there's 65 white people in a hypothetical situation. Out of those, 5 commit violent
crime.
There's 13 black people in the same group. Out of those, 4 commit murder.
Which group is more violent? To have an equal comparison, whites would have to murder 20 people. Can you see that?
This example is not perfectly representative of reality, the math would have to be harder to do that. But the total number in this group is pretty close to real life, and represents the idea of per capita. 65 is 5x more than 13, so the group of 65 would have to commit 5x more murder to be equal. (per person / per capita)
blacks commit WAY more than they out right ought to. that concept i get.
Right. And your concept of relativity works fine, too!
Let's say that out of every 10 white people, one commits a violent crime of some type. (The numbers in this comparison are totally made up, just to illustrate the point and keep the math easy)
Now let's say that out of every 10 black people, 2 commit a violent crime of some type. (This too is false, crime statistics are given in terms of 100,000 people, not 10)
So you have 1 per 10, or 2 per 10. Per ten people.
That's all "per capita" means. I don't know Latin but I'm guessing "capita" is Latin for person because most stuff in our system is. (This would be a valid example of "systemic racism," we use technical terms based on ancient Rome, not Swahili)
The idea of per capita is to have a valid comparison that makes up for the huge difference in our population, between blacks, whites, and asians is mostly what our government tracks.
It's used for any type of comparison, not just race. Say you want to plan how many firetrucks a small town of 10,000 people needs. You could compare it to cities of 100,000 and a million, see how many firetrucks they use, and see if your plans seem reasonable.
Look at it this way:.
there's 65 white people in a hypothetical situation. Out of those, 5 commit violent crime.
There's 13 black people in the same group. Out of those, 4 commit murder.
Which group is more violent? To have an equal comparison, whites would have to murder 20 people. Can you see that?
This example is not perfectly representative of reality, the math would have to be harder to do that. But the total number in this group is pretty close to real life, and represents the idea of per capita. 65 is 5x more than 13, so the group of 65 would have to commit 5x more murder to be equal. (per person / per capita)
Right. And your concept of relativity works fine, too!
Let's say that out of every 10 white people, one commits a violent crime of some type. (The numbers in this comparison are totally made up, just to illustrate the point and keep the math easy)
Now let's say that out of every 10 black people, 2 commit a violent crime of some type. (This too is false, crime statistics are given in terms of 100,000 people, not 10)
So you have 1 per 10, or 2 per 10. Per ten people.
That's all "per capita" means. I don't know Latin but I'm guessing "capita" is Latin for person because most stuff in our system is. (This would be a valid example of "systemic racism," we use technical terms based on ancient Rome, not Swahili)
The idea of per capita is to have a valid comparison that makes up for the huge difference in our population, between blacks, whites, and asians is mostly what our government tracks.
Was that explanation at all helpful?
It's used for any type of comparison, not just race. Say you want to plan how many firetrucks a small town of 10,000 people needs. You could compare it to cities of 100,000 and a million, see how many firetrucks they use, and see if your plans seem reasonable.
It's all relative, yup :)