On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 08:40:36 GMT, " bozak"
<___bozak1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>"waybackjack" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:46dd970d.23192390@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:11:39 GMT, " bozak"
>> <___bozak1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Way Back Jack" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:46dd42a4.1507437@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 00:26:37 GMT, " bozak"
>>>> <___bozak1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Way Back Jack" <chillin'@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>news:46dc98c1.43229890@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 23:14:11 GMT, " bozak"
>>>>>> <___bozak1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>my puppet says what?
>>>>>
>>>>>lol... whose benefit are you posting this **** for puppet??? i dont
read it,
>>>>>and i can asure you that no one else is... so either you are posting
it for
>>>>>your own benefit, or you just enjoy having me pull your strings...
:-)
>>>>>
>>>>>puppet posts next bs i wont be reading here______________________
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>_________________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>_________________________________________________________
>
>
In the United States, when it comes to race relations, much is said
about "White racism", which perpetuates the media-driven illusion of
Euro-Americans as a violent and threatening community to non-Whites.
However, this is a deceiving and prejudiced picture. A simple glance
at statistical data compiled on interracial crime shows that White
Americans are often targeted by non-Whites, while in contrast, they
seldom commit so-called "hate crimes."
Based on a victimization survey of the US Bureau of Justice, it is
possible to make a fairly accurate estimate of the magnitude of
interracial crime by converting into numbers the percentages given on
two statistical tables:
*Table 42- Distribution of single-offender victimizations, based
on race of victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender.
*Table 48- Distribution of multiple-offender victimizations, by
type of crime, race of victims and perceived race of offender.
We can also use some figures from the FBI UCR Crime re****ts. Such data
shows that in 2002, while there were, about 1,700 White-on-Black "hate
crimes", there were nearly 2 million Black-on-White crimes. Yet, while
the statistics for "hate crimes" receive extensive media coverage, the
statistics for interracial crimes are rarely mentioned. This is what
leads to a mistaken and stereotyped image of Euro-Americans and the
way they are perceived to relate to people of other races.
If one looks at interracial crime as a whole, Black-on-White crime
largely outnumbers White-on-Black crime. Oddly, while "White racism"
is often used to justify Black people's resentment and aggressiveness
toward Whites, White people are conditioned to believed that they are
not supposed to feel the slightest resentment for the ceaseless racial
violence of which they are the target.
While the Black community is presented by the media establishment as a
perpetually victimized group, facts & numbers show that the day of Jim
Crow's America are long gone. It is now Blacks who commit the most
crimes toward other racial groups in America, while European-Americans
are the most frequently targeted for interracial violence. Blacks are
safer today when they are amongst Whites than they are when they are
among their own community. The reverse isn't true for Whites.
Full Article With Statistical Charts
http://www.racismeantiblanc.bizland.com/005/06-02.htm
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/hatecrime.htm
ANALYSIS OF HATE CRIME Bias-motivated crime has unique
characteristics. As in hetero***ual rape, victims and offenders come
from different groups. Unlike rape, however, hate crime is reciprocal.
Each group can prey upon the other. Though not obvious, these singular
aspects incline the data in a unique way. The sizes of victim and
offender groups influence victimization rates in a way that is often
more significant than intrinsic group bias. Methods are developed for
interpreting hate-crime statistics. They are applied to recent FBI
data.
Would you believe that a black in the US is about 20 times more
likely to be a victim of hate crime than a white? This is not the
claim of a left-wing crazy. It comes from data in the 1998 hate-crime
re****t of the FBI. Data from the two previous re****ts yield about the
same odds. We will try to put the facts in perspective.
In 1990, Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics Act, requiring the
Justice Department to collect and publish annual statistics on crimes
that "manifest prejudice based on race, religion, ***ual orientation,
or ethnicity." To comply, the FBI collects data submitted voluntarily
by local law-enforcement agencies, and assembles them into an annual
summary re****t. Most of the analysis you will find here pertains to
the numbers found in these re****ts.
Anyone who has ****ed over Government do***ents, knows first-hand how
agencies can manipulate data to make a point. Crime statistics are a
good example, the treatment of hate-crime data being especially
egregious. The Justice department has wide latitude in how they comply
with the Hate Crime Statistics Act. Accordingly, it has bent the data
toward its own ends by omitting categories for ethnic offenders. Thus,
Hispanics cannot be hate criminals, only hate victims. When a Hispanic
commits a hate crime, he is counted as white. When he is a victim, he
becomes Hispanic. In this way the FBI pads the number of white
offenders. Despite this baggage we can learn much from the FBI data.
By focusing on victims, we can sidestep Justice Department attempts at
obfuscation.
Minorities suffer simply because they are minorities.
A blueprint for hate-crime data
In a nation of more than 270 million inhabitants, composed of
various ethnic, racial and religious groups, targets for hate crime
abound. Anyone inclined to commit a hate offense will have no trouble
finding a victim. The Census Bureau re****ts that as of July 1, 1998
there were approximately 223.0 million whites residing in the U.S.,
34.4 million blacks, 30.4 million Hispanics, 10.5 million Asians and
Pacific Islanders, and 2.4 million Native Americans, not to mention
Protestants, Catholics, Jews and Moslems. The target is enormous. For
practical purposes it is infinite.
If there are 1,000 hate criminals in an offender group, there will be
1,000 or more victims in the victim group. Regardless of the victim
group's size, 1 million, 10 million or 50 million, the 1,000 hate
criminals in the offender group will commit the same number of
offenses. For a given hate-crime proclivity, the size of the offender
group determines the number of its offenses. All things equal, a
majority group produces more offenders than a minority group.
Differential group tendencies not withstanding, a majority group
simply has more members.
The size of the victim group is also im****tant. It determines how well
the group absorbs the crime directed toward it. If a thousand crimes
are perpetrated against a group of one million and a like number
against a group of ten million, each member of the smaller group
suffers a tenfold greater risk. Consequently, with respect to hate
crime, minorities are at a double disadvantage having nothing to do
with differential bias. A large dominant group produces many
offenders, whose crimes must be borne by relatively few in a minority
victim group. In other words, minorities suffer simply because they
are minorities. This is a mathematical reality having nothing to do
with differential group bias. One should always view hate-crime
evidence against this backdrop.
Inverse square risk
For simplicity, assume a black and white universe. This is not too
bad a model for the US, because blacks and whites combine to form more
than 95 percent of the population. From our previous discussion, we
know the probability of a white being hate-victimized in a given year
is pro****tional to the black population and inversely pro****tional to
the white population. An analogous relation exists for the probability
of a black being hate-victimized.
Quadratic dependence on group size makes it the major determinant of
the black to white risk ratio.
Suppose our black and white universe contains NW whites and NB blacks.
Let pW and pB be the probabilities, respectively, of a white or black
being victimized in a given year. Assuming the average number of
victims per offender is constant across the two groups, we can write,
The quantities, kB and kW , are constants closely related to the
respective probabilities that a black or a white is a hate-criminal.
If there were one victim per offender, the constants would be
precisely these probabilities. We call kB and kW the black and white
hate proclivities, respectively. They are intrinsic group properties.
From (1) we can write the (per capita) risk ratio, pB /pW :
And we have the interesting result that the per capita risk ratio
varies inversely with the hate-proclivity ratio and also inversely
with the square of the group size ratio. Quadratic dependence on group
size makes it the major determinant of the black to white risk ratio.
As the disparity in group size grows, minority group members rapidly
become more vulnerable. At the same time, members of the dominant
group become safer.
In the special case where both groups have equal proclivities for
committing hate crime, kW = kB, and
That is, assuming equal hate proclivity, the per capita risk ratio is
the inverse square of the group population ratio.
We need to ask . . . not why the per capita risk ratio of blacks to
whites is so high, but rather why is it so low?
Equal hate proclivity hypothesis
We began by noting that a black in the US is about 20 times more
likely to be a victim of hate crime than a white. The actual figure
from the 1998 FBI data is 21.8. We can now correctly interpret this
observation. Because the Justice department skews the data by
excluding Hispanics from offender status, we cannot achieve the level
of accuracy we would like. However, we can come pretty close by
considering only victims and excluding Hispanics from the analysis.
The FBI includes hate crime against property in their tabulation, and
counts "offended" properties as victims. We consider here only crimes
against persons.
If you were one of the 195.4 million non-Hispanic whites in the U.S.
in 1998, there were 32.7 million non-Hispanic blacks potentially ready
to abuse you in some way and vice versa. For the moment assume that
racial and ethnic groups share equal tendencies to abuse members of
other groups. That is, if one in every thousand whites has this
proclivity, then also one in every thousand blacks or Native Americans
or Asians has it as well. We call this the equal hate-proclivity
hypothesis. Under it, we seek the relative hate-crime risk to groups
of various sizes. According to (3), under the equal hate proclivity
hypothesis, a black should have been (195.4/32.7)2 or 35.7 times more
likely than a white to be a victim of hate crime in 1998. Put in this
light, we see that in reality the relative risk of blacks (21.8 times
that of whites) was less than expected assuming no differential group
bias. In fact, the black risk was only 61 percent of that expected
from group size considerations alone. We need to ask, therefore, not
why the per capita risk ratio of blacks to whites is so high, but
rather why is it so low? The answer is simple: The equal hate
proclivity hypothesis is false.
Differential hate proclivities
We can calculate the hate-proclivity ratio from the FBI data. In
1998, excluding Hispanics, we find an observed per capita risk ratio
of 21.8, and from the census, a population ratio square, (NW /NB )2,
of 35.7. Then from (3), the ratio of hate proclivities, kB /kW is
35.7/21.8 = 1.6. That is, if blacks were 1.6 times more likely to
commit hate crimes than whites, the FBI data are explained.
If we also know the number of black and white victims, NVB and NVW ,
respectively, we can evaluate the individual hate proclivities. From
(1), the probability of a black being victimized by a white is kWNW
/NB . This quantity is also the rate of black victimization, or NVB
/NB . Consequently,
The FBI re****ts the number of hate-offenders by race, though the white
offender entry is inflated by the inclusion of Hispanics. For 1998,
the re****t lists 1303 suspected black offenders and 2084 suspected
white offenders. This yields a per capita offender ratio (B/W) of 1.7,
in reasonable agreement with the hate-proclivity ratio of 1.6. Table 1
summarizes these calculations for the three most recent FBI re****ts.
Hate-proclivity ratio
(kB /kW )
Per capita offender ratio
(black / white)
1998
1.6
1.7
1997
2.0
2.0
1996
1.9
2.0
Table 1. The hate-proclivity ratio compared with the per capita
offender ratio.
Church burnings
Between January 1995 and November 1996 the burning of black
churches in the South created a sustained news frenzy. By the summer
of 1996, Americans had been treated to over 2,000 articles in major
newspapers, many on the front page. Not to be outdone, church arson
lead all other stories in the TV nightly news.
Political types of various stripes chimed in. Ralph Reed, then
Director of the Christian Coalition, termed the arsons, "the greatest
outbreak of violence against the black church since the height of the
civil rights movement." Deval Patrick, assistant attorney general for
civil rights, proclaimed the fires to be "an epidemic of terror."
President Clinton, in one of his weekly radio addresses, recalled in a
now famous evocation, "vivid and painful memories of black churches
being burned in my own state when I was a child." (It was later
discovered that no black church had been burned in Arkansas during his
childhood.) Clinton called a conference of Southern governors to deal
with the burnings. He toured burned-out churches, once on his 50th
birthday. The press tagged along. Congress, not to be upstaged, passed
the Church Fire Prevention Act of 1996, making church burning a
federal crime.
Not everyone bought in. Michael Fumento, writing in the Wall Street
Journal, analyzed the data and found that much of it was spurious. He
showed that there had been no increase in church arson in the South
from 1990 to 1995. Fumento noted that in 1995, USA Today re****ted 45
arsons against white churches, compared to 27 against black churches.
He also observed that the 1996 figures were inflated by copycat
crimes.
Eventually, numbers began to roll in indicating that more white than
black churches had been torched. It did not make much difference to
some in the press. Paula Walker, vice president and news director of
WNBC-TV, reacted to the re****ts while attending a National Association
of Black Journalists convention in August 1996. She concluded that,
"There didn't seem to be much substantiation other than raw numbers."
.. . . while whites were being blamed for burning black churches, and
were drowning in their own guilt, the facts reveal a black was 5 times
more likely than a white to commit bias-motivated church arson.
We can put the Church-burning data under the microscope. Our foregoing
analysis, with some modification, is well suited to the task. Faced
with the fact that bias-motivated crime is only a small fraction of
total crime, hate-crime activists fall back on the position that these
offenses are underre****ted. But the charred ruins of a burned-out
church cannot go unre****ted. We include all the burnings in our
analysis, including copycat arsons. We also make the worst-case
assumptions, ascribing bias-motivation to an arson whenever there is
doubt.
We want to calculate, from available data, the hate-proclivity ratio,
kB / kW , as it applies to church burning. For this case it is the
ratio of proclivities of blacks and whites, respectively, to torch
each other's churches. People are the perpetrators, but victims now
are churches. We use asterisks to denote torched churches and write
from (4),
where N*W and N*B are the numbers of white and black churches,
respectively, burned between January 1995 and November 1996. Of the
298 incidents during this period, federal investigations found 43
percent involved black churches. About 2/3 of the arsons were
determined to be bias motivated. If the same fraction applies to both
black and white churches, its precise value is not im****tant.
The states where most of the burnings occurred were Texas, Tennessee,
South Carolina and Florida. Blacks make up about 20 percent of the
population in these states. Putting all the numbers into (5), yields
kB / kW = 5.3. That is, while whites were being blamed for burning
black churches, and were drowning in their own guilt, the facts reveal
a black was 5 times more likely than a white to commit bias-motivated
church arson.
Comments
Obsession with hate crime has spawned official subcategories of
offenses: anti-white, anti-black, anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native,
anti-Asian/Pacific Islander, anti-multi-racial group, anti-Hispanic,
anti-other ethnicity/national origin, anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic,
anti-Protestant, anti-Islamic (Moslem), anti-other religion,
anti-multi-religious group, anti-atheism/agnosticism/etc., anti-male
homo***ual, anti-female homo***ual, anti-homo***ual,
anti-hetero***ual, anti-bi***ual, and multiple bias. Each year when
the FBI publishes its hate-crime re****t, it lists about 8,000 of these
offenses. To put this in perspective, violent crime alone numbers
about 8 million annually. The overriding reality is that hate crime is
a tiny fraction of total crime. A 1960's observer propelled into the
future would surely think we have gone berserk.
Each year, when the FBI releases its hate crime re****t, the press and
other media take notice. Race bias is the favorite theme, though
anti-homo***ual acts are making a run for first place. Here are some
typical headlines.
(AP) FBI: Most Hate Crimes Racially Motivated and Directed at Blacks
(CNN) Whites commit most hate crimes
(Wa****ngton Post) Re****ted hate crimes are on the rise in the United
States, and African Americans continue to be victims of such acts more
often than any other group, experts said today
(Los Angeles Times) Racial Bias Tied to Most Hate Crimes in 1998, FBI
Says
Both FBI press releases and the media omit the singularly compelling
fact that hate crime is a minute fraction of total crime. Selective
exaggeration is not restricted to hate crime. An analogous pattern
emerges in the re****ting of AIDS. AIDS accounts for under 1 percent of
deaths in the US, less than from the respiratory diseases, bronchitis,
emphysema and asthma. When did you last see a bronchitis headline?
In its last complete National Criminal Victimization Survey (1994),
the Justice Department revealed blacks to have committed 1,600,951
violent crimes against whites. Only 15 percent of these had robbery as
a motive. We can safely infer that most of the rest had race as at
least a partial motive. Eighty-five percent of the attacks were
assaults and rapes. While blacks were committing these 1.6 million
crimes against whites, whites were reciprocating with 165,345 violent
offenses against blacks. Blacks, representing thirteen percent of the
nation, committed more than 90 percent of the violent interracial
crime. Fifty-seven percent of the violent crime committed by blacks
had white victims. Less than 3 percent of violence committed by whites
had black victims. In 1994, a black was 64 times more likely to attack
a white than vice versa. This is the real story of hate in America. It
is the media's well-kept secret.
###
|
