This prob needs its own thread
1 in 5 black men did not work in 2016, study says
This is obama's legacy.
1 in 5 black men did not work in 2016, study says
This is obama's legacy.
Last edited:
Dr. Tommy Curry - Failure of Black Studies and Intersectionality
- Thread starter AlainLocke
- Start date
The entire presentation was great. I think he said some really important things during the question and answer period. Specially minutes 40-45 and minutes 50-1:05
Thank you for posting this.
I just downloaded it, I'm going to give this video/presentation more circulation with some black men locally.
A New Deal for poor African-American and Native-American boys
he U.S. is facing a national crisis. It is virtually guaranteed that if you are poor, male, African-American or Native-American, you have a disproportionally high likelihood of ending up in prison, unemployed, or both. In a new paper by my colleague, Adam Looney, and his co-author, Nicholas Turner, intended to analyze post-incarceration employment, the authors find that:
“Almost one-third of all 30-year-old men who aren’t working are either in prison, in jail, or are former prisoners…Boys who grew up in families in the bottom 10 percent of the income distribution were 20 times more likely to be in prison on a given day in their early 30s than children born in top ten percent of families…Prisoners are also disproportionately likely to have grown up in socially isolated and segregated neighborhoods with high rates of child poverty and in predominantly African-American or American Indian neighborhoods.”
Author
Camille Busette
Senior Fellow - Economic Studies,Governance Studies, Metropolitan Policy Program
Director - Race, Prosperity, and Inclusion Initiative
@CamilleBusette
While these findings are consistent with other research that details the negative impact of childhood poverty on life outcomes, the paper is particularly eloquent about the impact that the combination of childhood poverty, segregation, and race have on African-American and Native-American boys. Poor African-American and Native-American boys living in segregated communities of concentrated poverty are highly unlikely to experience anything but unemployment or incarceration or both. If we add to this the fact that police disproportionally kill African-American and Native-American men, it is clear that that the level of exclusion faced by these men is staggering. No other demographic group has fared as badly, so persistently and for so long. The depth of this crisis is appalling, and so too, is our failure to acknowledge and address this crisis.
How did we arrive here? It is not accidental that the two demographic groups who have endured the most profound state-sanctioned segregation and deeply inculcated and brutal racism are the two groups today which have the poorest life outcomes.
It is not accidental that the two demographic groups who have endured the most profound state-sanctioned segregation and deeply inculcated and brutal racism are the two groups today which have the poorest life outcomes.
This crisis is therefore the consequence of these two histories. First, the fact that the overwhelming majority of poor African-American boys live in segregated and concentrated poverty is the direct result of residential redlining and related governmental practices that emerged during the New Deal era and continued well into the latter half of the 20th century. Native-American boys, too, often live in segregated tribal lands that are the result of an ugly and state-sanctioned history of appropriation, discrimination and neglect that is still alive and well today.
Second, to be male, poor, and either African-American or Native-American is to confront, on a daily basis, a deeply held racism that exists in every social institution. This experience is a direct result of centuries of vilification and pernicious narratives that portrayed African-Americans and Native-Americans as “savages.” The imagery of Indian “savages” was particularly prevalent in the 1820s and coincided with the Indian removal policies of the 1830s. And the stereotype of the violent African-American male is a long-standing one in the United States. The Jim Crow/eugenics ideology sharpened this stereotype with its focus on labeling blacks, particularly black males as “brutes” and “savage-like,” criminal, lewd, hypersexual, or predatory.
Today, we know the consequences of socially accepted racism. We know that African-Americans and Native-Americans are incarcerated at disproportionally higher rates than their white counterparts. We also know that black boys are much more likely to be legally disciplined for infractions at school. We know that poor African-American and Native-American men are less likely to be employed than their white counterparts. When it is socially acceptable to equate these two demographic groups with criminality and danger, it is acceptable to limit hiring practices for African-American and Native-American males, block off neighborhoods, deprive those areas of services and resources, criminalize and murder unsuspecting youth, and continue to see it as justified.
The fact that unemployment and incarceration rates are linked to race and childhood poverty, particularly for boys, clearly demands an intentional and focused policy solution. Poor children and poor African-American and Native-American boys, in particular, need to be supported and validated from day one through a variety of approaches.
How do we know that such policies could have life-altering effects? As Looney and Turner point out, poor children with similar profiles to those in their database, but whose families were able to move to higher-income neighborhoods experienced much better life outcomes than the young people in their dataset.
The nature of this crisis requires that we focus policy attention specifically on poor African-American and Native-American boys, developing something akin to a New Deal for them.
Most importantly, the nature of this crisis requires that we focus policy attention specifically on poor African-American and Native-American boys, developing something akin to a New Deal for them. The elements of that New Deal will have to be both of significant depth and breadth. State policies that use Medicaid as the entry point for a variety of social services, school-based wrap around services, housing vouchers for families with young children, and restorative justice programs are all examples of initiatives which, if pulled together in a comprehensive, systematic, and nationwide approach and then aggressively pushed through a responsible set of incentives at the state level, could be a robust first step to addressing the devastating consequences of childhood poverty for these boys. In addition, state economic development policies that are targeted to providing services and jobs in areas of deeply concentrated poverty are also worth pursuing.
A New Deal for poor African-American and Native-American boys? Anything less would be dishonest.
Intersectionality
he U.S. is facing a national crisis. It is virtually guaranteed that if you are poor, male, African-American or Native-American, you have a disproportionally high likelihood of ending up in prison, unemployed, or both. In a new paper by my colleague, Adam Looney, and his co-author, Nicholas Turner, intended to analyze post-incarceration employment, the authors find that:
“Almost one-third of all 30-year-old men who aren’t working are either in prison, in jail, or are former prisoners…Boys who grew up in families in the bottom 10 percent of the income distribution were 20 times more likely to be in prison on a given day in their early 30s than children born in top ten percent of families…Prisoners are also disproportionately likely to have grown up in socially isolated and segregated neighborhoods with high rates of child poverty and in predominantly African-American or American Indian neighborhoods.”
Author
Camille Busette
Senior Fellow - Economic Studies,Governance Studies, Metropolitan Policy Program
Director - Race, Prosperity, and Inclusion Initiative
@CamilleBusette
While these findings are consistent with other research that details the negative impact of childhood poverty on life outcomes, the paper is particularly eloquent about the impact that the combination of childhood poverty, segregation, and race have on African-American and Native-American boys. Poor African-American and Native-American boys living in segregated communities of concentrated poverty are highly unlikely to experience anything but unemployment or incarceration or both. If we add to this the fact that police disproportionally kill African-American and Native-American men, it is clear that that the level of exclusion faced by these men is staggering. No other demographic group has fared as badly, so persistently and for so long. The depth of this crisis is appalling, and so too, is our failure to acknowledge and address this crisis.
How did we arrive here? It is not accidental that the two demographic groups who have endured the most profound state-sanctioned segregation and deeply inculcated and brutal racism are the two groups today which have the poorest life outcomes.
It is not accidental that the two demographic groups who have endured the most profound state-sanctioned segregation and deeply inculcated and brutal racism are the two groups today which have the poorest life outcomes.
This crisis is therefore the consequence of these two histories. First, the fact that the overwhelming majority of poor African-American boys live in segregated and concentrated poverty is the direct result of residential redlining and related governmental practices that emerged during the New Deal era and continued well into the latter half of the 20th century. Native-American boys, too, often live in segregated tribal lands that are the result of an ugly and state-sanctioned history of appropriation, discrimination and neglect that is still alive and well today.
Second, to be male, poor, and either African-American or Native-American is to confront, on a daily basis, a deeply held racism that exists in every social institution. This experience is a direct result of centuries of vilification and pernicious narratives that portrayed African-Americans and Native-Americans as “savages.” The imagery of Indian “savages” was particularly prevalent in the 1820s and coincided with the Indian removal policies of the 1830s. And the stereotype of the violent African-American male is a long-standing one in the United States. The Jim Crow/eugenics ideology sharpened this stereotype with its focus on labeling blacks, particularly black males as “brutes” and “savage-like,” criminal, lewd, hypersexual, or predatory.
Today, we know the consequences of socially accepted racism. We know that African-Americans and Native-Americans are incarcerated at disproportionally higher rates than their white counterparts. We also know that black boys are much more likely to be legally disciplined for infractions at school. We know that poor African-American and Native-American men are less likely to be employed than their white counterparts. When it is socially acceptable to equate these two demographic groups with criminality and danger, it is acceptable to limit hiring practices for African-American and Native-American males, block off neighborhoods, deprive those areas of services and resources, criminalize and murder unsuspecting youth, and continue to see it as justified.
The fact that unemployment and incarceration rates are linked to race and childhood poverty, particularly for boys, clearly demands an intentional and focused policy solution. Poor children and poor African-American and Native-American boys, in particular, need to be supported and validated from day one through a variety of approaches.
How do we know that such policies could have life-altering effects? As Looney and Turner point out, poor children with similar profiles to those in their database, but whose families were able to move to higher-income neighborhoods experienced much better life outcomes than the young people in their dataset.
The nature of this crisis requires that we focus policy attention specifically on poor African-American and Native-American boys, developing something akin to a New Deal for them.
Most importantly, the nature of this crisis requires that we focus policy attention specifically on poor African-American and Native-American boys, developing something akin to a New Deal for them. The elements of that New Deal will have to be both of significant depth and breadth. State policies that use Medicaid as the entry point for a variety of social services, school-based wrap around services, housing vouchers for families with young children, and restorative justice programs are all examples of initiatives which, if pulled together in a comprehensive, systematic, and nationwide approach and then aggressively pushed through a responsible set of incentives at the state level, could be a robust first step to addressing the devastating consequences of childhood poverty for these boys. In addition, state economic development policies that are targeted to providing services and jobs in areas of deeply concentrated poverty are also worth pursuing.
A New Deal for poor African-American and Native-American boys? Anything less would be dishonest.
Intersectionality
God Damn.
58 mins in.
The part where he talks about hypermasculinity actually being feminization. Always thought this, but couldn't articulate it.
Yeah, context and word derivation is important. It threw me when I heard it explained that way tooGod Damn.
58 mins in.
The part where he talks about hypermasculinity actually being feminization. Always thought this, but couldn't articulate it.
pasting this quickly before work. click the link for graphs.
The inheritance of black poverty: It’s all about the men
lack Americans born poor are much less likely to move up the income ladder than those in other racial groups, especially whites. Why? Many factors are at work, including educational inequalities, neighborhood effects, workplace discrimination, parenting, access to credit, rates of incarceration, and so on.
Black men, stuck in poverty: Chetty’s latest
But gender is a big part of the story too, as detailed in a new paper from the Equality of Opportunity Project, “Race and Economic Opportunity in the United States: An Intergenerational Perspective” by Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, Maggie Jones, and Sonya Porter. As always, there is a huge amount of data and analysis in the new paper. But the big finding is that race gaps in intergenerational mobility largely reflect the poor outcomes for black men. The report is another contribution to the growing literature showing that race gaps in the intergenerational persistence of poverty are in large part the result of poor outcomes for black men.
Specifically, Chetty et al. show that black men born to low-income parents are much more likely to end up with a low individual income than black women, white women, and—especially—white men. As they write:
“We conclude based on the preceding analysis that the black-white intergenerational gap in individual income is substantial for men, but quite small for women. It is important to note, however, that this finding does not imply that the black-white gap in women’s individual incomes will vanish with time. This is because black women continue to have substantially lower levels of household income than white women, both because they are less likely to be married and because black men earn less than white men.” (p. 23)
In an attempt to estimate the impact of different marriage rates, Chetty et al. calculate the intergenerational mobility rates of black and white men raised in both single parent and married families, and find little difference. As they conclude, “parental marital status has little impact on intergenerational gaps” (p. 25).
In a new paper published today, we examine the same question in a different way. (See our longer Technical Paper here, and full Results here). We confirm the stark differences in upward earnings mobility for black men compared to both black women and whites. We also confirm that black women, despite their solid earnings mobility, have very low family income mobility. We then estimate the impact of racial differences in marriage rates by simulating higher marriage rates among black women: like Chetty, we find no significant effects.
Black and white Americans, on different starting blocks
Black and white children are born into very different economic circumstances. Almost half of black boys and girls are in households in the bottom fifth of the income distribution, compared to just over one in ten white children:
Almost half of black youths grew up in the bottom quintile
Share of youths ages 14 to 16 with parents in each income quintile
Black menWhite menBlack womenWhite women0%50%100%0%100%Bottom quintileSecond quintileMiddle quintileFourth quintileTop quintile
Source: Authors' calculations using the NLSY97
There are, then, huge race gaps in the chances of being born to or raised in a poor family—gaps that were scarcely lower among children born in the early 1980s than they were among those born in the years around 1960. But what about the chances of escaping poverty as an adult?
Gender and race gaps in upward mobility
Using data on 4,200 black and white Americans from the NLSY97, we find that over half (54 percent) of black men born into households in the poorest fifth of the family income distribution end up, as individuals, in the poorest fifth of the earnings distribution for their respective gender, between the ages of 28 and 35, compared to the minority of white men (22 percent), white women (29 percent), and black women (34 percent).
Black men have low earnings mobility
Share of youths from the bottom quintile who remain in the bottom quintile as adults
Black menWhite menBlack womenWhite women0%20%40%60%80%0%80%
Source: Authors' calculations using the NLSY97
In terms of their individual earnings, black women have similar odds of escaping poverty as white women, though both these groups lag behind the upward mobility of white men. These analyses don’t consider the income of other family members, however. What happens when we look instead at adult family income, as opposed to individual earnings? A very different picture emerges for black Americans:
Black men and women have low family income mobility
Percentage of youths from the bottom quintile who remain in the bottom quintile of family income as adults
Black menWhite menBlack womenWhite women0%20%40%60%80%0%80%
Source: Authors' calculations using the NLSY97
Black women face a very high risk of being stuck in poverty (62 percent), surpassing even the 50 percent risk faced by black men. For whites, the odds of remaining stuck in poverty remain relatively low, for both men (28 percent) and women (33 percent), when we use a family income measure.
The headline finding here is that, among those who grew up poor, black women are the only group showing a marked difference between the risk of being in the bottom quintile of the individual earnings distribution (for each gender), and the risk of being in the bottom quintile of the family incomedistribution (for the whole age cohort). Whites do well on both counts; black men do poorly on both counts. Black women do reasonably well on the first and very poorly on the second. This result is probably driven by the fact that black women tend to create families with black men who do poorly on both counts and thus bring down the family income results for black women.
Lower marriage rates aren’t hurting black mobility
Authors
Scott Winship
Former Brookings Expert
Richard V. Reeves
Senior Fellow - Economic Studies
Co-Director - Center on Children and Families
RichardvReeves
K
Katherine Guyot
Research Assistant
Why? Various explanations could be given. The most obvious is that, assuming marriages or cohabitation mostly occur within racial groups, black women’s family position is damaged directly or indirectly by the poor outcomes for black men. If white women end up with white men, who in terms of their earnings are more than twice as likely to escape poverty as black men, their family income will be higher. Equally, if black women are more likely than white women to end up as single, they will also record a lower family income.
We set out to model the impact of household formation by artificially equalizing the marriage rates of black women and white women. The results will of course depend not just on whether they marry, but also on whom they marry. In our simulation, we assume that the additional women who are married have a husband with the same economic characteristics as their brother (see the Technical Paper for our detailed methods). The intuition here is that most people are likely to marry someone with a broadly similar background as themselves, and siblings, by definition, have an almost identical one. The results of this equal-marriage-rate simulation are as follows:
Simulating marriage does little to improve mobility for black women
Percentage of youths from the bottom quintile who remain in the bottom quintile of simulated family income
Black menWhite menBlack womenWhite women0%20%40%60%80%0%80%
Source: Authors' calculations using the NLSY97
While there is a drop in the rates of poverty persistence for black women, it is a modest one (from 62 percent to 56 percent). Given the big race gaps in family formation, we expected to see a bigger change for black women.
Help black men to help black families
Our results strongly echo those of the Chetty team. So what conclusions can be drawn? Chetty’s team are blunt, writing that “the key to closing income disparities for both black and white women is to close intergenerational gaps in income between black and white men.”
This is certainly one of the most important implications of both their study and our own. Breaking the cycle of intergenerational poverty for black Americans requires a transformation in the economic outcomes for black men, particularly in terms of earnings. One important point here: the relationship between earnings and marriage runs in both directions. Married men tend, other things equal, to earn more: one study of identical twins suggests that being married raises earnings by one-fourth. Married men may feel more responsibility to provide economically for their families, and especially their children. Low marriage rates may therefore have some impact on earnings.
It is also clear that the vast inequalities by race cannot be alleviated by upward mobility alone. Black girls are, relatively speaking, more likely to move out of poverty in terms of their own earnings. However, we should keep in mind the sheer number of black children being raised in low-income households in the first place. Closing the race gaps in upward mobility will require wholesale shifts in economic outcomes, perhaps above all for men’s earnings.
Scott Winship is a former Brookings Institution fellow, now at the Joint Economic Committee. His contributions to this report ended before he took his current position. The authors did not receive financial support from any firm or person for this article or from any firm or person with a financial or political interest in this article. Winship is an honorary advisor for the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity and the Archbridge Institute. Other than the aforementioned, the authors are currently not an officer, director, or board member of any organization with an interest in this article.
The inheritance of black poverty: It’s all about the men
lack Americans born poor are much less likely to move up the income ladder than those in other racial groups, especially whites. Why? Many factors are at work, including educational inequalities, neighborhood effects, workplace discrimination, parenting, access to credit, rates of incarceration, and so on.
Black men, stuck in poverty: Chetty’s latest
But gender is a big part of the story too, as detailed in a new paper from the Equality of Opportunity Project, “Race and Economic Opportunity in the United States: An Intergenerational Perspective” by Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, Maggie Jones, and Sonya Porter. As always, there is a huge amount of data and analysis in the new paper. But the big finding is that race gaps in intergenerational mobility largely reflect the poor outcomes for black men. The report is another contribution to the growing literature showing that race gaps in the intergenerational persistence of poverty are in large part the result of poor outcomes for black men.
Specifically, Chetty et al. show that black men born to low-income parents are much more likely to end up with a low individual income than black women, white women, and—especially—white men. As they write:
“We conclude based on the preceding analysis that the black-white intergenerational gap in individual income is substantial for men, but quite small for women. It is important to note, however, that this finding does not imply that the black-white gap in women’s individual incomes will vanish with time. This is because black women continue to have substantially lower levels of household income than white women, both because they are less likely to be married and because black men earn less than white men.” (p. 23)
In an attempt to estimate the impact of different marriage rates, Chetty et al. calculate the intergenerational mobility rates of black and white men raised in both single parent and married families, and find little difference. As they conclude, “parental marital status has little impact on intergenerational gaps” (p. 25).
In a new paper published today, we examine the same question in a different way. (See our longer Technical Paper here, and full Results here). We confirm the stark differences in upward earnings mobility for black men compared to both black women and whites. We also confirm that black women, despite their solid earnings mobility, have very low family income mobility. We then estimate the impact of racial differences in marriage rates by simulating higher marriage rates among black women: like Chetty, we find no significant effects.
Black and white Americans, on different starting blocks
Black and white children are born into very different economic circumstances. Almost half of black boys and girls are in households in the bottom fifth of the income distribution, compared to just over one in ten white children:
Almost half of black youths grew up in the bottom quintile
Share of youths ages 14 to 16 with parents in each income quintile
Black menWhite menBlack womenWhite women0%50%100%0%100%Bottom quintileSecond quintileMiddle quintileFourth quintileTop quintile
Source: Authors' calculations using the NLSY97
There are, then, huge race gaps in the chances of being born to or raised in a poor family—gaps that were scarcely lower among children born in the early 1980s than they were among those born in the years around 1960. But what about the chances of escaping poverty as an adult?
Gender and race gaps in upward mobility
Using data on 4,200 black and white Americans from the NLSY97, we find that over half (54 percent) of black men born into households in the poorest fifth of the family income distribution end up, as individuals, in the poorest fifth of the earnings distribution for their respective gender, between the ages of 28 and 35, compared to the minority of white men (22 percent), white women (29 percent), and black women (34 percent).
Black men have low earnings mobility
Share of youths from the bottom quintile who remain in the bottom quintile as adults
Black menWhite menBlack womenWhite women0%20%40%60%80%0%80%
Source: Authors' calculations using the NLSY97
In terms of their individual earnings, black women have similar odds of escaping poverty as white women, though both these groups lag behind the upward mobility of white men. These analyses don’t consider the income of other family members, however. What happens when we look instead at adult family income, as opposed to individual earnings? A very different picture emerges for black Americans:
Black men and women have low family income mobility
Percentage of youths from the bottom quintile who remain in the bottom quintile of family income as adults
Black menWhite menBlack womenWhite women0%20%40%60%80%0%80%
Source: Authors' calculations using the NLSY97
Black women face a very high risk of being stuck in poverty (62 percent), surpassing even the 50 percent risk faced by black men. For whites, the odds of remaining stuck in poverty remain relatively low, for both men (28 percent) and women (33 percent), when we use a family income measure.
The headline finding here is that, among those who grew up poor, black women are the only group showing a marked difference between the risk of being in the bottom quintile of the individual earnings distribution (for each gender), and the risk of being in the bottom quintile of the family incomedistribution (for the whole age cohort). Whites do well on both counts; black men do poorly on both counts. Black women do reasonably well on the first and very poorly on the second. This result is probably driven by the fact that black women tend to create families with black men who do poorly on both counts and thus bring down the family income results for black women.
Lower marriage rates aren’t hurting black mobility
Authors
Scott Winship
Former Brookings Expert
Richard V. Reeves
Senior Fellow - Economic Studies
Co-Director - Center on Children and Families
RichardvReeves
K
Katherine Guyot
Research Assistant
Why? Various explanations could be given. The most obvious is that, assuming marriages or cohabitation mostly occur within racial groups, black women’s family position is damaged directly or indirectly by the poor outcomes for black men. If white women end up with white men, who in terms of their earnings are more than twice as likely to escape poverty as black men, their family income will be higher. Equally, if black women are more likely than white women to end up as single, they will also record a lower family income.
We set out to model the impact of household formation by artificially equalizing the marriage rates of black women and white women. The results will of course depend not just on whether they marry, but also on whom they marry. In our simulation, we assume that the additional women who are married have a husband with the same economic characteristics as their brother (see the Technical Paper for our detailed methods). The intuition here is that most people are likely to marry someone with a broadly similar background as themselves, and siblings, by definition, have an almost identical one. The results of this equal-marriage-rate simulation are as follows:
Simulating marriage does little to improve mobility for black women
Percentage of youths from the bottom quintile who remain in the bottom quintile of simulated family income
Black menWhite menBlack womenWhite women0%20%40%60%80%0%80%
Source: Authors' calculations using the NLSY97
While there is a drop in the rates of poverty persistence for black women, it is a modest one (from 62 percent to 56 percent). Given the big race gaps in family formation, we expected to see a bigger change for black women.
Help black men to help black families
Our results strongly echo those of the Chetty team. So what conclusions can be drawn? Chetty’s team are blunt, writing that “the key to closing income disparities for both black and white women is to close intergenerational gaps in income between black and white men.”
This is certainly one of the most important implications of both their study and our own. Breaking the cycle of intergenerational poverty for black Americans requires a transformation in the economic outcomes for black men, particularly in terms of earnings. One important point here: the relationship between earnings and marriage runs in both directions. Married men tend, other things equal, to earn more: one study of identical twins suggests that being married raises earnings by one-fourth. Married men may feel more responsibility to provide economically for their families, and especially their children. Low marriage rates may therefore have some impact on earnings.
It is also clear that the vast inequalities by race cannot be alleviated by upward mobility alone. Black girls are, relatively speaking, more likely to move out of poverty in terms of their own earnings. However, we should keep in mind the sheer number of black children being raised in low-income households in the first place. Closing the race gaps in upward mobility will require wholesale shifts in economic outcomes, perhaps above all for men’s earnings.
Scott Winship is a former Brookings Institution fellow, now at the Joint Economic Committee. His contributions to this report ended before he took his current position. The authors did not receive financial support from any firm or person for this article or from any firm or person with a financial or political interest in this article. Winship is an honorary advisor for the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity and the Archbridge Institute. Other than the aforementioned, the authors are currently not an officer, director, or board member of any organization with an interest in this article.
Attorney Antonio Moore , Dr Tommy Curry, and Tiffany Ramm discuss the New Times Article and Harvard Study showing that wealth inequality is highly gender dricven by lack of income equality by received by black men.
AlainLocke
Banned
Since Poitier's link isn't working
The plight of black men
Another article.
TBH all if this seems like a social backlash against the intersectionality politics of the last decade. Don't really know what the endgame is here. Is America finally giving a shyt or are they just using our struggle as political currency.
Another article.
TBH all if this seems like a social backlash against the intersectionality politics of the last decade. Don't really know what the endgame is here. Is America finally giving a shyt or are they just using our struggle as political currency.
reasonable_doubter
Banned
reasonable_doubter
Banned
The plight of black men
Another article.
TBH all if this seems like a social backlash against the intersectionality politics of the last decade. Don't really know what the endgame is here. Is America finally giving a shyt or are they just using our struggle as political currency.
Look at the vid in this thread,
Black man punched by a white cop for no reason while waiting for a ride from the hospital
^^^T Hasan Johnson said that as ameirca continues to decline look for more attacks on black men... Also the young black man that was punched, he was only 20, got arrested and if not for the body cam would have had a record. Now with a record what would his employment outlook look like? He would be just like the 20% of black men that couldn't work in 2016....... What america has done to and continues to do black men is genocide..... Something the world courts need to look into....
