DanDanDanDan

Well, I think you have to look at these cases individually. The same thing you write here echos what is written by conservative commentators about poor African American communities in the US. Of course, such commentary conveniently excludes the way poverty and unemployment is structural to the US economy and that there are systematic forms of racism embedded in the US legal code. These empirical realities force communities of color to take part in extra-legal activities and the violence that comes along with those activities. All of a sudden, "normal" society - as you put it - looks like a society of oppressors and "these people" - as you put it - look more like the oppressed than a bunch of ne'er do wells.

Let's talk about both!

"Roma criminality"... "they have no self-love"... Sorry, but this is xenophobia, and Europeans are better than Americans at it. The systematic exclusion of groups from the mainstream creates extra-legal behaviors (or "culture", as you say) to make ends meet. Plus, Europeans love a scapegoat; it's part of a long, illiberal tradition on the continent.

Pinker takes a strong normative position on what constitutes violence and what does not. I think if he had said, 'this is how I'm defining violence, and here's why, but if you were to define it another way, you might reach different conclusions', I'd feel less critical of his claims. To me, his argument is too unambiguous and he ultimately overreaches. (And - further - what does and does not constitute coercion or violence in the 21st century is the truly interesting question.)

If his conclusion had been, maybe we're seeing a drop in a particular form of violence and we're not entirely sure why but here are my thoughts (ahem, development of the atom bomb perhaps?), I would have agreed with him, but he wouldn't have sold all those books...

That wikipedia page is good.

I also think expanded notions of violence are appropriate, though excluded from Pinker's analysis. For example, if a rich country COULD provide equal, high-quality health care to all its citizens, but doesn't because the health care industry (hospitals, insurers, physician groups, pharma) lobbies against such outcomes, and excess morbidity and mortality result, that is a kind of violence, though one that Pinker is not interested in.

Or North Korea (or to a lesser extent China), which maintains relatively low levels of violence, but is simultaneously committing abuses against its population.

The idea that fewer people (or a smaller proportion of people) are smashing their neighbor's head in with a rock doesn't necessarily constitute absolute "progress" to me (though it would be a nice development... provided it was true... which it might not be).

I assume you're referring to Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature, which has faced a number of criticisms, including his analysis of the data and what - in his mind - constitutes "violence".

What this article doesn't mention, and which hasn't been mentioned below, is that Chile's president, Michelle Bachelet, is a socialist. I am 100% in favor of eliminating fees for public universities by increasing state and federal funding. But this means voting for people who have socialist views. You won't get this from the democrats or the republicans, who are both in the pockets of the wealthy, who do not want to be taxed to pay for education for the middle and lower classes. Unless you're willing to say, "I believe in socialist principles, and I believe education should be without direct fees as a matter of principle or human rights, and it should be payed for through progressive income taxes", you won't see this reality in the US. We are far too neoliberal/laissez faire/anti-welfare state to collectively support an initiative like this, and that is a problem, IMO.

Reagan slashed the top marginal income tax rate, we tax capital at a higher rate than labor, and the wealthy have numerous mechanisms for reducing their tax burden through loopholes in the code. Until this is changed, there are a number of policies that sound nice, but which we can't pay for. But at present, the republicans won't go for it, and the democrats won't fight for it.

Most people do not take care of their family because they think it's in their best interests. They often take care of their family for myriad reasons--e.g. a moral call to selflessness, sociocultural norms, a sense of familial duty, love, etc. The language of "best interests" really doesn't fit here.

Taking care of an ailing parent is in no way connected to maximizing one's returns on anything (except maybe fulfilling a sense of what you "ought" to do).