Justifiable Stereotyping

[Thoreau]

Statement:

I personally think it's acceptable, as a mechanism of self-preservation and self-defense, to stereotype based on race. I believe this because of the crime rates among the difference races.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supporting Evidence:


Interracial Homicides

Throughout recent history, blacks have been statistically proven to commit higher rates of homicide than whites.

In 2005, black on white homicides accounted for 8.8% (934) of all homicides, whereas white on black homicides accounted for 3.2% (337) of all homcides.

These numbers don't seem striking until you consider the racial demographics of the U.S. in 2005.

In 2005, the U.S. population was about 296,000,000 people.
- Whites equated to about 200,400,000 (or 67.7%) people.
- Blacks equated to about 36,900,000 (or 12.4%) people.

Essentially, the black population was 18.41% of what the white population was in 2005.

To balance the populations of the races (to bring blacks up to the level of whites), a multiplying factor of 5.430894 is needed.

If the populations were equal, this means that blacks would have committed 5,072 black on white homicides, with whites still at 337 in white on black homicides.

This also means that for every 1 white on black homicide, there are 15 black on white homicides.


Single Race Homicides

In 2005, there were 4,755 white on white homicides, and 4,497 black on black homicides.

Again, if the the black population equaled that of the white population (based on previously mentioned multiplier), there would have been 24,422 black on black homicides, with white on white homicides staying at 4,755.

This means that for every 1 white on white homicide, there are 5 black on black homicides.


Overall Homicide Rates by Race

In 2005, whites committed 5,111 homicides total. Blacks committed 5,456 homicides total.

Once again using the previously mentioned multiplier, if the black population were equal to that of whites, blacks would have committed 29,630 (rounding down to the nearest whole number) homicides, with whites having stayed at 5,111.

This means that for every 1 homicide committed by whites, there are 5.79 homicides committed by blacks.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:

Blacks statistically commit higher rates of homicide. Therefore, regardless of one's own race, it can be beneficial to stereotype based on race, for the purpose of self-protection.


EDIT: I should note that I am not advocating dicrimination, exclusion, or hatred toward any group or race of people. The main purpose of this is to emphasize the importance of being more aware and understanding of your surroundings, regardless of your own racial make up.


________________________________________________________
Resources:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/ovracetab.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr...#Vital_statistics_of_Racial_and_Ethnic_Groups
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2008/02/11/us-population-projections-2005-2050/

 

[Thoreau]

I warmly welcome all opposing arguments with substantiating evidence.

 

[kx000]

No.

What about white people, who would hang black slaves?

I wouldn't, but that white guy did, me being white according to generalization makes me guilty. Please, don't stereotype.

Faithful vs. the Christian.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I find stereotyping based on the combination of culture, race, and religion to be reasonably accurate; however, if any of those are removed then accuracy tends to greatly decrease.

 

[Thoreau]

No.

What about white people, who would hang black slaves?

I wouldn't, but that white guy did, me being white according to generalization makes me guilty. Please, don't stereotype.

Faithful vs. the Christian.

I didn't even know we had slaves, much less hung them, in 2005. What does slavery from 100+ years ago have to do with 2005? As previously stated, my information was based on recent history.

 

[kx000]

It carries. No one is letting it go. I'm Irish, what's mine again?

Maybe stereotyping was the problem to begin with. Bad blood leads to criminal activity even 100 years later. I suggest you shut this thread, generalization is not acceptable, it really is anti-science.

Not all all shooters, and takers are bad. Not all politicians are good.

 

[Thoreau]

It carries. No one is letting it go. I'm Irish, what's mine again?

Maybe stereotyping was the problem to begin with. Bad blood leads to criminal activity.

We are talking about race and crime in the U.S - not slavery, and not national stereotypes. Are you going to respond directly to these or do I have to just start ignoring your posts?

 

[kx000]

Your trying give logic to racism, sorry I'll go elsewhere.

Crime is relative to history.

 

[iceaura]

So my odds of getting murdered by a black guy next year are about .00031%, and my odds of getting murdered murdered by a white guy are .00159% - or 320,000/1 compared with 63,000/1.

If 2005 was typical.

I'm not sure what my stereotype is supposed to be, to protect me from this awful fate. Hint?

 

[Aqueous Id]

The worst of trolls are the ones in white sheets.

You should be barred from appropriating the name of abolitionist and scholar Henry David Thoreau in order to troll here with mean, stupid racist drivel.

You have admitted to be a racist, a bannable behavior.

Go away, troll. Take your findings down to your next local Klan meeting. This is place for intelligent discussion. Your mean, stupid intolerance is counter to that goal.

Begone.

 

[wynn]

Conclusion:

Blacks statistically commit higher rates of homicide. Therefore, regardless of one's own race, it can be beneficial to stereotype based on race, for the purpose of self-protection.


EDIT: I should note that I am not advocating dicrimination, exclusion, or hatred toward any group or race of people. The main purpose of this is to emphasize the importance of being more aware and understanding of your surroundings, regardless of your own racial make up.

So what does you holding this stereotype mean in practice for you?

What do you do, in regard of this stereotype?

Do you avoid black people, do you start a petition to evict a black person who lives in the same apartment building or street as you, do you ...?

And how exactly do you measure blackness? By the one-drop law?

 

[Tiassa]

Syllogism and Simplicity: Primarily Problematic Presentation

EDIT: I should note that I am not advocating dicrimination, exclusion, or hatred toward any group or race of people. The main purpose of this is to emphasize the importance of being more aware and understanding of your surroundings, regardless of your own racial make up.

I think where people are running into problems with your logic is the question of syllogistic application. If skin color is the only criterion, application becomes problematic.

• If I wish to reduce my chances of being a crime victim, and ...

• ... if my only criterion is skin color ...

∴ ... then I should stay away from the most crime-ridden skin color.

† † †​

• If I need to stay away from the most crime-ridden skin color, and ...

• ... if that is black people ...

∴ ... then I need to stay away from black people.​

The functional problem is that no matter how much one disclaims that they are "not advocating dicrimination, exclusion, or hatred toward any group or race of people", it is difficult to avoid such an appearance when the whole of one's assessment criteria is skin color. As I noted in a more general consideration of stereotypes: One might fulfill a stereotype, and that is their own problem. One might assign a stereotype, and that is other people's problem.

Functionally speaking, try educating a daughter to exist in both a competent and safe context amid a world full of men. I mean, men and sex crimes, you know ....

My point, of course, is that if your "main purpose ... is to emphasize the importance of being more aware and understanding of your surroundings, regardless of your own racial make up", you need to stop and think about the dangers of oversimplification.

One can use raw numbers to present the shocking number of crimes committed in our society by people who identify as Christian. How does your methodology treat religion, then? Or sexual anatomy? Really, are you a sexually predatory danger to my daughter? All things considered, I doubt it, but you are a male, and if we're going with one-criterion generalization (i.e., stereotyping), you are an increased risk to her bodily and psychiatric health.

I would go so far as to suggest that if one's concern is a gospel of personal safety, encouraging people toward dysfunctional assessment criteria is problematic.

 

[Aqueous Id]

One can use raw numbers to present the shocking number of crimes committed in our society by people who identify as Christian.

Indeed, the prisons are full of people who pray and read the Bible.

I like your use of the term "raw numbers". It's a gateway for confirmation bias. Other shocking numbers that you will not read in the OP are the racial makeup of the wrongfully convicted:

There have been 301 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.

• The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 36 states; since 2000, there have been 234 exonerations.

• 18 of the 300 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row. Another 16 were charged with capital crimes but not sentenced to death.

• The average length of time served by exonerees is 13.6 years. The total number of years served is approximately 4,036.

• The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 27.

Races of the 300 exonerees:

187 African Americans
86 Caucasians
21 Latinos
2 Asian American
5 whose race is unknown

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php

 

[Thoreau]

The worst of trolls are the ones in white sheets.

You should be barred from appropriating the name of abolitionist and scholar Henry David Thoreau in order to troll here with mean, stupid racist drivel.

You have admitted to be a racist, a bannable behavior.

Go away, troll. Take your findings down to your next local Klan meeting. This is place for intelligent discussion. Your mean, stupid intolerance is counter to that goal.

Begone.

First of all, pointing out crime statistics doesn't make one pro-slavery, much less racist. Secondly, not that I should even have to defend myself, but two of my three exes were black (well, one was half-black). On top of that, during my teenage years I was a SHARP. Do you know what that is? Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice. So, humor me and tell me again how I'm some sheet-wearing, cross-burning racist. Before you insult someone and make accusations, you may want to know who you're insulting.

So what does you holding this stereotype mean in practice for you?

What do you do, in regard of this stereotype?

Do you avoid black people, do you start a petition to evict a black person who lives in the same apartment building or street as you, do you ...?

And how exactly do you measure blackness? By the one-drop law?

Well, I do a lot of regional traveling for my job. On the occasions that I have to go to a low-income, majorly black area (always a high crime area around here), I usually go armed. I'm not afraid of black people. But I do recognize that increased threat of crime in majorly black neighborhoods, and thus I protect myself accordingly.

I think where people are running into problems with your logic is the question of syllogistic application. If skin color is the only criterion, application becomes problematic.

• If I wish to reduce my chances of being a crime victim, and ...

• ... if my only criterion is skin color ...

∴ ... then I should stay away from the most crime-ridden skin color.

† † †​

• If I need to stay away from the most crime-ridden skin color, and ...

• ... if that is black people ...

∴ ... then I need to stay away from black people.​

The functional problem is that no matter how much one disclaims that they are "not advocating dicrimination, exclusion, or hatred toward any group or race of people", it is difficult to avoid such an appearance when the whole of one's assessment criteria is skin color. As I noted in a more general consideration of stereotypes: One might fulfill a stereotype, and that is their own problem. One might assign a stereotype, and that is other people's problem.

Functionally speaking, try educating a daughter to exist in both a competent and safe context amid a world full of men. I mean, men and sex crimes, you know ....

My point, of course, is that if your "main purpose ... is to emphasize the importance of being more aware and understanding of your surroundings, regardless of your own racial make up", you need to stop and think about the dangers of oversimplification.

One can use raw numbers to present the shocking number of crimes committed in our society by people who identify as Christian. How does your methodology treat religion, then? Or sexual anatomy? Really, are you a sexually predatory danger to my daughter? All things considered, I doubt it, but you are a male, and if we're going with one-criterion generalization (i.e., stereotyping), you are an increased risk to her bodily and psychiatric health.

I would go so far as to suggest that if one's concern is a gospel of personal safety, encouraging people toward dysfunctional assessment criteria is problematic.

You don't need to judge based on your own race. I've had quite a few black friends that say themselves that they don't feel safe in majorly black neighborhoods due to the crime. It's not a racist statement; it's an observation.

And stereotyping does serve a purpose.

For example:

Let's go with a hypothetical situation here. Let's say that you have two adjacent towns. One town is majorly Asian and has a homicide rate of 1 in 500,000. The other town is majorly Black and has a homicide rate of 1 in 50,000. And, for sh*ts and giggles, let's say that there is a homicide right on the border of these two towns. There are no witnesses, but we know the type of gun used. Unfortunately you only have enough manpower to search one town at a time. Do you - as the local authority, begin your search for the suspect in the majority Asian town, or the majorly Black town?

And the great thing about both my statement and this example is that you can put insert any racial group in here. Say it was a majorily Asian town which had the high crime and the black town that had the low crime. You'd of course start looking in the Asian town.

My point is that it doesn't matter what races are involved. If the FBI statistics provided showed that whites committed more homicides, then I'd be holding the same speculation and upholding the same guard toward whites. But whites aren't the race that commit more homicides, according to these numbers. So, it's not racist to say that I'd be more on-guard in a black neighborhood than a white one. Because if the tables were turned, I'd be more on-guard in a white neighborhood than a black one.

Indeed, the prisons are full of people who pray and read the Bible.

I like your use of the term "raw numbers". It's a gateway for confirmation bias. Other shocking numbers that you will not read in the OP are the racial makeup of the wrongfully convicted:

There have been 301 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.

• The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 36 states; since 2000, there have been 234 exonerations.

• 18 of the 300 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row. Another 16 were charged with capital crimes but not sentenced to death.

• The average length of time served by exonerees is 13.6 years. The total number of years served is approximately 4,036.

• The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 27.

Races of the 300 exonerees:

187 African Americans
86 Caucasians
21 Latinos
2 Asian American
5 whose race is unknown

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php

Interesting numbers, though it is a shame to see them so low. I figured a project of such stature would have more results. I'm not very knowledgeable about the rates of wrongful incarceration, so I can't say too much else about it. However, I will say that our justice system has it's own system of checks and balances that help prevent and minimize biasness among judges and juries. So, if there were only 300 exonerations in the past 12 years, that tells me, purely on surface value, that our justice system seems pretty fair, seeing that as of December 31, 2010, the International Centre for Prison Studies (ICPS) at King's College London estimated 2,266,832 prisoners in the U.S. (730 per 100,000).

300 of 2,266,832 is 0.013% of the prison population.

I understand that there are probably a lot of factors that affect the project's efficiency (time, judicial process, opposition, etc). But when we are talking about one one-hundredth of a percent exonerated, it doesn't leave much room for courtroom bias.

But who knows, maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Thoreau]

Oops. Double-posted. Ignore..

 

[wynn]

Well, I do a lot of regional traveling for my job. On the occasions that I have to go to a low-income, majorly black area (always a high crime area around here), I usually go armed. I'm not afraid of black people. But I do recognize that increased threat of crime in majorly black neighborhoods, and thus I protect myself accordingly.

You didn't answer my question:

And how exactly do you measure blackness? By the one-drop law?

My point is that it doesn't matter what races are involved. If the FBI statistics provided showed that whites committed more homicides, then I'd be holding the same speculation and upholding the same guard toward whites. But whites aren't the race that commit more homicides, according to these numbers. So, it's not racist to say that I'd be more on-guard in a black neighborhood than a white one. Because if the tables were turned, I'd be more on-guard in a white neighborhood than a black one.

Is Wentworth Miller white, or is he black?

How exactly is race determined by authorities in the US? How do they measure someone's blackness, or Asianness, or whichever? Do you know?

And stereotyping does serve a purpose.

It does - as long as it is the right kind of stereotyping.

I don't think that stereotyping by race is the right kind of stereotyping.
For one, because once we try to actually specify what exactly being "black" means, we end up with downright absurd and impossible to verify principles, such as the one-drop rule.
For two, because there are many people who are generally considered to be a particular race, who don't fit the stereotype for that race.


The key issue is what kind of stereotyping is a wholesome kind of stereotyping.

 

[iceaura]

300 of 2,266,832 is 0.013% of the prison population.

I understand that there are probably a lot of factors that affect the project's efficiency (time, judicial process, opposition, etc). But when we are talking about one one-hundredth of a percent exonerated, it doesn't leave much room for courtroom bias.

The only candidates for exoneration are those serving long sentences for serious crimes in which DNA exoneration is possible - that is, DNA evidence was collected and available and has been preserved, and it is key to the conviction.

That is a small minority of criminal convictions. The percentage should be of them..

Within that small minority, there are also geographical and political divisions - the courtrooms of Illinois, for example, generated such a high rate of exoneration in capital crimes that the sitting Governor suspended all executions (a decade later another Governor abolished them altogether).

And that kind of statistical issue is at the center of many of the problems with stereotyping.

How exactly is race determined by authorities in the US?

It isn't. If the information is wanted, the person is asked, or their parents.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I didn't even know we had slaves, much less hung them, in 2005. What does slavery from 100+ years ago have to do with 2005?

You're either joking, disingenuous, or just dense. How about the fact that a century and a half after emancipation we still have separate communities of "white" Euro-Americans and "black" Afro-Americans, each with their own philosophy, music, customs and other culture? If slavery had no impact on the sixth-generation descendants of the slaves, slaveholders, and bystanders, the USA would now be a true melting pot in which we all come in various shades of brown.

In fact this is very close to what many Latin American societies are like. (And we won't talk about the way they treat their Native Americans, because we have nothing to brag about on that subject either.) The difference is that they allowed slavery to simply dissapear through attrition, as the more complex, initiative-dependent tasks of the Industrial Era made paid, motivated free workers more productive than slaves. (Even at the time of the Civil War, German immigrants in Texas determined that free, paid farm workers brought more net profit to their employers than slaves.) Brazilian slaveowners were notorious for being the most cruel of their era, yet even there slavery died out peacefully around 1895. Only the United States and Haiti decided to end slavery a generation earlier by resorting to violence, and the United States and Haiti remain the only two countries in which "race relations" are so abysmally bad.

I admit it was a tough call. Suppose you were a slave in the 1860s, and someone popped up in a time machine from the future and told you: "You have two choices. We can do nothing, and the Industrial Revolution will bring slavery to an end in your children's time. You won't know freedom unless you live to be very old, but your descendants will be free citizens, intermarry with the other Americans, and add their energy to in the Melting Pot.

"Or... we can end slavery right now by fighting one of the bloodiest wars in history. You'll be a free man, but there will be tremendous animosity between Northerners and Southerners, and tremendous grief as almost every citizen will know someone who lost a family member in the war. The details of the conflict will be forgotten but everyone will remember that it was about you people of African ancestry. There will be tremendous animosity toward you, many of you will be lynched or targeted in other ways, for generations you'll be restricted to ghettos and inferior schools, music will be one of the few occupations in which you'll be allowed to excel (if you have the talent) and even 150 years from now "black" and "white" people will still not be completely integrated. The toll this will take on your great-great-great... grandchildren will be immeasurable. Some clueless "white" person will post a smug message on an internet discussion board insisting that the color of your skin makes you more likely to be a criminal, without acknowledging that the real cause is several centuries of inhuman treatment, highlighted by a Civil War that still divides the country in the 21st century as "Yankees" and "Rednecks" still hurl insults at each other. With "white" people hating each other that badly, you can imagine how they will feel about "black" people.

"Which do you choose?"

 

[Thoreau]

You're either joking, disingenuous, or just dense.

It was a sarcastic joke.

 

[Thoreau]

Some clueless "white" person will post a smug message on an internet discussion board insisting that the color of your skin makes you more likely to be a criminal, without acknowledging that the real cause is several centuries of inhuman treatment, highlighted by a Civil War that still divides the country in the 21st century as "Yankees" and "Rednecks" still hurl insults at each other.

This is the same misguided concept of the religious Original Sin dogma. You are scapegaoting a statistically accurate trait of a racial culture to the actions and events of people from several generations, and nearly two centuries, ago.

The same could be said about the Irish, the Italians, and the Japanese, all of whom experience immeasurable discrimination and mistreatment in the US. The American-Japanese suffered intense discrimination and hatred during WWII by the American people. They were even removed from their homes and placed in camps on American soil. These were law abiding people who were controlled by the fearful government.

But they've moved well-past the mistakes of our nation and have grown to be extremely contributable to the growth of this nation. Japanese-American males don't have an incarceration rate of 33%.

When you wake up every day, you have the choice on what actions you take. You can wake up and say "I'm going to go shoot someone because that is the culture I was rasised into, or because my ancestors were oppressed. OR I'm going to be productive and do something else.

I was raised in a VERY alcoholic family. I was surrounded by it daily for my entire adolescent life. It was all I knew. I had no idea that most people didn't get drunk daily and end up dying from it, like my own mother did. But the second I did realize that it wasn't the universal normality, I made the conscious choice not to follow that road, even though I am genetically pre-dispositioned to be an alcoholic. I refuse to believe that black people, or ANY people, are naturally predisposed to commiting crime. It's a choice.

And every single American has that option to choose. So, this idea of excusing a culture's actions because of their history is absurd, and it overlooks the real problem at hand. It's like saying, "Oh, they are only like that because their grandfather experienced racial hatred and biasness." That is completely misguided and illogical. It completely ignores free will.