View source for Rule of Racial Homicide

The Rule of Racial Homicide holds that homicidal violence mostly occurs within racial groups, not between them.

Note that it is a Rule, not a Law.  There are historical exceptions, some of which are noted below.  But the instances where the rule holds true are worthy of note.  In America we have a dominant cultural narrative in which white people are guilty of killing everybody.  This narrative doesn't stand examination.  Probably what white people do more of than anybody else is feel bad about whites killing non-whites.

Vietnam: Americans killed a number of Asians in the War in Southeast Asia.  Some of the killing was atrocious in nature.  Guilty-feeling whites tend to take the massacre at My Lai as being emblematic of the whole conflict.  But My Lai was dwarfed by the massacre at Hue, which was perpetrated by the Viet Cong.  And the massacre at Hue was just a minor blip compared to the violence which followed American withdrawal.  Asians ended up killing orders of magnitude more Asians than the Americans ever did.

Iraq: Americans killed a number of Arabs in Iraq.  In a significant number of cases, non-combatants were deliberately killed because there was no feasible way to distinguish them from military threats, or because they were being used as human shields for military resources.  Opponents of the war were nearly unanimous in the belief that American occupation of Iraq was the main driver of instability and violence in the region.  Events following American withdrawal showed this belief to be mistaken.  Iraq was best off at the height of American occupation, after the surge.  The murder of Iraqis by Iraqis has soared into the stratosphere since, and it's not warlike killing for the most part, but intentional massacre of helpless victims.

Lynching: An exception to the rule.  Lynch mobs in America were white, and their victims were mostly black, by a ratio of roughly three to one.

The Congo Free State: Everyone should know about this, but a lot of people don't.  Leopold II of Belgium was a monster of greed, and under his administration of the "Congo Free State" native Africans were murdered and mutilated on a scale which eclipses even the Holocaust.  So, is this an exception to the rule?  Kind of.  Whites were in charge of the situation, but not many whites were involved.  The actual atrocities were mostly carried out by blacks under an all-white officer corps.  In more recent history of the area, the Rwanda genocide is no exception to the rule.

The Holocaust: Pretty clearly an exception; Jews never murdered one another on anything like that scale.  But note that in common parlance nowadays, Jews and Germans are both considered white.

The Mean Streets: Much has been made of whites shooting blacks, which turned out to be legitimate self-defense in the cases of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown.  Certainly blacks die at the hands of police at a much higher rate than whites (though the absolute numbers for whites are higher).  But then, cops aren't necessarily white (half the cops in the stinky Freddie Gray case are black).  Bottom line: if you're black, you're about twelve times as likely to be killed by a black as by a white.  Black parents giving their kids The Talk probably do bring this up, because it's pretty easy to spot the kind of black guy who is likely to be homicidal.

Bosnia: Whites killing whites, as far as an American can tell.  Put a Serb and a Croat side by side and hardly one American in a thousand could tell you which was which.  Apparently, however, there is some method of telling them apart.  Their mutual ethnic hatred is some of the strongest on the planet.