Skip to main content

In the wake of the Ferguson incident, we have heard the old meme about the very high rate of black on black murder/crime rise up again (as if that would excuse the murder of a black man by a white police officer or anyone else). Anyway, it turns out that white on white murder is also staggeringly high. So, bringing that issue up is just a bit hypocritical and disingenuous. Yes, it should be addressed, but so should all other types of crime.

From alternet.org:

Why oh why is no one commenting on the insanely high rate of of white on white murder? Bill O'Reilly?  Joe Klein, of Time magazine, who devotes his whole column to write this week on black on black murder, in response to Ferguson? Anybody? Because bringing up the canard of black on black crime whenever a white man kills a black man is just how the right-wing—and apparently the mainstream—media rolls.

Note to smug white racists: Take a look at the real numbers. According to  the FBI's most recent homicide statistics, Vox.com reports, "the United States is in the wake of an epidemic of white-on-white crime. Back in 2011, the most recent year for which data is available, a staggering 83 percent of white murder victims were killed by fellow Caucasians.

83 percent!

As Vox's Matthew Iglesias writes, rather brilliantly:

This is not to say that white people are inherently prone to violence. Most whites, obviously, manage to get through life without murdering anyone. And there are many countries full of white people — Norway, Iceland, France, Denmark, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom — where white people murder each other at a much lower rate than you see here in the United States. On the other hand, although people often see criminal behavior as a symptom of poverty, the quantity of murder committed by white people specifically in the United States casts some doubt on this. Per capita GDP is considerably higher here than in France — and the white population in America is considerably richer than the national average — and yet we have more white murderers.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Warrior nation (3+ / 0-)

    Very interesting statistics. Read somewhere that societies that engage in warfare have an increased rate of violence domestically. Doesn't explain the white on white thing though.

  •  How to explain this? (9+ / 0-)

    After all, it's not as though our obsession with gun-ownership could have anything to do with it, is there?

  •  Killing those who don't want to die, (4+ / 0-)

    that is important,
    to look at those numbers.

    But if you feel that suicide
    hurts those left behind,
    then suicide numbers
    are important, as well.

    http://www.cdc.gov/...

    Old white men
    kill old white men,
    themselves,
    at a much higher rate than any other killing of humans.

    Much higher.

    More than 30
    per 100,000 such men
    per year.

    All those homicides
    are less than half the suicides.

    Something to think about.

    To save a life,
    you might have some kind words
    for folks like me and Robin Williams.

    For me,
    personally,
    my wife keeps me safe.

    But I mean older white men.

    Famine in America by 2050: the post-peak oil American apocalypse.

    by bigjacbigjacbigjac on Sat Aug 23, 2014 at 01:58:53 AM PDT

  •  I'm not sure about this part (3+ / 0-)
    On the other hand, although people often see criminal behavior as a symptom of poverty, the quantity of murder committed by white people specifically in the United States casts some doubt on this. Per capita GDP is considerably higher here than in France — and the white population in America is considerably richer than the national average — and yet we have more white murderers.
    Per capita GDP includes Bil Gates. I'd want to see average income or wealth for the individuals murdering. I'd think it tracks poverty similar to minority murder rates.

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Sat Aug 23, 2014 at 02:23:11 AM PDT

  •  Your knowledge of statistics is sadly lacking (0+ / 0-)
    Note to smug white racists: Take a look at the real numbers. According to  the FBI's most recent homicide statistics, Vox.com reports, "the United States is in the wake of an epidemic of white-on-white crime. Back in 2011, the most recent year for which data is available, a staggering 83 percent of white murder victims were killed by fellow Caucasians.

    83 percent!

    To see the actual stats, see http://www.fbi.gov/....

    Despite the number of blacks in the US being substantially less than the number of whites, there were 2,630 white on white murders and 2,447 black on black murders.  So, the highest rate of murders is black on black.

    Worse, the total number of murders committed by blacks was higher than the total number committed by whites despite the much smaller number of blacks.

    These are facts.  The reasons for them are subject to dispute - you will get different answers from left and white - but you can't wish away the facts.

    •  The stat mentioned in the above article (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bakeneko, kurt

      is correct. It only states the percentage of murders committed by whites folks killing white folks. And, yes, the murder rate of black on black is higher. The article is merely stating that the rate of white on white murder is high also, and is much higher than black on white. I think that comment you quoted from the article is probably snark because of arguments the right uses. Any murder rate at all is too high.

      You are stating the TOTAL numbers of murders of each demographic as a percentage of the total population in each. And, yes, that IS an important stat as well.

      •  The claim in the title is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Utahrd, nextstep
        WHY OH WHY IS THE MEDIA NOT REPORTING ON THE INSANELY HIGH RATE OF WHITE ON WHITE MURDER
        In actual fact, the rate of White on White murder is far lower than the rate of Black on Black murder.
        •  According to Vox.com, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kathy Scheidel, kurt

          the rate is 83%. Are you saying they got that wrong? I'm assuming they checked their numbers because this is Ezra Klein's blog, is it not.

          Anyway, assuming the 83% is correct, that's high. And, yes, black on black murder is 90% (according to that same article) and is higher. How can you say that 83% is far lower than 90%? I guess it depends on what you mean by "far lower." I would disagree.

          •  Perhaps you don't know what a rate is? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Utahrd

            The rate of white on white murder is the number of white on white murders divided by the number of whites in the population.

            The 83% and 90% numbers are pretty meaningless.

            As an example, let's say there are 100 whites and 100 blacks in the population.

            One white kills another white and one white kills a black.

            19 blacks kill other blacks and no blacks kill whites.

            In that case 100% of murders of whites would be committed by whites and only 95% of murders of blacks would be by other blacks.

            So would that mean that we should be concerned that 100% of whites are murdered by other whites?  Or should we be concerned that blacks have a 20% murder victim rate compared to the white 1% murder victim rate and a 19% murder commission rate compared to the white 2% murder commission rate?

            •  Rate means what you want it to mean. (0+ / 0-)

              You are the one confused on that point. You just divide one number by another one, and you get a percentage (doesn't have to be meaningful and useful but could be).

              Now, you're getting back to rates using total numbers in the population. And, yes, that is meaningful and probably more meaningful than the rates used in this article. And, that might be why all the snark in it. It's just throwing those same arguments back in the faces of the right who use them.

              •  Except the arguments from the right use real rates (0+ / 0-)

                Rates based on the numbers in the population.

                So this doesn't throw the arguments back in the faces of the right who use them.  It just shows that people on the left don't know how to apply math.

                •  No, they don't. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bakeneko

                  They use the 90% number, which is the same thing ... the number of blacks who murder other blacks divided by the total number of blacks murdered. They could use others statisitics/rates to prove their points, but they would be wrong for other reasons anyway.

                  •  The 90% number is not a rate (0+ / 0-)

                    And the right wing sources I could find on this seem intelligent enough to realize that.  For example, see http://www.nationalreview.com/... and http://online.wsj.com/....

                    •  Yes, it IS a rate. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Denise Oliver Velez

                      And, go look at the sources in the article. They did not quote the two you have mentioned. They did quote a Time article. It mentions both. The focus on the article here was on the 90% quote in the Time article.

                      •  OK. Checked the Time article. Klein is also (0+ / 0-)

                        too smart to call it a rate.

                        https://time.com/...

                        Blacks represent 13% of the population but commit 50% of the murders; 90% of black victims are murdered by other blacks.
                        Klein also makes another stupid mistake.
                        but the metaphoric truth was undeniable: black women have been casually violated by white men in America for 400 years.
                        If so, they are not reporting it.  See http://www.bjs.gov/....  The NCVS did not find a single black who had been raped by a white.  In comparison, 16.4% of rapes of white women were committed by blacks.  For both races, of course, the majority of rapes are committed by members of the same race, just as one would expect.
                        •  "*Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases." (2+ / 0-)

                          It also shows 0% white-on-black robbery with injury (15.3% without), and 0% white-on-black attempt to take property (with or without injury), in all cases "*Estimate is based on 10 or fewer samples" so really not very useful for drawing any conclusions, other than that whoever compiled this at the Bureau of Justice Statistics didn't care a whole lot about meaningful data.

                          Because that data is from 2008, and if that's what they've got as current on their website, clearly they don't care much about keeping this up to date.

                          Inside of me are two dogs. One is mean and evil. The other is gentle and good. The two dogs fight all the time. Which dog wins? The one I feed the most.

                          by bakeneko on Sat Aug 23, 2014 at 09:57:31 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  What that means is that under 10 blacks reported (0+ / 0-)

                            rapes by whites.

                            From the percentage value (0) you can tell that actually none did.

                            That does not mean that there were no such rapes in the entire US - the NCVS does not interview every single person in the US and, in addition, some people may choose not to be truthful.  However it does strongly indicate that the number of such rapes is extremely small compared to the number of black on black, white on white, and black on white rapes.

                            It also shows 0% white-on-black robbery with injury (15.3% without), and 0% white-on-black attempt to take property (with or without injury), in all cases "*Estimate is based on 10 or fewer samples" so really not very useful for drawing any conclusions, other than that whoever compiled this at the Bureau of Justice Statistics didn't care a whole lot about meaningful data.
                            Actually, it means that some events are rare enough that you have difficulty finding many cases with a reasonably sized survey.  You can certainly draw conclusions from these numbers.  What you can't do is compare percentages accurately if the totals are very small.  For example, the NCVS found under 10 blacks who had suffered a completed robbery with injury.  Of those, 15.3% were done by whites.  Mathematically, that has to mean one case.  Does that tell us that the true percentage of such robberies done by whites is over 10%?  Or even over 5%?  Or under 30%?  Probably not.  Does that tell us that this is very uncommon?  Definitely.

                            The 2007 and 2006 reports also found no cases of white on black rape, further supporting that the percentage of such cases is extremely small.

                            Because that data is from 2008, and if that's what they've got as current on their website, clearly they don't care much about keeping this up to date.
                            That's what's up to date.  See http://www.bjs.gov/....  Presumably the Obama administration Justice Department had other priorities than maintaining this data.
                        •  Lies, damn lies, and statistics (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Denise Oliver Velez

                          So, again, based on "10 or fewer samples" (from your linked document), you really think you can pass this statement off as being in any way statistically significant?

                          The NCVS did not find a single black who had been raped by a white.
                          Obviously they didn't look very hard.

                          And it doesn't make Klein's statement a "stupid mistake".

                          Not with 400 years of history vs. a lazy statistics sheet from 2008, and not with hundreds if not thousands of first-hand accounts of black women being casually violated by white men.

                          That you don't personally know any black women who have been raped by white men doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

                          Inside of me are two dogs. One is mean and evil. The other is gentle and good. The two dogs fight all the time. Which dog wins? The one I feed the most.

                          by bakeneko on Sat Aug 23, 2014 at 10:47:10 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  The NCVS does not go looking (0+ / 0-)
                            The NCVS did not find a single black who had been raped by a white.
                            Obviously they didn't look very hard.
                            Well, no, they didn't.  What they do is they survey 50 - 75 thousand households twice a year to get a statistically representative sample of US households.
                            And it doesn't make Klein's statement a "stupid mistake".

                            Not with 400 years of history vs. a lazy statistics sheet from 2008, and not with hundreds if not thousands of first-hand accounts of black women being casually violated by white men.

                            The plural of anecdote is not data.  Can you find hundreds of first hand accounts of "black women being casually violated by white men" from a single year?  The NCVS estimates about 19,200 black on white rapes in 2008, so you would need thousands of such accounts from a single year to argue that the number of white on black rapes was comparable.
                            That you don't personally know any black women who have been raped by white men doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
                            Didn't say it doesn't happen.  What I did say is that if it happens to any significant extent compared to white on white, black on black, or black on black rapes then black women are not reporting these cases.
                        •  Pehaps you should read (3+ / 0-)

                          At the Dark End of the Street:Black Women, Rape, and Resistance

                          Then come back and talk to me, because you obviously don't have a clue.

                          "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition." Dr. Bernice Johnson Reagon

                          by Denise Oliver Velez on Sat Aug 23, 2014 at 11:20:53 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  you might also want to read (3+ / 0-)

                          reading while white: black rape statistics

                          Oh - and by the way, push any more of this racist Birth of a Nation tripe on here, and this black woman will be giving you chocolate donuts.

                          "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition." Dr. Bernice Johnson Reagon

                          by Denise Oliver Velez on Sat Aug 23, 2014 at 11:29:50 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Especially interesting link (2+ / 0-)

                            because it discusses the same "10 or less" statistic sheet referenced above by the guy who told the diarist

                            Your knowledge of statistics is sadly lacking

                            Inside of me are two dogs. One is mean and evil. The other is gentle and good. The two dogs fight all the time. Which dog wins? The one I feed the most.

                            by bakeneko on Sat Aug 23, 2014 at 12:57:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks. This is a relevant link and I had not (0+ / 0-)

                            seen it before.  Thanks for actually posting something responsive instead of just a silly attack.

                            That said, Abagond makes a number of mistakes.

                            Misreading #1: The numbers are not about “rape” but “rape and sexual assault (a)”. Sexual assault means any kind of unwanted sexual touching, like groping or kissing. And the “(a)” means “Includes verbal threats of rape and threats of sexual assault”. So it is way more than just rape. Rape is probably just a small part of it.
                            Fair enough.  But irrelevant to the racial aspects here.  It just means that this includes threats to rape, not just rape.  Unless there is a reason to believe that the racial breakdown of rape victims and offenders is significantly different than of rape threat victims and offenders it means nothing.
                            Misreading #2: Notice that the star meaning “ten or fewer” applies not just to white-on-black “rape and sexual assault (a)” but to black-on-white cases too! So if we claim that ten or fewer black women were raped by white men then we should also say that ten or fewer white women were raped by black men!
                            This is a survey.  Of the survey respondents, both statements are true.  Of the entire US, it is highly likely that both statements are false.
                            Misreading #3: The star means “Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases”, the key word here being “sample”. They did not ask everyone in the country but a sample of 77,852 people, about one in 4,000. So there could have been as many as 40,000 black women raped by white men that year!
                            Major misunderstanding of statistics.  With a sample of 77,000 people if you find no cases it is highly unlikely that the true prevalence in the population is 10 out of 77,000.

                            In addition, the NCVS is a household survey, so assuming 4 people per household they are interviewing about 1 out of every 1,000 households, not 1 out of every 4,000 people in the US.

                            The hypothesis that the true prevalence of white on black rapes and threats of rape is very low is further supported by the fact that the number of such cases found in 2006, 2007, and 2008 was 0 each time.  For comparison, the percentage black on white out of all rapes and threats of rape on whites for those years was 16.7%, 7.6%, and 16.4%.  That gives you a reasonably good idea of the accuracy of these estimates - not very... but the actual prevalence is probably somewhere between those numbers.

                            Misreading #4: The reason for the star is because ten or fewer sample cases are way too few to draw any firm statistical conclusions. Mere chance could throw the numbers way off.

                            As it turns out, of the 77,852 people surveyed, only 56 people reported “rape and sexual assault (a)”. According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) only 7.5% of sexual assaults are rapes and of those only 6.7% are between whites and blacks. So out of the 56 sample cases, maybe only 4 were rape and of those probably none were interracial.

                            There is no cite for the RAINN statistic so I can't look at whether their numbers are in any sense comparable to those of the NCVS or where they get their information from.

                            That said, again, unless you can provide some reason to believe that the racial breakdown of victims and offenders is different for rapes than for threats of rape or for sexual assaults that do not include an actual rape then this remains the best statistic we have on the subject.

                •  Have you ever listened to some of the comentators (0+ / 0-)

                  or news show hosts cited in that article? It's quite amusing what they come up with.

        •  BTW, the title simply repeats (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bakeneko, kurt

          the first line in the article.

  •  I think you're confusing rate and absolute numbers (0+ / 0-)

    By "I think" I mean "I'm absolutely sure but I'm trying to be polite even though you're in way over your head."

    It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

    by Rich in PA on Sat Aug 23, 2014 at 04:14:36 AM PDT

    •  No, I'm not. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kathy Scheidel, a2nite, bakeneko, kurt

      Perhaps the author of the article is, but I'm not.

      Any murder rate at all is too high. And, many more whites kill whites that any other race kill whites (even in proportion to the population  in each demographic according to this article).  And, it's just to say that using the meme of black on black murder to explain away and excuse racism is wrong.

  •  Tipped and rec'ed nt (3+ / 0-)

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Sat Aug 23, 2014 at 09:30:58 AM PDT

  •  Racists love distractions, and murder is partly a (3+ / 0-)

    distraction. The vast majority of people aren't murders, although murder is more a concern in the Black community. (The idea that white racists actually care about this, though, is another fallacy and another distraction.)

    The real question is, what percent of each community is not murders. And does the discrepency between the two justify allowing whites to walk around free and de-facto subjugating black folks. I think you'll see that vast majority of either community never murder, and when talking about murders, you're talking about a fraction of either population so small that saying one group gets freedom and other gets police subjugation because of it is not a sustainable argument.

  •  I think a well thought out prologue comparison (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    librarisingnsf

    would be welcome in all this. I always like to go back to the very basics of any question.
    I think I can get away with saying that races tend to congregate among themselves. It perpetuates, not only, the race, but what is created within said race. It's self-sustaining.
    However, over the course of human history, and particularly in America, races have relaxed their standards to quite a degree. There is more interrelationship.
    This brings me to the comparison, I mentioned.
    Very generally speaking, I wonder how much time people of different races actually spend in their day-to-day lives interacting with races not their own. What percentage of life is not strictly within ones own sphere? How much is, merely, necessary? How much is elective?
    This has already been done somewhere, I suppose. I don't know. But the thought fascinates me.

    Free Will is the only moral law.//If you have to explain snark, it's because it isn't working on one end or the other.

    by franklyn on Sat Aug 23, 2014 at 02:25:59 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site