China denounces America's treatment of Afro-descendants

[thegreekdog]

Of the way black people are treated in the US

They are caught with drugs more than white people? I'm not ready to call that a human rights violation and I despise the drug laws in this country.

I think some of you guys are confusing human rights violations with hate crimes and violence. If this was 1920, I would agree with the Chinese, but the laws in the United States in 2013 are not based upon the systematic extermination or "holding down" of a group of people. Let's at least compare what we (collectively) call human rights violations in other countries to black people being imprisoned at a higher rate than whites for drug use (for which there is no evidence that they are incarcerated BECAUSE they are black).

[BigBallinStalin]

More whites get the death penalty than blacks. RACISM!

I'm curious how that contradicts his point, particularly when no relevant statistics are provided that might show that it had any sort of racist backing. That's like a Phatscotty argument.

I'm of the opinion that my previous post is just as stupid as this whole thread.

(IIRC, the post is true, but I don't care enough to spend 10 minutes digging through my records to find the sauce).

[Phatscotty]

If this thread was about Civil Rights, they would have a much better point, because the civil rights of all Americans are being violated constantly. I still wouldn't look to or listen to China about it, but they wouldn't be wrong about the observation.

[Woodruff]

If this thread was about Civil Rights, they would have a much better point, because the civil rights of all Americans are being violated constantly.

With your full support, even.

[Dukasaur]

I guess these things I listed don't count as human rights violations since they weren't against descendents from Africa? As far as that goes, I would consider the tenor of the War on Drugs to qualify, as well.

Those things qualify as human rights violations (in my opinion) but not against afro-descendants. I'm not entirely sure about the war on drugs being a human rights violation against afro-descendants.

I think "afro-descendant" should take the place of "african american."

The article doesn't talk about the drug war too much, but the fact that while 75-80% of drug users are white only 25% of those arrested for drugs are white and only 12% of drug users are black yet make up 55% of drug arrests is telling.

Yeah pretty much. The War on Drugs is an assault on everyone's civil rights, but the fact that realistic enforcement efforts almost always take place only in nonwhite neighbourhoods does make it a racist assault as well.

[thegreekdog]

I guess these things I listed don't count as human rights violations since they weren't against descendents from Africa? As far as that goes, I would consider the tenor of the War on Drugs to qualify, as well.

Those things qualify as human rights violations (in my opinion) but not against afro-descendants. I'm not entirely sure about the war on drugs being a human rights violation against afro-descendants.

I think "afro-descendant" should take the place of "african american."

The article doesn't talk about the drug war too much, but the fact that while 75-80% of drug users are white only 25% of those arrested for drugs are white and only 12% of drug users are black yet make up 55% of drug arrests is telling.

Yeah pretty much. The War on Drugs is an assault on everyone's civil rights, but the fact that realistic enforcement efforts almost always take place only in nonwhite neighbourhoods does make it a racist assault as well.

What do the terms "realistic enforcement" and "nonwhite neighborhoods" mean? Are you talking about arrests and prosecutions and cities? If you are, use those terms. I'm not sure how much racism there is when dudes are getting arrested for selling drugs, no matter where those dudes happen to be or what race they happen to be.

[BigBallinStalin]

I guess these things I listed don't count as human rights violations since they weren't against descendents from Africa? As far as that goes, I would consider the tenor of the War on Drugs to qualify, as well.

Those things qualify as human rights violations (in my opinion) but not against afro-descendants. I'm not entirely sure about the war on drugs being a human rights violation against afro-descendants.

I think "afro-descendant" should take the place of "african american."

The article doesn't talk about the drug war too much, but the fact that while 75-80% of drug users are white only 25% of those arrested for drugs are white and only 12% of drug users are black yet make up 55% of drug arrests is telling.

Yeah pretty much. The War on Drugs is an assault on everyone's civil rights, but the fact that realistic enforcement efforts almost always take place only in nonwhite neighbourhoods does make it a racist assault as well.

Citation needed.

And if it's true, is the greater presence of law enforcement due to racism or because more crimes are committed in those areas?

[DoomYoshi]

I thought this thread was about the founding of Liberia, and avoided it accordingly. Now I see it is just revisionist history, I don't feel so threatened.

[Dukasaur]

Yeah pretty much. The War on Drugs is an assault on everyone's civil rights, but the fact that realistic enforcement efforts almost always take place only in nonwhite neighbourhoods does make it a racist assault as well.

Citation needed.

I don't like being asked to provide evidence for commonly accepted facts. It's like saying "the sky is blue" and having someone jump in and say, "prove it!"

But to show good faith, here is just one citation:
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/crime09.htm

Perhaps the most egregious intrusion into the rights of African Americans occurs during so-called 'drug sweeps.' 'Drug sweeps' or 'street sweeps' occur when the police simply close off a neighborhood and indiscriminately detain or arrest large numbers of people without lawful justification. Police conduct street sweeps in order to subject those caught in the dragnet to questioning and searches in the absence of probable cause or reasonable suspicion. One such drug sweep, which occurred in New York City, was described in the following account:

In a publicized sweep on July 19, 1989, the Chief of the Organized Crime Control Bureau (OCCB), led 150 officers to a block in upper Manhattan's Washington Heights. Police sealed off the block and detained virtually all of the 100 people who were present there for up to two hours, during which time the police taped numbers on the chests of those arrested, took their pictures and had them viewed by undercover officers. By the end of the operation, police made only 24 felony and two misdemeanor arrests . . . which strongly suggests there was no probable cause to seize those who were arrested.

And if it's true, is the greater presence of law enforcement due to racism or because more crimes are committed in those areas?

The correlation between crime and police presence is highly debatable. WIthout broadening the debate too much, however, I would like to just focus on drug-seeking behaviour by police. The presence of visible police patrols may reduce break-and-enters in a neighbourhood; "Stop-and-frisk" does not. Policies such as stop-and-frisk or like the block raid cited above are strictly War on Drugs territory that has nothing to do with preventing murder, rape, robbery, embezzlement, or anything else that I would call "real crime."

What do the terms "realistic enforcement" and "nonwhite neighborhoods" mean? Are you talking about arrests and prosecutions and cities? If you are, use those terms. I'm not sure how much racism there is when dudes are getting arrested for selling drugs, no matter where those dudes happen to be or what race they happen to be.

The above answers you also, I believe. Imagine the Washington Heights raid cited above taking place in Greenwich, Connecticut. Lol, I didn't think you could. Yet I'm pretty confident that the amount of coke snorted on a Friday night in Greenwich puts Washington Heights to shame.

[Serbia]

But to show good faith, here is just one citation:
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/crime09.htm

In a publicized sweep on July 19, 1989, the Chief of the Organized Crime Control Bureau (OCCB), led 150 officers to a block in upper Manhattan's Washington Heights. Police sealed off the block and detained virtually all of the 100 people who were present there for up to two hours, during which time the police taped numbers on the chests of those arrested, took their pictures and had them viewed by undercover officers. By the end of the operation, police made only 24 felony and two misdemeanor arrests . . . which strongly suggests there was no probable cause to seize those who were arrested.

So the evidence this is taking place, is from 1989. Cool story bro.

Bollocks.

[Woodruff]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-marijuana-study-blacks-far-more-likely-to-be-arrested-than-whites-aclu-says/2013/06/04/fa0d83d2-cd40-11e2-8f6b-67f40e176f03_story.html

http://www.riaclu.org/news/post/aclu-report-shows-that-blacks-are-more-likely-to-be-arrested-for-marijuana

http://riaclu.org/images/uploads/The_War_on_Marijuana_in_Black_and_White.pdf

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah pretty much. The War on Drugs is an assault on everyone's civil rights, but the fact that realistic enforcement efforts almost always take place only in nonwhite neighbourhoods does make it a racist assault as well.

Citation needed.

I don't like being asked to provide evidence for commonly accepted facts. It's like saying "the sky is blue" and having someone jump in and say, "prove it!"

But to show good faith, here is just one citation:
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/crime09.htm

Perhaps the most egregious intrusion into the rights of African Americans occurs during so-called 'drug sweeps.' 'Drug sweeps' or 'street sweeps' occur when the police simply close off a neighborhood and indiscriminately detain or arrest large numbers of people without lawful justification. Police conduct street sweeps in order to subject those caught in the dragnet to questioning and searches in the absence of probable cause or reasonable suspicion. One such drug sweep, which occurred in New York City, was described in the following account:

In a publicized sweep on July 19, 1989, the Chief of the Organized Crime Control Bureau (OCCB), led 150 officers to a block in upper Manhattan's Washington Heights. Police sealed off the block and detained virtually all of the 100 people who were present there for up to two hours, during which time the police taped numbers on the chests of those arrested, took their pictures and had them viewed by undercover officers. By the end of the operation, police made only 24 felony and two misdemeanor arrests . . . which strongly suggests there was no probable cause to seize those who were arrested.

Obviously, that isn't always, and this isn't occurring in all nonwhite neighborhoods, so your claim is incorrect. You're confirming your bias; you're finding small-scale facts to fit your overreaching conclusion.

realistic enforcement efforts almost always take place only in nonwhite neighbourhoods

"realistic"? All enforcement is real. How about "signficant"? Then, what does that mean?

If you want to scale down from "always," then you'll need the evidence which supports it. Some percentage would help.

And if it's true, is the greater presence of law enforcement due to racism or because more crimes are committed in those areas?

The correlation between crime and police presence is highly debatable. WIthout broadening the debate too much, however, I would like to just focus on drug-seeking behaviour by police. The presence of visible police patrols may reduce break-and-enters in a neighbourhood; "Stop-and-frisk" does not. Policies such as stop-and-frisk or like the block raid cited above are strictly War on Drugs territory that has nothing to do with preventing murder, rape, robbery, embezzlement, or anything else that I would call "real crime."

Sure, and I agree about your problems with the drug war, but in order to demonstrate that racism is occurring, we'd have to control for the other relevant variables (e.g. cuz there's more crime in X neighborhoods, cuz people in X neighborhoods on average have greater crime records, etc.).

[Dukasaur]

http://riaclu.org/images/uploads/The_War_on_Marijuana_in_Black_and_White.pdf

Thanks, Woody.

So the evidence this is taking place, is from 1989. Cool story bro.

Have a quick read from the link above. Lots of numbers there, most of them from 2010.

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/crime09.htm

Obviously, that isn't always, and this isn't occurring in all nonwhite neighborhoods, so your claim is incorrect. You're confirming your bias; you're finding small-scale facts to fit your overreaching conclusion.

realistic enforcement efforts almost always take place only in nonwhite neighbourhoods

"realistic"? All enforcement is real. How about "signficant"? Then, what does that mean?

If you want to scale down from "always," then you'll need the evidence which supports it. Some percentage would help.

Mea culpa. I'm one of those people who's always going past the mark and using words like "always" when a milder modifier like "often" would be more appropriate.

Okay, so backing off of "always" we still get a clear pattern. Go to the ACLU link that Woody posted and check around for some figures. Granted, it only talks about marijuana, not other drugs, but it's a start.

Let's skip ahead to Figure 9 on Page 47. This shows the comparison of the black arrest rate versus the white arrest rate. Bottom line: "The Black arrest rate is 716 per 100,000; the white arrest rate is 192 per 100,000 (the national arrest rate is 256 per 100,000). " The next 20 or so pages show the same figure broken down by state, major metropolitan area, etc.

Okay, so blacks are arrested for marijuana possession 3.7 times as often as whites. This would make sense if blacks used marijuana 3.7 times as often as whites. So we skip ahead to Figure 21 on Page 66 of the document. Here we see that in the year 2010 (the same as the year for the arrest data) 12.4% of blacks and 11.7% of whites used marijuana. This is according to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse and Health. You can look at it in the references and see if you trust their methodology or not, but I'm willing to assume that the ACLU cited a reasonably reputable source unless proven otherwise.

So blacks did use marijuana slightly more often (1.05 times as often) as whites, but nothing remotely close to a 3.7 times multiplier. An even more extreme picture emerges if you compare the 18-to-24 age group which is arrested most often. This is referenced in Figure 22 on Page 67, and in this critical age group white potheads actually outpaced their black counterparts by 33.4% to 27.6%. We could go on, but the picture is, I hope, quite clear: blacks using marijuana are arrested for it a lot more often than whites who use marijuana, not a little more often but vastly more often.

It would be nice if we had a similar nice document for other drugs, but I don't see any reason to assume why it would show a different picture than this one.

Even if things like sampling error creep in (and where do they not?) it's not believable that any kind of error would give a false read on numbers this blatant.

Sure, and I agree about your problems with the drug war, but in order to demonstrate that racism is occurring, we'd have to control for the other relevant variables (e.g. cuz there's more crime in X neighborhoods, cuz people in X neighborhoods on average have greater crime records, etc.).

I understand your point. Racism might not be the motive; it could just be that these people live in shitty neighbourhoods, which would be targeted regardless of who lived in them. I find it really hard to imagine a factor, however, which is potent enough to explain that 3.7X differential without involving race. Even if we could mitigate the effects of these numbers, there are aggravating numbers showing racism. For instance, even though blacks are arrested only at four times the rate of whites (lol, seems funny to see "only" in that sentence, does it not?) they remain in jail at seven times the rate. This shows that even when arrested for the exact same offense, blacks are more likely to draw a harsh sentence and/or to be denied parole later.

I'm not some political correctness nabob who sees a racist behind every tree. But when it comes to the War on Drugs, the charge of racism is, I think, well proven.

[Phatscotty]

I guess these things I listed don't count as human rights violations since they weren't against descendents from Africa? As far as that goes, I would consider the tenor of the War on Drugs to qualify, as well.

Those things qualify as human rights violations (in my opinion) but not against afro-descendants. I'm not entirely sure about the war on drugs being a human rights violation against afro-descendants.

I think "afro-descendant" should take the place of "african american."

The article doesn't talk about the drug war too much, but the fact that while 75-80% of drug users are white only 25% of those arrested for drugs are white and only 12% of drug users are black yet make up 55% of drug arrests is telling.

Yeah pretty much. The War on Drugs is an assault on everyone's civil rights, but the fact that realistic enforcement efforts almost always take place only in nonwhite neighbourhoods does make it a racist assault as well.

Which neighborhoods have riff raff crowded around street corners at 3am?
Does the reality that the drug trade is race-based (at least where I am) change your perspective a little?

just curious

[Woodruff]

Which neighborhoods have riff raff crowded around street corners at 3am?

Probably all of those welfare users. Oh wait...

Does the reality that the drug trade is race-based (at least where I am) change your perspective a little?

I can't speak of your specific neighborhood, but this claim as a whole is ludicrous. The drug trade is not race-based. Did you even bother to look at the links I provided?

[thegreekdog]

I understand your point. Racism might not be the motive; it could just be that these people live in shitty neighbourhoods, which would be targeted regardless of who lived in them. I find it really hard to imagine a factor, however, which is potent enough to explain that 3.7X differential without involving race. Even if we could mitigate the effects of these numbers, there are aggravating numbers showing racism. For instance, even though blacks are arrested only at four times the rate of whites (lol, seems funny to see "only" in that sentence, does it not?) they remain in jail at seven times the rate. This shows that even when arrested for the exact same offense, blacks are more likely to draw a harsh sentence and/or to be denied parole later.

I think this is ultimately what you need to think about (this paragraph). I view things like this as something to do with poverty levels and economic situation, and not race. While it is quite obvious that blacks are arrested in greater percentages than whites for drug abuse, my response to that is related to economic situations, not to race. Has the ACLU done a study comparing the number of poor people arrested for drug use compared to rich people (or even middle class folks)?

[Phatscotty]

I understand your point. Racism might not be the motive; it could just be that these people live in shitty neighbourhoods, which would be targeted regardless of who lived in them. I find it really hard to imagine a factor, however, which is potent enough to explain that 3.7X differential without involving race. Even if we could mitigate the effects of these numbers, there are aggravating numbers showing racism. For instance, even though blacks are arrested only at four times the rate of whites (lol, seems funny to see "only" in that sentence, does it not?) they remain in jail at seven times the rate. This shows that even when arrested for the exact same offense, blacks are more likely to draw a harsh sentence and/or to be denied parole later.

I think this is ultimately what you need to think about (this paragraph). I view things like this as something to do with poverty levels and economic situation, and not race. While it is quite obvious that blacks are arrested in greater percentages than whites for drug abuse, my response to that is related to economic situations, not to race. Has the ACLU done a study comparing the number of poor people arrested for drug use compared to rich people (or even middle class folks)?

Right. And doesn't he also have to assume that people of different races act exactly the same, are exactly as smart or stupid, have the same cultures (that glorify drugs in some cases, some not), use drugs the same way, at the same time of the day?

[Woodruff]

I understand your point. Racism might not be the motive; it could just be that these people live in shitty neighbourhoods, which would be targeted regardless of who lived in them. I find it really hard to imagine a factor, however, which is potent enough to explain that 3.7X differential without involving race. Even if we could mitigate the effects of these numbers, there are aggravating numbers showing racism. For instance, even though blacks are arrested only at four times the rate of whites (lol, seems funny to see "only" in that sentence, does it not?) they remain in jail at seven times the rate. This shows that even when arrested for the exact same offense, blacks are more likely to draw a harsh sentence and/or to be denied parole later.

I think this is ultimately what you need to think about (this paragraph). I view things like this as something to do with poverty levels and economic situation, and not race. While it is quite obvious that blacks are arrested in greater percentages than whites for drug abuse, my response to that is related to economic situations, not to race. Has the ACLU done a study comparing the number of poor people arrested for drug use compared to rich people (or even middle class folks)?

Right. And doesn't he also have to assume that people of different races act exactly the same, are exactly as smart or stupid, have the same cultures (that glorify drugs in some cases, some not), use drugs the same way, at the same time of the day?

Aren't you, with your parenthetical, doing exactly that, hypocrite?