L.A. Gangs: Nine Miles and Spreading
Gov’t programs encouraging and financing father-less families and the glorification of gang culture by the media are bearing much deadly fruit.
LA Weekly | Peter Landesman | Dec. 12, 2007
Nationwide, juvenile gang homicides have spiked 23 percent since 2000. There are six times as many gangs in L.A. as there were a quarter century ago, and twice as many gang members. But as important as the gang activity itself is what’s different about the violence. In America’s urban ganglands, and in L.A. in particular, the ferocity of the thuggery has surged; gang members, their victims and police long on the gang beat tell me the fighting has become more codeless, more arbitrary and more brutal than ever.
And it is everywhere. According to the Department of Justice, today America has at least 30,000 gangs, with 800,000 members, in 2,500 communities across the United States. (Gang experts at the University of Southern California claim the number of American jurisdictions with gang problems has reached 4,000.) Federal, state and local law enforcement across the country agree that street gangs connected to or mimicking the L.A. model have become a national epidemic.
Last January, a report on gang violence commissioned by the Los Angeles City Council found that the gang epidemic is largely immune to general declines in crime nationwide. In other words, gang crime is surging just as other violent crime is decreasing. And unlike other categories of crime, gangs and gang-related crime are spreading to formerly safe middle-class communities, or, “to a neighborhood near you,” says the report’s author, civil rights attorney Constance Rice.
What this means is that the communities gangs come from are pulling away from mainstream society more than ever, and the gangs that plague them, like storm systems, are growing and feeding on themselves, gathering destructive strength. In Los Angeles, law enforcement officials now warn that they have arrived at the end of their ability to contain gangs to poor minority and immigrant hot zones.
“This is the monster, this is what drives people’s fears,” says LAPD Deputy Chief Charles Beck.
Father Gregory Boyle, a Jesuit priest whose Homeboy Industries has helped willing gangbangers in mostly Hispanic East L.A. escape the life, tells me that gang behavior is changing, and the change is chilling. Everywhere he sees signs of the erosion of known and protected codes of conduct, such as methods of assassination that used to protect the innocent, and territorial respect — which he says reflect an accelerating sense of desolation among poor urban youth. Gangs today are less about neighborhoods and rivalries. They’ve become repositories for hopelessness.
“Gangs are the places where kids go when they encounter their life as misery without exception,” says Boyle. “When [gangbangers] go out to commit crimes now, they’re not going out seeking to kill — you can’t reason or rationalize this: These are kids who don’t care. They’re going out hoping to die.”
[...]
Squeezed by a shrinking share of the drug market, desperate for new business, gang members and their families are retreating out of the city, establishing new street gangs where they land. According to the FBI, gangs are showing up and spreading in suburban and rural America, in counties like Westchester and Suffolk in New York, and rural parts of North Carolina and Virginia, places that have no experience with street gangs and organized crime, and police who don’t know how to fight it.
A few years ago, officers responding to a call to Nickerson Gardens found a young Bounty Hunter who had lit a dog on fire. Already on probation for animal cruelty, a juvenile court judge exiled the young gangbanger to San Bernardino, a small city 70 miles east of L.A., where the boy had relatives. Within a few weeks, the boy recruited a few local kids to form a robbery crew and went on a spree of armed home invasions. They made a point of bragging to their victims that they were Bounty Hunters from L.A. They shot their last victim to death. The San Bernardino chapter of the Bounty Hunter Bloods was born.
L.A.’s sprawl has turned gritty former Mormon and railroad settlements such as San Bernardino into bedroom communities, ripe territory for construction and for industrial growth. Pinched by spiking real estate prices and displaced by a surging Hispanic migration, many of South L.A.’s blacks are relocating to the Inland Empire. So are gangs.
. . . more
Friday 14 Dec 2007 | Blog-Editor | Culture war, Popular culture |
This is an excellent article regarding a serious social problem written by a well respected author. Gangs have formed and spread throughout America however for reasons more complex than “government programs encouraging and financing father-less families.”
Many Hispanic gang-members have fathers - the problem is the father is away 16 hours a day working two jobs for low wages. In Riverside and San Bernadino counties parents often face long commutes into Los Angeles, which also leave them less time to spend with their children. In some low income areas Caucasian youth are drawn to gangs as well, including some inspired by the Prison-based “Aryan Brotherhood.”
Historically gangs have arisen in America in places where an economically disenfrachised and marginalized underclass has fomed. Martin Scorcese’s “Gangs of New York”, depict the ruthless gangs that formed in the slums of early Manhattan. From 1900-1930 Chicago has its violent Irish and Italian gangs whose struggle culminated in the infamous St. Valentine’s Day massacre.
The breakdown of the family certainly makes youth more suceptible to gang-recruitment, but so do a number of other causes. The most important of these others include a feeling of vulnerability to crime and the violence of others, economic marginalization, poor education and a lack of marketable skills, and a pervasive sense of hopelessness regarding one’s future.
Fuzzy concepts alert!
Gangs are surrogate families. Young men need adult men to hold them in check and teach them how to become responsible men. Mothers cannot do it. Fatherless boys who grow up to be responsible adults usually have a surrogate father teaching them the ropes. Where these surrogates do not exist, stronger boys take their place.
In the fifties 75 percent of New York black families were intact, two parent families and the trend was rising. After two decades of the Great Society, the percentages were reversed. No one, except perhaps the hard left, disputes the data that the Great Society fostered the unintended but catastrophic effect of creating a Black underclass. Even Bill Clinton faced the facts and “ended welfare as we know it.”
Here is what government needs to do. First of all the gangs need to know that their violence will not be tolerated. Period. The death grip that the teacher unions have on inner-city schools (Democratically controlled cities, BTW) needs to be broken and school choice implemented. Burdensome taxes need to be lifted and tax credits applied to spur the growth of business in economically depressed areas (jobs lead to income), and perhaps most important, the moral agents of change — churches primarily since family breakdown is a moral problem even before it is economic — need protection and support.
Government, particularly the local assembly, has a critical role to play in any renewal of order and stability — but a return to the paternalism of the 1970’s and 1980’s is not the way to do it. They are old ideas reinflated with the stale air of presumptive self-righteousness where people are not held accountable for their own behavior, and government meddling in affairs beyond its purview makes problems even worse.
Family breakdown is the problem. Arguing that family breakdown is one problem among many misses the point entirely and will only contribute to even more breakdown. Haven’t we learned anything from the Great Society?
Fr. Hans, political ideologs are incorrigable, so no, nothing has been learned by them. The eqalitarianism they worship won’t even allow for the modest hierarchy of family especially ones headed by men.
Fr. Hans, (Note 2) This is one of the most eloquent, true, clear, and concise statements I’ve seen on this issue. Thanks for posting it.
Chris, unfortunately none of the pallatives which Fr. Hans suggests has much chance of happening in major cities espeically in California since the governments there are far more interested in making sure that no one (except men and Christians) is discriminated against. Even in “enlightened” California there are many that would just as soon see the Latinos and blacks kill each other. Definitely have to preserve the “right” of women to systematically murder their children; Homosexuals to their sin; take private property away to increase the tax base, etc. There is little will to actually govern no matter what party label they chose to go by. On top of that any action they would take to restore order would be immediately protested by vociferous “rights” groups as being discimanatory, something-a-phobic, racist, or whatever.
Michael, that is true, but I’m glad that at least ONE (1) Orthodox priest has the courage to say these things publicly. Do not underestimate the power of ideas and the courage to speak truthfully. It has to start somewhere. If enough people, across the political spectrum, enough teachers, writers and visionaries keep beating the drum, change will come. Jesus Christ promised as much. The power of truth, is ultimately the power of God. The power of “mere” words, is in itself a microcosm of the power of the “LOGOS”, the Word, Christ Himself, the one of which Scriptures say:
Don’t forget the miracle Reagan and Thatcher accomplished in the midst of an almost total collapse of conservative Western ideas in the US and Great Britain. Despite the predictions of doom and gloom and their countries’ precipitous slide towards liberalism and communism, these two individuals turned the tide and delayed the virtual surrender of the culture and politics to leftist ideologies in America and the UK. We have a responsibility to speak and lead, and let the chips fall where they may.
Winston Churchill did not waiver in his resolve and determination to defend England and hold back the Germans, neither should we give an inch in the immense spiritual and cultural battle before us. There’s a lot more at stake here than mere politics and witty editorials and commentaries.
#6 Chris
Whenever it looks as though pernicious trends have no end in sight I think about the Reagan/Thatcher example. It is hard for young people to understand, and older members of the left are in denial about it, but in the late seventies most intellectuals thought that communism was here to stay and had many advantages over free-market societies. Presidential candidate Carter gave a famous speech at Notre Dame where he complained about “excessive fear of communism”. John Kenneth Galbraith - the supposed Dean of US economists - gave a speech where he predicted that the Soviet Union would eclipse the US.
When the thing finally fell, it is amazing how fast and how hard it fell, with not a shot fired.
There are many other modern shibboleths that will collapse when a little courage is summoned.
It remains to be seen whether or not communism fell. Has not our culture taken on many of the tenets of communism which included the destruction of the family and the rearing of children by the state? Are we not routinely barraged by mindless propganda that perputates class warfare? Are we not implored to deny our sovernity for a world government so that we can have “peace”. Are not Christians around the world persecuted and here ridiculed for even believing in God, let alone acting on His commandments? Is not Putin gaining strength in Russia and the political power in the old Soviet Union is largely in the hands of the old communist elite? The Soviet Union fell, but did not die, it merely released its spawn, including its nuclear capacity, to spread around the world.
If you do not think that the prevailing philosophy in the United States is dialectic materialism you are sadly mistaken. Egalitarianism is rampant. Regan and Thatcher did nothing to stop the spread of such philosphy, in fact they merely inculcated it more surely into the fabric of our lives. It is simply not in the outward form of Marxism. They challenged the overt evil and it has largely been stipped of that evil for the time being, but they did not touch the heart of the beast. Technocrats and plutocrats are the rulers in our oligarchy no less than in the Soviet union, kept in power all the more easily because they are smart enough to give us the illusion of choice and keep us diverted by all that we can consume. All the while seeking yet another “enemy” to stir us up in fear. Orwellian government lives and its stronghold is the United States. We say it is the best country in the world because we are comfortable. Our passions and our pride can run amok and we feel justified because we can protest the most egregious examples of it and feel virtuous when we proposed vain and superficial political fixes to deep, disgusting spiritual problems. It is all part of the nothing.
Tom: When did Galbraith say the Soviet Union was going to elipse the United States? I’ve read some of Galbreath’s work and have never seen him say anything like that.
Can you provide a link to the actual quote?
Thanks!
Each of the terrible fraticidal civil wars of the last several centuries has usually been preceeded by a long period of political polarization and social division. Tensions between the Northern and Southern regions of the young United States ran so high that merely mentioning the issue of slavery could ignite riots and violence. Spain and in Greece the early 20th century saw divisions between right and left wing elements grow so deep that they could not be resolved peacefully but inexorably expoloded into civil war.
For this reason it is especially alarming when people in the United States refuse to listen to people with opposing viewpoints and build common ground, but instead fan the flames of culture war and social hatred. When a lberal or conservative reaches across to acknowlege and affirm a position usually held by the other side, the appropriate and Christian response is to seize the opportunity with a reciprocal gesture to foster understanding and brotherhood, and not to slap that person in the face.
During the mid-nineteen nineties we had political zealots forming armed militias in America’s rural heartland , a left-wing political fanatic known as the Unibomber assasinating perceived political enemies, a right-wing fanatic who bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City and several bombings and shootings at abortion clinics. This is the outcome that results from a refusal to engage those whom we disagree with in dialogue but instead engage irresponsible talk about a Culture War.
Families play a critical role in instilling discipline and direction in a young person’s life. However economic factors can operate to weaken the ability of the family to perfom those functions. If both parents must work, or hold multiple jobs that leaves them less time to spend with their children, If the police cannot keep the streets safe of crime and violence, and parents cannot afford to move to a safer area, that might cause a child to consider seeking safety through gang afffiliation. It is therefore unreasonable to say that economic factors play no role in the decsion of a young person to join a gang.
Family friendly labor policies, job and recreational programs for teens, and greater funding for local police would go a long way to curbing gangs,
More fuzzy concepts alert!
Quite the sweep. From the Civil War in America, to Spain and Greece (much different in character than the American war, BTW), to the Unibomber and other wackos, and then imploring talk about reaching across the political divide to…
…restore the failed policies of the Great Society.
No one said this first of all. Read #2 again. Second, even Clinton faced the facts. So should you Aletheameter.
# 10 Aletheameter:
Prior to the late 1800s, and even after that point in much of the country, there were no family-friendly labor policies, etc. Most people ran farms or did menial labor, and both parents performed long days of hard labor. The only days most people did not work were Sundays, Independence Day, and Christmas. Most children were given a basic education and in addition worked part of the day, and adolescence ended for most of them by age 16. By today’s standards, these people were in poverty, though few of them would have thought of themselves as poor.
There were problems, there was no utopia, and conflicts (like the Civil War) did occur. However, the nuclear family was much stronger and more effective in instilling discipline and direction in the lives of young people then than it is today. Gang violence was an occasional problem in some urban areas, but was by no means a widespread national issue. All of this was the case despite material and economic conditions we would find unacceptable.
If economic factors are weakening the effectiveness of nuclear families today, or are eroding the very fabric of nuclear families, the root cause is not the economic factors (which were more severe in the past) but something else. I think that “something else” is the abandonment of spiritual truth, a related weakening of churches, increased expectation of material comfort, and resultant degradation of our culture. Given the impossibility of creating a utopia in which nobody faces economic hardship, the spiritual state of the populace is critical, and brings us around full circle to the importance of cultural issues.
So while it is possible to talk irresponsibly about the “Culture War,” it is more irresponsible to ignore conflict about moral truth, or to capitulate or compromise on every issue for the sake of avoiding conflict. Making economic issues the sole or even primary focus of public life will not stop the erosion of civilized behavior.
Aletheameter -
Here is a quote from Galbraith in 1984:
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.8269/pub_detail.asp
I seem to remember that he gave a more unambiguously favorable comparison in a speech about the same time but I cannot find it. Will let you know if and when I do, and will apologize if I mis-quoted.
Father: The comments in number 10 are sweeping. But I’m alarmed at the increasing “Bunker Mentality” among some Christians and indicated in Michael’s comments especially. We as Christians cannot change the world for the better by retreating and withdrawing from the world, but by participating in the political process, however corrupted, and engaging others in society to try and make it better. If the outlook of a Christian is positive and hopeful (as my Priest says it is) then our duty is not to retreat but to engage.
There’s a quote by an American ex-patriot living in Paris in Michael Moore’s movie, “Sicko”. “The difference between the United States and France”, she says, “is that in France the government fears the people, and in the US the people fear the government.” That is a sad comment, but listen to Michael B, “Orwellian government lives and its stronghold is the United States”, and you have to wonder if it is true.
So back to the issue of gangs, I believe the conservative movement has won the argument about the importance of the family, but having affirmed its importance and essential role, we owe the family more than lip service, but tangible support and assistance to those families that are struggling. I believe that good people of all political viewpoints can work together towards that goal.
Dean, whenever basic facts are brought into the discussion, you retreat into moralisms. Look, the Great Society decimated the Black family. No one, again, except the hard left, disputes this. And please, spare us Michael Moore.
And what’s this about the “argument about the importance of the family”? It’s not a political point, Dean. The importance of the family is a cultural reality. What does the left possibly have to offer except more of the same wrong-headed destructiveness when they think family is merely a “social construct”? Why do you think your moralisms about lip service, tangible support, and so forth should be taken seriously when all you seek is the resurrection of old ideas already proven false?
Yes, Christianity is hopeful. My hope is that you stop taking your cues from Michael Moore and start thinking on your own.
BTW, you think the ex-patriot lives near the Muslim enclaves in Paris? He might not be so smug if he did.
One of the reasons to fear our government is because it is far more powerful than any European government. It was made that way by the Constitution. The ratification of the U.S. Constitution gave enormous power to the central government. It was assumed that a rational, virtuous people would govern in a rational, virtuous manner.
We often talk about a tripartite system of government to provide balance and keep the other branches in check: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Actually the Constitution provided for four branches, the fourth branch was state soverenity.
The Civil War destroyed any acutual power the states might have held, and Lincoln’s use of the Executive power set the stage for folowing Presidents which has only been strengthened since. A fact made possible by the obdurant immorality of the southern slave owners.
The Progressive Movment by giving the Federal Government the power to levy income tax gave enormous power, unintended by the Constitution to the Legislature, combined with the direct of election of Senators and there was no effective means to curb the power of the Legislature. Seeking to curb the greedy power of the monied class, the Progressives handed a nuclear weapon to merely entrench other equally insidious power seekers in the future.
Finally the Judiciary got into the act thanks in part to the New Deal and the Civil Rights movement.
The amount of power concentrated on the Federal level exceeds any put the most draconian tyrannies and our politicians are drunk on it.
Christians are not called to play poltical parlor games with corrupt power brokers or to seek the approval of the masses in the Circus (that is where we go to be put to death). The power of the Church is prophetic and evangelical. Neither prophecy nor evangelization is based upon compromise with untruth and immorality. When Christians enter into the political world they often give up important aspects of their faith to achieve more power (for the greater good of course), e.g., abortion is wrong, but I can’t make that decision for anyone else. Jessie Jackson at one point opposed abortion as a Christian minister. If he actually had the best interests of black people in his heart he still would. He gave it all way for personal power.
Tyranny is requested by people who are hungry for order–an order that all the compromisers in power have systematically destroyed by their continued failure to govern by a standard of virtue and justice, personal accountablity and responsibility to the community.
There is no standard of law in this country any more except personal desire. There is no sense of community, only that atomistic excess of individual “rights”. The economy is no longer measured by how much quality we can produce, but simply by how much junk we can consume. Our education system is not designed around how to think, but is mostly instruction on how to feel.
There is no political viewpoint that is worth anything. If calling on folks to repent, and seek God, is a “bunker” mentailty. Then I guess I’m in the bunker, but I no longer feel that anything less than a radical conversion to genuine Christianity will save us from a horrifically violent future with out anything to consume, easy prey for the false promises of a resurgent communisim or facist Islam.
The great American promise is more and more looking to me like a whitened sepulcher filled with not even dead men’s bones, but the nihilistic promise of autonomy from God, the Satanic promise that we will surely not die, but be like God. Freedom turned to license, virtue to weakness. When everything is compromised, what is left? Nothing. More political machinations will not restore what we have so cavalierly thrown away.
Fr. Hans writes: “Look, the Great Society decimated the Black family.”
Well, the programs were started under Johnson but were expanded greatly under Nixon, and barely hit a speed bump under Reagan and Bush. Problems with welfare can hardly be laid at the feet of Johnson since other presidents, even Republicans, either expanded it or barely touched it.
Also, you have to realize that the programs also did some good. If you look at the historical U.S. census poverty tables you see that poverty of blacks went from around 55 percent in 1959 to around 22 percent in 2001. That is a huge drop, rarely discussed here. (I’d provide a link to the tables, but the spam filter would kick in and trap the post.)
There is a similar trend with education. In 1960 around 42 percent of whites had a high school diploma or higher, and 20 percent of blacks. by 2000 84 percent of whiles and 72 percent of blacks did — a 200 percent increase for whites and a 360 percent increase for blacks.
So when you talk about “old ideas proven false,” I’m not sure what that means. Does it mean that not all effects of welfare were good? Of course they weren’t. What large program has all positive effects? None do. While it is true that some things went very wrong, it’s also true that in the last 40 years some things have gone very right. Let’s look at both, not just one.
#8 Michael
Much of what you say is true, but the point is that things were much worse 30 years ago. I think that you are being overly pessimistic and idealizing past times and places.
Micro examinations always yield good and bad effects in all programs. That’s no reason to suspend judgment on macro effects. Google James Q. Wilson and go from there. It’s all over the place.
Tom C:
Tom, while I can concede to some degree that there has been an apparent improvement since the 70’s, it is only because more people are seeing how broken the whole system is: culturally, politically and at the foundation spiritually.
Remember the movie Network? Instead of an avuncular network news anchor such as Walter Cronkite, it was a mad visionary who popularized the phrase, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore” I always liked that, even though in the movie that anger was still manipulated by the power brokers for their own ends.
I am tired of the constant fear tactics used by politicians of all stripes to “motivate” their “base”. Actually, all it does is appeal to our base motivations.
I am tired of stupidity, venality and immorality masquerading as virtue and compassion while genuine virtue and compassion are ridiculed and marginalized if not overtly persecuted.
I am tired of “its the economy stupid” attitude as politicians of all stripes are becoming more and more simply economic determinists like Dean, the altimeter, Scoutes, the ultimate oxymoron. Such stuff is made even worse when “economy” has come to mean simply how much we spend and consume without regard to people. In order to spend and consume, more and more we have to absent ourselves from our home and families to be “at work”, “earning a living”. We’ve got to, got to, got to have….. (fill in the blank). So for folks in the ghettos and barrios their success is also measured by how much they have. Since they don’t have, they decide to take. Unrealistic, vain and degrading expectations lead to rapaciousness. But is there really much difference between the Bloods and Ken Lay; between the market in drugs, sex and guns and the stock market?
I am tired of the egalitarianism that allows and promotes such idiocy as “Islam is a religion of peace”.
That type of attitude is only strengthened when we think we can change it and make it better by engaging it and the people who represent it on their own turf. Its like becoming a gang-banger to stop the gangs.
Politics reflects the will of the people, even if it is tyranny. What we see in our politics is coming directly from our own diseased hearts. It will not change, only get worse until our hearts are healed.
Until more of us can act like the Orthodox bioethicist, Tristram Englehardt, who in an academic conference in Germany earlier this year told the whole room full of European philosophers, businessmen and economists that what they each needed was to repent and be baptized, “there is a stream outside and a priest in the room who could do it” nothing is going to change. My brother was the priest, but none of the attendees responded to the invitation. Unless more people respond to that invitation, nothing will change. Unless those who respond actually enter into the baptismal mystery, nothing will change. But most of the time we don’t even bother to extend the invitation. Pretending that actual change can occur simply because we move some of the furniture around by occasionally electing someone different, is vain foolishness.
It is Christ, Crucified, in His Church or it is nothing.
Chris: On a tangentially related topic, you have written three good essays on business ethics. If you get the time to put something together, I would really like to hear your views on the sub-prime mortgage crisis, and where you think the breakdown occurred. Certainly it is also the biggest financial story of the year.
Was the lack of action by the Federal Reserve to curb fraudulent lending practices an argument that in some areas we need a greater government presence? Are the borrowers solely to blame for entering into mortgages without fully understanding the terms their loans? Does the sub-prime mortgage mess represent a systemic failure of our financial system across the board because at every stage risk people in business took their profits and passed the risk on to someone else?