YAABMT (Why are Black Men always portrayed as criminals)

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,530
20,194
146
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Gave them STDs, or took blacks who already had STDs and monitored their disease instead of treating it to see the outcome?

For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for ?bad blood,? their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all.

The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis?which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. ?As I see it,? one of the doctors involved explained, ?we have no further interest in these patients until they die.?

Was it bad? Yes. However, no one gave blacks STDs.

And no one put crack into black communities with the intention of bringing them down.

I have seen SO much BS propaganda from you in this thread. You need to take a critical look at the urban legends you hear from your so-called leaders.

Actually, they were not necessarily in late-stage syphilus. The purpose of the experiment was to look at the life-cycle of the disease. When the study started, there wasn't really anything wrong with this: syphilus was untreatable anyway. The study, in theory, could have lead to better understanding of the disease, and even treatments.

However, long before the ast patients died, the cure was found, and many of the people in the study could have been saved years of suffering. "In the interests of science" and no doubt bolstered by the low social status of the subjects, it was decided to let the study run its course. This was totally indefensible (eventually, the remaining survivors were treated, when the cover on the study was blown).

Yeah, you're right. It was a full cycle experiment. But the point stands: The US government did NOT infect them with syphilis
 

Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Darkstar757
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Darkstar757
Originally posted by: IHYLN
lmao conspiracy theories..

if you are actually dumb enough to think that someone in the Gov't sat there and said "OH HEY let's infuse drugs into the black community to make them worse off" seriously, lay off the crack :p

drug addicts in GENERAL are a huge problem.. wtf are you thinking seriously.

YPU FARKING ASSHAT

UMM HOW ABOUT THE Tuskegee EXPERIMENT! Our GOV gave blacks STD's on purpose.

YOU NEED TO READ MORE!

Gave them STDs, or took blacks who already had STDs and monitored their disease instead of treating it to see the outcome?

For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for ?bad blood,? their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all.

The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis?which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. ?As I see it,? one of the doctors involved explained, ?we have no further interest in these patients until they die.?

Was it bad? Yes. However, no one gave blacks STDs.

And no one put crack into black communities with the intention of bringing them down.

I have seen SO much BS propaganda from you in this thread. You need to take a critical look at the urban legends you hear from your so-called leaders.


Dude its been stated so many times they set these men up and infected them with it. Now what on earth would make you think they woulnt cover that kind of crap up. I like saying the russians didnt experiment on there own people with nuclear testing.

Show me a reliable, reputable and referenced source that says the government infected them. You cannot.

I repeat, you need to look CRITICALLY at the "info" you are spouting.
Educating himself is much harder than just playing the race card.
 

Jack Ryan

Golden Member
Jun 11, 2004
1,353
0
0
Originally posted by: Mill
If something was unfair and I complained about it and pouted, then it never changed and I was never any happier. If I ignored the fairness of it, and worked to change it then I always ended up in a better spot. That's what this is going to take. Falling back on the slavery argument/experiments, etc is just a crutch for some people to use. It isn't needed.


Wow, there is someone who gets it.
 

IHYLN

Banned
Aug 4, 2000
1,519
0
0
so it's the white mans fault for black people not practicing safe sex in africa? Wasn't there an idea over there "If you rape a virgin you will be cured of AIDS"?

Drkstar I don't know you very well but you certainly act like a zealot by some standards.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,530
20,194
146
Originally posted by: KMDupont64
Originally posted by: Mill
If something was unfair and I complained about it and pouted, then it never changed and I was never any happier. If I ignored the fairness of it, and worked to change it then I always ended up in a better spot. That's what this is going to take. Falling back on the slavery argument/experiments, etc is just a crutch for some people to use. It isn't needed.


Wow, there is someone who gets it.

Yep. Life isn't fair for ANYONE. "Fair" is impossible to achieve. You make your own opportunities and advantages. You cannot sit around and expect them to be handed to you.

Not only is "fair" impossible to achieve, it invariably leads to "unfair." Why? Because to make something fair, you must limit the rights and freedoms of the advantaged to appease the disadvantaged. Such as tearing down a successful company to appease an unsuccessful one. Or giving one group better test scores to appease them when they don't score as well as another group. What is "fair for one" is NOT fair for all.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: Amused
Yeah, you're right. It was a full cycle experiment. But the point stands: The US government did NOT infect them with syphilus

Oh I agree - or at least, I've spent a fair bit of time with this 'incident' and never seen any credible evidence that the infections were intentional. It's a staple of college and university research/statistics and research/ethics courses.

In fact, it was the high base-rate for infection that lead to the selection of poor blacks for the study, not that blacks were selected to be infected; if it had been a white disease, whites would have been used. The entire nature of the study changed when years (and $$$) of research were threatened by the discovery of a cure for syphilus. Prior to that happening, there wasn't really anything wrong with the study, because the men couldn't be treated anyway; in fact IIRC they received better medical care than the average black citizen.

None of that is a defense for the way the study ended though.
 

FuZoR

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2001
4,422
1
0
Originally posted by: virtueixi
I have been mugged 3 times.

1) When I was in 7th grade, gave up $2.

2) Freshman yeat H.S, gave up $10. Got pushed against a hard metal fence, hurt my back.

3) Senior year in H.S. gave up $20 and my brand new cell phone $120. Got hit w/ a metal afro pick which could have been used as a knife.

I am in NYC BTW. They were all black. So I will have to agree with Ilmater, especially in shady neighborhoods. Of course now I carry a knife and wouldn't hesitate to kill a scumbag for $1. The police wanted me to ID another black person for the robbery but I didn't so don't call me a racist.

Brooklyn, similar situations.

(JHS)Me and my buddy was walking in a "ok" neighborhood and just chilling. When a group of black guys wanted to cause trouble and asked us for our money. my friend told them to f**k off and we were about to get into a fight but luckily they had a mature guy in their little group telling the guy to quit it.

hmm.. let me think of another one.. when i was in (6th grade) me and another friend was heading to his home and a small little black kid that didnt look like he was even 8 years old came to us and asked for our money holding a little box cutter.. i almost fell on the floor and laughed then i look across the street i see like 5 older black guys...? one of them came running and grabbed him and said sorry? huh...

(10th grade) another time me and again another friend was heading home when 7-8 guys all black jumped us askng for our money... we told them we didnt have anything and they grabbed us and checked. when looking through our things and found nothing of value they wanted my friends watch... he wouldnt give it up and got punched. I pushed one and tried to help my friend but the rest stopped me and i was on the floor next thing i know two cars stopped and got out to help us... they ran. the guy on the car gave us a ride back home.

most recent one last year the subway a group of black guys sat around me... asked what i was listneing too i played it cool and was like rock and said whats up where were they heading to.. seeing that i wasnt afraid of them they backed out i guess

they were all with diffrent friends of mine... I can add like 2 more but im lazy now. i know several other people that find themselves in that type of situation. meh... I can see why people look over their shoulders around black people...

oh with that said i know plenty of good black people... my awesome old neighbors before i moved and my goods friends that i grew up with. my coworkers etc...
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Gave them STDs, or took blacks who already had STDs and monitored their disease instead of treating it to see the outcome?

For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for ?bad blood,? their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all.

The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis?which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. ?As I see it,? one of the doctors involved explained, ?we have no further interest in these patients until they die.?

Was it bad? Yes. However, no one gave blacks STDs.

And no one put crack into black communities with the intention of bringing them down.

I have seen SO much BS propaganda from you in this thread. You need to take a critical look at the urban legends you hear from your so-called leaders.

Actually, they were not necessarily in late-stage syphilus. The purpose of the experiment was to look at the life-cycle of the disease. When the study started, there wasn't really anything wrong with this: syphilus was untreatable anyway. The study, in theory, could have lead to better understanding of the disease, and even treatments.

However, long before the ast patients died, the cure was found, and many of the people in the study could have been saved years of suffering. "In the interests of science" and no doubt bolstered by the low social status of the subjects, it was decided to let the study run its course. This was totally indefensible (eventually, the remaining survivors were treated, when the cover on the study was blown).

This is a pretty good assessment of what happened. Certainly it was wrong of my state and the federal government and I think it shows the ignorance of people at that time. They felt that black people were substandard, and that's simply not true.

Just to clarify: I'm White, but my Great Grandmother was half Cherokee. People felt the Indians were substandard as well as they did with Blacks. The problem is that neither group has been able to function at the higher levels of society. What I don't understand is why. I don't think it is due to crack, or alcohol. That's a part of it, but it wasn't some conspiracy. Some of it is due to their past treatment and severe disadvantage they all had before the 1960's. I do, however, think that some is due to a pervasive feeling in each community of an "us against them" mindset. It is apparent that there is also a certain level of complacency and passiveness.

I don't object to the argument that Tuskeegee, Slavery, Trail of Tears, or any other bigoted event hurt these people. I won't even deny that it hurts them some today. My issue is with saying it is the biggest problem, and that they cannot overcome it. There is a large multitude of reasons for why each of these groups have remained in the lower tiers of society. They have to solve each problem one by one. Asian and Indian immigrants, as well as Hispanic immigrants came here for a better life. Most of them saved money and endured terrible conditions to get here, and then terrible conditions to stay here. Many were victims of slavery, sweatshop style employment, crime, etc. They've made a better life for themselves...
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Nice Post Mill.

Recognizing that there are many causes for social inequity is an important step to solving that inequity.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,530
20,194
146
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Amused
Gave them STDs, or took blacks who already had STDs and monitored their disease instead of treating it to see the outcome?

For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for ?bad blood,? their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all.

The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis?which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. ?As I see it,? one of the doctors involved explained, ?we have no further interest in these patients until they die.?

Was it bad? Yes. However, no one gave blacks STDs.

And no one put crack into black communities with the intention of bringing them down.

I have seen SO much BS propaganda from you in this thread. You need to take a critical look at the urban legends you hear from your so-called leaders.

Actually, they were not necessarily in late-stage syphilus. The purpose of the experiment was to look at the life-cycle of the disease. When the study started, there wasn't really anything wrong with this: syphilus was untreatable anyway. The study, in theory, could have lead to better understanding of the disease, and even treatments.

However, long before the ast patients died, the cure was found, and many of the people in the study could have been saved years of suffering. "In the interests of science" and no doubt bolstered by the low social status of the subjects, it was decided to let the study run its course. This was totally indefensible (eventually, the remaining survivors were treated, when the cover on the study was blown).

This is a pretty good assessment of what happened. Certainly it was wrong of my state and the federal government and I think it shows the ignorance of people at that time. The felt that black people were substandard, and that's simply not true.

Just to clarify: I'm White, but my Great Grandmother was half Cherokee. People felt the Indians were substandard as well as they did with Blacks. The problem is that neither group has been able to function at the higher levels of society. What I don't understand is why. I don't think it is due to crack, or alcohol. That's a part of it, but it wasn't some conspiracy. Some of it is due to their past treatment and severe disadvantage they all had before the 1960's. I do, however, think that some is due to a pervasive feeling in each community of an "us against them" mindset. It is apparent that there is also a certain level of complacency and passiveness.

I don't object to the argument that Tuskeegee, Slavery, Trail of Tears, or any other bigoted event hurt these people. I won't even deny that it hurts them some today. My issue is with saying it is the biggest problem, and that they cannot overcome it. There is a large multitude of reasons for why each of these groups have remained in the lower tiers of society. They have to solve each problem one by one. Asian and Indian immigrants, as well as Hispanic immigrants came here for a better life. Most of them saved money and endured terrible conditions to get here, and then terrible conditions to stay here. Many were victims of slavery, sweatshop style employment, crime, etc. They've made a better life for themselves...

And remember, the Asians overcame the anti-Chinese groups of the late 1800s and the anti-Japanese BS during WWII.
 

Darkstar757

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2003
3,190
6
81
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Nice Post Mill.

Recognizing that there are many causes for social inequity is an important step to solving that inequity.

i agree

very nice post mill
 

SinNisTeR

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2001
3,570
0
0
its all a matter of percentages my friend. i agree on the fact that crime comes in all shapes, sizes, and colors. no one can dispute that. but the percentages of crime per race are completely different.

Link1

Link2

i can pull up much more info. it has been proven. but the question remains. why?
 

Ilmater

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2002
7,516
1
0
Originally posted by: Howard
Originally posted by: Ilmater
Originally posted by: Darkstar757
Originally posted by: Howard
The only time my house was robbed (with somebody in it, no less) was by a black kid. Who are you to deny us the right to draw our own opinions based on our experience?

Well I could say umm I hate all white men because for some reason all throughout my life ive only been called a n*#&#$ by them. BUT I DONT beause I love humans despite there incumbant flaws. So I refuse to pass general judgements around like that. I feel the only way this place we call earth will get better is to judge people by who they are not what race they are. SO LET IT GO AND STOP being a racist. BTW sorry about your experience with being robbed but know I that no one in my family would ever steal from you.

:confused:
But again, you're drawing the wrong conclusion. She's not saying she hates all black men because one robbed her house, but if she were robbed again, she'd probably assume that it was a black person. This is especially true, because she probably doesn't know too many other blacks, so she has no contradictory frame of reference.

On the flip side of that coin, I would not be surprised if a black that was constantly the victim of racism and bigoted statements were to assume that all whites he or she meets thought differently of them just because of their color. Fortunately, there are enough white people that DON'T act that way that many blacks would not immediately think that.
Who the fvck is she?


:p
If you don't want to be called she, you'll have to change your avatar. Sorry, I don't know any better.
 

imported_Pablo

Diamond Member
Jan 20, 2002
3,714
1
0
According to SinNister's Link:

"There is more black-on-white than black-on-black violent crime.

Of the approximately 1,700,000 interracial crimes of violence involving
blacks and whites, 90 percent are committed by blacks against whites.
Blacks are therefore up to 250 times more likely to do criminal violence to
whites than the reverse.

Blacks commit violent crimes at four to eight times the white rate.
Hispanics commit violent crimes at approximately three times the white rate,
and Asians at one half to three quarters the white rate.

Blacks are twice as likely as whites to commit hate crimes.

Hispanics are a hate crime victim category but not a perpetrator category.
Hispanic offenders are classified as whites, which inflates the white
offense rate and gives the impression that Hispanics commit no hate crimes.

Blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more
dangerous than women."
 

SinNisTeR

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2001
3,570
0
0
INMATES BY RACE

White: 100,593 (56.7%)

Black: 71,156 (40.1%)

Asian: 2,870 (1.6%)

Native
American: 2,899 (1.6%)

hispanics fall under white. you have to deduct 15% from white. also, the white poputlation is 70% while blacks are much less roughly 15%. so if you have 85k white inmate, with whites making up 70% of US pop. and 71k black inmates with blacks as 15% as US pop. this makes it much more interesting.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: PabloMartinez
According to SinNister's Link:

"There is more black-on-white than black-on-black violent crime.

Of the approximately 1,700,000 interracial crimes of violence involving
blacks and whites, 90 percent are committed by blacks against whites.
Blacks are therefore up to 250 times more likely to do criminal violence to
whites than the reverse.

Blacks commit violent crimes at four to eight times the white rate.
Hispanics commit violent crimes at approximately three times the white rate,
and Asians at one half to three quarters the white rate.

Blacks are twice as likely as whites to commit hate crimes.

Hispanics are a hate crime victim category but not a perpetrator category.
Hispanic offenders are classified as whites, which inflates the white
offense rate and gives the impression that Hispanics commit no hate crimes.

Blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more
dangerous than women."

Parts of that aren't true. Most crime is intra-racial.
 

imported_Pablo

Diamond Member
Jan 20, 2002
3,714
1
0
Originally posted by: SinNisTeR
INMATES BY RACE

White: 100,593 (56.7%)

Black: 71,156 (40.1%)

Asian: 2,870 (1.6%)

Native
American: 2,899 (1.6%)

hispanics fall under white. you have to deduct 15% from white. also, the white poputlation is 70% while blacks are much less roughly 15%. so if you have 85k white inmate, with whites making up 70% of US pop. and 71k black inmates with blacks as 15% as US pop. this makes it much more interesting.

Where did you get the 15% figure out of curiousity?
 

SinNisTeR

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2001
3,570
0
0
PabloMartinez
-----
DIRECTLY FROM THE FBI'S FINAL CRIME STATS FOR 1995 IN THE 1995 UNIFORM CRIME REPORT

special note: the fbi does not differentiate between hispanics and whites in these crime stats. This skews the white percentages, a fact you won't hear from the leftist media. so remember, the white percentages are actually smaller than reported here. hispanics are 11%-13% of the population (probably more). one can safely assume that they commit crimes at about 1.5 to 1 ratio relative to thier % of the population.....i.e. they probably commit about 15-20% of violent crime. so, to get the actual white percentage, subtract 15% points.

POPULATION PERCENTAGES (to use as a benchmark when viewing the stats on race and crime)

WHITE - 70%

BLACK - 12%

HISPANIC - 11%

OTHER (ASIAN, INDIAN, JEW) - 7%

MURDER

Ninety-one percent of those arrested for murder in 1995 were males and 9 percent, females. Blacks comprised 54 percent of the total; whites, 43 percent; and the remainder, other races (pg 22) NOTE: Remember, subtract 15% from the white 43% to get 28%. So, blacks 54%, hispanics 15%, whites 28%.

ROBBERY

Sixty-four percent of all robbery arrestees in 1995 were under 25 years of age, and 91 percent were males. Fifty-nine percent of those arrested were black, 39 percent were white, and the remainder were of other races. (pg 29) NOTE: Again, remember, subtract 15% from the white 39% to get 24%.So, blacks 59%, hispanics 18%, whites 21%.

.....
---------
 

imported_Pablo

Diamond Member
Jan 20, 2002
3,714
1
0
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: PabloMartinez
According to SinNister's Link:

"There is more black-on-white than black-on-black violent crime.

Of the approximately 1,700,000 interracial crimes of violence involving
blacks and whites, 90 percent are committed by blacks against whites.
Blacks are therefore up to 250 times more likely to do criminal violence to
whites than the reverse.

Blacks commit violent crimes at four to eight times the white rate.
Hispanics commit violent crimes at approximately three times the white rate,
and Asians at one half to three quarters the white rate.

Blacks are twice as likely as whites to commit hate crimes.

Hispanics are a hate crime victim category but not a perpetrator category.
Hispanic offenders are classified as whites, which inflates the white
offense rate and gives the impression that Hispanics commit no hate crimes.

Blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more
dangerous than women."

Parts of that aren't true. Most crime is intra-racial.

Is that an opinion or is there a source?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,530
20,194
146
Originally posted by: PabloMartinez
Originally posted by: SinNisTeR
INMATES BY RACE

White: 100,593 (56.7%)

Black: 71,156 (40.1%)

Asian: 2,870 (1.6%)

Native
American: 2,899 (1.6%)

hispanics fall under white. you have to deduct 15% from white. also, the white poputlation is 70% while blacks are much less roughly 15%. so if you have 85k white inmate, with whites making up 70% of US pop. and 71k black inmates with blacks as 15% as US pop. this makes it much more interesting.

Where did you get the 15% figure out of curiousity?

You can find out everything related to the make up of the population here:

http://www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical-abstract-us.html
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,530
20,194
146
Originally posted by: PabloMartinez
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: PabloMartinez
According to SinNister's Link:

"There is more black-on-white than black-on-black violent crime.

Of the approximately 1,700,000 interracial crimes of violence involving
blacks and whites, 90 percent are committed by blacks against whites.
Blacks are therefore up to 250 times more likely to do criminal violence to
whites than the reverse.

Blacks commit violent crimes at four to eight times the white rate.
Hispanics commit violent crimes at approximately three times the white rate,
and Asians at one half to three quarters the white rate.

Blacks are twice as likely as whites to commit hate crimes.

Hispanics are a hate crime victim category but not a perpetrator category.
Hispanic offenders are classified as whites, which inflates the white
offense rate and gives the impression that Hispanics commit no hate crimes.

Blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more
dangerous than women."

Parts of that aren't true. Most crime is intra-racial.

Is that an opinion or is there a source?

Look at my original post. It has a link the the FBI UCR

Edit: Here:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: PabloMartinez
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: PabloMartinez
According to SinNister's Link:

"There is more black-on-white than black-on-black violent crime.

Of the approximately 1,700,000 interracial crimes of violence involving
blacks and whites, 90 percent are committed by blacks against whites.
Blacks are therefore up to 250 times more likely to do criminal violence to
whites than the reverse.

Blacks commit violent crimes at four to eight times the white rate.
Hispanics commit violent crimes at approximately three times the white rate,
and Asians at one half to three quarters the white rate.

Blacks are twice as likely as whites to commit hate crimes.

Hispanics are a hate crime victim category but not a perpetrator category.
Hispanic offenders are classified as whites, which inflates the white
offense rate and gives the impression that Hispanics commit no hate crimes.

Blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more
dangerous than women."

Parts of that aren't true. Most crime is intra-racial.

Is that an opinion or is there a source?

Here is one source

The other source I have is my textbook from JS 220 and JS 101.