Warning: Graphic images ahead.
The New York Times is one of the top newspapers in the US, if not the world. By searching its website we can get an idea of its picture of the world.
Here is a map of where people live:
Dark blue countries have over a billion people, medium blue over 100 million and light blue over 10 million.
Here is where people have been dying in 2015 (so far) from organized violence:
In dark red countries, over 10,000 have been killed, in red countries over 1,000 and in pink ones, over 100.
Putting the two maps together we get a rough idea of newsworthy places, places where there are large numbers of people or, at least, large numbers dying violently (“If it bleeds, it leads.”):
Compare that to the world as reported by the New York Times:
The dark blue places produce over a million Google hits on the New York Times website, the medium blue places over 100,000, and the light blue over 10,000. (The US, Canada and Britain are broken down by state, province and kingdom).
Comparing the last two maps:
- Over-reported: Western Europe, Australia, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.
- Under-reported: Ukraine, China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Nigeria, Libya, Sudan, South Sudan, Saudi Arabia, three-fourths of Dronelandia (Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan), etc
Arguably, these are not over-reported:
- Greece – has been on edge because of its debt, something that could affect the whole world,
- Turkey, Iran – have a hand in the worst wars going.
- Israel – almost always on the boil, even if 2015 was “quiet”.
The worst cases of under-reporting: Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, since the US has had a direct hand in the violence there.
Images: those that come up first on Google Images when searching the New York Times website:
Washington (DC)
Germany
Ireland
Syria
Tel Aviv
Yemen
Libya
Tunisia
Kenya
South Africa
Notice only Black and Brown people are shown as poor, violent or dead.
How it sees parts of New York City:
Times Square
Wall Street
Upper West Side
Park Slope
Lenape (the Native Americans who lived there)
Notice that the sun only shines in White neighbourhoods – and that New York Times photographers keep their distance from Black people.
The 1900s in ten pictures:
1909
1919
1929
1959
1979
1989 (shows Taylor Swift)
1999
Notice that everyone in the 1900s was White.
The 2000s:
2009
2015 (present-day)
Other top pictures:
man
Native Americans
Hispanic Americans
Black Americans
biracial Americans
White Americans (shows biracial Americans)
Americans
doctor
lawyer
teacher
police officer
drug dealer
immigrant
Notice how it is affected by Hollywood whitewashing.
US presidential candidates for 2016, listed by Google hits and their top picture:
365,000 Donald Trump
246,000 Hillary Clinton
185,000 Ben Carson
150,000 Ted Cruz
122,000 Jeb Bush
106,000 Marco Rubio
81,300 Bernie Sanders
51,800 Chris Christie
32,000 Carly Fiorina
28,500 Rand Paul
18,300 John Kasich
15,300 Martin O’Malley
11,000 Mike Huckabee
8,000 Lindsey Graham
4,700 Rick Santorum
2,500 George Pataki
500 Jim Gilmore
– Abagond, 2015.
Source: The New York Times website on November 18th and 19th 2015.
See also:
- New York Times
- Top mass murders of 2015
- Hollywood whitewashing
- White Default
- stereotypes
- Virtual Travel: Cape Town to the North Pole – compares New York Times images to Panaramio and Google Street View.
- Incomplete lists:
- National Geographic
597
Sorry for immature first comment but looks like Saskatchewan is not popular.
I am surprised to see the Balkans are still being reported on. I thought everyone forgot about our existence (maybe not?)
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Abagond
I find it a bit odd that you left out Ukraine, as it is the only “white” country with an active conflict.
https://www.google.de/search?q=site:nytimes.com+ukraine&biw=1280&bih=858&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwhOHo4Z3JAhUFjXIKHWC4AUUQ_AUICCgD
LikeLike
@ Kartoffel
Good point. I added that picture (and one for Russia while I was at it).
LikeLike
I also added Mexico. So the top nine conflict countries are there.
LikeLike
You are committing a classical error, Abagond.
Whilst the majority of your articles are very good, in this case, you are spouting a truism and ascribing a meaning to it that doesn’t exist.
The New York Times is a corporation in a capitalist society. If it doesn’t report what appeals to its demographic, it goes out of business.
Its demographic just happens to be overwhelmingly people of European descent.
Would you bemoan India’s national newspaper for reporting mainly on issues that affect people of Indian descent? Would you bemoan China’s national newspaper for reporting mainly on issues that affect people of Chinese descent?
LikeLike
double post.
LikeLike
[…] The world according to the New York Times https://abagond.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/the-world-according-to-the-new-york-times/ […]
LikeLike
@abagond
Nice article! A question: what do the grey areas mean in the fourth map?
I would have thought that “grey countries” like Belarussia (the last European dictatorship) and South-Sudan (a young country that is threatened by an upsurge of conflict and violence) would have been news-worthy.
LikeLike
And I see I missed the Central-African Republic, a country I would have suspected to be self-evident to be included.
LikeLike
Somalia prince,
So white people are to the world what the Chinese are China or what Indians are to india?
Lol. Talk about racist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is it possible to see how other news agencies compare?
Maybe Aljazeera and Xinhua?
LikeLike
I know we have not yet found accurate figures, but Brazil should be more than the USA (and therefore “RED”), at least double.
LikeLike
What do the years look like if you chose years ending in 5 instead of 9?
A picture of Woodstock for 1969 was easily predictable. As was Lance Armstrong for 1999 and since Taylor Swift’s 1989 is a recent release, I could see why Google would think more people would be interested in it.
LikeLike
@ Jeff
The grey areas on the fourth map are countries that get fewer than 10,000 results when you search the New York Times website with Google. That does not mean they were no hits at all – no UN member got 0 hits. But compared to other places, they do not come up as much.
Also note that some of the Caribbean islands are light blue not because of hard news but because of travel and real estate articles.
LikeLike
@ jefe
I checked the image results of Al Jazeera for some of the countries. The resutls for Middle Eastern and African countries didn’t differ that much. They mostly show either victims or perpetrators of violence. The images shown for Western countries differ greatly. Mostly protests or police, less sports and landmarks.
LikeLike
@Abagond
Thanks.
LikeLike
@ Somali Prince
Sure, the US is more White than anything, but so is its poverty, drug use, terrorism and crime. But you would never know that from the pictures above. When it comes to the good stuff, the world is lily White. Tra-la-la-la-la. When it comes to the bad stuff it is, all of a sudden, *needle scratch*, mostly Black and Brown. That is not simple “demographics”, that is scapegoating:
LikeLiked by 1 person
The NYT is a very reputable news source.
I don’t know about that, but their shopping ads are fantastic, much better than the Washington Post or the Chicago Tribune by far. I consult it when I go to the States!
LikeLike
@Solesearch
Did you just call me racist? I am a Prince. A Somalian one at that.
Only inferior minds believe in racism.
Note that I said people of Indian descent or people of Chinese descent.
Americans are so narrow minded.
Do you not know that there are different cultural spheres out there?
The Chinese sphere includes not only China but also places like Singapore (large Chinese population), Malaysia, Taiwan and, of course, countless other cities in the West like New York, Toronto, London etc. If you enter any Chinese home around the world (of the Mandarin variety), you will probably be confronted with the same set of Chinese television channels and the same set of newspapers.
Same goes for the Indian sphere. People of Indian descent have common bonds that unite them. Their young tend to listen to the music of the same variety (punjabi music, bhangra etc). They tend to watch the same TV, more or less, and watch the same Bollywood movies. And yes, they tend to visit the websites of the same news sources.
JUST LIKE white people. White people are a bit more fragmented due to the different languages, but the two main spheres are the Anglo-Saxon sphere and the Hispanic sphere. People in the Anglo-Saxon sphere (America, UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada) overwhelmingly have heard of the New York Times, the BBC, Fox News, CNN, overwhelmingly watch the same Hollywood blockbusters and listen to the same catchy pop tunes (Adele, Ed Sheeran, Sam Smith etc.)
THUS the fact that the New York Times is so overwhelmingly biased because it is the largest newspaper in the Anglo-Saxon sphere.
You should do another article like this on the biggest selling Hispanic newspaper, see if they have a bias towards white people living in the Hispanic sphere.
And again @abagond, you are committing the same error, the NYT needs to sell advertising space, whatever it reports is what appeals to its demographic.
Blame the inner prejudice of the average Anglo-Saxon white person, not the NYT, that’s like shooting the messenger.
Of course white people would rather see a positive image of themselves reflected back. Remember, the average person is pretty stupid (regardless of race).
But otherwise, I have just discovered this blog and I really like it. Also, you put a lot of work into your articles, it must take a lot of time to compile those statistics, I respect the hustle.
LikeLike
@Somali Price
I have encountered someone called Somali Prince on other blogs; I wonder whether you are the guy. I mean the guy I encountered was a troll. Maybe its a coincidence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Everyone
I have encountered a guy called Somali Prince on a forum for Nigerians and also on YouTube videos about African Women. A major troll. I don’t know whether he is the same guy but we will soon get to know.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Villagewriter
I just made a comment to abagond a out his site attracting crazy people.
LikeLike
@Sharinalr
I think it’s because Abagond explores topics that many people consider controversial. Controversy draws in trolls.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Sharinalr
Am I not contributing to the discussion? Perhaps my posts are too long. I do have an eccentric personality but such is my nature.
LikeLike
@abagond
regarding https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/the-diseased-host-model-of-american-society/
I would agree with the ‘diseased host model of american society’, White Americans have appropriated the USA and will maintain a stranglehold for as long as they can.
LikeLike
Somali Prince
Or it could be the creepy “I am a prince” thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haha, technically, I am a prince, but in Somalia, that doesn’t mean much (there are a lot of princes, like a lot).
And anyway, Somalia has changed a lot. I live in Ireland now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@somali prince so you are a member of the idle rich? Wouldn’t you have to visit your palace in somalia every so often?
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Somali Prince
“The New York Times is a corporation in a capitalist society. If it doesn’t report what appeals to its demographic, it goes out of business.”
The New York Times is much more than a mere “corporation in a capitalist society”. The New York Times, along with the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times are considered “papers of record” in the USA. That means that they have an outsized influence in the political, social and economic discourse in this country. Put simply, what they print is the *main* in the *mainstream media*.
Other newspapers, television channels, radio stations, websites and blogs tend to follow where those four institutions lead them. That, in turn makes their reporting slants and angles crucial to how certain groups in this country and the rest of the world are viewed by policy makers and average readers.
Those four papers of record are also prime channels for propaganda campaigns by powerful interests in this country and the rest of the world. Major policy initiatives and shifts are usually heralded in the pages of those papers of record first, then echoed throughout the rest of the media until momentum is built to go forward with projects like harsh prison sentencing laws in the 1980’s, welfare reform in the 1990’s, the Iraq Invasion in the early 2000’s and late-stage gentrification (aka Negro Removal) from urban areas in the present moment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with your point that, due to the prestige and reknown of the ‘New York Times’ brand, the paper should have a duty to present information fairly and equitably.
But that doesn’t change the fact that a reader can choose to not read the New York Times if he/she disagrees with its general direction, no?
In other words, there must be a reason why people still read the New York Times?
I think, fundamentally, we are disagreeing on a key point.
If I understand correctly, you are stating that the New York Times has the power to ‘make’ the news.
What it reports becomes newsworthy simply because it chose to report it.
I would argue that the New York Times is desperate to find stories that will sell more papers, that it is constantly trying to find the next big scandal that will enable it to outdo its rivals (Washington Post etc.) and that, due to this constant pressure, due to the forces of the market, it ends up publishing whatever will titillate the interest of its demographic (mainly white people).
I think that is where we disagree.
i don’t think that we disagree on the fundamental fact that the average white person in America is full of prejudice. (Remember, the average person is pretty stupid, regardless of race).
For instance, there was an attack in Mali just recently. It will barely make the headlines. The attack in Paris received major coverage from the New York Times.
I would argue that if the NYT chose to devote as much time to the Mali attacks as it did to the Paris attacks, it would sell less papers than a rival newspaper.
You would argue that the reason the Mali attacks receive little coverage is because the NYT chose not to report it.
BUT, in actual fact, the reason the Mali attacks receive little coverage is because white people just don’t care.
LikeLike
Sorry, my last comment was in response to Afrofem, forgot to add the obligatory @ sign that seems to be ‘de rigueur’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@v8driver,
I used to be rich, now I am no longer. I like to live my truth. I was born into wealth and didn’t really know anything other than that.
If you are aware of the history of Somalia, you might know that things took a turn for the worse.
I am no longer rich and my title of ‘prince’ means very little. I now live a peaceful life in Ireland that no amount of money back in Somalia could have provided me with.
In my case, it is poverty, not money, that brought me happiness.
LikeLike
@ Jefe
Right, it is probably red.
LikeLike
@ Brian
I chose years ending in 9 because I had done a post on 1949.
LikeLike
Not sure what is going on with Aljazeera. They used to be good. They still kind of are, but the night of the Paris attacks, before they could be sure ISIS did it, they had one of those retired American generals type on saying the West should bomb Syria. I may have well been watching CNN or Fox News.
LikeLike
@ Somaliprince
“…the average person is pretty stupid, regardless of race.”
I see things differently. To me, “stupid” is a relative term. It’s meaning depends on who hurls it and the person who is slapped with that label.
To me “the average person” runs the gamut of intelligence, abliity and potential. Today’s super-achieving genius can easily be reduced to tomorrow’s near vegetable by severe trauma, burnout or a host of external factors such as war or natural disaster.
On the other hand, today’s scatterbrained low achiever can be tomorrow’s self-actualized inspirational leader spurred on by finding a passion, a mentor or an opportunity.
It is difficult to see all of a person’s potentials, talents or flaws when you first see or meet them. It is nearly impossible to determine capabilities for any group of individuals without actually knowing them over a period of time. Even then, surprising twists of fate are possible.
LikeLike
@ Somali Prince
I think the New York Times does pander, but it is to those in power, not to its demographic, certainly not to that of metropolitan New York, which is minority White. I think it’s racism is genuine, not a bid to sell more newspapers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@abagond
But with that argument, you run the risk of anthropomorphising the NYT (sorry for the horribly convoluted word, I could think of no other).
In other words, the NYT has a constantly changing composition of employees, writers, contributors, op-eds etc.
It is not just one person. No one person can decide the entirety of the output.
In totalitarian countries, that may be the case, but American corporations do have a level of freedom not afforded to them elsewhere in the world.
The most powerful single person behind a newspaper is the editor. In this case, Dean Baquet (African American). The second most powerful person is Mark Thompson, CEO of the New York Times company (a British Oxford graduate), who has been there for 3 years.
If the NYT was racist due to the explict racism of its leaders, then there would need to be a constant stream of successive racist leaders.
And its editor, who is black, would have to be a sell out himself.
I think there is a much simpler answer: they are all capitalists out to make money. And if they need to do so by appealing to their demographic, then so be it.
New York may be minority white, but we all know that the scope of the NYT extends far beyond New York. We also have to consider purchasing power, as far as I know, whites still have superior purchasing power.
In other words, if a white man can afford to purchase 10 papers, but a black man can only afford 1, then the NYT will write what the white man wants to read.
LikeLike
@Afrofem
I agree with the notion that all human beings are full of unlimited potential and, of course, excuse my crass sentence. I enjoy using soundbites.
This soundbite in question:
“…the average person is pretty stupid, regardless of race.”
is to dispel the notion that any race is more, or less, intelligent than the other and to remind readers that the average person does not want to explore the intricacies of propaganda but would rather just get the news in an easily digestable format that already conforms to his or her preconveived notions.
The lazier the reader, the more crass the material. For instance, the Daily Mail (in the UK), explicitly sets out to attract the lazy reader (It says somewhere on its website that the entirety of its vocabulary does not exceed 500 to 600 words).
The Daily Mail is more likely to be full of lazy stereotypes about the unemployed, people on benefits, muslims etc.
As you move up the scale, the more complex the vocabulary becomes and the more educated the reader is.
The NYT sits in the middle.
The Financial Times sits somewhere at the top. The Financial Times makes use of next to no racial stereotypes and delivers the information in a very factual way (since it appeals to time-poor businessmen).
LikeLike
I think the American media views the world through a white centric social construct. It also sees the world as being contained only within the left and right paradigm as if those are the only idiologies the world can align itself to. Then the Islamic State shows up and challanges that construct and the West can only respond with the label “terrorist”. The West bombs and then people become terrorists when they fight back.
The media is also manipulated by money. It seeks revenue within the “free market” but it also has to protect its revenue by being careful in how it handles certain stories.
Some of that has to do with how the upper echelons of society are set up within the corporatacracy. It’s hard to criticize corporations when you have board members sitting on multiple boards. That creats a conflict of interest and the actions of some corporations are down played.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate
Access is also given or taken away depending upon how the media treats players within the corporatacracy. This includes Wall Street, Bankers, businesses
as well as unions and politicians.
A good example would be a media outlet that is too critical of the police. The police respond by shutting them out and then direct stories to there competitors. The same is true with politicians. Access is a game meant to control the conversation.
So their are a lot of powerful hierarchies, some of them political and some business, some mutually connected, that are influencing how stories are presented to the public.
it is not really a conspiracy but rather a business model.
LikeLike
@ Somali Prince
Nether condition is hard to meet. Racism is endemic in the US and tons of Blacks at the top are Whitewashed or sell-outs or both.
If its viewpoint was mainly driven by the White audience in the US, it would not be as liberal and secular as it is, it would not stick so closely to the Democratic Party line, it would be more middle of the road. Instead, it is to the left of the political centre of the country, even to the left of the top 1%. There is more going on than simply trying to sell as many newspapers as possible.
LikeLike
@ Somali Prince
i see you trade on the markets, i will talk to you over at your place some time..
LikeLiked by 1 person
@michaeljonbarker
In my opinion, your analysis is spot on. Your comment, “Access is a game meant to control the conversation”, cuts to the core of how the media/corporate/government complex operates in our current post-democratic society. The democratic forms are still there but they have been hollowed out and replaced with cynical gameplaying and backscratching.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Somaliprince
“The Financial Times makes use of next to no racial stereotypes and delivers the information in a very factual way…”
The Financial Times doesn’t need to make use of obvious stereotypes. Their readership is concentrated in the top ten percent of global business and financial industries. Their view of everyone else is that we are just ants in the dust—inconsequential and sometimes pesky.
As to their “factual” information, I tend to question who wrote it, who they represent, who confirms their facts and what are their policy objectives.
LikeLike
@Somali Prince:
Except that one then is naturally led to wonder just why Whites could not accept something showing things as they really are, why reality doesn’t “appeal to” that “demographic”…
LikeLike
(And therefore, I believe, Abagond’s point still stands, though maybe indirectly.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a dizzying array of our culture and our society around the world and it makes my head spin. The world is becoming an increasingly scary place.
LikeLike
@mike4ty4
Yes, that was my point.
It stands but indirectly.
Thus why I said ‘Don’t shoot the messenger’.
While we can be critical of the prejudice of the average white person, we should not always be critical of capitalism.
Capitalism is a system distinct from white people.
But I think this point was debated quite well higher up, so I wouldn’t want to flog a dead horse.
LikeLike
Malcolm X said:
LikeLike
@abagond
Malcom X was critical of capitalism and had a more positive view of socialism.
Under socialism, newspapers would be government owned.
The NYT in that case, would be a lot more racist.
My point still stands, the Chinese equivalent of the NYT reports mainly on issues affecting the Chinese world.
The NYT is a white newspaper. It reports mainly on issues affecting white people.
The majority of the world’s non-whites don’t read the NYT.
If you think they do, then you’re overestimating the reach of the NYT.
African-Americans constitute 15% of the American population and have a lower purchasing power, it is a fact we must accept.
LikeLike
@Somaliprince
“Under socialism, newspapers would be government owned.”
The Scandinavian countries all have socialist governments and have a much freer media landscape than the USA.
“African-Americans constitute 15% of the American population… ”
African-Americans are actually 13% of the American population and purchase more per capita in certain sectors (e.g. fish/seafood, personal care products, and movies) than the general population.
“I am no longer rich and my title of ‘prince’ means very little. I now live a peaceful life in Ireland…”
Your ideas, choice of words, their spelling and your sentence structure all point to your being an Euro-American who resides in the American Midwest. I’ve met real Somali immigrants. They are a proud, yet well grounded people who have a keen understanding of how the world actually works for people of African descent and others. I’m just not feeling your Somaliprince persona.
Repeating inaccurate information does not make it true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So let me get this straight when you google search trans woman a black person shows up but when you google Normal man and normal woman white people show up.
With so many people claiming that Black women look like trannies, or men I find it strange that the color the transgendered person is black. But both male and female are white.
Is this a case of the media pushing the LBGT agenda on black peopler or someone trying to say that black women have more testoterone than other women? That they look and act like men or because of Weave and bad attitude you can’t tell the difference between Black women and a trannies.
I just think it is weird that the picture of a trans person is black
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ son2380
I noticed that too. You would think Caitlyn Jenner would be at or near the top of the images for “trans woman”. She is way more famous than Janet Mock or even Laverne Cox. Jenner is (as I write this) #26! Even a Black trans woman from Cuba ranks above her. Of those above her, only half are White, which is suspicious given how whitewashed the Times is.
I think the reason is transphobia, which I am sure the New York Times would deny up and down, but which runs deeper in the US than even racism, and, in this case, fits their colour-coding of White = good, normal, mainstream; Black/Brown = bad, screwed-up, “peripheral”.
https://www.google.com/search?q=site:nytimes.com+trans+woman&rlz=1C1TSNO_enUS523US523&espv=2&biw=996&bih=598&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwim7aWfqqfJAhXJlx4KHbLgAa0Q_AUIBigB#tbm=isch&q=site:nytimes.com+%22trans+woman%22&imgrc=_
LikeLiked by 2 people
^ That analysis is interesting.
LikeLike
@Afrofem
We can discuss the intricacies of socialism if you please, but you might be aware of the fact that the Scandinavian countries still have market economies.
The Scandinavian countries may have left leaning governments but an actual socialist economy involves central planning, as was the case under the USSR.
Central planning means the means of production are set by the party secretaries and the budgets are set accordingly. Corporations owned by individuals who can subsquently accumulate private wealth do not exist.
The Chinese used to have a socialist economy but no longer do.
Of course, you may be using the watered-down definition of socialism, as I call it: pop-socialism.
But actual socialism involves the collectivisation (nationalisation) of the means of production.
@Afrofem
“purchase more per capita in certain sectors (e.g. fish/seafood, personal care products, and movies) than the general population.”
Are you equating the purchase of personal care products with purchasing power?
It is never my intention to be disrespectful, but do you know what purchasing power means?
Or are you arguing that African-Americans purchase more newspapers than European-Americans, on average?
If the main readership of the NYT was African-American, then the NYT would report on more issues affecting African-Americans.
I do not even need to look it up, I know that African-Americans, on average, sitll have a lower purchasing power.
I also do not repeat inaccuracies.
Do you engage in discussions with people based only on their skin colour? Were I white, would that satisfy your prejudices?
Do prejudices guide your life decisions?
Study the Game.
Remember, I am not neo-black, I am not new-black, I prefer the term super-black.
I have been many things and I have suffered many defeats, but even in the throes of the lowest defeat, I will never be victim-black.
But, of course, I am sure that you have met a sufficiently large sample of people of Somalian descent and can therefore draw reasonable statistical inference.
I would not want to doubt your assessment, you would not be falling for the common pitfall that is stereotyping, would you?
LikeLike
@Afrofem
So it is actually 13%, not 15%, so you yourself argued in my favour?
Why would the NYT, the flagship paper of the White Empire, not favour the inhabitants of the Empire?
As you yourself said, the ‘other’ is only 13%.
The question is, why do you even care what the paper of the White Empire reports?
Perhaps you believe that one day the White Empire will view you, aswell, as being White?
You will forever be ‘other’ and therefore a nomad, until the Empire is Black.
Study the Game.
LikeLike
When the super-black talks, the victim-black says he sounds White.
But the super-black cares little, because he knows what he is:
super-black.
LikeLike
@Somaliprince
LOL! Thanks so much for confirming your identity with those ever more condescending and defensive comments.
That last comment, “When the super-black talks, the victim-black says he sounds White. But the super-black cares little, because he knows what he is: super-black.” is quite amusing. That whole “super-black” versus “victim-black”
argument is a classic straw-man gambit.
You are free to wrap yourself in the online persona of a “Somali Prince”, but you should be aware that not everyone will fall for it. Whatever floats your boat. Live long and prosper (alleged) Somali Prince!
LikeLiked by 1 person
So because I speak eloquently, I must be Black?
Or perhaps I told myself that, if I am to speak the White Man’s language, I will speak it better than him?
Or are you just aggrieved that, for once in your life, you have met a Black Man who does not share your undying hatred of the White Man?
If we must reference debating devices then I should perhaps point out that it was you that resorted to the ad hominem.
I myself have not yet resorted to name calling and have assured Abagond that I will not.
This, after all, is Abagond territory.
I think that so far, I have mainly focused on people’s arguments, not the people behind the arguments, no?
If you wish to disprove my arguments, you are free to do so.
If you want me to assess you based on your arguments, then I would argue that you are a First-Worlder who has not yet come to accept the Laws of the Game, no?
Third-Worlders know the game. It is forced upon us.
But remember,
I am a Prince, A Somalian one at that.
Black is as black is, and I met few with skin as dark as mine, but I have witnessed evil of many different shades.
LikeLike
@somaliprince
For starters I have watched several people correct you on misinformation you have repeated. You read it somewhere so you are thus repeating it, so save the “I also do not repeat inaccuracies.” You do.
Secondly you are hiding behind a bunch of questions to avoid really engaging in the discussion or refuting much of what is said to you.
Thirdly you may not be straight out name call people, but you do take a passive aggressive means of insulting people. Don’t cry victim when they choose to be more straightforward in their approach.
Lastly are not buying power and purchasing power the same thing? AA have about 1.1 Trillion, but do not properly invest it. If you have a source that shows it as lower than others then I am open to viewing it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@somaliprince
“If you wish to disprove my arguments, you are free to do so.”—If you choose to debate someone, then it is not their job to disprove your arguments. You need to be able to support what you claim. Spouting off about being super black, a Somalian prince, or asking a bunch of question is nothing more than an elaborate deflection. You make claims. You don’t support them. That is why no one is taking you seriously.
I have watched this exchange and the only thing I got from it is you are deceitful. Even on matters I may agree with you on, you still lack in those.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@sharina
Thank you for returning to the argument at hand.
I prefer to change my tone than to name call.
If I have made inaccuracies, I will gladly admit to them.
Questions are a rhetoric device. Is this not what we are doing, rhetoric? (lol, I just did it again).
I feel like Russell Crowe in Gladiator: “Is this not why we are here?”
But it is not because I ask a question that I agree with the question.
@Afrofem said:
AA “purchase more per capita in certain sectors (e.g. fish/seafood, personal care products, and movies) than the general population.”
I said that this does mean that we (Black – I am not AA) have higher purchasing power.
We tend to spend more on hair products, beauty products etc. proportionally than other groups,
but that doesn’t change the fact that advertisers trying to buy advertising space in the NYT will try to grab the attention of those with the most money.
The figure 1.1 trillion, I presume, comes from this article:
http://www.blackenterprise.com/small-business/african-american-buying-power-projected-trillions/
But we have to look at the figures in comparison
The median income of White people is still higher.
And this is median income. It does not take into account population.
If Whites are 70% (whatever it is) and Blacks are 15%, then not only do Blacks have a lower median income (and therefore disposable wealth – purchasing power) but they also represent a smaller proportion of the overall population.
For instance, Asians have the highest disposable wealth but the NYT still tries to cater to White people (and not Asians) because Asians make up just 4.8%.
In other words, in both purchasing power and overall population, Whites surpass Blacks.
If Blacks had higher purchasing power and made up 70% of the demographic, the NYT would report more on issues affecting Black people because that would attract more readers and sell more advertising.
LikeLike
lol @Kiwi
You are back! The question remains, Prince or Victim?
Have you got your wallet back?
Just kidding.
The statement still stands:
The Empire is White.
We are ‘other’.
Study the Game.
LikeLike
@sharina
I tried to add a link in the previous post, it didn’t work.
It was a link to the following chart:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans#/media
/File:US_real_median_household_income_1967_-_2011.PNG
LikeLike
Huh?
I am not AA, I was under the impression that the Civil Rights Movement was primarily AA, I did not know it involved Jewish, Chinese and Japanese.
My apologies.
merrimay attacked Jade for no reason. She was under the impression that she was entitled to something simply because Empires do what Empires do: Empire build.
She was also saying something along the lines that she was ‘better’ than the natives.
That is a contravention of Law 8: ‘Racism belongs to inferior minds’
You cannot escape the slighlty silly logic, if you don’t believe in the Game of Empires but instead believe that the White Man is evil, then why the hell did you migrate to England?
For AA, it is different. According to the Game, AA have a right to revolution. You are civilians of the dominant Empire. Unfortunately, I think the Empire knows AA might try to revolt and have therefore been throwing olive branches at you.
Morality only exists within the Empire.
In international politics, morality does not exist. Only the 11 laws stand.
LikeLike
last post was @Kiwi
Why would I call the police?
Remember, I am a Prince, a Somalian one at that.
LikeLike
@Kiwi
Exactly. In the Game, we will always be ‘other’.
Until the Empire is Black, we will always be ‘other’.
Accept this reality, stop bemoaning Hollywood (the White Man’s creation) and previous events, stop feeling bitter towards the White Man
And study the Game.
Within the confines of a society, a police force exists.
In international politics, there is no police.
The victor gets all the spoils, you get nothing.
The victor rewrites history, you become a footnote.
Thus is the Game and thus it has ever been.
The White Empire knows it, the Chinese Empires knows it, the question is,
why don’t you?
LikeLike
@somaliprince
“If I have made inaccuracies, I will gladly admit to them.”—As I have noticed you are willing to do, but it does not change the fact that you will repeat a lie.
“Questions are a rhetoric device. Is this not what we are doing, rhetoric?”-The issue is not in asking a question, but using questions to avoid addressing pivotal parts of the debate. For example if you claimed that men are more likely to die of old age and a person presented a stat or claim of otherwise and you retort with “Is old age not an inevitable course to death?”.
“The median income of White people is still higher.”—Here you are deflecting again. You stated “African-Americans constitute 15% of the American population and have a lower purchasing power, it is a fact we must accept.” For starters you have yet to adequately acknowledge that your percentage wise was wrong. Telling someone that it proves your point is not acknowledging you are incorrect on the percentage. If you say 15% and it is more like 13% I have to wonder if you have an understanding of the numbers you are working with or if this is another claim where you dance around it to avoid really addressing it. This is a prime example of your vague word usage and then claiming to know. Reality is you don’t seem to know more so than you seem to guess. Secondly the link you provided does not adequately support what you are claiming. You say they have a lower buying power, but lower than who? Please adequately explain how you came to this based on median income. You need to look at the purchasing power or buying power stats that are readily available. I won’t ask you to provide a source for them as I have already seen them, but the ability to buy or purchase has more layers than looking at the median income.
LikeLike
@@somaliprince
As a side note. If you are going to compare median income, make sure it is a comparison for the same years. Your chart is 1967 to 2011 and the buying power is 2015 numbers.
LikeLike
@sharina
Okay, we appear to be getting very specific.
Yes, 15% was wrong, it should have been 13%. I am sorry.
But do you know that even 13% is not correct?
It might be 12.9873% or 13.2345%, but was subsequently approximated to 13%.
I worked for an economic think thank for a time and devised such figures myself, so I know the statistical work that goes into it.
There are African Americans being born and dying every day. It is not 13.00000000%.
The figure 13% is itself an approximation.
I could not remember that it was 13% so I approximated to 15%. I should have checked with Wikipedia first and for that, I apologise.
I do not mean to be disrespectful, Sharina, but I have a Master’s degree in economics.
If you want me to keep discussing this, I could write about it for days and days.
Purchasing power refers to the amount that can be purchased with a unit of currency (in this case the USD).
It basically means ‘how much can you buy with one unit of currency in your respective economy’.
Therefore, the more units of currency you have, the higher your purchasing power.
Some groups have a higher propensity to consume, some groups have a higher propensity to save.
But in general, the higher your median income (the more money you earn), the higher your purchasing power. The two are highly correlated.
In other words, if your median income is high, you’ll be able to buy more things.
White Americans have a higher median income than Black Americans (that is why I said: we need to accumulate capital, because the Empire respects only money).
America is mainly a consumption driven economy (consumption is approx. 70% of America’s Gross Domestic Product – again it is not exactly 70%, it could be 68% or 72%, 70% is a ballpark figure).
In order to service this consumption, companies attempt to advertise the products they sell through various mediums (television, movies, newspapers etc.)
The NYT makes money by selling advertising space in its newspaper (or its website).
Companies pay the NYT to advertise through the NYT’s newspaper and website.
The NYT, therefore, tries to reach out to the most people it can. The more people it reaches out to, the more money it call sell its advertising for.
An advertising slot in the NYT will be very expensive, because you get the opportunity to advertise your product to so many people.
In order to make sure many people read the NYT, the NYT tries to write what will ‘please’ the largest demographic group in the country.
In this case, White Americans.
The reason for this is that not only are White Americans the majority group but they also have a high median income.
I will give you a simple example:
This blog writes material that appeals mainly to Black people. There are not many White people here.
If Abagond decided to sell advertising, the advertising would be targeted to the Black demographic.
It would not be advertising targeted towards White people, since they do not come to this blog so much.
If Abagond wants to bring in more Black people, he will write more material that appeals to Black people.
If Abagond started to write stuff Black people didn’t like, Black people would leave and if Black people leave, he would lose his advertising money.
It is the same with the NYT, if the NYT does not write things that White People like, the NYT might lose its advertising money.
I hope I am making sense, please let me know if I should clarify.
LikeLike
@sharina
I know Sharina. I am only trying to make the point that White Americans have a higher median income higher than AA. That is all.
The graph is only up until 2011 but unless things have changed drastically, White Americans will still have a higher median income than us.
That is why I said to Kiwi that we need to get richer. The Empire respects only money.
In America, Asians make the most money (on average), then Whites, then Hispanics, then Blacks.
The Empire does not want us to know this. They do not want us to know that we are still at the bottom. The Empire says: ‘Civil Rights movement, Barak Obama, Black History month etc. Be Happy’.
But AA built America. When America was built, AA were 19.3% of the economy.
How can we be the poorest when we built the entire country?
That is why we need to accumulate capital.
LikeLike
@somaliprince
That 13% is closer in being correct than that 15%, so please save the melodramatics and extra bs and admit you are WRONG. Masters in economics or no you just did plain lazy work. No excuses.
I know what purchasing power is, so again save the long explanations. It waste time and it is nothing more than a deflection for me. I prefer to get to the point and I was hoping with such a long paragraph you would be getting to it.
“In other words, if your median income is high, you’ll be able to buy more things.”–Not necessarily as you are leaving out several other factors that go into that. Having a Masters in Economics I am sure you know what factors I mean, but even an average Joe can assume that more money equals more you can buy without knowing those factors.
“White Americans have a higher median income than Black Americans”—-That was not your original claim per what I quoted of you, but since you want to switch goal posts then okay.
“The NYT makes money by selling advertising space in its newspaper (or its website).”–This quote and most of what follows fit into my “I don’t care” category. I did not refute it or take issue with it. I prefer to simply address the claims you made that I quoted.
“I know Sharina. I am only trying to make the point that White Americans have a higher median income higher than AA. That is all.”—And this is an example of what individuals mean when they say shifting goal posts or deflecting. This is not what you ORIGINALLY claimed. This is what you now claim because you can actually prove it. All that is being asked is to stick to what you claim and if you misspoke then acknowledge instead of going into circles to avoid that you did such. We are all here to learn, but no one is interested in listening to a person who is being deceitful.
“The graph is only up until 2011 but unless things have changed drastically, White Americans will still have a higher median income than us.”—Things change a lot in 4 years. It would be wise to find stats that match for accurate comparison rather than making such an excuse.
“In America, Asians make the most money (on average), then Whites, then Hispanics, then Blacks.”—On average Asians also have more than one person working in their household, compared to whites who may have just the father working etc. This sloppy analysis is why more than just one factor needs to be looked at when analyzing information. That is assuming you base this on median income.
LikeLike
@Sharina
Ok.
LikeLike
@Kiwi
Right, because Asians are being emprisoned and shot in the streets like we are.
LikeLike
@Sharina
I am sorry, I did my best to explain it to you. I think you need to understand the basic concept of statistical inference if you really want to delve into it.
Purchasing power is directly correlated to Median Income.
To argue that the average AA has a higher purchasing power than the average WA is just delusional.
I said WA have higher median income than AA.
Median income is highgly correlated to purchasing power.
I said WA have higher purchasing power than AA.
I said 15% instead of 13% and I already apologised for this. If I apologised, that means I accepted I was wrong.
I was wrong Sharina. I should have said 13% instead of 15%.
Are we good?
LikeLike
@Kiwi
Because there’s also an #AsianLivesMatter movement.
/sarcasm off.
Acquire capital, Study the Game, and when the time is right:
Empire-Build.
Remember, I am a Prince, a Somalian one at that.
Bitterness is unbecoming. Do not seek to be strong so that the white man can be defeated, seek to be strong so that your children may be provided with a future.
I have been many things and I have suffered many defeats, but even in the throes of the lowest defeat, I will never be victim-black.
I am not new-black, I am not neo-black, I prefer the term super-black.
LikeLike
@Kiwi
Asians may make more money but they only represent approx. 5% (I wrote approx. Sharina, leave me alone).
Thus the Empire remains White, and the Asians, like us, are ‘other’.
The most respected are the Whites. Because the Empire is White.
But the Empire respects the Jews and the Asians more than it does us.
Which is why they throw us in jail and shoot our children in the streets.
They do this because they can.
Police officers know that many AA do not have the means to respond.
Police officers do not respect the AA.
LikeLike
@Kiwi
Increasingly, the Empire will be Chinese and the Chinese will no longer be ‘other’. Whites will be ‘other’.
I never said that Whites see Asian Americans as their countrymen. I said they respect Asian Americans more than they respect us.
The Empire is capitalist. When you are rich, you get respect. When you are poor, you get no respect.
The Empire is an Empire. It committed atrocities, such is the Game. But when the Empire is Chinese, it will be the Chinese committing atrocites against us.
We, and Whites, will be ‘other’.
The Chinese tentacles are already starting to run deep into Africa.
LikeLike
@Kiwi
We can go on like this forever, I can now say:
But why is there no #Black4AsianLives
The point I am making is that we are being treated, in this day and age, at this very moment, worse than the Jewish and worse than the Asians.
Because the Asians and the Jews have more capital and more influence than we do.
I believe this to be obvious, you may not.
You may think that the Asians and the Jewish are our brothers in arms.
But when the Empire is Chinese and they start colonising Africa, you may change your mind.
Accept the Game.
You can start by reading the Art of War.
LikeLike
@Kiwi
So you want to continue? Ok.
So you acknowledge now that some groups get better treatments than others?
Respond to that first and then I will explain why Jews get more respect.
LikeLike
somaliprince
The people who comment on this blog aren’t the same people who leave posts at the end of YouTube videos. You have misgauged your target audience.
You are maqrketing your ideas. So first you throw out controversial statements to gain attention, then agree in principle with the poster while at the same time pointing at your product as the solution.
Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat.
“I am not new-black, I am not neo-black, I prefer the term super-black.”
That’s one of your marketing phrases and you have others. It’s subliminal advertising and in a blog setting it comes off as very close to spam.
In selling a product one always placates the buyer but one never admits that the product might be flawed.
You say your interested in debate but you don’t really believe your product needs to be critiqued.
I think you might have valid observations that I might find useful. I just don’t want to have to parse through all your BS to get to them. .
LikeLiked by 3 people
@Sharina
Kiwi said:
Jews make more money but they represent only 2%
Wikipedia says:
Jews represent 1.7–2.6%
…
{adopts Sharina voice}
You are WRONG, you said 2% but it is approximately 1.7-2.6%. Accept that you are wrong and STOP moving the goal posts.
{adopts Afrofem voice}
You are twisting the facts. You are WHITE!
{adopts Somali Prince voice}
I am a Prince, A Somalian one at that.
Study the Game.
LikeLike
@michaeljonbarker
Point taken. I have been writing too much. I will be writing less and will spend more time on my website.
LikeLike
@somaliprince
WAY before that happens, it will be the white people in America committing atrocities against Chinese Americans and other Asian Americans and take their money and property. They have done it before, they will do it again.
BTW, who is this “us” you are referring to?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@jefe
I should be clear when I say ‘us’, I mean Africans (I am not African American).
It will most probably be after my lifetime, unfortunately I am not that young anymore.
According to historical precedents, when the Chinese become the dominant Empire, they well begin to exploit Africa in much the same way as the current Empire has been exploiting Africa.
Honestly, I have only lived in America for a short time, I can not comment too much.
I can only observe how the current Empire has treated its minorities (not well) and expect that this will be the same with future Empires.
The difference with Asian Americans is that, increasingly, China is becoming more powerful. Asian Americans may migrate back to China if they continue to be treated badly.
In the same way that Brits are treated better in America than Blacks, Asian Americans will be treated better in China than non-Chinese.
A good example is happening right now.
Adele (British) has appropriated a lot of Black music. Her new album is currently breaking all the records in terms of sales in America (all the records previously set by Beyonce, Rihanna etc).
White Americans are more receptive to White Brits than they are to African Americans.
LikeLike
@Kiwi
Honestly, I think we agree. I am not even sure we know what we are disagreeing about right now.
I was about to tell you the same thing. The majority of Jewish people are white.
Yes, rich blacks get harassed too. As long as the Empire is White, we will be other.
I only said that when you have money, you get more respect. We will never be equal. No matter what they tell us.
Asian Americans get marginally more respect because they have more money.
If you have money, you can sue. If you have money, you can get bodyguards. If you have money, you can buy a nice house away from prying eyes etc.
The police still don’t respect Kanye West but they are less likely to harass him than the average black guy.
We need to accumulate capital, accept that we will never be equal and hope that one day we will have our own Empire.
Guys, I really don’t want to spam this blog.
If you want me to quit replying, let me know.
In other words, Abagond, let me know if I am moving into ‘spam’ territory.
LikeLike
somaliprince
“I am sorry, I did my best to explain it to you. I think you need to understand the basic concept of statistical inference if you really want to delve into it.”—What you did was do your best to put on a show that you know what you are talking about under the idea that you think I don’t know. Try assuming less. For example if the average white person makes 50,000 a year and is paying back 25,000 in student loans then that kind of diminishes his buying power. It is those little factor you ignore that most economic majors I know always seem to factor in. As you said to Merriman perhaps you were not suited for economics.
“To argue that the average AA has a higher purchasing power than the average WA is just delusional.” —–No one is arguing that. Not even you. So now you go from goal post shifting, to deflection, to good old straw man. Wow.
“I said WA have higher median income than AA.”—-That is not what you originally said. I quoted you verbatim what you originally said. You can acknowledge or lie. Either way I can copy and repost it.
LikeLike
@somaliprince
You can only adopt my voice if you have the pleasure of hearing it and even then it will become clear I take no joking tone in debates.
15% vs 12% is a 3% difference compared to 1.7 vs 2.6. You minimize your level of being wrong. The percentage is not the only think you are wrong about, but it is the only thing you wish to own up to. If I choose to make time I will make you a list. It will be found on open thread as to not take this off topic.
LikeLike
@Michael Jon Barker
He honestly is not saying anything new. There are things I agree with him on, but he clouds it with poor tactics. Another problem is he is assuming this is new to his audience. Just as he assumes his audience is purely black. I am glad that the non-black commenters have not spoken up to correct him. I want him to continue to assume.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Correction 15% vs 13% is a 2% difference compared to 1.7 vs 2.6 with a .9% difference. You minimize your level of being wrong.
LikeLike
@Sharina
I feel like a naughty student being reprimanded by a teacher. What can I do to acquiesce you?
I am sure that your voice is as sweet as honey.
And I am sure that, from behind its reverberations, lies a beautiful visage.
LikeLike
@Sharina
“There are things I agree with him on,”
Praise the Lord. A chink in your armour.
‘Tis but a small victory, but a victory nonetheless.
And with that, I shall depart content.
Aurevoir, fellow debaters. I have work to do. I know not for how long I will be gone.
But, of course, never forget:
I am a Prince, a Somalian one at that.
LikeLike
somaliprince
It isn’t about me. You want people in here to listen to you, but you also would rather play games. I say stop playing and start engaging in honest and real dialogue.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@somaliprince
Where do you get these ideas? 😮
This *might* be possible if Asian-Americans are driven out again, but due to reasons that have nothing directly to do with the diplomatic relationship between China and the US. We have some evidence of that during the prior driving out period in the USA after the Chinese Exclusion Act, as well as the 20th century pogroms of ethnic Chinese in places such as Indonesia, Vietnam and Cambodia.
However, if the USA is at war with China, I can rest assure you that Chinese Americans (and perhaps other Asian Americans) will be treated much WORSE than non-Chinese. Neither the USA nor China will trust them or like them. They may have to flee to other places (eg, Latin America).
LikeLiked by 2 people
(All these sumpsimus corrections..
The ‘.9%’ discrepancy is actually a larger error because it is between two smaller numbers.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
yeah but can you do the sunday crossword puzzle in pen and under 2 hr’s? i cannot.
LikeLike
Uglyblackjohn
That may very well be the case, but the issue is not a matter which is a larger error or smaller on percebtage wise. It is a matter of him not having the correct numbers at all and minimizing the error he has made in doing so.
LikeLike
somaliprince
“Praise the Lord. A chink in your armour.”—–You praise for the wrong reasons I agree with somethings you say, but not because you brought it to the table. Most if what you say is lacking on several levels.
LikeLike
Moral of the story. Don’t make a claim of numbers that you can not support and I won’t say anything about it. 🙂
LikeLike
Every now and again some commenter comes along to take over the comment section of blogs of people of color.
Their intent is never too inform or add to the conversation. They spout a lot of intelligent sounding mish mash but at the back of it is always some backhanded insult against the poster in particular or black people in general.
Eventually a few others jump on the bandwagon, pointing out what they feel to be errors, inaccuracies or omissions. Instead of simply adding their information to the conversation, it becomes a game of gotcha or, I can’t believe you left out such and so….
It’s a shoddy way to treat the host of a forum in his own space that he chooses to share. If Abagond is our generous host, then the Somali prince and his ilk are the blowhard, ill-mannered guests who spoil what should be a good space to share- not a place to fight the reinforcing of the very stereotypes we already know are not true.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@TheDeborahGirl
Your crticism is very valid. I appreciate I may have come in a bit hard.
My apologies.
I sometimes lose patience with people pointing out racism where we already know it to be.
I believe America to be tribalist at heart, and the NYT is just a reflection of that.
I have now quietened down and am keeping to a single post.
Abagond is a very good host and I am grateful for the very lenient treatment he has afforded me.
I don’t think there is another blog as well run anywhere else on the internet.
Have a look at the ‘Game of Empires’ post if you would like to find out more.
LikeLike
I would just add that there is a serious blind spot regarding Central America in both world maps that you posted.
The three northern countries have some of the most homicide rates in the world. In past years deaths due to homicides (the ones counted as such) in those countries added together to almost the amount of homicides in the US. The population of the three northern Central American countries is perhaps about 5% of that of the US… There is non declared civil war in these countries but nobody cares in the Western Hemisphere. http://www.theguardian.com/world/honduras
http://www.theguardian.com/world/guatemala
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/22/el-salvador-worlds-most-homicidal-place
LikeLike
@ThatDeborah Girl: Well said, my sentiments exactly.
LikeLike
@ jose orellana
Good point. There is a trail of bodies from Colombia to Los Angeles. Part of that, the biggest part, is packaged on the map as the Mexican Drug War. I need specific numbers for the other countries, the US among them. Official homicide numbers are easy to come by, but not all of those are part of the drug war.
LikeLike
Thank you for the reply abagond.
I will say it is extremely difficult to quantify and thus attribute deaths to the drug war, especially those that regard “collateral damage.”
In any case, the sharp surge of violence in North Central America is mostly related to organize crime. There is Mexican cartel violence (and an almost insignificant degree of Colombian or North-West South American cartel presence) but the overwhelming majority of deaths is related to criminal gangs with their more fluid and less hierarchical organizational networks.
However biased and neoliberal the World Bank is with its conclusions, there is a significant amount of accurate information in the report titled: “Conflict, Security, and Development.” (some examples related to C.A. : the stickiness of violence even after cold war related civil wars have ended; or the decades required for institutions to mature)
Even in that report, it is evident what you often point out that it has been by design, that is political and economic design, what created the current state of affairs in less developed countries (and they have by the way approx. 6/7 of humanity; 5.9 billion vs. 1.2 in the most developed countries… http://www.prb.org/wpds/popup.html).
LikeLike
Criminal gangs have been empowered in the last decades by the drug war. That war has created new venues of income (increasing economic and political power for some) and weakened democratic institutions (the judicial system for example).
We now have in Central America rampant money laundering and corruption due to the drug war, and as these economic activities have inflitrated and permeated the economic system, displacing thus less lucrative and time consuming activities, more people at all levels of society have grown more directly or indirectly dependent on that source of income.
So in other words, there is domino effect of sorts. Real or perceived change in criminal violence creates more violence from the state; the democratic institutions that could create change such as eduction, public works, security, etc, are underfunded specially in a poor, capitalist country as revenue from businesses decrease and other resources are shift towards “security” (mainly buying weapons from the West); the most vulnerable are left with less opportunities of survival and are either victimized or are forced to use violence as the last tool of survival and leverage.
LikeLike