![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
Some important differences between Blacks and Whites.
December 26th, 2007 (08:47 pm)
Добро пожаловать. Хранить белый стран для белых людей.
Question #1.
What percentage of violent interracial crimes are considered "hate crimes"?
(1) ...when the perpetrator is Black and the victim is White?
(2) ...when the perpetrator is White and the victim is Black?
Also, why are Hispanics considered "White" when they are offenders but a separate group when they are victims?
ANSWER:
Very approximately,
(1) About 0.2 percent of Black-on-White interracial crimes are labeled "hate crimes."
(2) About 3.2 percent of White-on-Black interracial crimes are labeled "hate crimes."
Every year there are about 1,700,000 violent crimes between Blacks and Whites. Of those crimes, Blacks commit 85%. The remaining 15% are committed by someone whom the U.S. Department of Justice considers "White," which includes most of the Hispanics resident in the United States. When you remove the Hispanics from the tally of "White" offenders, the proportions of B&W crimes shift to 90% having Black perps and 10% having White perps.
So for each violent crime having a White perpetrator and a Black victim, there are 9 crimes having a Black perpetrator and a White victim. That's an astounding imbalance of violent crime, especially when you consider that Whites outnumber Blacks in the USA by a ratio of six. It means that Blacks are 54 times more likely to commit a violent crime against Whites than the reverse.
That ratio of 54 is only for crimes with a single perpetrator and a single victim. Black GANGS are about 200 times more likely to attack someone White, as compared with the reverse.
Despite the huge number of violent B&W crimes, a typical year sees less than 10,000 "hate crime" accusations. Only one out of every 200 interracial crimes is considered a "hate crime" by the police.
You'd think that the Black-to-White per capita rate ratio for "hate crimes" would be about the same as that rate for violent interracial crimes, wouldn't you? After all, any violent interracial crime is a candidate for the "hate crime" category, yes? Well, if you think that those ratios are at least roughly equal in value, then you're wrong. The police seem to have a strong aversion to accusing Blacks of "hate" offenses. Blacks are only 2.25 times more likely to be "hate criminals," as compared with Whites.
Why the drop, from a ratio of 54 for interracial crimes, all the way down to 2.25 for "hate crimes"? Why is a White who commits a violent act against a Black 24 times more likely to be slapped with "hate crime" charges, as compared with a Black who commits a violent act against a White?
The reason, I think, is massive propaganda and psychological conditioning of police officers, carried out in part by the usual politically correct venues, such as television. But the police get an extra dose of brainwashing from Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), whose agents regularly presume to "teach" our police officers how to do their jobs in the "correct" way.
The whole "hate crime" idea is a legitimized scam, based on illusion, whose purpose is to make Whites look worse than they are, to make Blacks look better than they really are, and to inflict more legal punishment on Whites than on Blacks for offenses of equal seriousness.
Most of the Hispanics resident in the United States (both legals and illegals) are Mestizos, who are biologically non-White. Nonetheless, the Justice Department calls them "Whites" when they are offenders, but recognizes them as being a separate group when they are victims. That's some of the official cheating that our government does with race statistics. Why does the DoJ do this cheating? I think that the reason might have something to do with Jewish influence.
Per capita, Mestizos are about 3 times more likely to commit violent crimes, as compared with real Whites. As a rule of thumb, any of the Justice Department's per capita ratios of Black-to-White crime offenses should be corrected by raising them by a factor of about 1.4.
The Great Hate Crimes Hoax, by Jared Taylor (American Renaissance)
‘Hate Crimes’ Not Big Problem in Race Relations, by Robert Stacy McCain (The Washington Times)
Question #2.
(2) ...when the perpetrator is White and the victim is Black?
Also, why are Hispanics considered "White" when they are offenders but a separate group when they are victims?
ANSWER:
Very approximately,
(1) About 0.2 percent of Black-on-White interracial crimes are labeled "hate crimes."
(2) About 3.2 percent of White-on-Black interracial crimes are labeled "hate crimes."
Every year there are about 1,700,000 violent crimes between Blacks and Whites. Of those crimes, Blacks commit 85%. The remaining 15% are committed by someone whom the U.S. Department of Justice considers "White," which includes most of the Hispanics resident in the United States. When you remove the Hispanics from the tally of "White" offenders, the proportions of B&W crimes shift to 90% having Black perps and 10% having White perps.
So for each violent crime having a White perpetrator and a Black victim, there are 9 crimes having a Black perpetrator and a White victim. That's an astounding imbalance of violent crime, especially when you consider that Whites outnumber Blacks in the USA by a ratio of six. It means that Blacks are 54 times more likely to commit a violent crime against Whites than the reverse.
That ratio of 54 is only for crimes with a single perpetrator and a single victim. Black GANGS are about 200 times more likely to attack someone White, as compared with the reverse.
Despite the huge number of violent B&W crimes, a typical year sees less than 10,000 "hate crime" accusations. Only one out of every 200 interracial crimes is considered a "hate crime" by the police.
You'd think that the Black-to-White per capita rate ratio for "hate crimes" would be about the same as that rate for violent interracial crimes, wouldn't you? After all, any violent interracial crime is a candidate for the "hate crime" category, yes? Well, if you think that those ratios are at least roughly equal in value, then you're wrong. The police seem to have a strong aversion to accusing Blacks of "hate" offenses. Blacks are only 2.25 times more likely to be "hate criminals," as compared with Whites.
Why the drop, from a ratio of 54 for interracial crimes, all the way down to 2.25 for "hate crimes"? Why is a White who commits a violent act against a Black 24 times more likely to be slapped with "hate crime" charges, as compared with a Black who commits a violent act against a White?
The reason, I think, is massive propaganda and psychological conditioning of police officers, carried out in part by the usual politically correct venues, such as television. But the police get an extra dose of brainwashing from Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), whose agents regularly presume to "teach" our police officers how to do their jobs in the "correct" way.
The whole "hate crime" idea is a legitimized scam, based on illusion, whose purpose is to make Whites look worse than they are, to make Blacks look better than they really are, and to inflict more legal punishment on Whites than on Blacks for offenses of equal seriousness.
Most of the Hispanics resident in the United States (both legals and illegals) are Mestizos, who are biologically non-White. Nonetheless, the Justice Department calls them "Whites" when they are offenders, but recognizes them as being a separate group when they are victims. That's some of the official cheating that our government does with race statistics. Why does the DoJ do this cheating? I think that the reason might have something to do with Jewish influence.
Per capita, Mestizos are about 3 times more likely to commit violent crimes, as compared with real Whites. As a rule of thumb, any of the Justice Department's per capita ratios of Black-to-White crime offenses should be corrected by raising them by a factor of about 1.4.
The Great Hate Crimes Hoax, by Jared Taylor (American Renaissance)
‘Hate Crimes’ Not Big Problem in Race Relations, by Robert Stacy McCain (The Washington Times)
Question #2.
A man of which race is the most likely to victimize a child?
What do the official crime statistics say? I'm looking for the per capita rates, broken down by race, at which men victimize children. Please don't try to flummox me by citing some other statistic.
ANSWER:
According to information from the US DoJ, Black males are about three times more likely to victimize children, as compared with White men. It doesn't look as if that's what it's saying, at first. But you can figure it out. Here's the quote:
"White inmates were nearly 3 times more likely than black inmates to have had a child victim. About 27% of all white inmates in State prisons for violent crimes committed their crimes against a child; less than 10% of black inmates serving time for violence had a child victim." (Dept. of Justice)
What the quoted paragraph doesn't tell you is that White Americans outnumber Blacks resident in the United States by a factor of six. If the ratio of Whites to Blacks among men imprisoned for child victimization is 3, then the per capita rate ratio, Black to White, is 6/3 = 2.
Whoever wrote that paragraph for the Department of Justice was probably deliberately trying to mislead the public by making them think that White men were more likely to molest children than Black men are. But what it really means is that Black men commit lots of crimes other than child molestation, so many that, although Black men do molest children considerably more often than White men do, they also commit so many murders, rapes (against adult victims), assaults, armed robberies, and so on, that the child molesters among them form a relatively small percentage of all the Blacks in prison.
Also, 29% of the offenders classified as "White" by the DoJ are, in fact, Mestizos (Hispanics). Whites actually commit only 71% of the crimes attributed to White perpetrators. A rough correction can be made to all Black-to-White per capita rate ratios by multiplying them by a factor of 1.41.
Black men are 2.82 times more likely to molest a child, as compared with (real) White men.
Blacks and leftists like to claim that "poverty" is what makes Blacks commit violent crimes more than Whites do, suggesting that maybe Whites ought to give Blacks lots of money, money in a copious and endless stream, in order to make them peaceful. But poverty doesn't cause the disparity between Black and White rates for violent crime. I'll prove it.
In 1995, 11.2% of White Americans and 29.0% of US-resident Blacks lived in poverty (i.e., below the federal government's poverty line), so it's true that a higher percentage of Blacks than of Whites in the general population were poor.
But how many poor Whites and poor Blacks are we talking about?
In 1995, there were 218.3 million American Whites and 33.1 million American Blacks, which means that there were 24.4 million poor Whites and 9.5 million poor Blacks living in the United States that year. Ignoring other races for simplicity, poor US residents were 72% White and 28% Black in 1995.
Poor Whites outnumbered poor Blacks by a ratio of 2.57 to one.
If poverty were the cause of violent crime, as the liberals say it is, then for each 100 murders in the US committed by Blacks in 1995, about 257 murders would have been committed by Whites during the same year. But that isn't what happened.
The fact is that about 55% of the murders in the United States in 1995 were committed by Blacks. In other words, for each 100 murders committed by Blacks, only 82 murders were committed by all non-Black groups combined!
Even if you assumed that Whites committed all the murders in the United States in 1995 that Blacks did not commit, the Whites could only be responsible, at most, for 82 murders for each 100 murders perpetrated by Blacks, even though there were six times more Whites than Blacks in the country.
Just to check, in 1998, 10.5% of American Whites and 26.5% of American Blacks lived in poverty. The Census Bureau estimates that there were were 223.0 million White Americans and 34.4 million Black US residents on July 1 of that year.
See: http://www.census.gov/population/project
At that time, then, there were 23.4 million poor Whites and 9.1 million poor Blacks living in the United States in 1998. The poor were, once again, 72% White and 28% Black, setting aside poor people of all other races. In 1998 as in 1995, poor Whites outnumbered poor Blacks by a ratio of 2.57 to one, yet about half of all US murders in 1998 were committed by Blacks.
These facts are in conflict with a prediction that can be reasonably drawn from the liberal theory, which is therefore wrong. Poverty isn't the cause of Black violence, and the famous "poverty causes crime" hypothesis is a liberal myth.
Question #3.
ANSWER:
According to information from the US DoJ, Black males are about three times more likely to victimize children, as compared with White men. It doesn't look as if that's what it's saying, at first. But you can figure it out. Here's the quote:
"White inmates were nearly 3 times more likely than black inmates to have had a child victim. About 27% of all white inmates in State prisons for violent crimes committed their crimes against a child; less than 10% of black inmates serving time for violence had a child victim." (Dept. of Justice)
What the quoted paragraph doesn't tell you is that White Americans outnumber Blacks resident in the United States by a factor of six. If the ratio of Whites to Blacks among men imprisoned for child victimization is 3, then the per capita rate ratio, Black to White, is 6/3 = 2.
Whoever wrote that paragraph for the Department of Justice was probably deliberately trying to mislead the public by making them think that White men were more likely to molest children than Black men are. But what it really means is that Black men commit lots of crimes other than child molestation, so many that, although Black men do molest children considerably more often than White men do, they also commit so many murders, rapes (against adult victims), assaults, armed robberies, and so on, that the child molesters among them form a relatively small percentage of all the Blacks in prison.
Also, 29% of the offenders classified as "White" by the DoJ are, in fact, Mestizos (Hispanics). Whites actually commit only 71% of the crimes attributed to White perpetrators. A rough correction can be made to all Black-to-White per capita rate ratios by multiplying them by a factor of 1.41.
Black men are 2.82 times more likely to molest a child, as compared with (real) White men.
Blacks and leftists like to claim that "poverty" is what makes Blacks commit violent crimes more than Whites do, suggesting that maybe Whites ought to give Blacks lots of money, money in a copious and endless stream, in order to make them peaceful. But poverty doesn't cause the disparity between Black and White rates for violent crime. I'll prove it.
In 1995, 11.2% of White Americans and 29.0% of US-resident Blacks lived in poverty (i.e., below the federal government's poverty line), so it's true that a higher percentage of Blacks than of Whites in the general population were poor.
But how many poor Whites and poor Blacks are we talking about?
In 1995, there were 218.3 million American Whites and 33.1 million American Blacks, which means that there were 24.4 million poor Whites and 9.5 million poor Blacks living in the United States that year. Ignoring other races for simplicity, poor US residents were 72% White and 28% Black in 1995.
Poor Whites outnumbered poor Blacks by a ratio of 2.57 to one.
If poverty were the cause of violent crime, as the liberals say it is, then for each 100 murders in the US committed by Blacks in 1995, about 257 murders would have been committed by Whites during the same year. But that isn't what happened.
The fact is that about 55% of the murders in the United States in 1995 were committed by Blacks. In other words, for each 100 murders committed by Blacks, only 82 murders were committed by all non-Black groups combined!
Even if you assumed that Whites committed all the murders in the United States in 1995 that Blacks did not commit, the Whites could only be responsible, at most, for 82 murders for each 100 murders perpetrated by Blacks, even though there were six times more Whites than Blacks in the country.
Just to check, in 1998, 10.5% of American Whites and 26.5% of American Blacks lived in poverty. The Census Bureau estimates that there were were 223.0 million White Americans and 34.4 million Black US residents on July 1 of that year.
See: http://www.census.gov/population/project
At that time, then, there were 23.4 million poor Whites and 9.1 million poor Blacks living in the United States in 1998. The poor were, once again, 72% White and 28% Black, setting aside poor people of all other races. In 1998 as in 1995, poor Whites outnumbered poor Blacks by a ratio of 2.57 to one, yet about half of all US murders in 1998 were committed by Blacks.
These facts are in conflict with a prediction that can be reasonably drawn from the liberal theory, which is therefore wrong. Poverty isn't the cause of Black violence, and the famous "poverty causes crime" hypothesis is a liberal myth.
Question #3.
Do Whites and Blacks differ in per capita rate of violent crime perpetration?
I'm trying to understand the extent of the differences between the races in regard to the frequency of perpetration of violent crimes. At this moment, I am not concerned with the social significance of those differences. I am asking only about their existence and, if they exist, about their magnitude.
It might be helpful to know the per capita rate ratios (Black to White) for murder, rape, armed robbery, and aggravated assault. Does anyone with ready access to such data have these ratios at their fingertips? I'd like to familiarize myself with that information.
Also, it would be interesting to discover whether the per capita violence perpetration rate ratios observed in the United States are typical of similar ratios worldwide.
ANSWER:
Blacks and Whites do indeed show a difference in per capita rates for violent crimes. And these differences are not merely a matter of a few percent; they're HUGE! Not double, nor triple, but, for some crimes, the Black-to-White ratio of perpetration rate (per capita) is an entire order of magnitude (i.e., a factor of ten), and sometimes even more!
Let's use murder as an example.
1995.
In 1995, there were 10032 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 5175 (51.6%) and Whites committed 4476 (44.6%). The Black per capita murder rate was 7.6 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.
There were at least 1149 interracial murders (11.5% of total murders), of which 743 were committed by Blacks (64.7% of interracial murders) and 331 were committed by Whites (28.8%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 14.8 times higher than that for Whites.
There were 699 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (60.8% of interracial murders) and 281 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (24.5%). The average Black was 16.4 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).
1996.
In 1996, there were 8239 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 4174 (50.7%) and Whites committed 3771 (45.8%). The Black per capita murder rate was 7.3 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.
There were at least 978 interracial murders (11.9% of total murders), of which 595 were committed by Blacks (60.8% of interracial murders) and 302 were committed by Whites (30.9%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 12.9 times higher than that for Whites.
There were 558 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (57.1% of interracial murders) and 247 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (25.3%). The average Black was 14.8 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).
1997.
In 1997, there were 7721 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 3958 (51.3%) and Whites committed 3454 (44.7%). The Black per capita murder rate was 7.5 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.
There were at least 868 interracial murders (11.2% of total murders), of which 555 were committed by Blacks (63.9% of interracial murders) and 257 were committed by Whites (29.6%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 14.1 times higher than that for Whites.
There were 520 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (59.9% of interracial murders) and 209 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (24.1%). The average Black was 16.2 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).
1998.
In 1998, there were 7276 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 3565 (49.0%) and Whites committed 3475 (47.8%). The Black per capita murder rate was 6.7 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.
There were at least 762 interracial murders (10.5% of total murders), of which 469 were committed by Blacks (61.5% of interracial murders) and 248 were committed by Whites (32.5%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 12.3 times higher than that for Whites.
There were 449 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (58.9% of interracial murders) and 205 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (26.9%). The average Black was 14.2 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).
1999.
In 1999, there were 6434 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 3155 (49.0%) and Whites committed 2984 (46.4%). The Black per capita murder rate was 6.8 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.
There were at least 718 interracial murders (11.2% of total murders), of which 469 were committed by Blacks (65.3% of interracial murders) and 188 were committed by Whites (26.2%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 16.1 times higher than that for Whites.
There were 452 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (63.0% of interracial murders) and 154 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (21.4%). The average Black was 18.9 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).
2000.
In 2000, there were 6514 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 3181 (48.8%) and Whites committed 3111 (47.8%). The Black per capita murder rate was 6.5 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.
There were at least 705 interracial murders (10.8% of total murders), of which 439 were committed by Blacks (62.3% of interracial murders) and 221 were committed by Whites (31.3%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 12.7 times higher than that for Whites.
There were 417 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (59.1% of interracial murders) and 178 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (25.2%). The average Black was 15.0 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).
2001.
In 2001, there were 6987 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 3321 (47.5%) and Whites committed 3322 (47.5%). The Black per capita murder rate was 6.3 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.
There were at least 789 interracial murders (11.3% of total murders), of which 499 were committed by Blacks (63.2% of interracial murders) and 232 were committed by Whites (29.4%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 13.6 times higher than that for Whites.
There were 475 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (60.2% of interracial murders) and 180 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (22.8%). The average Black was 16.7 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).
2002.
In 2002, there were 7005 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 3386 (48.3%) and Whites committed 3309 (47.2%). The Black per capita murder rate was 6.4 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.
There were at least 858 interracial murders (12.2% of total murders), of which 511 were committed by Blacks (59.6% of interracial murders) and 278 were committed by Whites (32.4%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 11.5 times higher than that for Whites.
There were 483 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (56.3% of interracial murders) and 227 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (26.5%). The average Black was 13.3 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).
2003.
In 2003, there were 7024 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 3415 (48.6%) and Whites committed 3323 (47.3%). The Black per capita murder rate was 6.4 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.
There were at least 852 interracial murders (12.1% of total murders), of which 527 were committed by Blacks (61.9% of interracial murders) and 273 were committed by Whites (32.0%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 12.0 times higher than that for Whites.
There were 501 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (58.8% of interracial murders) and 226 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (26.5%). The average Black was 13.8 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).
2004.
In 2004, there were 7039 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 3427 (48.7%) and Whites committed 3344 (47.5%). The Black per capita murder rate was 6.0 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.
There were at least 859 interracial murders (12.2% of total murders), of which 545 were committed by Blacks (63.4% of interracial murders) and 270 were committed by Whites (31.4%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 12.5 times higher than that for Whites.
There were 522 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (60.8% of interracial murders) and 228 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (26.5%). The average Black was 14.1 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).
NOTE: The US Department of Justice routinely classifies Hispanic criminals, most of whose representatives in the United States are Mestizos (hybrid Amerindians) as "White" offenders. The US DoJ distinguishes Hispanics from Whites only when the Hispanics are the victims of crime - never when they are the perpetrators. In jurisdictions in which law enforcement tracks Mestizo crime separately, it is commonly observed that Mestizos commit violent crimes at about three times the per capita rate that real Whites do.
Accordingly, the Justice Department's packing Hispanics into the White racial category has the effect of inflating the numbers of crimes blamed on White perpetrators, which, in turn, reduces the contrast between Black versus White crime perpetration.
In order to correct the numbers in the tables (shown above), at least in a rough sense, each of the Black-to-White perpetration ratios should be multiplied by a factor of 1.3 or 1.4.
Furthermore, the tables (shown above) only include murders for which there was a single perpetrator and a single victim. When gang murders are considered, in which a group of people attack one person alone, the racial lopsidedness increases remarkably.
Black gangs kill White people more than 100 times more often than White gangs kill Blacks.
Black gangs kill more people in one year than the KKK killed in 130 years.
You'd never know these things from watching you TV news or from reading your popular press. But these are the facts, and you can check them yourself. See the source, below.
RAPE. Or, I should say, "reported rape." Black men perpetrate reported rapes at a per capita rate about five times higher than White men do. According to Frank Borzellieri, that ratio would be about 11.0 if all rapes were reported (The Unspoken Truth, published by NEW CENTURY BOOKS, p. 124).
ARMED ROBBERY. Blacks commit armed robbery at a per capita rate at least 10 times higher than that of Whites. Borzellieri says that the ratio may be as high as 17.
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. Blacks commit aggravated assault somewhere between four and 22 times more often, per capita, than White men do, depending on which source you believe.
Source: The FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States (1995-2004).
See Table 2.8 in the documents for the years 1995-2002, and Table 2.7 in the documents for the years 2003 & 2004.
Question #4.
For AIDS, the per capita rate ratio, Black to White, for HIV infection was 18.6 for heterosexual males and 18.3 for females, in 2004.
Source: Cases of HIV Infection - Table 9, "Estimated numbers of persons living with HIV infection (not AIDS), by race/ethnicity, sex, transmission category, and age category, 2001–2004—35 areas with confidential name-based HIV infection reporting", Centers for Disease Control, published in 2006 (Link).
For racial statistics on other sexually transmitted diseases, see: gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia.
Leftists will often try to obscure the significance of the higher Black rate of STD infections by saying something like: "This disease is a virus; it doesn't care what race you are; it just wants to infect you." Which, of course, side-steps the point. The leftists' argument is like saying it's just as safe to drive home drunk as sober because an auto accident doesn't care how much alcohol you have in your blood, a high speed collision will kill you regardless. The point isn't what will happen to you if you get a sexually transmitted disease; the point is the probability of being infected with it.
Leftists will also frequently allege that the reason Blacks have AIDS, and gonorrhea, and syphilis, and herpes so very much more often than Whites do is due to their being financially poor. It's nonsense. Being poor does not increase your odds of getting an STD. Being stupid, or being lascivious, or being undisciplined... those qualities certainly might have something to do with it. But being poor? No. Hardly. The Black per capita rate of STD infection is still stupendously higher than that of equally poor White people.
Question #5.
It might be helpful to know the per capita rate ratios (Black to White) for murder, rape, armed robbery, and aggravated assault. Does anyone with ready access to such data have these ratios at their fingertips? I'd like to familiarize myself with that information.
Also, it would be interesting to discover whether the per capita violence perpetration rate ratios observed in the United States are typical of similar ratios worldwide.
ANSWER:
Blacks and Whites do indeed show a difference in per capita rates for violent crimes. And these differences are not merely a matter of a few percent; they're HUGE! Not double, nor triple, but, for some crimes, the Black-to-White ratio of perpetration rate (per capita) is an entire order of magnitude (i.e., a factor of ten), and sometimes even more!
Let's use murder as an example.
1995.
In 1995, there were 10032 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 5175 (51.6%) and Whites committed 4476 (44.6%). The Black per capita murder rate was 7.6 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.
There were at least 1149 interracial murders (11.5% of total murders), of which 743 were committed by Blacks (64.7% of interracial murders) and 331 were committed by Whites (28.8%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 14.8 times higher than that for Whites.
There were 699 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (60.8% of interracial murders) and 281 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (24.5%). The average Black was 16.4 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).
1996.
In 1996, there were 8239 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 4174 (50.7%) and Whites committed 3771 (45.8%). The Black per capita murder rate was 7.3 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.
There were at least 978 interracial murders (11.9% of total murders), of which 595 were committed by Blacks (60.8% of interracial murders) and 302 were committed by Whites (30.9%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 12.9 times higher than that for Whites.
There were 558 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (57.1% of interracial murders) and 247 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (25.3%). The average Black was 14.8 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).
1997.
In 1997, there were 7721 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 3958 (51.3%) and Whites committed 3454 (44.7%). The Black per capita murder rate was 7.5 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.
There were at least 868 interracial murders (11.2% of total murders), of which 555 were committed by Blacks (63.9% of interracial murders) and 257 were committed by Whites (29.6%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 14.1 times higher than that for Whites.
There were 520 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (59.9% of interracial murders) and 209 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (24.1%). The average Black was 16.2 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).
1998.
In 1998, there were 7276 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 3565 (49.0%) and Whites committed 3475 (47.8%). The Black per capita murder rate was 6.7 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.
There were at least 762 interracial murders (10.5% of total murders), of which 469 were committed by Blacks (61.5% of interracial murders) and 248 were committed by Whites (32.5%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 12.3 times higher than that for Whites.
There were 449 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (58.9% of interracial murders) and 205 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (26.9%). The average Black was 14.2 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).
1999.
In 1999, there were 6434 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 3155 (49.0%) and Whites committed 2984 (46.4%). The Black per capita murder rate was 6.8 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.
There were at least 718 interracial murders (11.2% of total murders), of which 469 were committed by Blacks (65.3% of interracial murders) and 188 were committed by Whites (26.2%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 16.1 times higher than that for Whites.
There were 452 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (63.0% of interracial murders) and 154 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (21.4%). The average Black was 18.9 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).
2000.
In 2000, there were 6514 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 3181 (48.8%) and Whites committed 3111 (47.8%). The Black per capita murder rate was 6.5 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.
There were at least 705 interracial murders (10.8% of total murders), of which 439 were committed by Blacks (62.3% of interracial murders) and 221 were committed by Whites (31.3%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 12.7 times higher than that for Whites.
There were 417 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (59.1% of interracial murders) and 178 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (25.2%). The average Black was 15.0 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).
2001.
In 2001, there were 6987 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 3321 (47.5%) and Whites committed 3322 (47.5%). The Black per capita murder rate was 6.3 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.
There were at least 789 interracial murders (11.3% of total murders), of which 499 were committed by Blacks (63.2% of interracial murders) and 232 were committed by Whites (29.4%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 13.6 times higher than that for Whites.
There were 475 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (60.2% of interracial murders) and 180 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (22.8%). The average Black was 16.7 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).
2002.
In 2002, there were 7005 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 3386 (48.3%) and Whites committed 3309 (47.2%). The Black per capita murder rate was 6.4 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.
There were at least 858 interracial murders (12.2% of total murders), of which 511 were committed by Blacks (59.6% of interracial murders) and 278 were committed by Whites (32.4%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 11.5 times higher than that for Whites.
There were 483 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (56.3% of interracial murders) and 227 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (26.5%). The average Black was 13.3 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).
2003.
In 2003, there were 7024 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 3415 (48.6%) and Whites committed 3323 (47.3%). The Black per capita murder rate was 6.4 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.
There were at least 852 interracial murders (12.1% of total murders), of which 527 were committed by Blacks (61.9% of interracial murders) and 273 were committed by Whites (32.0%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 12.0 times higher than that for Whites.
There were 501 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (58.8% of interracial murders) and 226 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (26.5%). The average Black was 13.8 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).
2004.
In 2004, there were 7039 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 3427 (48.7%) and Whites committed 3344 (47.5%). The Black per capita murder rate was 6.0 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.
There were at least 859 interracial murders (12.2% of total murders), of which 545 were committed by Blacks (63.4% of interracial murders) and 270 were committed by Whites (31.4%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 12.5 times higher than that for Whites.
There were 522 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (60.8% of interracial murders) and 228 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (26.5%). The average Black was 14.1 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).
NOTE: The US Department of Justice routinely classifies Hispanic criminals, most of whose representatives in the United States are Mestizos (hybrid Amerindians) as "White" offenders. The US DoJ distinguishes Hispanics from Whites only when the Hispanics are the victims of crime - never when they are the perpetrators. In jurisdictions in which law enforcement tracks Mestizo crime separately, it is commonly observed that Mestizos commit violent crimes at about three times the per capita rate that real Whites do.
Accordingly, the Justice Department's packing Hispanics into the White racial category has the effect of inflating the numbers of crimes blamed on White perpetrators, which, in turn, reduces the contrast between Black versus White crime perpetration.
In order to correct the numbers in the tables (shown above), at least in a rough sense, each of the Black-to-White perpetration ratios should be multiplied by a factor of 1.3 or 1.4.
Furthermore, the tables (shown above) only include murders for which there was a single perpetrator and a single victim. When gang murders are considered, in which a group of people attack one person alone, the racial lopsidedness increases remarkably.
Black gangs kill White people more than 100 times more often than White gangs kill Blacks.
Black gangs kill more people in one year than the KKK killed in 130 years.
You'd never know these things from watching you TV news or from reading your popular press. But these are the facts, and you can check them yourself. See the source, below.
RAPE. Or, I should say, "reported rape." Black men perpetrate reported rapes at a per capita rate about five times higher than White men do. According to Frank Borzellieri, that ratio would be about 11.0 if all rapes were reported (The Unspoken Truth, published by NEW CENTURY BOOKS, p. 124).
ARMED ROBBERY. Blacks commit armed robbery at a per capita rate at least 10 times higher than that of Whites. Borzellieri says that the ratio may be as high as 17.
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. Blacks commit aggravated assault somewhere between four and 22 times more often, per capita, than White men do, depending on which source you believe.
Source: The FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States (1995-2004).
See Table 2.8 in the documents for the years 1995-2002, and Table 2.7 in the documents for the years 2003 & 2004.
Question #4.
Do Whites and Blacks differ in per capita rate of sexually transmitted disease infection?
I'm trying to understand the extent of the differences between the races in regard to the frequency of sexually transmitted disease. At this moment, I am not concerned with the social significance of those differences. I am asking only about their existence and, if they exist, about their magnitude.
It might be helpful to know the per capita rate ratios (Black to White) for infections with HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea and herpes. Does anyone with ready access to such data have these ratios at their fingertips? I'd like to familiarize myself with that information.
Also, it would be interesting to discover whether the per capita infection rate ratios observed in the United States are typical of similar ratios worldwide.
ANSWER:
Yes, there is a very substantial difference. Blacks have per capita rates for most sexually transmitted diseases that exceed those of Whites by more than a factor of ten.It might be helpful to know the per capita rate ratios (Black to White) for infections with HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea and herpes. Does anyone with ready access to such data have these ratios at their fingertips? I'd like to familiarize myself with that information.
Also, it would be interesting to discover whether the per capita infection rate ratios observed in the United States are typical of similar ratios worldwide.
ANSWER:
For AIDS, the per capita rate ratio, Black to White, for HIV infection was 18.6 for heterosexual males and 18.3 for females, in 2004.
Source: Cases of HIV Infection - Table 9, "Estimated numbers of persons living with HIV infection (not AIDS), by race/ethnicity, sex, transmission category, and age category, 2001–2004—35 areas with confidential name-based HIV infection reporting", Centers for Disease Control, published in 2006 (Link).
For racial statistics on other sexually transmitted diseases, see: gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia.
Leftists will often try to obscure the significance of the higher Black rate of STD infections by saying something like: "This disease is a virus; it doesn't care what race you are; it just wants to infect you." Which, of course, side-steps the point. The leftists' argument is like saying it's just as safe to drive home drunk as sober because an auto accident doesn't care how much alcohol you have in your blood, a high speed collision will kill you regardless. The point isn't what will happen to you if you get a sexually transmitted disease; the point is the probability of being infected with it.
Leftists will also frequently allege that the reason Blacks have AIDS, and gonorrhea, and syphilis, and herpes so very much more often than Whites do is due to their being financially poor. It's nonsense. Being poor does not increase your odds of getting an STD. Being stupid, or being lascivious, or being undisciplined... those qualities certainly might have something to do with it. But being poor? No. Hardly. The Black per capita rate of STD infection is still stupendously higher than that of equally poor White people.
Question #5.
Do Whites and Blacks differ in intelligence?
I'm trying to understand the extent of the IQ differences between the races. At this moment, I am not concerned with the social significance of those differences. I am asking only about their existence and, if they exist, about their magnitude.
It may be helpful to know about racial gaps in IQ test scores, in the scores from military mental competency tests, and in the scores from standard tests of scholastic achievement. How persistent have such gaps been historically?
ANSWER:
Yes, indeed, they do differ. And the difference is substantial.
IQ tests use puzzles to mimic on paper the sort of intellectually demanding challenges that might be faced by a student in a college classroom, by an employee in the workplace, by a scientist in a laboratory, or by political leaders facing a foreign threat.
The measured average IQ for American Whites is 103, with a standard deviation of 15 points. The measured average IQ for US-resident Blacks is 85, with a standard deviation of 12 points. The distributions in IQ for both races is very closely approximated by a normal distribution curve.
Note, however, that 85 is the average IQ of Blacks resident in the United States. The average for African Blacks is only 70. Psychologists have speculated that part of the reason for the higher intelligence of US-resident Blacks, relative to their African cousins is cultural and nutritional. However, part of the racial gap between Blacks and Whites is obviously genetic, since despite the span of time, and the number of generations, in which US-resident Blacks have been living among White Americans, that gap has not closed, and the IQ gains that might reasonably be expected from better nutrition, cultural elevation, social welfare programs and compensatory education have already been made. Furthermore, it has become clear that the IQ's of mulattoes (persons of mixed Black and White ancestry) are nearer to the racial average of whichever race dominates their lineage. The lighter mulattoes are usually the smarter ones.
If, for a particular purpose, it is necessary to hire employees having a minimum IQ of 130, then out of all the available Whites about one in 28 will meet or beat the requirement. However, only one in 11310 Blacks will qualify. That's quite a large difference in proportion.
Whites outnumber Blacks in the United States by a factor of about 5.8. Suppose that an employer selects his workers from a racially random pool of job applicants. He hopes to hire only people whose IQs are 130 or higher. Let's imagine that 100,000 Blacks and 580,000 Whites apply for jobs at the employer's company, since that proportion of applicants mirrors the racial populations in the United States.
Of those 100,000 Black job applicants, only nine of them meet or exceed the employer's minimum IQ requirement. But of the 580,000 Whites who apply, 20839 of them meet or exceed the same requirement. Thus, if the employer is racially "fair," he will hire Whites and Blacks in the proportion of about 2300 to 1. In other words, if Blacks occupy more than 0.043 percent of the employer's hirelings, then that employer has shown a racial bias in favor of Blacks.
The national average scores on the SAT 1 are:
Whites, math, 1997 = 526
Whites, math, 1998 = 528
Whites, math, 1999 = 528
Whites, verbal, 1997 = 526
Whites, verbal, 1998 = 526
Whites, verbal, 1999 = 527
Blacks, math, 1997 = 423
Blacks, math, 1998 = 426
Blacks, math, 1999 = 422
Blacks, verbal, 1997 = 434
Blacks, verbal, 1998 = 434
Blacks, verbal, 1999 = 434
The racial difference is clear, and the figures have been holding steady over the years. However, you should know that a straight ratio comparison of White and Black SAT scores can be misleading. The SAT 1 is "firewalled"; that is, students get 200 free points for the math part of the test, and another 200 free points in the verbal part of the test, just for showing up to take the test. Those points are unearned, and they must be subtracted from the total score before a ratio comparison is made. That will increase the White to Black score ratio. (One suspects that the reason for firewalling in the first place was to obscure the racial score ratios.)
Furthermore, since 1994 the way the SAT has been scored has been changed. Nowadays, students get further extra free points from a fudge-factor called "recentering." Over the years, SAT scores had been dropping, and the College Board decided to add more free points to get the scores back to the middle of their grading scale. But they didn't give everyone the same number of extra points. Students who would have been low scorers by the original scoring method got more points than higher-scoring students did.
In particular, the average White student gets 100 extra points from recentering, but the average Black student gets 130 extra points. This has the effect of closing the racial gap in the scores by artifice. It is, in other words, a politically correct form of cheating.
If you remove the unearned points from both firewalling and recentering from the SAT 1 all-time national average composite (math plus verbal) scores, here are the ratios of the races:
Asians: 1.0286
Whites: 1.0000
Mexicans: 0.7043
Blacks: 0.5860
There are other scholastic aptitude tests, of course. The SAT isn't the only one. Here are the national average scores from the Stanford 9TA.
Whites, total reading: 82.3
Whites, total math: 84.8
Whites, language: 76.3
Whites, science: 88.3
Whites, social science: 82.2
Whites, partial battery: 80.8
Whites, total battery: 82.3
Blacks, total reading: 40.3
Blacks, total math: 44.7
Blacks, language: 38.5
Blacks, science: 45.7
Blacks, social science: 39.3
Blacks, partial battery: 43.5
Blacks, total battery: 43.7
The ratio of the average in the Black scores to the average in the White scores, from the Stanford 9TA, is 0.5125.
Question #6.
It may be helpful to know about racial gaps in IQ test scores, in the scores from military mental competency tests, and in the scores from standard tests of scholastic achievement. How persistent have such gaps been historically?
ANSWER:
Yes, indeed, they do differ. And the difference is substantial.
IQ tests use puzzles to mimic on paper the sort of intellectually demanding challenges that might be faced by a student in a college classroom, by an employee in the workplace, by a scientist in a laboratory, or by political leaders facing a foreign threat.
The measured average IQ for American Whites is 103, with a standard deviation of 15 points. The measured average IQ for US-resident Blacks is 85, with a standard deviation of 12 points. The distributions in IQ for both races is very closely approximated by a normal distribution curve.
Note, however, that 85 is the average IQ of Blacks resident in the United States. The average for African Blacks is only 70. Psychologists have speculated that part of the reason for the higher intelligence of US-resident Blacks, relative to their African cousins is cultural and nutritional. However, part of the racial gap between Blacks and Whites is obviously genetic, since despite the span of time, and the number of generations, in which US-resident Blacks have been living among White Americans, that gap has not closed, and the IQ gains that might reasonably be expected from better nutrition, cultural elevation, social welfare programs and compensatory education have already been made. Furthermore, it has become clear that the IQ's of mulattoes (persons of mixed Black and White ancestry) are nearer to the racial average of whichever race dominates their lineage. The lighter mulattoes are usually the smarter ones.
If, for a particular purpose, it is necessary to hire employees having a minimum IQ of 130, then out of all the available Whites about one in 28 will meet or beat the requirement. However, only one in 11310 Blacks will qualify. That's quite a large difference in proportion.
Whites outnumber Blacks in the United States by a factor of about 5.8. Suppose that an employer selects his workers from a racially random pool of job applicants. He hopes to hire only people whose IQs are 130 or higher. Let's imagine that 100,000 Blacks and 580,000 Whites apply for jobs at the employer's company, since that proportion of applicants mirrors the racial populations in the United States.
Of those 100,000 Black job applicants, only nine of them meet or exceed the employer's minimum IQ requirement. But of the 580,000 Whites who apply, 20839 of them meet or exceed the same requirement. Thus, if the employer is racially "fair," he will hire Whites and Blacks in the proportion of about 2300 to 1. In other words, if Blacks occupy more than 0.043 percent of the employer's hirelings, then that employer has shown a racial bias in favor of Blacks.
The national average scores on the SAT 1 are:
Whites, math, 1997 = 526
Whites, math, 1998 = 528
Whites, math, 1999 = 528
Whites, verbal, 1997 = 526
Whites, verbal, 1998 = 526
Whites, verbal, 1999 = 527
Blacks, math, 1997 = 423
Blacks, math, 1998 = 426
Blacks, math, 1999 = 422
Blacks, verbal, 1997 = 434
Blacks, verbal, 1998 = 434
Blacks, verbal, 1999 = 434
The racial difference is clear, and the figures have been holding steady over the years. However, you should know that a straight ratio comparison of White and Black SAT scores can be misleading. The SAT 1 is "firewalled"; that is, students get 200 free points for the math part of the test, and another 200 free points in the verbal part of the test, just for showing up to take the test. Those points are unearned, and they must be subtracted from the total score before a ratio comparison is made. That will increase the White to Black score ratio. (One suspects that the reason for firewalling in the first place was to obscure the racial score ratios.)
Furthermore, since 1994 the way the SAT has been scored has been changed. Nowadays, students get further extra free points from a fudge-factor called "recentering." Over the years, SAT scores had been dropping, and the College Board decided to add more free points to get the scores back to the middle of their grading scale. But they didn't give everyone the same number of extra points. Students who would have been low scorers by the original scoring method got more points than higher-scoring students did.
In particular, the average White student gets 100 extra points from recentering, but the average Black student gets 130 extra points. This has the effect of closing the racial gap in the scores by artifice. It is, in other words, a politically correct form of cheating.
If you remove the unearned points from both firewalling and recentering from the SAT 1 all-time national average composite (math plus verbal) scores, here are the ratios of the races:
Asians: 1.0286
Whites: 1.0000
Mexicans: 0.7043
Blacks: 0.5860
There are other scholastic aptitude tests, of course. The SAT isn't the only one. Here are the national average scores from the Stanford 9TA.
Whites, total reading: 82.3
Whites, total math: 84.8
Whites, language: 76.3
Whites, science: 88.3
Whites, social science: 82.2
Whites, partial battery: 80.8
Whites, total battery: 82.3
Blacks, total reading: 40.3
Blacks, total math: 44.7
Blacks, language: 38.5
Blacks, science: 45.7
Blacks, social science: 39.3
Blacks, partial battery: 43.5
Blacks, total battery: 43.7
The ratio of the average in the Black scores to the average in the White scores, from the Stanford 9TA, is 0.5125.
Question #6.
Do Whites and Blacks differ in the size, weight, or form of the brain?
I'm trying to understand the extent of the physical differences between the races. At this moment, I am not concerned with the social significance of those differences. I am asking only about their existence and, if they exist, about their magnitude.
It may be helpful to know about racial differentials in skull dimensions, including the thickness of the skull bones, and in volume estimates of cranial capacity. How widespread are such racial differentials, geographically?
ANSWER:
On the outside, there's not a lot of difference between Black heads and White ones. There is a slight difference, however, with Whites having the larger heads. But the big difference is in the size of the brain. Blacks have thicker skulls, which means that a higher percentage of their heads is bone instead of brain.
Empirical data obtained from MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) and autopsies have shown that brain volumes average 1427 cubic centimeters for Whites, but only 1361 cubic centimeters for Blacks.
In weight measurements, the brains of African Blacks were found to weigh an average of 1157 grams, whereas those of pure Whites weighed an average of 1323 grams. The brains of US-resident Blacks, who have a bit of White mixture in their genetic makeup, average 1223 grams in weight.
That 100-gram weight difference, between White Americans and US-resident Blacks, corresponds to an approximate 600 million neuron advantage for Whites. In 600 million neurons, there are about 600 billion synapses, each of which carries, as a minimum, one bit of cortical information.
Also, Whites apparently have a larger genus to splenium ratio (front to back part of corpus callosum), which indicates that Whites probably have more activity in the frontal lobes which are thought to be the seat of intelligence. One study found that White cerebrums exhibited 14% more sulsification, or fissuring, as compared with those of Blacks. So, not only are White brains larger, they are also significantly more complex.
See: http://www.eugenics.net/papers/rushton.h
Jerry Abbott
It may be helpful to know about racial differentials in skull dimensions, including the thickness of the skull bones, and in volume estimates of cranial capacity. How widespread are such racial differentials, geographically?
ANSWER:
On the outside, there's not a lot of difference between Black heads and White ones. There is a slight difference, however, with Whites having the larger heads. But the big difference is in the size of the brain. Blacks have thicker skulls, which means that a higher percentage of their heads is bone instead of brain.
Empirical data obtained from MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) and autopsies have shown that brain volumes average 1427 cubic centimeters for Whites, but only 1361 cubic centimeters for Blacks.
In weight measurements, the brains of African Blacks were found to weigh an average of 1157 grams, whereas those of pure Whites weighed an average of 1323 grams. The brains of US-resident Blacks, who have a bit of White mixture in their genetic makeup, average 1223 grams in weight.
That 100-gram weight difference, between White Americans and US-resident Blacks, corresponds to an approximate 600 million neuron advantage for Whites. In 600 million neurons, there are about 600 billion synapses, each of which carries, as a minimum, one bit of cortical information.
Also, Whites apparently have a larger genus to splenium ratio (front to back part of corpus callosum), which indicates that Whites probably have more activity in the frontal lobes which are thought to be the seat of intelligence. One study found that White cerebrums exhibited 14% more sulsification, or fissuring, as compared with those of Blacks. So, not only are White brains larger, they are also significantly more complex.
See: http://www.eugenics.net/papers/rushton.h
Jerry Abbott
Большое спасибо! Взял себе может пригодится.