Here we go again... (unarmed black teen shot by cop): Shootings in LA and MN
08-17-2016
, 09:11 AM
08-17-2016
, 09:13 AM
08-17-2016
, 09:25 AM
08-17-2016
, 09:31 AM
08-17-2016
, 09:36 AM
08-17-2016
, 09:42 AM
08-17-2016
, 09:43 AM
08-17-2016
, 09:48 AM
08-17-2016
, 09:49 AM
08-17-2016
, 12:00 PM
Quote:
I got it from the cdc http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_01.pdf...
yeah under real racism and discrimination black family structure was much better off, imagine the black community today if you hadn't gone around offering single mothers handouts in the 60s.
yeah under real racism and discrimination black family structure was much better off, imagine the black community today if you hadn't gone around offering single mothers handouts in the 60s.
Similar data is found in Table 16 in your own link:
Quote:
Birth rate among unmarried women:
White, Non-Hispanic, 15-44
1990: 24.4
2010: 32.9
Black: 15-44
1980: 81.1
1990: 90.5
2010: 65.3
White, Non-Hispanic, 15-44
1990: 24.4
2010: 32.9
Black: 15-44
1980: 81.1
1990: 90.5
2010: 65.3
Note also that this data is comparing the birthrates of unmarried women as a group, not the percent of all births to unmarried women, but the reason for using different data is that there is a problem with your initial post that is also related to changes in data collection.
You began by comparing data for the percentage of all births among unmarried black women from 1940 to 2010. You neglected two things. First, there is no data by race for 1940. It simply doesn't exist. If you look at the chart below, it is apparent that the 1940 data is almost certainly for white women only. So your comparison is wrong to begin with. Secondly, you neglected that the percentage of births originating from unmarried women has been increasing steadily for every race for decades:
As you can see (and also from the CDC data directly), the rate of increase in the percentage of births to unmarried women is not much different between white women and black women. From 1980 to 1999, the change was identical. What is obvious is that there have been stark racial differences as far back as we've collected data. Those differences are unlikely to be a function of welfare policy.
It's also noteworthy that the kind of argument you are making isn't new. The 1965 Moynihan report also discussed birth rates among unmarried black women as a supposed cause of social problems:
Quote:
The report was called “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.” Unsigned, it was meant to be an internal government document, with only one copy distributed at first and the other 99 kept locked in a vault. Running against the tide of optimism around civil rights, “The Negro Family” argued that the federal government was underestimating the damage done to black families by “three centuries of sometimes unimaginable mistreatment” as well as a “racist virus in the American blood stream,” which would continue to plague blacks in the future....
That price was clear to Moynihan. “The Negro family, battered and harassed by discrimination, injustice, and uprooting, is in the deepest trouble,” he wrote. “While many young Negroes are moving ahead to unprecedented levels of achievement, many more are falling further and further behind.” Out-of-wedlock births were on the rise, and with them, welfare dependency, while the unemployment rate among black men remained high. Moynihan believed that at the core of all these problems lay a black family structure mutated by white oppression....
The press did not generally greet Johnson’s speech as a claim of white responsibility, but rather as a condemnation of “the failure of Negro family life,” as the journalist Mary McGrory put it. This interpretation was reinforced as second- and thirdhand accounts of the Moynihan Report, which had not been made public, began making the rounds. On August 18, the widely syndicated newspaper columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak wrote that Moynihan’s document had exposed “the breakdown of the Negro family,” with its high rates of “broken homes, illegitimacy, and female-oriented homes.” These dispatches fell on all-too-receptive ears.
The Black Family in the Age of Mass Incarceration
That price was clear to Moynihan. “The Negro family, battered and harassed by discrimination, injustice, and uprooting, is in the deepest trouble,” he wrote. “While many young Negroes are moving ahead to unprecedented levels of achievement, many more are falling further and further behind.” Out-of-wedlock births were on the rise, and with them, welfare dependency, while the unemployment rate among black men remained high. Moynihan believed that at the core of all these problems lay a black family structure mutated by white oppression....
The press did not generally greet Johnson’s speech as a claim of white responsibility, but rather as a condemnation of “the failure of Negro family life,” as the journalist Mary McGrory put it. This interpretation was reinforced as second- and thirdhand accounts of the Moynihan Report, which had not been made public, began making the rounds. On August 18, the widely syndicated newspaper columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak wrote that Moynihan’s document had exposed “the breakdown of the Negro family,” with its high rates of “broken homes, illegitimacy, and female-oriented homes.” These dispatches fell on all-too-receptive ears.
The Black Family in the Age of Mass Incarceration
But obviously 60s welfare policies can't have created these social problems if they already existed when Moynihan studied them. Nor do the data support your position.
08-17-2016
, 12:19 PM
Quote:
One problem with your theory is that, according to CDC, birthrates of unmarried black women decreased from 1970-1998:
Similar data is found in Table 16 in your own link:
The data is obviously complicated somewhat by the fact that we only began separating "Total White" from "White, Non-Hispanic" in 1990. But, this data is certainly incompatible with your assertion that welfare policies instituted in the 60s had a deleterious effect on black families if that effect is supposed to be captured by unmarried birth rates.
Note also that this data is comparing the birthrates of unmarried women as a group, not the percent of all births to unmarried women, but the reason for using different data is that there is a problem with your initial post that is also related to changes in data collection.
You began by comparing data for the percentage of all births among unmarried black women from 1940 to 2010. You neglected two things. First, there is no data by race for 1940. It simply doesn't exist. If you look at the chart below, it is apparent that the 1940 data is almost certainly for white women only. So your comparison is wrong to begin with. Secondly, you neglected that the percentage of births originating from unmarried women has been increasing steadily for every race for decades:
As you can see (and also from the CDC data directly), the rate of increase in the percentage of births to unmarried women is not much different between white women and black women. From 1980 to 1999, the change was identical. What is obvious is that there have been stark racial differences as far back as we've collected data. Those differences are unlikely to be a function of welfare policy.
It's also noteworthy that the kind of argument you are making isn't new. The 1965 Moynihan report also discussed birth rates among unmarried black women as a supposed cause of social problems:
You are, of course, reacting similarly to the late 60s press. The only difference being that they wanted to just blame black families directly (much like toothsayer's "culture" argument), whereas you are trying to put the blame on welfare policy.
But obviously 60s welfare policies can't have created these social problems if they already existed when Moynihan studied them. Nor do the data support your position.
Similar data is found in Table 16 in your own link:
The data is obviously complicated somewhat by the fact that we only began separating "Total White" from "White, Non-Hispanic" in 1990. But, this data is certainly incompatible with your assertion that welfare policies instituted in the 60s had a deleterious effect on black families if that effect is supposed to be captured by unmarried birth rates.
Note also that this data is comparing the birthrates of unmarried women as a group, not the percent of all births to unmarried women, but the reason for using different data is that there is a problem with your initial post that is also related to changes in data collection.
You began by comparing data for the percentage of all births among unmarried black women from 1940 to 2010. You neglected two things. First, there is no data by race for 1940. It simply doesn't exist. If you look at the chart below, it is apparent that the 1940 data is almost certainly for white women only. So your comparison is wrong to begin with. Secondly, you neglected that the percentage of births originating from unmarried women has been increasing steadily for every race for decades:
As you can see (and also from the CDC data directly), the rate of increase in the percentage of births to unmarried women is not much different between white women and black women. From 1980 to 1999, the change was identical. What is obvious is that there have been stark racial differences as far back as we've collected data. Those differences are unlikely to be a function of welfare policy.
It's also noteworthy that the kind of argument you are making isn't new. The 1965 Moynihan report also discussed birth rates among unmarried black women as a supposed cause of social problems:
You are, of course, reacting similarly to the late 60s press. The only difference being that they wanted to just blame black families directly (much like toothsayer's "culture" argument), whereas you are trying to put the blame on welfare policy.
But obviously 60s welfare policies can't have created these social problems if they already existed when Moynihan studied them. Nor do the data support your position.
08-17-2016
, 12:31 PM
Quote:
One problem with your theory is that, according to CDC, birthrates of unmarried black women decreased from 1970-1998:
Similar data is found in Table 16 in your own link:
The data is obviously complicated somewhat by the fact that we only began separating "Total White" from "White, Non-Hispanic" in 1990. But, this data is certainly incompatible with your assertion that welfare policies instituted in the 60s had a deleterious effect on black families if that effect is supposed to be captured by unmarried birth rates.
Note also that this data is comparing the birthrates of unmarried women as a group, not the percent of all births to unmarried women, but the reason for using different data is that there is a problem with your initial post that is also related to changes in data collection.
You began by comparing data for the percentage of all births among unmarried black women from 1940 to 2010. You neglected two things. First, there is no data by race for 1940. It simply doesn't exist. If you look at the chart below, it is apparent that the 1940 data is almost certainly for white women only. So your comparison is wrong to begin with. Secondly, you neglected that the percentage of births originating from unmarried women has been increasing steadily for every race for decades:
As you can see (and also from the CDC data directly), the rate of increase in the percentage of births to unmarried women is not much different between white women and black women. From 1980 to 1999, the change was identical. What is obvious is that there have been stark racial differences as far back as we've collected data. Those differences are unlikely to be a function of welfare policy.
It's also noteworthy that the kind of argument you are making isn't new. The 1965 Moynihan report also discussed birth rates among unmarried black women as a supposed cause of social problems:
You are, of course, reacting similarly to the late 60s press. The only difference being that they wanted to just blame black families directly (much like toothsayer's "culture" argument), whereas you are trying to put the blame on welfare policy.
But obviously 60s welfare policies can't have created these social problems if they already existed when Moynihan studied them. Nor do the data support your position.
Similar data is found in Table 16 in your own link:
The data is obviously complicated somewhat by the fact that we only began separating "Total White" from "White, Non-Hispanic" in 1990. But, this data is certainly incompatible with your assertion that welfare policies instituted in the 60s had a deleterious effect on black families if that effect is supposed to be captured by unmarried birth rates.
Note also that this data is comparing the birthrates of unmarried women as a group, not the percent of all births to unmarried women, but the reason for using different data is that there is a problem with your initial post that is also related to changes in data collection.
You began by comparing data for the percentage of all births among unmarried black women from 1940 to 2010. You neglected two things. First, there is no data by race for 1940. It simply doesn't exist. If you look at the chart below, it is apparent that the 1940 data is almost certainly for white women only. So your comparison is wrong to begin with. Secondly, you neglected that the percentage of births originating from unmarried women has been increasing steadily for every race for decades:
As you can see (and also from the CDC data directly), the rate of increase in the percentage of births to unmarried women is not much different between white women and black women. From 1980 to 1999, the change was identical. What is obvious is that there have been stark racial differences as far back as we've collected data. Those differences are unlikely to be a function of welfare policy.
It's also noteworthy that the kind of argument you are making isn't new. The 1965 Moynihan report also discussed birth rates among unmarried black women as a supposed cause of social problems:
You are, of course, reacting similarly to the late 60s press. The only difference being that they wanted to just blame black families directly (much like toothsayer's "culture" argument), whereas you are trying to put the blame on welfare policy.
But obviously 60s welfare policies can't have created these social problems if they already existed when Moynihan studied them. Nor do the data support your position.
08-17-2016
, 12:35 PM
08-17-2016
, 05:53 PM
08-18-2016
, 02:33 AM
08-18-2016
, 11:17 AM
You won't find me saying that, because it's just another Flyism.
During fall, Milwaukeeans put yard waste at the curb for the city trucks to come and collect. There was indeed a pile of leaves and sticks in the street in front of my house and I came home right after the fire was started. Probably by teenagers. IIRC, I posted about it just to make a point that Milwaukee isn't exactly a lily white suburb like most of 2+2 is used to.
Rjoefish then made another silly comment putting words in my mouth, and I responded with "While I didn't actually say that, it's almost assuredly true, DUCY?" I said that because Obama won the area by a massive margin, so it's not exactly a stretch. If you put 100 marbles in a bag and 80 of them are blue and 20 are red, it's not unreasonable to assume if you go in and grab one, it's probably going to be blue. But maybe I'm just bigoted against blue marbles.
Here's the last two weeks of police data for the area around the house in question:
It's one of the nicer areas, tbh.
Now I'll poke around at the rest of the stuff I missed ITT, and I'm sure it will all be as great as this little gem from WOAT Fly.