America “was great at the time when families were united — even though we had slavery”

 

I can tell you. It means that black people were not committing 65% of the violent crime in the country when they were slaves. was it because the black family unit had not been broken down, or simply due to them being enslaved. I suggest it is partly both, but mostly them being enslaved. Is it racist to simply state a fact? It would seem many think it is. Let's say the welfare state was removed, black men started to take ownership of their actions and raised their kids, would the terrible statistics that clearly show black males are tribalistic animals that commit violent crimes at a rate of ten times that of the white male, perhaps come more in line with what would be average? Or do they need to be enslaved once again to stop the insanity of what are known as super predators (young black men).  I say we try cutting the welfare strings first, force them to stand on their own and give them a real shot at equality, if that fails, back to the cotton fields. Vote for Judge Roy.

 

Edited December 12, 20177 yr by Muskoka Rider

4 minutes ago, MiSledder said:

Youre right, forget about the blacks who sold their own people for profit

Sure warring tribes did do that.  Blacks were also active hunted and captured by whites.  And whites drove the demand for the slaves.  There would be no demand for blacks or whites to capture blacks if there was no demand.

Neal

Good grief.  We care about Alabama.  

WiLBer is all jerked up again.  Nice couple of first posts there, Willy.  Are you drunk?  Cuz, wut?

 

I will be glad when he gets elected today, so this whole story will go away.  The guy has fundamental values and has been married for 32 years with 4 kids.  The whole pedo thing really got overplayed and they're gonna lose.  

4 minutes ago, DriftBusta said:

I will be glad when he gets elected today, so this whole story will go away.  The guy has fundamental values and has been married for 32 years with 4 kids.  The whole pedo thing really got overplayed and they're gonna lose.  

Fundamentalist values you mean.... 

Neal

19 minutes ago, DriftBusta said:

I will be glad when he gets elected today, so this whole story will go away.  The guy has fundamental values and has been married for 32 years with 4 kids.  The whole pedo thing really got overplayed and they're gonna lose.  

I agree.  I think we all said it when this hit lib-tard levels of questionability.  Win or lose, his “victims” are ghosts after this election.  Weird.

31 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

Fundamentalist values you mean.... 

Neal

guys a complete religious nut job 1 step away from a muslim terrorist but because he believes in the "right god" over mans laws it's all good

 

I can see why Trump supports him though- they clearly share similar christian values  

 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Wildboer said:

Like he's absolutely trying to pretend slavery and racism isn't what broke the black family unit. He's pretending a problem white people created isn't real because he doesn't want to accept that white people are perpetuating it. Just stop perpetuating it with this lie and you will be freed of the burden of this hatred you stupid fucks! Hate is baggage and you know it but you still insist on clinging to your hate at your own fucking detriment!!! Just shut the flying fuck up and stop hurting yourself by being an idiot!

Slavery and racism didn't break the black family unit.   Blacks had much higher percentage of 2 parent households prior to the Great Society and modern day welfare.   The statistics do not lie.   Then came along the Roe v. Wade decision and made things even worse.   Men turned on their offspring even more because they thought the women should have had an abortion.  This epidemic of the family is not solely an AA issue but an American issue.   The main post is racist not because there isn't some truth to it but because of its extreme comments and lack of showing that the issue is spread throughout America and not just in the AA community of which it is significantly worse.  The statistics of education, crime and income perfectly mirror the decline of the 2 parent family.  This is not coincidence.   Its being pretty obtuse to think govt policy doesn't have an effect on the social structure of a society.  

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/lbj-vs-the-nuclear-family/

Did it have to be this way? When Johnson came to office in late 1963, more than 90 percent of American babies were in homes with married parents. The 1960 census showed that nearly 9 of every 10 children from birth to 18 years of age lived with married parents. While illegitimacy had grown to about 8 percent from 4 percent between 1940 and 1965, it then exploded. By 1990 the rate would be nearly 30 percent.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1672

HOW THE WELFARE STATE HAS DEVASTATED AFRICAN AMERICANS

The rise of the welfare state in the 1960s contributed greatly to the demise of the black family as a stable institution. The out-of-wedlock birth rate among African Americans today is 73%, three times higher than it was prior to the War on Poverty. Children raised in fatherless homes are far more likely to grow up poor and to eventually engage in criminal behavior, than their peers who are raised in two-parent homes. In 2010, blacks (approximately 13% of the U.S. population) accounted for 48.7% of all arrests for homicide, 31.8% of arrests for forcible rape, 33.5% of arrests for aggravated assault, and 55% of arrests for robbery. Also as of 2010, the black poverty rate was 27.4% (about 3 times higher than the white rate), meaning that 11.5 million blacks in the U.S. were living in poverty. When President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 launched the so-called War on Poverty, which enacted an unprecedented amount of antipoverty legislationand added many new layers to the American welfare state, he explained that his objective was to reduce dependency, “break the cycle of poverty,” and make “taxpayers out of tax eaters.” Johnson further claimed that his programs would bring to an end the “conditions that breed despair and violence,” those being “ignorance, discrimination, slums, poverty, disease, not enough jobs.” Of particular concern to Johnson was the disproportionately high rate of black poverty. In a famous June 1965 speech, the president suggested that the problems plaguing black Americans could not be solved by self-help: “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others,'” said Johnson. Thus began an unprecedented commitment of federal funds to a wide range of measures aimed at redistributing wealth in the United States.[1]  From 1965 to 2008, nearly $16 trillion of taxpayer money (in constant 2008 dollars) was spent on means-tested welfare programs for the poor. The economic milieu in which the War on Poverty arose is noteworthy. As of 1965, the number of Americans living below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since the beginning of the decade and was only about half of what it had been fifteen years earlier. Between 1950 and 1965, the proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level, had decreased by more than 30%. The black poverty rate had been cut nearly in half between 1940 and 1960. In various skilled trades during the period of 1936-59, the incomes of blacks relative to whites had more than doubled. Further, the representation of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations grew more quickly during the five years preceding the launch of the War on Poverty than during the five years thereafter. Despite these trends, the welfare state expanded dramatically after LBJ's statement. Between the mid-Sixties and the mid-Seventies, the dollar value of public housing quintupled and the amount spent on food stamps rose more than tenfold. From 1965 to 1969, government-provided benefits increased by a factor of 8; by 1974 such benefits were an astounding 20 times higher than they had been in 1965. Also as of 1974, federal spending on social-welfare programs amounted to 16% of America’s Gross National Product, a far cry from the 8% figure of 1960. By 1977 the number of people receiving public assistance had more than doubled since 1960.
 The most devastating by-product of the mushrooming welfare state was the corrosive effect it had (along with powerful cultural phenomena such as the feminist and Black Power movements) on American family life, particularly in the black community.
 As provisions in welfare laws offered ever-increasing economic incentives for shunning marriage and avoiding the formation of two-parent families, illegitimacy rates rose dramatically. For the next few decades, means-tested welfare programs such as food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, day care, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families penalized marriage. A mother generally received far more money from welfare if she was single rather than married. Once she took a husband, her benefits were instantly reduced by roughly 10 to 20 percent. As a Cato Institute study noted, welfare programs for the poor incentivize the very behaviors that are most likely to perpetuate poverty.[2]  Another Cato report observes: “Of course women do not get pregnant just to get welfare benefits.... But, by removing the economic consequences of out-of-wedlock birth, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid such pregnancies. A teenager looking around at her friends and neighbors is liable to see several who have given birth out-of- wedlock. When she sees that they have suffered few visible consequences ... she is less inclined to modify her own behavior to prevent pregnancy.... Current welfare policies seem to be designed with an appalling lack of concern for their impact on out-of-wedlock births. Indeed, Medicaid programs in 11 states actually provide infertility treatments to single women on welfare.” The marriage penalties that are embedded in welfare programs can be particularly severe if a woman on public assistance weds a man who is employed in a low-paying job. As a FamilyScholars.org report puts it: “Whena couple's income nears the limits prescribed by Medicaid, a few extra dollars in income cause thousands of dollars in benefits to be lost. What all of this means is that the two most important routes out of poverty—marriage and work—are heavily taxed under the current U.S. system.”[3]  The aforementioned FamilyScholars.org report adds that “such a system encourages surreptitious cohabitation,” where “many low-income parents will cohabit without reporting it to the government so that their benefits won't be cut.” These couples “avoid marriage because marriage would result in a substantial loss of income for the family.” A 2011 study conducted jointly by the Institute for American Values’ Center for Marriage and Families and the University of Virginia's National Marriage Project suggests that “the rise of cohabiting households with children is the largest unrecognized threat to the quality and stability of children’s family lives.” The researchers conclude that cohabiting relationships are highly prone to instability, and that children in such homes are consequently less likely to thrive, more likely to be abused, and more prone to suffering “serious emotional problems.” William Galston, President Bill Clinton's Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs, estimated that the welfare system, with its economic disincentives to marriage, was responsible for at least 15% to 20% of the family disintegration in the United States. Libertarian scholar Charles Murray has placed the figure at somewhere around 50%. By Murray's reckoning, the growth and increased liberalization of the “welfare complex” have eroded the traditional ethos of working-class communities that once held people who worked at low-wage jobs, and men who married the mothers of their children, in much higher esteem than unwed parents who became wards of the state. The phenomenon that Murray describes has been in clear evidence for decades. Consider, for instance, a Harlem-based initiative in the 1980s known as Project Redirection, whose aim was to persuade young women who had already borne one child out of wedlock to avoid repeating that mistake. According to the Manpower Development Research Corporation's evaluation report on this project: “[M]any [beneficiaries] were beginning to view getting their own welfare grants as the next stage in their careers.... t became apparent that some participants' requests for separate grants and independent households were too often a sign of manipulation by boyfriends, in whose interest it was to have a girlfriend on welfare with an apartment of her own.” The results of welfare policies discouraging marriage and family were dramatic, as out-of-wedlock birthrates skyrocketed among all demographic groups in the U.S., but most notably African Americans. In the mid-1960s, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was scarcely 3% for whites, 7.7% for Americans overall, and 24.5% among blacks. By 1976, those figures had risen to nearly 10% for whites, 24.7% for Americans as a whole, and 50.3% for blacks in particular. In 1987, for the first time in the history of any American racial or ethnic group, the birth rate for unmarried black women surpassed that for married black women. Today the illegitimacy rates stand at 41% for the nation overall, and 73% for African Americans specifically.[4]  Welfare not only increases illegitimacy and poverty in the short term, but it inflicts long-lasting, even permanent, handicaps on children who are raised in welfare-dependent homes. Dr. June O'Neill and Anne Hill, comparing children who were identical in terms of such social and economic factors as race, family structure, neighborhood, family income, and mothers' IQ and education, found that the more years a child spent on welfare, the lower the child's IQ. A similar study by Mary Corcoran and Roger Gordon of the University of Michigan concluded that the more welfare income a family received while a boy was growing up, the lower the boy's earnings as an adult. The devastating societal consequences of family breakdown cannot be overstated. Father-absent families—black and white alike—generally occupy the bottom rung of America's economic ladder. According to the U.S Census, in 2008 the poverty rate for single parents with children was 35.6%; the rate for married couples with children was 6.4%. For white families in particular, the corresponding two-parent and single-parent poverty rates were 21.7% and 3.1%; for Hispanics, the figures were 37.5% and 12.8%; and for blacks, 35.3% and 6.9%. According to Robert Rector, senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, “the absence of marriage increases the frequency of child poverty 700 percent” and thus constitutes the single most reliable predictor of a self-perpetuating underclass. Articulating a similar theme many years ago, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Nothing is so much needed as a secure family life for a people to pull themselves out of poverty.” Children in single-parent households are burdened not only with economic, but also profound social and psychological, disadvantages. As a Heritage Foundation analysis notes, youngsters raised by single parents, as compared to those who grow up in intact married homes, are more likely to be physically abused; to be treated for emotional and behavioral disorders; to smoke, drink, and use drugs; to perform poorly in school; to be suspended or expelled from school; to drop out of high school; to behave aggressively and violently; to be arrested for a juvenile crime; to serve jail time before age 30; and to go on to experience poverty as adults. According to the National Fatherhood Initiative, 60% of rapists, 72% of adolescent murderers, and 70% of long-term prison inmates are men who grew up in fatherless homes. With regard to girls in particular, those raised by single mothers are more than twice as likely to give birth out-of-wedlock, thereby perpetuating the cycle of poverty for yet another generation. The calamitous breakdown of the black family is a comparatively recent phenomenon, coinciding precisely with the rise of the welfare state. Throughout the epoch of slavery and into the early decades of the twentieth century, most black children grew up in two-parent households.
 Post-Civil War studies revealed that most black couples in their forties had been together for at least twenty years. In southern urban areas around 1880, nearly three-fourths of black households were husband-or father-present; in southern rural settings, the figure approached 86%. As of 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks nationwide was approximately 15%—scarcely one-fifth of the current figure.
 As late as 1950, black women were more likely to be married than white women, and only 9% of black families with children were headed by a single parent. During the nine decades between the Emancipation Proclamation and the 1950s, the black family remained a strong, stable institution. Its cataclysmic destruction was subsequently set in motion by such policies as the anti-marriage incentives that are built into the welfare system have served only to exacerbate the problem. As George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams puts it: “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do. And that is to destroy the black family.” Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell concurs: “The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.” Just as welfare policies discourage marriage and the formation of stable families, they also discourage the development of a healthy work ethic. As Heritage Foundation scholar Michael Franc noted in 2012: “[T]he necessity of phasing out [welfare] benefits as incomes rise brings a serious moral hazard. In many cases, economists have calculated, welfare recipients who enter the work force or receive pay raises lose a dollar or more of benefits for each additional dollar they earn. The system makes fools of those who work hard.” In testimony on Capitol Hill, Rep. Geoff Davis (R-Kentucky) concurred that although federal welfare programs “are designed to alleviate poverty while promoting work,” collectively they have “an unintended side effect of discouraging harder work and higher earnings.” “The more benefits the government provides,” he said, “the stronger the disincentive to work.” Yet another Capitol Hill witness, Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wisconsin)—herself a former welfare recipient—acknowledged in her oral testimony: “I once had a job and begged my supervisor not to give me a 50-cents-an-hour raise lest I lose Title 20 day care.” The same work disincentive came into play when Moore contemplated the health coverage she was receiving through Medicaid. “I would want to work if in fact I didn’t risk losing Medicaid,” she said.

7 hours ago, Wildboer said:

Like he's absolutely trying to pretend slavery and racism isn't what broke the black family unit. He's pretending a problem white people created isn't real because he doesn't want to accept that white people are perpetuating it. Just stop perpetuating it with this lie and you will be freed of the burden of this hatred you stupid fucks! Hate is baggage and you know it but you still insist on clinging to your hate at your own fucking detriment!!! Just shut the flying fuck up and stop hurting yourself by being an idiot!

Slavery certainly broke up families among different slave owners but you can't blame those two things for why black families are in the spot that they are today. 

As pointed out, the statistics regarding black families changed dramatically from the 1950s to now.

2 hours ago, MiSledder said:

Youre right, forget about the blacks who sold their own people for profit

Lol, yeah white people had nothing to do with slavery...

Just now, SVT Renegade XRS said:

But you never tell Jews to just 'get over it', do you?

3 hours ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

Who thought it a good moral values to own another human being as property and created a demand for slaves to be captured?

That dog ain't gonna hunt and you should know better.

Neal

Nannies are modern day slaves bud.  Who the fuck would bring one in from another country forcing them to leave their families behind.  

Oh wait Trudeau has two.

Just now, ArcticCrusher said:

Nannies are modern day slaves bud.  Who the fuck would bring one in from another country forcing them to leave their families behind.  

Oh wait Trudeau has two.

Jesus Christ.

"You can't criticize slavery becuz nannies..."

WTF is wrong with you guys? 

 

4 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

Jesus Christ.

"You can't criticize slavery becuz nannies..."

WTF is wrong with you guys? 

 

I'm supporting slavery?

 

2 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

I'm supporting slavery?

 

What's with all the self righteous devil's advocates, lately?

Y'all are losing it...

what  is do you call government policy designed to tear apart the family structure and award the absence of a father? 

 

I'm going to deflect from the horrors of slavery and smear shit all over my body so I can own the libs...

14 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

What's with all the self righteous devil's advocates, lately?

Y'all are losing it...

One of the biggest problems in our society is the breakdown of the family unit and the deadbeats who abandon them.  But lets reward them . . . for their vote.

Just now, ArcticCrusher said:

One of the biggest problems in our society is the breakdown of the family unit and the deadbeats who abandon them.  But lets reward them . . . for their vote.

Right over your head.

2 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

One of the biggest problems in our society is the breakdown of the family unit and the deadbeats who abandon them.  But lets reward them . . . for their vote.

Guys like Dan Dolezal are too stupid to see this.  

2 minutes ago, AKIQPilot said:

Guys like Dan Dolezal are too stupid to see this.  

You know what's wrong with society today?

Nannies.

7 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

You know what's wrong with society today?

Nannies.

You got one?  Are you paying full value for the fruits of her labour?

3 hours ago, Zambroski said:

Good grief.  We care about Alabama.  

WiLBer is all jerked up again.  Nice couple of first posts there, Willy.  Are you drunk?  Cuz, wut?

 

I was stoned as fuck and quite tired, not drunk though.

5 hours ago, MiSledder said:

Who sold the slaves to the white man?

Who considered blacks 7/8’s human and used selective breeding? Who created a matriarchal family system among blacks to decrease the efficacy of black males in their family system in order to prevent uprisings in the slave quarters. Really dude, everyone knows black slave traders existed in Africa. This about sweeping our side of the steeet. Something that your friends in Alabama would like to shuffle aside. 

3 minutes ago, ActionfigureJoe said:

Who considered blacks 7/8’s human and used selective breeding? Who created a matriarchal family system among blacks to decrease the efficacy of black males in their family system in order to prevent uprisings in the slave quarters. Really dude, everyone knows black slave traders existed in Africa. This about sweeping our side of the steeet. Something that your friends in Alabama would like to shuffle aside. 

Not me! I was not alive then , but somehow I’m responsible?