Come to think of it, it is also dangerous to black in any location where whites are outnumbered by blacks, but it is even more dangerous to be white.

What dangers are you referring to, specifically? Can you point me to a specific source that measures these harms? I have never heard your concluding suggestion before, though I think I have heard the opposite claim.

Which presupposes that which is to be proven: That the Klu Klux Klan beat blacks up for being black, the way blacks beat whites up for being white every day.

What would you take as adequate evidence? The Klu Klux Klan is notorious for having lynched and committed other acts of racially motivated violence. There's no shortage of writers who have written about racially motivated violence against blacks as part of their personal experience. There's no shortage of documentation. What evidence, that we should reasonably be expect to be there if a significant amount of racial violence against blacks has happened, and have access to, would be sufficient for you?

If you simply wanted to convince other members of this board that most racially motivated crime in America today is committed against whites, your best bet would probably have simply been to link them to this. But even this is a seriously problematic claim; the idea that 90% of race based crime incidents are white seems to originate here. I read the original report, and confirmed that it makes no such claim, rather, Sheehan gets that figure by classifying all interracial crime as race based crime, and comparing the number of violent crimes committed by black perpetrators and white victims with the number of violent crimes committed by white perpetrators with black victims. But not only is it absurd to suppose that all violent interracial crime is racially motivated, there are a lot more white people in this country than black people, meaning that if all criminals chose their victims completely at random, black on white crime would dramatically outnumber white on black crime. In fact, according to the report, crime among black people is more intraracial than crime among white people relative to the number of crimes committed.

The swastika on the tab for the site where Sheehan wrote the article is a pretty significant sign of a biased agenda all by itself.

But claiming that violence against blacks by whites has not been historically significant, in addition to present day race based crime being slanted in the opposite direction, that's a really outstanding claim. So what evidence are you prepared to present?

When I walk down the street and hear footsteps I start thinking about robbery. Then I look around and see someone white and feel relieved.

It did not make it dangerous merely to be black, the way it is dangerous merely to be white in any location where whites are outnumbered by blacks.

Evidence?

One series of anecdotes: I've been the only white person in the subway car quite a few times. I didn't check carefully, but there were few if any Asians. I'm short, I'm female, I have no reason to think I'm a scary looking person. I haven't been attacked or threatened.