I think it stems from the foundation.

US was founded by Christians seeking freedom. Latin America was founded on looting environmental reserves with no regard for creation of any society.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5856259&forum_id=2).#49811922)

https://www.voanews.com/a/mexico-reveals-evidence-of-death-flights-during-1965-90-dirty-war-/7745998.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5856259&forum_id=2).#49811938)

Europeans simply gave them the tools.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5856259&forum_id=2).#49812010)

that is who these people are

South America just has a lot more of them and they have direct political control of their countries

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5856259&forum_id=2).#49811999)

not all of them. and they people that elect them aren't. and the people stabbing you in the street for your wallet definitely aren't.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5856259&forum_id=2).#49812007)

you also have different genetic expressions in different regions; brazilian violence has a very pronounced and explicit sub-saharan element (kind of like jamaica or something) while mexico and central america do not aside from belize and the caribbean coast.

the aztecs were famously violent, but also socialized in the sense that their society could act in a unitary fashion. meaning that if certain forms or types of violence were disallowed by the chief, those behaviors would stop.

this is similar in character to groups like chechens, who actually have a fairly low crime rate in their region when they aren't explicitly at war.

the 'mestizaje' process seems to have removed the cultural capacity to 'down-regulate' characteristics such as violence. mestizos in mexico have always had a high background rate of violence. historical estimates of the mexican murder rate a century ago put it incredibly high, up around 60 or 70 per 100,000. that was pre-cartel; proto-cartel structures as we know them didn't really emerge until the 1970's.

mexico's murder rate reached its modern lows somewhere around 15 per 100K in the early-2000's, prior to the cartel wars which largely kicked off in 2006. the rate could presumably drop that low again if the cartels reach a more stable configuration and stop fighting for territory all the time.

going lower than that would require the outright incarceration of somewhere between 3 and 5% of the male population, which would basically be the el salvador strategy. but mexico actually lacks basic state capacity over parts of its territory in places like guerrero or sinaloa in a way that el salvador never did.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5856259&forum_id=2).#49812039)

How is it that they are so much more violent than their host countries or prior civilisations? I can't even think of a country that runs as a democracy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5856259&forum_id=2).#49812048)

It’s not to say those rural poor weren’t violent before but it was away from the cities so no one cared, plus it was not urban and organized.

Imagine if in North America we had 1000x as many Indians, they were never killed off, and around 1960 or so they all migrated to NYC, Chicago, etc. And since there were not enough jobs or housing they built permanent Hoovervilles in a ring around every downtown. Not enough work or welfare so they sell shit on the street everywhere, sell drugs, join gangs, etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5856259&forum_id=2).#49812054)

I feel like the shanytowns just exacerbated the situation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5856259&forum_id=2).#49812064)