YAABMT (The reason why black men are always portrayed as criminals)

[Arkitech]

Obviously this post is in response to Darkstar's earlier thread about the perception of black men. As much as I hate to say it a lot of the negative stereotypes of black men today comes directly from their own actions and behavior. It's appalling how so many blacks embrace the so called "ghetto" and "thug" culture. These days it's cool to look like a criminal, play music at deafening levels while driving and "trickin" out the ride but live in low income housing. It's insane, so really how can anyone blame other races for looking at that type of lifestyle and shaking their heads.

Some of the blame can be placed on the media, but let's be realistic people need to be accountable for their own actions. Parents in the black community need to set better examples for their children, no goverment program or impassioned speaker of civil rights can take the place of simple yet positive parental training.

Darkstar however does have a point in saying that not all black men are criminals. I'm not a criminal, none of my close black friends are either, however I do have relatives and some "aquaintances" who are. I guess what I'm saying is that it's hard to combat negative stereotypes when a signficant group of people simply don't care enough to change that perception of themselves. I firmly believe Bill Cosby is doing the right thing by speaking the hard truth. F*ck blaming other people and society, if you want change get off your ass and work for it.

 

[OrganizedChaos]

with 1/8th of all black males in the country in prison its hard not to sterotype.
on the other hand 7/8 black males are not in prison but when you word it like that it dosen't sound nearly impressive.

 

[DJFuji]

bravo, arkitech. Well said. It's too bad that cultural values are so deeply rooted. They're very hard to change. If you compare lower class whites to lower class blacks, i think the big difference is that most whites ridicule and look down on lower class whites (so called "trailer trash"). On the other hand, many blacks (and many other races) embrace the lower class black community as "cool" and "hip." It's fine to understand your roots, but to actively embrace a crime, ignorance, and hate-filled existence is detrimental to any society.

 

[KarenMarie]

I read somewhere that black on black crimes are high. Higher than white on black and black on white.

Don't know if it is true, as for every one report saying one thing, there is another saying the opposite.

 

[vi edit]

***random comments from a small town cracker***

Lot's issues need to be addressed -

1) Single parent households in the black community are much, much higher than most other cultural/ethnic backgrounds. It's a root of many problems - half the guidance and supervision, half (if not more of a lack) of income to provide food, safe shelter, and other ammenities. You also lose a male role model in the home.

2) A gathering of peers that tries to supress excelling in education and other "white" activities. Many blacks shun their peers that try to excell in school. It's a travesty. The thug and hoodlum culture needs to be thrown down and education and success in meaningful ways needs to be rejoyced.

3) A terrible role model community? Who does the black community look to for role models? Professional athletes? Rap artists? There's nothing wrong with looking up to these people, but you have to understand that you have a lotto winning chance of hell of actually being where they are at some point in your life. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be a professional athlete, but you need to make sure that you have something to fall back on when those dreams can't come true.

4) Get over the "White man is bringing us down!" attitude. It hasn't helped in 40 years, won't help now, and won't get you anywhere. Start doing positive things with yourselves and show the white man up!

The white community isn't without it's black sheep (sorry for the term). We've got rednecks and trailer trash. That community is huge into drugs (meth for the most part), is abusive, crude, and largely a buch of toothless fools, but they don't blame people for what they are.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
***random comments from a small town cracker***

1) Single parent households in the black community are much, much higher than most other cultural/ethnic backgrounds. It's a root of many problems - half the guidance and supervision, half (if not more of a lack) of income to provide food, safe shelter, and other ammenities. You also lose a male role model in the home.
.

Firstly, your comments about single-parent households are laden with cultural bias. It is a commonly exercised stereotype to assume that Black mothers a.) sleep around and b.) are bad or inaedquate mothers in general. This is both untrue and while there are exception to be noted, there is no evidence to show that Black mothers are incapable of raising a child on their own, nonetheless no evidence to show that those children grow up maladjusted in any way. This is a cultural stigma associated with single-parent households, single mothers, and/or children born out of wedlock. ALSO, what makes you so sure that children growing up will lack a male role model in the home, and that the simple PRESENCE of a male role model at home is in some way supposed to make "things better?" Odd, isn't it, that we assume that having a father in the home is supposed to solve all sorts of problems, when in fact the father can be causing a large majority of the problems - your analysis fails to take into account the fact that there are dozens of households out there with abusive, deadbeat, nonworking fathers who beat their children and wives. More than often, older siblings, friends, relatives, or other community adults serve as male role models for the children of male sex. So the bottom line is: while single-parent households may have less income than two-income households, there is nothing to substantiate the claim that single-parents are incapable of providing for their children.

The "root" of the problem lies in the dozens of socioeconomic inequalities presented to minorities in this country, all centered around the lack of good publically-funded education. It is no generalization to say that minorities have recieved the short end of the stick when it comes to school districts, inner-city schools almost always having smaller budgets for larger numbers of students compared to wealthier suburban districts. Target education, dump money into the schools for better facilities, programs, teachers, and learning tools, and you will see improvement over the course of a generation - higher grades, lower crime, higher college enrollment, and vast differences in socioeconomic inequality.

 

[vi edit]

Firstly, your comments about single-parent households are laden with cultural bias. It is a commonly exercised stereotype to assume that Black mothers a.) sleep around and b.) are bad or inaedquate mothers in general. This is both untrue and while there are exception to be noted, there is no evidence to show that Black mothers are incapable of raising a child on their own, nonetheless no evidence to show that those children grow up maladjusted in any way. This is a cultural stigma associated with single-parent households, single mothers, and/or children born out of wedlock. ALSO, what makes you so sure that children growing up will lack a male role model in the home, and that the simple PRESENCE of a male role model at home is in some way supposed to make "things better?" Odd, isn't it, that we assume that having a father in the home is supposed to solve all sorts of problems, when in fact the father can be causing a large majority of the problems - your analysis fails to take into account the fact that there are dozens of households out there with abusive, deadbeat, nonworking fathers who beat their children and wives. More than often, older siblings, friends, relatives, or other community adults serve as male role models for the children of male sex. So the bottom line is: while single-parent households may have less income than two-income households, there is nothing to substantiate the claim that single-parents are incapable of providing for their children.

I'm sorry, but there is something to be said about having two parents in a household. Sure having one good one is better than having a good one and a terrible one. But, one parent can not do the job as well as two good parents. You can make all the rebutals you want, but there is some value in having two adults in a household. You can make up for the others weaknesses. One can be good in social areas, the other in educational. Ect. You also have a different person to go to advice when needed.

When you have two parents one of them isn't stuck doing all of the work. They can offload when needed to make more time for the kids. They'll have a better chance of making it to school activities, teacher conferences, sporting events, ect. They can pick you up and drop you off at school easier. Ect. I'm not saying that it has to be the typical suburb white folk family with mom, dad, two kids, a dog and minivan, but there is some merit in having that sort of structure.

 

[DJFuji]

i refuse to believe that the root of the problem is socioeconomic inequality. That may play a role, yes, but i don't think that's the primary problem in this scenario. If that were true, all minorities would be equally oppressed and equally unsuccessful. The reason there is a large difference between success rates of varying racial backgrounds is largely because the CULTURES are different and tend to stress different things. Why do you think blacks are so much better at basketball and singing than asians? It may be partly due to natural abilities, but that huge difference is more likely because of cultural differences and views.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Firstly, your comments about single-parent households are laden with cultural bias. It is a commonly

I'm sorry, but there is something to be said about having two parents in a household. Sure having one good one is better than having a good one and a terrible one. But, one parent can not do the job as well as two good parents. You can make all the rebutals you want, but there is some value in having two adults in a household. You can make up for the others weaknesses. One can be good in social areas, the other in educational. Ect. You also have a different person to go to advice when needed.

When you have two parents one of them isn't stuck doing all of the work. They can offload when needed to make more time for the kids. They'll have a better chance of making it to school activities, teacher conferences, sporting events, ect. They can pick you up and drop you off at school easier. Ect. I'm not saying that it has to be the typical suburb white folk family with mom, dad, two kids, a dog and minivan, but there is some merit in having that sort of structure.

I'm not saying that single parent households are in some way 'better' than two-parent households. Certainly, there are many benefits of having two parents in the household - both economic and social but remember - you are discussing idealistic times and idealistic situations. The majority of two-income earner households have relegated the role of early-age childrearing to grandparents, nannies, or daycare facilities, and even less on the mother and father, who are often pulling 40+-hour weeks. That's an entirely separate issue, however. What I find troublesome is your contention in the intitial post that single-parent households are a core issue of the problems facing Black communities today. I find that hard to believe because there is plenty of evidence to show that single-parent families are completely capable of producing vibrant and intelligent members of society, just as well as two-parent households. The problem is not going to be solved by men simply being present at home - that is a conclusion which unfairly stereotypes single parent mothers.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: DJFuji
i refuse to believe that the root of the problem is socioeconomic inequality. That may play a role, yes, but i don't think that's the primary problem in this scenario. If that were true, all minorities would be equally oppressed and equally unsuccessful. The reason there is a large difference between success rates of varying racial backgrounds is largely because the CULTURES are different and tend to stress different things. Why do you think blacks are so much better at basketball and singing than asians? It may be partly due to natural abilities, but that huge difference is more likely because of cultural differences and views.

Socioeconomic inequality you are downplaying more than you believe. For example, using your sports example - why are Blacks dominant in the NBA and whites in Hockey? Certainly, it may be cultural as you suggest, but socioeconomic values are rooted in culture - basketball is part of Black culture because it is more feasible, generally, for Blacks to grab a $20 basketball and go to the local basketball court to shoot hoops than it is to don a pair of $120 skates, an assortment of more expensive hockey equipment, find a local rink and play hockey. The latter is a characteristic associated more with whites or those of higher economic status - subsequently, we have three Black players in the NHL (who are beasts on the ice I might add), and predominantly white audiences at hockey games.

Edit: Socioeconomic inequality, as far as I see it, is the crux of the issue because it is inextricably tied to quality of education, which eventually translates (most often) into quality of life.

 

[DaveSimmons]

One difference I read about, in statements from the educators themselves, is that parents in the suburbs are much more involved in their children's education: in helping with homework and seeing that homework gets done, in parent-teacher activities, and in raising extra funds for their schools to supplement state funding.

This is one example where having two parents would help, since one good parent working full-time (or more) as well as taking care of cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc. just doesn't have as much time left to be involved with their children's schooling.

It's a fact that suburban parents have chosen to tax themselves higher at the city level and open their checkbooks to give their kids better-funded schools (as a supplement to state and federal funding which is not skewed towards the suburbs).

But it's also true that students in inner-city schools are choosing not to fully use the educational opportunities that are available to them. If parents were demanding that the kids show up, be polite and attentive, and do their homework, then a lot more learning would take place and we might even be able to get rid of the metal detectors and trade some security staff for more teachers.

 

[DJFuji]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: DJFuji
i refuse to believe that the root of the problem is socioeconomic inequality. That may play a role, yes, but i don't think that's the primary problem in this scenario. If that were true, all minorities would be equally oppressed and equally unsuccessful. The reason there is a large difference between success rates of varying racial backgrounds is largely because the CULTURES are different and tend to stress different things. Why do you think blacks are so much better at basketball and singing than asians? It may be partly due to natural abilities, but that huge difference is more likely because of cultural differences and views.

Socioeconomic inequality you are downplaying more than you believe. For example, using your sports example - why are Blacks dominant in the NBA and whites in Hockey? Certainly, it may be cultural as you suggest, but socioeconomic values are rooted in culture - basketball is part of Black culture because it is more feasible, generally, for Blacks to grab a $20 basketball and go to the local basketball court to shoot hoops than it is to don a pair of $120 skates, an assortment of more expensive hockey equipment, find a local rink and play hockey. The latter is a characteristic associated more with whites or those of higher economic status - subsequently, we have three Black players in the NHL (who are beasts on the ice I might add), and predominantly white audiences at hockey games.

Edit: Socioeconomic inequality, as far as I see it, is the crux of the issue because it is inextricably tied to quality of education, which eventually translates (most often) into quality of life.

Good points about basketball. Hadn't thought about that. However, isn't studying equally as inexpensive? What about reading? How expensive is the library? What percentage of parents do you think take their kids to the library?

I'm thinking that black culture has a lot to do with the emphasis they place on things. Wrestling is equally, if not more inexpensive to play than basketball. Why do blacks not dominate that sport? Could it be because their culture does not actively endorse it? From my own experience, those that do wrestle are very good at it. i'd estimate that the demographics are very similar to local population demographics, though, because there is no special emphasis placed on that sport.

Socioeconomic influences are certainly present in many minority (and even white) areas and neighborhoods. But I believe that what's holding the black community back RELATIVE TO OTHER MINORITIES is cultural influences and views. Take two kids, equally poor and with equally uneducated parents.

Kid A lives in a society and culture that pushes him to be a basketball player, singer, or entertainer. Nothing wrong with that. But his culture never pushes him to do well in school. And it won't really matter since he's destined to make large amounts of money once he accomplishes those aforementioned goals. When he does do well in school because he is interested in a certain subject, his peers ridicule him, telling him he's a 'sellout' and that he's acting "white." Similarly, when he strays from the local dialect because he is being taught "proper" english at school, he is also ridiculed as being white. When he fails in school, his peers and his culture tell him that it's because of his skin color and because the world is out to get him. It is because the "white man" is oppressing him. Consequently, this child never assumes responsibility for his actions. He merely rationalizes all of his failures with these things that his culture and society have taught him.

Kid B also lives in an equally poor area of town. He attends the same school but english is his second language. His parents, while both working and struggling to stay afloat, push him hard to do well in school so that he does not have to work 12 hour days to make ends meet like they do. His parents try to help him in school as best as they can, and they are constantly pushing him harder. When Kid B wants to go play sports before his homework is done, his parents tell him no--that homework always comes first. When his grades suffer, his parents take note and try to correct it. If he says it's because his english isn't very good or because it's not fair that other kids only have to know one language, his parents tell him to stop whining and that if he studies harder, he'll do fine. After all, the other children in the poor community manage to do fine in English. Among his friends and peers, kid B notices that they, too, take pride in their grades, especially as they grow older and enter high school. Competition becomes tougher, but each is constantly reminded by their parents and their culture that they must succeed in school.

Now look at both children, age 18 and fresh out of high school. Kid A barely graduated, is pretty good at basketball and has some interesting in singing or a musical career. He doesn't know what to do because he's not that interested in college and his friends are trying to be professional basketball players. Kid B also doesn't really know what he's going to do as far as career goes, but he held good grades while in high school and he knows he's expected to go to college and do equally well. His communication skills are now honed and his english is perfect. If he did especially well, he will receive a scholarship to help pay for the costs of college. If competition was a bit too tough, his parents will scold him and tell him to go to a community college first and then transfer, but to improve his grades so that he qualifies for a scholarship next time around.

See what i'm getting at? The comparison, of course, is largely generalizations and assumptions that may not always be correct (exceptions are always present), but as a whole, the effects of an individual's community and society are VERY influential on that individual's --and the community's-- success.