Why doesn't America hold the ghetto community to task?

[shortylickens]

I think there's something of a chicken and egg question here. If you're living on welfare in the ghetto, you can't give your child a nice home, or a good education, or even a father without losing your check. You CAN give a child a unique name, something that is his/hers alone, something of which to be proud, something which no one can take away. It's ultimately a bad decision, providing both negative feedback to future career opportunities and a false sense of pride (no one's name is a cause for pride), but it's what they can do.


That's a good point. Far too often for the sake of political correctness we pretend that cultures are value neutral, that each is inherently as good as the next. That prevents (or at the least greatly discourages) fixing the things that need to be fixed within that culture. But as someone said, we can't really unilaterally change someone else's culture. About all we can do is to provide honest opportunities for those who do want to work their way out of the ghetto, provide positive role models (those Tiger Moms again), and display the benefits of making better decisions.

Yup, if people tried saying white trailer trash was a culture and it needed protecting there would be all kinds of uproar.

 

[Incorruptible]

Huh? Proper english is what concerns you about the "ghetto culture"????

But I'll play, ok the rest of us want them to learn proper english too, now what?

Proper English is important but also other problems concern me such as the lack of employment, welfare and single parent breakdown.

 

[werepossum]

I don't think any of you understand the most important part.

You can't fix the problems of a cultural society when you encourage them. You encourage them by paying for them. You encourage them by supporting them. I know there are those that want to get out of the cultural problems, but when you support all of them - you support the worst of them the most. A free check delivered to your doorstep isn't a step in the right direction. Is there really a worse way to fix a problem then that? When you support something wrong in an encouraging way, it will only make the problems grow larger. Why this is too hard to understand for liberal american is simply a /faceplam.

Or do we need to go find some more signs that say "Don't Feed The Birds"?

Having to go to a homeless shelter at least takes SOME initiative.

Oh, I understand the problem, but people aren't birds. If birds are not fed and go elsewhere to starve, no big deal unless they are endangered birds. People however should not be allowed to starve, or go homeless, while we have the resources to prevent it.

I do get your point though. I'd have no problem at all with requiring that welfare people get down to the welfare office every day by 9Am to get their check, with money docked for tardiness and unexcused absences. However, all interaction takes money, and I suspect we'd have to spend rather a lot of money to be irritating enough to make these people look for a job rather than an irritating free ride.

Yup, if people tried saying white trailer trash was a culture and it needed protecting there would be all kinds of uproar.

LOL Where there is no political correctness or fear of being called a racist, there is still some good judgement to be had.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

We really need a graphical presentation of the change in cities over the past 20-30 years to truly emphasize the point of people moving further and further away from the cultural problems. It's just an ever expanding balloon. Here in Houston, we're at the point where a common commute is 45 minutes without traffic... which makes for a 1.5 hour rush hour.

 

[raildogg]

The system is flawed because the people are flawed. That system is making people even more flawed. And it goes on and on and on.

It is strange that the so-called educated people in power probably know that hard work and sacrifice are needed to change one's life in physical terms, such as getting an income, etc. Yet, these are the same people that are increasing government welfare programs, increasing lottery programs and all sorts of other programs to supposedly help the poor and the victimized. Have they totally forgotten that if something is given to you for free, its value is less than if it is earned? Therefore, the poor and so-called victimized say poor and victimized for their life and so do their children and on and on.

So, the people in power, the so-called educated people holding so-called important government positions are not helping in any single way. In fact, they are making the situation even worse by making the poor people even more irresponsible. This is done, of course, in the name of compassion.

This is to gain votes.

Let us ask this question: Since most people are corrupt, we can safely assume most politicians will be corrupt. So therefore, how can corrupt people solve anything?

The only way to solve these and all other problems is for people to change. It doesn't matter about the politicians. All these problems are a reflection of society. Just as the politicians are a reflection of society.

 

[werepossum]

We really need a graphical presentation of the change in cities over the past 20-30 years to truly emphasize the point of people moving further and further away from the cultural problems. It's just an ever expanding balloon. Here in Houston, we're at the point where a common commute is 45 minutes without traffic... which makes for a 1.5 hour rush hour.

Huh. Here in Chattanooga we're doing the opposite, building more and more housing in the city proper. I can see people walking downtown at all hours, whereas thirty or forty years ago . . . Well, let's just say you'd better have nothing worth taking, including your life. We do still have a serious crime problem, including a lot of murders, but that's primarily gang-on-gang violence. But many of our downtown districts, especially near the waterfronts, are booming and quite safe.

How a city takes care of itself makes a huge difference. If problems are allowed to fester, people will move away from them if they can, resulting in the city being avoided as much as possible by anyone with the financial means to do so. The city thus has proportionately more net consumers of services and less tax revenue to service these people. If problems are intelligently addressed, then the city becomes a place where people who like cities want to live and others want to visit, the city gets more tax revenue, and even more problems can be addressed.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Huh. Here in Chattanooga we're doing the opposite, building more and more housing in the city proper. I can see people walking downtown at all hours, whereas thirty or forty years ago . . . Well, let's just say you'd better have nothing worth taking, including your life. We do still have a serious crime problem, including a lot of murders, but that's primarily gang-on-gang violence. But many of our downtown districts, especially near the waterfronts, are booming and quite safe.

How a city takes care of itself makes a huge difference. If problems are allowed to fester, people will move away from them if they can, resulting in the city being avoided as much as possible by anyone with the financial means to do so. The city thus has proportionately more net consumers of services and less tax revenue to service these people. If problems are intelligently addressed, then the city becomes a place where people who like cities want to live and others want to visit, the city gets more tax revenue, and even more problems can be addressed.

There is some of that where I am as well - it's kind of... odd... I know what you're talking about. It's directly downtown that is somewhat making a comeback, usually with incredibly rich people buying huge ass expensive apartments in the downtown area.

At least, that's how it is for us in Houston. The surrounding loop of downtown? The shit of the shit. I guess some people want to just live where they work.

 

[chucky2]

That's what they've done in Chicago also. They've simply shipped and/or by hook or by crook (and, it's Crook Co, so we know how it was done) got lots of these folks out of precious Chicago and F'd up our neighborhoods. Now 'the rich' can enjoy the city and night have the blight be directly upon them. Meanwhile, our cities get to enjoy Chicago's problems...

 

[werepossum]

There is some of that where I am as well - it's kind of... odd... I know what you're talking about. It's directly downtown that is somewhat making a comeback, usually with incredibly rich people buying huge ass expensive apartments in the downtown area.

At least, that's how it is for us in Houston. The surrounding loop of downtown? The shit of the shit. I guess some people want to just live where they work.

A lot of our downtown condos and some detached houses are heavily subsidized, in the $170K to $220K range which is not out of line with reasonably nice houses outside the city. So it isn't all incredibly rich people, although there are some penthouse homes which are incredibly lavish (and incredibly expensive for our area.) Most of our incredibly rich people don't live within the city limits though, they live either on the water farther out or on Lookout Mountain or Signal Mountain. To the degree that Chattanooga has added downtown housing, it's slanted more toward middle class than to lower class or upper class. Apartments I've worked on have been more middle class as well - although when an architect insists on preserving the historic inside brick walls and the historic outside brick walls (and thus no insulation) one had best have an upper class income if one wishes to keep the heat on. The commercial development is largely aimed at tourism, although most of the restaurants are inexpensive enough for domestic middle class patronage. Typically in the range of Chili's, TGIF or such, although certainly there are places where one can get an $80 steak if one so wishes.

 

[woolfe9998]

I've seen this too. I remember one time on the back of the bus going to/from the college I was attending to the local mall, there were a few black girls on the bus, and I poignantly remember one of them chastising the other one for "acting white", and "speaking white".

I was thinking, that's pretty bad, when the blacks of this country try to keep their fellow black people from being educated, or at least acting and speaking in an educated manner. For crying out loud, these were college students! They were supposed to be getting an education.

These anecdotes are pretty pointless. Anyway, as Spungo pointed out earlier, there is another version of this problem which is not ethnically specific and I suspect is far more pervasive. It starts in high school, and seems to be worse among females than males. It's the idea that learning or paying attention to your studies makes you some kind of a nerd. I encountered this attitude everywhere when I went to high school back in the 1980's. My daughter encountered it throughout high school and it had a profound effect on her. She's a super-achiever because she wants a high paying job but is totally anti-intellectual and has no attention span for any intellectual topic, whether it's politics, economics (her major BTW), art, science, philosophy, anything. This in spite of our best efforts to the contrary. It was all part of wanting to be one of the "popular" kids in school. It's an under-rated problem because it doesn't have any ethnic implications.

Another anecdote, yes. But it isn't any more or less persuasive than the anecdotes offered on "acting white."

 

[werepossum]

These anecdotes are pretty pointless. Anyway, as Spungo pointed out earlier, there is another version of this problem which is not ethnically specific and I suspect is far more pervasive. It starts in high school, and seems to be worse among females than males. It's the idea that learning or paying attention to your studies makes you some kind of a nerd. I encountered this attitude everywhere when I went to high school back in the 1980's. My daughter encountered it throughout high school and it had a profound effect on her. She's a super-achiever because she wants a high paying job but is totally anti-intellectual and has no attention span for any intellectual topic, whether it's politics, economics (her major BTW), art, science, philosophy, anything. This in spite of our best efforts to the contrary. It was all part of wanting to be one of the "popular" kids in school. It's an under-rated problem because it doesn't have any ethnic implications.

This is all true, but it's worse on blacks both because the stigma of "acting white" is stronger (as well as additive to the nerd thing) and because on average, blacks start at a lower socioeconomic level. With an equal disdain of learning, the daughter of a two-parent lawyer household will on average succeed to a much greater level than will the daughter of a single mother on welfare or than even the daughter of two strong and loving parents who are simply unable to afford a home in a school district that does not suck. You no doubt provide your daughter with as much advantage in education as possible, and even if she intentionally does not study, she's going to pick up much more than will someone who intentionally doesn't study in a school where just not having any kids murdered or O.D.'d during the school year is considered teacher success. And if she is black, she'll also have the added burden of racism on top of any other disadvantages, so that she'll need to be better prepared just to succeed at the same level even though both the available opportunities and the barriers are stacked against her doing as well. (Obviously this ignores Affirmative Action, but the fast majority of blacks are never going to materially benefit from Affirmative Action.)

Put it this way: Your daughter is going to do the minimum to get by, avoiding the stigma of being a nerd and also the stigma of being left back a year. In a really good school, that minimum will be a fairly thorough education. In a really bad school, that minimum will be showing up regularly. I'd agree that in one of the better school districts fear of "acting white" will not be a significant factor compared to fear of being thought a nerd. But with blacks (and also Hispanics), the law of averages means that far fewer will be lucky enough to be have that lifestyle, and that limits their ability (again, only on average, not intrinsically due to race or ethnicity) to deliver that kind of lifestyle to their children.

If a black child has parents able to provide a higher quality education, that child likely has parents who are good role models, so "acting white" would simply be a puzzling remark. It's those blacks who are trapped in the ghetto with poor quality schools, where educated blacks are the exception, who are susceptible to charges of "acting white" by their peers.

 

[HeXen]

So what's the answer to the problem? No one seems to be addressing that. I suspect any real solution would be disliked by most and there lies the true problem.
Maybe we need to start gradually tearing down the ghetto's and refocus spending so that all schools get equal but no one wants that. Rather let's just let the vicious cycle keep repeating itself because we live in a world designed for the benefits of the wealthy and no other.

 

[werepossum]

So what's the answer to the problem? No one seems to be addressing that. I suspect any real solution would be disliked by most and there lies the true problem.
Maybe we need to start gradually tearing down the ghetto's and refocus spending so that all schools get equal but no one wants that. Rather let's just let the vicious cycle keep repeating itself because we live in a world designed for the benefits of the wealthy and no other.

I'm not sure there is a solution that can be imposed from outside. As Spungo and Woolfe point out, the same problem also exists in a non-ethnic, non-ghetto form. We simply aren't a nation that uniformly values hard work, intelligence and education.

It's all well and good to propose tearing down the ghettos and making everybody equal, but that also destroys the incentive to actually be smart, work hard, and get an education. Why bother if there's no payoff? There's an old saying that rich people keep doing the things that make them rich and poor people keep doing the things that make them poor, and to a degree that's a good thing. As we saw with Soviet Russia, removing the incentive to be smart, work hard, and get a useful education doesn't lift everyone up, it pushes everyone down. That egalitarian stuff looks good through rose-colored glasses, but in the real world it's a short road to a society where a very small number of very wealthy and powerful elites rule over a vast mass of unmotivated and lethargic poor people.