October 5: This post is closed, but if you’ve got more to say, here’s the latest post.
————————————————————————————————
Update: I decided to put blogger links up top where you’re sure to see them: Technorati, Protein Wisdom, Generation Why, B Relevant, Civil Commotion, Sister Toldjah, Scipio the Metalcon, PEER Review, One Voice Now, JivinJehoshaphat, Independent Conservative, The Colossus of Rhodey, Baldilocks, The Defiance, Colorado Democrat, Hyscience…
Black Genocide is an informative site. Check it out.
————————————————————————————————-
People have nothing better to do than blow the most mundane things out of proportion. This post is not so much a defense of Bill Bennett (because he has nothing to defend) as it is a response to people who keep e-mailing to ask if I’m going to respond to Bennett’s remarks.
Last Wednesday on his radio show, this is what Bennett said in response to a caller’s comment about abortion and crime:
But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose — you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, you know, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
In typical fashion, black politicians and other hustlers are calling for Bennett’s head on a platter. In the backrooms, out of sight, white liberals are jumping for joy. If they can’t sell their ideas enough to win elections, they’ll keep floating the conservatives-are-racists meme because they know exactly how blacks will react.
First of all, I am embarrassed that blacks react in such predictable ways whenever a white conservative utters anything remotely related to skin color. All pretense of reason flies right out the window, blown about like a feather caught up in the wind. White liberals thrive on it, my friends.
Part of what makes Democrats liberal is that their agenda, devoid of real ideas and solutions, is based on race. In order to win elections, they must pit the races against each other. Constant racial and class warfare is what they wage, nothing more. For the love of God, I am asking blacks to think, use their minds and stop reacting with infantile emotion.
You’ve allowed the media to fan you into a feeding frenzy. The white men you vote for every election don’t give a rat’s behind about you or your black babies, so why, for crying out loud, do you allow yourselves to be manipulated and played like screechy violins by a bunch of snot-nosed, empty-headed goofs in left-leaning newsrooms?
Frankly, it makes black people look like insolent children. It magnifies either a reluctance or inability to think beyond the sound bite. If white Democrats are raging over it, it must be a big deal, right? The anti-intellectual streak in too many parts of the black community is absolutely abhorrent.
Why do black Americans, people who live in the greatest country in the world where they have the kind of freedom that blacks in other countries can only fantasize about, believe they’re the most put-upon and oppressed race in the history of the world? Get in line! Many cultures have done much worse to all kind of people, including people of their own race.
Second, black liberals have been voting for people who openly advocate abortion for the past 30 years! Child killing is morally reprehensible, as Bill Bennett said, but for some strange reason, it doesn’t bother black folks when it’s time to go to the polls. A full 90 percent continue voting for whites who advocate the death of black babies. They consort with white women whose life mission is child killing via Planned Parenthood.
The head honcho was the late Margaret Sanger, who was a eugenicist. I wrote about Sanger in Black Women And Child Killing, Irreverent Reverends, Part II, and Pro-Life Achievement Awards Luncheon.
Black women are more than three times as likely than white women to kill their babies in utero. Thirty-six percent of all abortions are performed on black women. Bennett said that is morally reprehensible. But you won’t ever hear the media-addicted Jesse Jackson or the clownish Al Sharpton or the virulent Howard Dean or bigoted John Kerry say that. Your very own NAACP OFFICIALLY advocates the murders of its own people, and over 70 percent of black babies are born to women who didn’t bother to get married and create a stable home for their children, but you’re “outraged” over what some white man said?
A bunch of hysterical hypocrites, the whole lot of you.
Third, Bennett’s hypothetical is based on fact. Blacks are 12.3 percent of the population, and about half are black men, which means black men are approximately 6 percent of the U.S. population. [Note: Until I remember where I got a certain statistic and link to the source, I'm deleting it. Look for an update tomorrow. In the meantime, the stats found at BJS are still alarming.] (see Bureau of Justice Statistics). Why aren’t you outraged over those shameful statistics?
Hypothetically speaking, if fewer black boys were born, there’d be fewer around to commit crimes. Bennett didn’t (and couldn’t if he wanted to!) say that all blacks commit crimes. In the aggregate, however, blacks commit a disproportionate number of crimes relative to their numbers in the general population. It follows, statistically speaking, that the fewer blacks there are, the fewer crimes will be committed. This is not a racist statement, people. It is a statistical reality. Blame black criminal thugs for preying on their own people, not Bill Bennett for pointing it out. Illogical!
The problem with the black subculture in general — not each and every individual black person — is that facts have little meaning. Emotions and hair-trigger reactions to anything racial are the norm. And you know what? It sets a bad precedent for our children. They must learn to use their minds, to reason and to think critically about these issues, not throw tantrums because somebody said something they didn’t like.
Bennett’s crime was alluding to black crime rates. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s OK to discuss black grievances and entitlements but taboo to discuss black criminality. James Taranto of the Opinion Journal concurs:
So why do we see this as a sign of political correctness’s decline? Well, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, we kept hearing from our liberal friends that what this country needs is an honest discussion of race. Of course, liberals who call for a discussion of race never actually want it to be honest. Rather, they want to engage in the old familiar ritual in which blacks air their grievances, white liberals trumpet their moral superiority, the rest of us shut up and listen, and dissenters are shamed and silenced (see John Conyers’s and Wade Henderson’s demands regarding Bennett, above). (Emphasis added)
If I were Bennett, I wouldn’t apologize for jack.
An economist named Steven Levitt, author of the best-seller Freakonomics, made a similar argument about crime rates and abortion. He said that the legalization of abortion in the 1970s led to a reduction in crime a generation later.
I criticized his theory in Steven Levitt Says Child Killing Reduces Crime, and he responded to the post in comments, as did his main critic, Steve Sailer here and here. The post wasn’t so much a shot against Levitt; I was questioning his implications. I urge you to read it carefully and follow the links in the post. Sailer argues in Pre-emptive Executions?, a must-read, that the numbers show exactly the opposite of Levitt’s theory:
[D]id the first New, Improved Generation culled by legalized abortion actually grow up to be more lawful teenagers than the last generation born before legalization? Hardly. Instead, the first cohort to survive legalized abortion went on the worst youth murder spree in American history….Their murder rate was 3.1 times worse….
It makes no sense to credit abortion for any subsequent improvement in the behavior of the first post-Roe generation, when abortion so dismally failed to keep them on the straight and narrow when they were juveniles. Instead, the most obvious explanation for the ups and downs of the murder rate is the ups and downs of the crack business.
This generation born right after legalization is better behaved today in part because so many of its bad apples are now confined to prisons, wheelchairs, and coffins.
Sailer and Levitt responded to Bennett’s remarks on their blogs, but Levitt’s seems to be down at the moment. [Levitt's blog is up. He downplays the racial angle (smart man), but it's implicit.]
Levitt’s assumptions rest on the belief that abortion reduces the number of “unwanted” babies (of lower-class women), which is why, he argues, crime rates decreased. Sailer says that crime actually went up in the generation after Roe v. Wade, owed in part to the crack epidemic and middle-class black women killing their babies.
In that regard, since middle-class women are more likely to be married than women in the underclass, black babies aborted after the legalization of child killing would’ve had better upbringings than babies born to underclass women. Of course, this whole discussion is unpleasant, but I try real hard not to let my emotions cloud the facts. There’s too much of that going on as it is.
I ask you, why weren’t the media up in arms about Levitt’s book? Because he is not a white conservative man, and it would’ve made for a dull sound bite. It’s as simple as that. If the media don’t cause a firestorm about something, blacks don’t pay much attention to it.
If this post sounds like a rage against black people, that’s because it is. I care more about how we live and think as a people than I do about what whites have to say, including white conservatives.
I’m opening this post for comments so that people can discuss these ideas rationally and respectfully. But be warned. My tolerance level for irrational emotionalism and ad hominem against Bill Bennett, other commenters, and myself is extremely low. In fact, it’s so low I’m liable to ban even first-time offenders. Watch your step.
If you have a meaningful response to Bennett’s comments (i.e., more than just a one-sentence post linking to LBC or others), trackback to this post and I’ll link to you. Haloscan users must trackback with Simpletracks or a similar tool. Please, please, please don’t e-mail the link because I will ignore it. We all could use a refresher course on learning to read carefully and following instructions.
Sources:
- Yahoo! News
- Bill Bennett’s Reality-Based Defenders
- Mr. President, You Owe Bill Bennett an Apology
- Does Bill Bennett Advocate Aborting Black Babies to Reduce Crime?
- The Black Population in the United States (2002)
Update II: Simple facts from a commenter:
Because males commit more violent crime than females, it is also statistically true that aborting all male children, regardless of race, would reduce violent crime….To do so would be monstrous. But saying so doesn’t mean that I hate men. It means that I am mathematically literate.
Update III: Although I should be used to it by now, I continued to be astounded by the paucity of clear thinking and inability to formulate arguments among my black liberal detractors. Some of the comments aren’t getting through not because the person is attacking me; poor reading comprehension, seriously flawed and flat-out incorrect assertions are also offensive. Maybe this post is attracting junior high school students, I don’t know.
There are people trying to get on the board with claims that Bennett says all black babies are prone to violence. Think for one minute, people. Sixty seconds is all I ask. That is not what he said, and you know it. If black men commit over half the violent crimes, can you not comprehend that fewer or no black men would mean fewer violent crimes? But I’m certainly not advocating aborting black babies, and neither is Bennett. Abortion is murder!
You may think Bennett was a dunce for saying it, but a statistic is not “racist.” Please, please, please stop the ignorance! If you have statistics that show the opposite or something different, then by all means, post the darn thing. Anger is one thing and hatred for me is another. I’m not marching in lockstep, so I understand your frustration. But don’t come on this blog using up my bandwidth to drop rants devoid of facts. It’s getting OLD. Use Google or something.
{ 19 trackbacks }
{ 95 comments }
You’re a Godsend. Thank you.
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU…
I was so sick of hearing all the craziness being said about this one comment (from my won family members) and I had to also step back and ask…
“what part of his comment was NOT true” and “if you are so ANTI ABORTION of black babies”…
why do you vote for the fools that you do?
(as we all know abortion has worked better than the ole’ lynching tool and we feel for it hook, line and sinker but I digress).
Of course I get the hmmm and hahs, and umms and then the truth…greed.
Anyway, thanks for making my morning.
Good morning to you La Shawn
This one comment you make sticks out …
“It’s as simple as that. If the media don’t cause a firestorm about something, blacks don’t pay much attention to it.”
For some reason Jerry Springer came to mind
That’s how many blacks like their news (and since I am black and watch this happen in my family on a daily basis I can say it and will say it). If it’s not Jerry Springer sensationalism (with very little truth), we won’t watch it or pay attention to it. We like drama (like soap operas and we like to be center of attention in all the drama).
Anyway…
LaShawn,
This column is a masterpiece…You have once again, stated something in a clear, concise and intelligent manner, and I only pray that people read it without their hair trigger emotions going off.
Thank you for a great blog.
Dan
I’ve thought about this a bit, and have come to the conclusion that the only thing Bennett could have done better was to use another example, such as saying that if all male babies were aborted, the crime rate would go down (another true statement). Bennett didn’t think quickly enough about the bogus firestorm he would create with the example he used, but he was speaking extemporaneously and that should give him some slack here. In the world outside of partisan politics, he can be faulted only in the same way we might fault someone who, without thinking, makes a reference to a fat person being fat; it may be true, but it’s not all that nice to point it out.
That said, the thing that is truly disgusting here is the left’s use of out-of-context quotes to run a character assassination campaign, aided gleefully by their buddies in the MSM. The goal is painfully obvious. It’s another “get Bush” and “get conservatives” scheme, using the old straw man technique. Proof, yet again, that there is no limit to the depths to which the left will go to regain power.
On a lighter note, it really was hilarious to hear Teddy “Hic” Kennedy, D-Chappaquiddick, lecturing Bennett on morals.
Redbeard,
Did you hear Bennett’s response on Hannity and Combs (I believe) in regards to taking “moral” lessons from Ted Kennedy? It was classic (I just hope I got the program he said them on correct).
The reaction that Renee and La Shawn are talking about: I’m surrounded by that type of thinking, especially because Jesse’s home base is in Chicago, so I often wonder how black people get out of that kind of thinking (the few that do).
La Shawn:
The genie is out of the bottle.
The real issue here is power, not race.
The “Race Warlords” of the 60’s no longer have an exclusive on the dialog about race. They can’t deal with this, except with the usual Lefrist tools:
Name calling
Denial
Renee, you have the show correct. Bennett also gave Alan Colmes a tongue lashing for not listening to what he actually said.
Another very interesting confrontation, was Brit Hume taking on Juan Williams. Juan, who described Bennett’s remark as being the equivalent of advocating genocide, definitely took it too far and Brit called him on it because he only “heard” one part of the statement and did not want to hear that Bennett said it was a “morally reprehensible theory.” Brit told him that if he would give weight to one part of the statement, then he must give weight to the entire statement.
I don’t think it matters what example Bill Bennett used, unfortunately. Someone would have found it objectionable.
Yesterday, on Chris Wallace’s Sunday morning news show, Juan Williams was all offended and wheezing and sputtering. Brit Hume kept chasing him and finally Juan Williams said that what Bennett said was the same as if you took off after the Jews for controlling the media…………… ooops!
Hey, Juan, you just made the same pile you are accusing Bennett of stepping in. Or does this only apply to white Republican guys who have written about virtue?
Law Shawn, these folks just don’t, or don’t want to, know what a hypothetical argument is. William Bennett has always been opposed to abortion, for anyone.
In all honesty…
this backlash from the left and many blacks is the type of HYPOCRISY Jesus was talking about (just some food for thought)
This one has me so “fuming” that I can’t spell
HYPOCRISY
La Shawn, you left nothing else to say, well done
.
I guess we are saying that when it comes to tackling crime issues, we do so with a blind eye toward race. And I guess if we accept that notion, we can conclude that since this behavior is disproportionate in the black community—there must be something inherent in that race. So, I will assume that since the majority, including the host, believes in the notion that this is a color-blind society that equity lies in law enforcement.
Behind the statistics are some practices, for example, profiling, and other measures that target crime. I guess if we could say that these measures didn’t exist, then, perhaps, one could agree with Bennett. But I guess some will contend that perhaps blacks shouldn’t commit the crime. True! Maybe at that point the focus will shift toward the whites committing crimes at the same rate–if not more.
I don’t know where you got the idea that I think America is a “color-blind society.” Don’t transfer your impressions about others onto me. And I made no statements or conclusions about what’s “inherent” in “that race” and what’s not. When I do, you’ll definitely know it. Draw your own conclusions and leave me out of it. – Admin
With you 100% on this one La Shawn. I wonder if many of these same people would have stood by while Jews were being murdered during the Holocaust and spent all their time and effort screaming for the head of one single individual who made a statement about it which offended them, rather than be offended by (and try to put a stop to) the murders going on in front of their faces.
It’s akin to watching Blacks being lynched daily in the old south and being outraged not at the lynchings, but at somebody who said “If all the Blacks are killed, there will be less crime”.
It Is True! Less people=less crime by logic!
Goodness knows, “no seemingly offensive remark shall be allowed to stand no matter what’s going on around it.” It’s this culture’s 11th commandment. We’re committing suicide happily and yet we get angry when we feel insulted. Our pride is leading us further over the cliff.
La Shawn, excellent post! I was discussing this subject with my wife, bleeding-heart-liberal that she is. She had only heard of the flap from listening to NPR, and was very upset at his “inflammatory remarks.” First I tried to explain that NPR is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the George Soros/Howard Dean crowd. Then I quoted the whole paragraph from Bennett, which shows he wasn’t saying what the race warlords are saying. Message not received. “He still should not have said it. It wasn’t just the normal race hustlers who were offended.” Again, I tried to explain that the MSM had simply extracted one sentence from the entire discussion and sensationalized it.
These are tough situations to discuss in my house. I’m a white conservative man married to a liberal black woman, and we rarely agree on political matters. And when I don’t fall into line with the liberal claptrap spewing from the radio and TV, I’m warned that I can be considered a racist too.
Unfortunately, La Shawn is right on target – we far too often turn to personal attacks and away from honest dialogue. I guess the best we can do is pray for God to soften people’s hearts (of every race), and see all other humans as God’s children instead of white people, black people, etc……..
LaShawn;
Your post totally rocked! It was a beautiful example of clearly delineated thinking, based in empiricism, not emotive ranting.Thus far, it was the best response to Bennet’s words which I have read. So many people responded to what they thought Bennet really meant or implied, and not to what he actually said. Nothing in his comments made any inference to genetic tendencies, but simply pointed out a statistical truth.
As to #21, there have been many studies that debunk the myths of profiling, though certainly one can still debate it or believe it. However, profiling would not account for a murder rate that is the same in absolute numbers. That is one violent crime statistic that does not have a relevant connection to profiling and can hardly be debunked…Thus the statistics on murder are considered accurate.
You say liberals openly advocate abortion; that’s incorrect; liberals do not support or oppose abortion, but a woman’s right to have one if she decides to have one. Bennett’s comments smacks of genocide, not too much different from Hitler’s solution to the “Jewish Problem.” Hitler incorrectly linked the problems of Germany to Jews, Gypsies and other Europeans who weren’t of the “master race.” Instead of the gas chamber, Bennett is suggesting abortion as a way to solve America’s crime problem. What would be the reaction if Bennett had made similar comments about the role Jews play in the business world and suggesting that Enron, Worldcom and the other recent business scandals wouldn’t have occurred if Jews weren’t part of the business world.
Bennett, Pat Robertson and other conservatives can make outrageous and irresponsible comments on the air without any consequences, while similar comments made by anyone on NPR, Pacifica or Air America would result in threats of license removal, loss of advertising or in the case of NPR/PBS, defunding and threats to shut down the network.
Bennett’s comments sends a message that Blacks are the only people in this country involved in crimes. Bennett didn’t say anything about Latins, Asians or whites, who all contribute their fair share to America’s crime rate.
My friend, if one believes a woman has a “right” to murder her unborn child, that person is called a child killing advocate, semantics aside. And I honestly, despite this post, don’t give a fat fig what Bennett or Robertson or any other conservative you name has ever said about blacks to the exclusion of every other race. My focus in this post is on blacks. If you don’t want to deal with that, surf to another blog. – Admin
what is in fact remarkable is that a former government official can wax hypothetical about the slaughter of the offspring of 12% of the population as a policy matter and members of the affected group are mocked for taking it out of “context.”
there are many things wrong in the Black community, but I had not realized the degree to which Blacks themselves advocate their own extermination however hypothetical it may be.
Thank you LaShawn for a well thought out and reasoned response to the Bennett statement. The MSM has but one aim and that is MONEY. They have no real allegiance to anyone but their own self promotion. If they ever promote a real discussion on race from an objective perspective it will not be in our life time. This generation of ungodly men and women must die off and hopefully God will raise up a generation of honest to goodness God-Fearing Americans. I pray that He does.
Larry Davis
Good job clarifying this issue, the Liberals love to cry out loud about something they don’t mind doing in the back alleys. Why do people get mad at the words and not the actions of those who are actually killing babies? It’s a double standard, listening to some of things Liberals say and print is outrageous. So thank you LB for the great response. Thank God for giving us individual minds to think for yourself. Bill Bennett was a professor at one time, so his hypothetical gives us something to think and talk about, I like intellectual challenges. Again great response, thanks for the statistical information, it helps to back up the debate.
Very well said. This issue proves that the real conversation we need to have in the country – about CULTURE, not RACE – is going to be just about impossible to have. There’s no racial reason why Bill Bennett’s remarks should be statistically accurate, but there are plenty of cultural reasons. But any mention of those issues gets the PC warriors out in force.
Methinks Mr. Bennett’s cut a little too close to the core of things for most people’s comfort. That’s what this is really about.
“…you must be a really ignorant person to believe that every black baby born is predisposed to commit crimes…”
Did anyone say that, Elizabeth? Or even hint at it? Bill Bennett certainly didn’t, and I’ve seen nothing like that posted here.
Sorry Red. I deleted the offensive comment. It wasn’t half bad until she started calling me names. And she says she has a Ph.D., no less, as if that means squat to me.
– Admin
Agree with LaShawn that Bill Bennett, contrary to the knee-jerk howlers, was not “advocating” abortions and “genocide”. However his comments were dubious because Bill Bennett did not say all the things LaShawn has him saying in her post as to crime and abortion.
Essentially he was referencing an “abortion reduces crime” theory that is very dubious. It would have been nice if he had stuck to making a clear statement about crime, and in particular, asking hard questions about why so many black babies are being aborted. But he didn’t, despite what defenders later on say he did.
Bennett laid out very little of substance. We all agree that killing the black unborn in the name of crime control is “morally indefensible.” But that is glaringly obvious, and hardly a debate. It was a perfect opportunity to point out that blacks have a higher abortion rate that most other groups, (it has been relatively high since the 1970s) and to question whether the loss of all that black life was a good thing.
It would have been a perfect opportunity for Bennett to reference how the eugenics movement targeted blacks for “culling” in times past. It would have been a good opportunity to discuss the measures taken in the recent past that have caused some crime reduction like longer incarcerations, tougher policing, and the burning out of the crack epidemic in ghetto neighborhoods.
He could have pointed out, as Thomas Sowell has, that blacks are hardly unique as regards urban crime. The white Irish in times past were marked by similar patterns of violence, out of wedlock births (50% in some cities) and substance abuse, particularly alcohol.
Bennett did none of these things, although his people now retroactively attribute them to him. Instead he mentions a theory whose numbers are not only shaky, but they also fail to address alternative explanations adequately.
As to that theory, LaShawn herself has problems with it and a devasting critique by white conservative S. Sailer is shown below.
http://www.isteve.com/abortion.htm
Excerpt:
One thing that’s important to note here is that the abortion rate for non-whites peaked early, way back in 1977, and was already almost at its peak by 1976. As shown (in the graph) above, the homicide rate for 14-17 year old black males peaked in 1993 and 1994, which is exactly what you’d predict if Levitt was 180 degrees wrong — in other words, the first black generation to be fully “culled” by abortion went on to be the most murderous of all. Look at it this way, the minority abortion rate was higher in 1976 than in most years thereafter, yet 1976 was 18 years before 1994, a year that saw an extremely high murder rate among black males aged 14-17 a murder rate more than four times worse the black male rate of ten years before, pre-legalization…
The dubious theory doesn’t add up. Thus contrary to Bennett’s reference, when easier abortion “culled” the black population, the most murderous crime phase occurred, something that contradicts the “abortion cull” theory flat out. And that doesn’t even begin to address the alternative, competing explanations.
Bennett could have done a lot better. He was not “advocating” abortion to “cleanse” the black population as the dimwits claim. Nevertheless he had an opportunity to do a lot better, to make a lot of forceful points. Instead he served up dubious theory and lost a golden opportunity. On this one, no cheers.
Enrique;
You brought up an interesting point…do you think that the unusually high crime rate of the Irish, which I have no stats for,just anecdotal evidence, was related to their 50% out of wedlock rate that you quoted, or substance abuse, or poverty? Recently, I read a column stating that fatherless homes are more of a determinant of crime, when all other things are controlled for, than poverty, and that is true across ALL races.
Do you have any insights on this?
Number 25…
You have to be kidding!?!?
A woman’s choice is all the Libs support?
She made her choice when she got pregnant.
Semantics…Murder of the un-born is not a choice.
JAE
Because males commit more violent crime than females, it is also statistically true that aborting all male children, regardless of race, would reduce violent crime.
To do so would be monstrous. But saying so doesn’t mean that I hate men. It means that I am mathematically literate.
You may try to prove anything you like. Nobody is stopping you. But nobody insults me on my own blog. That’s what other people’s blogs are for if you’re compelled. My point about the Ph.D. is that it obviously doesn’t mean what it’s supposed to mean because you either misread my post or ignored it to make your own point. That’s human nature, of course, so it is by no means limited to you. But you’ll have to do it on your own blog.
But for your inflammatory and unnecessary remarks about me, your first comment would’ve been posted. – Admin
My understanding was that Bennet referred to Freakonomics, and then said “which I don’t agree with”….Am I wrong about this?
Nevertheless I agree with LaShawn in that knee jerk cries of “racism” only plays into the hands of those who despise and/or are skeptical of blacks. The numbers in the “abortion cull” theory don’t hold up, but even if it did- we should be asking why so much black life is being aborted, and why liberals in general are such strong abortion supporters.
Indeed it seems the “abortion cull” is a good thing from the liberal standpoint for 6 reasons:
(1) it reaffirms woman’s right to abortion and black women are exercising that “right” admirably more than any other race,
(2) the “cull” reduces the negro youth population and thus reduces crime,
(3) increased abortions also allow for an increase in the public/private bureaucracies providing such services, not to mention the government subsidies directed towards the activity
(4) From a white feminist standpoint, liquidation of more Black males, who manifest the violent elements of evil male patriarchy, means reduction in their numbers, thus making womanhood safer.
(5) Provison of abortion services that also deny said black males any voice is also a good thing, reaffirming female independence of the patriarchy
(6) Conservatives take the fall for the whole thing and can be accused of “advocating” black “genocide” based on dubious theories. In this scenario, Bill Bennett has performed his assigned role spectacularly.
Oh! He calls me a lady AND a fool. Well, thanks…and…how dare you! – Admin
Just curious. I wonder if Min. Louis Farrakhan would get the same level of support evidenced above in this blog if he were to say what Bill Bennett said, substituting “white” babies for “black?”
Referencing #33…I was wondering what the heck that woman was talking about, as you guys apparently were. In no way did Bennet make any genetically inferential statements, but made merely statistical statements.There were so many statements in her post that were flawed, that I hardly knew where to start. I wonder if she is aware that there is slavery ongoing in 72 countries in the world right now….Oh and well… Speaking of Steve Sailers, ( I wasn’t sure if it was safe to even bring his name up until LaShawn did..I happened upon him just recently, and boy is he politically incorrect), he has made a bet for all of those who are railing against Bennet’s comments. He says that those who are appalled by Bennet’s supposed racism are free to bet him large amounts of cash, about the results of crime stats in ten years (or whatever). If liberals scream that Bennet was so wrong to say what he did, they ought to be willing to put their money where their outrage is…Ergo, anyone who feels that Bennet is wrong in his basic statistical assumption is free to wager on their morally superior position….It’ll be a fun wager to watch….
So you think it furthers “discourse” to imply that I’m a “jig” dancer? That I’m brainwashed? Move along, doctor. Save the poorly-executed head games for your intellectual inferiors. Despite my use of the word “ain’t,” I ain’t one. – Admin
I am a black male that is liberal (but lean towards being moderate) and I do not find offense to what Bill said. I did think he allowed himself to be pimped by the “race card” folks by contradicting his statement by repeating that it would reduce crime. I honestly think that ignorant black folks are being pimped by some members of either party. Just think if there was no black poverty, no high black crime rate and no high black abortion rate. What excuse would any party use to court us? The leadership in both parties loves to exploit poor, uneducated, high crime committing, high abortion rate committing black folks to emphasize the need for whatever agenda they are pushing. I came from a middle class blue collar working family and I feel like the media and some folks (black & white) in power tend to ignore those types of black folks. Sometimes, I think people do not know we exist.
Lashawn you constantly kill me with the “it doesnt matter what white people say and think, it’s all about how we as black people act” routine. I’m stunned and horrified that you gloss over bennett’s statement and what it reflects about how conservatives view blacks in this country.
Bottom line is this, bennett’s comment was the equivalent of saying we could eliminate racism in this country by aborting every white child… That’s morally indefensible but going by pure statistics it’s correct… The point is not whether “something is mathematically accurate”… Using that logic, i can say, with facts backing me up, that you are 8 times more likely to kill yourself than be killed by an arab terrorist… It’s that throwing out such absurd “facts”, even with qualifications, betrays the true feelings a person has…
It doesn’t raise one eyebrow that he chose to use blacks and crime to illustrate his point?? I understand where he was coming from and what he was trying to dispel, but why didn’t he use any # of other stats?? Why didn’t he say that we could eliminate skin cancer drastically if we eliminated every white child??
Bennett could’ve chosen a better example, yes. Am willing to go on a rant about his statement when there’s so much worse going on in the world? Not on your life. Don’t like it? I think you know the routine. – Admin
‘bennett’s comment was the equivalent of saying we could eliminate racism in this country by aborting every white child’
Are you implying that racism is exclusive to whites?
so lashawn, the response is simply, we have more pressing needs to address than a leading conservative betraying how he and many of his ilk feel about black people???
when can we stop using that approach?? who needs to say what that would actually get your attention??
i agree there are more pressing needs, but i think you vastly underestimate the impact statements like these have on race relations… there is very much a butterfly effect when “leaders”, if we can call bennett one, make statements such as these…
Hysterical and hard to follow, but I’ll let it stand. – Admin
#35 Jan B said:
Enrique;
You brought up an interesting point…do you think that the unusually high crime rate of the Irish, which I have no stats for,just anecdotal evidence, was related to their 50% out of wedlock rate that you quoted, or substance abuse, or poverty? Recently, I read a column stating that fatherless homes are more of a determinant of crime, when all other things are controlled for, than poverty, and that is true across ALL races. Do you have any insights on this?
Jan, I am relying on Sowell’s “Ethnic America” and “The economics and Politics of Race” where he discusses the white Irish in detail. Can’t remember the exact stats but the Irish were marked by high rates of out-of-wedlock births, and fatherless homes. This applied even in the United States, where conditions were better than in oppressed Ireland, as well as among Irish immigrants to Britain.
On Irish crime and violence, Sowell notes the phrase “fighting Irish” applied to a lot more than football teams. In England, Irish immigrants showed high crime rates and clashed frequently with the Scots. In Britain, as late as the 1870s Irish neighborhoods were shunned by the ‘respectable’ citizens, and the police entered only in numbers. Fighting was endemic particulary among men from different districts of Ireland. Some alehouse segregated patrons by county for this reason. As late as the 1970s the Irish were overrepresented among criminals and prison inmates in England. In one major British city Birmingham, although the Irish only made up 7% of the population, they constituted 60% of those arrested for drunkenness.
In the US the pattern of dysfunction was similar. Illegitimacy in some Irish neighborhoods of New York approached 50%. Fighting was endemic in Irish neighborhoods from New York to Milwaukee, to New Orleans. In some Irish neighborhoods of New York, the police travelled only in groups of six, and police vans became know as “paddy wagons”. Alcoholism rendered many Irish undesirable as neighbors or employees. The number of saloons in Boston for example rose 50% when influxes of Irish moved in. When they moved into a neighborhood, typically older residents moved out, including “black flight”. In parts of 19th century New York, Negroes were preferred to the Irish as tenants.
All of the above sounds like poor blacks in some cities. Over time the Irish became more assimilated, with the church and playing a strong moderating influence, and those pathologies were reduced. Some say it is “impossible” for blacks to do likewise, and that blacks are somehow “different”. Hence massive influxes of government subsidies and measures like abortion are needed.
In fact such subsidies and measures too often worsen those pathologies. The Irish also were marked by high rates of public charity, government subsidy and dependence on the public sector. They were the slowest rising of all the major European ethnic groups- surpassed by Jews, Italians, Poles, etc even though they came with the advantage of speaking English and well developed political organizations. Perhaps blacks aren’t as “different” in these respects as claimed. Over time the Irish improved. As LaShawn often notes, blacks can do likewise without any special baby-sitting or “basket-case” treatment. To this I would add, without any “culling” by abortion either.
In fact some suggest that the wide availability of abortion actually served to weaken families, rendering men less willing to take on the responsibilities of family, and enabling women to be more promiscuous.
The abortion revolution also opened the way for more government intervention in black lives as an ever increasing stream of out-of-wedlock children became de facto wards of the state. It is the flip side to the “culling” theory. Abortion may have reduced the raw numbers, but it also may have made family structures more unstable among those that acutally survived the “cull”, leading to those unpleasant crime effects. Sailer’s data adds some weight to this scenario. What do you think of thios particular aspect? It would be ironic- rather than abortion “help” it may be actually fueling the negative conditions the government bureaucrats and “advocates” say they are “fighting”.
#48 was bennett implying that crime is exclusive to blacks???
i’m using statistics that show whites get convicted of hate crimes in superior #’s… that white’s make up the vast majority of the skinhead, KKK and white supremacist movement…
basically using the same reasoning bennett used..
now you get my point, the fact that you even posted your question reinforces my argument that it’s not always about what’s actually said, but what’s IMPLIED…
#48…If he had used the word ‘eliminate’ rather than lowered…your comment would have merit. Naturally, if we aborted all of us white folks in the US, the level of racism WOULD be lowered….NOT ELIMINATED… That’s a statistical fact. It is also true that if we aborted all the other races in the US, racism would be lowered….NOT ELIMINATED…That’s a statistical fact…There’s a humongous difference between the words lowered and eliminated….
La Shawn, that was fantastic — definitely a contender for POTY (post of the year)!!!
About the only thing you could have added, would be a direct quote from the “Queagle” (Queen + Kleagle) herself side by side with Bill’s. I seem to a quote posted at http://www.klannedparenthood.com that is substantially identical to Bennett’s statement. Perhaps that’s what he was doing — quoting/paraphrasing her.
The difference is that she meant it, while he abhorred it, yet the plantation folks adore her ‘ministry’.
That aside, out here in Podunk on AFNtv a few days ago, I watched CNN breathlessly announce that BB had said a ‘boo-boo’ and that there were calls on the White House to condemn him. Not a quote, just stating that “…about reducing crime by aborting black babies”. I waited several days for something of substance… nada.
Then this morning on CNN, Smarmy Aaron, with that typical gloat, only referred to the fact that the race pimps were outraged at BB’s comments, before moving on to another topic. Again, no quote, no substance, just a hit. What copies of “Stars-n-Lies” I could get my hands on, likewise were mum on the subject.
By now I was really getting irked and wondered if you had details. As I expected, a typical MSM conniption over non-PC truths. Oh well, back to the grind.
Ciao
#47
Jim,
I disagree. In this instance she’s on the money.
And frankly, I think people get way to bent out of shape about words. I wonder, did your Parents ever teach you “Sticks and Stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me” (with the obligatory understood “Unless I LET them hurt me” at the end)….?
Simple fact, this is America (And not the blog which LaShawn can censor anyway she pleases as it’s hers), and in this country, you have the right to say what you want, no matter what someone else finds offensive. I find that most rap music (and some rock) is offensive, but I don’t see them getting rid of it for me. Even when I *DO* say it offends me.
That being said, without discourse that is open and honest, no matter WHAT is said, there will be no furthering race relations. If ANY race plays the race card it is detrimental. You can make up hypotheticals in anyway you want, it really doesn’t mean squat unless someone else starts dancing the “OH YOU OFFENDED ME” dance in front of the MSM Cameras….But when people don’t dance the dance, and people actually start TALKING, then things start coming together, which is one of the things I don’t think the left WANTS to happen as when they do, people become educated, and understand the others views, and the means less votes for the left (and some right wingers too, I might add…no one DOESN’T cater to the poor, uneducated masses)….
Mr Bennett was speaking off the cuff without the use of any statistical information directly in front of him, by the way, so how is he to give accurate statistics that weren’t measured by him?
Thanks LaShawn, this was enlightening.
I was listening to the radio and this issue came up. Guess what the Liberal on the radio did . . . Promoted the book ‘Freakonomics’ . . .
Hmmmmm . . . Said it was a MUST read!
Hold up! Wait!! If you want to read about economics I’d recommend Tomas Sowell.
#54 Dan
i hear you on the sticks and stones stuff… if some nascar fan says this while chugging a budweiser, who cares, but this comes from an ICON of the conservative movement who is followed by thousands of people… who has the hear of policy makers and the leadership of this country… that alone moves it out of the sticks and stones realm…
it’s the same rationale when louis farrakhan says anti-semitic remarks… you might ignore it when the local homeless guy says it, but when a guy who is followed by thousands of people says it, it’s worth a response or at least an eyebrow raise…
I can’t believe you used the lack of stats in front of him as a defense… That just proves the only stat he was aware and confident of is that blacks commit crimes more than whites do.. That doesn’t betray someone’s true feelings??
Conservatives can never hope to make any serious inroads in colored communities by making statements like these because they reinfoce an image that you have already been tarred with. Already your illegal immigration rhetoric is turning off Latinos…
“Colored” communities? That’s a bit retro, don’t you think? I’d better go get my rope. You must be publicly lynched for such a racist remark!!!
It’s unfortunate that you don’t see anything wrong with what he said. Now had he said that if you were to abort ALL babies, his comment would not be seen as racist. His mention of “black babies” made his comment racist on it’s face. That fact that you, and many of my fellow readers of your blog don’t see that is tragic.
In my opinion, you as an African-American (read black if you like) should be offended by his comments. Should he lose his right to free speech, no. Should he lose his job, no.
I shudder to think that if you had been aborted then this blog would not exist. I’m not calling you a criminal but i’m sure you’ve done something “criminal” at one point in your life. Even if you cheated on a test in school, or lied to your parents (who sometimes consider lying a criminal act punishable by a whooping, time-out, or punishment). A criminal act is something that is illegal by the laws, policies and standards set by those who have the power to do so.
Your celebration of his comments are disappointing.
#51 -
‘basically using the same reasoning bennett used.. ‘
No actually either you don’t understand English or you’re implying whites are responsible for all racism. Bennett said reduce which is factually accurate. You wrote eliminate which means that whites are responsible for all racism. Up until you defended your claim I assumed you just made a mistake but apparently not.
K. Jenkins – It’s comments like this that leave me scratching my head. People presume to tell me what I ought to think, and just because you don’t agree with my opinion, you assert that I’m “celebrating” Bennett’s comment. Baffling. Unlike you and most liberals, I don’t consider something racist on its face because someone uses race to make a point. Bennett is a white conservative man, and he should’ve known better than to say what he said, knowing people’s general ignorance about statistical analysis. But if you’ve no regard for stats, that’s on you.
Bennett’s comments are unfortunate, clearly, but not the way you think they are. I consider the fact that blacks commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes most unfortunate, not to mention tragic. You consider Bennett’s implication of this fact unfortunate and tragic. I guess black libs and conservatives will never see eye to eye when our thought processes are so different.
That last paragraph is incomprehensible, so I can’t really respond to it.
One more thing… I do agree with Mrs. Barber and others on the atrocity that is abortion. it’s a little known fact that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a proponent of something called Eugenics which is the “weeding out of the weaker members of a group” which included in Sanger’s mind, Blacks, Hispanics, developmentally disabled among others.
My point is, Sanger advoated abortion as a means for controlling those she viewed as undesirable in america, specifically Blacks and people of color. But ironically, white feminist hijacked planned parenthood and made it a “feminist issue” as much as anything when that was never Sanger’s intent.
Despite that, an estimated 14 million black children have been aborted since 1970. I’m not sure how many white children have been aborted, my guess is the number is much higher, given the proprotions of population…. but I digress. Anyway…
There’s a wonderful book on the American Eugenics movement called: WAR ON THE WEAK: AMERICAN EUGENICS MOVENMENT by EDWIN BLACK (2003) He wrote about how IBM provided technical support to the Nazis during WWII during their campaing to exterminate jews. In a bizarre way, it all ties together.
Just thought I’d share…
This comment is acceptable; the other wasn’t. You people just can’t control yourselves or follow directions, can you? Comments attacking me instead of the argument WILL NOT BE POSTED. – Admin
OK…….I’ll bite. So for all of you who agree…would crime decrease if all white and or Jewish babies were killed??
It is amazing how ONE comment TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT can be so blown up. It is amazing to me that the media….KNOWING what the rest of the context is, would CHOOSE to be deceiving to everyone else. No conscience at all.
Thanks LaShawn again for a great post!
Rose
#58 Jack,
ok, we can reduce the amount of racism in this country by aborting all white babies…
we can also reduce the militia, skinhead and white supremacist movements if we abort every white baby… that is factually accurate..
we can also reduce the amount of children born handicapped/retarded by aborting all white children since whites are more likely to have genetic defects… that is factually accurate…
you’re dancing around the issue.. it’s not what was actually said, or what’s factually accurate, it’s what’s implied when you make these comments… if jesse jackson or al sharpton or farrakhan said ANY of the above, you would rightfully be up in arms, no matter how he qualified it..
the fact that this was the first stat to come to his mind shows you all you need to know.
Be honest with yourselves here.
And what about just white males? God knows they commit a helluva lot of crimes..Oh yea I forgot we tend to turn our back on white crime, just boys being boys. Bennett should be ashamed of himself, I guess he wouldn’t being one of those good ole boys…..
I’d put Bennett’s remarks in the same category as Jonathan Swift who suggested the Irish eat their children as the solution to the famine: an outrageous claim, designed to be outrageous to bring attention to a false argument. Bennett seems to be referring to the claim recently made in “Freakonomics” that abortions is responsible for the overall decrease in crime.
I noticed that no one has mentioned that if all black babies were aborted, per Bennett’s suggestion, black-on-black crime would certainly decrease. In fact, eventually it would be zero. If all white babies were aborted, eventually all white-on-white crime would be zero. Isn’t most crime committed within the same ethnic groups? Are there any stats proving/disproving that?
hey, Lashawn! check this out…the difference between a white liberal and a white conservative: when a white conservative comes across an African-American male he thinks, ‘a Black guy…cool.’ when a white liberal comes across a Black male he thinks, ‘a Black guy…he probably needs my help.’ peace! md
# 63 – you have no idea what my reaction would be and don’t assume that you do. You’re the only one doing any dancing and you’re assuming to know Bennett’s mind and mine too. That’s called projection.
“bennett’s comment was the equivalent of saying we could eliminate racism in this country by aborting every white child… That’s morally indefensible but going by pure statistics it’s correct…
Comment by Jim — 10.03.05 @ 2:06 pm ”
I totally agree, Jim, its the same.
As long as one was using that statement as an example of a dangerous way of viewing the world.
Which is what Bennett did.
I agree with LaShawn. He could have picked a non racial example.
Non-the-less, he was pointing out that its a lousy line of reasoning.
And you are arguing that he was wrong.
Cuckoo.
Ditto.
#68
Bennet said REDUCE crime…That would not be the equivalent of a statement using the word ELIMINATE. It throws the statistical justification for the statement off in that it would not be factually correct to state that one could eliminate all racism by aborting all whites. One could REDUCE racism by aborting all whites….That would be correct, statistically….
#71
A reasonable point.
My point still holds if you switch “eleminate” and “reduce”.
Bennett’s statement is sad. Yes crime is high in the black community. So to decrease crime in the black community, why not take a young man under your wing Mr Bennett like I have. Why not talk to them about going to college or helping them get a trade. Why not Mr Bennett explain to them like I have that there is no excuse not to make something of yourself in America even racism. Because you are black is NO excuse. People in the black community are making sacrifices every single day to get these kids on the right track. It will never be reported because it’s a secret that black conservatives will not tell you. All you will here about us is Jesse Jackson, AL Sharpton, the democrats and the liberal BS. Yes, Mr Bennett crime is sad in community but there are more effective ways to get crime down then killing babies.
I happen to agree with you for the most part about Bennett’s remarks being blown out of proportion and distorted in the media. It was an ill-considered “thought experiment” but Bennett has nothing to apologize for.
That said, there is a curious double-standard you seem to employ when you state that your tolerance for “ad hominem against Bill Bennett, other commenters, and myself is extremely low” when you are more than happy to describe those whom you seek to vilify as “a bunch of snot-nosed, empty-headed goofs in left-leaning newsrooms” or describe individuals as being “clownish” or “virulent.” Sounds more than a little hypcritical to me.
You can’t have it both ways. (Well, I guess you can. After all, it’s your blog.)
On my blog, I can have it any way I want. That’s one of the many benefits of running your own site. I’m certainly not paying monthly bandwidth costs to be insulted on my own site. Hypocritical or not, that’s the way I run LBC. This goes without saying, but I’ll say it anyway: if you don’t like it, you never have to return. – Admin
Red Tory says La Shawn is hypocritical. I disagree.
“…snot-nosed, empty-headed goofs in left-leaning newsrooms…clownish…virulent…”
Sounds accurate to me, unlike the attacks on Bennett. Most writers of those attacks have no familiarity with accuracy whatever, but are quite talented at being snot-nosed, empty-headed goofs.
Those on the left claim we should dialogue more about the issues. I tried that on Chuck Currie’s blog. He didn’t like what I said and who I referenced so he decided I was a racist and reported me to my Bishop. When the left can’t handle the truth they resort to intimidation. It won’t work with me. He also copied my Bishop a reply he made to me asking me not to contact him again. I thought tolerance was a value of the left. I guess not, except when they want others to tolerate them.
LaShawn:
I think you are missing why Bennett’s comments are objectionable to many. Let me try to explain.
First of all, you are absolutely right to point out that Bill Bennett, at the core, was 100% factually correct — i.e., aborting black babies will bring the crime rate down.
But the following is just as true: “If you abort all the [male/female/white/Latino/blue-eyed/brown-eyed/blond/etc] babies, there will be a reduction in the crime rate.” That’s just pure logic.
So the issue is why Bill Bennett chose to single out “black people” to demonstrate his “mathematical literacy”. It certainly does suggest some prejudice, although (I stress) it is merely a suggestion and requires extrapolation on the part of the listener. I tend to believe that the context of the conversation was the real reason.
I’m sure Bennett wasn’t advocating genocide, and I don’t know if he is a racist or not in his heart.
But he should realize that, however it came about, his remark was insensitive, especially in light of the Katrina tragedy. But since it was an excusable lapse, he should apologize (lightly) for it. And in return, we should excuse him and move on.
Really, so people are offended by what he said. Does that mean the sky is falling? How about being offended by abortion and putting a stop to it? How about being offended by 14 year old pregnant black girls and the low lifes who got them that way? How about being offended by something more substantial than the mean man’s words?
I have to wonder if you listened to the same wireless broadcast as I. The logical argument, and yes his hypothetical is logical, utilized a flawed example. He reached over his own race avoiding the conversations he would have had to have with the thousands of middle class white women who have abortions every year, to blacks. What would make William Bennett, an educated, powerful, wealthy white man ignore clear statistics? Those clear statistics point to the very fact that abortion was made legal by Roe v. Wade not so that black women would be freed from the bonds of unwanted pregnancy but so that young white women could go on with their plans to marry well or have a career after a sexual misstep.
I am certain that you would not argue that the American government in its benevolence to blacks made abortion legal for black women. However, I digress, for this is not about abortion it is about perception and privilege. It is about what people who have more than they have earned think of those that are less than them. This is about black people who think they have risen above and beyond the quiet racism that will always exist until we confront it.
Ms Barber you have the comfort of knowing that even if Bennett did mean that blacks cause more crime or if they are more violent he didn’t mean you. He just meant someone who looks like you.
Cavalor Epthith
Editor-in-Chief
The Dis Brimstone-Daily Pitchfork
Since Simple Track is not working:
http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2005/10/black-babies-and-crime-bill-bennett.html
The context of BB’s comments were in response to a caller. That caller suggested that abortion is reducing the amount of money paid into Social Security – therefore, abortion is wrong. This theory was not made up whole-cloth from the caller. It is a part of current abortion debate.
BB could have used another example in reply (abort all whites – and reduce racism. abort all males – and reduce crime rates.). However, those counter examples would have been too absurd to leave an impact. The desired impact was to demonstrate, to the caller, that his pragmatism could lead to immoral outcomes – in real life.
Unfortunately, the example BB did use has enough basis in historical and current thought (eugenics and freakonomics) to leave that desired impact.
Contrary to those who think BB should have used a different example. I think he used the perfect example. His point was not about black crime. His point was about pragmatism and its real life consequences.
You submitted:
“…Frankly, it makes black people look like insolent children. It magnifies either a reluctance or inability to think beyond the sound bite…”
This is too limiting; what makes it clear that black folks are behaving childishly is when we acknowledge that a Bennett retains currency in our discourse at all. Black people should have been saying “Bill who? Bennett? the so-called Reagan ‘drug czar’ who, in intimating his hatred for non-white traditionalists in America framed debates on drugs in ways that prosecuted black men substantively differently than white men? The Bennett whose discourse has been discredited ever since? Why are you even promoting that viewpoint on scarce, valuable mediums like radio?”
That SHOULD have been a frame on the response of blacks as a group; to challenge the very industry that gets off on foolish, incenidary quotes like Bennett’s.
In addition, you, and others here, need to stop equating voting with democracy and democracy with power. Democracy, making this nation work the way we like to hope it should work, is not about the once-every-four-years voting “process,” and picking the right representative. Indeed, it IS about turning off the radio and the television, the Bill Bennetts and the Oprahs, and being ABOUT the democratic institutions that make up your community, everyday. About being AT the School Board meetings, the Township Council/City Council meetings, the County Commissioners’ Meetings…about running for office, volunteering in the community and engaging one’s so-called representatives, everyday, with veracity.
Who are your representatives, local to global? What are their phone numbers? I’m willing to bet my mortgage on the fact that neither you, La Shawn, nor anyone who posts here, can do that.
And that’s more telling than anything Bennett says or doesn’t damn well say.
When black folks – and ALL folks outside the plutocratic, still often pigmentocratic frames on what governance is an can be in America – have their representatives’ phone numbers programmed into their damn cellphones, when they have their representatives on speed dial, when they are demanding that the radio and television drop the Bennetts of the world and give them actionable information as citizens to maximize such citizenship, the problems made corporeal in the very form of a Bill Bennett will being to melt away.
Mel Brennan – Your comment serves as a model for people who vehemently disagree with me. You responded to the issues at hand respectfully and without hurling personal insults. Most people who oppose my views, particularly black liberals, simply cannot comment on this blog without resorting to ad hominem against the hostess, not even to save their own lives. Well-done.
No #86. Mr. BB directly made an association that black people=crime. Aborting anyone can reduce crime, aborting males would reduce the crime rate significantly, but Mr. BB chose say killing black children would reduce crime. The initial caller didn’t say, “Well aborting black children is reducing the amount of money paid into Social Security.”
So the question is why did he feel the need to go there? hmm
To be shocking, perhaps
To be provocative, maybe
His comments have the funk of racism. And Maatkare, being a negro, has been offended.
When Freakonomics came out there was much ado about its assertion that legalized abortion had reduced the crime rate. Now I learn that Black women are three times more likely to abort their babies than white women. Was this the message between the lines of Freakonomics and, because the book has a liberal tilt to it, was it ignored?
Bill Bennett was using a “noxious hypothetical” in a reductio ad absurbum argument to demonstrate to a caller that the caller’s “pragmatic” rational for opposing abortion had problems with it. The specter of genocide in the noxious hypothetical made it all the more noxious. This went over the heads of some otherwise apparently intelligent bloggers.
I listened to a hysterical caller tell radio show host Michael Medved that, by Bennett’s logic, one could bring peace to the Middle East by bombing everyone there. Medved tried to point out to him that he was using the same method of reasoning that Bennett used. It was useless, the caller couldn’t comprehend it.
This demonstrates another reason to homeschool your children. Teach them logic. But first teach them that there are a lot of people in the general population that won’t be able to understand it.
By the way, I can’t count the times I’ve heard from civil rights activists that to require criminal background checks on people is “racist” because Blacks are more likely to have criminal records than whites. This was demonstrated in Texas where that very charge was used against a landlord that wanted criminal background checks before he would rent to people made homeless by Katrina. It seems as though there are people who want it both ways–or maybe that’s faulty logic on my part.
LaShawn,
Since you were at one time, a “black baby”, why do you apparently feel that Bill Bennett’s statement doesn’t apply to you?
As far as white conservatives wanting to defend Bennett, what is there explanation for high crime rates in Eastern Europe, Ireland, Indonesia, Thailand and India, since there is no significant negroid population in those areas?
–Cobra
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, October 4, 2005; Page A23
There’s no need to pillory William Bennett for his “thought experiment” about how aborting all black children would affect the crime rate. I believe him when he says he wasn’t actually advocating genocide, just musing about it to make a point. Instead of going into high-dudgeon mode, let’s put him on the couch.
Bennett, the former education secretary and anti-drug czar who has found a new calling in talk radio, told his audience last week that “if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose — you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.” He quickly added that doing so would be “impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible,” which is certainly true.
Who’s Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
Racism Ain’t Over
Editorials from Hell’s leading daily newspaper, The Dis Brimstone-Daily Pitchfork
Icarus Fallen :: Main Page
Full List of Blogs (4 links) »
So why would such a horrible idea even cross his mind? How could such an evil notion ever pass his lips?
Bennett was referring to research done by Steven D. Levitt, a University of Chicago economist and lead author of the best-selling book “Freakonomics.” The iconoclastic Levitt, something of an academic rock star, argues that the steep drop in crime in the United States over the past 15 years resulted in part from the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.
In defending his words, Bennett has said he was citing “Freakonomics.” So why did his “thought experiment” refer only to black children?
Levitt’s thesis is essentially that unwanted children who grow up poor in single-parent households are more likely than other children to become criminals, and that Roe v. Wade resulted in fewer of these children being born. What he doesn’t do in the book is single out black children.
Perhaps the ostentatiously intellectual Bennett went back and read Levitt’s original 2001 paper on the subject, co-authored with John J. Donohue III. The authors do mention race briefly, in a discussion of the falling homicide rate, but attribute most of the decline to those race-neutral factors that Levitt later cited in “Freakonomics.” To bolster their argument, they cite research on abortion and lowered crime rates in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe — not places where you’re likely to find a lot of black people.
If he was citing Levitt’s work, Bennett could have said that to lower the crime rate “you could abort every white baby” or “you could abort every Hispanic baby” or “you could abort every Asian baby,” since every group has unwanted, poor children being raised by single mothers.
So now that we have Bennett on the couch, shouldn’t we conclude that he mentioned only black children because, perhaps on a subconscious level, he associates “black” with “criminal”?
That’s what it sounds like to me. I grew up in the South in the days when we had to drink at “colored” water fountains and gas stations had separate “colored” restrooms; I know what a real racist is like, and Bennett certainly doesn’t fit the description. But that’s what’s so troubling about his race-specific “thought experiment” — that such a smart, well-meaning opinion maker would so casually say something that translates, to African American ears, as “blacks are criminals.”
What makes it worse is that his words came in the context of abortion. That Bennett staunchly opposes abortion is beside the point. He should know enough history to understand why black Americans would react strongly when whites start imagining experiments to limit black reproduction. For hundreds of years, this country was obsessed with the supposed menace of black sexuality and fertility. Bennett’s remarks have to make you wonder whether that obsession has really vanished or just been deemed off-limits in polite discourse.
I’ve heard people argue — mostly in discussions of affirmative action — that the nation’s problem of racial discrimination has mostly been solved. The issue now is class, they say, not race. I’d like to believe that, but I don’t.
Bennett is too intelligent not to understand why many of us would take his mental experiment as a glimpse behind the curtain — an indication that old assumptions, now unspoken, still survive. He ought to understand how his words would be taken as validation by the rapper Kanye West, who told a television audience that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people,” or by the New Orleans survivors who keep calling me with theories of how “they” dynamited selected levees to flood the poor, black Lower Ninth Ward and save the wealthy French Quarter and Garden District.
I have a thought experiment of my own: If we put our racial baggage on the table and talk about it, we’ll begin to take care of a lot of unfinished business.
Wow. What an exceptional post.
The thinking person’s complaint is that Bennett chose to inject race, which indicates that he might be racist, or, at a minimum, that he was “racially insensitive.”
In this context, it would’ve been more graceful if Bennett had excluded race from the conversation, insofar as race is usually an injected, unneccessary element anyway. But people are people. It is impossible for us to act with perfect grace in every situation. That Bill Bennett did not act with my opinion of perfect grace does not lower his esteem in my eyes. I’ll act with less grace than that within the next half hour.
So, though he’s “guilty” of not acting with perfect grace, he is innocent of the politically freighted charge of “racial insensitivity.” THE TRUTH IS NOT INSENSITIVE, and a pox on all who claim it is.
In fact, having observed the entire reactive brouhaha, and in spite of my “grace” comments above, I now say that telling that truth was the most sensitive thing Bill Bennett could’ve done. The truth shall set you free. Can’t remember where I’ve heard that before.
There you have it. BB told the truth and the vipers went into a fit of fury. Just as everytime Jesus stated a truth of human nature, the pharisees went nuts because it went against their liberal plantation agenda.
Using black babies was perfect because it was the most extreme example of genocide — A group that only makes up 12% of the population, kills 1/3 of all a nation’s babies!!!
I don’t have the resources to frame it properly, but simply put as a rough guess: 12% people killing 1/3 babies is significantly wicked-er than 88% killing 2/3s. To wit, for the 12% we’re talking a rate greater than 1 out of every 2 pregnancies vs 88% @ a rate of 1 in every 4 pregnancies.
One does not even have to think of race/racism in order to use this as the absolute worst example of self-centered evil. Using white babies would not have been as dramatic, nor emphatic.
The fact that we’re all blogging and talking about it is good!!! It sharpens the debate and is bound to slap some sense into those who were ambivalent until now. If even it only made one person thinking about killing her baby change her mind, BB did good.
As for bleeding hearts… bleed away in vain.
Ciao
I totally agree that the ‘race’ issue is often addressed with lots of ‘heart’ and little if any ‘mind’.
To that end, and with the upcoming Census, the very question/issue of ‘race’ and the collection of ‘race’ statistics should be on the table as is advocated at Reductio ad absurdum, political incorrectness and ‘race’ .
An Unhyphenated American
Comment 92 is exactly right, Levitt’s arguement is not about race. This is not because he shies away from race, but b/c it is not statistically important for his arguement. Blacks do commit a disporportionate number of certain crimes (not more, dissproportionate) but if you control for income and family structure than the immpact of race falls out. In other words, children of poor single mothers disproportionately commit crimes at the same rate be they black or white. A higher percentage of black children grow up in these circumstances than white children, hence the crime rate we see. The problem I have with the way this discussion has gone forward is that many defenders of Bennett’s statement say it is true based on simple statistics. Statistics are not, however, so simple and to come to the conclusion he did several underlying assumptions must be made and it these assumptions that I think some people find offensive. I presume when people say that BB’s statement is true based on statistics they mean that we can correctly infer how future generations of blacks will act based on what we know about current and past generations. What is important is that this formulation requires making some very strong statistical assumptions about the similarity of black behavior over time – or more specifically, that we assume consistency. There are two arguements I can think of as to why we could assume that future black behavior will be the same as current behavior. The first arguement is that blacks are somehow genetically predisposed to crime. I’ll take BB at his word that he doesn’t believe this. The other reason to assume consistency in behavior is to assume that the environmental conditions that face blacks won’t change – either way, though, the underlying (statistical) assumption Bennett makes is that bad behavior today means bad behavior tomorrow (and this is nothing like what Levitt argued). If, however, we change the assumption and argue instead that the drop in crime committed by blacks over the past decade or so will continue indefinitely (which doesn’t seem to me to be too unreasonable) than by the time babies born today are of age we won’t see racial differences in crime. This was all a very long winded way of saying the problem with BB’s arguement is that he makes the statistical assumption that crime rates today will be like crime rates tomorrow (which is never the case for any group) and that we can safely assume that rates of black criminality will remain consistent. It is precisely this fatalism about blacks and crime (which is *not* arrived at by simple statistics) which people rightly find offensive.
Up until you insulted me, the comment was actually decent. As I said, liberals, mostly blacks but sometimes whites, tend to lose their manners around me. Such is life, but it won’t happen on my blog. If you’re fishing for readers, you’ve come to the wrong place. – Admin
Good read. I’ve got a few points.
1. While I appreciate you encouraging readers to think before they comment and refrain from twisting Dr. Bennett’s words, I do have one question. “Violent” crime isn’t mentioned once in the Bennett quote, yet, in your 2nd update, you highlight a commenter’s statement with several references to violent crime, and, in your 3rd update, you mention violent crime yourself when asking: “If black men commit over half the violent crimes, can you not comprehend that fewer or no black men would mean fewer violent crimes?”
2. There are criminals in every race. Having listened to the entire exchange on Bennett’s radio show, I realize that race was never mentioned by the caller. Why did Bennett bring race into the conversation?
3. Because there are criminals among every race and gender, wouldn’t it be true that you could abort every Jewish baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. Or you could abort every Asian baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. Or you could abort every female baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. I suspect the conversation would be much different had Bennett used Jewish people to make his point.
4. La Shawn, I think the reason there is such anger among some about Bennett’s comments is because they reflect a disregard for Black lives. I firmly believe that Black people — individuals and families — need to get our acts together and work to stop, or at least lessen, crime, abortion, and incarceration among our people. That said, I don’t think it is fair to change the subject from Bennett to Black people. Dr. Bennett should be held accountable for his statements and actions. Furthermore, I think we set a dangerous precedent when we suggest that it is acceptable for respected leaders like Dr. Bennett to engage in public discussions pondering the positive effect to be realized by aborting every black baby in America and committing genocide against our race.
Can’t wait to see you in October!
I’ve been amazed, while reading all these responses, by the people who did not hear Mr. Bennett’s remarks in full and never bothered to research the matter to see what he said and on what basis.
Worse, I’ve seen a few comments which seem to be deliberately twisting what he said into something he didn’t say in order to find something about which to be offended. With all the real issues out there that need solving, it seems a bit odd to try to create a bogus one.
I’m sticking by post #6. Nothing I’ve seen or heard since this story first broke has given me any reason to change my mind.
Well, if someone said that if you wanted to reduce organized crime, you could abort every Italian baby, I think Italians would have a right to feel insulted. The fact that statistics may confirm the truth of a statement is not enough.
The point was phrased in an unnecessarily incendiary manner, in a country with a legacy of racism.
It’s a bit like introducing holocaust denial into a conversation as “just a theory – not that I believe it.” You’re still managing to introduce the modest proposal.
I think the problem people had with his comments were that he singled out black babies in his reply to the caller. It was a bad choice of words.
However, I don’t agree totally with the abort and decrease in crime scenario because you would have to abort all pregnancies because you don’t think there would be an increase from another ethnic group?
Why Bennetts hypothisis is flawed?
Here is where Bill Bennett’s hypothetical will go wrong. He states his hypothetical as if black parents will simply go along with such a plan. I submit to you crime would actually skyrocket among all black age groups and classes. People who normally would not commit a crime would probably be charged with assault and in most cases of murder against anyone who performed the abortion or supported it in anyway. I asked some of my middleclass black male friends who are married and college educated how they would repond to this proposal. These are men who have never committed a crime in their life. They all stated that if their wife pregnancy were harmed in anyway they would do whatever they had to do to protect the life of that child even if it meant getting revenge. I also see black soldiers who are defending our Nation as we speak force to respond in a dishonorable way. Not only would these men respond in that manner, I dare you to see how that mother responds. Also let me throw in the grandparents, uncles, aunts and etc. People who normally would not commit a crime will act accordingly to what they perceived to be a hostile policy towards them. So if blacks would not simply go along with this plan, that means in a free country BIG GOVERNMENT would impose it’ self against the founding principles of our Nation which is something I am sure Mr. Bennett himself is against. My bet is that crime would actually increase in Mr. Bennett’s hypnothetical context.
#87 Mel- “That SHOULD have been a frame on the response of blacks as a group; to challenge the very industry that gets off on foolish, incenidary quotes like Bennett’s.. demanding that the radio and television drop the Bennetts of the world..”
Some good observations but since you ask “Bill who” it gets back to LaShawn’s point as to relevance. In the larger frame of things, where thousands of unborn black children being aborted each year, and with a disproportionate number of blacks in the criminal justice system, it is unclear why any significant amount of energy should be expended on “mobilization” to challenge Bennett, or assorted media talking heads on yet another miscellaneous broadcast everyone will forget in a few weeks. I would have thought we had more important things to do after the initial news makes the rounds. It is a bit like the Confederate Flag controverises where the armies of indignation are mobilized around yet another trivial, symbolic issue, while hundreds of real casualties litter ghetto streets every year. “Bill who” indeed..
#91 Cobra said: As far as white conservatives wanting to defend Bennett, what is there explanation for high crime rates in Eastern Europe, Ireland, Indonesia, Thailand and India, since there is no significant negroid population in those areas?
—– You hardly need Bill Bennett to answer this one. As the man said above: “Bill Who?” High crime rates are caused by a number of things from poverty, to unstable conditions, to a lax criminal justice system that is more concerned with the rights of felons than their victims.
—– By the way, white people are less than sterling “role models” on the matter of high crime rates in US history, particularly groups like the white Irish. History shows that violence and crime was endemic in white Irish neighborhoods from New York to New Orleans. In some white Irish neighborhoods of New York, the police traveled only in groups of six, and police vans became know as “paddy wagons”. Alcoholism rendered many white Irish undesirable as neighbors or employees. When the white Irish moved into a neighborhood, typically older residents moved out, including “black flight”. In parts of 19th century New York, Negroes were preferred to the white Irish as tenants.
—– The same pattern by the way applies somewhat to white Southerners, as Thomas Sowell’s recent “Black Rednecks, White Liberals” shows. Much of what is bandied about as “black” behavior, from crude language to high rates of violence and substance abuse was part and parcel of the white Southern culture that enslaved blacks in the South, a culture marked by the same elements in the British Isles. Food for thought to those who think black dysfunction is something different or unique to blacks, and that “special” measures are needed to “solve” them- whether it be welfare dependency, affirmative action quotas or so-called “culling” by abortion.
#90 Evon: When Freakonomics came out there was much ado about its assertion that legalized abortion had reduced the crime rate. Now I learn that Black women are three times more likely to abort their babies than white women. Was this the message between the lines of Freakonomics and, because the book has a liberal tilt to it, was it ignored?
—– It will be ignored, because to raise such questions doesn’t equate with liberal assumptions as the the beneficial effects of abortion. The Frekonomics theory is shaky, and competing data (already posted) suggest an unsettling idea- abortion itself may be fueling black dysfunction (including crime), because of its effect on weakening black family structures. As Steve Sailer shows, the first generation of black kids that survived the abortion “culls” went on to be the most murderous of all. At the same time abortions were going up, black illegitimacy rates went up, as did black ensnarement in the criminal justice system. Whatever the mix of factors in these trends, they hardly show the supposedly “beneficial” effects of the abortion culture so highly valued by some whites, where blacks are concerned.
#99 Nate said:
La Shawn, I think the reason there is such anger among some about Bennett’s comments is because they reflect a disregard for Black lives. I firmly believe that Black people — individuals and families — need to get our acts together and work to stop, or at least lessen, crime, abortion, and incarceration among our people. That said, I don’t think it is fair to change the subject from Bennett to Black people. Dr. Bennett should be held accountable for his statements and actions. Furthermore, I think we set a dangerous precedent when we suggest that it is acceptable for respected leaders like Dr. Bennett to engage in public discussions pondering the positive effect to be realized by aborting every black baby in America and committing genocide against our race.
Agreed Nate that Bennett could have used a better, less racially tinged example, and lost an opportunity to make a hard hit on some much more significant points. I disagree though when you say Bennett’s comment reflects a disregard for black lives. He disavowed any “positive” impact from abortion in his comments as morally reprehensible, and his history, from anti-abortion to other initiatives suggests quite the opposite. In fact, the people showing the most disregard for black lives, are sad to say, blacks themselves. The proof is there to see every day- from thousands of unborn black children being aborted every year, to thousands of maimed and traumatized black crime victims. Focusing on Bill Bennett is really an irrelevance in the face of the trail of death and mayhem marking black communities.
Correction- I should have said high crime rates are *associated with” not “caused by” above…
#92 -Annette
Thought provoking. Thanks.
I confess; when overall crime (violent) is referenced in a United States socio-economic conversation, I give more weight to ‘welfare and inner-city black gang’ then ‘welfare and trailor-park white trash’.
If I am wrong, then my only offense is that I have not studied the numbers (and that I perhaps use insulting language to make a point). As you suggest, this does not make me a racist. But, it does leave a bad taste and a need for education/communication.
However, if I am right (and ‘welfare inner-city back gang’ violent crime is disproportionate to ‘welfare white trailer-trash’ violent crime) then…I am right. And the only thing you are left with is my insulting language (which I tend to distribute evenly.).
As to BB’s comments: I can see where, if statistics hold true, he could have said…
‘But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose — you could abort every WELFARE BABY in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.’
That is the only alternate hypothetical BB could have used with the same effect in rejecting pragmatic arguments on both sides of the abortion debate.
Interestingly, if BB had used the ‘every welfare baby’ hypothetical…he would probably still be accused of racism (does such a suggestion label me a racist?).
Cheers,
Andi
LaShawn
I think conservatives are being intellectually dishonest when they castigate Bennett’s detractors on the narrow grounds that his “hypothetical is based on fact”.
Lets consider some other hypotheticals, based on fact, that have brought public figure widespread condemnation and ultimately cost them their jobs:
Suregeon General Jocelyn Elder: “Masturbation is something that is part of human sexuality and its part of something that perhaps should be taught.â€
Ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young: for having met with a representative of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO, then considered a terrorist organization, and stating that such a meeting was critical to achieving lasting peace in the Middle East.
Perhaps blacks are not the only “People [who] have nothing better to do than blow the most mundane things out of proportion.”
So you’re using “Henry” now? Well, play nice, and I’ll let you stay this time. You know, it always amazes me how much people want to comment on this blog. They personally insult me, get the boot, and for reasons I’ll never understand, they always come back, usually under different names. Why are you people compelled? – Admin
#92: Annette: “.. that’s what’s so troubling about his race-specific “thought experiment†— that such a smart, well-meaning opinion maker would so casually say something that translates, to African American ears, as “blacks are criminals.†For hundreds of years, this country was obsessed with the supposed menace of black sexuality and fertility. Bennett’s remarks have to make you wonder whether that obsession has really vanished or just been deemed off-limits in polite discourse. .. If we put our racial baggage on the table and talk about it, we’ll begin to take care of a lot of unfinished business.
Agree with Annette that Bennett’s racially tinged example, even if “technically” accurate would grate the wrong way with many blacks, and indeed might evoke memories of eugenic advocates targeting blacks for “culling”. Yes he should have known better and used a better example, and indeed missed a golden opportunity to slam liberalism for its support of abortion and the excuses made is some quarters for black crime. Some of his defenders should at least acknowledge that, rather than attempt to focus a defense on the “technical” accuracy of his comments.
But in the larger scheme of things Bennett’s comment really is irrelevant and trivial to the larger picture. It is amazing that such heat would be generated over a dubious example given on yet another forgettable talk show segment, but you can’t get one tenth of the press attention by pointing out the large numbers of black unborn being destroyed every year, or the fact that blacks lead others in abortion rates, or the indications that abortion itself is fueling black family instability, with negative effects (like crime) down the road. Should LaShawn lead off a blog article with such data how many posts would it draw? But come white conservative Bill Bennett, well then there is no end of attention. Putting Bennett on the couch is interesting, but ultimately a dead-end trail. The hard questions that should be asked about the main tracks of black life in poor communities are not being asked with enough intensity and attention. It is easier to obsess over Bill Bennet for many, than a several thousand dead blacks every year, caused by mostly black hands.
As for putting our racial baggage on the table and talking about it- a large part of media discourse resolves precisely around talking about racial baggage. But after all the noise and shouting, to what end? Racial obsessions of white people? Why make white people the center of attention yet again? Isn’t it better to focus on the real crisis of dead bodies in the black community, whether disposed of via “dumpsta” behind the clinic, or by “gangsta” on the corner?
#86 – Ma’at
Yes, aborting males would reduce the crime rate…and if BB had said so, people would have laughed and thought ‘what’s for dinner’.
By referring to ‘black children and crime’ BB was touching upon a hypothetical that would make a lasting point to his listeners. He could have said ‘aborting every native American child will reduce child abuse’ and his listeners would have thought him ridiculous (not because the demographics are wrong – but because most of his listeners are not aware of/concerned about native American child abuse.).
Yes, the caller suggested that abortions (in total) were reducing money paid into Social Security. If you listen to an audio file of the conversation – you will understand that Bill noted this argument was not good – even accepting pragmatism. He hestitaed…said something about mostly poor children being aborted and economics (the listener was left to connect the dots)….and then made the counter ‘pragmatic’ argument about blacks, crime, and abortion. His conclusion was…pragmatism has no place in the abortion debate.
You ask, “So the question is why did he feel the need to go there? hmm” (referring to ‘blacks’)… Well, if somebody told me that abortion could be debated upon a purely socio-economic basis, absent morals, then I would reach for the most obvious socio-economic demographic I could find -to demonstrate the amorality of pure pragmatism.
The obvious socio-economic demographic that came to BB’s mind was….black crime. Nobody, within this blog, has suggested a better, more obvious example, of a purely pragmatic argument for abortion. Maybe ‘welfare abortion’ fits the bill – but it’s a fine line.
You said, “His comments have the funk of racism. And Maatkare, being a negro, has been offended.”
Try contemplating his argument. Forget about your race…just for a moment…and consider his words as he meant them. Abortion is immoral – every child is equal – no other fact is needed to argue the point.
The funniest part of this whole afair?
He was purposfully making a false statement, in response to a caller who was making a false and dangerous statistical comparison, in order to point out how that type of statement was dangerous.
And the media, like the fish they are, bit.
And many on this blog did too….
So, if all the other kids were jumping off a cliff…..
The problem with what Bill Bennett said was not the actual hypothetical, but the assumption behind his choice. I read Freakonomics a few weeks ago, am black and anti-abortion, and was not offended at all by Levitt’s arguments about abortion and the drop in the crime rate during the 90’s. Bill Bennett’s comments were racist because they implied the assumption that blacks have inherent higher rates of criminality. This is a eugenics-style argument that formed the basis of many “intellectual” and not so intellectual racist theories.
No one argues the correlation with blacks in the U.S. and crime. But correlation isn’t causality. Saying that certain groups are the cause of society’s problems, so that the society’s problems would be reduced if they were gone (hypothetically of course – Bennett) is making that correlation a causality. No one argues that crime rates are higher in children that grow up under the poverty line. Crime is higher in the poor. But the argument that getting rid of the poor people would reduce the crime rate is invalid unless you honestly believe that if all the ‘non-poor’ people formed a society (without, for the sake of argument, every household that makes under $15,000), they would form a stable society of only middle class and rich people. It makes no sense. There would still be poor people in the society and those people would still end up with higher crime rates. You would just be moving the line where the crime rate sharply rose from lets say people in households under $15,000 to under $50,000. But overall, you can’t say that the rate of crime definitively will drop, only that the number will drop.
Just like you can’t say that the hypothetical abortion of blacks would drop the crime rate just because the crime rate is high in blacks. There is always an underclass in society, and 18 years after a hypothetical stoppage of new black people would still contain an underclass, it just would be filled with with a less proportion of black people. But whatever that new underclass was composed of (in 2001 of the nation’s 3.5 million children living in extreme poverty (
As a young black male, I give much kudos to Lashawn Barber for having the moxie and good sense to flout those who are on the offensive because of William Bennett’s harmless remarks.
The main fact, people, is that blacks in the U.S. commit crime in ridiculously higher proportions to their numbers. This is not racist illusion or guesswork. It is well-documented and observed to the point of being indisputable. Young black men especially contribute enormously to overall American crime. One recent statistic states, “Young black men, ages 15 to 24, while only 1 percent of the population, commit up to 20 percent of all violent crime.†The data found by the Department of Justice agree well with this statement in regards to homicide (link #1 below). At least half of the violent crime–including murder, rape, and robbery–can be assigned to blacks (link #2 below). Blacks are also imprisoned at 7 times the rate of whites and 33 times the Asian rate on a per capita basis (link #3 below).
You simply cannot have an educated discussion on American crime without at the very least implicating the country’s 13% black minority. For this reason, Bennett employed the black population in his hypothetical scenario on the perceived impact of abortion. The wheel that squeaks the loudest gets the most attention and the black variable in the U.S. crime equation is indeed weighty. Making his scenario even more reasonable is the fact that black women have the most abortions. So in his objection to abortion, he used the distasteful eugenic approach which theorizes that abortion reduces the number of black births which in return lowers crime rates. (Of course, the pundit Steve Sailer proves on his blog that abortion reduces neither conceptions nor births of those most likely to commit crime.) Plus, Bennett opined that such a eugenic theory, even if it were effective, is absurd and despicable.
Let me add by appealing to those not mathematically innumerate. Yes, it is true that crime would go down if America’s black population were to vanish. The truth stems from the higher-than-average crime rates of black Americans. The same applies to the country’s Hispanic population. However, the opposite would be true if Asians were to disappear. Since Asian crime rates are lower than average, eliminating the Asian population would only serve to raise the overall U.S. rate according to mathematical reasoning. For those who would accuse me of being racially biased, allow me to use another scenario. It is duly noted that whites in places such as Europe, Australia, the U.S., and Canada have higher rates of crime than, say, the Japanese in Japan. If a non-trivially sized, representative population of whites from Norway, Scotland, and Australia immigrated to Japan, Japanese crime rates would rise due to the new white inhabitants’ higher propensity for crime. Am I a racist lout who despises blacks and whites to make such incendiary assertions or am I simply a rational person who renders numerical logic based on well-received domestic and international statistics to form a conclusion? Maybe I just need a good class on political correction.
Link 1 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/proportiontab.htm).
Link 2 http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder101801.asp
Link 3 http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050918_crime.htm
Comments on this entry are closed.