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.
The article also points out that the home ownership rate for blacks and whites are the same as 1900, which is a little hard to believe.
Wealth, income, ability to make the payments. It's investing... it's money... it doesn't matter what color your skin is. Stop looking for a pity party, excuses, or conformation of the rhetoric.
The article also points out that the home ownership rate for blacks and whites are the same as 1900, which is a little hard to believe.
Hey, I have a great idea.
Let's loosen home lending standards like Clinton and Bush clamored for 15ish years ago so that everyone can enjoy home ownership even if they don't have pesky things like good credit or money for a down-payment.
Then we can pat ourselves on the back as the economy takes off and talk about how we just really helped fight racism!
Boy, I sure don't see how anything could go wrong.....nothing ahead but smoooooth sailing.
Lol....My theories are simple, since you ask. I begin with the premise of equality in genetic capacity and abilities between blacks and whites. In other words, I start with the assumption of an equality. Using basic logical theory, an equality will always remain an equality until and unless one side is acted on differently than the other side. Mathematically you could represent that as A = B. If we A represents 5 then B = 5. Thus, 2 + A = B + 2 is still an equality because each side of the operation was impacted the same...by the addition of two. Contrarily, 5 + A = 2 + B is False because the two sides were treated differently.
In conclusion, my theory states that the races are inherently equal and will perform equally unless exposed to different conditions in degree or kind. Hence, the black family declined because blacks had been exposed to centuries of greater abuse that accrued a socioeconomic impact.
You leave out a variable: X
X is the variable of culture. It's why Jewish folks are 3% of the white population, and upwards of 20-30% of bankers and lawyers. It's why East Asians are overrepresented in higher education and make the most money.
So, we have "X" for black folks. And "X" used to be about getting education against all odds, and keeping the family together. What is the explanation for the shift from valuing education and family while the greatest of pressures (lynchings, slavery, Jim Crow) was in place.... to undervaluing it once the pressure was relieved?
X is the variable of culture. It's why Jewish folks are 3% of the white population, and upwards of 20-30% of bankers and lawyers. It's why East Asians are overrepresented in higher education and make the most money.
So, we have "X" for black folks. And "X" used to be about getting education against all odds, and keeping the family together. What is the explanation for the shift from valuing education and family while the greatest of pressures (lynchings, slavery, Jim Crow) was in place.... to undervaluing it once the pressure was relieved?
Ok...lets talk about "X". What is the origin of culture and how is it incubated, first? Second, how did two separate and unequal cultures form in America, assuming that white culture is different from black culture when blacks have been in America over 300 years and whites have been here that long too? Why do Africans immigrate to America with a much more healthy culture than African Americans? What happened to the "African" in African American culture and why?
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 02-11-2015 at 09:00 AM..
Were they "doing just fine"? most of them lived in jungles. Could they read and write? What did they con tribute to the society of the world?
What great literature did they write? What art? What great inventions did they introduce?
I am NOT saying these things to knock them just stating the facts.
Most of Africa isn't jungle. And yeah...They were doing better than just fine...They were doing great in the context of their own lives and what good living was considered to be at the time. I doubt they were complaining.
And since when did jungle living become a bad thing? Europeans certainly had NO PROBLEM moving to Africa by the millions. Was that perhaps because their own continent was a dump?
Yeah.
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.
