Meme Busting: Chicago Per Capita Murders vs Total Gross Sum of Murders

By Dreadsen on June 23rd, 2015

Meme Busting

One of the reasons racism survives is that good, honest people in America do not have strong thinking and reasoning abilities. Their lack of critical thinking skills is why bad arguments can be presented to them and accepted as reasonable and sound logic. I’m about to share a portion of a conversation I had with some people who posted this meme believing it was a good argument. Someone with even moderate thinking skills should have seen the flaws in it. This meme is part of the backlash against the widespread public support for rejecting the Confederate flag after the Carolina church shooting.

My response: (OP = Original Poster)

OP, this is a false equivalence and a strawman. No one argued that an inanimate object killed someone. Misrepresenting the arguments on this issue is not a sign of unity — nor is it an attempt at unity — when there is a tidal wave of public support moving in one direction. What agenda does it serve to try to find a way to argue against the prevailing consensus by bringing up Black people in Chicago as a false comparison? Does it really hurt that much to simply support the vast majority of people in the nation on this issue for once? Or is it necessary to always take the opposite position?

By the way, someone wrote a good article pointing out how the root of racism is sustained by the general public’s lack of good thinking and reasoning skills. Having good thinking and reasoning skills means being able to recognize bad logic and faulty reasoning. When someone cannot identify bad reasoning, a well-meaning person can pick up a bad argument, believe it is a good one, and then present it thinking it advances their side.

Now let’s talk about why this is a false equivalence. Has anyone argued that the flag by itself caused someone to commit murder? No. But let’s say someone did make that argument. Is that the prevailing argument most people opposed to the flag are making? Or is that your personal interpretation of it? If it is your own interpretation, it is possible that your conclusion is not the one others are actually sharing. So to be fair to your opposition, you should seek out the strongest and clearest argument they are presenting.

Did anyone walk through that process before accepting this argument? I think not. If they had, they would have found a far more nuanced but straightforward argument against the flag. Even Jack Hunter — the Southern Avenger, who defended that flag for many years — has changed his position.

A common argument against the flag is that it is a symbol of hate that white supremacists proudly embrace. By flying this symbol at the state capitol, the state arguably signals that it honors the ideology that white supremacists stand for. Yes, it may mean something different to other people. But as long as that confusion exists, it will always give white supremacists something to celebrate — the idea that their state honors their symbol of hate. By removing the flag, the state and its citizens take a stand against that hate.

Is the flag directly involved in the murder? No. Is it indirectly involved? Arguably yes, for the reasons stated above.

Now let’s examine the comparison. Why is Chicago significant as a murder comparison? If murder and what motivates it in general is the point of contention, then why not pick any city with a high murder rate and make that argument? Why not pick Flint, Michigan, which has a much higher per capita murder rate than Chicago? Or why not pick a predominantly white area with a measurable number of murders? Chicago is picked because the original poster wants to point at Black people and put them under scrutiny. This is what happens when someone feels their racial team is under attack and feels compelled to attack the other side — rather than simply uniting with the majority on a straightforward issue. I’m sure next month there will be plenty of other reasons for us to retreat to our separate camps as usual.

One person’s response:

Berry Muhl: “Why is Chicago significant for a murder comparison? Because it’s a very well-known example, and is in the news constantly — not only for its crime rate but for its highly publicized gun control and the political and organized crime corruption machine that produced figures like Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama. Few people have even heard of Flint, Michigan, much less its crime situation.”

My response:

Berry Muhl, your comment is almost spot on. But I would argue that the reason Chicago is put in the spotlight is specifically because Obama is from Chicago — not because it has the highest crime rate.

Chicago has the largest number of murders but not the highest murder rate — meaning per capita numbers. Interestingly, per capita numbers are used when people want to point at Black people in discussions about abortion rates or welfare participation. But when looking at gross total numbers, there are far more white people on SNAP and welfare, and more white people have had abortions than Black people in absolute terms.

So why have people accepted the false practice of cherry-picking gross numbers over per capita numbers only when Black people lead in a particular category — but then switch to per capita numbers when that also yields the same result? This is exactly where critical thinking comes in.

If you look at per capita numbers, Chicago ranks far down the list for murders given the size of its population of nearly 3 million people. Per capita, Chicago doesn’t even crack the top 10 — it comes in at number 27. That’s right: 26 other cities have higher murder rates per 100,000 residents than Chicago. That is why I picked Flint, Michigan.

Would you rather live in a place that has 50 murders per year or 1,000 murders per year? The average person, without the tools to spot the flaw in this loaded question, might pick the place with only 50 murders. But if it’s revealed that the area with 50 murders has a total population of 100 people, while the area with 1,000 murders has a population of 200 million — now which place would you rather live? The city with the higher murder count is actually the place where you are least likely to be murdered. The place with 50 murders out of a population of 100 means you have a 1 in 2 chance of being killed.

Conclusion: Chicago being used as a murder comparison argument is a media-driven narrative pushed on the public because those behind it have calculated that the general public is not discerning enough to see through it.

My personal opinion: Chicago is picked because people associate its murders with Black people, and they want that association to stick to the first Black president. Just my theory.

Media Activism