Blacks and the subculture of violence:  In Black Rednecks and White Liberals, Thomas Sowell argues that the South developed a violent culture because of Scotch Irish immgrants.  Blacks supposedly absorbed these values from their white neighbors and still have them, regardless of what region of the country they now live in. Among the values is a touchiness on matters of honor and manhood. If someone offends you, you don't walk away. You teach him a lesson. Sowell points to culture and thus avoids any biological explanations for the higher rate of violence among blacks.

General Social Survey data, however, don't back up his assertion.  Of course, it would be nice if respondents were asked a long list of questions about the appropriate use of violence, but we have at least one question: is it okay--yes or no--for a man to hit a drunk who bumped into his wife on the street?

A violent orientation among white Southerners should be most concentrated among the lower classes, and I would expect attitudes to differ from American norms most in the East South Central (ESC) part of the South which includes Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee.  15.5% of these people agree with the statement about hitting a drunk man.  It's 18.9% if only men are included.

How does that compare to low-status blacks who live anywhere in the country? Only 7.9% of them said yes to the question, and the number for males is only 9.1%.  The number for all blacks does not differ significantly from the estimate for all Americans: 8.6%. By contrast, low-status whites from the ESC region are significantly more likely (at the 95% confidence level) to hold this violent attitude when compared to other Americans or to poor blacks.

So, it's possible that white Southerners are more prone to assault than Northerners because of their views toward the appropriate use of violence, but how do we explain the high level of violence among blacks? Liberal researchers will instruct us that a racist society makes blacks angry, and anger leads people to vent physically.  A biological explanation is an obvious possibility--I mean, racist whites, and the Scotch Irish for that matter, don't live everywhere blacks do around the globe--but it hasn't been investigated much because it might be true.        

IQ and homicide cross-nationally: I was so excited by the cross-state correlation between IQ and murder (what election?), I decided to examine the same relationship across countries. Combining data from Nation Master and Sailer's table of Lynn's IQ data, I calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient (N = 36). It is -.47.

I suspect the association is weaker than in the state data for at least two reason. Criminologists are skeptical about comparing levels of crime across nations because criminal justice systems are so different. I agree. Frankly, I don't trust data from countries like Zimbabwe--one of the 36 cases. If the country is excluded, for example, the correlation becomes -.53. (If I find time, I'll use World Health Statistics data which is more reliable.) In addition, this is a very diverse set of countries. There are probably many other factors (e.g., level of socioeconomic development) that play an important role, thus diminishing the impact of IQ.

Does the South have a culture of violence? Many writers haved claimed that the South is more likely than other regions to turn to violence to deal with perceived problems, but I haven't seen much systematic data to back it up, expect for higher rates of violence.

The General Social Survey asked 7,697 men if they would approve of someone hitting a stranger who was drunk and bumped into the man and his wife. Here are the percent who answered yes by region of the country:


Percent of men who are pro-violence

New England 5.2
Middle Atlantic 6.6
East North Central 7.2
West North Central 7.3
South Atlantic 11.2
East South Central 14.7
West South Central 11.4
Mountain 8.8
Pacific 6.5


Clearly, most men don't think a quick resort to violence is right, but there are a few especially in the South. Now, who knows the causal connection between attitudes, behaviors, and other related variables, but we can say that the South, especially the East South Central division (TN, KY, MS, AL) has more violent, pro-violent, and low IQ people than other regions.

Let's see how well violent attitudes match patterns of actual violence:


Percent who are pro-violent

Men 10.0
Women 7.6

Whites 8.6
Blacks 7.8
Others 12.1

Chinese 15.6
English/Welsh 8.3
German 7.4
Irish 8.0
Italian 4.7
Japanese 16.2
Mexican 11.1
Dutch 12.0
Polish 5.4
Puerto Rican 9.3
American Indian 10.4
Arab 21.7

Ages 61+ in 1972 18.1
Ages 18-30 in 1994 4.0

Overall, these estimates are not consistent with patterns of violent behavior. Chinese and Japanese Americans, for example, are on the high end with respect to values, but are on the low end of actually assaulting someone. Perhaps we're not validly measuring attitudes, but there is little reason here to think that behavior matches values.

I included the last two estimates to show that pro-violent attitudes are more common among older people surveyed in earlier years. The GSS hasn't asked the question in this decade, but the 70s through the first half of the 90s show decreasing support for violence.