Why do the human sciences record pervasive behavioral differences among racial groups, such as in violent-crime rates?
One explanation is that these disparities originate in complex interactions between nature and nurture.
But, of course, only dangerous extremists hold that theory.
The much more respectable sentiment is that statistical differences among the races are the fault of bad white people, such as George Zimmerman and Minnesota policeman Jeronimo Yanez.
Last week, on his way to Warsaw on Air Force One, President Barack Obama was looking at social media. According toThe New York Times, he alerted his press secretary that:
He had decided to make a statement himself as soon as they landed, and had told his aides to collect statistics demonstrating racial bias in the criminal justice system.
Now, you might think that’s putting the cart before the horse. Perhaps the administration should objectively evaluate the evidence first, rather than order its media flacks to dredge up some data justifying the president’s prejudices?
But that would be wrong. Everybody knows that culture or evolution can’t have anything to do with hereditary racial differences in performance. If you even consider those possibilities, you must be one of the bad white people you’ve been warned about.
Instead, we know that science has proved that statistical differences among the races are all due to a vast conspiracy to plunder blacks. Nothing makes 21st-century people who think they are white richer than having a lot of black bodiesaround. Just ask MacArthur genius Ta-Nehisi Coates. He’ll tell you.
“Why are there all these puzzling statistics that don’t agree with the stereotypes promoted by our national leaders?”
And yet, here’s a statistic published in 2011 that doesn’t support the Coates-Obama orthodoxy:
While young black males have accounted for about 1% of the population from 1980 to 2008…(b)y 2008, young black males made up about a quarter of all homicide offenders (27%)…
In other words, young black males are about 27 times more likely to kill somebody than the average American.
Interestingly, that datum comes from the Obama administration’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, which published a report entitled Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980–2008.
One reason young black males are disproportionately homicidal is that they are young (homicide rates are highest among 18- to 24-year-olds). Another factor is that they are male (according to the BJS, “Males were 7 times more likely than females to commit murder in 2008”).
That the police keep a warier eye on men than women and the young than the old is never seen as offensive. It’s just common sense.
Yet profiling blacks as tending to be more threatening than whites (not to mention Hispanics or Asians) is the worst offense imaginable under today’s ruling ideology. For instance, the day after the Dallas antiwhite atrocity, the first two policy responses that Hillary Clinton recommended in an interview with Wolf Blitzer were: “National guidelines for police about the use of force” and “We need to look more into implicit bias.”
(I realize that Hillary feels she must agitate urban blacks to achieve the turnout she needs in Cleveland and Philadelphia, but shouldn’t she try to be more artful about it? What if other voters notice what she’s up to?)
Still, the federal BJS admitted that from 1980 to 2008:
The [homicide] offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000).
The “almost 8 times higher” ratio is actually understated for two reasons: First, Hispanics are largely lumped in with whites. Second, while 23 percent of homicides with white or Hispanic victims are uncleared, 40 percent of the cases with black victims remain uncleared, with no offender identified. (Snitches get stitches.)
So the actual black-white homicide offending ratio is likely over ten to one.
In case you are wondering, the Obama administration has not updated its homicide offender statistics since 2011. In 2013, the same researchers did put out another homicide report, but it conveyed only trends in who was being murdered. The more politically incorrect homicide offender statistics were dropped. (Printing just the victimization statistics allows BLM supporters to more conveniently fantasize that blacks youths are being gun down in large numbers by whites—delusional paranoia about whites is the KKKrazy Glue holding together the coalition of the fringes.)
While blacks made up 52.5 percent of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, they make up a little under one-third of the victims in police shootings.
Why is there a pro-black disparity in police shootings relative to lethality?
My guess is that it’s not due to a massive covert effort by police departments to shoot more nonblacks.
Much of the high rate of police killings of nonblacks instead seems to be due to suicide by cop (sad individuals intentionally provoking the police into killing them) being more of a white thing, just as suicide is in general.
Although we are constantly lectured on how horribly oppressed life is for African-Americans, their suicide rates are low. In contrast, a minority that almost everybody has forgotten about, American Indians, have bad suicide rates, and Canadian Indians might have it worse.
There appears to be a general correlation between introversion and higher suicide rates. As Charles Darwin observed, New World Indians tend to be “taciturn, even morose,” while blacks tend to be “light-hearted, talkative.”
Why are there all these puzzling statistics that don’t agree with the stereotypes promoted by our national leaders? Why don’t the social-science results conform to the conventional wisdom?
Perhaps blacks get in trouble with the law more than do whites (much less East Asians) for reasons similar to why they do so well in sports and entertainment?
For instance, blacks tend more to live in the moment. Spontaneity and improvisation are great assets for jazz soloists and running backs, but they can be detriments in obeying the law. (Or, in the case of Cleveland Browns running back Isaiah Crowell, who recently tweeted an indiscreet illustration of a white cop getting his throat slashed, merely managing one’s social-media presence.)
Similarly, blacks do best in sports roles that put a premium on disruption and destruction. In football, for example, players on defense are actually more on the offensive, extemporizing search-and-destroy missions against the nominal offense, which attempts to defend its preconceived plans.
Whites in the NFL are concentrated at the positions that specialize in executing preplanned routines, such as placekicker, punter, quarterback, and offensive lineman, especially center.
Not surprisingly, while professional football overall is 68 percent black, defensive platoons are even blacker than that. The position of cornerback, the pass defenders who must react with instant violence to the planned routes run by receivers, is extraordinarily racially segregated. No white man has played regularly at any of the 64 cornerback positions in the NFL since Jason Sehorn retired more than a dozen years ago.
As you might expect, NFL players tend to get arrested now and then. The San Diego Union-Tribune keeps an eye-opening database of NFL arrests.
And who knows how many football heroes skate out of trouble with the police? For example, Nicole Brown Simpson frequently called 911 to report domestic violence, but when the LAPD arrived they tended to want instead to have their picture taken with O.J. The main exception was Det. Mark Fuhrman, who treated Mrs. Simpson’s worries more seriously. But we know he was bad.
All this might suggest that authority figures such as the president and the Democratic front-runner should be cautious before demagogically promoting conspiracy theories about white racism murdering black bodies.
You know, that might just help inspire some black ragehead to, say, shoot a lot of white cops in Dallas.
No comments:
Post a Comment