A couple of ideas. This is a fruitful exchange, but the problem I have with the statistics provided is that they are a kind of normalized and racialized narrative of political complaint that, by using race, always has the hidden time bomb of allowing some racial theory of causation. This is why using race defies the scientific method. Consider describing any chemical reaction without reference to temperature and pressure. You cannot. Not even something as simple as determining the boiling point of water will be consistent if you do not account for the pressure of the environment of the reaction in question.
Now take the question of the increase of nominally black real wealth indicated by the chart provided. What does the inclusion of white and hispanic figures have to do with the trajectory of the black line? Nothing. It simply provides a comparison by race. So long as people carry around racial theories, you can only be assured that wealth (or lack of wealth) will be attributed to race.
Why not make this comparison by blood type? It's something done quite commonly in Japan. The reason is simple. We in America have no deep social meaning associated with blood type as we do with race. Nobody is asserting that we should positively or negatively discriminate, select or monitor by blood type for social purposes. Instead we feel compelled to include race.
I say the reason for this is owing to the power that accrues to those with the most compelling racial theory. It's not that the race itself changes, but our idea of what we can do with the political power to discriminate, select or monitor by race. The underlying common understanding of race doesn't change. The black racial stereotype of being highly sexualized is never exchanged for the stereotype associated with another race. Those myths are fixed and they are perpetuated.
So individuals who have been racialized and accept that racial identity will always be at pains to figure out which way the racial politics will go. They are compelled to pay attention to 'The Bell Curve' or try to map their understanding of race to people in other countries, in other time periods. It is therefore no surprise that people who are 'Afrocentric' in one decade are 'Woke' in another. Round and round the rugged rock of race they run until they are ragged rascals, wondering where their ancient glory went and where their future glory lies.
Of course it lies in the power of policy to come up with patches and circuses until a final solution is presented.
American race is a fiat identity created to 'justify' the civil deprivations of slavery. Practically every way to devalue that identity is a step in the direction towards equality and undermines all future temptations and moral hazards of racial theories.
In my opinion the fact that the vast majority of rapes/sexual assaults committed on white victims are intraracial is very meaningful in itself.
You are right, the situation has changed compared to the times when white men could exploit their power over Black women. According to the 2008 data I have quoted there were no reported rapes/sexual assaults committed on Black victims by white offenders.
As to the pre-Civil war interracial rape numbers, Martha Hodes writes in her fascinating book "White Women, Black Men" that "the accusation of rape of white women by black men in the slave South, as well as during the Civil War, when white men were absent from Southern homes" was actually infrequent. The situation fundamentally changed only in the late 19th century when Black men started being portrayed as a threat to white women by racist propaganda (one can see some excellent examples of such propaganda here: http://exhibits.lib.unc.edu/exhibits/show/1898/primary/dem-sources/cartoons-no).
Let's remember, too, that many whites, especially in the South, refused to believe that a white woman could have a consensual relationship with a Black man. This makes any historical statistics on rapes committed by Black men on white women extremely unreliable.
The stats you are responding to are extremely misleading. It is not true that there were zero black victim/white perpetrator rapes. How could you see that statistic and not be skeptical? Look at the footnote.
*Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases
So they asked 10 or fewer black victims and none of them had been raped by a white person so they applied it to the total number of victims. It's actually shocking that they would report numbers based on such a small sample.
Second obvious factor is that the vast majority of rapes/sexual assaults happen within relationships of some kind (date rape). There are far more black male /white female relationships than there are white male / black female relationships. So you would expect some disparity between the number. Also due to the fact they count "verbal threats of rape or sexual assault" in these numbers.
And lastly, the pool of potential white victims (PWV) is 5x as large as the pool of potential black victims (PBV). This would negate your whole theory. (But statistics aren't my strength so maybe I am missing something)
I did not imply that there was something cheery about these data. What I meant is that they prove that white women in the US are usually raped by white men. You were wondering if there were any statistics and I have provided some statistics.
You are right, Black offenders are overrepresented among the rapists of white victims, but these statistics don't indicate that the "hypersexualized black male stereotype" may be true, contrary to what you seemed to be implying in an earlier comment ("Perhaps the statistics would demonstrate the utter falsity of the hypersexualized black male stereotype. An ancient and doggedly persistent "myth" might finally be laid to rest. But perhaps not.").
Various complex factors explain these statistics, I am later going to mention some academic articles. First of all, women are usually raped by men they know, not by strangers. Because of the current dynamics of interracial interactions there is a much greater likelihood of interaction between a Black man and a white woman than between a white man and a Black woman.
Secondly, in the case of stranger rape perpetrators probably don't look for victims in their own neighbourhoods. And if they look for them in other areas, it is much easier to get access to a white victim than to a Black victim. Thirdly, a white woman may be easy to be overpowered by a Black perpetrator both for psychological reasons (including the stereotype of the aggressive Black criminal) and for physical reasons (white American women are much less likely to be physically strong than Black women).
The statistics I have quoted prove that Black offenders are much more likely to rob than to rape white victims, which is not in the least surprising. Anyway "hypersexuality" (a highly questionable term) is not the same as the likelihood of committing rape. It would be much more helpful to study e.g. statistics on porn use. A man can have a very high libido without ever committing rape.
I think the problem with that is the very low dimensionality of social science. Given how little we know about any behavioral influences of genetics, all such racial questions are dealing in the wrong dimensions. The analogy is saying that chemistry is simply measuring percentages of earth, air, fire and water. So long as we are measuring in the simplified terms of race, we will never come to any insight. Or that psychology is simply measuring the four homours (blood, phlegm, choler and melancholy).
Im suggesting then, as a data engineer, that Amazon, for example, can know what you want to buy and never ask you about race; that there are thousands of behavioral markers that are influenced by choices and situations that number in the billions. What humans might do in the complex adaptive system of today's society is impossible to measure or predict in 17th century terms.
I should clarify that I do not expect that anyone should reroute their racial ideas through a proper filter of genetics. Statistical morality is a cheesy cheat that misses the point entirely. Only the sort of bumbling Babbitts who would invite people to a party based on a spreadsheet analysis would pursue that angle. I'm not talking about New Genetic Rules for Karens. I'm talking about red pilling the entire universe of racial thought.
The endgame of this idea is that there is only the most marginal amount of friction for those who deny or defy their 'proper' racial heritage. What happens to the Irish American who calls bullshit on St. Patricks Day? What happens to the black American who calls bullshit on Black History Month? More than nothing. Racial politics is to blame.
A couple of ideas. This is a fruitful exchange, but the problem I have with the statistics provided is that they are a kind of normalized and racialized narrative of political complaint that, by using race, always has the hidden time bomb of allowing some racial theory of causation. This is why using race defies the scientific method. Consider describing any chemical reaction without reference to temperature and pressure. You cannot. Not even something as simple as determining the boiling point of water will be consistent if you do not account for the pressure of the environment of the reaction in question.
Now take the question of the increase of nominally black real wealth indicated by the chart provided. What does the inclusion of white and hispanic figures have to do with the trajectory of the black line? Nothing. It simply provides a comparison by race. So long as people carry around racial theories, you can only be assured that wealth (or lack of wealth) will be attributed to race.
Why not make this comparison by blood type? It's something done quite commonly in Japan. The reason is simple. We in America have no deep social meaning associated with blood type as we do with race. Nobody is asserting that we should positively or negatively discriminate, select or monitor by blood type for social purposes. Instead we feel compelled to include race.
I say the reason for this is owing to the power that accrues to those with the most compelling racial theory. It's not that the race itself changes, but our idea of what we can do with the political power to discriminate, select or monitor by race. The underlying common understanding of race doesn't change. The black racial stereotype of being highly sexualized is never exchanged for the stereotype associated with another race. Those myths are fixed and they are perpetuated.
So individuals who have been racialized and accept that racial identity will always be at pains to figure out which way the racial politics will go. They are compelled to pay attention to 'The Bell Curve' or try to map their understanding of race to people in other countries, in other time periods. It is therefore no surprise that people who are 'Afrocentric' in one decade are 'Woke' in another. Round and round the rugged rock of race they run until they are ragged rascals, wondering where their ancient glory went and where their future glory lies.
Of course it lies in the power of policy to come up with patches and circuses until a final solution is presented.
American race is a fiat identity created to 'justify' the civil deprivations of slavery. Practically every way to devalue that identity is a step in the direction towards equality and undermines all future temptations and moral hazards of racial theories.
In 2008 among white victims of rape/sexual assault only 16% perceived the offender as Black: http://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/cv0842.pdf The vast majority of rapes are intraracial.
In my opinion the fact that the vast majority of rapes/sexual assaults committed on white victims are intraracial is very meaningful in itself.
You are right, the situation has changed compared to the times when white men could exploit their power over Black women. According to the 2008 data I have quoted there were no reported rapes/sexual assaults committed on Black victims by white offenders.
As to the pre-Civil war interracial rape numbers, Martha Hodes writes in her fascinating book "White Women, Black Men" that "the accusation of rape of white women by black men in the slave South, as well as during the Civil War, when white men were absent from Southern homes" was actually infrequent. The situation fundamentally changed only in the late 19th century when Black men started being portrayed as a threat to white women by racist propaganda (one can see some excellent examples of such propaganda here: http://exhibits.lib.unc.edu/exhibits/show/1898/primary/dem-sources/cartoons-no).
Let's remember, too, that many whites, especially in the South, refused to believe that a white woman could have a consensual relationship with a Black man. This makes any historical statistics on rapes committed by Black men on white women extremely unreliable.
Lets noodle them even further
The stats you are responding to are extremely misleading. It is not true that there were zero black victim/white perpetrator rapes. How could you see that statistic and not be skeptical? Look at the footnote.
*Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases
So they asked 10 or fewer black victims and none of them had been raped by a white person so they applied it to the total number of victims. It's actually shocking that they would report numbers based on such a small sample.
Second obvious factor is that the vast majority of rapes/sexual assaults happen within relationships of some kind (date rape). There are far more black male /white female relationships than there are white male / black female relationships. So you would expect some disparity between the number. Also due to the fact they count "verbal threats of rape or sexual assault" in these numbers.
And lastly, the pool of potential white victims (PWV) is 5x as large as the pool of potential black victims (PBV). This would negate your whole theory. (But statistics aren't my strength so maybe I am missing something)
I did not imply that there was something cheery about these data. What I meant is that they prove that white women in the US are usually raped by white men. You were wondering if there were any statistics and I have provided some statistics.
You are right, Black offenders are overrepresented among the rapists of white victims, but these statistics don't indicate that the "hypersexualized black male stereotype" may be true, contrary to what you seemed to be implying in an earlier comment ("Perhaps the statistics would demonstrate the utter falsity of the hypersexualized black male stereotype. An ancient and doggedly persistent "myth" might finally be laid to rest. But perhaps not.").
Various complex factors explain these statistics, I am later going to mention some academic articles. First of all, women are usually raped by men they know, not by strangers. Because of the current dynamics of interracial interactions there is a much greater likelihood of interaction between a Black man and a white woman than between a white man and a Black woman.
Secondly, in the case of stranger rape perpetrators probably don't look for victims in their own neighbourhoods. And if they look for them in other areas, it is much easier to get access to a white victim than to a Black victim. Thirdly, a white woman may be easy to be overpowered by a Black perpetrator both for psychological reasons (including the stereotype of the aggressive Black criminal) and for physical reasons (white American women are much less likely to be physically strong than Black women).
The statistics I have quoted prove that Black offenders are much more likely to rob than to rape white victims, which is not in the least surprising. Anyway "hypersexuality" (a highly questionable term) is not the same as the likelihood of committing rape. It would be much more helpful to study e.g. statistics on porn use. A man can have a very high libido without ever committing rape.
I think the problem with that is the very low dimensionality of social science. Given how little we know about any behavioral influences of genetics, all such racial questions are dealing in the wrong dimensions. The analogy is saying that chemistry is simply measuring percentages of earth, air, fire and water. So long as we are measuring in the simplified terms of race, we will never come to any insight. Or that psychology is simply measuring the four homours (blood, phlegm, choler and melancholy).
Im suggesting then, as a data engineer, that Amazon, for example, can know what you want to buy and never ask you about race; that there are thousands of behavioral markers that are influenced by choices and situations that number in the billions. What humans might do in the complex adaptive system of today's society is impossible to measure or predict in 17th century terms.
I should clarify that I do not expect that anyone should reroute their racial ideas through a proper filter of genetics. Statistical morality is a cheesy cheat that misses the point entirely. Only the sort of bumbling Babbitts who would invite people to a party based on a spreadsheet analysis would pursue that angle. I'm not talking about New Genetic Rules for Karens. I'm talking about red pilling the entire universe of racial thought.
The endgame of this idea is that there is only the most marginal amount of friction for those who deny or defy their 'proper' racial heritage. What happens to the Irish American who calls bullshit on St. Patricks Day? What happens to the black American who calls bullshit on Black History Month? More than nothing. Racial politics is to blame.