Why is blacks attacking whites not racism?

Okay now that we know that you didn't get your information from any credible source, let's see if we can use some actual facts to reason out a theoretical baseline. We will begin with Crime Statistics first. The Demographics Date will come from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States and the Crime Data from: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-43 . You have indicated, without actually stating that the difference sentencing for powder cocaine and crack cocaine is a black/white issue. I countered that the reason for the difference in sentencing is based on the fact that crack cocaine is far more addictive, and therefore more destructive, then powder cocaine. But you still want to leave it as a race issue. You have also stated that less the 2% of all blacks commit violent crimes. I will demonstrate how that is false and irreverent So let's look at the data.

Population Drug Arrests

Total 308,745,538 1216225 0.39%
White 223,553,265 837851 0.37%
Black 38,929,319 353862 0.91%

Total 308,745,538 1216225
White 223,553,265 837851 68.89%
Black 38,929,319 353862 29.10%

This data shows that for every 1000 people, no matter race, 3.9 were arrested for drug related offenses. That is not even half a percent of the total population was arrested in 2014 for drug offenses. Whites were slightly below that number at 3.7 out of every 1000, and blacks were three time higher at 9.1 out of every 1000. Now you can look at that two different ways. One, that more blacks are arrested. Suggesting that they are targeted more the whites. Or, you can claim say that blacks are more likely for commit the crimes then whites. In my opinion the bottom half of the chart demonstrates more clearly that the latter is true. Nearly 70% of all drug related arrests were white suspects. Compared to less the 30% of blacks suspects. Now the only way that you can prove the targeting action is to demonstrate that a larger percentage of blacks have been found not guilty , or somehow show that the police are not arresting whites found to be committing a crime. Without statistical date to back it up, it is nothing but rhetoric.

Next, let's look at violent crimes. Violent crimes are murders (including negligent homicides), rape, robbery and assaults:

View attachment crimes.pdf

If you review that attachment you will see some glaring facts. In 2014, 13 out of 10,000 people no matter the race was arrested for a violent crime. That broke down to 10 out of 10,000 whites and 38 out 10,000 blacks. That was 59% those of arrests for violent crimes were white compared to 38% were black suspects. There were 8,230 people arrested for Murder in 2014. Of that number 3,807 were white suspects and 4,224 were black suspects. That means 46% of murder suspects were white and 51% were black. For Rapes, it goes in the opposite direction. There were out of 16,326 arrests for rape, 10977 were white, and 4888 were black, There were 74,077 for robbery (theft by coercion or force). Of those arrested 42% were white and 55% were black. There were 291,600 arrests for aggravated assault. Of which 63% were white, and 33% were black.

So, what conclusion can we derive from these statistics? First that whites commit a higher number of violent crimes then blacks. Especially rapes and aggravate assaults. Blacks are commit more murders and robberies. But there are a couple of factors that skew these statistics. First is that not all police agencies provide data by race, and second there is the whole "no snitch" factor. A African-American is less likely to report and assault or rape for fear of retaliation.

The real conclusion is not that the system is set against blacks. It is that different races choose different crimes. Take the difference between burglary and robbery. Black commit more robberies, and white more burglaries. In other words whites will take something when you are not around, and blacks will take things by coercion or force. It is choices of crimes that's all.

 

I realize that. Still... the legacy 'effects' are largely due to actions of MANY who were/are a part of White culture; that which largely defined and continues to for most Americans (in many ways selectively so).

While there are contentions between 'individuals' (as a symptom of exponentially larger issues) related to systemic racism... those are NOT the actual source of the troubles we are seeing.

I would be the FIRST and loudest, to say that this isn't about 'you' per se. And anyone can search my posts, and find that I don't tend to confuse the problems or responsibilities of the 'nation' with those of 'individuals'. The delineation between the two, remain very clear to me. And yes, I know that many struggle to discern the 'difference' (if they can at all).

To further clarify, there is no ONE person responsible personally, for the entire history and legacy effects of "America". Even so, the 'nation' (that collective, "We the people...") ... cannot shirk the responsibility we have to future generations for reconciling whatever we can 'now'. After all, we don't have the issues we do at this point, because of what occurred last night, last month, 8 years ago or merely 80 years ago. In truth, this nation's social afflictions hearken from a time which can seem to long ago to matter. But just as the structures which 'define' our freedoms and liberties reach back hundreds of years... so it is with atrocities, injustices and grievances which have not been truly resolved to date (and for a list of reasons which no one should ever trivialize or imagine would/should fade into meaninglessness.

For is what descendants have penned to 'paper' still define us as a nation (so very much), it is hardly far fetched... that the significantly horrid attitudes, actions and policies of even a few (as directed at people of color AND Natives) for nearly half a millennium DO have effects to this day. And again, while I would never expect any ONE person to presume the responsibility for reconciling all of those things from the past (to the degree that they can be)... I surely expect this NATION to do so. There is no proper alternative but that... and many have even tried to prevent or hinder the same. It doesn't have to be all or most who stand in the way of that, but a few well-positioned, powerful or influential individuals and groups. None of what I'm saying here is sensational or new... yet those who know history realize fairly readily that it is true.

Are you 'certain' that also means, "their children" will not pay a price for the same? (Many troubles set in motion generations ago, affect people today. There are a plethora of examples to suggest that is reality.)

Sure. We KNOW that most White American (collectively) would not ever stand for it. (That's as "American" as anything.)

It is surely time for American to 'mature', and realize that such a claim could be 'dismissed'; but also, that there is a 'collective' responsibility to address ANYTHING which stands in the way of, (equal) "... Liberty and Justice for all."

Yes, indeed.

 

It's Affirmative Action racism. Blacks get a pass on everything: riots, thievery, racism, total lack of personal responsibility, you name it. It's part of the PC world running amok. More Foodstamps, anyone?

 

My good man, Black crime is not being exaggerated; I have the FBI data to know this. It logically follows police would be more involved. We agree. However, my point and question is, what does this have to do with excessive police force and unequal treatment of police?

In your second paragraph, you say 'no' but proceed to agree with me. BLM is exactly about the 1% of wrongful police deaths. BLM has ignored Black on Black crime up to this point. Have you ever seen them protest a non police related murder?

Alas, I agree the name is a misnomer. The name alone has caused confusion.

 

I think they would be viewed the same as White officers. They are wrong if they mistreat anybody.

 

Plenty. One is a plank and one is a splinter, and you're insisting we set aside the wooden plank so that we can discuss the splinter, and that there is no difference between the two pieces of wood.

No, you're changing my words. I didn't say "1% of wrongful police [sic] deaths". (Sic, because i assume you mean wrongful police shootings) That 1% includes justifiable homicides, and when you really break it down and set aside those justifiable homicides, it would appear that BLM is actually about (again, if you set aside justifiable homicides, which most BLM supporters do not) less than even a tenth of a percent.

We're agreed here.

 

If BLM protested proportionately to the issues they face, and where they face them. Then there would be much less of a white vs black attitude and they would get a lot more respect and acknowledgment as a just cause. But they simply dont, thier cause is fake and obtained it's notoriety on a lie. They spread racism more than combat it. They call for unreasonable change, and excited violence against whites and police.

 

It would be hypocritical of a hypocrite to admit to hypocrisy.....