|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 23, 2013 14:09:29 GMT -5
People in poverty will commit more crimes. People with enough money commit less. Doesn't take a Ph.D. sociologist to figure that out. You might want to research this a little more fully, Panther. Blacks and hispanics are on about the same economic level in the US (hispanics being slightly higher). But the crime rate among blacks is VASTLY higher than hispanics.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jul 23, 2013 17:52:50 GMT -5
the number one factor is that 75% of US blacks are raised in households without fathers. I'd partly agree with that. But again, why such a huge number of absent fathers? The answer is institutional racism, embedded in the fabric of American history and society, which fully emasculated the black male for centuries. In other words, blacks are not inherently bad fathers. Why racially profile them? do you feel blacks also might need to take responsibility for the state of the black community? Rather than continue to blame white people and white racism for all their woes? (I'm not aware that blacks are sitting around blaming white people.) To answer your question, yes, of course! Blacks needs to take responsibility for improving themselves, in the same way that Joe needs to take responsibility for improving his job situation and not by blaming Obama. Regardless of how wronged or oppressed one is, liberation and self-improvement do not come from above -- they come from individuals choosing to elevate themselves. Blacks, esp. men, will face the hardest and more perilous curve of any oppressed people because they are the most profiled and 'marked' people in everyday American life. Hence, their low-status in society, and hence their crimes. To address your second post, I don't think you can just straight-out compare blacks to hispanics! First of all, the situations that brought them to America are dissimilar -- blacks as chained slaves who arrived and had no legal rights for 300 years; hispanics by choice, mainly to improve their and their families' economic opportunities. Second, hispanics are close to 'home', geographically (in the case of Mexico), and even when not, normally have a large and well-established support network of family or friends to help them upon arrival. Blacks did not have this luxury for 300 years -- they were intentionally separated (mothers from children, etc.) upon arrival and dispersed around the south, losing their language and family connections. Third, hispanics are considered 'white' (i.e., of a privileged gene pool) by large numbers of people, and even when they aren't considered 'white', they certainly aren't considered 'black', which makes an enormous difference. Consistently through the history of the USA, people of African descent have the been the final bastion of white racism. In other words, once whites gave up the effort to discriminate Italians, Eastern Europeans, and Jews... and then hispanics... they finally could settle on Blacks. You mention history -- understanding the black situation in the USA requires a knowledge of their history, because the crimes of the 18th and 19th and 20th centuries continue to inform the black reality today.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 23, 2013 18:19:03 GMT -5
Pretty much generally agree with your comments, Panther. But I will add, re the breakdown of the black family structure, while it certainly has roots in the racism of the 18th, 19th and 20th century, its interesting to note that this is a relatively modern phenomenon. As recently as the 1950s, 80 percent of blacks were raised in two-parent households. More than ever we need to examine what happened over the last 50 years to cause the near complete collapse of the black family.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 23, 2013 18:25:56 GMT -5
PS. America abolished slavery over 100 years ago at great cost to the American people. Slavery is still legal today all over the world including parts of Africa. I find this notion that there is something uniquely "racist" about America tiresome. Its an odd notion considering that America is the number one destination of choice for people of all races around the world.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jul 24, 2013 4:46:26 GMT -5
Slavery is still legal today all over the world including parts of Africa. Slavery certainly exists today, as ever, but to say it's "legal... all over the world" would be a huge exaggeration. Is there in fact any modern nation-state where slavery is, by definition, legal?? I find this notion that there is something uniquely "racist" about America tiresome. Not sure if you are referring to my posts, but I certainly don't think that way and didn't intend to give that impression. There are, of course, many unique things about American racism, just as there are unique things about American egalitarianism and cheese-steak sandwiches, but these are no more unique than anywhere. A lot of Americans (and many besides) are not aware that the USA was not the #1 American destination of the African slaves in the 18th and 19th centuries. By far the most slaves from Africa were shipped to Brazil. Its an odd notion considering that America is the number one destination of choice for people of all races around the world. I've heard a lot of Americans say this, but I'm not sure it's true. What is that belief based on? The one indisputable fact is that the USA takes in the most sheer number of immigrants per year. But once you break it down to (a) a per capita ratio, and (b) immigrant satisfaction and quality of life, the USA fall well short of other countries. Consider, for example: www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2012/11/18/is-the-u-s-the-most-immigrant-friendly-country-in-the-world/Incidentally, and if memory serves, my own country (Canada) consistently ranks as the #1 country for immigrants to move to (in terms of immigrant services, quality of life, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 24, 2013 9:37:47 GMT -5
. . . Incidentally, and if memory serves, my own country (Canada) consistently ranks as the #1 country for immigrants to move to (in terms of immigrant services, quality of life, etc.). Probably mostly Americans.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 24, 2013 9:43:45 GMT -5
Pretty much generally agree with your comments, Panther. But I will add, re the breakdown of the black family structure, while it certainly has roots in the racism of the 18th, 19th and 20th century, its interesting to note that this is a relatively modern phenomenon. As recently as the 1950s, 80 percent of blacks were raised in two-parent households. More than ever we need to examine what happened over the last 50 years to cause the near complete collapse of the black family. So, what do you think happened in the last 50 years if it wasn't racism?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 24, 2013 10:09:21 GMT -5
. . . Needless to say, poverty itself is almost universally the #1 determiner of crime. People in poverty will commit more crimes. People with enough money commit less. Doesn't take a Ph.D. sociologist to figure that out. . . . But, boy when individual or "gangs" of rich people do commit crimes they sure do hurt A LOT more people. As to your point about poverty, just this week the results of a 25 year study found that “Poverty is a more powerful influence on the outcome of inner-city children than gestational exposure to cocaine.” In other words, all those fears of crack babies was misplaced. The fears should have been directed to the effects of economics on them, rather than the effects of the drugs, for which there were little to no effects.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 24, 2013 14:30:43 GMT -5
Slavery is still legal today all over the world including parts of Africa. Slavery certainly exists today, as ever, but to say it's "legal... all over the world" would be a huge exaggeration. Is there in fact any modern nation-state where slavery is, by definition, legal?? I'm not sure how wide-spread slavery is, but I think its a lot more prevalent than most people realize. Human trafficking and all that. And I would consider children forced to work grueling hours in sweatshops as a form of slavery, and there are an estimated 250 million children (ages 5-14) in developing nations working in sweat shops ( www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/11-facts-about-sweatshops ). I don't have to look any farther than across the Bay to the asian massage parlars in San Francisco. A large number of the "masseuses" were bought and sold as children and shipped all across the world as human chattel.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 24, 2013 14:36:36 GMT -5
[ Its an odd notion considering that America is the number one destination of choice for people of all races around the world. I've heard a lot of Americans say this, but I'm not sure it's true. What is that belief based on? The one indisputable fact is that the USA takes in the most sheer number of immigrants per year. Yeah, I'm going by the sheer numbers. America has absorbed more immigrants over the last 40 years than any nation in human history. With millions more waiting in line for their chance to get in here. (In a related aside, I was just reading an article the other day where they sited a survey that maintained the number one option for any Chinese family with the means to do it was to send their children to America to go to college.)
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 24, 2013 14:44:29 GMT -5
Pretty much generally agree with your comments, Panther. But I will add, re the breakdown of the black family structure, while it certainly has roots in the racism of the 18th, 19th and 20th century, its interesting to note that this is a relatively modern phenomenon. As recently as the 1950s, 80 percent of blacks were raised in two-parent households. More than ever we need to examine what happened over the last 50 years to cause the near complete collapse of the black family. So, what do you think happened in the last 50 years if it wasn't racism? Well, if "racism" is the primary reason for the collapse of the black family structure then why was it fairly intact 50 years ago? Certainly there was more systematic racism in America back then. I wish I knew the answer, Sayne. Some people, ironically, blame Lyndon Johnson's Great Society welfare programs. For one thing, single mothers recieved signifigantly higher welfare benefits than those who were married. This discouraged many black couples from becoming legally married. Another factor is the general breakdown of the American family structure across the boards. In the 1950s, around 95% of whites were raised in two-parent households. And now I think its down to about 70%. I also think the drug epidemic that swept through the inner cities over the last 50 years was a signifigant factor. Adding an incredible level of social disorder.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 24, 2013 14:52:51 GMT -5
. . . Needless to say, poverty itself is almost universally the #1 determiner of crime. People in poverty will commit more crimes. People with enough money commit less. Doesn't take a Ph.D. sociologist to figure that out. . . . But, boy when individual or "gangs" of rich people do commit crimes they sure do hurt A LOT more people. As to your point about poverty, just this week the results of a 25 year study found that “Poverty is a more powerful influence on the outcome of inner-city children than gestational exposure to cocaine.” In other words, all those fears of crack babies was misplaced. The fears should have been directed to the effects of economics on them, rather than the effects of the drugs, for which there were little to no effects. Well, again, poverty is certainly a factor. But if its the primary factor in explaining the black crime rate then how come latinos (who are on the same basic economic level as blacks) have a signifigantly lower crime rate? Obviously there are other factors. As for the crimes of "rich people" and white collar crime and all that, that's certainly a valid subject for discussion. But irrelevant to the subject at hand, which was street crime. Which gets me back to my original point: If a certain demographic is committing violent crimes at 4 times the rate of the rest of society, it just seems like common sense to be 4 times as suspicious of them.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 24, 2013 14:54:13 GMT -5
As interesting as I find this subject, I'm willing to let it drop because Steve asked us to get back to the Rolling Stone cover. The only reason I responded was because several people specifically asked me questions.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 26, 2013 14:44:33 GMT -5
Wow, I genuinely did not see this Thread until this very moment! I think RS was trying to yank some chains but this photo has been shown elsewhere so it is out of the bottle although perhaps not quite in the context of a RS cover. I am horrified at that bastard's act, I am appalled that there are women in this country who are groupies to him but I also take comfort knowing that this chickenshit was so quick to escape he ran over his own hero brother in an automobile probably killing that jihadist and he must live with that forever because obviously he cares not one bit about the victims. BTW, has anyone ever seen such an evil, wicked hag as this guy's mother?!
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 26, 2013 22:15:13 GMT -5
. . . BTW, has anyone ever seen such an evil, wicked hag as this guy's mother?! I really dislike it when some guy, usually it's a guy, does something heinous and they interview the mother and the first thing out of her mouth is "He's a good boy." Errrr! Tsarvaev's uncle, though, was refreshing to hear.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 26, 2013 23:19:37 GMT -5
Oh yeah that mother is just repulsive. And the older brother . . . Everytime i see a photo of that smug, self righteous face . . Coming to our country.taking our welfare, our schools, our housing. . . And contributing nothing. And then attacking us. How could America have even sunk to the level where we allow low lifes like that to come here in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 27, 2013 13:14:13 GMT -5
. . . BTW, has anyone ever seen such an evil, wicked hag as this guy's mother?! I really dislike it when some guy, usually it's a guy, does something heinous and they interview the mother and the first thing out of her mouth is "He's a good boy." Errrr! Tsarvaev's uncle, though, was refreshing to hear. That guy was great! "They're losers, they're losers! They know nothing about Islam. They're just losers!" The Uncle has a nice house, living here has been a blessing to him and his family and I wish him well. I am afraid his life will change not for the better because of his blood ties to those two but his initial reaction was enough that should convince his neighbors to leave him alone and admire his honesty to speak against family.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 1, 2013 17:02:46 GMT -5
I just saw a news item that the issue sold double the average issue from 2012. So much for buying it because it may be a rarity one day. I bet Rolling Stone wishes Walmart would boycott more issues.
|
|