Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon
That's nice of you to try and backup his arguments for him since I guess he can't be bothered. I have to question the relevance of the second link though. I realize you're linking to it because of a point someone else was trying to make but what does it really say? It shows that class differences existed among whites in the 19th century and not much else. The slave owners were still white, the slaves were still black.
As far as the first link goes, the most glaring thing about it to me is how overrepresented blacks are among victims of violent crime. The percentages of victims of violent crime are roughly equal between blacks and whites, despite the fact that the US is roughly 80% white and 13% black. Unless my math is wrong here, that means that a black person is about six times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than a white person.
|
The reason for the second link was this statement:
Quote:
|
The distribution of slaveholders was very unequal: holders of 200 or more slaves, constituting less than 1% of all US slaveholders (fewer than 4,000 persons, 1 in 7,000 free persons, or 0.015% of the population) held an estimated 20–30% of all slaves (800,000 to 1,200,000 slaves).
|
And this statement was presented as a fact:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop
-50% of American slaves were owned by individuals whom had 40 or more slaves
|
While my evidence does not specifically prove it to be factual, it can be inferred to be true or very close to true.
I also noticed that blacks are heavily over-represented amongst violent crimes, but I think an inference can be made: blacks are victims at roughly the same rate as whites. However, they also commit more violent crimes than whites, and as the table shows most homicides are committed within a race. 90% of black murders had a black victim, and because they commit more murders than any other race, it seems reasonable that they would also make up a high proportion of the victims...