>
> 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).
