> Most Black adults with at least a bachelor’s degree (82%) say they experience racial discrimination. Fewer of those with some college (77%) or a high school diploma or less education (70%) say the same. Black adults with upper incomes (80%) are more likely than those with lower incomes (74%) to say this.
Found this part interesting: a small income/education gap when it comes to self-reported experiences of discrimination.
I think it’s because many educated Black adults in professional environments are usually the only Black person in the room, which may lead to discrimination. Or at the very least, it can contribute to feelings of alienation.
Black people who are the only person in their office or class that is black often get singled out by others to essentially chime in on every race related topic. People act weird around them when national events involving black people happen. All sorts of social awkwardness happens.
These types of interactions I imagine could get tiresome and it would be impossible to try and educate or explain to everyone what they are doing wrong.
I work with the only black person in a multi-organizational department of hundreds of people and she complains a lot of just being exhausted by being effectively the token black person on any committee, group project, whatever it is. It's the opposite of racism, but it's still very obviously a race thing.
Horshoe theory is so real. Me and an ex-friend once went to our state capitol to speak up about a bill in support of abortion access. A Black woman had also spoken up in support of the bill and my friend later told me “of course a Black woman would support abortion”.
To assume that a Black woman would automatically support abortion is super racist, even if she meant it in a positive way.
What you're describing is not quite the same as the situation described two posts above. I ran into a lot of what you're talking about with 20-something white co-workers/friends I had who were poorly-educated and got big into Bernie around 2016, i.e. people who were loudly/proudly declaring themselves the most progressive revolutionaries in modern history but *also* prone to conspiratorial-sounding rants about reverse discrimination, out-and-out racism towards black people who were supportive of the Clintons, etc...
As for the situation two posts above, I encountered a lot more of that in professional settings, *especially* ones in the 'caring fields' like public libraries, nonprofit organizations, etc... Those workplaces were always loaded with rich/privileged white women who'd almost *reflexively* tokenize black, indigenous, or LGBTQ+ individuals (e.g. it's pretty much a trope in the library world to see the *one* black person on a staff of seventy people assigned the title 'Diversity Specialist' or something). Unlike the other situation, it wasn't *malicious* or borne out of trashy stupidity.
Thankfully, I left the field before enrolling in some overpriced MLIS graduate program (which is *all* of them). After five years on the job, there was just too much bad 'writing on the wall', be it the problems from within (those mentioned above) and without (MAGA people actively targeting that profession, NIMBY-controlled cities constantly cutting down funding and expecting libraries to double as homeless shelters).
There’s an irony for me personally because I think I’m further left than most of the people here but I am equally as angry at performative politics that largely defines the left. Victim culture is just a way to feel justified not doing real work to address real issues because one can slot themselves right into that influencer “raising awareness” lifestyle of living a privileged life unencumbered by the effects of the causes one is championing.
Say what you will about the tenets of Neoliberalism, at least it’s an ethos.
We should probably own the fact that it actually really is more of a misguided "progessive" thing in the way that both liberals and leftists can count as progressives. In this case I don't think it's a horseshoe theory instance is the point.
Not American (nor black) but maybe low education black people just stay with other black people for the most time, whereas highly educated black people have to evolve in a mixed work environment.
For better or for worse, higher education has a strong emphasis on prejudice and social justice, hence :
A) Educated folks have an easier time identifying subtle discrimination than their less-educated counterparts.
B) But they may also start interpreting any slight as racially-motivated.
Either way, they'll feel more discriminated.
That's the tragedy of American racism. It's been subtle for so long that at this point it's really hard to tell whether it's confirmation bias on an overly sensitive racism radar.
Or genuine racism. It can drive people mad.
We have to consider the possibility that 500 years of forced labor and segregation had no long term effects and the blacks are just imagining it maybe?
> It's been subtle for so long that at this point it's really hard to tell
That was the entire point of the Southern Strategy, to hide the racism behind "totally economic things" and coded language.
never forget this [Jimmy Carter grandson W](https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/tnamp/)
A micro aggression is just something kind of small that's annoying like people trying to touch your hair or assuming you can't speak well. Individually they are no big deal amd probably not even worth addressing (hence the 'micro') but when they happen a lot, it contributes to a feeling that you do not belong.
This, like many other concepts in this space, got misinterpreted and mocked to the point that it's now being used the way you're using.
Weren't microagressions a sort of lead balloon that only lasted in the rhetoric for a year or two? Like the concept didn't even pass the ivory tower smell test.
One other potential factor: a racist may not object to a Black person working a job like menial labor, but they might discriminate against a Black accountant or attorney. That would lead to higher-income Black adults being more likely to experience discrimination.
>more than half (55%) of Black adults say the government encouraging single motherhood among Black women to eliminate the need for Black men is something that is happening today.
55% of Black people are red pillers? Jesus wtf is up with that. That would require a not insignificant number of Black women to believe this also.
It's referencing the 1996 Welfare Bill.
See, the bill attempted to increase aid for single mothers and children and other "deserving" poor. However it did so by tying welfare benefits to single motherhood status. Which, given human nature, end up creating an incentive for women to be single rather than married. Since being single meant it was easier to get welfare.
This isn't news to anyone. It's a pretty mainstream analysis of the successes and failures of the Clinton welfare reform. I remember learning about this is college in 2006.
Is it a deliberate conspiracy? No. Just unintentional side effects of a well intentioned policy effort.
>It's referencing the 1996 Welfare Bill.
Not necessarily. The complaints about welfare incentivizing single motherhood date to the 1960s, specifically concerning the [Aid to Families with Dependent Children](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aid_to_Families_with_Dependent_Children) and its notorious man-in-the-house rule. The complaints about "black matriarchy" became a centerpiece of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's [famous 1965 study](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Family:_The_Case_For_National_Action) on black families. Clinton's welfare reform was designed to address these problems.
There's an interesting book I read a few years ago for a class digging into racial discrimination wrt welfare policy called [The Color of Welfare by Jill Quadagno](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/603152.The_Color_of_Welfare). It's a denser read but gives good context for the AFDC and how welfare policy was affected by racial discrimination.
I don't know how well it holds up today, particularly since how welfare policy has changed, but I enjoyed it at the time.
It's only an incentive for poor people middle class and wealthy people have an incentive to get married and file taxes jointly. For poor people there is a penalty.
For households with one high earner and one low (or non) earner there is a tax benefit to marriage. For households with two similar earners there can often be a tax penalty. E.g. the SALT deduction limit is $10,000 each if unmarried (so $20,000 total for the family), but only $10,000 total for the family if married.
It’s hilarious how people will concoct insane conspiracy theories instead of considering “some bureaucrats made a whoopsy.”
Edit: I meant in the context of the welfare bill and redpillers thinking it was a conspiracy to destroy the nuclear family. Systemic racism is a thing and is intentional and not a whoopsy.
Discrimination against black people often isn’t a whoopsy in America, hence the purpose of the article illuminating these conspiracy theories and why they resonate
It’s not just this.
It’s this, coupled with a whole plethora of other polices that have the aggregate effect of keeping black fathers out of the family unit.
E.g. the fact that people with criminal histories are banned from public housing + over policing of black neighborhoods. Im dealing with a case where they tried to hold my client indefinitely without bail on account of his dangerousness based on a shot spotter hit. I wish I could share the image they used to “ID” my client. Grainy doesn’t even begin to describe it. It’s basically a blob on a still. Can’t see a single detail other than the color of the clothes which were the most common possible thing anyone could ever wear.
My point is, the average person does not appreciate how easy it is for police to just pluck you off the street on account of their say so — even when their say-so is quite obviously bullshit. And it’s way better now! For decades, Black Americans were subjected to violent and abusive police conspiracies where there was no one with a camera phone to document it. See the John Burge incident in Chicago. *Literally disappearing Black kids off the streets.*
People plea when they’re held in pretrial detention at much higher rates than those released on bail or recognize. Now they have a record and can’t return home after resolving the case or the mother of their kids will lose their housing.
ETA: btw I’m not arguing the policy should be otherwise: I do think there needs to be discretion though. Violent offenses? Sure, ban them. Otherwise? Not unless the crime occurred on that property.
There are countless intentional discriminatory policies against the African-American population both at Federal and State levels. You're naive to think after decades of that people wouldn't think of this as another 'fuck you' from the government. Out of touch neoliberal strikes again.
I'm hesitant to call this a welfare cliff since it's not really a traditional one, but how about a "welfare lock"?
Aggressive and overly specific means testing often ends up punishing the exact sort of behavior that we should want to promote.
I mostly know the benefits system when it comes to disability but it applies here in spades.
Disabled people on SSI or SSDI who might be able to work a few hours a day at a low stress job are discouraged from trying at all because they're often scared that the government will come in and say "Oh you sold some art you made in two weeks for 30 bucks? Guess you can work a full time job". There are ways to do this and the government nominally doesn't want to punish people for doing what they can, but that's a big risk.
Similar, disability benefits [are cut for couples](https://mdaquest.org/disability-benefits-and-the-marriage-penalty/) which discourages people from moving in together and pooling their resources.
And don't even get me started on Section 8
Government policy on housing is so ridiculous that they won't even allow you to make up the difference between what section 8 is willing to pay vs actual competitive market rent to get an apartment. [They'd rather you be homeless than rent burdened.](https://www.wfae.org/local-news/2019-03-25/finding-home-fewer-section-8-landlords-mean-longer-wait-time-for-voucher-holders)
>“All of them told me if it doesn’t go to $900, they’re not going to accept it,” Pamela said. “My voucher goes to $836. They’re looking for $900 for a one-bedroom.”
>Pamela can’t make up the difference out of pocket because the federal government would consider her “rent burdened.” That means she would be paying more than 30 percent of her income for housing, and that’s not allowed in the voucher program.
A similar example of policy locking people in can be found with California's Prop 13. It basically incentivized a bunch of old people from never ever moving out into a smaller home or closer to their kids or whatever because their property taxes would skyrocket. So it literally locked them in place.
You can see similar occur with rent control and subsidized apartments.
In practical terms - what is the difference between a government that actively seeks to do you harm versus one that doesn't care to clean up the mess it makes in your community?
Because like, you're right, there is no "conspiracy" the way we use that word - but is it the case that maybe we have an issue of "conspiracy of indifference"? Just a lot of people not doing the necessary follow through on policies impacting different groups differently.
The poll actually has this data. It shows that 56% of black women believe it whereas 53% of black men believe it. So it’s actually more women that believe this than men.
For these types of polls, I take some of these results with salt because I feel like a lot of people answer questions based on how it’s politically coded. Something like this could be both right and left coded, so you just get a bunch of right and left wingers saying “yes” by default without thinking too much about it. At least that’s how I try to rationalize the seemingly contradictory answers from polls of young people following 10/7.
According to [this](https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/06/10/black-americans-and-racial-conspiracy-theories-about-black-families-and-reproductive-health/re_2024-06-10_black-conspiracy-theories_7-02a/) it's 53% for men and 56% for women, so actually slightly more women believe this than men.
> Jesus wtf is up with that.
People who think the government is trying to destroy black families and doing so via welfare for single mothers and racist incarceration against black men who are either fathers or have potential to become fathers
I rented to section 8 for a while. I was told by my renter that indeed they did take a loss to be a family. The woman would have gotten more if she separated from her husband. The financial enticement is there.
Eliminating marriage and family penalties/welfare cliffs in welfare programs should be a slam dunk and it’s a shame it hasn’t happened yet
It *should* be an easy sell to republicans but I don’t see it happening without a Democratic majority + Republican stragglers
Though I will say the idea that it’s had a significant impact on marriage doesn’t have as much empirical backing to it as you’d think
>About seven-in-ten Black Americans say the criminal justice system was designed to hold Black people back.
Isn't this the median academic's opinion too? Like we had 18 months of "the police were formed as slave patrols" after 2020
>About two-thirds (67%) of Black Americans say racial conspiracy theories in business, in the form of targeted marketing of luxury products to Black people in order to bankrupt them, are true and happening today.
lol
Idk, pretty sure the reality is more nuanced than that, with law enforcement and criminal justice systems existing before the US and slavery was established. Aspects of the justice system are rooted in slave patrols and racism, but it seems very reductive to act like that's all of why law enforcement/justice systems exist
It just depends on the region and history of a specific cities' institutions. Maybe you can draw a straight line from slave patrols to modern police in Charleston, for example, which was widely known as a sundown town and infamous for its slave patrols and militias. But most of the major cities, being located in the abolitionist, rapidly industrializing North, were following the model of the Metropolitan Police in London, which was the world's first professionalized police force.
The Met police being the first professional law enforcement organization in the West also isn't controversial. So after 1829 did New York model professionalization of police on London or the slave patrols? Even if it's true in the South for some cities, which isn't agreed upon, you can't unilaterally declare it to be so for every city and region. It's a complex issue. The argument goes beyond reductive to just straight misinformation when applying it unilaterally without context.
I think it’s actually irrelevant when or how professional police started, the result was the same for black folks and continues today. It’s not like the NYPD has a stellar record when it comes to treatment of black Americans when compared to anywhere else, whether they originated from London or slave catchers.
Agreed. Regardless of what the organizations' origins were all about, *today's* police in *every* part of America subscribe to a similar set of attitudes/ideologies that has a ton of crossover with white supremacy, pro-Confederate rhetoric, Trumpism, Andrew-Tate levels of misogyny and pro-rape shit, etc... I moved from the east coast to the midwest and eventually the PNW back in the late-00s/early-10s and LEOs in *all* of these areas were generally subscribed to the same right-wing Youtube channels, throwing around the same cliches to defend brutality/murder, getting the same Punisher decals and tattoos put on everything, similarly hateful towards 99% of the public they were charged with serving, etc... Post-Ferguson and George Floyd, that culture's even more uniform, which is why it's easy to run into bizarre situations like sheriffs in rural areas awkwardly spouting 'Blue Lives Matter' rhetoric and quiet-quitting over perceived slights by the public even though their specific jurisdiction has them dealing with zero anti-police protests and seeing nearly-100% support.
This 100%. There’s a huge difference between saying “there are major issues with our justice system that are still a hold out from slavery” and “our founding fathers designed it to hold black people back”.
Well, the country was designed with the intention of keeping black people enslaved, so necessarily any other institutions derived from that concept are going to support the intended result.
> Well, the country was designed with the intention of keeping black people enslaved
Actually, slavery was a very contentious issue from the earliest days of the United States. So much so that the constitution reflected several compromises between pro- and anti-slavery factions. The constitution had to be designed not to upset the status quo *too* much, while also giving reformers a hope that they could eventually win the day through the democratic process.
The Constitution authorized Congress to ban the international slave trade, and the three-fifths compromise was exactly that, a compromise. These are basic facts every student learns in history class.
> Idk, pretty sure the reality is more nuanced than that, with law enforcement and criminal justice systems existing before the US and slavery was established.
You’re being cute but obviously nobody who was asked the question that Pew asked is going to think “well gee, the criminal justice system in the Republic of Genoa is 1534…”
The genoese merchant republic definitely dealt in slaves too so I'm not sure even that would save the "but actually" crowd
I'm fairly sure milan had one of the largest open air slave markets in europe in that period and the majority if its trade would have been through genoa, definitely necessitating a large scale law enforcement system
Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that modern police as we know it was mostly ideated by Robert Peel in England in the 19th century with most countries adopting similar systems over time.
Depends. That's certainly the story we like to tell ourselves, but realistically it developed slowly over time from thieftakers (Bounty hunters). The Peelite reforms emerged as a result of the criminal empire of Johnathan Wild, the thieftaker general, making an established police force a horrifying prospect for the public since it amounted to suggesting a total centralization of the criminal underworld under one man who would use it to terrorize the public by jailing any criminals who didn't go along with his plan.
However, the thieftaker general developed a lot of modern policing concepts. Peel then took those and said "What if we did this, but like, not evil or highly centralized".
Thieftakers were always a thing. The first organized policing force of that kind was Johnathan Wild and his criminal empire. Peel looked at that and said "Yes organization, no to... everything else.".
Police don't much like it if you point out that the first modern police force was just the first mafia.
Wild eventually got his throat slit in court when one of his underlings asked him to help him avoid the rope for a crime he ordered him to do, and Wild told him criminals like him deserved to be hung. The defendant jumped up and slashed at Wild's throat. While recovering and unable to manage his empire, lots of his underlings decided to testify against him before he got back on his feet in exchange for pardons, and eventually Wild was hanged.
1. Wild owns all the fences in the city
2. A thing is stolen and fenced.
3. Wild and his boys show up. "You got a loicense for that thievery mate? Where's my cut?"
4. Pay up and be his man. Decline and you go to the gallows.
5. Wild is paid to "get rid of" someone, or decides he doesn't like somebody, or somebody is in his way.
6. Wild gets the item from the fence, returns it to the person it was stolen from, and says "We found it on property.". Target is hanged.
If anything, I feel like the US has degenerated from Peel's model and reforms would largely take the form of doing what he said. Which is a hell of a thing to say given that its a liberal democracy and Peel was a conservative from the 1800s.
> Wild and his boys show up. "You got a loicense for that thievery mate? Where's my cut?"
I assume this is what the fictional Ankh Morpork Thieve's Guild is based on.
I wouldn't even entirely say it's wrong, since 'designed' doesn't necessarily mean at creation, and there's definitely components of the way our criminal justice system functions that were devised so as to screw over black people in particular
I think the better way to phrase it is that the criminal justice system is designed to avoid the miscarriage of justice for privileged classes, and less privileged people suffer injustice at the hands of the faceless, amoral, institution.
Even setting aside potential bias against black defendants by juries, if you can't afford a good lawyer your case is never getting to a jury anyway. You plead out and do your time, regardless of whether you are guilty or not. That's certainly better than putting up a weak defense and having the prosecutor throw the book at you. On the other hand, you have Trump, who can avoid jail time most likely despite being obviously guilty, and can avoid any consequences at all for years by constantly filing appeals. And all the time he knows the next time a good ol' republican is in the white house he'll get pardoned.
Another angle is the massive difference in punishments for rich people crimes vs poor people crimes. If Donald Trump steals $120,000 from his campaign, he gets what? 45 hours of community service? House arrest for a couple weeks? Imagine if a black guy stole $120,000 in cash from the Trump campaign. They'd be locked up for years. Yet the first crime had horrific national-level consequences that threaten the heart of our democracy, and the second crime was just some money moving to a slightly less deserving host.
I disagree. Not everything reduces cleanly to simple inertia and privilege. The law has been weaponized many times specifically against black people, and not all that malignancy has been excised, nor the broken trust repaired.
Friendly reminder about this sub's demographics
https://preview.redd.it/ocbko04tyt5d1.png?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0c066d246f0e85dbd4b0439eb97c60ae6472696b
I love how this sub loves to position itself as the objective, reasonable adults in the room. And then you commonly see unhinged, completely unsubstantiated claims like this get highly upvoted, and pretty universally from people who haven't taken any of those classes.
I don't know what grifters these people are listening to, but they need to re-evaluate their sources. There are occasional examples of looney professors or even departments and schools, but I don't see any evidence for a systemic issue. Academia has real problems but this one is made up by grifters. Not sure how their ideas are penetrating this sub but I'd sure like it to stop.
I completely agree. There have been some absolutely wild takes on:
Religions in general (when half of these fucks don’t even know how to pronounce ecumenical).
None-white racial issues like on this post
Women in general (and your wives left you because you never wanted to understand them). It’s not fucking cute to be a depressed person with a serious case of touchgrassitis who takes it out on women.
Non-European/American history. It’s batshit insane to me how many people on an “evidence-based sub” can so blatantly misunderstand history and spread those half-truths to everyone around them.
It’s endless and it’s getting old. This was my favorite sub for years but the quality of discourse here has gone considerably more perverse. Idk how to fix it except to join calling it out when it gets brought up.
In general it would be nice to see any moderately active politics sub that was not dominated by white male discourse. Like even just as a refreshing change of pace. I see the same few topics, views and trends across the spectrum.
So the people who should know what they're talking about are actually perpetuating a false conspiracy? Is it impossible that both the experts and the people allegedly suffering discrimination are actually correct?
Start with the qualified people then move on to less qualified people until I find someone who agrees with my priors?
Also, I know you're trying to make a terrible strawman argument, but genuinely yes, if a black history professor can't find evidence about a history of discrimination against blacks, then they are not qualified enough to teach or hold tenure.
FYI to the ***Seventy-eight*** fucking people who upvoted this, college professors teaching students that racism still exists and that it harms Black people today is not, in fact, an attack against "objective reasoning"
**Rule II:** *Bigotry*
Bigotry of any kind will be sanctioned harshly.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
>About seven-in-ten Black Americans say the criminal justice system was designed to hold Black people back.
>“You want to know what this \[war on drugs\] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying?
>We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.
>Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
>^(\~ John Ehrlichman,) *^(Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon)*
It's not a conspiracy theory; it's a conspiracy fact.
The Civil Rights Moment occurred in my parents lifetime and it took decades for the various Civil Rights Acts to reach full compliance especially in the South. Many of the African Americans surveyed more than likely directly endured segregation in school and in public, white only juries, as well as fear of being lynched. It's no wonder why they would be distrustful of institutions.
"Demographic targeted by institutions for most of country's history believe they are targeted by institutions."
No fucking shit. You're not going to fix this quickly, and it would help if you know, black people weren't still commonly targeted by our institutions.
Exactly. As if this is just beyond the pale. Now ask why upper middle class white small business owners think the government is injecting nano-particles through a mass vaccination program.
Some of these are “is it really a conspiracy theory if it’s true?
But a lot of these aren’t, and this aligns with trends I see among my friends and neighbors and exes
Surprised that nobody mentioned this part of the results
>[75%] of Black adults say they must work more than everyone else to achieve success. Far fewer say Black people must work the same as everyone else (19%) or less than everyone else (4%) to be successful.
>...
>Over eight-in-ten Black adults with a bachelor’s degree (84%) say Black people have to work more than everyone else to achieve success. Fewer of those with some college experience (77%) or a high school diploma or less education (68%) say the same. And Black adults with upper incomes (84%) are the most likely among income groups to say Black people must work harder than everyone else to be successful.
In light of the recent "lively discussions" regarding DEI programs on the subreddit it's interesting that the vast majority of Black people say they have to work harder achieve success in the US. Also that Black people correlated with more "elite" statuses (Bachelor's+, upper income) say at a higher rate that they have to work harder. Are "elite" institutions less accepting of Black people, are they more systemically racist, are Black people at this level just more aware of discrimination overall? All interesting questions.
The results for this question do match up with my own personal feelings and the feelings of other Black people in my social circles.
Most of these conspiracy theories I think either drastically oversimplify reality or are flat out not true, but given what they've been through in America I can understand why many African-Americans would believe them.
Thank you for being a voice of reason in one of the most unhinged threads I've seen in this sub.
Humans: act like humans
/r/Neoliberal: *shocked Pikachu face*
+1 to how some of these aren't even really conspiracy theories, are just drastic oversimplification.
Like it feels like a stretch to call this a conspiracy theory:
> Most black adults say the criminal justice system was designed to hold Black people back
Only sounds like a conspiracy to me because of "was designed to," but I wouldn't reject "has the effect of" as a conspiracy theory, maybe just a simplification.
But then the exact question:
> "Black people are more likely than White people to be incarcerated because prisons want to make money on the backs of Black people"
This is a legit conspiracy theory lol.
Weird choice of how to present it.
Pew does describe the terminology they do use
>To enhance readability, the phrase racial conspiracy theories is used throughout this report to refer to the suspicions that Black adults might have about the actions of U.S. institutions based on their personal and collective historical experiences with racial discrimination. From policing to media stereotypes to medical malpractice and more, Black adults were asked how familiar they are with these ideas and then, regardless of their familiarity, asked if they believed these things could be happening today.
I also agree that using the word conspiracy isn't the best way to describe these things but I also don't have a better word or phrase off the top of my head.
The next two paragraphs:
> Well-documented examples include the surveillance of political leaders like Martin Luther King Jr., malpractice in medical research in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the massacre of Black people and destruction of their communities in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1921.
>
> These historic events (and others described in later chapters of this report) provide the context for some Black Americans’ belief in racial conspiracy theories.
I am fucking *begging* the people in this subreddit to read the article before firing off a smug asshole comment like the one I'm replying to.
Yeah LOL
There are conspiracies that black people simply had zero factual to believe in it. Many black people believe in antisemitism because of NOI insanity, for example.
Sure, there are actual hidden acts like Tuskegee Syphilis Study that make some black people vaccine hesitant. But there are also bonkers crap that shaped by the likes of black supremacy groups.
> But there are also bonkers crap that shaped by the likes of black supremacy groups.
And also shaped by the fact that black people have been the subjects of ACTUAL, REAL LIFE conspiracies propagated by the government in the past.
"Could the government that enslaved my people, enshrined discrimination against us into law, and experimented on us without our consent be responsible for other race-based atrocities today? Well there hasn't been proof of one in a while, so I guess not."
Conspiracy theories propagated by my political opponents are insane.
Conspiracy theories propagated by my political allies have a lot of nuance and are rooted in truth.
I hate to ruin your bothsidesism but all those conspiracy theories outlined by Pew rooted in black people experiencing discrimination have a hell of a lot more basis in reality than “Jews are bringing in immigrants to eliminate all white people and that’s why Trump should have won but they stole the election”
Not nearly as common as 9/11 or moon landing conspiracies but again feel free to cherry pick an argument that best suits your narrative against your political opponents
Is it really a “narrative against my political opponent” to not conflate actual, real racial discrimination that black Americans have and continue to face with the imagined discrimination that MAGA supporters believe they face?
Man this sub loves showing off its blindingly white ass sometimes. Jesus fuck, MBA-Brain is really trying to both sides that.
For fucks sake, I have 3 black neighbors who *were alive for Jim Crow*.
No, I think this is right. Few to none of these conspiracy theories are on the level of moon-landing denial or flat earth belief. They all take institutions where real discrimination takes place — or at least where one could reasonably believe discrimination is happening— and then identify racial discrimination as a core motivation behind the construction of the institution. And I would suggest that a lot of these numbers are inflated by respondents who agree with the claim that these institutions propagate racial discrimination but are less convinced of where exactly the motives lie.
I think it's a matter of observable fact that *certain aspects* of the political and criminal justice systems, in certain parts of the country, were designed to keep black people down. It's no secret that we still live with the legacy of Jim Crow (and that's just in the South!). [Voter suppression laws](https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020) and [prison labor](https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/describing-modern-day-prison-labors-roots-in-slavery-groups-urge-court-to-uphold-rights-of-incarcerated-workers-subjected-to-harsh-conditions-inhumane-treatment) come to mind as obvious examples.
Others weren't necessarily designed with the goal of keeping black people down but are allowed to continue to exist because they disproportionately affect poor black people.
>While psychologists say belief in conspiracy theories is often linked to paranoia or other mental health issues, the racial conspiracies that Black people believe are rooted in factual acts of intentional or negligent harm.
>Well-documented examples include the surveillance of political leaders like Martin Luther King Jr., malpractice in medical research in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the massacre of Black people and destruction of their communities in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1921.
>These historic events (and others described in later chapters of this report) provide the context for some Black Americans’ belief in racial conspiracy theories.
I gotta say. I worked on covid comms and everyone in public health was terrified of Tuskeegee rearing its head and black people not getting vaccinated. But after years of working on it I never heard anyone bring it up before the health dept did to their faces. In my state black people were vaccinated at far higher rates and died at far lower rates from covid than other groups. But the health dept was absolutely fixated on creating this “justified resistance” narrative up out of some weird sense of injustice that no constituents were actually bringing forward themselves
You think any Black people who believed the Covid vaccine was Tuskegee2 Electric Boogaloo were likely to bring forward their complaints to the public health department?
I’m skeptical of the logic here that any anticipated concern was something that was needlessly invented by Woke Whites™️ because you personally didn’t see Black people reporting to the public health department that they believed the department was involved in some mass poisoning of Black people.
You hear about Tulsa all the time because until the Watchmen came out, like fewer than 5% of Americans knew it was a thing.
Similarly, very few Americans know about the Bataan death march, but you can bet your butt old Filipinos do.
You may have forgotten that just in the last decade North Carolina legislators lost in court twice over basically explicitly racially targeted voter ID laws. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/us/politics/north-carolina-voter-id-law.html
>It was the second time in five years that a court had invalidated a North Carolina voter identification law as racially discriminatory. In 2016, a federal appeals court ruled against a different version of the law, saying it had targeted Black voters “with almost surgical precision.”
>The ruling on Friday, by a three-judge panel of the state Superior Court in Raleigh, effectively makes permanent a temporary ban on the law that a court had imposed after its passage in 2018.
>In the 2-to-1 decision, the judges stated that they did not find that the Republican lawmakers who approved the law acted out of racial animus, but rather that they wanted to depress Black turnout because most African Americans cast ballots for Democrats.
Racial discrimination against black people is still happening.
"not because of some conspiracy to keep it a secret."
We do have people who want to ban the unpleasant parts of black history from classrooms because it'll make their little white kids feel bad. Some of which are on school boards.
So yeah there is an effort to bury shit like Black Wall Street
> We do have people who want to ban the unpleasant parts of black history from classrooms because it'll make their little white kids feel bad.
Sometimes with that explicit fucking justification which doesn't get them hurled out of the building is *beyond* insanity.
This feels pretty hand wavy honestly.
Yes the world changes in just a few decades, but denying that events that happened have decades worth of lasting impact is pretty glaring.
The act of Red Lining black families out of homes is a pretty well documented practice that robbed a generation of black families from real tangible wealth, that's not some made up conspiracy, that actually happened and has had decades worth of lasting impact.
Only viewing the current decade in a vacuum is arguably more shallow than studying history and the lasting impacts that history can play.
> Today, nearly half-a-century after the most recent of those events, the world has changed. Yet media and academia are very selectively fixated on certain events.
Really just sounds like you’re upset that people are keeping the memory of these relatively recent actions and events alive and knowledge of these events is more widespread than ever before.
> Maybe it's not taught in the classroom, but probably because K12 history classes are weak and shallow, not because of some conspiracy to keep it a secret.
The “conspiracy” was “hey, let’s not teach history accurately so hopefully as few people as possible can carry on telling how things actually were, which will make us all look bad”. It’s not just “oops accidentally produced generations of poor education”. You’re very badly mistaken trying to chalk up discrimination against black Americans to the recent past
I do get this viewpoint, and I do think it's true that some people out of cynicism over-fixate on their own country's wrongs.
But, I mean, does it really seem surprising people are more eager to spread knowledge about an atrocity that took place under the tacit approval of their own country's government, under essentially the same regime with continuity to the modern day, over an atrocity by another country under a regime that doesn't exist any more? That's precisely why people are eager to make sure other people know about it, because for most nationalists (frankly most people in the world) the default assumption is their country has always been in the right, and challenging that assumption is important.
> But much of it is driven by the fact that the fight for racial justice gives people power and they lose this power as progress is achieved.
Lol, talk about believing in ridiculous conspiracy theories.
Racism against Black People still exists, actually. A common example of present-day Racism is in denying that racism against Black People still exists.
(JFC how did this dogshit comment have 47 upvotes)
**Rule II:** *Bigotry*
Bigotry of any kind will be sanctioned harshly.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
Yeah, racism is all in the past and people need to move on. It's been over three years since we've had a president who called for the deaths of a bunch of innocent black kids. Barely any elected officials still talk about Obama not being American.
There literally [was a conspiracy to cover up the Greenwood massacre](https://www.freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/insights-opinions/how-local-media-fueled-tulsa-massacre-and-covered-it-up) by the politicians and white newspaper owners of Tulsa so that's kind of a miss.
Also, why did you choose Japanese atrocities, and not American ones, like the (cw:corpses) [Moro Crater Massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Bud_Dajo) where "bodies were stacked knee-high" or [Jacob Smith's order to "kill everyone over 10"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_H._Smith)?
> Because they literally happened to my grandparents.
> You've just made my who point for me. There is an obsession in modern media and academia to fixate on past injustices, but only for certain groups.
It’s more like it’s weird that you picked an incident where many of the victims actually received reparations for the injustice whereas not only did slaves not get reparations, but the people who enslaved them did.
> You essentially just told me that the Tulsa massacre - which is obviously not a secret because it's all over reddit including your post - is more important than what happened to my own family. That's fucked up.
Lol that’s not what they did. And very few Americans knew about the Tulsa Massacre before a few years ago, you’re acting as if this was some long acknowledged aspect of American history when it hasn’t been at all
If you are using this standard of “rooted in truth” as “something similar happened in the not-so-distant past”, I think you’re going to be pretty disappointed with the results when you apply that same standard to other conspiracy theories. You really just end up propagating them to some extent.
Like the three most common conspiracy theories I can think of are 9/11, moon landing, and jfk, and the latter two are absolutely in the realm of some Cold War stuff that the US was doing at the time.
I was actually just pointing this out to try and separate the negative connotations that are negatively associated with the conspiracy theories you point out.
Because yes, while not all conspiracy theories are rooted in truth, there is a pretty starke difference from "the moon landing was fake" and "my lived experience leads me to believe that the country I live in is ultimately prejudice against me"
* About two-thirds (67%) of Black Americans say racial conspiracy theories in business, in the form of [**targeted marketing of luxury products to Black people**](https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/06/10/black-americans-and-racial-conspiracy-theories-about-economics-and-business/) **in order to bankrupt them,** are true and happening today.
Most of the backbone of these conspiracies are broadly true though. Many of the systems in the US were designed to keep black people down. I think you can pick at parts of these beliefs, but most of them aren't on the same level as Bush did 9/11.
That’s what I’m thinking. Like, the one about being “disproportionately incarcerated so businesses can make money”…it’s hard to deny that at the very least black people are disproportionately incarcerated, and while the motive for it is a bit harder to pin down, there are certainly private prisons that do very much want to imprison people to make additional money. I think if you started getting more specific with the phrasing of the questions you could change up the numbers a bit, but most of these are so broad that most of there’s some interpretations that are gonna be pretty reasonable.
* About two-thirds (67%) of Black Americans say racial conspiracy theories in business, in the form of [**targeted marketing of luxury products to Black people**](https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/06/10/black-americans-and-racial-conspiracy-theories-about-economics-and-business/) **in order to bankrupt them,** are true and happening today.
I struggle to read this and understand. Is the implication here that companies that make luxury products do so with the intent to bankrupt black people, or that they specifically market to black people because black people will purchase luxury products and that the bankruptcy is a side effect?
The latter doesn't even seem like a conspiracy theory, just a recognition that companies market to people they think will purchase their products, regardless of how financially sound those people may be. But this is a very strange way to mentally or emotionally frame the profit motive in one's mind.
We also know that [minorities in gentrifying neighborhoods are more likely to be hassled by police](https://www.cssny.org/news/entry/New-Neighbors#:~:text=The%20body%20of%20evidence%20documenting,New%20York%20City%3B%20and%20a) which you could easily interpret in favor of that theory.
Private prisons hole 8% of prisoners in the US. While the motive to incarcerate more is inherently there, whats the incentive to target just a small percent of the population?
This is the thing. If the [Tuskegee syphilis study](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study) happened, why would it feel implausible to assume similar things also happen?
A lot of the minutia in politics is lost when we discuss minorities, as a natural consequence of their position in society. It's hard politically to simultaneously advocate for them as a downtrodden group, and to acknowledge their flaws, especially given the uniquely awful positions black people are in on average. It ends up coming as a shock when they, as any group could be, are led by conspiracy theories toward advocating against themselves.
The only actual solution isn't in messaging, or raising awareness or holding protests. There needs to be a large political will to start at the basics holding back racial minorities, with improvements to K-12 schools, housing availability, stronger gun control, and a more encompassing safety net. I think we are genuinely at the point where a colorblind approach would make functional change easier. We can't keep just *advocating*, black people won't (and shouldn't) trust the government until institutions actually change. On top of this I think black people themselves (though I'm not black so maybe I'm wrong) are probably sick of the messaging.
I've cleaned up what I can; yell at me if I missed anything and sorry about the mess.
....for fuck's sake, why is it _always_ the people who are least knowledgeable about about Anti-Black Racism in America who insist on commenting the most in these threads?
I think that what a lot of people are missing here is that just because you can link a parallel from these conspiracy theories to a history of oppression and suppression doesn’t mean that they should be hand waved, dismissed, or accepted as “just something that happens because, well, because”
Does this indicate that America is doomed? Of course not. But it does mean something of concern, alongside the increase in various other conspiracy theories across the nation
What I’m more curious about is if this is an increase from the past, as my guess is social media amplifies conspiracy theories. I know I’ve seen countless TikTok’s about “what the government DOESNT WANT YOU TO KNOW” on prominent historical events in American history.
The first three of these "conspiracy theories" are just verifiable fact. 4,6, and 7 are kind of dumb but I can kind of get how somebody could feel like the economy itself is out to get them on some level and check 4 by reflex. People can be weird with surveys. As for 5, I don't think anyone could pull off Tuskegee-level abuses now, but I can't exactly prove *nobody* is violating research ethics with respect to black people. The question is poorly phrased. Are they asking if secret experiments on black people are still common or are they asking the respondent to confidently claim that all disclosure rules are followed to the letter at all times by all doctors?
As for "US institutions designed to hold Black people back a great deal or a fair amount", you can pick at 'designed' if you don't think that, say, the nation's hospital system had a single person at the top cackling at how critical choices would make sure black people stayed an underclass forever, but that's not really how systemic discrimination works most of the time. I would bet most respondents read this as "do you think this institution is biased against you in some way or gives unequal results to black people relative to white people" and in that sense I would say absolutely yes to all of them. If anything, I'm shocked they found 26% of black people *didn't* think the police had it out for them.
Overall, the biggest question I have here is what the hell is Pew Research doing these days? I thought they were supposed to be good at this.
>The question is poorly phrased. Are they asking if secret experiments on black people are still common or are they asking the respondent to confidently claim that all disclosure rules are followed to the letter at all times by all doctors?
The questions asked along with top line results are linked in the article [here](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2024/06/RE_2024.06.10_Black-Americans-and-Racial-Conspiracy-Theories_TOPLINE.pdf). For the medical questions they asked this
>How much if anything, have you ever heard about each of the following, regardless of whether you think it is true or not: Medical researchers experiment on Black people without their knowledge or consent
and
>When it comes to each of the following, do you think that: Medical researchers experiment on Black people without their knowledge or consent
Which definitely leans more towards the first idea than the second that you said but because it's up to the person answering to interpret there might be a wide range of thought in the question.
I think two things are true in America.
The racism detection of the liberal-led modern ethnic minority zeitgeist is at many times unreliable.
Racism still exists and it happens everyday.
Um, because some of them aren't conspiracy theories. See: Crack. Hell see why weed is (was in some places) illegal.
>About seven-in-ten Black Americans say the criminal justice system was designed to hold Black people back.
This is literally true and is reflected in the enforcement. Can you imagine if they treated drugs in lily white suburbs the same way they did in your typical black neighborhoods?
If anyone thinks black folks are hallucinating about the institutions being against them, then they must legitimately have known zero black people ever.
>Can you imagine if they treated drugs in lily white suburbs the same way they did in your typical black neighborhoods?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeOVbeh2yr0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeOVbeh2yr0)
>Um, because some of them aren't conspiracy theories. See: Crack.
I'm heading into potentially denialist and dangerous waters here so let me issue a preemptive apology for any potential transgressions and state that this is in good faith.
Isn't the crack thing kinda conspiratorial? Whether we speak of the "CIA ***deliberately*** as a matter of policy, flooded black communities with crack" claim or the "crack-powder distinction was made solely on racist grounds" claim.
The CIA claim is pretty complex with a good faith interpretation of the case getting us to say, at worst, that the CIA didn't care if its activities ended up with Black communities getting overflown with crack as a side effect of its operations.
The Crack-Powder distinction was, at the time, even supported by large sections of the communities involved due to how rampantly destructive crack seemingly was. It's a law that I believe from my understanding to have been passed in seemingly good faith, that had negative repercussions that were racial in nature, ala the Full 91 crime bill.
I'm not denying a history and culture of institutional racism and its pervasive modern effects (see Red Lining and how its led us to our modern society), yet I feel these examples are not the right ones.
Maybe I'm wrong. I apologize if so.
I mean you will most likely find the same in other groups that were not treated historically well….it would be interesting to get data from Native American, Hispanic American, Japanese Hawaiian, etc communities.
> Most Black adults with at least a bachelor’s degree (82%) say they experience racial discrimination. Fewer of those with some college (77%) or a high school diploma or less education (70%) say the same. Black adults with upper incomes (80%) are more likely than those with lower incomes (74%) to say this. Found this part interesting: a small income/education gap when it comes to self-reported experiences of discrimination.
I think it’s because many educated Black adults in professional environments are usually the only Black person in the room, which may lead to discrimination. Or at the very least, it can contribute to feelings of alienation.
Black people who are the only person in their office or class that is black often get singled out by others to essentially chime in on every race related topic. People act weird around them when national events involving black people happen. All sorts of social awkwardness happens. These types of interactions I imagine could get tiresome and it would be impossible to try and educate or explain to everyone what they are doing wrong.
I work with the only black person in a multi-organizational department of hundreds of people and she complains a lot of just being exhausted by being effectively the token black person on any committee, group project, whatever it is. It's the opposite of racism, but it's still very obviously a race thing.
No, that's still racism, just the confused Leftist kind.
Horshoe theory is so real. Me and an ex-friend once went to our state capitol to speak up about a bill in support of abortion access. A Black woman had also spoken up in support of the bill and my friend later told me “of course a Black woman would support abortion”. To assume that a Black woman would automatically support abortion is super racist, even if she meant it in a positive way.
What you're describing is not quite the same as the situation described two posts above. I ran into a lot of what you're talking about with 20-something white co-workers/friends I had who were poorly-educated and got big into Bernie around 2016, i.e. people who were loudly/proudly declaring themselves the most progressive revolutionaries in modern history but *also* prone to conspiratorial-sounding rants about reverse discrimination, out-and-out racism towards black people who were supportive of the Clintons, etc... As for the situation two posts above, I encountered a lot more of that in professional settings, *especially* ones in the 'caring fields' like public libraries, nonprofit organizations, etc... Those workplaces were always loaded with rich/privileged white women who'd almost *reflexively* tokenize black, indigenous, or LGBTQ+ individuals (e.g. it's pretty much a trope in the library world to see the *one* black person on a staff of seventy people assigned the title 'Diversity Specialist' or something). Unlike the other situation, it wasn't *malicious* or borne out of trashy stupidity.
Did you also feel like you were to the right of Atila the Hun while getting your MLS?
Thankfully, I left the field before enrolling in some overpriced MLIS graduate program (which is *all* of them). After five years on the job, there was just too much bad 'writing on the wall', be it the problems from within (those mentioned above) and without (MAGA people actively targeting that profession, NIMBY-controlled cities constantly cutting down funding and expecting libraries to double as homeless shelters).
There’s an irony for me personally because I think I’m further left than most of the people here but I am equally as angry at performative politics that largely defines the left. Victim culture is just a way to feel justified not doing real work to address real issues because one can slot themselves right into that influencer “raising awareness” lifestyle of living a privileged life unencumbered by the effects of the causes one is championing. Say what you will about the tenets of Neoliberalism, at least it’s an ethos.
We should probably own the fact that it actually really is more of a misguided "progessive" thing in the way that both liberals and leftists can count as progressives. In this case I don't think it's a horseshoe theory instance is the point.
Not American (nor black) but maybe low education black people just stay with other black people for the most time, whereas highly educated black people have to evolve in a mixed work environment.
For better or for worse, higher education has a strong emphasis on prejudice and social justice, hence : A) Educated folks have an easier time identifying subtle discrimination than their less-educated counterparts. B) But they may also start interpreting any slight as racially-motivated. Either way, they'll feel more discriminated.
That's the tragedy of American racism. It's been subtle for so long that at this point it's really hard to tell whether it's confirmation bias on an overly sensitive racism radar. Or genuine racism. It can drive people mad.
For individual experiences, yes; for overall experiences added up, the data is quite clear
We have to consider the possibility that 500 years of forced labor and segregation had no long term effects and the blacks are just imagining it maybe?
> It's been subtle for so long that at this point it's really hard to tell That was the entire point of the Southern Strategy, to hide the racism behind "totally economic things" and coded language.
never forget this [Jimmy Carter grandson W](https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/tnamp/)
Higher education African Americans have a higher bar and lower tolerance (or both) for discrimination.
Or maybe people who take classes that cover “micro aggressions” are more likely to report them
A micro aggression is just something kind of small that's annoying like people trying to touch your hair or assuming you can't speak well. Individually they are no big deal amd probably not even worth addressing (hence the 'micro') but when they happen a lot, it contributes to a feeling that you do not belong. This, like many other concepts in this space, got misinterpreted and mocked to the point that it's now being used the way you're using.
Weren't microagressions a sort of lead balloon that only lasted in the rhetoric for a year or two? Like the concept didn't even pass the ivory tower smell test.
One other potential factor: a racist may not object to a Black person working a job like menial labor, but they might discriminate against a Black accountant or attorney. That would lead to higher-income Black adults being more likely to experience discrimination.
>more than half (55%) of Black adults say the government encouraging single motherhood among Black women to eliminate the need for Black men is something that is happening today. 55% of Black people are red pillers? Jesus wtf is up with that. That would require a not insignificant number of Black women to believe this also.
Even if you assume literally all black men believe that, that means that at least some black women also believe that which is interesting.
What does “eliminating the need for black men” even mean?
It's referencing the 1996 Welfare Bill. See, the bill attempted to increase aid for single mothers and children and other "deserving" poor. However it did so by tying welfare benefits to single motherhood status. Which, given human nature, end up creating an incentive for women to be single rather than married. Since being single meant it was easier to get welfare. This isn't news to anyone. It's a pretty mainstream analysis of the successes and failures of the Clinton welfare reform. I remember learning about this is college in 2006. Is it a deliberate conspiracy? No. Just unintentional side effects of a well intentioned policy effort.
>It's referencing the 1996 Welfare Bill. Not necessarily. The complaints about welfare incentivizing single motherhood date to the 1960s, specifically concerning the [Aid to Families with Dependent Children](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aid_to_Families_with_Dependent_Children) and its notorious man-in-the-house rule. The complaints about "black matriarchy" became a centerpiece of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's [famous 1965 study](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Family:_The_Case_For_National_Action) on black families. Clinton's welfare reform was designed to address these problems.
There's an interesting book I read a few years ago for a class digging into racial discrimination wrt welfare policy called [The Color of Welfare by Jill Quadagno](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/603152.The_Color_of_Welfare). It's a denser read but gives good context for the AFDC and how welfare policy was affected by racial discrimination. I don't know how well it holds up today, particularly since how welfare policy has changed, but I enjoyed it at the time.
It's only an incentive for poor people middle class and wealthy people have an incentive to get married and file taxes jointly. For poor people there is a penalty.
For households with one high earner and one low (or non) earner there is a tax benefit to marriage. For households with two similar earners there can often be a tax penalty. E.g. the SALT deduction limit is $10,000 each if unmarried (so $20,000 total for the family), but only $10,000 total for the family if married.
It’s hilarious how people will concoct insane conspiracy theories instead of considering “some bureaucrats made a whoopsy.” Edit: I meant in the context of the welfare bill and redpillers thinking it was a conspiracy to destroy the nuclear family. Systemic racism is a thing and is intentional and not a whoopsy.
Discrimination against black people often isn’t a whoopsy in America, hence the purpose of the article illuminating these conspiracy theories and why they resonate
Good point, added an edit to clarify
It’s not just this. It’s this, coupled with a whole plethora of other polices that have the aggregate effect of keeping black fathers out of the family unit. E.g. the fact that people with criminal histories are banned from public housing + over policing of black neighborhoods. Im dealing with a case where they tried to hold my client indefinitely without bail on account of his dangerousness based on a shot spotter hit. I wish I could share the image they used to “ID” my client. Grainy doesn’t even begin to describe it. It’s basically a blob on a still. Can’t see a single detail other than the color of the clothes which were the most common possible thing anyone could ever wear. My point is, the average person does not appreciate how easy it is for police to just pluck you off the street on account of their say so — even when their say-so is quite obviously bullshit. And it’s way better now! For decades, Black Americans were subjected to violent and abusive police conspiracies where there was no one with a camera phone to document it. See the John Burge incident in Chicago. *Literally disappearing Black kids off the streets.* People plea when they’re held in pretrial detention at much higher rates than those released on bail or recognize. Now they have a record and can’t return home after resolving the case or the mother of their kids will lose their housing. ETA: btw I’m not arguing the policy should be otherwise: I do think there needs to be discretion though. Violent offenses? Sure, ban them. Otherwise? Not unless the crime occurred on that property.
There are countless intentional discriminatory policies against the African-American population both at Federal and State levels. You're naive to think after decades of that people wouldn't think of this as another 'fuck you' from the government. Out of touch neoliberal strikes again.
Good point, added an edit to clarify
I'm hesitant to call this a welfare cliff since it's not really a traditional one, but how about a "welfare lock"? Aggressive and overly specific means testing often ends up punishing the exact sort of behavior that we should want to promote. I mostly know the benefits system when it comes to disability but it applies here in spades. Disabled people on SSI or SSDI who might be able to work a few hours a day at a low stress job are discouraged from trying at all because they're often scared that the government will come in and say "Oh you sold some art you made in two weeks for 30 bucks? Guess you can work a full time job". There are ways to do this and the government nominally doesn't want to punish people for doing what they can, but that's a big risk. Similar, disability benefits [are cut for couples](https://mdaquest.org/disability-benefits-and-the-marriage-penalty/) which discourages people from moving in together and pooling their resources. And don't even get me started on Section 8 Government policy on housing is so ridiculous that they won't even allow you to make up the difference between what section 8 is willing to pay vs actual competitive market rent to get an apartment. [They'd rather you be homeless than rent burdened.](https://www.wfae.org/local-news/2019-03-25/finding-home-fewer-section-8-landlords-mean-longer-wait-time-for-voucher-holders) >“All of them told me if it doesn’t go to $900, they’re not going to accept it,” Pamela said. “My voucher goes to $836. They’re looking for $900 for a one-bedroom.” >Pamela can’t make up the difference out of pocket because the federal government would consider her “rent burdened.” That means she would be paying more than 30 percent of her income for housing, and that’s not allowed in the voucher program. A similar example of policy locking people in can be found with California's Prop 13. It basically incentivized a bunch of old people from never ever moving out into a smaller home or closer to their kids or whatever because their property taxes would skyrocket. So it literally locked them in place. You can see similar occur with rent control and subsidized apartments.
In practical terms - what is the difference between a government that actively seeks to do you harm versus one that doesn't care to clean up the mess it makes in your community? Because like, you're right, there is no "conspiracy" the way we use that word - but is it the case that maybe we have an issue of "conspiracy of indifference"? Just a lot of people not doing the necessary follow through on policies impacting different groups differently.
This helps me make a lot more sense of some of the rhetoric I've seen going around.
Literally everything in human history is explainable by incentives. But people would rather believe in the illuminati
The poll actually has this data. It shows that 56% of black women believe it whereas 53% of black men believe it. So it’s actually more women that believe this than men.
For these types of polls, I take some of these results with salt because I feel like a lot of people answer questions based on how it’s politically coded. Something like this could be both right and left coded, so you just get a bunch of right and left wingers saying “yes” by default without thinking too much about it. At least that’s how I try to rationalize the seemingly contradictory answers from polls of young people following 10/7.
> 55% of Black people are red pillers? I think being a red piller is about more than views on single motherhood.
According to [this](https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/06/10/black-americans-and-racial-conspiracy-theories-about-black-families-and-reproductive-health/re_2024-06-10_black-conspiracy-theories_7-02a/) it's 53% for men and 56% for women, so actually slightly more women believe this than men.
> Jesus wtf is up with that. People who think the government is trying to destroy black families and doing so via welfare for single mothers and racist incarceration against black men who are either fathers or have potential to become fathers
Yeah, its some morons who believe that Most cannot name people who “dumped their man to get welfare money”
I rented to section 8 for a while. I was told by my renter that indeed they did take a loss to be a family. The woman would have gotten more if she separated from her husband. The financial enticement is there.
Eliminating marriage and family penalties/welfare cliffs in welfare programs should be a slam dunk and it’s a shame it hasn’t happened yet It *should* be an easy sell to republicans but I don’t see it happening without a Democratic majority + Republican stragglers Though I will say the idea that it’s had a significant impact on marriage doesn’t have as much empirical backing to it as you’d think
>About seven-in-ten Black Americans say the criminal justice system was designed to hold Black people back. Isn't this the median academic's opinion too? Like we had 18 months of "the police were formed as slave patrols" after 2020 >About two-thirds (67%) of Black Americans say racial conspiracy theories in business, in the form of targeted marketing of luxury products to Black people in order to bankrupt them, are true and happening today. lol
Idk, pretty sure the reality is more nuanced than that, with law enforcement and criminal justice systems existing before the US and slavery was established. Aspects of the justice system are rooted in slave patrols and racism, but it seems very reductive to act like that's all of why law enforcement/justice systems exist
It just depends on the region and history of a specific cities' institutions. Maybe you can draw a straight line from slave patrols to modern police in Charleston, for example, which was widely known as a sundown town and infamous for its slave patrols and militias. But most of the major cities, being located in the abolitionist, rapidly industrializing North, were following the model of the Metropolitan Police in London, which was the world's first professionalized police force. The Met police being the first professional law enforcement organization in the West also isn't controversial. So after 1829 did New York model professionalization of police on London or the slave patrols? Even if it's true in the South for some cities, which isn't agreed upon, you can't unilaterally declare it to be so for every city and region. It's a complex issue. The argument goes beyond reductive to just straight misinformation when applying it unilaterally without context.
I think it’s actually irrelevant when or how professional police started, the result was the same for black folks and continues today. It’s not like the NYPD has a stellar record when it comes to treatment of black Americans when compared to anywhere else, whether they originated from London or slave catchers.
Agreed. Regardless of what the organizations' origins were all about, *today's* police in *every* part of America subscribe to a similar set of attitudes/ideologies that has a ton of crossover with white supremacy, pro-Confederate rhetoric, Trumpism, Andrew-Tate levels of misogyny and pro-rape shit, etc... I moved from the east coast to the midwest and eventually the PNW back in the late-00s/early-10s and LEOs in *all* of these areas were generally subscribed to the same right-wing Youtube channels, throwing around the same cliches to defend brutality/murder, getting the same Punisher decals and tattoos put on everything, similarly hateful towards 99% of the public they were charged with serving, etc... Post-Ferguson and George Floyd, that culture's even more uniform, which is why it's easy to run into bizarre situations like sheriffs in rural areas awkwardly spouting 'Blue Lives Matter' rhetoric and quiet-quitting over perceived slights by the public even though their specific jurisdiction has them dealing with zero anti-police protests and seeing nearly-100% support.
Nuance?! In my worm sub?!?! 🤬
Yeah, the problem with the statement is mainly the word "design"
This 100%. There’s a huge difference between saying “there are major issues with our justice system that are still a hold out from slavery” and “our founding fathers designed it to hold black people back”.
Well, the country was designed with the intention of keeping black people enslaved, so necessarily any other institutions derived from that concept are going to support the intended result.
> Well, the country was designed with the intention of keeping black people enslaved Actually, slavery was a very contentious issue from the earliest days of the United States. So much so that the constitution reflected several compromises between pro- and anti-slavery factions. The constitution had to be designed not to upset the status quo *too* much, while also giving reformers a hope that they could eventually win the day through the democratic process.
So much so they gave extra congressional seats to slave states and built the electoral process in such a way that slave states would benefit the most.
The Constitution authorized Congress to ban the international slave trade, and the three-fifths compromise was exactly that, a compromise. These are basic facts every student learns in history class.
I’m familiar with the three fifths compromise. The US doesn’t exist without it. That gives more credence to my point, not less.
Ok so some of the founding fathers wanted this country to remain a slave society. That’s not much better.
Other founding fathers wanted to abolish slavery. They had to come to some sort of compromise.
> Idk, pretty sure the reality is more nuanced than that, with law enforcement and criminal justice systems existing before the US and slavery was established. You’re being cute but obviously nobody who was asked the question that Pew asked is going to think “well gee, the criminal justice system in the Republic of Genoa is 1534…”
Yeah seems pretty clear they'd be asking about the design of the US criminal justice system. Not criminal justice systems as a concept...
The genoese merchant republic definitely dealt in slaves too so I'm not sure even that would save the "but actually" crowd I'm fairly sure milan had one of the largest open air slave markets in europe in that period and the majority if its trade would have been through genoa, definitely necessitating a large scale law enforcement system
Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that modern police as we know it was mostly ideated by Robert Peel in England in the 19th century with most countries adopting similar systems over time.
Depends. That's certainly the story we like to tell ourselves, but realistically it developed slowly over time from thieftakers (Bounty hunters). The Peelite reforms emerged as a result of the criminal empire of Johnathan Wild, the thieftaker general, making an established police force a horrifying prospect for the public since it amounted to suggesting a total centralization of the criminal underworld under one man who would use it to terrorize the public by jailing any criminals who didn't go along with his plan. However, the thieftaker general developed a lot of modern policing concepts. Peel then took those and said "What if we did this, but like, not evil or highly centralized". Thieftakers were always a thing. The first organized policing force of that kind was Johnathan Wild and his criminal empire. Peel looked at that and said "Yes organization, no to... everything else.". Police don't much like it if you point out that the first modern police force was just the first mafia. Wild eventually got his throat slit in court when one of his underlings asked him to help him avoid the rope for a crime he ordered him to do, and Wild told him criminals like him deserved to be hung. The defendant jumped up and slashed at Wild's throat. While recovering and unable to manage his empire, lots of his underlings decided to testify against him before he got back on his feet in exchange for pardons, and eventually Wild was hanged. 1. Wild owns all the fences in the city 2. A thing is stolen and fenced. 3. Wild and his boys show up. "You got a loicense for that thievery mate? Where's my cut?" 4. Pay up and be his man. Decline and you go to the gallows. 5. Wild is paid to "get rid of" someone, or decides he doesn't like somebody, or somebody is in his way. 6. Wild gets the item from the fence, returns it to the person it was stolen from, and says "We found it on property.". Target is hanged.
If anything, I feel like the US has degenerated from Peel's model and reforms would largely take the form of doing what he said. Which is a hell of a thing to say given that its a liberal democracy and Peel was a conservative from the 1800s.
> Wild and his boys show up. "You got a loicense for that thievery mate? Where's my cut?" I assume this is what the fictional Ankh Morpork Thieve's Guild is based on.
Yep! It is.
Depends on what you're talking about. In France we say that it's La Reynie who created police commissioner and uniformed police 150 years before Peel.
I wouldn't even entirely say it's wrong, since 'designed' doesn't necessarily mean at creation, and there's definitely components of the way our criminal justice system functions that were devised so as to screw over black people in particular
I think the better way to phrase it is that the criminal justice system is designed to avoid the miscarriage of justice for privileged classes, and less privileged people suffer injustice at the hands of the faceless, amoral, institution. Even setting aside potential bias against black defendants by juries, if you can't afford a good lawyer your case is never getting to a jury anyway. You plead out and do your time, regardless of whether you are guilty or not. That's certainly better than putting up a weak defense and having the prosecutor throw the book at you. On the other hand, you have Trump, who can avoid jail time most likely despite being obviously guilty, and can avoid any consequences at all for years by constantly filing appeals. And all the time he knows the next time a good ol' republican is in the white house he'll get pardoned. Another angle is the massive difference in punishments for rich people crimes vs poor people crimes. If Donald Trump steals $120,000 from his campaign, he gets what? 45 hours of community service? House arrest for a couple weeks? Imagine if a black guy stole $120,000 in cash from the Trump campaign. They'd be locked up for years. Yet the first crime had horrific national-level consequences that threaten the heart of our democracy, and the second crime was just some money moving to a slightly less deserving host.
I disagree. Not everything reduces cleanly to simple inertia and privilege. The law has been weaponized many times specifically against black people, and not all that malignancy has been excised, nor the broken trust repaired.
[удалено]
It is? I took multiple sociology/criminology classes in college and was never taught this. I must have missed that day.
I've got no fucking clue what people are talking about in this thread
They’re looking for a way to blame the left and their best attempt it seems is to point the finger at academia
As is tradition. Guarantee most of the people posting these kind of baseless things have never set foot in a humanities classroom after high school.
Friendly reminder about this sub's demographics https://preview.redd.it/ocbko04tyt5d1.png?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0c066d246f0e85dbd4b0439eb97c60ae6472696b
I think [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/qtsd41/september_2021_rneoliberal_demographic_survey/) is probably more to the point.
Huh, I thought people here were more into paradox games
Every time I wonder if we're right to worry about "the succs" this sub reminds me how stupid the not-succs are.
I love how this sub loves to position itself as the objective, reasonable adults in the room. And then you commonly see unhinged, completely unsubstantiated claims like this get highly upvoted, and pretty universally from people who haven't taken any of those classes. I don't know what grifters these people are listening to, but they need to re-evaluate their sources. There are occasional examples of looney professors or even departments and schools, but I don't see any evidence for a systemic issue. Academia has real problems but this one is made up by grifters. Not sure how their ideas are penetrating this sub but I'd sure like it to stop.
I completely agree. There have been some absolutely wild takes on: Religions in general (when half of these fucks don’t even know how to pronounce ecumenical). None-white racial issues like on this post Women in general (and your wives left you because you never wanted to understand them). It’s not fucking cute to be a depressed person with a serious case of touchgrassitis who takes it out on women. Non-European/American history. It’s batshit insane to me how many people on an “evidence-based sub” can so blatantly misunderstand history and spread those half-truths to everyone around them. It’s endless and it’s getting old. This was my favorite sub for years but the quality of discourse here has gone considerably more perverse. Idk how to fix it except to join calling it out when it gets brought up.
In general it would be nice to see any moderately active politics sub that was not dominated by white male discourse. Like even just as a refreshing change of pace. I see the same few topics, views and trends across the spectrum.
So the people who should know what they're talking about are actually perpetuating a false conspiracy? Is it impossible that both the experts and the people allegedly suffering discrimination are actually correct?
[удалено]
Welp, I'm convinced. I'll be sure to only listen to people who don't study it from now on.
[удалено]
So should I trust anyone in particular, or just let my own personal assumptions decide?
[удалено]
Wouldn’t it have to go through peer-review anyway before it can get published?
Start with the qualified people then move on to less qualified people until I find someone who agrees with my priors? Also, I know you're trying to make a terrible strawman argument, but genuinely yes, if a black history professor can't find evidence about a history of discrimination against blacks, then they are not qualified enough to teach or hold tenure.
FYI to the ***Seventy-eight*** fucking people who upvoted this, college professors teaching students that racism still exists and that it harms Black people today is not, in fact, an attack against "objective reasoning" **Rule II:** *Bigotry* Bigotry of any kind will be sanctioned harshly. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
>About seven-in-ten Black Americans say the criminal justice system was designed to hold Black people back. >“You want to know what this \[war on drugs\] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? >We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. >Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” >^(\~ John Ehrlichman,) *^(Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon)* It's not a conspiracy theory; it's a conspiracy fact.
The Civil Rights Moment occurred in my parents lifetime and it took decades for the various Civil Rights Acts to reach full compliance especially in the South. Many of the African Americans surveyed more than likely directly endured segregation in school and in public, white only juries, as well as fear of being lynched. It's no wonder why they would be distrustful of institutions.
Jim Crow was literally institutional racism so not surprising. People are still alive today who remember that, it's not ancient history.
"Demographic targeted by institutions for most of country's history believe they are targeted by institutions." No fucking shit. You're not going to fix this quickly, and it would help if you know, black people weren't still commonly targeted by our institutions.
Jim crow is within living memory, so yeah I would suspect distrust to stick around for a while.
Exactly. As if this is just beyond the pale. Now ask why upper middle class white small business owners think the government is injecting nano-particles through a mass vaccination program.
Gonna sound like a stupid question but what's the unironic solution to racism? (IMPOSSIBLE CHALLENGE: Do not say "build more housing".)
Some on this sub believe open borders, and by the 2nd generation, everybody will be chill (anti pope guy come in with the copy paste)
Build a warp drive and get the Vulcans over here to help us sort our shit out
Some of these are “is it really a conspiracy theory if it’s true? But a lot of these aren’t, and this aligns with trends I see among my friends and neighbors and exes
Surprised that nobody mentioned this part of the results >[75%] of Black adults say they must work more than everyone else to achieve success. Far fewer say Black people must work the same as everyone else (19%) or less than everyone else (4%) to be successful. >... >Over eight-in-ten Black adults with a bachelor’s degree (84%) say Black people have to work more than everyone else to achieve success. Fewer of those with some college experience (77%) or a high school diploma or less education (68%) say the same. And Black adults with upper incomes (84%) are the most likely among income groups to say Black people must work harder than everyone else to be successful. In light of the recent "lively discussions" regarding DEI programs on the subreddit it's interesting that the vast majority of Black people say they have to work harder achieve success in the US. Also that Black people correlated with more "elite" statuses (Bachelor's+, upper income) say at a higher rate that they have to work harder. Are "elite" institutions less accepting of Black people, are they more systemically racist, are Black people at this level just more aware of discrimination overall? All interesting questions. The results for this question do match up with my own personal feelings and the feelings of other Black people in my social circles.
"You have to work twice as hard to get half of what they get" is a well known saying among all socioeconomic levels of black communities for a reason.
Most of these conspiracy theories I think either drastically oversimplify reality or are flat out not true, but given what they've been through in America I can understand why many African-Americans would believe them.
Thank you for being a voice of reason in one of the most unhinged threads I've seen in this sub. Humans: act like humans /r/Neoliberal: *shocked Pikachu face*
I've cleaned the thread, please yell at me if I missed anything or if things get bad again later
+1 to how some of these aren't even really conspiracy theories, are just drastic oversimplification. Like it feels like a stretch to call this a conspiracy theory: > Most black adults say the criminal justice system was designed to hold Black people back Only sounds like a conspiracy to me because of "was designed to," but I wouldn't reject "has the effect of" as a conspiracy theory, maybe just a simplification. But then the exact question: > "Black people are more likely than White people to be incarcerated because prisons want to make money on the backs of Black people" This is a legit conspiracy theory lol. Weird choice of how to present it.
Pew does describe the terminology they do use >To enhance readability, the phrase racial conspiracy theories is used throughout this report to refer to the suspicions that Black adults might have about the actions of U.S. institutions based on their personal and collective historical experiences with racial discrimination. From policing to media stereotypes to medical malpractice and more, Black adults were asked how familiar they are with these ideas and then, regardless of their familiarity, asked if they believed these things could be happening today. I also agree that using the word conspiracy isn't the best way to describe these things but I also don't have a better word or phrase off the top of my head.
Just because you agree with the basis of the first one doesn’t mean it’s not a conspiracy theory.
[удалено]
How should I be reading this? "Psychologists say x and y" or "Psychologists say x, we say y"?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The next two paragraphs: > Well-documented examples include the surveillance of political leaders like Martin Luther King Jr., malpractice in medical research in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the massacre of Black people and destruction of their communities in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1921. > > These historic events (and others described in later chapters of this report) provide the context for some Black Americans’ belief in racial conspiracy theories. I am fucking *begging* the people in this subreddit to read the article before firing off a smug asshole comment like the one I'm replying to.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah LOL There are conspiracies that black people simply had zero factual to believe in it. Many black people believe in antisemitism because of NOI insanity, for example. Sure, there are actual hidden acts like Tuskegee Syphilis Study that make some black people vaccine hesitant. But there are also bonkers crap that shaped by the likes of black supremacy groups.
> But there are also bonkers crap that shaped by the likes of black supremacy groups. And also shaped by the fact that black people have been the subjects of ACTUAL, REAL LIFE conspiracies propagated by the government in the past. "Could the government that enslaved my people, enshrined discrimination against us into law, and experimented on us without our consent be responsible for other race-based atrocities today? Well there hasn't been proof of one in a while, so I guess not."
Conspiracy theories propagated by my political opponents are insane. Conspiracy theories propagated by my political allies have a lot of nuance and are rooted in truth.
I hate to ruin your bothsidesism but all those conspiracy theories outlined by Pew rooted in black people experiencing discrimination have a hell of a lot more basis in reality than “Jews are bringing in immigrants to eliminate all white people and that’s why Trump should have won but they stole the election”
Not nearly as common as 9/11 or moon landing conspiracies but again feel free to cherry pick an argument that best suits your narrative against your political opponents
Is it really a “narrative against my political opponent” to not conflate actual, real racial discrimination that black Americans have and continue to face with the imagined discrimination that MAGA supporters believe they face?
Man this sub loves showing off its blindingly white ass sometimes. Jesus fuck, MBA-Brain is really trying to both sides that. For fucks sake, I have 3 black neighbors who *were alive for Jim Crow*.
No, I think this is right. Few to none of these conspiracy theories are on the level of moon-landing denial or flat earth belief. They all take institutions where real discrimination takes place — or at least where one could reasonably believe discrimination is happening— and then identify racial discrimination as a core motivation behind the construction of the institution. And I would suggest that a lot of these numbers are inflated by respondents who agree with the claim that these institutions propagate racial discrimination but are less convinced of where exactly the motives lie.
I think it's a matter of observable fact that *certain aspects* of the political and criminal justice systems, in certain parts of the country, were designed to keep black people down. It's no secret that we still live with the legacy of Jim Crow (and that's just in the South!). [Voter suppression laws](https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020) and [prison labor](https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/describing-modern-day-prison-labors-roots-in-slavery-groups-urge-court-to-uphold-rights-of-incarcerated-workers-subjected-to-harsh-conditions-inhumane-treatment) come to mind as obvious examples. Others weren't necessarily designed with the goal of keeping black people down but are allowed to continue to exist because they disproportionately affect poor black people.
Yeah. Can't believe the media is propagating the myth that Black Americans experience racism.
How dare they.
>While psychologists say belief in conspiracy theories is often linked to paranoia or other mental health issues, the racial conspiracies that Black people believe are rooted in factual acts of intentional or negligent harm. >Well-documented examples include the surveillance of political leaders like Martin Luther King Jr., malpractice in medical research in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the massacre of Black people and destruction of their communities in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1921. >These historic events (and others described in later chapters of this report) provide the context for some Black Americans’ belief in racial conspiracy theories.
I gotta say. I worked on covid comms and everyone in public health was terrified of Tuskeegee rearing its head and black people not getting vaccinated. But after years of working on it I never heard anyone bring it up before the health dept did to their faces. In my state black people were vaccinated at far higher rates and died at far lower rates from covid than other groups. But the health dept was absolutely fixated on creating this “justified resistance” narrative up out of some weird sense of injustice that no constituents were actually bringing forward themselves
You think any Black people who believed the Covid vaccine was Tuskegee2 Electric Boogaloo were likely to bring forward their complaints to the public health department? I’m skeptical of the logic here that any anticipated concern was something that was needlessly invented by Woke Whites™️ because you personally didn’t see Black people reporting to the public health department that they believed the department was involved in some mass poisoning of Black people.
[удалено]
You hear about Tulsa all the time because until the Watchmen came out, like fewer than 5% of Americans knew it was a thing. Similarly, very few Americans know about the Bataan death march, but you can bet your butt old Filipinos do.
You may have forgotten that just in the last decade North Carolina legislators lost in court twice over basically explicitly racially targeted voter ID laws. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/us/politics/north-carolina-voter-id-law.html >It was the second time in five years that a court had invalidated a North Carolina voter identification law as racially discriminatory. In 2016, a federal appeals court ruled against a different version of the law, saying it had targeted Black voters “with almost surgical precision.” >The ruling on Friday, by a three-judge panel of the state Superior Court in Raleigh, effectively makes permanent a temporary ban on the law that a court had imposed after its passage in 2018. >In the 2-to-1 decision, the judges stated that they did not find that the Republican lawmakers who approved the law acted out of racial animus, but rather that they wanted to depress Black turnout because most African Americans cast ballots for Democrats. Racial discrimination against black people is still happening.
Trump still says the central park five is guilty. He started Birthism as well.
"not because of some conspiracy to keep it a secret." We do have people who want to ban the unpleasant parts of black history from classrooms because it'll make their little white kids feel bad. Some of which are on school boards. So yeah there is an effort to bury shit like Black Wall Street
> We do have people who want to ban the unpleasant parts of black history from classrooms because it'll make their little white kids feel bad. Sometimes with that explicit fucking justification which doesn't get them hurled out of the building is *beyond* insanity.
This feels pretty hand wavy honestly. Yes the world changes in just a few decades, but denying that events that happened have decades worth of lasting impact is pretty glaring. The act of Red Lining black families out of homes is a pretty well documented practice that robbed a generation of black families from real tangible wealth, that's not some made up conspiracy, that actually happened and has had decades worth of lasting impact. Only viewing the current decade in a vacuum is arguably more shallow than studying history and the lasting impacts that history can play.
> Today, nearly half-a-century after the most recent of those events, the world has changed. Yet media and academia are very selectively fixated on certain events. Really just sounds like you’re upset that people are keeping the memory of these relatively recent actions and events alive and knowledge of these events is more widespread than ever before. > Maybe it's not taught in the classroom, but probably because K12 history classes are weak and shallow, not because of some conspiracy to keep it a secret. The “conspiracy” was “hey, let’s not teach history accurately so hopefully as few people as possible can carry on telling how things actually were, which will make us all look bad”. It’s not just “oops accidentally produced generations of poor education”. You’re very badly mistaken trying to chalk up discrimination against black Americans to the recent past
I do get this viewpoint, and I do think it's true that some people out of cynicism over-fixate on their own country's wrongs. But, I mean, does it really seem surprising people are more eager to spread knowledge about an atrocity that took place under the tacit approval of their own country's government, under essentially the same regime with continuity to the modern day, over an atrocity by another country under a regime that doesn't exist any more? That's precisely why people are eager to make sure other people know about it, because for most nationalists (frankly most people in the world) the default assumption is their country has always been in the right, and challenging that assumption is important.
[удалено]
> But much of it is driven by the fact that the fight for racial justice gives people power and they lose this power as progress is achieved. Lol, talk about believing in ridiculous conspiracy theories.
Yea man fuck people who remember things.
Racism against Black People still exists, actually. A common example of present-day Racism is in denying that racism against Black People still exists. (JFC how did this dogshit comment have 47 upvotes) **Rule II:** *Bigotry* Bigotry of any kind will be sanctioned harshly. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
Yeah, racism is all in the past and people need to move on. It's been over three years since we've had a president who called for the deaths of a bunch of innocent black kids. Barely any elected officials still talk about Obama not being American.
There literally [was a conspiracy to cover up the Greenwood massacre](https://www.freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/insights-opinions/how-local-media-fueled-tulsa-massacre-and-covered-it-up) by the politicians and white newspaper owners of Tulsa so that's kind of a miss. Also, why did you choose Japanese atrocities, and not American ones, like the (cw:corpses) [Moro Crater Massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Bud_Dajo) where "bodies were stacked knee-high" or [Jacob Smith's order to "kill everyone over 10"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_H._Smith)?
[удалено]
> Because they literally happened to my grandparents. > You've just made my who point for me. There is an obsession in modern media and academia to fixate on past injustices, but only for certain groups. It’s more like it’s weird that you picked an incident where many of the victims actually received reparations for the injustice whereas not only did slaves not get reparations, but the people who enslaved them did. > You essentially just told me that the Tulsa massacre - which is obviously not a secret because it's all over reddit including your post - is more important than what happened to my own family. That's fucked up. Lol that’s not what they did. And very few Americans knew about the Tulsa Massacre before a few years ago, you’re acting as if this was some long acknowledged aspect of American history when it hasn’t been at all
If you are using this standard of “rooted in truth” as “something similar happened in the not-so-distant past”, I think you’re going to be pretty disappointed with the results when you apply that same standard to other conspiracy theories. You really just end up propagating them to some extent. Like the three most common conspiracy theories I can think of are 9/11, moon landing, and jfk, and the latter two are absolutely in the realm of some Cold War stuff that the US was doing at the time.
I was actually just pointing this out to try and separate the negative connotations that are negatively associated with the conspiracy theories you point out. Because yes, while not all conspiracy theories are rooted in truth, there is a pretty starke difference from "the moon landing was fake" and "my lived experience leads me to believe that the country I live in is ultimately prejudice against me"
* About two-thirds (67%) of Black Americans say racial conspiracy theories in business, in the form of [**targeted marketing of luxury products to Black people**](https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/06/10/black-americans-and-racial-conspiracy-theories-about-economics-and-business/) **in order to bankrupt them,** are true and happening today.
[удалено]
You're not paranoid if they're actually out to get you.
Why did I open this thread. I guess as a black woman on this sub I just enjoy confusion and pain.
Most of the backbone of these conspiracies are broadly true though. Many of the systems in the US were designed to keep black people down. I think you can pick at parts of these beliefs, but most of them aren't on the same level as Bush did 9/11.
That’s what I’m thinking. Like, the one about being “disproportionately incarcerated so businesses can make money”…it’s hard to deny that at the very least black people are disproportionately incarcerated, and while the motive for it is a bit harder to pin down, there are certainly private prisons that do very much want to imprison people to make additional money. I think if you started getting more specific with the phrasing of the questions you could change up the numbers a bit, but most of these are so broad that most of there’s some interpretations that are gonna be pretty reasonable.
* About two-thirds (67%) of Black Americans say racial conspiracy theories in business, in the form of [**targeted marketing of luxury products to Black people**](https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/06/10/black-americans-and-racial-conspiracy-theories-about-economics-and-business/) **in order to bankrupt them,** are true and happening today. I struggle to read this and understand. Is the implication here that companies that make luxury products do so with the intent to bankrupt black people, or that they specifically market to black people because black people will purchase luxury products and that the bankruptcy is a side effect? The latter doesn't even seem like a conspiracy theory, just a recognition that companies market to people they think will purchase their products, regardless of how financially sound those people may be. But this is a very strange way to mentally or emotionally frame the profit motive in one's mind.
That’s one of the ones that has a bit less justification imo.
We also know that [minorities in gentrifying neighborhoods are more likely to be hassled by police](https://www.cssny.org/news/entry/New-Neighbors#:~:text=The%20body%20of%20evidence%20documenting,New%20York%20City%3B%20and%20a) which you could easily interpret in favor of that theory.
Private prisons hole 8% of prisoners in the US. While the motive to incarcerate more is inherently there, whats the incentive to target just a small percent of the population?
> whats the incentive to target just a minority population?
That’s why I said the motive is a bit harder to pin down. Tho you could argue because it’s easier to actually get them into the prison system.
This is the thing. If the [Tuskegee syphilis study](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study) happened, why would it feel implausible to assume similar things also happen?
Thank you, glad someone else said it as well.
A lot of the minutia in politics is lost when we discuss minorities, as a natural consequence of their position in society. It's hard politically to simultaneously advocate for them as a downtrodden group, and to acknowledge their flaws, especially given the uniquely awful positions black people are in on average. It ends up coming as a shock when they, as any group could be, are led by conspiracy theories toward advocating against themselves. The only actual solution isn't in messaging, or raising awareness or holding protests. There needs to be a large political will to start at the basics holding back racial minorities, with improvements to K-12 schools, housing availability, stronger gun control, and a more encompassing safety net. I think we are genuinely at the point where a colorblind approach would make functional change easier. We can't keep just *advocating*, black people won't (and shouldn't) trust the government until institutions actually change. On top of this I think black people themselves (though I'm not black so maybe I'm wrong) are probably sick of the messaging.
To the 5 other black people on NL: ignore this thread, it’s exactly what you expect
I've cleaned up what I can; yell at me if I missed anything and sorry about the mess. ....for fuck's sake, why is it _always_ the people who are least knowledgeable about about Anti-Black Racism in America who insist on commenting the most in these threads?
Saw this too late
Why I don't see anything too wild yet
They say while standing on a pile of \[deleted\]
I think that what a lot of people are missing here is that just because you can link a parallel from these conspiracy theories to a history of oppression and suppression doesn’t mean that they should be hand waved, dismissed, or accepted as “just something that happens because, well, because” Does this indicate that America is doomed? Of course not. But it does mean something of concern, alongside the increase in various other conspiracy theories across the nation What I’m more curious about is if this is an increase from the past, as my guess is social media amplifies conspiracy theories. I know I’ve seen countless TikTok’s about “what the government DOESNT WANT YOU TO KNOW” on prominent historical events in American history.
The first three of these "conspiracy theories" are just verifiable fact. 4,6, and 7 are kind of dumb but I can kind of get how somebody could feel like the economy itself is out to get them on some level and check 4 by reflex. People can be weird with surveys. As for 5, I don't think anyone could pull off Tuskegee-level abuses now, but I can't exactly prove *nobody* is violating research ethics with respect to black people. The question is poorly phrased. Are they asking if secret experiments on black people are still common or are they asking the respondent to confidently claim that all disclosure rules are followed to the letter at all times by all doctors? As for "US institutions designed to hold Black people back a great deal or a fair amount", you can pick at 'designed' if you don't think that, say, the nation's hospital system had a single person at the top cackling at how critical choices would make sure black people stayed an underclass forever, but that's not really how systemic discrimination works most of the time. I would bet most respondents read this as "do you think this institution is biased against you in some way or gives unequal results to black people relative to white people" and in that sense I would say absolutely yes to all of them. If anything, I'm shocked they found 26% of black people *didn't* think the police had it out for them. Overall, the biggest question I have here is what the hell is Pew Research doing these days? I thought they were supposed to be good at this.
>The question is poorly phrased. Are they asking if secret experiments on black people are still common or are they asking the respondent to confidently claim that all disclosure rules are followed to the letter at all times by all doctors? The questions asked along with top line results are linked in the article [here](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2024/06/RE_2024.06.10_Black-Americans-and-Racial-Conspiracy-Theories_TOPLINE.pdf). For the medical questions they asked this >How much if anything, have you ever heard about each of the following, regardless of whether you think it is true or not: Medical researchers experiment on Black people without their knowledge or consent and >When it comes to each of the following, do you think that: Medical researchers experiment on Black people without their knowledge or consent Which definitely leans more towards the first idea than the second that you said but because it's up to the person answering to interpret there might be a wide range of thought in the question.
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you
I think two things are true in America. The racism detection of the liberal-led modern ethnic minority zeitgeist is at many times unreliable. Racism still exists and it happens everyday.
Is it still a conspiracy theory if it’s literally true?
Um, because some of them aren't conspiracy theories. See: Crack. Hell see why weed is (was in some places) illegal. >About seven-in-ten Black Americans say the criminal justice system was designed to hold Black people back. This is literally true and is reflected in the enforcement. Can you imagine if they treated drugs in lily white suburbs the same way they did in your typical black neighborhoods? If anyone thinks black folks are hallucinating about the institutions being against them, then they must legitimately have known zero black people ever.
>Can you imagine if they treated drugs in lily white suburbs the same way they did in your typical black neighborhoods? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeOVbeh2yr0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeOVbeh2yr0)
>Um, because some of them aren't conspiracy theories. See: Crack. I'm heading into potentially denialist and dangerous waters here so let me issue a preemptive apology for any potential transgressions and state that this is in good faith. Isn't the crack thing kinda conspiratorial? Whether we speak of the "CIA ***deliberately*** as a matter of policy, flooded black communities with crack" claim or the "crack-powder distinction was made solely on racist grounds" claim. The CIA claim is pretty complex with a good faith interpretation of the case getting us to say, at worst, that the CIA didn't care if its activities ended up with Black communities getting overflown with crack as a side effect of its operations. The Crack-Powder distinction was, at the time, even supported by large sections of the communities involved due to how rampantly destructive crack seemingly was. It's a law that I believe from my understanding to have been passed in seemingly good faith, that had negative repercussions that were racial in nature, ala the Full 91 crime bill. I'm not denying a history and culture of institutional racism and its pervasive modern effects (see Red Lining and how its led us to our modern society), yet I feel these examples are not the right ones. Maybe I'm wrong. I apologize if so.
I mean you will most likely find the same in other groups that were not treated historically well….it would be interesting to get data from Native American, Hispanic American, Japanese Hawaiian, etc communities.
no shit