Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Blacks struggle with 72 percent unwed mothers rate
ap.org ^ | November 6, 2010 | Jesse Washington

Posted on 11/06/2010 10:53:29 AM PDT by MamaDearest

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-159 last
To: aruanan

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


151 posted on 11/08/2010 4:59:43 PM PST by wardaddy (diversity is only good if you are young and unmarried and chasing women)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: MamaDearest
I personally know of a few young women....a couple white...that have 2-4 kids from different fathers...and a brown girl that has 3 kids from 2 fathers...and none of them are married.

It's an epidemic in all colors.....but of course more so in the black community.

152 posted on 11/08/2010 5:04:45 PM PST by Osage Orange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

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.


153 posted on 11/09/2010 1:22:54 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
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).

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. Before that, much of what passed for an analysis of slavery focussed on anecdotes and personal narratives, especially very biased and polemically-driven anecdotes (even inventions) by abolitionists who, because their cause was just, felt they were able to say whatever they needed to regardless of its veracity because the cause required it.
154 posted on 11/09/2010 5:05:28 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

“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.


155 posted on 11/09/2010 5:49:13 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
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.

They were relying on a whole lot more than "social data" to make the economic analysis. As Fogel pointed out, such an analysis prior to the latter half of the 20th century was impossible because of the lack of sufficient computing power as well as the fact that certain sources of data had not yet been fully accessed.
156 posted on 11/09/2010 6:31:03 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
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.

Also, a strong support of the view of slave family life in the United States South is found in the comparison of slave imports to the U.S. versus to the Caribbean and to South America. There was relatively little reproduction going on in the Caribbean and South America due to a number of conditions including deliberately trying to disrupt the formation of families and much harsher conditions leading to a decrease in pregnancy (or the desire to carry the baby to term) and, thus, a need to continually import slaves to replace those that died. In the United States, though, most of the growth in the number of slaves was due not to continued importing of slaves but to those born to slave families. This was due to the fostering of monogamous, stable families. There were, of course, the lurid tales spread by abolitionists of slave breeding farms for which there is, outside of their tracts, no evidence.
157 posted on 11/09/2010 6:38:20 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
"In the United States, though, most of the growth in the number of slaves was due not to continued importing of slaves but to those born to slave families. This was due to the fostering of monogamous, stable families."

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.

158 posted on 11/10/2010 12:36:24 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

“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.


159 posted on 11/10/2010 12:44:33 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-159 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson