Posted on 09/29/2012 5:48:43 AM PDT by markomalley
Gangbangers in Chicago: What makes them tick, what are they thinking?
CBS 2’s Walter Jacobson sat down with gang members in Chicago’s troubled Englewood neighborhood to try to find some answers.
Some of the responses he received were not encouraging.
“There’s no solution to the violence,” one gang member tells him. “Killing, killing is the solution.”
Jacobson asked the young man if he would kill personally, if he had to.
“I’ve never killed before, but if I had a gun in my possession,” he said.
Jacobson says he has been walking the blocks for many years, but the state of despair never changes – poverty, sticks and stains.
The gang members do not like the state of affairs any more than anyone else.
“We’ve got to eat. We want to. We want money. We want to get fresh, we want fresh eggs almost every day. We want all that,” another young man said.
But where do they get the money they need? The young man answered bluntly.
“Rob, steal and kill. That’s the only way. We didn’t grow up in Beverly Hills. We don’t get it handed to us,” he said.
“We ain’t living in Hyde Park,” added a third young man. The home of the University of Chicago is only a couple of miles away from Englewood – geographically, at least.
But given the state of their impoverished Englewood neighborhood, where is the money they can get?
“Selling drugs,” a young man replied. “In our neighborhood, I ain’t going to lie to you. That’s where the money comes from.”
Some of the young men were brought into gangs as children. Isn’t that pretty young to play gang warfare?
A young man answered: “I chose the gang. I didn’t have to choose anything. I was only 10. My OG (old gangster) gave me everything. But I just went on my own and I chose to get in the gang. We was whipping everybody in the neighborhood. Respect. I was getting money.”
The gang members also said they are at war with the Chicago Police Department.
“The police hate us,” a young man said. “Every time they ride past us, they shoot us down and do all that. Do what you want to do, I don’t care about you all, keep riding. Who are you all? We’re not scare of you all. I’ll fight you too. Take that badge off.”
But he says the police cannot catch them or exact any consequences.
“I laugh at the police,” he said. “They’re a joke to me.”
And where would the young men like to be in 10 years?
One of them replied, “in a mansion, with a lot of cars, and a lot of women.”
Another said, “I just hope I’m still living.”
Depends on how it's done. If they suddenly stop working, then yeah the cities will burn.
If benefits are gradually reduced to the point where being a welfare mom stops being viable, and being married to a guy with a steady job becomes more attractive, then you will see a gradual shift. When you need a steady job in order to get laid, then those young men will develop more of an interest in becoming qualified for employment.
.......“Killing, killing is the solution.” ........
sadly.....this may be the only solution......
“There’s no solution to the violence,” one gang member tells him. “Killing, killing is the solution.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
People should be careful what they ‘wish’ for.
OR, in this case, be thankful the ‘majority’ hasn’t started on this ‘grand plan’.
Clever gainsaying and cliches are not substantive arguments.
this is what happens when you take the father out of the home.
The older boys in the neighborhood gang become the father figures.
They’re doing a find job aren’t they?
They, themselves, were raised the same way.
And while this is real bad in the black community, look around you.
Fathers are disappearing from the family - everywhere now.
...
This attitude is so commonplace in poor neighborhoods, I think that the attitude will just continue to breed more gangbangers. You can kill every single last gangbanger and there will be more bred to replace them.
That's why I keep saying that the only solution involves changing the attitudes of inner-city women, by changing the incentives offered to them.
Currently, they have an incentive to be the girlfriends of the most violent thugs, so that they will be protected from all the OTHER violent predators. They have no incentive to marry a guy with a steady working-class job, because he would need to have a middle-class income level before he could out-bid the set of benefits they have access to.
There was a time in this country when we didn’t have large numbers of people making their livlihood through robbery, murder and parasitism.
Now we do.
Courtesy of the man behind the curtain.
Because you, apparently, are interested in dealing solely with the individuals, not what taught the individuals to espouse their attitudes. Without dealing with the latter, no matter what you do to the perps now (even "kill'em all"), there will just be many, many more replacement perps bred in the future.
We all agree that the publick schools are nothing but indoctrination centers. How much more of an indoctrination center is the 'hood, where the government provides for every need (to include the EBT card, the subsidized housing slums, and so on? Along with partially funding community organizers who, although they live in Hyde Park, make it their business to go into the hood and rabble rouse these people into believing that they're being cheated out of their fair share? (Obama gave me a phone -- I'm voting Obama)
They don’t see this as a result of their failed policies and will do everything wrong to fix it.
It is the money that fuels the violence. The top dogs do fairly well for themselves. Because of the limited perspective that those in these areas actually have... this is the way that they think that they are most likely to get ahead.
I like your solution... once you take the government money away and provide only the actual necessities of life... food, shelter, and plain clothing all in a well supervised bland, but safe setting... human creativity and perseverance would cause even these idiots to start pursuing more productive endeavors.
And you obviously wish to absolve responsibility for antisocial "attitudes" because they've been "taught."
Demagogues are not demagogues because they drive public sentiment; they are demagogues because they tap into already existing sentiment, and articulate it.
Ronald Reagan's famous quote about liberals "knowing so much that isn't true" isn't famous because people are automatically slaves to what they have been taught. They have a choice, and are responsible for that choice. And that should be particularly true in the case of people who pride themselves on being iconoclasts.
Further, it is facile in the extreme to blithely claim nothing is going to change unless some abstract concept is dealt with, then use that as an excuse to do nothing until that unproven assertion is changed.
In effect, you are advocating the mentality of a jealous girl who wants to punish her rival, rather than accept the fact her boyfriend rejected her.
Point to you. The welfare state needs to be dismantled, but we are going to have to approach it like disarming a time bomb - because that’s exactly what it will be.
What we won’t be able to do, which Romney is not stupid enough to try anyhow, is immediately roll back benefits. The shock to the system would simply be too great. He has to reassure and restart the economy first.
But it will eventually have to be done.
I find it equally distressing that those of the parasite class think anyone who is doing well economically "got it handed to them".
While that may (in their minds) justify taking whatever from those who have it, the reality is that the vast majority of people who prosper do so because they paid their dues and busted their butts to get where they are. Some got some some breaks, but most just kept working at it--otherwise, the breaks would not have mattered in the long run.
Not at all.
Those who are guilty of crimes must be punished. Obviously.
But if you don't get rid of the underlying problem (a culture of entitlement to government handouts...accompanied by a culture of envy encouraged by "community organizers"), you're just going to breed more and more of it.
Demagogues are not demagogues because they drive public sentiment; they are demagogues because they tap into already existing sentiment, and articulate it.
(and so on from your post)...
So are you saying that these people are genetically defective? They are born and bred to have criminal behavior?
Are you saying that they were not taught to be that way through their parent, their "education", their pop culture, and their environment?
The bottom line is this:
There are essentially three choices:
You cite Reagan's "A Time for Choosing" speech from the very beginnings of the "Great Society."
That very speech reinforces exactly what I was saying. Not only did he say that liberals "know so much that isn't so," he also discussed those ill-advised social programs causing the breakup of family:
But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who'd come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She's eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who'd already done that very thing.
He, and other luminaries, forecast what we are seeing this day. And if we DON'T recognize the problems that are being caused by this socialism and deal with those root causes...we doom ourselves and our children to seeing more of it. Could that have been part of the "thousand years of darkness" he warned about?
That is exactly what I am saying.
Their "education, pop culture, and environment," is the product of, and reinforcement for, that quintessentially human vice of "blaming others" for problems of our own making: not its cause. Pandering to base human nature does not cause base human nature.
To think changing "teachers" is going to change that flaw is to believe in the concept of the "perfect soviet man."
Of your "bottom line" alternatives, only #2 is viable, but #1 is what will be practiced until it is no longer possible. #3 is fundamentally misguided and not worthy of discussion.
Their "education, pop culture, and environment," is the product of, and reinforcement for, that quintessentially human vice of "blaming others" for problems of our own making: not its cause.
There ya go.
The "man behind the curtain", to whom you earlier suggested we pay no attention.
Of your "bottom line" alternatives, only #2 is viable…
So, despite your protestations, you agree with me.
Fascinating.
Have a good rest of the weekend.
It was never intended to be a cure. It was bread and circuses while the Communitst broke the black (and indeed, even poor white) family down. Government has been breaking down families since the 1870s, and has honed the process over time.
It rendered most American Indian Tribes ineffective insofar as presenting any resistance, hasn't done much better for urban and rural poor blacks, and it's coming to a neighborhood near you (Obamacare, Social Services, mandated school lunch programs, etc.)
Family already takes back seat to Social Services, even when family members want to step in and take care of a child in a problem situation. If there isn't a problem, Social Services will invent one.
I imagine it will start with a Rodney King type moment - but that “moment” won’t stop.
So any mob of young angry men will be open season. And after that it will be the stragglers still wearing red, or blue, or whatever.
Hopefully the “OG”’s will figure it out quick and leave the 10-year old’s home..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.