That's pretty much the default position for Americans theses days. The so-called Great Sorting lets most people ignore the facts they don't like.
I mean you can see how heroin and opoid drug abuse is treated vs crack cocaine and to a lesser extent marijuana in the past.
So the demise of the white middle class is due to the higher divorce rate and single parent homes because that has increased since the 50s. It's very easy to have a world view when the same narratives are pushed. Especially when then why is that the case is never asked.
If it is necessary to clarify, what I'm saying is that certain objective factors about black families are demonstrably worse. Not that blacks are worse off today in every way. But its telling that you refuse to accept the possibility that welfare can be a net negative. Do you leave open the possibility that both welfare and racism have had significant and negative effects on black society? So everyone who disagrees with you is "fabricating," and in bad faith, eh? You'd fit in great as a wsj.com commentator.
Jesus saves, which means, my salvation isn't dependent on how many of you I bring to the Lord. So basically, y'all can all go to Hell for all I care
At one point or another you've pretty much told us all individually and collectively that we could die in a fire, so I don't think this is much of a surprise.
And yet, I am more than willing to bring y'all to the Lord so He can heal your heathen souls and not have to be chained by the bonds of organized religion.
Sentencing in powder cocaine vs. crack especially. I guess you saw that meme too, about the decline of America because we "gave up" on corporal punishment for school discipline and made everything so expensive that women had to go to work and not spend time educating and loving their children... Like I said, there is a cottage industry where these narratives are pushed out by certain media personalities, literally new books every 6 months on some symptom treated as a cause. It's not. I don't think you know what an objective factor is. Having been on "welfare" for about 9 months after the death of a parent, no, there is no negative effect to keeping people from being homeless and having a subsistence level of food and in some circumstance, keep the utilities on. There is a huge negative effect on communities and the local economy with people being hungry to the point of malnourishment, homeless or near homeless, couch hopping from one place to another and living in unsanitary or unsafe dwellings. If there is a net negative for "welfare", it's using legislation to depress hours & wages to allow corporations to have their employee wage gap made up by the state welfare budget. Absolutely not. Just the ones who push false narratives and blame those who continue to be on the business end of racism in America. I avoid the comments sections, it's where the sewage settles. It seems you swim there.
You should try and improve your writing to get your point across more concisely. It takes you 5 sentences to respond to every 1 sentence of mine. You still fail to account for how various groups have been able to outperform whites on many levels despite institutionalized racism against them. Chinese and Japanese in particular. And there is no evidence that the vast majority of those immigrants came here already wealthy--which was someone else's silly argument. And I haven't even started discussing jewish success. But I will leave you with a more eloquent statement on the topic than anyone I can make from the recent conversation between Sam Harris and Dr. Glen C. Loury: "If that’s what you mean by structural racism, which is to say, every racial disparity is almost by definition a consequence of racism, either because it reflects contempt for the value of black life, and the neglect of the development of black people, or because to the extent that it is a consequence of choices that black people are making themselves, they are making such choices only because of the despair, the neglect, the lack of opportunity, etc., that they have experienced, then it seems to me that that’s a kind of tautology that says, “Any disparity by race is, by definition, a reflection of structural racism.” That’s a tautology that, as a social scientist, I don’t want to embrace. And as an African-American, I’m profoundly skeptical of it because at some level, it seems to me, it kind of surrenders the possibility of African-American agency, saying that everything that is of a negative character, that is a reflection of inequality, of disparity, in which blacks are on the short end of everything, is a consequence of this history. How is it that blacks are unable to make our own lives notwithstanding whatever the history may have been? Are there not variations and differentiations within the black population that one could identify and extol the virtue of—certain patterns of behavior and reactions to environmental conditions that seem to be effective and more life-affirming, more successful, than others? I don’t like structural racism because it’s imprecise, because it’s a kind of dead end. It leaves us, I mean African-Americans, dependent upon a kind of dispensation to be bestowed by powerful whites, who actually are moral agents, who actually do have the ability to choose or not various ways of life, including responding affirmatively to our demands for redress of our subordination."
My parents and almost everyone they know from Asia say otherwise. Close to 100% of the Chinese who came to the US between 1945 and 1980 were middle-class or wealthier, had bachelor's degrees, and were in the top 3% of their college classes. In fact, Taiwanese were not allowed to leave the country unless they were in the top 3% of their college classes or had family abroad.
Wow, thanks for asking everyone your parents know about this on such short notice. And nearly 100% of them agree with you? How stupendous. And tell me about the exchange rate from Maoist cash to American dollars? Also, tell me more about the wealthy upper classes in Maoist China who moved to America with Harvard ready student children. If you were Taiwanese or from Hong Kong it might be possible, but those groups make up a small percentage of overall Chinese population.
People like this are generally the least capable of being reached, Warmth. You can see that no one else's effort here has made a dent in his ideology. It's not good mental exercise for me to address certain levels of ignorance, so I made it a policy a few years ago to either mock or ignore pretty much everything they type. What really should be happening here is he should have nobody to interact with --on any topic-- but politically like-minded souls. But, as in P&CE, y'all are pretty much slathering Suave on his vienna by engaging him.
It in fact was FHA and VA policy after World War II to steer white borrowers to some neighborhoods and black borrowers to others. Black borrowers literally could not get mortgages to buy houses in some neighborhoods.
There was essentially no immigration from mainland China to the US from 1949 until 1977. Chinese immigration to the US was entirely from Taiwan and Hong Kong during that time as it was virtually impossible to leave the People's Republic of China until it lifted its near-total emigration ban in 1978. Need evidence? Look at how the last names of highly successful Chinese-Americans are spelled. Very few use the Pinyin system.
To further demonstrate where Chinese immigration between 1949 and 1977 was coming from: in the "politics and government" section of Wikipedia's list of prominent Chinese-Americans, there are more than 30 names of people whose families arrived from Taiwan or Hong Kong in the years 1949-77, and exactly two whose families arrived from the People's Republic of China in those years. Also, the claim that immigrants could not have been well-off in Asia because they wouldn't have immigrated if they were misses the mark. Most of the East Asians who came as students did not intend to immigrate when they arrived. The vast majority of those who stayed in the US had originally planned to get their postgraduate degrees and go straight back to their home countries, but changed their minds after arriving for various reasons.
So you're saying Black Americans should move/be moved to a distinct geographic region of the country, and given semi-autonomous-to-de facto full autonomy and full control over their own regional civic and economic institutions? Because that's how make your analogy work.