Why do Black men rape White women?

[CANADIEN]

I'm honestly at a loss to understand what you're saying. They clearly are straight from the Justice Department, yet still you insist they're not from the Justice Department.

You are at lost to understand what is being said, indeed.

Yhe NUMBERS are from the Justice Dept. But the Dept. of Justice is not saying they are numbers of rapes committed in the US. They clearly say they are the results of a survey of sexual assaults. Not the same thing. The specific numbers you are reporting are a SAMPLE from a survey on the PERCEIVED race of the offenders.

The numbers are NOT saying what you claim they say, but you don't care.

[CANADIEN]

Wow. This is almost a cliche'. And people wonder why we don't keep crime statistics by race. It's because people like AW are frantically doing their best, in their paternalistic way, to "protect" blacks, no doubt "for their own good". Just as they push hate crime legislation to protect minorities "because someone has to" and why they push affirmative action programs "on behalf of minorities" again, because they feel somehow obligated as superior human specimens, to patternalistically protect those poor little visible minorities - whether they want it, or asked for it or not.

I'm sorry, but I consider this whole attitude to be rank bigotry. Sure, I'm judgmental as hell. But at least I treat everyone the same, and hold everyone to the same standards, regardless of race or national origin. I won't excuse the behaviour of a Black man by patting him on the head and saying "it's okay, I know you darkies don't know any better".

The reason why the keeping of crime stats by race or ethnicity is controversial is that they will be used, even out of context, by bigoted people to demonize entire groups.

The claim that some poeple here are trying to protect minorities because "they don't no better" is so rdicolous that it belongs in Yuk!Yuk!, not in public debate.

As for the claim you treat everyone the same, excuse me while I laugh.

Edited August 3, 2009 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Wow. This is almost a cliche'. And people wonder why we don't keep crime statistics by race. It's because people like AW are frantically doing their best, in their paternalistic way, to "protect" blacks, no doubt "for their own good". Just as they push hate crime legislation to protect minorities "because someone has to" and why they push affirmative action programs "on behalf of minorities" again, because they feel somehow obligated as superior human specimens, to patternalistically protect those poor little visible minorities - whether they want it, or asked for it or not.

I'm sorry, but I consider this whole attitude to be rank bigotry. Sure, I'm judgmental as hell. But at least I treat everyone the same, and hold everyone to the same standards, regardless of race or national origin. I won't excuse the behaviour of a Black man by patting him on the head and saying "it's okay, I know you darkies don't know any better".

The reason why the keeping of crime stats by race or ethnicity is controversial is that they will be used, even out of context, by bigoted people to demonize entire groups.

The claim that some poeple here are trying to protect minorities because "they don't no better" is so rdicolous that it belongs in Yk!Yuk!, not in public debate.

As for the claim you treat everyone the same, excuse me while I laugh.

[Tawasakm]

Well, the very nature of this thread is directed at another agenda, not problem solving. That isn't your doing, but it is easy to broaden the domain to include other crimes that can be racially charged with statistics of our choosing.

If the issue is sexual assault, or just assault in general, focusing on "Black Men" and "White Women" has nothing to do with addressing "problems", except for those who have issues with "race".

I don't think my perspective on this is clearly understood. I will digress briefly. Some years ago when I was studying at the University of Western Australia I elected to take a couple of units in Aboriginal History out of interest. What was of particular interest in this course is that it wasn't history taught from a European perspective or from a european academic method but was, rather, taught from an Aboriginal perspective. We were taught some things about how Aboriginals viewed the world prior to European settlement, their history and various cultures (there were at least 250 distinct language groups for eg) and their perspective on events post 'first contact' and up to the present day. Alot of this was taught by Aboriginal scholars with various elders and others being guest speakers. This was important for providing something called context because they did go on to examine things from a non-Aboriginal perspective and contrasted the two. I was at the same time studying an anthropology unit which happened to focus on some of the same issues. The difference in perspective was interesting in so far as the anthropological studies inferred a level of victim status to Aboriginal people which they vigorously tried to remove.

In any event the more relevant part to this forum is the study of crime statistics. There are plenty of statistics around that show a disproportionate rate of substance abuse and crime (including sexual assaults and rapes) etc in many Aboriginal communites. Similar to this discussion there are plenty who leap onto the 'assumption bandwagon' and try to use this to impy that there is something inherently wrong or weaker in Aboriginal people and culture compared to others. The response of many Aboriginal groups to such statistics was to pursue them. They didn't deny there was a problem but they pursued the 'why' angle. Making sure to use plenty of independant researchers they collated more data and pursued the information trail wherever it led. In the end they are able to produce a good deal of information that says that the crime problem is related to a number of other problems - or to put it another way crime is an effect and x y and z are major causes of this effect. I believe its fairly well known that many Aboriginal communities have third world living standards and other problems (I probably should not go too far into any of it lest I be accused of thread hijack) at a level which is as disproportionate as the crime rates. Further research was, of course, not limited only to Aboriginal communities. They were able to link to any number of studies in other countries and communities which demonstrated the same links toward certain systemic inbalances and crime rates. They also had plenty of case studies which demonstrated how statistics change over a short time when certain barriers are removed from communities. Throughout all of this they monitored any other research and conclusions that others were undertaking and made use of them as well (even if they were negative to their cause).

Basically in the end they were able to use the crime statistics to assist them in purusing advocacy and human rights groups for support and in attempting to influence legislative processes. Never, at any point, did I hear anyone suggest that the crimes were not a problem or that they should be excused (I hear alot of racists take that angle when commenting on any Aboriginal studies into crime etc) but what they did instead was to acknowledge the problem and pursue its cause so that they could affect change for the better. Alot of the causes had nothing to do with Aboriginal people themselves while in other ways it was directly the responsibility of Aboriginals. As I keep saying they pursued it all and they had intelligent well backed up positions on how things need to be changed for the better. They did not always do well in arena of main stream debate since thats most often won in sound bites but their position with regards to approaching the government and other groups was enhanced by the attitude that it is better to take ownership of the statistics than it is to deny them. When AW suggests that many rapes go unreported that may be true but it is not that effective, I believe, in disarming racial angles. Someone like lictor can say, "I am operating from facts, you are operating from a suggestion which supports your preconceived notion". If you have a good body of research from a number of sources (many independent) which follows the statistics to their source then you are in a much better position disarm the radically racist element in any intelligent debate.

Quite aside from that I believe it is important to openly debate the ongoing nature of racism and race relations and perceptions. There are some here (Argus and Kimmy) for example who are making a case that there is a contrast between the media created perception of violence and oppression from whites to blacks and the actual reality. They may be right. If it is the case that there is a perception of greater violence and victimisation than the reality warrants then it should be confronted and debated. A false perception of such things would only fuel increased tensions needlessly. I believe their point (perhaps without them even being aware) is being completely lost by overtly racist drivel from folks such as lictor. I believe that both Argus and Kimmy are highly intelligent people who are honest in pursuing their view point and I think the point they raise is a valid one.

BushCheney2004 I said I would answer your earlier questions with regards to how I would pursue reasearch into the two examples of crime but i have managed to waste too much time in typing up my above digression. I can still answer it later if you wish me to but perhaps you understand where I am coming from now. Let me know.

[CANADIEN]

here's a nice heartwarming video of a mixed race household with a black father... (fast forward at 6:20)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?eurl=http://m...p;v=jGcAzX9E3qU

what an angelic, peaceable man... really the "violent misogynist black male" stereotype couldn't be further from the truth...

to all you liberals: this is the kind of thing you are creating, perpetuating and protecting...

Of course, any incident of domestic violence in an all-white couple is to be blamed on you for advocating race separation.

Edited August 3, 2009 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

fine black women? I've seen very few of those, usually I encounter the swarthy, loud, waddling colossi that reeks of baby powder and surrounded by her brood of runny-nosed ape-like children

After something like that, you wonder why about anyone knows that you are a racist.

[Tawasakm]

Fair enpugh.

That being said, you will excuse me if I have a problem with data that indicates that the number of reported sexual assaults where the victim is White and the attacker is considered to be Black is so low in the USA that it does not register statistically speaking. 1000, I would say "that low, really?". 100, I would say, "there is something wrong with the numbers". 10, I say "Excuse me?"

Problems with the data gathering methodology also provides direction to future research. If anything it adds impetus to the need to pursue the figures.

[lily]

I bet if there were an example of disproportionate crime, violence or abuse directed at Black women, though, or any visible minority, you'd be outraged about that.

I'm outraged by rape PERIOD.

Edited August 3, 2009 by lily

[lily]

To see a blonde haired nordic beauty leading by the hand some dusky hued denizen of the African jungle is rather astonishing... its an act of self hatred in a sense, it means that she hates her own traits.

And in the event that they engender offspring, it would mean having a baby with none of her features, which is odd, since one of the joys of child rearing is to see your traits perpetuated and preserved ... to have a miniature version of you.... mixed race couples can't ever have that.

Holy crap. You went from bad to worse.

I didn't think that was possible.

[CANADIEN]

I don't think my perspective on this is clearly understood. I will digress briefly. Some years ago when I was studying at the University of Western Australia I elected to take a couple of units in Aboriginal History out of interest. What was of particular interest in this course is that it wasn't history taught from a European perspective or from a european academic method but was, rather, taught from an Aboriginal perspective. We were taught some things about how Aboriginals viewed the world prior to European settlement, their history and various cultures (there were at least 250 distinct language groups for eg) and their perspective on events post 'first contact' and up to the present day. Alot of this was taught by Aboriginal scholars with various elders and others being guest speakers. This was important for providing something called context because they did go on to examine things from a non-Aboriginal perspective and contrasted the two. I was at the same time studying an anthropology unit which happened to focus on some of the same issues. The difference in perspective was interesting in so far as the anthropological studies inferred a level of victim status to Aboriginal people which they vigorously tried to remove.

In any event the more relevant part to this forum is the study of crime statistics. There are plenty of statistics around that show a disproportionate rate of substance abuse and crime (including sexual assaults and rapes) etc in many Aboriginal communites. Similar to this discussion there are plenty who leap onto the 'assumption bandwagon' and try to use this to impy that there is something inherently wrong or weaker in Aboriginal people and culture compared to others. The response of many Aboriginal groups to such statistics was to pursue them. They didn't deny there was a problem but they pursued the 'why' angle. Making sure to use plenty of independant researchers they collated more data and pursued the information trail wherever it led. In the end they are able to produce a good deal of information that says that the crime problem is related to a number of other problems - or to put it another way crime is an effect and x y and z are major causes of this effect. I believe its fairly well known that many Aboriginal communities have third world living standards and other problems (I probably should not go too far into any of it lest I be accused of thread hijack) at a level which is as disproportionate as the crime rates. Further research was, of course, not limited only to Aboriginal communities. They were able to link to any number of studies in other countries and communities which demonstrated the same links toward certain systemic inbalances and crime rates. They also had plenty of case studies which demonstrated how statistics change over a short time when certain barriers are removed from communities. Throughout all of this they monitored any other research and conclusions that others were undertaking and made use of them as well (even if they were negative to their cause).

Basically in the end they were able to use the crime statistics to assist them in purusing advocacy and human rights groups for support and in attempting to influence legislative processes. Never, at any point, did I hear anyone suggest that the crimes were not a problem or that they should be excused (I hear alot of racists take that angle when commenting on any Aboriginal studies into crime etc) but what they did instead was to acknowledge the problem and pursue its cause so that they could affect change for the better. Alot of the causes had nothing to do with Aboriginal people themselves while in other ways it was directly the responsibility of Aboriginals. As I keep saying they pursued it all and they had intelligent well backed up positions on how things need to be changed for the better. They did not always do well in arena of main stream debate since thats most often won in sound bites but their position with regards to approaching the government and other groups was enhanced by the attitude that it is better to take ownership of the statistics than it is to deny them. When AW suggests that many rapes go unreported that may be true but it is not that effective, I believe, in disarming racial angles. Someone like lictor can say, "I am operating from facts, you are operating from a suggestion which supports your preconceived notion". If you have a good body of research from a number of sources (many independent) which follows the statistics to their source then you are in a much better position disarm the radically racist element in any intelligent debate.

Quite aside from that I believe it is important to openly debate the ongoing nature of racism and race relations and perceptions. There are some here (Argus and Kimmy) for example who are making a case that there is a contrast between the media created perception of violence and oppression from whites to blacks and the actual reality. They may be right. If it is the case that there is a perception of greater violence and victimisation than the reality warrants then it should be confronted and debated. A false perception of such things would only fuel increased tensions needlessly. I believe their point (perhaps without them even being aware) is being completely lost by overtly racist drivel from folks such as lictor. I believe that both Argus and Kimmy are highly intelligent people who are honest in pursuing their view point and I think the point they raise is a valid one.

BushCheney2004 I said I would answer your earlier questions with regards to how I would pursue reasearch into the two examples of crime but i have managed to waste too much time in typing up my above digression. I can still answer it later if you wish me to but perhaps you understand where I am coming from now. Let me know.

I agree with most of your premise.

That being said, I will not comment on kimmy's position, as I haven't seen enough of her postings to form an oinion. Nut I have seen enough of Argus' posts on this and other subjects to conclude he is looking not for a solution, but for yet another way to demonized Blacks.

[CANADIEN]

Problems with the data gathering methodology also provides direction to future research. If anything it adds impetus to the need to pursue the figures.

Exactly. I want numbers that are based on a sound methodology. And that includes ALL aspects of the problem.

[CANADIEN]

Holy crap. You went from bad to worse.

I didn't think that was possible.

Keep reading.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I don't think my perspective on this is clearly understood. I will digress briefly. Some years ago when I was studying at the University of Western Australia I elected to take a couple of units in Aboriginal History out of interest. What was of particular interest in this course is that it wasn't history taught from a European perspective or from a european academic method but was, rather, taught from an Aboriginal perspective. We were taught some things about how Aboriginals viewed the world prior to European settlement, their history and various cultures (there were at least 250 distinct language groups for eg) and their perspective on events post 'first contact' and up to the present day. Alot of this was taught by Aboriginal scholars with various elders and others being guest speakers. This was important for providing something called context because they did go on to examine things from a non-Aboriginal perspective and contrasted the two. I was at the same time studying an anthropology unit which happened to focus on some of the same issues. The difference in perspective was interesting in so far as the anthropological studies inferred a level of victim status to Aboriginal people which they vigorously tried to remove.

In any event the more relevant part to this forum is the study of crime statistics. There are plenty of statistics around that show a disproportionate rate of substance abuse and crime (including sexual assaults and rapes) etc in many Aboriginal communites. Similar to this discussion there are plenty who leap onto the 'assumption bandwagon' and try to use this to impy that there is something inherently wrong or weaker in Aboriginal people and culture compared to others. The response of many Aboriginal groups to such statistics was to pursue them. They didn't deny there was a problem but they pursued the 'why' angle. Making sure to use plenty of independant researchers they collated more data and pursued the information trail wherever it led. In the end they are able to produce a good deal of information that says that the crime problem is related to a number of other problems - or to put it another way crime is an effect and x y and z are major causes of this effect. I believe its fairly well known that many Aboriginal communities have third world living standards and other problems (I probably should not go too far into any of it lest I be accused of thread hijack) at a level which is as disproportionate as the crime rates. Further research was, of course, not limited only to Aboriginal communities. They were able to link to any number of studies in other countries and communities which demonstrated the same links toward certain systemic inbalances and crime rates. They also had plenty of case studies which demonstrated how statistics change over a short time when certain barriers are removed from communities. Throughout all of this they monitored any other research and conclusions that others were undertaking and made use of them as well (even if they were negative to their cause).

Basically in the end they were able to use the crime statistics to assist them in purusing advocacy and human rights groups for support and in attempting to influence legislative processes. Never, at any point, did I hear anyone suggest that the crimes were not a problem or that they should be excused (I hear alot of racists take that angle when commenting on any Aboriginal studies into crime etc) but what they did instead was to acknowledge the problem and pursue its cause so that they could affect change for the better. Alot of the causes had nothing to do with Aboriginal people themselves while in other ways it was directly the responsibility of Aboriginals. As I keep saying they pursued it all and they had intelligent well backed up positions on how things need to be changed for the better. They did not always do well in arena of main stream debate since thats most often won in sound bites but their position with regards to approaching the government and other groups was enhanced by the attitude that it is better to take ownership of the statistics than it is to deny them. When AW suggests that many rapes go unreported that may be true but it is not that effective, I believe, in disarming racial angles. Someone like lictor can say, "I am operating from facts, you are operating from a suggestion which supports your preconceived notion". If you have a good body of research from a number of sources (many independent) which follows the statistics to their source then you are in a much better position disarm the radically racist element in any intelligent debate.

Quite aside from that I believe it is important to openly debate the ongoing nature of racism and race relations and perceptions. There are some here (Argus and Kimmy) for example who are making a case that there is a contrast between the media created perception of violence and oppression from whites to blacks and the actual reality. They may be right. If it is the case that there is a perception of greater violence and victimisation than the reality warrants then it should be confronted and debated. A false perception of such things would only fuel increased tensions needlessly. I believe their point (perhaps without them even being aware) is being completely lost by overtly racist drivel from folks such as lictor. I believe that both Argus and Kimmy are highly intelligent people who are honest in pursuing their view point and I think the point they raise is a valid one.

BushCheney2004 I said I would answer your earlier questions with regards to how I would pursue reasearch into the two examples of crime but i have managed to waste too much time in typing up my above digression. I can still answer it later if you wish me to but perhaps you understand where I am coming from now. Let me know.

Tawasakm Agreeded on all counts unfortunatly I fear it will be wasted on people like lictor but perhaps a few people will re-evaluate their position.

[bush_cheney2004]

....BushCheney2004 I said I would answer your earlier questions with regards to how I would pursue reasearch into the two examples of crime but i have managed to waste too much time in typing up my above digression. I can still answer it later if you wish me to but perhaps you understand where I am coming from now. Let me know.

Of course...context and perspective matter. Nevertheless, at least in the United States (and parroted by others as we see in this thread), the existing racial and gender paradigm is often warped by those with historical privilege and power to reinforce their own stereotypes and behaviors. One of the most famous examples in American political history involved presidential candidates and the release of a convicted felon (Willie Horton). His name is now synonymous with racial bogeyman baiting, regardless of the more relevant issue of felony convictions.

So called "black on black" crime in the US is a major urban problem, but some people are distracted with gathering statistical ammunition for their race laced arguments in the suburbs (or Canada).

[kimmy]

Quite aside from that I believe it is important to openly debate the ongoing nature of racism and race relations and perceptions. There are some here (Argus and Kimmy) for example who are making a case that there is a contrast between the media created perception of violence and oppression from whites to blacks and the actual reality. They may be right. If it is the case that there is a perception of greater violence and victimisation than the reality warrants then it should be confronted and debated. A false perception of such things would only fuel increased tensions needlessly. I believe their point (perhaps without them even being aware) is being completely lost by overtly racist drivel from folks such as lictor. I believe that both Argus and Kimmy are highly intelligent people who are honest in pursuing their view point and I think the point they raise is a valid one.

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

[lictor616]

Have you actually even seen ONE baby of a interracial couple? I have seen a few ones and have NEVER had any problem seeing the similarities between the little bundles of joy and their parents.

really? have you seen the offspring of Heidi Klum and that grotesque pock-faced baboon named "Seal"?

it looks like she's babysitting somebody else's kid...

and I,ve seen many mix raced kids, its very often difficult to link them up with their parents (especially the white ones)...

[lictor616]

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

well if you judge by the evidence (and there's more too) you'd have to concede that there is an immense double standard in the way the races are treated.

the conventional wisdom on "hate crimes" is that they can only happen to minorities

the conventional wisdom on "racism" is that ONLY non-whites are affected by it.

that's the bottom line: double standards applied along racial lines...

Why are only non-whites permitted racial advocacy and given the right to advance their OWN group interests (often at the cost of other group interests)? If whites would have a NAACP of sorts... it would be racist... but if your black... you get funded by the government.

the double standards are so patently clear. indisputably clear.

The reason why lefties like Canadien and others refuse to acknowledge it is because it undermines their religion of political correctness (which tells them that whites are somehow uniquely evil and have to atone for the sins of their race), it also makes them "racist" in the proper sense (dispossessing a race to favor another)...

People like Canadien would much prefer calling you or I a racist and simply ignore the glaring double standards I just outlined. Because they know that they are wrong, but don't want to admit it.

[Tawasakm]

Why is race so germane to the discussion of one incident, but utterly verboten in the other?

-k

Well I guess there could be several reasons. First there is what I would consider to be the normal angle of the main stream media - sensationalism. I don't know that they actually report many things very well at all since they seem to be driven by using sound bites which can garner a reaction for them. This can set the tone of a debate- un ultimately useless debate. Secondly I guess some people are as rigidly PC as others are rigidly racist. Thirdly, and this is the one I consider most important, there is an objection based on context.

This may sound a little silly to say but I will try to get my thoughts out. Going back to my example of the situation in Aboriginal communities. They did not arrive in this situation in a vacuum. They are historically underprivileged and those factors don't cease to affect the people simply because most of mainstream Australia's population are moving past the overtly racist attitudes of their forebears. Ignoring the fact that government records detail several plans to facilitate the departure of every Aboriginal from this life and that South African apartheid was based on Australian Government philosophies I will move on to something more specific. The stolen generation. There was a generation of Aborginal children which were forcefully removed from their parents. The idea was to raise them with white values and in a christian religion. While they couldn't be made white on the outside there was a view that they could be made white on the inside. Nowadays of course people would never countenance such a government intervention and there are policies to provide compensation etc for those who faced abuse (many did). The fact that this can no longer happen does not remove the affects of those past actions. If you travel into a remote Aborginal community now the scars remain. You don't have to try too hard to find people still alive who had relatives who were removed from their family and never seen again. You can find people who have returned to their land to try to rediscover their identity. The fact that so many people were forcefully moved around also interferes with land claims - since such claims require proof of continuous inhabitation for a long period of time many communities now have trouble providing such proof. Alot of these communities wish to maintain their link to the land and traditional living but modern agirculture has shifted the water tables and altered the natural ecosystem which makes that impossible. Attempts to make other economic use of the land is often hindered by lack of ownership (refer to the difficulty in proving continuous inhabitation). There can be a dearth of opportunities and a feeling of helplessness which has largely been caused by a long period of government policies and interventions. While the government and the people may no longer hold these views (you can see an example of the difference in the fact that in many problematic remote communities the white police are the ones making sure the children are getting meals and going to school while the parents are drunk or high - sixty years ago the police were more likely just to beat them) the situation that past views and policies has created is not so easily turned around. Aboriginal soldiers fought in world war two and returned to a nation where they still had not earned equal treatment or the rights of citizenship. As a people they have fought long and hard for their rights and after such a long struggle they are still miles behind alot of the mainstream population (which comes from a historically advantaged position). Its a hard situation. There is no doubt there are huge crime and substance abuse problems in these communities but it is off the mark to suggest that this is so because of the race of the inhabitants.

Alot of the people who object to these debates on race tensions do so on the basis that the context of the situation will be dismissed. They believe that people will say, "well since these things that happened in the past are no longer happening then there must be some problem with the people themselves - just look at the stats they are doing this to themselves!". I don't think it helps that the main stream media promulgates such one dimensional and empty attitudes to race relations. Your point that violence between whites and blacks is not being reported accurately needs to be pursued. If race relations and attitudes are improving or changing then we need to stay current with it. If there is a problem with crime or violence in an underprivileged group then that needs to be pursued with an open mind - and with an accurate understanding of both past AND present conditions. It is a mistake to live too much in the past but it also a great error to disregard it and view only the present.

Hopefully my view makes some sense to you.

[CANADIEN]

well if you judge by the evidence (and there's more too) you'd have to concede that there is an immense double standard in the way the races are treated.

the conventional wisdom on "hate crimes" is that they can only happen to minorities

the conventional wisdom on "racism" is that ONLY non-whites are affected by it.

that's the bottom line: double standards applied along racial lines...

Why are only non-whites permitted racial advocacy and given the right to advance their OWN group interests (often at the cost of other group interests)? If whites would have a NAACP of sorts... it would be racist... but if your black... you get funded by the government.

the double standards are so patently clear. indisputably clear.

The reason why lefties like Canadien and others refuse to acknowledge it is because it undermines their religion of political correctness (which tells them that whites are somehow uniquely evil and have to atone for the sins of their race), it also makes them "racist" in the proper sense (dispossessing a race to favor another)...

People like Canadien would much prefer calling you or I a racist and simply ignore the glaring double standards I just outlined. Because they know that they are wrong, but don't want to admit it.

I wonder what is the most laughable. Your continuous intellectual dishonesty (attributing to others opinions they do not hold, or contrary to what they have written), or the fact you believe anyone can fail to see the obvious (and stupid) racism in comments such as:

grotesque pock-faced baboon

[Argus]

The reason why the keeping of crime stats by race or ethnicity is controversial is that they will be used, even out of context, by bigoted people to demonize entire groups.

I see no evidence of this happening. People question the veracity of these statistics, perhaps, but if the methodology used is scientifically improper then change it. But we can learn a lot about problems of communities and groups through such statistics, which is why we keep them for natives - for example.

Do people use the statistics to claim Blacks are far more violently inclined than Whites? Sure. Is that out of context? No. Would people somehow not know without the statistics? We know perfectly well in Canada that Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime, especially street crime, we just don't know quite how disproportionate, so are left to speculate based on what media reports we happen to catch.

For example, I caught, just in passing, entirely by accident, a statement in the Citizen that more than half the youths in custody in Ottawa were Somalian. What does that say for the adults in custody? Are more than half of them Somalians, too? Just how many in custody are immigrants? We don't know because the government only keeps statistics on immigrant crime while they remain immigrants. The moment they get citizenship - 3 years after landing - they're no longer considered immigrants and so we don't know what crimes they may or may not have committed. That leaves us without much guidance in selecting immigrants.

The claim that some poeple here are trying to protect minorities because "they don't no better" is so rdicolous that it belongs in Yuk!Yuk!, not in public debate.

It's absolutely true. I've said it before, my realization of this kind of patronizing bigotry goes back to the apartheid days. There was some big conference of governments involved in the fight against apartheid taking place in a "front line state" and some reporter had the temerity to ask why, if everyone was so concerned about human rights violations in SA, nobody was saying a thing about the human rights violations in the "front line states" which were arguably as bad if not worse. The Foreign Affairs spokesthingee hemmed and hawed and made noises about them being "young states" and "learning" and that we had to "be patient" with them and hope that "in time" ...blah blah blah blah. Translation: "You can't seriously expect us to hold them to the same standards as we do White people!

As for the claim you treat everyone the same, excuse me while I laugh.

I think I've demonstrated over some years here that I consistently treat fools like fools and express equal contempt over group behaviour without regard to the colour of their skin or their religion. You, on the other hand, have a different standard for Whites - a high standard - and for non-whites - a fairly low, very tolerant, very patronizing standard, because, after all, what can you expect from them?

[Argus]

I agree with most of your premise.

That being said, I will not comment on kimmy's position, as I haven't seen enough of her postings to form an oinion. Nut I have seen enough of Argus' posts on this and other subjects to conclude he is looking not for a solution, but for yet another way to demonized Blacks.

I don't see any particular point in "demonizing" Blacks. I am an advocate of strict, harsh justice for criminals, esp violent criminals, and in that respect I do have an interest in dealing with the problem of Black crime. If, as in the US - and there is evidence this is the case - Black crime represents over half our violent street crime then someone ought to be dealing with the root causes of it. And again, I have posted this before on a number of occasions. I have also listed the cultural/sociological basis of why there is so much Black crime.

With respect to this particular thread, however, my interest, as I have stated, is in pointing out that all this furor about "hate crime" out west was ludicrously out of proportion to the actual incident, and the people who get so roused by it completely ignore Black on White violence every day. In fact, the same people outraged over the incident in BC, and demanding harsher "hate crime" punishments, are, by and large, the same people who oppose harsher punishments for violent offenders in general.

[Argus]

Of course...context and perspective matter. Nevertheless, at least in the United States (and parroted by others as we see in this thread), the existing racial and gender paradigm is often warped by those with historical privilege and power to reinforce their own stereotypes and behaviors.

Yes, the Republican Party you so strongly support being the primary home of such individuals.

[bush_cheney2004]

....I think I've demonstrated over some years here that I consistently treat fools like fools and express equal contempt over group behaviour without regard to the colour of their skin or their religion. You, on the other hand, have a different standard for Whites - a high standard - and for non-whites - a fairly low, very tolerant, very patronizing standard, because, after all, what can you expect from them?

Really?

Then point me to the post wherein you expressed such contempt for the higher incidence of pedophilia for white males.

I'm sure you hold that "group" to the same "standard"....LOL!

[Remiel]

In a related question, Argus, how do you suppose one could collect statistics on the ethnic background of offenders while countering the prejudicial effect that such collection might create? I mean, is the argument against racial profiling mainly because some think it racist itself, or because it is believed to create racism as a consequence?

[CANADIEN]

I see no evidence of this happening.

I see it every time you lump every members of a certain group. (remember the Muslims).

It's absolutely true.

Except for the fact that nobody here has held that kind of opinion.

I think I've demonstrated over some years here that I consistently treat fools like fools and express equal contempt over group behaviour without regard to the colour of their skin or their religion.

Thank you for pointing up that you treat all members of given groups the same. And some groups more often than other, I would add, and with a more than generous dose of prejudice added to the mix.

You, on the other hand, have a different standard for Whites - a high standard - and for non-whites - a fairly low, very tolerant, very patronizing standard, because, after all, what can you expect from them?

Edited August 3, 2009 by CANADIEN