Thursday, April 16, 2015

Are violent minorities taking over sunny California and the West?

Ah California. A recent article by Michael Anton, in City Journal reveals that the Golden State has had plenty of violent, white people. Quote:

"The California goldfields were unusually violent and anarchic, even by the standards of the time. The annual homicide rate of 500 per 100,000 exceeded today’s by more than a hundredfold. Lynch law was the rule; statutory law, to the extent that it existed, went unobserved. The written record alone tallies some 200 lynchings in the Mother Lode between 1849 and 1853, and that’s a conservative estimate. The ones we know about at least had a semblance of order, replete with hearings and evidence. The great haste with which “justice” was done—typically little more than a day elapsed between arrest and execution—was appreciated as efficient.

The cities were worse. Herbert Asbury, once America’s foremost chronicler of the urban underworld, wrote a vivid history of San Francisco’s “Barbary Coast”—the nasty old waterfront, long since pressed inland by landfill and made over as the Financial District, the “Wall Street of the West.” Some of Asbury’s more fantastical stories have since been called into question. Yet the basic outline of his account was certainly true:

The Barbary Coast is the haunt of the low and the vile of every kind. The petty thief, the house burglar, the tramp, the whoremonger, lewd women, cutthroats, murderers, all are found here. Dance-halls and concert-saloons, where bleary-eyed men and faded women drink vile liquor, smoke offensive tobacco, engage in vulgar conduct, sing obscene songs and say and do everything to heap upon themselves more degradation, are numerous. Low gambling houses, thronged with riot-loving rowdies, in all stages of intoxication, are there. .. Licentiousness, debauchery, pollution, loathsome disease, insanity from dissipation, misery, poverty, wealth, profanity, blasphemy, and death, are there. And Hell, yawning to receive the putrid mass, is there also.
Fittingly, Australians—whose national character, back then, was much closer to their penal-colony roots than to today’s smiling, laid-back sun worshipers—first settled the area. In the first, tender years of the Gold Rush, the notorious “Sydney Ducks”—California’s first street gang—ruled the Barbary Coast with iron fists (and guns and knives). The district filled quickly with miners. The successful ones had ample money to lavish on prostitutes, liquor, opium, and games of chance. Formally, there was law—the San Francisco Police Department was organized on August 13, 1849—but in practice, the police were often worse than the men they collared: “ex-bandits . . . quite as much to be feared as the robbers,” French traveler Albert Bernard de Russailh characterized them in his 1851 journal. Russailh concluded his lament with a cry of desperation: “The state is in a hopeless chaos, and many years must pass before order can be established.”

The Southland’s solution was to split the difference. Facing a stratospheric homicide rate of 1,240 per 100,000 in 1851—the highest ever recorded in an American territory—authorities organized the Los Angeles Rangers, a band of toughs more violent than the Vigilance Committees but with official imprimatur. Within a year, they got the area under control by rounding up the usual suspects and executing or exiling them. Longtime California observers will recognize certain continuities. "
--California Emerges by Michael Anton, City Journal Winter 2015.htm

gee, when do the bailed out bankers get to do time?

But hey.. now lets compare to the urban East as well.

Black crime violence is high in certain areas, among certain age groups, but this is nothing new for whites as well. White America has had some very violent regions and times, much worse than today's black urban areas. Parts of the Old West for example show this. High murder areas included the usual suspects such as Dodge City Kansas (165 per 100,000) but also places like white San Fran and several other California jurisdictions also posted high rates. Even allegedly milder white Oregon posted a rate around 30 per 100,000. (Randolph Roth- Homicide Rates in the American West) Using modern FBI formulas, white Los Angeles County in the 19th century ran up a body count of about 414 homicides per 100,000. (McKanna 2002. Race and Homicide in 19th Century California). Nor is the West unique. Studies show the heavily white Scotch-Irish Kentucky-Tennessee borderlands posting a rate of 24 per 100,000 starting in the 1850s.

According to the FBI SHR data, in 2011 there were 6,309 black homicide victims in the United States.
The homicide rate among black victims in the United States was 17.51 per 100,000. This is relatively high but often surpassed by whites- it just depends on the time period you want to study. The supposedly more self-restrained Dutch of Amsterdam posted a whopping 47 per 100,000 in the 16th century, higher than any rate ever recorded for New York City, Irish and all. In Maryland the rate at which unrelated European adults killed was 29 per 100,000 adults per year in the mid 1600s. In white Virginia it was 37 per 100,000. The supposedly more virtuous Yankee peoples in colonial America in the Chesapeake posted a rate of 12 per 100,000. (Epstein and Gang 2010. Migration and Culture, Vol 8)

Urban areas. At various times and places the white violence rate was well ahead of the blacks. The white Irish for example posted arrest rates well above their population representation- 50% in some years of NYC compared to an Irish population of about 24% of the city. If the comparison is to the Irish as a proportion of the total population the disparity is even more shocking. More than 5 times as many Irish were convicted in court than among the native population. Back then the "law and order" problem, was essentially a white Irish problem. In Philadelphia in the 1860s and thru the mid 1870s the indictment rate for crimes for the white Irish was almost twice that of other groups. The murder rate among the white Irish exceeded that of blacks. In 1860 in Boston the white Irish accounted for 75% of arrestees and police detainees, though only making up about 40% of the population. Again if the comparison is to the Irish as a percentage of the national population the disparity looms wider. This pattern was all over where the Irish settled: from New York, to Philly, to Boston, to Chicago.

If violent white Irish behavior is added on top of the above the picture is even grimmer. Leaving aside from the worse Irish riots in US history- the Draft Riots- Irish gangs actually grew in size and ferocity afterwards. Groups like the Dead Rabbits or the Bowery Boys fought for days, deploying thousands, and requiring the National Guard or the militia to suppress them. White Irish mayhem deployed thuggish violence and intimidation on a mass scale- with street riots, stabbings and shootings as squads of drunken Irishmen packing clubs, knives gun and razors went from precinct to precinct assaulting the opposition.
(Source: Michael Barone, 2001: The New Americans p 41-45)

Other data from Britain on the white Irish show they are just as violent, indeed more so than the blacks. In various cities of Britain, the rate of Irish criminality far exceeded current black rates. Though only about 3.5% of the population of Britain in the early 1860s (Swift 1997), the Irish were heavily overrepresented in the criminal ranks. As one scholar notes:

"Finnegan shows that in York the Irish-born comprised 26 percent of all prosecutions in 1850-51 (an index of overrepresentation of 3.6), 21 percen in 1860-61 (2.6 [overrepresentation] ,, Lowe's study of Irish criminality in selected Lancashire towns in 1861, 1871, 1881, and 1891 reveals a similar picture: in these four census years the Irish-born percentage of all prosecutions in Manchester comprised 30 percent (an index of overrepresentationo f 1.9), 22 percent (2.3), 17 percent (2.3) and 13 percent (2.8); in Liverpool 37 percent (2.0), 34 percent (2.2), 24 percent (1.9), and 16 percent (2.1); in Preston 26 percent (3.1), 28 percent (5.2), 27 percent (6.1) and 26 percent (8.4); Richardson's study of the Irish contribution to crime in Bradford suggests that the Irish-born comprised 19 percent of all prosecutions in 1861 (3.3), 24 percent in 1871 (4.2), 15 percent in 1881 (3.5) and 5 percent in 1891 (2.0); while Swift shows that the Irish-born comprised 22 percent of prosecutions in Wolverhampton during the 1850s, with an index of over-representation of 2.8."
--Swift 1997. Heroes or Villains?: The Irish, Crime, and Disorder in Victorian England. Albion, v29, no 3, pp 399-421

In 1861 the Irish population of Britain stood at 3.5% (Roger Swift, 1990. The Irish in Britain 1815-1915. History Series 93. p10). Yet in terms of criminality, the Irish in 1860 made up about 15% of the total criminal prison population of Britain, about 5 times their representation in the overall populace. (Swift 1997. Heroes or Villains?: The Irish, Crime, and Disorder in Victorian England. Albion, v29, no 3, pp 399-421)

By contrast, per census data, Blacks in 2009-2010, made up about 12% of the population, (US Census, Census Briefs, 2010) and logged a prison representation of approximately 34% or slightly less than 3 times their national presence. (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Non-Hispanic Blacks 2009). The white Irish rate of 5 times their representation far exceeds the black rate. So much for white "role models" of virtue and goodness.

White regional groups such as white southerners have long been marked by a culture of violence scholars show. Blacks are not unique at all- white "role models" have them more than beat.

Southern white regional culture of violence:

QUOTE: [i]"The homicide rate in the United States has been very high relative to the rest of the modernized world for as far back as evidence is available. It has long been known that in the United States there is a wide variation in the rates of different races and between North and South. Both qualitative historical evidence and multiple regressions indicate that the degree of "Southerness" in the culture of the population of the states accounts for more of the variation in homicide rates than do other factors such as income, education, percent urban, or age. It is suggested that high homicide rates in the United States today are related primarily to the persistence of Southern cultural traditions developed before the Civil War and subsequently spreading over much of the country." [/i]
-- Homicide and a Regional Culture of Violence. by Raymond D Gastil . American Sociological Review (1971) Volume: 36, Issue: 3, Publisher: American Sociological Association, Pages: 412-427

[b]Extensive research data shows that white southern culture has been very violent historically in the United States with patterns of deadly violence accepted by and practiced by the culture going back well before the Civil War, and even before settlement in the United States. The violence of white "role models" is a clearly documented phenomenon by several credible white scholars. It was from this violent milleu, that Black America sprang.[/b]

[i]"None of the explanatory factors discussed in Levitt (2004) and Levitt and Miles (2006) -higher number of police, rising prison population, legalized abortion and receding crack epidemics- seems to apply more obviously to the Northern part of the country rather than the South. Yet, the Southern homicide specificity is essentially a white offender phenomenon: over the period 1980-2007 white offender rates in the Deep South have been 2.8 what they have been in Northern states. Black offender rates are ‘only’ 1.4 times higher, a difference that is no longer significant since the end of the 1980s. Besides, the analysis by Levitt (2004) and Levitt and Miles (2006) is focused on explaining the sharp decline of homicide rates in the 1990s, a decline which, again, was much sharper for black offender rates than for white offender rates: black offender rates declined 1.32 times more than white offender rates (source of data: UCR).

More data:
"According to the culture of honor hypothesis, the high prevalence of homicides in the US South originates from the settlement of the region by herders from the fringes of Britain. This paper confirms that Scot or Scots-Irish settlements are associated with higher homicide today, but only in the South. The effect is strongest among whites and more pronounced where herding was more prevalent and institutional quality weaker. Results indicate that other white settlers adopted the Scots-Irish culture."

"The average murder rate per 100,000 people between 2000 and 2007 in the Deep South of the United States was 8.55, nearly twice as high as in the rest of the country.1 The respective roles of economic and cultural factors in explaining such a high prevalence of homicide-related violence in the South are still the object of much debate. It has been acknowledged that the South’s high murder rate cannot be explained by traditional socio-economic or institutional determinants of crime (Cohen and Nisbett 1994, 1996). The inelasticity of homicide rates to income levels has been interpreted as a limitation of cost-benefit analysis of criminal behavior2 (Levitt and Miles 2006). More recent economic analyses of crime appear similarly unsuitable to explain the determinants of white offender homicide rates.3 Some authors have suggested instead that the high Southern homicide rate is a product of cultural values condoning the use of lethal violence." [/i]

--GrosJEan, P. 2011. NBER paper. Univ of San Fran. "A History of Violence: The “Culture of Honor” as a Determinant of Homicide in the US South."


[b]The white culture of violence appears to extend to white females as well according to some authors. The degree of white southern culture in a place may explain more about its prevalence of murder and violence than some other socioeconomic factors such as income, age etc, said scholars hold.[/b] QUOTE:

[i]"Prior research has documented a higher rate of violent crime within the South relative to other U.S. regions. Some scholars argue that higher rates of violence in the South are due to the lasting effect of the unique culture of the Scots-Irish immigrants that came into the U.S. in the mid-1700's. Though there is a large body of literature examining the link between culture and violence in the South, an implicit assumption of this line of study is that the cultural effect occurs largely within the white male population in rural Southern areas. No study, to our knowledge, has extended this thesis to females. We address this omission in prior analyses by empirically testing the Southern Culture of Violence thesis using female arrest rates. Drawing on county level ancestry data from the 2000 Census and UCR Supplementary Homicide Report data, we estimate a series of negative binomial regression models. A conclusion and discussion of the results follow.

Over the past two decades scholars have devoted a great deal of effort to understanding the role of culture in rates of homicide in the Southern region of the U.S. (Ellison 1991; Huff-Corzine, Corzine, and Moore 1986; Lofton and Hill 1974; Messner 1983a). Historically, the South has always exhibited higher rates of violence since the late 1700’s (Gastil 1971; Hackney 1969). When seeking to explain this enduring regional difference, many scholars attribute high rates of violence to the lingering effects of a unique culture that the Scots-Irish immigrants brought with them when they migrated to the Southern United States (McWhiney 1988; Sowell 2005; Webb 2005).

Scholars arguing for the Southern culture of violence believe that the high violence rates in the South are due to a culture of violence that is maintaining itself in the South through the socialization process (Gastil 1971; Hackney 1969; Wolfgang and Ferracuti 1967). Researchers have garnered substantial evidence that the degree of ‘Southernness’ in the culture is a more powerful predictor of rates of homicide and violence than socioeconomic factors, such as educations, age, or economic status (Gastil 1971).

What we do know from prior studies is that the strongest predictor of female homicide rates is region indicating that Southern female homicide rates are substantially higher than those in the non-South (DeWees and Parker 2003)."

-- Berthelot, E and Blanchard T, and Brown T. (2008) SCOTS-IRISH WOMEN AND THE SOUTHERN CULTURE OF VIOLENCE:'.. SOUTHERN RURAL SOCIOLOGY, 23(2), 2008, pp. 157-170

One homicide is one too many, but the racialist white wing narrative of a vast wave of "hate crimes" against white people is dubious. James S. Robbins’ article, “White on Black Murder: Who Really is Killing Whom?” he states the following: 

"According to the most recent (2011) FBI statistics, of the 2,695 murders in which the victim was black, 91% were committed by people of the same race. Odds are if the victim was wearing a hoodie, the perp was too. The same pattern of interracial violence holds for whites. 83 percent of white murders in 2011 were within-race killings, and only 14% were black on white. These data tell us that murder in America is decidedly not a matter of racial hatred.”

Author Tim Wise points out to his fellow White Americans that they are more in danger of being killed by another White person than a Black Person. He demonstrates this with his article “Nazis Can’t do Math Reflections of Racism Crime and the Illiteracy of Right Wing Statistical Analysis”.

Wise summarizes:
 In 2010, for instance, whites killed whites 3,252 times: 4.6 times more than the number of whites killed by blacks. Other points:

* Only about 1 percent of African Americans — and no more than 2 percent of black males — will commit a violent crime in a given year;

* Even though there are more black-on-white interracial crimes than white-on-black interracial crimes, this fact is not evidence of anti-white racial targeting by black offenders. Rather, it is completely explained by two factors having nothing to do with anti-white bias: namely, the general differences in rates of criminal offending, and the rates at which whites and blacks encounter one another (and thus, have the opportunity to victimize one another). Once these two factors are “controlled for” in social science terms, the actual rates of black-on-white crime are lower than random chance would predict;

* No more than 0.7 percent (seven-tenths of one percent) of African Americans will commit a violent crime against a white person in a given year, and fewer than 0.3 (three-tenths of one percent) of whites will be victimized by a black person in a given year;

* Whites are 6 times as likely to be murdered by another white person as by a black person; and overall, the percentage of white Americans who will be murdered by a black offender in a given year is only 2/10,000ths of 1 percent (0.0002). This means that only 1 in every 500,000 white people will be murdered by a black person in a given year. Although the numbers of black-on-white homicides are higher than the reverse (447 to 218 in 2010), the 218 black victims of white murderers is actually a higher percentage of the black population interracially killed than the 447 white victims of black murderers as a percentage of the white population. In fact, any given black person is 2.75 times as likely to be murdered by a white person as any given white person is to be murdered by an African American.


Murderess Casey Anthony .. another "role model" ...

Wise rounds up a huge mass of statistics as he continues his post. Skip the mass of detail below if you will but his summary above holds true, about the hysterical propaganda memes being breathlessly retailed about black on white crime.

Per Wise:

According to the 2008 data Williams relied on (see Table 42), which is the most recent comprehensive data published by the Justice Department on violent crime victimizations, that year there were approximately 3.6 million violent crimes involving a single-offender. These crimes include assault, both simple and aggravated (mostly simple), robbery, and sexual assault or rape. Of those 3.6 million violent crimes, whites committed 2.1 million of them (58.4%) while blacks committed about 830,000 (22.8%) About 442,000 (or 12%) involved perpetrators whose race was not known to the victim. Thus, for crimes where the race of the perpetrator was known to the victims (about 3.2 million crimes), whites would have committed about 66 percent (two-thirds) and blacks about 26 percent (one-fourth). If we assume the same rough racial distribution for crimes where the perpetrator’s race was not known as for crimes where the offender race was known (a reasonable guess), this would mean that whites committed an additional 300,000 crimes, roughly, while blacks would have committed an additional 115,000. In all, this would mean that in 2008, whites committed roughly 2.4 million single offender violent crimes, while blacks would have committed around 950,000.

Since there were roughly 31 million African Americans, age 12 and over — and thus eligible for consideration in crime data — in 2008 (this is noted in the same DOJ tables Williams and I are both referencing here), at most, this would mean that for every 1000 blacks in the population there were 30 criminal offenders, and thus, at most, 3 percent of blacks committed a violent crime in 2008 (meaning, importantly, that at least 97 percent did not). And since there were approximately 205 million whites, 12 and over, in the population that year, this would mean that for every 1000 whites in the population there were 12 criminal offenders, and thus, at most, about 1.2 percent of whites committed a violent crime in 2008.*

Of course, in truth, and for both groups, the numbers are quite a bit smaller than this. After all, the 30 offenders per 1000 persons (the 3 percent rate of offending for blacks) are not 30 different people. In other words, to say that 3 percent of blacks commit a violent crime each year would assume that each offender committed only one crime, such that the number of offenses equalled the number of offenders, but that isn’t the case. There are, as we all know, many offenders who commit multiple offenses each year. As such, the number of offenders would be quite a bit smaller than the number of offenses. Criminologists have estimated, for instance, that 70 percent of criminal offenses are committed by just 7 percent of the total offenders, meaning that there is a small hardcore group of seriously predatory criminals out there doing most of the crime. This would mean that 93 percent of all offenders commit just 30 percent of the crimes. So this would mean that of the 950,000 violent crimes committed by blacks in 2008, 70 percent of them (or 665,000) would have been committed by just 7 percent of all black offenders, while 285,000, roughly, would have been committed by the other 93 percent of offenders. If we assume that the 93 percent who weren’t the major repeat offenders only committed one crime each (likely a conservative estimate, but one which errs on the side of the right-wing argument by maximizing the potential numbers of black offenders), this would mean that, at most, the 285,000 offenses actually equate to 93 percent of the offenders. If 285,000 represents 93 percent of all black offenders, then the remaining 7 percent of offenders above that number would come to only an additional 20,000 or so offenders — major hardcore criminals who commit about 665,000 crimes each year.

This would mean that at most there might be a little more than 300,000 individual black violent offenders each year. As a percentage of the 12 and over black population in 2008, this would represent only about 1 percent of all blacks who will commit a violent crime in a given year, versus 99 percent who will not. Even if we just restricted the analysis to black males — and even if all these crimes were committed by males, which they were not — it would mean that no more than 2 percent of black males would commit a violent crime in a given year. This alone is an important point to keep in mind, as it suggests that having a generalized fear of black folks, or black men, is the height of statistical irrationality.

But…But…What About the Black-on-White Crime Data? How the Right Distorts Interracial Crime Figures
As for interracial crime data, this is where right-wing statistical stupidity just becomes downright manipulative. On the one hand, yes, according to the tables, there were indeed far more black-on-white violent crimes (B-W) than white-on-black violent crimes (W-B) in 2008: about 429,000 in the first case and only about 91,000 in the other. Meaning that out of about 520,000 single-offender interracial violent crimes that year, 82.5 percent were black-on-white (B-W) while only 17.5 percent were white-on-black (W-B). My goodness! Perhaps Williams has a point.

Well, no, not really. And for someone who is supposedly a reputable scholar, his illogic is particularly glaring. Before explaining why, let us just note at the outset that there is no reason to believe most of these attacks (either the B-W or the W-B) were racially motivated. This data does not refer to hate-related violence, or violence where there has been a discernible racial motivation (as Pat Buchanan recently claimed on Fox), and indeed, the biggest racial disproportion for violent crime, numerically — and year after year — is in the area of robbery, the motivation for which is pecuniary (financial), rather than bigotry.

But more than that, even the basic claim that B-W crime is wildly disproportionate and indicative of some kind of race-based targeting by black offenders against white victims is utter nonsense. Here’s why.
First, relative rates of interracial offending are directly influenced by an important factor, which goes ignored by Williams: namely, the relative rates of criminal offending in general for blacks as opposed to whites. In other words, if the black criminal offending rate in general is 2.5 times higher than the white offending rate, which it was in 2008 (30 per 1000 blacks/12 per 1000 whites), we should logically expect far more black-on-white crimes than white-on-black crimes, simply as a matter of random chance, and having nothing to do with racial targeting.

Imagine, for instance, a hypothetical community where there are 6.7 times more whites than blacks (as was true in the U.S. in 2008) and where black offending rates in general are 2.5 times higher than for whites. And let’s say that in our hypothetical community, there are 20,000 blacks. Multiplied by 6.7 this would give us 134,000 whites for a total population of 154,000. If, as the real world data suggests, the black violent offending rate is 30 violent crimes per 1000 black persons (or 3 percent), we would expect to see about 600 violent crimes committed by blacks in this community. And if, as the real world data suggests, the white violent offending rate is about 12 violent crimes per 1000 white persons (or 1.2 percent), we would expect about 1608 violent crimes committed by whites in this community. Given relative population sizes (and thus, availability to be victims of one another), we could expect 87 percent of the victims of black violent crime in this restricted white-black sample to be white, since 87 percent of this restricted range, black-white universe, is white; likewise, we’d expect about 13 percent of white crime victims to be black, since 13 percent of this restricted range, black-white universe, is black. This would mean that we could predict about 522 black-on-white violent crimes in a given year, as opposed to only 209 white-on-black violent crimes. In other words, just based on relative population sizes (and thus, victim availability), and general offending rate differences (and thus, perpetrator availability), we should expect 2.5 times more B-W violent crimes than the reverse. In this scenario, about 71 percent of all interracial crimes would be B-W as opposed to W-B.

Aha! Walter Williams might say: See, I was right! Random chance would only predict that 71 percent of interracial violence was black-on-white, but in truth, 83 percent of such violence was. And random chance would predict 2.5 times more B-W crime than W-B crime, but in actuality the ratio is 4.7 to 1. So there must be racial targeting!

The Importance of Differential Encounter Rates

Well, again, no. And again, for reasons that any reasonably competent social scientist should be able to discern; foremost among them, the fact that whites and blacks don’t actually encounter each other randomly throughout the population, as if we were evenly distributed throughout the communities where we live. We still tend to live in relative isolation from one another, such that whites do not actually encounter blacks at a rate commensurate with their overall share of the population, and blacks do not encounter whites at a rate commensurate with our share, either. Because of ongoing residential and spatial isolation, the rates of interracial encounter are far less, for both groups, than this. According to the best estimates we have (which are admittedly a bit dated but have not likely changed dramatically, given ongoing patterns of white/black housing isolation from one another), only about three percent of persons encountered by whites are black, on average, while about 57 percent of persons encountered by blacks are white, on average — in both cases far less than population percentages alone would predict. So now we would need to adjust for encounter rates, in order to determine the amount of interracial violent crime that should be expected given random chance and even without any racial targeting.

In our hypothetical above, the 600 black offenders would have a 57 percent chance of victimizing a white person, given encounter rates, while our 1608 white offenders would have only a 3 percent chance of victimizing a black person, also because of encounter rates. This would mean that in our hypothetical community we should expect 342 black-on-white violent crimes, compared to only 48 white-on-black violent crimes, for a ratio of 7.1 to 1 — a ratio that is 1.5 times higher than the actual real world ratio of 4.7 to 1. And in this hypothetical community, 88 percent of all interracial crimes would be black-on-white, which is actually higher than the 83 percent of such crimes in the real world.

In other words, given general offending rates which are indeed higher for blacks than whites (but which still indicate that the overwhelming majority of blacks are not violent criminal offenders), and given the likelihood of interracial encounters between whites and blacks (and which are especially rare for whites encountering blacks), the rates of black-on-white interracial crime are either pretty much exactly what would be expected without any racial targeting whatsoever, or they are even lower than random chance would predict.
Even if we assumed that a reduction in hyper-segregation had increased the likelihood of interracial encounters since the above-referenced interracial encounter rates were estimated, this would not change the fundamental argument here, or the conclusions we should draw concerning the supposed disproportionality of B-W crime. So, for instance, even if we assumed that whites were now 2/3 more likely to encounter blacks than before, due perhaps to the growth of the black middle class, and thus, more blacks moving into previously white spaces (which is likely a very high estimate), this would mean that still, only about 5 percent of those encountered by whites would be black. And, since blacks moving to white areas as they move into the middle class would also result in a dramatic increase in the percentage of whites encountered by those blacks, this would mean that not only the 3 percent W-B encounter rate but also the 57 percent B-W encounter rate would grow. Let’s say that it only grew by 10 percent, such that blacks today were only 10 percent more likely than before to encounter whites, which would likely be a conservative estimate.

This would mean that rather than 57 percent, now about 63 percent of persons encountered by blacks would be white. Although the encounter rate differences would have shrunk to be sure — from a 19:1 ratio down to a 12.6 to 1 ratio, the resulting statistical logic would remain operative. Under this scenario, in our hypothetical community, we would expect the 600 black offenders to have a 63 percent chance of victimizing a white person, while our white offenders would have a 5 percent chance of victimizing a black person. Thus, we could expect 378 B-W violent crimes, compared to 80 W-B crimes, for a ratio of 4.7 to 1, which is exactly the ratio of B-W to W-B crime in the real world for 2008. And in this hypothetical, 82.5 percent of all interracial crime would be B-W crime, which, once again, exactly mirrors the real-world data referenced by Williams. In other words, and without any racial targeting whatsoever, the interracial crime data about which Williams and various others on the right make such a big deal, would look exactly as it actually looks. Simply put, when it comes to the idea that blacks are targeting whites as some kind of race-based pattern, there is no there, there.

Some additional things are also worth noting. First, in 2008, according to the very same table Williams uses for his claim, black and white victims of violent crime were equally likely to have been interracially victimized by members of the other race group. In other words, from the victim perspective, the odds of interracial victimization are the same. From the offender perspective, the odds of black-on-white victimization are greater, but this is entirely a function of population demographics, encounter rates and general offending rates. Once these are controlled for, there is simply no truth to the suggestion that black criminals are targeting whites as victims.

And there is one more thing. When we compare interracial offending rates to Census data in 2008 for persons 12 and over (which is also provided in the DOJ report), we discover that at most, 1.4 percent of blacks, 12 and over, criminally victimized a white person that year, and this is assuming that each of the 429,000 B-W violent crimes were committed by unique perpetrators, which is unlikely. If we assume the 70/7 rule as noted above — which left us with about 300,000 individual black offenders rather than 950,000 in 2008 (or only about 1 percent of the 12 and over black population, as opposed to 3 percent before the 70/7 adjustment) — and even if we assumed that three-fourths of black offenders would victimize a white person in a given year (a ridiculously high estimate), this would mean perhaps 225,000 blacks who in a given year would victimize a white person. As such, this would mean that the percentage of the black population victimizing whites in a given year would be no more than 0.7 percent of the black population 12 and over.

But even this estimate is high, since 92 percent of all Hispanics are included in the white category (of both crime victims and perps) in DOJ data, and so Hispanics victimized by blacks will appear as “white victims” (see note below). Since Latinos are more likely to live near blacks than non-Hispanic whites are, given economic stratification and levels of urbanicity for Hispanics and blacks as opposed to “real whites,” we can safely assume that a significant number of white victims in the data are actually persons of color (Latino and Latina). But even if we assumed that all of the B-W violent crimes were committed against non-Hispanic whites (who numbered about 173 million people age 12 and over that year) this would mean that at most, perhaps 0.25 percent (2.5 tenths of one percent) of all whites were violently victimized by blacks that year.
And interestingly, even though there are more black-on-white crimes than the opposite, as a share of each group’s population, the per capita rates of interracial victimization are higher for blacks than whites. So, even assuming the maximum percentage of whites victimized by blacks in 2008 (2.5 tenths of one percent, or 1 of every 400 white people who will be violently victimized by a black person), this would be rarer than the rate at which blacks are interracially victimized. After all, 91,000 victimizations against blacks by whites, as a share of the black population in 2008, age 12 and over (which was 31 million), comes to nearly three-tenths of a percent (O.3), or 1 of every 333 black who will be violently victimized by a white person.

Interracial Homicide Data: or How to Totally Destroy a Right-Wing Meme

As for homicide — obviously the most serious of all violent crimes — the supposed interracial imbalance, and the supposed B-W disproportionality is even less impressive. According to FBI data (which is where the racial perp/victim data is tallied for homicide, as opposed to the NCVS tables considered by Williams above), for those crimes where the race of the perp and victim are known, in 2010, there were 447 B-W murders and 218 W-B murders: in neither case a particularly substantial number. Indeed, whites were 6.2 times more likely to be murdered by another white person than by a black person and blacks were about 11 times more likely to be murdered by another black person than by a white person. Although both of these numbers (the 447 and 218) are no doubt lower than the true numbers that year for both directions of interracial homicide (since they only represent murders where the race of the perp is known, and for many homicides that information is not clear), relative ratios would not change much even if that information were available for all homicides. As such we can use these numbers to determine whether the rates of B-W homicide are truly so high, relative to W-B homicide as to suggest some kind of racial targeting of whites by blacks. The key in making this determination is similar to the one employed above for all violent crime: namely, the relative homicide offending rates, generally, for blacks versus whites, since this will directly effect the predicted rates of interracial homicides in each direction.

In 2010, of homicides where the race of the offender was known (10,870) blacks committed 53 percent of all homicides (or a total of 5770), while whites committed 48 percent (or 4849). If we extrapolate those percentages to the crimes where the race of the offender was not known, this would mean that of the 4224 homicides with a “race unknown” offender, 2239 would have been committed by blacks, while 2028 would have been committed by whites. In all, this means that in 2010, blacks committed 8009 homicides, while whites committed 6877 homicides. As a percentage of the black population, in 2010, 8009 homicides represent 0.02 percent (2/100ths of 1 percent) of all blacks that year (roughly 39 million) who will kill someone. As a percentage of the white population in 2010 (223.5 million), 6877 homicides would represent 0.003 (3/1000ths of 1 percent) of all whites that year who killed someone. This means that blacks commit homicide, generally, at a rate that is 6.7 times greater than the rate for whites. Now, what does this mean for estimated rates and numbers of B-W homicide as opposed to its W-B counterpart? Let’s see.

Even if we assumed a random and perfectly mixed white and black population — such that whites and blacks encountered each other at rates relative to their population percentages — the much higher black homicide offending rates alone would predict that there should be 6.7 times more B-W murders than W-B murders. But in fact, as we saw, there were only about twice as many B-W murders as W-B murders. And when we consider the above-mentioned data on relative rates of interracial encounter, the numbers are even more striking. Even if we assume that 5 percent of all persons encountered by whites are black (an increase of 2/3 from prior and clearly documented data), and that only 63 percent of persons encountered by blacks are white (an increase of only 10 percent in the same period), we would expect 12 times more B-W homicides than W-B homicides in a given year. In a community of 3 million people, for instance, in which whites outnumbered blacks 6.7 to 1 (as is the case in the real world) there would be roughly 2,610,000 whites and 390,000 blacks. If 0.02 percent of blacks committed a murder, this would mean that we could expect 78 black homicides that year, and 63 percent of these (or 49 homicides in all) would involve white victims. If 0.003 percent of whites committed a murder that year, this would predict a similar number, roughly 78 murders committed by whites, of which only 4 would involve black victims. In other words, given relative rates of homicide offending along with relative rates of interracial encounter, we could expect 12.25 times more B-W homicides than W-B homicides in any given year. But in fact, in 2010, B-W homicide was only twice as numerically prevalent as the opposite. In other words, B-W homicide is roughly 1/6 as common as random chance would predict.

And given the relative population percentages of whites and blacks, blacks are actually more likely to be interracially murdered by a white person than vice-versa. After all, as for homicides where the race of the offender is known, 447 B-W murders as a share of the white community is 2/10,000ths of 1 percent (0.0002) of all whites killed by blacks, which is 1 in every 500,000 white people who will be killed by a black person in a given year; meanwhile, 218 W-B homicides as a share of the black community is 5.5/10,000ths of 1 percent (0.00055). So although interracial homicide is incredibly rare in either direction, any given black person is more than 2.75 times as likely as any given white person to be interracially murdered, with roughly 1 in every 180,000 black persons being killed by a white person in a given year.
How anyone could fully examine this data carefully, either for violent crime generally or for homicide in particular, and conclude that there was a black-on-white crime spree underway is beyond the scope of the rational mind to comprehend. But apparently such claims are the stuff of professional scholarship to the likes of Walter Williams, which says a lot about the pathetically low quality of scholarship demanded of right-wing economists, or your garden-variety white nationalist on the internet. That such claims are taken seriously attests to the propaganda value of racist argumentation, and suggests how much work we still have to do to derail this counterfactual narrative before it does even more damage to race relations in America.
*It is true, of course, that some of the “white” offenders — and victims, it should be noted — in DOJ data are actually persons of color, namely Hispanics. Although Hispanic victims are treated separate from white victims in FBI Hate Crime data, they are not broken out of the DOJ data discussed here. Because Hispanics are an ethnic group rather than race, they are assigned to the various primary racial groups in almost all government data, and not broken out separately in any given data table, unless noted as such (as with the hate crime data collected by the FBI). In the case of crime data from the DOJ, about 92 percent of Hispanics are classified, racially, as white. You can verify that Hispanics are rolled in with whites and blacks (mostly whites) as victims of violent crime, by adding the numbers of victimizations of those labeled white (in Table 5 of the 2008 data), those labeled black (also Table 5), those labeled “other,” which means Asians and Native Americans, principally (also Table 5), those who are listed as being of “mixed race” or more than one race (Table 5) and then those who are Hispanic (in Table 7). The sum of these figures will amount to more (5.42 million) than the total number of violent crime victims listed in table 5, (4.856 million) indicating that Hispanics are, in effect, already being counted in the existing racial totals. As indicated in other government data collections, about 92 percent of Hispanics are classified as white, which is likely to obtain in regard to crime data as well. This means that of the Hispanic victims tallied in Table 7, about 92 percent of them would also be found in the white column of victims in Table 5, thereby artificially inflating the number of “real white” victims.
As for offenders, although white supremacists have long argued that Hispanics commit violent crime at a disproportionate rate — somewhere between whites and blacks — the most comprehensive analyses of Hispanic crime suggest this claim is utterly false. Recent analyses done by a prominent far-right conservative and even, in one case, a source long revered by white nationalists, suggest that Hispanic violent crime rates are essentially no different from those of non-Hispanic whites. As such, the 1.2 percent rate, per capita, of criminal offending for whites (including Hispanics), would apply to both Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic whites. This means that with Hispanics representing 34.5 million persons age 12 and over in 2008, and 92 percent of these being classified as white, racially, there would have been 31.7 million Hispanic whites that year. If they offend at a rate comparable to non-Hispanic whites (12 per 1000 persons, or 1.2 percent), this would translate to 380,954 violent crimes by Hispanic whites in 2008, most of which would come from the existing white totals, but many of which would also have been located in the “don’t know/not available” category, as with certain white and black crimes (noted above).

In all, because Hispanic victimization rates (Table 7) are similar to the overall white victimization rates (seen in Table 5), and because the recent research suggests Hispanic offending rates are also comparable to non-Hispanic white rates (when it comes to violent crime), doing a full methodological extraction of Hispanics from the white totals (both for victims and perps) would result in roughly proportional reductions in the white column for both. The effect on interracial crime figures would be that, a) the numbers of W-B violent crimes would drop (since some of those whites would have been Latino), and b) the number of B-W crimes would also drop (since some of those whites would also have been Latino). If anything, we would expect the effect on white “victims” of interracial crime to be larger than the effect on white perps. Since the black offending rate is disproportionate (roughly 2.5 times the white offending rate), it would stand to reason that there would be more blacks offending against Latinos, proportionately, than the opposite, and for the same reasons as discussed above, in terms of the effects of encounter rates and general offending rates. So while there would be fewer “real” white-on-black crimes too, the reduction in the number of “real” white victims would likely be greater, thereby further reducing the actual interracial crime gap between B-W and W-B crime.

In other words, if the data were truly available (and they are not) to estimate the Hispanic/non-Hispanic ethnicity of whites who victimize or are victimized by blacks, and we were to perform the extractions necessary to leave only “real” whites in both categories, the effect would be to make Williams’s argument (and that of the white nationalists from whom he initially got this line of attack) even weaker.

Joint products of "racial evolution"...


How Obama plays on white guilt- Hilary capitalizes

Hands off the Confederate flag

Despite much more wealth than blacks, whites collect about the same rate of welfare and are treated more generously

African boat people ushering in European demographic decline?

The forgotten Holocaust- King Leopold's "Congo Free State" - 10 million victims

Are violent minorities taking over California and the West?

Presidential hopeful Ben Carson meets and Greeks

Contra "ISIS" partisans, there have been some beneficial effects of Christianity

The social construction of race, compared to biology- Graves

 Why HBD or hereditarianism lacks credibility

Leading Scientists criticize hereditarian claims

Thai me down - Thais fall behind genetically related southern Chinese, Tibetans below genetically related East Asians like Koreans and other Chinese

Time for liberals to respect "the south" ... in a way of speaking.. the south of Egypt that is..

Irony 2: touted High IQ "G-men" cannot reproduce themselves

Unz and Sowell: Unz debunking Lynn's IQ and Wealth of Nations. Sowell debunking the Bell Curve

Irony 1: touted High IQ types are more homosexual, more atheist, and more liberal (HAL)

Elite white universities discriminate against Asians using reverse "affirmative action"

Deteriorating state of white America

Racial Cartels (The Affirmative Action Propaganda machine- part 2

Hereditarian's/HBD's "Great Black Hope"

Exploding nonsense: the 10,000 Year Explosion

We need "rational racism"? Proponent Dinesh D;Souza becomes his own test case

The Affirmative Action Propaganda Machine- part 1

Two rules for being "really" black- no white wimmen, no Republican

The Axial age reconsidered - or latitude not attitide

Cannibal seasonings: dark meat on white

"Affirmative Action" in the form of court remedies has been around a long time- since the 1930s- benefiting white union workers against discrimination by employers

Mugged by reality 1: White quotas, special preferences and government jobs

Lightweight enforcement of EEO laws contradicts claims of "flood" of minorities "taking jobs"

Railroaded 3: white violence and intimidation imposed quotas

Railroaded 2: how white quotas and special preferences blockade black progress...

Railroaded 1: How white affirmative action and white special preferences destroyed black railroad employment...

Affirmative action: primary beneficiaries are white women...

7 reasons certain libertarians and right-wingers are wrong about the Civil Right Act

Social philosophy of Thomas Sowell

Bogus "biodiversity" theories of Kanazawa, Ruston, Lynn debunked

JP Rushton, Michael Levin, Richard Lynn debunked. Weaknesses of Jared Diamond's approach.

In the Blood- debunking "HBD" and Neo-Nazi appropriation of ancient Egypt

early Europeans and middle Easterners looked like Africans. Peoples returning or "backflowing" to Africa would already be looking like Africans

 Ancient Egypt: one of the world's most advanced civilizations- created by tropical peoples

Playing the "Greek defence" -debunking claims of Greeks as paragons of virtue or exemplars of goodness

Quotations from mainstream academic research on the Nile Valley peoples

Assorted data debunking

Evolution, brain size, and the national IQ of peoples ... - Jelte Wicherts 2010

Why national IQs do not support evolutionary theories of intelligence - WIcherts, Borsboom and Dolan 2010
Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 91-96
----------------------------- -------------

Are intelligence tests measurement invariant over time? by JM Wicherts - ?2004
 --Dolan, Wicherts et al 2004. Investigating the nature of the Flynn effect. Intelligence 32 (2004) 509-537

---------------- -------


Race and other misadventures: essays in honor of Ashley Montagu... By Larry T. Reynolds, Leonard Lieberman

Race and intelligence: separating science from myth. By Jefferson M. Fish. Routledge 2002. See Templeton's detailed article referenced above also inside the book
---------------- -------

Oubre, A (2011) Race Genes and Ability: Rethinking Ethnic Differences, vol 1 and 2. BTI Press
For summary see:
---------------- -------


--S OY Keita, R A Kittles, et al. "Conceptualizing human variation," Nature Genetics 36, S17 - S20 (2004)

--S.O.Y. Keita and Rick Kittles. (1997) *The Persistence ofRacial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence. AJPA, 99:3
---------------- -------

Alan Templeton. "The Genetic and Evolutionary significnce oF Human Races." pp 31-56. IN: J. FiSh (2002) Race and Intelligence: Separating scinnce from myth.

 J. FiSh (2002) Race and Intelligence: Separating science from myth.


-------------------------------- ---------------------

Oubre, A (2011) Race Genes and Ability: Rethinking Ethnic Differences, vol 1 and 2. BTI Press

Krimsky, S, Sloan.K (2011) Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture

Wicherts and Johnson, 2009. Group differences in the heritability of items and test scores

--Joseph Graves, 2006. What We Know and What We Don’t Know: Human Genetic Variation and the Social Construction of Race

J. Kahn (2013) How a Drug Becomes "Ethnic" - Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law and Ethics, v4:1

------------------------------------ -----------------

1 comment:

Jacob said...

We aren't likely to know about a white killing a black: