African-American Appreciation Thread - Not Actually an Appreciation Thread

nonespecified said:
So the Jews were significantly over-represented in the 2,000,000 million slaves sent to Caribbean, and correctly represented in the 200k slaves sent to continental US, and you think that disproves his point?
Click to expand...
Since he was specifically sperging about jewish involvement in the US slave trade, yes. To reiterate, jewish involvement in the US slave trade wasn't especially disproportionate (this seems to go for South America as well). They did however control the trade in Curacao and Suriname (both Dutch possessions, fwiw) as per @Chandelier, as well as in Grenada iirc. If you have anything of substance to disprove anything of this by all means please fire away.
 
I can't be 100% certain but I think Shrek and Mrs Potato Head had a child some point.
Screenshot 2025-10-25 144141.png
 
HalfPricedAmHoleBuffet said:
I love the wood chunk he takes right to the skull. Were they shooting a nail gun at them?
Click to expand...
The best part was the fact the the fucken Nig Nogs were getting shot by the nail gun but he's too retarded to pull the hose from the air compressor he was standing right next to!!
Cuntspiracy Man said:
this isn't even just regarding niggers, if you banned guns tomorrow, the biggest offenders would still be offending
banning guns will only work to stop gun violence if you could somehow also manage to make them completely un exist, or downright impossible to acquire, but we don't live in a world where that's possible, nor reasonable

otherwise why not just ban shooting people with guns?
Click to expand...
After the Aussie guy shot up the ISIS Recruting mosque in Christchurch, the Govt cracked down hard on guns.
Of course it was the law abiding citizens who, reluctantly, handed in their now-illegal guns.
Scum didn't.
Now we have WAY more gun violence with gangs because they know the average citizens cant possibly defend themselves.
Its so bad, the only thing I have for protection against an intruder is a can of butane and a lighter, plus an electric chainsaw that works at the touch of a button.
Have to be willing to burn or gut someone but I live too far from police to worry about that shit.
 
David Floyd George said:
His other claim - that the jews controlled the shipment of slaves to the US - is also incorrect. I've never seen any credible evidence (and I've looked, after seeing that /pol/ meme jpeg of jewish slave ship owners one too many times) that jews were significantly over-represented here. The only place I saw where jews did control the trade was in the Caribbean.
p.s. You can read that table? Damn, your eyes are way better than mine.
p.p.s. For anyone that's interested, the link cited as the source of the table is dead.
Click to expand...
I also looked up the Jewish influence on U.S. slavery a bit ago and arrived at the same conclusion (though didn't investigate the Caribbean aspect).
RollingRock2 said:
Its a nail gun dummy
Click to expand...
Cuntspiracy Man said:
I always wonder what kind of obligation pawn shop owners have to determine if what they're buying is stolen, and regardless if they choose not to buy stolen goods anyway, how they go about discerning it
Not every item is gonna have "Property of grandma Ruth, if stolen by niggers please return and don't sell to a pawn shop" written on it
Click to expand...
In many jurisdictions, pawn shops have to check against police indices of stolen material, possibly when the amount reaches a certain threshold. This is why thieves do shit like scratch off serials from bikes and whatnot. It's why a serial scratched off of a gun is a no-no. Pawn shops would likely not take a bike with scratched serials because it's likely stolen. The index of burgled material is the "property of Grandma Ruth" in your scenario.
 
A tragic aspect of these criminal cases where a young male nigger gets locked up for decades at 12 is that, even at that age, he might already have at least one sprog and/or have offspring with a corrupt prison guard later on (preview is mostly white due to transition at the start of the video, but it plays fine):

 
Last edited:
Garina'sVengeance said:
It's called Kopi Luwak. The civit cat lives on coffee beans, and has evolved to select only the absolute best beans on a tree to eat. It only digests the husks, though, and the bean itself is shat out and looks like an ear of corn:
Click to expand...
Noted.
1761438433532.png

Unrelated, but I'm curious about a source for this:
1761438535093.png
1761438618903.png

It's posted a lot. I've even seen the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education repeat it with a different graphic. It appears to be referencing 2008. However, I've never found it in the actual reports from The College Board. They provide mean scores broken down by white and black, and scores by family income broken down, but never them both together.

It's possible I am a retard and misinterpreting the data, but until shown so, I think the numbers are fudged. If anyone can find this alleged data point with the raw studies, please ping me. Until then, I recommend we not use these screenshots, and also correct others when they use them.

If anyone has the means, I recommend editing in valid sources to screenshots like these when reintroducing them into the wild. I'm collecting tons RN and will release them at once in the near future.

Edit: I found another source that actually shows what is purported.

1761440893783.png

Based on the academic research provided in your query—specifically, "Table 2: Mean SAT Mathematics and Verbal Scores by Family Income for the 2003 College Bound Cohort" from the Dixon-Román study—here is the data presented in a copyable table format, with calculated columns showing the difference in average scores (the gap) between White and Black test-takers for each income bracket.

The gap is calculated as: White Score minus Black Score (W - B). A positive gap indicates the White mean score was higher.

1761441682711.png

*Data source: Dixon-Román, E. J., Everson, H. T., & McArdle, J. J. (2013). "Race, Poverty and SAT Scores: Modeling the Influences of Family Income on Black and White High School Students' SAT Performance".*

This table clearly illustrates the key finding that SAT scores increase monotonically as family income levels increase, and crucially, that a persistent score gap remains between Black and White students across every income bracket.[1] For instance, at the lowest income level (Less than $10,000), the gap is 96 points in Math, while at the highest reported bracket (More than $100,000), a 78-point gap still exists.
Click to expand...

1761443806766.png
1761443822675.png
1761444063010.png

I don't love these ones, but I don't have time to make them better at the moment. ChatGPT being annoying right now.
Best GPT:
1761444957181.png

Here's my best effort in Excel.
1761444912621.png

Unrelated:
1761439442793.png
 

Attachments

  • 1761444210944.png
    1761444210944.png
    458.6 KB · Views: 315
  • 1761444906125.png
    1761444906125.png
    81.4 KB · Views: 99
Last edited:
Twix Eatr said:
It's posted a lot. I've even seen the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education repeat it with a different graphic. It appears to be referencing 2008. However, I've never found it in the actual reports from The College Board. They provide mean scores broken down by white and black, and scores by family income broken down, but never them both together.
Click to expand...
I really doubt it's from 2008. My research indicates this is from a study conducted in 1998 (which makes more sense) and published here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2999198

Why Family Income Differences Don't Explain the Racial Gap in SAT Scores
The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education
No. 20 (Summer, 1998), pp. 6-8 (3 pages)
Published By: The JBHE Foundation, Inc

"The article analyzes data from The College Board's 1998 National Report on College-Bound Seniors (covering the class of 1998), highlighting how socioeconomic factors like income do not fully account for the persistent Black-White scoring gap."

I have looked up the 1998 source document from the College Board and I see what you mean when you say the data wasn't presented like that in the original report, however the reason for this is that the public data you are seeing is not the same as the data provided by the College Board to the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (JBHE) for research purpose. That's a common practice. Researchers always get more data through special requests than is made available to the public.

Full explanation below courtesy of Grok:

How the JBHE Table Was Created​


The table in the 1998 JBHE article ("Why Family Income Differences Don't Explain the Racial Gap in SAT Scores") presents cross-tabulated data—mean SAT scores broken down simultaneously by race (Black and White) and family income brackets—that isn't directly available in the standard public reports from The College Board, such as the 1998 National Report on College-Bound Seniors you referenced. Those reports typically provide aggregate means by race/ethnicity separately (e.g., Table 8) and by income separately (e.g., Table 11), without the combined breakdowns.

Based on available analyses and patterns in JBHE's reporting, the table was likely derived through a special data request or custom tabulation provided by The College Board to JBHE. Here's the reasoning and evidence:
  • College Board's Data Collection Practices: The College Board collects detailed, self-reported demographic information from all SAT test-takers, including race/ethnicity and family income (in brackets). This raw data allows for cross-tabulations, but such detailed intersections are not routinely published in their annual national reports to protect privacy and focus on high-level trends. However, the organization has a history of sharing aggregated, anonymized data with researchers, publications, and institutions upon request, especially for analyses related to equity and access.
  • JBHE's Access to Custom Data: JBHE (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education) frequently publishes analyses of racial disparities in standardized testing and higher education. In many of their articles (including later ones on SAT gaps), they explicitly note that data was "supplied by The College Board" or "provided to JBHE by The College Board." This suggests JBHE has an established relationship for obtaining non-public breakdowns. For the 1998 article specifically, while the text doesn't detail the exact process (due to access limitations on full archived copies), it credits "Source: The College Board" directly under the table, implying a similar arrangement. Secondary sources referencing the article, such as a 2013 academic paper, confirm it used College Board data for these cross-tabs without questioning the sourcing, treating it as standard.
  • Methodology for Cross-Tabulation: Once obtained, the data would have been aggregated into means for each race-income cell. For example:
    • Test-takers self-report race (e.g., Black/African American, White) and family income (in ranges like under $20,000, $20,000–$40,000, etc.).
    • The College Board runs queries to compute average combined verbal + math scores (out of 1600, pre-2005 format) for subsets matching each combination.
    • JBHE then calculated the "racial gap" column by subtracting Black means from White means in each row.This approach aligns with how similar tables appear in later JBHE pieces, where they emphasize that even after controlling for income, gaps persist (e.g., high-income Black students scoring below low-income White students in some cases).
  • No Evidence of Independent Calculation: There's no indication JBHE estimated or imputed the data themselves (e.g., via statistical modeling from the separate tables), as that would introduce errors and isn't mentioned. Public reports lack the sample sizes or variances needed for accurate merging. Instead, direct access to the underlying dataset is the straightforward explanation.
This practice continues today; the College Board still provides custom data for research (e.g., their "Landscape" tool for contextual admissions data, though that's more recent and not race-specific).
 
Twix Eatr said:
It's posted a lot. I've even seen the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education repeat it with a different graphic. It appears to be referencing 2008. However, I've never found it in the actual reports from The College Board. They provide mean scores broken down by white and black, and scores by family income broken down, but never them both together.

It's possible I am a retard and misinterpreting the data, but until shown so, I think the numbers are fudged. If anyone can find this alleged data point with the raw studies, please ping me. Until then, I recommend we not use these screenshots, and also correct others when they use them.
Click to expand...
In addition to the above post, I also found The Black-White Test Score Gap, available on fine shadow libraries such as Anna's Archive. I'm not at liberty to read an entire 500+-page book right now, but I did see while doing a case-sensitive search for "SAT" (all caps): "The report from which Herrnstein and Murray (1994) took most of their estimates of the black-white SAT gap is only available to participating institutions' admissions offices, not to social scientists." That appears to confirm something like what @Perfect Day said.
 
Perfect Day said:
I really doubt it's from 2008. My research indicates this is from a study conducted in 1998 (which makes more sense) and published here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2999198
Click to expand...
That's interesting because I had another link like that saved that does corroborate the 2008 link like the original presentation from the same journal. I think what's most likely is they probably aren't referencing any one specific year or dataset because it's obviously true for all of them.

So yeah, if they have access to more than what is presented, its possible they know its true. But still, the way it's presented in that original screenshot I posted (and theirs) seems kind of iffy. I'm in the habit of presenting the most bulletproof of references so people can't challenge them. I'll probably use the Excel version of the one I just created since it can be sourced directly. And then maybe add on the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education link to the College Board one since if they're quoting it as accurate, it probably is.

Thanks for the input. I'll tag you in my notes as reliable for data research (unless you drink cat turd coffee like that other fool, then I'll have to add that, too).

Edit: Reading the paper I cited earlier, they reference what we're talking about actually.
In an article published in The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (1998), it was argued that family income differences do not explain the differences in total SAT scores by race/ethnicity. The article, however, does report that Black students from families with incomes between $80,000 and $100,000 perform 141 points lower on the SAT than their White counterparts. Moreover, the Journal authors claimed that Black students from families with incomes between $80,000 and $100,000 in fact scored lower on the SAT than did White students from families with incomes of less than $10,000. Further, it was argued that Black and White families with similar incomes tend to have very different social and7Teachers College Record, 115, 040306 (2013)educational characteristics and experiences. Thus, it was asserted that there is much more to the Black-White SAT performance gap than what is captured by indices of a family’s economic background.
Click to expand...
It references the 1998 article that you linked, but I'll note that the 141 gap isn't found in the screenshots they gave that year (which appears to reference the 1997 SATs anyway). But they also reference data for families with incomes higher than $200k, which the public-facing data doesn't show, either. I do think it's probably just true every year and they do indeed have data we aren't privy to.

Here's some more corroboration from the same journal using the same source but some additional graphs. I'm going to try and find high-res versions of them. Wheeeee.
Perfect Day said:
I have looked up the 1998 source document from the College Board and I see what you mean when you say the data wasn't presented like that in the original report,
Click to expand...
That's the 2008 document, FYI.
 
Last edited:
Belisarius Cawl said:
A tragic aspect of these criminal cases where a young male nigger gets locked up for decades at 12 is that, even at that age, he might already have at least one sprog and/or have offspring with a corrupt prison guard later on (preview is mostly white due to transition at the start of the video, but it plays fine):
View attachment 8078813
Click to expand...
THATS a 12 year old?
 
Cuntspiracy Man said:
THATS a 12 year old?
Click to expand...

You wanna see the fresh-faced lil' cherubs turning up and claiming child asylum in UK:

1761470294690.png

1761470394982.png


Here's the kicker: they're just accepted as unaccompanied children and let loose into the children's holding accommodation because muh racisms, so the tiny handful of actual real children get to have their 'cultures' enriched, too.

I can't even...

1761470905298.png
 
Garina'sVengeance said:
You wanna see the fresh-faced lil' cherubs turning up and claiming child asylum in UK:

1761470294690.png

1761470394982.png
Click to expand...
Well that's a completely different issue entirely, they're adults claiming to be children
But that guy up there is meant to actually be 12, I know hormones in the food cause kids to mature earlier today but not to this degree, blacks always look about 10 years older than their peers
His peers are fortnite dancing and watching family guy funny moments compilation on youtube and this kid is already built like he's going to college and is getting arrested
 
Twix Eatr said:
That's the 2008 document, FYI.
Click to expand...
It is! Sorry, that's what I meant to post: https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/research/CBS-98-National.pdf

It's pretty much the same thing (public facing data don't show black and white next to each other in income tranches like the JBHE).

In case useful, you can access the JBHE article for free here where the graph was originally produced (it's the archive).

What lends credibility to the source is that it is actually a pro-Afro American publication. They are trying to explain the discrepancy in results by using argument such as "racism" and "rich blacks don't prioritize education as much as rich whites so that's why their kids don't perform as well". The JBHE as its name suggest (Journal of Blacks in Higher Education) is a publication mostly by blacks for black, addressing issues faced by blacks in higher education
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom