I wanted to add my own musings to Steven L. Taylor’s post at Outside the Beltway so I’ll do it here. Steven opens with the Reuters article about which I wrote last week. Here’s a snippet of what he wrote:
To be clear: I am not asserting some notion of guilt-by-ancestral association. But, at a minimum, understanding how a given person got where they are in the now matters. It all illustrates that as much as we want to pretend like we are all self-made, this is simply not true in the main. Even if we build most of the structure, we cannot pretend like some of the foundations upon which we build were not laid by those who preceded us. Some acknowledgment and understanding of that fact is requisite.
The rest of this post may be a bit stream of consciousness so bear with me.
I may be the wrong person to comment on this. I literally cannot remember a time when I was not aware of what slavery was, that it was evil, and had consequences, some of which may persist to the present day. I knew that slaves were sold on the steps of the old St. Louis Courthouse. I knew that’s where the Dred Scott case was originally heard and what that was. I knew what the Civil War was. At least three of my great-great-grandfathers had fought for the Union in that war.
Here’s something you may not have thought of. Some white people benefited from slavery but others were injured by it. The explanation should be simple. You can’t compete on a wage basis with a wage of zero. My ancestors mostly fell into that category—they were injured by slavery and did not derive a benefit from it. That might explain why some of my ancestors were abolitionists.
By the time Abraham Lincoln was elected president he had been speaking publicly against slavery for decades. His views were known. After his election in 1860 the southern states began to announce their secession from the Republic. First South Carolina, then Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee. It is not a coincidence that the Civil War started a month after his inauguration.
One thing that remains unmentioned: the percentage of white political leaders whose families benefited from slavery vs. the percentage of whites whose families did not. I suspect that the real implication is that a lot of old money is based on slavery. It should be obvious that not all whites have old money.
Steven transitions to remarks about a Gallup poll and I want to focus on those. There is a drastic difference between the views of white Americans on the vestigial effects of slavery on black Americans today and the views of black Americans. Twice as many black Americans (63%) as whites (32%) think that slavery has “a lot”. There’s actually more than one matter there. The mere difference in views is important but that’s not the only important thing. To what degree are black Americans right?
I think they are partially right but not entirely. A lot has happened in 150 years. Consider, for example, the percentage of out-of-wedlock births which is closely related to the percentage of single-parent households:
I think it’s not unreasonable to attribute the discrepancy between blacks and whites in prior to 1950 as being a consequence of slavery. But not the discrepancy between blacks and white after 1965. IMO some of that must be attributed to the Great Society program.
I’d like to see a breakdown of the rates among black women based on urban vs. rural as well. I suspect it’s a lot lower among black rural women.
When I was in high school Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address was required reading, with its meditation on providence working to bleed so freely for the just and unjust:
IIf we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which in the providence of God must needs come but which having continued through His appointed time He now wills to remove and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him. Fondly do we hope ~ fervently do we pray ~ that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’
“With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan ~ to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/06/19/family-life-is-changing-in-different-ways-across-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities-in-the-u-s/#:~:text=The%20shares%20again%20vary%20somewhat,both%20black%20and%20white%20women.
“Community type differences are also evident among both black and white women. About eight-in-ten births to rural black women (79%) are to unmarried women, significantly higher than the share in urban (68%) or suburban (63%) areas. Among whites, 33% of births in rural areas are to unmarried women, compared with 20% in urban areas and 26% in the suburbs. Differences in the share of births outside of marriage vary only slightly by community type among Hispanic women.”
I dont think you have ever lived in a rural area.
“In 1965, 24 percent of black infants and 3.1 percent of white infants were born to single mothers.”
In 2018 “For blacks, the number is 69.4 percent; for American Indians/Alaska Natives, 68.2 percent (Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders were at 50.4 percent); for Hispanics, 51.8 percent; for whites, 28.2 percent; and for Asian Americans, a paltry 11.7 percent.”
So by 1965 black people were 8x more likely to have a birth out of wedlock. IN 2018 only 2.5x as likely. Internally, black births increased by a factor of 3, whites by a factor of 9. So the discrepancy was widely set by 1965. The increase after that was larger percentage wise for white people so whatever forces driving the increase seems to have a larger affect on whites.
I think the evidence that it was the Great Society is weak at best. Much better explained by the number of available men.
Steve
What’s interesting to me is that unwed births rose and kept rising despite the increasing availability of birth control.
I can think of a number of potential explanations for that. One thing that cannot explain it is slavery of their ancestors 150 years ago.
Since out of wedlock births grew at a much slower rate after 1965 than it did for whites that might be true but it’s certainly part of the reason for the large starting difference.
Andy- There are numbers Dave leaves out. For example, the birth rate among unmarried black mother fell by about 30% from 1970-about 2015. The black teen birth rate dropped by 61% from about 1970-2015. However, the number of kids that married black couples have has dropped precipitously to below 1. So the issue is not that black people are having more kids out of wedlock, they are not. The issue is mostly that married black people are not having kids. And if you want to be even more precise, while birth rates have dropped for married and unmarried black people it hasn’t dropped quite as fast among the unmarried. Double the birth rate for married black people so its about the same as white people and you are close to, still a small bit above white rates.
https://timjwise.medium.com/black-kids-arent-illegitimate-your-data-comprehension-is-racist-lies-about-out-of-wedlock-836fa501b869
Of note, several authors have written on this topic and the numbers are pretty much the same. I have had trouble finding original data. I have tried 20 different ways googling average number of kids for black married couples and all I get is what percentage of black kids live in families with one child.
Steve
My interpretation of all of that is that the marriage rate is low. That’s something else I don’t think can be attributed to slavery. It was much higher a century ago than it is now.
Blacks aren’t alone in having lower marriage rates than historically. I believe that’s true across most groups–more evidence that slavery is not the cause.
Fifty years ago it might have been attributed to Jim Crow. IMO that has stopped being a good explanation.
BTW it’s not my data. It’s the NIH’s.