If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If that is what this author has concluded then she is wrong. However even by her own analysis, at best only 25% are in rural communities. But it all depends on where you draw the lines for suburbs & rural vs inner city etc. which can be done to suit rhetorical purposes. I looked up the definition of "suburb" just to be sure and it seems there is no concrete definition, only that it sorta contrasts inner city, yet can also include inner city. So this is a dismissed argument.
Why would she be wrong? And why do you say it "depends on where your draw the lines"? We should probably dispense with a loaded term like "inner city" which has connotations based upon the socio-economic and racial makeup of the area. Her analysis is based upon a survey conducted by the US Census Bureau which has clear definition for these things based upon geographical delineations ...
The Census Bureau's urban-rural classification is fundamentally a delineation of geographical areas, identifying both individual urban areas and the rural areas of the nation. The Census Bureau's urban areas represent densely developed territory, and encompass residential, commercial, and other non-residential urban land uses. For the 2010 Census, an urban area will comprise a densely settled core of census tracts and/or census blocks that meet minimum population density requirements, along with adjacent territory containing non-residential urban land uses as well as territory with low population density included to link outlying densely settled territory with the densely settled core. To qualify as an urban area, the territory identified according to criteria must encompass at least 2,500 people, at least 1,500 of which reside outside institutional group quarters.
The Census Bureau identifies two types of urban areas:
Urbanized Areas (UAs) of 50,000 or more people; Urban Clusters (UCs) of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people.
"Rural" encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area.
The specific criteria used to define urban areas for the 2010 Census were published in the Federal Register of August 24, 2011.
The Census Bureau began identifying densely populated urbanized areas of 50,000 or more population with the 1950 Census, taking into account the increased presence of densely settled suburban development in the vicinity of large cities. Outside urbanized areas, the Census Bureau continued to identify as urban any incorporated place or census designated place of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people.
The Census Bureau introduced the urban cluster concept for Census 2000, replacing urban places located outside urbanized areas. Urban clusters are defined based on the same criteria as urbanized areas, but represent areas containing at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people.
"Rural" continues to be defined as any population, housing, or territory outside urban areas.
The author's point was that contrary to popular belief most African-Americans don't live in the "densely settled core" of large cities but rather in the "outlying densely settled territory" of suburban municipalities that are geographically outside their boundaries. Or to put it more simply, most African-Americans live in #2 below ...
1. City - Inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city
2. Suburb - Inside an urbanized area and outside a principal city
3. Town - Inside an urbanized cluster and outside an urbanized area
4. Rural - Outside of an urbanized cluster and outside of an urbanized area
And regarding the whole ancient Egyptian discussion you brought up which I hope you would agree is tangential to the thread topic at best I'll simply say this. From an actual ancient Egyptian temple wall ...
And you say ....
Originally Posted by el chupacabra
The "Egyptian" on the right could easily be a white with a tan.
Which clearly falls into the "Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?" category
Now these are just a couple of the pictures I posted of a modern day man from northeast Africa ... which is where Egypt is BTW ... juxtaposed against artwork that their ancestors left behind. But the ancient Egyptians where white dudes with tans? FOH with that nonsense!!!!
So, do you guys think that the Republicans will have the audacity to block all of Clinton's supreme court nominees (including Garland), not even giving them hearings?
If this is true, this is appalling, and is exactly why I want a Democratic landslide that forces the Republican party to reinvent itself.
Indeed. But there were 31 Egyptian Dynasties prior to the Ptolemaic dynasty. Moreover, ancient Egypt (locally known as Kemet) like most other African societies was matrilineal (not to be confused with matriarchical) so property and inheritance was passed down through the female lineage. So even in the Ptolemaic dynasty there's a very distinct possibility that it started off with a Greek ruler taking a native Egyptian wife/consort to have any legitimacy. And the Ptolemaic dynasty lasted only 275 years with Cleopatra VII as its last active ruler. With varying degrees of intermingling with the native population taking place throughout that time frame. Now keep in mind that dark skin is a dominant (as in not recessive) trait genetically speaking. So if the Ptolemaic dynasty remained purely Greek/Macedonian then they are by no means Egyptian. Full stop. Therefore Hollywood representations of Cleopatra shouldn't be touted as what real ancient Egyptians looked like. Period.
But if as some surmise Ptolemy took a native Egyptian wife/consort then the first generation after him would have been bi-racial something along this line ...
And if such intermingling with the native population continued then by the time Cleopatra VII came along we'd be seeing something that is technically mixed race along this line.
And I say "technically" because from a genotypical perspective that would be true but from a phenotypical perspective such a person would be considered "black" in the colloquial sense of the term. You see in the US the average African-American has 25% European ancestry ... but we don't see anyone saying they aren't "black". So let's not play that game that the only true "black" people in ancient Africa were sub-Saharan with the very darkest skin tone and no admixture with any non-African people.
Now was incestous marriage practiced by the Ptolemaic dynasty? Absolutely. Particularly in the later generations. The level to which it was practiced is subject to debate. But the bottom line is that the Ptolemaic dynasty was one ruling family. They don't constitute the native population of ancient Egypt as a whole. They were always seen as outsiders and usurpers which is precisely why they were constantly fighting off rebellions within the native population.
In any event, "Black" people in Africa have always had varying skin tones depending upon the climate in the region. Naturally. And any admixture with outside populations was absorbed. The point being the records they left made it abundantly clear what they looked like. And they damned sure weren't "white people with tans."
While I don't dispute that intermarriage is how it USUALLY works, in the case of the Ptolemaic Kingdom, it wasn't. The Macedonians were effectively a ruling class on top of Egypt, with their own private laws (=privilege). Ptolemy I Soter married several times, but only to Macedonian noblewomen. Ptolemy II and III also had all their legitimate children with noblewomen of Greek or Macedonian decent, and from that point on it is mostly sibling marriages, with one more noblewoman of Greek decent thrown in. Cleopatra VII would have looked Greek or Macedonian (and seriously inbred), even if the people around her appeared much darker.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
Lumping in "white nationalists" with the alt-Right is the latest dirty trick from the Left. It's similar to how they call all anti-Feminists misogynists, as if:
1. all feminists are women
2. all women are feminists
3. being an opponent if an ideology means you hate the people who are a part of it
It's nothing but a smear using the Left's name game. Are there white nationalists who attach themselves to the alt-Right? Yes. Are all white nationalists part of the alt-Right. Nope. Do they make up the majority? Not even close, they're a tiny percentage. It's similar to how a few on the Right like to call all people on the Left Marxists, only more insidious and better supported by the media.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
While I don't dispute that intermarriage is how it USUALLY works, in the case of the Ptolemaic Kingdom, it wasn't. The Macedonians were effectively a ruling class on top of Egypt, with their own private laws (=privilege).
Hence my point that the stereotypical depictions of Cleopatra are by no means representative of the ancient Egyptian population.
Hence the assertion casting someone who doesn't look like a native isn't exactly out there.
Indeed. But I was speaking more in general about how if one were to go by Hollywood depictions one would get the very distinct impression that the ancient Egyptians were white people. When that is simply not the case. My intent wasn't to comment on just this particular film.
That being said .... while on the one hand Liz Taylor being cast in that role can be an example of Hollywood "whitewashing"* run amok ... Cleopatra's ethnic background is subject to debate. So on the other hand ... it's probably not the best example to clearly express my point. My apologies for not being more precise.
OAW
* And yes ... John Wayne being cast as Ghengis Khan is another ridiculous example this.
The FBI is investigating the torching of a black Mississippi church that was also vandalized with the words "Vote Trump."
"The FBI Jackson Division is aware of the situation in Greenville, and we are working with our local, state and federal law enforcement partners to determine if any civil rights crimes were committed," FBI Public Affairs Specialist Brett Carr said in a statement Wednesday.
The fire at the Hopewell Baptist Church in Greenville, Mississippi, erupted around 9:15 p.m. Tuesday and did heavy damage to the main sanctuary of the brick building, officials said.
The Trump graffiti was found in big letters on an outside wall, they said.
Federal ATF investigators and Mississippi State Fire Marshal's Office investigators were on the scene.
Asked if the church had been targeted before, a spokeswoman for Greenville Mayor Errick Simmons said no.
"Not in recent years that I know of," Kenya Collins told NBC News.
I'm just glad you're finally bothered. It is arguably the first lie of this type he has told, where he essentially edited a video to tell a completely false version of events.
Gives you a fair idea of the sort of thing he would be likely to get up to in office doesn't it?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Obama mildly scolded the crowd, and defended the protester's free speech. For anyone to characterize that as berating the protester, that's insane compared to Trump inciting the crowd to violence toward his protesters.
At this stage in the game Trump's blatant mendacity is par for the course. Not saying it shouldn't bother you. But surely you can't be surprised?
OAW
Adjudication of Trump's mendacity is more complex than the man himself. He uses hyperbole without restraint, and has a gift for semantic imprecision which borders on the supernatural. He cares little for details, and operates with a cartoon view of how lying is the cost of doing business in politics.
This is outside the profile.
Perhaps I cut people more slack than they deserve. The reason I err in that direction is the hope the person is capable of some minimum baseline of empathy. It's a baseline I generally find absent only in people who have suffered brain damage.
This manages not to reach the baseline.
Whether real or pretend, it's a failure of empathy on such a simple level I actually am kind of surprised.
Obama mildly scolded the crowd, and defended the protester's free speech. For anyone to characterize that as berating the protester, that's insane compared to Trump inciting the crowd to violence toward his protesters.
Perhaps I cut people more slack than they deserve. The reason I err in that direction is the hope the person is capable of some minimum baseline of empathy.
Do you think Trump has shown empathy in his campaign?!? At this stage we have seen more than enough of Trump to make that determination. So why do you cut Trump any slack at this stage?
Originally Posted by subego
This manages not to reach the baseline.
Wow. Then I'd really not want to know what Trump has to do to cross it.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
He's shown enough empathy for it to be reasonable to think he meets the baseline. Like, he seems to care about his children (cue joke about how he wants to plow his daughter... hurr hurr).
This thing here is just a total disconnect. It's like getting knifed by a homeless person for giving them a quarter... after the homeless person took a few minutes to make sure it was premeditated as possible.
Honestly, it's so out there, I'm considering the possibility Trump has never seen the clip of Obama, and is relying on others describing it to him.
Didn't read the list but he lies about the most meaningless shit, too.
While Hillary lies about the most important shit, which is why she lost.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
That's not why she lost. She lost because she lost the rust belt, full of displaced manufacturing jobs and angry people that want their jobs back.
This. Just this. Everything else is beside the point. Sure Florida would have been enough to flip it even if Michigan does drop for Trump eventually (NH and MN seem to be going blue), but the main path was pretty clearly to keep the traditionally Democratic states and add Virginia and Colorado to get to 270 - and if that was the idea, she made remarkably few proposals to keep the rust belt.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
The rust belt bought the snake oil, that Trump would get their jobs back, even as they bought Trump's "Make America Great Again" hats made in China. There's a logic disconnect there.
Top