Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Socapro on April 10, 2014, 09:14:15 PM
-
Pastor Manning says that if God is his witness Black Americans were better off back then in 1964 than they are today. Do you agree with him? Is he lying?
Are We Better Off 50 Years After The Civil Rights Act?
https://www.youtube.com/v/ZDDIr3lJWhY
Dr. James David Manning explains why we are not better off 50 years after the Civil Rights Act.
Recorded on 10 April 2014.
-
President Obama Delivers Keynote Address at Civil Rights Summit!
Full Speech: President Obama at Civil Rights Summit
https://www.youtube.com/v/48NqoaI1v4E
-
Good speech! President Obama is a great speech deliverer but when you examine his track record you realize that he is just full of hot air and has made too many broken promises.
-
Tell me what he has not delivered for Blacks? Anything he delivers for Blacks, he will certainly have to do for everybody. Other than enforcing civil rights law and making sure that the playing field level across the board, there is not much Obama can do. As a matter of fact if Obama makes a speech on race he is criticised(Trayvon Martin, The incident with Louis Gates). Bill Clinton stand a better chance of making a speech about race and be praised. Obama will forever be called for playing the race card.
When he articulates his speech in a cool manner he is perceived as weak, no passion or has no balls. When he says something in a forcefull manner is perceived as an angry Black man. Michelle can't even say or do something with them cherry picking each phrase or action to put some other meaning to it.
He health care roll out was a disaster. The issue with Syria may have been an error in judgement. The immigration Bill in still a work in progress. The man is definitely no perfect.
-
Why stop at 50 years Pastor ? why not go back 400 years , Blacks really had it good then .. free food , housing, clothing and yes , guaranteed employment.
Of course I am referring to slavery
-
Why stop at 50 years Pastor ? why not go back 400 years , Blacks really had it good then .. free food , housing, clothing and yes , guaranteed employment.
Of course I am referring to slavery
I think he is making the point that since the gains of the Civil Rights movement in the 60's, Black Americans in general have not made that much progress from a house owning, school owning, bank owning and business owning perspective.
We have many more educated Black Americans now but most work for White owned and started businesses or for the government which amounts to the same thing.
The Pastor can make a direct comparison because he was a young adult in 1964. I don't think he wants us to go back 400 years to Slavery conversely he wants Black Americans to finally come out of Slavery mentally and to show the unity, love for self and work ethic of doing for self that they were showing back in 1964.
Back then most Black American homes were headed by a father but these days 80% of Black homes are headed by the Mother and the Fathers are missing in action. I think the breakdown of the Black family in American is at the root of the problems that most Black Americans are seeing today leading to lack of progress.
-
Why stop at 50 years Pastor ? why not go back 400 years , Blacks really had it good then .. free food , housing, clothing and yes , guaranteed employment.
Of course I am referring to slavery
I think he is making the point that since the gains of the Civil Rights movement in the 60's, Black Americans in general have not made that much progress from a house owning, school owning, bank owning and business owning perspective.
We have many more educated Black Americans now but most work for White owned and started businesses or for the government which amounts to the same thing.
The Pastor can make a direct comparison because he was a young adult in 1964. I don't think he wants us to go back 400 years to Slavery conversely he wants Black Americans to finally come out of Slavery mentally and to show the unity, love for self and work ethic of doing for self that they were showing back in 1964.
Back then most Black American homes were headed by a father but these days 80% of Black homes are headed by the Mother and the Fathers are missing in action. I think the breakdown of the Black family in American is at the root of the problems that most Black Americans are seeing today leading to lack of progress.
I agree with a lot what is said here. But whose fault it is mostly? It is OURS. Same as them nuckleheads who killing out one another East of POS. They have been roughly 50/50 Dem and Repub presidents since 64. Since then till now the glass appears half-full or half empty. Take your pick. We can list all the barriers. Institutional racism, poor housing, defunded schools. But in the final analysis, Afros have to do for themselves. To me the only cohesive instution left is the Black church. But each is a little kingdom of its own. If all the Black churches were to come together and form businesses, that will go a long way in helping the situation. But after listening to pastor Manning, you think I want to work with he.
-
Why stop at 50 years Pastor ? why not go back 400 years , Blacks really had it good then .. free food , housing, clothing and yes , guaranteed employment.
Of course I am referring to slavery
I think he is making the point that since the gains of the Civil Rights movement in the 60's, Black Americans in general have not made that much progress from a house owning, school owning, bank owning and business owning perspective.
We have many more educated Black Americans now but most work for White owned and started businesses or for the government which amounts to the same thing.
The Pastor can make a direct comparison because he was a young adult in 1964. I don't think he wants us to go back 400 years to Slavery conversely he wants Black Americans to finally come out of Slavery mentally and to show the unity, love for self and work ethic of doing for self that they were showing back in 1964.
Back then most Black American homes were headed by a father but these days 80% of Black homes are headed by the Mother and the Fathers are missing in action. I think the breakdown of the Black family in American is at the root of the problems that most Black Americans are seeing today leading to lack of progress.
I agree with a lot what is said here. But whose fault it is mostly? It is OURS. Same as them nuckleheads who killing out one another East of POS. They have been roughly 50/50 Dem and Repub presidents since 64. Since then till now the glass appears half-full or half empty. Take your pick. We can list all the barriers. Institutional racism, poor housing, defunded schools. But in the final analysis, Afros have to do for themselves. To me the only cohesive instution left is the Black church. But each is a little kingdom of its own. If all the Black churches were to come together and form businesses, that will go a long way in helping the situation. But after listening to pastor Manning, you think I want to work with he.
You may not want to work with him but funnily enough he has been advocating most of what you just said and has been doing his part in his local community in Harlem.
But therein lies part of the problem you don't like his delivery so you may refuse to acknowledge that he might be doing good work in his community and living up to his message and setting a good example for black churches in creating jobs for members of their communities.
-
you like nothing better than to wind people up.
norman, better yuh crawl out now before somebody ketch yuh hiding in the closet.
-
you like nothing better than to wind people up.
norman, better yuh crawl out now before somebody ketch yuh hiding in the closet.
As yuh mention Norman ah just remember this classic tune! :devil:
Merchant - Norman IS That You (1978)
https://www.youtube.com/v/MiaERolVcCM
And this was the follow up by Lord Nelson which is even more bacchanal about when Norman & Audrey clash in a party! 8)
Norman and Audrey - Lord Nelson (1979)
https://www.youtube.com/v/b9PbItQH0Fs
-
You might be able to patch together a valid argument to support his conclusions, but the man is a sad, attention-seeking clown. If you really want to understand african-american problematics from a conservative point of view surely you can find a better starting point than a pastor who refers to even the best of his own people as dirty n*ggers. Better yuh join the klan.
-
You might be able to patch together a valid argument to support his conclusions, but the man is a sad, attention-seeking clown. If you really want to understand african-american problematics from a conservative point of view surely you can find a better starting point than a pastor who refers to even the best of his own people as dirty n*ggers. Better yuh join the klan.
He might be an attention seeking clown at times but most of the time he is speaking the truth as he sees it as hurtful as it may sound.
I think on balance he is one of the most sincere and trustworthy Black Pastors out there trying to wake up and help the Black community. His approach might be harsh to many but I think he means well.
I also admire his bravery and that he is willing to always speak his mind even about the most powerful man in the country President Obama. I also find him very entertaining. :)
-
I also find him very entertaining.
I eh go lie, but the first time I look at his video I was laughing. But later on it was hard for me to laugh or even take his seriously even though he made good points. He is not saying or advocating anything different from Booker T. Washington, Malcolm, Stokely, Jesse, CORE, NAACP. So he is no revelation to me. What I had a hard time with, is how he just jump on Michelle Obama case like she was the worst thing to happen to women. She is a married woman. She is educated, mother, and has a strong independent streak that he does not appreciate. He lucky he is not married to she. She might have buss his arse.
-
I also find him very entertaining.
I eh go lie, but the first time I look at his video I was laughing. But later on it was hard for me to laugh or even take his seriously even though he made good points. He is not saying or advocating anything different from Booker T. Washington, Malcolm, Stokely, Jesse, CORE, NAACP. So he is no revelation to me. What I had a hard time with, is how he just jump on Michelle Obama case like she was the worst thing to happen to women. She is a married woman. She is educated, mother, and has a strong independent streak that he does not appreciate. He lucky he is not married to she. She might have buss his arse.
Yeah I think he crosses the line there but then again he believes that Obama is Satan and therefore he regards Michelle as the wife of Satan so automatically he puts her in his bad books just for that.
-
https://www.youtube.com/v/_DUyOg49gHw
-
What do you make of Sowell?
-
What do you make of Sowell?
I agree with him on most issues except foreign policy/national security where he doesn't apply the same scrutiny he applies to social programmes. He favours a large military and a pre-emptive strike on Iran.
-
What do you make of Sowell?
I agree with him on most issues except foreign policy/national security where he doesn't apply the same scrutiny he applies to social programmes. He favours a large military and a pre-emptive strike on Iran.
Fair enough.
Any problematics regarding his overriding of the vestiges of enslavement?
-
What do you make of Sowell?
I agree with him on most issues except foreign policy/national security where he doesn't apply the same scrutiny he applies to social programmes. He favours a large military and a pre-emptive strike on Iran.
Fair enough.
Any problematics regarding his overriding of the vestiges of enslavement?
Thomas Sowell is a typical house nigga , a useful idiot for the right wing .
He endears himself to the tea party kind folks and is paid handsomely to appear on right wing shows and media.
They recruit minorities and make it appears as of they speak for their whole race where in fact they are self hating of their own race .
Others are Michelle Malkin .. a philipino , Ramesh Ponuru , an Indian .
Thomas Sowell aint nothing but an uncle Tom
-
I'm surprised you omitted Dinesh D'Souza and ... err, ah ... Amy Chua.
-
What do you make of Sowell?
I agree with him on most issues except foreign policy/national security where he doesn't apply the same scrutiny he applies to social programmes. He favours a large military and a pre-emptive strike on Iran.
Fair enough.
Any problematics regarding his overriding of the vestiges of enslavement?
his opinions on past enslavement not suppressing contemporary white achievement is an interesting topic... he doesn't look at enslavement from only an american perspective, which adds credibility to his statements and his opinions because it's not myopic.. but also looks at racial differences and america being a unique case...
some examples would be sudanese girls sold into sex slavery, to haitians being captured to work in the DR on sugar cane fields.. there are many modern day examples of enslavement... some even argue that modern sports is a form of slavery.. there is problematics with anything, anyone says..
-
What do you make of Sowell?
I agree with him on most issues except foreign policy/national security where he doesn't apply the same scrutiny he applies to social programmes. He favours a large military and a pre-emptive strike on Iran.
Fair enough.
Any problematics regarding his overriding of the vestiges of enslavement?
correct me if i am wrong, you believe sowell rejects the fact that enslavement has disappeared? Or that he rejects that there is any remnants of enslavement existing today?
-
What do you make of Sowell?
I agree with him on most issues except foreign policy/national security where he doesn't apply the same scrutiny he applies to social programmes. He favours a large military and a pre-emptive strike on Iran.
Fair enough.
Any problematics regarding his overriding of the vestiges of enslavement?
correct me if i am wrong, you believe sowell rejects the fact that enslavement has disappeared? Or that he rejects that there is any remnants of enslavement existing today?
My view is he understates and/or underappreciates the vestiges of slavery.
-
What do you make of Sowell?
I agree with him on most issues except foreign policy/national security where he doesn't apply the same scrutiny he applies to social programmes. He favours a large military and a pre-emptive strike on Iran.
Fair enough.
Any problematics regarding his overriding of the vestiges of enslavement?
his opinions on past enslavement not suppressing contemporary white achievement is an interesting topic... he doesn't look at enslavement from only an american perspective, which adds credibility to his statements and his opinions because it's not myopic.. but also looks at racial differences and america being a unique case...
some examples would be sudanese girls sold into sex slavery, to haitians being captured to work in the DR on sugar cane fields.. there are many modern day examples of enslavement... some even argue that modern sports is a form of slavery.. there is problematics with anything, anyone says..
The only thing he did was remind me of ah couple tired positions articulated by ah tiresome poster.
-
I'm surprised you omitted Dinesh D'Souza and ... err, ah ... Amy Chua.
Actually I did not forget him . I just could not remember his name . There is also another Chinese dude whose name also eludes me but thanks for bringing up Dinesh De Souza ,
He now though is in some serious kind of troubles
-
Thomas Sowell is no different from Stanley Crouch, John McWhorter and Shelby Steele et al. All intelligent men with valuable contributions, were it not for the fact that they miss the mark so frequently and so spectacularly.
-
I'm surprised you omitted Dinesh D'Souza and ... err, ah ... Amy Chua.
Actually I did not forget him . I just could not remember his name . There is also another Chinese dude whose name also eludes me but thanks for bringing up Dinesh De Souza ,
He now though is in some serious kind of troubles
Who? Francis Fukuyama ... though not Chinese.
-
I'm surprised you omitted Dinesh D'Souza and ... err, ah ... Amy Chua.
Actually I did not forget him . I just could not remember his name . There is also another Chinese dude whose name also eludes me but thanks for bringing up Dinesh De Souza ,
He now though is in some serious kind of troubles
Who? Francis f**kuyama ... though not Chinese.
Him is another other one , I believe he wrote the book " the end of history" but there is a Chinese dude of the same genre
-
What do you make of Sowell?
I agree with him on most issues except foreign policy/national security where he doesn't apply the same scrutiny he applies to social programmes. He favours a large military and a pre-emptive strike on Iran.
Fair enough.
Any problematics regarding his overriding of the vestiges of enslavement?
Thomas Sowell is a typical house nigga , a useful idiot for the right wing .
He endears himself to the tea party kind folks and is paid handsomely to appear on right wing shows and media.
They recruit minorities and make it appears as of they speak for their whole race where in fact they are self hating of their own race .
Others are Michelle Malkin .. a philipino , Ramesh Ponuru , an Indian .
Thomas Sowell aint nothing but an uncle Tom
Are you sure about that?
Most Black people don't really understand the meaning of the term Uncle Tom and use it out of context.
Have a view of video below to find out why from a brother who does a lot of research and reading.
David Carroll: The true Meaning of the terms "Sell Out" and "Uncle Tom"
https://www.youtube.com/v/UNFGHidcbYo
Please go to 16:30 in video for explanation of the meaning of Uncle Tom
-
I'm surprised you omitted Dinesh D'Souza and ... err, ah ... Amy Chua.
Actually I did not forget him . I just could not remember his name . There is also another Chinese dude whose name also eludes me but thanks for bringing up Dinesh De Souza ,
He now though is in some serious kind of troubles
Who? Francis f**kuyama ... though not Chinese.
Him is another other one , I believe he wrote the book " the end of history" but there is a Chinese dude of the same genre
john yoo?
-
What do you make of Sowell?
I agree with him on most issues except foreign policy/national security where he doesn't apply the same scrutiny he applies to social programmes. He favours a large military and a pre-emptive strike on Iran.
Fair enough.
Any problematics regarding his overriding of the vestiges of enslavement?
I suppose you might referring to a statement such this one.
"The calamitous breakdown of the black family is a comparatively recent phenomenon, coinciding precisely with the rise of the welfare state. Throughout the epoch of slavery and into the early decades of the twentieth century, most black children grew up in two-parent households Post-Civil War studies revealed that most black couples in their forties had been together for at least twenty years. In southern urban areas around 1880, nearly three-fourths of black households were husband-or father-present; in southern rural settings, the figure approached 86%. As of 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks nationwide was approximately 15%—scarcely one-fifth of the current figure.As late as 1950, black women were more likely to be married than white women, and only 9% of black families with children were headed by a single parent." - Uncle Tom ;D Sowell
I agree with Sowell that to attribute the progress of blacks to the contribution of the civil rights movement is an incomplete evaluation in my view.Since black people made significant progress without it and mentioned using marriage rates as a metric made social progress before that era. Conversely to attribute the current inequities many blacks experience to racism and the oppression of slavery is also flawed as it doesn't consider culture as a factor or the inhibitive properties the welfare system has on all groups , not just blacks. This is not to say that the establishment of voting rights and the desegregation of school didn't have an impact on improving opportunities.
With respect to economic growth he posits that a group's access to political power does not inherently improve their incomes, using immigrant populations such German American and Japanese Americans as examples. It is rather the proclivity to save and invest and the development of skills within groups that cause their income and the welfare to rise. Further to this, groups have different skills because they come from different places and have different histories. He actually acknowledges that slavery was a tremendous disadvantage to blacks in this regard.
-
I agree with Sowell that to attribute the progress of blacks to the contribution of the civil rights movement is an incomplete evaluation in my view.Since black people made significant progress without it and mentioned using marriage rates as a metric made social progress before that era. Conversely to attribute the current inequities many blacks experience to racism and the oppression of slavery is also flawed as it doesn't consider culture as a factor or the inhibitive properties the welfare system has on all groups , not just blacks. This is not to say that the establishment of voting rights and the desegregation of school didn't have an impact on improving opportunities.
With respect to economic growth he posits that a group's access to political power does not inherently improve their incomes, using immigrant populations such German American and Japanese Americans as examples. It is rather the proclivity to save and invest and the development of skills within groups that cause their income and the welfare to rise. Further to this, groups have different skills because they come from different places and have different histories. He actually acknowledges that slavery was a tremendous disadvantage to blacks in this regard.
I can't believe supposedly intelligent people still believing this racist canard about black people and welfare. Jah Gol I suggest you do more research on the representative numbers of black people on welfare before you repeat this nonsense about the welfare state inhibiting black progress. Also, exactly what aspect of black "culture" is holding us back as a people? Yuh sounding just like them ignorant Republican and Tea Bagger apologists with this shit.
-
Bakes you didn't get yuh Obama free cell phone? Whappen line was too long or what?
-
I agree with Sowell that to attribute the progress of blacks to the contribution of the civil rights movement is an incomplete evaluation in my view.Since black people made significant progress without it and mentioned using marriage rates as a metric made social progress before that era. Conversely to attribute the current inequities many blacks experience to racism and the oppression of slavery is also flawed as it doesn't consider culture as a factor or the inhibitive properties the welfare system has on all groups , not just blacks. This is not to say that the establishment of voting rights and the desegregation of school didn't have an impact on improving opportunities.
With respect to economic growth he posits that a group's access to political power does not inherently improve their incomes, using immigrant populations such German American and Japanese Americans as examples. It is rather the proclivity to save and invest and the development of skills within groups that cause their income and the welfare to rise. Further to this, groups have different skills because they come from different places and have different histories. He actually acknowledges that slavery was a tremendous disadvantage to blacks in this regard.
I can't believe supposedly intelligent people still believing this racist canard about black people and welfare. Jah Gol I suggest you do more research on the representative numbers of black people on welfare before you repeat this nonsense about the welfare state inhibiting black progress. Also, exactly what aspect of black "culture" is holding us back as a people? Yuh sounding just like them ignorant Republican and Tea Bagger apologists with this shit.
I will ignore the insults and answer the one question you had.
For one the rate of fatherlessness has a direct impact on household income, criminality, behavioural problems, teenage pregnancy ,scholarship and long term achievement. This is true across all groups but the problem is particularly pronounced in the black population.
-
I will ignore the insults and answer the one question you had.
For one the rate of fatherlessness has a direct impact on household income, criminality, behavioural problems, teenage pregnancy ,scholarship and long term achievement. This is true across all groups but the problem is particularly pronounced in the black population.
I am yet to insult you, I expressed surprise someone presumably as intelligent as you would repeat the nonsense you did. What you repeated was nonsense... it's no insult to call it what it is. As for your 'answer'... nothing you describe is a part of black (or even African American "culture") and to the extent that you're tempted to argue that it is, the genesis of poverty and fatherlessness can directly be attributed to vestiges of slavery. You can't have it both ways. A lot of the other maladies, such as teenage pregnancy, behavioral problems and the disconnect with academics flow directly from the lack of involvement of black fathers, lack of proper parentage and poverty. As a consequence, they too are indirect vestiges of slavery.
-
I will ignore the insults and answer the one question you had.
For one the rate of fatherlessness has a direct impact on household income, criminality, behavioural problems, teenage pregnancy ,scholarship and long term achievement. This is true across all groups but the problem is particularly pronounced in the black population.
I am yet to insult you, I expressed surprise someone presumably as intelligent as you would repeat the nonsense you did. What you repeated was nonsense... it's no insult to call it what it is. As for your 'answer'... nothing you describe is a part of black (or even African American "culture") and to the extent that you're tempted to argue that it is, the genesis of poverty and fatherlessness can directly be attributed to vestiges of slavery. You can't have it both ways. A lot of the other maladies, such as teenage pregnancy, behavioral problems and the disconnect with academics flow directly from the lack of involvement of black fathers, lack of proper parentage and poverty. As a consequence, they too are indirect vestiges of slavery.
This is your interpretation of what I said and it is wrong. The data actually showed that marriage rates increased after slavery continuously to the extent that, and I will repeat nonsense as you put it , "As late as 1950, black women were more likely to be married than white women, and only 9% of black families with children were headed by a single parent."
Something else has to be the cause of fatherlessness. I didn't say slavery was the cause at all. The culture I was referring to is associated with the institutional dependency on social programmes that actually incentivizes irresponsibility and the lack of parenting that produces dysfunctional children who can't compete in the real world.
-
This is your interpretation of what I said and it is wrong. The data actually showed that marriage rates increased after slavery continuously to the extent that, and I will repeat nonsense as you put it , "As late as 1950, black women were more likely to be married than white women, and only 9% of black families with children were headed by a single parent."
Something else has to be the cause of fatherlessness. I didn't say slavery was the cause at all. The culture I was referring to is associated with the institutional dependency on social programmes that actually incentivizes irresponsibility and the lack of parenting that produces dysfunctional children who can't compete in the real world.
I suggest you read what I wrote closer, because the misinterpretation is all yours. You didn't say slavery was the cause, I did. I said you can't blame the lack of progress on "black culture" while disingenously failing to recognize that symptoms you describe as "cultural" are really vestigial remnants of slavery. That is what I meant by you can't have it both ways.
I am further stunned... say nothing of insulted by your insistance that there is some sort of "institutional dependency on social programmes." You speak from a position of ignorance and my initial exhortation didn't sufficiently apprise you of that, apparently. Yours is the often-repeated misrepresentation of reality that blacks have this special affinity for social programs. "Institutional dependency" is the word you used... when the reality states just the opposite:
Another finding of the study is that the distribution of benefits no longer aligns with the demography of poverty. African-Americans, who make up 22 percent of the poor, receive 14 percent of government benefits, close to their 12 percent population share.
White non-Hispanics, who make up 42 percent of the poor, receive 69 percent of government benefits – again, much closer to their 64 percent population share.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/who-benefits-from-the-safety-net/
Me calling your contribution ignorant and uninformed isn't meant to insult you, I bear you no personal animus. Rather it's meant to challenge you to avoid falling for the insidious trap that so many blacks from the diaspora fall for, the demonization of African Americans, usually driven by perniciousness and laziness in the press, and bought into by non-African American blacks, some as a way of thinking themselves better than American-born blacks. Black people are benefitting at or near their per capita representation in the population, while white people are getting 1.5 times their per capita representation, yet in so many minds the face of welfare remains a black/brown face. Where is the institutional dependency that you talk of? Do you have proof? Or do you think that black Americans are busy passing a legacy of dependency to their children? To be sure, this happens in pockets... but it happens in larger numbers in Appalachia where blacks have a miniscular footprint. That's the story that's never told. And not to stereotype the good people of W. Va and Ky too much... it happens in traditionally 'red' quarters such as Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee as well. But you wouldn't know this unless you force yourself to look at the actual demographic breakdown of government dependency.
As for your argument on fatherlessness... you cite marriage statistics as your proof, when in reality you need to be looking at out-of-wedlock births. The number of marriages in the black community has fallen... as has the number of marriages across all races. What you seemingly don't know is that the number of out-of-wedlock births has been declining in the black community:
The basic conclusion is that the birth rate for unmarried black women is--and has been--declining. In 1970 the birth rate for unmarried black women was 96 per 1,000. In 1980, it was 87.9. In 2005 it was 60.6. There is a huge spike in the late 1980s, but the overal trend is clear--the birth rate for unmarried black women has been declining for almost 40 years.
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2009/02/the-math-on-black-out-of-wedlock-births/6738/
However, the number of babies born to married blacks has also dropped precipitously... far steeper than the out-of-wedlock births. If you understand statistics you'll understand why then the RATE of out-of-wedlock births has risen, even though the actual INCIDENCE of out-of-wedlock births has fallen. You can only compare out-of-wedlock births to births to married couples, and if the latter is falling faster than the former, then you end up with a statistically skewed perspective which fuels the misinformation that you are now repeating.
-
Good read from The Huff.Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/28/poverty-unemployment-rates_n_3666594.html)
While racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in poverty, race disparities in the poverty rate have narrowed substantially since the 1970s, census data show. Economic insecurity among whites also is more pervasive than is shown in the government's poverty data, engulfing more than 76 percent of white adults by the time they turn 60, according to a new economic gauge being published next year by the Oxford University Press.
The gauge defines "economic insecurity" as experiencing unemployment at some point in their working lives, or a year or more of reliance on government aid such as food stamps or income below 150 percent of the poverty line. Measured across all races, the risk of economic insecurity rises to 79 percent.
Marriage rates are in decline across all races, and the number of white mother-headed households living in poverty has risen to the level of black ones.
"It's time that America comes to understand that many of the nation's biggest disparities, from education and life expectancy to poverty, are increasingly due to economic class position," said William Julius Wilson, a Harvard professor who specializes in race and poverty. He noted that despite continuing economic difficulties, minorities have more optimism about the future after Obama's election, while struggling whites do not.
"There is the real possibility that white alienation will increase if steps are not taken to highlight and address inequality on a broad front," Wilson said.
___
Nationwide, the count of America's poor remains stuck at a record number: 46.2 million, or 15 percent of the population, due in part to lingering high unemployment following the recession. While poverty rates for blacks and Hispanics are nearly three times higher, by absolute numbers the predominant face of the poor is white.
-
This is your interpretation of what I said and it is wrong. The data actually showed that marriage rates increased after slavery continuously to the extent that, and I will repeat nonsense as you put it , "As late as 1950, black women were more likely to be married than white women, and only 9% of black families with children were headed by a single parent."
Something else has to be the cause of fatherlessness. I didn't say slavery was the cause at all. The culture I was referring to is associated with the institutional dependency on social programmes that actually incentivizes irresponsibility and the lack of parenting that produces dysfunctional children who can't compete in the real world.
I suggest you read what I wrote closer, because the misinterpretation is all yours. You didn't say slavery was the cause, I did. I said you can't blame the lack of progress on "black culture" while disingenously failing to recognize that symptoms you describe as "cultural" are really vestigial remnants of slavery. That is what I meant by you can't have it both ways.
I am further stunned... say nothing of insulted by your insistance that there is some sort of "institutional dependency on social programmes." You speak from a position of ignorance and my initial exhortation didn't sufficiently apprise you of that, apparently. Yours is the often-repeated misrepresentation of reality that blacks have this special affinity for social programs. "Institutional dependency" is the word you used... when the reality states just the opposite:
Another finding of the study is that the distribution of benefits no longer aligns with the demography of poverty. African-Americans, who make up 22 percent of the poor, receive 14 percent of government benefits, close to their 12 percent population share.
White non-Hispanics, who make up 42 percent of the poor, receive 69 percent of government benefits – again, much closer to their 64 percent population share.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/who-benefits-from-the-safety-net/
The same study you're citing points to Social Security as having the highest share of 'government benefits'. Social Security is of course a form retirement insurance that you pay into over a number of years. 69% of its beneficiaries are white whereas 14 % are black.
I was shocked by the 14% statistic so much that I did some research. Multiple sources come up a breakdown more like this than what you're pointing to.
Percent of recipients who are white 38.8 %
Percent of recipients who are black 39.8 %
Percent of recipients who are Hispanic 15.7 %
Percent of recipients who are Asian 2.4 %
Percent of recipients who are Other 3.3 %
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
-Source: US Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Commerce, CATO Institute
Research Date: 1.1.2014
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/character/fy2009/tab08
Some others too but I didn't want to use ask.com and yahoo answers
The basic conclusion is that the birth rate for unmarried black women is--and has been--declining. In 1970 the birth rate for unmarried black women was 96 per 1,000. In 1980, it was 87.9. In 2005 it was 60.6. There is a huge spike in the late 1980s, but the overal trend is clear--the birth rate for unmarried black women has been declining for almost 40 years.
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2009/02/the-math-on-black-out-of-wedlock-births/6738/
However, the number of babies born to married blacks has also dropped precipitously... far steeper than the out-of-wedlock births. If you understand statistics you'll understand why then the RATE of out-of-wedlock births has risen, even though the actual INCIDENCE of out-of-wedlock births has fallen. You can only compare out-of-wedlock births to births to married couples, and if the latter is falling faster than the former, then you end up with a statistically skewed perspective which fuels the misinformation that you are now repeating.
The overall birthrate among all groups declined. This is likely due to greater female participation in the workforce, innovation of and and access to birth control and abortion. The relevant statistic though is 70% of all black children are born to unmarried women.
-
The same study you're citing points to Social Security as having the highest share of 'government benefits'. Social Security is of course a form retirement insurance that you pay into over a number of years. 69% of its beneficiaries are white whereas 14 % are black.
I was shocked by the 14% statistic so much that I did some research. Multiple sources come up a breakdown more like this than what you're pointing to.
Percent of recipients who are white 38.8 %
Percent of recipients who are black 39.8 %
Percent of recipients who are Hispanic 15.7 %
Percent of recipients who are Asian 2.4 %
Percent of recipients who are Other 3.3 %
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
-Source: US Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Commerce, CATO Institute
Research Date: 1.1.2014
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/character/fy2009/tab08
Some others too but I didn't want to use ask.com and yahoo answers
From the same study... http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3677
"Such beliefs are starkly at odds with the basic facts regarding social programs, the analysis finds. Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percentof the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.
Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes."
So once you get past the numbers... only 2% (or less) of federal expenditure on public assistance goes towards food stamps and other things that you don't have to pay into, usually the poster child for Republican claims of abuse. So tell us again about this "institutional dependency" that yuh talking about. What are black people institutionally dependent on... medical care and unemployment insurance benefits et al? Things that come out of their paycheck, in other words? Yuh want to discount social security because you have to pay into that, well discount everything else that you have to pay into as well. Nearly 3% of every paycheck for the average worker goes towards Medicare. Another 6.2% goes towards FICA... this is how much money people have to pay into the system in order to qualify for benefits, so if more black people benefitting is because they already earned it. Nothing for free. So tell us about this institutional dependency... please.
The overall birthrate among all groups declined. This is likely due to greater female participation in the workforce, innovation of and and access to birth control and abortion. The relevant statistic though is 70% of all black children are born to unmarried women.
[/quote]
Simply repeating that 70% of all black children being born to unmarried women doesn't make the case that blacks today are worse off than 50 years ago, or that the situation has gotten worse post-the Civil Rights era... which was the conclusion that you and Sowell support. Hard to say that more black babies are being born to unwed mothers than pre-Civil Rights when the numbers have been steadily dropping. THAT is the relevant statistic.
-
You might be able to patch together a valid argument to support his conclusions, but the man is a sad, attention-seeking clown. If you really want to understand african-american problematics from a conservative point of view surely you can find a better starting point than a pastor who refers to even the best of his own people as dirty n*ggers. Better yuh join the klan.
zando, if you recall a few months back when just cool was still contributing, de videos of tommy sotomayor made a good run. personally i find manning's arguments re de black family alot more optimistic than sotomayor who basically has written off black woman as being inimical to the interests (if not the survival) of black men.
where you rate sotomayor's argument?
dey used to talk about "douglarization" and ah seeing some parallels in de usa. no surprise dat obama reach de highest office partly on the strength of his mixed heritage.
an out and out BLACK candidate will never be president of the united states.
-
You might be able to patch together a valid argument to support his conclusions, but the man is a sad, attention-seeking clown. If you really want to understand african-american problematics from a conservative point of view surely you can find a better starting point than a pastor who refers to even the best of his own people as dirty n*ggers. Better yuh join the klan.
zando, if you recall a few months back when just cool was still contributing, de videos of tommy sotomayor made a good run. personally i find manning's arguments re de black family alot more optimistic than sotomayor who basically has written off black woman as being inimical to the interests (if not the survival) of black men.
where you rate sotomayor's argument?
dey used to talk about "douglarization" and ah seeing some parallels in de usa. no surprise dat obama reach de highest office partly on the strength of his mixed heritage.
an out and out BLACK candidate will never be president of the united states.
You bring Sotomayor into some very relevant and FACTUAL discussion?
Tommy is a big clown with lots of mental issues.
-
some forget that the 50s were a turbulent decade... rosa parks, MLK, Malcolm X, the korean war... american households being influenced by the media because tvs were now going into their homes... the first non segregated schools... poverty and class being one of the main reasons divorce rates rose in the US in the african american community... a lot of animosity was created with the introduction of non segregation..
not to mention reagan's push for no-fault divorce in the 60s, because of his previous troubles, which would add to the rise of divorce rates in all races...
fast forward to recent times, women in the african american community are making more money and are more educated than african american males.. so most are not getting married and if they do, the divorce rate is high because their spouses are not contributing as they are.. that's why more and more african american women are marrying out of their race, interesting stat in 2003 showed that african american women marrying white males had a 44% lower divorce rate than white men marrying white females and also a lower divorce rate than marrying african american males...
-
The premise of this thread is absurd. " are blacks better off today than 50 years ago? "
Of course they are . Would those in opposition want to go back to Jim crow , lynchings , segregation like.
back of the bus or separate drinking fountains?
I am constrained from saying what I actually feels with the threat of being banned and so I will say that that that 90 % of all problems of black people are caused by institutionalized racism and the other 10 % are black people's fault .
-
You bring Sotomayor into some very relevant and FACTUAL discussion?
Tommy is a big clown with lots of mental issues.
Is Ribbit yuh talking to yuh know.
-
You might be able to patch together a valid argument to support his conclusions, but the man is a sad, attention-seeking clown. If you really want to understand african-american problematics from a conservative point of view surely you can find a better starting point than a pastor who refers to even the best of his own people as dirty n*ggers. Better yuh join the klan.
zando, if you recall a few months back when just cool was still contributing, de videos of tommy sotomayor made a good run. personally i find manning's arguments re de black family alot more optimistic than sotomayor who basically has written off black woman as being inimical to the interests (if not the survival) of black men.
where you rate sotomayor's argument?
dey used to talk about "douglarization" and ah seeing some parallels in de usa. no surprise dat obama reach de highest office partly on the strength of his mixed heritage.
an out and out BLACK candidate will never be president of the united states.
ribbit these people cannot be taken seriously. their language is emotional, prejudicial, imprecise, and drives them logical dead ends.
at least sotomayor seems to think there is a remedy. de good pastor doh seem to care whether you are a doctor or ditchdigger...once yuh black you have a low mentality....with the exception of himself of course.
his big idea that the black man never 'built anything' is a prime example of circular 'logic'. these gentlemen have excellent entertainment value. but their ideas are not worth more than a few keystrokes.
-
You bring Sotomayor into some very relevant and FACTUAL discussion?
Tommy is a big clown with lots of mental issues.
Is Ribbit yuh talking to yuh know.
Lol
-
Jah Gol, you'll find the following excerpt (and the article from which it is extracted) insightful.
In Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality? (1984), Sowell concedes that the migration to the United States explaining Afro-Caribbean social mobility in the States might have been selective, while continuing to insist that “culture” is the determining factor in the socio-economic profile of Afro-Caribbeans. From
an argument innocent of the evidence, he has progressed to one made in spite of the evidence.Sowell has been equally glib in dismissing as irrelevant the Caribbean immigrants’ level of education at the time of their U.S. arrival. He relies, not on direct evidence about the migrants, but on an illogical extrapolation from the experience of their children. Second-generation West Indians in New York City
did even better than their parents, according to his reading of 1970 census data.Since they were most likely educated in the United States, he reasons, superior education in the Caribbean cannot have played a role in their success; therefore, it played no role in the success of their parents’ generation, either. Sowell thus ostentatiously begs the question. The relative success of the second generation, far from proving that the first generation enjoyed no educational advantage,is more likely an index of that very advantage.
As to the educational advantage of the first generation, the evidence is clear. James Weldon Johnson, a keen observer of the transformation of black New York in the early twentieth century, noted in 1930 that there was “practically no illiteracy among [immigrants from the British West Indies],” many having “a
sound English common school education.”The reports of the Commissioner General for Immigration, a valuable resource inexplicably untapped by either Sowell or his critics, corroborate his observation. As early as 1923, 98.6 percent of black migrants entering the country were literate and, by 1932, 99.0 percent were. Only 1.1 percent of adult black migrants who came to America from 1918 to 1932 were illiterate; between 1920 and 1930, only 0.86 percent, and in 1930, only 0.41 percent (see Table 3). The fact that literacy was a general requirement for adults entering the United States under the 1917 Immigration Act ensured that the early stream of Caribbean migrants would be selected from a narrow stratum of Caribbean society.
The commissioner general’s figures understate, moreover, the literacy rate of immigrants from the British Caribbean, since they provide only aggregate figures covering all black immigrants, regardless of nationality and provenance.
Other sources make clear that literacy levels varied from group to group among black immigrants, literacy being higher in the Caribbean than in the Portuguese colonized Cape Verde Islands and higher in some parts of the British Caribbean than others. Black Barbadians, for instance, have always possessed a higher, and black Bahamians a lower level of literacy than other black Caribbeans. During the early years of the twentieth century, a large number of black Cape Verdeans entering the country lowered the general level of literacy among black immigrants; although even the black Cape Verdeans were far more literate than the white Portuguese, whose illiteracy rate (68.2 percent) was the highest of any immigrants entering the United States between 1899 and 1910.
...
Exploring Afro-Caribbean Social Mobility in the United States: Beyond the Sowell Thesis
Winston James