Why do many New World cities/countries have higher murder rates than Old World?

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Every part of the world had slavery, but the slave societies that existed in the Americas are unique in that their economies were built around slave labour, and as such, imported millions of people for the sole purpose of slavery - people who's status was then further reinforced by race-based discrimination.

The legacy of that is that these former slave societies now have significant underclass populations.

I don't understand the people who don't seem to get that the slavery that existed in ancient times isn't the same as the chattel slavery and importation of slaves to the Americas that occurred during colonization.

While a horrible topic, slavery in the Americas is interesting to read about. For example, I did not know that in Brazil, slavery existed until the late 1880s. And, some former colonizing countries like to "brag" that they ended slavery in such-and-such year, but what they don't put out there is that some of them still encouraged the breeding of slaves, and though some stopped exporting slaves from Africa, they still traded slaves from among other countries and colonies in the Americas/Caribbean.

Originally Posted by Obadno

For some reason nobody gets angry at Spain and Portugal despite them being the perpetrators of almost all colonial atrocities and most of the slave trade

They don't?

In regards to slavery in Canada, it existed. Aside from what went on with the first peoples, no African slaves were directly imported into Canada from Africa, but African slaves did enter Canada through the American colonies.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Countries in the Americas in general have a more lax approach to gun control than just about everywhere else in the world.

I think it's the settler mentality/settler culture that dominates in the Americas. I'm thinking that's why many Americans are so pro-gun, because American culture is essentially a settler culture, with everyone else, particularly indigenous people, being the enemy---that "staking my claim, and protecting it at all costs" attitude that people here don't seem to want to address.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Culture has a lot to do with that too, so, I don't see Japan's murder rate necessarily going up if you flood their population with millions of guns. People in Tokyo leave their bicycles unlocked on the sidewalks all the time without any worry that they'll get stolen.

Culture is the very reason why guns outnumber people in America in the first place, so yeah, of course culture has a lot to do with it, in the bigger picture.

But guns also lower the individual threshold for violence. Why? Because not everyone is built, physically or psychology, to stab or hack someone to death with a knife. It's a much higher threshold for action. With easily available guns, it is often the weakest members of society who lash out, in their weakest moments. These are the guys who would just go and die quietly in a forest in Japan.

I'm actually a strong proponent of the second amendment, it's just the number and easy availability of guns that I have a problem with. Somehow I doubt the founders intended a "well regulated militia" to mean every man woman and child being armed to the teeth.

[Encolpius]

Short answer:

#1. Drug trade
#2. Inequality (see map of countries by Gini coefficient)

Mexico, btw, has strong gun control laws... although it also shares a border with the US.

[bossabreezes]

In Brazil it's due to the drug trade. It's gotten better over the past few years and is highly concentrated to those involved in illegal drug trade and/or illegal activity.

Gone are the days like the 80s where people were afraid to walk in the streets wearing jewelry for fear of being kidnapped. The inequality is still there but it's gotten better gradually.

The US is probably due to bad race relations between groups, drug trade, inequality and easy access to guns.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Every part of the world had slavery, but the slave societies that existed in the Americas are unique in that their economies were built around slave labour, and as such, imported millions of people for the sole purpose of slavery - people who's status was then further reinforced by race-based discrimination.

The legacy of that is that these former slave societies now have significant underclass populations.

All pre industrial society was built on massive slave labor, it is not unique to the new world by any degree. What would you call Egypt? Rome? The Arab Caliphate. How were medieval Peasants or Russian surfs any different than slaves?

Hell the Spanish were able to destroy the Aztecs because every other tribe in Mexico hated the Aztec's massive slave operation populated with their people over centuries.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by hallelujah

Maybe because they're a shell of their former selves with no real power.

Which demonstrates that the primarily anti anglo/american movements are not really about "social justice" but to degenerate the UK and the US because they are the recent top dogs in the world.

There are many countries with far more horrifying histories of slavery than either the UK or the US

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

They don't?

In regards to slavery in Canada, it existed. Aside from what went on with the first peoples, no African slaves were directly imported into Canada from Africa, but African slaves did enter Canada through the American colonies.

Maybe if you are in Spain you see it but that isn't the main anti-colonial talking points I am familiar with its always directed at former British territories and never at any horrifying examples of slavery in the middle east and Asia.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Obadno

All pre industrial society was built on massive slave labor, it is not unique to the new world by any degree. What would you call Egypt? Rome? The Arab Caliphate. How were medieval Peasants or Russian surfs any different than slaves?

Hell the Spanish were able to destroy the Aztecs because every other tribe in Mexico hated the Aztec's massive slave operation populated with their people over centuries.

Not all of them were enslaved solely on the basis of their skin color. All slavery is bad, but African chattel slavery was a new degree of evil.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Which demonstrates that the primarily anti anglo/american movements are not really about "social justice" but to degenerate the UK and the US because they are the recent top dogs in the world.

There are many countries with far more horrifying histories of slavery than either the UK or the US

I don't think it demonstrates that at all. Why would someone fighting for social justice in 2020 spend a lot of time protesting 16th-century Spain or the Roman Empire?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Which demonstrates that the primarily anti anglo/american movements are not really about "social justice" but to degenerate the UK and the US because they are the recent top dogs in the world.

There are many countries with far more horrifying histories of slavery than either the UK or the US

Most of us here on this English-language forum are from the English-speaking world. Does it really need to be spelled out why the US and UK are the focus?

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Handro

I don't think it demonstrates that at all. Why would someone fighting for social justice in 2020 spend a lot of time protesting 16th-century Spain or the Roman Empire?

Why would you spend a lot of time on an institution that died nearly 160 years ago.

The only modern slavery occurs in the middle east, Africa and Asia today. You dont see a lot of issues with that because everyone in the west wants their cheap handbags.

Much better to bitch and moan about things we cannot change for they occurred in the past to and by people who are long dead. What an awesome thing to rail about, past events that can never be altered, going after modern slavery would require an actual plan and people would expect some kind of result. Far to difficult for social media warriors.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Not all of them were enslaved solely on the basis of their skin color. All slavery is bad, but African chattel slavery was a new degree of evil.

I would completely disagree, the African slave trade was far more humane than many previous iterations of slavery.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Most of us here on this English-language forum are from the English-speaking world. Does it really need to be spelled out why the US and UK are the focus?

That could be the case but I really don't think so. You would think the primary focus would be on the worse colonial and slave history of the Spanish and Portuguese but it rarely if ever is.

Not to mention Brazil had slavery till 1900

[JManc]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Not all of them were enslaved solely on the basis of their skin color. All slavery is bad, but African chattel slavery was a new degree of evil.

I don't think one form of slavery had a better moral high ground than the other. It's still owning another human being and treating them as a commodity. The racial aspect is a relatively modern concept when cultures began to intermingle. It's just that African chattel slavery was the most recent and it has lingering societal effects to this very day. Slavery used in historical societies such as Rome or some Middle Ages empire gets people stirred up like slavery in the 19th century United States or Brazil.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Obadno

That could be the case but I really don't think so. You would think the primary focus would be on the worse colonial and slave history of the Spanish and Portuguese but it rarely if ever is.

The slave trade had profound effects on the U.S. and U.K., and vice versa. The U.S. went to war with itself over it, and to date it is the highest casualty conflict that the country has ever fought. I'm not sure why you think the U.S.'s slave legacy is being unfairly picked on. Slavery is one of the most defining things to happen in U.S. history; perhaps only second to declaring independence from Britain.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The slave trade had profound effects on the U.S. and U.K., and vice versa. The U.S. went to war with itself over it, and to date it is the highest casualty conflict that the country has ever fought. I'm not sure why you think the U.S.'s slave legacy is being unfairly picked on. Slavery is one of the most defining things to happen in U.S. history; perhaps only second to declaring independence from Britain.

That is an entirely different point, I am not talking about the importance of slaver in a historical context for the USA I am talking about the criticisms of the modern societies for slavery that happened in the past especially when other nations at the same time did the same thing but to a far worse degree and for longer.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Obadno

That is an entirely different point, I am not talking about the importance of slaver in a historical context for the USA I am talking about the criticisms of the modern societies for slavery that happened in the past especially when other nations at the same time did the same thing but to a far worse degree and for longer.

Because the US is the country that is by far the loudest championing freedom when it was one of the last countries in the world and certainly in the Americas to abolish slavery. The Europeans have a nasty legacy of colonialism around the world with all that baggage they have to contend with. The other laggards in slavery are mostly developing nations. Can we really hold Brazil to the same level as the US when they spent most of their post colonial history in poverty and under military dictatorships?

[hallelujah]

3 letters

C
I
A

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Obadno

I would completely disagree, the African slave trade was far more humane than many previous iterations of slavery.

Oh. My. Goodness.