2011 Official NYC Crime Thread (Italy: misdemeanor, flood, American)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Umm...we have a difference of opinion based on facts. I agree that these groups are the minority group in the US, but globally they are not. Furthermore, if white accounds for 33%, who are the other 64%? NON-WHITE, so whites are the minority, not majority in NYC.
As for the Irish, they were never considered white..do you even know what that term comes from? It is short for White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, none of which are Irish. Catholic European ethnic groups were never white, but subsequently were bestowed the white moniker as subsequent, and even more undesirable non-white groups like Italians flooded into America. They were absorbed into the white group as they needed the numbers, and as they became accepted.
Caucasian and white have little to do with eachother. White is a societal term, Caucasian is racial. 50 years from now we could be calling Puerto Ricans white....depends on whether America finds it beneficial to bestow this term on them.
In government statistics white is a very general term for a person of predominately West Eurasian ancestry (European, North African, Iranian, Armenian, Jewish, Arabic, other Middle Easterners, and non-black Hispanic). While the term black designates a person of Sub-Saharan African ancestry, and in this country they primarily from West Africa, a much smaller geographic region. This has been the case for many decades already.
However this has greatly skewed the analysis of information that gets cited. It is not uncommon for people to read something about 'whites' and immediately imagine only individuals with fair skin and hair, or WASPs. For example, some have incorrectly said that "whites" (as in Anglos) commit about the same number of murders as blacks. Yet this is a distorted point of view and quite unfair. In fact the number of homicides by black offenders is a whole lot more obscene, taking into consideration the more restrictive definition of what black means in the statistics and their relatively small numbers. According to 2009 FBI data, 5,890 blacks committed murder, they are 12% of the American population. While 5,286 murders were done by the non-black (and non-Asian) ethnicities, or 72% of the population.
This basically means that for every murder in the country it is 6 times as likely for it to be caused by someone of black heritage. Even more disturbing than that is that while we assume that most murder victims are of the same race as the perpetrator, that isn't the case by a significant discrepancy. There are twice as many non-black victims of black criminals than there are blacks victimized by criminals of other races. The difference is 245 more murder victims killed by a black perpetrator within one year. The information and statistics are very sobering. It is also disappointing to see black criminals plague their communities and the rest of the nation in increasingly grotesque numbers, while other poor ethnic minorities have at least moderated in the amount of crime.
In government statistics white is a very general term for a person of predominately West Eurasian ancestry (European, North African, Iranian, Armenian, Jewish, Arabic, other Middle Easterners, and non-black Hispanic). While the term black designates a person of Sub-Saharan African ancestry, and in this country they primarily from West Africa, a much smaller geographic region. This has been the case for many decades already.
However this has greatly skewed the analysis of information that gets cited. It is not uncommon for people to read something about 'whites' and immediately imagine only individuals with fair skin and hair, or WASPs. For example, some have incorrectly said that "whites" (as in Anglos) commit about the same number of murders as blacks. Yet this is a distorted point of view and quite unfair. In fact the number of homicides by black offenders is a whole lot more obscene, taking into consideration the more restrictive definition of what black means in the statistics and their relatively small numbers. According to 2009 FBI data, 5,890 blacks committed murder, they are 12% of the American population. While 5,286 murders were done by the non-black (and non-Asian) ethnicities, or 72% of the population.
This basically means that for every murder in the country it is 6 times as likely for it to be caused by someone of black heritage. Even more disturbing than that is that while we assume that most murder victims are of the same race as the perpetrator, that isn't the case by a significant discrepancy. There are twice as many non-black victims of black criminals than there are blacks victimized by criminals of other races. The difference is 245 more murder victims killed by a black perpetrator within one year. The information and statistics are very sobering. It is also disappointing to see black criminals plague their communities and the rest of the nation in increasingly grotesque numbers, while other poor ethnic minorities have at least moderated in the amount of crime.
Good points and accurate synopsis of different races. I was listening to NPR the other day about how blacks commit homicide more often than whites, but that whites commit suicide more often than blacks. The sociologist that was being interviewed explained that blacks commit homicide more frequently because they blame their troubles and underprivileged lives on society. I suppose this makes sense since blacks are the most oppressed race in American history. Whites tend to commit suicide more often than homicide because they feel that they have been granted privileged lives, and that there is no excuse for them to feel poorly or depressed about their livelihood. Interesting stuff.
Sobroguy, you should stop writing because you'll just embarrass yourself (like you already have). The other 64%? Oh, I didn't know that we measured the city's demographics by whites versus every other race . 23 percent are black, 13 percent are asian, and 29 percent said they were hispanic.
So, are societal terms separate from racial terms? Is race not a societal term? Please enlighten me professor sobro.
No one was absorbed into anything. If you happened to have a light or tan skin color with facial features and hair similar to that of a WASP, you would categorize yourself as white. Being white has its advantages or I should say had.
I don't measure anything, however the powers that be have lumped together minorities, aka anyone that is non-white. Therefore, it is white vs non-white..I certainly didn't create this system...now I wonder who did? Societal terms are different from racial terms dude...I mean seriously are you asking that question? Caucasians include Arabs, like Saudis...are they white? NO. They also include North Africans...are they white? NO.
White is an arbitrary term that changes as the country sees fit....if not..the only people considered white would be the Dutch, British and Germans, and the white population would be about 25% of the country. Whites could not allow that, so they bestowed the term on non-white populations, aka Irish, Italians, and every other European. It had nothing to do with self-identification, and all about acceptance by the dominant white population. Learn your history so you don't embarass yourself. In another 25 years, you'll be calling Puerto Ricans white too.
Umm...we have a difference of opinion based on facts. I agree that these groups are the minority group in the US, but globally they are not. Furthermore, if white accounds for 33%, who are the other 64%? NON-WHITE, so whites are the minority, not majority in NYC.
As for the Irish, they were never considered white..do you even know what that term comes from? It is short for White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, none of which are Irish. Catholic European ethnic groups were never white, but subsequently were bestowed the white moniker as subsequent, and even more undesirable non-white groups like Italians flooded into America. They were absorbed into the white group as they needed the numbers, and as they became accepted.
Caucasian and white have little to do with eachother. White is a societal term, Caucasian is racial. 50 years from now we could be calling Puerto Ricans white....depends on whether America finds it beneficial to bestow this term on them.
LEts give it a break down for the future, Puerto Ricans and Cubans will be acceptede as whites, Mexicans will be Native Americans considering Native American numbers are dwindelling and Dominicans will be considered Black. ********** im off to Bruckner bar and Grill gonna try some new lager they have.
According to the federal government, there are 6 "races": white, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, and "Other." White Hispanics are still included in the Hispanic category.
Of course, no one can tell you how to classify yourself. And, I hope for the day when we are all just "human." Yeah, "mixed marriages"!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. 23 percent are black, 13 percent are asian, and 29 percent said they were hispanic. 
