September 23, 2007

Jena Six: Emmett Till Redux or OJ Simpson All Over Again?

It's striking how much demand there is in modern America for evidence that some whites somewhere are still committing the same crimes against blacks as in the distant past. It's even more striking that in a country of 300 million where surely it's statistically plausible that somebody somewhere is doing any horrible thing you can imagine, that so many of these media campaigns end up humiliating themselves.

For example, the prestige media, led by the New York Times, fell so hard for the Duke lacrosse hoax in part because they so desperately wanted a news story about white men raping a black woman. They wanted it so bad that they threw out all their standards and principles to push it endlessly until it blew up in their faces.

Similarly, the Jena Six story is all about America's craving for proof that white Southerners are still a lynch mob. That's why every recounting starts with nooses being hung from a tree on campus three months before the Jena Six stomped that kid.

Yet, as the facts emerge (see my VDARE article), we're able to start piecing together a very different, much more modern narrative of what happened, one that is much less redolent of poor Emmett Till, and much more reminiscent of OJ Simpson. The Emmett Till narrative was constructed long after the stomping by cherrypicking events, and leaving out massively relevant facts, like that the Jena Six, far from being despised outcasts, were the best football players in a football mad small town.

Mychal Bell was to Jena what OJ was to LA.

As you'll recall, Johnnie Cochran persuaded the jury (which ultimately was three-fourth black, with eight black women jurors, due to prosecutor Marcia Clark's doctrinaire feminist assumption that gender trumps race in a domestic abuse case) that the racist LAPD was out to frame OJ.

In reality, most cops loved OJ. Whenever the late Nicole Brown Simpson would call 911 to report that her husband was beating her, a couple of LAPD's finest would go around to the Brentwood house, and ... "Hey! You're OJ!" So, they'd wind up getting his autograph and some pictures taken with great man himself, and a grand old time was had by all. Except by the victim, but, while cute, she never rushed for 2003 yards in a season, did she? Did Leslie Nielsen ever slap her on the back, sending her wheelchair careening down the steps and off the grandstand at Dodger Stadium in "The Naked Gun?" I think not.

The only cop that took Nicole's 911 calls seriously was evil old Mark Fuhrman.

This doesn't mean the average white LAPD cop liked blacks in general -- the ones cops come in contact with the most, other than their partners, are not the kind of people that inspire warm feelings -- but OJ was a football star!

And the Jena Six knew they were football stars, and like so many star athletes, exploited their privileged position to run wild. Finally, they went too far.

And that explains the initial attempted murder charges (lowered to aggravated battery in the actual trial of Mychal Bell, the first defendant), which appear to have been necessary to get them out of the juvenile justice system that had completely failed to dissuade them from committing more crimes. Bell, we now know, was convicted in the juvenile system on four occasions over the over 12 months before his involvement in stomping the unconscious kid, including two crimes of violence. "Sources told ESPN that one of those cases was a battery in which Bell punched a 17-year-old girl in the face." (The juvenile records of the other five have yet to be unsealed.)

Yet, Bell didn't miss the football season, in which he averaged 101 yards rushing and 12 tackles per game, and 17 yards per punt return, earning him All-State honors as a junior.

Was the DA's legal ploy justified? Maybe, maybe not. A higher court ruled it was not. But, the judge recently refused to reduce Bell's bail enough to get him out of jail -- this is one scary guy who has been convicted five separate times since Christmas Day 2005!

Was the DA's reasoning so preposterous that his real motivation must have been racism? Obviously not.

It is clear that the juvenile justice system can't get the job done of adequately punishing the stompers -- the one member of the Jena Six who was so young (14 at the time) that he had to be left in the juvenile system has now taken Bell's place on the Jena HS football team and has averaged 100 yards rushing per game this season!

The interesting question is whether anybody ever learns from repeatedly getting snookered over these kind of racial brouhahas in the media.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

48 comments:

Ibrahim Nur said...

One wonders what Sailer's reminder that OJ was indeed a killer has to do with the shocking instance of a prosecutor being eager to put children away for thirty years just because they beat up another kid. Sailer tries to trivilize the Jenna story as just another unfair liberal media fixation, but the fact of the matter is that the story is important because it reminds us that institutional racism, though largely extant these days, occasionally rears its head in the justice system with disastrous results. OJ's acquital (and the fact that the jury that tried him had black members) should not make us shrug our shoulders at the fact that these young men could've been put away for three decades.

~I.N

Ibrahim Nur said...

Edit to my previous post: I meant to say that insitutional racism as it previously existed is not extant these days but that some forms of it occasionally rear their head as Jenna demonstrates.

Harvey said...

Ibrahim please tell me that you are being sarcastic. It would be heart-breaking to think that you actually sympathise with these criminal slimeballs.

M. Simon said...

Eventually people will get wise to THE NARRATIVE

Anonymous said...

Ibrahim:

These "children" did not "beat up" another kid. These were 6 blacks with a history of racism targeting a white kid, attacking him from behind and kicking him in the head even when he was unconscious. If the teachers did not stop them they would certainly have killed him. Blacks killed whites by kicking them in the head during the 2001 Seattle Riots.

This is racim and the fact that the entire media are supporting the blacks (and that they have not been charged with a hate crime)is institutional racism.

Can you cite a similar case where whites did this to a black and were not charged (much less received support from the media and "civil rights" leagers)?

Anonymous said...

The white guy they beat up, if I am not mistaken, may have started the fight when he remarked about one of the black guys "That guy got his ass whipped." Some of the Jena Six got into a fight with some white guys at some party.

I find it odd that some right wingers are behaving as though the black guys should be given 30 years in the slammer. I went to a public school in the south in a small town and let me tell you-- there is such a thing as a mean white guy who needs to get beat up. My school was full of hillbillies and mean rednecks. If I had a Jena 6 in my school eager to whoop some redneck white boy who is messing with me, then great! Yeah, they over did the beating, but still, there was some guys in my school who frankly needed to DIE. Anyway, some of you guys need to get over your racism. Small southern towns ARE racist. How do I know? I used to live in one and I know what I speak of. I met racist doctors, dentists, and so forth in my town. It is NOT fun going to school with hillbillies, I will tell you that. They love fightin', shootin, huntin' hurtin' people, beatin' up soccer players, and having sex with farm animals. Seriously. I know people who have done just that. A hillbilly high school or middle school is a hellhole for anyone, especially for a couple of black boys. The only black girl and boy at my school got teased relentlessly. The cops in my small hick town beat up the people they arrested, and would give tickets over nothing. They were sadists. Damn, I still have nightmares about the rednecks I grew up around. And I am white!!!!!!!!!

Now, are the Jena 6 thugs? I don't know. Never met them. Are the white guys they fought hicks, I don't know. Never met them. Maybe some of you Sailer fans should try not to judge people you do not even know..... hmmmm?

Anonymous said...

Actually Sauiler didnt remind us that OJ is a killer. We have to decide for ourselves about that. He did however remind us that OJ was a wife beater.

Ron Guhname said...

Putting thugs in prison too long is very low on my list of social ills. Having my kids stomped is at the top, and I make no apologies for that.

Anonymous said...

If this town and the whites living in it were such a bunch of sheet-wearing, cross burning klansmen, why didn't they throw the book at this Bell kid and his friends for their first offense and lock him up or make his life a living hell? They already had a good excuse to nail him, why wait? He was the perfect target for racists to go after.
Instead, this guy got 2nd, 3rd, 4th, chances etc...I don't know what you call that, but it doesn't sound like racism to me.

Anonymous said...

I find it hilarious that when arguing with right wingers, they accuse me of bringing up "red herrings" when I mention the nooses, or the beating of the black student with a beer bottle at the "white party" (the attacker has finally been charged with simple battery, even though a beer bottle can obviously be used as a deadly weapon, unlike a shoe on someone's foot, and therefore the assault can easily be classified as aggravated), or the the confrontation outside the convenience store in which a white pulled out a shotgun, and the unarmed blacks took it away from him, only to see the blacks charged with theft of a firearm and the white shot gun toter charged with nothing. If those incidents are red herrings that have nothing to do with the beating of Justin Barker, then certainly OJ Simpson qualifies as such.

Hal K said...

The Jena story is only complicated to the degree that the media and the activists make it complicated. A prosecutor arguably overreached slightly by charging attempted murder, thousands of protestors marched on Jena, and the media presented it as a continuation of the civil rights struggle. After just a few minutes studying the details of the case in the Wikipedia article it was clear to me that the media, the activists, and the protestors had gone nuts. They have lost touch with reality and are simply fighting for their side and/or the politically correct side.

joshrandall said...

Anonymous 8:43 AM. Listen,nutjob,criminal justice is NOT something that is provided to people only after they prove that they are nice,inoffensive people who have never had a negative thought,and their FAMILIES AND FRINEDS are also completely wonderful loving and caring and sharing people. You do not BLAME THE VICTIM,or put him on trial! You find the lawbreaker and you seek to ascertain what happened! Who gives a damn if you dont like "hillbillies"? If "hillbillies' stomped your face in,with the intent to kill you,I imagine you'd want them locked up. So if a group of black thugs does it,its somehow not as bad? I cant believe you were able to find iSteve! Or even type for that matter!

Anonymous said...

While we are discussing race and violence, it helps to set the record straight on who is attacking who. Here are the facts on race and crime. Do not expect to see these facts discussed in the corporate media:

Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.

• Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.

• Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

• Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.

Anonymous said...

Steve,

Your blog is one of the best on the Internet. It is much too good to allow racist filth like this:

"It is NOT fun going to school with hillbillies, I will tell you that. They love fightin', shootin, huntin' hurtin' people, beatin' up soccer players, and having sex with farm animals."

Anonymous said...

I suspect that the Jena 6 will continue their ways until they are young adults, and probably kill someone.

At that time they will be dealt with.

Anonymous said...

"Yeah, they over did the beating, but still, there was some guys in my school who frankly needed to DIE."

Who are you to decide this? I can guess. White & gay. Hmmmm. I got picked on mercilessly by a redneck for a few years in jr high but I never once feared physical attack. I can't even remember most of what the guy said to me.

This is where people like you are out of line. You equate words with physical violence when it suits you though I've noticed that the so-called "victim" class can be verbally vicious as well - but this doesn't count because its only defensive aggression. Never mind that you didn't wait to be insulted first. And anyone you decide to attack was asking for it for being too straight, too hick, too white, too different from you. Right?

rob said...

Why is the noose such a potent symbol for blacks? For most of the time, whites and blacks were lynched in roughly the same numbers when you allow for the higher level of criminality among blacks.
It was only when the practice was dying out(i.e. mid twentieth century) that blacks were the main victims.

Anonymous said...

To Josh Randall--

quote-- "Listen,nutjob..."

No, why don't YOOOOUUUUU listen, ya' stinkin' redneck! If someone beat me lifeless after I mock some guy for getting beat up at the party last night I would pretty much expect what was coming to me. But...I would then hunt the bastards down and do to them what they did to me. Boys will be boys. Let 'em fight. Public school is a messed up little society. Being a Southerner, I was raised to not cry out for help, to beat up any boy who treats me poorly. I guess that if I came after a guy who nearly killed me and beat him badly I would be facing 30 years in the slammer. THAT is what bothers me, chump. The idea that a southern boy who is a part of this macho culture could be punished for not having the wisdom of an adult. Boys will be boys. If high school boys were all given 30 in the pen for beatdowns, I'd imagine Pat Buchanan (Sailer writes for his magazine) and his buds would have gotten a life sentence because all they did growing up was raise hell and beat up guys minding their own business. Pat even beat up some cops while he was a college student but he had the right connections to avoid felony charges.

Southern public High school/middle school culture is disgusting and harmful, and I am glad I got away from it.

As for you, Mr. 9/24/2007 12:50 PM... all I can say is that you are a wuss for letting a redneck get away with teasing you. Hell, I am not going to snap and beat everyone up all the time over an insult- so long as I can come up with a good comeback (if I can't I might hit them)For guys who insult me on a daily basis I would have fought him every day until he learned to keep his stupid redneck mouth shut. That you tolerated this mean hick is possible proof that you are, well, uh...ahem...gay.

As for my "racist" remarks concerning small town Southern behavior, all I can say is that I am not lying. Yeah, I met a few good people in these wretched small towns. But too many of them are the types who think you are hell bound and dumb for thinking that we are related to apes. As an adult I must say it gets better, but damn, as a kid forced to attend their schools, what hell! Small town Southern kids are simply terrible, and the only thing worse than having to attend a small town Southern public school is having to attend a mostly black or hispanic school.

I do think any guy who beats up a helpless guy should be removed from the school and not be allowed to ever return.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 11:19 AM said:
Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.

• Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.

• Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

• Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.



These are all boldfaced lies. And I'll direct you to this report to prove it:
http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2004-10/19wise.cfm

Anonymous said...

Gee, Steve I thought you moderated this blog.

Taking a day off?

Anonymous said...

He is not taking the day off, he just supporting free speech.


Awesome.

ben tillman said...

No, why don't YOOOOUUUUU listen, ya' stinkin' redneck! If someone beat me lifeless after I mock some guy for getting beat up at the party last night I would pretty much expect what was coming to me.

Real slow for you, Mr. 85 IQ:

The white victim did not get beat up by "someone". He got beat up a gang of six.

MensaRefugee said...

I dont see the point of this brouhaha, especially on the Internet.

1) Southerners are more violent and less mannered than the upper class we see on TV. Southern kids doubly so.

2) Blacks are a SUPER-violent bunch. Put them in a society that lets them get away with it because of their race, or because they are atheletes and they will be doubly violent.

So theres fault on both sides, but its obvious that the Blacks need to be restrained more.

Or what Ron Guhname said.

Martin said...

"These are all boldfaced lies. And I'll direct you to this report to prove it:
http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2004-10/19wise.cfm

9/24/2007 5:27 PM"

Mostly dead links on that page. And the live ones lead to pages that say nothing about interracial crime statistics.

That blacks commit crime out of proportion to thier numbers is true. What you believe on the matter is not. Just because you want something to be the truth, does not make it so.

tommy said...

Tim Wise makes some valid points about the fact that the government usually places Hispanics in the racial category of 'white' when it comes to arrest rates. (Though, noticeably, Wise isn't calling for the government to change that and provide clearer information. His animus is directed entirely towards Taylor.) However, the fact remains that blacks are many times more likely to commit murder than whites. Blacks commit around half of all murders in the United States in any given year.

Wise also ignores the fact that including Hispanics in the white arrest rates means that the number of white arrests is greatly inflated by Hispanics. Wise is being very selective in what consequences he chooses to mention when it comes to the problem of conflating white and Hispanic arrests. The white/black arrest rates would be even more disparate if we excluded Hispanics from the racial category of white.

Wise may not be perturbed by the extraordinary black murder rate, but he is "alarmed" by white-on-black hate crimes:

Considering that blacks are much more likely to encounter whites than vice-versa, this last statistic is especially alarming. [Emphasis mine.]

Well, what do the hate crime stats say? According to the 2005 hate crimes report there were a grand total six murders that were racially-motivated hate crimes in the entire U.S. Out of those, three offenders were white, two were black, and the race of the last murderer was unknown. Wise wants us stop fussing over the thousands of murders that blacks commit above and beyond what they would commit if they had the same murder rate as whites but thinks we should be "alarmed" over the tiny number of racially motivated murders and other serious hate crimes by whites. The first and most important fact to keep in mind when it comes to hate crimes is that they are rare.

Wise also asserts:

According to several studies, when community and personal economic status is comparable between whites and blacks, there are no significant racial crime differences (1). In other words, the implicit message of Taylor's report--that blacks are dangerous because they are black--is insupportable.

Taylor, of course, presumes that both black poverty and black crime are products of black genetics so Wise's attempt to play the 'class card' is ridiculous. Ron Guhname even disputes the conclusion that when class is factored in racial disparities in crime rates disappear.

I could hammer Wise all day long but I'll just point to one last strange argument he makes:

As sociologist Robert O'Brian has noted (using Census data), the odds of a given white person (or white criminal) encountering a black person are only about three percent. On the other hand, the odds of a given black person (or black criminal) encountering a white person are nineteen times greater, or fifty-seven percent (6), meaning the actual interracial victimization gap between black-on-white and white-on-black crime is smaller than one would expect.

Wise wants to use this logic when it comes to risks of victimization but not when it comes to perpetration. Can you spot what might be fallacious about such an argument? Let us change two words:

As sociologist Robert O'Brian has noted (using Census data), the odds of a given white person (or white victim) encountering a black person are only about three percent. On the other hand, the odds of a given black person (or black victim) encountering a white person are nineteen times greater, or fifty-seven percent

Svigor said...

Wise doesn't contradict any statistics in any of his obfuscatory pieces on black crime; he just makes excuses, says "so what?" etc.

Read him carefully, and this will become obvious.

Birdman Bryant had some amusing exchanges with Mr. "white like me" Wise.

John Toomay said...

Wow, Steve, the comments on this particular blob are not up to your usually high standards of calm rationality.
One thing we can say is that there is no shortage of emotion STILL on this subject 142 years after the Civil mWar.
JCT

Anonymous said...

"Taylor, of course, presumes that both black poverty and black crime are products of black genetics so Wise's attempt to play the 'class card' is ridiculous."
Or, perhaps, Taylor's "presumption that both black poverty and black crime are products of black genetics" is ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

"Ron Guhname even disputes the conclusion that when class is factored in racial disparities in crime rates disappear."
Gunhame uses the father's completed years of school as an indicator of social class. This probably has some correlation to social class, but it is not the same thing.

Anonymous said...

Also, Wise is talking about economic differences between persons AND communities, whereas Gunhame is only talking about economic differences between individuals. According to the studies Wise cites, when one looks at black and white communities of similar economic conditions, the crime rate is about the same.

Anonymous said...

Svigor:
"Birdman Bryant had some amusing exchanges with Mr. "white like me" Wise."

BIRDMAN BRYANT???!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Yes, those exchanges were very amusing, like anything that crackpot writes, but not for the reasons I presume you find them amusing. Say what you want about Wise, at least he isn't a Nazi.

tommy said...

Or, perhaps, Taylor's "presumption that both black poverty and black crime are products of black genetics" is ridiculous.

Wise must know very well that Taylor (and almost all racialists) believes that both class differences and criminality among blacks are explained by race. Wise doesn't take the next step towards explaining what might be causing class differences among whites and blacks. That is probably because it would lead to the usual unsatisfactory social explanations. Wise is dodging. In fact, most of his essay consists of him just dodging uncomfortable facts.

Gunhame uses the father's completed years of school as an indicator of social class. This probably has some correlation to social class, but it is not the same thing.

Guhname has a few more posts on the topic that might interest to some of you: here, here, and here. In the last link, Guhname mentions a study he has read that suggests criminality is higher among middle class blacks than among lower class whites. I haven't seen either of the studies mentioned by Guhname or Wise, so I cannot say who is likely correct. I don't entirely trust Wise to know how to interpret the studies he has read critically because of things like his moronic (and sociologically-supported?) reasoning on victimization rates and white-black encounters that I mentioned towards the end of my last post.

JohnsonWoods said...

I would like to introduce to you one of the first Mixed-race Personal Listings Service you may find on the Internet! It is created to balck relationships between Black Men and White Women. This will also serve as a forum for all BM and WW to meet, share, and grow together. As stated in simple terms, this group will serve to provide support, interact, online resource, and up coming events. http://www.interracialfriends.com

mark said...

tommy said:
Wise wants to use this logic when it comes to risks of victimization but not when it comes to perpetration. Can you spot what might be fallacious about such an argument? Let us change two words:

As sociologist Robert O'Brian has noted (using Census data), the odds of a given white person (or white victim) encountering a black person are only about three percent. On the other hand, the odds of a given black person (or black victim) encountering a white person are nineteen times greater, or fifty-seven percent

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. Maybe I'm slow. Could you explain it to me please?

Anonymous said...

"Wise must know very well that Taylor (and almost all racialists) believes that both class differences and criminality among blacks are explained by race. Wise doesn't take the next step towards explaining what might be causing class differences among whites and blacks. That is probably because it would lead to the usual unsatisfactory social explanations. Wise is dodging. In fact, most of his essay consists of him just dodging uncomfortable facts."
Wise, and many others, have put forward very reasonable explanations for the gap in wealth between whites and blacks that have nothing to do with genetics. One of these might be the fact that blacks in the past were denied the oppurtunity, through slavery and jim crow, to accumulate wealth and pass it down to their descendants as whites have done, such that today, 61% of African American families have zero or negative net financial worth, whereas only 25% of white families face the same burden. (54% of Latino households are in the same boat). (Melvin L. Oliver and Thomas M. Shapiro, Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality (New York: Routledge, 1995).) "The inability to accrue net financial worth is also directly related to hiring practices in which black Americans are 'last hired' when the economy experiences an upturn, and 'first fired' when it falls on hard times." (http://www.umass.edu/afroam/hor.html) Also, "laws enacted by states forbade the teaching of blacks any means of acquiring knowledge-including the alphabet-which is the legacy of disadvantage of educational privatization and discrimination experienced by African Americans in 2001." (John Hope Franklin and Alfred A. Moss, Jr., From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African Americans, 7th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994). Do you honestly think none of this has anything to with economic inequality between races in America?

tommy said...

Mark,

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. Maybe I'm slow. Could you explain it to me please?

Wise wants to argue that differences in the rate of encounter between blacks and whites should somehow reduce the gap between black-on-white versus white-on-black crime because of differences in the probability of encountering a perpetrator of a different race. The problem is that you can reverse the situation by substituting victims for perps and come up with the opposite result. Unless Wise has additional evidence to suggest perpetrators are more likely to encounter members of the opposite race than victims, then the rate at which one race encounters another makes no difference whatsoever since both victims and perpetrators will encounter members of the opposite race at the exact same rate.

Wise, and many others, have put forward very reasonable explanations for the gap in wealth between whites and blacks that have nothing to do with genetics. One of these might be the fact that blacks in the past were denied the oppurtunity, through slavery and jim crow, to accumulate wealth and pass it down to their descendants as whites have done, such that today, 61% of African American families have zero or negative net financial worth, whereas only 25% of white families face the same burden.

anonymous,

Africans in the UK, including recent arrivals from the Caribbean, have high rates of crime and low rates of income as well and they've never faced slavery or institutionalized Jim Crow in the UK. Haiti abolished slavery well before America did but is now the poorest country in the western hemisphere. Shouldn't blacks in Canada be doing better than they are? The Chinese faced severe discrimination in America at one time but they are now one of the wealthiest groups in the country. I know, I know, you'll chalk this up to more subtle forms of discrimination and other causes and I'll throw more examples out there and before long we'll have a many-headed hydra of explanations for why blacks seem to fail everywhere. But what I really would like to know is why we don't see more progress from Africans today if slavery and Jim Crow are things of the past? Blacks born over the past few decades haven't lived through any of these things so shouldn't their impact be receding? Are we going to blame lack of self-esteem for the problem (and has anyone ever proven self-esteem is a causal factor in failure rather than a product of failure)?

tommy said...

Mark (and anyone else that doesn't quite grasp Wise's fallacy),

Let me put it one other way.

All things being equal:

If a white only rarely encounters a black then their odds of being victimized by a black are low and their odds of victimizing a black are correspondingly low.

If a black frequently encounters whites then their odds of being victimized by a white are great and their odds of victimizing a white are correspondingly great.

In real life, blacks have a low rates of victimization by white criminals but high rates of victimizing whites. But if what Wise says is true, then we should expect blacks to have correspondingly high rates of victimization by white criminals and whites should have low rates of victimization by blacks.

Wise wants you to focus only on the fact that blacks have many opportunities to commit crimes against whites and that whites have few opportunities to victimize blacks. He wants you to ignore the fact that whites should then have a correspondingly low rate of risk of being victimized by blacks and that blacks should have many opportunities to be victimized by whites. Wise is pointing to one side of a symmetrical relationship to make a point that is invalid once you consider the other side. This is typical of Wise; he is very selective in what facts he chooses to mention. Or maybe he is just blinded by his own biases and thinks he's stumbled upon something clever. I don't know.

If there are differences in the white-on-black versus black-on-white crime rates then they would not be explained at all by the reasoning Wise employs. Wise instead would need to demonstrate that black perps are more likely to come into contact with white victims than white perps are to come into contact with black victims (or, to put it another way, that black perps are more likely to come into contact with whites than the black population as a whole). Pointing to rates of encounter between whites and blacks in general doesn't prove anything because the rates of both events will be proportional. Whenever white victims are more likely to be available to black criminals due to black-white encounters then black victims will also be more available to white criminals.

I would also guess that black criminals are less likely to come into contact with whites than the general black population and that law-abiding blacks are more likely to have many encounters with whites.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:41

Native-born American Blacks have no right to belly ache about their lower levels of success. Wave after wave of immigrants from all over the world washed up on these shores have made successes of themselves despite all types of racism, materially starting far below native-born Blacks and not even knowing English. Even immigrants from the educated classes of Black nations show what that the failures native-born Blacks have made of themselves due to growing toxicity of their own culture. Look at how many Blacks in PhD programs are foreign-born or children of immigrants – especially factoring out laughable EdDs.

Many of these immigrants have experienced far more physical, mental and economic suffering than any native-born American Black: murder, rape, torture of entire families and tribes in Africa, years of physical/mental torture in Nazi concentration or Communist reeducation/labor camps, etc. Bitching and using veiled threats to extort government, university and corporate handouts does not level the playing field. It merely creates a lazy, ungrateful and resentful class of Blacks holding unearned jobs, degrees and titles that everyone knows are artifical.

Why do you expect that blacks should have the exact same net financial worth as Asians, Jews, Indians and Caucasians? Not only are most Blacks unable to fairly compete for high-skilled knowledge jobs, but their culture even denigrates education, hard-work, modesty, etc. as “acting” white. Why do you expect Hispanic economic refugees who are the least skilled, educated and talented in their own 2nd/3rd world countries to be able to come to the most advanced nation in the world, pump out 4-6 kids and have the same net financial worth as the native-born who have already worked, sacrificed and established themselves in America? The brightest and most motivated immigrants coming from countries like India, China, Russia and yes, Africa are doing quite well – the biggest problem of racism exists in your mind and the minds of other disgruntled and self-destructive American-blacks.

Please either pull yourself up like everyone else does in the country or at least be honest about they how and why of what you argue: equal wealth distribution based upon a pulse (radical Marxist) rather than based upon talent, merit and social contribution. As history has revealed human nature, your utopias ends up becoming power grabs between various nepotistic tribes that drive society into the ground and the productive elements elsewhere. You can’t enjoy the wealth, freedom, opportunity and dynamicism that only competitive capitalistic society creates by trying to turn America into a Marxist state.

Anonymous said...

"Do you honestly think none of this has anything to with economic inequality between races in America?"


No, I don't.

The problem is, liberalism requires it to have *everything* to do with inequality between races.

Anonymous said...


Are we going to blame lack of self-esteem for the problem (and has anyone ever proven self-esteem is a causal factor in failure rather than a product of failure)?


Anyone who thinks blacks in the US have low self-esteem has not talked to a teach who has had to teach blacks.

They have more self-esteem than is warranted. It is asians and whites who have lower self-esteem.

Anonymous said...

"Secondly, to claim that blacks are more dangerous than whites because of official crime rates, is to ignore that when it comes to everyday threats to personal well-being, whites far and away lead the pack in all kinds, etc."

What a bizarre thing to stick
into his little exercise in deception. Not only is it irrelevant and seething with racist hatred of whites, it is, though Mr. Wise is apparently too stupid to realize it, a backhanded acknowledgment of the truth of black victimization of whites, otherwise why bother to attempt to use it to balance Black violence? It also is a neat illustration of the difference between the old principled left and the new left that bases its power on hatred of whites; the old left would have put the responsibility for any negative effects of capitalism on big capitalists, the new rotten left puts it on a race.

There are many poor or fairly poor neighborhoods, and there are many towns in America, where the racial mix is fairly even between blacks and whites, if the ping-pong ball theory of racial encounters were true, whites, since they have equal access to blacks, should victimize blacks at the same rate as vice versa, can anyone point to an example where that is true, particularly for violent crime?
Can anyone point to a majority black city where poor white criminals victimize blacks at a higher level due to their greater availability as potential victims?

I defy anyone to prove claim that crime rates are about equal between poor whites and poor blacks, particularly if you are talking about violent crime.

Why do liberals vote with their feet when blacks and others move in? You'd think there'd be no such thing as a nearly all-black subdivision with all the enlightened progressives around. Surely they wouldn't be swayed by irrational fear?

Anonymous said...

"If a black frequently encounters whites then their odds of being victimized by a white are great and their odds of victimizing a white are correspondingly great."
What Wise says is true. If a black frequently encounters whites, then he has many oppurtunities to victimize whites. But what you say is misleading. You say that if a black comes into contact with whites often, then he has many chances to be victimized by whites. This is not necessarily true. You ignore the fact that the typical white does not encounter blacks very often. So, the kind of white person the average black encounters is from a non-representative sample of the total white population. The kind of white people that blacks encounter every day are from a very small, unrepresentative portion of the white population of America (shopkeepers, employers, etc.). So the fact that blacks aren't victimized by whites very often could just be because the kind of whites blacks run into the most aren't prone to criminal activity.

Anonymous said...

"I would also guess that black criminals are less likely to come into contact with whites than the general black population and that law-abiding blacks are more likely to have many encounters with whites."
That isn't the issue. The issue is the kind of blacks that whites are likely to come in to contact with. Wise's data says that the typical white encounters 3 blacks for every 100 people he or she meets. The question is, who are those 3 blacks? The data on white victimization rates by blacks suggests that the small number of blacks that the average white person runs into daily are more crime-prone than the general black population, just as the post above suggests that the whites that the average black runs into everyday are less crime-prone than the general white population.

tommy said...

What Wise says is true. If a black frequently encounters whites, then he has many oppurtunities to victimize whites. But what you say is misleading. You say that if a black comes into contact with whites often, then he has many chances to be victimized by whites. This is not necessarily true. You ignore the fact that the typical white does not encounter blacks very often.

But then the typical white doesn't have to come into contact with blacks very often to carry out a crime against them, only that blacks frequently encounter whites (which is exactly what Wise is arguing), including white criminals. What is more, the average white only has a tiny risk of running up against a black criminal because of how infrequently white victims and black perps encounter each other.

HOST: Wise, Tommy, how do you explain the fact that in 2005 33.6% of all sexual assaults of white (or "white Hispanic") women women black perpetrators while 0.0% of all sexual assaults of black women involved white (or "white Hispanic") men.

HOST: Whites rarely encounter blacks but blacks frequently encounter whites. So, you see, black men frequently encounter white women and therefore have many opportunities to sexually assault them. White men only rarely encounter black women and therefore don't have many opportunities to commit rape.

TOMMY: But by that logic, black women are also exposed to many white men but are still rarely sexually assaulted by white men and we might expect the rape rate of white women by blacks to be lower because white women so rarely encounter black men and thus should run only a very low risk of being victimized by black men. It would seem that differences in criminality between races or differences in perp selection of victims by their race better explain those sexual assault stats.

WISE: Don't listen to Tommy, he's a racist!

tommy said...

One last time:

Imagine black and white crime rates were roughly equal. Due to differences in population sizes, the average black frequently encounters whites and whites only rarely encounter blacks. Here is what we should see:

A. Because whites are frequently encountered by blacks, the percentage of white victims of the average black perp should be higher than expected [considering the relative size of the populations].

B. Because blacks are rarely encountered by whites, the number of black perpetrators of crimes against whites should be lower than expected. The overall percentage of crimes committed against whites by blacks should be lower than expected.

C. Because blacks are rarely encountered by whites, the number of black victims of the average white perp should be lower than expected.

D. Because whites are frequently encountered by blacks, the number of white perpetetrators of crimes against blacks should be higher than expected. The overall percentage of crimes committed against blacks by whites should be higher than expected.

Wise wants to focus on points A and C (even though they say more about the average perp than they do about the risks of victimization among races as a whole). He wants you to ignore B and D because in real life they don't jibe with what he would want to believe about race. Different races commit crime at very different rates and it may not be the case that perps of different always select their victims without regard to their race.

Finally, what Wise's information does not in itself allow us to determine is the absolute frequency with which these things should occur because we would need to know rates of same-race encounters versus rates of interracial encounters to say anything in that regard. We can only compare white-on-black versus black-on-white risks relatively Obviously, if blacks encounter whites at a far greater rate than whites encounter blacks but blacks still only encounter whites at a very low rate compared to how often they encounter other blacks, then the differences in absolute numbers of interracial crimes are going to be even more dramatic than if black-white encounters are a large percentage of blacks' day-to-day lives. We don't know the ratio of interracial encounters to all encounters so we can say nothing in this regard. I doubt a simple statistical estimation based off the Census Bureau's stats is going to provide us with a good answer since we obviously encounter relatives, most of whom are of the same race, at a much greater frequency than we do random members of society. On the other hand, it might be interesting to compare interracial crime rates between strangers.

So the fact that blacks aren't victimized by whites very often could just be because the kind of whites blacks run into the most aren't prone to criminal activity.

Do you think your average white is strolling down the streets of particularly high-crime black neighborhoods at the same rate blacks are? It cuts both ways. Whites certainly go to lengths to shield themselves from the very worst of black criminality. And what kind of black is it that is likely to have a larger number of the sort of interactions with whites you speak of: the law-abiding black or the black criminal? The employed black or the chronically unemployed one? The educated black or the uneducated one? Which is more likely to have white friends or live in a mostly white neighborhood and which is more likely to know only other blacks?

Anonymous said...

"And what kind of black is it that is likely to have a larger number of the sort of interactions with whites you speak of: the law-abiding black or the black criminal? The employed black or the chronically unemployed one? The educated black or the uneducated one? Which is more likely to have white friends or live in a mostly white neighborhood and which is more likely to know only other blacks?"
As I said before, the issue isn't the kind of black who are likely to have many interactions with whites. The typical black has about 57 encounters with whites for every 100 people they meet. But, since the average white has about only 3 out 100 encounters with blacks, that means that the 57 out of 100 whites that blacks are encountering come from a small portion of the white population. In other words, some whites choose to frequently come into contact with blacks (employers, shopkeepers, teachers, police officers, welfare workers, etc.). Those whites compose most of the 57% figure you see in Wise's statitistics. Those whites are also less prone to criminal activity (police officers frequently abuse black citizens, but it usually isn't counted as "crime"). So the result is that blacks aren't victimized by whites very often. However, most whites do not choose to have contact with blacks, and therefore only see about 3 of them for every 100 people they meet (these encounter rate statistics are all from the late 80's, so I don't know what they're like today). However, as you point out, whites are victimized by blacks far more frequently than 3% of the time. Therefore, what must be happening is that the average white is running into a particularly crime-prone kind of black person.
P.S. As to your question: "And what kind of black is it that is likely to have a larger number of the sort of interactions with whites you speak of: the law-abiding black or the black criminal? The employed black or the chronically unemployed one?"
The black criminal is likely to have many encounters with white police officers. The unemployed black is likely to have many encounters with white welfare workers. These people are likely to have MORE contact with whites than the average black.

tommy said...

HOST: Whites rarely encounter blacks but blacks frequently encounter whites. So, you see, black men frequently encounter white women and therefore have many opportunities to sexually assault them. White men only rarely encounter black women and therefore don't have many opportunities to commit rape.

Sorry, that should have been "WISE" not "HOST" making that statement.

tommy said...

The black criminal is likely to have many encounters with white police officers. The unemployed black is likely to have many encounters with white welfare workers. These people are likely to have MORE contact with whites than the average black.

The black criminal is also more likely to have MORE contact with hostile white prison inmates but I doubt either encounters with the police, with social workers, or with white convicts are likely to constitute but a small percentage of all white encounters for even the most isolated blacks. Furthermore, even most violent blacks aren't going to think of acting getting aggressive with a cop frequently.

As I said before, the issue isn't the kind of black who are likely to have many interactions with whites. The typical black has about 57 encounters with whites for every 100 people they meet. But, since the average white has about only 3 out 100 encounters with blacks, that means that the 57 out of 100 whites that blacks are encountering come from a small portion of the white population.

I still believe that the average white that blacks encounter is likely to be significantly better behaved than whites generally only when the black person him or herself is better behaved. Whatever the truth may be, Wise would again have to argue that this wasn't the case and stop arguing strictly from the encounters perspective to get there. As I said earlier:

Wise instead would need to demonstrate that black perps are more likely to come into contact with white victims than white perps are to come into contact with black victims (or, to put it another way, that black perps are more likely to come into contact with whites than the black population as a whole).

This is exactly what you are arguing but Wise hasn't made that effort.