Part II What's holding Black America back

Incorrect knowledge of history. These still docking in Providence in the late 1700's.

 

It is human nature to find someone else to blame for your failures.

 

prove it
and even if you can its still before 1804 so no matter what you're still wrong
and eve if they were "docking" that doesnt mean slaves were bought and sold in providence where it was abolished.
better luck next time
i don't know why you keep trying after you've clearly failed

 

In plain simple in your fact language, what is holding back blacks in this country are the race pimps Jackson, Sharpton, and their ilk. They keep telling black people that they are "victims" and the country owes them something.

 

[video=youtube;4CADXKO8CLc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CADXKO8CLc[/video]

 

[video=youtube;L9geQRD36KQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9geQRD36KQ[/video]

 

Afrikans gained independence. They didnt kick the white man out. Whites still own key infrastructure within the continent. SA and ZIM to name the obvious ones. There is also large populations in Angola and other nations on the west coast. The financial debt incurred under 'white colonial rule' is still being paid today by AFRIKANS. Infrastructure built by white colonialists had the sole purpose of exporting and maximizing raw materials for cheap prices with no concern about a sustainable economy for afrikan society. De-population, civil war ensued , the effects still with the continent today and magnified by neo-colonialism.

 

prove it

 

Prove the poverty that exists in Africa today happened otherwise.

 

You are aware of the fact that they kept records of shipping back then right? According to Discovering the Global Past, Volume II, Since 1400, by Wiesner, Wheeler, Doeringer, and Curtis, p.26, slave exports from Africa from 650-1500 were about 6.5 million slaves, of which 4.3 million were exported to the Trans-Sahara, and 2.2 million exported to Asia. That's 850 years, 6.5 million slaves. Then in only 300 years, from 1500-1800, there were around 10.7 million slaves exported from Africa. A little under 2 million went to Trans-Sahara. 1 million went to Asia. And 7.8 million went to the Americas! 7.8 million in 300 years! Those are facts. Those facts require ports, shipping, and all the souls necessary to enact that business. The fact that these were operating at the capacity to export millions of Africans indicate that the so called laws abolishing slavery that you speak of meant diddly squat. The laws didn't start meaning anything, which means they didn't actually affect the slave trade, and/or were enforced, until shortly after Haiti.

 

i didnt make that claim. the burden of proof lies on behalf of the accuser

- - - Updated - - -

and what does that have to do with providence?

 

I read a book from a guy from Gambia once who wrote about how the British reorganized their entire economy around groundnuts. This had repercussions on the daily lives of Gambians. Everything was organized around the export of groundnuts to Britain, while manufactured goods from Britain flooded the market in Gambia. This system contributed to a breakdown of the traditional family in Gambia, because sustaining a thriving groundnut industry was not how Gambians had organized their lives previously. In a nutshell, he goes into great detail about how the British wrecked his home country's economy, and how everything was done for the interest of groundnuts getting to Britain, not for Gambians. Would this account be evidence of proof? I'm not sure what you want for proof besides what is already written in many many books throughout the generations.

 

It means the Rhode Island law you speak of meant squat. It means it doesn't count as an action that affected slavery. It means that slavery was still going on well after they made that law, and the shipping records prove that. It means that the real efforts to end slavery occurred after that 17h century law you speak of. It means you are going to have to work harder to show me how the slave trade was impacted in reality, and not on paper. Because from what I've read, the real changes to the totals of slaves being imported/exported occurred soon after Haiti. You have shown me nothing to indicate otherwise. Which makes me wonder why you don't want Haiti to be the turning point? Why? Why does it matter to you when the turning point to abolish slavery was?

 

Its not necessary, its just a HUGE advantage and can be demonstrated that it is the #1 factor.

There are 3 things you need to be successful in school.
1) Intelligence
2) Socioeconomic status which eliminates educational distractions, Security, Hunger, uncertainty, etc.
3) Family culture that values education. If your parents don't care about school, you won't care about school.

So the difference for the Somalis is #3. At my wife's affluent black school, there are lots of Nigerian students and they all excel at school because their Parents value education and demand their students do well.

The African American students who do poorly almost 100% of the time lack #3. Again, they come from affluent households that achieved that status without education, hence they dont' put a high premium on it.

Again, the Promise schools outperform the regular poor black schools.

No I read about the Promise zones even more, and it does nothing to eliminate the poverty of the parents.
These kids have uneducated and poor parents. These parents can't tutor their own kids. These parents can not guarantee that their life will not have a tramautic event. Sure there will be a counselor to help the kids, but having a parent incarcerated or murdered or the victim of abuse is still going to occur at roughly the same rates as the other impoverished schools.
Having a promise school is NOT equal to creating a middle class school with middle class parents.

But 70% of African Americans do not live in poverty. So that's comparing apples and oranges.
How did the Promise kids do compared to poor blacks? I didn't read anything about ACT scores but I guarantee they out performed the mean score of poor black kids. Hence, Success.

That's not a thesis. Also who are "liberals"? Were you just hoping to hear from a random self selected group of people, regardless of expertise or knowledge or even understanding of liberalism?
If your goal was to hear uneducated 'liberals' say dumb things, then I guess you were successful.

Other than that you still have not stated your thesis, which is strongly suggested to be along the lines of "blacks are inferior". If your thesis is actually "elements of black culture are not conducive to education" then I probably agree except I recognize its low socioeconomic culture and has nothing to do with race.

1) We have had 40+ years of every idea. Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian... and they are all unsuccessful.
The south has been solidly Red for decades and their population is doing WORSE.
2) What the kids in the Harlem zone know is: poverty, despair, crime, and broken families.

You have no evidence to support that conclusion. America is doing great.

1) We are a compassionate people and regardless of government are going to help those in need. The fact is a majority of people will vote for programs that help poor people. Its actually easier than doing it yourself.
2) Welfare is a disincentive to work. Its why the 1994 Welfare reform act was so successful. At the same time, nobody is advocating taking a 16 year old single mother and telling her to get a job. A level of welfare is always going to be appropriate and humane.

Because of culture, peer pressure, a desire to be accepted/ fit in, ignorant parents/peers.
Again, everyone knows obesity is bad but way too many Americans (Vastly more than poor blacks) still don't care about eating well. The motivators are the same. I keep repeating this and you don't refute it.

No. Because I am right. Even the study you linked said:
African-American family life is "at the center of my analysis," said Gosa, noting that many black families are new to the middle class or still live close to the poverty line, and this may affect their children's school performance.

It 100% supports my thesis. (That's your link --- agreeing with me)

The only thing this proves is that you don't know what the word Ghetto means.
One of the Ghettos in your link was a place where Bankers live.
(I don't feel like explaining why Jews in Europe were more likely to be Bankers, but its a logical one)

Ghetto doesn't equal poor or uneducated and the fact you linked it as 'evidence' is only serving to undermine your entire premise as it makes me believe I am not dealing with an educated person who can make logical arguments.

 

no it doesnt. it means slavery was already outlawed in parts of the usa before 1804. you need to show me proof that slavery actually ended in haiti after 1804 and not just on paper. your own wikipedia post proves you're wrong.
you fail again

- - - Updated - - -

i dont care what book you read, that isnt proof. show me actual proof or accept defeat

 

you claimed the actual turning point was after 1804 and have yet to prove your case.
prove it or give up

 

Aybody with half a brain cell knows this.

 

still waiting on proof

 

Nothing in the world can be proven.

 

so you cant prove obama is the president of the united states? can you prove they drive on the left side of the road in england?
i just proved you wrong. have a nice day

 

Prove it or admit defeat.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-obama
if you're a troll trying to make liberals look like complete idiots then you are doing an excellent job.

 

No! YOU prove it, dont cop out and post some link to some crazy website. YOU PROVE IT!

 

J0NAH, this is one of the strangest strategies I've ever seen.

 

prove i haven't