Comments by "buddermonger2000" (@buddermonger2000) on "Explaining America's Identity in 10 Ethnicities" video.

Honestly there's probably a few things likely exacerbated by Great society programs which got rid of much of the financial reasons for marriage and decline in church authority in the world which started to rid some of the cultural reasons for marriage and weakened away some of the greatest gathering places for the community (the churches). These 3 things happened around the time of that interstate displacement meaning it's likely a confluence of these 3 events as homes were lost, stress caused homes to break, and the cultural factors which kept families strong withered away.
159
Bro I don't even speak decent Spanish despite living in Miami now. My family probably assimilated harder than even most of the rest of the Hispanic population since my grandmother was from New Jersey, went to Puerto Rico, had some kids, my mom, divorced, went back up to Florida and married a guy from Alabama (who to this day is my grandpa), and my dad is currently married to a woman from Illinois. I didn't even speak Spanish for years while I was living with my grandparents because it was all white and I needed English not Spanish in addition to the fact that my grandpa didn't speak a lick of the language. Also the Miami accent literally is mirrored in Spanish and a local phrase is "eating shit" because it's directly translated from Spanish.
19
@acegarcia3719 Honestly it was. The reason for this was the need to assimilate but also an early age to do so. If I didn't have him in the house I likely would've had much more trouble with that but by the age of 4 I was only like 2 years behind on English language development which of course accelerated with constant practice in the home.
4
There's genuinely no precedent for this in history either lol. I don't think any country has been this good at assimilating other peoples besides maybe the Chinese. And then the absolute obsession with technology and progress has gone to an absolutely insane degree. We'll see if this can last.
4
Yeah I've felt it myself. Really weird how there's more Puerto Ricans in New York than Orlando where I've heard most of them settle at least in Florida. The fact that there are more there than on the island even weirder.
2
@miguelenriquez181 I'll be honest I don't know anyone who's gone back
2
Banking systems possibly but uh...I think he went over what gave much of those senses: mainly the British and Germans.
2
@forickgrimaldus8301 That's part of an ethnic group. And with the genetics being different enough to expect a mountain or desert between... eh...
1
Graf von Losinj ping me when it comes in please
1
Graf von Losinj Explain further? I'm confused.
1
It's honestly likely the same the issue is that you know... when you leave and then become completely replaced there for generations and the original pop was small to begin with it's mostly not much influence.
1
It also did historically
1
@Bogfrog1 I literally get told I'm less Puerto Rican lmao. Eh.
1
Well there's a specific region that got brought over which likely shares many similarities between each other
1
@ahmedmuawia2447 Sure, but that's localized economic conditions which is present quite literally everywhere. Cultural conditions however are usually less localized unless you have very different cultures in close proximity which could be the case with the African slaves but from what he said sounds like it was primarily from some specific groups which likely have traceable genetics to them. And considering how diverse the African tree is and how much it matches up with the cultural tree it's probably true that it's mostly from the same people.
1
But what's the importance of the famine beyond who was brought over because of it? This isn't a video about how the technology developed it's simply a cultural history of each group in the US with the brief explanation of the roots they had when they left. Once again what's the biggest part of the selective pressures? Only certain groups were frontier peoples in the US and even more importantly for a rather brief period.
1
They really haven't and even with that it's so much higher than any other group it's genuinely no contest. There's studies on racism on arrest rates (the study was police responses to calls vs arrests where if blacks were being arrested on mass that would be racism vs if just arrest on calls that's just doing their job to which they found almost 1 to 1 on calls. Blacks just happened to make up the majority of the calls. So... blame the callers who are also largely black).
1
36:52 "Suggests... something" lmao. Bro if you're saying this why include it? I imagine it's to further the idea of integration but sounds like you got caught up in something. Considering how the whole thing about conservatives is a love of American culture I can see it or perhaps it's just that Hispanics are very catholic. And that latter is probably what held you back. Overall just kind of funny. Great video.
1
Considering the wealth of the Venetians and their area of control that doesn't seem accurate. In comparison the South of Italy was kind of a backwater since even before the Spanish conquest of the region with little trade or wealth while the north experienced the Renaissance. So this statement is historically accurate unless somewhere between the Renaissance and second world War it became a backwater.
1
@MrIke86 Because welfare (at least the current system the US has) has results and incentives built in. Those incentives and results include not moving up the economic ladder and allowing women to do much better on their own than they would otherwise. However, in not needing a man, they do not get married. And marriage is the number 1 determinant in the life of a child from said parents. It's like saying women in the workforce depressed wages. Is it a good thing or a bad thing that women entered the workforce? That's up to personal opinion. However EVERY action has unintended consequences and i displayed what is potentially one of them. And so I'm wondering if that line of reasoning holds true.
1
@MrIke86 Welfare in the American context comes down to the systems that those in low income tend to use as they are under a certain income level and thus qualify for certain benefits in terms of subsidies and tax credits from the government. In this capacity, it is put into brackets with hard cutoffs. So the American system disincentivizes going slowly up the ladder as you'll lose the floor that it has given you once you make X amount of money. And so being one dollar less than that will give you more money than trying to say getting an extra 3k from another job. In this capacity, it incentivizes people to stay within that unless they've already built up a culture of working hard and genuinely fell on hard times. Someone who falls on hard times but is genuinely in a higher tax bracket will not benefit as much as someone who has always been in the low tax bracket as they will see a significant standard of living reduction despite being on welfare. This is the intention of welfare. It is not meant to be a replacement for income and only a temporary floor for people who'd otherwise go all the way to the bottom. However, what you will end up seeing in many cases are those who, because they were always in a low bracket and perhaps were never married, benefit more from staying on welfare than genuinely attempting to better themselves and get into a higher bracket or find a partner who can and is willing to support them. These are abusers of the system. My question, because this has seemingly not been studied besides a general trend around the same period which has many factors, is if this contributes to the decline in marriage in many populations specifically. Of course there are actually situations where there's a bit of a chicken and egg problem which eventually creates a cycle (such as the poverty created by drug addiction), and thus you do have to watch out for that as well. With marriage of parents being the NUMBER 1 determinant of the well being of a child from a given couple, I am wondering if welfare has this adverse effect of driving down marriage. Why is this not related to any of the factors you've mentioned above? While those factors will create local poverty, they're largely not related to the function of marriage. Marriage, in the legal context, allows two people to tie themselves together and fundamentally tie together their economic power. If this economic power is not necessary due to receiving that power from the government, it would be a factor which pushes out marriage from many of the economic considerations. I'm NOT asking if it has an overall effect on poverty. I'm NOT asking if it depresses wages. I'm not even asking if it is a bad thing. I'm asking in a very specific context, if it declines Marriage. Marriage, because it has such a strong correlation with these issues, is likely a confounding variable in poverty. It is enough that it is significantly correlative with economic power in general. Now it can often simply be a marker of social capital, but it's such a deterministic metric that it cannot be ignored.
1
@MrIke86 First thing to note is that your final point about the decision between work and welfare actually reinforces my point rather than actually criticizing it. And next, I also imagine you've noticed that the marriage rates fell off in a much higher capacity in one group than all others and did so much earlier around the same time where the original comment actually spoke about. They have not declined equally across all ethnicities. However, in this one there actually is a specific reason why it has declined across all demographics: women in the workforce. Due to reasons such as women's better performance in schools and the fact that women in general don't like men who don't make more than they do, they generally price themselves out of the dating pool. However, during the period in which this initial decline happened (which was almost exclusively 1 demographic), it fell precipitously largely without that confounding factor. This would coincide with the breakdown of their communities as a whole due to those things like the highway construction right through their neighborhoods. And finally, no it isn't actually sloppy. They're overall the number 1 indicator of outcomes for children regardless. I also mentioned as well that the correlation is strong even if it may not necessarily be the specific reason. You didn't read carefully enough. However your point where it's macroeconomic and political institutional is completely incorrect as it's visible on the micro level where those who "break out" of the cycle their communities are in are often those who have both parents in the household. If this failing can hold true on a micro level then it absolutely cannot be directly a result of those circumstances even though they can always be confounding variables. And the failing goes across all demographics. There are so many factors which go into making a successful marriage and staying together that becomes difficult to Quantify, but having two parents in the household has continually been the biggest correlation to success on tiny levels across demographics. It can easily be something about social capital but whatever it is that allows the marriage to stay together creates the ability for success later on. Btw on another note I'd like to remind you that you're on the channel which shows jews and Chinese owning entire economies despite being horribly oppressed and completely lacking any and all opportunity locally beyond what they create. So if you can accept that premise as true in any way you must accept that the problems we're looking for are declines in social capital or possible disruptions to that. Which is why I asked the question in the first place of if that at all contributed to decline in marriage and thus success later on. And what you brought up discusses precisely 0 of that.
1
@MrIke86 Well that is when they started to decline. And then in the 1990s there was a spike which then mostly held flat until about 2000. 2000 is when everything started to again go down and we're actually seeing a slight uptick in the higher brackets. However, I would like you to explain why income inequality would AT ALL cause this? Why would that matter in any capacity? It makes 0 sense as a corollary. The cultural story, would actually in many ways support this as while yes you have a destruction in families, that in of itself creates a new culture in which it isn't respected which then continues the situation. Initial events can change cultures drastically as a result of them and have lingering effects for generations because something happened. It's the reason why blacks who's ancestors weren't slaves do better than those who's ancestors were. A manifestation of a reaction of one event will not simply stop having effects. Those effects take generations to die down. I'm very interested in looking at the book that you're referencing. And actually it does demonstrate that in many cases. The institute of family studies shows that across demographics married couples are much less often to be in poverty. Regardless of educational level. It's a reduction of nearly 75%. There's nothing which is so connected to the chance of poverty as not being married and thus the idea that it's a cross section for race/gender/class is actually a lie on the face of it unless you know nothing about it. I'd love to compare the marriage rates of the US compared to Finland but it's really difficult to find comparable data. And finally, I can't believe I have to say this, BUT I'M NOT JUST REFERRING TO THE USA. Yes the struggles of the jews and Chinese historically are not the same as those of the blacks in the US. However, looking beyond the scope of the industrial age and the USA, you find the story holding true of them being effectively the merchant classes as that is all that they're allowed to do and then they own the economies of multiple countries as a result. Horrible specific oppression on these groups and then they still pull off dominating the economy. A specific example of this is modern Indonesia where they're actively discriminated against and 2% of the population, but dominate 70% of all businesses according to a book published by Amy Chua and used in a paper published by the University of Hawaii. And this is the type of result which leads to the ultimate conclusion that the benefits are in social capital within a given ethnic group that gives them a leg up on others and by the same token can doom them. Australians and Canadians are on a mostly desolate rock and mostly frozen wasteland but are as wealthy as most of Northern and Western Europe. Norway is an oil state like Saudi Arabia but with none of the corruption. And then Russia has been basically in a continual downward spiral since the collapse of the Soviet Union and their men drink themselves to death. This tangent is a bit strange to bring up, but they're a point here. These things all point to things which aren't simply structural but factors which are cultural. They show up on the macro level as well as the micro. Great potential can be wasted and literally nothing can become wealthy. This makes no sense if those structural and economic limitations are what's actually holding groups back. Our environment affects us that's not up for debate. However, we also have a culture that we build which in it has certain incentives that can lead people to success or failure. It's strong enough that you can pluck people from bad environments and they can be successful via almost exclusively a strength of culture. It's very interesting to see these things play out. And while I know you're dead set on structural and institutional forces as that's basically the default position of a lot of people because it takes the blame off of the group (and said blame easily creates an attitude of racism) without realizing the lack of agency that it creates, but it's an attitude which continues to ignore the result of macro-effects of individual decisions or the result of cultural effects because it's not okay now to say that some cultures are actually better than others (because it also easily slips into racism). It's the type of thing which facilitates the reduction of envy. But it's really only one part of the picture and people seem to not want to accept that. Which is the entire point of my initial question: "did this structural change, induce a cultural change which has since lasted to today?" and thus the source of this argument. Also worth noting that the political persuasion which is most present in academia (those who do the most research on sociological issues) since the 1970s has overwhelmingly been of one political persuasion. One in which believes in social constructionism and that people in many ways aren't actually individuals but simply formations of circumstance.
1