PDA

View Full Version : Why Are Blacks Over-Represented In Poverty, Prisons?



Wei Wu Wei
05-21-2010, 03:27 PM
Ghettos are predominantly black.

Actually there are many public housing facilities that are predominantly white. They tend to be generally segregated (there are mostly black public housing places and mostly white public housing places)

Also, there are more white people in poverty, on welfare, and so on, but then again it's the single largest racial category so that's not surprising.

However, it's true that blacks are overrepresented in public housing projects, my question is why?

Why are a larger percentage of blacks (as compared to percentage of whites) living in ghettos or in other poverty-stricken areas?

FlaGator
05-21-2010, 04:01 PM
Actually there are many public housing facilities that are predominantly white. They tend to be generally segregated (there are mostly black public housing places and mostly white public housing places)

Also, there are more white people in poverty, on welfare, and so on, but then again it's the single largest racial category so that's not surprising.

However, it's true that blacks are overrepresented in public housing projects, my question is why?

Why are a larger percentage of blacks (as compared to percentage of whites) living in ghettos or in other poverty-stricken areas?

Perhaps they are living out their own expectations? The unspoken message of affirmative action is that they can't get head unless someone helps them. At some point that message may be come culture and if they perceive that they are not getting the help they need they live down to their expectations. The Asian races seem to have high expectations of themselves and do what they can to live up to them. They get very little government help but yet they tend to achieve their what the norm considers success.

ColonialMarine0431
05-21-2010, 04:51 PM
Must be his new Chief of Staph.

Rebel Yell
05-21-2010, 04:57 PM
However, it's true that blacks are overrepresented in public housing projects, my question is why?

Why are a larger percentage of blacks (as compared to percentage of whites) living in ghettos or in other poverty-stricken areas?

From what I've seen in my experience, Free Rent.

Wei Wu Wei
05-21-2010, 05:02 PM
Perhaps they are living out their own expectations? The unspoken message of affirmative action is that they can't get head unless someone helps them.

Affirmative Action policies were instituted as a response to blacks being overrepresented in areas of poverty and underrepresented in areas of economic success.

You may argue that such policies have a detrimental effect, but the problem was around before the policies so they can't be the cause


At some point that message may be come culture and if they perceive that they are not getting the help they need they live down to their expectations. The Asian races seem to have high expectations of themselves and do what they can to live up to them. They get very little government help but yet they tend to achieve their what the norm considers success.

Cultural issues are surely a factor, but keep in mind that economic situations do a lot to change culture. AA policies and social programs may negatively affect the culture which may in turn contribute to the problem, but again, this does little to explain why the problem exists in the first place.

Sure there have always been poor people, but why are minority ethnic groups drastically overrepresented in the "poor class"?

Wei Wu Wei
05-21-2010, 05:04 PM
From what I've seen in my experience, Free Rent.

That doesn't explain the racial disproportions. Are you suggesting that free rent is more appealing to minorities? That only suggests the same problem: minorities are disproportionately poor, and thus disproportionately more attracted to (or left only with) low-cost public housing.

ColonialMarine0431
05-21-2010, 05:16 PM
That doesn't explain the racial disproportions.

One reason is children born out of wedlock. They are more likely to be poor and black illegitimacy and reproductive rates are far higher than whites. It's a cycle that was exasperated by LBJ's "Great Society". So Shaniqua was born in the ghetto, has 5 children by 5 different fathers, who in turn repeat the cycle ad infinitum.

Jfor
05-21-2010, 05:27 PM
That doesn't explain the racial disproportions. Are you suggesting that free rent is more appealing to minorities? That only suggests the same problem: minorities are disproportionately poor, and thus disproportionately more attracted to (or left only with) low-cost public housing.

You're racist.

Wei Wu Wei
05-21-2010, 05:37 PM
One reason is children born out of wedlock. They are more likely to be poor and black illegitimacy and reproductive rates are far higher than whites. It's a cycle that was exasperated by LBJ's "Great Society". So Shaniqua was born in the ghetto, has 5 children by 5 different fathers, who in turn repeat the cycle ad infinitum.

Why is this? Why are blacks more likely to be born out of wedlock?

I'll offer one suggestion: Blacks are incarcerated for crimes far more often and get harsher penalties (like prison) more often than whites.

Why is blacks overrepresented in the prison population?

Wei Wu Wei
05-21-2010, 05:49 PM
The problem that I see with affirmative action is that it is open ended and there were no metrics set up to determine when its goals had been achieved. That is a fundamental error with affirmative action. Since there is no established goal that must be achieved then the goal line becomes fluid and never gets reached because it is constantly being redefined or reinterpreted. Affirmative action is now an expectation of the black community and not a temporary benefit to help the attain equal footing.

I assumed the "goal" was for minority groups to be proportionally represented in each economic "class", or in positions of power, authority, or success.

Basically, if blacks are 15% of the population, then 15% of a business would ideally be black. Now, I don't support quotas, but a quota is essentially what you are asking for when you want a definitive goal.

As it is, minorities are still disproportionately poor and lacking in places of success.

Also, even if AA becomes an expectation, how does that stop it from being a temporary benefit to help attain equal footing?




I will again fall back on the Asian community as an example of how the black community should do things. The Asians come here, some unable to even speak the language and instead of relying on the government they rely on those who were here before them. They join banks and cooperatives that were establish by leaders in their community and once they get their feet on solid ground they immediately start helping those who are just arriving. Their kids then branch out in to the wider community and become assimilated and "Americanized" but maintain an attachment to their parent's culture.

Asians, with a Confucianist background, chose to immigrate here voluntarily. They did face discrimination, but many of them had a cultural religious background that was suited to our economic systems. African Americans, on the other hand, do not share this pattern. Most of them immigrated here NON-voluntarily, via the slave trade.


Many of the Latino communities of legal immigrants are starting to follow this pattern and finding success. If people of color who are newly arrived in America can find a way to achieve cultural success how come people who have been here for a couple hundred years can not, as a group, establish the same kind of success in spite of and racial barriers they may encounter? Perhaps they too easily accept the status quo or buy in to the notion that they can only get ahead if the government does it for them. I think that if this is the case then it is a defeatist attitude and maybe they deserve to wallow in their own mediocrity. When blacks, as a group, learn to despise the government assistance more than they expect it then they will start to live out the equality that they say they want.

This is just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Latinos are also disproportionately poor and underrepresented in places of economic success.

To explains blacks, you're appealing again to the acceptance of the status quo, but how did that become the status quo in the first place?

A few questions: Today, do blacks born in the ghetto have the same educational opportunities and job opportunities as whites born in middle class or affluent areas?

Do they have the same opportunities as other blacks who are born in the middle class or upper class?

FlaGator
05-21-2010, 06:21 PM
I assumed the "goal" was for minority groups to be proportionally represented in each economic "class", or in positions of power, authority, or success.

Basically, if blacks are 15% of the population, then 15% of a business would ideally be black. Now, I don't support quotas, but a quota is essentially what you are asking for when you want a definitive goal.

As it is, minorities are still disproportionately poor and lacking in places of success.

Also, even if AA becomes an expectation, how does that stop it from being a temporary benefit to help attain equal footing?





Asians, with a Confucianist background, chose to immigrate here voluntarily. They did face discrimination, but many of them had a cultural religious background that was suited to our economic systems. African Americans, on the other hand, do not share this pattern. Most of them immigrated here NON-voluntarily, via the slave trade.



Latinos are also disproportionately poor and underrepresented in places of economic success.

To explains blacks, you're appealing again to the acceptance of the status quo, but how did that become the status quo in the first place?

A few questions: Today, do blacks born in the ghetto have the same educational opportunities and job opportunities as whites born in middle class or affluent areas?

Do they have the same opportunities as other blacks who are born in the middle class or upper class?

Affirmative Action has no measurable goal in the definition of the policy that instituted it. That has been a major argument against it from the beginning. What you state above I believe is your incrementation of the goal which proves my point concerning the problems with Affirmative Action. I may have my interpretation that differs from yours. So how do we determine when the goal has been achieved? By your interpretation we may be short of the goal and by mine the goal may be met? With no standard there is just endless debate.

How people got here is irrelevant to the question at hand. It may have been pertinent to those first generation blacks who came here in chains but it is not a factor to those who have several generations away from that event. They are here and they have a choice, to grow beyond what they have or to accept it and live with it. There are enough examples of blacks who have used the education that was available to them to rise of out of the environment in which they grew up. At this point in time there is tons of cash being poured in to school systems that deal with the poverty stricken but there are few positive results forth coming. Atlanta spends about the most amount of money per student of any city in the country and yet they have what is arguably one of the worse performing school systems.

As for your questions, I think that I answered some of them. I will add that I can't speak for all education opportunities in the "ghetto". Some areas get more attention than others, however, the results to to be the same. The question here is not are black under performing because of their school but why aren't they taking full advantage of all educational opportunities (limited or not) that are available to them? I think that the home environment and the importance that the parent(s) put on education is a greater factor than what is available from the school.

lacarnut
05-21-2010, 06:48 PM
Sure there have always been poor people, but why are minority ethnic groups drastically overrepresented in the "poor class"?

Because when a large portion of blacks males are too lazy to work and support their bastard children, they become unproductive and resort to crime and wind up being a burden on society. As a consequence, black females go on the welfare train with paid housing, food, money, etc. LBJ started this crap and now blacks have been held down by Democratic stupidity. This is not rocket science.

Constitutionally Speaking
05-21-2010, 07:08 PM
Actually there are many public housing facilities that are predominantly white. They tend to be generally segregated (there are mostly black public housing places and mostly white public housing places)

Also, there are more white people in poverty, on welfare, and so on, but then again it's the single largest racial category so that's not surprising.

However, it's true that blacks are overrepresented in public housing projects, my question is why?

Why are a larger percentage of blacks (as compared to percentage of whites) living in ghettos or in other poverty-stricken areas?


Because they have been "helped" more by our government. Which ought to be a lesson - our government's "help" is nothing more than enslavement.

PoliCon
05-21-2010, 07:12 PM
Why is this? Why are blacks more likely to be born out of wedlock?

I'll offer one suggestion: Blacks are incarcerated for crimes far more often and get harsher penalties (like prison) more often than whites.

Why is blacks overrepresented in the prison population?

ooohhh so all the babies daddies are in jail? Is that what you're gonna claim? :rolleyes: Reality is poverty breeds promiscuity and crime and when you do not value education and are constantly taught that you're owed and government dependency - what do you expect from people? And it's not a black white thing - it's a culture thing.

PoliCon
05-21-2010, 07:14 PM
Back on topic - I thought this thread was going to be about Rahm Emanuel!

Lager
05-21-2010, 07:17 PM
Why is this? Why are blacks more likely to be born out of wedlock?

I'll offer one suggestion: Blacks are incarcerated for crimes far more often and get harsher penalties (like prison) more often than whites.

Why is blacks overrepresented in the prison population?

Wow, that's a stretch. You're saying that the reason there are more single mother's in the black community is because the fathers were locked up longer than average for their crimes? So, if the father's had lighter sentences, they would surely return to society and marry the mothers and accept responsibility for their actions. Okay.
You know, some of your responses at one time were close to reasonable. Now, I think you're just trolling. Maybe you're bored or frustrated and ready to give your attention to something else.

Lager
05-21-2010, 07:39 PM
Read some of Patrick Moynihan's writings on the issue. Moynihan was a great democratic Senator. Before the party was ruined by the far left

Jfor
05-21-2010, 07:49 PM
Why is this? Why are blacks more likely to be born out of wedlock?

I'll offer one suggestion: Blacks are incarcerated for crimes far more often and get harsher penalties (like prison) more often than whites.

Why is blacks overrepresented in the prison population?

You're racist!

Space Gravy
05-21-2010, 08:39 PM
Because when a large portion of blacks males are too lazy to work and support their bastard children, they become unproductive and resort to crime and wind up being a burden on society. As a consequence, black females go on the welfare train with paid housing, food, money, etc. LBJ started this crap and now blacks have been held down by Democratic stupidity. This is not rocket science.

I've got an employee going through this with his son. He got caught in high school with $1200.00 in his pocket one day. There is good money in crime. He's probably selling weed or crack and making 10 times what he would make working in a fast food place or a laborer job in about a quarter of the time. Once someone gets a taste of that easy money it's hard to go back.

Space Gravy
05-21-2010, 08:43 PM
Wow, that's a stretch. You're saying that the reason there are more single mother's in the black community is because the fathers were locked up longer than average for their crimes? So, if the father's had lighter sentences, they would surely return to society and marry the mothers and accept responsibility for their actions. Okay.
You know, some of your responses at one time were close to reasonable. Now, I think you're just trolling. Maybe you're bored or frustrated and ready to give your attention to something else.

Reminds me of an episode of the First 48 I watched the other day. A guy got killed and left 3 kids behind. The woman he was dating at the time had 4 of her own. Seven kids between them and they didn't have any of them together.

Gingersnap
05-21-2010, 10:01 PM
There's nothing unique about American blacks that destines them to failure. There are some profound cultural problems in inner city environments that are facilitated by the well meaning.

Academic expectations are low and parents (often single) aren't engaged in academic achievement for their children. Young black men often find that crime pays better than honest work, assuming there is any honest work to be had. Generational dependence on government programs can be huge barriers since moving to places that do have work since moving is expensive and entails re-qualifying for a lot of programs. A general level of ignorance can fuel a defeatist attitude. Many chronically poor people believe that luck, rather than hard work and impulse control, is the most important factor in success.

There are white populations who have similar problems for the same reasons.

NJCardFan
05-21-2010, 10:56 PM
I could go on for hours with this. Let's just say the life you choose is the life you lead.

Rockntractor
05-21-2010, 11:04 PM
I could go on for hours with this. Let's just say the life you choose is the life you lead.

...or if you do the crime you will do the time. I don't care what color you are if you don't want to go to prison don't rob, rape and murder!

MrsSmith
05-22-2010, 12:18 AM
It is definitely a cultural issue...one that has been promoted by feminism and supported by "the War on Poverty."

Feminists have insisted that fathers aren't really needed by children. Courts have judged that a father's greatest worth comes in dollar figures. Welfare spent years denying coverage to intact families, and would support women only if their husband was gone. This is the set-up that destoyed the poor family of all races, but hit blacks hardest.

The majority of today's young fathers didn't have fathers themselves, so have no clue what Dad does. They didn't grow up seeing Dad's paycheck supporting the family, and don't feel like they should have to work for money that they can't keep for themselves. They feel no responsibility for their children...Uncle Sam can afford to feed them, he is really rich! Many of today's young men really have no concept of marriage and family, quite a few have never had any positive male figure in their lives at any point. Some of THAT can be blamed on the NEA and their female-slanted teaching methods, and a lot at groups like the ACLU that make it so difficult for positive male groups like the Boy Scouts to have a wider effect. Even denying the ROTC is an anti-male move.

Not so long ago, society was structured to cause young adults to form their own families, limit divorce, raise children that knew how to work and grow into productive adults, and the overall effect was to take selfish and immature humans and turn out selfless and productive adults and family units. Our current society is largely not structured to this end at all...and we are moving farther and farther away from that structure with every "progressive" move. We are actually already at the point of removing "insensitive" words like "mom" and "dad" from textbooks. :rolleyes:

NJCardFan
05-22-2010, 12:36 AM
...or if you do the crime you will do the time. I don't care what color you are if you don't want to go to prison don't rob, rape and murder!

This is a mantra I use every day every time an inmate whines about something. I give them the same answer: Next time don't go to jail. It really is that simple.

Rockntractor
05-22-2010, 12:47 AM
This is a mantra I use every day every time an inmate whines about something. I give them the same answer: Next time don't go to jail. It really is that simple.

Truth doesn't change

m00
05-22-2010, 06:54 AM
Why is this? Why are blacks more likely to be born out of wedlock?

Well obviously, it's because blacks more frequently have premarital sex without protection than whites.

m00
05-22-2010, 06:57 AM
This is a mantra I use every day every time an inmate whines about something. I give them the same answer: Next time don't go to jail. It really is that simple.

Completely off topic here, but I'm curious how accurate the over-sensationalized Hollywood/mainstream media deceptions are of prison abuse/scandals. As someone who has never been incarcerated, it's one of those things I can't really "see for myself and come to an informed opinion."

Wei Wu Wei
05-22-2010, 07:16 AM
ooohhh so all the babies daddies are in jail? Is that what you're gonna claim? :rolleyes: Reality is poverty breeds promiscuity and crime and when you do not value education and are constantly taught that you're owed and government dependency - what do you expect from people? And it's not a black white thing - it's a culture thing.

I gotta agree here.

Let's look at this:


Reality is poverty breeds promiscuity and crime

I couldn't agree more. Low educational opportunities, very few job opportunities, and the correlating poverty create conditions where crime is more likely, as well as promiscuity.

I agree that the broken family structure contributes highly to the problem as well.


And it's not a black white thing - it's a culture thing.

I agree again, partially. If poverty breeds promiscuity and crime, and there are very limited educational and job opportunities, would the results of these conditions be properly called a "culture"?

I'm not sure, but perhaps it could be called "poor culture". I have a few fascinating articles from the 70's until this decade discussing how race is becoming less and less significant as a determining factor in the success of minorities, while economic class has become (in some areas) even more of a prohibitive obstacle to success than racial discrimination of the past was (keep in mind that even in the pre-civil-rights era, most inner city blacks were employed, albeit in worse jobs, segregation positions, and for less pay).


Because when a large portion of blacks males are too lazy to work and support their bastard children, they become unproductive and resort to crime and wind up being a burden on society. As a consequence, black females go on the welfare train with paid housing, food, money, etc. LBJ started this crap and now blacks have been held down by Democratic stupidity. This is not rocket science.

I don't understand where this idea comes from that the life of crime is glamorous. Yes rap videos and movies may portray this to middle class people trying to understand poor people, but as someone who came out of the projects and who has seen plenty of crime, trust me it's not anything anyone really wants to do. Most of these people are scared shitless, life seems daunting and they feel they have no options. Many times they really don't have any options. Anyone growing up in the ghetto knows going into crime means you're very likely to die in your 20's or go to prison, it's not something someone does just out of laziness, boredom, or simple preference. It's done out of desperation.

That's not to say all crime is done for this reason, but profit-based crime usually is.

Wei Wu Wei
05-22-2010, 07:28 AM
There's nothing unique about American blacks that destines them to failure. There are some profound cultural problems in inner city environments that are facilitated by the well meaning.

Academic expectations are low and parents (often single) aren't engaged in academic achievement for their children.

This is precisely why people push for programs aimed at children. Even the most simple things like putting nutrition information on vending machines are usually stigmatized by some conservatives as "big government trying to be the parents".

Clearly, not everyone has good parents and sometimes the government helping to push healthy and productive behaviors is beneficial when the parents won't. Children can't figure this out on their own, and frankly many of their parents don't know it either, and many of their parents were actively and specifically restricted from getting proper jobs or education by the US government.


Young black men often find that crime pays better than honest work, assuming there is any honest work to be had. Generational dependence on government programs can be huge barriers since moving to places that do have work since moving is expensive and entails re-qualifying for a lot of programs. A general level of ignorance can fuel a defeatist attitude. Many chronically poor people believe that luck, rather than hard work and impulse control, is the most important factor in success.

In recent decades there has been a shift in the jobs, both the number/type of jobs, and the location. The results is that most people living in inner-city ghettos cannot find work that's in a reasonable distance, most can't afford cars, and can't afford to move.

I agree with some aspects of this "dependency theory", I think that programs like welfare are beneficial and even necessary, but if not done properly they can do more harm.

People support welfare reform that requires people to work to get welfare, which isn't right because many times there simply isn't any work for them.

What I think SHOULD happen is there should be educational/vocational job training programs tied to welfare. If you're on welfare you need to either A. have a job, or B. be in a training program that prepares you for a job.

We can't just expect people to get jobs when there aren't any. Also, there should be funding to help small businesses within poor communities to grow, or simply to employ people. Think of libraries, community centers, or vocational schools that hire local people to run them, and simultaneously offer educational opportunities for upward mobility. If more money was put towards this, the amount of money needed to maintain people for long periods of time on welfare would go down because they'll get what they need to be able to work well.

I agree that depending on welfare and not working is bad, and it can cause a person to lose the basic skills needed to get and keep a job. (lack of deadlines, lack of direct supervision, ect.), however the answer isn't just to try to eradicate the symptoms, but to find the causes and address those.

Wei Wu Wei
05-22-2010, 07:48 AM
Truth doesn't change

Truth is change :)

FlaGator
05-22-2010, 11:20 AM
Truth is change :)

If truth changes then it isn't truth it would simply be a incorrect inference.

AmPat
05-22-2010, 11:39 AM
Why is this? Why are blacks more likely to be born out of wedlock?

I'll offer one suggestion: Blacks are incarcerated for crimes far more often and get harsher penalties (like prison) more often than whites.

Why is blacks overrepresented in the prison population?

Hmmm??? Strangely, the Black culture changed around the 60's. Now what else happened??? Oh, I know, Free love, liberal hippies, Great society, (massive handouts). Certainly a positive coorelation. Now can we connect the dots is the question? :cool:

Zeus
05-22-2010, 12:21 PM
War on Poverty Revisited (http://http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/poverty/3864-War-Poverty-Revisited.html)

The Grand Fraud: Affirmative Action for Blacks (http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/culture/diversity/2637-The-Grand-Fraud-Affirmative-Action-for-Blacks.html)

Race and Resentment (http://www.creators.com/opinion/thomas-sowell/race-and-resentment.htmlhttp://)

Constitutionally Speaking
05-22-2010, 01:58 PM
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/poverty/3864-War-Poverty-Revisited.html

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/culture/diversity/2637-The-Grand-Fraud-Affirmative-Action-for-Blacks.html


http://www.creators.com/opinion/thomas-sowell/race-and-resentment.html


Fixed the links

lacarnut
05-22-2010, 02:26 PM
In recent decades there has been a shift in the jobs, both the number/type of jobs, and the location. The results is that most people living in inner-city ghettos cannot find work that's in a reasonable distance, most can't afford cars, and can't afford to move.

.

That is such a load of crap. many Mexicans walk miles and miles to get to the border, jump or crawl thru a fence, dodge border guards, have only their feet to get them where they are going, many can not speak English but low and behold they find work and make enough money to support themselves and send money back home. The difference between blacks and Mexicans is that they are not lazy and do what it takes to earn money. Many blacks on the other hand want the government to take care of them. I betcha if you took a poll regarding reparations that 90% would say the white man owes them. This is why many blacks will never pull themselves out of the gutter. Racist assholes like Jackson and greaseball Al stir the pot up preaching hatred and entitlement. So, blacks think that they are owed when they hear this crap.

Louisiana has the largest number of Vietnamese in the US. When they arrived here most settled along the coast and became fisherman. 7 or 8 would live in a 2 room house. They pooled their money and bought a boat. They helped each other until they had many boats. They worked longer hours and stayed out longer fishing and put some of the white fisherman out of business. These guys did not know a speck of English, no one gave them a fucking thing but they had a great work ethic. Many blacks do not and it sure as hell is not my fault. The black community needs to fix their sorry ass morals and eithics toward work. Dumb ass whites and their white guilt realy piss me off.

Wei Wu Wei
05-22-2010, 03:11 PM
I don't think we can fairly compare various immigration groups to US blacks. Africans were FORCED here through slavery, and were systematically subjugated for about 3 centuries under slavery, and another century after that under instutionalized discrimination laws. Since people started colonozing this place in the 1500's, until about 60 years ago, blacks were systematically subjugated, treated as outcasts, and for most of the time treated as non-humans.

Yes it's true that other ethnic groups faced discrimination, harsh laws, atrocious labor practices, and tough living conditions, there is a stark difference between every other immigrant group and the forced immigrant population of African Americans.

NJCardFan
05-22-2010, 03:12 PM
You're partially correct la. When it comes to many young black males, to coin a phrase, it's all about the Benjamin's. They see people like Snoop and Jay-Z and they want to live that life. And the easiest way to attain that wealth is to sell drugs. I have inmates tell me all the time how much money they made selling dope. Why should they get a regular job making just a few hundred dollars a week when they can make thousands a week selling drugs? And as I said, this lifestyle is glamorized by television, music, and movies. Then there is the gang factor. You aren't going to freelance in a neighborhood. You better belong to a gang unless you want to get pounded or worse.

PoliCon
05-22-2010, 03:16 PM
I gotta agree here.

Let's look at this:



I couldn't agree more. Low educational opportunities, very few job opportunities, and the correlating poverty create conditions where crime is more likely, as well as promiscuity.Bullshit. Low educational opportunities? Inner city schools by and large spend more per pupil than do private schools in those same areas. Furthermore - there are scholarships galore for at risk youth to go to college - but what good are those when the people who to whom they are available do not value education? Furthermore - there are plenty of job opportunities. Our local McDonald's for example always has a sign out front that they are hiring and welp - they start people at $8 an hour. There are plenty of other jobs available. The people in question are however too proud to do labor that they feel is beneath them. They want jobs that pay $20 or more dollars an hour where they do next to no work. :rolleyes:



I agree again, partially. If poverty breeds promiscuity and crime, and there are very limited educational and job opportunities, would the results of these conditions be properly called a "culture"? Culture comes in their lack of value on education - their pride that does not allow them to take certain jobs - the entitlement mentality that pervades these communities - the propensity toward violence and promiscuity - the lack of industry - etc.

And you cannot claim that everything is against them because other minorities - Asians mainly in my area - come in and operate businesses and succeed. Why is it that the Blacks that live in the community cannot do the same? Why can't they make the same businesses thrive or succeed?


I'm not sure, but perhaps it could be called "poor culture". I have a few fascinating articles from the 70's until this decade discussing how race is becoming less and less significant as a determining factor in the success of minorities, while economic class has become (in some areas) even more of a prohibitive obstacle to success than racial discrimination of the past was (keep in mind that even in the pre-civil-rights era, most inner city blacks were employed, albeit in worse jobs, segregation positions, and for less pay). Call it what you like - Thomas Sowell calls it redneck culture. I call it ghetto trash culture. What it's called does not negate the reality of the values that are instilled in people generationally. Mom and Dad don't read - don't value reading - don't read to their kids - the kids don't learn to value reading - don't read - pass on their contempt for reading to the next generation - and the cycle continues. Hell even the proper application of "BE" verbs! If you walk into my place of business and say something to the effect of: "I be look'in fer a job." I'm not about to hire you. And it's not like proper conjugation of be verbs is all that hard either! It's intellectual laziness at it's very WORST!!

PoliCon
05-22-2010, 03:35 PM
This is precisely why people push for programs aimed at children. Even the most simple things like putting nutrition information on vending machines are usually stigmatized by some conservatives as "big government trying to be the parents". Um - because it IS big government trying to be the parents. You don't need nutrition information to know that JUNK FOOD is not good for you.


Clearly, not everyone has good parents and sometimes the government helping to push healthy and productive behaviors is beneficial when the parents won't. Not the governments job. Tell you want - you want health and productive behaviors in people - make it worth their while to demonstrate those healthy and productive behaviors. The safety net has become a hammock. Remove that hammock and make poverty HURT and people will develop productive behaviors because if they don't they suffer. You don't add 4 and 5 layers of cushion into the hammock and then say that you're trying to help.


Children can't figure this out on their own, and frankly many of their parents don't know it either, and many of their parents were actively and specifically restricted from getting proper jobs or education by the US government.

If they are being kept from proper education it's because the democrats are in bed with the teachers unions and will not allow voucher programs.


In recent decades there has been a shift in the jobs, both the number/type of jobs, and the location. The results is that most people living in inner-city ghettos cannot find work that's in a reasonable distance, most can't afford cars, and can't afford to move. Bullshit again. There are plenty of jobs in cities. And there is public transportation servicing these urban neighborhoods going to shopping centers - business centers etc. It's not lack of jobs - it's lack of willingness to either do the jobs available or to acquire the skills to get the jobs which are preferred. I deal with kids all the time who wanna run their own businesses - but refuse to make an effort to learn the math required for the operation of a business.


I agree with some aspects of this "dependency theory", I think that programs like welfare are beneficial and even necessary, but if not done properly they can do more harm. When the safety net becomes a hammock - it's time to cut some of the ropes.


People support welfare reform that requires people to work to get welfare, which isn't right because many times there simply isn't any work for them. Bullshit again. They can pick up litter - clean up graffiti - cut grass - etc - IN THEIR OWN DAMN NEIGHBORHOODS!!!! But they won't do that because it's beneath their pride. :rolleyes:


What I think SHOULD happen is there should be educational/vocational job training programs tied to welfare. If you're on welfare you need to either A. have a job, or B. be in a training program that prepares you for a job.Oh yea great. Ya know what - they have those. And you know what - when my parents divorced - my mother joined one of those. And you know what - she had to quit the program because if she didn't she was going to get kicked out of school. Why you ask? Because the fucktard bureaucrats demanded that she keep meetings with them for her benefits to continue - meetings that they ALWAYS scheduled while she was supposed to be in class. :rolleyes: So she had to either miss class and flunk out - or miss the meetings with the fucktard bureaucrats.


We can't just expect people to get jobs when there aren't any. Meme.


Also, there should be funding to help small businesses within poor communities to grow, or simply to employ people. There is - it's called PROFIT. :rolleyes:


Think of libraries, community centers, or vocational schools that hire local people to run them, and simultaneously offer educational opportunities for upward mobility. Right because the way to end poverty is to get more bureaucrats.


If more money was put towards this, the amount of money needed to maintain people for long periods of time on welfare would go down because they'll get what they need to be able to work well.What they need to be able to work well is motivation. Cut the benefits - make poverty hurt and they will be more inclined to get off their ass and work.


I agree that depending on welfare and not working is bad, and it can cause a person to lose the basic skills needed to get and keep a job. (lack of deadlines, lack of direct supervision, ect.), however the answer isn't just to try to eradicate the symptoms, but to find the causes and address those.Welfare IS the cause. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
05-22-2010, 03:39 PM
I don't think we can fairly compare various immigration groups to US blacks. Africans were FORCED here through slavery, and were systematically subjugated for about 3 centuries under slavery, and another century after that under instutionalized discrimination laws. Since people started colonozing this place in the 1500's, until about 60 years ago, blacks were systematically subjugated, treated as outcasts, and for most of the time treated as non-humans.

Yes it's true that other ethnic groups faced discrimination, harsh laws, atrocious labor practices, and tough living conditions, there is a stark difference between every other immigrant group and the forced immigrant population of African Americans.


I know this may come as a shock to you but . . . . there is not an American black alive who was ever a slave. Furthermore - There are are very few - if any - alive whose parents were slaves. :rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
05-22-2010, 03:44 PM
I know this may come as a shock to you but . . . . there is not an American black alive who was ever a slave. Furthermore - There are are none alive whose parents were slaves. :rolleyes:

Right, but people keep talking about the effect of culture, the effects of parental values being passed onto their children.

Slavery was abolished in 1865 but the effects of slavery continued onward for many generations. Harsh, vile racist policies were then instituted which were not abolished until 1968, and even then policies were in effect for many years later.

Do we really expect the cultural and intergenerational effects of these major institutionalized forms of discrimination that lasted for 4 centuries, and were the bedrock of the social structure of the united states to suddenly disappear in 1 or 2 generations?

BadCat
05-22-2010, 04:13 PM
And why is it "our" responsibility now?

Wei Wu Wei
05-22-2010, 04:52 PM
And why is it "our" responsibility now?

It's the responsibility of the United States government, who instituted these policies to begin with, a government which is nothing more than a symbolic representation of all of us.

Blacks weren't the only ones affected by backwards policies, many whites benefited, getting exclusive housing or job opportunities with less competition, many business benefited by getting cheap labor.

Nothing in our society happens in a vacuum.

BadCat
05-22-2010, 04:58 PM
It's the responsibility of the United States government, who instituted these policies to begin with, a government which is nothing more than a symbolic representation of all of us.

Blacks weren't the only ones affected by backwards policies, many whites benefited, getting exclusive housing or job opportunities with less competition, many business benefited by getting cheap labor.

Nothing in our society happens in a vacuum.

No it's not.
The current government (with the exception of a few Democrats such as Sen. Byrd) had nothing to do with it.

nightflight
05-22-2010, 05:05 PM
Right, but people keep talking about the effect of culture, the effects of parental values being passed onto their children.

Slavery was abolished in 1865 but the effects of slavery continued onward for many generations. Harsh, vile racist policies were then instituted which were not abolished until 1968, and even then policies were in effect for many years later.

Do we really expect the cultural and intergenerational effects of these major institutionalized forms of discrimination that lasted for 4 centuries, and were the bedrock of the social structure of the united states to suddenly disappear in 1 or 2 generations?

Just curious......when you imply that black crime is a product of "racism", do you also include rape?

NJCardFan
05-22-2010, 05:12 PM
Wow. I knew wee wee was clueless but with each passing sentence, I'm beginning to realize that there is no limit to his cluelessness. Wow. Black Africans were forced into slavery. That's a stretch, eh? Don't know of many who chose to do so voluntarily. But who's really at fault here? The Euro's who went to Africa to get them or the tribes who fed them to the Euro's? Also, slavery ended in 1865 so I think it's time to stop blaming slavery. As for their education, why are schools in inner cities failing? It starts with the students. These people simply do not want to learn. This is why teachers are so apathetic. Also, if I were a teacher, I wouldn't teach in an inner city school unless I was allowed to be armed. Heavily. Besides, when a black child decides that they want to learn and study hard, they are vilified by their peers for trying to act white. And don't you dare be black and stray from the pack. So, in short, the black community has only themselves to blame for their shortcomings. Doesn't take much to open a book and start learning but they choose not too. Choices have consequences.

Lager
05-22-2010, 05:44 PM
Do we really expect the cultural and intergenerational effects of these major institutionalized forms of discrimination that lasted for 4 centuries, and were the bedrock of the social structure of the united states to suddenly disappear in 1 or 2 generations?

Yes, no reason why not. I would actually venture that if you look at statistics, black families were stronger, and their culture had more positive aspects in the years following emanicipation, even though discrimination, segragation, and harrasment were at their strongest. I wouldn't be surprised if statistically things got worse at the end of the fifties, and particularly through and after the years since Johnson's great society programs. Jewish peoples have faced extraordinary trying periods in their history as well, and I think it's fair to say it didn't take several generations for them to recover.

MrsSmith
05-22-2010, 06:10 PM
Right, but people keep talking about the effect of culture, the effects of parental values being passed onto their children.

Slavery was abolished in 1865 but the effects of slavery continued onward for many generations. Harsh, vile racist policies were then instituted which were not abolished until 1968, and even then policies were in effect for many years later.

Do we really expect the cultural and intergenerational effects of these major institutionalized forms of discrimination that lasted for 4 centuries, and were the bedrock of the social structure of the united states to suddenly disappear in 1 or 2 generations?
And during all of this, the black family remained a strong unit..until guilty Democrats instituted their welfare plantation and destroyed the family among the poor. And they continue this destruction with their insistance that black people can't "make it" without affirmative action and other government assistance...because Democrats truly still believe that black and brown people are inferior. If you have any doubt of that, just look to their support of Planned Parenthood and their abortion clinics...which have slaughtered black children at a much higher rate than whites, and are deliberately placed near black neighborhoods.

Troll
05-22-2010, 07:13 PM
Why Are Blacks Over-Represented In Poverty, Prisons?

The correct answer isn't very PC, so be careful asking this question; you might not like the answer.

Let me give you a small hint. Contrary to what the government media/educational complex has taught you, it has (almost) nothing to do with "racism" or flaws in our justice system. There is a much bigger component and series of issues at work here.

One other hint. The real answer is infinitely less nuanced and complicated than you might have been lead to believe. Think Occam's Razor here. Anything you are required to believe is a lie. </post>

PoliCon
05-22-2010, 07:38 PM
Right, but people keep talking about the effect of culture, the effects of parental values being passed onto their children.

Slavery was abolished in 1865 but the effects of slavery continued onward for many generations. Harsh, vile racist policies were then instituted which were not abolished until 1968, and even then policies were in effect for many years later.

Do we really expect the cultural and intergenerational effects of these major institutionalized forms of discrimination that lasted for 4 centuries, and were the bedrock of the social structure of the united states to suddenly disappear in 1 or 2 generations?

Thing is - those policies you speak of were never instituted in much of the north. And where they were instituted those cities were and still are democratic bastions. Surprising that.

PoliCon
05-22-2010, 07:39 PM
It's the responsibility of the United States government, who instituted these policies to begin with, a government which is nothing more than a symbolic representation of all of us.

Blacks weren't the only ones affected by backwards policies, many whites benefited, getting exclusive housing or job opportunities with less competition, many business benefited by getting cheap labor.

Nothing in our society happens in a vacuum.

BULLSHIT AGAIN. The US government did not institute poll taxes or literacy tests or even segregation. :rolleyes:. Could you please try to get at least a couple of posts out that are not full of bullshit??

NJCardFan
05-22-2010, 08:26 PM
BULLSHIT AGAIN. The US government did not institute poll taxes or literacy tests or even segregation. :rolleyes:. Could you please try to get at least a couple of posts out that are not full of bullshit??

You are talking wee wee right?

Zeus
05-22-2010, 09:18 PM
http://static.pyzam.com/img/funnypics/1/takemehome.jpg

PoliCon
05-22-2010, 10:26 PM
You are talking wee wee right?

He's the one who claims to be the intellectual giant while I am a mere puissant. ;)

BadCat
05-22-2010, 10:37 PM
He's the one who claims to be the intellectual giant while I am a mere puissant. ;)

Have the waste of skin explain why while 47 % of people do not pay taxes, and blacks represent only about 13% of the population, blacks that don't taxes represent almost 20% of people who don't pay taxes.

PoliCon
05-22-2010, 10:53 PM
Have the waste of skin explain why while 47 % of people do not pay taxes, and blacks represent only about 13% of the population, blacks that don't taxes represent almost 20% of people who don't pay taxes.

I'd rather have him explain how the best parts of him rolled down the inside of his mother thigh to become a brown stain on the mattress. But hey - that's just me.

BadCat
05-22-2010, 10:57 PM
I'd rather have him explain how the best parts of him rolled down the inside of his mother thigh to become a brown stain on the mattress. But hey - that's just me.

Don't hold your breath.

Jumpy
05-22-2010, 10:59 PM
I'd rather have him explain how the best parts of him rolled down the inside of his mother thigh to become a brown stain on the mattress. But hey - that's just me.

:eek: ewwwwwwwwww!!!!

Elspeth
05-22-2010, 11:23 PM
Asians, with a Confucianist background, chose to immigrate here voluntarily. They did face discrimination, but many of them had a cultural religious background that was suited to our economic systems. African Americans, on the other hand, do not share this pattern. Most of them immigrated here NON-voluntarily, via the slave trade.

You clearly have no background in the history of Asian immigration.

1. Chinese came to the US in the nineteenth century, both for the gold rush and as cheap labor for railroads. The gold rush Chinese did come voluntarily and individually; they made money by creating businesses around the miners. The Chinese males learned how to do laundry from white women in CA and quickly created an industry around cleaning clothing for miners.

The railroad Chinese, however, were contract labor and in miserable conditions. They were paid far less than whites for their work, and were controlled and whipped like slaves. Nonetheless, railroad barons like Leland Stanford, imported them (all male) in droves, and then, when the railroads were done, left them to face a racist white California.

2. California's racism against the Chinese turned violent, and Chinese were harassed, attacked, and lynched.

3. Chinese and other Asians were barred from most employment. This held true until the mid-twentieth century, when civil rights laws (1964) finally made racial discrimination in hiring illegal. Many college educated Chinese in the 20th century couldn't get anything but menial labor because of discrimination in hiring.

4. Chinese women were almost entirely prevented from immigrating at all through a series of acts, including the Page Act (1872) and the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882), which barred all Chinese from immigrating. (The Chinese were the first immigrant group to be completely excluded by law from immigrating to the US). The Asian women who did come were usually smuggled in illegally and were prostitutes. These women lived in slave conditions and were riddled with disease and illegitimate children.

5. Chinese were the first immigrant group required to carry "papers" (photo ID) like freed slaves. The Geary Act in 1892 made lack of ID punishable by deportation. This was in an age when American citizens did not carry ID.

6. Early Chinese workers were not granted naturalized citizenship like other immigrants. Their children were citizens by the 14th amendment. Newly freed slaves were citizens in 1861. Many Chinese Americans were not.

7. The Chinese settled in Chinatowns in a ghettoized situation. They were often not allowed to live anywhere else. Even during the 20th century, many apartment buildings in white neighborhoods would not take Chinese or other Asians.

8. Japanese immigrants were also victims of the same kind of racism as the Chinese, in terms of employment and living conditions. Horrible racism was directed towards them, especially in California, and Japanese were also excluded, unofficially, from immigrating due to a "Gentleman's Agreement" between the (Teddy) Roosevelt administration (1907) and the Japanese government. This agreement, never officially law, allowed only upper class Japanese--merchants and scholars--to enter the US, while the working class Japanese were excluded. Later, the Federal government banned all Asian immigration to the United States Immigration Act of 1924. (This was the same act that limited Southern and Eastern European immigration).

10. Japanese were banned by law from buying/owning land in California by the California Alien Land Law of 1913.

11. Japanese were placed in internment camps during WWII. Their property was seized.

12. Not until the passage of the Magneson Act in 1943 did the ban in Chinese American immigration lift.

13. The racism against Asian and the laws striking down the eomployment discrimination they had experienced for over 100 years ended at the same time when Jim Crow discrimination against African Americans ended: with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. All the laws that banned discrimination based on race were those that freed the Asian Americans as well as the African Americans and at the same time.

In other words, the Asians had it just as bad from 1860 on) as African Americans did. In fact, freed blacks, even before slavery, often had it better than the Chinese railroad workers. When the Central Pacific Railroad tried to break a small strike by some Chinese workers, they tried to get free blacks to come and take the jobs. The free blacks wisely refused.

Asian immigration is not like European immigration and the amount of discriminated they faced was definitely on a par with blacks. What has happened since 1964 is not simple to decipher, but when Asian Americans go from being banned from owning property and from racist discrimination in employment and education, to being over 30% of University of California's student body (and over 50% in at least one UC), you have to ask yourself what is different internally about each community.

NJCardFan
05-23-2010, 09:58 AM
Most of them immigrated here NON-voluntarily, via the slave trade.

Again, ancient history. Slavery is over. Get over it. You think Italians were accepted when they came here? Irish? You think this sign is a myth:
http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~el6/presentations/Irish_Americans_S2_WS2003/foto/Image7.gif

Why did the European immigrants overcome their troubles? Asians? Even Middle Eastern and Indian immigrants. All of which went through levels of discrimination. And as was said, you'd have to go back several generations to find a black family connected to slavery. Same with slave owners. Incidentally there were also black slave owners as well as white slaves in the south but people like wee wee don't like to talk about that. Using slavery as a crutch is an excuse. And a bad one at that.

PoliCon
05-23-2010, 10:39 AM
Again, ancient history. Slavery is over. Get over it. You think Italians were accepted when they came here? Irish? You think this sign is a myth:
http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~el6/presentations/Irish_Americans_S2_WS2003/foto/Image7.gif

Why did the European immigrants overcome their troubles? Asians? Even Middle Eastern and Indian immigrants. All of which went through levels of discrimination. And as was said, you'd have to go back several generations to find a black family connected to slavery. Same with slave owners. Incidentally there were also black slave owners as well as white slaves in the south but people like wee wee don't like to talk about that. Using slavery as a crutch is an excuse. And a bad one at that.

Indians also owned slaves - LOTS of slaves. By 1860, the Cherokees had 4,600 slaves; the Choctaws, 2,344; the Creeks, 1,532; the Chickasaws, 975; and the Seminoles, 500.

Wei Wu Wei
05-23-2010, 03:11 PM
Just curious......when you imply that black crime is a product of "racism", do you also include rape?

I hardly imply that. While racism shaped the social structure that future blacks were born into, in today's age, it seems economic class has more of an effect than racism, it just so happens partially as a result of history, partially as a result of a split labor market, that minorities are overrepresented in poverty.

Wei Wu Wei
05-23-2010, 03:15 PM
The correct answer isn't very PC, so be careful asking this question; you might not like the answer.

Let me give you a small hint. Contrary to what the government media/educational complex has taught you, it has (almost) nothing to do with "racism" or flaws in our justice system. There is a much bigger component and series of issues at work here.

One other hint. The real answer is infinitely less nuanced and complicated than you might have been lead to believe. Think Occam's Razor here. Anything you are required to believe is a lie. </post>

No by all means please elaborate, I know sometimes things may seem simple to one person but when you discuss this a lot and get dozens of perspectives nothing is "obvious".

Just say what you mean.

Wei Wu Wei
05-23-2010, 03:20 PM
You clearly have no background in the history of Asian immigration.

1. Chinese came to the US in the nineteenth century, both for the gold rush and as cheap labor for railroads. The gold rush Chinese did come voluntarily and individually; they made money by creating businesses around the miners. The Chinese males learned how to do laundry from white women in CA and quickly created an industry around cleaning clothing for miners.

The railroad Chinese, however, were contract labor and in miserable conditions. They were paid far less than whites for their work, and were controlled and whipped like slaves. Nonetheless, railroad barons like Leland Stanford, imported them (all male) in droves, and then, when the railroads were done, left them to face a racist white California.

2. California's racism against the Chinese turned violent, and Chinese were harassed, attacked, and lynched.

3. Chinese and other Asians were barred from most employment. This held true until the mid-twentieth century, when civil rights laws (1964) finally made racial discrimination in hiring illegal. Many college educated Chinese in the 20th century couldn't get anything but menial labor because of discrimination in hiring.

4. Chinese women were almost entirely prevented from immigrating at all through a series of acts, including the Page Act (1872) and the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882), which barred all Chinese from immigrating. (The Chinese were the first immigrant group to be completely excluded by law from immigrating to the US). The Asian women who did come were usually smuggled in illegally and were prostitutes. These women lived in slave conditions and were riddled with disease and illegitimate children.

5. Chinese were the first immigrant group required to carry "papers" (photo ID) like freed slaves. The Geary Act in 1892 made lack of ID punishable by deportation. This was in an age when American citizens did not carry ID.

6. Early Chinese workers were not granted naturalized citizenship like other immigrants. Their children were citizens by the 14th amendment. Newly freed slaves were citizens in 1861. Many Chinese Americans were not.

7. The Chinese settled in Chinatowns in a ghettoized situation. They were often not allowed to live anywhere else. Even during the 20th century, many apartment buildings in white neighborhoods would not take Chinese or other Asians.

8. Japanese immigrants were also victims of the same kind of racism as the Chinese, in terms of employment and living conditions. Horrible racism was directed towards them, especially in California, and Japanese were also excluded, unofficially, from immigrating due to a "Gentleman's Agreement" between the (Teddy) Roosevelt administration (1907) and the Japanese government. This agreement, never officially law, allowed only upper class Japanese--merchants and scholars--to enter the US, while the working class Japanese were excluded. Later, the Federal government banned all Asian immigration to the United States Immigration Act of 1924. (This was the same act that limited Southern and Eastern European immigration).

10. Japanese were banned by law from buying/owning land in California by the California Alien Land Law of 1913.

11. Japanese were placed in internment camps during WWII. Their property was seized.

12. Not until the passage of the Magneson Act in 1943 did the ban in Chinese American immigration lift.

13. The racism against Asian and the laws striking down the eomployment discrimination they had experienced for over 100 years ended at the same time when Jim Crow discrimination against African Americans ended: with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. All the laws that banned discrimination based on race were those that freed the Asian Americans as well as the African Americans and at the same time.

In other words, the Asians had it just as bad from 1860 on) as African Americans did. In fact, freed blacks, even before slavery, often had it better than the Chinese railroad workers. When the Central Pacific Railroad tried to break a small strike by some Chinese workers, they tried to get free blacks to come and take the jobs. The free blacks wisely refused.

Yeah. A century of harsh, brutal, and disgusting discrimination practices. Reflect a moment on why such racism flared up against asian immigrants at the time.



Asian immigration is not like European immigration and the amount of discriminated they faced was definitely on a par with blacks. What has happened since 1964 is not simple to decipher, but when Asian Americans go from being banned from owning property and from racist discrimination in employment and education, to being over 30% of University of California's student body (and over 50% in at least one UC), you have to ask yourself what is different internally about each community.

I offered one theory, a cultural background rooted in Confucianism is perfect for higher education and disciplined work ethic.

Wei Wu Wei
05-23-2010, 03:22 PM
BULLSHIT AGAIN. The US government did not institute poll taxes or literacy tests or even segregation. :rolleyes:. Could you please try to get at least a couple of posts out that are not full of bullshit??

Fair enough, they simply allowed it under the banner of "states rights". It's true though that it was the communities and states that instituted these practices, and it makes sense considering the higher paid white majority became economically threatened by blacks for the first time in America at this time.

Wei Wu Wei
05-23-2010, 03:27 PM
Again, ancient history. Slavery is over. Get over it. You think Italians were accepted when they came here? Irish? You think this sign is a myth:
http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~el6/presentations/Irish_Americans_S2_WS2003/foto/Image7.gif

Why did the European immigrants overcome their troubles? Asians? Even Middle Eastern and Indian immigrants. All of which went through levels of discrimination. And as was said, you'd have to go back several generations to find a black family connected to slavery. Same with slave owners. Incidentally there were also black slave owners as well as white slaves in the south but people like wee wee don't like to talk about that. Using slavery as a crutch is an excuse. And a bad one at that.

It makes a difference. Colonalization ramped up in the 1500's and slavery didn't end until the 1860s, that's 3 and a half centuries of our 5 century history. Overt discrimination laws passed in response to emancipation were around until the 1960's, that's 4 and a half out of 5 centuries.

That's 90% of our history was blacks being FORCED here (this makes a difference, a person's social status and mindset is different if they come into a new place, are treated as outsiders, but feel they can work hard and improve themselves vs a people coming to a new place in chains and treated as nonhumans for several generations without anyone ever moving up significant for 350 years.) and then FORCED into a subjugated position via discrimination laws.

To think 90% of our history is to just be ignored and pretend it has no bearing on today is ridiculous.

Most all immigration groups faced discrimination and poor conditions, but they all choose to do it because they believed they could rise up, this is simply not comparable to a group of people forced here in chains and held down for centuries.

Wei Wu Wei
05-23-2010, 03:29 PM
He's the one who claims to be the intellectual giant while I am a mere puissant. ;)

If I didn't think you were worth talking to I wouldn't do it.

Constitutionally Speaking
05-23-2010, 04:58 PM
And yet I would guess that 99% of the blacks whose ancestors were brought here by force, are FAR better off than if their ancestors were left in Africa.


That is not to say slavery is in any way justifiable, just that by the very fact they are in America, they are better off.

Wei, most ethnic groups have been slaves at one time or another and most ethnic groups have been slaveholders also.

The main thing that has destroyed our black communities is plainly and simply our welfare state. EVERY group of people that become dependent on government assistance, has also become trapped in poverty BECAUSE of that dependence. The American Indians, the poor whites, the blacks - EVERYONE. The problem is not race or past history of slavery, it is one of government trying to help, and messing up the work ethic, the familiy and the societal influences that kept people of all races productive members of society.

Elspeth
05-23-2010, 07:41 PM
Yeah. A century of harsh, brutal, and disgusting discrimination practices.

It's called racism. And it was over a century. In some places, it still goes on.



Reflect a moment on why such racism flared up against asian immigrants at the time.


There is a long history of Western racism against the East. Read Edward Said's "Orientalism" and maybe you'll get an idea of just how vast and long lasting it has been. American racism against Asian immigrants was a continuation of such attitudes in Europe that predated the United States as a political entity.

What I am reflecting on is why you are so unaware of other people's suffering. That's actually the more interesting question. Why are you so ignorant of the abuses of the Asian American population in your own country? Why so uninformed and so uncaring?




I offered one theory, a cultural background rooted in Confucianism is perfect for higher education and disciplined work ethic.

You are assuming that Asian Americans maintained Confucianism (and this would be Chinese, mostly, not Japanese) through generations of slave-like conditions and abuse. Now if the Chinese could maintain Confuscianist ideas over generations under those conditions, then Africans should have been able to maintain what they brought with them as well, at least within their own circles. So what did they bring with them that they maintained?

djones520
05-23-2010, 07:55 PM
You are assuming that Asian Americans maintained Confucianism (and this would be Chinese, mostly, not Japanese) through generations of slave-like conditions and abuse. Now if the Chinese could maintain Confuscianist ideas over generations under those conditions, then Africans should have been able to maintain what they brought with them as well, at least within their own circles. So what did they bring with them that they maintained?

Some tried, but it was stamped out of them to help limit their want to escape. The big differance between Asians and Blacks is that even though the Asians suffered harsh discrimination, they were never subjected to the total life control that the Blacks were. They were still allowed to learn to read, practice their own religion, and celebrate their own culture. Blacks on the other hand were not allowed any of that. They were forcibly assimilated into a White-Christian culture over many generations. Following the Emancipation and the end of the Civil War, they were still "kept down" as much as possible for another hundred years or so.

For only roughly 2 or 3 generations, blacks have been treated as "equals" in this nation. So should this excuse the statiscal inconsistancies between blacks and whites? I don't know.

I do know that "White Americans" never really had to face the same challenges that Black American's had to. You can claim the discrimination shown to the Irish and all that all you want, but really it's nothing alike. They came here on their own free will, and were not forced to assimilate to the degree that the African's were. They were not enslaved for generation apon generation. They were not forcibly kept ignorant of such basic things as reading and writing. They were not hunted down by mobs, and murdered like dogs for decades after their freedom was gained.

So in my opinion, I say we can speculate all we want, but until "we" as a culture go through an experience like they did, we can't really say why things are the way they are today. I would say if anything we just have to be patient, lend a guiding hand where we can to those who need it, and hope that time will mend all wounds.

NJCardFan
05-23-2010, 07:55 PM
Why are blacks still so bad off? Are there no blacks who succeed? Absolutely there are. The fastest growing demographic for millionaires are blacks. Hell, a black man is President of the United States. Believe me. Institutional racism is over. Done. Kaput. Now, blacks are where they are by choice. It's that simple.


And for DJ. OK. Fair enough. Then what is keeping blacks from going back to Africa? Wanna know what? Because Africa is a diseased ridden shithole. And they would not enjoy living there. And they know this. But still, nothing is keeping every last one of them from returning to the "mother land".

djones520
05-23-2010, 08:00 PM
Why are blacks still so bad off? Are there no blacks who succeed? Absolutely there are. The fastest growing demographic for millionaires are blacks. Hell, a black man is President of the United States. Believe me. Institutional racism is over. Done. Kaput. Now, blacks are where they are by choice. It's that simple.


And for DJ. OK. Fair enough. Then what is keeping blacks from going back to Africa? Wanna know what? Because Africa is a diseased ridden shithole. And they would not enjoy living there. And they know this. But still, nothing is keeping every last one of them from returning to the "mother land".

And why should they, even if Africa wasn't a diseased ridden continent full of petty murderous dictators? As I said, they've had all that identity stamped out of them over hundreds of years. They are no longer Africans any more then I'm Scottish (which is where the majority of my ancestry comes from).

Elspeth
05-23-2010, 08:14 PM
Some tried, but it was stamped out of them to help limit their want to escape. The big differance between Asians and Blacks is that even though the Asians suffered harsh discrimination, they were never subjected to the total life control that the Blacks were. They were still allowed to learn to read, practice their own religion, and celebrate their own culture. Blacks on the other hand were not allowed any of that. They were forcibly assimilated into a White-Christian culture over many generations. Following the Emancipation and the end of the Civil War, they were still "kept down" as much as possible for another hundred years or so.

Actually, I would argue that Blacks were kept from assimilating. Yes, certain things like religion were forced on the slaves, but education, the true assimilator, was kept out of their reach.



For only roughly 2 or 3 generations, blacks have been treated as "equals" in this nation. So should this excuse the statiscal inconsistancies between blacks and whites? I don't know.

I would say the same for Asians here as well. And Asians are outdoing whites in much of the UC system.



I do know that "White Americans" never really had to face the same challenges that Black American's had to. You can claim the discrimination shown to the Irish and all that all you want, but really it's nothing alike. They came here on their own free will, and were not forced to assimilate to the degree that the African's were. They were not enslaved for generation apon generation. They were not forcibly kept ignorant of such basic things as reading and writing. They were not hunted down by mobs, and murdered like dogs for decades after their freedom was gained.

This is true. There are differences, however, in how groups of whites were treated. Eastern and Southern Europeans were treated as non-white (although not black, either). Eugenics was directed at these groups as they were considered inferior stock. However, assimilation was demanded here, and eventually even these "low-rung" not-quite-whites were able to make some kind of assimilative jump. These groups began to be considered truly white only after the Civil Rights era.


So in my opinion, I say we can speculate all we want, but until "we" as a culture go through an experience like they did, we can't really say why things are the way they are today. I would say if anything we just have to be patient, lend a guiding hand where we can to those who need it, and hope that time will mend all wounds.

This is not a one-on-one problem, and lending a hand is more difficult than you might think. You're working against a set of (new) cultural ideas that working hard and getting an education isn't "keepin it real." It's acting white. It's very hard to cut through that crap brought on by recent activists.

PoliCon
05-23-2010, 09:23 PM
Fair enough, they simply allowed it under the banner of "states rights". It's true though that it was the communities and states that instituted these practices, and it makes sense considering the higher paid white majority became economically threatened by blacks for the first time in America at this time.

Be specific. It was DEMOCRATS who did this.

NJCardFan
05-23-2010, 10:18 PM
And why should they, even if Africa wasn't a diseased ridden continent full of petty murderous dictators? As I said, they've had all that identity stamped out of them over hundreds of years. They are no longer Africans any more then I'm Scottish (which is where the majority of my ancestry comes from).

Then drop the fucking hyphen then. Stop with the African-American shit. You're either African or American. Choose. A more accurate hyphen, if they really want to go that way, would be to call themselves Ebony-American. Or Negroid-American since they're so hung up on race. Well, identify yourself with your actual race. Never have I seen a group of people whine about equality so much but go out of their way to be separate from everyone. Maybe the gay community but even they are 2nd to blacks in that realm.

djones520
05-23-2010, 10:19 PM
Then drop the fucking hyphen then. Stop with the African-American shit. You're either African or American. Choose. A more accurate hyphen, if they really want to go that way, would be to call themselves Ebony-American. Or Negroid-American since they're so hung up on race. Well, identify yourself with your actual race.

Who do you think put that hyphen in there? The same ones who have been making the policies and laws that have been holding them back for the last 150 years.

NJCardFan
05-23-2010, 10:25 PM
Who do you think put that hyphen in there? The same ones who have been making the policies and laws that have been holding them back for the last 150 years.

Who the hell are "they"? The "man"? Give me a break. And if their identity has been so stamped out, why do I hear terms like "it's a black thing"?

djones520
05-23-2010, 10:32 PM
Who the hell are "they"? The "man"? Give me a break. And if their identity has been so stamped out, why do I hear terms like "it's a black thing"?

Ummm... to put it in a general term, Democrats. Started with things like the Jim Crow laws. "The Man" as you put it, did such a good job of sticking it to them, that it led to extremes like the Black Power movement.

If you really want to know how African-American got to be mainstream, blame that on Jesse Jackson. He used the term in a nationally televised rally, and the MSM picked up on it and it's stuck since.

PoliCon
05-23-2010, 10:57 PM
Who the hell are "they"? The "man"? Give me a break. And if their identity has been so stamped out, why do I hear terms like "it's a black thing"?

YES. They are 'the man' - and they are the democratic party.

Jfor
05-24-2010, 09:12 AM
Ummm... to put it in a general term, Democrats. Started with things like the Jim Crow laws. "The Man" as you put it, did such a good job of sticking it to them, that it led to extremes like the Black Power movement.

If you really want to know how African-American got to be mainstream, blame that on Jesse Jackson. He used the term in a nationally televised rally, and the MSM picked up on it and it's stuck since.

Your statement would be true if Jim Crow laws were in place all across this country.

jediab
05-24-2010, 09:19 AM
Hmmm??? Strangely, the Black culture changed around the 60's. Now what else happened??? Oh, I know, Free love, liberal hippies, Great society, (massive handouts). Certainly a positive coorelation. Now can we connect the dots is the question? :cool:

Dont forget the elimination of prayer from schools.

Gingersnap
05-24-2010, 01:41 PM
I don't think we can fairly compare various immigration groups to US blacks. Africans were FORCED here through slavery, and were systematically subjugated for about 3 centuries under slavery, and another century after that under instutionalized discrimination laws. Since people started colonozing this place in the 1500's, until about 60 years ago, blacks were systematically subjugated, treated as outcasts, and for most of the time treated as non-humans.

Yes it's true that other ethnic groups faced discrimination, harsh laws, atrocious labor practices, and tough living conditions, there is a stark difference between every other immigrant group and the forced immigrant population of African Americans.

I'd disagree with the idea that harsh treatment in one period condemns a group to failure in another. Women have certainly suffered everything described above at various times and in various cultures and too many still do today but when women are offered the opportunity to work, learn to read, or create businesses, they do so in large numbers.

Most blacks aren't unemployed, uneducated, or criminal. There is probably something of a Darwinian selection process at work here (and not just for blacks). Those who want a better life enough to plan for it and who avoid the worst impulse control problems succeed and they leave. Over time, those who remain have concentrated problems: they are less ambitious, less goal-oriented, more impulsive, more satisfied with lower expectations, and less willing to believe in opportunity versus "luck".

It's worth recognizing that Asian success in America doesn't mean that Asia isn't loaded with stupid, lazy, carnal, and criminal Asians. There are plenty of areas of poverty and crime in Asian countries. We see the most ambitious and success-oriented immigrants here. Also, the height of Asian immigration occurred long before the welfare state got underway. It was work or starve.

djones520
05-24-2010, 02:07 PM
Your statement would be true if Jim Crow laws were in place all across this country.

Ummm... there not in place anywhere anymore. But they where put into place in the states with the majority of the black populations.

Odysseus
05-24-2010, 02:24 PM
Affirmative Action policies were instituted as a response to blacks being overrepresented in areas of poverty and underrepresented in areas of economic success.

You may argue that such policies have a detrimental effect, but the problem was around before the policies so they can't be the cause
Except that they weren't. The Black illegitimacy rate in 1960 was 33%, higher than the white rate, to be sure, but not astronomical. Today, the Black rate is over twice that, while the white rate is approaching it. These are the direct results of the culture that arose from Great Society programs. For example, AFDC, the primary federal welfare program, specifically excluded families with a father and mother from benefits. It created the perverse incentive that drove fathers out of their families. Think of the incentives: If you were a father who could increase his family income by pretending to live elsewhere, you'd do it, wouldn't you? And if the pretense became the fact, well, the kids were taken care of, so what's the big deal? After all, you're still contributing some of your income, and the government is more than making up for it. After all, it's okay to abandon the family since the government is paying you to do it. And if, after living away from the family, that father hooked up and began the cycle again, well, that's just more money coming from Uncle Sam.

If poverty breeds promiscuity and crime, and there are very limited educational and job opportunities, would the results of these conditions be properly called a "culture"?

You've got it exactly backwards. Crime and promiscuity breed poverty. If a middle class person of any background were to choose a lifestyle of irresponsible sexual liaisons and criminal enterprises to support himself, that person would condemn his children to poverty as surely as if he'd robbed them himself. The proof: During the 19th century, Irish poverty and illegitimacy rates were almost as high as the current Black rates, (over 50% in some areas) as were their rates of incarceration.

Ironically, we are almost exactly where we were about eighty years ago in terms of how immigrants assimilate. Take the three most important immigrant groups in terms of their approach to immigration:

Group I places emphasis on education and professional advancement. The first generation opens shops, developing an entrepreneurial bent that is used to finance the educational achievements of the second generation, which is heavily represented in colleges, and especially in the medical and legal fields, as well as the sciences.

Group II places emphasis on the public sector. They take help from government when possible, deride education and work in blue collar jobs, especially in government. They advance through political pressures and public sector employment.

Group III comes from the least economically and politically developed place and begins by working in the lowest economic rungs of the ladder, gradually moving up through jobs that place a premium on individual trade skills, rather than the professions.

In the early 20th century, Group I was European Jews, Group II was the Irish, and Group III were Italians. Today, Group I is Asians, Group II is Blacks and Group III are Latinos. The patterns of assimilation haven't changed. A century from now, some other ethnic groups will look around and see themselves in one of the same groups, assuming that there's anything worth immigrating to once Obama has had his way with our economy.

noonwitch
05-24-2010, 02:30 PM
I am not reading any of the posts in this topic. There will be at least 7 or 8 that infuriate me, and I'm in a good mood today.

Wei Wei, why did you even post this on this board, of all places? Are you just looking for trouble?

Wei Wu Wei
05-24-2010, 02:42 PM
I am not reading any of the posts in this topic. There will be at least 7 or 8 that infuriate me, and I'm in a good mood today.

Wei Wei, why did you even post this on this board, of all places? Are you just looking for trouble?

I like to learn how ideology functions.

Odysseus
05-24-2010, 02:42 PM
I am not reading any of the posts in this topic. There will be at least 7 or 8 that infuriate me, and I'm in a good mood today.

Wei Wei, why did you even post this on this board, of all places? Are you just looking for trouble?

Isn't it obvious? :confused:

Wei Wu Wei
05-24-2010, 02:59 PM
I'd disagree with the idea that harsh treatment in one period condemns a group to failure in another. Women have certainly suffered everything described above at various times and in various cultures and too many still do today but when women are offered the opportunity to work, learn to read, or create businesses, they do so in large numbers.

No of course not. Having women treated one way all over the world won't affect other women (at least until the current information age where we are all connected.)

I'm not talking about cross-cultural stuff, I mean the black people who came here to this land and were treated a certain way generation after generation for 4 centuries and now they've only had 1-2 generations of technical equality under the law, yet it's arguable about how those laws are applied.

Since women began going into the market in large numbers (the 70's, not counting the temporary boost during the world wars) they have boosted their income considerably. They were from making barely a fraction of what men did in 1973, to making about the same as what men made (in 1973, adjusted for inflation).

They are still subjugated in a semi-subtle way through the masculine culture, and although women are succeeding in many areas (I believe more women are in college now than men), the simple fact remains that men still make more money than women when they work the same jobs and women are under-represented in areas of power and authority like upper management.


Most blacks aren't unemployed, uneducated, or criminal. There is probably something of a Darwinian selection process at work here (and not just for blacks). Those who want a better life enough to plan for it and who avoid the worst impulse control problems succeed and they leave. Over time, those who remain have concentrated problems: they are less ambitious, less goal-oriented, more impulsive, more satisfied with lower expectations, and less willing to believe in opportunity versus "luck".

Darwinism implies a significance of environment as well as fitness, in fact fitness only is fitness in relation to the environment it is in. Do you believe that the environment, (educational opportunities, job opportunities, resources, role models, ect) of a poor child are the same as that of a middle class child?

I think you recognize that it's not about race, as white people in poverty face the same problems, so what effect do you think economic class has on this?

OR, if you believe that we all have equal opportunity, equal chances, and that the sole factor of an individual success is only their own personal attributes, does that mean that blacks are simply inferior in terms of "fitness"?


It's worth recognizing that Asian success in America doesn't mean that Asia isn't loaded with stupid, lazy, carnal, and criminal Asians. There are plenty of areas of poverty and crime in Asian countries. We see the most ambitious and success-oriented immigrants here. Also, the height of Asian immigration occurred long before the welfare state got underway. It was work or starve.

There was a lot of work during the height of asian immigration, the country was in the process of extreme expansion and huge projects.

If there simply are no jobs available, should a person be left to starve?

Wei Wu Wei
05-24-2010, 03:11 PM
Except that they weren't. The Black illegitimacy rate in 1960 was 33%, higher than the white rate, to be sure, but not astronomical. Today, the Black rate is over twice that, while the white rate is approaching it. These are the direct results of the culture that arose from Great Society programs.

So you see no effect of the economic restructuring of our society? The move from manufacturing to service? the information revolution allowing for outsourcing of jobs? the move of low-skilled labor jobs into rural areas? You see ONLY a broken welfare system as a cause?


For example, AFDC, the primary federal welfare program, specifically excluded families with a father and mother from benefits. It created the perverse incentive that drove fathers out of their families. Think of the incentives: If you were a father who could increase his family income by pretending to live elsewhere, you'd do it, wouldn't you? And if the pretense became the fact, well, the kids were taken care of, so what's the big deal? After all, you're still contributing some of your income, and the government is more than making up for it. After all, it's okay to abandon the family since the government is paying you to do it. And if, after living away from the family, that father hooked up and began the cycle again, well, that's just more money coming from Uncle Sam.

Sure, that sounds like a poorly thought out program, if it exists on it's own without any other programs. I've been critical of bad welfare program policies as well. However, how much does welfare pay out in your state? I disagree with this idea that anyone in decent economic standing would want to rely on welfare.



You've got it exactly backwards. Crime and promiscuity breed poverty.

Not nearly as much. Crime and promiscuity rarely cause poverty, they cause problems no doubt, not rarely poverty. In an area of poverty however, the need to eat = the need for money and the need for money can be resolved through criminal enterprises. robbery, carjacking, drug dealing, prostitution. They all make money which people in poverty are in the most need of.

It's like the classic moral question: Is it wrong to steal of a loaf of bread to feed your hungry children?

That's not just something for college students to debate at night around a bowl of chips and salsa, that question is a real question people in poverty must ask themselves every day.


If a middle class person of any background were to choose a lifestyle of irresponsible sexual liaisons and criminal enterprises to support himself, that person would condemn his children to poverty as surely as if he'd robbed them himself.

Really? Consider how many people we see on television reported they had affairs with their wives, do they end up poor?

How about upper class crime? Wealthy elites in the corporate world cheat and steal all the time, and at most they get a slap on the wrist in the form of a tiny fine.


The proof: During the 19th century, Irish poverty and illegitimacy rates were almost as high as the current Black rates, (over 50% in some areas) as were their rates of incarceration.

Right, poverty - low education - high crime rate are all related. I already stated that but this isn't evidence for the causal relationship you described.


Ironically, we are almost exactly where we were about eighty years ago in terms of how immigrants assimilate. Take the three most important immigrant groups in terms of their approach to immigration:

Group I places emphasis on education and professional advancement. The first generation opens shops, developing an entrepreneurial bent that is used to finance the educational achievements of the second generation, which is heavily represented in colleges, and especially in the medical and legal fields, as well as the sciences.

Group II places emphasis on the public sector. They take help from government when possible, deride education and work in blue collar jobs, especially in government. They advance through political pressures and public sector employment.

Group III comes from the least economically and politically developed place and begins by working in the lowest economic rungs of the ladder, gradually moving up through jobs that place a premium on individual trade skills, rather than the professions.

In the early 20th century, Group I was European Jews, Group II was the Irish, and Group III were Italians. Today, Group I is Asians, Group II is Blacks and Group III are Latinos. The patterns of assimilation haven't changed. A century from now, some other ethnic groups will look around and see themselves in one of the same groups, assuming that there's anything worth immigrating to once Obama has had his way with our economy.

The response to this will be long, I'll save it for a bit. Interesting framework though.

Gingersnap
05-24-2010, 03:56 PM
No of course not. Having women treated one way all over the world won't affect other women (at least until the current information age where we are all connected.)

No, women have a ringside seat watching the lives of their own grandmothers, mothers, sisters, daughters, and friends. There's no cross-cultural pollination needed.


Darwinism implies a significance of environment as well as fitness, in fact fitness only is fitness in relation to the environment it is in.

"Fitness" in a natural environment might be better expressed as "settling" for the purposes of this discussion. By most measures I am a success but I'm well aware that I could be more successful in a number of ways - both materially and intellectually. It's just not a priority for me. The very same exact thing could be said of my cousin who was a drop-out and has been mostly unemployed for years. Doing better isn't a big priority for her since she has what she needs. In fact, this could be said of most of us. Most of us don't work or study as hard as we can. We do it hard enough to get what we want. What "we want" varies.

The Darwinism here is in selection for environment. As others have pointed out, the ambitious aren't put off by new environments, hardships, or risk. So, remaining in a work-poor, marginal environment must have other compensations. Family ties, social status, loyalty issues - it's complex.


If there simply are no jobs available, should a person be left to starve?

No, but they shouldn't be supported in an environment that has to be propped up artificially, either.

Lager
05-24-2010, 04:17 PM
The Clinton years are often cited by libs as one of the better periods of economic prosperity in recent memory. Low unemployment, a budget surplus, balanced budget etc. What were the statistics for crime for this demographic during those years? Surely they must have trended sharply downward?

This is interesting because it shows a clear example of the divergence of liberal and conservative thought.

Conservatives believe that the best way to improve a society is by placing the responsibility at the lowest level, which is the individual. Personal responsibility, we believe, is the virtue which assists an individual in resisting negative influences in the immediate society or culture. Hopefully this attribute will then also be modeled and passed on to offspring.

Liberals tend to focus on the group, rather than an individual. They believe that outside circumstances have more power to shape a culture than actions by individuals within the group. Because they believe that it is society which shapes individuals, they believe that positve change can best be effected by a more powerful control of society, through a big government. This tends to relieve the individual from any culpability in the decisions made which influence the outcome of their lives.

Conservatives place more stock in equal opportunity for all members of our Country. Liberals focus more on equal outcome.

Odysseus
05-24-2010, 04:23 PM
So you see no effect of the economic restructuring of our society? The move from manufacturing to service? the information revolution allowing for outsourcing of jobs? the move of low-skilled labor jobs into rural areas? You see ONLY a broken welfare system as a cause?
No, I see a destructive welfare system as the cause. Since 1980, the US economy has added tens of millions of jobs. Other groups, with substantially poorer opportunities, have managed to improve their standing in America. To claim that Black economic disparity is somehow the fault of racism, while Latino and Asian economic advancement is not subject to the same factors strikes me as unlikely.

Sure, that sounds like a poorly thought out program, if it exists on it's own without any other programs. I've been critical of bad welfare program policies as well. However, how much does welfare pay out in your state? I disagree with this idea that anyone in decent economic standing would want to rely on welfare.
A fifteen year old girl who sees welfare as a means of getting her own place isn't starting out in decent economic standing, nor is she acting on the same standards of rational criteria that an adult woman might be considering. For the single teen mother, it's an opportunity to assert her independence (from her mother, if not from the government). Combining the various aspects of welfare, including food stamps, public housing and the like, and the safety net becomes quite the hammock.

Not nearly as much. Crime and promiscuity rarely cause poverty, they cause problems no doubt, not rarely poverty. In an area of poverty however, the need to eat = the need for money and the need for money can be resolved through criminal enterprises. robbery, carjacking, drug dealing, prostitution. They all make money which people in poverty are in the most need of.
Again, you've got it backwards. Would you, as a business owner, start a business in an area in which there was a significant violent crime problem? Think of the additional security costs that you would incur for your plant, not to mention the additional costs of educating your potential employees so that they can function on the job (those public schools having utterly failed at it) and the additional problems associated with trying to work in a community in which work is not a value. The culture of crime and promiscuity results in surplus boys who never learn to accept adult responsibilities and women who tolerate it.

It's like the classic moral question: Is it wrong to steal of a loaf of bread to feed your hungry children?
It's wrong to steal, period. The reasons or excuses may make the thief feel better about himself, but the person who had to bake the bread now has to sell another loaf at the price of two in order to make up the lost revenue from the first one. Thus, the working poor end up paying more for their bread, and unlike the thief, they are paying for it. This, BTW, is why prices for basic staple foods are higher in poorer neighborhoods, since the increased costs arising from the pathologies of the slums lead to increased overhead for those who do business there.


Really? Consider how many people we see on television reported they had affairs with their wives, do they end up poor?
In many cases, yes. Studies of divorce show that when a family splits, the vast majority end up poorer, if not in poverty. The costs of maintaining multiple households alone drive household income down.

How about upper class crime? Wealthy elites in the corporate world cheat and steal all the time, and at most they get a slap on the wrist in the form of a tiny fine.
I wouldn't say "all the time," although it certainly gets more press nowadays. But the fact is that the richer you are, the more money you have to insulate yourself from the effects of your poor decisions, but it does catch up with them. A study of the US economy a few years back showed that of the five quintiles of income, not only were many of those in the top 20% no longer there within a decade, but a significant percentage of those in the bottom 20% had made it into the top. And, even if the excesses of a rich spendthrift don't catch up to him personally, they will certainly impact his family, if not in this generation, then in the next. There are many families whose fortunes have declined due to the excesses of a previous generation. In fact, there used to be a saying, "from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations," that described a family going from rags to riches to rags again.

Right, poverty - low education - high crime rate are all related. I already stated that but this isn't evidence for the causal relationship you described.
But you're assuming the opposite, that poverty is the causation for high crime and high illegitimacy, and it's not the case. The US was a measurably poorer nation during the Great Depression, and Black poverty in the south was among the worst (although whites in rural areas didn't have it so well either). Yet, crime and illegitimacy rates were far lower among Blacks back then. Even in 1960, Black illegitimacy rates were substantially lower than they are now, despite far more pervasive discrimination and impediments to upward mobility, not only de facto, but de jure. In fact, Walter Williams had a great column on the subject:


In 1960, only 28 percent of black females between the ages of 15 and 44 were never married. Today, it's 56 percent. In 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks was 19 percent, in 1960, 22 percent, and today, it's 70 percent. Some argue that the state of the black family is the result of the legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty. That has to be nonsense. A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were nuclear families, comprised of two parents and children. In New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households had two parents. In fact, according to Herbert Gutman in "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom: 1750-1925," "Five in six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents." Therefore, if one argues that what we see today is a result of a legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty, what's the explanation for stronger black families at a time much closer to slavery a time of much greater discrimination and of much greater poverty? I think that a good part of the answer is there were no welfare and Great Society programs.

And, Thomas Sowell makes a very good point on the educational disparity:

Despite widespread concerns expressed about the abysmal educational performances of most black schools, there is remarkably little interest in those relatively few black schools which have met or exceeded national standards.

Anyone who is serious about the advancement of blacks would want to know what is going on in those ghetto schools whose students have reading and math scores above the national average, when so many other ghetto schools are miles behind in both subjects. But virtually all the studies of such schools have been done by conservatives, while liberals have been strangely silent.

BTW, the answer to Sowell's question is that those schools have standards of conduct and academics and do not tolerate the culture of failure that permeates so many other educational institutions.

NJCardFan
05-24-2010, 06:46 PM
If there simply are no jobs available, should a person be left to starve?

No. However, that person, their children, and their children's children shouldn't be able to live off the public dole for life either. This is something people like wee wee either don't understand or intentionally block from their consciousness. Also, those who are being helped should be barred from enjoying the finer things in life. Fancy cars, clothes, and jewelry, high end electronics, cable and satellite television, cell phones, all of which are enjoyed by those the left deem to poor to take care of themselves, are luxuries and are privileges. If you have money for this crap, you have money to feed, clothe, and care for yourself.

Gingersnap
05-24-2010, 06:55 PM
Odysseus makes a number of interesting points that illustrate some of my own.

One of the problems well-meaning people make when considering the issue of poverty is that most of them have never actually been poor and their perspective leaves something to be desired.

I have actually been poor. I've seen the IRS take our stuff, I've eaten the government cheese, and I've had the sheriff out when I was a kid. Rural finances are erratic, to say the least. However, I've never considered myself "poor". No one in my family did, either. We came into "hard times". :D

Government poverty programs fail more than they succeed because they have to accommodate everyone. Not everyone is motivated to take advantage of them as they are designed. There is no real way to sort out the applicants. The safety net does become a ratty, but comfy, hammock for some. If your peer group feels the same way you do, there's no social pressure to change (there are white communities that perfectly illustrate this point).

Poverty should "pinch" unless you are disabled or very elderly. It certainly pinched me and I decided I didn't care for it. I have a few relatives who decided differently and they now have a lifestyle that is government funded and considerably better than we had during the lean times as kids.

PoliCon
05-24-2010, 07:11 PM
You know WEE WEE - I find it interesting that no one is complaining about women being under represented in the prison system. I mean after all - they do make up more than 50% of the population . . . shouldn't they also account for 50% of those incarcerated?

NJCardFan
05-24-2010, 08:54 PM
You know WEE WEE - I find it interesting that no one is complaining about women being under represented in the prison system. I mean after all - they do make up more than 50% of the population . . . shouldn't they also account for 50% of those incarcerated?

You want disproportion, check out sentences being given to women as opposed to men for the same crime. All of these teachers having sex with students should clue you in on that. Had the genders been reversed, the male offender would be put in actual prison and being a man and a registered sex offender has a wee bit more impact than it does to a woman.

Wei Wu Wei
05-24-2010, 08:58 PM
You know WEE WEE - I find it interesting that no one is complaining about women being under represented in the prison system. I mean after all - they do make up more than 50% of the population . . . shouldn't they also account for 50% of those incarcerated?

That's an interesting thing to look at. Why do you think that is?

Gingersnap
05-24-2010, 08:58 PM
You want disproportion, check out sentences being given to women as opposed to men for the same crime. All of these teachers having sex with students should clue you in on that. Had the genders been reversed, the male offender would be put in actual prison and being a man and a registered sex offender has a wee bit more impact than it does to a woman.

Very true. Women receive lighter sentences for many kinds of crime. It's a legacy from the days when most women really did have the moral high ground. That's been over for 50 years at least.

Wei Wu Wei
05-24-2010, 09:04 PM
Odysseus makes a number of interesting points that illustrate some of my own.

One of the problems well-meaning people make when considering the issue of poverty is that most of them have never actually been poor and their perspective leaves something to be desired.

I have actually been poor. I've seen the IRS take our stuff, I've eaten the government cheese, and I've had the sheriff out when I was a kid. Rural finances are erratic, to say the least. However, I've never considered myself "poor". No one in my family did, either. We came into "hard times". :D

Me too. I was more of a city-poor, living in the projects and using colorful food stamps to buy things at the grocery store. I've seen it a lot, many loved ones in hard times, terrible stuff all around.


Government poverty programs fail more than they succeed because they have to accommodate everyone. Not everyone is motivated to take advantage of them as they are designed. There is no real way to sort out the applicants. The safety net does become a ratty, but comfy, hammock for some. If your peer group feels the same way you do, there's no social pressure to change (there are white communities that perfectly illustrate this point).

Poverty should "pinch" unless you are disabled or very elderly. It certainly pinched me and I decided I didn't care for it. I have a few relatives who decided differently and they now have a lifestyle that is government funded and considerably better than we had during the lean times as kids.

Most of the people I grew up with didn't finish high school. I was the first in my family to get a high school degree (rather than a GED) and the only to get a Bachelors degree (even in my large extended family of cousins and uncles, only 1 uncle and his wife have professional careers. Some of those I know are finding their own paths to success (military mostly) but many others are either struggling or have succumb to drug addiction or crime.

NJCardFan
05-24-2010, 09:05 PM
In NJ, we have 1 women's prison and since the numbers have been climbing for female offenders, they have to ferry them out. And some pretty heinous people are getting light sentences. This woman (http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/10425/) served 4 years of a 7 year sentence for nearly starving her adopted children to death. How's that for justice.

PoliCon
05-24-2010, 10:07 PM
That's an interesting thing to look at. Why do you think that is?

Well clearly - it's discrimination. women deserve gender equality. I suggest you take up their cause and fight for them to have greater representation in prison populations.

Gingersnap
05-25-2010, 12:35 AM
Me too. I was more of a city-poor, living in the projects and using colorful food stamps to buy things at the grocery store. I've seen it a lot, many loved ones in hard times, terrible stuff all around.

And yet we have very different views. My parents graduated from high school but none of my grandparents did. My MIL did but my FIL did not. My generation is the first to attend college and all of us who did go (my contemporaries) did so on scholarships, work/study, poverty grants, and loans. For most of us, it was loans which we have paid back. I used academic scholarships but I had one loan, personally, that because I chose to go a very expensive undergrad.

My parents' financial mishaps were partly happenstance (weather, prices) but mostly a combination of ill-placed confidence coupled with dumbness financially. They were impulsive and optimistic financially. We suffered because of that. The fact that they were good people who wanted the best doesn't change that fact.

NJCardFan
05-25-2010, 01:25 AM
You know, there are reasons why some people win multi-million dollar lotteries and wind up bankrupt. Some people really are too stupid to have money. A large segment of the black community fall into that category. Not to have to use the N word but why do you think the term "n_gger rich" came about in the first place?

RobJohnson
05-25-2010, 02:54 AM
That is such a load of crap. many Mexicans walk miles and miles to get to the border, jump or crawl thru a fence, dodge border guards, have only their feet to get them where they are going, many can not speak English but low and behold they find work and make enough money to support themselves and send money back home.

We have Mexican families that start out living in the desert without running water, etc while they get local jobs and save up enough money for a better place to live. They seem to do whatever it takes to find & keep a job. God Bless them for doing whatever it takes to make things better for their families.

These same folks are some of the nicest and polite people you could ever deal with.

noonwitch
05-25-2010, 10:00 AM
The Clinton years are often cited by libs as one of the better periods of economic prosperity in recent memory. Low unemployment, a budget surplus, balanced budget etc. What were the statistics for crime for this demographic during those years? Surely they must have trended sharply downward?

This is interesting because it shows a clear example of the divergence of liberal and conservative thought.

Conservatives believe that the best way to improve a society is by placing the responsibility at the lowest level, which is the individual. Personal responsibility, we believe, is the virtue which assists an individual in resisting negative influences in the immediate society or culture. Hopefully this attribute will then also be modeled and passed on to offspring.

Liberals tend to focus on the group, rather than an individual. They believe that outside circumstances have more power to shape a culture than actions by individuals within the group. Because they believe that it is society which shapes individuals, they believe that positve change can best be effected by a more powerful control of society, through a big government. This tends to relieve the individual from any culpability in the decisions made which influence the outcome of their lives.

Conservatives place more stock in equal opportunity for all members of our Country. Liberals focus more on equal outcome.


I don't know the actual statistics, but crime rates plummeted in the Clinton years. The Detroit rates plummeted in those years, which were also the years that Dennis Archer was mayor of the city, and Michigan put welfare reform into place. The economy was strong at the time, and there were jobs to move welfare recipients into then. Also, Dennis Archer had a police force like Rudy's in New York. The previous mayor to him had largely pacified the DPD, as did Kwame after Archer. But Archer understood that the concept of "community policing" (which to him meant foot patrols in neighborhoods with lots of businesses) worked well when it was backed up by the right arsenal. Because he did those things, Archer was able to get people to invest in the city again.

People found out they were better off working for minimum wage than they were just collecting a check. They had more money, overall, because if they worked extra hours or got a slight promotion or wage increase, it wasn't affecting their welfare benefits. Welfare is a trap the sticks recipients at a certain level, and then they become afraid of getting a job that might not last and losing that little bit that they get. But welfare reform doesn't work if there aren't any jobs in the area for the people.

Elspeth
05-28-2010, 05:16 PM
You want disproportion, check out sentences being given to women as opposed to men for the same crime. All of these teachers having sex with students should clue you in on that. Had the genders been reversed, the male offender would be put in actual prison and being a man and a registered sex offender has a wee bit more impact than it does to a woman.

I just heard of a male teacher in his 30's getting ONE year plus probation for statutory rape with the 15-year old girl. Not all the males get long sentences.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
05-29-2010, 09:34 AM
Perhaps they are living out their own expectations? The unspoken message of affirmative action is that they can't get head unless someone helps them.

You might wanna change that up a bit....

NJCardFan
05-29-2010, 10:54 AM
I just heard of a male teacher in his 30's getting ONE year plus probation for statutory rape with the 15-year old girl. Not all the males get long sentences.

Compared to straight probation like Debra Lafave?