Should interracial marriages be allowed?

[Gabu]

Um yeah whites and blacks are both homo sapiens, i.e. the same species.

BUT, the subgroups of homo sapiens are VERY different from one another. Some people don't even accept that obvious fact.

Once you do, there still is the question of how it is relevant. I think it's relevant in many ways, but PC gets in the way.

I recall reading about a scientific study that was researching the topic of how different races are from each other.  The scientist had people look at a group of bones, and take a guess at the race that each bone's owner was.

The number of correct responses given was no larger than what one would expect to get if completely random answers were given.

There obviously are differences between the races, but they're only skin deep.  Blacks can be sophisticated, and whites can be gangsters.  Asians can be untalented, and hispanics can be extremely talented.  The perceived difference is largely a cultural one more than anything: it's the same reason as why Australians act differently than Americans, who act differently than Canadians, who act differently than the English, etc., even when all people considered from each group are white.

[Gabu]

You're quite simply wrong. It's clear you know virtually nothing about science. Pulling stuff out of your ass doesn't make a valid argument.

Hah.  Would you like me to dig up the article?  I probably can; of course, you'd just scoff at it and say that the researcher clearly knows nothing about science either.

Remind me what you know about science.

[Gabu]

It can easily be proven blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes. But why waste my time on people that won't listen and/or are so stupid they think people with substantial visible (genetic) differences cannot possibly have non-visible (genetic) differences.

I'm not arguing that blacks commit more violent crimes than whites.  I'm arguing against your completely unsubstantiated conclusion.

Here's your argument:

1. Blacks commit more violent crimes than whites.
2. Therefore, black people are inherently more likely to commit violent crimes, regardless of the circumstances.

Gee, Mister Science, you don't suppose that the fact that blacks commit more violent crimes might have something to do with other factors, such as the larger levels of poverty among blacks, now would you?  No, that would be too logical; it must be because they're black!

If you can show that, taking relative levels of poverty into account, blacks still commit a statistically significant higher level of crime than whites, then we'll talk.

[Gabu]

Why? It's entirely irrelevant. You don't shun people because some group they happen to by birth belong to commits more crimes than another group.

Sure you do.  Why do you think most whites choose to live in neighborhoods that exclude blacks?  It's for reasons of practical self-interest.  Decent people would never shun an individual person for the reasons you suggested, but at the group level, you better believe it happens.  Our whole society is structured around it.

This is certainly true.  Statistically, blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes; the issue is whether or not this is because they're black.  I'll freely admit that when I see a black person, my immediate reaction is one of suspicion.  I'm not proud of it, but it's just a fact, and it's one that I might as well admit, given that there's exactly zero I can do about it.  It doesn't last long, and I can easily get over it, but no matter what I do, it's always there.  It's a natural human reaction that comes with the interest of self-preservation that makes humans wary of those who they subconsciously perceive as being more dangerous than others.  It's only when you do this after it becomes apparent that the person is not dangerous that it turns into destructive racism.

That said, however, we're not talking about statistics; we're talking about what's inherent in having a certain skin color.

[Gabu]

Gabu, I was talking on a macro level, and pointing out that whites largely do shun blacks as a group because of the social problems that blacks have, and the negative effects of these problems.  It is largely a statistical thing, and it can filter down to the personal level, depending upon the type of person involved.

I know.  I was talking about your point in relation to what AuH2O is talking about, not attempting to discount it or anything.  I would imagine that the micro and the macro levels pretty much stem from the same roots, though.

[Gabu]

So many behavioral patterns are genetic that I find it a bit bizarre everyone is so quick to jump on AuH2O just for posting that blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes.

It's not that part, it's that he then asserts that it's because they're black that they're doing that.

I'm currently examining what he posted.

[Gabu]

Crime Data
FBI Uniform Crime Report, 2003
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

2003, Section IV

note on data: since hispanic is not a race, many are included in the "white" crime rates, thus skewing them to the left. The number of non-hispanic whites is roughly 5.4 times the population of blacks in the US. Using that number will actually underestimate black crime rates because of the aforementioned hispanic confusion of the data, but nevertheless the data is statistically significant.

Arrests by race

Murder
white: 49.1%
black: 48.5%

-- Blacks are slightly more than 5 times more likely than whites to commit murder.

Larceny (theft)
white: 68.5%
black: 28.8%

-- after a ratio adjustment, blacks are still more likely to commit larceny, but the rate is far lower. If economic factors drive crime, then in theory blacks should be even more likely to steal than they do.

Aggravated Assault
white: 64.7%
black: 33%

-- This contradicts the idea blacks are simply in a more violent environment as an explanation for their murder rate. They are more likely to commit assault, by roughly 2.7 times, but nowhere near their proclivity in terms of murder rates.

Drunk Driving
white: 88%
black: 9.6%

-- Used to demonstrate the data is not somehow biased against blacks; in fact, as we will see, quite the opposite-- it is probably biased in their favor overall.

I'm going to try to put together a more thorough analysis that factors in poverty levels and other stuff after I get some sleep, as I have to be up in the morning at 7:45 am, but for now, I think this much can be said:

From the U.S. Census Bureau Website (www.census.gov):

Racial breakdown of the United States:

White: 75.1%
Black: 12.3%
Hispanic: 12.5%

Assuming that we're going to lump together all of the whites and hispanic people, as was done in the crime reporting, we have

White: 87.6%
Black: 12.3%

Given that the total population of the United States is 293,027,571, that is equal to, in absolute terms,

White: 256,692,152 people
Black: 36,042,391 people

The murder rates are

White: 49.1%
Black: 48.5%

Given that the total number of murders in 2003 was 16,043, in absolute terms, that is

White: 7877 murders
Black: 7781 murders

Therefore, we can see that the number of murders per 100,000 people can be seen as

White: 3.07 murders per 100000 people
Black: 21.6 murders per 100,000 people

In other words, out of 100,000 white people and 100,000 black people, 99,996 of the former and 99,978 of the latter are not murderers.

Disregarding all speculation regarding whether or not this is because they're black or because of some other causes, this is the basis that you're using for believeing that interracial marriages should not happen and that blacks are so much more violent than whites: that 18 or 19 extra people out of 100,000 committed a murder?

Right, okay.

[Gabu]

Crime Data
FBI Uniform Crime Report, 2003
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

2003, Section IV

note on data: since hispanic is not a race, many are included in the "white" crime rates, thus skewing them to the left. The number of non-hispanic whites is roughly 5.4 times the population of blacks in the US. Using that number will actually underestimate black crime rates because of the aforementioned hispanic confusion of the data, but nevertheless the data is statistically significant.

Arrests by race

Murder
white: 49.1%
black: 48.5%

-- Blacks are slightly more than 5 times more likely than whites to commit murder.

Larceny (theft)
white: 68.5%
black: 28.8%

-- after a ratio adjustment, blacks are still more likely to commit larceny, but the rate is far lower. If economic factors drive crime, then in theory blacks should be even more likely to steal than they do.

Aggravated Assault
white: 64.7%
black: 33%

-- This contradicts the idea blacks are simply in a more violent environment as an explanation for their murder rate. They are more likely to commit assault, by roughly 2.7 times, but nowhere near their proclivity in terms of murder rates.

Drunk Driving
white: 88%
black: 9.6%

-- Used to demonstrate the data is not somehow biased against blacks; in fact, as we will see, quite the opposite-- it is probably biased in their favor overall.

Since you asked for it, here's my answer to this:

From the U.S. Census Bureau Website (www.census.gov):

Racial breakdown of the United States:

White: 75.1%
Black: 12.3%
Hispanic: 12.5%

Assuming that we're going to lump together all of the whites and hispanic people, as was done in the crime reporting, we have

White: 87.6%
Black: 12.3%

Given that the total population of the United States is 293,027,571, that is equal to, in absolute terms,

White: 256,692,152 people
Black: 36,042,391 people

The murder rates are

White: 49.1%
Black: 48.5%

(see note 1)

so the discrepancies from what "should" happen, all things being equal, are

White: -38.5%
Black: +36.2%

Given that the total number of murders in 2003 was 16,043, in absolute terms, that is

White: 7877 murders
Black: 7781 murders

In terms of a ratio to total racial populations,

White: 0.56x
Black: 3.94x

So whites commit roughly half as many murders as they "should", whereas blacks commit roughly four times as many murders as they "should", given racial distributions.

However, now let's take a look at the poverty levels:

White: 8.2%
Black: 24.4%
Hispanic: 22.5%

Merging the whites and hispanics again, we have, using the percentages above,

White: 10.2%
Black: 24.4%

As absolute values, we have, as the number of people in poverty,

White: 26,182,600 people
Black: 8,794,343 people

As absolute values, we therefore have, as the number of people not in poverty,

White: 230,509,552 people
Black: 27,248,048 people

Now we're going to have to start making some assumptions.  Bear with me.

If we assume that a% of those who commit murders are those who are in poverty, then we can say that a% of the people in the former group are likely to commit murders and that (100 - a)% of the people in the latter group are likely to commit murders.  Therefore, the total number of "at-risk people" should be

White: w = 26,182,600 * 0.01 * a + 230,509,552 * 0.01 * (100 - a) people
Black: b = 8,794,343 * 0.01 * a + 27,248,048 * 0.01 * (100 - a) people

or, expressed as percentages of the total number of "at-risk people", we have

White: w/(w + b)%
Black: b/(w + b)%

Here are the percentages for varying values of a:

a = 50
White: 87.6%
Black: 12.3%

a = 75
White: 85.2%
Black: 14.8%

a = 90
White: 81.4%
Black: 18.%

a = 99
White: 75.9%
Black: 24.1%

et cetera.  Clearly, this does not account for all of the extra murders even if a = 100, but we're getting there.

We haven't nearly exhausted all of the differences between the two, however.  Regarding what is often a reality for many blacks who may not be impoverished, let me borrow a snippit from a rap song:

Everywhere I go, all I ever seem to hear is
Bang bang! Bang bang!
No matter where I go, all I ever seem to see is
Bang bang! Bang bang!

- "Bang Bang", performed by Dr. Dre, feat. Knoc-turn'al & Hittman

The fact of the matter is that a lot of black people's, er, role models are quite violent in nature.  Take, uh, the entirety of mainstream rappers, for example.  They're almost all black, and they certainly are all violent.  Compare the majority of black music artists to the majority of white music artists.  White music artists (the mainstream ones, at least) usually sing about stuff relating to relationships ("oh baby I love you" type of stuff).  Black music artists tend to sing about, well...

Everywhere I go, all I ever seem to hear is
Bang bang! Bang bang!
No matter where I go, all I ever seem to see is
Bang bang! Bang bang!

I can't imagine it'd be a good influence on the black people to be subjected to this sort of model in life.

In addition to that, black people did not exactly have a very noble start when they first arrived.  Even back in the 1960s, as the graph John Dibble posted, over half of blacks were impoverished.  Even if this does not translate directly into murder, it certainly cannot help the children to be subjected to that.  As has been shown over and over, violence tends to beget nothing more than more and more violence.  Even without the binds of poverty, the violence may still remain, passed down from generation to generation.

Applying this to the example we currently have, suppose that the absence of this influence on white people make them d% less likely to commit murder, and suppose that this influence on black people make then u% more likely to commit murder.  Then we can assume that d% of the whites we had above are not "at risk" and that u% more than the blacks we had above are "at risk".  Then the final number of "at-risk people" can be calculated as

White: w_f = [26,182,600 * 0.01 * a + 230,509,552 * 0.01 * (100 - a)] * 0.01 * (100 - d) people
Black: b_f = [8,794,343 * 0.01 * a + 27,248,048 * 0.01 * (100 - a)] * 0.01 * (100 + u) people

and, as before, expressed as percentages of the total number of "at-risk people", we have

White: w_f/(w_f + b_f)%
Black: b_f/(w_f + b_f)%

Take a = 75, as an example.  Here are the percentages for varying values of d and u:

(d, u) = (30, 30)
White: 75.6%
Black: 24.4%

(d, u) = (50, 50)
White: 65.8%
Black: 34.2%

(d, u) = (75, 75)
White: 45.1%
Black: 54.9%

To get roughly the actual murder rate, take

(d, u) = (71, 71)
White: 49.4%
Black: 51.6%

Or, with a = 90, we have

(d, u) = (30, 30)
White: 70.2%
Black: 29.8%

(d, u) = (50, 50)
White: 59.3%
Black: 40.7%

(d, u) = (75, 75)
White: 38.5%
Black: 61.5%

To get roughly the actual murder rate, take

(d, u) = (63.5, 63.5)
White: 49.4%
Black: 51.6%

You can try it yourself.  Just plug any values for a, d, and u that you'd like into w_f and b_f and you'll be given the predicted level of murders among whites and blacks.  As it's plain to see, there are innumerable combonations of the three variables that will have the predicted level of murder rates be extremely close to the actual level of murder rates.  Thus, it can be seen that there certainly are models that can be devised that completely ignore race and focus instead only on poverty and exposure to violence that produce the expected murder rates.

This analysis is, of course, not entirely rigorous, and is not intended to explain why murder is so much higher among blacks than things like larceny and aggravated assault.

Whatever the case, however, even if the analysis above needs refinement, it should be clear to anyone with an open mind that there is at least the possibility that the increased levels of murder among blacks and that the decreased levels of murder among whites is not inherent in the race, but rather, in any number of variables that are plugged into a very complex function.  To say that we know for sure that blacks are more prone to murder purely because they're black, however, is a lie, pure and simple.

----

Note 1: The sheet that I found for 2003 murder offenders listed it as roughly 30% white, 30% black, 10% other, and 30% "unknown".  I'm not sure where AuH2O got his numbers, but we'll go with them nevertheless.

[Gabu]

I should note that, unlike you, as an amateur scientist, I'm open to the possibility that I could be wrong.  I simply don't believe it to be the case at this point in time as I have not been given compelling evidence that dispels all doubt that blacks are violent simply because they're black.

[Gabu]

IF blacks are genetically more prone to violence, as we are looking at, then THAT WOULD BE REFLECTED IN THEIR CULTURE. So Gabu's argument assumes what it is trying to prove, which is a HUGE FLAW. In fact, a fatal one.

I can only assume that you didn't get what my model was trying to show.

What the conclusion my model reached was that if we assume that levels of violence is unrelated to genes, we can still construct a model that produces the expected murder rates.  Nowhere in my argument was I actually trying to prove that levels of violence actually are unrelated to genes.

I'll repeat that:

Nowhere in my argument was I actually trying to prove that levels of violence actually are unrelated to genes.

In logic, the statement "a implies b" does not in any way make a statement about the actual truth value of a in reality.  All it's saying is that IF a is true, THEN b is also true.

In my case, a is the statement "levels of violence are unrelated to genes" and b is the statement "you can form a model that correctly predicts the murder rates."

You are correct in saying that I assumed a, but I was not trying to prove anything about a itself, so your assertion that assuming a is a flaw is false.  In fact, since I was trying to prove "a implies b", it was necessary for me to assume a.

As I said before, my argument was not trying to prove that levels of violence are unrelated to genes, only that the increased level of crime among blacks does not prove anything.  It's still up in the air regarding whether or not the increased level of crime is genetic.

[Gabu]

Ahhh, I remember this thread.

AuH2O never did quite get at what I was talking about on page 14.