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.
Since you are clearly clearly uninformed I'll send you a hint. Kids with enough privilege to got to schools on the path to college in urban India are taught in English, from elementary school.
Urban indian kids born in Bangalore or Calcutta have more "privilege" to learn english better than black kids born in english speaking America!
This is gold.
Do urban indian families also have more "privilege" to not become single parent families?
What about crime? Do urban indian families have more "privilege" to NOT commit more violent crime?
Last edited by CaliRestoration; 08-15-2016 at 03:35 PM..
Urban indian kids born in Bangalore or Calcutta have more "privilege" to learn english better than black kids born in english speaking America!
This is gold.
Do urban indian families also have more "privilege" to not become single parent families?
What about crime? Do urban indian families have more "privilege" to NOT commit more violent crime?
Yes, because they aren't excluded from the economy. The economy is designed for them. Banglore is basically Cupertino for India.
It is amazing how all over the world, minority groups, how ever that is defined for that area, seem to be excluded from the economy and poorer outcomes than their middle or upper middle class compatriots. Pick any country and the same thing happens!
I love the quote "In fact, a C.D.C. report issued in December 2013 found that black fathers were the most involved with their children daily, on a number of measures". What exactly are these "measures"? You know you're on the weak side of an argument when you try to make your arguments as "vague" and non-descriptive as possible.
Also, you still haven't addressed the following:
I know this is really really difficult for you. But maybe you should read the study. It spells it out. The NYT even had handy graphs and charts when they reported on it.
For those that don't have time to read this novel of "feelings", basically HockeyMac is saying the reason black people are poor in Oakland/SF and having to flee is because Bay Area people aren't exposed to black people enough, so they judge them as being stereo typically poor, and violent. Seriously, this is the argument HockeyMac is making.
Nope - I didn't say that. I'm not surprised you're coming at me with obfuscation (or just straight up incomprehension?), though. It seems to be a calling card of your "debate" tactics.
Because it seems you can't comprehend longer-than-twitter-sized thoughts, I'll break it down and hold your hand through the points:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
I don't think these biases are the main driver of black flight from Oakland, but they are contributing factors (see below) - I believe the main impetuses are socioeconomic (mostly economic) pressures that are, in general, pushing all middle class, working class, and poor people out of the region (especially traditionally-defined "middle" class, which in today's Bay Area are basically "poor").
How you read these words and insinuate what you just wrote above...I have no idea. Did you just not read my post?
I'll say again: The main drivers of black flight are mainly economic. Please stop misinterpreting me, you do this frequently, and it makes having an honest debate with you really difficult.
If the out-migration patterns continue as is (taken to their logical conclusion), we'll likely be left with a bimodal distribution in the black population: the poorest (that can get by on subsidies/section 8/BMR/etc.) and those that can actually afford to live here. The black middle class is disappearing in the Bay Area (quite acutely in Oakland).
This isn't very different from what we're seeing with other demographic groups - whites, latinos, asians, etc. The middle class is leaving the Bay Area. You know this. Everyone knows this.
But I already explained this! Goodness...
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
This is a huge regional problem, and is affecting people of all races/colors - but there is an acute effect being seen on the black population in the region.
Because black people have historically made up a large percentage (relative to their proportion of the population) of these lower/middle class income brackets in Oakland, they're being adversely affected as a demographic group as they're pushed out more and more. Whether these moves are done willingly via selling off long-held properties or unwillingly via evictions or being priced out of apartments - the distinction is kind of irrelevant to the overall point since the effect is the same: less black people in Oakland (and the Bay Area as a whole) than before.
So, why does this matter for black people in Oakland/The Bay Area, specifically?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
Without exposure to different kinds people (such as black people), I find its common for people (even if subconsciously) to fall back on stereotypes (sadly). This isn't specific to black people, either - when you live in a homogeneous area (demographically), it's it's easy for stereotypes to be more "accepted" (if not overtly, at least subconsciously).
Growing up in white middle class suburbia, it was very easy to see this (unfortunately). Asian kids were just assumed to always be good at math...black kids were assumed to likely be up to no good if they were hanging out in a group...etc.).
My black female neighbor down the street (one of the few in our neighborhood) had to constantly prove to people that she was "one of them". You could sense the guarded encounters that sometimes happened with her when she'd first meet someone. Sadly, it was first about her being black. Once a person got to know her, the preconceived perceptions went away (especially since she was as "white" (whatever that means) a person I knew) - but it was clear that these feelings (even if unspoken) were there initially - and that was unfortunate. This is anecdotal, of course, but it jives with the data and studies I've seen (some below).
As the black population decreases, particularly the black middle class, everyone in the region will statistically be less likely to encounter and interact with black people. The percentages of black people in the region are already fairly low (when compared to national averages), so to have even more flee the region will feed into this problem more.
And when you don't have exposure to different kinds of people, you're more likely to fall back on stereotypes. These thoughts aren't just my own ramblings - Harvard researchers (just another 'lib institution' ) found the same thing: How Desegregation Changed Us: The Effects of Racially Mixed Schools on Students and Society - lots of words, you'll probably not read, so I'll quote an important part:
Quote:
As we approach the 50th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court ruling, Brown v. Board of Education, many in the United States are contemplating the value of public policies that flowed from that decision, especially the desegregation of public schools. Over the last half-century we have received mixed messages about whether such efforts were worth the trouble.
From the popular press we have heard of more failures than successes – of lingering black-white test score gaps and white flight from urban school districts. Meanwhile, much of the social science research on school desegregation has been more optimistic, showing mixed test score results but a positive trend toward higher African American student achievement during the peak years of desegregation, as well as long-term academic and professional gains for African American adults who had attended racially mixed schools. Still, much of this research consists of statistical analyses of test scores or graduation rates. It tells us little about students’ actual experience in desegregated schools or what it meant to them later in life.
What has been missing is a study that connects personal perspectives about school desegregation across different towns and schools in a systematic way. Ideally, such a study would make those perspectives relevant to a question on the minds of many Americans: Were efforts to desegregate the public schools worthwhile?
Our central finding is that school desegregation fundamentally changed the people who lived through it, yet had a more limited impact on the larger society. Public schools faced enormous challenges during the late 1970s as educators tried to facilitate racial integration amid a society that remained segregated in terms of housing, social institutions, and often employment. Nonetheless, desegregation made the vast majority of the students who attended these schools less racially prejudiced and more comfortable around people of different backgrounds. After high school, however, their lives have been far more segregated as they re-entered a more racially divided society.
Towards the end of this document:
Quote:
All 242 graduates we interviewed expressed some gratitude for having attended desegregated schools. They said these schools provided them with one of their only opportunities – or their only opportunity – to mix with people of other racial or ethnic backgrounds. Although some times difficult and frustrating, this experience yielded a valuable social education not otherwise available through books, videos, or field trips – the types of “virtual” desegregation we often see used in segregated school today. The interviewees stressed the increased level of comfort they now have in racially diverse settings, especially when they are in the minority.
White graduates said that they had gained a greater appreciation for other cultures in high school and were less likely to revert to stereotypical assumptions about others based on race. They also stressed their decreased fear of people of color. White spouses and friends who did not attend diverse schools, they said, are often frightened in racially diverse and predominantly black or Latino settings.
The graduates of color stressed that they were prepared to function in predominately white environments because they had learned how to cope with the prejudice they were likely to encounter in such situations. In addition, many graduates of color said they were more at ease in a white-dominated society because they had learned that not all whites were racist.
What this tells me is that integration (or encountering people of different backgrounds) is pretty important if you want to prevent people from falling back onto their basic intrinsically-held stereotypes/biases.
In all three studies, stereotypicality positively influenced trait judgments. Thus, subjects who perceived the group more stereotypically judged specific individuals in a more stereotypic manner.
As well, stereotypes about race have even been found to drive perceptions of ones own race (super odd finding I think...but there it is): Study: Stereotypes Drive Perceptions Of Race
Quote:
VEDANTAM: I spoke with Aliya Saperstein. She's a sociologist at Stanford University and, along with Andrew Penner and Jessica Kizer, she recently looked at a survey that tracks life changes among thousands of young men and women in the country. It's called the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, sometimes abbreviated as NLSY. It's conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
...That one year you might say someone is white, one year you might say someone is black. What she found was that the changes in classification were actually not random. They were driven by changes in the people's life circumstances and common racial stereotypes.
SAPERSTEIN: If someone went from being employed to being unemployed, or being out of prison to being in prison, or being off welfare to being on welfare, the interviewer was more likely to see the person as black - after they experienced that sort of downward mobility - than before.
INSKEEP: Wait a minute. You're saying you've got a guy, he's a lawyer, he's presumed to be white. He does something wrong, he goes to prison, he comes out of prison, he's a black man.
VEDANTAM: Well, I think this is what Saperstein is trying to say. She's not saying that happens with every lawyer and every person. But she's saying there's a tendency to sort of see race not just through physical characteristics, but through social characteristics.
INSKEEP: Meaning this is prejudice - its bias on some level.
VEDANTAM: Yes, it is. I mean we know that many Americans at some levels and strong stereotypes linking race with crime. I think what this research suggest is it's not just our perceptions of race that drive our stereotypes, but our stereotypes that drive our perceptions of race.
In another study, Saperstein looked at differences in how funeral directors listed the race of people who had died. And she found that when people had died as a result of homicide, funeral directors were more likely to list the person as being black, even when family members listed the person as belonging to another race.
There was another study where she found that if the dead person had died of cirrhosis, which is a disorder commonly caused by alcohol abuse, the funeral director was more likely to list the person as being Native American, even when family members listed the person as belonging to another race.
The survey was administered to a cross-section of about 1,200 Americans and asked such questions as:
"Do people in these groups tend to be unintelligent or tend to be intelligent?"
"Do people in these groups tend to be hard-working or tend to be lazy?"
"Do people in these groups tend to prefer to be self-supporting or do they tend to prefer to live off welfare?"
With only one exception, minority groups were evaluated more negatively than whites in general. The one exception is Jews who were rated more favorably than whites on all characteristics except patriotism. African Americans and Latino/as were ranked last or next to last on almost every characteristic measured.
We took a look at five measures of racial prejudice from the General Social Survey conducted by NORC's 2010, 2012 and 2014 waves. Among many other questions, the survey asked respondents to rate whites and blacks on a scale from being "hardworking" to "lazy." Using this data, we can categorize respondents into whether they rated whites or blacks as being lazier, more hardworking or the same.
When it comes to explicit prejudice against blacks, non-Hispanic white millennials are not much different than whites belonging to Generation X (born 1965-1980) or Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964). White millennials (using a definition of being born after 1980) express the least prejudice on 4 out of 5 measures in the survey, but only by a matter of 1 to 3 percentage points, not a meaningful difference. On work ethic, 31 percent of millennials rate blacks as lazier than whites, compared to 32 percent of Generation X whites and 35 percent of Baby Boomers. (Question wording and methodology at the end).
Long-standing racial stereotypes have been consistently portrayed in the media and have been studied extensively by scholars. According to many, however, the election of President Obama indicated the decline of racial stereotypes. Among the most common stereotypes of minorities include the propensity towards criminal behavior, increased aggression and limited intelligence. These stereotypes reinforce anti-black and anti-Latino attitudes in America. According to the Blair-Rockefeller Poll, the presence of the first African American family in the White House has unfortunately done little to alleviate these attitudes. Survey respondents were asked to rate other groups in terms of how hard working, intelligent and trustworthy they are (Table 4 and Figure 2). Looking at the data we see that Asians are viewed most intelligent by all groups. Blacks were perceived the least trustworthy by Latinos. Only 15% of Whites saw Blacks as intelligent although 39.7% of Blacks saw Whites as intelligent. These data reveal that negative stereotypes still exist and are held to some degree by all racial and ethnic groups.
Nearly 60 years after American schools were desegregated by the landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling, and more than a year after the election of the country's first black president, white children have an overwhelming white bias, and black children also have a bias toward white, according to a new study commissioned by CNN.
Quote:
The tests showed that white children, as a whole, responded with a high rate of what researchers call "white bias," identifying the color of their own skin with positive attributes and darker skin with negative attributes. Spencer said even black children, as a whole, have some bias toward whiteness, but far less than white children.
"All kids on the one hand are exposed to the stereotypes" she said. "What's really significant here is that white children are learning or maintaining those stereotypes much more strongly than the African-American children. Therefore, the white youngsters are even more stereotypic in their responses concerning attitudes, beliefs and attitudes and preferences than the African-American children."
These stereotypes can be held into adulthood, even by members of the same race - which I thought was an interesting finding - and these stereotypes are generally reversible (which is good!): Unconscious Racial Stereotypes Can Be Reversible
Quote:
Negative stereotypes about various racial groups bombard us every day in the mass media and deposit their residue deep into our minds, often without our realizing it, says Brian Lowery. Even among the most well-intentioned and consciously egalitarian people, says the associate professor of organizational behavior, non-conscious associations about ethnic groups still have a pernicious effect on behavior and attitudes.
The good news, he says, is that we can also be influenced for the better, particularly by social relationships with people who strongly value egalitarian ideals.
Lowery's work moves the dialogue on racism beyond simple dichotomies that divide people into categories of "good" and "bad" according to their views on people of a different race or ethnicity."The situation is much more complex," he says. Even people who consciously disavow prejudice can fall into racist traps.
Quote:
In one study, for example, Lowery demonstrated how racial stereotypes subtly operate in the penal system. Los Angeles police and probation officers were asked to make judgments about a hypothetical adolescent(whose race was not identified) who had allegedly either shoplifted or assaulted a peer. Certain officers were first subliminally exposed towords commonly associated with African Americans (such as ghetto, homeboy,dreadlocks, etc.) on a rapidly flashing computer screen so that they took in the information subconsciously. In contrast to subjects who did notreceive this "priming," officers with the subconscious messaging attributed more negative traits and greater culpability to the hypothetical offenders, and they endorsed harsher punishment — all typical responses to black as opposed to white offenders.
In other words, by simply unconsciously thinking about black people, officers suddenly began seeing a neutral situation in racially stereotypical terms — without even knowing it. The subliminal priming was all it took to activate the entire program of material these officers held about African Americans.
The phenomenon held sway even for officers who reported — and truly believed — they were tolerant and non-biased toward non-whites."What's particularly interesting is that many of the officers were African Americans themselves," Lowery notes. "This shows the degree to which even African Americans can be affected by the negative associations in the environment."
Quote:
What's hopeful about these latter results, Lowery says, is that a change in viewpoint toward another ethnic group can come from within a social group through positive and appealing role models who exhibit justice-minded attitudes — an important factor given that widespread segregation often makes it difficult for various groups to interact. By exploring such possibilities, Lowery's work is helping to expand there search on ethnic stereotyping in new directions. In addition, by working with participants in live settings such as the juvenile justice system — and not relying exclusively on student subjects as researchers in the laboratory typically do — he is also helping to demonstrate how racism operates in populations where such issues can literally be a matter of life and death.
So, again, getting back to my points in this thread - how does this play into black flight?
As the black population in the region declines, and if many of those that remain are poor and live in more crime-ridden areas, people will have more of a tendency to fall back on to their stereotypes since they'll be less likely to encounter people that break those stereotypes down (similar to the kids in segrated schools in the 1970's). The stereotypes don't have to be in overt or in-your-face-confederate-flag waving ways...they can be manifested subconsciously or in subtle ways (e.g. see that black guy walking down the street on Market St.? He's likely going to ask me for money...I should just ignore him).
This kind of aggregate treatment has an effect on the remaining black population here. I know I'd personally get increasingly frustrated living in a place where people assume things about me without even talking to me/getting to know me.
Without the positive reinforcement that we'd see with the presence of the black middle class here (like we had in the past), this could become a giant vicious cycle...and it could contribute to a black person's desire to flee the area, on top of whatever other incentives they have to leave (such as financial ones - either through selling their long-held home or in the hopes of finding cheaper living elsewhere).
It's not the primary driver (as I said already), but I can easily see how it can be a contributing factor.
I don't have personal experience with this since I'm a white male - and honestly, I can't ever fully understand what it's like to be a minority here - but I've certainly heard some of these kind of concerns from some of the black friends I do have in the area. Some are from here, so will never leave...but others do talk about it.
I know we have black people on this very forum who could certainly contribute to this discussion more on this end. I'd personally rather not speak for them.
#######################
#######################
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration
Where? None of the links you posted show BIAS in blacks being arrested over other minorities. Just like the links posted by 2sleepy, they only show blacks being ARRESTED MORE than other minorities. That's not a valid argument that proves bias. The prison population in America is nearly 90% men, does that mean the justice system is "biased" against males?
It just feels like you didn't even take any time to read anything I wrote - or any of the sources that I cited. I mean...I'm not surprised that this is your response. But still, you're being so dang intellectually-dishonest, and you're making it very difficult to have an honest debate with you.
I'll re-post only the Bay Area-specific data (but there are studies of other PD's, such as Cleveland's, Fergusons, and Baltimore's that have found similar things):
New Stanford research on thousands of police interactions found significant racial differences in Oakland, California, police conduct toward African Americans in traffic and pedestrian stops, while offering a big data approach to improving police-community relationships there and elsewhere.
Quote:
Among the findings, African American men were four times more likely to be searched than whites during a traffic stop. African Americans were also more likely to be handcuffed, even if they ultimately were not arrested.
Quote:
When officers report being able to identify the race of the person before stopping them, the person stopped is much more likely to be African American (62 percent) than when officers couldn’t tell the race (48 percent).
African American men were more likely to be handcuffed during a stop (1 out of 4 times) than whites (1 out of 15 times), excluding arrests. African American men were also more likely to be searched (1 in 5 times vs. 1 in 20 times for whites), though officers were no more likely to make a recovery from those searches.
Also, 77 percent of Oakland police officers who made stops during the 13-month period never discretionarily searched a white person, but 65 percent did so with an African American person.
Quote:
The researchers point out that racial disparities are not defined as overt racism – in fact, they found no such acts by Oakland police officers while conducting the study. It is not so much an individual as an institutional problem or pattern, they note.
Co-investigators involved in the study were Rebecca C. Hetey, a postdoctoral psychology research associate; Benoît Monin, a psychology professor; and Amrita Maitreyi, a psychology researcher, all of Stanford.
Hetey said, “We found a consistent and persistent pattern of racial disparity, even when we controlled for variables such as crime rate.”
JACKIE JUDD: Researchers at nearby Stanford University spent two years analyzing vast amounts of data, field reports from 28,000 stops officers made on the streets and roads during a 13-month period, and body-cam video from 2,000 of those encounters. They expected to find about 7,800 stops of African-Americans. In fact, there were more than double, almost 17,000 stops.
So, they expected to find a certain percentage of stops - but actually found a significant more. That is statistically-important. This is hard data. Something you're claiming I wasn't posting?
The ACLU obtained the relevant police documents through the filing of Public Record Acts requests. The report analyzes traffic stop data collected by the police department from July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002. The analysis looks at how often and why motorists of different races are stopped as well as how motorists are treated once the decision to stop them has been made.
Quote:
African Americans motorists are significantly more likely to be stopped by San Francisco police officers in every police district in the city;
African Americans are 3.3 and Latinos are 2.6 times more likely to be searched following a traffic stop than whites;
African Americans are more than twice as likely as whites to be asked their consent to be searched without any probable cause of a crime;
Despite this disparate treatment, San Francisco police officers are significantly less likely to find any evidence of criminality in searches of African Americans or Latinos;
The problem may be much greater than the data reflects due to rampant under-reporting of stops and searches by San Francisco police officers.
So, despite the fact there is no increase of finding evidence of criminality of minorities when stopped, they're still more likely to pulled over and searched without probable cause. That is bias.
And a federally-appointed judge looked at the evidence and agreed:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Federal-judge-finds-evidence-of-racial-bias-by-8335739.php"]Federal judge finds evidence of racial bias by S.F. police[/url]
Quote:
Accusations of racism in the San Francisco Police Department gained momentum in federal court Thursday when a judge ruled that a series of Tenderloin drug stings — in which all 37 people charged were black — showed “substantial evidence” of racially discriminatory law enforcement.
According to court records, one officer was overheard making derogatory references to “BMs,” or black males, and another referred to black women as “*******.” There was also evidence that police were aware of nonblack drug dealers in the same area but did not arrest them. The evidence included a videotaped incident in which an officer apparently turned down an Asian American woman’s offer of a drug sale before arresting a nearby black woman.
“The evidence shows there are substantial numbers (and a substantial proportion) of drug dealers in the Tenderloin who are not African American; yet they were not stopped or arrested,” said U.S. District Judge Edward Chen.
Quote:
In one Operation Safe Schools case, Chen said, a video showed an undercover police informant declining to buy drugs from an Asian woman, instead waiting for another seller, who was black. During one arrest, he said, an officer was recorded on video as saying, “F— BMs,” prompting a second officer with a video camera to tell him, “Shh, hey, I’m rolling.”
BM is commonly used by law enforcement to refer to black males.
There is “substantial evidence of racially selective enforcement by the San Francisco Police Department” and its partners in the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Chen said. He said the defendants are entitled to seek evidence from the police agencies about their racial practices. And, he said, selective law enforcement — singling out blacks for arrest — is a civil rights violation that would require dismissal of the charges if proved.
So, they purposefully go after the black drug dealers but don't go after the non-black ones. That is biased policing.
The report by the American Civil Liberties Union, which analyzed federal arrest data, found that black people in San Francisco were 4.3 times more likely than white people to be arrested on the charge in 2010. The disparity was twice the state rate and slightly higher than the national rate.
The divide in marijuana arrests - which the ACLU attributed to a "staggering racial bias" - persisted even though black and white people have been found to use pot with similar frequency, the report concluded.
So, even though Black and Whites have been found to use pot with similar frequency, blacks are arrested for it far more frequently. That sure sounds like bias.
Well maybe if you did research and found out why someone was actually pulled over instead of citing vague anecdotal references to supposed racism, we could actually discuss facts. Right now, you have no idea why that group of men was questioned.
Um...it was clearly meant to just be an complementary example, not a rigorous study (of which, I posted multiple).
If you don't see how this is just another example of offensive assumptions being placed on black people (even upstanding black citizens, as this guy was a cop), then you're being a bit obtuse.
And you're still welcome to read the actual reports/studies, of which there are many studying this topic.
#######################
#######################
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration
You say "years of data" then post a link to a fake bike stealing experiment. Where is the "years" of data that shows black people are targeted more than other minorities?
You say this as if I didn't post dozens of links to actual rigorous studies (that looked at years of policing, yes...so the words "years of data" are accurate).
You're welcome to dismiss the bike experiments, as it seems you have already done. I found them to be interesting complementary examples that, taken with the other studies/reports, adds more perspective to how people's perceptions, biases, and assumptions play out in everyday life.
I personally find the experiments fascinating, but hey, you don't have to believe the results.
If you want rigorous studies, I've already provided a few (in this very post, and my last post). You're welcome to read them if you can find time outside of running your important business.
#######################
#######################
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration
Yet you fail to produce actual data. Sort of rings hollow.
Looking at my last post (post 173)...I see multiple studies with actual data to support the conclusions reached by the various (multiple...more than one...) authors.
But hey, you don't even have to look at that post. Just look above at my links pertaining to Oakland PD and SF PD.
It's really not that hard! Just use your mouse. Click on the links. Use your eyes to read the words on the screen.
#######################
#######################
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration
I'd love to look at the data. Post the data the shows blacks are targeted specifically over other minorities instead of blacks simply committing more crimes.
Again - look above. I have submitted to you MULTIPLE reports/studies.
By the way, while we're on the topic of data. Let's see some data that supports your theories. I'd love to see them.
#######################
#######################
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration
I'm simply asking where the racism is coming from. If every civic leadership and DOJ position is occupied by a BLACK DEMOCRAT, where is the systemic racism coming from? You seem hesitant to actually answer the question (yet you will claim systemic racism exist), all I'm asking is "from where". Seeing as you won't actually answer the question, we both know where it WOULD be coming from if it indeed exist.
I think it's extraordinarilly complicated.
I've already linked three studies in this very post that show that African-Americans can hold negative biases against people of their own racial background. Yes, it's kind of a surprising finding, but it's been found multiple times.
Considering the fact that we find systemic biases across many different cities/regions of the US, it's apparent to me that this is not a racial-specific or regional-specific issue, but rather a larger systemic problem in our society that deserves to be addressed more.
I think we're having the right conversations as a society right now, though, that are important steps:
understanding these stereotypes - why they exist, how they come about, what makes them so basal to our very consciousness
acknowledging that we do have a problem
figuring out how to make positive change
Unfortunately, there is a lot of disagreement and angst that's coming along with this process, and that's both sad and distracting to the end goals.
#######################
#######################
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration
I'm not asking for blacks to answer for "other people of color" I thought it was pretty clear that I'm on the bandwagon of "blacks should look at the problems within". I'm glad we could agree on that.
I think it should be looked at as "we should look at the problems within society as a whole".
Part of that process does include black neighborhoods taking responsibilities for their neighbors and children. But it has to be more than that - it has to be a society-wide effort. Building up the black middle class should be an important goal. We must encourage positive stereotypes. We must push for equal treatment regardless of skin color. I believe much of this has to be addressed early on in childhood years.
We can't just let our poor communities (which are sadly often predominantly black) anguish.
Otherwise we're just back where we started...feeding back into the cycle. We've come a long way - but we still have more work to do. And Oakland is probably a good place to start.
Last edited by HockeyMac18; 08-15-2016 at 05:25 PM..
I know this is really really difficult for you. But maybe you should read the study. It spells it out. The NYT even had handy graphs and charts when they reported on it.
It has always seemed to me that embedded in the “If only black men would marry the women they have babies with…” rhetoric was a more insidious suggestion: that there is something fundamental, and intrinsic about black men that is flawed, that black fathers are pathologically prone to desertion of their offspring and therefore largely responsible for black community “dysfunction.”
Quote:
“So then,” you may ask, “how is it that 72 percent of black children are born to single mothers? How can both be true?”
Good question.
Here are two things to consider:
First, there are a growing number of people who live together but don’t marry. Those mothers are still single, even though the child’s father may be in the home. And, as The Washington Post reported last year:
“The share of unmarried couples who opted to have ‘shotgun cohabitations’ — moving in together after a pregnancy — surpassed ‘shotgun marriages’ for the first time during the last decade, according to a forthcoming paper from the National Center for Health Statistics, part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”
Quote:
Second, some of these men have children by more than one woman, but they can only live in one home at a time. This phenomenon means that a father can live with some but not all of his children. Levs calls these men “serial impregnators,” but I think something more than promiscuity and irresponsibility are at play here.
As Forbes reported on Ferguson, Mo.:
“An important but unreported indicator of Ferguson’s dilemma is that half of young African-American men are missing from the community. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, while there are 1,182 African-American women between the ages of 25 and 34 living in Ferguson, there are only 577 African-American men in this age group. In other words there are more than two young black women for each young black man in Ferguson.
Quote:
Now to the mythology of the black male dereliction as dads: While it is true that black parents are less likely to marry before a child is born, it is not true that black fathers suffer a pathology of neglect. In fact, a C.D.C. report issued in December 2013 found that black fathers were the most involved with their children daily, on a number of measures, of any other group of fathers — and in many cases, that was among fathers who didn’t live with their children, as well as those who did."]Now to the mythology of the black male dereliction as dads: While it is true that black parents are less likely to marry before a child is born, it is not true that black fathers suffer a pathology of neglect. In fact, a C.D.C. report issued in December 2013 found that black fathers were the most involved with their children daily, on a number of measures, of any other group of fathers — and in many cases, that was among fathers who didn’t live with their children, as well as those who did.
With a couple of minutes skimming the report, one can easily find what was measured and understand the findings. What was measured:
Quote:
Some scholars have suggested that fathers’ involvement in the lives of their children can be classified into three (or four, depending upon how economic support is classified) broad dimensions (8,23):
Engagement or direct interaction with the child, including taking care of, playing with, or teaching the child
Accessibility or availability, which includes monitoring behavior from the next room or nearby, and allowing direct interaction if necessary
Responsibility for the care of the child, which includes ‘‘making plans and arrangements for care as distinct from the performance of the care’’ (8)
Economic support or breadwinning, which can be considered either as part of responsibility or separate from other measures of father involvement
Other scholars may measure or classify involvement differently.
This report is limited to measures of direct interaction or engagement with children in the last 4 weeks as
reported by the father.
From the results section, they looked at and found (quoting specific parts related to black fathers):
How often fathers fed or ate meals with their children:
Quote:
Hispanic fathers (58%) aged 15–44 were significantly more likely to have not eaten a meal with their noncoresidential children compared with white (35%) or black (31%) fathers.
How often fathers bathed, diapered, or dressed their children:
Quote:
Black fathers (70%) were most likely to have bathed, dressed, diapered, or helped their children use the toilet every day compared with white (60%) and Hispanic fathers (45%)
How often fathers played with their children:
Quote:
A higher percentage of Hispanic fathers aged 15–44 (52%) had not played with their noncoresidential children in the last 4 weeks compared with white (30%) and black (25%) fathers
How often fathers read to their children:
Quote:
A larger percentage of fathers aged 15–44 of Hispanic origin (70%) had not read to their noncoresidential children at all in the last 4 weeks compared with black (47%) and white (36%) fathers
How often fathers ate meals with their children:
Quote:
Smaller percentages of non-Hispanic white (43%) and non-Hispanic black (46%) fathers did not eat meals at all with their noncoresidential children compared with Hispanic fathers (72%).
How often fathers took their children to or from activities:
Quote:
A higher percentage of black fathers aged 15–44 (27%) took their children to or from activities every day compared with white fathers (20%).
Quote:
A higher percentage of Hispanic fathers aged 15–44 (83%) had not taken their children to or from
activities compared with white (70%) or black (58%) fathers
How often fathers talked with children about things that happened during the day:
Quote:
Among Hispanic fathers who did not live with their children, 63% did not talk with their children at
all in the last 4 weeks about things that had happened during the children’s day, compared with 29% of white fathers and 21% of black fathers.
How often fathers helped with homework or checked that homework was done:
Quote:
A larger percentage of black fathers (41%) had helped their coresidential children with homework every day in the last 4 weeks compared with Hispanic (29%) or white (28%) fathers.
Quote:
Larger percentages of Hispanic (82%) and white (70%) fathers had not helped their noncoresidential children with homework at all in the last 4 weeks compared with black fathers (56%).
They found that Black fathers are not the "worst" fathers based on those metrics.
As with most things in life - this is a complicated problem. More complicated than some are making it seem.
The argument "Bangalore kids have a better change at being literate in English than the black kid in Detroit because of systemic racism" doesn't require more research, it requires the person who made the argument to figure out that they are on the side of an extremely weak argument intellectually.
What part of they speak English there, don't you get?
The argument "Bangalore kids have a better change at being literate in English than the black kid in Detroit because of systemic racism" doesn't require more research, it requires the person who made the argument to figure out that they are on the side of an extremely weak argument intellectually.
Speaking of "weak intellect", you have yet to support any of your denigrations with relevant facts that draw together elements of the topic into a full picture. Here, or in other threads on other topics. Fun to watch you play semantic gymnastics with so many of your snappy retorts, though. I doubt you are a lawyer, but you do show some natural talent for that profession at its cheap ends (budget divorce representation comes to mind ...)
I know this is really really difficult for you. But maybe you should read the study. It spells it out. The NYT even had handy graphs and charts when they reported on it.
Yes it is difficult for me. I read the study and I didn't find where they listed all the measures they were considering for "participation" for black fathers. Can you clarify what they measured and how that compares to having a father "actually in the home"?
What part of they speak English there, don't you get?
They also speak english in the Philippines, South Korea, and Taiwan. What's your point? The primary language in those countries is NOT English. They learn Hindi, Hangul, Chinese from birth.
Your extremely weak line of reasoning is that an American born black kid is in a more difficult position of achieving a high literacy rate compared to "foreign born" Indians, Filipinos, and Taiwanese because of ... systemic racism?
See how weak your argument sounds?
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.
Seriously, this is the argument HockeyMac is making. 
) found the same thing:
