>>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?

It would be, but during this time Blacks had a higher rate of children out of wedlock, and big part of that was the legacy of slavery.


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

I'm not.......read above.

>>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.

Neither do the people in the literature you mentioned.

In any event, I'm merely pointing out that my grandmother was merely following a pattern that other women did. It was people did at that time to hid the fact that had kids out of wedlock.

Just like I could say that I know someone who calls the father of their illegitamate kid their "Baby Daddy", it's an example of someone following a larger trend.



>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.

Meaning that someone could say: "Yes these are my kids and yes I'm married" even if they weren't.


After all, I don't think the census takers asked to see your marriage license and talk to the minister/rabbi/imam/justice of the peace who married you.

The fact that they didn't do "statistical surveys" is irrelevant......especially since asking if you have kids and if you're married is in fact a statistical survey.
>>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.

31% was the aggregate rate for all Americans.....

In an Era where Blacks were undoubtedly undercounted.

In any Era where people would lie because they wanted to protect themselves (and their kids) from the stigma.

So the Black out of wedlock rate was probably a bit higher, let's say 45%...which is fairly significant, now let's say that the census was off by 10% that's still an actual rate of nearly 50%.......

....with the onset of baby boom children getting to the age to have children......and children having a tendency to follow the pattern of their kids...it's going to increase the out of wedlock rate, liberalism and feminism aside.

I'm not disputing the rate decreased, I'm merely saying that it has roots that go way back to slavery....moreso then it just being a problem dealing with liberalism and feminism.......

....two things (particularly the latter) that really have nothing to do with Black people.



>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.

It couldn't be because social attitudes relaxed and people stopped lying could it? It couldn't be because that's when members of the baby boom started to get old enough to have kids could it?

Also: The sexual revolution of the 60s was accompanied by the invention of the Birth Control pill, I'm sure you have room for that somewhere in your hypothesis.

>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.

I'm merely saying that the census was inaccurate and the roots of the current high rates of teenage pregnancy go back to slavery aren't just a function of "liberalism and feminism" to blame "liberalism and feminism" because they happen to coincide with the rise in teenage pregnancies, is like blaming it on:

The increased use of Transistors
Increased number of Asian immigrants
Increased usage of Color TV sets and any number of other things that occured during that time.


>>>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.

You failed Math didn't you? In fact, I bet you failed it twice.

*Laughs*

It's a RATE Expertise, not a total number. The stats indicate pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15-19, SO a women in NC DOES NOT count more then one in NY. That's why it's expressed as a rate, so you can get a valid statistical comparison between states.

That's why they discuss the RATE of pregnancies, and not the total number, because the populations are different.

That's why the NUMBER of pregnancies is higher for the Northern States, but the rate is lower.

Secondly, your hypothesis doesn't hold when faced with the fact that States like Maine (1.2 Million) and Connecticut (3.4 Million), Masschusets (6.3 Million) and Vermont (688,827 Million) which all have lower populations AMD birth rates then States like GA (8.2 Million), NC (8.05 Million) , Texas (20.8 Million) & Florida (15.9 Million)....






>>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.

True, but it affected the south less....and it doesn't explain why out of wedlock pregnancies and teenage pregnancies are more likely to happen down south.


>>>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.

I never said we couldn't use them, I just said they don't tell the whole story and are indicative of trends that started long before the 60s.

Are you just stupid or are you being intentionally obstinate?


>>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.

Baby Boom.......sharp rise in people able to have kids.

I never said changing social attitudes are partially to Blame, but since the numbers aren't as extreme for Whites, there is obviously something else at work.
>Since when have I ever said
>"Slavery wasn't so bad"??

You did when you try an pretend that it had no effect on Black families.

>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".

Yes, that's what I'm doing, I simply want to bad mouth Blacks of the past.......curses foiled again by your supreme intelligence.

I'll get you next time.

Fact remains, slavery had a profound influence on the Black family and they didn't emerge from it prepared to go and start perfect Ozzie and Harriet families, and you ignoring that fact discounts the decades of dysfunction Blacks families have been dealing with since the end of the civil war AND does absolutely NOTHING to address, fix, or help correct this problem.

It would be one thing if you were willing to at least acknowledge the effects of slavery on families and were debating the magnitude of the effects, but the fact that won't even acknowledge indicates a severe case of denial on your part.....

.......as if Black families were or less perfect until those damn women decided they wanted equal rights.


>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.
>

Who said anything like farm animals? By that logic that's what you're calling the Blacks of today.



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.