You don't loan it to your cousin who then uses it to cut his clients' yards. If you borrow it, you don't break it and give it back and then insist you didn't break it. You don't sell it. You give it back in pretty much the same condition you got it.
There are several different types of societal trust but they really boil down into two major groups. Familial and general. Familial is the society where if you loan your lawn mower to your cousin, he'll give it back. But if you loan it to your neighbor, who is not your cousin, you don't know if he'll give it back or not. So you don't loan it to your neighbor. You don't do anything for anyone if you can possibly help it. You don't trust the cop unless he's a cousin. You don't trust the banker unless he's a cousin.
If you've ever been overseas (or, hell, in certain areas in the U.S.) and had someone say "I have a cousin who . . . " then you're in a familial trust society.
Then there are general trust societies. The U.S. is, by and large, (and we'll get to Chicago, L.A. and Detroit in a second) a general trust society. In most segments of American society you could loan your lawn mower to your neighbor with a fair expectation of getting it back. If you didn't, you could take him to small claims court and the judge wasn't going to care about you or your neighbor, mostly, just about the merits of the case.
Trust is vital in a society. If societal trust is too low, people trust no one. Except, maybe, their cousins.
This brings us to "multiculturalism."
A study was done by a very liberal sociologist back in the mid-oughts. The study set out to prove that multicultural societies had higher levels of societal trust than monoculture societies. It seems a no-brainer that the reverse was the case, but at the time multiculturalism, along with a bunch of other urban myths, was the way of the world.
However, it was a no-brainer. The study proved the exact opposite. That is, the more diverse an area was in cultures, the less societal trust there was.
Look, humans don't trust "the other." The name every single primitive tribe gives for "other" translates as "enemy." Apache was the Hopi name for the Apache tribes and that's the exact translation: Enemy.
But it's more complex than that. Say you're from a general trust culture. A neighbor moves in next door who is from a familial trust culture. You offer the use of your lawn mower. It never comes back. You point that out and eventually learn that it's been used to cut about a hundred lawns. If you get it back, it's trashed.
The neighbor considers you a moron for loaning it to him in the first place. And he doesn't care if you think he's a dick. He doesn't trust you anyway. You're not family.
Actual real-world example I picked up on a forum. Group in one of the most pre-Plague diverse neighborhoods in the U.S. wanted to build a play-area for their kids in the local park. They'd established a "multicultural neighborhood committee" of "the entire rainbow." I got this from the liberal "general trust" side of the story. I'd have loved to have gotten it from the rest of the cultures. If they could stop laughing.
Anyway, this group of "let's all sing kumbaya" liberals got their little brown brothers together and proposed they all build a playground for their kids. There was a kinda run-down park in the neighborhood. Let's build swings so our children can all play together. Kumbaya.
There were, indeed, little brown brothers and yellow and black. But . . .
Well, it's kinda difficult to tell the difference between a Sikh and a Moslem unless you know one's turban looks cool and the other's looks like shit. (For general info, I can not only tell the difference between a Moslem and a Sikh, I can 90% of the time tell the difference between two tribes of Moslems. Yes, I may be a culturist SOB, but I'm a very highly trained one. I can tell the difference between a Moslem and a Sikh and talk about the history of conflict between the two groups.) And Sikhs and Moslems can barely bring themselves to spit on each other much less work side by side singing "Kumbaya." The liberals had, apparently, never noticed that the fucked-up-turban guys never went into the cool-turban guy's corner store.
The Hindus were willing to contribute some suggestions and a little money, but the other Hindus would have to do the work. What other Hindus? Oh, those people. And they would have to hand the money to the kumbaya guys both because handing it to the other Hindus would be defiling and because, of course, it would just disappear.
(At some point I need to talk about India. It is not the India today that it was in 2019.)
When they actually got to work, finally, there were some little black brothers helping. Then a different group of little black brothers turned out and sat on the sidelines shouting suggestions until the first group left. Then the "help" left as well. Christian animists might soil their hands for a community project but not if they're getting shit from Islamics. Sure, they're just two different tribes that lived right next to each other in Africa. Speaking of kumbaya. But they've also been slaughtering each other since before Stanley ever found Livingston smoking his bong.
Trust. If you lived in a mostly white-bread suburb before the Time of Suckage you just can't get it. But when trust breaks down enough in a society, nobody trusts anyone. Blacks don't trust black cops. Whites don't trust white cops. Nobody trusts their mayor, nobody trusts their boss. Nobody trusts nobody.
What the study found was that the more multicultural a society, the lower the societal trust. (The professor, by the way, refused to accept his own results. He sat on them for five years and even then spouted bullshit about "education" as the answer even though that was covered in the study.) The only way to get generalized trust is to blend the societies and erase the differences. Back in the 1800s an Italian wouldn't be bothered to spit on an Irishman unless he'd just stuck a knife in his back. These days the only way you can tell the difference in the U.S. is one has better food and the other better beer.
So why does this matter to Ching Mao? Doesn't, really, he was dead and never really cared. But it mattered, a lot, to the response in Chicago.
You see, by that time Chicago was a very multicultural area. Gone were the days of it being pure white-bread and kielbasa. Only recent immigrants, who didn't recognize the local white guys as being anything like Polish despite their names, spoke the Old Language. Where there had once been mostly assimilated German and Polish and Russian Jew and a smattering of Black communities there were now Serbian and Pakistani and "Persian" and Assyrian not to be confused with Syrian and Iraqi and Fusian who were not Manchu who were not Korean or anything like who were definitely not Cambodian, damn it . . .
Each trusted the family group around them. To an extent they trusted others who were "them." The few white-bread multicultural true-believers trusted all their little rainbow brothers, of course, until you got a few drinks in them and they started telling about their experiences. "And I never did get my lawn mower back!"
And nobody trusted the Police, the Fire Department or anything else smacking of the government. Most of the immigrants came from countries where that was just sense and police had a hard time dealing with those communities that closed around anyone, good or bad, when questions were asked. And never ask a fireman about responding to an "ethnic" neighborhood. You won't like the story if you like to sing kumbaya.