Sunday, September 06, 2009

White South Africans ARE Targeted For Murder

Since the Huntley saga broke, it has been widely reported that the overwhelming majority of crime victims are black. Naturally it is disingenuous to refer to absolute numbers, but I suspect many journalists are.

Blacks are the overwhelming majority, so it stands to reason that they make up the bulk of the victims. But, when it comes to murder, are their numbers proportionately representative? Let's have a look.

Analysing a study on Murders in South Africa reveals some of the data sources, and the state of murders up until 2000. It is shown that in the year 1999 93% of murder victims consisted of black and coloured people. Their portion of the population constituted 86.82%. But lumping coloureds and blacks together is arbitrary and counter-productive, and I would dearly like to isolate the black figures, but I cannot because the National Mortality Surveilance System rarely provides data by race group, heaven forbid. In this instance we were lucky to get the 93%. So it seems apparent that blacks/coloureds were overwhelmingly the victims of crime, and even more so if we adjust slightly for black illegal immigration. But that was in 1999, a mere 5 years after the change of power. Where do we stand today?

Using the same data source, the National Mortality Surveilance System, we can calculate the situation for 2007. Here we find that 88.5% of the population constitutes black and coloured people, but only 86.73% of the victims come from this group. This is a dramatic downward shift of 6% odd from the original high of 93%. Who is bearing the brunt? Asians and whites. Moreover, if we prudently adjust for black illegal immigration and a known source of criminals, we see the black/coloured constituent increases to 89.54%.

13.26% of the murders are borne by 10.45% of the population; the white/Asian group.

Again, I wish I could calculate the in-between data, but no such luck. Thankfully, in 2007 the NMSS report happened to provide a snippet of race data which allowed me to break down the numbers.

For starters, murder is on the increase, as measured between 2005 and 2007; at least according to the Medical Research Council data. Nothing new there.

The striking data is when we analyse by racial groups. Every single minority group is experiencing murder rates that are disproportionatly higher. The group suffering the most are the Asians. When I adjust for black illegal immigration the Asians appear to be experiencing murder rates a whopping 37.84% higher than can be explained by their proportion of the population. The next group is whites, with an increased rate of 23.92%. Coloureds have a rate 14.34% higher. Is the data significantly different from zero? In other words, can I be sure 95% of the time that a difference exists? Yes, for every group.

Asians experience murder rates 37.84% higher than can be explained, followed by whites at 23.92% and coloureds at 14.34%


But who is murdering whom? Is it merely a case of the noble savage, do the other race groups simply kill each other more often? Hardly.

If we take the evidence that blacks have a higher propensity to commit violent crimes, somewhere in the order of 3 to 3.6 times higher than whites, it stands to reason that the perpetrators will be black, in absolute and relative numbers, and this is attested to by witness evidence. We therefore would expect blacks to overwhelmingly murder their own, if they are not targetting other race groups, but they experience a lower than expected murder rate.

So, what this means is that all the minority race groups are being murderously persecuted; whether this is a race/hate crime issue or a have/have-not issue, isn't relevant, given that both motives require a perpetrator to racially profile.

Also, given that the Asians are the most persecuted group, it is intuitive to suggest that relatiatory attacks for Apartheid may not be a motive, which is so often cited.

I know it can be insulting to blacks to be perceived as being a murderous group. The numbers do not suggest that all blacks are persecuting minority groups; but rather that blacks are predominantly the perpetrators and they prefer to seek out a minority group victim.

It is now safe to conclude that blacks ARE NOT the overwhelming sufferers of murder, proportionately speaking, Asians are.

Finally, it seems reasonable to conclude that any asylum application, from a minority race applicant in South Africa, should be justified.

As a footnote I would like to say that these calculations would be a lot simpler if the Medical Research Council made data available by race, all the way back to 1999. More importantly, if any critics want to take me to task about the numbers I ask you why it is that race data is concealed, and why SAPS doesn't release crime stats? If the minority race groups are not being disproportionately persecuted, then there should be nothing to hide. The same can be said about crime rates. In the absence of better data or accurate and updated crime stats, I can only conclude that the minority races are being targetted because of their race.

7 Opinion(s):

Doberman said...

Well reasoned VI but don't expect our so-called professional journos to come to the same conclusions. They are too busy kissing the party ass to actually do a proper analysis of the figures you've mentioned and if the data is not available to enquire why not and demand that the authorities release them. Much easier to heap insults on a young man who simply wants a better life elsewhere.

Vanilla Ice said...

What surprises me is how quick journos and politicians are to proclaim that Huntley is wrong in his assertions, and yet nobody presents any evidence. The ANC wants to perpetuate the myth that blacks are a conciliatory bunch; peace loving and tolerant despite the treatment they received under Apartheid. I am going to refer the numbers and the data sources to Huntley's attorney.

Doberman said...

It's poor journalism. They castigate the individual, question his motives, assumptions etc but provide no evidence to disprove Huntley's claims. I have also been forwarding every article, every past article/ story I can lay my hands on to Huntley's attorney, about 6-8 so far so he can use it in support of his client's claim.

Viking said...

Excellent, VI. You can't argue with the stats.

Anonymous said...

I'm not surprised that Asians are high on the murder rate list. They also enjoy a spot of drug dealing and shady operations and they are possibly the most racist of the all the race groups in SA. They treat their black workers like dirt so it's not surprising they get the chop on occasion.
Not to mention the fact that they are always murdering each other as well.

Dachshund said...

On 4 August 1972, Idi Amin, President of Uganda, gave Uganda's Asians (mostly Gujaratis of Indian origin) 90 days to leave the country, following an alleged dream in which, he claimed, God told him to expel them.

The order for expulsion was based on the Indophobic social climate of Uganda. The Ugandan government claimed that the Indians were hoarding wealth and goods to the detriment of indigenous Africans, "sabotaging" the Ugandan economy.

Anonymous said...

this is your research? tee-hee, this is what I meant with correlations with no context! No wonder you were so defensive! A SAfn who doesn't understand why race 'explains' crime... Race doesn't explain crime, mr published researcher. Go deeper - check within groups and you'll see what I mean.