Considering the topic, should there be a “Ho-Ho defense”?
“Black” as a group identity is, by definition, a social construct, self defined.
Navin Johnson can be black, if he wants.
When one looks at the average genetic makeup of that self-defined group in the US, something like 80% of their genes for recent ancestry can be traced back to source pools in sub-saharan african (and for blacks with a history of enslavement, largely west african source pools).
One does not “scientifically” define “black.” One does not scientifically categorize any given individual into a socially-constructed category.
However, scientifically speaking, the pool of recent ancestral genes for the self-defined group of blacks in the United States is about 80% sub-saharan/20% european; for self-defined whites it’s 95%+ european.
Hope that helps. There’s a common disconnect between “scientifically defining” any given individual’s categorization, and understanding that the average genetic makeup for an entire group–even self-defined ones–has very measurable genetic source pool differences.
goodness knows how much criminality would result if the gap in genetic heritage between africans and european was wider than 75%. I mean, for goodness sake, just look at their history of imperial conquest, slavery and post-imperial control.
Can socioeconomic factors account for crime?
Yes.
LOL. Ya thunk?!
In particular upper middle class white males, who seem to specialise in fucking up the entire national economy, at great profit to themselves and their associates, and then leech on socialised solutions facilitated by Goldman Sachs. Golden days.
Exactly. IMO the biggest problem with race relations in the US is that race and socio-economic background tend to be so interlinked, in that it’s easy for someone to say something that’s ultimately classist, and not racist, and have it interpreted as racist. Or for people to confuse class-based issues with race-based issues, and think that something they don’t like about blacks or hispanics is due to their ethnicity and not to their socio-economic position (and vice-versa, I suppose). I’m not at all convinced that most of the “racism” that’s talked about isn’t actually classism being confused with actual racism.
But looking at the OP’s data above, it seems to me that the data itself bears out that at least in the context of murdering, blacks do it at a higher rate than whites. In both years, you have roughly 2650 murders done by both blacks and whites. However, that number of murders done by whites is done by members of a group that comprises about 80% of the population, while the black number is done by a group that comprises 12% of the population.
So if we assume 318 million as the population, we have 2650 murders per 254 million people or 1 murder per 96,000 white people, and 2650 murders per 38.14 million, or 1 murder per 14400 people.
That’s likely due to a combination of poverty and lack of opportunity combined with a culture that’s more tolerant of violent conflict resolution.
True. But you need to show the evidence.
Here is something interesting:
http://www.ronunz.org/2013/07/20/race-and-crime-in-america/
It lies interesting as I feel this combined with an overshadows on victims and other discriminatory policies created a downward spiral that the negro seemingly cannot escape.
What the heck?
Another thing to consider
Puts Trump’s paranoia into perspective huh?
I didn’t even make it that far. After the first 10 or 11 words it was clear that the post was nonsense.
Ok ok, negro was harsh. But I do have a point, and there are other explanations: Lead: America’s Real Criminal Element – Mother Jones
I think this is right for the most part, but the problem is that its easier to determine a persons race just by looking at them than it is their class, and so discrimination based on class becomes discrimination based on race.
Say for example you are a security guard in a gated community wanting to remove “undesireables”, and you see a young man walking down the street dressed in shorts, sneakers and a t-shirt. It may be that the qualities that you really consider to be"undesireable" have all to do with socio-economic class. Unfortunately you can’t tell right away what his class is just by looking at him. However, you can tell his race. Given that a black person is more likely to be of a lower class than a white person, you may as a rule of thumb hassle the person if he’s black and let him go if he’s white. Even though the basis of your decision might be based on social economic factors, the reality of its implementation is entirely racial.
I never said it wasn’t discriminatory, only that it’s not “racist” in the classical sense. Another example might be a lot of white people’s disdain for AAVE. It’s a perfectly linguistically valid variety/dialect of English, but to most white ears, it sounds horribly ignorant. The disdain for it generally isn’t because black people speak it, but rather because by the rules of standard English, it sounds ignorant and wrong. But, since it’s mostly spoken by black people, any criticism or commentary is viewed as having a racial component, when in fact, it may not be that at all.
And in a sense, I think we’re saying the same thing- the problem is that the correspondence between poverty and the color of one’s skin is very high in the US, and a lot of people don’t draw much of a distinction. Or if they do, others don’t know that they’re drawing that distinction. I mean, I know that AAVE is just a natural outgrowth of English, but that doesn’t stop me from having a sort of visceral reaction to hearing it spoken, as being terrible, ignorant and wrong. Stuff like using the “wrong” verb tense, leaving out the “is” or “be” in sentences (“He crazy!”) all just sounds awful. That doesn’t make me racist, as it’s not anything about anyone’s skin color that I’m objecting to, but rather the fact that by the rules of the language that I’m used to and was taught, that particular dialect doesn’t sound right. People wouldn’t make that distinction though.
So I wanted to debunk this sad website:
http://www.donotlink.com/ghsb
It went like this (trigger warring)
He didn’t have much in the way of statistics…
So I said
“In 90% of domestic violence cases, they turn out to be interracial.
http://www.publicsafety.ohio.gov/links/ocjs_FinalOIBRSReport3-26-07.pdf”
Off course the point is how bad is violence in interracial couples…And why?
Fortunately I found good explanations and confounding variables
Intimate Partner Violence and Alcohol Problems in Interethnic and Intra-ethnic Couples - PMC
You always have to place wide statistics into the complex realities.
There are sub percentages. X statistic expressed as y black, z white.
Well y is some percent of the population, z the other percent.
What percent of y is poor, what percent of z?
What percent of y is busted for x, what percent of z gets away with it for reasons unrelated to the reality of committing x?
You often have to dig deeper when a statistic is thrown out. The statistic, as stated, may be mathematically correct. The real meaning of it is often an intertwined web of realities and statistics.
…then how do I know what is true? And how does it apply here?
How to know what is true?
Always try and delve deeper. Don’t blindly accept a statistic as telling the whole story.
Often, it just takes a bit of thought to reveal that there are more complex aspects to something.
You don’t have to delve into those complexities. But at least realize it and take the statistic or headline with some skepticism.
It can be very rewarding to track down the odds and ends of some broad statement or statistic. Expands your knowledge. Makes you more of a critical thinker.
I don’t explore everything. But I do take some time to consider what weight I want to give the presented “fact”.
I have become somewhat of a hermit. The wealth of information and disinformation that is so instantly available to me now, is a hobby to decipher.
But that’s how I am currently spending a lot of my time. ( often in my past as well ) You may have better things to do.
I guess.