A new blog post from Ron Unz examines the correlation across large US cities between the percentage of the population that identifies itself as black and rates of various violent crimes. The correlations are remarkably stable over time and run around 80% for measures like homicide and robbery. Unz remarks that his findings were a surprise to several social scientists with whom he had discussed them while a few other social scientists were aware of this relationship.
While he shows graphs of the correlations over time he doesn’t provide much in the way of detail city by city. Curious, I quickly downloaded state level statistics for homicide rates and percentage of population that is black. A quick scatter is here:
I don’t know how this will render on the WordPress blog: if there is interest I will try to put up more legible and focussed versions. Overall, the correlation between murder rate and percent black in the state data is 0.82, essentially duplicating Unz’ result for urban areas.
By states (including the District of Columbia as a state) the rate varies from around 1 per hundred thousand per year in Vermont, New Hampshire, Hawaii, and Minnesota to nearly 20 in DC. As Unz discusses, the rates would presumably be much higher and the correlations with percentage black also much higher is nearly a quarter of the populations of young black males were not in prison.
For states with very low black populations the range is from 1 to nearly 8 in New Mexico. European national figures are between 1 and 5, so homicide rates in, say, Vermont, are much like those of European nations. Why is there so much more homicide in New Mexico? Greg may suggest that the high percentage of hispanics in the population is responsible but we must not forget that New Mexico’s Rio Grande valley, from Los Alamos to White Sands has a remarkable high concentration of Ph.D. physicists. Hmmmm.
While our nation is obsessed with the Zimmerman-Martin dustup, these numbers reveal in my opinion the real tragedy of the sociology of our black population. Zimmerman-Martin is a sordid circus created by unscrupulous journalists, prosecutors, and race hustlers. These homicide rates, on the other hand, reflect premature deaths of thousands of our citizens, year after year.
West Hunter 
La Griffe du Lion covered this technique in August 2012 http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/hispanic.htm in “Crime and the Hispanic Effect”. Also relevant are http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/city.htm “THE EFFECT OF URBAN FLIGHT ON IQ DISTRIBUTION” August 2002 and “Crime in the Hood (1999)” http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/hood.htm.
Heh. “Union of Nationalist Zapatistas…UNZ”
The fanning of racial hysteria by the media in the Zimmerman-Martin case shows how unhinged our whole society has become over race.
The only part of this that seems interesting to me is that professional social scientists were surprised by this information. Personally, I am sorry that someone even had to waste the time making a graph to show something so obvious. Id like more detail on what these surprised social scientists said in response. What about the black homocide rate being consistently higher than everyone else’s is a surprise?
I am absolutely certain, judging from your comment, that you are not an academic in a social science department. Such people in fact do not know simple facts like these while cab drivers, for example, know them very well.
But these are hate facts, and if we resolutely ignore them then certainly they will go away.
I’m not any sort of academic, it’s true. My experience with social science types is that they are aware of this kind of fact, but they believe one of the following:
1. The higher black crime rate is evidence that the prison industrial complex is rounding up blacks and targeting them disproportionately.
2. A legacy of slavery and oppression has driven blacks to such poverty and marginalization that they can only hope to survive off of the black market and crime.
3. The psychological toll of oppression has driven blacks to give up, so they are not afraid of jail.
The black crime rate is a hard fact to ignore. Now, I’ve seen social science types ignore facts that are not as obvious. Like my sociology professor was aghast to find that lazy fat red state americans were not the fattest people in the world. It’s actually several Arab countries, those of an Oppressed Race, that creates fatter societies. He so wanted to hate on American culture for fostering obesity, but it bothered him that he would then have to disparage Oppressed Race people for the same.
@feministx
“1. The higher black crime rate is evidence that the prison industrial complex is rounding up blacks and targeting them disproportionately.”
bring up the race differences found in the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). it doesn’t matter if the police or the legal system or prison system is racist because the NCVS asks the victims of crime for the race of the attackers, so it isn’t relying on some tainted racist official statistics.
I am an academic in a social science department, and I agree with feministx. In fact, I’m not sure I believe Unz is telling the unreserved truth.
There are lots of papers in the social sciences examining the correlations between race and stuff. Approximately all of them find that if stuff is a good thing then black correlates negatively with it, and if stuff is a bad thing then black correlates positively with it. Everyone has read hundreds of these papers. Just as she says, you get rube goldberg theories to make these correlations whitey’s fault, but everybody knows they are there.
Bill:
Well none of the social science academics I know, some of them quite eminent, had ever heard of my racial correlation findings before, and seemed quite shocked. In fact, just yesterday I received another note to that effect from a top Harvard professor whom I’d lost touch with a dozen years ago but came across my paper.
Would you be so good as to provide some references to those “hundreds of papers” you say you’ve already seen on that subject?
@Ron Unz
The scare quotes distort what I said. I did not claim that hundreds of such papers exist. That would be silly. Thousands or tens of thousands of such papers exist. I said everyone has read hundreds. Furthermore, I did not say or imply that even one paper had calculated the exact correlation with the exact data you did — that kind of bivariate, ecological approach went out of fashion a long time ago in most of the social sciences.
As for what I did say, you want me to document the existence of academic papers which find things like:
— black people commit more crime than white people
— black people earn less money than white people
— black people get less schooling than white people
— black people have worse credit scores than white people
— black people lie more than white people
— black people are less compliant with medication regimes than white people
— black neighborhoods are inferior to white neighborhoods
Yes? I’ll oblige for at least some of them if you genuinely don’t know.
I’ll happily double down: Nobody was shocked to learn that cities with a higher percentage black have higher crime rates. Well, maybe you could find some cultural anthropologist somewhere . . . It’s more likely that either you are misunderstanding what they are saying, that your ass is being kissed because you are a rich guy, or that you have provoked some PC defense mechanism. Somebody somewhere along the line is making very significant mental reservations, though, that’s for sure.
What I found most suggestive about that particular exchange was the disparate reactions of the rightist and leftist academics. It’s clear to me that the rightists are gun-shy. While Ron was able to charm some of the leftists into a state of comfort that was sufficient to encourage a bit of ‘naughty’ honesty, there was no way in Hell that the rightists were going to raise their heads out of their bunkers, lest they find themselves unwilling participants in a game of academic whack-a-mole.
Ron Unz: Here is a 1990 paper with citation counts in the hundreds:
Click to access land_mccall_cohen-ajs-1995.pdf
On pp. 928-29 you will find a summary of studies done at the city level before 1990 that look at the associations between %black and homicide rates, conditional on control variables. You’ll note the many pluses, which stand for positive associations.
@LemmusLemmus:
Nice paper, though with a vast quantity of eye-glazing and perhaps even intentionally obfuscating verbiage.
However it ran in the January 1990 issue of an academic journal, so was probably written almost 25 years ago. Indeed, all of the data comes from 1980 or earlier, and it appears that the correlations weren’t really so remarkable back then.
Perhaps you can find something a little more recent and a bit closer to my own findings?
Ron Unz: I linked to this paper in part to demonstrate that the association between %black and crime rates is *old news*. You ask for more recent papers. Google Scholar is your friend:
Click to access 232084.pdf
As I said above, the individual-level differences (African American overinvolvement in crime) is even better known. Recent papers:
Click to access lafree_racialgap.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00222.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
I have properly read only the last of these papers and it is the only one for the quality of which I can vouch. The point is simply that all of this is well known. And, no, I am not going to put a lot of time into looking for a paper that presents bivariate correlations specifically. As Bill said above, you cannot get a paper published on the basis of such an analysis these days. I’ve found correlations such as the ones you presented myself in a sample of U.S. cities (1990 and 2000 data). It did not occur to me to write them up for publication.
LemmusLemmus:
Well, look. The publicly available FBI arrest data as well as the BJS reports on incarceration rates both demonstrate that blacks have considerably higher crime rates than other groups. I’m certainly not claiming that anyone—least of all social scientists—have remained totally unaware of that fact. And if blacks have considerably higher crime rates, it naturally follows that there would probably also be a positive correlation between black population percentages and urban crime rates. No one would ever be surprised by that.
What *did* surprise many people was the *magnitude* of those urban crime correlations, which have been uniformly around 0.80 for the last couple of decades in all major crime categories. From what I’ve been told, finding a sociological correlation of 0.80 for just about anything is quite extraordinary. Furthermore, I strongly suspect this correlation would actually be far higher if geographical units of lower granularity than overall cities were used.
I’d also like to emphasize that my striking results may be obtained with negligible resources and effort, and are about as trivial as can be imagined. Running weighted correlations on simple public datasets merely requires a basic Excel spreadsheet, which is how I performed them. They’re also fairly intuitive: decades ago, I eyeballed a list of America’s major cities ranked by crime rates, and knew I’d find very high racial correlations if I someday bothered doing the calculation.
I skimmed through a couple of the lengthy, verbose papers you referenced, filled with mathematical formulae and all sorts of complex details, and didn’t see anything like my results mentioned anywhere. Perhaps they’re hidden in a footnote somewhere. If you yourself had discovered such astonishingly high correlations but decided not to try publishing, I guess that was your decision.
On one point I might agree with you: “you cannot get a paper published on the basis of such an analysis these days.” Perhaps that explains why almost no one seems aware of those remarkable correlations.
How about simply run down some of the many references in “The Bell Curve.” Yea, yea, it was a very contentious book when it came out AND it draws many conclusions that may not be strongly supported by the data or are controversial, even wrong-headed, but it is out there. And simply because the data is “old”, do you really think the basic underlying causes have changed that much. Can I refer you to some of the writings of W.E.B. Du Bois? Better yet, you can look crime stats from the UN and from law enforcement agencies throughout the world, this you can simply Google. Try Australia or Wales. I was astounded, the answer consistently comes up the same. People a just different, they are not all “the same” across any attribute, it is not necessarily good or bad, it just is.
Ron Unz: I think we’re reaching agreement. I can certainly believe that many – perhaps most – social scientists will be surprised by the *size* of the correlation, which is indeed unusual for the social sciences unless you correlate two conceptually similar constructs with each other.
“hate facts” Oh, that is too precious for words. Much obliged.
Martin Daly put up a similar figure at the HBES conference and attributed the differences between states to differences in inequality. I was wondering if he controlled for the racial composition of the states, but he didn’t say.
Thanks. I will write Martin and ask if he has a manuscript.
Certainly a purely social model of some sort is on the table along with genetic models. One genetic model, pushed by Phil Rushton and others, is that the differences are really due to race and to evolution over the last 100,000 years or so. A second, pushed by Gregory Clark and Peter Frost, posits evolution over the last 500 to 2,000 years. Social ‘explanations’ tend mostly to be puffery and wordspeak but Martin is above that and his idea will be worth looking at.
One would still need an explanation as to how inequality has come about in each state. It could be differential access to resources (restriction of opportunity), or differential ability to utilize resources (restriction of ability).
The correlation between poverty and crime is reasonable (there’s a lot out there on this, particularly among the redistributionists), the correlation between crime and poverty is near unity. E.g., if you engage in crime and violence you WILL be poor and you WILL live in an impoverished neighborhood. It is simple common sense. It is so bewildering to me how so many social scientists confuse correlation with cause-effect. In science, you need a verifiable underlying theory that can be arrived at independent of the correlation.
I have a feeling that Ron Unz may be b.s.ing us. The strong statistical associations between %black and crime rates are well known among students of crime, the overrepresentation of African Americans at the individual level is even better known. Whether this knowledge makes it into the NYT is another matter.
The NYT is The New York Times. They do not publish hate facts.
“Whether this knowledge makes it into the NYT is another matter.”
That’s the critical point though.
A positive relationship between % Blacks and murder seems utterly unsurprising. If a group commits more murder per capita, then more of them would raise the per capita murder rate in an utterly predictable and linear way.
What would be interesting (to me) is how predictive the % Black is, how well you can predict a state’s murder rate based purely on its % Black (also whether this works better than, for instance, SAT rate adjusted for state participation %)…
What Unz seems to attempts to do is show that Hispanics have a slightly negative effect on the murder rates in cities, not because they necessarily have lower rates of murder than Whites (although this is relatively comparable for foreign born Hispanic immigrants, its different for the children, contra Unz’s oft repeated assertions, but, just like they’ll never get old….) but because they are substituting for Blacks who have higher murder rates than Whites.
This is pretty tenable. And its tenable that this effect could motivate pro-immigration feeling to some extent, in the cities.
But what he does next is present this idea of substitution for Blacks by Hispanics as a major factor in declines in the murder rate in large cities since 1993.
It is probably not, for reasons that the same decline, of about the same relative magnitude, is seen across the USA and across the Western world beyond the USA. There is also a decline of the same roughly relative magnitude within Blacks themselves.
“But what he does next is present this idea of substitution for Blacks by Hispanics as a major factor in declines in the murder rate in large cities since 1993.”
Isn’t it the case that the cities where the murder rate has declined the *most* are those where the black population has declined the most? New York in particular showing the most dramatic decline.
In his piece Unz notes that the decline in New York there was “a small 7% decline in black numbers”. It is an outlier in terms of crime, which seems to be explained by its police tactics. Speaking of which, the rate at which blacks are stopped (and presumably frisked) is higher than the rate at which they are arrested. So even with their disproportionate offending rates, they are still stopped out of proportion.
I don’t think African-Americans are inherently more criminal, and I don’t think racist whites are making African-Americans commit crimes. I think that in your race you wear your history on your sleeve, as it were, and this makes integration impossible as integration is the process of coming to have the same conceptions and emotional connections to a shared history. This resulting alienation, perhaps nurtured by the IQ issues discussed here, is the cause of so much black dysfunction.
“I don’t think African-Americans are inherently more criminal”
If you have a welfare underclass environment dominated by gangs are the gang members likely to be the most violent and criminal individuals in that environment? Yes. In that environment do gang members have more children than non gang members on average? I’d say definitely yes (possibly less so after the start of mass incarceration) but can’t prove it.
If so and you don’t believe in the blank slate nonsense then the social policy of the last 50 years has effectively been the equivalent of a pitbull breeding program.
(I’d say you can see the beginnings of the same thing in white ex working-class rustbelt neighborhoods.)
If correct then whatever inherent level of violence or criminality existed among African-Americans in 1965 it’s got worse since.
Wanderer I think your point is right on the money. On the other hand we should not fall into the journalist trap of identifying “black people in American” with “underclass black people in America.” In the face of the current brouhaha about race we have to keep in mind that Jesse Jackson is no valid spokesman for the former and that black crime seems to proceed mostly from the latter subset.
Incarceration and death make me much less confident that gang members have more children on average than their non-gang member neighbors.
I’m quite confident of the fact, myself. Not only because I spent nearly a decade living among them, in a multiracial, declining rust belt area, but because there has recently been the beginnings of a secular spiritual awakening to the necessity to confront painful truths, at least among Gen X and Millennial black men.
The Thug archetype is catnip. Thugs don’t wear gloves. Thugs don’t care. Thus, they monopolize the lion’s share of the breeding opportunities. This is exacerbated by choice, as well; a lot of the newly risen can and do go to extraordinary lengths to lower their risk of financial exposure.
“I don’t think African-Americans are inherently more criminal,”
Yeah and O.J. is innocent. People of african ancestry are inherently more criminal the world over.
“I don’t think African-Americans are inherently more criminal”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A#Aggression_and_the_.22Warrior_gene.22
MAO-A gene cleans up old neurotransmitters in the brain that are no longer needed.
When the MAO-A gene is non functional, impulsive ultra-violence results in all cases. But that was only found in one family of clearly damaged Dutchmen.
Almost everyone has an MAO-A gene that is somewhat functional. But there are two variants that are less active than the standard.
59% of Black men, 56% of Maori men, 54% of Chinese men, and 34% of Caucasian men carry the MAO-A 3R allele, which is a moderately low activity variant. That gene does not in and of itself, carry a correlation with higher rates of violence. But when combined with aggravating factors such as childhood abuse, high testosterone, low IQ, dropping out of school, poor living standards, an increase in anti-social behavior (criminality) was found, relative to those individuals with a high functioning MAO-A gene and the same life history.
Additionally, there is a more seriously low-functioning MAO-A variant. 5.5% of Black men, 0.1% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men carry the 2R allele. In male adolescents, MAO-A 2R variant doubled[1] rates of violent and serious delinquency.
[1]http://www.unc.edu/%7Egguo/papers/08%20MAOA%202R%20aggression%20EJHG.pdf
The difference in MAO-A 2R between population groups looks significant.
From wiki:
“… is an enzyme that degrades amine neurotransmitters, such as … serotonin.”
You know what else inhibits degradation of serotonin …
I did a little back-of-the-envelope math, using the %B and %A of individuals with the MAO-A 2R variant: (I assumed that the Chinese % tracked %A)
China 1.4 b. people, nearly half of whom are male. Expect 4,690 such individuals in a country the size of the United States, with 4.7 times the population.
Detroit, Michigan (2013) 688,701 people, roughly 210,000 of whom are black males (18+). Expect 11,550 such individuals.
No, that’s not fuzzy math, but the sad truth. There are 2-1/2 times as many such fellows roaming the streets, clubs, and schools of Detroit, than there are in all of the most populous nation on the planet. Crammed into less than 143 sq. mi., rather than settled over 3.7 million sq. mi.
Any questions?
I have trouble with the meme that goes like “the history blacks have had to endure at the hands of whites is the primary cause” (e.g., past and lingering discrimination and bigotry). No one has been more hated in the 20th century and beyond than Jews. And homosexuals have been persecuted since the beginning of human history. You don’t see bands of Jews and homosexuals engaging in senseless violence and rioting in the streets. On the contrary, they are some of the biggest positive contributors to society.
And yes, we must look at every individual as an individual and not presuppose much of anything. But when groups are formed and measured you simply can not assume they will all be the same.
Griffe du Lion says that the overall drop in the crime rate is because of a drop in the black crime rate. Hispanic and white rates haven’t changed. I think he had the whole issue done and dusted a year ago.
The claw is a pretty amazing blogger all right.
I’m trying to concoct a Rube-Goldberg monstrosity of a just-so model to ‘refute’ Unz and be showered in praise from the NYT…I’ll think of something!
Henry, you’re forgetting that if you’re poor that means that you MUST murder and rape people…but it’s only acceptable if you’re black. Don’t forget the rape stats! I think it was 14,000 black on white and 0 white on black in ’07.
I’m surprised the correlation was .82
And that’s the problem with the whole ‘hatefact’ phenomenon, when you can’t even talk about facts, it becomes impossible to analyze them.
Are there a lot of Native Americans in New Mexico? In Canada the provinces with the highest portion of natives have the highest crime rates. Nunavut, which is 84% aboriginal, has a much higher violent crime rate than the rest of Canada.
http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674nunavut_leads_canada_in_homicides_statscan/
9.4%. Not the main explanation.
These homicide rates, on the other hand, reflect premature deaths of thousands of our citizens, year after year.
To which can be added the many thousands not born each year because, thanks to mass immigration, people can’t afford to have children or don’t like to in over-crowded cities. It’s almost as though the American government is controlled by a group that likes seeing US citizens die or fail to be born. Well, US citizens of a particular kind — the kind that created the country and has sustained it till now.
“Incarceration and death make me much less confident that gang members have more children on average than their non-gang member neighbors.”
In an environment of very high unemployment gangbangers are the dominant males and as they don’t pay for their kids there’s no financial hurdles.
Death is double-edged as the more violent the environment the more protection from violence becomes of premium importance with the girls.
I agree the advent of mass incarceration should be having an effect.
Either way a study would be interesting to know for sure. If they are (or have been until recently) fathering a disproportionate number of the next generation’s kids then that would explain a lot.
Didn’t Unz say that it was the conservative academics who were surprised, and not the liberals? The liberals know all of this. They just think that it’s all whitey’s fault. It’s American faux conservatives in their idiotic belief in the innate greatness of America and the innate overwhelming resilience of Humanity that makes them believe damn fool nonsense.
I have a question, or rather observation. Steve Sailer once posted something fascinating about Hispanic infant mortality rates. They have the 2nd lowest IM rates in the country. Low to high:
Asian
Hispanic
White
Black
According to Unz, white crime rates are climbing, Hispanic dropping. It got me to thinking about IM rates. It’s common to correlate illegitimacy with crime. But what about infant mortality? I think the relationship is also striking. Groups w/high infant mortality have high crime rates. It is an indication of low IQ, in group chaos & maternal stress.
What do you think, good doctors?
Phil Rushton claimed that these things, IQ, criminality, infant mortality, and many others were all part of the same r-K strategy continuum. I don’t buy all of it but he had a hold of something.
Check our an earlier post and discussion here on the hispanic health paradox. No only is their infant mortality low, they live longer than anglos.
Rushton’s r-K strategy wouldn’t explain the lower Hispanic infant mortality rate (than whites) and dropping crime rates (according to Unz).
Pour moi, maternal stress (which includes IM) is a predictor of a LOT of very nasty deviance.
Take a look at Texas’ most wanted list:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/Texas10MostWanted/fugitives.aspx
A lot of these guys are clearly Mestizo, yet classified as white by the government.
Apart from Mr Kotlar, 9 out of 10 are Hispanics to my eyes. But, why bother to have a wanted poster when the rewards for finding them are so low? Is supply so high that catching one of them is of so little consequence? (I am not criticizing Texas, just enquiring about local customs and economies).
Soren, of course it does, my point isn’t that at all.
“9 out of 10 are Hispanics”
In an unusual twist, the one white guy is last. You’re supposed to put them at the front.
Jane,
Tejas is a majority Hispanic state now, and all of its underclass is Hispanic. This is not surprising. What do you think WVA’s Most wanted would look like? Unz was analyzing broad national trends which of course have outliers and exceptions. I live in one: NYC.
“all of its underclass is Hispanic”
Nope.
OK I stand corrected not all, TX is 12% black. I was blinded by the Mestizos & their gang affiliations.
http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/09/citCh8.pdf
According to the link, blacks commit more than their 12% share of violent crime in TX. I dont know why they aren’t on the Most Wanted list. Maybe no one cares who they kill?
Diana, do you honestly believe that the misclassification of criminal mestizos as whites doesn’t happen everywhere?
I recall reading some time ago a table in an actuarial magazine comparing mortality rates in aggregate and by cause between Asians, Amerindians, Hispanics, Whites and Blacks. The aggregate mortality rates were in the above order. The rate for the major causes of death – cardiovascular conditions and cancer were mostly in the same order as the aggregate rates.
Amerindians had lower mortality rates for most of the major causes of death than all the other groups except Asians. Amerindians did have much higher rates for cirrhosis of the liver. Whites had relatively lower rates of death from diabetes.
I agree that Rushton is onto something, though he doesn’t explain all the variance. For sake of oversimplification, what is the violent crime rate for people of 75 IQ or lower? I don’t think even Audacious Epigone, who loves playing with this stuff, could tease that out. We don’t commonly record IQ and violent crime in the same questionnaires. There is some data on prisoners, droputs, & special ed*, however, which is something.
JB32 may overstate, but it may indeed be that at least part of the explanation is that low-IQ people are more violent: are less able to delay gratification, less able to get their needs met via thoughtful strategies, more frustrated by modern demands, etc. At minimum, when one corrects for IQ we’re not going to see the 8:1 ratios. Anyone know of data on this?
*That one gets weird. Wealthy districts sometimes have high percentages of coded kids, whose parents want special accommodations for them so they can get A’s. It bends the numbers.
OT, but here’s a talk given by Charles Murray last month.
According to the CDC the age-adjusted homicide rate for non-Hispanic Whites in New Mexico was 3.6 in 2010, the rate for Hispanic Whites was 8.5. In Texas the rates were 3.3 and 5.1 respectively
To add to the point about underclass environments breeding criminals via stacking the odds in favor of cads over dads.
Among the rustbelt underclass the environment changed very rapidly. When the factories were there the dads were favored reproductively as they provided financial security. The cads were still there and still reproduced but on the margins. Cad reproduction was skewed towards younger girls who had matured early physically but less so mentally. After the factories go the state provides the financial security and in a high unemployment environment it’s the cads who are better at finding money for shiny rocks so they start to do better reproductively.
At least that’s how it looked to me anecdotally from working in that environment.
It struck me that as cads tend to go younger then if this theory is correct and cads become progressively more reproductively successful in a rustbelt underclass environment you should see a drop in the age of puberty in the generations after the factories closed.
(The same would apply in more long-term underclass environments but any decline in the age of puberty would have happened in the past.)
This isn’t directly connected to the violence angle but may add weight to the idea that the underclass environment selects for different male traits.
That plot is impossible to read. Could you add it to Google Data Explorer and post a scatter plot from that tool? That would be way more web-readable. If you post the source data, I will do so. Finding the source data myself seems like more work than I am interested in.
Here you are:
# State, percent black, murder rate
#Murder rates 2011:
#http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-20#11/tables/table-5
#Murder rates 2010-2011:
#http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-20#11/tables/table-4
#Race by state:
#http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-raceethnicity/
#Race by state us census:
#http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/35000.html
Alabama 26.4 6.3
Alaska 4.3 4.0
Arizona 4.2 6.2
Arkansas 15.8 5.5
California 6.7 4.8
Colorado 4.3 2.9
Connecticut 10.3 3.6
Delaware 20.9 4.5
DC 49.0 17.5
Florida 15.9 5.2
Georgia 30.0 5.6
Hawaii 3.1 1.2
Idaho 0.9 2.3
Illinois 14.9 5.6
Indiana 9.1 4.8
Iowa 2.7 1.5
Kansas 6.2 3.8
Kentucky 7.7 3.5
Louisiana 32.0 11.2
Maine 1.0 2.0
Maryland 29.4 6.8
Massachusetts 7.0 2.8
Michigan 14.2 6.2
Minnesota 4.6 1.4
Mississippi 37.3 8.0
Missouri 11.5 6.1
Montana 0.7 2.8
Nebraska 4.5 3.6
Nevada 8.1 5.2
New_Hampshire 1.2 1.3
New_Jersey 14.5 4.3
New_Mexico 3.0 7.5
New_York 15.2 4.0
North_Carolina 21.6 5.3
North_Dakota 1.1 3.5
Ohio 12.0 4.4
Oklahoma 8.0 5.5
Oregon 2.0 2.1
Pennsylvania 10.8 5.0
Rhode_Island 6.4 1.3
South_Carolina 28.5 6.8
South_Dakota 1.1 2.5
Tennessee 16.8 5.8
Texas 11.9 4.4
Utah 1.3 1.9
Vermont 0.9 1.3
Virginia 19.9 3.7
Washington 3.7 2.4
West_Virginia 3.6 4.3
Wisconsin 6.1 2.4
Wyoming 1.3 3.2
Couldn’t incarceration rates go a long way in giving a pretty good idea about Hispaic crime rate?
This is from wikipedia “Incrceration in the United States”. Says Hispanic incarceration rates are not far from white rate. If not for Puerto Ricans, looks like we’d be pretty damn even.
Hispanics (of all races) were 20.6% of the total jail and prison population in 2009.[45] Hispanics comprised 16.3% of the US population according to the 2010 US census.[46][49] The Northeast has the highest incarceration rates of Hispanics in the nation.[50] Connecticut has the highest Hispanic-to-White ratio with 6.6 Hispanic males for every white male. The National Average Hispanic-to-White ratio is 1.8. Other states with high Hispanic-to-White ratios include Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New York.[51]
As the Hispanic community is not monolithic, variations are seen in incarceration rates. Among the Hispanic community, Puerto Ricans have the highest incarceration rate. Located primarily in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic states, they are up to six times more likely to be incarcerated than whites, which may explain the higher incarceration rates for Hispanics overall in the Northeast region.[52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60] Illegal immigrants, usually Mexican nationals, also make up a substantial number of Hispanics incarcerated.[61][62][63]
Sadly, the media still will not report the explosive single correlation between crime (especially violent crime) and cities — the percentage of black population. It’s still the topic that no one wants to seriously confront. According to the 2012 FBI statistics (see below), blacks are 6.6 times more likely to commit murder than the other races. The average black commits robberies 8.1 times more often than non-blacks. FBI stats bear this out.
My big city of San Diego has a relatively low crime rate — because we have a 6.7% black population.
We do a great disservice to the black communities by not confronting this obvious racial/cultural disparity. Remember, the overwhelming majority of black crime is committed against other blacks.
Here are some stats to consider:
Blacks constitute about 13.1% of America’s population.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
Yet when it comes to crime, the FBI reports that in 2012 blacks committed:
49.4% of all murders
32.5% of all forcible rapes
54.9% of all robberies
34.1% of all aggravated assaults
28.1% of ALL crime
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/43tabledatadecoverviewpdf
Are whites a major murder threat to blacks? Of course not. 90.8% of all murdered blacks are killed by other blacks. The remaining 9.2% black murder victims were killed by ALL other races, or “unknown” — which doubtless includes some additional blacks.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6
Au contraire, mon ami. The PLANNED solution, gentrification, for that (ideologically) discomfiting Medusa’s-nest is already well into the implementation phase. The larger question looms, which is the practical matter of the disposal of some several billion useless eaters. The sylvan dreams of Der Grosse never go out of style among the propertied classes.
Why are racial differentials in violent crime so controversial, but not gender or age differentials? Where are the people who will argue that the much higher violent crime rates of young males are due solely to poverty and/or discrimination? I’m serious here, those differentials are pretty extreme.