This Person is a Member of the US House of Representatives

**Lemur** · 04-18-2012, 21:22

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Modern scholarship can trace no direct line between slavery and the state of the modern black family, as the breaking up of families was not as common as was once assumed and black families strengthened (i.e. became more two-parent) for several generations before deteriorating. Contemporary understanding of the problem pins the blame squarely on the welfare policies of the Great Society that perversely encouraged black men to live outside of the home so black women could collect.

That sounds rather incomplete as an explanation. Doesn't address why (in some regions) black families are so much more fragmented than, say, Appalachian white families. After all, the largest percentage of welfare recipients are white. Why don't they have the same level of familial breakdown? Or do they fragment with less result?

Like I said, incomplete.

I'm not one to invoke white guilt, but buying and selling mothers, fathers, sons and daughters for centuries seems like the sort of thing that might have an impact on the family unit. That's not statistics, that's common sense.

**Greyblades** · 04-18-2012, 21:30

TAfter all, the largest percentage of welfare recipients are white. Why don't they have the same level of familial breakdown?

Just being clear, do these percentage take into account the higher population of white people in america overall?

**Major Robert Dump** · 04-18-2012, 22:30

Check out the videos o Eric Holder going before committee in 2010 for the new hate crime laws, and upon being asked how and when it would be applied in identical cases of blck on white crime, his response was something to the effect of "we are only going to pursue cases where the victims belong to a group that has historically been oppressed."

I get it. Very well, actually. And it's retarded.

**Lemur** · 04-19-2012, 00:36

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Just being clear, do these percentage take into account the higher population of white people in america overall?

Actually, my statistics appear to be out-of-date anyway. Supposedly there are now more black Americans than white Americans on welfare. My bad. In my defense, I can only say that there used to be more whites on welfare than any other ethnicity. I expect some combination of Clinton's welfare reform and the recent mega-recession changed that fact.

**PanzerJaeger** · 04-19-2012, 05:27

Originally Posted by Lemur

That sounds rather incomplete as an explanation. Doesn't address why (in some regions) black families are so much more fragmented than, say, Appalachian white families. After all, the largest percentage of welfare recipients are white. Why don't they have the same level of familial breakdown? Or do they fragment with less result?

Like I said, incomplete.

I'm not one to invoke white guilt, but buying and selling mothers, fathers, sons and daughters for centuries seems like the sort of thing that might have an impact on the family unit. That's not statistics, that's common sense.

It may be common sense, but it does not actually make sense when the historical statistics on black family creation are examined. In order to convincingly hypothesize a link between slavery and the poor state of the black family unit today, one would expect to see a steady, or at least a steadily trending, rise in the percentage of single parent families from that era to today as the effects of the family breakups compounded and became normative. Instead, the data shows that slavery was not all that damaging to the black family and that the percentage of single parent families decreased dramatically for multiple generations until the sudden reversal that began in the '70s. Why would the existence of slavery more than a century before cause a sudden and rapid deterioration of the black family when it seemingly had no effect on earlier generations that were chronologically closer to the institution?

I agree that the welfare theory is incomplete, but it does make more sense in my opinion than trying to draw a link back to slavery. For over thirty years black parents had a financial incentive to live apart. A family could not receive welfare if there was an able-bodied male living in the home. That is enough time for some very insidious habits to form, habits that correlate very closely with the sudden breakup of the black family. Add to that the Cloward-Pivenite social activists that targetted inner city black communities specifically to normalize welfare and swell the rolls, and you have a very unique incentivization for broken families that did not exist in other parts of the country such as Appalachia. In any event, it seems to be a theory that many social scientists and historians are gravitating toward.

**a completely inoffensive name** · 04-19-2012, 05:51

I am having a hard time believing that a welfare check is a big enough incentive to ward off people falling in love with each other and forming families.

Maybe I just don't know anything about people.

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 04-19-2012, 06:21

sometimes "families" are accidental...sometimes people are teenagers...

**a completely inoffensive name** · 04-19-2012, 06:44

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

sometimes "families" are accidental...sometimes people are teenagers...

But what came first, the high percentage of pregnant teenagers or the breakdown in black culture that set the stage for a higher percentage of teenagers to become pregnant.

**Centurion1** · 04-19-2012, 07:18

ask antonio cromartie

**Strike For The South** · 04-19-2012, 16:09

It may be common sense, but it does not actually make sense when the historical statistics on black family creation are examined. In order to convincingly hypothesize a link between slavery and the poor state of the black family unit today, one would expect to see a steady, or at least a steadily trending, rise in the percentage of single parent families from that era to today as the effects of the family breakups compounded and became normative. Instead, the data shows that slavery was not all that damaging to the black family and that the percentage of single parent families decreased dramatically for multiple generations until the sudden reversal that began in the '70s. Why would the existence of slavery more than a century before cause a sudden and rapid deterioration of the black family when it seemingly had no effect on earlier generations that were chronologically closer to the institution?

I agree that the welfare theory is incomplete, but it does make more sense in my opinion than trying to draw a link back to slavery. For over thirty years black parents had a financial incentive to live apart. A family could not receive welfare if there was an able-bodied male living in the home. That is enough time for some very insidious habits to form, habits that correlate very closely with the sudden breakup of the black family. Add to that the Cloward-Pivenite social activists that targetted inner city black communities specifically to normalize welfare and swell the rolls, and you have a very unique incentivization for broken families that did not exist in other parts of the country such as Appalachia. In any event, it seems to be a theory that many social scientists and historians are gravitating toward.

Could it not be a combonation of both?

Originally Posted by Centurion1

ask antonio cromartie

**Major Robert Dump** · 04-19-2012, 09:03

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I am having a hard time believing that a welfare check is a big enough incentive to ward off people falling in love with each other and forming families.

Maybe I just don't know anything about people.

You can fall in love and start a family just fine without getting married, which is exactly what happened, so there is no official record of the a dad in the picture, and this "dad" disappears during social worker visits.

You think it is a myth, I have an entire step family of idiots who have been doing this for 2 generations and they openly admit that they have no incentive to get married. In fact, the "dads" actually avoid signing the birth certificates for this same reason, which is kind of funny because with the moms blinded by greed for their benefits they don't see that this screws them out of child support in the future....

If poor white trash will do it then poor black trash is doing it, too. Without the marriage contract the relationship becomes a drift-in and drift-out again arrangement.

Lack of an able bodied male increases benefits, as did each child. In the 1980s a single mom of 5 could make a middle class salary without raising a finger, and got food stamps and WIC on top of that.

I'd be curious to see numbers on two-parent signed birth certificates these days.

**Ironside** · 04-19-2012, 20:43

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I agree that the welfare theory is incomplete, but it does make more sense in my opinion than trying to draw a link back to slavery. For over thirty years black parents had a financial incentive to live apart. A family could not receive welfare if there was an able-bodied male living in the home. That is enough time for some very insidious habits to form, habits that correlate very closely with the sudden breakup of the black family. Add to that the Cloward-Pivenite social activists that targetted inner city black communities specifically to normalize welfare and swell the rolls, and you have a very unique incentivization for broken families that did not exist in other parts of the country such as Appalachia. In any event, it seems to be a theory that many social scientists and historians are gravitating toward.

Doesn't really hold up outside the US.
A more generous welfare net, more focus on independant women and less focus on marriage, yet there's no simular breakdown in the Scandinavian countries.

It might have exacerbated the problem, but it's not a root cause.

**Crazed Rabbit** · 04-20-2012, 14:36

We were talking about Zimmerman, right?

Turns out he did have a bloody head - http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_g...0419_wmain.jpg

In other news, charges will be filed and there will be a trial. Good. That's how this is supposed to work.

No. Just because you can file charges doesn't mean you should. In this instance trying to get second degree murder is ridiculous. Overcharging because of public pressure is the exact opposite of what should happen.
http://www.popehat.com/2012/04/13/ho...use-affidavit/
http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/04/14...use-affidavit/

CR

**Lemur** · 04-20-2012, 15:14