Quote:
|
Originally Posted by elspethshimon
 Stereotypes about the size of black men's penises have nothing to do with circumcision and everything to do with the insidious way that black male sexuality has been depicted in a brutally racist society.
I don't think this issue has any place in a discussion about genital mutilation, UNLESS that stereotype was somehow being manipulated by health organizations to justify the mass cutting of populations of color throughout the world. |
"The U.S. military had a tremendous effect on the circumcision rates in this country. During World War I and World War II, the army kept very detailed statistics on venereal disease. Venereal disease was considered a grave problem because it kept men in the hospitals rather than on the battlefront.
"Military doctors published reports proving that Blacks were responsible for the spread of venereal disease and so Blacks were targeted for circumcision. Many- frankly- very racist articles were written about Blacks in medical journals that were published by the Army showing why Blacks were so promiscuous; how they were unable to be taught how to wash themselves; how they couldn't be trusted to learn to protect themselves during sex; and that amputative surgery was the only way of controlling them.
"And when they returned home after the war, they became indoctrinated into the belief that circumcision was necessary. And when their children were born and the doctors began circumcising them automatically, parents didn't object! They didn't have a choice, but they didn't object because they had been told that it was absolutely necessary."
Here are a couple quotes from "The Abuse of Man", Wolfgang Weyers, M.D. talking about "The Tuskegee Study". (There is plenty more where this came from.)
In letters explaining the proposed study, however, Clark emphasized the “rather low intelligence of the Negro population,” the “very common promiscuous sex relations of this population group,” and the “prevailing indifference with regard to treatment.” Joseph Moore, who had called the Oslo study “a never-to-be-repeated human experiment,” endorsed Clark’s proposal, arguing that “syphilis in the negro is in many respects almost a different disease from syphilis in the white.” Clark’s lieutenant, Oliver C. Wenger of the Public Health Service stationed in Hot Springs, Arkansas, advised that “...this study will emphasize these differences.” [Reverby SM (ed.). Tuskegee’s Truths;20.]
...
Originally, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study was scheduled to last for six to twelve months. During that time, black males between the ages of 25 and 60 were to be recruited and screened l for late-stage syphilis by means of the Wassermann test. Joseph Moore cautioned that this test was neither specific nor very sensitive in detecting latent syphilis. He acknowledged, however, that for diagnosis of latent syphilis in subjects with a negative test, “a mere history of a penile sore only would not be adequate, inasmuch as the average Negro has had as many penile sores as rabbits have offspring.” [Reverby SM (ed.) Tuskegee’s Truths;78.]
...
When recruiting the control group for the Tuskegee Study in 1933, Heller found it necessary to continue the policy of deceit, eliciting cooperation {p. 490} of the healthy subjects by distributing noneffective drugs to them. [Jones JH. Bad Blood;141.] Control groups who eventually acquired syphilis themselves simply were transferred to the test group, a chocking violation of standard procedures in research. [Diebert AV, Bruyere MC. Untreated syphilis in the male Negro, III. Venereal Disease Information 1946;27:301-14.]
