U.S. infant mortality rate among worse

[palerider]

Add to that a black person is more likely to have his case remanded to the death penalty then a white person committing a similar crime, particularly if the victim is also white.

Tell me Coyote, have you ever been arrested for, charged with, and convicted of a crime?

 

[Coyote]

It is a load of hooey period. Slavery, jim crow laws (an invention of democrats by the way) etc are simply not excuses for anything today. Perhaps the most elderly blacks could claim such as an exucse for not succeeding in their youth, but it simply doesn't fly now and hasn't flown for decades. Your observation that blacks from other countries don't have problems here is evidence enough that the color of your skin isn't an impediment to success. The welfare system has created a culture that believes it is "owed" something , an entitlement mentality, and until that culture is gone, the american black community as a whole is not going to advance.

First: don't confuse democrats with liberals (or for that matter republicans th conservatives) - parties have changed considerably through the ages. Jim Crow laws were brought about by the Democrats who later defected as the "Dixiecrats" to the Republican party. That's all beside the point though.

Your entire argument is based on the individual - as if social culture begins at birth and ends at death and nothing is passed on but rather begun anew. That's not the way it works.

You stated: Your observation that blacks from other countries don't have problems here is evidence enough that the color of your skin isn't an impediment to success.

Not necessarily. They do better then their native American counterparts. But do they do as well as the white majority over all? Do they still get incarcerated at higher rates? I haven't yet found data that seperates it out.

I did, however find a very interesting site that both confirms and contradicts your statements. What it also confirms is that there are significant cultural differences between constitutes a "family" that have nothing to do with welfare. The whole idea of "nuclear family" is really a modern construct and is only one of many types of successful family arrangements.

Blaming it all on welfare (and I actually agree - welfare, as it is now, probably plays a role in the problem but is by no means the major contributor) - is a refusal to look deeper then the surface.

The site is: Factbook: eye opening memos on everything family

From that site


". . . and has rebutted the notion that the high incidence of single-parent, femaleheaded households among African Americans today is a legacy of slavery."

"By the 1770s, slaves had succeeded in creating a distinctive African American system of family and kinship. To sustain a sense of family identity, slave children were often named for a parent or other blood kin or given a traditional African name. The strength of the slave family is nowhere more evident than in the advertisements eighteenth-century slave owners posted for runaway slaves. The advertisements reveal that one of the major reasons why slaves fled their masters' plantations was to visit spouses, children, siblings, aunts, uncles, and grandparents. In Virginia, advertisements indicate that over one-third of all fugitives were attempting to visit relatives; in Maryland, the advertisements show that nearly half were seeking to visit family members."

"The kinship system that slaves developed was not an imitation of patterns typical of southern white families. The distinctiveness of slave family practices is apparent in the slaves' perpetuation of West African taboos against marrying cousins or other near relatives. The taboo against first-cousin marriages was one indication of the importance that slaves, even in the eighteenth century, attached to the extended kinship group. The extended kinship network played a particularly important role in helping slaves adapt to family breakup. Whenever children were sold to neighboring plantations, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins often took on the functions of parents. When blood relatives were not present, strangers cared for and protected children. Slave parents taught their children to call all adult slaves "aunt" or "uncle," and to refer to younger slaves as "sister" or "brother." In this way slave culture taught young people that they were members of a broader community in which all slaves, whether related or not, had mutual obligations."

"During the decades before the Civil War, most slaves lived in nuclear households consisting of two parents and their children. In 1850, approximately 64 percent of all slaves lived in two parent families and 25 percent in single-parent families. Another 10 percent lived outside of a family unit, either alone or with others of the same sex. Family breakup, however, was apparently very common. Although many lasted twenty years or more, slave marriages were very vulnerable to breakup by sale. Interviews with former slaves indicate that one-third of all single-parent households were the result of the sale of a husband or wife. Even when marriages were not broken by sale, slave husbands and wives often resided on separate farms or plantations and were owned by different individuals. On large plantations one man in three had a different owner than his wife and could visit his family only at his master's discretion. On smaller holdings, divided ownership was even more common."

"In a variety of urban settings (including Atlanta, Mobile, Natchez, Philadelphia, Richmond, and several cities along the Ohio River), between 1850 and 1880, between 26 and 31 percent of African American families were headed by women--generally two to three times the rate among immigrant or native-born whites. This differential appears to be due not to higher rates of divorce, desertion, or illegitimacy, but rather to sharply skewed black sex ratios in urban areas and to very high levels of adult black male mortality."

According to an analysis of a 1910 census, “black mothers with children were more than three times as likely to be living without a male partner in the household as were white mothers with children. Higher mortality among blacks undoubtedly accounted for some of the difference; but the researchers found that the racial difference was greatest among younger mothers . . . black children more often were raised by kin other than their parents, even when the parents were still alive; about 7 percent of black children, compared to 2 percent of white children, had mothers who were alive but were not living with them. Even among two-parent households, blacks were four more times likely to have children living elsewhere.”

“Most of the postwar trends examined . . . appear to have moved in the same direction for both blacks and whites. Black fertility . . . peaked in the late 1950s just as white fertility did, and both black and white fertility subsequently declined. There was a short surge in divorce among blacks immediately after World War II, just as for whites. And rates of separation and divorce increased at about the same speed for both groups between 1960 and 1980. But in other important ways – such as the proportion of men and women ever marrying and the ages at which women bear children – the family lives of blacks and whites have diverged since World War II.”

“It is commonly thought that this dramatic rise in the proportion of black children born out of wedlock is the result of a sharp increase in childbearing among unmarried black women . . . . Unmarried black teenagers and unmarried black women age 20 to 24 were no more likely to give birth in the late 1980s than they were in the late 1960s. . . . what caused the increased proportion of out-of-wedlock births? . . . births among black married women fell sharply during the 1960s and early 1970s and then leveled off. Second, during the entire period, fewer and fewer young black women married.”

“There are longstanding cultural differences in the ways blacks and whites conceive of and carry out their family lives. In particular, African American culture places greater emphasis on ties to a network of kin that can extend over more than one household. Extended kin such as the grandparents, parents, and children Furstenberg and I studied ex-pect to provide and to receive more help from each other than do extended kin in white families. They also live together more often – about half of all middle-aged black women, according to another na-tional study, live in a three-generation household at some point, com-pared to about one-fifth of white women. But the flip side of this greater emphasis on extended kin is less emphasis on the husband-wife bond.”

 

[Coyote]

I don't see how. She has demonstrated that slavery, jim crowe laws, etc etc etc have had exactly zero power to keep her from becoming successful. She has demonstrated that the history of blacks in this country is exactly that, history, and the only power it has over individuals today is the power they give it.

Am I misunderstanding something? She has no roots in slavery. She is successfull. How does that indicate that someone who's cultural heritage came out of slavery is facing or not facing the same things?

 

[Coyote]

Tell me Coyote, have you ever been arrested for, charged with, and convicted of a crime?

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Coyote]

Only blips from medical journals that speak to notices sent out by government to get flu shots, visit the dentist, show up for an appointment etc., which doctors and clinics send out now but apparently don't have the impact as a notice from the government would have.

That's very weak. Notifying is not the same as mandating. Big difference.

 

[Popeye]

No kidding? I guess that would explain my next door neighbors although next door in my neighborhood is about a quarter of a mile away. My neighbors, however, and the growing segment of the middle class that they represent do not represent the majority of the black community. They represent a minority of the black community that has broken away from the culture and are seen by the majority as sell out uncle toms.

I don't wish to speak for the entire black population, but I would think a good example of a "sell out uncle tom" would be Clarence Thomas. Here is a man who achieved his present position with the help of affirmative action, but now would deny that same benefit to others.

And it is your particular brand of "kind hearted" racism that has dragged the black community down to the level it is, and it is your particular brand of "kind hearted" racism that has an iron boot on their necks, and it is your brand of "kind hearted" racism that is the reason that those that are moving up are, sadly, in the minority.

I wouldn't call this "kind hearted". Here's some more interesting statistics showing distinct discrepancies based on race, some are due to the racism that still exists in this country.

Home Ownership: The ownership rate for blacks is approximately 50%, whites 70%. More telling, blacks are denied home loans at more than twice the rate of whites.

Health: On average, blacks are twice as likely to die from disease, accident, , and homicide, at every stage of life than whites, life expectancy is 72 years blacks, 78 for whites.

Education: Teachers with less than three years experience teach in minority schools at twice the rate that they teach in white schools.

Justice System: 2005 showed the equality gap between whites and blacks in the criminal justice system getting worse. Blacks are three times more likely to become prisoners once arrested, and a black person’s average jail sentence is six months longer than a white’s for the same crime; 39 months compared to 33 months. Blacks are also four times more often sentenced to death than whites, and blacks are 20 times more likely than whites to be victims of hate crimes.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

The whole idea of "nuclear family" is really a modern construct and is only one of many types of successful family arrangements.

I'm enjoying this discussion, particularly how you guys are able to talk about it without simply calling one another racists which happens all too often in these types of debates.

One thing though, the nuclear family really isn't modern. It emerged in Europe between 1750 and 1850 when they moved from the three field system to the enclosed system and the cottage industry/putting-out system and has lasted ever since. Before this period, people were essentially raised by the tight community controls.

Don't let this get you off topic, but just thought I should point that out.

 

[palerider]

What does that have to do with anything?

It is an easy question. Yes or no?

 

[palerider]

I don't wish to speak for the entire black population, but I would think a good example of a "sell out uncle tom" would be Clarence Thomas. Here is a man who achieved his present position with the help of affirmative action, but now would deny that same benefit to others.

He may have got into Yale via a scholarship program which, by the way was only open to blacks who were already excelling in school, but affirmative action had nothing to do with him graduating very near the top of his class and the benefits that naturally follow graduating near the top of one's class from yale. Affirmative action programs similar to the one Thomas took advantage of have caused far more harm to the black community than good. They have most often got black students into schools in which they could not compete and the resulting failure has adversely affected their future.

You bring into high relief the inherent racism of the welfare system the left put in place. No matter how brillant a black person is, or how much they achieve, someone like you can always step up and say that they got where they are due to affirmative action. I suppose you would also argue that Condi Rice graduated with honors and recieved both of her doctorates due to affirmative action as well?

There was a time when affirmative action had a valid place and use, but those days are gone. Just like the days when unions served a valuable purpose. No one who is bright and willing to work needs any sort of special consideration today.

 

[Popeye]

He may have got into Yale via a scholarship program which, by the way was only open to blacks who were already excelling in school, but affirmative action had nothing to do with him graduating very near the top of his class and the benefits that naturally follow graduating near the top of one's class from yale. Affirmative action programs similar to the one Thomas took advantage of have caused far more harm to the black community than good. They have most often got black students into schools in which they could not compete and the resulting failure has adversely affected their future.

You bring into high relief the inherent racism of the welfare system the left put in place. No matter how brillant a black person is, or how much they achieve, someone like you can always step up and say that they got where they are due to affirmative action. I suppose you would also argue that Condi Rice graduated with honors and recieved both of her doctorates due to affirmative action as well?

There was a time when affirmative action had a valid place and use, but those days are gone. Just like the days when unions served a valuable purpose. No one who is bright and willing to work needs any sort of special consideration today.

From all I've read, Clarence Thomas finished in the middle of his class at Yale, not near the top. That, along with barely a year of judicial experience, made him one of the most under qualified Supreme Court nominees in history. Looks like George H Bush was employing his own brand of affirmative action.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1904827/posts​

 

[palerider]

From all I've read, Clarence Thomas finished in the middle of his class at Yale, not near the top. That, along with barely a year of judicial experience, made him one of the most under qualified Supreme Court nominees in history. Looks like George H Bush was employing his own brand of affirmative action.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1904827/posts​

So aren't you proud of the left for setting up a system in which the success, no matter how large, of any black can simply be written off to affirmative action.

By the way, just for the record, your blatant racism exposes itself once again in suggesting that because Thomas had barely a year of judicial experience that he was one of the most underqualified nominees in history.

John Marshall is widely revered as "the greatest Chief Justice," but before joining the Supreme Court in 1801 he had never served a day in judicial robes and lost the only case he ever argued at the high court.

Earl Warren was a prosecutor and was three times elected governor of California. But he had no prior judicial experience. Nor did William Rehnquist, Felix Frankfurter, Lewis Powell, Abe Fortas or Louis Brandeis.

In fact, 41 of the 109 justices who have sat on the supreme court have lacked any judicial experience at all. I find it interesting that you single out Thomas as "one of the most" underqualified nominees in history and once again proclaim that he is where he is due to affirmative action.

 

[Popeye]

So aren't you proud of the left for setting up a system in which the success, no matter how large, of any black can simply be written off to affirmative action.

By the way, just for the record, your blatant racism exposes itself once again in suggesting that because Thomas had barely a year of judicial experience that he was one of the most underqualified nominees in history.

John Marshall is widely revered as "the greatest Chief Justice," but before joining the Supreme Court in 1801 he had never served a day in judicial robes and lost the only case he ever argued at the high court.

Earl Warren was a prosecutor and was three times elected governor of California. But he had no prior judicial experience. Nor did William Rehnquist, Felix Frankfurter, Lewis Powell, Abe Fortas or Louis Brandeis.

In fact, 41 of the 109 justices who have sat on the supreme court have lacked any judicial experience at all. I find it interesting that you single out Thomas as "one of the most" underqualified nominees in history and once again proclaim that he is where he is due to affirmative action.

You know, it's rather ironic how all those on the right, who hate affirmative action, love Clarence Thomas. In 1968, Thomas got into the College of Holy Cross through a minority recruitment program. Using that as a stepping stone to Yale Law School. People who oppose affirmative action always point to the supposition that those allowed access to jobs or education under affirmative action are less qualified than those who aren't. I can only assume, because Thomas toes the conservative line, you feel that argument doesn't apply in his case.

 

[palerider]

The fact that he graduated near the top of his class is evidence enough for me that he would have been successful with or without affirmative action.

And I haven't supposed anything. It is you who is saying that Thomas is where he is as a result of affirmative action. You claimed that he was one of the least qualified supreme court nominees ever in spite of the fact that there were 40 other justices before him who didn't even have as much judicial experience as he did. Did you simply single him out because he is black and therefore must not be qualified or because he was black and took atvantage of a program and therefore must not be qualified?

Doesn't the irony just drip from your suggestion that it is conservatives who claim that people who have taken advantage of affirmative action must not be qualified while pointing out to me that Clarence Thomas, a justice who had more judicial experience than at least 40 previous white justices is the least qualified nominee ever; while pointing out that he is where he is due to affirmative action?

 

[palerider]

That's very weak. Notifying is not the same as mandating. Big difference.

No? Did you ever get a tax "notification" from the IRS? I did once, and it got my attention and if you have ever got a "notification" from a government agency, you would have to agree that there is nothing "weak" about it.

 

[Popeye]

The fact that he graduated near the top of his class is evidence enough for me that he would have been successful with or without affirmative action.

And I haven't supposed anything. It is you who is saying that Thomas is where he is as a result of affirmative action. You claimed that he was one of the least qualified supreme court nominees ever in spite of the fact that there were 40 other justices before him who didn't even have as much judicial experience as he did. Did you simply single him out because he is black and therefore must not be qualified or because he was black and took atvantage of a program and therefore must not be qualified?

Doesn't the irony just drip from your suggestion that it is conservatives who claim that people who have taken advantage of affirmative action must not be qualified while pointing out to me that Clarence Thomas, a justice who had more judicial experience than at least 40 previous white justices is the least qualified nominee ever; while pointing out that he is where he is due to affirmative action?

As I have previously documented, Thomas finished in the middle of his class at Yale, not the top. He did finish near the top at Holy Cross, where his enrollment was a product of a, previously mentioned, minority recruitment program.

He was one of ten blacks in a class of 160 at Yale, a product of the quotas the right and Thomas now argue against. Thomas says in his book, that he stores his Yale Law degree in his basement with a 15-cent sticker from a cigar package as he feels his law degree is another product of affirmative action. Here's a quote from his book,
"I got into Yale because I'm black, but Yale should never have let me through the door in the first place based on my skin color, and the fact that they did makes me feel diminished". Yet he accepted that law degree, as well as a seat on the Supreme Court. A path that he would now deny to others of his race.

Back to his qualifications, the ABA was split between him being "qualified" and "not qualified" for the nomination. He was 43 and had one year of judicial experience when Bush nominated him to replace Thurgood Marshall on the court. Perhaps, as you claim, I shouldn't put too much stock in that, but even you can't seriously believe Bush's claim that he was the "most qualified candidate". Face it, without affirmative action, Clarence Thomas would not occupy a seat on the court. The fact that he does, is an argument for affirmative action not against it.