Monday, April 23, 2012
In the Interesting/Did You Know? Category 3
That the period of greatest economic growth for African-Americans WASN'T the 1960s and '70s but the 1940s and '50s, prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and certainly prior to any formal affirmative action? I cite specifically the fact that the poverty level dropped from 87% in 1940 to 47% in 1960, a stunning 46% drop-off..................................................................................And, NO, I'm not saying that the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act weren't important. They were extremely important. I'm just saying that the ECONOMIC progress that occurred during the previous century wasn't solely contingent upon various government edicts/policies. Big difference.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
Will, be prepared to supply links to your data supporting this for wd.
The tragic number is the fact that 87% of blacks lived in poverty in 1940. That, my friend, is a national disgrace.
"I'm just saying that the ECONOMIC progress that occurred during the previous century wasn't solely contingent upon various government edicts/policies."
I'm not sure what the point is in the above.
The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act weren't "government edict or policies," they were an reaffirmation of rights, guaranteed by the US Constitution, for a group of American citizens who had been systematically deprived of said rights for centuries by the governments of southern states. What those governments in those southern states engaged in was criminal.
I don't see any cause and effect here at all; and unless you can link to the stats and an analysis of what the correlation is, bringing up the Civil Rights act in this post about economics doesn't make any sense.
I kind of think Will is pointing to the fact that the left bills themselves as the protector of African-Americans when in truth they've done nothing but keep them in economic slavery while courting their vote.
I actually agree with Rusty... not about the "economic slavery" BS, but about Will pointing out this Conservative "fact". That's what Conservatives do.
Rusty, interesting you mention this. Many would agree with this analysis.
Making your usual convoluted ridiculous assertions I see.
Shaw, you can call them whatever you want, but the fact is that the major chunk of the economic progress that occurred during the 20th century wasn't due to affirmative action or government policies but more so to the fact that African-Americans busted their humps.............I agree, Jerry. It was a disgrace. But in spite of that disgrace, the black family remained largely intact and the incarceration rate was a fraction of what it is today. So much I gues for the inequality theory of social deviance.
Wow! This must be a first! I also agree with "Rational". "Many" might agree with his first comment about blaming the victim, which is something Conservatives and Libertarians both do. Although many agreeing with something does not make it correct...
...which must be what he means with his second comment where he criticizes Will's post for the "convoluted ridiculous assertions" it contains.
Hmmm... maybe "Rational" is reassessing his belief in the Libertarian ideology? He'd have been one of the last people I'd have expected to throw off his delusions and embrace the truth.
"So much I gues for the inequality theory of social deviance."
So, you are saying that inequality did not significantly contribute to the 87% property rare?
Will: "...the major chunk of the economic progress that occurred during the 20th century wasn't due to affirmative action or government policies..."
You lumped The Civil Rights Act and The Voting Rights Act in with your speculation that government "programs" like Affirmative Action didn't exist when economic progress was made in the A.A. community.
The Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were not "programs." They were a reaffirmation of guaranteed rights under the Constitution, making it illegal for southern states to interfere with a citizen's right to vote or to set up restrictions on where an American citizen can eat, sleep, live, go to school, or sit on a bus, etc. because of the color of his/her skin.
And you do admit in your post that:
"I'm just saying that the ECONOMIC progress that occurred during the previous century wasn't solely contingent upon various government edicts/policies..."
Which means that maybe SOME of the gains that African Americans made were as a result of leveling the playing field?
Rusty S.'s comment saying that Democrats do "...nothing but keep them [African-Americans] in economic slavery while courting their vote." is incredibly demeaning and patronizing to 98% of the A.A. community who vote with the Democratic Party.
Does Rusty really think that the 98% of the A.A.'s who choose to affiliate with the Democrats are too stupid to know what's best for them? If he really believes that, he believes that millions and millions of A.A.s from every strata of economic and educational life in this country really don't know which political party serves their best interests and which political party is more open to their concerns?
But he does?
Rusty claims that A.A.s voluntarily keep themselves in economic "slavery" by voting Democratic--because? These men and women are just too stupid to know what's best for them?
Amazing insight into what Rusty and others who hold that opinion truly think about the African-American community and their ability to make political choices based on their best interest.
And, Rusty, that is EXACTYLY why our A.A. brothers and sisters do NOT vote Republican or affiliate with the GOP.
You've inadvertently exposed something we Democrats have known for a long time.
The truth does seem to rankle you libs Shaw.
Since the 50's all the left has done for the black community is hold them hostage for their votes with unfulfilled promises.
Well over half black children are from single family homes...what has the left done to help?
Well over half of black children wont graduate high school...what has the left done to help?
What has the left done to reduce the black on black crime rate?
You know Shaw all your flowrey platitudes result in absolutly nothing...when the rubber hits the road all you libs do is flap your gums about all the wondeful things you've done for black americans while the truth is what you've done is indeed economic slavery.
While the black population gained
large employment 1940-1960, so did
anyone looking for work. Some economic metrics: GDP went from
$800 billion to $1900 billion, there was a population boom after
WWII, increasing the customer base, the MI-complex was at it's
height, with WWII, Korea and the Cold War, the US invested heavily
in infrastructure. We were also heavily taxed and there was a much stronger union movement. But, those were good times, and the black population benefited, with the caveat that the blacks moved from the rural south to the industrial north: and still lagged in income. In 1940, blacks earned
an average $538/yr. That increased to $2848/yr: during the same time
period, white income rose from $1234 in 1940 to $5158. So there
were numerous factors at play.
Rusty: "You know Shaw all your flowrey platitudes result in absolutly nothing...when the rubber hits the road all you libs do is flap your gums about all the wondeful things you've done for black americans while the truth is what you've done is indeed economic slavery."
Rusty, the gum-flapping appears to be coming from you. All I've done is expose the fact that you think African-Americans are too stupid to make their own choices. And that's not a "platitude," it's a fact. I've written absolutely nothing about what I or anyone has "done for black Americans."
For you to repeat your ridiculous assertion about liberals keeping A.A.s in "economic slavery" is overblown nonsense. Slaves had NO CONTROL over their lives, their masters controlled every aspect of them.
It might be news to you, but the African-American community makes its choices freely and those choices are informed.
It is you who doesn't understand this simple fact, and you who demeans an entire voting bloc because you're p.o.'d over the fact that that voting bloc prefers the values that the Democratic Party represents.
Rusty: "Since the 50's all the left has done for the black community is hold them hostage for their votes with unfulfilled promises."
Really? Two of the most significant laws passed in the '60s that gave the vote back to A.A.s and equalized them with their fellow citizens was passed by a Democratic president, and that legislation was fought, tooth and nail, by the then conservative Democrats in the south, who directly after that monumental fight, left the Democratic Party forever, and became the Republican south--it has never voted for a Democrat since.
Explain that. And then try to understand why a majority of African Americans do not feel welcome in the GOP.
I think you're asking the wrong questions. I think you might want to ask why nearly 100% of African Americans do not feel welcome in the GOP.
I strongly agree with BB-Idaho's explanation regarding why African Americans gained economically in the time frame given. It was a period of strong economic growth for the country, and everyone benefited, although African Americans less so.
Unfortunately BB-Idaho is wrong and I am wrong for agreeing with him. The REAL reason was, as Will said, is that African Americans (during this time period) "busted their humps".
Obviously African Americans of today are lazy loafers who expect handouts from the government. And, as Rusty explained, Democrats can be blamed for this. The solution is to go the "tough love" route and cut programs that help the poor (and use the saving to give tax cuts to rich people so they can "create jobs").
And now I suspect Will is going to accuse me of "lying".
Jerry, my point was that, yes, there was a SHITLOAD of inequality in the '40s and '50s and that, even in spite of this, the black family remained mostly intact and black men largely unincarcerated. If you buy into this whole "Spirit Level" nonsense, there should have be MORE illegitimacy and criminality back then. There wasn't. Something happened to the black family in the '60s and it wasn't all-together good.
Shaw was summarizing someone else and asking: "These men and women are just too stupid to know what's best for them?"
It is extremely arrogant to assume that anyone does not vote in their own interest. I agree with your incredulity.
BB Idaho, assuming that your numbers are correct (and I have no reason to doubt that they aren't), it still shows a higher increase for African-Americans (a 429% increase) than for white Americans (a 318% increase). And I wouldn't necessarily agree that 1940-1960 was an absolute boom period. We had WW2, which was a terrible time for the economy (yeah, we had full employment but that was because we had everybody either fighting or making armaments) in terms of rationing, etc. and several economic downturns to boot. But, yes, African-Americans made tremendous strides during those 2 decades, in spite of discrimination.
Will,
There may have been a "shitload" of inequality in the 40's and 50's, but there is a lot more wealthy inequality now than there was then. One of the reasons is because the top marginal tax rate is now a fraction of what it was back then. And, while I am not familiar with the Spirit Level, I believe it deals with wealth inequalities from what I have read on your blog.
Jerry, look at the top 1%'s share of the total wealth over the past 90 years. It's consistently been over 30%. The only time that it dipped significantly was during the Carter years, and nobody who I know thinks that the Carter years were a time of bangin' prosperity (high interest rates, high inflation, high unemployment, etc.). Hey, I have no problem with the top rates going back to the Clinton era rates (yeah, they were 91% under Ike but NOBODY paid even close to that - it wasn't until the Tax Reform Act of 1986 that we get ride of a lot of those ridiculous loopholes). But if you think that that alone is going to get us out of this mess we're in, you're probably going to be disappointed.
Conservatives like Will can't accept the evidence presented in "The Spirit Level" because then they'd have to acknowledge that all this greed has consequences.
Jerry, if you want to know more about "The Spirit Level" I suggest checking out the following website: The Equality Trust.
Will,
You're right. The top 1% have held roughly 30% of the total wealth as shown in Figure 5 of this reference. However, let's look at the numbers a little closer. In 1920, the top 1% held about 40% of the total wealth. That number steadily declined to about 20% by the mid 70's. Then, along came Reagan and the beginning of tax cutting. By 2007, the wealthy 1% were back up to about 35% of the total.
The inequality is much more evident when you look at income, rather than wealth. Check out Figure 8 in the same reference. The income share of the top 1% has gone from about 8% to about 18% from 1980 to 2007.
Also very telling is the increase in CEO pay relative to their workers. There has been a lot in the news lately about that, so I will leave it to the reader to look it up if you don't already know.
Good points, Jerry. But I don't think that it's fair to look at just the income and not the taxes. In 2009, the top 1% earned 16.9% of the total AGI but paid 36.7% of all federal income taxes (yes, I know, the poor pay payroll taxes but that's for their retirement). And when you look at the fact that the top 1%'s share of the country's total financial wealth was 42.9% in 1983 and 42.7% in 2007, unless the rich are essentially blowing their money on booze and prostitutes, it seems to have evened out pretty much.
Shaw, I in no way meant to downplay the significance of the Voting Fights Act or the Civil Rights Act. My only point here was to splash a little cold water on this ridiculous liberal notion that black people can't succeed without some paternalistic bureaucracy propping them up (through laws and/or policies - you do consider affirmative action to be a policy, no?). These stats from the '40s and '50s, along with the success rate of West Indian blacks (Jamaicans, Dominicans, etc.) and African immigrants (who achieve at an educational level HIGHER than whites), clearly show how ass-kicking that these people can be.
Shaw,show me where I said american blacks were "too stupid to make their own choices?"
The point I was making is that you and your ilk are akin to snake oil salesmen...you promise everything to the black community yet deliver nothing.
Then you try to hand yourself a medal for two laws passed over 50 years ago.Yet,you never give one solid positive you libs have done to reverse the current state of the black community.
Yes Shaw,you are most typical of the current batch of liberals.
Rusty: "Shaw,show me where I said american blacks were 'too stupid to make their own choices?' "
I never said you said that. Go back and read my comments. I said your insistence that A.A.s are "slaves" to the Democratic Party IMPLIES that you believe A.A.s are too stupid to know what's best for them. Slaves had no choice in how they lived their lives. No A.A. is a "slave" to any political party he or she CHOOSES. Your comparison was silly.
Rusty: "Then you try to hand yourself a medal for two laws passed over 50 years ago."
Wrong again, Rusty. You made an incorrect statement saying that the Democratic Party had done NOTHING for the A.A. community since the '50s. I refuted that with a fact. YOU are the one who interprets straightening out your error as "handing myself a medal." It seems you can't take correction.
Rusty: "Yet,you never give one solid positive you libs have done to reverse the current state of the black community."
Nice try. But the fact, again, is that the GOP has held the presidency 30 years out of the last 50, up to GWB. What programs did those presidents initiate to help the A.A. community? Except for Reagan making fun of "welfare queens" and "young bucks" on food stamps, can you name any significant programs that helped that community?
Exactly the lefty reponse expected...you sure dont disappoint Shaw.
You cannot bring up anything positive you libs have done for the black community in the past 30 years....sooooo,lets blame it on the republicans....yea thats it, its their fault....our hearts are pure....in our hearts we want the black community to progress but its those evil republicans stopping us from achieving our goals.Hell,come to think of it this may very well be Bush's fault also.
You people never cease to amaze...never want to take responsibility for your failures,but are quite content to blame your complete dismal performance on someone else.....it must be something it the liberal diet,you mirrow Obama....he cant mention his sorrowful record in his flowery speeches,but can blame a multitude of outside influences for his failure as a leader.
Come on Shaw....for once buck up...take some personal responsibilty for the failure of liberalism...you'll feel better for it.
Shaw, I don't know if Rusty is 100% right, but he does have a point. Liberal policies like building restrictions and eminent domain have clearly had a devastating effect on the black community. And it is rather curious that the black family was able to survive slavery, lynchings, and Jim Crow, but it couldn't survive the 1960s.
You wont hear from her Will.She'll scurry back to Sue's chat where she one of the respected "sages." You'll notice as soon as anyone holds someone from Sue's echo chamber to task they will do one of two things...start name calling or run away.Typical...so very typical.
The increase in the 1940's and 1950's was due to the open opportunities after the death of "Jim Crow" laws. The increase in the 1970's and 1980's was due to the opportunities opened up after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
When oppression is lessened, opportunities open up. That was part of the goal of civil rights legislation, to increase opportunities for those who had been discriminated against.
Glad to see (in my life time) that the situation of blacks in America, has improved.
Will,I knew you would'nt hear from Shaw.....Shaw has run back to the comfort of a place where she will never get questioned.A place where she will be viewed as a sage.
Shaw is typical....so,typical.
Shaw did not "run back to the comfort of a place where she will never get questioned". She replied several times and then got bored responding to stupid questions. It's Rusty's MO. Ask stupid questions and then declare victory regardless of the answer. It's pretty pathetic.
We want to find and eliminate welfare fraud where ever it exists, but Reagan's Welfare Queens who collected upwards of $150,000 by using “eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards” and 4 deceased husbands simply did not exist.
Reagan was a liar!
From Wikipedia:
One particular welfare queen identified used 14 aliases to obtain $150,000 for medical assistance, cash assistance and bonus cash food stamps.' Edelman said, 'She went from district to district. She had a collection of wigs and was a master of disguise. She organized people and upwards of 100 aliases were used.'"
That's the reality. I guess Reagan was a liar because he mentioned only 80 aliases and in reality 100 were used by this queen?
And just who was this welfare queen? What was her name and where was she charged and prosecuted? How about some more details than just a Wikipedia quote of someone else's quote.
dmarks: What does this have to do with blacks?
Will CONSTANTLY points to out of wedlock children and when he does it's in the context of blaming Blacks for being on welfare.
Everyone knows the fictional "welfare queen" Reagan was talking about was Black. Most likely you do too... you just pretended she might have been White so when Jerry disagreed you could accuse him of "playing the race card" (a favorite Conservative tactic).
CNN Politics: "...reporters investigating [the welfare queen] concluded it wasn't quite true. Some said it may have been based on a then-47-year-old woman in Chicago, but that Reagan wildly exaggerated her abuses". [1/23/2012]
Also, (from the same CNN article): "Reagan never said the Welfare Queen was black, but he didn't need to. People assumed she was because of rhetorical clues Reagan dropped, says John Hinshaw, a history professor at Lebanon Valley College in Pennsylvania.
The Welfare Queen driving a pink Cadillac to cash her welfare checks at the liquor store fits a narrative that many white, working-class Americans had about inner-city blacks... It doesn't matter if the story was fabricated, it fit the narrative, and so it felt true, and it didn't need to be verified".
WD said: "Everyone knows the fictional "welfare queen" Reagan was talking about was Black"
Turns out the welfare queen was real. I've not seen a photo of her yet, so I do not know she is black.
But you must realize that attacking welfare fraud is not the same as attacking Blacks.
Unless you are like that Ducky guy who is one of those leftists who thinks all blacks are on welfare and everyone who is on welfare is black.
"Reagan never said the Welfare Queen was black, but he didn't need to. People assumed she was because of rhetorical clues Reagan dropped"
Imaginary clues. They did not exist.
"but that Reagan wildly exaggerated her abuses""
He underestimated them. Check the number of aliases. Reagan lowballed it.
"The Welfare Queen driving a pink Cadillac to cash her welfare checks at the liquor store fits a narrative that many white, working-class Americans had about inner-city blacks."
Only in your racist mind which is somehow equating black with welfare. Most welfare recipients, and most cheats, are white.
"It doesn't matter if the story was fabricated, it fit the narrative, and so it felt true, and it didn't need to be verified"
It's clear that John Hinshaw has a wild imagination.
By the way, it is very clear (not from clues, but from overt equating) that this Hinshaw guy thinks welfare = black. Since it is a dumb thing to think, he is trying to project his ignorance and prejudice on Ronald Reagan, a man who was merely condemning welfare fraud, not blacks. But Hinshaw is doing a poor job of it.
dmarks, you just make yourself look silly when you dispute old myths that most others know were debunked decades ago. The "welfare queen" Reagan referred to never existed.
Wikipedia says, "A welfare queen is a pejorative phrase used in the United States to describe people who are accused of collecting excessive welfare payments through fraud or manipulation. ... The term entered the American lexicon during Ronald Reagan's 1976 presidential campaign when he described a "welfare queen" from Chicago's South Side.
Since then, it has become a stigmatizing label placed on recidivist poor mothers, with studies showing that it often carries gendered and RACIAL connotations.
Wikipedia also notes that, "In response to Reagan's use of the term, Susan Douglas, a professor of communication studies at the University of Michigan, writes:
"He specialized in the exaggerated, outrageous tale that was almost always unsubstantiated, usually false, yet so sensational that it merited repeated recounting..."
Hmm, I thought you said to Jerry that Wikipedia proved that Reagan was right. Note the phrases "unsubstantiated" and "usually false". Were you under the impression that it was "opposite day" when you wrote your response?
WD fabricated:
"dmarks, you just make yourself look silly when you dispute old myths that most others know were debunked decades ago. The "welfare queen" Reagan referred to never existed."
Read the Wiki artitle you quote. The welfare queen existed. Reagan actually lowballed how bad she was. Her name was Linda Taylor, a real woman.
WD put on his white hood and misrepresented Wikipedia saying:
"Since then, it has become a stigmatizing label placed on recidivist poor mothers, with studies showing that it often carries gendered and RACIAL connotations."
Of course it does. To you, Ducky, and others on the left who believe that black = welfare cheat.
I'm not a bigot like you who does this.
OK, let's put out here what the Wikipedia articles says about Linda Taylor and what Reagan said about welfare queens.
Linda Taylor
"...was charged with using four aliases and of cheating the government out of $8,000....woman was ultimately found guilty of "welfare fraud and perjury" in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.[8]"
"Joel Edelman, executive director of the Illinois Legislative Advisory Committee on Public Aid, has said his committee found that from early 1973 until mid-1974, Linda Taylor 'used 14 aliases to obtain $150,000 for medical assistance, cash assistance and bonus cash food stamps."
Reagan said,
"She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000."
There is also the following statement about her.
"She organized people and upwards of 100 aliases were used."
I did not include it above with her name n
Because it does not say SHE used upwards of 100 aliases, but that she organized people... An accusation she was never charged or convicted of.
Now, was Reagan lying or exaggerating, or telling the truth?
The Nation: ...what [Reagan] often communicated were lies and distortions. For example... Reagan often told the story of a so-called welfare queen in Chicago who drove a Cadillac and had ripped off $150,000 from the government using 80 aliases, 30 addresses, a dozen Social Security cards and 4 fictional dead husbands. Journalists searched for this welfare cheat in the hopes of interviewing her and discovered that she didn't exist. [2/4/2011]
Obviously what happened is that Reagan apologists found this "Linda Taylor" person after the fact and lied about her being the person Reagan was talking about. She clearly isn't, because her crimes are considerably lesser than the fictional person Reagan described.
Wikipedia also notes: Franklin Gilliam theorized that the welfare queen idea has roots in both race and gender: "While poor women of all races get blamed for their impoverished condition, African-American women commit the most egregious violations of American values. This story line taps into stereotypes about both women (uncontrolled sexuality) and African-Americans (laziness)". [end Wikipedia excerpt].
It isn't people on the Left that believe that "black = welfare cheat". It's people on the Right (like dmarks) who perpetuate the myth.
Which is why it's more accurate to say dmarks put on HIS white hood when he lied about "black = welfare cheat" being something the Left believes. He's covering up for the racists on the Right.
Post a Comment