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 thought he made an interesting observation when he said that there was no Negro family in the slave world. This sounds like slavery gave Blacks a very dysfunctional foundation for family formation moving forward.
This is what needs to be repeated a million times.
But they use a signficantly more of the total spend of social welfare programs than black women or black people in general.
And my comment was about them being single mothers much more often today and you specifically mentioning black women as having "sperm donors." Do you consider those white women as having "sperm donors" too?
I'd also note that I have worked with LOTS of people who use social welfare programs and oftentimes whole white families are on them - they have a husband/wife but neither works so they qualify for everything a black single mother who works qualifies for lol.
So the whole welfare thing is always funny to me because it seems like many whites don't understand that whites get the bulk of welfare money in this country especially in regards to medicaid and SSDI (which opens the door for them to get foodstamps, WIC, so on).
The bolded is correct. Conservatives like to use percentages to demonize black people. However, by the share size of the white population in this country, they consume the largest amount of the social welfare pie.
Last edited by SoloforLife; 11-01-2017 at 01:23 PM..
Reason: quotation
Oh, so your one anecdotal experience proves that the Demonrat party isn't pursuing policies, which do tremendous harm to the family and that the left attempts to legitimize non-traditional forms of the family in an effort to legitimize their own behavior, particularly via the so called mainstream media and pop culture?
Your own experience is not proof, my friend.
And, as far as religion goes, I'm a non-religious, non-believing conservative, so don't try to turn this into some religious discussion.
NOPE...the same can likely be said for millions within the denomination. We can speak about other religions as well. Take Hindus, for example. The majority of them vote Democrat as well. As you saying that Hindus in the U.S. promote out of wedlock births?
Not my experience but the experience of plenty individuals.
It doesn't matter what you are. We are speaking about individuals who vote Democrat. As stated, you apparently don't know why they vote the way they do.
The bolded is correct. Conservatives like to use percentages to demonize black people. However, by the share size of the white population in this country, they consume the largest amount of the social welfare pie.
Not going to quote all the good stuff in that article, and I use that one as a summary of MANY that are all in agreement on the subject, and come from respected left, right and centrist organizations. Obviously, I agree with what Malcolm X said in 1963 (wouldn't have quoted him if I didn't), but tons of people have written on the subject and all are singing from one sheet of music. Hell, listen to Frederick Douglass from 1865:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick Douglass, 1865, in part
Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, “What shall we do with the Negro?” I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature’s plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, don’t disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot- box, let him alone, don’t disturb him! [Applause.] If you see him going into a work-shop, just let him alone,–your interference is doing him a positive injury.
Look at black poverty rates from 1940 to 1960. Look at the how the explosion of the out of wedlock birthrate skyrocketing in the black community coincides almost exactly, as in perfectly, with the LBJ speech that started the "war on poverty." Look at black economic progress from 1956-1960 an then 1960-1964, and note that it has never once been that high since. Look at Dunbar HS in DC and the Harlem public schools prior to 1964, where lower class, black-only student bodies scored higher than the majority of the all white schools in the surrounding areas, but have fallen to near or dead last in same comparison s in the years since 1964.
White politicians who needed more vote currency found a real cheap source in the mid 1960s. And then they decided to ignore Mr. Douglass sage warning and once again began meddling and interfering, in the name of helping, which was actually just the branding on the real goal - buying black votes with welfare crumbs. Meddling and interfering you see, is very profitable in terms of vote currency. What did LBJ say about how long the Democrats would get the black vote? He knew what he was doing just fine, and at no point in that racist jerk's life was he ever doing it to actually try and help anyone.
In virtually every possible way to measure socio-economics, blacks were better off prior to 1964 than they have been any time since. Once the white bourgeois political machine found a way that blacks would enslave themselves, and paid for with other people's money...well, a grand political tradition was born, but to keep it going, the black America MUST AT ALL TIMES be the permanent underclass of the US. They have to be poor, dependent, fractured and dysfunctional, as this will keep them pissed off and motivated to spend that vote currency on exactly who their "leaders" tell them to, according to a broken and morally bankrupt narrative that at its core is nothing but a big freaking scam.
Every political move the federal government makes where the American black individual is concerned is designed to make sure they do not advance economically in the same proportions as white people, because middle and upper class voters are nowhere near as lockstep to voting for whatever free candy the government is doling out, and whether Democrat or Republican, the permanent pissed off underclass is easy to sell more government to. Partisans from both sides will blame the other guy and try to hold some moral high ground, but where the government's destruction of the black family is concerned, that is two prostitutes trying to claim that one of them is a virgin and the other is a dirty ****. As Malcolm X said, two canines, just one more cunning than the other, and both wanting to feast on you.
If there is any one single community I wish I could teach libertarianism, natural rights theory, laissez faire economics, and most especially voluntary association and as little government intervention in their lives as possible, it would be the average American black person. Hard to undo 50+ years of near constant brainwashing, but if I have a representative target audience, that's who it is.
So getting married after a few months of dating and subsequently having a child, and then getting divorced a few months later is fine because it is "in wedlock", but having a child after living together for ten years and staying together for the remainder of their life is bad because the child is born "out of wedlock"?
I think the central question is, "Why are large numbers of children born to "unpartnered" women in America"? Let's agree for a moment that marriage is neither good nor bad.
And the answer is, "Because the government pays for that to be so".
If well intended social programs did not pay for "unpartnered" women to have children, there would be far fewer children born to "unpartnered" mothers.
And almost everyone agrees that if there were far fewer children born to "unpartnered" mothers, it would be a good thing for America.
Like several other posters in this thread, I have some experience myself, having been raised by a single mother and without a father figure. In the 1950's that was very, very unusual. I never knew another kid in my situation.
As I said, I don't believe the Great Society programs "destroyed Black families". I do believe, however, that progress in Black society has been restrained by government programs which were meant to help. It has impacted Black families more than White families only because Black people qualified for these programs at a greater rate than White families.
Nonetheless, I think those welfare programs are needed. Just because a percentage of the recipients use the safety net as a hammock is no reason to discontinue its availability.
I think the central question is, "Why are large numbers of children born to "unpartnered" women in America"? Let's agree for a moment that marriage is neither good nor bad.
And the answer is, "Because the government pays for that to be so".
If well intended social programs did not pay for "unpartnered" women to have children, there would be far fewer children born to "unpartnered" mothers.
And almost everyone agrees that if there were far fewer children born to "unpartnered" mothers, it would be a good thing for America.
Like several other posters in this thread, I have some experience myself, having been raised by a single mother and without a father figure. In the 1950's that was very, very unusual. I never knew another kid in my situation.
As I said, I don't believe the Great Society programs "destroyed Black families". I do believe, however, that progress in Black society has been restrained by government programs which were meant to help. It has impacted Black families more than White families only because Black people qualified for these programs at a greater rate than White families.
Nonetheless, I think those welfare programs are needed. Just because a percentage of the recipients use the safety net as a hammock is no reason to discontinue its availability.
I don't think the current leftist climate in the Democrat party would agree with that. In their inability to differentiate between all or nothing, they would argue that pointing out statistics that show children raised in a two parent household are much better off, is attacking single mothers.
Just as with everything else, one cannot point out the facts and the data, or one is attacking or offending someone. We cannot shame the obese. No, instead the left wishes to legitimize obesity as beautiful and acceptable. We cannot point out that children with gender dysphoria need psychiatric help. No, instead more children should be encouraged to 'be themselves'.
Though rates of participation are higher among people of color, it is white people who are the greatest number of recipients when measured by race. Given the population of the U.S. in 2012 and the annual rate of participation by race reported by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2015, about 35 million white people participated in one of the six major government assistance programs that year. That's about 11 million more than the 24 million Hispanics and Latinos who participated and considerably more than the 20 million Black people who received government aid.
Working-class whites are the biggest beneficiaries of federal poverty-reduction programs, even though blacks and Hispanics have substantially higher rates of poverty, according to a new study to be released Thursday by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Not going to quote all the good stuff in that article, and I use that one as a summary of MANY that are all in agreement on the subject, and come from respected left, right and centrist organizations. Obviously, I agree with what Malcolm X said in 1963 (wouldn't have quoted him if I didn't), but tons of people have written on the subject and all are singing from one sheet of music. Hell, listen to Frederick Douglass from 1865:
Look at black poverty rates from 1940 to 1960. Look at the how the explosion of the out of wedlock birthrate skyrocketing in the black community coincides almost exactly, as in perfectly, with the LBJ speech that started the "war on poverty." Look at black economic progress from 1956-1960 an then 1960-1964, and note that it has never once been that high since. Look at Dunbar HS in DC and the Harlem public schools prior to 1964, where lower class, black-only student bodies scored higher than the majority of the all white schools in the surrounding areas, but have fallen to near or dead last in same comparison s in the years since 1964.
White politicians who needed more vote currency found a real cheap source in the mid 1960s. And then they decided to ignore Mr. Douglass sage warning and once again began meddling and interfering, in the name of helping, which was actually just the branding on the real goal - buying black votes with welfare crumbs. Meddling and interfering you see, is very profitable in terms of vote currency. What did LBJ say about how long the Democrats would get the black vote? He knew what he was doing just fine, and at no point in that racist jerk's life was he ever doing it to actually try and help anyone.
In virtually every possible way to measure socio-economics, blacks were better off prior to 1964 than they have been any time since. Once the white bourgeois political machine found a way that blacks would enslave themselves, and paid for with other people's money...well, a grand political tradition was born, but to keep it going, the black America MUST AT ALL TIMES be the permanent underclass of the US. They have to be poor, dependent, fractured and dysfunctional, as this will keep them pissed off and motivated to spend that vote currency on exactly who their "leaders" tell them to, according to a broken and morally bankrupt narrative that at its core is nothing but a big freaking scam.
Every political move the federal government makes where the American black individual is concerned is designed to make sure they do not advance economically in the same proportions as white people, because middle and upper class voters are nowhere near as lockstep to voting for whatever free candy the government is doling out, and whether Democrat or Republican, the permanent pissed off underclass is easy to sell more government to. Partisans from both sides will blame the other guy and try to hold some moral high ground, but where the government's destruction of the black family is concerned, that is two prostitutes trying to claim that one of them is a virgin and the other is a dirty ****. As Malcolm X said, two canines, just one more cunning than the other, and both wanting to feast on you.
If there is any one single community I wish I could teach libertarianism, natural rights theory, laissez faire economics, and most especially voluntary association and as little government intervention in their lives as possible, it would be the average American black person. Hard to undo 50+ years of near constant brainwashing, but if I have a representative target audience, that's who it is.
LOL on the bold.
What socio-economic measures other than OOW birthrates were better for blacks prior to 1964?
More blacks were poor, less were educated, more were underemployed, blacks could not even buy homes in neighborhoods they could afford, could not buy things in stores that wouldn't let them come into stores.
You need to do some study on the socio-economic conditions of blacks in America between 1865 and 1965 then compare those statistical measures to today. We are better on all fronts today than in the past. That is even with OOW birthrates.
And again, they have always been twice as high as whites. That has not changed over the years.
On my main man Frederick Douglass, he was born a slave to a single mother who was probably raped by his father/master and she was not even allowed to raise him. Yet he became the most well known and well respected black man of his era and he pushed forward the cultural tenant of activism for the demographic.
It is interesting you use him as an example. Was a slave, came from a broken home and yet he was the most "exceptional negro" of the 19th century.
Another of my main men from black American history - WEB DuBois was also from a "broken home" and raised by a single mother (his father left his mother when he was a toddler). Yet he was the most "exceptional negro" of the 20th century.
On libertarianism, all it does is give people the opportunity to take advantage of others. Black people are not dumb and those of us interested in politics know about libertarianism and especially know that most libertarian leaning people would dismantle all civil rights protections enacted in the 20th century if they could. Due to me being black and knowing for a fact that a majority of the country (no matter race) holds some sort of negative bias against black people, I would never align myself with libertarianism because it denies the fact that people are biased and prejudice and will use said biases and prejudices to limit the opportunities of blacks and other groups of people in the name of "free markets" and "progress." Libertarianism is too naive of a political philosophy IMO.
Also, you should take the advice of Frederick Douglass that you quoted. Leave us black people alone and quit trying to push off your paternalism and steer us into what you want us to think and do. It is interesting that this post of yours, especially in regards to your ideas on Libertarianism and blacks, you are doing the same thing that Douglass was speaking about in trying to control black people and make them do what you want them/us to do or think. Leave us alone and pay more attention to your own white growing social issues like the drug use and rising OOW birthrates and abuse of SSDI, etc.
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.
