RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events February is Black History month.

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:
I'll start here and respond in the way I would.

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
I guess it's also not a statement of any significance that every "Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard" in America, far from being a center of peace, is a center of crime, drugs and violence.

---

No, it isn't. Is it a statement of any significance that there was a shooting last year on Washington Boulevard in Pembroke Pines? What happens on a street named after someone has absolutely nothing to do with what they did in their lifetime. I could name my dog Rush Limbaugh. If he bites someone it means I have an ill-tempered dog that needs training ASAP. That's it.

---

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
As I've said across several topics now (contrary to the "white racist" stereotype the liberal media likes to project) it is in fact blacks who commit the majority of racial violence against whites, at a ratio of about 50 incidents to 1.

---

You've said this before and I've responded to it. I'll quote.

Quote:

---

Jason E. Perkins said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
The last topic we had like this, I quoted some statistics on black on white crime (that occurs at about a ratio of 50-to-1, statistically). Even at a fraction of 1%, that is an alarming statistic.

But again, the liberal media stereotype leads the public, both blacks and whites, to believe that it is the reverse: that a majority of racial violence is against blacks, by whites. That is an infuriating misrepresentation of statistics.

---

This is what I really wanted to address, and sadly, I don't have much time. So I'll make it quick.

Last part first: that's funny. Seriously, I don't know where you got the idea that the media portrays white-on-black crime more heavily than black-on-white crime. I know that's the newest outcry from people on this side of the issue, but I don't even know where that comes from. It's not a statistic. Statistics point in the other direction--waaay into the other direction. So far into the other direction that news outlets have moved to remove assertions of race from news reports completely. It's that bad. But to believe that white people are the victims here is outright ridiculous. Please show me where you get this from.

Now, about the 50:1. I have five minutes so here we go. That 50:1 statistic was first brought to light by a book called "The Color of Crime: Race, Crime and Violence in America," by white nationalist, Jared Taylor. I say white nationalist because that's what he is, by his own admission. Taylor writes for and publishes a magazine called American Renaissance. If you don't know it, look it up. You'll find it in one of the seediest corners of the internet. You know how you say we should have an open dialog between the races. Just one look at the forums that surround the many sites devoted to Mr. Jared and his thoughts will show you why that has yet to happen. He's a big proponent of the idea of black genetic inferiority.

I tell you this not to show evidence that these numbers are incorrect--at least not yet--but to at least show how there might be a little bias shown in these numbers.

Now here's the deal in a nutshell. That statistic is true...sorta, but very incomplete. First, there are only two usual reasons to show that statistic: a) to provide credence to the argument that black people hate white people and, thus, commit racially charged violent crimes against them specifically, or b) to provide credence to the idea that black people are more violent, and therefore should be feared and profiled. There might be a c) or even a d) I'm missing, but I can't think of it now.

I'm typing mighty fast.

I'll address point a. First, these numbers come from the U.S. Justice Department. One problem with these numbers that you might not be aware of, though, is that when they were taken, the data for "whites" included those termed Hispanic by the Census, since nine in ten Latinos and Latinas are considered racially white by government record-keepers. If the numbers are split up to count Latinos separate from whites, you find that in any given year the majority of victims of violent crimes perpetrated by black people are people of color, not whites.

The other problem with Taylor's numbers is actually given light by another part of his argument. He states that these numbers are way out of whack since blacks are a small majority of the population. However, that's a two-sided coin. In 2002, whites were about 81.5 percent of the population (we're including Latinos now). That same year, "whites" were 51 percent of the victims of violent crimes committed by blacks. This tells us that white people were victimized less often by blacks than would be expected given the idea of random chance. In other words, if black people victimized white people LESS often than they should have if they had ignored the victim's race entirely.

I hope I was clear. I'm just going stream-of-conscious at this point.

Point b: We should profile by race. Here's the problem with that: according to several studies (none of which are addressed by Taylor) when community and personal economic status is compared between whites and blacks, there are no significant racial crime difference. Basically, if we ARE to profile, we should look in a person's bank account, not their skin color.

---

---