Gangs not a problem, a Culture

Do you know why you do not feel safe in Los Angeles?
Because you’re not!

The Gang Problem in Los Angeles is the worst it has been in 30 years.
What you’re being told is a lie; they care more about numbers than safety.

Because their solutions are based on false facts and false numbers those solutions are doomed to failure. As a result, millions of dollars are wasted on failed programs or even worse, schemes intended to enrich the very gangs they were meant to fight!

I want to educate you on the problem and then you will be in a position to determine who is best qualified to achieve a solution.

Before we get into the facts, it is vital you know what we are really up against. We are not dealing with a “gang problem”; we are dealing with a “Gang Culture.” This difference is critical and no solution will be successful regardless of how many millions of dollars are spent or how many non-profits are set up. This is a bit of a read, but unless you are armed with the truth, you and your family are in danger.

What is a Culture?

“The word culture comes from the Latin root colere, to inhabit, cultivate, or honor. In general it refers to human activity; different definitions of culture reflect different theories for understanding, or criteria for valuing human activity.

In 1952 Alfred Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn compiled a list of over 200 different definitions of culture in their book, Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. They see culture as a “complex web of shifting patterns that link people in different locales, and link social formations of different scales.”

The popular use of the word culture in many Western societies reflects the fact that these societies are stratified. Many use the word culture to refer to elite consumption goods and activities such as fine cuisine, art, and music. Some label this as “high” culture to distinguish it from “low” culture, meaning non-elite consumption goods and activities.

18th and early 19th century scholars and many people today often identify culture with “civilization” and opposed to “nature.” Thus, people lacking elements of “high culture” were often considered to be more “natural,” and contrarily elements of high culture were often criticized, or defended, for repressing human nature.

By the late 19th century, anthropologists argued for a broader definition of culture that they could apply to a wide variety of societies; they began to argue that culture is human nature, and is rooted in the universal human capacity to classify experiences and encode and communicate them symbolically.

Consequently, people living apart from one another develop unique cultures, but elements of different cultures can easily spread from one group of people to another.

Anthropologists have thus had to develop methodologically and theoretically useful definitions of the word. Technically, anthropologists distinguish between material culture and symbolic culture, not only because each reflects different kinds of human activity but because they constitute different kinds of data that require different methodologies.

As a rule, archeologists focus on material culture, and cultural anthropologists focus on symbolic culture, although ultimately both groups are interested in the relationship between these two dimensions. Moreover, anthropologists understand “culture” to refer not only to consumption goods, but to the general processes by which such goods are produced and given meaning, and the social relationships and practices in which such objects and processes are embedded.

In the early 20th century anthropologists understood culture to refer not to a set of discrete products or activities (whether material or symbolic) but rather to underlying patterns of products and activities. Moreover, they assumed that such patterns were clearly bounded (thus, some people confuse “culture” for the society that has a particular culture).

In smaller societies in which people were divided by age, gender, household, and descent group, anthropologists believed that people more or less shared the same set of values and conventions. In larger societies in which people were further divided by region, race or ethnicity and class, they believed that members of the same society often had highly contrasting values and conventions. Thus they used the term subculture to identify the cultures of parts of larger societies. Since subcultures reflect the position of a segments of society vis-à-vis other segments and the society as a whole, they often reveal processes of domination and resistance.

Cultural studies developed in the late 20th century, in part through the reintroduction of Marxist thought in sociology, and in part through the articulation of sociology and other academic disciplines such as literary criticism, in order to focus on the analysis of subcultures in capitalist societies.

Following the non-anthropological tradition, cultural studies generally focus on the study of consumption goods (such as fashion, art, and literature). Because the 18th and 19th century distinction between “high” and “low” culture is not appropriate to the mass-produced and mass-marketed consumption goods with which cultural studies is concerned, these scholars refer instead to popular culture.

Today some anthropologists have joined the project of cultural studies. Most, however, reject the identification of culture with consumption goods. Furthermore, many now reject the notion of culture as bounded, and consequently reject the notion of subculture. Instead, they see culture as a complex web of shifting patterns that link people in different locales, and link social formations of different scales.”

Question: Are you aware of any civilization which has successfully eradicated a culture?

We are dealing with a Gang Culture; a culture with its own language, dress, music, movies and code of conduct.

As outlined above it has spread into the mainstream and is not only accepted and embraced, but emulated.

As with any other Culture it has evolved. Why dress in a manner that will get you arrested when you can operate in plain sight wearing a suit and tie. Why us a gun to steal $100 and go to jail when you can use a stolen ID to steal $100,000 and get probation.

Yes there are known gang members wearing baggy clothes and baseball caps, but there are twice as many unknown gang members wearing slacks and sport shirts. Thanks to well-meaning hospitals, the traditional tattoo markings that identified gang members are being removed for free.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s