It is NOT racism

I've worked with lots of Asians. I have Asians as part of my family too. I know some are racist but not all are

Which is true of any race of people. :D

You still don't get it. Not every race here enforced their racism by rule of law. This truth is consistently avoided by virtually every white person here.

But I do get that. I've accepted and admitted that numerous times. That doesn't change that in any race of people, some are racist but not all are.
By saying that you are deflecting blame and promoting a false equivalency. The facts are that anyone can be a racist. A race that collectively does that and implements racism is far worse than some people being racist.

So when you say something regarding Asians, it's fine. When I say the same thing about other races, it's deflecting blame.

Did I say that whites never oppressed members of other races? Have I tried to deny that? Every comment made is not about the history of racism by whites in the US.
Not clear on what you meant by your first sentence?

No you didnt say whites never oppressed members of other races. What you did was try and pretend white racism is the same as individuals from other races being racist. You tried to draw a false equivalence between systemic, implemented, legislated, white racism and someone saying all white people rape animals.
 
When you think you've seen it all ..............you ain't seen shit. White supremacists are still committing atrocities against black people with sex trafficking and organ harvesting and this is what happens when their done. It's like a ritual even after Thousands of years they're still eating humans, but now call it a delacacy and called Anthropopaghy.

Untitled_zpsvkrz6lxu.png

Luckily you have the inside knowledge (and photos) of the elite white supremacists engaging in cannibalism, right?
 
Which is true of any race of people. :D

You still don't get it. Not every race here enforced their racism by rule of law. This truth is consistently avoided by virtually every white person here.

But I do get that. I've accepted and admitted that numerous times. That doesn't change that in any race of people, some are racist but not all are.
By saying that you are deflecting blame and promoting a false equivalency. The facts are that anyone can be a racist. A race that collectively does that and implements racism is far worse than some people being racist.

So when you say something regarding Asians, it's fine. When I say the same thing about other races, it's deflecting blame.

Did I say that whites never oppressed members of other races? Have I tried to deny that? Every comment made is not about the history of racism by whites in the US.
Not clear on what you meant by your first sentence?

No you didnt say whites never oppressed members of other races. What you did was try and pretend white racism is the same as individuals from other races being racist. You tried to draw a false equivalence between systemic, implemented, legislated, white racism and someone saying all white people rape animals.

No, what I did was point out that just as some Asians are racist but not all are (your statement), that same thing is true of any race. That's what I said, that's what I meant. I didn't try to draw any equivalence between individual and systemic racism. You simply assumed that is what I was doing. I don't even know where "all white people rape animals" comes from.

My first sentence is in regards to the comment you made, that some Asians are racist but not all are, and my response to it, which is what this side conversation is about.
 
You still don't get it. Not every race here enforced their racism by rule of law. This truth is consistently avoided by virtually every white person here.

But I do get that. I've accepted and admitted that numerous times. That doesn't change that in any race of people, some are racist but not all are.
By saying that you are deflecting blame and promoting a false equivalency. The facts are that anyone can be a racist. A race that collectively does that and implements racism is far worse than some people being racist.

So when you say something regarding Asians, it's fine. When I say the same thing about other races, it's deflecting blame.

Did I say that whites never oppressed members of other races? Have I tried to deny that? Every comment made is not about the history of racism by whites in the US.
Not clear on what you meant by your first sentence?

No you didnt say whites never oppressed members of other races. What you did was try and pretend white racism is the same as individuals from other races being racist. You tried to draw a false equivalence between systemic, implemented, legislated, white racism and someone saying all white people rape animals.

No, what I did was point out that just as some Asians are racist but not all are (your statement), that same thing is true of any race. That's what I said, that's what I meant. I didn't try to draw any equivalence between individual and systemic racism. You simply assumed that is what I was doing. I don't even know where "all white people rape animals" comes from.


My first sentence is in regards to the comment you made, that some Asians are racist but not all are, and my response to it, which is what this side conversation is about.
"all white people rape animals" is just an example of a racist position. If I say white racism is the worst and you say all races have some racists then you are automatically making a comparison....albeit a false comparison. Youre deflecting and not addressing the point of white racism.

I was addressing Gallant with my statement so thats why I was confused on what it had to do with what your are saying.
 
Per capita is not a data source at all. As far as I know the FBI crime statistics are the data source in question here. Per capita is simply one way to describe the data. Total number of crimes committed by each race is another.

Per capita crime numbers do not accurately tell if a member of one group is more or less likely to commit a crime than another group. It simply describes how many crimes were committed per person within each group. I've already said that there are data limitations involved.

Yes, in your hypothetical you might say that whites are more likely to commit crimes. However, the per capita numbers would not change. Whites would still be committing crimes at a lower per capita rate in that example. That just highlights why the per capita stat is not enough on its own to draw those kinds of conclusions, at least not with the data set being used.

Which white historians value brute force, lying, stealing, rape, murder, enslavement etc.? Are you perhaps saying that merely describing the US in a positive light is showing those things as being valued because of the history of slavery, war, and occupation?

Per capita is indeed a data source its just obviously a very poor one to accurately describe reality. Precisely because the rates wouldnt change tells me is really pretty useless. Since it disregards reality its irrelevant which is why I dont use it.

Claiming 4 out 5 people did an action when only 1 person really did the action 4 times is silly math.

Pretty much most of them. You shouldnt describe something in a positive or negative light if youre a historian. You should present the facts....all the facts...even the ones that paint a less glorious picture of your races violent tendencies.

How is per capita a data source? That doesn't make sense. You don't get data from per capita. Per capita is a way to describe the data you have. The data comes from the FBI, that's the source. Per capita may be an inaccurate way to describe the data, but that doesn't make it a source of data.

You are not understanding. Per capita does not claim how many people committed crimes. It describes how many crimes were committed per person in the population. If the population consists of 100 people, and 10 crimes are committed, there is a crime committed once for every 10 people. It doesn't matter if 1 person committed every crime, or if 10 people did, there is still 1 crime committed for every 10 people in the population.

Pretty much most of them...that is one hell of a vague answer. And is it only white historians who value these things you've described in vague terms? Do historians of other races only present facts with no biases?
You do get data from per capita. GDP has a per capita category as well. The validity of the data is what I consider shaky to put it diplomatically. Keeping with my example...

4 out of 5 whites arrested stole apples. Thats definitely data.

I understand just fine what per capita means. I know what it does and doesnt do. My point is that its only valid for guessing not actually realizing true numbers.

I've never seen other races glorify and lie about history to make themselves look good. However, I havent read all historians of every race. Most of my knowledge is from Black and white historians.

You do not get data from per capita. Data is the raw numbers. You describe data with per capita (or average, or range, or percentile), you don't get any data.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree.
Montro knows what he's talking about. I'd pay a little bit of attention to his analysis. Guy's a wizard with stats...
 
LOL you two are a hoot. twice as much crime by blacks as a race and you claim whites are worse. You two need a stand up comedy routine.
Whites commit the vast majority of crime. 69% to be exact.
Blacks commit twice the crime per capita that whites do. 28 percent for 12 percent of the population.

Wrong. Per capita is not the total number of crimes.
Per capita is a dream stat whites made up to make themselves feel better about being criminals. Wake me when 1.7 people rob me.

Whites made up per capita? It may have been a white or whites who came up with the idea, but I sincerely doubt the concept was created for whites to make themselves feel better about being criminals. :lol: Per capita is just Latin for 'by head'. It's a way to look at statistics. How some may use it in regards to race and crime statistics doesn't make it a white or racist concept. :p
 
But I do get that. I've accepted and admitted that numerous times. That doesn't change that in any race of people, some are racist but not all are.
By saying that you are deflecting blame and promoting a false equivalency. The facts are that anyone can be a racist. A race that collectively does that and implements racism is far worse than some people being racist.

So when you say something regarding Asians, it's fine. When I say the same thing about other races, it's deflecting blame.

Did I say that whites never oppressed members of other races? Have I tried to deny that? Every comment made is not about the history of racism by whites in the US.
Not clear on what you meant by your first sentence?

No you didnt say whites never oppressed members of other races. What you did was try and pretend white racism is the same as individuals from other races being racist. You tried to draw a false equivalence between systemic, implemented, legislated, white racism and someone saying all white people rape animals.

No, what I did was point out that just as some Asians are racist but not all are (your statement), that same thing is true of any race. That's what I said, that's what I meant. I didn't try to draw any equivalence between individual and systemic racism. You simply assumed that is what I was doing. I don't even know where "all white people rape animals" comes from.

My first sentence is in regards to the comment you made, that some Asians are racist but not all are, and my response to it, which is what this side conversation is about.
"all white people rape animals" is just an example of a racist position. If I say white racism is the worst and you say all races have some racists then you are automatically making a comparison....albeit a false comparison. Youre deflecting and not addressing the point of white racism.

But you didn't say white racism is the worst. You said some Asians are racist, but not all. I responded to that. You are interjecting something about white racism that wasn't part of the comment.

To repeat: not every comment, not every comment about racism or race, is about white systemic racism in the US.
 
Per capita is indeed a data source its just obviously a very poor one to accurately describe reality. Precisely because the rates wouldnt change tells me is really pretty useless. Since it disregards reality its irrelevant which is why I dont use it.

Claiming 4 out 5 people did an action when only 1 person really did the action 4 times is silly math.

Pretty much most of them. You shouldnt describe something in a positive or negative light if youre a historian. You should present the facts....all the facts...even the ones that paint a less glorious picture of your races violent tendencies.

How is per capita a data source? That doesn't make sense. You don't get data from per capita. Per capita is a way to describe the data you have. The data comes from the FBI, that's the source. Per capita may be an inaccurate way to describe the data, but that doesn't make it a source of data.

You are not understanding. Per capita does not claim how many people committed crimes. It describes how many crimes were committed per person in the population. If the population consists of 100 people, and 10 crimes are committed, there is a crime committed once for every 10 people. It doesn't matter if 1 person committed every crime, or if 10 people did, there is still 1 crime committed for every 10 people in the population.

Pretty much most of them...that is one hell of a vague answer. And is it only white historians who value these things you've described in vague terms? Do historians of other races only present facts with no biases?
You do get data from per capita. GDP has a per capita category as well. The validity of the data is what I consider shaky to put it diplomatically. Keeping with my example...

4 out of 5 whites arrested stole apples. Thats definitely data.

I understand just fine what per capita means. I know what it does and doesnt do. My point is that its only valid for guessing not actually realizing true numbers.

I've never seen other races glorify and lie about history to make themselves look good. However, I havent read all historians of every race. Most of my knowledge is from Black and white historians.

You do not get data from per capita. Data is the raw numbers. You describe data with per capita (or average, or range, or percentile), you don't get any data.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree.
Montro knows what he's talking about. I'd pay a little bit of attention to his analysis. Guy's a wizard with stats...

LOL, my statistics teacher might disagree with you, at least regarding the contrasting of descriptive and inferential statistics. :lol:
 
Per capita is indeed a data source its just obviously a very poor one to accurately describe reality. Precisely because the rates wouldnt change tells me is really pretty useless. Since it disregards reality its irrelevant which is why I dont use it.

Claiming 4 out 5 people did an action when only 1 person really did the action 4 times is silly math.

Pretty much most of them. You shouldnt describe something in a positive or negative light if youre a historian. You should present the facts....all the facts...even the ones that paint a less glorious picture of your races violent tendencies.

How is per capita a data source? That doesn't make sense. You don't get data from per capita. Per capita is a way to describe the data you have. The data comes from the FBI, that's the source. Per capita may be an inaccurate way to describe the data, but that doesn't make it a source of data.

You are not understanding. Per capita does not claim how many people committed crimes. It describes how many crimes were committed per person in the population. If the population consists of 100 people, and 10 crimes are committed, there is a crime committed once for every 10 people. It doesn't matter if 1 person committed every crime, or if 10 people did, there is still 1 crime committed for every 10 people in the population.

Pretty much most of them...that is one hell of a vague answer. And is it only white historians who value these things you've described in vague terms? Do historians of other races only present facts with no biases?
You do get data from per capita. GDP has a per capita category as well. The validity of the data is what I consider shaky to put it diplomatically. Keeping with my example...

4 out of 5 whites arrested stole apples. Thats definitely data.

I understand just fine what per capita means. I know what it does and doesnt do. My point is that its only valid for guessing not actually realizing true numbers.

I've never seen other races glorify and lie about history to make themselves look good. However, I havent read all historians of every race. Most of my knowledge is from Black and white historians.

You do not get data from per capita. Data is the raw numbers. You describe data with per capita (or average, or range, or percentile), you don't get any data.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree.
Montro knows what he's talking about. I'd pay a little bit of attention to his analysis. Guy's a wizard with stats...
I disagree on the subject at hand. Its pretty obvious you get data from per capita. How else can you say 1.3 people did such and such? I never said it was valid data but it is data.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2
There is FAR less crime in white neighborhoods than in black neighborhoods. I stand by that statement.
OK. In that case then Bernie Madoff (a white man who lived in a white neighborhood) got caught stealing 65 000 000 000 dollars. The fact that you probably have not heard of him is telling.

Can you imagine a black man stealing 65 billion dollars and not heard of him ?

Robert De Niro just made a movie about his life "Wizard Of Lies"

And that's another thing when white people do crime it's glorified and sexy and they're seen as cool and cunning. GoodFellas ? Sopranos ? Al Capone ? Bonnie and Clyde....anyone ?

Now, I would like you to show me a single black american embezzler who has stolen by fraud lets say at least 100 million dollars.

Should be easy...right ? That is, if you stand by your statement that black neigbourhoods and black people are just so criminal

But to you robbing some 7-11 and getting a few 100 bucks or whatever is the ultimate evil act. See I’m pretty certain Bernie Madoff would not rob in stores but he robs in others ways.

It's also good to remember that one Bernie Madoff can actually put whole towns out of business, with all its jobs and houses and population, black or white. And they have done so.
what are you saying?? people haven't heard of Madoff???
they made movies/documentaries/etc of him

difference is the violence used
A white man Bernie Madoff has stole more money (65 billion) than all the black robberies combined. One white man.
Now it's a matter of scale. Think big... or think small. One white guy thinks big and banks big. Lots of black out there think small and bank petty cash. Same thing with business, think big, build big. If more blacks would think big, they'd do a lot better.

That's too much of a generalization. Whether or not someone 'thinks big' is far from the only consideration when looking at their level of business success. I have no doubt that plenty of blacks, whites, and others "think big" and still do not end up with successful businesses.
 
By saying that you are deflecting blame and promoting a false equivalency. The facts are that anyone can be a racist. A race that collectively does that and implements racism is far worse than some people being racist.

So when you say something regarding Asians, it's fine. When I say the same thing about other races, it's deflecting blame.

Did I say that whites never oppressed members of other races? Have I tried to deny that? Every comment made is not about the history of racism by whites in the US.
Not clear on what you meant by your first sentence?

No you didnt say whites never oppressed members of other races. What you did was try and pretend white racism is the same as individuals from other races being racist. You tried to draw a false equivalence between systemic, implemented, legislated, white racism and someone saying all white people rape animals.

No, what I did was point out that just as some Asians are racist but not all are (your statement), that same thing is true of any race. That's what I said, that's what I meant. I didn't try to draw any equivalence between individual and systemic racism. You simply assumed that is what I was doing. I don't even know where "all white people rape animals" comes from.

My first sentence is in regards to the comment you made, that some Asians are racist but not all are, and my response to it, which is what this side conversation is about.
"all white people rape animals" is just an example of a racist position. If I say white racism is the worst and you say all races have some racists then you are automatically making a comparison....albeit a false comparison. Youre deflecting and not addressing the point of white racism.

But you didn't say white racism is the worst. You said some Asians are racist, but not all. I responded to that. You are interjecting something about white racism that wasn't part of the comment.

To repeat: not every comment, not every comment about racism or race, is about white systemic racism in the US.
I didnt use that specific phrase but I have said something similar.

No. GW made a side comment about Asians. Basically a deflection. You ran with that even though our discussion was about white racism.
 
How is per capita a data source? That doesn't make sense. You don't get data from per capita. Per capita is a way to describe the data you have. The data comes from the FBI, that's the source. Per capita may be an inaccurate way to describe the data, but that doesn't make it a source of data.

You are not understanding. Per capita does not claim how many people committed crimes. It describes how many crimes were committed per person in the population. If the population consists of 100 people, and 10 crimes are committed, there is a crime committed once for every 10 people. It doesn't matter if 1 person committed every crime, or if 10 people did, there is still 1 crime committed for every 10 people in the population.

Pretty much most of them...that is one hell of a vague answer. And is it only white historians who value these things you've described in vague terms? Do historians of other races only present facts with no biases?
You do get data from per capita. GDP has a per capita category as well. The validity of the data is what I consider shaky to put it diplomatically. Keeping with my example...

4 out of 5 whites arrested stole apples. Thats definitely data.

I understand just fine what per capita means. I know what it does and doesnt do. My point is that its only valid for guessing not actually realizing true numbers.

I've never seen other races glorify and lie about history to make themselves look good. However, I havent read all historians of every race. Most of my knowledge is from Black and white historians.

You do not get data from per capita. Data is the raw numbers. You describe data with per capita (or average, or range, or percentile), you don't get any data.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree.
Montro knows what he's talking about. I'd pay a little bit of attention to his analysis. Guy's a wizard with stats...
I disagree on the subject at hand. Its pretty obvious you get data from per capita. How else can you say 1.3 people did such and such? I never said it was valid data but it is data.

The data is the crime numbers. Per capita is a way to describe the data. It is similar to finding the average, or the rate, etc. All of those things are ways of describing the data.
 
You do get data from per capita. GDP has a per capita category as well. The validity of the data is what I consider shaky to put it diplomatically. Keeping with my example...

4 out of 5 whites arrested stole apples. Thats definitely data.

I understand just fine what per capita means. I know what it does and doesnt do. My point is that its only valid for guessing not actually realizing true numbers.

I've never seen other races glorify and lie about history to make themselves look good. However, I havent read all historians of every race. Most of my knowledge is from Black and white historians.

You do not get data from per capita. Data is the raw numbers. You describe data with per capita (or average, or range, or percentile), you don't get any data.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree.
Montro knows what he's talking about. I'd pay a little bit of attention to his analysis. Guy's a wizard with stats...
I disagree on the subject at hand. Its pretty obvious you get data from per capita. How else can you say 1.3 people did such and such? I never said it was valid data but it is data.

The data is the crime numbers. Per capita is a way to describe the data. It is similar to finding the average, or the rate, etc. All of those things are ways of describing the data.
Nope. Data is information. Its not just numbers.
 
So when you say something regarding Asians, it's fine. When I say the same thing about other races, it's deflecting blame.

Did I say that whites never oppressed members of other races? Have I tried to deny that? Every comment made is not about the history of racism by whites in the US.
Not clear on what you meant by your first sentence?

No you didnt say whites never oppressed members of other races. What you did was try and pretend white racism is the same as individuals from other races being racist. You tried to draw a false equivalence between systemic, implemented, legislated, white racism and someone saying all white people rape animals.

No, what I did was point out that just as some Asians are racist but not all are (your statement), that same thing is true of any race. That's what I said, that's what I meant. I didn't try to draw any equivalence between individual and systemic racism. You simply assumed that is what I was doing. I don't even know where "all white people rape animals" comes from.

My first sentence is in regards to the comment you made, that some Asians are racist but not all are, and my response to it, which is what this side conversation is about.
"all white people rape animals" is just an example of a racist position. If I say white racism is the worst and you say all races have some racists then you are automatically making a comparison....albeit a false comparison. Youre deflecting and not addressing the point of white racism.

But you didn't say white racism is the worst. You said some Asians are racist, but not all. I responded to that. You are interjecting something about white racism that wasn't part of the comment.

To repeat: not every comment, not every comment about racism or race, is about white systemic racism in the US.
I didnt use that specific phrase but I have said something similar.

No. GW made a side comment about Asians. Basically a deflection. You ran with that even though our discussion was about white racism.

Your specific comment:

I've worked with lots of Asians. I have Asians as part of my family too. I know some are racist but not all are

Yes, GW made a very generalized and, IMO, poor comment regarding Asians. Of course, that was in response to you making a generalized, poor comment regarding whites (whites have always been racist toward Asians). You both made comments describing an entire race as being racist, although you then followed that up by saying only some Asians are racist. I was just pointing out that that statement is true of all races, because of all the generalization that was going on.
 
Not clear on what you meant by your first sentence?

No you didnt say whites never oppressed members of other races. What you did was try and pretend white racism is the same as individuals from other races being racist. You tried to draw a false equivalence between systemic, implemented, legislated, white racism and someone saying all white people rape animals.

No, what I did was point out that just as some Asians are racist but not all are (your statement), that same thing is true of any race. That's what I said, that's what I meant. I didn't try to draw any equivalence between individual and systemic racism. You simply assumed that is what I was doing. I don't even know where "all white people rape animals" comes from.

My first sentence is in regards to the comment you made, that some Asians are racist but not all are, and my response to it, which is what this side conversation is about.
"all white people rape animals" is just an example of a racist position. If I say white racism is the worst and you say all races have some racists then you are automatically making a comparison....albeit a false comparison. Youre deflecting and not addressing the point of white racism.

But you didn't say white racism is the worst. You said some Asians are racist, but not all. I responded to that. You are interjecting something about white racism that wasn't part of the comment.

To repeat: not every comment, not every comment about racism or race, is about white systemic racism in the US.
I didnt use that specific phrase but I have said something similar.

No. GW made a side comment about Asians. Basically a deflection. You ran with that even though our discussion was about white racism.

Your specific comment:

I've worked with lots of Asians. I have Asians as part of my family too. I know some are racist but not all are

Yes, GW made a very generalized and, IMO, poor comment regarding Asians. Of course, that was in response to you making a generalized, poor comment regarding whites (whites have always been racist toward Asians). You both made comments describing an entire race as being racist, although you then followed that up by saying only some Asians are racist. I was just pointing out that that statement is true of all races, because of all the generalization that was going on.
Ok I see what you are getting at now.
 
You do not get data from per capita. Data is the raw numbers. You describe data with per capita (or average, or range, or percentile), you don't get any data.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree.
Montro knows what he's talking about. I'd pay a little bit of attention to his analysis. Guy's a wizard with stats...
I disagree on the subject at hand. Its pretty obvious you get data from per capita. How else can you say 1.3 people did such and such? I never said it was valid data but it is data.

The data is the crime numbers. Per capita is a way to describe the data. It is similar to finding the average, or the rate, etc. All of those things are ways of describing the data.
Nope. Data is information. Its not just numbers.

Data and information are very similar, and often the terms are used interchangeably, but they are not quite the same.

Regardless, you still don't get data from per capita. At best, you might say that the per capita is a form of data. Data doesn't come from per capita.
 
I guess we just have to agree to disagree.
Montro knows what he's talking about. I'd pay a little bit of attention to his analysis. Guy's a wizard with stats...
I disagree on the subject at hand. Its pretty obvious you get data from per capita. How else can you say 1.3 people did such and such? I never said it was valid data but it is data.

The data is the crime numbers. Per capita is a way to describe the data. It is similar to finding the average, or the rate, etc. All of those things are ways of describing the data.
Nope. Data is information. Its not just numbers.

Data and information are very similar, and often the terms are used interchangeably, but they are not quite the same.

Regardless, you still don't get data from per capita. At best, you might say that the per capita is a form of data. Data doesn't come from per capita.
Of course you get data. If you apply per capita you get more data which is then used in other calculations
 
You admit, dave p, that whites commit almost 70% of the crimes.

What is their percentage of population in the country.
The percentage of white crime is equal to the percentage of population. While percentage of black crime is over double of their population. What is your point other than the one on your head?

If we go by your simple minded assessment you are saying it's fine for whites to commit 70 percent of the crimes.

Simple minded assessment? What percentage of crimes do you think would be appropriate for whites to commit? :popcorn:
Less than 28% but the ultimate goal is 0%. Blacks commit crime due to financial reason for the most part. If finances were not a problem we would probably have a 3% crime rate.
So....blacks commit crimes due to financial reasons. Why do whites commit crimes?
 
You admit, dave p, that whites commit almost 70% of the crimes.

What is their percentage of population in the country.
The percentage of white crime is equal to the percentage of population. While percentage of black crime is over double of their population. What is your point other than the one on your head?

If we go by your simple minded assessment you are saying it's fine for whites to commit 70 percent of the crimes.

Simple minded assessment? What percentage of crimes do you think would be appropriate for whites to commit? :popcorn:
Less than 28% but the ultimate goal is 0%. Blacks commit crime due to financial reason for the most part. If finances were not a problem we would probably have a 3% crime rate.
So....blacks commit crimes due to financial reasons. Why do whites commit crimes?
For the most part its a financial reason. For whites? IMO genetics.
 

Forum List

Back
Top