And probably the biggest reason why "black" societies, wealthy and poor, have astronomical violent crime rates, rather than just petty crimes like theft, is because of the near universal practice among them of beating the hell out of their children. Violent 'discipline' and child-rearing through intimidation (which are almost universal in black societies) are demonstrated to both lower IQs and create violent adults. Unfortunately, support for this most stupid of practices is found in the 'Bible', justifying and compounding this backward practice and making it harder to eradicate.

the causation is cultural, not economic. A rich country like the Bahamas (with a minimum wage that is higher than most developing countries' professional salaries) has a MUCH higher level of violent crime than a dirt-poor one like Burma, Laos or Tibet. The causation is cultural. The link with Christianity is that weak cultures like Afro-Caribbean ones are easily infiltrated by irrational nonsense like Christianity for the same reason that they are fundamentally bad at governing themselves socially. Because their culture is weak. Colonialism is not the cause either. Go to Nigeria and you will quickly realize how much better off we are in every possible sense to have been 'colonialised'.

I think skin colour is a non-factor. As for generational poverty, there are few who can claim as much of that as overpopulated Asian societies like Japan. I think the culprit is weak cultures - precisely the kind that are easily infiltrated by bullshit like the Christian faith.

Would that explain why countries with the highest church attendance (Nigeria, Jamaica, Honduras etc.) have the highest rates of violent crime and murder and those with lowest church attendance, who identify more as atheist and are quickly leaving behind religion (like Sweden, Norway, Japan etc.) have the lowest rates of violent crime?

say what??!! English please

"speaks for the downtrodden"? or uses them for his own vainglorious attention-seeking, while gaining brownie points with the gullible. He cared so much about the people who died as a result of his pro-shantytown activities that he was off in Europe paragliding while their bodies were still being pulled from the rubble. If he had succumbed, many, many thinking Bahamians would have bid him good riddance. The man is scum on legs.

If by 'defending the unfortunate' you mean fighting to help them remain in substandard housing in a hurricane zone and ultimately leading to hundreds of needless, avoidable and horrifying deaths, then you have a morbid point of sorts.

Also, perhaps I could have made the point more cogently, but increasing taxes on consumption (which hit the poorest hardest), while reducing taxes on property and totally failing to tax income (both of which re-balance the burden onto the rich and better off) exemplifies the regressive, anti-poor policies which also hurt the economy, because the poor are the largest spenders into the domestic economy.

Dawes, what I am referring to is the dollar amount limit of $50,000 on Real Property Taxes. This WILL favour Lyford over Carmichael. If we were simply talking about exempting the first $200,000, or if the government had placed a percentage limit, like most countries (for instance, it keeps increasing as a value of the property up to 3%, which it does not exceed), then your comment would be correct. But a dollar amount means that someone with a house valued at $25,000,0000 in Lyford Cay is effectively paying .2%, as against someone in Sea Breeze with a $350,000 house paying 2.5%. That is called a regressive tax, in that it gives concessions to the rich relative to the poor and middle class.

I hope you are joking my friend. Nobody could be ignorant enough to believe that debunked, neoliberal garbage, especially in the Bahamian context.