Considering the sources (over content) would any articles I post have any impact on your way of thinking? You and I both have our walls up, and nothing I say or post will bring yours down… and vice-versa.
All this is here is a lot of posturing, one-upping, latent insults… basically a pissing contest.
I stand by my progressing views, as I do not view them as “crocks of shit.”
You may continue posting articles and insults if it makes you feel good.
I just come here to express an opinion. It won’t matter to me if you feel you’ve won an argument.
@ “worse shape on many parameters.” I’m talking about this kind of thing, not defending segregation. This is not a narrative Democrats want to tell.
As late as 1910 more than two-thirds of the black population of Chicago lived in neighborhoods where most residents were white.
• In 1950, 72 percent of all black men and 81 percent of black women had been married.
• Every census from 1890 to 1950 showed that black labor force participation rates were higher than those of whites.
• Prior to the 1960’s the unemployment rate for black 16 and 17-year olds was under 10 percent.
• Before 1960, the number of teenage pregnancies had been decreasing; both poverty and dependency were declining, and black income was rising in both absolute and relative terms to white income.
• In 1965, 76.4 percent of black children were born to married women.
• Between 1960 and 1964, blacks were rising into professional and other high-level positions at a rate greater than the five years following passage of the Civil Rights Act.
• The 1960 census showed the first signs of a decline in black marriages, with acceleration in later years.
• Since the 1960s the black labor force participation rates have been lower than whites and unemployment rates for black 16 and 17 year olds has never dropped below 20 percent.
"Analysts estimated that in 1975 a household head would have to earn $20,000 - or an inflation-adjusted $88,000 today - “to have more resources than what could be obtained through public welfare/ Great Society programs.” Paul Peterson, Harvard.
• In 1980, 31 percent of all black first-born children were born to teenage mothers.
• By 1992, 54 percent-of all black children were living only with their mothers.
• From 1990 to 1994, 77 percent of first births to black women were premarital.
• In the 1980s and 90s, an absolute majority of those black families with no husband present lived in poverty.
• By the 2000s, 75% of blacks with a high-school degree or some college were not married.
• In 2005, Black people accounted for 13% of the total U.S. population yet they were the victims of 49% of all the nation’s murders; and 93% of black murder victims were killed by other black people.
• Less than half of black students graduated from high school in 2005.
• In 2009, 73% of black children were born to unmarried mothers, twice the percentage as whites.
• In 2012, blacks in New York constituted 78% of shooting suspects and 74% of all shooting victims even though they are less than 23% of the city’s population. Young black men in New York are 36 times more likely to be murdered than young white men.
• Today, black males between the ages of 14 and 17 commit homicide at ten times the rate of white and Hispanic males of the same age combined.
• In many urban areas, the black illegitimacy rate is well over 80 percent.
• The national unemployment rate for blacks was over 13% in 2014, nearly five points above the average for all Americans. And black teen unemployment was over 40 %.
Agree, to a point. I think these authors make some very good points, especially at race issues on college campuses vs the way race is handled in the military.
Oh please. It’s actually a Dem thing that something that has a disparate impact on minorities, even if not inherently racist, is bad. But the intent of the dems in this case is beside the point. ED, you are the one freaking arguing that if goals align with white nationalists, regardless of motives, that’s a problem for the party. That alignment with racists is its’ own evidence. Now you are taking Cushin’s stance that partial alignment doesn’t mean anything and it’s intent that matters? You’re arguing against yourself. But if you won’t even acknowledge that a program that removes a couple thousand blacks from the population daily appeals to the worst of the worst of white racism, you’re being willfully ignorant because you aren’t that stupid.
Great post. This also needs to be read with the understanding that if you graduate high school, don’t get pregnant before you are married, and actually get married you have something like a 98% chance of avoiding poverty. That is really all you have to do, and on these simple important measures blacks are far worse off than they were in the 60s.
And since I’ve now proven the confirmation bias of some of those people here who only acknowledge facts they want to hear, here is a video of a klan leader endorsing Hilary.
You’ve got to be kidding. This is the KLAN he represents. Do you honestly believe anything that comes out of his mouth while on camera? There’s no deciphering truth from lies.
Yes, you only hear what you wanted to hear.
Oh, you mean a crazy racist white supremacist might lie and use their negative endorsement to hurt a politician… NO… say it isn’t so…
Of course I don’t believe a damn thing crazy racial supremacists say. I was using ED’s standards here, if you don’t think a crazy supremacist’s official endorsement matters, take it up with him.
a-Why do all the racists endorse republicans? This is very telling on where they are as a party.
b-Yeah, they don’t, the klan endorsed Hilary and here is a well reasoned factual basis why they might prefer the democratic platform.
a-PROVE IT. No they didn’t. The intent of the a policy is what matters, not results that might align with the white supremacists.
b-Uh, why doesn’t the intent of republicans matter in cases of disparate impact? Try looking up the endorsement and not displaying your ignorance.
a-SEE THERE IS NO PROOF, IT DIDN’T HAPPEN!
b-posts video of klan endorsing hilary
a-Well official endorsements of racists don’t matter they lie all the time.
Yeah, this has just gotten stupid. The bigoted bias and double standards are getting ridiculous.
OK. For the sake of argument, for the past 40 years, the Dems have been the party of abortion. In the memories of most posters, it’s been a main Dem party platform issue for their entire adult life. It’s one of the main reasons - if not the main reason - that Utah is the reddest state.
Hillary recently dropped the word “rare” from her abortion talk, but got skewered by pro-choice Dems for saying “The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights" and for calling for late term restrictions. If it’s wanted, it’s a baby and you can proudly show all your friends the ultrasound. If it’s unwanted, it’s a cluster of cells, or fetal tissue.We don’t need to worry about care/harm morality and women should be able to terminate up until birth, so long as the fetus does not experience pain at termination. I don’t blame her for getting confused with the “science” of this.
About the high percentage of poor black women who choose abortion, I don’t think it’s because they buy into the progressive “science,” or that they care about or love their unborn children less than I do. Yes, abortion is available to women of all ethnic groups, but this is an awful thing that poor black women are experiencing this as disproportionately high rates A symptom of something gone very wrong, no? The idea of it makes my soul sick.
Hey, I’m not gonna defend Trump. Look at the number of Republicans who are very unhappy about it. I will likely vote for a third party candidate, not that my vote matters here in CA. I liked Kasich. Either way, the executive branch is only one branch of the three, and these terms are limited to four years. The president isn’t everything. I guess we’ll see what will emerge. Trump seems to have similar within-party approval as Hillary, although I’m not following current polls. I’m not sure you could call either of them “standard-bearers” at this point, considering how many people within their respective parties dislike them intensely/ find they lack integrity, etc… Strange times.
FWIW, I in no way meant to imply that I oppose the Civil Rights Act, or that America would be better off without it. I think I’ve been clear that I think it will likely be expanded to include the LGBT population. Of note, Canada introduced legislation to that effect in their parliament this week.
Thanks. And absolutely, much progress has been made. Many good things have happened, particularly for Blacks who have avoided urban poverty. We now have a large and thriving Black middle class. I’m actually very hopeful. I think most of the negative consequences were unintentional, but they are negative none the less and, as a society, we have to do what we can to fix these problems.