Loyek takes his own sweet time coming around to it after having started so far off the correct path, but, no, it has nothing to do with skin color per se but poverty, a point which I made -- repeatedly -- long ago. Nonetheless, one would have to investigate life span by race in the South (including, in this case, Oklahoma) in order to arrive at the conclusions so easily jumped at by loyek. What a grand way to spend a winter's weekend.
I've spent some time in Oklahoma. My guess is most men there die young in bed. And I didn't jump to it. Someone else pointed out that many of the states you mentioned had a larger percentage of what we often call "blacks." Many studies have been done on diabetes, addressing the curious reason black men seem to be more susceptible to the disease. My only point was, people shouldn't be afraid acknowledging there may be a problem in USA that could be addressed more effectively if they were not afraid to understand it in the context of race. And most likely it will come down to, blacks tend to be more impoverished than whites. You could try to help everybody, or you could concentrate your efforts on a particular race. Today, it's hard to help a race without being labelled a racist. And in a round about way, those who label me are right. And that is my point. In some cases, it is better to be a racist.
But we can't drop "blacks" anywhere until we know for sure who is "black" and who isn't. If we can't rely on skin color, are you suggesting we use the person's zip code, for classification purposes?
ok, congratulations, you are color blind. Very few democrats achieve that level. I'm for addressing the problem, and the problem disproportionately hurts blacks. A rising tide should lift all boats, but for some reason it is not lifting the boats in the predominately black inner city. I'm all for the rising tide, even though it pisses you off to no end that it lifts the boats and yachts of the very rich. I am just concerned that for some reason, the boats in the black inner city are not being raised to the same degree. And you can treat all men equal under the constitution, or you can recognize that for some reason, some "groups" are not improving to the extent we had hoped.
its not necessarily poverty - which is a relative term... Its the sick and twisted incentives created by democrat's great society which caused a great many of these problems. Men no longer need to provide. Out of wedlock births are pretty much encouraged by these incentives. We have otehr govt programs which destroys families and the need to work. There are other factors... red lining for mortgages after wwII hurt the accumulation of weatlh opportunities for the middle class living in black areas. also... ironically the end of segregation. Black areas used to have thriving business areas and successful business men. When segregation ended... black people exercised their rights by shopping in once whites only stores. So while in the past there were a few black critical thinkers who argue that segregation was good... virtually no one else calls for that. But... I would like to see tax incentives for business owners who are black in underserved areas. Perhaps no income taxes for a decade in selected areas as long as the business owner can show they are on premises at least 40 hours a week.
Actually, it is, at least according to the studies I've posted, which I'm sure you read, loving knowledge the way you do.
Thank you for clarifying your core concern, I tend to share it. To be fair, people also self-report their race, which is the other half of the same problem.
Unfortunately, "or you can recognize that for some reason, some 'groups' are not improving to the extent we had hoped" is too often code for "it's all their own fault" (one need only spend a brief time reviewing the posts in this forum on this subject to confirm this).