Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the Hispanic community is hard working people and know how to stay out of trouble.Why is there so much violence in the low income communities in America.They have plenty of opportunities to make life better if they work hard and save.I wish there wasn't so much violence in America.I wish it was like it was in the 80's when the economy was working and money was worth something.Peace be with everyone-God bless America!
I am going to say look all around the world. There's are Blacks, Asians, Whites and natives thru out the world. They all are traditionally in the same social scale. Asians are usually fine threw out the world, whites are usually find but there is an okay amount that are lower, blacks are usually always lower as with native Americans in the Americas. I think this is true because of IQ.
Linda Gottfredson is a great woman who has studied this for decades.
Also look at the countries East Asians and whites have been able to make great countries, and contribute greatly to the world.Some people in Africa are still living in hunts, and while most of the world had metal and many other inventions the native Americans weren't very advanced at all.
Look at what you see in your life. I see many blacks that do tribalistic/clannish things. They listen to rap with the stereotypical cars and they keep their tribalistic identity. Whites are all over the spectrum from what I see in my life. Whites are all over the political spectrum, they don't just become rapers or sport players, they can be emo, preppy, etc. whites don't have the clannish/ tribalistic ness I see in blacks. They also always mention their race, in the ocasinonal books they make it has to do about their race! In their movies it's about slavery or their race! All the ones I know brought race up a lot too!
So my conclusion is these races are usually in the same GENERAL spots in economic and social class threw out the world, whites and East Asians have been able to develope their countries into great things, and use your expirences and what you see. I see blacks as being very tribalistic/clannish GENERALLY. My psychology teacher told me that is a sign of not being intelligent... Different breed of dogs are smarter so why would different breeds of humans not be? Don't forget we are animals.
My oppinions seem to follow a common concensus. Blacks average IQ is average 85 for American black and would have a good amount of people below and above that percentile. African black from Africa is 70. There is a higher IQ in American blacks due to them having lots of white ancestry from slave owners and bi racial dating. Their average IQ is also the cutoff for the military. White people have an average IQ of 100. The whites are like the blacks being that there are 50/50 of people on either side of the 100 IQ. Asians are where it gets weird. Asians have an average IQ of 105 but it is really rare they will be anything different than that IQ. So whites have more geniuses.... And stupid people... While Asians are all close to the 105 IQ. Ashkenazi Jews although white have an average IQ of 110.
They have done studies with twins of same race, then separated them to different families in different social economic statuses and they usually have the same IQ only 3ish point difference. Blacks even in wealthy families are more likely to go to jail then their white and Asian counterparts. Race and IQ is a real thing along with other genetic differences. We are not all the same, races are real, and sadly we are not all smart. I think this should really be addressed more how can we have a society where we aren't all equal?
BTW I'm not racist cause I have facts. And I still enjoy all people!
Btw the woman above named Linda use to work for the government and now she works for the university of Delaware. Here's a great interview with her. I believe her because of what I see and because I refuse to believe the government or what the liberals with the agenda say. Btw I have no idea if she is liberal or not but I think she is... Expect for on race and IQ...
I concede that there are such things as typographical errors. But, if you're going to expound on issues related to IQ, and expect to be taken seriously, then please go back and correct your post.
I know an Indian family in the US that has only been in the US since the around the 70's and I suspect they will shortly produce a third generation of doctors while white families in Appalachia languish in poverty for over four hundred years. They are not only doing better than other minorities they also outpace around 54% of the white population.
"No. That was not the reason. From slavery through Jim Crow, the black family in the US remained quite intact up until the start of LBJ's Great Society."
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightningfro
This is not true at all, I don't know what history books you've been reading, but black families during slavery were broken up CONSTANTLY - children were separated from their parents and sold to different families. Many slave masters had no interest in preserving the family unit of enslaved black people. When they needed to increase their numbers, some slave masters would pair people up (usually people who didn't even like each other) and try to get them to "breed".
Even mixed-race children who were born from enslaved black women/white slave masters were sold off to a different family, usually to hide the fact the slave master was abusing his slaves. Your comment isn't just a generalization, it's flat out wrong.
Fact: Black women were more likely to be married and living in intact families than white women were before welfare and big-government destroyed the black family.
Yes, of course slavery was horrible, and yes, I know that blacks were bred and families split apart.
But, black families were not splitting apart for incentives doled out by Liberal do-gooders. Throughout all of slavery and Jim Crow, black families sought and strived to remain intact. They struggled through all of that adversity and just before the actions of Liberal Do-Gooders, black women were more likely to be married and living in intact families than were white women.
Please read more carefully in the future. The original question is, What is it that destroyed the black family in America?
In fact, the black family was in very good shape prior to LBJ's Great Society and Liberal do-gooders' welfare plans. Obviously, thus, we are not talking about what harms the black family suffered during slavery.
Please read more carefully in the future. The original question is, What is it that destroyed the black family in America?
The third wave of women's "liberation."
Oh, Jim Crow played a role, and so did anti-family welfare programs. But the stake through the heart of the black family was "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."
Going back to just a few posts, I was going to comment on how often in this forum you have made racial generalizations. And that's a dangerous thing.
Really? :roll eyes: Is that an attempt to label me a racist? Consult a dictionary and get back to me.
In the meantime, what exactly is the title/question raised in this thread? Here, let me post it again for your benefit:
Why are some minorities more successful than others in America?
The nature of this question requires generalization.
There is nothing dangerous about citing statistics for an entire population. The vast majority of people understand that such statistics paint a picture... a generalisation, if you like.
Most people are capable of grasping intellectually the fact that generalizations from statistical data do not apply to every person of the population generalized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
I worked with many Vietnamese children during the influx from Vietnam to the United States, particularly after the fall of Saigon. Some of those families worked very hard and did very well. Some of those families came fairly well off because they had been relatively high up in the Vietnamese government or had actually been working for the US government. And others were and remained relatively poor and under-educated. Throw your stereotype of that group away; it only fit some of those folks.
No kidding? As I posted above, the vast majority of people understand that statistics paint a picture... a generalisation, if you like. A generalisation is only a stereotype if you apply it to all individuals of a particular population. I am in no manner doing that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
And BTW...they "often became valedictorians"??? I think not, but if you have data to back-up that specific statement, I'll be happy to evaluate it.
Oh, Jim Crow played a role, and so did anti-family welfare programs. But the stake through the heart of the black family was "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."
And that's also affecting the white family.
Yes, of course it is affecting the white family. It will affect families of any population.
But, presently, it affects blacks mores than whites, generally and statistically speaking.
Yes, of course it is affecting the white family. It will affect families of any population.
But, presently, it affects blacks mores than whites, generally and statistically speaking.
There have been three prongs of attack against black families in America.
One, indeed, was Jim Crow. The effect of Jim Crow was to reduce the ability of black men to be effective protectors and providers for their families. But that did not destroy the black family because black mothers had nobody else to look to.
Certain welfare programs were decidedly anti-family, the second prong of attack. The most notorious of those as Aid to Dependent Children, which explicitly required that there be no male in the house. This was so well-known as anti-family that Patrick Moynihan pointed it out in 1969--the famous phrase that black families would be better off if the government practiced "benign neglect." The anti-family effect of ADC was so well understood even among blacks that there was a popular black movie about it in the 70s--"Claudine" staring James Earl Jones and and Dianne Carroll.
ADC was actually passed in 1934. However, racist state administrations prevented black mothers from taking advantage of it until the mid-60s. But that didn't really succeed in breaking up black families either, because "mother and father" was still the accepted social norm.
The final prong was the third wave of feminism, the "women don't need men" and the "mothers can do it all by themselves" feminism. To our great misfortune, black women in the 80s picked up that ball and ran with it, teaching the X-generation of black boys that same lesson: Women didn't need them in the home.
There have been three prongs of attack against black families in America.
One, indeed, was Jim Crow. The effect of Jim Crow was to reduce the ability of black men to be effective protectors and providers for their families. But that did not destroy the black family because black mothers had nobody else to look to.
Certain welfare programs were decidedly anti-family, the second prong of attack. The most notorious of those as Aid to Dependent Children, which explicitly required that there be no male in the house. This was so well-known as anti-family that Patrick Moynihan pointed it out in 1969--the famous phrase that black families would be better off if the government practiced "benign neglect." The anti-family effect of ADC was so well understood even among blacks that there was a popular black movie about it in the 70s--"Claudine" staring James Earl Jones and and Dianne Carroll.
ADC was actually passed in 1934. However, racist state administrations prevented black mothers from taking advantage of it until the mid-60s. But that didn't really succeed in breaking up black families either, because "mother and father" was still the accepted social norm.
The final prong was the third wave of feminism, the "women don't need men" and the "mothers can do it all by themselves" feminism. To our great misfortune, black women in the 80s picked up that ball and ran with it, teaching the X-generation of black boys that same lesson: Women didn't need them in the home.
Well, yes. That's just about what I've been saying all along.
However, I did not mention much about feminism. But, I've always maintained that Dan Quayle was right and the [snip] Left was wrong.
Last edited by Jeo123; 07-26-2016 at 09:13 AM..
Reason: No need for insulting
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
