"In this case, the actors are the suddenly consolidated working-class white people, the Irish and the Jews and a lot of Italians and plenty of Middle Europeans, Poles and Czechs, all those others who once had to be addressed separately but now, in the face of a growing minority-majority nation, cling together in one gang.... It was the belief that one interest/identity group—those white-working-class guys—wasn’t necessary to win elections that seems to have been the fatal flaw of the Clinton campaign; they were right in the sense that it wasn’t necessary to win the popular vote, which they did. But it was necessary to win decisive counties in purple states. Why the voters they didn’t get were no longer gettable is a good question, but the answer can’t be that liberals were paying too much attention to the voters they could... [I]f all you do is push down on a seesaw, the other end goes up. If all you do is assert the importance of your side’s pressure groups, other pressure groups will feel threatened and act out...."
That's Adam Gopnik at The New Yorker, out and proud as a Democratic Party partisan, and — as I read it — essentially letting Trump off the hook on the racism charge.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६४ टिप्पण्या:
Democrats seem willing to question whether their identity politics of the past several years makes sense. That is an important first step, but I don't believe that they will change.
Potentially unwritten (I will not give The New Yorker income from my clicks):
'The policies we advocate have been accurately characterized as hurting one group in the hopes of helping another. The hurt group has reacted as if government policies are hurting them, by voting for the other Party.'
This, of course, is an admission that the people Gopnik believes are rubes - who could be fooled all of the time - were in fact reasoned thinkers who know best their own interests. Gopnik will never make this connection.
Memo to Adam. Identity politics is finished. The American people want politics that collectively benefits America; not specific groups.
chickelit:
Question identity politics is questioning tactics. The underlying assumption which goes unquestioned is whether government can ever do as good a job organizing the interests of a wildly disparate people as those people could choose for themselves.
The reason Collectivists believe "if only the right people had been running it, XXXX-ism could work" is because they cannot allow the organizing principles of enlightened self-interest are the best method yet devised for distributing scarce resources.
This is questioning tactics to try to save face with the rubes who are not fooled, still believing them to be rubes.
Memo to Adam. Identity politics is finished. The American people want politics that collectively benefits America; not specific groups.
I beg to differ. from all appearances, the Democratic Party actually appears about to double down on their obsession with identity politics.
It still has to be all about identity groups, doesn't it?
And if we can't readily identify such groups, let's just make some up?
Slowly but surely we are dividing ourselves into makers and takers. The Dems bet the farm on the takers and lost. They still need to create more takers. That's why the open borders.
Hagar said...It still has to be all about identity groups, doesn't it?
It will never be "All Lives Matter." Ask them. I do, everyday. It can never be "All Lives Matter."
Everybody has a stake in American rules if you present it right, to restore that as a plan.
The whites were voting for that. Why can't the blacks?
Gahrie
Exactly. About to appoint Keith Ellison to head the DNC. The guy who defines losing identity politics.The Dems will continue to lose. Very happy.
The thing for the left to notice is that there's no ill will towards blacks in the white vote. Just let's be Americans.
This is one of the two reasons I will never vote for a Democrat. They are a party of divisiveness. The second reason is their embrace of lawlessness and corruption.
Well, but is this even an explanation that survives the probability test? Hispanics, for instance, were not particularly averse to Trump. My observation was that well-integrated Hispanics, esp. those legally here, were majority for Trump.
I think there were two main issues in the this campaign. Economics and the welfare of the country.
The problem with a campaign and a message that focuses on the special interest of groups is that the general welfare may be lost, and since we are all in this boat together, putting my personal interests first may, in the long run, injure me more. It does me little good to have a preferred seat in the boat if it is sinking. What then matters is whether I get a seat in the lifeboat.
The more of an average joe one is, the less one believes that one is going to get a seat in the lifeboat, and thus the more imperative it is to make sure the boat doesn't sink.
Trump ran a campaign with the message: the boat's in trouble - we have to stop the leaks and get it riding higher in the water. People responded to that message, most intensely in pockets (both in cities and in the country) that had experienced little economic gains or economic drains in the last couple of years.
Her Highness the Self-Righteous Queen of Special Interests had demonstrated to most thinking people that all the seats in her lifeboats had already been sold to the highest bidder with the Sec of State/Clinton Foundation machinations. People who were worried about the possibility of the boat sinking thus swung to Trump. Many older cradle Democrats in these depressed areas either did not vote or shifted to Trump.
What we're not admitting is that legal immigrants are rather passionate, for the most part, about stopping illegal immigration. Most of the country, including many American Muslims, are worried about letting in too many people who are inimical to the common welfare.
One of the commenters here remarked about how the political advertising in PA was all about women. I watch very little TV, but I saw that too. It was a bad tactic for those who are worried about basic survival. The Clinton campaign effed up so badly that much of their advertising campaign did more for Trump than for Clinton!!!
Apparently Gopnik was taken off the email list since after almost a month the talking point lefties have apparently decided to rally around is that Trump and the GOP have given a voice to racists. Democratic leadership like Jennifer Palmieri and Joy Behar said this week racism is the only reason Trump won.
"the Democratic Party actually appears about to double down on their obsession with identity politics." So far, yes. Partly due to ideology: the left dominates Dem groupthink, and their view of the US as the sexist bastion of white supremacy won't change. Partly due to rational strategy: Dems can only win by cobbling together minority special interests. They'll tout the O line: if we can get enough of our minorities to turn out, like O did, we will win. Hill's loss is a GOTV failure.
But identity politics is a bitch. If the GOP really turns into the party of the largest identity group, it only needs to peel off a small portion of the other subgroups to prevail. Asians are ripe for the picking (Nikki Haley is rightly being groomed for higher office) and even Trump already got 30% of Hispanics (what's Sandoval up to these days?). The whole majority-minority narrative assumes that group identities and interests, as well as party programs and identities, are fixed. They aren't. The GOP, for better or worse, showed tremendous, umm. flexibility in picking Trump.
The one thing Trump can hope for is the nonsense continues, especially the race issue. Working with mistruth, not even so much lies, is being exposed. The inability to penetrate with accurate insight becomes evident. People like Symone Sanders and the quarterback for the 49ers appear cartoonish and ridiculous, decent people who are absolutely swinging and missing. Can we pursue the equaling of charges, labeling as hate crimes those calling someone a racist who is not a racist.
@rh: "Just let's be Americans." This is gonna be Trump's thing. Will rally conservatives and GOP constituencies. Always with the veiled threat to progs: if you wanna play identity politics hardball, we can play that game, too.
Sydney said...
This is one of the two reasons I will never vote for a Democrat. They are a party of divisiveness. The second reason is their embrace of lawlessness and corruption.
I voted for D's in the first five elections of my voting lifetime; I have voted R in the last 4 elections. I don't intend to go back to my earlier ways. Why? Because of their restating of our motto as Unum de multis (out of one, many).
Unum de multis
I counting on rhhardin to make my Latin more poetic. :)
The thing for the left to notice is that there's no ill will towards blacks in the white vote. Just let's be Americans.
Every Democratic minority in Congress was elected from a racially Gerrymandered safe seat. Every Republican minority member of Congress was elected from majority White districts.
It's not the color of your skin we care about.......
I don't think anything is that clear cut. The Dems almost got away with it by splitting the country and recruiting non-whites, single womyn, illegals, etc. I think that Slo Joe Biden could have held the Rust Belt for the Dems. And some other candidates. In retrospect, Crooked Hillary maybe should have picked a conservative Dem with deep roots there. And, then, Trump and his team found the wedge, and spent a lot of the last couple weeks nailing down this area of the country. Clinton should have been there too, and that was maybe her fatal mistake. We are only talking around 100k votes out of 1000x that number cast. The interesting question is whether Crooked and her team were blind to the problem, ignored it, or she just wasn't physically capable of campaigning at that point. My guess is at least partially the latter. We probably ultimately see.
Crooked Hillary was the big problem for the Dems. Stupid to clear the field for her, stupid to nominate her, etc. Normally, she would have been a mediocre candidate, but this time, she was hobbled by major scandals, and, I think, major health issues. And, maybe that is indicative of the Democrats' real problem, that they are bought and paid for by major donors, no longer really represent anyone except for themselves, and, thus, were susceptible to being bought by the Clintons.
All that said, the problem that the Dems will likely face in the future is that they did abandon working class whites, the working class whites know it, and have found their voice with Trump and the Republicans. They no longer feel powerless. And, know that they can, and should, push back against the multicultural victimology propounded by the Democrats. They are the victims of the claims of White Privilege, not the rich college kids so easily cowed by the left on campus. And, it is this coalescing of this voting block that should keep the Dems up late at night.
letting Trump off the hook on the racism charge.
That's mighty white of him.
Here is racism and sexism in action. For money:
For purposes of the 8(a) Business Development program, the following individuals are presumed socially disadvantaged (called “presumed groups”):
Black Americans
Hispanic Americans
Native Americans
Asian Pacific Americans
Subcontinent Asian American
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, an individual applicant is presumed socially disadvantaged if:
Holds him or herself out to be a member of a presumed group
Is currently identified by others as a member of a presumed group
+
Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSB) Federal Contracting Program
"The WOSB Federal Contract Program was implemented in February 2011 with the goal of expanding the number of industries where WOSB were able to compete for business with the federal government. This program enables Economically Disadvantaged WOSBs (EDWOSBs) to compete for federal contracts that are set-aside for EDWOSBs in industries where women-owned small businesses are underrepresented."
In particular, Clifford lays out the steps to the dance the Democratic Party was able to keep up until 1964, providing enough symbolic identity gestures to black voters to keep them in the alliance without threatening white Southerners. (Once Democrats went all in for civil rights, in 1964, the white South was gone.)
Right, Gopnik. After the Johnson admin pushed through the various civil rights acts, the South -- poof! --- went Republican. Except a cursory glance at the electoral map for the elections between 1964 & 2000 shows that the post-civil rights solid Republican South is a myth. Both Carter & Clinton won a majority of the southern states. This is a comforting myth that Gopnik's side tells itself to maintain it's air of moral superiority.
Which bring us to the real reason for the divide:
There are no concerns expressed about the gay community or Latinos, simply because they didn’t yet have sufficient influence.
Ignoring Latinos, the reason the gays had no influence is because no politician could support an openly immoral life style. I mean, it was a political death-blow to be divorced until Reagan! Why the difference?
Then, it was an openly & avowedly Christian country. All the groups that are talked about in the memo to Truman? Christian, except for the Jews, & they shared enough moral commonality with the Christians to make it work.
Now, the problem is that there is no underlying moral commonality. The Democratic party elites are now post-Christian, & they drive the agenda. The Republicans, on the other hand, are still solidly Christian. The focal point of this fundamental split is, of course, gay rights, & we'll see this dynamic work its way through the body politic as time goes on. I don't expect it to be pretty.
Birkel said - "The reason Collectivists believe "if only the right people had been running it, XXXX-ism could work".
Isn't that the Right's argument about America also? If only Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Obama had followed the Constitution things would be a lot better now? The system is good but the people are bad? The people running government should stop being "socialists"? Isn't it time that we started to see the flaws in our system as easily as we see the flaws in Communism? Maybe the real problem is that there is no difference between an unlimited Republic and an unlimited Monarchy, Dictatorship, Theocracy or whatever? No matter how limited Trump may be, things will revert to the way things have been until we make the necessary real changes in the Constitution. Presidents have been ruling by EO for some time. Trump will do the same except in the "right" direction. We still end up with a banana republic.
For what it's worth - from left to right we have unlimited government, limited government, anarchy. As no one has ever had a limited government, I would place the Democrats slightly to the left of the Republicans on the left side of limited government.
True story. A couple decades ago a public high school teacher in our area gave the kids (6th graders) some word searches (yeah, I know) which contained the word "Nazi" in them. Hard to believe a veteran teacher, a woman no less, wouldn't realize this was a taboo word, but she didn't and she lost her job over it. Sadly, schools as far away as mine -- 20 miles -- were forced to undergo "sensitivity training" as a result. This consisted of one in-service day where cult hypnotists, aka trainers, lectured us with what was and was not permitted speech.
At one point in the session an older woman social studies teacher raised her hand and said, "But America is a melting pot." Big mistake. She was then bullied from the podium on the fact that this metaphor no longer applied. "We are a quilt, not a melting pot," we were all informed.
I raised my hand but was not picked on. I'll share my intended comment here: "But aren't white supremacists a piece of the quilt?" It's probably best I wasn't called upon. I retired twenty years later on my own terms.
This is the ultimate failure of modern liberalism. It's built on an absolute logical failure. In championing "diversity" and "tolerance" they deny diversity and tolerance when it doesn't suit their purposes which is to say, when it's conservative in nature. Identity politics is all well and good until white people discover they too have an identity.
It's taken about twenty years for this impurity to rise to the surface, but rise it has and identity politics is over. Modern liberalism is headed to the wilderness for a long, long time.
The risk for the Dems is what happens to their party if Trump is only moderately successful? Irrelevance for decades.
Blogger MaxedOutMama said..."The problem with a campaign and a message that focuses on the special interest of groups is that the general welfare may be lost, and since we are all in this boat together, putting my personal interests first may, in the long run, injure me more."
Exactly right. This boat is sinking (e.g. Social Security, Medicare, $20 trillion debt). We all have to save the boat rather than fighting over seats that will be worthless otherwise.
"Slowly but surely we are dividing ourselves into makers and takers."
Yes but this has been the strategy for the Dims for decades. Read Jay Cost's book, "Spoiled Rotten."
Many of the Democrats' victim groups have contradictory agendas.
Now, it looks to me as though they are about to self immolate with Ellison.
I got the sense that Hillary was treating white, working class men as a marginal group who deserved nothing more than a polite nod, if that. Her Sister Soujah moments were directed mostly against white men. I thought she had the winning strategy, and I found the election process extremely depressing.
So many excellent comments, thanks to all. Maxed Out Mama, I particularly like your boat metaphor. My own hope is that identity politics is in remission but like the malignancy implied by my figure of speech we won't know for many years if the scourge has been overcome. My own theory about identity politics is that it is a game of diminishing returns: it assumes a fixed pie and then sets one group against another in envy and resentment to gain more pie at the Other's expense. The Other is kept confused and disorganized and guilty as long as possible, but eventually it wakes up, finds a voice and starts to vote. The current approximation is Rust Belt whites electing Trump.
It won't be the last. If the Progs are lucky, we will go back to a less divisive conception of who we really are. If not? Well, payback's the proverbial bad-tempered female dog.
chickelit said...
Democrats seem willing to question whether their identity politics of the past several years makes sense. That is an important first step, but I don't believe that they will change.
"I got nowhere else to go."
Trump was out and proud as an American Supremicist.That's a Scots-Irish culture thing, and one George Soros will never get over the losing his budding neo Euro-Nazi Globalism game to that pesky Jacksonian Scotsman who wanted to lead that culture back into the dominant force in the world.
Overheard at a backcountry trail junction:
"Is that even the right map?"
"No, but its better than nothing."
What's interesting here is that Adam Gopnik is writing pretty much the same thing in The New Yorker that Steve Sailer wrote ten years ago on Deplorable.com.
@EDH
Well played.
Shortly after the war in Croatia I was in Zagreb where I met a Croat from the formerly Serb part of the country. He was returning home for the first time since the war ended. At some point the topic of why he left came up. He said when your Serb neighbor comes home in the uniform of the Serb militia, you have to make a choice. You can leave, you can do nothing and probably get killed, or you can join the Croat militia.
For many years the Dems have been supplying uniforms for their various identity groups while telling whites to shut up and do nothing. They shouldn't be too surprised that some whites are tired of it and are deciding to put on their own uniforms. Hopefully the Dems will give up on this identity politics before the Balkanization gets worse.
The Left is astonished that after a generation of heralding multiculturalism and championing diversity, the largest cohort voted like an ethnic affinity group. (But that's racist, they screamed while stomping their feet.)
There is anguish on the left because they thought the grand vision was in their grasp.
But, over the past few elections we have seen both parties pronounced dead and both parties announced as transcendent for decades to come.
How can they help it? The left will regroup and try again. Each of the left's coalition knows that without banding together they are impotent against what they know with certitude is the hateful evil of the right.
And, frankly, the right seems to ignore that Hillary was one of the more flawed candidates of all time and came close.
And, frankly, the right seems to ignore that Hillary was one of the more flawed candidates of all time and came close.
I disagree. The right are fully aware of HRC's flaws. It's the left who deny they exist. Her loss is explained to them not by her own shortcomings but by the flaws of the electorate, racist homophobic misogynistic fascists that they are.
David Begley: Memo to Adam. Identity politics is finished. The American people want politics that collectively benefits America; not specific groups.
Alas, that's wishful thinking. The election was close, and the universities, legal system, civil service, public schools, and corporate HR offices are still stuffed to the gills with people whose world views and livelihoods are heavily invested in exactly what you say the "American people" don't want. And they're as crazy as they ever were, mad as hell, and loaded for bear.
I like to think they'll destroy themselves, but we didn't get to this pass overnight, and we're not going to dig ourselves out in one election.
Shorter version of Gopnik's argument making the rounds:
"You are a white man. Your whiteness defines you. Everything you think is because you're white, everything you say is because you're white. Don't try to be post-white. Don't try to be colorblind. Don't say you are 'over race'. You're white, own it and deal with it."
"Really? Oh. Okay. I identify as white."
"RACIST!!!"
"letting Trump off the hook"
What the hell. He never on "the hook".
Appealing to blacks, Jews, women, Hispanics based on group identity = OK
Appealing to Whites, men, Southerners based on group identity = Racism/Sexism/Bigotry.
If you can't see a problem with that, you're probably a liberal.
And Gopnick - what a name. LOL!
I never understood Republican Party...... for decades, liberals proudly promoted a program of racial discrimination, aka "affirmative action", which directly targeted asians and whites. By some calculations, to be admitted to college, a white or Asian kid needs to have an sat score of at least 200 points above that of a black kid. Now the key question, why can't GOP appeal directly to whites and Asian? I don't get it. Why not say directly to Poles, Russians, Italians, Chinese, Indians, Irish and Vietnamese Americans that voting for the democrats, is voting for the party that hates them and wants to discriminate against them? Why would you to vote for a party which proudly discriminates against your children simply based on their skin color? Why can't GOP buy ads in a bunch of ethnic tv and radio channels, ethnic newspapers and blast this message over and over and over? And don't forget advertising to gays, and mention the dnc love of Mosley brotherhood, while advertising in moslem media about men allowed in girls' locker rooms. GOP can blow up the DNC alliance into little pieces if it has the guts.
Btw, in Russian, "Gopnick" means "redneck illiterate thug". I am not exaggerating.
Hint to class diversitists, principles matter.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Institutional racism, sexism, etc. is a losing cause.
If we stipulate that Mexicans, Latins, are not a race please point to a racist statement by Trump.
I think "Latins" generally means Argentines and Mexicans would be "Latinos," but it is hard to keep up these days. I once tried to be with it and said "Chicanos," but was brought up short and informed that it would be appreciated if I did not use California terms about respectable New Mexicans.
Or perhaps Brazilian; you must be able to dance the tango or the samba.
Sean Trende at RealClearPolitics has written extensively about his theory of no permanent majorities -- that US political parties are very large coalitions, and that every group in the coalition is susceptible to poaching by the other side if one coalition gets too big.
I think that's what you saw in this election. The "coalition of the ascendant" might be growing, but it conspicuously does not include the white working class. So they dropped out and voted for a candidate that promised them more. That's just normal coalition politics.
The real lesson of the Obama years, from a political perspective, is that you can't get so caught up in your ideas for the future that you forget the present.
Unless Trump is exceptional the story will flip in 8-12 years as part of a natural political cycle. Same reason people won't listen to the same song over and over.
Jack Wayne:
That rejoinder was ridiculous. You managed not to find any point and instead busied yourself burning straw men.
The reason for limited government and a system of largely free markets are the same: distrust for the consolidation of power and an understanding that mankind is flawed and cannot be redeemed and therefore must be denied the power to achieve their basest desire for dominion over each other.
It is the Collectivists on the Democrat side who believe otherwise and actively promote the consolidation of federal power. We should all hope that Trump avoids that impulse and sets about distributing power as it should be according to our Constitution.
Try again or stop? Your call.
Oh I don't think that "it's a good question" as to why those working class whites were no longer "gettable" by such as Hillary (and virtually any other elitist Democrat). You have a group of people who feel they have been shat on from a great height for years. Well the height was not so great, but the folks doing the dumping on the proles assumed great moral and intellectual superiority. The recipients of all that liberal scorn and contumely down there in the Basket of Deplorables decided they had finally had enough.
Beat a dog long enough---any dog--and it will bite. It doesn't take a genius to realize why these folks were no longer "gettable". But you give a dog a couple of bones (which the Dems have been tossing to other groups) and the dog may get friendly again. But it will take a while to build that trust.
CV wrote: But you give a dog a couple of bones (which the Dems have been tossing to other groups) and the dog may get friendly again. But it will take a while to build that trust.
More likely, Dems are going to celebrate the demise of whites and the rise of non-whites. It's kind of baked in and irreversible at this point -- this tipping point.
For once you had a Democratic candidate who did not do the sly pander to white racial bias against blacks. That could very well have been what cost her the election. Calling out one or two instances of BLM excesses might have done wonders.
Ron said...
For once you had a Democratic candidate who did not do the sly pander to white racial bias against blacks. That could very well have been what cost her the election. Calling out one or two instances of BLM excesses might have done wonders.
It could have been when she insisted that all lives don't matter and that only black lives matter. But she was put on the spot during a primary debate.
Hyphenated American said:
"According to the FBI, blacks are 10 times more likely to murder non-hispanic whites, when the white non-hispanic whites to kill blacks."
Well they start off with five times as many potential victims. So, even if you were to prove that blood-thirstiness is purely genetic, the ratio would only be about 2:1. The upshot of this combination of statistics is that a white person is way more likely to be killed by a white person than a black person. Thus it is obvious that whites as a whole greatly exaggerate the perceived threat here. Not quite as badly as they exaggerate the threat of terrorism, but a similar failure to evaluate probability accurately.
"Well they start off with five times as many potential victims."
By the same logic, they also start off with five times as many potential murderers.
"So, even if you were to prove that blood-thirstiness is purely genetic, the ratio would only be about 2:1."
It's amusing how Democrats never change - any statistical difference is ALWAYS considered to be caused by genetics. There could be no other reason.
But secondly, one the reasons why so many people believe liberal claims is due to the fact that math is hard, and it takes some education to understand conservative arguments. In this case, you need some basic knowledge of probability theory. The fact that there are 5 times more whites than blacks does not mean that whites should be be 5 times more likely to be killed by blacks than the other way around.... Just as there are 5 times more potential white victims of black murderers, there are also 5 times more potential white murderers. In the end, inter-racial crime should be equal in absolute numbers (not proportionate, absolute). If the ratio is 10:1, something out of order is happening, by a huge, huge margin.
So, if you wanted to talk honestly about "racial bias", you would, of course, have mentioned that blacks are far more violent towards whites than the other way around. But you don't want to debate the facts and empirical evidence, do you?
And speaking of "wildly exaggerating the perceived threats" - please compare the threat from policemen to blacks - versus the threat from black murderers to blacks. Now, if there is "wildly exaggerated threat" - it's the threat from the police to the blacks. Right?
Let me show you some statistics.
In 2015, 306 black people were killed by U.S. police, while total number of blacks murdered by other blacks was 2.245 in 2013. This means that a black person is 7.34 time more likely to be killed by another black, than a policeman.
On the other side, a white person is 6.1 times more likely to be killed by another white person than a black person. So, really, blacks are far more dangerous to whites, than policemen to blacks. Weird.
Math is hard for liberals, right? Reality is right-wing.
Here are the links for the data I used:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/black-people-killed-by-police-america_us_577da633e4b0c590f7e7fb17
Hyphenated American said:
"By the same logic, they also start off with five times as many potential murderers."
Yes, but your FBI statement is not about the likelihood of being murdered. It's about the likelihood of being a murderer.
"...any statistical difference is ALWAYS considered to be caused by genetics."
Not by me. Do you know what "even if" means? That was there in case you thought the racial difference was genetic, not because I think so.
Agree with you about police killing, though since you ignored my terrorism comparison, I will ignore this bit.
I tried to use the FBI statistics, but I did not see any data on non-Hispanic whites.
"Yes, but your FBI statement is not about the likelihood of being murdered. It's about the likelihood of being a murderer."
Sigh. I wonder if you comprehend what we are talking about. Let me try this again. Even though there are 5 times more whites than blacks, statistically, it should be same number of whites killed by blacks as blacks killed by whites.
Do you understand the math I used to arrive at this conclusion?
Let's go back to your original assertion:
"According to the FBI, blacks are 10 times more likely to murder non-hispanic whites, when the white non-hispanic whites to kill blacks." I will assume that you meant "than" rather than "when".
Lets assume the country is made up only of blacks and NHWP's.
Take the case of a black who goes out and shoots people at random, i.e., he has no interest in killing white people in particular. If there are five times as many NHWP, then without singling out NHWP's he nevertheless has an 83.3% chance of killing a NHWP.
Take the case of a NHWP who goes out and shoots people at random, i.e., he has no interest in killing black people in particular. If there are five times as many NHWP, then without singling out blacks he has only a 16.7% chance of killing a NHWP.
Therefor, if there were no greater tendency among blacks to kill NHWP's than vice versa, your original statement would read "According to the FBI, blacks are five times more likely to murder non-hispanic whites, the the white non-hispanic whites to kill blacks."
So, the fact that the actual ratio is 10:1 (I still don't know where you got the number), would only mean that black bias against NHWP produces a rate only twice that of random chance. Given that many murders occur in the course of a robbery, that NHWP are generally wealthier than blacks, and that poor people are more likely to rob wealthier people, the result in unsurprising.
Now, if your original statement had read "There are ten times as many whites killed by blacks every year as compared to the number of blacks killed by whites", then your statistics would apply. But this was not your statement.
Sorry, what I was talking about was the number of victims, not the number of assailants.
Here is some statistics for you:
"In 2012, blacks committed 560,600 acts of violence against whites, and whites committed 99,403 acts of violence against blacks, according to data from the National Crime Victimization Survey provided to the author:..."
Now, how can this be explained without mentioning racism?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा