Race

[3278]

When we look at similar ethnic groups living in poverty, and seeing similar results (like the hispanics you mention) then we can see that poverty-linked behaviors transcend culture.

Or we can see that cultures of poverty can arise in any culture. And the African-American urban culture is a culture of poverty, a subculture locked into a set of behaviors because of previous circumstances.

Your belief is that poor black people and poor white people beat their children with equal frequency. I'm going to pass on the statistical issues Marius covered, and get right to your evidence. Now, in 1993, the NIS did a study of "5,612 community professionals in 842 agencies serving 42 counties," and their findings - which we actually haven't seen, only this abstract - are apparently that race and child abuse aren't linked.

Without seeing the text of the NIS-3, I can't refute their findings. But I can offer newer statistics - actually, I have - and I can offer a graph. Which I personally think is pretty neat.
<img width="650" src="http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publ ... jpg"></img>

Now, that chart is from the 1996 NCANDS, the last year a convenient and complete chart like this was made available on their site. The figures are much like today's: blacks are more likely to be abused as children, twice as likely as their relationship to the general population would suggest. Even compared to their rate of poverty, blacks are still more likely to be abused: 20.3 percent versus 24.7 percent.

Anyway, your study is of 5,600 cases, in 1993, and the link you quoted directly admits that race wasn't known in some of those cases. The NCANDS numbers include as their sample every single case of child abuse reported, period.

[3278]

Oh, and: I don't think economics isn't a major factor in child abuse: living in poverty makes you some 3.5 times more likely to be abused as a child. That's fucking terrible. What I do believe, though, is that the economic condition and the abuse are caused by the same problem: the modern urban African-American culture. Calling abuse the fault of economics is missing the next step: what causes the economics?

[Marius]

Anyway, your study is of 5,600 cases, in 1993 . . .

No, that particular study gathered data from 5,600 professionals. I find it highly likely that each professional handled more than one case in whatever time period data collection focused on.

[3278]

Of course, my apologies. Nevertheless, 5,612 professionals in 42 counties did not treat every case of abuse in the country, either, which is the NCANDS data set.

[Marius]

The NCANDS data also notes that race was not known or not able to be determined in 7.1% of abuse cases -- in the 2002 table, not on the graph.

[Marius]

Race. The NIS-3 found no race differences in maltreatment incidence. The NIS-3 reiterates the findings of the earlier national incidence studies in this regard. That is, the NIS-1 and the NIS-2 also found no significant race differences in the incidence of maltreatment or maltreatment-related injuries.

Service providers may find these results somewhat surprising in view of the disproportionate representation of children of color in the child welfare population and in the clientele of other public agencies. However, it should be recognized that the NIS methodology identifies a much broader range of children than those who come to the attention of any one type of service agency or the even smaller subset who receive child protective and other child welfare services. The NIS findings suggest that the different races receive differential attention somewhere during the process of referral, investigation, and service allocation, and that the differential representation of minorities in the child welfare population does not derive from inherent differences in the rates at which they are abused or neglected.

[3278]

The NCANDS data also notes that race was not known or not able to be determined in 7.1% of abuse cases -- in the 2002 table, not on the graph.

Which may or may not be greater or lesser than the number of unknowns in the NIS-3.

As for the NIS-3 race findings, I think it's interesting that when a study of limited scope finds a discrepancy between their findings and the government's, they assume it's because of a process in the governmental system, and not because of the limits of their own scope.

[3278]

Just so we're clear on the methodologies, <a href=http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publ ... al>here</a> is the process for the NCANDS study. Far from collecting information only from 5,612 professionals, the NCANDS study includes child-level statistics for over 75 percent of the children in the country, and aggregate statistics for the remainder. It includes every "report alleging child abuse or neglect that received a disposition as a result of an investigation or an assessment," which includes those made by the 5,612 professionals in the NIS-3 study, as well as all other professionals in the country.

[Marius]

The NIS includes children who were investigated by child protective service (CPS) agencies, but it also obtains data on children seen by community professionals who were not reported to CPS or who were screened out by CPS without investigation. This means that the NIS estimates provide a more comprehensive measure of the scope of child abuse and neglect known to community professionals, including both abused and neglected children who are in the official statistics and those who are not. The NIS follows a nationally representative design, which means that the estimates represent the numbers of abused and neglected children in the United States who come to the attention of community professionals.

[3278]

The NIS includes children who were investigated by child protective service (CPS) agencies, but it also obtains data on children seen by community professionals who were not reported to CPS or who were screened out by CPS without investigation.

Fair enough. Now, why weren't they reported to protective services, if they were cases of abuse? Why were they screened out? And, most significantly, does the inclusion of unreported cases increase the sample size to one greater than that of the NCANDS? 5,612 professionals and all of their cases, reported and otherwise, versus /every/ professional and all of their reported cases?

I think if we want the answer to these questions, we need the text of the NIS-3 study, and not just abstracts. Does anyone know where we can get one?

[Cain]

Fair enough. Now, why weren't they reported to protective services, if they were cases of abuse? Why were they screened out? And, most significantly, does the inclusion of unreported cases increase the sample size to one greater than that of the NCANDS? 5,612 professionals and all of their cases, reported and otherwise, versus /every/ professional and all of their reported cases?

A better question would be to identify exactly who those 5,612 professionals were. I'm somewhat confused as to rather or not that number includes non-government professionals as well as CPS stats, or if that's merely the number of CPS workers nationwide. Given the few CPS workers I knew, and how overworked they were (caseloads of several hundred apiece) I would still find it very low, but not surprising.

I think if we want the answer to these questions, we need the text of the NIS-3 study, and not just abstracts. Does anyone know where we can get one?

Oddly enough, no. I think I was able to locate a copy in the NCCADS, but it was a for-pay download, which I was not willing to do.

[3278]

Fair enough. Now, why weren't they reported to protective services, if they were cases of abuse? Why were they screened out? And, most significantly, does the inclusion of unreported cases increase the sample size to one greater than that of the NCANDS? 5,612 professionals and all of their cases, reported and otherwise, versus /every/ professional and all of their reported cases?

A better question would be to identify exactly who those 5,612 professionals were.

I'd think we'd want to answer them all, actually.

I'm somewhat confused as to rather or not that number includes non-government professionals as well as CPS stats, or if that's merely the number of CPS workers nationwide.

It's unclear if the "5,612 community professionals in 842 agencies serving 42 counties" includes non-CPS personnel or not, but it certainly is not the number of CPS workers nationwide, since there are more than 42 counties in the nation.

I think if we want the answer to these questions, we need the text of the NIS-3 study, and not just abstracts. Does anyone know where we can get one?

Oddly enough, no. I think I was able to locate a copy in the NCCADS, but it was a for-pay download, which I was not willing to do.

Same here. I'm still looking. Perhaps, in the meantime, you could reference a more recent study with a larger data set. The NCANDS is quite comprehensive, for instance.

[Cain]

I'm still looking, but I was able to find a CBS News report suggesting that abuse is frequently overreported in minorities. The New Jersey report had an intriguing conclusion:

Black females and white males comprised the majority of perpetrators in both 1997 and 1998. More than 55% of all female perpetrators were black and more than 42% of all male perpetrators were white.

Since females are more likely to mistreat through neglect, and males more likely to mistreat physically or sexually, and with the above link considered, we could be looking at an education issue among black women. Shaken-baby syndrome, for example, might not be adequately covered. Neglect also includes malnutrition, which can also be caused through lack of education. Given the low recidivism rate among black perpetrators, we may be looking an a poor-education scenario.

[3278]

Ah, yes, medical racial profiling. Just as logical but unpopular as the police version.

I like the patently anti-racist slant of the study; I read it earlier today when researching this issue, and was stricken by the thought that I probably wouldn't get very far if I tried to get research money to determine if blacks were more likely to abuse their children than whites.

My favorite example of using statistics to mislead: "Minority children 1 year old and up with accidental injuries were over three times more likely to be reported to authorities for suspected abuse...In the study, abuse was about twice as common among minority children."

[Cain]

Y'know, I just realized-- none of this is necessary to discount your original proposition; namely, that "black culture" is more responsible for child abuse than a poverty culture.

According to your numbers, whites make up about 50% of the population, and blacks 17%. The Census poverty statistics lists 45% of the people in poverty are white (non-hispanic), versus 25% who are black.

By a staggering coincidence, that almost perfectly matches the NCANDS numbers. The correlation to poverty is much stronger than the correlation to race.

My point with the Irish of a hundred years ago is that a "culture of poverty" can and will change, rapidly, when poverty ceases to be a problem.

[3278]

Y'know, I just realized-- none of this is necessary to discount your original proposition; namely, that "black culture" is more responsible for child abuse than a poverty culture.

That wasn't my original proposition at all.

By a staggering coincidence, that almost perfectly matches the NCANDS numbers. The correlation to poverty is much stronger than the correlation to race.

Or, one could more specifically say, the correlation between race and [poverty and abuse] is stronger. Blacks are more likely to abuse their children. Blacks are more likely to be poor. This is what we know from the evidence at hand, and no one disputes that evidence. What we dispute is the cause: I believe that black culture encourages poverty and abuse, you believe that poverty causes abuse. Neither of us have any real evidence to support our propositions; all we /know/ is what the statistics tell us.

But in the interest of curiousity, what, exactly, is it that you think causes blacks to be more poor to begin with? If their poverty leads to child abuse, we should know what causes their poverty.

[Cain]

Or, one could more specifically say, the correlation between race and [poverty and abuse] is stronger. Blacks are more likely to abuse their children. Blacks are more likely to be poor. This is what we know from the evidence at hand, and no one disputes that evidence. What we dispute is the cause: I believe that black culture encourages poverty and abuse, you believe that poverty causes abuse. Neither of us have any real evidence to support our propositions; all we /know/ is what the statistics tell us.

But in the interest of curiousity, what, exactly, is it that you think causes blacks to be more poor to begin with? If their poverty leads to child abuse, we should know what causes their poverty.

Well, again to draw parallels with Irish immigrants of the 1900s, the exact same accusations you're levelling were raised against them. The same statistics caused the same rationalizations, that only makes sense, wouldn't you say? But as they got out of poverty, the statistics dropped away.

Now, appearance is a factor in the change. Irish people don't look nearly as different as black people do, so bigotry is easier against black than Irish. We automatically assume items with like appearances have like attributes, so those with similar appearances to us are attributed with similar qualities.

It's not a question of opression, or instutionalized discrimination. It's simply a question of racial bias arising from subconscious cognition.

[3278]

I'm sorry, but that's not what I asked. What is it that you think causes blacks to be poor in the first place? Or is "racial bias" your answer?

[Cain]

Basically, a combination of immigrant conditions and subconscious bias. Blacks have only recieved full civil rights within the last 40 years, while the Irish immigrants recieved full civil rights almost immediately. The percentages of blacks not in poverty has increased tremendously in the last 40 years, since the civil rights movement. Over time, the situation should correct itself; I'd give it about another 40-60 years.

[3278]

And the attitudes fostered by modern urban black culture have nothing at all to do with it?

[Cain]

You're trying to make a chicken-and-egg problem out of it. The link to "poverty cultures" and poverty are very well established. The "fostered attitudes" are more likely a result of poverty, and not a cause of it. Again, we've seen similar attitudes arise in many different ethnic groups living in poverty.

[3278]

Can I get that in layman's dummy-talk?

[Cain]

Real simple: It's caused by poverty, and not the other way around.

[FlameBlade]

Lemme guess...

Poverty has a lot of problems...because a lot of people have nothing to lose, right?

[3278]

Real simple: It's caused by poverty, and not the other way around.

Okay, so the behavior of the impoverished group is caused by poverty. And what, in this case, causes the poverty? I'm not playing chicken-or-egg, I'm playing Prime Mover.

[Cain]

To hit Flame's question first-- it's more a justification issue. If poverty is all you know, but you're compared to wealth, a "sour grapes" attitude frequently develops.

To answer Earl's question, in the simplest possible manner: economics, particularily immigrant economics. If you look at the history of blacks in the USA, you'll see that the opportunity to emerge from immigrant economics has only really emerged over the last 40 years or so; by a coincidence, we've also seen a decline in poverty among blacks. Over a long enough timeline (I'm personally postulating about 40-50 more years) the issues will more-or-less vanish.

[Anguirel]

To get back to the original question -- Race is a political tool, as it always has been. The origins of the KKK is in the Democratic Party (remember that the Republicans were Lincoln's party way back when...) Poor white farmers and poor black farmers in the South should have agreed on a shitload of issues and voted together. They didn't because the poor white people were convinced to identify with rich white people rather than poor black people (contrast with the workers parties in the UK, where most things became economic issues rather than race issues).

To maintain position, rather than address the core economic issues at work, race is still thrown as a card to identify the differences and reasons for those differences. Both parties, I feel, utilize it, though each uses it differently, in order to garner votes and to take visible but ultimately ineffectual actions. It's a song and dance meant to distract the public from the real issues in order to maintain the present order -- it's a tool of the entrenched rich to keep themselves there (though they need not even realize it).

It persists in uneducated (and, almost by definition, poor) regions because it is a way to make on feel better about oneself. "I may be poor, but at least I ain't black," is the white side, and "I'm poor because my people were opressed hundreds of years ago -- it isn't my fault," is the black side. Other cultures have similar statements, I just pulled the most common and most easily perceived.

On the current Cain/3278 argument, I'm going to side with Cain. The issue is poverty. Poor whites living in the ghettos alongside the poor blacks will join thier gangs, participate in their rites of manhood and otherwise do the same things. Poor whites living out in the country will equally see physical power as the scale to judge others by, not intelligence or some other quality, and as such are more likely to engage in fisticuffs and other violent behaviors -- mainly because the poor generally do physical menial labor and thus, the best are also the strongest. Poverty creates and maintains that aspect of society, not racial heritage.

Above sweeping generalizations were made based on personal accounts from a variety of friends from a variety of situations -- in particular those from inner city situations and deep rural sitiuations. They are not based on anything factual and you can discount them as you like, but I'm not sure what sort of factual information could even be used to make a case for what was said above other than, perhaps, incidence of physical superiority tests among minors in poverty-stricken regions -- and I don't think anyone collects data of that nature.

[3278]

If you look at the history of blacks in the USA, you'll see that the opportunity to emerge from immigrant economics has only really emerged over the last 40 years or so; by a coincidence, we've also seen a decline in poverty among blacks.

So "immigrant economics" is what keeps blacks poor, and since it went away, poverty has declined. I can stipulate that for the moment, but it doesn't tell us much. "Immigrant economics," about which I know nothing, apparently causes people to be poor, and, according to you, once those conditions vanish, people stop being poor. But what is immigrant economics in the first place, and exactly how does it lead to poverty?

Over a long enough timeline (I'm personally postulating about 40-50 more years) the issues will more-or-less vanish.

If that's true, has the "issue" declined in the last 40 years? Has the rate of black-committed crime gone down, relative to crime committed by other races? How about the rate of black child abuse?

I'd like to be able to follow this argument from first principles, but there's not enough information for me to do that. Could you be less vague? I know we're accustomed to just replying to a previous post, but could you walk me through how, exactly, blacks became twice as likely to beat their children than whites?

[Salvation122]

But what is immigrant economics in the first place, and exactly how does it lead to poverty?

"Damn Mexicans, taking all the jobs."

Once that sentiment goes away, the racial group in question gets better jobs, which means more money. I /think/ that's what he's trying to say. Frankly, I don't entirely buy it for blacks, although I'll (cautiously) say it works for pretty much everyone else in the US.

[3278]

On the current Cain/3278 argument, I'm going to side with Cain. The issue is poverty. Poor whites living in the ghettos alongside the poor blacks will join thier gangs, participate in their rites of manhood and otherwise do the same things.

If they become entrenched in modern black urban culture. [Otherwise, from my experience, they end up driving old Trans-Ams.] But the key here isn't race, obviously, since black and white alike can become entrenched in the culture; it's the culture itself.

Poverty creates and maintains that aspect of society, not racial heritage.

Well, if you think this is about poverty versus race, you're very right to side with Cain. But that's not what it's about. What it's about, ultimately, is this: are today's blacks poor because of black culture, or is black culture a function of being poor? Personally, I think it's a trick question, which is why I've stopped making assertions and started asking questions.

[ratlaw]

Not to get involved, I know my position and I know I don't have teh facts to back it up, but I did find a reference to an article on the subject of child abuse and poverty. If anyone gets the chance to hit their local university/research library, you may find it. I might check it out if I actually remember to do so...

Spencer, N. Poverty and child health. Oxon: Radcliffe Medical Press, 1996.

[Cain]

So "immigrant economics" is what keeps blacks poor, and since it went away, poverty has declined. I can stipulate that for the moment, but it doesn't tell us much. "Immigrant economics," about which I know nothing, apparently causes people to be poor, and, according to you, once those conditions vanish, people stop being poor. But what is immigrant economics in the first place, and exactly how does it lead to poverty?

"Immigrant economics" is a term I personally use to describe how immigrants are more likely than others to land in poverty. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is the jealousy Salv refers to, plus a lack of identification with the people in question. We also have the cultural and educational differences, and frequently a language barrier, all of which combine to make it so a qualified individual is less likely to get a job than a native. Most immigrants also come from a situation much poorer than our poverty level, so the immigrants themselves are willing to settle. Their children, however, will frequently rebel against the poverty conditions. We can see this situation occuring in just about every immigrant group.

Blacks in America were mostly under immigrant conditions until the civil-rights movement. If we picture the civil-rights generation as immigrants, we can see how the current "popular urban black culture" comes from their children, likely due to them rebelling against poverty conditions (or in this case, rebelling by revelling in it).

If you picture blacks in America as an immigrant group, the conclusions seem very clear. The parallels are obvious.

I know we're accustomed to just replying to a previous post, but could you walk me through how, exactly, blacks became twice as likely to beat their children than whites?

That's a fallacy. Blacks are equally likely to abuse their children as whites, given the same conditions. There's no denying that poverty is the #1 predictor of abuse. Since the percentages of abusers are more-or-less identical to the percentage beneath the poverty level, we can see there is no cross-racial difference.

We can also see that the recidivism rates are much lower for blacks. Given that, plus the fact most kinds of abuse are actually neglect, and includes malnutrition in both the Harm and Endangerment standard used by the studies we're both referencing, we may be looking at a poor education scenario for many blacks.

Also: I'll add that the current urban black culture is a relatively new invention, while poverty for blacks in America is as old as their history in this country. Blaming the cuttent culture for a historical problem seems like a fallacy to me.

[Szechuan]

Or maybe it's because black and hispanic urban cultures in America glorify violence and criminality as the only "cool" way to become successful. Blaming racism for the high rate of black and hispanic criminality is just as wrong as blaming economics, and it's anti-racism: "The problem couldn't /possibly/ be the fault of the blacks in the country; it must be the man, keeping them down."

Sorry, haven't had internet access for a while. I realized after I'd posted that I sounded like I was blaming "The Man." but figured I'd wait for a response or two.

All I meant was that due to various racial and economic issues in the past 100 years or so, ghettos contain a disproportionate amount of blacks/hispanics.
Starting lower on the ladder than the average caucasian, it only makes sense that more of these people wind up back where they started, which feeds the stereotype.

[3278]

If we picture the civil-rights generation as immigrants, we can see how the current "popular urban black culture" comes from their children, likely due to them rebelling against poverty conditions (or in this case, rebelling by revelling in it).

Yes, thank you. /That/ is my point.

[Cain]

How so? That does not mean the culture perpetuates poverty, and history suggests that it's only temporary. It's more anger at the current situation.

[3278]

How so?

"...in this case, rebelling by revelling in it."

[Cain]

That still doesn't mean it causes poverty. "Revelling in poverty" and "Being stuck in it" are different things.

Besides which, look at it this way-- would you blame "white culture" for the rampant levels of whites in poverty?

[WillyGilligan]

What about 'redneck culture'?

[Cain]

That's not what he was saying, and besides, do all the rural white people across the country share the identical "redneck culture"? In my travels, I've noticed some significant differences between, say, a Texas redneck and a Hawaiian one.

Blaming "black culture" is about as silly as blaming "white culture" for anything.

[3278]

That still doesn't mean it causes poverty. "Revelling in poverty" and "Being stuck in it" are different things.

They are different, but one causes the other. Well, actually, they're part of a cycle. Reveling in poverty perpetuates poverty, and as a reaction, rebel, revel, etc. How does reveling in something not continue it, not make one "stuck" in it?

Besides which, look at it this way-- would you blame "white culture" for the rampant levels of whites in poverty?

Of course I wouldn't. I would blame the specific subculture in question, if the subculture perpetuated poverty. Such as my continual use of the phrase "modern urban black culture."

So, I'd like to ask the question again: what causes black poverty? What causes five times as many blacks to end up in prison than whites? Why are more black men in prison than in college? What is it, exactly, that's keeping them down?

[Cain]

So, I'd like to ask the question again: what causes black poverty? What causes five times as many blacks to end up in prison than whites? Why are more black men in prison than in college? What is it, exactly, that's keeping them down?

Poverty, pure and simple. Many blacks are coming out of a near-immigrant status, which means they're coming out of poverty. In the meanwhile, the numbers you're quoting were identical to the 1900's Irish men. They were coming out of poverty, and reveling in it, too.

What causes black poverty? I'll answer that with another question. What causes white poverty? Heck, what causes poverty in general? Answer those, and you'll have your answer.

[3278]

So, I'd like to ask the question again: what causes black poverty? What causes five times as many blacks to end up in prison than whites? Why are more black men in prison than in college? What is it, exactly, that's keeping them down?

Poverty, pure and simple. Many blacks are coming out of a near-immigrant status, which means they're coming out of poverty. In the meanwhile, the numbers you're quoting were identical to the 1900's Irish men. They were coming out of poverty, and reveling in it, too.

And reveling in poverty doesn't continue the cycle of poverty? Poverty just causes poverty, and this continues until...when, exactly? 50-100 years after immigrant status is gone? If poverty causes poverty, how can anyone /ever/ break the cycle of poverty? Won't the Irish still be poor today? Won't the blacks always be poor? And is it possible we could have some supporting evidence of all these claims?

What causes black poverty? I'll answer that with another question. What causes white poverty? Heck, what causes poverty in general? Answer those, and you'll have your answer.

You're saying that the causes of white poverty and black poverty, all poverty in fact, are exactly the same?

[Cain]

And reveling in poverty doesn't continue the cycle of poverty? Poverty just causes poverty, and this continues until...when, exactly? 50-100 years after immigrant status is gone? If poverty causes poverty, how can anyone /ever/ break the cycle of poverty? Won't the Irish still be poor today? Won't the blacks always be poor? And is it possible we could have some supporting evidence of all these claims?

I'm having trouble locating pre-1921 numbers online; however, [url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/irish/outlinepii.html]this PBS documentary[/url references much of what I'm referring to. IMO, an immigrant culture will remain at a significant disadvantage until they are fully assimilated into their now-native country. That generally takes about 50-100 years or so, although I believe that the greater the differences in appearance, the grater the time required for full assimilation.

You're saying that the causes of white poverty and black poverty, all poverty in fact, are exactly the same?

Not precicely, but very close. All poverty may not be caused by the exact same things; but I don't see why a racial division is likely, or supported by the evidence. Poverty is poverty, so why should black poverty be qualititively any different than white?

If you want to look at first causes, examine the causes of poverty in general, then try and see if there's grounds for a racial difference. You are approaching it from the other direction, which may be what's causing the misunderstanding.

[Gunny]

I'm having trouble locating pre-1921 numbers online; however, this PBS documentary references much of what I'm referring to.

link fixie

[Cain]

Thank you.

*Gives Gunny good pie*

[Gunny]

no problem. *checks the pie to see if it's ticking*

[3278]

And reveling in poverty doesn't continue the cycle of poverty? Poverty just causes poverty, and this continues until...when, exactly? 50-100 years after immigrant status is gone? If poverty causes poverty, how can anyone /ever/ break the cycle of poverty? Won't the Irish still be poor today? Won't the blacks always be poor? And is it possible we could have some supporting evidence of all these claims?

I'm having trouble locating pre-1921 numbers online; however, [url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/irish/outlinepii.html]this PBS documentary[/url references much of what I'm referring to. IMO, an immigrant culture will remain at a significant disadvantage until they are fully assimilated into their now-native country. That generally takes about 50-100 years or so, although I believe that the greater the differences in appearance, the grater the time required for full assimilation.

Okay. Well, the documentary site is gone, your statements are all opinions - "IMO" "I believe" - and you didn't answer, really, any of the questions I asked. Could you do that, please, and provide some supporting evidence?

All poverty may not be caused by the exact same things; but I don't see why a racial division is likely, or supported by the evidence. Poverty is poverty, so why should black poverty be qualititively any different than white?

Because people never owned white peope in this country. Because you can tell black from white a mile away. Because the experiences, in short, of black Americans are very nearly nothing at all like the experiences of white Americans. To say black poverty has the same causes as white poverty is to overlook the plight of African-Americans in this country for the last 400 years.

[ratlaw]

Trying to link blacks to an similar economic situation as Irish immigrents ignores the rather obvious fact that blacks aren't immigrants, and haven't been 'immigrants' for pretty much the entire life-span of the United States. Pointing out that the Irish were at an economic disadvantage until they were assimilated into the mainstream culture is accurate, but black's have been assimilated into American culture since before there was a USA. Of course, they were assimilated into second-class citizens, but they were assimilated. As a result, blacks are not struggling to be assimilated into mainstream American culture. They already /are/ a part of it. They are struggling to change their place in our society, which is a much more difficult proposition.

[Anguirel]

And reveling in poverty doesn't continue the cycle of poverty?

No, it doesn't. Reveling in luxury beyond your means initiates and continues poverty. People who enjoy "slumming" and living in a scrimp-and-save pack-rat waste-not-want-not style are likely to actually begin to amass some savings. Revelling in the poverty lifestyle does not directly continue the cycle of poverty. Calvinists, who led incredibly ascetic lives but earned upper-end professional wages ended up incredibly wealthy because they simply never spent any of their money. They had no need to do so.

I do not, however, see Young (Teen/Twenties) Modern Urban Black culture being this, however. They strive to put as much money as possible into their look and short-term recreation purchases, that is, frequently into consumable goods rather than durable goods (with the notable exception of their cars). They are in poverty and revelling, rather than revelling in poverty.

[3278]

Conspicuous consumption as a means of social elevation. I agree.