I would point to the last item on that list. I think it follows that the group with the largest incidence of births out of wedlock, particularly if that corresponds to pregnancies that precede high school graduation, will be doing the worst economically. Yet, the assumption that some liberals still cling to is that Black Americans, writ large, can do just as well as other groups even if this is not remedied.
There is no doubt that we needed the mindsets of both W.E.B. Du Bois and Booker T. Washington (as per wolfpup’s link). But given where they sit today, it seems clear that the focus should be more on Washington though needed emphasizing.
Anyway as to the OP I think the answer is that correlation doesn’t equal causation.
Beyond that, black people tried the Booker T. Washington approach and it didn’t work very well then. I’m genuinely surprised people think this was a new argument.
Black families are *not *like other groups. As a result of hundreds of years of American racial policies, laws and actions fracturing black families then arguing that a group of people without sturdy family structures is not keeping pace with all the other immigrants and cultural groups is kind of pointless and unsurprising. It took over 300 years to break them apart and racially oppressive policies only ended (officially) in the 60’s and 70’s). Thinking the black family is going to bounce back to be economically dynamic a few decades after a centuries long beat down is absurd.
Black family structures are, historically by necessity, on average overwhelmingly matriarchal-centric and suffer from huge stresses and various dysfunctions as a result of the disproportionate burden placed on the female heads of household. The missing fathers in black families are going to significantly retard black economic achievement. Until black families can re-integrate the black man back into the family as a provider and role model for his sons and daughters black families will continue to flail economically.
On the contrary, I think it does. It’s because of Brownback’s ultra-conservative economic policy, the one that conservatives have been pushing for decades, that Kansas is in the financial bind its in.
Obamacare is ONE program. It’s hard to get MORE conservative than Kansas, right now. Brownback’s economic policy was pretty much the last piece. That’s as close to a “conservative wet dream” as it’s possible to get.
To some extent I agree with you. I feel like the black man as head of houselhold is suffering from good old fashioned male pride. All men like to feel they can be proud of themselves as heads of households and providers, when a man feels he has no chance he will often resort to emtionally defensive tactics acting as if he doesn’t care and as is often the case will prove his man hood by fathering as many children as baby mommas will allow. Most men will fiercely defend their masculinity especially when that is all they have.
Positive roll models and some good advice on blending in to mainstream America will likely give the black man his best shot. Language is a major barrier than can be practiced and learned. If the average blackman knew how much the average white man has to submit to authority, suck up insults and basicaly just show up and put up he may not feel so defensive in the workplace. He has a rough road to haul and putting his nose to the grindstone is the only way he will get that load down the road. The same way we all do it, fair or not his road is tougher but it is best and only shot, his sacrifice will make it easier on the next generation.
From a very, very long distance and looking through my crystal ball, I can make such a correlation, but tell you that it’s both wider than that article claims, and upside-down re. causality.
Let’s say you have a country where there are two groups of people, which we shall name A and B in keeping with tradition. As are the majority and have usually held most of the power, be it economic, politic, sexual, you name it. There are less Bs and usually they have been less powerful than As, both collectively and individually.
A community where people happen to be Bs, and where therefore it is more likely that the people elected to power, or the biggest landowner, or whatever, will be Bs, is likely to be poorer than a community the same size of As, simply because in general, in averages, Bs are poorer than As. It’s not that “electing a B major made the people in Btown poor”, it’s that “the people in Btown (who happen to be both Bs and relatively poor) elected one of their own (who happened to be a B).”
It’s like saying “a bunch of Washingtons will be redder than a bunch of Granny Smiths!” Well, yeah, because Granny Smiths are green… but the paternalistic thinking in the linked article can kiss my ass, and the ass of every “minority” elected person who happen to be part of their constituency’s majority. Should the Cheyenne Nation also be led by a White Man, so they don’t have to bother their pretty little heads? Should Roma Families? Fuck, no. And yes, I know we’re in GD, but sometimes the right answer is “fuck, no”.