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.
No. I do not consider my view points representative of most black people.
I do think that black people suffer from black inferiority as well and I do think that is the biggest issue holding us back as a demographic. It is not OOW births or crime or any other thing that other demographics like to cite IMO. It is thinking that we have something to prove to non-blacks and thinking that we don't have a culture outside of what the media tells us (broken English, dancing, sports, etc. other stereotypically associated black phenomenons).
Too many black people IMO have bought into the system of white superiority.
And when I mentioned that when I was younger (teens and early 20s) I did buy into the concept that blacks were inferior to whites. But calling each other a N word or listening to rap music did not contribute to this. I learned from society at large that blacks are ignorant, can't read, that all of us born to single moms were destined to financial and social ruin in life and so due to wanting to fight those views I did all I could to "prove" that I wasn't like that.
And what I found out was that no non-black person an even black people cared that I wasn't like that. It didn't matter what I did in school or how far I got in my career. I will always be looked upon as "less than" whites no matter what. And me trying to expend energy on "proving" something that no one will ever accept as proof that black Americans are not inferior, I found would be a waste of time and my time would be better spent enjoying being black and not letting the greater society define me as a black person, as a black woman, or as an American.
So I let go of that internal bias.
Slavery has nothing to do with it. It is a pre-occupation mostly IMO of whites who want to make it more of a current issue than it is. I will confidently state that most black people do not consider slavery to be a relevant issue today.
And black inferiority is not indicative of a cultural phenomenon of Africans, of whom we descend. It is actually a sickness passed on from colonial rulers and enslavers and their children, and not to be offensive, but people like you and greater American society. When people are told for generations that they are deficient as human beings, they get defensive and try to prove that they are not. Trying to prove this is acknowledging that it is true. We should stop trying to prove things to you and others. Most of you are not open to our successes anyway which is blatantly evident considering the fact that the majority of black people are doing well in this country today.
I feel, as stated earlier, that the focus needs to be on re-claiming and defining our culture and to take a lesson from Jews and African immigrants an Asians and others who teach all the positives of their culture to their children. Knowing one's cultural heritage is important in combatting general society's view of them as people. That is why black Africans when they come to this country do not hold the belief that they are inferior. They have a strong cultural education and do not associate black with negativity like black Americans have done for generations as a result of overbearing oppression by our government and majority population.
You have defined what guilt ridden white progressive liberals are all about. Most white people, such as myself, want you to do well and have a good life. It is the progressive liberals who categorize you and raise too much awareness of things most black or white people don't dwell on. You nailed it with your statement of the "preoccupation of whites who want to make more of it than what it is". I just stated so myself and call them out all the time on here.
My two main questions are 1. what is white superiority? and 2. what is white privilege? I live in the DC area and know of neither. I never enjoyed such unless being the kid of a military soldier in Libya was special. I think being an American was more important there as my dad could pay the sheik what he wanted for a villa.
Let progressive liberals continue to keep blacks on social assistance, as if it were their birth right - earning a living isn't? - and the downward spiral you allude to grows and grows. Those who purport to help you actually do little service for you. They control the MSM and what they report. If they wish to push BLM the media does so all day. They know it stirs up blacks and whites both. They are effectively throwing perceived RACISM in all of our faces for no reason but their own. Did I ask for it? Did you? I say no to both.
Most white people who have roots over 150 years in his country have very little knowledge of their real heritage. They may know they are Italian, Polish, Jew, Irish or French but going back farther than that is moot. I know what my mother told me as my dad told me little.
Just wanted to note, based on what I stated above, that I did feel inferior as a black person based on knowing about the statistics relating to out of wedlock birthrates for black children, that no one ever tells us the actual outcomes of black people who are born to single mothers.
I was born in the late 1970s. Almost all of my black friends, like me, were born to single mothers. All of us are gainfully employed and doing well in life and not in prison. I am one of 4 children of my mother. The first 3 were born out of wedlock, the last one was not. Of the 4, I am the most financially successful, even though I was the 2nd born.
I have a cousin who was born to my aunt who was a single mom. Her dad was in prison for the majority of her life and she is more financially succesful than I am.
I would like to see actual facts on the outcomes in life of black children born to single mothers. I would guess that over 80% of them are doing just fine. The fact that only 1 million black people are in prison is proof that the majority of us don't end up in prison. It is pretty rare to go to prison. Studies that I have read have also shown that almost every American, regardless of race will use a social program (meaning they are considered impoverished) at one time in their life.
I was on WIC after the birth of my son and I didn't make much money for a couple years, but life has its ups and downs and most of the black people I know who were born to single parents are doing fine in life.
On crime, I find it interesting that so many want to relate OOW births to crime rates when crime has consistently gone down over the past 30 years compared to black OOW births rising. So IMO, OOW birth is not a direct contributor to crime.
It is extremely important to understand what averages are.
I was very clear that not all children in single parent homes wind up in prison, drop out of school, etc...
Let me repeat this again so that you can better understand the facts.
Studies do show that kids in single parent homes are more likely to drop out of high school, wind up in prison, live in poverty, and become a dead beat dad or single mother themselves.
Most single parent kids will be okay. However, statistics show that single parent kids are more likely to wind up in those negative categories. Even if you adjust for race, location, and socio-economic status.
It is very harmful for society to deny the reality of these averages with anecdotes.
Quote:
Children who grow up with only one of their biological parents (nearly always the mother) are disadvantaged across a broad array of outcomes. As shown in figure 1, they are twice as likely to drop out of high school, 2.5 times as likely to become teen mothers, and 1.4 times as likely to be idle -- out of school and out of work -- as children who grow up with both parents. Children in one-parent families also have lower grade point averages, lower college aspirations, and poorer attendance records. As adults, they have higher rates of divorce. These patterns persist even after adjusting for differences in race, parents' education, number of siblings, and residential location.
Now it is important to understand a woman shouldn't stay with an abusive husband - that would be far worse for the kid and dangerous.
But it is a fact that kids in single parent homes are more likely to do worse in important life categories. Fact. As I said in the initial posts, many single parent kids are successful and just fine...but let's not deny reality.
I have noticed a pattern among conservatives. They are willing to call out blacks for things negative, but averse for calling out blacks for things positive. For example, conservatives love to make out of wedlock births a "black issue", as well as crime. Yet, conservatives have a problem with "black lives matter", instead, saying that "All lives matter".
It seems that conservatives don't mind qualifying a phenomenon as "black" when it draws negative attention, but do not want to qualify phenomenon as black when its goal is to draw positive attention to an issue. Yes, its true that its not ONLY blacks being killed by the police...and hence "All lives matter", but its equally true that not only blacks are having kids out of wedlock and committing crimes, yet, conservatives find it ok to single out blacks for those phenomenon.
Why do dems debit blacks as victims and refuse to accept they are responsible. For instance, why would it take a capable person 2 or 4 years to get a free voter ID?
Sad when dems think people so incapable and need to be cared for as if they were children. "children, we have to pass it to see what is in it"....."children, you have to elect me to find out my position on keystone'.
Please don't be offended but:
IMHO...You the problem, not the solution. IMHO... You are a prima donna. IMHO, just sayin.
Not sure how you got that out of my response. But whatever. I make more money than you do now, I own 5 homes and 3 vehicles and have a very high net worth.
Someone's situation in life in their early 20s is not indicative of what they are as a person or what they will be for their entire lives.
Unfortunately all of us are not born with a silver spoon in our mouths.
And FWIW, I'm not offended. I actually am amused by the fact that you ignored everything else that I typed lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by armory
You have defined what guilt ridden white progressive liberals are all about. Most white people, such as myself, want you to do well and have a good life. It is the progressive liberals who categorize you and raise too much awareness of things most black or white people don't dwell on. You nailed it with your statement of the "preoccupation of whites who want to make more of it than what it is". I just stated so myself and call them out all the time on here.
My two main questions are 1. what is white superiority? and 2. what is white privilege? I live in the DC area and know of neither. I never enjoyed such unless being the kid of a military soldier in Libya was special. I think being an American was more important there as my dad could pay the sheik what he wanted for a villa.
Let progressive liberals continue to keep blacks on social assistance, as if it were their birth right - earning a living isn't? - and the downward spiral you allude to grows and grows. Those who purport to help you actually do little service for you. They control the MSM and what they report. If they wish to push BLM the media does so all day. They know it stirs up blacks and whites both. They are effectively throwing perceived RACISM in all of our faces for no reason but their own. Did I ask for it? Did you? I say no to both.
Most white people who have roots over 150 years in his country have very little knowledge of their real heritage. They may know they are Italian, Polish, Jew, Irish or French but going back farther than that is moot. I know what my mother told me as my dad told me little.
You are included in my statement that it is your preoccupation with slavery making it more important than it is today. You are associating BLM with liberals and many of you even associate them with "racism" and "whining about slavery," etc.
IMO they are not. They are bringing attention to the issue of police abuse/aggression against black people in black neighborhoods. Simple as that.
Liberals actually do not even "control" MSM.
"Progressive liberals" don't "keep blacks on social assistance." And FWIW, with your post above, I can see that you did not read for comprehension what I started out saying in the first place.
I am not a liberal. I am an independent. I think both conservatives and liberals and the majority of moderates adhere to the ideology of white supremacy and black inferiority. I myself bought into this until I thought about how idiotic it is to try to "prove" that I was good to whites and greater society in an effort to make black people look good to you. It is idiotic because no matter what I do, you will not think otherwise so it is stupid.
I did not bring up liberals. I do not think that liberals keep anyone on social assistance. Plenty of conservatives are on social assistance (social security is social assistance BTW).
White people in America are considered Americans first and foremost and adhere to American culture. Black Americans, even though we are also Americans first and foremost, are not thought of as Americans by the majority of the population. Even before the term African American was brought up we were not considered full, real American citizens and many of you still do not consider us that. We do have a very positive and deep culture in this country. Unfortunately, the media (both liberal and conservative) defines for us our culture instead of the other way around like other American ethnic groups. Taking back our cultural identity IMO is the first step in defeating the disease of black inferiority in the minds of black Americans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
It is extremely important to understand what averages are.
I was very clear that not all children in single parent homes wind up in prison, drop out of school, etc...
Let me repeat this again so that you can better understand the facts.
Studies do show that kids in single parent homes are more likely to drop out of high school, wind up in prison, live in poverty, and become a dead beat dad or single mother themselves.
Most single parent kids will be okay. However, statistics show that single parent kids are more likely to wind up in those negative categories. Even if you adjust for race, location, and socio-economic status.
It is very harmful for society to deny the reality of these averages with anecdotes.
Now it is important to understand a woman shouldn't stay with an abusive husband - that would be far worse for the kid and dangerous.
But it is a fact that kids in single parent homes are more likely to do worse in important life categories. Fact. As I said in the initial posts, many single parent kids are successful and just fine...but let's not deny reality.
None of what you said is in reference to what I mentioned.
What I mentioned was that no one ever gives actual percentages of the outcomes in life of adults who were born to single mothers.
You can give your "at-risk" information all you want, but that does not provide actual figures about how these children turn out.
I did not deny anything. I only stated that no proof is ever given about how detrimental OOW births are.
I mentioned crime and how crime rates have fallen over the past 30 years while OOW births have increased. Yet we are always hearing about how being the child of a single parent makes one at risk of being a criminal. If that were the case, why are there less criminals today versus 30 years ago when there were more 2 parent families and less OOW births.
An example that is kind of equivalent is back when I was a kid I remember hearing about "crack babies." Especially in regards to black children being born as crack babies and how those children were "at-risk" of all these developmental and educational delays and how they were going to end up in prison, etc.
Guess what? New studies show nothing of the sort happened and that crack babies grew up and the majority were fine and had no delays and aren't criminals. That crack wasn't a factor in the outcomes in their lives, but poverty was. Those who didn't grow up in extreme poverty were fine. Those that did had the same outcomes in life that non-crack addicted babies had who grew up in poverty.
And about "reality" the reality for me is that the huge majority of people I know (and I know it is not a scientific study but it is something that I think people should look into for research) who were raised by single mothers are no better or worse than any other person.
Also, OOW birth rates do not take into affect if the child is going home to a co-habiting relationship with their parents. OOW birth rates do not take into consideration the children who were born while their parents were married, but then their parents divorced and they are raised by a single parent.
To me, it is just a shot at black people and a way to try to further prove our inferiority to you. As stated earlier, the OOW birthrate for black people has always been double that of whites. Even with it as high as it is today, we are better off economically and educationally and criminally versus what we were in the past, so evidently it is not the huge contributor to any of those social ills than you think they are.
Now, poverty is a huge contributor to social ills. And as stated earlier, there are many black people today who push the benefits of marriage to black parents in an effort to reduce poverty, especially for those parents who co-habitate and are in long term marriages. Married couples (like my husband and I) can acquire more wealth and rise from poverty faster together than we can apart and due to that, I am a supporter of marriage in this regard.
But for me just saying being born to an unwed mother is going to make one a criminal or have a diminshed outcome in life by itself, is lying. Being raised in poverty makes one have a diminished outcome in life. Even though my mom was poor when I was born, we were not by the time I was 8 years old and I do feel that due to that fact is the reason why my brother and I had better outcomes in life (my younger brothers are 10 and 11 years younger than me so they were not raised in poverty. My cousin, the one who is more financially successful than me, her mother was poor for the first 3-5 years of her life. My aunt (her mom) got a college then master's degree by the time she was in 1st grade. My aunt was not wealthy but made $50-$65K per year for the majority of her career. She kind of made herself "poor" by paying out of pocket for my cousin to go to highly rated private schools by 3rd grade. My cousin also received lots of tutoring in subjects that she was not all that good at in school. She also has a master's degree. She makes more money than her mom did. She is married now and is doing very well in life.
So again, you need to face the reality that poverty is the issue. Citing OOW births for being directly attributed to social ills is a false conclusion being no real studies followed the outcomes in life of a large amount of us who were born to single mothers in various income and racial demographics. As stated earlier, a way to decrease poverty is to encourage marriage, but it is not the only way to decrease poverty. While OOW births have increased with the black population, poverty has decreased, so again, it is not a direct correllation.
You have defined what guilt ridden white progressive liberals are all about. Most white people, such as myself, want you to do well and have a good life. It is the progressive liberals who categorize you and raise too much awareness of things most black or white people don't dwell on. You nailed it with your statement of the "preoccupation of whites who want to make more of it than what it is". I just stated so myself and call them out all the time on here.
My two main questions are 1. what is white superiority? and 2. what is white privilege? I live in the DC area and know of neither. I never enjoyed such unless being the kid of a military soldier in Libya was special. I think being an American was more important there as my dad could pay the sheik what he wanted for a villa.
Let progressive liberals continue to keep blacks on social assistance, as if it were their birth right - earning a living isn't? - and the downward spiral you allude to grows and grows. Those who purport to help you actually do little service for you. They control the MSM and what they report. If they wish to push BLM the media does so all day. They know it stirs up blacks and whites both. They are effectively throwing perceived RACISM in all of our faces for no reason but their own. Did I ask for it? Did you? I say no to both.
Most white people who have roots over 150 years in his country have very little knowledge of their real heritage. They may know they are Italian, Polish, Jew, Irish or French but going back farther than that is moot. I know what my mother told me as my dad told me little.
Forgot to answer your questions above:
1 - White superiority is as follows: centered upon the belief, and promotion of the belief, that white people are superior in certain characteristics, traits, and attributes to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore whites should politically, economically and socially rule non-whites
When one practices white superiority ideology they feel that whites are better than other ethnicities, especially black in every way. IMO, our entire country is built upon the ideology of white supremacy, this was why black slavery is written into the constitution as 3/5 of a human being only to be counted for tax purposes. If whites did not feel they were superior, they would not have gone though such legislative procedures as was done in this country via Black Codes/Laws at the state level and the 3/5th compromise. If they felt that all "men" were truly equal then they would not have codified slavery or Jim Crow or housing discrimination or economic discrimination and looked the other way when blacks in the past were terrorized and lynched and mobbed.
2 - White privilege is as follows: a term for societal privileges that benefit white people in Western countries beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.
Neither white supremacy nor white privilege is based upon the economic condition of a white person. So many times when someone tries to tell me their relative or parent or grandparent was dirty poor in Appalachia and that is proof that they do not benefit from white privilege or white superiority, I see that as an odd statement being that just by being white people do not hold negative associations of you the same way they do black people. I don't even see why people want to argue about it and hopefully you didn't ask just to try to argue about it.
White superiority relegates blacks as inferior in regards to our status as human beings worthy of respect, it makes us "seperate" from whites especially and worse than all other demographics in this country regardless of individual successes. No matter how many black people are not in poverty or criminals or even aren't "liberals" (lol) you will still view us as less than whites and that is adhering to white supremacy ideology.
White privilege for whites is not about economic condition as stated above. White people do not have to worry about being thought of as a criminal unless they are a criminal in most circumstances no matter their economic background. Whites even though they have very high OOW birthrates and theirs have grown higher than blacks in the past 25-30 years are not thought of as "dysfunctional" in this regard or less than black people or any other demographic because they are white. In the past, whites, even fresh off the boat white immigrants could obtain employment and potentially work up in rank and buy a house anywhere they wanted, based solely on the fact that they were white Black people could not even if they had a higher education, a longer history in a local area or better credit than a white person. Because they weren't white they were not afforded the privilege that white skin held and still holds in our society.
What I mentioned was that no one ever gives actual percentages of the outcomes in life of adults who were born to single mothers.
You can give your "at-risk" information all you want, but that does not provide actual figures about how these children turn out.
I did not deny anything. I only stated that no proof is ever given about how detrimental OOW births are.
Dude. Educate yourself. Don't deny reality. Read my post if you are going to respond to it.
Quote:
Children who grow up with only one of their biological parents (nearly always the mother) are disadvantaged across a broad array of outcomes. As shown in figure 1, they are twice as likely to drop out of high school, 2.5 times as likely to become teen mothers, and 1.4 times as likely to be idle -- out of school and out of work -- as children who grow up with both parents. Children in one-parent families also have lower grade point averages, lower college aspirations, and poorer attendance records. As adults, they have higher rates of divorce. These patterns persist even after adjusting for differences in race, parents' education, number of siblings, and residential location.
I did read your links. The first one I had read before and it is really old (from 2001). The 2nd, like the first also did not provide any information.
Saying someone is "at-risk" and saying that someone is "2-3 times more likely" does not provide any concrete data on anything.
How many people were in their study? How was the study conducted? If it was a long-range study, how long was the study on-going and is it still on-going?
How many children in the study group dropped out of high school? How many did not? How many went on to get college degrees? How many did not? What was the income ranges of all the participants? .....
I mean I could go on and on.
You posted articles, not actual studies and none of them showed relevant information.
Also, as stated above, you keep saying OOW births attribute to lower educational outcomes in life, especially in regards to high school drop out and not going to/finishing college. In regards to black people, today more of us are high school graduates than ever before. More black women are entering into college than any other demographic today, including white and Asians (men and women).
If OOW birth is so detrimental to us, why is educational achievement improving?
As stated, crime rates are lower today than they were in the 1970s. Since the 1970s, the OOW birthrate for the black population raised from 55% to 72%, yet crime has decreased within the black demographic more significantly than other demographics.
If OOW birth is so detrimental to us, why is crime falling amongst black people compared to eras when OOW birthrates were lower?
You are the one not getting it. You are reading these things and agreeing with headlines.
I am not one to agree with headlines. I need real info and real data.
Saying "at-risk" is not the same as out of 10000 participants, 5000 who were born OOW and 5000 who were not _________ amount had _______ outcome in life. These are the factors regarding particpants _______
Not sure if you have ever been involved in compiling quantitative or statistical data but when you do, you have actual number and you can tell me what % of the 5000 OOW birth children had a high school diploma or college degree.
"Then out comes a study from Sweden - the biggest, most convincing ever done on the subject - that says children in one-parent homes are twice as likely as those in two-parent families to develop serious psychiatric problems and addictions later in life."
"about one-third of girls whose fathers left the home before they turned 6 ended up pregnant as teenagers, compared with just 5 percent of girls whose fathers were there throughout their childhood."
"boys are significantly more likely to end up in jail or prison by the time they turn 30 if they are raised by a single mother. Specifically, McLanahan and a colleague found that boys raised in a single-parent household were more than twice as likely to be incarcerated, compared with boys raised in an intact, married home, even after controlling for differences in parental income, education, race, and ethnicity."
"Children raised by single mothers are more likely to fare worse on a number of dimensions, including their school achievement, their social and emotional development, their health and their success in the labor market. They are at greater risk of parental abuse and neglect (especially from live-in boyfriends who are not their biological fathers), more likely to become teen parents and less likely to graduate from high school or college.[i] Not all children raised in single parent families suffer these adverse outcomes; it is simply that the risks are greater for them. "
"Then out comes a study from Sweden - the biggest, most convincing ever done on the subject - that says children in one-parent homes are twice as likely as those in two-parent families to develop serious psychiatric problems and addictions later in life."
"about one-third of girls whose fathers left the home before they turned 6 ended up pregnant as teenagers, compared with just 5 percent of girls whose fathers were there throughout their childhood."
"boys are significantly more likely to end up in jail or prison by the time they turn 30 if they are raised by a single mother. Specifically, McLanahan and a colleague found that boys raised in a single-parent household were more than twice as likely to be incarcerated, compared with boys raised in an intact, married home, even after controlling for differences in parental income, education, race, and ethnicity."
"Children raised by single mothers are more likely to fare worse on a number of dimensions, including their school achievement, their social and emotional development, their health and their success in the labor market. They are at greater risk of parental abuse and neglect (especially from live-in boyfriends who are not their biological fathers), more likely to become teen parents and less likely to graduate from high school or college.[i] Not all children raised in single parent families suffer these adverse outcomes; it is simply that the risks are greater for them. "
Not going to go back and forth with you in regards to this. I reviewed the first 3 links above and again, they did not provide any statistics at all and just stated "at-risk" and so on and so forth.
The first one did say that of the over 65K participants in the study that only 1-2.5% of the children raised in single family homes had a severe mental illness. Those percentages and the fact that it states that 9 out of 10 had no issues at all (that is 90%) shows what I am saying here.
People inflate the "at-risk" numbers but when you look at the raw numbers you see that it isn't such a big contributor to anything and in real life, those negatives that you see so brightly shown in the headlines are not as big of a deal as one would realize.
IMO, you should read your own links and think about what I am saying. "At-risk" does not mean that it is actually happening. If 9 out of 10 kids are fine mental health wise and only 1-2.5% have any severe mental illness in need of hospitalization, that does not show that children raised by single parents have any negative outcomes on a much greater scale than other children.
Also, what are you trying to prove in regards to searching for and then posting links on this topic. In this thread I have spoken on the subject of black inferiority and white supremacy. I have stated that people in this country attempt to use OOW birth statistics to prove that black people are inferior to other ethnic groups, and that this tactic is misleading because no one ever states specifically what percentage of children of black single parents are high school graduates, college graduates, and who aren't in prison. "At-risk" means there is a risk, not that it actually happened. (And please note OOW birth is not the same as "single parent" statistics, they are 2 different things as if you view your articles especially the one about Sweden, many of the children were children of divorce an they did not quantify which ones were born OOW and raised only with a single parent or those who were children of divorcees or widows).
So what is your purpose for highlighting only this subject that I spoke of? Is it to prove that those of us raised by single parents or those of us who are black and who were born out of wedlock are inferior to non-black people?
If you have no purpose, why do you keep bringing it up. I already know about the "at-risk" statistics. As stated "at-risk" does not mean that something actually happened.
Not going to go back and forth with you in regards to this. I reviewed the first 3 links above and again, they did not provide any statistics at all and just stated "at-risk" and so on and so forth.
The first one did say that of the over 65K participants in the study that only 1-2.5% of the children raised in single family homes had a severe mental illness. Those percentages and the fact that it states that 9 out of 10 had no issues at all (that is 90%) shows what I am saying here.
People inflate the "at-risk" numbers but when you look at the raw numbers you see that it isn't such a big contributor to anything and in real life, those negatives that you see so brightly shown in the headlines are not as big of a deal as one would realize.
IMO, you should read your own links and think about what I am saying. "At-risk" does not mean that it is actually happening. If 9 out of 10 kids are fine mental health wise and only 1-2.5% have any severe mental illness in need of hospitalization, that does not show that children raised by single parents have any negative outcomes on a much greater scale than other children.
Also, what are you trying to prove in regards to searching for and then posting links on this topic. In this thread I have spoken on the subject of black inferiority and white supremacy. I have stated that people in this country attempt to use OOW birth statistics to prove that black people are inferior to other ethnic groups, and that this tactic is misleading because no one ever states specifically what percentage of children of black single parents are high school graduates, college graduates, and who aren't in prison. "At-risk" means there is a risk, not that it actually happened. (And please note OOW birth is not the same as "single parent" statistics, they are 2 different things as if you view your articles especially the one about Sweden, many of the children were children of divorce an they did not quantify which ones were born OOW and raised only with a single parent or those who were children of divorcees or widows).
So what is your purpose for highlighting only this subject that I spoke of? Is it to prove that those of us raised by single parents or those of us who are black and who were born out of wedlock are inferior to non-black people?
If you have no purpose, why do you keep bringing it up. I already know about the "at-risk" statistics. As stated "at-risk" does not mean that something actually happened.
What many whites do is to try and find other reasons than the phenomenon of white supremacy and the self fulfilling prophecy that it has manifested, to explain the socioeconomic displacement of blacks relative to whites and or others. Whites are either hell bent of protecting and defending the legacy and reputation of whites and or hell bent on continuing to portray blacks as inferior to whites. In other words, many whites are seeking to protect the image of whites from moral injury (as being the cause of the socioeconomic displacement....and not assuming responsibility for it) and or they see the nature and wiring of blacks to be such that, in general, we will always achieve perform inferior to whites.
OOW births is simply a way of saying that it is NOT an external force that caused the displacement, but rather, an internal force (personal irresponsibility, poor choice making, lacking love). If they are willing to link it to any external force, it will not be the force of white racism, but rather, the force of "liberalism". However, even that suggesting is a slight against blacks because it suggest that blacks, unlike other groups, are not smart enough to choose a political part that is best for them.....or the least worse for them.
Like I stated, whites seek to always remind us about the Irish, Jews, Italians or other ethnics who were oppressed, when we talk about black oppression. When we talk about police brutality, they always want to mention how whites are the victims of police brutality too. When we talk about racism and blacks being the victims of racism. They want to bring up how blacks are racist too against whites. In other words, everything we bring up as a REASON for our socioeconomic displacement from the "norm".....whites seek to say that they have experienced equal burden as blacks, yet, experience much lower rates of dysfunction as blacks. This clearly an argument of black inferiority. Furthermore, the propensity to bring up whites ceases when the conversation becomes OOW births, crime and the like. They do not seek to suggest that these dysfunctions are not just blacks, but dysfunctions shared in all races. Again, the pattern is to argue that blacks have faced no burdens that others have not faced, that would explain their displacement, hence, the displacement is rooted in the nature of blacks.
Every time blacks mention a burden....whites are like "Us too". However, when whites talk of dysfunction....whites are like "That's just you". Equal burdens without equal dysfunction equals white superiority/black inferiority. That is, in abstract, the white argument.
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 08-15-2015 at 01:52 PM..
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.
