Black on White Crime Statistics

B

Bevo Incognito

5,000+ Posts
Mods, please take this down if it is not appropriate.


I wonder if we can have a dispassionate, non-partisan conversation about race, crime, shifting geographies, fatherhood etc....


I read this article re: federal statistics of black on white crime. These are the statistics and they are offered without commentary.


The Link



So I checked out the author's sources and they are legit.

I guess we can debate all we want as to whether or not the numbers are biased or prejudiced without ever knowing if they are.

According to the stats:

* Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites than vice versa.

*Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.



So my questions to the board are, assuming this data to be correct, what accounts for the discrepancies? Is it simply income levels and geography? Is violence an inherent function of poverty?

Is it simply that folks on the bottom rungs of society have less vested interest in preserving the status quo?



A friend of mine who is a judge looked at this article and said that, in her opinion and based on what she sees in her courtroom, she would say that not having a father in one's life is an even stronger predictor of the likelihood of violence than race.
 
I would like to see the poverty and single parent household variables included. I suspect this is most of the problem, but how much I don't know. There does appear to be an endemic cycle of violence in certain communities.
 
I have no doubt lack of a stable homelife contributes to this but we also know many many instances of a strong Mother/Grandmother who reared responsible young black men and kudos to them. We should clone them or study how they do it in the worst areas and against the odds

Is there any correlation between the number of single young black mothers and the existence of so many gov't programs?

If these programs did not exist would there be multiple chidren in one single mothers family? we know that part of the programs is information on and even free birth control products.
 
I heard the other day on one of the news shows that in 1980 something like 25% of black children were born to single moms. In 2010 it was 75%. If true, that is a big problem
 
gecko
That stat is apparently sad but true

here is an Oped from Wapo 2005. Rasberry is black. he partly blames the black church for softening its stand on girls have babies out of wedlock. which creates a new gneration of young men who won't be parents, but will father children

but the best come in last 2 paragraphs
"How to start the healing? Rivers and his colleagues hope to use their personal influence, a series of marriage forums and their well-produced booklet, "God's Gift: A Christian Vision of Marriage and the Black Family," to launch a serious, national discussion and action program.

In truth, though, the situation is so critical -- and its elements so interconnected and self-perpetuating -- that there is no wrong place to begin. When you find yourself in this sort of a hole, someone once said, the first thing to do is stop digging. '

6 years later it appears no digging has stopped.The Link
 
I wonder what those statistics looked like before the beginning of the the Welfare State and then again just before the beginning of the Great Society? I am afraid that our good intentions have put in place societal encouragement of the problem of fatherless homes.
 
I'm certain that there are plenty of other causes but any government program that contributes to or creates societal problems is extremely frustrating.

What if the government had just stayed out of the business of charity altogether?

I think African Americans and everyone else would be much better off today. Dependency is a vicious cycle.
 
The "problem children" that I usually see are born to a poor single mother then raised by day care. There is so much research out there that shows that kids learn to love and respect as an infant if not before. The little baby games that parents play with their children teach them how to make connections with other people. If that opportunity is missed, it is sometimes impossible to undo the damage. We go back and try to build those connections when they are older by having them play games that build connections the same way that a baby would to a parent but its not the same. Its sad, but when they show up in my class as a four year old, its often too late.

Kids that are raised with proper parenting often only have to hear "I'm disapointed" to be crushed because they value that connection so much. The kids that have never had that connection could receive any punishment out there from their parent and it would never have the same inpact.

The only answer is quality parenting from day one. The rest is just damage control.
 
Not sure this is the right thread to put this on but I have often thought about an answer to the problems that Larry and others are talking about. My solution sounds very drastic but it must be viewed from the perspective of the infant and not the mother.

If you are a single woman and on some form of govt assistence you are allowed one child. Everyone makes mistakes. But if you get pregnant again and are still on govt assistance, the child should be put up for adoption.

I know this sounds draconion, but I think it is the only way to break the cycle. I don't get it. Birth control is FREE. If you are single and on assistence with one child, your life is already very hard. Having another child makes it unworkable.

Again, from the kids perspective, I think this is actually a very decent thing to do.
 
I'll just add this to the conversation. I believe there are more poverty stricken white people in the country than blacks. I believe there are more white young men produced from single parent houses than black young men.

Understand, I don't have any numbers to back that up. It's based on the demographics (http://www.blackdemographics.com/), and an assumption that whites would outnumber blacks in this country in all socioeconomic rankings. I could be wrong, but I see a lot of poor single-parent white families, too.

I agree with everything Brothahorn has said on the subject. However, the demographics could be scewing the statistic quoted in the OP. It could be blacks are more likely to commit crime against whites than white on blacks because there are so many more whites.
 
Bronco, I think that we come from opposite sides of the political spectrum and yet I generally agree with you on this subject. I do wonder whether there would be enough people willing to adopt these kids? I also might tweak it to allow someone to keep their second kid provided they are sterilized. I don't understand how anyone on public assistance would want to have one child let alone have two or more. I just don't get this. My biggest responsibility as a father is to my two daughters. Period. I do not get parents who want to be sperm or egg donors. We as a society need to stop this.
 
According to "make it plain" left radio, you are racist for even bringing it up. Of course, they are inherently racist by making such statements..

Great post. Hopefully we get better discussion than my comment....
 
I wonder what these stats looked like before we amped up the War on Drugs. The WoD has criminalized and militarized certain sectors of the nation and no demographic has been hit as hard as the African American community.

The loss of manufacturing really hurt the AA community, as well. Not that it didn't hurt other racial demographics.

The fight for black dignity has been pretty rough on the community's collective sense of belonging and membership in the American project/experiment, etc. For generations education, most professional realms, ideals of beauty, etc., were largely defined by the majority as the realm of whiteness, with all implicit realms of blackness relegated to mostly unwanted or suspect positions. The black community has put up a good fight, but over the years ignorance and misperception or poorly predicated thinking has created pockets or layers or streams of interpretation that, within the black community, reject certain hallmarks of 'whiteness' as a pathological, in many ways self-preserving reflex. In this way there are cultural issues, i.e., collective perceptions and distrusts, etc., that command or insinuate that the 'white' way is not to be taken as it requires an ingestion of 'anti-black' sentiment,etc. Of course there is no such thing as 'white' or 'black' culture save in the impoverished minds of men. Then again, it is a world dominated by just such minds.

It's a web. Anyone who thinks that there is one issue or one problem that holds it all together is off and fooling themselves. The black American experience is like few, if any, other experiences in this country. It is a problem with this nation's history, not some simplistic set of will power failings or a jank in the field of matrimony. It's not even as simple or localized as a failure to embrace the 'American Way,' though there is something to be gained by addressing that dynamic.

We always want to reduce these problems to a word set that fits into a single definitive statement: 'The Welfare State breeds dependence' or 'It all went south when I stopped going to churck,' and on. The problems faced by the African American community are very tangled and complex, and, while I do not believe that government intervention is a the bulk of the answer at this point, the fact remains that government intervention was key in every facet of progress experienced by African Americans. There is a reason that African Americans tend to think it is natural to petition government. People aren't necessarily good and, though they have access to reason, they aren't governed by it in an abstract, principled fashion. It is usually ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo, if you know what I mean.lIt takes years to lead a people out of a swamp like the black experience in America.

Socio-economic status is still connected with race in particular ways in the US. Who knows when or if we will get beyond this issue. The New World, the colonies and the US constituted an overtly (de jure and de facto) racist nation for centuries. If you are going to buy into all of the rah rah about opportunity and equality in the US, you ought to at least embrace the fact that those who birthed that propaganda, along with each and every one of us in the present, have roots in that racist system. There was alot of purpose and planning and even 'scientific' effort behind it. The effects of that racism were meant to last, were meant to reverberate for as long as the country existed. That was the overt intent, the fabric of the plan which bored into all facets of life for centuries.

Think about it.

It would be weird if the situation amongst the poor black communities were different.

War on Drugs
Collapse of Manufacturing
Residuals from this nation's racist past and present (slavery through Jim Crow (often glossed over though much more influential on today's world) through the idea of a post racial America.
The collective mis-steps and pathologies of the AA community, which are mis-steps of an American community.
 
I do wonder whether there would be enough people willing to adopt these kids?
__________________________________________________

there is too much red tape to adpot kids in this country. it is so bad that all of my friends that have adopted kids had to go out of country. simply stated, its another example of a government regulation with good intentions that causes long term harm.
 
Perhaps some of the reasons single mothrs keep having childrens are that each time they have a child they get WIC,which is free food ( milk eggs, grains( ceeral bread) meat fruit) for both the child and themselves until the child is 5. You have seen the signs in grocery stores that indicate a food item is WIC. This is in addition to of course food stamps housing medical and cell phones.
so if you are from a single mother family this may be all you've known and to you it seems Normal
There is zero stigma to having a child out of wedlock.
Once you have had one do you really want to struggle to get ahead, by working and going to school or do you want to watch TV all day while your school age kids are out of the house, eating breakfast and lunch at taxpayer expense and bringing home a third snack/meal Or do you want to have to go to work?

We make it far too easy for them.

anectdotal but offers a picture of what it is like:
I was behind a pregnant Mother with an approx 1 y o and 3 . Each child qualified for WIC as did she plus they also got food stampsShe had a cart full. The check out person had to help her, explaining some of it qualified for WIC and some qualified for food stamps.
Her man was waiting at the door to help her load up the groceries into a new ( still hadpaper plates) SUV.

If there is a good reason to privide this mother or any women with free food for years and years plus pay for her to have more than one child I would like to hear it.

I know this is getting off topic a little but it illustrates where the system goes wrong and perhaps how young men end up angry at the very gov't that tries to help them.
 
Mich?
'So you think women in Texas are getting pregnant to get about $60 more per month in TANF?"

Do you think TANF is the only entitlement these women get?
really?
WIC, food stamps, TANF, housing, medical( health care vision dental etc), free meals at schools, cell phones.

and notice the jump from 1 child to 2 is $116 per month.

if you come from a home where you lived off gov't bennies I can see it would seem normal to you that the gov't owes you that.

Plus this topic is not limited to just Texas.Have you looked into what aid is available in Michigan? All aid. not just TANF
 
All I can offer is another anecdotal example of what is going wrong:

My wife was expecting last year. One of our co-workers was discussing the baby with my wife and asked my wife if she had filled out her WIC application. She was concerned with the prolonged process thta my wife might not get the approval in time. My wife explained to her that we made too much money for assistance to which the co-worker replied "Oh, you don't have to list your husband's income". Somewhat taken aback, my wife explained that she made too much money alone to not qualify for assistance. The reply to this was basically "Well, you won't be paid on maternity leave so you'll qualify." Puzzled by this (we both accrue a fair amount of leave) she asked what the co-worker meant as my wife had plenty of both vacation and sick leave to cover the maternity leave? The co-worker was shocked by this and asked my wife "Why do you save your leave? You should use it, not save it."

As others have said, when you're raised in a system of governmental benefits, it is really hard to convince yourself to give them up. In this case it appears it is so difficult in fact, that people work to fraud the system.
 
The Great Society programs were passed in part to deal with the ongoing disintegration of the black family, which was already well underway.

In 1969, one of Nixon's domestic chiefs, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, wrote a description of the disintegration of the black family and what might be done. He was denounced as a racist.

I went back and looked at the stats he used re illegitamacy, etc at the time and the white illigitamacy rate now is about what the black rate was then. The numbers on hispanics are worse and the blacks worst of all and getting worse.

The collapse of family life is not a result of welfare or race, there are other factors pushing it. The welfare state just makes the landing softer.

I would point to two factors: one, the glorification of hedonism that has been the pervasive theme in national life since the end of world war II. The two world wars basically undermined all the social verities and authority of society that existed before. You can't expect unbridled hedonism to not create a lot of unplanned children or a lot of recklessness re career choices.

Second, the nature of the economy makes employees fungible goods and easy to move around. The constant movement involved in a modern economy leads inevitably to the collapse of the extended family. And with it, the fallback safety for people who lose their jobs or have to take time off for raising kids, etc. The lack of extended family involvement in raising children made it easy for advocates of the welfare state to come up with solutions like childcare, kindergarten, etc to take care of the kids when the parents or grandparents were not available.

The liberation of women that began in World War II, when millions of them went to work for the first time, opened up new fields besides teaching and nursing to them, made the economy more productive and allowed women to survive without men, something that was very difficult before their movement into the workforce.

Crime among blacks is higher because they are at the bottom of the economic dogpile. There are reasons both cultural and historic for that but we are fools to not see that this situation is getting worse for many blacks and that it is extremely costly to society, as well as their victims.

I don't know if this is still the case, but way back when I was a felony prosecutor, most black victims were black, which was a huge drag on those who were trying to drag themselves out of the muck we whites had sentenced them to for the last few hundred years.

They got legally freed in the 1960s and many have made great progress. But the back part of their society is pretty dismal and not showing much improvement.
 
Buckhorn, that was very eloquent but sadly misguided. The fact is that the Welfare State has not created any improvement. Sadly it was well-intended money that made the problems much worse. Now we have a cycle of dependency and entitlement that was well stated in your post.
 
It is hard to fault LBJ for wanting to do something to alleviate poverty. He'd seen enough of it first hand both growing up and when he taught down in the valley for it to make a lasting impression on his psyche.

As strange as LBJ was in so many ways, I think that his motives vis a vis the Great Society were pure. It's just that he did not foresee the societal implications and economic eventuality as clearly as he should have.
 
I understnd all of the points made by Buck and others. I can readily agree that the plight of poor blacks is tougher than whites. We will almost surely disagree on the magnitude of those issues.

But, no one has been able to give any logical raeson why single black mothers on govt assistance keep having more babies. Just stop! Like I mentioned earlier, birth control is free. There is nothing about slavery that keeps black women getting pregnant today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top