ADVERTISEMENT

Glory hallelujah

I mean by what mechanism? It is pretty hard for abortion and birth control to disprportionately affect black families in an equal society where the only difference between races is skin color.
Ok so what you're saying is that planned parenthood is a contributing factor to the decline in the black family, but only because of an unequal society?
 
Ok so what you're saying is that planned parenthood is a contributing factor to the decline in the black family, but only because of an unequal society?
I am just going with your premise. Is there something about black skin that makes one especially prone to the ravages of planned parenthood?
 
I am just going with your premise. Is there something about black skin that makes one especially prone to the ravages of planned parenthood?
Maybe black women were targeted?
 
NASCAR chairman, Jeff Gordon, Little E:

"ban it"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/27/nascar-chairman-confederate-flag_n_7679300.html

n-NASCAR-CONFEDERATE-FLAG-large570.jpg
 
My point exactly.

That being said your premise of racial socioeconomic inequality being chiefly caused by the decline in the family caused by Margaret Sanger is preposterous. First how does a family planning advocate cause the decline of families? Second the decline of families happened after Sanger's senescence. Third the decline of the family has hit families of all races, and roughly in proportion to percentage of that race that was in poverty 1958 (prior to this great familial decline) which indicates the seed of present day inequality was present prior to the decline in the nuclear family. Finally, the poverty gap between whites and blacks has narrowed since the supposedly calamitous decline in the nuclear family.
 
I said "maybe it was Margaret Sanger?"

Thank you for finally responding with something other than a question.
 
My point exactly.

That being said your premise of racial socioeconomic inequality being chiefly caused by the decline in the family caused by Margaret Sanger is preposterous. First how does a family planning advocate cause the decline of families? Second the decline of families happened after Sanger's senescence. Third the decline of the family has hit families of all races, and roughly in proportion to percentage of that race that was in poverty 1958 (prior to this great familial decline) which indicates the seed of present day inequality was present prior to the decline in the nuclear family. Finally, the poverty gap between whites and blacks has narrowed since the supposedly calamitous decline in the nuclear family.
The black family has had a bigger decline than others. That's interesting that the poverty gap has improved, but sounds like whites and blacks have been in decline. So, why is that? I doubt we can blame the decline in the white family in racism.
 
I said "maybe it was Margaret Sanger?"

Thank you for finally responding with something other than a question.
I was trying to get you to realize that anything that has happened since 1865 to cause inequality wasn't in a vacuum, but working on the differences that were already existing because of slavery and racism.

I guess the Socratic method doesn't translate well to message boards.
 
The black family has had a bigger decline than others. That's interesting that the poverty gap has improved, but sounds like whites and blacks have been in decline. So, why is that? I doubt we can blame the decline in the white family in racism.

I theorize that feminism and economics have led to the decline in the family.
 
Entitled and expect are completely different words with different meanings.

Do you have any explanation for the earnings gap between black people and white people? I think state sanctioned slavery plays a heavy role. Under what theory of justice can we allow that gap to persist?

Why do first and second generation African and Caribbean blacks come here and far out perform blacks that have been here generations? I know a Nigerian family that came with barely the clothes on their backs that now have educated and very successful kids. Why did that family manage?

I'll take my answer off the air.
 
Why do first and second generation African and Caribbean blacks come here and far out perform blacks that have been here generations? I know a Nigerian family that came with barely the clothes on their backs that now have educated and very successful kids. Why did that family manage?

I'll take my answer off the air.
Ah, the 'model minority' theme. Much more research has been done on Asian immigrants and their kids than Africans and black Caribbeans. I believe you when you say that African immigrants 'perform' better than African Americans, but I would be curious to see the black Caribbean numbers. Where did your Nigerian friends live when they came to the US? In an impoverished neighborhood? What was the parents' educational background in Africa? These relate to common sociological explanations to the gap between African American and immigrant gains.

I think children of African and Asian immigrants easily 'outperform' native whites in their generation, when it comes to education and maybe even economics. One thing that is often missed is that the immigrant generation stays working-class even as their children enter the middle class, and some of the second-generation gains are off-set by caring for their parents (which is already a much more important cultural value for many immigrants than 'natives'). This is the case for my in-laws.
 
Ah, the 'model minority' theme. Much more research has been done on Asian immigrants and their kids than Africans and black Caribbeans. I believe you when you say that African immigrants 'perform' better than African Americans, but I would be curious to see the black Caribbean numbers. Where did your Nigerian friends live when they came to the US? In an impoverished neighborhood? What was the parents' educational background in Africa? These relate to common sociological explanations to the gap between African American and immigrant gains.

I think children of African and Asian immigrants easily 'outperform' native whites in their generation, when it comes to education and maybe even economics. One thing that is often missed is that the immigrant generation stays working-class even as their children enter the middle class, and some of the second-generation gains are off-set by caring for their parents (which is already a much more important cultural value for many immigrants than 'natives'). This is the case for my in-laws.

I get that their are factors. I just get tired of the "oppressed with no chance" mantra.

this family sacrificed like no one I know. I doubt I'd be willing to do what they did.

Tired of the constant excuses.
 
Black families circa 1955 vs. 2015 -- which were in better socioeconomic shape on a nationwide basis?
 
I'll take my answer off the air.[/QUOTE]
I get that their are factors. I just get tired of the "oppressed with no chance" mantra.

this family sacrificed like no one I know. I doubt I'd be willing to do what they did.

Tired of the constant excuses.

I think you just explained the issue. It isn't "oppression with no chance" it is oppression with less of a chance. Some crap shooters come on a 4 but a lot more come on a 6. (excuse my incorrect craps jargon)

Everyone is responsible for their own outcomes. But, if black people have on average worse outcomes, then you have to blame something, I prefer circumstances.
 
Ah, the 'model minority' theme. Much more research has been done on Asian immigrants and their kids than Africans and black Caribbeans. I believe you when you say that African immigrants 'perform' better than African Americans, but I would be curious to see the black Caribbean numbers. Where did your Nigerian friends live when they came to the US? In an impoverished neighborhood? What was the parents' educational background in Africa? These relate to common sociological explanations to the gap between African American and immigrant gains.

I think children of African and Asian immigrants easily 'outperform' native whites in their generation, when it comes to education and maybe even economics. One thing that is often missed is that the immigrant generation stays working-class even as their children enter the middle class, and some of the second-generation gains are off-set by caring for their parents (which is already a much more important cultural value for many immigrants than 'natives'). This is the case for my in-laws.
The thing people forget is that immigrants are a self selecting population and often are selected for merit, while native populations are closer to a random distribution.
 
I think children of African and Asian immigrants easily 'outperform' native whites in their generation, when it comes to education and maybe even economics.

I would not be surprised
 
I'll take my answer off the air.


I think you just explained the issue. It isn't "oppression with no chance" it is oppression with less of a chance. Some crap shooters come on a 4 but a lot more come on a 6. (excuse my incorrect craps jargon)

Everyone is responsible for their own outcomes. But, if black people have on average worse outcomes, then you have to blame something, I prefer circumstances.[/QUOTE]

Or choice?

I don't think it helps that the overall message is that they can't.
 
In 1958 the percentage in poverty was over 50% today it is less than 30%.
Most studies show that home ownership, residential conditions, education level, real median income, employment, etc, have also risen since 1960. It's hard to tell from the nationwide Census reports, since they only tabulated 'white' and 'nonwhite' in the published reports that I know of. But a lot of the city-level and tract-level data is broken-down by white, black, and Puerto Rican (for 1960). Let me know if you're interested in a specific statistic for a particular city or state. I can pull some data from the historical GIS database tomorrow, since I think I'm doing some mapping stuff anyways. You also have to remember that there was a recession in 1958-1959 that hit the black working class hard.

The inverse trend that has had the biggest impact is incarceration, which has skyrocketed. We're only starting to understand the impact it has had on black communities. That's probably the biggest trend among historians of 20th-century US (next to history of capitalism and history of liberalism). Also, the gap between black and white economic achievement is growing, and blacks are becoming re-segregated into low-performing schools.

The more important time frame for this discussion might be 1980 to present.
 
Most studies show that home ownership, residential conditions, education level, real median income, employment, etc, have also risen since 1960. It's hard to tell from the nationwide Census reports, since they only tabulated 'white' and 'nonwhite' in the published reports that I know of. But a lot of the city-level and tract-level data is broken-down by white, black, and Puerto Rican (for 1960). Let me know if you're interested in a specific statistic for a particular city or state. I can pull some data from the historical GIS database tomorrow, since I think I'm doing some mapping stuff anyways.
I found some info from 58 and 66 I believe that broke it down into black, white and other.

I would be interested in the trends in each of Colin Woodard's "American Nations" but I imagine that would be too much of a task.

You also have to remember that there was a recession in 1958-1959 that hit the black working class hard.
The data I found for 58 and 66 showed that 58 was hard for whites and minorities both. In 66 (maybe it was 68) the white poverty rate was a third of the 58 level while for non whites it was still roughly 60% of the 58 level. I think the lesson is poverty begets poverty.
 
I found some info from 58 and 66 I believe that broke it down into black, white and other.

I would be interested in the trends in each of Colin Woodard's "American Nations" but I imagine that would be too much of a task.


The data I found for 58 and 66 showed that 58 was hard for whites and minorities both. In 66 (maybe it was 68) the white poverty rate was a third of the 58 level while for non whites it was still roughly 60% of the 58 level. I think the lesson is poverty begets poverty.
Thanks. I only looked at decennial census data, since that's what I'm familiar with/am lazy. True about 58-59 and whites---the mining industry was devastated. This increased an already-robust emigration from Appalachia and the Upper South. Despite the 'hillbilly ghetto' stereotype of some neighborhoods in Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, etc, Southern/App-born white migrants, on average, out-performed non-Southern/App white families (not to mention black migrants and locals) in the North and Midwest through the 60s and 70s.
 
Should Native American monuments be removed from gov't property?

Many attacked US forces, attacked unarmed US civilians, sided with foreign forces against the US and some even fought for the CSA while under treaty with the US.
 
Should Native American monuments be removed from gov't property?

Many attacked US forces, attacked unarmed US civilians, sided with foreign forces against the US and some even fought for the CSA while under treaty with the US.
Were they fighting for their right to own people?
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT