"I'm not a racist i'm a race realist"

8k murders in one city in 15 years is kind of a big number

Compared to places with sane gun control laws, sure.

But this is the US.

there are poor people in england too... do you have cities with 8k murders in 15 years?

No, cos we don't have guns literally everywhere.

>if we got rid of all the guns the gangs would no longer kill over turf to sell drugs
funny stuff

maybe france should enact some gun control.... how many were shot in paris?

or maybe truck control.... how many dead in Nice?

guns dont fire themselves

Look, it's simple fact.

The US, especially the inner cities, is far more dangerous than Europe. Why? Because a gang fight in the US is a group of teenagers spraying MAC 10s at eachother, whereas a gang fight in Europe is a bunch of teenagers going at eachother with baseball bats.

Completely irrelevant to the argument. If a 100% white society had gun laws like the US and a gun culture like the US it'd be just as violent.

look up the murder rate in VT or NH.... no violence

Except that both those states are very, very rural, hence no inner city gangs.

Stop being a dumb cunt.

>If a 100% white society had gun laws like the US and a gun culture like the US it'd be just as violent.
But poor and extremely white areas with lots of firearms and a strong gun culture like Appalachia have some of the lowest crime rates in the country

are your inner cities 35% black?

we have cities that are 80% non white... you dont want to live there

and hmm look at these cities... they have a variety of gun laws, many very strict

>why yes i'm a racist nationalist

Of course it's the gun loving american that can't write for shit.

Because they are rural, and hence don't have the extreme population density that give way to gangs and similar organised crime.

b b but the guns... they just cause the murderz

110,000 people live in Manchester NH... no violence

now look up Hartford, New Haven CT.... much higher crime rates... (also around 100-150k)

>I'm not a racist at all, but it's 2016 and people have to speak English

But they HAVE the guns, mate.

It's funny how those pesky invisible power structures rob blacks of personal responsibility and force them to commit disproportionate amounts of crime in virtually every non-black country on earth

Precisely, they have strict gun laws to counteract the very, very widespread prevalence of guns.

you are probably 5'4

Yeah, because Manchester has about HALF the population density of Hartford; it's a much more wealthy city.

Terrific point, my white(?) friend

looks like it working

maybe you should take a few million refugees from these cities

Okay, so you admit that extreme population density causes a high murder rate rather than a gun culture and gun laws

It's not an invisible power structure mate, if you make social mobility IMPOSSIBLE for a certain group of people for 80% of your nation's history then the effects of that just aren't going to disappear overnight.

>i i its rural
oops

and hartford used to have tens of thousands of more people, but the high crime drove them out

Well it would if there was any kind of effective, nationwide legislation.

Not in the slightest, I argue a high population density leads to the creation of gangs. The US's extremely lax gun laws and horrific gun culture is what makes these gangs so deadly.

High crime comparative to the historic levels, not to the levels reached thereafter you mouth breathing retard.

So they're criminals in EXTREME numbers because of lack of social mobility, and those equally poor white people are not criminals to that extreme of a degree because they go to bed knowing that they have social mobility, even if it never comes into play, and they remain as poor as their parents always were.

fucking stupid

How did Japan oppress blacks for 80% of their history? How did Russia oppress blacks for 80% of their history? How did Germany oppress blacks for 80% of their history? How did China oppress blacks for 80% of their history? You are not answering the question--why do blacks commit disproportionate amounts of crime not just in the United States, but everywhere they go?

Japan has extreme population density with no guns and they are have low crime rates.

heres another funny thing

we spend a FORTUNE on inner city schools

>Hartford and New Haven both spend more than $17,000 per student

national average is
>The national average was $6,480.

average in CT? $10,285

>So they're criminals in EXTREME numbers because of lack of social mobility

No, you idiot, they are criminals disproportionate numbers as they are poor in disproportionate numbers due to a lack of social mobility.

If you're going to be an idiot on purpose fuck off back to Cred Forums.

Japan also doesn't go wrecking business and mass looting in neighboring cities when they have a crisis. You don't need a gun to use a rock to smash in windows.

Japan just isn't full of bad people

...

You missed the point, you can read it again, but I'll rephrase

We take X poor black people
We take X poor white people.

The amount of crime produced by the black people is fucking astronomical compared to what the whites do.

Is it because whites as laying in their bed cherishing the supposed "social mobility" they have even though their community has been poor for a fucking century?

How about you actually prove they commit a disproportionate amount of crime access the globe first?

How bad crime is in major cities in US?

It's not just blacks though, it's any oppressed minority. Your asking why blacks in white run societies commit more crime.
In Canada the most historically oppressed group is natives, and they are 3 times more likely to commit a crime than American blacks are.

>"Although aboriginal persons make up 3.6% of Canada's population, they account for more than 20% of Canada's prison population. The prevalence of aboriginal persons incacerated in Canada is thus 3x the number per capita of incarcerated African-Americans in the United States of America." "It is there because the large representation of America's black people in crime statistics is commonly commented on (51% of homicides from 11% of the population, according to Crime in the US) and seen as a significant piece of America's crime picture. Canada's aboriginal population being three times more likely than America's black people of committing crimes is noteworthy"

Really depends on the city.

Oakland and Detroit are pretty fucking bad in some areas, Detroit being worse.

That being said Denver or Columbus are pretty nice for the most part.

Koreans in Japan are the ones who commit crime you fucking retard, they're also the marginalized ones

African immigrants are actually often successful

I haven't missed anything, you're just being really really stupid and not understanding the fundamental points I'm bringing across.

People coming crimes because they are poor. Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime relative to their population due to the fact a disproportionate amount of their population is poor and urban.

Take any random group of white people, subject them to the same experience as blacks in America and you'd end up with the same situation. There is nothing genetic in people of African descent that make them more likely to join a gang, or sell drugs or steal cars.

>cities have elected democrats for decades
i guess its democrats oppressing non whites then

but 90% of non whites vote democrat

weird times

its not like some evil republican runs Baltimore, Detroit, Cleveland, every other city with high crime and "racially oppressive" police"

many cities are also minority majority... so.... they are oppressing themselves with their own leaders?

basically depends on how white/asian your city is

SF and Portland are nice (they are also very white/asian for US cities)

In this scene he says that 1 in every 3 black males are in correctional facilities in some point of their life. Is this true?

youtube.com/watch?v=0gOOivlhSZM

>i guess its democrats oppressing non whites then

Just because people want a democrat, and end up with someone who calls themselves a democrat doesn't mean they're a democrat. Look at Hillary.

I'm racist.

hillary won the black vote HUGE

hillary was the non white candidate

bernie was the white voter candidate

Not quite. Hillary won the old black vote, mainly because the old black vote liked her husband.

The young black vote backed Sanders massively.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, and I don't really know what party politics has to do with it, though if I had to point the finger at one American party it would be the democrats, none the less, my point is that in America your most dangerous group are blacks, which are also your most historically opressed group, in Canada it's natives, our most historically oppressed group.

They are totally different races, the only thing they have in common are a history of oppression and sky-high crime rates.

Makes it seem more like a historic oppression issue than a race issue.

hillary crushed bernie with the black vote

CRUSHED

>I haven't missed anything
You have

>Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime relative to their population due to the fact a disproportionate amount of their population is poor and urban.
You keep restating this, but the fact is, as I have expressed, when you CONTROL for these factors and look at similar numbers of poor, uneducated whites and black both raised in urban environments, there's still a massive gap in crime.

Yeah, that's about accurate. 1/3 will go to prison at some point during their life. They make up about 40% of all prisoners.

Yeah, because the old [BLANK] vote always crushes the young [BLANK] vote.

Chicago is called Chiraq for a reason, literally more dangerous to be in some parts of major cities than being in the army

who knows what the problem is

all i know is in many cities minorities get to choose their leadership, and have for decades

>when you CONTROL for these factors and look at similar numbers of poor, uneducated whites and black both raised in urban environments, there's still a massive gap in crime

Fist of all, define "massive".

Second of all, yes because there is a DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT of poor, urban blacks.

You do understand what "disproportionate" means, don't you?

then i guess your last post was a waste of time

minorities wanted hillary

who knows why

>Second of all, yes because there is a DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT of poor, urban blacks.
The fact that blacks are at a higher percentage of poor is not relevant. You need to go back and reread what I wrote. You are not understanding what people are telling you.

Minorities on the whole may have wanted Hillary, but they SHOULD have wanted Sanders.

>guys they do it because they are poor!
>white city like Portland has a much lower murder rate
inb4 there are no poor people in portland

even relatively well off Charlotte (its not a dying shithole like Baltimore) just had literal race riots

I'm not understanding what you alone are saying, because you alone are not making any kind of logical sense here.

A disproportionate amount of poor people are black. Hence, the amount of poor people who commit crime must be similarly disproportionate to the overall population.

Are you choosing to not understand this or are you actually just too dumb to get it?

You have ignored what everyone, including myself, has told you when we have attempted to explain things to you. Please reread them.

I saw some posts saying a bunch of them were brought in from buses is that true?

No, I have directly refuted what you alone have tried, pitifully, to assert.

If you feel upset, by all means try again. But unless you actually come up with a smarter argument you're not going to succeed.

>muh socio economic factors LMAOOOOOO
Kill yourself you delusional retard. Intelligence is agreed upon to be mostly genetic.

>No, I have directly refuted
You haven't even directly addressed what people have said to you, much less refute it.

We have phrased and rephrased the basic understanding that statistics convey, and all you have done is restate "nope, disproportionate." You don't take the time to understand if someone is talking about the matter from a proportional perspective or an absolute one, you simply assume it is untrue because they are disagreeing with you. Certainly no one can say anything true if they are trying to disagree with you.

You are unintelligent.

The recent events (or political protests against the percieved racism of the establishment/police forces) are somewhat exceptional as they are, explicitly a racial issue. We're talking about simple day to day crime for the most part in this thread.

france sure was safer before they opened the flood gates a few decades ago

but thats not racial, just shitty cultures (sets off suicide belt)

But it's just the extremists who have nothing at to do with Islam user! They're not getting any inspiration from the religious texts whatsoever!

You fucking Islamaphobe racist!

Except intelligence is not the sole factor in deciding whether or not a person commits a crime.

If anything an increased amount of intelligence could be said to increase the likelihood of a person committing a crime.

For example, if a group of 8 year olds were asked if they would break into a pharmacy to steal a medicine that would save their loved one's life, the vast majority would not do it as they understand theft to be illegal.

Howsver, ask the same group of kids six years later, you're going to get a very different response as their understanding of the world changes.

The only person still disagreeing with me is you. You're one and only argument has been "b-but why are SO MANY criminals BLACK?!"

And I have refuted this. For a start I challenged you to establish just to what degree criminals are disproportionately black, which you have still comprehensively failed to do.

Secondly, I have explained numerous times that if crimes tend to be committed by poorer people and if a disproportionate amount of poor people are black then it must follow that a disproportionate amount of criminals are black.

In response to this you weakly tried to assert that this is the case across the globe, thereby implying some sort of genetic disposition within people of African descent towards disregarding the various, distinct and arbitrary legal systems of various different nations.

That argument, obviously, is simply ridiculous and so you have failed comprehensively to provide any kind of proof to back it up owing to the fact that no such proof exists.

You have failed even to offer any real counter argument; merely trying, honestly somewhat embarrassingly, to project your own failings vís a vís your basic lack of understanding, intelligence, proof or even valid counterargument onto me.

USA:
A White man with a net worth of 35-74k has about of 1% chance of going to prison

A Hispanic man with a net worth of 35-74k has about a 3% chance of going to prison.

A Black man with a net worth of 35-74k has about a 9.6% chance of going to prison
--

Lets go more poor:

A White man with a net worth of 0 - 630 dollars has about of 2.7% chance of going to prison. Poverty easily over doubles the crime rate compared with the more wealthy white man above.

A Hispanic man with a net worth of 0 - 630 has about a 14.5% chance of going to prison. Poverty more than quadruples the crime rate compared with the more wealthy Hispanic man above.

A Black man with a net worth of 0 - 630 has about a 20.5% chance of going to prison. Poverty more than doubles the crime rate compared with the more wealthy black man above.

How about some figured in the middle?

White guy with 7k-11k in net worth: 3%
Hispanic guy with 7k-11k in net worth: 6%
Black guy with 7k-11k in net worth: 10%

-
So what does that tell you? It tells you that
1) Poverty has a SIGNIFICANT factor on crime, doubling, tripling or even quadrupling it depending on the group effected and the level of poverty.
2) Groups commit at generally lower or higher rates, even when taking poverty into consideration.

But I'll humour you. Once again, a disproportionate amount of criminals are black as a disproportionate amount of poor people (who are more likely to commit crimes) are black and vice versa. If you can actually disprove this argument, please go right ahead.

>You're one and only argument has been "b-but why are SO MANY criminals BLACK?!"
That hasn't been my argument, you haven't read what I said. You need to go back and reread it.

>In response to this you weakly tried to assert that this is the case across the globe
That was someone else.

You are under the impression that everyone who has argued with you is one person, and as I mentioned, you haven't taken anything into consideration.

I did post this though, try reading it

Just because someone was incarcerated doesn't mean they committed a crime, user, or if they did that the crime they committed was necessarily worse than someone else.

>I did post this though, try reading it #

I just did, and within seconds identified the fundamental flaw in your reasoning.

crime rates don't tell you who's committing crimes, they tell you who's getting caught committing crimes

Well blacks are crazy overrepresented in violent crime, and I don't think being poor makes you need to kill people desu

>white people are just 10x as sneaky as blacks
So are blacks just not intelligent enough to figure out how not to get caught?

Consider all the people incarcerated for smoking weed, for instance.

And then consider how that Nixon policy advisor said that the war against weed was planned specifically to target black Americans.

Consider that whites know to smoke their weed indoors and not be public about it while blacks smoke it walking down the street and film themselves giving their 3 year old relatives a fucking blunt

>the less white an area
>the worse it is generally
and yuros dont mind genociding themselves through mass immigration

white guilt is killing the West

My "fundamental flaw" is apparently that

>Maybe those crimes of 2.7% of white are just that much worse and more harmful than those 9.6% of black men

Is anyone else from the UK watching this? Does this make sense in your brain as well? Or just this guy?

Being black makes it more likely you will be poor and urban. Being poor and urban makes it more likely you will join a gang. Joining a gang makes it more likely you will commit (or at least, will be found guilty of committing) a violent crime.

This is incarceration. It does not include simple arrests and short term jail time for more minor offenses. This is criminal activity that gets you convicted and put into prison.

>it's all poverty based

Every single group in the US has historically been oppressed and started out basically with nothing. Irish, Chinks, Slavs, Italians, what have you. They all managed to work their way up the ladder. Except for blacks who didn't bring any civilizized habits from Africa and failed to adapt to their captors' culture.

As a race realist Im obsessed over my mixed inferiority, since it has ruined my life, since I became life, and I make no secret of it.

and coincidentally its when I started reading Cred Forums and really disovering my mixed subhuman status that I started glorifying blonde white girls as the opposite of me

this obsession with blondes was not a lifelong thing. It only began after I began obsessing over my mixed inferiority. I started going to Cred Forums and obessing over Mongoloids, and learning the superiority of the Nordic race over other whites.

So you're saying that blacks are just as law abiding as whites, they're just easier to catch?

That's what Canada thinks Blacks are just too darn stupid not to get caught!

I don't think they're as law abiding as whites and I think they're dumber about flaunting crime to boot

t. grew up in a shitty neighborhood full of these types

>Maybe those crimes of 2.7% of white are just that much worse and more harmful than those 9.6% of black men

What kind of clusterfuck of grammar is that?

I found it difficult to phrase that coherently, so I just went with what I felt might be understood.

But at least I didn't need to commit a crime in the process.

Hey, he might be black. Don't you dare talk to him that way.

The fact that blacks were the only racial group that was actually enslaved and considered, legally, to be less of a person then white proves this to be spectacularly wrong.

Even then, social mobility was nearly impossible for blacks well into the late 1960s. The same cannot be said of any other racial group.

Again, I know plenty of whites who would fit the bill.

It really is a socioeconomic, poor, disenfranchised people feel like they can't have any power within the system and so they brag about the power they win for themselves outwith the system.

What has really hurt the blacks is the rise of the welfare state.
Their income levels and everything else were steadily rising until they got hooked on welfare. A huge drawback to copious amounts of government help nobody talks about is the elimination of fathers.
Who needs husbands and dads when the government is there to ensure income and housing and a false sense of protection.
And that's what women vote for.

>I just went with what I felt might be understood

The fact you genuinely felt that might be understood is more worrying then the fact you said it to begin with.

id say it was more the loss of US manufacturing

millions used to just get a decent job at a factory, many were union.... now the options are much worse with lower pay

>The same cannot be said of any other racial group.

That's because the other racial groups were able to create their own societies and towns and build them up. Furthermore, slavery ended in 1865 and there were free blacks even before that. That's earlier than some of those groups I mentioned have come to America.

niggers are poor.
Poor white people tend to work and be actual working class instead of members of the welfare state.

>copious amounts of government help
>their government didn't even provide a half way decent system of public medical care until 2010

>The fact you genuinely felt that might be understood
So I'll take this as you couldn't understand it. Let me make my point by simply quoting you

>or if they did that the crime they committed was necessarily worse than someone else.
Fucking dumb. You've argued the entire time that black crime is from poverty, and then when you are shown that poverty isn't the answer you try and say "well, the crimes blacks commit aren't as bad, so it's okay."

This, blacks disproportionately relied on factory jobs, whites were more diverse.

And the whites who were dependent on factory jobs also have never truly recovered.

youtube.com/watch?v=bBIubgsfK8E

>That's because the other racial groups were able to create their own societies and towns and build them up.

How did having a strong "racial society" prevent the Poles, for example, being enslaved?

>Furthermore, slavery ended in 1865 and there were free blacks even before that. That's earlier than some of those groups I mentioned have come to America.

Except I just explained that the impossibility of social mobility for blacks that came as a result of centuries of enslavement was a fact of life for most blacks until the late 1960s and is still a fact of life for many blacks today.

Are you even reading my posts?

I enjoy seeing this Englishman transition seamlessly from "those rates are completely explained by poverty, and there isn't a real racial gap" to "There's a racial gap and it's because of slavery."

I was commenting on how statistics actually work. An obvious point, but how you interpret statistics is necessarily influenced by your understanding of statistics.

Notice that I did not comment on race, who is over-represented, under-represented, etc. I was quietly pointing out that many of the people in this thread are discussing crime reports as if they are omniscient records of crimes committed. They are not.

You can interpret the data however you want, but you can't say "blacks committed more crimes than did whites" when the data literally only tells you "more blacks were caught committing crimes than did whites." This is a fundamental difference in the data and its misreading is a betrayal of a person's scientific and/or statistical illiteracy.

This is only partly true. Blacks were reliant on cotton picking and migrated north after the invention of the mechanical cotton picker. They were initially used in industry only to break strikes. While they were moving north, manufacturing was already slowing. When they moved to St. Louis, Detroit, Chicago etc., they left *slums* and *shacks* in their wake. The projects of the 60s (like Pruitt Igoe) were a response to the deplorable condition of their neighbourhoods in the 50s (after the migration). There is a huge number of documentaries you can watch on youtube about this.

youtube.com/watch?v=SCrR6ltEep4
youtube.com/watch?v=8FJcUT8ud7c
youtube.com/watch?v=yqiJrJPOJKw
youtube.com/watch?v=xKgZM8y3hso
youtube.com/watch?v=Xxn9-IPJsS4

To summarize: blacks moved north due to the invention of the mechanical cotton picker while stage was set for the de-industrialization of the northern states.

ITT: a British national sanctimoniously "lectured" Americans about race issues. And the arguments from both sides are so typical and tiresome as usual.

>You've argued the entire time that black crime is from poverty

No, I haven't. I have argued from the start that crime, regardless of race is from poverty.

>and then when you are shown that poverty isn't the answer

This has not been demonstrated even remotely.

>you try and say "well, the crimes blacks commit aren't as bad, so it's okay."

This is demonstrably incorrect. You tried to argue that incarceration rates were proof of a genetic tendency amongst blacks towards crime and immorality. I pointed out, entirely rightly, that not all """crimes""" are worthy of jail time, the implication being that not all crimes are truely immoral.

Your arguments are either incredibly stupid or based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of what I'm saying or a complete logical fallacy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_(African_American)

>when the data literally only tells you "more blacks were caught committing crimes than did whites.
are you implying the cops are...Racists? or the system? or both?

>No, I haven't. I have argued from the start that crime, regardless of race is from poverty.

Black crime is for respec, sport, fun, not for bread. You've never met a black person.

These gaps are explained by poverty, the poverty is explained by slavery.

Like I said from the start, a disproportionate amount of blacks are poor hence a disproportionate amount of criminals will be black.

It's simple mathematics.

What prevented the blacks from doing what everyone else was doing i.e. claiming some land and farming or working in the cities and saving up?

Also, a lot of the immigrants from Europe came from places where they also had zero opportunities for social mobility. Yet they overcame that and were able integrate.

in a nutshell from your whole argument: Slavery hence poverty hence crimes? wew, that's simple.

Blacks underreport crimes in their hood and criminals often intimidate witnesses. I'm guessing, if anything, black crimes are under-reported and under-prosecuted.

>stitches for snitches

See

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A

>5.5% of Black men, 0.1% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men carried the 2R allele.
>An association between the 2R allele of the VNTR region of the gene and an increase in the likelihood of committing serious crime or violence has been found.

You have excuses. I have data.

This guy is a troll lol

or is falling on the grenade and being the noble foil for this thread

Do black lives matter
youtube.com/watch?v=SL8f5iWrzN0

A disproportionate amount of rich blacks also commit crimes

Not all lives matter. If a guy pulls a gun on me, regardless of his ethnic background, his life matters less than fecal matter.

>What prevented the blacks from doing what everyone else was doing i.e. claiming some land and farming or working in the cities and saving up?

Oh, simple. In many states blacks were specifically prohibited from owning land, or at least from claiming land for free from the US government or in the case of Kansas from even being in the state. That, and the fact that the vast majority of blacks came into the US as slaves, and hence were unable to earn the money necessary to buy land, tools, seeds etc. etc.

And even then, they didn't receive fair political representation or adequate education, especially in the south, to allow them to protect their interests or to progress socially until, again, the late 1960s.

I don't have the stats at hand, but pic related is funny given the discussion.

thats David Dukes analogy/biggest excuse for racism, isnt that? shits now become an iconic phrase of smelly fat altrights and Cred Forumsacks but shits shit. its straight up racism

That is an simplification, but not one I feel that is monstrously incorrect.

Nonsense. Blacks are the same regardless of state or continent.

Again, do a disproportionate amount of rich blacks commit crimes, or are simply a disproportionate amount of blacks caught? Or, if you were to flip it, are a disproportionate amount rich white men not caught?

poverty made him do it, and US gun laws

move to a black majority area and study it

a big problem is probably the lack of fathers, regardless of income

I don't see how you can argue about disproportionality of stats due to factors poverty and then question the stats' accuracy when someone points out that something contradicts your view.

How's that different from poor uneducated peasants who didn't even speak the language?

Also, what prevented them from going to states where they were allowed to own land? Come to think of it, how did they even know they weren't able to own land there?

And relentless racism in Canada.

...

Feminism is responsible for that, the rate of single mothers in black communities was waaayyy lower in the 50s.

If crime was rooted solely in poverty and oppression, wouldn't women make up a much larger percentage of crime?

>blackest countries are the shittiest of Africa
>blackest countries of the Americas, no matter what part, are the shittiest parts

really bamboozles my noodle

Statistics are fantastic and correct when they agree with you. When they don't then they're flawed and easily thrown out. Even if the statistics that support you and the ones that don't are from the same source.

That isn't an excuse. That is an entirely rational theory on human psychology that can be observed in numerous different societies regardless of race.

>I have data.

Are you seriously suggesting that the supposed gap that the American lad's been going on about can really be explained away by just 5% of the overall population having a gene which makes them somewhat more open to the possibility of committing anti-social behaviour? Even in the wikipedia article itself they HEAVILY stress the interactional factors (I.e. upbringing etc.) to

>post some child in an awkward photo

wow now i'm convinced

But was crime lower? What was lower was the proportion of blacks living in cities. When they did move to the cities, they still lived in deplorable conditions (similar to modern day Africa t.b.h.) Pic related is about a book written in 1940. The situation is eerily similar. The litany of excuses has lengthened. I don't deny nurture/environment has an effect on human behaviour, but *genetics* has an equally powerful role.

>just 5%
It's a ratio of 50:1. A black neighbourhood has 50x more people with a predisposition to anti-social behaviour. For every arsonist in a white town, there are 50 in a black town.

>How's that different from poor uneducated peasants who didn't even speak the language?

Poor peasants who don't speak the language are still free to move as they wish, get a job as they wish, can network with richer, more influential people of the same ethnicity to get a job.

Blacks in America didn't have that freedom. Even if they were free they're wasn't that same class of influential, rich Africans, if they moved very far they ran the risk of being captured and resold as a "runaway slave", plus the vast majority of blacks were concentrated in the poor, rural, unindustrialised south making it very hard to get a job.

>Also, what prevented them from going to states where they were allowed to own land?

As mentioned before, the lack of money with which to fund such a journey and the fact they could get captured as a "runaway slave". It was incredibly difficult if not impossible for a free black to prove he or she wasn't a slave if captured in such a way.

>how did they even know they weren't able to own land there?

The fact that if they tried to apply for some they'd get told to fuck right off?

Again, that does not demonstrate that blacks have a greater tendency towards crime, only that the Met (who were and in some regards still are notoriously racist) have a greater tendency in catching them.

>Blacks in America didn't have that freedom.
The Native Son is a book written in 1940 about a black criminal living in Chicago who exemplifies a *pattern* of *black cirminality* in the era prior to 1940, in Chicago where slavery and segration was not implemented and the welfare state was still not in full effect and the great black migration was only about to commence.

Also, I already gave you stats from London. USA is a red herring. The only difference is the huge difference in the proportion of whites to blacks in the US vs. UK. Consequently, black crime is easier to ignore in the UK.

black culture is responsible for that

>can argue about disproportionality of stats

Well, I'm only assuming the stats are actually disproportional. I don't this for a fact at all.