Nicholas Stix has an extensive article on VDARE about the Duke lacrosse rape hoax. Definitely worth a read.
I have to take issue with these comments on interracial rape, however:
“As the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Study (NCVS) has shown, between 2001 and 2003, there were, on average, 15,400 black-on-white rapes per year, while whites averaged only 900 white-on-black rapes per year (a black-white ratio of 17.1:1). As Parker noted, the proportion of single-attacker white-on-black rape is so rare as to be statistically non-existent (less than one-half of one percent).
“Since there are five-and-one-half times as many whites as blacks in America, that means that blacks rape whites over ninety times as frequently as whites rape blacks. Except that the black-white interracial gap is actually much higher. The ‘white’ figure (900) is inflated by Hispanic offenders being counted as white. And no reliable statistics for interracial prison rape were included in the NCVS. Thus, the real black-white ratio is likely 200:1 or higher.”
Now, it’s true that a random black is, by these numbers, 200 times more likely to rape a white than a random white is to rape a black. But shocking as it is, 200:1 is not a useful ratio.
I’d like to draw attention to the five-and-one-half number. Stix assumes that because there are more whites than blacks, there should be more whites raping blacks. This makes sense on its face.
But the problem is this: Blacks are a minority, so blacks will make up a minority of potential victims for a white rapist. And whites are a majority, so they represent a majority of potential victims for a black rapist.
Let’s figure out what the statistically “neutral” ratio would be, and compare it to 17.1:1. According to Wikipedia, the U.S. is 75 percent white/Hispanic and 12 percent black. That’s 87 percent of the population. So out of every 87 rapes within the black and white/Hispanic communities, whites “should” commit 75 and blacks 12.
Of the whites’ 75 rapes, 13.7 percent of them (12/87) “should” be of blacks. That’s 10.3 white-on-black rapes.
Of the blacks’ 12 rapes, 86.3 percent (75/87) will be of whites. That’s also 10.3 rapes — statistically, the fact there are more whites than blacks in America means nothing. More whites may mean more white rapists, but it also means more white victims, and the two cancel. Stix assumes there should be five-and-one-half white-on-black rapes for every black-on-white rape, but in reality there would be a one-for-one swap in a statistically “fair” world.1:1 is, of course, still a far cry from the 17.1:1 Stix reports. Is this because blacks target whites, or simply because blacks rape more?
Blacks indeed are three to four times more likely than whites to rape. Even using the higher estimate, we “should” have a 4:1 interracial rape ratio. The fact there’s a 17.1:1 ratio implies that in addition to raping more in general, blacks choose whites as victims more often than the reverse happens.
So, Stix’s broader point — that black-on-white rape is more common than white-on-black rape, both in absolute numbers and in proportion — stands. The media is out of line to imply otherwise. But a 200:1 ratio, even counting prison rape and the conflation of white and Hispanic racial categories, seems out of the question.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
UPDATE: A commenter has alleged the numbers are wrong and Nicholas Stix has a track record for poor judgement. For one, I don’t care what else Stix wrote.
But on to the numbers. The commenter focuses on the number of victims, but these numbers don’t matter; we’re talking about offenders. If black women are raped more, black men rape more and most rape is intraracial, that doesn’t tell us anything.
The pertinent data are here for 2003:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0302.pdf
And here under “victims and offenders” for other years:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst.htm
They are remarkably consistent with Stix’s thesis. In 2003 15.5 percent of white rape victims reported black rapists, compared to 0 percent for the reverse situation (note small sample size due to the fact the commenter mentioned, that the vast majority of rape is intraracial).
Also, 57.9 percent of white victims had white rapists, compared to 87.9 percent of black victims having black rapists. In a statistically “fair” world, these numbers would be 75 and 12 respectively.
The reportage problem the commenter complains of is interesting if true. But it wouldn’t affect the above numbers unless it linked to the interracial aspect. For example, say 50 percent of rapes on black women go unreported. It will still turn up the 87.9 percent number unless black women tend not to report when white men rape them as compared to when black men do.
The reportage discrepancy is dubious in itself, at least insofar as the commenter’s “both whites and blacks get raped more then their proportion in the population” argument goes. Presumably, these numbers (I can’t find them)Â conflate “Hispanic/mestizo” with “white” as most government data do. Otherwise, no Hispanics ever report rape. Given that, is it not very possible that (A) Asians are rarely rape victims and (B) mixed-race rapists are often reported as one race or the other, instead of as “other”?
I would very much like a link to the data the commenter refers to.
Finally, Stix does not cite Taylor once, and the 2001-3 NCVS data is not 10 years old.Â
Loading ...
5 users commented in " The Duke case and interracial rape "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackStix’s figures are false, as are the claims in his original source, Jared Taylor. The Justice Department has consistently reported that in about 88 percent of forcible rape cases, the victim and offender are of the same race. The numbers you cite do not square with those from the National Incident-Based Reporting System. The percentage of reports of forcible rapes by both black and white women relative to the total of all reported rapes is higher than their percentage in the population — rounding off, 81 percent of rape reports are by white women, 19 percent by black women, only 1 percent reported by other races. The overall population is 74 percent white, 12 percent black. This means we have a rape “reporting” problem, and that reports are not consistent with the likely pattern of actual rapes in the general population. Stix’s numbers simply do not add up as compared with Justice Department statistics. Moreover, blacks are much more likely to be PROSECUTED for rape than whites, as compared to the overall number of reported rapes by race. The source Taylor uses is decades old, does not account for Justice Department statistics, and does not agree with the “conclusions,” if you can call them that, that Taylor comes to. That is, Taylor’s work is a fabrication. Then again, so is Stix’s.
Regarding the National Crime Victimization Survey, it would be better to go to the raw data rather than to rely on people who are out to prove, by any means necessary, that blacks are a violent race bent on destroying whites. That’s Stix’s agenda. The citations in Stix, Taylor, and Parker are non-existent, as the data are not packaged in the years Parker, Taylor, and Stix cite, and the sample sizes do not allow us to draw valid statistical conclusions. This fundamental truth is barely refected in Parker, twisted mightily in Taylor, and utterly mutilated in Stix.
If you doubt this, consider that Stix is the same person who alleges that after Hurricane Katrina, roving bands of blacks went on search-and-destroy missions hunting down and murdering whites. This, he alleges, accounts for the fact that roughly 40 percent of those who died in New Orleans during Katrina were white. That’s at least several hundred murders of whites by blacks he alleges happened.
Here’s where he said it: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/08/30/new-orleans-times-picayune-reporters-editors-win-duranty-blair-award-for-journalistic-infamy-2/#comments
And here’s the quotation:
Given that supposedly only 10 percent or less of the people left in town were white, and over forty percent of the dead were white, whites were dying at over four times their proportion. And that doesnt even take into consideration that whites were reportedly concentrated in “safer” places. Thus, I am convinced that blacks were on search-and-destroy missions, hunting down and murdering whites.
Nicholas Stix is a fabricator of the worst order, bent on proving his outlandish theory that blacks constantly threaten violence against whites.
The figures are similar in Europe, though it’s harder to get holder of official interracial crime stats as I guess some people don’t want us to know.
Some people use the lame excuse to explain the stats by claiming non-whites are more likely rape, murder and attack whites in the USA and Europe as there are more whites than non-whites,and thus more potential victims for the non-white rapist/killer/racist.
Which is absurd and laughable, of course. If this theory had even a shred of validity, it would be the case that there would be more white on black rapes in Harlem or Compton in the US or the ghettoes of Paris and London that the reverse.
Which anyone with any brain left unwashed knows is 180 degrees from the reality.
Also, they try to explain it by saying there are more white criminals and crimes than black. Another horrendous faliure to understand per capita figures.
Also, the indiviudal above says the stats are skewed as they merely mean blacks are more likely to be PROSECUTED for rape than whites.
Also, the percentage and absolute number of ‘white’ rapists is distorted by Hispanics being counted as white. As the Hispanic community in general shows generally higher levels of serious criminality than white ones, an intellgent person would realise that ‘white’ rapists, killer and criminals are almost certainly massively fewer than the stats suggest.
What makes me sigh in derision is the ridiculousness or foolishness of trying to make Black males look like they rape more women than White males by focusing not on how many women White men rape overall, rather this dishonest man who deliberately wants to mislead focuses on how many Black girls White man raped! This is somewhat odd! Okay so lets agree that all White rapists are also rampant racists who have a presence for raping White not Black girls, does this really make that White man any less a rapist? What difference does the race of the victim make? Is there some point I’m missing here? Maybe the point is that the poster or writer of the article thins it’s okay for White men to rape White women but not Black men!!!? Or is what s more important here not that men are clearly raping women but that Black men are raping women too? Shall we then treat White males like they committed a lesser crime because they raped White women and Black women.
The poster of this article makes no sense, and I would be quite weary of his real intentions here. The article is about spin, propaganda and misrepresentation of Black males.
Maybe said rapists even slightly fear Black women due to another myth built up by a White media, the aggressive or ‘scary Black person’
The point is I fail to
What makes me sigh in derision is the ridiculousness or foolishness of trying to make Black males look like they rape more women than White males by focusing not on how many women White men rape overall, rather this dishonest man who deliberately wants to mislead focuses on how many Black girls White men raped! This is somewhat odd! Okay so lets agree that all White rapists are also rampant racists who have a preference for raping White not Black girls, does this really make that White man any less a rapist? What difference does the race of the victim make? Is there some point I’m missing here? Maybe the point is that the poster or writer of the article thinks it’s okay for White men to rape White women but not Black men! Is this the point the writer is making? What is the important issue here? That men are raping women or that Black men are raping women White women? Shall we then treat White males like they committed a lesser crime because they raped White women and not Black women.
The poster of this article makes no sense, and I would be quite weary of his real intentions for writing this article. The article is spin, propaganda and misrepresentation of Black males.
Maybe White rapists even fear Black women due to other stereotypes about Blacks! I do not understand the point of this article at all.
What makes me sigh in derision is the ridiculousness or foolishness of trying to make Black males look like they rape more women than White males by focusing not on how many women White men rape overall, rather this dishonest man who deliberately wants to mislead focuses on how many Black girls White men raped! This is somewhat odd! Okay so lets agree that all White rapists are also rampant racists who have a preference for raping White not Black girls, does this really make that White man any less a rapist? What difference does the race of the victim make? Is there some point I’m missing here? Maybe the point is that the poster or writer of the article thinks it’s okay for White men to rape White women but not Black men! Is this the point the writer is making? What is the important issue here? That men are raping women or that Black men are raping women White women? Shall we then treat White males like they committed a lesser crime because they raped White women and not Black women.
The poster of this article makes no sense, and I would be quite weary of his real intentions for writing this article. The article is spin, propaganda and misrepresentation of Black males.
Maybe White rapists even fear Black women due to other stereotypes about Blacks! I do not understand the point of this article at all.
The above COMMENT is spin, propaganda and misrepresentation of Black males. This person has been washed in the blood of the liberal media to deny, confuse, and change the subject anytime something may be said that doesn’t jibe with P.C. sensibilities.
If one has a preference for their own kind they are racist?? Grow up junior. Get out of the suburbs and the sociology class once in a while and form your own opinions and quit parroting the common hype just to fit in.
What difference does the race of the victim make? I don’t know, ask Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. I think that is the point being made.
As far as rapists go I think they should all be killed, regardless of race. If it were up to us white people they would be, because whites don’t identify with each other by race over everything else. We don’t call rapists and murderers, brother, just because we share a common skin color.
As far as the blacks are a violent race theory, I think that is proven by the fact that 13% of the population commits approximately 55% of the murders. Oh wait, that is caused by socio-economic injustices, and bad childhoods. Or maybe it’s just because blacks are more likely to be PROSECUTED for murder.
So, in review, deny, obfuscate, and change the subject. Put words all in caps to emphasize the EFFECT, instead of the cause, and repeat it over and over until it becomes true.
Leave A Reply