs for prolonged periods of time.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Exactly tkip - and guess who will be complaining why they have to shell out extra dollars to pay for higher wages in the service sector, without this pool of cheap labour?

AoD

 

[Admiral Beez]

We shouldn't allow poor immirgants IN because they'll continue to be poor.

While it is better to have immigrants with their own money and safety net, I'm not saying poor immigrants should be banned. Many of our poorest immigrants have become some of our most successful business and community leaders. If you're poor, but have the skills, ability, work ethic and success factors (family cohesion, value of education...), then come on in, we'd love to have you, since you'll soon be contributing to Canada.

What we do not need (as much) though is unskilled, uneducated immigrants who will linger along with their children in single-parent families for generations in public housing and social services. We do these folks no favours by bringing them to Canada away from their mother countries with false promises of potential prosperity.

 

[Roy G Biv]

What we do not need (as much) though is unskilled, uneducated immigrants who will linger along with their children in single-parent families for generations in public housing and social services. We do these folks no favours by bringing them to Canada away from their mother countries with false promises of potential prosperity.

I think a good portion of these people are refugees.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I was watching a debate on TVO's agenda with respect to crime and poverty. One U of T professor made the point that focusing on poverty and crime is distracting because poverty itself is not as important as wealth disparity. I tend to agree.

We focus on the by-product of crime which is violence and insecurity, but the engine of criminality is economic in nature. People involved in criminal activity are overwhelmingly occupying niches in want and need that are or are perceived to be unattainable within the framework of mainstream society. Sex, Drugs, financial schemes, illegal migrations, Stolen goods, weapons, etc. these are all economic sectors in themselves or occupy niches in the boundary area of accepted economic activity.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I think a good portion of these people are refugees.

Good point. I don't want Canada to have any part in sending people in danger back. We learned that lesson with the SS St. Louis. Nor do I want to start a discussion on who gets to be a refugee or not, I'll leave that for the courts and gov't to decide.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I was watching a debate on TVO's agenda with respect to crime and poverty. One U of T professor made the point that focusing on poverty and crime is distracting because poverty itself is not as important as wealth disparity.

Perhaps there's something to this point of view. When the Ed Mirvishes of Toronto were growing up, all their neighbours were poor, but also so was the nation in general, and there wasn't such a culture of consumption and status defined by ownership of things.

 

[Disparishun]

As well, another factor when considering the success of immigrants is skin colour. To be blunt, have lighter= more acceptence/opportunities.

That's a simplifying and probably wrong statement imho, for two reasons.

First, ethnic and racial discrimination are artefacts of their time. Even if it were today true that, as you say, "lighter skinned" ethnic groups = more acceptance/opportunities, the way that tracked is certainly not constant historically. The Eastern European Jews cited above, to be equally blunt, faced the kind of overt discrimination -- barred from certain public places, limited by university quotas, explicitly discriminated against in admission to and hiring within the professions -- that rarely exists and, where it does, is illegal today.

So it would be a mistake to compare today's so-called "visible minorities" to yesterday's "lighter skinned" groups and conclude that, well, back then they had it easy. In many cases, the opposite is true.

Second, I mean, really? Japanese-Canadians outearn Anglo-Canadians and most other "white" ethnic groups. Portugese-Canadians underearn a whle bunch of "visible" ethnic groups. It is very hard to believe that an obsession with race should replace the more careful consideration of social and structural barriers.

I don't know about the situation with Eastern European Jews since most of them arrived before my time, but many of the East Asians that arrived in this country in the late 80s and 90s, particularily those from Hong Kong, were fairly affluent even before they arrived in Canada.

In all cases, I think it is true that, while there are many other factors, urban design can certainly account for a lot. To respond more directly to the people talking about East European Jews ... quite a lot have actually immigrated in pretty recent years, and in some of the neighbourhoods with pretty piss-poor planning and in which they cluster -- Bathurst from Finch to, say, Steeles -- you do indeed have some criminality, as a couple of high-profile cases have made famous.

As for the ones who arrived before your time, the great majority arrived dirt-poor -- Mirvish's story is typical -- and, despite the whole "none is too many" business, enough refugees made it in to account for a quite significant percentage of the overall Jewish immigrant population at that time.

 

[Hydrogen]

But of course if genetics are a factor, it wouldn't be a case of "skin colour" causing criminality.

It could very well be that the causes of criminality are purely socio-cultural, but that these causes are more deeply entrenched in some groups than in others.

So far as I understand it, there is no proof of a genetic relationship to crime as what we call crime is a social construction. But if one wants to find some kind of genetic relationship to crime, then look no further than young men. Violent crime is concentrated in (though certainly not exclusive to) the population of young males below age thirty-five. That includes not only the murderers, but the murder victims as well (in the case of settling of accounts).