_______ ~.::[༒]::.~ _______
(Part 1, … Part 2, … Part 3, … Part 4).
The other racially charged comment made by Dylann Roof which has received scrutiny, just before opening fire: “You rape our women….” This comment led Jamelle Bouie at Slate to conclude that “[While] it’s tempting to treat Dylann Storm Roof as a Southern problem, the violent collision of neo-Confederate ideology and a permissive gun culture. The truth … is that his fear … of black sexuality … belongs to America as much as it does the South.”
This is where the typical modus operandi of the left is often, in the words of John Tooby (speaking to Slate editor Judith Shulevitz about “Gould, Lewontin, and a few others” in 2000), to “attempt to drag the ideas they opposed under by manufacturing links to various repugnant doctrines.” If I were playing that game, I would say the following:
‘Bouie’s suggestion that some intrinsic “fear … of black sexuality” lies at the root of less than positive attitudes towards black individuals echoes the disgusting black supremacist armchair psychoanalysis of “academics” like Dr. Frances Cress Welsing, who defends the so–called “melanin theory” which says that white people are the genetically defective descendants of albino mutants of the original African race, and posits that “white supremacy” thus results from white peoples’ attempts to overcompensate for subconsciously acknowledged genetic and sexual inferiority.’
‘Amongst many other things, Welsing has written the following: “On both St. Valentine’s Day and Mother’s Day, the white male gives gifts of chocolate candy with nuts…. If his sweetheart ingests ‘chocolate with nuts’, the white male can fantasize that he is genetically equal to the Black male…. Is it not also curious that when white males are young and vigorous, they attempt to master the large brown balls, but as they become older and wiser, they psychologically resign themselves to their inability to master the large brown balls? Their focus then shifts masochistically to hitting the tiny white golf balls in disgust and resignation — in full final realization of white genetic recessiveness. … I have said all of the above to state that, yes, there is envy in the white supremacy culture, but it began with the white male’s envy of the genetic power residing in the Black male’s testicles and phallus. Perhaps there was also envy of the comparatively longer length of the Black phallus.”’
“Fear” of Black sexuality, Bouie? Curiously, there exists in the United States today no “fear” of Asian male sexuality. In fact, the predominant Asian male stereotype is emasculate and asexual—an article at Adios Barbie titled “Every Day Racism and You” takes women to task for their convictions in this stereotype. It opens with the story of a Korean woman’s response to the author asking her why she had never dated a Korean man: “Because I’d feel like I was dating my brother.” The author then explains that she “was led to look deeply into [her] white privilege and challenge [her] own bias as [she] realized [she] didn’t find Asian men attractive.” And she confesses that “this acknowledgment was mortifying….”
What explanation would Bouie give us for this discrepancy, if he wouldn’t endorse an answer like Welsing’s? Is it really just a coincidence that the white supremacists attempting to brainwash us all through deliberately inaccurate stereotypes in the mainstream media chose to take exactly the opposite strategy towards Asian males that they take towards Black males? Why this inconsistency? Are we really supposed to believe that white supremacists mind–controlling our culture just arbitrarily chose one strategy for no damn reason at all in the first case, and then arbitrarily chose precisely the opposite strategy for no damn reason at all in the second case?  The only alternative option is that this pattern is explained by differences in the patterns of black and Asian male behavior.
Is there evidence that concerns about black–on–white rape are justified in any sense, or is there evidence that these concerns simply result from some sort of Freudian “fear … of black sexuality?” Let’s try something Bouie doesn’t appear to have done: actually ask what the data says. Under Jamelle Bouie’s scrutiny, black–on–white rape is just something “racists [use] … to defend their worst racist violence.” What Bouie has less interest in asking is how often black–on–white rape itself might, in fact, be a horrible act of racist violence. So, what does the data say?
_______ ~.::[༒]::.~ _______
As I explained in a previous post, we actually have very good evidence that police arrest rates are not racially biased: the Bureau of Justice Statistics keeps information on the reports of victims and witnesses in a data collection known as the National Crime Victimization Survey. And when victims and witnesses report the race of their assailants, not only do they provide us with racial percentages that dovetail closely with those found in arrest rates, but when and where the racial breakdown in victim and witness reports differ from those found in arrest rates, victims and witnesses actually identify a higher black percentage of criminals than we find amongst police arrests, strongly suggesting that if anything, police actually arrest black criminals less frequently than their rate of commission of crimes would justify.
We can use the NCVS data to analyze interracial violence, as well.
First, before digging into all the interpretive issues and asking what it means, let’s perform the most basic calculation: what are the basic rates of black–on–white and white–on–black violence?
To listen to the mainstream media tell the story, we might expect that white–on–minority violence would be one of the most prominent categories. But in fact, we find nothing of the sort.
In 2010, the white and black populations in the United States were 196,817,552 and 37,685,848, respectively. According to the NCVS’ victim and witness reports, an estimated 320,082 whites were victims of violence from blacks, whereas approximately 62,593 blacks were victims of violence from whites.
From this, we can derive a few different baseline numbers to start our analysis out with.
Dividing the white population by the number of white on black attacks, whites committed acts of interracial violence at a rate of 32 per 100,000, whereas blacks committed acts of interracial violence at a rate of 849 per 100,000. Dividing the black rate of interacial violence by the white rate (849/32), this means that the “average” black individual in 2010 was 26.5 times more likely to attack a white victim than vice versa.
We also find it confirmed in this data that blacks, though only 12% of the population, are responsible for around 50% of all the violent crimes committed annually in the United States. Yet, not only are black perpetrators committing more violent crime to begin with, they also choose white victims for those crimes at drastically higher rates: black perpetrators of violent crimes chose white victims 47.7% of the time, whereas white perpetrators chose black victims a mere 3.9% of the time.
For rape, in particular? Of the 13,463 reported rapes committed by black perpetrators in 2010, 50.2% of these were committed against white victims—and “by contrast, the number of white–on–black rapes … reported in the NCVS surveys were so infinitesimal, that in each case whites were estimated to have accounted for 0.0% of all rapes … committed against black victims in the United States.” (Source) Of course, this shouldn’t be taken to mean that there was not a single white–on–black rape in 2010; and it isn’t supposed to. But it does imply that the numbers are extremely low—lower than 0.01%, and most certainly drastically lower than the black–on–white rate of rape.
_______ ~.::[༒]::.~ _______
Now to approach a further interesting question: do we find evidence in this data that black criminals are intentionally targeting white victims? Obviously, intentional targeting isn’t the sole factor influence the relative rates of interracial violence. The population rate and therefore encounter rate (that is, the likelihood that any given white individual will encounter a potential black victim, and vice versa) is one thing we have to account for. The other thing we have to account for is the crime rate itself. One possibility is that when these are added together, they will account for the raw disparity between BOW and WOB crime completely, and the greater likelihood of black–on–white violence over white–on–black violence will disappear. The other possibility is that these factors will not eliminate the disparity—which will suggest that black criminals are in fact deliberately choosing a disproportionate number of white victims.
To see how the population rate would impact this calculation, consider a society of 100,000 people containing 85,000 whites and 15,000 blacks. In this hypothetical society, everyone commits exactly one crime with a perfectly randomized victim, so both races commit crimes at exactly identical rates without any concern for race. Whites would therefore commit 85,000 crimes, of which the victims would be 85% white and 15% black, resulting in 72,250 white–on–white crimes and 12,750 white–on–black crimes; whereas blacks would commit 15,000 crimes, of which the victims would once again be 85% white and 15% black, resulting in 12,750 black–on–black crimes and 2,250 black–on–white crimes.
So how do we control for the population rate? The most basic way is to compare the ratio of black and white members of the general population to the ratio of black victims of white violent crime to white victims of black violent crime. For our hypothetical scenario, dividing 85,000 whites by 15,000 blacks gives us the result that there are 5.6 times more whites than blacks in our population. Likewise, dividing 12,750 WOB crimes by 2,250 BOW crimes gives us the result that there are 5.6 times more WOB attacks than BOW attacks. These ratios both equal 5.6, so there is no disparity left to account for: the population rate in this hypothetical scenario fully accounts for the disparity in interracial crime that exists.
Now plugging in the real numbers: If we divide 196,817,552 by 37,685,848, there were about 5.2 times more white than black individuals within the United States population in 2010. So, nationally and on average, any given black individual is 5.2 times more likely to encounter a white individual than any given white individual is to encounter a black individual—which, at least so far, clearly is not sufficient to account for the fact that any given black individual is 26.5 times more likely to attack a white victim than vice versa.
American Rennaisance’s Color of Crime report actually commits an interesting error here. It writes, in footnote 42: “ … although blacks and whites are not perfectly integrated, and segregation varies considerably by neighborhood, the same figure [that any black person is 5.2 times more likely to encounter a white person than a white person is to encounter a black person] … applies everywhere. This is because segregation decreases blacks’ contact with whites, but it also decreases whites’ contact with blacks by exactly the same amount. Segregation, whatever its degree, therefore does not change the relative likelihood of blacks encountering whites and vice versa.”
The suggestion here is supposed to be that the relative ratio of black–encounters–white to white–encounters–black will always be 5.2, no matter what numbers are plugged in the ratio between them will always stay the same, because removing any one black individual from ‘circulation’ simply takes one black out of contact with whites, and takes the same number of whites out of contact with blacks. But the problem is that this sophomorically ignores the fact that the ratio of blacks to whites in varying areas will be different, as well—we aren’t taking a homogenous national population and then removing a single person from national circulation at a time. We aren’t shaking up a homogenous M&M’s, where we’re taking one M&M at a time out of the bag; we’re dealing with neighborhoods with varying racial compositions. So to see very clearly why what AmRen says here is false, all we have to do is consider how it would apply to a city with a black majority: in 2010, the population of Detroit contained around 588,244 black individuals, and around 123,054 white individuals. Therefore, in Detroit in 2010, a white individual on average was about 4.78 times more likely to encounter a black individual than to encounter another white individual. Obviously, black individuals will not be 5.2 times more likely to encounter white individuals than whites are to encounter blacks when blacks are the majority. And the relative percentage of blacks and whites in local populations will vary significantly across the United States—and thus so, too, will the ratio of encounters.
However, this probably doesn’t weaken the case that encounter rates fail to account for the greater likelihood that a black criminal will target a white victim than vice versa. In fact, it probably strengthens it—and probably strengthens it dramatically, making interracial crime even more disproportionately tilted towards the black–on–white direction than the AR report’s already large estimates claim. What we really want to know or at least try to estimate is what the encounter rate is amongst the particular individuals who are committing the actual crime. And if black violence is more likely to take place in highly segregated areas in which blacks make up a greater percentage of the local population than they do of the national population (as in Detroit, where blacks make up 82.7% of the population, compared to about 12% nationally), then the issue is not that the greater likelihood that a given black will encounter a white than vice versa (which averages 5.2 nationally) is insufficient to encounter for the greater likelihood that a black perpetrator will attack a white victim than vice versa (26.5)—but that the particular blacks who are committing the violent crime—a minority of the overall black population—are more likely to attack whites even though they are less likely to encounter them than vice versa, given that criminal blacks are most highly concentrated in black–majority areas.
And it turns out that this is exactly what we see. The most violent parts of the United States are in areas with black majorities—in fact, four of them make the list of the top 50 most violent cities in the entire world: New Orleans, which is 60.2% black; Baltimore, Maryland, which is 63.3% black; St. Louis, Missouri, which is 46.9% black; and Detroit, Michigan which is 82.7% black. The top ten most dangerous cities in the U.S., with exception for these four, are Milwaukee, Wisconsin (40% black in 2010); Atlanta, Georgia (54% black); Cleveland, Ohio (53% black); Birmingham, Alabama (73.4% black); Memphis, Tennessee (62.6% black).
One of the only cities making this list in which blacks do not constitute a plurality is Oakland, California, where blacks and immigrants still compose a plurality together—Oakland is 28% black, and 25% Hispanic—and most homicides still occur in black neighborhoods; in 2006, the five year average for homicide suspects were 64.7% black, 8.6% Hispanic—and only 0.2% white, according to a report from the Urban Strategies Council. What else makes Oakland unique? “Despite its high crime rate, Oakland has fewer police officers than many other major cities”; approximately half of official estimates for what would be needed to adequately patrol a city with Oakland’s crime rate. (“A November 2011 study by the Rand Corporation found that, on average, every 10 percent increase in the size of a city’s police force led to a decrease in the homicide rate by 9 percent, robbery by 6 percent and car theft by 4 percent.”)
It would be a monumentally complex task, well beyond the length of even a series like this one, to calculate and then average the encounter rate for specific black and white criminals—probably well beyond the potential of statistical data–based analysis to even pinpoint, since we can’t actually know who any particular individual actually runs into on any given day, which depends at the very least on what stores he typically visits, what time of day he typically visits them at, who his friends and friends of friends are, and so on. But the average 5.2 figure overestimates the relative likelihood of any given black person encountering a white person than vice versa significantly.
Across the United States population as a whole, the average black person in 2010 lived in a neighborhood that was 45% black. If we use this to perform a rough estimate, then the average population of 100,000 containing notable numbers of blacks would consist of 45,000 blacks and 55,000 whites. In that case, any given black individual would on average be only 1.2 times more likely to encounter a white than a white is to encounter a black, not 5.2. And if the most violent crime is likely to occur in areas which are the most segregated, that means most violent black crime is taking place in areas where the likelihood of black–encountering–white is only 1.2 times larger than the likelihood of white–encountering–black, or less (as in the case of Detroit, where the probability shifts in the opposite direction) . The gap from there to explaining a 26.5 times higher probability of black–attacking–white than white–attacking–black is therefore even larger than the Color of Crime report suggests.
All numbers past this point will therefore be an underestimation of the full extent of black–on–white violence unless stated otherwise, as I will keep my calculations highly conservative by retaining the larger figure which we know to be an overestimation of the disparity in encounter rates between blacks and whites for all the reasons given above.
_______ ~.::[༒]::.~ _______
The next question we have to ask in order to identify the extent to which the deliberate choice of white victims by black perpetrators might be responsible for disparities in interracial crime is whether the higher rates of violence amongst black suspects in general could account for it.
To see how this would work, consider a population of 15,000 blacks and 85,000 whites—and assume that blacks commit murder at a rate of 200 per 1000 while whites commit murder at a rate of 50 per 1000 (in other words, blacks commit murder at a rate 4 times higher than whites do). In a given year, there would then be 3000 black acts of murder and 4250 white acts of murder. There are 5.6 times more whites than blacks in our population, so if encounters are perfectly randomized, any member of this population is 5.6 times more likely to encounter a white than a black. Assuming that everyone is equally likely to attack any given individual they encounter (let’s call this the “no racial targeting” assumption), 638 of the white murders (15% of the total) would be against black victims (and notice that the remaining 3612 white murders of white victims needed to make up our total of 4,250 white murders is a number 5.6 times larger than the 638 white murders of black victims) while 2,550 of the black murders (85% of the total) would be against white victims (and notice that 2,250 is a number 5.6 times larger than the 450 black murders of black victims).
Thus, even though there is no deliberate targeting of white victims taking place, dividing 2550 by 638, any given white would be 4 times more likely to be killed by a black murderer than vice versa,simply because murderers make up a proportionally larger percentage of the total black population, without any deliberate targeting of white victims by black murderers. So to take these numbers, how would we control for the population rate and the crime rate together to rule out racial targeting? This scenario tells us what numbers we should find if there is, in fact, “no racial targeting.” First, the raw rate of probability that a black would murder a white instead of a white murdering a black in this scenario—the number we want to apply our controls to—would be the ratio arrived at by dividing the white population (85,000) by the number of white–on–black murders (638)—and then dividing this by the ratio arrived at by dividing the black population (15,000) by the number of black–on–white murders (2,250). This gives us 133.23 divided by 5.88, or 22.66.
We can now apply controls to this number for both racial crime rates and the interracial encounter rateto test the “no racial targeting” assumption. There are 5.6 times more whites than blacks in our population, so any given criminal on any given day is 5.6 times more likely to encounter a white than a black. And there are 4 times more black than white crimes per year. Now, when we multiply 5.6 times 4, what number do we get? 22.66. Another way of putting this is that after dividing the raw interracial crime disparity by the rate of difference in racial crime rates and then the interracial encounter rate, dividing 22.66 by the first number (4) should give us 5.6, and dividing that number by the second number (5.6) should give us exactly 1.
We now understand how to test the “no racial targeting” assumption. We need only three numbers: the “raw” rate of difference between black–on–white and white–on–black crimes, the rate of difference between the black and white crime rates, and the encounter rate (how many more whites than blacks there are in a given population, or how much more likely a black is to encounter a white than a white is to encounter a black). When we divide the first number by the second two, if there is no racial targeting, then this number should equal exactly 1. But the larger this number is than 1, the greater the likelihood is that a black perpetrator will choose a white victim even once the greater number of potential white victims and the higher likelihood that a black individual will commit a violent crime to begin with is taken account of—and the more likely it is that racial targeting accounts for much of the remaining difference.
Now, when we plug in the numbers for 2001–2003, we arrive at the following chart: Figure 18 shows the “raw” probability that a white is more likely to be victimized by a black perpetrator than vice versa (the counterpart to our hypothetical scenario’s 22.66). In figure 19, the black bar titled “interracial crime multiple” adjusts this for the number of potential victims (in our above scenario, that would be dividing by 5.6). The grey bar, titled “overall black/white crime multiple”, represents the rate at which blacks are more likely to commit the crime in question than whites in general (in our above scenario, that would be dividing by 4); and the white bar, “their ratios”, adjusts the interracial crime multiple by the overall black/white crime multiple to finally arrive at the relative likelihood that a black perpetrator will choose to attack a white victim instead of a white perpetrator attacking a black victim, with all else held equal.
So what do we see when we plug in the real numbers? For aggravated assault, the result is barely over one, which suggests that blacks might deliberately target white victims for aggravated assault in only a minority of cases—almost all of the raw disparity is accounted for by the difference in racial rates of violence combined with the greater number of possible white victims. But for robbery, the ratio is 1.66. It will be easy for liberals to write robbery in particular off due to the fact that whites are more likely to own property to begin with—so while there is a deliberate targeting of white victims for acts of robbery, there isn’t necessarily any reason to think that this targeting is racially motivated, per se.
The chart reveals something quite troubling for the case that relative poverty is the best explanation for why violent blacks choose white victims more often than vice versa, however: the ratio of black criminals choosing white over black victims is much larger in the case of rape than it is in the case of other crimes—the number still left over after accounting for everything in the case of rape is 7.4. This is more than four times larger than the 1.66 number found remaining for robbery. In other words, black criminals are more than seven times more likely to choose a white victim over a black one even after controlling for the greater number of possible white victims contained in the population—and that’s by an estimate that likely overestimates the average criminal black person’s white encounter rate drastically—which means black criminals are at least four times more likely to deliberately target a white victim over a black one for an act of rape than they are to target a white victim over a black one for a robbery. Let that sink in: black perpetrators choose white victims over black ones for acts of rape more frequently than they choose white victims over black ones for acts of robbery.
The greater propensity of black perpetrators to choose white victims for acts of robbery actually turns out to be largely explained by the fact that blacks commit acts of robbery more frequently to begin with—which is not the case for violent acts of rape. Therefore, unless poverty is more likely to “cause” someone to commit an act of rape than it is to “cause” them to commit an act of robbery, “poverty” is no explanation for the disparity in interracial rates of crime.
_______ ~.::[༒]::.~ _______
Could the disparity in interracial rates of rape be accounted for by disparities in interracial relationships—the fact that black men are more likely to date white women than white men are to date black women?
Even if so, it couldn’t possibly account for anywhere close to the total racial disparity in rape. Although black men who marry only marry white women 4.6% of the time, the NCVS data tells us that black men who rape chose white victims a staggering 50.2% of the time. The rate of interracial dating could be larger than the rate of interracial marriage, in theory, if black men are much more likely to marry the black women they date than they are to marry the white women they date, or if the particular black men who date the most white women are both unlikely to commit to marriage and much more likely to commit rape—but surely this number would still come nowhere close to accounting for that whopping 50%. And there is absolutely no reason to think either of these assumptions are true, anyway.
Approaching it from another angle, we can see that in 2009, there were 354,000 marriages of black men to white women, and 196,000 marriages of black women to white men. In other words, there are only about 1.8 times more marriages of black men to white women than there are marriages of black women to white men—but there are undeniably far more than 1.8 times more rapes of white women by black men in the United States each year than there are rapes of black women by white men. In fact, there are at least 839 times more. And while 26% of rapes are committed by a current or former partner, a combined 64% are committed by friends, acquaintances, or strangers.
Furthermore, somewhere between 15 to 25% of violent rapes committed in the United States are gang rapes, and as a Bureau of Justice Statistics report observes, “Strangers accounted for nearly 20% of the victimizations involving a single offender but 76% of the victimizations involving multiple offenders (a polite euphemism for gang rapes).” We find in another BJS report that in 2008, black offenders were responsible for 52.4% of all “multiple–offender sexual assaults” (see Table 48). However, no federal database keeps statistics on the race of victims of “multiple–offender sexual assaults”—even though they do tell us that “strangers” are selected more often, suggesting a reasonable possibility that the preference of black gang rapists for white victims could very well be even larger than the preference for white victims is for black rapists in general (obviously, the white:black ratio of strangers will almost always be larger for any given black individual in the United States than the white:black ratio of known acquaintances—in other words, any given black individual will almost always have more than 13% black friends and aquaintances). Is there a reason why race is reported for the offenders and victims in other cases, yet the statistics on gang rapes tell us the race of offenders but not victims? The race of victims of gang rape appears to be the only category here in which data on race is completely left out of the federal reports (unless I’ve overlooked it buried somewhere amongst all that data).
Until very recently, the federal crime reports classified Hispanics as “white” when they were the perpetrators of crimes—even though whites and Hispanics by the reports when they looked at victims. This policy was changed for the first time just this year (in 2015), and we now know that in 2012–2013, whites committed approximately 14 crimes per 1000 persons, while Hispanics committed approximately 18 crimes per 1000 persons. Not only was this skewing interracial crime statistics through the consequence that one Hispanic immigrant killing another became a “white”–on–minority crime, it was also inflating the actual “white” rate of violent crime. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to suspect that this may have been an intentional means of partially obscuring the gap between black and white criminality (by averaging in with whites a group with slightly higher average criminality), as well as the gap between white–on–black and black–on–white crimes (by inventing a whole new imaginary set of interracial crimes to dilute the total with). And so, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to suspect that something similar might be at play with the lack of race reporting in the single case of the demographics of victims of gang rapes (even though we know that they’re far more likely to be “strangers,” who as a rule are far more likely on principle to be non–black).
_______ ~.::[༒]::.~ _______
The evidence that a significant number of black rapists are deliberately targeting white victims is strong. And black rapists openly confessing to deliberately choosing to target white victims from racial motivation are hardly unheard of. Leroy Elridge Cleaver, who went on to become one of the most prominent members of the Black Panther Party (and later, a Republican), wrote a book in 1968 that was praised by the New York Times at the time as “brilliant and revealing”. In the fourth thematic section, titled “White Woman, Black Man”, he wrote: “[W]hen I considered myself ready enough, I crossed the tracks and sought out white prey. I did this consciously, deliberately, willfully, methodically … Rape was an insurrectionary act. It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man’s law, upon his system of values, and that I was defiling his women … I felt I was getting revenge. From the site of the act of rape, consternation spread outwardly in concentric circles. I wanted to send waves of consternation throughout the white race.”
There is yet another approach we can take to try to answer this question. Research on prisons finds that prison rape is in fact largely an act of black–on–white racial revenge—thus making prison rape an “institutional” form of suffering of which both whites, and men, are disproportionately likely to be the victims: “The fact remains that blacks continually and almost exclusively rape whites in prison. The evidence is based on studies conducted over the last 40 years (Davis 1968; Nacci 1978; Lookwood 1980; Starchild 1990). Why does this white victim preference prevail? Whites continue to be raped more severely and frequently and at a disproportionate rate than any other racial or ethnic group (in Gones 1967; Bowker 1980; Lookwood 9180). This racial inequality may be the largest in any violent crime committed in the United States. Rape in prison is rarely a sexual act, but one of violence, politics, and acting out power roles (Rideau and Wikberg 1992, p. 75). The act of rape in the ultra masculine world in prison constitutes the ultimate humiliation visited upon a male by forcing him to assume the role of a woman.
In American prisons, studies by sociologists suggest that more than 90% of rapes are inter-racial and may be motivated more by a need for sexual dominance over another race than by sexual passions (Starchild 1990, p. 145). Many rapes are by blacks on whites, suggesting that it is gives the lower–class black, who has felt trod upon all his life, his one chance to dominate a white person (Starchild 1990, p. 145). Consequently, the victims are almost always young white prisoners. Scacco (1982, p. 91) has also noted a disproportionate number of black aggressors and white victims in studies of sexual assaults in jails and prisons. Even if the minority of prisoners are black, the minority of victims are white (Sacco 1982, p. 91). When Lookwood (1980, p. 28) asked ‘targets’ to identify their aggressors at the time of their rape, most were black (80%), some were Hispanic (14%), and a few were white (6%).”
Once again, it is clear here that population rates do not account for the disparity. “Although many causation factors have been suggested for prison rape, they are all overshadowed by the racial categories of the victims and the rapists. Prison rape has been shown throughout this study to be racially motivated by predominantly black inmates specifically against white inmates who in turn are the victims. Although more studies need to be conducted to confirm this theory, racial hatred of whites by blacks appears to be the main force driving prison rape. In fact, the US Department of Justice (1991, p. 15) noted that black (57%) and Hispanic (51%) violent inmates were at least four times more likely than white (11%) violent inmates to have victimized someone of a different race or ethnic group.”
And this is true in prisons even though racial representation in the prison population comes far closer to parity than it does in the general population. When blacks are a minority of the general population, this is used to explain why black criminals end up with a disproportionate number of white victims. Yet, when blacks are a majority of the prison population, this, too is used to explain why black prison rapists end up with a disproportionate number of white victims. You can’t have it both ways. Deliberate targeting of white victims is very clearly a dramatic factor in interracial rates of rape. And why should the psychological factors confirmed to exist in the dynamics of rape inside prisons be any different when those same criminals are outside prison walls?
This, by the way, is an extremely significant finding of a form of suffering which is “institutional” in pattern which “anti–racists” don’t talk about. They advocate the idea that blacks can’t be racist, because “racism” means “prejudice plus power”—and blacks don’t have any power—as if the ability to shove your cock inside of a guy’s asshole and dominate and humiliate him isn’t a form of “power.” And as if all of that “white privilege” means shit on the inside of a cell.
(Part 1, … Part 2, … Part 3, … Part 4).
_______ ~.::[༒]::.~ _______
 There is, however, perfectly reasonable evidence that biology just might in fact be relevant. A 1986 study from Ross, et al. titled “Serum testosterone levels in healthy young black and white men” found that the “twofold difference in prostate cancer risk” between black and white men could be explained by the “15% higher testosterone level” in Black men found after applying controls to the originally found 19% higher level for “age, weight, alcohol use, cigarette smoking, and use of prescription drugs”.
But circulating levels of testosterone are not the only variable of interest. Many other factors, including enzyme activity and hormone exposure in utero, influence the impact of circulating hormones as well—and on these measures, too, we find generally consistent patterns in which Black subjects have the most androgenic hormone profile while East Asian subjects have least, with White subjects somewhere inbetween. A study from Ross, et al. in 1992, “5-apha-reductase activity and risk of prostate cancer among Japanese and US white and black males”, found that “white and black men had significantly higher values of 3 alpha, 17 beta androstanediol glucuronide (31% and 25% higher, respectively) and androsterone glucuronide (50% and 41% higher, respectively) than Japanese subjects”—these being enzymes that convert testosterone into the more physiologically active hormone DHT. Other studies, such as “Racial variation in umbilical cord blood sex steroid hormones and the insulin-like growth factor axis in African-American and white female neonates”, confirm that Black children are exposed to higher hormone levels in utero—this one found “higher testosterone (1.82 vs. 1.47 ng/mL, p=0.006) and the molar ratio of testosterone to SHBG (0.42 vs. 0.30, p=0.03) in African–American compared to white female neonates”.
And we know that hormone exposure in the womb has drastic impacts on future behavior: Girls who are born after congenital adrenal hyperplasia, a condition that only briefly spikes the level of hormones a developing girl is exposed to, have significantly more masculine behavioral traits despite the fact that there is no evidence that parents treat them any differently, or that there is anything different about them or the way they are “socialized” other than excess prenatal male hormone exposure. As found in a 2003 study of “Prenatal androgens and gender-typed behavior”, girls with CAH “were more interested in masculine toys and less interested in feminine toys and were more likely to report having male playmates and to wish for masculine careers. Parents of girls with CAH rated their daughters’ behaviors as more boylike than did parents of unaffected girls. A relation was found between disease severity and behavior indicating that more severely affected CAH girls were more interested in masculine toys and careers. No parental influence could be demonstrated on play behavior, nor did the comparison of parents’ ratings of wished for behavior versus perceived behavior in their daughters indicate an effect of parental expectations. The results are interpreted as supporting a biological contribution to differences in play behavior between girls with and without CAH.”
Even further, It Is Not Just About Testosterone tells us that: “Vasopressin synthesis and the aromatization into estradiol both serve to facilitate testosterone’s effects.” And “Variation in the expression of monoamine oxidase A regulates the levels of neurotransmitters responsible for impulse control, potentially suppressing testosterone’s influence over behavior.” So, guess what? “Vasopressin secretion in normotensive black and white men and women on normal and low sodium diets” found that “24-h urinary excretion of vasopressin was significantly (P<0·05) higher in men than in women and higher (P<0·05) in black than in white subjects.” Meanwhile, the version of the MAOA gene associated with extreme impulsivity is found in “5.5% of Black men, 0.1% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men….” And a 2010 study from Kevin Beaver, a researcher in the field of biosocial criminology, titled “Genetic risk, parent-child relations, and antisocial phenotypes in a sample of African-American males,” even found that “a crude genetic index of [five] genes predicted adult violence and criminality more accurately than a detailed measure of the men’s childhood relationships with their mothers.”
The hypothesis that hormone exposure, particularly in the womb, can influence complex human behavioral traits, including the very traits that make up our “identities” over the long–term course of our lives, is entirely politically acceptable just so long as it is used to debunk the claim that homosexuality is a choice and show instead that homosexuality probably has a “hardwired” component. It’s even politically tolerable, most of the time, when used to explain behavioral differences between men and women. It only makes the transition from “this is a plausible hypothesis, and it might even be true” to “any bigot who even considers the possibility that this might be true should burn in Hell, and doesn’t even deserve a careful argument explaining why this is wrong” when the same precise logic it’s perfectly safe and acceptable to apply anywhere else is applied to race. And that should make it abundantly clear that this is more about politics than it is about truth.