I work alongside many people, from many different backgrounds, for an agreed upon wage. We live in the same neighborhoods, pay the same taxes, shop at the same places. Why is a person I live alongside being treated differently than me because of the color of their skin?
I have no idea why this seems to be a "hot topic" among Democratic presidential candidates.
I work alongside many people, from many different backgrounds, for an agreed upon wage. We live in the same neighborhoods, pay the same taxes, shop at the same places. Why is a person I live alongside being treated differently than me because of the color of their skin?
I have no idea why this seems to be a "hot topic" among Democratic presidential candidates.
The argument behind it is that, even after emancipation, decades of institutionalized discrimination prevented black Americans from accessing the same opportunities as white Americans, creating a divide that has been very hard to bridge. Housing segregation is almost unchanged since the 1960's, despite legislation to fix it. Whether it was refusal to rent/sell to black people or practices like red lining that used factors like amount of black residents as reasons to deny loans to neighborhoods, we have seen black home ownership trail white homeownership, preventing the development of wealth that often passes from one generation to the next.
2 miles from me is the neighborhood of Edmondson Village. As more black Americans entered the middle class following WWII, more wanted to live in middle class neighborhoods. Unfortunately it was perfectly legal for these new and affordable areas to deny people homes because of their race. A real estate developer started buying homes in this popular area and sold them to black families at above market prices (because they couldn't get a home like that any other way). The developer then told the white neighbors to sell to him at below market value because of all of the new black neighbors who would lower the home's value. In a decade the neighborhood went from 90% white to 90% black. Businesses pulled out of the fancy shopping center and the city stopped putting money into the neighborhood's park and rec areas.
As more neighborhoods remain segregated, we have schools unable to provide the same resources, access to health care lacking, and access to healthy food lacking.
I don't think money to individuals will fix this. You need a far reaching solution. Mayor Pete's Douglass Plan is a good start
(06-19-2019, 11:47 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The argument behind it is that, even after emancipation, decades of institutionalized discrimination prevented black Americans from accessing the same opportunities as white Americans, creating a divide that has been very hard to bridge. Housing segregation is almost unchanged since the 1960's, despite legislation to fix it. Whether it was refusal to rent/sell to black people or practices like red lining that used factors like amount of black residents as reasons to deny loans to neighborhoods, we have seen black home ownership trail white homeownership, preventing the development of wealth that often passes from one generation to the next.
2 miles from me is the neighborhood of Edmondson Village. As more black Americans entered the middle class following WWII, more wanted to live in middle class neighborhoods. Unfortunately it was perfectly legal for these new and affordable areas to deny people homes because of their race. A real estate developer started buying homes in this popular area and sold them to black families at above market prices (because they couldn't get a home like that any other way). The developer then told the white neighbors to sell to him at below market value because of all of the new black neighbors who would lower the home's value. In a decade the neighborhood went from 90% white to 90% black. Businesses pulled out of the fancy shopping center and the city stopped putting money into the neighborhood's park and rec areas.
As more neighborhoods remain segregated, we have schools unable to provide the same resources, access to health care lacking, and access to healthy food lacking.
I don't think money to individuals will fix this. You need a far reaching solution. Mayor Pete's Douglass Plan is a good start
(06-19-2019, 11:47 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Whether it was refusal to rent/sell to black people or practices like red lining that used factors like amount of black residents as reasons to deny loans to neighborhoods, we have seen black home ownership trail white homeownership, preventing the development of wealth that often passes from one generation to the next.
The biggest answer is really simple and it doesn't have anything to do with racism (though that is still possibly also a smaller answer): Make two parent households.
People more likely to live in a house? Two parent households.
People more likely to get a college degree? Two parent households.
People more likely to be middle class or higher? Two parent households.
If you look at the numbers of two parent households out there, it directly matches with pretty much all indicators of wealth and success. Having either two parents bringing in income, or one parent brining in income while another is able to focus on the child's development and welfare is a huge advantage, and also leads to more being passed from one generation to the next. Asians are first, whites second, hispanic/latino third, natives/inuits fourth, and african americans (a far) fifth on having two parent households. That list lines up with those indicators pretty clearly.
So if you really want to change things for the better for african americans, convince them to make two parent households. They are currently only doing so about 33-35% of the time compared to 76-77% for whites and 84-85% for asian/pacific islanders. That's an enormous difference.
I had a nice long post typed up getting into all of this. I had embedded two videos to make it a little humorous but focusing on the issue and why it is a problem. Then I hit the back button on the wrong tab.
The wealth gap is something that has continued to be an issue since the end of slavery. Our new black citizens were released with nothing to their names, which means nothing to use to accrue wealth and nothing to pass along to the next generation. That has been perpetuated for decades, made more of a thing by racist policies in the early part of the 20th century. But those racist policies had a lasting effect and cause difficulties in accumulating wealth.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(06-20-2019, 08:14 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The biggest answer is really simple and it doesn't have anything to do with racism (though that is still possibly also a smaller answer): Make two parent households.
People more likely to live in a house? Two parent households.
People more likely to get a college degree? Two parent households.
People more likely to be middle class or higher? Two parent households.
If you look at the numbers of two parent households out there, it directly matches with pretty much all indicators of wealth and success. Having either two parents bringing in income, or one parent brining in income while another is able to focus on the child's development and welfare is a huge advantage, and also leads to more being passed from one generation to the next. Asians are first, whites second, hispanic/latino third, natives/inuits fourth, and african americans (a far) fifth on having two parent households. That list lines up with those indicators pretty clearly.
So if you really want to change things for the better for african americans, convince them to make two parent households. They are currently only doing so about 33-35% of the time compared to 76-77% for whites and 84-85% for asian/pacific islanders. That's an enormous difference.
That's a chicken and egg thing, though. Are people more likely to be successful coming from two parent households because two parent households are more common in more successful racial groups, or is it really the household status that is the cause? What you present is a correlation, which doesn't mean it isn't a factor, but also doesn't show enough evidence to be causal. You can't say it is the bigger issue because there is no evidence to support that it is.
Edit: Sorry, continued to think about this. One of the reasons for the large difference in household type for the black community is rooted in the institutional racism in the criminal justice system in the United States. So many black males are in the corrections process, at much higher rates than the white community, and often it is because of laws created specifically to target the black community back in the Jim Crow era or things like the War on Drugs. So, racial discrimination in the justice system is even another confounding variable in the equation looking at household type as the issue.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(06-20-2019, 08:14 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The biggest answer is really simple and it doesn't have anything to do with racism (though that is still possibly also a smaller answer): Make two parent households.
People more likely to live in a house? Two parent households.
People more likely to get a college degree? Two parent households.
People more likely to be middle class or higher? Two parent households.
If you look at the numbers of two parent households out there, it directly matches with pretty much all indicators of wealth and success. Having either two parents bringing in income, or one parent brining in income while another is able to focus on the child's development and welfare is a huge advantage, and also leads to more being passed from one generation to the next. Asians are first, whites second, hispanic/latino third, natives/inuits fourth, and african americans (a far) fifth on having two parent households. That list lines up with those indicators pretty clearly.
So if you really want to change things for the better for african americans, convince them to make two parent households. They are currently only doing so about 33-35% of the time compared to 76-77% for whites and 84-85% for asian/pacific islanders. That's an enormous difference.
Does socio-economic status influence the likelihood of being in a two parent household or does being in a two parent household influence your socio-economic status?
If one group in particular had centuries of policies that tore families apart and then had decades of policies that jailed fathers and barred access to education, well paying jobs, and housing, you're impacting both of those factors.
The Douglass Plan would influence both with criminal justice reform and investing in communities to create jobs.
(06-20-2019, 03:58 AM)Dill Wrote: As I understand it, these "reparations" are more about changing policies. Not cutting checks to people.
I' like to hear the results of duly commissioned research on the topic
There's definitely different plans with how they would work, so having a commission focused on researching those plans and giving an expert opinion would be a good start.
(06-20-2019, 09:04 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Does socio-economic status influence the likelihood of being in a two parent household or does being in a two parent household influence your socio-economic status?
If one group in particular had centuries of policies that tore families apart and then had decades of policies that jailed fathers and barred access to education, well paying jobs, and housing, you're impacting both of those factors.
The Douglass Plan would influence both with criminal justice reform and investing in communities to create jobs.
But that would imply racism, or at least racist laws and systems. And LL made it clear racism is not the problem. Well, maybe a "small" part of the problem.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(06-20-2019, 08:29 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's a chicken and egg thing, though. Are people more likely to be successful coming from two parent households because two parent households are more common in more successful racial groups, or is it really the household status that is the cause? What you present is a correlation, which doesn't mean it isn't a factor, but also doesn't show enough evidence to be causal. You can't say it is the bigger issue because there is no evidence to support that it is.
Edit: Sorry, continued to think about this. One of the reasons for the large difference in household type for the black community is rooted in the institutional racism in the criminal justice system in the United States. So many black males are in the corrections process, at much higher rates than the white community, and often it is because of laws created specifically to target the black community back in the Jim Crow era or things like the War on Drugs. So, racial discrimination in the justice system is even another confounding variable in the equation looking at household type as the issue.
I'm not sure I buy the chicken/egg for this, though.
There are zero laws created "specifically to target the black community" that say make one parent households. Look at Samuel DuBose, the guy who was shot by UC campus police as a local example. He had 13 children with 11 different women. You're trying to tell me the war on drugs caused him to knock up 11 different women and marry none of them?
That's 13 children likely living in poverty (before being awarded ~$218k each), or at the very least disadvantaged against two parent household children and there is no chicken or egg. There is just a cultural acceptance that it's an acceptable or inevitable part of life. It shouldn't be.
Since this is ultimately a football board, I will bring up Antonio Cromartie, who has 14 children with 8 different women. NFL money has allowed him to support them, but even then back in 2010 on Hard Knocks, he was only able to NAME 9 out of his 10 children at the time. Dude couldn't even remember the name of one of his children.
The rapper DMX has 15 children with 9 different women and went to jail for not being able to pay child support.
Those are some singular examples, obviously, and not a concrete case to my point, but the point still remains. There is nothing chicken and egg about it. It's cultural normality.
- - - - - - -
Change that and you fix a whole lot of the problems they want to "fix" with reparations.
(06-20-2019, 09:12 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I'm not sure I buy the chicken/egg for this, though.
There are zero laws created "specifically to target the black community" that say make one parent households. Look at Samuel DuBose, the guy who was shot by UC campus police as a local example. He had 13 children with 11 different women. You're trying to tell me the war on drugs caused him to knock up 11 different women and marry none of them?
That's 13 children likely living in poverty (before being awarded ~$218k each), or at the very least disadvantaged against two parent household children and there is no chicken or egg. There is just a cultural acceptance that it's an acceptable or inevitable part of life. It shouldn't be.
Since this is ultimately a football board, I will bring up Antonio Cromartie, who has 14 children with 8 different women. NFL money has allowed him to support them, but even then back in 2010 on Hard Knocks, he was only able to NAME 9 out of his 10 children at the time. Dude couldn't even remember the name of one of his children.
The rapper DMX has 15 children with 9 different women and went to jail for not being able to pay child support.
Those are some singular examples, obviously, and not a concrete case to my point, but the point still remains. There is nothing chicken and egg about it. It's cultural normality.
- - - - - - -
Change that and you fix a whole lot of the problems they want to "fix" with reparations.
But why do you have those scenarios? Is it because of decades of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system causing a lack of black males in the community, which creates an opportunity for males present to engage in this behavior? Have the issues in the criminal justice system created this "cultural normality"?
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(06-20-2019, 09:12 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I'm not sure I buy the chicken/egg for this, though.
There are zero laws created "specifically to target the black community" that say make one parent households. Look at Samuel DuBose, the guy who was shot by UC campus police as a local example. He had 13 children with 11 different women. You're trying to tell me the war on drugs caused him to knock up 11 different women and marry none of them?
That's 13 children likely living in poverty (before being awarded ~$218k each), or at the very least disadvantaged against two parent household children and there is no chicken or egg. There is just a cultural acceptance that it's an acceptable or inevitable part of life. It shouldn't be.
Since this is ultimately a football board, I will bring up Antonio Cromartie, who has 14 children with 8 different women. NFL money has allowed him to support them, but even then back in 2010 on Hard Knocks, he was only able to NAME 9 out of his 10 children at the time. Dude couldn't even remember the name of one of his children.
The rapper DMX has 15 children with 9 different women and went to jail for not being able to pay child support.
Those are some singular examples, obviously, and not a concrete case to my point, but the point still remains. There is nothing chicken and egg about it. It's cultural normality.
- - - - - - -
Change that and you fix a whole lot of the problems they want to "fix" with reparations.
So your argument is that these very few anecdotes create an accepted cultural norms in the black community and that the policies between the 1600's to 1960's had no impact?
I am as liberal as anyone here, but there are some issues with the black community that they have to correct themselves. And one of those problems is single parent households. It is not caused by incarceration. It is not caused by poverty. It is caused by a cultural attitude among African Americans.
African American men are more likely to assault their domestic partners. African American men are more likely to have multiple children by multiple women. The Rap music culture glorifies misogyny. None of that can be blamed on racism.
Reparations is a very complex issue and I would actually support reparations in the form of more public government programs, but not in the form of straight cash payments to anyone. I am not denying that the African American community still suffers from hundreds of years of racism, but at some point they need to address their own problems within their own culture.
(06-20-2019, 09:12 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I'm not sure I buy the chicken/egg for this, though.
There are zero laws created "specifically to target the black community" that say make one parent households. Look at Samuel DuBose, the guy who was shot by UC campus police as a local example. He had 13 children with 11 different women. You're trying to tell me the war on drugs caused him to knock up 11 different women and marry none of them?
...There is just a cultural acceptance that it's an acceptable or inevitable part of life. It shouldn't be.
And that's where our approach to some issues... particularly the war on drugs... has been damaging to low income families. The reparations argument is (partly) that since blacks were largely low income, some laws and government practices had a more significant impact on them.
The war on drugs has done more to screw up the nuclear family than most policies. Instead of treating addiction, it created a steady stream of inmates from people looking to make money. Recidivism rates for drug dealers is high because once you get out, it's difficult to get a job that pays a decent wage with a felony conviction. It's that cycle that's impacted a lot of minority communities and become acceptable.
I don't believe in reparations. But I don't think our approach on many issues is benefiting anyone. The war on drugs has cost untold money and aided in breaking down the family unit. And, no, the loss of two parent households isn't just from the war on drugs, personally I think it's mostly cultural, but it has been one contributing factor.
For a good example of why some reparations are appropriate read up on the history of the Freedman's Bank. It was created after the Civil War to help African Americans manage their new found wealth, but ended up being ran by a white man who basically stole $4 million of wealth from the black community. That was a devastating blow in the 1870's.
My aunt has 3 kids. 2 half black and one white. They live in the same house and go to the same school district. How much does my white cousin owe my two black cousins? And is their payout pro-rated since their white half owes reparations to their black half?
(06-20-2019, 01:57 PM)6andcounting Wrote: My aunt has 3 kids. 2 half black and one white. They live in the same house and go to the same school district. How much does my white cousin owe my two black cousins? And is their payout pro-rated since their white half owes reparations to their black half?
Whites are not required to pay blacks. The entire country (whites, blacks, Asian, etc) would be responsible for any payments or programs.
(06-20-2019, 02:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Whites are not required to pay blacks. The entire country (whites, blacks, Asian, etc) would be responsible for any payments or programs.
But blacks would get a net gain out of it and whites would take a net loss regardless though - right?
(06-20-2019, 02:09 PM)6andcounting Wrote: But blacks would get a net gain out of it and whites would take a net loss regardless though - right?
I don't see it like that. I see it as helping the entire country, just like the Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act helped minorities more than white people, but overall it helped the entire country so we ALL benefitted from that.
BTW are you still asking for an answer to your original question?
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: jamarr-chase.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/Ycw6u-nmw3AAAAAM/jamarr-chase.gif)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: Cz_eGI3UUAASnqC.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cz_eGI3UUAASnqC.jpg)
