>Literature is not always indicative of
>social patterns.
>Particularly when single parent homes were
>"Taboo" and not as likely
>to be mentioned.

If single parent homes were taboo, and I'm not disagreeing that they weren't, then wouldn't that be indictive of white households as well as black? And since you're claiming that black households were misrepresented, the notion of white households being misrepresented could mean what households missed/lied altogether is not representative of a legacy of slavery?

That is, unless you're saying white people were more honest than black people.

>Having a child out of wedlock
>was a extreme Taboo at
>the time, so women OFTEN
>LIED. Case in point: None
>of my grandmother's kids show
>up on census reports as
>being born out of wedlock.

But once again, that's YOUR grandmother. And your grandmother does not create a legitimate sample of all blacks in the United States.

Also, until the 80's or so they didn't do statistical surveys on households; they did what the Census was supposed to do, and that was count the people in the house, ask if those are your children, and are you married. Period.

>If you're going to report statistics
>dealing with people, you have
>to also take into account
>any mitigating factors that could
>effect the accuracy of those
>statistics.

The question is not whether or not the Census was correct right up to the number. The question is whether the Census was approximately correct in it's findings. In the early 1930's, the Census reported only 31% of births out of wedlock. We can dispute that to be a little more, or a little less, say 33%. But are we suppose to incline that the Census was THAT off by, say, 20 to 30%? I don't think so.

Also, if they were off, as you say, then why all of a sudden would they rise up so sharply between 65-69? Did they come up with new technology to count and survey people between the early 60's, in which premarital black births were the lowest since the early 50's, and the late 60's? I don't think so.

Besides, all of this is moot. You got to come up with more than simple hearsay to challenge statistics. You haven't brought up any other facts other than your grandmama and your friends to dispute Census findings. Come up with something more concrete.

>>>Not to insult your faith, but
>>>I don't think the presence
>>>of a church in someone's
>>>life community will automatically decrease
>>>the number of teenage/single parent
>>>pregnancies, teenage pregnancy rates are
>>>typically higher in Bible Belt
>>>states.
>>>http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/teen_preg_stats.html
>>>
>>>Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Mississippi
>>>& Tennesee ALL have higher
>>>pregnancy rates then New York,
>>>Connecticut, Massachusets, Pennsylvania, & Maryland.....almost
>>>double in most cases.
>>
>>That's because those states you mentioned
>>are more densely populated than
>>the Southern states, which are
>>larger in size. Hell,
>>New York and Pennsylvania almost
>>outpopulate all 6 of those
>>states put together.
>>
>>New York + Pennsylvania = 31,257,511
>>(according to the 2000 Census
>>
>>Southern States = 33,258,576
>
>What the hell are you talking
>about?
>
>I was talking about pregnancy rates,
>not total numbers.
>Southern (Bible-Belt) states have MUCH higher
>pregnancy rates, I.e. percentages of
>teens getting pregnant, then the
>North does.

The total population does come into the picture here, because highly populated states are percentage-wise, going to have the edge over lower populated ones in statistics. You can't honestly compare New York to North Carolina, when New York's population more than doubles North Carolina's, and think you're going to come up with a proper analysis on teenage pregnancy rates. A teenager who gets pregnant in North Carolina is going to count way more on the pregnancy rate than a teenager in New York, because there are way less people in NC than in New York.

>AND, if you think about
>just according to your charges
>of "Liberalism & Feminism" causing
>the rise in teenage pregnancy
>rates, the opposite should be
>true.

No, because the 60's affected every part of the nation, not just the North. There were reforms in every part of the country, including social values and norms.

>>I continued to look at that
>>website. Found an interesting
>>little ditty:
>>
>>http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib_welfare00.html
>>
>>Their stats say teenage pregnancies rose
>>sharply in the 60's.
>>Well imagine that.
>>
>>And they coincide with the Census
>>statistics:
>>
>>http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0020/table2.html
>>
>>That state that there was a
>>sharp rise in births out
>>of wedlock in the United
>>States during the 60's, particularly
>>to black people.

>Which doesn't mean that the
>Black family wasn't screwed up
>because of slavery before the
>60's.

So what does it prove then? For some reason, we can use the website YOU provided statistics from, yet when they give statistics stating a historical rise in teenage pregnancy, we can't use them? That makes no sense.

>Which was the point I was
>trying to make.....
>.....When you have the Baby Boom
>repeating the patterns of *some*
>of their parents, you're going
>to have an increase in
>teenage pregnancy, there were other
>factors at work...yes, but coming
>from messed up families was
>definitely one of them.

But even then, if it was a simple matter of decendants repeating the patterns of some of their ancestors, then logic would dictate that the rise of premarital births would have been steady. They weren't. They rose very sharply in the 60's.

>>No matter how you place it,
>>this so-called "legacy of slavery"
>>lie to explain current trends
>>in single families in the
>>black community is one of
>>the biggest falsehoods out there
>>today and only serves to
>>shame our ancestors while removing
>>the convictions of personal accountability
>>on today's youth in an
>>attempt to blame something else
>>on whitey. It's a
>>shame when black people will
>>freely call their own ancestors
>>who fought for freedom and
>>strived to make a better
>>life for them to live
>>nothing more than dog-like whores.
>> Pathetic.
>Um no, what's actually happening is
>like you want to place
>your heads in the sand
>and act as if slavery
>"wasn't so bad" and more
>or less explain away every
>negative effect that slavery, jim
>crow and racism has had
>on the Black community, becuase
>you simply can't deal with
>it.

Since when have I ever said "Slavery wasn't so bad"??

I'm not trying to explain away everything, the facts are the facts. The facts are that premarital pregnancies in black families were steady until the 1960's, and then they rose sharply. Any statistics or studies done on this topic will say the exact same thing, and until someone can actually counter those findings, they are indeed the prevailing logic. The problem is that it simply counters what you and others believe on this topic, and, through people who had no reason to lie or make up false evidence that would make black families of the past look good, it destroys the myth of the breakup of black families due to the "legacy of slavery".

Black people post-emancipation weren't simple-minded people who couldn't control their libidos. And it's a sad testimony today that their own decendants would make attempts to characterize them as two steps from acting as farm animals.