Homicide Statistics by Race & Gender

[Nereid]

There are a number of factors that causes criminal behavior. Testosterone level would be one of them. Certainly not in all aspects a bad hormone. This magical hormone does many things. It gives you a sex drive, it allows you to build muscle mass, as well as other so called "male" characteristics. One of them is aggressive behavior. Aggressive behavior would often even be positive. It allows you to be more competitive which is great as long as you have it under control. But this aggressive behavior often times turns criminal.

80-90% of homicides are commited by men. It's hard to make a case for environment being the main cause of it. Men are much more aggressive than their female counterparts. That magical male hormone testosterone probably responsible for it.

Now do certain races have a higher median level of testosterone than others? If this is the case, the pattern of higher aggressive behavior should be visible.

In summary:
race -> testosterone -> aggression -> crime.

Let's examine the last in the chain first.

There are many types of crime; which ones have well-established relationships with aggression? What proportion of all crime do these types comprise?

 

[Nereid]

And oh yeah to your question, if a person is of mixed races, then it will likely be listed as whatever race that person considers themselves. Kinda like the Census Bureau I suppose.

Thanks.

So, for the avoidance of doubt, in compilations of US crime statistics, the 'race' of the perpetrator is whatever the perp said it is? And if the perp says "I'm white, Hawaiian, black, and other", four records are created?

How is the 'race' of the victim determined, in cases where the victim is dead?

 

[hitssquad]

How coroners determine race from human remains

How is the 'race' of the victim determined, in cases where the victim is dead?

A coroner makes an official determination of the race from the remains:

• http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/10-286/Appe.htm
  
  Positive identification of a remains can be made through a knowledge of the skeletal system. Identification as to race, sex, age, and height is possible through applying a knowledge of the human skeleton.
  
  
  
• E-10. Identifying Skeletal Remains
  
  a. General. Persons assigned to carry out the identification of deceased personnel must be able not only to identify bones and place them in anatomical order but also to identify the sex, race, height, and age of skeletal remains.
  
  
  
• c. Race. The three primary races are Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongolian; the two classifications are American Indian and mixed. Some skeletal differences exist among the races. They are restricted to the orbital cavities, long bones, nasal ridge, back of the skull, and hair.1
  
  
  • (1) Orbital cavity. The orbital cavities of the three primary races differ. Those of Caucasians are square with rounded corners; those of Negroids are rectangular with rounded corners; and those of Mongoloids are oval.
    
    (2) Long bones. The long bones of a member of the Negroid race are relatively longer than those of a member of the Caucasian race. The long bones of a member of the Mongolian race range in length between those of the other two races.
    
    (3) Nasal ridge. The nasal ridge, the edge of the bone at the base of the nasal cavity, has noticeable racial differences. In a member of the Caucasian race, the edge is sharp; in a member of the Negroid race, it is smooth or dull.
    
    (4) Back of the skull. The back of the skull of a member of the Mongolian race is relatively flat as compared to that of either of the other two races.
    
    (5) Hair. In a general way, race can be determined from the characteristics of the shaft, or free portion, of hair strands. However, since hair characteristics of the races overlap, they should not be the only evidence used in determining the race of the remains.
    
    
    • (a) Caucasian. The wavy and curly hair of Caucasians is smooth and silky. The color varies from ash blond to black, including red.
      
      (b) Negroid. The hair of members of the Negroid race is frizzly, woolly, and peppercorn and either brown or black in color. Also, the hair is typically coarse and crisp.
      
      (c) Mongolian. The hair of members of the Mongolian race is typically straight, limp, and coarse and either dark brown or black in color.

 

[Nereid]

Thanks hitssquad.

Presumably the same techiques are not used to establish the 'race' of the perps?

What say do the family members of a victim (assuming they are involved in any way) have in determining the 'race' of the victim (as such is recorded for crime stats)?

What 'race' would a coroner assign a person who has mixed parentage, say someone like Tiger?

 

[Loren Booda]

Put aside your statistics for just a moment and consider a black man walking toward you. Is it significant that he might murder you, or is he much more likely to be friendly given the opportunity to acknowledge your genuine smile, gesture or greeting? Maybe he had a good day, maybe not - just give him the benefit of the doubt.

Overall conditions of blacks are no more likely to have arisen from whatever arbitrary color ("indigo") they inherited than I from my different, arbitrary skin color ("pink"). In black and white populations you can almost always find people whose IQ, say 80, matches that of another person in the other racial group. Would you give your neighbors the eugenics diatribe that their responsible daughter of such IQ is not worthy to marry your son of IQ 110?

Try to compare polar opposites (black/white, male/female, atheist/fundamentalist, obese/ectomorphic, communist/fascist, rich/poor, etc.) of independent variables throughout a comprehensive statistical accounting against the resultant dependent statistics. You will find that extremes can beget other extremes. The haves dehumanize the have nots in poverty, poor nutrition, lack of education, disenfranchisment, bad environment, drug abuse, unemployment and crime, as does the simplistic prejudice of numerically pigeonholing people. The operative word is poor, the cause is often ignorant greed, and the solution is making a good faith effort to respect and even enjoy how we complement each other, to make a long-term, personal investment in people.

 

[Nereid]

Worthy sentiments Loren, and good advice.

However, I believe that BlackVision posted an opinion that is, in all likelihood, rather more common than many of us would wish. That he hasn't been able to defend his assertion is both unsurprising and disappointing. Unsurprising because I suspect his statements have essentially no basis; disappointing because without a discussion we cannot show clearly that the assertions are empty.

To summarise: we didn't even get to first base - the very terms that BV used have not been defined with any rigour or consistency.

I'm curious though - why did BlackVision make these indefensible statements?

 

[BlackVision]

Worthy sentiments Loren, and good advice.

However, I believe that BlackVision posted an opinion that is, in all likelihood, rather more common than many of us would wish. That he hasn't been able to defend his assertion is both unsurprising and disappointing. Unsurprising because I suspect his statements have essentially no basis; disappointing because without a discussion we cannot show clearly that the assertions are empty.

To summarise: we didn't even get to first base - the very terms that BV used have not been defined with any rigour or consistency.

I'm curious though - why did BlackVision make these indefensible statements?

Simply stating that I didn't defend my position doesn't make it so. Do you even remember my one and ONLY statement? Did you forget already? I thought I made it quite clear when I told you that you kept twisting my words. Here it is again, DO NOT make me repeat it again in the future.

"The white, asian, black crime rate gap is consistent in each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist."

Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that I haven't provided evidence to support this? While you go on and blab going to crime rates in Estonia. a homogeneous country, which is completely irrelevant to the matter? But if it makes you happier you can PRETEND that no evidence was provided. If it allows you to sleep at night, you can pretend all you want.

 

[BlackVision]

And for those who think different races aren't genetically real, here's proof that different races does in fact have genetic basis:

"Every one of us has DNA that is 99.9 percent identical to everyone else, despite our differences in appearance. But as this IOL article reports, researchers have found that the 0.1 percent variations in DNA can provide enough information to accurately identify an individual's geographic ancestry. A recent study "Genetic Structures of Human Populations" published in Science Magazine, attempted to predict where an individual was from by taking DNA samples from from 1,056 people from 52 populations in five major regions--Africa, Eurasia (Europe, the Middle East, Central and South Asia), East Asia, Oceania and the Americas. After removing the labels from all the individuals so they would not know where they came from, researchers looked at the DNA and tried to detect where groups of individuals form clusters that are genetically related to one another. They then applied a statistical technique using many independent genes to detect the geographic patterns of ancestry in samples. The result was that they were able to accurately pinpoint the ancestral continent of virtually every individual from Africa, East Asia, Oceania and the Americas"

Source: Science Magazine. http://www.sciencemag.com

 

[Loren Booda]

What about the trait of a race to impose upon others the ultimate in genetic crimes against humanity, racial cleansing? Is not this perceived superiority itself just an expression of inferior breeding?

 

[BlackVision]

Also I must ask. Why so much heat on races? I did also post gender statistics that show that men commit about 90% of homicides, yet nobody gives a dime's worth about that. It seems society is far more willing to accept this difference but not the race ones. There's far too much people that cannot carry a race related discussion without letting their emotions and PC getting in the way.

 

[Loren Booda]

I would guess that most men who commit murder were brought up by a single mother, a female role model who until recently was almost always of the same race. Men in this situation act out to protect or reject their mom. Women, for instance, are said not to rape, but can nevethless provide the vital link for their progeny to behave in such extremely antisocial manners.

 

[Evo]

Also I must ask. Why so much heat on races? I did also post gender statistics that show that men commit about 90% of homicides, yet nobody gives a dime's worth about that. It seems society is far more willing to accept this difference but not the race ones. There's far too much people that cannot carry a race related discussion without letting their emotions and PC getting in the way.

In your fiirst post, the breakdown by "Homicide Rate by Age Group and Gender" was also by race, the first two groups in that post were by race. The tone you set with your second post "Most violent crime in our country is committed by blacks" drove the discussion to that of race.

I think it is more the poverty, the feeling of despair these people have that they cannot escape their environment and the conditions they live in that are more conducive to violence.

If blacks as a race are more prone to violence, how do you explain why blacks in better socio-economic environments do not have the same crime ratio?

 

[BlackVision]

I would guess that most men who commit murder were brought up by a single mother, a female role model who until recently was almost always of the same race. Men in this situation act out to protect or reject their mom. Women, for instance, are said not to rape, but can nevethless provide the vital link for their progeny to behave in such extremely antisocial manners.

Occam's Razor. I suggest you apply it here.

 

[BlackVision]

In your fiirst post, the breakdown by "Homicide Rate by Age Group and Gender" was also by race, the first two groups in that post were by race. The tone you set with your second post "Most violent crime in our country is committed by blacks" drove the discussion to that of race.

You're telling me if I didn't post that article, this discussion would of went to gender? You and I both know that anything racial related, immediately causes a spark.

I think it is more the poverty, the feeling of despair these people have that they cannot escape their environment and the conditions they live in that are more conducive to violence.

There are environmental issues. But then why don't white trash trailor parks have high murder rates?

If blacks as a race are more prone to violence, how do you explain why blacks in better socio-economic environments do not have the same crime ratio?

Blacks in better SES do have lower crime rates than their poorer SES counterparts, however is still substantially higher than white counterparts in the same SES.

 

[Nereid]

There are environmental issues. But then why don't white trash trailor parks have high murder rates?

Evidence?

Blacks in better SES do have lower crime rates than their poorer SES counterparts, however is still substantially higher than white counterparts in the same SES.

Evidence?

 

[Nereid]

And for those who think different races aren't genetically real, here's proof that different races does in fact have genetic basis:

"Every one of us has DNA that is 99.9 percent identical to everyone else, despite our differences in appearance. But as this IOL article reports, researchers have found that the 0.1 percent variations in DNA can provide enough information to accurately identify an individual's geographic ancestry. A recent study "Genetic Structures of Human Populations" published in Science Magazine, attempted to predict where an individual was from by taking DNA samples from from 1,056 people from 52 populations in five major regions--Africa, Eurasia (Europe, the Middle East, Central and South Asia), East Asia, Oceania and the Americas. After removing the labels from all the individuals so they would not know where they came from, researchers looked at the DNA and tried to detect where groups of individuals form clusters that are genetically related to one another. They then applied a statistical technique using many independent genes to detect the geographic patterns of ancestry in samples. The result was that they were able to accurately pinpoint the ancestral continent of virtually every individual from Africa, East Asia, Oceania and the Americas"

Source: Science Magazine. http://www.sciencemag.com

The link doesn't seem to work (and I'm curious ... if the work you cite is anything at all like HapMap, it will also show that most of us do not have a single 'ancestral homeland', but that we are (most of us) a mixture of many ancestries, with wide variation in the degree of mixing.

 

[Nereid]

Simply stating that I didn't defend my position doesn't make it so. Do you even remember my one and ONLY statement? Did you forget already? I thought I made it quite clear when I told you that you kept twisting my words. Here it is again, DO NOT make me repeat it again in the future.

"The white, asian, black crime rate gap is consistent in each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist."

Yes, you did make this statement.

Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that I haven't provided evidence to support this?

Yes, that's precisely what I am saying.

Let's take it step by step, shall we?
There are at least two ways to do this - by poring over your posts and extensively quoting from them, or asking you simple, straight-forward questions (which may or may not have already been covered).

"white, asian, black":
1) How are these terms defined?
2) If, as you assert, we should examine each country in terms of its own stats (no cross-country comparisons), what consistency *between* countries is there?
3) If, as you assert, these terms are somehow related to Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Melanesian, please show that the 'white, asian, black' categories in any crime stats that you cite are indeed directly related to Caucasian etc.
4) Many people in the US (and UK, and probably many other countries) likely have ancestors who belong to more than one of your groups, whether 'white, asian, black', or 'Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, Melanesian'. For the purposes of showing the gap that you assert, how do you classify such people?

'crime rate':
5) How do you define this term?

'consistent':
6) How do you measure consistency?

'each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist':
7) What are these countries? Please list them
8) For each country in your list, please provide age, sex, and 'white, asian, black' demographics
9) If you succeed in providing good support for your overall assertion, a likely hypothesis for explaining such a trend would involve (socio-economic) class (or SES) and immigration status. So please provide relevant data on accepted measures for these too, by your 'white, asian, black' categories

For the record, you asserted that the specific countries to be considered are the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and Germany. You provided some stats for the US, and 'incarceration rates' for the UK. The former is certainly something we can discuss further; the latter has no apparent relationship with your assertion. Despite being asked for them, you have provided no data for any other country.

 

[BlackVision]

Evidence?
Evidence?

You got to be kidding me. I actually have to post statistics on black ghettos versus white trailor parks? Ah yes cause South Dakota is just known for their murder rates. Nebraska oh yes another deadly zone with drivebys everyday. Or if you want to look at bit cities, look at Oklahoma City. One of the poorest major cities in America. Yet has a relatively low crime rate.

As for Black SES and White SES comparison. I have many hard copies showing that SES has little effect on crime and that even after adjusting for SES, blacks still do have a higher crime rate. This information can be found in "The Bell Curve" and "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" I will try to find sources on the internet, but check out the hard copy sources I named in the meanwhile if you can.

 

[Nereid]

You got to be kidding me. I actually have to post statistics on black ghettos versus white trailor parks? Ah yes cause South Dakota is just known for their murder rates. Nebraska oh yes another deadly zone with drivebys everyday. Or if you want to look at bit cities, look at Oklahoma City. One of the poorest major cities in America. Yet has a relatively low crime rate.

As for Black SES and White SES comparison. I have many hard copies showing that SES has little effect on crime and that even after adjusting for SES, blacks still do have a higher crime rate. This information can be found in "The Bell Curve" and "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" I will try to find sources on the internet, but check out the hard copy sources I named in the meanwhile if you can.

No, I am not kidding. If you make an assertion in Physics Forums, you can expect to be challenged to provide support for your assertion; that's what happens in science.

Please be sure to be quite clear on what you mean by 'crime rate', 'black ghettos', 'white trailor parks' and so on.

 

[BlackVision]

Yes, you did make this statement.Yes, that's precisely what I am saying.

You notice that you are the ONLY one arguing against that? Everyone else has already accepted the fact that blacks do commit far more crime than other groups. Some are obviously trying to contribute it to environmental issues but you are the ONLY one trying to say this gap doesn't exist. It makes you look really silly here.

1) How are these terms defined?

Did I not answer this already. Hell I even gave the specific definitions used by the government.

2) If, as you assert, we should examine each country in terms of its own stats (no cross-country comparisons), what consistency *between* countries is there?

The white, asian, black gap is consistent in each diverse country. E.g. USA, Canada, UK, Australia, etc.

3) If, as you assert, these terms are somehow related to Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Melanesian, please show that the 'white, asian, black' categories in any crime stats that you cite are indeed directly related to Caucasian etc.

What the hell are you even talking about here? Crime stats are directly related to Caucasian? Cause the Federal Bureau of Investigation is not going to put a murder done by Native Americans on the white homicide rate chart.

4) Many people in the US (and UK, and probably many other countries) likely have ancestors who belong to more than one of your groups, whether 'white, asian, black', or 'Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, Melanesian'. For the purposes of showing the gap that you assert, how do you classify such people?

This is of complete irrelevance since mixed races are not THAT common. In the US, 2.4% of the population is considered 2 or more races as reported by the US Census Bureau. Regardless of how this 2.4% is classified would mean literally nothing to the statistics at hand.

'crime rate':
5) How do you define this term?

Questions that beat around the bush alright. Crime is murder, rape, robbery, etc.

'consistent':
6) How do you measure consistency?

In that the gaps exist in every country that has that diverse population.

'

each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist':
7) What are these countries? Please list them

Why are you constantly making me repeat myself of statements that I've already said not once, not twice, but numerous times. This time, I'm going to kindly ask you to scroll up.

8) For each country in your list, please provide age, sex, and 'white, asian, black' demographics

Look I already gave you a link to an almanac. For petty simple things, you do it on your own.

9) If you succeed in providing good support for your overall assertion, a likely hypothesis for explaining such a trend would involve (socio-economic) class (or SES) and immigration status.

SES is heavily addressed in books such as "The Bell Curve" and "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" I recommend these books for you to read.

Immigration status. Asians have high level of 1st wave immigration in USA, Canada, Australia, and the UK and yet have lower crime rates than even whites in all these countries.

For the record, you asserted that the specific countries to be considered are the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and Germany. You provided some stats for the US, and 'inceration rates' for the UK. The former is certainly something we can discuss further; the latter has no apparent relationship with your assertion. Despite being asked for them, you have provided no data for any other country.

The later has no relationship? Wtf? Just cause you want to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la" doesn't mean it'll go away or have no relation. I already provided 2 countries. Another to add to the list is South Africa. I'm sure even you will be well aware of the white-black crime gap there. Look, as many has already said, the GAP is not in question. The question is why. YOU are the only one trying to argue that the gap doesn't exist.

 

[BlackVision]

No, I am not kidding. If you make an assertion in Physics Forums, you can expect to be challenged to provide support for your assertion; that's what happens in science.

Yet you showed absolutely no evidence whatsoever for your claims. I sure as hell provided my evidence for a gap, did you show anything to counter that? Ah nope.

Please be sure to be quite clear on what you mean by 'crime rate', 'black ghettos', 'white trailor parks' and so on.

No more ignorant beating around the bush type of questions. I will also not tell you what the definition of the sun and the Earth and a flower and an umbrella is.

 

[Nereid]

You notice that you are the ONLY one arguing against that? Everyone else has already accepted the fact that blacks do commit far more crime than other groups. Some are obviously trying to contribute it to environmental issues but you are the ONLY one trying to say this gap doesn't exist. It makes you look really silly here.

Really? How do you come to that conclusion? Perhaps because no one else has posted questions?

BTW, whether there is a gap or not has yet to be established; it's your assertion and I'm challenging you to provide solid evidence for it.

"white, asian, black"
1) How are these terms defined?

Did I not answer this already. Hell I even gave the specific definitions used by the government.

No, you did not answer this question. You provided the definitions that are used by the Census Bureau for conducting censuses. Your assertion is about crime rates, and my question is how are the terms that you use ('white', 'asian', 'black') defined in respect of crime rates (once more, with feeling, NOT in respect of censuses).

The white, asian, black gap is consistent in each diverse country. E.g. USA, Canada, UK, Australia, etc.

Maybe, maybe not; but you've provided no data to support this racist claim, nor have you even defined what you mean by 'white', 'asian', 'black' in countries other than the US.

3) If, as you assert, these terms are somehow related to Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Melanesian, please show that the 'white, asian, black' categories in any crime stats that you cite are indeed directly related to Caucasian etc.

What the hell are you even talking about here? Crime stats are directly related to Caucasian? Cause the Federal Bureau of Investigation is not going to put a murder done by Native Americans on the white homicide rate chart.

Really? And how, precisely, does the FBI put down a murder in a 'white homicide rate chart'? Do they test the DNA of the perp and determine that he cannot possibly have any African ancestry? Or, if it's a 'black' perp, when the DNA results come in and he's got a 65% non-African ancestry (assuming such a thing is possible to determine), do they add .65 to the 'white homicide' stat and .35 to the 'black' one?

4) Many people in the US (and UK, and probably many other countries) likely have ancestors who belong to more than one of your groups, whether 'white, asian, black', or 'Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, Melanesian'. For the purposes of showing the gap that you assert, how do you classify such people?

This is of complete irrelevance since mixed races are not THAT common. In the US, 2.4% of the population is considered 2 or more races as reported by the US Census Bureau. Regardless of how this 2.4% is classified would mean literally nothing to the statistics at hand.

Er, no, that would only be true if the 'race' of the perps was indeed self-reported (under the CB's definition) or mixed ancestry was uncommon. However, if you take the time to read some of the other threads in this sub-forum, or ask hitssquad, you will learn that there are essentially NO 'pure' ancestral groups in the US. This is particularly true for 'blacks' - most have some 'white' ancestry, and many have a great deal indeed (and many 'whites' aren't). You might like to read a book such as "The Seven Daughters of Eve"

'crime rate':
5) How do you define this term?

Questions that beat around the bush alright. Crime is murder, rape, robbery, etc.

Actually, this goes to the heart of your assertion; at the very least I would expect you could easily define - in clear, unambiguous terms - the key concept in your assertion.

(to be continued)

 

[Nereid]

'each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist':
7) What are these countries? Please list them

...

For the record, you asserted that the specific countries to be considered are the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and Germany. You provided some stats for the US, and 'incarceration rates' for the UK. The former is certainly something we can discuss further; the latter has no apparent relationship with your assertion. Despite being asked for them, you have provided no data for any other country.

Why are you constantly making me repeat myself of statements that I've already said not once, not twice, but numerous times. This time, I'm going to kindly ask you to scroll up.

...

I already provided 2 countries. Another to add to the list is South Africa. I'm sure even you will be well aware of the white-black crime gap there.

That's two countries for which you have provided at least some data, and four for which you have made an assertion without any support whatsoever for blatantly racist claims.

8) For each country in your list, please provide age, sex, and 'white, asian, black' demographics

Look I already gave you a link to an almanac. For petty simple things, you do it on your own.

As has already been discussed, the link you provided does NOT give 'white', 'asian', 'black' demographics. Please provide the 'white', 'asian', 'black' age and sex demographics of the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, and South Africa (and any other country for which you assert there is this "'white', 'asian', 'black' crime gap").

You provided some stats for the US, and 'incarceration rates' for the UK. The former is certainly something we can discuss further; the latter has no apparent relationship with your assertion.

The later [sic] has no relationship? Wtf?

Perhaps 'crime' means 'found guilty by a court of committing an offense' (perhaps it doesn't; you haven't defined the term); perhaps 'incarceration' means 'sent to prison, either for being an asylum seeker/refugee without papers, or for being denied bail after being charged with an offense, or as a penalty, after being found guilty of an offense'. or perhaps not. Perhaps 'white' criminals in the UK get far lighter sentences, for the same crime, than 'black' criminals do. Perhaps, in the UK, 'asian' criminals are deported (so are not 'incarcerated'); or perhaps not.

As *you* provided 'incarceration rates' as data to support your assertion, I'm asking you to show, clearly and unambiguously, how UK incarceration rates are related to 'crime rates'.

Look, as many has already said, the GAP is not in question. The question is why. YOU are the only one trying to argue that the gap doesn't exist.

I haven't even started to discuss 'the gap'!

At this stage, I'm simply trying to get you to state your assertion in terms that are clear and unambiguous (and not, IMHO, merely baseless racist propoganda), so that we can start to discuss this topic.

 

[Nereid]

Yet you showed absolutely no evidence whatsoever for your claims. I sure as hell provided my evidence for a gap, did you show anything to counter that? Ah nope.

What claims? What evidence (other than for the US, perhaps)?

No more ignorant beating around the bush type of questions.

So you concede that you cannot support your racist assertions?

 

[Evo]

You're telling me if I didn't post that article, this discussion would of went to gender? You and I both know that anything racial related, immediately causes a spark.

No, I believe that the predominant amount of racial data in your first post would have been sufficient.

There are environmental issues. But then why don't white trash trailor parks have high murder rates?

From what I've seen, inner city slums are worse than low income trailer parks. What data do you have on murder rates in low income trailer parks?

Blacks in better SES do have lower crime rates than their poorer SES counterparts, however is still substantially higher than white counterparts in the same SES.

I'm not aware of higher crime rates by blacks in higher SES. Do you have data on that?

 

[BlackVision]

Really? How do you come to that conclusion? Perhaps because no one else has posted questions?

"If we are going to identify and address these problems, we need to first acknowledge they exist. The data are not in question, the interpretation is."---Moonbear

And I doubt even Evo will argue that the statistics given on the first page is inaccurate. But she, like Moonbear, will give their interpretations to why the gap exists. YOU are the only one trying to argue against it. Do you have any clue how inconceivable you sound? Yes yes cause the US Department of Justice, the FBI, they're just manipulating and giving fake statistics to spread their propaganda against blacks. This conversation cannot go any further without you at least acknowledging there is a gap. It shows your ignorance/stubbornness on the subject.

BTW, whether there is a gap or not has yet to be established; it's your assertion and I'm challenging you to provide solid evidence for it.

See above comment.

No, you did not answer this question. You provided the definitions that are used by the Census Bureau for conducting censuses.

Which are standard definitions used by all government agencies

Your assertion is about crime rates, and my question is how are the terms that you use ('white', 'asian', 'black') defined in respect of crime rates (once more, with feeling, NOT in respect of censuses).Maybe, maybe not; but you've provided no data to support this racist claim

LOL. Ok you have lost all ability to carry this conversation. Read way back, where I stated, that there are people that put their emotions and PC into an argument when the issue deals with race which prevents them from carrying a proper and refined discussion. You fit into this description.

Really? And how, precisely, does the FBI put down a murder in a 'white homicide rate chart'? Do they test the DNA of the perp and determine that he cannot possibly have any African ancestry? Or, if it's a 'black' perp, when the DNA results come in and he's got a 65% non-African ancestry (assuming such a thing is possible to determine), do they add .65 to the 'white homicide' stat and .35 to the 'black' one?

This is your own research to do. Why you expect other people to do your work for you I have no clue. I posted statistics. That's all I did. You are free to interpret them however you wish and post your thoughts. But don't expect anyone to tell you what the definition of an umbrella or a cat is.

Er, no, that would only be true if the 'race' of the perps was indeed self-reported (under the CB's definition) or mixed ancestry was uncommon. However, if you take the time to read some of the other threads in this sub-forum, or ask hitssquad, you will learn that there are essentially NO 'pure' ancestral groups in the US. This is particularly true for 'blacks' - most have some 'white' ancestry, and many have a great deal indeed (and many 'whites' aren't). You might like to read a book such as "The Seven Daughters of Eve"

Actually Whites in America would rank over 95% Caucasian in genetic testing. Blacks would rank 80% African in genetic testing. Again you need to quit beating around the bush.

Actually, this goes to the heart of your assertion; at the very least I would expect you could easily define - in clear, unambiguous terms - the key concept in your assertion.

Look you want to do your research, do your research. If you have any thoughts on this matter, you are free to state them. But asking someone else to do YOUR homework, is quite pathetic. The one and only statement I've made, I've defended quite well. If you want to know how the Census Bureau ranks different races, that is your research to do. If you find out anything useful, you are free to post them.

 

[BlackVision]

That's two countries for which you have provided at least some data, and four for which you have made an assertion without any support whatsoever for blatantly racist claims.

Just simply cause you're completely ignorant on this topic, doesn't make anything less true. Study Europe's melting pot in recent years. You will notice that one of the biggest debates among the flex of incoming immigration, is the vast surplus of crime rates that comes with it. But this surplus doesn't seem to apply to East Asian or South Asian immigration for whatever reason.

And again, calling it racist claims, you have lost all ability to carry a race related discussion. PC is a term that comes for you before science.

As has already been discussed, the link you provided does NOT give 'white', 'asian', 'black' demographics. Please provide the 'white', 'asian', 'black' age and sex demographics of the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, and South Africa (and any other country for which you assert there is this "'white', 'asian', 'black' crime gap").

Look if you're ignorant, you're ignorant. If you can't figure out that if it says English origin or French origin or German origin, that it means white, how much do you think I can help you. You're going back to 3rd grade material on race now.

Perhaps 'crime' means 'found guilty by a court of committing an offense' (perhaps it doesn't; you haven't defined the term); perhaps 'incarceration' means 'sent to prison, either for being an asylum seeker/refugee without papers, or for being denied bail after being charged with an offense, or as a penalty, after being found guilty of an offense'. or perhaps not. Perhaps 'white' criminals in the UK get far lighter sentences, for the same crime, than 'black' criminals do. Perhaps, in the UK, 'asian' criminals are deported (so are not 'incarcerated'); or perhaps not.

As *you* provided 'incarceration rates' as data to support your assertion, I'm asking you to show, clearly and unambiguously, how UK incarceration rates are related to 'crime rates'.

Again your research to do. But continue to pretend a gap doesn't exist. Something that everyone already has. Although Evo and Moonbear will contribute the gap to environmental differences, they at least acknowledge the gap. You didn't even pass the first gate.

 

[Evo]

I thought this was interesting. This is from the department of Justice. Seems that the homicides commited by blacks that make up the disproportionate gap between white & black homicide is due to drugs and arguments, whereas whites are more likely to murder their friends, family, co-workers, children and the elderly.

Whites are more likely to kill multiple people.

Whites commit more sex related murders.

Whites commit more gang related murders.

Homicide Type by Race, 1976-2000

Offenders - All Homicide White - 46.4%, Black - 51.5%

Victim/Offender Relationship

Intimate White - 53.5%, Black - 44.4%

Family White - 58.3%, Black - 39.4%

Infanticide White - 55.2%, Black - 42.1%

Eldercide White - 54.5%, Black - 44.0%

Circumstances

Felony Murder White - 39.2%, Black - 59.2%

Sex Related White - 56.8%, Black - 41.3%

Drug Related White - 32.7, Black - 66.3%

Gang Related White - 56.7%, Black - 39.1%

Argument White - 45.7%, Black - 52.1%

Work Related White - 70.2%, Black - 26.9%

Weapon

Gun Homicide White - 43.7%, Black - 54.6%

Arson White - 54.5%, Black - 43.1%

Poison White - 74.3%, Black - 23.0%

Multiple Offenders

Multiple Victims White - 57.9%, Black - 38.6%

Multiple Offenders White - 46.1%, Black - 51.6%

 

[BlackVision]

This isn't funny.

--Tom Mattson[/color]

 

[BlackVision]

Evo I commend you for never using this "questions" tactic. And at least did attempt to have a debate.

 

[Nereid]

"If we are going to identify and address these problems, we need to first acknowledge they exist. The data are not in question, the interpretation is."---Moonbear

And I doubt even Evo will argue that the statistics given on the first page is inaccurate. But she, like Moonbear, will give their interpretations to why the gap exists. YOU are the only one trying to argue against it.

I don't recall stating that the stats that you posted were inaccurate, nor arguing that a gap exists (or doesn't); I'm merely asking you to provide a clear, unambiguous set of definitions of the terms which you use in your assertion - which is, at the risk of boring everyone silly, a racist one ("The white, asian, black crime rate gap is consistent in each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist.", my emphasis)

Yes yes cause the US Department of Justice, the FBI, they're just manipulating and giving fake statistics to spread their propaganda against blacks.

How did you conclude that "provide clear, unambiguous definitions of the terms you use in your assertion" is the same as "Yes yes cause the US Department of Justice, the FBI, they're just manipulating and giving fake statistics to spread their propaganda against blacks."?

This conversation cannot go any further without you at least acknowledging there is a gap. It shows your ignorance/stubbornness on the subject.

Er, with respect, I disagree. Regarding the US, we may be able to proceed ... to discuss the statistics which you posted. However, we cannot proceed to discuss your assertion without you first defining, clearly and unambiguously, the key terms in that assertion. And we certainly cannot discuss the racist core of your assertion ("in each and every country") without any statistics, or definitions.

No, you did not answer this question. You provided the definitions that are used by the Census Bureau for conducting censuses.

Which are standard definitions used by all government agencies

Earlier you weren't so certain, so excuse me if I remain skeptical ... do I understand you to say that all players in the US criminal justice system (or at least those who play a part in collecting and processing data which subsequently becomes 'crime rates') ask every criminal for their race? whether they are Hispanic or not? I'm curious - at what stage(s) are such questions asked? What happens if the criminal wishes to change her answer? Is there a category called 'refused to answer' (or similar)?

LOL. Ok you have lost all ability to carry this conversation. Read way back, where I stated, that there are people that put their emotions and PC into an argument when the issue deals with race which prevents them from carrying a proper and refined discussion. You fit into this description.

Does this same apply to those who make racist assertions and are unable to substantiate them?

This is your own research to do. Why you expect other people to do your work for you I have no clue. I posted statistics. That's all I did. You are free to interpret them however you wish and post your thoughts. But don't expect anyone to tell you what the definition of an umbrella or a cat is.

Actually, you did much more than just post stats; you made a racist assertion, and claimed that the (US) stats you posted are evidence for the (global) claim.

Actually Whites in America would rank over 95% Caucasian in genetic testing. Blacks would rank 80% African in genetic testing. Again you need to quit beating around the bush.

So perhaps some Jensen might clarify things: "M [intermixing index; FOOTNOTE 1] varies across different regions of the United States, being as low as 4 percent to 10 percent in some southeastern States and spreading out in a fan-shaped gradient toward the north and the west to reach over 40 percent in some northeastern and northwestern states" (Source: Jensen, "The g Factor"; this quote is from an extract, posted in an earlier thread). For the avoidance of doubt, I am NOT saying these are good data, merely those used by an academic figure who I hope BlackVision will acknowledge as having some authority.

Look you want to do your research, do your research. If you have any thoughts on this matter, you are free to state them. But asking someone else to do YOUR homework, is quite pathetic. The one and only statement I've made, I've defended quite well. If you want to know how the Census Bureau ranks different races, that is your research to do. If you find out anything useful, you are free to post them.

Let's re-examine BlackVision's "one and only statement": The white, asian, black crime rate gap is consistent in each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist.[/color]
BlackVision's 'defence'?
1) A set of 'homicide statistics by race and gender' (US only)
2) An excerpt from an article about violent crime and 'blacks', in the US
3) A link to a (dated) chart on incarceration rates in the UK
4) Selected US city homicide rates (with the addition of the Hispanic category)
5) Definitions of 'race', as used by the US Census Bureau

What's missing? Definitions of 'crime rate'; any statistics whatsover for countries listed as having 'white, asian, black crime rate gaps' (other than the US); definitions for 'white', 'asian', 'black' in all countries listed (except the US); and more.

 

[Nereid]

I want to show everyone what Nereid is doing here. It's called the "questions" tactic. In an debate where you have absolutely nothing to make your claim, you ask tedious questions one after the next. Let me show you what I mean.

Let's say someone posted a research that states "Watermelons have one of the highest level of percentage of water of all fruits"

What Nereid would do, if he had no argument against it but yet want to give an illusion as though he's refuting it, he would ask:

"How do you define watermelon?"

Now once this question gets answered he will then ask "How do you define water?"

You're doing OK up to here ... these are key terms in the proposal.

After at which point he will ask "Did any of these watermelons have seeds?"

Leaving aside whether Nereid is a 'he', this is where BlackVision goes off the rails; first, no "What is the class 'fruits'?" (BlackVision introduces it later, but way out of sequence) nor "How is the measure 'percentage of water' determined?"; second, there's no need to ask about seeds (unless an answer to an earlier question demands it).

IMHO, it's not a debating tactic, it's fairly standard proceedure for doing science ... define the terms, explain clearly how measurements (data) are taken, state the hypothesis in a form that can be tested. AFAIK, all good science teachers try to get this elementary concept across ... even if the students forget all the 'facts', if they remember only how the scientific method works, the teacher will have done a sterling job.

Did this thread get moved to Politics and World Affairs? or General Discussion? No, it seems to be still in "Other Sciences".

BlackVision, are you going to define your terms, explain clearly how data are collected, etc? Or do you concede that your assertion is an unsubstantiated racist one?

 

[Nereid]

Just simply cause you're completely ignorant on this topic, doesn't make anything less true. Study Europe's melting pot in recent years. You will notice that one of the biggest debates among the flex of incoming immigration, is the vast surplus of crime rates that comes with it. But this surplus doesn't seem to apply to East Asian or South Asian immigration for whatever reason.

So let's see the data! arildno earlier provided data that the crime rates (in Norway) are related to socio-economic status, with recent migrants (of whatever ethnic origin) over-represented due to their immigrant status (not their ethnic origin).
Nereid 1, BlackVision 0.

0TheSwerve0 asked you about socioeconomic class; Monique asked about racial bias; Russ re-iterated 0TheSwerve0's question, ...

In BlackVision's own post (with England and Wales incarceration rates), two separate snapshots of data are provided (June 1996 and June 1997); the change over a year, for all groups except "Indian" and "Chinese" is >10%, and >50% for two of the 'black' groups. To understand how there can be such huge changes, in only one year, would clearly be important in determining how relevant the data are to BlackVision's assertion (which, by the way, has no time dimension).

And again, calling it racist claims, you have lost all ability to carry a race related discussion. PC is a term that comes for you before science.

Er, do I need to provide the links to BlackVision's own statements about 'race'? To Andre's comment (and link) "there are no human races"? To the census websites of many nations - including most (all?) of those in BlackVision's list (except the US) - where 'race' is not used (let alone 'white', 'asian', 'black')?

Look if you're ignorant, you're ignorant. If you can't figure out that if it says English origin or French origin or German origin, that it means white, how much do you think I can help you. You're going back to 3rd grade material on race now.

Can I infer from this statement that outdated and inaccurate concepts ('race') are still being taught in US schools?

http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3110124.NSF/0/52c075a57302d0feca256bce000412b3?OpenDocument is some info on how the 2001 Australian census was conducted; note the terms 'ancestry' and 'cultural and ethnic groups'.

Again your research to do. But continue to pretend a gap doesn't exist.

What gap?

Something that everyone already has. Although Evo and Moonbear will contribute the gap to environmental differences, they at least acknowledge the gap. You didn't even pass the first gate.

I've read this thread again; neither Evo nor Moonbear commented on any gap, except that in the US, as portrayed by homicide stats. I'm still waiting for evidence of a 'white, asian, black crime rate gap' in the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, ... After all, BlackVision's racist assertion is: "The white, asian, black crime rate gap is consistent in each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist."

 

[BlackVision]

No, I believe that the predominant amount of racial data in your first post would have been sufficient.

Racial data? I had as much data on gender as on race. Did you miss these?

Homicide Rate by Gender:

Males. Age 14-17:
Males. Age 18-24:
Males. Age 25+:

Females. Age 14-17:
Females. Age 18-24:
Females. Age 25+:

From what I've seen, inner city slums are worse than low income trailer parks. What data do you have on murder rates in low income trailer parks?

The Midwest is quite poor but have low crime rates. Here's Washington DC as compared to Oklahoma City:

Washington DC [/color]

Population: 572,059

Ethnic Races:
White: 27.8%
Black: 60%
Hispanic: 7.9%
Asian: 2.7%

Median Household Income: $40,127
Households Under $20,000 income: 26%

Homicide Rate:[/color] 45.82 per 100,000

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20030616-093406-7084r.htm



Oklahoma City [/color]

Population: 506,132

Ethnic Races:
White: 64.7%
Black 15.2%
Hispanic 10.1%
Asian 3.4%

Median household income: $34,947
Households Under $20,000 income: 27%

Homicide Rate:[/color] 7.41 per 100,000

Source: http://statestats.com/


So why does Oklahoma City, a city with more poverty, have substantially lower homicide rate than DC?

I'm not aware of higher crime rates by blacks in higher SES. Do you have data on that?

I've seen many sources. It is heavily addressed in "The Bell Curve" and "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" Although you will probably just dismiss these sources.

 

[Nereid]

The Midwest is quite poor but have low crime rates. Here's Washington DC as compared to Oklahoma City:

Washington DC [/color]

Population: 572,059

Ethnic Races:
White: 27.8%
Black: 60%
Hispanic: 7.9%
Asian: 2.7%

Median Household Income: $40,127
Households Under $20,000 income: 26%

Homicide Rate:[/color] 45.82 per 100,000

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20030616-093406-7084r.htm

Oklahoma City [/color]

Population: 506,132

Ethnic Races:
White: 64.7%
Black 15.2%
Hispanic 10.1%
Asian 3.4%

Median household income: $34,947
Households Under $20,000 income: 27%

Homicide Rate:[/color] 7.41 per 100,000

Source: http://statestats.com/

What about the relative incidence of all other types of crime? After all, BlackVision starts with by saying 'crime rates'.

Does "White" mean 'non-Hispanic white'?

So why does Oklahoma City, a city with more poverty, have substantially lower homicide rate than DC?

Maybe because it has different age and sex demographics? After all, BlackVision earlier posted stats showing that young men are considerably over-represented in homicide stats.

Maybe because there are fewer families (per 100 adults) in DC?

 

[BlackVision]

I don't recall stating that the stats that you posted were inaccurate, nor arguing that a gap exists (or doesn't); I'm merely asking you to provide a clear, unambiguous set of definitions of the terms which you use in your assertion - which is, at the risk of boring everyone silly, a racist one ("The white, asian, black crime rate gap is consistent in each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist.", my emphasis)

If you want to get into a discussion, that is fine. I encourage that. There have been many here that I've been able to get into a healthy debate with. If you're going to use the "watermelon" argument aka the "Nereid" tactic, you will be dismissed. Understand?

And continuing to state that the statistics are racist, again makes you lose credibility. No more putting PC into this, actually try to attempt to debate this with a more scientific approach.

The white, asian, black gap is very apparent in each diverse countries yes. I already provided 2. And it was untrue, you should EASILY be able to provide 1, a single ONE, to refute me, have you? No. Again I'm not here to do your entire research for you.

How did you conclude that "provide clear, unambiguous definitions of the terms you use in your assertion" is the same as "Yes yes cause the US Department of Justice, the FBI, they're just manipulating and giving fake statistics to spread their propaganda against blacks."?

No more repetitive questions that have already been addressed. See "watermelon" tactic above.

Er, with respect, I disagree. Regarding the US, we may be able to proceed ... to discuss the statistics which you posted. However, we cannot proceed to discuss your assertion without you first defining, clearly and unambiguously, the key terms in that assertion. And we certainly cannot discuss the racist core of your assertion ("in each and every country") without any statistics, or definitions.

You know what, here I'll make a deal with you. If you want to prove to me that you're not simply using the watermelon tactic, You are allowed to ask me ONE question. With that one question, we will have a FULL discussion with it. After that discussion, I will ask you ONE question, and we will have a discussion with it. I'll even allow you to go first. Pick your ONE question. After that we are actually going to have a debate alright? Instead of the watermelon BS you've been stringing along up until now.

Earlier you weren't so certain, so excuse me if I remain skeptical ... do I understand you to say that all players in the US criminal justice system (or at least those who play a part in collecting and processing data which subsequently becomes 'crime rates') ask every criminal for their race? whether they are Hispanic or not? I'm curious - at what stage(s) are such questions asked? What happens if the criminal wishes to change her answer? Is there a category called 'refused to answer' (or similar)?

Another watermelon question. Great. See above comments.

Does this same apply to those who make racist assertions and are unable to substantiate them?

Simply stating that blacks have higher crime rates is racist? Oh gee, forget science and facts and statistical data, we must remain PC and live in our fairy little fantasy world. I suppose the statistics that men are on average 6 inches taller than women area also sexist. Again quit involving your personal emotions and PC into what should be a scientific debate.

Actually, you did much more than just post stats; you made a racist assertion, and claimed that the (US) stats you posted are evidence for the (global) claim.

Once again, simply stating it's racist, doesn't make it so. And yes the trend is quite global. I provided 2 countries which directly corresponded with each other. And there's tons of articles on others, just google for them. How many did you provide? Oh yes zero. When you attempt to refute, you should at least bring in some countering statistics which you are yet to do.

So perhaps some Jensen might clarify things: "M [intermixing index; FOOTNOTE 1] varies across different regions of the United States, being as low as 4 percent to 10 percent in some southeastern States and spreading out in a fan-shaped gradient toward the north and the west to reach over 40 percent in some northeastern and northwestern states" (Source: Jensen, "The g Factor"; this quote is from an extract, posted in an earlier thread). For the avoidance of doubt, I am NOT saying these are good data, merely those used by an academic figure who I hope BlackVision will acknowledge as having some authority.

Isn't Hispanic very mixed? Hispanic by definition are heavily mixed of 3 primary races. So the fact that "some" Americans are heavily mixed are of absolute no surprise. White Americans and probably Asian Americans mixing rate is not heavily significant. Blacks do have about a 20% mixture rate but are still predominately African in descent.

Let's re-examine BlackVision's "one and only statement": The white, asian, black crime rate gap is consistent in each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist.
BlackVision's 'defence'?
1) A set of 'homicide statistics by race and gender' (US only)
2) An excerpt from an article about violent crime and 'blacks', in the US
3) A link to a (dated) chart on incarceration rates in the UK
4) Selected US city homicide rates (with the addition of the Hispanic category)
5) Definitions of 'race', as used by the US Census Bureau

I have provided evidence to support my one and only statement. Can you say the same for you? You are yet to give a single countering statistic to refute any claims. If what I stated is false, I would be completely bombarded by everyone saying "no no this is not true, here are statistics for this country" Is that yet to happen? Are you yet to do this? Why is that there is absolutely ZERO evidence that you brought to the table?

 

[BlackVision]

Leaving aside whether Nereid is a 'he'

So it's a she? Well that would certainly make more sense. Women tend to be far more PC. Not that men aren't either. But it does tend to be tilted toward a certain direction.

second, there's no need to ask about seeds

Oh yes cause so many of your questions had so much validity behind it.

IMHO, it's not a debating tactic, it's fairly standard proceedure for doing science

There's a CLEAR distinction between a scientific procedure, and what you have been attempting as I have thoroughly show in the watermelon analogy.

Did this thread get moved to Politics and World Affairs? or General Discussion? No, it seems to be still in "Other Sciences".

Shouldn't you approach it more with a scientific mind rather than with a PC mind then?

BlackVision, are you going to define your terms, explain clearly how data are collected, etc? Or do you concede that your assertion is an unsubstantiated racist one?

No more watermelon tactics. You have any idea how easily visible this is? As a science forum, the level of intellect is not low enough for this to work on anybody.

I already suggested an agreement with you. You will get to ask one question and we will have a discussion. But the watermelon tactic of asking one question after the next after the next the next, after a failed attempt to refute anything, is not something that will be tolerated.

 

[BlackVision]

So let's see the data! arildno earlier provided data that the crime rates (in Norway) are related to socio-economic status, with recent migrants (of whatever ethnic origin) over-represented due to their immigrant status (not their ethnic origin).
Nereid 1, BlackVision 0.

Acutally SES has very little effect on SES and even after adjusting for SES, blacks have a higher crime rate. Read pages 235-251 in "The Bell Curve" They go into full depth in it and even have nifty graphs. So in all you failed to score. You didn't even make it to first base.

In BlackVision's own post (with England and Wales incarceration rates), two separate snapshots of data are provided (June 1996 and June 1997); the change over a year, for all groups except "Indian" and "Chinese" is >10%, and >50% for two of the 'black' groups. To understand how there can be such huge changes, in only one year, would clearly be important in determining how relevant the data are to BlackVision's assertion (which, by the way, has no time dimension).

The so called "huge" changes is simply due to lack of a large enough sample. One must remember that although UK has been admitting thousands of immigrants, it is still over 97% white.

Er, do I need to provide the links to BlackVision's own statements about 'race'? To Andre's comment (and link) "there are no human races"? To the census websites of many nations - including most (all?) of those in BlackVision's list (except the US) - where 'race' is not used (let alone 'white', 'asian', 'black')?

Well there are human races. And there are certainly genetic basis to human races. As I have shown clear evidence for by geneticists being able to pinpoint the ancestral continent of a random individual simply by looking at their DNA.

Can I infer from this statement that outdated and inaccurate concepts ('race') are still being taught in US schools?

Here is some info on how the 2001 Australian census was conducted; note the terms 'ancestry' and 'cultural and ethnic groups'.

What you are attempting to do is state that human races don't exist. That there are no scientific basis for it. Which is a failed attempt. Races are real and are indeed genetically based. However this plays with people's emotions becomes irrelevant.

What gap?

The white-black crime gap. You need to at least acknowledge this first before moving on. Everyone already has. They've moved on to attempting to explain why this gap exists. You're still stuck in the dugout while everyone else is playing.

I've read this thread again; neither Evo nor Moonbear commented on any gap, except that in the US, as portrayed by homicide stats. I'm still waiting for evidence of a 'white, asian, black crime rate gap' in the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, ... After all, BlackVision's racist assertion is: "The white, asian, black crime rate gap is consistent in each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist."

Moonbear specifically stated the DATA is not in question. I'm quite sure Evo will agree with that as well. What the debate is explaining the data.

LOL. I find it so funny that Nereid tries to input the word "racist" in as many times as she(?) can. Hoping that if she does it enough times, it somehow will become true. But yes the white, asian, black gap is consistent in melting pot countries and no I will not do your research for you as I've already done enough. I have my own work to do. And as I've said before, demanding demanding demanding, without providing a SINGLE evidence a single statistic to support your claim, makes you look weak. In your attempted counter argument, you should provide at least one evidence, one statistic to show the contrary. But of course you haven't.

 

[Loren Booda]

Planet Green

Planet Green has 100,000 inhabitants, each of whose skin is identically genotypically green. All of these inhabitants, with one immaculately innocent exception, have committed murder.

Are we to say there is a true correlation between the genotype of green skin and acts of murder on Planet Green - that the the one pacifist is a statistical anomaly to be "tarred with the same brush"? Should we be swayed by the exception to the rule, whether it be moderate (an assumption in the rate of murder by "blacks," posted above) or limiting (the one pacifist on Planet Green), that a genetic interpretation is inappropriate?

Using Occam's razor, I conclude that inhabitants' green skin on Planet Green, while seemingly a predictor of future behavior, is actually not so genetically. Genetics in conjunction with environment may have unpredictable nonlinear effects as well. Translated to labeling "blacks" on Earth, we realize the complex sociological mileau we must account for, rather than risk repeating history. The glee with which some invite ignorant distortion of statistics recalls the "schadenfreude" and eugenics of Nazi Germany.

 

[hitssquad]

Planet Green

Planet Green has 100,000 inhabitants, each of whose skin is identically genotypically green.

A genotype can neither be, nor discretely code for, a color. The skin might be identically phenotypically green, and if that were the case then the genetic contribution to variance in skin color in that particular case would have to be zero.

All of these inhabitants, with one ... exception, have committed murder... there is a ... correlation between the genotype of green skin and acts of murder

There cannot be a correlation when there is no variance in at least one of the variables.

 

[Nereid]

Once again, simply stating it's racist, doesn't make it so. And yes the trend is quite global. I provided 2 countries which directly corresponded with each other. And there's tons of articles on others, just google for them. How many did you provide? Oh yes zero. When you attempt to refute, you should at least bring in some countering statistics which you are yet to do.

Please try again; you provided several stats for the US, and 'incarceration rates' for England and Wales, for 1996 and 1997 (which, BTW, you claimed were 'UK figures'). Your racist assertion is about 'crime rates', which is not the same as 'incarceration rates'

Earlier BlackVision mentioned debating tactics, and characterised the scientific method as 'watermelon tactics'. Here is another example of failure to follow the scientific method: repeatedly stating an assertion instead of addressing questions about the assertion, and repeatedly failing to provide data to support the assetion.

Isn't Hispanic very mixed? Hispanic by definition are heavily mixed of 3 primary races. So the fact that "some" Americans are heavily mixed are of absolute no surprise. White Americans and probably Asian Americans mixing rate is not heavily significant. Blacks do have about a 20% mixture rate but are still predominately African in descent.

Please check the sources; the Jensen quote* refers to US 'blacks'

I have provided evidence to support my one and only statement. Can you say the same for you? You are yet to give a single countering statistic to refute any claims. If what I stated is false, I would be completely bombarded by everyone saying "no no this is not true, here are statistics for this country" Is that yet to happen? Are you yet to do this? Why is that there is absolutely ZERO evidence that you brought to the table?

Here is some info on how the 2001 Australian census was conducted; note the terms 'ancestry' and 'cultural and ethnic groups'.

What you are attempting to do is state that human races don't exist. That there are no scientific basis for it. Which is a failed attempt. Races are real and are indeed genetically based. However this plays with people's emotions becomes irrelevant.

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@census.nsf/Census_BCP_ASGC_ViewTemplate?ReadForm&Expand=1 BlackVision wrote: "the same racial gaps [in crime statistics] exists in every country. Canada, United Kingdom, Australia." BlackVision, please use this data to show, in terms of your 'white', 'asian', and 'black' definitions, the 'racial' makeup of the Australian population. Here's my assertion: there were fewer than 150,000 people in Australia in 2001 who claimed to have been born in Sub-Saharan Africa, out of a total population of over 18 million.

I will start a new thread on whether there are 'human races' or not, and I will insist that the discussion be conducted following a clearly defined protocol, consistent with the scientific method.

*"M [intermixing index; FOOTNOTE 1] varies across different regions of the United States, being as low as 4 percent to 10 percent in some southeastern States and spreading out in a fan-shaped gradient toward the north and the west to reach over 40 percent in some northeastern and northwestern states"

 

[Nereid]

So let's see the data! arildno earlier provided data that the crime rates (in Norway) are related to socio-economic status, with recent migrants (of whatever ethnic origin) over-represented due to their immigrant status (not their ethnic origin).
Nereid 1, BlackVision 0.

Acutally SES has very little effect on SES and even after adjusting for SES, blacks have a higher crime rate. Read pages 235-251 in "The Bell Curve" They go into full depth in it and even have nifty graphs. So in all you failed to score. You didn't even make it to first base.

Now we are getting close to BlackVision's apparent ignorance (or racism). As was discussed extensively here in Social Sciences earlier, not even the authors of "The Bell Curve" - not even Jensen - claim that their research and conclusions have validity outside the US. Those racists - such as Lynn and Rushton - who do claim some global validity for their racist views base their conclusions on very sloppy science, not to mention claims not even substantiated by their own data (also discussed here earlier).

BlackVision, your assertion is a racist one (it claims some global validity for a crime-'race' relationship). A reasonable counter to such a claim is that crime rates are more closely related to socio-economic class. In one European country (Norway), a PF member asserts that this socio-economic dimension accounts for much of the variation in crime rates between ethnic groups. You assert that 'race' has a correlation with 'crime rate' in the US, independent of SES (at least for 'blacks'). On the surface, your racist assertion is inconsistent with these two data points (if indeed that's what they are).

 

[Nereid]

So why does Oklahoma City, a city with more poverty, have substantially lower homicide rate than DC?

Perhaps because http://about.dc.gov/about2.asp?

 

[Nereid]

Washington DC [/color]
Population: 572,059
Homicide Rate: 45.82 per 100,000

Oklahoma City [/color]
Population: 506,132
Homicide Rate: 7.41 per 100,000

So why does Oklahoma City, a city with more poverty, have substantially lower homicide rate than DC?

Perhaps because http://www.kiat.net/dc/ commuting workers and visitors is the best stat I could find in a quick Google search). I assume that the DC homicide rate refers to homicides committed in DC, no matter where the perp(s) or victim(s) live(d).

Maybe because "More than 359,000 people living in the metropolitan area are on the federal payroll" ... out of a population of only ~600,000 (I don't have a stat for Oklahoma City, but I rather doubt it's over 30,000).

Maybe I'm in the slow class today; isn't Oklahoma City where Timothy did his thing? Weren't 168 people killed in the bombing? Wasn't that homicide? My calculator says that 168/5.06 = 33.2. IOW, if this multiple victims, white offender homcide is included, the homicide rates for the two cities become much more equal.

 

[Nereid]

Here is a good example of why one needs to take the statistics which BlackVision provides with some skepticism:

One must remember that although UK has been admitting thousands of immigrants, it is still over 97% white.

In April 2001, the UK conducted a census, and "respondents were asked to which ethnic group they considered themselves to belong", among many other things (note: no question about 'race').

Here are the results:

Ethnic group . . . . . . Total Population . . %
White . . . . . . . . . . . 54153898 . . . . . 92.1
Mixed . . . . . . . . . . . . 677177 . . . . . . 1.2
Asian or Asian British . 2331423 . . . . . .. 4.0
Black or Black British . 1148738 . . . . . . . 2.0
Chinese . . . . . . . . . . 247403 . . . . . . . 0.4
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . 230615 . . . . . . . 0.4
Total . . . . . . . . . .. 58789194

Source

 

[Nereid]

And does "homocide" mean killing homosexuals, as it seems to? Homicide, on the other hand is defined (slightly differently) in the laws of every state of the US and the Federal code, and in the codes of all the nation states. When they report homicides, they are presumably using the definitions in their codes. This means a slightly various population of course, since what is a homicide over here might not be over there and vice versa.

In terms of the US stats which BlackVision posted, at the beginning of this thread, here are some answers (the source is one of the two links in BV's post):

"Homicide as defined here includes murder and nonnegligent manslaughter which is the willful killing of one human being by another. Excluded are deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder. The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation, as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body.

Not all agencies which report offense information to the FBI also submit supplemental data on homicides. About 91% of homicides reported in the UCR are included in the SHR. To account for the total number of homicides, this analysis weighted the SHR data to match national and State estimates prepared by the FBI. All victim-based analyses are adjusted in this manner.

While many agencies report supplemental data on homicides, much of the data concerning offenders may not be reported because no suspects were identified. The most significant problem in using SHR data to analyze offender characteristics is the sizable and growing number of unsolved homicides contained in the data file. Ignoring unsolved homicides, of course, would seriously understate calculated rates of offending by particular subgroups of the population, distort trends over time among these same subgroups, and bias observed patterns of offending to the extent that the rate of missing offender data is associated with offender characteristics.

To adjust for unsolved homicides, a method for offender imputation has been devised ..."

Further material, also from the site BV provided a link to, details the procedures used in the SHR; methodology for the National Crime Victimization Survey, and more.

Regarding 'crime rates' (a question which Nereid had asked BV repeatedly about, only to get vague, inconsistent answers), the site has this to say:

"Launched 70 years ago, the Uniform Crime Reporting Program collects and publishes criminal offense, arrest, and law enforcement personnel statistics. Under the UCR program, law enforcement agencies submit information to the FBI monthly. Offense information is collected on the eight Index offenses of homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Information on the the number of persons arrested includes many additional crime types such as drug abuse violations and driving under the influence." Note that the kind of crimes which are alleged to have been committed in the Enron, WorldCom, etc scandals are not included. Nor is a leading cause of death in the US - drunk driving.

Finally, to 'race': as BV 'supposed', the instructions to those who provide the data (which later become the stats) are in line with the Census Bureau's definitions and approach. I haven't read enough yet to see how a) 'more than one race' answers are analysed, b) ditto 'refused to answer', c) time series are constructed (the data collection methodology changed with the CB's change in approach re 'race').

 

[Nereid]

US white homicide rate >7 times that of blacks!

The "Homicide Offending Rate per 100,000 Population", according to official US Department of Justice figures, is more than seven times higher for 'whites' than 'blacks'!

Whites: 32.6
Blacks: 4.6

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/oarstab.htm

BlackVision's assertion clearly wrong, in the US, according to stats provided by BV himself!

Now that I have your undivided attention ... you'll recall that Nereid kept insisting that BlackVision define the key terms he used in his assertion, clearly and unambiguously? And that BV got really annoyed with this, calling it 'watermelon tactics', and denying it played any role in science?

The example above was created to show what can happen if you aren't very clear in your definitions etc.

BV's assertion, to refresh our memories: "The white, asian, black crime rate gap is consistent in each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist."

So, let's examine the data above, in light of this assertion:
"white, asian, black [...] populations": Yes, those groups exist in the US.
"in each country ... where a mixture of these populations exist": Yep, the US qualifies.
"crime rate": Yes, homicide rates are crime rates.
"gap": clearly there's a gap! (But not the one BV wished to show)
"consistent": two sets of data are the minimum needed to establish consistency, so here is a second set: White 31.6, Black 4.9.

To quote BV, "Wtf?"

The "White" rates are 18-24 White male, 1991 (1995); the "Black" 25+ (14-17) Black female, 2000.

Of course no one would consider this a serious rebuttal It's not intended to be.

But who can say what (slightly) more subtle considerations need to be made, before a serious examination of BV's assertion can be undertaken?

 

[hitssquad]

Multiplicative comparisons

The "Homicide Offending Rate per 100,000 Population", according to official US Department of Justice figures, is more than seven times higher for 'whites' than 'blacks'

Whites: 32.6
Blacks: 4.6

32.6 is 6.09 times higher than 4.6.

 

[BlackVision]

Please try again; you provided several stats for the US, and 'incarceration rates' for England and Wales, for 1996 and 1997 (which, BTW, you claimed were 'UK figures'). Your racist assertion is about 'crime rates', which is not the same as 'incarceration rates'

Earlier BlackVision mentioned debating tactics, and characterised the scientific method as 'watermelon tactics'. Here is another example of failure to follow the scientific method: repeatedly stating an assertion instead of addressing questions about the assertion, and repeatedly failing to provide data to support the assetion.

I see that you clearly and conveniently skipped over my question. You can't tell me that I've provided no evidence. However we can all agree that YOU have provided absolutely nothing.

Please check the sources; the Jensen quote* refers to US 'blacks'

20% black, 60% black, 80% black. Regardless. Genetics plays a role. Race is genetically linked. You can try to deny it but it doesn't mean anyone will agree with you.

Here is an Australian Bureau of Statistics website, on the 2001 Census. Earlier BlackVision wrote: "the same racial gaps [in crime statistics] exists in every country. Canada, United Kingdom, Australia." BlackVision, please use this data to show, in terms of your 'white', 'asian', and 'black' definitions, the 'racial' makeup of the Australian population. Here's my assertion: there were fewer than 150,000 people in Australia in 2001 who claimed to have been born in Sub-Saharan Africa, out of a total population of over 18 million.

Small sample but sample nonetheless. Aborigines also have an extraordinarily high crime rate. East Asians in Australia have a lower crime rate than the White population. Although Southeast Asia does have a higher one although not as high as the Aborigine population.

I will start a new thread on whether there are 'human races' or not, and I will insist that the discussion be conducted following a clearly defined protocol, consistent with the scientific method.

You might want to go back to lesson #1 in evolution if you're actually going to argue against the genetic basis of human races.

*"M [intermixing index; FOOTNOTE 1] varies across different regions of the United States, being as low as 4 percent to 10 percent in some southeastern States and spreading out in a fan-shaped gradient toward the north and the west to reach over 40 percent in some northeastern and northwestern states"

I already addressed this above. The mixing becomes a moot point. If someone is 50/50 of one race, he/she would get a great deal of mix of the genetic pool of both races. Genetic testing will also confirm this.

 

[BlackVision]

Now we are getting close to BlackVision's apparent ignorance (or racism). As was discussed extensively here in Social Sciences earlier, not even the authors of "The Bell Curve" - not even Jensen - claim that their research and conclusions have validity outside the US. Those racists - such as Lynn and Rushton - who do claim some global validity for their racist views base their conclusions on very sloppy science, not to mention claims not even substantiated by their own data (also discussed here earlier)

Ah yes the racist tactic again. Fail to provide any contrary evidence, use "racist" as a last resort. The work of Murray, Herrnstein, Jensen, Lynn, and Rushton does have a high level of support in the academic circles. These are all respectable academics of their fields. Coming from the most prestigious universities.

Let's have a contest, how many more times will Nereid say the word "racist" in this thread.

BlackVision, your assertion is a racist one (it claims some global validity for a crime-'race' relationship). A reasonable counter to such a claim is that crime rates are more closely related to socio-economic class. In one European country (Norway), a PF member asserts that this socio-economic dimension accounts for much of the variation in crime rates between ethnic groups. You assert that 'race' has a correlation with 'crime rate' in the US, independent of SES (at least for 'blacks'). On the surface, your racist assertion is inconsistent with these two data points (if indeed that's what they are).

There is a global crime-race relationship. If you want to be completely oblivious to it that's your problem. The data however, as some have stated, is not in question. The crime gap between races is very consistent from country to country from region to region. You can explain WHY that is but you STILL haven't been able to get on first base.

And the relation of SES to crime I already addressed. And did you bother reading the article that is the 2nd post of this thread. Let me quote it:

"Experts love to blame crime on poverty. That's nonsense! From 1900 to 1929, the nation's murder rate rose from 1.2 per 1 00,000 of the population to 8.4. However, during parts of the 1930s, when the unemployment rate stood at 37 percent, the murder rate had fallen to 6.3 per 1 00,000 and to 4.7 per 100,000 by 1960. After 1960, violent crime rates shot up. By 1993, the murder rate was 9.5 per 100,000, falling to 8.2 in 1995. Rather than poverty causing crime, one might more easily make the case that crime causes poverty."---Walter E. Williams

This is said by a BLACK professor. Your hypothesis is just getting blown out of the water.