The population of whites is 82.9%, of blacks it is 12.6%, and other is 4.5%. The homicide rates for each group are: 4.5 for whites, 34.4 for blacks, and 4.1 for other (1980-2008 DOJ stats). Now, (.829 * 4.5) + (.126 * 34.4) + (.044 * 4.1) = 3.7305 + 4.3344 + 0.1804 = 8.2453
4.3344 of 8.2453 = 52.5%
Blacks are responsible for 52.5% of an average US homicide rate of 8.2453.
Is this correct?
There are some problems with these figures.
Here are the updated figures for around this year:
US Population by % % White 67% Hispanic (all) 16% Black 13% Asian 3% American Indian 1%
Those figures are very much estimates. No one quite knows how many South Indians are in the US. Arabs are blended in with Whites, as are Jews. So the vast majority of Muslims in the US are in fact White.
The figures for Whites and Hispanics are somewhat uncertain and may be off by a percentage point or two. The Hispanic figure is very hard to define and may or may not include illegal aliens. White Hispanics appear to be blended into Hispanic in this analysis. In particular, the mixed race category is very hard to even define, much less quantify. It was left out of this analysis.
Homicide rates by race Rate per 100,000 Other 4.1 White 4.5 Black 34.4
Good God! Those figures are completely insane! Excuse me! But as you can see, the Black rate is fully 8 times higher than the White rate. The White rates itself is quite elevated compared to many White European countries. The Black rate is so high that it calls out for public discussion, which unfortunately is now completely blacked out and forbidden. If nothing else, the Black rate is a public health emergency.
That’s why I write about Black crime on here. It’s the one negative thing about Blacks that most pro-Black White liberals will talk about. That’s their big worry and big concern, and they are not necessarily to shy to bring it up.
I understand why Blacks get their back up about this. Suppose you’re a Black with a clean record who more or less obeys the law and certainly has never killed anyone. Your reaction is going to be, “Why are you going on about Black crime? I don’t commit any crimes! Leave me out of this!”
Fair enough. But the vast majority of victims of Black crime are Blacks themselves. And if it’s a public health emergency anywhere, it’s a public health emergency in the Black community. And that’s something that Blacks ought to be concerned about. That’s why I appreciated Tulio’s post so much the other day.
A figure that is 8X the White rate surely cries out for some sort of an explanation, and it’s a great problem for aspiring social scientists to crack their teeth on. At the very least, it cries out for extensive investigation. The standard liberal rejoinders about poverty, lack of education, lack of opportunity and racism get old real fast. There’s something more than that going on here.
Anyway, all of these explanations really lead us nowhere. What is Ayn Randian America like nowadays? Are we about to get cracking on poverty, lack of education, lack of opportunity and racism?
Not exactly. Ayn Randian America, exemplified by Republican Veep pick Paul Ryan, is about to throw in the towel on all of those problems, give it up, go home and declare victory or whatever. Spending on all of these problems is expected to decline radically in the future where it will not be zeroed out altogether. So we end up with a non-testable and non-falsifiable theory:
Observer: Why is there so much Black homicide?
Liberal: Poverty, racism, lack of opportunity, poor education.
Observer: Well, ok, since this stuff is not going away, can we at least ameliorate these problems and see if it affects the rate any?
Liberal: Nope, these problems have always been with us and will be with us for the foreseeable future.
Observer: Ok so there’s no way to even test your theory to see if it’s true or not, right?
Even worse is a circular theory that many toss about.
Observer: Why is there so much Black crime?
Conservative parroting liberal argument: Poverty, racism, lack of opportunity, poor education.
Observer: Well, why is there so much poverty, racism, lack of opportunity, poor education in the Black community?
Conservative: Well, mostly due to crime I would say.
Now, this may well be true, but we aren’t solving anything with a circular argument.
Racists use a similar circular argument:
Observer: Why is there so much Black homicide?
Racist: LOL, did you just crawl out from under a rock? Niggers like to kill people. You never noticed that? LOL.
Observer: Well, that’s interesting. But then why do Black people like to kill each other then?
Racist: Why do niggers like to kill people? LOL! Because they’re niggers, that’s why! LMAO!
Well, perhaps that is true and perhaps it is not, but it’s hardly explanatory now is it? And it seems rather tautological.
Good theory should be:
Testable: You should be able to test it out somehow. If you can’t even test it, it’s more or less garbage and empty bloviating.
Falsifiable: There must be some way that one could possibly prove the theory false if the facts came out in a certain way. If you can’t theoretically do that, the theory is just empty wind. This is where you get the saying, “Not only is it not right, but it’s not even wrong!” about some theories.
Explanatory: Theory should attempt to explain the facts. Theories that fail to do that are said to lack explanatory adequacy. Saying that Black people commit tons of homicide because they’re a bunch of niggers is interesting and rather humorous, but it doesn’t really answer the question. That statement lacks explanatory adequacy because it fails to explain the facts on the ground in any way whatsoever. It’s the sort of answer that makes you feel puzzled as you walk away shaking your head.