This is a lot of assumptions, some of which are contradictory, bundled together and presented as fact though.
For a start, gangs have existed as far back as written history extends, and in almost every culture and society. There have been various forms of gang in London for at least thousand years (there is a good snapshot of 14th century crime at the
Violence Research Centre's Medieval Murder Map).
They draw in all sorts - fatherless kids, those from stable but poor backgrounds, the feckless as well as kids who have followed their fathers / elders into the gang - and to suggest that people join them because of naivety / confusion / a lack of role models is to ignore the (actual) fact that most join for very clear and logical reasons (for gain, for status, for peers, for the lulz or for protection - or a mix of any of that). This is not a problem that started in the Black community as the result of the rise of fatherless families; its always been there and in every other community you can think of.
Secondly, and more importantly, gangs have always been fascinating to the public and press - both in terms of the stories they generate, and more importantly the discrimination that people can get away with when they mention "gang". If you look at any demonised group, the two almost constant things that the people doing the demonising use is that they are habitually criminal / form criminal gangs and that they go after "our" women (often by using devious means). Look at how the papers covered Chinese immigration in the 19th century, Italian immigration in the 19th and 20th centuries, Jewish immigration (or Jewish existance in Germany) in the 19th and 20th centuries, and Black immigration since Windrush (and the coverage of communities with a large Black population now). You could almost make the argument that the point at which the papers started to pay attention to the men of Pakistani descent getting convicted for sexual offences was when someone thought up the term
grooming gang, which legitimised using the standard tropes again.
Of course if you do this for long enough - as with the perception of Black populations here and in the US, which has seen almost everything else that informs a persons identity (spiritual, cultural, educational, scientific, sporting, religious, and/or economic beliefs and achievements) stripped away by mainstream society so much that we as a society are told that the default setting for a young Black man is that of a gangster; to
have escaped that life is so common a thing for Black politicians, sportsmen and public figures to say it has almost become a meme. Look at Cory Booker, who felt the need to live up to that perception that society has of him even though his parents were both IBM executives and he went to Stanford and Yale (and Oxford). Even Sajid Javid said something similar over here, despite being Home Secretary, having a brother who is a very senior cop and who has repeatedly paid tribute to what his mum and dad did for him.
In short we as a society have been conditioned to be tolerant and respectful, but we have also been conditioned to hear the word
gang and feel that little bit more comfortable with the prejudices we all have. We should bear that in mind when we start to talk about gangs.
