Misconceptions Based on Race, 'Genetics', et. al.

Are you sure Hispanics have lower crime rates than Whites?

Their violent crime rates are far higher than Whites:



Between 1990-2002 the BJS collated these statistics:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt

59.4% - 18.9% would not be a majority. Anyway, given the BJS statistics above, and I'm not sure how arrived at 18.9%, I'm skeptical Whites are even a plurality of violent arrests.

I never said to just use severely troubled cities. I asked for give statistics for any town, city, country or state in which Blacks and Whites are approximately same population.

The UK is the only other nation with stats on race and crime. Their stats show the ratios of White and Black crime are around the same as in the US.

Eg., the Black and White murder rate in the US is 6.5:1 (Blacks, for their numbers, commit murder 6.5 more frequently than Whites); in the UK, the Black and White murder ratio is 7:1.

As for specifically London, Blacks commit far more crime than Whites, in relative or absolute numbers:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...crime-the-figures-and-a-question-of-race.html

 

What if genes associated with intelligence, aggression or criminality were identified and different frequencies between racial groups found (which it has).

Would that make it unfounded, and unscientific and racist?

Please explain.

 

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/us-hispanic-racial-dynamics/

This was already refuted in the "anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white" thread showing its glaring inconsistencies, along with UK CAT and GCSE/Equivalent Attainment stats. The fact that you are still trying to pass that off as a fact would imply that you are a racist with an unhealthy obsession with blacks.

 

That hasn't been done. Crackpots have made such claims but that doesn't make their claims true.

Bingo. Only a racist would obsess over the claim that Blacks are innately inferior in intelligence or more genetically prone to violence.

 

There were no glaring inconsistencies, the data was not refuted, and the UK CAT do not correspond to positive life achievement for Blacks in the UK that would give the test any merit.

- - - Updated - - -

What hasn't been done?

Studies finding differences in gene frequencies which correlate with intelligence, aggression and criminality?

I can put a lie to that claim very easily.

Interesting, though, is your inability to think abstractly to questions.

 

Please refer to the FBI arrest data. The FBI source is superior to the BJS because I'm talking about actual crime stats and not projections. Please keep in mind that this exchange is to debunk the 12% is responsible for 60% of violent crime. The actual arrest data helps put that talking point to bed no matter the opposing angle.

My answer for your hypothetical remains the same. I just accounted for a real life factor in addition to the per capita factor.

Violent per capita numbers alone mean nothing. I could make the same exact case you're making using 7 black criminals and 1 white.

Does the UK have arrest data by race (something similar to the FBI --no projections)? If so, please share the link.

 

I pointed it out here and you even admitted there were inconsistencies here. And even said that there was no direct correlation to IQ here.

Tell me all about the life achievements of blacks in the UK.

 

Black communities in the US and UK have been systematically devastated by racist progressive government action.

School systems that encourage ignorance have been especially destructive.

 

I said the genes were correlated with educational attainment, not intelligence or IQ.

I did not acknowledge inconsistency but for sake of argument said if what you highlighted were actual inconsistencies (they weren't) they still wouldn't refute the data.

Black crime in the UK is far higher than crime committed by any other ethno-racial group, even to the groups with scores comparable to Blacks.

Therefore, the predictive power of the tests is nil as they do not extrapolate how a population will perform.

Black crimes can be found starting on page 59:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...chment_data/file/269399/Race-and-cjs-2012.pdf

 

The Telegraph writes the statistics are "released by the Metropolitan Police ...[t]he data provide a breakdown of the ethnicity of the 18,091 men and boys who police took action against for a range of violent and sexual offences in London in 2009-10."

In London, that stats on race and crime are not too far from the claim you seek to debunk, btw.

 

Here is a good discussion on 14 genes correlated directly or indirectly with IQ. For all the genes found, Whites have higher frequencies of these genes than Blacks.

At the end of the day, low Black IQ and high Black criminality is a function of their genetics, though I believe Black culture is certainly a contributing factor.

http://therightstuff.biz/2015/09/02/race-and-iq-genes-that-predict-racial-intelligence-differences/

 

It is not clear that the difference is significant enough to be very relevant.

Black Americans were less likely to commit crimes until their communities were subjected to radical government interference.

Illegitimacy and criminality were more common among whites than blacks - even during the Great Depression.

 

Black culture in America was associated with relatively low crime and a very strong extended family structure.

Current black culture has been crafted by massive government interference.

 

Do you have police statistics from any major city to support what you say?

 

My source may have been from Senator Moynihan's warning about the destruction of the black family structure.

Found this source with a quick search. Will check further for non-political source.

 

You did in that thread you made.

So you're trying to say that is the majority of blacks?

 

As I look through the PDF you shared with the other poster (https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...d-cjs-2012.pdf), I'm finding that the Blacks in the UK commit far less crimes percentage-wise than those in the U.S. This information could potentially support the idea of environments being a major factor versus nature in behavioral outcomes. For example, the murder rates are so low in the UK, the homicide data is combined for a 3-year period.

Like with the stats in the States, I could easily make the same per capita argument you are making using a comparison of 1 white person committing a crime and 1 black person committing a crime. The per capita argument is useless on its own. Anyway, the PDF depicts more white murderers than blacks and that the vast majority of all violent crimes are committed by white people. The idea that the data in the UK would somehow be similar to the US has been debunked. The violent offence that takes Blacks over the top is robbery. All other violent offenses are below population proportion.





Overall, it was a bad idea to bring the UK into this as their data shows whites as the majority of violent offenders. The "12% of the population commits 60% of violent crime" is now debunked for England & Wales too.

 

Blacks make up around 2% of the population of England and Wales; in London they make up 12% and commit around 55% of much street crime.

The ratios of violent crime between Blacks and Whites in the UK and US remain broadly the same, however.

Trying to claim per capita crime rate of an entire race consisting of millions can be cherry-picked to mislead statistics is absurd.

Per capita statistics for small groups may be less meaningful, but not for a group in the 100's of thousands or millions.

 

The bottom line is 12%, 2%, whatever % of Blacks in the US, UK, does not contribute to 60% of violent crime. No amount of per capitalizing is going to make the 12/60 debunked talking point true.

 

It is true in London that Blacks at 12% of the population carry out around 55% of some crime.

 

What I can't figure out is why these white nationalist/conservative racists have such a huge obsession with blacks.

I mean it's obvious that they don't like anyone they perceive not to be white, but they are ridiculously obsessed with blacks. I've never seen anything like it before. It's almost like some of these racists wake up thinking about blacks, and go to sleep thinking about blacks. The obsession is bizarre, and dare I say downright scary, and one has to wonder what drives it.

 

I think the truth is that White Supremacists are threatened by Blacks on many levels. This is a cultural phenomena that goes back to slavery. White slave masters viewed Blacks as sub-human and used this perception as justification for slavery. They believed Blacks to be less intelligent and generally a lower form of man. But looking at the history of slavery and racism you have to wonder how much the average White Supremacist truly believed in this propaganda. Because if they truly believed that Blacks were intellectually inferior why did they make it illegal for slaves to read? Why were they so afraid of integration? Why do they try so hard to claim that we are fundamentally unequal? I think the truth is that deep down the White Supremacist knows that their world view is nothing but racist propaganda and they are upset to see their world crumbling as Blacks continue to show that they are not inferior with each successive decade that passes as we move closer and closer to social equality. The White Supremacist obsession with Blacks is motivated by fear. Fear that we are not unequal and that their world view is garbage.

Case in point, Stormfront actually shut down when Obama was elected President and shutdown again when he was re-elected. Why are they so afraid of having a Black President? I believe it is because they fear that given the chance to prove themselves Blacks can show that they are equal through their action and holding the position as President of the United States was the ultimate achievement White Supremacists never wanted to see. If they truly believed that Obama would just be a failure then why the hysteria over him being President? Bad Presidents come and go. The truth is that White Supremacists want Blacks to believe that they are inferior and that is the reason for all of the propaganda. That is the reason for the obsession. They need to delude themselves in to thinking that superficial characteristics are markers of differences in important traits such as mental characteristics despite all the evidence debunking these claims.

Once you understand the nature of a thing you know what it is capable of. I don't fear the White Supremacist for his obsessive belief system. I find it pathetic that they need to believe in their racist garbage. They are insecure. They are like a school bully who picks on people he thinks are weaker than him because it gives him a sense of power that he can't get from having significant life accomplishments. The White Supremacists are losers in the most classic sense. They are failures. Only a failure would need to feel that he is superior to someone.

 

Yep. Your post is spot on. I think Lyndon B. Johnson said it best here: 'If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

It's also how the GOP manages to win the poor southern white vote every election cycle. Tell them all of their problems are caused by EVIL black people. Make them believe blacks are the bane of America, and are ruining their lives.

Edit: It's also why the biggest racists tend to take credit for the accomplishments of other white people. On this forum alone I've seen a number of right wing racists say things such as "we invented the telephone", "we invented the automobile". They think sharing the same skin color as others who accomplished great things make them better than blacks, or anyone else they hate.

 

What White Supremacists are trying to claim with the inventions angle is that Whites build superior societies and have more exceptional individuals capable of great accomplishments. The old racist rhetoric is that Whites produce more geniuses and contribute to human progress while Blacks are primitive savages incapable of significant cultural achievement. This idea is ignorant and has been debunked by cultural anthropologists.

For starters human history dates back about 200,000 years. For most of that history all people were so-called savages. It took thousands of years of social evolution for us to arrive at modern human societies with all of our social complexity. Human history shows that under the right circumstances cultures can develop in complexity by leaps and bounds far faster than biological evolution can account for. The reason that some cultures developed faster than others has nothing to do with racial biology and everything to do with environmental factors including geography, cultural exchange and chance. The racist narrative of human history is demonstrably false.

 

Yep, I agree. It's just that you would think in 2015 most people would have grown out of that "whites are better than blacks" garbage, but if this forum, and other right wing political forums are any indication, a lot of people still have that primitive racist mentality that whites are superior to blacks, even if there's overwhelming evidence that shows neither race is superior or inferior to one another.

I think the popularity of a race baiting clown like Trump proves this. Many racists see him as a "savior" of whites from EVIL black and brown people, because he tells them what they want to hear. Keep in mind that a significant portion of racists had massive brain farts when a half black guy was elected president. Some can't deal with the fact that a black man is the leader of this country.