Archive for August 13, 2019

Cite: New York Times

by baldilocks

I’m going to try to read this whole thing without stabbing my eyes out.

A taste:

The most important and consequential thing that sociologists have discovered about whiteness—having white skin and/or being identified as white—is that it is perceived as the normal or default race in the U.S. Though the nation is racially diverse and most are aware of that, anyone who is not white is specially coded through language in a way that marks their race or ethnicity, while white people are not treated this way. “European American” or “Caucasian American” are not common phrases, but African American, Asian American, Indian American, Mexican American, etc., are. It’s also common practice among white people to only specifically state the race of a person they came into contact with if that person is not white. Sociologists recognize that the way we speak about people signals that white people are “normal” Americans, while everyone else is a different kind of American that requires additional explanation.

For anyone who is not white, that additional language and what it signifies is often forced upon and expected of them, whereas for white people, because we are seen as the norm, ethnicity is optional. It is something that we can access if we want to, and use as social or cultural capital. But, it is not required of a white American, for example, to embrace and identify with her British, Irish, Scottish, French, and Canadian heritage. It is rare that she will be asked to explain where she or her parents are from in that special way that really means, “What are you?” Her whiteness casts her as normal, as expected, and as inherently American.

We see the “normal” nature of whiteness in film and television too, in which most main characters are white, and in the case where a show or film prominently features actors of color, it is considered a “Black” or “Hispanic” cultural product. Film and television that primarily features white people is “normal” film and television that is thought to appeal to the mainstream; those that feature actors of color in lead roles and casts composed predominantly of people of color are considered niche works that exist outside of that mainstream. The race of the cast members marks the work as “different.” (TV show creators Shonda Rhimes, Jenji Kohan, Mindy Kaling, and Aziz Ansari are contributing to a shift in the racial television landscape, but their shows are exceptions, not the norm.)

Fact is, I agree with this. But is it really that big of a deal?

And what I hate about the dust-up and uproar about “white supremacy” and “white privilege” is that the dust ups and uproars reek of the very things they hate.

If you, citizen of good faith, think that each individual is equal in the sight of God, then that’s great. The overreaction, however, to anything remotely critical or other-ing of any black person is problematic and is, frankly fake. It’s a cover for the true feelings of those who wage war against White “Supremacy/Privilege”: that whites are superior to non-whites and especially to blacks. To them, the only way to counteract it is to, basically, lay down and die. Or, at the very least, to refrain from reproducing.

(Psst! Here’s something else: the overreaction to actual white supremacism smells bad, too.)

How else do I know that the war is fake? The overreaction happens only when black liberals/leftists/Democrats are criticized. But let someone call, say, me, a “sell-out n-word” and none of the Warriors Against Whiteness could give a rat’s. I see you, Anti-Whiteness Warriors!

Ah, well. Let’s read. Let me know if there’s a surprise ending.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Follow Juliette on FacebookTwitterMeWePatreon and Social Quodverum.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar !

Or hit Juliette’s!

One of the disadvantages of having a worldview that relies on passion vs things like objective truth and data or having a staff that isn’t fluent in math is that every now and again such a position bites you.

the Washington Post managed to do this with this publication of the following list:


Now I don’t have the time on my hands or the resources of the Washington Post so rather than questioning methodology or asking how they define mass shootings let’s take their data as given and assume that there have been since 1966 166 mass shootings resulting in 1196 deaths.

Now lets take this these figures and do a little math.

2019-1965 = 54 meaning that we are taking about a span of 54 years.

1196 number of deaths / 54 years = 22.1 deaths per year by mass shootings in the United states per year

According to the CDC here are the number of deaths in the US by various causes in 2017

Heart disease: 647,457
Cancer: 599,108
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 169,936
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 160,201
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 146,383
Alzheimer’s disease: 121,404
Diabetes: 83,564
Influenza and Pneumonia: 55,672
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis: 50,633
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 47,173

Now let’s take a specific cause, how about that most eco-friendly of devices the bicycle: what are the numbers there? Well according this site the number of folks killed on bicycles due to collisions iwth cars in 2017 was 783. a number over 35 times that of the number of people killed in mass shootings according to the Post’s own figures, and remember that’s just deaths on bikes from collisions with cars not deaths from falls or other accidents.

Now let’s look at it another way.

Based on the Washington Post’s own numbers we have averaged 22.1 deaths per year in the US since 1965

22.1 deaths per year by mass shootings / 50 states = .4402 deaths per state per year.

In other words we are averaging less that a single death per state every two years by mass shootings based on the Post’s own stats.

OK now let’s look at this the way the government usually looks at fatalities, deaths per 100,000 citizens

We only have a census every ten years but for the sake of argument this site   estimates the US population in 2017 at 325,980,000 people. So to figure out the death rate of a particular cause it is necessary to divide the total number of deaths by 3259.8 ( 325,980,000/ 3259.8 = 100,000 )

Therefore based on the Washington Post’s own numbers the death rate for the United States by mass shootings based on the average number of mass shooting deaths since 1965 is 22.1 / 3259.8


.006779 deaths per 100,000

So according to the Washington Post own stats, the stats that they want to use to get you to pass new restrictions on the 2nd amendment rights, An american is more than five times more likely to die from contracting flesh eating bacteria than to be killed in a mass shooting.

Now I will readily concede that for the family of someone who dies in a mass shooting or from contracting flesh eating bacteria for that matter,  the statistical rarities of these event bring little comfort when mourning a loved ones loss.

But I submit and suggest that the sorrow of those directly affected not withstanding only  an idiot or an opportunist pushes to restrict constitutional rights that Americans have fought and died for from a cause that produces the death rates that the Washington Post own figures support.

Closing thought.  I wonder why they used 1965 as a cutoff?  I’d be interested in seeing the figures from say 1945-1965 and seeing if the rate is much lower from that period compared to the period the post used.