To combat racism, try reviving the black family

[meltzerboy2]

The benefit to be gained by having strong intact Black families is that people who come from these families will generally have the determination and drive for success DESPITE the racism surrounding them. Single-parent families can also provide this motivation to their children. But being from such a family will not in itself do much to end the racist attitudes and behaviors that are EXTERNAL to the family.

 

[Elizabeth3]

I don’t see how. Racism was at its worst in the past in many places in the world when families were strongest. There’s a difference between saying something is positive and good and should be pursued for those reasons and saying that that thing resolves racism. Families and cultures, in fact, are the very places where racism is taught/acquired/modelled/absorbed, so I don’t see how simply having strong families helps end racism.

I think it’s being assumed that what Esolen means when he says “to combat racism” that he is trying to make an argument for how to end racist attitudes and behaviors. He’s not looking at the issue from that angle. The issues of poverty, violence, and the breakdown of the black family are not primarily caused by racism. When racism was at it’s worst, the black family was very strong as it was in all communities. In the comments to his article, he states, “In 1900, the out of wedlock birth rate among blacks was less than 10 percent. In 1950, it was at ten percent, tracking that of whites. ALMOST ALL BLACK CHILDREN GREW UP WITH A MARRIED MOTHER AND FATHER, and blacks were entering the middle class, more slowly than whites were, but it was happening.”

With the breakdown of the family mostly due to the effects of the sexual revolution, blacks who were generally poorer than whites (caused by past and at the time current racial injustice) but on their way into the middle class, were disproportionately negatively affected by it along with all the poor from any community. So if racism is a factor in contributing to the poverty of the black community which leads to higher crime and poorer outcomes overall even moreso is the breakdown of the family across the board. His assertion is that the effects of racism are mitigated when you have strong black families and communities because the “Great Moral Apostacy” as he puts it, contributes to poverty and all the problems that it entails to a greater degree than racism does in our current culture.

The angle he’s approaching the issue from, and maybe should have been made clearer in his title, is about combating the effects of racism. Strong black families and communities, which are only possible in the context of a strong sexual morality held by all or at least the vast majority of society, goes a long way towards nurturing more opportunities and protecting against adverse outcomes.

 

[Freddy]

Way to go …inferring something I did not say.

I’m sorry, you must have forgotten what you actually did say:

How is ensuring stable black families going to counter racism?

Perhaps because stable families produce well adjusted educated kids ?

 

[antunesaa]

Part 1 of 2

Sorry, I had to go to sleep. To this,

they will once again, because there is no minimum wage requirement, be working for the least amount of money that the employer is willing to pay

I reply that under a reasonably working economy there is no such possibility.

You know, if a given job yields a net revenue of, say, 11 dollars per hour to employer X, then he can’t just cut offers indefinitely. Using the example above, he can offer a wage between 9 and 11 dollars per hour to A and between 9.5 and 11 dollars per hour to B, for maximum net profits of 2 dollars per hour if he employs A and 1.5 dollars per hour if he employs B. Now, two things can happen: either X manages to impede that any other employer enters the market, or he doesn’t. If he does, then, yes, he will surely offer the lowest possible wage, 9 dollars per hour, to A, or 9.5 dollars per hour to B if he prefers to discriminate.

But this is not realistic, and for several reasons. One is free entrepreneurship. Why wouldn’t new employer Y copy whatever employer X is doing and offer a better wage to either A or B? As long as he manages to create a job with a similar yield of 11 dollars per hour (or maybe a bit more or a bit less) he will be able to undermine X’s power to drive down wages while still turning out a profit. For example, if X offered A 9 dollars per hour, which A would accept, X would turn out a profit of 2 dollars per hour. But, of course, Y could come and offer A 9.5 dollars per hour, which A would obviously prefer. In this case, Y would turn out a profit of 1.5 dollars per hour, less than what X wanted but still positive.

A second reason why that race to the bottom is impossible in a market economy is that there is mobility across sectors and locations, of both employers and employees. The value of 9 dollars per hour that A would be willing to work for is in fact a reservation wage: considering all other alternatives, it is the smallest wage that A would accept to take that particular job. Maybe if he had to work in another, more dangerous location we would only accept 10 dollars per hour. Or maybe if he had to work in a smaller, cheaper place he would do the same job for 8.5 dollars per hour. Or maybe he would consider becoming an employer himself after having done that job for a while. The point is that there are alternatives in a well-functioning market economy.

 

[antunesaa]

Part 2 of 2

The two reasons above work by limiting the possibilities of employers exploring employees. The next one just makes jobs more plentiful. With minimum wage laws some jobs that would turn out a profit are not created. For example, suppose that the job we’ve been dealing with is for an attendant at a nice café at a busy corner in some city. It turns out a revenue of 11 dollars per hour to the employer. Opening that job is possible because the employer can make a profit between 0 and 2 dollars per hour (if he pays from 11 down to 9 dollars per hour).

Now suppose that the same employer is considering opening a job at another location in a less busy part of the city. There, he can make a revenue of 9.5 dollars per hour. What will he do? Under a minimum wage of 10 dollars per hour, he will do nothing because he would surely lose money. But without a minimum law he would advertise the job because he knew some people would be willing to work for less than the 9.5 dollars per hour that he would be able to generate.

These are examples but the general point is that a large degree of liberty in setting wages by employers and employees in a well-working market economy has very powerful stabilization properties: neither employers nor employees can force the other party to extremes. Wages also become better signals of the prospects of any given job type, thus providing the incentives for people to seek education and experience in better-paid areas. With a uniform minimum wage across jobs, wages have less signalling power.

My own thought on this changed over the years. A long time ago I fell for the emotional argument: surely a few dollars per hour is too little for making a decent living? As always, emotional arguments are weak. You have to think more carefully on the unintended, long-run consequences of well-meaning policies.

 

[antunesaa]

I don’t understand. Do you mean break up the Amazons of the world?

If they become so powerful that they have a decisive influence on the level of wages for the kind of people they hire, yes. That was common currency in the twenties in the US, when Bell was broken up into the so-called “Baby Bells”. There are more examples. Firms should also be broken up if they manage to control the prices of suppliers. By the way, large companies typically welcome minimum wage laws. This is because they price out of the market competitors that would otherwise employ less efficient workers at a lower wage.

Dominant firms may also be forbidden to buy competing firms. For example, a case can be made that Facebook should not have been allowed to buy WhatsApp, and Google should not have been allowed to buy Youtube. The most important thing, though, is that new firms can always challenge incumbents through innovation and so on. That’s why you need a constant enforcement of competition laws: incumbents always have incentives to stifle competition and they can be successful in certain markets through lobbying, excessive regulations, barriers to entry, and outright corruption.

 

[phaster]

I can tell you that it’s a stable family life and the opportunity to earn a decent wage. Not much else matters. Certainly not religion. Certainly not restrictions on sexual behaviour. Certainly not evangelisation or catechesis.

seems a perversion of religion is what is causing all kinds of problems (not only in the black community)

consider the worshiping of false idols and theologies which has knock on effects that should be considered (BUT sadly 99.999% of the time is not)

since this is a catholic forum consider the story of moses and the 10 commandments,… sadly what has happened is the worshiping of the golden calf

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

Try hard, find God, get rich

The prosperity gospel, a strain of Christian belief that links faith, positive thinking, and material wealth, is finding a foothold in American politics with the rise of President Trump

…“[Trump’s backers] don’t care how he made his money, they don’t care what he does with his money,” said author and journalist Sally Quinn. “They admire him for the fact that he has made all of his money and that he has never given up. He’s brought himself to the top, and somehow if he can do it — it’s like the power of positive thinking — he’s telling them they can do it, too.”

The prosperity gospel gains a foothold in U.S. politics, panel says – Harvard Gazette

NOTE golden calf worship is also a problem in black communities!!!

Too Many Black Churches Preach the Gospel of Greed - NYTimes.com

Preachers of L.A. is a hot mess and I hope it is canceled soon.

First, the show is chock full of bad doctrine. From the spinning rims (in 2013? Really?) to the mansions and pinky rings, these prosperity pastors are wrongly conflating salvation with material wealth and then blaming critics for noticing it, saying

[THE SPIRITUAL LIFE] ‘Preachers of L.A.’ Misses the Point • EBONY

sadly IMHO far too many don’t seem to have an understanding of the big picture,…

Matthew 25:34-36

34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’

perhaps its time for people to focus on BASIC NEEDS vs (the big problems caused by) WANTS

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

 

[JSAD]

okay , i see .
It’s true what you’ve described- by being stable and well adjusted does not necessarily prevent racist incidents from happening.

What i had intended to convey was that , yes a lot of evil does exist in the world. But by sticking to what is true and and working towards that , will help the person and community in the long run.

Being a POC myself , i have seen some opportunities taken away . I used to get riled up. It may happen in the future. But the greatest peace i have got is by surrendering to God and working harder.

Sure I can raise my voice and say racism (and some incidents may not be racism and ts possible i may have misread the situation) but in the long run it will only destroy the peace i have within.

By being good and better, people will be forced to associate with you and that helps in the long run.

It goes for all high achieving people of color… sundhar pichai, barack obama, michael jordan , satya nadella , etc

 

[TheBomb.Com]

“Reviving the black family” What do you mean by this?

 

[MaryT777]

I grew up in a Fatherless home and basically "it sucks.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

“Reviving the black family” What do you mean by this?

Having a stable marriage because being in a fatherless home statiscally has bad results.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Being from a fatherless home is just one of many characteristics that statistically have bad results. Another one is being sickly. Another one is being poor. Another one is getting a poor education. Another one is living in an area with high pollution. Another one is being black or latino. All of these characteristics correlate statistically to a poorer outcome as compared to people who do not have any of these characteristics. But it seems the argument always comes down to things that are the fault of the person suffering the bad outcome and never the fault of the society in which that person lives. To focus on just one of these characteristics to the exclusion of all others seems short-sighted.

As for the “reviving the family” issue, it is reasonable to assume that there is causal feedback connecting many of the characteristics I listed above. For example, if you are sickly, you are more likely to lose your job and become poor. And if you are poor you are less likely to be able to eat healthy meals and so you are more likely to be sickly. And of course a poor education makes it more likely one will end up poor. Even fatherless homes can be seen as causally connected to some of these characteristics. So it is all the more important not to consider fatherless homes in isolation, but as just one of many factors that all affect each other.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

But it seems the argument always comes down to things that are the fault of the person suffering the bad outcome and never the fault of the society in which that person lives. To focus on just one of these characteristics to the exclusion of all others seems short-sighted.

I’m not saying it’s their fault. My views are different then whoever wrote the article.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’m not saying it’s their fault. My views are different then whoever wrote the article.

Understood. But others have implied that sentiment.

 

[blackforest]

So in light of this thread, I had a hypothesis I was pursuing. And sure enough, it’s correct. The break-up of Black American families is every often due to, you guessed it, systemic racism. Caseworker Files - Race And Class In The Child Welfare System | Failure To Protect | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[Welshrabbit]

Same, Mary. One of the reasons I am so resolved to make my marriage work no matter what.

 

[Odilon]

The government (Democrats) instead did the opposite. They weakened the black family unit with government stipends like welfare, Section 8 housing, food stamps and WIC. A Daddy was no longer needed because “Big Daddy” government was there to fill the void. Thanks liberals.

 

[Mister_Friscus]

The History of the black family in America is very important and actually downright shocking, and it all seems to have started changing, like many long-standing plagues on the black community, with the New Deal… the gigantic government program that was supposed to help them but has neutered them instead.

Now, fatherless households have gone up in every race. However, the amount that it’s happened in the black community is shocking.

Fatherless Household Rate

Black
1940: 17%
2010: 73%

In comparison

White
1940: 5%
2010: 29%

Hispanic
1940: 12%
2010: 53%

Why is the black community so much more affected than other races? Such extremely high single-parent rates ensures higher rates of crime and educational failure. Leftists will blame it on “racism” and ignore the statistical realities.

In my opinion the New Deal broke up black nuclear families and married black women to the government. Men aren’t needed if the government will pay your bills. Men pick up on that and then become not needed. There is a lack of encouragement to work on a marriage and stay together. This applies to all races, but the numbers are undeniable that there’s an extreme problem in the black community here. I know with our postmodern woke mainstream culture that is comfortable pointing out evils of whites but shouts down any negative statistics within the black community as “racist”, these discussions rarely truly happen. If acknowledged at all, it’s begrudgingly before continuing with a “but…” and then a long condemning lecture of some sort of systematic racism.

Thus, it spirals into the age old, fundamental difference. Equality of opportunity is not the same as Equality of outcome.

Leftists think if there is a difference in the equality of outcome, it’s because of a racist system and cannot possibly be from the individuals. The correlation is causation. Everyone is relatively equal in their abilities, thus, these differences shouldn’t exist. Successful people are earmarked as greedy, hoarding wealth immorally from others in a malicious way. To marvel at exceptional people is to only perpetuate inequality.

Conservatives think the diversity of cultures ensures that equality of outcome is impossible, and to desire it is racist and immoral in itself, as you’d have to constantly only judge people by their skin color, demeaning their humanity. Also, you’d have to purposefully act against people due to their race to achieve the proper quota. There are exceptional people in the world with talents we can only marvel at.

I, as well as the American Constitution, believe the latter.

I suppose that’s why so many leftists want the thing torn up or entirely changed.

 

[Mister_Friscus]

Obviously you don’t know of the demeaning remarks that can be made to “hick” white folk born out of wedlock. Lower class, impoverished blacks and whites share largely the same struggles. Our media fails us in they usually compare impoverished blacks to suburban middle to upper class whites. It’s purposefully misleading to try to further craft division between the races. Most complaints of systematic or widespread racism is a class issue. The same people who weep for impoverished blacks simply stop their empathy and sympathy there, and don’t feel for impoverished whites. We weep for when a black man is unjustly killed by a specific race of officer, we stop the entire nation, blame that nation, and demand it’s entire culture change… but when a white or hispanic person is unjustly killed, it’s local news… if that. They aren’t worth our time. Their families don’t matter as much as George Floyd’s.

Making up for past racism with racism against whites is a horrible way to go, but that’s what’s happening.

 

[Rubee]

Obviously you don’t know of the demeaning remarks that can be made to “hick” white folk born out of wedlock. Lower class, impoverished blacks and whites share largely the same struggles. Our media fails us in they usually compare impoverished blacks to suburban middle to upper class whites. It’s purposefully misleading to try to further craft division between the races. Most complaints of systematic or widespread racism is a class issue.

Studies done on these things control for socio-economic class. And while I agree that poor people share many common struggles, having to wear a black skin in a White society with that history is going to come with extra hurdles beyond those that being poor already puts in front of you.