Disaster Half of Black Students Can Barely Read - The racial wealth gap in the Bay Area starts with the stunning test scores coming out of our education system.

1679406976851.png1679407023039.png
1679406986376.png1679406995699.png

SPUR crunched Census data on the financial situations of Bay Area ethnic groups and the image reveals Black residents are being left behind region-wide, with particular acuteness in San Francisco. In the epicenter of Silicon Valley, Black income growth lagged behind White and Asian households. In the East Bay and Solano County, Black households saw a raise of just $10,000 over 10 years. But San Francisco was the worst of all: the Black community’s income barely budged since 2010. Black San Franciscans live in the shadow of a technology and wealthy renaissance that have exploded the incomes of their white neighbors.

In community college my Black computer science professor stated: “If the lot of you don’t figure this out, many of you wont be living here much longer.” So what’s the cause of Black families raised in the Bay Area being left out of the economic boom? Here are key educational statistics about the next generation of Black workers in San Francisco as they finish high school:

In 2021, 47% of Black students in SFUSD that are high school juniors don’t even come close to meeting English-language proficiency. That’s 9% higher than the state average for Black 11th graders — which is also abysmal. That means for every one of two Black students leaving San Francisco high schools they can’t read for their age. Including students who are close but still not proficient: 71.5% of Black high school juniors in San Francisco cannot read at a proficient level, compared to 20.3% of Asian students, 22.6% of White students, 32% of Filipino students and 61.8% of Hispanic students. It was bad pre-pandemic as well but it’s gotten a few percentage points worse.

These are not numbers from a red state in the Deep South but San Francisco. The technology capital of the world, which has propelled the incomes of white and Asian households tremendously, and for which Latinos largely and Black people almost entirely have been completely left out. Without meeting the most basic literacy standards, Black and Latino high school graduates aren’t even qualified for the most basic office jobs. Computer science is totally out reach — the mathematics proficiency standards are in the single-digits for Black high school graduates.

San Francisco’s educational system is producing a generation of Black San Franciscans destined to fail before they’ve even got started. I ask why should Black San Franciscans care about an economy or a city like San Francisco which is propelling so many into wealth while Black residents walk around with Great Recession-era earnings?

But it’s not just the San Francisco education system. Oakland’s even worse than San Francisco, though it trended in the right direction in terms of severely illiterate Black juniors during the pandemic. Region-wide, in district after district, about half of Black high school juniors are not sufficiently literate. Same in California and same throughout the United States. Black boys in particular struggle with literacy far below peers and Black girls as early as the 3rd grade. Moreover, the school shutdowns during the pandemic made the crisis from bad to worse and there doesn’t appear to be much mainstream focus on resolving it.

It’s not that these students will just turn out as under-average paid adults — that’s a best case scenario — but poor literacy rates are a significant indicator for being incarcerated or stuck in the criminal justice system. A study from 2014 found that the average incarcerated person is significantly illiterate compared to the general population. A study from 2003 found 80% of juvenile criminals were illiterate for their age.

The old urban legend that prisons are constructed based on literacy skills of 3rd graders is a myth. But it’s based off the real phenomenon that academic proficiency in the 3rd grade is generally locked in till high school graduation. If you’re a bad student by the 3rd grade, the likelihood of graduating and meeting academic proficiency is significantly smaller. That these results are so racialized, is clearly related to the ongoing income inequality among races re-shaping the Bay Area and leading to intense tensions between groups of people.

In my Substack on Black and Asian race relations in San Francisco, the most common criticism I received was that Black San Franciscans could solve their problems with better cultural practices. That Asian Americans also had been discriminated against in the past such as the Chinese Exclusion Act or WWII concentration camps, and thus Black Americans have no excuse. AKA the old model minority idea.

It’s a particularly silly criticism because the majority of Asian Americans are foreign-born and the 96% can trace ancestry after or around the 1965 immigration act. However, discrimination against Asian Americans is still rampant, particularly in the immigration and employment system; and in Silicon Valley’s management positions.

In comparison, only 9% of Black Americans are foreign born — rather the inverse of Asian Americans. Vast majority of Black Americans trace their ancestry back to slavery. When controlling for Black Americans of foreign ancestry, they have educational attainment on par with immigrants broadly, including 41% degree-attainment among African immigrants, comparable with Asian Americans.

This matters because foreign-born Americans on average tend to commit less crime than U.S.-born Americans. So, yes, when talking criminal justice and poverty, it is a cultural problem. But it’s an American cultural problem of centuries of imposed segregation and disinvestment against Blacks, that was explicitly legal until one and a half generations ago. Asking wide swaths of Black America to imitate foreign cultures they don’t know as a means to break 400 years of imposed suppression in the country they’ve lived in for generations is moronic and absurd. No other ethnic group can do it or has been expected to.

Moreover the idea that Black people don’t value education is absurd. My father was illiterate and was very conscious about it. He was dedicated to ensure I could read so that I wouldn’t struggle as he did. As early as Kindergarten my father made me do ‘Hooked on Phonics’ sets at grades beyond my age level. He had me read books and I had siblings to read to me at night. Thus, I never once struggled with English classes in grade school or college and breezed right through them.

This is not a success story, rather it’s the problem. For a whole host of reasons such as income inequality, incarceration, immigration and more, we do not all have parents or supportive communities with enough flexibility to sacrifice for their children. At least not to an extent necessary to overcome these educational and economic disparities.

Census 2021 finds that 64% of Black children and 50% of Native American children are growing up in single-parent households — compared to just 24% of white kids and 15% of Asian kids. Single-parent households are one of the greatest indicators of future poverty and substandard education for children. And the single-parent rates have an obvious explanation: Black men are the most likely of any group to go to prison, combined with living in an American culture where multi-generational families are discouraged.

All children do not have working families with enough economic flexibility to read to them at night, monitor their homeowner and give them that leg up in school the next day. Our public education system was created to be the great equalizer. Single parent, dual parent, your race, your family’s income or your ancestry, should not determine your education and your future. But it does and that’s the problem.

Much media hay has been made about a report suggesting each Black resident in San Francisco receive $5 million. It’s obviously not going to be paid especially by a local government (though it ought to be federally done). However, there’s suggestions in the report that are education-related such as a Black-run schools and cash for at-risk students that are wise.

Ensuring students with truancy or criminal records have parents at home who can supervisor their children, or give those kids spending money to keep them away from thefts and drug dealing is smart. Having Black educators who come from informed backgrounds to address Black students is very much akin to the proliferation of tutoring centers in Asian communities that are key to helping their children outside of class, too. People who make cultural arguments should especially support the Black educators provision. And let’s not forget that the Bay Area’s leading corporations should take an active role in employing these young people (and the Black community broadly) rather than hand-waving it away as a “pipeline” issue.

These are some of the solutions to the racial income gaps and it starts with schooling. With racialized literacy rates as poor as California’s, new generations of adults whose only future are low wages or crime. It should be an even bigger story that the climbing crime rates because it is why those crime rates are climbing. Half of graduating Black students aren’t even equipped to get a decent job, how many are going to find breaking car windows attractive? Downtown and Silicon Valley won’t hire them but drug dealers will.

It’s not incidental that 6-years of literacy improvement being erased during lockdown also correlated with an across-the-board increase in crimes. The pandemic generation hasn’t even fully reached adulthood yet, consequences for the lack of learning will effect us for years to come.

To be clear: this conversation isn’t new. The academic gap has happened every decade since schools have existed in the U.S. However the stakes are worse because the rise of the Information Economy requires a degree of intelligence beyond the basic trade skills of the past, and we’re not even reaching the bare minimum for Black children.

If we’re going to make our educational system so heavily dependent on the activities of children at home rather than in-class, the least we can do is financially and culturally support families. You cannot erase decades of poverty, drug addiction, environmental pollution and impaired child development, explicit disinvestment and redlining in Black neighborhoods by just saying “try harder.” We’re not just investing in the future of those families or a race, we’re investing in the future of our cities and nation.

Many people don’t see it this way and I’m sure they’ll tell me so. I’ll predict their arguments: “It’s not my job to take care of other people’ kids. It’s not my job to fix Black people’s cultural problems. My family / this ethnicity dealt with racism and overcame it; so to can Black people.”

If your response to these longstanding issue of inequality in education is the same exact responses made by reactionaries and anti-social individualists since the Emancipation Proclamation, then be content with what you create. If you like racial strife and drug addiction in San Francisco, keep doing it. It you like high homicide rates in Oakland, keep doing it. If you like soaring rates of homelessness, keep doing it. If companies like the reputation the Bay Area is getting from pandemic crime increases, keep doing it.

If you want to solve these problems we can do something different for once.

https://darrellowens.substack.com/p/half-of-black-students-can-hardly (Archive)
 
What the fuck? How are blacks even worse at reading than the literal first generation immigrants who don't care about English because their communities speak an entirely separate language?
First generation immigrants have an "it's too late for me to be anything but a lazy asshole, but my children will be successful Americans" attitude. They try to make sure their children will succeed by participating in what they see as a great country. And then the third generation and onwards become lazy welfare leeches again, but that's another discussion entirely.

Blacks, on the other hand, are anti-intellectual from cradle to grave. Their parents didn't learn shit, they won't learn shit, and they make sure their kids don't learn shit. They don't want their kids to "act white" by doing things like having a basic understanding of the world around them.

In short, immigrants are simply lazy, whereas blacks go out of their way to ensure nobody ever learns anything. Even the laziest person learns things via exposure over time. It takes considerable effort to literally never learn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kermit Jizz
how cam reading be racist? your parents teach you to read...
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: mold
Late to the party but why do some of y'all assume that there was a time when black education levels were better than they are now?

Or a time when blacks were less violent than they are now?

Anyone have numbers to back this up?
No literally no one can. I constantly get people spamming dumb ratings on my posts and insisting there was totally a time in American history when blacks weren't violent amoral retards but they never post any actual evidence to back up the smugposting.

It's just trust me bro, #Wakandaisreal and some black guy invented the peanut or something which makes up for all the rape and murder.
 
In the list of the everybody who is doing better than the black kids, he mentions the Asian kids, then mentions that the bulk of them are foreign-born. Guy, you're saying that a pile of kids who don't have English as their first language are managing to vastly outperform the black kids in reading English, in addition to being non-white and immigrants. That's kinda making the black kids look worse, not better.
It's also why I rail so hard against the illegals from south of the border. The Asians and (smart) Africans will show up, and push their kids to excel; Hyun Park may be a lowly convenience store worker who speaks broken English, but his kid who was only 5 years old when they immigrated is gonna speak perfect English, go to college and become a Pharmacist at the very least. Meanwhile the tacos don't even bother trying to learn English and fucking stretch the welfare state, and still bitch about being treated unfairly. Which is why I don't fall for the talking point of "they want our freedoms and ability to excel." No, not all do, many just want the fucking handouts.

Late to the party but why do some of y'all assume that there was a time when black education levels were better than they are now?

Or a time when blacks were less violent than they are now?

Anyone have numbers to back this up?
Nothing to back it up, but the idea that ending segregation meant that any black business owners or entrepaneurs would be readily displaced by white ones. The idea that before ending segregation and the enforcement of the welfare state; you had to sink or swim, so while there were no doubt jive turkeys doing their shit, there were less of them because the tax payers weren't financing every part of their lives. Also the idea that lynchings were a thing, if you risked half a town showing up to hang you for being a jogger, they might think twice before doing something stupid; now we have system who lets joggers burn shit down and will arrest you for daring to think the nigger word.
 
The Washington Examiner responded to Darrell Owens' article, and he responded back with an article saying (among other things) the nuclear family is flawed and welfare is a-OK with no problems and in fact we should do more welfare like northern Europe does because northern Europe has superior living standards.


Is the criminal justice system the reason half of black students can’t read?​

by Conn Carroll, Commentary Editor | March 22, 2023 12:39 PM

Bay Area housing activist Darrell Owens has a provocative substack post up titled, “Half of Black Students Can Barely Read.”

“In 2021, 47% of Black students in SFUSD that are high school juniors don’t even come close to meeting English-language proficiency," he writes. "That’s 9% higher than the state average for Black 11th graders — which is also abysmal. That means for every one of two Black students leaving San Francisco high schools, they can’t read for their age.”

MARRIAGE MATTERS

Owens then correctly notes that people who can’t read have no chance of landing jobs that pay well enough to afford to live in the Bay Area. All very true. Owens goes on to recount some family history. Even though his father was illiterate, he still valued education for his children very highly, pushing Darrell to succeed academically. Owens seems to accept that there is a strong correlation between having a father in a young boy’s life and that boy succeeding first academically and then professionally.

Owens then notes, “Census 2021 finds that 64% of Black children and 50% of Native American children are growing up in single-parent households — compared to just 24% of white kids and 15% of Asian kids. Single-parent households are one of the greatest indicators of future poverty and substandard education for children.”

Again, all true. He seems to be on to something. But then the wheels fall off.

“And the single-parent rates have an obvious explanation," he writes. "Black men are the most likely of any group to go to prison, combined with living in an American culture where multi-generational families are discouraged.”

First of all, how does American culture discourage multi-generational families? How does discouraging multi-generational families increase single-parent rates? And when did this discouraging of multi-generational families begin exactly?

Owens is on slightly firmer ground when he identifies incarceration as one reason black women have trouble finding marriage partners. Research does show that higher incarceration rates among black men do make it harder for black women to find husbands.

But Owens faces a timing problem when he tries to make incarceration the driving force behind the fall of the black family. Despite rampant racism and a lack of protections from the 1964 Civil Rights Act, marriage rates for young black men and women were similar to those of white men and women right up into the 1960s.

In the 1940s and 1950s (see Table I.I), young black women were actually more likely to be married than young white women. This began to change in the 1960s when an eight-point gap opened up between white and black women. Then something happened in the 1970s that led to an absolute cratering of the black marriage rate. By the end of the 1970s, just 22% of young black women were married compared to 43% of white women. And the black marriage rate has never recovered.

The proof that incarceration cannot be the culprit for the break up of the black family is that black incarceration rates didn’t take off until the 1980s.

So what did happen?

Well, in 1968, in a case called King v. Smith, the Supreme Court struck down so-called “man in the house” rules. These were admittedly racially enforced policies by states used to disqualify black mothers from the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. State welfare workers would visit unmarried mothers’ houses, and if they found a “man in the house,” they would disqualify the mother from benefits on the theory that the man, not the state, should be providing for the mother and her children.

With “man in the house” rules gone, the new test for benefits became marriage. If single mothers wanted to keep their benefits and enjoy a romantic relationship, they had to refuse to marry the men in their lives. King v. Smith essentially forced single mothers to choose between welfare and marriage. And as the welfare state has grown, more and more mothers chose welfare.

It is true that the real value of AFDC cash payments has shrunk over the years as inflation has risen. But the number of other programs working-class families use has exploded: food stamps, Medicaid, Section 8 housing, the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and Affordable Care Act subsidies are all designed in a way that cut off benefits to single mothers if they want to get married.

Combined, these programs send over $1 trillion in benefits to eligible families every year. That is $1 trillion our federal government is paying single mothers every year not to get married.

That is the main reason so many children can’t read.


No, Welfare Does Not Harm Black Families​

A response to conservative arguments critiquing my article "Half of Black Students Can Barely Read."
Darrell Owens
Apr 13, 2023


1.png 2.png
Rates of welfare funding on the left against rates of single-parent households by race on the right. They don't correlate whatsoever. Source: Wikipedia

My article on Black student reading proficiency generated a lot of interest from all over the political spectrum. Many teachers contacted me to say that phonics in the curriculum was phased out and thus is responsible for poor literacy rates. Whether its the primary cause of racialized differences in proficiency I’ll dispute, but studies and real-world examples does indicate that the phonics method results in better english proficiency for children.

There was broad agreement about single-parent households being the cause of poor Black student outcomes. Incidentally, I debated a UC Berkeley integration researcher on single parenthood and race; he had reacted to an older article of mine. It’s a good listen and healthy discussion.

However, I received criticism about what I attributed as the cause Black poverty and single parenthood. In particular, this response article in the conservative publication Washington Examiner, disputes my explanation for the high rates of Black single parent households and instead blames welfare.

The author, Conn Carroll, first takes issue with my citing America’s nuclear family culture as a cause for the lack of family support for low income children.

First of all, how does American culture discourage multi-generational families? How does discouraging multi-generational families increase single-parent rates? And when did this discouraging of multi-generational families begin exactly?

So, you ever notice in American cities that homes built before the 1930s were often large-sized homes? During this time, families encompassed more than just the nuclear family-unit. Families even absent a father or mother acted as a unit of uncles, aunts, cousins, grandparents and friends living together. And the census measured this phenomenon well.

Due to suburbaniztion and women leaving industrial work post-World War II, there was a sharp rise in the nuclear family unit. This family unit depended on a man to earn money while the wife remained at home. Marriage rates skyrocketed post-war and divorces dropped. The era of mass manufacturing led to significantly smaller houses to fit nuclear families.

But the nuclear family, modeled as the All-American family, was flawed. Where before a single mother could depend on extended family living with her, nuclear families created an absence of support. Remember, prior to the 1970s, women had access to only low wage labor. Oftentimes they were not entitled to financial privileges like opening a bank account or buying a home. These conditions led to the necessity of “welfare” to compensate broken nuclear families.

(Welfare is in air-quotes because the government subsidized wide swaths of white people into the middle class — explicitly at the exclusion of the Black Americans — in post-World War 2 and New Deal-era housing, education and employment policies. So welfare refers to meager payments poor people or old people get such as food stamps, child support or healthcare.)

One of the reasons that minority groups of immigrant ancestry — including Africans — do well in the United States is that they tend to live in multi-generational households; imported from their non-American culture. This is also why household overcrowding is such a severe problem in Hispanic-heavy communities. Because Latino families are cramming themselves of many generations into single-family bungalows built for a nuclear family.

Now, lets address Carroll’s explanation for the rise of single-parent households being fueled by welfare. He’ll start with a common conservative argument of implying Black families before the 1960s were whole and prosperous, prior to the rise of welfare.

Despite rampant racism and a lack of protections from the 1964 Civil Rights Act, marriage rates for young black men and women were similar to those of white men and women right up into the 1960s.

In the 1940s and 1950s (see Table I.I), young black women were actually more likely to be married than young white women. This began to change in the 1960s when an eight-point gap opened up between white and black women. Then something happened in the 1970s that led to an absolute cratering of the black marriage rate. By the end of the 1970s, just 22% of young black women were married compared to 43% of white women. And the black marriage rate has never recovered.

It’s true that Black marriage rates were high in the 1940s and 1950s because that’s when the nuclear family program took off. People were financially encouraged to get married, especially Black people, who were engaged in a mass-migration away from farm work in the south, and to the city where multi-generational families could not be maintained.

These higher marriage rates were not indicators of better morals, as conservatives often claim, but of financial necessity. Black women, confined to the lowest domestic employment such as maids and housekeepers in the north, would not have been able to survive without a husband.

Carroll continues:

Well, in 1968, in a case called King v. Smith, the Supreme Court struck down so-called “man in the house” rules. These were admittedly racially enforced policies by states used to disqualify black mothers from the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. . . With “man in the house” rules gone, the new test for benefits became marriage. If single mothers wanted to keep their benefits and enjoy a romantic relationship, they had to refuse to marry the men in their lives. King v. Smith essentially forced single mothers to choose between welfare and marriage. And as the welfare state has grown, more and more mothers chose welfare.

Firstly, that’s one way to look at that ruling. Another way is that Black women (and all poor women) no longer had to marry men who may have been abusive or just unlikable in order to live. This is something conservatives frequently misunderstand. Divorce rates in the 1970s and onwards didn’t spike because of food stamps and loose morals. Women had gained reproductive and economic freedoms that didn’t require enduring awful men.

Secondly, and more importantly, the conservative idea that single-parenthood was primarily caused by the rise of welfare isn’t substantiated — hence the absent of a source in the article. The rise in single-parent households was primarily product of abortion, contraceptives, fair employment and changing divorce laws, which empowered women to not be tied to a man in the event of a child or during sexual activity. Prior to the sexual and gender revolution of the late 1960s, impregnated women (who averaged 19 years old in the 1960s), were often obliged to marry their husbands in “shotgun marriages.”

But even I was admittedly wrong to over-emphasize the impacts of incarceration on Black single-parent rates. Yes, they contribute to single parenthood, but it’s not a main contributor. Neither is welfare and studies have overwhelmingly rebuked the significance of welfare.

Even absent research and just looking at funding, rates of single parenthood don’t track or correlate at all with welfare funding (see gallery up top). Moreover, out of wedlock births were already higher among Black people than whites in 1960 — before LBJ’s war on poverty. Note, Carroll blames single-parenthood on a court ruling in 1968, so that doesn’t explain the racial gap visible since 1960.

Clearly the racial gap was a product of poverty. Poor households are 2.5 times more likely to be headed by a single-parent than middle class households. A significantly larger share of Black people were and are poorer than the share of white people. Black middle class makes less than the white middle class. Poor white people are three times as likely to be in single-parent households compared to their middle class counterparts, versus poor blacks who are twice as likely.

So this blows the conservative arguments out of the water. Single parenthood is a poor person problem. Its high frequency in the Black community has existed since we’ve had records of marriage rates, long before welfare, because it’s obviously a byproduct of slavery and its subsequent poverty. Black men had too weak employment to take care of children and Black women had no rights — creating an environment rife for single parent households that perpetuates to this day.

This is the truth; arguments about welfare or Black culture or whatever are ideological, emotional responses unsubstantiated by evidence. And they’re as old as the United States itself.

Carroll, predicting I’d cite welfare funding, pivots to various public programs:

It is true that the real value of AFDC cash payments has shrunk over the years as inflation has risen. But the number of other programs working-class families use has exploded: food stamps, Medicaid, Section 8 housing, the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and Affordable Care Act subsidies are all designed in a way that cut off benefits to single mothers if they want to get married.

What evidence suggests the Affordable Care Act has contributed to the rise of single-parent households? Single parent households are on the decline since the passage of the largest healthcare reform law in 2010-2011. During the pandemic, the expansion of the child-tax credit led to the largest drop in poverty in recent American history. The author just throws out a bunch of public programs and says: see! These expensive subsidies (its just 19% of the federal budget, including Medicaid) are rewarding people for being single!
There isn’t a sole correct answer to the cause of the rise of single-parent households, but the ‘welfare’ argument is certainly at the very bottom of the totem pole in credible explanations.

Lastly, and this is important: single parent households are clearly worse for raising children than dual parent households. But there’s no reason that a child in a single-parent household should have to turn out as a low achieving student. Some research has found that the American single-parent being synonymous with poor is an American thing, because our welfare is small and indecent compared to northern European nations with living standards superior to our own.

So yes, American nuclear families were a mistake that necessitates welfare. Research has found that multi-generational Black households results in children with higher cognitive ability. But our country is made for nuclear families. Yes, dual parents are primary predictors of success for children, but welfare is not why Black and Native American families have higher rates of single-parent households. American poverty, fundamentally racialized since the era of slavery and Jim Crow, is.
 
If you want to fix black kids acting like ghetto retards, you need to start by repairing the nuclear family of the African American. Single parenthood is the single greatest predictor of future criminal activity for a child. The majority of black children are not a part of a two-person household. Black crime rates were lower in the 1940s/50s when black poverty was higher and racism was rampant. It's not about the money. It's about the parents. Stop giving welfare queens free money and they'll be forced to stick with a husband if they want to make ends meet. A man who's working two jobs aint gonna let a woman just take all his money for herself. Welfare fraud is rampant despite what the left try to claim. True they spend less than families who are not on assistance, but they spend on shit they legitimately do not need. They are able bodied but refuse to work.

The highschool I went to was in a city where there are more black families with both parents than normal. Our highschool wasn't wilding out with people swearing out the teacher, throwing shit, destroying property, etc. We had a huge mix of races.

Repair the black family and you repair a large portion of lost black souls. Bring back Christianity to the black home. That shit keeps people together.

Or go back to segregating schools.
The major issue with that, is the infiltration of communism into the Black community by the long dead Soviet infiltrators, who also got into the Black Churches and propagated "Liberation Theology" which is basically communism with the serial numbers filed off.

Get the commies out the black community, and OUT of SCHOOLS, and then, maybe then, we'll have a chance to fix the entire mess.
 
Niggers being illiterate is nothing new. There was a nigger in high school I swear was triggered by seeing me reading a book on lunch not bothering anyone. He’d constantly walk by saying shit like “enjoying story time, faggot?” or “books are for losers!” before shuckin n jiving off.

Dad told me about a nigger in his middle school days who would literally throw a tantrum (screaming and crying and all) if he was asked to read out loud to the class.

Little brother was off work and his nigger coworker offered him a ride home. Brother accepted and then got nervous when nigger coworker revealed he was honest-to-god illiterate and couldn’t read street signs so my brother had to guide him step by step.

Why we waste so much time in trying to educate these people when they act like you’re Torquemada preparing the torture chamber for doing so is so much wasted effort.
 
What evidence suggests the Affordable Care Act has contributed to the rise of single-parent households? Single parent households are on the decline since the passage of the largest healthcare reform law in 2010-2011.
First, off, that's not what the guy he's quoting said. Secondly, this is his source for the "decline" in single parent households:
1681991431109.png
Not much of a decline.
 
They love to use the excuse "legislation racist" when any smart person would find ways to circumvent it and change it. Hell, illiterate whites ran off into the hills to start illegal alcohol businesses during prohibition and when their counties were dry. I would encourage anyone to find a recent African immigrant and one from the hood. Stark contrast in terms of drive and intelligence.

That still doesn't explain why Asian Americans preform better than blacks despite their segregation and discrimination being legal until roughly half a century ago. He then goes on to bemoan 400 years of suppression as being the excuse and that blacks are incapable of adapting to basic cultural norms like civility and literacy.

So I guess were just supposed to accept that they are violent, wants gibs and don't expect to work because thats their culture huh. Makes me think of picrel of a teacher in an inner city school who came to the same conclusion.
Ahaha I think that person was quickly banned from Reddit after that amazing post

Thing is, it's 1000000% true. Imagine getting assaulted by a 6 foot, 225lb 16 year old who is then not punished because "he needs to graduate" or "I'm not going to send a black man to prison"

The schools REFUSE to punish violent behavior and the shit head students ruin it for everyone else.
 
IQ is the key to all of this. A person with a higher IQ has a lower time preference and is more willing to delay instant gratification for superior returns at a later time. Most African Americans have IQs on the lower side and this leads to them acting more impulsive and hedonistically. However IQ is not static. No race is innately superior before the fact. Inbred hick trash fucking their sister is just as broken as black trash, that goes for any race.

The reason whites became so advanced wasn't some static superior gene latent in all of them. It was because the Indo-Europeans who migrated into Europe had the perfect combination of social mobility and a consistent dietary intake. This can be seen in Africa too. Those in the interior of Africa had to rely on sustenance hunter-gathering and never had long term planning; meanwhile Coastal African states in comparison had their own oral constitutions, elective monarchies, complex trade routes, vassal and fief systems, etc. They were primitive too but it shows how geography (and thus diet) greatly affects the development of an ethnic group. Going back to the Indo-Europeans, their social and familial mobility limited the amount of inbreeding leading to greater genetic diversity and hardiness, and also limited the amount of incest babies. They were not so desperate for food they had a high time preference and ate whatever they saw on first sight nor was their food supply so fecund they need not worry about future troubles.

Their diet consisted of beef which helped brain development and systematic agriculture that had long term planning and geographical strategy in mind. A good diet and not inbreeding is the key to a high IQ. I forgot where I heard this but there was some immigrant demographic of I think some sort of Jew (Not Ashkenazi) who came to America with sub-100 IQs but due to the superior diets and stronger families in America their IQs are now amongst the highest after a few generations.

Now, looking at African Americans, their family structure is so broken down they don't know if they're banging their cousin or sister or niece. Their diet is pure unadultured goyslop with absolutely no nutritious value. Their workout regiment is nonexistent. Their social mobility is nonexistent. Every genetic pressure for them is one to lower the IQ further and further.

To fix the African American community, one has to rebuild the whole family structure through religion and incentives, cut out the goyslop diets and welfare gibs, clean out the trash people in their communities, and allow those who actually eat well and have actual families carry down their genes for later generations and not punish and deride them as "coons" and "uncle toms." Their IQs might not ever be as high as whites, might be the same, who knows, but with less inbreeding and better diets they will be better off than right now.
 
"The black community has problems, but instead of doing anything about it as an 'educated black man', I'll write a faggot blog post blaming everyone and everything for the problems of blacks and tell my fellow blacks to accept no personal responsibility for themselves."

Nigger, you are literally the problem you describe.

Parental involvement in education is evil.

Leave it to the "professionals"
 
Back