Too Many White People - Page 13 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By late
#15069579
anasawad wrote:[

All these race-obsessed studies have gone out, led policies, kept pushing this false narrative...



Sorry about that cognitive dissonance problem you have, but the facts are unequivocal.

Certainly there are factors at play, but ignoring the history of what we've done makes less than no sense.
By anasawad
#15069589
@Pants-of-dog
The article mentions this geographic spread, but it doesn't establish any causal relationship nor goes into what causes it, rather just assumes it's racism because it's black people segregating.
Atleast as far as I went through it.

Thinking about this point, and in line without conversation, and in comparison with similar segregation phenomena happening around the world, it seems that if racism is involved here then it's more so coming from these communities themselves rather than being directed towards them.



@late
Sorry about that cognitive dissonance problem you have, but the facts are unequivocal.

The only one with cognitive dissonance here is you, you're the one who is incapable of seeing the facts and actively avoiding them after all.

Certainly there are factors at play, but ignoring the history of what we've done makes less than no sense.

What happened 100-150 years ago is irrelevant as its effects have already been nullified.
All the problems you and your people keep parroting about how they're strictly black people's problems and how they're the result of this history and racism are in fact problems that are widespread across the US, inclining that race isn't really a determining factor in the matter.

The only possible effect which I'm talking about above is that this history come to play a role in establishing a collective identity once a collectivist ideology began spreading, thus causing this segregation which does play a factor, but the racism here would come from the community towards the outside, i.e. out-group.
And even in this matter, it's not limited to black people or even minorities in general as there are plenty of segregated communities of white people closing segregating themselves from the rest, simply based on religion, sect, or ideology, though I assume there would obviously be a few also based on race.

The girl in the OP is a prime example of this, along with many of these identitarian movements on college campuses in the US. The same can be seen with Al-Dahieh in Beirut with Hezbollah, the Poles in Belarus, the Palestinians in various countries mainly Jordan, and Syria and Lebanon to a lesser extent.
It can also be seen with the Baloch, Loris, Arabs, Sunnis, Kurds, Azzaris, and Turkmen in Iran and other countries.
And in all these cases, the anti-<insert outgroup> prejudice comes from the community itself rather than being directed against the community from outside.
#15069594
@anasawad

anasawad wrote:@Pants-of-dog
The article mentions this geographic spread, but it doesn't establish any causal relationship nor goes into what causes it, rather just assumes it's racism because it's black people segregating.
Atleast as far as I went through it.

Thinking about this point, and in line without conversation, and in comparison with similar segregation phenomena happening around the world, it seems that if racism is involved here then it's more so coming from these communities themselves rather than being directed towards them.


That does not contradict my claim.

Anyway, the relationship between segregation and poverty among POC is established, and I am not going to pretend that your unsupported assertions are more correct than actual studies.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956000/
By late
#15069596
anasawad wrote:

What happened 100-150 years ago is irrelevant as its effects have already been nullified.



Nope.

Jim Crow never completely stopped, and it's trying to come back.

Frankly, this is like saying the sun comes up in the morning. If you have a slum and you make sure they get one bus line for about 100K people (and most can't afford a car), not many can get to work.

" This concentration of the African-American population is not accidental. As Hardy, Logan, and Parman detail, influences ranging from discrimination and intimidation, to lender behavior, to white flight from cities, to public policies like redlining or highway construction all combined to keep the African-American population more concentrated in particular communities.

Recent research by Raj Chetty and coauthors has illuminated the differing potential for intergenerational mobility that exists across the United States. Overlaying this pattern with the spatial distribution of the black population yields some disturbing results: areas with a large black population are likely to be places where black individuals experience particularly low levels of economic mobility. In the South, these low mobility rates for black individuals are substantially lower than corresponding rates for white individuals."

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front ... portunity/
User avatar
By Drlee
#15069611
Nope.

Jim Crow never completely stopped, and it's trying to come back.


Yes. It is the official position of the Republican Party which is resurrecting it through voter suppression. We note that the Republican Party is not trying to suppress votes in rural Utah.
By anasawad
#15069628
@Pants-of-dog
That does not contradict my claim.

It does, since the establishment of Ghettos is generally internally driven, not externally.
You're arguing that it's external.

Anyway, the relationship between segregation and poverty among POC is established, and I am not going to pretend that your unsupported assertions are more correct than actual studies.

See, the relationship between segregated communities and poverty is indeed established, but the red herring coming from you and many others including people who write these studies pushing this narrative is that this relationship is abstract from race.
Even in the US, it's also the case with some white communities who fall to it.

For example, going through the very first introductory part of this one:
A notable difference in the typical lives of whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians in the United States is the economic class of persons in their social environments. White middle-class families overwhelmingly live in middle-class neighborhoods and send their children to middle-class schools, but many black and Hispanic middle-class parents live in working-class or poor neighborhoods and send their children to high-poverty schools. About one in three poor white families live in poor neighborhoods and send their children to high-poverty schools, compared to two in three poor black and Hispanic families.

Let's see, middle class people live in middle class areas and send their children to middle class schools, this statement is true for the middle class all over irregardless of race. And there are black people and hispanics in the middle class, while Asians are generally middle class in the US.
Adding the word white or black before any of the statements here is simply pushing a narrative, since as shown before, the working and lower class includes far more than just black people, half of all people in fact.

Concentrated disadvantage in neighborhoods is one of the most durable predictors of high rates of violent crime, and differences in neighborhood disadvantage explains much of the racial gap in exposure to violence

This one is split into two parts, the first part is true irregardless of race, while the second part is explained by the gangs resulting from the war on drugs.
Noting that even in black communities in rural and sub-urban areas, the level of violence is far far more in communities in and around communities in major cities, both gang and police, due to the aformentioned gangs.

This is a map of all gun violence incidents in the US:
Image
https://www.thetrace.org/2018/12/gun-vi ... -map-data/

This is from the study:
Massey accepts Wilson’s central contention that deindustrialization and growing joblessness have been key factors driving the increasing concentration of poverty in minority communities and Wilson’s arguments about the deleterious consequences of concentrated poverty.

Note on the map that the first part of this statement is true as violence increases in areas that have seen a deterioration in economic conditions and deindustrialization.
Likewise, note that the second part doesn't confirm to the reality on the ground as the map shows that this is the case in all areas where this deterioration takes place and not limited to minority areas, meaning that the formation and spread of violent crime and gangs is not limited to black communities.

Massey’s theory of racial segregation and poor neighborhood formation is based on the population dynamics of segregation in the context of racial inequality in poverty rates. The core idea is simple: Racial segregation separates high-poverty racial groups from low-poverty racial groups. The result of this separation is that poverty is concentrated in the communities of high-poverty racial groups while low-poverty racial groups are shielded from poverty contact. By adding some degree of poverty status segregation within race, poverty is further concentrated, producing high neighborhood poverty contact for the poor of high-poverty racial groups.

Though it's looking at racial minorities in this specific point, this concept is true cross racial and ethnic group as the same can be seen all over the world not only in the US.

Also noting that these factors are also magnified by both rampant migration, the relocation of industries abroad, and automation.


Middle-Class Black Out-Migration
Wilson’s theory of middle-class black out-migration claims that more affluent blacks have moved into white neighborhoods, leaving behind poorer blacks and contributing to an increase in concentrated poverty. In response, Massey’s analyses of census and longitudinal data lead him to conclude that black middle-class out-migration never happened in any significant scale (Massey, Gross, and Shibuya 1994). Several later studies have subsequently investigated Wilson’s black middle-class out-migration thesis with varied conclusions. Quillian (1999) found evidence suggesting out-migration produced increasing spatial separation between poor and non-poor blacks without lasting racial desegregation because of white flight, while Crowder and South (2005) find no increases in rates of migration into white neighborhoods in the 1970s (see also Pattillo-McCoy 2000). Several differences in the exact questions addressed and methods of these studies may explain these differences. As relevant for understanding racial segregation effects, however, studies agree that affluent blacks remain only a bit less segregated from whites than less affluent blacks (Massey and Denton 1993; Massey and Fischer 1999; but see also Alba, Logan, and Stults 2000). This is consistent with the Massey model’s assumption that segregation and desegregation in cross-section are not income-selective.



Finally noting, that yet again, while this study focuses on minority neighborhoods, we see the exact same thing happening across the US and across racial and ethnic lines. Mainly can be seen with the heavy migration of people from the inner states into the coastal states leaving the inner core poorer and increasing the deterioration rate.





Yet the results here indicate that we must also add a third spatial pattern that is empirically important to understanding poverty concentration for blacks and Hispanics: poverty disproportionality in cross-race contact. The non-group neighbors of blacks and Hispanics are about 50% more likely to be poor than the non-group average, with little additional effect of the poverty status of the black or Hispanic person. In effect, blacks and Hispanics are segregated from higher-income members of other racial groups. It is then more accurate to describe concentrated poverty in minority communities as resulting from three segregations: racial segregation, poverty status segregation within race, and segregation from high and middle income members of other racial groups. Disproportionate contact with poor members of other groups is especially important for Hispanics owing to their relatively low racial segregation. For Hispanics, disproportionate poverty of non-group neighbors has more impact on high Hispanic levels of neighborhood poverty concentration than segregation. Massey’s model is incomplete in omitting this process.

While decreasing racial segregation through efforts like aggressive enforcement of anti-discrimination policies in housing would significantly reduce the concentration of poverty, we need to attend to the possibilities of income-selective effects in desegregation. Income selectivity can undercut the potential of desegregation to reduce the concentration of poverty. Policies that aim to provide broader housing choices may not deconcentrate poverty if blacks and Hispanics can only find places in the most disadvantaged desegregated neighborhoods.


So this study, in general, does not prove your claim.

I am not going to pretend that your unsupported assertions are more correct than actual studies.

Thus far, all I "claimed" was what is being discussed in the US elections and political class in general, so my "unsupported claims" are main issues discussed in US politics in great details.
All while, all the studies you have posted thus far doesn't prove your claim. Infact, some parts even support my unsupported claims.

Now although all these studies focus on minority areas, the principles, most atleast, stand true irregardless of race as can easily be observed by the level of poverty in the US, the concentration of violence, and the existence of these phenomena all over the world whereever these conditions meet; As such, claiming it's guided by race is a red herring.
By anasawad
#15069632
@late
Jim Crow never completely stopped, and it's trying to come back.

Doubt it.
Also, trying to come back is not the same as currently in application.
If you don't want it to come back, then perhaps focus on the actual issues.

Frankly, this is like saying the sun comes up in the morning. If you have a slum and you make sure they get one bus line for about 100K people (and most can't afford a car), not many can get to work.

Voter suppression is done mainly on party lines.
While racial minorities do tend to vote democrats, gerrymandering and voter suppression targets them due to their allegiance to the democratic party and not strictly racially guided.
This can easily be noted since the same policies are done by both sides to attack each other.

" This concentration of the African-American population is not accidental. As Hardy, Logan, and Parman detail, influences ranging from discrimination and intimidation, to lender behavior, to white flight from cities, to public policies like redlining or highway construction all combined to keep the African-American population more concentrated in particular communities.

-Discrimination is illegal, a simple enforcement of the law would null that.
-intimidation??
-Lender behavior and redlining are income-selective, not racially selective (This is how it is all over the world).
- Counter to Europe and most of the world, the middle class in the US, in general, tend to move to the suburbs. This is not determined by race, but rather by income and cultural preferences.
- highway construction?


It's the same case for much of the studies produced by the academic left in the US regarding this topic, they take general problems that has its effects more spread across class-lines and paints it in a matter of racial lines.
If you'd remove the empty virtue signalling and false narratives and focus on the problems nation wide and finding solutions for them (Because they're affecting everyone), then it'd be solved in no time.

All I hear from the left is the same as some here in the middle east claim about Palestinian or Syrian refugees in Lebanon and Jordan.
They're not finding jobs, so it must racism; No one is finding jobs and both countries are in an economic depression.
They live in poverty; Both countries have a huge portion of their populations descending into poverty and many are having to leave the country to find opportunities.
They're being subjected to violent treatment; Jordan has an absolute monarch where anyone who dares say anything is killed off, and Lebanon is on its way towards a civil war because Hezbollah has taken over the government and trying to use violence to control the country, so everyone is facing the same thing.
They can't afford healthcare; the Majority of people can't afford healthcare these years.

It's the exact same bullshit, simply instead of it being regarding the middle east and nationalities, it's flipped into a talk about race and ethnicity.
And in both cases, tons of bullshit studies stuffed with red herrings and fallacies are published about it; It doesn't mean it stopped being bullshit narrative.
#15069644
You bolded text that supports the claim that modern poverty is due to racial segregation.

Unless you are misinterpreting that to mean self segregation by blacks, it supports my claim.
By anasawad
#15069648
@Pants-of-dog
It does not support your claim. It claims that:

1- The cause of the poverty in prior sections as mainly due to deindustrialization and lack of opportunities.
2- The concentration of poverty is the result of 3 types of segregations which includes both racial segregation which I explained why it happens, along with class segregation among the same racial group. i.e. Once a minority individual gets to the middle class, they leave their community and move to a middle class one, thus leaving the community poorer and reducing its income. (This is the bolded text).
3- Income segregation is more prominent than racial segregation, and any proposed solution to racial segregation wont work as it's not the main issue, rather income segregation.

So no, it does not prove your point, it actively disproves it.



Also, you haven't read it haven't you? Nor did you read the other ones you posted.
:lol:
By late
#15069651
anasawad wrote:
@late




1) Voter suppression is done mainly on party lines.
While racial minorities do tend to vote democrats, gerrymandering and voter suppression targets them due to their allegiance to the democratic party and not strictly racially guided.
This can easily be noted since the same policies are done by both sides to attack each other.


2) Discrimination is illegal, a simple enforcement of the law would null that.
-intimidation??

3) Lender behavior and redlining are income-selective, not racially selective

4) Counter to Europe and most of the world, the middle class in the US, in general, tend to move to the suburbs. This is not determined by race, but rather by income and cultural preferences.


5) It's the same case for much of the studies produced by the academic left in the US regarding this topic, they take general problems that has its effects more spread across class-lines and paints it in a matter of racial lines.



It's the exact same bullshit, simply instead of it being regarding the middle east and nationalities, it's flipped into a talk about race and ethnicity.
And in both cases, tons of bullshit studies stuffed with red herrings and fallacies are published about it; It doesn't mean it stopped being bullshit narrative



1) I was talking about institutional racism, not voter suppression.

2) There isn't personnel or funding to pursue a lot of low priority case.

3) It was often racially selective here.

4) Of course.

5) As long as you ignore the centuries of slavery, discrimination and violence.

I like arrogance, but you have to be able to back it up, and you cannot.
By late
#15069652
anasawad wrote:

So no, it does not prove your point, it actively disproves it.




I do like humor.

You keep pointing at other factors as if they could expunge the influence of racism. They can't.
#15069656
anasawad wrote:@Pants-of-dog
It does not support your claim. It claims that:

1- The cause of the poverty in prior sections as mainly due to deindustrialization and lack of opportunities.
2- The concentration of poverty is the result of 3 types of segregations which includes both racial segregation which I explained why it happens, along with class segregation among the same racial group. i.e. Once a minority individual gets to the middle class, they leave their community and move to a middle class one, thus leaving the community poorer and reducing its income. (This is the bolded text).
3- Income segregation is more prominent than racial segregation, and any proposed solution to racial segregation wont work as it's not the main issue, rather income segregation.

So no, it does not prove your point, it actively disproves it.



Also, you haven't read it haven't you? Nor did you read the other ones you posted.
:lol:


If you say so.

I will simply let the bolded text speak for itself.
By anasawad
#15069659
@late
1) I was talking about institutional racism, not voter suppression.

All the claims about institutional racism can be explained much more accurately by looking at the factors causing any given problem.
And for the overwhelming majority of issues, not only are these problems not limited to a specific race or to minorities, but they're also not related to race.
Correlation is not the same as causation.

2) There isn't personnel or funding to pursue a lot of low priority case.

Elaborate.

3) It was often racially selective here.

Was, but that era has ended long ago, and now it returned to the normal standard of being income and class selective.

4) Of course.

That point was regarding "white-flight" referring to people leaving the city and moving to the suburbs, correcting it that this is not a racially driven behavior but a class-driven behavior.

5) As long as you ignore the centuries of slavery, discrimination and violence.

Dude, the entire world had centuries of slavery, discrimination, and violence. Not every modern problem can be blamed on history.

The only part that has this history relevant to it regarding black people in the US is the criminal justice part, which is mainly due to the location of these communities which was caused by historic factors that were race-based, their race in the current issue is incidental.


I like arrogance, but you have to be able to back it up, and you cannot.

Why would I need to spend half an hour writing a post about a specific problem when it's a well known one or when the counterclaim can easily be disproved by a single number or fact?

Heck, in this thread alone 3 of the studies quoted by you guys support my claims more than they support your claims.
It'd be a wasted effort to go into great research sprees when it's something this basic.

You keep pointing at other factors as if they could expunge the influence of racism. They can't..

When even the studies you guys quote point to the same factors I'm pointing at and disprove your claims, the humor is really coming from your side.


@Pants-of-dog
If you say so.

I will simply let the bolded text speak for itself.

:lol:

Dude, this is the bolded text:
"It is then more accurate to describe concentrated poverty in minority communities as resulting from three segregations: racial segregation, poverty status segregation within race, and segregation from high and middle-income members of other racial groups."

"Income selectivity can undercut the potential of desegregation to reduce the concentration of poverty. Policies that aim to provide broader housing choices may not deconcentrate poverty if blacks and Hispanics can only find places in the most disadvantaged desegregated neighborhoods."

Counting the other quoted parts and facts, Your claim runs counter to it.
By late
#15069665
anasawad wrote:
Dude, the entire world had centuries of slavery, discrimination, and violence. Not every modern problem can be blamed on history.



The problem here is you keep sailing out past the limits of your knowledge base.

American slavery was different from slavery in most of history. Quite different.

Clearly, you have a bee in your bonnet. It's nuts, but my interest in this is limited.
By anasawad
#15069671
@late
The problem here is you keep sailing out past the limits of your knowledge base.

American slavery was different from slavery in most of history. Quite different.

American slavery's closest resemblance is Ottoman slavery.
Both in its brutality, racial element, and laws.
By late
#15069693
anasawad wrote:
American slavery's closest resemblance is Ottoman slavery.
Both in its brutality, racial element, and laws.



You can try and support that contention, but there are going to be differences.

The voyage to America could kill as many as 80% of the slaves. Most worked in the fields. While that happened in the past, this was a mercantilist approach.

I'm curious to see if you have something to back up your assertion. I find it unlikely the combination of things, the deaths just getting there, the suppression of their culture and language, working people to death, and the forced breeding. That's a tall order.

"Slaves suffered extremely high mortality. Half of all slave infants died during their first year of life, twice the rate of white babies. And while the death rate declined for those who survived their first year, it remained twice the white rate through age 14. As a result of this high infant and childhood death rate, the average life expectancy of a slave at birth was just 21 or 22 years, compared to 40 to 43 years for antebellum whites."
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3040
By anasawad
#15069698
@late
The US had chattel slavery.
Chattel slavery began in the Arab world and continued till the 19th century in Ottoman Turkey with the Zanj and Ethiopian slaves.
Slavery was ended officially in the early 20th century.

Noting that the network that would later on be known as the Atlantic slave trade was established and lived for 100s of years to serve the middle east.

Obviously there are differences, the main one being is that there were no children since adult males were castrated so they can't bread while adult females were sex slaves and thus bred with Turks and Arabs. But other than that, hardly any differences.

The whole origin of chattel slavery (different from regular slavery) goes back to Roman plantations, which were adopted by the Abbassid empire and continued on and off till the end of the Ottoman empire.

Regarding the journey, I doubt the Atlantic is as hard to cross in a ship as is the Sahara on foot.

You can easily read up on the history of slavery and where did the Atlantic slave trade came from to know where it all began.
By skinster
#15071464
Sivad wrote: So then it became like a game of sorts, I would research these worldviews in depth and assemble the facts and construct rigorous airtight arguments...


:lol:
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
So how deadly is it?

i've already stated, I do not believe the guy at […]

You should know who your enemies are, that is all[…]

The problem is not whether we believe in their pr[…]

While Putin has said that the rich in Russia will […]