Saturday, July 11, 2009

Race and violence II: Here are racial coefficients seen in the last post with all of the controls removed except for sex:


Carrying a gun to school in past year

Male 1.17*
Hispanic .39*
Black -.01
Amerindian .60*
Asian -13


Pulling a knife or gun on someone in the past year

Male 1.16*
Hispanic .69*
Black 1.01*
Amerindian .62*
Asian -.03


Armed robbery in the past year

Male .92*
Hispanic .61*
Black .53*
Amerindian .50*
Asian -.93*


Seriously injured someone in the past year

Male 1.07*
Hispanic .34*
Black .41*
Amerindian .47*
Asian -.37*


The biggest difference is that Amerindians become significantly more violent than whites when we remove controls. Including such factors as bad grades, repeated grades, suspensions, trouble with teachers, etc., elminated the association between race and violence for Amerindians but didn't affect the other groups much. Based on Cochran and Harpending's argument, I would expect more violence from Indians since the lack of a long history of agriculture should make them less submissive.

My other main point is to compare the racial effects with the sex effect. The estimates show that the gender violence gap is larger than the racial gap. But I am setting a high standard here: serious violence is basically a male thing. Something like 90% of inmates are guys.

This proves feminist theory to be correct. Men use society's institutions to keep women in their place. The criminal justice system, like every other institution, is just a male tool to enslave women. The law criminalizes female behavior. Hold it--that doesn't work....

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

--The biggest difference is that Amerindians become significantly more violent than whites when we remove controls. Including such factors as bad grades, repeated grades, suspensions, trouble with teachers, etc., elminated the association between race and violence for Amerindians but didn't affect the other groups much.--

Does this mean that when whites with bad grades are compared to Amerindians with bad grades, there is no difference? Similarly, when whites with good grades are compared to Amerindians with good grade there is no difference? But when you compare all whites to all Amerindians, you get differences? If that latter is true, then what would drive that?

Ron Guhname said...

Right, Amerindians and whites at the same level of grades, etc. are not different in terms of violence. Amerindians, however, have higher rates of bad grades, repeated grades, skipping school, etc., and those factors are associated with more violence.

I suspect that the proper interpretation is that much of this is due to biological differences associated with race. High rates of violence, bad grades, etc. are all consequences of biological differences. So bad grades don't cause violence somehow; both are due to deep-seated factors like IQ.