2. Prove it,... I've spent a few years constructing lectures on such in the military so you post a few links showing Blacks making the same level of gains within the same time period prior to civil rights as they did afterwards.
Tsk I'm surprised you even tried to slide that one by me.
No problem
As of 1940 87% percent lived below the official poverty level. By 1960 this rate had fallen to 47% (a nearly 50% reduction in 20 years) Between 1960 and 1970 the rate dropped to 30%
However between 1970 and 1980 the rate had only dropped to 29%
Source America in Black and white: One NAtion Indivisible By abigail and stephan Thernstrom. Published by simon and shuster in 1997 page 233.
Now since the civil rights act was passed in 1964 (not 1967 as I had mistakenly stated.) That means that between 1940 and and the passage opf the Civil Rights act the percentage of black families had dopped from 87% to around 35% (splitting the difference between 1960-70 ) However in the 16 years after had only dropped from around 35% to 29%
In other words while the nuumber of black families living below the poverty line had decreased by more than 60% prior to passage of the civil rights act, the rate of decrease dropped by only 20 percent in the 16 years following. Prior to passage the average decrease was around 3% per year, wheras it was less than 1% every two years after.
I don't try to "slide" things especially when it comes to economics. In point of fact if I mention an economic statistic, trend, or theory, you can take it to the bank. Thats my field.
Your opinion,.. esp without EXAMPLES. Simply saying it's so isn't going to work here.
In ref to "resources" One example would be Education. I realize based on reading the rest of your response that when you can't defend you go to one word responses simply sitting in denial
1. You really can't say ANYTHING about how people live in America if you don't know what Redlining is in ref to.
I know what redlining is. I said it didn't matter to me, since in terms of what we were discussing it is irrelevant.
Redlining has nothing to do with Blacks moving into white neighborhoods, since its the practise of refusing services or increasing thier costs in minority neighborhopods. In hat way does refusing to offer mortgatges in Black neighborhoods, have anything to do with blacks buying homes in white neighborhoods where mortgatges are offered?
Sigh,.. yes you did. Is this the part where I go back to your descriptions of being beat down in a minority neighborhood because you were white? No thanks.
I never implied whites wouldn't move there as a result of that. Obviously they would as we moved there. I simply pointed out that it was a racially motivated issue.
And if so,... why can't there be the concept of "Black enough" in reference to Black people by black people.
Your arrogance is showing.
Because unlike the other examples you gave, man/woman grown/child Smart/dumb, there is no actual difference between blacks and whites save perception. There is a biological difference between men and women, children and adults, the smart and the dumb. Ther eis no such biologica differemce between whites and blacks.
Nope. reference your own words on this,.. I shouldn't have to cut and paste as you dance around the subject.
These words?
You ask a Black what they mean by "not Black enough" and most of the answers come down to "culture".
He's not been where a lot of blacks are and those blacks don't feel he would have their best interests at heart because of it. The poster labels this as "racism".
I grew up in a black majority neighborhood as one of very few whites.
And? It's still not racism to say that someone can't relate with where you come from,... otherwise I could call you racist.
You said someone
can't relate To where I come from, I said they could. I agree that beliving someone
cant relate to your experiences becasue they aren't black
is racist I said even though others had not gone through the same thing they
could relate if their experineces were similar.
Hypocrite. I can pull up testimonials where Whites don't feel comfortable with black police because they are black,.. black doctors because they are black, black military because they are black,.. and in each case WHITES in charge to ease the concerns of those white people with issues took the blacks out of the equation,... now you are going to sneer at Blacks doing the same for blacks at a time when whites were coming into their neighborhoods and hurting folk?
"they do it too" is a argument children use. And it isn't valid then either.
Who's the racist who doesn't recognize that his own people have done such for DECADES yet can't allow blacks the same position?
Tsk.
And now we reach the heart of your argument. "Whites have been racist for so long, now its our turn
Ah,.. your lack of knowledge involving history comes up,.. and you call me stupid too.
Whatever,.. just consider "recruiting those in power" = "Throwing the disenfranchised a bone " To keep them quiet and under control.
Take a college course,... you'll do better.
So If I don't understand history tell em how many women were US legislators prior to womens suffrage? How many Blacks were legislators prior to the Civil rights act?
If whites in congres and the senate did not vote to pass this legislation who did?
Sources please,.. we'll compare,.. Mine is Marina Krakovsky. and yours is a viewpoint which appears is part of the problem.
The rest of your post kinda dissolved into namecalling and the kind of boasting I expect to read on Stormfront.
(with the exception of the concession on your part in regards to Black colleges admitting anyone who wants to go.)
When see stupidity I call it stupidity. To say that balcks were responsible for the civil rights act being passed or that women were responsible for womens suufrege being passed in illogical. Neither could have happened since neither group had the abillity to get laws passed prior to them being passed. How many Blacks were in congress or the senate in 1963? Yes blacks marched, and protested and made thier voices heard. But it was whites who wrote the bills, debated the bills, and voted on the bills that became those laws. It was becasue the majority of americans supported such legislation, despite the issues with desegregation in the south, that the legislators then passed said laws. Blacks couldn't have becasue they weren't legislators. Theyw eren't and still aren't a big enough percentage of the population to force recalcitrant legislators to do so, and couldn't vote for them in anycase. It was precisely becasue the vast majority of Americnas disagreed with segregation that it was changed.
To suggest anything else is to show an ignorance of history, and government so vast as to be incomprehensible.
I will have to provde the educational statistics tomorrow as I do not have them in front of me my field is economics not education. However I will point out that one of the reasons for the substansial increase in Balck incomes was the increase in black graduates at both the pre and post doctorate level.
but he is seemingly coming from a genuinely confused and questioning place...
t:
