U.S. Presidential says black children had a more stable family life under slavery

Cork boy 55

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Most black British people trace their ancestry back to the west indies so yeah they have slavery in their history.

"Black british" immigrants are straight from African
"Black caribbean" immigrants are from the caribbean

Cork boy 55

Killer Wench wrote: »

Uh huh. Sure.

Bold Quotes From: http://www.ferris.edu/isar/Institut/pioneer/rushton.htm

Again, try another source.

Any scienist involved in racial science which does not come to the PC conclusions is going to be called a racist by et all.
I don't have Rustoons book only an very short abrdiged edition
I sure when I get the full book he will have a source for the point he made
I will post it then

Anyway in case you missed from the unrelated link in post 145
http://www.iol.co.za/lifestyle/family/parenting/single-parent-households-the-norm-says-study-1.1057033

The information presented in the report was gathered from different sources, including UCT and StatsSA, and compiled by the institute. Some statistics presented in the report included:
* Only a third of children are growing up living with both of their parents.
* Nearly one million children have lost both their parents, the majority to HIV and Aids.
* There are 98 000 children living in child-headed households, 81 percent of whom have a living mother.
* Nine million children (48 percent) are growing up with absent but living fathers.

Killer Wench

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Any scienist involved in racial science which does not come to the PC conclusions is going to be called a racist by et all.
I don't have Rustoons book only an very short abrdiged edition
I sure when I get the full book he will have a source for the point he made
I will post it then

Anyway in case you missed from the unrelated link in post 145
http://www.iol.co.za/lifestyle/family/parenting/single-parent-households-the-norm-says-study-1.1057033

Okie dokie.

Nodin

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Any scienist involved in racial science which does not come to the PC conclusions is going to be called a racist by et all.

No, when you start saying that problems with Islam are related to genetic/physical factors and hanging round with David Duke, thats when you start getting called a racist.
http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=274

pragmatic1

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Any scienist involved in racial science which does not come to the PC conclusions is going to be called a racist by et all.
I don't have Rustoons book only an very short abrdiged edition
I sure when I get the full book he will have a source for the point he made
I will post it then

Anyway in case you missed from the unrelated link in post 145
http://www.iol.co.za/lifestyle/family/parenting/single-parent-households-the-norm-says-study-1.1057033

Any scientist involved in genetics will tell you that the concept of race is bogus. The whitest Irishman could be more closely related to one African than, than that African would be to another.

Cork boy 55

Nodin wrote: »

He's a rampant, out and out racist, who associates with other known racists and attends conferences based on various racist ideologies. Other than parade around in a white pointy hat, he can't really be more open about it.

Secondly, the idea that single parent black families are more prevalent, independent of socio-economic levels, has not yet been shown on this thread.

The rate in American is far higher than the poverty rate is it not

Also from the UK
post 84
families have one parent,
48% black Caribbean
36% black African
10% Indians
12% Bangladeshis
13% Pakistanis ,
15% chinese
22% white

,

: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/44768-race-divide-on-single-parents#ixzz1Rp4g5HGI

poverty levels as measured by low income housing
http://www.poverty.org.uk/06/b.png
black(cab) 32%
Black(african) 48%
Indian 28%
Pakistani 55%
Banglandesi 70%
white 20%



poverty levels as mesured by low pay
http://www.poverty.org.uk/55/index.shtml?6

poverty levels as measured by unemployment
http://www.poverty.org.uk/47/index.shtml?6

Kevin Duffy

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

"Black british" immigrants are straight from African
"Black caribbean" immigrants are from the caribbean

Where do you think black people in the Caribbean came from?

Cork boy 55

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

Where do you think black people in the Caribbean came from?

not me
thats how the british government stores it stats.

Nodin

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

The rate in American is far higher than the poverty rate is it not

Also from the UK
post 84
families have one parent,
48% black Caribbean
36% black African
10% Indians
12% Bangladeshis
13% Pakistanis ,
15% chinese
22% white

,

: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/44768-race-divide-on-single-parents#ixzz1Rp4g5HGI

poverty levels as measured by low income housing
http://www.poverty.org.uk/06/b.png
black(cab) 32%
Black(african) 48%
Indian 28%
Pakistani 55%
Banglandesi 70%
white 20%

Looks like a close mirror with both sections of the black community, whites and poverty there.

Single parent
48% black Caribbean
36% black African
10% Indians
12% Bangladeshis
13% Pakistanis ,
15% chinese
22% white

Poverty.
black(cab) 32%
Black(african) 48%
Indian 28%
Pakistani 55%
Banglandesi 70%
white 20%

The discrepancy between Pakistani Bangladeshi rates of poverty and the low incidence of single parents is probably due to the arch-conservatism of those parent cultures.

The rate in American in such a comparison has not been shown.

Cork boy 55

Nodin wrote: »

Looks like a close mirror with both sections of the black community, whites and poverty there.

Single parent
48% black Caribbean
36% black African
10% Indians
12% Bangladeshis
13% Pakistanis ,
15% chinese
22% white

Poverty.
black(cab) 32%
Black(african) 48%
Indian 28%
Pakistani 55%
Banglandesi 70%
white 20%

The discrepancy between Pakistani Bangladeshi rates of poverty and the low incidence of single parents is probably due to the arch-conservatism of those parent cultures.

There is a pretty big gap there, anyway it looks like there is a diference between the data in Morlar post 84 and my BBC source(2001) in post 142
which gives
59% Black caribbean
44.3 black british
also it depends how you define poverty that poverty defined as low income housing in last post

So lets take the BBC report (2001)
59% Black caribbean
44.3 black british

32% Black Caribbeans (2010)
48% Black(african)

A pretty big gap for cabs not so much for Afrs
have to find reliable uptodate stats to be sure, the BBC report is from 2001 also a proper measure of poverty.

http://www.poverty.org.uk/06/index.shtml?6
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/43052000/gif/_43052073_dep_chil_416.gif

Nodin wrote: »

The rate in American in such a comparison has not been shown.

USA USA USA
Black or African American single parent family 67%
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=107

African Americans in poverty 24.7%(2008)
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/index.html

Nodin

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

There is a pretty big gap there, anyway it looks like there is a diference between the data in Morlar post 84 and my BBC source(2001) in post 142
which gives
59% Black caribbean
44.3 black british
also it depends how you define poverty that poverty defined as low income housing in last post
.........

Its not that big a gap.

You weren't too particular about "defining poverty" when you thought those stats backed your case.

Cork boy 55

Nodin wrote: »

Its not that big a gap.

You weren't too particular about "defining poverty" when you thought those stats backed your case.

32% to 59% thats almost double
why is that the case?
Explain it?
also explain the USA stats?

The only problem is the BBC report is from 2001 you would have to get 2010 stats to be sure I doubt much has changed in 10 years.
The mistake I made was talking the stats from molars post instead of my own his post was not from as good a source as BBC, you savy.
rushing too much.

Nodin

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

32% to 59% thats almost double
.

I presumed that you were referring to the difference between the 48% rate of single parents and the 32% rate of poverty in the "black" caribbean population.

I believe the reasons large number of single parent families in the US was covered by 'Killer Wench' and others earlier.

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

The only problem is the BBC report is from 2001 you would have to get 2010 stats to be sure I doubt much has changed in 10 years.
The mistake I made was talking the stats from molars post instead of my own his post was not from as good a source as BBC, you savy.
rushing too much.
.

Rushing to get a set of stats that backed up your theory, yeah, I sort of guessed that.

You need to compare year vs year.

Manic Moran

There have also been plenty of posts directly addressing yours and showing why her comments and ideas were wrong and offensive. You appear to have disregarded those in your response, presumably 'cos they just didn't suit your argument

I know there have been plenty of posts explaining the whole offensiveness deal. My point is that that's not the point. Controversial and hyperbolic though the statement may have been, and done purely for the purpose of attacking Obama in a cheap shot manner, there is still a kernel behind it which could be used in a legitimate political manner.

And given that the last several pages of this thread have actually been discussing the subject of black family units in a rational and fairly analytical manner, and I doubt it was going to be a topic of conversation this week had the publicity of the statement not come up, I think it precisely proves my point that the controversial comment can be used to actually increase awareness and discuss the valid issues.

NTM

gbee

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

Where do you think black people in the Caribbean came from?

He did say 'straight' from so it's implied he understands.

Escaped African slaves became pirates and mixed with the indigenous Indian populations of the Caribbean making a new race of people, the Indians died out from disease brought to them by the slaves.

southsiderosie

Manic Moran wrote: »

I know there have been plenty of posts explaining the whole offensiveness deal. My point is that that's not the point. Controversial and hyperbolic though the statement may have been, and done purely for the purpose of attacking Obama in a cheap shot manner, there is still a kernel behind it which could be used in a legitimate political manner.

And given that the last several pages of this thread have actually been discussing the subject of black family units in a rational and fairly analytical manner, and I doubt it was going to be a topic of conversation this week had the publicity of the statement not come up, I think it precisely proves my point that the controversial comment can be used to actually increase awareness and discuss the valid issues.

NTM

These issues were and are being discussed however in the United States. The fact that it's now being discussed on an Irish message board is not really a redeeming factor for what was an incredibly stupid statement.

metrovelvet

southsiderosie wrote: »

These issues were and are being discussed however in the United States. The fact that it's now being discussed on an Irish message board is not really a redeeming factor for what was an incredibly stupid statement.

It's misleading - it makes it sound like slavery was the reason black families WEREN'T unstable, when as far as Im aware the lift off the stigma of walking out on your kids started in the 60s. But it's still worth thinking about.

We had more family stability before the womens lib movement of the 1960s too.

Does that mean these freedoms shouldnt exist? What it does mean is that its a good idea to look at why and what happenned.

metrovelvet

gbee wrote: »

He did say 'straight' from so it's implied he understands.

Escaped African slaves became pirates and mixed with the indigenous Indian populations of the Caribbean making a new race of people, the Indians died out from disease brought to them by the slaves.

There were Irish slaves sent to Barbados too btw.

Terry

Manic Moran wrote: »

None of the posters, as yet, have addressed the question of if she's right or not.

There's a difference between liberty, equality, and stability. Now, personally, I would prefer to be free, equal, and unstable, but the amount of broken or dysfunctional black families in the US today is rather high. You can argue that it's a function of societal stratification, and that she may be drawing a false conclusion (or that there is no conclusion that she's drawing at all), but you can't just go at her for making a comment about something being true back in the slavery days.

The question is not over if she is being offensive (the statement itself is not), or if she is wrong (which she may not be, and nobody is addressing), but really over if you take her statement at face value as true, "so what?" What is the proposed solution to the decline in familial stability, other than just saying that it's worse now than it used to be, and "what has Obama's administration done to make it worse?" That's more important, and a little depressing that nobody has asked it instead of making reflex comments.

NTM

KeithAFC wrote: »

The religious aspect in American politics is interesting. I thought the constitution wasn't really about that?

Manic Moran wrote: »

To address the people jumping down my throat for my earlier post, I suggest you think back for a second at what I wrote, and how you responded.

The only person to have made a useful contribution to this discussion, as far as I can see, has been Morlar in post 84, who has nailed the crux of the matter. Unpossible, three posts later, made an astute observation upon Morlar's post (which is one that I had commented upon)

The publicity the statement has received could be used to direct people's attention to the current significant difference in familial stability by race as per Morlar's post. But of the 92 other posts on this thread, only two seem to be paying any attention at all to what should be actually important. And I'll put dollars to cents that that is exactly what is happening in the US right now: Everyone's getting all upset about how many people are being offended, or whether or not the statement is even true to begin with.

I submit to you that that's all completely irrelevant. Few people were talking about familial instability last week. And now, when the subject is staring people in the face because of Bachmann's comments, still few people are talking about familial instability, which I submit is an issue of some import to today's Americans. (And particularly those in the disproprtionately high percentage of black families). This opportunity is being utterly lost by everyone. Instead, it's all "Wow, how offensive" or "How wrong". Who cares?. How about addressing the raw subject matter, that there is a seriously disproportionate amount of single-parent black families in the US today, not 150 years ago?

Does nobody else here see a problem with that?

NTM

Nodin wrote: »

It turns out that Bachman did not actually say this, she - and the lovely Rick Santorum - signed a pledge which contained it. I'd imagine some advisor somewhere is getting reamed for not having read it for them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/michele-bachmanns-slavery-and-pornography-problem/2011/07/08/gIQAjz053H_blog.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/10/life-lesson-michele-bachmann-slavery

Secondly, the statistics that this claim is based on don't actually come from the slavery era.
https://twitter.com/#!/fivethirtyeight/status/89398803202965504
One might wonder as to the ease or otherwise in obtaining a divorce in that period.

I hope you both see what this shows.

Ok, I've read through the rest of the thread, and you have both ignored the obvious.
Michele Bachmann is an idiot.
She really is a dumb ****ing bint.
She is using soundbites about African-American families to get the White (majority) vote.

It helps her cause that the current president is seen as African American.

Two things here crack me up.

First: Manic Moran, you're Irish born and bred.
You didn't like your life here, so you fled the country. That's understandable. There are millions more like you.
What I find amusing is that you deny your past.

You will refer to Black people in America as "African Americans", but call yourself an "American" instead of "Irish American".
I find that to be somewhat racist. Especially when you take into account that Black people in America just call themselves "Black" these days.

Second: Michele Bachmann turner overdrive is a complete and ****ing idiot.

It is my opinion that anyone who supports her is also a complete and utter ****ing idiot.

Gyalist

gbee wrote: »

Escaped African slaves became pirates and mixed with the indigenous Indian populations of the Caribbean making a new race of people, the Indians died out from disease brought to them by the slaves.

WTF??

gbee

Gyalist wrote: »

WTF??

If you're that shocked, then Google is your friend, also there has been an extensive thread on the slave trade on boards previously ~ but hardly worth dragging up and wading though the thousand or more posts.

The most interesting bit for me was who actually caught the slaves and where British, Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Colonialists and Pirate ships went to to buy merchandise for export. Confine yourself to the recent slave trade from Columbus's time onwards as slavery is ancient.

BTW, who the slave traders were too is fascinating.

Cork boy 55

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

According to RACE, EVOLUTION,AND BEHAVIOR:
A Life History Perspective by Professor J. Philippe Rushton
In the section on parenting.
"The female-headed family is not unique to the U.S. Nor is it the result of the legacy of slavery or
inner city decay. It is found in large areas of Black Africa."

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

I don't have Rushtons book only an very short abrdiged edition
I sure when I get the full book he will have a source for the point he made
I will post it then

Killer Wench wrote: »

Okie dokie.

Just got the book, One of his references for the claim listed below.


African Marriage Systems: Perspectives
from Evolutionary Ecology
Patricia Draper (1989)
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, pdraper1@unl.edu
pgs 145 -169

Instead, in much of Africa, not only among country people but among urban
populations as well, there persists high fertility and a pattern of parental investment
in which both mothers and fathers invest, by Western standards, relatively
little in each offspring and pursue a pattern of delegated parental responsibility
(Draper and Harpending 1988). Coupled with low investment parenting is a mating
pattern that permits early sexual activity, loose economic and emotional ties
between spouses (Potash 1978), and in many cases the expectation on the part of
both spouses that the marriage will end in divorce or separation, followed by the
formation of another union (Aldous 1962; Lowy 1977; Oppong 1974; Mair 1953;
Gibson 1958; Hunter 1961; Tuupainen 1970).

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=anthropologyfacpub&sei-redir=1#search=%22draper%20afircan%201989%22

Da Shins Kelly

To be honest, almost all families, regardless of race, were more likely to stay together in the past due to the taboo surrounding divorce and separation. It wasn't just black families. To suggest that it was is just plain ignorance. Also, just because families stuck together doesn't mean they were necessarily stable and nurturing family units. Sometimes it's better for families to split up, particularly if there is abuse or alcoholism or something of the sort involved, which I'm sure there was plenty of back in the day. Women, white or black, were expected to be seen and not heard, and certainly would not have been permitted to leave their husbands in the times of slavery. Furthermore, many black children would have been born into slavery. I wouldn't consider that a good quality of life, or better than it is now.

Anyway, to even think for a second that this woman was thinking of anything other than making a borderline racist comment in order to garner attention from the media and create controversy is a bit naive. So black families have a higher percentage of breakdown. It's a sad situation, but at least they have the liberty to choose whether they want to stay together or not these days. To even bring slavery into the equation, and to make such a deliberately provocative statement is nothing more than a cheap shot and an attempt to get white America on her side. Thankfully, given the few Americans I know my own age, it seems that the majority have little or no time for this broad.

gbee

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

To be honest, almost all families,

Whilst what you say is fine, you must also factor in the role of women in their respective societies.

Mostly Women are still second class citizens and owned by their ‘husbands’ and they must be subservient to the males of the family, be that brothers, uncles nephews and so on.

Your post is fine if taken from the western point of view where women are both free and legally free and respected by their menfolk ~ but, despite laws in the USA and most or Europe being similar, some ethnic women will still suffer from tradition and culture and they will not pursue the laws available to then.

Da Shins Kelly

gbee wrote: »

Whilst what you say is fine, you must also factor in the role of women in their respective societies.

Mostly Women are still second class citizens and owned by their ‘husbands’ and they must be subservient to the males of the family, be that brothers, uncles nephews and so on.

Your post is fine if taken from the western point of view where women are both free and legally free and respected by their menfolk ~ but, despite laws in the USA and most or Europe being similar, some ethnic women will still suffer from tradition and culture and they will not pursue the laws available to then.

I realise there are women in the world who are still treated somewhat as slaves, however I'm speaking from the perspective of the West because we are talking about the US. The thread is about Bachmann making an inflammatory statement regarding black people in America. That is why I'm focusing my comment on the West, and particularly the USA.

gbee

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

That is why I'm focusing my comment on the West, and particularly the USA.

Yes, however, despite legal protection in the USA, ethnic culture tends to dominate anyway.

Obviously, we cannot blame the current President for this situation, and that speaker got her fact slightly off as the President is Kenyan American which is about as far away from Nigeria as Florida is to California.