>It's not just a "few" examples,
>there is plenty of literature
>that describes how blacks created
>families and lived together after
>slavery.

Literature is not always indicative of social patterns.

Particularly when single parent homes were "Taboo" and not as likely to be mentioned.

>>Like I said, the Census reports
>>could be/are likely skewed.
>
>And your proof is?

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.

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.

>>Not all Blacks live in the
>>South and even if they
>>did, it doesn't mean Single
>>parent homes wouldn't occur.
>
>I didn't say either one of
>these. I said a
>majority of blacks live in
>the South, which they do
>and always have. I
>never said there weren't black
>single parent homes. I
>was implying that there weren't
>as many as most people
>think pre-1960, nor was there
>a majority like today.

Like I said, I disagree....people are mostly repeating patterns from the past, that weren't recognized prior to the 60s.

Like I said, My grandmother had 6 kids and all of them were seen as being born within wedlock. I've got relatives in Virginia who did the same thing.

People would pretend the Husband was "In the Army", out of town, died recently, couldn't make it, etc......then people would say that the dude left, died, etc...during the time when the kid was growing up.

Considering the trouble people went through to hide their illegitamate pregnancies, it stands to reason that your stats are skewed.

The level of inaccurracy (IMHO) is the issue for debate, not the fact that it in fact existed. If something is Taboo, people are going to try and hide it.

Otherwise, we wouldn't have closeted gay people.


>Like
>>I said, talk to people
>>who were born into Single
>>parent homes in the last
>>30 years and ask them
>>if their parents were born
>>into the same situation.....a lot
>>of people are continuing/breaking the
>>single parent cycle, not starting
>>it.
>
>But why ask them and not
>the married ones? Isn't
>that a little one-sided?

Okay fine, ask the married one.

>Besides, simply going off of mere
>hearsay based on time periods
>that were over 50 years
>ago is not going to
>prove anything, and it definitely
>isn't going to trump actual
>statistics that were made at
>that time and are going
>to be more valid.
>Does Census statistics have numbers
>right on the money?
>No. But that doesn't
>mean they are going to
>be that far off either.

Sure they're fine, if you ignore obvious attempts by people to throw the stats off.

You think a mother in the 1950s with an illegitamate kid is going to admitt that she had the kid out of wedlock?


>
>A concentration of black people live
>in the Southeastern United States,
>even today:
>
>http://www.census.gov/geo/www/mapGallery/images/black.jpg
>
>And the Census Bureau reported for
>African-American History Month that 54%
>of Black people live in
>the South.
>
>http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2002/cb02ff01.html

Fine I was off on that one.......

>>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.

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.

Kids in Northern states are less likely to attend church, live closer together, have parents with more liberal attitudes, more likely to have two parents that work, divorced parents, etc. In other words, all the "liberal & feminist" things you blame for the rise in teenage pregnancy are more prevalent in the North then the South....

.....yet Southern teenagers are popping out kids at almost double the rate of Northern Counterparts, despite living in an environment that is less conducive to teenage pregnancy.

Obviously, the whole issue is a bit more complicated then rising rates of "liberalism and feminism"






>So, of course when you're comparing
>a state like New York,
>or Pennsylvania, with 31 million
>people in between both of
>them, to North Carolina and
>Georgia, the two biggest Southern
>states, in which New York's
>population more than triples each
>state alone, you're going to
>find what you want to
>find.

*Chuckles* Couldn't I say the same about you with regards to slavery not affecting Black family development?


>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.

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.

>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.





Peace,






M2

The Blog: http://www.analyticalwealth.com/

An assassin’s life is never easy. Still, it beats being an assassin’s target.

Enjoy your money, but live below your means, lest you become a 70-yr old Wal-Mart Greeter.