Study: States With High Murder Rates More Likely To Be Republican

Are you suggesting that Jim crow did not exist? If you believe it ended, when did it end?

 

Simple, you based your previous response (I highlighted in your previous post) on a premise that you portrayed as if two things could not exist in parallel at the same time, IOW, mutually exclusive. What makes you believe that hundreds of years of slavery(then Jim Crow) still does not affect the present day American black? Can you conclusively state that it does not?

As for specifics, I gave you many in the previous posts. I have never stated that slavery and Jim Crow deteriorated the black family. I stated that the black 'family' never really ever existed (as a monolith) for American blacks that were descendants of slaves. As for declining "family", hence family values, this new trend is not limited only to blacks, but all races. They are many, for example, professional women having children out of wedlock by choice.

My point is you simply can't just unwind the past from the present and future. And poverty makes it worse.

 

So you want to social engineer the family, only problem is that far fewer Americans actually want to get married at all.

I also find it very interesting how you come to focus on blacks as the principal source of this problem.

 

In response to your claim that Jim Crow still exists, I asked you what makes you believe that and asked for modern examples of what you are claiming to be Jim Crow practices. I fail to see why you would somehow think that means that I am suggesting that Jim Crow did not exist. Of course it existed, and I have made no implication to the contrary.

Jim Crow Laws were the racial caste system that existed from the end of slavery all the way up until the mid 60's when the civil rights movement successfully had it outlawed. According to the Jim Crow Museum, the official Jim Crow era was from 1877-1964
Jim Crow Era - Timeline - Jim Crow Museum (ferris.edu)

I understand that you are trying to use a much looser definition of Jim Crow but still using the term for bombastic effect, but even a looser definition no longer applies. In the 70's and to a lesser extent the 80's, there was still a lot of overt racism where a black man may have had difficulty getting a job, but those days are long gone. When a black person now applies for a job, there is literally zero thought given to the notion of "hes a black man". The person doing the hiring does not give it a thought. The coworkers do not give it a thought. It is a big nothing, except for with people that are trying to keep the notion of racism alive for political aims, which is what you have with those in charge of the American left, and to them they keep seeing racism everywhere because it suits them politically.

I will ask again, what modern examples do you provide as support for your notion that Jim Crow STILL exists? That is a sincere question. I simply do not see it.

 

When you address my post and answer my query, we can go from there. Otherwise, you are just looking for any angle. See below.

 

You are claiming that past, present and future circumstances are unrelated or exclusive (have no cause and effect), that I totally disagree with in principle so we'll have to disagree(in principle). Sure the lack of nuclear family is part of the problem and past of the solution but it's worse specifically in the black community because of the history and lasting effects of slavery.
"My point again is you simply can't just unwind the past from the present and future. And poverty makes it worse." Systemic issues are real and sadly sometimes they are intentional. The nuclear family is less of a model even with very wealthy people of all races but the past impacts it like it does everything else.

 

I addressed a different post of yours, specifically the one where you said "Jim crow practice is still alive and well." Why do I then have to respond to an entirely different post of yours in order for you to defend your claim that the "Jim crow practice is alive and well"?

Jim Crow is NOT alive and well. Such a claim is nonsensical. I am not looking for "any" angle, rather I am pointing out something in your words that is demonstrably and factually wrong. If you do not want to defend your position and provide modern examples, that is on you. It is you that looks silly in that exchange, not me.

The notion that you are now trying to push which is that if any remnants of slavery effect African Americans today, that therefore the "Jim crow practice is alive and well", is simply not grounded in reality. Perhaps you dont understand the meaning of Jim Crow Laws and how they were abolished. My mother was a 100% indian that grew up in North Carolina. She had to drink from segregated drinking fountains and was subject to all Jim Crow laws. I can honestly say that reality has not one iota of bearing on me today. If I chose to blame any of my failures on that reality, I could probably do so, but I would be talking out of my a**. We are 58 years removed from Jim Crow laws. The only people old enough to remember living under such laws are either dead or getting very close. We are several generations removed.

Everybody starts out in life with various advantages and disadvantages, and all any of us can do is it play the hand that we are dealt. Some of us are born into wealth, while some of us are born into poverty. Some of us are born beautiful and some of us butt ugly. Some have high IQ's and some are as dumb as a stump, etc.

Can you argue that more blacks are born into poverty because of past Jim Crow laws? Sure, that could be assumed. There are an awful lot of whites that are also born into poverty, and in truth, it does not matter how that happened. Both of my parents were born into abject poverty. For a poor white, or a poor black, there is zero benefit from focusing upon the past. All anyone can do is play the hand that they are dealt. Going forward, there is nothing that hinders a black person from success versus a white person. If they were born into money that helps, but very few of any race is born into money. You could play the "some effect from slavery" card for the next 300 years and it would have some tiny iota of truth to it. At this point, it does not matter. It is time to move on. The left is not allowing that to happen for purely political reasons.

 

You obviously don't want to acknowledge that the past affects the present and the future. There are systematic remnants of slavery and then Jim Crow still in America, it may wane but it's still there, just look at the Trump party. It's convenient to want to ignore common sense. It's not left vs right, it's right vs wrong.

 

Blacks are not the source of the problem; black out-of-wedlock births are, however, among the greatest symptoms of the problem.

 

Nonsense.

Republicans win the white vote by around a 55%-45% margin. That means that after 100 white votes, Republicans are +10
Democrats win the Black vote by a 90% plus margin. That means that after only 11 black votes, Democrats are at a plus 10.
It is the homogeneity of the black vote that enables 12% of the population to be the almost exclusive determiner of who wins elections.

It is this reality that enables Democrats to have any chance at winning a national election. This is why you see racial tensions inflamed in election years, and it mostly goes unmentioned in non-election years. Democrats calculate that by stirring racial tensions, they can increase black voter turnout which will help them win. This is not a coincidence.

The cruel irony is that the party that pretends to care about creating a color-blind society, is the one whose very existence depends upon that never occurring. If we ever became a post-racial society, Democrats could not count on the black vote and they would be unable to win a national election. The people in charge know this full well. People like yourself (rank and file Democrat voters who constantly spout racist rhetoric) are useful dupes who believe their nonsense. This entire issue is nothing but politics, and from a political perspective, Republicans want to move on from racism, and Democrats want to make sure that racial strife continues on in perpetuity.

 

Nonsense. It's obviously easier for one^^^ to bury one's head to any discomforting reality. The past affects the present and the future.

 

Yeah sure. You are the person that has been bogusly led to believe that Jim Crow is alive and well despite the fact that even the Jim Crow museum acknowledges ended in 1964. You have clearly taken their bait hook, line, and sinker. I am surprised you arent spouting Bidens line " they want to put y'all back in chains".

Why do you think he said that? To keep racial strife alive, and he wants to keep racial strife alive solely for political reasons.

 

It's difficult when one wants desperately to ignore the effect of the past on the present and future. I know, some prefer to simply ignore it because it's inconvenient and/or uncomfortable.

 

It is obvious that you and I are not going to come to an agreement. I am more than happy with the belief that I have made the far more persuasive argument, and I suspect you probably think you have. I see no reason to keep going around in circles covering the same ground over and over, for no reason. Lets allow the reader to decide for themselves and agree to simply move on.

 

Actually, you 'argument' simply could not challenge any thing I posted as the past affects the present and the future no matter how inconvenient or uncomfortable it may be to acknowledge in America.

 

We never disagreed other than that there were/are also other factors that affected the black community specifically & equally. No trying to intentionally misstate your position but many things complicate the black situation in America. Those things are not mutually exclusive or only in the past.

 

I live in a blue state, and the highest murder rate is in the blue areas of the state.

 

I just find it quite troubling how you immediately jump to blacks as being the source of the problem here. Since I'm going in the order I've received responses, maybe somebody has already pointed that out.

It just seems to me that the whole point of the OP is that it is proof that Republican states really don't have any ideas rooted in reality to be able to combat crime and its causes. You appear to rely on the standard protocol of diverting blame and an appeal to religious tropes about family.

 

Married or not, white or black, the red States lead the pack when it comes to crime. Of course they blame the blacks. If they didn't shift blame, they'd have to admit that they have been unable to fix the problem.

 

Says who?

You see, what you appear to be implying by such a broad blanket statement is that if there were no single parents, there would be no problem. Beyond just wishful thinking, there are far more factors involved than just the single-parent dilemma.