The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Homicide Rates by Race, and the Mehdi Hasan Controversy
Mehdi Hasan, an MSNBC host, Tweeted:
"White people kill other white people at almost the same rate black people kill other black people & yet you never hear anyone complaining about 'white on white crime'. These aren't points of sage wisdom from Maher. They are classic racist dog whistles."pic.twitter.com/VZlCoqfet9
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) April 28, 2023
There's some controversy about the "reader context" reaction, but I think the reaction is factually correct and Hasan was mistaken. Here's a screenshot from the FBI statistics; they naturally have the usual set of imperfections, for instance excluding the many cases where "the offender age, sex, race, and ethnicity are all reported as unknown," but my sense is that they are the best data we have:
So while the numbers of white-on-white homicides and black-on-black homicides were virtually identical, the rate of black-on-black homicide was almost 5 times the rate of white-on-white homicide (since the black population in 2019 was indeed apparently about 1/5 that of the white population).
And of course it makes sense to compare rates (numbers divided by population) rather than raw numbers in this situation: If, for instance, someone told you that the city of Jonesville had 1/5 the population of the city of Smithville, but had the same number of homicides—saying nothing about race, but just transposing the numbers to geography—your reaction would probably and rightly be "Wow, Jonesville has a vastly more serious homicide problem than Smithville; if we care about saving lives, we should focus more on figuring out what's going wrong in Jonesville and how to fix it." The same logic applies to black-on-black homicide vs. white-on-white homicide.
(It also of course makes sense to focus on intraracial homicide within each group as a fraction of the total population of the group and not as a fraction of the total homicides in the group. Black-on-black homicides in that table are about 88% of all homicides of blacks, and white-on-white homicides are about 78% of all homicides of whites; but while that's a reminder that homicides are mostly intraracial both for blacks and whites, it doesn't negate the fact that intraracial homicides victimize blacks at a much higher rate than whites.)
So it hardly seems racist to focus on black-on-black crime, if one genuinely thinks that black lives matter: If the black-on-black homicide rate isn't sharply reduced, blacks will continue to be vastly more in danger of homicide than whites. Indeed, if one just focused on the similarity in raw numbers (hey, black-on-black homicides and white-on-white homicides are all a titch under 2600 per year, so the level of the problem is pretty much the same), that would be wrongful neglect of black victims. Again, if we saw two cities with the same raw number of homicides even though one had 1/5 of the population of the other, I would hope that we'd sit up and take notice, for the benefit of the endangered residents of the smaller city (with its fivefold higher homicide rate). Saying "nothing noteworthy here, move along" would be the error.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Don't try to confuse the issue with your stupid facts.
The democrats say that whatever white people do (except white democrats apparently) is wrong and/or evil.
Thus it must be so.
Yes. There's no real controversy. Blacks are 100 times more violent than whites. This isn't disputable.
Does anyone ever leave an event (or neighborhood) because there's too many white peoples there?
Are you asking white people or black people?
Everybody no matter their hue, I'm not a hue-ist
Then when you get answers, let us know.
And yet it was your demographic that traveled clear across country to shoot up over 100 people, killing 60 of them, for no reason.
Absolutely. I will leave a crowded white area in a minute. You all are known for mass shootings for no reason.
He was being truthful, the percentage of each race killing members of their same race is similar. However he is trying to convey it as if he was referring to percentage of deaths by race and that obviously is false.
Then again he may have been telling the truth meaning to only compare percent of how many race on same occur and other people twist it.
Regardless it pretty much reinforces the issue far too many black people are being murdered by black people; more than one is too many; and this also points out how few are actually murdered by other races.
Eeek!!! Facts!!!!!!
My Spidy Sense detects a Reverend Sandusky Post incoming, will likely include the words, "Klinger, Carry on, Betters"
I remember Reggie Jackson (Lefty BTW, and has a White First Name, Hispanic Middle Name, and Black Last name, that's why he was so messed up (HT M. Rivers, also Lefty) telling this story about how he got on an Elevator in Midtown Manhattan, with his Doberman, in the Elevator were 2 older women. He told his Doberman to "Sit" and the 2 women sat down....
Frank
A rather more detailed analysis here: On Race and Crime, a Counterfactual Narrative
The fact is that the black homicide rate, both black on black AND black on white, is crazy high. And yet the media are working hard to create the impression that blacks have a problem with white on black homicide, by utterly unrepresentative news coverage.
The goal seems to be to deliberately stoke racial hostility.
You make it sound as if national media neglecting the plight and tragedy of black communities in the grip of crime and poverty is somehow helpful to those communities. So, either they’re being ignored because they’re black so who cares, or when the figures are highlighted it tends to result in a outpouring of racism towards those communities, and everyone’s sick of that shit, or it’s a mixture of both.
Of course they also ignore the white communities with the same plight, but no-one tries to use them to say all whites are violent criminals.
"You make it sound as if national media neglecting the plight and tragedy of black communities in the grip of crime and poverty is somehow helpful to those communities."
Your ears are stuffed up with your ideology. I don't think what's going on is remotely helpful to those communities. But I don't think that pretending that the crime and poverty is externally imposed is very helpful. Crime and poverty are mostly a cultural affair, largely self-sustaining. Once they get going they don't NEED to be externally imposed.
No, I'm saying that the media are, deliberately, avoiding mention of race where the killer is black, and accentuating it where the killer is white. Conspicuously so. And it's fomenting racial hatred and suspicion.
‘But I don’t think that pretending that the crime and poverty is externally imposed is very helpful’
What’s unhelpful is thinking there must be only one dynamic at play.
‘Crime and poverty are mostly a cultural affair,’
The fuck they are. That is, literally, fascist ideology.
‘And it’s fomenting racial hatred and suspicion.’
No, claiming black people are culturally and/or racially criminals does that.
"The fuck they are. That is, literally, fascist ideology. "
What the hell do you think "fascist ideology" means, anyway? "Anything I personally don't like!"?
No. It is an actual, recorded, identifiable ideology, and that some groups were racially and culturally prone to criminality and evil was part of it. Perhaps it has some origins in the beliefs of the KKK, where fascists got a lot of their racial stuff, if you prefer.
"Race" DNE "Culture". When will you get that through your head? The Nazis were racist, not culturalist.
The Nazis were racists. Part of their racism was claiming that lesser races had inferior cultures. Like what you're doing.
That's not what Brett is doing. Again, the fact that you think so says a lot more about you than it does about him.
'Crime and poverty are a cultural affair' says different.
Cultural, NOT racial. When Italian Americans paid the Mafia for "protection" money and ignored crimes within their community, that was cultural. When Irish gangs held sway in the 1850's in New York City, that was cultural. Last I looked, both of those nationalities were white.
The only one being racialist here is you, Nige. You're insinuating that black people all think the same, as though there aren't alternative examples all around. So maybe instead of letting your knee jerk, you try to objectively think about what's being talked about?
Somebody's gotta finish 3rd in the Race Race (get it?)
and how many black babies did Kermit Gosnell murder?? that would skew the stats a bit.
Weird, that's not in the Fascist Manifesto.
If fact, if you updated the language a bit you couldn't distinguish it from the current Democrat Party plank.
Oh man! You sound like a terrible woke leftist. Denying the fact that culture plays a significant role in black on black violence is disingenuous and groupthink/herd mentality that's typical of the Left. It's obvious black violence and criminality are normal in hip hop, which is black culture. It's not racist to acknowledge this. It's very true that the black community believes violence is the solution to solving their problems, and other racial groups are generally a little more reserved. Not to say whites, Asians, or Hispanics don't partake in violent crime, but it's not apart of their culture and celebrated like it is in black culture. I can agree it may stem from poverty, but it's mind-boggling it's a part of black culture, and Leftists choose to ignore it, and label someone racist for pointing it out.
All I know is that it’s only white people who will travel hours out of their way into the neighborhoods of another demographic just to murder them.
To say that a culture that promotes and encourages criminality causes crime is literally fascist!
Also, to say White people are literally violent devils because of their skin color is cold hard facts and science!
Sincerely,
Nige & other assorted bootlickers and shills
'Also, to say White people are literally violent devils because of their skin color is cold hard facts and science!'
What an arrant bald-faced liar you are.
Well violence can certainly be cultural, and saying that isn't fascist, and denying it isn't antifascist.
Clear examples of violent cultures of the past are the Aztecs, which fought wars for the express purpose of obtaining captives for human sacrifice. The Nazis themselves which built a culture of racial superiority to justify killing inferior races for Lebensraum.
The Taliban and ISIS and Iran which built on a religious culture and tradition of using violence to enforce rigid adherence to their version of Islam such as stoning adulterous women, executing gays by hanging in Iran, shooting in Afghanistan, and throwing them off buildings.
All those are examples of culturally nurtured violence.
Some people claim that gun owners are a "Culture of Violence":
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/americas-culture-of-violence
And it would be hard to deny that Gangster Rap doesn't help instill a culture of violence in our inner cities.
https://hwfo.substack.com/p/real-talk-about-race-and-murder-rates
Seems to mostly be a "single mother" issue, correlatively.
"no-one tries to use them to say all whites are violent criminals"
Good morning, Strawman.
As others correctly allude to - You can not solve a problem if you misdiagnose the problem.
What is common with the left wing media and the woke activists, they intentionally misrepresent the problem, thus inhibiting a viable solution. Nige - as other have pointed out, your ideology and narrow focus is a serious impediment to resolving the underlying problem.
I'm not the one narrowly focusing on culture while acting as if there aren't actual societal and historical root causes at work. If you want to blame a culture, try the culture of the whole US, which for most of its history has been overwhelmingly racist. Even then it's the racism intrinsic to systems and institutions that did the damage, and their lingering effects that persist even as culture shifts.
Nige - you just confirmed my point.
Yes, a history of systemic and institutional racism is proof that current crime/poverty rates disproportinately affecting blacks can't possibly be the result of systemic and institutional racism.
Nige – As I stated – you failure to understand the problem and the deliberate attempt to focus the blame elsewhere greatly impedes the ability to develop a viable long term solution.
Hint - the vast acceleration of crime in the black culture didnt start until the 1960's.
You, as you do, imperiosly come in and claim you have the insight, and everyone else is either super dumb or lying.
My dude, you don't have any special insight. On this, on Covid, on anything else. You have a story you have adopted, and are going to be a dick about regardless of anyone show evidence that you are wrong.
No, the Great Society is not the reason for black crime. For one thing: "the vast acceleration of crime in the black culture didn't start until the 1960’s" is wrong in 3 ways.
-Wrong (and vague!) about the timeline of crime accelerating.
-Reductive as to 'crime in black culture' does
-And it conflates correlation with causation, so even if you weren't wrong you have proven nothing.
It's a very tired take that welfare has corrupted blacks. One clue it's bullshit is that whites are somehow immune to this? GTFO, it's right-wing claptrap.
One clue it’s bullshit is that whites are somehow immune to this? GTFO, it’s right-wing claptrap.
Who's saying that? Talk about your strawman. Whites ARE corrupted by welfare. They have the same pathologies as blacks in the same conditions - high crime, drug use, kids born out of wedlock, fatherless families, etc. NO ONE is asserting that it doesn't affect white people in the negative.
We're talking about a matter of degree here. More blacks, as a percentage of their race, are on government aid than white people are (although that's also changing). Are you seriously going to argue against what's as plain as day and is right in front of you?
I think I'd pretty clearly switched from Joe_Dallas to the thesis in general
The GOP argues that black-on-black crime is a special issue for blacks, and that it's caused by the welfare state. They do not claim white-on-white is a problem in any class or locale.
So yes, plenty of folks say that.
One of my Dad's third career jobs in the late 70's/early 80's was working for the state social services agency. And one of his duties was inspecting the houses of prospective public assistance recipients ... to make sure no adult males lived in the house. If he found men's shoes in the closet or an extra toothbrush in the bathroom, no checks for Mom[1].
I get why they did it - the aid was supposed to go to single moms, and I expect the intent was to aid moms who had been abandoned/widowed/whatever. But the net effect was to put up strong incentives for Dad to leave. The downsides of that are obvious enough to be visible from space.
IC: "Whites ARE corrupted by welfare."
Indeed. I have white trash relatives. A dearth of melanin does not a saint make.
[1]these weren't his rules, they were the agency's rules.
First, you point to a single policy, not the broad initiative of the Great Society, as J_d is aiming at.
Tested programs (means tested or what-have-you) have incentive issues, which we've only really figured out in a broad sense in the past 20 years. Though IMO the current mania *against* means testig is going too far the other way.
It's a devil of a problem and I don't have a good solution.
Don't take me for saying the great society is perfect and great and that America is bad for not doing tons more of the same. I'm pushing back specifically at the thesis that the Great Society is the reason for 'crime in the black culture.'
"I’m pushing back specifically at the thesis that the Great Society is the reason for ‘crime in the black culture.’"
Well, I agree that 'is a reason' is likely more accurate than 'is the reason'. And as mentioned elsewhere, I'd change 'black' to, I dunno, 'welfare' or something, because the effects are color blind.
But. Crime doesn't pay all that well, cf. Freakanomics et al. If you have the option of A)punching a time clock at the meat packing plant every god dang day or B)going hungry, A is a pretty obvious choice. I have some personal experience here. But if you add C)collect a check - directly or by sponging off your girlfriend - and laying about, then you have a lot of time on your hands that option A doesn't give you. There are various things you can do with that time - there was a generation of Brit Himalayan climbers who used the time to do legendary climbs. But another thing you can do is take off the books part time jobs to get a little spending money. You could mow lawns, or get a paper route. Or you can do crime. The devil, they say, makes work for idle hands.
I'm not regurgitating Sociology 101 here; I've lived in high crime areas much of my life.
This isn't to say we should end all public assistance. But able bodied people being on public assistance long term is a very pernicious thing.
I still have some issues. You mentioned a badly situated program; the general idea that supporting the poor robs them of their virtue and makes them more crimey remains bad.
I also don’t love the analysis of humans as incentive-following creatures. They are shockingly not that when folks look. This is why punishment doesn't deter nearly as well as it should - no matter how many examples to the contrary, criminals often don't think they're gonna get caught!
It may be short-sighted, but crime can come from poverty through immediate necessity. I would tend to think that’s a smaller element than, say, drug use or alienation or mental health issues. But we shouldn’t elide it out of hand.
"the general idea that supporting the poor robs them of their virtue and makes them more crimey remains bad."
I don't think that supporting able bodied people temporarily is bad - we could all fall victim to a natural disaster, an industry upheaval, or what have you. It's when it becomes chronic that it is corrosive.
Another anecdote: a few years ago WA had an idea to do really intensive teaching of the most at risk kids - these were the kids that looked like they weren't going to meet even today's lax standards to graduate from high school. They were willing to pay for very small classes - my wife's had IIRC 7 students. These were high school seniors, ages 18 to 22.
At the start of the year my wife went around the room: "tell me about yourself and what you want to do with your life". One answer was kind of funny: "cosmetologist or astronaut". At least one was tragic: "I dunno, I guess get pregnant and go on welfare like my mom". That was, literally, the sum total of that young lady's life plan. Her mother and grandmother had both followed that plan. It was the only life plan she had first hand experience with.
That's a problem.
I won't argue that a permanent dole is pretty high cost, absent disability and social security.
But what is the alternative? You basically have a choice in implementation here - be overinclusive or be overinclusive. Overinclusive you have the corrosive issue, underinclusive you have the Depression/Dickensian England people dying and suffering who do not need to issue.
And you can't just be super careful, because of the perverse incentive means testing causes as discussed above.
When I was younger, I thought that the solution was to have all the value be provided via programs, not cash. But that turns out the inefficient and also just...kinda dehumanizing to people who are in need. Might be that's still the best way, but it's not costless solution.
There were some interesting programs just giving people free housing, but I'm frankly skeptical of their claimed results and generalizability.
Probably, you want a mix of means testing, general cash support, and institutional support.
"But what is the alternative?"
That's the question, for sure.
One point, I think, is that you can be pretty generous for a while - anyone could hit one of those potholes life throws at you, but when it drags on for too long (?a year? two years??) then it's time to start asking hard questions about what your plan is to become self supporting. You want to be asking that before being on the dole becomes a habit.
Since today is National Anecdote Day, NPR did a series some years ago. It was one of the periodic welfare reform pushes, and they did a several month series following a young mom from WV. The early episodes were all about how scared she was, she just didn't know what she was going to do, she had lived her whole like in that small WV town on public assistance, etc. The tone was very much 'how can we be so cruel as to tell her she has to find a job even if that means moving'. In due course she moved to NC and got a job at a chicken plant, which on a scale of 1-10 of job fun rates about a minus 3. But they followed up a few months after she moved, and she said she was happier than she had ever been: "this was the first Christmas I could buy the toys they wanted for my kids instead of getting whatever was being handed out" stuck in my mind. So in her case a little bit of tough love was a really good thing.
"When I was younger, I thought that the solution was to have all the value be provided via programs, not cash."
I'm kind of coming around to the notion that after some period, the very floor of public assistance is exactly that - you get fed and housed, in a way that's humane but also less attractive than working at the chicken plant. Single people get a room of double decker bunks, just like people in the military, families get a room. Both in a structured environment - if you aren't going to job skills class or a job interview you get up and sweep the floors or help in the kitchen or whatever. Sort of a modern analogue of a CCC camp. No one starves, everyone has health care and a roof, but getting a job at the chicken plant is attractive: you can pick your own menu and if there is a little overtime this week maybe celebrate with a beer.
So if the industry you work in is shuttered by foreign competition, or your region's economy implodes, no sweat, we'll help you out for a year or two in your current lifestyle, but if you haven't found a new gig by then you no longer are supported with cash, and have to live a more structured life.
If you want to blame a culture, try the culture of the whole US, which for most of its history has been overwhelmingly racist.
Utterly and completely wrong. And that does confirm the point that you can only see through your biased lens.
doesn't seem to affect Asians
Unless you think doing crime is some sort of racial trait, using these figures as arguments for anything other than where to focus initiatives to support communities and ameliorate poverty are dumb. Also, massive policing failures, easy access to guns, and the War On Drugs is an abomination. That these things affect blacks disproporionately is either proof they're all thugs, or is your cue to get woke about how it came about and why it persists. Pick a side. That lots of white people are actually in similar situations and what that means and why it came about and why it persists can be safely shuffled off and ignored.
'if one genuinely thinks that black lives matter'
Again, it depends on how you respond to those figures, but you should take it for granted that you have been ignoring black voices talking about crime in black communities for decades and are now claiming they've been silent all along.
That you only think this means "they're all thugs" says a lot more about your own biases and projections than it does about the people publishing the facts.
Yes, we should end the self-destructive "war" on drugs, yes, we have pervasive policing failures (but no, guns are not the problem) - and your inability to accept basic facts distracts you from the actual solutions into your own persistent race-baiting and professional victimhood.
That's kind of the opposite of what I'm saying, but if you think those figures aren't used by racists to do racism you mmust have a lot of Volokh commenters blocked.
Easy to access to guns might not be *the* problem, it is *a* problem.
"Easy to [sic] access to guns might not be *the* problem"
Legit members of those communities did not and to some extent still do not have easy access to guns. Constraints on that access were and are racially motivated. A fundamental plank of Jim Crow, that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to remove.
No, access to guns is not even a problem. To the extent that guns are part of the equation at all, it is the inability of law-abiding citizens to get and use them for the protection of themselves, their families and their homes and businesses.
I tend to think it's really a cultural issue, not a race issue. It's just that blacks disproportionately live in communities with broken cultures. But the whites in those communities aren't any better off.
I live in a mixed race suburb of Greenville, a middle class bedroom community, and our crime rate is quite low. So it's obvious that just being black isn't the driver here.
That's not a meaningful distinction, since poorer communities will have different cultures to richer communities by their very nature, and communitites with lots of crime will have cultures that reflect that. The idea that those cultures are 'broken' suggests you don't know what culture is. Communities can be broken, of course, and flooding them with guns and drugs, isolating them and generally neglecting them will do that, as were the deliberate policies of urban civic politics since migrations out of the South began.
WTF!
Shocking, isn't it?
See, this is the actual reason that the left can't solve crime problems: You can't admit that they're cultural in nature, and that, while some cultures function, others don't. You're committed to this insane notion that one culture can't be genuinely better than another.
We can’t admit it because it’s a pernicious and stupid lie that some people who are economically and socially comfortable and secure use to justify massive social and economic disparities.
‘You’re committed to this insane notion that one culture can’t be genuinely better than another.’
Culture tends to arise out of circumstances, both historical and current. You may not ‘like’ the culture, what you know of it, of inner city poverty, but you probably wouldn’t like to be poor and living in an inner city, either. You might not ‘like’ so-called (apologies) redneck culture either. Both those are ways people in difficult circumstances with difficult histories express themselves and share things in common as a community and find things to either be proud of or to rail against.
Cultural trends that arise out of poor commuities actually tend to be more vibrant, powerful and energetic than culture that arises out of wealthy communities, but wealthy communities will happily appropriate, sanitise and monetise them. Middle class and up, culture tends towards the stagnant and homogenised.
That would be you, Brett.
No, it's a pernicious and stupid lie that culture DOESN'T matter. When it's actually virtually the whole game.
You can call that sort of thing 'blaming the victim' all you like, but you can't save people who are dragging themselves down. You can provide opportunities all you like, but if people won't use them, they'll stay mired in poverty.
I didn’t say it doesn't matter. Culture is hugely important to people. I said it’s not deterministic.
‘You can provide opportunities all you like, but if people won’t use them, they’ll stay mired in poverty.’
Yeah, if the system of opportunitues offered to poor people isn’t working, it must be the poor peoples’ fault, not the system.
Not gonna Goodwin, but it is downright Victorian to say crime is a cultural issue.
Who cares if it's "downright Victorian"? I care if it's true.
Culture is everything for humans, if you care about average behavior. We start out damned near blank slates, and get written on by the people around us as we grow up, and that's culture. Individuals will act individually, but it averages out.
You could take a baby born tomorrow in the poorest, most violent society imaginable, and if they were immediately adopted into a family in a peaceful, productive society, that's how they'll turn out 95 times out of 100. And visa versa.
Yeah, the implication there is that it is untrue; a product of long-outmoded, simplistic thinking. Like they did back when social analysis was new.
Crime is not simple. Crime is not a single factor issue.
Culture, necessity, neurology, toxicology, the prison system…all are elements.
Culture is everything for humans, if you care about average behavior Reading economics and psychology out of the picture is good for simplicity, not for accuracy.
You could take a baby born tomorrow in the poorest, most violent society imaginable, and if they were immediately adopted into a family in a peaceful, productive society, that’s how they’ll turn out 95 times out of 100. Well, that’s a fine strawman if I ever saw one. Lots of factors that aren't culture are in your hypo here, if you care to examine.
Actually more insipid than a Godwin. The logic of a Godwin goes something like this. Nazis do X. Some group does X. Nazis are bad therefore that group is bad. This might or might not be correct depending on what X is. So while the logic is wretched, one might actually be lucky and say something accurate.
The Sarcastro logic runs like this:
Being unable to present actual arguments, we simply label the idea we don't want to think about by some cute name. Facist, Conspiratorial, Racist, Victorian, Equestrian, it really doesn't matter. What we need is a cute label. At this point we can relax the the eyes into the standard vacant state and drool, needing none of our brain and just a few assertions. Since everyone knows that anything associated with "cute label" is bad and wrong, the idea must be bad and wrong. There is no real argument about why the idea must be associated to "cute label" much less why this is a bad thing. That might involve routing both of the two functioning neurons "Moe" and "Curly" and they like their sleep !
Yes, those Victorians were so wrong ! We have a bunch of post-modern sociologists using critical theory to prove this beyond the shadow of a doubt. For Gods sake man, they are experts. You have to trust them !
Culture, necessity, neurology, toxicology, the prison system…all are elements.
Which of those elements could you remove from the mix that would have the most impact on reducing crime?
Well, that’s a fine strawman if I ever saw one. Lots of factors that aren’t culture are in your hypo here, if you care to examine.
How is that a strawman? Brett is directly responding to being called racist for suggesting that culture is the main factor in crime. He's addressing that by pointing out that it's NOT race.
You seem to be trying really hard to read into what he's saying here, without actually, you know, reading what he's saying.
“it is downright Victorian to say crime is a cultural issue.”
Can you explain this?
If you vehemently disagree with the statement, “crime is a cultural issue,” then you’re saying crime is NOT a cultural issue? How so? What is it as opposed to being cultural?
Seems to me, both sides would agree with the statement, “crime is a cultural issue,” where one side blames a culture that permits and encourages crime, and the other side blames an oppressive economic system or justice system or systemic racism that somehow results in crime. Either way is culture. As opposed to . . . what?
Being unable to present actual arguments, we simply label the idea we don’t want to think about by some cute name. Facist, Conspiratorial, Racist, Victorian, Equestrian, it really doesn’t matter.
Saying a take is from 130 years ago seems to send a pretty clear message as to it's flaws.
We have a bunch of post-modern sociologists using critical theory to prove this beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Well this is some fine ad-hominem bullshit. You accuse me of being facile with me labels, and you come in with this shit.
I Callahan - I'm not calling Brett racist (for this - he is an adherent to the Bell Curve and calls all the debunkings motivated reasoning). I'm saying his hypothetical is about a lot more than culture, it includes class and locale and pollution and infrastructure.
He thinks if it's not biology it's culture. That's simplistic. The Victorians conflated the two, so perhaps I got too fancy going there - at least he's not doing that.
ML - Crime has many elements, of which culture is one among many, another is structural racism. And the idea of 'black culture' is an incoherent one these days. I give some other examples of elements above.
The accusation that the left doesn't care about black-on-black crime because it doesn't agree with the right's easy take is just another shade of white grievance politics.
"culture is one among many, another is structural racism. "
Structural racism is a cultural thing, though. That's my point. Unless you think it's a genetic thing or something?
Anyway, pointless to harangue about "causes" which devolves into philosophy. Just lock up violent criminals of all races.
Herp, Derp, Lerp ! It's old and it conflicts with things you are motivated to disbelieve so it must be wrong ! That is some serious mental firepower there. Are we up for reevaluating the constant Pi or the irrationality of the square root of two ? Those are 2000+ years old so they must be really, really wrong !
Not so much and as usual you don't understand "ad-hominem". I suspect this went over your head you being you. This is not about me labeling someone as post-modern or a critical theory proponent as it is me laughing at the idiots such as yourself that use those labels themselves in some form of seriousness.
"This is not about me labeling someone as post-modern or a critical theory proponent as it is me laughing at the idiots such as yourself that use those labels themselves in some form of seriousness."
"It's not ad hominem because I wasn't making an argument" is not the burn you think it is, dude.
You are not good at communicating. Some name calling is OK, but your ratio is mixed way too hot.
Maybe I am amusing myself a bit much today, but my communication is just fine. What I am communicating is that your logic is ridiculous and your arguments consist of narrative labeling and assertion backed by nothing.
There are top shelf arguments, but you have successfully labelled yourself as the Bud Light of blog commenting.
"You are not good at communicating. Some name calling is OK, but your ratio is mixed way too hot."
Wow, talk about projection.
Nige 2 hours ago (edited)
Flag Comment Mute User
"We can’t admit it because it’s a pernicious and stupid lie that some people who are economically and socially comfortable and secure use to justify massive social and economic disparities."
Nige - you can never solve the problem if you refuse to understand the problem. Quit letting you ideology impede your understanding
No, culture tends to rise out of genetics, not the other way around. There's a reason that sub-Saharan Africa is the way it is.
Five times less murderous than black america? (See link posted elsewhere in these comments.)
We agree that poorer communities may have different cultures than richer communities. I would say “may have” in place of your “will have” earlier, as it is not a foregone conclusion that the culture will be different in a poorer community.
But why do you say that communities can be broken but not the culture of the community?
Because I don’t know what ‘broken’ means in terms of a culture. Culture emerges from community. If a community is broken, the culture will reflect that, but it’s still the community that’s broken.
Nige - again proving my point of your ideology from understanding the problem.
If you had a point you could make it, not just assert that you have one.
the point is that you continually fail to grasp the issue is culture and that you chose to assign blame elsewhere to dodge the underlying problem.
"deliberate policies of urban civic politics since migrations out of the South began"
Black crime is the fault of whites.
Profound!
Yeah, all those black people on city councils in control of zoning ordinances, infrastructure, resources, policing policies were what caused black neghbourhoods to deteriorate and inner cities to develop the way they did.
Blacks dominate the politics in most US cities, have for decades.
This is true. And things have overall improved dramatically in cities, crime rates have been dropping for decades, something discussions like ths lose sight of, me included. Let's hope that trend continues.
And things have overall improved dramatically in cities, crime rates have been dropping for decades, something discussions like ths lose sight of, me included. Let’s hope that trend continues.
Where on God's green earth is this true? Crime rates go up and down depending on who's running the city. I guarantee you crime is WAY up in a lot of major US cities right now precisely because of the culture of progressivism: no arrest for shoplifting, open drug markets, not charging many crimes, blaming the police for doing their jobs, etc. These are CULTURAL traits, by the way.
It is utterly delusional to think crime is down. Maybe Nige ought to spend some time in Philly or New York or Chicago right now.
Crime rates have been dropping for decades?? 50,000,000 aborted black babies will do that.
And whites dominate the politics in most desolate rural backwaters, where a depleted human residue -- a concentrating pool of ignorance, economic inadequacy, addiction, bigotry, superstition, indolence, backwardness, and resentment -- remains after generations on the wrong end of bright flight.
An interesting point is that immigrants could provide a desperately needed boost -- education, entrepreneurship, optimism, skills, drive, character -- to these emptying, declining rural stretches, yet the residents of these shambling communities tend to be xenophobic.
Eventually, the afflictions -- lack of education, lack of health care, lack of economic opportunity, lack of infrastructure -- will become so severe in these can't-keep-up communities that they will be forced to choose between immigration-fueled improvement and ghost town status.
Jerry!!!!!!!!!
welcome to the Race Pool, come on in!
"in control of zoning ordinances, infrastructure, resources, policing policies"
Getting warm.
Check the verb tense on his sarcasm; his thesis may not be what you think it is!
"...easy access to guns..." I get pretty tired of this one. Have you ever tried to buy a gun legally in a place like California? EVERY SINGLE PURCHASE is legally required to be conducted through a state and federally licensed gun dealer. The only exceptions are from grandparent to parent to child or in the other direction and to a spouse. I can give my wife or son a gun and not have to go through a dealer. There is still a form and a state fee required. In every other case I have to go through a dealer. There are state and dealer fees required. There is a mandatory 10 day waiting period. You must have a Real ID or a passport; otherwise a state non federally compliant ID and a birth certificate. You also have to prove where you live. And unless you meet a one of a few exemptions you must have proof that you have passed a firearms safety test. In what reality is this "easy access"?
Of course, if you are saying it is too easy for criminals to get guns illegally then I agree with you. Unfortunately the people in charge in California have focused their efforts on making it harder for me and other law abiding citizens to get guns legally and made it easier and less painful for criminals to obtain them illegally.
Eugene, carrying water for the racists. That's a new one, actually.
The point may be valid that victims of homicide are disproportionately Black, and that does call for some focused attention, but to slyly refer to that phenomenon as "black-on-black crime" and to defend that terminology based on charts like in the OP is a rhetorical trick. You're taking a phenomenon that likely points to local socioeconomic causes, intergenerational poverty, and systemic racism, and creating instead a permission structure for people to conclude that the problem is actually cultural. You're basically giving cover to people like Brett, who believe that Black culture is just sick, and legislators in the south, who discount poor maternity mortality rates or educational performance because, once you exclude the drag of Black mothers, children, etc., they're actually more on par with the rest of the nation.
Do you really not understand this, Eugene?
What he understands is that you can't resolve crime problems without honestly addressing who's committing the crimes, and that Hassan wasn't being honest. In fact, he's charitably suggesting that Hassan was simply mistaken, but that's not really plausible. Hassan was lying, and got called out for it.
'you can’t resolve crime problems without honestly addressing who’s committing the crimes,'
Since a huge number of black men are sent to prison, I think it's safe to say that actually that is being done, to excess, even, and you need to do a lot more than that.
Right, we do need to do more than put criminals in prison, though we need to at least do that. We need to interrupt the transmission of pathological culture in our inner cities, to give the next generation a chance.
I've long advocated requiring and assisting people who go on public assistance in areas with high unemployment to move to someplace where jobs are actually available. What's the point in subsidizing people staying in places that are hopeless? Help them escape, don't just enable them to survive while they stay there!
'to interrupt the transmission of pathological culture in our inner cities,'
Kids need supports, organisations, resources, safe spaces for leisure and study, good schools, scholarships, small business grants, community policing, decent infrastructure. You want to force people to leave their homes and friends and families rather than help and improve their neighbourhoods and, what, ban rap? You don't want to help places with high unemployment, you just want to rescue a worthy few?
Just a little ethnic cleansing, apparently.
Simple Simon, really struggling to put those 2 brain cells to work.
"You don’t want to help places with high unemployment, you just want to rescue a worthy few?"
No, I don't want to help places with high unemployment. That's not economically realistic, places with high unemployment have high unemployment for reasons, you can't just wave a magic wand and, poof, they're economically vital again. The jobs went somewhere else for a reason.
The best thing is for the people to follow them, not stay behind forlornly waiting for a revival that's never coming.
Ghost towns may be sad, but not half as sad as ghettos. And ghettos are what you get when you don't let dying cities die.
And who said anything about "worthy few"? You pulled that out of your ass.
"Since a huge number of black men are sent to prison, I think it’s safe to say that actually that is being done, to excess, even, and you need to do a lot more than that."
Nige is expressing the Fox Butterfield effect here. Elsewhere, Nige notes that crime rates have been decreasing markedly for decades. Most people would attribute at least some of that decrease to those high incarceration rates. Remarkable enough, locking up criminals reduced crime. In fact, it demonstrates the silliness of the "all blacks are criminals" strawman. New criminals did not step in to fill all the gaps left by those incarcerations. Not even close, hence the sharp decreases in crime.
A fair criticism is that the net used to catch and incarcerate these criminals was cast too wide, and swept up a number of more-or-less harmless young black men. THAT is the analysis we should be performing: how do you keep genuinely dangerous criminals off the streets without shredding the fabric of those communities?
Maybe huge numbers of black men should stop doing things that get them "Sent(enced) to Prison"
Yeah, it's because of gangster rap, isn't it.
Nah, that gets the causality backwards.
Gangster rap is caused by inferior Black intelligence, then?
I suspect you could be an intelligent person if you didn't reflexively attribute odious motives to anybody who disagrees with you.
That's charitable, to say the least.
I am deliberately goading you because I know that your views on race are vile. Maybe not as vile as I am suggesting, but they're pretty gross.
But, of course, Mr. Smarty-Pants, you ought to have caught that.
Gangster rap is caused by inferior Black intelligence, then?
Simple Simon's terribly strained attempt at a gotcha is caused by Simple Simon's inferior intelligence.
Gansta rap is a form of expression of members of a culture. It's not exclusively AA culture, or AA people. Your initial attempt at making a joke out of it fell flat, but your next response was plain stupid.
EV pretty much never calls anyone a liar.
Several decades ago, I was in the Cyberia-L listserve with him, and he chided me about incivility in one of my responses in an email (we had met before several times at Cyber Law conferences in Austin). I followed back the link in his .sig to find his nascent VC blog, and discovered blogging. To this day, I try to follow his example, and inevitably fail. He almost never does. To this day, he is one of the most civil bloggers on the Internet.
"You’re taking a phenomenon that likely points to [...] systemic racism"
White people's racism is so powerful it's making the black people slaughter each other. Fascinating.
I simply don't have the time to spell it out for you. If you have any idea why Black homicide rates are as high as they are, and it isn't just, "Black people are inherently disordered," then you will have an inkling of how structural racism contributes to the problem.
Structural Racism. Easy cop out. Destroys their agency. This is a good part of the reason why Justice Thomas is so reviled by the left - he denies that Blacks have no agency.
The corollary there is that blaming the plight of underclass Blacks in this country on everyone else is, in itself, racist. It says that those poor Blacks can’t take of themselves, so Whites have to take care of them. This is little different than the attitude Dems had for Blacks when they were the party of slave holders, then the party of Jim Crow. 230 years of being the racist party, and counting.
Pointing to structural racism as a potential cause for a problem that endures through generations, in a measurable way, independent of individual agency, is just doing social science. It’s like saying that political scientists forecasting the outcome of elections are denying voters their agency, or urban planners forecasting the effects of their zoning and design decisions are denying individuals and businesses their agency.
No one’s trying to say that individual Black criminals aren’t responsible for the crimes they commit, or shouldn't be held accountable. But even the individual-first-and-only approach to “black-on-black” crime takes for granted a social explanation for why it occurs. You’re just trying to reach the conclusion that there’s nothing we, or the government, can hope to do about it, besides throw more Black people in jail.
SimonP 2 hours ago (edited)
Flag Comment Mute User
"Pointing to structural racism as a potential cause for a problem that endures through generations, in a measurable way, independent of individual agency, is just doing social science. "
Hayden said it best - blaming structural racism is a cop out.
As I have previously stated, you cant solve the problem when you blame a false devil
"structural racism"
Oh, the race card. Surprising!
Do you think that acknowledging red-lining existed, and shaped neighborhoods that are still around today, is playing the race card?
"red-lining existed, and shaped neighborhoods "
Neither is a reason for murder rates today, just excuses.
Yeah, crime rates have a single simple reason; well known fact.
Every "reason" advanced by a liberal here is a "whites caused this" one.
Blacks are just innocent victims of bad whites.
Every “reason” advanced by a liberal here is a “whites caused this” one.
Not true. But you don't bother to read before having a take these days.
“I simply don’t have the time to spell it out for you.”
In other words, you got nothing.
I simply don’t have the time to spell it out for you.
It's not time you lack, Simple Simon, it's intellectual capacity.
And a lack of valid facts to back up his assertion.
Is there any evidence that murder rates correlate with prejudice in general? There's plenty of bias against Jews, Asians, Indians, etc., but no evidence of higher murder rates that I know of.
Well it is actually cultural, if that word has any meaning left -- it really seems like you're confusing culture with race.
The first half of your sentence argues that a number of unfair factors formed that culture, which is a fine discussion to have but doesn't change the fact that the culture exists and is materially reducing its own life expectancy with its behavior and attitudes.
Which actually was Maher's original point that Hasan cheaply swiped at: if indeed your goal is actually to reduce the number of black deaths, ignoring/explaining away the problem of rampant black-on-black murder while simultaneously amplifying the hell out of the occasional white-on-black incident is anti-helpful.
'a number of unfair factors formed that culture, which is a fine discussion to have'
Oh, sure, actual root causes are practically irrelevant.
It's all well and good to discuss why you ended up diabetic, but at the end of the day you still need that shot of insulin.
Similarly here: I'd say it's actually pretty important to understand what went wrong, how the war on poverty culturally damaged the poor, and produced a culture of dependence and hopelessness. But it did it, and that culture isn't going away on its own.
Ah yes, I blame the culture of diabetes. These are social problems. Cultural trends and attitudes can emerge from these problems, but when it comes to poverty and crime, they're as much survival mechanisms as anything else.
Conservative racists focus on "culture" to explain the phenomenon of "black-on-black" crime because they are trying to make the point that Black people are themselves responsible for this "culture" of violence. Black teenage moms get pregnant because they can't control their sexual desires and rely on abortion as contraception. Young Black men get sent to jail because their music and "culture" glorifies a "hood" lifestyle. So we don't have to think of how systematic disinvestment from Black communities, the war on drugs, over-incarceration and the school-to-prison pipeline, perverse incentives behind for-profit prisons, the continuing legacy of wealth inequality rooted in slavery and Jim Crow, and so on, contributes to the current problems.
Nothing that Maher has to say on this subject is worth attending to.
It's interesting how you're readily able to envision how all these indirect factors (that in some cases are literally generations in the past) contribute to the problem, but at the same time you seem unable to envision how the current generation right in front of you modeling poor behavior choices to their peers and offspring could possibly contribute to the problem at all.
The racial wealth gap is real, is rooted in those policies from "generations ago", and has a real effect to this day. I don't know what else to tell you.
We can talk about the "current generation." What do you propose is to be done about "poor behavior choices" happening today? How can we address those in a systematic, effective way. Brett's over in another thread proposing that we need to engage in some light ethnic cleansing. Is that your proposal, as well?
You could stop encouraging and rewarding and celebrating "poor behavior choices" if you wanted fewer victims. You could stop giving every killer an excuse and someone else to point to as the real villain.
The construct of that last sentence feels like you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the extremely helpful. At the risk of returning to Maher's original point yet again, let's start by actually talking about them, acknowledging their contribution to the problem, and (shields up) actually holding people accountable for the consequences of their behavior rather than coddling them and telling them it's someone else's fault. Non-falsifiable, feel-good academic approaches without real-world accountability for the bad actors simply incentivizes the current dynamic to continue apace.
You know, Simon, if you had an actual defensible position you wouldn't need to resort to this sort of confrontational and disingenuous tactic. I'll engage in good-faith discussion all day long, but that's clearly not what you're here for.
"Black people are themselves responsible"
You can stop there. The rest is just lame excuses.
"Nothing that Simon has to say on this subject is worth attending to."
FIFY
Yes, let's hide statistics and logic because some lib on a blog think's it's racist to show them. How utterly chicken$hit progressives are to reality.
If any problem isn’t all whitey's fault, then talking about that is "carrying water for the racists".
Blacks must always be victims of whites or unreservedly praised. Any other discussion or framing of anything related to black folks is taboo.
Welcome, newbie!
Even funnier was when he was called out on it, he actually doubled down and whined that per capita rates were "irrelevant" to the point he was making.
Ironically, what's "irrelevant" is his solemn comparison of two numbers that are indeed similar but have no bearing at all on Maher's point he was attacking.
When comparing apples to oranges, it is significant that oranges have 3 time the vitamin C.
For the folks pointing to conflating factors, you are absolutely right, but that doesn't change that Hasan's statement as laid out in the OP, which isn't talking about the factors but the bare numbers, is wrong.
Good for you for saying this.
I may always find some nuance real world, but there is no room for wriggling in math.
You can just do what SimonP does and say a god or omnipotent substitute-god (systemic racism, in this case) is always the root cause of everything. Then the numbers ultimately don’t matter because the narrative is transcendent.
Re "nuance", this brings to mind Williamson's Law: "Everything is simple when you don't know a f***ing thing about it."
Everybody wants simple and elegant solutions that explain everything. It is one of the reasons conspiracy theories are so popular. Ditto Critical Race Theory -- every problem has a simple explanation: Racism.
Unfortunately, the real world is absurdly complicated, and there are all kinds of factors that have significant impacts, some of which will align with one's preconceptions, and some of which will not.
I agree entierly - all the easy answers are low hanging fruit, long ago picked.
One note - having heard on Will Baude's podcast a discussion from an actual CRT practicioner, as you might imaging the actuality is not as simple as some on the left who invoke it might think/wish.
I'll grant you that here are nuggets of genuine insight in CRT. But by talking about rarefied theory, you fall into the same problem Communist apologists do when they talk about "real" communism never having been tried.
It is a variation on (and re-hash of) Critical Theory that was popular back when I was in school. Basically everything is explained by power dynamics. Where the old Critical Theory saw class and economic conflict as driving these dynamics, CRT overlays race into that paradigm, arguing that race and racism are actually behind those conflicts.
I hesitate to speak on Critical Theory, because I am skeptical when things seem simple, but I will admit that everything I've heard seems to say it's as simplistic and bad as you think.
UC Berkeley Law professor Khiara M. Bridges had some good stuff to say, though I allow I was an easy audience. She had to 3 things to say that I think are germaine to this thread here:
1) CRT was a reaction to Critical Theory being too doomy and nihilistic; part of the impulse of its founding was to look for solutions the legal system coulr afford
2) it is in no way all about race or gender. Intersectionality is the big jam these days, which is all about how individuals are a slice of tons of demographics, which can interact in unexpected ways (e.g. the experience of a black woman can include some aspects unique to that intersection, above and beyond what a black and a woman have).
There was some interesting discussion of how white women have issues that black women don't, especially regarding being expected to reproduce.
3) Structural racism is the other big new thing; as individual out-and-out racism is a thing [I don't much like the name, myself - it ruffles feathers another name would not, and creates the sense that everything is the race card when it's really not accusing anyone of anything - Sarc.].
Prof. Bridges had some food for thoughts on this structural issue pointing to hospital outcomes in black neighborhoods just being worse even if you control for budget and class and urban location and everything else you can think of...they think it may have to do with pollution in black neighborhoods, but in reality no one knows.
Thanks for these points.
In response
1) I'm not sure why she is saying that CRT is a purely "legal" theory. Didn't we already have Critical Legal Theory to fill that space? AFAICT, CRT is much more universalist in its claims.
2) Intersectionality is the way to square the circle of competing oppressions. But in CRT, race is primus inter pares. When we get Critical Gender Theory, gender identity will supplant race in the hierarchy, and a whole new generation of theses and dissertations will be born.
3) Structural Racism is False Consciousness 2.0 -- the way to make the theory continue to work in the face of contrary facts and your lyin' eyes.
I think there is a lot to say here about CRT as practiced versus CRT as percieved (by both sides, BTW)
As practiced, the race in the name is a legacy of its history, but not's where it is today. Race does loom large, but more due to the interests of the practitioners than in anything foundational in it's principles these days.
As perceived, it's kinda conflated with structural racism, I think.
I hear you on false consciousness - I want to believe, so I'm an easy mark. But I do think there are structural concerns to address. This is part of why structural racism is such a bad term. You can see structural challenges to, say, first generation college-goers, right? The lack of a support system, the different external expectations their families have for them, the lack of context for common parts of the college experience...structural issues to keep in mind.
I think the most generous reading of the original claim is: "for any given murder, the odds that the victim and murderer are the same race are pretty consistent for both whites and blacks".
This is a kind of rate/ratio as well, but probably not what most people would take the claim to be. Also, while it's directionally correct, it looks like a given white victim is about twice as likely to be murdered by a black person as vice versa.
Yep. What Hasan said was wrong. And what Hasan says he was trying to say doesn’t support his argument. And no one made Hasan use the the quote he wrote in his own tweet.
That snip is a bit misleading, because it does not break out Hispanics (because Hispanic is treated as an ethnicity rather than as a race). My understanding is that Hispanics can be either "white" or "black." Based on the figures below, it appears that a significant majority is classed as "white."
This chart breaks out offenders and victims by ethnicity (although there is a big block of unknown):
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls
So in the "white victim" category, 738 of the offenders were Hispanic. That constitutes 32% of the "ethnically-identified" offenders, and 22% of all of the entire offender pool. So non-Hispanic whites account for between 25% and 56% of the murders of all "whites" (including Hispanics).
For "black victims" the impact is far less -- "white offenders" constitute about 8% of the total, and if you exclude the 95 identified Hispanics, that number drops to about 6%.
Then if you look at Hispanic victims, more 75% of the offenders appear to be Hispanic or black.
This data confirms what most people already know: non-Hispanic whites commit murders at a disproportionately low rate, and blacks and Hispanics at a disproportionately high rate (in each case as a proportion of the overall US population).
It's really hard to get accurate numbers through that kind of analysis -- the numbers are so low that a slight error in assumptions can lead to large errors in the attributes numbers, and there's reason to believe ethnic breakdown of murder suspects do not match the overall population (just as the available numbers show that the race breakdown does not match the general public).
I think there are two issues. First, the large "unknown" buckets give significant uncertainty. Looking at the numbers overall, it appears that most Hispanics are lumped into the "white" bucket, but it does not seem definitive.
Second, the FBI numbers may omit significant chunks of data by virtue of failure/unwillingness of various jurisdictions to report their data. I do not believe that was as big of an issue in 2019, but my understanding is that for 2022, for example, NYC and LA, among others, have refused to submit data in accordance with the "new" FBI-required format.
Why are you wasting your time with this?
Do you think anyone in the rest of the world, across the political spectrum, really thinks this American corporate teleprompter-reading fuckhead actually gives a damn about the facts? That his sincere aim is to convey factual information? How dare YOU insult your readership by pretending that he’s (and his staff are) merely mistaken and would be sincerely open to being corrected.
Subcultures of violence and African American crime rates
Here's the important point:
"Third, cultural explanations are not the same as racial explanations. Culture refers to the characteristic beliefs, values and behaviors of a group, not its race. It is true that because of certain features of American history – the enslavement and subordination of members of a particular race and the concomitant development by that race of a distinctive subculture – race and culture were conjoined in the United States. But that is a result of the distinctive history of the country. Other nations, Cuba and Brazil, to name two, have major black populations, but cultural and racial distinctions do not necessarily align. Puerto Ricans have a substantial black population, but racial distinctions are not as socially significant as they are on the mainland because black and white Puerto Ricans share a single culture. Moreover, there are black race cultures with relatively low crime rates and white race cultures with very high rates. {My emphasis.} In the United States, for instance, Italian Immigrants in the first decade of the 20th century had high violent crime rates while impoverished Haitian “boat people” in 1980s Miami had fairly low rates.
Fourth, and finally, the percentage of African Americans estimated
to share in the subculture of violence is very small, notwithstanding that the percentage of American whites who do so is smaller still. We can estimate the size of the African American population at risk for engaging in violence as encompassing those blacks who are young (roughly ages 18 to 34), predominantly male, impoverished, and residing in inner cities. In 2014, according to census data, this population totaled 900,174. Since about 10% of the killers of blacks in 2014 were black females, we will add to our total 10% of the black female population living in urban poverty, or 497,942 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). This yields a grand total of 1,398,116 African Americans, which is 3.2% of the U.S. black population in 2014."
In short, when we say the problem is cultural, we MEAN cultural, not racial!
there are black race cultures
This is not really doing much better than the monolothic black culture the excerpt rejects. Especially since it’s not really established, just stated. Unless you confront the conflating factors, there’s no point in pulling out a racial cohort since you can’t say anything useful about it.
This is an issue I know you agree with, given how you feel about race-based affirmative action.
It’s almost as if ‘culture’ is an outward expression of a community’s values, experiences and ideas, and is not the same thing as the forces, trends and circumstances that shaped a community into what it is. Blaming culture is a handy cop-out now that blaming race is out of fashion. If you blamed (again, sorry) redneck or ‘hillbilly’ culture for crime and poverty in those communities… well, why would you, what good would it do, and how fucking insulting would it be to people in those communities who aren’t criminals but are still proud of who they are and where they come from?
Are all of "the forces, trends and circumstances that shaped a community into what it is" external?
Does culture not shape a community?
Sure, there's a feedback loop there. And I'm not even saying that there aren't aspects of culture that aren't negative. Sexism, racism, homophobia all featured in the general culture, and still do in some parts of it. But you can't 'blame' culture for sexism, racism and homophobia. You can use culture to push back against other parts of culture, but it's not going to address root causes and systemic injustice.
As with most discussions, it makes sense to start with a definition of terms. Broadly speaking, "Culture can be defined as all the ways of life including arts, beliefs and institutions of a population that are passed down from generation to generation. Culture has been called "the way of life for an entire society." As such, it includes codes of manners, dress, language, religion, rituals, art. norms of behavior, such as law and morality, and systems of belief." https://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/mph-modules/PH/CulturalAwareness/CulturalAwareness2.html
In that sense a community/society and its culture are intertwined. If culture, as you say, emerges from a community, it can hardly be something separate from that community.
Yeah, but you can't solve the problem of poverty by, I don't know, banning songs about being poor? You can't stop people committing heists by banning heist movies. Neither Elmore Leonard nor Ed McBain are around to write books any more but small time crooks continue to exist and murders continue to occur.
"Yeah, but you can’t solve the problem of poverty by, I don’t know, banning songs about being poor? You can’t stop people committing heists by banning heist movies. "
Agreed. Moreover, those things are not banned in wealthy communities either, so not a likely place to start.
"small time crooks continue to exist and murders continue to occur."
Yes, that is where the focus should be. Instead, we get calls to defund the police, stop enforcing laws against petty crimes, etc.
One of the core problems for poor intercity Blacks, in particular, is lack of fathering. The fathers are often in prison, or dead. And the reality is that, statistically, women cannot adequately socialize male adolescents. Both my wife’s previous husband, and her father, were big enough that they could pick up a young adolescent boy with each hand, and toss them on their beds. They understood male authority after that (though, boys being boys, they continued to challenge it). Boys need to be taught their place in esp male society, and women rarely can do it. They need to learn the meaning of the word “No”, and women, for the most part, cannot do that for their sons. If enough boys don’t have this, they start running in packs of juvenile males, that terrorize the community. (Note, this isn’t just a human problem - it comes from studies of mice, and is seen in other species, including, in particular, our nearest genetic relatives, chimps).
Having an involved father, and esp in an intact household, can also benefit girls. What fathers can give daughters is unconditional love, which helps their self esteem, and gives them the confidence to turn down the incessant demands for sex by adolescent boys. And helps them not look for love through sex, and then motherhood.
Things are worse now, because the culture allows this dysfunctional dynamic to be glorified. And, yes, it’s a problem that primary involves poor intercity youths, and due to the state of their families, hits Blacks the worse.
It’s also cultural, because families tend to be more intact in White middle class communities, and probably more so in Asian and recent immigrant communities - where most of us came from. We were taught deferred gratification. The two boys who were tossed onto their beds one handed when they were adolescents by my wife’s ex, both got college degrees, are successful, and the one with kids, has a son starting college this fall on a full ride academic scholarship. That too is culture.
We really can't untangle that causality - the sort of families that lose fathers to to prison, homicide, etc. have issues going in.
It's a convenient push for the right, but I've always found it overmotivated. Same as 'married couples are wealthier' - put the cart before the horse, and you get to push your social conservative agenda!
" . . . Italian Immigrants in the first decade of the 20th century had high violent crime rates while impoverished Haitian “boat people” in 1980s Miami had fairly low rates."
So is it culture or geography? NY .vs Miami.
Perhaps remove race from the discussion altogether. Lott's review of the numbers shows that the vast majority of violent crime is committed by a tiny fraction of the US population, repeat offenders and very aberrant individuals, and that crime is concentrated in a few zip codes, streets, even intersections.
What have those people and those places have in common? I'd like to know. If we can leverage that knowledge to prosecute or prevent those crimes, then go ahead. But don't count on it. Solve crimes one at a time.
I understand some commenters' urge to attribute the crime to systemic or longstanding conditions centering on race or culture, or both, while possibly ignoring that crime shapes the local communities to perpetuate crime, as do many mistaken measures taken to suppress crime.
The CDC has more complete stats on victim demographics, but no data on offenders. Table 9 in "Deaths: Final Data for 2019" shows a 2.6 per 100k homicide victimization rate for non-Hispanic whites and a 24.2 per 100k for blacks.
Given that a higher percentage of black homicides are intraracial, this suggests at least a tenfold difference in white-on-white vs. black-on-black per-capita homicide rates.
If Dems can’t use something to divide people then it doesn’t matter and it’s "disinformation". You will be name-called for bringing it up.
Perspective - there's a current uptick, but overall crime rates have been steadily declining for decades. Someone somewhere is doing something right. It's probably not the cops because they keep claining the opposite. It's probably not the Republicans because per capita crime rates are generally worse in red states. it's probably not the Democrats because they seem to do fuck-all. It's probably local communities and leaders who do actually care about peoples' lives.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/crime-rate-statistics
"there’s a current uptick"
or Ferguson effect.
Obviously, if a White man is accused of murdering another White man, "other Black men murder other Black men" is no defense.
I concur that this issue is important because crime prevention and punishment resources are limited, so we need to send them where they are needed the most.
A true and worthwhile post, but one that will unfortunately lead to "cancellation" attempts against the author.
The lesson I draw from these statistics is that allowing voluntary segregation of society (as opposed to the Jim Crow era where the law forced everybody to segregate) would give us both more peace and more justice, by allowing each cultural group to have police and policy makers whom they can trust, and who serve their needs. Multicultural cities only make sense if they keep out those groups which themselves don't accept multiculturalism.
Hassan wasn’t accurate or didn’t phrase his point well, definitely. But the roughly similar % of homicides that where the victim and perpetrators are both white or both Black is a fair point to make. If you really want to examine things in a race-neutral way, I would suggest looking at the other socio-economic factors that come into play.
"the roughly similar % of homicides that where the victim and perpetrators are both white or both Black is a fair point to make"
What conclusion can you draw from that? That race isn’t much more or less of a deciding factor for white killers than for black killers?
How is it a fair point to make, when one group is five times the size of the other? It's just a numerical coincidence, 1/5th the population meets 5x crime rate, to make to totals look similar.
https://twitter.com/WolvesWin2022/status/1648372612014260253/photo/1
Meme:
https://imgur.com/pxRYzKi
"Media wouldn't cover this if he shot a white kid or if the shooter was black.
Doesn't mean the shooter shouldn't be locked up forever but I'm tired of the Ds, media's or Crump's race grifting.
If 1000 black kids are shot, they don't care unless they can use it to divide."
Click through to this WolvesWin guy if you want a show.
ML has lead us to another incredible unsupported racial take from another incredible race-focused twitter account - where does he find them all???
By looking at the Associated Press' tweet, and then viewing the first reply under it. Duh. Do you even twitter?
I was just trying to link the meme though. What do you think of it?
I think it's pretty funny in a post criticizing the use of total numbers instead of rates to post a meme that relies on total numbers instead of rates.
A fair point.
The meme shows 547,948 black on white violent crime incidents, over 9x more than the 59,778 white on black violent crime incidents.
Using the population figures from OP, this equates to ~14.10 black/white incidents per 1,000 black people, and ~0.31 white/black incidents per 1,000 white people.
Therefore, black people commit interracial black-white violence at roughly 45.5x the rate of white people.
BTW, Prof. Volokh, please strongly encourage your fellow posters to use the READ MORE function. Some of these posts are getting really long.
9 years out of date, but relevant:
"A little while back, I wrote something on the research of Andrew Papachristos, a Yale sociologist not long out of Chicago, on the small social networks of Chicago homicide. In short, how much of fatal violence in Chicago is contained within a comparatively small group of people, who are themselves linked by crime.
It was a fascinating paper, but it had its limitations. Chicago has high raw numbers of homicides and a relatively high homicide rate. But statistically speaking, homicides are a small sample of violence in the city, and in some respects a random one. Recently, Papachristos followed up with a new investigation, and a much larger new data set: non-fatal gunshot injuries in the city.
The data in the new paper is equally fascinating, and on one level, as you might expect, quite troubling. To begin with, the dramatic disparities the rates of nonfatal gunshot injury: overall it's 46.5 per 100,000 for the city as a whole from 2006-2012. It's 1.62 per 100,000 for whites; 28.72 for Hispanics, and 112.83 for blacks.
For all males, it's 44.68 per 100,000; 239.77 for black males, and for black males from 18-34 it's 599.65. As Papachristos and co-authors Christopher Wildeman and Elizabeth Roberto point out, that's a staggering one in 200.
The numbers are enormous, and they've caused a lot of pessimism. But the point of digging into the data is to create, literally, maps—to follow the violence through the city and, as maps are meant to do, guide us back to its sources. And in that sense, cohesive patterns emerge.
Papachristos constructs a social network—not a virtual one in the Facebook sense, but a real one of social connections between people—by looking at arrestees who have been arrested together. That turns out to be a lot of people in raw numbers, almost 170,000 people with a "co-offending tie" to one another, with an average age of 25.7 years, 78.6 percent male and 69.5 percent black. It's also a large percentage of all the individuals arrested: 40 percent of all the individuals arrested during that period.
Within the entire group, the largest component of that whole co-offender group has 107,740 people.
Within the timeframe—from 2006 to 2010—70 percent of all shootings in Chicago, or about 7,500 out of over 10,000, are contained within all the co-offending networks. And 89 percent of those shootings are within the largest component.
Or, to put another way: the rate of gunshot victimization (nonfatal + fatal) in Chicago is 62.1 per 100k. Within a co-offending network, it's 740.5—more than 10 times higher.
"This finding has (at least) two implications for our understanding of non-fatal gunshot injuries," the authors write. "First, the concentration of non-fatal gunshot injuries in networks such as these demonstrate that such incidents are more concentrated than previously thought, and even more concentrated than gun homicide by either demographic group or place. Our findings indicate that 70 percent of all non-fatal shootings occur in networks comprising less than 6 percent of Chicago's total population. This distribution of shootings within co-offending networks fundamentally changes how we assess the distribution of risk in Chicago."
https://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/April-2014/Chicago-Gun-Violence-Big-Numbers-But-a-Surprisingly-Small-Network/
Unless I missed it (always possible around here), no vile racial slur yet, not in the original post, not in the comments.
This constitutes progress at a white, male, bigot-hugging blog.
Nobody says anything when Spooks are around, they'll kill you
Knock Knock!!
Who's There??
"Bang!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
I was gonna say "not Ennis Cosby" but thought better of it
Frank
The joys of (giving) unsolicited advice
I believe the population numbers referenced in the community notes are not correct, or at least aren't the right population numbers, in a way that understates Hasan's wrongness. And the reason is this:
In those FBI crime statistics, the available races are White, Black, Other, or Unknown. Hispanic is not treated as a race, and it is not included in the racial breakdown. Instead, it's an ethnicity that's treated separately, with a different set of numbers for Hispanic (of any race), Non-Hispanic, or Unknown.
The population statistic cited, on the other hand, treat Hispanic as a race, and break it down into White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, etc.
When Hispanic is treated as a race category, the as of 2021, US was about 59.3% White, 12.6% Black, 18.9% Hispanic, with the remainder other races or none specified.
But when you threat Hispanic as an ethnicity and don't include it in the "race" category (as with the FBI crime stats), it's 75.8% White and 13.6% Black.
So instead of the disparity between the rate of black-on-black homicide being "almost 5 times" (4.7x) the rate of white-on-white homicide, it's actually almost 6 times (5.6x).
In an apples-to-apples comparison, the intraracial figure given for "white-on-white" murders in Volokh's calculation (78%) is pretty close to the white share of the population (75.8%), On the other hand, Black murders select their victims overwhelmingly (88%) from a much smaller segment of the population (13.6%).
In other words, while White murders exhibit only a slight preference for White victims (1.03 times the color-blind expected rate), Black murders prefer Black victims by a huge margin (6.47 times the color-blind expected rate).
For population figures, see https://usafacts.org/data/topics/people-society/population-and-demographics/our-changing-population/ (There's a pie chart on the racial makeup of the US that lets you see the percentages without or without Hispanic ethnicity.)
This blog seems to have Right-Wing Tourette Syndrome: It just can't seem to stop repeatedly blurting strange references to drag queens, lesbians, transgender bathrooms, blacks, transgender parenting, Muslims, transgender restrooms, etc.
Carry on, clingers.
Are we really all so stupid that this needs to be elucidated? And is anyone surprised that an MSNBC commentator doesn't know the difference between "rate" and "percentage"?
None of my grandparents or parents [or aunts or uncles] went to college. I've never murdered anyone.
Its just excuse after excuse.
You left out that God stuck pubic hair on their haid's
"real aggregate differences" is meaningless
College attendance has nothing to do with murder rate.
Well, according to that paper I linked to above, the subculture of violence in the black community was probably adopted from Southern whites.
But it's important to realize that these urban black communities have not always had such sky high crime rates. That really only started in the 60's.
I tend to blame the "war on poverty", which both made single motherhood a feasible option, with the state displacing the father as a breadwinner, and enabled people to continue living in no hope communities where there weren't any jobs to be had. So that the children of those single mothers grew up without a lot of employed role models.
Add to that the war on drugs, which created a highly lucrative opportunity for urban gangs to provide drug dealers with 'muscle', and the result was communities where the cultural transmission belt for functional behaviors was disrupted and subverted.
It just happens that, for historical reasons, urban blacks were almost ideally situated to be hurt by this triple whammy. But blacks who weren't at ground zero for it fared quite well, and whites who WERE living at ground zero ended up similarly damaged.
It's NOT a "black crime rate" problem, really. It's an "urban ghetto crime rate" problem. It's just that the urban ghettos are predominantly black.
The statistics say it's primarily an urban problem. And since crime rates are highly localized in cities, it's not even an urban problem. It's an urban ghetto problem.
Lets see, OJ, the Idaho Murder (suspect), Ted Kennedy, Alec Baldwin, Moe-hammad Atta, Obam Bin Laden, Ted Bundy, "BTK" killer, Son of Sam, that's a literal "Murder's Row" lineup of Murderers who attended College
Nah, she's clean shaven
I’m not sure that disproves any point being made here. Can you elaborate?
Crime increased in rural/suburban areas largely due to middle class black single families moving to more rural/suburban areas, and bringing the hip-hop, black thug culture with them. That's a contributing factor. I've witnessed this myself living in Georgia. Once mixed communities have become majority black due to urban sprawl. The inner city youths influenced by hip hop, social media, etc...will adapt to broken culture because they don't identify with normal civilized culture, on top of the fact that their parents are poor at parenting, they just may have decent jobs that enable them to move to decent neighborhoods, and out of the ghettos.
Well, you made me look.
Table 14: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf
It turns out the meme is 100% correct.
Yes. Now multiply the numbers by the percentages.
I understand it's hard to read good or do 3rd grade math. Honest mistake on your part, I'm sure.
Why N-words don't eat Pussy? yes I do, but don't talk about it in polite company.
There was a higher (but declining) baseline, which rose dramatically starting in the, wait for it, 1960s.
Try reading the things you link.
Why, I'd say that figure 1 hardly proves me wrong. Figure 3, OTOH, yeah, that kind of spikes my claim.
We've suffered from two major waves of homicide that you can see in the statistics. From about 1900 to 1933, (When Prohibition was repealed!) and then starting in 1960. From 33 to 60 the murder rate was actually pretty low.
But your figure 3 says that it was mostly black on black murder in both cases. Color me surprised.
"Non-White homo de Tate"???
is that Ebonics? please translate to standard Engrish, and you make fun of my grammar (she's shaved to, get it? my grammar's shaved down under)
Frank "go Covfefe yourself"
I understand it’s hard to read good or do 3rd grade math. Honest mistake on your part, I’m sure.
When it comes to Queenie, always assume sheer stupidity. It's a safer assumption.
Does anyone with any common sense need to look at statistics to figure out that the vast majority of murderers murder their own kind because that's who they hang with and who pisses them off?
See above.
That was where I was intending to go with this, but I was limited in time. I was thinking that there has to be a reason why crime victimization and commission, when broken down by race, gender, and ethnicity, isn’t distributed the same as those same groups are as a fraction of the population.
The explanation that comes from some quarters, whether explicit or implied, is cultural failures in some groups. But I would guess that simple things like poverty, unemployment, and general lack of opportunity would be a large factor, and that the geographic distribution of people would matter a lot as well.
It's a lot of people's thing.
No. That table shows how likely a violent crime is to be intra vs inter racial for different victim groups.