Public schools aren't teaching Critical Race Theory.

[SigmatheZeta]

I've tried about a dozen different searches. Very few school boards in very few very liberal areas have introduced Critical Race Theory (CRT) as a factor in social science education in k-12 district curricula. This seems a fair way for proceeding in development of a robust educational system in the US.

District deserve to tailor their education programs to the populations they serve for the most part. There is some evidence that aspects of CRT are taught at upper division some universities and laws schools are teaching CRT courses and programs.

Communities need to explain as best they can to their students why some people are killed, poor, without wealth are often due to the nature of local state, and national our laws.

However some report Republicans have brought this up as a wedge issue as being taught taught in most or all public schools. Such seems to be a cover for reintroducing racism into public education.

False issues such as these should be ferreted out and exposed as racist meat, inappropriate for educational curricula discussions. Using falsehoods to influence voters should be outlawed and strong sanctions should be imposed.

I have actually been at the center of a couple of different minority movements...three, actually. LGBTQIAA, the neurodiversity movement, and the zoo pride movement, to name a few.

The most complicated part is actually getting your own group to organize effectively. I have a personal adage: "War is 90% house-keeping, and most of what's left is logistics."

Curating the right leaders for your groups is very hard. The kinds of gifts that make somebody an effective leader are hard to find even in the general population. Once you do find them, you have to be able to win their trust and their confidence, and these people are substantially smarter than you are, even if they are younger than you. You spend a very annoying amount of time breaking up fights. You end up with so many different small projects going at once, it's hard to keep up with them all, and it's hard to be sure which ones are really the most effective.

My pal Lykon discovered that it is imperative to never ever ever engage with hateful people. The more you engage with them, the more they multiply, and eventually, they amass large enough numbers of fanatical followers to overwhelm you just by numerical superiority. The more you engage with them, the more the conflict escalates, and the more the conflict escalates, the more extreme and dangerous their behavior gets.

Remember:

If in this present age we were to go back to the old time of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ there would be very few hon. gentlemen in this House who would not, metaphorically speaking, be blind and toothless.

-George Perry Graham

it is useful to seek out mixed communities where you can network with allies. It is actually a lie that most of the world is out to get you, in particular, even if most people believe in misguided myths about your group. Once they have met you and your immediate friends, they realize that what everybody else thinks is bullshit. Quickly get established in any community setting where you are pretty sure that you have allies. Remember the advice of the General:

Ground which forms the key to three contiguous states, so that he who occupies it first has most of the Empire at his command, is a ground of intersecting highways.

When there are means of communication on all four sides, the ground is one of intersecting highways.

On ground of intersecting highways, I would consolidate my alliances.

-Sun Tzu

Relations with allies is deadly important. If anybody in your group threatens these alliances for any reason, then try to divert them with more positive strategies.

Get good at resolving conflicts within your group, especially if your particular minority group is just starting to become organized. You are going to have to deal with people from all political backgrounds. You are going to have to learn how to get a socialist and a libertarian to work together on specific projects for long periods of time without causing disruptions. This is taxing on your nerves, but I do not care. Get good at it if you want to make any progress at all. Fights over dumb ideologies can slow everything down and disrupt important dynamics.

When new leaders emerge on the scene, you have to strike a balance between suppressing their enthusiasm and making them aware of important realities about the current situation.

I can see some amount of merit in critical theory, but it has serious flaws and needs more development, in my opinion, before it is really ready for practical use. I have noticed that some adherents of critical theory tend to use it as a sort of golden hammer. You should not assume that everything in the world is a nail just because the only tool you have in hand is a nail.

For example, let me talk about ongoing de facto racial segregation. It is an unfortunate reality, and it is a serious problem in American cities. If you are a leader in the African-American community, though, how do you talk the people that happen to look like you into moving into white or mixed neighborhoods, knowing that it costs them more money? When white people move into black or mixed neighborhoods, what types of measures can you realistically take in order to make those people feel safe and welcome? It sounds good to say, "segregation bad, integration good," but you have to exert a tremendous amount of energy and organization and problem-solving ability in order to facilitate that. It is not the easiest process to bring your people together to bring about outcomes that you know will help them, in the long-run, and unfortunately, you are likely to meet a surprising amount of resistance from people that happen to look like you. The kinds of people that are willing to take these kinds of goals on are some of the bravest people alive, but they have to be.

These are not statements that I am making merely on the African-American community, though. These are issues that any minority group anywhere in society has to deal with. The gay community, the transgender community, the neurodiverse community, and the zoo community are ones that I really know the most about, at this point in my life. I am really ill-equipped to speak fluently on the unique issues of racial minorities. Nevertheless, certain dynamics can be universal.

I am neither opposed to critical theory nor entirely confident that it constitutes a finished product. There is more left to be done, in my opinion, to make it a practically applicable theory. What people are trying to do with it is something that I think is genuinely needed, though.

 

[fromderinside]

I agree. In a democracy rose colored glass wearing should be discouraged.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Arrrgh, I meant "You should not assume that everything in the world you have is a nail just because the only tool you have is a hammer." I've been doing stuff like that a lot, lately. I am trying to do too many things at once.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For example, let me talk about ongoing de facto racial segregation. It is an unfortunate reality, and it is a serious problem in American cities. If you are a leader in the African-American community, though, how do you talk the people that happen to look like you into moving into white or mixed neighborhoods, knowing that it costs them more money? When white people move into black or mixed neighborhoods, what types of measures can you realistically take in order to make those people feel safe and welcome? It sounds good to say, "segregation bad, integration good," but you have to exert a tremendous amount of energy and organization and problem-solving ability in order to facilitate that. It is not the easiest process to bring your people together to bring about outcomes that you know will help them, in the long-run, and unfortunately, you are likely to meet a surprising amount of resistance from people that happen to look like you. The kinds of people that are willing to take these kinds of goals on are some of the bravest people alive, but they have to be.

You realize these are simply two sides of the same coin? It's not about race, it's about the safety of the neighborhood and the "quality" of the schools (which is to a very large degree a reflection of the people living there.) "White" neighborhoods are more expensive because they have less crime and thus people prefer to live there. I live in a middle-class suburban neighborhood. What color? Mixed. When we moved in the adjacent houses were 3 black and one Asian. All of them have moved on by now (California, one-story, assisted living, unknown), one is still owned by the original owners but as a short term rental, the other two blacks have been replaced by Asians, the Asian has been replaced by white.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Arrrgh, I meant "You should not assume that everything in the world you have is a nail just because the only tool you have is a hammer." I've been doing stuff like that a lot, lately. I am trying to do too many things at once.

Which perfectly describes an awful lot of the social justice movement--they are wielding an anti-discrimination hammer.

 

[Politesse]

For example, let me talk about ongoing de facto racial segregation. It is an unfortunate reality, and it is a serious problem in American cities. If you are a leader in the African-American community, though, how do you talk the people that happen to look like you into moving into white or mixed neighborhoods, knowing that it costs them more money? When white people move into black or mixed neighborhoods, what types of measures can you realistically take in order to make those people feel safe and welcome? It sounds good to say, "segregation bad, integration good," but you have to exert a tremendous amount of energy and organization and problem-solving ability in order to facilitate that. It is not the easiest process to bring your people together to bring about outcomes that you know will help them, in the long-run, and unfortunately, you are likely to meet a surprising amount of resistance from people that happen to look like you. The kinds of people that are willing to take these kinds of goals on are some of the bravest people alive, but they have to be.

You realize these are simply two sides of the same coin? It's not about race, it's about the safety of the neighborhood and the "quality" of the schools (which is to a very large degree a reflection of the people living there.) "White" neighborhoods are more expensive because they have less crime and thus people prefer to live there. I live in a middle-class suburban neighborhood. What color? Mixed. When we moved in the adjacent houses were 3 black and one Asian. All of them have moved on by now (California, one-story, assisted living, unknown), one is still owned by the original owners but as a short term rental, the other two blacks have been replaced by Asians, the Asian has been replaced by white.

And that's why Critical Race Theory focuses primarily on systemic barriers to racial equality, like the outcomes of the kinds of redlining practices you are unconsciously describing in detail in your post.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For example, let me talk about ongoing de facto racial segregation. It is an unfortunate reality, and it is a serious problem in American cities. If you are a leader in the African-American community, though, how do you talk the people that happen to look like you into moving into white or mixed neighborhoods, knowing that it costs them more money? When white people move into black or mixed neighborhoods, what types of measures can you realistically take in order to make those people feel safe and welcome? It sounds good to say, "segregation bad, integration good," but you have to exert a tremendous amount of energy and organization and problem-solving ability in order to facilitate that. It is not the easiest process to bring your people together to bring about outcomes that you know will help them, in the long-run, and unfortunately, you are likely to meet a surprising amount of resistance from people that happen to look like you. The kinds of people that are willing to take these kinds of goals on are some of the bravest people alive, but they have to be.

You realize these are simply two sides of the same coin? It's not about race, it's about the safety of the neighborhood and the "quality" of the schools (which is to a very large degree a reflection of the people living there.) "White" neighborhoods are more expensive because they have less crime and thus people prefer to live there. I live in a middle-class suburban neighborhood. What color? Mixed. When we moved in the adjacent houses were 3 black and one Asian. All of them have moved on by now (California, one-story, assisted living, unknown), one is still owned by the original owners but as a short term rental, the other two blacks have been replaced by Asians, the Asian has been replaced by white.

And that's why Critical Race Theory focuses primarily on systemic barriers to racial equality, like the outcomes of the kinds of redlining practices you are unconsciously describing in detail in your post.

You're still assuming discrimination at work rather than socioeconomic forces.

 

[Politesse]

For example, let me talk about ongoing de facto racial segregation. It is an unfortunate reality, and it is a serious problem in American cities. If you are a leader in the African-American community, though, how do you talk the people that happen to look like you into moving into white or mixed neighborhoods, knowing that it costs them more money? When white people move into black or mixed neighborhoods, what types of measures can you realistically take in order to make those people feel safe and welcome? It sounds good to say, "segregation bad, integration good," but you have to exert a tremendous amount of energy and organization and problem-solving ability in order to facilitate that. It is not the easiest process to bring your people together to bring about outcomes that you know will help them, in the long-run, and unfortunately, you are likely to meet a surprising amount of resistance from people that happen to look like you. The kinds of people that are willing to take these kinds of goals on are some of the bravest people alive, but they have to be.

You realize these are simply two sides of the same coin? It's not about race, it's about the safety of the neighborhood and the "quality" of the schools (which is to a very large degree a reflection of the people living there.) "White" neighborhoods are more expensive because they have less crime and thus people prefer to live there. I live in a middle-class suburban neighborhood. What color? Mixed. When we moved in the adjacent houses were 3 black and one Asian. All of them have moved on by now (California, one-story, assisted living, unknown), one is still owned by the original owners but as a short term rental, the other two blacks have been replaced by Asians, the Asian has been replaced by white.

And that's why Critical Race Theory focuses primarily on systemic barriers to racial equality, like the outcomes of the kinds of redlining practices you are unconsciously describing in detail in your post.

You're still assuming discrimination at work rather than socioeconomic forces.

If the "socioeconomic forces" disproportionately impact people on the basis of their perceived race, that is the very definition of discrimination.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

For example, let me talk about ongoing de facto racial segregation. It is an unfortunate reality, and it is a serious problem in American cities. If you are a leader in the African-American community, though, how do you talk the people that happen to look like you into moving into white or mixed neighborhoods, knowing that it costs them more money? When white people move into black or mixed neighborhoods, what types of measures can you realistically take in order to make those people feel safe and welcome? It sounds good to say, "segregation bad, integration good," but you have to exert a tremendous amount of energy and organization and problem-solving ability in order to facilitate that. It is not the easiest process to bring your people together to bring about outcomes that you know will help them, in the long-run, and unfortunately, you are likely to meet a surprising amount of resistance from people that happen to look like you. The kinds of people that are willing to take these kinds of goals on are some of the bravest people alive, but they have to be.

You realize these are simply two sides of the same coin? It's not about race, it's about the safety of the neighborhood and the "quality" of the schools (which is to a very large degree a reflection of the people living there.) "White" neighborhoods are more expensive because they have less crime and thus people prefer to live there. I live in a middle-class suburban neighborhood. What color? Mixed. When we moved in the adjacent houses were 3 black and one Asian. All of them have moved on by now (California, one-story, assisted living, unknown), one is still owned by the original owners but as a short term rental, the other two blacks have been replaced by Asians, the Asian has been replaced by white.

And that's why Critical Race Theory focuses primarily on systemic barriers to racial equality, like the outcomes of the kinds of redlining practices you are unconsciously describing in detail in your post.

You're still assuming discrimination at work rather than socioeconomic forces.

Discrimination is a real part of it.

However, the approach that my friends and I are taking is that we want to become rich enough, socially connected enough, and powerful enough that if you discriminate us, then we can shatter you.

When an arsonist sets fire to my house, I put out the fire first, and then I go running after the arsonist. That's because I want to save my ammo. Once I've saved my ammo, I load up, and then I go and pump the motherfucker full of so much metal that he develops his own gravitational pull. I wasn't saving my house because I wanted him to get away. I was saving my house because I wanted to kill him dead.

I do not really own a gun.

Now, translate that to my approach to activism. We do care about fighting back against real discrimination, but attorneys cost money. When we have chances to interact with young people, we mentor them on career development. When one of us has PTSD, we hook them up with a therapist that we know is an ally. We are developing our strength, and we are building up our muscles. We're not just doing that because we want to live good lives, although that's kind of cool. We are doing it because we want to be powerful enough to fight back.

We have felt absolutely helpless and alone before, and we never want to feel that way again for as long as we live.

We do care about fighting against discrimination, but we have to be strong if we want to fight.

When a community becomes committed to seeing after their own health, that means they're serious.

 

[fromderinside]

When a community becomes committed to seeing after their own health, that means they're serious.

Aspirations are nice. But, in my experience it's boots on the ground that certifies 'causes and commitments'. By that I mean if you have a population taking up shovels, getting loans, acting like Habitat for Humanity, you have commitment. Otherwise you just have PR, something that fades with seasons.- that is when cheerleaders quit chanting.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

When a community becomes committed to seeing after their own health, that means they're serious.

Aspirations are nice. But, in my experience it's boots on the ground that certifies 'causes and commitments'. By that I mean if you have a population taking up shovels, getting loans, acting like Habitat for Humanity, you have commitment. Otherwise you just have PR, something that fades with seasons.- that is when cheerleaders quit chanting.

Habitat for Humanity has a good model.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For example, let me talk about ongoing de facto racial segregation. It is an unfortunate reality, and it is a serious problem in American cities. If you are a leader in the African-American community, though, how do you talk the people that happen to look like you into moving into white or mixed neighborhoods, knowing that it costs them more money? When white people move into black or mixed neighborhoods, what types of measures can you realistically take in order to make those people feel safe and welcome? It sounds good to say, "segregation bad, integration good," but you have to exert a tremendous amount of energy and organization and problem-solving ability in order to facilitate that. It is not the easiest process to bring your people together to bring about outcomes that you know will help them, in the long-run, and unfortunately, you are likely to meet a surprising amount of resistance from people that happen to look like you. The kinds of people that are willing to take these kinds of goals on are some of the bravest people alive, but they have to be.

You realize these are simply two sides of the same coin? It's not about race, it's about the safety of the neighborhood and the "quality" of the schools (which is to a very large degree a reflection of the people living there.) "White" neighborhoods are more expensive because they have less crime and thus people prefer to live there. I live in a middle-class suburban neighborhood. What color? Mixed. When we moved in the adjacent houses were 3 black and one Asian. All of them have moved on by now (California, one-story, assisted living, unknown), one is still owned by the original owners but as a short term rental, the other two blacks have been replaced by Asians, the Asian has been replaced by white.

And that's why Critical Race Theory focuses primarily on systemic barriers to racial equality, like the outcomes of the kinds of redlining practices you are unconsciously describing in detail in your post.

You're still assuming discrimination at work rather than socioeconomic forces.

If the "socioeconomic forces" disproportionately impact people on the basis of their perceived race, that is the very definition of discrimination.

In other words you believe disparate impact is proof of discrimination.

So the sun discriminates against white people. What is your proposed solution?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When a community becomes committed to seeing after their own health, that means they're serious.

Aspirations are nice. But, in my experience it's boots on the ground that certifies 'causes and commitments'. By that I mean if you have a population taking up shovels, getting loans, acting like Habitat for Humanity, you have commitment. Otherwise you just have PR, something that fades with seasons.- that is when cheerleaders quit chanting.

Yup. Habitat for Humanity is doing something. Protests make noise.

 

[Politesse]

For example, let me talk about ongoing de facto racial segregation. It is an unfortunate reality, and it is a serious problem in American cities. If you are a leader in the African-American community, though, how do you talk the people that happen to look like you into moving into white or mixed neighborhoods, knowing that it costs them more money? When white people move into black or mixed neighborhoods, what types of measures can you realistically take in order to make those people feel safe and welcome? It sounds good to say, "segregation bad, integration good," but you have to exert a tremendous amount of energy and organization and problem-solving ability in order to facilitate that. It is not the easiest process to bring your people together to bring about outcomes that you know will help them, in the long-run, and unfortunately, you are likely to meet a surprising amount of resistance from people that happen to look like you. The kinds of people that are willing to take these kinds of goals on are some of the bravest people alive, but they have to be.

You realize these are simply two sides of the same coin? It's not about race, it's about the safety of the neighborhood and the "quality" of the schools (which is to a very large degree a reflection of the people living there.) "White" neighborhoods are more expensive because they have less crime and thus people prefer to live there. I live in a middle-class suburban neighborhood. What color? Mixed. When we moved in the adjacent houses were 3 black and one Asian. All of them have moved on by now (California, one-story, assisted living, unknown), one is still owned by the original owners but as a short term rental, the other two blacks have been replaced by Asians, the Asian has been replaced by white.

And that's why Critical Race Theory focuses primarily on systemic barriers to racial equality, like the outcomes of the kinds of redlining practices you are unconsciously describing in detail in your post.

You're still assuming discrimination at work rather than socioeconomic forces.

If the "socioeconomic forces" disproportionately impact people on the basis of their perceived race, that is the very definition of discrimination.

In other words you believe disparate impact is proof of discrimination.

So the sun discriminates against white people. What is your proposed solution?

Suntan lotion.

If you can't hold a serious conversation in good faith, I'm uninterested in continuing.

 

[fromderinside]

For example, let me talk about ongoing de facto racial segregation. It is an unfortunate reality, and it is a serious problem in American cities. If you are a leader in the African-American community, though, how do you talk the people that happen to look like you into moving into white or mixed neighborhoods, knowing that it costs them more money? When white people move into black or mixed neighborhoods, what types of measures can you realistically take in order to make those people feel safe and welcome? It sounds good to say, "segregation bad, integration good," but you have to exert a tremendous amount of energy and organization and problem-solving ability in order to facilitate that. It is not the easiest process to bring your people together to bring about outcomes that you know will help them, in the long-run, and unfortunately, you are likely to meet a surprising amount of resistance from people that happen to look like you. The kinds of people that are willing to take these kinds of goals on are some of the bravest people alive, but they have to be.

You realize these are simply two sides of the same coin? It's not about race, it's about the safety of the neighborhood and the "quality" of the schools (which is to a very large degree a reflection of the people living there.) "White" neighborhoods are more expensive because they have less crime and thus people prefer to live there. I live in a middle-class suburban neighborhood. What color? Mixed. When we moved in the adjacent houses were 3 black and one Asian. All of them have moved on by now (California, one-story, assisted living, unknown), one is still owned by the original owners but as a short term rental, the other two blacks have been replaced by Asians, the Asian has been replaced by white.

And that's why Critical Race Theory focuses primarily on systemic barriers to racial equality, like the outcomes of the kinds of redlining practices you are unconsciously describing in detail in your post.

You're still assuming discrimination at work rather than socioeconomic forces.

If the "socioeconomic forces" disproportionately impact people on the basis of their perceived race, that is the very definition of discrimination.

In other words you believe disparate impact is proof of discrimination.

So the sun discriminates against white people. What is your proposed solution?

Suntan lotion.

If you can't hold a serious conversation in good faith, I'm uninterested in continuing.

Why not force Loren Pechtel to respond to the proximal cause of the effects of sun on skin shade. Try radicchio ad absurdum like "... depends on where the skin is..." when sun discriminates against white people. Might get you to where you want to be with the sun discriminating in a country where whites white need sun screen then forcing him to support how the sun discriminates against whites where laws favor whites over blacks who don't need sun screen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're still assuming discrimination at work rather than socioeconomic forces.

If the "socioeconomic forces" disproportionately impact people on the basis of their perceived race, that is the very definition of discrimination.

In other words you believe disparate impact is proof of discrimination.

So the sun discriminates against white people. What is your proposed solution?

Suntan lotion.

If you can't hold a serious conversation in good faith, I'm uninterested in continuing.

An inconvenient example messing with your position is not a lack of good faith, but of showing a flaw in your position.

A black person can hike topless. I can't, sunscreen would be rubbed off. And that's simply a way to reduce the harm of the discrimination, it does nothing to address the underlying discrimination in the first place.

 

[Politesse]

You're still assuming discrimination at work rather than socioeconomic forces.

If the "socioeconomic forces" disproportionately impact people on the basis of their perceived race, that is the very definition of discrimination.

In other words you believe disparate impact is proof of discrimination.

So the sun discriminates against white people. What is your proposed solution?

Suntan lotion.

If you can't hold a serious conversation in good faith, I'm uninterested in continuing.

An inconvenient example messing with your position is not a lack of good faith, but of showing a flaw in your position.

A black person can hike topless. I can't, sunscreen would be rubbed off. And that's simply a way to reduce the harm of the discrimination, it does nothing to address the underlying discrimination in the first place.

So your claim is that the economic disadvantage is associated with "blacks" in much the same way that reduced melanin is associated with "whites "? That is, that it is a consequence of their biological phenotype?

 

[Generation55]

There is economic disadvantage associated with blacks because of certain policies put in place by the Democratic Party. This is the same with rural whites in Republican run Southern states, albeit not nearly as bad as what the Democrat policies are doing. The problem is the gang culture. The gang culture started as a result of the breakdown of the family structure and not shaming out of wedlock births due to the sexual revolution. This leads to more poor people being born and more crime because of more mouths to feed. Democrats do nothing to stop gang violence.

What they need to do if they really cared would be to get the schools better funding and give people in the neighborhood capital to open businesses and employ people. Since nobody in poor areas will be able to acquire capital and the cycle will continue forever, they need to be given a start up somehow. Republicans want to do this, but they never get voted into the big cities. They keep voting Democrat.

This would be the real CRT that should be taught to kids.

 

[Generation55]

The racist, "Greatest country in the world", crowd chants against CRT personalize it as a smear against the Superman cape trope "Truth, Justice, and the American Way". So it comes out as the misstatement White suburban "parents have a say in what is taught in (public) schools" racist red meat.

This is the greatest country in the world, though. We can improve things, but it is still the best country in the world. The fact that you can be lying face down on the floor, pick up your phone and press a few buttons and can have virtually any type of food you want delivered to you in a half hour while you say, "this country sucks" is a fascinating mindset to me. Very strange. Especially considering that some people throw a temper tantrum when the drive-thru line is 3 cars long. The fact the drive-thru even exists is what makes this country great in the first place.

Same with Amazon. People complain about Amazon but then they all order from Amazon. They think Amazon existing is what makes this country suck but the opposite is true: Amazon existing is what makes this country the greatest! You have it all backwards.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The gang culture started as a result of the breakdown of the family structure and not shaming out of wedlock births due to the sexual revolution.

I don't think gang culture started as a result of breakdown of the family. Gangs are a thing that is a spectrum where you would expect more hand-to-hand close violent like gangs with less structural and economic power but with groups that have more economic and structural power the types of crimes and gang activity they have will be to fight using proxies, to fight using empires and rule of law at their side. Project for a New American Century could also be called a gang...making billions of $ through corruption, murdering hundreds of thousands of people in an unjustified war. The kinds of gangs you are discussing have always been a thing for the economically disadvantaged--not an excuse--just a small statistical difference. If you look at the movie Gangs of New York, for example, you can see gangs a long time in US history and as new immigrant types came from newer waves of countries than before, those persons being excluded from the economic elite structure gave rise to small statistical differences and black markets and other illegal things...until those groups became more economically advantaged and then their crimes were both less frequent or more white-collar, corruption-like. For example, consider the Irish or Italians. In any case, the higher incidence of out of wedlock births is a result of a culture that accepts extenuating circumstances because they've had them for centuries--including historical racism, slavery, sudden deaths, and imprisonment...and all the things you may find to be "normal" actually cost money, like marriage. The sexual revolution didn't cause gangs but if it was any factor at all in higher incidence of the types of gangs under discussion, it's been a minor factor.