Racial inequities becoming WORSE in U.S. Why is this? What can we do?

[prolesunited]

New Report: The State of the Dream
Black-White Gaps Still Wide — Some Even Widening — Since Dr. King's Death

Racial inequities in unemployment, family income, imprisonment, average wealth and infant mortality are actually worse than when Dr. King was killed, according to United for a Fair Economy’s new report, "The State of the Dream: Enduring Disparities in Black and White," by Dedrick Muhammad, Attieno Davis, Meizhu Lui and Betsy Leondar-Wright.

The typical Black family had 60% as much income as a white family in 1968, but only 58% as much in 2002.

One in nine African Americans cannot find a job. Black unemployment is more than twice the white rate – a wider gap than in 1972.

Black infants are almost two-and-a-half-times as likely as white infants to die before age one – a greater gap than in 1970.

White households had an average net worth of $468,200 in 2001, more than six times the $75,700 of Black households. In 1989 (the oldest comparable data available), average white wealth was five-and-a-half times Black wealth.

http://www.ufenet.org/press/2004/StateoftheDream2004_pr.html

I thought the results of this study were quite revealing. You can view the full report as a PDF file from the link.

My question is why do we seem to be moving backward? Why does the struggle seem to be losing ground? More importantly, what can we do as a society to resolve these issues? What role do political parties play in this?

[Yupster]

1. Here's one try I found

http://www.kimep.kz/SSE/popdev-k/Topics/Conferences/Family/Mei5-deh.html

This article blames the long term problem on the breakdown of the two-parent family structure. It says in MLK's day only 2 % of A-A kids lived with a never married mother. The later figure was around 30 % and I think it's over 10 years old, so the number is probably much higher today.

[robcon]

2. The real killer is education.

Education is lousy for many AA's. And about half of AA's do not get a high school diploma (the statistic is worse for Latinos.)

[Yupster]

10. But to me, education

goes right back to parenting.

Ask a teacher why the kids in her class who are failing, are failing. She'll likely tell you about the kids' parents. Kids coming to school who've never held a book, or can't even recognize letters. They start out so far behind, it's tough to catch up.

Good parents will get their kids educated regardless of the age of the textbook, or even the cracks in the school walls.

[prolesunited]

11. And that's why the cycle continues

These "bad" parents likely lack the skills and role modeling that would make them "good" parents. You seem to imply that if these parents loved their children more, they would do better. Perhaps they don't actually know how.

Why am I so certain of this? Because I work in a low-income, low-education minority community. I can think of a multitude of social structures that would enable this segment of our population to succeed.

I really don't think sticking two people in similar situations together in marriage will solve this problem.

[Yupster]

14. Not to be critical, but I'm skeptical

I meet with kindergarten teachers who decry the fact that some of their kids have never held a book.

Is this bad parenting or unskilled parenting?

I'll go with bad parenting, because no matter how undereducated you are, I just can't believe that you wouldn't think your kid should be introduced to books and letters before kindergarten. You just can't avoid this message even if you want to. Just watch an NBA game and it will be pounded into you each commercial break.

I think parents should be held accountable for some standard of interest in their kid's education. If the kid enters school completely unready, I blame the parent, no matter how uneducated they themselves were.

Now that's easy for me to say. I'm a stockbroker, and the A-A families I work with are married, have good jobs and high net worths. Where I see the other world is when I visit the schoolteachers I do retirement plans for and they tell me their tales. My own kid is in private school.

[prolesunited]

25. You really have absolutely no idea

You can't expect people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when they have no bootstraps.

What you are saying IS really easy for you to say because you have no direct experience or contact with these marginalized groups. It is an entirely different world than the one in which you are living.

Seeing a commercial message and internalizing that message are two different things. If you grow up in a household in which reading and books aren't valued, it is not likely you will value them, no matter how many messages you see on TV.

Also, have you considered that many of these adults may be functionally illiterate themselves? If you are stumbling over every word in a book, do you think you would be reading to your child?

Also, when you are living in poverty, do you realize how hard it is just to make it through the day? Not all of these people are on welfare. Many have minimum wage shift work jobs. How do they get to work? Who's watching the children? Is there a phone in the house? Do you pay the rent bill or feed the kids?

The worry, the uncertainty, the stress of all this — is it any wonder people would collapse in a ball after making it through the day? Where do you expect being available to be a good parent would fit into this scenario?

I'm not saying it is impossible and clearly you can point to examples where people have successfully navigated these hurdles, but why do we have to make it so hard for them and then blame them when they fail?

[Yupster]

36. I taught for nine years in the public schools

so I've had plenty of direct contact with marginalized people.

I'm not asking people to become chemists overnight, but I do believe that everyone should be expected to do some things. A parent should be expected to give a damn about their kids' education.

I understand the bootstrap argument, but I fear it's used by people to excuse anything. There are some things you can do even without a bootstrap, and a parent who won't let her/his kid hold a book will get no sympathy from me, assuming she'he's not retarded or the like.

[prolesunited]

144. And you've seen this happen?

"a parent who won't let her/his kid hold a book"

You act like parents would deliberately rip a book out of their child's hands or willfully stop them from reading.

Interesting that simply working in a public school would put you in contact with "marginalized" people. Was this a low-income community or was it simply that you and your friends all have their children in private schools?

You haven't addressed any factors that may keep a parent from being involved in their child's education.

What is their own literacy/education level? Hard to help when your child is farther along than you are and perhaps even more embarrassing to admit it?

What was the type of household the parent came from? What role models and skills did they acquire to properly raise children?

What is their work schedule? Are they working shifts? Do they have two or three jobs?

What is the level of stress in their lives? Are they emotionally beat down by just keeping a roof over the family's heads and food on the table that they have no energy to expend in any other area of life.

Are there lousy parents out there? Sure. And you'll also find them in affluent communities where they hand kids credit cards and car keys while they go off and vacation in the Bahamas.

Just because your poor and black does not mean you don't love your children. When people know (and I mean really know) better, they do better.

I still contend that you have no real experience with what some people's lives are like or you would not offer such simplistic verdicts or solutions.

[Yupster]

170. After all your posts

(one insulting one I do want an explanation of), I still don't know whether you agree with my thesis or not.

My thesis was an answer to the original question of the thread, asking why there is not enough progress.

My answer was that the very high out-of-wedlock birthrate does much damage to the A-A community. Do you agree with that statement or not?

[marie123]

12. 100%

I agree with you 100%
Now what do we do about it!?

That is the part that boggles my mind. We know we have a problem, we know what the problem is. Instead of fixing it, lets just send more jobs over India.

As mine will be this summer.. OK wrong post to put this, but man is it on my mind.

[Pithlet]

94. Yep. I'm sure

That the kids who's single moms have to work three jobs to make ends meet are much worse parents than those who's parents can afford to spend more time with them. It has nothing to do with the fact that welfare reform has forced many single mothers back out into a workforce that doesn't pay them enough to live on. It has nothing to do with the fact that books cost money, and when every little scrap goes to food and rent, what choice is there? Yes, it must be the parenting.

[Yupster]

98. Staying with my example, and I know it's a harsh one

but it's one that kindergarten teachers tell me is not rare.

I will restate my opinion.

If you send your kid to school and the kid has never handled a book or cannot even recognize that squiggles are letters, then you are a bad parent, and I'm really not interested in how many jobs you work. There is nothing more important than your kid. If you don't give a damn about his/her education, then you are a bad parent, in my opinion.

[Pithlet]

104. If *I*did

having all the resources that I do, then yes, that would be bad parenting.

I just don't think that when the struggle to keep a roof over your kids' heads takes every single waking hour you have, and every single dime you earn, that anyone can criticize you for being a bad parent because you had precious little time to spend with them in the first place. Like I said in another post, those books don't teach themselves

I think addressing the issues that lead to the inequities rather than just dismissing them all as bad, lazy parents would help kids a lot more.

[Djinn]

126. so they should stay home

and spend time with their kids teaching them to read even if that means their kids don't get to eat? the problem for many people is that they're damned if they do and damned if they don't - basically if you're poor, society will inevitably judge you harshly - how many dumb rich kids are there? how many of their parents left their upbringing to the maids? but because their kids aren't so visible - they don't get labelled bad parents.

I totally agree that many parents are lax in their belief that education happens only at school - when I started school 20 or so years ago I was the only kid who knew how to read already and I came from a very comfortable middle class area, sometimes it is a matter of slackness but to totally discount poverty as a factor and to instantly brand someone a bad parent is unfair and counterproductive.

[Pithlet]

101. The differences.

I am a stay-at-home mom to my two boys. We can afford to buy our boys lots of books, toys and educational materials. I'm with them all day long. My 2 year old already knows his alphabet, can count, and recognize some small words. I have all the time in the world to spend with them. I really don't think I'm inherently a better parent, I just have more resources.

I don't have to work three jobs, and commute to the wealthier areas where those jobs are, serving their community. Every single penny doesn't have to go to food, rent, and clothes, so I can buy books. And, I have the time to spend with them reading them those books. Those books don't teach themselves.

Of course there are parents who aren't inclined, or don't know how to teach their kids so they won't be far behind. But to ignore the obvious advantages that I and my kids have ignores the problems that lead to those inequities in the first place.

[Yupster]

103. I appreciate that

and my family is in the same spot yours is in. We loved the Jumpstart discs by the way starting at age 2.

Anyway, I would not expect a kid coming from a young single mom being as ready as your kid, but....

and here's the but............

If your kid has never handled a book and forget knowing the alphabet, if he cannot even recognize that lines represent letters, then that parent has done a bad job regardless of how much he/she works.

I believe there is a minimal standard that every parent should be held to, and letting your kid hold a book sometime in his/her life is one of the things that a parent should do at a minimum. Otherwise, in my opinion, she/he is a bad parent, regardless of how tired he/she is.

Everyone has some minimal amount of time to spend if they give a damn at all.

[Pithlet]

107. I guess it is easier

to just write it all off as bad parenting rather than addressing the issues that lead to the problem in the first place.

My point is, it doesn't matter how good of a parent you are, or how much you give a damn, when you don't have the time or money to put forth the effort.

It's easy for someone like you and me to say "well, if they cared, they'd find the time". Have you ever been a single parent working multiple jobs?

[Yupster]

108. Nope, but

I know there are millions of them out there who make sure their kids are introduced to books and letters before they begin kindergarten, even though they're tired.

[Pithlet]

112. Oh, you do

You're personally intimate with every single one of them, and the circumstances in which they live?

Let's just go with this, though.

How many of those millions do you suppose benefited from programs that helped them to do this; programs that are now being slashed because state budgets have been stretched so thin? How many of them, at one time, were doing okay before they had to take on that extra job to avoid being evicted? And how many more will suffer because of attitudes that it is their fault, therefore why bother with dealing with these problems? It's just bad parenting. All those poor people are lazy bad parents who don't care about their kids. And any time anyone mentions the problems that exist, just dismiss it as such while sitting at home with our own kids and expensive educating doodads.

[Yupster]

132. I understand your point

You believe my standard is too high.

I'm assuming you have a standard for acceptable parenting too.

For instance, you might say no matter how many jobs a parent does, he/she still should never leave a two-year old at home alone for hours at a time and if that happens, working long hours would be no excuse.

We each have a standard which is unacceptable parenting regardless of poverty level.

Part of my standard is that a parent has an obligation by age five to at least put a book in the child's hand a few times.

I understand if you feel that is too high a standard. I don't want to try to convince you that my standard is the right one, but it is my opinion.

[Pithlet]

136. You're missing mine

I'm not denying that there is an ideal standard of parenting. I agree with you that it is essential to expose kids to books. And it is a parent's responsibility to ensure that they do as much for their kids' education as possible. There's definitely no arguing that 2 year olds should never be left home alone. That is not the point I'm arguing.

My point is when welfare and social programs are slashed to the point where single mothers are forced to take all their energy they can use to aspire to those ideal standards, and work all the hours of the day, it does no good to sanctimoniously point out what lousy parents they are. When it's work or starve, work or live on the streets or in a shelter, how can you hold them up to that high standard? And how can you claim that it is simply bad parenting, and not all those other factors?

Stop blaming the poor and start putting the blame where it belongs; with those who want to cut them loose and leave them to sink or swim. To do otherwise is to buy into the whole right wing propaganda that demonizes the poor.

[Yupster]

138. Thanks for explanation

I'm not talking about an ideal standard though.

I'm talking about a minimum standard.

Is there a minimum standard of parenting? A level that if you fall under that, you are not overworked, or harried -- you are negligent or bad regardless of your circumstances?

If there is a minimum standard for parents, then what falls below that minimum?

To me not exposing a five year old ever to a book falls below my minimum level.

If it doesn't fall below yours, I understand that. We just disagree where the minimum level is. I think we both agree there is some minimum level though.

[Pithlet]

140. Ideal standard, minimum standard

Whatever you want to call it; a certain amount of resources are required to meet those standards, don't you agree? Welfare reform and budget slashes have whittled away those resources for many. So, they either work ungodly hours so they and their kids don't have to starve on the streets, or cut back on their hours so they can be with those kid, and face eviction. So, which is it? When they choose the former, they're bad parents? I don't care what you're standard is, that makes no sense.

The poor are lazy/bad/stupid myth is only meant to degrade the poor, and make excuses for cutting programs. Someone else here said it's a damned if they do, damned if they don't attitude. That is exactly correct.

[prolesunited]

146. Hmm...

"The poor are lazy/bad/stupid myth is only meant to degrade the poor, and make excuses for cutting programs. "

Based on all of his responses here, one might think that this sentiment is EXACTLY his point. Only, he doesn't think it's a myth.

My only wish is that people would have to walk a mile in the shoes of those who they chose to condemn.

[Yupster]

166. So do you believe there is any minimum

standard that every parent should have to comply with regardless of income or not? Feeding their children? not leaving them alone until a certain age?

I understand if you think my standard is too strict. You don't have to agree with my standard, but certainly you have a standard too don't you? Aren't there some minimal responsibilities that parents must shoulder regardless of what shoes they walk in? Or can we just simply not judge another regardless of what they do.

[pnb]

121. I agree

And in addition, I'll had that if you don't have the resources to maintain that minimal level of parenting, you have no business having children in the first place. Doing so is tantamount to child abuse (I am referring here to situations where the parent(s) know this at the time of birth).

[Pithlet]

122. I was wondering how long it would take

before the old "don't have 'em if you can't afford 'em" argument would creep its ugly head in, if it hasn't already done so elsewhere in the thread.

[pnb]

143. So

You believe having a child you know you can't afford is not a bad thing to do?

[Pithlet]

145. No

I was saying I knew that was going to come up. The reason I'm weary of that argument is, one, it's been hashed out here many times. You can count on at least one person saying that whenever poverty issues are discussed. Two, it's just another way to bash the poor for having the audacity to be human beings. Do I think that the decision to have a child can be the wrong one? Often, yes, for many reasons. Financial concerns are valid for anyone considering it.

Humans are going to continue to have children, poor or not. It's something we all do. Rather than bashing them for it, we should put that energy into reducing poverty, and making it easier for the poor, whether they have kids or not, to help themselves out of that situation. The rich are getting fatter, the middle class is disappearing. To me, that is a far more pressing issue.

[prolesunited]

148. Yes, we certainly don't want

poor people "breeding." What would you suggest? Mandatory birth control or abortions for those not meeting certain income criteria? Or perhaps if it's child abuse, maybe we should just take them away and give them to some couple with more money since they will obviously love them more.

[prolesunited]

3. So, basically,

single mothers are to blame?

[Yupster]

5. Blame the mom,

the dad, or both. It doesn't matter who you blame.

The problem is that it's much more difficult to raise kids with one parent than two, especially if the one parent is young, poor, and under-educated.

In doing my quick search, I read one story that was bragging about A-A progress during the Clinton administration. It said the unemployment rate for married A-A males was down to 5.3 %. The problem was that only about 1/4 of adult A-A males were married.

[prolesunited]

7. There also has been a parallel increase in white

single-parent households during that same time period. Why have they not experienced similar problems?

So what do you think should be a greater priority in resolving this:

Encouraging and supporting marriage when women get pregnant?
Providing adequate social structures (free preschool, higher minimum wages, etc.) that would assist single parents in being successful?

[pnb]

8. Not really true

The inrease in sigle parent households has increased more with blacks than with whites.

The highest priority, in my opinion, would be to try to encourage less people to have children who are not married.

[PVnRT]

47. Fine - then the government needs to start subsidizing

birth-control pills, condoms, and so forth, and not just "stress abstinence," which isn't going to work anyway.

[noiretextatique]

161. that still means there has been an increase in white

single parent households, doesn't it?

[Yupster]

165. Of course

Moynihan's report said out of wedlock births to whites went up from 2 % to 3 %. Now it's over 20 %. It's not just an A-A problem, but at 68 % rate for A-A's, it's hurting that group more than the group at 20 % of course. The phenomenon certainly hurts both groups though.

[Yupster]

9. Whites in similar circumstances

are having similar problems.

If you're living in a home with one parent who has never been married, is young and under-educated, you're going to likely have a tough time growing up, and I don't think race has a whole lot to do with that.

White kids in this same situation will have the same problems. The percentage of white kids in this situation is still far, far below the percentage of A-A kids, though the white percentage is rising too.

What to do about it? I don't have an answer.

It seems that we have to do what we can to discourage not-yet educated kids from having sex. Don't ask me how to do that. Hopefully we have some better experts than I on that topic.

[noiretextatique]

162. would that apply to students at wealthy private schools?

or just poorly educated ones at wealthy, private schools?

[Yupster]

167. Sorry - that went over my head I guess

I don't know what point you're trying to make.

[Solomon]

21. Wonder How that happened? No more two

parent families. I'm too tired to list the reasons.

[DrWeird]

28. What percentage of black fathers are in prison?

Fix the racist justice system and you'll have more black fathers at home with their kids. Either that or more white fathers in prison.

[boredofeducation]

34. exactly how would that fix anything?

You do the crime, you do the time, how hard is that to understand? Putting more people in or out of jail cause of their race is just plain wrong and is racist itself. Sure our system favors people who are well connected or wealthy but not every white person is well connected or wealty and not every black person is poor....

[PVnRT]

50. So, then

Is every black person who is arrested and tried guilty? How many are in jail now that are actually innocent because, say, a white witness couldn't tell one black man from the other?

For that matter, how many are in jail because of things like marijuana possession? There are people rotting in jail cells right now for years because of a few grams of pot, or cocaine, or whatever, while criminals like Ken Lay go free.

In Texas, and all over the country, you have poor defendants who get public defenders who sleep through trials, don't have the time/resources to properly defend their client, and a justice system that just wants to railroad in anyone they arrest so it looks like they are tough on crime. Face it, a much larger percentage of blacks and Mexicans are poor than are whites, and it affects them much more.

[DrWeird]

64. White people commit as much crime as black people do.

So how do you explain the vast inequality of blacks in prison.

[qwlauren35]

117. I gotta address that one.

My husband spend the night in jail two nights ago. His crime? One, he was speeding, and two, he was giving two people a ride home because they were too drunk to drive and THEY were carrying narcotics. We're black and neither of us do drugs.

I talked to a co-worker of mine. She is white and blond. She has done nearly every drug under the sun with the exception of heroin. She never got pulled over, never got searched, never got arrested.

What I'm trying to say is, the majority of whites who do crime do NOT do the time. So why do black people have to go to jail for things that white people get away with every day? Either put more WHITE people in jail, or decriminalize drug use. Frankly, I vote for the former. I'd love to see all of the white folks do time for their DUI's, being stoned, etc. Heck, I'd like to see more white folks doing time for tax evasion, embezzling, identity theft, insider trading and other CRIMES that our justice system IGNORES because we're too busy locking up poor black people who do illegal drugs instead of prescription pills like Rush Limbaugh.

Think about it for just one minute. Because I have a good salary, health insurance and don't have a problem going to a psychiatrist, I can have drugs prescribed for me that calm my moods and help me get through life easier. So I can "do drugs" without getting arrested.

Folks who are too poor or too suspicious of psychiatrists don't have the same access to drugs that I do. So, on top of DENYING ACCESS TO LEGAL DRUGS, we IMPRISON them for seeking mental relief.

That's our justice system at work.

Now, let's take one more issue... drug dealing. All intelligent people know that the guy on the street who is selling the drugs is only ONE PIECE IN THE CHAIN. What we don't like to think about is that the drug dealer is the EXPENDABLE piece. Go up the chain a bit, and you'll see white people. Who have the money to bribe officials and the resources for transport. Are they getting arrested? HELL NO! We put all the blame on the man in the streets, and no blame whatsoever on the source of the drugs. Why is this??? It's because they are harder to catch. But no less guilty.

So go ahead, talk about "do the crime, do the time". And if you're going to sing that song, please start locking up the white people who finance and transport drugs, who build laboratories to chemically process drugs (no, black people don't have that kind of money!) and PLEASE lock up the white people who bribe officials to look the other way. And PLEASE lock up the white people who perjure themselves to avoid jail. PULEASE lock up the white people who sell cocaine throughout the entertainment industry. PULEASE lock up the white people who make child-pornography. PULEASE lock up the white people who evade their taxes. PULEASE lock up the white people who drive while intoxicated (especially children of politicians!)

But you'd have to build more jails. Because there are more white people committing crimes and getting away with it than you have jail space for at this time.

[joe_sixpack]

123. Excellent points, all! n/t

[Solomon]

125. Whew!! Extremely well done.

Very well written as well. Where you been? :wow:

[cmf]

82. You are close - War on Drugs is much to blame

Yes, the justice system is racist, but you have to take into the account that the laws and the policy are also racist. They are crafted to produce a prison industrial complex - another way of getting cheap labor. By imprisoning more people, you get more cheap labor. The double edge sword of the war on drugs is that it actually increased the supply of drugs, so that there is a never ending supply of inmates. That is why so many black men are in prison, and why the number has increased so dramatically since 1980. I think the war on drugs and it's after effects has been the number one most devistating thing to happen to the Black urban community in this century.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14077

[EV1Ltimm]

4. "White households had an average net worth of $468,200 in 2001"

I think to get that figure they worked in Ken Lay's salary, because i know for a fact that i didn't net half-a-mil in 2001. i didn't even net the 75k that black households average. but that's neither here nor there.

I don't want to stir anything up, but i think the reason why 1 in 9 blacks are unemployed is because alot of white business owners (or at least the people responsible for hiring) believe that blacks are nothing but a roving pack of gang-banging, crack-addled, high school drop-outs that are out to get them. and besides they're more expendable than white people because, like rush says, if they lose their job, they can just go back on welfare and pop out another kid to get a larger check from the government.

As a society, we need to rid ourselves of the stereotypes. If we stopped focusing on the color of our skin, it would be a non-issue. But that's not going to happen when everytime we turn on fox, there's security camera footage of black men robbing a convenience store. or when we turn on the evening news and hear about drive-by shootings in a prodominantly black neighborhood... or when they report that half the prison population is black. how can anybody believe that blacks are nothing but violent degenerates when their cards are being stacked like that?

[Yupster]

6. Net Worth is

the total value of the stuff you own minus your debts. It's not your annual income.

[EV1Ltimm]

15. i'm with stupid ----------------------->

please forgive me.

[PVnRT]

51. Still, though, "average"

is the wrong number to use here. Median net worth would be much more informative - that is, the number that represents what 50% of white Americans are at or less than. Even a small number of large values will completely throw off an average.

[Yupster]

53. I agree with that

the numbers seemed somewhat high to me.

[justjones]

109. Even if "median" is used....

I'm guessing there will still be a huge gap. IMHO, it has to do with passing on wealth....if your parents have money, they are likely to pass on that wealth to you, be it helping you with college tuition so you come out with no debt, helping you and your spouse with the down payment for your house, etc. If you start out with resources, it's much easier to accumulate wealth, thus the discrepancy between whites and blacks.

[PVnRT]

149. Oh, I'm not disagreeing

I agree, we would probably still see a gap, it's just that saying the "average" white family has $400,000+ in assets is just ridiculous. I would bet that the median is probably closer to half of that number.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

147. I think you're onto something about racist employers

Get a bunch of uninformed white people together, and you'll hear all about how black people are lazy and don't want to work. You'll hear about how "a friend of a friend" worked for a company that was required to hire a black person under affirmative action and how that black person was a total incompetent but "the government" wouldn't let the company fire him.

Then ask why the greatest job growth is in the outer suburbs. Oh, that's because the employers want to have a white workforce--because working with dark-skinned people makes them "uncomfortable."

Catch-22 is alive and well in the area of race relations.

[tom_paine]

13. I think much of this stems from the grotesque wealth disparity

that now is widening across the Empire.

It also has to do with the Dying Middle Class, the turning of Imperial Amerika into a One-Party, Two Class State.

It just so happens that the African-American community, being generally more impoverished, is feeling the sting worse than other races.

I would be remiss in pointing out that, in Imperial Amerika, new methodologies of racism have been pioneered, using time-tested marketing strategies, which preclude the embrace of the kind of overt, direct racism that really (other than degree) is the only thing that seperates the Busheviks from the Nazis, philosophically and ethically.

I have no doubt that this has also contributed.

[Yupster]

20. So when Senator Moynihan

was seeing the beginnings of this data in the mid-sixties and warning us to what would result, he was actually seeing into the future and warning us of a Bush presidency 40 years down the road?

[tom_paine]

41. I've not seen Sen. Moynihan's comments or report

So I am not equipped to comment on it myself.

If you would like to elaborate or link me to these comments (what his points wee, what drove the sociology, as it were), I would be happy to read them.

My uniformed comment: Like anything else human beings do, there is probably an intricate web of contributing factors. My guess is that increasing welath disparity leading to a Two-Class nation instead of a Three-Class nation is one, and whatever Moynihan indicated another.

[Yupster]

52. Here it is

or at least a lengthy excerpt -- the numbers are toward the middle and end. This is from 1965.

Some of it seems comical today because he's decrying out-of-wedlock birthrates as high as 20 % and warning they will go higher. You have to laugh. We would be so thankful for a 20 % rate today, and sadly, I think his warning was spot on.

Here's a brief excerpt...

"Both white and Negro illegitimacy rates have been increasing, although from dramatically different bases. The white rate was 2 percent in 1940; it was 3.07 percent in 1963. In that period, the Negro rate went from 16.8 percent to 23.6 percent."

Can you believe that. White rate from 2 % to 3 %. Man in 40 years we've really screwed up. Now it's somewhere in the 20 % + range.





http://www.pressroom.com/~afrimale/moynihan.htm

[noiretextatique]

85. that's because the report has been discredited

among other things. as have others how use the "black matriarchy" crap as THE REASON for ALL the ills of american society.

[noiretextatique]

86. that's because the report has been discredited

among other things. as have others how use the "black matriarchy" crap as THE REASON for ALL the ills of american society.

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. In times of uncertainty, people go tribal.

Also, the rules of our society have changed. We emphasize rugged individualism, which has at its core these postules:

1) Don't trust anyone.
2) Take advantage of all opportunities, regardless of who you screw-over.

So, when the laws are in favor of the predators, the rest of the people will go tribal and stay with their own. This, however, only makes it easier for the predators because they can use that kind of fear and disunity in their favor.

[Skittles]

17. Why is this? HELLO! LOOK WHO IS "RUNNING" THE COUNTRY

being a republican is a polictically correct way of saying I AM A RACIST, I AM A BIGOT

[Yupster]

19. This is a problem that we have watched grow for

45 years now.

It's a real problem. I don't think this one can be blamed on the BFEE.

[corporatewhore]

23. So true

[Skittles]

33. I would have to say people like STROM and LOTT

had a f***ing LOT TO DO WITH IT

[Yupster]

73. So today in Detroit there are six newborn babies

in the maternity ward, and two of the moms are married and four of them aren't, and the statistics say that the two with married parents will have a much easier time in life than the four without.

And the reason for these babies lying there without married parents to take care of them is .......

Strom Thurmond?

[Solomon]

81. No. You're right Yupster. It's because the unmarried

woman are too damn stupid to want to be married. They are full of that real stupid desire to be loved by someone. Someone who will not leave them, someone who will love them for who they are, someone like .... a child.

[Iris]

118. well, Strom Thurmond did contribute

by creating a child who grew up in a fatherless household.

[Solomon]

133. Tee Hee.

Shhh! You don't wanna open dat door. :evilgrin:

[Yupster]

135. True enough

And his daughter couldn't have been more gracious when she came forward. She looked like a woman who was just full of love, when she had so many reasons to be bitter.

[noiretextatique]

38. 450 YEARS IS MORE LIKE IT

this is a BIG part of the problem some americans have in getting their facts straight on this issue...not acknowledging the truth of the origins of current problems. regarding family structure, for example, several scholars note that this problem didn't start 45 years ago in america, but 450+ years ago with american chattel slavery. the problem is, will and shall be america's repeated refusal to address that issue...

[pmbryant]

40. Thanks for pointing this out

The reality of the present situation becomes so much more clear when one knows the historical context. We didn't get where we are today by accident.

--Peter

[Yupster]

42. That's fine but

at the turn of the last century in 1900, A-A's had the highest marriage rate of any group in society. Births out of marriage were extremely rare. Today more than two-thirds of A-A births are outside of marriage. With those numbers, I just have a hard time blaming this problem on slavery.

Unless it was a problem that had a time bomb on it.

For 400 years, A-A's were mostly not allowed to legally marry and therefore almost every birth was outside of marriage. Then once A-A's could marry legally, they did so in overwhelming numbers and led every group in having their children being brought up in married families.

Then 100 years after slavery ended, a delayed action bomb went off causing A-A's to stop getting married and start having the majority of their kids outside of marriage.

To blame slavery for this problem I'd have to believe in the delayed action bomb theory which I just can't buy.

edited so Conan th Grammarian doesn't get me

[pmbryant]

49. More historical context

I am not familiar with the statistics on marriage etc, so I can't comment on that specifically. But perhaps it is helpful to note that many things improved dramatically for African Americans in the years immediately after slavery ended, but then later got worse and worse as white society used various tactics to re-exert control and relegate blacks to the margins. For a while in the 1860s and 1870s, blacks voted in large numbers, even controlled legislatures in at least one Southern state. Of course, it is a tragic reality of American history that this didn't last for long.

On this "delayed action bomb" you mention, I suspect what Solomon writes about in post #26 below may have a lot to do with that.

--Peter

[noiretextatique]

57. WHERE DO YOU GET THESE "FACTS?"

I *seriously* question the completeness of your facts, as in, they don't seem to tell the full story. for example, having a child out of wedlock is less of a taboo among african-americans, in part, because it wasn't "unusual." one of the reasons for that is because african-american women were particularly vunerable because of the social structure. why do you think so many os us are mixed race? it wasn't because of marriage most of the time...that's for sure.

[Yupster]

62. What fact don't you believe?

If I can I will find a link for it. (after going to Subway for a little bit)

[Yupster]

134. You question the facts

when in a post up above you say that Daniel Patrick Moynihan's report on the family in 1965 has been discreditted without a single link of support?

In the 40 years since he made that speech, I've never heard anything other than praise for it.

Maybe someone's discreditted it, but the late Senator Moynihan is held in such a general high regard that I think that a charge like that would at least bring the obligation of a link with it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

150. You act as if

black women are not getting married out of sheer cussedness.

I used to feel the way you did until I lived in New Haven, Connecticut during the 1970s.

One Monday morning, I had to drive through the largest ghetto neighborhood on the way to somewhere else, and on street corner after street corner, I saw grown men just standing around.

Shortly afterwards, our local alternative paper wrote an article about black unemployment in New Haven. Within the past few years, several major manufacturers had shut down, but all of them had hired production workers on a more or less colorblind basis through the 1960s. This hiring boom had attracted large numbers of Southern black people straight out of sharecropping, along with local Italians, Greeks, Jews, Irish, and other white ethnics who had already been in the city for some 50-100 years.

When the manufacturing plants closed down, the white ethnics either went to work for small businesses owned by people in their ethnic group or got loans from fraternal organizations to start businesses.

As recent arrivals, the black workers (like the Puerto Ricans, who were in much the same situation) had no such support system and, due to coming from places like the Mississippi Delta, little education. The best the men could hope for in the context of New Haven was a janitor's job at Yale, but there were not enough of those jobs to go around, and there was no way the white ethnic businesses were going to hire them, except that the ethnics would hire black women to clean their houses and offices.

The result was a situation in which the women in the community were much more employable than the men. They were also eligible for welfare if they had children.

Now if they got married, they would not be eligible for welfare (due to the "man in the house" rule implemented by "moralists"), and their husband, having no job, would be just another mouth to feed on a cleaning woman's earnings.

Under those circumstances, there would be two choices for low-income black women: either live a life of poverty and chastity, or have non-marital relationships with men.

Makes sense to me, especially since the same type of thing has been happening to white industrial workers for nearly twenty years, and with the same results. Ride public transit in your town and see 1) all the white working class single mothers and 2) all the white working class unemployed males who are dreaming of getting an $8/hour job some day and discussing illegal schemes to tide them over till that happens.

[Yupster]

169. I haven't made any speculation on why

A-A women (and men) are not getting married in the numbers they used to. Have I?

My point is that the original post was asking why progress is not being seen in some areas, and my answer is that the out-of-wedlock birthrate is astronomically high and statistics show a large correlation between growing up in a single parent home with many bad things like poverty, abuse, low graduation rates, and problems with the law.

As to why the marriage rate has gone down so fast so disastrously, I haven't made any speculations. I know others have on this thread, but I have not. Mostly because, I don't really have an answer.

I reread your title and first line and can only shrug my shoulders. I haven't said anything about why women are not getting married. I don't know where you get that from?

[rman]

157. BFEE is hardly unique

Republicans, neocons, and the wealthy elite have been working on this for quite some time, at least since Reagan.

[pmbryant]

18. Racism is still epidemic in our society, from top to bottom

My views in recent years on this subject have become quite radicalized, I'm afraid.

Racism is not as out in the open as it was a few decades ago, but it is still very much with us. I don't think I am exaggerating to call it 'epidemic'. It has taken me a long time to fully realize this, as I grew up as a white person in the 1970s and 80s, being told that the civil rights movement of the 60s had solved all those old problems with race.

:eyes:

But when I really started paying attention, it became quite clear. It is evidenced by the predominant view promulgated by the media of black males as criminal thugs, of black families as poor and on welfare. It is then acted upon by huge disparities in sentencing for drug possession crimes; whereby African Americans caught with crack are sent to jail for far longer periods of time than whites caught with cocaine. This results in huge numbers of minorities being locked up for minor crimes, resulting further in the permanent disenfranchisement of large numbers of African Americans. Looked at in historical context, I can't help but think this entire scheme is "white America's" attempt to return to the days a few decades ago when blacks couldn't vote. (I suppose it is progress that the former method of blatant violence and other intimidation tactics against the minority population at large are no longer socially acceptable. But that is not saying much.)

Further evidence is how racially polarized politics is in the US. Whatever party minorities prefer, whites automatically prefer the other. This is why Democrats used to dominate the South, and it is why Republicans now dominate the South. But this attitude is not confined to the South, unfortunately. On the national media these days, you still hear things like, "Without the black vote, Republicans would have won in 2000 in a landslide and have huge super-majorities in both houses of Congress." Yet one never hears, "Without the white vote, ...."

For me, one of the starkest demonstration of the polarization of racial politics in this country came in the Chicago mayoral race in 1983. (Twenty years ago, yes, but long after the civil rights movement had supposedly fixed things.) Harold Washington won a close 3-way race for the Democratic nomination over the incumbent Jane Byrne and Richard Daley Jr, son of the famous earlier Daley. In normal times, given Chicago's one-party politics, this would have made Washington automatically Chicago's next mayor, and its first black one.

But all of a sudden, the Republican candidate, a complete unknown hack name of Bernie Epton, started picking up steam. Came out of nowhere. He quickly had lots of money and establishment support. He ran ads that actually said "Vote Epton. Before it's too late." It was a horrible campaign and a real eye-opener for me at the age of 14. It was a great relief for me to see that Epton's campaign came up just a little bit short and he lost to Washington. But by only a very small amount. This, in a city where Republicans only get a few percent of the vote normally. I was absolutely shocked by what had happened.

My question is why do we seem to be moving backward? Why does the struggle seem to be losing ground? More importantly, what can we do as a society to resolve these issues? What role do political parties play in this?

My best guess is that we are moving backwards because whites like myself are growing up being told that the race problem has been solved, and that racism is just a minor irritant on the margins of society. And they are believing it. So proper education may go a long way to resolving this, but it will take a lot of time to do so, even if this started immediately.

Political parties? The GOP feeds off of this epidemic racism and encourages it, so as long as they are in control, we can't expect anything related to this to get any better. And in fact, we can probably expect things to get worse.

:-( :-( :-(

Sorry for the long rant.

--Peter

[Yupster]

24. You do agree though

that there is less racism now than there was say in the 1940's when most A-A's couldn't vote, go to local public schools and colleges, hold most jobs, be in a desegregted army, etc., don't you?

[pmbryant]

27. Not sure there is any less racism; it is just less overt

It has been pushed underground, but I am not at all sure the feelings are any less intense than they were 50 years ago. Perhaps somewhat, but nothing even close to the myth most are being taught.

I see a clear, long-term effort to try to relegate African Americans to their status pre-1960s. And I see attitudes in the media dreamily glorifying those decades ("life was so much simpler back then"), and also not-so-subtly implying that black votes shouldn't count. So there is clearly a very large audience that wants to hear this.

--Peter


EDIT: Added a sentence at the end.

[Yupster]

31. Okay, if that's the way you feel

I won't unconvince you.

[PVnRT]

54. So, you're basically arguing

that because racist laws (Jim Corw, poll tax, etc.) are not institutionalized anymore, that everything is great? Sorry, but that is extremely naive. There may not be lynchings, and National Guard units guarding black students entering colleges, or race riots over busing, but it's still there.

[Yupster]

55. I have certainly not said everything is great, but

I do think it's a good thing that there are not hundreds of lynchings going on every year. I don't see how you cannot see progress, but no, progress is not the same as victory.

[Solomon]

26. Thank you for your long rant.

I know some people have a hard time with it, but our society is still one of white supremacy. The system, in every way possible, attempts to break down the black male. This has been going on for centuries now. It's nothing new, but because the shackles have been removed and we have some blacks driving fancy cars, we engage in the fantasy that the race problem has been solved and it's all the fault of blacks for having bad parents etc.

I won't even get into the war on drugs, which statistically has been nothing more than a war on black males. Black males do not bring drugs into this country or manufacture guns, but these things wind up in our communities and the only people who get busted for it are us.

I remember foundly the early sixties and how many black males were trying to do something about it. Setting up programs to educate and feed people in the community like the Black Panthers, etc. After the FBI got through with them, the drug war got started. All that energy had to be blunted away. Now we are seeing the results.

Aarrgh. Let me stop. There's too much to tell and nobody willing to listen. Why can' those blacks just get their act together, right?

[corporatewhore]

22. If our schools were more diverse

people would see from an early age that we are all human beings and not stereo types from movies and music videos

[Yupster]

29. That's true, but

when a kiddo comes into school without ever having held a book in his hand, in my opinion, he has bad parents or parent. He's going to be screwed. Whether he's screwed in a diverse class or a non-diverse class isn't going to be as important as the fact that he will be screwed either way.

[DrWeird]

30. And then there are the racist teachers.

That send black kids to the special education classes and the white kids to the gifted classes, for no reason other than race. It happens on a common basis.

[salin]

130. Sadly

this has been very true in multiple urban schools/districts that I have worked with and studied over the past 10 years - from Michigan to No. California, and back to Indiana.

Even did a study on tracking in the middles schools in a district - in a district in which the middle school tracked determined who would be eligible for the college prep track (eg - in 4-5th grade the decisions to assign to college track was made in the assignment to middle school tracks). The assignment to tracks by race were very common.

Very disheartening.

Also was around several schools during the time that the book "The Bell Curve" came out (which was quickly discredited due to very faulty methodology and data.) Faculty at two middles schools were lobbying the principals to use professional development dollars... to buy copies of the book. They wanted to justify the tracking practices.

I could go on. But it once again enrages me to think about it.

[DuctapeFatwa]

32. Hate and Greed

Working together to bring you America!

[loudnclear]

35. It's because the racists, bigots and facists are back in power and control

It's just that simple. The Justice Department under this administration will not prosecute or enforce civil or human rights.

[Yupster]

37. An interesting interview I found

doing a quick Yahoo search...

Please comment if of interest.

http://listarchives.his.com/smartmarriages/smartmarriages.0204/msg00030.html

[noiretextatique]

39. we black folks don't no nothin' bout rasin no chillin'

:eyes: my parents have been married for over 50 years. i doubt they need ms.muhammed's advice

[Solomon]

43. Not to mention all the

white chilluns we raised.

[noiretextatique]

61. excellent point...another destablizing reality for black families

raising the children of white folks who are going on and on about "the black family." how much you want to bet most of those whining the loudest were raised by miss sassy, beloved *almost* member of the family? wonder who was taking care of her kids while she was taking care of someone else's? today it's taking care of someone else's parents.

[Yupster]

44. Ms Muhammed

(who I know nothing about) would use your parents as the examples of good role models that she says are missing from much of the community. I think that was her point.

[noiretextatique]

45. i fully understand her point

my parents are pretty average, really...that's the point.

[Yupster]

56. How can your parents be average if

there's a 70 % out of wedlock birthrate? It seems your parents are way above average.

[noiretextatique]

59. the conundrum of racism

all those facts and figures tend to color reality, don't they? where do you get these figures?

[Yupster]

63. The 70 % out of wedlock figure?

Isn't that pretty much common knowledge?

Anyway here's one citation. Just do a quick search and you'll see it hundreds of times.

http://www.detnews.com/2003/metro/0310/30/a02-311602.htm

[noiretextatique]

67. how about some other figures?

the percentage of black men in prison? the increase in the prison rate over the past 25 or so years? the percentage of sexual and physical abuse by race and socio-economic status? the percentage of out-of-wedlock births by socio-economic status? and as i already told you, you must concede that the taboo of giving birth out of wedlock, for many reasons, is not as strong among african-americans.
so...clearly marriage is not the panacea some think it is, and there are a variety of reason for the plight of some african-americans. it's easy to use marriage as THE reason, but that assumes you ignore other factors.

[pnb]

72. If the 70% figure didn't even matter to you...

...why did you bother asking for proof in the first place?

There are other factors but many of them do tie to the single parent family structure. You mentioned the percentage of black men in prison? Well, the percentage of men in prison who have fathers that they know or who helped raise them is virtually nill. So if a higher percentage of blacks are in prison, it can then be said that the lack of fathers played a part in this.

Regarding the other things you now deem important numerically, what's to say which causes the other? Does the abuse come from low socio-economic status or is it likely that the type of person irresonsible enough to engage in abuse is not necessarily top notch material to move up in class?

Same with pecentage of out-of-wedlock births by class. I would contend that many of these people are in lower socio-economic classes because they had children they weren't capable of properly raising, whether emotionally or financially...or they say some financial advantage to having children which means the system is royally screwed up (regardless of whether a true advantage actaully existed).

Regarding the taboo, or lack thereof, perhaps there should be more of a taboo. Why shouldn't actions that can cause yourself and children more harm not be considered taboo?

[noiretextatique]

77. having a baby is not inherently harmful

nor is it (sex, preganancy) dependent on the marital status of the people involved. so simple...yet so complicated.

[pnb]

79. I beg to differ...

...in certain situations of course. Being young and on your own, in a situation where you are not financially or even emotionally ready to raise a child, having a baby can definitely be harmful. And this has nothing to do with the difference between biology and morality...it is reality. It can be harmful in a couple of ways...one to the mother in question who will now have much more difficulty in education, working, etc., not to mention the extra expenses involved. This can slow down her progress in life. And this directly effects the baby obviously, not to mention the lack of family around on a regular basis which leads to what spoke about in my last post.

I could care less about the morality of the situation, just the actual effects.

[Yupster]

84. And that is just as true for

whites as it is for A-A's.

[pnb]

90. Definitely true

It goes back to what you said about blacks having higher rates of single parent families...they are just more effected by it, at least on a percentage basis.

[noiretextatique]

87. there is nothing INHERENTLY harmful in having a baby

barring the physical and emotional risks associated with preganancy. and of course, the maturity and age of the mother. women get pregnant...a fact of life.

[pnb]

91. I agree 100%

But what does that have to do with the conversation at hand? I pointed out certain situations.

[noiretextatique]

159. it is about a simple fact: people have sex and women get pregnant

as to how we deal with that as a society...well, that can be really unnatural.

[Yupster]

80. No, and every baby born to an unmarried poor woman

will not end up doing poorly in school either, and every kid born to married parents won't do well in school either, but

when talking statistically, there's no doubt that being born to an unmarried woman greatly increases the likelihood that you will have a whole list of problems from poor school grades, to poor health to greater trouble with the law to drug and alcohol abuse, to dropping out of school, etc, etc. A whole lot of bad things correlate closely with growing up in a single parent home.

And no, that doesn't mean that everyone who ever grew up in a single parent home turned out troubled.

[Yupster]

75. I doubt that a major reason for so many out of wedlock births

is that the women's husbands are in prison. I would think that would be a cause for a lot fewer births in general.

[Djinn]

137. the problem have with those "single parent" studies

is that they don't take cause and effect into consideration - like the studies that "show" that being circumsised can help prevent STD's because circumcised blokes statiscally have fewer STD's - not taking into account that the circumsised blokes are more likely, by dint of including a higher proportion of religiously observent people, to not have had sex with as many different partners as the non circumcised.

The studies that show that kids from single parent families statiscally do worse at school and are more likely to come into contact with the criminal justice system rarely take into account a fairly obvious skewing factor - POVERTY.

When studies focused solely on middle income single parent families they find the differences between single parent and dual parent families almost dissappear. Similarly if you compare kids from low income dual parent homes with those from low income single parent homes there is also bugger all difference.

When you grow up in an area where crime is almost an accepted part of life then it really doesn't matter whether you live with mum & dad, mum only, grandma, uncle fred or Ronald McDonald - you will be more likely to come into contact with the justice system. If you live in an area where most adults are unemployed or underemployed or working 2 or 3 dead end low paid jobs just to keep up the rent on a house that should be condemned - it doesn't inspire great deal of hope thereby eroding the belief in and desire for education. Poverty effects a kids' wellbeing far more than whether both parents are living with them.

Maybe we should be looking at alleviating the poverty first and then see what effect that has.

Not to mention the fact that these studies despairing at the rise in single parent families totally overlook the fact that back in their apparent golden age of the 40's and 50's women stayed with abusive and addicted partners because there was no choice - that situation wasn't too good for the kids either.

[wellst0nev0ter]

153. Actually, "Only" 43 Percent of Black Children Live With Single Mothers

CBPP Data

Plus married black families still made up the majority of all black families.

Not to say there are not stark disparities, but you really need to separate the facts from the propoganda.

[prolesunited]

155. Thank you for looking up the accurate figures

If facts were separated from propaganda, I'm afraid Yupster's debate points would disintegrate.

[wellst0nev0ter]

156. Makes Me Wonder If He's Going To Give A Married Black Father

A high five, like she wanted to do

[Yupster]

164. Excuse me, but

please explain this insult...

"If facts were separated from propaganda, I'm afraid Yupster's debate points would disintegrate."

The other poster provided a few interesting numbers in his link.

39 % of A-A children now live with two married parents. This is up significantly, and though still very low is heartening news.

43 % of A-A children currently live with their single mother. This is also up, but still way too high in my opinion.

None of those numbers dispute the statistic that 68 % of A-A babies are currently born out of wedlock which is also true, as of a few years ago at least.

You may wonder if 43 % of A-A children are with their mothers only, and 39 % are with two married parents, then where are the rest of them? I didn't see the stat, but I would guess living with their grandmother or grandparents would be a pretty big chunk.

Anyway, that's not the point. The point is please explain the insult aimed at me.

The specific insult I'm referring to is

"If facts were separated from propaganda, I'm afraid Yupster's debate points would disintegrate."

[wellst0nev0ter]

171. Actually, Less Black Children Live In Two Parent Households

Because black married couples are having LESS children over the years while the number of children black single mothers are remained the same.

Otherwise, 48 percent of all black families are headed by two parents while 43 percent of all black families are headed by single mothers.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/census/cst-nws-black26.html#

In the end, it doesn't really matter if you are black and married since black married couples have only 27 percent of the median net wealth of white married couples (Oliver & Shapiro, Black Wealth/White Wealth, p. 97)

[Solomon]

46. Extremely interesting Yupster!

After decades of using welfare to break up black families, you know, welfare workers sneaking around to make sure you're not married or have a man in the household, now Bush is touting marriages among the poor. If it weren't so tragic, I would laugh.

Yupster's got it all figured out. It's bad parents is what it is.

[salin]

131. Most folks

are pretty ignorant about how the system itself, intended or unintended.. but motivated to make sure "folks weren't cheating..." worked to break apart families. Here was the message.

Yes unemployment rates are high... and the work you are allowed to have is very low paying - often not enough to support a family... so if you really love your family, and want to make sure that they can get food and basics (via aid)... then you must leave your family.

Nah - it could't be that our policies had a negative impact could it?

Sort of like ole bushjr pushing to change workfare rules... you have to work more hours... and going to school will no longer count. But if you don't go to school to upgrade your skills to make sure you can get higher paying jobs to support youf family - well its your own lazy fault.... :eyes:

OOPS - EDIT _ Most folks with no direct or indirect experience with the welfare system... (should be the title)... *slap head at rereading what I wrote*

[Brewman_Jax]

48. Marriage solves the problem?

as if it was that simple. :eyes:

[noiretextatique]

60. rw bullshit...

nothing more than that.

[noiretextatique]

68. and IF marriage is such a panacea

then why is the rw so opposed to civil marriage?

[Yupster]

70. Can we just solve one world problem at a time

talk about going off on a tangent.

[Solomon]

76. Because the thing you focused on is not just "one problem."

It's all kinds of problems interconnected and is not so simple as saying it's bad parents.

By the way. My parents have been married 50 plus years too and when I was a child, there were tons of two parent families in the black community. A lot of stability. But then there was the Vietnam war, the FBI war, the war on drugs, etc., and when I say war on drugs, I don't mean just law enforcement, but the tons of drugs which were imported into black neighborhoods to do two things: one, blunt the surge of black males who were just learning to love themselves and to do something about the inequities, and two, serve as the basis for incarcerating millions.

[noiretextatique]

83. it's not a tanget...your agrument is basically the same as the rw's

i.e., marriage will solve all the ills experienced by african-americans...isn't it? and if that is true, then why doesn't it apply to everyone? maybe if bush's marriage was more ____________ his children wouldn't be such big losers.
isn't the quality of relationships more important than the relationships themselves? should a women who is being abused by her wealthy husband stay with him so as not to make her children economic statistics? not tangent...reality vs. the fantasy that marriage alone will magically solve any problem.

[Yupster]

88. Has a demon taken possession of my fingers

and said that marriage will solve all the ills experienced by A-A's? If I have ever typed this, it was not me, it was a spirit writing through me. It is certainly not something I believe.

I don't believe there is a magic potion to cure every ill of the land.

And yes, I think getting gay rights into this discussion would throw us into an entirely different topic from the one this thread was started on.

[SeekerofTruth]

58. Culture plays a big role

In the early 80's a black friend of mine complained how his friends said he was turning white because he was working towards his bachelors degree. How many times is Colin Powell labeled a traitor because he is a black man working with Republicans.... or is he labeled a traitor because he is successful?

Interesting blog on search stating the same thing occurs in England.

http://www.brianmicklethwait.com/education/archives/000463.htm

[Solomon]

65. Wonder how and where that "culture" comes

from?

[DrWeird]

66. Do you have many black friends?

Because my black friend, who is also my wife, is currently working on her masters and has never encountered the sentiment that she is "acting white". Except of course outside of right wing propoganda.

I don't know how she feels about Powell, but considering he works for a man who had a campaign rally at a white supremacist camp, I wouldn't consider the term "traitor" out of the question.

[pnb]

69. I indeed have black friends

Like you, including my wife, who has indeed dealt with the phenomenom mentioned. She also of course got it for having the temerity to like white guys and heavy metal. As a matter of fact, her nickname on the block she grew up on was, "the little white girl." I've also watched it done on other occassions personally.

Believe me, it happens.

[Solomon]

74. You're right it does happen. I wonder why?

When there is 400 plus years of history where it's driven into your head that you're not worth the dirt you walk on and not wanted around, what the hell do you expect?

I find this all so ironic since anyone who has bothered to study history knows the truth. Read W.E.B. Dubois' Black Reconstruction and learn how it was the yearning of blacks for education which made it possible for whites in the south to be educated. Before blacks wanted it, whites didn't give a shit about education. Read how blacks controlled the majorities in several southern states and were on the way to democracy when the federal government struck a deal and allowed the KKK to run us all up north.

We don't teach history in our schools. It's painfully obvious. It makes me think of how much shit we've done to Cuba for example, embargoes, sanctions, etc. and then like hypocrits, we turn around and say, "look how fucked up they are". "Told you their system can't work".

How do we explain the phenomenon, and believe me it is a phenomenon, that every so-called "dictator" that we demonize is socialist. Hell, even Saddam was a damn socialist. No one in america has the balls to be socialist which in my mind, means caring more about common people than fixing it so the rich can get richer. But we find no problem in demonizing people who do.

Our system is just overcooked. Development and evolution goes through necessary stages. No one was around to prevent Europe from having its monarchies necessary to its development, but somehow we have bought into the idea that we can impose a democracy from the top down on other people. Capitalism was necessary to technological and economical development. But instead of our rich saying okay, I've got enough, maybe we can now spend some money on helping people, they exhibit an obsessive greed that says I will never have enough. We have produced tremendous wealth, yet we seem to be one of the few countries willing to do the right thing with it.

[pnb]

93. A possible explanation

This was explained to me by a buddy of mine...

He said it went back to the days of slavery and often the "house nigger" was looked at disdainfully by many of the other slaves, basically because that person would have to "sellout", so to speak, to the masters in exchange for a "cushy" position (obviously, cushy is a relative term here).

He said that this mindset still exists in some blacks and that this is how it manifests itself.

This is obviously anecdotal and not meant to be perceived as concrete fact. Just an idea that does make a little bit of sense to me though.

[Solomon]

99. Agreed. You know more than

you let on. :)

[noiretextatique]

158. oh for pete's sake

it's not really that complicated. it's a matter of differences in socio-economic status, and as lydia points out: it is NOT race-specific.

[Brewman_Jax]

71. Never heard of that

I am a black male with my bachelor's degree. I may have been called "nerd" or "geek", but I've never been called or told that I'm "acting white."

I've had white guys ask me about that "phenomenon." Only people that seem to ever hear that appear to be RW white guys. Haven't figured out why. :shrug:

[Tomee450]

78. Blacks have always valued education and still do.

I am also black and every black person I know values education. I was not told I was "acting white" when I received good grades in high school nor when I decided to go to college.

[noiretextatique]

89. ain't it the truth? rw white guys love to talk about

how balck acheivers are *shunned.* when i was in high school, i didn't even consider doing anything except going to college...as did most of the black kids i want to school with. education was it...nothing else was even a possibility.

[pnb]

95. Most of the black kids I went to school with were not shunned either

and they were planning on going to college as well...I went to pretty much of a middle class school though, where that sort of thing is much more of an expectation of everyone. Where I've pretty much seen it has been in lower class areas where college is not considered nearly as much of a given.

[Solomon]

92. Well. I grew up in a bad neighborhood. Most of the people I grew up

with are dead or incarcerated. When I came home during the summers from college, I used to get some of that, but it wasn't hostile. "Look at him, carrying books like the white man." "How is it up there in the white man's schools.?" Similar type stuff. They didn't hate me for it. It was ribbing and so forth. The attitude is real but largely self-defensive. If you feel you got no shot at it yourself, then naturally you're going to console yourself by criticizing it or demeaning it.

If you doubt what decades of systematic degradation can do to a people, then there's no help in explaining it to you. But try imagining finding out, as a child, full of hope and fantasy, that your people were slaves under the worse slave system ever devised. That when you went to study africa to get some pride, you were told that there are nothing but primitive, savage, jungle bunnies there and they did nothing to advance human civilization. When every magazine you look at extols the beauty of white people, the intelligence of white people, and even the commercials on television show white people with enormous kitchens with refrigerators full of food and the only thing they seem to worry about is whether to choose "Mister Clean" or "Spic and Span" to clean what already looks like a pristine floor. Try thinking of the gross psychological devastation wrought by the self-hatred engendered by false education.

Sure, the way a person feels about himself has nothing to do with it right?

I thank Yupster for contributing to this thread.

[Brewman_Jax]

97. Were you referring to my post?

I don't disagree with you. I was disagreeing with the ones who appear to think that black people don't value education.

[Solomon]

100. Sorry Lurking. I got on a roll. Didn't mean to seem I was

directing the post at you directly. My bad. Sometimes you forget who or what you are responding to.

[SeekerofTruth]

105. Excellent point, what can be done?

I believe:
1) Improve education of history to include a lot more about black accomplishments. At the lower grade levels, work at instilling pride in achievements.

But what else, I would love to hear your thoughts.

[Solomon]

127. We have to find a way to do it without alienating

white youth. One day it will just be history - not "white" or "black" - but history.

[justjones]

115. I agree....

I've had the same experience, except the teasing, which I would characterize as ribbing and so forth, led me to reject education and a whole lot of other things that might be labeled "white" to fit in with the crowd. But then again, there were a whole lot of other things to complicate matters that made me such a sensitive child. But thank goodness for growing up and growing out of the ties that bind us.

I'm wondering if this is much more common in working-class neighborhoods or places where poverty is rampant....that's where I grew up. I would think that this type of teasing would even happen to poor white kids, so it's not so much "black" culture as it is working-class culture/the culture of poverty.

Another one of those instances where an issue of class gets confused/expressed through race, but I may be wrong.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

151. That phenomenon of ragging on achievers

is NOT limited to the black community. It's present in poor white communities as well. I heard plenty about it from my students.

[noiretextatique]

160. thanks, lydia...for the most sensible

comments in this entire thread.

[cmf]

96. War on Drugs. It has been devastating to the Black community

I think one of the main reasons that the Black community is falling behind is the disappearance of two-parent homes, which is greatly influenced by the higher incarceration rates of Black males.

The war on drugs has been the single greatest influence on the increase in incarcerated black men since the 1980's. Besides incarcerating people, it has actually helped the black market grow and increased the supply of drugs. It is a never ending cycle - the more they fight the war on drugs, the more drugs are distributed, the more people hooked, and the more inmates they can have. The US prision system is actually an industrial complex. It is mind boggling how much cheap labor comes from prisions. It is in the government's interest to incarcerate as many people as they can.

We need to eliminate mandatory sentencing, increase the availability of alternate sentencing (rehab) for non-violent drug offenders, redirect law enforcement and prosecution away from low level street offenders to large cartels and kingpins, eliminate the racist disparity in sentencing between street drugs like crack and higher end drugs like powder cocaine, and eliminate racial profiling.

Ending the war on drugs may not be the panacea that will solve all of our problems, but I think it will serve to help get the Black community back on the right track.

Here are some links I could scrape up quickly, if you want to read about it.

Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/

Race and the Drug War
http://www.alternet.org/issues/index.html?IssueAreaID=37

Edited because I forgot to spell check.

[pnb]

102. Blacks are definitely inordinately hurt by the WOD

One of the reasons why drugs should be legalized.

[joe_sixpack]

106. After reading many of the responses

to this post, It would seem that many believe that none of the factors here are within the realm of responsibility of the Black community. Am I misreading this? Is there nothing that African Americans can do to facilitate solutions to these problems? or is it totally outside of their control?

[SeekerofTruth]

110. Yes and No. How's that for an answer?

Yes, because the culture is full of life, love, and energy. No, because they are constantly shunned.

I had 1 employee working for me who called in to work from the police station. He was thrown in jail for being a black person driving a car in a white neighborhood. It's difficult to grow, prosper, and achieve great things in that type of environment.

[DrWeird]

111. Yes. It's because of racism.

Do you think black people don't make as much money as whites because they are not as good as white people, or because they are lazy? Immoral?

[BenFranklinUSA]

114. We could support just the "good folk" instead of "all folk" .n/t

[BenFranklinUSA]

113. New Leadership; Fresh Blood

why are all our leaders old?
where's the next generation?

[Solomon]

129. Somebody killed off all the leaders.

They sent a message to us all. Don't even think about it.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrWeird]

119. Pardon my french, but what the fuck are you talking about?

What the flying fuck has Jesse Jackson done to reverse black progress?

Give some examples. And tell us whether or not you heard it on that racist Bill O'Reilly's show.

[Tomee450]

124. Jesse Jackson

and Louis Farrakhan are not responsible for the racism that exist in the hearts of many whites in this country. They do not force companies like Denny's or Texaco to discriminate against blacks. They do not force the police to engage in police brutality or racial profiling. Jackson has tried to change the system to make life better for all people. Farrakhan often talks about blacks helping themselves by forming businesses. He also stresses moral behavior and has often spoken about out of wedlock births. Each man has his faults but one cannot blame them for the wide divide that currently exists between the races.

[noiretextatique]

163. if rush say it, it must be true!

even among some of our so-called allies. THIS (the success of rw propaganda) has done more damage to racial understanding and societal responsibility for racism than anything else.

[SmokeyBlues]

120. WRT "acting white"...

I just want to add that I too am a Black male who has always put a premium on education. I have several advanced degrees (big deal in Bush world, right?!) and never ever have been accused of "acting white", even though I grew up in an all-Black neighborhood in Boston during the 1960’s!

In fact, my daughter was an honor roll student all throughout high school and none of her Black schoolmates ever accused or even hinted at her "acting white". Perhaps that's because she is the beautiful young 'soul sister' my wife and I raised her to be.

Regardless, she now attends a prestigious (and costly!) private college in the Northeast that has other young Black women and men like her and, guess what, none of them go around accusing each other of "acting white" either. ;)

However, I will acknowledge that in addition to right-wing white guys, I have encountered a few other Black folks who alleged that they were the frequent targets of verbal and even physical abuse from other Black kids for no other reason than they were good students. However, what I have also noticed is that these very same ‘long-suffering because they value education Black folks’ share a common characteristic that jumps out at you after you get to know them. And that is a noticeable contempt for other Black people; many simply believe that they are better then the rest of us.

Oh, before I forget, Colin Powell is still a sell-out, lying, Bush asslicker. Education aside.

[DrWeird]

128. LOL.

Thanks SmokeyBlues. Best post of the thread.

[SmokeyBlues]

139. I appreciate the kind words doc! -eom

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

142. Great post, Smokey...loved the ending!

;-)

[prolesunited]

141. FWIW, I didn't abandon my thread

I had a meeting, dentist appointment and now I'm at my other job. LOTS to respond to here when I get home.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

152. Check out my responses

#147 (for a note on racist employers) and #150 (for a note on single mothers).

[prolesunited]

154. They were excellent!

Thanks for chiming in.

Women really are caught in a tough situation. They can't receive help if they are married, but at the same time, they get hammered for not being married.

Some really simple steps to reverse these trends would include a graduated welfare system that provides assistance as you move toward self-sufficiency. Who wants to take a low-paying job when it means that you and your family will lose their medical benefits? How about increasing the minimum wage so you don't have to have two or three jobs? What about affordable daycare or universal access to preschool?

[arewethereyet]

168. this is not difficult to fix there are numerous studies showing it

kids with active parents requiring them to perform in school have children who perform well at school.

Its true in EVERY neighborhood in America.

Far too many black children have parent, not parents. This is a difficult job, its easier whe shared.

If the community wishes drugs to depart their neighborhood then they DO have the power to make that happen. Its been done. If that parent or those parents similarly teach their child about the inevitable result of drug involvement then drugs need not become the temptation that they are.

Chart the decline of progress to the rise in the factors I mention and it makes an "X".

The problem is apathy and irresponsibility. Fix this and problem solved.

You can start with the cancerous effect of the hip hop mentality. Females are not "ho's". Violence is not cool. Bling Bling is bull shit.

Why are so few black leaders unwilling to say what needs to be said ? Coincidentially, faith was far more prevelant in the black community in the 60's.

Not politically correct but undeniable.

[eridani]

172. Why education won't help

Because when people get educated, the job market doesn't change to eliminate lousy paying jobs. Nor does it have any effect on the trend toward having fewer and fewer people making more and more stuff.

After being screwed out of New Deal programs (not allowed in WPA or AFDC in the south, farm and household labor excluded from Social Security entirely because of the color of a majority of people doing those jobs at the time), the automation of cotton picking in the late 40s resulted in one of history's largest internal migrations of southern black farm labor to cities. The postwar consumer goods burst took up a lot of that slack, but the 50s was when 'last hired, first fired' began to create and widen a major gap between white and black unemployment rates.

Civil rights and affirmative action slowed this tendency somewhat by opening up previously blocked job categories, but deindustrialization proceeded apace until it was seriously hitting white people by the late 70s. That's where the War on Some Drugs comes in. Though illegal drug use is similar in all demographic populations, the majority of arrests and the even vaster majority of convictions among minorities serves to make the prison-industrial complex the most important American solution to minority unemployment.

Education, again, has no effect on this trend. Anyone who gets educated and steps out of the quagmire just pushes someone else back down into it. The only solution is to seriously rethink the function of work in society at large.