Why Race Matters

Arnold Ahlert is a former NY Post op-ed columnist currently contributing to JewishWorldReview.com, HumanEvents.com and CanadaFreePress.com. He may be reached at atahlert@comcast.net.


Pages: 1 2

None of it is flying anymore, at least not with Americans on both sides of the color line genuinely interested in a color-blind society, the people who believe in Martin Luther King’s idea that “content of character” trumps “color of skin.” They are the people who recognize that racial grievance is a business for far too many shameless people, who only prosper by keeping the victim narrative alive and well.

Nothing assures the production of victims more than the gang-banger mentality and all its attendant pathologies. The foremost pathologies? A bone-headed, reflexive macho-ism, coupled with a penchant for using guns to settle even the most minor disputes. The Brighton Beach story is depressingly familiar. From the New York Daily News:

“One man used an umbrella to crack another man in the head as the fight erupted on the Brighton Beach…[S]uddenly, a gunman squeezed off about eight rounds, first shooting in the air before aiming at the brawling crowd, cops and witnesses said.”

What kind of mentality do you have to have to aim at a crowd? And sure enough, yet another innocent victim, 16-year old Tysha Jones, is dead in what the Daily News characterized as a “senseless shooting.”

Hardly senseless. There are a litany of “sensible” rationalizations for pulling the trigger which might not make sense to outsiders, but will be very much in tune with the inner-city worldview where “respect,” aka street-cred, is earned for being able to “out-thug” everyone else.

How deep does the pathology go? Aside from the racial hucksters and their progressive enablers, as deep as the entertainment industry wants it to go. As deep as a Democratic Party, for whom black “victims” equal reliable voters, wants it to go. As deep as black Americans themselves, who ostracize their own brethren for straying away from the Left, want it to go.

And now the violence is becoming orchestrated via technology: send a Facebook message or a tweet, and x amount of kids will show up in a “flash mob,” and shake down a busload of people. The progressives insist that relentless poverty causes crime, a myth debunked here, even as they overlook how many of these “poor” kids own Internet access and/or a cell phone.

This column is written with the intent of cutting through much of the political correctness that invariably accompanies any so-called national conversation regarding race, one that automatically brands anyone a racist for stating out loud what too many people prefer to whisper about. But it is not racist to point out the glaringly obvious. And it is glaringly obvious that until the self-perpetuated destruction of the black family, with all of its attendant pathologies, is confronted, it cannot be changed. It is glaringly obvious that a progressive ideology which has institutionalized inequality in the form of racial quotas and lower standards for “people of color” as a means of proving how much it “cares,” is an insidious perpetration of soft-core bigotry. It is glaringly obvious that people on both sides of the color line have been burdened with such unnecessary baggage long enough.

There will always be a certain degree of racism. Part of the hard-wired human condition is the simple fact that people tend to fear that which they do not understand. The parents of Tysha Jones are dealing with the worst thing that can happen to any parents. All decent people should be outraged. And yet once again, the central reasons for this tragedy have been side-stepped. Mayor Mike Bloomberg, in the typically clueless fashion that has become his trademark, is blaming the availability of guns for the crime. “It would be very helpful . . . if Congress would have some courage to stand up and just enforce the laws that are on the books,” he said.

It would be even more helpful if America honestly addressed the reality that too many black American youths are immersed in a pathological, machismo thug-glorifying worldview–nurtured by timid politicians, racial opportunists and a head-in-the-sand media.

Arnold Ahlert is a contributing columnist to the conservative website JewishWorldReview.com.

Pages: 1 2

  • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

    First of all, a crucial part of the hard-wired human condition is that ALL people tend to take advantage of … any unearned advantage: as soon as it becomes available! And things like welfare or affirmative action are unearned advantages indeed.

    The recipients of unearned advantages inevitably become more and more corrupt: especially because of lack of the faith and moral standards, caused by a war on Christianity waged by the state. Turning into permanent beneficiaries of welfare and affirmative action, the blacks therefore only worsened their lagging behind.

  • Mike

    Great article. People are so scared to talk about race when it comes to whites being the victim of blacks. The statistics of black on white crime across America is staggering. People need to speak up and understand that individually we have nothing to feel guilty about and do not need to tolerate these attacks which target white people.

    • angielovestone

      just getting what you started years ago so dont be afraid and white on white crime is higher that black on black crime.

  • crackerjack

    This article is based on racism

    Connecting race to social conduct and dissorder is Social-Darwinism, a concept introduced and promoted by Germany's National Sozialisten in the '30s of the last century.
    TheSocial-Darwinist concept is that races own a genetic disposition which influence their social behaviour; – the Negro is lazy and disorderly, the Jew shrewd and greedy, the White "Race" natural and superior leaders.

    The author is well beyond the red-line with his concepts here. Race does certainly NOT matter in social science.

    • Disgusted

      Yeah, and when I got mugged over 30 years ago, and the black perps told me "We don't care if we kill you 'cause you white," that wasn't racism either. .

      • crackerjack

        @Disgusted.

        Sure, that was a racist, but I fail to see your point. If individual Black racism entitles you to judge the whole Black community, why shouldn't White racism entitle Blacks to judge the White community? I think the Blacks, after centuries of slavery and institutionalized racistl discrimination would have a far better case here.

        • Carpaccio

          crackerjack – Your definition of Social Darwinism is completely inaccurate and ignorant as is your crediting it to Nazi Germany. In fact, your whole post is idiotic. The author makes a perfectly reasonable argument based on data and logic and you go straight into the usual demagogic shaming and screaming of “racist!”

          People are sick not only of being told lies about race but of being forced to lie themselves, and in ever more outlandish ways. Your type of bullying and stupidity is coming to an end.

    • PhillipGaley

      Right—however, is there some other way to consider cultural differences: Recently, I heard a "testimony" from a Christian Black woman who told the congregation how difficult that, growing up with The Lord was: ", . . . it's gonna be tough, you're gonna get throwed in prison, you're gonna go through a lot but, the Lord's gonna be there with you all the way."; I was kind of surprised that, in the Black community, prison time is just sort of accepted—as but one identifier of tribalism, . . .

      And—beside decrying their use of "Race" in the title, what to do with: "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability,"—done by Philippe Rushton et al., from six universities, spanning North America, . . .

      Or, look at what a heck of a time, we had getting the mid-west Scandinavian descendants as governmental office holders to finally comprehend the right of parents to educate their own children because, Americanism asserts that, the individual is separate from her governmental office holders. But look at the Scandinavian tribalism of which they are extracted in which—partly, due to climate, scarcity of food and other life-sustaining resources—each person is still seen to be a derivation of the group, the whole, the state.
      Nor—to my knowledge—has any Scandinavian nation ever produced any scholarly work done upon the Scripture, and no surprise then, that—except for some complaint that, for example, in the last 5 years, in Oslo, all rapes appear as commissions done by Moslem immigrants—the Scandis are going wholesale for Islam.

      For about thirty years, being in consort with a cool-natured Scandinavian, on one occasion she said: "You should'a married a hot-blooded Scot, . . . jus' like yourS-S-SELF-F!".

      And all this to simply say, much in opposition to what some might suppose as every baby a blank slate, cultural retention of the characteristic tribal bindings are much less put off—I think—than currently imagined, and are rather, much in evidence still, if one but knows where to look, . . . and sadly, there are those who appear as the Apostle speaks: ". . . . as brute beasts, made to be caught and killed."; but then, though tailored for our time, that line would better in Daniel Webster's day, say, certainly not with what passes for currency in everyday pc America—right?

      • crackerjack

        Islam is a religion, not a race.

        • ajnn

          he did not say islam is a race. again, we see people commenting without reading.

          not constructive.

    • gooch_mango

      You are factually incorrect. Social Darwinism was introduced by the Fabian Socialists of late-19th century England, and picked up rather quickly by the American progressive movement. Scan any of the better newspapers and journals of the time… you'll find discussions of Social Darwinism (and the best ways to implement it) amongst all of the educated classes.

      • crackerjack

        Social Darwinism turns ugly when it tags individual races to certain social behaviour, as in this case. This is the road to Auschwitz.

    • William_Z

      "Race does certainly NOT matter in social science."

      You're wrong. You don’t know what you’re talking about. The Social Science Journal has numerous articles dealing specifically with race:

      “Race differentials in employment effects of psychological distress”
      “Where o' where did my baseball cards go? Race, performance, and placement in the Topps ERA, 1956-1980.”
      “Impact of socioeconomic status on inter-racial mate selection and divorce.”

    • tagalog

      Some black political leaders say race does indeed matter; in fact, according to them, race should be consciously be taken into account in social matters.

      It seems to me that the social sciences have shown great interest in the effect of race on a multitude of issues, particularly in such areas as social interaction, the extent to which separate racial groups in a "melting-pot" society retain their race-related cultural customs and mores, the racial makeup of workforces, racial discrimination in various areas of commerce and culture, admission to colleges and universities, and so on. Isn't that why we have to mark our racial or ethnic group in application forms?

    • Stan

      Nothing in the original article has any logical connection with social darwinism or any biological race theory. You can accept (or not) the assertion that America is currently afflicted by a vast, criminal black underclass, regardless of your views on the relationship between biology and human behavior.

      • crackerjack

        The article is based on classical Social Darwinism, with the author connecting social dissorder to race.
        Social dissorder is a product of society, not of genetic resource. Human races do not carry dispositions towards certain social behaviour. Social behaviour is determined by society, not by genes.
        Black US thugs are a product of US society, not of their skin colour.

        • Gary from Jersey

          Either you skimmed the article or ignored what you didn't want to hear. Black crime is caused by a subset of the black demographic. Black-on-black crime is six times more likely than black on white, according to one federal study, which indicates that the thug mentality is fact, not the theory of social darwinism.

          Nowhere in the article is it even implied that this is a "genetic resource," whatever that means. Black thugs are created by other black thugs, maybe as a survival mechanism, maybe as a need to prove one's manhood. Neither of us can adequately answer that. But I CAN say that black ideology is based on skin color because I live with it daily.

          You're adept at pointing fingers and making excuses. You're inept at understanding the underlying concept of the white leftist sense of moral superiority in the countervailing face of hard, cold facts.

    • rusyn

      the popular culture in america is the urban black culture and it has elements of violence and deviancy. the black culture is the problem and the acceptance of this into the popular culture has done immense damage. race is the problem

    • Another racist

      crackerjack, what's wrong with racism? What's wrong with nationalism? What's wrong with islamophobia? What's wrong with being white and Christian? WHAT'S WRONG WITH DEFENDING YOUR CULTURE AND YOUR FAMILIY?

      Islamophobia is OK.
      Islamophobia is politically correct.

      • crackerjack

        Islam is not a race. Islam is a religion.

    • Ken Berwitz

      Facts are what they are.

      If the flash mobs rioting in major cities are all or almost all comprised of Blacks, then NOT mentioning that fact is racist.

      If there were a rash of, say, Chinese flash mobs in cities around the country, you can bet your bottom dollar they would be identified as such. Same with Jews wearing skullcaps, Christians sporting large crosses, men wearing red bandanas or elderly people. If the perpetrators have a clearly defined trait that is part of the story, whether you like it or not.

      If you are ever beaten and robbed by a group of thugs, whether White, Black or any other race, and the police ask you for a description, what are you going to do? Refuse to tell them on the grounds that it would be racist?

      Spare me from PC robots.

      • bigbiz

        You are absolutly right..but unfortunately the police including White police are programed not to mention race as a motive.Just listen to some of the lying White cheifs of police..or where is the FBI ..they have a unit of hundreds that just wait for a White on Black crime.

    • willford

      You are a MORON of the most extreme!!!

  • Mike

    When a racial agenda is a core part of a group's culture, ignoring race means ignoring the underpinnings of the culture. As a result, you prevent any meaningful discussion from taking place, and perpetuate the problem.

    For comparitive purposes, the European rioting youth a couple of years ago, were sometimes identified as "immigrant youth", but never by the true identifier of "Muslim youth". I never saw a Sikh or a Jew in the pictures.

    • crackerjack

      Race is NOT culture. Culture may be chosen, race not.

      • Sandy

        We must talk about race as long as race has anything to do with culture. It's not racist to realize this. It has nothing to do with one person's skin color vs. another person's skin color. It has everything to do with the culture they are a part of. If I see a group of black teenagers congregating in front of a store, I'm not walking past them! And when my son's bike was stolen (about 25 yrs. ago) how did I know it was a black kid who stole it? This did happen. I knew the culprit was a black kid, and it turned out that was exactly right. We must also realize that the laws and policies made under Pres. Johnson only served to escalate this. White women were afraid to walk past a group of young black men long before that!

      • Sandy

        Also we could talk about laws promoting a more feminist outlook or sameness of the sexes. Look at what was said in the article. That before the new policies of Pres. Johnson, AFDC was only for widows who had lost their breadwinning husbands. Perhaps it would be considered anti-woman or cauvinistic or politically incorrect to say that a man should support his wife and children, and only in the absence of a husband should the government kick in and help this family. But if you ask me, that is pro-woman and child. There would, of course still be some husbands who would not work or who would abandon their families. But the newer policy only helps them to do this. Perhaps the black culture is more prone to this kind of irresponsiblity, but a nanny state will not help them to stand up to the plate and do the responsible thing.

        • aspacia

          Part of the problem stems from a family not being able to collect welfare if the unemployed man was in the home.

    • Chezwick_mac

      It got so bad in Britain that Hindus and Sikhs began demanding their communities be identified by RELIGION, because the moniker "Asian" had fallen into such disrepute as a result of habitual Muslim rioting and other social pathologies.

      • abdul7591

        Wow. That IS interesting.

      • aspacia

        True, and many are fed-up with Muslim riots and demands.

  • mrbean

    Listen to thid video with Larry Elder and notice how the interviewer, Travis Smiley, is in denial regardless of the facts. Here are those USDJ and FBI facts in a 2nd video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b6pBzIhIh0&fe
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5JbAO5_NMw&NR

  • elvisbarry

    Bravo!! finally with someone with the courage to be honest and give the facts! thank you

  • Tziona

    The author wrote:
    "Despite all protestations to the contrary, that expansion destroyed the basic underpinning of any civilized society, namely the nuclear family. Nowhere has that destruction been more prevalent than in the black American community, which now boasts an out-of-wedlock birthrate of 72 percent."

    While I accept as true that welfare payments to single mothers as described will perpetuate one-parent families among the urban poor (mostly black), it absolutely wasn't welfare that destroyed the nuclear family among African Americans, that honor goes to slavery. This is a matter of historical record. Africans shipped as slaves to the Americas were shipped as anonymous units, to be beasts of burden, alone in a sea of strangers, without their wives, husbands, children, or parents. Even if they were able to strike up new relationships on the plantations their children and/or partners could be taken and sold at any time.

    [end of part one]

    • ajnn

      problem with blaming 'slavery' is that the black family was largely intact in 1950 and generating less than 8% illegitimacy. the downfall of the black family (and many white) accelerates in 1966.

      "the narrative is true, it's the facts that are wrong"

      • Tziona

        It's not about "blaming" anything, it's about recognising the history behind the problem in order to correctly diagnose the problem.

        • leeinthemountains

          You obviously have no faith in blacks that you must make excuses for them and their behaviors. We've been recognizing the problem for decades and it not only isn't improved it is getting worse. It is worse now than it was 60 years ago although black violence has always been an issue.

    • Vaughn

      Not so! I grew up in Georgia 87 years ago and black (Negro) families were part of society and their families were integral. None that I knew ever blamed their condition on slavery. That is a relatively recent excuse where black leaders use history to blame society for their own benefit giving the black men an excuse to do crime for a career. Poor black mothers today accomodate young men with their federal dole teaching them to depend on others not on education or ambition.

      • Tziona

        Jim Crow laws still ruled in Georgia in the 1930s, why would a black person risk their life by telling a white person how they really felt? Today blacks are free to tell you exactly what they think about their social circumstances, but you don't like what you hear so crave the security you felt as a child when blacks didn't "step out of line" for fear of being lynched.

        • tagalog

          Before 1930, black people like Frederick Douglass, George Washington Carver, Luther Burbank, Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. DuBois, and I'm sure many others, told all of us loudly and in print, how they felt about being black, and how black people in general felt about being second-class citizens. Their strongly-expressed public statements were a major factor in white people becoming sensitive to the wrongs done to blacks. The fear of black resistance is the reason for many a gun-control law. There was plenty of black resentment and white people knew about it. In the Deep South, the response to it was to put it down in the in most vicious way. In the North, white people ignored them. The black people who would talk about that with us white boys when I worked in a business in which the majority of employees were black about 40 years ago would say that the Northern ignoring of the problem was worse than the outright Southern hostility. I didn't really believe that; I thought I'd rather be ignored than castrated and hanged, but to say that would imply that I was denying the authenticity of their feelings, and I didn't want to do that.

        • FransSusan

          Everything you say is an excuse for irresponsibility!

    • ~AV~

      Then why do black people keep perpetuating the GOD AWFUL practice? Are they pathalogically so stupid they can't 'hep demselves?

  • Tziona

    [part two]

    The Southern States were the first place in the Americas that, instead of working their slaves to death and replenishing slave stock with fresh imports, started to actively breed slaves, but they didn't do it by forming nuclear slave families, the slaver-owners considered family attachments between slaves too much of a risk. Taking their lead from horse farmers, what they did was to select a stud who 'serviced' selected females. This is the root of the absent father syndrome in African-American, Afro-Caribbean and Black-European communities; welfare may exacerbate the problem but it didn't create it.

    And once the Atlantic slave trade was made illegal all states in the Americas and the Caribbean used similar techniques. Those men who could only dream of being the stud had to get what sex they could when they could. Neither the studs, nor the baby-mothers, nor the surreptitious fathers had any parental rights. African-American culture is matriarchal because at least the slave-mothers had contact with their babies until they were old enough to be taken away or sold.

    [end of part two]

    • FransSusan

      Slavery happened so long ago in the US that to use it as an excuse for anything is a cop out, which is being irresponsible. Everything you say is an excuse for being irresponsible. Blacks are the only people who still practice slavery today, by the way.

  • Tziona

    [part three]

    Some African-Americans accepted Christianity in a big way and ultimately adopted the Judeo-Christian nuclear family lifestyle, but for many, accepting the religion and lifestyle of those who brutalized and oppressed them would seem like what we call Stockholm Syndrome today. Rejecting the white man's worldview, including his religion and morality, was as valid survival mechanism. It is naive in the extreme to expect that after 400 years of abuse and oppression the current generation of African Americans will just abandon that rejectionism handed down to them from their forefathers.

    A solution will only be found by an honest appraisal of the facts, blaming welfare for a problem that was created by slavers long before welfare existed doesn't really cut it.

    • tagalog

      Black slaves in America overwhelmingly accepted Chrisitianity. It may not have happened among first-generation slaves, but it is the case that eventually, African native religions faded away and were replaced with (mostly) Protestant Christianity. It is also true that, while slaveholders tended to ignore family ties in selling slaves, practices and policies of slave ownership varied from owner to owner. Some owners fostered family life, some did not. So that stud farm thing sounds a bit like something out of the novel "Mandingo." No doubt there were some owners who did that, but I have no doubt that slave life in many places included the monogamous family as well.

      • Tziona

        Black slaves in America overwhelmingly accepted Chrisitianity. Of course they did, so did the Anusim in Spain, survival comes first. It's not like the slaves had much of a choice, African religions were outlawed and there was hardly a free-marketplace of ideas for slaves to pick and choose a new religion from. And have you never heard of Stockholm Syndrome?

        A fair percentage of slaves no doubt genuinely believed in the Christianity they adopted or were forced to adopt, but it is illogical to believe they all did, and the descendants of those that didn't have an inalienable right not to conform with the morals and mores of those who oppressed and brutalised their forefathers if they so choose. There is no logical reason to demand that everyone conform to the nuclear family paradigm, it does not suit everybody, so unless there is a law against single-parent families people are free to choose that lifestyle if they so wish. So is America the land of the free, or the land of forced marriages?

        • tagalog

          Is America the land of the free or of compulsion? Ask the huge majority of black Americans who attend Christian churches: are they there because they have to be in order to get along with "white America," or out of true belief?

          No, there's no logical reason other than custom and practice to conform to the nuclear family paradigm, but remember that the nuclear family concept is a function of the past 40 or 50 years; before that, the American practice was the extended family, where most families contained not only mom, dad, and the kids, but also grandma/grandpa, and fairly often Aunt Jane/Uncle Joe. Black Americans lived according to that custom for a long time, and things only changed with the generation that reached child-bearing age in the 1960s.

          • bigbiz

            Africans prior to Christainity being brought to them by do gooder Whites were like packs of animals where the alpha male had control over dozens if not hundreds of females. Same thing as Indigenous peoples in the Western hemisphere Pokahontas' father Powatan had 300 wives..might makes right >It was Christinaity that was proght to the Africans as they settled and married on the plantations that formed the one man one woman family.Also in the southern United States slaves got Sundays off to go to church and be with their families.

  • http://vnnforum.com DeShawn

    You are all a bunch of racist jews. The Black man has been OPPRESSED by y'all for hundreds of years, so now we're rising up against our oppressers. Case closed.

    • Chiggles

      What a silly Negro.

    • tagalog

      You're rising up against your oppressors, and the rest of us are waking up after a long period of allowing guilt to cloud our good judgment.

      Not that I have to, but just to establish my bona fides, I come from hundreds of years of farmers, smallholders who never enslaved anyone. Not only were they believers in liberty, they couldn't have afforded to buy a slave even if they weren't. My family lived in a lily-white part of the country for hundreds of years, in the back hills on hardscrabble farms. I didn't even know any black people until I was in college and I have no preconceived biases because I was raised in a family that put great value on judging people individually and on their personal qualities, not on collective qualities (whatever such things might be). The only people who were hated as a group in my family were the English from whom we came, because some of them persecuted my ancestors for their Separatist religion and because we fought them in the American Revolution. And by the way, I'm not a Jew. The bottom line is I never oppressed anyone.

      So you go for your agenda, and the rest of us will go for ours, OK?

    • 13Sisters76

      DeShawn,
      You are a fool, being used by those who have an interest in keeping you stupid.
      If you are younger than the average grandparent, then you have not one clue what "discrimination" feels like, have never in your life been exposed to it, and only know what you have been told about it by those same, aforementioned self-servers.
      Lucky little you- growing up in a society that is terrified of "offending" you, and in the meantime, allowing you and those in your community to become exactly what the left has always believed about you- operating strictly on brainstem.

    • ~AV~

      YAWN…blacks are generally classified by blacks as either nig*ers or Uncle Toms…I love me some Uncle Tom's I hate ni*gers…

    • leeinthemountains

      Bring it on

    • FransSusan

      All you're doing is looking for excuses to be irresponsible. Everything you say is just an excuse. Face facts. No one alive today has done any oppressing of blacks in the U. S. Stop making excuses for inexcusable behavior. It's pathetic! (Slavery still exists, but it's blacks who are the slave owners!)

    • FransSusan

      What you're saying is nothing but an excuse to be irresponsible!

  • Chris Nichols

    How are we oppressing you DeShawn? By giving you racial hiring preferences, and welfare programs. Here is something you need to understand De, white people didn't start slavery, but we were the first to end it. Did you know that the African slave trade was started by Arab Muslims? And that they still practice it today? Of course they enslaved white Europeans too, or did you think your race is the only one that has experienced slavery?

    • Dennis X

      Not all Black people are or ever have been of welfare or food stamps. In fact there are more white people on welfare than Black people. The percentage for Black people is higher. And yes for those of us who are professional and in the work place I experience racism every day. And you say you ended " your" slave trade, ok, I kick you butt every day of your life then one day I stop, I still treat you like crap but I'm not kicking your butt everyday. Do you like me now? Do you now want to be like me cause I make and enforce all the rules, I don't think so. And yes the arabs were and still are involed in the slave trade, I'm no fan of the arabs ethier , however, white american slaverly destroyed families and cultures , white europeans as slaves no where close to what Black people went thur.

      • tagalog

        Black people don''t have to like white people, and white people don't have to like black people. When we're in the public square, we have to judge each other as individuals, not by the group we happen to be part of. And we have to do business with each other.

        Complicating that is the fact that from about 1600 until 1865, black people in America were mostly slaves (although about 1/3 of America's black population lived as free people), and today black people in America (whether they are descended from slaves or not) claim entitlement to certain concessions from American society because of slavery. While I agree that the great majority of black people are sober, well-behaved, and willing to do what it takes to maintain civilization, far too many black people are doing little or nothing to help preserve American civilization. You might say, "Why should they? American civilization enslaved us," but first of all, any civilization is better than living in a state of nature, and second, American civilization was in the forefront with the United Kingdom in eliminating the slave trade in the West (although they gave up before they were able to put a stop to the Muslim slave trade, which of course continues to this very day).

        • Todd

          You raise an over looked issue, and one not addressed concerning stereotypes is that "Black" in peoples minds usually doesn't make room for recent immigrants from Europe, Africa, Haiti, other part of Latin America etc. Stereotypes are powerful though, and don't really subside, and have shown powerful factors in continued discrimination for hiring, wage increases, or promotions. I don't think welfare is the answer, but to enforce laws against practices that should be illegal. Then people can help themselves.

          The United States unfortunately did not lead the forefront in abolishing the slave trade, we were last – with exception of Brazil and British colonies.

          • tagalog

            The U.S. and Great Britain ended the Atlantic slave trade in the first decade of the 19th Century. The U.S. prohibited the participation in the international slave trade as of 1807 by provision in the U.S. Constitution made in 1787. In the U.S. slavery ended in 1865. In the United Kingdom, slavery in the British Isles ended in the 1700s, and ended in the 1830s in the Caribbean, although slavery continued in India until the 20th Century, even after independence. Denmark and Norway abolished slavery in 1804; France in 1848. Germany used slave labor up to 1945. Romania enslaved the Gypsys (the Roma) into the mid-20th Century. Japan abolished slavery by law in the 17th Century, although during the days of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (i.e., the 1930s and 1940s), Japan used slave labor in its colonies, particularly in China, Korea, Indochina, the Philppines, and Indonesia after they fell to the Japanese armed forces. Slavery continued into the 20th Century in most of Eastern and Southeast Asia. Slavery continues to exist in China for certain classes of prisoners. China outlawed slavery in its more general sense in the early 20th Century. In Central and Eastern Asia, in Russia and the PRC, Uighurs and Chechens continue to labor under slavery in some places to this day. In South America, slavery continued in Brazil until the 1930s, and was abolished earlier in the 20th Century in other South American countries. Slavery continues to this day in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa; Northern African states abolished slavery in the mid-20th Century. Slavery in Arab states continues to this day, in some places as a tolerated black market, in others openly and legally.

            So I'm having a hard time understanding the statement that Great Britain and the United States weren't in the forefront of abolishing the slave trade. It certainly appears that they were; can you document your contention that they were last?

          • Todd

            Allow me to clarify: Atlantic Slave Trade. I thought that was assumed. But I did forget Cuba and Puerto Rico. The United States was 4th to last, not second to last, my apologies. You are correct in saying that Great Britain was at the forefront, just not the United States

          • tagalog

            Sorry, but I'm looking for a little more clarification: what nations other than the United States and the British Empire were involved in abolishing the Atlantic slave trade?

            Cuba (abolishment of slavery in 1886) and Puerto Rico (1873) were both Spanish colonies, so I can see how the U.S. was ahead of them. I'm not aware of Cuba and Puerto Rico, or their colonial master of the time, Spain, being involved in ending the Atlantic slave trade.

            I also accept that Great Britain led the movement to end the Atlantic slave trade, but the U.S. was right in there with the Brits. What other nations were involved in ending the Atlantic slave trade?

            According to my tally, Denmark was involved, and they were the first to take a stand against the Atlantic slave trade. Then Britain, then the United States. I understand that Portugal is in there somewhere, so I see those four nations as the forefront of the abolition of the Atlantic slave trade. I know that Great Britain and the U.S. sent ships to halt the traffic, I don't know what Denmark and Portugal did.

          • Todd

            Countries that ended before the United States included: Great Britain, Canada, Greece, Spain (with the exception of their colonies Cuba and puerto Rico mentioned above). The other Central and South American countries had fortunately already gone through independence and quickly outlawed slavery – Agrentina, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela, Panama Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia Uruguay Mexico.. (this is just off the top of my head – I may be leaving out a country).
            As you suggest the U.S may have sent ships, but this was in contradiction to their own policies and practices – as the US was a deeply divided nation then, just as it is now. Like it or not, America was dragged kicking and screaming to abolish slavery and even had a war over it, rather than just passing a law. (granted the civil war is very complex – but the right to have slaves was a core demand of Southern states rights)

          • Tziona

            Todd and Tagalong, but it isn't just about the slave trade, ending the trade didn't end slavery, the institution of slavery continued long after the trade in new slaves was abolished. And then even after emancipation racial segregation was the legal norm until the 1960s.

            Another factor that must be considered is motivation, all Americans (including Native Americans) except African Americans and some British convicts chose to be there. They came to build a new life and shake off their pasts, so there is an instictive determination to succeed passed down through the generations. African Americans don't have that, the personal histories and cultures of those who were brought over were ripped from them not given up willing, they didn't come to build a new life, they were forced to build someone elses new life. The instinct passed down through the generations of African Americans was not the determination to succeed and build a new but the determination to survive, the new life part was forced upon them – a very different cultural mindset.

          • tagalog

            My point in this exchange is to make the point that when the United States was founded, slavery was perceived even by many from the slaveholding states as an evil that had to end, and when they wrote the Constitution in 1787, they put language in it that demonstrates their commitment to end slavery in the United States. That predates the anti-slavery programs of most or all European states.

            Yes, the U.S. government by law tolerated slavery for another 75 years, but their goal and the direction of governmental action from 1787 onward was to end slavery. Even some of the slaveholding states agreed with that goal. Virginia, led by Thomas Jefferson (yes, that celebrated slave owner and miscegenist), was noteworthy for its anti-slavery views.

            Slavery didn't end as early as our leaders wanted. They had to compromise in order to get the United States founded and up and running. But the policy and action of the United States from the earliest days of our republic was to put slavery at an end. All it takes to confirm that is to take a look at the nation's laws. For every Fugitive Slave Act, there's a Missouri Compromise.

      • Chris Nichols

        I didn't say only black people have been on welfare or food stamps, and yes I know more white people are on food stamps than black people. However, the point of the article also points out the illegitmacy rate among black Americans too, fostered by the the qualifications needed for welfare which is another contributing factor to violence and crime. White americans also don't have affirmative action programs. And as for this rules thing, are you suggesting there are not blacks in Congress, or law enforcement, try and keep up. And just because some people treat you like crap, doesn't mean everyone of you are treated like crap, and that only white peole can be racist. By the way, you are still not a slave. Furthermore,the high mortality rate among young black males is due to black on black violence, due to reasons presented in this article. You also have no idea what white Europeans went through when it comes to slavery. As a matter of fact, the word slave comes from the word slav, which was an Eastern European ethnic group which was constantly enslaved by it's neighbors

      • FransSusan

        You're just making excuses for irresponsibility. No white person in the U. S. alive today has had anything to do with enslaving blacks, yet we're still blamed for everything that goes wrong with blacks. Stop excusing irresponsibility! Blacks are the ones who sold blacks to the traders, by the way! Accept responsibility.

  • Rochmoninoff

    Wow.

    @crackerjack – you object to people mixing up religion, culture and race. Theoretically you're correct. But in practice there is no difference. Example: the one black kid in my highschool was "white". And by this I mean he was one of us all matters cultural, and religious. The tint of his skin was irrelevant. On the other hand consider the rapper Eminem: I would consider him "black".

    @Tziona – your analysis is logical and consistent. But I don't believe that the facts support it. Slavery ended 150 years ago. Blacks absorbed cultural norms from their former masters, moved north to find jobs and were progressing naturally to full integration (like Irish and Italians before them). The collapse of the black family is a relatively recent event (last 50 years) and it's no more reasonable to blame slavery for it than it is to blame Bush for every policy failure of the current administration.

    Welfare is harmful, yes.
    But its just one cog in a bigger machine.
    Affirmative action is another.
    But most deadly of all is something that's not a official policy or law but rather a mindset:
    "The soft racism of reduced expectations".
    I've been thinking about this a lot recently and concluded that this is the most un-manning of anything. It takes a rare and exceptional individual to rise above that.
    The majority are going to get pushed down into a permanent underclass.

    Every American should have the chance to succeed or fail on their own. Government intervention to "help" blacks succeed is the most misguided failure of our political history.
    (OK maybe it ties with the Trail of Tears but you catch my drift).

  • tagalog

    Mr. Ahlert, you're mistaken. Pointing out the obvious defects in a society that fosters the things Senator Moynihan pointed out as destructive to civilization so long ago IS INDEED racist, as long as black people have spokespersons like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who diligently shape a racist agenda.

    Black people of the underclass variety have not only not been socialized; they think of other people the same way they think of those cardboard figures of actors they see in the movie house hallways, that's why it's so easy for them to shoot into a crowd. In addition to not being socialized, they have somehow been led to believe that they are entitled to something, and in that sense they see themselves as a kind of aristocrat. Just go to any courtroom in which criminals are being processed through the criminal justice system, and watch how they summon their attorneys with finger-snapping and imperious come-on gestures: "Get over here, boy." It will boggle your mind to watch some ninth-grade dropout gang-banger treat his public defender, who has spent large sums of money and the better part of a decade educating himself, as if the PD is a chimney sweep or his tailor.

  • Roger

    Great article: perhaps a new angle next time could be to examine why white people have murdered, lynched and terrorized so many black people during slavery, throughout the civil rights movements, and even today. So many questions, so few answers.

    • tagalog

      While we're asking those questions, we might also engage in some inquiry as to the nature of the sub rosa race war that has been going on between blacks and whites/Asians/Hispanics since the era of the burning of the cities in the 1960s.

      That would be interesting, and would add to the realism of the national dialogue on race.

    • leeinthemountains

      The obvious solution is for us to separate. Of course who would blacks blame then?

      • Todd

        Unfortunately separate and equal actually meant separate and less money for all things black. Or not only less money – but active federal policy to clear out black neighborhoods to make way for white neighborhoods in the name of community development. Separate has always meant separate – but first we will take your land then separate. Many countries have also tried to be left alone Hawaiians tried that , Latinos wanted to be left alone but our military just couldn't handle that, Filipinos didn't want American intervention… the list is quite long. If I had a dollar for every country we have invaded I'd be rich. Separate? ha!

        • tagalog

          Separate but equal also meant independent, wholly-black communities, black entrepreneurship, black colleges, and many other sets of circumstances in which black people could live and do business in the world without any loss of dignity. It was when black people had to interact with white people that the major defect of separate but equal -racial prejudice and mistreatment- showed itself.

          Black people know that. That's why we have jokes about the black baseball leagues in which the black players were so much more talented than the white players in the white leagues; the only reason for black players like Satchel Paige to go into the white leagues was to get recognition among whites for their abilities. They had to play down for the white boys.

          I too think we all have to learn to live together without kidding ourselves about separate but equal, but let's acknowledge that it wasn't necessarily all bad in all circumstances. It wasn't.

  • Diane u

    I’m so tired of slavery being blamed for all the ills in the black community. No blackk person who is alive in this country was ever a slave and no white was ever a slave owner.i

  • Diane

    I'm so tired of slavery being used as an excuse for all the ills in the black community. I once heard a black lawyer on TV say that no black person alive in the United States has ever been a slave and no white person alive has ever been a slave owner. Enough already!

    • Carrie

      Then we should have given up all property and wealth inherited during slavery. That way, it wouldn't have as much as a legacy as it does today. Slavery is also in part to explain why discrimination exists – because it is an inherited cultural legacy. Unless white people are naturally racist – without influence from the past – but i don't believe that.

      • tagalog

        This inherited cultural legacy, how long does it last? It's been 146 years since slavery ended in the United States; that's more than 7 generations. When can the rest of American society expect the cultural legacy of slavery to disappear among black Americans as the open wound it's currently claimed to be?

        Since "white" America is not going to be able to separate out the wealth created by slavery from the rest of its wealth, any more than the nation is going to give back to the Indians the land that was taken, that argument seems to be without much force.

        You are aware, aren't you, that some blacks appear to display racist attitudes toward Jews, Koreans, and Mexicans? I suspect, in fact I contend in the strongest possible terms, that every racial group contains the potential for racist, color, religious, ethnic, gender, age, and disability prejudice.

        • Carrie

          Yes, in essence that is exactly what I am saying. . My point is that people aren't born with prejudice, but that it is a learned behavior, often exacerbated by lived conditions. Many groups unfortunately have prejudiced attitudes, and we would be better off as a nation in general to be more tolerant of difference of all kinds. I believe we are getting better, in part because more than ever we have many multi ethnic people and inter-racial/ inter-religious marriages, it confuses the stereotypes. Confusion and contradiction diffuse hatred well.

          • FransSusan

            It doesn't matter who is prejudiced against whom or who is racist or not. It does not excuse any of this violence being perpetrated against whites. So what if we're racists. It's still no excuse! We don't have to like each other. Still no excuse for violence.

  • http://www.calreview.com Dave

    The author doesn't explain why thuggish activity is epidemic among blacks but not whites (or other groups) – although both have access to the same welfare subsidies and both are immersed in a pathological, machismo thug-glorifying worldview.

    There's something more going on that makes blacks especially violent and criminal.

    • ~AV~

      FERAL people…tend to be hateful and violent…FERAL people dwell in ghettos and worship other FERAL people aka Gangsta and Criminals and people who do not snitch to the PO PO.

      • RipleyBelieveitornot

        Yep,thats why MOB WIVES is such a hit….

  • tagalog

    Soviet culture, when it existed, was by design a chosen way of life.

    The Christian life is, too.

    • William_Z

      Impossible. If one is born into a society, one does not choose it. The Soviet Union, you write of, didn’t not spontaneously exist.  It evolved over time.

    • William_Z

      “Christian life?”  What does that mean to you? 

  • http://knowbites.com Tracy Alexander

    The falacy with both "sides" of this race argument as consistently presented via media and talking heads is that for all of the "see no color" rhetoric, that's exactly what it is: rhetoric.

    As a Scottish American, first generation on my mom's side and able to trace back beyond the American revolution on the other, I have a problem with people who use the term "white" so indiscriminately and stereotypically. Doing so is no different than using the term "black" as if all Americans of darker skin originate from the same location or culture or timing of arrival or what they have experienced within American borders. It is using color or culture to dehumanize any who fit within a specific trait, which is exactly what all of the hooha over equality is supposed to eliminate. Hypocrisy gets us nowhere.

    Racism does undeniably still exist. It is embedded in every culture. There is no justification for ignorance or abuse of others in this day and age, any more than there was in previous generations. It does not work and makes absolutely no sense to take the tactic of "abusing until some nebulous equalization of abuse has been obtained". It is not possible in this life to "make right" what was done in the past, no matter how horrendous these atrocities were. All that any of us can do is see what is wrong and adjust in the present to correct the patterns and move forward applying greater wisdom.

    This false root idea is at the heart of justifications for affirmative action programs, etc. All that is done to implement this idea is unsustainable from the outset. It is impossible to undo what was done in the past. It is equally unjust to use that past abuse to justify predation of those who did not first-hand commit those crimes. This is why we have laws to protect against "the sins of the fathers being visited upon the sons". Abuse is abuse, but only the direct participant and/or conspirators to commit these crimes are guilty. No one else.

    Society as a whole is responsible for laws enacted and enforced to eliminate inequities, not to further perpetuate them, falsely setting group against group. We do not have the right to pick and choose who this applies to. Individuals are sovereign entities who are responsible for their ideas, choices, behaviors and outcomes. To interfere in this reality is not only stupid, but a horrible violation to their sovereignty, as well as creating dysfunction where none needed to be. None of us can afford to hold onto or keep grudges about past wounds, whether real or imagined. To do so is self-destructive and self-enslaving to the past rather than living in the present and building a better civilization for future generations.

    As each culture can easily point to real and serious abuses of liberty, the stories are history unless they are being commit NOW – as in Libya, Yemen, Egypt… When we use a pattern of thinking that places past victimization out front and center so that our identity is so deeply embedded in those negative experiences, we sell out our future potential and resort to behaving like victims. Too often victims, once out from under the original predators, justify arbitrarily preying on those within reach – switching roles and becoming the very thing they hate.

    We learn about this cyclical pattern in psychology 101. We see this switching pattern in victims of child abuse, sexual abuse, etc. It is well documented. The problem is that the foundation of victim thinking is insatiable fear, confusion of integrities and false self-justification for poor choices in life that impact self and others. We all have to do the work required to establish liberty and protection of individual sovereignty in every case and in every aspect of civilization.

    Regardless of surface appearance, this is not a "white-black", "latino-black", asian-black, latino-white (etc) issue of race. It is a fundamental liberty-vs-slavery mentality that pervades humanity as a whole. It is the premiere issue of our era and what we choose as the fate of others will inevitably become our own fate, as well.

    • backtoEurope

      You are absolutely right Tracy. But, to use that approach would leave fingerpointers,hate mongers and racists without a pastime.

  • Amused

    Naaaaa, we're not talking racism . Just some good ole' white conservatism . Hmmmm , what about Asian street gangs ? Latino street gangs ? …and OMIGOSH ….White street gangs ?
    But wait , let's blame it all on a D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T , or a L-I-B-E-R-A-L , yea that's the cause , Lyndon Johnson , and those lefty Democrats again' tryin' to destroy society and America.

    • Diane

      Right! I'm sick of people blaming the "progressives" aka Democrats. It's a problem that originates from all political parties.

    • Ted

      White people don't commit crimes, Amused. And there is not a single white person who has been without a job, or who has been poor. The ills of Appalachia is a myth, and white supremacist groups got a bad rep. Please correct your profanity.

    • tagalog

      There's an additional factor to black street gangs that doesn't exist among Latino, Asian, white, etc., gang-bangers; the missing element is the sense of entitlement and institutional grudge. The poster who wrote about being beat up by a gang of blacks mentioned the willingness to inflict additional injury to him because he is white. You don't see that in the same way -or at all- with non-black thugs.

      • TheJudge

        That's got to be the worlds dumbest post. Non-black thugs don't want to inflict "additional" injury to white people…. You are measuring the degrees of as kicking based on race …. smdh.

        • tagalog

          Even dumber is waiting from June 16th to July 4 to post that reply.

  • crackerjack

    …if this be so, the author should have named his article…"Why family matters."

  • Tziona

    The legal institution of slavery ended 150 years ago, but if you know your history you the legacy of slavery remains to this day. Segregation was still legal in your country until less than 50 years ago, that's within my lifetime.

    You say the emancipated slaves "absorbed cultural norms from their former masters" what norms did they absorb exactly? If you were a slave, or segregated ex-xlave living under Jim Crow laws, what would you think was normal? For white folks it was normal to treat blacks like dirt, it was normal to lynch them if they stepped out of line, it was normal abuse them in every which way you felt, and think anybody treated like this would "absorb" nice parts of white culture and not absorb the bad parts?

    As for the "collapse of the black family is a relitively recent event" is not supported by the facts. Some blacks accepted the white man's standards (including the nuclear family) after emancipation some didn't, those that didn't have a longer tradition than those that, it is therefore not surprising that meme is now in the ascendancy.

    • Rochmoninoff

      Hispanic illegitimacy are even worse than blacks
      http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18.pdf
      Yet they were never slaves.
      Current white illegitimacy rates are >30%, black illegitimacy rate in 1940 was <20%
      The facts contradict the "slavery is the cause" claim.

      The facts do correlate with the notion that illegitimacy is driven by social policy toward the poor (blacks are not the only poor).

      Although correlation is not causality, at least we can safely conclude that when facts contradict a claim then that claim is false.

      • Holsum

        And the hispanic people are gangbanging and killing each other a lt too. They just aren't as popular on the tongues of white people…… yet.

  • Tziona

    Segregation. Jim Crow. And a penal system based on slave labor.

    • tagalog

      In Massachusetts? New York? Minnesota? California? About 35 other states?

      • Tziona

        The stink from the latrine pervades the whole camp.

        Racist laws in one state affects the whole union.

  • Diane

    White people do commit crimes. However, time and time again, I read about the most violent crimes being perpetuated by young black men. They should be at work. They shouldn't have the time to commit these crimes or to create baby after baby with so many baby mammas.

    • Ted

      Unfortunately Diane you are a victim of the media. There have many many many studies that show a distortion of reality by the media – both television and print to focus on crimes of young black men – out of proportion to what actually occurs. An example of an untrue stereo – more white men are prosecuted now for crack although it is still seen as a "black" crime.
      Of course there is the whole other issue of racial profiling- which creates a distortion in people brought in and charged with a ridiculous crime – like in some cities black men can be arrested for hanging out with friends of 5 or more, but its ok if you're white.

      • disClaimer

        You are right.When I worked for the police department , I received all the case reports… every morning. There was a great discrepancy with regards to what crimes were actually printed in the paper… A black man stealing a bike would make the paper before a white man who decapitated his dog …

  • Rochmoninoff

    The positive change from the civil rights movement was the elimination of old discriminatory laws, as well as a mental turning-of-the-corner by Americans in general regarding what kinds of behavior are acceptable (racism is uncool now).

    The negative change of adding new federally institutionalized discrimination programs (affirmative action, title nine, etc) are negative. They make moving past race (or gender) impossible because we're required by law influence discisions based on race and gender.
    These laws unman thier intended benefactors.
    Remember Clarence Thomas couldn't have become a supreme court justice w/o affirmative action? True or not, the very existence of the law undermines his achievement.
    These laws institutionalize "the soft racism of reduced expectations". They turn men into sub-men. They're like the sweet poison used on ants – it doesn't kill the ants right away, instead they take the poison back to the nest and feed other ants and queen killing the whole nest.
    If we wanted to utterly destroy the poor and black we couldn't have come up with a more effective and subtle scheme.

    • Ted

      I would argue that better than affirmative action is to actually enforce and prosecute existing laws against discrimination in hiring, promotion, salary increases and unfair firing based on race / gender / sexual orientation etc. These practices are illegal with no teeth, so companies do it anyways. That's the best way to give people incentive to get a job – if they have confidence the system is fair. Which it is not. Prosecute and enforce. That's what we need.

      • Rochmoninoff

        I'll admit to two things:
        1. Due to my sheltered West Coast life, I've never seen someone fired or skipped for promotion based on race/gender. I've seen salary discrimination against females.
        2. Personally, I've biased my own hiring decisions in favor of minorities and females because to broaden the points of view in my department (I do it to help my company, not to help the employee).

        • Ted

          Which in and of itself is not a bad thing. And depending on the job – diversity is more important – such as when it involves community outreach, or especially when working on issues directly for a specific group. Such as an all men panel making decisions about women's health is problematic.

          I think today one of the most blatant forms of shooting ourselves in the foot per se, are undocumented immigrants that come here and have advanced degrees but can't practice because of our mess of immigration system.

          • Rochmoninoff

            Off topic (you started it!) but men making "decisions about womens health" isn't necessarilly a bad thing – when we're talking about other peoples money.
            Look what happens when public employee unions make decisions about compensation and retirement packages through their puppet elected officials.
            So if laws restrict a woman's choice – I agree with your complaint.
            If laws make ME pay for a woman's choice – I don't agree.

          • Ted

            haha I did indeed open up a can of worms. I firmly believe in the principle of people making decisions over their own lives as much as possible. Especially when it concerns health.
            As far as unions – pay is just a number of issues that are up for collective bargaining, and I think people know their jobs the best and for how to improve them. Collective bargaining includes more respect at work, hours, fair promotion policies, grievance procedures, etc. Unions are one interest group and don't exist in a vacuum – and also legislators who are supposed to negotiate. Its not like any package goes through without a push or pull for bargaining. Do you really trust the average tax payer to make decisions over your workplace? Even if they know nothing about it? I think this is the ultimate regulation of someone else's life. imagine working in a community pharmacy and the pharmacist being told how to do his/her job? Its ridiculous. (I'm a pharmacy technician in a community pharmacy and experience this frustration daily) My next post will be on trying to make the argument paying for women's choices perhaps I can convince you. :)

          • Ted2

            haha I did indeed open up a can of worms. I'm still waiting for my comment to be approved, (so I changed my name just to post this in the meantime)

          • Guest

            What's stupid is the violent thugs don't even qualify for these(affimative action ) jobs anyway ,,,, anybody can work at McDonalds.

  • Andres de Alamaya

    Liberal attitudes represent civilization. Bleeding heart liberals nudge insanity. Hemorrhaging heart liberalism is suicidal and that is what America has been practicing for decades. The damage it inflicted is far greater than just rioting gangs and a culture of crime where 12% of the population commits over 50% of the nation's crime. We have dropped educational standards several times to accommodate blacks, thus dumbing down both blacks and whites giving us a generation with half the brainpower of their grandparents. When you give jobs to unqualified groups to make up for sins of your forefathers in slavery, you're not helping them – you are just lowering the quality of government and essential industries while denying qualified people employment. If and when Islam subjugates America; and it COULD happen, you'll see some real racism because Muslims regard blacks as creatures unfit to walk the same sidewalk, never mind sitting at the back of the bus.

    • Asala malakim

      Who cares what Muslims think? People in tall buidings …That is all

    • FransSusan

      I don't understand your comment about Muslims' attitude toward blacks, because there are a lot of black muslims.

  • Zambeezo

    After reading the article "Race Matters", I've been wondering which races actually matter these days. Does anybody know why we have Affirmative-Action in the US? I'm sure everybody knows Affirmative-Action is based on racial preference–that is, minorities receive special (big-time) preferences via Affirmative-Action when it comes to education and employment opportunities. The white man does not receive any special preferences with Affirmative-Action. Consequently, if race matters, why is Affirmative-Action allowed to take place since it screws over the white man. How come the minorities do not stand up for the white man and try to have Affirmative-Action stopped? Don't the minorities want everybody to be EQUAL since race matters?

  • http://home.earthlink.net/~jamiranda/terminallystupidalgorithmtsa/id3.html Burke101

    The AG wanted a dialog on race. And here we see one getting started with this article. As is to be expected, the PC race hustlers trot out the same tired formulae, trying to blame American society for criminality among a certain demographic. The fact that the USA has made civil rights the law of the land, supported by every institution from the government to the media and academia and corporations, as well as pushing every form of liberal social engineering from affirmative action to the war on poverty, goes by the boards.

    One thing which alienates people from the black argument is the non-stop refusal of the race hustlers to accept responsibility. Instead, social pathologies are blamed on long dead slavery, or segregation, or mythical “institutional racism” rather than the behaviors of the dysfunctional sector. Of course, these dysfunctions have been encouraged by the liberal welfare state and pathological liberal guilt.

    The facts ought to be shouted from the rooftops. It has been liberalism, especially in its PC manifestations, which has been the cause of social pathologies from illegitimacy to crime.

  • http://home.earthlink.net/~jamiranda/terminallystupidalgorithmtsa/id3.html Burke101

    The AG wanted a dialog on race. And here we see one getting started with this article. As is to be expected, the PC race hustlers trot out the same tired formulae, trying to blame American society for criminality among a certain demographic. The fact that the USA has made civil rights the law of the land, supported by every institution from the government to the media and academia and corporations, as well as pushing every form of liberal social engineering from affirmative action to the war on poverty, goes by the boards.

    One thing which alienates people from the black argument is the non-stop refusal of the race hustlers to accept responsibility. Instead, social pathologies are blamed on long dead slavery, or segregation, or mythical "institutional racism" rather than the behaviors of the dysfunctional sector. Of course, these dysfunctions have been encouraged by the liberal welfare state and pathological liberal guilt.

    The facts ought to be shouted from the rooftops. It has been liberalism, especially in its PC manifestations, which has been the cause of social pathologies from illegitimacy to crime.

    • FransSusan

      Very good points!

  • tagalog

    Those people are noteworthy because they're outliers.

  • http://sagatsays.wordpress.com Sagat

    This article is only partly correct. It's true that LBJ's Great Society has been one of the prime factors involved in destroying the Black community, but it's not the only one. First of all, no other group, matched for levels of illiteracy or poverty, has as high a crime rate as Black Americans. Hispanics, for instance, have a higher rate of poverty than Blacks, yet a lower crime rate overall. Poor war refugees from southeast Asia have a lower crime than poverty stricken Blacks.

    The problem starts with Blacks themselves, for the only true person to blame for a criminal act is the criminal himself. And if you accept that a criminal, any criminal, is more immoral than a non-criminal, then you have to accept that Blacks, as a group, are more immoral than any other group. And the only people that can fix that problem are Blacks themselves.

  • http://usa-wethepeople.com/ economics9698

    Single women were eligible for AFDC in the 1950's. What changed it was two key aspects of the program. First before 1965 AFDC paid less than what someone (the father) would make working a 40 hour job at minimum wage. It made more economic sense to get married than accept AFDC back then. After 1965 payments went up 50%, 100%, and even more over minimum wage when housing and medical was included.

    The second factor was the Supreme Courts decision to make it illegal for AFDC workers to check the mother to see if there was a man cohabitation with the woman. If a man was found to be living there the woman was cut off from AFDC payments.

    The combination of no inspections and higher pay made it a no brainier for women to choose to remain single.

    Charles Murray wrote a book about exactly what happened. "Losing Ground" should be mandatory reading in every high school.

  • eyenthesky

    What about Mobsters and gangsters that did drive bys, extorted money from business owners , killed each other and their families…..and just basically run amok for so long it took a myriad of crime fighters to bring them to justice…. What was their excuse? Slavery… welfare…. greed? I'm not getting it. It looks like every race has had their time that they have been prone to violence .. I think it was rather violent for white people to be hanging those black people back in the day too… Violence begets violence …

  • FransSusan

    Well said!