I’m not asking you to believe anything. You started off with racist President LBJ. LBJ got the Civil Rights bills passed. If you start off with racist LBJ and follow it with “self-annointed leaders” (MLK?), what other impression I am supposed to have?
I don't care what impression you have. LBJ was openly racist; the Civil Rights legislation was passed with Republican votes. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, James Farmer, Ella Baler. John Lewis were all self-anointed leaders.
I meant no offense. I explained why I thought you were Conservative. Who do you consider valid Black leaders of the time, if John Lewis, etc were unacceptable? Al Sharpton was born in 1954. Sharpton would have been 11 years old.
Regarding Moynihan, as you well know, there has been criticism of his solution to the economic situation in the Black community at the time. Moynihan viewed the problem as due to the matriarchal base of the Black community. The problem was the absence of fathers. His solution was to create a patriarchy with males in the dominant role. His solution seems to have been enlisting Black men in the military during the Vietnam war. Obviously, these men would still have been absent from the home.
Daniel Geary’s “Beyond Civil Rights” provides the competing interpretations of the Moynihan Report. Geary notes that targeting family structure alone may have been shortsighted.
At the time the book was published, Ralph Ellison noted Moynihan had no first hand knowledge of the Black family and criticized the book. On the other hand, both Barack Obama and Paul Ryan praised the book. You read can what you want to read in the report.
Moynihan was first of all prophetic. I don't have the time to look up all the references and studies involved; I do know that between 2000 and 2010, when sociology departments began allowing academic research to recommence, innumerable studies looking at all life outcomes (academic success, employment, incarceration, health, etc) which corrected for number of parents in the infants' homes, single parent households produced far worse outcomes for children regardless of race than multi-parent households. In fact, correcting for number of parents in the home erased most of the black-white achievement gaps.
There are studies indicating that, for Black families, access to resources is more important than simply being in a two- parent home. I grew up in a Black neighborhood with mostly two- parent families like my own. There were also single-parent families. The majority of children in both types of families went to college and are living successful lives, producing successful children of their own.
Edited to include the aforementioned analysis reported in the NYT
While an extensive literature has shown that children raised by both biological parents fare better academically than children raised in any other family structure, there has been little research to explain an important finding: living apart from a biological parent is less negatively consequential for racial/ethnic minority children than white children. To address this gap, I test two explanations that have been posited to account for racial/ethnic differences in the association between family structure and children’s educational attainment: socioeconomic stress and extended family embeddedness. I assess whether racial/ethnic variation in these two mechanisms explain group differences in the association between family structure and on-time high school completion and college enrollment for white, black, and Hispanic children. Results indicate that both socioeconomic stress and extended family embeddedness attenuate the effect of family structure on these two measures of educational attainment, though the former to a much greater extent. Differences in socioeconomic resources accounted for up to nearly 50% of the gap in these outcomes, and extended family embeddedness explained roughly 15-20%. These findings lend support for the socioeconomic stress hypothesis, which posits that the negative effect of familial disruption may be less independently impactful for racial/ethnic groups facing many socioeconomic disadvantages to begin with. Results are less consistent with the hypothesis that racial/ethnic minority children’s deeper embeddedness in their extended family network protects against the negative effects of familial disruption.
I’m not asking you to believe anything. You started off with racist President LBJ. LBJ got the Civil Rights bills passed. If you start off with racist LBJ and follow it with “self-annointed leaders” (MLK?), what other impression I am supposed to have?
I don't care what impression you have. LBJ was openly racist; the Civil Rights legislation was passed with Republican votes. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, James Farmer, Ella Baler. John Lewis were all self-anointed leaders.
I meant no offense. I explained why I thought you were Conservative. Who do you consider valid Black leaders of the time, if John Lewis, etc were unacceptable? Al Sharpton was born in 1954. Sharpton would have been 11 years old.
Regarding Moynihan, as you well know, there has been criticism of his solution to the economic situation in the Black community at the time. Moynihan viewed the problem as due to the matriarchal base of the Black community. The problem was the absence of fathers. His solution was to create a patriarchy with males in the dominant role. His solution seems to have been enlisting Black men in the military during the Vietnam war. Obviously, these men would still have been absent from the home.
Daniel Geary’s “Beyond Civil Rights” provides the competing interpretations of the Moynihan Report. Geary notes that targeting family structure alone may have been shortsighted.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt15jjdcf
At the time the book was published, Ralph Ellison noted Moynihan had no first hand knowledge of the Black family and criticized the book. On the other hand, both Barack Obama and Paul Ryan praised the book. You read can what you want to read in the report.
https://www.pennpress.org/9780812223910/beyond-civil-rights/
Moynihan was first of all prophetic. I don't have the time to look up all the references and studies involved; I do know that between 2000 and 2010, when sociology departments began allowing academic research to recommence, innumerable studies looking at all life outcomes (academic success, employment, incarceration, health, etc) which corrected for number of parents in the infants' homes, single parent households produced far worse outcomes for children regardless of race than multi-parent households. In fact, correcting for number of parents in the home erased most of the black-white achievement gaps.
There are studies indicating that, for Black families, access to resources is more important than simply being in a two- parent home. I grew up in a Black neighborhood with mostly two- parent families like my own. There were also single-parent families. The majority of children in both types of families went to college and are living successful lives, producing successful children of their own.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/opinion/two-parent-family.html
Wonderful. That anecdote is not universal, despite what NYT would have us believe.
Edited to include the aforementioned analysis reported in the NYT
While an extensive literature has shown that children raised by both biological parents fare better academically than children raised in any other family structure, there has been little research to explain an important finding: living apart from a biological parent is less negatively consequential for racial/ethnic minority children than white children. To address this gap, I test two explanations that have been posited to account for racial/ethnic differences in the association between family structure and children’s educational attainment: socioeconomic stress and extended family embeddedness. I assess whether racial/ethnic variation in these two mechanisms explain group differences in the association between family structure and on-time high school completion and college enrollment for white, black, and Hispanic children. Results indicate that both socioeconomic stress and extended family embeddedness attenuate the effect of family structure on these two measures of educational attainment, though the former to a much greater extent. Differences in socioeconomic resources accounted for up to nearly 50% of the gap in these outcomes, and extended family embeddedness explained roughly 15-20%. These findings lend support for the socioeconomic stress hypothesis, which posits that the negative effect of familial disruption may be less independently impactful for racial/ethnic groups facing many socioeconomic disadvantages to begin with. Results are less consistent with the hypothesis that racial/ethnic minority children’s deeper embeddedness in their extended family network protects against the negative effects of familial disruption.