Interpretation of the facts is different from straight facts.

Saying there are more of one group than another group, proportionally in a population (Jail for example), is not racist at all.

Assuming WHY there are more of one group than another is an interpretation of those facts.

IE:

People with black hair are therefore (Based upon the black/hispanic #'s alone...) more likely to be in Jail than blondes, proportionally to the population of the USA...

OK - Proportionally, more black haired people are in jail than blondes...the black haired population is therefore over represented in the prison population.

So that proves people with black hair are genetically more prone to crime than blondes?



For example, it would be more relevent if the statistics were for a particular demographic area, say one neighborhood.

More along the lines of, for a particular neighborhood, does the proportion of races match that of those jailed from that neighborhood?

Can we correct for the extensively documented bias of the justice system, which assumes the black man is guilty on a higher percentage than a white man?...thus leading to higher conviction rates of those arrested, etc...? (Pretend YOU are in the jury...and you already admittted you believe blacks are genetically prone to crime...)

Otherwise, one could use the same statistical analysis in the above posts to arrive at a number of questionable conclusions.

(Made up but vaguely reasonable numbers for an example...)

Number of people who ate caviar in the USA: 3 million

Number of People in USA who drank Pepsi: 100 million

Number of Pepsi Drinkers Jailed in USA: 5 million

Number of Caviar Eaters Jailed in USA: 4

Obviously, people who eat caviar are less likely to go to jail.

And - you think about that...and say, You know, that's true...not many caviar eaters in jail.

Is the important thing that they ate caviar?

Is the important thing that they had caviar because they could afford it, or a good lawyer?



Do we say, hmmm, OBVIOUSLY, Pepsi drinkers are more likely to be criminals than caviar eaters?

If we run acros a Pepsi Drinker, as he falls into the higher criminality group...should we assume he is a criminal?

If we run into a guy with black hair, as he falls into the higher criminality group...should we assume he is a criminal?

I think we do...if the black haired fish we are used to drink Pepsi.