The State of the Black Union: NEW 2014 Edition!

[Publius1787]

The State of the Black Union: NEW 2014 Edition!

Note: Much of the 2015 data has not yet been compiled/completed/published by the U.S. Government. 2014 is the most recent and complete data to date.

The 2010 Census
2010 United States Census - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Non-Hispanic White pop: 63.7%
White + Hispanic White 72.4%
Black pop: 12.2%
Asian pop: 4.7%
Hispanic or Latino: 16.3%

Murder Arrests by Race in 2014 (2015 data not complete)

Expanded Homicide Data Table 3

Whites and Hispanic-Whites were arrested in 31.4% of all 2014 murder cases despite making up 63.7% of the U.S. population. Blacks were arrested in 37.2% of all 2014 murders despite making up only 12.2% of the U.S. population. Of all arrests where someone was charged with murder, Whites/Hispanic Whites were arrested at a rate of 44.7% despite making up 72.4% of the U.S. population and Blacks were arrested at a rate of 53% despite making up only 12.2%of the U.S. population.

(Note: Since the FBI’s 2014 Uniform Crime Reporting counts Hispanic or Latino in the White offender category we cannot truly ascertain how many Whites & Non-Hispanic Whites were arrested for murders)

Interracial Violent Crime statistics http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus08.pdf

New DOJ Statistics on Race and Violent Crime

Interracial Rape Statistics (Note: The Bureau of Justice Statistics stopped publishing its table on interracial crime after 2008) http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus08.pdf

6 Years of Black on White Rape Statistics 6 Years of Black on White Rape Statistics: A Trend Seems to be Developing

Year 2003 – Rape/Sexual Assault
White on Black:0
Black on White: 20,309
Black on Black: 21,104

Year 2004 – Rape/Sexual Assault
White on Black: 0
Black on White: 11,610
Black on Black: 35,330

Year 2005 – Rape/Sexual Assault
White on Black : 0
Black on White: 37,460
Black on Black: 36, 620

Year 2006 – Rape/Sexual Assault
White on Black: 0
Black on White: 32, 443
Black on Black: 7,705

Year 2007 – Rape/Sexual Assault
White on Black: 0
Black on White: 14,092
Black on Black: 12,780

Year 2008 – Rape/Sexual Assault
White on Black: 0
Black on White: 19,292
Black on Black: 34,841

Total over six conservative years:

White on Black: 0
Black on White: 135,206
Black on Black: 148,380

Average over six consecutive years:
White on Black: 0
Black on White: 22,534
Black on Black: 24,730

Out of Wedlock Birth Rates by Race in 2014 (2015 data not yet complete)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_03.pdf
Births to Unmarried Women

Whites: 2.9 out of 10 White children were born to a single mother in 2014.
Blacks: 7 out of 10 Black children were born to a single mother in 2014.
Hispanic: 5.29 out of 10 Hispanic children were born to a single mother in 2014.

2015 Welfare Demographics

Welfare Statistics – Statistic Brain
Whites made up 38.8 % of those on welfare in 2015 despite making up 63.7% of the U.S. population
Blacks made up 39.8 % of those on welfare in 2015 despite making up 12.2% of the U.S. population
Hispanics made up 15.7 % of those on welfare in 2015 despite making up 16.3% of the U.S. population
Asians made up 2.4% of those on welfare in 2015 despite making up 4.7% of the U.S. population

Obesity Adult Obesity Facts | Data | Adult | Obesity | DNPAO | CDC

Non-Hispanic blacks have the highest age-adjusted rates of obesity (47.8%) followed by Hispanics (42.5%), non-Hispanic whites (32.6%), and non-Hispanic Asians (10.8%)

2014 Most Dangerous Neighborhoods in the United States and their demographics.
Most dangerous cities in the United States in 2014: FBI

1. Camden, New Jersey Camden, New Jersey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
White 17.59% (Includes both Non-Hispanic & Hispanic)
Black 48.07%
Hispanic/Latino 47.04%
Asian

2. Flint, Michigan Flint, Michigan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Non-Hispanic White 35.7%
Black 56.6%
Hispanic/Latino 3.9%
Asian 0.5%

3. Detroit, Michigan Detroit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
White 7.8%
Black 82.7%
Hispanic/Latino 6.8%
Asian 1.1%

4.Oakland, California Oakland, California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Non-Hispanic White 25.9%
Black 28%
Hispanic/Latino 25.4%
Asian 16.8%

5. St. Louis, Missouri St. Louis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Non-Hispanic White 43.6%
Black 47.5%
Hispanic/Latino 3.8%
Asian 3.2%

6.Cleveland, Ohio Cleveland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Non-Hispanic White 33.4%
Black 53.3%
Hispanic/Latino 10%
Asian 1.8%

7.Gary, Indiana Gary, Indiana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
White 10.7% (Includes both Non-Hispanic & Hispanic)
Black 84.8%
Hispanic/Latino 5.1%
Asian 0.2%

8. Newark, New Jersey Newark, New Jersey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Non-Hispanic White 11.6%
Black 52.4%
Hispanic/Latino 33.8%
Asian 1.6%

9.Bridgeport, Connecticut Bridgeport, Connecticut - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
White 39.6% (Includes both Non-Hispanic & Hispanic)
Black 34.6%
Hispanic/Latino 18.1%
Asian 3.4%

10. Birmingham, Alabama Birmingham, Alabama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
White 22.3% (Includes both Non-Hispanic & Hispanic)
Black 73.4%
Hispanic/Latino 3.6%
Asian 1%

 

[gipper]

All thanks to Leftist policies implemented by Uncle Sam.

 

[Publius1787]

All thanks to Leftist policies implemented by Uncle Sam.

I've heard this argument before and cant quite get over the fact that ultra liberal San Francisco with a 6.1% African American population has not gone the way of Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, Newark, St. Louis, or Oakland. The same could be said with countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. They are almost completely homogenous but excellent functioning welfare states. My theory is that when you have a homogenous state it is easy to implement liberal ideas when you know that they are going to promote the culture that offers them. The moment a people find themselves subsidizing a different culture who wants to eradicate the culture of the host, liberal policies function much more ineffectively.

 

[gipper]

All thanks to Leftist policies implemented by Uncle Sam.

I've heard this argument before and cant quite get over the fact that ultra liberal San Francisco with a 6.1% African American population has not gone the way of Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, Newark, St. Louis, or Oakland. The same could be said with countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. They are almost completely homogenous but excellent functioning welfare states. My theory is that when you have a homogenous state it is easy to implement liberal ideas when you know that they are going to promote the culture that offers them. The moment a people find themselves subsidizing a different culture who wants to eradicate the culture of the host, liberal policies function much more ineffectively.

I don't think your analysis holds water. San Franfreako had such a small population of blacks compared to Detroit, Chicago, Newark, Baltimore, etc....that the damage caused by welfare state polices imposed by Uncle Sam starting in the 1960s, had little impact there.

If one looks at the state of American blacks in the 1950s, one will find that they were doing relatively well. More were working and married per capita than whites. As soon as Uncle replaced the black male with a government check, illegitimacy took off and the dysfunction began. Add to this all the other detrimental aspects of liberalism...p-schools teaching nothing, declining neighborhoods, corrupt and ineffective city government, drugs, gangs, high crime, victimization, lack of good jobs, ABORTION, etc....and you have a disaster.

This disaster has been around since the 1970s and little has been done to rectify it. The D party, which gets nearly all the black vote, has done nothing to stop it...and the R party does not care, since blacks don't vote R.

It is all very sad in a nation as wealthy and prosperous as ours. Generations of blacks have been f**ked by Uncle Sam...thanks to liberalism.

 

[Liberty777]

All thanks to Leftist policies implemented by Uncle Sam.

I've heard this argument before and cant quite get over the fact that ultra liberal San Francisco with a 6.1% African American population has not gone the way of Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, Newark, St. Louis, or Oakland. The same could be said with countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. They are almost completely homogenous but excellent functioning welfare states. My theory is that when you have a homogenous state it is easy to implement liberal ideas when you know that they are going to promote the culture that offers them. The moment a people find themselves subsidizing a different culture who wants to eradicate the culture of the host, liberal policies function much more ineffectively.

I don't think your analysis holds water. San Franfreako had such a small population of blacks compared to Detroit, Chicago, Newark, Baltimore, etc....that the damage caused by welfare state polices imposed by Uncle Sam starting in the 1960s, had little impact there.

If one looks at the state of American blacks in the 1950s, one will find that they were doing relatively well. More were working and married per capita than whites. As soon as Uncle replaced the black male with a government check, illegitimacy took off and the dysfunction began. Add to this all the other detrimental aspects of liberalism...p-schools teaching nothing, declining neighborhoods, corrupt and ineffective city government, drugs, gangs, high crime, victimization, lack of good jobs, ABORTION, etc....and you have a disaster.

This disaster has been around since the 1970s and little has been done to rectify it. The D party, which gets nearly all the black vote, has done nothing to stop it...and the R party does not care, since blacks don't vote R.

It is all very sad in a nation as wealthy and prosperous as ours. Generations of blacks have been f**ked by Uncle Sam...thanks to liberalism.

I agree with some of what u said but how do u explain the terrible state of blacks throughout the world, they do have a role n their own failures.

 

[gipper]

All thanks to Leftist policies implemented by Uncle Sam.

I've heard this argument before and cant quite get over the fact that ultra liberal San Francisco with a 6.1% African American population has not gone the way of Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, Newark, St. Louis, or Oakland. The same could be said with countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. They are almost completely homogenous but excellent functioning welfare states. My theory is that when you have a homogenous state it is easy to implement liberal ideas when you know that they are going to promote the culture that offers them. The moment a people find themselves subsidizing a different culture who wants to eradicate the culture of the host, liberal policies function much more ineffectively.

I don't think your analysis holds water. San Franfreako had such a small population of blacks compared to Detroit, Chicago, Newark, Baltimore, etc....that the damage caused by welfare state polices imposed by Uncle Sam starting in the 1960s, had little impact there.

If one looks at the state of American blacks in the 1950s, one will find that they were doing relatively well. More were working and married per capita than whites. As soon as Uncle replaced the black male with a government check, illegitimacy took off and the dysfunction began. Add to this all the other detrimental aspects of liberalism...p-schools teaching nothing, declining neighborhoods, corrupt and ineffective city government, drugs, gangs, high crime, victimization, lack of good jobs, ABORTION, etc....and you have a disaster.

This disaster has been around since the 1970s and little has been done to rectify it. The D party, which gets nearly all the black vote, has done nothing to stop it...and the R party does not care, since blacks don't vote R.

It is all very sad in a nation as wealthy and prosperous as ours. Generations of blacks have been f**ked by Uncle Sam...thanks to liberalism.

I agree with some of what u said but how do u explain the terrible state of blacks throughout the world, they do have a role n their own failures.

Agreed. Conditions for blacks throughout the world is poor. I agree that they do bear some of the responsibility. Patrick Moynihan warned about it decades ago.

The Negro Family: The Case For National Action (known as the Moynihan Report, 1965) was written by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, an Americansociologist serving as Assistant Secretary of Labor[1] under President Lyndon B. Johnson of the United States. In 1976 Moynihan was elected to the first of several terms as U.S. Senator from New York and continued to support liberal programs to try to end poverty. His 1965 work focused on the deep roots of black poverty in the United States and concluded, controversially, that the high rate of families headed by single mothers would greatly hinder progress of African Americans toward economic and political equality.

Moynihan argued that the rise in Black single-mother families was not due to a lack of jobs (this would soon be the case due to the loss of jobs through industrial restructuring) but rather to a destructive vein in ghetto culture, which could be traced to slavery times and continued discrimination in the American South under Jim Crow. Black sociologist E. Franklin Frazier had introduced this idea in the 1930s, but Moynihan was considered one of the first academics to defy conventional social-science wisdom about the structure of poverty. As he wrote later, "The work began in the most orthodox setting, the U.S. Department of Labor, to establish at some level of statistical conciseness what 'everyone knew': that economic conditions determine social conditions. Whereupon, it turned out that what everyone knew was evidently not so."
The Negro Family: The Case For National Action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Publius1787]

All thanks to Leftist policies implemented by Uncle Sam.

I've heard this argument before and cant quite get over the fact that ultra liberal San Francisco with a 6.1% African American population has not gone the way of Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, Newark, St. Louis, or Oakland. The same could be said with countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. They are almost completely homogenous but excellent functioning welfare states. My theory is that when you have a homogenous state it is easy to implement liberal ideas when you know that they are going to promote the culture that offers them. The moment a people find themselves subsidizing a different culture who wants to eradicate the culture of the host, liberal policies function much more ineffectively.

I don't think your analysis holds water. San Franfreako had such a small population of blacks compared to Detroit, Chicago, Newark, Baltimore, etc....that the damage caused by welfare state polices imposed by Uncle Sam starting in the 1960s, had little impact there.

If one looks at the state of American blacks in the 1950s, one will find that they were doing relatively well. More were working and married per capita than whites. As soon as Uncle replaced the black male with a government check, illegitimacy took off and the dysfunction began. Add to this all the other detrimental aspects of liberalism...p-schools teaching nothing, declining neighborhoods, corrupt and ineffective city government, drugs, gangs, high crime, victimization, lack of good jobs, ABORTION, etc....and you have a disaster.

This disaster has been around since the 1970s and little has been done to rectify it. The D party, which gets nearly all the black vote, has done nothing to stop it...and the R party does not care, since blacks don't vote R.

It is all very sad in a nation as wealthy and prosperous as ours. Generations of blacks have been f**ked by Uncle Sam...thanks to liberalism.

I think you misread what I wrote and reinforced what I said. We agree to a large extent. I was demonstrating the difference between two cities, one with a large black culture and one without. A liberal welfare state can work fine with homogenous populations. It tends to crumble when not. This is not to say I prefer a liberal welfare state, I certainly do not. But the comparisons are striking.

 

[gipper]

All thanks to Leftist policies implemented by Uncle Sam.

I've heard this argument before and cant quite get over the fact that ultra liberal San Francisco with a 6.1% African American population has not gone the way of Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, Newark, St. Louis, or Oakland. The same could be said with countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. They are almost completely homogenous but excellent functioning welfare states. My theory is that when you have a homogenous state it is easy to implement liberal ideas when you know that they are going to promote the culture that offers them. The moment a people find themselves subsidizing a different culture who wants to eradicate the culture of the host, liberal policies function much more ineffectively.

O
I don't think your analysis holds water. San Franfreako had such a small population of blacks compared to Detroit, Chicago, Newark, Baltimore, etc....that the damage caused by welfare state polices imposed by Uncle Sam starting in the 1960s, had little impact there.

If one looks at the state of American blacks in the 1950s, one will find that they were doing relatively well. More were working and married per capita than whites. As soon as Uncle replaced the black male with a government check, illegitimacy took off and the dysfunction began. Add to this all the other detrimental aspects of liberalism...p-schools teaching nothing, declining neighborhoods, corrupt and ineffective city government, drugs, gangs, high crime, victimization, lack of good jobs, ABORTION, etc....and you have a disaster.

This disaster has been around since the 1970s and little has been done to rectify it. The D party, which gets nearly all the black vote, has done nothing to stop it...and the R party does not care, since blacks don't vote R.

It is all very sad in a nation as wealthy and prosperous as ours. Generations of blacks have been f**ked by Uncle Sam...thanks to liberalism.

I think you misread what I wrote and reinforced what I said. We agree to a large extent. I was demonstrating the difference between two cities, one with a large black culture and one without. A liberal welfare state can work fine with homogenous populations. It tends to crumble when not. This is not to say I prefer a liberal welfare state, I certainly do not. But the comparisons are striking.

Okay, but one could argue that Detroit and other predominantly black cities are homogeneous and liberal. These cities are hardly success stories.

 

[Publius1787]

All thanks to Leftist policies implemented by Uncle Sam.

I've heard this argument before and cant quite get over the fact that ultra liberal San Francisco with a 6.1% African American population has not gone the way of Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, Newark, St. Louis, or Oakland. The same could be said with countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. They are almost completely homogenous but excellent functioning welfare states. My theory is that when you have a homogenous state it is easy to implement liberal ideas when you know that they are going to promote the culture that offers them. The moment a people find themselves subsidizing a different culture who wants to eradicate the culture of the host, liberal policies function much more ineffectively.

O
I don't think your analysis holds water. San Franfreako had such a small population of blacks compared to Detroit, Chicago, Newark, Baltimore, etc....that the damage caused by welfare state polices imposed by Uncle Sam starting in the 1960s, had little impact there.

If one looks at the state of American blacks in the 1950s, one will find that they were doing relatively well. More were working and married per capita than whites. As soon as Uncle replaced the black male with a government check, illegitimacy took off and the dysfunction began. Add to this all the other detrimental aspects of liberalism...p-schools teaching nothing, declining neighborhoods, corrupt and ineffective city government, drugs, gangs, high crime, victimization, lack of good jobs, ABORTION, etc....and you have a disaster.

This disaster has been around since the 1970s and little has been done to rectify it. The D party, which gets nearly all the black vote, has done nothing to stop it...and the R party does not care, since blacks don't vote R.

It is all very sad in a nation as wealthy and prosperous as ours. Generations of blacks have been f**ked by Uncle Sam...thanks to liberalism.

I think you misread what I wrote and reinforced what I said. We agree to a large extent. I was demonstrating the difference between two cities, one with a large black culture and one without. A liberal welfare state can work fine with homogenous populations. It tends to crumble when not. This is not to say I prefer a liberal welfare state, I certainly do not. But the comparisons are striking.

Okay, but one could argue that Detroit and other predominantly black cities are homogeneous and liberal. These cities are hardly success stories.

Indeed they are. But homogenously poor, whereas the peoples of these cities get more in welfare than they pay in taxes. And Detroit wasn't always homogenously black. White folks ran from Detroit as if it were plagued. And who could blame them. Liberals give white people who fled the Motor City a hard time, but with them out of the way it is easy to see why they did.

 

[gipper]

All thanks to Leftist policies implemented by Uncle Sam.

I've heard this argument before and cant quite get over the fact that ultra liberal San Francisco with a 6.1% African American population has not gone the way of Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, Newark, St. Louis, or Oakland. The same could be said with countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. They are almost completely homogenous but excellent functioning welfare states. My theory is that when you have a homogenous state it is easy to implement liberal ideas when you know that they are going to promote the culture that offers them. The moment a people find themselves subsidizing a different culture who wants to eradicate the culture of the host, liberal policies function much more ineffectively.

O
I don't think your analysis holds water. San Franfreako had such a small population of blacks compared to Detroit, Chicago, Newark, Baltimore, etc....that the damage caused by welfare state polices imposed by Uncle Sam starting in the 1960s, had little impact there.

If one looks at the state of American blacks in the 1950s, one will find that they were doing relatively well. More were working and married per capita than whites. As soon as Uncle replaced the black male with a government check, illegitimacy took off and the dysfunction began. Add to this all the other detrimental aspects of liberalism...p-schools teaching nothing, declining neighborhoods, corrupt and ineffective city government, drugs, gangs, high crime, victimization, lack of good jobs, ABORTION, etc....and you have a disaster.

This disaster has been around since the 1970s and little has been done to rectify it. The D party, which gets nearly all the black vote, has done nothing to stop it...and the R party does not care, since blacks don't vote R.

It is all very sad in a nation as wealthy and prosperous as ours. Generations of blacks have been f**ked by Uncle Sam...thanks to liberalism.

I think you misread what I wrote and reinforced what I said. We agree to a large extent. I was demonstrating the difference between two cities, one with a large black culture and one without. A liberal welfare state can work fine with homogenous populations. It tends to crumble when not. This is not to say I prefer a liberal welfare state, I certainly do not. But the comparisons are striking.

Okay, but one could argue that Detroit and other predominantly black cities are homogeneous and liberal. These cities are hardly success stories.

Indeed they are. But homogenously poor, whereas the peoples of these cities get more in welfare than they pay in taxes. And Detroit wasn't always homogenously black. White folks ran from Detroit as if it were plagued. And who could blame them. Liberals give white people who fled the Motor City a hard time, but with them out of the way it is easy to see why they did.

Detroit was once one of the greatest cities in the world. It had it all. Full employment with good paying jobs, thriving businesses everywhere, the highest home ownership anywhere in the world, almost no crime, good schools, very effective mass transit, great libraries and museums, wealthy individuals doing amazing charity work, etc....

I have first hand knowledge, I was born there when it was still great.

 

[Publius1787]

I've heard this argument before and cant quite get over the fact that ultra liberal San Francisco with a 6.1% African American population has not gone the way of Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, Newark, St. Louis, or Oakland. The same could be said with countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. They are almost completely homogenous but excellent functioning welfare states. My theory is that when you have a homogenous state it is easy to implement liberal ideas when you know that they are going to promote the culture that offers them. The moment a people find themselves subsidizing a different culture who wants to eradicate the culture of the host, liberal policies function much more ineffectively.

O
I don't think your analysis holds water. San Franfreako had such a small population of blacks compared to Detroit, Chicago, Newark, Baltimore, etc....that the damage caused by welfare state polices imposed by Uncle Sam starting in the 1960s, had little impact there.

If one looks at the state of American blacks in the 1950s, one will find that they were doing relatively well. More were working and married per capita than whites. As soon as Uncle replaced the black male with a government check, illegitimacy took off and the dysfunction began. Add to this all the other detrimental aspects of liberalism...p-schools teaching nothing, declining neighborhoods, corrupt and ineffective city government, drugs, gangs, high crime, victimization, lack of good jobs, ABORTION, etc....and you have a disaster.

This disaster has been around since the 1970s and little has been done to rectify it. The D party, which gets nearly all the black vote, has done nothing to stop it...and the R party does not care, since blacks don't vote R.

It is all very sad in a nation as wealthy and prosperous as ours. Generations of blacks have been f**ked by Uncle Sam...thanks to liberalism.

I think you misread what I wrote and reinforced what I said. We agree to a large extent. I was demonstrating the difference between two cities, one with a large black culture and one without. A liberal welfare state can work fine with homogenous populations. It tends to crumble when not. This is not to say I prefer a liberal welfare state, I certainly do not. But the comparisons are striking.

Okay, but one could argue that Detroit and other predominantly black cities are homogeneous and liberal. These cities are hardly success stories.

Indeed they are. But homogenously poor, whereas the peoples of these cities get more in welfare than they pay in taxes. And Detroit wasn't always homogenously black. White folks ran from Detroit as if it were plagued. And who could blame them. Liberals give white people who fled the Motor City a hard time, but with them out of the way it is easy to see why they did.

Detroit was once one of the greatest cities in the world. It had it all. Full employment with good paying jobs, thriving businesses everywhere, the highest home ownership anywhere in the world, almost no crime, good schools, very effective mass transit, great libraries and museums, wealthy individuals doing amazing charity work, etc....

I have first hand knowledge, I was born there when it was still great.

Now look at it today!

 

[blastoff]

All thanks to Leftist policies implemented by Uncle Sam.

I've heard this argument before and cant quite get over the fact that ultra liberal San Francisco with a 6.1% African American population has not gone the way of Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, Newark, St. Louis, or Oakland. The same could be said with countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. They are almost completely homogenous but excellent functioning welfare states. My theory is that when you have a homogenous state it is easy to implement liberal ideas when you know that they are going to promote the culture that offers them. The moment a people find themselves subsidizing a different culture who wants to eradicate the culture of the host, liberal policies function much more ineffectively.

I don't think your analysis holds water. San Franfreako had such a small population of blacks compared to Detroit, Chicago, Newark, Baltimore, etc....that the damage caused by welfare state polices imposed by Uncle Sam starting in the 1960s, had little impact there.

If one looks at the state of American blacks in the 1950s, one will find that they were doing relatively well. More were working and married per capita than whites. As soon as Uncle replaced the black male with a government check, illegitimacy took off and the dysfunction began. Add to this all the other detrimental aspects of liberalism...p-schools teaching nothing, declining neighborhoods, corrupt and ineffective city government, drugs, gangs, high crime, victimization, lack of good jobs, ABORTION, etc....and you have a disaster.

This disaster has been around since the 1970s and little has been done to rectify it. The D party, which gets nearly all the black vote, has done nothing to stop it...and the R party does not care, since blacks don't vote R.

It is all very sad in a nation as wealthy and prosperous as ours. Generations of blacks have been f**ked by Uncle Sam...thanks to liberalism.

I agree with some of what u said but how do u explain the terrible state of blacks throughout the world, they do have a role n their own failures.

Agreed. Conditions for blacks throughout the world is poor. I agree that they do bear some of the responsibility. Patrick Moynihan warned about it decades ago.

The Negro Family: The Case For National Action (known as the Moynihan Report, 1965) was written by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, an Americansociologist serving as Assistant Secretary of Labor[1] under President Lyndon B. Johnson of the United States. In 1976 Moynihan was elected to the first of several terms as U.S. Senator from New York and continued to support liberal programs to try to end poverty. His 1965 work focused on the deep roots of black poverty in the United States and concluded, controversially, that the high rate of families headed by single mothers would greatly hinder progress of African Americans toward economic and political equality.

Moynihan argued that the rise in Black single-mother families was not due to a lack of jobs (this would soon be the case due to the loss of jobs through industrial restructuring) but rather to a destructive vein in ghetto culture, which could be traced to slavery times and continued discrimination in the American South under Jim Crow. Black sociologist E. Franklin Frazier had introduced this idea in the 1930s, but Moynihan was considered one of the first academics to defy conventional social-science wisdom about the structure of poverty. As he wrote later, "The work began in the most orthodox setting, the U.S. Department of Labor, to establish at some level of statistical conciseness what 'everyone knew': that economic conditions determine social conditions. Whereupon, it turned out that what everyone knew was evidently not so."
The Negro Family: The Case For National Action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All thanks to Leftist policies implemented by Uncle Sam.

I've heard this argument before and cant quite get over the fact that ultra liberal San Francisco with a 6.1% African American population has not gone the way of Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, Newark, St. Louis, or Oakland. The same could be said with countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. They are almost completely homogenous but excellent functioning welfare states. My theory is that when you have a homogenous state it is easy to implement liberal ideas when you know that they are going to promote the culture that offers them. The moment a people find themselves subsidizing a different culture who wants to eradicate the culture of the host, liberal policies function much more ineffectively.

I don't think your analysis holds water. San Franfreako had such a small population of blacks compared to Detroit, Chicago, Newark, Baltimore, etc....that the damage caused by welfare state polices imposed by Uncle Sam starting in the 1960s, had little impact there.

If one looks at the state of American blacks in the 1950s, one will find that they were doing relatively well. More were working and married per capita than whites. As soon as Uncle replaced the black male with a government check, illegitimacy took off and the dysfunction began. Add to this all the other detrimental aspects of liberalism...p-schools teaching nothing, declining neighborhoods, corrupt and ineffective city government, drugs, gangs, high crime, victimization, lack of good jobs, ABORTION, etc....and you have a disaster.

This disaster has been around since the 1970s and little has been done to rectify it. The D party, which gets nearly all the black vote, has done nothing to stop it...and the R party does not care, since blacks don't vote R.

It is all very sad in a nation as wealthy and prosperous as ours. Generations of blacks have been f**ked by Uncle Sam...thanks to liberalism.

I agree with some of what u said but how do u explain the terrible state of blacks throughout the world, they do have a role n their own failures.

Agreed. Conditions for blacks throughout the world is poor. I agree that they do bear some of the responsibility. Patrick Moynihan warned about it decades ago.

The Negro Family: The Case For National Action (known as the Moynihan Report, 1965) was written by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, an Americansociologist serving as Assistant Secretary of Labor[1] under President Lyndon B. Johnson of the United States. In 1976 Moynihan was elected to the first of several terms as U.S. Senator from New York and continued to support liberal programs to try to end poverty. His 1965 work focused on the deep roots of black poverty in the United States and concluded, controversially, that the high rate of families headed by single mothers would greatly hinder progress of African Americans toward economic and political equality.

Moynihan argued that the rise in Black single-mother families was not due to a lack of jobs (this would soon be the case due to the loss of jobs through industrial restructuring) but rather to a destructive vein in ghetto culture, which could be traced to slavery times and continued discrimination in the American South under Jim Crow. Black sociologist E. Franklin Frazier had introduced this idea in the 1930s, but Moynihan was considered one of the first academics to defy conventional social-science wisdom about the structure of poverty. As he wrote later, "The work began in the most orthodox setting, the U.S. Department of Labor, to establish at some level of statistical conciseness what 'everyone knew': that economic conditions determine social conditions. Whereupon, it turned out that what everyone knew was evidently not so."
The Negro Family: The Case For National Action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Had DPM hit that nail any more square they would have made him join the carpenters' union!

 

[Liberty777]

The blacks should of took a page out of the Asians playbook.

 

[Publius1787]

The blacks should of took a page out of the Asians playbook.

Never happen. That would mean forgoing instant gratification and settling down to hard work and education. Instead of the Air Jordan's, save for college. Instead of the rims and sound system in the car, invest toward your own business. Instead of joining the local chapter of the Bloods, join a civic organization. Instead of rehearsing and spitting out gangster rap in the hall ways of your local high school, buy a violin and take orchestra. Instead of going to the club and "hooking up" with the first man that gains your attention, find responsible men who have employment and an education, or simply have them wear a rubber.