Author Topic: More made up history to make blacks feel good  (Read 1584 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline fjack

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1106
More made up history to make blacks feel good
« on: October 08, 2007, 07:47:31 AM »
As usual black ‘scholars’, liberal white trash, and the press are always trying to tighten the noose of guilt, reminds me of Jena, around the neck of white people. The untruths and outright lies take on a life of their own. The blacks are so simple and childlike that they will swallow anything that will relieve them of any responsibility.

The Truth About TuskegeeJared Taylor, VDare.com, Feb. 3
[
The Tuskegee syphilis study ranks almost with slavery and lynching as a symbol of America’s racist past. There is probably not one black American adult who does not know—or thinks he knows—about an experiment from the 1930s in which government health authorities deliberately withheld treatment from 400 black syphilitics just to see what would happen to them.
In some versions of story, the government deliberately infected the men. At the very least, the authorities are said to have been guilty of withholding the effective treatments that became available in the 1950s.
Blacks often cite fear of “another Tuskegee” to explain why few of them cooperate with public health programs or donate organs for transplant. They never know when white doctors might experiment on them.
Anthropologist Richard Shweder of the University of Chicago has just published a detailed analysis of the Tuskegee study in which he shows that virtually every popular assumption about it is false. (Tuskegee re-examined, January 8, 2004)
The study was undertaken by “progressives“ who wanted to fight a disease that afflicted many blacks, it had the full support of black medical authorities to the end, and—most important—it probably caused no harm to the 140 men (not 400) who took part.
The U.S. Public Health Service started the study in 1932 in Macon County, Alabama, where syphilis rates for blacks ranged between 20 and 36 percent.
At the time, there were a number of treatments for the disease but they were complicated, disagreeable, and not very effective. They involved a year-long series of carefully-monitored intravenous injections of an arsenic compound that had such unpleasant side-effects that fully 85 percent of patients dropped out before treatment was complete. Of the 15 percent who stuck it out, few were cured.
Public health officials knew they needed better drugs. But they also needed a baseline to which they could compare the results of treatment. This was why they wanted to know what happens if there was no treatment.
As Prof. Shweder explains, syphilis is not always the raging killer most of us think it is. First of all, it is only in the early stages of the disease, when sores appear on the body, that it is contagious. This was the only stage at which arsenic had any effect at all. After that, syphilis goes into a latent state, in which there are no symptoms, and the patient is not infectious. Untreated syphilis can then go on the tertiary stage and destroy vital organs like the heart and brain—this is what happened to famous victims like Nietzsche—but for perhaps 80 percent of syphilitics, the disease stays latent, as if they never had it. The longer the disease is latent, the longer it is likely to stay that way. It is, in Professor Shweder’s terms, “self-limiting or self-correcting.”
Today, most public information campaigns don’t emphasize this. Health authorities trumpet the potential for devastation rather than tell people they have a good chance of escaping unscathed. The Illinois Department of Health is the exception in explaining that:
“If untreated, syphilis then lapses into a latent stage during which the disease is no longer contagious and no symptoms are present. Many people who are not treated will suffer no further consequences of the disease.”
It was this latent stage that health authorities wanted to investigate in 1932. Consequently, when they examined 410 syphilitic blacks for possible inclusion in the study, they found many were in the early, infectious stage, and rejected them as candidates. They turned over no fewer than 178 for the standard arsenic treatment, and kept 140 for the study. They then checked up on these men at rather lengthy intervals—in 1938, 1948, 1952, and 1963—giving them full physical examinations, and treating them for any disease other than syphilis.
A black nurse named Eunice Rivers ran the program, keeping in close contact with the men to make sure they did not drift out of touch. She was apparently a remarkable woman who created something of a social club around the study.
The outset of the program was therefore entirely unobjectionable. The men had already entered the latency stage of syphilis, for which the standard and largely ineffective cure of the day was no good at all. Foregoing that was no hardship, and in exchange they got free medical checkups and the benefits of Nurse Rivers’ kind attention. The authorities at Booker T. Washington’s Tuskegee Institute blessed the study.
By the mid-1950s, however, penicillin became available as a standard cure for syphilis. Should not the Public Health Service have stopped the study and treated the men? Wasn’t it “racist” not to?
No. By the 1950s, the men had been infected for 20 or 25 years. Some number had died of heart disease probably brought on by tertiary syphilis, but for those who were still alive in the 1950s, the disease had very likely run its course. Ninety men were still part of the program at the time of the last examination in 1963. Penicillin treatment, even when it first became available, would probably have done them no good. Prof. Shweder suggests that by then these men may well have had life expectancies as high as black men of the same age who had never had syphilis at all!
It is possible, of course, to criticize the study on he grounds that its subjects did not give “informed consent.” No one explained the rationale of the study to them, other than to say they had “bad blood” (the euphemism for syphilis at the time), and that their occasional medical examinations had something to do with it. However, as Professor Shweder points out, the concept of “informed consent” did not exist in 1932. It was common for doctors to tell their patients very little, whether they were black or white. Shweder goes on to argue that since there was little harm to the men and some benefit, the Public Health Service would probably have had no shortage of subjects even if it had explained every detail at every stage.
Of course, the study finally was stopped in 1972, hardly helped by press coverage like that of the New York Times, which titled its July 26 story of that year, “Syphilis Victims in U.S. Study Went Untreated for 40 Years.”
Not even the redoubtable Eunice Rivers was able to fight off the terrible cloud that descended on the program. It has gained a permanent place in the lore of American “racism.”
The “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male,” as it was officially called, is probably beyond redemption. The standard version of white perfidy probably cannot be displaced any more than the truth about America’s World War II relocation camps can displace the common conviction that they were “concentration camps” in which Japanese were forcibly interned.
Nor is this process of falsifying history in ways that discredit whites over. It is now common “knowledge“ that DNA evidence has proven Thomas Jefferson fathered illegitimate children with Sally Hemings, even though it has done no such thing.
So many whites so badly want to hear the worst about themselves they can hardly let the truth spoil a good yarn about “racism.”

Offline fjack

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1106
Re: More made up history to make blacks feel good
« Reply #1 on: October 08, 2007, 08:00:11 AM »
Another black myth destroyed. These blacks are such a pathetic bunch. They are grasping at straws. Besides using crack, cheap booze, uncontrolled sex with any kind of creature, to make themselves feel good, they are using a made up history. It really is sad. Expel these creatures back to Africa where they can pound on drums, spread aids and receive kind words from bono.

Liberating America (contd.): Truth Wins In Jefferson-Hemings Controversy
By Sam Francis
A tip of the hat to a group calling itself the Monticello Association, which represents the 700 or so known lineal descendants of President Thomas Jefferson. Last week, the Association, under immense racial and political pressure for several years, voted to do the right thing by telling the purported descendants of Jefferson's slave Sally Hemings to take a walk—into some other family. [Jefferson Group Bars Kin of Slave Washington Post May 5, 2002]
The decision may seem trivial enough, but it represents not only the victory for historical logic and scholarship over a racial and political power play but also a well-deserved kick in the face to those who think shouting "racism" can get them whatever they want.
In 1998, DNA tests showed that the present-day descendants of Jefferson's partly black slave carry a chromosome that could only have come from the male line of the Jefferson family. Some historians (one of whom was more recently discredited because of his phony claims of having served in the Vietnam War) jumped to the conclusion that Jefferson himself was the ancestor in question. Since that charge had been made in Jefferson's own lifetime by a muckraking journalist, it seemed to latter-day muckrakers to be likely enough.
But to others—including Jefferson's major biographer Dumas Malone—the claim never seemed plausible, and a group called the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society conducted its own investigation. Last year its study reached the conclusion that the claim of Jefferson's paternity is "almost certainly untrue" and speculated that the Jefferson chromosome got into the Hemings line through Jefferson's rather wild brother, Randolph.
That theory is as likely an explanation as any and certainly more likely than the speculation that the strait-laced, 64-year-old president was the source. In part because of that study, the Monticello Association voted to deny the Hemings descendants membership and thereby rejected their claim to a blood relationship with Jefferson.
Well, so what? Why is it important that the Hemings family is or is not related to the Jefferson family?
The only reason it's important is that for those who want to reconstruct American history in accordance with their own racial and political fantasies, it's very useful to show that Thomas Jefferson fathered a child on a black slave.
For one thing, it can be used to show that white slave owners sexually exploited their black slaves. For another, it can be used to show that many whites are not really as white as they like to claim. For a third, it was used to show that Bill Clinton's sexual frolics were not unprecedented.
Finally, it can be used to show that a major Founding Father was a hypocrite and a rake. If you're determined to expose or discredit what you think is the racist, sexist myths and morals of American tradition, the Jefferson-Hemings match is a great place to start.
But since the match probably never took place, the deconstruction can't either, which is why those who don't want to discredit most of American history and culture should tip their hat to the Monticello Association. By standing up for historical truth, the Association gave a fat lip to those want to replace truth with their own politically convenient lies.
Was the Association driven by racism? Do all those white descendants of Jefferson just not want all those black descendants of Sally Hemings around?
That's exactly what the Hemings clan at once charged. "I am personally offended and represent offense for all African Americans," bawled Michele Cooley-Quill, a Hemings descendant. "This is offensive to the nation."
Well, not really.
You don't have to be white to be a known Jefferson descendant, and not all descendants of Hemings are black (Hemings herself was at most a quarter black, and some of her known descendants married whites.)  If Miss Cooley-Quill wants to speak for "African-Americans," she's not speaking for all Hemings descendants, since not all such descendants are African-Americans.
Most of what the ideologues want to use the alleged Jefferson-Hemings connection to prove or disprove is already known: Some white slave owners exploited their black slaves; some whites are not as white as they claim to be; Bill Clinton was not the first president to have sex outside marriage nor the first to lie about it; and some Founding Fathers were probably not as pure as patriotic literature for children paints them as being. Grown-ups know all these things and always have, and knowing they're true really doesn't have any effect at all on American traditions and institutions.
But inventing lies about the past to discredit it probably does, and Mr. Jefferson's descendants have done both him and his country—as well as historical truth—a pretty good turn by refusing to let lies push in where they're not wanted and don't belong.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
May 13, 2002


Offline Wayne Jude

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 2553
Re: More made up history to make blacks feel good
« Reply #2 on: October 08, 2007, 11:34:06 AM »

In the words of Erika 'Hear,Hear'!