Black Racial Violence against Whites.

[Bob Macadoo]

Actually I'm still unclear as to what the point of the post is. The premise seems to be that black-on-white attacks are a enormous problem that is kept under wraps by a cowed liberal media that is too fearful of being portrayed as racists (this despite widespread media coverage of the alleged "knockout game" for example). It's a premise that is inherently unfalsifiable.

You can't argue against a topic of collecting a couple anecdotes and claiming the downfall of society......you can only point out its absurdity and move on.

[Black Dog]

You can't argue against a topic of collecting a couple anecdotes and claiming the downfall of society......you can only point out its absurdity and move on.

Sure, but the fact that this stuff has been seized upon by white supremacists groups and so perfectly mirrors historical racial panics is at least worth pointing out.

[Guest]

You could argue it, but if it makes you uncomfortable, you could raise your blinkers, call it absurd, bring up white supremacists, and move on.

[Black Dog]

You could argue it, but if it makes you uncomfortable, you could raise your blinkers, call it absurd, bring up white supremacists, and move on.

Or you could contribute nothing of substance to the conversation, as you've done here, and move on. Seriously though: move on.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Black Dog

[kimmy]

Is it really that hard to figure out why that might be?

I can think of two explanations, the first being a sense of social responsibility and the second being cynical.

In the first explanation, the editors who make these decisions believe that they're doing the right thing by downplaying a racial aspect to crimes where whites are the victim. They don't want to fan racial tensions. In the second, it's about generating page-clicks and ratings and selling papers. As Mr Gest talked about, a "blatant racial aspect" is an "angle" that sells a story. But why not exploit this "angle" when whites are the victim? Fear of being branded racists would be my guess.

What's your view?

Personally I believe the "socially responsible" explanation falls flat, because if they were really afraid of inflaming racial tension they'd handle white-on-black violence far more cautiously. But they don't.

Which is more likely: the return of lynch mobs in retaliation for black-on-white crimes? Or rioting in predominantly black communities in response to white-on-black violence? I have a hard time picturing the return of white lynch mobs, but black anger is a powderkeg and media types seem to have no qualms about lighting the fuse to sell papers.

Sure, but the fact that this stuff has been seized upon by white supremacists groups and so perfectly mirrors historical racial panics is at least worth pointing out.

And I think an obvious media bias is just giving those people more ammunition.

-k

[Big Guy]

I think the issue is not the color of the combatants but if the reason for combat is the difference in skin color. A gang war between skinheads and rastafarians may be far more about turf protection and drug territory than about skin color. The reason for confrontations between people of different color and races may indeed be the prerogative of the media coverage to shape coverage of the event. Confrontations between people of different color or race which are caused because of the color or race sells more papers.

The top priority of any media outlet is to make money.

[Black Dog]

I can think of two explanations, the first being a sense of social responsibility and the second being cynical.

In the first explanation, the editors who make these decisions believe that they're doing the right thing by downplaying a racial aspect to crimes where whites are the victim. They don't want to fan racial tensions. In the second, it's about generating page-clicks and ratings and selling papers. As Mr Gest talked about, a "blatant racial aspect" is an "angle" that sells a story. But why not exploit this "angle" when whites are the victim? Fear of being branded racists would be my guess.

What's your view?

My view is that there's a enormous historical precedent for race-based attacks by whites on blacks by lynch mobs and organized hate groups. This history makes us more inclined to look for racial motives in w-b violence, whereas b-w violence is more often viewed through the lens of poverty and general criminality.

As to your ideas, the social responsibility thing is a fig leaf to be sure, but the fear of being branded a racist for highlighting b-w violence is both real and entirely legitimate, given that b-w crime has been and continued to be a popular talking point among actual racists. So what we have is a bit of a feedback loop where MSM may not play up the racial aspect of violent incidents to avoid being seen as racist. This is then seized upon by actual racists who disseminate tales of racial violence (the racial motivations of which are frequently exaggerated for effect) as evidence of both the craven nature of the MSM and the subhuman nature of blacks.

And I think an obvious media bias is just giving those people more ammunition.

It's amazing how things can seem obvious when you set out to look for them. As I said, the idea that there's a huge and rising rate of racially motivated b-w crime that is going unreported is inherently unfalsifiable, which is why all we have is cherry picked anecdotes.

[Argus]

Didn't say he wasn't intelligent....that's what makes the things that come out of his mouth scarier.

Why? Does it cause you to reassess some of the silly things that come out of yours?

I have no idea what the hell you people are on about as if there's two people here who disagree and have disagreed for a very long time on almost every issue more than BC and I it would be hard to find them.

[Argus]

Actually I'm still unclear as to what the point of the post is. The premise seems to be that black-on-white attacks are a enormous problem that is kept under wraps by a cowed liberal media that is too fearful of being portrayed as racists (this despite widespread media coverage of the alleged "knockout game" for example). It's a premise that is inherently unfalsifiable.

The widespread coverage doesn't mention that virtually all the perpetrators are Black and virtually all the victims are White.

Because White victims don't matter. Only Black victims matter, and they only matter when the perp is White.

If Michael Brown had been white and the cop had been Black we never would have even heard of the case. When Blacks brutally attack Whites, even targeting them specifically because they're White, it gets ignored, but every time there is even a remote suggestion that a Black victim was targeted by a White person it makes national news for some reason. Maybe that's because Black on White crime is so common while White on Black crime is so rare... even though White society is so very racist...

[Argus]

You can't argue against a topic of collecting a couple anecdotes and claiming the downfall of society......you can only point out its absurdity and move on.

I seem to recall posting national crime stats. Would you like to see more?

[Argus]

Notice how the Mail has to figure a way to soften the headline somehow...

Police hold black men responsible for more than two-thirds of shootings and more than half of robberies and street crimes in London, according to figures released by Scotland Yard.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1290047/Metropolitan-Police-crime-statistics-reveal-violent-criminals-black--victims.html

[Black Dog]

The widespread coverage doesn't mention that virtually all the perpetrators are Black and virtually all the victims are White.

It's not even been proven that the "knockout game" is an actual trend (again, as opposed to the type of anonymous street crime that has always been common in urban areas). Do you really think these things don't happen with regularity in a black-on-black context? Blacks are twice as likely to be victims of violent crime than whites. Most of the perpetrators in these incidents are black. Whites are far more likely to be victimized by other whites.

Because White victims don't matter. Only Black victims matter, and they only matter when the perp is White.

If Michael Brown had been white and the cop had been Black we never would have even heard of the case. When Blacks brutally attack Whites, even targeting them specifically because they're White,

The incidence of which can neither be proven or disproven.

it gets ignored, but every time there is even a remote suggestion that a Black victim was targeted by a White person it makes national news for some reason.

"For some reason"

Maybe that's because Black on White crime is so common while White on Black crime is so rare... even though White society is so very racist...

White society has plenty of ways to do violence to the black community without resorting to individual acts of violence (though its always kept that option in its back pocket).

I'm still trying to see what your point is, other than parroting rationalizations for racism that are out of step with actual crime trends.

Notice how the Mail has to figure a way to soften the headline somehow...

Police hold black men responsible for more than two-thirds of shootings and more than half of robberies and street crimes in London, according to figures released by Scotland Yard.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1290047/Metropolitan-Police-crime-statistics-reveal-violent-criminals-black--victims.html

Yeah, those bleeding heart liberals at The Daily fucking Mail are at it again with their bullshit "context." SMDH

Edited September 16, 2014 by Black Dog

[cybercoma]

I can think of two explanations, the first being a sense of social responsibility and the second being cynical.

In the first explanation, the editors who make these decisions believe that they're doing the right thing by downplaying a racial aspect to crimes where whites are the victim. They don't want to fan racial tensions. In the second, it's about generating page-clicks and ratings and selling papers. As Mr Gest talked about, a "blatant racial aspect" is an "angle" that sells a story. But why not exploit this "angle" when whites are the victim? Fear of being branded racists would be my guess.

What's your view?

Personally I believe the "socially responsible" explanation falls flat, because if they were really afraid of inflaming racial tension they'd handle white-on-black violence far more cautiously. But they don't.

Which is more likely: the return of lynch mobs in retaliation for black-on-white crimes? Or rioting in predominantly black communities in response to white-on-black violence? I have a hard time picturing the return of white lynch mobs, but black anger is a powderkeg and media types seem to have no qualms about lighting the fuse to sell papers.

And I think an obvious media bias is just giving those people more ammunition.

-k

Remember your post about "truck nuts"? Talking about black on white crime is like truck nuts. Oh I'm sure there are plenty of people with a completely unbiased and reasoned perspective on the situation. The problem is that most of the people who are incessantly ranting about this on the internet are not those people. They're the ones with the truck nuts.

[Black Dog]

I went back and reread the OP and noticed this:

That same year there were 142,000 multiple-offender violent crimes against “whites” by blacks–that is to say, a bunch of blacks got together and raped, robbed, and/or attacked a “white” person. What about group attacks by “whites” on blacks? The NCVS sample reported so few that the official figure was rounded down to zero. That’s right: a group attack by “whites” on blacks is so rare that the huge NCVS sample of 160,000 people came up dry.

If you don't follow the link, you'd think, damn, 142,000 attacks by gangs of blacks on whites is a lot! But wait: there were more than 308,000 attacks by gangs of whites on other whites. And there were 117,000 such incidents among blacks. All in all, "multiple-offender violent crimes against whites by blacks" constituted 15 per cent of all such crimes. Attacks by groups of blacks regardless of the race of the victims is slightly below the total for whites.

So why is white mob violence such a problem and when will the media start telling the truth about it?

[Black Dog]

And a big picture perspective on crime:

...the F.B.I.'s count of violent crimes reported to law enforcement has declined from a rate of 747 violent incidents per 100,000 people in 1993 to 387 incidents per 100,000 people in 2012, which is the most recent year for which it has published complete data. This reflects the fact that over this period, the homicide rate has fallen by 51 percent; forcible rapes have declined by 35 percent; robberies have decreased by 56 percent; and the rate of aggravated assault has been cut by 45 percent. Property crime rates are also sharply down.

And yet...

half of all respondents to a recent YouGov poll suggested that the violent crime rate had risen over the past two decades.

So, people's perception about violent crime is very much out of whack with real life trends. I wonder why?

[Argus]

I went back and reread the OP and noticed this:

If you don't follow the link, you'd think, damn, 142,000 attacks by gangs of blacks on whites is a lot! But wait: there were more than 308,000 attacks by gangs of whites on other whites. And there were 117,000 such incidents among blacks. All in all, "multiple-offender violent crimes against whites by blacks" constituted 15 per cent of all such crimes. Attacks by groups of blacks regardless of the race of the victims is slightly below the total for whites.

So why is white mob violence such a problem and when will the media start telling the truth about it?

First, as pointed out in one of the cites, the FBI has, up until now, classified Hispanics as 'white'. It's well known that Hispanics, due to a variety of fairly well-recognized socioeconomic reasons, are responsible for an enormous amount of violent crime in the US. Second, whites SHOULD be responsible for the majority of attacks. They are, after all, the overwhelming majority of the population in the United States. Further, the statistics do not distinguish between say, two guys beating up a third, and fifty guys running amok.

In any case, despite this what these numbers show is that one third of gang attacks on whites are from blacks and that NONE of the group attacks on blacks are from Whites. Despite this, even the suggestion of a gang attack or rape on a Black person by White men draws enormous national media attention, along with screaming denunciations from representatives of the Black community. Gang attacks and gang rapes of Whites draw no such conclusions or charges. Instead, the media and politicians go out of their way to ignore the races involved. Why is that?

Edited September 16, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

And a big picture perspective on crime:

And yet...

So, people's perception about violent crime is very much out of whack with real life trends. I wonder why?

How much out of touch is it? As we've discussed before, these statistics are of 'police reported crimes' and at least according to Stats Canada those who are victims of crimes are less and less likely to report them to the police, including crimes of violence like assaults and rapes. This is a trend which has continued through a number of years of large-scale national surveys.

[Argus]

Remember your post about "truck nuts"? Talking about black on white crime is like truck nuts. Oh I'm sure there are plenty of people with a completely unbiased and reasoned perspective on the situation. The problem is that most of the people who are incessantly ranting about this on the internet are not those people. They're the ones with the truck nuts.

I have no doubt you'd consider it that way, because you can't stand the notion of anyone saying anything unflattering about any identifiable group. You are likely the most politically correct person on this site, after all. But you are hardly mainstream in that attitude, however much it might agree with the mainstream media.

[Black Dog]

First, as pointed out in one of the cites, the FBI has, up until now, classified Hispanics as 'white'. It's well known that Hispanics, due to a variety of fairly well-recognized socioeconomic reasons, are responsible for an enormous amount of violent crime in the US. Second, whites SHOULD be responsible for the majority of attacks. They are, after all, the overwhelming majority of the population in the United States. Further, the statistics do not distinguish between say, two guys beating up a third, and fifty guys running amok.

In any case, despite this what these numbers show is that one third of gang attacks on whites are from blacks and that NONE of the group attacks on blacks are from Whites. Despite this, even the suggestion of a gang attack or rape on a Black person by White men draws enormous national media attention, along with screaming denunciations from representatives of the Black community. Gang attacks and gang rapes of Whites draw no such conclusions or charges. Instead, the media and politicians go out of their way to ignore the races involved. Why is that?

Asked and answered.

(But I'll elaborate anyway)

I don't think it's at all possible to view white on black crime without accounting for history and the more terrorism blacks endured from slavery through the Jim Crow era to relatively recent times. Very notion of white people attacking blacks brings to mind a endless parade of images of hangings, firehoses and firebombs and burning crosses that were used to enforce white supremacy. I know you're not ignorant of this history, but you're certainly being obtuse if you think there's not still baggage associated with these acts and how they are depicted.

How much out of touch is it? As we've discussed before, these statistics are of 'police reported crimes' and at least according to Stats Canada those who are victims of crimes are less and less likely to report them to the police, including crimes of violence like assaults and rapes. This is a trend which has continued through a number of years of large-scale national surveys.

What's more likely: that crime has actually gone down or that the enormous gaps can be explained by people not reporting serious crimes, which are in fact increasing?

It's possible some of the decline can be explained by less reporting (I'd be shocked if it was in the double digits percentage wise), but the idea that the real story is the opposite of what the numbers show is farcical.

I have no doubt you'd consider it that way, because you can't stand the notion of anyone saying anything unflattering about any identifiable group. You are likely the most politically correct person on this site, after all. But you are hardly mainstream in that attitude, however much it might agree with the mainstream media.

Given the rhetorical company you keep on this issue, I wouldn't be one to throw stones.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

Say, here's a thought: maybe there's a great many white-on-black mob attacks that are simply going unreported to police. prove me wrong!

[Guest]

Or you could contribute nothing of substance to the conversation, as you've done here, and move on. Seriously though: move on.

It wasn't me who brought up white supremacists, as you've done here.

Is that your idea of substance?

Seriously though, argue.

[Black Dog]

It wasn't me who brought up white supremacists, as you've done here.

And...?

Is that your idea of substance?

Seriously though, argue.

Hmm, I've posted several lengthy responses and gone back and forth with Argus in a civil manner. You've swooped in on his coattails like Chester the cartoon dog ("Get 'em Spike!") with your tiny drive by posts. It's pretty clear who's participating in the discussion and who's doing...something else.

[Argus]

I don't think it's at all possible to view white on black crime without accounting for history and the more terrorism blacks endured from slavery through the Jim Crow era to relatively recent times.

Sorry but I don't buy it. I don't think there's some kind of White institutional memory of such things. I know I don't even consider them. It's so far outside my mindset that I literally just can't imagine getting together with a crowd of people to lynch people. These kinds of things are too far back in history and too far away from me. Maybe it's different for liberal white media people down in the US, but I doubt it is for the average White American.

And I certainly don't think the memories of slavery (which I acknowledge didn't really end in the US south until WW2) are responsible for Black crime and violence against Whites either. I'm sure there's a lingering resentment and anger and frustration among the Black communities in the US (and elsewhere) but drugs, a culture of gangsta hip, and family dysfunction are a more ready explanation.

Given the rhetorical company you keep on this issue, I wouldn't be one to throw stones.

That's bullshit. Its like how all three major parties refused to even talk about immigration until the Reform Party came along, even though masses of Canadians had a lot of concerns with how it was operating. There's a collective blindness sometimes among the chattering classes, and they look aghast at anyone who dares to broach subjects they believe are settled or uncomfortable - be it abortion, the death penalty, or any issue involving race or immigration. That might stop the media from talking about these issues but the issues themselves are WIDELY discussed in bars, living rooms and at workplaces across the country every day by ordinary Canadians.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Argus

[Black Dog]

Sorry but I don't buy it. I don't think there's some kind of White institutional memory of such things. I know I don't even consider them. It's so far outside my mindset that I literally just can't imagine getting together with a crowd of people to lynch people. These kinds of things are too far back in history and too far away from me. Maybe it's different for liberal white media people down in the US, but I doubt it is for the average White American.

First: you're not a white American.

Second: it's not about institutional memory, it's about historical context for race relations. Jim Crow, segregation and lynchings are not some far off historical relics either.

And I certainly don't think the memories of slavery (which I acknowledge didn't really end in the US south until WW2) are responsible for Black crime and violence against Whites either. I'm sure there's a lingering resentment and anger and frustration among the Black communities in the US (and elsewhere) but drugs, a culture of gangsta hip, and family dysfunction are a more ready explanation.

That's a simplistic, overly reductionist way to look at things. Where did those things come from?

Slavery begat Jim Crow, begat segregation, which begat discriminatory practices in housing, education, employment, political participation, policing (see: the war on drugs), which begat poverty and family dysfunction. All of these things are interrelated and it all goes back to racism and the original sin of slavery, an institution which was in law 250 years and in practice for many years after it was abolished.

Oh and another thing: the popularity of rap music and the number of children born out of wedlock (a symptom of family dysfunction, though it should be noted that overall birthrates have dropped) have both increased considerably over the last 20 years. Yet crime, as I've pointed out, has plummeted precipitously in that same period. How does that factor in?

That's bullshit. Its like how all three major parties refused to even talk about immigration until the Reform Party came along, even though masses of Canadians had a lot of concerns with how it was operating. There's a collective blindness sometimes among the chattering classes, and they look aghast at anyone who dares to broach subjects they believe are settled or uncomfortable - be it abortion, the death penalty, or any issue involving race or immigration. That might stop the media from talking about these issues but the issues themselves are WIDELY discussed in bars, living rooms and at workplaces across the country every day by ordinary Canadians.

And the alleged growth of racially motivated black on white crime is WIDELY discussed by neo-Nazis and white nationalists. That's a simple fact. That variations on the theme might be talked about by ordinary folks doesn't mean there's any validity to it.

Here's some more: fears of black mobs, stoked by anecdotal evidence of such things, have been a common trope since the Civil War. And while it is true while black on white crime rates are far higher than the inverse, the rates of interracial violence are much higher still. In other words, a white person is far more likely to be assaulted, robbed, raped or murdered by another white person. So here's an idea: maybe people in the so-called chattering classes don't talk about this stuff not out of fear of making people uncomfortable or white guilt, but because these rationalizations for racism (and make no mistake: suggesting people are afraid of black people because of crime and that they are right to do so is rationalizing racism) are actually bullshit.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Black Dog

[cybercoma]

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2014/09/16/racial-disparity-in-imprisonment-inspire-whites-to-be-tough-on-crime/

The results suggest that white Americans are more comfortable with punitive and harsh policing and sentencing when they imagine that the people being policed and put in prison are black. The second study suggested that this was mediated by fear; the idea of black criminals inspires higher anxiety than that of white criminals, pressing white people to want stronger law enforcement.

Edited September 17, 2014 by cybercoma