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...Kind of convenient and non specific right? The only way per capita would be a solid data source is if it did count the number of each people in each group committing the crimes. For example if Blacks are 12 out of 100 and only 2 black people steal 24 apples and whites are 70 out of 100 and all steal 1 apple each which group is more likely to be criminals? The data would show whites are more likely to be criminals simply because more whites stole an apple.The per capita stats don't require the number of people in each group committing the crimes. They merely show the number of crimes committed per person within the population. Per capita basically means 'per person', although I think it more directly translates to 'by head'.
You absolutely implied that whites are not hard working and are more widely criminal. When asked why blacks might commit more crimes per perpetrator, you gave the reason as blacks are hard working (implying whites are not so) and that blacks get blamed for a few repeat criminals (implying whites are not blamed for a few repeat criminals, which would instead mean crime is more common among whites). I don't know what you mean by "your historians imply that."
Your white historians have documented the crimes of whites. Not to signify that they were crimes but to glorify them as great accomplishments. Having pride in being criminals shows the mindset of the white culture. They value brute force, lying, stealing, rape, murder enslavement, etc etc.
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?
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.