Talk:African Americans/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

"...the most punished race"

"The African American race is the most punished race in North America. African American males are more likely to be imprisoned than any other demographic group, especially between the ages of 20 and 39. African American public school students are most likely to be assigned to special-education classes."

I find this statement very POV, coming as it does, under the rubric of "Slavery and Oppression". One could just as well say "the African American race is the most criminal race" or "the African American race is the most criminally victimised race". All these facts are true, and their significance can only be determined by a deeper analysis. According to a Federal Report [Sentencing in the Federal Courts: Does Race Matter?] "Mearly all of the aggregate differences among sentences for whites, blacks, and Hispanics during 1989-90 can be attributed to characteristics of offenses and offenders that current law and sentencing guidelines establish as legitimate considerations in sentencing decisions." -- Daran 00:22, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"...the most criminal race"?

WTF? And by whose twisted standards? (See my later comments about WHITE criminality.) When examined by true factors of what produces criminal behavior -- rather than by backwards notion of race (literacy/education level, socioeconomic background, rearing-family status, family history) -- one would see that rates of criminality are pretty much level across ethnicities. It is the disproportionate presence of factors that perpetuate social and economic disadvantage and militate towards criminal behavior, in addition to the racially skewed criminal justice system, that account for much of the imbalance.

And speaking of so-called "legitimate considerations in sentencing decisions" (that gave me a big laugh), let me offer for your consideration this, verbatim from the FAMM website:

• Cocaine is a powder which in its "cooked" form is called crack cocaine.

• The mandatory minimum sentencing laws established by Congress in 1986 reflect the belief that crack is more harmful than powder cocaine and penalize crack defendants more harshly than powder cocaine defendants. Defendants convicted of selling 500 grams of powder cocaine or five grams of crack cocaine receive five-year sentences. For five kilos of powder cocaine and 50 grams of crack, the penalty is 10 years. Thus there is a 100:1 ratio.

• Simple possession of any quantity of powder cocaine by first-time offenders is considered a misdemeanor, punishable by no more than one year in prison. Simple possession of crack cocaine is a felony, carrying a five-year mandatory sentence. [Add the three-strikes law, and you've got a recipe for what we have now -- scores of black and brown youth locked up for outrageous periods of time and then trapped in an endless cycle of recidivism for offenses for which other, more well-heeled (read "white") folks get taps on the wrist.]

• A 1995 report of the U.S. Sentencing Commission found little inherent difference between crack and powder cocaine and concluded that the 100:1 ratio was unfair. Congress rejected a subsequent amendment by the Sentencing Commission to eliminate the sentencing disparity between crack and powder. Other efforts to alter the ratio failed. Special Report to the Congress: Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy, February 1995.U. S. Sentencing Commission.

• Blacks accounted for 84 percent of the drug offenders convicted of crack offenses in fiscal year 2000, Hispanics 9 percent and whites 6 percent. Of the powder cocaine offenses, Hispanics accounted for 50 percent, blacks 30 percent and whites 18 percent. 2000 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics, U.S. Sentencing Commission.

• No weapons were involved in 89 percent of the cocaine cases and 79 percent of the crack cases. 2000 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics, U.S. Sentencing Commission.

• The mean average sentence length for powder cocaine is 77 months, compared to 119.5 months for crack cocaine. The median average is 60 months for powder cocaine and 97 months for crack cocaine. 2000 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics, U.S. Sentencing Commission.

• Only offenders convicted of murder and kidnapping/hostage taking serve longer mean average sentences than crack offenders. Those convicted of robbery serve an average 108 months; arson, 68 months; sexual abuse, 65 months; and manslaughter, 25 months. 2000 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics, U.S. Sentencing Commission.

• A 1996 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association finds similar physiological and psychoactive affects for crack and powder cocaine and challenges the basis of harsher crack sentences. Crack Cocaine and Cocaine Hydrochloride: Are the Differences Myth or Reality?," by Dorothy K. Hatsukami, Ph.D., and Marian W. Fischman, Ph.D. Journal of American Medical Association, November 20, 1996.

• An analysis of 36 studies on "crack babies" published in the Journal of the American Medical Association shows that poverty and the use of cigarettes, alcohol and other drugs during pregnancy are just as likely as cocaine to cause developmental problems in children. "Growth, Development and Behavior in Early Childhood Following Prenatal Cocaine Exposure," by Deborah A. Frank, M.D.; Marilyn Augustyn, M.D.; Wanda Grant Knight Ph.D.; Tripler Pell, M.Sc.; and Barry Zuckerman, M.D. Journal of the American Medical Association, March 28, 2001.

This is not an invitation to carry this discussion further. I find it irrelevant and distasteful.

I am of the opinion, however, that ranking oppression and disadvantage is not a terribly productive exercise. After all, such things are highly personal and subjective to those so affected, and there is no objective metric, no Richter scale for human suffering. I find the sentence -- and, frankly, much of this discussion (and, as a result, portions of the article itself) -- abysmally ham-handed, arrogant, inept and wrong-headed. And I mean that in a nice way. :-p deeceevoice 19:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

IQ

Someone removed the fact that Af-Ams have lower average IQ (~80) than white or asian (~100). This is not in itself a racist comment. It seems to be politically correct to say that all races have equal intelligence, but this is simply not true. Consider dogs, for instance. There are many "races" of dogs, but some races are smarter than others. There is debate that IQ does not measure intelligence. Given this valid contention, it should be stated in the article that "Although African Americans have a lower average IQ compared to whites and Asians, it should also be mentioned that IQ tests have been criticized as being invalid measures of intelligence". Acornlord 10:28, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Acornlord, you're an ass. The fact that such a discussion ever even made it into print in this context is blatantly racist. That crap should have been deleted.deeceevoice 09:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Never mind the discussion of whether the purported differences arise from cultural irrelevancy of the questions or the test format, the unconscious bias of the testers, or other factors. Hrm.... Note to self (or interested others): Has anyone tried a comparison using the sorts of non-verbal/pre-lingual tests used with children who have language or cognitive impairments? I'm guessing those would come out with much closer averages, but don't know... and also wonder what happens when you normalize across economic, environmental (think "lead-based paint"), and other factors... I'd do a Google search here and now, but it's waaaaaaay past my bedtime. "Race in America" is a topic I've been slowly developing an interest in. pgdudda 06:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Race Riots

Ortolan, I didn't mention Tulsa or Bowley, Oklahoma, because neither occurred during the Red Summer. Yep, I could've mentioned both, as well as Rosewood and a whole lo-oong list of others, but that's not the focus of this article. I don't see any point in reciting the litany of atrocities committed against black folks in this entry. In my extensive rewriting of this piece I've made a conscious effort not to dwell on the depravity of racist whites or on blacks as victims. Again, IMO, that's not the central point of this piece. However, if you'd like to mention Tulsa or any of the other cities where white folks savaged blacks in mob violence, be my guest. Throw it up against the wall, and we'll see what sticks.  :-p deeceevoice 00:48, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I guess maybe it should go in race riot, an article currently not much good at all, an incomplete list with no serious information. For instance, it make no distinction between the mass lynching riots you're talking about here -- attacks by whites on black communities -- and the riots of the 60s -- which were quite different. I don't really know much about the subject, but as a reporter I covered the Chicago and Detroit riots in the 60s. Ortolan88 02:33, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's what I was thinking -- that such info would be more appropriate there, which is why I made passing reference to one notable summer. But I didn't bother to even check if there was an article on race riots. I almost hate reading anything on Wikipedia that deals with black folks. The abysmal ignorance, arrogance and sometimes outright racism are ridiculous. Virtually every article I've visited on this site dealing with black folks is just terribly written, with all kinds of idiotic, erroneous notions or just mind-numbing naivete. And I don't have the time or the patience -- or, frankly, the will -- to deal with it. Wikipedia needs to somehow attract more knowledgeable people of color; because, clearly, it is greatly lacking in this regard. deeceevoice 18:25, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I can do some preliminary work on the article, clear the ground a little, but you obviously know more about it than I do. I will put in what I know or can put together, perhaps move or copy a little of what's here over there. Ortolan88 22:53, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ortolan, without a talk link on your personal page, how do I contact you? Sent you an e-mail via the link provided, but it bounced back.deeceevoice 09:55, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Social Problems

The article says crime and substance abuse are high among African Americans. Are they higher than among the general population? (anon, undated, probably late 2004)

Crime statistics

SS88 (aka SS-88 or NSM88) has added a section on crime statistics, stating:

According to the US Department of Justice, 28% of African American males will enter prison during their lifetime as compared to 16% of Hispanic males and 4% of white males.

This seems to come from [1], a report from 1997 that has been superseded by a newer report [2] from 2001. Both reports essentially confirm these numbers.

Of the state prison population in 1991, 65% are either African American or Hispanic. The figure from 1986 was 60%.

Not sure about this one, since the 1991 statistics don't seem to be online. However, the most recent such statistics I found is [3] from 1998, which, according to its table 5.6, gives the numbers as 41% White, 47% African American, 10% unknown, 1% miscellaneous (American Indian, Inuit, Asian, Hawaiian).

Of people convicted of drug trafficking in US courts in 1990, 85% were male 42% were white, 57% black, and 1% of other races

No source found. Maybe the author could give one?

So much for fact checking. Now, whether these statistics belong in this article or whether there is a more suitable place elsewhere is another question. Lupo 12:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted:

==African-American Crime Statistics==

According to the US Department of Justice, 28% of African American males will enter prison during their lifetime as compared to 16% of Hispanic males and 4% of white males.

Of the state prison population in 1991, 65% are either African American or Hispanic. The figure from 1986 was 60%.

Of people convicted of drug trafficking in US courts in 1990, 85% were male 42% were white, 57% black, and 1% of other races

Gee, I wonder if, in a general article on Lations, or Jews, or whites there are crime statistics. Hell, no! There is a subhead on contemporary issues (or something of the sort) wherein there is a reference to a yet unwritten article on African American - Contemporary issues (or something). Apparently some people thought such a subject was essential, so such statistics belong --if at all -- there, in the context of an intelligent discussion of related issues, where some kind of context can be established for them. However, I would expect the same kind of treatment of other ethnic groups on Wiki w/regard to challenges of education, crime, substance abuse, etc. For my money, I'd leave it alone. Not that I'm sensitive about any of that; I just don't trust Wiki to be able to produce something that isn't riddled with incredibly naive or outright racist bullcrap. But, then, that's just me. :-p deeceevoice 15:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think the disproportionate imprisonment of African Americans, especially African American males, belongs in the article, but to call it "crime statistics" is extremely misleading. For example, studies have shown that drug use among African Americans is about the same as in the general population (maybe a tad below average), but at each stage of the criminal justice process, African Americans fare worse than others. I've seen (but cannot cite) statistics to the effect that African Americans are roughly 13% of drug users (that is, about proportionate to their numbers), 35% of those arrested on drug-related charges, over 50% of those tried, and 75% of those given prison time. deeceevoice, would you agree that if we can find a good citation on something along these lines it belongs? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:57, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Not unless you're going to add in crime statistics to the articles of every other 'hyphenated-American'.

And why is there a photograph of Ali in a fight? This is hardly representative of African Americans?

Quill 20:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest addressing the second question to the person who put it there; I for one think it's neither the best nor the worst possible choice (we could certainly do worse than a person who is probably the most admired athlete of the 20th century on a world basis).

Again, though, on imprisonment statistics, I think it is utterly misleading to call them "crime statistics", and I think the disproportionate arrest, prosecution, and punishment of African Americans belongs here, as does the disproportionately mild sentencing of those, African American or not, who are charged with crimes against African Americans. This is an important constituent of institutional racism in America. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:40, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Insitutional racism? Why not just add a section on "blame whitey"? Wareware 03:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think Wareware's remark speaks for itself, and many of the things I could say in response would violate the policy against personal attacks.

Let's see: within my lifetime (I'm 50) there were laws in many states against "Negroes" (as they were then called) marrying Whites. Lynching was fading out, but in my own Long Island, New York neighborhood, the first time an African American family moved in some idiot, presumably white (never caught) poured gasoline in the shape of a cross on their front lawn one night and lit it. In Connecticut, my closest African American friend in college, now a Hegelian scholar of some note, was arrested one night simply walking back from downtown to campus: this never happened to me or any of my white friends.

To take this away from my personal anecdotes, a piece of PBS reporting from about four years back, while characterizing police shootings of civilians as "rare", says that "Blacks and Hispanics... report violent or potentially violent encounters with police at twice the rate of whites." Current African American unemployment rates run about twice those for Whites (I lack a cite on that, but the numbers are roughly 11% and 5.5% respectively). At the risk of troll-feeding: do you think these things are coincidence? Do you think that African Americans just have a cultural tendency toward getting in the way of police bullets and staying away from prospective employers? How about infant mortality rates, as bad in some of the predominantly African American inner city ghettoes as in a third world country? Don't you think that might have, oh, a little something to do with the U.S., institutionally, not concerning itself with the problem? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:47, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Oh really? I'd rather listen to what Ward Connely and Bill Cosby have to say about it than some liberal PC-police who like to taut the culture of dependent victimhood. Oh look, we're all really poor and innocent victims exploited by the system [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1340801/posts have a laugh] Wareware 20:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since you bring up Bill Cosby, here's a piece by his wife, entitled "Prejudice Permeates American Culture". Or does your comment that you'd "rather listen" to what such people have to say stop when they say something with which you disagree? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:56, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sure America teaches ppl to kill blacks Really ludicrous. And yes I brought up Cosby because he said something the liberals wouldnt say, like stop portraying black criminals as "political prisoners." Wareware 00:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wareware's choice of source speaks for itself. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:12, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Back on the topic we were discussing before. Deeceevoice, I'd appreciate a response to my earlier remarks, though if you just want to leave it here I won't scream; I agree that the removal you made improves the article, but I still wonder if similar material, differently handled, would be an improvement. Right now, the article barely acknowledges (and really doesn't document) that African Americans today still have to contend with... well, with attitudes like the ones just expressed by our recent interlocutor. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:12, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)