But that's not BECAUSE he's got more melanin.
Is that simply a statement of faith based on ideological belief or Has anybody actually carried out a objective scientific study to confirm or debunk this particular theory?
(I doubt it very much! It would be career suicide for any Academic to even
think about doing so in the current political climate.)
However, It
Might be.
I think that the idea that chronic Vitamin D deficiency might be a relevant factor in a tendency towards violent criminal behavior is a
not at all unreasonable one.
It isnt just about soft bones. I am sure i have read that VitD deficiency is associated with Depression, Schizophrenia, Poor neurological development from childhood and even metabolic disorders such as diabetes.
All of these can have dramatic effects on mood and temperament and could easily result in people being more inclined to extreme violence.
It would be a shame if something that is actually a major problem across the developed world, which are Mostly high latitudes where dark skins are likley to be a very high risk factor for VitD deficiency (See Note #1), IE That The utterly disproportionate and excessive amount of violent crime committed by Black people could be
mitigated (See Note #2) by something as simple as a daily dose of "WellBlackMan" is missed because nobody is willing to take the risk of even looking for fear of committing some sort of political heresy (Like Rotherham again etc)
Mind, It probably wouldn't make any difference even if such a link
was conclusively shown to exist.
I can see it now. It would be just like water fluoridation and Vaccination.
Within minutes of such a study being published you would get the activists going all
"Yo White Man want to drug the Black Man to keep him down!" (And so on)
So, even if a study did show a definitive link, the chances of any actual action taking place is minimal and indeed, the chances of any such study being suppressed verges on certainty.
Note #1;
The pale skins of northern Europeans will have evolved in the time since the end of the last ice age from a base population that would probably have had rather darker skins. This is really a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms and suggests that the evolutionary selective pressure against dark skins in high latitudes isn't just severe. It is extreme. Given this factor it seems nuts not to at least investigate, as a possibility, (Even if it simply to definitively eliminate it as a possibility) that yes, Skin tone
Might be a factor in why this particular demographic of people perform so spectacularly poorly, as a group, in developed high latitude societies. Not just in small isolated pockets. But everywhere where they are present. To actively ignore the possibility for purely ideological reasons is simply insane.
Note #2;
I use the phrase "Mitigated" since situations like this are very unlikely to be down to one single cause. There are likely to be other factors too, all of which need to be taken into consideration. Just for balance I will also offer a rather more "PC" socioeconomic scenario...
There are more "Poor" White people in the USA than there are Black people in total.
And yet we do not see corresponding levels of White violent crime associated with this poverty in the way it is offered as a cause for violent crime in Black populations.
Why might this be? Skin colour again? No not necessarily. There is a very big difference in the socioeconomics of White and Black poverty in the USA.
The Poor Whites tend to live in the country, The poor Blacks in inner cities. Now the rural poor are not without their problems (Meth and Opiates are a major issue) but, in the main, in the USA in particular it is likley to be far easier to live on a low income in the countryside than in the middle of a city.
In a city, everything has to be bought ( or stolen) There is a constant pressing need for cash money wherever you go and whatever you do. In the countryside, the pressure for a constant supply of cash money is far lower. Land/Property is cheap. Food is cheap. there is plenty of room for rural poor to grow some/all of their own food and there is even ample opportunity for subsistence hunting (Very common I would imagine in rural USA) which keeps living costs even lower.
There is simply far less pressure on the rural poor to become involved in violent organized crime. Oh for sure, where there is drugs there is often violence. but in the countryside the pressure, even for that, is going to be far less. (Towns perhaps 50/100 miles apart may well have their own competing drug Mobs, but this is very different from having competing Urban Mobs only a city block or two apart from one another.)
If one was to reverse the residential roles (Poor Blacks/Country. Poor Whites/City) I would be not at all surprised if Black crime rates went down and White crime rates went up...