Millions For The Study Of “White Racism”

Dave Huber discusses an effort at the University of Pennsylvania to raise $10 million for the study of “white racism.”

Say What? (50)

  1. Richard Nieporent May 17, 2005 at 12:30 pm | | Reply

    study of “white racism.”

    Isn’t that redundant? After all only white men can be racist.

  2. Roy May 17, 2005 at 4:18 pm | | Reply

    This is the same University that has popularized “afritocracy” and “ghettocracy”. ugh

    read it

  3. Cobra May 17, 2005 at 10:26 pm | | Reply

    “Institute for the Research and Study of American White Racism?”

    Hmmm…why would anybody have an interest in examining this subject?

    Could there be a problem with the perception of minorities in society; particularly African-Americans?

    The Black Men of Penn School of Social Work Inc. seem to think so. And according to a letter addressed to Kaitlyn Kiernan, a high school student in Illinois, so does Ward Connerly:

    >>>At first blush, events such as “Black History Month,” African-American studies, and other race-based events, do have the appearance of being “racist” in nature. But, allow me to contribute to your perspective.

    When I was your age, “black” people rarely saw themselves depicted in history books as anything other than the descendants of slaves. With the advent of television, blacks were always cast in a subordinate role or required to be the brunt of someone else’s jokes. To be “black” was to be regarded as inferior in intelligence, socially undesirable, and incapable of making a substantive contribution to American life. Because our government had been a major contributor to the way in which “black” people had been and were being characterized, it made sense for public agencies to do their part to alter the perceptions that had been created and to find ways of portraying black people in a more positive and more accurate manner. There was a critical need to instill a sense of self-pride in black Americans, to encourage them to lift their collective heads and to expose others to different perspectives so that our nation could rid itself of the stereotypes and prejudices that were so prevalent.”

    –http://www.therant.us/staff/guest/connerly/dear_kaitlyn.htm

    Now, usually, if Connerly said the sky is blue, I’d immediately reach for my umbrella, but as the old adage says, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    –Cobra

  4. Michelle Dulak Thomson May 17, 2005 at 11:03 pm | | Reply

    Cobra,

    Studying Black history and studying “white racism” seem to me rather different things. I don’t think what Connerly is talking about and what UPenn is contemplating are the same sort of puppy. In fact, I’m not sure why you think so yourself.

  5. Cobra May 17, 2005 at 11:45 pm | | Reply

    Michelle writes:

    >>>Studying Black history and studying “white racism” seem to me rather different things.”

    I don’t believe either subject can be honestly, and adequately studied without the other. There are clear similarities between Connerly’s statements in the letter and those of the Black Men of Penn School of Social Work Inc. Both acknowlege the white racism that affected African Americans throughout history, and both support corrective measures.

    –Cobra

  6. superdestroyer May 18, 2005 at 5:57 am | | Reply

    Cobra,

    Too many blacks demonstrate show they really feel by acting very interested in black history month while ignoring Hispanic history week, Asia-Pacific history week, etc. The problem with black history month is that is does little to actually improve overall history education but just gives a forum to too man racist blacks to vent against whites.

  7. Dave Huber May 18, 2005 at 7:53 am | | Reply

    Cobra: When was the last time you looked at a modern middle or high school history textbook?

  8. Laura May 18, 2005 at 2:02 pm | | Reply

    “Studying Black history and studying ‘white racism’ seem to me rather different things.”

    Heck, yes, they’re different. Racism is a negative thing. History is positive, at least as black history is taught. To try to equate those gets us back to the old “black = good, white = bad” scenario. Even us white folks who condemn racism get very tired of this kind of thing.

  9. Stephen May 18, 2005 at 2:02 pm | | Reply

    Cobra,

    Blacks are far more racist than whites.

    The crime stats prove it.

    The Ward Churchill saga is instructive here. One of the unacknowledged issues here is that a white man must assume the preposterous stance Churchill has adopted in order to get a job on a humanities faculty.

    White racism has just about zero influence in your life. It’s just an excuse, and it’s getting lamer every day. Black racism (your own) is killing you. Thomas Sowell has answered you at length in his latest book. I suggest you read it.

    The excuse mongering that seems to be the very core of your existence is boring and of no consequence. I just consider it farcial whining. That’s what it is. Sensible people ignore it. Sometimes I feel sorry for you for crippling yourself. Sometimes, I just have to laugh out loud.

  10. Michelle Dulak Thomson May 18, 2005 at 4:32 pm | | Reply

    Stephen,

    Blacks are far more racist than whites.

    The crime stats prove it.

    Stephen, once and for all, and for the gazillionth time, this is a load of horsepucky.

    Blacks are, what, 12% of the population, yes? If black criminals were disproportionately targeting non-black victims, then the proportion of victims reporting their assailant to be black who are themselves black would be smaller than 12% of the total victim pool. This is not the case; in fact, the last time I tried to track the stats down (it was some months ago, and I don’t have them to hand now), it looked like the percentage of victims who could name the race of their assailant as “black” that were themselves black was much, much larger than 12%. I don’t remember whether it was a majority or not, but it was large.

    Now think about it. Assume a completely unbiased criminal — one who, say, picks an SSN at random, finds out who belongs to it, and systematically victimizes him or her. 12% of the victimized, statistically speaking, will be black; the remaining 88% will be of other races. Now look at the reality, with the fraction of crimes known to be committed by blacks on black victims much more than 12%. It follows that the fraction committed on non-black victims is smaller than you’d get by pure chance. In other words, black criminals are certainly not singling out non-black victims; rather the reverse.

    This is what you’d expect, of course; people tend to assault, rape, kill people they know, and much of this country is de facto segregated still (the North more than the South, actually). And since the black violent-crime rate really is a lot higher than the white violent-crime rate, if you compare “whites killed by blacks” to “blacks killed by whites,” you get the juicy but misleading statistic you are no doubt thinking of.

    But it’s basically bull. All you have to do is imagine what a criminal victimizing completely at random would do, factor in the difference in crime rates between blacks and whites, look at the actual stats, and the whole thing vanishes in a puff of smoke.

  11. Stephen May 18, 2005 at 4:57 pm | | Reply

    Normally, Michelle, I find you quite convincing. This time, no.

    I’m not arguing from statistics. I’m arguing from the reality of my life. I’ve lived a pretty rough one, in black communities in Chicago, San Francisco and NYC. I’m a jazz and blues musician, and I’ve worked with blacks since I was a kid. Still do.

    Whites are afraid of black men for a very good reason. Black men are in jail in droves for a very good reason.

    When I was younger, I conned myself into believing the nonsense you are conning yourself with and I almost got myself and my family murdered as a reward.

    I’d warn you not to act on the foolish nonsense you are purveying, but I am quite confident that in the reality of your life you don’t.

    Whale away at me if you like. You know better than to drive your car into the wrong black neighborhood, and you don’t, because you want to stay alive. The rest is sophistry.

    You are obviously a very smart woman, but you obviously have also led a very sheltered life. Best for you to stay that way. The statistics you’ve quoted are absurd nonsense. If you live in a major city in the U.S., you structure your life (perhaps unconsciously) to avoid running into the wrong black men. As I said, whale away at me. I’ll have nothing more to say.

  12. Michelle Dulak Thomson May 18, 2005 at 5:30 pm | | Reply

    Stephen,

    You are obviously a very smart woman, but you obviously have also led a very sheltered life. Best for you to stay that way.

    Once again: horsepucky. You have no idea where I’ve lived or what I’ve done.

    For one thing, your point about my not driving into “wrong” black neighborhoods is hilarious, because I don’t drive. I spend my commutes on public transit. And as my job is reviewing concerts, sometimes it’s a lot of public transit. And sometimes it doesn’t work so well, and sometimes you’re stuck on an inhospitable street having just missed a bus.

    You say you lived in SF: How’d you like to hang out on Van Ness for an hour late on a Saturday night after just missing a bus, avoiding the (white, if it matters) drunkard who wants to “give you a kiss” by hiking six blocks further up the street? Yep, that’s sheltered little old me, a few weeks ago. No contact with the seedy side of life, me. Nope, not ever.

    When I go over to the East Bay to review, I generally go via Richmond BART. Been there much?

    Hell, I lived for seven years just off San Pablo Ave. on 45th Street in Emeryville (technically Emeryville, but Oakland within two blocks in any direction but one), and if you’d ever mustered the courage to drive trepidatiously through that neighborhood (well, that’s not fair; at the time there was no reason to go there except to get somewhere else), you’d know that “sheltered” is a relative term. My corner grocery store was called “Bottoms Up Liquors.” I rather suspect that my living arrangements weren’t all that more “sheltered” than your own.

  13. Stephen May 18, 2005 at 5:41 pm | | Reply

    Well, I’ll violate my own vow of silence once to tell you that you should know better.

    I lived on Sutter and Presidio at the time that black gangsters terrorized the entire city with random murders of whites. One of them occurred on Divisadero and Sutter in broad daylight.

    The “flat” area of Berkeley and Oakland, at the same time, was terrorized by Black Panthers. The city of Oakland is one of the most black gang infested areas in America. I commuted to gigs in Berkeley on BART many times.

    I played regularly in the clubs along San Pablo Avenue. Black gangs roamed that area with impunity 30 years ago, emboldened by the doctrinaire refusal of Berkeley radicals to bring full police force to bear on them.

    So, since you know the reality of black gangsterism in those areas, why do you persist in denying it?

    Perhaps, any reason applies. The classic tale of white liberals wanting to pretend black gangsterism out of existence was, of course, the Patty Hearst kidnapping. To this day, white liberals in the Bay Area continue to be taken in by this syndrome.

    The poster known as “Cobra” on this board has taken the symbolism of the Symbionese Liberation Army as his moniker and adopted the threatening and theatrical tactics as his style.

    Yes, I am well aware of the syndrome of Bay Area leftists refusing to acknowledge black gangsterism. It’s an old tradition.

  14. Cobra May 18, 2005 at 6:25 pm | | Reply

    Stephen writes:

    >>>The poster known as “Cobra” on this board has taken the symbolism of the Symbionese Liberation Army as his moniker and adopted the threatening and theatrical tactics as his style.”

    http://www.thecobraslair.com/images/ENDANGERED-SPECIES-STREAM.gif

    Stephen, I think you’re about the best friend an African American liberal like me could ever have online. Honestly, don’t you EVER change, baby.

    Michelle writes:

    >>>Stephen, once and for all, and for the gazillionth time, this is a load of horsepucky.”

    Excellent repudiation of my “best friend” Stephen by using the antedote for that which he is afflicted–FACTS.

    Dave Huber writes:

    >>>Cobra: When was the last time you looked at a modern middle or high school history textbook?”

    It’s been a while. But that doesn’t change Connerly’s position, or mine for that matter. Connerly writes…

    >>>”To be “black” was to be regarded as inferior in intelligence, socially undesirable, and incapable of making a substantive contribution to American life. Because our government had been a major contributor to the way in which “black” people had been and were being characterized, it made sense for public agencies to do their part to alter the perceptions that had been created and to find ways of portraying black people in a more positive and more accurate manner.”

    http://www.therant.us/staff/guest/connerly/dear_kaitlyn.htm

    Now, far be it from me to just be a contrarian and not examine today’s text books, so I’m going to make a conscious effort to see some recent editions. That doesn’t change the fact that most Americans walking around today dealt with text books and lesson plans that weren’t sufficient when it came to minorities and the TITANIC spectre of white racism in American History and society. This particular project might not be a perfect vehicle, but an open, thorough and vigorous examination of the topic at hand is long overdue, and would do wonders for bringing about a much needed national discussion on RACE.

    –Cobra

  15. Michelle Dulak Thomson May 18, 2005 at 6:29 pm | | Reply

    Stephen,

    I don’t think our “Cobra” has pretended to have seven heads.

    Anyway, if you were out here 30 years ago, you don’t know the Bay Area as it is now. It’s certainly not as you describe it, either politically or demographically. There are black gangs, sure; there are probably places that are official “turf.”

    (There’s a lot of weaponry, too; you wanna remember some high school physics fast, stay at 45th & San Pablo on New Year’s Eve, and find yourself calculating mentally just how long a bullet with a given muzzle velocity would take to come back down if you shot it straight up. Even I was unnerved when someone shot of a clip of 40 or so, all at once, apparently a few blocks away. That has to be the dumbest celebratory tradition in human history; does no one realize that what goes up must come down?)

    But that neighborhood — it was maybe one-third each white, black, & Indian/Pakistani — was the friendliest place I’ve ever lived. Total strangers (of all races) said hello to one another from across the street. It was full of good people. I mean, it was also two blocks from the Oaks Club (Emeryville had, and has, legalized gambling, and the Oaks Club is the big card place on San Pablo), but that was hardly the residents’ fault.

    Anyway, I saw no evidence of “black gangsterism,” possibly because I only moved in at the end of the 80s. The “Berkeley police” wouldn’t have had jurisdiction here. (The one time we called the Emeryville police, they arrived literally within two minutes.)

    Stephen, I’m not a “liberal” nor a “leftist,” still less a victim of Stockholm Syndrome. I know my surroundings, and they are not overly-crowded with black gangsters; nor were my many other old residences in the Bay Area. Please stow your stereotypes — of Bay Area residents, I mean.

    Incidentally, so long as we’re on the subject of stereotyping, would you care to apply your statistical expertise to the relative murderousness of men and women? Do you feel jitters when a man comes up the street, just because men seem to commit murder several times more often than women do? Seriously, I’m curious.

  16. mikem May 18, 2005 at 11:02 pm | | Reply

    Michele:

    “factor in the difference in crime rates between blacks and whites, look at the actual stats, and the whole thing vanishes in a puff of smoke.”

    So your explanation for the, approximately, 4 to 1 ratio of black on white crime versus white on black crime (despite the reverse demographics) is that blacks are, what, inherently more criminal?

    Stephen has a point. And even if you dismiss hard numbers, what about the racist and stereotypical remarks that blacks and their opinion makers, especially academics, regularly make without censure? Isn’t it a reflection of the normality of black racism that racist remarks from blacks are deemed non controversial but the same remark directed at blacks by whites would result in headlines and firings?

    Is it unfair to note the difference in tolerance for racist remarks as indicative of racism itself?

  17. Michelle Dulak Thomson May 18, 2005 at 11:42 pm | | Reply

    Um, mikem, whaddaya mean “despite the reverse demographics”? If you’re a white criminal choosing a victim totally at random, 12% of the time your victim is black. If you’re a black criminal choosing a victim totally at random, 88% of the time your victim is not black. If (as seems to be the case) blacks are actually more than 12% of the victims of black criminals, then black criminals are not intentionally targeting non-blacks — not as a class, anyway.

    Obviously there exist racist blacks, but the fact that there’s more black-on-white crime than white-on-black crime is no proof that blacks are more racist than whites, because there are a lot more whites than blacks, and a random criminal will victimize many more whites than blacks. Black criminals in fact victimize blacks disproportionately; therefore black criminals do not, as a group, target non-blacks.

    Jeez, I grow tired of explaining this. How hard is it?

    Re racist remarks, I’m tentatively with you there, in the sense that I’ve heard things said about whites that would cause firestorms if said about blacks or Latinos or Native Americans. All the same, I really don’t see what this has to do with the subject. Stephen is eloquent on his chosen subjects, but I don’t see him — or you, come to that — showing any interest in my point about the differing crime rates of men and women.

  18. mikem May 19, 2005 at 12:36 am | | Reply

    “Jeez, I grow tired of explaining this. How hard is it?”

    I could say the same, Michelle, and I have praised your commentary often enough to rate a less sneering comment when I disagree with you.

    You failed to answer my direct question about the very issue we are talking about but you complain that I have not answered your hypothetical about male/female murder rates. And actually I took your question to be rhetorical, but I will answer it later.

    Meanwhile, would you answer my question? Is it your point that blacks are more likely, by percentages, to commit crimes than whites? That seems to be what you are referring to with “factor in the difference in crime rates between blacks and whites…”. That seems to be your explanation for statistics that objectively indicate a greater rate of black on white crime than the reverse, despite the higher percentage/ numbers of whites to blacks. Have I read you right?

    To answer your question, yes, I would definitely feel more secure walking toward a crowd of women than men on a dark street etc. If you say you would not, well, I’ll just have to take your word for it, I guess. Men are more likely to commit violent crimes than women. I consider that to be a no brainer, but you seem to be working towards a ‘gotcha’. I’m curious as to how you feel this applies to the original question. Unless your point is that blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes than whites. And then your scenario, changed to black and white, would have the same result whether the fear was based on ‘racist blacks’ or ‘more criminal’ blacks, wouldn’t it? I agree that that would move the explanation away somewhat from deliberate racism to simply higher black criminality. (Not enough to explain it entirely, but I’m willing to cede the direction at least.) I’m just wondering how comfortable you or black Americans are with that explanation.

  19. Cobra May 19, 2005 at 3:33 am | | Reply

    Again, I agree with Michelle on this diversion into the “black boogeyman myth” of crime statistics.

    >>>FBI crime reports indicate the vast majority of homicides involve acquaintances or relatives (75%) rather than strangers (25%). A similar pattern holds true for assault: acquaintances or relatives (60%) versus strangers (40%). In recent years, however, stranger violence is increasing, as are drive-bys, serial and mass murder. Homicide is mostly an INTRA-RACIAL event since 95% of the time, offender and victim are of the SAME RACE (Decker 1993).”

    http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/301/301lect15.htm

    Of course, Mikem and Stephen, God bless them both, will NEVER talk about those FACTS, or the FBI profiles of pedophiles, serial killers, domestic terrorists, and organized crime figures (middle aged white men, for the uninformed.)

    Why? Because it doesn’t advance their IDEOLOGIES. To many of their type of thinking, a black kid caught shoplifting is a greater Satan than a white CEO shoplifting their pensions.

    All the more reason why I should send a check to those Black Men of Penn, huh?

    –Cobra

  20. mikem May 19, 2005 at 5:05 am | | Reply

    I agree with many of the figures you cited, Cobra. Many are just common sense, especially homicide figures. And no doubt if you look at specific categories of non violent crime you are likely to find areas where blacks do not ‘excel’, like stock manipulation and art fraud and so on. But we were talking about the figures for inter-racial crimes, specifically. That you would inject numbers for a different category of crime wouldn’t have anything to do with ideology, would it?

    So why don’t you answer the question, Cobra? What is the explanation for the disparity? Is it black racism against whites or just higher criminality among blacks?

  21. Stephen May 19, 2005 at 7:43 am | | Reply

    Isn’t it interesting that Cobra has nominated himself as spokesman for all black people? How did that happen? What office exactly do you hold?

    Cobra’s act is not of his own making. He is a creation of the bizarre game that white liberals play. White liberals taught him that the posturing, and the constant racism scam will get him something.

    One day he will wake up and understand that he is being had. Maybe.

    You might want to spend your money on an actual education in something other than the racism scam, Cobra. Like maybe acquire a job skill. Heavens no!

  22. Stephen May 19, 2005 at 7:54 am | | Reply

    I understand completely Michelle. You are a writer and you live in the Bay Area.

    The greatest taboo of the Bay Area is openly acknowledging black gangsterism. It’s always explained away, and the explanation gets more convoluted every day. Usually, the explanation is that black men are justified in their gangsterism because they are oppressed.

    You won’t get work in the Bay Area if you deviate from the party line. And, as is often the case, you’ve blinded yourself to the fact that you are toeing the line for self-preservation.

    No, I’m not at all worried about white men. Neither are you. You can play the “let’s pretend” game so common in the Bay Area. I won’t.

    In most major cities in the U.S., 1 in 3 black men is either in prison or in trouble with the law. Yes, you are a white liberal, Michelle. Because you think of yourself as sensible in comparison to the hysteria of the Bay Area doesn’t change that.

    Refusing to acknowledge the reality of black gangsterism hurts black people, Michelle. It’s a very silly game. The best way to encourage the recovery of the black community from the devastation of the welfare era is to hold black men to account.

  23. superdestroyer May 19, 2005 at 3:43 pm | | Reply

    cobra,

    According to the Department of Justice, blacks are 6 times more likely to be the victim of a violet crime than whites and 7 times more likely to commit a violet crimes. The only why that happens is that blacks commits more crimes against white on a per capita basis than whites commit against blacks.

    Also, there are as high a percentage of black serial killers (DC Sniper, Colin Ferguson, Wayne Williams, Henry Louis Wallace, etc. Also, how would you determine if blacks are not pedofiles when the birthrate for teen girls is twice that of whites?

    Also, how can you not call the arson murder of Angela Dawson and her family an act of terrorism? Is there political reasons not to call it terrorism?

  24. Michelle Dulak Thomson May 19, 2005 at 5:24 pm | | Reply

    Good heavens, Stephen. First I was the sheltered Little Woman; then I was the self-deluding fool; now I’m the “Bay Area writer” who couldn’t possibly hold a job in this place unless I were to hold up my arm and solemnly swear (disingenuously) that there are no such people as black gangsters. You do seem to know such a varied lot of things about me. And they change so rapidly!

    Just for your information, no one I work with either knows or cares what I think about black criminal behavior in the Bay Area. My co-workers know I’m well to the right of them, but we get on well.

  25. Stephen May 19, 2005 at 5:52 pm | | Reply

    Michelle,

    I am a professional musician, and at times I’ve worked also as a magazine and newspaper writer. I know what those professions are like. Adherence to leftist racial malarkey is the price of admission. It’s really an extortion racket.

    You don’t have to hold up your hand to anything.

    As a musician, I am quite often asked to perform in venues in front of posters of that wretched cop killer, Mumia. If I want to get exposure to broader audiences, I must play for benefits for a variety of dubious leftist causes.

    The press in SF is off the wall. It is positively nuts. You may be to the right of your colleagues in SF. In Peoria, you’d be considered a flaming Marxist. Reading the SF press will seriously warp your brain.

    Perspective is just about impossible to maintain in the doofus universe of the Bay Area. I still visit there quite frequently, since my daughter lives there.

    You don’t have to say anything about black gangsterism. The blarney about this is a constant subject in SF. About the only peculiarity of this in SF is that white radicals often join forces with black gangsters. The favorite scheme for saving the world among white radicals in SF is to join forces with black gangsters to start a race war.

    The Bay Area is a rather sheltered environment… often rather sheltered from sanity. Your characterization of my remarks is a little foolish. Have fun with it.

    The convoluted and preposterous arguments you’ve made to excuse black gangsterism make it quite clear that you have thoroughly absorbed the silliness of the Bay Area. The fact that you even do it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is remarkable. I’ve heard the bizarre arguments you’ve presented many times in SF. Your attempts to indict white men as presenting the same danger to you as black men is the ultimate tipoff. This is the required stance.

    I don’t know anything about you except what you write. Your attempts to excuse black gangsterism and find a meandering and convoluted way to rationalize it away are pure Bay Area nonsense. Maybe you ought to get the hell away from there. It’s a beautiful area, but it’s not a fit place for a sane person to live.

  26. Cobra May 19, 2005 at 6:04 pm | | Reply

    Superdestroyer writes:

    >>>According to the Department of Justice, blacks are 6 times more likely to be the victim of a violet crime than whites and 7 times more likely to commit a violet crimes. The only why that happens is that blacks commits more crimes against white on a per capita basis than whites commit against blacks.”

    You still don’t get it, do you? No matter how many times Michelle or I post the REALITY of crime in America, you will not let go of the fixation you have on maligning blacks.

    I guess you’re just providing ANOTHER reason for me to support the Black Men of Penn.

    –Cobra

  27. Michelle Dulak Thomson May 19, 2005 at 6:26 pm | | Reply

    Stephen,

    The Bay Area is a rather sheltered environment… often rather sheltered from sanity. Your characterization of my remarks is a little foolish. Have fun with it.

    Well, by your own account, I’ve spent twenty years living and working in the seedier parts of a place infested with black gangsters, relying on public transit and therefore spending hours standing on nasty street corners after dark. If you want to call that “sheltered,” go for it.

    The convoluted and preposterous arguments you’ve made to excuse black gangsterism make it quite clear that you have thoroughly absorbed the silliness of the Bay Area. The fact that you even do it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is remarkable. I’ve heard the bizarre arguments you’ve presented many times in SF. Your attempts to indict white men as presenting the same danger to you as black men is the ultimate tipoff. This is the required stance.

    Excuse me? Where did I say that white men and black men “presented the same danger to me”? I am quite sure I never said this.

    What I did ask you was whether the large differential in violent crime rates between men and women (NB: race not specified) caused you to become nervous when you saw a man (NB: race not specified!) coming up the street.

    Query: from which do you fear violent attack more: unfamiliar white men, or unfamiliar black women?

  28. mikem May 19, 2005 at 8:42 pm | | Reply

    Michelle: I responded to your question in my earlier post. Would you please respond to mine?

    Cobra: I don’t expect an answer from you to my previous post, but I would like to point out that discussing why blacks disproportionately commit crimes or crimes against whites is no more “maligning” blacks than making any number of racial performance statements that you throw out in defense of skin color discrimination.

  29. Michelle Dulak Thomson May 19, 2005 at 9:31 pm | | Reply

    mikem,

    My apologies; my computer crashed in a major way while I was writing a reply to you, and as I was just writing it in the comments box as always, I lost all of it.

    I know that sounds like “The dog ate my homework,” but it does happen.

    Anyway, to your question: Briefly, if you assume that no one has any racial bias and that anyone is equally likely to be a criminal, you’d expect white-on-black crime and black-on-white crime to occur at equal rates. OTOH, you’d also expect that most victims of black criminals would be white, as would most victims of white criminals. You would also expect few victims of white or black criminals to be black. One in eight, to be precise.

    Now (and this was your question), it is also true that the black violent crime rate is higher than the white violent crime rate. Is that what you wanted me to say/admit? It’s quite true.

    And it adds to the disparities when Stephen and the like get statistical. I’m not denying that blacks take disproportionately to criminality; what I’m denying is that their victimizing “non-whites” shows that they’re more “racist” than whites.

    How many times do I have to say it? If you are a black criminal, 7 out of 8 of your possible victims are non-black. If you are a white criminal, 7 out of 8 of your possible victims are non-black. You and Stephen will focus on the black criminal’s 7 out of 8; you are completely uninterested in the other eighth. (Which is a lot bigger than an eighth, as I explained a couple of days ago.)

  30. mikem May 19, 2005 at 10:36 pm | | Reply

    Thanks for the reply, Michelle. I understand your math and logic. I understood them the first time you employed them. My point is/was that it does not explain the full disparity of the interracial ‘splashover’ unless one starts with a presumption of highly disproportionate black criminality.

    I will admit that I found your logic intellectually honest and gave it what is for me a great deal of thought. I had not looked at the numbers from that point of view. Frankly I want to make sure that I have not missed a factor that would otherwise explain an objective indication of racism. The reason I do not wholeheartedly support your view is that the same 7/8, 1/8 numbers that you use to explain the higher victimization of whites by blacks should also be employed to ‘enhance’ the victimizer numbers. I’m not saying they wash each other out and we are still left with objective racism instead of criminality, but certainly the same percentages that ‘limit’ the victim disparity should be used to enhance the victimizer numbers.

    If we are going to employ fractions and percentages correctly, we need to apply them to both sides of the equation.

  31. Garrick Williams May 20, 2005 at 10:55 am | | Reply

    The crime debate is interesting, if a little off topic for this thread. My only comment is that there doesn’t seem to be a statistical proof from crime rates that blacks are “more” racist than whites, in fact quite the opposite, since blacks commit more crimes against blacks than pure randomness would suggest.

    Additionally, black men are statistically the demographic group most likely to commit violent crime. Stating this is not “maligning blacks”, it is simply a fact. Extruding from that that you should be afraid of any black man walking down the street might be racist, but then even that has to be taken in perspective: for example, between a white dude in a “gangsta” outfit in a dark alley at 2:30 AM and a black man in a suit driving a Lexus down Main Street, I’m more afraid of the white guy, as I believe most people would be. Basically this just shows that racial demographics are a terrible predictor of these sort of things (crime, a “justification” for discriminating against blacks, and academic performance, a “justification” for discriminating against whites), so it’s ridiculous to argue about these stats because they don’t mean much anyway.

    As far as Penn’s desire for a new institute, I think it’s rather silly and narrow-minded. Studying racism as a social phenomenon has merit, but I think we all know that this institute would turn into a primarily political venue. This is a shame because a truly unbiased study of the causes and effects of racism in the human species could be very beneficial. Instead, they are organizing to study only white racism, which, while influential in American history, is far from the whole story.

    We can argue all day about the extent of “white” racism vs. “black” racism, but the simple fact is that both exist and the world would be a better place without either. Another fact is that “black” racism is rather more socially acceptable in today’s political climate.

    The “Black Men at Penn” suffer from their own prejudices, and it saddens me that they are so quick to find prejudice in white men but so slow to recognize it in themselves. They say “Because of the fear whites have for black men, I’m always looked at as a beast.” In that statement, they make a huge generalization about whites that is, by their own standards (assuming the tables are turned), racist. They would assume, without knowing the first thing about me, that I am a racist pig, even though I in fact look at their picture and see a group of intelligent looking (if a little misguided (but that’s not from the picture)) black men. In their first impression of me, they would instinctively form a negative impression of me based on the color of my skin. How is that not racist? How is that any less “insidious” than if I thought they might be thugs because they’re black?

    Studying white-on-minority racism without studying its reciprocal is dangerous. It is dangerous because it encourages victimhood and supports the false assumption that all whites are actively trying to keep blacks oppressed. In short, it encourages racism rather than combatting it. What the Black Men of Penn fail to realize is that black-on-white racism is just as damaging to their cause as white racism. For example, would a white businessman want to hire a black candidate who spends his free time preaching that all white businessmen are evil oppressors? Should he?

    Racism is damgaing no matter who the perpetrator is. It hurts communication and creates social conflict where it has no reasonable cause for existence. Blacks who suffered through segregation becoming racists themselves might be understandable, but it still isn’t justified and certainly isn’t right. Combatting racism will require a thorough understanding of all aspects of racism, not just one. If nothing else, white racism is already socially unnacceptable, so a study of racism by victims of racism might be more be beneficial, since, while great strides have been taken in punishing and rooting out white racism (anyone who says otherwise is slapping the face of someone who suffered through the very real, socially accepted racism of the years before the civil rights successes of the 60’s and 70’s), very little has been done to discourage the equally insidious phenomenon of black racism.

    I guess my ultimate take is that, while the goal of eliminating racism is laudable, the Black Men at Penn seem to be either misguided or simply looking to find an outlet for their own prejudices against whites.

  32. Michelle Dulak Thomson May 20, 2005 at 3:13 pm | | Reply

    mikem,

    Sorry to take so long responding.

    The reason I do not wholeheartedly support your view is that the same 7/8, 1/8 numbers that you use to explain the higher victimization of whites by blacks should also be employed to ‘enhance’ the victimizer numbers. I’m not saying they wash each other out and we are still left with objective racism instead of criminality, but certainly the same percentages that ‘limit’ the victim disparity should be used to enhance the victimizer numbers.

    If we are going to employ fractions and percentages correctly, we need to apply them to both sides of the equation.

    I fear I’m not following you at all here.

    The only question that has any bearing on whether blacks can be shown to be more “racist” than whites by crime statistics is whether black criminals attack whites disproportionally. They don’t; they attack other blacks disproportionally. That’s so even though you might expect them to attack whites disproportionally even absent racism. Criminals who attack strangers are usually after money, and there are a lot more rich white men than rich black men, even taking their relative proportions in the population into account.

    The reason black criminality in general factors in here is that if a group as a whole has a higher rate of criminality, obviously the rate at which it victimizes another population is likely to be higher. I’m not suggesting that a random black man is less likely to mug you than a random white man is. I am suggesting that, given the disparity in black and white crime rates, the crime stats don’t prove squat about black racism. In fact, they consistently prove the opposite. I don’t often agree with Cobra, but I’m with him here.

  33. Michelle Dulak Thomson May 20, 2005 at 4:39 pm | | Reply

    I should have posted this earlier, but I just want to thank Garrick Williams for his last, thoughtful post, and add that I agree with everything in it.

  34. mikem May 20, 2005 at 10:17 pm | | Reply

    Both you and Garrick cite a high incidence or proportion of black on black crime as proof that racism is not a factor in the high rate of black on white crime. But that is perhaps proof of high black criminality, rather than what you use it as. You’re ignoring the more determining factor of location. Victimizers operate where they live, in their neighborhoods, and people tend to clump together within their own racial group. Your point of juxtaposing black on black rates versus pure randomness is true if the sociologists and criminologists are wrong and criminals choose victims without regard to convenience, opportunity or location, i.e., the neighborhood. (Criminals generally commit crimes where they live, where it is convenient for them, not at a random location that would allow for the use you cite.)

    I’m willing to believe that race is not a factor, but it seems that it would require not just a higher rate of black criminality, but an extremely higher rate. I have seen percentages for young black men and their rates and expectation of imprisonment. I know it is shocking, but is it that much?

    I live in PG county, outside DC. It is approximately 80% black. All things being equal, by your logic I should expect to see a much higher incidence of white on black crime than the reverse. It is the opposite. And the same type percentages you use to ‘explain’ higher black on white crime are used to explain the same thing here, even though the numbers are reversed(!). I don’t hold you responsible for others abusing your logic, but seeing others come to the same conclusion using the opposite numbers makes me leery of embracing your point.

  35. leo cruz May 21, 2005 at 4:12 am | | Reply

    most available evidence suggests that crime be it in the form of assault , robbery or homicide tends to be perpetrated on an interrace basis. In other words blacks tend to prey more likely on fellow blacks, whites on fellow whites , vietnamese on fellow vietnamese, chinese on fellow chinese. Makes sense i believe, since people of a particular race or ethnic group have a tendency to live close to each other and know the predilections, proclivities and tastes of their fellow racial group. In other words, the Russian mafia would know which fellow russians tend to keep their money under the mattress etc., or that Vietnamese know which fellow Vietnamese keep gold bars in their homes. That sort of behavior might also extend to financial fraud or immigration schemes. Anyway, discrimination never works somebody always pays for it , if not everyone.

  36. leo cruz May 21, 2005 at 4:17 am | | Reply

    Sorry, i mean’t on an intrarace basis not on an interracial basis.

  37. Cobra May 21, 2005 at 11:41 am | | Reply

    I actually agree somewhat with Leo.

    What we have here is another “nature vs nurture” argument.

    According to statistics, England has the “worst crime rate in the world.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?

    And loathe that I am to quote from a blog like “Gene Expression”, here’s some crime facts on predominantly WHITE countries:

    >>>Is it in fact native Russians who are committing these crimes? Well, Interpol’s data states that aliens are committing a very low fraction of the violent crimes (only about 2% of murders in 2002), so it seems as if native Russians are indeed committing these crimes. The murder stats are as follows:

    Russia 2001, 144 million people, 33500 murders, aliens 1.7% of total

    USA 2001, 285 million people, 16000 murders, alien fraction not present

    So Russia has more than 4 times the murder rate of the US. If one takes another look at the Interpol data, you will note that the murder rates (offenses per capita) for Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, and Poland are higher than or very close to that of the USA, despite the fact that these countries are almost totally white. These are all ex-communist countries.

    For example, consider:

    Ukraine 2002, 48 million people, 4300 murders which is again higher than that of the US.”

    http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001666.html

    The reason why we NEED an OFFICIAL institute to study “white racism” is to REFUTE the banging false drumbeat that blacks are inherantly criminal. As hard as it is for Stephen, and others to believe, by STATISTICS, he would be in far more danger walking down the streets of white St. Petersburg, Russia than Jersey City, NJ by the Grove Street Path Train station (sorry, saw the photos at his blog). The Media, controlled overwhelmingly by whites in America, doesn’t have any motivation to inform that TRUTH, nor does it seem, our education system. That would upset the “skin color determines value and virtue” paradigm that has been established historically in this country.

    These facts may seem distasteful to those who have their minds set on the theory of genetic predisposition to behavior, but all the more reason for the Black Men at Penn to get some funding IMMEDIATELY.

    –Cobra

  38. mikem May 21, 2005 at 7:04 pm | | Reply

    Cobra:

    No one has said that the color of one’s skin determines criminality, although you seem to believe that it does in determining a disposition toward being racist. (e.g., studying white racism to the exclusion of black racism.)

    What is a fact, and you expended a few comments above patting on the back those who stated so in explaining black on white crime rates, is that American blacks commit crimes, especially violent crimes, at a much higher rate than other American racial groups.

    I don’t know what to make of your using foreign crime rates by race to make a point about American crime rates by race, except that you are out of ammo.

    PS: Describing me as believing that little black children caught shoplifting are Satans, as you did earlier, is beneath contempt. But what else should I expect from someone like you? You just keep pouring out the hate while demanding reasoned responses to your racist falsehoods.

  39. Michelle Dulak Thomson May 21, 2005 at 7:38 pm | | Reply

    mikem,

    re people mostly victimizing people they know, or at least people in their own communities, three days ago I wrote (re black-on-black crime):

    This is what you’d expect, of course; people tend to assault, rape, kill people they know, and much of this country is de facto segregated still (the North more than the South, actually).

    That was in the very first post I made after Stephen turned the subject to crime stats. I really don’t think it fair to say that I’m “ignoring the more determining factor of location.” I mentioned it at the earliest possible opportunity, and long before you did.

    Nor, actually, did I “cite a high incidence or proportion of black on black crime as proof that racism is not a factor in the high rate of black on white crime.” I did no such thing; go back and check if you like. What I said was that the higher incidence of black-on-white crime as compared to white-on-black crime did not (as Stephen claimed) prove that “blacks are more racist than whites.”

    There are any number of reasons for such a disparity that don’t involve racial animus, and until we consider them in detail we can’t have any idea whether racial animus is the chief factor (or indeed a factor at all). There is, as I said, the greater black crime rate, which itself might have many causes (General poverty, expensive drug habits, and a culture that glorifies the gangsta life, for three). There’s also plain avarice. Really, if you were going to mug someone for a little spare cash [naturally, I’m assuming no one reading this would ever do any such thing], would you choose a white or a black?

    So you factor all that in as against the plain and obvious tendency of criminals generally to victimize friends and neighbors first, and what do you get? A bloody mess, say I. Certainly not clear and convincing evidence about how racist one group is relative to another group.

    Re Prince George’s and its crime rates, I don’t think you’ve gotten a handle on the stats yet. If you assume the same crime rate and completely random victims, and a community consisting only of whites and blacks, you’d expect the rates of white-on-black and black-on-white crime to be the same. If the community is 80% black and 20% white, well, there are a lot of potential black criminals, but relatively few potential white targets; and relatively few potential white criminals, but a hell of a lot of black targets. Reverse the races and it is the same, which is why I really don’t get your point

    And the same type percentages you use to ‘explain’ higher black on white crime are used to explain the same thing here, even though the numbers are reversed(!).

    You don’t seem to grasp that more potential perpetrators of black-on-white crime means fewer potential victims. Look, just try experimenting with numbers for awhile. Make yourself a little universe with 100 people in it, of whom 10 are black and 90 are white. Assume that one in ten of both races is a criminal, and victimizes others totally at random. Work out the rates of black-on-white and white-on-black victimization in this little community. Then change “white” to “black” and see if it looks any different. I don’t think it will, if you do the math right, because the two numbers should be identical.

    (Oh, and then, for a lark, change the black-criminality rate to two in ten.)

    Therefore, if you do find a disparity, you need other explanations for it. As I said, I don’t think it makes any sense to leap to one explanation (“blacks are more racist than whites”) without at least noticing that there are other possible ones. Personally, I wouldn’t quarantine a dog on the level of “evidence” some people think sufficient to prove blacks racist (no, I don’t mean anyone who has posted here). But I do wish that those posting here who do think so could post some evidence that works as evidence. I’ve seen nothing but anecdote, and thin anecdote at that.

  40. Michelle Dulak Thomson May 21, 2005 at 7:49 pm | | Reply

    Cobra,

    The reason why we NEED an OFFICIAL institute to study “white racism” is to REFUTE the banging false drumbeat that blacks are inher[e]ntly criminal.

    Cobra, I’ve been backing you up all along here (as you may perhaps have noticed), but this is ridiculous. You want to study racism, sure. You want to study “white racism,” as though that’s the only important kind, well, I do wonder why you think that’s a good idea, because I’ve seen a hell of a lot of racist comment, and not only from whites. It is not, for example, only white Marin yuppies who tell Mexican day laborers around here to “go back to Mexico.” You will perhaps remember the Rodney King riots, in which large numbers of shops owned by members of one race were smashed to smithereens by members of another race. Fill in the blanks at leisure.

  41. Rich May 21, 2005 at 8:57 pm | | Reply

    Michelle posted…

    >>>>Cobra, I’ve been backing you up all along here (as you may perhaps have noticed), but this is ridiculous. You want to study racism, sure. You want to study “white racism,” as though that’s the only important kind, well, I do wonder why you think that’s a good idea, because I’ve seen a hell of a lot of racist comment, and not only from whites. It is not, for example, only white Marin yuppies who tell Mexican day laborers around here to “go back to Mexico.”

    =============

    I thought the subject was racism?

    BTW, is it of note that the blacks and chicanos don’t get along especially well? And how about the blacks and muslims? Is the latter racism also by whatever metric you are using?

    Rich

  42. The Bitch Girls May 22, 2005 at 4:38 pm | | Reply

    Joy

    Oh how I miss the joys of higher education….

  43. Cobra May 23, 2005 at 12:40 am | | Reply

    Michelle writes:

    >>>Cobra, I’ve been backing you up all along here (as you may perhaps have noticed), but this is ridiculous. You want to study racism, sure. You want to study “white racism,” as though that’s the only important kind, well, I do wonder why you think that’s a good idea, because I’ve seen a hell of a lot of racist comment, and not only from whites.”

    Michelle, I appreciate the strength of your commentary on this thread. I never suggested that it’s the ONLY important kind of racism, but as far as American History is concerned there cannot be an ACCURATE portrayal without its inclusion. It was institutionalized, and went far beyond speech issues.

    Whether the Black Men at Penn have the BEST solution for public enlightenment on the subject is one thing. That there are many in America who NEED enlightenment on the subject is another.

    I may concede that the Institute’s title

    “Institute for the Research and Study of American White Racism”, is an eye-brow raiser. As I stated before, I don’t know if this project is a perfect solution for situation, but it is certainly an attempt at finally addressing the issue.

    Mikem writes:

    >>>No one has said that the color of one’s skin determines criminality, although you seem to believe that it does in determining a disposition toward being racist. (e.g., studying white racism to the exclusion of black racism.)”

    Huh? Mike, are you reading the SAME THREAD that I am?

    “Blacks are far more racist than whites.

    The crime stats prove it.”

    -Posted by Stephen May 18, 2005 02:02 PM

    “Whites are afraid of black men for a very good reason. Black men are in jail in droves for a very good reason…”

    “…You know better than to drive your car into the wrong black neighborhood, and you don’t, because you want to stay alive. The rest is sophistry.”

    -Posted by Stephen May 18, 2005 04:57 PM

    “Additionally, black men are statistically the demographic group most likely to commit violent crime.”

    -Posted by Garrick Williams May 20, 2005 10:55 AM

    Mikem, apparently, there are many instances that contradict your statement, and I just skimmed the surface of Stephen’s.

    Mike writes:

    >>>What is a fact, and you expended a few comments above patting on the back those who stated so in explaining black on white crime rates, is that American blacks commit crimes, especially violent crimes, at a much higher rate than other American racial groups.”

    That’s just not true, Mike. “Crime” is a colossal category. You yourself freely admitted earlier “..And no doubt if you look at specific categories of non violent crime you are likely to find areas where blacks do not ‘excel’, like stock manipulation and art fraud and so on. ”

    Is stock manipulation and art fraud less “criminal” than larceny, breaking and entering? You can argue about severity, but there’s no denying that they’re incidences of “criminality.”

    Use of illegal drugs is by definition a “crime.” What are the statistics on Which group uses more illegal drugs in America, do you ask?

    >>>Second, white Americans are the overwhelming majority of drug users in America. In 1997, for example, there were 10.3 million whites who used illegal drugs in the past month, but only 1.8 million blacks (Ibid. Applying the percentages of table 11 to table 1A). These numbers have not substantially changed since 1988.”

    http://www.cjpf.org/drug/outcomes2.html

    All of these truths render your comment

    incorrect.

    But I won’t stop there.

    >>>In examining crime in the United States, the National Crime Prevention Council maintains that assault is the most common violent crime, by a “substantial margin” (National Crime Prevention Council, 1991)…”

    “… A nationwide examination of arrests for aggravated assault indicates there were over 437,000 in 1995, representing seven out of every ten violent crime arrests that year (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1996)…”

    “…While no specific racial, gender, age or economic group accounts for all offenders of aggravated assault, reports by the Federal Bureau of Investigation indicate that a disproportionate number of those arrested were white males. In 1995, eighty-two percent (82%) of those arrested for aggravated assault were male and eighteen percent (18%) were female, while whites constituted sixty percent (60%), blacks accounted for thirty-eight percent (38%) and the remainder of offenders were represented by all other races (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1996).”

    http://www.uwcnm.org/information/crime_overview.htm

    Mike writes:

    >>>I don’t know what to make of your using foreign crime rates by race to make a point about American crime rates by race, except that you are out of ammo.”

    Leo Cruz’s comments opened the door for Foreign crime statistics. My race will not change if was to drive across the Canadian border tonight.

    –Cobra

  44. Garrick Williams May 23, 2005 at 2:00 pm | | Reply

    Cobra, I agree with you that blacks are not “genetically predisposed” to committing crimes, and I never intended to imply otherwise, though that’s apparently what you are construing my comments as. However, it is a fact that, in this country, black men commit more violent crimes than other groups on a per capita basis. Stating this is not racist; indeed, ignoring the fact will do far more harm to the black community than admitting it. You mention that whites commit more non-violent crimes… this is true, although your drug use numbers are rather less than compelling, since, given the fact that only 12% of Americans are black, one would expect there to be many more white drug users, unless blacks were using drugs at alarmingly higher rates than whites.

    The problem I have with the Black Men at Penn is that they seek to blame “white racism” for what is a very serious problem within the black community. Is it wrong to think all black men are violent criminals based purely on the color of their skin? Certainly. But is there a serious violent crime problem in many black communities? Most definitely. I would hazard to guess that this is as much a function of economics as anything (hence high violent crime rates in poorer Eastern European countries), but “white racism” certainly isn’t to blame for the crime and even the total elimination of it won’t do much to help alleviate the violence that plagues many communities.

    In addition, racism among African Americans is also a very real problem. As has been mentioned, blacks aren’t always exactly tolerant of other minority communities, and there are certainly some black individuals who are virulently anti-white. This isn’t to say that black people are any more or less racist than white people, but rather to show that claiming that racism is a purely white-on-minority problem, or even that white-on-minority racism is the biggest problem, is disingenuous at best and a bold-faced lie at worst. And that is precisely what the Black Men at Penn are claiming by proposing an institute that would study white racism at the exclusion of other racial issues.

    What I don’t really understand, Cobra, is your insistence that white racism must be “included” in a study of American history. Isn’t it already? Aren’t students already taught about slavery, Jim Crow, and Brown v. Board of Education? Don’t the vast majority of white people already revile the KKK as a backward and bigoted institution? Maybe current racism studies aren’t hard hitting enough for you, Cobra, but to say that racism is currently rampant and encouraged in America is ridiculous. To pretend that white racism is more accepted in today’s political world than minority racism is even more ridiculous.

    Instead of dumping millions of dollars into an institution dedicated to finding “white racism” in every negative thing that ever happens to an African American, to finding unbridled bigotry in every slightly off-color remark, and to continuing racial conflict through encouraging minorities to distrust white people, couldn’t that money be better spent? Perhaps the BM@P could, I don’t know, raise money to improve inner city schools? Perhaps start an outreach program to discourage gang violence? Perhaps actually give some poor black children the opportunity to become successes so they can prove to all the world’s actual backwards racists that black Americans can indeed be much, much more than “thugs”, and, more importantly, give themselves a better life where self-worth comes from actual, empowering success rather than being told that whitey is to blame for all their problems?

    So there’s my problem with the BM@P. Their program would encourage racial division by instilling in young African Americans the belief that every white person is a closet Grand Imperial Wizard who will leap at every opportunity to oppress them, and, in so doing, create mistrust among white citizens. How can their be racial harmony, what the BM@P claim to want, under such conditions? Their institute would say to minority Americans, “The white man is to blame for all racism. Ignore the problem’s within your communities, and join together in blaming whitey. White people think we’re all criminals because they are racist pigs, so let’s ignore the fact that there really are far too many of us killing each other and let’s get together to throw mud at those evil white politicians, spending all this money that we could be using to clean up our schools and send our future to college.” I’m exaggerating, but I’m a little upset to see these guys spending good money to judge me by my skin color while single mothers in the inner city struggle to make enough money to feed their kids, let alone get them a real education and chance at success.

    Racism is a very real and very troubling phenomenon. It is also a very natural one that has affected all races throughout human history. Studying it seriously through an anthropological, psychological standpoint could be greatly beneficial to society. But it must be studied as a HUMAN phenomenon, not as a European American phenomenon. Flinging blame around for all the nasty things our grandfathers did to each other won’t help anyone, and will instead only serve to extend the racial conflict to the next generation.

  45. mikem May 23, 2005 at 9:20 pm | | Reply

    Not determined by skin color, Cobra. It’s a simple enough statement to understand if you keep an open mind. Black Americans as a group, yes, obviously (according to your own statistics in the area you chose to highlight). But are black American individuals more likely to commit violent crimes because they are black skinned? Of course not. I blame culture. I blame the parents, the schools, the neighborhood, the culture of victimology that says that members of certain groups are not responsible for their actions. Frankly, I blame people like you.

    I’ve listened to you champion blatant, government enacted discrimination against ‘other minorities’ by the black majority in Detroit, Cobra, so I know that your principles lie not in humanitarianism and in the arena of equal rights, but in the area of ‘gimme’ politics.

    Michelle, I gave you an example of an area that has the reverse demographics from the previous discussion and yet the same type of disparity and you assure me that the same logic that explains higher black on white crime rates applies to both. I give up. I appreciate your patience, but I just can’t make the 180. You even say “You don’t seem to grasp that more potential perpetrators of black-on-white crime means fewer potential victims”, which is exactly the point I was making earlier(“If we are going to employ fractions and percentages correctly, we need to apply them to both sides of the equation.”) and about which you said “I fear I’m not following you at all here.”

    I have no doubt that I did not go far enough in explaining my point, since you obviously agree with the logic, but for the life of me I cannot understand how that logic does not apply in the original example, but now applies in my PG example.

  46. Michelle Dulak Thomson May 23, 2005 at 10:00 pm | | Reply

    mikem, I assure you it’s true. Check it for yourself. Start with, say, 10 people of group “A” and 90 people of group “B”, and assume that one of ten is a criminal, and attacks people at random relative to “A” or “B”-ness. Try some math on it. I know it looks counter-intuitive, but with this set-up, the “A” on “B” crime rate turns out to be the same as the “B” on “A” crime rate, assuming no bias. And obviously if you switch “A” and “B” it’s exactly the same.

    Repeat: Exactly. The. Same. The rate of black-on-white crime in a community with no bias should equal the rate of white-on-black crime, also assuming no bias, and it doesn’t matter whether the percentage of blacks is 20% or 80%. Please, internalize that. It’ll do you good.

    Now, if you throw in, say, “A”s having a much larger rate of violent crime than “B”s do, you don’t get that nice symmetry. In fact you get a lot more victimized “A”s and “B”s than you’d otherwise expect.

  47. mikem May 23, 2005 at 11:09 pm | | Reply

    “Repeat: Exactly. The. Same. The rate of black-on-white crime in a community with no bias should equal the rate of white-on-black crime, also assuming no bias, and it doesn’t matter whether the percentage of blacks is 20% or 80%. Please, internalize that. It’ll do you good.”

    This is a shift. I gave you an example of two different ‘databases’. BOTH with a higher black on white crime rate than the reverse. Population- One is 7/8 to 1/8 (your numbers, actually) white/black. The other reversed (higher black to white population). If I read what you said correctly a couple of posts above, you said that the reversed demographics would still have the same result, a higher black on white crime rate. I even objected to the incongruity and you tried to explain it to me.

    Now, if I read what you are saying correctly, you are saying that 80/20 or 20/80 population with the same crime rate and no bias, the result should be 50/50 in interracial crime rates. This I am willing to believe, as I stated much earlier in different words. Am I reading you right on this specifically?

    Thanks for your patience.

  48. Cobra May 24, 2005 at 12:18 am | | Reply

    This thread has veered off into a fascinating debate on statistical analysis. I admit that I succombed to temptation and posted statistics as well. HOWEVER, if anything, the collective posts in this thread should convince folks that the Black Men of Penn are right. There IS a need to educate Americans on white racism.

    EXAMPLE:

    Garrick writes:

    >>> This isn’t to say that black people are any more or less racist than white people, but rather to show that claiming that racism is a purely white-on-minority problem, or even that white-on-minority racism is the biggest problem, is disingenuous at best and a bold-faced lie at worst.”

    The difference Garrick, is that white-on-minority racism was the LAW OF THE LAND for nearly TWO CENTURIES (officially). The difference is that the power-structure that created those laws in the first place hasn’t changed.

    America needs to be reminded of that.

    Mikem writes:

    >>>I blame culture. I blame the parents, the schools, the neighborhood, the culture of victimology that says that members of certain groups are not responsible for their actions. Frankly, I blame people like you.

    I’ve listened to you champion blatant, government enacted discrimination against ‘other minorities’ by the black majority in Detroit, Cobra, so I know that your principles lie not in humanitarianism and in the arena of equal rights, but in the area of ‘gimme’ politics.”

    This is almost a call and response. The ‘black majority” in Detroit is there because it happens to be one of the most segregated cities in America. Economic development through Powernomics simply accepts the segregated reality and attempts to re-direct the flow of wealth BACK into the black community, not through welfare, but through CAPITALISM. Why some find a problem with Powernomics, but not the established white corporate power matrix is yet ANOTHER reason the “BM@P” need to get a check.

    Garrick writes:

    >>>So there’s my problem with the BM@P. Their program would encourage racial division by instilling in young African Americans the belief that every white person is a closet Grand Imperial Wizard who will leap at every opportunity to oppress them, and, in so doing, create mistrust among white citizens. How can their be racial harmony, what the BM@P claim to want, under such conditions?”

    I’m sorely tempted to data-bomb here, but I’m staying true to my pledge.

    Garrick, if you’re implying that it would take a scholarly institute to INTRODUCE white racism to young African Americans, as opposed to real life in America, well…buddy, I think you should be writing out a check right alongside me. I’d love to see racial harmony in America, too, along with world peace and the return of the original Beatles. What we do have is the reality of a largely SEGREGATED nation with racial discrimination (Cobra Argument #1) abundant.

    –Cobra

  49. Kaitlyn May 27, 2005 at 7:46 pm | | Reply

    Cobra,

    I just happened to stumble upon this thread today, and as I was reading it, I noticed that you appeared to be taking what you wanted from the letter Ward Connerly wrote and not what he was actually saying. While he did mention a problem with racism is history books, he mentioned that these things had happened in the past. Further in the letter it says…

    “As long as “affirmative action” was intended to eliminate racial discrimination in an aggressive manner, its use was “justified” and still is. However, that justification does not warrant and never should have warranted treating individuals differently based on the factors of identity that I have mentioned. And, that is precisely what far too many “affirmative action” or “diversity” activities have become.

    “We should have known that the day would come when these race-based practices would have to yield to a single standard for all and to a common identity for all Americans.”

    Connerly wrote that he believes that everyone should be held at the same standards in order to help eliminate discrimination.

    While quotas do not legally exist, it is obvious in the work place that they are still in effect because the fear that ones company may appear

  50. Cobra June 15, 2005 at 12:25 am | | Reply

    Kaitlyn,

    I do quite a bit of posting to this blog (some would argue TOO MUCH posting for their tastes, LOL). I stumbled across your response to me just now, weeks later, and I don’t know if you’ll ever read this, but here it is.

    You are obviously a very bright young woman, with an obvious talent for writing and the abillity to make your points with clarity.

    I won’t talk down to you, or launch into any data-filled arguments or speeches. It would be pointless. What I will do is tell you something about me, and the reason why I post here.

    I told John Rosenberg, the owner of this blog, that I learn something new everytime I come to Discriminations, and it’s absolutely true. My MAIN reason I come here is to LEARN. I want to HEAR the opposing viewpoint to my position. I want to FIND out facts I might not have known, or court cases that weren’t discussed in the Main Stream Media. I want to know what people who disagree with me THINK, and WHY they form the opinions they hold.

    Kaitlyn, one of things I’ve learned since coming here is that the life experience of people shapes their opinions so greatly, that no amount of facts, statistics, figures or research seems to sway their opinions or points of view, but that shouldn’t be the GOAL, anyway. It’s the accumulation of things NOT KNOWN–the quest for greater understanding.

    That’s why I don’t dismiss you or your opinions. I want to know MORE about how you come to your conclusions, since my interpretation of American History and current society is VASTLY different from yours.

    Now I usually go point by point with other posters here, and refute claims with facts, but I won’t do that with you. I just would like to know what sources you cite to come to your conclusions. Your points on comparing the assimilation of white European American immigrants with the assimiliation rates of non-white minorities are especially interesting, noting that there were specific laws preventing the kind of “assimilation” (Jim Crow, anti-miscegenation laws, voting restrictions)you speak of that only ended within the past generation. My point in this above thread was that I believe there are people in America who still don’t grasp the scope of racism in American society, and that groups like the Black Men @ Penn are not wrong for wanting to try to educate the population of this.

    Now, that being said, I don’t expect you, or any other poster to change their opinions. My only challenge to you is that you read as much as possible

    about ALL sides of any argument or debate, and come to an INFORMED conclusion.

    –Cobra

Say What?