My previous post on FEUO/SFUO related the FBI statistics on White and Black murder rates in the United States in 1995. I had already seen several of my factual posts censored on that board, but this time my post occasioned a temporary IP-ban by the board's moderators. The truth, evidently, is too racist to be acceptable.
I complained about the censorship and banning to several university department heads, and although I received no notice that the ban had been lifted, I discovered that it was so during a later check of the board. Someone named "Darcy" had responded to my earlier statistical summary, and what follows is my reply to him.
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:29 am
Hi, Darcy. Thanks for the reply.
Quote:
The leading cause of criminal behaviour is poverty.
I'm sorry, but that's false. In 1995, the resident population of the United States included 218.3 million Whites and 33.1 million Blacks. Of those, 11.2% of the Whites and 29.0% of the Blacks lived below the federal socioeconomic poverty line. There were, therefore, 24.4 million poor Whites and 9.5 million poor Blacks living in the United States, that year. Poor Whites outnumbered poor Blacks by a ratio of 2.57 to one.
If poverty were the leading cause of criminal behavior, as you say, then for each 100 murders committed by Blacks in 1995, about 257 murders would have been committed by Whites. But that's not what happened. About 55% of US murders in 1995 were committed by Blacks, meaning that for each 100 murders committed by Blacks that year, only 82 murders were committed by all non-Black groups combined.
Even if you were to assume that Whites committed all of the murders in the United States that Blacks did not commit, the Whites could only be responsible, at most, for 82 murders for each 100 murders committed by Blacks. We should keep in mind that US resident Whites outnumbered US resident Blacks, in 1995, by a factor of about 6.8.
Those facts are in conflict with a prediction that can be drawn from the liberal notion that poverty causes crime, which notion is therefore wrong. The much blandished "poverty causes crime" hypothesis is a liberal myth.
There are other ways of demonstrating the same thing. The two most rural states in the United States are West Virginia and Mississippi. That is, both states are more-or-less comparable in the socioeconomic sense. But the two states differ demographically, with West Virginia being less than 5% Black, whereas Mississippi is about 36% Black. It comes as no surprise, to someone who has studied race for long, that Mississippi has a far higher rate of violent crime than West Virginia does.
If you think that the comparison is atypical, then feel free to replace West Virginia with any other, mostly rural, state-sized region having fewer than 5% of Blacks in its population. Or feel free to replace Mississippi with any other, mostly rural, state-sized region having more than one-third of Blacks in its population. You'll get the same answer every time.
http://www.jabpage.org/images/correlate2.jpg
Then, try comparing cities instead of rural areas, and examine that side of the rural-urban spectrum. The same pattern emerges, regardless of the degree of urbanization. Cities with high percentages of resident Blacks have high per capita rates for violent crime. Cities that are nearly all-White have low rates for violent crime. Contrast, for example, Detroit with St. Paul. Or Washington DC with Colorado Springs. Or Atlanta with Anchorage. If it's too much work to check, don't worry: I've already done it for you.
http://www.jabpage.org/images/uscitymu.jpg
You can carry the comparison to counties (subdivisions within a state), for example, contrast the crime rates of Fulton County (majority Black) and Gwinnett County (nearly all-White), Georgia.
You can go outside North America to get your comparison regions. Choose Johannesburg. Choose Haiti. Choose Rwanda. It doesn't matter.
Quote:
Thanks to "blockbusting" and other racist policies by the US government and US real estate agents during the 20th century, coupled with the divisive legacy of slavery, blacks suffer from ghettoization and poverty in the United States.
Blacks are not the only racial group to have been enslaved. In ancient and medieval times, many White nations were enslaved by the Romans, by the Mongols, by the Turks, or by some other group. Also, there were a great many White slaves in early America, perhaps more than there were Black slaves.
Once the period of slavery is finished, the enslaved group normally rebounds to their potential, whatever that might be. A history of slavery and oppression is not a reason for continued Black failure.
Quote:
That is to say, there is no de-facto difference in behaviour or attitudes based on skin colour.
That is correct. Skin color does not control behavior. But, on the other hand, skin color is not the same thing as race, and liberals pretend otherwise only so they can make racism seem to be a big nasty fuss over a trivial physical trait. However, a distributed range of skin pigmentation is a trait affected by race, and a distributed characteristic pattern of behavior is another.
Quote:
Any differences manifest between whites, blacks, asians, natives, etc, are due to cultural interpretations of these differences - not of biological predestination.
The word "predestination" is probably not the most appropriate choice, hinting as it does of mysticism. Biological differences occur in many kinds of traits; the physical ones are merely the most immediately obvious. But how likely is it that natural selection has produced racial differences only in those features not having any political significance of which liberals disapprove? That's not likely at all.
One should be wary of trying to determine the facts of existence by way of one's moral sense. Nature has never been under any constraint to be nice or fair. Moral sense tells you what you should do about the truth; it never tells you what the truth is, or of what you're up against. Liberals often seem confused in relation to the respective proper roles of moral sense and rational inquiry.
Quote:
The differences that we see in crime rates by racial profile, can be directly linked to poverty rates by racial profile.
As I proved, above, what you said about poverty causing crime is wrong. Poor Whites do not exhibit anywhere near the crime rates that poor Blacks do. Experience has, indeed, falsified your dogma in this respect.
Quote:
The real question then is, why are minorities impoverished to a greater extent than whites? The answer is racist practices and policies by both the state, and certain private enterprises.
Again, the real answer is not what you assert. I notice that you offer no evidence in support of the assertion; you merely assert.
Let's consider Benton Harbor, Michigan. In the 1940s, Benton Harbor was a lovely and prosperous town, and it was all White. It had factories, nice homes, an excellent hospital, clean streets, a beautiful waterfront, a thriving tourist industry, and no crime worth mentioning. Then came WW2. The men marched off to the war, and the factories were desperate for labor. Blacks came to work in Benton Harbor's factories.
In 1950, Benton Harbor was still 89% White. For a long time, Whites and Blacks lived in separate neighborhoods and, more or less, got along. But the Black neighborhoods grew, and the Blacks began complaining and demanding.
In August 1967, Blacks rioted, burned, and looted Benton Harbor. In those days the police were allowed to fight back and make arrests. The riot was ended when Michigan's governor sent 1000 National Guardsmen to put down the anarchy.
Then Whites lost two federal lawsuits relating to school busing, and they began leaving Benton Harbor en masse to protect their children from Black violence.
Today, Benton Harbor is 93% Black. It leads Michigan in crime. After another riot in June 2003, a Black man told reporters: "There are a lot of people in this community who are upset with the way Black folks are being treated."
Being treated—by whom? Benton Harbor is nearly all Black. Blacks rule there. Things are done in Benton Harbor the Black way. Benton Harbor is what the Blacks have made of it. Although the Blacks blame White people for their failure in Benton Harbor, a failure that came after they took possession of what had been a model town, there are no actual Whites who can be identified as the source of their problems.
When you think about that Black man's comment, you can begin to understand what his attitude, if you took it seriously, necessarily implies. If all the White people in America were to disappear, leaving America as void of Whites as Haiti became in 1804, would this prevent Blacks from alleging that their problems were the result of White racism? No. Hardly. In that case, Black leaders would be saying that White racism somehow emanated from Australia or from Europe to find its mysterious way back into Benton Harbor.
If we have something that they want, but can't produce, then it must be our fault for their failure to produce it. Never theirs. According to "Black logic," the influence of White racism grows stronger in direct proportion to the increasing distance of the nearest majority-White communities. Blacks ask how it could be otherwise, since neighborhoods always get worse when the Whites who had been living in them move out.
Quote:
The only reason statistics differ between blacks/whites, latinos/whites, natives/whites is because those in power choose to treat people differently based on race.
You have it backward. With respect to racism, the racial differences of behavior lead, and the reaction (mostly enlightened self-interest) follows.
Quote:
Africa was historically a very rich, cultured, and developed continent, at times far outstripping the level of development by white Europeans. It is only after slavery and colonization that we see a statistical difference in development between whites and blacks.
I see that your school is teaching you lies. Africa became cultured only to the extent that Whites made it so. And, as the Whites leave, or are chased away, or killed, the cultural level drops, sooner or later, to a level more nearly commensurate with Black capability.
Quote:
Hope that helps you in your quest to understand the meaning of race... most of this can be applied to gender, sexual orientation, and religion as well.
I do appreciate the time you took in an effort to educate me. It would be helpful, though, if you'd get one yourself first. And this particular education, going as it does against the prevailing political dogmas, might not be available at your school.
