Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri
I'd have to do some math to be precise, but a flaw in that argument is that the vast majority of black crime is black-on-black, and the vast majority of white crime is white-on-white.
So a white person, acting rationally, should fear a white person more than a black person.
A black person, acting rationally, should fear a black person more than a white person.
Of course, that assumes that acting on a racial basis makes sense in the first place. Which it doesn't. As your link admits, murder rates among both blacks and whites are vanishingly low (5 murderers per 100,000 people). So it makes no sense to base your (re)actions on skin color, because murderers are not representative of their skin color.
|
That is only because black people tend to live in the same places that other black people live, and white people tend to live in the same places that other white people live. So when a crime happens, in white communities (almost by identity), white people are going to be both the victims and the perpetrators, but in black communities, black people are going to be both victims and perpetrators.
The black-on-black and white-on-white statistics don't mean that blacks seek out blacks more than whites. If a white person is in a black criminal's domain, he is just as likely, or more (invasion of "territory") to get a cap in his rump. Probably the same with blacks in white crime territories.