I’m sure that gangs are a natural part of life for any minority or group of immigrants. I have little doubt that gangs (like the poor) will always be with us. Therefore, I’m not going to argue that I or anyone else can dream up an idea that can eliminate gangs.
But it still might be possible to make an occasional insight that would reduce the incidence of gangs. Instead of having 100 gangs, with a little common sense, maybe we could reduce the number to 20 or even 10.
• I’ve been watching two videos on gangs. One describes the Hispanic “MS13″ gang. The other tells the history of the Negro “Bloods” and “Crips” gangs. All three gangs fight other gangs (including the cops) for territory and then extort “protection money” from the businesses in their territory. If businesses don’t pay for “protection,” their owners can lose their property or their lives.
Extortion by gangs seems cruel and unjustifiable. But, when you stop to think about it, there’s not much difference between the protection money extorted by the the gangs from the taxes imposed by the government. If you don’t pay your taxes to the government “protector” (they’re here to help us, y’ know), you can also lose your property and at least your liberty.
Apparently, that’s the primary difference between gangs and government. If you don’t pay the gangs, they’ll kill you. If you don’t pay the government, they won’t killl you, but they might take a few years of your life. Government is simply a “kinder, gentler” gang–but it’s still just a gang.
• The links to the gang videos are below. I don’t claim that these videos are worth your time, but as I watched them, a possibility crossed my mind.
When I was a kid, we’d sing about schools: ”Readin’ n’ writin’ and ‘rythmatic–taught to the tune of the hickory stick.” Corporal punishment was approved back then. It was taken for granted that any child who merely failed to learn, might be subjected to a good whacking with the “hickory stick”. If a child dared act out violently, the resulting encounter with the “hickory stick” could be memorable.
One of the videos (below) explained how (in the generation after mine) the teachers in public schools would expel any boy who was guilty of too much fighting in the school. As the boy who liked to fight–no longer in school–was walking around the streets, he was inevitably approached by older “gang-bangers” and recruited into the gang. Thus, by pushing the violent kids out of the schools, the schools helped to expand the size of street gangs and the degree of violence within their communities.
So, I’m wondering if the incidence of gangs didn’t rise with the growth of the idea that teachers could not subject students of corporal punishment. How many boys who were violent enough to belong in jail when they were 16 years old, might have been a lot less violent if they’d been given a good spanking by their elementary school teachers, in front of their class, when they were guilty of some violent act?
If we were still teaching “to the tune of the hickory stick,” and the kids who were potentially violent got a good caning every so often in elementary school, would we have so many gang-bangers today?
Did the loss of corporal punishment in the public schools fan the rise of gangs in the public streets?
Insofar as government is just a gang, I wonder how many senators, representatives and presidents would be such treasonous whores if they’d had a dose of the hickory stick back in the day?
MS13 video 00:51:36 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mphZPKQ9TXs&feature=related
Bloods & Crips video 00:45:23 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiuAIow13wY&feature=related