For some reason the corporate media in this nation want to sensationalize white-on-black crime in America while under-reporting black-on-white crime which is racially motivated. White people are noticing the selective reporting. The response of the new conservative media, mostly through social-networking and blog sites, is to highlight one story after another of brutal racially-motivated attacks on whites by blacks. The result is a bigger racial divide than ever before, and I rise today in opposition to this divide.
These practices produces a black population driven by a frenzy of media manipulation into believing that they don't have the full protection of the law. Meanwhile the white population believes the same thing- because of a reluctance of the media to identify the instances of black-on-white racially motivated crime for what it is. I don't believe that leaving it there is the proper response.
First of all, it is true that black-on-white crime is about seven times more prevalent than white-on-black crime, but that stat is highly deceptive. For one thing, in around eighty percent of crimes both victims are the same race. Black on black crime and white on white crime is a bigger problem than either race victimizing the other.
But even the seven on one ratio is deceptive, because there are around six times as many whites as blacks in America. If a black guy picks someone out at random to victimize the odds are much greater that person will be white just because of the numbers. If a white guy picks out someone at random to victimize, the odds are much greater that the person will be white for the same reason. Think of it like this: If one black guy and one white guy reach into a bag which contains six times as many white stones as black ones, they will each on average, draw out about six times more white stones. The same principle explains most, though perhaps not all, of the disparity we see in crime victimization rates.
This does not at all change the seriousness of the occurrences of racially-motivated black on white crime in this country. The pain of the victims is real. If you care to search it, you can find a number of horrific anecdotes of such attacks. The total number of racially-motivated attacks was 567 in 1998, according to the FBI. The actual number is very likely to be higher, though back then the FBI was perhaps less politically correct in reporting such figures than it would be now, when everything has been politicized. Let's say there are 1,000 such attacks annually.
While each is offensive and an outrage, in a nation of 310 million people it hardly represents an epidemic. It does not justify a racial divide. There are almost 40 million black people in this nation. Even if there were two perps per crime, and each criminal committed only one crime per year, it would mean that one black person out of 20,000 was a hate-criminal. 19,999 out of 20,000 are not. In percentage terms, that is 0.00000005%. The problem is the tiny number of brutal criminals within the population, not the population. The bad feeling this issue is engendering between the races is all out of proportion to the actual problem, but it won't be if we don't change course. By the way, white-on-black racially motivated crimes are three or four times as numerous as the reverse.
I have lived much of my life in places which there was a significant black minority. For various reasons, I spent a lot of time in neighborhoods which were predominately black. A lot of it was that when I was a young man I just liked to play basketball and that is where the games were. I never came close to being victimized by a hate criminal. I realize that some of that may just be me. In my younger days I could give off a definite "that's me" vibe. Still, I could not have lived the life I have lived if even one percent of the black population were hate criminals just looking for a chance to jump a lone white guy. Is it rational to hold fear or animosity towards 37 million people because somewhere in there are a few thousand hate criminals?
And that brings me to my next point. I think the problem is not in black America as a whole, but concentrated in maybe a dozen large cities. It is well documented that big-city life is bad for your mental health and decision making. Unfortunately for them, black Americans are concentrated in large urban areas. That might be part of the problem. If you read that link the study basically shows that city people are more impulsive, aggressive, and less thoughtful, because of the over-stimulus of their surroundings.
My experience has mostly been with black populations in cities of 50,000 or less, and from my personal experience I know that blacks are not particularly violent. I find the charge at odds with what I know to be true. Understand that anyone can be violent if they are in desperate circumstances, as the poor often are, but considering what they face I just don't see black America outside of these few urban areas as having a serious racial-violence problem.
I don't know that whites from single parent families, crowded into concrete jungles and given similar economic outcomes, would not even be more prone to violence. I feel fairly certain that I and my friends would have at the least burned all of the welfare offices to the ground and taken our women back from the government. You may think that white people don't tend to riot. I guess it depends on how you score it. Maybe our style is we just wait a little longer to get organized and call it a revolution, but there is no lack of bloodshed in either case. Humans, when pushed, can and will become violent and that is not a function of our race, but a function of our humanity. Polarizing things around race feeds into this human weakness, it does nothing to alleviate it.
Our government and media are acting as though they would like to divide us on race. They have motive as well as opportunity, for that way we need more of them as the referee and protector. That way maybe the middle class whose taxes are paying for most of it won't object to the encroaching police state as much as they should. England's SOP when taking over a colony was to find some tribal division and intervene on the side of the weaker tribe, so that the two sides could be balanced - with them as the difference maker. It also prevented the tribes from uniting to cast off the true invaders. Is our ruling class using this tried-and-true strategy on America, trying to keep us divided on race lest we realize that they are the real problem?
While whose ancestors were slaves 170 years ago is important, it is not nearly as important as the fact that the ruling class is turning all of us, of every color, into debt slaves right now. They are siphoning off the wealth of the entire nation from our pockets to theirs via the monetary system. To the ruling class who are the beneficiaries of the Federal Reserve and the ongoing bail-outs, we are all Amerindians now. Their partners, the control freaks in government who want to control every aspect of your life, at best want to be our benevolent government masters on the new national plantation. The bottom line is this: Maybe your ancestors came here on the Mayflower, or maybe they came on a slave-ship, but we are all in the same boat now. And we'd best figure out a way to row together.