I’m sorry, I have to go cancel my plane tickets back home for Christmas. It turns out I don’t have an actual family, so surely I can save some money by not dragging my butt across the country to see my mom, grandparents, uncles and cousins (but wait-- those sound like family members…).
Be a little thoughtful before you tell someone they don’t have a family.
I never said that. Not even close.
What I said was that progress in civil rights was getting better anyway and that even if one were to buy into the fiction that a national drug epidemic, a huge increase in crime complete with a revolving door justice system, and an utterly fucking up the school system were determined to be necessary to achieve progress in racial equality, it wouldn’t have been necessary because progress was being made already.
But of course none of this stuff was done in order to achieve racial equality and no one has offered a shred of evidence to support the contention it was. Go to a library some time and go over magazines from the late sixties. Read about all the demonstrations and flower power and free love and Woodstock and all that bullshit, and report back to me about everything the counterculture was doing to end to racism.
You’ll hardly find anything, and the reason for that is that the societal upheaval that occurred then had precious little to do with racism and everything to do with upsetting the societal apple cart having to do with sex and drugs and music and long hair and draft dodging and promoting the idea that whatever family and societal norms existed at the time had to go, primarily so people could do drugs and bed hop all they wanted free from the constraints of marriage, and in general to conduct their lives as free from responsibility as possible.
Now that all these chickens and the ones that came after them have come home to roost the excuse is that it was all done to achieve an end to racism, but that simply isn’t so and it never has been.
And that, of course, explains why no one has ever been able to prove that it was, nor how it was supposed to. It’s just the most plausible and weighty excuse to avoid having to answer for the almost unbelievable way things in this country have gotten so screwed up.
Of course, because what you posted here was a straw man, we are not talking about the counter culture on the whole because the counter-culture faded back in the 70’s so you still have to learn the proper boogie men that you need to use, the counter-culture had their very radical ideas but it included the fight against racism. What I do know is that the Counter-culture encompassed the civil rights movement along with anti-war campaigning. Their members did, besides looking for drugs, push for equality of the races and sexes.
By contrast the Civil Rights Movement focused on racial equality. While it is true that Martin Luther King Jr was against the war in Vietnam too, it is clear that he and many others in the civil right movement were not supporters of the counter-culture. Indeed your efforts here are to dumb down history by mixing the two movements in a clear effort to discredit the civil rights one.
And here we see your problem, while historians do talk about the counter-culture fading in the 70’s you do not have a clue and continue to mix it up with civil rights.
Nixon would be proud, but then he was a bully crook.
Look at my link again (page 11 of the link). In 1950, about 20% of black kids went to college. In 2000, it was about 60%. Population has nothing to do worth it. You are very, very wrong here. College enrollment rates for black people had tripled.
Education for black people is clearly much better today in terms of advanced education.
You’re describing a significant problem in our schools that only affects a minority of black kids. Most of our schools are fine, and in fact probably much better than segregated schools of the past. Unfortunately, in some cities the public schools are not fine, and this needs to be fixed. But this doesn’t come close to affecting the majority of black students.
You’re clearly wrong. Black parents of the 50s had only a one in five chance of seeing their kids go to college. Black parents today have about a 60% chance. That’s a huge difference.
You’re clearly wrong about education, and considering the murder rate is lower now than in 1960, you’re probably wrong about that too. I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re wrong about the rest as well. I’ll ask them next time we talk.
I hope you recognize that the statistics prove you wrong on education. And maybe this will help you realize that you might be wrong about other things too.
Sigh.
Perhaps you could simply trade the ticket in for one on the DeLorean Express. Travel back to your college days and chose to take that Logic 101 course. If you didn’t go to college, go back to high school and do what you have to do to get into college, then make sure you take that class.
Unbelievable.
So you were not talking about single parent homes?
As usual, your memory ignores reality to support your “anti-liberal” agenda. 
Crime began its steep climb in 1963. This was more than a year prior to the Civil Rights Act. It was more than two years before the earliest serious opposition to our misguided interference in Vietnam. It was more than four years before “Flower Power” and anything resembling “drug culture” made its way out of San Francisco to the rest of the country.
In other words, your claim is not even successful if you buy into the Post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy that you tend to employ in these discussions. Whatever caused the rise in crime, it started before every one of your purported factors.
(I would guess that crime simply followed the pattern of your generation, with crime increasing as the male population 18 - 30 rose and falling as the male population 18 - 30 fell. It has not returned to 1950s levels simply because we keep breeding and the 18 - 30 male population has never fallen to the level of the 1950s. The 1950s were actually exceptionally low, simply because the overall birth rate fell off during the Depression. (I admit that this is speculation, but at least I am not arguing against facts in the way that you do.))
Graph of violent crime since 1960.
Note that while violent crime was showing a slight rise prior to the time of the counterculture revolution, it skyrocketed in the aftermath, just like I said, and even now after years of decline is still more than twice what it was in 1960.
Graphs of non-violent crime generally show an even greater spike.
Murder rates are lower now than any time since 1960.
Do you acknowledge now that black students today are much more likely to go to college, and thus if this is a high priority for black parents, then today is significantly better education-wise for black parents than the 50s?
And still, you don’t get that the counter culture and the civil rights movements were not really the same thing.
Besides, other factors like lead could had been one big cause of the rise and then the drop.
Freaking evil environmentalists! *… [sarcasm]
I note that your interpretation of the graph is skewed and does not report the actual lines of the graph. I also note that you avoid the correlation of population age and crime.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is your friend, but it is no friend to facts or truth.
It would be equally true to note that crime rose abruptly after the the police were caught breaking the laws during Civil Rights protests, the police riot in Chicago in 1968, the awareness that the U.S. was engaged in an immoral war in Southeast Asia, and that it was shown that the President of the U.S. (and his henchmen) were crooks.
Not being a fan of Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, I will stick to the age/crime correlation, but I am sure that you are more comfortable inventing your own hocs to post and propter.
And people wonder why I’d never want to be a mod here…
DISCLAIMER: No one, to the best of my knowledge, has ever wondered that.
Or you could have just linked to this video.
Starving Artist, does the revelation that black students today are much, much more likely to go to college than black students in 1950 cause you to re-evaluate in any way your assertion that education for black people is much worse today? Is it possible that for black parents who value college education for their children, today is significantly better and easier than 1950?
College graduation rate would probably be a more meaningful statistic.
Per the last chart of this link (tracked by birth year rather than graduation year, so you can add about 26-28 years to the X axis to compare to the other link), Bachelor’s Degree attainment for black students rose very steadily over the 20th century.
I realize this thread has mutated into a debate over SA’s belief that everything was great in the 1950s, and then those damned hippies came along and ruined America.
But getting back to bullying, my sentiment is that in order for something to be bullying, there has to be an element of ‘punching down’ to it: the bully, whether that bully is an individual, a group, a mob, or whatever, has to be causing harm to the victim beyond the victim’s ability to evenly retaliate.
A bunch of people posting “We Shall Overcomb” pics of Trump on their blogs or Facebook pages doesn’t exactly qualify. It may be stupid and wrong, but Trump isn’t exactly being punched down on, even when the numbers of persons on the other side are taken into account (as they should). Trump’s still more influential than all of them combined.
Well, there’s a first.
I’m sure he was. I was raised by my mother & grandmother. Both widowed. Grandfather died of a bad heart, about the time I was born. Father died in the crash of s SAC bomber. Old Glory on the coffin, etc.
Glad to know we were trash, according to the Board’s Old Familiar Dumbasses. Who’ve been given new energy by Their Hero(es)–I’m counting My Jr Senator as well.
Nope. Not great, just much better in most ways and nowhere near as fucked up in others.
And the hippies were merely the catalyst. It was you guys who picked up where they left off and brought us to where we are today.
