kimmy

You're right. Mea Culpa. I guess you've succeeded in clinging to the faint hope that Canada might have different figures, but you've provided little reason to think so. However, the statistics are certainly applicable to the US, and so the idea that white men seem to have little interest in black women in the United States certainly seems relevant in discussing the racial disparity in the sexual assault statistics. -k

Those figures have been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, and have been ignored primarily because they're off-topic, an obvious attempt to deflect the topic (think Dub bringing up the IDF in any thread discussing an atrocity commited by Islamists.) If you have a genuine interest in discussing those topics, I suggest starting a thread on the subject. It might be interesting to see peoples' reactions. I strongly suspect that the response will be, generally, a shrug. This information is referenced so often that it's more or less trite. You can tune in a US "profiler" type TV show and hear one of those statements every week. Suggest that whites are more likely to commit certain types of crimes? shrug. Suggest that blacks are more likely to commit certain types of crimes? controversy erupts. Even suggesting white men just aren't that interested in black women seems to be upsetting to some people. Personally I think it's interesting. -k

In Canada, "mixed race" would be included in the "visible minority" group, making the 4.9% statistic the equivalent American figure. -k

I hesitate to make this post because it could wind up sounding like an attack or an accusation, and that is certainly not my intent. With that said, I think the way you've written this portion of your post is a perfect example of why many people are worried about what could happen if assisted suicide is allowed: the way you've written this makes it seem like it is for the benefit of the family, not for the patient. Personally, I would have no qualms about assisted suicide if I could be certain that this is what the patient wants. However, the possibility that it could wind up being done to save discomfort to the family rather than out of respect for the patient's wishes is what I find unsettling. Again, I'm sure that's not what you were trying to express, Topaz, and I only quoted your post because the way you phrased that sort of sums up my concern that it might be done for the family rather than the patient herself. -k

(Rabble/Babble by any chance?) One of my co-workers had a long-time girlfriend (also a former co-worker) with a explosive temper. She would physically assault him, and because he is gentleman, he had no idea how to deal with her. His only response was to try to protect his face until she calmed down. I did not see any of her episodes, but I saw the damage on his face often enough to know he'd been beaten up; I never knew by who until one day when he'd been arrested. She attacked him on a public street, and he tried to restrain her; someone called the cops and guess which one spent the night in jail. I only found out it was her later when she was absent from work giving statements to the police. He has a permanent scar on his face due to her psychotic temper. Ultimately she dumped him, which I am very glad of. I am disappointed that I did not know what was going on sooner, and that I did not intervene. My gentle friend would have never raised a hand to her, but I certainly could have and should have. -k

ok: (cite for the 4.9% US figure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_m...reau_statistics ) 4.9% versus 3.2% is a significant difference. If Canadians are so open-minded and cosmopolitan, and Americans are burdened by their historical and cultural baggage, how do you explain the higher percentage of interracial marriage in the US compared to Canada? -k

Well, let's be realistic. When men and women meet, who initiates contact 90% of the time? Sure, there's exceptions (me, for instance. When I first met my former special guy of 6 years, I knew that was what I wanted and pursued it with kim-like vigor.) But it is men doing the "seeking" in the vast majority of cases. I know from experience that black men are not at all shy about approaching white women. I see nothing to indicate that white men are as outgoing about approaching black women, and I see nothing to indicate women of any race are very outgoing about approaching men of any race. Because Americans have had this conversation many times (out of necessity, perhaps) while Canadians are terrified of discussing race in any terms other than "paint with all the colors of the wind" type platitudes. American data has been referenced repeatedly in this thread due to a complete lack of any equivalent Canadian data. This thread is actually an offshoot of the "Hate Crime in Courtenay BC" thread, in which I posted American statistics regarding interracial violence in response to the notion being promoted in that discussion, which was of white people going about beating up minorities. I'd have loved to have Canadian stats, but such information is forbidden in Canada... it's too dangerous, we're not allowed to know. Someone invoked financial reasons (if blacks attack whites, it's probably because they're hungry or need cash, while if whites attack blacks it's because they're hateful nazi-types.) Argus, seeking to dismiss financial excuses from the equation, thought sexual assault would be a difficult crime to rationalize in terms of needing cash. -k

Your survey shows Canadians apparently are more supportive of interracial marriage as a group... and yet when it comes down to who's doing what... In 2001, mixed unions represented 3.2% of all people living in couples in Canada compared with 2.6% a decade earlier. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/0...040608b-eng.htm With the introduction of the "mixed-race" category, the 2000 census showed interracial marriage to be somewhat further widespread, accounting for 2,669,558 such marriages, or 4.9% of the total. ...like many other areas, Canadians do like to talk a good game. Historical baggage or not, Americans appear to be *more* open to interracial partnerships than Canadians. That statistic does nothing to support your claim, and for you to be waving it in my face suggesting it does indicates that either you're not that bright or that you think I'm not that bright. I know you're bright, Dancer, so I'm a little insulted that you'd think I'd be gulled by sleight of hand like this. Interestingly, the table in the wikipedia article for US statistics shows an identical result (of whites in interracial unions, 53% are male, 47% are female) yet still shows white women with black men 2.5 times more often as the reverse. Wait, how is that possible? It's possible because white men marry asian women far more often than white women marry asian men (another trend which anybody who's honest will recognize in Canada as well.) -k

Well, 4 more seconds could have turned up 2006 statistics, but who has that kind of time? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_m...reau_statistics I would think that American information would be relevant in discussing the American statistics in this thread. haha, you scoff at my use of American statistics, yet you had to go to the United States to find a 2nd example? I doubt the figures are very different for Canada, and I don't believe that *your* anecdotal information is any reason to think otherwise. Canada and the US may have different histories regarding race relations... but we share too much culture for things to be much different. I can't think of one good reason to think that Canadian white men are approaching black women in numbers that their American counterparts are not. -k

Eureka? He has not posted here since Stephen Harper became Prime Minister. He may have died, either of old age or of heart-attack resulting from election-related rage. Your little Globe and Mail survey makes no attempt to support your claim or dispute mine, so I hardly see it as a "Eureka". I did find this after about 3 seconds of Googling, however: Interracial Dating I suspect that this "cosmopolitan community" exists only within the walls of Chez Morris. -k

In Edmonton, I saw black men out and about with white women 10 times more often than I saw the reverse. Here in interior BC, there are far fewer black people, but the same trend is obvious. I don't have any statistics regarding interracial dating, but I'm highly confident that most people's anecdotal evidence says the same. (in other words, I think you're full of shit, Morris. ) -k

Boxing *is* dancing. -k

I think you've written about it yourself more than a few times, if unwittingly. I don't think there's a direct link between poverty and sexual assault. However, I think there's probably a pretty strong correlation between poverty and the fatherless home type situation. I also think there's probably a pretty strong correlation between fatherless home type situations and poor parenting in general. And I think there's probably a pretty strong correlation between poor parenting and youths being more likely to commit crimes of all descriptions. And I think there's probably a fairly strong correlation between poverty and the attitude of not knowing how to be a citizen, not caring to be a citizen, or simply not respecting the law or other people enough to even care. Canadien and Remiel asked me earlier on if I didn't find the gross racial imbalance in these statistics to be hard to believe. Frankly, I don't. There's two sides to it. First, white assailants being less likely to seek black victims. Well, does anybody find that terribly surprising? I don't know about you guys, but I see plenty of interracial couples of all descriptions with the exception of black women with members of other races. I hardly ever see a white man with a black woman, and I don't believe I've ever seen an Asian man with a black woman. To me, it seems likely that the reasons (whatever they might be) that black women are less likely to be partners in interracial relationships might also be the reasons they are less likely to be victims of interracial sexual assaults. Secondly, the idea that black people might commit a disproportionate amount of crime is also not terribly surprising to me, for socio-economic reasons that everybody is well aware of. -k

Wow, it took dub 4 posts to get to his first Israel reference. Is that some kind of record? -k

(if the "white" race doesn't exist, do any of the others? and if not, does this thread exist?) Am I reading this right? That if a person of color lashes out against a white person, it's probably a justified reaction provoked by the white person being an idiot or jackass? -k

Small point of order: his name is not Listor. He should be addressed either as Lictor (pictured, vertical) or as Liston (pictured, horizontal.) -k

To reiterate something I mentioned earlier, my real interest in this thread has been not in the question itself, but in the reaction the question generates. Whatever his motivations, Argus has created sort of a "Borat" type experiment. Overwhelmingly, the reaction has been: * "we can't discuss this because these statistics don't seem believable." * "we can't discuss this because the motives behind the question seem dubious." * "we can't discuss this because it is racist." * numerous attempts to deflect the topic to some other area of discussion * numerous attempts to deflect the topic with various types of flamebait. as well, * Lictor says "rock on, here's more examples of why the blacks are horrid people." * Oleg chips in with his surreal musings about the baseness of human nature. * and benny invents a new flavor of fortune cookie. Just two people, Tawasakm and Michael Hardner, have made an effort to approach question with an open mind rather than an effort to protect their preconceptions. I think that is a far more interesting statement about our notions about race than anything that can be drawn from these statistics. -k

Seeing a member of this forum using threat of lawsuits to intimidate other members of this forum is the saddest thing I have seen on this forum in my many years here. However, if that's the way things work, then we will all have to keep this new reality in mind. Accordingly, there are certain topics which I will no longer discuss on this site, and certain persons with whom I will no longer discuss anything at all. I encourage others to also be cautious here, as based on actions taken against members of other message boards, this does not appear to be an idle threat. -k

So this sort of discussion must be suppressed, then? We can't discuss race and violence because it might give the Lictors of the world fuel for their beliefs? The Lictors of the world already believe what they believe; hiding the statistics just fuels their suspicions, stifling this sort of debate just supports their belief that political correct society is afraid of what they have to say. People started with the assumption that the statistics are wrong, and have worked busily to find reasons to support that belief. They came up with... "black women are less likely to report sexual assaults" and "most sexual assaults go unreported." Which is flimsy for two reasons: Firstly, these aren't reports aren't complaints filed with police. These are survey responses, given in private interviews with census workers. The usual reasons why women choose not to report a rape to the police are far less compelling in this instance, when the women are having a confidential interview with a census worker rather than a police officer. The census worker is not going to administer a rape kit exam, nor make you testify in front of a court-room, nor charge you with filing a false report if he doesn't believe your story, nor most of the other reasons women avoid calling the police. Secondly, black women weren't actually less likely to report sexual assaults at all. They actually reported sexual assaults at a higher rate per capita than white women. The only difference here is the conspicuous lack of white assailants claimed. We've also heard "the year by year fluctuation of the numbers of reports is huge, which makes the whole thing really questionable." Well, the one thing that remains consistent every year: tens of thousands of whites sexually assaulted by blacks, while blacks being sexually assaulted by whites is too rare to be statistically measurable. We've also heard "the definition of rape/sexual assault used in this study is overly broad." True. But how does using an overly broad definition of sexual assault help conjure up these white assailants that are conspicuously missing? Dangerous? Of course not. But it's an obvious attempt to end the discussion of black violence against whites. I didn't have a problem with him mentioning it, I merely point it out as another obvious attempt to deflect the topic away from black violence against whites. -k

It was never about that. It was about the reaction that asking this sort of question creates. If you go through this thread, you'll see: -"the author of that article is obviously some kind of racist." -"these statistics can't be right." -"here are some vague, uncited statistics to refute the DoJ study!" -"well rape is bad, period. Why talk about the race of the attackers or victims?" -"it's racist to talk about this." -"oh yeah? wellll whites are more often guilty of pedophila!" (...serial killing is another one often used.) -"you're a Bad Person for even asking this question." Mention that pedophilia or serial killing are disproportionately white activities, and people probably won't even bat an eye or ask for evidence, or say anything bad about you as a person for making this remark. Mention that gang rapes and assault and homicide are disproportionately black activities, and people will dispute your information to the ends of the earth, and cast aspersions on your character, and try to change the topic to serial killing and pedophilia. hmm. As you point out, we in Canada aren't even allowed to have such statistics. We're not a brave people, as a nation, we're afraid of information that could be upsetting to us. You Americans are bold enough to compile this information... but apparently not quite bold enough to actually discuss it. -k

Not funny. Just sorta lame, and kinda messed up. What a stupid caption. I mean, hell, if you're going to do a "Joker" themed parody of Obama, I came up with a better caption in 6 seconds: "Do I really look like a man with a plan?" -k

Thank you so much. Yes, that is my interest in this topic (and the same goes for Argus as well, I believe.) I can't claim to have any particular insight into the causes of rape or why there might be a racial aspect to it. However, I'm very fascinated by the reaction that asking the question causes. The terms and circumstances under which people are prepared to discuss race seem to be entirely arbitrary... Three white knuckleheads attack a black man in small town BC and it's a national cause celebre. But native gang members in Saskatoon go around swarming white people on Canada Day one year? Filed under generic gang activity by the police, brushed under the rug, forgotten. Kate from Smalldeadanimals dared to mention that the attacks had racial overtones, and her blog got flooded by people threatening her with lawsuits, police, and the Human Rights Commission. Why is race so germane to the discussion of one incident, but utterly verboten in the other? Three white Duke University jocks are falsely accused of sexually assaulting a black woman, and it's international news, and the racial aspect of the story is a topic of national discussion. Sixteen black highschool students in Toronto are charged (and ultimately convicted and/or plead guilty) to sexually assaulting a white classmate over a period of 18 months, and the only reason we even know the race of the attackers and victim is that the parents of the accused went to the papers to cry racism. Look at any subsequent coverage of the incident, and not one word about race is mentioned. Why is race so germane to the discussion of one incident, but utterly verboten in the other? -k

You're banking on false reports and incorrect perception of race to explain a discrepancy of tens of thousands to practically none? -k

If you're concluding that inter-racial crime is actually rare and this wave of white hate attacks is complete fiction, then congratulations. But we were talking about interracial crime. The ice floes, remember? If we're putting people who can't play nicely with other groups on their own little ice-floe ... ...well, for every two people on the white-people ice floe, there would be 15 people on the black people ice floe. -k

Reputation is hot air, gossip, stories. I have hot air, gossip, stories too. What I hear is that in Western Canada, natives do a lot more "pitching" than "catching". I've personally been shoved and verbally abused by groups of natives while walking on Edmonton streets. A relative teaches in far northern Alberta, and states that the school staff are regularly threatened by native students and native parents. In Edmonton, people know to avoid north-end transit stations after dark... I did, actually. I said that if the disappearances of these women were hate crimes, I'd have expected all of the victims to be native. They're not. I'd suggest that these disappeared women are disproportionately native for the same reason that the vanished women of Vancouver's Downtown East Side are disproportionately native. These are crimes of opportunity, and for social-economic reasons that we're all aware of, native women are much more likely to be victims of opportunity. I don't think whites are going around attacking natives. On the prairies, white people are scared to even look at natives in case they've accidentally bumped into a group of Redd Alert members. -k