Not really. Race and culture are vastly different things. Every race covers a myriad of cultures, some of which would be considered "criminal" to our western European standards, some of which wouldn't.
The Caucasian people cover all sorts of cultures, ranging from English binge drinkers, through pikeys, to the hardcore ethnic cleansers of the Balkans and the Caucasus. Many of these don't even look alike, yet are part of the same race.
Black people come in all shapes and sizes too. The nomadic tribes of the Sahara, the black Arabs of the Horn of Africa, the Masai and Zulu just to name a few. All of these wildly different in culture, some of them violent, some of them not so.
Asians? A race could hardly be more physically and culturally diverse than the Asians.
Within these races, the levels of "accepted" criminality and violent behavior is determined by what culture you are part of. Violence is pretty normal in the Balkans. Theft, corruption and crime is a normal part of Italian society, but are frowned upon the further you get to the north-west of Europe. All of these are white people.
Even within a single culture, what is acceptable is diverse and often based on socio economic circumstances. Selling drugs suddenly starts to make a lot of sense when you are faced with the threat of being evicted from your home.
@dodge-gnome:
Your 50 Cent/G Unit example is flawed. Black kids don't follow 50 Cent's example. In fact, it is the other way round. Gangsta rap reflects what goes on in certain neighborhoods. Funny enough, it's middle class white kids that try to be like them and glorify the whole street thing and start acting and talking all gangsta (many paintballers being a sad example of this).
Now ya see, that's why I like getting into a discussion with you Jay, it means I am gonna have to strain every cell in my bonce to answer you ....
Hmmm, onward ....the notion of multi-culturalism relating to one race is obviously a sound one but the fact this is the case does not preclude a race adopting a cultural trait even though another sector of that same race may not adopt the same behaviour elsewhere.
The problem arises in the sort of situation I suggested whereby , all races within a certain environment are open to all the same influences and yet one race adopts a particular behaviour.
It doesn't matter if that race adopts other behaviours [or maybe even refuses that same behaviour] outside of the environment I described, what matters is, it elects to adopt that behaviour within the mix of the races in that environment.
And so, my question still stands mate, whist culture doesn't necessarily equate to race, it could well indicate a racial predisposition much like pathologies do in some races.
When you talk about levels of acceptance being dependent upon which culture you might or might not be part of, you begin to lose sight [in my opinion] of what's important here, you have already conceded culturalism is sometimes on a very short time-line and as such, is fickle relatively speaking; the law of the land cannot afford such fragility and has to stand well above culturalism here.
The law is necessarily based upon on an extended time-line and rightly so .. it has to be, to perform the role it does within societies.
I suppose I'm not one for believing cultural subjectivism is a get-out clause for ultimate responsibility of one's behaviours?
Also, the law of the land, which is of course hopefully a reflection of one's moral system has to be independent of everybody's culture but I can appreciate why you suggest there is a case to answer maybes.
This is a convoluted subject for sure but I'm also sure, the more we try to remain within the confines of my hypothetical situation I described in that first post, the clearer we can keep things and hence any conclusions.
Duuurrrr, my brian hurts
And yes, I do know ....
