It is NOT racism

[IM2]

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.

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.

I think A said it very well. And that's he problem with these discussions. The people from any race can be racist claim is consistently used by whites here to defect from the fact that whites enforced their racism by written law and the denied others of equal rights because of it. Just saying people of any race can be racist can't be said without acknowledgement of what whites did is disingenuous. A black person saying whites are devils does not literally deny any white person of equal rights even as it is a racist comment.

Maybe for some. For others, the claim that anyone can be racist is made to counter claims that one must be engaging in systemic racism in order to be a racist.

One can absolutely say that members of any race can be racist without saying anything about white systemic racism. The two are connected but not the same thing.

A black person saying whites are devils does not deny a white person equal rights. A white person doing the same doesn't deny a black person equal rights, either. Calling someone a devil doesn't magically create systemic racism.

No you cannot. You choose to. But the reality you cannot face is that whites are the only ones in this country who enforced their racism by law/policy. For it is systemic racism that has been the cause of the problems we have had and it's the cause of the problems we still have. We as blacks are talking about systemic racism because a white boy calling me a name doesn't mean a mother fucking thing. Without systemic racism, racism has no force and for you to use this weak argument to try the standard white excuse of not everything is… is chump lock.

 

[IM2]

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?

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?

That's a good question. Maybe you try finding out. Because whites commit more crimes than anyone else.

 

[IM2]

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. 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.

Whites are the ones here arguing using per capita to try making less crime into more crime.

 

[IM2]

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...

Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Montrovant does not know what he's talking about on this issue.

 

[Asclepias]

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. 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.

Whites are the ones here arguing using per capita to try making less crime into more crime.

Exactly.

"Those Black people committed 24 crimes. Thats 2 crimes for every Black person and substantially more than than the 70 crimes whites committed."

 

[impuretrash]

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. 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.

Whites are the ones here arguing using per capita to try making less crime into more crime.

Black men aged 13-30 are four times as likely to commit murder than whites. I know ratios are too complicated for you but that doesn't make it untrue.

 

[IM2]

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. 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.

Whites are the ones here arguing using per capita to try making less crime into more crime.

Black men aged 13-30 are four times as likely to commit murder than whites. I know ratios are too complicated for you but that doesn't make it untrue.

This makes it untrue.



Why the Gigantic, Decades-Long Drop in Black Youth Crime Threatens Major Interests
Mike Males
Published: August 15, 2013

Imagine that a time-liberated version of vigilante George Zimmerman sees two youths walking through his neighborhood: black, hoodied Trayvon Martin of 2012, and a white teen from 1959 (say Bud Anderson from Father Knows Best). Based purely on statistics of race and era, which one should Zimmerman most fear of harboring criminal intent? Answer: He should fear (actually, not fear) them equally; each has about the same low odds of committing a crime.

For nearly all serious and minor offenses, including homicide, rates among black teenagers nationally were lower in 2011 than when racial statistics were first collected nationally in 1964. Black youths’ murder arrest rates are considerably lower today than back when Bill Cosby was funny (long, long ago).

We don’t associate Jim and Margaret Anderson’s 1950s cherubs with juvenile crime—but that’s based on nostalgia and cultural biases, not fact. Back then, nearly 1 in 10 youth were arrested every year; today, around 3 in 100. Limited statistics of the 1950s show juvenile crime wasn’t just pranks and joyriding; “younger and younger children” are committing “the most wanton and senseless of murders… and mass rape,” the chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency warned in 1956.

Since the sainted Fifties, America has seen rapid teenage population growth and dramatic shifts toward more single parenting, more lethal drugs and weapons, increased middle-aged (that is, parent-age) drug abuse and imprisonment, decreased incarceration of youth, decreased youthful religious affiliation, and more violent and explicit media available to younger ages. Horrifying, as the culture critics far Right to far Left—including Obama, who spends many pages and speeches berating popular culture as some major driver of bad youth behavior—repeatedly insist.

And after 50 years of all these terrible changes in American culture? Today’s young African Americans display the lowest rates of crime and serious risk of any generation that can be reliably assessed.

In the last 20 years in particular, the FBI reports, rates of crime among African American youth have plummeted: All offenses (down 47%), drug offenses (down 50%), property offenses (down 51%), serious Part I offenses (down 53%), assault (down 59%), robbery (down 60%), all violent offenses (down 60%), rape (down 66%), and murder (down 82%).

New, 2012 figures from California’s Criminal Justice Statistics Center reveal that the state’s black youth show the lowest level of homicide arrest since statewide racial tabulations were first assembled in 1960. Nearly every type of offense—felony, misdemeanor, and status—is much rarer among black youth today than in past generations.

The black youth crime drop is not due to “getting tough”—just the opposite. In 2012, a record-low 231 California black youth were locked up in state correctional facilities, compared to over 2,000 in the mid-1990s, and 800 in 1959, the first year numbers were kept. “Status crime” policing of black youth, reflected in curfew, loitering, and other non-criminal-stops, also has fallen to record lows. Little solid evidence connects policies to reduced crime, except maybe for the correlation with increased college enrollment.

You can see from these paragraphs why the huge improvements in behavior among America’s, and particularly California’s, African American teenagers over the last 20 to 40 years is a distressing development for so many powerful interests across the spectrum.

According to everyone’s pet theories and fine-tuned profit prospectus, this wasn’t supposed to happen. And so, on rightist Fox and liberal MSNBC, from President Obama and the local Tea Party legislator, from pundits reactionary to radical, any notion of praising young African Americans even for the most obvious and mammoth improvements in behavior is utterly taboo.

For example, FBI clearance and arrest tabulations now indicate black youths under age 18 account for just 2% of the nation’s homicides. See if you can find that vital perspective in any politician, expert, or major-media commentary.

Rather, the time period when all interests felt their headiest was the early 1990s. Police, pundits, politicians, and News@11 gushed with the terrors of the crack epidemic, “adolescent superpredators,” teenage “sociopaths,” murderous gangs marauding from inner city to suburb to Mayberry, and an ever worsening “crime storm” of dark-skinned zombies slavering to “murder, rape, rob, assault, burglarize, deal deadly drugs, and get high…so long as their youthful energies hold out.”

Indeed, the statistics of California in 1990 were alarming:

• 221 black youths were arrested for murder,
• 4,235 for drug offenses
• 6,884 for violent felonies,
• 22,441 for all felonies, and
• 45,703 for all offenses.

In 2012, in a California black-youth population of similar size (around 250,000 age 10-17) and a similarly complete statewide crime report:

• 20 black youths were arrested for murder,
• 1,019 for drug offenses
• 2,886 for violent felonies,
• 8,288 for all felonies, and
• 24,889 for all offenses.

How can this mammoth decline not be front-page news—especially to inform the ongoing Trayvon Martin and Fruitvale murder discussions?

The sad reality is that authorities, academic experts, politicians, and geriatric-media reporters (the average age of news consumers is well over 50) of 2013 simply do not know how to deal with a young black population that is not committing shootings, robberies, drug mayhem, and gangsterisms in mass numbers—let alone one that is dramatically less criminal than the older generations deploring them.

Listen to today’s media panels, politician speeches, even academic forums: the last 20 years never happened. Only young people commit crime and use and sell drugs, the commentariat herd recites. From CNN’s Anderson Cooper to First Lady Michelle Obama, young black men are always misrepresented as getting more violent.

America’s warped crime and social policy establishment badly needs black youth to be killers and thugs, to retreat into the comforts of 1990, nostalgia for a past that never existed, and smug, politically and fiscally profitable prophecies of demographic doom. In America of 2013, just as in 1913, feared scapegoats on which to blame social problems remain a hotter commodity than scientific analysis and effective policy.

Why the Gigantic, Decades-Long Drop in Black Youth Crime Threatens Major Interests — Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice

 

[Asclepias]

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. 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.

Whites are the ones here arguing using per capita to try making less crime into more crime.

Black men aged 13-30 are four times as likely to commit murder than whites. I know ratios are too complicated for you but that doesn't make it untrue.

Whites commit the vast majority of crime at a ratio greater than 2 to 1

 

[Unkotare]

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. 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.

Whites are the ones here arguing using per capita to try making less crime into more crime.

The heartbreak of innumeracy. Won’t you donate today to help a racist like this learn to understand basic math?

 

[gallantwarrior]

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?

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 you want whites to be responsible for none of the crimes committed, leaving that for all other races? How would that be a positive thing? We'll ignore how completely irrational it is to think an entire race, particularly one that makes up most of the population, would not commit any of the crimes. Of course, since you brought up 28%, it seems as if you were actually talking about crimes committed by blacks rather than whites.

I would guess that economic status/financial issues are a motivation for many crimes by people of all races. However, people commit a whole lot of crimes based on things completely separate from finances.

Correct. Whites own the system so they literally have no reason to commit crimes. They should have an incredibly low crime rate. It would be a positive thing because overall the crime rate would drop significantly if whites were not committing 69% of the crime. Think about that for a moment. 69% of all crime gone. That would cut the crime rate by more than half. Dont get me confused. I dont think its possible for whites to do it. You asked what I thought would be appropriate. No I was talking about crimes committed by whites. Thats why I said whites instead of Blacks.

Oversimplify much?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Simple minded assessment? What percentage of crimes do you think would be appropriate for whites to commit?

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 you want whites to be responsible for none of the crimes committed, leaving that for all other races? How would that be a positive thing? We'll ignore how completely irrational it is to think an entire race, particularly one that makes up most of the population, would not commit any of the crimes. Of course, since you brought up 28%, it seems as if you were actually talking about crimes committed by blacks rather than whites.

I would guess that economic status/financial issues are a motivation for many crimes by people of all races. However, people commit a whole lot of crimes based on things completely separate from finances.

Correct. Whites own the system so they literally have no reason to commit crimes. They should have an incredibly low crime rate. It would be a positive thing because overall the crime rate would drop significantly if whites were not committing 69% of the crime. Think about that for a moment. 69% of all crime gone. That would cut the crime rate by more than half. Dont get me confused. I dont think its possible for whites to do it. You asked what I thought would be appropriate. No I was talking about crimes committed by whites. Thats why I said whites instead of Blacks.

What does " owning the system" ( whatever that means ) have to do with crime rates?

If you dont understand this elementary dynamic then you need to get yourself educated then come back and apologize to me for asking such an ignorant question.

You really are blinded by your racism, aren't you?

 

[Asclepias]

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?

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 you want whites to be responsible for none of the crimes committed, leaving that for all other races? How would that be a positive thing? We'll ignore how completely irrational it is to think an entire race, particularly one that makes up most of the population, would not commit any of the crimes. Of course, since you brought up 28%, it seems as if you were actually talking about crimes committed by blacks rather than whites.

I would guess that economic status/financial issues are a motivation for many crimes by people of all races. However, people commit a whole lot of crimes based on things completely separate from finances.

Correct. Whites own the system so they literally have no reason to commit crimes. They should have an incredibly low crime rate. It would be a positive thing because overall the crime rate would drop significantly if whites were not committing 69% of the crime. Think about that for a moment. 69% of all crime gone. That would cut the crime rate by more than half. Dont get me confused. I dont think its possible for whites to do it. You asked what I thought would be appropriate. No I was talking about crimes committed by whites. Thats why I said whites instead of Blacks.

Oversimplify much?

In simplicity one finds true understanding and genius.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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?

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 you want whites to be responsible for none of the crimes committed, leaving that for all other races? How would that be a positive thing? We'll ignore how completely irrational it is to think an entire race, particularly one that makes up most of the population, would not commit any of the crimes. Of course, since you brought up 28%, it seems as if you were actually talking about crimes committed by blacks rather than whites.

I would guess that economic status/financial issues are a motivation for many crimes by people of all races. However, people commit a whole lot of crimes based on things completely separate from finances.

But you don't ignore how irrational it is to think that because you have the most people you get to excuse the fact that you commit the most crimes. Especially when you have the most of all the things that are supposed to prevent crime.

What are the things that are supposed to prevent crime that whites have more of than others?

I haven't said anything about the underlying reasons behind rates of crime, I don't believe.

Nor, that I can recall, have you argued here about the reasons for why crime rates might be different among different races. At least, I don't recall you saying anything like "yes, blacks have a higher crime rate, but that is due to XXXXX." Instead, your argument seems to have consisted of "Whites commit more crimes, and that's the only important statistics, regardless of total population numbers."

Obviously the reasons behind the differences in crime rates among races is an important part of the conversation. I've brought it up very briefly in this thread. Systemic bias in the legal system, economic status, cultural issues, there are any number of factors that might combine to account for the discrepancy in crime rate.

The ideal would be for every racial group to have a criminal representation approximate to their population number.

Actually, he's indicated that blacks commit crime because they are financially handicapped. This financial handicap suffered by blacks is a direct result of white "privilege". In short, blacks commit crimes because white folk are more financially capable than blacks.

 

[Asclepias]

Simple minded assessment? What percentage of crimes do you think would be appropriate for whites to commit?

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 you want whites to be responsible for none of the crimes committed, leaving that for all other races? How would that be a positive thing? We'll ignore how completely irrational it is to think an entire race, particularly one that makes up most of the population, would not commit any of the crimes. Of course, since you brought up 28%, it seems as if you were actually talking about crimes committed by blacks rather than whites.

I would guess that economic status/financial issues are a motivation for many crimes by people of all races. However, people commit a whole lot of crimes based on things completely separate from finances.

But you don't ignore how irrational it is to think that because you have the most people you get to excuse the fact that you commit the most crimes. Especially when you have the most of all the things that are supposed to prevent crime.

What are the things that are supposed to prevent crime that whites have more of than others?

I haven't said anything about the underlying reasons behind rates of crime, I don't believe.

Nor, that I can recall, have you argued here about the reasons for why crime rates might be different among different races. At least, I don't recall you saying anything like "yes, blacks have a higher crime rate, but that is due to XXXXX." Instead, your argument seems to have consisted of "Whites commit more crimes, and that's the only important statistics, regardless of total population numbers."

Obviously the reasons behind the differences in crime rates among races is an important part of the conversation. I've brought it up very briefly in this thread. Systemic bias in the legal system, economic status, cultural issues, there are any number of factors that might combine to account for the discrepancy in crime rate.

The ideal would be for every racial group to have a criminal representation approximate to their population number.

Actually, he's indicated that blacks commit crime because they are financially handicapped. This financial handicap suffered by blacks is a direct result of white "privilege". In short, blacks commit crimes because white folk are more financially capable than blacks.

In short. If whites had not been granted a head start by racism the economic gap would be the reverse and there would be few if any Black criminals.

 

[impuretrash]

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. 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.

Whites are the ones here arguing using per capita to try making less crime into more crime.

Black men aged 13-30 are four times as likely to commit murder than whites. I know ratios are too complicated for you but that doesn't make it untrue.

This makes it untrue.



Why the Gigantic, Decades-Long Drop in Black Youth Crime Threatens Major Interests
Mike Males
Published: August 15, 2013

Imagine that a time-liberated version of vigilante George Zimmerman sees two youths walking through his neighborhood: black, hoodied Trayvon Martin of 2012, and a white teen from 1959 (say Bud Anderson from Father Knows Best). Based purely on statistics of race and era, which one should Zimmerman most fear of harboring criminal intent? Answer: He should fear (actually, not fear) them equally; each has about the same low odds of committing a crime.

For nearly all serious and minor offenses, including homicide, rates among black teenagers nationally were lower in 2011 than when racial statistics were first collected nationally in 1964. Black youths’ murder arrest rates are considerably lower today than back when Bill Cosby was funny (long, long ago).

We don’t associate Jim and Margaret Anderson’s 1950s cherubs with juvenile crime—but that’s based on nostalgia and cultural biases, not fact. Back then, nearly 1 in 10 youth were arrested every year; today, around 3 in 100. Limited statistics of the 1950s show juvenile crime wasn’t just pranks and joyriding; “younger and younger children” are committing “the most wanton and senseless of murders… and mass rape,” the chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency warned in 1956.

Since the sainted Fifties, America has seen rapid teenage population growth and dramatic shifts toward more single parenting, more lethal drugs and weapons, increased middle-aged (that is, parent-age) drug abuse and imprisonment, decreased incarceration of youth, decreased youthful religious affiliation, and more violent and explicit media available to younger ages. Horrifying, as the culture critics far Right to far Left—including Obama, who spends many pages and speeches berating popular culture as some major driver of bad youth behavior—repeatedly insist.

And after 50 years of all these terrible changes in American culture? Today’s young African Americans display the lowest rates of crime and serious risk of any generation that can be reliably assessed.

In the last 20 years in particular, the FBI reports, rates of crime among African American youth have plummeted: All offenses (down 47%), drug offenses (down 50%), property offenses (down 51%), serious Part I offenses (down 53%), assault (down 59%), robbery (down 60%), all violent offenses (down 60%), rape (down 66%), and murder (down 82%).

New, 2012 figures from California’s Criminal Justice Statistics Center reveal that the state’s black youth show the lowest level of homicide arrest since statewide racial tabulations were first assembled in 1960. Nearly every type of offense—felony, misdemeanor, and status—is much rarer among black youth today than in past generations.

The black youth crime drop is not due to “getting tough”—just the opposite. In 2012, a record-low 231 California black youth were locked up in state correctional facilities, compared to over 2,000 in the mid-1990s, and 800 in 1959, the first year numbers were kept. “Status crime” policing of black youth, reflected in curfew, loitering, and other non-criminal-stops, also has fallen to record lows. Little solid evidence connects policies to reduced crime, except maybe for the correlation with increased college enrollment.

You can see from these paragraphs why the huge improvements in behavior among America’s, and particularly California’s, African American teenagers over the last 20 to 40 years is a distressing development for so many powerful interests across the spectrum.

According to everyone’s pet theories and fine-tuned profit prospectus, this wasn’t supposed to happen. And so, on rightist Fox and liberal MSNBC, from President Obama and the local Tea Party legislator, from pundits reactionary to radical, any notion of praising young African Americans even for the most obvious and mammoth improvements in behavior is utterly taboo.

For example, FBI clearance and arrest tabulations now indicate black youths under age 18 account for just 2% of the nation’s homicides. See if you can find that vital perspective in any politician, expert, or major-media commentary.

Rather, the time period when all interests felt their headiest was the early 1990s. Police, pundits, politicians, and News@11 gushed with the terrors of the crack epidemic, “adolescent superpredators,” teenage “sociopaths,” murderous gangs marauding from inner city to suburb to Mayberry, and an ever worsening “crime storm” of dark-skinned zombies slavering to “murder, rape, rob, assault, burglarize, deal deadly drugs, and get high…so long as their youthful energies hold out.”

Indeed, the statistics of California in 1990 were alarming:

• 221 black youths were arrested for murder,
• 4,235 for drug offenses
• 6,884 for violent felonies,
• 22,441 for all felonies, and
• 45,703 for all offenses.

In 2012, in a California black-youth population of similar size (around 250,000 age 10-17) and a similarly complete statewide crime report:

• 20 black youths were arrested for murder,
• 1,019 for drug offenses
• 2,886 for violent felonies,
• 8,288 for all felonies, and
• 24,889 for all offenses.

How can this mammoth decline not be front-page news—especially to inform the ongoing Trayvon Martin and Fruitvale murder discussions?

The sad reality is that authorities, academic experts, politicians, and geriatric-media reporters (the average age of news consumers is well over 50) of 2013 simply do not know how to deal with a young black population that is not committing shootings, robberies, drug mayhem, and gangsterisms in mass numbers—let alone one that is dramatically less criminal than the older generations deploring them.

Listen to today’s media panels, politician speeches, even academic forums: the last 20 years never happened. Only young people commit crime and use and sell drugs, the commentariat herd recites. From CNN’s Anderson Cooper to First Lady Michelle Obama, young black men are always misrepresented as getting more violent.

America’s warped crime and social policy establishment badly needs black youth to be killers and thugs, to retreat into the comforts of 1990, nostalgia for a past that never existed, and smug, politically and fiscally profitable prophecies of demographic doom. In America of 2013, just as in 1913, feared scapegoats on which to blame social problems remain a hotter commodity than scientific analysis and effective policy.

Why the Gigantic, Decades-Long Drop in Black Youth Crime Threatens Major Interests — Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice

According to the FBI statistics in the article:

Murder and non-negligent manslaughter arrests:
white: 4000
black: 4149

 

[Gracie]

I feel sorry for his white daughter.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Simple minded assessment? What percentage of crimes do you think would be appropriate for whites to commit?

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 you want whites to be responsible for none of the crimes committed, leaving that for all other races? How would that be a positive thing? We'll ignore how completely irrational it is to think an entire race, particularly one that makes up most of the population, would not commit any of the crimes. Of course, since you brought up 28%, it seems as if you were actually talking about crimes committed by blacks rather than whites.

I would guess that economic status/financial issues are a motivation for many crimes by people of all races. However, people commit a whole lot of crimes based on things completely separate from finances.

Correct. Whites own the system so they literally have no reason to commit crimes. They should have an incredibly low crime rate. It would be a positive thing because overall the crime rate would drop significantly if whites were not committing 69% of the crime. Think about that for a moment. 69% of all crime gone. That would cut the crime rate by more than half. Dont get me confused. I dont think its possible for whites to do it. You asked what I thought would be appropriate. No I was talking about crimes committed by whites. Thats why I said whites instead of Blacks.

And yet whites commit crimes just like members of any race. Perhaps that should make you rethink just what "whites own the system" actually means.

You also are having a hard time with the idea of percentages. Whites commit 69% of crimes. I asked what percentage of crimes is appropriate for whites to commit. Changing the percentage of crimes whites commit has no effect on the actual number of crimes being committed. I asked about the percentage. Let's go back to apples, since you seem to like them as an example. If there are 100 apples, and whites have 70 of them, they have 70% of the apples. If I ask what an appropriate percentage of apples for whites to have is, and you say 0, there are still 100 apples, whites just don't have any of them.

Of course if whites stopped committing crimes it would lower the total number of crimes significantly, which would be good. That wasn't the question. I didn't ask how many crimes whites should commit, but what percentage of crimes committed should appropriately be done by whites.

True. I think criminality for whites is directly attributable to either genetics or philosophy. Whites come from a land of scares resources. Blacks come from a land of plenty. When you lack (resources, melanin, positive philosophy etc) you are prone to crime and violence. At some point it becomes a genetic thing passed down like skin color. What else would make an already wealthy white person scam others out of billions? What would make whites lie about not stealing more NA land treaty after treaty? What would make whites commit criminal acts to keep Blacks from voting? They cant help it because its ingrained in their DNA or philosophy.

That makes no sense. If whites stopped committing 69% of the crime then that crime is gone from total crime. Does this make sense to you or are you claiming that other races will pick up the slack?

Apples are analogous to crime. If whites have no crime then 69 of the 100 apples are no longer there.

You really are hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Asclepias]

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. 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.

Whites are the ones here arguing using per capita to try making less crime into more crime.

Black men aged 13-30 are four times as likely to commit murder than whites. I know ratios are too complicated for you but that doesn't make it untrue.

This makes it untrue.



Why the Gigantic, Decades-Long Drop in Black Youth Crime Threatens Major Interests
Mike Males
Published: August 15, 2013

Imagine that a time-liberated version of vigilante George Zimmerman sees two youths walking through his neighborhood: black, hoodied Trayvon Martin of 2012, and a white teen from 1959 (say Bud Anderson from Father Knows Best). Based purely on statistics of race and era, which one should Zimmerman most fear of harboring criminal intent? Answer: He should fear (actually, not fear) them equally; each has about the same low odds of committing a crime.

For nearly all serious and minor offenses, including homicide, rates among black teenagers nationally were lower in 2011 than when racial statistics were first collected nationally in 1964. Black youths’ murder arrest rates are considerably lower today than back when Bill Cosby was funny (long, long ago).

We don’t associate Jim and Margaret Anderson’s 1950s cherubs with juvenile crime—but that’s based on nostalgia and cultural biases, not fact. Back then, nearly 1 in 10 youth were arrested every year; today, around 3 in 100. Limited statistics of the 1950s show juvenile crime wasn’t just pranks and joyriding; “younger and younger children” are committing “the most wanton and senseless of murders… and mass rape,” the chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency warned in 1956.

Since the sainted Fifties, America has seen rapid teenage population growth and dramatic shifts toward more single parenting, more lethal drugs and weapons, increased middle-aged (that is, parent-age) drug abuse and imprisonment, decreased incarceration of youth, decreased youthful religious affiliation, and more violent and explicit media available to younger ages. Horrifying, as the culture critics far Right to far Left—including Obama, who spends many pages and speeches berating popular culture as some major driver of bad youth behavior—repeatedly insist.

And after 50 years of all these terrible changes in American culture? Today’s young African Americans display the lowest rates of crime and serious risk of any generation that can be reliably assessed.

In the last 20 years in particular, the FBI reports, rates of crime among African American youth have plummeted: All offenses (down 47%), drug offenses (down 50%), property offenses (down 51%), serious Part I offenses (down 53%), assault (down 59%), robbery (down 60%), all violent offenses (down 60%), rape (down 66%), and murder (down 82%).

New, 2012 figures from California’s Criminal Justice Statistics Center reveal that the state’s black youth show the lowest level of homicide arrest since statewide racial tabulations were first assembled in 1960. Nearly every type of offense—felony, misdemeanor, and status—is much rarer among black youth today than in past generations.

The black youth crime drop is not due to “getting tough”—just the opposite. In 2012, a record-low 231 California black youth were locked up in state correctional facilities, compared to over 2,000 in the mid-1990s, and 800 in 1959, the first year numbers were kept. “Status crime” policing of black youth, reflected in curfew, loitering, and other non-criminal-stops, also has fallen to record lows. Little solid evidence connects policies to reduced crime, except maybe for the correlation with increased college enrollment.

You can see from these paragraphs why the huge improvements in behavior among America’s, and particularly California’s, African American teenagers over the last 20 to 40 years is a distressing development for so many powerful interests across the spectrum.

According to everyone’s pet theories and fine-tuned profit prospectus, this wasn’t supposed to happen. And so, on rightist Fox and liberal MSNBC, from President Obama and the local Tea Party legislator, from pundits reactionary to radical, any notion of praising young African Americans even for the most obvious and mammoth improvements in behavior is utterly taboo.

For example, FBI clearance and arrest tabulations now indicate black youths under age 18 account for just 2% of the nation’s homicides. See if you can find that vital perspective in any politician, expert, or major-media commentary.

Rather, the time period when all interests felt their headiest was the early 1990s. Police, pundits, politicians, and News@11 gushed with the terrors of the crack epidemic, “adolescent superpredators,” teenage “sociopaths,” murderous gangs marauding from inner city to suburb to Mayberry, and an ever worsening “crime storm” of dark-skinned zombies slavering to “murder, rape, rob, assault, burglarize, deal deadly drugs, and get high…so long as their youthful energies hold out.”

Indeed, the statistics of California in 1990 were alarming:

• 221 black youths were arrested for murder,
• 4,235 for drug offenses
• 6,884 for violent felonies,
• 22,441 for all felonies, and
• 45,703 for all offenses.

In 2012, in a California black-youth population of similar size (around 250,000 age 10-17) and a similarly complete statewide crime report:

• 20 black youths were arrested for murder,
• 1,019 for drug offenses
• 2,886 for violent felonies,
• 8,288 for all felonies, and
• 24,889 for all offenses.

How can this mammoth decline not be front-page news—especially to inform the ongoing Trayvon Martin and Fruitvale murder discussions?

The sad reality is that authorities, academic experts, politicians, and geriatric-media reporters (the average age of news consumers is well over 50) of 2013 simply do not know how to deal with a young black population that is not committing shootings, robberies, drug mayhem, and gangsterisms in mass numbers—let alone one that is dramatically less criminal than the older generations deploring them.

Listen to today’s media panels, politician speeches, even academic forums: the last 20 years never happened. Only young people commit crime and use and sell drugs, the commentariat herd recites. From CNN’s Anderson Cooper to First Lady Michelle Obama, young black men are always misrepresented as getting more violent.

America’s warped crime and social policy establishment badly needs black youth to be killers and thugs, to retreat into the comforts of 1990, nostalgia for a past that never existed, and smug, politically and fiscally profitable prophecies of demographic doom. In America of 2013, just as in 1913, feared scapegoats on which to blame social problems remain a hotter commodity than scientific analysis and effective policy.

Why the Gigantic, Decades-Long Drop in Black Youth Crime Threatens Major Interests — Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice

According to the FBI statistics in the article:

Murder and non-negligent manslaughter arrests:
white: 4000
black: 4149

According to the FBI stats in the article

Whites commit 69% of all crime. Again thats 69%...More than half.

 

[impuretrash]

According to the FBI stats in the article

Whites commit 69% of all crime. Again thats 69%...More than half.

Yeah, if you include minor shit like vagrancy, gambling and vandalism.

 

[gallantwarrior]

So you want whites to be responsible for none of the crimes committed, leaving that for all other races? How would that be a positive thing? We'll ignore how completely irrational it is to think an entire race, particularly one that makes up most of the population, would not commit any of the crimes. Of course, since you brought up 28%, it seems as if you were actually talking about crimes committed by blacks rather than whites.

I would guess that economic status/financial issues are a motivation for many crimes by people of all races. However, people commit a whole lot of crimes based on things completely separate from finances.

Correct. Whites own the system so they literally have no reason to commit crimes. They should have an incredibly low crime rate. It would be a positive thing because overall the crime rate would drop significantly if whites were not committing 69% of the crime. Think about that for a moment. 69% of all crime gone. That would cut the crime rate by more than half. Dont get me confused. I dont think its possible for whites to do it. You asked what I thought would be appropriate. No I was talking about crimes committed by whites. Thats why I said whites instead of Blacks.

And yet whites commit crimes just like members of any race. Perhaps that should make you rethink just what "whites own the system" actually means.

You also are having a hard time with the idea of percentages. Whites commit 69% of crimes. I asked what percentage of crimes is appropriate for whites to commit. Changing the percentage of crimes whites commit has no effect on the actual number of crimes being committed. I asked about the percentage. Let's go back to apples, since you seem to like them as an example. If there are 100 apples, and whites have 70 of them, they have 70% of the apples. If I ask what an appropriate percentage of apples for whites to have is, and you say 0, there are still 100 apples, whites just don't have any of them.

Of course if whites stopped committing crimes it would lower the total number of crimes significantly, which would be good. That wasn't the question. I didn't ask how many crimes whites should commit, but what percentage of crimes committed should appropriately be done by whites.

True. I think criminality for whites is directly attributable to either genetics or philosophy. Whites come from a land of scares resources. Blacks come from a land of plenty. When you lack (resources, melanin, positive philosophy etc) you are prone to crime and violence. At some point it becomes a genetic thing passed down like skin color. What else would make an already wealthy white person scam others out of billions? What would make whites lie about not stealing more NA land treaty after treaty? What would make whites commit criminal acts to keep Blacks from voting? They cant help it because its ingrained in their DNA or philosophy.

That makes no sense. If whites stopped committing 69% of the crime then that crime is gone from total crime. Does this make sense to you or are you claiming that other races will pick up the slack?

Apples are analogous to crime. If whites have no crime then 69 of the 100 apples are no longer there.

Well, if you want to use the same sort of arguments that anti-black racists use, have at it.

Again, I asked about what an appropriate percentage of whites committing crime would be, not about the number of crimes. It makes perfect sense. If whites commit 69% of crimes, and that is for some reason a problem, what would be a percentage of crimes that whites commit that would be appropriate? I didn't ask how many fewer crimes should be committed overall, or how many fewer whites should commit crimes, just what percentage of overall crimes being committed by whites is appropriate. If whites committed 50% of all crimes (while still being 60-75% of the population, depending on the numbers you are using) would that be appropriate? Is it appropriate for other races to commit a higher percentage of crimes than their percentage of the total population?

To once again give you an example, if there were 100 crimes committed in the US last year, and whites committed 69 of them, apparently that's a problem. So I'm asking, if there are 100 crimes committed, how many would it be acceptable for whites to have committed? Of course if you just get rid of 69 out of 100 crimes, that's good. I'm not asking that, though, because that isn't what I was replying to. I replied to a comment about whites committing 69% of crimes not being acceptable.

Again that doesnt make any sense. In order to commit a percentage of crimes whites would have to commit a specific number of crimes which would be a subset of the total crimes. I mean how can there not be a numerical value of total crimes committed yet whites still commit 69% of crimes? Its mathematically impossible to separate the 2 values. Like I said when you first asked me the question my answer was that whites should commit 0 crime. That would correlate to 0% of the crime. That would be appropriate/acceptable to me in congruence with the reasons I already gave.

o you, an alleged black person, now wants to dictate how white should eliminate crime in their ranks. While you, an alleged black person, have repeated told white people that they have no clue about black people, black communities, black culture. Dude, why don't you focus on your black community and help bring down that 28% crime rate to 0. Leave the whites to themselves and let the police their own. You have no idea about white people and their motivations. You're black. Work to make your black community better.