|The Ghost of Paley
Joined: Oct. 2005
From the SPLcenter source Midnight Voice cited:
|Around the nation, white supremacists and their fellow travelers are brandishing copies of a 1999 booklet that purports to show that whites have every reason to be terrified of blacks. |
Uh-oh, already we're in trouble, as this is a criticism of the earlier study instead of the revised one I actually cited. As we'll discover, the new edition does address some of these complaints.
|Taylor uses an incredibly simplistic analytical method that flatly ignores the fundamental conclusion of decades of serious criminology: Crime is intimately related to poverty. In fact, when multivariate statistical methods such as regression analysis are used, study after study has shown that race has little, if any, predictive power. |
So why didn't you cite these studies, Mr. Anonymous Author? I would certainly like to see them.
|This basic fact is so well understood among scholars of criminal justice that the preface to Minnesota's official crime data reports carries this caveat: "Racial and ethnic data must be treated with caution. ... Existing research on crime has generally shown that racial or ethnic identity is not predictive of criminal behavior with data which has been controlled for social and economic factors." |
From the Color of Crime:
|Many people believe that a bad social environment|
is a major contributor to crime. They believe
that if people of all races had the same education,
income, and social status, there would be no race
differences in crime rates. Academic research, however,
shows that these differences persist even after
controlling for social variables.34
Figures 14 through 17 show correlations for the
50 states and Washington, DC, between rates of vioIn 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.36 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
|When more sophisticated methodology is employed, socioeconomic factors including poverty, education, social status and urban residence account far better for criminal behavior than race. Above all, income counts. |
Jared says otherwise. Racist that he is, at least he cites sources. Here's another problem: by tossing out these factors (especially poverty and education), you're assuming they are independent of culture (or biology, as Thrillbilly Taylor would have it). Could be, but I'd sure like to see evidence for that, because common sense doesn't back it up.
|In 1994, the same year that Taylor's data comes from, the poverty rate among blacks was three times that of whites. In addition, nearly 40 percent of black children grew up in poverty.|
Yes. And you know why? Because studies indicate that poor people of all races have more children per capita than middle class or rich people do. Hint: if you can't raise a baby, don't make a baby. That used to be good advice. Now it'll get you thrown into prison if you cross the Atlantic.
|So while it is true, for instance, that blacks rob whites far more than vice versa, that is hardly a surprise — whites, after all, own nearly 10 times the wealth that blacks do on average. They also own far more businesses. Thus, it is only natural that any rational robber would select whites over blacks as victims. |
True enough. And for that matter, a rational sadist would choose white people to beat up, because whites tend to be more timid (although MMA is changing things a little). But see below.
|What Taylor actually does is consider only a subset of data on crime — statistics on interracial crimes between blacks and whites from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). |
For crimes of violence — the crimes Taylor focuses on — that data covers just 16 percent of the crimes committed in 1994. The result is a skewed view of the impact of race on crime that suggests that whites ought to be terrified of blacks who, in Taylor's view, present a serious threat to society.
Missing the Forest for the Trees
But this analysis completely overlooks the larger — and far more scientifically defensible — pattern in the data: Most crime is intra-racial (black-on-black and white-on-white), not interracial.
In fact, the NCVS data show that 73 percent of white violent crime victims were attacked by whites, and 80 percent of black victims were targeted by blacks. This pattern is even clearer in the category of murder.
According to a 1997 government report, 94 percent of black murder victims, as well as 85 percent of white murder victims, were slain by members of their own race. Thus, the larger reality, that danger comes mainly from one's own race, is utterly ignored by Taylor, who for reasons of his own is interested only in interracial crime.
Yes, and this is what I said a few posts ago. Whites are actually disproportionately likely to be victimised by other whites when all violent crimes are factored in. Tim Wise claims that this is true even when you take the level of interracial "encounters" into account, although I haven't checked his sources. The point is, when one does examine interracial crime, one sees that it is whites, not blacks, who tend to be the victims. Perhaps this isn't such a big problem when whites are 70% of the population. But what happens when we become 50% in another generation? A third? Being a well-off minority (or being perceived as one) in a country full of poor, uneducated people who've been raised to think of you as a sinister wimp is a scary proposition. Ask whites in Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Brasil if you don't believe me. Don't procrastinate too much, however, I hear they're becoming an endangered species.
More to the point, Jared does bring this up in his new study:
|This is still not clear evidence blacks are targeting|
whites. Not only are there 5.5 times more potential
white victims for black criminals—this is
what is adjusted for by dividing the white bars in
Figure 18 by 5.5—but blacks commit crimes of violence
in general at far greater rates than whites. The
huge multiples found in Figure 18 could therefore
be the combined result of these two things: a larger
number of potential white than black crime victims
and much higher black rates of violent crime regardless
of the race of the victim.
The black bars in Figure 19 must therefore be
divided again, this time by the black/white multiples
for the overall rates for each crime, which are represented
by the gray bars. The results are shown in the
white bars in Figure 19. In the case of aggravated
assault, the result is just over one, which means the
disproportions in black-on-white assault are almost
entirely explained by the fact that there are more
white potential victims and blacks commit this crime
at a higher rate than whites. However, for the other
crimes, the ratio is greater than one—1.66 for robbery
and 7.4 for rape—suggesting that something
else is contributing to much higher rates of blackon-
white than white-on-black crime. The fact that
these interracial crime multiples remain even after
controlling for population differences and overall
racial differences in crime rates suggests either that
blacks do target whites for crime, white criminals
deliberately avoid black victims, or some combination
of the two.
And how does poverty explain the discrepancy in rape rates? Oooh, my wallet's empty, I'll go rape that rich b*tch! Part of it might be caused by disgruntled white girls filing hoaxed-up charges against their black boyfriends (white women are more likely to date black men when they date interracially, while white men prefer asian women), but I'm just speculating. No matter how you slice it, the rape stats are troubling. See figure 19, as this is an attempt to address Wise's "encounter" complaint.
| Misinterpreting Hate Crimes |
Taylor looks to statistics on hate crime to make the point that blacks are far more likely to attack whites for racial reasons than the other way around — even though, as Taylor himself acknowledges, hate crime statistics are widely known to be seriously flawed because of reporting errors.
And the fact that the FBI defines the "Victim/Offender" categories to make Whitey look as evil as possible; Hispanics are classified as "White" when they commit a crime, as "Hispanic" when they're victimised. Faid disputed this in the other thread to no effect. The proof is in the pudding.
|First, Taylor excludes hate crimes based on religion, sexual orientation and disability. Then, using the remaining motivation categories of race and ethnicity, he says that 63 percent of these crimes were committed by whites, less than their 72 percent proportion of the population would suggest; and 19 percent were the work of blacks, even though blacks account for only 12 percent of Americans. |
Thus, Taylor concludes, blacks are more likely to commit hate crimes while whites are less so.
These numbers are deceptive. If one looks at all hate crimes and all ethnic groups, the data show that whites are responsible for 75 percent of all hate crimes — higher than their proportion in the population — while the black rate remains at 19 percent.
Corrected for population, these numbers mean that blacks are 1.37 times more likely to commit hate crimes than all other races combined — a far cry from the 1.99 rate that Taylor advances. Whites, too, commit more hate crimes than all other races combined, but only slightly more so.
This type of exaggeration is typical of the poor methodology Taylor employs in his analysis.
A very good point. What the author fails to disclose is that prosecutors don't apply hate crime charges even-handedly. I cited many instances in the "liberal bias" thread where the prosecutor ignored the racial angle in minority-on-majority crimes, even when the offenders used racial epithets. Apply the statutes fairly, then we'll talk.
|Taylor also asserts that "millions of ordinary interracial crimes" should really be considered hate crimes — an insupportable conclusion. Hate crimes are not simply crimes committed between persons of different races. |
They are crimes that are motivated by the race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or other group characteristic of the victim. A black man's robbery of a store owned by a white businessman is not a hate crime unless the offender, motivated by animus toward whites, chose the store simply because the owner was white.
Which is why blacks rarely get charged with hate crimes; the police assume a burden of proof they don't assume for white thugs. See the "liberal bias" thread for more detail.
|Quite apart from the glaring Constitutional violations involved in such a practice, Taylor is simply wrong about the usefulness of racial profiling. A study of profiling released by the nonpartisan U.S. General Accounting Office earlier this year shows that stopping individuals based on race, gender or state of origin does not increase the likelihood of discovering contraband or illegal activities. |
That is because most members of minority communities — just like most young people, most whites, most males and most people overall — are law-abiding citizens.
This fact has been accepted by major law enforcement agencies around the country. The National Association of Police Organizations, for instance, opposes the practice. So does the International Association of Police Chiefs.
Really? This would be news to Democrats like John McWhorter, who admitted that profiling works, and backed it up with studies of his own in Losing the Race. I believe there was a study of the New York Port Authority bus terminal that showed rather dramatic successes in profiling likely drug smugglers. Almost all the blacks who were collared proved to be guilty, while a majority of whites proved innocent. I'll bring the book tomorrow. I know Dinesh D'Souza also came to the same conclusion (but he's a wingnut, so we can ignore him, correct?).
|His booklet is simply the latest effort of racial ideologues to demonstrate black America's hatred for whites and to encourage whites to "take back the country" as a matter of survival. Although there are many inaccuracies in Taylor's analysis, those already detailed should give a sense of the quality of his research. |
As social science, The Color of Crime fails the test.
And this screed fails utterly as a rebuttal. Although, to be fair to the mystery author, most of the criticisms applied much better to the 1999 report. Too bad Midnight Voice can't tell the difference.
What about the Tim Wise essay? This critique does make several good points, and I highlighted them when I cited it two months ago. The one big problem, however, is this:
|Published on ZNet, www.zmag.org, 11/19/04. Note: This rebuttal refers to the original Color of Crime Report by American Renaissance. A newer version of the report was recently released, and as such, a newer rebuttal will be forthcoming shortly, though the analysis herein is still applicable. |
In other words, it's not a criticism of the edition I actually cited. This is important, because Taylor does attempt to refute Tim's essay, especially in Figure 19. Did he do a good job? I guess we'll see when Mr. Wise reviews the new study. Until then, I'll look it over and give my opinion. One thing remains clear: there has still been no refutation of the new edition.
|Now THAT'S a pathetic level of detail. I think it shall remain unmatched, Midnight Voice; nice job.|
Just not nice enough.
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.