Racial income divide widens in US - report
06 July 2006

NEW YORK: African-Americans' share of US national income has narrowed in recent years as a weak job market helped pull back earlier strides, according to a report published on Wednesday.

A black family's median income was 62 per cent of the earnings of their white counterparts, down from 63.5 per cent in 2000, the Economic Policy Institute said.

"The racial gap widened by 2004 as a result of the recession and the jobless recovery that followed," said Jared Bernstein, economist at the Washington think-tank.

Unemployment helped erase the progress that had been made since 1995, when the level was closer to 61 per cent. Had the jobless rate remained at 4 per cent, as it was in 2000, the share of black incomes would have risen to 63.9 per cent of whites'.

"That 1.9 percentage point difference translates to an income loss for the typical black family of over $US1,000 in 2004 alone," the report said.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3723295a12,00.html

Historically, black people have been shut out of high-income jobs, as you know.

What does that have to do with today?

Don't you know?

Think about it. If your parents had low-income jobs, they could not afford to buy their own house and were forced to spend their income on rent rather than your education. You, in turn, get a low income job and cannot afford a house.

But things are even worse than that, since in the recent past even if black people got enough money together to buy a house, they were often not allowed to move into good neighbourhoods. That meant that the appreciation on the value of their houses was much less than that of the average white home owner.

Note that for most Americans, the major part of their personal wealth is tied up in their homes. The appreciation of that wealth, and the ability to pass on its benefits to their children, has huge impacts on the present.

It is a shame you never took the time to find this out for yourself.

James, things for blacks are getting worse.

No, I don't think so.

Against the celebratory backdrop of the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1954 ruling in Brown versus Board of Education, a new labor market study finds that many of the nation’s African-American men face growing joblessness and year-round idleness problems.

http://www.nupr.neu.edu/7-04/unemployment.shtml

So, what do you think should be done about this, D'ster?

Nothing

This was where Affirmative Discrimination came from. It is not invalid to argue that poverty has a powerful self regenerating force. It was proper to do everything we could to get disadvantaged kids of any color into school, keep them there regardless of their parents' lack of ability (or motivation) to do so, and stomp out the roots of racism so that when they got out of school they'd have as fair a chance at a good life as anyone else. Yes, including the inculcation of self esteem and all that touchy-feely stuff. But that required more effort than we were willing to expend, more cleverness than we were able to muster, and perhaps more purity of heart than we all had. So to make up for it we just decided to give them preferential treatment that they had "earned" through a pitiful history rather than personal achievement and qualification.

Without remembering the rule, "You can never do just one thing."

It is very clear today what limitations blacks have in a civilized socity.

Feeling sorry for blacks is not helping.

Nothing

Interesting. Then why are you so keen to discuss it? You obviously have nothing useful to offer.

racism is the answer, james.

read his other posts!! one racist ad hom after another.

Interesting. Then why are you so keen to discuss it? You obviously have nothing useful to offer.
Just more facts that shows that a high percent of blacks do not want to work.

In a country where education is so expensive poverty is self-regenerating, perhaps....but here in this country we see the same thing. Anyone can apply to have their fees paid and here if you are poor or from a broken home you will get grants and bigger loans than someone whose parents can afford it....and yet the same thing happens....therefore, that excuse is invalid. It doesn't matter whether your parents are poor, just whether you wish to learn or not.

In black culture it simply isn't cool to learn, in fact it's cool to be ignorant....to be a "playa" or a "pimp" and wear lots of big colourful clothes and have lots of "hoes" (for reference see africa) which naturally leads to low paying jobs and poverty. Coupled with social irresponsibility, which leads to teenage pregnancy, too many kids to feed....well, it's not hard to see.

Time and time again the only thing black people can do is blame the white man for their problems.

well, since the media that spoonfeeds them their trends is predominantly white owned, it isnt difficult to see why they blame whitey.

that isnt to say that their decisions arent their own responsibility, but it IS a good indicator of why they would be predisposed toward that particular opinion.

D'ster:

Just more facts that shows that a high percent of blacks do not want to work.

Nobody is really interested in your version of "fact".

well, since the media that spoonfeeds them their trends is predominantly white owned, it isnt difficult to see why they blame whitey.

No one spoonfeeds them that shit. It comes direct from within their own society. Do you seriously think people in the "ghetto" are influenced into buying shit by the media like middle class white kids are? Everything black youths aspire to started in the "ghetto", or came across from africa in their blood.

You don't have to look far to see where "Bling" and "hoes" comes from. Just look at african tribal society...."big chiefs" and trading women for cattle....same thing.

The only thing that is unclear is whether they butcher african languages like they do with English.

wrong. it appears as if you are stuck in the 1800's.

wow. read ANY of these, and catch up to the rest of us:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=personality%20disorders%20as%20a%20resul t%20of%20race&hl=en&lr=&oi=scholart

In black culture it simply isn't cool to learn, in fact it's cool to be ignorant....to be a "playa" or a "pimp" and wear lots of big colourful clothes and have lots of "hoes" (for reference see africa) which naturally leads to low paying jobs and poverty. Coupled with social irresponsibility, which leads to teenage pregnancy, too many kids to feed....well, it's not hard to see.
Do you think it's a black thing or a poor thing? I think it's a poor thing. I also think you're a fool if you disagree.

Here: read about poverty cycles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_poverty).

Like I said....I think it's both.

Do you think it's a black thing or a poor thing? I think it's a poor thing. I also think you're a fool if you disagree.

Here: read about poverty cycles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_poverty).


Its definitely a socioeconomic and education thing; all "statistics" I've seen so far have not been corrected for social differences and are hence completely meaningless.

Gee, what makes more sence?

People who are poor will get lower IQ's

or

People who have Lower IQ's will be poor?

Gee, what makes more sence?

People who are poor will get lower IQ's

or

People who have Lower IQ's will be poor?

People who are poor will be more likely to have poor prenatal environments, affecting neural development; they are more likely to have have poor post-natal nutrition, affecting learning abilities, memory and neural plasticity; they are more likely to have poor childhood nutrition, less chances of a good education, poor role models, lower self esteem and a greater probability of drug/alcohol addiction. Hence poverty is a very strong confounding factor in estimation of IQ, which ( for the umpteenth time) only correlates with school scores but has no correlation with personality, creativity or earning power.

Look,
Blacks have been on the planet a hell of alot longer then any other race of people.

Are blacks the most advance people on earth, or the most primitive?

The "missing link", is not missing.

Look,
Blacks have been on the planet a hell of alot longer then any other race of people.

Are blacks the most advance people on earth, or the most primitive?

The "missing link", is not missing.

How many educated blacks do you know? I've worked with some very smart, very intelligent surgeons who were, incidentally, also black.

There are more whites on welfare than blacks...just thought i'd throw that out there...

There are more whites on welfare than blacks...just thought i'd throw that out there...Ya, you are just throwing "that out there".

Got a link?

How many educated blacks do you know? I've worked with some very smart, very intelligent surgeons who were, incidentally, also black.
I know two.

How many do you know?

I know two.

How many do you know?

I've worked with a lot more than two.

I've worked with a lot more than two.
OOO, I have worked with thousands of blacks.

But you asked:

"How many educated blacks do you know"?

OOO, I have worked with thousands of blacks.

But you asked:

"How many educated blacks do you know"?

And I have worked with a lot of educated blacks, I have black friends who are surgeons, scientists, graduate students, professors and post-doctoral researchers.

They are no different in intelligence from the rest of their colleagues.

It is a fallacy to impose your prejudices on other people and consistently refrain from examining your own motives closely.

Ya, you are just throwing "that out there".

Got a link?
D'ster,
I was going to call you an idiot since I, like most college educated people, was taught that tidbit about most people on welfare being white. I mean, it makes sense since blacks constitute only 12% of the population while whites constitute 75% that the absolute number of whites would be higher. I also thought I'd throw in prison populations to really drive the point home. So I did a quick google seach which showed:
It used to be that we didn't have to do much to smash the racist stereotype about welfare. After listening to some know-it-all drone on about Cadillacs and welfare queens, all we had to do was point out that--uh, incidently, most people on welfare were white, and that would usually shut them up. These days, that dog don't hunt. Bill Clinton's welfare "reform" of 1996 converted one of the great lies about welfare into a true fact: that most recipients are people of color .http://www.arc.org/C_Lines/CLArchive/story3_3_04.html

But ever since Clinton ended "welfare as we know it," whites have been leaving the welfare rolls (by 1998 they were less than one-third of participants)
So then I checked for prison populations:
44 percent were black, 35 percent white, 19 percent Hispanic and 2 percent of other races.http://crime.about.com/od/prison/a/blbjs041107.htm
WOW. By the way, this was the only reference I could find that quoted any figures. Even this one didn't specifically list the number or percentage of blacks on welfare. It seems the liberal media doesn't want this myth busted.

For once, D'ster, you're right. :D

For once, D'ster, you're right. :DFor once, madanthonywayne , you're wrong. :D

D'ster:

Gee, what makes more sence?

People who are poor will get lower IQ's

or

People who have Lower IQ's will be poor?

Why do you think there's any connection at all?

I guess you haven't met any dumb, rich people.

madanthonywayne:

Has it occurred to you that more black people need to be on welfare? Why do you suppose that might be?

And prison populations...

44 percent were black, 35 percent white, 19 percent Hispanic and 2 percent of other races.

What does this tell you? Have you thought about it just a little? No. Of course not.

What it tells you is that when black people are charged with crimes, they more often get custodial sentences. Then, there are the disparities in policing of black and white people. (Can you say "racial profiling"?)

It seems the liberal media doesn't want this myth busted.

It's obviously too much to ask conservatives to think.

How well are black people living in areas that have no white people to blame?

madanthonywayne:
Has it occurred to you that more black people need to be on welfare? Why do you suppose that might be?
They're lazy? No, that can't be it. I know. It must be the socioeconomic and cultural disadvantages a person of color living in a racist country faces. It certainly couldn't be their fault, to even suggest it was would be racist.

What does this tell you? Have you thought about it just a little? No. Of course not.

What it tells you is that when black people are charged with crimes, they more often get custodial sentences. Then, there are the disparities in policing of black and white people. (Can you say "racial profiling"?)
Must you always be so condescending? You always assume those with an opinion different than yours are unthinking dolts. Did you read my original post? I was trying to show that D'ster was wrong in his "racist" assumptions, but my research showed he was right.

As to the rest of your statement, is it possible that black culture with 2/3 of children born out of wedlock, is in crisis? Is it possible that blacks DO commit more crimes?

Do you live in an area with many african americans? I was born in Gary, IN. My grandfather lived there, my father was born and raised there. From birth to about first grade it was a great place to live. Then a housing project was put up behind my house, and I had a knife pulled on me in second grade. My family moved out when I was in third grade. Go to Gary now, and you take your life in your hands. It's usually the murder capital of the world, or at least the country. Even driving through Gary is dangerous. My father was almost car jacked once, and I and a couple friends was ambushed by two carloads of hooligans.

The point is not that all blacks are criminals. Clearly they're not. I know many black doctors, lawyers, etc. But to say that the high incarceration rate among blacks is just due to racism is absurd. Like it or not, blacks {on average} commit more crimes than whites.

madanthonywayne:

They're lazy? No, that can't be it. I know. It must be the socioeconomic and cultural disadvantages a person of color living in a racist country faces. It certainly couldn't be their fault, to even suggest it was would be racist.

Poverty cycles have been discussed on this forum before. That is certainly part of the equation. The fact is: crime is worse in poor areas than in rich areas. What does that tell you?

Must you always be so condescending? You always assume those with an opinion different than yours are unthinking dolts.

Sadly, many of them turn out to be just that, as becomes clear after only a few posts.

Did you read my original post? I was trying to show that D'ster was wrong in his "racist" assumptions, but my research showed he was right.

I responded to your original post, didn't I?

As to the rest of your statement, is it possible that black culture with 2/3 of children born out of wedlock, is in crisis? Is it possible that blacks DO commit more crimes?

Is wedlock so important? Do you think it is a sign of low moral fibre if children are born out of wedlock? Or what?

Do you live in an area with many african americans?

I live in Australia, which I think helps gives me a slightly more objective view of things in America.

I was born in Gary, IN. My grandfather lived there, my father was born and raised there. From birth to about first grade it was a great place to live. Then a housing project was put up behind my house, and I had a knife pulled on me in second grade. My family moved out when I was in third grade. Go to Gary now, and you take your life in your hands. It's usually the murder capital of the world, or at least the country. Even driving through Gary is dangerous. My father was almost car jacked once, and I and a couple friends was ambushed by two carloads of hooligans.

What's the average economic position of residents of Gary? I'm guessing they're not rich.

The point is not that all blacks are criminals. Clearly they're not. I know many black doctors, lawyers, etc. But to say that the high incarceration rate among blacks is just due to racism is absurd. Like it or not, blacks {on average} commit more crimes than whites.

I agree that the high incarceration rate of black people is not solely due to racism. But racism is a relevant factor.

It may even be true that black people commit more crimes, per capita, than white people in the United States. But is that due to something innate, or is it a result of the social and economic circumstances they find themselves in? Now consider how and why those circumstances developed in the first place...

madanthonywayne:
[QUOTE]
Poverty cycles have been discussed on this forum before. That is certainly part of the equation. The fact is: crime is worse in poor areas than in rich areas. What does that tell you?
I'll tell you this, should you ever visit the US, beware black areas. I've been to many poor white/black parts of the country. In poor "white trash" areas I feel no fear whatsoever. People leave their doors unlocked. Quite the contrary in poor black areas. When there's a shooting at a white school, Columbine for instance, it's national or world news. A shooting at a black school? Rarely even makes the news.

Sadly, many of them turn out to be just that, as becomes clear after only a few posts.
Present company excluded, of course. :D

Is wedlock so important? Do you think it is a sign of low moral fibre if children are born out of wedlock? Or what?
Not a sign, the cause. Human civilization is based on the family unit. Destroy that, and you destroy everything.

I live in Australia, which I think helps gives me a slightly more objective view of things in America.
Objective, perhaps. But sometimes distance makes it difficult to resolve the details.

What's the average economic position of residents of Gary? I'm guessing they're not rich.
Indeed not. But they used to be a lot richer.

I agree that the high incarceration rate of black people is not solely due to racism. But racism is a relevant factor.
Perhaps, but why can an illegal immigrant who doesn't even speak English come to this country and succeed while someone born here is trapped in a "cycle of poverty"?
It may even be true that black people commit more crimes, per capita, than white people in the United States. But is that due to something innate, or is it a result of the social and economic circumstances they find themselves in? Now consider how and why those circumstances developed in the first place...
I believe the black subculture to be holding them back. Many blacks consider getting good grades or achieving to be "acting white". Work within the system and you're an "Uncle Tom". Even Condi Rice is belittled constantly for not toeing the liberal line.

madanthonywayne:

I'll tell you this, should you ever visit the US, beware black areas. I've been to many poor white/black parts of the country. In poor "white trash" areas I feel no fear whatsoever.

Let me guess. You're white, right?

When there's a shooting at a white school, Columbine for instance, it's national or world news. A shooting at a black school? Rarely even makes the news.

Does this tell us something about the shootings, or more about the media? I wonder...

Not a sign, the cause. Human civilization is based on the family unit. Destroy that, and you destroy everything.

Do you think marriage is required for family life?

Perhaps, but why can an illegal immigrant who doesn't even speak English come to this country and succeed while someone born here is trapped in a "cycle of poverty"?

The same reason somebody born into riches can sometimes lose their money and sink into poverty. A bit of good or bad luck, being in the right or wrong place at the right or wrong time, hard work or lack thereof, etc. etc.

Some people escape from the poverty cycle. There are many examples, black and white. But it's hard.

I believe the black subculture to be holding them back.

Black subculture, or a culture of laziness?

There are plenty of lazy people in the world. Some are black; some are white. This isn't about skin colour.

Many blacks consider getting good grades or achieving to be "acting white".

And many do not.

There are many successful black Americans. There is no lack of talent there.

This isn't about skin colour.

unfortunately, it is. but not for the reason of debate. for the reason that some posters use this forum to push agendas on people.

James R....what colour is your skin?

Has it occurred to you that more black people need to be on welfare? Why do you suppose that might be?
Is wedlock so important? Do you think it is a sign of low moral fibre if children are born out of wedlock? Or what?
Will you listen to a black man?

Illegitimacy among blacks today is 70 percent. Only 41 percent of black males 15 years and older are married, and only 36 percent of black children live in two-parent families. These and other indicators of family instability and its accompanying socioeconomic factors such as high crime, welfare dependency and poor educational achievement is claimed to be the legacy and vestiges of slavery, for which black Americans are due reparations. Let's look at it.

In 1940, illegitimacy among blacks was 19 percent. From 1890 to 1940, blacks had a marriage rate slightly higher than whites. As of 1950, 64 percent black males 15 years and older were married, compared to today's 41 percent.

In Philadelphia, in 1880, two-parent family structure was: black (75.2 percent), Irish (82.2 percent), German (84.5 percent) and native white Americans (73.1 percent). In other large cities such as Detroit, New York and Cleveland, we find roughly the same numbers.

According to one study of black families (Herbert G. Gutman, "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925"), "Five out of six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents."

That study also found that, in Harlem between 1905 and 1925, only 3 percent of all families were headed by a woman under 30 and 85 percent of black children lived in two-parent families.

The question raised by these historical facts is: If what we see today in many black neighborhoods, as claimed by reparation advocates, are the vestiges and legacies of slavery, how come that social pathology wasn't much worse when blacks were just two or three generations out of slavery? Might it be that slavery's legacy and vestiges have a way, like diabetes, of skipping generations? In other words, for example, that devastating 70 percent rate of black illegitimacy simply skipped six generations -- it's a delayed effect of slavery.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams061301.asp


What it tells you is that when black people are charged with crimes, they more often get custodial sentences. Then, there are the disparities in policing of black and white people. (Can you say "racial profiling"?)
James can you please see blacks as humans and blame them for there own actions?

Your pity for blacks is not helping.

Will you listen to a black man?
Who's To Blame?

Racial discrimination has nothing to do with what's no less than an education meltdown within the black community. Where black education is the very worst, often the city mayor is black, city council dominated by blacks, and often the school superintendent is black, as well as most of the principals and teachers, and Democrats have run the cities for decades. I'm not saying there's a causal connection, just that one would be hard put to chalk up the rotten education to racial discrimination.

No one can solve the educational problems that black people confront except black people themselves.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams070506.asp

Will you listen to a black man?

You're black?

Anyway, good post, I was about to make the same point.

G. F. Schleebenhorst:

James R....what colour is your skin?

Why does that matter?

D'ster:

I see that once again you choose to dishonestly mangle statistics or, more accurately, copy somebody else's mangled statistics.

Will you listen to a black man?

Yes. Why not?

Illegitimacy among blacks today is 70 percent. Only 41 percent of black males 15 years and older are married, and only 36 percent of black children live in two-parent families.

15 years and older? What proportion of all people, black and white, between the ages of say 15 and 22 in the United States are married? Your statistic is dishonest.

And how does the 36 percent compare with the general US population, including white people?

Your stats say as much by what they deliberately don't reveal as what they do reveal.

In 1940, illegitimacy among blacks was 19 percent. From 1890 to 1940, blacks had a marriage rate slightly higher than whites. As of 1950, 64 percent black males 15 years and older were married, compared to today's 41 percent.

And the equivalent statistics for white people?

James can you please see blacks as humans and blame them for there own actions?

Sure. But they aren't to blame for things beyond their control.

Your pity for blacks is not helping.

Your dishonesty and prejudice is not helping.

Racial discrimination has nothing to do with what's no less than an education meltdown within the black community. Where black education is the very worst, often the city mayor is black, city council dominated by blacks, and often the school superintendent is black, as well as most of the principals and teachers, and Democrats have run the cities for decades.

Correlation does not imply causation.

I'm not saying there's a causal connection, just that one would be hard put to chalk up the rotten education to racial discrimination.

Nobody has tried to do that, as far as I can see. This is a strawman.

No one can solve the educational problems that black people confront except black people themselves.

False.

“ I'll tell you this, should you ever visit the US, beware black areas. I've been to many poor white/black parts of the country. In poor "white trash" areas I feel no fear whatsoever.
Let me guess. You're white, right?




“ James R....what colour is your skin?
Why does that matter?

:rolleyes:

Did you have a point, D'ster?

Correlation does not imply causation.

I have seen it said this way before, but I don't agree. I prefer:
Correlation does not equal causation.

What do we do in science? We search for correlations and then try to logically deduce whether or not their is a causal relationship. You hear it all the time: Coffee use linked to hypertension, drinking wine linked to decreased heart disease, coffee use linked to decreased prostate trouble, etc.

Clearly, then, correlation does imply causation. It just doesn't prove it.

One thing I have not read from anyone, primarily because most are too worried about the stigma of being called a racist, is that there is a huge difference between having an education and being educated.

I know and know of many people, irrespective of race or gender, who have an education, but are clearly not educated. Come to think of it there are many fine examples in congress.

Is it true that beautiful people have higher income? And ugly ones are called Rednecks? Does this have anything with income divide? Just a thought.....

What do we do in science? We search for correlations and then try to logically deduce whether or not their is a causal relationship. You hear it all the time: Coffee use linked to hypertension, drinking wine linked to decreased heart disease, coffee use linked to decreased prostate trouble, etc.

In these examples, causation is proved by controlling for all other variables, in order to prove the case. Want to prove that coffee is linked to hypertension? Then make sure you select two large test groups who differ ONLY in their coffee consumption, while simultaneously making sure that there are no other group biases towards other causal factors, and test the hypothesis. Note: it can often be very difficult to do this, which is why scientists often have to settle for finding correlations and remain unsure about causation.

On the other hand, it has been done in some cases, quite clearly - e.g. smoking and heart disease.

Clearly, then, correlation does imply causation. It just doesn't prove it.

No. It doesn't imply causation. What it does is that it rules out that the opposite correlation may not exist, and therefore retains causation as a logical possibility. But that's about it.

G. F. Schleebenhorst:



Why does that matter?


Why are you so reluctant to answer the question? If it doesn't matter at all, then you should have no problem answering.

No. It doesn't imply causation. What it does is that it rules out that the opposite correlation may not exist, and therefore retains causation as a logical possibility. But that's about it.
I still don't agree. What do you see in the headlines:
POWER LINES LINKED TO INCREASED CANCER RISK!

CELL PHONE USE LINKED TO BRAIN TUMORS

RED DYE #3 LINKED TO CANCER

BREAST IMPLANTS LINKED TO AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE

RENU CONTACT LENS SOLUTION LINKED TO RARE POTENTIALLY BLINDING EYE INFECTION

In every case all we have is a correlation, but the implication is clear. Cell phones cause brain tumors, breast implants cause autoimmune disease, etc ad nauseum. Many of these turned out to be untrue, but clearly someone, including the FDA, believes correlation implies causation.

Gee, what makes more sence?

People who are poor will get lower IQ's

or

People who have Lower IQ's will be poor?
You answer your own question... :rolleyes: :D

Unbelievable...



...
I'm still puzzled by the word "sence", btw...:D

James R....what colour is your skin?
I still don't see how that is EVER relevant. :bugeye:

madanthonywayne:

Many people confuse correlation with causation, including editors of newspapers. That doesn't mean they are the same thing.

Consider this real example:

In a certain town, it is observed that the number of births has been increasing over the years. Another observation shows that the number of storks roosting in the roofs of houses in the town has also increased over the years.

We thus observe the correlation that as the number of storks increases, so does the birth rate in the town.

What do you conclude from this data? Is the human birth rate linked with storks in this town? Do storks bring babies after all? Or is there another explanation?

madanthonywayne:

Many people confuse correlation with causation, including editors of newspapers. That doesn't mean they are the same thing.

Consider this real example:

In a certain town, it is observed that the number of births has been increasing over the years. Another observation shows that the number of storks roosting in the roofs of houses in the town has also increased over the years.

We thus observe the correlation that as the number of storks increases, so does the birth rate in the town.

What do you conclude from this data? Is the human birth rate linked with storks in this town? Do storks bring babies after all? Or is there another explanation?
OK, remember. I never said correlation proves causation. I only said it suggests it. To deny this flies in the face of common sence. Indeed, I think the purpose of the quote you originally made is to slow down the natural instict to assume correlation equals causation.

Consider this real example. A scientist notes culture plates contaminated with mold showed decreased bacterial growth. Hmm. The presense of mold is associated with decreased bacterial growth. Mr Flemming rightly concludes that the presence of the mold and the coincidental lysing of bacterial cells are connected. The result: penicillin.

Again, I'm not saying correlation proves anything. Sometimes, it is just a coincidence. [sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar] But other times, it's the first clue. Without it, we'd be lost. To deny it's significance is dishonest.

Look, it's jsut basic logic.

Causation implies correlation. If A causes B then A is correlated with B.

But it doesn't work the other way round. Correlation does not imply causation.

If correlation did imply causation, then we'd have a two-way implication. A two-way implication is an equivalence relation.

Therefore, if correlation implies causation, then causation and correlation are the same thing, and we wouldn't need two words to describe one concept.

Look, it's jsut basic logic.

Causation implies causation. If A causes B then A is correlated with B.

You meant "causation implies correlation", didn't you?

Well, correlation does not necessarily imply causation because two events that are correlated can be independent of each other. If the two events are dependent, then the correlation does imply causation. In which case, an event A would imply B, but not necessarily a two way cause and effect relationship.

Just a thought... ;)

Look, it's jsut basic logic.

Causation implies correlation. If A causes B then A is correlated with B.

But it doesn't work the other way round. Correlation does not imply causation.

All right, I looked up "imply" on dictionary.com and I think I see the problem here. It seems that "imply" is a bit of a stronger term than I had believed. It states:

to recognize as existing by inference or necessary consequence.

Would you agree that correlation suggests causation?

Suggest is listed as a synonym of imply, but is defined as:
to mention or imply as a possibility

All right, I looked up "imply" on dictionary.com and I think I see the problem here.
I think we all do... :rolleyes:

:D

It seems that "imply" is a bit of a stronger term than I had believed.
Not surprising...

It states:

to recognize as existing by inference or necessary consequence.

Would you agree that correlation suggests causation?

Suggest is listed as a synonym of imply, but is defined as:
to mention or imply as a possibility
You got it! Good going! ;)

You got it! Good going! ;)
Gee, thanks. I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong. :o

Well, it's great you do! It requires true strenght! It's called "integrity".

madanthonywayne:

Would you agree that correlation suggests causation?

Suggest is listed as a synonym of imply, but is defined as:
to mention or imply as a possibility

Yes. I have no problem with that.

Correlation suggests causation as a possibility. One possibility among many, until the other possibilities are ruled out.

madanthonywayne:
Yes. I have no problem with that.

Correlation suggests causation as a possibility. One possibility among many, until the other possibilities are ruled out.
The Framingham Heart Study is the basis for most of our knowledge of cardiovascular disease. It involved thousands of participants studied over decades. What are they searching for? What is the basis of practically all their "conclusions"? Correlation. That's it. Based on this Americans have been advised to make radical changes in their diets. All of this in a situation where the evidence does not even suggest causation. Amazing.

I don't know the details of that study, so I can't comment.

The Framingham Heart Study is the basis for most of our knowledge of cardiovascular disease. It involved thousands of participants studied over decades. What are they searching for? What is the basis of practically all their "conclusions"? Correlation. That's it. Based on this Americans have been advised to make radical changes in their diets. All of this in a situation where the evidence does not even suggest causation. Amazing. Oh... God.... :rolleyes:

They base their conclusion on statistical data that proves that there is a causal relationship rather then only a correlation.... :rolleyes:

They don't base their conclusion on correlation alone... :rolleyes:

Oh... God.... :rolleyes:

They base their conclusion on statistical data that proves that there is a causal relationship rather then only a correlation.... :rolleyes:

They don't base their conclusion on correlation alone... :rolleyes:

Before you roll your eyes too much:
The Framingham Study is a longitudinal investigation of constitutional and environmental factors influencing the development of CVD in men and women. Examination of participants has taken place every two years and the cohort has been followed for morbidity and mortality over that time period. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framingham_Heart_Study
So it's a longitudinal study. What's that?
A longitudinal study is a correlational research study that involves observations of the same items over long periods of time, often many decades. Longitudinal studies are often used in psychology to study developmental trends across the life span. The reason for this is that unlike cross-sectional studies, longitudinal studies track the same people, and therefore the differences observed in those people are less likely to be the result of cultural differences across generations. Longitudinal studies are also used in medicine to uncover predictors of certain diseases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitudinal_study
Of course they use statistics to analyse the data and try to tease out causation. But the basic data is corelations.

Low IQ = Less Income

What is your income D'ster? And your IQ?

madanthonywayne ,

A longitudinal study uses large timeframes to prove causation, rather then large samples. It still proves causation. Both are trying to decrease the likelilyhood of a correlation with no causation by increasing the amount of data available. Correlation alone is useless. Causation is what they are looking for.

Low IQ = Less Income
Low IQ = stupid posts with plenty of fallacies and no evidence

Low IQ = Less Income

Is that the same thing as

High IQ = Oppressor...the King or the King maker??? :D

madanthonywayne ,

A longitudinal study uses large timeframes to prove causation, rather then large samples. It still proves causation. Both are trying to decrease the likelilyhood of a correlation with no causation by increasing the amount of data available. Correlation alone is useless. Causation is what they are looking for.
Of course it is. But according to James, correlation is not even suggestive of causation. That's the point. When things keep occuring together, it suggests a causal relationship. That's why we do longitudinal studies, to see if the pattern holds. To rule out confounding variables.

When things keep occuring together, it suggests a causal relationship.

On a humorous note:

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The "Bear Patrol" is working like a charm!
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: [uncomprehendingly] Thanks, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Hmm. How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work. (pause) It's just a stupid rock!
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: (pause) Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

:d:d:d

Of course it is. But according to James, correlation is not even suggestive of causation. That's the point. When things keep occuring together, it suggests a causal relationship. That's why we do longitudinal studies, to see if the pattern holds. To rule out confounding variables.
Again, the evidence suggest the contrary:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=56339

"Correlation doesn't imply causation"

Doesn't imply
... means that correlation can suggest causation but that is not necessarily the case.

Low IQ = stupid posts with plenty of fallacies and no evidence
How many more articles would you like about low IQ levels for blacks?

1 unbiased one, please... :D

How about you try to find anykind of test of anykind that shows any racial groups preforming the same.
You will not be able too.

That's because such a test is useless to begin with.

How about, teachers, police person, fire person, doctors, lawyers etc.......

Show me anything that racial groups score equaly on.

Anything

What is your income D'ster? And your IQ?
My income and my IQ is enuff so that I don't waste anytime getting on a personal level with people, just to avoid a issue.

It is not the IQ that matters (since IQ tests are basically pattern recognition, association and math). IMHO - It is that Social Intelligence that one aquires from interfacing with the local community that matters.

My company is doing development work with a few African countries. What we found would surprise you. For instance, in the beginning, our communication went over their heads. We thoght the IQ issue - that is politically incorrect to talk about. Soon we found the right people who were exposed to the business processes of the modern business...and they got it. We found them to be smart though a little low in the knowledgebase.

Another observation we made is that the poorer the African country is, the embassy personnel from G8 counties to that poor country are dumber than door nail. We wondered why? Then someone pointed out that following the Bell Curve, the dumbest ambassadors are usually placed in the poorest countries.

No wonder, inspite of Angellina, nothing happens in Africa....

Just something to noodle....:D

*cough*

"African American and White undergraduates completed the APM under three conditions. In two threat conditions, participants received either standard APM instructions (standard threat) or were told that the APM was an IQ test (high threat). In a low threat condition, participants were told that the APM was a set of puzzles and that the researchers wanted their opinions of them. Results supported the stereotype threat interpretation of race differences in cognitive ability test scores. Although African American participants underperformed Whites under both standard and high threat instructions, they performed just as well as Whites did under low threat instructions." (Brown 2006, J Appl Psychol).

Also read this:
"A dispassionate reading of the evidence on the association of IQ with degree of European ancestry for members of Black populations, convergence of Black and White IQ in recent years, alterability of Black IQ by intervention programs, and adoption studies lend no support to a hereditarian interpretation of the Black-White IQ gap. On the contrary, the evidence most relevant to the question indicates that the genetic contribution to the Black-White IQ gap is nil." (Nisbett, 2005 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law).

*cough*

Under the hereditarian model, it should make relatively little difference whether Black children are adopted by Black families or by White families. Under an environmental model that assumes that White families are especially likely to intervene in their children's socialization in ways that result in their having high IQs, it should make a substantial difference whether the Black child is raised with a Black or White family. And in fact, it does. Moore (1986) found that Black children raised by Black middle-class families had mean IQs of 104, whereas Black children raised by White middle-class families had mean IQs of 117.

So....black people can't even blame their genes....they're just willingly ignorant?

Read the first abstract again. Maybe more slowly this time.

CharonZ

Got link?

Read the first abstract again. Maybe more slowly this time.

That would still support what I said....maybe you should read my reply more slowly, smartarse.

So....black people can't even blame their genes....they're just willingly ignorant?

I don't know...
Some of the dumbest people I've met happen to be white.

But as your skinhead brothers and sisters are the dumbest people on the planet, I guess you'd know. I mean anybody that puts "educated white man" under his avatar is only trying to get someone to believe it...

The power of statistics:

US: who is black, who is white

Almost one in three of the children whose fathers are white and mothers black identified themselves as white, according to an analysis of 1990 census data done by Harvard University sociologist Mary C. Waters. That was almost a 50 percent increase over 1980, when fewer than one in four of the children with black mothers and white fathers were identified as white – a surprising change in a nation that for generations promoted the idea that even one drop of black blood makes someone black.

Similarly, half of the children of white fathers and Native American mothers were identified as white, while more than half of the children of white fathers and Japanese or Chinese mothers were listed as white in 1990. "There is no one rule governing the choices made by parents about mixed-race children's identities," Waters said.

I don't know...
Some of the dumbest people I've met happen to be white.

But as your skinhead brothers and sisters are the dumbest people on the planet, I guess you'd know. I mean anybody that puts "educated white man" under his avatar is only trying to get someone to believe it...

No, actually, I put that there because I am an educated white man....and calling me a "skinhead" is as ignorant as a "skinhead" calling you a nigger. Nice generalisation you racist fucking bigot.

The power of statistics:

US: who is black, who is white

Almost one in three of the children whose fathers are white and mothers black identified themselves as white, according to an analysis of 1990 census data done by Harvard University sociologist Mary C. Waters. That was almost a 50 percent increase over 1980, when fewer than one in four of the children with black mothers and white fathers were identified as white – a surprising change in a nation that for generations promoted the idea that even one drop of black blood makes someone black.

Similarly, half of the children of white fathers and Native American mothers were identified as white, while more than half of the children of white fathers and Japanese or Chinese mothers were listed as white in 1990. "There is no one rule governing the choices made by parents about mixed-race children's identities," Waters said.

Why don't they just say "mongrel"?

Why don't they just say "mongrel"?
We're all mongrels.

We're all racists too.

Don't count me in

Anyone who considers themselves "not racist" is as bad as someone who calls black people monkeys.

I’m not a racist because I don’t discriminate. I have a little hatred for every racial group. Black, white and everything in between.

Anyone who considers themselves "not racist" is as bad as someone who calls black people monkeys.
I'll pretend you are not dumb enough to actually believe what you just said....

Actually I think he just might. To the first paper: obviously other factors like stereotype threats also are an important factor (or at least a debatable one). So guess where do these factors come from? In other words, chances are that for instance (unsurprisingly) socioeconomic factors play an important role for the underperformance.
D'Ster, you could just check the journal webpages. Otherwise I could provide the links when I got time, though you probably need at least a library access to it.

I'll pretend you are not dumb enough to actually believe what you just said....

Ignorance is ignorance.

I'm enlightened now. ;)

:D

Could you be a bit more smug please?

who is black, who is white

Who gets Affirmitive Action, who does not.

Who gets Affirmitive Action, who does not.

Since the mixed race people are declaring themselves white, they are losing out on Affirmative action, right?

Anyone who is either a "white" male or Asian person is not eligible to be a part of the affirmitive action quota system.

Since the mixed race people are declaring themselves white,
A major controversy has exploded over the demand for a new census category for African-Americans who say they are neither Black nor White.

A number of celebrities have joined the debate. Among them are three-time amateur golf champ-turned-pro Tiger Woods who says he is 90 percent Oriental; actresses Halle Berry and Salli Richardson who say they are Black; singer Mariah Carey who say she is Black, Venezuelan and Irish; and the former Miss USA, Chelsi Smith who describes herself as half Black and half White.

Many leaders in the Black community are outraged. The proposed category, they say, could threaten affirmative action and other civil rights-driven proms since data collected through the census are used in monitoring areas such as employment, voting rights, housing and mortgage lending. Moreover, if mixed-race people who regularly choose Black on the census form now choose the new designation, it is feared that Black economic, social and political power will be seriously diluted and that the establishment of a new category could create a privileged "Colored society" similar to what existed in the old South Africa.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_n1_v52/ai_18814136

D'ster the article is from 1996

Affirmitive action is from 1960.

State Police flunking the minorities they recruit
Tests and background checks foil effort for a more-diverse force
Sunday, July 23, 2006


On Friday, 102 men and women are expected to walk across the stage at the State Police training academy in Sea Girt, collect their badges and join the ranks of New Jersey's top law enforcement agency.

This latest batch of graduating troopers looks like many of the previous classes, but less and less like the state they will serve. Seventy-nine of the 102 are white men.

Seven years and millions of dollars after the State Police conceded their minority recruiting efforts were "significantly flawed" and pledged improvement, the race and gender makeup of the rank and file remains effectively unchanged.

A Star-Ledger analysis of recruiting data since 1999 shows more minorities and women than ever are applying for the force but are being rejected because they fail admission tests at disproportionately higher rates.

This rejection, according to the newspaper's analysis, occurs at various stages of the multitiered selection process: Hispanics and black candidates failed the background check at least three times more often than white applicants; women were nearly three times as likely as men to fail the physical; seven in 10 black applicants didn't pass the written test.

Why the failures persist and how to fix them have perplexed four successive attorneys general and four State Police superintendents. And they linger despite an overhaul of the recruiting and testing process, the hiring of outside consultants to grade applicants, and regular monitoring by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which sued the state a decade ago to address the issue.

In the past decade, the state's minority population has steadily risen and now hovers near 35 percent. By 2025, Census estimates indicate, almost half of New Jersey's residents will be members of minorities.

Today white males account for one-third of the state's population. But they make up four-fifths of the 2,966 active members of the State Police force, a rate only slightly lower than the racial makeup in 1999.

"I'm not saying these (recruiting) efforts are for nil," said Renee Steinhagen, executive director of New Jersey Appleseed, a public-interest law center, and a longtime critic of the State Police. "But they're not where they should be. I still believe the State Police has not changed."

State officials, law enforcement experts and the advocates who brought the initial NAACP lawsuit acknowledge the lack of success but haven't been able to explain or fix it.

http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1153748716282380.xml?starledger?ntop&coll=1

State officials, law enforcement experts and the advocates who brought the initial NAACP lawsuit acknowledge the lack of success but haven't been able to explain or fix it.

D'ster why are you so racist? Why do you hate everyone so much?

D'ster why are you so racist? Why do you hate everyone so much?
he hates the things he cannot understand.

'groids are fairly easy to understand.

Unless you meant ebonics or something.

'groids are fairly easy to understand.

Unless you meant ebonics or something.
dont get me started on scottish speech, guy.

Git tae fuck.

'groids are fairly easy to understand.

What are fairly easy to understand?

You know. Negroids. People of african descent. A mere abbreviation, hence the apostrophe.

I don't see how blacks are going to ever earn as much as whites as long as the black culture continues to denigrate being successful as "acting white". In the majority of black environments, it is frowned upon if you speak with a "white accent", use big words, dress nicely, do well in class, etc... Of course, there is quite a bit of this in all cultures, as the "cool kids" harass the "smart kids" in school, but there is much, much more of it in the black culture of today.

The acts of a successful person are the same, no matter what your color is. And black leaders need to start explaining this, and rapidly. And white PC people, that preach "multiculturalism" are not helping blacks, they are hurting them. America has always been about conforming to some degree in public, while retaining your individual culture in your home or neighborhood. The Irish, Polish, Germans, Checks, and Asian have all rode this cycle for gain. I think the black culture faces two great obstacles which hold that race back. First, there is the sad fact that we notice differences, and skin color is a glaring one. That is a sad barrier, but we can't ignore it. Second, the history of slavery in America is a disgraceful one that leads to many concessions due to collective guilt. This guilt means that blacks are given undue attention that hampers the natural cycle of self-respect that is derived from overcoming obstacles.

Look at the success of Hispanics recently to see how flying under the radar is more beneficial than getting a "leg up". Hispanics are overtaking blacks as the largest minority, but you do not hear them puling for increased representation in government, or more aid. They just want to use the free markets to better their living situation and gather as much happiness as possible for themselves and their families.

The best thing we could do for blacks is do nothing for them, while prosecuting with the full meanness of the law, any ignorant individual that is found guilty of discriminating in the workforce or the workings of our politics. With time, all other things will sort themselves out. We just have to learn to accept that life is not fair, and still strive to make it as fair as it can be.

You know. Negroids. People of african descent. A mere abbreviation...

Please do not use that disparaging term again. Whitey.

You know. Negroids. People of african descent. A mere abbreviation, hence the apostrophe.
Umm, dude.

Everyone of us if of "African" descent -- in that our hominid DNA had its demonstrable origin on what is now that continent.

Funny how some folks are more similar to our distant ancestors in their thinking patterns. Such dark thoughts. Primally aggressive dark thoughts.

Pale face.

Please do not use that disparaging term again. Whitey.

Only if you take back that "whitey" comment, hypocrite.

See how speech can offend, G.F.?

I'm not offended, all I saw was a dazzling display of hypocrisy.

Take it back, or tell me how "whitey" is less "disparaging" than "'groid" (even though the fact that you used it in an attempt to offend would be sufficient evidence to the contrary, and you apparently feel that it is OK to use such terms, disparaging or not as long as the target is white) or I shall continue upon my rampage of 'groid-uttering and you will look like a big fat hypocrite.

I'm not offended, all I saw was a dazzling display of hypocrisy.

What you saw was a mirroring of your own attitude, with the aim to educate. Did you learn anything?

Take it back, or tell me how "whitey" is less "disparaging" than "'groid" (even though the fact that you used it in an attempt to offend would be sufficient evidence to the contrary, and you apparently feel that it is OK to use such terms, disparaging or not as long as the target is white) or I shall continue upon my rampage of 'groid-uttering and you will look like a big fat hypocrite.

You missed the point.

The term "whitey" is just as disparaging and offensive as "'groid".

This should be lesson to you about using the word "'groid" in future.

Let's hope you take something useful away from this exchange.

When I hear or see the word "whitey", I just filp out and want loot, rape, murder and riot.

I think I speak for most whitey's.

Let's hope you take something useful away from this exchange.


Yeah, that you're a racist and you hate white people.

Let's hope you take something useful away from this exchange.
White guilt undermines black progress and race relations because it generates disingenuous racial policies--diversity, affirmative action, and welfare without expectations (until the late 90s). These policies enable whites to fend off the racist stigma they live with but rob blacks of the incentive to work harder for their own advancement. All these "white guilt" policies ask nothing whatsoever of blacks. They are an incentive to weakness rather strength. Black high school students did worse on the SAT in 2000 than in 1990. These students know that low performance is no bar to the racial preferences of affirmative action. So why work harder? Yet American institutions almost fanatically support "white guilt" policies because the legitimacy of these institutions now depends on their proving themselves free of racism. White guilt means that America's racial reforms serve the innocent whites while facilitating weakness in minorities.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23532

The black male is the lowest academically scoring ethnic group there is (I think) whereas black women, at least in the UK, score almost as high as white males.

The black male is the lowest academically scoring ethnic group there is (I think) whereas black women, at least in the UK, score almost as high as white males.

Women are used to being discriminated against; so the effects on their performance are less (which means that the black women are probably better than white males). Men however find it harder to tolerate discrimination and are emotionally weaker than women, so it affects them more.

Yeah, that you're a racist and you hate white people.

You're not that stupid, surely.

Took me a while to notice D'ster, but wow... we have another resident racist on SF. I thought there was going to be a long hiatus after Schleebenhorst, to sorta fill in the "duo" between BaronMax and J.B., but I'm rather surprised. We have a full replacement!

But that's just celebrity gossip.

Anyway the main point of this post is that in all honesty, there really is nothing worth discussing on this thread, like James R said.

Nobody is really interested in your version of "fact".

Women are used to being discriminated against; so the effects on their performance are less (which means that the black women are probably better than white males). Men however find it harder to tolerate discrimination and are emotionally weaker than women, so it affects them more.

We're not talking a small difference though, we are talking almost a factor of 2.

Facial, you're a racist too.

So is james r.

So is samcdkey.

So was martin luther king.

So is your entire family and all your friends.

We're not talking a small difference though, we are talking almost a factor of 2.

Facial, you're a racist too.

So is james r.

So is samcdkey.

So was martin luther king.

So is your entire family and all your friends.

I'm made up of too many races. But I do hate myself on occasion, so you may be right. :)

I'm made up of too many races.
Some more racey then others.

Some more racey then others.

It's a constant battle. ;)

It's a constant battle. ;)
Ah. Dynamic tension. :)

Women are used to being discriminated against; so the effects on their performance are less (which means that the black women are probably better than white males). Men however find it harder to tolerate discrimination and are emotionally weaker than women, so it affects them more.
Women are used to being discriminated against, but blacks aren't? Anyway, I believe blaming black male's poor academic performance on discrimination is counterproductive. So long as they are looking for excuses outside of themselves, they are never going to buckle down and do the work needed to raise their performance.

Ah. Dynamic tension. :)

I don't want no disention,
just Dy-nam-ic.....pause.....pause.....pause...Tension!

is condelisa rice still a beneficiary of affirmative action?

http://peoplesnetworks.net/publication/content/graphics/graph_urban-instititute_net-worth-by-race.png

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba292/figure.gif

Telling statistics, D'ster. It is a pity you copy them without understanding what that tell you.

Please do not use that disparaging term again. Whitey.
Are caucasoid and mongoloid disparaging terms?
All three are scientific words used in anthropology.

Are caucasoid and mongoloid disparaging terms?
All three are scientific words used in anthropology.

As I understand it, these terms are old-fashioned and outdated. Historically, they have certainly be used to promote racist ideas, even if they were not originally intended in that way.

But never mind. The term "negroid" was not used above. The term used was "'groid". And it was undoubtedly used in a racist fashion, as you can see.

I have not read any of thread, but will tell that last Saturday at lunch time in major shopping center's "food court" I had to listen to group of 5/6 year olds sing as 2nd wife's granddaughter was one of the 62 in the choir. The food court was packed - I could not hear and would not have understood even if I could. So, I estimated that there were 600 +/- 50 in the crowd (among other mental things done to keep my sanity.)

As old civil rights worker, I could not help but notice not one of the 62 in this private school choir was black* and in the crowd I saw only two blacks. It is true that Brazil has solved the problem of social race relations. - If you notice the people on the subway (free to us over 65, so I use it a lot) as many interracial couples are there and no one even notices, but this was a fancy (read that as expensive) shopping center and I have not seen as effective "upper class" racial economic segregation in US as here in Brazil, except on the northbound Marta of Atlanta in the early hours when the maids are going out to where my daughter (a certified BMW owing yuppie, with big income, etc) lives. (The overnight airplane from Brazil arrives at 6AM sometimes during the year and if there is a white person on the Marta, they are like me, with luggage and just leaving the airport.)
----------------------------------------
* A large part, probably half if one uses the old "octoroon" criteria of Brazil's population is black, but there has been so much "miscegenation" that there is no dividing line.

Are caucasoid and mongoloid disparaging terms?
All three are scientific words used in anthropology.I still say "mongoloid" but then I still say "icebox," however, I know the correct term for first, used in the literature for at least 25 years is "Down's Syndrome" and for the second, correct term is “refrigerator.” (I am old - what is your excuse?)

Blacks report the highest rates of work disability.

http://www.infouse.com/disabilitydata/disability/disabilitycharts/5_1.gif

As I understand it, these terms are old-fashioned and outdated. Historically, they have certainly be used to promote racist ideas, even if they were not originally intended in that way.

But never mind. The term "negroid" was not used above. The term used was "'groid". And it was undoubtedly used in a racist fashion, as you can see.

Please tell me how "'groid" is any more "racist" than "whites" or "blacks", which are both more dehumanising than "negroid", and you don't even bat an eyelid at their use.

Telling statistics, D'ster. It is a pity you copy them without understanding what that tell you.

Let me guess - it's the white man's fault?

Blacks report the highest rates of work disability. ...

Is that corrected for difference in typical jobs? I.e. do black office workers have higher disability rates? Or White ditch diggers lower ones?

That unemployment rate is 30 years outdated. If you know anything about the economic and social issues of the time you see black unemployment rise, you'll see they coincide with a period of crippling racism and their blue collar jobs (about all a black person, educated or not, could get at the time) were being lost to cheaper, overseas markets.

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba292/figure.gif

Since the era of Civil Rights some five decades back, African-American men have suffered a serious decline in labor force attachment and participation.

...Since the era of Civil Rights[/SIZE] some five decades back, African-American men have suffered a serious decline in labor force attachment and participation.
Probably also true, but again I ask:

Is that corrected for things like education? I.e. Is the unemployment rate of white who quit school at legally permited age (many states still I think) of 16, after repeating two grades any different from similar black? Both must now find it hard to find a job, such as ditch digging, they are qualified to do.

You have a graph of African American males, ages 16 to 17.

You have a graph of unemployed African American males, ages 16 to 17, 34 years out of date.

Employment rates among black male teens and young adults ages 16 to 19 have dropped considerably over the past 50 years, the study found. In 1954, a slight majority -- 52 percent -- of black male teens worked, a rate slightly in excess of their white peers. By 2003, however, only one of five black male teens was employed in a typical month – just 20 percent -- only half the employment rate of white male teens. Among 20 to 24 year old black males, employment rates also have declined considerably from their peak values of 77 to 83 percent in the mid to late 1960s to dramatic 50-year lows more recently. During 2003, for example, just 56 percent of such young black men ages 20 to 24 was employed.

Among older black men, the same dramatic declines were noted over time, according to the report. While the employment rates of black men rise from their late teens through their mid 30s, high levels of joblessness prevail among these men into their late 20s (30 percent of 25 to 29 year old black men were jobless in 2003, for example), then rise sharply as they reach their mid-50s. One of the most disturbing findings was the high share of black males ages 20 to 64 that were jobless year-round. In 2002, one of every four black men in this age group – a full quarter of the entire
population within this wide age range -- was idle all year-round, up from 20 percent in the peak labor market year of 2002.

The report’s key findings also include:
Among the nation’s black teens, fewer than 20 percent, age 16 to 19, were employed during 2003, an employment rate just half that of white teens;

Among 20 to 24 year old black men, employment rates averaged just 57 percent during the past three years, compared with an average of 80 percent employment in the late 1960s. The E/P (employment to population) ratio of young black men in 2003 lagged well behind the white male employment rate by nearly 20 percentage points;

In 2002, a full quarter of African-American men ages 20 to 64 were not employed at any point during the year. The year-round joblessness rate for black adult males in 2002 was twice as high as that of white and Hispanic males;

The year-round idleness rate for black men varies by age, educational attainment, and geographic location. Idleness rates in 2002 ranged from a low of 18 percent for those ages 35 to 44 to a high of nearly 42 percent for those 55 to 64. Forty-four percent of black men with no high school diploma were idle year-round versus 26 percent of high school graduates and only 13 percent of those with a bachelor’s or higher degree.

http://www.nupr.neu.edu/7-04/unemployment.shtml

You have a graph of unemployed African American males, ages 16 to 17, 34 years out of date.

Well, his dubious statistics are still better than your mathematics.

...his dubious statistics...I looked at his source and think "dubious" may be a little too strong as they seem to be "gross"
facts, but not telling anything in detail as there is no indication of any correcting for education, etc.

Even as a "gross" statistics I have some doubts. For example, despite being a minority, blacks are a majority in the prisons, at least most, but perhaps not the prison Martha Stewart was a "guest in." Were the blacks in prisons, busily washing towels in the laundry, or stamping out license plates, etc. counted in the "employed group"?

Another observation I can not resist making:

All humanity came "Out of Africa", according to theory so well established that it is now a "fact." In many of the cultures there, the men do little work - they are stronger - why should they? The women tend the fire, gather the wood, till the fields, if the tribe does that. Young girls go for the water, etc.

Western world men, especially white ones, now work at least 40 hours/week, often at jobs they hate (Recall song - "take this job and shove it," etc.) The higher social economic class white men rarely work only 40 hours per week. Some of the “blackberry toting” types average more than 18 hours per day!

My question is:

How did black men get so smart and white men so dumb? :D

Good point. In hunter-gatherer societies it's typical to work something like 3 hours per day. All our amazing Western technology has only achieved one thing: we live longer so we can work more. Inspiring thought, huh? :(

Well, his dubious statistics are still better than your mathematics.

I live 2 years in the future. That was a bad slip up on my part. I may be banned from the time traveler's association now.

the men do little work - they are stronger - why should they?
My question is:
How did black men get so smart and white men so dumb? :D
http://www.redmullet.com/images/hl1.jpg

someone ban this guy.

someone ban this guy.

Amen

Average African-American IQ: 89
Average "White" IQ: 102

Most white people are far dumber than this and need to die, but there are plenty of others we need to kill as well. I am an equal opportunity eugenicist: murder morons and life gets good again.

http://www.redmullet.com/images/hl1.jpg

Your image is a non sequitur adn does not help the argument at hand.

Good point. In hunter-gatherer societies it's typical to work something like 3 hours per day. All our amazing Western technology has only achieved one thing: we live longer so we can work more. Inspiring thought, huh? :(

And live an average of 38 years!

Seriously though, I think you pulled that 3 hours number out of your ass. In primitive societies, people work nearly constantly to keep their caloric intake high enough. And even that will only support a very small number of people.

With our advancements we have been able to support many more lives at the same time, and match this increase in quantity with an even greater rise in quality.

I always get confused by the ignorant hippie notion that the "good old days" were some sort of utopian union with nature, and a life with little care and less violence. Only Margaret Mead, with her horrible studies and tiny brain, could find evidence for this... and it took her fudging her data, giving in to all bias, and ignoring the obvious.

Nah, not every hunter gatherer society is completely living in the stone age....and even if they were, seriously, all these guys have to do is set up a trap and come back later half the time. The rest of the day they just sleep or fuck. It was the subject of a documentary I watched a few months ago.

It really makes you wonder what's so great about all our technology.

Nah, not every hunter gatherer society is completely living in the stone age....and even if they were, seriously, all these guys have to do is set up a trap and come back later half the time. The rest of the day they just sleep or fuck. It was the subject of a documentary I watched a few months ago.

It really makes you wonder what's so great about all our technology.

Ok, you were right all along. All races which are not pure aryan like yourself, are inferior species.

Do you feel better now? Or must every post be about how inferior everyone else is?

Tell me, what you love about yourself and your race, instead of what you hate about everyone else and their race.

And live an average of 38 years!

Seriously though, I think you pulled that 3 hours number out of your ass. In primitive societies, people work nearly constantly to keep their caloric intake high enough. And even that will only support a very small number of people.

With our advancements we have been able to support many more lives at the same time, and match this increase in quantity with an even greater rise in quality.

I always get confused by the ignorant hippie notion that the "good old days" were some sort of utopian union with nature, and a life with little care and less violence. Only Margaret Mead, with her horrible studies and tiny brain, could find evidence for this... and it took her fudging her data, giving in to all bias, and ignoring the obvious.


Yeah, we support more people....
Still we work 8 hours a day, so what difference does it make?

Ok, you were right all along. All races which are not pure aryan like yourself, are inferior species.
What a idiot :rolleyes:

Nah, not every hunter gatherer society is completely living in the stone age....and even if they were, seriously, all these guys have to do is set up a trap and come back later half the time. The rest of the day they just sleep or fuck. It was the subject of a documentary I watched a few months ago.

It really makes you wonder what's so great about all our technology.

Sleep in softer beds and fuck someone that bathes once a day and owns a razor.

Money is racist.