Transcription
Since the late 19th century, African-American homicide rates were consistently much higher than those of whites. We're talking on the order of 10 times more killing, like we discussed in one of the previous commentaries. And in some age ranges, it was as high as 17 times more killing, which we're going to see in one of the tables in a bit. And what's the purpose for us going over all this information? It's not just to show that violence has been and still is prevalent in the black community, but it's to be able to reflect honestly about the situation so that those who are meant to move forward can do so. Because deceiving oneself and ignoring the obvious is a perfect recipe to continue with the cycle. The cycle loves when people do that because that's how it gets its chance to stay alive, right? But that's not what we're doing here.
So again, black homicide rate was consistently much higher than that of whites. And consistently here means every year without taking a break. Meaning there was never a year on record when it was not much higher than those of whites. They remained so in the 1950s, but that should not be taken to mean that there were no rate increases or decreases over time. The 1950s was a decade that experienced relatively little crime for blacks. Now, I say relative, so that's in comparison to black crime over time and through other periods, but it was still high in relation to other groups in America, especially to whites. When we look at black homicide rates in the years before and after the 1950s, it is evident that that decade was a far less violent period for African-Americans. Far less violent for blacks, not for everyone else.
But let's take a look here at table 2.14 in the book. And so we can see what the statistics tell us. So the homicide rates were still through the roof, but we can see here that in the 1940s it was 54.4 homicides per 100,000 black males. Then in the 1950s it dropped significantly to 44.7. Again, still through the roof, but it was an improvement from the previous decade. Then in the 1960s, it again dropped significantly down to 35. But then in the 1970s and the 1980s, the violent entity reemerged and it reemerged even stronger from its rest. And then the rates just shot right through the moon. They got on this the the spaceship and flew to the moon. And we're going to talk more about that coming up in a couple more commentaries. But for now, our focus is on the drop around the 50s and the early 60s.
Throughout the 1950s and into the early 1960s, African-American homicide rates declined or held steady. Yes, sir. Like we just witnessed. This was true even for the segment most at risk. Males between the ages of 25 and 34. The age range where the violent entity was most active. Take a look at figure 213 in this book and you can see that the numbers are ridiculously high in 1950 going more than 100 homicides per 100,000 people in this age range for the non-whites. I mean these numbers are wild. But the point here is that it dropped off and it stabilized just above 80 per 100,000 for the non-white males from age range 25 to 34. From 1950 to 1960, their homicide rates fell 18.8%.
None of the most obvious factors seem to explain the drop. Take for instance socioeconomic progress. If economic improvement, greater social freedom, and better opportunities to advance are associated with reduced criminality, then African-American crime rates should have declined in the 1950s. The postwar period was a time of enormous gains for blacks. However, these gains continued into the late 1960s and beyond, a period of major increases in black violent crime. So he's essentially saying that blacks having more freedoms, more civil rights, better access to education, better housing, and less poverty, socioeconomic progress can't be the primary reason for the reduction in crime in the 1950s. And the reason for that is because if socioeconomic progress was the main cause, then crime should have continued to go down decade after decade because socioeconomic progress continued to improve for blacks decade after decade. But even with those improvements, the homicide rate somehow reversed and it went even higher than it did in the 1940s when blacks had less socioeconomic progress. Right? Here's the table again so you can see it. The homicide rate went down to 35 in the 1960s when blacks made tremendous progress. Then the very next decade it trampolined into the sky. So again his argument is that more material and social gains can't be the main reason for the crime decline in the 1950s and the early 60s.
Here, demographics offers another plausible explanation. As the 1950s saw a declining young black male population in the high-risk age bracket of 25 to 29, the drop was especially pronounced, down 5.5% from 1950 to 1960. So maybe less young folks were around to do the crime. Well, let's see. However, the next highest age group, 30 to 34, saw a 10.3% population increase. Uhoh. So, that reason doesn't hold up either. It's difficult to argue that the 5.5 decrease in the high-risk bracket made the difference because it was more than compensated for with the 10.3% increase in the 30 to 34 age bracket. So, a decline in one high-risk black male age bracket wasn't the main reason.
Moreover, the young white population fell just as much as the black, if not more. A decline of 5.5% for white males aged 20 to 34, down 11.7% for the 25 to 29 cohort. Yet, table 2.15 shows the white homicide rate essentially unchanged throughout the decade. So, they had a similar population drop, but white killings remained stable. And take a look at the chart right here from the book to see what he means. We can see that white killing, the rate of white killing was pretty pretty much consistent year by year. Five per 100,000 is still a bit too much on the violent side for my standards, but it's not through the roof like the Negro numbers were on the other side of the chart, 180 and 90s and things like that. But the point here is that both groups had a decline in the young male population. And if that were the main cause, then both of the groups should have shown reduced crime rates here. But the whites remained steady while the black rate declined.
Low alcohol use among African-Americans may have been a contributing factor, but judging by cirrhosis deaths, alcohol consumption among African-Americans must have been rising sharply in the 1950s, as before decades end, more blacks than whites succumb to the liver disease. Such a trend is difficult to square with declining murder rates. Moreover, if alcohol use was still modest in the 1950s, heroin ingestion was becoming more prevalent in poor black big city communities. While heroin may not have increased murder rates, as would the cocaine wars in the late 1980s, it very likely was implicated in the surge in black perpetrated robberies. No other explanations for the black homicide decline come to mind. Given that white but not black rates were stable, there must have been some factor or group of factors that had a particular impact on African-Americans. But what these might be remains a mystery. So, socioeconomic progress, demographic change, low alcohol use, and heroin. None of these seemed to be valid enough to explain the sudden decline in black crime in the 1950s. And to him, therefore, it remained a mystery.
Moreover, we must not overlook the fact that black homicide rates, despite the positive trend, far outstripped those of whites. If we compare rates for black and white males ages 25 to 34, we see a mean differential of nearly 17 to 1. That brings us back to the table that we've already seen. It's just a night and day difference between the homicide rates. Blacks did much more killing than whites. And again, the white homicide rate wasn't fantastic either. It was decent, but it wasn't fantastic. I think that truly nonviolent groups would have less than three per 100,000 and less than one per 100,000 for the most peaceful groups in an urban environment. But that's just my my opinion on it. But either way, blacks in this age bracket were miles away from those levels. Not even close.
For crimes of violence such as murder, manslaughter, robbery, and aggravated assault, African-Americans showed a disturbing preponderance. Whites were more likely to be arrested for non-violent crimes such as theft and drunkenness. With respect to robbery, however, African-Americans were a steadily growing proportion of arrestees from a bit over 1/3 in 1950, 35.7% to well over 1/2 by decades end, 55.5%. Even if race bias infected arrest decisions, the police being overwhelmingly white in the 1950s, racism could not account for the enormous per capita differentials between the races or the predominance of black participation in crimes of violence. There's just no way that could be used to excuse the numbers, especially when it comes down to those types of crimes. We know that there are biases in the reports, that's for sure. And we know that there have been people that have been mistaken or purposely framed for crimes that they really did not commit. But I believe that those are few in comparison to the number of people who actually did those type of crimes and were caught for it. Okay.
Now, let's take a look at the statistics in table 216 for the total arrest for certain offenses in 1960. And we we can look at it here and we can see that blacks were the category kings in total murders, total robberies, total aggravated assaults, total rape, and total weapon possession. And keep in mind that they were less than 11% of the population and still doing more of these crimes in total than the whites. The whites on the other hand were the category king in total other assaults, burglary, larceny, forgery, drugs, and beer chugging drunkenness.
Thus, the African-American crime situation in the 1950s can't be said to have been auspicious, but things could always have been worse, as indeed they were at the end of the next decade. The fact is, however, black homicide rates in the 1950s probably were as low as they ever had been or ever would be in the entire 20th century. A key reason for the relative tranquility of the period. So, there we have it. A bit of 1950s unresolved mystery. Keep an open mind as we continue dealing with the hard realities of climbing out of the pit. Okay. And so, we're going to stop right now. We're going to pick up with some more in the next commentary. I thank you for your time and attention. My name is Brooklyn St. Michael and I'll see you in the free.