Canadian gang history has often been told through ethnic labels: Italian mafia, Chinese triads, Vietnamese gangs, Indo-Canadian gangs, Indigenous gangs, and others. These labels may describe real histories of migration, family ties, language, neighbourhood, and social networks. However, they can also reproduce stereotypes. When groups are described primarily by ethnicity, people may be led to believe that culture causes crime. A better criminological question is: under what conditions do racialised, immigrant, or marginalised young people become more vulnerable to recruitment, criminalisation, or violence (Chalas & Grekul, 2017; Chatterjee, 2006; Ezeonu, 2014)?

From the 1960s through to the early 2000s, Canada experienced major immigration changes, urban growth, and shifting patterns of racism and exclusion. Some newcomer and racialised youth faced barriers in school, housing, employment, and belonging. Some experienced racism from peers, employers, police, and other institutions. In some contexts, street groups offered protection, identity, income, excitement, or status. For young people experiencing exclusion, a group identity may provide recognition that mainstream institutions do not (Chalas & Grekul, 2017; Chatterjee, 2006; Chettleburgh, 2003).

This does not mean that racialised communities produce gangs. Most members of racialised and immigrant communities are not involved in gangs or organised crime. Many families and communities work actively to prevent violence and support young people. The point is that racism and exclusion can shape the opportunity structures around crime. Ethnic labels can hide these structures by making crime appear to come from culture rather than from inequality, markets, and social relationships (Ezeonu, 2014; Wiley et al., 2017).

Moving from Ethnic-based Gangs to Social Network Gangs in B.C.

Lower Mainland gang groups are often fluid, with members and associates shifting alliances based on money, protection, personal relationships, prison connections, conflict, or perceived opportunity (see the Case Study in textbox 16.1 below). A person may be connected to one group at one point and to another group later. This makes it difficult to draw clear boundaries around a “gang” (Bouchard, 2020; Prowse, 2013; Pyrooz et al., 2020).

Social network analysis is useful in this context. Instead of assuming that gangs are stable organisations with fixed membership, social network analysis looks at relationships. Who communicates with whom? Who commits offences together? Who has family, friendship, prison, business, or neighbourhood ties? Who acts as a broker between groups? This approach can reveal that violence is not always caused by two clearly bounded gangs fighting over territory. It may emerge from shifting networks of debt, reputation, retaliation, opportunity, and market competition (Bouchard & Konarski, 2014; Ouellet et al., 2018; Papachristos, 2009).

This networked view also helps challenge stereotypes. A group may include people of different ethnic backgrounds. It may cooperate with an outlaw motorcycle club, a street-level drug line, independent brokers, or people involved in legitimate businesses. It may not wear colours or claim a neighbourhood in the way students might expect from films or American gang imagery. In B.C., contemporary groups such as the Red Scorpions, the United Nations gang, the Wolfpack, Brothers Keepers, and others have often been discussed in relation to fluid alliances, drug markets, and retaliatory violence rather than simple ethnic identity (Bouchard, 2020; Bouchard & Hashimi, 2017; O’Brien et al., 2013).