No thanks. Using Davide Duke, a former grand wizard of trhe KKK as
your reference makes it all go up in smoke, and so do you.
Use credible sources, or be quiet!
Having said the above, considering the unrelenting hatred African
Americans of ALL social statuses's face every day, all across
Amerikkka, from Caucasians, both male and female, I'm really
surprised that you all aren't helped to assume room temperature about
a thousand times more often than what the true figures reflect.
The Color of Deception
March 10. 2008
By PhD. Tim Wise
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-10/19wise.cfm
"A lie can travel half-way around the world while the truth is still
pulling on its boots."
Although this truism was penned long before the Internet, there is
little doubt but that in the modern era, it has become more prescient
than its author could ever have imagined.
When it comes to fast-moving lies, few can top one that has been
distributed by white supremacists for the past several years. It is
probably the most popular piece of racist propaganda in existence
today, and because it relies on official government data, it comes
across as sober, intelligent social science, rather than as the
compendium of nonsense it happens to be.
The screed to which I refer is "The Color of Crime: Race, Crime and
Violence in America," by white nationalist, Jared Taylor. Taylor is
the publisher of the racist magazine, American Renaissance, and host
of an annual conference, which attracts open neo-Nazis as well as a
gaggle of academicians who proclaim black genetic inferiority.
According to Taylor, there are several "facts" about crime that have
been hidden from view by the civil rights community. Among them:
--Blacks are much more dangerous than whites as evidenced by higher
crime rates;
--Black criminals usually choose white victims and are far more likely
to victimize whites than whites are to victimize blacks (both for
regular violent crimes and hate crimes);
--Black crime rates justify racial profiling, since it only makes
sense to focus law enforcement attention on those who commit a
disproportionate share of crime; and finally,
--The interracial crime data makes white fear of African Americans
perfectly rational.
But a close examination of these arguments proves that Taylor and his
followers are either statistically illiterate, or knowingly deceive
for political effect.
First, as for the disproportionate rate of violent crime committed by
blacks, economic conditions explain the difference with white crime
rates.
According to several studies, when community and personal economic
status is comparable between whites and blacks, there are no
significant racial crime differences (1). In other words, the implicit
message of Taylor's report--that blacks are dangerous because they are
black--is insupportable.
Secondly, to claim that blacks are more dangerous than whites because
of official crime rates, is to ignore that when it comes to everyday
threats to personal well-being, whites far and away lead the pack in
all kinds of destructive behaviors: corporate pollution, consumer
fraud, violations of health and safety standards on the job, and
launching wars on the basis of deceptive evidence, to name a few. Each
year, far more people die because of corporate malfeasance,
occupational health violations and pollution than all the street crime
combined, let alone street crime committed by African Americans (2).
[Stoking Fears About Interracial Crime - A Look at How Nazis Do Math]
Next, Taylor claims that most victims of black violent crime are
white, and thus, that blacks are violently targeting whites.
Furthermore, since only a small share of the victims of white
criminals are black (only 4.4 percent in 2002, for example), this
means that blacks are far more of a threat to whites than vice-versa.
But there are several problems with these claims.
To begin with, the white victim totals in the Justice Department's
victimization data include those termed Hispanic by the Census, since
nine in ten Latino/as are considered racially white by government
record-keepers. Since Latino/as tend to live closer to blacks than
non-Hispanic whites, this means that many "white" victims of "black
crime" are Latino/a, and that in any given year, the majority of black
crime victims would be people of color, not whites.
But even if we compute the white totals as Taylor does, without
breaking out Hispanic victims of "black crime," his position is
without merit.
In 2002, whites, including Latinos, were about 81.5 percent of the
population (3). That same year, whites (including Latinos) were 51
percent of the victims of violent crimes committed by blacks, meaning
that whites were victimized by blacks less often than would have been
expected by random chance, given the extent to which whites were
available to be victimized (4).
As for the claim that blacks victimize whites at rates that are far
higher than the reverse, though true, this statistic is meaningless,
for a few obvious but overlooked reasons, first among them the simple
truth that if whites are more available as potential victims, we would
naturally expect black criminals to victimize whites more often than
white criminals would victimize blacks.
Examining data from 2002, there were indeed 4.5 times more
black-on-white violent crimes than the reverse (5). While this may
seem to support Taylor's position, it actually destroys it, because
the interracial crime gap, though seemingly large, is smaller than
random chance would have predicted.
The critical factor ignored by Taylor is the extent to which whites
and blacks encounter each other in the first place. Because of ongoing
racial isolation and de facto segregation, the two group's members do
not encounter one another at rates commensurate with their shares of
the population: a fact that literally torpedoes the claims in The
Color of Crime.
As sociologist Robert O'Brian has noted (using Census data), the odds
of a given white person (or white criminal) encountering a black
person are only about three percent. On the other hand, the odds of a
given black person (or black criminal) encountering a white person are
nineteen times greater, or fifty-seven percent (6), meaning the actual
interracial victimization gap between black-on-white and
white-on-black crime is smaller than one would expect.
In 2002, blacks committed a little more than 1.2 million violent
crimes, while whites committed a little more than three million
violent crimes (7). If each black criminal had a 57 percent chance of
encountering (and thus potentially victimizing) a white person, this
means that over the course of 2002, blacks should have been expected
to victimize roughly 690,000 whites. But in truth, blacks victimized
whites only 614,176 times that year (8).
Conversely, if each white criminal had only a three percent chance of
encountering and thus victimizing a black person, this means that over
the course of 2002, whites would have been expected to victimize
roughly 93,000 blacks. But in truth, whites victimized blacks 135,931
times: almost 50 percent more often than would be expected by random
chance (9).
Indeed, given relative crime rates as well as rates of interracial
encounter, random chance would have predicted the ratio of
black-on-white to white-on-black victimization at roughly 7.4 to one.
Yet, as the data makes clear, there were only 4.5 times more
black-on-white crimes than white-on-black crimes in 2002. In other
words, given encounter ratios, black criminals victimize whites less
often than could be expected, while white criminals victimize blacks
more often than could be expected.
[Lies About Hate Crimes - More Fun With Nazi Math]
Taylor's claims regarding hate crimes are even more ridiculous.
The Color of Crime asserts that blacks commit a disproportionate share
of racial and ethnic hate crimes against whites, while white-on-black
hate crimes are far less frequent. But the data simply doesn't support
such a claim.
From 1995-2000, blacks were 65 percent of racial and ethnic hate-crime
victims, while whites were 21 percent of such victims (10). Adjusted
for population, any given black person was nearly twenty times more
likely to be the victim of a racially motivated hate crime than any
given white. In 2001, there were approximately 4.6 times more
white-on-black than black-on-white hate crimes (11), despite the fact
that whites were between six and seven times more available in the
population to become victims.
Considering that blacks are much more likely to encounter whites than
vice-versa, this last statistic is especially alarming. After all, if
blacks are nineteen times more likely to encounter whites than whites
are to encounter blacks, any given black person would have nineteen
times more opportunities to commit an anti-white hate crime than a
white person would have to commit an anti-black hate crime.
Since blacks are roughly one-sixth the size of the non-Hispanic white
population, in order to determine the expected ratio of black-on-white
hate crimes relative to white-on-black hate crimes given random
chance, one must multiply the 19:1 black-on-white encounter ratio by
one-sixth.
Once this computation is made, we find that differential rates of
encounter and population availability would predict that if levels of
racial hatred were equal between whites and blacks, and the
willingness to commit a hate crime were equal between the two groups,
in any given year there should be 3.15 times more black-on-white hate
crimes than white-on-black hate crimes.
That in truth there are nearly five times more white-on-black hate
crimes than the reverse suggests that blacks are much less likely to
commit an anti-white hate crime than would be expected and whites are
far more likely to commit an anti-black hate crime than would be
expected.
[White Fear of Blacks - The Height of Irrationality]
Of course, above and beyond the mere statistical chicanery at the
heart of Taylor's report, the larger point is that for Taylor and
other racists to claim that black-on-white crime data justifies white
fear of African Americans, or racial profiling by police is sheer
ignorance.
Criminologists estimate that seventy percent of all crimes are
committed by just seven percent of the offenders (12): a small bunch
of repeat offenders who commit the vast majority of crimes. Since
blacks committed roughly 1.2 million violent crimes in 2002, if
seventy percent of these were committed by seven percent of the black
offenders, this would mean that at most there were perhaps 390,000
individual black offenders that year (13). In a population of 29.3
million over the age of twelve, this would represent no more than 1.3
percent of the black population that committed a violent crime in
2002.
Since fewer than half of these would have chosen a non-Hispanic white
victim (as noted previously), this means that less no more than
seven-tenths of one percent of the black population would have
victimized a white person in 2002: hardly the kind of fact that would
warrant white fear of blacks as a group.
Furthermore, since whites were victimized 2.9 million times by other
whites in 2002 (compared to roughly 614,000 times by blacks), this
means that whites are 4.7 times more likely to be victimized by
another white person than by a black person (14).
Thus, if crime data can justify white fear of blacks, it would also
require whites to be terrified of white neighbors, co-workers, family
and white strangers, for these are the folks most likely to victimize
us.
[The Absurdity of Profiling]
As for profiling, Taylor insists that because of higher black crime
rates, it only makes good sense to focus police efforts on the black
community. But this is demonstrably ludicrous. If, as the Justice
Department data suggests, blacks commit somewhere between 25-30
percent of violent crime in most years (23 percent in 2002), to
profile blacks for crime will result in police being wrong, between
70-75 percent of the time (15).
And of course, profiling is not the typical method for uncovering
serious already-committed crimes anyway, since solving such crimes
logically involves using incident-specific information. Profiling is,
instead, too often done as a way to uncover crimes, such as drug
possession, that have yet to come to police attention.
As for drugs, there can be no doubt that profiling is irrational.
According to federal data, blacks are only 13.5 percent of drug users,
while non-Hispanic whites are over 70 percent of users (16). So to
profile blacks for drugs is to guarantee little success in actually
uncovering drug crimes.
[Conclusion - Why Bother Responding to Nazis?]
Some may wonder whether it makes sense to spend so much time and
energy responding to the claims of someone who openly consorts with
neo-Nazis, and whose agenda is so blatantly racist in nature. Though
it would be nice not to have to respond to such silliness, the fact
is, Taylor and his report have been cited approvingly by conservative
columnists and talking heads, from Walter Williams, to David Horowitz,
to the folks at the National Review, to Vanderbilt Law professor,
Carol Swain.
What's more, with studies suggesting that white perceptions of black
criminality play a prominent role in furthering racism, both
attitudinally and institutionally (in terms of support for racially
disparate and draconian crime policies), refuting this kind of
foolishness carries with it important personal and policy implications
as well.
However unappealing it may be to have to answer the racist claims of
bigots and fascists, the fact remains that given the appeal of racist
logic to so many, and given the strength of institutional racism as a
defining force in American life, we can hardly afford the luxury of
ignoring such positions, so as to "not give them legitimacy."
The sad fact is that racism already enjoys plenty of legitimacy, with
or without a rebuttal. Ignoring this reality isn't likely to diminish
its strength, but responding to it forcefully might, at the very
least, dissuade impressionable minds from accepting the twisted logic
offered by the racist right. __________________ Tim Wise is an
antiracist essayist, activist and father. His upcoming books, White
Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son (Soft Skull, 2005)
and Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White
(Routledge Falmer, 2005) are available for pre-ordering at
Amazon.com,
and will be published in January. Tim can be reached at
timjwise@
msn.com. Hate mail, while neither desired not appreciated,
will be graded for form, content, grammar and originality.
NOTES:
1. L.J. Krivo and R.D. Peterson, "Extremely Disadvantaged
Neighborhoods and Urban Crime," Social Forces 75(2) (December 1996);
Barbara Chasin. Inequality and Violence in the United States. (NJ:
Humanities Press International, 1997).
2. Jeffrey Reiman. ...And the Poor Get Prison: Economic Bias in
American Criminal Justice. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1996); Lisa
Cullen. A Job to Die For: Why So Many Americans are Killed, Injured or
Made Ill at Work, and What to Do About It. (Monroe, ME: Common Courage
Press, 2002).
3. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstracts of the United
States, 2003. Table No. 14: 16.
4. United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2002, Statistical Tables,
(U.S. Department of Justice, 2004), tables 40, 42, 46 and 48, and
calculations by the author.
5. Ibid.
6. Robert O'Brian. "The Interracial Nature of Violent Crimes: A
Reexamination." American Journal of Sociology 92(6) (1987).
7. United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2002, Statistical Tables,
(U.S. Department of Justice, 2004), tables 40, 42, 46 and 48, and
calculations by the author.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. United States Department of Justice, FBI Uniform Crime Reports,
"Hate Crime Statistics," (various years, 1995-2000), and calculations
by the author.
11. United States Department of Justice, FBI Uniform Crime Reports,
2002, "Hate Crime Statistics, 2001."
12. Peter Greenwood and Alan Abrahamse. Selective Incapacitation
(Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1982); Todd Clear, "Backfire:
When Incarceration Increases Crime," Oklahoma Criminal Justice
Research Center, at:
www.doc.state.ok.us/DOCS/OCJRC/Ocjrc96/Ocjrc7.htm. (1996).
13. If blacks committed 1.2 million violent crimes in 2002, and 70
percent of these were committed by 7 percent of the offenders, then 30
percent were committed by the remaining 93 percent of offenders. 30
percent of 1.2 million offenses is 360,000 offenses. 360,000
represents 93 percent of 387,000. If the remaining 70 percent of
offenses (840,000) were committed by 7 percent of the population, this
means that these crimes were committed by 27,000 hardcore offenders (7
percent of 387,000).
14. U.S. Department of Justice, 2004.
15. U.S Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal
Victimization in the United States, various years, 1993-2004.
16. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2003.
Results from the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Office
of Applied Studies, Department of Health and Human Services,
Rockville, MD.
