• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

We're Black People Better Off Before Integration?

The main problem of the black population of the United States, to them have been given rights, but forgotten to give responsibilities. In Western civilization( аs, in any other) , we must be able live. We have to learn how to live. We have to go to school. We have to do homework. We should learn a profession or science. It takes much time and labor.
I do not see a great difference between white and black people. And judging by the best representatives of their race, none at all. The difference is only one- allowed them a lot and require little.
 
I'm not at all convinced that it's cause is welfare.

The statistics don't lie and clearly show that the overwhelming majority of black people in trouble with drugs, the law, and live in poverty come from single parent households. If memory serves me, only 9% of black children raised by 2 parents end up in poverty and living on welfare.

So would you at least agree that these things are tied to the breakdown of the nuclear family?
 
The statistics don't lie and clearly show that the overwhelming majority of black people in trouble with drugs, the law, and live in poverty come from single parent households. If memory serves me, only 9% of black children raised by 2 parents end up in poverty and living on welfare.

So would you at least agree that these things are tied to the breakdown of the nuclear family?

I would say that wildly disparate incarceration rates are a huge factor.
 
The statistics don't lie and clearly show that the overwhelming majority of black people in trouble with drugs, the law, and live in poverty come from single parent households. If memory serves me, only 9% of black children raised by 2 parents end up in poverty and living on welfare.

So would you at least agree that these things are tied to the breakdown of the nuclear family?

I already agreed but not on the point that welfare is the cause. Correlation does not imply causation.
 
This isn't rocket science... Put simply, the root of the problems today in black communities stem from the breakdown in the family unit and nothing to do with civil rights legislation.

Gangs, wide spread drug use, much of the poverty and dropping out or under achieving in school can all be traced back to children growing up without a father in single parent households. When you only have one adult to provide for a family, rather than two, that explains much of the poverty... And when that one adult (most often the mother) has to work full time you have children who are unguided and unsupervised, which leads to things like drug use, gangs and a lack of interest in school. To make matters worse, welfare and entitlements are a permanent way of life for many of these families, so many children in the black community grow up learning how to be dependent, rather than independent.

Just look at the statistics... 70% of black children are born out of wedlock, nearly triple what it was in 1964. 85% of all black children in poverty live in single-parent homes with their mother. A single black mother makes on 36% of what a black family with both a mother and father make. Black children in single-parent households are four times as likely as children from 2 parent families to be abused or neglected, more likely to have trouble academically, twice as prone to drop out of school, three times more likely to have behavioral problems, much more likely to experience emotional disorders, two-and-a-half times likelier to be sexually active as teens, nearly twice as likely to conceive children out-of-wedlock as teens or young adults, and three times likelier to be on welfare when they reach adulthood.

Social welfare is the main contributor to the breakdown of the Black family unit. Before the welfare system was established in the 60's, a man couldn't abandoned his wife and children because they would likely end up on the streets, homeless and hungry. A man's family was his, and only his responsibility, so leaving was very seldom ever an option. The welfare system gave men the freedom to abandon their families without consequence, because they knew the government would step in and take care of their wife and their children, providing them with food, shelter and medical care. It has also been the driving force behind so many mothers giving birth out of wedlock, because just as the men, the women know that the government is their to provide for them, so neither a husband or financial stability is given much consideration at all.

Excellent response. Agree completely.
 
I already agreed but not on the point that welfare is the cause. Correlation does not imply causation.

So you believe that the percentage of divorces, out of wed-loc births, and single parent households changing very little in the black community prior to instituting the social welfare system, and all 3 of them exploding shortly thereafter it began, have no direct correlation and are purely coincidence?

If that's the case, then what in your opinion is responsible for such a rapid transformation of the American family unit and our societal values?
 
I would say that wildly disparate incarceration rates are a huge factor.

So you are saying that incarceration is a significant factor in the breakdown of the family unit, but statistics show that increased incarceration rate among black people correlates with the breakdown of the family unit.

I think your putting the cart before the horse here...

Cause: Breakdown of the family unit
Effect: More black men involved in criminal activity and incarcerated.

Cause: More black men involved in criminal activity and incarcerated.
Effect: Further deterioration of the black family unit.
 
So you are saying that incarceration is a significant factor in the breakdown of the family unit, but statistics show that increased incarceration rate among black people correlates with the breakdown of the family unit.

I think your putting the cart before the horse here...

Cause: Breakdown of the family unit
Effect: More black men involved in criminal activity and incarcerated.

Cause: More black men involved in criminal activity and incarcerated.
Effect: Further deterioration of the black family unit.

I think it's more a "chicken-or-the-egg" scenario.

How does welfare lead to that initial breakdown of the family unit?
 
I think it's more a "chicken-or-the-egg" scenario.

How does welfare lead to that initial breakdown of the family unit?

I've already addressed that here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...-off-before-integration-2.html#post1062710949

Let me emphasize again, that the breakdown of the family unit caused by the welfare system effected people of all races and wasn't exclusive to the black community. The reason it had a greater, more negative effect on black families, is because a higher percentage of black families were in poverty to begin with, leaving them with significantly fewer options to help get them out of their situation.
 
Integrate new information? I'll much prefer to read a non political book on the subject done without a political spin.

Ah. Well then, if you are looking for a good sociological description of how the trends under discussion work, I would recommend Losing Ground and Coming Apart, both by a man named Charles Murray.

Also in light of the highly controversial book he wrote, it doesn't bode well for him.

The Bell Curve? :lol: Dude, (woman, whatever), read Coming Apart. It's explicitly on the failings within white people in America, written explicitly to demonstrate that every single charge of racism levied against him after the Bell Curve was over trends that hold equally true for Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics. Murray got the last (and best) laugh on his critics. :)

Months after its publication, a FAIR report found that “nearly all of the research Murray and [his co-author Richard Herrnstein] relied on for their central claims about race and IQ was funded by The Pioneer Fund,” which has been described as a “neo-Nazi organization” by the Telegraph. The Fund’s founder, Wickliffe Draper, supported shipping blacks back to Africa, and its first president, Harry Laughlin, called for the forced sterilization of the “genetically unfit,” testifying in Congress that 83 percent of Jewish immigrants were “innately feeble-minded.

:lamo Really? The best they can do is to point out that Progressives were Eugenicists?
 
Ah. Well then, if you are looking for a good sociological description of how the trends under discussion work, I would recommend Losing Ground and Coming Apart, both by a man named Charles Murray.



The Bell Curve?



:lamo Really? The best they can do is to point out that Progressives were Eugenicists?

The source is important to me.
 
I've already addressed that here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...-off-before-integration-2.html#post1062710949

Let me emphasize again, that the breakdown of the family unit caused by the welfare system effected people of all races and wasn't exclusive to the black community. The reason it had a greater, more negative effect on black families, is because a higher percentage of black families were in poverty to begin with, leaving them with significantly fewer options to help get them out of their situation.

The apparent inability to grasp that is the same issue that rabbit is referencing - people who show the destructive results of family breakup, etc., disproportionately are discussing trends among blacks and (now) hispanics.
 
The source is important to me.

The charges being levied against the group are ~80 years old. I could equally lay a charge against the Democratic Party that it is a fan of the Klu Klux Klan, because Wilson was.

Furthermore, that is not his majority source. Feel free to pick up the back of either of his books and scan through "references" if you like ;).
 
Last edited:
So you believe that the percentage of divorces, out of wed-loc births, and single parent households changing very little in the black community prior to instituting the social welfare system, and all 3 of them exploding shortly thereafter it began, have no direct correlation and are purely coincidence?

If that's the case, then what in your opinion is responsible for such a rapid transformation of the American family unit and our societal values?

Ok, I was going to avoid this thread but got sucked back in - Divorce was a LOT harder per 1960 than it was after 1970. Could that have anything to do with it?

I'm sure there were a lot of causes. The number of black men locked up for crimes (a criminal system that is very racially discriminatory) is part of it. And the racial discrimination in jobs is part of it (harder for black men to get jobs ergo harder for them to marry to support a family). And the ease of divorce.

Probably more causes too. Correlation and causation are different, you know.
 
Ok, I was going to avoid this thread but got sucked back in - Divorce was a LOT harder per 1960 than it was after 1970. Could that have anything to do with it?

I'm sure there were a lot of causes. The number of black men locked up for crimes (a criminal system that is very racially discriminatory) is part of it. And the racial discrimination in jobs is part of it (harder for black men to get jobs ergo harder for them to marry to support a family). And the ease of divorce.

Probably more causes too. Correlation and causation are different, you know.

The ease of divorce is definitely part and parcel of the problem. But one of those things contributing to ease of divorce is the increased economic viability of the single-parent family offered by the Great Society welfare programs.
 
Ah. Well then, if you are looking for a good sociological description of how the trends under discussion work, I would recommend Losing Ground and Coming Apart, both by a man named Charles Murray.



The Bell Curve? :lol: Dude, (woman, whatever), read Coming Apart. It's explicitly on the failings within white people in America, written explicitly to demonstrate that every single charge of racism levied against him after the Bell Curve was over trends that hold equally true for Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics. Murray got the last (and best) laugh on his critics. :)



:lamo Really? The best they can do is to point out that Progressives were Eugenicists?
What complete and utter crap. "Coming Apart" completely ignores, leaves aside the idea that "welfare" has caused the growing divide between upper and lower class whites and instead blames the upper class for not "practicing what it preaches" and that this...somehow....has caused lower class whites to not "work as hard".

It of course ignores the fact that wages have not kept up in real terms and that to keep ones head above water most have to work multiple jobs. This is happening while the upper 1% class have gone from capturing single digit % of total incomes to over 20%.

At least he isn't making an argument that it is a matter of genetic inferiority as he had in the past.
 
What complete and utter crap. "Coming Apart" completely ignores, leaves aside the idea that "welfare" has caused the growing divide between upper and lower class whites and instead blames the upper class for not "practicing what it preaches" and that this...somehow....has caused lower class whites to not "work as hard".

Coming Apart is the bookend to Losing Ground, which more explicitly makes that case. However, Coming Apart pretty clearly demonstrates how destructive individual decision-making is indeed the hallmark source of poverty.

It of course ignores the fact that wages have not kept up in real terms and that to keep ones head above water most have to work multiple jobs.

Wages have, in fact, grown in real terms.

At least he isn't making an argument that it is a matter of genetic inferiority as he had in the past.

Genetics play a role in our limitations - those who are not very intelligent will simply not do as well in a knowledge-work-based economy such as ours. Those who are physically weak will not fare well in a physical-work-based economy, such as those of yesteryear; ditto for those prone to disease. That being said, the Murray demonstrates that the IQ differential between blacks and whites is also not a little explained by the circumstances of their raising - whites who are raised in single broken homes and taught self-destructive habits do as poorly as blacks in the same conditions. Thomas Sowell additionally has done some excellent work on this topic. The measurement he pointed out that has stuck most in my mind is that if you measure their is a difference in average IQ's between blacks and whites, but if you only measure children who are raised in a two-parent household where they are read books, the difference disappears; and it is largely because a greater portion of white children are raised in such homes that they score better in aggregate on the tests. Murray demonstrates similar effects when you account for two-parent families, full time work, and church attendence.
 
Thomas Sowell is recommended reading and also Walter E. Williams, Larry Elder, and the late William Raspberry. I remember his 1988 column "Black America's House on Fire" very well.
 
The problem with blacks is their unholy alliance with the democratic party. To say they'd been duped into a toxic patron relationship would be condescending. They must shoulder the blame. When democrats come calling with promises of racial spoils and singing the praises of identity politics they should tell them to **** off.
 
Coming Apart is the bookend to Losing Ground, which more explicitly makes that case. However, Coming Apart pretty clearly demonstrates how destructive individual decision-making is indeed the hallmark source of poverty.
If the argument that "individual decision making" is defined as having enough political influence to push for lower taxation on upper class income/wealth sources, to push for deregulation, to push for globalization....then yes, that will definitely lead to increased wealth/income disparity.

I have no idea how the doubling up on jobs and increasing hours worked while real wages have declined for the lower quintile has been the result of their "decisions". Perhaps they made a choice to outsource their work?



Wages have, in fact, grown in real terms.
Uh, no, not for the lower quintile.



Genetics play a role in our limitations - those who are not very intelligent will simply not do as well in a knowledge-work-based economy such as ours.
The eugenic myth of genes directly correlating to "intelligence" is something I can see you enjoy, not only here but in the basement.
 
If the argument that "individual decision making" is defined as having enough political influence to push for lower taxation on upper class income/wealth sources, to push for deregulation, to push for globalization....then yes, that will definitely lead to increased wealth/income disparity.

:shrug: I couldn't care less about income disparity. We are talking about poverty. And "individual decision making" is things like: A) Graduate High School B) Get and Stay Married C) Before you have kids D) work full time, which, if you do, you are statistically extremely unlikely to stay in or fall into poverty. Marriage in particular is becoming the largest divide; with those who are able to form stable marriages dominating our upper income brackets while those who aren't dominate our lower income brackets.

Uh, no, not for the lower quintile.

Ah, so what you meant to say was real wages for the lower quintile. Well :shrug: that's a fairly pertinent concern. Fortunately, both the CBO and the Census Bureau say you are incorrect.

For example, in constant 2009 dollars, for example, the 1980 average income for the lowest quintile after taxes and transfers was $15,600 a year. In 2009? It was $23,300; a 49% increase.

:) Given that your concern here is for the poor rather than seeking out a way to justify increased wealth transfers for the sake of doing so, I am sure you will be happy to hear the news.

The eugenic myth of genes directly correlating to "intelligence" is something I can see you enjoy, not only here but in the basement.

:) You continue to lack either the ability or the willingness to read. Here, let me quote the rest of the section that you for some reason accidentally (I am sure) cut out:

Murray demonstrates that the IQ differential between blacks and whites is also not a little explained by the circumstances of their raising - whites who are raised in single broken homes and taught self-destructive habits do as poorly as blacks in the same conditions. Thomas Sowell additionally has done some excellent work on this topic. The measurement he pointed out that has stuck most in my mind is that if you measure their is a difference in average IQ's between blacks and whites, but if you only measure children who are raised in a two-parent household where they are read books, the difference disappears; and it is largely because a greater portion of white children are raised in such homes that they score better in aggregate on the tests. Murray demonstrates similar effects when you account for two-parent families, full time work, and church attendance.

You will note that nobody is arguing that genetics are controlling other than your own strawman.

Additionally, "Eugenics" is not a synonym for "racist" (you seem to have that confused). "Eugenics" is an attempt to apply scientific methods to control the breeding of the human species in order to increase favored subgroups and decrease ill-favored subgroups. Policies such as the Minimum Wage and Sterilization were tools in the Eugenicist arsenal, and the belief system itself was hardly limited to whites - W.E.B. Dubois was a fan, for example.

...[Eugenics] supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins...

These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.

All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant....​

and so on and so forth.
 
I couldn't care less about income disparity. We are talking about poverty.
LOL...You obviously miss the contradiction inherent in that response.


And "individual decision making" is things like: A) Graduate High School B) Get and Stay Married C) Before you have kids D) work full time, which, if you do, you are statistically extremely unlikely to stay in or fall into poverty. Marriage in particular is becoming the largest divide; with those who are able to form stable marriages dominating our upper income brackets while those who aren't dominate our lower income brackets.
Murray gets it wrong again, it is not morality....it is location:

The secret to getting ahead in life is apparently the same as the secret to real estate: location.

A new paper by economists at Harvard and Berkeley finds big differences in income mobility in different parts of the U.S., with most of the Southeast offering fewer opportunities to climb the income ladder, and places like New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco offering more.

In the map below, reprinted from the paper, the dark red areas are those with the lowest mobility and the light areas are those with the highest.

In one astonishing example, cited by David Leonhardt of The New York Times, poor children in Seattle, a high-mobility city, have more or less the same future income opportunities as middle-class children born in Atlanta, a low-mobility city.

Leonhardt's story has lots of cool interactive graphics to show you how gloomy you should be about your future based on your geography. The good news is that, if they move early enough, children who go from places with rigid income scales to areas of higher mobility can benefit as if they were born in those places where it is easier to get ahead in the first place, the study found.

So what accounts for these geographic differences? The economists found that areas with more progressive tax policies, including tax credits for poor workers and higher taxes on upper incomes, tend to have more upward mobility, too.


"Overall, these results suggest that tax expenditures aimed at low-income taxpayers can have significant impacts on economic opportunity," they write.

The paper, part of a broader study about income inequality and immobility in the U.S., comes after income inequality has been on the rise for decades, partly because it has become increasingly harder to move up the income ladder. The paper's findings suggest, consistent with other studies, that taxes and other policies can make a difference in closing the gap between rich and poor. It's not just a matter of fairness, but one that affects the health of the entire economy.

Another factor affecting economic mobility is the mix of incomes in a region. Places like New York that have more mixed-income neighborhoods usually offer more chances to get ahead than parts of the South, where incomes are segregated. And though this tends to hit African-American mobility the hardest, white and black families in those neighborhoods suffer more or less equally, according to the paper.

Other places that offer more opportunity are those with higher-quality schools, tighter-knit communities and two-parent families, according to the study.

Of course, the easiest way to strike it rich in America is still to win the genetic lottery and be born into a rich family, notes Leonhardt: Children of the 1 percent are at least eight times more likely to make $100,000 or more by the time they're 30 years old than children with parents in the lower 50 percent of incomes.


Your Income Mobility Depends A Lot On Your Location: Study



Ah, so what you meant to say was real wages for the lower quintile. Well :shrug: that's a fairly pertinent concern. Fortunately, both the CBO and the Census Bureau say you are incorrect.

For example, in constant 2009 dollars, for example, the 1980 average income for the lowest quintile after taxes and transfers was $15,600 a year. In 2009? It was $23,300; a 49% increase.

:) Given that your concern here is for the poor rather than seeking out a way to justify increased wealth transfers for the sake of doing so, I am sure you will be happy to hear the news.
If you are going to make an argument, at least be consistent. If you argue AGAINST "welfare" and "wealth transfers", then don't use "after tax" data.

Use pretax income:

"Between 1979 and 2009, the top 5 percent of American families saw their real incomes increase 72.7 percent, according to Census data. Over the same period, the lowest-income fifth saw a decrease in real income of 7.4 percent. This contrasts sharply with the 1947-79 period, when all income groups saw similar income gains, with the lowest income group actually seeing the largest gains:

change-in-real-family-income-by-quintile-and-top-5-percent-1979-2009.png


change-in-real-family-income-by-quintile-and-top-5-percent-1947-1979.png


http://inequality.org/income-inequality/


You continue to lack either the ability or the willingness to read.
Reported.


Here, let me quote the rest of the section that you for some reason accidentally (I am sure) cut out:
You will note that nobody is arguing that genetics are controlling other than your own strawman.
I don't give a crap about your summarizing of Murray, his work, especially the Bell Curve, used work by know eugenicists and was arguing that racial inferiority is the root cause of IQ disparity.

Additionally, "Eugenics" is not a synonym for "racist" (you seem to have that confused). "Eugenics" is an attempt to apply scientific methods to control the breeding of the human species in order to increase favored subgroups and decrease ill-favored subgroups. Policies such as the Minimum Wage and Sterilization were tools in the Eugenicist arsenal, and the belief system itself was hardly limited to whites - W.E.B. Dubois was a fan, for example......
and so on and so forth.
This is just a distraction away from what Murray and Herrnstein wrote in the Bell Curve....and I am not surprised at your attempt of hand waving, their work has been roundly called out for what it is:
"Promoted racial eugenics theories claiming that whites and Asians are genetically superior in intelligence to blacks and Latinos."
 
Last edited:
Ok, I was going to avoid this thread but got sucked back in - Divorce was a LOT harder per 1960 than it was after 1970. Could that have anything to do with it?

A divorce isn't required for a man to leave his wife and family... All a divorce does is allow a person to marry someone else.... So I would have to say no, it probably doesn't play much of a role at all.



I'm sure there were a lot of causes. The number of black men locked up for crimes (a criminal system that is very racially discriminatory) is part of it.

If that were the case, then there would be statistics to support such a belief, but there aren't... In fact, the statistics actually discredit such a notion, and seem to lend support to my claim that the welfare state that was created as part of Johnson's great society, is responsible for the destruction on the nuclear family, especially within the black community. Take a look:

welfare2.webp
edit: I indicated the wrong year on the above graphic, but circled the correct incarceration rate. 1980 should have been indicated instead.

welfare1.webp

As you can plainly see, the number of children being raised by their mother in a single parent environment exploded between 1960 and 1980, more than doubling, while the incarceration rate didn't skyrocket until the early to mid 80's. This means that the incarceration rates that went through the roof in the 80's may have compounded the problem, but couldn't have had anything to do with causing it.




And the racial discrimination in jobs is part of it (harder for black men to get jobs ergo harder for them to marry to support a family).

Racial discrimination existed long before the 1960's and certainly wasn't anything new, so there's no way that could have been part of it either.


Probably more causes too. Correlation and causation are different, you know.

I'm always open to new information, so by all means lets hear some of them? Thus far, nobody has presented anything that would logically explain the cause of this problem, nor has anyone made an argument that discredits my beliefs...
 
Last edited:
I'm always open to new information, so by all means lets hear some of them? Thus far, nobody has presented anything that would logically explain the cause of this problem, nor has anyone made an argument that discredits my beliefs...
Are you talking about the incarceration rate change circa 1985?

The changes in drug laws by Reagan, the privatization of prisons, the stigmatizing of welfare recipients and increased scrutiny all contributed to the massive increase of incarceration.....not to mention the Contra supplied crack cocaine epidemic that the CIA allowed starting in 1982 that swept through urban US cities.

incarceration.jpg
 
Seriously? families were ripped apart in the slave days.

In the pre-civil rights era, families were also ripped apart by economics - half-way decent jobs were in the north.

And when one is humiliated daily - drink from that water fountain, you can't vote, you can't get a decent job, shopkeepers charge you more - how strong can you be for your family?

Having solidarity while being totally discriminated against is NOT better than having those discriminatory rules removed.

These are all commonly used talking points, but the reality was quite a bit different.

Black families held together much better in the years following the civil war. Single parent households were rare in the black communities. Their family incomes compared well to those of whites, or at least much better than now.

It's odd how people who supposedly are advocates for African Americans poor mouth their abilities and their accomplishments, which were concrete and considerable during reconstruction despite the horrifically unfair ways in which they were treated by whites. I guess the benefits these days of portraying themselves as pathetic, dependent victims are just too great for the acknowledgment of ability and competence of black people to be allowed.
 
Back
Top Bottom