Race and the Wealth Gap (by Jim Wallis)
New studies managed by the Pew Charitable Trusts show us how far the country still needs to go in achieving economic equality. A major finding is that the while overall incomes are rising, the income gap between African American and white families is also rising.
Incomes have increased among both black and white families in the past three decades - mainly because more women are in the work force. But the increase was greater among whites, according to the study being released Tuesday.
One reason for the growing disparity: Incomes among black men have actually declined in the past three decades, when adjusted for inflation. They were offset only by gains among black women.
And, the studies showed that African Americans have more difficulty passing on their economic accomplishments to their children.
Nearly half of African Americans born to middle-income parents in the late 1960s plunged into poverty or near-poverty as adults, according to a new study - a perplexing finding that analysts say highlights the fragile nature of middle-class life for many African Americans.
Overall, family incomes have risen for both blacks and whites over the past three decades. But in a society where the privileges of class and income most often perpetuate themselves from generation to generation, black Americans have had more difficulty than whites in transmitting those benefits to their children.
Along with the income gap, there is a wealth gap.
Another reason so many middle-class blacks appear to be downwardly mobile is likely the huge wealth gap separating white and black families of similar incomes. For every $10 of wealth a white person has, blacks have $1, studies have found.
After the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and Voting Rights Act in 1965, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. next turned his attention to issues of economic justice. Forty years after his death, we still have a long way to go.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
There are so many issues at hand in this vastly complex issue. Whether it be discrimination and racism on both sides of the street, to the drug and gangsterism so idealized in young black culture, to a conditioned response to Democratic jargon.
This systemic problem will take at least another century if not more to untangle it's death grip on American culture.
Posted by: David | November 13, 2007 3:29 PM
I am interested in seeing these data broken down further by family structure. How is mobility among single parent families vs two parent families? A black/white X one parent/two parent family analysis would be interesting to see.
Posted by: jesse | November 13, 2007 3:46 PM
Decades of research continue to uphold the obvious. The poor economic performance of blacks in general, and black males in particular, is inextricably linked to sky-high illegitimacy and divorce rates. Only a tiny fraction of black males enjoy the privilege of growing up with their biological fathers. My heart goes out to this poor young boys born without a chance, but I have no influence on the attitudes or behavior of their parents, who all too often are still children themselves. Neither does the government.
As a society we have a long way to go, but how do you propose to get there?
Posted by: Steve | November 13, 2007 3:59 PM
I wonder if, in our recently-developed societal desire to help everyone celebrate their own particular, unique cultural heritage, we have not manufactured (inadvertently) much of this problem for ourselves? Perhaps we will need to face what is a rather hard "fact" - there are some cultures that are not worth saving, as a culture. For example, Much of inner-city black culture is destructive to the people who live within it, so destructive that, as the author points out, ". . .black Americans have had more difficulty than whites in transmitting those (middle class) benefits to their children." If this statement is really true (and at first blush, it struck me as a somewhat racist outlook, but I think it is nevertheless true), then it may help us understand that one of the best things that "middle-class whites" can do is to help extend the successful elements of our culture to the black sub-culture, of which there are so many unsuccessful and harmful aspects.
I am not proposing a reintroduction of "the white man's burden," but merely that we re-acknowledge something that we have tended to forget, in our zeal to recognize the uniqueness of all mankind - that some aspects of some cultures are basically negative, and need to go away.
Posted by: joekc | November 13, 2007 4:56 PM
"I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." MLK - "Beyond Vietnam"
we still have the giant triplets and are still thing-oriented, in our culture at large & in most all of our subcultures. plus, as much as we'd like to think otherwise, our grandchildren will still be facing the ramifications of jim crow.
God help us and send us more prophets like Martin King.
Posted by: nad2 | November 13, 2007 5:27 PM
It is unfortunate that the problem persists. Something that is undoubtedly true is the fact that the way things are, those who are currently wealthy have a MUCH easier time staying wealthy and even making more money than those who have less. It is very unfortunate how racism, even if subconscious (which I believe it tends to be nowadays), tends to eat away at people. It is true that minority poverty is probably caused by a variety of factors in combination (out-of-wedlock births, the negative cultural aspects glorifying violence and drugs, and systematic racism probably ALL play a role). For those who doubt the existence of hidden prejudices (I used to myself), check out the commercial a few years ago of a white man wanting to rent an apartment. Good credit history, good job (think positive). Morph him into a single-parent mom (less positive). Into a minority (less positive than the org guy I knew in my mind this was wrong, but I must confess the initial reaction was less positive.) Morph into someone with a disability (less positive as well). For me at least, the commercial was biting in that it forced me to confront subconscious stereotypes that have built up over the years. I'm guessing it's true for many, many other people as well.
Alas, for such a disease of the heart, it probably really will take another century before we can be truly rid of this scourge. But we can at least all try.
Posted by: Ngchen | November 13, 2007 5:56 PM
Percentage of Children Living in Single-Parent Households (2005):
Caucasion: 23%
African American: 65%
Is it any wonder that two-income families do much better than one-income families?
Posted by: | November 13, 2007 6:05 PM
Ahhh, when all else fails in election propaganda. . . go to good old fashioned fomenting of hatred for white people. The new hated class.
White "families" are successful because they ARE families and for no other reason.
How about Chinese-Americans Jim?
Posted by: Donny | November 13, 2007 6:45 PM
Wow..."hatred"....little harsh there Donnie...
The numbers speak for themselves, granted statistics can be manipulated but Pew Charitable trusts is a reputable source.
I am a white woman and I do see racism where I live. I see my black friends followed in stores and often treated with less respect than others.
I pray that things will one day change so equality will truly one day be a reality.
Bill Cosby's latest book brings up some interesting points on the argument of systematic racism vs. personal responsibility/opportunity.
I'm still cautious on my opinion because as a white woman, I can never know exactly what it is like to live as an african american.
I do know one thing, "race" is a discussion that needs to be had in our country. I used to work for former Sen. Bill Bradley and he would often speak about race and it's impact. However, many people didn't feel like it was important. This study is proof that we need to help heal the divisions in our country and continue the progress of the civil rights movement.
Maria
Speak out for those who cannot speak, for the rights of all the destitute. Speak out, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.
- Proverbs 31:8-9
Posted by: marialynn | November 13, 2007 7:20 PM
I am interested in seeing these data broken down further by family structure. How is mobility among single parent families vs two parent families? A black/white X one parent/two parent family analysis would be interesting to see.
Not much difference, probably, because blacks, even two-parent families, are not represented among the "super-rich." They generally don't own stocks and bonds and are not large employers. When eliminating the estate tax on those folks were hot, Bush tried to sell it to the black community -- until it turned out that it would affect only double digits.
Ahhh, when all else fails in election propaganda. . . go to good old fashioned fomenting of hatred for white people. The new hated class.
Donny -- did the entry say anything about "white"?
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 13, 2007 7:30 PM
Wish the Wallis entry had solutions of possiblle government policies that he believed would help .
I assume he believes government policies are the answers , obviously LBJ policies of the 60s did not solve all the problems . Just thought it would make sense to share those .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 13, 2007 7:40 PM
"Bill Cosby's latest book brings up some interesting points on the argument of systematic racism vs. personal responsibility/opportunity.
I'm still cautious on my opinion because as a white woman, I can never know exactly what it is like to live as an african american."
Totally agree , just not possible is it . Being followed in a store with an assumption of bad motives , hard to understand what that is like based on your color , only from my hippe days when I got pulled over quite often can I perhaps identify , but I could always cut my hair . With
also being a conservative on this blog and having motives and ideas being stereotyped for evil motives I can somewhat understand m, but I can always shut up and agree with the lefts view and being one of the good old boys here .
I be carefull with Donny's motives Maria , have never heard you speak to the discrimination that often comes off with more bombastic remarks from the left concerning this issue I. Some people call it reverse discrimination , as if to label one less then another , there is no such thing as reverse discrimination , only discrimination .
The left also will often rationalize certain bigotry in certain areas based on the preseumption that it is justified .
Nope , never is , never will be . Too many have died proving that point . And the Bible teaches He created all of us , and He respects no one above the other .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 13, 2007 7:52 PM
James Taranto of the WSJ has an interesting criticism of this study, which actually seems to tell a different story than the one provided here. I quote below:
"The main story here has nothing to do with racial inequality--and while the AP presents all the relevant facts, it puts them in no particular order, so that you have to puzzle out what's actually going on. To get a clearer picture, go to the original study and look at Figure 1, on the sixth page of the PDF.
According to this chart, the median personal income for white women in their 30s was $4,021 in 1975. For black women in their 30s it was $12,063. In 2005, the figures were $22,030 for white women and $21,000 for black women.
So black women in 1974--just a decade after the Civil Rights Act--were making three times as much as their white counterparts? How can that be? The footnote gives away the game: "All men and women ages 30-39, including those with no personal income, are included in these estimates."
It seems clear that in 1974 a much higher percentage of black women than white women had paying jobs, and that in the subsequent three decades huge numbers of white women entered the work force. In this sense the real story is a closing of the gap to the detriment of whites, as necessity forces more white women to work."
Posted by: jesse | November 13, 2007 8:29 PM
"Not much difference, probably, because blacks, even two-parent families, are not represented among the "super-rich." They generally don't own stocks and bonds and are not large employers. When eliminating the estate tax on those folks were hot, Bush tried to sell it to the black community -- until it turned out that it would affect only double digits."
--This may partially account for rising inequality, but it doesn't account for lack of mobility, which was my main point.
How mobile are the children of families with two parents vs. one parent? Is the lack of income mobility among black children explained at least in part by the absence of fathers?
Posted by: jesse | November 13, 2007 8:37 PM
I will try to restrain myself from the condescending patronage of Steve's comment...you are horribly insulting and (oh nevermind).
I take real exception to the following assertion. "Decades of research continue to uphold the obvious. The poor economic performance of blacks in general, and black males in particular, is inextricably linked to sky-high illegitimacy and divorce rates. Only a tiny fraction of black males enjoy the privilege of growing up with their biological fathers. My heart goes out to this poor young boys born without a chance, but I have no influence on the attitudes or behavior of their parents, who all too often are still children themselves."
Tiny fraction of black males? What is that based upon? And you know for a fact that these black males have no access or privilege of being around their fathers? As a black woman, I am tired of white people making all kinds of assumptions about black families. Maybe the poor economic performance of black males might be due to the disproportionate rates of incarceration. 1 in 3 black males between the ages of 20 - 29 is in jail, parole or probation.
From Human Rights Watch - "In every state, the proportion of blacks in prison exceeds, sometimes by a considerable amount, their proportion in the general population."
"Blacks are incarcerated nationally at a rate of 1,547 per 100,000 black residents. In some states, the black rate of incarceration reaches extraordinary levels. In Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia, blacks are incarcerated at rates that exceed 2,000 per 100,000. The lowest incarceration rate for blacks, 570 in North Dakota, exceeds the highest rate for whites, 440 in Arizona."
See the following for more http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-01.htm.
Of course, one of the factors in generational wealth comes from the change in values that have gripped our group/culture over the past 30-40 years. We have been seduced by mass consumerism at a rate higher than other groups. My grandparents worked in government but also believed in owning businesses. My parents believed in attaining the good paying jobs of corporate America. As a middle-class, highly educated child of color, I was very conscious of the push for consumerism and attainment of wealth particularly during the Reagan years. (I was a business school graduate.) We've done ourselves a disservice because like starving people finally allowed to the table, we've made no provisions for when we are cut off from the table.
Our youth and children are constantly being fed the idiotic and cartoon images of rappers, entertainers and athletes. How many of those image makers are going to have anything when they are no longer in the spotlight? Some of the problem is our culture (which is fed to us by some of the corporate bigshots - Viacomm, etc.), some of it is the inherent disparity in the judicial system and some of it is just plain us. Some of our parents and our grandparents (who are still living) know the check is going to come due one day. Our days of living high off the hog (relatively speaking) is going to come down like a house of cards. While we lack behind many other groups, compared to what our parents and grandparents had, we have a lot today. Too many black people are hoping and wishing that the affluence we are experiencing now will always continue. In some ways, even the black poor today has more than many black middle class did a century ago.
Posted by: Nuttshell | November 13, 2007 8:39 PM
It would appear that my comment of a few moments ago won't be posted. I wonder why?
Posted by: Nuttall | November 13, 2007 8:41 PM
Mick-
Great points...thanks for the insight.
I think in a nutshell, what it all boils down to on the right & on the left; black and white- is tolerance and understanding. You are correct- many times conclusions are automatically jumped onto and assuptions falsely made.
Pax Christi-
Maria
Posted by: marialynn | November 13, 2007 9:40 PM
I assume he believes government policies are the answers, obviously LBJ policies of the 60s did not solve all the problems. Just thought it would make sense to share those.
Well, even LBJ understood that the answers are in part political, which is why "government programs" were, and to a certain extent still are, necessary. Part of the reason we have the disparity was due to "soft" racism perpetrated by certain institutional barriers that were often clearly based on race. (In the South, of course, those barriers were written into law.)
It seems clear that in 1974 a much higher percentage of black women than white women had paying jobs, and that in the subsequent three decades huge numbers of white women entered the work force. In this sense the real story is a closing of the gap to the detriment of whites, as necessity forces more white women to work.
But that isn't anywhere near the whole story, because it doesn't take into account several factors -- one of which was that black women have always had to work to support their families because their husbands often had trouble finding good-paying work. And in fact, it was often easier for black women than men to find work in the first place, often as domestics. Truth be told, black men suffer the most.
How mobile are the children of families with two parents vs. one parent? Is the lack of income mobility among black children explained at least in part by the absence of fathers?
It really isn't. Black men don't make that much money compared to everyone else (even when education and experience are factored in) -- they aren't promoted at the same rate and, comparatively speaking, don't have as much access to the power structure. That causes everyone to lose respect for them -- especially the women and eventually the children. Conservatives complain all the time about "affirmative action," but the lack thereof actually does hurt.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 13, 2007 11:15 PM
Rick Nowlin,
"A major finding is that the while overall incomes are rising, the income gap between African American and white families is also rising."
That is the second sentence in Wallis's blog.
I'm going with "white families" being comprised of "white" people.
The Left has been fomoenting hatred of whited and has pushed for a war between the races since the hippies cut their hair and put on suits and ties.
Donnie
Posted by: Me | November 13, 2007 11:17 PM
I apologize for the last post and the typo's. A smart-aleck friend thought they'd be funny with my response. It's the last time I'll ever let anyone sit at the keyboard while reading the blogs.
Donny
Yeah, with a y.
Posted by: Donny | November 13, 2007 11:25 PM
The Left has been fomoenting hatred of whited and has pushed for a war between the races since the hippies cut their hair and put on suits and ties.
Ridiculous -- most leftists are themselves white and thus wouldn't cut their own throats. Besides, the conservatives have always started race wars (it wasn't the left that fought for civil rights for minorities, for example). And folks still wonder why blacks don't vote conservative.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 13, 2007 11:30 PM
Correction: It wasn't the right that fought for civil rights.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 13, 2007 11:32 PM
Rick,
My proposal (that family structure can explain at least part of the inequality) can easily be examined through the use of data. You wave off this proposal very confidently as if to state that racism is the entire story. I believe it is part of the story, but it certainly isn't everything. Having a father around definitely matters. Even the Urban League (see the original story) admit as much.
Posted by: jesse | November 13, 2007 11:57 PM
My proposal (that family structure can explain at least part of the inequality) can easily be examined through the use of data. You wave off this proposal very confidently as if to state that racism is the entire story. I believe it is part of the story, but it certainly isn't everything. Having a father around definitely matters. Even the Urban League (see the original story) admit as much.
I understand what you're saying, but simply having a father in the house doesn't really say a whole lot, especially if he doesn't have a good job to support a family -- in fact, if that be the case he won't be in the house for long for reasons I've already mentioned. Pure data need to be interpreted properly and in historical context, which I understand but which you really don't do in this case.
Some years ago one of the proposed strategies for poor single mothers to uplift themselves out of poverty was to get married. The trouble was (and the women themselves understood this) that the pool of men available to them simply don't measure up. Having a man around if he's not really a contributing factor to the stability of the home, which is often the case, causes more harm than good. What good is "a man in the house" if he won't/can't take care of business?
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 14, 2007 12:17 AM
Correction: It wasn't the right that fought for civil rights.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin
IT WAS THE LEFT . LBJ DID ORIGINALLY OK KING TO BE INVESTIGATED BY THE FBI . BUT WHEN THE LEFT IS WRONG , NO ONE IS SUPPOSE TO NOTICE.
Posted by: | November 14, 2007 12:53 AM
"The numbers speak for themselves, granted statistics can be manipulated "
You contradicted yourself in ten words.
"I do know one thing, "race" is a discussion that needs to be had in our country."
I agree. But it should be a dialogue, not a monologue. I am unwilling to be lectured on the issue of race, and I do not relinquish my right to participate in democracy simply because I am a white male. I am more than willing to discuss race as it relates to politics, but the idea that I must simply assent Wallis' political conclusions does not follow from that discussion.
"Not much difference, probably, because blacks, even two-parent families, are not represented among the "super-rich.""
Have you never looked into the question of whether black people who are the product of two-parent households fare better than those who come from single-parent households? Do you reallly assume there is not much difference? Do you have any evidence to support the notion that there is no difference, or are we simply to accept you assumption.
"But that isn't anywhere near the whole story, because it doesn't take into account several factors -- one of which was that black women have always had to work to support their families because their husbands often had trouble finding good-paying work"
Or, rather, because the men in their lives vanished. Are we having an honest discussion here, or do we have to play the game?
"It really isn't. Black men don't make that much money compared to everyone else (even when education and experience are factored in)"
Can you back this up with evidence? I'd love to see it.
"Donny -- did the entry say anything about "white"?"
Um, yeah... Seven times. Did you even read the thing?
"Ridiculous -- most leftists are themselves white and thus wouldn't cut their own throats."
That's what trust funds are for. I can't tell you the number of times I've been lectured by liberal white kids who have millions of dollars in the bank, courtesy of tax-sheltered trust-funds provided by their fathers. Of course they are willing to raise taxes to assuage their white guilt. I have no white guilt, because I have had nothing handed to me.
"It would appear that my comment of a few moments ago won't be posted. I wonder why?"
Because Sojo doesn't want the message boards to be clogged with ads for Cialis. Calm down.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 14, 2007 1:58 AM
I can't tell you the number of times I've been lectured by liberal white kids who have millions of dollars in the bank, courtesy of tax-sheltered trust-funds provided by their fathers.
At least they're somewhat involved in addressing the issue, which is far more than I can say for you. Besides, the most dangerous people I know of are wealthy conservatives, one of which lives in my city, who capitalize on the "politics of resentment."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 14, 2007 8:50 AM
so, neocons, there's no corporate racism against minorities, there's a massive liberal conspiracy against the white man, and poverty in the black community is their own fault?
wow, that's some real enlightened thinking there guys. that's a real dialogue. that kind of talk'll be sure to generate some solutions.
Posted by: krazy | November 14, 2007 8:59 AM
Note to nutshell - don't shoot the messenger. It's not about race: non-blacks raised without their fathers face the same long odds. Nothing will convince someone who has shut their mind to the possibility, but for those who have not, a comprehensive review of the subject was published by David Blankenhorn in "Fatherless America" (1996). If you want proof, it's all right there.
I fully sympathize with your point about incarceration. Which takes us right back to the original point - correcting for family structure eliminates the difference in crime rates between black and white. Black men raised in intact two-parent households are no more likely to become incarcerated than their white counterparts.
Posted by: Steve | November 14, 2007 9:53 AM
"My point is that economic disparity is causing the kind of dysfunction that you bring up, not the other way around."
--If economic hardship was causing fatherlessness among blacks, the illegitimacy rate would have been much higher in the early to mid-20th century. In fact, the reverse is true. Black Americans, as a group, have never had as much rights and prosperity, yet the rates of fatherlessness, sadly, are higher today than they ever were. Denying these facts and playing the regular "blame white conservatives" game might make you and liberal politicians feel better, but it's only harming the black community in the long-term.
"If white conservatives were willing to work for the rights and freedoms of everyone we wouldn't need this conversation -- but since the conservatives on this blog are not, you really don't have much standing."
--Yeah, we're interested in denying black people their "rights and freedoms." You figured us out.
Posted by: jesse | November 14, 2007 9:59 AM
straw men, straw men, straw men...
it's troubling to me how the first, knee-jerk reaction of some folks to a study like this (from a reputable research organization -- and mind you, the general findings themselves aren't new) appears to be "what's wrong with the message and/or the messenger?" or "how can i interpret these findings such that i don't have to do anything or think any differently?" it must be lack of parenting skills and rap music, right? i mean, i can't do anything about that!
there's certainly nothing wrong with the grain of salt approach in general, but there is when it becomes nitpicking and strawman-building at the expense of basic facts that need to be addressed. (some of) you claim to agree that there needs to be a dialogue about these issues and then in the same breath, run as far as you can to avoid having a real discussion about corporate racial inequity.
it's also interesting how some of you criticize Wallis here for NOT giving a "leftist" solution to the problem. seems he can't win - if he does offer a progressive solution, you yell "democratic shill!", and if he doesn't, you demand to know what he proposes.
Posted by: methinks | November 14, 2007 11:59 AM
If economic hardship was causing fatherlessness among blacks, the illegitimacy rate would have been much higher in the early to mid-20th century. In fact, the reverse is true. Black Americans, as a group, have never had as much rights and prosperity, yet the rates of fatherlessness, sadly, are higher today than they ever were. Denying these facts and playing the regular "blame white conservatives" game might make you and liberal politicians feel better, but it's only harming the black community in the long-term.
If you spent any time in the black community you wouldn't spout that nonsense. Despite what you want to believe, we STILL don't have the same opportunities that you do as a white man -- not so much because of race but because of lack of contacts. I grew up in a well-educated, very cultured family, but in my teens and early 20s I began to see that my white schoolmates had more of a chance than I to "make it." That wasn't at all "class envy" or "class warfare," just reality.
Here's the thing: Beginning in the 1950s wealthier whites started to move to the suburbs, which for the most part were off-limits to blacks, and they took the financial clout and social networks with them in the process. I'm old enough to remember the hassle that blacks had to deal with when they tried to move into white neighborhoods; in fact, I was reared in one "white flight" area and live in another one now. Besides, when all you deal with -- in your business, at church or other social function -- are people of the same background, of course you will have that view.
Now, you seem to think that if the black poor will clean up themselves morally prosperity will result -- in fact, that was the very impetus for "compassionate conservatism." But unless that's accompanied by real opportunity, whether economic, educational or otherwise, things will never change, ever. (And government programs are and have been part of the solution -- most of them actually worked as intended.)
This in a nutshell is why I, and most blacks, have a major problem with modern conservatism -- it demands virtually nothing of conservatives, who believe that they along are entitled to run everything, but everything of people on the "other side." Reminds me of what Jesus said to the Pharisees, "You lay heavy burdens on people but lift not one finger to help them."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 14, 2007 12:12 PM
"it must be lack of parenting skills and rap music, right? i mean, i can't do anything about that!"
--Sorry, but this is actually what you call a straw man. Not lack of "parenting skills"...lack of a parent. If you think this is not a fundamental contributor to economic hardship and crime among black Americans, then you're arguing with an abundance of social science data. This is the side of the story being neglected and/or ignored by Wallis and this study.
The question is this: is the goal to help black Americans progress in society or to make ourselves feel better and alleviate white guilt?
Posted by: jesse | November 14, 2007 12:17 PM
"If you spent any time in the black community you wouldn't spout that nonsense."
--It's easier to write me off as some heartless conservative, I know, than debate my main point, which is that these data indicate that poverty and economic hardship are NOT causing illegitimacy, as you claimed they were. You can keep ignoring the data and tell me that I'm ignorant white boy if that makes you feel better. But don't think it's getting you any closer to the truth.
Posted by: jesse | November 14, 2007 12:22 PM
The question is this: is the goal to help black Americans progress in society or to make ourselves feel better and alleviate white guilt?
The fact that you're even asking the question tells me what your answer is.
It's easier to write me off as some heartless conservative, I know, than debate my main point, which is that these data indicate that poverty and economic hardship are NOT causing illegitimacy, as you claimed they were.
I've already told you why the data do no such thing -- the correlation is far more complex than you want to believe. The point is that African-Americans in the 'hood have little or no opportunity as things stand now, and the dysfunction you see there is a result of that.
Indeed, my evangelical, theologically conservative church, which is largely white but does a lot of ministry in its inner-city neighborhood, understands this well first-hand. Some years ago, before I came there, the deacons put themselves through an exercise on trying to raise children on an annual income of less than $16,000, and it sensitized them to the real needs that such folks face. Many of those people are part of our congregation and the church thus realizes that simply "getting saved" isn't the whole enchilada. So when I say that you don't know what you're talking about, I see it literally every week.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 14, 2007 12:37 PM
In other interestings news no $h!+.
Ok Jesse I call you ignorant because you don't understand what you are talking about. I am a black man and I have a sister. She's pregnant and not marrying the baby's father. He is a good father and takes excellent care of his first son. Now he will add another child to the mix. Is that the traditional American family model? No.
But it is what it is. He is there working his butt off to make time for his children. I am not saying that there is not a lack of positive black male role models. We need more. No argument there but if you think that fatherlessness is the main contributing factor to this then you really are unaware and it has nothing to do w/ you being white or even being conservative (but that doesn't help much.) The truth is that fatherlessness has been a problem in the black community for nearly 200 years. This is not new or original. It has not gotten better and in some circles only worse.
I would highly recommend you learning about our shared history and the rates of "fatherlessness" during slavery and then examining what's happening now. It would shed some light on this most complex issue.
p
Posted by: payshun | November 14, 2007 1:10 PM
"If you think this is not a fundamental contributor to economic hardship and crime among black Americans, then you're arguing with an abundance of social science data. This is the side of the story being neglected and/or ignored by Wallis and this study."
nobody is saying there are no social aspects of minority poverty - but is it the major CAUSE, or a SYMPTOM which then feeds back and helps to perpetuate inequity? i'd argue the latter. the straw man is in your insistence that one group's social ills are the root cause of their inequality (which is actually more of a darwinian argument than a christian one), as opposed to, oh, i don't know, slavery, for starters.
"In fact, the reverse is true. Black Americans, as a group, have never had as much rights and prosperity, yet the rates of fatherlessness, sadly, are higher today than they ever were. "
which is precisely why the old conservative "level playing field" free market approach is not a solution. it completely ignores the historically uneven playing field that has left some at a major disadvantage in our "free" economy.
most conservatives know this, which is why race and poverty discussions always turn into rants about personal values, taxes and the old boogeyman, big government. yeah, personal values are important, but are they the chicken or the egg?
generations spent living in poverty tends to tear families apart and as you rightly point out, a broken family is not a great place to start out on the economic ladder.
Posted by: there's the rub | November 14, 2007 1:11 PM
I guess to back this up further before I head off to work "fatherlessness" is a symptom of something much greater, something conservatives have the hardest time acknowledging and no I am not talking about racism. (Even though that is a factor as well)
Emasculinaztion is the bigger issue. It's a global problem. Men are taught to devalue themselves and to not connect to their children leaving kids w/ fathers w/o positive influences. How many white wealthy kids have absentee fathers? I know a few. I know a few people w/ sever father issues and it has to do w/ people not being taught to value themselves or the their families. I wish more conservatives took up that cause instead of hitting the symptom of the problem.
p
Posted by: payshun | November 14, 2007 1:15 PM
Payshun and Rick,
Both your posts ignore my point about the causal direction of fatherlessness and poverty and how fatherlessness has increased dramatically among black Americans over the past 30-40 years (despite the fact that overall income has increased). Anecdotes can support any position. I'm more interested in data.
"group's social ills are the root cause of their inequality (which is actually more of a darwinian argument than a christian one), as opposed to, oh, i don't know, slavery, for starters."
--I won't argue with the fact that slavery has caused many of the problems in the black community today. However, you have not provided any data to persuade me that fatherlessness and illegitimacy is not THE major (or A major) contributor to poverty among blacks at present. It is also worth noting that black families in the early and mid 20th century were more likely to be led by two parents than those today.
You do realize that no less than Bill Clinton agreed with me about fatherlessness: he said illegitimacy was the #1 domestic problem in the US.
BTW, I did grow up in New Orleans in a racially diverse environment. My job involves interaction with low-income blacks everyday. So, I'm not as sheltered as you think.
Peace.
Posted by: jesse | November 14, 2007 1:37 PM
"Ok Jesse I call you ignorant because you don't understand what you are talking about. I am a black man and I have a sister. She's pregnant and not marrying the baby's father. He is a good father and takes excellent care of his first son. Now he will add another child to the mix. Is that the traditional American family model? No.
But it is what it is. He is there working his butt off to make time for his children. I am not saying that there is not a lack of positive black male role models. We need more. No argument there but if you think that fatherlessness is the main contributing factor to this then you really are unaware and it has nothing to do w/ you being white or even being conservative (but that doesn't help much.) The truth is that fatherlessness has been a problem in the black community for nearly 200 years. This is not new or original. It has not gotten better and in some circles only worse.
I would highly recommend you learning about our shared history and the rates of "fatherlessness" during slavery and then examining what's happening now. It would shed some light on this most complex issue."
--Payshun, I agree that the causes of fatherlessness and irresponsible men are complex (though I'd argue that the data show fatherlessness has increased dramatically recently among black americans). But their effects are actually very simple to understand. A single mother is going to have a very difficult time supporting and raising a family. I wish your sister well.
Posted by: jesse | November 14, 2007 1:43 PM
between African American and white families
Maybe we need to define what is a 'family' so that we have level ground when we are talking. There are many reasons for this difference but we need to look at the 'make-up' of the family that we are talking about as that has a direct impact on the results.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 14, 2007 3:22 PM
it's also interesting how some of you criticize Wallis here for NOT giving a "leftist" solution to the problem
Methinks posted
Interesting you assumed the solution is a leftuist solution ? Can not solutions be solutions ? Say having a Mom and dad combining to take care of you is a conservative position ? I would think many people of color who vote democrate and are quite liberal have lived that way . Me thinks sometimes you don't.
P said here
Ok Jesse I call you ignorant because you don't understand what you are talking about. I am a black man and I have a sister. She's pregnant and not marrying the baby's father. He is a good father and takes excellent care of his first son. Now he will add another child to the mix. Is that the traditional American family model? No.
P you are quite knowledgable of African American history and cultural reasons for many situations . And actually I have learned from your knowledge , because not knowing is not ignorance . You show ignorance here my friend .
Sometimes I think you are standing right next to a tree and can not see the forest as they say . Would you speak out against the belief that many had for people of color not having wages comparable to their white co workers who were doing the same job ? Of course not , but defendibng the status quo of consequences for family separations because of other past sins makes no sense at all . Because their is a reason for detrimental behaviors , does not mean those behaviors are not still detrimental .
Because of cultural crap African Americans had to live through it appears you wish just to leave the family aspect alone as is , disintegrated . If I was a Klan member , I would agree . I see this belief of the family also in the white community , in fact social science experts , the liberal ones as well , will never say its an African American problem , right now its more prevalent in that community , but its going and growing all over . So all the reasons are not what you state either . Right ? White families are breaking up , separating , and their off spring are statistically worse off then those Mom and Dads who stick together . This is not based on I am better then you , religious conservatives have a divorce rate equal to the national average , it effects all of us . For the worse .
But your sister would be better off with a partner united in life , by a spirtual and moral bond to help one another and support the children together . Because she chose not to is of course possibly the better avenue for "her" to take.
Of course there are individual circumstances , don't get bogged down there . But can you not see why two together would be better . I don't get why that is such a hard concept , its not the cure all , it only is a strong help for families .
How we look at our Heavenly Father sometimes is effected by our personal relationships with our Father by many people . If he was out of the picture , some people believe God is not as personal also . If you have a loving Mother , you tend to grow up with the belief you can be loved . Right ? I just took my 25 year old to a SeaHawk Monday Night football game . First one I attended since 1982 . What a hoot , we sreamed our heads off . You know , my Dad has been dead sine 1982 , I wished he was there with us . I was having so much fun with my 25 year old son , I just wish he was there to share it too . I think those kinds of things matter in our lives . I think it helps us , and the belief of family being important when you have loyal family members is a GREAT HELP in your life .
I think not knowing what I am talking about makes you think less of Jesse when he doing everything in his heart to reach out to you . And you don't get it . He is not ignorant , he has had the gift of Knowing God is involved in his life and family . That is very very precious , and something that he wants for all .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 14, 2007 3:36 PM
Amen Krazy
Someone set out a racial problem and every white guy starts a Bart Simpson routine, "I didn't do it. No one saw me do it. You can't prove I did it."
Why not just listen. How is it that the stats listed by Nuttshell just seem to be ignored? Can't anybody, just one time stop and think what it would be like if that many white kids were incarcerated? Is that a ethnic dynamic made to ruin families, or what?
Any white guy that wants to say Rap music's treatment of women is to blame needs to watch either Desperate or OC Housewives and point the same finger at all white TV watchers for divorce rates among white families. I do not like Rap either, (and I do not watch housewives) but to blame the situation on gangsterism is
just more hidden racism
I am also always amazed at how these discussions only seem to center on Black vs White and there is no mention of Latinos.
Stop the defending your/our innocence. Start hearing the pain. Stop trying to make it seem that Caucasians are the ones being hurt. That is just a huge lie. Stop crowing about how you weren't "given anything" and had to earn it. I think God must see that as a very unthankful attitude. "To whom much is given, much is required." If that seems like someone is peeing in your Wheaties, I am sorry, but you will have to take it up with the author
Posted by: | November 14, 2007 4:07 PM
Both your posts ignore my point about the causal direction of fatherlessness and poverty and how fatherlessness has increased dramatically among black Americans over the past 30-40 years (despite the fact that overall income has increased). Anecdotes can support any position. I'm more interested in data.
Data mean nothing without the history behind them, and in fact you have completely turned things around to make them mean something completely different than reality -- because the "anecdotes" don't support your position.
BTW, I did grow up in New Orleans in a racially diverse environment. My job involves interaction with low-income blacks everyday. So, I'm not as sheltered as you think.
Are they your neighbors? Do you worship with them? Do you eat at each other's homes? Do your kids play together? And, as such, do you talk frankly about racial issues and the resultant divergent views without being offended? If not, your "knowing blacks" don't mean a thing. Another conservative poster talked glowingly on another thread about his so-called friendship with a black man, but it turns out he still doesn't know a thing about his views on race and racism.
You do realize that no less than Bill Clinton agreed with me about fatherlessness: he said illegitimacy was the #1 domestic problem in the US.
Even so, Clinton knows that "moral reform" isn't the only answer -- that's why he believed in government programs that actually help people effectively (and, in fact, most do). It's no accident that he has solid African-American support.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 14, 2007 4:42 PM
"Data mean nothing without the history behind them, and in fact you have completely turned things around to make them mean something completely different than reality -- because the "anecdotes" don't support your position."
--I don't understand what you're arguing here. You stated previously that poverty causes illegitimacy rather than vice versa. I gave you data showing that this is untrue. Your anecdote didn't say anything about my position, which is that illegitimacy is one of the major contributors to poverty.
I'd like to think that maybe we're arguing past each other. I strongly believe you need opportunities, too, which is why I support improving education and having economic policies that create jobs. I just also know that illegitimacy is a big problem. Bill Clinton and Marc Morial agree with me. You seem to have a different position than Clinton, Morial, and myself.
"Even so, Clinton knows that "moral reform" isn't the only answer -- that's why he believed in government programs that actually help people effectively (and, in fact, most do)."
--I never said moral reform was the only answer. But you're still ignoring the important point Clinton agrees with me on--that illegitimacy is the biggest domestic problem in the US and (more specifically) among black Americans today.
Posted by: jesse | November 14, 2007 5:05 PM
"so, neocons, there's no corporate racism against minorities, there's a massive liberal conspiracy against the white man, and poverty in the black community is their own fault?"
Nobody said this.
"straw men, straw men, straw men..."
Other than the above, who crafted a straw man argument?
"At least they're somewhat involved in addressing the issue, which is far more than I can say for you."
No they're not. They simply have stong opinions about how one should vote on certain issues.
"Data mean nothing without the history behind them,"
The data cited by Jesse document a historical trend.
"because the "anecdotes" don't support your position."
My father is white. He is in prison. What does that prove? Nothing, because the anecdote is not representative of an overall trend.
"I am also always amazed at how these discussions only seem to center on Black vs White and there is no mention of Latinos. "
Well, Wallis didn't discuss Latinos, which is why we haven't, but let's go ahead and discuss Latinos, who have experienced greater levels of economic success in spite of frequent language barriers. 36% of hispanic children grow up in single-parent households, versus 65% of black children. So what is your point?
Posted by: kevin s. | November 14, 2007 5:45 PM
"Can't anybody, just one time stop and think what it would be like if that many white kids were incarcerated? "
anom said
Huh ? Would you not speak to white kids breaking laws also ? Don't you realize that statistics say the number of white kids breaking laws goes up when there is only one parent in the house , that number of reported child molestation , higher drop out rates , and such all go up with white kids and only one parent .
"Is that a ethnic dynamic made to ruin families, or what?"
anom said
Huh ? Are you serious ? Are you saying then kids breaking laws and being arrested is something that is wrong , or are you saying we should allow kids to break laws . Is it good that most African children have a better chance ot having a police record then a HS diploma in some cities ? What's your solution ? Don't arrest them ? Better programs , Ok lets hear about them .
"Any white guy that wants to say Rap music's treatment of women is to blame needs to watch either Desperate or OC Housewives and point the same finger at all white TV watchers for divorce rates among white families."
anom said
What ? I
In fact I know many leftists who talk about how TV has hurt our culture for a various of other reasons . The main difference here is when someone says glorifying having children out of wedlock like Conservative Quail awkwardly said , he got slapped on the hands for saying it and offending single Mothers . , He was just stupid . Because a consistent view is shared with all people and races in the Christian Community that God;s Plan and desire for us is to be protected and loved by our Mom and Dad , its now racist by your standards . Nope ,
"I do not like Rap either, (and I do not watch housewives) but to blame the situation on gangsterism is
just more hidden racism"
anom said
Singing about women who are only good for spreading their legs apart is not suppose to be criticized ? . Speaking about beating the crap out of homosexuals is just artistic expression , if a conservative stated this you would be claiming it to be a Hate Crime . To say it is dis respectfull to women is racist . Good point ?
Glorifying drug usage from the music I use to listen to was not encourgaging a life style and belief system harmful to people ? Uhh ? Is that racist because I am white and the groups like Zepplin and such promoted free sex and drugs I consider wrong now ? You are making no sense ..
I am also always amazed at how these discussions only seem to center on Black vs White and there is no mention of Latinos.
anom said
Huh ? What about Pacific Inlanders , Native Americans , New York Yankee fans , why are you leaving other groups out , are you racist ?
Get over yourself .
Stop the defending your/our innocence. Start hearing the pain. Stop trying to make it seem that Caucasians are the ones being hurt.
anom said
What on earth are you talking about , Gods people are being hurt . Children are being brought up without a Mommy and Daddy . That is racist ? Thats love of God and his people , and its trumps your views every second of the day .
That is just a huge lie. Stop crowing about how you weren't "given anything" and had to earn it.
anom said
Huh ? I was given much from my Mom and dad . Thank God I had one who joined together to make a life together and over come the pain and obstacles in their life . Your right , they were white and had a hard enough time as it was getting through the depression and such , can't imagin a kid of color growing up with a Dad not being there to help him out . Again , thats not racism , thats love .
I think God must see that as a very unthankful attitude. "To whom much is given, much is required." If that seems like someone is peeing in your Wheaties, I am sorry, but you will have to take it up with the author
anom said
Already have , He is no respecter of people , or political parties ... He also speaks much about this subject in a book full of dysfuntional families . You have reasd more then the red lettering to get a view that we are not all racist who share different views however . It would have been nice if some lefties spoke up to this type of rhetoric , talk about divisive and mean spirited .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 14, 2007 5:50 PM
Mick
The thread did not say one thing about non punishment of law breakers. It did not say you could not criticize rap. It said it is not logical to blame the problems on it.
Come on Mick, stop yelling, take a deep breath and think of what was trying to be said.
Just listen for awhile
Posted by: | November 14, 2007 6:42 PM
Okay, I give up. You white guys have all the answer for and about black people.
I'm tired of you all (jesse, mick, kevin). Yea, I said it. It's all our fault and if our men just started acting right and married their baby mama's, we would be on top of the world. I don't think it would work like that. Chicken or egg question...is it universal racism or family disintegration which is at the heart of black poverty? Of course, intact black families do better than single parent families. Could that be anymore obvious? But, do intact black families of similar education do as well as economically as white families?
In most cases, the darker the skin, the poorer the family. See India for the non-black example. It is a heart/soul condition of fallen man. I don't spend a lot of time worrying about it because it is a fact that I cannot change. It's a reality I deal with but to focus on it, would drive me mad. For black men, it's 10x worse. It is emasculating and the whole issue is terribly complex. To really understand the problem and all its complexities, you have to peel back each layer of the onion.
Jesse in particular wants only to deal in "facts". I just recently had an insight about Kevin and most neo-cons. Kevin rarely enters a dialogue where he doesn't mention about his difficult family dynamics and how no one ever gave him anything. It's his chip and he carries it everywhere. I suspect he wasn't given alot of sympathy or compassion. He has struggled and "succeeded" without the benefit of much assistance. He and his ilk don't understand nor are they willing (much) to sympathize or have compassion for others. They figure, if they could get as far as they did without others, everyone else should take a page from their book (to borrow the much-worn cliche). They are truly libertarians at heart. I can respect that to a point but they totally discount white privilege. Oh, they will offer examples when they weren't offered privilege and discount that it exists. They will concede historical inequities but we are living in the 21st century and that kinda of thing isn't as prevalent any longer, and therefore, is a small factor in the discussion of black poverty. The real reason as far as they are concerned is...(wait for it)...it's THEIR CULTURE! And we (white people) aren't responsible for that!
In the last couple of weeks, I have heard some amazing things from non-black people that validate this thinking. Just yesterday, a colleague of mine was telling me about his Polish father and why he was a bigot. This same father was married to a Native American/Mexican woman. His best friend was black but the difference about John was that he was a "man" - meaning he didn't ask for handouts. My colleague went onto justify this thought pattern. His father's assumption and his assumption is that most black people are on welfare and that most people on welfare are black. I explained that no one in my extensive collection of friends, family and acquaintances is or has ever been on welfare. I can only remember meeting one black woman on welfare in my 45 years and I'm from DC.
I'll stop now. I'm now depressed.
Posted by: Nuttshell | November 14, 2007 7:42 PM
but let's go ahead and discuss Latinos, who have experienced greater levels of economic success in spite of frequent language barriers. 36% of hispanic children grow up in single-parent households, versus 65% of black children. So what is your point?
Posted by: kevin s
The person does not have a point , social statistics provide a link with poverty and family break downs , it goes to all races and ethnic groups , higher percentages of reported sexual molestation , crime , drugs , and all social ills that WE all as Christians would say we would not want for another to have experienced in their life .
I see people attacking others not because of what they are saying , but WHO they are saying it to . Why would anyone not want a child to have a Mom and Dad involved in a positive way in their lives .
Posted by: | November 14, 2007 7:43 PM
There are two very large elements to the wealth disparity that are never mentioned in our media, congresses or churches.
1. The lack of affordable housing and almost
nothing being done in the past thirty years
to remedy the situation for the masses.
Having to pay 50% or more of one's net income
is not affordable housing. New apartments
being built in Southern California, for example
are being called "affordable" but their rents
are $1300-1500. People who formerly made
somewhat decent wages are being stiffled by
this greed, greed, greed. People making
$10 per hour out of luck.
2. The tremendously destructive effect of
illegal immigration on our own poor is never
spoken of or discussed. Even among educated
church folk - shocking. Cheap labor and
illegals who live three families to an
apartment or 20 individuals in a home live in
horrible conditions. So do the people whom
they have displaced. Our own poor citizens.
Post WWII through the '70s these conditions
would have received much media attention.
Not so in the past thirty years.
When there were 2,000,000 of these illegal
migrants, I referred to them as "undocumented."
Now that there are 20,000,000, I feel less
charitable knowing the results of "the whole
world being at our doorstep" - and business
people clamoring for more to be let in.
Posted by: | November 14, 2007 8:11 PM
Okay, I give up. You white guys have all the answer for and about black people.
I'm tired of you all (jesse, mick, kevin). Yea, I said it. It's all our fault and if our men just started acting right and married their baby mama's
Posted by: Nuttshell |
What a hoot , a little stereotyping here Nuttshell .I have been married 19 years . Even waited till my wedding night for my wife . We brought up five children together . Sounds like the stereotype that has no concept of what you are talking about huh ?
The deal is I have had three children from three different women . Been a single Father , and crap it sucked . I worked my butt off . My kids all have suffered consequences for these choices I was involved with in making them , , how can any person say our children do not have a different perspective on so many issues when one parent is not there , and different role models come in and out of the home .
. I can give many excuses about why the women who Mothered my children stayed away and it was NOT MY FAULT .. Yeah right , what happened to my kids had nothing to do with me .
BITE ME !! The only Fault I can be responsible for was my particpation for , and no I am not going to blame different races , different beliefs , the fact I was not a Christian , or because the sun got in my eyes and I dropped the ball .
I did the sticking around , the doctor stuff , they went to the party . Of course I was not accountable ? Yeah right , I can make a 1000 excuses why my kids had no Mom . Some sound better then others . I have never used racism , sorry but that just goes beyond even my self righteous positions .
Ever have to hold a kid because they were balling their eyes out because they forgot what their Mother looked like ? Thats a whitey moment I guess . I suggest to you butt head it has nothing to do with race .
Make it a racial problem , right .
You have not experienced the Love of Christ have you ? To do so much wrong in your life and be loved soooooo much anyway .
So Bibically speaking , stick in your ear , you have no concept what is being spoken to here , and the need for Moms and Dads to be considered PLAN A . I am more guilty of not following the importance of a Mom and Dad then anyone on this flipping blog . I must hate white people . What a KROK !
,
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 14, 2007 8:46 PM
"Okay, I give up. You white guys have all the answer for and about black people."
I'm not going to simply acquiesce to supporting policy that is based on flawed assumptions that disregard evidence. I don't have all the answers, but simply saying a portion of the discussion is off limits doesn't fly with me.
"It's all our fault and if our men just started acting right and married their baby mama's, we would be on top of the world. I don't think it would work like that. "
If by acting right, you mean marrying the mother of your child, then I largely agree. You wouldn't be on top of the world (that is not the goal), but it would make a substantial difference in terms of economic equality across racial lines.
If you don't think it would work like that, can you please provide some evidence that it wouldn't?
"But, do intact black families of similar education do as well as economically as white families?"
When adjusting for college education, the ratio is somewhere around 90 cents on the dollar amongst college graduates. However, black students are less likely to major in business, or acquire an advanced degree (this trend is changing), so it isn't an apples to apples comparison. In the science and engineering fields, for example, the earnings are the same.
"Kevin rarely enters a dialogue where he doesn't mention about his difficult family dynamics and how no one ever gave him anything."
That isn't true. I have mentioned it only a handful of times, usually in response to being accused of being a privileged white male. I only mentioned here to point out how irrelevant anecdotal evidence is to the discussion.
You don't want to deal in facts, which is your perogative. But when it comes to formuating policy, I am going to insist that facts take the day over emotions and personal experiences. That is part and parcel of having a dialogue.
" He has struggled and "succeeded" without the benefit of much assistance. He and his ilk don't understand nor are they willing (much) to sympathize or have compassion for others."
The second point doesn't follow from the first. You are merely asserting that it is so. I don't think identifying systemic issues constitutes compassion anyway.
"They are truly libertarians at heart."
I'm not, no.
"I can respect that to a point but they totally discount white privilege."
Not totally, but it is not as impactful as you make it out to be. You can argue that, because it once existed, certaing ethnicities bear the burden, but that is not the same as white privilege.
But I think the relevant concession here is that the facts are not on your side. On this we agree.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 14, 2007 8:59 PM
I don't understand what you're arguing here. You stated previously that poverty causes illegitimacy rather than vice versa. I gave you data showing that this is untrue.
Again, jesse, you did no such thing -- you interpreted the data according to your preconceived agenda, and that's why your analysis falls short. Given more exhaustive studies that have been done, it is simply more accurate to say that lack of opportunity will eventually produce illegitimacy (but not directly). Looking at things in another way will change not only the solutions but the very question to be addressed. As I mentioned, people who talk only about "moral reform" don't look at the overall picture. Basically, even if illegitimacy in the black community were to disappear overnight many would still be poor and we'll be right back where we started. That's why your conclusions represent so much nonsense.
"At least they're somewhat involved in addressing the issue, which is far more than I can say for you."
No they're not. They simply have stong opinions about how one should vote on certain issues.
Oh, yes, they are -- some of them actually helped me to get through school in the 1990s. And they did the same for a lot of people.
Well, Wallis didn't discuss Latinos, which is why we haven't, but let's go ahead and discuss Latinos, who have experienced greater levels of economic success in spite of frequent language barriers. 36% of hispanic children grow up in single-parent households, versus 65% of black children. So what is your point?
Latinos are far, far more diverse culturally and ideologically than blacks, for openers, and represent a swing constituency. You have Mexicans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Nicaraguans ... and how does this then have anything to do with the question at hand?
He is no respecter of people, or political parties ... He also speaks much about this subject in a book full of dysfuntional families. You have reasd more then the red lettering to get a view that we are not all racist who share different views however. It would have been nice if some lefties spoke up to this type of rhetoric, talk about divisive and mean spirited.
You're one to talk about being "mean-spirited." The problem is not the rhetoric; you just don't want to address the issue because it doesn't jibe with your ideology. I don't have a problem with different views if they're based on valid, provable facts that do not offer an alternative conclusion. However, jesse has offered a thesis, some of us shot it down and he still wants to believe what he says. That's no way to have a conversation.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 14, 2007 9:10 PM
You don't want to deal in facts, which is your perogative. But when it comes to formuating policy, I am going to insist that facts take the day over emotions and personal experiences. That is part and parcel of having a dialogue.
Coming from you, that's the pot calling the kettle black.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 14, 2007 9:12 PM
"Again, jesse, you did no such thing -- you interpreted the data according to your preconceived agenda, and that's why your analysis falls short. Given more exhaustive studies that have been done, it is simply more accurate to say that lack of opportunity will eventually produce illegitimacy (but not directly)."
--I'd be really interested to see these studies. Because history tells us that blacks were given rights and opportunities in 1965, and illegitimacy for whatever reason has skyrocketed since then (from around 20% at the early part of the century to nearly 70% today).
Regardless of the reasons for illegitimacy in the black community today (and I do believe slavery and past oppression were major contributors), it is undoubtedly a major cause of poverty at present. And I have Bill Clinton, Marc Morial, and other liberals on my side. You can argue with them, with social science research, and whomever else.
"However, jesse has offered a thesis, some of us shot it down and he still wants to believe what he says. That's no way to have a conversation."
--Yes, I agree that when I present facts and you present insults, ad hominem attacks, and GBA games, that's no way to have a conversation.
Posted by: jesse | November 14, 2007 9:51 PM
The problem is not the rhetoric; you just don't want to address the issue because it doesn't jibe with your ideology.
Rick Said
No Rick , you can't get past your racial idealogy based on race rather then God and common sense . Your use of promoting the worse possible motives for another opinion is your bread and butter .
"I don't have a problem with different views if they're based on valid, provable facts that do not offer an alternative conclusion."
Rick Said
C an you name one here that would support this statement of yours . In fact many people you have stated here you do not respect who are conservaive , and have stated the most abusive and derogotary motives of their belief systems .
So name someone here who you respect their views that differ with yours . I find people respect mind quite often that you, even here which makes give and take quite enjoyable . I have a distatse for bullies , cyber or those who pretend Loving Christ and enjoy hating Christians who differ .
. You do this often and represent it as just confronting conservative lys . So name some people on this blog who are conservative that will say they have found you respectfull of their views ? Just one ?
However, jesse has offered a thesis, some of us shot it down and he still wants to believe what he says. That's no way to have a conversation.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin
No one shot it down , you are simply lying . No one convinced the other of their view , you however claim victory because of your superior racial idealogy . In fatc when facts show white or any other race having problems in single parent homes you can not address it , you ignore it .
You can not stand when your views are confronted with facts that show people who have children without both parents having more social problems and increased poverty . It has nothing to do with race , its based on common sense and facts . It hurts kids to not have a Mom and dad , you can scream racism all you want , the fact of the matter is kids are worse off . You care more about color then children . shame shame
Posted by: | November 14, 2007 10:01 PM
stop yelling, take a deep breath and think of what was trying to be said.
Just listen for awhile
You're one to talk about being "mean-spirited."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin
Besides, the conservatives have always started race wars (it wasn't the left that fought for civil rights for minorities, for example). And folks still wonder why blacks don't vote conservative.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin
Coming from you, that's the pot calling the kettle black.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin
Another conservative poster talked glowingly on another thread about his so-called friendship with a black man, but it turns out he still doesn't know a thing about his views on race and racism.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin
Posted by: | November 14, 2007 10:15 PM
Yes, I agree that when I present facts and you present insults, ad hominem attacks, and GBA games, that's no way to have a conversation.
jesse -- How many times do I have to tell you: YOUR "FACTS" DON'T ADD UP! Any of those "liberals" you quote will tell you exactly what I'm saying, especially since they're closer to the ground than you (and perhaps even I)! You are taking those stats completely out of context, and that is not at all my problem.
No one shot it down, you are simply lying. No one convinced the other of their view, you however claim victory because of your superior racial idealogy. In fatc when facts show white or any other race having problems in single parent homes you can not address it, you ignore it.
That's not the issue. As I mentioned, even if illegitimacy were to disappear overnight the problem with black poverty would not disappear.
Let's go back to what I said in the beginning because we got seriously sidetracked. Blacks are not major employers. Most blacks do not have the money to play the stock market and build wealth that way (Jesse Jackson was talking about that way back in the 1970s -- it was one of the first times I'd ever heard of him). Blacks generally do not benefit from tax cuts geared toward the wealthy because they do not have those kind of funds. A lot of that is because blacks often do not have the access as part of the "network" to do these things -- they don't know the right people; they don't live in the "right" neighborhood etc., and these also are major factors in black income being lower. What these have to do with illegitimacy in the 'hood is beyond me.
Now, can we have a real conversation instead of pointless attacks and irrelvancies?
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 14, 2007 10:56 PM
Mick said
In fatc when facts show white or any other race having problems in single parent homes you can not address it, you ignore it.
Rick then said
"That's not the issue. As I mentioned, even if illegitimacy were to disappear overnight the problem with black poverty would not disappear"
It is the issue , homes of all races suffer when certain conditions such as single parents exist .
It not based on race , it is magnified by racial discrimination of course , you have my ears and respect for your knowledge here , I will listen .
But you can't get past the logical understanding that people who are unified together , especially when the Holy Spirit is in the House and between them , then instead of two strings , there is three and its like a rope . Is not a rope stronger then one string alone ? You have a better chance of sticking it in the ear to poverty then , and overcoming racial discrimination . I don't see why you feel you have to attack on this , you would think it would be common ground .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 14, 2007 11:22 PM
Mick
Could you not hear Nuttshell? I think she would justifiably use your own words, "I don't see why you feel you have to attack on this"
Posted by: | November 15, 2007 12:14 AM
The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhood.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
end quote~
Posted by: | November 15, 2007 2:28 AM
oh, the last quote comment was by me. Just wanted to share a favorite that stirs my heart.
Posted by: ADH | November 15, 2007 2:39 AM
Mick said:
But your sister would be better off with a partner united in life , by a spirtual and moral bond to help one another and support the children together . Because she chose not to is of course possibly the better avenue for "her" to take.
Of course there are individual circumstances , don't get bogged down there . But can you not see why two together would be better . I don't get why that is such a hard concept , its not the cure all , it only is a strong help for families .
Me:
That's not reality and it would not be better for her to be united w/ someone she doesn't love that will lead to divorce. That's worse. It's better to be in a relationship w/ two loving parents that are committed for the best of the child than to be in a relaitonship where the child learns to live in apathy, bitterness and other issues.
Just like you think I can't see the forest for the trees I think you don't see the trees. Honestly I don't think you seem to understand that the two parent household doesn't hold up for everyone and that there are other options that can lead to healthy, fully matured black children.
I ought to know. I grew up in one. My father was gone for most of my life because of work (he was in the military.) That meant my mom raised me and because of that I learned a lot. So let's try and stay away from ignoring the role of mothers and how much they do work to protect and mature their kids. My sister's choice is the best one for her. It's not fair or accurate for you or anyone to suggest otherwise.
Mick also said:
Because of cultural crap African Americans had to live through it appears you wish just to leave the family aspect alone as is , disintegrated . If I was a Klan member , I would agree . I see this belief of the family also in the white community , in fact social science experts , the liberal ones as well , will never say its an African American problem , right now its more prevalent in that community , but its going and growing all over . So all the reasons are not what you state either . Right ? White families are breaking up , separating , and their off spring are statistically worse off then those Mom and Dads who stick together . This is not based on I am better then you , religious conservatives have a divorce rate equal to the national average , it effects all of us . For the worse .
Me:
This is bs. God I wish I could cuss here. Mick what you are saying is ridiculous. I have never said or made it a point at leaving the family unit disentegrated. i have spent my entire life learning to integrate and unite families so again your point is a mute one. Tieing people that don't love each other into a crappy marriage won't work it will only make things worse.
Instead their are other options like what my sister is doing. The father is a great father and will be to the child. I am here and will be a great uncle and role model. There are other men that are going to be great too. That's what family looks like nowadays and the sooner you stop trying to fit people into a box that doesn't work for them the sooner this conversation can go forward.
You also said:
Because their is a reason for detrimental behaviors , does not mean those behaviors are not still detrimental .
Me:
Do you realize how foolish that statement is. Now that you have said these behaviors are detrimental now what? What will your acknowledgement provide? How will it change things? Can it show grace? Can it show love? Can it empower to create what you want.
The answer to the last one is no. It can't. My way can because it seeks to empower the woman and the man to deal w/ the reality of their situation. It doesn't condone it but it doesn't judge it either. Why are you so focused on the behavior at the expense of learning to be more gracious?
p
Posted by: payshun | November 15, 2007 3:26 AM
"That's not the issue. As I mentioned, even if illegitimacy were to disappear overnight the problem with black poverty would not disappear."
--No one said it would disappear. We just said it would be substantially reduced if all children were born into two parent homes. To deny this is to deny decades of social science research and to deny the basic math of having another income-earner/nurturer/ disciplinarian around who also happens to be biologically related to your children (and is statistically less likely to abuse them). We're not having an honest conversation if you deny this. Are you??
Again, just in case we're arguing past each other. I believe PAST oppression/lack of opportunity is one of the major contributors to black illegitimacy today, though CURRENT lack of opportunity is only a small contributor. Lack of opportunity may lead to fatherlessness in a minority of cases, though in general illegitimacy and fatherlessness/male abandonment are caused by either one or two people behaving irresponsibly (with sex, with men not taking responsibility for their family, etc.). As far as poverty and illegitimacy goes, the causal relationship is primarily in one direction, with illegitimacy leading to poverty, crime, and many other negative indices. However, the direction of this relationship doesn't have to be completely one way. It is rare that these types of behavioral relationships are 100% uni-directional. It is also helpful, however, to examine the directions in which they are primarily pointing.
Anyways, I think I'm beating a dead horse at this point.
Posted by: jesse | November 15, 2007 6:57 AM
To deny this is to deny decades of social science research and to deny the basic math of having another income-earner/nurturer/ disciplinarian around who also happens to be biologically related to your children (and is statistically less likely to abuse them).
In saying this, you reinforced one of the points I tried to make earlier. In the 'hood, there are very few, if any, men available who can or will do that, and that has to do with lack of access to educational or economic resources. Believe me, the women understand this, which is why they don't see marriage as a solution.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 15, 2007 8:08 AM
"In saying this, you reinforced one of the points I tried to make earlier. In the 'hood, there are very few, if any, men available who can or will do that, and that has to do with lack of access to educational or economic resources."
--Why, then, did they stick around in the early to mid-20th century, when illegitimacy and fatherlessness rates were low and blacks had far fewer rights and opportunities? It seems that if you are trying to establish the causal relationship in the direction you're proposing (current lack of opportunities causing current fatherlessness), you must explain these historical data. Why do you think fathers were sticking around prior to 1965?
Mind you, as Mick pointed out earlier, the effects of fatherlessness on poverty, crime, etc. are similar for other ethnicities, as well. It comes as no surprise that they would have similar effects among the black community.
Posted by: jesse | November 15, 2007 8:25 AM
BTW, I apologize to Rick, Payshun, and anyone else here if I was insensitive in any of my previous posts. I am a social science researcher by trade, so I can sometimes become too passionate about data and arguments without being sensitive to others' feelings and life experiences that have shaped their opinions. I realize that when some of my arguments are made, all that some people hear is condemnation. But that is not my intent. I truly believe the problems I am raising are essential to overcome if there is to be substantial progress among black Americans. I also believe that leaders have been neglectful in addressing these problems.
Posted by: jesse | November 15, 2007 8:32 AM
Why, then, did they stick around in the early to mid-20th century, when illegitimacy and fatherlessness rates were low and blacks had far fewer rights and opportunities? It seems that if you are trying to establish the causal relationship in the direction you're proposing (current lack of opportunities causing current fatherlessness), you must explain these historical data. Why do you think fathers were sticking around prior to 1965?
In truth, however, divorce (but also remarriage) was fairly common in the black community back in the day -- my own father's parents split in or around 1936 and I now know that wasn't unheard of.
That said, to answer your question the biggest historical change was suburbanization, which removed much of the economic clout from major cities (which is why men often have trouble finding work); that led directly to the crumbling of community in large part because people cannot afford to, say, buy homes, homeownership being a keystone of community stability. My theme here is that even love costs money.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 15, 2007 8:50 AM
While we argue about racism and other causes of economic disparity between black and white families, we ignore the massive transfer of wealth from America's middle classes to the corporate elite, which has been accelerating in recent years.
American families, white and black, are being reduced to serfdom in the new corporate feudalism.
The curtain is closing on the American dream.
And what about the widening gap between rich and poor around the planet?
What do you think is the cause behind this?
Can you say corporate elite?
Posted by: justintime | November 15, 2007 9:43 AM
I have to address the fact that we're discussing fatherlessness as a racial issue and perhaps a moral issue, but really skipping past the economics of it in a real sense.
But let's start with this. White privilege is not a "historical" concept. It is still very real, very damaging and very much ignored/disputed by those who can't imagine that anyone else's life is much different from their own.
Data show that blacks are treated differently in every arena: housing, justice (meaning arrests and sentencing), child protective services, education, corporate, credit, etc. Politicians still raise the specter of the black man to scare voters into pulling the right lever. Hell, a black man can't catch a cab in some major cities.
Racism exists, both subtly and overtly. Trying to parse the "What's wrong with black people?" issue without starting there is ridiculous. And please let's stop comparing a race that has had its inferiority and status as chattel codified into law, to others who scrambled to this country to try to make a better life for themselves and their families.
That said: Given the very real obstacles blacks face, it is imperative that we as black people take a long hard look at the consequences of having children in the absence of economic opportunity. Not to do so speaks of a selfishness and immaturity that makes one unsuitable for parenting.
Do we want better for our children than we've had? Do we understand that the networks we need to build to advance economically come from community, and community comes from family? We won't excel as a race until family and community become the priority.
Let's start teaching the economics of poverty and prosperity to our children early on, and maybe throw in some of the responsibility for the greater good that any minority race needs to compete.
Changing racists (especially the unwitting ones) to realists with a heart of Christ is a slow, often unproductive process. We should continue to work at it, and we should push for change in every arena to address the inequities in our society. Including demanding that the government that sanctioned slavery own up to its responsibility to ease the burdens it created.
In the meantime, we need to identify the obstacles to success in our own culture with ruthless honesty, and take the painful steps to correct them. The single parent family isn't the only obstacle, but it is big enough not to be dismissed. The terms "baby mama" and "baby daddy" reduce us to breeding stock not much different than the chattel we were considered to be not so long ago. Our children deserve better. Our race deserves better.
Posted by: ginab | November 15, 2007 10:04 AM
Mick,
What's with the name calling (butthead)? Really? Is that what this discussion has been reduced to? Absolutely, I have been touched by the love of God. December marks 19 years walking with God. God has granted me so much hope when I truly thought I would never hope again. He lifts my chin when I feel defeated. In spite of the Michael Jordans, Beyonces, Halle Berrys, Tiger Woods, etc., it is not always easy to ignore how much the world looks down on us and condemns us. When you can be pulled over for driving while black or be followed anytime you enter a store, that kind of treatment can wear people down. I try to encourage my brothers and sisters everyday with the love of Jesus but I do recognize that sometimes the love of Jesus can't always make us immune to the slights and daggers.
As I said before, this whole subject is very complex and multi-faceted. Fact is, we live in a fallen world and the heart of man is evil. Consigning a group of people (whatever that group is), and accepting that situation, to the bottom rung based upon their physical features is a heart problem. Even if all black families were intact, I dare say we would still be below white people economically. The 90% figure that Kevin mentioned, is that fair enough? Why should it be? I am a black woman of above average intelligence who has a M.S. degree in Information Systems. I attended business school for both undergrad and grad school from Georgetown. I am well read and fairly well traveled. I've been a middle manager for the past 10 years and yet I'm frustrated. I'm ambitious and assertive. I believe in working hard as every generation before did. And yet, all the people who have passed me by in my agency have much less experience and a lot less education. Sadly, at this time, I work for a man who seems to be uncomfortable with people of color. I don't dwell on it because all it will do is make me bitter. I don't hate any group of people (or anyone for that matter). I do think that your white privilege makes it difficult to really see things beyond your world experience. Full disclosure: my husband has a white mother and a Hispanic father.
Let's dialogue in love. Have compassion for others especially when they pour out their hearts.
May the grace of God reside in you.
Sincerely,
Shelley Nuttall Martinez aka "Nuttshell"
Posted by: Nuttshell | November 15, 2007 10:48 AM
"Given more exhaustive studies that have been done, it is simply more accurate to say that lack of opportunity will eventually produce illegitimacy (but not directly). "
Can you point to the studies that are "more exhaustive"? Because I don't see how you could interpret a study citing inverse corrolation between poverty and fatherlessness over the last four decades, and draw any conclusion other than the one Jesse has drawn.
"Latinos are far, far more diverse culturally and ideologically than blacks, for openers, and represent a swing constituency. You have Mexicans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Nicaraguans ... and how does this then have anything to do with the question at hand?"
Nothing, really, which is why they weren't discussed in the first place, but then someone found it amazing that nobody talked about latinos, so I talked about latinos.
"Coming from you, that's the pot calling the kettle black."
Can you cite an example of where I have opted for an emotional argument in lieu of a factual argument, or is this another one of those things I do so frequently that it is impossible for you to find an example? Is this an example of your effectively shooting down an argument?
"What's with the name calling (butthead)?"
Did Mick call someone a butthead and it was deleted? I don't see it here.
" The 90% figure that Kevin mentioned, is that fair enough? Why should it be?"
That's only adjusting for one factor, education. But the point is not that there are no other factors, but that broken families, and not systemic racism, is the primary causative factor. Until we can acknowledge that reality, we cannot forge a real solution. I'm sorry that your own personal experience is so negative.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 15, 2007 12:21 PM
Can you point to the studies that are "more exhaustive"? Because I don't see how you could interpret a study citing inverse corrolation between poverty and fatherlessness over the last four decades, and draw any conclusion other than the one Jesse has drawn.
Not offhand, no, but I have read numerous print accounts. Anyway, as I said, data have to be interpreted in a certain context, and in this case the data certainly do not prove jesse's case because the other factors I mention are not addressed.
...but then someone found it amazing that nobody talked about latinos, so I talked about latinos.
If you remember, the subject was blacks, not Latinos.
Can you cite an example of where I have opted for an emotional argument in lieu of a factual argument, or is this another one of those things I do so frequently that it is impossible for you to find an example?
You have done this so frequently that it would take me days to go back and find all the instances -- and even if I did show you you would deny it out of hand. In other words, as a result I have a really hard time respecting your opinion on nearly anything.
But the point is not that there are no other factors, but that broken families, and not systemic racism, is the primary causative factor.
And why do families break apart? Mostly due to finances.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 15, 2007 12:47 PM
Really? Is that what this discussion has been reduced to?
Shelley Nuttall Martinez aka "Nuttshell"
Posted by: Nuttshell
No it was reduced to this , by you .
"Okay, I give up. You white guys have all the answer for and about black people.
I'm tired of you all (jesse, mick, kevin). Yea, I said it. It's all our fault and if our men just started acting right and married their baby mama's, we would be on top of the world."
Posted by: Nuttshell
Having children out of wed lock , and blaming no one but me of the consequences was my idea .
So if you want to bring up white privildge , white supramacy , and the evils of racism all I can say even having all those evils working on my behalf , bringing up children in a single household Sucks big time . It hurts your kids .
I am responsible for that , not race .
If you want to have a discussion I am all ears , because from the examples you gave , I would think it would even be harder for a person of color , I simply do not understand why anyone would not advocate a Mom and dad being united by the Holt Spirit and fighting racism , poverty , etc and joining in together with the Lord to bring up His gifts , your children . And of course supporting those who did not , but 100 oercently advocating for God's plan . Mom and Dad .
God Bless your ability to answer in love,
Mick
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 15, 2007 12:52 PM
Did Mick call someone a butthead and it was deleted? I don't see it here.
I might have , I most likely miss spelled it . I don't see any of my posts deleted though ?
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 15, 2007 1:01 PM
I simply do not understand why anyone would not advocate a Mom and dad being united by the Holt Spirit and fighting racism, poverty, etc and joining in together with the Lord to bring up His gifts, your children.
You have completely missed the point. As I have repeatedly tried to point out, financial issues wreak by far the biggest havoc on families of all colors, cultures and classes, and no amount of moral/spiritual training will change that -- in the black community it's just a little more obvious. In other words, help change the economics and the problem largely will be ameliorated -- but that costs resources.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 15, 2007 1:02 PM
Because their is a reason for detrimental behaviors , does not mean those behaviors are not still detrimental .
Mick said
Do you realize how foolish that statement is. Now that you have said these behaviors are detrimental now what?
P said
P I think this is one of those times having different religions cause a huge dis connect .
Doing something wrong , caused by another wrong , is still wrong . The now what is up to the individual person , we as a church can help , we as a government can try and offer poliices like Head Start and such to help , but bottom line , most of the times kids coming from families that are broken or never even together to begin with have an UPHILL CLIMB . No never give up on them , I agree .
You are missing the point , and your belief of the importance of the traditional family from past conversations is just bs to you . I don't even think we are on