199907 american renaissance

8/8/2019 199907 American Renaissance

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/199907-american-renaissance 1/16

American Renaissance - 1 - July 1999

There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world.— Thomas Jefferson

Vol 10, No. 7 July 1999

Race, Crime, and Violence

American Renaissance

Continued on page 3

What is the color of crimein America?

by Jared Taylor

Who is committing crimein this country andagainst whom? How

much crime do blacks commit? AreHispanics as violent as blacks?What about Asians? How much so-called hate crime is there in thecountry and who is committing it?The U.S. Department of Justicecollects a huge amount of informa-tion on crime–enough to answerthese questions. And, indeed, thereare very substantial differences incrime rates by race.

Government statistics are essen-tially of three kinds: survey data,statistics on crimes reported to the po-lice, and arrest figures. The annual De-partment of Justice survey is importantbecause it gathers information on crimesthat victims don’t report to the police.Even more important, every few yearsit gathers information on the race of bothvictims and perpetrators of violentcrimes. It is therefore the only informa-tion about interracial crime collected atthe national level. The survey is aboutas accurate a picture as it is possible toget of crimes Americans say they havesuffered.

The Department of Justice also col-

lects data on the number of crimes re-ported to the police and the number of arrests made–and racial data are in-cluded on most people who are arrested.Needless to say, these three kinds of in-formation–crimes reported in surveys,crimes reported to the police, and ar-rests–represent a steady decrease in vol-ume. For example, in 1997, the mostrecent year for which there is completeinformation, the annual survey foundthere were 1,883,000 cases of aggra-

vated assault (attacks that could causeserious injury or death). Only 1,022,000cases were reported to the police, andonly 535,000 resulted in an arrest.

It is significant that the racial propor-tions for perpetrators as found in the

survey data and the racial proportionsfor arrests are remarkably similar.Americans report in the survey that closeto 60 percent of all robberies are com-mitted by blacks and, indeed, 57 percentof arrests for robberies in 1997 were of blacks. The proportions are close forother violent crimes as well, whichmeans that the police are arresting

people of different races at essentiallythe same rates at which the public isbeing victimized by them. Endless as-sertions that the police arrest non-whitesbecause of “racism” are largely false (seesidebar, p. 5).

So who is committing the crime–andagainst whom? To start with the surveydata on interracial violent crime, in 1994(the most recent year racial data weregathered) there were about 1,276,000

single-offender crimes and 490,000multiple-offender crimes. Although thesurvey categorizes victims and perpetra-tors as only “white,” “black,” and“other,” 89 percent of the single-offendercrimes and 94 percent of the multiple-

offender interracial crimes werecommitted by blacks againstwhites.

These are astonishingly lop-sided figures. One way to under-stand just how lopsided they are isto express them as rates. The fre-quency of crime is usually ex-pressed as a rate per 100,000people. In these terms, 3,494blacks out of every 100,000 com-mitted a violent crime against awhite person in 1994 while only63 whites out of every 100,000committed a violent crime againsta black. The black rate is more than

55 times the white rate, meaning that the

average black was 55 times more likelyto attack a white than vice versa. In thecase of robbery, or “mugging,” blackswere 103 times more likely to go afterwhites than the reverse. These figuresare shown on the graph on this page.

The numbers are even worse forgroup attacks. For overall group vio-lence, the black-on-white rate is 102times the white-on-black rate, and forrobbery it is 277 times the white-on-black rate. It is very unusual to findmultiples this great when comparing thebehavior of different groups. If blacks

are just two or three times more likelythan whites to drop out of school or dieof prostate cancer, it is considered amatter of national importance. But prac-tically no one even knows that blacksare 50 to 200 times more likely thanwhites to attack someone of the otherrace. If whites were just four or fivetimes more likely to attack blacks thanthe reverse, it would be considered acrisis that required national attention.

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Black-on-White White-on-Black

Violence

Robbery

Single Offender Black-on-White CrimeRate as Multiple of White-on-Black

All

A black is 103 timesmore likely to rob

a white thanvice versa.




Letters from ReadersSir – I have some comments on your

summary of Prof. Philippe Rushton’sgenetic similarity theory. First, one must

remember there can be warfare withinthe tribe–including European tribes. Thereason: Homogeneity does not excludethe desire by some to seek “glory,”wealth, or revenge against their kinsmen.Just look at the ferocious warfare of theScottish-English border land.

Second, secular ideologies (includingliberalism) seek to change nature toman’s desires. Nature is not necessarilysomething to be followed as in religioussocieties, but something to be altered.This includes human nature, becauseman is thought merely to be an animal

that lives, breeds, and dies. These ide-ologies may even deny there is such athing as human nature.

Third, as Alexis de Tocqueville noted,liberal and democratic societies considerour daily lives preeminent and think littleof ancestors or any good greater than ourown self-interest now. Race and ances-try is now irrelevant to those who holdthese views. We live in a society whichhas inverted all meaning.

I’m not saying there is no merit inProf. Rushton’s looking at the impor-tance of kinship and “kin-ness” in pre-

liberal or non-liberal societies. What Iam saying is that these feelings can to acertain extent be abolished through lib-eral politics, economy, and culture. Lib-eralism is at war with nature and ulti-mately with God.

Edward Dorsey, Springfield, Va.

Sir – I have one objection to the Ge-netic Similarity Theory put forward inyour last issue: the growing number of

Asian-white couples I see. A recentstudy showed that Japanese-Americanwomen are as likely to marry a whiteman as an Asian. How would Prof.Rushton explain this?

Larry McBride, San Francisco, Cal.

Sir – In the most recent American Renaissance, you published a letter froma gentleman in North Carolina who as-serts that “unattractive white women,”and “weak- willed white men,” practicemiscegenation. It got me thinking thatfor all the writing AR does on issues of racial preference, it is nonetheless myimpression that there is a countervailingattraction for partners from differentbackgrounds (be they racial, religious,

political or geographic) which also ex-ists, perhaps not among animals, butamong humans.

Name Withheld, Berkeley, Cal.

Sir – In his review of The ReaganPresidency and the Politics of Race,Robert Detlefsen correctly takes authorNicholas Laham to task for equatingopposition to affirmative action withracism. Still, I think it needs to bepointed out that the Reagan presidencywas a disaster for anyone who shares

even some of the views of AR. Underhis watch millions of illegal immigrantswere given a blanket amnesty. Thoughour border with Mexico became a sieve,he never used the military to stop theflow. Instead, he sent troops to Grenadaand Lebanon. And why didn’t Mr.Reagan speak up for Pat Buchanan, EdMeese and William Bradford Reynoldswhen they were trying to end affirma-tive action against the opposition of George Schultz and Bob Dole? And he

might have said a word or two againstmulticulturalism and political correct-ness when those movements first startedgaining steam.

The fact that Mr. Laham feels the needto apologize for the tiny steps Mr.Reagan took against racial quotas showshow thoroughly the left dominates our

politics and culture.J. Tanneyhill, Columbia, S.C.

Sir – While showing some depth,Robert Detlefsen’s effort to shed lighton our comic race syndrome ends upmuch like pro-wrestling–lots of actionbut basically unreal. Mr. Detlefsen’s es-say promotes the familiar abstraction of “colorblind justice,” while AR labors tokeep us very much color aware.

The problem is that while peoplemake a fuss over “affirmative action,”

“racial preferences,” “segregation”“civil rights,” and the like, no one de-fines them. “Racial preferences,” forinstance, are now something bad, eventhough they are entirely natural. “Civilrights” are presumably good eventhough, as the Founders and Socratesrealized, “rights” are extremely elusive.“Discrimination”–a requisite for civil-ity and wisdom–is now scorned as a sin.As if to highlight our confusion, we evenban “sex discrimination!”

I suggest that everyone sit down andread the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

There’s a lot of sociological silliness in

those pages–all too typical of 20th-cen-tury Anglo-American government (e.g.Disabilities Act, Minimum Wage, SocialSecurity, Welfare, etc.). Until we under-stand that it is impossible to end race-

and ethnicity-consciousness by passinglaws we will never get anywhere.

There were other, better ways of end-ing Jim Crow. In the end, the biggestproblems facing America were not a lack of energy or compassion, but of manli-ness, scholarly truth and intelligence.Until these are recovered, we’ll neverknow what “civil rights, properly under-stood,” are even as their well-meaningmiasma erodes our system of freedoms.

W. Edward Chynoweth, Sanger, Cal.




American Renaissance is published monthly by the

New Century Foundation. NCF is governed by section501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code; contributionsto it are tax deductible.

Subscriptions to American Renaissance are $24.00 per year. First-class postage isan additional $6.00. Subscriptions to Canada (first class) and overseas (surface mail)are $30.00. Overseas airmail subscriptions are $40.00. Back issues are $3.00 each.Foreign subscribers should send U.S. dollars or equivalent in convertible bank notes.

Please make checks payable to: American Renaissance, P.O. Box 527, Oakton, VA22124. ISSN No. 1086-9905, Telephone: (703) 716-0900, Facsimile: (703) 716-0932,Web Page Address: www.amren.com Electronic Mail: [email protected]

Continued from page 1

American RenaissanceJared Taylor, Editor

James P. Lubinskas, Assistant EditorGeorge McDaniel, Web Page Editor

Some people have argued that blacksattack whites because whites are richerand more likely to be profitable robbery

targets. However, fewer than 20 percentof all violent black-on-white crimes arerobberies. The rest are assaults andrapes, which presumably do not have aneconomic motive. In 1994 more than30,000 white women were raped byblack men while only 5,400 black women were raped by whites (the latterfigure is uncertain because the actual sur-vey found too few actual white-on-black rapes to permit confidence in an extrapo-lation to the country at large). Blacks arethus approximately 40 times more likelyto rape whites than vice versa. It is hard

to avoid the conclusion that much of theviolence committed by blacks againstwhites is motivated by racial hatred.

From the national survey data it ispossible to tell how much violence isinterracial and how much is not, and infact there is more black-on-white vio-lent crime than black-on-black . Whenblacks committed violent crime in 1994,they attacked whites 56.3 percent of thetime, whereas when whites committedviolence they attacked blacks only 2.6percent of the time. This does not meanthat blacks are victims of violent crime

no more often than whites are. Even if blacks are victims of only about half of all black violence, that half is concen-trated in the 13 percent of the popula-tion that is black. Therefore, blacks arestill about five times more likely thanwhites to be victims of violent black criminals.

These findings from the national sur-vey data are very important, but the dataare limited to crimes of violence otherthan murder (you cannot survey a mur-

der victim) and the racial breakdown of “white,” “black,” “other” tells us noth-ing about Hispanics or Asians. For in-formation on other crimes and for better

racial categories we can turn to arrestdata.

Murder is, of course, the most spec-tacular violent crime but it is relativelyrare. Of all violent crimes reported tothe police, fewer than one percent aremurder. In 1997 there were 15,289known murders in the United States,which represented a rate of 6.8 per100,000 Americans. This is the lowestrate since 1968, and represents the fourth

straight year of decline. The murder ratehit an all-time high of 10.2 per 100,000in 1980.

Of the 15,289 Americans who werekilled in 1997, 49 percent were black,48 percent were white and the rest were“other” with a handful of “unknowns.”More than half of those arrested formurder were black. Murder is the onecrime for which the federal arrest datagive some information about the race of both victim and criminal, and murder

usually does not cross racial lines: Ap-proximately 90 percent of murdererswere the same race as their victims.

When murder is interracial, blacks areconsiderably more likely to be the of-fenders. There were approximately1,100 whites killed by blacks and 480blacks killed by whites, which means

that a black was about 15 times morelikely to kill a white than vice versa.Because blacks are so much more

likely to commit murder and robberythan any other racial group, the percent-age of blacks in the local population isprobably the best single indicator of thelevel of violence. The graph on this page,compiled by Glayde Whitney of FloridaState University, plots the murder rateagainst the black percentage of the popu-lation for the 50 states and the Districtof Columbia (which is the outlying datapoint at the upper right). The trend could

not be much clearer.Puerto Rico is not included in Prof.

Whitney’s data, but according to 1997data, it had a murder rate of 18.9 per100,000, which was three times the na-tional rate of 6.8, and higher than thatof any state. The murder rate was lowerthan that of the District of Columbia,however, which had a 1997 rate of 56.9.The states with the highest murder rateswere those with the highest percentageof blacks: Louisiana (15.7 per 100,000)and Mississippi (13.1). The lowest mur-der rates are found in overwhelmingly

white states like North Dakota (0.9),South Dakota (1.4), New Hampshire(1.4), and Vermont (1.5).

Needless to say, big cities with largeblack populations had the highest mur-der rates. In 1996, New Orleans camein first at 72 per 100,000 followed byAtlanta (47), Baltimore (46), St. Louis(44), Detroit (43) and Birmingham (42).By contrast, Seattle–mostly white–hada murder rate of seven per 100,000.

When arrest data for other crimes arecompared by race, the results are asshown in the first two graphs on the next

page. Here, arrest rates for differentgroups are calculated as multiples of thewhite arrest rate, with the white rate al-ways set to one. The black rate of aboutnine for murder, for example, in the firstgraph does not mean that blacks com-mitted nine time as many murders aswhites, but that they were arrested formurder at nine times the white rate.Since there are about six times as manywhites as there are blacks, it means thatin absolute numbers, more blacks than




whites were arrested for murder–in this

case about 7,200 as opposed to 5,350.The first graph shows a very clear pat-

tern: Asians are arrested at lower ratesthan whites, and American Indians andblacks are arrested at consistently higherrates. (The “Asian” category includesPacific Islanders, some of whom arequite crime-prone. Tongans, for ex-ample, are much more violent than Chi-nese or Koreans. However, their num-bers are small and do not distort crimerates very much. All the data in this ar-ticle on Asians also include Pacific Is-landers.) As we saw earlier, arrest rates

are a very good indicator of actual crimerates. Blacks are the most dangerous,crime-prone group in America andAsians are the least dangerous. Only afew crimes break this pattern. The sec-ond graph on this page shows multiplesof arrest rates for atypical crimes. Gam-bling, for example, is the only crime forwhich Asians are arrested at a higher ratethan whites (blacks are arrested at amuch higher rate). Alcohol offenses areunusual in that whites are arrested for

them at essentially the samerates as blacks, while Indi-ans–true to their reputation–are the worst offenders. Forwhite-collar crimes likeforgery, fraud, and em-bezzlement, blacks are ar-rested at about three times

the white rate and Indians atsomething close to the whiterate. For most crimes, how-ever, the pattern is consis-tent, with blacks committingthe most crimes, followed byIndians, whites, and Asians.

Hispanic Crime

What about Hispanics?The national arrest data givethe impression that Hispan-ics are never arrested for

anything. Hispanic criminalsare, of course, included inthe four obligatory racialcategories for arrests: white,black, Indian, and Asian.How many in which catego-ries? The US Census Bureaugives us a clue. Its officialestimate of the 1997 popu-lation divides all 268 millionAmericans into the fourstandard racial groups, butadds that there were also 29

million Hispanics who “can be of any

race.” However, it also gives an estimateof non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanicblacks, etc. Thus we find that accordingto the strictly racial classification therewere 221 million whites in the countryin 1997 but only 195 million non-His- panic whites. When American Hispan-ics–approximately half of whom areMexicans–are apportioned tothe four racial categories, theCensus Bureau thinks 91percent are white, six percentblack, one percent AmericanIndian, and two percent

Asian. This is crazy–it wouldbe more accurate to considerthe majority of them Ameri-can Indians–but as far as theUS government is con-cerned, almost all Hispanicsare white.

This makes for odd cen-sus results. For example, ac-cording to the 1990 census,of the 3,485,000 people inLos Angeles, 52.9 percent

were white, 13.9 percent black, 0.4 per-cent Indian, and 22.9 percent Asian–which adds up to 100 percent. Thismakes the city sound majority white.However, Los Angeles was also 39.3percent Hispanic, and if we subtract the91 percent of them who were probablyclassified as white, the real white popu-

lation suddenly drops to 16.6 percent.What does this mean for crime rates?Since at least 91 percent–if not all–His-panics are lumped in with “whites,” if Hispanics commit crimes at higher ratesthan whites, official statistics inflate thewhite crime rate. Fortunately, some gov-ernment jurisdictions can tell the differ-ence between whites and Hispanics. Thestate of California, which has more His-panics than any other, classifies its crimi-nals as black, white, Hispanic, and other.The graph at the bottom of this pageshows California arrest rates for the

major violent crimes. As expected,blacks are the most violent, and special-ize in mugging. Hispanics are roughlythree times more likely than whites tobe arrested for violent crime.

There is another way to estimate His-panic crime rates. In 1996 the Depart-ment of Justice calculated incarcerationrates per 100,000 population for non-Hispanic whites (193), Hispanics (688),and non-Hispanic blacks (1,571). Ex-pressed as multiples of the white rate,the Hispanic rate is 3.56 and the black rate is 8.14. These multiples are close to

the multiples for the California arrestdata and justify the conclusion that His-panics are roughly three times morelikely than whites to commit variouscrimes.

We can calculate more accurate ra-cial arrest rates if we separate out the 91percent of Hispanic criminals we can

0

2

4

6

8

10BlackIndianWhiteAsian

Car TheftAssaultRobberyRapeMurder

Arrest Rates by RaceMultiples of White Rate

0

3

6

BlackIndianWhiteAsian

GamblingLiquor Laws

ProstitutionEmbezzelment

Forgery

Arrest Rates by RaceMultiples of White Rate

15

0

3

6

9

12

15

BlackHispanicWhite

RobberyAssaultRapeMurder

California Arrests by RaceMultiples of White Rate




assume are classified as white when theyare arrested. By doing so, the white ar-rest rate decreases by about 20 percentand the arrest multiples for other racesincrease proportionately (in some casesAsian rates begin to approach whiterates). The two side-by-side graphs onthis page show how arrest rate multiples

change when Hispanics are treated sepa-rately. For lack of more precise infor-mation, the Hispanic multiple is set atthree times the white rate for all crimeseven though there is certain to be somevariation for different crimes. Bothgraphs are drawn to the same scale, withthe white arrest rate set to one. Theyshow at a glance how treating Hispan-ics as “whites” distorts crime figures.

It is worth noting that the survey datafrom which interracial crime data wereextracted do not treat Hispanics as aseparate category and probably includes

virtually all Hispanics in the “white”group. It is therefore impossible to knowhow many of the “whites” who werereported to have done violence to blacks(or against whom blacks did violence)were actually Hispanic. If Hispanicscommit violent crimes against blacks ata higher rate than whites–and judgingfrom their higher arrest and incarcera-tion rates for other offenses this is likely–then the survey data inflate white crimerates. The true figures for interracialcrime are probably even more lopsidedthan those reported in the survey.

Disproportionate black crime rateshave a seldom-discussed consequence:A lot of blacks lose the right to vote. Inall but four states, felons cannot vote. Intwelve states, a felony conviction canmean disfranchisement for life, but in

Police Bias? Says Who?

The “racist” police officer is practically a cliché. White cops allover the country are supposed

to be shooting, beating, and arrestinginnocent blacks and Hispanics–or atleast trying a whole lot harder to col-

lar them than whites. Aside from someisolated incidents of racially motivatedbrutality, this is a false image. Thepolice arrest blacks and Hispanics be-cause they commit crimes.

The first line of evidence is the closecorrespondence between survey dataand arrest data. If the public says half the muggers are black, and half themuggers the police arrest are black, itis unlikely the police are making “bi-ased” arrests. Even more to the point,the police have essentially no discre-tion over whom they arrest for a vio-

lent crime. Except for murder victims,most people get a good enough look at an assailant to know if he is black or white. If the victim says a white mantook his wallet, the police can’t verywell go out and arrest a black man evenif they wanted to.

The police have a lot of discretionover whether to make an arrest in thecase of non-violent crimes, such asviolation of liquor laws. Unlike mur-der or rape, there is not a great deal of public pressure to make arrests, andthe police can walk away from crime

if they want to. Presumably, a “racist”officer would see a drunk on the streetand make an arrest only if the drunk

were black. In fact, drunk driving andother liquor offenses–in which policecan make arrests or not largely as theychoose–are the very crimes for whichthe black multiple of the white arrestrate is the smallest (see previous page).

If “racist” cops are picking on blacksthey are not doing a good job.

Finally, if the police are “racist,”why are Asians arrested at consistentlylower rates than whites? Wouldn’t“racist” cops think of some way tosnare Asians?

It is often argued that the large num-ber of blacks arrested for drugs–par-ticularly crack cocaine–is evidence of police bias. However, there is a com-pletely independent indicator of whois using illegal drugs, which suggeststhat the police are arresting the very

people they should. The Departmentof Health and Human Services keepsstatistics on people admitted to emer-gency rooms because of drug over-doses. Blacks are admitted at 6.67times the white rate for heroin andmorphine, and no less than 10.5 timesthe white rate for cocaine (Hispanicsare admitted at two to three times thewhite rate). What better evidencecould there be that people of differentraces are using drugs at markedly dif-ferent rates, and that the police are sim-ply doing their job?

Like so many other destructive ra-cial myths, the myth of the racist coprefuses to die. WWWWW

Hispanics included with whites

0

2

4

6

8

10

BlackIndianWhiteAsian


Unadjusted Arrest RatesMultiples of White Rate

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

BlackHispanicIndianWhiteAsian


Adjusted Arrest RatesMultiples of White Rate

Adjusted by separating out Hispanics




most states, felons can reapply for theright to vote after they are off probation.Lefties have been wringing their handsover this, unsure of whether by callingattention to the number of blacks with-out the vote they can fight “racism” orwhether calling attention to staggeringblack arrest rates will promote “racism.”Human Rights Watch and the Sentenc-

ing Project haveplumped for the former,and report that two per-cent of all Americanadults are without thevote because of felonyconvictions and thatamong black men the

figure is 13 percent. Inseven states–Alabama,Florida, Iowa, Missis-sippi, New Mexico, Vir-ginia, and Wyoming–aquarter of all black menare permanently ineli-gible to vote.

The lefties go on topoint out that by 2020 about one thirdof all black men will probably have lostthe right to vote. In the black parts of cities like Houston, Memphis, Miami,and New Orleans, as many as half the

black men might be off the voting ros-ters. It causes the lefties great pain toimagine cities with black majorities butmore white voters than black.

A very illuminating comparison canbe made between arrest rates for blacksas compared to whites, and men as com-pared to women. We find that in termsof their likelihood to commit violentcrimes, blacks are as much more dan-gerous than whites as men are more dan-gerous than women. The first graph onthis page shows the arrest rates for menfor various crimes as multiples of the ar-

rest rates for women. The next threegraphs compare the male-female arrestmultiple to the black-white multiple.Blacks are as much more dangerous thanwhites as men are more dangerous thanwomen–and these graphs are not evenadjusted for the inclusion of Hispanicsin “white” arrest figures.

Everyone knows that a group of un-known men is potentially more danger-ous than a group of otherwise similarwomen. It is entirely reasonable to takeprecautions around men that one wouldnot take around women. From a statisti-

cal point of view, it is just as reasonableto distinguish between blacks and whitesas carefully as one distinguishes betweenmen and women. It would be foolish notto lock the car doors when drivingthrough black neighborhoods.

Police, of course, know that blackscommit a great deal of crime, and thisexplains “racial profiling,” the practiceof stopping and questioning proportion-ately more blacks than people of otherraces. The police would be crazy not to.

They also stop more men than womenand more young people than old people.The police know from experience whothe crooks are likely to be. If they spentas much time investigating old Asian la-dies as they did young black men theywould never get their jobs done. Every-one understands that men are more

crime-prone than women and they un-derstand why men are stopped more of-ten than women. It is only because of racial hysteria that so many people atleast pretend to believe the police stopblacks more often than whites becauseof “racism.”

Why Crime is Down

Politicians and the press have mademuch of the fact that crime rates are inch-ing down–and indeed they are. The rateof violent crime declined every year

from 1991 to 1996 and decreased by atotal of 12.7 percent during that period.However, violent crime rates were still300 percent higher than they were in1960. President William Clinton likes totake credit for the recent decline, claim-ing that his initiative to spend federalmoney on a few thousand more policeofficers is what did the trick. Reality isnot so kind. Crime rates are down be-cause of the huge increase in the num-ber of bad guys who are in jail. As thegraphs on the next page show, we havenever had so many people in prison, and

incarceration rates, in terms of prison-ers per 100,000 population are at unprec-edented highs.

As the graph for incarceration shows,America has traditionally had about 100people in jail for every 100,000 citizens.In the decade of the 1960s there was aterrific increase in crime. Perhaps not co-incidentally it coincided with the tri-umph of silly liberal views about crime:society rather than the criminal is toblame, imprisonment is ineffective, thepolice are brutal, blacks never get a fairshake, etc. And so, despite the surge in

crime, prison sentences were reducedand incarceration rates actually wentdown during the decade. By 1970, how-ever, the combination of more crime andless imprisonment had reached intoler-able levels, and we started sendingpeople back to jail: to the point that wenow have 400 prisoners per 100,000 citi-zens–a 400 percent increase in incarcera-tion rates.

Current research suggests that everyyear of incarceration prevents 12 to 21

0

2

4

6

8

10

Blacks v. WhitesMen v. Women

Arrests for MurderExpressed as Multiples

0

2

4

6

8

10


Arrests for RobberyExpressed as Multiples

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


Arrests for All Violent CrimesExpressed as Multiples

0

2

4

6

8

10

Men

Women

All ViolenceArsonCar TheftLarcenyBurglaryAssaultRobberyMurder

Male Arrest RatesMultiples of Female Rates




crimes. If we returned to our traditionalincarceration rate of 100 per 100,000 itwould require releasing nearly one mil-lion jailbirds–and would loose upon the

country a crime wave that would driveevery citizen into the arms of the Na-tional Rifle Association. The connectionbetween falling crime rates and increas-ing incarceration rates should be clearto even the dimmest liberal; a crook whois doing time can’t stick a knife in yourribs. And yet, the most common big-media reaction to the swollen prisonpopulation is to argue that it is causedby some kind of malicious “prison-in-dustrial complex,” and to worry that somany of the prisoners are black.

Because of the unprecedentedly large

number of adults who are locked up andoff the streets, juvenile arrest rates are abetter indicator than adult arrest rates of real crime trends in the country. All chil-dren begin life out of jail, after all, sotheir crime and arrest rates are not helddown by the fact that the worst of themare already locked up and out of circu-lation. And, in fact, the celebrated dropin adult arrest rates has largely passedthem by. From 1991 to 1996, while adultcrime rates were dropping steadily–asmore and more bad guys were put be-hind bars–juvenile violent crime was

rising for all but one of those years. Infact, since 1987, juvenile violent-crimearrest rates have risen every year but one.There is every reason to think that thisis the true crime trend in the UnitedStates.

Crime trends for girls have been evenworse than for boys. In 1967, boys ac-counted for 92 percent of juvenile ar-rests for violent crime and girls for onlyeight percent. By 1996, girls were com-mitting fully 25 percent of violent juve-

nile crime. From 1967 to 1996, violentcrime arrest rates for boys increased 143percent, but for girls the increase wasan astonishing 345 percent.

It is often pointed out that immigra-tion keeps the population young becauseimmigrants have more children than na-tives. Most immigrants are non-white,so the American population is turningnon-white most quickly at the youngerages. With the exception of Asians, non-whites commit considerably more crimethan whites, so the demographic shiftcannot help but produce more crime.Rising rates of juvenile crime–probablyfueled largely by immigration–are reli-able harbingers of rising rates of adultcrime. Since the country does not seem

likely to go through another 1960s-styleperiod of soft-headedness about sentenc-ing, we can expect the prison popula-tion to continue to grow at a good clip.

The prison population will also turnincreasingly non-white–whites are al-ready a minority. According to the De-partment of Justice, the 1995 racialbreakdown in American prisons was asfollows:

Total: 1,126,287Black: 544,005White: 455,021

Indian/Eskimo: 10,176Asian: 6,483Not Known: 110,602

110,000 Not Known? A footnote tothe table warns that in California, Illi-nois, New Jersey, Nevada, Wyoming,and 15 other states, “some or all His-panic prisoners [are] reported under ‘notknown’ ”! Footnotes also tell us thatMontana considers all Hispanics to bewhite and that seven states–including big

ones like Texas and Mississippi–just“estimate” the racial numbers. Onceagain, crazy bookkeeping makes it im-possible to keep track of Hispanics, and

impossible to know how many arelumped in with “whites.” But even if weignore all the “not knowns” and assumenone of the “whites” is Hispanic,“whites” account for only about 40 per-cent of all prisoners.

In 1995 there were 100,250 federalinmates, of which 20 percent were non-citizens. The feds do not have any “notknowns,” and report their prison popu-lation to be 36.9 percent black, 32.6 per-cent white, and 27.5 percent Hispanic,with Indians and Asians at 1.5 percenteach. It is clear that an all-white America

could make do with a much smallerprison system.

The dwindling minority of white pris-oners–now likely to be controlled bynon-white prison guards–will be increas-ingly vulnerable to rape, humiliation,violence, and extortion. More and morewill seek protection by joining white-consciousness prison gangs. Already, inlargely non-white prisons, it is whiteswho are members of “racist” gangs whomaintain the best morale.

The large number of black and His-panic prisoners has a significant but

unquantifiable bearing on racial differ-ences in rates of violent crime. Accord-ing to the graph on page 6, blacks areabout five times more likely than whitesto be arrested for violent crime. PeriodicDepartment of Justice surveys also findthat Americans report blacks to be com-mitting violent crime at about five timesthe white rate. It is worth noting thatthese figures apply only to blacks andwhites who are not already in jail. Toget a true indicator of genuine racial dif-




ferences in violent or other criminal ten-dencies rather than just a record of crimi-nal behavior for a given year, one wouldhave to turn all the convicts loose andthen compare crime rates. The 1997black-white differential of 500 percentis large enough already, but it is substan-tially reduced by the fact that, propor-

tionately, eight times as many blacks as

whites are already in jail and are re-strained from the violent acts they wouldcertainly commit if they were free. A trueblack/white multiple of violence not dis-torted by existing differential incarcera-tion rates would be considerably greaterthan five.

With the exception of Asians, the

burgeoning non-white population pre-

sents a very significant threat to oursafety and security. Crime consider-ations alone would justify a return to amuch more selective immigration policy.So long as whites remain too timid todiscuss the challenges they face, thosechallenges will never be met.

Eye-opening crime factsfrom the “the Sourcebook.”

The Department of Justice collects

an enormous amount of informa-tion in addition to arrest recordsand crime survey data. Some of the mostinteresting findings are summarized ina fat, annual volume called Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. The mostrecent edition generally reports data nolater than for 1996, but it includes manyinteresting facts, which are presentedhere in no particular order. We find, forexample, that in 1996 Americans mur-dered 300 infants and about the samenumber of children aged one to four.Races of perpetrators and victims are not

reported.

In a rather chilling table we discoverthe number of children under the age of ten who were arrested in 1996 for thefollowing crimes: Murder - 17, Rape -61, robbery - 266, aggravated assault -1,000, car theft - 199, forgery - 28,

drunkenness - 103, weapons carrying -600. Once again, it would be instructiveto know the racial distribution of thesearrests.

We also find that although during the1970s, 120 to 130 police officers werekilled in action every year, there has beena substantial decline since then, mainlybecause of the increased use of bullet-proof vests. In 1996, criminals killedonly 55 police officers. Every year since1979 (the first year for which data are

given), no fewer than 80 percent of theslain officers have been white, and thefigure has been as high as 91 percent. In1996, blacks killed more officers than“whites” (including Hispanics) did–45

percent of killings v. 42 percent.As of December 31, 1996, there wereonly 48 women on death row–1.5 per-cent of the total. Executions were haltedin 1968 by a Supreme Court ruling butbecame Constitutional again in 1976.Since then there have been only 358executions, with Texas killing the most(107) followed by Florida with 38 andVirginia with 37. Since resumption in1977, 188 “whites” (there are no sepa-rate data for Hispanics) have been ex-ecuted and 121 blacks.

Although it is not included in the stan-

dard government index of violence, sui-cide is a crime, so Sourcebook covers it.The very elderly have the highest sui-cide rates (around 22 per 100,000) butotherwise the most dangerous years arebetween ages 20 to 24 with a rate of around 16 per 100,000. At every agemen are five to eight times more likelyto kill themselves than women, and havegrown more likely to do so over time.Male suicide rates have shown a steadyincrease from 9.3 in 1950 to 27.7 in1995, though the rate has held steady inthe mid to high 20s since 1990. From

1950 to 1995, the suicide rate for womenaged 20 to 24 has been as low as 2.9 andas high as 5.6 and was most recently 4.3.There is essentially no trend.

“Whites” are considerably morelikely to knock themselves off thanblacks. The white rate is about doublethe black rate at virtually all ages ex-cept for people 75 and over, at whichpoint they begin to treble and quadruple.White men over the age of 85 are themost dangerous to themselves, with a

suicide rate of 68 per 100,000. Black women at that age kill themselves at arate of only 1.5 per 100,000.

Racial differences in suicide rates areseldom reported, though we can be sure

that if blacks were killing themselves attwo to three times the white rate it wouldbe explained as a reaction to “racism.”

Sourcebook tells us that 1996 was arecord year for deporting illegal aliens,which is different from catching themat the border. The feds bounced 50,000,which was a jump from 41,800 the pre-vious year. About 33,000 had been con-victed of crimes, which means that most

illegals have to have a record before thefeds bother to send them home.

In 1996 authorities eradicated moremarijuana plants in Tennessee

(1,113,000) than in any other state. Cali-fornia took second place with 632,000.In 1997, counterfeiters passed

589,000 bogus banknotes with a totalvalue of $31,750,000.

Only ten percent of rapists were com-plete strangers to their victims; the restwere at least acquaintances. Seventy-eight percent of robbers, however, weretotal strangers.

Every year there are about 25 timesas many thefts from automobiles as there

Seventeen Americansunder the age of ten

were arrested in 1996for murder.

WWWWW




are incidents of pickpocketing orpursesnatching. Every year about 0.66percent of all cars in the US. are stolen,or about one in every 150.

The Sourcebook also reports crime-related attitude surveys carried out byprivate organizations. There has been asteady increase in support for the death

penalty. In 1965–perhaps the height of the society-is-to-blame era–only 38 per-cent of Americans supported the deathpenalty, but by 1997 that figure hadgrown to 75 percent. There are substan-tial racial differences, with 80 percentof whites in favor of capital punishmentbut only 46 percent of blacks. Seventy-two percent of Hispanics support it.

There are considerable racial differ-ences in reported gun ownership, with47 percent of whites, 17 percent of blacks, and 37 percent of Hispanics say-ing they have a gun in the house.

Religion does not seem to have a greatinfluence on attitudes to crime and lawenforcement except in the case of Jews.

They are most likely to favor stricter guncontrol, least likely to own a gun, mostlikely to favor legalization of marijuana,and most likely to want to liberalize por-nography laws.

In a rather surprising finding, Source-book reports that American attitudes to-ward legalization of homosexual actsbetween consenting adults have hardly

budged in 20 years. In 1977, 43 percentfavored legalization, 43 percent wereopposed, and 14 percent couldn’t makeup their minds. In 1996, 44 percent fa-vored legalization, 47 percent were op-posed, and only nine percent were un-sure. Public opinion has been remark-ably impervious to constant pro-homo-

sexual propaganda.The Department of Justice’s Source-book of Criminal Justice Statistics isprobably the single most informativecrime document published by the USgovernment, and can be ordered by call-ing (800) 732-2377.

The Great Hate Crimes Hoax

Much ado about not much.

by Jared Taylor

The idea of “hate” crimes and theincreased penalties attached tothem are a radical departure from

traditional criminal justice in that theypunish certain motivations more thanothers. Increased penalties are justifiedby pointing out that the law has alwaystaken a criminal’s state of mind into ac-count: Was the killing deliberate or anaccident? Was it planned in cold blood

or done in the heat of the moment? How-ever, these are questions of intent , andintent is, indeed, a factor in determiningguilt. “Hate”crimes break new groundby considerig motive. Traditionally thelaw does not care about motive. You are just as guilty of murder whether you killa man because he stole your wife, black-mailed you, or stepped on your toe.

Hate crime laws require that thecourts search for certain motives and addextra penalties if they find them. There-fore, if you punch a man in the nose be-cause he took your parking spot or be-

cause he was unbearably ugly or becauseyou just felt like punching someone thatday, you are guilty of assault. If you say“nigger” and punch a black man you areguilty of a hate crime and are punishedmore severely. Like almost all recentinnovations in morals, what started withrace has expanded to “sexual orienta-tion” and even disabilities like blindnessor feeble-mindedness.

Ever since 1990, when Congresspassed the Hate Crime Statistics Act, the

FBI has been charged with collectingnational statistics on criminal acts “mo-tivated, in whole or in part, by bias.” Thelaw does not force local police depart-ments to supply this information butmost do. In 1997, the most recent yearfor which data are available, the FBI

received “hate crime” information from11,211 local agencies serving more than83 percent of the United States popula-

tion.That year, there was a total of 9,861

“hate crimes,” of which 6,981 werebased on race or ethnic origin. The restwere for reasons of religion (1,493, of which 1,159 were anti-Jewish), sexualorientation (1,375, of which 14 wereanti-heterosexual), or disability (12).

The FBI reports 8,474 suspected of-fenders whose race was known–5,344were white and 1,629 were black. Theircrimes can be divided into violent and

nonviolent offenses, and by calculatingrates we find that blacks were 1.99 timesmore likely than whites to commit hatecrimes in general and 2.24 times morelikely to commit violent hate crimes.This overrepresentation of blacks in hatecrimes, not just in race bias cases but inall categories, runs counter to the com-mon impression that whites are the vir-tually exclusive perpetrators of hatecrimes and are certainly more likely tocommit them than blacks.

The real significance of “hate”crimes, however, is their small number.

Of the 6,981 offenses based on race orethnicity, only 4,105 were violent, in-volving murder, rape, robbery, or assault.The rest were such things as vandalismand intimidation. These numbers are al-most insignificant compared to the1,766,000 interracial crimes of violence(combining both single- and multiple-offender offenses) reported in the De-partment of Justice survey for 1994.

How important is the distinction be-tween interracial crimes that are offi-cially designated as hate crimes andthose that are not? For a crime to be con-

sidered a hate crime, the perpetrator mustmake his motive clear, usually by say-ing something nasty. It is not hard toimagine that of the nearly two millioninterracial crimes committed in 1994,some–perhaps even a great many–were“motivated, in whole or in part, by bias”but the perpetrators didn’t bother to sayso.

Given the realities of race in theUnited States, would it be unreasonablefor someone attacked by a criminal of a

WWWWW




different race to wonder whether racehad something to do with the attack,even if his assailant said nothing? Suchsuspicions are even more likely in thecase of the 490,266 acts of group vio-lence that crossed racial lines in 1994.A white woman gang-raped by blacksor a black man cornered and beaten by

whites will think he was singled out atleast in part because of race, even if theattackers said nothing.

Hate crime laws assume that specialharm is done to society when people areattacked because of race. But which doesmore damage to society: the few thou-sand violent acts officially labeled ashate crimes or the millions of ordinaryinterracial crimes of violence–90 percentof which are committed by blacksagainst whites? If race relations are sofragile they must be protected with lawsthat add extra penalties to race-related

crimes, why not automatically add ex-tra penalties to any interracial crime, onthe assumption that it harmed race rela-tions? The problem, of course, is thatmost of the people slapped with heavierpenalties would be black.

Hispanics

Official thinking about “hate crimes”suffers from another crushing defect. AsJoseph Fallon, who has written for ARhas noted, the FBI reports hate crimesagainst Hispanics but not by Hispanics.

In the forms the FBI has local policedepartments fill out, Hispanics areclearly indicated as a victim category butthey are not an option as a perpetratorcategory when the FBI asks for “Sus-pected Race of Offender.” The FBItherefore forces local police departmentsto categorize most Hispanics as “white”(see p. 4). Official figures for 1997 re-flect this. The total number of “hatecrimes” for that year–9,861–includes636 crimes of anti-Hispanic bias, but notone of the 8,474 known offenders is“Hispanic” because the FBI’s data col-

lection method doesn’t permit such adesignation.

If someone goes after a Mexican be-cause he doesn’t like Mexicans it is ananti-Hispanic crime. If the same Mexi-can commits a “hate crime” against awhite, both the victim and the perpetra-tor are considered white. And, in fact,the 1997 FBI figures duly record 214“white” offenders who committed anti-white hate crimes! The offenders were

undoubtedly Hispanic, but the reportdoesn’t say so. Some of the “whites”who are reported to have committed hatecrimes against blacks and homosexualsare almost certainly Hispanic, but thereis no way to be sure.

Hispanic perpetrators show up onlyif you invesigate specific “hate” crimes.

The FBI lists five cases of racially-mo-tivated murder for 1997–three “anti-black” and two “anti-white.” The reportsays nothing about the perpetrators orthe circumstances of the killings, so ARgot the details from the local police de-partments.

Two of the anti-black killings took place in the same town, a mostly-His-panic suburb of Los Angeles called Ha-waiian Gardens. Hawaiian Gardens hasa history of black-Hispanic tension thatis so bad many blacks have cleared out.In one of the 1997 murders, a 24-year-

old black man was beaten to death by amob of 10 to 14 Hispanics who took turns smashing his head with a baseball

bat. In the other, a Hispanic gang mem-

ber challenged a 29-year-old black man’s right to be in the neighborhood.A few minutes later he came back andshot the man in the chest. In both cases,the victims and killers did not know eachother and the motivation appears to havebeen purely racial. These crimes are typi-cal of what we think of as hate-crimemurders, but because no Hispanics areidentified as perpetrators in the FBI re-port, the killers were classified as white.

The third anti-black killing took placein Anchorage, Alaska. A white man,Brett Maness, killed his neighbor, a

black man, Delbert White, after a brief struggle. Mr. Maness, who was grow-ing marijuana in his apartment and keptan arsenal of weapons, had been shoot-ing a pellet gun at Mr. White’s house,and the black came over to complain.Interestingly, a jury found that Mr.Maness killed Mr. White in self defense.The incident–which sounds rather am-biguous–was classified as a hate crimebecause Mr. Maness had shouted racial

slurs at Mr. White in the past and be-cause “racist” literature was found in hisapartment.

The remaining two killings were clas-sified as anti-white, but only one fits theusual idea of these crimes. Four whitemen were walking on a street in PalmBeach, Florida, when a car came to a

stop not far from them. Two black mengot out with their hands behind theirbacks and one said “What are you crack-ers looking at?” One of the white menreplied, “Not you, nigger,” whereuponone of the blacks brought a gun frombehind his back and fired several times,killing one white and wounding another.Attackers and victims did not know eachother, and the motivation appears to havebeen purely racial. The other anti-whitekilling involved a Texas businessmanfrom India, Sri Punjabi, who shot hisMexican daughter-in-law because his

son had divorced an Indian wife to marryher. Mr. Punjabi was furioius becausehis son married someone who was notIndian. (Presumably, this crime couldhave been classified as anti-Hispanicrather than anti-white.)

These five “hate crime” murders re-ported for 1997 do not exactly fit themedia image of whites brutalizing non-whites. In fact, only one perpetrator, theAlaskan, was “white” in the usually ac-cepted sense. What was the nature of thethousands of other officially-reportedhate crimes? Without examining all

9,861 of them it is impossible to say.It is clear, though, that the FBI report

gives a false impression of what is go-ing on. It inflates the number of hatecrimes committed by “whites” by call-ing Hispanics white, and suggests thatHispanics never commit “hate crimes.”Every year, the press duly reports thisnonsense. No one, apparently, ever both-ers to ask why hundreds of whites arereported to be comitting hate crimesagainst other whites. By leaving outHispanics and blaming their crimes onwhites, the FBI report paints so distorted

a picture of race relations in America thatit is worse than useless.

Hispanics are a “hatecrime” victim categorybut not a perpetrator

category. A Mexican whocommits a “hate crime” is

classified as white.

WWWWW




The Future of an IllusionLeonard Steinhorn and Barbara Diggs-Brown, By the Color of our Skin:

The Illusion of Integration and the Reality of Race , Dutton, 1999, 299 pp., $23.95.

Never give up trying toachieve the impossible.

reviewed by Thomas Jackson

This book has one of the mostpromising subtitles to appear inyears: The Illusion of Integration

and the Reality of Race. Has Americanpublishing actually produced arealistic, hard-headed book about race? Not yet. The subtitleis only a tease.

Leonard Steinhorn is whiteand Barbara Diggs-Brown is

black and both teach at Ameri-can University in Washington,DC. They recognize that despite muchhypocritical blather, blacks and whiteshave not integrated and are not likelyto. And in the early part of the book, theywrite as if they are prepared to draw se-rious conclusions from this:

“We ask whether our national devo-tion to the integration ideal hinders orhelps race relations . . . . ”

“[W]e . . . believe it is best for Ame-rica to face the truth and cease pretend-ing that the integration myth has any-

thing to do with the racial reality.”“The sooner we acknowledge the per-

manence of the color line . . . the soonerwe can begin an honest accounting of our racial divide and develop an alter-native vision of our collective future.”

“The races do not have to hate eachother to be divided, and indeed we canbe very cordial about it.”

These are sound sentiments and couldhave been the basis for a genuinelythoughtful book, but the authors quicklyveer into conventional liberalism. Muchof the book is devoted to disapproving

examples of the unwillingness of whitesto mix with blacks. Whites move whenblacks buy the house next door, theysend their children to private schools,they socialize only with whites, etc. “In-tegration,” as the authors put it “existsonly in the time span between the firstblack family moving in and the lastwhite family moving out.” They quotea student about campus race relations:“I don’t remember any overt racial hos-tilities. You need a certain amount of

contact to have hostilities.” America,they argue is scarcely any more inte-

grated than it was 30 or 40 years ago.The authors note that this is especiallyremarkable given that whites almost in-variably claim to support integration andeven to practice it. According to polls,60 to 90 percent of whites say they haveat least one close friend who is black.Given the difference in numbers be-

tween blacks and whites, thismeans that all blacks–includingthe most degenerate criminalsand ghetto bums–must have fiveor six close white friends.Whites tell silly lies like this

because they have so thoroughlyabsorbed the prevailing fear of

“racism.” To have no black friends mightbe a sign of “bigotry.”

Profs. Steinhorn and Diggs-Browngive another example of the extent towhich whites have absorbed the correctattitudes. After the O.J. Simpson mur-der trial, 62 percent of whites had an un-favorable opinion of the murderer, but88 percent had an unfavorable opinionof Mark Furman, the white detectivewho lied about using the word “nigger.”William Clinton says that integration

and racial tolerance are the most impor-tant moral ideas he grew up with, andmany others would probably agree–atleast in public. The authors are right tocall this hypocrisy: “most whites don’twant to be integrated with blacks butalso don’t want to be seen as unwillingto integrate with blacks.”

Many whites do not even know theirreal feelings about blacks, party becausethey can’t tell the difference between realintegration and what the authors call“virtual integration.” Profs. Steinhornand Diggs-Brown suggest that whites

who may have no meaningful contactwith blacks nevertheless think they areintimate with them because they seethem often on television. Whites becomeso familiar with the faces and manner-isms of black TV personalities that theymay come to think of them as part of their lives. Whites who have nevershaken a black hand talk about “Oprah,”as if they knew her. Sports fans havepassionate attachments to black athletes.It is hard to know just how much this

sort of thing tricks whites into thinkingthey spend time in the company of

blacks, but it is a provocative idea. “Vir-tual integration” proves itself an illusionas soon as whites come face to face withthe real thing.

Why don’t whites want to mix withblacks? Today, the most common rea-son whites give is fear of crime. Theauthors point out that this may be anexcuse for something deeper, becauseeven in the 1940s and 1950s, beforecrime rates shot up, whites would notintegrate. So what is it about blacks thatrepels whites even after decades of inte-gration propaganda that has been so suc-

cessful almost all whites claim to believeit? The authors suspect whites feel a kindof physical revulsion for blacks, andwonder if this has something to do withopposition to miscegenation. Naturally,they think miscegenation is fine. Theonly reason they can think of why whitesmight oppose marrying blacks is thatthey fear they might appear to lose so-cial status. They at least pretend not torealize that it is natural and healthy forpeople to want their descendants to look like their ancestors, to be part of the sameculture, and to hold the same ideals. For

the authors to profess bafflement at op-position to miscegenation–somethingneither practices–is as suspect as theclaims most whites make about havingblack friends.

Daily Indignities

A tiresome number of pages is de-voted to accounts of the racial indigni-ties blacks reportedly suffer at the handsof whites. The authors love to talk aboutblack executives tailed by store detec-tives, basketball players arrested driv-

ing swanky cars, law partners mistakenfor janitors, executives who can’t catcha cab. They report that middle-classblacks have to spend a stupendousamount of emotional energy suppress-ing anti-white anger. They write of onesuccessful executive who says it is allhe can do to keep from bringing an AK-47 to work and going on a rampage.

Whites have heard so many storieslike this they have no more patience forthem. It is entirely rational to judge




strangers on the basis of race. Black cab-bies, who don’t care to be robbed anymore than white cabbies do, don’t liketo pick up black passengers either. Black security guards are just as likely to besuspicious of black customers as whiteguards. Blacks are just as surprised aswhites if a partner at a law firm turns

out to be black. There are excellent rea-sons for these things. People don’t ex-pect Frenchmen to speak Chinese or fatpeople to be acrobats. Life follows cer-tain patterns, and it is foolish to expectpeople not to notice them. It is all verywell to decry stereotypes, but many ra-cial stereotypes–as the authors grudg-ingly admit–are true. No doubt it is un-pleasant for a black executive whenwhite women refuse to get into eleva-tors with him, but whose fault is that? If blacks did not commit so much crimewhites would not be afraid of them. It is

silly and ineffective for the authors toexpect to shock their readers by recount-ing examples of rational expectationsbased on race.

Blacks, for their part, have discoveredthat most whites do not want integra-tion no matter how much they claim to.Some blacks never wanted it, and manywho at least thought they did, havestopped trying to push in where they arenot wanted. And when blacks are in aposition to staff an office they don’t ex-actly fill it with whites. The authors rec-ognize that black indifference and even

hostility to integration also contribute toits failure. They also note that eventhough blacks complain about beingtreated like criminals, they enjoy thesense of power that comes from beingable to scare whites–a power they wouldnot have if so many were not criminals.

The authors are also correct to pointout that blacks and whites have dramati-cally different conceptions of Americanrace relations. Whites, the huge major-ity of whom are not in a position to “op-press” blacks even if they wanted to, aresick of constant black complaints about

“racism.” Blacks, on the other hand,believe “racism” is everywhere and ac-

counts for everything. As the authorspoint out, people of different races livein the same world but see it completelydifferently.

And, in fact, many try to make theirworlds different. The book regretfullydescribes the different television pro-grams blacks and whites watch, the dif-

ferent magazines they read, and the seg-regated churches they attend. Blacksidentify with Africa, celebrate the racialholiday of Kwanza, have their own “na-tional anthem” (Lift Every Voice and

Sing), and have a different “culture”

from that of whites. In effect they are aseparate nation within the territory of theUnited States.

So what do the authors propose to doabout this? What is the “alternative vi-sion of our collective future” that theypropose, given the persistence of racialseparation in America? The only indi-cation that they have actually consideredan “alternative vision” is to suggest oneand immediately reject it: “To those whosay that the only alternative to the inte-gration ideal is separate but equal, wevehemently disagree.” They give no rea-

sons; separation just won’t do.Instead, they say the country should:(1) Mount a national effort to recog-

nize the uniquely tragic experience of blacks. They say that just as Jews havemade the Holocaust into a badge of unique suffering and special deserving,blacks should do the same with their ownhistory.

(2) It would then be possible to pro-mote racial preferences as “a positivegood that all Americans should be proudto support.”

(3) Finally, the centerpiece of their

efforts would be a massive campaign of anti-racist television advertisements that

would “educate us on subtle discrimi-nation or alert us to the racial hurt wecause each other.” The ads would “chal-lenge white middle-class homeownersto rethink why they consider sellingwhen a black middle-class family movesin next door.” The authors propose somespecifics:

“Imagine an ad that shows twowomen, one black and slightly over-weight, the other white and well-tai-lored, and then asks us to choose whichone is the welfare mom and which oneis the business executive–to be followedby another ad that shows two men, oneblack in sweats and one white in a poloshirt, which asks us to choose the ex-convict and the business executive.”

Anti-racist television must “saturatethe airwaves and keep reinforcing theideas behind it,” and “in the hands of the creative and resourceful advertising

industry, there is no limit to the assump-tions and stereotypes such a campaigncan challenge.”

In a book that has already pointed outthat “the races do not have to hate eachother to be divided, and indeed we canbe very cordial about it,” these propos-als are so breath-takingly idiotic it is hardto imagine the authors are being serious.Blacks already try to dine out every nighton slavery, whites are sick of racial pref-erences, and a saturation campaign to getwhites to love blacks–which will neverbe funded anyway–would certainly

backfire.This book is a perfect example of the

incoherence and dishonesty of Ameri-can thinking about race. The authorshave discovered the obvious: that inte-gration hasn’t happened. They have evenmanaged to be slightly daring and sug-gest that it may never happen. Then, ina paroxysm of stupidity they proposeeven wilder, more unrealistic versionsof the kind of propaganda they alreadyadmit has failed. The tragedy is that thisis precisely the way the country hashandled race relations for the past 40

years.

This book is a perfectexample of the incoher-

ence and dishonestyof American thinking

about race.

O Tempora, O Mores!

Justice Grinds On

On the evening of Feb. 20, 1990,Robert Simon and Anthony Carr–bothblack–were burgling Carl Parker’s housein Lambert, in Mississippi’s Quitman

County. Mr. Parker, along with threeother family members–all white–arrivedhome to find a pickup truck loaded withloot just about to drive off. The surprisedthieves held the Parker family at gunpoint and tied up Mr. Parker’s 12-year-

old half brother Greg and then shot himin the back. They raped and sodomizedhis nine-year-old half sister Charlotte Jobefore they killed her. They shot his step-mother, Bobbie Jo in the chest, and theyalso killed Carl Parker himself. They cut

WWWWW




off his ring finger to get his weddingband–whether before or after they killedhim is not known. Then they draggedthe four bodies into Mr. Parker’s houseand burned it down over them.

Mr. Simon and Mr. Carr were ar-rested, tried, and given the death pen-alty, but the story did not end there. The

usual appeals mean that nine years laterthe two men are still alive–and that thepeople of Quitman county are still pay-ing. Various trials and appeals have al-ready cost more than $250,000, since thecounty had to pay for defense lawyersfor the two indigent blacks. Continuedlegal maneuvering is estimated to cost$60,000 a year. This is a lot of moneyfor a poor, rural Mississippi county of only 10,500 residents. The county hastaken out loans and raised taxes twicein order to cover the cost of defendingthe killers.

Scott Parker, Carl Parker’s 34-year-old son, was not with his father that Fri-day night. He lives and works inQuitman County. “They take money outfor my taxes,” he explains. “Part of thatmoney is going to the guys who killedmy daddy. That’s not right.” (AllenBreed, Price of Justice Makes PoorCounty Even Poorer, Detroit News,March 21, 1999, p. 19A.)

Back to the Old Ways

The Zimbabwean Supreme Court has

decided that some pre-colonial traditionsare better than the white man’s ways. Ina unanimous, 5-0 decision, the courtfound that the “nature of African soci-ety” is such that women cannot be con-sidered the legal equals of men. Accord-ing to unwritten custom, a woman is notreally an adult but a “junior male.” Thismeans women do not have the right toinherit property or conduct their ownmarriage arrangements. In divorce casesthey have no legal rights to their chil-dren. The Supreme Court justices notedthat the Zimbabwe constitution prohib-

its discrimination on the basis of “race,tribe, place of origin, political opinions,color or creed,” but argued that “theseprovisions do not forbid discriminationbased on sex.” (Neely Tucker, RulingStrips Zimbabwe Women of MostRights, Orange County Register, April,14, 1999, p. 11.)

Meanwhile, earlier this spring, civilwar in Sierra Leone wrought particularlygrizzly carnage. Rebels fighting againstthe government of President Ahmad

Tejan Kabbah had taken parts of thecapital, Freetown, but were pushed back by a West African intervention forcecomposed of troops from the region. Aspart of its retreat, the RevolutionaryUnited Front and its allies slaughteredand maimed thousands of civilians. Therebels’ favorite tactic was to chop off

hands and arms, sometimes offering thevictim the choice of “short sleeves” or

“long sleeves”–to be cut above or be-

low the elbow. European doctors esti-mate that approximately a quarter of thevictims survived these amputations,which were carried out with axes andmachetes on men, women, and children.

Some of the most vicious rebels wereonly children; the government captured“soldiers” as young as eight years old.As they withdrew from Freetown, therebels taunted the people they hadmaimed, urging them to apply to thegovernment for new arms and hands.U.N. officials report that one rebelwoman specialized in cutting off the ears

of Freetown residents, and wore her tro-phies around her neck. Other rebels pre-ferred to cut off lips. The conflict haspitted different tribal groups against eachother. (Dean Murphy, West AfricanRebels on Mutilation Campaign, LosAngeles Times, March 14, 1999, p.A14.)

Out of the Mouths of . . . .

The Contra Costa (California) Timesrecently published a guest editorial ex-pressing the following sound views:

“Although the United States is noYugoslavia, Americans can ill afford toignore disturbing signs of rising racialand ethnic tensions at home.”

“ . . . this country is now experienc-ing the greatest sustained inflow of im-migrants in its history, over 1.2 millionper year on the average, plus hundredsof thousands of “temporary” workers.

“Recent newcomers have come fromover 100 countries, and are not assimi-lating.

“ . . . competition for resources anddifferences in culture and ethnicity areoften the main dividing forces in multi-ethnic societies, as illustrated by themass killings in the former Yugoslaviaand recent atrocities committed againstethnic Chinese in Indonesia.”

“ . . . immigration is a time-bomb that

must be addressed.“A necessary and urgent step is forWashington to lower annual immigra-tion to no more than the traditional levelof approximately 200,000 a year.”

The name of the author ? Yeh Ling-Ling. (Yeh Ling-Ling, What Can Koso-vo Teach Us? Contra Costa Times, May15, 1999.)

Who Is Black?

African-Americans and Haitian im-migrants are not getting along in Miami.

The latest row concerns how to spend a$118,000 federal grant earmarked forBroward County. The grant was spon-sored by the Congressional Black Cau-cus and came with the stipulation that itbe used to help “. . . African-Americansliving with HIV/AIDS.” Native blackstook the wording to mean it was strictlyfor them while Haitian leaders claimedthey also qualified under the definition.

A nine-member “multicultural com-mittee of the Broward County HIVHealth Services Planning Council” wascharged with settling the dispute. For

two hours the panel heard argumentsabout who qualified as an African-American. After much yelling the panelvoted six to two (with one abstention)that Haitians must be included–thoughdark-skinned Cubans need not apply.One committee member who votedagainst including Haitians was TyranceKingdom who said, “What you’re see-ing here–again–is money being rail-roaded from the black community. I’mfrom Mississippi and ‘African-Ameri-can’ means ‘black-American.’ ”

Mr. Kingdom may have to get used

to Haitian dominance in Miami, sincetheir numbers are increasing more rap-idly than those of native blacks. In themean time, the future majority does notthink it is being well treated. One immi-grant writes: “My experience as a Hai-tian-American with African-Americanschoolmates was one filled with racialepithets such as ‘H.B.O. (Haitian bodyodor),’ Haitians eat cats, Haitians areboat people, and Haitians have AIDS. .. . These African-American kids were




taught at home to despise Haitians.”(Marc Mathieu, Immigrant Song, NewTimes Broward-Palm Beach, January28-February 3, p.3. Paul Belden, ColorBlinded, New Times Broward-PalmBeach, January 28–February 3, 1999,pp. 5.)

Kill the MessengerThe US Education Department’s Of-

fice of Civil Rights has been quietly cir-culating a warning to universities that itfrowns on the use of SAT scores in de-termining student admissions. The SAThas a “disparate impact” on blacks andHispanics, which is to say they don’tscore as well as whites or Asians. ArthurColeman, Deputy Assistant Secretary forCivil Rights, says, “To the extent thatschools are recipients of federal fundsand are not aware of potential discrimi-

nation issues, we hope this guide [thewarning] will inform them.” Use of theSAT has not yet been forbidden and nofederal suits have been brought againstschools that use it, but unless there issome mobilization against the depart-ment’s position, schools could lose theirmost reliable gauge of student ability.(Alan R. Lang, Blaming the SATs, WallStreet Journal, June 10, 1999.)

Le Pen v. Mégret

In the February issue AR reported on

a very damaging split in the French na-tionalist movement, which pitted theFront National’s Jean-Marie Le Penagainst his best known lieutenant, BrunoMégret. The two men have been battlingin court over which faction is the legiti-mate Front National and therefore en-titled to use the party name, occupy itsbuildings, and receive the nearly $8 mil-lion a year the FN gets from the govern-ment on the basis of its past vote-win-ning record. The Mégret group arguesthat it was formed as the result of a prop-erly constituted party congress, which

elected the former number-two man ashead of the party. However, in May, aFrench court ruled that the break-awaycongress was not called on the basis of enough valid signatures of party mem-bers, and that its deliberations thereforewere not official Front National acts.The Mégret group is therefore a newparty and must have a separate name,premises, and finances. The new party’sname is National Movement, but the twoparties together are considerably weaker

than the old, united FN. (Frank Mess-mann, Court Rules in Favor of Far-RightLeader Le Pen, Agence France Press,May 11, 1999.)

Much to the horror of the rest of hisfamily, Charles de Gaulle (the famousgeneral’s 50-year-old grandson) cam-paigned with Mr. Le Pen for elections

to the European Parliament. In theMay 19th issue of France’s leading butlefty newspaper, Le Monde, no fewerthan 57 of the general’s descendantsberated their cousin for throwing inhis lot with the nationalists. “No, Mr.Charles de Gaulle . . . your name doesn’tbelong to you, it doesn’t belong to youto use it to defend ideas and men whofor half a century have been the enemiesof what Gen. de Gaulle represented,’’they wrote. “We, his grandsons, hisgranddaughter, his great nieces andnephews, unanimously protest against

the insult to the life and memory of ourgrandfather and grand uncle.” Charleshad a ready answer: “Jean-Marie Le Penhas the same ideas as the general. That’sthe reality.’’ (Deborah Seward, DeGaulle’s Grandson Appalls Family, AP,May 19, 1999.)

As AR goes to press, it appears thatMr. Le Pen and Mr. de Gaulle are headedfor seats in the European Parliament,with the FN winning just under six per-cent of the vote. Mr. Mégret’s NationalMovement got just over three percent,shy of the five percent that would have

meant representation in Brussels andreimbursement of campaign expenses.The combined total for the two formerpartners was about nine percent, wellbelow the 15 percent predicted beforethe split. Mr. Mégret put a brave face ondefeat, but the results do not augur wellfor his struggling new party.

Schools Resegregate

A report from Harvard Law Schooland the Graduate School of Educationsays that school resegregation is on the

rise. A study of enrollment patterns from1968 to the mid 1990s finds that al-though the number of non-white stu-dents is rising, more and more of themare going to schools with few whites.During this nearly 30-year period His-panic enrollments were up 218 percent,and nearly 75 percent of Hispanics nowattend schools that are majority non-white. The number of black students hasrisen 22 percent, and 69 percent attendmajority-non-white schools. Over the

same period, white enrollments havedeclined by 16 percent but most whitesgo to schools that are 80 percent or morewhite. The study finds that these trendshold true even for whites who live inmajority-non-white areas and for non-

whites who live in the suburbs. Schoolsthat are mostly black and Hispanic are11 times more likely than mostly-whiteschools to be in areas with concentratedpoverty. Black students are most heavilysegregated in the following states, in thefollowing order: Michigan, Illinois, NewYork, New Jersey, Maryland. (AnjettaMcQueen, Report Cites Resegregation

Trend, AP, June 12, 1999.)

“Racism” Everywhere

Whenever a white police officershoots a black criminal there are shoutsof “racism.” Now blacks in Chicago aregrumbling about “racism” even when theofficers doing the shooting are black.During the June 5-6 weekend a black woman being pursued by police was shotwhen a black officer thought the cellphone in her hand was a gun. On thesame weekend, a black officer acciden-

tally shot a black man who went for theofficer’s gun.

On June 9, a Chicago city councilmeeting erupted into shouting and shov-ing when protesters accused officials of downplaying the idea that “racism” wassomehow to blame. Alderman DorothyTillman, who is black, thinks black of-ficers are being taught to mistreat blacks.“We cannot sugarcoat this,” she said.“We cannot say that these were black officers and that’s it.” She has demandedthat the city hand over data that wouldback up her assumption that black po-

lice mistreat black citizens just as whitepolice do. The Chicago police superin-tendent reports that no fewer than fiveseparate investigations into the shoot-ings are under way. (Martha Irvine, An-swers Sought in Police Shootings, AP,June 10, 1999.)

Responsible black officers are just aslikely as white officers to find “racialprofiling” useful. When this fact is dis-covered it will no doubt be seen as evi-dence of “self-hatred” or “racist indoc-




trination” rather than as a necessary andeffective measure against black crime.

Keeping the Game Black

The National Minority College Golf Championship has been held annuallyfor the last 13 years, but this year some-

thing unusual happened. The winningteam, which won with a 28-stroke lead,was all white. Bethune-Cookman Col-lege, a “historically black” school inDaytona Beach, provoked outrage andan immediate rule change when its care-fully-recruited five-man team walked off with the trophy.

“It was very frustrating to see, I cantell you that,” said Craig Bowen, execu-tive director of the tournament. “Ourpurpose is to provide a venue for mi-nority student-athletes in a sport that haslong been short on minority athletes.”

Bethune-Cookman was not alone infielding an all-white team. “So did Jack-son State and Tennessee State, schoolswith overwhelmingly black student bod-ies and traditions,” complained Mr.Bowen. “When you go out and recruitwhite players, it’s totally counter to whatwe want to do here.” Jackson State fin-ished second.

Tournament organizers are deter-mined to keep white hands off the tro-phy. Henceforth, a team may have nomore than two whites on it, and the com-petition will be open to any universitywith at least three non-whites on its

team.Gary Freeman, Bethune-Cookman’s

golf coach, smells a double standard.“No one raises any complaints whenDuke University, a mostly white school,plays in national tournaments with black players,” he pointed out. “Why are theyraising a stink when we play with whiteplayers?” Mr. Freeman said that if thenew rules prevent him from bringing hisbest players to next year’s tournament,Bethune-Cookman will not defend its

title. “I’m not putting up any quotas onmy team,” he says. (John Steinman, B-CC is Blasted for Golf Victory, OrlandoSentinel, June 5, 1999.)

The New South Africa

Reason, the libertarian magazine,

continues to publish excellent articlesabout life in post-apartheid South Af-rica. The June issue reports that the mur-der rate of 63 per 100,000 is now ninetimes that of the United States and thatfor white farmers–who have been sys-tematically targeted–the rate is a stag-gering 120. The same article notes thatthe police absenteeism rate is about 30percent a day, and that in 1997 14 per-cent of the national police force werecharged with crimes.

The article continues: “To make mat-ters worse, President Nelson Mandela

celebrated his 80th birthday last year byreleasing 9,000 criminals early. The nextday two of them murdered an elderlycouple. Another released convict, whohad been imprisoned for raping a 50-year-old woman and then hacking herto death, promptly tied up and raped histwo nieces, 13 and 14, and went ontorape at least five other children.”

Elsewhere, the article notes the sharpincrease in carjackings and observes:“One ANC official denied there hadbeen a real increase in hijackings, claim-ing that ‘whites’ were making fraudu-

lent reports to collect insurance pay-ments. Another official blamed thehijackings on what he described as theapartheid government’s policy of givinghijackers immunity from prosecution.He didn’t explain how a government thathas been out of power for five yearscould give immunity to people commit-ting carjackings now.” (Jim Peron,Crime Stoppers, Reason, June, 1999, p.56.)

Will They Wear Black?

The United Cricket Board of SouthAfrica has decided that the game is toowhite. During a two-day developmentconference in May, the board decidedthat the entire sport–players, umpires,administration–must be 50 percent black in three years. The goal is to achieve a25 percent representation in the firstyear, 40 percent the next, and 50 per-cent in the third year. That is supposedto set in motion trends that will eventu-ally lead to the sport becoming domi-

nated by blacks in proportion to theirpercentage in the South African popu-lation. Beginning immediately, prov-inces are forbidden to field all-whiteteams in senior competitions. (RodneyHartman, Cricket ‘Must Have 50-50Racial Split,’ Sunday Times (London),May 30, 1999.)

Frisco Follies

On April 13, a black man was foundbound and gagged in front of BuenaVista Park in San Francisco. The man,whom police have not identified,claimed he had been abducted by four“neo-Nazi types” who held him in a vanand carved a swastika on his chest. SanFrancisco police investigated the inci-dent as a hate crime and even went toOregon to look for leads and interviewpotential suspects. Meanwhile, officials

from the police crime lab turned up in-consistencies in the man’s story. Heeventually confessed that he made up thewhole incident, telling police that hescratched the swastika on himself andtied himself up “for personal reasons.”(Ray Delgado, Man Admits InventingRacist Assault in San Francisco, SanFrancisco Examiner, May 8, 1999, p.A5.)

India for the Indians

Sonia Gandhi is the widow of assas-

sinated Congress Party Prime Ministerof India, Rajiv Gandhi. Last year shebecame the leader of her husband’s party,which is in opposition to the rulingBharatiya Janata Party (BJP), a Hindunationalist party. In April she announceda bid to become prime minister as headof a Congress-led government. Mrs.Gandhi is a white woman from Italy whomarried the former prime minister, andbecame an Indian citizen in 1983. TheBJP has criticized her non-Indian ori-gins, calling her a “foreigner” who isunfit to lead.

Now members of her own party aresaying the same thing. Three high-rank-ing officials of the Congress party–in-cluding a former parliamentary speakerand a former candidate for prime minis-ter–want the Indian constitution amend-ed to reserve the posts of president, vicepresident and prime minister for “natu-ral-born Indian citizens.” In a letter toMrs. Gandhi, Congress party officialsexplained, “It is not possible that a coun-try of 980 million . . . can have anyone



other than an Indian born of Indian soil,to head its government. It is an issue thateffects not just the security, the economicinterest and the international image of India, but hits at the core pride of everyIndian.” Mrs. Gandhi dropped out of therace a few days later. (Nativists in OwnParty Spurn Gandhi’s Prime Minister

Bid, Washington Times, May 17, 1999,p. A15. Pamela Constable, GandhiDrops Out; Party in Turmoil, Washing-ton Post, May 18, 1999, p. A15.)

Fact-Free Duluth

In 1998 a Duluth, Minnesota, groupcalled Violence Free Duluth, decided tostudy a year’s worth of city gun crimes.Among the factors they were to considerwere the type of gun used, the role of alcohol and drugs, relationship betweenoffender and victim, and the age, race

and sex of the criminals. In April, thegroup released its study of the 93 guncrimes reported in 1997 but they left onething out: race of offenders. Frank Jewell, coordinator of the group, saidthis was because “there’s a real concernamong people of color that if the datashows a high number (of minority of-fenders), they’re doing more of it. Butmany people would say they’re simplyarrested more. We didn’t include it be-cause we thought it might be misinter-preted.” Mr. Jewell declined to divulgewhat the race data showed.

Even the police–at least officially–approve of suppressing the facts. DeputyPolice Chief Robert Grytdahl says thetruth might make whites smug: “It’s acomfortable place for white people topark the (gun crime) problem. It wouldbe a huge distraction, and we wanted tofocus on firearms.” (Larry Oakes,Duluth Gun, Crime Study WithholdsRace Data, Minneapolis Star Tribune,April 30, 1999.)

Gap Widens

The achievement gap between black and white students grew in 17 states andnarrowed in seven between 1992 and1998 according to an Education Trustreport based on the National Assessmentof Educational Progress (NAEP) read-ing scores. The gap between whites andHispanics grew in eight states and nar-rowed in four. Nationwide, the percent-age of white fourth graders readingabove “proficient achievement” level onthe NAEP rose from 35 percent in 1992

to 39 percent in 1998. The black rate rosefrom eight to ten percent and Hispanicsdropped from 16 to 13 percent. (SomeStates’ Racial Test Score Gaps Continueto Widen, Montgomery Advertiser,March 6, 1999.)

Here They Come

An estimated 12,000 Africans areexpected to immigrate to the UnitedStates in 1999. This is the largest num-ber ever admitted in a single year, and isfour times the number that came in 1990.Most are Somalis, Ethiopians, andLiberians, and come as “refugees.” Theincrease has been the result of politicalpressure on Congress from refugee aidorganizations. Many of the refugeescome to the Minneapolis-St. Paul area,and are expected to start chain-migra-

tion applications for relatives in Africa.As the numbers increase in the TwinCities, other Africans in the UnitedStates can be expected to move there,too. The area now offers excellent op-portunities for teachers, social workers,and hospital attendants who speak Am-haric or Somali. (Kimberly Taylor, Larg-

est Number of Africans are Coming tothe U.S., Star Tribune (Minneapolis/St.Paul), June 6, 1991.)

Third-World Onomastics

When it comes to choosing names fortheir children Brazilians have–well–made a name for themselves. Just aboutanything goes. Xerox, Welfare, D’A-rtagnan, Saddam Hussein, Tchaikovsky,Waterloo, Skylab–such are some of thesurprises to be found in the telephonebook. American-sounding names that

end in on–which has a particularlyhearty ring in Brazilian ears–are espe-cially favored by slum-dwellers: Ander-son, Robson, Washington, and Edson (acorruption of Edison). Many Brazilians just like the way a name looks or sounds.Portuguese does not use the letters K,W, or Y, so some parents use them de-liberately. Diana, which was popularbecause of the late princess, becomesTayane. Caroline becomes Kerolyne,and Malcolm becomes Myacon.

There is a law on the books that for-bids names that would expose children

to ridicule but it is rarely enforced. Onebureaucrat, however, refused to let amother name her boy Rambo, and evenrejected her second choice: SylvesterStallone. Sometimes parents choosenames with the best of intentions. Oneman named Waterloo explains that hisfather thought the family was going tomove to England and wanted his son tohave a name that would fit right in.

The upper classes stick to more tra-ditional names, but the rest of the coun-try has had iconoclastic tendencies for along time: During the Second World

War, Adolph Hitler was a popular name.(Sebastian Rotella, What’s in a Name?At Time, Fun, LA Times, May 17, 1999,p. A1.)

Be Prepared

The Kenyan government has set adeadline of April 2000 for a report onpreparations for the year 2000 computerproblem. (No Need to Rush, HoustonChronicle, April 25, 1999, p. 2A.)

NCF in the News

New Century Foundation(NCF), which publishes American Renaissance, has

issued an academic report on race,crime, and violence called The Color

of Crime. It contains some of thesame information as the cover storyof this issue, but is much more rig-orous in its treatment of the data. Itis directed toward a skeptical, aca-demic or journalistic audience, andincludes citations of sources, expli-cations of methods, and even sev-eral facsimile pages from key gov-ernment data sources. The 16-pagereport, which has been widely dis-tributed to the press, is available tothe public at a price of $5.00, whichincludes shipping. The price for ten

copies or more is $3.00 per copy.Please send orders to AR.

On June 2, Jared Taylor held anews conference at the NationalPress Club to announce release of thereport. The conference was broad-cast live by C-SPAN, and resultedin tremendous public interest. NCFhas been flooded with calls and let-ters, many from police departmentsand officer organizations. Video-tapes of the 45-minute press confer-ence are available for $19.95 fromthe address below:

Renaissance Audio-VisualBox 1543

Marietta, GA 30061E-mail: [email protected]

WWWWW

199907 american renaissance

Documents