The Irony of Whites Talking About Fatherless Black Families...

[Blues Man]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them are today the loudest talking people trying to diss the black community about single parent families.

When people start talking about race, there are just some simple realities that cannot be denied. If you are white and don't like how you are portrayed, start thinking about how unpleasant it really is for us who are not white to be portrayed as weak inferior people who got conquered by a supposedly superior race and culture. It is not a pleasant subject. For this to end we all must face the unpleasantness.

The doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem comes from European civil law. It means; “That which is brought forth follows the belly.” This principle determined the legal status of children born by slave women in the America as well as other English or European colonies In colonial law, the partus doctrine justified enslavement, the indigenous people of the Americas and of the Africans imported to various European colonies personal property of those who imported them.

During the time American was a colony, this doctrine established de facto and de jure slavery for all children born to female slaves. Partus sequitur ventrem exempted the father from his obligations to children he fathered by slaves thereby creating the ability for slaveowners to have their way with enslaved women. Under this doctrine the biological father had no paternal responsibility to any child born to a slave woman. Because of this the slaver was provided the right to profit from exploiting the labor of children born to slaves. It gave the slaver the ability to sell children by taking them away from their biological parents. Partus sequitur ventrem was the doctrine that created the first family separation policy in what is now America.

Despite the claims of Africans selling each other, the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem does not appear to be a part of the system of African slavery.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape

This was the legal doctrine that made any child of an American female slave a slave as well. It meant any white fathers had no financial responsibility for their progeny. They were free to rape their slaves at will as there were no laws against that either. With no concern for any children that might come from the forced union. In fact, there was a market for mulatto and octaroon children who would be purchased to work as domestics. Some owners (Thomas Jefferson) used their half-white slaves as their concubines, finding them more attractive the closer they were to white. Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, the product of her father raping a slave. Then again the master might sell their offspring to keep the peace with their wives who might be annoyed at little slave children running around who favor their husbands.

Not talked about in proper society were the children of free white women and black slaves. White women who weren’t sure what color the child might be could get a legal abortion those days. “Cottonwood” was a remedy known to slaves who sometimes refused to have children after being raped or as often as the masters would like. Some women would be forced to have over a dozen children if they survived as death during childbirth was relatively common. The rare slave would be offered their freedom if they produced enough children. Sometimes the dark child of a white woman was abandoned or given away. Usually just sold off although technically they were legally free.

View attachment 437108

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape | by William Spivey | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium

Partus sequitur ventrem legal definition of Partus sequitur ventrem (thefreedictionary.com)

Saying that because someone 20 generations removed owned a slave that his distant future relatives share in the responsibility for that decision is beyond stupid

Not that i disagree with everything you just said but that first sentence is ridiculous

20 generations ago the constitution was created. Think about that every time you try the argument you just used.

Because this not about who owned slaves it is about an attitude that has been carryied by whites for these 20 generations.

and how are people today responsible for what was written in the Constitution?

and not all whites carry that attitude

Since you don't say not all blacks about anything, don't bring that bullshit here. We live by the laws written in that document.

I actually do say not all blacks all the time. I'm not one to use a broad brush like you are

Don't forget my mother was black

 

[Likkmee]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them

Not a single one of my descendants sold Black Slaves.

That being said, single-parent families aren't exclusive to any one race or ethnicity. One can make arguments about the disadvantages of single-parent families, but race doesn't enter into the equation.

Mine bought a few. GGGgramps left 19 in his will. Good ole Mississippi. Preacher man with a feed store and a farm.

 

[Blues Man]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them are today the loudest talking people trying to diss the black community about single parent families.

When people start talking about race, there are just some simple realities that cannot be denied. If you are white and don't like how you are portrayed, start thinking about how unpleasant it really is for us who are not white to be portrayed as weak inferior people who got conquered by a supposedly superior race and culture. It is not a pleasant subject. For this to end we all must face the unpleasantness.

The doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem comes from European civil law. It means; “That which is brought forth follows the belly.” This principle determined the legal status of children born by slave women in the America as well as other English or European colonies In colonial law, the partus doctrine justified enslavement, the indigenous people of the Americas and of the Africans imported to various European colonies personal property of those who imported them.

During the time American was a colony, this doctrine established de facto and de jure slavery for all children born to female slaves. Partus sequitur ventrem exempted the father from his obligations to children he fathered by slaves thereby creating the ability for slaveowners to have their way with enslaved women. Under this doctrine the biological father had no paternal responsibility to any child born to a slave woman. Because of this the slaver was provided the right to profit from exploiting the labor of children born to slaves. It gave the slaver the ability to sell children by taking them away from their biological parents. Partus sequitur ventrem was the doctrine that created the first family separation policy in what is now America.

Despite the claims of Africans selling each other, the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem does not appear to be a part of the system of African slavery.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape

This was the legal doctrine that made any child of an American female slave a slave as well. It meant any white fathers had no financial responsibility for their progeny. They were free to rape their slaves at will as there were no laws against that either. With no concern for any children that might come from the forced union. In fact, there was a market for mulatto and octaroon children who would be purchased to work as domestics. Some owners (Thomas Jefferson) used their half-white slaves as their concubines, finding them more attractive the closer they were to white. Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, the product of her father raping a slave. Then again the master might sell their offspring to keep the peace with their wives who might be annoyed at little slave children running around who favor their husbands.

Not talked about in proper society were the children of free white women and black slaves. White women who weren’t sure what color the child might be could get a legal abortion those days. “Cottonwood” was a remedy known to slaves who sometimes refused to have children after being raped or as often as the masters would like. Some women would be forced to have over a dozen children if they survived as death during childbirth was relatively common. The rare slave would be offered their freedom if they produced enough children. Sometimes the dark child of a white woman was abandoned or given away. Usually just sold off although technically they were legally free.

View attachment 437108

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape | by William Spivey | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium

Partus sequitur ventrem legal definition of Partus sequitur ventrem (thefreedictionary.com)

Saying that because someone 20 generations removed owned a slave that his distant future relatives share in the responsibility for that decision is beyond stupid

Not that i disagree with everything you just said but that first sentence is ridiculous

20 generations ago the constitution was created. Think about that every time you try the argument you just used.

Because this not about who owned slaves it is about an attitude that has been carryied by whites for these 20 generations.

A Constitution that did not see blacks and women as equals.

and was amended to correct that

It was amended but words on paper don't means shit when laws aren't followed and women do not have equal rights under the constitution right now.

80% of Americans unaware men & women don’t have equal rights – director - YouTube

yeah OK

 

[beagle9]

The vast majority of white Americans had no ancestor buying/selling slaves, so stop with mass blanket generalizations. Black nuclear families were every bit intact as white families until about 1970.

No but they did have ancestors telling blacks to get in the back of the bus and dont even think about eating at the same table they do. Many still think that way.

And so do you think that they (white's) think that way without cause or reason, and do (white's) think that way in blanketing terms, otherwise to be based on the color of one's skin only these days, just like it may have been the case in times gone by now ????

Is the judging or profiling more about character these days, otherwise when a person, gang or gathered together group engages in certain anti-assimilated cultural activities being followed or is it rather that they are following created gang rules based on separation and discrimination against white's now, otherwise in which they are being judged on today by white's in that way or has nothing changed since the 60's and/or before then ???? Where are the white's and black's at on the issue's today ? Better or worse ??

 

[pknopp]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them are today the loudest talking people trying to diss the black community about single parent families.

When people start talking about race, there are just some simple realities that cannot be denied. If you are white and don't like how you are portrayed, start thinking about how unpleasant it really is for us who are not white to be portrayed as weak inferior people who got conquered by a supposedly superior race and culture. It is not a pleasant subject. For this to end we all must face the unpleasantness.

The doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem comes from European civil law. It means; “That which is brought forth follows the belly.” This principle determined the legal status of children born by slave women in the America as well as other English or European colonies In colonial law, the partus doctrine justified enslavement, the indigenous people of the Americas and of the Africans imported to various European colonies personal property of those who imported them.

During the time American was a colony, this doctrine established de facto and de jure slavery for all children born to female slaves. Partus sequitur ventrem exempted the father from his obligations to children he fathered by slaves thereby creating the ability for slaveowners to have their way with enslaved women. Under this doctrine the biological father had no paternal responsibility to any child born to a slave woman. Because of this the slaver was provided the right to profit from exploiting the labor of children born to slaves. It gave the slaver the ability to sell children by taking them away from their biological parents. Partus sequitur ventrem was the doctrine that created the first family separation policy in what is now America.

Despite the claims of Africans selling each other, the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem does not appear to be a part of the system of African slavery.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape

This was the legal doctrine that made any child of an American female slave a slave as well. It meant any white fathers had no financial responsibility for their progeny. They were free to rape their slaves at will as there were no laws against that either. With no concern for any children that might come from the forced union. In fact, there was a market for mulatto and octaroon children who would be purchased to work as domestics. Some owners (Thomas Jefferson) used their half-white slaves as their concubines, finding them more attractive the closer they were to white. Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, the product of her father raping a slave. Then again the master might sell their offspring to keep the peace with their wives who might be annoyed at little slave children running around who favor their husbands.

Not talked about in proper society were the children of free white women and black slaves. White women who weren’t sure what color the child might be could get a legal abortion those days. “Cottonwood” was a remedy known to slaves who sometimes refused to have children after being raped or as often as the masters would like. Some women would be forced to have over a dozen children if they survived as death during childbirth was relatively common. The rare slave would be offered their freedom if they produced enough children. Sometimes the dark child of a white woman was abandoned or given away. Usually just sold off although technically they were legally free.

View attachment 437108

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape | by William Spivey | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium

Partus sequitur ventrem legal definition of Partus sequitur ventrem (thefreedictionary.com)

Saying that because someone 20 generations removed owned a slave that his distant future relatives share in the responsibility for that decision is beyond stupid

Not that i disagree with everything you just said but that first sentence is ridiculous

20 generations ago the constitution was created. Think about that every time you try the argument you just used.

Because this not about who owned slaves it is about an attitude that has been carryied by whites for these 20 generations.

A Constitution that did not see blacks and women as equals.

and was amended to correct that

The statement was concerning 20 generations ago. While no one alive today had anything to do with it, those intervening years did a lot of damage. Those who still refuse to accept the changes still do damage.

blaming people for their behavior is one thing. Blaming thenm for what some people did 400 years ago is stupid

You haven't seen me do that. You can address what I said but we really haven't been discussing what happened 400 years ago.

 

[IM2]

The concept of the US is a great idea- however, men got in the way of what could be considered a success of a gov't securing liberty for the individual- it doesn't. It does favor one over another and often race is the issue. The more common issue is class- people always (until they suffer a rude awakening usually) look down on someone (anyone) they believe/feel they are superior to- that is a trait borne of aristocratic bearing- all societies have their aristocrats, who will sell their inferior class of people- it seems to make them feel even more superior-

The joke is on them though- they are inferior, morally- and do nothing to make their space a little better than they found it- instead they blame others for their failures, and they are many, to make things better-

No, the most common has been race. Whites who have not faced racism always claim it been more about class, but poor whites still help maintain white racial preference today.

 

[Blues Man]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them are today the loudest talking people trying to diss the black community about single parent families.

When people start talking about race, there are just some simple realities that cannot be denied. If you are white and don't like how you are portrayed, start thinking about how unpleasant it really is for us who are not white to be portrayed as weak inferior people who got conquered by a supposedly superior race and culture. It is not a pleasant subject. For this to end we all must face the unpleasantness.

The doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem comes from European civil law. It means; “That which is brought forth follows the belly.” This principle determined the legal status of children born by slave women in the America as well as other English or European colonies In colonial law, the partus doctrine justified enslavement, the indigenous people of the Americas and of the Africans imported to various European colonies personal property of those who imported them.

During the time American was a colony, this doctrine established de facto and de jure slavery for all children born to female slaves. Partus sequitur ventrem exempted the father from his obligations to children he fathered by slaves thereby creating the ability for slaveowners to have their way with enslaved women. Under this doctrine the biological father had no paternal responsibility to any child born to a slave woman. Because of this the slaver was provided the right to profit from exploiting the labor of children born to slaves. It gave the slaver the ability to sell children by taking them away from their biological parents. Partus sequitur ventrem was the doctrine that created the first family separation policy in what is now America.

Despite the claims of Africans selling each other, the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem does not appear to be a part of the system of African slavery.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape

This was the legal doctrine that made any child of an American female slave a slave as well. It meant any white fathers had no financial responsibility for their progeny. They were free to rape their slaves at will as there were no laws against that either. With no concern for any children that might come from the forced union. In fact, there was a market for mulatto and octaroon children who would be purchased to work as domestics. Some owners (Thomas Jefferson) used their half-white slaves as their concubines, finding them more attractive the closer they were to white. Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, the product of her father raping a slave. Then again the master might sell their offspring to keep the peace with their wives who might be annoyed at little slave children running around who favor their husbands.

Not talked about in proper society were the children of free white women and black slaves. White women who weren’t sure what color the child might be could get a legal abortion those days. “Cottonwood” was a remedy known to slaves who sometimes refused to have children after being raped or as often as the masters would like. Some women would be forced to have over a dozen children if they survived as death during childbirth was relatively common. The rare slave would be offered their freedom if they produced enough children. Sometimes the dark child of a white woman was abandoned or given away. Usually just sold off although technically they were legally free.

View attachment 437108

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape | by William Spivey | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium

Partus sequitur ventrem legal definition of Partus sequitur ventrem (thefreedictionary.com)

Saying that because someone 20 generations removed owned a slave that his distant future relatives share in the responsibility for that decision is beyond stupid

Not that i disagree with everything you just said but that first sentence is ridiculous

20 generations ago the constitution was created. Think about that every time you try the argument you just used.

Because this not about who owned slaves it is about an attitude that has been carryied by whites for these 20 generations.

A Constitution that did not see blacks and women as equals.

and was amended to correct that

The statement was concerning 20 generations ago. While no one alive today had anything to do with it, those intervening years did a lot of damage. Those who still refuse to accept the changes still do damage.

blaming people for their behavior is one thing. Blaming thenm for what some people did 400 years ago is stupid

You haven't seen me do that. You can address what I said but we really haven't been discussing what happened 400 years ago.

I never said you did that did I? No I did not.

The OP did it in the very first sentence of this thread

 

[Mac-7]

The vast majority of white Americans had no ancestor buying/selling slaves, so stop with mass blanket generalizations. Black nuclear families were every bit intact as white families until about 1970.

No but they did have ancestors telling blacks to get in the back of the bus and dont even think about eating at the same table they do. Many still think that way.

Same for various European immigrant groups. There was a lot of classism based or country of origin and religion in the USA. And the bold part I totally disagree with that. If anything white able bodied hetero male, bonus points if you are a Christian, is the target to go after.

I'm a Christian. I have never felt "gone after". No one tried to deny me the right to move into a neighborhood because I was a Christian. No one tried to stop me from taking my kids to a certain school because I am a Christian.

You are a prime example of a guilt-ridden white liberal

no one can fix the problems of irresponsible black people except the black people themselves

they have to change their bad behavior before they can succeed

 

[beagle9]

In the past people could get a job, work hard at it but then we pulled that rug out from underneath them.

Would you please tell my boss that I no longer have to work hard at my job?

I could use the break.

I look back at the neighborhood I grew up in 40-60 years ago and many of the jobs my friends parents worked at are gone.

Thank the globalist American's like the Clinton's, and the Chinese for that bullcrap.

 

[pknopp]

The vast majority of white Americans had no ancestor buying/selling slaves, so stop with mass blanket generalizations. Black nuclear families were every bit intact as white families until about 1970.

No but they did have ancestors telling blacks to get in the back of the bus and dont even think about eating at the same table they do. Many still think that way.

And so do you think that they (white's) think that way without cause or reason, and do (white's) think that way in blanketing terms, otherwise to be based on the color of one's skin only these days, just like it may have been the case in times gone by now ????

Is the judging or profiling more about character these days, otherwise when a person, gang or gathered together group engages in certain anti-assimilated cultural activities being followed or is it rather that they are following created gang rules based on separation and discrimination against white's now, otherwise in which they are being judged on today by white's in that way or has nothing changed since the 60's and/or before then ???? Where are the white's and black's at on the issue's today ? Better or worse ??

It's not a bad thing to note the problems in society. It's a bad thing to do only that. It's a bad thing to note only some of the problems in society.

Another example.

Man comes home from work and relaxes by having a few beers. He gets up the next morning and goes to work.

Mna comes home from work and smokes a little pot to relax. He gets arrested and loses his job.

 

[alpine]

it is funny to watch conservatives yelling and yapping about planned parenthood and then turning around blaming it all on race...

 

[pknopp]

The vast majority of white Americans had no ancestor buying/selling slaves, so stop with mass blanket generalizations. Black nuclear families were every bit intact as white families until about 1970.

No but they did have ancestors telling blacks to get in the back of the bus and dont even think about eating at the same table they do. Many still think that way.

Same for various European immigrant groups. There was a lot of classism based or country of origin and religion in the USA. And the bold part I totally disagree with that. If anything white able bodied hetero male, bonus points if you are a Christian, is the target to go after.

I'm a Christian. I have never felt "gone after". No one tried to deny me the right to move into a neighborhood because I was a Christian. No one tried to stop me from taking my kids to a certain school because I am a Christian.

You are a prime example of a guilt-ridden white liberal

no one can fix the problems of irresponsible black people except the black people themselves

they have to change their bad behavior before they can succeed

But you seem to think you do not.

 

[JoeMoma]

In the past people could get a job, work hard at it but then we pulled that rug out from underneath them.

Would you please tell my boss that I no longer have to work hard at my job?

I could use the break.

I look back at the neighborhood I grew up in 40-60 years ago and many of the jobs my friends parents worked at are gone.

And millions upon millions of jobs that never existed 60 years ago replaced them.

Low wage jobs with no benefits. We were never at risk of bankruptcy because someone got sick.

I worked in technology jobs for my entire career, before retiring and starting another one. I never once held a job that didn't have health care benefits, sick days, or vacation days.

Good for you. There aren't millions of those jobs available. With you everything is about me, me, me. Yes a few can land technology jobs. Those jobs are very limited. In a country such as ours we need jobs for millions.

 

[Gdjjr]

No, the most common has been race. Whites who have not faced racism always claim it been more about class, but poor whites still help maintain white racial preference today.

That's what you want to believe- class existed in Europe and Africa long before race was a factor-

 

[pknopp]

In the past people could get a job, work hard at it but then we pulled that rug out from underneath them.

Would you please tell my boss that I no longer have to work hard at my job?

I could use the break.

I look back at the neighborhood I grew up in 40-60 years ago and many of the jobs my friends parents worked at are gone.

Thank the globalist American's like the Clinton's, and the Chinese for that bullcrap.

There are far more than that who are guilty. But you prove my point.

 

[IM2]

The descendants of the same people who would break up black families by selling them are today the loudest talking people trying to diss the black community about single parent families.

When people start talking about race, there are just some simple realities that cannot be denied. If you are white and don't like how you are portrayed, start thinking about how unpleasant it really is for us who are not white to be portrayed as weak inferior people who got conquered by a supposedly superior race and culture. It is not a pleasant subject. For this to end we all must face the unpleasantness.

The doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem comes from European civil law. It means; “That which is brought forth follows the belly.” This principle determined the legal status of children born by slave women in the America as well as other English or European colonies In colonial law, the partus doctrine justified enslavement, the indigenous people of the Americas and of the Africans imported to various European colonies personal property of those who imported them.

During the time American was a colony, this doctrine established de facto and de jure slavery for all children born to female slaves. Partus sequitur ventrem exempted the father from his obligations to children he fathered by slaves thereby creating the ability for slaveowners to have their way with enslaved women. Under this doctrine the biological father had no paternal responsibility to any child born to a slave woman. Because of this the slaver was provided the right to profit from exploiting the labor of children born to slaves. It gave the slaver the ability to sell children by taking them away from their biological parents. Partus sequitur ventrem was the doctrine that created the first family separation policy in what is now America.

Despite the claims of Africans selling each other, the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem does not appear to be a part of the system of African slavery.

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape

This was the legal doctrine that made any child of an American female slave a slave as well. It meant any white fathers had no financial responsibility for their progeny. They were free to rape their slaves at will as there were no laws against that either. With no concern for any children that might come from the forced union. In fact, there was a market for mulatto and octaroon children who would be purchased to work as domestics. Some owners (Thomas Jefferson) used their half-white slaves as their concubines, finding them more attractive the closer they were to white. Sally Hemings was Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, the product of her father raping a slave. Then again the master might sell their offspring to keep the peace with their wives who might be annoyed at little slave children running around who favor their husbands.

Not talked about in proper society were the children of free white women and black slaves. White women who weren’t sure what color the child might be could get a legal abortion those days. “Cottonwood” was a remedy known to slaves who sometimes refused to have children after being raped or as often as the masters would like. Some women would be forced to have over a dozen children if they survived as death during childbirth was relatively common. The rare slave would be offered their freedom if they produced enough children. Sometimes the dark child of a white woman was abandoned or given away. Usually just sold off although technically they were legally free.

View attachment 437108

Partus Sequitur Ventrem — The Rule That Perpetrated Slavery And Legalized Rape | by William Spivey | Dialogue & Discourse | Medium

Partus sequitur ventrem legal definition of Partus sequitur ventrem (thefreedictionary.com)

Saying that because someone 20 generations removed owned a slave that his distant future relatives share in the responsibility for that decision is beyond stupid

Not that i disagree with everything you just said but that first sentence is ridiculous

20 generations ago the constitution was created. Think about that every time you try the argument you just used.

Because this not about who owned slaves it is about an attitude that has been carryied by whites for these 20 generations.

and how are people today responsible for what was written in the Constitution?

and not all whites carry that attitude

Since you don't say not all blacks about anything, don't bring that bullshit here. We live by the laws written in that document.

I actually do say not all blacks all the time. I'm not one to use a broad brush like you are

Don't forget my mother was black

No you don't and no I don't. I have consistently used the phrase white racists and you idiots start clamoring about how I hate all whites as if racism is an inherent white trait instead of understanding that I am talking about a part of the white race that practices racism. Now this attitude has been carriee by whites and it is stupid to think that I mean every singlecwhite person ever born has this attitude. So instead of the fragility, understand that this has been a continuining attitude in members of your race.

 

[Mac-7]

But you seem to think you do not.

Do not what?

 

[pknopp]

In the past people could get a job, work hard at it but then we pulled that rug out from underneath them.

Would you please tell my boss that I no longer have to work hard at my job?

I could use the break.

I look back at the neighborhood I grew up in 40-60 years ago and many of the jobs my friends parents worked at are gone.

And millions upon millions of jobs that never existed 60 years ago replaced them.

Low wage jobs with no benefits. We were never at risk of bankruptcy because someone got sick.

I worked in technology jobs for my entire career, before retiring and starting another one. I never once held a job that didn't have health care benefits, sick days, or vacation days.

Good for you. There aren't millions of those jobs available. With you everything is about me, me, me. Yes a few can land technology jobs. Those jobs are very limited. In a country such as ours we need jobs for millions.

Mike Rowe came to my town and did a segment.

Dirty Jobs

Today.

Fenton glass company to close production.

They were by far the largest employer in town. Now it's a restaurant. You could live on what you were paid at Fenton. Now you have to buss tables for minimum wage.

 

[pknopp]

But you seem to think you do not.

Do not what?

Your beliefs are on display here daily.

 

[Likkmee]

People as individuals are not responsible for what others did in the past. Society is responsible for trying to correct the wrongs of the past.

So while individuals have a need to understand today's problems, one can not actually address those problems without understanding the reasoning behind them.

Condemning others without taking all the issues into the argument is condemning only and solves nothing.

Well that excuse ain't going to cut it since individuals of the past created the laws we live by today. Our nations wealth is built upon what was done in the past. Public policy is created by individuals and those policies harm groups so please stop trying to use a micro level argument in debating a macri level issue.

Just stop dude. Nigerian Americans are the most likely group, by country of origin, to get a Master's Degree in the USA. There is nothing preventing anyone from moving ahead in the USA.

There are very limited jobs for people with master degree's.

30 million? 18 million? How many Americans are out of work right now?

Estimates of unemployment vary depending on the formula and data used.

www.marketplace.org