The recent concern over the burning of black churches does seem to have been a reaction to a perceived phenomenon that didn’t exist. When fires of black churches were compared to fires in white churches of the same income level, the “disproportionate” number of black church burnings shrank. Most of the fires (for black churches and white churches) appeared to be the result of bad storage habits, faulty wiring, and the rest of the usual causes of fires in older building that are not kept up to code. Among the burnings were several arsons, of which a few were, indeed, racially motivated. (Interestingly, several of the known racist arsons appear to have been inspired by the news stories about the perceived rash of arsons.)
However, other incidents indicate that blacks still have much to fear.
This issue has already been addressed. If a greater number of poor thieves are black and a greater number of targets for theft (both in wealth and overall population) are white, it would be hard for the black assailants to limit themselves to black victims. The numbers that someone presented on the other thread indicated that a proportionally higher number of blacks than whites are actually charged with hate-related crimes (although the raw numbers for blacks are much lower). However, since the number of blacks in the U.S. is much smaller than the number of whites, there is hardly any danger to white society, as a whole, from black crime. Fear it? Move away from it.
On the other hand, white-on-black violence is often a tool to prevent good citizens who happen to be black from moving into white neighborhoods or white jobs. That (unlike a the color of an inividual mugger) is a cause for concern.
The new, kinder, gentler, Klan? The Southern Poverty Law Center has been having quite a bit of success in the recent past suing (in Southern courts) specific covens for encouraging and carrying out lynchings and other terrorist attacks on blacks.
Poor people always have more to fear from the poor thieves that are in their midst than people of better means have to fear. When the vast majority of poor people in New York were Irish, a fear of Irish thieves among the Irish was understandable. When certain neighborhoods changed from Irish to Italian, the same situation occurred. If you went to 19th century London, you would find that the greatest number of assailants in the (white) cockney areas were (white) cockneys.
Black-on-black crime in high poverty areas is a serious problem. It is not used as a weapon to prevent black people from moving to better housing or taking better jobs. White-on-black terrorism is used for that purpose. It is certainly less common today than in 1969 or 1959. However, each year there are incidents in which black families are driven from their homes by local white thugs. When was the last time you saw a white family tearfully moving out of their neighborhood because “Black Power” was sprayed on their house?
It depends. If a white guy had, indeed, experimented with ways to use a crop to restore the land that had been totally exhausted by the incessant re-planting of cotton, I would think that his name would show up. (Your dismissal of peanuts is really silly. There were people who knew that peanuts would re-enrich the soil; only Carver had the intelligence and perseverance to discover several ways to use peanuts as a profitable crop so that the soil could be enriched. That is simple capitalism. When peanuts were merely goobers that poor people ate, the southern farmers refused to plant them because they were not profitable. Carver made them profitable and, thereby, saved extensive sections of southern farmland. If you did not pay enough attention to the Carver story to realize that he saved your agriculture, maybe we should be teaching it more, not less.)