Skip to comments.Blacks struggle with 72 percent unwed mothers rate
Posted on 11/06/2010 10:53:29 AM PDT by MamaDearest
click here to read article
I;m actually on SSD and stamps right now and building my own business. I had a total meltdown some time ago. I didn’t choose to have a meltdown and I’m not screwing around and popping out illegitimate kids.
Treason, the dictatorship of the proletariat, "1984", conspiracy........
Not massive single conspiracy, but a plethora of little conspiracy's..
<<- Cloward-Piven, Saul Alinsky tactics with Rules for Radicals,
hidden also are covert PROGRESSIVE REPUBLICANS or Big government republicans,
Many things are hidden most of which is not really known but suspected..
Because Obama is a Post Turtle..
my question and guesses...were as to why?
and btw...having lived in black culture from Mississippi to Haiti to Sierra Leone to Jamaica and other “black” nations...it's an issue worldwide
folks here ascribe welfare to remove blame
when conservatives do that we are no different than the left are we
but still...why does the nuclear family not take hold the same?
i think the reasons are old and inherent from many many years of cultural isolation from before coming here
“i think the reasons are old and inherent from many many years of cultural isolation from before coming here”
Yes - the big migration of blacks from the south to the mid-west and northeast after WWII WAS (statistically in the majority) from the most culturally isolated segments of southern blacks; those already least assimilated into even the successful segments of their own demographic in the south.
CULTURE. I believe, IS the biggest factor - not genetics.
Yes, in many parts of the world culture is as “inherited” as is the physical genetics, but I believe culture is even stronger than genetics.
Why? Because I have known TOO many individuals in too many segments of the American “black” population, both “African-American” and immigrants, and children of immigrants from Africa WHERE the cultural influences that contribute to large scale single-parent households were rejected. They rejected them because their inherited culture, from their families, strongly rejected them. I can’t believe that they have vastly different “genes”, physically, than their fellow blacks.
Even in this vast country, there may be a very generalized national culture, but the most influential cultural influences are those closest to us, those that most dominate our family, friends and peers. Those influences, for good or ill, can, in the extreme “isolate” us in the sense that they may not match some dominate norm.
And, yes, particularly in the case of an island nation, an isolated and dominate “bad” culture can become a self-perpetuating nightmare. What I have found, in my New York experience, is that the best Haitians have always left if they can (which, necessary for their own salvation or not, left fewer influences for change “back home”).
“Whereas plantation owners strongly encouraged marriage and monogamy amongst slaves because it lessened troubles and brought social stability”
Plantation owners did as you say only so as far as it served their interest and just as often broke families up because it, financially, served their interest - selling husbands, wives and children with equal regularity, if and when doing so served their - the plantation owners - needs.
You can’t make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
Also, correlation is not causation. LBJ and his welfare programs did not, on their own, create the rise in unwed mothers among blacks. It was already beginning to do that before his programs. The problem with his programs were they did not help, they made things worse; the incentivized single-parent female headed households and failed to do the opposite. They subsidized a bad situation, which propagated the culture of it to the next, and the next, and the next generation. We tried to start to correct it in the 1990s with welfare reform, but culture is stronger even than economics and the bad attitudes continue to prevail among too many.
This is a job for the churches more so than the economists and politicians.
the illegitimacy rates between whites and blacks prior to the Great Society were nowhere near the same...there was a huge disparity
in 1963 per US Dept of Labor...PRIOR to the welfare programs we now know
white rate was 3 percent and the black rate was 23 percent
that means the black rate prior to welfare was already EIGHT TIMES that of whites
Welfare made it worse for both but the black rate since then has merely tripled while the white rate has gone up 9 fold
I will never understand why so many conservatives always look for someone to blame for black woes besides blacks themselves...we sure don’t do that for whites.
Do we blame the 9 fold increase in illegitimacy for whites since Great Society on welfare or have whites done it to themselves?
genes and culture present the chicken egg argument
hell if I know
I also think Christianity and Judaism fostered nuclear family concept...but not exclusively
I’m not sure what other cultures reject nuclear families historically but I’m sure Sub Saharan tribal types are not the only ones
who knows...as I recall from being there...there was not the black middle class then as now
that is one improvement race wise since then...not that they vote very well even if richer
that was another myth from then now being played out as a latino myth too
“they get richer, they will get more conservative”
not really looking back over 45 years now
It's an epidemic in all colors.....but of course more so in the black community.
Believe me, I’ve read “Time On The Cross”; I’ve also read it’s major critics and many others historians.
It’s primarily an economic treatise and its social analysis of how slave families were actually impacted, is given too much small anecdotal evidence, too little hard data and both used only (no matter how weak that social data was) to support the economic treatise (keeping slave families together was better economically). It’s a rational economic theory, but like the best critics of Time On The Cross and other historians who have written on the subject, it (how slave families were actually impacted) (and how that is depicted in Time On The Cross) is more theory than evidence.
“Actually, it’s one of the first economic analyses of slavery that was able to use very large amounts of data that had never before been available or used in such a fashion.”
Yes, it includes more economic data and economic analysis than previous researchers had done. Everyone accepts that.
But its social data IS much more anecdotal, and not very robust statistically. The amount of social data they do present is in fact NOT sufficient to make that claim - social conditions (the slaves family life) - on its own.
Which suggests that what social data that is presented, while insufficient as a social study, is there simply to buttress the authors claims as to the economics they present as fostering the social conditions THEY SAY predominated.
While many researches appreciate the economic argument and the data used for it (whether or not they agree on the final analysis), most do not accept the authors opinions on the social conditions - the slaves family life - do not accept that the authors research supported THOSE types of claims.
Your claim is (1) very relative to different periods of time before slavery was totally outlawed and (2) as far as the birth rates are known, the factual data can only be for certain shown to be "those born to" female slaves, which does not certify that it was, by any data-certain percent, to "slave families". Your "monogamous, stable families" claim is more conjecture than data-supported.
“They were relying on a whole lot more than “social data” to make the economic analysis.”
EXACTLY, and therefor their economic analysis, while substantial in economic terms, does not stand as proof of any claims they made about “stable monogamous slave families”. That claim is more their own projection of a social result they BELIEVE occurred due the economics as they saw it, but it is not founded, in research data, on social data that backs it up, with sufficient credibility. Its a claim based on economics and how they BELIEVE economics shaped such institutions as the slave family. They should have stuck to the economics alone and not ventured outside of areas where they had sufficient and credible supporting data.