What makes the Germans so successful?

[hngs]

Seeing as the last post is nonsense, I wanted to get back to the fact that African Americans were better off before desegregation:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/williams-...lliams137.html

In 1940, black illegitimacy was 19 percent; today it's 72 percent.

[hippifried]

Oh boy. Here we go again with more "facts" coming from pundit blogs.
This probably won't be all that interesting, but it should be good for a laugh.

[Stavros]

Seeing as the last post is nonsense, I wanted to get back to the fact that African Americans were better off before desegregation:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/williams-...lliams137.html

The article is not about segregation, so I don't know how you can make the link, except as a form of wish-fulfillment. You might want to understand the American family from a broader perspective, because regardless of whether it is 'white', 'Black', 'Latino' etc, the pressures on families have been the same, and relate historically to Patriarchy and Employment.

Most of the newest immigrant groups to the US from the rural areas of the Indian sub-continent and the Middle East are intensely patriarchal families who have retained close ties to the village, as was also the case with many Scandinavian immigrants in the 19thc, some of whom were temporary migrants (working mostly in mining or agriculture for 6 months at a time) before deciding to settle permanently.

However, world wars reducing the male population, and the emancipation of women have fundamentally transformed the family -patriarchy has declined, women's employment has increased. The campaign to create 'nuclear families' in the 1950s failed because more and more women went to college and fought the kitchen-sink romance they felt was imposed on them. Add the increasing infertility of European and Asian men, and throw in the decline of mass unskilled jobs in industry, and you have either a crisis or a transition in family structure. The family is just not as solid as it once might have been, it is more flexible, diffuse, and raises challenges that the nuclear family doesn't have to face. Employment, accommodation, education and so on.

Black Americans may be more vulnerable to these trends because of discrimination in the jobs market, because in a capitalist economy jobs are the key to all sorts of security in health, education, food and work. Illegitimacy is just one indicator that sociologists use, rates are highr among 'White' families in Vermont, for example, but among 'Black Americans' in Hawaii, very low.

The challenge is to create jobs, and that I think is more important than some waffle about segregation, but I assume Louis Farrakhan would agree with you. Why not ask him?

Try Frank F. Furstenburg, 'The Recent Transformation of the American Family', in: Marcia Carlson and Paula England [eds] Social Class and Changing Families in Unequal America (Stanford University Press, 2011)

[ImmerGeil]

don't understand why now all of you speak about race and genetics

The genetic differences are smaller than the cultural differences.

Here is an example for a small genetic difference between black and white sprintershttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...-swimmers.html

Here is another explains the difference between east african athletes and west african athleteshttp://www.blackathlete.net/artman2/...re_A_188.shtml



But you can not establish that black plays better rhythm music because of their genetics.I could name hundred more examples like this so it doesn't make sense to talk that much about genetics.




By the way the term race related to humans is antiquated and is very often a use for degradition to certain population groups.

[muh_muh]

Here is another explains the difference between east african athletes and west african athleteshttp://www.blackathlete.net/artman2/...re_A_188.shtml

which ironically would be considered to be the same race
the idea of race as a concept in a species as geographically connected as humans is just stupid and will become increasingly so as humans from around the world mix their genes more and more

[hippifried]

By the way the term race related to humans is antiquated and is very often a use for degradition to certain population groups.

Maybe we should start calling the racial variants breeds. Why not? Yorkies & Great Danes are all dogs.

[trish]

Dogs are deliberately bred to amplify and attenuate specific attributes. The different breeds are a perfect example deliberate and artificial selection. The exact opposite is the case with human populations. Trades routes, wars, immigrations, the human sex drive and just plain curiosity have been stirring the mix for millennia. Modern economics, modes of transportation and communication have accelerated the process.

There is of course considerable variation in a number of human traits, but no particular variable trait or group of them is considered by anthropologists nor by biologists to divide humans into viable taxonomical races.

[muh_muh]

Trades routes, wars, immigrations, the human sex drive and just plain curiosity have been stirring the mix for millennia.

and lets not forget that human inter species diversity is in no way easy to categorize
for every definion of 2 races theres a million of gradual in betweens as you move your finger across the map from eg africa to europe

[hippifried]

Act of God, act of man, random, planned... What's the difference? It's the same result. Just like bluebloods lose their official heritage when they hook up with "commoners", the AKC considers "Lady & the Tramp" a tragedy. In this respect, dogs & humans are the same. Unless there's artificial restraints, they don't give a shit who they're fucking. Hence, an Afro-Eurasian land mass full of mutts. Since all those human curs have moved to the new world, there's no place left for purity of breed. Well... Except for the enclaves of the klan/nazis & the accident of being born into royalty. I wonder if any of them know who their ancesters really were. Personally, I'm a pure bred hybrid.

[buttslinger]

I don't know, but it wasn't Joseph Stalin.