5 ms·

White flight was unadulterated racism. It wasn’t because the black family that moved down the street started being violent. It’s because whites did not want to

White flight was unadulterated racism. It wasn’t because the black family that moved down the street started being violent. It’s because whites did not want to live on the same street as them. Of course caucasians would be a victim of ~90% of interracial crime, those are the general population demographics in most places that are not urban in the US.

deepdriver 4y ago
The primary historical sources contradict your opinion. Racism was a part of it, certainly. The other part and the reason for much of the racism was excessive violence and crime. Here’s another book from the era which documents this, note the top review: https://www.amazon.com/school-ten-year-destruction-Franklin-Brooklyn/dp/B007FMVAH8 https://www.amazon.com/school-ten-year-destruction-Franklin-... >Of course caucasians would be a victim of ~90% of interracial crime, those are the general population demographics in most places that are not urban in the US. Do you understand that this number includes urban areas?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jonnybgood 4y ago
  How are you qualifying “primary historical sources”? Nothing in the links you posted indicate these to be official primary historical sources other than you claiming them to be so.
  - deepdriver 4y ago
badpun 4y ago
> Of course caucasians would be a victim of ~90% of interracial crime, those are the general population demographics in most places that are not urban in the US. What does it have to do with anything? Let's simplify and assume interracial crimes only include a white person and a black person (e.g. we're excluding other races to simplify the model). If both races had equal propensity for crimes, the whites (as well as the blacks) would victims of 50% of interracial crimes. Given that whites they were victims of 90% of interracial crimes, it must mean that the other races were the perpetrators of 90% of interracial crimes. The fact that whites are the most populous race does not change anything there.

deepdriver 4y ago

The primary historical sources contradict your opinion. Racism was a part of it, certainly. The other part and the reason for much of the racism was excessive violence and crime. Here’s another book from the era which documents this, note the top review: https://www.amazon.com/school-ten-year-destruction-Franklin-Brooklyn/dp/B007FMVAH8 https://www.amazon.com/school-ten-year-destruction-Franklin-... >Of course caucasians would be a victim of ~90% of interracial crime, those are the general population demographics in most places that are not urban in the US. Do you understand that this number includes urban areas?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jonnybgood 4y ago
How are you qualifying “primary historical sources”? Nothing in the links you posted indicate these to be official primary historical sources other than you claiming them to be so.
- deepdriver 4y ago

badpun 4y ago

> Of course caucasians would be a victim of ~90% of interracial crime, those are the general population demographics in most places that are not urban in the US. What does it have to do with anything? Let's simplify and assume interracial crimes only include a white person and a black person (e.g. we're excluding other races to simplify the model). If both races had equal propensity for crimes, the whites (as well as the blacks) would victims of 50% of interracial crimes. Given that whites they were victims of 90% of interracial crimes, it must mean that the other races were the perpetrators of 90% of interracial crimes. The fact that whites are the most populous race does not change anything there.