Bill O'Reilly claimed last night (6/18/15) that Fox News had nothing to do with promoting the ideology of Dylan Roof when called out by South Carolina state senator Todd Ruthorford .
This is demonstrably false since fox has for years stoked anti black sentiment with reckless abandon. I came across this clip where Ann Coulter carted out the same FBI statistics used by white supremacists to assert 'blacks are raping white women' whilst claiming white men rarely ever rape black women.
The true origins of blacks raping white women narrative trace back to the 1999 "Color of Crime " report issued by the alleged white separatist New Century Foundation. It was taken seriously enough to have their press conference aired on C-SPAN C-SPAN along with earning a segment on Washington Journal. The claim being made regarding interracial rape is as follows:
Even so, the differences between black and “white” rates of interracial crime are enormous. As Figure 18 shows, between 2001 and 2003, blacks were 39 times more likely to commit violent crimes against whites than the reverse, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.40 There were an average of 15,400 black-on-white rapes every year during this period, 139,000 robberies, 489,000 assaults, and
12,762 sexual assaults. By contrast, there were only 900 “white”-on-black rapes every year, 7,600 robberies, 101,000 assaults, and 3,217 sexual assaults. Of all 768,879 violent interracial crimes involving blacks and whites, blacks committed 85 percent and “whites” 15 percent
Predictably I found the PDF hosted of the 2005 edition being hosted on KKK.bz and yes, that is a KKK site. It's not hard to see the nexus between mainstream outlets like Fox News, Right Wing Talk Radio, and the White Supremacists, separatist and nationalist who's ideology of xenophobia and racial hatred have long permeated the political landscape of America.
The truth is all anyone needed to do is Google "Blacks raping white women" and you'll see many places Dylan Roof could have gotten these ideas from but it's important we understand where it began. The FBI stats are being used and abused to foment racial hatred and that needs to be addressed by the mainstream media on the left. Burying our heads in the sand doesn't make these numbers go away and with the backing of an 'official source'.
This is among the most vile and pernicious propaganda coming from those sympathetic to white nationalism today and it went mainstream a while ago. Sadly few have attempted to rebut or contextualize the claims being made. One of those individuals is Tim Wise who in my opinion is an exemplary ally in the cause of racial justice because he's presents a credible challenge to white supremacists thought instead of relying on shunning or cliche rhetoric. He has written several thoughtful essays which effectively discredit the 'Color of Crime' report.
"The Color of Deception: Race, Crime and Sloppy Social Science":
Next, Taylor (report's author) claims that most victims of black violent crime are white, and thus, that blacks are violently targeting whites. Furthermore, since only a small share of the victims of white criminals are black (only 4.4 percent in 2002, for example), this means that blacks are far more of a threat to whites than vice-versa. But there are several problems with these claims.
To begin with, the white victim totals in the Justice Department’s victimization data include those termed Hispanic by the Census, since nine in ten Latino/as are considered racially white by government record-keepers. Since Latinos and Latinas tend to live closer to blacks than non-Hispanic whites, this means that many “white” victims of “black crime” are Latino or Latina, and that in any given year, the majority of black crime victims would be people of color, not whites.
But even if we compute the white totals as Taylor does, without breaking out Hispanic victims of “black crime,” his position is without merit. In 2002, whites, including Latinos, were about 81.5 percent of the population (3). That same year, whites (including Latinos) were 51 percent of the victims of violent crimes committed by blacks, meaning that whites were victimized by blacks less often than would have been expected by random chance, given the extent to which whites were available to be victimized (4).
One of the most relevant factors are the population ratios between black and white. There are more whites thus if a victim were selected at random a black would be far more likely to encounter a white than vice versa.
As sociologist Robert O’Brian has noted (using Census data), the odds of a given white person (or white criminal for that matter) 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. In 2002, blacks committed a little more than 1.2 million violent crimes, while whites committed a little more than three million violent crimes (7). If each black criminal had a 57 percent chance of encountering (and thus potentially victimizing) a white person, this means that over the course of 2002, blacks should have been expected to victimize roughly 690,000 whites. But in truth, blacks victimized whites only 614,176 times that year (8). Conversely, if each white criminal had only a three percent chance of encountering and thus victimizing a black person, this means that over the course of 2002, whites would have been expected to victimize roughly 93,000 blacks. But in truth, whites victimized blacks 135,931 times: almost 50 percent more often than would be expected by random chance (9).
A few useful facts for those who need a easy way to discredit the fear mongers:
Despite claims by right-wingers (both mainstream and overtly white supremacist) that violent crime by African-Americans is out of control — and that blacks are criminally victimizing whites at massive and disproportionate rates — the facts say otherwise. As I show in the below analysis:
* Only about 1 percent of African Americans — and no more than 2 percent of black males — will commit a violent crime in a given year;
* Even though there are more black-on-white interracial crimes than white-on-black interracial crimes, this fact is not evidence of anti-white racial targeting by black offenders. Rather, it is completely explained by two factors having nothing to do with anti-white bias: namely, the general differences in rates of criminal offending, and the rates at which whites and blacks encounter one another (and thus, have the opportunity to victimize one another). Once these two factors are “controlled for” in social science terms, the actual rates of black-on-white crime are lower than random chance would predict;
* No more than 0.7 percent (seven-tenths of one percent) of African Americans will commit a violent crime against a white person in a given year, and fewer than 0.3 (three-tenths of one percent) of whites will be victimized by a black person in a given year;
This stuff is pretty wonky but it's necessary. If you can't refute their claims they will shout it from the mountain top and insist you fear the truth when you tell them to stop. The truth is on the side of racial justice but we have to dig deep enough to understand it especially when confronted with troubling statistics.
The fear mongering around black on white crime goes beyond rape. There was a book titled of "“‘White Girl Bleed A Lot’: The Return of Racial Violence to American and How the Media Ignore It.” At the top of this WND.com article is a interview with Sean Hannity and the Author where he proudly takes credit for spreading the word on black mob violence. Gawker on 2/18/14 reported that WND.com had created over 670 reports on the subject. So many that Google had threatened to block them for violating their 'ad sense' policy against racial hatred.
as reported by WND.com:
“As we’ve discussed in times past, it’s not our intent to alter the way the editorial team covers the news, but, in accordance with our policies, we don’t allow publishers to run our ads against content found to be hate speech or intended to insult,” the Google representative wrote in an email to WND. “I’d advise removing Google ads from any pages where this is an issue including the user comments section.”
These outlets are profiting off hate mongering against ethnic, religious, and racial groups. It's the same hustle as Micheal Savage, Ann Coulter and Pamela Geller. Over the top rhetoric and language gets clicks, viewers, listeners, and book sales while poisoning the mind of the audience with the cynicism and racial hatred.
There is a market for this stuff because many whites hold negative views of minorities. The additional validation a gives that subset of the population need to feel justified in taking things next level like Dylan Roof or a Texas teacher who calls for racial segregation in the wake of McKinney. These media outlets not only claim innocents when their hate mongering manifests as overt racial hatred, they then go to claim race was never an issue to begin with. We shouldn't let them get away with this.
Where is Keith Olberman with a 'Special Comment' when you need one?