Just.... just don't even. The fact that you had to explain it says enough.The main takeaway is that the 70% number is deceptive as it would seem to imply that more black women are having children out of wedlock then they were in the past. That is factually incorrect. The 70% number is tied to the fact that married black women are having less children.
"It is important to realize that the "percent of births" is not a birth rate. The birth rate is the number of births for every 1,000 women in a specific category. The last marital birth rates calculated by the National Center for Health Statistics were for 2002. In 2002, the black marital birth rate was 64.9 births for every 1,000 married black women. The white marital birth rate was 88.2 for every 1,000 married white women. The black marital birth rate was 23.3 births less than the white rate. In the past, the black marital birth rate was higher than the white rate. Because there is such a low number of births among married black women, the percent of births to unmarried black women is especially high.
To summarize--there is no data to show that the black "illegitimacy" figure of 70 percent has been caused by unmarried black women having more kids than they did in the past. In fact, the trend is the exact opposite. What is clear is that the behavior of married black women has changed, to the point that married black women are actually having less kids than married white women."
Trust conservatives with statistics brehs
[Enter Topic] Is Like Slavery...:snoop:
- Thread starter ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- Start date
To address all 3 post response to me I will just say.............in all seriousness, I can't blame you because you clearly haven't studied this. fyi i learned all this when i was like 22 or something so be ashamed.
I didn't mention subliminal problems or anything like that. There really were valid and clear issues with the black family before 1960.
It's embarrassing the you all struggle to make these points because your only backed by the black neocons who are the least knowledgeable on the surface and underlying issues..... Why would you ignore historians, sociologists, psychologist, economist, but then listen to proven idiots?
Do you not know what the black family was like post slavery- there was virtual oppression for the women and instability for the entire family. That's a fact, and the fact is that that's inevitable about slavery, oppression, and jim crow.
Sadly, out of ignorance you all ignore that pathology and social realities pre 1950 that lead to adults and children to intergenerational ignorance, depression, poverty, and violence. All that stuff was the black community post slavery. ntm, most black in 1930's were actually brainwashed into an inferiority complex.
To satisfy your support of ignorant black men and cac'idology -- you envision a black utopia void of a crumbled black family structure before 1960. You imagine that it was the evil liberal gov policies that caused the downgrading of men and the forced position of women in black communities.
You imagine a world were slavery had ZERO lasting affects or even immediate negative affects on black people. The tension and gutterness of the black community first off led to ruthless and Str8 up abusive childbearing practices by former slaves and their next 2 generations. So yea that wasn't white racism.. but most agree that oppression and constant torture lead to the psychology behind those practices. Children born poor and black pre 1940 were mentally fukked up for the most part with higher rates of abuse, higher rates of depression, and obvious high levels of ignorance. We hear about 2 people getting great educations and ignore the millions of kids who couldn’t even complete elementary school – WHICH LED to more issues as adults.
I could mention other shyt but really all your interested in is 1960's programs. Honestly, the logic is valid but the premises are false in your points. I used to think the same as you when I was 17 or 18 - because I too was once stuck in rudimentary thinking. These black men regularly are invited on Sean hannity and rush limbaughes shows For A Reason........it plays into a false narrative that racist cac love because a few ignorant black men can co-sign it.
The timing of your point is right on - But you should know that The social programs were a response to pre existing crumbling family structures and violence amongst poor people and - disproportionately black people. And you're timing really isn't right because welfare programs started in the 1930's not 1960's... smh. @DEAD7 The 60s were chosen as an attack point because it's a way to falsely attack liberals and to also TIMEing serves as a way to meet the narrative, lol.. Medical Issues, poverty, homelessness, hunger, and mental stress was killing the poor 1920-1960 so welfare came before the 60's to help and the reforms came in the 60's because in the 40 50's families were depressed whether they were intact or NOT - it was fukked up so poor whites poor black poor anybody got reforms to address old and new issues. That didn't cause black women to say, "NAW we don't need these nikkas" - YOU IGNORANT fools!! The only thing that was added in the 60's was FOOD STAMPS and you only got that if you were poor with children --- HOW did that cause black men and women to say "fukk it we got that welfare, hayyyy!! we don't need fams"?????? IT didn't. Please follow the career and ideas of everyone who tries to make that point, please.
Actually with pre 60's reforms there was more encouragement to leave men out of the house because some states cut people off simply if a man lived in the house.... THE 60's!! ended that shyt... and added food stamps (there was a problem with kids starving n shyt!) and free job training and job corps!.
During the 70's blind people, old people, sick people got even more benefits -- unwed births and crime went up.. I guess that's is because blind people got more benefits...smh.
Pre 30's and 60's... the poor were already trapped, in large, to a cycle of poverty. when stamps came along they had food and healthcare - but they still were trapped into the SAME cycle ---------- However, because they also got supplemental food for their children ALL the BLAME fell on them for being trapped into a cycle of dependency.
There is a reason why google searches will back up the ideas you're pushing but rarely opposing views. the modern day 'civil right' people who lean right push the idea. It's the same people in the 60's who rejected the black radicals for fake ass civil rights movements that led us into horrible integration policies. However, no legitimate person who studies this can back the points,,,, just black talking heads who have always led us into BS.
you wrong and also disrespectful to women. So the point is basically that women didn't need man because welfare brainwashed them!?. You can quote unconnected stats, neo-c00ns or whoever you want - but essentially the point is that welfare provided an outlet for women to live without men. HOW does that make any sense? If a man wants to be and has the resources to be a part of his family than he does regardless of social offerings. If a woman wants a man she stays with him. Teen preg didn't shoot up - just non - married births. These women had more choices. So I guess you're also saying a woman with choices is the issue - but the fact that teen pregnancy was never addressed wasn't the issue. I guess you're saying the gov can pull a man away from his kids by having food stamps - but no opportunity, mental trauma, derogation, crime, poverty, and ignorance wasn't the issue. Not only is that not true - it doesn't even make sense. In some black communities un married birth are up to 80%...... And you are actually choosing to believe that is because of welfare.
Most people can go way deeper than this but since your backing the most ignorant POV in history I'll just leave it at this: 1900-1950 broke teen mothers almost always came from the bottom of the social latter regardless of race. Poverty and government sanctioned racism like jim crow destroyed the black man way before 60's. When the 60's happened - regardless of race unwed teenmothers rarely had stable income or family stability - so they applied for help. If the men were there and the black family was intact pre-1960's then these black women wouldn't have all applied for social welfare within 1-6 years of giving birth. It's not like the Welfare state came and BAM black men said peace out and black women said we don't need you.
Looking forward:
Single parent homes tend to have lower income, more unstability that lead to children with these same issue which lead to more generations of children stuck in a similar situation with compounded ignorance on top of all that---- So much so, that they become so ignorant that people blame THEM and blame their music and pants. People blame the symptoms instead of the real issues because at this point black youth are an easy as fukk target - and because of that reason- most issues in the black community are an uphill battle. 70% of all children raised without fathers end up in some type of criminal situation. We believe it's rap music and welfare so of course we will just keep letting the situations get worse by blaming random teem moms and 13 year old boys for their mentality.
Last edited:
you wouldn't know what a revolutionary looked like if you was posting at one on a message board. you're a plant on the other side of this than breh.
Based purely off of what I have heard from you, you should be extremely anti govt. and aligned with me... yet somehow, despite constantly pointing out how the state is raping us... you support it.
I'll never understand...
I listen to everyone, then look at the evidence and decide for myself.
I'll concede that empirical data on underlying issues and off the radar conditions are difficult to find...
Yes, but this doesn't have real relevance to the spike 30-40yrs later. It looks like cosmic relevance if anything.
Its also worth noting all women were being shyt on... it wasn't a black issue, as you insinuate. In fact black men could vote before white women. Just to give you an idea of how bad women had it across the board.
You could be right... but simply saying it doesn't make it true.(anyone saying it, not just you) and without some proof... its just your opinion, or whoever you are quoting.
Question: do you feel I should just accept what you are saying as fact, because you are telling me to? or because you believe it to be fact?
Ad-absurdum I like it.
By tossing my position in the "Zero lasting affect" corner you make it wrong and flat out retarded... giving me no where to go, but down.
Impressive. I wonder how often that works on this board...Anywho, I have never said that at any point... in my life... soooooo yeah. Cool story.
1960 is chosen because that's when the "war on poverty" began. prior to that it was a relatively small initiative.
If we remove the Dashiki and loot at just national stats we see In 1968, 4.1% of families were headed by a woman receiving welfare assistance; by 1980, the percentage increased to 10%. This is all races. To blame slavery for something that affected nonblacks as well is... actually never mind.
Lets take your logic and try to make some sense.
So the breakdown of the home was a social phenomenon that disproportionately affected the poor of which blacks were disproportionately represented....
^I can get behind this.
All i'm saying is this breakdown was facilitated at an alarming rate by the nanny state. This does not mean welfare alone, as you seem to want to frame my position.
Welfare was created in response to the great depression... and is considered by some to have made things worse than they would have been otherwise.
Its constant need for reform to this day shows us implicitly that it was and still is deeply flawed and not working.
I'm not sure what your point is here... If you are saying the great depression sucked and people went hungry. I agree... I don't think anyone disagrees.
If your calling this a black issue ...
So the state stepping in and taking over the role of provider doesn't change the "need" to a "prefer"?
If you had a cook that you needed to eat, and the state came in and said we will cook for you if he leaves... that doesn't turn your need for the chef into a "I prefer the chef" situation?
Of course it does, stop being retarded.
Its it the sole reason for the spilt increase? no. No one is saying that. But to have a dramatic increase in the number of women living without a niqqa, around the same time the state became the stand in niqqa is just to easy not to connect. i'm actually floored the black power blinders have clouded this simple correlation.
wouldn't be a true liberal position without some starving children somewhere.
really? is that where this is going?
Isnt it funny how the govt. always escapes blame... and places it wherever it can be carried at the least cost/most benefit to govt.
Subsidizing poor decisions leads to more poor decisions.
Govt. will do that
Campaign against limited govt. brehs.
You shouldn't feel comfortable aligning unconnected stats to your position, knowing that the actually timing and stats are off.I listen to everyone, then look at the evidence and decide for myself.
I'll concede that empirical data on underlying issues and off the radar conditions are difficult to find...
I clearly stated it wasn't only a black issue- but a poor issue that disproportionate affected black women and had a x10 affect due to gov sanctioned racism and the downgrading of black men.Yes, but this doesn't have real relevance to the spike 30-40yrs later. It looks like cosmic relevance if anything.
Its also worth noting all women were being shyt on... it wasn't a black issue, as you insinuate. In fact black men could vote before white women. Just to give you an idea of how bad women had it across the board.
You could be right... but simply saying it doesn't make it true.(anyone saying it, not just you) and without some proof... its just your opinion, or whoever you are quoting.
Question: do you feel I should just accept what you are saying as fact, because you are telling me to? or because you believe it to be fact?
Yes I could be right and you talking about black men voting before white women is just retarded. the black vote was even more meaningless back then - Plus there were voting rules put up to block black men, plus most black men were ignorant back then due to limited education opportunity, plus they had less economic opportunity than all women and men, plus they were being degraded in national media, plus Are you fukking kidding me? LOL
Ad-absurdum I like it.
By tossing my position in the "Zero lasting affect" corner you make it wrong and flat out retarded... giving me no where to go, but down.
Anywho, I have never said that at any point... in my life... soooooo yeah. Cool story.
If you're not doing this in any debate your in.. you might as well not be discussing the shyt...
But to be fair, you and other dude are down playing one of the most studied areas in American and world history - mental lasting affects of slavery and domino effects decades later.You framed your own position. You chose to cosign people who didn't know what they were talking about and then you chose to discuss it with someone who listens to these baffoons as they get invited to cac neocon radio shows to gain attention from national media. You chose to represent the popular opinion that is the modern day equivalent to the World is Flat. 1960 is chose as a marker because that's when food stamps began.... people think stamps and medcaid are save a hoe programs--- they aren't ... most people on them still are in poverty . Of course 6 generations of poverty will have more negatives than 2 generations of poverty ----- Especially if the 6th generation is focused on Desegregation as opposed to human rights (clue to the actually issue for u right there)
not calling it a black issue,, and actually not pro welfare state... I'm only force to defend that side because u all wanna make it a black issue - specifically an initiative that put 'fukk a family' juice in all urban water sources.Welfare was created in response to the great depression... and is considered by some to have made things worse than they would have been otherwise.
Its constant need for reform to this day shows us implicitly that it was and still is deeply flawed and not working.
I'm not sure what your point is here... If you are saying the great depression sucked and people went hungry. I agree... I don't think anyone disagrees.
If your calling this a black issue ...
So the state stepping in and taking over the role of provider doesn't change the "need" to a "prefer"?
If you had a cook that you needed to eat, and the state came in and said we will cook for you if he leaves... that doesn't turn your need for the chef into a "I prefer the chef" situation?
Of course it does, stop being retarded.
Its it the sole reason for the spilt increase? no. No one is saying that. But to have a dramatic increase in the number of women living without a niqqa, around the same time the state became the stand in niqqa is just to easy not to connect. i'm actually floored the black power blinders have clouded this simple correlation.
So essentially my assessment of your position is correct. 
Some positions that r against the conservative one aren't liberal.... some are realism.
lol, shyt ..... might as well.
really? is that where this is going?
gov has blame, but not for breaking up fams in the 60's by giving food stamps. shyt if that's all it took then the black family was never strong to begin with. The black women were for the first time living in a connected modern society, with real cities n shyt. They had the same number of teen birth.. and their was an even harsher attack on their men...... fukk were they supposed to do, NOT sign up for healthcare and food? They weren't married for the same reasons black on black crime spiked. You can simulate the same affects to any group with a cultural identity as damaged as the american black communities was.
So leave women no choice is what your stating? whatever, that's irrelevant, Because the making of a unwed teen mom doesn't happen when that girl grows breast... that shyt happens in mass like that within a community because that community has been fukked up for at least a decade. I just saw my old neighborhood on the News tonight.... and there was a show of force with state, federal, local police doing raids. One former marine said he was happy about it because he's hear more machine gun fire there than when he served. The women were talking about all the drugs and poverty. We say poor decisions, but as we type theres a 12 year old letting a grown man nutt in her right now in those projects.... shyt deeper than 1 individuals poor decisions. It's not a natural state of man for me to watch a pile of weapons and shells on tv and a bunch of 14 n 16 year olds arrested. Those r the future men in that community, so the women in that community essentially have no men for generations to come.No. No one is saying anyone is brainwashed. Govt. removed some of the risk, and the behavior began to reflect the removal of the risk.
Subsidizing poor decisions leads to more poor decisions.
clearly u know by now I'm for limited gov.. but not for misplaced blame.Govt. will do that
Campaign against limited govt. brehs.
I was hoping u would figure it out.. but fukk it. in the 40's n 50's the focus of the black community was not unity. It was not family structure. It def wasn't pro black women being happy in any way AT ALL. It wasn't pro education. The focus was a boost to people on the Jesus Bandwagon, and a push for acceptance by CAC and integration.......... While we fought for that, the laws and gov were fukking us over in every way possible. The welfare programs , might have provided lubrication but it wasn't doing the fukking.
Last edited:
govts can be bought. when they stop acting stupid they'll find me standing right here.Based purely off of what I have heard from you, you should be extremely anti govt. and aligned with me... yet somehow, despite constantly pointing out how the state is raping us... you support it.
I'll never understand...
when niccas go into the deep-end i don't go with them. i'll be right here.
The black community wasn't filled with the violent crime back then as it is now.
What is ntm?
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm saying if the state of black america is primarily due slavery and racism, then you would naturally see these problems worst off in generations closer to those of the emancipated slaves. Over time, the state of black america would be better but instead it's been worst. Black people are moving backwards.
No I don't. I never said this.
Black people are abused more by their own brothers today than they were in 1940's.
Here is my point. I acknowledge that slavery had some effects on black people. But the reason why I say slavery is not the cause of why black people are in the position they're in today is because there is no progress. Listen I don't care how harsh slavery was, if there is no progress, then you can't blame it on slavery. Slavery is a crux used to justify laziness.
Ok that's a very good post. You really handed to me in terms of blaming it on liberal welfare policies.
But I'm not convinced that african americans are in the state we're in today because of slavery and racism. I see no progress in the black community, I only see progress in the reverse direction. Its very hard to find any black leaders telling us blacks what we can do to better ourselves. Its always about what the white man ought to do for us, since everything is about slavery and racism.
Slavery and racism set us back, and put us in a huge disadvantage compared to any other race. But yet and still, what are we going to do about it?? The answer is not to try and fight things like racism when that will probably never change. That's a waste of energy. It ought to be about what we can do to better ourselves but negroes don't want to talk about that. They always want to be a victim.
I'm afraid now that if I can't blame the plight of the american negro on white liberal policies, then I will have to accept that its largely a pathological issue. Its very hard to find any black communities in this country or even the entire world in which they can serve as a model community for what blacks can aspire to. How do you account for this?
"mental lasting affects of slavery and domino effects decades later."
Mental lasting affects? Like what? The only affect I see is that blacks want to remain in the position they're in because they like being victims. There's no progress in the black community.
Mental lasting affects? Like what? The only affect I see is that blacks want to remain in the position they're in because they like being victims. There's no progress in the black community.
Black people do not want to be educated. Blacks choose to not go to school because they think school is something only for white people.
"Why go to school just to read a book about white people?" That's what the afro-american negro tells himself to validate his laziness.
"Why go to school just to read a book about white people?" That's what the afro-american negro tells himself to validate his laziness.
Whenever you see a school with a majority black people, at best the school underperforms academically. At worst, the school is so dysfunctional it's impossible to learn.
Whenever you see a city with majority black people, there is always something wrong with it.
All over the world, black people in africa have access to huge recourses beneath them, and yet they use it to fund wars killing each other. Why is that?
Consider this. If there was not something pathologically wrong with black people, how would the world be any different than it is today?
And I think pointing out a handful of smart black men doesn't mean anything. Because if we accept that there is something pathologically wrong with this black male, you would still expect to see exceptions to this. We would still expect to find a handful of geniuses like Ben Carson, Neil De Grass Tyson, and the like.
I think there ma be something pathological that makes the average black person prone to certain traits, like violence and anti-intellectualism, and an overall inability to have critical thinking skills.
Now I don't want to really believe there is a pathology. But these are where all the facts lead me to believe. I would like to believe it is something in the culture of black people. But that is becoming harder for me to believe when you look at the fact that there are hardly any black communities in the entire world that show what black people can really achieve. Black people can't achieve much of anything.
Whenever you see a city with majority black people, there is always something wrong with it.
All over the world, black people in africa have access to huge recourses beneath them, and yet they use it to fund wars killing each other. Why is that?
Consider this. If there was not something pathologically wrong with black people, how would the world be any different than it is today?
And I think pointing out a handful of smart black men doesn't mean anything. Because if we accept that there is something pathologically wrong with this black male, you would still expect to see exceptions to this. We would still expect to find a handful of geniuses like Ben Carson, Neil De Grass Tyson, and the like.
I think there ma be something pathological that makes the average black person prone to certain traits, like violence and anti-intellectualism, and an overall inability to have critical thinking skills.
Now I don't want to really believe there is a pathology. But these are where all the facts lead me to believe. I would like to believe it is something in the culture of black people. But that is becoming harder for me to believe when you look at the fact that there are hardly any black communities in the entire world that show what black people can really achieve. Black people can't achieve much of anything.
Damn... you sound truly lost brother. They've actually convinced you that we're inferior because we haven't been able to break the shackles they place on us.
Being a women wasn't fair for any race though at the time, so you cant place causation on something only affecting one demographic.
The point was women had it worse across the board... but yes, black women worst of all.
If you're not doing this in any debate your in.. you might as well not be discussing the shyt...
maybe, but you are definitely down playing the role of govt.
In fact your very argument is something else govt did
No. 1960 was the beginning of the war on poverty, or when shyt got real you can say. Using the great depression as a reference point isn't going to produce anything of worth since we were in the greatest financial down turn ever.You point to all these other factors, which are all relevant and true, but the fact remains, it wasn't til the war on poverty that the numbers skyrocketed.
This it was going to happen anyway undertone your giving is bullshyt. Not cause its wrong, but because there is no way to know exactly what would happen...
Blaming everything on slavery is cool, and I get the appeal, I do. But I feel you are doing black people a disservice
and I think those programs are sentences to a life of poverty.
Purely a govt. intervention issue for me.Starving children is a liberal all time great.
For some reason only govt. cares about children, and is qualified to do anything about it...
a quick look at its track record though and govt. has done more to harm the poor than anything else...
respect.lol, shyt ..... might as well.
Because of govt.
Govt.'s got your back brehs
Of course not...
Bad shyt is always gonna happen, and I don't consider it a reason to jump out the window
and I believe are attempts to prevent these wrongs have done more harm than good.
Your going to need to prove this.
I disagree, but will entertain the idea if you have some data on it.
Either way we are still reinforcing my point that govt. intervention is shyt and has ravaged the black community.
Govt. has always been the one doing the fukking, and yes welfare lubed blacks up good. No disagreement there.
Imma put it like this brother. Right now, I'm confused. I'm confused as to what is the cause of the problems within the black community. I'm not necessarily saying its pathological, its perhaps cultural. But one thing I'm not confused about is the fact that it is our problem now. I don't care if the white man put us in a thousand foot hole. If we're just sitting here not doing anything but holding hands crying about how we got thrown down in a rut, we'll never get anywhere. And that's precisely why we haven't moved an inch in the last 50 years. We don't take accountability for actions of our own.
Damn... you sound truly lost brother. They've actually convinced you that we're inferior because we haven't been able to break the shackles they place on us.
When we have black brothers laughing at each other for speaking proper english, that's problematic. When we have black brothers dropping out of school, that's problematic, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the white man. In fact, the white man says you SHOULD get educated, but the black man turns his nose up and says he doesn't want any of that white man ideology. When you got black brothers killing each other, that's problematic, and has nothing to do with the white man.