The Irony of Whites Talking About Fatherless Black Families...

[fncceo]

In the past people could get a job, work hard at it but then we pulled that rug out from underneath them.

Would you please tell my boss that I no longer have to work hard at my job?

I could use the break.

I look back at the neighborhood I grew up in 40-60 years ago and many of the jobs my friends parents worked at are gone.

And millions upon millions of jobs that never existed 60 years ago replaced them.

Low wage jobs with no benefits. We were never at risk of bankruptcy because someone got sick.

I worked in technology jobs for my entire career, before retiring and starting another one. I never once held a job that didn't have health care benefits, sick days, or vacation days.

 

[JoeB131]

Of course sending jobs overseas that once made it possible for people to survive had nothing to do with it. It all goes back to the same thing. Slavery, the dismantling of our manufacturing. Greed.

Greed is a problem.

So are changing economics.

200 years ago, when Slavery was at thing, 90% of the population was involved in agriculture. today, it's less than 2%.

In 1950, 35% of the population was employed in manufacturing, today it's about 10%. Yet we are manufacturing more physical goods than ever. for every job lost to offshoring, 8 jobs were lost to automation and process improvement.

Has racism been a problem in this country? Absolutely.

So has poor policy that was meant to be benevolent.

 

[Blues Man]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them are today the loudest talking people trying to diss the black community about single parent families.

When people start talking about race, there are just some simple realities that cannot be denied. If you are white and don't like how you are portrayed, start thinking about how unpleasant it really is for us who are not white to be portrayed as weak inferior people who got conquered by a supposedly superior race and culture. It is not a pleasant subject. For this to end we all must face the unpleasantness.

The doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem comes from European civil law. It means; “That which is brought forth follows the belly.” This principle determined the legal status of children born by slave women in the America as well as other English or European colonies In colonial law, the partus doctrine justified enslavement, the indigenous people of the Americas and of the Africans imported to various European colonies personal property of those who imported them.

During the time American was a colony, this doctrine established de facto and de jure slavery for all children born to female slaves. Partus sequitur ventrem exempted the father from his obligations to children he fathered by slaves thereby creating the ability for slaveowners to have their way with enslaved women. Under this doctrine the biological father had no paternal responsibility to any child born to a slave woman. Because of this the slaver was provided the right to profit from exploiting the labor of children born to slaves. It gave the slaver the ability to sell children by taking them away from their biological parents. Partus sequitur ventrem was the doctrine that created the first family separation policy in what is now America.

Despite the claims of Africans selling each other, the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem does not appear to be a part of the system of African slavery.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape

This was the legal doctrine that made any child of an American female slave a slave as well. It meant any white fathers had no financial responsibility for their progeny. They were free to rape their slaves at will as there were no laws against that either. With no concern for any children that might come from the forced union. In fact, there was a market for mulatto and octaroon children who would be purchased to work as domestics. Some owners (Thomas Jefferson) used their half-white slaves as their concubines, finding them more attractive the closer they were to white. Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, the product of her father raping a slave. Then again the master might sell their offspring to keep the peace with their wives who might be annoyed at little slave children running around who favor their husbands.

Not talked about in proper society were the children of free white women and black slaves. White women who weren’t sure what color the child might be could get a legal abortion those days. “Cottonwood” was a remedy known to slaves who sometimes refused to have children after being raped or as often as the masters would like. Some women would be forced to have over a dozen children if they survived as death during childbirth was relatively common. The rare slave would be offered their freedom if they produced enough children. Sometimes the dark child of a white woman was abandoned or given away. Usually just sold off although technically they were legally free.

View attachment 437108

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape | by William Spivey | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium

Partus sequitur ventrem legal definition of Partus sequitur ventrem (thefreedictionary.com)

Saying that because someone 20 generations removed owned a slave that his distant future relatives share in the responsibility for that decision is beyond stupid

Not that i disagree with everything you just said but that first sentence is ridiculous

 

[IM2]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them are today the loudest talking people trying to diss the black community about single parent families.

When people start talking about race, there are just some simple realities that cannot be denied. If you are white and don't like how you are portrayed, start thinking about how unpleasant it really is for us who are not white to be portrayed as weak inferior people who got conquered by a supposedly superior race and culture. It is not a pleasant subject. For this to end we all must face the unpleasantness.

The doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem comes from European civil law. It means; “That which is brought forth follows the belly.” This principle determined the legal status of children born by slave women in the America as well as other English or European colonies In colonial law, the partus doctrine justified enslavement, the indigenous people of the Americas and of the Africans imported to various European colonies personal property of those who imported them.

During the time American was a colony, this doctrine established de facto and de jure slavery for all children born to female slaves. Partus sequitur ventrem exempted the father from his obligations to children he fathered by slaves thereby creating the ability for slaveowners to have their way with enslaved women. Under this doctrine the biological father had no paternal responsibility to any child born to a slave woman. Because of this the slaver was provided the right to profit from exploiting the labor of children born to slaves. It gave the slaver the ability to sell children by taking them away from their biological parents. Partus sequitur ventrem was the doctrine that created the first family separation policy in what is now America.

Despite the claims of Africans selling each other, the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem does not appear to be a part of the system of African slavery.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape

This was the legal doctrine that made any child of an American female slave a slave as well. It meant any white fathers had no financial responsibility for their progeny. They were free to rape their slaves at will as there were no laws against that either. With no concern for any children that might come from the forced union. In fact, there was a market for mulatto and octaroon children who would be purchased to work as domestics. Some owners (Thomas Jefferson) used their half-white slaves as their concubines, finding them more attractive the closer they were to white. Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, the product of her father raping a slave. Then again the master might sell their offspring to keep the peace with their wives who might be annoyed at little slave children running around who favor their husbands.

Not talked about in proper society were the children of free white women and black slaves. White women who weren’t sure what color the child might be could get a legal abortion those days. “Cottonwood” was a remedy known to slaves who sometimes refused to have children after being raped or as often as the masters would like. Some women would be forced to have over a dozen children if they survived as death during childbirth was relatively common. The rare slave would be offered their freedom if they produced enough children. Sometimes the dark child of a white woman was abandoned or given away. Usually just sold off although technically they were legally free.

View attachment 437108

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape | by William Spivey | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium

Partus sequitur ventrem legal definition of Partus sequitur ventrem (thefreedictionary.com)

Black families without fathers over the past sixty years wasn't caused by slavery, IM2...it's something that took place because of a short sighted welfare system that made it financially beneficial to NOT have a father in the house incentivized that to take place!

Black families without fathers are not the problem. But whites like yourself want to avoid the real problem.

On June 8, 2015, Charles Blow wrote an article in the New York Times titled, “Black Dads Are Doing Best of All.” McDonald should have read it. This article takes apart the tale of black fathers not being around for their kids. The issue of unwed births really has no relation to whether 2 parents are around. An unwed birth is a child being born and the couple is not married. That does not mean a man and a woman are not together raising the child. The single mother narrative got destroyed long ago, because a single mother does not mean a man will not be around to influence the child as it grows up. One fantastic example is the story Shaquille O’Neal tells about his relationship with Sergeant Phillip Harrison who raised him with his mother. Finally, the appearance of Barack Obama on the world stage allows me to say once and for all that a single parent family is not the cause of the problem. This article shows that the majority of black children in this country live with their fathers or their fathers are active participants in their lives. In reality, not the convoluted racist mind, a mother and father ARE present in the majority of black homes.

Josh Levs points this out in his new book, “All In,” in a chapter titled “How Black Dads Are Doing Best of All (But There’s Still a Crisis).” One fact that Levs quickly establishes is that most black fathers in America live with their children: “There are about 2.5 million black fathers living with their children and about 1.7 million living apart from them.”

Charles Blow​

A report titled “Fathers’ Involvement With Their Children: United States, 2006–2010,” was published by the Centers for Disease Control in the National Health Report on December 20, 2013. The findings are interesting for those who have decided they can paint black culture in moral terms. Moral terms that 244 years of American history show whites who have decided they can do the painting, refuse hold themselves to. The findings in this study debunk the standard racist white narrative to the point that it is miseducation, misinformation, lies, or whatever word you want to give to the purposeful deception provided to describe a race of people. Some of the findings are as follows:

A higher percentage of fathers who lived with their children under age 5 fed or ate meals with them daily—72% compared with 7.9% of fathers with noncoresidential children. A higher percentage of fathers living apart from their children did not feed or eat meals with them at all in the last 4 weeks—43% compared with 0.8% of fathers with coresidential children (Table 2). Variation by Hispanic origin and race was seen in the percentages of coresidential fathers who ate meals with their children every day. Specifically, Hispanic fathers were less likely to eat meals with their children every day (64%) than were non-Hispanic white (74%) or non-Hispanic black (78%) fathers.

There was a significant difference by Hispanic origin and race among fathers with coresidential children: Black fathers (70%) were most likely to have bathed, dressed, diapered, or helped their children use the toilet every day compared with white (60%) and Hispanic fathers (45%).

A higher percentage of Hispanic fathers aged 15–44 (52%) had not played with their noncoresidential children in the last 4 weeks compared with white (30%) and black (25%) fathers.

Larger percentages of Hispanic (82%) and white (70%) fathers had not helped their noncoresidential children with homework at all in the last 4 weeks compared with black fathers (56%).

• Pew Research estimates that 67 percent of black dads who don’t live with their kids see them at least once a month, compared to 59 percent of white dads and 32 percent of Hispanic dads. Evidence shows that a number of black dads living apart from their kids because of structural systems of inequality and poverty, not the unfounded racist assumption that African-American men place less or no value on parenting. Black and white fathers agree on the importance of being a father who provides emotional support, instills discipline and moral guidance. Black dads are also more likely to think it is important to provide for his children financially.

Simply put, the unwed, single mom, absent black father is not the cause of crime or violence in black communities. Single mothers have boyfriends, this seems to be ignored and it should not be.

 

[AMart]

People as individuals are not responsible for what others did in the past. Society is responsible for trying to correct the wrongs of the past.

So while individuals have a need to understand today's problems, one can not actually address those problems without understanding the reasoning behind them.

Condemning others without taking all the issues into the argument is condemning only and solves nothing.

Well that excuse ain't going to cut it since individuals of the past created the laws we live by today. Our nations wealth is built upon what was done in the past. Public policy is created by individuals and those policies harm groups so please stop trying to use a micro level argument in debating a macri level issue.

Just stop dude. Nigerian Americans are the most likely group, by country of origin, to get a Master's Degree in the USA. There is nothing preventing anyone from moving ahead in the USA.

There are very limited jobs for people with master degree's.

Not for STEM. You will find a job.

 

[fncceo]

There are very limited jobs for people with master degree's.

The fast food industry does not discriminate against you if you have an advanced degree.

 

[IM2]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them are today the loudest talking people trying to diss the black community about single parent families.

When people start talking about race, there are just some simple realities that cannot be denied. If you are white and don't like how you are portrayed, start thinking about how unpleasant it really is for us who are not white to be portrayed as weak inferior people who got conquered by a supposedly superior race and culture. It is not a pleasant subject. For this to end we all must face the unpleasantness.

The doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem comes from European civil law. It means; “That which is brought forth follows the belly.” This principle determined the legal status of children born by slave women in the America as well as other English or European colonies In colonial law, the partus doctrine justified enslavement, the indigenous people of the Americas and of the Africans imported to various European colonies personal property of those who imported them.

During the time American was a colony, this doctrine established de facto and de jure slavery for all children born to female slaves. Partus sequitur ventrem exempted the father from his obligations to children he fathered by slaves thereby creating the ability for slaveowners to have their way with enslaved women. Under this doctrine the biological father had no paternal responsibility to any child born to a slave woman. Because of this the slaver was provided the right to profit from exploiting the labor of children born to slaves. It gave the slaver the ability to sell children by taking them away from their biological parents. Partus sequitur ventrem was the doctrine that created the first family separation policy in what is now America.

Despite the claims of Africans selling each other, the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem does not appear to be a part of the system of African slavery.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape

This was the legal doctrine that made any child of an American female slave a slave as well. It meant any white fathers had no financial responsibility for their progeny. They were free to rape their slaves at will as there were no laws against that either. With no concern for any children that might come from the forced union. In fact, there was a market for mulatto and octaroon children who would be purchased to work as domestics. Some owners (Thomas Jefferson) used their half-white slaves as their concubines, finding them more attractive the closer they were to white. Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, the product of her father raping a slave. Then again the master might sell their offspring to keep the peace with their wives who might be annoyed at little slave children running around who favor their husbands.

Not talked about in proper society were the children of free white women and black slaves. White women who weren’t sure what color the child might be could get a legal abortion those days. “Cottonwood” was a remedy known to slaves who sometimes refused to have children after being raped or as often as the masters would like. Some women would be forced to have over a dozen children if they survived as death during childbirth was relatively common. The rare slave would be offered their freedom if they produced enough children. Sometimes the dark child of a white woman was abandoned or given away. Usually just sold off although technically they were legally free.

View attachment 437108

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape | by William Spivey | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium

Partus sequitur ventrem legal definition of Partus sequitur ventrem (thefreedictionary.com)

Saying that because someone 20 generations removed owned a slave that his distant future relatives share in the responsibility for that decision is beyond stupid

Not that i disagree with everything you just said but that first sentence is ridiculous

20 generations ago the constitution was created. Think about that every time you try the argument you just used.

Because this not about who owned slaves it is about an attitude that has been carryied by whites for these 20 generations.

 

[fncceo]

Greed is a problem.

 

[pknopp]

In the past people could get a job, work hard at it but then we pulled that rug out from underneath them.

Would you please tell my boss that I no longer have to work hard at my job?

I could use the break.

I look back at the neighborhood I grew up in 40-60 years ago and many of the jobs my friends parents worked at are gone.

And millions upon millions of jobs that never existed 60 years ago replaced them.

Low wage jobs with no benefits. We were never at risk of bankruptcy because someone got sick.

I worked in technology jobs for my entire career, before retiring and starting another one. I never once held a job that didn't have health care benefits, sick days, or vacation days.

Good for you. There aren't millions of those jobs available. With you everything is about me, me, me. Yes a few can land technology jobs. Those jobs are very limited. In a country such as ours we need jobs for millions.

 

[pknopp]

Of course sending jobs overseas that once made it possible for people to survive had nothing to do with it. It all goes back to the same thing. Slavery, the dismantling of our manufacturing. Greed.

Greed is a problem.

So are changing economics.

200 years ago, when Slavery was at thing, 90% of the population was involved in agriculture. today, it's less than 2%.

In 1950, 35% of the population was employed in manufacturing, today it's about 10%. Yet we are manufacturing more physical goods than ever. for every job lost to offshoring, 8 jobs were lost to automation and process improvement.

Has racism been a problem in this country? Absolutely.

So has poor policy that was meant to be benevolent.

Things are still manufactured. It's just they are manufactured where the process can find as close to slave labor as they can get.

 

[Blues Man]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them are today the loudest talking people trying to diss the black community about single parent families.

When people start talking about race, there are just some simple realities that cannot be denied. If you are white and don't like how you are portrayed, start thinking about how unpleasant it really is for us who are not white to be portrayed as weak inferior people who got conquered by a supposedly superior race and culture. It is not a pleasant subject. For this to end we all must face the unpleasantness.

The doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem comes from European civil law. It means; “That which is brought forth follows the belly.” This principle determined the legal status of children born by slave women in the America as well as other English or European colonies In colonial law, the partus doctrine justified enslavement, the indigenous people of the Americas and of the Africans imported to various European colonies personal property of those who imported them.

During the time American was a colony, this doctrine established de facto and de jure slavery for all children born to female slaves. Partus sequitur ventrem exempted the father from his obligations to children he fathered by slaves thereby creating the ability for slaveowners to have their way with enslaved women. Under this doctrine the biological father had no paternal responsibility to any child born to a slave woman. Because of this the slaver was provided the right to profit from exploiting the labor of children born to slaves. It gave the slaver the ability to sell children by taking them away from their biological parents. Partus sequitur ventrem was the doctrine that created the first family separation policy in what is now America.

Despite the claims of Africans selling each other, the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem does not appear to be a part of the system of African slavery.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape

This was the legal doctrine that made any child of an American female slave a slave as well. It meant any white fathers had no financial responsibility for their progeny. They were free to rape their slaves at will as there were no laws against that either. With no concern for any children that might come from the forced union. In fact, there was a market for mulatto and octaroon children who would be purchased to work as domestics. Some owners (Thomas Jefferson) used their half-white slaves as their concubines, finding them more attractive the closer they were to white. Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, the product of her father raping a slave. Then again the master might sell their offspring to keep the peace with their wives who might be annoyed at little slave children running around who favor their husbands.

Not talked about in proper society were the children of free white women and black slaves. White women who weren’t sure what color the child might be could get a legal abortion those days. “Cottonwood” was a remedy known to slaves who sometimes refused to have children after being raped or as often as the masters would like. Some women would be forced to have over a dozen children if they survived as death during childbirth was relatively common. The rare slave would be offered their freedom if they produced enough children. Sometimes the dark child of a white woman was abandoned or given away. Usually just sold off although technically they were legally free.

View attachment 437108

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape | by William Spivey | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium

Partus sequitur ventrem legal definition of Partus sequitur ventrem (thefreedictionary.com)

Saying that because someone 20 generations removed owned a slave that his distant future relatives share in the responsibility for that decision is beyond stupid

Not that i disagree with everything you just said but that first sentence is ridiculous

20 generations ago the constitution was created. Think about that every time you try the argument you just used.

Because this not about who owned slaves it is about an attitude that has been carryied by whites for these 20 generations.

and how are people today responsible for what was written in the Constitution?

and not all whites carry that attitude

 

[pknopp]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them are today the loudest talking people trying to diss the black community about single parent families.

When people start talking about race, there are just some simple realities that cannot be denied. If you are white and don't like how you are portrayed, start thinking about how unpleasant it really is for us who are not white to be portrayed as weak inferior people who got conquered by a supposedly superior race and culture. It is not a pleasant subject. For this to end we all must face the unpleasantness.

The doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem comes from European civil law. It means; “That which is brought forth follows the belly.” This principle determined the legal status of children born by slave women in the America as well as other English or European colonies In colonial law, the partus doctrine justified enslavement, the indigenous people of the Americas and of the Africans imported to various European colonies personal property of those who imported them.

During the time American was a colony, this doctrine established de facto and de jure slavery for all children born to female slaves. Partus sequitur ventrem exempted the father from his obligations to children he fathered by slaves thereby creating the ability for slaveowners to have their way with enslaved women. Under this doctrine the biological father had no paternal responsibility to any child born to a slave woman. Because of this the slaver was provided the right to profit from exploiting the labor of children born to slaves. It gave the slaver the ability to sell children by taking them away from their biological parents. Partus sequitur ventrem was the doctrine that created the first family separation policy in what is now America.

Despite the claims of Africans selling each other, the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem does not appear to be a part of the system of African slavery.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape

This was the legal doctrine that made any child of an American female slave a slave as well. It meant any white fathers had no financial responsibility for their progeny. They were free to rape their slaves at will as there were no laws against that either. With no concern for any children that might come from the forced union. In fact, there was a market for mulatto and octaroon children who would be purchased to work as domestics. Some owners (Thomas Jefferson) used their half-white slaves as their concubines, finding them more attractive the closer they were to white. Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, the product of her father raping a slave. Then again the master might sell their offspring to keep the peace with their wives who might be annoyed at little slave children running around who favor their husbands.

Not talked about in proper society were the children of free white women and black slaves. White women who weren’t sure what color the child might be could get a legal abortion those days. “Cottonwood” was a remedy known to slaves who sometimes refused to have children after being raped or as often as the masters would like. Some women would be forced to have over a dozen children if they survived as death during childbirth was relatively common. The rare slave would be offered their freedom if they produced enough children. Sometimes the dark child of a white woman was abandoned or given away. Usually just sold off although technically they were legally free.

View attachment 437108

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape | by William Spivey | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium

Partus sequitur ventrem legal definition of Partus sequitur ventrem (thefreedictionary.com)

Saying that because someone 20 generations removed owned a slave that his distant future relatives share in the responsibility for that decision is beyond stupid

Not that i disagree with everything you just said but that first sentence is ridiculous

20 generations ago the constitution was created. Think about that every time you try the argument you just used.

Because this not about who owned slaves it is about an attitude that has been carryied by whites for these 20 generations.

A Constitution that did not see blacks and women as equals.

 

[IM2]

The vast majority of white Americans had no ancestor buying/selling slaves, so stop with mass blanket generalizations. Black nuclear families were every bit intact as white families until about 1970.

The vast majority of white citizens have benefitted from racist public policy. You know nothing about black families and I was raised in one. I am talking about an attitude whites have had since slavery that you exemplify.

On June 8, 2015, Charles Blow wrote an article in the New York Times titled, “Black Dads Are Doing Best of All.” McDonald should have read it. This article takes apart the tale of black fathers not being around for their kids. The issue of unwed births really has no relation to whether 2 parents are around. An unwed birth is a child being born and the couple is not married. That does not mean a man and a woman are not together raising the child. The single mother narrative got destroyed long ago, because a single mother does not mean a man will not be around to influence the child as it grows up. One fantastic example is the story Shaquille O’Neal tells about his relationship with Sergeant Phillip Harrison who raised him with his mother. Finally, the appearance of Barack Obama on the world stage allows me to say once and for all that a single parent family is not the cause of the problem. This article shows that the majority of black children in this country live with their fathers or their fathers are active participants in their lives. In reality, not the convoluted racist mind, a mother and father ARE present in the majority of black homes.

Josh Levs points this out in his new book, “All In,” in a chapter titled “How Black Dads Are Doing Best of All (But There’s Still a Crisis).” One fact that Levs quickly establishes is that most black fathers in America live with their children: “There are about 2.5 million black fathers living with their children and about 1.7 million living apart from them.”

Charles Blow​

A report titled “Fathers’ Involvement With Their Children: United States, 2006–2010,” was published by the Centers for Disease Control in the National Health Report on December 20, 2013. The findings are interesting for those who have decided they can paint black culture in moral terms. Moral terms that 244 years of American history show whites who have decided they can do the painting, refuse hold themselves to. The findings in this study debunk the standard racist white narrative to the point that it is miseducation, misinformation, lies, or whatever word you want to give to the purposeful deception provided to describe a race of people. Some of the findings are as follows:

A higher percentage of fathers who lived with their children under age 5 fed or ate meals with them daily—72% compared with 7.9% of fathers with noncoresidential children. A higher percentage of fathers living apart from their children did not feed or eat meals with them at all in the last 4 weeks—43% compared with 0.8% of fathers with coresidential children (Table 2). Variation by Hispanic origin and race was seen in the percentages of coresidential fathers who ate meals with their children every day. Specifically, Hispanic fathers were less likely to eat meals with their children every day (64%) than were non-Hispanic white (74%) or non-Hispanic black (78%) fathers.

There was a significant difference by Hispanic origin and race among fathers with coresidential children: Black fathers (70%) were most likely to have bathed, dressed, diapered, or helped their children use the toilet every day compared with white (60%) and Hispanic fathers (45%).

A higher percentage of Hispanic fathers aged 15–44 (52%) had not played with their noncoresidential children in the last 4 weeks compared with white (30%) and black (25%) fathers.

Larger percentages of Hispanic (82%) and white (70%) fathers had not helped their noncoresidential children with homework at all in the last 4 weeks compared with black fathers (56%).

• Pew Research estimates that 67 percent of black dads who don’t live with their kids see them at least once a month, compared to 59 percent of white dads and 32 percent of Hispanic dads. Evidence shows that a number of black dads living apart from their kids because of structural systems of inequality and poverty, not the unfounded racist assumption that African-American men place less or no value on parenting. Black and white fathers agree on the importance of being a father who provides emotional support, instills discipline and moral guidance. Black dads are also more likely to think it is important to provide for his children financially.

Simply put, the unwed, single mom, absent black father is not the cause of crime or violence in black communities. Single mothers have boyfriends, this seems to be ignored and it should not be.

 

[Blues Man]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them are today the loudest talking people trying to diss the black community about single parent families.

When people start talking about race, there are just some simple realities that cannot be denied. If you are white and don't like how you are portrayed, start thinking about how unpleasant it really is for us who are not white to be portrayed as weak inferior people who got conquered by a supposedly superior race and culture. It is not a pleasant subject. For this to end we all must face the unpleasantness.

The doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem comes from European civil law. It means; “That which is brought forth follows the belly.” This principle determined the legal status of children born by slave women in the America as well as other English or European colonies In colonial law, the partus doctrine justified enslavement, the indigenous people of the Americas and of the Africans imported to various European colonies personal property of those who imported them.

During the time American was a colony, this doctrine established de facto and de jure slavery for all children born to female slaves. Partus sequitur ventrem exempted the father from his obligations to children he fathered by slaves thereby creating the ability for slaveowners to have their way with enslaved women. Under this doctrine the biological father had no paternal responsibility to any child born to a slave woman. Because of this the slaver was provided the right to profit from exploiting the labor of children born to slaves. It gave the slaver the ability to sell children by taking them away from their biological parents. Partus sequitur ventrem was the doctrine that created the first family separation policy in what is now America.

Despite the claims of Africans selling each other, the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem does not appear to be a part of the system of African slavery.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape

This was the legal doctrine that made any child of an American female slave a slave as well. It meant any white fathers had no financial responsibility for their progeny. They were free to rape their slaves at will as there were no laws against that either. With no concern for any children that might come from the forced union. In fact, there was a market for mulatto and octaroon children who would be purchased to work as domestics. Some owners (Thomas Jefferson) used their half-white slaves as their concubines, finding them more attractive the closer they were to white. Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, the product of her father raping a slave. Then again the master might sell their offspring to keep the peace with their wives who might be annoyed at little slave children running around who favor their husbands.

Not talked about in proper society were the children of free white women and black slaves. White women who weren’t sure what color the child might be could get a legal abortion those days. “Cottonwood” was a remedy known to slaves who sometimes refused to have children after being raped or as often as the masters would like. Some women would be forced to have over a dozen children if they survived as death during childbirth was relatively common. The rare slave would be offered their freedom if they produced enough children. Sometimes the dark child of a white woman was abandoned or given away. Usually just sold off although technically they were legally free.

View attachment 437108

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape | by William Spivey | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium

Partus sequitur ventrem legal definition of Partus sequitur ventrem (thefreedictionary.com)

Saying that because someone 20 generations removed owned a slave that his distant future relatives share in the responsibility for that decision is beyond stupid

Not that i disagree with everything you just said but that first sentence is ridiculous

20 generations ago the constitution was created. Think about that every time you try the argument you just used.

Because this not about who owned slaves it is about an attitude that has been carryied by whites for these 20 generations.

A Constitution that did not see blacks and women as equals.

and was amended to correct that

 

[pknopp]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them are today the loudest talking people trying to diss the black community about single parent families.

When people start talking about race, there are just some simple realities that cannot be denied. If you are white and don't like how you are portrayed, start thinking about how unpleasant it really is for us who are not white to be portrayed as weak inferior people who got conquered by a supposedly superior race and culture. It is not a pleasant subject. For this to end we all must face the unpleasantness.

The doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem comes from European civil law. It means; “That which is brought forth follows the belly.” This principle determined the legal status of children born by slave women in the America as well as other English or European colonies In colonial law, the partus doctrine justified enslavement, the indigenous people of the Americas and of the Africans imported to various European colonies personal property of those who imported them.

During the time American was a colony, this doctrine established de facto and de jure slavery for all children born to female slaves. Partus sequitur ventrem exempted the father from his obligations to children he fathered by slaves thereby creating the ability for slaveowners to have their way with enslaved women. Under this doctrine the biological father had no paternal responsibility to any child born to a slave woman. Because of this the slaver was provided the right to profit from exploiting the labor of children born to slaves. It gave the slaver the ability to sell children by taking them away from their biological parents. Partus sequitur ventrem was the doctrine that created the first family separation policy in what is now America.

Despite the claims of Africans selling each other, the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem does not appear to be a part of the system of African slavery.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape

This was the legal doctrine that made any child of an American female slave a slave as well. It meant any white fathers had no financial responsibility for their progeny. They were free to rape their slaves at will as there were no laws against that either. With no concern for any children that might come from the forced union. In fact, there was a market for mulatto and octaroon children who would be purchased to work as domestics. Some owners (Thomas Jefferson) used their half-white slaves as their concubines, finding them more attractive the closer they were to white. Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, the product of her father raping a slave. Then again the master might sell their offspring to keep the peace with their wives who might be annoyed at little slave children running around who favor their husbands.

Not talked about in proper society were the children of free white women and black slaves. White women who weren’t sure what color the child might be could get a legal abortion those days. “Cottonwood” was a remedy known to slaves who sometimes refused to have children after being raped or as often as the masters would like. Some women would be forced to have over a dozen children if they survived as death during childbirth was relatively common. The rare slave would be offered their freedom if they produced enough children. Sometimes the dark child of a white woman was abandoned or given away. Usually just sold off although technically they were legally free.

View attachment 437108

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape | by William Spivey | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium

Partus sequitur ventrem legal definition of Partus sequitur ventrem (thefreedictionary.com)

Saying that because someone 20 generations removed owned a slave that his distant future relatives share in the responsibility for that decision is beyond stupid

Not that i disagree with everything you just said but that first sentence is ridiculous

20 generations ago the constitution was created. Think about that every time you try the argument you just used.

Because this not about who owned slaves it is about an attitude that has been carryied by whites for these 20 generations.

A Constitution that did not see blacks and women as equals.

and was amended to correct that

The statement was concerning 20 generations ago. While no one alive today had anything to do with it, those intervening years did a lot of damage. Those who still refuse to accept the changes still do damage.

 

[IM2]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them are today the loudest talking people trying to diss the black community about single parent families.

When people start talking about race, there are just some simple realities that cannot be denied. If you are white and don't like how you are portrayed, start thinking about how unpleasant it really is for us who are not white to be portrayed as weak inferior people who got conquered by a supposedly superior race and culture. It is not a pleasant subject. For this to end we all must face the unpleasantness.

The doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem comes from European civil law. It means; “That which is brought forth follows the belly.” This principle determined the legal status of children born by slave women in the America as well as other English or European colonies In colonial law, the partus doctrine justified enslavement, the indigenous people of the Americas and of the Africans imported to various European colonies personal property of those who imported them.

During the time American was a colony, this doctrine established de facto and de jure slavery for all children born to female slaves. Partus sequitur ventrem exempted the father from his obligations to children he fathered by slaves thereby creating the ability for slaveowners to have their way with enslaved women. Under this doctrine the biological father had no paternal responsibility to any child born to a slave woman. Because of this the slaver was provided the right to profit from exploiting the labor of children born to slaves. It gave the slaver the ability to sell children by taking them away from their biological parents. Partus sequitur ventrem was the doctrine that created the first family separation policy in what is now America.

Despite the claims of Africans selling each other, the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem does not appear to be a part of the system of African slavery.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape

This was the legal doctrine that made any child of an American female slave a slave as well. It meant any white fathers had no financial responsibility for their progeny. They were free to rape their slaves at will as there were no laws against that either. With no concern for any children that might come from the forced union. In fact, there was a market for mulatto and octaroon children who would be purchased to work as domestics. Some owners (Thomas Jefferson) used their half-white slaves as their concubines, finding them more attractive the closer they were to white. Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, the product of her father raping a slave. Then again the master might sell their offspring to keep the peace with their wives who might be annoyed at little slave children running around who favor their husbands.

Not talked about in proper society were the children of free white women and black slaves. White women who weren’t sure what color the child might be could get a legal abortion those days. “Cottonwood” was a remedy known to slaves who sometimes refused to have children after being raped or as often as the masters would like. Some women would be forced to have over a dozen children if they survived as death during childbirth was relatively common. The rare slave would be offered their freedom if they produced enough children. Sometimes the dark child of a white woman was abandoned or given away. Usually just sold off although technically they were legally free.

View attachment 437108

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape | by William Spivey | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium

Partus sequitur ventrem legal definition of Partus sequitur ventrem (thefreedictionary.com)

Saying that because someone 20 generations removed owned a slave that his distant future relatives share in the responsibility for that decision is beyond stupid

Not that i disagree with everything you just said but that first sentence is ridiculous

20 generations ago the constitution was created. Think about that every time you try the argument you just used.

Because this not about who owned slaves it is about an attitude that has been carryied by whites for these 20 generations.

and how are people today responsible for what was written in the Constitution?

and not all whites carry that attitude

Since you don't say not all blacks about anything, don't bring that bullshit here. We live by the laws written in that document.

 

[Blues Man]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them are today the loudest talking people trying to diss the black community about single parent families.

When people start talking about race, there are just some simple realities that cannot be denied. If you are white and don't like how you are portrayed, start thinking about how unpleasant it really is for us who are not white to be portrayed as weak inferior people who got conquered by a supposedly superior race and culture. It is not a pleasant subject. For this to end we all must face the unpleasantness.

The doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem comes from European civil law. It means; “That which is brought forth follows the belly.” This principle determined the legal status of children born by slave women in the America as well as other English or European colonies In colonial law, the partus doctrine justified enslavement, the indigenous people of the Americas and of the Africans imported to various European colonies personal property of those who imported them.

During the time American was a colony, this doctrine established de facto and de jure slavery for all children born to female slaves. Partus sequitur ventrem exempted the father from his obligations to children he fathered by slaves thereby creating the ability for slaveowners to have their way with enslaved women. Under this doctrine the biological father had no paternal responsibility to any child born to a slave woman. Because of this the slaver was provided the right to profit from exploiting the labor of children born to slaves. It gave the slaver the ability to sell children by taking them away from their biological parents. Partus sequitur ventrem was the doctrine that created the first family separation policy in what is now America.

Despite the claims of Africans selling each other, the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem does not appear to be a part of the system of African slavery.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape

This was the legal doctrine that made any child of an American female slave a slave as well. It meant any white fathers had no financial responsibility for their progeny. They were free to rape their slaves at will as there were no laws against that either. With no concern for any children that might come from the forced union. In fact, there was a market for mulatto and octaroon children who would be purchased to work as domestics. Some owners (Thomas Jefferson) used their half-white slaves as their concubines, finding them more attractive the closer they were to white. Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, the product of her father raping a slave. Then again the master might sell their offspring to keep the peace with their wives who might be annoyed at little slave children running around who favor their husbands.

Not talked about in proper society were the children of free white women and black slaves. White women who weren’t sure what color the child might be could get a legal abortion those days. “Cottonwood” was a remedy known to slaves who sometimes refused to have children after being raped or as often as the masters would like. Some women would be forced to have over a dozen children if they survived as death during childbirth was relatively common. The rare slave would be offered their freedom if they produced enough children. Sometimes the dark child of a white woman was abandoned or given away. Usually just sold off although technically they were legally free.

View attachment 437108

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape | by William Spivey | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium

Partus sequitur ventrem legal definition of Partus sequitur ventrem (thefreedictionary.com)

Saying that because someone 20 generations removed owned a slave that his distant future relatives share in the responsibility for that decision is beyond stupid

Not that i disagree with everything you just said but that first sentence is ridiculous

20 generations ago the constitution was created. Think about that every time you try the argument you just used.

Because this not about who owned slaves it is about an attitude that has been carryied by whites for these 20 generations.

A Constitution that did not see blacks and women as equals.

and was amended to correct that

The statement was concerning 20 generations ago. While no one alive today had anything to do with it, those intervening years did a lot of damage. Those who still refuse to accept the changes still do damage.

blaming people for their behavior is one thing. Blaming thenm for what some people did 400 years ago is stupid

 

[Gdjjr]

The concept of the US is a great idea- however, men got in the way of what could be considered a success of a gov't securing liberty for the individual- it doesn't. It does favor one over another and often race is the issue. The more common issue is class- people always (until they suffer a rude awakening usually) look down on someone (anyone) they believe/feel they are superior to- that is a trait borne of aristocratic bearing- all societies have their aristocrats, who will sell their inferior class of people- it seems to make them feel even more superior-

The joke is on them though- they are inferior, morally- and do nothing to make their space a little better than they found it- instead they blame others for their failures, and they are many, to make things better-

 

[Gdjjr]

We live by the laws written in that document.

What document?

 

[IM2]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them are today the loudest talking people trying to diss the black community about single parent families.

When people start talking about race, there are just some simple realities that cannot be denied. If you are white and don't like how you are portrayed, start thinking about how unpleasant it really is for us who are not white to be portrayed as weak inferior people who got conquered by a supposedly superior race and culture. It is not a pleasant subject. For this to end we all must face the unpleasantness.

The doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem comes from European civil law. It means; “That which is brought forth follows the belly.” This principle determined the legal status of children born by slave women in the America as well as other English or European colonies In colonial law, the partus doctrine justified enslavement, the indigenous people of the Americas and of the Africans imported to various European colonies personal property of those who imported them.

During the time American was a colony, this doctrine established de facto and de jure slavery for all children born to female slaves. Partus sequitur ventrem exempted the father from his obligations to children he fathered by slaves thereby creating the ability for slaveowners to have their way with enslaved women. Under this doctrine the biological father had no paternal responsibility to any child born to a slave woman. Because of this the slaver was provided the right to profit from exploiting the labor of children born to slaves. It gave the slaver the ability to sell children by taking them away from their biological parents. Partus sequitur ventrem was the doctrine that created the first family separation policy in what is now America.

Despite the claims of Africans selling each other, the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem does not appear to be a part of the system of African slavery.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape

This was the legal doctrine that made any child of an American female slave a slave as well. It meant any white fathers had no financial responsibility for their progeny. They were free to rape their slaves at will as there were no laws against that either. With no concern for any children that might come from the forced union. In fact, there was a market for mulatto and octaroon children who would be purchased to work as domestics. Some owners (Thomas Jefferson) used their half-white slaves as their concubines, finding them more attractive the closer they were to white. Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, the product of her father raping a slave. Then again the master might sell their offspring to keep the peace with their wives who might be annoyed at little slave children running around who favor their husbands.

Not talked about in proper society were the children of free white women and black slaves. White women who weren’t sure what color the child might be could get a legal abortion those days. “Cottonwood” was a remedy known to slaves who sometimes refused to have children after being raped or as often as the masters would like. Some women would be forced to have over a dozen children if they survived as death during childbirth was relatively common. The rare slave would be offered their freedom if they produced enough children. Sometimes the dark child of a white woman was abandoned or given away. Usually just sold off although technically they were legally free.

View attachment 437108

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape | by William Spivey | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium

Partus sequitur ventrem legal definition of Partus sequitur ventrem (thefreedictionary.com)

Saying that because someone 20 generations removed owned a slave that his distant future relatives share in the responsibility for that decision is beyond stupid

Not that i disagree with everything you just said but that first sentence is ridiculous

20 generations ago the constitution was created. Think about that every time you try the argument you just used.

Because this not about who owned slaves it is about an attitude that has been carryied by whites for these 20 generations.

A Constitution that did not see blacks and women as equals.

and was amended to correct that

It was amended but words on paper don't means shit when laws aren't followed and women do not have equal rights under the constitution right now.

80% of Americans unaware men & women don’t have equal rights – director - YouTube