is violence due to ethic back ground or due to the enviornment that a person live?

Answer 1

Nature v/s Nurture. In this case and in today's world I'd say nurture is to blame, and not nature. (Nature being the ethnic background, nurture being the environment you were brought up in). Nature (instinct) makes us defend ourselves or run from danger (fight or flight response), but nurture makes us unnecessarily violent or criminal. It is natural to hide or run from danger or to defend yourself against danger. It is not natural to attack others for no reason, to damage the property of others or to take it as if it's your own. If you grew up in an environment where such unnecessary violence was all around you then it will be more normal to you and you will act more like those you observed as you learned what acceptable behavior is. Hope that helps.

Answer 2

if a person lives in a good environment then he'll try 2 solve the problem than 2 create a problem.
mostly the fights r becoz of ethics, but people don't understand that ethics have shown us that voilence is no way 2 cope up with problem
for eg. m.gandhi. followed non voilence 2 make india independent. now v realize the value of importance .

Answer 3

ANY VOILENCE ORGINATES FROM OUR MIND ONLY!

That violence can be either situational/ environmental (or) Ethical/ Conceptual!

For example, when I travel in the bus, which goes very slower than the other buses in comparison, and If I start a quarrel with the conductor or driver and it ends in violence, that is situational (or) environmental (or) accidental in nature!

And If I belong to a so-and-so Religion (or) so-and-so Nation (or) so-and-so political "ism", and the same me travelling in the bus, hearing some one critisizing my Religious concepts, I got furious and starting a fight and it ends in voilence, which is called Ethical / Conceptual Violence!!

BOTH TYPE OF VIOLENCE ARE PRESENT IN THIS WORLD!
VOILENCE BY ITSELF NEVER DETERMINES THE BACK GROUND, BUT WE, THE PEOPLE ONLY!!

Answer 4

Many times a person's environment will determine how they grow up. It really doesn't have anything to do with ethnic background so much as how they grow up. Although it is true that people from priviledged backgrounds who never experience violence while growing up can be violent. I believe that some people are just born bad. Ethnicity probably has less to do with it though.

Answer 5

Behaviour is taught by influences..............If you listen to DUKE ELLINGTON, one is a nice and peaceful person with self respect, if it is HIPHOP & RAP one is a REBEL and resists anything that is responsibile or respectful. That puts the person on the road to a Police target and a RAP SHEET that has a prison record attached to it! The Ten Commandments in the heart & mind deters a violent enviroment!

Answer 6

Environment.

Answer 7

Both

Answer 8

Both,but Race is the biggest issue. See attached...


THE COLOR OF CRIME REPORT
Summary
The Color of Crime, a New Century Foundation study based on federal crime reports, has found significant differences in violent crime rates for different racial and ethnic groups. Blacks, for example, are many times more likely to commit crimes of violence against whites than vice versa. Of the approximately 1,700,000 interracial violent crimes involving blacks and whites reported every year, blacks commit 90 percent and whites commit only ten percent. Blacks are therefore more than 50 times more likely than whites to commit interracial crimes of violence. The differences are even greater for multiple-offender interracial crimes, with blacks 100 to 250 times more likely to be involved in gang attacks on whites than the reverse.

Some people may argue that blacks attack whites because they expect them to be carrying cash or valuables. However, fewer than 20 percent of black attacks on whites are robberies; rape and assault do not usually have economic motives.

There is more black-on-white violent crime than black-on-black violent crime. When blacks commit violence they attack whites 50 to 55 percent of the time. When whites commit violence they attack blacks only two to three percent of the time.

Hate crimes are thought to be the most serious acts of interracial crime, but there were only 9,861 reported in 1997. Of these, 6,981 were race-related and 4,105 were violent. This very small number of crimes receives a disproportionate amount of attention, but it is likely that the millions of ordinary interracial crimes–90 percent of which are committed by blacks against whites–are more damaging to race relations. Although white-on-black hate crimes receive a great deal of attention; blacks are approximately twice as likely to commit hate crimes as whites.

Hispanics are considered a victim category for hate crimes but not a perpetrator category. A Mexican who is attacked because of ethnicity is recorded as Hispanic, but if the same Mexican attacks a black or white for racial reasons he is considered white. This inflates the figures for “white” hate crime perpetrators, and gives the impression that Hispanics commit no hate crimes.

For virtually all crimes, there are consistent and pronounced differences in arrest rates for violent crime by race and ethnicity. Blacks are five to ten times more likely to be arrested than whites, His-panics are approximately three times more likely, American Indians are about twice as likely, and Asians are only one half to two-thirds as likely to be arrested for violent crimes as whites. The very high rates for blacks means that the single best in-dependent predictor of crime rates for an area is the percentage of the population that is black.

Blacks are as much more likely to be arrested for violent crimes as men are more likely to be arrested than women are. To the extent that arrest rates are a good indication of actual criminal behavior– and there is very strong evidence that they are– blacks are as much more dangerous than whites, as men are more dangerous than women are. If people feel more threatened by unknown men than by unknown women and are justified in taking additional pre-cautions against them, from a statistical point of view they are equally justified in making the same distinctions between blacks and whites.

When it comes to violent crime, blacks are approximately as much more likely to be arrested than whites, as men are more likely to be arrested than women are. The multiples of black v. white arrest rates are very close to the multiples of male v. female arrest rates, suggesting that blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more dangerous than women.


There is now much controversy about so-called “racial profiling,” by the police, that is, the practice of questioning blacks in disproportion-ate numbers in the expectation that they are more likely than people of other races to be criminals. This is just as rational and productive as “age” or “sex profiling.” Police would be wasting their time if they stopped and questioned as many old ladies as they do young men. It is the job of the police to catch criminals, and they know from experience that is likely to be an offender. Americans who do not question the wisdom of police officers who notice a possible suspect’s age or sex should not be surprised to learn those officers also notice race.

Conclusions

Two things can be said about most of the information in this report: It is easily discovered but little known. Every year, the FBI issues its report on hate crimes, and distributes thousands of copies to scholars and the media. Why does no one find it odd that hundreds of whites are reportedly committing hate crimes against whites? And why does no one question the wisdom of calling someone white when he is a perpetrator but Hispanic when he is a victim? (An FBI spokesman refused to discuss the reasons for this by telephone and insisted on an exchange of letters. His reply is provided below.17)

For some years there has been an extended national discussion about the prevalence of black-on-black crime–and for good reason. Blacks suffer from violent crime at rates considerably greater than do Americans of other races. And yet, amid this national outcry over the extent of black-on-black crime, there appears to be little concern about the fact that there is actually more black-on-white crime. Nor does there seem to be much interest in the fact that blacks are 50 to 200 times more likely than whites to commit interracial crimes of violence.

Everyone knows that young people are more dangerous than old people are and that men are more dangerous than women are. We adjust our behavior accordingly and do not apologize for doing so. Why must we then pretend that blacks are no more dangerous than whites or Asians? And, of course, it is no more than pretense. Everyone knows that blacks are dangerous, and everyone–black or white–takes greater precautions in black neighborhoods or even avoids such neighborhoods entirely.

The answer to these questions lies in the current intellectual climate. Americans are extremely hesitant to “perpetuate stereotypes,” and generally take care not to draw or publicize conclusions that may reflect badly on racial minorities. This is understandable, but has reached the point that certain subjects can no longer be investigated without bringing down charges of “racism.”

Needless to say, research that reflects badly on the majority population is not constrained by the same fears. However, our willingness to ignore sensibilities should not be selective. Violent crime and interracial violence are important, agonizing concerns in this country, and we cannot begin to formulate solutions unless we understand the problems.