Are Blacks More Violent than Whites: An Example of the Awesome Power of the Truth to Liberate US from Racism
Blacks commit many more violent crimes than do whites in the US. The difference in rate is around 7 to 1. That is a huge difference. So it raises the question, are blacks more violent than whites? Read this article to find out.
The obvious answer is yes, but it is the wrong answer and a brilliant sociologist proved it. This post shows how he did it.
Most poor whites live in mixed neighborhoods represented by middle and lower class whites. In contrast, most poor blacks live in overwhelmingly poor, non-mixed neighborhoods. So this researcher analyzed census tracks to see if he could find areas where poor whites lived in an similarly unmixed poor areas. He found a substantial number of such tracts, even though most poor whites live in mixed areas. He then analyzed at crime rates in those selected tracks and discovered that the rate of violent crime was statistically similar to rates of the same crimes among blacks!
What does this mean? He disproved the race effect and that discovery is HUGE!
And there is more to it than this. We are fond of criticizing tcops as being racist because they are arresting many more blacks than whites. There is a little truth to this belief and we can we see why this is true based on this research. Cops are merely doing their jobs and because blacks commit the many more crimes, they should be arresting many more black suspects. Two, people are very quick to condemn the whole society as racist because the prisons are full of non-white prisoners. We see that this is also not, necessarily, an indicator of systemic racism. But we do see that there is a very serious racial problem underlying all of these racially unequal conditions; namely that where poverty is deep and where it is homogeneous, you’re going to have much higher rates of violent crime. The key criterion is homogeneity of class …. not race.
I describe this remarkable research below in more detail.
A number of years ago, I taught criminal justice on the university level. Anytime you talk about crime, particularly person-to-person violent crime, you can’t avoid the issue of race; with respect to prejudice and the incidence of violence.
I would ask my students, how do we explain the observation that our prisons are mostly black and brown? They would answer with a firm and certain claim of racial bias in the law.
The FBI data show that black people commit violent crimes at a rate of about 7 to 1 compared to whites. It’s a little lower for sex crimes, but it’s higher for robbery. That’s a HUGE difference. Can it be explained as a simple outcome of prejudice in the law?
The answer is a resounding NO. While there is some bias in the nature of law enforcement, it is not nearly high enough to explain these enormous differences. By and large, it is an observed fact that black people do commit violent crime at rates of about 7 to 1 over whites. Hundreds, if not thousands of studies, have sought to show prejudice in the way law is administered in the US, but the differences they show fail to explain the enormity of this difference.
So the question remains, are blacks more violent than whites? The crime data collected in the United States seems to answer that question beyond any shadow of a doubt. Black people are more violent. But is this true?
I often planned the lecture to end at this point, thus forcing the students to either mull over the question or to come to the obvious conclusion that I am a flaming racist.
Many years ago (1920s), two sociologists took a look at crime data culled from various sections of Chicago. They discovered that crime appeared to be linked with issues of distance, that areas that were isolated from active business areas and, particularly, Chicago’s Loop, had higher rates of crime. These areas tended to highly ethnic and homogeneous.
This research laid the groundwork for a much more interesting line of research that is relatively recent. Using the same data that I was presenting to my class, a sociological criminologist asked himself the same question, are black people more violent than white people. It was obvious that the actual crime data strongly supported that conclusion, but he wondered if it was really true.
If black people are more violent, then rates of violence in predominately black areas should be similar. If black people are more violent and if violence were explained by race, then blacks should be more violent everywhere they live. He discovered that they were not. Hmmmmm. Something else seemed to be going on here.
So then he looked at where violent crime was actually happening. No surprise there. It was happening in areas that were mostly or all black and that were poor.
But then he dug a little deeper. He asked himself, where do poor white people live? He made an amazing discovery. He discovered that most poor whites about (about 75%) live in areas that are mostly middle class. He looked at individual blocks using census tracts. On a given block there might be 12 middle class houses and about 3 poor households. Well, that’s intriguing.
Then he looked at where poor black people live. Did it follow the same pattern? The answer was no, it did not. About 80% of poor black people live in areas that are predominately poor and predominately black. So the pattern of residence and poverty differed markedly between whites and blacks.
Then he dug even deeper. He looked at rates of violent crime in these black areas that were most poor and black. No surprise there, they were very high. Then he took his research a step further. He collected census tracts that were predominately middle-class, but had some black population, and were ethnically mixed and then looked at the rates of violent crime in those neighborhoods. What do you think he found? He found that the rates of crime were not significantly different from those white census tracts that were used in the original comparison.
Then he took his research one step further. He collected census tracts consisting mostly of poor whites. These are not so easy to find, but they exist, because most poor whites, as we have seen, live in areas that are mostly middle class. He then looked at the rates of violent crime. What do you think he discovered? He found rates of crime that were very similar to those found in mostly poor black areas.
He showed that violence and race are not linked. Poverty and ethnic homogeneity explained violence. Race did not.
Those students who were thinking that I might be a closet racist now saw me as a kind of saint. It was this research that freed from relying on much less compelling construct of belief. We no longer needed to dig deeper in the nuances of racist law enforcement (which is still an important problem) to explain huge disparities in crime rates. We could see that this was an issue that was so much larger. It was the whole of American society that was racist, that allowed for such poverty, isolation, and rage to exist in the first place. The story goes so much further and it is one of the reasons I wrote my book Liberation from the Lie, because this topic is all about power; how the few amass it and most of us are forced to live in fear.
But the real reason I’m writing this post is to show how much more powerful and liberating the truth is over mere belief. I could have spoken from the position of a white supremacist using my beliefs and I could have used the FBI data to show these students that, indeed, blacks are more violent. The facts obviously show it. It would have been an ugly battle between my beliefs and those of my black students. Who knows. I might have created some new white supremacists as a consequence of this lecture. Religion creates just this kind of separative poison with its beliefs.
Without this research, I could challenge people with this question, and they might talk about prejudice and racism, but they could not prove it. They might use anecdotal evidence, they might flail about, they might get angry, they might even get violent, but, in the end, they would have to rely on a flimsy foundation of belief and it would be a battle between conflicting beliefs.
Facts are so much more powerful than belief. This is the truth and the truth can and will set you free.
Note
Countries like Sweden and Denmark don’t have much violent crime not because they are culturally homogeneous, but because they have relatively much lower levels of income inequality, and thus, very little concentrated poverty. This is a result of conscious policy making on their part. The situation in the US is also a result of conscious policy and the result is that the US has vast income inequality and immense areas of concentrated poverty. The UK is somewhere between those poles.
This is not something mystical. It’s about seeing what’s true. Clear vision. Simple seeing. The seeing of the racist and the classist is not clear. It is blinded by belief. It is much easier to blame a young black man than to recognize one’s choices. Perhaps that is a matter of a greater change in consciousness.
Did you find this information helpful? If you did, consider donating.

The Are Blacks More Violent than Whites: An Example of the Awesome Power of the Truth to Liberate US from Racism by , unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

I don’t think that it’s race or poverty. :P There are many poverty stricken places with only whites, where there are no people in the middle class living there, and those people have incredibly low rates of violence, i.e. Appalachia, many areas in West Virginia, and MANY many European countries. I agree that it can’t just be race, but poverty doesn’t seem to fit the paradigm of America’s violence problem.
Thank you for your opinion. But the data drawn from census tracts clearly indicate otherwise. Violence in areas that are predominately below the poverty line (at rates of 70% or more) are roughly equal across all races. Violent crime and concentrated poverty are linked. This is not a matter of opinion or preference. It is data.
Poverty does not cause crime.
Crime causes poverty … by significantly reducing economic development in high crime neighborhoods. High rates of crime scare off capital investment and decent jobs.
One of the poorest neighborhoods in the US in 1960 was Chinatown in San Francisco. The crime rate there was very low — and of course very few Asian-Americans were in CA prisons because so few were criminals. Through hard work, learning English and getting an education, the neighborhood became more prosperous over the decades.
.
There are poor people all over the world who have low crime rates — there is no way to claim poverty causes crime throughout the world when you look at a lot of nations for your study — not just the United States.
.
And poor people in the US are relatively rich compared with poor people in other continents,
.
Just because A and B data seem to correlate does not mean A caused B, or B caused A.
You make some interesting points, but you don’t provide any evidence that would refute a theory that is mainstream in contemporary sociology. You failed to cite essential information, such as the percentage of Chinese living below the poverty line in a defined zip code, you fail to cite crime statistics – each point you made was anecdotal, which precisely what this researcher refused to do. He used actual measures and compared them to hundreds of zip codes based on the criteria central to the research hypothesis. Moreover, his outcomes have been validated by dozens of other studies using similar criteria. Finally, this was not a study organized around correlation. These outcome measures were considerably more robust than mere correlation.
That is really interesting how homogeneous poverty is linked to more violence independent of race; can you please give me an example of this data, or direct me to your source?
Yes. Please click here. This is a challenging scholarly journal article, but this is the source of my own posting.
The source you gave me is very interesting, but it doesn’t seem to mention anything about poverty. In fact, the study you gave indicates that homogeneous neighborhoods are actually MORE likely to enact “informal social control”, so why would the black crime rate still be so high, if blacks were in a homogeneous environment?
“..the willingness of local residents to intervene for the common good
depends in large part on conditions of mutual trust and solidarity among neighbors…”, is a quote in which I interpret solidarity to mean homogeneity. If this were true, then poor whites among the richer whites would be toxic, but that isn’t so.
I’m really impressed by your careful reading. The data was drawn from the research of Robert Sampson, but it is protected by copyright protections. I believe the source data is this, but I am not entirely certain. But I’m very confident of the veracity of the blog post. I taught his research as a college professor and I was meticulous with my source data. Within census tracts where poverty is a near constant, social disorganization occurs irrespective of race. This means that social networks that most people take for granted collapse. People, despite the population densities, become isolated. This is not an attempt to provide a global theory of crime, but it is an attempt to use data and apply it to rates of crime by race. In areas where poverty is continuous, rates of crime are about the same across the US. One of the research questions that inspired Sampson was this: If blacks are more violent than whites, then violence should be relatively constant across all types of Black communities. But it isn’t. It is far more prevalent in areas that are continuous poor and culturally isolated. That second variable is an important one and is not one I emphasized in the blog post.
I appreciate the new source, but is it possible for you to perhaps give any sort of example from it? I don’t own the book; even if I owned it, if it’s anything like that Harvard paper, then I don’t think I’d be up for reading it. What I’d like is a clear, concise piece of information (or pieces of information) that either, A. Obviously lead you to your conclusion, or B. State your conclusion. I think that your article was incredibly well structured, but a lack of data to support it renders the entire piece meaningless.
Brooke,
I’m a little unclear of what you’re point is. The data is not available to the general public. You would have to buy the book. You are perfectly welcome to assess this post is meaningless or perhaps you would prefer upholding your beliefs.
So how do you explain the out of control violence in Africa?
My own post focused on violence in the United States. The situation in places like Africa, which is a very vast place, and where much of the continent is rather peaceful, while other regions are being torn apart by violence and sectarianism. You will notice that anywhere poverty and oppression are rampant, you will have high levels of violence and the suppression of women. Violence in Africa is tied, closely, with colonialism and the residue that it left on that continent. You also have pervasive environmental destruction leaving people destitute and starving. I urge you to read Franz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth. That will explain what you see in places like Africa, as well as other parts of the world wracked by violence and division.
Can you please provide enough information so that someone else can find the original study that you describe?
I read this study while in grad school and, for the life of me, cannot remember the brilliant sociologist that did the work. But I am going to dig for it. This is rather embarrassing, since he is quite well known in the field.
This work grew out of what is called the Chicago School of Criminology. You read a little about that here. I’m going to keep your comment on my desk and will get back to you with the name of the author. But when I wrote this piece I also investigated the source material and I actually found it at Sage Publications, but it is not available online for casual users. You need to have a Sage account. If you are affiliated with a college or university, that probably would not be a problem, but just be advised of that.
I will get back to you as soon as I find the original study.
E