Phi, notice that your sickeningly inappropriate and gratuituous reference to gang rape was deleted.
Not only was it absolutely irrelevant to a post about flags and sensitivity, it was deliberately offensive to female readers. Furthermore, it was racist. It is ridiculous to suggest the high rape rate in South Africa -- primarily of black women by black men -- is caused by whites being a minority in South Africa. It is absolutely unacceptable that you would use that sad situation in to support a snide, flippant suggestion that women in this country will face a rape epidemic by minorities due to immigration.
Here is what I wrote (comment deleted from bobvis):
But the question goes unanswered: what, if not lineage, defines us? On what grounds do we refer to ourselves as "a people" or "one nation"? Here again, if your answer is by something other than a set of racial and cultural norms (not homogeneity, mind you, but as the "expected value" of a distribution) then you are advancing a definition that is historically unprecedented.
But see, the circumstances that force us to have this discussion -- the presense in our midst of visible minorities with their own competing identies -- are bad enough. What happens when the minority becomes a majority?
To illustrate my point, a future majority of California, and perhaps the U.S., may one day fly the flag of Aztlan. But it is not in the rational self-interest of the present majority to choose that future among the alternatives available to us today. It IS in our interest to remain a majority in our own country, since the alternative, um, really bites.
I subsequently allowed:
For what it is worth, I will concede, upon reflection, that the article about rape in South Africa was not as on point as it might have been.
Specifically, the article in question did not break out statistically the disproportionate threat of interracial gang rape suffered by white women. Since, in context, that was the only reason for linking to the article, I shouldn't have done it.
But let's not be quite so squeamishly Victorian about what the actual facts of rape are. From our own Bureau of Justice Statistics, Table 40:
Total offenses: 160,270
Percent by white perpetrators: 32.8
Percent by black perpetrators: 48.5
So it appears that, despite being only 14% of the population, blacks manage to commit almost a majority of rapes in America. Granted, most of these are intra-racial. But of those that are not (Table 42):
Rape/Sexual assault of Whites
Total # 111,490
Percent by White Perpetrator: 44.5%
Percent by Black Perpetrator: 33.6%
Rape/Sexual assault of Blacks
Total # 36,620
Percent by White Perpetrator: 0%
Percent by Black Perpetrator: 100%
Let's face it: I couldn't have made up statistics better (or, rather, worse) than this. Even though they are only 14% of the population, blacks still succeed in committing a third of all rapes of white women and 100% of all rapes of black women. If the Department of Justice is to be believed, white men did not rape a single black woman in all of 2005 (most recent data).
With more time, I could extrapolate this profile to the demographics of South Africa, and calculate the threat of rape to white women there.
But I'm not really . . . interested in South Africa. I am interested in the United States, and about the impact of hispanic immigration on all manner of social variables, including crime in, and including rape. Unfortunately, the DOJ has no racial category of "hispanic", so it's a lot harder answering the question about their present and future impact. The best estimate I can find so far is Jared Taylor's (yeah, I know, Jared-Taylor-big-scary-racist, so impeach the data, but in the mean time):
• Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate.
Not exactly a harbinger of future safety.