Minorities Explain Inconvenient Truths About Minorities

"...Jesse Jackson....said I hate to admit it, but I've reached the stage in my life that if I am walking down a dark street late at night and I see that the person behind me is white, I subconsciously feel relieved...."

Oh. My. God.

That is astounding.

Sure, Jackson KNOWS the truth, but he's spent his entire life lying about it. In fact, he's made all his money and power lying about it. He's now admitting it outloud?!?

How dare you publish such hate facts! The $PLC should investigate you all.
And BTW, here's a link to colorofcrime.com for more such hate facts.

Yeah let's ignore the fact that most whites who still live in NYC are loaded. People who can afford to live in Manhattan aren't likely to be out robbing people. Let's also not ignore what they define as a "violent crime" namely robberies. Try factoring in unreported assaults that didn't include robbery. The cuginos beat each other to hell on a regular basis in NYC. Nobody goes to the cops.

This article is the same as gasping over the fact that near 100% of violent crimes in Beijing are committed by Chinese...

ps: Jesse's OLD and Obama has made him irrelevant. He can AFFORD to admit it now...

@specom

Huh?

First, everyone in Beijing is Chinese just like everyone in NYC is *American*. You're mixing nationality with race.

Second, if you meant to imply that it's tautological because of population color, it isn't. The majority of the NYC population is not black, it's white.

@Ifon
35% is a "majority"? So much for white mental supremacy. Might have actually READ the article before you embarassed yourself. Or are you using the latest white trickinology of reclassifying hispanics and arabs as white when it's convenient?

Chinese consider themselves a RACE, not a nationality. Tell one he's no different than a Vietnamese and and you better be ready to physically defend yourself.

BTW, "everyone" in Beijing IS NOT chinese. Though you either proved or missed my point. The fact that the majority of crime in big cities is committed by minorities is due to the fact that they make up the majority of the population in most cities these days. The people in chinese cities are ALMOST all chinese so YES the almost all crimes are committed by chinese.

Whenever whites start trotting out these statisics they always talk about NATIONAL statistics. Most crime takes place in cities and that's where the minorities are. At the turn of the 20th century the majority of the non-southern prison population was IRISH. Why? Because that's what the cities were full of and they were dirt poor.

@specom

Way to miss the forest for the trees. Here's actual breakdown:

White: 44.6% (Non-Hispanic Whites: 35.1%)
Black or African American: 25.1%
American Indian: 0.4%
Asian: 11.8%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: 0.1%
Some other race: 16.0%
Two or more races: 2.1%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 27.5%

Whites are clearly the largest group of all - more than 10% higher than either blacks or hispanics.

Your original implication was that it's tautological that most crimes are committed by minorities since there's few whites.

That's false. Look at the stats.

The largest racial group in NYC is overwhelmingly white. And yet...? Whites only commit 5% of the crime.

"The fact that the majority of crime in big cities is committed by minorities is due to the fact that they make up the majority of the population in most cities these days."

Utterly wrong. If you believe that, you're either lying to yourself or bad at math. Probably a little of both.

"The people in chinese cities are ALMOST all chinese so YES the almost all crimes are committed by chinese."

Um, yeah, that's what I originally said. The problem is - that isn't analogous to American cities because American cities have a disproportional number of white citizens to white crimes. Chinese cities do not.

You can obfuscate, duck and spin all you like - it makes no difference. The numbers are clear. In almost every major American city, whites are the largest racial group and yet they commit the smallest amount of crime. It's not even debatable.

I think it might be useful to look at income levels here. Race does not exist in a vacuum.

In any event, what is it you are trying to prove? That Blacks and Hispanics are inherently more violent than Whites?

Is that really what you're trying to say?

@Werebat: No.

However, it is a certain fact that particular aspects of the culture which prevails in the inner city, especially among minorities, are known to greatly increase criminal tendencies. Things like out-of-wedlock births, a cultural refusal to report criminals to the authorities ("Stop Snitchin'"), lack of respect for those who wish to pursue an education ("acting white"). It doesn't matter the color of people who practice these things, their environment will be destroyed and their progress reversed.

I don't think there's anybody saying that there's something inherent in minority genetics that makes them unable to behave like anything other than savages, certainly not on Scragged. That would be absurd on its face - there's lots of minorities that are every bit as intelligent, civilized, and rational as anyone else, though that shouldn't even need to be said.

But the larger point is: as Mr. Mateo pointed out, the violence of inner-city blacks and Hispanics harms their fellow blacks and Hispanics most of all, so it is in THEIR OWN best interest to stamp it out by any means necessary just as other communities do.

@Petrarch:

The title of the article, "Minorities Explain Inconvenient Truth About Minorities", does seem to indicate that the author believes it is something inherent to *minorities* specifically, rather than "inner city culture", that is the cause of (for example) the violence prevalent in inner cities.

While I disagree with that notion, I must point out that your argument against it (that it doesn't make sense because "lots of minorities" are intelligent, civilized, and rational) can be easily countered in various ways. One who would defend the notion that minorities are inherently violent could always argue that while the high end of the minority bell curve on any positive trait may indeed be above the average for Whites, that doesn't disprove the idea that on average they are inferior. Then comes the fact that many who call themselves "minorities" in the USA are, in fact, more than a small part White.

My point, again, is that it may be more useful to speak in terms of income level than race on this matter. As specom pointed out, the Irish (once considered a "minority group") had many of the same problems at the turn of the century, as did my own mill-working Acadian ancestors. There were people who actually asserted and believed that there was a genetic cause to their violence and other problems, but it would seem that it was in fact just poverty (and the cycle of poverty, driven by many of the poor choices I think you and the article are trying to point out) that was the root cause of the problem.

As of 2005, FBI statistics show that blacks on average were seven times as likely than whites to commit homicide.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4f/Homicide_offending_by_race.jpg

A wealth of twin and adoption studies confirms that individual differences in violent/antisocial behavior are heritable.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1458834/

A propensity for violent crime is associated with higher levels of testosterone. Blacks have from 3 to 19% more of the sex hormone testosterone than Whites or East Asians. Jon Entine, Taboo: Why Black
Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We Are Afraid to Talk About It.

>My point, again, is that it may be more useful to speak in terms of income level than race on this matter.

Ah yes, the old "poverty is the root cause of crime."

In 1900 when America was considering less affluent, the homicide rate was only 1 per 100,000. (By the way, this was during an era when pharmaceutical grade heroin and cocaine, as well as fully-auto machine guns, were for sale over the counter.) As America became wealthier, its homicide rate climbed, and proceeded to sharply increase with the passage of prohibition, peaking in 1932 at about 9.7 per 100,000. By 2008 the American homicide rate was 5.4. "Crime in The United States 2008, FBI Statistics". http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_01.html.

The Great Depression saw a dramatic drop in the crime rate. In fact, there was a 45% decrease in murders during some of the worst years of the Great Depression.

West Virginia is one of the poorest states in the union. In the year 2000 West Virginia saw a total Crime Index of 2,602.8 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 47th highest total Crime Index. For Violent Crime West Virginia had a reported incident rate of 316.5 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 34th highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states. For crimes against Property, the state had a reported incident rate of 2,286.3 per 100,000 people, which ranked as the state 47th highest. Also in the year 2000 West Virginia had 2.5 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the state as having the 38th highest rate for Murder. West Virginia’s 18.3 reported Forced Rapes per 100,000 people, ranked the state 49th highest. For Robbery, per 100,000 people, West Virginia’s rate was 41.4 which ranked the state as having the 41st highest for Robbery.

During the same year, Washington, DC, saw a homicide rate of 41.8.

According to James Q. Wilson and Richard Hernstein, "During the 1960s, one neighborhood in San Francisco had the lowest income, the highest unemployment rate, the highest proportion of families with incomes under four thousand dollars a year, the least educational attainment, the highest tuberculosis rate, and the highest proportion of substandard housing...that neighborhood was called Chinatown. Yet, in 1965, there were only five persons of Chinese ancestry committed to prison in the entire [emphasis added] state of California."

And yet leftists continue to beat poverty drum and bleat about "root causes." You want to know why crime is associated with poor neighborhoods? Because people with money tend to move out of crime-ridden neighborhoods.

The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic. From The Color of Crime, 2005. "In fact, the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic accounts for crime rates more than four times better than the next best measure: lack of education. Furthermore, even controlling for all three measures of social disadvantage hardly changes the correlation between racial mix and crime rates. The correlation between violent crime and the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic is 0.78 even when poverty, education, and unemployment are controlled, versus 0.81 when they are not. In layman’s terms, the statistical results suggest that even if whites were just as disadvantaged as blacks and Hispanics the association between race and violent crime would still be almost as great. It may seem harsh to state it so plainly, but the single best indicator of an area’s violent crime rate is its racial/ethnic mix."

@karl:

"As of 2005, FBI statistics show that blacks on average were seven times as likely than whites to commit homicide."

This in and of itself does nothing to disprove the idea that poverty, not race, is the root cause.

"A wealth of twin and adoption studies confirms that individual differences in violent/antisocial behavior are heritable."

Yes, but again, this does not prove that any race is more or less violent. Bad example.

A propensity for violent crime is associated with higher levels of testosterone. Blacks have from 3 to 19% more of the sex hormone testosterone than Whites or East Asians.

This is the only point you make here that has possible relevance. I'd have to check the data to be sure they were collected properly. Meanwhile, you might take a look at Russian scientist Dmitri Belyaev and his work domesticating foxes; he basically proved that an increase in melanin in the skin was associated with LESS violence and greater domesticity. In foxes, of course, but still there are those who have used his work to argue that Blacks are inferior -- doesn't match any theories that they're violent though.

Isn't racial science fun?

>He basically proved that an increase in melanin in the skin was associated with LESS violence and greater domesticity.

Wrong again.

Dmitri Belyaev found a reduced level of adrenaline, which accounted for their lower level of aggression. What’s more, their melanin also sank, this is what was responsible for their change in coloration.
http://mmbenya.com/dmitri-belyaevs-tame-domesticated-foxes/

*****
Pit bulls have a reputation for aggressiveness. Beagles are known for being playful and affectionate. Shetland sheepdogs are intelligent and eager to please. It's just they way they are.

I suppose that makes me a breedist.

Karl,

I stand corrected! It was a decrease, not an increase, in melanin that led to the foxes being more easily domesticated. In my defense I can only say that the article I read years ago using Belyaev's research to "prove" that Blacks were more suitable to slavery than freedom also had it wrong.

It would seem that cross-referencing statistics for violent crime by race and then income level would be fairly easy to do. Why hasn't anyone done it?

@werebat - the reason nobody has done it is that the published data already show what the answer would be - blacks are significantly more violent than whites at all income levels. Since the results of such a study would not be politically correct, the researcher would be vilified. Who needs that? So the obvious isn't said.

It's pretty well known, though.

But there must be some research somewhere. You yourself say that the published data exists -- you seem to know about this, so could you tell me WHERE it exists? I'd love to check it out.

While this is a fascinating discussion, and any substantive and well-founded research will always be welcome here, I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

The slaveowners of the old South believed that black people were inherently inferior, little more than animals, and thus that ownership was appropriate. It is easy to prove this belief false as I've pointed out before: today, we can easily identify a great many successful, intelligent, civilized black people who are every bit the equal of anyone else. It therefore follows that blackness does not and cannot automatically determine inferiority, and that the slaveowners were not only wrong morally but factually as well.

Set that aside. The question here seems to be, well, we all agree that certain individual blacks are just as good as anyone else, but are blacks (or the people of any particular race, for that matter) inferior in some way on average?

You're arguing back and forth with research and facts of various kinds. I put to you: what difference does it make? It's entirely irrelevant!

How can I say this? Well, let us imagine that it were 100% proven and true that a particular race was, indeed, on average, inferior to another. But we also know that any given INDIVIDUAL of that race could quite possibly be the equal or superior of anyone else - we know that right now, this minute.

Therefore, what would be the proper way to run society? There'd still be absolutely no moral justification for anything like slavery, Jim Crow, or formal discrimination - because, remember, an individual of that race could very well be as good as anyone else.

What would be the only way to "discriminate"? To judge people, as individuals, by the content of their characters, and not the color of their skins.

And aren't we supposed to do that anyway? So what difference does it make what the underlying numbers are?

The justice system doesn't convict entire races; it convicts individuals who are proven to have committed particular crimes, or not as the case may be.

Employers don't hire entire races; they hire one individual who is or is not sufficiently qualified for the position.

Teachers don't grade entire races; they grade work which was done correctly or not, and punish children who misbehave regardless of their race.

Yes, of course there would still be some marginal racism. There is today, just as there is every other sin and crime; that's part of the human condition. But there's still be no moral OR LOGICAL justification for anything systemic or systematic.

Oh, I agree with you completely, Petrarch! Not only that, but unless I'm mistaken so does Richard Dawkins (I seem to remember reading an article he wrote expressing the same general opinions).

The mother of most of my children is not White; she is, however, a pediatric oncologist who is distinguished in her field. Even if it could be proven that her ethnicity ON AVERAGE were less intelligent, more violent, or what-have-you as compared to Whites, that would in no way prove that my children would have gotten a better genetic deal if I had chosen an average White woman to have them with.

Truly, all evidence points to the conclusion that even if one were able to isolate the "best" genes available for a civilized and successful society, and begin long-term breeding projects in order to build that society, the result would not match the hopes of White (or any other) supremacy.

I am open to the concept that different genetic populations may have varying levels of intelligence, aggression, etc. However, human ego always seems to get in the way of any rational discourse on the matter, most amusingly when the very data revealing that the speaker's "race" (however that is defined) is "superior" to one group also seems to indicate that it is inferior to another, and the mental gymnastics begin.

You do bring up one interesting point that I must comment on, however. You claim that "teachers don't grade entire races; they grade work which was done correctly or not, and punish children who misbehave regardless of their race."

Very true. I teach in a school where Whites are in the minority, so I know a thing or two about this. However, I also know that public school teachers currently labor under the No Child Left Behind law, a law which judges them in no small part based on their ability to close the "achievement gap" between different school populations, many of them based on race. If it could be proven that, for example, Blacks were less intellectually capable than Whites, then it would also be proven that this aspect of the NCLB is entirely unfair. So the discussion is not, as you say, entirely irrelevant; we are currently judging our entire public school system (and everyone who works in it) based on the assumption that all races are intellectual equals.

The FBI breaks down crimes by race. To compute it for differences in population, you need census data. that gives you crimes per individual of each race. Be careful - some data say Hispanics are white, some don't, so you have to read the fine print. Census data also shows income levels, or you can google that.

When you find the data, write it up. It's startling.

@Karl

Great comments. You've provided some very interesting information I've never seen before.

>It was a decrease, not an increase, in melanin that led to the foxes being more easily domesticated.

"Led to"? Or merely a curious side effect - like the development of floppy ears? As far as I know, melanin has neither pacifying nor criminogenic properties.

>It would seem that cross-referencing statistics for violent crime by race and then income level would be fairly easy to do.

Have you ever noticed that nobody inquiries into the root causes of insider trading?

>If it could be proven that, for example, Blacks were less intellectually capable than Whites, then it would also be proven that this aspect of the NCLB is entirely unfair.

I completely agree with you, Werebat. Sound public policy requires objective scientific analysis of the world as it really is and not as we wish it were. Unfortunately in today's America, honest discussion of race and racial differences in public is taboo. It's rather like discussing sex in public in Victorian England.

>To judge people, as individuals, by the content of their characters, and not the color of their skins.

I wish we lived in such a country. Instead, I see entrenched anti-white racist policies emanating from the federal government under the name of "civil rights." I see a lumbering bureaucracy to manage all this diversity.

>The FBI breaks down crimes by race.

The FBI counts "Hispanics" as "white" when counting perpetrators, but separates them out when counting victims. Thus, one ends up reading about "hate crimes" committed by "whites" against other "whites." Go figure.

>However, human ego always seems to get in the way of any rational discourse on the matter, most amusingly when the very data revealing that the speaker's "race" (however that is defined) is "superior" to one group also seems to indicate that it is inferior to another, and the mental gymnastics begin.

I have not found that to be true, and can think of four counter-examples right off the bat: Arthur Jensen, Richard Lynn, J. Philippe Rushton, Tatu Vanhanen. All four are white men, and yet they recognize that East Asians *on average* (can't stress that enough) have higher IQs than people of European ancestry - especially in the areas of math and spatial visualization.

>You're arguing back and forth with research and facts of various kinds. I put to you: what difference does it make? It's entirely irrelevant!

An excellent question, worthy of an entire well-researched book. If you read nothing else on the subject, see Michael Levine's Why Race Matters.

Further reading:
Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America by Jared Taylor.
Race, Evolution and Behaviour by J. Philippe Rushton
Race: The Reality of Human Differences by Vincent Sarich and Franke Miele

Don't forget The Bell Curve, which touched off a firestorm of denial of the obvioius.

I have not read all of the cited works but I have read several.

Let me clarify what I mean by the debate not mattering. In the abstract, of course it does, and surely ignoring reality always matters.

But my point is that there is no real need to argue that one race or the other is or is not inferior in some way. It is far easier, more effective, and morally better-founded just to stick to Martin Luther King's simple principle of judging people purely by their characters. For one thing, it's almost impossible to argue against, and being accused of "racism" for making that argument is entirely unconvincing.

Yet if we could enforce this simple principle throughout our government, all the manifold problems that we now see would be eliminated - affirmative action, race studies, the race-baiting reverends, etc. Yes, certain races might or might not be disproportionately wealthy, successful, or imprisoned. But as long as, in law and in fact, each individual person was judged on his or her own merits, it would be irrelevant.

Persuading Americans that a particular race is stupid on average, would be almost impossible even were it provably true. Persuading Americans that racial preferences are wrong, is entirely possible - because they are, and most Americans know it already.

@Karl:

>It was a decrease, not an increase, in melanin that led to the foxes being more easily domesticated.

"Led to"? Or merely a curious side effect - like the development of floppy ears? As far as I know, melanin has neither pacifying nor criminogenic properties.

* * * * *

You are, of course, correct. I should have written "was associated with" rather than "led to". My mistake.

@Petrarch:

If I may ask, then, what is your own opinion of NCLB's significant demand that public schools close the "achievement gap" between different races of students? At its root is the assumption that all races are intellectually equal.

I consider it morally wrong for government to discriminate between citizens that way. NCLB had some good intentions but that was a very wrong method - it will only Balkanize us further regardless of the underlying reality which is its own issue.

>But my point is that there is no real need to argue that one race or the other is or is not inferior in some way.

Here's why I disagree. Our government's education policy (NCLB) is predicated on the notion that cognitive ability is equally distributed among the different races. Racial egalitarianism is the point of departure, and unequal outcomes, it is thus presumed, must be due to white "racism." An entire industry of racial grievance-mongers informed by anti-white bigotry has sprung up to peddle white guilt and demand various forms of reparations. As a white person who never owned slaves, who never mistreated blacks, and grew up in a nice liberal family where the "N-word" was never spoken, I rather resent the double standards and discourse of racial incitement emanating from the Left.

The science shows that the assumptions underlying racial egalitarianism are simply not true. Every IQ test ever developed shows an abiding gap of about one standard deviation between the average black and average white IQs. This means that the average American white person has a higher IQ than about 85% of American blacks. And before someone trots out the excuse of differences in socio-economic background, let me point out that everyone who has studied this problem knows that the real question is why the children of Black doctors, lawyers, and corporate executives do worse in school and on academic tests than the children of White and Oriental manual workers.

In order to get the "correct" numbers of minorities, the diversity managers end up dumbing down the tests and generally lowering standards at every turn. If our society really does cherish "diversity," there are other ways to ensure that there are an appropriate number of minority police officers, firefighters, etc., without lowering the standards for everyone. This issue is discussed in detail by Prof. Steve Farron in his book, Affirmative Action Hoax: Diversity, the Importance of Character And Other Lies (2nd Edition, 2010).

I recognize that there are people out there who are more intelligent than I, better looking, more athletic, more coordinated, wealthier, etc. So what? I don't feel inherently inferior, or nurture some kind of envious rage against talented. I try to do the best I can with what the Good Lord gave me.

"All men are created equal" doesn't mean we are all equally talented. It means that all men (and women) are equal before the bar of justice.

Karl, you lose me here:

"...everyone who has studied this problem knows that the real question is why the children of Black doctors, lawyers, and corporate executives do worse in school and on academic tests than the children of White and Oriental manual workers."

Where are you getting this information? If it is true, then it is an argument AGAINST genetics being the major determinant of IQ.

The book "The Bell Curve" explains that cognitive ability is substantially heritable, apparently no less than 40 percent and no more than 80 percent. Assuming that Black doctors, lawyers, and corporate executives have higher than average IQ, and that White manual workers have lower than average IQ, your assertion above would seem to fly in the face of genetics as a determinant and open the door to arguments that there must be some other factor at work.

Aside from this, your argument against Petrarch's assertion that the argument is "irrelevant" stands. As a society we are making major policy decisions in education based on the assumption that all races are intellectually equal. If this assumption is untrue, we are setting our public schools up for failure.

@werebat

Can anyone argue that our public schools HAVEN'T failed?

I see the excuse of being poor for committing crimes.What about rape and assaults what is their excuse?

Is this a bogus face book page?

https://www.facebook.com/cnn/posts/10151797397381509

In 1911, Booker T Washington made this declaration, "There is another class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well."

In 1961 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. proclaimed, "Do you know that Negroes are 10% of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of the crimes? We've got to face that. And we've got to do something about our moral standards....We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world, too. We can't keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves.