The racial violence issue in the U.S. just won’t go away. Still in the aftermath of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, now it erupts in Oklahoma. A troubling corollary also adheres, though not universally recognized:
The racial victimhood industry demonstrably cares little about the facts, for example, in cases such as Martin—Zimmerman. The ultimate legal and factual aspects, therefore, become peripheral to the larger societal issue because the race hustlers have been aggressing regardless of the still-opaque full truth.
Because of the roiling irrationality, America may benefit from one further word on the subject from a different perspective.
What of that larger race relations issue? It took zero lag-time after the original Trayvon Martin incident for race baiters such as Al Sharpton to accuse our country of engendering a climate of racist danger for black citizens.
This qualifies as anti-American slander of the first magnitude because the facts are to the contrary—if anyone still cares to know them.
But is there not an established tendency for blacks to be victims of interracial violence in the United States? Hasn’t that been the recent media message? Message, yes; truth, no. Here are the suppressed and inconvenient facts:
About 90% of interracial violent crime in our nation is committed by blacks against whites. The black-on-white murder rate in the U.S. exceeds the white-on-black rate by about 2.5-to-1. The black-on-white assault and battery rate exceeds the corresponding white-on-black rate in this country by at least 10-to-1.
I would rather not report what is known about U.S. interracial rape statistics because it could be taken as incendiary, but the previous numbers in terms of black/white proclivity are dwarfed. (See Department of Justice, Criminal Victimization in the United States, “Victims and Offenders.”)
OK, here’s a hint: Because the number of white-on-black rapes is so low nationally in any given year, the ratio ranges from 100-to-1 to infinity. Liberal, politically correct feminists need to reflect on that one.
If these interracial crime ratios were randomly based, they would be uniform — that is, 1-to-1 — for the two racial groups. In other words, the population with six times as many potential victims also has six times the pool of perpetrators, so the effect of that disproportion should be perfectly offsetting arithmetically.
Yes, the relative crime stats would be moderated if adjusted for socioeconomic status (from astronomical to merely stratospheric), but by no means inverted.
Let the record show that for the past 40 years or so, the only legally sanctioned racial discrimination in the U.S. has been in favor of blacks (and some other minorities), against whites.
When codified as so-called affirmative action, this was the first time in world history that an ethnic majority group intentionally disadvantaged itself to benefit another, purely out of a sense of justice (sometimes derided as “liberal guilt”). Some gratitude, indeed, on the part of the beneficiaries.
To those who complain that less value is attached to black lives in this country, as the post-Martin demagogy alleged, please ponder the national outcry over one fatality in that incident—even though Martin was hardly an innocent bystander.
Compare that fervid reaction with the lack of attention given the multitude of white citizens murdered by blacks year after year. Get real. How decent of Jesse Jackson, though, to “frown upon” the interracial hate murder of an Australian college kid in Oklahoma.
My purpose, if not already obvious: Many in our country are troubled by a propaganda-induced misperception about white-on-black violence. I hope this revelation of the real record provides them relief. Perhaps broader awareness of the contrary facts I report will contribute to national healing.
Yes, isn’t it great news that the true condition in the U.S. is epidemic black-on-white racial violence? Not quite, but recognition of the truth can at least serve as a starting point for understanding.
Gaski is associate professor at the University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business. His primary research field is the study of social power and conflict. He is a long-time, but former, registered Democrat.