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.
This, in my opinion, is the #1 problem facing this state and nation. It's a mortal drain on everyone's budget and invites an eventual moral collapse in society.
Exactly, so the question that begs to be answered is why state and federal governments seem to punish those who are married and take responsibility for their kids?
Case in point: A co-worker and I both have kids graduating from high school this year. As any of you who have ever had kids of college age know, parents are required to fill out the federal FAFSA form to determine their eligibility for any government assistance with college expense. If what my co-worker tells me is correct, then because she is recently divorced and has custody of her child, even though her ex-husband has agreed to contribute to the cost of their child's college, AND, I might add, makes in excess of six figures a year, she only has to claim her income on the FAFSA form. As a result, her child is eligible for free federal money for college. In the meantime, because my husband and I remain married to each other, we are required to put both of our incomes on our FAFSA form, so that even though we are part of that huge group of middle class parents who supposedly make too much to get college aid but don't make enough to pay for college without going deeply into debt to pay for it, we will have to do just that-go deeply into debt to pay for college, although we do require our kids to pay half so that they learn responsibility and what it's like to pay their own way somewhat. Meanwhile, a chunk of my paycheck every week goes to support kids like the ones cited in this article whose parents take no responsibility, financial or otherwise, for them.
Moral of the story: If you break your marriage vows and ditch your spouse and kids, or better yet, never marry the mother or father of your kids to begin with, you will be rewarded by having hard-earned money taken from responsible people--who would like to use their money to take care of their own kids--to support your kids because you didn't feel like taking care of the responsibility that you brought on yourself when you decided to procreate.
It could really get you down if you think about it too much.
Last edited by canudigit; 02-21-2012 at 04:32 AM..
Well, I would venture to guess that this nation’s fertility rate maintains its buoyancy, above the replacement threshold, as a result of the fertility rates of poor women. Indeed, with the fertility rates of the supposed “model Americans” ( I am using a dog whistle here), the country would face a different set of economic problems born from first population stagnation and then population decline (given also the opposition to immigration unless they are from "model nations").
When people live longer and the fertility rate drops below the replacement threshold (see Japan), the ratio of working age people to retirees creates an unsustainable pension model. That model only works if its bottom heavy, meaning that the ratio of workers to retirees is skewed heavily in favor of workers. With the low fertility rate of “Model Americans”, it would expedite the inevitable collapse of the unsustainable model.
Not only would low fertility rates collapse the pension and retirement model, it would collapse the labor pool down the line as well. If the labor pool collapses from population decline, then fewer workers mean fewer consumers and companies cannot maintain profit margins and growth. You see the thing about capitalism is that it must have growth, like a Ponzi scheme, always finding new suckers to finance the old suckers. Once the system stops finding or creating new suckers, the old suckers collapse. Population growth is the source of new domestic suckers, ignoring the expansion of capitalism to new countries (like Russia, China etc). Disclaimer: I am not knocking capitalism....just being honest.
Capitalism feeds off population growth as population growth creates potential new workers and consumers to be converted to profits and wealth by big and small businesses (Note: Western Imperialism is the spread of capitalism to new lands to create new workers, consumers and resources for capitalist). It does not matter that these poor people get their money from transfer payments or wherever. Seventy percent of our GDP comes from consumer spending and one can bet poor people spend every dime that they get on consumption. However, if that money remained in the hands of the wealthy, it would probably end up in some investment account. Thus, in this sense transfer payments have more of a simulative impact because it will all get spent in the hands of the poor, thus increasing revenue and profits for large and small business alike, along with GDP.
In conclusion, one of the problems with the economy today is that a small number of people have the majority of the nations income bottled up. They have so much money that they don't need to spend it. Thus, they invest it and such investments are less stimulative to the economy and overall economic demand that would manifest if that more of the money of the rich were in the hands of the middle class and poor. Again, 70% of GDP is consumer spending.
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 02-22-2012 at 02:52 PM..
Exactly, so the question that begs to be answered is why state and federal governments seem to punish those who are married and take responsibility for their kids?
Case in point: A co-worker and I both have kids graduating from high school this year. As any of you who have ever had kids of college age know, parents are required to fill out the federal FAFSA form to determine their eligibility for any government assistance with college expense. If what my co-worker tells me is correct, then because she is recently divorced and has custody of her child, even though her ex-husband has agreed to contribute to the cost of their child's college, AND, I might add, makes in excess of six figures a year, she only has to claim her income on the FAFSA form. As a result, her child is eligible for free federal money for college. In the meantime, because my husband and I remain married to each other, we are required to put both of our incomes on our FAFSA form, so that even though we are part of that huge group of middle class parents who supposedly make too much to get college aid but don't make enough to pay for college without going deeply into debt to pay for it, we will have to do just that-go deeply into debt to pay for college, although we do require our kids to pay half so that they learn responsibility and what it's like to pay their own way somewhat. Meanwhile, a chunk of my paycheck every week goes to support kids like the ones cited in this article whose parents take no responsibility, financial or otherwise, for them.
Moral of the story: If you break your marriage vows and ditch your spouse and kids, or better yet, never marry the mother or father of your kids to begin with, you will be rewarded by having hard-earned money taken from responsible people--who would like to use their money to take care of their own kids--to support your kids because you didn't feel like taking care of the responsibility that you brought on yourself when you decided to procreate.
It could really get you down if you think about it too much.
Well....I think your kids still win by having a loving mother and father at home that sets a working example of a working relationship that they can hopefully emulate. Your tax dollars are ALWAYS going to be used for things you find objection to and some that you favor and that may benefit you. Why stress yourself out over what someone else is doing? If you value doing the right thing then that is your reward....if others find a way to take advantage of loop holes thats them.
Well....I think your kids still win by having a loving mother and father at home that sets a working example of a working relationship that they can hopefully emulate. Your tax dollars are ALWAYS going to be used for things you find objection to and some that you favor and that may benefit you. Why stress yourself out over what someone else is doing? If you value doing the right thing then that is your reward....if others find a way to take advantage of loop holes thats them.
Thanks, and you're right. That's why I really don't spend a lot of time stressing over it, because there is no way to avoid it. I'm just saying that it's a shame that our government has become the father of so many kids. It's troubling for society, most of all.
I saw a story on Fox2 News last night about that nine month old baby who was shot in Detroit a few days ago and there were men from an organization called The Detroit 300 who were vocally calling for men to "get off the couch", "get off the weed", etc. and actually calling out the male relatives of this poor baby who, if you'll notice, are conspicuously absent. Is that what it's gonna take, having strangers shame men into being fathers, spouses, and role models? How did things spiral this far down so relatively quickly in this country? I blame the government for a lot of it, simply because they seem to have fixed it so that there are no dire consequences, financial or otherwise, to fathering children and then abandoning them. And then they grow up to be exactly the kind of people who are responsible for this innocent child's death. It just seems to go on and on.
Thanks, and you're right. That's why I really don't spend a lot of time stressing over it, because there is no way to avoid it. I'm just saying that it's a shame that our government has become the father of so many kids. It's troubling for society, most of all.
I saw a story on Fox2 News last night about that nine month old baby who was shot in Detroit a few days ago and there were men from an organization called The Detroit 300 who were vocally calling for men to "get off the couch", "get off the weed", etc. and actually calling out the male relatives of this poor baby who, if you'll notice, are conspicuously absent. Is that what it's gonna take, having strangers shame men into being fathers, spouses, and role models? How did things spiral this far down so relatively quickly in this country? I blame the government for a lot of it, simply because they seem to have fixed it so that there are no dire consequences, financial or otherwise, to fathering children and then abandoning them. And then they grow up to be exactly the kind of people who are responsible for this innocent child's death. It just seems to go on and on.
Let me ask you this question. What do you think the GDP of this nation would be today if the family unit and gender roles were as they were in 1950? Millions of women would not be in the workforce and millions of singles would be family households. I would argue that women in the workforce on career paths and the decline of marriage has allowed for greater economic expansion.
Women entering the workforce, backed by laws against gender discrimination, have allowed women to basically remove the dependence upon the male for their economic survival and their children. This extra income provided by women ultimately translates to increased consumption that benefits corporations and businesses. However, the side effect is that it mutated gender roles and reduced the need for men as providers. One has to keep in mind that marriage is a social construct and not a biological construct. Biologically we are programmed to survive and procreate. Marriage became the conduit for survival for women because women were dependent upon men to provide for sustenance. Today, women do not need men to survive, but only to procreate, which is slowly disintegrating the traditional concept of family that evolved in the era of female dependence.
One has to also keep in mind that a nation of singles means that people are not sharing as much as if it was a nation of families, like in 1950. The more individualistic our society becomes the more it benefits the economy until the moral erosion eventually makes the model collapse. When people share goods and services they reduce economic demand for goods and services. People grouping together to share resources and goods would hurt the economy. Instead, people living as single maximize consumption because everyone needs to get their own things. Hence, the disintegration of the family has been a boon to the economy, which creates and economic conflict of interest for the country ever to go back to the way it used to be.
Today, men are just not needed as much as in the past and this is particularly true in the African American community. Gender roles were mutated in the African American community long ago as oppression thwarted the ability of the AA male to be provider and protector of the AA family. The males of an oppressed group are generally the most feared. This is why Pharaoh decreed the death of Jewish male children born. Any uprising or revenge will come from the male gender. Hence, AA males were particularly oppressed to the degree that the AA community almost became matriarchal and the role and need for men diminished in the family because they often lacked the ability to provide and their self-esteem crushed by society created strained relationships between AA men and women. A culture evolved as a result of history that impacts the community even after oppression has waned.
Certainly child support, welfare and other protections, as well as a womens own earnings, helps to remove the need for a physical male presence in a womens life.
Good article (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120224/OPINION03/202240339/Demand-manufacturing-may-set-stage-Michigan-moment-?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p - broken link)! This is what I have been saying on this forum for about two years now. The "new economy" proved to be smoke and mirrors. In order for the US to right itself it has to do it through "old economy" manufacturing and not "gimmicks".
I will say it again, in the next few years Michigan will be one of the top destination states, assuming the US economy does not collapse, which I still put at a 50/50 chance. I also predicted(predict) that Detroit city will start gaining population by 2016 or 17, if not sooner.
Let me ask you this question. What do you think the GDP of this nation would be today if the family unit and gender roles were as they were in 1950? Millions of women would not be in the workforce and millions of singles would be family households. I would argue that women in the workforce on career paths and the decline of marriage has allowed for greater economic expansion.
Women entering the workforce, backed by laws against gender discrimination, have allowed women to basically remove the dependence upon the male for their economic survival and their children. This extra income provided by women ultimately translates to increased consumption that benefits corporations and businesses. However, the side effect is that it mutated gender roles and reduced the need for men as providers. One has to keep in mind that marriage is a social construct and not a biological construct. Biologically we are programmed to survive and procreate. Marriage became the conduit for survival for women because women were dependent upon men to provide for sustenance. Today, women do not need men to survive, but only to procreate, which is slowly disintegrating the traditional concept of family that evolved in the era of female dependence.
One has to also keep in mind that a nation of singles means that people are not sharing as much as if it was a nation of families, like in 1950. The more individualistic our society becomes the more it benefits the economy until the moral erosion eventually makes the model collapse. When people share goods and services they reduce economic demand for goods and services. People grouping together to share resources and goods would hurt the economy. Instead, people living as single maximize consumption because everyone needs to get their own things. Hence, the disintegration of the family has been a boon to the economy, which creates and economic conflict of interest for the country ever to go back to the way it used to be.
Today, men are just not needed as much as in the past and this is particularly true in the African American community. Gender roles were mutated in the African American community long ago as oppression thwarted the ability of the AA male to be provider and protector of the AA family. The males of an oppressed group are generally the most feared. This is why Pharaoh decreed the death of Jewish male children born. Any uprising or revenge will come from the male gender. Hence, AA males were particularly oppressed to the degree that the AA community almost became matriarchal and the role and need for men diminished in the family because they often lacked the ability to provide and their self-esteem crushed by society created strained relationships between AA men and women. A culture evolved as a result of history that impacts the community even after oppression has waned.
Certainly child support, welfare and other protections, as well as a womens own earnings, helps to remove the need for a physical male presence in a womens life.
I currently live in Canada, where historically there's been a lot less oppression of Blacks than in the US, and the situation with Black males here is pretty dire as well.
All my Black girlfriends are hard working, ambitious, decent gals....and all of them have had to deal with PROMISCUOUS, irresponsible, cheating, lying, users, abusers.
And yeah, most of them are raising their kids alone. NOT on welfare.
These girls are not illiterate, lazy or ignorant.
Some of them have bent over backwards, just to try to keep the birth fathers in their kids' lives, and the men STILL avoid any accountability and responsibility,
even when the mothers expect no child support from their former partners.
They just don't seem to lose a chance to screw up their kids' lives, as well as their own
(even when they have great opportunities and good jobs),
and just keep hopping from one woman to another, looking for another female victim to seduce,
and to save them from themselves.
I've seen it all. Without a father around, some kids have turned to crime. A couple of the boys have become gay.
In another case, ignored and emotionally abandoned by his birth father, a young Black boy studying at a most elite private school turned to crime. His mother had a good job. They were solid middle class.
I tried to figure out WHY, and all I can think about is RAGE. A Black friend of mine who likes to blame the White man for all Black man's faults, claims that the boy was discriminated at the school, but there seems to be no evidence of that. He got in on a scholarship. He was brilliant, good looking. The school had some other minorities. But the Chinese and East Indian kids' families are usually INTACT.
Finally, a couple of these women smartened up and moved on. Two of them have married White men. The guys don't know that they weren't "the first choice" (that these women would have preferred Black men),
but these White men are way more invested in the Black step kids, than their own Black birth fathers were.
I recently met a really sweet, chubby, super smart, super ambitious, young Black girl.
She'd just finished her master's, was also considering law school, and had also spent a year in Paris. Spoke fluent French too.
Her mom had raised her alone as well.
The mother saved her hard earned money and bought a great condo.
She'd struggled, persevered like a soldier, and she'd "made it". But, like a warrior, she sacrificed herself for her child. She never remarried, and mostly avoided men (trouble).
The daughter confessed to me that her mother was instructing her to stay away from Black men. Period.
I looked at the girl, and really didn't know what to say?
Although smart and really educated, she seemed so naive and innocent.
What are her odds of finding a nice Black man?
for life, for keeps?
Women may not depend on these men financially,
but WHY ARE THESE MEN ABANDONING THEIR CHILDREN?
What's happened to human DECENCY? Common sense?
What happened to the promises made at the Million Men March?
I don't know any more, if slavery and racism can be blamed for what's going on today?
After studying and observing what's going on on the other side of the Atlantic, I have a feeling that a lot of these patterns of behavior were brought over, straight from Africa.
We can't credit Mother Africa and genetics for everything that's great about African Americans, and then hypocritically scream racism, if someone suggests that Mother Africa and genetics may have something to do with the bad stuff too.
And yeah, I have a chip on my shoulder. I din't get to bed until 3 o'clock in the morning. I was consoling a crying teenager.
Distraught, in a real emotional crisis, he'd realized, that his father is simply incapable of ever fathering him like a real man is supposed to father a male child.
And he kept screaming: "I will never have a father. I will never know what it's like to have a dad".
Both my son and I have BENT OVER BACKWARDS, to acomodate this man, to give him an opportunity to love his own child, to show at least a a bit of humanity for his own progeny. This young man was not an accident.
Funny, that it'd come down to this, 'cause when I met him many years ago, he was sooooo kind, he was sponsoring an African child through WorldVision. He was sending money to an African child every month, but won't even give his own kid an allowance, or pay child support.
God help Detroit, and Michigan, and the US, with so many deadbeat men around.
I pray for all these young fatherless boys growing up during these hard times.
ps. in the Caribbean, there is no viable welfare system.
Jamaica is a poor country where you really need two people to raise a child.
There, the men have bailed out too. En masse.
Jamaica is a matriarchal society. And don't just blame "the system" (or just women) for that.
Last edited by SadieMirsade; 02-24-2012 at 11:24 AM..
I currently live in Canada, where historically there's been a lot less oppression of Blacks than in the US, and the situation with Black males here is pretty dire as well.
All my Black girlfriends are hard working, ambitious, decent gals....and all of them have had to deal with PROMISCUOUS, irresponsible, cheating, lying, users, abusers.
And yeah, most of them are raising their kids alone. NOT on welfare.
These girls are not illiterate, lazy or ignorant.
Some of them have bent over backwards, just to try to keep the birth fathers in their kids' lives, and the men STILL avoid any accountability and responsibility,
even when the mothers expect no child support from their former partners.
They just don't seem to lose a chance to screw up their kids' lives, as well as their own
(even when they have great opportunities and good jobs),
and just keep hopping from one woman to another, looking for another female victim to seduce,
and to save them from themselves.
I've seen it all. Without a father around, some kids have turned to crime. A couple of the boys have become gay.
In another case, ignored and emotionally abandoned by his birth father, a young Black boy studying at a most elite private school turned to crime. His mother had a good job. They were solid middle class.
I tried to figure out WHY, and all I can think about is RAGE. A Black friend of mine who likes to blame the White man for all Black man's faults, claims that the boy was discriminated at the school, but there seems to be no evidence of that. He got in on a scholarship. He was brilliant, good looking. The school had some other minorities. But the Chinese and East Indian kids' families are usually INTACT.
Finally, a couple of these women smartened up and moved on. Two of them have married White men. The guys don't know that they weren't "the first choice" (that these women would have preferred Black men),
but these White men are way more invested in the Black step kids, than their own Black birth fathers were.
I recently met a really sweet, chubby, super smart, super ambitious, young Black girl.
She'd just finished her master's, was also considering law school, and had also spent a year in Paris. Spoke fluent French too.
Her mom had raised her alone as well.
The mother saved her hard earned money and bought a great condo.
She'd struggled, persevered like a soldier, and she'd "made it". But, like a warrior, she sacrificed herself for her child. She never remarried, and mostly avoided men (trouble).
The daughter confessed to me that her mother was instructing her to stay away from Black men. Period.
I looked at the girl, and really didn't know what to say?
Although smart and really educated, she seemed so naive and innocent.
What are her odds of finding a nice Black man?
for life, for keeps?
Women may not depend on these men financially,
but WHY ARE THESE MEN ABANDONING THEIR CHILDREN?
What's happened to human DECENCY? Common sense?
What happened to the promises made at the Million Men March?
I don't know any more, if slavery and racism can be blamed for what's going on today?
After studying and observing what's going on on the other side of the Atlantic, I have a feeling that a lot of these patterns of behavior were brought over, straight from Africa.
We can't credit Mother Africa and genetics for everything that's great about African Americans, and then hypocritically scream racism, if someone suggests that Mother Africa and genetics may have something to do with the bad stuff too.
And yeah, I have a chip on my shoulder. I din't get to bed until 3 o'clock in the morning. I was consoling a crying teenager.
Distraught, in a real emotional crisis, he'd realized, that his father is simply incapable of ever fathering him like a real man is supposed to father a male child.
And he kept screaming: "I will never have a father. I will never know what it's like to have a dad".
Both my son and I have BENT OVER BACKWARDS, to acomodate this man, to give him an opportunity to love his own child, to show at least a a bit of humanity for his own progeny. This young man was not an accident.
Funny, that it'd come down to this, 'cause when I met him many years ago, he was sooooo kind, he was sponsoring an African child through WorldVision. He was sending money to an African child every month, but won't even give his own kid an allowance, or pay child support.
God help Detroit, and Michigan, and the US, with so many deadbeat men around.
I pray for all these young fatherless boys growing up during these hard times.
ps. in the Caribbean, there is no viable welfare system.
Jamaica is a poor country where you really need two people to raise a child.
There, the men have bailed out too. En masse.
Jamaica is a matriarchal society. And don't just blame "the system" (or just women) for that.
The thing about Canada is that it does have a lot of historically oppressed black people......its just that Canada was not the oppressor. Many blacks from Canada come from the Caribbean Islands, which has a long history of oppression. Living centuries under oppression impacts ones culture. Furthermore, Canada is like Europe in that it has a large social safetynet. Many countries in Europe, like Denmark and Sweden I believe, have high out of wedlock births rates also....and these are mostly white folks. Thus, in any system where females dependence upon males, economically, is reduced you will find this trend. In Africa, where females are still mostly dependent upon men, this problem is less acute.
That said, being classified as single does not mean that women are not cohabitating. I know plenty of women who are living with their kids father and the father simply does not want to get married. I also know women who are in long relationships, cohabitating, with men who are not the childrens father but acts like a surrogate.
There are PLENTY of good black men. The thing is that many women are not looking for good men but rather, "bad boys". Black men have been given a "stud" image. I have a few white female co-workers and I am always catching them looking at my crotch. It's almost like I am expected to cheat the way some of these women come at me....and I am not "all that".
There is absolutely ZERO mystery in this problem for me. Its amazing to me how people act dumbfounded as to how groups with starckly different histories can have starkly different cultural realities. I mean....talk about lacking a keen grasp of the obvious
I think if one is examining black culture then one has to look at the black base, which is Africa. One can argue that the experience in the WEST mutated true African Culture. Certainly the family unit in Africa is much stronger than the family units of people of African descent in the west. In Africa, disease, wars and the like are the most common causes of single women households, as well as divorce. Hence, the question becomes why is the AFRICAN family unit so much stronger than it is in the west among African descendants.....if not the experiences of black people in white dominated societies?
I think few people stop to think how hard it is in a place like Canda or Minnesota, to meet black people if you are black. When you live in places that are over 90% white the vast majority of people you are going to run into, in your adult life, are white people. I know in my corporate environment, here in Minnesota, over 95% of the people I interact with and come in contact with are white. Hence, the vast majority of women I come in contact with are white women. Thus, if I were single I would have a much greater probability of finding a "good white women" than finding a "good black women", because the vast majority of women I run into are white. I would have to network to specifically find black women to even the odds. I am sure Canada is the same and ever worse for a black women in a country that is probably 5% black. So should one be surprised that a black women would find it easier to find a good white man than a good black man? Its not that white men are better men....its just that its more of them and hence one is more likely to run into them. If there is a concentration of blacks then its usually a distressed environment and a well educated black women might not want to be looking to find a black man in a distressed environment with high unemployment and the like. Again, a lot of this stuff is just common sense if you do the math.
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 02-24-2012 at 01:24 PM..
The thing about Canada is that it does have a lot of historically oppressed black people......its just that Canada was not the oppressor. Many blacks from Canada come from the Caribbean Islands, which has a long history of oppression. Living centuries under oppression impacts ones culture. Furthermore, Canada is like Europe in that it has a large social safetynet. Many countries in Europe, like Denmark and Sweden I believe, have high out of wedlock births rates also....and these are mostly white folks. Thus, in any system where females dependence upon males, economically, is reduced you will find this trend. In Africa, where females are still mostly dependent upon men, this problem is less acute.
That said, being classified as single does not mean that women are not cohabitating. I know plenty of women who are living with their kids father and the father simply does not want to get married. I also know women who are in long relationships, cohabitating, with men who are not the childrens father but acts like a surrogate.
There are PLENTY of good black men. The thing is that many women are not looking for good men but rather, "bad boys". Black men have been given a "stud" image. I have a few white female co-workers and I am always catching them looking at my crotch. It's almost like I am expected to cheat the way some of these women come at me....and I am not "all that".
There is absolutely ZERO mystery in this problem for me. Its amazing to me how people act dumbfounded as to how groups with starckly different histories can have starkly different cultural realities. I mean....talk about lacking a keen grasp of the obvious
I think if one is examining black culture then one has to look at the black base, which is Africa. One can argue that the experience in the WEST mutated true African Culture. Certainly the family unit in Africa is much stronger than the family units of people of African descent in the west. In Africa, disease, wars and the like are the most common causes of single women households, as well as divorce. Hence, the question becomes why is the AFRICAN family unit so much stronger than it is in the west among African descendants.....if not the experiences of black people in white dominated societies?
I think few people stop to think how hard it is in a place like Canda or Minnesota, to meet black people if you are black. When you live in places that are over 90% white the vast majority of people you are going to run into, in your adult life, are white people. I know in my corporate environment, here in Minnesota, over 95% of the people I interact with and come in contact with are white. Hence, the vast majority of women I come in contact with are white women. Thus, if I were single I would have a much greater probability of finding a "good white women" than finding a "good black women", because the vast majority of women I run into are white. I would have to network to specifically find black women to even the odds. I am sure Canada is the same and ever worse for a black women in a country that is probably 5% black. So should one be surprised that a black women would find it easier to find a good white man than a good black man? Its not that white men are better men....its just that its more of them and hence one is more likely to run into them. If there is a concentration of blacks then its usually a distressed environment and a well educated black women might not want to be looking to find a black man in a distressed environment with high unemployment and the like. Again, a lot of this stuff is just common sense if you do the math.
Actually, the Black and Brown population of some parts of Toronto is HUGE. Canada has almost a 1000 000 Blacks, and of that number is constantly growing. The majority resides right in and around Toronto.
It's not Minnesota.
Blacks here are not blueberries in a milk bowl.
Here, you'll find Blacks from just about anywhere in this world: West Indies, South America, Cuba, Africa, USA, UK, native Ontario Blacks and Nova Scotian Blacks.
It's a huge population. But it has the same problems as the US, albeit, a less acute version of the same social illnesses.
As far as your theory that Swedish kids probably have as many problems 'cause they come from single parent families, I've actually had a discussion about EXACTLY THAT with one of these Black girlfriends of mine.
She's Black from Sweden.
She's one of the girls I was talking about in my previous post. Well, she says that the Scandinavians are not so irresponsible, and that even when they split up with their partners, they don't usually abandon their children as well.
If "good Black guys" are scarce and rare, it's exactly because they are. The statistics speak for themselves. You really can't ignore the facts on the ground.
It's a serious, festering social problem and it needs to be adressed ASAP.
I don't buy your argument that it was White colonialism and slavery that are the root causes of problems we're discussing.
Africa has had its history of polygamy and female abuse, long before the White man made it to the Cape.
Doesn't the King of Swaziland get to pick, a young, bare-breasted virgin, every year?
I think he's up to about 15 wives now.
Heck, I remember a while back, a NYT journalist was investigating the fast spread of HIV in southern Africa. Namibia, if I recall correctly.
What was the chief cause (according to the locals interviewed)?
Promiscuity, easy sex. In fact, the local guy was complaining about how the infected women were picking up local guys at the bars.....a different guy every night, totally ignoring the risks to which they were exposing their randomly picked sexual partners.
I don't think they'd be doing that if they were living in Kabul or Islamabad, and those places were colonized by the White man too.
Very few places in Africa were ever as puritanical as most places in Asia, Near East, North Africa and SouthEastern Europe.
Even Obama had to address THAT issue, when he was writing his biography.
His father's legacy was something he has had to deal with. As far as Obama is concerned, his father's behaviour has lot to do with his native culture.
You know....one kid in Boston , another in China, another in Kenya, another in Washington...
The guy had an Ivy League education, and a harem of brokenhearted women, from Indonesia to East Africa.
Hell, only the Kennedys and Clinton have been able to get away with so much womanizing and promiscuity. But then, they didn't leave fatherless kids all around the Globe.
I've gone off topic, thus, I'm going to end this sub-thread, right here. I think you know what I'm getting at.
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.
