Hypothesis #1: Blacks are the pawns in an ongoing civil war between the Red Tribe and the Blue Tribe of American whites. The blue tribe, the left, talks a big game about helping black people, but if you look at what they do, they try to pin all the blame for the plight of black people on lack of education and the racism of the Red Tribe. The blue tribe is mostly interested in using blacks as a voting bank, not on finding the true causes and fixing them. The fixes they do spout, such as education, provide massive wealth transfers to Blue tribe labor unions while doing nothing to fix the problems of broken families and crime. The Red Tribe cares mostly about containment. To the extent they want to fix the problem, it is by funneling money to their own political base, police unions and the prisons. "Tough on crime" attorney generals care a lot more about big drug busts and crack-downs on gangs than on the kind of beat policing that would prevent the crime in the first place. Note that this civil war has been ongoing for 200 years, and turned into a hot war a couple times, once in 1860, again in the late 1960's.

Also, because ghetto blacks never evolved their own indigenous culture, what culture messaging they receive comes through the Blue Tribe institutions. The official story in these institutions is that everything good comes from the government. The story of U.S. history as told as government becoming more progressive, a great president is a president who made some new program to help people. This contrasts to my own upbringing. Growing up in a white suburb, most of what I learned about life came from watching my family and neighbors, where you had lots of crusty older guys serving as role models in how they built their own businesses, did work on their own homes every weekend, took care of their family, etc. I didn't learn right or wrong from school, it came from my mom, family, and peers. School was anarcho-tyranny and Lord of the Flies, even in my wealthy suburb.

Thus in all, the Blue Tribe cultural messaging discourages the black communities from self-organizing to figure out their problems on their own. The Red Tribe policing also prevents this. Potentially, if gangs were allowed to fight it out without any interference, eventually one gang would win and they would set up their own government. But there is just enough policing to prevent that from happening. So the whole community is caught in a trap. Alternatively, the police could seek out the good guys in the ghetto, there are good guys, and deputize them as local officers, who could walk beats and police the street. But the Red Tribe police unions would likely hate this, as there is no way they could pay those officers union wages, it would be seen as taking away from union jobs.

Hypothesis #2: The genetic hypothesis. The evidence for this has been covered elsewhere, for example https://liberalbiorealism.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/first-thi... and https://liberalbiorealism.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/the-likel... and https://liberalbiorealism.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/the-vice-... and https://jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-i... and http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_natur... For my own part, if you hold a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, then I would say there is more evidence on the side of there being significant genetic difference in average IQ. I avoided this conclusion for a long time, I did not want to believe it, but I think that avoiding the truth will only make it harder to deal with these problems. I do think that the lower average IQ this makes it harder for black ghetto populations to figure out how to build localized institutions to enforce rule of law, and it makes it harder for these ghetto populations to work around the dysfunctions of the broader political institutions. Also, making the problem worse, is that the most intelligent 20-30% of the black ghetto population escapes the ghetto and lives elsewhere. So the ghettos are continually stripped of the human capital needed to make their local institutions functional. For instance, I was reading on one site that the average IQ in the black ghettos of Baltimore is 75, which is stunningly low.

I don't think that identifying the problem of "lack of self-policing" is blaming the victim, it is just identifying the proximate cause. I don't think blame is constructive framing for fixing anything. My goal is simply to get the truth out there, and it will be up for people working locally to figure out fixes, based on the hard realities of the situation. I certainly don't think that finger-wagging at black people saying "you need to self police" is going to fix anything. But we do need a sort of "five why's analysis" for what has happened ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys ), so that we can fix things. Too often in these debates as soon as you get to one cause that can be pinned on the other tribe, the analysis stops and the blaming begins.

There is a final dark implication to ponder, that neither tribe talks about. Many of these ghettos are actually in prime real estate. South-central LA and Oakland have wonderful climates. Brooklyn, Anacostia, etc, are highly proximate to lots of great jobs. If the crime problem was actually fixed, blacks would be pushed out of these neighborhoods by gentrification very quickly.

I don't really have any great solutions myself. The red versus blue tribal war needs to end. The only way these problems can ever be fixed is at a local level, by people who care about the problem and who are close to the problem. Having outsiders moralize or use these issues to score political points just makes everything worse. But even then, a happy fix is unlikely.