What Price for White Skin?

Professor_X · March 29, 2008, 12:25am

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:

That seems very simplistic. I see more people in middle and lower class jumping into marriage early than those who make more money. Look at the armed services. The majority of the patients I treated were all under the age of 25 and MOST of them were already married. They sure as hell weren’t doing that well financially.

I think the distinction is “early.” There are certainly studies that show that marriages entered into when both people are a little older - I think I’m recalling older than 25 - are more successful. Putting off kids for a little while helps with that too.[/quote]

That was the point I was going to make after I saw what you would write in response. I have always held the opinion that early marriage is a great way to NOT succeed at much of anything. I see very few doctors, lawyers, nurses or electrical engineers who got married at 19. I see a whole lot of poor ass couples, however, who will probably get divorced as soon as they figure out they are both still maturing and how they act at the age of 30 will probably be largely different than how they acted at 20 in a relationship.

I would say it is cultural as well. I see a lot more Hispanics getting married super early in my area than any other group. I just have a hard time with someone claiming that marriage is the institution of the upper class.

nephorm · March 29, 2008, 12:32am

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I have always held the opinion that early marriage is a great way to NOT succeed at much of anything. I see very few doctors, lawyers, nurses or electrical engineers who got married at 19.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with you, although I have known I few people who were positively motivated by marriage at an early age. One of the sharpest engineers I knew in school had delivered pizza for years after high school. He got married to a woman he delivered pizza to.

He studied his ass off, every single day. Because he knew what it was like to be poor, and he didn’t want to go there again. And he was motivated to provide for his family.

We can really only speak in terms of statistics or probability, and I would certainly never advocate that someone follow his path. But I like to keep in mind that people never cease astonishing me in the amazing things they accomplish, and in the diversity of their modes of experiencing the world.

WhiteFlash · March 29, 2008, 12:44am

[quote]nephorm wrote:
WhiteFlash wrote:
[…] [P]eople as a whole move as a unit. If a prominent […] man does something of note, the crowd follows suit.

Hey, fixed it for you.[/quote]

I see what you’re saying, but it rings truer amongst blacks.

Professor_X · March 29, 2008, 12:45am

I wrote this earlier but didn’t see any responses (if there are some, I apologize).

Tell me how people can be a part of a society yet at the same time feel they bare no responsibility for the actions of that society based on their own social standing?

While I know that most whites living today may have had little DIRECT influence on the degradation of blacks in this country, they are still a part of the same society that did. That same society is what allowed their own ancestors less in the way of hardships than their much darker counterparts (even if some of you claim your family came from wherever and didn’t personally own a slave)…which translates into greater economic and social wealth. As such, the ramifications extend across generations until we reach this moment in time.

I see no possible way to reach a solution as long as most of the country acts like they hold no responsibility at all.

It simply can’t work that way.

Mind you, I think simple acknowledgment would go a long way but we can’t even get that on a grand scale.

BostonBarrister · March 29, 2008, 12:45am

[quote]

Professor X wrote:
That seems very simplistic. I see more people in middle and lower class jumping into marriage early than those who make more money. Look at the armed services. The majority of the patients I treated were all under the age of 25 and MOST of them were already married. They sure as hell weren’t doing that well financially.

BostonBarrister wrote:
I think the distinction is “early.” There are certainly studies that show that marriages entered into when both people are a little older - I think I’m recalling older than 25 - are more successful. Putting off kids for a little while helps with that too.

Professor X wrote:
That was the point I was going to make after I saw what you would write in response. I have always held the opinion that early marriage is a great way to NOT succeed at much of anything. I see very few doctors, lawyers, nurses or electrical engineers who got married at 19. I see a whole lot of poor ass couples, however, who will probably get divorced as soon as they figure out they are both still maturing and how they act at the age of 30 will probably be largely different than how they acted at 20 in a relationship.

I would say it is cultural as well. I see a lot more Hispanics getting married super early in my area than any other group. I just have a hard time with someone claiming that marriage is the institution of the upper class. [/quote]

I think that’s what it’s becoming in Europe - this article is particularly about the UK, but I think they’re a little behind the Continent in terms of the trendline toward fewer marriages. There are a lot fewer religious people over there - of course they’re having a separate issue with their demographics (not enough kids).

Overall, I think it can be analyzed like this: 1) Overall, it’s better to wait to have kids and get married until both parties are at least in their mid twenties; 2) If people are going to be having kids before that, it’s probably better for society overall if that is done in the context of a stable environment, which has traditionally been marriage (and society is still configured to make it easiest to do so from within a marriage); 3) The interest of the state in promoting marriage is primarily related to kids; but 4) Adults do get separate benefits from marriage.

Having kids early and outside of a stable two-adult support system is bad for society - bad for the kids, and bad for the parent who is raising the kids alone.

Professor_X · March 29, 2008, 12:50am

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
nephorm wrote:
WhiteFlash wrote:
[…] [P]eople as a whole move as a unit. If a prominent […] man does something of note, the crowd follows suit.

Hey, fixed it for you.

I see what you’re saying, but it rings truer amongst blacks.[/quote]

How is that so? ALL people have basically the same motivations. What you personally view as “success” is based on what you grew up around, who raised you and who your peers are. Your skin color has little to do with it.

The upper class white kid whose parents can afford Summer Homes in the Keys may have a different focus on what equals success, but that doesn’t make him more right. If some poor kid knows his family can’t afford college, getting that football scholarship takes top priority. How is that a negative? Simply because he can’t afford to become a doctor and sees his path to success on a football field?

From the movie The Boiler Room:

Anyone who can’t see how close we are is delusional.

BostonBarrister · March 29, 2008, 12:53am

This is how I responded back on page 3:

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

It’s an interesting effect, but I don’t think it’s generalizable because each individual is going to use his own yardstick, and it’s going to be influenced by his perceptions. There may be some whites who are “downplaying the cost” (in quotes because to me it wasn’t calculated or attributed properly) because they are racist - but that can’t be attributable for each person who disagrees with the researchers’ contentions.

As for meaningful dialogue, I think it’s prevented because people are too emotionally involved in their beliefs on the topic of race - they get offended easily, on both sides. And you add the “us” and “them” breakdown inherent in the question to people who are defensive about being blamed for things they personally had nothing to do with, on the one side, or people who have historical grievances they want to air, on the other, and it doesn’t progress very far.

Professor X wrote:

Tell me how people can be a part of a society yet at the same time feel they bare no responsibility for the actions of that society based on their own social standing?[/quote]

We’re all part of society. But the only actions for which I bear any responsibility are my own (and now my kid’s, at least until he’s 18). How can it be that I am responsible for “white society” but you’re not responsible for a higher rate of violent criminal behavior by “black society”? I’d say it’s not possible - and that neither one of us is responsible for someone else’s acts.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

While I know that most whites living today may have had little DIRECT influence on the degradation of blacks in this country, they are still a part of the same society that did. That same society is what allowed their own ancestors less in the way of hardships than their much darker counterparts (even if some of you claim your family came from wherever and didn’t personally own a slave)…which translates into greater economic and social wealth. As such, the ramifications extend across generations until we reach this moment in time.[/quote]

I’m not responsible for “society” - I’m responsible for my own beliefs and actions. FYI, I had no members of my family living in the United States pre Civil War. I don’t think any of my ancestors ever lived south of the Mason-Dixon line, at any time, until I spent 3 years in Nashville for law school. But that’s not really relevant; even if none of that were true, I still would not be responsible for “society” in the pre Civil War era. I’m not responsible for “society” now, any more than any other citizen of any race, hue, or ethnicity.

You’re not guaranteed an equal starting point in life. Michael Jordan’s kid is going to start out ahead of mine. My kid is going to start out ahead of my brother-in-law’s kid. Your kid, should you have one, will start out ahead of the kid of some poor FOB pregnant Russian immigrant who arrives the day your future kid is born.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I see no possible way to reach a solution as long as most of the country acts like they hold no responsibility at all.

It simply can’t work that way.

Mind you, I think simple acknowledgment would go a long way but we can’t even get that on a grand scale.[/quote]

Most of the country has no responsibility at all.

And to look at it from another perspective, if you were right, what about people like Obama, with both white and black ancestry? Or what about black people who came to the U.S. post-1865? What about “white” people who are part Asian, or part Hispanic? How exactly are we going to divvy up all of that blame?

ADDENDUM: I can’t find an exact figure, but looking at this is interesting for a very rough estimate: Immigration to the United States - Wikipedia

In 1900, 20% of the population of the United States consisted of people born in another country. About 10% of the population today consists of people born in a foreign country. I can’t find earlier figures, but there was extensive immigration to the U.S. after the Civil War. Most everyone in this country is descended at least partly from people who weren’t even here in 1865 - and that’s conservative (the “partly” as opposed to “mostly”).

Professor_X · March 29, 2008, 12:54am

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Overall, I think it can be analyzed like this: 1) Overall, it’s better to wait to have kids and get married until both parties are at least in their mid twenties; 2) If people are going to be having kids before that, it’s probably better for society overall if that is done in the context of a stable environment, which has traditionally been marriage (and society is still configured to make it easiest to do so from within a marriage); 3) The interest of the state in promoting marriage is primarily related to kids; but 4) Adults do get separate benefits from marriage.

Having kids early and outside of a stable two-adult support system is bad for society - bad for the kids, and bad for the parent who is raising the kids alone.[/quote]

No argument there, but I keep seeing these illegitimacy stats everywhere and relating not being married DIRECTLY to living in poverty makes little sense.

I am beginning to lose any favor for stats.

Cpl_Mongo · March 29, 2008, 1:49am

i have friend that always says (in regards to stats) all stats prove is that 100% of people surveyed are willing to take a survey , that is all they really have.

Sloth · March 29, 2008, 1:56am

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I wrote this earlier but didn’t see any responses (if there are some, I apologize).

Tell me how people can be a part of a society yet at the same time feel they bare no responsibility for the actions of that society based on their own social standing?

While I know that most whites living today may have had little DIRECT influence on the degradation of blacks in this country, they are still a part of the same society that did. That same society is what allowed their own ancestors less in the way of hardships than their much darker counterparts (even if some of you claim your family came from wherever and didn’t personally own a slave)…which translates into greater economic and social wealth. As such, the ramifications extend across generations until we reach this moment in time.

I see no possible way to reach a solution as long as most of the country acts like they hold no responsibility at all.

It simply can’t work that way.

Mind you, I think simple acknowledgment would go a long way but we can’t even get that on a grand scale.[/quote]

Well, I’m not responsible. It’s just that simple, really. Isn’t there a term for people who’d hold an entire race responsible?

dk44 · March 29, 2008, 1:59am

The good news is that pretty soon blacks and whites are gonna have to come together (as will all infidels) unless we want to live under shaira law.

Professor_X · March 29, 2008, 6:14am

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
We’re all part of society. But the only actions for which I bear any responsibility are my own (and now my kid’s, at least until he’s 18). How can it be that I am responsible for “white society” but you’re not responsible for a higher rate of violent criminal behavior by “black society”? I’d say it’s not possible - and that neither one of us is responsible for someone else’s acts.[/quote]

How can it be that any of us are responsible for all of “black society”? I have been asked in this thread what I plan to do about it (inequality)…as if taking care of my own responsibilities isn’t enough. How is it I get looked at as needing to represent my race and correct the problem but none of you hold any responsibility whatsoever?

Yes, you’ve mentioned this before. So…uhm…who or what is?

[quote]Most of the country has no responsibility at all.

And to look at it from another perspective, if you were right, what about people like Obama, with both white and black ancestry? Or what about black people who came to the U.S. post-1865? What about “white” people who are part Asian, or part Hispanic? How exactly are we going to divvy up all of that blame?[/quote]

Most of the country SHOULD hold some responsibility for the current state of society. If no one holds any responsibility, then how can anyone claim we are even headed in the right direction? Who could possibly lead a country filled with people who literally don’t give a shit about where the country is headed?

Isn’t that what you mean? That we as a society hold no responsibility at all for where we are financially or morally as a country? The elected officials now answer to no one and if we fail, it is because of “them” and not “you” at all?

How does no responsibility at all fall on the inhabitants of the country they live in or the government they live under?

Neuromancer · March 29, 2008, 6:37am

[quote]Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
We’re all part of society. But the only actions for which I bear any responsibility are my own (and now my kid’s, at least until he’s 18). How can it be that I am responsible for “white society” but you’re not responsible for a higher rate of violent criminal behavior by “black society”? I’d say it’s not possible - and that neither one of us is responsible for someone else’s acts.

How can it be that any of us are responsible for all of “black society”? I have been asked in this thread what I plan to do about it (inequality)…as if taking care of my own responsibilities isn’t enough. How is it I get looked at as needing to represent my race and correct the problem but none of you hold any responsibility whatsoever?

I’m not responsible for “society”

Yes, you’ve mentioned this before. So…uhm…who or what is?

Most of the country has no responsibility at all.

And to look at it from another perspective, if you were right, what about people like Obama, with both white and black ancestry? Or what about black people who came to the U.S. post-1865? What about “white” people who are part Asian, or part Hispanic? How exactly are we going to divvy up all of that blame?

Most of the country SHOULD hold some responsibility for the current state of society. If no one holds any responsibility, then how can anyone claim we are even headed in the right direction? Who could possibly lead a country filled with people who literally don’t give a shit about where the country is headed?

Isn’t that what you mean? That we as a society hold no responsibility at all for where we are financially or morally as a country? The elected officials now answer to no one and if we fail, it is because of “them” and not “you” at all?

How does no responsibility at all fall on the inhabitants of the country they live in or the government they live under?[/quote]

Stop asking uncomfortable questions!

Don’t you know that being able to say “I wasn’t there” is absolution?

The nerve of some people…

orion · March 29, 2008, 7:31am

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

Stop asking uncomfortable questions!

Don’t you know that being able to say “I wasn’t there” is absolution?

The nerve of some people…

[/quote]

There is a difference between being responsible for your action now or someone else’s before you were born.

That is so blatantly obvious that I do not know why I even write yet those two are constantly treated as if they were the same.

Neuromancer · March 29, 2008, 8:02am

They are not the same,but they are related.

Wether you choose to see that or not,is of course,totally up to the individual.

Professor_X · March 29, 2008, 8:07am

[quote]orion wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

Stop asking uncomfortable questions!

Don’t you know that being able to say “I wasn’t there” is absolution?

The nerve of some people…

There is a difference between being responsible for your action now or someone else’s before you were born.

That is so blatantly obvious that I do not know why I even write yet those two are constantly treated as if they were the same.[/quote]

It doesn’t matter. No one needed to be informed of anything. It doesn’t matter if some kid was born in 1865 who didn’t enforce slavery himself but was simply born into the society that did. He would still hold some responsibility for the situation by being a part of that society if he was part of the majority that has the greatest influence over correcting any social wrongs.

This is the only area where the act of denying any personal responsibility for the state of society isn’t seen as being unpatriotic.

We get stats thrown at us left and right comparing the black race directly to every negative act that could be performed by an individual, yet for some reason, none of you see that act itself as being racist. The proper method would be to equate criminal activity to socio-economic influences, not skin color. As a result of relating every negative act to a race, we get told that any of us who aren’t criminals and are successful are an exception to the rule.

That effectively forces any black person who is successful to act as a representative for an entire race. Should that individual fail, everyone will notice the failure as being “part of the rule” and associate it with race. I am not sure how someone could deny this.

The people who have the greatest influence over society all now fold their hands across their collective chests and claim this all happened before they got here and so no responsibility falls on them. There is no way a solution can be reached when that attitude is still present in majority.

You can not be a contributing part of society while at the same time claiming you hold no responsibility for the actions of that society. That simply makes no sense at all.

orion · March 29, 2008, 8:49am

[quote]Professor X wrote:
orion wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote: