The face of the earth is changing. No, not the geography. The topography remains the same. The change I'm referring to is the cultural change. A seismic shift is occurring in the ethnic and racial populations of this planet unlike any previously seen.
For ions Europe has been a sea dotted with ethnic islands. England was for the English, France for the French, Sweden for the Swedes, etc.. Now migrants are arriving from the Middle East, Africa and Asia at the rate of six thousand a day. There are currently 44 million Muslims living in Europe, and that number is expected to double by 2050. Germany expects 800 thousand migrants to pour into their country by the end of 2015. For the first time in history, Brits are a minority in London. In the past ten years, over one millions Brits have emigrated from England.
Back in the USA it has been estimated that we have at least 11 million illegal immigrants residing within our borders, the overwhelming majority of those being Hispanic. Putting this demographic shift into perspective, when JFK was sworn in as President in January of 1961, the country was 80% Caucasian. Today that number is 65%, and it is predicted that by the middle of this century, Caucasians will be a minority at 45%.
What this changing population landscape means to the world is yet to be determined. But one thing is certain. The world our grandchildren will inhabit in their senior years will be radically different from the one they were born into.
Take a good look around. We are witnessing the end of one era, and the beginning of a new one.
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Thursday, October 1, 2015
MOTIVE FOR MASS MURDER?
There has yet been one more mass shooting. This time it happened at Umpqua Community College in Douglas County, Oregon. At latest count, there were 13 dead and 20 wounded.
This latest shooting spree has one major factor in common with other mass shooting, such as the ones in Columbine and Aurora Colorado. What is the common denominator? The killings took place in a rural community or suburb. This begs the question: Why do these shooting take place in relatively quiet and sparsely populated areas? Why don't these rampages occur in major cities beset with guns, gangs and homicides? Places like Chicago, New York, Detroit, LA, etc.? Just this past weekend, 50 people were shot in separate incidents in Chicago. So why has no major city experienced a mass killing of a dozen people or more?
Here is one possible explanation. Unlike rural communities, violence is a daily fact of life in the inner city. Guns are plentiful, and law enforcement estimates there are over 100,000 gang members in Chicago alone, which account for 80% of the shootings. There is little restraint against violence in the inner city; it is an accepted way to settle disputes and grudges between groups and individuals. In contrast to rural areas and small towns, where gun violence is a rarity, and violent behavior of any kind is discouraged, the inner city's availability of weapons and support of gang afffiliations provides a ready outlet for anger and violent impulses, which in turn, decreases the possibility of emotional explosions leading to mass murder. It is, in effect, a type of safety valve that does not permit anger to build because of the opportunties to release it.
This isn't to say that gang street violence is a positive antidote for the mass shootings in Oregon, Colorado, etc., but it is a theory that has yet to be invalidated.
This latest shooting spree has one major factor in common with other mass shooting, such as the ones in Columbine and Aurora Colorado. What is the common denominator? The killings took place in a rural community or suburb. This begs the question: Why do these shooting take place in relatively quiet and sparsely populated areas? Why don't these rampages occur in major cities beset with guns, gangs and homicides? Places like Chicago, New York, Detroit, LA, etc.? Just this past weekend, 50 people were shot in separate incidents in Chicago. So why has no major city experienced a mass killing of a dozen people or more?
Here is one possible explanation. Unlike rural communities, violence is a daily fact of life in the inner city. Guns are plentiful, and law enforcement estimates there are over 100,000 gang members in Chicago alone, which account for 80% of the shootings. There is little restraint against violence in the inner city; it is an accepted way to settle disputes and grudges between groups and individuals. In contrast to rural areas and small towns, where gun violence is a rarity, and violent behavior of any kind is discouraged, the inner city's availability of weapons and support of gang afffiliations provides a ready outlet for anger and violent impulses, which in turn, decreases the possibility of emotional explosions leading to mass murder. It is, in effect, a type of safety valve that does not permit anger to build because of the opportunties to release it.
This isn't to say that gang street violence is a positive antidote for the mass shootings in Oregon, Colorado, etc., but it is a theory that has yet to be invalidated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)