NationStates Jolt Archive

You call me:
"redneck"
"hillbilly"
"slaker"
"Cracker"
"Honkey"
"Whitey"
"Gringo"
and you think it's OK.

But when I call you:
coon
jiggaboo
Kike
sand ******
rag head
towelhead
WOP
Camel Jockey
Gook
******
slant eyes or Chink
you call me a racist.

-You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you, so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?

-You have the United Negro College Fund.

-You have Martin Luther King Day.

-You have Black History Month.

-You have Cesar Chavez Day.

-You have Yom Hashoah

-You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi

-You have the NAACP.

-You have BET.


-If we had WET(white entertainment television) ...we'd be racist.

-If we had a White Pride Day... you would call us racist.

-If we had white history month... we'd be racist.

-If we had an organization for only whites to "advance" our lives... we'd be racist.

-If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships...you know we'd be racist.

-In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights. If we marched for our race and rights...you would call us racist.

-Did you know that some high school students decided to make a club for only the white students because the other ethnicities had them. they all got sent to court for being racist but the african-american, Latino, and Asia clubs were not even questioned.

-You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.



I am white.

and

I am proud.
But, you call me a racist.



Why is it that only whites can be racists?


Now watch, I'll be a racist for posting this

So what? noone will re-post this for fear of being called racist.



if you think its true re-post it saying "You call me racist"

So why is it that only white people can be called racist?

Because they're a majority. In India, if someone is discriminated against, he can call them racist. In Mexico, if a white guy is discriminated against, he's got the right to call racist. That's how it goes.

So why is it that only white people can be called racist?Since when could only white people be called racist?

They aren't the only ones.

Thread over.

But why is it that non-whites are practically never called racist?

Because of you.

I've met Black, Hispanic and Asian racist.

/thread.

It's not just white people. Screw what your country's media says, because they're just a bunch of trolls.

So why is it that only white people can be called racist?

It's not. And yet again, this has been an episode of brief answers to stupid questions.

But some guy on the internet said it, so it must be true.

I've met Black, Hispanic and Asian racist.
Wha . . . a Black, Hispanic and Asian Racist?
That must be one fucked up guy.

But why is it that non-whites are practically never called racist?Who says that non-whites are practically never called racist?

Wha . . . a Black, Hispanic and Asian Racist?
That must be one fucked up guy.

He really hates himself

http://static.flickr.com/6/69250266_8c1f5c979c.jpg

So... is 1337 Polaks a puppet or a random troll?

"Mr. and Mrs. Smith, I'm sorry to tell you, but any child you concieve has a serious risk of being born with the genetic disease Caucasia. Caucasia is thankfully not fatal, but may cause paleness, bigotry, a superiority complex, delusions of persecution, lack of rythm, underdeveloped muscles, pasty bottoms, capitalism, and an inability to jump."

Wha . . . a Black, Hispanic and Asian Racist?
That must be one fucked up guy.

Ok I am not kidding, on the Jerry Springer show, there actually was a half black guy who was part of the Ku Klux Klan.

So why is it that only white people can be called racist?

This brings me back... A long time ago, on this very forum, there was a guy called abdulkarim black power (this account wasn't around then, I had another one) Most of you are probably werent around then. But he was black, and he was racist. And you know what? He was called a racist.

It's not. And yet again, this has been an episode of brief answers to stupid questions.

But some guy on the internet said it, so it must be true.

Now the most popular show on NSG! :D

So... is 1337 Polaks a puppet or a random troll?

Join Date: Nov 2006

Definitely a puppet someone's decided to go trolling with.

Ok I am not kidding, on the Jerry Springer show, there actually was a half black guy who was part of the Ku Klux Klan.

It's hard to follow, "Okay, I'm not kidding," with "on the Jerry Springer Show"...

So... is 1337 Polaks a puppet or a random troll?

I'm just a dip stick who saw that quote and felt like sharing with the world.

And since I never went to preschool, I never learned how to properly share things.

It's hard to follow, "Okay, I'm not kidding," with "on the Jerry Springer Show"...

Yea, but comon it's the Jerry Springer show, could you really doubt that they would actually have someone that messed up on it?

I'm just a dip stick who saw that quote and felt like sharing with the world.

And since I never went to preschool, I never learned how to properly share things.

Yea, umm, MySpace isn't exactly the best place to look for stuff to post on internet forums.

I don't use MySpace or FaceBook, I just copied someone who copied it from MySpace.

Anywho I think I'll just stop posting, let this failed thread die.

Because of you.

QFT.

I don't use MySpace or FaceBook, I just copied someone who copied it from MySpace.

Anywho I think I'll just stop posting, let this failed thread die.

Yea, you're done.

Yea, umm, MySpace isn't exactly the best place to look for stuff to post on internet forums.

once there was a girl who was shot and killed. 2 this day she still wanders around and kills kids. just 2 months ago there was a group of kids who lived in a apartment building who misteriously disapeared. they were killed by her, there whole apartment building. now u read this message, u have 2 repost it in 20 threads! if u dont ur mother will die a horrble death!!!!!11!!!!!

Let it die? But then how could we constantly remind you of defeat? No, let's narrow down whose puppet this dude is: Do you think it's more likely somebody who ACTUALLY feels that way, or somebody trying to be a troll and piss people off for fun?

once there was a girl who was shot and killed. 2 this day she still wanders around and kills kids. just 2 months ago there was a group of kids who lived in a apartment building who misteriously disapeared. they were killed by her, there whole apartment building. now u read this message, u have 2 repost it in 20 threads! if u dont ur mother will die a horrble death!!!!!11!!!!!

*angry grunts, puts a chloroform rag on your mouth, you pass out and drag you off where NSG will never see you again.*

Well good luck with tracking this 'puppeteer.'

Hell, I don't even know what you mean by 'puppet,' is it like an account made specifically for spamming?

Anyway if you want, you can have a mod check my IP, it wont match any other accounts. If you still don't want to believe me.....then I could care less.

Let it die? But then how could we constantly remind you of defeat? No, let's narrow down whose puppet this dude is: Do you think it's more likely somebody who ACTUALLY feels that way, or somebody trying to be a troll and piss people off for fun?

Five bucks on Parkus Empire.

YOU WANT TO BE EQUAL Blacks, mexicans, ext. DONT GET PISSED AT US!
why do you call us rascitst it seems like more blacks are more racist that whites now, so why are you calling us(White) rascists? have you seen the new black panthers, omg are you kidding me.

YOU WANT TO BE EQUAL Blacks, mexicans, ext. DONT GET PISSED AT US!
why do you call us rascitst it seems like more blacks are more racist that whites now, so why are you calling us(White) rascists? have you seen the new black panthers, omg are you kidding me.

*Sigh*

Well, I see where he's coming from. In the "real world" (the world not over the internet, but in person), it happens. Now mind you, it's not always the case, but it does happen. It also happens with sexism too (again, in the "real world").

Well good luck with tracking this 'puppeteer.'

Hell, I don't even know what you mean by 'puppet,' is it like an account made specifically for spamming?

Anyway if you want, you can have a mod check my IP, it wont match any other accounts. If you still don't want to believe me.....then I could care less.

That would be a real waste of time, I agree. I just think we should discuss you conspiciously.

Five bucks on Parkus Empire.

HAHA...what if were the return of MTAE? That would be horrendous!

Five bucks on Parkus Empire.

HAHA...what if were the return of MTAE? That would be horrendous!

I think all these race threads are being caused by good old Ny Nordland's death and the channeling of his spirit into NSG.

HAHA...what if were the return of MTAE? That would be horrendous!

Wasn't he on IP ban though?

Wasn't he on IP ban though?

Dear god, I hope so.

I think all these race threads are being caused by good old Ny Nordland's death and the channeling of his spirit into NSG.

Reincarnation...

HAHA...what if were the return of MTAE? That would be horrendous!

No, if it were MTAE, this would be a lot more interesting and worth my time. At least he had some God damn imagination, if anything. Like the idea that we should have as much sex as possible to out-population-growth Muslims. :D

I'm just a dip stick who saw that quote and felt like sharing with the world.

And since I never went to preschool, I never learned how to properly share things.

Did you also not go to grade one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven and twelve?

Why is it that white people complain about impingements to their freedom to be openly racist?

Dear god, I hope so.

Doesn't matter he's reappeared atleast twice since then on different IPs. It's not hard to spoof your IP.

MTAE had some style to his prose though, this is just an angsty suburban teenager.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b101/rnhyde/kitty11-emo.jpg

Ok I am not kidding, on the Jerry Springer show, there actually was a half black guy who was part of the Ku Klux Klan.

You watch Jerry Springer :eek:

They aren't the only ones.

Thread over.

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/?action=view&current=katsseal-1.jpg

I also agree that all colors of people are prone to racism to some degree. I've heard that the Japanese and Koreans go at it occasionally, around where I live. :(

http://static.flickr.com/6/69250266_8c1f5c979c.jpg

For what its worth, I love this meme.

As for racism, people should be more like me: I hate everyone equally and without favor.:upyours:

:cool:

So why is it that only white people can be called racist?

You can call other groups of people racist. Duh.

This has been another installment of simple answers to stupid questions.

You watch Jerry Springer :eek:

Used to, then it just got boring and stale.

You can call other groups of people racist. Duh.

This has been another installment of simple answers to stupid questions.

*hits Nazz on the head with a rolled up newspaper*

Bad, no! We do not rip off someone else's show, now, go as Myrth for forgiveness.

:p

Let it die? But then how could we constantly remind you of defeat? No, let's narrow down whose puppet this dude is: Do you think it's more likely somebody who ACTUALLY feels that way, or somebody trying to be a troll and piss people off for fun?

*Disclaims responsibility* It's not me...really...stop staring at me damnit!

Peoples of all colours, racism has been around for ages. It has existed in all cultures, in all times and in all races.

But ... it is an inherent side-effect of freedom.

For instance: A man owns a business, debt-free. He does not use any state money to help him out. He doesn't use tax write-offs, no funds, and the business is actually making a profit. It is even expanding. So he needs to hire a person.

What he doesn't want to do is hire some-one from another race (he really is a racist). Unfortunately, he's not allowed to do so. Why not? It's his business, he pays all taxes, he doesn't use any money from the community in any form or shape, but he's not free not to hire a person based on the colour of the skin.

If one is free, is that person not free to dislike other races . . . as long as his dislike doesn't reduce the freedoms of those other races? Sure, he's a racist, and he knows it, but he can't say so, because IRL it's illegal.

The trouble here is with the term racisme itself, since it has been defined (loosely) in most legislations as a punishable act. Racism itself should not be punishable, but some of the acts, should be.

It doesn't matter wether or not someone from one race beats up someone from the other race, solely because there is this race-difference. One should not beat up someone else, period.

If your company doesn't use the communal resources, is totally self-sufficient (it pays the right price for its resources, energy, etc), the community shouldn't hand me a weapon to strike out at that company, when it decides not to employ me.

As a member of the community, I pay my taxes. Therefore I am entitled to certain rights, certain benefits. Every member is. But when that community passes laws which force me to act in certain ways, to think in a certain way, to refrain me from expressing my opinion, then those laws are in violation of personnal freedoms.

And that is a totally different ballpark.

Racism is too easily used as an excuse by those who -unjustly - feel they've been wronged. In some cases, they have been wronged, in other cases, they just didn't get what they wanted.

I blame the law, it rarely shows enough comon sense.


Hermes, ruler of the Holy Empire of Cromlach

I believe firmly that asshattery is not race-specific.

Ok I am not kidding, on the Jerry Springer show, there actually was a half black guy who was part of the Ku Klux Klan.

With declining membership the KKK has had to change membership requirements. The guy who organized their last 'save our borders' rally? His last name is Ramirez.

Answer: They're not. Everyone has equal ability to be racist.

However, some in the media as well as in everyday life portray this as the truth.

Why? Because either they are racist (anti-White/pro-not white*) or they fear being considered so by the former group.

*Yes, racism can FAVOR a group, believe it or not. Though such policies/ideas are often termed 'counter-racist'.

YOU WANT EQUAL Blacks, mexicans, ext!??!?! DONT GET PISSED AT US!
why do you call us rascitst it seems like more blacks are more racist that whites now, so why are you calling us(me) rascists? have you seen the new black panthers, omgwtfbbqlawlz are you kidding me.

Fixed.

Fixed.

O...kay...that was, to be honest, one of the most immature things I've ever read on NSG. And I'm not talking about his original post.

*hits Nazz on the head with a rolled up newspaper*

Bad, no! We do not rip off someone else's show, now, go as Myrth for forgiveness.

:p

I hardly see how identity theft will help this situation.

O...kay...that was, to be honest, one of the most immature things I've ever read on NSG. And I'm not talking about his original post.



Sorry.:(

*searches for a viable brand of humour*

I have a simple answer. Those so called "minoritys" are just getting back at us for racism several hundred years ago. But, what they don't realize is that some racial groups are now on par or above the "majority" Take LA, the Latino population far outnumbers the white, yet they are listed as a minority.

"Mr. and Mrs. Smith, I'm sorry to tell you, but any child you concieve has a serious risk of being born with the genetic disease Caucasia. Caucasia is thankfully not fatal, but may cause paleness, bigotry, a superiority complex, delusions of persecution, lack of rythm, underdeveloped muscles, pasty bottoms, capitalism, and an inability to jump."

Don't know what race the above is, but the above clearly embodies racist stereotypes against white people. It happens. It's wrong. There, that settles the question.

Racism = Bad

Anyone can = Racist

Thread = Over

Bolol = Sleepy tiem now kthnxbye

Don't know what race the above is, but the above clearly embodies racist stereotypes against white people. It happens. It's wrong. There, that settles the question.

I think she's Caucasian. Something many stupid people are surprised to here I am too, despite being brown.

Not that it matters, since race is a pretty much arbitrary system of division. One is more likely biased against people of other skin colors, but "skin-colorist" just doesn't have the same punch.

I have a simple answer. Those so called "minoritys" are just getting back at us for racism several hundred years ago. But, what they don't realize is that some racial groups are now on par or above the "majority" Take LA, the Latino population far outnumbers the white, yet they are listed as a minority.

And that's why the US can never have a black President. He'll just start putting whites in concentration camps.

And that's why the US can never have a black President. He'll just start putting whites in concentration camps.

A joke, yes?

A joke, yes?

I really, really wish it was. Welcome to NSG. :(

A joke, yes?

Rule number one: Everybody wants revenge.

Rule number one: Everybody wants revenge.

Rule number two: Cynicism gets you nowhere.

I've met Black, Hispanic and Asian racist.

/thread.

Since when did you become the person to decide when a thread was or wasn't over? Clearly you were very wrong in this case. Hmm.

I mean, it is obvious that not only whites are racist but that doesn't mean the discussion is over.

I know some taiwanese who would put ku klux klansman to shame.

There is an easy answer to this...

The days mentioned were for many were not about pride in being black, it was about being proud to be a minority American.

Sure, there are some racists amongst them, but if you look at participation in those parades, there were a significant proportion of other ethnicities other than blacks. These days, a lot of the days are held simply for remembrance and historical purposes.

The actual concept of race is inherently racist. Wanting to march for your race, or defend your race - this is the talk of Nazi Germany. Your grandparents generation would be appalled, going to war to fight against racial supremacy.

Nazi beliefs are an illegal political position, ppfft the freedom of speech, they would use their freedom of speech to impinge on the same rights of others.

[/lurk]

Reading through the original post, and ignoring its alleged origins, I get the impression that the thread title is a bit misleading. I think we can all agree that whites are not the only racists in the world; therefore, the title might better be rewritten "Why do common reactions in American society suggest that certain ideological groups act as if only whites can be racists?" Of course, that's too long to fit into the space allotted for thread titles, but you can't always get what you want, can you?

It's also worth pointing out that allegedly originating from Myspace (or anywhere else on the Internet) does not automatically invalidate a post's truth. As a white male, I can fully agree with the sentiments expressed in that post: here at college I have overheard some "minority" students claiming that only the majority ethnicity can be truly called racist. This supposition is in direct conflict with any serious dictionary's definition of racism; Merriam-Webster defines it as "a belief that ... racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" (check it for yourself (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/racism) if you doubt my honesty).

Anyone who knows modern Western history (i.e. the past five centuries) cannot help but admit that whites have an unfortunate track record concerning racism, but I object to certain groups or individuals holding that legacy over our heads. Thanks in part to changes in legislation, that's mostly over; why not just forgive us already? That would IMAO be the mature thing to do.

[lurk]

Ok I am not kidding, on the Jerry Springer show, there actually was a half black guy who was part of the Ku Klux Klan.

That seems weird to me because the Klan is opposed to race mixing

*Puts mod time bomb on thread*:rolleyes:

Anyone who knows modern Western history (i.e. the past five centuries) cannot help but admit that whites have an unfortunate track record concerning racism, but I object to certain groups or individuals holding that legacy over our heads. Thanks in part to changes in legislation, that's mostly over; why not just forgive us already? That would IMAO be the mature thing to do.You don't honestly think there were no social repercussions from legalized racism, do you?

O...kay...that was, to be honest, one of the most immature things I've ever read on NSG. And I'm not talking about his original post.



I hardly see how identity theft will help this situation.

No, the original post was well deserving of being mocked.

That's one of the most immature things you've ever seen here? What the hell have you been doing for 3000 posts? :eek:

No, the original post was well deserving of being mocked.
yes it does they must of never been called a White C**t

That's one of the most immature things you've ever seen here? What the hell have you been doing for 3000 posts? :eek:
second the :eek:

So why is it that only white people can be called racist?

why is it that only white racests pretend this to be the case?

=^^=
.../\...

It's because blacks, mexicans and asians are secretly ruling the world and trying to destroy the glory of the White Man(TM). I lol at those who take me seriously

So why is it that only white people can be called racist?

That's bullshit.

Black people who espouse melanism are called RACIST everywhere.

So why is it that only white people can be called racist?

Saying that only white people are racist is racism.
Racistically whining about non-white racists claiming that only whites are racist is stupid.
Someone, please, kill this thread.:sniper:

Killing this thread is racism! :eek:

:D

Killing this thread is racism! :eek:

:D

Why, has this thread some ethnicity?;)

:D:D

I think the powers that be are afraid of letting it get a foothold again. Even the smallest amount of "White Pride" might lead to Nazi Germany, Apartheid, or Klu Klux Klan like behavior. The fact is we are too good at being racist. There are still golf courses and country clubs in the USA that do still follow the "Old Ways". Sad but true.

All I got to say is if you like that way move south of the Mason Dixon line.

A lot of places are just barely in the 20th century as opposed to the 21th century which the rest of us are in when it comes to race relations.


For the other list add Rap artists who can be openly racist and sell millions of CDs. Besides most people don't even take "Redneck" or "Cracker" as an insult.

Jeff Foxworthy made millions from the term.

Why, has this thread some ethnicity?;)

:D:D

On my screen, it's clearly white.

On my screen, it's clearly white.

Not white enough if you ask me. I'm seeing some black.

The Color of Crime: a report on 1994 crime statistics, the most recent available at the time.

Major Findings

# There is more black-on-white than black-on-black violent crime.

# Of the approximately 1,700,000 interracial crimes of violence involving blacks and whites, 90 percent are committed by blacks against whites. Blacks are therefore up to 250 times more likely to do criminal violence to whites than the reverse.

# Blacks commit violent crimes at four to eight times the white rate. Hispanics commit violent crimes at approximately three times the white rate, and Asians at one half to three quarters the white rate.

# Blacks are twice as likely as whites to commit hate crimes.

# Hispanics are a hate crime victim category but not a perpetrator category. Hispanic offenders are classified as whites, which inflates the white offense rate and gives the impression that Hispanics commit no hate crimes.

# Blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more dangerous than women.

Summary

The Color of Crime, a New Century Foundation study based on federal crime reports, has found significant differences in violent crime rates for different racial and ethnic groups. Blacks, for example, are many times more likely to commit crimes of violence against whites than vice versa. Of the approximately 1,700,000 interracial violent crimes involving blacks and whites reported every year, blacks commit 90 percent and whites commit only ten percent. Blacks are therefore more than 50 times more likely than whites to commit interracial crimes of violence. The differences are even greater for multiple-offender interracial crimes, with blacks 100 to 250 times more likely to be involved in gang attacks on whites than the reverse. Some people may argue that blacks attack whites because they expect them to be carrying cash or valuables. However, fewer than 20 percent of black attacks on whites are robberies; rape and assault do not usually have economic motives.

There is more black-on-white violent crime than black-on-black violent crime. When blacks commit violence they attack whites 50 to 55 percent of the time. When whites commit violence they attack blacks only two to three percent of the time.

Hate crimes are thought to be the most serious acts of interracial crime, but there were only 9,861 reported in 1997. Of these, 6,981 were race-related and 4,105 were violent. This very small number of crimes receives a disproportionate amount of attention, but it is likely that the millions of ordinary interracial crimes--90 percent of which are committed by blacks against whites--are more damaging to race relations. Although white-on-black hate crimes receive a great deal of attention, blacks are approximately twice as likely to commit hate crimes as whites.

Hispanics are considered a victim category for hate crimes but not a perpetrator category. A Mexican who is attacked because of ethnicity is recorded as Hispanic, but if the same Mexican attacks a black or white for racial reasons he is considered white. This inflates the figures for "white" hate crime perpetrators, and gives the impression that Hispanics commit no hate crimes.

For virtually all crimes, there are consistent and pronounced differences in arrest rates for violent crime by race and ethnicity. Blacks are five to ten times more likely to be arrested than whites, Hispanics are approximately three times more likely, American Indians are about twice as likely, and Asians are only one half to two-thirds as likely to be arrested for violent crimes as whites. The very high rates for blacks means that the single best independent predictor of crime rates for an area is the percentage of the population that is black.

Blacks are as much more likely to be arrested for violent crimes as men are more likely to be arrested than women. To the extent that arrest rates are a good indication of actual criminal behavior-- and there is very strong evidence that they are-- blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more dangerous than women. If people feel more threatened by unknown men than by unknown women and are justified in taking additional precautions against them, from a statistical point of view they are equally justified in making the same distinctions between blacks and whites.

Interracial Crime

In June 7, 1998, white supremacists hitched James Byrd of Jasper, Texas, to the back of a truck, and dragged him to death. This appalling crime reminded the country in the most forceful way that racial hostility and interracial crime continue to be serious problems in the United States. The resulting national outcry demonstrated how deeply Americans feel about racial violence. Outrage over acts of this kind is entirely appropriate. However, to concentrate on one crime, no matter how sickening, is to present a distorted picture of interracial crime. If we are to respond appropriately to the problem of racial violence it is important to know its true nature and proportions.

Most Americans probably believe that whites commit most interracial crimes, and that blacks are the most frequent victims. The reverse is true: In approximately 90 percent of the interracial crimes of violence involving blacks and whites, blacks are perpetrators and whites are victims. In terms of crime rates (calculated as the number of crimes per 100,000 population), blacks are more than 50 times more likely to attack whites than the reverse. To use the common short-hand expression, interracial crime is overwhelmingly "black-on-white." Because statistics of this kind are surprising to most people, it is worth explaining them in some detail.

Every year since 1972, the U.S. Department of Justice has carried out what is called the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) to determine the frequency of certain kinds of crimes. The NCVS survey sample is very large--approximately 100,000 people in some 50,000 households--and is carefully selected on the basis of census data to make it as representative as possible of the nation as a whole. The NCVS is an invaluable record of criminal victimization as reported directly by Americans, and it is the only significant nationwide measure of interracial crime.

The first page, Table 42, lists various categories of single-offender interracial violent crimes for 1994 (the NCVS is carried out annually, but the Department of Justice does not issue full reports every year; 1994 is the most recent year for this data).

The group of numbers at the top of the page represents totals calculated for single-offender violent crimes reported for that year. They are extrapolated from the actual crimes reported by the survey sample. We find that in 1994; 6,830,360 whites were victims of violent crimes, and that 16.7 percent (1,140,670) reported that the perpetrator was black. Blacks were victims of 1,100,490 violent crimes, of which 12.3 percent (135,360) were committed by whites. Adding these figures for interracial crime together (1,140,670 and 135,360) we get a total of 1,276,030 interracial crimes, of which 1,140,670 or 89 percent were committed by blacks.

To get the rates at which blacks and whites commit interracial crime we divide the number of crimes by the population to get crimes per 100,000 population. The Census Bureau reports that the 1994 white and black populations were 216,413,000 and 32,653,000 respectively. Whites therefore committed acts of interracial violence at a rate of 62.55 per 100,000 while the black rate was 3,493.63 per 100,000, a figure that is no less than 55.85 times the white rate. Put in the most easily understood terms, the average black was therefore 56 times more likely to commit criminal violence against a white than was a white to commit criminal violence against a black. Similar calculations show that the black rate for interracial robbery, or "mugging," was 103 times the white rate. These two rates are illustrated in the graph on the next page, and it is important to understand what these figures mean. The multiple of 56 does not mean that blacks commit 56 times as much interracial violence as whites. What it means is that if whites commit interracial violence at a rate of 10 crimes per 100,000 whites, the rate for blacks is 560 per 100,000, or 56 times the white rate. This is the kind of calculation that is represented in most of the graphs in this report.

The figures from Table 42 of the NCVS show other facts about interracial violence. If we once again concentrate on the group of figures at the top of the table we can calculate the total number of crimes committed by perpetrators of each race, and the percentage that is committed against the other race. We find that the 1,140,670 acts of violence committed by blacks against whites constitute 56.3 percent of all violent crimes committed by blacks. That is to say that when blacks commit violent crimes they target whites more than half the time or, put differently, there is more black-on-white than black-on-black crime. Similar calculations for whites show that of the 5,114,692 acts of criminal violence committed by whites, only 2.6 percent were directed at blacks. (Although homicide is a violent crime, the NCVS does not include it because victims cannot be interviewed. The number of interracial murders is small and does not affect the percentages and ratios presented here.)

Some may argue that blacks commit violence against whites because whites are more likely to have money and are therefore more promising robbery targets. However, of the 1,140,670 black-on-white acts of violence reported in 1994, only 173,374 were robberies. The remaining 84.8 percent were aggravated assaults, rapes, and simple assaults, which presumably were not motivated by profit. Rape, in particular, has nothing to do with the presumed wealth of the victim. More than 30,000 white women were raped by black men in 1994, and about 5,400 black women were raped by white men. The black interracial rape rate was 38 times the white rate.

The second page of Appendix A of this report is another page from the NCVS. Table 48 shows interracial crime data for acts of violence committed by multiple offenders. By doing the same calculations as before, we can determine how much group or "gang" violence (not in the sense of organized gangs) is interracial, and how much is committed by blacks and by whites. Of the total of 490,266 acts of multiple-offender interracial violence, no fewer than 93.9 percent were committed by blacks against whites. Robbery, for which there is a monetary motive, accounted for fewer than one third of these crimes. The rest were gang assaults, including rapes, presumably for motives other than profit.

Rates of group violence for each race can be calculated as before, and the difference between the races is stark. The black rate of overall interracial gang violence is 101.75 times the white rate; for robbery it is 277.31 times the white rate. Differences as great as this are seldom found in comparative studies of group behavior, and they cry out for study and explanation. It is probably safe to say that if the races were reversed, and gangs of whites were attacking blacks at merely four or five times the rate at which blacks were attacking whites the country would consider this a national crisis that required urgent attention.

Hate Crimes in Perspective

Ever since passage of the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, the FBI has been charged with collecting national statistics on criminal acts "motivated, in whole or in part, by bias." The law does not compel local law enforcement agencies to supply the FBI with this information but most do. In 1997, the most recent year for which data are available, the FBI received hate crime information from 11,211 local agencies serving more than 83 percent of the United States population.

In that year, there was a total of 9,861 offenses, of which 6,981 represented bias crimes based on race or ethnic origin. The remainder were for reasons of religion, sexual orientation, or disability.

The FBI reports 8,474 suspected offenders whose race was known. Of that number; 5,344 were white and 1,629 were black. Their offenses--which included all categories of hate crime, not just racial bias--can, in turn, be divided into violent and nonviolent offenses, and by calculating the rate of offense by race we find that blacks were 1.99 times more likely than whites to commit hate crimes in general and 2.24 times more likely to commit violent hate crimes.

As for cases of racial bias, there were 718 blacks charged with anti-white (as opposed to anti-homosexual, anti-Semitic, etc.) crimes and 2,336 whites charged with anti-black hate crimes. Although the number of white offenders was larger, the black rate per 100,000 was twice as high. A larger number of whites commit these crimes, but blacks are 2.0 times more likely to commit them. This overrepresentation of blacks in hate crimes, not just in race bias cases but in all categories, runs counter to the common impression that whites are the virtually exclusive perpetrators of hate crimes and are certainly more likely to commit them than blacks.

But perhaps of even greater significance is the relatively small number of bias crimes to begin with. Of the 6,981 offenses based on race or ethnicity, only 4,105 were violent, involving murder, rape, robbery, or assault. The rest included such offenses as vandalism and intimidation. These numbers are almost insignificant compared to the 1,766,000 interracial crimes of violence (combining both single- and multiple-offender offences) reported in the NCVS.

Needless to say, part of this huge disparity in numbers is explained by the fact that the NCVS covers all crimes--whether reported to police or not-- whereas for a crime to be included in the FBI's hate crime statistics it must first be reported to police and then officially classified as a hate crime. No doubt there is some number of crimes never reported to the police that authorities would consider hate crimes if they knew about them.

However, how important is the distinction between interracial crimes that are officially designated as hate crimes and those that are not? For a crime to be considered a hate crime, the perpetrator must make his motive clear, usually by using racial slurs. It is not hard to imagine that of the 1,766,000 interracial crimes committed in 1994, some--perhaps even a great many--were "motivated, in whole or in part, by bias" but the perpetrators did not express their motives.

Given the realities of race in the United States, would it be unreasonable for a person attacked by someone of a different race to wonder whether race had something to do with the attack, even if his assailant said nothing? Such suspicions are even more likely in the case of the 490,266 acts of group violence that crossed racial lines in 1994. What is the psychological effect on a victim set upon by a gang of people of a different race? A white woman gang-raped by blacks or a black man cornered and beaten by whites can hardly help but think he was singled out at least in part because of race, even if the attackers used no racial slurs.

Many states have passed laws that increase penalties for people convicted of hate crimes. These laws recognize the harm done to society when people are attacked because of race or other characteristics. However, one might ask which does more damage to society: the few thousand violent acts officially labeled as hate crimes or the vastly more numerous interracial crimes of violence that go virtually unnoticed?

Hate Crimes Committed by Hispanics

The government's treatment of hate crimes is misleading in another, even more obvious way, in that the FBI reports hate crimes against Hispanics but not by Hispanics. Appendix B is the FBI's "Hate Crime Incident Report," which is used to record bias crimes. Although Hispanics are clearly indicated as a victim category in the "Bias Motivation" section, they are not a perpetrator category in "Suspected Race of Offender." The FBI therefore forces local law enforcement agencies to categorize most Hispanic offenders as "white" (see "Measuring Hispanic Crime Rates," below) and the figures for 1997 reflect this. The total number of hate crimes for that year--9,861--includes 636 crimes of anti-Hispanic bias, but not one of the 8,474 known offenders is "Hispanic" because the FBI's data collection method does not permit such a designation.

If a Mexican is assaulted for reasons of ethnicity he is officially recorded as Hispanic. However, he becomes white if he commits a hate crime against a black. Even more absurdly, if a Mexican commits a hate crime against a white, both the victim and the perpetrator are reported as white. And, in fact, the 1997 FBI figures duly record 214 "white" offenders who committed anti-white hate crimes. The offenders were probably Hispanic, but if that is the case the report should say so. If some of the "whites" who are reported to have committed crimes against blacks are also Hispanic, the report should indicate that, too.

An examination of specific crimes shows that official reports can be misleading. Murder is the most serious and shocking of all hate crimes, and the FBI lists five cases of racially-motivated murder for 1997--three "anti-black" and two "anti-white." The FBI report does not provide details about the perpetrators or the circumstances of the killings, but the local police departments that reported the crimes to the FBI have this information.

Two of the anti-black killings took place in the same town, a largely Hispanic suburb of Los Angeles called Hawaiian Gardens. Hawaiian Gardens has a history of black-Hispanic tension that is so bad many blacks have been forced to leave. In one of the murders, a 24-year-old black man was beaten to death by a mob of 10 to 14 Hispanics who took turns smashing his head with a baseball bat. In the other, a Hispanic gang member challenged a 29-year-old black man's right to be in the neighborhood. A few minutes later he returned and shot the man in the chest. In both cases, the victims and killers did not know each other and the motivation appears to have been purely racial. These crimes are typical of what we think of as hate-crime murders, and because no Hispanics are identified as perpetrators in the FBI report, it is safe to assume the killers were classified as white.

The third anti-black killing took place in Anchorage, Alaska. According to press reports, a white man, 33-year-old Brett Maness, killed his neighbor, a 32-year-old black man Delbert White, after a brief struggle. Mr. Maness, who was growing marijuana in his apartment and kept an arsenal of weapons, had been shooting a pellet gun at Mr. White's house, and the black man had come over to complain. Interestingly, a jury found that Mr. Maness killed Mr. White in self defense, but convicted him of weapons and drugs charges. The incident was considered a hate crime because Mr. Maness had brandished weapons and shouted racial slurs at Mr. White in the past. A police spokesman adds that racist literature was found in Mr. Maness' apartment after the shooting.

The remaining two killings were classified as anti-white, but only one fits the usual conception of such crimes. Four white men were walking on a street in Palm Beach, Florida, when a car came to a stop not far from them. Two black men got out with their hands behind their backs and one said "What are you crackers looking at?" One of the white men replied, "Not you, ******" whereupon one of the blacks brought a gun from behind his back and fired several times, killing one white and wounding another. Attackers and victims did not know each other, and the criminal motivation appears to have been purely racial. The other anti-white killing involved a Texas businessman from India, Sri Punjabi, who shot his Mexican daughter-in-law because his son had divorced an Indian wife to marry her. Mr. Punjabi was incensed that his son should marry anyone who was not Indian. (Presumably, this crime should have been classified as anti-Hispanic rather than anti-white.)

These five racially-motivated murders reported for 1997 do not fit the popular image of hate crimes, namely, of whites brutalizing non-whites. In fact, only one perpetrator was "white" in the usually accepted sense. What was the nature of the thousands of other officially-reported hate crimes? Without examining all 9,861 of them it is impossible to say.

It is clear, however, that the FBI report gives a false impression. It inflates the number of hate crimes committed by "whites" by calling Hispanics white. At the same time it gives the impression that Hispanics never commit hate crimes. The reason for gathering these data is to arrive at a better understanding of the extent of racial friction and violence in the United States. If statistics are to have any meaning they must reflect American reality, namely, that most Hispanics think of themselves as a separate group, distinct from non-Hispanic whites, and are perceived by others as a different group. It is impossible to understand or alleviate group friction without recognizing this. If the FBI wants to collect meaningful data, it must recognize Hispanics as a perpetrator category as well as a victim category.

Different racial groups in the United States commit crimes at different rates. Most Americans have a sense that non-white neighborhoods are more dangerous than white neighborhoods--and they are correct. However, it is very unusual to find reliable information on just how much more dangerous some groups are than others.

The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), published annually by the FBI, is the standard reference work for crime and crime rates in the United States. The UCR is a nationwide compilation of criminal offenses and arrest data, reported voluntarily by local law enforcement agencies. In the most recent UCR, which covers 1997, the FBI received reports from 17,000 law enforcement agencies, covering 95 percent of the country’s population. The UCR is unquestionably the most comprehensive and authoritative report on crimes brought to the attention of the police. News stories about rising or falling crime rates are almost always based on the UCR.

In trying to determine crime rates for different racial groups, it is important to understand the differences between the UCR and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) referred to above. The NCVS contains only one kind of information: crimes Americans say they have suffered. The UCR includes two different kinds of numbers: crimes reported to the police and arrests of perpetrators. Even for the same year and for the same crime, these three sets of numbers are different. The largest numbers are in the NCVS, because they include crimes not reported to the police. Somewhat smaller are the UCR figures on offenses reported to authorities, and smaller still are arrest figures, which represent offenses for which a suspect is arrested.

For example, in the 1997 NCVS Americans say they suffered a total of 1,883,000 cases of aggravated assault, but according to the UCR, only 1,022,000 were reported to the police. During that same year, there were only 535,000 arrests for aggravated assault. Racial data enter the UCR figures only when an arrest is made, so it can be argued that racial comparisons should not be based on UCR data. Different racial groups may report crime to the police at different rates, some groups may be more successful at escaping arrest, and the police may discriminate between racial groups in their arrest efforts. However, there is a great advantage in using UCR data because its racial categories are more detailed. Unlike the NCVS, which reports only on "black," "white," and "other," the UCR compiles arrest data on "black," "white," "American Indian/Eskimo," and "Asian/Pacific Islander." These are the only national crime data that make these distinctions. Also, as we will see later, UCR arrest data can be compared to other data in ways that make it possible to treat Hispanics as a separate ethnic category.

Another good reason to use UCR data is that although the racial proportions vary somewhat between the NCVS survey data (race of perpetrator as reported by victims) and the UCR arrest data (race of persons arrested), they are not that different. For example, according to the UCR, 57 percent of people arrested for robbery in 1997 were black, as were 37 percent of those arrested for aggravated assault. According to NCVS data on single-offender crimes, 51 percent of robbers were reported by their victims to be black as were 30 percent of those who committed aggravated assault (once again, using 1994 data). Since there is a greater overrepresentation by blacks in NCVS-reported multiple-offender crimes, combining the two sets of figures brings the racial proportions in the NCVS figures extremely close to the racial proportions in UCR arrest figures. Put differently, police are arresting criminals of different races in very close to the same proportions as Americans say they are victimized by people of those races.

By this measure, who is committing crime in America? The graph on the next page shows arrest rates (calculated, as before, as the number of arrests per 100,000 population) as multiples of the white arrest rate for various crimes. The white rate is always set to one, so if the black rate is three, for example, it means that blacks are arrested at three times the white rate. Once again, it does not mean that three times as many blacks as whites were arrested; it means that if 100 of every 100,000 whites were arrested for a crime, 300 of every 100,000 blacks were arrested for the same crime.

The data show a very consistent pattern: Blacks are arrested at dramatically higher rates than other racial groups. American Indians and Eskimos (hereinafter "Indians") are arrested at slightly higher rates than whites, and Asians are arrested at consistently lower rates. The popular conception of crime in America is correct; rates are much higher among blacks than among whites or other groups.

It is for this reason that the single best independent indicator of a jurisdiction's crime rate is the percentage of its population that is black. The scatter chart to the right plots homicide rate and black percentage of population for all the states and for the District of Columbia (which is the outlying data point at the upper right). The tendency is clear: The higher the percentage of blacks, the greater the number of murders.

It is worth noting that murder rates are a different kind of data from both NCVS reports and UCR arrest data. They are not based on victim reports nor can they be distorted by differences in arrest rates by racial group that could reflect possible police bias. Pure homicide rates tell us nothing about the race of either the killer or the victim. They are simply an expression of the level of homicidal violence in a community, and that level increases as the percentage of blacks increases.

Nevertheless, to return to the view that arrest data reflect police bias rather than genuine group differences in crime rates, police actually have very little discretion in whom they arrest for violent crimes. Except for murder victims, most people can tell the police the race of an assailant. If a victim says he was mugged by a white man, the police cannot very well arrest a black man even if they want to.

For this reason, many people accept that police have little discretion in whom to arrest for violent crime, but still believe drug laws are enforced unfairly against minorities. Drug offenses are beyond the scope of this report but here, too, there is independent evidence that arrest rates reflect differences in criminal behavior, not selective law enforcement. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services keeps records by race of drug-related emergency room admissions. It reports that blacks are admitted at 6.67 times the non-Hispanic white rate for heroin and morphine, and no less than 10.49 times the non-Hispanic white rate for cocaine. (Rates for Hispanics are 2.82 and 2.35 times the white rates; information is not reported on American Indians or Asians). There is only one plausible explanation for these rates: Blacks are much more likely to be using drugs in the first place.

Finally, if racist white police were unfairly arresting non-whites we would expect arrest rates for Asians to be higher than for those for whites. Instead, they are lower for almost every kind of crime.

Measuring Hispanic Crime Rates

Any study of group crime rates in America is complicated by the inconsistent treatment of Hispanics by different government agencies. For example, the Census Bureau's official estimate for the 1997 population of the United States divides all 268 million Americans into four racial groups: white, black, Indian and Eskimo, and Asian and Pacific Islander. The bureau then explains that among these 268 million people there are 29 million Hispanics who "can be of any race." However, it also counts non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, Indians, etc. Thus we find that although according to the strictly racial classification, there are 221 million whites in the United States, there are only 195 million non-Hispanic whites. When American Hispanics, approximately half of whom are Mexican, are apportioned to the four racial categories, the Census Bureau considers 91 percent to be white, six percent black, one percent American Indian, and two percent Asian.

The treatment of Hispanics can make for odd results. For example, according to the 1990 census, the 3,485,000 people of Los Angeles were 52.9 percent white, 13.9 percent black, 0.4 percent American Indian, and 22.9 percent Asian--which adds up to 100 percent. This makes the city appear to be majority white. However, Los Angeles was also 39.3 percent Hispanic, and if we subtract the 91 percent of them who were classed as whites, the non-Hispanic white population suddenly drops to only 16.6 percent.

What does this mean for crime statistics? Because the UCR figures do not treat Hispanics as a separate category, almost all the Hispanics arrested in the United States go into official records as "white." This is contrary to the usual understanding of the word, which is not normally thought to include most Mexicans and Latinos.

If violent crime rates for Hispanics are substantially different from those of non-Hispanic whites, putting Hispanics in the "white" category distorts the results. This is not as serious as in the case of hate crimes, in which the crime itself has to do with the very personal characteristics that are being omitted from the records, but there is no reason not to make ethnic or racial comparisons as accurate as possible. The UCR tabulates separate data on American Indians and Eskimos--who are less than one percent of the population--but it ignores Hispanics, who are 12 percent of the population.

Some data-gathering agencies do treat Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites separately. The California Department of Justice, which records all arrests within the state, consistently makes this distinction (though it lumps Asians and American Indians into the "other" category). Some of these California figures are included as Appendix C of this report. In conjunction with Census Bureau population figures for Hispanics, non-Hispanic whites, and non-Hispanic blacks living in California in 1997, we can calculate the arrest rates for the different groups for different crimes. In the graph below, these rates are once again represented as multiples of the white rate. As is the case with national UCR data, blacks are arrested at much higher rates than whites, but Hispanics are also arrested at considerably higher rates.

The different rates at which Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites are held in prisons and jails are another indicator of the differences in crime rates between the two groups. Although the UCR does not treat Hispanics as a separate category for arrest purposes, some government reports on the prison population do consider them separately. For example, the Department of Justice has calculated 1996 incarceration rates per 100,000 population for non-Hispanic whites (193), Hispanics (688), and non-Hispanic blacks (1,571). Expressed as multiples of the white rate, the Hispanic rate is 3.56 and the black rate is 8.14. These multiples are close to those from the California arrest data, and justify the conclusion that Hispanics are roughly three times more likely than non-Hispanic whites to be arrested for various crimes.

If we make this assumption, we can use the following formula to incorporate this differential into the UCR racial data on white arrests so as to calculate more accurate arrest rates for non-Hispanic whites: R(Number of non-Hispanic whites) + 3R(Number of white Hispanics) = Actual Number of Arrests.

Here, R is the arrest rate for non-Hispanic whites and 3R is the arrest rate for Hispanics who are categorized as white when they are arrested. Calculations of this kind show that if Hispanics are broken out as a separate ethnic category with an arrest rate assumed to be three times the non-Hispanic rate, the rate for non-Hispanic whites decreases by 19.5 percent. The graph below shows arrest rates (as multiples of the white arrest rate) adjusted for this reduction. For lack of more precise information, the multiple for Hispanics is set at three times the white rate for all crimes even though there is certain to be some variation in the multiples for different types of crimes. The unadjusted arrest rate chart is also reproduced next to it for purposes of comparison. Because the evidence from national incarceration rates and California arrest rates suggests that Hispanics commit violent crimes at some multiple of the white rate, the adjusted graph is probably a more accurate indicator of group differences. Both graphs are on the same scale and show the extent to which separating out Hispanics reduces arrest rates for non-Hispanic whites.

It should be noted here that the NCVS survey data on interracial crime referred to at the beginning of this report also includes Hispanics in the "white" category. It is therefore impossible to know how many of the "whites" who committed violent crimes against blacks were actually Hispanic or how many of the "whites" against whom blacks committed violent crimes were Hispanic. If Hispanics commit violent crimes against blacks at a higher rate than whites--and judging from their higher arrest and incarceration rates for other offenses this seems likely--the NCVS report also inflates the crime rates of non-Hispanic whites.

Men versus Women

Many people resist the idea that different racial groups can have significantly different rates of violent crime. However, there are several group differences in crime rates that virtually everyone understands and takes for granted. Men in their 20s, for example, are much more prone to violence than men in their 50s, and when they are arrested more frequently for it, no one doubts that it is because they commit more crime. Likewise, virtually no one disputes the reason for higher arrest rates for men than for women: Men commit more crime than women. This is the case for racial groups as well: Asians are arrested at lower rates than whites because they commit fewer crimes; blacks and Hispanics are arrested at higher rates because they commit more crimes.

When it comes to violent crime, blacks are approximately as much more likely to be arrested than whites, as men are more likely to be arrested than women. The multiples of black v. white arrest rates are very close to the multiples of male v. female arrest rates, suggesting that blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more dangerous than women.

The first graph on this page shows arrest rates for men as multiples of arrest rates for women for the same crimes. The differentials are roughly similar to those between blacks and whites. The next two graphs compare arrest rates for murder and robbery, and demonstrate that the black/white arrest multiple is almost as great as the male/female multiple. The last graph makes the same comparison for arrest rates for all violent crimes. (These figures have not been adjusted for the fact that Hispanics are included with whites. As we have seen, this adjustment lowers the white arrest rate by nearly 20 percent, and would make the black/white multiples greater than the male/female multiples.)

What does this mean? Although most people have no idea what the arrest rate multiples may be, they have an intuitive understanding that men are more violent and dangerous than women. If someone in unfamiliar circumstances is approached by a group of strange men he feels more uneasy than if he is approached by an otherwise similar group of strange women. No one would suggest that this uneasiness is "prejudice." It is common sense, born out by the objective reality that men are more dangerous than women.

In fact, it is just as reasonable to feel more uneasy when approached by blacks than by otherwise similar whites; the difference in danger as reflected by arrest rates is virtually the same. It is rational to fear blacks more than whites, just as it is rational to fear men more than women. Whatever additional precautions a person would feel are justified because a potential assailant was male rather than female are, from a statistical point of view, equally justified if a potential assailant is black rather than white.

Likewise, there is now much controversy about so-called "racial profiling," by the police, that is, the practice of questioning blacks in disproportionate numbers in the expectation that they are more likely than people of other races to be criminals. This is just as rational and productive as "age" or "sex profiling." Police would be wasting their time if they stopped and questioned as many old ladies as they do young men. It is the job of the police to catch criminals, and they know from experience who is likely to be an offender. Americans who do not question the wisdom of police officers who notice a possible suspect's age or sex should not be surprised to learn that officers also notice race.

Conclusions

Two things can be said about most of the information in this report: It is easily discovered but little known. Every year, the FBI issues its report on hate crimes, and distributes thousands of copies to scholars and the media. Why does no one find it odd that hundreds of whites are reportedly committing hate crimes against whites? And why does no one question the wisdom of calling someone white when he is a perpetrator but Hispanic when he is a victim? (An FBI spokesman refused to discuss the reasons for this by telephone and insisted on an exchange of letters. His reply is provided below.)

For some years there has been an extended national discussion about the prevalence of black-on-black crime--and for good reason. Blacks suffer from violent crime at rates considerably greater than do Americans of other races. And yet, amid this national outcry over the extent of black-on-black crime, there appears to be little concern about the fact that there is actually more black-on-white crime. Nor does there seem to be much interest in the fact that blacks are 50 to 200 times more likely than whites to commit interracial crimes of violence.

Everyone knows that young people are more dangerous than old people and that men are more dangerous than women. We adjust our behavior accordingly and do not apologize for doing so. Why must we then pretend that blacks are no more dangerous than whites or Asians? And, of course, it is no more than pretense. Everyone knows that blacks are dangerous, and everyone--black or white--takes greater precautions in black neighborhoods or even avoids such neighborhoods entirely.

The answer to these questions lies in the current intellectual climate. Americans are extremely hesitant to "perpetuate stereotypes," and generally take care not to draw or publicize conclusions that may reflect badly on racial minorities. This is understandable, but has reached the point that certain subjects can no longer be investigated without bringing down charges of "racism." Needless to say, research that reflects badly on the majority population is not constrained by the same fears. However, our willingness to ignore sensibilities should not be selective. Violent crime and interracial violence are important, agonizing concerns in this country, and we cannot begin to formulate solutions unless we understand the problems.

It seems that England has a similar problem with Blacks. Following is a similar report that corroborates the same problems in England that we have in the United States:

From Right Now, October 2000: an article by John Woods; Race and Criminal Cowardice.

I acquired recently a copy of a 1999 Home Office publication entitled Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System: A Home Office publication under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991*. The 1999 edition is the fifth in a series, with previous reports issued in 1992, 1994, 1995 and 1997. this remarkable study makes for a most interesting read.

First, you have to wade through the statutory foreword by Jack Straw telling us that we must learn the lessons of the Macpherson report, and purge the criminal justice system of "institutional rac*ism". Then we have another foreword by Mr. Justice Rose, Chair*man of the Criminal Justice Consultative Committee, stating that we must learn the lessons of the Macpherson Report and purge the criminal justice system of "institutional racism". Then we have an insert from the Commission for Racial Equality telling us that we must learn the lessons of the Macpherson Report and purge the crimi*nal justice system of "in*stitutional racism".

Then we have a dis*cussion on deaths of black people in police custody. Then we are told that blacks are six times more likely to be stopped and searched by police. Then we are told that racist incidents are up by 66% over the last year, "although this is thought to be due to better reporting". Then we have the usual breast-beating about how there are not enough black policemen, prison offic*ers, magistrates or judges. Then we are told that 9% of homicide victims in the UK in the period covered by the sur*vey (1996-99) were black, an over-representation by a factor of four and a half (although we are not told who committed these murders.)

And then -- finally -- buried half way down Table 7.5 on page 44, we get some real figures. 'Resipsa loquitor', as they doubtless say in Brixton police station can*teen. Bear in mind that 2% of the population of the UK is classified as black. The figures are stark: as of 30th June 1998, 7.1% of those serving prison sentences for burglary were black. The equivalent figure for theft and handling is 7.5%, for sexual offences 8.1%, violence against the person 9.7%, fraud and forgery 13.2% and drugs offences 19%, while for robbery it is a staggering 22.6%.

Now, the massive over-representation of blacks in these catego*ries, could, I am sure, be 'explained' by reference to "institutional racism". There will no doubt be many who hold that these are the only career options open to black youths. But I defy even Lord Macpherson to explain, for example, a four-fold over-representa*tion in sex crimes among blacks by reference to that meaningless concept. Perhaps wisely, the Home Office does not give us a breakdown of the racial origins of the victims of black sexual crime. I would also be interested in seeing the figures for juveniles con*victed of sexual offences.

Moreover, virtually every Asian ethnic group within the UK is under-represented in the jails -- except in fraud cases. The incar*ceration rate for Indians is one fourteenth of the black rate. Yet, presumably, Asians must be laboring under the same yoke of soci*etal "institutional racism" as blacks? Furthermore, if we are to explain the six-fold over-representation of blacks in prison by refer*ence to that elastic concept, and we note the fact that whites are over-represented in prison in comparison with Asians, then the logical conclusion would seem to be that the criminal justice system must be "institutionally racist" against whites. But that would be an absurd conclusion.

Blacks represent 2% of the population of the UK, 12% of the jail population and 15% of incarcerated young offenders. Even this, however, does not tell the full story, as the figures do not distinguish between Africans and Afro*-Caribbeans. It may be an hypothesis too far, but I would be prepared to wager that the following propositions are true: that the proportion of blacks of Afri*can origin incarcerated, although sig*nificantly larger than the percentage of whites or Asians, will be signifi*cantly smaller than the proportion of Afro-Caribbeans. Therefore the over-representation among Afro*-Caribbeans will be even more extraordinary than these figures would suggest. I suspect also that the sociological profile of the type of crime for which Africans are im*prisoned will be rather different than that for Afro-Caribbeans. Astoundingly, blacks are over-rep*resented by a factor of six or seven among those incarcerated for fraud and forgery. I suspect that the majority of these will be West Africans rather than West Indians.

But the real story here is the way that the Home Office has presented the figures. The statistics would appear to have been set out in a deliberately misleading, confusing and obfuscatory manner, designed to prevent the casual reader from working out the true situation. One has to wade through reams of information on arrest rates in the various county police forces, where very few members of ethnic minorities reside, and the figures for the Met., the West Midlands etc, are buried among them. It is not terribly meaningful to tell us that 99% of those arrested by Dyfed-Powys or Devon & Cornwall Police are white. Moreover, the percentages of arrests for the various different ethnic groups within a particular police area are not compared with the actual ethnic breakdown of the population within that area, except for the Metropolitan Police District and a few others. And these are presented several pages apart, perhaps in the hope that no-one will notice them.

According to the Home Office figures, 7.5 % of the population of London are black. A quarter of all the arrests in the Metropolitan Police District are of black people. As relatively few blacks live in suburban areas of London, I would suggest that they must now represent a majority, or close to it, in arrests in almost every cat*egory of crime in the inner London boroughs. Blacks represent 54% of those arrested for robbery in London. In the inner city, this must surely be 80-90%. Again, the race of the victims of these robberies is not recorded. I wonder why not.

Another jaw-dropping statistic: during the period 1996-1999 which this survey covers, 59 black people and 69 white people died from gunshot wounds. The chances of a black person being shot dead are therefore approximately 40 times higher than for a white person. In virtually every case, blacks who died of gunshot wounds were shot by other blacks.

On page 47 of this extraordinary document, one finds another startling statistic relating to "racially motivated incidents". The British Crime Survey, published in 1998, estimates that in 1995, 382,000 offences were racially motivated. Of these, 143,000 were committed against members of ethnic minorities, and 238,000 against white people. This fact is extraordinary enough in itself. More extraordinary still is the lack of further discussion given to it in this report. And of course, the Home Office is not indelicate enough to point out the obvious corollary: if the ethnic minorities comprise 6% of the population of the UK, and are producing 238,000 racial assaults per year, and the white population, who comprise 94% of the population, are producing 143,000 racial assaults per year, it would appear that, on a per capita basis, the ethnic minorities are producing about 25 times more racial assaults than the white popu*lation. In fact, this clearly underestimates the discrepancy, since some of the racial assaults against blacks will have been committed by Asians, and some (I would guess a lot) of the assaults on Asians will have been committed by blacks (like the murderous attack on Abdul Bhatti at Notting Hill). Moreover, the British Crime Survey does not tell us who committed the 238,000 racial assaults against whites. I think we may safely assume that the majority were not committed by Sikhs, Parsees, Thais or Hong Kong Chinese.

Obviously, certain caveats must be born in mind. What con*stitutes a racial assault? If two motorists of different pigmentations get into an altercation over a parking space, does this constitute a racial incident? If one of them employs racial epithets in the course of the dispute, does it then become one? Fortunately, we now know what constitutes a racial assault, because Macpherson's definition has been accepted by the Government, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, and is reproduced in this document. "A racial incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person". So, if 238,000 white people per year per*ceive themselves to have been the victims of racist crimes, then they must have been, mustn't they?

On page 15 of the Home Office document, we are told "Much (sic) of these differences were found to be due to socio-demographic factors that are associated with victimization. For example, ethnic minorities tend, on average, to be younger, of lower socio-economic status, and more often living in higher risk areas". This is an exer*cise in deliberately missing the point. Certain ethnic minorities -- Indians and Chinese, for example -- have an average social status which is significantly higher than that of whites, and a crime rate which is approximately half the national average. It is only blacks who are of a significantly lower average social status. And, of course, the Home Office statisticians do not address themselves to the ques*tion of why this should be. Blacks certainly do live in higher risk areas. They are higher risk areas for a very good reason.

But then the whole document is an exercise in deliberately missing the point. Almost every civil servant, policeman, judge, prosecutor and journalist is busily missing the point these days, busily pretending that the emperor has got some clothes on, because in Tony's Britain, that's how you keep your job.

The reality of the situation is simply too horrific for liberals to contemplate. Therefore, they choose not to contemplate it, preferring to scapegoat the police, or the judiciary, or the schools, or anyone or anything else, rather than face the facts. Unfortunately, however much we might all wish it, reality will not go away.

Not white enough if you ask me. I'm seeing some black.

With your sig, you've made this thread a racial melting pot. You defiled the pure pristine whiteness!
Rassenverbrecher! Wienerschnitzel! Rassensauerkraut! Bretzeltelefunkenvolkswagenblitzkriegoktoberfest! Juuuudeeennnn!!! HAYL HYNKEL! (xx)

...sorry... got carried away... I swear it is the thread's fault.

With your sig, you've made this thread a racial melting pot. You defiled the pure pristine whiteness!
Rassenverbrecher! Wienerschnitzel! Rassensauerkraut! Bretzeltelefunkenvolkswagenblitzkriegoktoberfest! Juuuudeeennnn!!! HAYL HYNKEL! (xx)

...sorry... got carried away... I swear it is the thread's fault.

Did you just call me a race sauerkraut?

:confused:

Did you just call me a race sauerkraut?

:confused:

People usually get confused when Adenoyd Hynkel speaks.

And... yes, I did. Apparently.

Why do I always miss these threads.

Would someone please teach the new racists to link studies and articles rather than posting the whole thing? If everyone did that, this thread would be overwhelming and useless. Wait... well, at least it's not overwhelming.

Meanwhile, a friendly reminder to our new friend, that study has been widely debunked and only appears in racist propaganda for a reason; No one without an agenda is going to post such a flawed "study.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=255

And you are quoting SPL. Ewwwww.

And you are quoting SPL. Ewwwww.

They've had a few scandals based on their fundraising efforts and even some propaganda, but in reviews like this they've been found to be widely accurate. I use sources for what they're good at. SPL happens to be very reliable here.

The Color of Crime is a racist propaganda pamphlet that intentionally ignores that the vast, vast majority of crime is not interracial, even though it suggests that there is a black genocide of whites going on. The premise requires one to ignore the facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center

Observe how both left-wing and right wing magazines accuse them of crying wolf all too often.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center

Observe how both left-wing and right wing magazines accuse them of crying wolf all too often.

Oh, I know. I find some of their (SPL's) accusations spurious. Accusations. They tend to put them in their own propaganda pamphlets. This analysis does not come from such a pamphlet and it's accurate as you will find by reading it. They are quite reliable for this kind of analysis. If you suck at analyzing state law, but you do well at constitutional law, why wouldn't I use you as a source for constitutional issues? Again, I use a source as is appropriate. This source is appropriate.

Meanwhile, I can give you support for their article.

For example, "Of the approximately 1,700,000 interracial violent crimes involving blacks and whites reported every year, blacks commit 90 percent and whites commit only ten percent." This is patently false. A) it gives the impression that they are talking about interracial crime, when this is the entirety of violent crime. There were only approximately 1.7 million violent crimes in the US in 1994. B) They are giving the impression that over a million black-on-white violent crimes happen per year. Less amusingly, they jump from claiming that it's a 9 to 1 ratio to saying blacks are 50 times more likely to commit interracial crime against whites using the connector "therefore". This is obviously flawed.

The sad part about what they're trying to do is to make interracial crime seem like it happens 1.7 million times a year and that blacks are attacking whites. The fact is that you're WAY more likely to be victimized by your own race. Not a little bit. Not probably. Not perhaps. The odds of a white person being a victim of black on white violent crime is akin to my risk of dying in a plane crash.

If you suck at analyzing state law, but you do well at constitutional law, why wouldn't I use you as a source for constitutional issues?

Because constitutional law, being based on the flimsiest of statutes is far more complex than state law, and I would not trust someone who couldn't figure out state law to be able to analyze the constitution with proper methodology

/nitpick

So why is it that only white people can be called racist?

It is because we either believe everything Robert Mugabe says or we do not listen to him enough.

Because constitutional law, being based on the flimsiest of statutes is far more complex than state law, and I would not trust someone who couldn't figure out state law to be able to analyze the constitution with proper methodology

/nitpick

Not capable or not qualified is a vast difference. One could be an expert on constitutional law, but not have the knowledge to consistantly do state law well.

Not capable or not qualified is a vast difference. One could be an expert on constitutional law, but not have the knowledge to consistantly do state law well.

absolutly, but then you said "if you suck at", which I take to mean not capable, rather than not qualified. I know the constitution a hell of a lot better than I know the state law of...say....new mexico. But give me a relevant New Mexican statute and I'm pretty sure I can figure it out easily enough.

The term racist and racism are today so overused that they have no meaning. Usually when I hear someone say this or that person is a racist or this or that is racism I just laugh.

Racism is an ideology which holds that one race is inherently superior to all others or that one (or more) races are inferior to others. Today the term racism has been muddled with other terms such as bigotry and prejudice.

Simply disliking another race doesn't make one a racist--it may make one a bigot. Thinking for example, that all blacks are on welfare and steal as soon as they are old enough to crawl wouldn't in itself make one a racist--it would make one prejudiced. To be a racist, you must believe that one race by its very nature is superior to all others or in the converse some race is inferior to others by its very nature.

There are those (usually those miseducated in the pseudo disciplines of ethnic studies, especially African-American (sic) Studies) that hold the view that only whites can be racists since they by the very nature of their skin hold a position of power in the society that non-whites don't hold. This of course is total rubbish put forward by complete morons.

It gets worse. People who are against illegal aliens are called racists. This is odd since I never knew there was a race known as illegal alien. Hispanic for example is a cultural grouping not a race--there are Asian Hispanics, white Hispanics, black Hispanics, and those of two or more races. This makes about as much sense as calling someone a racist who dislikes Americans. Anti-Islamics have been called racist--again since when was a religion a race?

I even had one poor soul that told me that Chinese were racists because they looked down on farmers (meaning peasants). I never knew a class or an occupation was a race.

There are people that are racist--they are rare, very very rare. Imus isn't one. I doubt Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson are--they are in my view both bigots, however.

Most if not all of those that are members of the Nation of Islam are in fact racists and it is no different from the Klan of today. Racists (the few that exist) and bigots exist of every race. But there is a double standard. Black bigots get a much greater latitude to spew their hate than their white counterparts. Can you imagine a white person getting away with the things Julian Bond has said? In Knoxville, Tennessee, a young white couple were carjacked by a group of thugs--all of which were black. The woman was raped, sodomized and had bleached poured into her mouth to cover up the evidence. They were both murdered. If the roles were reversed, a group of young white thugs raping and killing a young black couple, how long would it take for the race pimps of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc to show up and demand an investigation by the Federal Government. And no doubt the criminals would be charged with a "hate crime" if they had been white. Since it seems only white straight males seem to be charged with this particular so-called crime--that being "hate crimes."

So, while it is true that not only whites are bigots and racists, that is the way it is usually reported. If the KKK marches it will be called a march by a hate group, if the Nation of Islam does the same, the worse it will be called is "controversial." Imus is called a racist, Al Sharpton a civil rights leader and that fool John Kerry even called him the Soul of the Democratic Party. Well, knowing the Democratic Party and AL Sharpton that may actually be more accurate than little John ever intended it to be.

For example, "Of the approximately 1,700,000 interracial violent crimes involving blacks and whites reported every year, blacks commit 90 percent and whites commit only ten percent." This is patently false. A) it gives the impression that they are talking about interracial crime, when this is the entirety of violent crime. There were only approximately 1.7 million violent crimes in the US in 1994. B) They are giving the impression that over a million black-on-white violent crimes happen per year. Less amusingly, they jump from claiming that it's a 9 to 1 ratio to saying blacks are 50 times more likely to commit interracial crime against whites using the connector "therefore". This is obviously flawed.And then, of course, there's the fact that there are areas of the country that black people don't tend to live in, meaning that crime in those areas isn't going to be white on black or black on white, but every area of the country that has blacks also has whites.

Well, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton believe that only white people and Jews are racist. But that doesn't mean that everyone else believes that.

Although I believe that a substantial number of people also believe that, or those men wouldn't have a career of being public figures.

Well, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton believe that only white people and Jews are racist. But that doesn't mean that everyone else believes that.

Although I believe that a substantial number of people also believe that, or those men wouldn't have a career of being public figures.

Phelps has a career of being a public figure, and a grand total of around a hundred people believe what he believes. You're using flawed logic, DK.

Phelps has a career of being a public figure, and a grand total of around a hundred people believe what he believes. You're using flawed logic, DK.

Did I say everyone? No, I didn't.

But I bet the numbers for Jackson and Sharpton are in the millions of people.

Let me ask you something 1337 Polaks.

Why do you want White Entertainment Television?

Why do you want White Pride Day?

Why do you want (or need) White History Month?

Why do you want a white-only organization to "advance" your life?

Why do you want a college fund that only gives white students scholarships?

Why do you want (or need) to march for your "race and rights?"

Why do you want high schools to have White-Only Clubs?

Why are you proud of being white?

Answer me these questions, and I'll consider giving you the glib answer yours deserves.

*snip*

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/racism
Racism -
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Hmmmm... looks like someone only knows one of the common definitions of racism. Also, if you look up more descriptive definitions you'll find why usage doesn't require the inherent superiority. The primary part of racism is that one belief that inherent traits associated with race are the primary factors in determining achievment.

I know you're actually very interested in furthering your education on this subject and must be thankful for my aid. You're welcome.

Well, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton believe that only white people and Jews are racist. But that doesn't mean that everyone else believes that.

Although I believe that a substantial number of people also believe that, or those men wouldn't have a career of being public figures.

Meh. You love to make things up and then allege they were said by Revs. Jackson and Sharpton.

Care to actually present evidence this time that your allegation is anything other than racist horseshit?

Meh. You love to make things up and then allege they were said by Revs. Jackson and Sharpton.

Care to actually present evidence this time that your allegation is anything other than racist horseshit?

What? No reply? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you. RO is usually so careful to support such thi... bwahaha. I'm sorry I couldn't keep my bearing.

Meh. You love to make things up and then allege they were said by Revs. Jackson and Sharpton.

Care to actually present evidence this time that your allegation is anything other than racist horseshit?

I'd love to see you document him saying "racist horseshit." Meaning please show us where he posted something that claimed one race was superior to another

I find it both amusing and troubling how many people can blithely/blindly reply to the original post without bothering to read everything else written. Not that I'm demanding attention; I'm just pointing that out.

You don't honestly think there were no social repercussions from legalized racism, do you?

I have no idea how you could possibly have derived that conclusion from my post when I said nothing about social repercussions or alleged "legalized racism". My point from the paragraph you quoted still stands, regardless; if minorities can't let go of these supposed social repercussions, it stands to reason that they haven't given much thought to forgiveness.

I find it both amusing and troubling how many people can blithely/blindly reply to the original post without bothering to read everything else written. Not that I'm demanding attention; I'm just pointing that out.



I have no idea how you could possibly have derived that conclusion from my post when I said nothing about social repercussions or alleged "legalized racism". My point from the paragraph you quoted still stands, regardless; if minorities can't let go of these supposed social repercussions, it stands to reason that they haven't given much thought to forgiveness.

They aren't supposed and forgiveness does little to address them. Way to blame the victim, though. My cousin had a hard time "letting go" of her rape experience as well. How dare she?

What? No reply? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you. RO is usually so careful to support such thi... bwahaha. I'm sorry I couldn't keep my bearing.
What, we don't recall the "Hymietown" episode? Then he piled it on by claiming that the Jews were out to defeat him.

Sharpton is such a clown that I'm amazed anyone takes him seriously. Brawley, Crown Heights, Freddies, and many other episodes have all led up to that conclusion.

What, we don't recall the "Hymietown" episode? Then he piled it on by claiming that the Jews were out to defeat him.

Sharpton is such a clown that I'm amazed anyone takes him seriously. Brawley, Crown Heights, Freddies, and many other episodes have all led up to that conclusion.

Um... what does that have to do with the claim? Or do you want us to take this "evidence" and extrapolate something they don't actually support and that doesn't have anything to do with the claims.

I'll help you remember. Here is the claim "Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton believe that only white people and Jews are racist." That Jackson or Sharpton ever said anything racist doesn't prove, support or even remotely suggest that the claim is true. So do you have an actual evidence that they believe this or does the losing side, um, I mean, your side rest?

What, we don't recall the "Hymietown" episode? Then he piled it on by claiming that the Jews were out to defeat him.

Sharpton is such a clown that I'm amazed anyone takes him seriously. Brawley, Crown Heights, Freddies, and many other episodes have all led up to that conclusion.

I had little respect for him to begin with.
After the Mitt Romney-related comment that got relatively little buzz, I lost what little respect I had.

Um... what does that have to do with the claim? Or do you want us to take this "evidence" and extrapolate something they don't actually support and that doesn't have anything to do with the claims.

I'll help you remember. Here is the claim "Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton believe that only white people and Jews are racist." That Jackson or Sharpton ever said anything racists doesn't prove, support or even remotely suggest that the claim is true. So do you have an actual evidence that they believe this or does the losing side, um, I mean, your side rest?

It's an impossible statement to prove. That word _only_ makes it so. It's clear to anyone with a shred of common sense that Sharpton and Jackson consider whites and Jews to be racist, as well as demonstrating that they are racist, themselves.

Yeah, I've been in jail for the last couple days because I got into it with four Mexican guys who didn't like me because I had a minor fender bender with one of them. They see me almost a month later, jump me, and I kick all four of their asses. Then, when the cops get there, I got arrested for a hate crime!

And you know what it took to get me out? A black man, an asian woman, and a native american indian who had seen the whole event and backed my side of the story.

It's an impossible statement to prove. That word _only_ makes it so. It's clear to anyone with a shred of common sense that Sharpton and Jackson consider whites and Jews to be racist, as well as demonstrating that they are racist, themselves.

Jackson's comments were twenty years ago. He has since admitted they were wrong and apologized.

Meanwhile, it's not impossible. If one is to claim that they believe racism is limited in that way, there must be support. Have they ever said or suggested that black people or other minorities could not be racist? Or you just want us to accept that because one makes some racist comments 20 years ago, and he did make some, that he must necessarily believe that racism is reserved to whites and Jews?

Yeah, I've been in jail for the last couple days because I got into it with four Mexican guys who didn't like me because I had a minor fender bender with one of them. They see me almost a month later, jump me, and I kick all four of their asses. Then, when the cops get there, I got arrested for a hate crime!

And you know what it took to get me out? A black man, an asian woman, and a native american indian who had seen the whole event and backed my side of the story.

And this proves what? That cops make mistakes. Woah. No way. That sometimes people fight over stupid things. Woah. No way.

Meanwhile, did these people come up to you anounce their ethnicities? How do you know each of these?

I am a racist in that I acknowledge that there are differences between races. If there are differences in the appearance (skin colour, hair colour, shape of the nose, wha'ever), then why shouldn't there be differences in physical performance and psychological factors as well? 30% of the white population has an increased resistance to AIDS due to a mutation of the immune system that once helped to survive the plague. Thus, since the middle ages, this mutation became widespread everywhere the plague was - and that was Europe. We also know that people from North Europe are the tallest people on earth (average) and that people from West Africa are the fastest runners and that chinese have (on average) an IQ of 20% or so above that of whites. All that is prooven by either scientific research (in the case of the Chinese IQ), common sense, or both. Well, I acknowledge differences between races, but I don't necessarily discriminate. Everyone is the best at something, but noone is the best at everything. I hope the future with all its migration movements will bring us a merger of all races and cultures (and not the formation of subcultures) to create a truely superior race.

I am a racist in that I acknowledge that there are differences between races. If there are differences in the appearance (skin colour, hair colour, shape of the nose, wha'ever), then why shouldn't there be differences in physical performance and psychological factors as well? 30% of the white population has an increased resistance to AIDS due to a mutation of the immune system that once helped to survive the plague. Thus, since the middle ages, this mutation became widespread everywhere the plague was - and that was Europe. We also know that people from North Europe are the tallest people on earth (average) and that people from West Africa are the fastest runners and that chinese have (on average) an IQ of 20% or so above that of whites. All that is prooven by either scientific research (in the case of the Chinese IQ), common sense, or both. Well, I acknowledge differences between races, but I don't necessarily discriminate. Everyone is the best at something, but noone is the best at everything. I hope the future with all its migration movements will bring us a merger of all races and cultures (and not the formation of subcultures) to create a truely superior race.

The problem with racial lines, whether all that is accurate or not (I hold that it's not), is that they are arbitrary. There are far more effective correllations to use as determinants than race. That's the issue that most scientist have with drawing everything according to racial lines. It's ineffective and has virtually no predictive power. As such, it's not useful or scientific.

The problem with racial lines, whether all that is accurate or not (I hold that it's not), is that they are arbitrary. There are far more effective correllations to use as determinants than race. That's the issue that most scientist have with drawing everything according to racial lines. It's ineffective and has virtually no predictive power. As such, it's not useful or scientific.

Rather than the standard 5 levels of race used over the past 400 years, scientists find correlation having to do with regional adaptations over the past 10,000 years. Makes sense given the theory of evolution... what works better stays around.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/racism
Racism -
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Hmmmm... looks like someone only knows one of the common definitions of racism. Also, if you look up more descriptive definitions you'll find why usage doesn't require the inherent superiority. The primary part of racism is that one belief that inherent traits associated with race are the primary factors in determining achievment.

I know you're actually very interested in furthering your education on this subject and must be thankful for my aid. You're welcome.

I should have been more specific "before PC perverted the original defintion.." better now, wang ba dan?

Rather than the standard 5 levels of race used over the past 400 years, scientists find correlation having to do with regional adaptations over the past 10,000 years. Makes sense given the theory of evolution... what works better stays around.

Makes sense if isolation actually occurred, but the idea of racial purity is largely a myth. The most "pure" people we encountered in the Americas we nearly completely subsumed or destroyed. There are much more meaningful delineations that because people have put such a premium on race have remained largely unexplored. For example, they have done studies that chose other arbitrary lines, ones not demonstrating a particular evolutionary path, that give more meaningful correllation.

For example, if you take the population of IL and delineate by race, you might find indicators by race, let's say related to intelligence. They would be mostly broad in the same way general intelligence studies demonstrate. However, if I chose, let's say foot size and broke it up into an equal number of categories, you'd likely see similarly broad differences. It's a problem of methodology. Almost any arbitrary line can be drawn tacitly related to genetics and we'd expect to see these differences. You cite these difference as if they wouldn't be equally expected if I did them weight, or penis size or hand size or nipple size. No scientist would would accept such a loose relationship. This stuff has been discussed ad nauseum on this board and in scientific circles. The reason you're not seeing much of this stuff promoted is because it's simply not compelling.

I should have been more specific "before PC perverted the original defintion.." better now, wang ba dan?

Evidence. I see nothing that indicates that superiority is or ever was a requirement even before the existance of what you call PC.

Right now, you're relying on a fallacy. "Racism means this and anyone else who uses it differently is a dumbass. Oh, wait, the dictionary says they're using it properly? What I mean is THIS is the REAL definition and you guys aren't using the TRUE definition and THAT's why I'm right."

You know why it's called a fallacy?

Makes sense if isolation actually occurred, but the idea of racial purity is largely a myth. The most "pure" people we encountered in the Americas we nearly completely subsumed or destroyed. There are much more meaningful delineations that because people have put such a premium on race have remained largely unexplored. For example, they have done studies that chose other arbitrary lines, ones not demonstrating a particular evolutionary path, that give more meaningful correllation.

For example, if you take the population of IL and delineate by race, you might find indicators by race, let's say related to intelligence. They would be mostly broad in the same way general intelligence studies demonstrate. However, if I chose, let's say foot size and broke it up into an equal number of categories, you'd likely see similarly broad differences. It's a problem of methodology. Almost any arbitrary line can be drawn tacitly related to genetics and we'd expect to see these differences. You cite these difference as if they wouldn't be equally expected if I did them weight, or penis size or hand size or nipple size. No scientist would would accept such a loose relationship. This stuff has been discussed ad nauseum on this board and in scientific circles. The reason you're not seeing much of this stuff promoted is because it's simply not compelling.

Isolation DID occur... human movement is a new phenomenon.

Isolation DID occur... human movement is a new phenomenon.

Pardon? When? There was some isolation, but the "races" have been encountering each other for thousands upon thousands of years. That's a blink in evolutionary terms, but considering what a young species humans are, it's a huge chunk of the time homo sapiens have been on earth.

Pardon? When? There was some isolation, but the "races" have been encountering each other for thousands upon thousands of years. That's a blink in evolutionary terms, but considering what a young species humans are, it's a huge chunk of the time homo sapiens have been on earth.

A blink in evolutionary terms merits a blink of difference, which is mostly what we are discussing here.

And most people for most of the last of the past 10,000 years were sedentary, often not ever going more than a few miles from home.

A blink in evolutionary terms merits a blink of difference, which is mostly what we are discussing here.

And most people for most of the last of the past 10,000 years were sedentary, often not ever going more than a few miles from home.

You're being misleading. For a good portion of the time where they were sedentary they were also not geographically isolated. There is little evidence that man was that separated for that long. We were isolated because we moved. That's how man ended up in the Americas and such distant lands. Are you suggested man was not moving more than a few miles from home yet managed to get isolated across the world. You do realize that these two things wouldn't likely coincide, no?

And again, if it's little difference why is it meaningful at all, particularly more meaningful than say the size of a foot, or size of the head?

if it's little difference why is it meaningful at all, particularly more meaningful than say the size of a foot, or size of the head?

It really isn't... but once that conclusion is fully reached, it will help discount the possibility that racial segregation is even remotely scientific.

I should have been more specific "before PC perverted the original defintion.." better now, wang ba dan?

*looks at Oxford English Dictionary and finds same definition of word dating back to 1936*

You were saying?

I am a racist in that I acknowledge that there are differences between races. If there are differences in the appearance (skin colour, hair colour, shape of the nose, wha'ever), then why shouldn't there be differences in physical performance and psychological factors as well?

Meh. Race is a social construct with little or no basis in biology or anthropology.

Phenotypes do not correlate to significant differences between racial groups.

Meh. Race is a social construct with little or no basis in biology or anthropology.

Phenotypes do not correlate to significant differences between racial groups.

no no no. Don't correct him too early. He'll never learn that way.

well needless to say i am not about to read all 9 pages of posts but i read the OP and the last page of items. I was raised to treat everyone equally until otherwise proven wrong. That time was at Community College. I'll admit I am now more than slightly racist but I do know there is a difference between a black person and a ******, just as there is a difference between a white person and cracker/wigger. That difference. Frame of mind. A black person works hard, has just as many problems as a white person but prevails. A ****** and wigger start to have problems and find someone else to blame for their problems. I often times heard various blacks at campus complain that their free ride was ending because their grades dropped too low and they didn't know how they were going to continue on with college. It is called student loans jackass take some out. As to those that say Whites are the majority (for the most part i agree) goto a community college though and tell me how many white people you actually see there. I was a minority on my campus.

Now onto the Politically Correct bullshit, and that is just what it is too. If you were born in the US you are American. not asain-american, african-american, etc. If you keep it up i don't want to be called white, i am a euro-american damnit all now you better respect me for it.

Begin the flames WOOT :upyours:

Rule number two: Cynicism gets you nowhere.

Rule Three: Cynicism, in high concentrations and the proper catalyst, leads to the release British humour, leading to a cataclysmic explosion of epic, and apocalyptic, proportions in the minds of the posters.

NtL = Cynicism
Pw = Asshattery (Δn00b)
Lo = British Humour


NtL + PwLo ==(t3h intarnetz)==> PwNt + LoL

Well, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton believe that only white people and Jews are racist. But that doesn't mean that everyone else believes that.

Although I believe that a substantial number of people also believe that, or those men wouldn't have a career of being public figures.

What do you know? A day later and we've not seen hide nor hair of DK, I mean RO, I mean whoever you're pretending to be today, and not one shred of evidence for your claims. If experience teaches us anything, we'll see the same unsupported claim again in another thread, won't we?

why are only white people racist?

You call me:
"redneck" (http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?path=/Folklife/CustomsandLocalTraditions&id=h-552)
"hillbilly" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillbilly)
"slaker" not familiar with this one...
"Cracker" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracker_%28pejorative%29)
"Honkey" yup this one seems to be aimed at whites...
"Whitey" ditto
"Gringo" this means foreigner. so not racist. Example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gringogazette.PNG) of a foreign newspaper in mexico.
and you think it's OK.

But when I call you:
yeah this isn't offensive....
jiggaboo.
Kike (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Kike&searchmode=none) not racist to me.
sand ******. this racist??? never!
rag head. maybe because the term is specifically meant to be offensive?
towelhead. ditto
WOP. of course this is not racist! wops are white and its not racism it aimed at white people!
Camel Jockey. racist? just seems stupid and your saying arabs are backward.
Gook. an oriental person who is the ennemy.
******... duh?
slant eyes or Chink
you call me a racist. yes.

-You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you, so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghettos#United_States

-You have the United Negro College Fund.

I know, what a terrible insituation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Negro_College_Fund)

-You have Martin Luther King Day.

you have Lee-Jackson-King Day

-You have Black History Month.

I know! when it started you'd think that the mention of negroes working on the plantations would be enough! But not they wanted 1 out of 12 months dedicated to the topic. they need to learn they're place!

-You have Cesar Chavez Day.

eh? the guy founded United Farm Workers of America. Damn them farmers....

-You have Yom Hashoah

a day to remember the death of 6 million or so jews... You'd think having their own country would be enough. damn kikes

-You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi

errr.... christmas day anybody?

-You have the NAACP.

a group founded by honkeys, kikes and jiggaboos to combate racism and segregation...

-You have BET.

which is owned by Viacom. Damn does honkeys and kikes!! damn them to hell!

-If we had WET(white entertainment television) ...we'd be racist.

well are not most shows on US TV dominated by whitey? Maybe if the channel was owned by jiggaboos or rag-heads it would be acceptable?

-If we had a White Pride Day... you would call us racist.

your rallies don't seem as friendly (http://www.splcenter.org/images/imglib/I/ir111_na_warburg_200x253.jpg)

-If we had white history month... we'd be racist.

so what history gets covered for the other 11 months?

-If we had an organization for only whites to "advance" our lives... we'd be racist.

called the status quo. But honestly there are plenty of groups that help latinos get ahead, and other minorities. Most of these 'peoples' are white.

-If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships...you know we'd be racist.

and did'nt realise US colleges were dominated by non-whites.

-In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights. If we marched for our race and rights...you would call us racist.

White people can march for they're rights when they are segregated from all other groups and more or less second-class citizens. I'm sure then it will be ok.

-Did you know that some high school students decided to make a club for only the white students because the other ethnicities had them. they all got sent to court for being racist but the african-american, Latino, and Asia clubs were not even questioned.

white is not an ethnicity. Asia, a continent. Latino, everybody south of the US. african-american a small minority that has its own distinct culture within the US. I'm sure irish-american or german-american, or norwegian-american clubs exist in the US.

-You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.

them orange ones piss me of the most (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1jywlZG74o)

I am white.

and

I am proud.

me too.

But, you call me a racist.

well, yes of course

Why is it that only whites can be racists?

Now watch, I'll be a racist for posting this

So what? noone will re-post this for fear of being called racist.

if you think its true re-post it saying "You call me racist"

ok
you call me racist

Meh. Race is a social construct with little or no basis in biology or anthropology.

Phenotypes do not correlate to significant differences between racial groups.

Next thing you're telling me that blacks aren't black and whites aren't white, huh? There are obvious differences that no one would deny, but why then attempt to deny the presence of not-so-obvious differences? Isn't the absence of proof these diferences give to the human eye at first glance a bad argument for denying them?

Next thing you're telling me that blacks aren't black and whites aren't white, huh?

That is, in fact, the case.

Thanks for proving his point.

Next thing you're telling me that blacks aren't black and whites aren't white, huh? There are obvious differences that no one would deny, but why then attempt to deny the presence of not-so-obvious differences? Isn't the absence of proof these diferences give to the human eye at first glance a bad argument for denying them?

He didn't say differences don't exist. He said that the difference are not any more significant than any other completely arbitrary line through large groups of humans. And you're wrong, the burden of proof that your line is significant is on you. The evidence has been searched for and has always come up lacking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whites_Only_Scholarship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whites_Only_Scholarship

And?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whites_Only_Scholarship

Sounds fair.

Attention Whoring, but fair.

Arguably, however, I don't feel that BET is racist against white people. Black people, maybe...

Arguably, however, I don't feel that BET is racist against white people. Black people, maybe...

Well arguably BET makes black people look bad because the programming on there is just awful.

Well arguably BET makes black people look bad because the programming on there is just awful.

Indeed. Rap in general, methinks.

I think the powers that be are afraid of letting it get a foothold again. Even the smallest amount of "White Pride" might lead to Germany, Apartheid, or Klu Klux Klan like behavior. The fact is we are too good at being racist. There are still golf courses and country clubs in the USA that do still follow the "Old Ways". Sad but true.

All I got to say is if you like that way move south of the Mason Dixon line.

A lot of places are just barely in the 20th century as opposed to the 21th century which the rest of us are in when it comes to race relations.


For the other list add Rap artists who can be openly racist and sell millions of CDs. Besides most people don't even take "Redneck" or % er" as an insult.

Jeff Foxworthy made millions from the term.

Ah, yes it's the continuing adventures of "Sweeping Generalization Man"

Dude, seriously have you ever actually BEEN to the South? You're not making yourself look real intelligent with this post, bro.

Well arguably BET makes black people look bad because the programming on there is just awful.

Second that. Even Aaron McGruder of Boondocks fame goes after BET in his strips, and he usually reserves his ire for white conservatives such as Bush and Co. ( although he did check pretty hard on Alan Keyes one time)

The evidence has been searched for and has always come up lacking.

And that's what I deny. There are losts of scientific works that have brought up evidence but generally, because of political correctness or whatever, these tend to be pushed into a dusty, dark corner of the scientific community. And these differences are not so significant that you wouldn't be able to ignore them in everyday life (people lived happily for quite some time even without knowing that it wasn't ol' bro Zeus when there was a lightning. That comment might be rubbish, but it somehow is the same situation). And, come on, why on earth should racial differences be limited to the clor of the skin, or the shape of the nose?

And that's what I deny. There are losts of scientific works that have brought up evidence but generally, because of political correctness or whatever, these tend to be pushed into a dusty, dark corner of the scientific community.

There's evidence, I swear to god there's evidence. Obviously there msut be evidence because if there wasn't evidence then I'd just be a racist without any reason to actually logically back it up.

So you see, there has to be evidence. I just can't show it to you.

Hmmm. There are... tiny smatterings of rational debate in here.

But it's still mostly a troll thread. And we all know trolling is...

http://dagobah.tchmachines.com/~tpjzdd/gallery/Photochop/not_key_to_airpower