...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
Are Whites Smarter Than Blacks
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Calabooz: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Gigantic: [qb] Your argument falls apart with Asian children. Yall just can't explain the counfounding Asian variable, except dumb assinine replies like Mike's. Asian children raised in poor environments, yet they still out-perform white counterparts raised in affluent neighborhoods. Your theory is flawed. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Calabooz: I think you are an idiot :D Yes, blacks live in very poor areas, and they go to **** schools, which further PROVES that cultural and environmental surroundings play a dominant role. If you grew up, in a poor neighborhood, with terrible schools, terrible surroundings etc., you would have an IQ lower than what you have now (if that is even possible). [/qb][/QUOTE][/QB][/QUOTE]LOL! Ok, so which Asians are you talking about, that have it as bad as blacks? In the last 30yrs, a time that was more favorable to blacks in the united states, the "IQ gap" has decreased. So you want to believe IQ is genetic? What about in the UK, where black out preform Asians, I am pretty sure blacks in the UK have had it better than in America... or what about African immigrants who outpreform whites? One thing you have to understand is, if a parent doesn't care, you will not succeed. Many blacks in America, grow up in a single parent household, (one mother), would you expect them to have high IQs? Bad schools, bad environments, bad culture, are they supposed to be mega geniuses? I think we all know blacks are discriminated against: "Racism and discrimination cannot be discounted or dismissed as explanations for persisting poverty in communities of color. In a report published in the 1960s, the political scientist Anthony Downs identifies several ways in which institutions discriminate against poor people, and blacks in particular: by providing assistance in ways that emphasize dependency; by imposing higher costs for goods and services; bu omitting impoverished people from social insurance schemes; by denying services (mortgage, loans, credit, municipal services); and by maintaining public schools of lower quality. Manuel Craballo states that the failure to take account of racism and discrimination is a major weakness in how conservatives approach the problem of poverty: "The central mission element, by omission or commission, in the conservative view of poverty, drawn as it is from the intellectual roots of a then racially homogenous Great Britain, is its failure to grasp the basic relationship in multi-racial America between racism and poverty. While most of the poor white, disproportionate numbers of the poor black, Hispanic, (that is, primarily mulatto or mestizo), and native American... Racism is by no means the sole or indeed perhaps even the primary cause of poverty among minorities... Bur racism does have a lot to do with the concentration of minorities in municipalities whose tax base cannot carry quality public education; in the neighborhoods that make minorities the disproportionate victims of crime; in jobs that are part-time, low wage, and without the benefits of health insurance, pensions, or even social security." Discrimination means that the skills necessary for economic mobility are inaccessible to people of color; it means that job promotions are unequally distributed on the basis of race and ethnicity; and it means that information about economic opportunities is not distributed uniformly or consistently. The connections between discrimination and poverty are suggested in one case study of Massachusetts by the sociologist James E. Blackwell. He reviews the reasons for unemployment among black youth. In his view of people of color are subject to discriminatory practices, both formal and informal, which have detrimental consequences, in the following areas: Skills/union apprenticeship programs; availability of mortgages; economic dislocation; job proportions, equality of wages; and availability of information and informational networks about employment opportunities. Racial segregation, as suggested by the sociologists Douglas S. Massey and Nancy A. Denton and even earlier by Kenneth Clark, goes hand in hand with racism and discrimination. Massey and Denton's study "indicates that racial residential segregation is the principal structural feature of American society responsible for the perpetuation of urban poverty and represents a primary cause of racial inequality in the United States." Elsewhere, Massey writes that continuing racial segregation acts to undermine the socioeconomic environment faced by poor blacks and leave their communities extremely vulnerable to any downturn in the economy. Under conditions of high racial segregation, a rise in the black poverty rates produces a dramatic loss in potential demand in poor black neighborhoods, leading to withdrawal, deterioration, and outright elimination of goods and services distributed through the market. Racial segregation, in other words, exacerbates the ill effects of downturns in the economy or poverty increases among black individuals or families to a far greater extent than whites. Understanding the relationship between racial segregation and poverty, according to Massey, provides insight into why the composition of the underclass is black and why this sector is concentrated in the Northeast and the Midwest. Massey posits that " segregation heightens and reinforces negative racial stereotypes by concentrating people who fit those stereotypes in a small number of highly visible minority neighborhoods- a structural version of 'blaming the victim' (not the other way around, as you white supremacists usually like to claim) thereby hardening prejudice, making discrimination more likely, and maintaining the motivation for segregation. The persistence of segregation, in turn, worsens the concentration of poverty. Family structure as an explanation for poverty As suggested in many popular and academic forums, dysfunctional family structure is a popular explanation for poverty, and sometimes the so-called breakdown of the family is offered as a major reason that individuals and families fall into poverty; this belief persists despite overwhelming and growing evidence that this link is much more complex than is suggested by the claim. The demographer Mary Jo Bane write: "It has become common knowledge- whether true or no- that family structure is important in explaining contemporary poverty... [But] in fact, previous research indicates rather small percentage of the changes in poverty level over the past few decades can be attributed to demographic change." Bane concludes that a focus on family structure is erroneous: "The problem of poverty should be addressed by devoting attention to employment, wages, and the development of skills necessary for productive participation in the labor force rather than hand wringing about the decline of the family." Despite increasing evidence to support this view, however, the family structure explanation suggested by Daniel Patrick Moynihan and, much earlier by the sociologist E. Franklin Frazier, not only remains conventionally popular, but reflects much of current social welfare politics in the United States. The "feminization of poverty" has been turned to as a special feature of the relationship between family structure poverty. This term, supposedly coined by Diana Pearce, is used to indicate that female-headed families are more susceptible to poverty than male-headed or two parent families. Although the term may be recent, Mimi Abramovitz shows that womaen's impoverishment dates back to colonial America, when from one-third to one-half of a town's poor were likely to be female. Thus, the [i]feminization of poverty[/i] may be a misnomer if it suggests that this is a new development in the national profile, and history of poverty. Bane provides a statistical overview of poverty characteristics and trends associated with female-headed housholds. Barbara Ehenreich and her associates (1983) discuss how women are particularly exploited in the united states. This qualitative study provides case studies and cameos of women who are experiencing poverty. One conclusion of the book is that "a job is not necessarily an antidote to poverty for women. On the contrary,the jobs available to women are part of the problem." Women, according to these authors, are clustered in only 20 out of 420 occupations listed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These occupations tend to offer the lowest pay. In her article, published in 1978, Pearce suggests that race is not as significant a factor as gender in explaining the depressed economic condition of poor women. But, as shown by the extensive work of the political economist Julianne Malveaux and others, it is not accurate to dismiss important racial distinctions in the poverty experiences of women. Malveaux describes how the labor experiences of black and white women differ significantly. Gertrude S. Goldberg and Eleanor Kremin respond to Pearce by writing that "in the United States, black and Hispanic single mothers suffer poverty rates 50 percent greater than their white counterparts, and black women are three times more likely as white women to be in the economically vulnerable position of single motherhood. Three-fifths of poor, single-mother families in the United States , moreover, are women of color and their children. A strong precedent of utilizing family structure as an explanation for poverty is the Moynihan Report, published in 1965, which proposed a link between the family structure of blacks and poverty: The circumstances of the Negro American community in recent years have probably been getting worse, not better... the fundamental problem , in which this is most clearly the case, is that of family structure... so long as this situation persists, the cycle of poverty and disadvantage will continue to repeat itself. Other observers such as Banfield, have gone so far as to suggest a cultural predisposition on the part of lower-class groups not to maintain stable families, leading to greater levels of poverty among these groups. In a book based on and analysis of U.S. Bureau of the Census data for 1980, the researchers Reynolds, and Walter Allen conclude that "the best single country of explanations for race differences in the organization of family life in contemporary U.S. society would seem to be those that attribute importance to race differences in functional relationships with the larger society and its institutions. Black-white differences in economic well being, political power, an social standing--more so than differences in values and predispositions- explain the observed race differences in family organization and process. Their finding has been confirmed by other studies. The Joint Center for Political an Economic studies, for example, reports that: while family structure is an important factor in determining whether a black child will be poor, the decline in marriage and the increased proportion of child births occurring out of wedlock do not account full for the decline in children's economic well being. Indeed, the study revealed that the economic slippage experienced by all types of black families-- whether headed by married couples, never married women, or formerly married women--- played at least as great a role as family structure change in the worsening status of black children. It is clear that single-family headed housholds have a higher rate of poverty than single-male-headed housholds, or two-headed housholds. But the implications of this relationship are not as clear and conclusive as some would contend. A clear and consistent poverty gap at the national level remains among black, white, and Latino families of similar composition. White families tend to be better off in economic terms than comparably structured black and Latino families. This fact tends to dampen the unqualified claim that "family breakup" causes poverty. There are examples of other national social welfare systems that do not reflect a strong correlation between single, female heads of houshold and poverty status. Sweden is one such example. As Goldberg and Kremin write: "In the United States it has long been assumed that there is a direct link between poverty and family composition, of single motherhood. However, Sweden has gone far toward breaking this link-- a notable achievement. Single motherhood is about as prevalent in Sweden as it is in the United states. By using a combination of of labor market and and social policies... Sweden has achieved a relatively low rate of poverty for single parent families. As the case of Sweden suggests, the relationship between single female heads of households and poverty status is not predetermined. Even in the United States, there are some periods when increasing the rate of labor-force participation for women, coupled with decent wages, has reduced poverty status for single female headed families. For example, in reviewing the post-World War Two, Richard X. Chase reports that increasing labor force participation rates for women during that period resulted in some reduction in the poverty rate for female headed households. Chase's study shows that the incidence of poverty for all female headed families, was reduced from 51.5 percent in 1947 to 49.2% in 1956, and 47.6% in 1963. These reductions were due to the increasing labor-participation rate of women earning wages that enabled them to live above the poverty level. During these same years however, the incidence for poverty in male headed families fell even more dramatically from 29.9% in 1947 to 19.8% in 1956, and to 15.6% in 1963. So we have now examined two variables that can effect poverty. Both of which point to blacks and Latinos having it worse than their white couterparts, now what does this have to do with intelligence? Simple, let us look at the SAT scores in 1986 (combined math and verbal) ------------------------------------------------- Racial Group Average Score ------------------------------------------------- Asians 947 Whites 925 Purto Ricans 844 Mexican Americans 833 Blacks 743 As you can see from this list, in 1987, blacks, on average scored the lowest, but let us look at the income rates during this same year: -------------------------------------------------- Family income (in dollars) Foreign Born -------------------------------------------------- Japanese 43,493 28.4 Asian Indian 39,739 70.4 Fillipino 37,662 64.6 Chinese 35,869 63.3 White 33,412 3.9 Korean 32,530 81.9 Hawaiian 30,522 1.6 Cuban 29,010 77.9 Mexican 23,476 26.0 Eskimo 21,988 1.5 American Indian 21,748 2.5 Vietnamese 20,415 90.5 Black 20,077 2.8 As you can see, the ethnic group that scored the lowest on the SAT, also had the lowest income. Source: A New introduction to Poverty, The Role of Race Power, and Politics Edited by Louis Kushnick and James Jennings :o [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3