NationStates Jolt Archive

In recent threads (and old threads), some have questioned whether blacks are still disadvantaged in America. Some have even gone so far as to claim blacks are more privileged than whites.

Let me commit the cardinal sin of asking you to look at some facts:

African American men are more than twice as likely to be unemployed as white males and make only 75 percent as much a year. They’re nearly seven times more likely to be incarcerated, and their average jail sentences are 10 months longer than those of white men. In addition, young black males between the ages of 15 and 34 years are nine times more likely to die of homicide than their white counterparts and nearly seven times as likely to suffer from AIDS.


In terms of annual median income, black men earned less than three-quarters of what white men earned ($34,443 vs. $46,807), roughly a $12,000 gap. Black women made 87 percent of what white women made and $5,000 less than black men ($29,588 a year).


Further evidence of discrimination comes from more complex and detailed comparisons of earnings of blacks and whites, or males and females. Even after adjusting for characteristics that affect earnings (such as years of education and work experience), these studies typically find that blacks and women are paid less than their white male counterparts.


Unemployment was highest among black men – 9.5 percent compared to 4.0 percent for white men – a 5.5 percentage point gap. Black women experienced an unemployment rate of 8.5 percent, 4.4 percentage points above the 4.1 percent of their white counterparts.


Poverty, much like unemployment, also tends to affect blacks, especially those under 18, at a higher rate than whites; nearly 25 percent live below the poverty line, three times the percentage of whites. Of blacks under 18, 33.5 percent lived in poverty compared to 10 percent of white youths.


Homeownership among blacks is substantially lower than among whites (47.9 percent compared to 75.8 percent) and they’re three times more likely to get high-priced mortgage loans (54.7 percent of blacks vs. 17.2 percent of whites).


Blatant discrimination is a continuing problem in the labor market. Perhaps the most convincing evidence comes from "audit" studies, in which white and minority (or male and female) job seekers are given similar resumes and sent to the same set of firms to apply for a job. These studies often find that employers are less likely to interview or offer a job to minority applicants and to female applicants.


In 1995, white males held 97 percent of senior management positions in Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service industries. Only 0.6 percent of senior management were African American, 0.3 percent are Asian and 0.4 percent are Hispanic. Little change has occurred in these numbers since 1995.


In 1995, African Americans held only 2.5 percent of top jobs in the private sector and African American men with professional degrees earned only 79 percent of the amount earned by their white counterparts. Comparably situated African American women earned only 60 percent of the amount earned by white males. Little change has occurred in these numbers since 1995.


Some sources:
National Urban League’s THE STATE OF BLACK AMERICA 2007 (Executive Summary, pdf) (http://www.nul.org/publications/SOBA/Executive%20Summary/2007SOBAEXCSUMMARY.pdf)
Affirmative Action Review: Report to the President (1995) (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa04.html)
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Job Patterns For Minorities And Women In Private Industry (http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/jobpat/jobpat.html)
Census report: Broad racial disparities persist (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15704759/)
Poverty trends by race (http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/povrace.html)

In 1995, white males held 97 percent of senior management positions in Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service industries. Only 0.6 percent of senior management were African American, 0.3 percent are Asian and 0.4 percent are Hispanic. Little change has occurred in these numbers since 1995.
IMO, this is probably the root cause of all the other differences in the business sector.

IMO, this is probably the root cause of all the other differences in the business sector.
I'd argue that it's education, or the lack of it, that is the root cause of most economic differences. Speaking of which, how do black and white compare in same-sex, same job categories, rather than just overall averages? I suspect that among male software engineers, for instance, there is much more parity than the gross averages indicate.

It is silly to believe that everyone is equal in America. I mean, things are no where near as bad as the 50's and there have been HUGE amounts of progress! People loose their jobs for racist remarks now, but a lot of the people who run the country (old white dudes) were raised in different times. I think as the younger generations move into their positions, things will progress only more towards equality.

In short, the U.S. has come a long way towards equality, but still has a lot of work to do.

In short, the U.S. has come a long way towards equality, but still has a lot of work to do.

As does almost every other developed nation. The United States is not the only country with disenfranchised citizens of a certain race.

I'd argue that it's education, or the lack of it, that is the root cause of most economic differences. Speaking of which, how do black and white compare in same-sex, same job categories, rather than just overall averages? I suspect that among male software engineers, for instance, there is much more parity than the gross averages indicate.

Education tends to be my take on it too. However, if these "audit" studies are any real indication, it's not just about education level. It seems to imply real discrimination based on race, as the candidates were sent to the same companies with the same general resumes.

Blatant discrimination is a continuing problem in the labor market. Perhaps the most convincing evidence comes from "audit" studies, in which white and minority (or male and female) job seekers are given similar resumes and sent to the same set of firms to apply for a job. These studies often find that employers are less likely to interview or offer a job to minority applicants and to female applicants.
Of all your points, this is the only one that offers evidence of discrimination, and it only does qualitatively by relying on the word "often". It could be less often than not, but we can't tell because you haven't said.

I'm sure you can do better than that.

Of all your points, this is the only one that offers evidence of discrimination, and it only does qualitatively by relying on the word "often". It could be less often than not, but we can't tell because you haven't said.

I'm sure you can do better than that.

In all fairness, the OP used the term 'disadvantaged', and was disputing the claim that blacks were more priveleged than whites. These are stats showing massive disparities based on race, and backed up with numerous sources.

I guess it comes down to what you consider to be 'advantaged'. The figure of 97% white senior management in Fortune 1000 companies is particularly telling. One could only blame such numbers on 'lack of effort' on the part of black Americans for so long.

Socio-economic background and education are the key factors here, but it's hard to deny that minorities fight an uphill battle against silent discrimination. Hopefully time will wear away at this. Hard to say.

My opinion is that it is Blacks that are largely responsible for keeping themselves down in this day and age. Anytime a large group of people play into being the victim they tend not to try and pull themselves up. I'm not saying this for all blacks because there is a good part out there that are doing something with their lives and living the American dream.

As does almost every other developed nation. The United States is not the only country with disenfranchised citizens of a certain race.

Agreed, as one that has travelled to many nations including South Africa during apartheid. The United States for all it's problems is a leader in equal rights. Of course we still have work to do but overall the US at or near the top of the list.

The fact that more blacks have gone to prison than college or the military doesn't help, that's for sure.

(Still the case, according to this:

http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=4393 )

That there's a problem is obvious enough...

MidWest Academic Talent Search regonal award ceremony, for scores on the SAT and ACT (http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/Dragonkirby/Non-Kirby/Photos/DSC00374.jpg)
Me! Black kid, with black family. Note asians to the right, whites to the left, and Indians behind. That's what the rest of the room looks like. (http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/Dragonkirby/Non-Kirby/Photos/DSC00375.jpg)
Can't you just see them think 'He doesn't look asian...'? (http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/Dragonkirby/Non-Kirby/Photos/DSC00377.jpg)
200 kids, and I stick out like a chocolate-coated thumb.

As to why, I blame parents. That's how I see it, no one knows anything though.

In all fairness, the OP used the term 'disadvantaged', and was disputing the claim that blacks were more priveleged than whites. These are stats showing massive disparities based on race, and backed up with numerous sources.

I guess it comes down to what you consider to be 'advantaged'. The figure of 97% white senior management in Fortune 1000 companies is particularly telling. One could only blame such numbers on 'lack of effort' on the part of black Americans for so long.

Socio-economic background and education are the key factors here, but it's hard to deny that minorities fight an uphill battle against silent discrimination. Hopefully time will wear away at this. Hard to say.
I'm hardly going to have sympathy for their high crime rate. That's probably impacting those number significantly. All the black people in prison drag down the average annual salary figures quite a bit, I suspect.

That there's a problem is obvious enough...

MidWest Academic Talent Search regonal award ceremony, for scores on the SAT and ACT (http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/Dragonkirby/Non-Kirby/Photos/DSC00374.jpg)
Me! Black kid, with black family. Note asians to the right, whites to the left, and Indians behind. That's what the rest of the room looks like. (http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/Dragonkirby/Non-Kirby/Photos/DSC00375.jpg)
Can't you just see them think 'He doesn't look asian...'? (http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/Dragonkirby/Non-Kirby/Photos/DSC00377.jpg)
200 kids, and I stick out like a chocolate-coated thumb.

As to why, I blame parents. That's how I see it, no one knows anything though.What'd you get on your ACT and SAT if you don't mind me asking?

I'm hardly going to have sympathy for their high crime rate. That's probably impacting those number significantly. All the black people in prison drag down the average annual salary figures quite a bit, I suspect.

More an issue of economics and drug culture than anything else. That there is a larger amount of blacks born into poverty increases the likelihood that blacks will be involved in criminal behaviour. That, and discrimination in the justice system that targets blacks more often, and sentences them harder than whites for similar crimes. (A good argument for a switch to your vision of a civil law system actually.)

I'm the first person to say that personal responsibility comes first, but historically minorities have bigger hills to climb.

ahhh...dont get me started on this...ill only get forum banned again...nice on for the post though cat tribe...perhaps those who are 'Ignorant' of the facts might be a little enlightened now

That there's a problem is obvious enough...

MidWest Academic Talent Search regonal award ceremony, for scores on the SAT and ACT (http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/Dragonkirby/Non-Kirby/Photos/DSC00374.jpg)
Me! Black kid, with black family. Note asians to the right, whites to the left, and Indians behind. That's what the rest of the room looks like. (http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/Dragonkirby/Non-Kirby/Photos/DSC00375.jpg)
Can't you just see them think 'He doesn't look asian...'? (http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/Dragonkirby/Non-Kirby/Photos/DSC00377.jpg)
200 kids, and I stick out like a chocolate-coated thumb.

As to why, I blame parents. That's how I see it, no one knows anything though.


you really dont look asian.

lol

there is more than enough blame to go around eh? there are bad or lazy or undereducated or time-hampered parents. there are peers who diss kids for academic achievement. there are teachers who tell kids they are stupid. there are employers who assume that the black kid wont do a good job. there are kids who succumb to temptation and end up in jail, on drugs or parents at way too young an age. there is a society that suggests that if you are going to put in that much effort, its better spent in sports or rap music. and there is a society that never notices the academic and economic success stories of african americans leaving us with the impression that all blacks are failures.

i must have left out some...

I'd argue that it's education, or the lack of it, that is the root cause of most economic differences.

And race plays no role in the education, or the lack of it, that people receive?

Or what was your point?

Regardless, education does play a role as explained at length in the report by the Urban Institute. But race plays a factor in what education you are likely to recieve.

Speaking of which, how do black and white compare in same-sex, same job categories, rather than just overall averages? I suspect that among male software engineers, for instance, there is much more parity than the gross averages indicate.

You'll have to dig into the evidence yourself if you want something that specific.

I did include this point:

Further evidence of discrimination comes from more complex and detailed comparisons of earnings of blacks and whites, or males and females. Even after adjusting for characteristics that affect earnings (such as years of education and work experience), these studies typically find that blacks and women are paid less than their white male counterparts.

Of all your points, this is the only one that offers evidence of discrimination, and it only does qualitatively by relying on the word "often". It could be less often than not, but we can't tell because you haven't said.

I'm sure you can do better than that.

As has already been pointed out to you, my point was not evidence of discrimination, but rather evidence of disadvantage.

Nonetheless, it is rather telling that someone could look at all of the indicators I mentioned and, especially given the history of this country, blithely claim there is no evidence there of discrimination. It is at least a fair inference.

If you wish, substitute the word "usually" or "generally" for the word "often." I wasn't trying to play word games.

I'd argue that it's education, or the lack of it, that is the root cause of most economic differences.
How do you get "an education?" More often than not, a combination of your and your parents' money.

How do you and your parents get money? Most of the time, by working for white dudes.

My opinion is that it is Blacks that are largely responsible for keeping themselves down in this day and age. Anytime a large group of people play into being the victim they tend not to try and pull themselves up. I'm not saying this for all blacks because there is a good part out there that are doing something with their lives and living the American dream.

Cute. We had legal segregation within the lifetime of many Americans, but things are all fine and dandy now if the blacks would just try harder?

Did you not catch the part about studies that show blatant discrimination?

You, Llewdor, and Myrmidonisia are welcome to do your own research on audit studies and testing. Here (http://www.urban.org/publications/308024.html) is a start.

Oh, no, the evil white man is putting the black brothers down! BLACK POWER!

[/stupid Black Panther crap]

They aren't claiming that black people still aren't out of the rut of poverty. That's going to take a long time. People are claiming that a minorities have their freedom of speech better than white people do.

Minorities can generally say stuff that white people aren't allowed to. Minorites can generally say jokes whites are allowed to.
And blacks can say "Black power!" but the connotation when whites say "White power!"?

Tell me that isn't fair.

Oh, no, the evil white man is putting the black brothers down! BLACK POWER!

[/stupid Black Panther crap]

Did I mistate any facts? Do the facts lie?

They aren't claiming that black people still aren't out of the rut of poverty. That's going to take a long time. People are claiming that a minorities have their freedom of speech better than white people do.

Minorities can generally say stuff that white people aren't allowed to. Minorites can generally say jokes whites are allowed to.
And blacks can say "Black power!" but the connotation when whites say "White power!"?

Tell me that isn't fair.

*sigh*

I'll steal an idea from D.L. Hughley: blacks would be glad to trade -- they can run the world and you can say "******" all you want. They'll even throw in sickle-cell anemia. Do we have a deal?

Oh, no, the evil white man is putting the black brothers down! BLACK POWER!

[/stupid Black Panther crap]

They aren't claiming that black people still aren't out of the rut of poverty. That's going to take a long time. People are claiming that a minorities have their freedom of speech better than white people do.

Minorities can generally say stuff that white people aren't allowed to. Minorites can generally say jokes whites are allowed to.
And blacks can say "Black power!" but the connotation when whites say "White power!"?

Tell me that isn't fair.

id tell you that its a ridiculous thing to be upset over but im weeping uncontrollably over the unfairness of it all

[/sarcasm]

I'm hardly going to have sympathy for their high crime rate. That's probably impacting those number significantly. All the black people in prison drag down the average annual salary figures quite a bit, I suspect.

I suspect you are wrong. In fact, I know it. The annual salary figures are from the Census and compare working people to working people. Those in prison aren't counted.

It must be nice to tell yourself that these figures are all due to a high crime rate and not the other way around.

Oh, no, the evil white man is putting the black brothers down! BLACK POWER!

[/stupid Black Panther crap]

They aren't claiming that black people still aren't out of the rut of poverty. That's going to take a long time. People are claiming that a minorities have their freedom of speech better than white people do.

Minorities can generally say stuff that white people aren't allowed to. Minorites can generally say jokes whites are allowed to.
And blacks can say "Black power!" but the connotation when whites say "White power!"?

Tell me that isn't fair.

Hmm... let me see.... be part of the group that has a statistically much higher chance of incarceration and low income earnings and be able to use phrases symbolizing their struggle to break that cycle

OR

be part of a group that has a lesser chance of incarceration and a much higher chance of high income earnings, and lose respect when you use phrases that have connotations of racial superiority.

Yeah, we poor white folks is sure havin it bad.

... I wonder why Hawaii is missing from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: 2005 State Aggregate Report (http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/jobpat/2005/state/index.html)?

... I wonder why Hawaii is missing from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: 2005 State Aggregate Report (http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/jobpat/2005/state/index.html)?

oh

didnt we tell you?

no one wanted to alter the flag but the district of columbia wanted to be a state.

you were demoted to "wicked cool territory"

sorry about that.

the fact that all this research has been done to show how poorly a certain group of people are faring is discrimination in itself. are they insinuating that black people require...extra help, whereas white people don't? blasphemy!

oh

didnt we tell you?

no one wanted to alter the flag but the district of columbia wanted to be a state.

you were demoted to "wicked cool territory"

sorry about that.

DAMMIT! why wasn't I told! :mad:

as a territory, we would then pay less taxes! :p

Oh, no, the evil white man is putting the black brothers down! BLACK POWER!

[/stupid Black Panther crap]

They aren't claiming that black people still aren't out of the rut of poverty. That's going to take a long time. People are claiming that a minorities have their freedom of speech better than white people do.

Minorities can generally say stuff that white people aren't allowed to. Minorites can generally say jokes whites are allowed to.
And blacks can say "Black power!" but the connotation when whites say "White power!"?

Tell me that isn't fair.


how, precisely, do you mean "not allowed"?

I'd argue that it's education, or the lack of it, that is the root cause of most economic differences. Speaking of which, how do black and white compare in same-sex, same job categories, rather than just overall averages? I suspect that among male software engineers, for instance, there is much more parity than the gross averages indicate.

It mentions studies that deal with earnings-affectors and says that they "typically" indicate that blacks are paid less.

Even if it is a matter of education, are you implying that blacks are inherently opposed to education?

EDIT: Already said.

Hmm... let me see.... be part of the group that has a statistically much higher chance of incarceration and low income earnings and be able to use phrases symbolizing their struggle to break that cycle


They have the high incarceration rate and low icomes because they're told by the media that these things are the only future for black people.

Because they are told by people like you that whatever amount of blacks is going to be incarcerated, they feel that this is going to happen no matter what, and they just give up.

Instead of whining about it, fudge the results. Start a charity. Every day, go into a black ghetto and convince three people that they can do better than the slum that they are living in. Tell them that they should go into school and learn. That's what I'm told every freakin' day, and I'm a middle class suburban white boy. And you know what? I go to school and learn. To learn, to commit myself to becoming the best I can be.

And don't talk to me about me never having friends who have just given up, quit school, dropped out. It happens more often than you think, all because the kids are told that they cannot do it.

And that is the message we convey to black America. That is the message we convey to all people in poverty. And it's time to freakin' stop.

The fact that more blacks have gone to prison than college or the military doesn't help, that's for sure.

(Still the case, according to this:

http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=4393 )
The unasked question is "why are blacks sentenced to prison more often and for longer terms than whites who commit the same crimes?" And beyond that comparison, how many more whites get better plea deals for the same crime that allow them to avoid jail time in the first place? There's little question that the US justice system isn't colorblind.

DAMMIT! why wasn't I told! :mad:

as a territory, we would then pay less taxes! :p
Actually, you pay more taxes. It cost allot for the USA to protect aide your rogue state, so they bump up your taxes so that the USA can keep its economy strong enough to help you.

They have the high incarceration rate and low icomes because they're told by the media that these things are the only future for black people.

The oldest excuse in the book.

There isn't really any race problem... it's just outside agitators stirring things up.

Blacks, of course, are stupid sheep, and easily manipulated by the self-flagellating white liberal conspiracists.

:rolleyes:

Actually, you pay more taxes. It cost allot for the USA to protect aide your rogue state, so they bump up your taxes so that the USA can keep its economy strong enough to help you.

it depends on the territory.
U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico and Guam pay no federal income tax. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States)

The US had a Naval base here before we became a state. thus the fees for "protection" wouldn't have been that high.

I'd argue that the largest factor of the problem hasn't been mentioned yet. Almost 70% of black children are born out of wedlock.

They have the high incarceration rate and low icomes because they're told by the media that these things are the only future for black people.

Because they are told by people like you that whatever amount of blacks is going to be incarcerated, they feel that this is going to happen no matter what, and they just give up.

Instead of whining about it, fudge the results. Start a charity. Every day, go into a black ghetto and convince three people that they can do better than the slum that they are living in. Tell them that they should go into school and learn. That's what I'm told every freakin' day, and I'm a middle class suburban white boy. And you know what? I go to school and learn. To learn, to commit myself to becoming the best I can be.

And don't talk to me about me never having friends who have just given up, quit school, dropped out. It happens more often than you think, all because the kids are told that they cannot do it.

And that is the message we convey to black America. That is the message we convey to all people in poverty. And it's time to freakin' stop.

If this weren't so sad, it would be laughable.

Ignore the statistical evidence of discrimination and the audit studies proving discrimination. Just go with your own theory that conveniently ignores the evidence and dehumanizes victims of discrimination.

For the record, here are some of the audit studies I am talking about:
Race at work (http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/race_at_work.pdf) (pdf)
Discrimination against racial/ethnic minorities in access to employment in the United States: Empirical findings from situation testing (http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/migrant/papers/usempir/)
Culture, Information, and Screening Discrimination (http://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jpolec/v104y1996i3p542-71.html)
The Use of Field Experiments for Studies of Employment Discrimination: Contributions, Critiques, and Directions for the Future (http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/609/1/104) (pdf)
Discrimination in Low-Wage Labor Markets: Evidence from an Experimental Audit Study in New York City (http://paa2005.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=50874) (pdf)
The Nature and Extent of Discrimination in the Marketplace: Evidence from the Field (http://www.arec.umd.edu/jlist/JLISTQJEDISC.pdf)(pdf)

If anyone finds these studies inadequate, I can link to more.

I'd argue that the largest factor of the problem hasn't been mentioned yet. Almost 70% of black children are born out of wedlock.

Again, ignore the evidence and mistake the cart for the horse.

I'd argue that the largest factor of the problem hasn't been mentioned yet. Almost 70% of black children are born out of wedlock.

A third of all children in the US today are born out of wedlock. Hell, my girlfriend and I are trying to have kids out of wedlock over the next couple of years, so that statistic means less and less every year.

They have the high incarceration rate and low icomes because they're told by the media that these things are the only future for black people.

Ohhh! It's the media... I see. Gotcha. Dan Rather told cops and judges to lean a little heavier on the black folks. Cool.

Because they are told by people like you that whatever amount of blacks is going to be incarcerated, they feel that this is going to happen no matter what, and they just give up.

Instead of whining about it, fudge the results. Start a charity. Every day, go into a black ghetto and convince three people that they can do better than the slum that they are living in. Tell them that they should go into school and learn. That's what I'm told every freakin' day, and I'm a middle class suburban white boy. And you know what? I go to school and learn. To learn, to commit myself to becoming the best I can be.

Instead of pointing out the obvious, bury our heads in the sand? Great solution. So, I'm guessing you think that black people don't go to school to learn, or that many of them don't try hard to suceed? You're going to ignore all the evidence (or possibly 'fudge the results') that despite how hard a minority will try to suceed, they will likely be discriminated against?

Newsflash: It ain't just suburban white kids who try hard in school. I'm sure you'd win lots of friends going into a school of lower-income minorities and telling them 'you can do better than the slum you're living in, if only you'd do your homework, silly black folks'.

And don't talk to me about me never having friends who have just given up, quit school, dropped out. It happens more often than you think, all because the kids are told that they cannot do it.

And that is the message we convey to black America. That is the message we convey to all people in poverty. And it's time to freakin' stop.

The high-school dropouts I've met, didn't drop out because they were told 'you're just not gonna make it kid'.

You're saying that pointing out the obvious, such as people from a minority group or low-income neighbourhoods, keeps those people there. Well, live in your photoshopped 'everything's all right' world if you want. But it's not real.

I'd argue that the largest factor of the problem hasn't been mentioned yet. Almost 70% of black children are born out of wedlock.

Kids born out of wedlock can live completely well adjusted lives. Besides, being born into a "traditional" family increases a child's chances of being a fascist. Have you not seen 1900?

I'd argue that the largest factor of the problem hasn't been mentioned yet. Almost 70% of black children are born out of wedlock.

*blinks*

Dude, it's like the 21st century. Come out of the hills and see what modern civilization has to offer.

Again, ignore the evidence and mistake the cart for the horse.
I don't think I'm ignoring anything... just saying that I don't think workforce discrimination is the biggest factor in the continued depression of African Americans in America. A higher proportion of Blacks are born out of wedlock when compared to America as a whole (70% to about 40%), and while this is not always necessarily a bad thing, combine it with the fact that teenage births are higher in the Black community than America as a whole (17% to 10%).

To quote,

Likewise, black children are more likely to reside in single-parent homes, with either
a never married mother, a previously married parent, or a relative other than their mother or father
(McDaniel, 1994). In fact, the majority of black children will spend a large part of their childhood years
in a single-parent family (Sweet and Bumpass, 1987).
Here (www.prc.utexas.edu/working_papers/wp_pdf/01-02-04.pdf)

The high-school dropouts I've met, didn't drop out because they were told 'you're just not gonna make it kid'. out of curiosity, why did they drop out?

I don't think I'm ignoring anything... just saying that I don't think workforce discrimination is the biggest factor in the continued depression of African Americans in America. A higher proportion of Blacks are born out of wedlock when compared to America as a whole (70% to about 40%), and while this is not always necessarily a bad thing, combine it with the fact that teenage births are higher in the Black community than America as a whole (17% to 10%).



So not having a father around means you're not going to get a good job, and will likely end up in jail. Is that the logic there?

So not having a father around means you're not going to get a good job, and will likely end up in jail. Is that the logic there?
No, but speaking of logic its always fun to put up strawmen.

I'm not saying all people born without one parent or another will end up a failure, the majority will turn out as good or better than those raised in traditional households. There is, though, a statistical correlation (note : not causation) between children being brought up in one-parent households and a lack of educational achievement, along with an increased chance of being involved in crime in some point. The most important variable in analysis of what causes certain children to fare worse than others is almost always found to be household income level, I do not think it is unreasonable to say that unplanned pregnancies, particularly in teenage years, significantly depresses expected, although not always actual, income.

No, but speaking of logic its always fun to put up strawmen.

I'm not saying all people born without one parent or another will end up a failure, the majority will turn out as good or better than those raised in traditional households. There is, though, a statistical correlation (note : not causation) between children being brought up in one-parent households and a lack of educational achievement, along with an increased chance of being involved in crime in some point. The most important variable in analysis of what causes certain children to fare worse than others is almost always found to be household income level, I do not think it is unreasonable to say that unplanned pregnancies, particularly in teenage years, significantly depresses expected, although not always actual, income.

Okay, so then your argument boils down to economics again. Children from lower income families are less likely to succeed. If blacks are continuoulsy subject to quiet discrimination, how do they pull themselves out of this situation? If governments try to alleviate this problem through affirmative action, people think that's unfair.

I have LOTS of friends who came from single-parent homes, and low-income communities. They weren't any more likely to fail or suceed than my friends who had two parents. Not to mention, the '2-income' thing is often there, just not reported. Many 'single-moms' have live-in boyfriends who help pay the bills, which the government is unaware of when they hand out social assisstance.

out of curiosity, why did they drop out?

Several reasons; Just didn't like school, partied too much and ended up having unplanned children, planned to get a job through an apprenticeship and didn't need further education, etc. My point was that they didn't quit because their teachers and society told them they were failures, they quit for their own reasons, usually while teachers were telling them to stay in school.

Okay, so then your argument boils down to economics again. Children from lower income families are less likely to succeed. If blacks are continuoulsy subject to quiet discrimination, how do they pull themselves out of this situation? If governments try to alleviate this problem through affirmative action, people think that's unfair.

It's rather hard for them to pull themselves out of their situation, given that all of these things that contribute to the problem end up creating a vicious cycle. I think the onus is on the government, although not through affirmative action programs, which tend to cause more trouble than they are worth. Improving both public education quality and law enforcement would probably go a long ways farther than affirmative action, although both are tough and expensive things for politicans to do.

It's rather hard for them to pull themselves out of their situation, given that all of these things that contribute to the problem end up creating a vicious cycle. I think the onus is on the government, although not through affirmative action programs, which tend to cause more trouble than they are worth. Improving both public education quality and law enforcement would probably go a long ways farther than affirmative action, although both are tough and expensive things for politicans to do.

How about combating systemic racism in hiring practices? There's a start.

Addressing issues of poverty is the key here. That, and battling the drug culture that supports gangs and intensifies violence. And by drug culture, I don't mean marijuana. (That's one my biggest pet peeves of the ultra-liberal crowd. Supporting marijuana is one thing, anything harder is the source of numerous socio-economic issues, particularly in poorer neighbourhoods.)

All the evidence that discrimination exists is there, in many posts already posited by Cat's tribe. Taking action against that, is the first step towards helping people. We don't need a world with exactly balanced ethnic quotas... we need to break those barriers and make a multi-ethnic workforce common place, and address issues of poverty that isolate whole ethnic groups from the rest of us. Affirmative Action is just one of many possible tools to use in this, but the willful ignorance of people on the issue of discrimination just shows that we have a long way to go.

Several reasons; Just didn't like school, partied too much and ended up having unplanned children, planned to get a job through an apprenticeship and didn't need further education, etc. My point was that they didn't quit because their teachers and society told them they were failures, they quit for their own reasons, usually while teachers were telling them to stay in school.
never said it was. but considering that many points are brought up that the low school attendance/low college entries are focusing on Race...

and assuming that those reasons are mostly what's behind the drop-out rate, wouldn't it also stand to reason that those are also behind the lower pay, higher unemployment?

for example...
Just didn't like school = to an employer, it shows lack of drive. what will make this person stick out his job when he starts to "not like it?" at least staying to get a diploma (even a GED) shows that they can stick it out and do the work.

partied too much and ended up having unplanned children = could tell the employer many things, including but not limited to: 1) lack of planning/forthought (Birth control methods, etc...) 2) lack of education thus lack of skills. 3) an image of being irrisponsible (and this is not centered around any race or ethicitiy.)

planned to get a job through an apprenticeship and didn't need further education = tho their skills at that one job may be superior, their lack of a good base may result in a lost of flexability that may cause their low paying job (this is assuming that their business didn't succeed.) or that they lack the skills to take their business further in an ever-changing world.

while I am not focusing on their ethnicity, since these could happen to anyone, including non-minorities... how does one combat such thinking while focusing on the person's ethnicity? especially the "Partying" and "didn't like school" ok, the pregnancy/with child... I've seen high school students with their child attend classes and their teachers do offer as much support they can give without going overboard.

How does programs that focus on Minorities help when it's the students with that kind of attitude? and why only minorities and not others who may be in the same situation?

as for the high unemployment/Low pay... I would really like to see what people majored in, where they applied and how many did graduate high school/college and with what grade point average.

and not just the few stories, but statistics. Is there any stats like that around?

How about combating systemic racism in hiring practices? There's a start.

Addressing issues of poverty is the key here. That, and battling the drug culture that supports gangs and intensifies violence. And by drug culture, I don't mean marijuana. (That's one my biggest pet peeves of the ultra-liberal crowd. Supporting marijuana is one thing, anything harder is the source of numerous socio-economic issues, particularly in poorer neighbourhoods.)

All the evidence that discrimination exists is there, in many posts already posited by Cat's tribe. Taking action against that, is the first step towards helping people. We don't need a world with exactly balanced ethnic quotas... we need to break those barriers and make a multi-ethnic workforce common place, and address issues of poverty that isolate whole ethnic groups from the rest of us. Affirmative Action is just one of many possible tools to use in this, but the willful ignorance of people on the issue of discrimination just shows that we have a long way to go.and how does one fight it?

Especially when there are those out there willing to play the "Race" card so quickely and at the first hint of percived Racisim.

so far, any plan to remove ethinicity from the normal way of thinking is met with "Burying your head in the sand and ignoring the problem" so if trying to change people's perceptions of what's important in others is that, how do you remove racisim?

African Americans have just as good a chance to go to college and be succesfull but instead they decide to be "gangstas" in da hood. Im not saying that there duymb i'm just saying there making choices which make these numbers worse if they actually tried maybe they would not have as much bad numbers as they do and anyway there always making fun of crackers


AFRICAN AMERICANS RULE!!!!!

they just need to try harder

How about combating systemic racism in hiring practices? There's a start.

Addressing issues of poverty is the key here. That, and battling the drug culture that supports gangs and intensifies violence. And by drug culture, I don't mean marijuana. (That's one my biggest pet peeves of the ultra-liberal crowd. Supporting marijuana is one thing, anything harder is the source of numerous socio-economic issues, particularly in poorer neighbourhoods.)

All the evidence that discrimination exists is there, in many posts already posited by Cat's tribe. Taking action against that, is the first step towards helping people. We don't need a world with exactly balanced ethnic quotas... we need to break those barriers and make a multi-ethnic workforce common place, and address issues of poverty that isolate whole ethnic groups from the rest of us. Affirmative Action is just one of many possible tools to use in this, but the willful ignorance of people on the issue of discrimination just shows that we have a long way to go.
I have hopes--feeble ones, small ones, but hopes nonetheless--that the recent breakthroughs in making genetic ancestry testing might help change viewpoints on race. The more that people discover that they're not as pure as they thought, that their "Cherokee" ancestry is actually African, or that their Irish blood only stopped off in Ireland from Albania or something, maybe they'll stop focusing on appearances as much.

There's not much chance of it, I know, but I hope all the same.

*snip*

I can't speak too much on the ethnic side of the drop-out debate. I've lived in pretty white-bread towns, and most of my friends were white. I was mostly commenting on the idea that people drop out because they are told they just won't succeed, so they may as well give up.

Targeting minorities is important, because we're usually dealing with whole communities that are battling issues of poverty, gang-violence, etc., but that still doesn't address the issue of the employer who turns down the black applicant because they'd sooner hire the white aplicant. Naturally, we aren't going to send a social worker into a private shool to deal with one student because they are black. So, yes, we need to address the issues of low-income communities regardless of race/ethnicity, but that doesn't mean the issue of systemic racism isn't there.

I can't speak too much on the ethnic side of the drop-out debate. I've lived in pretty white-bread towns, and most of my friends were white. I was mostly commenting on the idea that people drop out because they are told they just won't suceed, so they may as well give up.the problem is, tho. such... discouragement isn't coming from the Teachers, but those outside of school. friends who did drop out, sometimes family, sometimes punks who want someone to control. and that's all over.

Targeting minorities is important, because we're usually dealing with whole communities that are battling issues of poverty, gang-violence, etc., but Poverty, Gang-violence, etc isn't just minorities, it's the community. and while we're focusing on that, how does targeting minorities help the community? shouldn't it be targetting the community? getting the gangs to be less destructive and more constructive, getting people to care about their community... that shouldn't be a race issue, but an issue in community spirit and pride.

but that still doesn't address the issue of the employer who turns down the black applicant because they'd sooner hire the white applicant. and how can you tell that the employer is hiring due to race and not to skills or even chance? just because he flipped a coin and it so happens to be the whiteman, does that make him more racist than if he chose the black man because he was black over the white man?

Naturally, we aren't going to send a social worker into a private shool to deal with one student because they are black. So, yes, we need to address the issues of low-income communities regardless of race/ethnicity, but that doesn't mean the issue of systemic racism isn't there.so what if we did address the issue of Low-Income communities reguardless of Race/Ethnicity. Wouldn't that, be a better way to fight and remove any racism that is hiding under the issues? Especially when everyone in that Low-Income community is being helped reguardless of their ethinicity.

the problem is, tho. such... discouragement isn't coming from the Teachers, but those outside of school. friends who did drop out, sometimes family, sometimes punks who want someone to control. and that's all over.

but Poverty, Gang-violence, etc isn't just minorities, it's the community. and while we're focusing on that, how does targeting minorities help the community? shouldn't it be targetting the community? getting the gangs to be less destructive and more constructive, getting people to care about their community... that shouldn't be a race issue, but an issue in community spirit and pride.

and how can you tell that the employer is hiring due to race and not to skills or even chance? just because he flipped a coin and it so happens to be the whiteman, does that make him more racist than if he chose the black man because he was black over the white man?

so what if we did address the issue of Low-Income communities reguardless of Race/Ethnicity. Wouldn't that, be a better way to fight and remove any racism that is hiding under the issues? Especially when everyone in that Low-Income community is being helped reguardless of their ethinicity.

I'm generally in favour of trying to help out everyone on the low end of the wage scale. But even addressing the issues of gang-violence, and keeping kids in school, etc, won't change the fact that all the senior execs in the Fortune 1000 companies are white. I used to share the 'color-blind' approach to combating racism too, but I don't think it works.

Consider this: France has had an officially blind cultural/workplace culture for decades. France simply would not address the issue of race. Meanwhile, young muslim men were continually passed over by hiring firms when people would spot a resume with a muslim name. Surprise, surprise, France ended up with whole communities of disenfranchised muslims that were told to get a job... except no one would hire them. Big surprise they rioted.

Ach... I'm too tired for this. Way past my bedtime. It's nice to have a meatier thread to sink my teeth into though. 'Night all!

I'm generally in favour of trying to help out everyone on the low end of the wage scale. But even addressing the issues of gang-violence, and keeping kids in school, etc, won't change the fact that all the senior execs in the Fortune 1000 companies are white. I used to share the 'color-blind' approach to combating racism too, but I don't think it works.

Consider this: France has had an officially blind cultural/workplace culture for decades. France simply would not address the issue of race. Meanwhile, young muslim men were continually passed over by hiring firms when people would spot a resume with a muslim name. Surprise, surprise, France ended up with whole communities of disenfranchised muslims that were told to get a job... except no one would hire them. Big surprise they rioted.

Ach... I'm too tired for this. Way past my bedtime. It's nice to have a meatier thread to sink my teeth into though. 'Night all!now consider this.

you have a community of disenfranchised people. Instead of telling them "Get a Job" you have programs to help them "Get that job" say, on-the-job training w/ minimum wage with businesses in exchange for tax breaks or other benefits. That training is then added to their work experience giving them an edge in getting better jobs. Not to mention that their training can be used to get them a permament posistion in the company that is training them.

you have similar tax brakes and other incentives for businesses to assist in the restructuring and rebuilding of their communities. say cleaning up the streets, programs to turn destructive gangs into constructive ones. tougher police force and neighborhood watch to get those drug dealers and criminal punks out of the neighborhood and centers to get the drug addicts off of the drugs (and it could even be tied in with the Job training program.)

Possible outcome: you have a community of people that realize that they can take control of their lives. they have the confidence to reach for bigger and better goals, and hopefully, you have a community that sees its members as neighbors in a community and not members of so-and-so ethnicity.

now. In the case of France. what programs did they have in place to assist those young Muslims and their employment problems?


Night Mikesburg. I've enjoyed this chat so far. :cool:

I'm generally in favour of trying to help out everyone on the low end of the wage scale. But even addressing the issues of gang-violence, and keeping kids in school, etc, won't change the fact that all the senior execs in the Fortune 1000 companies are white. I used to share the 'color-blind' approach to combating racism too, but I don't think it works.

Consider this: France has had an officially blind cultural/workplace culture for decades. France simply would not address the issue of race. Meanwhile, young muslim men were continually passed over by hiring firms when people would spot a resume with a muslim name. Surprise, surprise, France ended up with whole communities of disenfranchised muslims that were told to get a job... except no one would hire them. Big surprise they rioted.

Ach... I'm too tired for this. Way past my bedtime. It's nice to have a meatier thread to sink my teeth into though. 'Night all!
I think what we need to do is force everyone to go out and get a black friend. Not only will it teach you a thing or two about racism, but it will also give everyone a scapegoat when the cops show up.

Thought this worth a mention in this thread (yes, it is relevant):

About 10 years ago on the show TV Nation, Michael Moore did an interesting experiment.
He got Yaphet Kotto (quite a distiguished black actor if I remember rightly) and some ex-felon white dude (sorry, can't remember who he was, but he was by accounts quite dangerous) to participate.

The experiment was to have them stand at the side of the street and try and hail a cab. Not both of them at the same time - alternately. This was in the middle of New York City, where there isn't exactly a shortage of cabs for hire.

The result? The white guy could always hail a cab within a few minutes.
But the vast majority of cabs completely ignored the black guy - even when they put a big neon light saying "I need a cab" right next to him!
The only cab that did stop for him was driven by a black guy.

I think that's a pretty good example of blatant racism in action, don't you?

I wonder if the same experiment would give the same sort of result now, 10 years later.

In recent threads (and old threads), some have questioned whether blacks are still disadvantaged in America. Some have even gone so far as to claim blacks are more privileged than whites.

Let me commit the cardinal sin of asking you to look at some facts:

African American men are more than twice as likely to be unemployed as white males and make only 75 percent as much a year. They’re nearly seven times more likely to be incarcerated, and their average jail sentences are 10 months longer than those of white men. In addition, young black males between the ages of 15 and 34 years are nine times more likely to die of homicide than their white counterparts and nearly seven times as likely to suffer from AIDS.

And what in your mind make you think that NONE of this is their own doing?


In terms of annual median income, black men earned less than three-quarters of what white men earned ($34,443 vs. $46,807), roughly a $12,000 gap. Black women made 87 percent of what white women made and $5,000 less than black men ($29,588 a year).

Compare black women to black men. What do you come with?


Further evidence of discrimination comes from more complex and detailed comparisons of earnings of blacks and whites, or males and females. Even after adjusting for characteristics that affect earnings (such as years of education and work experience), these studies typically find that blacks and women are paid less than their white male counterparts.

No news there is my first thought. But I'm not sure.

Unemployment was highest among black men – 9.5 percent compared to 4.0 percent for white men – a 5.5 percentage point gap. Black women experienced an unemployment rate of 8.5 percent, 4.4 percentage points above the 4.1 percent of their white counterparts.

So .. all of it has to be someone elses fault. Also.. I don't know how these %'s work. I mean.. supposibly. last I saw.. Blacks made up 12% (which I think is BS) of the population here. Just a general question.. so I understand what these mean.. Are the %'s based on all.. or based on in that factor? Is it 9.5% or black men compared to black men. etc. or 9.5% black men compared to men period.


Poverty, much like unemployment, also tends to affect blacks, especially those under 18, at a higher rate than whites; nearly 25 percent live below the poverty line, three times the percentage of whites. Of blacks under 18, 33.5 percent lived in poverty compared to 10 percent of white youths.


And you cannot understand that alot of this is their doing?

Homeownership among blacks is substantially lower than among whites (47.9 percent compared to 75.8 percent) and they’re three times more likely to get high-priced mortgage loans (54.7 percent of blacks vs. 17.2 percent of whites).

Again same thing. I just don't see how you can look at the general population of blacks and be suprised. I don;'t give a damn what color you are, if you are a good worker you will make good money.. if you are blue collar .. you will make blue collar money.. ets wtc. My brother has been working at RJR for over 28 years. MANY of the men he works with are black men.. they make just as much money as him.. around 25-30 dollars an hour (too much for what ANY of them do.. not talking color here.. talking job). But guess where those black men live? Hmm.. not in black neighborhoods. Explain that to me.

Blatant discrimination is a continuing problem in the labor market. Perhaps the most convincing evidence comes from "audit" studies, in which white and minority (or male and female) job seekers are given similar resumes and sent to the same set of firms to apply for a job. These studies often find that employers are less likely to interview or offer a job to minority applicants and to female applicants.

Hmm well I saw a similar thing .. where if the applicants name was of spanish(ie mexian or whatever) descent they got called back alot more often.


In 1995, white males held 97 percent of senior management positions in Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service industries. Only 0.6 percent of senior management were African American, 0.3 percent are Asian and 0.4 percent are Hispanic. Little change has occurred in these numbers since 1995.

And this surprises you how?

In 1995, African Americans held only 2.5 percent of top jobs in the private sector and African American men with professional degrees earned only 79 percent of the amount earned by their white counterparts. Comparably situated African American women earned only 60 percent of the amount earned by white males. Little change has occurred in these numbers since 1995.


Same as above.

Some sources:
National Urban League’s THE STATE OF BLACK AMERICA 2007 (Executive Summary, pdf) (http://www.nul.org/publications/SOBA/Executive%20Summary/2007SOBAEXCSUMMARY.pdf)
Affirmative Action Review: Report to the President (1995) (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa04.html)
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Job Patterns For Minorities And Women In Private Industry (http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/jobpat/jobpat.html)
Census report: Broad racial disparities persist (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15704759/)
Poverty trends by race (http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/povrace.html)

Thank you Cat. Always a pleasure reading your posts/threads.

Education tends to be my take on it too. However, if these "audit" studies are any real indication, it's not just about education level. It seems to imply real discrimination based on race, as the candidates were sent to the same companies with the same general resumes.
If you read the footnotes, the "audit" (scare quotes worry me) studies are aimed at restaurant hiring, not general hiring practices. I'll be that particular study has a few recommendations to improve the likelihood of any particular candidate's chances of being hired.

And race plays no role in the education, or the lack of it, that people receive?

Or what was your point?

yep. Race plays at it from two directions, both what the government provides and how the student receives it. We went on at length about the hip-hop culture and crime, but that same attitude discourages excellence in the classroom.

Regardless, education does play a role as explained at length in the report by the Urban Institute. But race plays a factor in what education you are likely to recieve.



You'll have to dig into the evidence yourself if you want something that specific.

I did include this point:

Further evidence of discrimination comes from more complex and detailed comparisons of earnings of blacks and whites, or males and females. Even after adjusting for characteristics that affect earnings (such as years of education and work experience), these studies typically find that blacks and women are paid less than their white male counterparts.
[/quote]
I saw this too, but the links don't take it to the level I'd like to see. They tend to be executive summaries. This is anecdotal, but I'll throw it in anway. Companies I've been associated with tend to be pretty color-blind in compensation of similar employee categories. I'm sure that's not the case across the board, but again, I suspect the lack of similar education plays more of a part than outright discrimination.

I'll have to look around for more facts; I was hoping that someone would rush in to discredit me and provide what I was looking for...

How do you get "an education?" More often than not, a combination of your and your parents' money.

How do you and your parents get money? Most of the time, by working for white dudes.
In Georgia, you keep a 3.0 average in high school and then the State picks up the tab for college. We're talking any 3.0, here, not a college-prep, calculus based curricula, but any 3.0.

I don't believe that kind of a 3.0 is unachievable by a majority of high school students, if they have the desire to do it.

... I wonder why Hawaii is missing from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: 2005 State Aggregate Report (http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/jobpat/2005/state/index.html)?
Too many EEO employees in the government?

Again, ignore the evidence and mistake the cart for the horse.
So we agree that minorities, except Asians, have a tough row to hoe. I suggest that we examine why Asians are so successful and why Latino and Negro minorities are not.

A third of all children in the US today are born out of wedlock. Hell, my girlfriend and I are trying to have kids out of wedlock over the next couple of years, so that statistic means less and less every year.
I suspect the more important factor is whether or not there is a father in the household. Marital status does mean less and less, I'm afraid. That's another topic for another day, though.

Well I know I'l lbe labeled a racist for this, but I don't realy care. I know my own heart better than anybody.

Also, my remarks are partially inspired by an op-ed written by a black journalist a few years ago who was subsequently called a race traitor for daring to speak out.

Some of the OP points are valid, but only those that directly compare people of different races who have comparable levels of experience and education. The rest of those details are products not of racial discrimination, but of the victimization mentality perpetuated by "civil rights leaders" like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Yeah, I said it.

Think about it. When these guys talk, do you hear a tone of understanding and peace? Not I. I hear them essentially telling members of the black community that ALL of their woes and troubles are a result of white oppression.

Is that what Martin Luther King preached? No. MLK envisioned a society where there were no differences between whites, blacks or anybody else. His "I had a dream" speech was a perfect example. I bet when Jesse Jackson pipes up, Dr. King is rolling over in his grave. He taught people to be proud of who they are and to be above casting themselves as victims. He taught people to have dignity, education and responsibility. In other words, his approach was to teach people to be good citizens, andlet the rest attend to itself. And it was working.

But these days, racism isn't anything like what it once was, and people like Jackson and Sharpton would be nobodies if it weren't for racial tension, and so they feed into it. They whip it up. Whenever there's an incident in the news where a black person is victimized by a white person, they rush to capitalize on it.

Just listen to a speech by one of thede idiots sometime, and when you do, ask yourself: Is this what Martin Luther King would have said? Is this encouraging the black community to work toward understanding, or is it giving people a pass to continue the cycle?

Now before you respond, I ask you to take a moment and think: Are you about to call me racist? if I tell you I'm white, am I a racist? What if I'm black? What if I'm hispanic? Does your opinion change with the color of *my* skin? If so, then keep your hypocrisy to yourself and let those for whom it makes no difference answer.

So we agree that minorities, except Asians, have a tough row to hoe. I suggest that we examine why Asians are so successful and why Latino and Negro minorities are not.

I think it's very clear.

Asians don't portray themselves as victims, even when they'd have a perfect right to do so. They do what must be done to improve their lives and they don't expect anybody else to give them handouts.

The Latino community is split on this. I've noticed that depending on the region in the US as well as the region from which they come originally, there are those who have a similar mentality as the Asians, and then there are those who have given up and allowed themselves to become victims.

I think the black community is a huge resource of untapped talent and potential, but is being held down by a mentality of victimization perpetuated by self-appointed "civil rights leaders."

I think it's very clear.

Asians don't portray themselves as victims, even when they'd have a perfect right to do so. They do what must be done to improve their lives and they don't expect anybody else to give them handouts.

To describe the main difference between one minority as "one doesn't portray themselves as victims" is grossly shortsighted.

The ramifications of socio-economic conditions through our history, slavery being the chief among them, are still being felt today. The reprucussions of such are still resonating in our society and economies.

More to point, simply labling it a "victimized culture" does not get at the hear of the problem, which is why that is so. Even if it were purely an internal cultural matter, it is important to look at what in society propogates that culture. "victimized cultures" don't sprout up for no reason, it usually is the result of constantly, historically, being a victim.

Education, education, education, education.

"Black" America needs to embrace the liberating power of learning, while the "rest" of America needs to realize that we have to help in the ways that we can. Actually be serious about improving inner city schools, provide real financial aid specifically for inner city students to attend colleges and universities and stop facilitating the "thug culture" by purchasing this modern thuggish rap (which is driven by juvenile white males living in suburbia, I might add). Increase the focus good music, Afrika Bambaataa beats the hell out of 50 Cent any day.

To describe the main difference between one minority as "one doesn't portray themselves as victims" is grossly shortsighted.

The ramifications of socio-economic conditions through our history, slavery being the chief among them, are still being felt today. The reprucussions of such are still resonating in our society and economies.

More to point, simply labling it a "victimized culture" does not get at the hear of the problem, which is why that is so. Even if it were purely an internal cultural matter, it is important to look at what in society propogates that culture. "victimized cultures" don't sprout up for no reason, it usually is the result of constantly, historically, being a victim.

Or, by being held down by profiteers who can make bucks on it. Asians have been victimized in thi country and more recently than any other except possibly the Irish. At the turn of the century Chinese workers were exploited in mines out west, people of Japanese ancestry were interred in camps as recently as 1945, and even now it's not uncommon to hear racial slurs about Asians, especially Vietnamese.

Was that worse than slavery? No, but at the same time very little has been actively done to undo that damage, at least on the part of the majority.

On the other hand, the black community has been exploited for the gain of a handful of individuals who pretend to be working for racial equality but in actuality benefit from racial tensions and do ver little to reduce them. In turn, that enables them to blame other races (not only whites, but also Jews as a classic example) for the plight of those who are taught, from birth, to believe that they have no options.

I'd venture to say that there are quite a few inner city youth who literally have feelings of greater hopelessness than even their enslaved ancestors. They deserve better than that.

Education, education, education, education.

"Black" America needs to embrace the liberating power of learning, while the "rest" of America needs to realize that we have to help in the ways that we can. Actually be serious about improving inner city schools, provide real financial aid specifically for inner city students to attend colleges and universities and stop facilitating the "thug culture" by purchasing this modern thuggish rap (which is driven by juvenile white males living in suburbia, I might add). Increase the focus good music, Afrika Bambaataa beats the hell out of 50 Cent any day.

QFT

In recent threads (and old threads), some have questioned whether blacks are still disadvantaged in America. Some have even gone so far as to claim blacks are more privileged than whites.

That is correct, blacks are considered handycapped and white aren't in America. THAT is real predjudice.

Let me commit the cardinal sin of asking you to look at some facts:

[LIST] African American men are more than twice as likely to be unemployed as white males and make only 75 percent as much a year.

So What? Not that there is anything wrong with African-Americans, not that they aren't often smarter then whites, but on a grand scale alot of them do NOT want to find jobs. I would like to see what their chances are of receiving
welfare compared to whites though...

They’re nearly seven times more likely to be incarcerated, and their average jail sentences are 10 months longer than those of white men. In addition, young black males between the ages of 15 and 34 years are nine times more likely to die of homicide than their white counterparts and nearly seven times as likely to suffer from AIDS.

So you are proving by statistics blacks commit more crimes. Why exactly should I feel sorry for that? I will also wager they are much more likely to COMMIT homocide...

In terms of annual median income, black men earned less than three-quarters of what white men earned ($34,443 vs. $46,807), roughly a $12,000 gap. Black women made 87 percent of what white women made and $5,000 less than black men ($29,588 a year).

So you are saying statisitically blacks are dumber and less educated then whites? Not my fault.

Further evidence of discrimination comes from more complex and detailed comparisons of earnings of blacks and whites, or males and females. Even after adjusting for characteristics that affect earnings (such as years of education and work experience), these studies typically find that blacks and women are paid less than their white male counterparts.

So, why don't they find better jobs? After-all, most jobs have SET wages, they don't vary based upon your skin color.


Unemployment was highest among black men – 9.5 percent compared to 4.0 percent for white men – a 5.5 percentage point gap. Black women experienced an unemployment rate of 8.5 percent, 4.4 percentage points above the 4.1 percent of their white counterparts.

So you're saying blacks are lazy and you sit here calling US racist?

Poverty, much like unemployment, also tends to affect blacks, especially those under 18, at a higher rate than whites; nearly 25 percent live below the poverty line, three times the percentage of whites. Of blacks under 18, 33.5 percent lived in poverty compared to 10 percent of white youths.

So they work less and/or have get worse jobs. What is your point?


Homeownership among blacks is substantially lower than among whites (47.9 percent compared to 75.8 percent) and they’re three times more likely to get high-priced mortgage loans (54.7 percent of blacks vs. 17.2 percent of whites).
*View above*

Blatant discrimination is a continuing problem in the labor market. Perhaps the most convincing evidence comes from "audit" studies, in which white and minority (or male and female) job seekers are given similar resumes and sent to the same set of firms to apply for a job. These studies often find that employers are less likely to interview or offer a job to minority applicants and to female applicants.

By how much, prisisely?

In 1995, white males held 97 percent of senior management positions in Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service industries. Only 0.6 percent of senior management were African American, 0.3 percent are Asian and 0.4 percent are Hispanic. Little change has occurred in these numbers since 1995.

THERE ARE A LOT MORE WHITE PEOPLE IN AMERICA THEN BLACK! That said, view above...

In 1995, African Americans held only 2.5 percent of top jobs in the private sector and African American men with professional degrees earned only 79 percent of the amount earned by their white counterparts. Comparably situated African American women earned only 60 percent of the amount earned by white males. Little change has occurred in these numbers since 1995.

*See above on wages*

Some sources:
National Urban League’s THE STATE OF BLACK AMERICA 2007 (Executive Summary, pdf) (http://www.nul.org/publications/SOBA/Executive%20Summary/2007SOBAEXCSUMMARY.pdf)
Affirmative Action Review: Report to the President (1995) (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa04.html)
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Job Patterns For Minorities And Women In Private Industry (http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/jobpat/jobpat.html)
Census report: Broad racial disparities persist (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15704759/)
Poverty trends by race (http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/povrace.html)


Pft. So whites tend to outperform blacks. Now it's not called racist it's called fact. But the goverment makes-up for it with plenty of tax-dollars...

In recent threads (and old threads), some have questioned whether blacks are still disadvantaged in America. Some have even gone so far as to claim blacks are more privileged than whites.

Let me commit the cardinal sin of asking you to look at some facts:

African American men are more than twice as likely to be unemployed as white males and make only 75 percent as much a year. They’re nearly seven times more likely to be incarcerated, and their average jail sentences are 10 months longer than those of white men. In addition, young black males between the ages of 15 and 34 years are nine times more likely to die of homicide than their white counterparts and nearly seven times as likely to suffer from AIDS.


In terms of annual median income, black men earned less than three-quarters of what white men earned ($34,443 vs. $46,807), roughly a $12,000 gap. Black women made 87 percent of what white women made and $5,000 less than black men ($29,588 a year).


Further evidence of discrimination comes from more complex and detailed comparisons of earnings of blacks and whites, or males and females. Even after adjusting for characteristics that affect earnings (such as years of education and work experience), these studies typically find that blacks and women are paid less than their white male counterparts.


Unemployment was highest among black men – 9.5 percent compared to 4.0 percent for white men – a 5.5 percentage point gap. Black women experienced an unemployment rate of 8.5 percent, 4.4 percentage points above the 4.1 percent of their white counterparts.


Poverty, much like unemployment, also tends to affect blacks, especially those under 18, at a higher rate than whites; nearly 25 percent live below the poverty line, three times the percentage of whites. Of blacks under 18, 33.5 percent lived in poverty compared to 10 percent of white youths.


Homeownership among blacks is substantially lower than among whites (47.9 percent compared to 75.8 percent) and they’re three times more likely to get high-priced mortgage loans (54.7 percent of blacks vs. 17.2 percent of whites).


Blatant discrimination is a continuing problem in the labor market. Perhaps the most convincing evidence comes from "audit" studies, in which white and minority (or male and female) job seekers are given similar resumes and sent to the same set of firms to apply for a job. These studies often find that employers are less likely to interview or offer a job to minority applicants and to female applicants.


In 1995, white males held 97 percent of senior management positions in Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service industries. Only 0.6 percent of senior management were African American, 0.3 percent are Asian and 0.4 percent are Hispanic. Little change has occurred in these numbers since 1995.


In 1995, African Americans held only 2.5 percent of top jobs in the private sector and African American men with professional degrees earned only 79 percent of the amount earned by their white counterparts. Comparably situated African American women earned only 60 percent of the amount earned by white males. Little change has occurred in these numbers since 1995.


Some sources:
National Urban League’s THE STATE OF BLACK AMERICA 2007 (Executive Summary, pdf) (http://www.nul.org/publications/SOBA/Executive%20Summary/2007SOBAEXCSUMMARY.pdf)
Affirmative Action Review: Report to the President (1995) (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa04.html)
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Job Patterns For Minorities And Women In Private Industry (http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/jobpat/jobpat.html)
Census report: Broad racial disparities persist (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15704759/)
Poverty trends by race (http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/povrace.html)

Since they're so much more likely to die of homicide, may we ask then who is killing them?

Certainly not white people.

Almost half of the victims of both fatal and nonfatal gunshot
wounds from crime were black males. About a quarter were black
males ages 15 to 24.

The shooters were 94% black.

Are you going to say it's not their fault that they are shooting each other? That somehow, it's someone else's fault?

There are plenty of poor, oppressed people in the US who are not black - but they aren't shooting each other at anywhere near this rate.

At this point, after decades of failed policies that have attempted to help African-Americans, it's time to do what Bill Cosby said, and have them focus for once on themselves - take responsibility for their own lives.

It's not a problem the government can solve.

I guess it comes down to what you consider to be 'advantaged'. The figure of 97% white senior management in Fortune 1000 companies is particularly telling.

Once again, there are a lot more whites in America then blacks...

The 276th Day;12635866']If the blacks don't like it in America then they can always throw of their 'slave names' and go to the home of their ancestors - Africa, etc. I'm sure they would have alot better lives in places such as the Congo, Sudan, Zimbabwe....

:p

That is correct, blacks are considered handycapped and white aren't in America. THAT is real predjudice.

So What? Not that there is anything wrong with African-Americans, not that they aren't often smarter then whites, but on a grand scale alot of them do NOT want to find jobs. I would like to see what their chances are of receiving
welfare compared to whites though...



wow.

It's rare you see such unabashed racism. If it weren't so nausiating, I'd almost admire the massive contortions you just went through trying to call Cat Tribe the racist one here.

Once again, there are a lot more whites in America then blacks...

yeah...not 97% white however.

wow.

It's rare you see such unabashed racism. If it weren't so nausiating, I'd almost admire the massive contortions you just went through trying to call Cat Tribe the racist one here.

Oh, for Christ's sake, I didn't make-up the statistic. It's not MY fault that there is a higher percentage of lazy blacks out there. I haven't got anything against balcks, to call it "unabashed racism" makes me question your sense of reality. Neo-Nazi speeches are "unabashed racism", not blaming an African-American unemployment problem on whites is not racist.

I haven't got anything against balcks, to call it "unabashed racism" makes me question your sense of reality. Neo-Nazi speeches are "unabashed racism", not blaming an African-American unemployment problem on whites is not racist.
Not calling it such wouldn't have the same dramatic effect. :)

Not calling it such wouldn't have the same dramatic effect. :)

Apperently not...

It's not MY fault that there is a higher percentage of lazy blacks out there.

I haven't got anything against balcks

I sense a degree of cognitive dissonance.

And now, to be more serious. A raw statistic is largely meaningless. It tells you what, but not why. It can tell you that blacks are arrested more, have less education, earn less, are employed less. It can tell you all that.

It doesn't address WHY that is. It only gives us the reality, and lets us draw our own conclusions as to why that reality is the way it is.

We all recognize certain truths. We all recognize blacks are poorer on average, less educated on average, more prone to commit crimes, on average. Those are facts, there is no denying it, that is fact.

What is questionable is WHY that is. And we can come up with two rough answers. Either it is something internal, or it is something external. Which is to say, either blacks are that way because they are black, or it doesn't have to do with them being black, but the society they are in.

It can be external, or internal. Blacks are less successful than whites, on average. Fact.

You can believe either that blacks are inherently no more violent, no less intelligent, no less hard working, and that this is due to some external factors somewhat seperate from them being black.

OR

You can believe that this is all caused, in some way, by them being black. That being black just makes you, on average, less intelligent, more violent, etc etc.

Believing in the second, that blacks are just not as capable, is the very definition of racism.

At this point, after decades of failed policies that have attempted to help African-Americans, it's time to do what Bill Cosby said, and have them focus for once on themselves - take responsibility for their own lives.


Didn't you get the memo? Bill Cosby's not black enough anymore, same with Barrack Obama and Tiger Woods (well...Tiger may be justified).

Bad jokes aside, I'm usually always skeptical about any wage study. There's a lot of factors that can be left out or put in to help produce a desired statistic. Same with any study that simply says "less likely" as opposed to giving a real number.

I'll concede to discrimination and racism being real, but I won't bear the cross for it. I think we should work towards ridding the culture of victimization that's been built up by the aforementioned so-called civic rights leaders.

Believing in the second, that blacks are just not as capable, is the very definition of racism.

Agreed. It has nothing to do with your skin color, as there are plenty of successful blacks out there. It has to do with a society that really hasn't been figured-out yet.

I sense a degree of cognitive dissonance.

Just because of statistics I'm racist? Then you are too?

Just because of statistics I'm racist? Then you are too?

As I said already. The statistics are facts. It is not the belief in fact that makes one a racist.

It is ones belief as to why those stastics are the way they are that can determine that.

The mere belief that blacks make less money than whites is not disputable. What seperates the racists from the non racists is the belief in WHY that is.

You can believe that this is all caused, in some way, by them being black. That being black just makes you, on average, less intelligent, more violent, etc etc.
Surely this is something for biologists to study, and not a matter of mere inference.

Are you going to say it's not their fault that they are shooting each other? That somehow, it's someone else's fault?


Why not? Jackson and Sharpton have been saying it for years.

/sarcasm

As I said already. The statistics are facts. It is not the belief in fact that makes one a racist.


That, my friend, is a bunch of baloney.

Statistics are the resultant attempts to quantify facts, not facts themselves. They are not high-holies or unassailable fortresses. They look fancy and scientific, yes, but they are not always so. There are countless external influences that can impact statistics, and you must always be mindful of them if you wish to be statistically literate.

That, my friend, is a bunch of baloney.

Statistics are the resultant attempts to quantify facts, not facts themselves. They are not high-holies or unassailable fortresses. They look fancy and scientific, yes, but they are not always so. There are countless external influences that can impact statistics, and you must always be mindful of them if you wish to be statistically literate.

I have said that numerous times. As I said, it is a fact that blacks make less on average.

That is a fact.

WHY that is a fact is an entirely seperate question, and one not at all addressed by the statement "blacks make less on average"

That, my friend, is a bunch of baloney.

Statistics are the resultant attempts to quantify facts, not facts themselves. They are not high-holies or unassailable fortresses. They look fancy and scientific, yes, but they are not always so. There are countless external influences that can impact statistics, and you must always be mindful of them if you wish to be statistically literate.

I'm not saying blacks fail more because of their skin-color, I'm just saying it isn't because of discrimination.

I'm not saying blacks fail more because of their skin-color, I'm just saying it isn't because of discrimination.

Exactly, and the belief that it is causes just as much damage as the discrimination itself.

This sure has degenerated into a cesspool of name-calling. I'm not sure in what kind of direction we should head as the OP is just a bunch of bullets intended to illustrate the disadvantaged position of blacks in the United States.

My reaction, upon re-reading that post, is "So what do we do about it?" Do we need to do anything? Most of the cited references show improvements over past years. Why not just let our society find an equilibrium?

*raises eyebrow*
This surprises you?

It doesn't surprise me. This is NS General, after all.

This sure has degenerated into a cesspool of name-calling.


*raises eyebrow*
This surprises you?

interestin OP Cat-tribe.

curious about one thing though. I was led to believe the areas of the USA have the highest concentration of black people are north/south carolina, alabama and a few other states in the south-west. If this is so, what are the averages wages there compared to other parts of the country?

thanks

interestin OP Cat-tribe.

curious about one thing though. I was led to believe the areas of the USA have the highest concentration of black people are north/south carolina, alabama and a few other states in the south-west. If this is so, what are the averages wages there compared to other parts of the country?

thanks

The wages in the South are lower in general than the rest of the country. The cost of living is generally lower as well.

Little change has occurred in these numbers since 1995.


Too true, 100% of black folk still like fried chicken and talking about white folk behind their backs. :p

The wages in the South are lower in general than the rest of the country. The cost of living is generally lower as well.

but does the charts and studies take that into account? it only mentions wage levels.

My two cents:

I think that more than any single factor, what is at work is a vicious circle between discrimination and poverty/criminality/poor education/&c.

Discrimination contributes to poverty and the rest, but it is those things that actively further discrimination against blacks.

"I don't want to hire him, didn't you know there are more blacks his age in jail than in college?"

"I bet his mother didn't know her 'baby daddy,' that he grew up in poverty and has a criminal mind - not the kind of person I want at my company."

"Tutoring would be wasted on those kids, don't you know they think doing well in school is 'acting white'?"

These attitudes aren't right, but they exist, and they contribute to the discrimination which in turn contributes to poverty, criminality, &c.

Ideally, and perhaps necessarily, both sides of this would be addressed at once.

Oh, for Christ's sake, I didn't make-up the statistic. It's not MY fault that there is a higher percentage of lazy blacks out there.

The statistic wasn't "what percentage of black people are 'lazy blacks." Don't lie and try to hide your obvious racism as "statistics," kid.

And how much discriminiation do you think black people face?

I'm not saying blacks fail more because of their skin-color, I'm just saying it isn't because of discrimination.

Oh! No discriminiation! LOL!

That's hilarious, because all it takes is ONE employer who thinks "there is a higher percentage of lazy blacks out there" and refuse an employee based on this 'statistics,' to DISPROVE your idiotic statements.

I haven't got anything against balcks

You just think they're lazy. I suppose you haven't got anything against Jews either, you just think they're money-grubbers?

but does the charts and studies take that into account? it only mentions wage levels.

I believe that a lot of poor blacks live in non-Southern large cities, too.

So you can't say the wages are lower just because they live in the South.

I believe that a lot of poor blacks live in non-Southern large cities, too.

So you can't say the wages are lower just because they live in the South.
Come on, you know how averages work. If the population is higher in a lower income area, this will drag down the average.

But, maybe blacks just aren't tall enough?
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mankiw/papers/Optimal_Taxation.pdf
Judge and Cable (2004) report that “an individual who
is 72 in. tall could be expected to earn $5,525 [in 2002 dollars] more per year
than someone who is 65 in. tall, even after controlling for gender, weight, and
age.” Persico, Postlewaite, and Silverman (2004) find similar results and report
that "among adult white men in the United States, every additional inch of
height as an adult is associated with a 1.8 percent increase in wages." Case
and Paxson (2006) write that "For both men and women...an additional inch
of height [is] associated with a one to two percent increase in earnings." This
fact, together with the canonical approach to optimal taxation, suggests that a
person’s tax liability should be a function of his height. That is, a tall person
of a given income should pay more in taxes than a short person of the same
income.

Okay, I'm being facetious, but we can find all sorts of inequity, if we try hard enough.

Come on, you know how averages work. If the population is higher in a lower income area, this will drag down the average.

But, maybe blacks just aren't tall enough?
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mankiw/papers/Optimal_Taxation.pdf

Okay, I'm being facetious, but we can find all sorts of inequity, if we try hard enough.

Oh, I agree with you that the majority of their problem is in their own subculture, and not in "the man keeping them down".

I've met many successful African-Americans - most did the self-made thing that I did.

I suspect you are wrong. In fact, I know it. The annual salary figures are from the Census and compare working people to working people. Those in prison aren't counted.
I said "I suspect". Apparently I was incorrect.

Still, the crime rate will depress incomes. Just as women earn less partly because they spend less time in the workforce (and thus as a group have less experience than men), the same would be true of a population that spent a lot of time incarcerated.
It must be nice to tell yourself that these figures are all due to a high crime rate and not the other way around.
Crime is caused by individual decisions. There is no necessarily connection between poverty and crime.

Crime is caused by individual decisions. There is no necessarily connection between poverty and crime.

.....you must be shitting me.

.....you must be shitting me.

So if poverty is necessary and sufficient for crime to exist, then all poor people will unavoidably become criminals?

Or are you just implying that poor people are more disposed to criminal activity?

So if poverty is necessary and sufficient for crime to exist, then all poor people will unavoidably become criminals?

Or are you just implying that poor people are more disposed to criminal activity?

Poverty increases your risk of becoming involved in criminal activities I think is the idea being put across. Kind of like saying smoking increases your risk of cancer but doesnt guarantee it

So if poverty is necessary and sufficient for crime to exist, then all poor people will unavoidably become criminals?

Or are you just implying that poor people are more disposed to criminal activity?

I think he's saying that rich people don't commit crime, because they're deliriously happy with being rich.

They never drive drunk, take drugs, kill each other, etc. You know.

Poverty increases your risk of becoming involved in criminal activities I think is the idea being put across. Kind of like saying smoking increases your risk of cancer but doesnt guarantee it
Again, I was being facetious. "You must be shitting me..." was such a well reasoned response that I couldn't let it go.

Seriously, I'll bet there is a stronger correlation between crime and other environmental factors, though. There are a lot of poor people in North Georgia and other than a little 'shine, there isn't much criminal activity going on.

Again, I was being facetious. "You must be shitting me..." was such a well reasoned response that I couldn't let it go.

Seriously, I'll bet there is a stronger correlation between crime and other environmental factors, though. There are a lot of poor people in North Georgia and other than a little 'shine, there isn't much criminal activity going on.

Ah ok. Sorry bout that

.....you must be shitting me.
I'm absolutely correct. There is no reason why any given poor person necessarily must become a criminal.

That there is a correlation between poverty and crime is not evidence of a causal relationship between them.

So we agree that minorities, except Asians, have a tough row to hoe. I suggest that we examine why Asians are so successful and why Latino and Negro minorities are not.

Thank you, btw, for adding a civil and intelligent tone to this discussion.

With the exception of a few idiotic arguments, we have at least moved from arguing about whether blacks are relatively disadvantaged to arguing about why they are disadvantaged.

I think there are many factors, but racism plays a big factor. Remember, we just got rid of legal segregation within the lifetime of many Americans. The legacy of segregation lives on, as does active discrimination.

If you read the footnotes, the "audit" (scare quotes worry me) studies are aimed at restaurant hiring, not general hiring practices.

I commend you for actually looking at the source and footnotes. You are right that one study directly cited in that footnote was aimed at restaurant hiring, but I'm not sure why that would discredit the study.

Regardless, you can look at the many additional audit studies that I have linked since my opening post. Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12634901&postcount=39) is a link to the post with several more studies.

I'll be that particular study has a few recommendations to improve the likelihood of any particular candidate's chances of being hired.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. If you are assuming some flaw in the study, you have no basis for that assumption. Regardless, you can look at the multiple studies that come to similar conclusions.

yep. Race plays at it from two directions, both what the government provides and how the student receives it. We went on at length about the hip-hop culture and crime, but that same attitude discourages excellence in the classroom.

Agreed. I've never claimed its a simple dynamic or that all the problems faced by minorities are caused by racism. There are definitely other factors at work.

All I'm saying is (a) blacks are disadvantaged (a point so obviously true it shouldn't even need to be argued) and (b) racism is one of the causes of this disadvantage.

Or are you just implying that poor people are more disposed to criminal activity?

I'm not implying anything. I am directly stating that poverty is one of the larger causes of crime.

I'm absolutely correct. There is no reason why any given poor person necessarily must become a criminal.

That there is a correlation between poverty and crime is not evidence of a causal relationship between them.

your concept of causation is incorrect. That which is a cause need not be a cause 100% of the time.

Smoking causes cancer. Not everyone who smokes will get cancer. Not everyone who gets cancer smokes.

And yet, smoking causes cancer.

For any intelligent person to suggest that there is not a direct causal relationship between poverty and crime is, frankly, laughable.

I think he's saying that rich people don't commit crime, because they're deliriously happy with being rich.

They never drive drunk, take drugs, kill each other, etc. You know.

oh yeah, that's what I"m saying, exactly :rolleyes:

Because pointing out ONE causal factor automatically excludes ALL OTHER causal factors.

Just like when someone says smoking causes cancer they're meaning that nobody smokes gets cancer.

Well I know I'l lbe labeled a racist for this, but I don't realy care. I know my own heart better than anybody.

Also, my remarks are partially inspired by an op-ed written by a black journalist a few years ago who was subsequently called a race traitor for daring to speak out.

Some of the OP points are valid, but only those that directly compare people of different races who have comparable levels of experience and education. The rest of those details are products not of racial discrimination, but of the victimization mentality perpetuated by "civil rights leaders" like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Yeah, I said it.

Think about it. When these guys talk, do you hear a tone of understanding and peace? Not I. I hear them essentially telling members of the black community that ALL of their woes and troubles are a result of white oppression.

Is that what Martin Luther King preached? No. MLK envisioned a society where there were no differences between whites, blacks or anybody else. His "I had a dream" speech was a perfect example. I bet when Jesse Jackson pipes up, Dr. King is rolling over in his grave. He taught people to be proud of who they are and to be above casting themselves as victims. He taught people to have dignity, education and responsibility. In other words, his approach was to teach people to be good citizens, andlet the rest attend to itself. And it was working.

But these days, racism isn't anything like what it once was, and people like Jackson and Sharpton would be nobodies if it weren't for racial tension, and so they feed into it. They whip it up. Whenever there's an incident in the news where a black person is victimized by a white person, they rush to capitalize on it.

Just listen to a speech by one of thede idiots sometime, and when you do, ask yourself: Is this what Martin Luther King would have said? Is this encouraging the black community to work toward understanding, or is it giving people a pass to continue the cycle?

I'm not going to bother responding to most of this because it is ridiculous rambling. It is easy to claim that black leaders are to blame for most of the problems of blacks, rather than merely accepting that black leaders are correctly pointing out some of the problems that blacks have. If you really have been a victim, at least some "victim mentality" is justified.

My main point, however, is to correct your misuse of the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. King was not an advocate of simple-minded colorblindness fir the sake of colorblindness. Rather, he was a strong supporter of taking affirmative action to cure racism.

I'll resist my natural tendency to bombard you with multiple quotes and links. Instead, here is one link with quotes from Dr. King:
The Forgotten Teachings of Martin Luther King (http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/mlk3.html)


Now before you respond, I ask you to take a moment and think: Are you about to call me racist? if I tell you I'm white, am I a racist? What if I'm black? What if I'm hispanic? Does your opinion change with the color of *my* skin? If so, then keep your hypocrisy to yourself and let those for whom it makes no difference answer.

Nice strawman. Your opinions are racist regardless of your skin color.

If you look at base statistics, I tend to disproportionately hire white applicants and date asian women.

This in no way means I use racial discrimination in my hiring or that I have an Asian fetish. It is just the way it works out.

The dating thing is completely random, but that happens. Honestly I prefer pale skinned redheads, but I just haven't met that many that are both single and have a personality that meshes. Yet the statistics show I am highly biased towards hooking up with Asian girls. The point is that statistics themselves do not explain why things are the way they are or necessarily have any significance whatsoever.

When you take this to employees, I disproportionately hire white women and pay white men better. This is in no way because of discrimination, it is purely due to individual factors which add up.

Most black applicants I have come in dressed inappropriately, speak disrespectfully, and have a very bad attitude. They demonstrate in the interview that they will not be a hard worker, will not take any pride in their work, and just want a paycheck. Not surprisingly, a white guy dressed the same way, speaking the same way, and acting the same way, does not get hired either (and I get more of them than the black guys who act like this).

When I get a good black applicant who dresses well, does not use profanity in an interview, has a respectful attitude, and will likely be a good employee I hire them.

The disproportionate employment statistics have nothing to do with race, it has to do with the individual's behavior. I suppose you could say I am biased against the inner-city black culture, and if that includes acting like a gangsta thug in an interview, then yes I am. It simply is not appropriate in an interview and I doubt anyone other than a troll would disagree.

Men get paid better than women simply because they tend to be far more aggressive than women when it comes to asking for raises. Some women work fewer hours because they spend more time with their children, and I am all for that, but that means that over time they will not accrue the same experience or demonstration of hard work that leads to being able to justify higher wages. Men, on average, work longer hours, more reliably put in more hours when a project is getting close to overrunning a deadline, and (here is the most important factor) actually ask for a raise.

These are general statements - there have obviously been exceptions. Some men are meek and never ask for a raise and thus tend to get paid less than some of the women. Some women are very hard workers and are not shy about demanding better wages (with appropriate justifications) and therefore are higher paid than most of the men.

Statistics may show that races and genders are not equal when it comes to employment. This does not mean there is discrimination. There have been recent studies showing that when you control for career long factors that the wage gap no longer exists. Gender is correlated but not a causation.

And since some have mentioned it... white men make up a disproportionate number of higher paid jobs. This shouldnt surprise you. How many black female biochemists with 30 years of research experience do you think there are? This does not mean there is severe bias against black women in biochemistry today, just that 30 years ago not that many black women graduated with degrees in biochemistry.

Though a black female biochemist today can command a kings ransom because research labs falling afoul of racial diversity requirements are desperate to find one. But that is an entirely different matter.

Statistics may show that races and genders are not equal when it comes to employment. This does not mean there is discrimination.

Nor does your anecdotal claim that you aren't personally a racist prove anything.

The audit studies and the studies comparing equal jobs and other factors do tend to show blatant discrimination.

There have been recent studies showing that when you control for career long factors that the wage gap no longer exists. Gender is correlated but not a causation.

1. Care to provide sources? I've already cited some studies that control for career factors and do find a wage gap. I'll probably look for some more.

2. You spend much of your post talking about gender discrimination. Although you are wrong in denying there is such discrimination, that isn't really the topic here.

And since some have mentioned it... white men make up a disproportionate number of higher paid jobs. This shouldnt surprise you. How many black female biochemists with 30 years of research experience do you think there are? This does not mean there is severe bias against black women in biochemistry today, just that 30 years ago not that many black women graduated with degrees in biochemistry.

And why were there less black women with degrees in biochemistry 30 years ago? Did it have anything to do with racism and sexism? Oh, snap.

One of the problems we have is current discrimination, another is the legacy of past discrimination. Both contribute to the disadvantages faced by minorities.

Though a black female biochemist today can command a kings ransom because research labs falling afoul of racial diversity requirements are desperate to find one. But that is an entirely different matter.

Really? Can you show evidence that black female biochemist make more money than white male biochemists with equal experience?

The state of Black America


WTF is "Black America"?

I've know where North America, South America, Central America, and the United States of America are.

But where is this Black America?

"Black people" are doing fine. Leave them the hell alone. (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06108/682889-28.stm)

1. Care to provide sources? I've already cited some studies that control for career factors and do find a wage gap. I'll probably look for some more.
would love to but dont have the time to go looking right now. will dredge it up next week and make a thread about it.

2. You spend much of your post talking about gender discrimination. Although you are wrong in denying there is such discrimination, that isn't really the topic here.
discrimination is the topic here, and I have a lot more experience with gender bias than racist bias - it is fairly irrelevant to my point that statistics showing discrimination not necessarily giving a complete picture of the causes.

And why were there less black women with degrees in biochemistry 30 years ago? Did it have anything to do with racism and sexism? Oh, snap. Of course - you masterfully destroyed my claim that there was no racism or sexism 40 years ago :rolleyes: Oh wait... i never made such a claim.

One of the problems we have is current discrimination, another is the legacy of past discrimination. Both contribute to the disadvantages faced by minorities. I am not disputing that in the least. I am merely pointing out that institutionalized discrimination in the past is not evidence of such discrimination today.

Really? Can you show evidence that black female biochemist make more money than white male biochemists with equal experience?
only anecdotally. My father had the desperate search for a black biochemist because all he could find were white males. Government labs have to meet certain racial diversity requirements - since there were so many old white men working at the lab human resources told him he could only hire a black female. Even offering double what was being paid to the other grad students they were not able to find anyone. A decade on and the lab is still short-staffed.

If you look at base statistics, I tend to disproportionately hire white applicants and date asian women.

This in no way means I use racial discrimination in my hiring or that I have an Asian fetish. It is just the way it works out.
There might actually be a reason why it works out that way, but that doesn't mean you're discriminatory.

I'm vastly more likely to hire native English speakers because in interviews I ask a long series of very precise questions to test the applicant's abstract reasoning skills (think of the logic games section of the LSAT - that's what a job interview with me is like). Any language skills short of really excellent, while they wouldn't impact the applicant's ability to do the job, would impact the applicant's ability to convince me she can do the job.

I think what we need to do is force everyone to go out and get a black friend. Not only will it teach you a thing or two about racism, but it will also give everyone a scapegoat when the cops show up.

"Crap, sirens! Quick, Tyrone... gaurd the bag of cash we grabbed from the convenience store, we'll be right back..."

*squeals away*

I'm not going to bother responding to most of this because it is ridiculous rambling. It is easy to claim that black leaders are to blame for most of the problems of blacks, rather than merely accepting that black leaders are correctly pointing out some of the problems that blacks have. If you really have been a victim, at least some "victim mentality" is justified.

Does it have to be one or the other? I would think that these sorts of disparities are quite often a complex problem, with more to look at than any simple black and white dichotomy.

While there certainly still is active discrimination, I think there is an element of many members in the black community not taking advantage of the opportunities that truly are available - largely because of attitudes brought about by past racism. Young black children - particularly inner city children - receive messages from day one that they will never get anywhere, and largely because of this, there are those who will not take advantage of the opportunities they do have to get an education, to put in for scholarships, etc. This isn't to say that it is completely the fault of members of the black community, but do think that some of the disparities find their most direct cause in attitudes of the black community - attitudes that are themselves the result of past treatment. The question, of course, must then be, "Why do so many people within the black community hold these attitudes?" And, I believe, when we really trace it back, you'll find that it is largely past racism. And so that is what needs to be addressed - the distrust and general attitudes that have been bred by past racism.

I think a great deal of progress has been made (and is being made) in addressing active discrimination against the black community by other ethnicities. But the "ripple effect" attitudes within the black community must also be addressed.

As a related (although not mentioned in the OP) example, we could look at medical treatment. There is an appalling shortage of black organ and bone marrow donors. Black people seem to be disproportionately unlikely to participate in clinical trials and some people are so appalled by the very idea of medication directed at a given ethnicity that they will not take it - instead opting for medication that will likely be less useful to them. When sociologists and the like try to get to the root of this disparity, one of the main things they hear is, "Tuskegee." The black population, on average, is less likely to trust the medical community largely because of Tuskegee, and this can result in substandard medical care for members of that community.

Now, there is absolutely no mistaking that the root cause of this problem is racism - we're talking about a study that specifically targeted poor black sharecroppers and used them as untreated controls in a study with no informed consent. In fact, although I've never looked closely at the details, I believe the participants were actively deceived by those conducting the study. But this is a matter of past discrimination. There are, to my knowledge, no studies even remotely like this going on currently, as no IRB would let something like this even begin.

People tend not to trace these things back, however. Someone might say, "Members of the black community get substandard treatment because they will not sign up for donor lists, participate in clinical trials which would allow doctors to create better treatments for them, or take medication that is specific to their ethnicity." And if you only looked currently, that's what it would look like. The question is, where do these attitudes come from? And the answer, quite often, can be found in the racist practices of the past.

your concept of causation is incorrect. That which is a cause need not be a cause 100% of the time.
I didn't say it did. I said that no poor person necessarily must commit crimes.
For any intelligent person to suggest that there is not a direct causal relationship between poverty and crime is, frankly, laughable.
What is it, then? How does poverty cause crime?

I commend you for actually looking at the source and footnotes. You are right that one study directly cited in that footnote was aimed at restaurant hiring, but I'm not sure why that would discredit the study.

Regardless, you can look at the many additional audit studies that I have linked since my opening post. Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12634901&postcount=39) is a link to the post with several more studies.


I'm not sure what I was getting at, either, with the comments about restaurants. I don't think I was trying to discredit the study, maybe I got distracted in the middle of what I was doing. The footnotes were all that described anything about the conclusions drawn, so maybe I was thinking about the significance of only studying one narrow field for employment.

I did find that post and additional studies about hiring. They expanded on the scope of the restaurant study. I don't have any doubts that a certain amount of discrimination is employed in hiring. First impressions probably count for more than resumes at many entry level jobs. So now on to the piano part...



Agreed. I've never claimed its a simple dynamic or that all the problems faced by minorities are caused by racism. There are definitely other factors at work.

All I'm saying is (a) blacks are disadvantaged (a point so obviously true it shouldn't even need to be argued) and (b) racism is one of the causes of this disadvantage.
I'm going to agree on A, unequivocally, and B with some conditions. I don't see racism as solely a white vs black problem. Racism and its cousin prejudice exist with a variety of targets. Some whites are prejudiced against blacks. Some blacks are prejudiced against whites. Some blacks are prejudiced against other blacks.

We talked about the hip-hop mentality in another thread. That and the 'No snitching' culture that it breeds. It's just as detrimental to learning and personal initiative among those in the culture.

Describing the disadvantage that blacks suffer in the marketplace as a artifact of a racist world is probably true. Pinning down the racists isn't as easy as it might seem.

So we agree that minorities, except Asians, have a tough row to hoe. I suggest that we examine why Asians are so successful and why Latino and Negro minorities are not.

That's a fair question. There is no doubt, as earlier posters have mentioned, that Asians have been subject to racism as well, but they do seem to be doing better overall than other minorities. This is one area where I believe you can definitely look at cultural attitudes affecting success. Asians, by and large seem to have a conservative mindset and clannish nature that promotes community and achievement. Crime doesn't seem to be as prevalent, but perhaps that is only because they approach crime in a much more clandestine way.

At any rate, it's a good point.



now consider this.

you have a community of disenfranchised people. Instead of telling them "Get a Job" you have programs to help them "Get that job" say, on-the-job training w/ minimum wage with businesses in exchange for tax breaks or other benefits. That training is then added to their work experience giving them an edge in getting better jobs. Not to mention that their training can be used to get them a permament posistion in the company that is training them.

you have similar tax brakes and other incentives for businesses to assist in the restructuring and rebuilding of their communities. say cleaning up the streets, programs to turn destructive gangs into constructive ones. tougher police force and neighborhood watch to get those drug dealers and criminal punks out of the neighborhood and centers to get the drug addicts off of the drugs (and it could even be tied in with the Job training program.)

Possible outcome: you have a community of people that realize that they can take control of their lives. they have the confidence to reach for bigger and better goals, and hopefully, you have a community that sees its members as neighbors in a community and not members of so-and-so ethnicity.

By and large, I agree with everything you say. I would definitely prefer a system which addresses issues of poverty and gang violence without having to bring up the issue of race. But the issue of ethnicity isn't ever going to disapear. People from different ethnic groups are proud of their origins, and will likely ban together in ethnic communities for a long time. There seems to be a sentiment amongst many white people that everyone should just forget about ethnicity and get on with things. They want to whitewash the minority out of the minorities.

As for discriminatory hiring practices, you need not look at studies to see it happening. I've seen it first hand. I've heard the owner of our company ramble on on several occasions about how the trucking industry is getting tougher, and how unfortunate it is that he has to hire all those 'diaper-heads' to haul his freight. He makes it quite clear, in hushed tones that only the 'Canadian' folks can hear, that he put off hiring them for a long time. And there are plenty of people who are onboard with those comments.

Racism is very real, and it most definitely has an impact on hiring practices, and the ability of minorities to find gainful employment. It would be irresponsible of government not to do something about it.

In the case of France. what programs did they have in place to assist those young Muslims and their employment problems?

France is an interesting case study, and I like to use it when I discuss the 'monocultural' approach to fighting racism. From my understanding of the riots in France, the incredible disparity in workplace placing of muslims is the result of several factors.

- After World War II, muslims from French colonies immigrated to France in part of the reconstruction effort, and the general construction boom that followed after the advent of the Baby Boom. This was an excellent opportunity to gain employment, however they were never offered citizenship - they were considered 'guest workers'.

- France's approach to race and culture, is that France is French - end of story. French isn't a colour of skin, it's a language, certain cultural traits and a way of life. They protect french culture first. They most definitely do not embrace multiculturalism.

- Most of France's muslims live in communities that were orginally designed to be self-contained communities, that were almost 'cul-de-sac' in nature. One major roadway entering the community of high-rises and townhouses, with shops and parks, and public transportation out of those communities if one needed to find employment outside. What ended up happening, is that the descendants of muslims who were living in these communities, became trapped in these communities. Local businesses failed, and soon you were ending up with a situation where generations were being born in a welfare-state, in sequestered communities (that were all they could afford to live in) away from most of the french population, who were technically not even citizens, but 'guest workers'.

- Independant studies have shown that companies would frequently turn down male muslim job applications when french names were available, thus reducing the chance that muslims would be hired. This further created a sense of alienization amongst young male muslims.

The day those young boys were killed escaping from police, just set off a fire that was simmering for decades. Whether or not the police were overzealous in their pursuit of those children, or what the exact situation was, France's willful blindness to the plight of muslims in France set off a chain reaction that set Paris ablaze for days.

I don't know what measures France has taken to address this issue since then. From a political standpoint, France has to deal with these issues of disparity without alienating the French population. It's no easy matter. Affirmative action programs could have gone a long way to helping this, including giving muslims the chance to make greater wages and move out of these ghetto's.


Night Mikesburg. I've enjoyed this chat so far. :cool:

Me too!

EDIT: I'm not 100% on the 'guest worker' issue, as a lot of my information comes from articles I read at that time. (I'm thinking maybe the Economist).

That's a fair question. There is no doubt, as earlier posters have mentioned, that Asians have been subject to racism as well, but they do seem to be doing better overall than other minorities. This is one area where I believe you can definitely look at cultural attitudes affecting success. Asians, by and large seem to have a conservative mindset and clannish nature that promotes community and achievement. Crime doesn't seem to be as prevalent, but perhaps that is only because they approach crime in a much more clandestine way.

At any rate, it's a good point.

There is also a disparity of the stereotypes people put forth about Asians vs. other minorities. People think that Asians are very smart - generally good at math (and of course assumed to enjoy it) - and extremely hard workers. These sorts of things, in many areas, are a plus to hiring and the like, rather than a minus - even if they are still stereotypes.

Compare that to the stereotypes about black or Latino communities.

There is also a disparity of the stereotypes people put forth about Asians vs. other minorities. People think that Asians are very smart - generally good at math (and of course assumed to enjoy it) - and extremely hard workers. These sorts of things, in many areas, are a plus to hiring and the like, rather than a minus - even if they are still stereotypes.

Compare that to the stereotypes about black or Latino communities.
I don't know about the Latino stereotypes where you're from, but all I ever see of Latinos are guys that bust their butts. Whether it's gardening or construction, these are some of the hardest working folks I've ever watched.

I don't know about the Latino stereotypes where you're from, but all I ever see of Latinos are guys that bust their butts. Whether it's gardening or construction, these are some of the hardest working folks I've ever watched.

That's pretty much what I have seen of actual Latino workers as well.

However, the stereotypes I hear from people who are racist don't follow the trend of what I've actually seen. What you hear - stereotypically - is that Latinos are all lazy (all Mexicans, of course) people who just want handouts.

There's also the matter of measures of success. Even those who don't hold to the "lazy" stereotype will often think that it is odd if they see a Latino worker who isn't doing manual labor (like gardening or construction, for instance). So, if the general attitude is that Latinos only go into manual labor, how many Latino students do you think are going to seriously aspire to other, perhaps better paying, jobs?

You see this problem in gender issues as well. In some areas, young girls are told from the very beginning of their lives that certain jobs are "women's jobs" and certain jobs are "men's jobs." They are told that men are good at math and science, while women are not. In that type of atmosphere, even a girl who may truly enjoy and excel at math and science is unlikely to aspire to a job involving either - as that just isn't what women do, according to the culture around her.

If a person - particularly if it is from childhood on - is constantly given the idea that their choices are limited, they are unlikely to push at those boundaries.

People tend not to trace these things back, however. Someone might say, "Members of the black community get substandard treatment because they will not sign up for donor lists, participate in clinical trials which would allow doctors to create better treatments for them, or take medication that is specific to their ethnicity." And if you only looked currently, that's what it would look like. The question is, where do these attitudes come from? And the answer, quite often, can be found in the racist practices of the past.
And if the black community were a thing, that would matter. But each black person who has this distrust formed it himself, and is thus responsible for it.

And if the black community were a thing, that would matter. But each black person who has this distrust formed it himself, and is thus responsible for it.

Oh, to live in a black and white world where people were stand-alone constructs.

If a group of people specifically targeted your ethnicity and mistreated people based on the fact that they were members of that ethnicity, would it really be irrational of you to distrust them and be afraid that they might do the same to you?

Would it be all your fault that you were distrustful? Or might the people who were, you know - mistreating others, have some culpability?

I didn't say it did. I said that no poor person necessarily must commit crimes.

What is it, then? How does poverty cause crime?


Poverty causes crime primarily in two ways:

1) By making crime more attractive in a cost-benefit analysis. A poor person has less to lose by getting in legal trouble than a middle-class person, and also has more to gain, relatively.

2) By putting people under constant stress, both the stress of having to get by and also the stress of having to struggle while others have easy lives, and of having to be looked down upon by well-to-do society.

The perception of having no apparent successful future also makes crime more amenable.

Also, the high degree of criminality among poor people makes crime seem more common, and by extension more acceptable and reasonable.

Oh, to live in a black and white world where people were stand-alone constructs.
There are no groups - only individuals.
If a group of people specifically targeted your ethnicity and mistreated people based on the fact that they were members of that ethnicity, would it really be irrational of you to distrust them and be afraid that they might do the same to you?
Them? Yes. All people who differ from me in the same way they do? No.
[quote]Would it be all your fault that you were distrustful?[quote]
Of the first group - no. Of the second - absolutely.

There's also the matter of measures of success. Even those who don't hold to the "lazy" stereotype will often think that it is odd if they see a Latino worker who isn't doing manual labor (like gardening or construction, for instance). So, if the general attitude is that Latinos only go into manual labor, how many Latino students do you think are going to seriously aspire to other, perhaps better paying, jobs?

You see this problem in gender issues as well. In some areas, young girls are told from the very beginning of their lives that certain jobs are "women's jobs" and certain jobs are "men's jobs." They are told that men are good at math and science, while women are not. In that type of atmosphere, even a girl who may truly enjoy and excel at math and science is unlikely to aspire to a job involving either - as that just isn't what women do, according to the culture around her.

If a person - particularly if it is from childhood on - is constantly given the idea that their choices are limited, they are unlikely to push at those boundaries.
I have a great number of civilian customers at an Army facility out West. Out there, I'm actually surprised to see Anglos in technical and supervisory positions, as the Latinos have pretty much filled all the available positions. They do good work, but they have picked up the nasty civil service habit of clock watching. Apparently, these men and women didn't get the message that they were supposed to be satisfied with manual labor.

Sure, it may be an exception, but I think it's more of a regional thing. Since we live in the East, we're more likely to pigeonhole a Latino as a manual laborer, whereas the choices and opportunities are more varied elsewhere.

There is also a disparity of the stereotypes people put forth about Asians vs. other minorities. People think that Asians are very smart - generally good at math (and of course assumed to enjoy it) - and extremely hard workers. These sorts of things, in many areas, are a plus to hiring and the like, rather than a minus - even if they are still stereotypes.

Compare that to the stereotypes about black or Latino communities.

The 'Asian' and 'Indian' positive stereotypes are largely because they immigrate from far and only the best among that lot gets here. Reason why the average Indian family is better off than average American family in the US, while India as a country is several magnitudes poorer/bad in all those indicators (literacy, productiveness, earning capacity, wealth etc).

Hispanics and Blacks are bigger communities and 'local'. I think it is somewhat different comparision.

If a person - particularly if it is from childhood on - is constantly given the idea that their choices are limited, they are unlikely to push at those boundaries.

The power of suggestion. It is quite powerful. I used to dismiss it as stupid until I read some studies about how powerful and how subconciously it affects us.

Oh, to live in a black and white world where people were stand-alone constructs.


You've put your finger on the problem. To Llewdor, other people aren't real.

Poverty causes crime primarily in two ways:

1) By making crime more attractive in a cost-benefit analysis. A poor person has less to lose by getting in legal trouble than a middle-class person, and also has more to gain, relatively.

2) By putting people under constant stress, both the stress of having to get by and also the stress of having to struggle while others have easy lives, and of having to be looked down upon by well-to-do society.

The perception of having no apparent successful future also makes crime more amenable.

Also, the high degree of criminality among poor people makes crime seem more common, and by extension more acceptable and reasonable.

plus when youre poor and committ a crime, you cant afford a good lawyer who can get you off. you are more likely to be convicted and serve time.

There are no groups - only individuals.

Not much for evolutionary biology are ya?

There are no groups - only individuals.

genius, you just did away with the entire study of sociology in a handful of keyboard strokes.

You've put your finger on the problem. To Llewdor, other people aren't real.

no, they're real. They're just silly for not living in his perfectly rational world where things like social pressure and culturalization exist.

The statistic wasn't "what percentage of black people are 'lazy blacks." Don't lie and try to hide your obvious racism as "statistics," kid.

Well, I suppose it would also be racist to say it's dangerous in many parts of Africa...

And how much discriminiation do you think black people face?

Much in certain parts of the south, but very little or none in most of America.

Oh! No discriminiation! LOL!

I fail to perceive humour, or wit in your predictable sarcasm.

That's hilarious, because all it takes is ONE employer who thinks "there is a higher percentage of lazy blacks out there" and refuse an employee based on this 'statistics,' to DISPROVE your idiotic statements.

Are you an idiot? If a black were lazy he'd apply for welfare, not a job. If I was hiring and a black asked for a job my first impression would be that he WAS NOT lazy.

You just think they're lazy. I suppose you haven't got anything against Jews either, you just think they're money-grubbers?

Not only that but *GASP* I am planning on converting to Judaism!

My point was not that all blacks are lazy, you ****in' moron, but that whites are not responsible for the ones who are.

(Blacks are) nearly seven times as likely to suffer from AIDS.

Oh, and another thing, how does the above indicate "racism"?

Did we get to 'lazy blacks' already? Hmm.

What'd you get on your ACT and SAT if you don't mind me asking?

33 and 1410(780/630)

Oh, and another thing, how does the above indicate "racism"?

What would you say it indicates?

What would you say it indicates?

*AHEM* Please do not ask me that, simply state how it can relate to racism.

*AHEM* Please do not ask me that, simply state how it can relate to racism.

Asking the wrong person for that.

Incidentally, I can't ask you what you think?

Asking the wrong person for that.

Incidentally, I can't ask you what you think?

Well, you could, but I would prefer not to answer, as I can't think of a response that wouldn't put me in a somewhat akward position.

Well, you could, but I would prefer not to answer, as I can't think of a response that wouldn't put me in a somewhat akward position.

Err. Isn't that something to think about? I mean, unless it's some kind of privacy issue...

Err. Isn't that something to think about? I mean, unless it's some kind of privacy issue...

I have thought about it. But if I post anything about it I fear I might be proverbially lynched.

I have thought about it. But if I post anything about it I fear I might be proverbially lynched.
Interesting choice of words, given the thread.

This wouldn't have anything to do with that "you can have more penis or more brains" sort of stuff, would it? Surely, that sort of sexual insecurity went out with the 90's.

What would you say it indicates?

since he wont answer. what do YOU think it indicates?

discrimination doesnt spring to my mind but cat is talking about disadvantages. a higher rate of AIDS is certainly a disadvantage. other than that im at a loss at how it relates to our topic.

is it 7 times more prevalent in the US?

since he wont answer. what do YOU think it indicates?

Can't say. Less it's an extreme sickle cell-like disposition or something, which doesn't quite make sense, there's probably another cause. Racism? Not necesarrily, not directly at least.

Can't say. Less it's an extreme sickle cell-like disposition or something, which doesn't quite make sense, there's probably another cause. Racism? Not necesarrily, not directly at least.

hmmm looking at http://www.whitehouse.gov/onap/facts.html

african american males make up 13% of the (male) population in the US and are 47% of (male) hiv/aids cases (of the past 20 years)

african american females make up 12% of the (female) population in the US and are 63% of the (female) hiv/aids cases (of past 20 years).

definitely skewed but its hard to decide why. i can think of possibilities but they would be pure conjecture on my part.

Interesting choice of words, given the thread.

This wouldn't have anything to do with that "you can have more penis or more brains" sort of stuff, would it? Surely, that sort of sexual insecurity went out with the 90's.

I'm refering to the fact that I could be accused of racism, you idiot.

Well, I suppose it would also be racist to say it's dangerous in many parts of Africa...

No, but that's not analogous to your previous statement is it? Try again.

Much in certain parts of the south, but very little or none in most of America.

And you believe this because ... why?

I fail to perceive humour, or wit in your predictable sarcasm.

You discriminate against black people, but try to say that black people face "little or no" discrimination.

I find that sickening and funny.

Are you an idiot?

If I was I would at least have the comfort of being more intelligent than you.

If a black were lazy he'd apply for welfare, not a job. If I was hiring and a black asked for a job my first impression would be that he WAS NOT lazy.

It's a good thing you aren't an employer. Applying for a job indicates nothing about whether someone is lazy, a fact shown by how many lazy employees there are in the world. But hey, you got a chance to make the welfare-black-lazy connection, however spurious - I think racists like you get off on that.

My point was not that all blacks are lazy, you ****in' moron, but that whites are not responsible for the ones who are.

Your point was that blacks who are discriminated against are "lazy." Because you're a fucking racist. Don't get angry just because I point it out. You should be proud of your racism.

Well, you could, but I would prefer not to answer, as I can't think of a response that wouldn't put me in a somewhat akward position.

Yeah, the awkward position of not being able to deny your racism any longer. What was your brilliant answer? Your racism is already evident and your own stupid statements are getting you "lynched" regardless, so don't be coy.

Yeah, the awkward position of not being able to deny your racism any longer. What was your brilliant answer? Your racism is already evident and your own stupid statements are getting you "lynched" regardless, so don't be coy.

Sir, if you are trying to piss-me-off, you're doing a helluva job. Point-out specifically what comment I made that makes me racist. Also, please state why someone who was racist would NOT want to be thought of as such...ON AN ONLINE ACOUNT! And please do tell what makes you think blacks are discriminated against. You demand to know why I think they aren't, and I answer by saying there is no proof that they are. I do not deny they were a few decades ago, and I won't deny they still are by some people, but racists are a minority.
When I see a black person my brain doesn't register "Black Person", it just registers "Person". Now as to black problems in America, I do NOT believe they are caused by a race. It has to do with several social factors, but I don't believe that black people fail simply because they are black. I do resent however, that you are trying to blame it on whites. Even if there is some "racists patterns" left in America's brains, they are largely sub-concious, and generally do not figure into jobs. If a black person had better credentials then a white, I would most certainly hire the black, as would virtually any company. Unfortunatly, people like you would probably hire the black whether he had better credentials or not, which makes me upset.

Point-out specifically what comment I made that makes me racist.

Again? Making me repeat myself won't change anything, and if you're honestly ignorant of your racism, my statements won't enlighten you. Let alone yours. But OK, I'll indulge you.

Not that there is anything wrong with African-Americans, not that they aren't often smarter then whites, but on a grand scale alot of them do NOT want to find jobs.

Racist. This isn't based on anything but your own prejudice.

So you are saying statisitically blacks are dumber and less educated then whites? Not my fault.

Racist. The statistic was on education, not on intelligence.

It's not MY fault that there is a higher percentage of lazy blacks out there.

Racist. The statistic has nothing to do with laziness, as I've already explained.

So, you're a racist. Anything else I can help you with? Perhaps you'd like me to point out how gravity works, or what color is the sky?

Also, please state why someone who was racist would NOT want to be thought of as such...ON AN ONLINE ACOUNT!

Why, the same sort of person who wouldn't want to be "proverbially lynched." The same sort of person who alters his behavior to avoid getting seen in a poor light by anonymous online strangers he is debating with.

You.

And please do tell what makes you think blacks are discriminated against.

The fact that people like you assert that black people are lazy, don't want jobs and are stupid.

QED.

If a black person had better credentials then a white, I would most certainly hire the black, as would virtually any company. Unfortunatly, people like you would probably hire the black whether he had better credentials or not, which makes me upset.

Why don't you lecture me about business after you've got some more real-world experience. And maybe come to grips with your own bigotry.

And please do tell what makes you think blacks are discriminated against.

The fact that people like you assert that black people are lazy, don't want jobs and are stupid.

And that ladies and gentlemen ends the thread. Everything after this is superfluous.

Again? Making me repeat myself won't change anything, and if you're honestly ignorant of your racism, my statements won't enlighten you. Let alone yours. But OK, I'll indulge you.



Racist. This isn't based on anything but your own prejudice.

A lot of people would prefer not to have jobs, and are lazy, INCLUDING ME. UH-OH! I'm racist against...humans? AND MYSELF! ARGH! CAN'T...NO...HELP!



Racist. The statistic was on education, not on intelligence.

Acually the two have much in common. Also, blacks have lower a I.Q. on avarage then whites. Of course, the whites down-south where the majority of blacks live have lower I.Q.'s then avavrage blacks. Does that mean I am *GASP* racist against southern-whites?!?!?

Racist. The statistic has nothing to do with laziness, as I've already explained.

You explained how blacks might not get as high of wages as whites, which may, or may not be true. There are plenty of jobs out there, to say that blacks can't find a job simply because they're black is ridiculas.

So, you're a racist. Anything else I can help you with? Perhaps you'd like me to point out how gravity works, or what color is the sky?

Perhaps you could explain to me why you are racist against whites...


Why, the same sort of person who wouldn't want to be "proverbially lynched." The same sort of person who alters his behavior to avoid getting seen in a poor light by anonymous online strangers he is debating with.

You.

To put it bluntly, I don't give a rat's ass about your opinion.


The fact that people like you assert that black people are lazy, don't want jobs and are stupid.

QED.

When did I say all black people? I higher percentage then whites, so ****ing what? There are lazy people in every race, are you saying I'm racist against all them for admitting it? Ther is a higher percentage of lazy blacks then whites, so sue me. It could be random probability, it could be something else. Just as I KNOW it has nothing to do with the color of their skin, you should KNOW it has nothing to do with racist whites.


Why don't you lecture me about business after you've got some more real-world experience. And maybe come to grips with your own bigotry.

Precisely what-the-hell do you mean by "real-world experience"?

Might I ask how these statistics compare to Latin American communities? Just interested as to which gets the roughest deal.

Actually, why am I not surprised to see the racist card pulled by page 12? Has anybody been compared to Hitler yet?

There are lazy people in every race, are you saying I'm racist against all them for admitting it?

No, you're racist for saying this:

Ther is a higher percentage of lazy blacks then whites, so sue me.

Believing that is the very definition of being a racist

*snip*

I just got the most confused mental imagery ever. It was like a fish dragged out of water floundering around furiously backpedaling as far as possible.

No, you're racist for saying this:



Believing that is the very definition of being a racist

Not really. Sorry to allow something like reason to interrupt your very laudable defence of anything that seems modern, however, it is nothing more than a statement of fact, or of belief. It is, to quote the "History Boys". "race related, not racist".

Were TPE to have written "Blacks are more lazy because they are a sub-race with no more right to live on God's green earth than a weasel", that would qualify as racist. However, simply making a supposition such as that you quote merely qualifies as a statement not supported by fact.

No, you're racist for saying this:



Believing that is the very definition of being a racistor just mis-informed.

You know, I see alot of people tossing the word "Racist" around but very few have sat down and tried to think of solutions to the problem. Do we keep things as Status Quo? Do we try to alter the work environment to give everyone a level playing feild or slant it to certain minorities? Do we alter the thinkings of the children to remove discriminating thoughts? Should the Government (Fed/State/Local) step in and dictate things?

what's your solution?

Not really. Sorry to allow something like reason to interrupt your very laudable defence of anything that seems modern, however, it is nothing more than a statement of fact, or of belief. It is, to quote the "History Boys". "race related, not racist".

Were TPE to have written "Blacks are more lazy because they are a sub-race with no more right to live on God's green earth than a weasel", that would qualify as racist. However, simply making a supposition such as that you quote merely qualifies as a statement not supported by fact.

no, not at all.

Racism is, by definition, believing one race to be inferior to another race through no other reason than that they are of that race.

What you are refering to is perhaps the more overt, virulent, destructive racism of the klan, or neo nazi groups, or something like that. But god, life, none of that has anything to do with it.

Racism, by definition, is only the belief that one race is inferior to another race. That's all it means.

And believing that blacks are lazier than whites because they are black is racism. By definition.

No, you're racist for saying this:



Believing that is the very definition of being a racist

One race by the very nature of probability is going to have more lazy people in it then another. To expect two given races to have exactly the same amount of lazy people is being detached from reality. Just because I know one die rolled higher then the other, doesn't mean I think the other is bad luck to roll.

One race by the very nature of probability is going to have more lazy people in it then another.

Actually, that's bullshit.

The very nature of probability is going to have the amount of lazy people versus non lazy people rougly spread out evenly across each race. The only way you would have what you suggest is if you believed that something about BEING BLACK made them more prone to laziness. And guess what, that's racism.

It's frankly pathetic that you're trying to use some skewed perspective of science and math to frantically try to justify your own admitted racism.

Racism is, by definition, believing one race to be inferior to another race through no other reason than that they are of that race.


As I stated, if one die rolls lower then the other die, it doesn't make it an inferior die. Blacks got bad luck, statistically speaking, that doesn't mean I believe they are inferior as a people.

As I stated, if one die rolls lower then the other die, it doesn't make it an inferior die. Blacks got bad luck, statistically speaking, that doesn't mean I believe they are inferior as a people.

Oh this is pathetic. You believe blacks are more lazy than white for no other reason than they are black, yes?

Which is to say that being black, JUST BEING BLACK, increases ones odds of being "lazy"?

Is that your perspective? Just a yes or no please.

Actually, that's bullshit.

The very nature of probability is going to have the amount of lazy people versus non lazy people rougly spread out evenly across each race. The only way you would have what you suggest is if you believed that something about BEING BLACK made them more prone to laziness. And guess what, that's racism.

It's frankly pathetic that you're trying to use some skewed perspective of science and math to frantically try to justify your own admitted racism.

If I roll two sets of dice, and the red ones land on higher numbers then the green ones, I can't admit it unless I say that red is an awsome color and green sucks?

Acually the two have much in common. Also, blacks have lower a I.Q. on avarage then whites.

I like how you alternate between denying you're a racist, and trying to convince me how stupid black people are.

Perhaps you could explain to me why you are racist against whites...

Perhaps you could show even one post of mine that demonstrates that I'm racist. Go on, waste everyone's time and try. Or you could admit that the Pee Wee Herman defense doesn't really work in this case.

Precisely what-the-hell do you mean by "real-world experience"?

Something you rather clearly don't have...

no, not at all.

Racism is, by definition, believing one race to be inferior to another race through no other reason than that they are of that race.

What you are refering to is perhaps the more overt, virulent, destructive racism of the klan, or neo nazi groups, or something like that. But god, life, none of that has anything to do with it.

Racism, by definition, is only the belief that one race is inferior to another race. That's all it means.

And believing that blacks are lazier than whites because they are black is racism. By definition.

Have you ever considered improving your vocabulary? You contrived to use the phrase "by definition" three times in one post, either by accident, or a poorly conceived desire to se anaphora to reinforce your point.:)


Now then; did TPE actually state that Blacks were universally inferior to whites in all regards? No. he merely stated that they were a little more lazy. Irrespective of the truth of this statement, it is no more racist than the statement "Blacks run faster than whites".

Happy now?:rolleyes:

Now then; did TPE actually state that Blacks were universally inferior to whites in all regards? No. he merely stated that they were a little more lazy.

Which is completely bullshit, and utterly nonsensical. Laziness is a negative quality, yes?

A higher prevalance of laziness would thus be seen as a higher negative quality, yes?

So a group that is "more lazy" would be more negative. IE inferior.

Racism does not require one to believe that one race is inferior IN ALL REGARDS. It merely requires one to believe that one race is inferior to another race for no other reason than their race.

Happy now?

I'm perfectly happy. I'm not the one frantically trying to justify his racism, so I'm fine.

Oh this is pathetic. You believe blacks are more lazy than white for no other reason than they are black, yes?

Which is to say that being black, JUST BEING BLACK, increases ones odds of being "lazy"?

Is that your perspective? Just a yes or no please.

NO. Please see my dice examples. A Bunch of red dice land on 6, and a bunch green dice land on 1. I, not being supersticious (or it's worldly counter-part racist), have nothing agaisnt rolling the green dice, as I don't believe there is any less of a chance of them landing on a high number then the red ones.

NO. Please see my dice examples. A Bunch of red dice land on 6, and a bunch green dice land on 1. I, not being supersticious (or it's worldly counter-part racist), have nothing agaisnt rolling the green dice, as I don't believe there is any less of a chance of them landing on a high number then the red ones.

this is bullshit. Fine, WHY do you think blacks "got a bad roll"? why do you think they are more lazy?

Is laziness a social characteristic, or a genetic one, what causes it?

Now then; did TPE actually state that Blacks were universally inferior to whites in all regards? No.

You don't have to believe that one race is "universally inferior" to another in order to be a racist. Try again without the strawman.

And why are you so bent out of shape over The Parkus Empire, The Blessed Chris? Is it because you too are a racist and you feel sympathy to your fellow racist? Perhaps also jealousy, that someone besides you is getting the attention in this matter? I think so.

A lot of people would prefer not to have jobs, and are lazy, INCLUDING ME. UH-OH! I'm racist against...humans? AND MYSELF! ARGH! CAN'T...NO...HELP!

When did I say all black people? I higher percentage then whites, so ****ing what? There are lazy people in every race, are you saying I'm racist against all them for admitting it? Ther is a higher percentage of lazy blacks then whites, so sue me. It could be random probability, it could be something else. Just as I KNOW it has nothing to do with the color of their skin, you should KNOW it has nothing to do with racist whites.

One race by the very nature of probability is going to have more lazy people in it then another. To expect two given races to have exactly the same amount of lazy people is being detached from reality. Just because I know one die rolled higher then the other, doesn't mean I think the other is bad luck to roll.

As I stated, if one die rolls lower then the other die, it doesn't make it an inferior die. Blacks got bad luck, statistically speaking, that doesn't mean I believe they are inferior as a people.

If I roll two sets of dice, and the red ones land on higher numbers then the green ones, I can't admit it unless I say that red is an awsome color and green sucks?

NO. Please see my dice examples. A Bunch of red dice land on 6, and a bunch green dice land on 1. I, not being supersticious (or it's worldly counter-part racist), have nothing agaisnt rolling the green dice, as I don't believe there is any less of a chance of them landing on a high number then the red ones.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/Dragonkirby/Non-Kirby/KDSez/police7mp.jpg

this is bullshit. Fine, WHY do you think blacks "got a bad roll"? why do you think they are more lazy?

Is laziness a social characteristic, or a genetic one, what causes it?

Pure chance, likely. Oh, sure you could factor that chance, but that would be like factoring the wind-resistance and gravity to determine why a die landed on what it landed on.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/Dragonkirby/Non-Kirby/KDSez/police7mp.jpg

Lol. :p

Pure chance, likely. Oh, sure you could factor that chance, but that would be like factoring the wind-resistance and gravity to determine why a die landed on what it landed on.

absolute nonsense.

It is true that in any statistical sample you will have "streaking". Flip a coin 100 times and you will have a series of heads. If you could quantify "laziness" and sample a bunch of people, you woul dhave streaks of people in a row being more, or less "lazy" than the average, in a row.

But those streaks are totally and utterly random, and are not caused by anything.

Yes, in any statistical analysis you will have streaks, but again, those streaks are NOT distributed specifically, they are, by definition, streaky.

You are telling me you honestly, truly are trying to argue that the "streak" of more lazy people ended up streaking with black people. Blacks, not whites, or men, or people over 6 feet tall, or over 200 pounds, or women with black hair, or men with the last name of Smith, or any other completely arbitrary classification?

that it's PURELY CHANCE that the "streak" centers on those that are black, completely ignoring the fact that statistics do no streak based on any particular classification.

That you are using the property of statistics that streak in general to try to arge that this streak occured IN ONE PARTICULAR sample, FOR NO REASON, which is entirely IMPROBABLE?

Are you really and truly trying to use statistics to argue something that is statistically highly unlikely, that JUST BY COINCIDENCE the "lazy" group is divided by skin color?

Do you understand how statistics work at all?

or just mis-informed.

You know, I see alot of people tossing the word "Racist" around but very few have sat down and tried to think of solutions to the problem. Do we keep things as Status Quo? Do we try to alter the work environment to give everyone a level playing feild or slant it to certain minorities? Do we alter the thinkings of the children to remove discriminating thoughts? Should the Government (Fed/State/Local) step in and dictate things?

what's your solution?

I'm with you on that. There's a lot fingerpointing, and not a whole lot of discussion about what to do about obvious disparity.

The issue of silent discrimination is an issue that is going to take time to solve. Generations of racist mind-set will have to give away to younger perspectives that aren't burdened by it. However, the negative stereotype of blacks will likely persist, as long as a greater proportion of blacks are living in low-income, crime-ridden areas. So, the key issues, in my mind, are economics, and combatting drug-related crime.

The most important thing to do is for people to help themselves, but this has to be done in an environment that is conducive to success. That means addressing the economic issues of poverty and street crime. If these issues are addressed, you will likely see that minorities will fare better in the working world, as they become more commonplace among the majority of the white workforce.

Another issue to consider, is having a police force that isn't racially proportionate. This is one area where I completely support minority representation, and affirmative action. If there are minorities in poor areas ridden with street-crime, the image of an all-white police force (who most likey do not live in their neighbourhood) reinforces the imagery of oppression, which may not be true, but can be perceived as such by minorities who don't feel like they are getting a fair shake.

Pure chance, likely. Oh, sure you could factor that chance, but that would be like factoring the wind-resistance and gravity to determine why a die landed on what it landed on.

Jeezus, gotta add to the list...

There would have to be some factor that links black people together and increases the likelyhood of laziness. Also, that would not the same for other races. 'Chance' might make one person lazy. But an entire race predisposed to laziness?

I'm with you on that. There's a lot fingerpointing, and not a whole lot of discussion about what to do about obvious disparity.

Fancy...

absolute nonsense.

It is true that in any statistical sample you will have "streaking". Flip a coin 100 times and you will have a series of heads. If you could quantify "laziness" and sample a bunch of people, you woul dhave streaks of people in a row being more, or less "lazy" than the average, in a row.

But those streaks are totally and utterly random, and are not caused by anything.

Yes, in any statistical analysis you will have streaks, but again, those streaks are NOT distributed specifically, they are, by definition, streaky.

You are telling me you honestly, truly are trying to argue that the "streak" of more lazy people ended up streaking with black people. Blacks, not whites, or men, or people over 6 feet tall, or over 200 pounds, or women with black hair, or men with the last name of Smith, or any other completely arbitrary classification?

that it's PURELY CHANCE that the "streak" centers on those that are black, completely ignoring the fact that statistics do no streak based on any particular classification.

That you are using the property of statistics that streak in general to try to arge that this streak occured IN ONE PARTICULAR sample, FOR NO REASON, which is entirely IMPROBABLE?

Are you really and truly trying to use statistics to argue something that is statistically highly unlikely, that JUST BY COINCIDENCE the "lazy" group is divided by skin color?

Do you understand how statistics work at all?

Hear me out. I'm not saying we have a "lazy" group and a "working" group. Both groups have some of each. Blacks have more lazy. I'm sure the same can happen with height, hair color, last names, ect. I could compare last names and find certain last names had more criminal behavior. But would I discriminate against people with that last name for that? No.
My only point is that unemployed blacks are not to due to racism, and after reviewing what I said above, you can see that I'm not racist.

Pure chance, likely. Oh, sure you could factor that chance, but that would be like factoring the wind-resistance and gravity to determine why a die landed on what it landed on.

So, what makes you believe that there is a higher percentage of lazy black people than lazy people of another ethnicity? What studies do you have to cite?

Jeezus, gotta add to the list...

There would have to be some factor that links black people together and increases the likelyhood of laziness. Also, that would not the same for other races. 'Chance' might make one person lazy. But an entire race predisposed to laziness?

Where are you getting the idea I condemmed the "whole race" as lazy?

So, what makes you believe that there is a higher percentage of lazy black people than lazy people of another ethnicity? What studies do you have to cite?

The ones put at the beggining of this thread. Fewer blacks have jobs.

The ones put at the beggining of this thread. Fewer blacks have jobs.

I see. So, you are assuming that the only reason for this would be "they're just lazy."

Must be a wonderful, privileged world you live in, my dear.

Hear me out. I'm not saying we have a "lazy" group and a "working" group. Both groups have some of each. Blacks have more lazy.

Which means by definition blacks are the "lazy" group as they are more lazy on average.

And to suggest that this is conicidence is purely nonsensical.

My only point is that unemployed blacks are not to due to racism, and after reviewing what I said above, you can see that I'm not racist.

No, I can see that you are desperatly trying to say that you are not. And failing.

Where are you getting the idea I condemmed the "whole race" as lazy?

Hence the use of 'predisposed'. You crackers are predisposed to sunburns, but you don't all look like lobsters. :p

Fancy...

haha... okay...

The ones put at the beggining of this thread. Fewer blacks have jobs.

Unemployed =/= lazy.

The ones put at the beggining of this thread. Fewer blacks have jobs.

and you believe that fewer blacks have job because they are lazy. Which is to say, blacks don't do well, as opposed to whites, because they are more lazy than whites.

not because of social conditions, not because of discrimination, not because of loss of opportunity, not because of any myriad of external circumstances. But just because they are black, and blacks are more lazy than white.

Yup...sounds pretty racist. No no, that's right, not racist. You just think blacks are lazier.

I'm sure the same can happen with height
Nutritional, and Genetic.
hair color
Genetic
last names
Cultural.

So, what's the point again? None of this is 'Pure Chance'. There is something behind it.

Which means by definition blacks are the "lazy" group as they are more lazy on average.

And to suggest that this is conicidence is purely nonsensical.

It would be racist on your part to say it wasn't a coincidence.

The issue of silent discrimination is an issue that is going to take time to solve. Generations of racist mind-set will have to give away to younger perspectives that aren't burdened by it. However, the negative stereotype of blacks will likely persist, as long as a greater proportion of blacks are living in low-income, crime-ridden areas. So, the key issues, in my mind, are economics, and combatting drug-related crime. not just blacks, but whites, Latinos, Mexicans, Cubans, Philipinos, Chinese, Veitnamese, Korean, Japanese, etc... every group has a negative stereotype.

but agreed with combatting economics and crime... but the question is how?

The most important thing to do is for people to help themselves, but this has to be done in an environment that is conducive to success. That means addressing the economic issues of poverty and street crime. If these issues are addressed, you will likely see that minorities will fare better in the working world, as they become more commonplace among the majority of the white workforce. *nods* and that is backed by the type of environment "successful" people are raised in.

Another issue to consider, is having a police force that isn't racially proportionate. This is one area where I completely support minority representation, and affirmative action. If there are minorities in poor areas ridden with street-crime, the image of an all-white police force (who most likey do not live in their neighbourhood) reinforces the imagery of oppression, which may not be true, but can be perceived as such by minorities who don't feel like they are getting a fair shake. however... You can't 'force' anyone into a job they don't want. Assigning people to areas because of their "skin color" is racially biased.

Now if the image of police officers were improved upon (and in some cities, they were) then I can see a more diverse police force.

however, a blockage that most police run into is crime in "no snitch" zones. they need to show that they can protect people who do come forward. perhaps get more active in the communities in positive ways...

and one thing that definately needs to be done is removing the 'glamour' of Gang Life.

It would be racist on your part to say it wasn't a coincidence.

no, it would be racist to suggest that it's true, at all. You are trying to argue you believe blacks are more lazy, but this is coincidental.

You presume I think that they're more lazy. I don't. I also don't believe for a second your "oh, it's just pure statistics, I don't believe blacks are inferior" shtick.

You don't have to believe that one race is "universally inferior" to another in order to be a racist. Try again without the strawman.

And why are you so bent out of shape over The Parkus Empire, The Blessed Chris? Is it because you too are a racist and you feel sympathy to your fellow racist? Perhaps also jealousy, that someone besides you is getting the attention in this matter? I think so.

That's even better. Really, I thought Neo Art was being illogical, but my word you have trumped him. Congratulations; Once more, you defy all conventions of debate and resort to personal slurs as a matter of course.

Incidentally, what is racism but the belief that one race is universally, or generally, superior to another. Surely, applying your own remarkable brand of logic, it is then racist to contend that black men make better atheletes than their white counterparts?

Nutritional, and Genetic.

Genetic

Cultural.

So, what's the point again? None of this is 'Pure Chance'. There is something behind it.

I believe it is pure chance. If you are trying to say that black "culture" and genetics make them lazy, then YOU are being racist. If you are saying that hair color is a good indicator of how violent someone is, then you are a FOOL.

Surely, applying your own remarkable brand of logic, it is then racist to contend that black men make better atheletes than their white counterparts?

Solely because they're black? Yeah, pretty much.

I believe it is pure chance.

And that's a bit of a problem, because it's not realistic at all.

no, it would be racist to suggest that it's true, at all. You are trying to argue you believe blacks are more lazy, but this is coincidental.

You presume I think that they're more lazy. I don't. I also don't believe for a second your "oh, it's just pure statistics, I don't believe blacks are inferior" shtick.

Sir, if you don't believe me that's up to you. I say I am not racist, if you want to say I am, it is apperent you will settle for no-less. You may keep whatever opinion you like, have a nice life.

Which is completely bullshit, and utterly nonsensical. Laziness is a negative quality, yes?

A higher prevalance of laziness would thus be seen as a higher negative quality, yes?

So a group that is "more lazy" would be more negative. IE inferior.

Racism does not require one to believe that one race is inferior IN ALL REGARDS. It merely requires one to believe that one race is inferior to another race for no other reason than their race.


So, BY DEFINITION;), in order to be able to claim to not be racist, one must believe that all races are equal, in all regards, irrespective of the accepted scientific evidence that suggests otherwise. Another masterstroke I see....

You alsoe appear to have omitted to quote my criticism of you literary style, or lack thereof. Care to explain why?

Solely because they're black? Yeah, pretty much.

And yet most would accept this as a general axiom?

I believe it is pure chance. If you are trying to say that black "culture" and genetics make them lazy, then YOU are being racist. If you are saying that hair color is a good indicator of how violent someone is, then you are a FOOL.

Actually there's nothing racist about saying culture propogates certain traits. That's sociology, and it in fact is the complete OPPOSITE of racism, as it does not proport to suggest that something about the race is what causes it, but something about the culture, which can be changed.

Now, I'd be careful of names, because you're trying to convince us that you really, truly, actually hold the belief that something mind boggling unlikely that traits like being more lazy is divided right down racial lines, for no reason, PURELY BY CHANCE.

You are actually trying to stand for the proposition that something nonsensically unlikely is true, and you're calling someone else the fool...

And that's a bit of a problem, because it's not realistic at all.

Then what is it if it's not chance? "Destiny"?!?!?

So, BY DEFINITION;), in order to be able to claim to not be racist, one must believe that all races are equal, in all regards, irrespective of the accepted scientific evidence that suggests otherwise.

Actually, this thread started with examples of how blacks are disadvantaged in society, so that's clearly not it...

You alsoe appear to have omitted to quote my criticism of you literary style, or lack thereof. Care to explain why?
Irrelevance?

That's even better. Really, I thought Neo Art was being illogical, but my word you have trumped him. Congratulations; Once more, you defy all conventions of debate and resort to personal slurs as a matter of course.

Debate? I wasn't aware that "Ooh! Someone has been called a racist, I AM NOSTRADAMUS!" was an argument. What were you arguing for? What was your logic?

You weren't making an argument. Just a comment. Well, I am just making a comment too. Happy now? ;)

Incidentally, what is racism but the belief that one race is universally, or generally, superior to another.

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination


Surely, applying your own remarkable brand of logic, it is then racist to contend that black men make better atheletes than their white counterparts?

It could be.

In your case it probably is, since you yourself are a known racist.

However, there are statistics for "average running speed." There aren't for "laziness." So your analogy fails - and it fails using your "logic," not mine. Nice try old chap.

"There is a good part out there that are doing something with their lives and living the American dream."

The American dream is that of the accumulation of wealth and ability to buy anything you demand (in a nutshell). A person isn't a success just because of their mendacious requirement for material goods and social status.

Actually there's nothing racist about saying culture propogates certain traits. That's sociology, and it in fact is the complete OPPOSITE of racism, as it does not proport to suggest that something about the race is what causes it, but something about the culture, which can be changed.

Now, I'd be careful of names, because you're trying to convince us that you really, truly, actually hold the belief that something mind boggling unlikely that traits like being more lazy is divided right down racial lines, for no reason, PURELY BY CHANCE.

You are actually trying to stand for the proposition that something nonsensically unlikely is true, and you're calling someone else the fool...

Are you saying the blacks enjoy a culture that supports laziness?

Then what is it if it's not chance? "Destiny"?!?!?

You seem not to have understood. Assuming it was true, there would be a driving force to it. Genetics, culture, diet, education, hell if I know, it's your crazy idea. But there would be something.

And yet most would accept this as a general axiom?

You'd be suprised what people would accept.

So, BY DEFINITION;), in order to be able to claim to not be racist, one must believe that all races are equal, in all regards, irrespective of the accepted scientific evidence that suggests otherwise. Another masterstroke I see....

That which is proven is that which is proven. It is not racism to be blind to facts IF those facts have been propogated.

It IS racism to assume, absent fact, that it is racial. If your default position, absent any ACTUL proof, is that it is a racial reason, then yes, that is racistm.

If something does have real, true, supported evidence, then it can be considered true, regardless of what it says about that race.

But if you assume it's race with no evidence, or even in the absence of contrary evidence, it is racism.

You alsoe (sic) appear to have omitted to quote my criticism of you literary style, or lack thereof. Care to explain why?

Um...because I don't give a flying fuck about what you think of my "literary style"? Because it's entirely irrelevant to this discussion and if you don't like it...tough shit?

Would you like me to continue to explain why your opinion of my style is of no consequence to me? Do you particularly make a point to comment on things you don't care about? Or were you under the opinion that somehow you'd hurt my feelings and I'd go crying about how you're mean and it's all unfair?

Rather full of yourself to presume I give a damn, don't you think?

Are you saying the blacks enjoy a culture that supports laziness?

I think most antropologists and sociologists would take issue to the presumption that a culture is "enjoyed" and not ingrained.

Whyever would one seek to qualify something by scientific means that does not lend itself to being so qualified?

Parkus seems to be making quite a show of it. *shrug*

You seem not to have understood. Assuming it was true, there would be a driving force to it. Genetics, culture, diet, education, hell if I know, it's your crazy idea. But there would be something.

Correct. Just like wind-resistance, trajectory of throw, influence of colliding objects, and gravity affect dice, so do your above-mentioned factors determine racial chance.

Debate? I wasn't aware that "Ooh! Someone has been called a racist, I AM NOSTRADAMUS!" was an argument. What were you arguing for? What was your logic?

You weren't making an argument. Just a comment. Well, I am just making a comment too. Happy now? ;)



1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination



It could be.

In your case it probably is, since you yourself are a known racist.

However, there are statistics for "average running speed." There aren't for "laziness." So your analogy fails - and it fails using your "logic," not mine. Nice try old chap.


Has apathy ever been scientifcally determined quotient? Could you show me the apathy gene?

Whyever would one seek to qualify something by scientific means that does not lend itself to being so qualified?

Whyever would one seek to qualify something by scientific means that does not lend itself to being so qualified?

Generally they wouldn't. But then again, racists are not exactly logical people. Otherwise...why, they wouldn't be racists.

I think most antropologists and sociologists would take issue to the presumption that a culture is "enjoyed" and not ingrained.

Take issue WITH, not take issue to. Please try to learn English in a generally recognised form, it does lend itself better to comprehension.

I think most antropologists and sociologists would take issue to the presumption that a culture is "enjoyed" and not ingrained.

Therefor you're saying genes determine culture...

Correct. Just like wind-resistance, trajectory of throw, influence of colliding objects, and gravity affect dice, so do your above-mentioned factors determine racial chance.

*sigh* So you say the things I listed make more black people lazy?

Generally they wouldn't. But then again, racists are not exactly logical people. Otherwise...why, they wouldn't be racists.

Wonderful. That's genuinely exciting. However, it was the Sam to your Frodo, Greater Trostia, who originally made the contention, hence, your post is irrelevant.

hmm..... Inability to write English, and misinterpretation of posts.... welcome to NSG, you'll fit in well.

Therefor you're saying genes determine culture...

um, no.

*sigh* So you say the things I listed make more black people lazy?

Not directly.

So, BY DEFINITION;), in order to be able to claim to not be racist, one must believe that all races are equal, in all regards, irrespective of the accepted scientific evidence that suggests otherwise. Another masterstroke I see....

There is no "scientific evidence" that races even exist. Biologically, there is not enough of a genetic difference between the "races" to even label them as such.

There certainly are ethnic trends - a person of a given ethnicity is more likely to carry certain genetic traits because of their lineage - but nothing about any particular ethnicity that makes them inherently inferior or superior to any other ethnicity. A member of any ethnicity can carry the gene that causes sickle cell anemia, for instance. However, because of their lineage, a black person is statistically more likely to carry it.

Racism comes in when you start assuming things about people of a given ethnicity simply because of the stereotypes applied to that ethnicity - or even assuming that a given individual will meet actual statistical averages. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that black people are statistically more likely to be lazy than people of any other ethnicity - so that one is based completely off of stereotypes.

um, no.

Good. What it your opinion DOES determine culture then?

Good. What it your opinion DOES determine culture then?

Isn't there an entire branch of study on that question?

Not directly.

...

huh?

=There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that black people are statistically more likely to be lazy than people of any other ethnicity - so that one is based completely off of stereotypes.

Wrong. They are statistically much less likely to get a job. Please go back to the beginning of this thread and refresh your memory.

...

huh?

These factors aren't the numbers themselves, they merely push it.

Wrong. They are statistically much less likely to get a job. Please go back to the beginning of this thread and refresh your memory.

You say they're lazy cuz they can't get jobs. You say they can't get jobs cuz they're lazy. We're going to have to keep you to one or the other here, you realize?

Isn't there an entire branch of study on that question?

Basically chance, correct?

Good. What it your opinion DOES determine culture then?

social pressure, social evolution, self propogating systems. I suggest doing some research in the fields of anthropology and sociology. Start with Weber for the foundational underpinnings.

not just blacks, but whites, Latinos, Mexicans, Cubans, Philipinos, Chinese, Veitnamese, Korean, Japanese, etc... every group has a negative stereotype.

but agreed with combatting economics and crime... but the question is how?


You're right, not just blacks, but negative stereotypes in general. How? Aye, there's the rub, eh?

I don't know. I think the key is not so much economic redistribution (although in some cases, maybe there should be a little more), but in creating a climate for economic investment in poor areas. In some cases, this may be something as simple as government projects in areas without employment. One large employer tends to draw more employment from industries that cater to the first one, and then eventually service industries for the general rising income of the population.

But battling street-crime is necessary for economic investment as well. I'm a little stuck on this... my thoughts would be to liberalize soft drugs. Stop putting people in jail for posession of pot. Concentrate those funds on stopping hard drug traffic. Employ an anti-drug campaign that focuses on illustrating the negative effects that drug traffiking has on society, as opposed to just the personal side effects.

You need to combine carrot-and-stick approaches in law enforcement. Hiring more police officers, particularly from the community that will they will be policing, will help in relating with poorer neighbourhoods, as well as hopefully improving relations overall. But you also have to get harder on criminals that use firearms in the act of performing illegal activities, and traffikers(sp?) of hard drugs. This includes possession of hard drugs as well, because traffikers wouldn't be dealing if the market wasn't there.

however... You can't 'force' anyone into a job they don't want. Assigning people to areas because of their "skin color" is racially biased.

Now if the image of police officers were improved upon (and in some cities, they were) then I can see a more diverse police force.

The issue usually isn't forcing people into jobs that they don't want, but hiring certain people from a pool of potential employees. This is what is happening in Toronto. Large-scale recruitment projects that more or less encourage minorities to apply. While this upsets some white people, it is addressing a societal issue, and clearly stipulated as acceptable in the Canadian constitution.

Improving relations with the police, often means having representation from that community. If the majority of your police force doesn't live in the community they're protecting, than you're already off to a faulty start.

however, a blockage that most police run into is crime in "no snitch" zones. they need to show that they can protect people who do come forward. perhaps get more active in the communities in positive ways...

Yup, yes and you betcha.

and one thing that definately needs to be done is removing the 'glamour' of Gang Life.

Much easier said than done. But if we can reduce the feeling of association that many young disenfranchised people have for gang life, than perhaps we can deminish it somewhat. Art usually reflects life first.

You say they're lazy cuz they can't get jobs. You say they can't get jobs cuz they're lazy. We're going to have to keep you to one or the other here, you realize?

Easy. Remove the former as I directly disagree with it.

Isn't there an entire branch of study on that question?

no. It's called sociology. Again, I suggest you familiarize yourself with it. Start with Weber.

These factors aren't the numbers themselves, they merely push it.

Push what? 'Not directly' implies some kind of chain effect. What does genetics affect that then affects 'the numbers'.

Has apathy ever been scientifcally determined quotient? Could you show me the apathy gene?

Nope. Which goes towards my point.

Whyever would one seek to qualify something by scientific means that does not lend itself to being so qualified?

Yeah, for example TPE stating that statistics of unemployment are a statistic of laziness. Why would he do that, you think? Stupidity or just ignorance?

Wrong. They are statistically much less likely to get a job. Please go back to the beginning of this thread and refresh your memory.

Lack of a job does not equate to laziness. There are all sorts of reasons that one might be unemployed - laziness being just one among many.

Lack of a job does not equate to laziness. There are all sorts of reasons that one might be unemployed - laziness being just one among many.

I've been saying this for pages, I don't think it's ever going to sink in.

no. It's called sociology. Again, I suggest you familiarize yourself with it. Start with Weber.

What do you mean 'no'? Do you object to me calling it a branch? Have you confused me with someone else?

Lack of a job does not equate to laziness. There are all sorts of reasons that one might be unemployed - laziness being just one among many.

to be fair, same as being discriminated against. it's just one among many.

Push what? 'Not directly' implies some kind of chain effect. What does genetics affect that then affects 'the numbers'.

Actions, eviorment, war, language, ect.