Monday, 21 January 2008


I find race a bit of an embarrassing subject to talk about. Polite conversation rarely ventures in to the area. Focussing on race is like focussing on the differences and divisions in society. It's rude and impolite to focus on perceived sensitive areas of others, either physically or mentally.

Some people think about it a lot, though. Like commenter "JudiciousOversight"

He thinks I am bit thick, because I am defensive of Jews, and yet no British Jew has been killed in recent history, and yet several white people have been killed in racist attacks.

There have been numerous articles in the media focusing on anti-semitism. According to a poll, Jews are 4 times more likley to be attacked than Muslims, which is surprising considering the slaughter of 52 people on the streets of London by self-declared Muslims.

I do have a nagging feeling, and I hear through word of mouth that there are a number of attacks by ethnic minorities on white people, that is not reported or under-reported - possibly for 'social cohesion' reasons. The problem being is this goes against the whole idea of racism from the 70's through to the 90's: whites attacking non-whites.

So what are the facts here?

Victims of racist incidents, as percentage of racial grouping

Victims of violent racist attacks, as percentage of racial grouping

The figures here


The victims of racist attacks as a percentage of the racial grouping, by several magnitudes, is black/ethnic. Not whites and not Jews.

In terms of victims of racist incidents, Jewish and white people are at similar levels. Black/ethnic are several times more likely to be a victim than either group.

In terms of victims of violent racist incidents, again black/ethnic are several times more likely to be attacked than either white or jewish groups.

And JDO, just for you, yes, according to the figures available, white people are more likely to be attacked than Jewish people due to their race. But, where you are wrong, is that it's black/ethnic people that clearly suffer the most.

I will update with data sources. But now, Ken Livingstone is getting a hatchet job on CH4. So I'll be back...


Tu S.Tin said...

hi, been following the comments here... just wanna say I understood why you used the "canary in the mine"...

anyway, I wondering if the attacks on "whites" have little to do with race.
everything seems to be built on some political foundation these days.
actually you can make a connection between support for jews, Israel ... etc (add anti american) and recent violent crimes against whites.

judiciousoversight said...

Thanks for that: you are honest. But you're still failing to understand the situation properly or give the true picture.

But, where you are wrong, is that it's black/ethnic people that clearly suffer the most.

No, the amount of suffering is not determined by the percentage of a group being attacked and murdered, but by the actual number of attacked and murdered individuals from the group. By that correct criterion, whites are clearly suffering most.

But that should not be happening in a country with a white majority: whites should be carrying out the majority of the attacks and minorities should be the majority of victims, with Jews supplying most victims of all. In fact, minorities (not including Jews) are carrying out the majority of attacks, because they are far more likely to attack whites than vice versa, even by the fiddled official data. Do these two things to see what's really going on:

Calculate chance of being an attacker as percentage of population size (black/ethnic will be by far the highest).

Calculate risk of victimization if all groups were of equal size (whites will be by far the highest).

Anonymous said...

The statistics are a nonsense for several reasons.
When white people are attacked its extremely unlikely to be called a racist attack.
Not a racist hammer attack

Also when the terrorist attacks of 7/7 came they were not called racist, although one of the attackers had writen that he wanted to kill white people.
So the stats are faked by the government.

The other point regarding these stats is the problem of age distribution of the populations.
Whites might still be 85%+ of the population but whats important is the proportions in the age groups most likely to be involved in fights, either victims or attackers.
Since most of it is happening with younger people you really need to know the ethnic proportions in the 15 to 35 age group. No doubt you will find whites are nowhere near as big a majority in that group, and might even be the minority in a few areas of the country.

Another problem is when you use those stats, they are for "England and Wales" ?
Its too big an area, I bet there is far less racial attacks in the South West and Wales as there are in London for example simply because there are less minorities. So when you mix them with areas where there is more racism it distorts the averages.

It would be better to look at it on a city by city stats, and maybe region as well.

Another big problem with your stats marvin is that you didn't say who was attacking who, for example I remember a story in Birmingham a year or so ago where a Pakistani gang was fighting a Black Somali gang, by including them in the same group as you did its not clear whats going on and almost seems to imply whites were the cause of the racism which isn't clear when you look a little deeper.

marvin said...


Thankyou for your comment. I take all of your points on board.

Unfortunately, accurate statistics in this area are very hard to come by. It's a taboo subject. God knows how you are supposed to deal with a problem if the problem wont be acknowledged...

I will keep an eye for more detailed stats, region by region, and which race on which race. But I won't be holding my breath on that!

judiciousoversight said...

Not going to perform the calculations I suggested then?

marvin said...

I'll wave my magic wand shall I? The stats aren't available.

Tu S.Tin said...

alright judicious, I just can't take your argument anymore.
There is a problem with statistics... they do not give a full account, so Im gonna say its you who is failing to understand the situation properly or give the true picture.
this may be a link from 2006,,1928559,00.html

but it makes an important point...
"Politicians and the authorities often face difficulty in raising the issue of racial attacks on white victims for fear that far-right extremists will try to exploit such events to stir up racial tensions.

Fahy also warned of caution in over-interpreting the figures. He said that the 24 white victims also included those who were Jewish, 'dark-skinned' Europeans or gypsies. In addition, seven of those were killed by white attackers, four by black, six by Asian, with seven whose racial background was not identified.

Police have suggested that some white-on-white killings may be a result of attacks between Scots, English, Irish and Welsh people."

all you have done is pick a few headlines to back your postition.
there is no point in bringing math into a debate. Why do you only count murder in your description of suffering? I have just spent the last 2 hours searching through news and found more than one vicious attack on whites due to nationality by whites- just to name two-
a german teenager, and failed bombing targeting polish workers - both are grouped into the white victims statistics.
I hate racisim and you have come off as very!
why did you start these comments trying to prove jews are not targeted when they are!?
and there IS an increase in anti semitism. usually fueled by politics or religion.
Marvin may not have answered your question but I will... it seems through out history anytime there is a movement towards nationalism of any kind Jews are for some reason the first to be targeted..hence the "canary" metaphor

Tu S.Tin said...

I hate to comment in a row... but going back over your initial comments you state

They are not attacked and persecuted anywhere near as much as whites are

please, show me the symbol for "white hate" being spray painted on homes in white neigborhoods as an example of this wide spread persecution against whites.
you only give individual accounts, how on a whole (based soley on racial hatred) are whites being attacked?

judiciousoversight said...

Marvin -- The stats are available for you to do what I suggested:

Calculate chance of being an attacker as percentage of population size (black/ethnic will be by far the highest).

Calculate risk of victimization if all groups were of equal size (whites will be by far the highest).

Tu S.Tin writes:

there is no point in bringing math into a debate.

I can't be bothered arguing with people with say things as stupid as that. Are you a member of an ethnic minority? I think you are.

marvin said...

As Tu s tin clearly pointed out, the picture isn't so black & white. (geddit?)

Now, I really cannot be fucked to engage you any further. I aint carrying this any further.

If you have some hard facts, backed up with reputable statistics and analysis, then please do enlighten.

Otherwise I am not going to embellish your little race-hate fetish. Get it?

Toodle pip!