How the nuclear family was forced on black families

[Zach]

That makes sense since the author is an avowed Marxist.

https://usefulstooges.com/tag/andray-domise/

 

[Annie]

First the title: How the nuclear family structure was forced upon present-day Black families

Then he goes on to say

the most brutal social structure that Western civilization has managed to force on the present-day Black family—the African family—is the alienating nuclear family structure.

the nuclear family model discourages African-rooted practices such as community fostering, fictive kinship, social fathering and other means by which Black people have counteracted the shearing forces of white supremacy.

And these are concepts that… need to be thrown overboard by the masses as we engage on this rebellious passage.

The author does not seem to be arguing for a nuclear family embedded within the extended family. With his “fictive kinship” and “social fathering,” he seems to be advocating a continuation of the very structures which have hurt the black community so much.

If he had wanted to argue for a nuclear family within an extended family, he could easily have done so.

 

[Cruciferi]

Now, to be fair, these do exist to prevent overcrowded and unsafe conditions.

 

[Cruciferi]

That’s not an issue everywhere

 

[twf]

Did your great-grandfather find himself in danger of lynching if he found himself stuck in a sundown town?

 

[Zach]

The bottom line is with the radical Marxist left if it’s associated with western civilization in anyway it’s racist and harmful, if not evil, and has to be abolished. That’s the key to understand all that their thinking. The rest is a variation on that theme.

 

[Annie]

Those of you who are against government welfare should be for this. Rugged individualism for the individual and for the nuclear family, isn’t enough especially during the difficult times. If you are against government welfare then the help should come from extended family.

Pretty much what conservatives have been advocating…

Anyway, this article echos much of what the OP’s article talks about, in its discussion of BLM.org’s antagonism against the family.

The writer talks about what Friedrich Engles (yep, the Engels of Marx and Engels) wrote about the family.

In reconstructing the origins of the family within a Marxian framework, Engels traces back to the “savage” primeval stage of humanity that, according to his research, revealed a condition in which “unrestricted sexual intercourse existed within a tribe, so that every woman belonged to every man, and vice versa.”

Under such conditions, Engels explained, “it is uncertain who is the father of the child, but certain, who is its mother.” Only female lineage could be acknowledged. “eing the only well known parents of younger generations,” Engels explained, women as mothers “received a high tribute of respect and deference, amounting to a complete women’s rule [gynaicocracy].”

Then “men” got into animal husbandry (!) and…

“Man’s advent to practical supremacy in the household marked the removal to his universal supremacy,” and further ushered in “the gradual transition from the pairing family to the monogamic family” (what we would consider the nuclear family).

With the superior status acquired, Engels wrote, men were able to overthrow the maternal right to inheritance, a move he described as “the historic defeat of the female sex.”

And thus we get to:

In the Marxian view, therefore, the modern nuclear family runs counter to the ancient “communistic” household Engels had earlier described. It is patriarchal and centered on private property.

---

The interesting thing is that when these communal arrangements are tried, they end up falling apart. The children raised in communal child care on the Israeli kibutzes ended up wanting marriage and to raise their children.

 

[Cathoholic]

"Domise, whose writing often touches on . . race and politics, has also been a frequent critic of the Toronto Police"

I think it could be.

It at least is an article rationalizing the horrendous fatherlessness issues in the black community that people like even Barack Obama have decried.

I thought Domise’s reasoning was terrible. (If you want I can provide examples.)

Domise has dealt with his own “patriarchal issues”
and maybe he is attempting to sooth his own conscience in this area?

Toronto journalist and activist Andray Domise charged with domestic assault​

Maclean’s contributor and former Canadaland Commons host Andray Domise is charged with assaulting his former live-in partner on three separate occasions

Sean Craig, Richard Warnica

Publishing date:

Nov 21, 2016 • Last Updated 3 years ago • 3 minute read

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Andray Domise.

One of Toronto media’s nascent stars — a columnist for Maclean’s, the founder of a non-profit that works with at-risk teenagers, and a former political opponent of Rob Ford — has been arrested and charged with three counts of assault on a former domestic partner.

Andray Domise, 36, is scheduled to appear in Ontario Superior Court on November 25. He was arrested in February and charged with assaulting his former live in partner on three separate occasions between March and September 2015, including alleged incidents where he choked and shoved her. . . .

Domise said he has spoken to Maclean’s about the charges. A spokesperson for Rogers, the parent company of Maclean’s, said the company became aware of the charges earlier this month, and that Domise will not be contributing to the magazine or its website this week.

“Andray Domise is a freelance writer,” said Andrea Goldstein, senior director of communications at Rogers Media. . .

Domise also faces a mischief charge for allegedly damaging his former partner’s phone. He told the Post he either grabbed or slapped the phone out of his former partner’s hands during an argument in 2015.

“I’ll admit that wasn’t the way to deal with it,” he said. “But I wasn’t thinking rationally or logically. All I could think was get this phone out of my face and stop tormenting me.”

Domise said he suffered from severe anxiety and depression during the relationship, and was hospitalized last fall after a suicide attempt. . . .

. . . Domise, whose writing often touches on the intersections between race and politics, has also been a frequent critic of the Toronto Police.

Toronto journalist and activist Andray Domise charged with domestic assault

Maclean's contributor and former Canadaland Commons host Andray Domise is charged with assaulting his former live-in partner on three separate occasions

nationalpost.com

Domise pleaded the charges down apparently . . .

Assault charges against Andray Domise withdrawn​

By Jesse Winter

. . . Domise plead guilty on Monday to one count of mischief for damaging the cell phone of former girlfriend . . .

Assault charges against Andray Domise withdrawn

Toronto columnist and activist given a conditional discharge for mischief.

www.thestar.com

 

[Neithan]

Thanks for the research. It’s disturbing how Marxism is wedging itself back into the mainstream, and these activist-journalists are savvy enough to fool a lot of people, including Catholics. The traditional family is a serious problem for these political ideologues. This is not a critique of isolated nuclear families, I don’t see that anywhere in the article, because who defends that? It’s an attempt to exculpate men from family responsibility, rationalized by “racial injustice” and idealized historical revisionism.

 

[josie_L]

The nuclear family wasn’t forced unto anyone it was in effect created by God when He made Eve for Adam.

Trinitarian Life of the Family

God is one, but He is not alone or solitary. God is a communion of Persons. He is the Most Holy Trinity, an eternal communion of three divine Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is the central mystery of the Christian faith. (CCC 261) St. Patrick converted Ireland with the...

catholicexchange.com

 

[josie_L]

It’s because it is connected to Christianity.

 

[Motherwit]

The nuclear family wasn’t forced unto anyone it was in effect created by God when He made Eve for Adam.

Trinitarian Life of the Family

The first people were identified by tribes. The modern word ‘nuclear’ family was first used in 1949 in “Social Structure,” by American anthropologist G.P. Murdock. It identified a core cell of the wider tribe. It’s come to replace tribe identity to our detriment in my opinion. One should sustain the other. I further think that the value of the wider village identity has dissipated with rejection of the ‘common good’ and elevating the principle of the individual competing for individual dominance with those around him/her. I’ve heard the common good even just yesterday on the forum, referred to as a socialist principle. There is a very unnatural sense in the modern west that those who succeed are divinely elected to succeed and those who stuggle with survival bring it all on themselves and don’t deserve to be helped. So very non Christian.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Did your great-grandfather find himself in danger of lynching if he found himself stuck in a sundown town?

No. But his kind got lynched in Tennessee, (and not only in Tennessee) which is one of the reasons he kept moving on to Kansas.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Kind of interesting. We’re told by the cognoscenti that “tribalism” is “racism” and one of the greatest of all evils. On the other hand, since they also hate the family, we’re told that only tribalism is a good human relationship arrangement.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The nuclear family wasn’t forced unto anyone it was in effect created by God when He made Eve for Adam.

“Nuclear family” as used in this thread refers to the uniquely American model of the nuclear family that is self-sufficient and independent of the community in which is lives. God did not ordain that when he created Adam and Eve. As I pointed out early, the Holy Family was not even that, for when Mary and Joseph were returning from Jerusalem and Jesus was left behind in the temple, they traveled for three days, unconcerned that Jesus was not with them, assuming that he was being taken care of by the community/extended family in which they traveled. Can you imagine an American family doing that?

 

[Annie]

they traveled for three days, unconcerned that Jesus was not with them, assuming that he was being taken care of by the community/extended family in which they traveled.

The Bible says He was lost for three days. I always imagined they set off early in the morning, found He was not with them that evening, travelled back to Jerusalem the next day, and found Him on the third day…

And if you look at the parallels between what this Marxist writer wrote and what Engels wrote, then what he is saying, which doesn’t really make a lot of sense out of that context, is definitely the Communist idea that children should be raised by others. Notice that the author does not make a plea for the extended family.

Note too, that the village/extended family argument would apply to all people, not just black people.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The Bible says He was lost for three days. I always imagined they set off early in the morning, found He was not with them that evening, travelled back to Jerusalem the next day, and found Him on the third day…

An American nuclear family would not have left Jerusalem in the first place without confirming that their son was with them.

But you are right about their returning after only one day, not 3 days as I had said.

is definitely the Communist idea that children should be raised by others.

An idea not bad just because it is shared by Communists. But in this case the Communist idea is different because it advocates taking the children away from their parents, whereas the extended family/village model promotes close relatives helping out, but not replacing, the parents.

Note too, that the village/extended family argument would apply to all people, not just black people.

Yes, as I said before, white people are also poorer for their choice of embracing the exclusively nuclear option.

 

[Annie]

An idea not bad just because it is shared by Communists. But in this case the Communist idea is different because it advocates taking the children away from their parents, whereas the extended family/village model promotes close relatives helping out, but not replacing, the parents.

So we have 2 scenarios.

Sure, it’s great when children can be raised in extended families/villages/neighborhoods. There are huge advantages to that.

Then there is the Communist model, which may not involve, especially at the beginning, taking the children from their parents altogether, but simply raising them in a communal fashion, like the kibutzes.

The problem I see with this article is that to one ignorant of the Marxist ideas set forth by Engels, aside from being very hazy around the edges, the article appears to be rather benign. Yeah, sure, it would be great if children could be raised in situations with lots of loving adults supporting their parents.

However, for those minimally familiar with Engels’ ideas, the intent of the article becomes clear. Lull the people into accepting certain ideas and pull the bait-and-switch later.

And this is what I have seen happening my entire life: Marxism sending tentacles through movements which sound good, gradually re-forming the messages of those groups, indebting the members of those groups to Marxist movements, rendering the Left Marxist by calling in those debts, as what happened to JK Rowling, who is rich and independent enough not to worry, but served as a warning to many who are not in her position.

This is why it is really important to clarify terms and examine each individual aspect of what we are supporting. Do I really believe this, or am I supporting it because I fear what will happen if I do not, because those who do support that idea have helped those who support my ideas in the past, because they have made a false link between this issue and that, because I thought they meant something else?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

However, for those minimally familiar with Engels’ ideas, the intent of the article becomes clear. Lull the people into accepting certain ideas and pull the bait-and-switch later.

Not every slope is slippery. Sometimes slopes have well-maintained stairways on which one may move to whatever level they want. It is mistake to assume that every slope is slippery.

 

[Annie]

Not every slope is slippery. Sometimes slopes have well-maintained stairways on which one may move to whatever level they want. It is mistake to assume that every slope is slippery.

The entire point of progressivism is, well, progress. Change, movement. Those who base their thinking on a continual evolution do not have stairways, only slippery slopes. We are all being nudged.