Is the US One Nation or Many?

For those who don't live in the US, here are some facts to consider.
The state of Rhode Island: Pop. 1.05 million, area 1,212 SQ. miles. Roughly a square 35 x 35 miles.
Yellowstone county, MT (where I live) Pop. 151,882, area 2,649 SQ. miles. A square roughly 50 x 50 miles.
In other words, you could drop the entire state of Rhode Island into the center of Yellowstone Co. twice, with room left over. We have 1/7 of the population, so about 1/15th the population density. About 125,000 of those people live in Billings, which is not the only town in the county. Yellowstone county is only one of fifty-three counties in the state.
The entire state covers 147,042 Sq. miles with a Pop. of 1.005 million. In fact, Montana has more surface water area than Rhode Island has surface area(1,417 SQ. miles). We have very different needs and wants than those on the East Coast.

This guy can't get even his basic facts right.

Adam Lanza had a rifle in the trunk of his car, but he used a pistol to do all of the killing inside the school.

Whatever editorial comments that might be made about George Ximmerman's motivations, the indisputable facts based on geography and forenscics are that rather than pursuing Martin, Zimmerman was near his vehicle and it was Martin who initiated a deadly force assault on Zimmerman.

Blacks " have it the worst in the US" because Blacks commit a hugely disproportionate number of violent crimes. Blacks commit over 1/2 of all homicidesand 2/3 of all gun homicides. When it comes to interacial homicides, Blacks are far more likely to kill whites than whites are likely to kill blacks. When one looks at multiple offender, interacial homicides that might be racially motivated, Blacks are far, far more likely to kill whites than whites are to kill blacks.

Once you correct for the extreme murder rate by Blacks, the white homicide rate of ~2 per 100,000 is quite normal compared to European countries.

Please don't bring strawman arguments into this.

namelessfly wrote:This guy can't get even his basic facts right.

Adam Lanza had a rifle in the trunk of his car, but he used a pistol to do all of the killing inside the school.

Whatever editorial comments that might be made about George Ximmerman's motivations, the indisputable facts based on geography and forenscics are that rather than pursuing Martin, Zimmerman was near his vehicle and it was Martin who initiated a deadly force assault on Zimmerman.

Blacks " have it the worst in the US" because Blacks commit a hugely disproportionate number of violent crimes. Blacks commit over 1/2 of all homicidesand 2/3 of all gun homicides. When it comes to interacial homicides, Blacks are far more likely to kill whites than whites are likely to kill blacks. When one looks at multiple offender, interacial homicides that might be racially motivated, Blacks are far, far more likely to kill whites than whites are to kill blacks.

Once you correct for the extreme murder rate by Blacks, the white homicide rate of ~2 per 100,000 is quite normal compared to European countries.

As has been recently proven again my communication skills leave much to be desired.

Once they get there they start to change. After all if people didn't then we would still be Englishmen with a Queen. That was what I was trying to convey in a too few words. My apologies.

For the EU question you provided examples of what you considered made the US one nation. But when I point out that the EU meets many of those same things they aren't by a different standard.

I am missing something in this. Probably quite a bit.

Which does make Donnachaidh comment, what is a nation, particularly relevant. To be honest I have no clue how to define it or what makes it so.

Especially in light of the facts that KNick brought up.

Thanks again,
T2M

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:You're welcome.

Once they get there, several things might happen.
Some of them stay. Some move on. Some go back.

EU/Europe = important question.
In the sense of nation-state, very dubiously.
In the old-fashioned sense of "people sharing the same
culture, or very similar cultures,
then IMHO yes, very likely, in many ways.
Once upon a time, that "nation" was called Christiandom.
Its political expression was called "Roman Empire."
Cities as far away as Moscow claimed to be "3rd Rome."

Of course, mine is the "expansive" or "liberal" view.
Other's miliage varies.

HTM

How is this a "straw man" argument?

Donnachaidh wrote:Please don't bring strawman arguments into this.

namelessfly wrote:This guy can't get even his basic facts right.

Adam Lanza had a rifle in the trunk of his car, but he used a pistol to do all of the killing inside the school.

Whatever editorial comments that might be made about George Ximmerman's motivations, the indisputable facts based on geography and forenscics are that rather than pursuing Martin, Zimmerman was near his vehicle and it was Martin who initiated a deadly force assault on Zimmerman.

Blacks " have it the worst in the US" because Blacks commit a hugely disproportionate number of violent crimes. Blacks commit over 1/2 of all homicidesand 2/3 of all gun homicides. When it comes to interacial homicides, Blacks are far more likely to kill whites than whites are likely to kill blacks. When one looks at multiple offender, interacial homicides that might be racially motivated, Blacks are far, far more likely to kill whites than whites are to kill blacks.

Once you correct for the extreme murder rate by Blacks, the white homicide rate of ~2 per 100,000 is quite normal compared to European countries.

A little clarification and elaboration of one of my points might be needed to explain things to the ignorant and unintelligent.


I certainly agree that the racial profile of murder is dangerous territory. It amazes me that so many can portray Blacks as innocent victims rather than the primary perpetrators of murder. IMHO, this political correctness does Blacks a disservice because it forces usto ignore the causative factors that are far more complex than just race. The biggest issue is the disintergration of traditional Black families. There was once a time when the out of wedlock birth rate and divorce rate for Blacks was lower than for Whites and their churches preached morality as well as politics. Now out of wedlock births by Black women who usually are uncertain of who the father is (some welfare office forms actually have room for multiple possibilities) is normal. Given the divorce rate, children born to Black women who are married are usually raised in chaotic, single mother families with a succession of live in boyfriends, one night stands and "Uncles."

You think that this chaos might explain why Black children die from being beaten, bludgeoned, burned, strangled and stabbed to death by their mothers, putative fathers, mothers' boyfriends and sometimes step mothers at such an appalling rate. (until recently, it was five times greater than whites). The FBI SHR statistics document the truth. Guns don't kill young children,
dysfypunctional families kill young children. Blacks kill their children atsuchan appalling rate because the liberal welfare state has had the effect if not the intent of undermining Black families.

Do you think that may be surviving this chaotic "family" structure and the resulting abuse might explain why so many Black males (not all or even most) grow up to be thugs who commit such a disproportionate share of homicides?

namelessfly wrote:This guy can't get even his basic facts right.

Adam Lanza had a rifle in the trunk of his car, but he used a pistol to do all of the killing inside the school.

Whatever editorial comments that might be made about George Ximmerman's motivations, the indisputable facts based on geography and forenscics are that rather than pursuing Martin, Zimmerman was near his vehicle and it was Martin who initiated a deadly force assault on Zimmerman.

Blacks " have it the worst in the US" because Blacks commit a hugely disproportionate number of violent crimes. Blacks commit over 1/2 of all homicidesand 2/3 of all gun homicides. When it comes to interacial homicides, Blacks are far more likely to kill whites than whites are likely to kill blacks. When one looks at multiple offender, interacial homicides that might be racially motivated, Blacks are far, far more likely to kill whites than whites are to kill blacks.

Once you correct for the extreme murder rate by Blacks, the white homicide rate of ~2 per 100,000 is quite normal compared to European countries.

I was speaking of this portion:

namelessfly wrote:This guy can't get even his basic facts right.

Adam Lanza had a rifle in the trunk of his car, but he used a pistol to do all of the killing inside the school.

Whatever editorial comments that might be made about George Ximmerman's motivations, the indisputable facts based on geography and forenscics are that rather than pursuing Martin, Zimmerman was near his vehicle and it was Martin who initiated a deadly force assault on Zimmerman.

namelessfly wrote:How is this a "straw man" argument?

Donnachaidh wrote:Please don't bring strawman arguments into this.

Insulting people will not encourage discussion, it only encourages anger and people ceasing to listen. Unless that's your goal, please do not do that; if that is your goal, go be a troll somewhere else.

namelessfly wrote:A little clarification and elaboration of one of my points might be needed to explain things to the ignorant and unintelligent.

You're right that the way our society is discussing this problem hides the reality of the problem. There is (what can be strongly argued as) a good reason for how we are discussing it, up until relatively recently even an implication of a crime was enough to get a black person sent to jail for decades or just lynched.

Since you're actually focusing on impoverished black people, I will take things from that perspective (economically well off blacks have about the same crime rates as economically well off whites). The disintegration of families is absolutely a cause, but it's not the root cause. The root cause is economic. The fact is where you see the worst violence is in the poverty stricken areas where those that live there (mostly black and Hispanic) see no way out, they don't see a way to ever leave that economic situation and improve their lot in life or their kids' lot in life. Because of that and the way we've allowed the media to portray everyone living in those areas a gang members, why should they feel the need to do anything other than live down to those expectations since that's how everyone will treat them anyway?

The solution to this isn't more gun laws. It isn't social support programs. It isn't longer sentences. It isn't capital punishment. The only solution is ecomonic, make it so if someone wants to they can get a job that provides a living wage to support themselves and their family, that will let them give their kids a better life than they've had. that is the only solution that will work in an effective long term matter. And it is absolutely a long term one, there isn't a short term solution and anything tried will take time. We need to change the socioeconomic reality of areas like Compton, Southeast DC, or South-Central LA. Even that will only have a limited effect until or unless something can encourage gang members to want to find a different life. This fairly accurately explains why that is so difficult: http://youtu.be/TAADWvRw8z4?t=21s

namelessfly wrote:I certainly agree that the racial profile of murder is dangerous territory. It amazes me that so many can portray Blacks as innocent victims rather than the primary perpetrators of murder. IMHO, this political correctness does Blacks a disservice because it forces usto ignore the causative factors that are far more complex than just race. The biggest issue is the disintergration of traditional Black families. There was once a time when the out of wedlock birth rate and divorce rate for Blacks was lower than for Whites and their churches preached morality as well as politics. Now out of wedlock births by Black women who usually are uncertain of who the father is (some welfare office forms actually have room for multiple possibilities) is normal. Given the divorce rate, children born to Black women who are married are usually raised in chaotic, single mother families with a succession of live in boyfriends, one night stands and "Uncles."

You think that this chaos might explain why Black children die from being beaten, bludgeoned, burned, strangled and stabbed to death by their mothers, putative fathers, mothers' boyfriends and sometimes step mothers at such an appalling rate. (until recently, it was five times greater than whites). The FBI SHR statistics document the truth. Guns don't kill young children,
dysfypunctional families kill young children. Blacks kill their children atsuchan appalling rate because the liberal welfare state has had the effect if not the intent of undermining Black families.

Do you think that may be surviving this chaotic "family" structure and the resulting abuse might explain why so many Black males (not all or even most) grow up to be thugs who commit such a disproportionate share of homicides?

namelessfly wrote:This guy can't get even his basic facts right.

Adam Lanza had a rifle in the trunk of his car, but he used a pistol to do all of the killing inside the school.

Whatever editorial comments that might be made about George Ximmerman's motivations, the indisputable facts based on geography and forenscics are that rather than pursuing Martin, Zimmerman was near his vehicle and it was Martin who initiated a deadly force assault on Zimmerman.

Blacks " have it the worst in the US" because Blacks commit a hugely disproportionate number of violent crimes. Blacks commit over 1/2 of all homicidesand 2/3 of all gun homicides. When it comes to interacial homicides, Blacks are far more likely to kill whites than whites are likely to kill blacks. When one looks at multiple offender, interacial homicides that might be racially motivated, Blacks are far, far more likely to kill whites than whites are to kill blacks.

Once you correct for the extreme murder rate by Blacks, the white homicide rate of ~2 per 100,000 is quite normal compared to European countries.

You speak as though the two issues were unrelated. The one strongest correlation between poverty and economic success is an intact family. Keeping the black family intact or encouraging them to remain intact would more effectively improve black economic conditions than any other single thing.

Keeping families intact improves economic conditions for children. Paying economic incentives to women to have children out of wedlock or out of stable nuclear families simply fosters the poor economic conditions you blame for these observed problems.

Donnachaidh wrote:snip

You're right that the way our society is discussing this problem hides the reality of the problem. There is (what can be strongly argued as) a good reason for how we are discussing it, up until relatively recently even an implication of a crime was enough to get a black person sent to jail for decades or just lynched.

Since you're actually focusing on impoverished black people, I will take things from that perspective (economically well off blacks have about the same crime rates as economically well off whites). The disintegration of families is absolutely a cause, but it's not the root cause. The root cause is economic. The fact is where you see the worst violence is in the poverty stricken areas where those that live there (mostly black and Hispanic) see no way out, they don't see a way to ever leave that economic situation and improve their lot in life or their kids' lot in life. Because of that and the way we've allowed the media to portray everyone living in those areas a gang members, why should they feel the need to do anything other than live down to those expectations since that's how everyone will treat them anyway?

snip

I didn't say they were unrelated, I said the true root cause was economic. That is only true from a solution perspective, the fact is you can't successfully pay people (which is what economic incentives are) to create a loving, supportive household. You can create economic conditions that make it easier for people to create that household but getting people to do that is not something that can be solved economically, it's not that simple. That is a social issue that their community must solve, any solution forced on them from the outside will not be as successful and will cause enormous resentment that will only make the situation worse. Those of us outside of those communities and cultures can only do what we can to encourage economic growth and moral leaders within the community/culture.

From a problem perspective, economic circumstances and family structure feed upon each other both positively and negatively. The only people that can improve the family structure are those within the community/culture. Economic conditions can be influenced some by those outside the community but economics is a tricky thing that we still don't completely have figured out and anything that alters things should be done very carefully.

PeterZ wrote:You speak as though the two issues were unrelated. The one strongest correlation between poverty and economic success is an intact family. Keeping the black family intact or encouraging them to remain intact would more effectively improve black economic conditions than any other single thing.

Keeping families intact improves economic conditions for children. Paying economic incentives to women to have children out of wedlock or out of stable nuclear families simply fosters the poor economic conditions you blame for these observed problems.

Donnachaidh wrote:snip

You're right that the way our society is discussing this problem hides the reality of the problem. There is (what can be strongly argued as) a good reason for how we are discussing it, up until relatively recently even an implication of a crime was enough to get a black person sent to jail for decades or just lynched.

Since you're actually focusing on impoverished black people, I will take things from that perspective (economically well off blacks have about the same crime rates as economically well off whites). The disintegration of families is absolutely a cause, but it's not the root cause. The root cause is economic. The fact is where you see the worst violence is in the poverty stricken areas where those that live there (mostly black and Hispanic) see no way out, they don't see a way to ever leave that economic situation and improve their lot in life or their kids' lot in life. Because of that and the way we've allowed the media to portray everyone living in those areas a gang members, why should they feel the need to do anything other than live down to those expectations since that's how everyone will treat them anyway?

snip