I leave you with Coleman Hughes. He’s black but I’m sure you’ll find a way to frame him as a bigot as well. The last paragraph is particularly appropriate to you
Hughes attributes the sense of worsening race relations since 2013 to the rise of social media and the accelerated spread of racially charged false stories and myths.
We’ve talked, and clicked, our way into believing we are in a state of racial crisis.
The neo-racists fan the dissension by attributing any racial disparity in America to racism, and ignoring the influence of demographics, geography, and especially culture.
They disregard, or disparage, all the indicators of racial progress, which are inconvenient to their simplistic condemnations of American society as fundamentally and irredeemably racist.
Assets are inherited by the next generation. So definitely.
Besides it is not the middle classes that pay this bill. It is the wealthy. Where do you think their ill gotten gains came from?
The leveraging of output is based on taking two resources labor and materials. In both the case of African Americans and Native Americans there was duress.
Stop pretending your assets are at risk.
If you have billions then you are right your assets are owed.
You are never going to work a day in your life harder if someone else has money. But your children will have people shop them if they have money.
Would you argue the Marshall Plan? That is how ignorant this discussion is.
So you would have been against rebuilding Japan and Germany?
You can not add worth a damn. You have no grasp on history unless you fabricate it. You look at racism and embrace it with a stiff arm against people who want justice.
There was no justice in the Marshall Plan but it was smart to do business.
A man like you puts African Americans to the back of the bus.
It is smart and just to do business with African Americans just as it is with the Germans and Japanese. Fortunately, people are bigger than you.
Like I said, at the end of the day, this is just about the seizing and redistribution of private wealth. We generally oppose that based on moral grounds. We’ll let our European neighbors destroy themselves under the guise of race based socialism.
It’s more than that, and in fact the Heritage Foundation, not exactly a bastion of liberal thinking, shows that a data analysis of “like vs like” shows that it has nothing to do with race, it’s all about “economic status.”
There is a widespread belief that race is a major explanatory cause of crime. This belief is anchored in the large disparity in crime rates between whites and blacks. However, a closer look at the data shows that the real variable is not race but family structure and all that it implies in commitment and love between adults. The incidence of broken families is much higher in the black community. Douglas Smith and G. Roger Jarjoura, in a major 1988 study of 11,000 individuals, found that "the percentage of single-parent households with children between the ages of 12 and 20 is significantly associated with rates of violent crime and burglary." The same study makes clear that the widespread popular assumption that there is an association between race and crime is false. Illegitimacy is the key factor. It is the absence of marriage, and the failure to form and maintain intact families, that explains the incidence of high crime in a neighborhood among whites as well as blacks. This contradicts conventional wisdom.
Where they go wrong is in saying it’s not an economic issue. The breakup of the family structure is surely an economic issue, and if you probe far enough to see you find that similarly situated white and blacks have near identical single-parent households and yes, that leads to violence.
(Using “apprehended crime statistics” is fraught, since there is more policing done in those black neighborhoods which tend to be more cloistered and easier to patrol. Poor whites, by contrast, tend to be less urban and more rural, making them less likely to be apprehended.)
To your point, it’s not nature but stems from some combination of factors, which likely include poverty.
On this we agree, but the question is “how did minorities get to be so poor?” Surely having no land or education was important 150 years ago. But then that discrimination, while technically gone didn’t go away until the 1960’s - and if you talk to blacks it hasn’t gone away at all, at least “in Toto.” Yes, there are specific successes, but overall the communities have still been held down with redlining, segregation by highway or school or church. How many minorities could ever buy their own house, much less move to the suburbs and buy one there?
Oh sure they can now. All they need is thousands of dollars for the down payment, all while spending more to send the kid to Catholic school (because the urban public school is supported by lousy tax revenues while suburban ones have a good tax base), not having health insurance because they have a crappy hourly job, and, well, you get the idea. It’s hard to run a race where your feet are stuck in molasses.
And yet - there are successes. I does happen. That doesn’t make it easy, and it surely isn’t as easy as it is for whites. (You’re aware of the Identical Resumes with black vs white names study, right? Blacks didn’t get called back, whites did.)
I don’t have an answer. Some of what has been done has been counterproductive. Some of it worked. None of it has solved the problem, and here we are.
It sounds like we agree that the family structure and in conjunction with poverty is what are driving the issues, evidenced by the Heritage report. Where we disagree and where you go beyond the findings of that report is the assumption that the legacy of slavery and discrimination and not culture is still the primary cause of the disparity in income, wealth, and education.
Thomas Sowell covers this issue at length in several articles and books in nearly 30 years of work on the subject.
"Three decades of my own research lead me to believe that neither of those explanations will stand up under scrutiny of the facts. As one small example, a study published last year indicated that most of the black alumni of Harvard were from either the West Indies or Africa, or were the children of West Indian or African immigrants. These people are the same race as American blacks, who greatly outnumber either or both.
If this disparity is not due to race, it is equally hard to explain by racism. To a racist, one black is pretty much the same as another. But, even if a racist somehow let his racism stop at the water’s edge, how could he tell which student was the son or daughter of someone born in the West Indies or in Africa, especially since their American-born offspring probably do not even have a foreign accent?
What then could explain such large disparities in demographic “representation” among these three groups of blacks? Perhaps they have different patterns of behavior and different cultures and values behind their behavior."
The position that the legacy of racism or even more subtle attempts through redlining, discrimination in hiring, and efforts post 60’s that supposedly have a follow on impact, don’t explain by West Indies Blacks, indistinguishable have essentially equal levels of education rates, income and wealth as whites.
The same type of evidence can be found with other groups, such as Jews, Asians and other minorities that suffered the same subtle tactics of racism, yet it had no long term impact on income, wealth and achievement.
Sowell’s ultimate conclusion is as follows and draws similar correlations to long lasting poor white communities, where racism cannot be the explanation:
Disparities between Southern whites and Northern whites extended across the board from rates of violence to rates of illegitimacy. American writers from both the antebellum South and the North commented on the great differences between the white people in the two regions. So did famed French visitor Alexis de Tocqueville.
“None of these disparities can be attributed to either race or racism. Many contemporary observers attributed these differences to the existence of slavery in the South, as many in later times would likewise attribute both the difference between Northern and Southern whites, and between blacks and whites nationwide, to slavery. But slavery doesn’t stand up under scrutiny of historical facts any better than race or racism as explanations of North-South differences or black-white differences. The people who settled in the South came from different regions of Britain than the people who settled in the North–and they differed as radically on the other side of the Atlantic as they did here–that is, before they had ever seen a black slave.”
"Slavery also cannot explain the difference between American blacks and West Indian blacks living in the United States because the ancestors of both were enslaved. When race, racism, and slavery all fail the empirical test, what is left?
Culture is left."
I think the only area of disagreement is simply that I share Sowell’s view that the current disparity is not a matter discrimination or the legacy of it, as you do. We do agree that poverty is an important factor and then the question is how best to address it. The start of this discussion was that reparations should be owed to fix the problem but for only one specific group. My argument is that at best, it is difficult to know what if anything of the current economic challenges is tied to that legacy. At worst, there is no connection and this is an issue of culture and perhaps a combination of the impact social welfare policies of the 70’s actually.
If that the case and the root cause is unclear, isn’t it better to try to solve the issue of poverty across the board than selectively by race?
@Leap just simply short circuits the discussion and as Coleman Hughes has said, these people simply see statistical differences and automatically assume without deeper analysis it must be attributed to racism. But the truth is, racism is just a convenient cover for seizure and redistribution of wealth.
There are degrees of truth. You are denying reality.
It is not simple but it is stark.
I have documented a study of classroom settings. Your narrow mind could not do anything but denial. Sad thing is your nose is in the air parading around.
No, you took the low road, insulted me and then wanted to demonstrate your knowledge of 60 year old policies.
I don’t have any use for it. I’ll be back in Ireland to play Ballybunion. Unless your a good caddie or know a few good pubs, I think were done. One of the most beautiful moments I ever had was a private dinner at the Adaire Manor. They brought in a singing group and did God Bless America. It was amazing and met the most beautiful people. Never thought I’d meet the first dolt from there on line
Guys, you are not equally silly, but you are equally embareassing yourselves and don’t seem to know it to such a degree that I am embarassed on your behalves (uhm, both of the spread “halves” of both of you?) Waggle waggle.
Yes, I wrote that, and the silly ninny nanny AI censor missed its pulchritudinously plotted potted nasty dare I say pseudo-insulting malevolence.
Meanwhile, please boys, go to different sides of the schoolyard for at least a week and study wit? A match of wits instead of insults might be fun, and might even trigger thought. As you can see I am not much good at it, but as you seem to have time on your hands you take it on?
Pull up, pull up, pull up!!!
or
Dive Dive Dive!
or
Drop it. Drop it! I SAID Drop It!
