Black on White Crime Statistics
- Thread starter Bevo Incognito
- Start date
Who is to blame is less relevant than how do we fix it. Churches with strong white and black membership and active youth programs are a great influence. Recruiting fatherless youth into organized sports, Boy Scouts, mentoring programs, etc. where they spend time with adults with good values and time to nurture them has promise. The root problem here is a lack of love, lack of work ethic, lack of hope, lack of connection. If the answer were jailing more blacks who grew up without fatherly influence we've certainly devoted a lot of resources in that direction. Not to say criminals should go unpunished -- just to say that treating a symptom won't cure the ailment.
Are the Nigerians or West Indians who don't consider themselves to be part of that culture 'black?'
And if not, how do they so often get lumped into that group nonetheless?
If other people who par-take of the same basic behaviors are not 'black,' then what part of the culture is black?
It is not skin color that effects, though skin color marks. This is the disconnect that should be avoided but is not. It is, practically speaking, an unavoidable error.
--'Race is often spoken of as being constructed by culture.
--Race is most often marked by color, which is biologically passed on from one generation to the next.
The color marks, the culture effects. The two are only incidentally connected.
Marking via color is a cultural artifact. The color of that which is being marked is not significant to explaining what is happening beyond noting that we mark with color. If we stopped doing that on the whole, little would be lost, though, in reality, there can be no expectation that everyone will suddenly forget about their color-coded ideas of culture, so that unfortunate artifact must be kept in mind.
Color coding culture obscures more than it explains, though, as I have said, one cannot get beyond that type of coding without repeatedly acknowledging it and, on some level, thereby perpetuating it.
Color is a poor way of coding culture. It is important to note this given the fact that we are going to rely on that poverty-stricken method nonetheless.
And if not, how do they so often get lumped into that group nonetheless?
If other people who par-take of the same basic behaviors are not 'black,' then what part of the culture is black?
It is not skin color that effects, though skin color marks. This is the disconnect that should be avoided but is not. It is, practically speaking, an unavoidable error.
--'Race is often spoken of as being constructed by culture.
--Race is most often marked by color, which is biologically passed on from one generation to the next.
The color marks, the culture effects. The two are only incidentally connected.
Marking via color is a cultural artifact. The color of that which is being marked is not significant to explaining what is happening beyond noting that we mark with color. If we stopped doing that on the whole, little would be lost, though, in reality, there can be no expectation that everyone will suddenly forget about their color-coded ideas of culture, so that unfortunate artifact must be kept in mind.
Color coding culture obscures more than it explains, though, as I have said, one cannot get beyond that type of coding without repeatedly acknowledging it and, on some level, thereby perpetuating it.
Color is a poor way of coding culture. It is important to note this given the fact that we are going to rely on that poverty-stricken method nonetheless.
Are the Nigerians or West Indians who don't consider themselves to be part of that culture 'black?'
An interesting question, the answer to which has no bearing on my point.
Of course being black is a PART of the culture. It's not the only thing, of course, and I'm saying it's a good thing or a bad thing: just that it exists and is a part of it. To deny that is to take intentional color-blindness to absurd levels. And to bring up an example where some blacks (Nigerian/WI) don't wish to self-identify hardly is on point.
But of course WI/Nigerians are black. I'm not saying that every black has to be a part of that culture, but merely disagreeing with your (simplistic) idea that being black is not a PART of that culture. Of course it is. That you can find specific individuals to create an exception doesn't negate the "culture" part.
Look, we're not talking (you might be now, I'm not) about which part of a culture is black. I'm saying that being black is a part of that culture. And it obviously is, imo.
You're trying way to hard to be pc, it seems.
And I'm not "coding" culture, whatever that means. But being black is a part of that culture, and vice versa.
An interesting question, the answer to which has no bearing on my point.
Of course being black is a PART of the culture. It's not the only thing, of course, and I'm saying it's a good thing or a bad thing: just that it exists and is a part of it. To deny that is to take intentional color-blindness to absurd levels. And to bring up an example where some blacks (Nigerian/WI) don't wish to self-identify hardly is on point.
But of course WI/Nigerians are black. I'm not saying that every black has to be a part of that culture, but merely disagreeing with your (simplistic) idea that being black is not a PART of that culture. Of course it is. That you can find specific individuals to create an exception doesn't negate the "culture" part.
Look, we're not talking (you might be now, I'm not) about which part of a culture is black. I'm saying that being black is a part of that culture. And it obviously is, imo.
You're trying way to hard to be pc, it seems.
And I'm not "coding" culture, whatever that means. But being black is a part of that culture, and vice versa.
Lot of interesting back and forth on blame versus solutions. Why make this so hard. I'll go back to my suggestion made earlier.
Fact- Single mothers (of any race) on govt assistance that continue to have kids create a huge societal problem for everyone. Most notably, to their own children who have a almost impossible task of raising out of their circumstances. It happens for sure, but the vast, vast majority do not.
Solution- Remove babies born to single mothers on govt assistance out of the cycle via adoption. Over time, the cycle will end.
Sucks for those in the cycle right now and we should contiune to help in productive ways, but we have to stop the cycle at some point.
Fact- Single mothers (of any race) on govt assistance that continue to have kids create a huge societal problem for everyone. Most notably, to their own children who have a almost impossible task of raising out of their circumstances. It happens for sure, but the vast, vast majority do not.
Solution- Remove babies born to single mothers on govt assistance out of the cycle via adoption. Over time, the cycle will end.
Sucks for those in the cycle right now and we should contiune to help in productive ways, but we have to stop the cycle at some point.
Solution- Remove babies born to single mothers on govt assistance out of the cycle via adoption. Over time, the cycle will end.
That is hardly a solution and you have provided no evidence whatsoever that this strategy will "end the cycle". Why would it? Even if one can posit some theory on why, what would/does the actual data say?
Who, pray tell, is going to be adopting all these babies? What are the legal issues with this?
The solution is increased education regarding contraception, sex ed, and cultural pressure.
That is hardly a solution and you have provided no evidence whatsoever that this strategy will "end the cycle". Why would it? Even if one can posit some theory on why, what would/does the actual data say?
Who, pray tell, is going to be adopting all these babies? What are the legal issues with this?
The solution is increased education regarding contraception, sex ed, and cultural pressure.
Bronco
I understand that you want an end to this heinous cycle manyblacks and whites are in but there is no way we could take away a child from a mother just to end this.
With 70% of all black births coming from unwed black mothers that is a lot of adoptions.
maybe we can start by not making it so easy to get every aspect of life given to them and increased each time they have another child ( this applies to blacks and whites).
We all can see how hopeless it must look to children in a single mother household and how good life looks for drug dealers, gang members.
I am amazed and proud of anyone who breaks that cycle.
I interacted with many 3rd and 4th generation welfare citizens in New Orleans prior to Katrina. The sense of being owed was pervasive but not surprising since by the 3rd generation that is all they knew.
What really is the choice?
btw I had to laugh today when in the dallas paper today they spoke of so many living in " poverty" here in texas?
I understand that you want an end to this heinous cycle manyblacks and whites are in but there is no way we could take away a child from a mother just to end this.
With 70% of all black births coming from unwed black mothers that is a lot of adoptions.
maybe we can start by not making it so easy to get every aspect of life given to them and increased each time they have another child ( this applies to blacks and whites).
We all can see how hopeless it must look to children in a single mother household and how good life looks for drug dealers, gang members.
I am amazed and proud of anyone who breaks that cycle.
I interacted with many 3rd and 4th generation welfare citizens in New Orleans prior to Katrina. The sense of being owed was pervasive but not surprising since by the 3rd generation that is all they knew.
What really is the choice?
btw I had to laugh today when in the dallas paper today they spoke of so many living in " poverty" here in texas?
This approach has been going strong since 1960....
What? No it hasn't. Did you sleep through the GWB abstinence-only years?
Currently, it can take years to adopt a domestic baby. There is a profound demand.
Really? For little black kids? A profound demand? Says who (besides you)?
If your post is meant as humor, well done. If meant to be serious, then I have to wonder.
What? No it hasn't. Did you sleep through the GWB abstinence-only years?
Currently, it can take years to adopt a domestic baby. There is a profound demand.
Really? For little black kids? A profound demand? Says who (besides you)?
If your post is meant as humor, well done. If meant to be serious, then I have to wonder.
I don't know why I didn't snap to this earlier but why not try to develop a new food source with the foundation being the unwanted minority babies? It's win-win-win: we "break" the cycle by removing the babies from the mothers, we lessen the strain on public welfare rolls, and we have more food.
I'm sure the vegetarians will find a way to complain about this.
I'm sure the vegetarians will find a way to complain about this.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
The problems have nothing to do with sex ed ....
I find that statement to be patently absurd.
I'm not saying that all, or even most, of the problem will be resolved with sex ed, but to say that the problem has NOTHING to do with sex ed is an unnecessarily broad and misleading comment.
Sex ed content should be based on public health policy, not on ideology.
I find that statement to be patently absurd.
I'm not saying that all, or even most, of the problem will be resolved with sex ed, but to say that the problem has NOTHING to do with sex ed is an unnecessarily broad and misleading comment.
Sex ed content should be based on public health policy, not on ideology.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
First, I said there is a big demand for babies to adopt and the article said that there are over 600,000 people currently waiting to adopt. Do you dispute that?
Second, you said people might not want black babies. The article said of the 600,000 waiting, 521,000 would take a black baby. Do you dispute that?
You are still confused by what people say and what they do. You also confuse demand with supply.
If they "say" they will adopt all those black kids then why don't they? The facts, that data, show that they don't adopt those kids. So please stop confusing things by focusing on what prospective parents say.
You can try to analyze this in terms of what people say they will do, or you can analyze it by what is actually done. You choose the former approach; I choose the latter. I find my approach to be far superior. Do you really not understand this issue? Or are you just trying to maintaing your argument for internet gigles?
Your link just gives kids by state? Where is the analysis? Seriously, do you even know what you're doing in this thread?
As far as answering your question, let's get the basics down first before we start opining on policy. You take one step forward and two steps back. I spend more time correcting your posts than anything else.
Second, you said people might not want black babies. The article said of the 600,000 waiting, 521,000 would take a black baby. Do you dispute that?
You are still confused by what people say and what they do. You also confuse demand with supply.
If they "say" they will adopt all those black kids then why don't they? The facts, that data, show that they don't adopt those kids. So please stop confusing things by focusing on what prospective parents say.
You can try to analyze this in terms of what people say they will do, or you can analyze it by what is actually done. You choose the former approach; I choose the latter. I find my approach to be far superior. Do you really not understand this issue? Or are you just trying to maintaing your argument for internet gigles?
Your link just gives kids by state? Where is the analysis? Seriously, do you even know what you're doing in this thread?
As far as answering your question, let's get the basics down first before we start opining on policy. You take one step forward and two steps back. I spend more time correcting your posts than anything else.
Black babies are not adopted at rates that would make the above poster's "solution" a viable one. Despite many problems with attempting to follow the logic (detailed above), here is an article from the NYT done with an economist's methodology (which looks at actual events, not what was said).
Additionally, Caucasians and Hispanics are consistently preferred to African-Americans. The probability that a non-African-American baby will attract the interest of an adoptive parent is at least seven times as high as the corresponding probability for an African-American baby.
The desire for white babies can be partly, but not fully, explained by the fact that most of the adoptive parents in this data set were white; previous research has found that adoptive parents often want children who look similar to themselves.
I'm not saying that black infants not being adopted is good or bad. I'm describing the reality of the situation, not commenting on whether it is right or wrong. Positive, not normative.
NYT Adoption
Additionally, Caucasians and Hispanics are consistently preferred to African-Americans. The probability that a non-African-American baby will attract the interest of an adoptive parent is at least seven times as high as the corresponding probability for an African-American baby.
The desire for white babies can be partly, but not fully, explained by the fact that most of the adoptive parents in this data set were white; previous research has found that adoptive parents often want children who look similar to themselves.
I'm not saying that black infants not being adopted is good or bad. I'm describing the reality of the situation, not commenting on whether it is right or wrong. Positive, not normative.
NYT Adoption
Per?
You posted, "If they "say" they will adopt all those black kids then why don't they? "
funny you choose not to believe what these couples say.
Since this was a survery of couples wanting to adopt a baby how do YOU know they didn't adopt a black baby?
Link?
Any female who has a baby out of wedlock and most especially if we pay for the baby as part of their process IN the hospital they get counselling on birth control and are offered free products.
How would you force them to actually use the free products?
You posted, "If they "say" they will adopt all those black kids then why don't they? "
funny you choose not to believe what these couples say.
Since this was a survery of couples wanting to adopt a baby how do YOU know they didn't adopt a black baby?
Link?
Any female who has a baby out of wedlock and most especially if we pay for the baby as part of their process IN the hospital they get counselling on birth control and are offered free products.
How would you force them to actually use the free products?
Since this was a survery of couples wanting to adopt a baby how do YOU know they didn't adopt a black baby?
Link?
Is it crazy day here?
So, correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying that those 521,000 did adopt a black baby? I'm saying they didn't because the adoption numbers don't reflect it. The data doesn't support the claim.
You also apparently didn't read my NYT link.
Before you and your ilk further bog yourself down in your (il)logical quagmire, let's regroup:
1. The idea of forcibly removing the black babies from their mothers is a very stupid one. It is hard-hearted and violates civil rights.
2. The hypothesis that such a removal would "break the cycle" is very, very iffy. No theory is given why this would be the case nor is any empirical data available.
3. Putting the black infants up for adoption (which we seem to be stuck on now) is also not viable. Despite claims to the contrary, black infants are not adopted at sufficient rates to make the "remove the black kids and put them up for adoption" a feasible solution. Who would adopt them? Other black families? Look at the data.
The whole analysis and reasoning here (with adoption) has been a horror show of bad thinking.
The recent enactment of "free" contraceptives is probably the best way to approach the problem of unwanted pregnancies.
Link?
Is it crazy day here?
So, correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying that those 521,000 did adopt a black baby? I'm saying they didn't because the adoption numbers don't reflect it. The data doesn't support the claim.
You also apparently didn't read my NYT link.
Before you and your ilk further bog yourself down in your (il)logical quagmire, let's regroup:
1. The idea of forcibly removing the black babies from their mothers is a very stupid one. It is hard-hearted and violates civil rights.
2. The hypothesis that such a removal would "break the cycle" is very, very iffy. No theory is given why this would be the case nor is any empirical data available.
3. Putting the black infants up for adoption (which we seem to be stuck on now) is also not viable. Despite claims to the contrary, black infants are not adopted at sufficient rates to make the "remove the black kids and put them up for adoption" a feasible solution. Who would adopt them? Other black families? Look at the data.
The whole analysis and reasoning here (with adoption) has been a horror show of bad thinking.
The recent enactment of "free" contraceptives is probably the best way to approach the problem of unwanted pregnancies.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
NEW: Pro Sports Forums
Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.
Pro Sports Forums
Pro Sports Forums
Recent Threads
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 432
- West Mall
-
'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'
- Started by Namewithheld
- Replies: 3K
- West Mall
-
Insanity, thy name is public education
- Started by ProdigalHorn
- Replies: 44
- West Mall
