Guess who makes up 41% of the prison population? [Archive]

Starr

10-25-2005, 01:02 AM

At only roughly 12%(give or take) of the population. You are only allowed one guess.:p

WASHINGTON—The number of prisoners in the United States rose 1.9 percent during 2004, the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. This was lower than the average annual rate of growth during the last decade (3.2 percent) and just below the growth rate in 2003 (2.0 percent).

The number of inmates under state jurisdiction increased by 20,759 inmates (1.6 percent) and the number under federal jurisdiction by 7,269 (4.2 percent). The total increase in the number of inmates in 2004 was nearly identical to 2003 and about 8,000 fewer than in 2002.

As of December 31, 2004, there were 2,267,787 people behind bars in the United States, of which 1,421,911 were held in federal and state prisons (not including the 74,378 state and federal inmates incarcerated in local jails), 713,990 in local jails, 102,338 in juvenile facilities, 15,757 in U.S. Territory prisons, 9,788 in Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities, 2,177 in military prisons and 1,826 in Indian country jails (as of June 30, 2003).

The Federal Bureau of Prisons operated the largest prison system at year-end 2004 (180,328 inmates), followed by Texas (168,105), California (166,556), Florida (85,533), and New York (63,751).

Ten states reported population increases of at least 5 percent during 2004. Minnesota led the nation with 11.4 percent growth, followed by Idaho (up 11.1 percent) and Georgia (up 8.3 percent). Eleven states experienced declines, led by Alabama (down 7.3 percent), followed by Rhode Island (down 2.8 percent) and New York (down 2.2 percent).

The nation’s incarceration rate rose from 411 sentenced inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents in 1995 to 486 inmates per 100,000 at the end of last year—an 18 percent increase. (A “sentenced” prisoner is an inmate serving a sentence of more than a year.)

The states with the highest incarceration rates in 2004 were Louisiana (816 sentenced prisoners per 100,000 state residents), Texas (694), Mississippi (669), Oklahoma (649) and Georgia (574). The states with the lowest incarceration rates were Maine (148 sentenced inmates per 100,000 state residents), Minnesota (171), Rhode Island (175), New Hampshire (187) and North Dakota (195).

On December 31, 2004, 24 state prison systems were operating at or above their highest capacity. The federal system was 40 percent over capacity.

At the end of last year 98,901 prisoners were held in privately operated facilities (6.6 percent of all inmates). New Mexico had the highest percentage, 42 percent, followed by Alaska, 31 percent and Montana, 30 percent.

Half of state prison inmates were serving time for violent crimes, 20 percent for property crimes and 21 percent for drug crimes. Females were more likely to be in prison for a drug offense (32 percent) than were males (21 percent). Males were more likely to be in prison for a violent offense (52 percent) than were females (33 percent).

As of December 31, 2004, 104,848 women were held in state and federal prisons—up from 68,468 in 1995. Women constituted 7.0 percent of all inmates—up from 6.1 percent in 1995.

About 8.4 percent of all black male U.S. residents between 25 and 29 years old were in a state or federal prison in 2004, compared to 2.5 percent of Hispanic males in the same age group and 1.2 percent of white males. Among male and female prisoners combined, 41 percent were black, 34 percent were white, 19 percent Hispanic and the rest were other races or two or more races.

But I guess we need to take into careful consideration that blacks are often in prison because they are the victims of racism.:(

Niko Bellic

10-25-2005, 02:25 AM

What's the source? I'm not challenging it, you just didn't give us a link.:)

Starr

10-25-2005, 02:30 AM

What's the source? I'm not challenging it, you just didn't give us a link.:)

it is from the American Renaissance site. I cannot post links right now because of computer issues and when I try to copy the link, sometimes, my computer goes crazy.:confused: :o

www.amren.com

Berianidze

10-25-2005, 03:52 AM

While I'm not going down the whiny liberal road, I think these numbers have to be looked upon with care, and put into context. We all know blacks make up a disproportional number of inmates in the U.S. prison system, but it's not as easy as simply saying that they're more predestined to commit crimes or anything of that sort.

Again, let's try to put things in perspective. I don't have the statistics readily at my hands right now, but I will post them soon. But if we know that a large portion of the black population is living below the poverty line, then we can formulate other assumptions (which can also be backed by factual information) that it's these blacks who are more than likely going to be incarcerated as opposed to other more propserous groups (economically of course).

If you're poor (regardless of race) you're not going to be able to afford a lawyer from a private firm who is going to sincerely care about winning your case, but rather a court-appointed public defender who is, in his job description, required to defend any innocent in need of his services--guilty or innocent. I'm not crying racism on part of the legal system (although it's apparently there) I'm just saying that if any suspected criminal has to depend on a court-appointed attorney (who probably has other, more detrimental cases on his mind or simply doesn't want to do the job), then that attorney isn't going to perform at the same level as someone whose working on his own time with a client whom he has selected to defend.

So this widens the gap right here, the numbers just show that more blacks get sent to prison when confronted with their crimes (or at least suspected crimes) than other groups do--but we know that as a whole, whites have more spending power to hire lawyers of their own.

Again I'm not crying racism, but to concede that their is absolutely no prejudice in the United States judicial system is absurd as well, and history has shown this.

Starr

10-25-2005, 05:04 AM

Berianidze

10-25-2005, 05:40 AM

I am not going to disagree that, among other things, if you have money and can afford a good lawyer, your chances of not facing prison time are going to be a lot better. But there are plenty of poor whites also, who make up a much larger percentage of the population, and their incarceration rate makes up only 34% of the prison population. To me, at least that does more than suggest blacks are much more prone to commit crimes.

I agree wholeheartedly on the poor whites part, if you're poor no matter what your race/color/religion/ethnicity whatever you're screwed. Race issues aside, I think the class question is inherently much more important an issue to be addressed.

jcs

10-25-2005, 05:46 AM

Maybe blacks are not only more likely to be incarcerated, but also more likely to be poor, because:
-they're dumb? There is a correlation between IQ and economic class.
-they have higher hormone levels?
-they cannot function within Western society, much as very few whites could function in African society?--perhaps this is based on genetic factors as well as cultural?
-whites are evil racists?--or nepotists, as are all healthy people...

Starr

10-25-2005, 07:09 AM

I also feel some need to add here that you do not need to truly be poor(as in below the standard poverty line) not to be able to afford to hire a good attorney, with the best abilities to represent you, with their prices as they are.

Atlas

10-25-2005, 10:37 AM

Jimbo Gomez

10-25-2005, 11:39 AM

First: how come poor whites commit way less crimes than equally poor negroes? In fact, I'm willing to bet poor wetbacks commit less crimes than poor negroes too. Could you offer an explanation rice?

Second: As a trainee, I get court appointed cases too (usually the poor people). I, and the majority of other trainees, put in just as much an effort in those cases as in those of paying clients.

Third: forget about that high price lawyer crap. Court cases are like doctors: 80% of the time the patient/client will either die/lose or live/win, regardless of which doctor/lawyer he has. If you're right, you're right. Forget all that crap the media tells you. Only in complicated cases do experts add extra value, and in classical criminal law (not including taxfraud, environmental crime and the likes) that USUALLY isn't the case. Also, specialist or not, don't kid yourself: no matter who your lawyer is, unless if your case is really simple and routine, chances are very high he has to hit the books in order to do research.

Hakluyt

10-25-2005, 11:40 AM

Why not tell us precisely why you think blacks are more prone to commit crime Starr, I don't see the point in posting these statistics of which we are all generally aware already without a more frank discussion of the issue.

Regarding intelligence, to be brief, I'm open to the possibility of quantifiable racial differences, but don't think we've seen studies which properly correct for all influences of parentage and broader problems of self-confidence. I will also suggest that harping on this issue for its own sake without having something specific to say is dumb and accomplishes nothing.

Excorcism

10-25-2005, 01:16 PM

Third: forget about that high price lawyer crap. Court cases are like doctors: 80% of the time the patient/client will either die/lose or live/win, regardless of which doctor/lawyer he has. If you're right, you're right. Forget all that crap the media tells you. Only in complicated cases do experts add extra value, and in classical criminal law (not including taxfraud, environmental crime and the likes) that USUALLY isn't the case. Also, specialist or not, don't kid yourself: no matter who your lawyer is, unless if your case is really simple and routine, chances are very high he has to hit the books in order to do research.

exactly. It's funny how the media buffs up so much crap about the legal system.

Felix the Cat

10-25-2005, 02:29 PM

Anyone have historical statistics for this?

Interesting to know if this has always been the case, or if black incarceration rates have changed over the generations

Jimbo Gomez

10-25-2005, 02:31 PM

I'm willing to bet they skyrocketed since the civil rights movement.

Anarch

10-25-2005, 02:39 PM

At only roughly 12%(give or take) of the population. You are only allowed one guess.:p

SNAILS!

Starr you're preaching to the choir, but I agree with Haklyut. Elaborate on how and why you think coons are so crime-prone.

Starr

10-25-2005, 06:01 PM

It must not be nice to be white in jail. I heard recently that many black who are jailed in the states are being brainwashed by islamist and finally convert to islam, this article doesn't say that. Around here it is so true. The vast majority of prisoner are muslims and the rare white are being opressed in jail by them...

really? I don't really know a lot about what it is like for men in prison, but I would have assumed that the blacks who converted to Islam, would be the least ones to worry about, at least with prison rapes,etc. But then again, adopting a new religion is not going to change what they are.

jcs

10-25-2005, 06:10 PM

really? I don't really know a lot about what it is like for men in prison, but I would have assumed that the blacks who converted to Islam, would be the least ones to worry about, at least with prison rapes,etc. But then again, adopting a new religion is not going to change what they are.
Rape is actually the sixth pillar of Islam. They don't like to discuss it much, though.

Starr

10-25-2005, 06:15 PM

As for blacks being more prone to crime, that could be an endless discussion. But articles like this are always a good start:

www.amren.com/colrcrim.html

And this is also suggested in articles like the prison statistics in this thread, like I already said if blacks make up 43% of the prison population, while only making up about 12% of the general population, that is pretty suggestive.

And look at the conditions in Africa. I have read quite a few articles recently and many did not even come from what would be considered racist sites, that talk about how certain African countries have the highest rate of violent crimes in the world.

And then look at the crime rates in the ghettos and places that have a large black population. It seem like anywhere that you have a large group of niggers, violent as well as other kinds of crimes surely follow.

Examples could go on and on and on. Not all blacks are criminals or violent, of course, but to conclude that blacks are much more likely to engage in criminal behavior is only common sense.

Regarding intelligence, to be brief, I'm open to the possibility of quantifiable racial differences, but don't think we've seen studies which properly correct for all influences of parentage and broader problems of self-confidence. I will also suggest that harping on this issue for its own sake without having something specific to say is dumb and accomplishes nothing.

In some ways, maybe so, but coming up with all kinds of excuses in an attempt to explain these things also accomplishes nothing, other than further blinding people and allowing people to keep living in a fantasy about how "we are all equal" or how it is ONLY "environmental" issues(poverty, racism, the stuff you mention,etc) that make us who we are. If you are willing to accept racial differences in intelligence, I, others, and you I am sure have also read of the link between a lower IQ and crime.

Atlas

10-25-2005, 06:37 PM

adopting a new religion is not going to change what they are.

I don't know that much about the situation in the American's prison, only that many black convert to Islam there. About your comment, here many young wiggers became Islamist after a time spent in jail in contacts of arabs. So from thug, they became terrorists, or at least Islamists, that's not really better.

Hakluyt

10-25-2005, 11:59 PM

And look at the conditions in Africa. I have read quite a few articles recently and many did not even come from what would be considered racist sites, that talk about how certain African countries have the highest rate of violent crimes in the world.
There are also several African countries with very reasonable crime rates by western standards. All a matter of circumstance.

And then look at the crime rates in the ghettos and places that have a large black population. It seem like anywhere that you have a large group of niggers, violent as well as other kinds of crimes surely follow.

Examples could go on and on and on. Not all blacks are criminals or violent, of course, but to conclude that blacks are much more likely to engage in criminal behavior is only common sense.
The question remains: so what?

It is also very foolish if not dishonest to characterise African-American behaviour as a purely African phenomenon, unconditioned by their American surroundings.

In some ways, maybe so, but coming up with all kinds of excuses in an attempt to explain these things also accomplishes nothing, other than further blinding people and allowing people to keep living in a fantasy about how "we are all equal" or how it is ONLY "environmental" issues(poverty, racism, the stuff you mention,etc) that make us who we are. If you are willing to accept racial differences in intelligence, I, others, and you I am sure have also read of the link between a lower IQ and crime.
Noone least of all myself is proposing such. But it does appear to me that without a more specific line of reasoning here, bringing up the correlation between IQ and crime is merely another tool with which to bash your favourite hated minority.

Why do they have lower IQs, do you really know? Are you suggesting that lower intelligence necessarily leads to criminality? For what purpose do you bring these problems to our attention in the first place? Questions unaddressed.

Sinclair

10-26-2005, 12:18 AM

Poor blacks tend to be more likely to live in inner-city areas, or poorly-thought-out housing projects, than poor whites. Inner cities or projects are like the champagne of poverty. Really nasty.

And of course, they might be more policed than Nowheresville, because Nowheresville relies on the county police force, so the poor white criminals who are making meth and such in Nowheresville are less likely to get caught.

Groups like AmRen seem to sort of believe in this mythic crime-free white lower class, which is squeaky-clean, and lives in the nice countryside, and doesn't harm anybody.

Now, I don't believe that police racism is the main cause, because if the police really were white racists, Asians would get arrested and convicted at a higher rate than whites, and they're not, except for in some stats gambling-related crimes. But I do believe there is a definite anti-poor bias, and some groups are poorer than others. And the poor in some areas are more policed than the poor in others. Arrest statistics and conviction statistics are not the same as crime statistics.

Daniel Shays

10-26-2005, 03:25 AM

Groups like AmRen seem to sort of believe in this mythic crime-free white lower class, which is squeaky-clean, and lives in the nice countryside, and doesn't harm anybody.
Would you rather walk through a poor White town or a poor Black town?

No more bullshit boys,

The Color of Crime report proves that race is the greatest correlation to violent crime.

http://img500.imageshack.us/img500/7749/crimecorr18zr.jpg

Sinclair

10-26-2005, 03:39 AM

Would you rather walk through a poor White town or a poor Black town?

No more bullshit boys,

The Color of Crime report proves that race is the greatest correlation to violent crime.

http://img500.imageshack.us/img500/7749/crimecorr18zr.jpg

A poor black TOWN I probably would not mind walking through at night.
A poor inner-city area with a crime problem? Yeah. But that's not a TOWN.

And of course, that's in AMERICA. Strangely enough, in Canada problems connected with race, ethnicity, and culture are fewer, for the most part...

Starr

10-26-2005, 03:45 AM

Would you rather walk through a poor White town or a poor Black town?

That should be a pretty obvious answer, well for anyone who would answer it truthfully that is. Even Jesse Jackson said something about this once.

Something to the effect of how it saddened him to admit that when he walks down the street at night and he hears footsteps behind him, when he sees that it is a white man he feels safe. Anyone remember the exact quote?

Sinclair

10-26-2005, 12:22 PM

Anybody wanna guess why we have such a smaller crime problem connected with race, ethnicity, and culture in Canada?

Jimbo Gomez

10-26-2005, 12:30 PM

It's not guns, you have almost as many guns as the USA does. I suspect the USA crams its negroes together a lot more than you do. That's how you get gangs.

Daniel Shays

10-26-2005, 04:14 PM

Poor blacks tend to be more likely to live in inner-city areas, or poorly-thought-out housing projects, than poor whites.
Isn't it funny that since the Negroes can't "plan" their own communities we have to do it for them.... then when they commit crimes it's of course White peoples' fault because the White man "poorly-thought-out" the residence of their precious pets.

Look at America's inner cities during the Great Depression the unemployment and poverty during the worst economic time in America did not result in the senseless violence of today's "hoods".

The reason?

The city dwellers were European.

Anybody wanna guess why we have such a smaller crime problem connected with race, ethnicity, and culture in Canada?
Canada is famous for claiming to be so diverse and harmonious when in reality it is because there is very little cross-ethnic contact.

Asians in the west, Anglos to the east, then French, then Anglos again.

Your Niggers are kept in cities like ours and you don't have anywhere near the number we have. Talk to me when Canada is 13-14% Negro.

Sinclair

10-26-2005, 10:16 PM

Niko Bellic

10-27-2005, 01:42 AM

Astros new (white) face of baseball
1st Series club since '53 with no blacks

`We know we have work to do:' Selig

BEN WALKER
ASSOCIATED PRESS

HOUSTON—Joe Morgan worries about the face of baseball. Watching the World Series, the hall of famer is troubled by what he sees.

His old team, the Houston Astros, is down 3-0 to the Chicago White Sox, but it's not their lineup that concerns Morgan. It's their makeup.

The Astros are the first World Series team in more than a half-century with a roster that doesn't include a single African-American player.

"Of course I noticed it. How could you not?" Morgan said before the Series opener. "But they're not the only ones. There are two or three teams that didn't have any African-American players this year.''

Morgan said it's a predicament for baseball. While more players from around the world are making it to the majors — Japan, Korea, for example — the number of blacks is declining.

"It's a daunting task to get African-American kids into baseball, and I don't see the trend changing," he said.

The last World Series team without a black player was the 1953 New York Yankees. It wasn't until 1955 — eight years after Jackie Robinson broke the colour barrier in 1947 — that Elston Howard became the first black in Yankee pinstripes.

Black players accounted for just about 9 per cent of big-league rosters this season.

"We know that we have work to do," commissioner Bud Selig said yesterday. "I'm very aware, I'm extremely sensitive about it and I feel badly about it.''

Astros general manager Tim Purpura agrees.

"I think it's a huge, huge problem for baseball," he said. "The pool of African-American players just isn't there. And as baseball becomes more college-oriented in its draft, there aren't a lot of players to pick. The African-American athletes are going into other sports.''

And that's what disturbs Morgan. A two-time NL MVP, Morgan helped Cincinnati win two straight championships. In 1976, along with black teammates Ken Griffey, George Foster and Dan Driessen, the Reds swept a Yankees team that had 10 black players on its roster.

"There's a perception among African-American kids that they're not welcome here, that baseball is not for inner-city kids,'' Morgan said. "It's not true, and I hate that the perception is out there.''

LINK (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1130277008111&call_pageid=968867503640&col=970081593064&t=TS_Home)

And now we're trying to racially cleanse Major League Baseball! The man is still holding them down.:rofl:

Starr

10-27-2005, 01:49 AM

That is not funny, ugly American, it is true. And we all know "the man" is responsible for every single thing that goes wrong in blackie's life:(

Roland

10-27-2005, 02:24 PM

I'm willing to bet they skyrocketed since the civil rights movement.

Pre-civil rights confinement of blacks is an interesting issue. While I haven't done much research, I recall that confinement skyrocketed in the wake of the civil war.

Private prisons dotted the south and used false accusation by local police to gather up black labor. Of course this sort of treatment was in decline by the time of the civil rights movement. I believe, though, that the percentage of blacks that were inprisoned per-capita in the 19th and early 20th century, was higher or similar to contemporary percentages. I may be wrong, though.

Daniel Shays

10-28-2005, 12:37 AM

By the "Colour of Crime" numbers, you're safer walking through an "Asian town" than a "white town". Why is it that so much of the statistics purporting to show white superiority to blacks would also, by the same criteria, show Asian superiority to whites?
You are really flailing here. We aren't talking about superiority we are talking about crime rates.

I can prove that Europeans are a superior race to Asians in a different thread (recently one was wiped off an an asian supremacist forum). You are completely avoiding the discussion and making an ass out of yourself.
Eg Rushton's intelligence numbers. Why is it that Asians commit fewer crimes, even though looking at Chinatown, they hardly look like they're amazingly rich or whatever? I'd walk through Chinatown at night.
Intelligence AVERAGES from tests are a factor but look also at civilization and past inventions.

While the average Asian IQ is higher, Whites have more of a spectrum and the highest IQs are always White, Steven Hawking comes to mind. ;) This wide IQ (not racial or cultural) diversity, yet average high IQ was an asset in Whites forming and maintaining hierarchal societies.

When I talk to Asian supremacists they claim they invented the seismograph (http://www.uvm.edu/geology/museumwww/Seismograph.jpg) (lie, it was actually a primitive seismoscope (http://www.albertson.edu/math/History/jnewbry/Classical/earthquake.gif)) and horse stirrups, the rest pertain to gunpowder. In short, you can remind any other race that they are debating their superiority over a European invention. :)

The Asian immigrants in Chinatown have a lower than Negro crimerate for the same reason Whites do, genetics.
I live in Toronto. One of the most multiracial cities in the world. 57.2% white 4 years ago, definitely down since then (In 2001, Vancouver was 63.5% white). Oddly enough, I've never been mugged, and I don't know anybody who has who wasn't asking for it (Eg cruising for drugs). Once our old house, in the downtown core, in a mixed-income area, next to a technical school, got broken into. That's it.
"That's it", LOL.

I have never had anything broken into but I'm wealthy so we don't live near Niggers.

Let's take a look at Toronto's crime stats when the population gets darker, lets say NYC level being <20% White.

Crime problems on Toronto have recently been blamed on the "black community", but the problems can actually more be pegged on poor, undereducated Jamaican immigrants, from a culture of poverty.
Ok, I am starting to think you're stupid/ inattentive now.

Did you not see the data from the Color of Crime report with the correlation to race and crime being almost double that of poverty and crime?

You sound like a sociology professor.
The closest thing we have to sharecroppers, I guess. And in a city of 2-3 million people, depending on how you cut it, 64 murders by late October is being heralded as a shocking, awful problem, even though that's a pretty low rate.
"pretty low" is a relative term.

Black poverty in the US can be traced to slavery. Oh no, a wussy liberal excuse, blah blah blah.
You're right about it being a pathetic excuse, thanks for pointing that out.

Tell me, what is responsible for Negro poverty in Canada???
As though poor black workers being replaced by increasing mechanisation of labour was somehow a lie invented by Teh Jooz, It'z.
... What are you talking about?
A lot of these poor black sharecroppers went North, and in the process ended up totally fucking up what blacks who were already in the North had going (Eg the Harlem Renaissance).
You don't know anything about the Harlem Renaissance you afro-centric Canuck.

The Harlem "Renaissance" almost killed the black female author and pawn of Franz Boas, Zora Neale Hurston because she wrote a book, Their Eyes Were Watching God that while crudely compositioned illustrated the horrors of Black men, she was terrorized by leading members of the Harlem "Renaissance" for, "perpetuating the myth" about Black men.

So was it fun to avoid all my points and ramble about off topic nonsense, eg talking about, 'Jooz'?

Sinclair

10-28-2005, 01:12 AM

1. So crime stats and average IQ are a valuable measuring tool when it comes to whites vs blacks, but when it comes to whites vs Asians... What's used for measuring?

2. Poverty stats are often bullshit, because cost of living differs. It's cheaper to live in the rural south than in the urban north. A single poverty threshold doesn't actually measure poverty, because it must be compared to standard of living. And of course there is a huge difference between poverty in the sense of just not making as much money, and poverty in the sense of "culture of poverty".

3. Canadian blacks? OK. The poorest are probably the Jamaicans, because Jamaica is really messed up. Then again, Canada never had slavery on the scale that the Southern US did. Probably proportionally more Canadian blacks are skilled immigrants from African countries.

4. Sharecroppers being the poor blacks who worked land they didn't own for some of the crop. When increasing mechanisation on farms meant that fewer people were needed to work them, lots of them were put out of work. And a lot of them decided to head north.

5. The Harlem Renaissance, as far as poor, discriminated-against groups managing to get something together go, was pretty good. And I'm an afrocentrist? Seriously, what the fuck? "Jooz" is an old joke here on the Phora, but calling me an afrocentrist is mindboggling.

Daniel Shays

10-28-2005, 01:51 AM

1. So crime stats and average IQ are a valuable measuring tool when it comes to whites vs blacks, but when it comes to whites vs Asians... What's used for measuring?
What do you mean "whites vs. blacks"???

Read the title of this thread, it's about crime not superiority.

Crime stats measure one thing, CRIME.
2. Poverty stats are often bullshit, because cost of living differs. It's cheaper to live in the rural south than in the urban north. A single poverty threshold doesn't actually measure poverty, because it must be compared to standard of living.
I believe that this is taken into account.

And of course there is a huge difference between poverty in the sense of just not making as much money, and poverty in the sense of "culture of poverty".
Hilarious.

This "culture of poverty" is a racial argument in PC trappings.

A "culture of poverty" argument can be used to explain away why Blacks of all financial strata commit more crime AS I PROVED WITH THE FBI STATS I provided earlier.

I agree that they are genetically predisposed to failing in our societies, in other words, It's about race.
3. Canadian blacks? OK. The poorest are probably the Jamaicans, because Jamaica is really messed up.
That's because Jamaicans live there. I'm sure that MLK BLVD. Toronto is "really messed up" for the same reason.

Then again, Canada never had slavery on the scale that the Southern US did. Probably proportionally more Canadian blacks are skilled immigrants from African countries.
Skilled in what?
4. Sharecroppers being the poor blacks who worked land they didn't own for some of the crop. When increasing mechanisation on farms meant that fewer people were needed to work them, lots of them were put out of work. And a lot of them decided to head north.
Point is?

You are blaming this all on a "culture of poverty" when you tactfully ignored my post about Whites during the Great Depression.

The decendants of all those Europeans during THE Depression came from a culture of poverty. No? :p
5. The Harlem Renaissance, as far as poor, discriminated-against groups managing to get something together go, was pretty good.
More rationalizations.

Canuck,

Have you ever thought about why the Negroes were so discriminated against here?

Maybe they earned being discriminated against through observable and recordable behavior. Do you think when our ancestors first saw them as Black dots in the distance that they could have known what beasts they were?

No, that's illogical.

Negroes are discriminated against the same reason why Asians aren't, THEIR BEHAVIOR.
And I'm an afrocentrist? Seriously, what the fuck? "Jooz" is an old joke here on the Phora, but calling me an afrocentrist is mindboggling.
I refer to Whites that see Negroes as prize pets and inflate their accomplishments (sic) as afro-centrists.

You know... Whites like you that know they are on average* beneath us but like to play devil's advocate in between pulling guard duty around their yard because they just got some dusky new neighbors.

The argument that you put forth always fails because if you say we need affirmative action instead of race blind qualifications you admit they aren't equal and you blame their "culture" while forgetting that culture is directly related to genetics/ race.

If you say, that they are our equal and approve of race blind employment guidelines the Negroes get REALLY poor and riot/ loot (1967 anyone?).

When people say that all races are equal it is inherently anti-White because when Whites succeed it's always due to racism, that's the only explanation there is when you deny biological reality.

* and don't say how Asians are on avg. smarter than Whites because as I pointed out earlier the smartest people in the world are European and we have a few useful idiots that drag down the average yet serve a societal purpose.

Sinclair

10-28-2005, 02:53 AM

Come on, we all know what is being meant when crime statistics are brought up. It's like what's really being meant when some hardcore anti-racist group brings up "hate crime" and "hate speech" statistics.

I should have laid out some of my beliefs on the issue, my fault really. I actually had quite an epiphany on the issue while reading JH Kunstler's "Home from Nowhere".

I don't see blacks as "pets", I see them as a group to be judged on the same criteria as any other group, their problems are not to be explained away (Which is not what I am doing), nor to be blamed solely on them.

The whole "why racism" argument is chicken-and-egg. One guy says racism is because of faults, the other says faults are because of racism. I frankly don't care. Blacks have suffered due to racism, but also increasingly due to misguided well-meaning white left-wingers. Welfare was seen as easier than reform attempts and education, and this resulted in being able to artificially sustain a woefully undereducated urban lower class.

Because cheaper labour can be had overseas, and local jobs can be done by newer immigrants, especially illegals, the sorts of jobs that are the only real way that those with poor educations can be employed, which is necessary for future generations to achieve higher standards of education. Of course, the same thing is happening to lower-class whites, everybody lower class in fact: Factory jobs are leaving, and jobs like meatpacking are increasingly being fulfilled by illegal immigrants, especially from south of the US border.

The "culture of poverty" is not an excuse in my mind, I think it's a way to define a social situation that's just beyond ordinary not-having-much-money poverty: It's when things have gotten so bad that they probably won't get any better, and few think there's any chance of improvement. It can't just be blamed on "The Man", though, because there are plenty of indications that when somebody from a culture of poverty "makes it big", they often don't really give a shit about those they've left behind... Rapper 50 Cent, I gather, has moved into a lily-white rich suburban development, while still glorifying all the problems of depressed inner-city areas.

There have been slums of whites, remember. Many Medieval and Renaissance cities were cesspools. Paris was dreadful until Louis-Napoleon and Haussmann got to work on it. There were some simply ghastly Italian, Irish, etc slums in the US. But unfortunately, what got rid of those slums will most likely not happen nowadays, because there would be no reason for businesses to employ ghetto-dwellers, even if businesses weren't outsourcing and hiring illegal immigrants. And actually improving the cities is becoming less and less a priority, as anybody who wants to and has the means can get out to the suburbs.

There's more than enough blame to go around, really. Trying to concentrate it is not the way to go.

Daniel Shays

10-28-2005, 03:55 AM

Come on, we all know what is being meant when crime statistics are brought up. It's like what's really being meant when some hardcore anti-racist group brings up "hate crime" and "hate speech" statistics.
Would you mind telling me what you have your decoder pen set to?
I should have laid out some of my beliefs on the issue, my fault really. I actually had quite an epiphany on the issue while reading JH Kunstler's "Home from Nowhere".

I don't see blacks as "pets", I see them as a group to be judged on the same criteria as any other group, their problems are not to be explained away (Which is not what I am doing), nor to be blamed solely on them.
So their problems aren't blamed solely on them? Does that mean they are partially blamed on Whites? Does that mean I can blame some of my problems on Blacks? Which problems?
The whole "why racism" argument is chicken-and-egg. One guy says racism is because of faults, the other says faults are because of racism. I frankly don't care.
You're actually way off there.

If Asians looked like Negroes we'd associate those characteristics with Asian (civilized) behavior and vice versa. It's a bullshit argument to say that Whites inexplicably hate things that look like Negroes.
Blacks have suffered due to racism,
I'd like to see your definition of racism.

I'd then like to see you contrast the living standards of a continental African with that of a non-hollywood slave and/or sharecropper, money, health/ life expectancy/ etc.
but also increasingly due to misguided well-meaning white left-wingers.
You have a longlist of who's responsible for the Negro's problems and this proves that you don't look at them the same way as a European.

The only difference between you and a classic limousine liberal is that you blame more than 'racist Whites' for the Negroes misfortune; you blame 'anti-racist Whites' too... so you blame all Whites. :p
Welfare was seen as easier than reform attempts and education, and this resulted in being able to artificially sustain a woefully undereducated urban lower class.
You're BSing Canuck, we treat our Niggers nice here, especially when it comes to their schooling.

http://nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=5233

1) Chicago Public Schools spends an average of $6,980 per high school student. However, 57 predominantly Negro high schools receive $7,712 per student. "The Chicago Public Schools has posted school-by-school expenditures on its website showing that racially isolated African-American schools receive the most money-per-student and racially isolated Hispanic schools receive the most money-per-school." Chicago Public School Funding

2) Private Schools, which as a rule tend to be mostly White, receive far less money per student. Private school teachers, even in the nations most elite private schools, get paid significantly less money and are technically "less qualified" than public school teachers. However, standardized test scores from private schools consistently blow away those of public schools -- performance and spending compared.

3) Washington DC spends $10,000 per student for it's nearly all Negro public schools. The highest per student expenditure in the country -- over double some state averages. According to Goodschools.com, DC has the "lowest test scores in the industrialized world."
DC has the most student funding in the country, they also have a federal subsidized boarding school for their best students that costs over 20k a year per student and they still have THE LOWEST TEST SCORES IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD. The capitol of the world's only "super power" has the lowest test scores in the industrialized world. Has that sunk in yet?

These are Negroes that on average have 20-30% European blood and they are that bad... Washington DC is 30% White but the 60% Negro population bring down the scores that much.

Because cheaper labour can be had overseas, and local jobs can be done by newer immigrants, especially illegals, the sorts of jobs that are the only real way that those with poor educations can be employed, which is necessary for future generations to achieve higher standards of education.
You don't mean "higher standards", you mean lower standards so that you can dispense higher numbers of degrees.

Stop smoking "BC Bud" and URL="http://www.kimberlyswygert.com/archives/000189.html"]
look at the New Orleans "Valedictorian" who flunked the exit exam five times.[/URL]
Of course, the same thing is happening to lower-class whites, everybody lower class in fact: Factory jobs are leaving, and jobs like meatpacking are increasingly being fulfilled by illegal immigrants, especially from south of the US border.
Most Whites are going to school and getting educations, they will adapt and we'll keep resisting the Mestizos until they are deported. We could use some disgruntled blue collar Whites now more than ever.

The "culture of poverty" is not an excuse in my mind, I think it's a way to define a social situation that's just beyond ordinary not-having-much-money poverty: It's when things have gotten so bad that they probably won't get any better, and few think there's any chance of improvement.
When will you acknowledge my points about the Great Depression???

I don't really give a damn what your subjective barometer for "beyond ordinary" poverty is. It sounds pretty racist, only Negroes/ other Muds can be in such a situation even though they are favored races and have guaranteed employment for positions they aren't qualified for.

Your stance is that when a White grows up poor it's just "ordinary not-having-much-money poverty" but when a Negro grows up poor it's some social crisis that they can't be expected to overcome without external assistance. No wonder the smarter (white admixture) Blacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Rogers_Brown) don't agree with affirmative action, it discredits them.

There have been slums of whites, remember. Many Medieval and Renaissance cities were cesspools. Paris was dreadful until Louis-Napoleon and Haussmann got to work on it. There were some simply ghastly Italian, Irish, etc slums in the US.
Oh yeah good point. :rolleyes:

Don't forget that there were no slums in Black Africa because they never got around to building cities, perhaps we should have just played it smart like them and cut our losses.

But unfortunately, what got rid of those slums will most likely not happen nowadays, because there would be no reason for businesses to employ ghetto-dwellers
You have obviously never heard of affirmative action.

And actually improving the cities is becoming less and less a priority, as anybody who wants to and has the means can get out to the suburbs.
Not where I live.

Hundreds of millions of dollars annually is funneled into BS "urban renewal" projects. This money is collected in the form of property taxes which affects Whites.

There's more than enough blame to go around, really. Trying to concentrate it is not the way to go.
Do feel it's easier to tolerate this insanity if you don't know who to hold responsible? Maybe even trick yourself into believing that all this is natural?

I'll start thinking like that when I see proof that Cro-magnons had quotas for Neanderthals in their hunting tribes.

Sinclair

10-28-2005, 03:31 PM

I don't have time for this right now, I have an exam to write in a few hours. But:

Where have I said that only non-whites can live in a culture of poverty? I specifically mentioned slums made up of whites... And then that culture of poverty disappeared, for various reasons.

The effects of the Depression were kept from getting much, much worse by job-making programs, instead of handouts.

I would also advise you to adopt a more civil tone... Stop calling me "Canuck" for no reason, stop making "witty" comments, and step back and consider that I'm being much more polite to you than you are to me.

Daniel Shays

10-28-2005, 04:03 PM

Where have I said that only non-whites can live in a culture of poverty? I specifically mentioned slums made up of whites... And then that culture of poverty disappeared, for various reasons.
When is "culture of poverty" used to refer to Whites?

It's always used for non-White, non-Asians and you know this, you didn't have to say only non-Whites qualify.

The effects of the Depression were kept from getting much, much worse by job-making programs, instead of handouts.

Niggers are lazy???

The Welfare Riots of 1967 would prove this if you studied them, the Negroes didn't want to work and many thriving cities collapsed up north when companies had to relocate to find employees.

RCA, Campbells soup for instance used to be based in Camden, NJ... once it went Nigger they couldn't get people to work.

Now back then if people didn't work they didn't get nice stuff like televisions.., the Niggers rioted and they got their TVs from the state.

Don't tell me about how we need more "hand ups and less hand outs", they have had many opportunities and even now they have a hand up in Affirmative Racism.

I would also advise you to adopt a more civil tone... Stop calling me "Canuck" for no reason, stop making "witty" comments, and step back and consider that I'm being much more polite to you than you are to me.
This deserves a smiley response (closes eyes and swirls mouse around as I click on random smiley) -------> :hump:

Hakluyt

10-28-2005, 06:04 PM

When is "culture of poverty" used to refer to Whites?

It's always used for non-White, non-Asians and you know this, you didn't have to say only non-Whites qualify.
Actually I hear it used to refer to some rural (white) situations fairly often, re: drug dealing, prostitution and the like, but both you and Sinclair are wrong about this (this term specifically; Sinclair is right about everything else). 'Culture of poverty' IS intended to be a specifically ethnic term, but insofar as it refers to the dearth of culture, moral cohesiveness, and lack of other particularistic virtues within an ethnic group. It's use in this context is not coincidental with crime rates, it is meant to describe part of the basis for that crime.

Sinclair

10-28-2005, 11:01 PM

When is "culture of poverty" used to refer to Whites?

It's always used for non-White, non-Asians and you know this, you didn't have to say only non-Whites qualify.

Niggers are lazy???

The Welfare Riots of 1967 would prove this if you studied them, the Negroes didn't want to work and many thriving cities collapsed up north when companies had to relocate to find employees.

RCA, Campbells soup for instance used to be based in Camden, NJ... once it went Nigger they couldn't get people to work.

Now back then if people didn't work they didn't get nice stuff like televisions.., the Niggers rioted and they got their TVs from the state.

Don't tell me about how we need more "hand ups and less hand outs", they have had many opportunities and even now they have a hand up in Affirmative Racism.

1. I would say that the poor Irish, Italians, etc suffered from a culture of poverty for quite some time... Street gangs aren't a modern invention. Hell, in some places at some times, the Irish weren't considered white, ditto Mediterraneans... Hell, even the Scottish to some extent.

2. The riots that occurred in the US in the 60s had plenty of causes. Jobs were starting to disappear, movement to the suburbs had started to accelerate, etc.

3. Affirmative action doesn't help the poorest blacks, really. If somebody is totally unemployable, it won't help them get a decent job, if somebody is actually capable of applying to a university, they're already at least halfway there.

Daniel Shays

10-29-2005, 02:19 AM

1. I would say that the poor Irish, Italians, etc suffered from a culture of poverty for quite some time... Street gangs aren't a modern invention. Hell, in some places at some times, the Irish weren't considered white, ditto Mediterraneans... Hell, even the Scottish to some extent.
Scottish and Irish were always considered "White", this is why I was calling you Canuck earlier, you make BS statements about my country. Meds were a toss up for awhile in the south simply due to the stupid term, "White" which would describe many Asians, that's it.

If you want to compare the Italian street gangs of the 50's to the Nigger gangs of 70's through today you're either joking or clueless.

2. The riots that occurred in the US in the 60s had plenty of causes. Jobs were starting to disappear, movement to the suburbs had started to accelerate, etc.
The jobs disappeared because the Negroes couldn't handle working for the companies. The Europeans left due to non-White crime and then many companies were forced to pull out.

If somebody is totally unemployable, it won't help them get a decent job,
My Dad has worked at a major pharmaceutical company for over three decades and you're completely wrong.
if somebody is actually capable of applying to a university, they're already at least halfway there.:rofl:

You ever apply to a state college in the US? Doubtful, Rutgers for instance is a questionnaire and a click on the send button, all done with a guidance counselor over your shoulder.

You still have provided no facts and failed to seriously address the FBI stats I provided earlier. You failing to provide facts and address my past points is why this discussion is getting so boring.

Empress Cheesatine

10-29-2005, 02:23 AM

Niggers are only 41% of the prison population?? Wow they must be reforming!

Sinclair

10-29-2005, 03:56 AM

Bring those points up again, then.

There was a great deal of prejudice against the Irish, and they were often portrayed as not being as white as other Europeans: http://chnm.gmu.edu/exploring/19thcentury/alienmenace/assignment.php And the 50s? 1950s? No, I am referring to the 19th century Irish, etc gangs in places like New York.

During the 60s and 70s, globalisation was already a factor. And suburbanisation has many causes other than simple "white flight".

And as for universities and affirmative action, it has been established in "The Shape of the River" that the majority of black students are still from the upper-middle class or upper class in the top universities.

Daniel Shays

10-29-2005, 05:55 PM

Bring those points up again, then.
http://phora.org/forum/showpost.php?p=11195&postcount=22
There was a great deal of prejudice against the Irish, and they were often portrayed as not being as white as other Europeans: http://chnm.gmu.edu/exploring/19thcentury/alienmenace/assignment.php

If you are looking for someone to defend stupid Americans of any race, it's not me. Realize though that the article even says Irish are now seen as, "Hyper-White", because they were "White" all along. It is telling that they were treated just like Negroes and came here in worse physical condition than the prized slaves yet they managed to earn the respect of their countrymen and honorable livelihoods in a decade or two. Something the Negroes have failed at doing.

The Irish came from more a history and culture of oppression and poverty than any Negro and they managed to rise above, it's the genes.
And the 50s? 1950s? No, I am referring to the 19th century Irish, etc gangs in places like New York.
Fine, compare those gangs to the Negroid gangbangers, it's a shocking difference.

And as for universities and affirmative action, it has been established in "The Shape of the River" that the majority of black students are still from the upper-middle class or upper class in the top universities.
Everyone in the top universities is from a higher class regardless of race. The Negroes that are in the higher classes today are either, athletes/ rappers/ entertainers, descended from slave families that inherited their Master's plantation (quite common down south, in South Carolina in 1860 the largest slave owner was a Black), or they are the children of Affirmative Racism beneficiaries.

Geist

10-29-2005, 07:37 PM

Counter semite the Irish were not always considered white, in fact were termed the niggers of Europe back in the day I am pretty sure.

Its the Catholic thing I reckon when it came to Italians and Irish though.

Sinclair

10-29-2005, 10:42 PM

I'm not disputing the FBI statistics... There is a difference between looking at why some groups commit crimes more than others, and denying that they do. I've never done the latter. Although crime statistics are actually arrest/conviction statistics. If somebody is never arrested for a crime, or the wrong person is arrested, then that will be in the arrest stats. Convictions are the same.

And the Irish gangs of the 19th century were really, really nasty. I'm willing to bet that a lot of the tendency now to view the time before gangs had easy access to guns, and crack was around, as more peaceful, is "good old days" syndrome. Police are MUCH better nowadays, for instance.

And the point of the university comment is that when it comes to talking of the poorest blacks, AA is relatively irrelevant.

Sinclair

10-29-2005, 10:44 PM

daisy

10-30-2005, 12:02 AM

geist posted the irish were not always considered white, in fact they were termed the niggers of europe back in the day i am pretty sure.in the country they left, irish catholics had been an underclass --barred from voting, running for office, or going into the law or the military. catholic taxes went to the protestant church, and catholic orphans were brought up protestant. when the first wave of immigration began, america did not offer much immediate relief; in the south, irish workers were sometimes hired for work so dangerous that it wasn't worth risking a slave's life. blacks were sometimes referred to as "smoked Irish," and the irish as "niggers turned inside out."
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/alt1/archive/styles/97/07/10/WHITE_LIKE_ME_2.html
there was speculation that there would be some "amalgamation," that is, that irish and black would blend into each other and become one common people. that didn't happen; in fact, the opposite happened.
when pointing out that at one point the irish were known as "white negroes" and black people were referred to as "smoked irish."
what did those terms reflect?
with so many eugenics centres some white albino irish have been and are still being genetically engineered with non-white pigmentations.
http://www.darkfiber.com/blackirish/starr posted guess who makes up 41% of the prison population?
you are only allowed one guess. mudswhy do some blacks behave worse than whites?
my opinion is that one reason could possibly be because genome institutions have been doing behavioral genetics on white anglo-americans more than they have done on blacks. so yes it's in our genes.

Felix the Cat

10-31-2005, 04:45 PM

Sinclair

10-31-2005, 05:54 PM

I think you're confusing self-discipline with non-violence

The fact that an ethnic group causes no crime may be a sign of congenital passivity, or it may be simple recognition of the fact that open violence is not yet politically profitable

I honestly don't think that criminals among a group are especially worried that they'll be making the group look bad. They're out for themselves. Ethnic groups don't have big get-togethers where they sit down and plan strategy, do they?

Roland

11-01-2005, 02:37 PM

Scottish and Irish were always considered "White",

I don't know about the Scottish, but the Irish were most certainly the negro of Europe. Perhaps, I'll grant that they were considered "white" chimpanzees.

http://www.nde.state.ne.us/SS/irish/scientific.gif

Empress Cheesatine

11-02-2005, 08:24 AM

First: how come poor whites commit way less crimes than equally poor negroes? In fact, I'm willing to bet poor wetbacks commit less crimes than poor negroes too. Could you offer an explanation rice?

This is true. West Virginia is 95% white, the poorest state in the union and has the lowest crime rate in the US. Ive yet to meet a liberal or a nigger apologist who has been able to answer that.

Hakluyt

11-02-2005, 10:28 PM

This is true. West Virginia is 95% white, the poorest state in the union and has the lowest crime rate in the US. Ive yet to meet a liberal or a nigger apologist who has been able to answer that.
different living arrangements, culture, kinship dynamics etc.

Alfred_Dunhill

11-03-2005, 12:31 AM

This is true. West Virginia is 95% white, the poorest state in the union and has the lowest crime rate in the US.

It's a little over 96% at the moment, and Mississippi is poorer.

The rest is true. :)

Charles_Rigaud

11-06-2005, 04:00 PM

I am not going to disagree that, among other things, if you have money and can afford a good lawyer, your chances of not facing prison time are going to be a lot better. But there are plenty of poor whites also, who make up a much larger percentage of the population, and their incarceration rate makes up only 34% of the prison population. To me, at least that does more than suggest blacks are much more prone to commit crimes.

Thats is an untrue statement you made. No race of people are more prone to commit any crime. Those percentages can be deceiving and AMREN isn't the most objective site. Most of those blacks imprisoned are jailed for drug offenses which disproportionately affect blacks. Blacks are more likely to receive stiffer sentences and convicted under federal sentencing guidelines while whites are not. The fígures suggest nothing in the way of anyone being more prone to crime because of race.

Charles_Rigaud

11-06-2005, 04:22 PM

It's a little over 96% at the moment, and Mississippi is poorer.

The rest is true. :)

Its not about race and poverty solely, it has just as much to do with the "War on Drugs" and those who are disproportionately targeted and thus affected. Whites abuse drugs more than any other race in the country and buy their drug mostly from other whites, yet blacks are mostly depicted as drug abusers and drug dealers, how does one explain this? Its obvious the "War on Drugs" targets minorities and little affects whites, that doesn't mean whites aren't the biggest culprits.

Starr

11-06-2005, 05:13 PM

Thats is an untrue statement you made. No race of people are more prone to commit any crime. Those percentages can be deceiving and AMREN isn't the most objective site. Most of those blacks imprisoned are jailed for drug offenses which disproportionately affect blacks. Blacks are more likely to receive stiffer sentences and convicted under federal sentencing guidelines while whites are not. The fígures suggest nothing in the way of anyone being more prone to crime because of race.

Those statistics come from the Department of Justice. And that color of crime report shows that blacks are jailed at a much higher rate for violent and other crimes that are not drug offenses. The old excuse about how they are more likely to be convicted then whites for the same crime is just another typical cop-out that we have been through before.

Whites abuse drugs more than any other race in the country and buy their drug mostly from other whites, yet blacks are mostly depicted as drug abusers and drug dealers, how does one explain this? Its obvious the "War on Drugs" targets minorities and little affects whites, that doesn't mean whites aren't the biggest culprits.

No shit, you are not telling us anything new here. It would only make sense that there are going to be more whites, just looking at it simply in overall numbers, involved in drug offenses. How many whites are there in the country compared to how many blacks? you have to take into account the percentage of blacks that are doing these things compared to the percentage of whites, and not just whites but also Asians and even hispanics.
And again another tired excuse, blacks are targetted. Cry me a river. It is funny all of your particular excuses are going back to the joke I made in my first post. So predictable.

Charles_Rigaud

11-06-2005, 05:31 PM

Those statistics come from the Department of Justice. And that color of crime report shows that blacks are jailed at a much higher rate for violent and other crimes that are not drug offenses. The old excuse about how they are more likely to be convicted then whites for the same crime is just another typical cop-out that we have been through before.

That isn't a cop out, its fact. The war on Drugs is mostly targeting blacks and Latinos despite the *FACT* that whites are the majority of the drug abusers and buy their drugs from mostly other whites. Whites are more likely to be sentenced under state law while blacks often face federal sentencing which carries a more stiffer penalty. The DOJ stats do not reflect this disparity.

Charles_Rigaud

11-06-2005, 05:40 PM

According to the federal Household Survey, "most current illicit drug users are white. There were an estimated 9.9 million whites (72 percent of all users), 2.0 million blacks (15 percent), and 1.4 million Hispanics (10 percent) who were current illicit drug users in 1998." And yet, blacks constitute 36.8% of those arrested for drug violations, over 42% of those in federal prisons for drug violations. African-Americans comprise almost 58% of those in state prisons for drug felonies; Hispanics account for 20.7%.

Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Summary Report 1998 (Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1999), p. 13; Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1998 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, August 1999), p. 343, Table 4.10, p. 435, Table 5.48, and p. 505, Table 6.52; Beck, Allen J., Ph.D. and Mumola, Christopher J., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1998 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, August 1999), p. 10, Table 16; Beck, Allen J., PhD, and Paige M. Harrison, US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, August 2001), p. 11, Table 16.

Among persons convicted of drug felonies in state courts, whites were less likely than African-Americans to be sent to prison. Thirty-three percent (33%) of convicted white defendants received a prison sentence, while 51% of African-American defendants received prison sentences. It should also be noted that Hispanic felons are included in both demographic groups rather than being tracked separately so no separate statistic is available.

Source: Durose, Matthew R., and Langan, Patrick A., Bureau of Justice Statistics, State Court Sentencing of Convicted Felons, 1998 Statistical Tables (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, December 2001), Table 25, available on the web at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/scsc98st.htm, last accessed December 21, 2001.

In 1986, before mandatory minimums for crack offenses became effective, the average federal drug offense sentence for blacks was 11% higher than for whites. Four years later following the implementation of harsher drug sentencing laws, the average federal drug offense sentence was 49% higher for blacks.

Source: Meierhoefer, B. S., The General Effect of Mandatory Minimum Prison Terms: A Longitudinal Study of Federal Sentences Imposed (Washington DC: Federal Judicial Center, 1992), p. 20.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/racepris.htm

Starr

11-06-2005, 06:20 PM

Charles_Rigaud

11-06-2005, 06:29 PM

they, of course, are not taking into account how many blacks lived in the U.S at that time compared to how many whites, which is much more important than these raw numbers. If a larger percentage of blacks are using drugs than whites, it is only going to make sense that they are also going to be "targeted" or "profiled" whatever you want to call it at a higher rate.

And this thread was intended to be about much more than drug use. That is the only thing you have attempted to touch upon.

They are going by percentages of drug users in america as a whole and whites make up almost 3/4 of drug abusers plus they buy their drugs mostly from other whites but why isn't the war on drugs targeting whites? my point is that the large numbers of blacks in prison are jailed because of drug offenses due to being disproportionately targeted in the War on Drugs.

Charles_Rigaud

11-06-2005, 06:37 PM

Racial Disparity

States in which blacks comprise the highest percentage of imprisoned drug offenders:

1. Maryland: 90%

2. Illinois: 90%

3. South Carolina: 86%

4. North Carolina: 84%

5. Louisiana: 82%

* * *
California: 30%
U.S. average: 62%

* * *
States that have the most disparate ratios between black and white men imprisoned for drug crimes:
1. Illinois: 57:1

2. Wisconsin: 54:1

3. Minnesota: 39:1

4. Maine: 36:1

5. Iowa: 29:1

* * *
California: 5:1
U.S. average: 13:1

* * *
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/060800-01.htm

More blacks were sent to state prison nationwide on drug charges than for crimes of violence (Table 16). [b]Only 27 percent of black admissions to prison were for crimes of violence -- compared to 38 percent for drug offenses. If all nonviolent offenses (property, drugs, public order, etc) are combined, 73 percent of all blacks sent to prison were sentenced for nonviolent crimes.[/quote] Seventy-three percent of whites admitted to prison were also sentenced for nonviolent offenses.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/Table16.pdf

Walpurgisnachtstraum

11-11-2005, 06:51 PM

They are going by percentages of drug users in america as a whole and whites make up almost 3/4 of drug abusers plus they buy their drugs mostly from other whites but why isn't the war on drugs targeting whites?

I don't know anything about selling and smuggling drugs, but the method* used selling drugs might make it easier for one group to be targeted, then the other.

*If they do it like the idiots here, standing in a group selling it in the open.

my point is that the large numbers of blacks in prison are jailed because of drug offenses due to being disproportionately targeted in the War on Drugs

Criminals being punished is not a problem.

________________________
My english > :(

Charles_Rigaud

11-11-2005, 07:09 PM

I don't know anything about selling and smuggling drugs, but the method* used selling drugs might make it easier for one group to be targeted, then the other.

*If they do it like the idiots here, standing in a group selling it in the open.

Criminals being punished is not a problem.

________________________
My english > :(

Thats not the point, the point is that the war of drugs is in reality a war waged against minorities. The government and DOJ know full well that whites use drugs far more than any other race in America in addition to buying their drugs mostly from other whites, so the war should be waged against whites more so than just minorities.

Fade the Butcher

11-11-2005, 08:06 PM

Thats not the point, the point is that the war of drugs is in reality a war waged against minorities.Interesting conspiracy theory.

Sinclair

11-12-2005, 03:38 AM

Interesting conspiracy theory.

Fade, ther eis some consensus about historians that laws against opium, for instance, were supported by feelings against the Chinese.

PS: I'm drukn, so my wrintign is not so good. Point stands though. There was feleing that "The CHinaman is using his devil smoke to enslave WHITE WOMEN" or whatever.

Starr

11-12-2005, 04:07 AM

Thats not the point, the point is that the war of drugs is in reality a war waged against minorities. The government and DOJ know full well that whites use drugs far more than any other race in America in addition to buying their drugs mostly from other whites, so the war should be waged against whites more so than just minorities.

This to me is another example of your inferiority. Every problem in the "black community" is because of whitey. Why do your people continue to refuse to look at your actions and hold yourself accountable? If blacks are on drugs and in jail it is because whitey flooded their communities with drugs(tell me how it is that whitey forced the black man to use drugs? do they put guns to your heads and tell you to smoke up?:confused: ) and racially profile blacks and put them into prison. If black out of wedlock births are talked about it is because whitey destroyed the black family,etc. It gets old and it shows how child-like blacks think and are.

Also if you truly believe all of these things then I am sure you would agree that racial seperation would be a positive thing for all concerned, correct?

Hakluyt

11-12-2005, 06:08 AM

Fade, ther eis some consensus about historians that laws against opium, for instance, were supported by feelings against the Chinese.

PS: I'm drukn, so my wrintign is not so good. Point stands though. There was feleing that "The CHinaman is using his devil smoke to enslave WHITE WOMEN" or whatever.
Did you read this in the 12th grade Law textbook? Sounds familiar

Charles_Rigaud

11-12-2005, 09:03 AM

This to me is another example of your inferiority. Every problem in the "black community" is because of whitey. Why do your people continue to refuse to look at your actions and hold yourself accountable? If blacks are on drugs and in jail it is because whitey flooded their communities with drugs(tell me how it is that whitey forced the black man to use drugs? do they put guns to your heads and tell you to smoke up?:confused: ) and racially profile blacks and put them into prison. If black out of wedlock births are talked about it is because whitey destroyed the black family,etc. It gets old and it shows how child-like blacks think and are.

Also if you truly believe all of these things then I am sure you would agree that racial seperation would be a positive thing for all concerned, correct?

I never denied personal accountability in any of my posts for black crime neither did I blame whites for blacks committing crime and drugs in black neighborhoods so you're attacking a strawman argument. My point still stands that whites use more drugs than blacks[especially crack] and whites buy their drugs from other whites, yet blacks make up the majority of those imprisoned for drug convictions, that is a disparity which indicates blacks are disproportionately affected and targeted more than whites in this phony war on drugs campaign.

Sinclair

11-12-2005, 03:30 PM

Did you read this in the 12th grade Law textbook? Sounds familiar

No, my father had a photocopy of an old article that I read while helping clean some stuff out of his office a couple years ago.

Geist

11-12-2005, 03:39 PM

The Chinese thing is true, when I was researching all the drug laws etc. it was clear the war on drugs was aimed at curbing what whites say as minorites luring women into their dens etc.

Fade the Butcher

11-12-2005, 06:23 PM

Still waiting for proof of the conspiracy against blacks.

jcs

11-12-2005, 06:44 PM

Still waiting for proof of the conspiracy against blacks.
It's time to come clean: all of us whites get together once a year to plot against blacks. I figure if we put this out in the open for people like that black dude on CSPAN (some white guy obviously spilled the beans and should have been punished, but it's too late to turn back time and undo the damage done), maybe the Jews will confess their conspiring. Then, who knows, maybe we can all finally get along?
:p

Charles_Rigaud

11-12-2005, 07:13 PM

It's time to come clean: all of us whites get together once a year to plot against blacks. I figure if we put this out in the open for people like that black dude on CSPAN (some white guy obviously spilled the beans and should have been punished, but it's too late to turn back time and undo the damage done), maybe the Jews will confess their conspiring. Then, who knows, maybe we can all finally get along?
:p

This is a bunch of nonsense and a moot strawman argument, my point still stands, minorities are disproportionately targeted and affected by the war on drugs though they make up the minority of drug abusers.

Charles_Rigaud

11-12-2005, 07:14 PM

Still waiting for proof of the conspiracy against blacks.

Still waiting for proof that American blacks are inferior to Russians.

Fade the Butcher

11-12-2005, 07:46 PM

This is a bunch of nonsense and a moot strawman argument, my point still stands, minorities are disproportionately targeted and affected by the war on drugs though they make up the minority of drug abusers.That wasn't a straw man.

"Thats not the point, the point is that the war of drugs is in reality a war waged against minorities."

Fade the Butcher

11-12-2005, 07:52 PM

Still waiting for proof that American blacks are inferior to Russians.Russian students utterly trounce American blacks in international comparisons of scientific and mathematical aptitude.

Charles_Rigaud

11-12-2005, 08:05 PM

Russian students utterly trounce American blacks in international comparisons of scientific and mathematical aptitude.

I don't think so, I'm still waiting for proof. Russians have some of the lowest IQs in all of Europe and its only the Russian Jews who give Russians any semblance of a high IQ. Some guy from ADL told me this.

jcs

11-12-2005, 08:07 PM

I don't think so, I'm still waiting for proof. Russians have some of the lowest IQs in all of Europe and its only the Russian Jews who give Russians any semblance of a high IQ. Some guy from ADL told me this.
LOL
Anyone else think Chucky-boy here is a second account belonging to another member of the forum?

Starr

11-12-2005, 09:13 PM

It's time to come clean: all of us whites get together once a year to plot against blacks. I figure if we put this out in the open for people like that black dude on CSPAN (some white guy obviously spilled the beans and should have been punished, but it's too late to turn back time and undo the damage done), maybe the Jews will confess their conspiring. Then, who knows, maybe we can all finally get along?
:p

Why are you telling of our secret? The less blacks that are aware of this, the better. You don't deserve the honor of being a white devil anymore.:mad: That crazy nigger on CSpan just too smart for his own good. but as he said whitey is closely monitoring blacks for just these types of thoughts, so I suspect "the man" will take care of him soon enough.

Fade the Butcher

11-12-2005, 09:18 PM

I don't think so, I'm still waiting for proof. Russians have some of the lowest IQs in all of Europe Russian students are near the top of the pack in international comparisons (TIMSS) of physics and advanced mathematics scores. American blacks, as any reasonable person may have guessed, score near the very bottom. Russians are far more intelligent on average than American blacks and Sub-Saharan Africans.and its only the Russian Jews who give Russians any semblance of a high IQ. Some guy from ADL told me this.This is nonsense. There are very few Jews left in Russia today; certainly nowhere near enough to have even a marginal impact on Russian mean IQ.

Charles_Rigaud

11-13-2005, 11:11 AM

Russian students are near the top of the pack in international comparisons (TIMSS) of physics and advanced mathematics scores. American blacks, as any reasonable person may have guessed, score near the very bottom. Russians are far more intelligent on average than American blacks and Sub-Saharan Africans.This is nonsense. There are very few Jews left in Russia today; certainly nowhere near enough to have even a marginal impact on Russian mean IQ.

The guy from the ADL gave me the stats and showed me where of all the Russians tested a good 60% of them were Jews or partially Jewish, so what I said wasn't a lie.

Alfred_Dunhill

11-13-2005, 03:38 PM

The guy from the ADL gave me the stats

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Charles_Rigaud

11-13-2005, 03:47 PM

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Back to trolling again I see.

Alfred_Dunhill

11-13-2005, 04:49 PM

Back to trolling again I see.

Takes one to know one, I guess. :hump:

Fade the Butcher

11-13-2005, 08:32 PM

The guy from the ADL gave me the stats and showed me where of all the Russians tested a good 60% of them were Jews or partially Jewish, so what I said wasn't a lie.Jews make up less than 2% of Russia's population and Russian Jewish children even less than that. They wouldn't have the slightest effect on the Russian TIMSS scores.

Charles_Rigaud

11-20-2005, 02:29 PM

Another example of how the person who started this misinterprets stats:

New report finds 3 Strikes used disproportionately on minorities

African Americans “struck out” at 13 times the rate of whites, Latino rate of incarceration 82% higher than whites

Washington, DC: New data released today by the Justice Policy Institute revealed that California’s Three Strikes law disproportionately locks up African Americans and Latinos compared to whites. According to this first-of-its-kind analysis of the racial and ethnic makeup of Three Strikes defendants, African Americans are given life sentences under Three Strikes at nearly 13 times the rate of whites and the Latinos are incarcerated under Three Strikes a staggering 82% more than whites.

According to Racial Divide: An Examination of the Impact of California’s Three Strikes Law on African Americans and Latinos, African Americans and Latinos are penalized at every stage of the criminal justice system at rates disproportionate to their share of the general population.

“Three Strikes is systematically funneling African American and Latino defendants into prison for longer and longer sentences, mostly for non-violent crimes,” said Vincent Schiraldi, executive director of Justice Policy Institute (JPI), and co-author of the report. Schiraldi added that the racial disparities for African Americans were particularly harsh by criminological standards “Rarely does one see any law imposed so disproportionately against one racial group,” he added.

The report found that African Americans constitute 6.5% of the state population, but nearly 30% of California’s prison population, and 44.7% of those sentenced to life under Three Strikes. By contrast, whites constitute 47.1% of the population, 29% of the prison population, and 25.4% of third strikers. When comparing arrest and incarceration rates between African Americans and whites, African Americans are arrested at 4.4 times the rate of whites, imprisoned at 7.5 times the rate of whites and ’struck out’ for life at nearly 13 times the rate of whites.

"We’re overcrowding prisons with generations of young men of color at $31,000 each per year, nearly two-thirds of whom are locked up for nonviolent offenses," said John W. Mack, President of the Los Angeles Urban League. "Surely it’s a better investment for society to spend that money on front end prevention and jobs rather than wasting it on the imprisonment of nonviolent offenders who have harmed no one.

The report also analyzed data from counties throughout California regarding the racial impact of Three Strikes. In every county, African Americans made up a higher portion of the ’striker’ population than they did of the felony arrest population. In Los Angeles County, 10% of the population is African American and African Americans are 29% of those arrested, but African Americans represent an astonishing 56% of those serving life sentences under 3 Strikes. In Contra Costa County, African Americans made up 17.7% of felony arrests, but 52% of the strike population - three times their arrest rate.

San Mateo County had the largest African American-to-white disparity of California’s large counties. In that county, the Three Strikes incarceration rate for African Americans was almost 28 times greater than the white Three Strikes incarceration rate.

In Santa Clara County, the findings were similar as African Americans represent only 2.7% of the population, but 27% of those locked up under 3 Strikes. Santa Clara County stood out as the county with the largest over-representation of African Americans and Latinos. Santa Clara also had the highest disparities between Latinos and Whites of any of the large counties in California; Latinos were imprisoned under Three Strikes at nearly three times the rate of whites. Data on racial and ethnic rates of arrest and incarceration under Three Strikes are included in the report for each of California’s counties.

“Three Strikes is turning California’s prisons into a purgatory for minorities,” said report co-author Eric Lotke, director of research at JPI. “What this research shows is that justice in California is far from colorblind.”

http://www.justicepolicy.org/article.php?id=454