Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I never said that it is exclusive. I said what might be best for one community might not be what is best for the other. Legalizing drugs might be what is best to end the drug related violence related to the sale of drugs in many communities, but for communities that are not seeing the violence.....they do not think legalizing is best for their community. My point is that if one community, like Detroit, decides that something will work for it, it should be allowed the freedom to tap into state dollars to make it happen, given that it the long run it will benefit the state, in terms of less transfer payments, less housing of prisoners, less crime, more revenue (from people who are now gainfully employed).
What you are saying is that there are generational factors that contribute to success. Successful parents and communities tend to beget successful parents and communities by passing down the means in which success was and is achieved to the children. The problem is that many generations of some groups were not allowed to accumulate that knowledge and wealth....and hence have passed down that disadvantage to their descendants. If it takes money and success, as a general rule, to create and perpetuate money and success, then generations of people can be held back by previous generations who were HELD BACK from acquiring the knowledge and wealth.
It not simply a matter of people who care and tried vs people who did not care and who did not try. It is a matter of the role society played in creating success and failure and how it rewarded some while holding back others. Now the generational impact is self perpetuating as the probability of someone being poor as an adult is much greater if they came from poor families than if they came from middle or upper class families....and visa versa.
This is why affirmative action was enacted 40 some years ago. I'm not sure of the date (and I'm too lazy to look it up) but I know that the black students who graduated with me got into college easier and got money to pay for college easier and that was in 1977. When I graduated from college in 1991 affirmative action was in full force. The company I worked for had a separate HR department just to comply with affirmative action. However, you only need affirmative action for one or two generations to correct such an issue because now there should be children of parents who benefitted from affirmative action and their children who are passing that benefit on to their children just as other groups that have worked their way up do.
Yes there are still poor blacks but there are still poor whites too. The white advantage that used to exist didn't eliminate poverty among whites anymore than affirmative action could for blacks. Some never take advantage of what is available to them and there nothing we can do to correct that from outside the community. Fixing that comes from within. I was born to a poor white family that did not value education beyond expecting us to behave in school and pass our classes. College wasn't a consideration. In fact when I filled out my first FAF and they said my father could afford to send me to school (he was skilled trades with Chrysler corp) he told me "You don't need a degree to make babies". So I worked for a few years, saved my money and put myself through community college and had grades high enough to get a full ride to study engineering. Today one does not need to be born with advantage to improve their lot in life. You have to be willing to work. Two generations of affirmative action should be enough to even the playing field. It's time to stop favoring either side and let those who want to work to get ahead get ahead regardless of the color of their skin.
This is why affirmative action was enacted 40 some years ago. I'm not sure of the date (and I'm too lazy to look it up) but I know that the black students who graduated with me got into college easier and got money to pay for college easier and that was in 1977. When I graduated from college in 1991 affirmative action was in full force. The company I worked for had a separate HR department just to comply with affirmative action. However, you only need affirmative action for one or two generations to correct such an issue because now there should be children of parents who benefitted from affirmative action and their children who are passing that benefit on to their children just as other groups that have worked their way up do.
Yes there are still poor blacks but there are still poor whites too. The white advantage that used to exist didn't eliminate poverty among whites anymore than affirmative action could for blacks. Some never take advantage of what is available to them and there nothing we can do to correct that from outside the community. Fixing that comes from within. I was born to a poor white family that did not value education beyond expecting us to behave in school and pass our classes. College wasn't a consideration. In fact when I filled out my first FAF and they said my father could afford to send me to school (he was skilled trades with Chrysler corp) he told me "You don't need a degree to make babies". So I worked for a few years, saved my money and put myself through community college and had grades high enough to get a full ride to study engineering. Today one does not need to be born with advantage to improve their lot in life. You have to be willing to work. Two generations of affirmative action should be enough to even the playing field. It's time to stop favoring either side and let those who want to work to get ahead get ahead regardless of the color of their skin.
Well....are you saying that 40 years of Affirmative Actions offsets the cultural, economical, psychological, geographical and logistical ramifications of 300 plus years of racial discrimination and degradation? I just want to be clear that such is what you are saying....or not. Furthermore, it seems as if you are arguing that at some point in time in the past that Affirmative Action created socioeconomic equality between blacks and whites....but then blacks could not hold onto that equality because they did not really EARN it, but was given it. When was that date because based upon the data that I am aware of, the narrowest that the poverty rate between blacks and whites has ever been is black poverty being only 2 and a half times the rate of whites. Moreover, the closest black unemployment has been to whites is a little less than twice the rate for whites. Thus, Circa when......was this parity reached on the part of African Americans as a result of Affirmative Action?
In 1960, 60% of blacks lived at or below the poverty line, while ~ 20% of whites were. Today, ~ 29% of blacks live in poverty while ~ 10% of whites do (+ or - 2%). Thus, blacks climbed out of poverty and whites have climbed out of poverty.....largely the result of the offerings of the economy. In the 1950, black out of wedlock births were around 24% while the rates for whites were around 3%. Today, the rate for blacks is ~ 75% and the rate for whites is now ~ 30% (it increased more for whites since that time, percentage wise). However, the skew has not improved because the initial damage done to blacks from centuries of racism......has never been reconciled. Thus, anything that comes along now....that makes it harder for the poor....makes it harder for black people because black people are disproportionately poor. With these skews still in place, class-ism manifest also as racism because blacks are disproportionately poor....and blacks tend to live in concentrated poverty. Of course....these are all just excuses....but they are documented recorded FACTS.
The changing nature of the economy plays a role as well. Blacks were disproportionately employed in mfg and disproportionately benefited from union benefits and rights, as well as good union wages. Since unions have been decimated, as well as manufacturing and good paying mfg jobs, blacks took a hard hit. Many blacks were socialized to be factory workers because that is what created the middle class for a lot of African Americans and socialization and acculturation manifest most profoundly via emulation. The children of factory workers just assumed that they would have factory work available where they could climb to the middle class. This factory work did not require a college degree....often times not even a GED. Then those jobs disappeared or are paying a fraction of what they used to pay and not the children socialized to be factory workers can't reach the middle class.
Another reality is this. Men are traditional providers of families. Marriage rates and incomes are directly related. Men who make more than 60k a year are more likely to marry than men who make less than 60k. The ability to provide plays a big role in the propensity of males to marry. In the black community black male unemployment is astronomical. In many cities its 50%. Then men are not likely to marry and even if they did.....it would not add income to the family if they have no source of employment.
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 12-30-2015 at 12:04 PM..
Well....are you saying that 40 years of Affirmative Actions offsets the cultural, economical, psychological, geographical and logistical ramifications of 300 plus years of racial discrimination and degradation? I just want to be clear that such is what you are saying....or not. Furthermore, it seems as if you are arguing that at some point in time in the past that Affirmative Action created socioeconomic equality between blacks and whites....but then blacks could not hold onto that equality because they did not really EARN it, but was given it. When was that date because based upon the data that I am aware of, the narrowest that the poverty rate between blacks and whites has ever been is black poverty being only 2 and a half times the rate of whites. Moreover, the closest black unemployment has been to whites is a little less than twice the rate for whites. Thus, Circa when......was this parity reached on the part of African Americans as a result of Affirmative Action?
In 1960, 60% of blacks lived at or below the poverty line, while ~ 20% of whites were. Today, ~ 29% of blacks live in poverty while ~ 10% of whites do (+ or - 2%). Thus, blacks climbed out of poverty and whites have climbed out of poverty.....largely the result of the offerings of the economy. In the 1950, black out of wedlock births were around 24% while the rates for whites were around 3%. Today, the rate for blacks is ~ 75% and the rate for whites is now ~ 30% (it increased more for whites since that time, percentage wise). However, the skew has not improved because the initial damage done to blacks from centuries of racism......has never been reconciled. Thus, anything that comes along now....that makes it harder for the poor....makes it harder for black people because black people are disproportionately poor. With these skews still in place, class-ism manifest also as racism because blacks are disproportionately poor....and blacks tend to live in concentrated poverty. Of course....these are all just excuses....but they are documented recorded FACTS.
The changing nature of the economy plays a role as well. Blacks were disproportionately employed in mfg and disproportionately benefited from union benefits and rights, as well as good union wages. Since unions have been decimated, as well as manufacturing and good paying mfg jobs, blacks took a hard hit. Many blacks were socialized to be factory workers because that is what created the middle class for a lot of African Americans and socialization and acculturation manifest most profoundly via emulation. The children of factory workers just assumed that they would have factory work available where they could climb to the middle class. This factory work did not require a college degree....often times not even a GED. Then those jobs disappeared or are paying a fraction of what they used to pay and not the children socialized to be factory workers can't reach the middle class.
Another reality is this. Men are traditional providers of families. Marriage rates and incomes are directly related. Men who make more than 60k a year are more likely to marry than men who make less than 60k. The ability to provide plays a big role in the propensity of males to marry. In the black community black male unemployment is astronomical. In many cities its 50%. Then men are not likely to marry and even if they did.....it would not add income to the family if they have no source of employment.
Affirmative action did what it was supposed to do by allowing minorities to move up faster than they could have otherwise for two generations and yes I think that's enough for those who would take advantage of it to have done so. I can't help the ones who didn't because just like poor ill educated white people they didn't. The children of the first people to gain under affirmative action would have their parents advantage and a second generation of people benefitting from affirmative action would pass that advantage on to their children. There's no hundreds of years to be concerned with here because the vast majority of people are not from a long line of successful (rich) ancestors. Most of us work our way up. (120 years ago my ancestors were servants. What does that have to do with me today? I come from a long line of poor white people.)
Affirmative action impacted the people who took advantage of it and now their children and grandchildren (we really only need to be concerned with the living generations) now have the advantage they were born with because of affirmative action. That's what affirmative action was supposed to do. Create a situation where parents can pass an advantage on to their children. I cannot help people who didn't take advantage of it just as I cannot help poor ill educated whites who don't take advantage of what is there. You either go for the brass ring or you don't. No matter what we do there will always be children born into disadvantaged situations be they black, white or purple with green polka dots. I'm white but I was born to a poor uneducated family and I attended school during affirmative action which put ME at a disadvantage because I'm white. I had my natural disadvantage AND the one created by affirmative action to fight. I'm living proof it can be done without an advantage being handed to you. No I didn't get into U of M or Michigan State but I could go to HFCC so I did. I worked my butt off and got grades good enough to win me a full scholarship to U of D. All without parents who went to college paving the way and paying my bills. I'm not the person to have this argument with. I know the score. Yes it bugged me that due to affirmative action black students with lower GPA's than mine go to go to U of M but I didn't let that stop me. I never did get to Ann Arbor but I did ok but because of what I did my dd's have more choices than I did for college. Just like the kids of those minority students who went to U of M back in the 70's have.
Affirmative action allowed more minorities in two generations to move up faster than they should have at the expense of whites in those two generations. Yes, I think that's enough especially considering the educational opportunities that exist for poor minorities. Do you realize how much financial aid is out there for poor minority students to attend college or get career training? Either they take advantage of that or they don't. That is up to them.
As I said, money is available for job training and education. All these uneducated black males who need to make $60k need to do is go for it. No one is stopping them. Affirmative action won't help them if they won't help themselves. Affirmative action said that if candidates are equal in qualifications the minority candidate gets the job (and gave them preferential entry into colleges). First you have to be equal in qualifications. (And do you have any idea how insulting you are to women to insinuate they need a man to take care of them? I was the primary bread winner in my household for many years (I'm a teacher now and my pay is very low so I'm not anymore but I was for more than half of the years I've been married....and my dh never made $60k except for the last two years he worked before he retired...yet we're married.)
Reality is affirmative action isn't going to help inner city youths. Those who would be helped by it already have been in that their parents took advantage of it and moved up an out of the city. I see successful black families all over in the suburbs. Whether that success is linked to affirmative action or not is irrelevant to their children who reap the benefits of their parents labors/good fortune whatever the case may be (if your parents went to college it's easier to get into college, if your parents are gainfully employed they often have contacts that can help you find employment, etc, etc, etc...). THAT is what affirmative action did. It compensated for the fact many minorities didn't have their parents to pull them up but as those minorities became parents their children did. They have them. You are focusing on the ones that affirmative action left behind but they were left behind because they chose not to participate.
I'm sorry but just as whites with poor ill educated parents don't get a leg up, neither do minorities. Like it or not there will always be a segment of the population simply born into a lousy situation. Some will work their way out and give their children the advantage they didn't have but many more won't. I think it's time to just not discriminate at all.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 12-30-2015 at 01:39 PM..
But what is the cause of that? Innate ability (as in actually not college material) or lack of education (as in might be college material with remediation)?
One thing I'd add to my list of improvements for Detroit schools would be grade 13. 1 year of remediation at a community college of their choice to differentiate between not college material and college material but lacking prerequisite skills.
FTR they said I wasn't college material when I was in high school. I graduated with a 1.67 GPA. After taking a remediation year at HFCC I went on to get a bachelors in chemical engineering and graduated in the top of my engineering class. You cannot declare that someone is not college material just because they lack academic proficiency until you determine the cause of the problem.
In my case it was a combination of a not so great school system and some kind of delayed development. It just took me longer to get where everyone else got by the time they were 18 but in the end I beat them. Given they convinced me I wasn't college material I'm lucky to have made it as far as I did. Fortunately for me there are places like HFCC where they take anyone and they work with what they get. In all honesty I only went looking for some kind of certificate to get a better job but discovered that they were wrong about me in high school. What I wasn't was high school material. College was another story. For the first time in my life someone wanted me to understand instead of just memorize and regurgitate. It turns out I'm good at understanding but not at regurgitating.
Don't write people off before they've been given a chance. I'm sure there are a lot of kids like me in bad schools who just have never been given a chance who might surprise you if you give them one.
But what is the cause of that? Innate ability (as in actually not college material) or lack of education (as in might be college material with remediation)?
It's probably caused by a combination of a lot of different things.
Quote:
One thing I'd add to my list of improvements for Detroit schools would be grade 13. 1 year of remediation at a community college of their choice to differentiate between not college material and college material but lacking prerequisite skills.
FTR they said I wasn't college material when I was in high school. I graduated with a 1.67 GPA. After taking a remediation year at HFCC I went on to get a bachelors in chemical engineering and graduated in the top of my engineering class. You cannot declare that someone is not college material just because they lack academic proficiency until you determine the cause of the problem.
In my case it was a combination of a not so great school system and some kind of delayed development. It just took me longer to get where everyone else got by the time they were 18 but in the end I beat them. Given they convinced me I wasn't college material I'm lucky to have made it as far as I did. Fortunately for me there are places like HFCC where they take anyone and they work with what they get. In all honesty I only went looking for some kind of certificate to get a better job but discovered that they were wrong about me in high school. What I wasn't was high school material. College was another story. For the first time in my life someone wanted me to understand instead of just memorize and regurgitate. It turns out I'm good at understanding but not at regurgitating.
Don't write people off before they've been given a chance. I'm sure there are a lot of kids like me in bad schools who just have never been given a chance who might surprise you if you give them one.
If you graduated with a 1.67 GPA - whoever is your parent/guardian should be in jail.
That is the biggest problem in Detroit. Absentee parents who abdicate responsibility for teaching (or lack thereof) of their offspring to someone else. There should have been mandatory homework sessions from 4pm-6pm or not going to bed until the homework is done. Unless we fix the root issues under the roof - not a dime more should be spent on schools.
Do you not follow the news? The more money spent on schools will just trickle to the admin, the principals and the "consultants" tasked with implementing leading ideas. There will be no benefit to the children. The sooner we realize that - we skip the notion of throwing more money at problems.
All we know in life is what we experience. We then use our life experience, often, to make judgment of others. We recommend our favorite book to others, because we enjoyed it. If someone asked what is good to eat at a certain restaurant, we answer based upon what we enjoyed. When we really enjoy a song, we just assume that others will too. If we climb a tree and find fruit, we assume others can do the same thing. Hence, we assume that what is true for us is most likely true for others.
The problem with that is that every individual is unique and no one walks in the same time and space as another, meaning that every situation is unique. Just because I thought a book was great is not proof that anyone else will enjoy it. Just because I like a certain meal does not mean a friend will. Just because a song gives me great vibes, it does not mean that it will do anything for you. Just because I climbed a tree and it bears fruit, such does not mean that will be the case for you. If something worked for me, but not for you, that does not imply that something is wrong with you.
You have driven a route. It normally takes you thirty minutes to traverse the route. You are waiting on someone who, like you, is now on that route. You have been waiting an hour and the person has not arrived yet. You then project, based upon your experience, that the person should be there by now, but is not. Thus, now your mind starts trying to figure out what is going on. If the person has a reputation of being unreliable and irresponsible, your mind will assume that is why the person is not there yet. If the person has the reputation of being reliable and responsible, then you assume something must have happened out of the ordinary, which held the person up.
Here is the problem. There are millions of lives that we have never met to know their individual habits or anything about them. Metaphorically, when they fail to travel the route in 30 minutes or less, how does our minds reconcile this and what does our conclusions say about us? Why would or do we assume irresponsibility in the absence of any knowledge of the person? In the absence of knowledge of others, all that we have to go by is our own personal experience…..and the reputation/stereotypes of others. Would we assume that the successful person, who failed to travel the route, and left you waiting, did so because of irresponsibility, or would you be more inclined to believe that of a poor person? Would you be more inclined to believe one cause over another based upon the persons race?
When we do not KNOW, based upon not bearing witness directly, what we conjecture is based upon our personal experience and prejudice. If you have worked hard and followed a certain path and found success, you assume that everyone can. When everyone does not, you assume a flaw, because it worked for you. However, just because you like a song that does not mean another person will. Just because you liked a meal that does not mean another person will. Just because you climbed a tree and found fruit, does not mean that another person will. Your personal experience is only proof of what worked for you and is not evidence that it should work for other.
Do you assume personal flaw or abnormal circumstance, when people you do not know and have never met fail to travel the route of life in the same time as you? Most of what I read is that people assume personal flaw 8 out of ten times. Ergo, poor people are usually poor because of personal flaws. Ergo, black people are behind because of personal flaw….and not abnormal circumstance. This is called PREJUDICE. Prejudice with power, as in majority rule, creates self fulfilling prophecies as the larger society treats people as if they are flawed and it turn the reaction creates a flaw in them. Society does not want to invest in people that it sees as flawed. They see such investment as a waste....and even punitive upon the people who have to pay taxes to fund wasted investment in flawed peoples. The lack of investment in people assumed to be flawed, while others are invested in, self reinforces the assumption that the people are flawed, because the lack of investment produces socioeconomic results....that are flawed.
No two people can occupy the same time and space. Hence, no one has walked in the shoes of another. You can only judgment if you occupied the same time and space and the unique stimuli per unique time and space. In other words, you have not experienced what another person has experienced to know whether or not you would have done better or worse or to know whether the outcome the person had was normative, based upon the situation. Black people do not know what it is like to be white and white people do not know what it is like to be black. We have not walked in each others shoes.
I sit and read comments and think.....OMG. People are not doing what they were doing in 1950.....but they sure are thinking the same way.
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 12-31-2015 at 07:06 AM..
All we know in life is what we experience. We then use our life experience, often, to make judgment of others. We recommend our favorite book to others, because we enjoyed it. If someone asked what is good to eat at a certain restaurant, we answer based upon what we enjoyed. When we really enjoy a song, we just assume that others will too. If we climb a tree and find fruit, we assume others can do the same thing. Hence, we assume that what is true for us is most likely true for others.
The problem with that is that every individual is unique and no one walks in the same time and space as another, meaning that every situation is unique. Just because I thought a book was great is not proof that anyone else will enjoy it. Just because I like a certain meal does not mean a friend will. Just because a song gives me great vibes, it does not mean that it will do anything for you. Just because I climbed a tree and it bears fruit, such does not mean that will be the case for you. If something worked for me, but not for you, that does not imply that something is wrong with you.
You have driven a route. It normally takes you thirty minutes to traverse the route. You are waiting on someone who, like you, is now on that route. You have been waiting an hour and the person has not arrived yet. You then project, based upon your experience, that the person should be there by now, but is not. Thus, now your mind starts trying to figure out what is going on. If the person has a reputation of being unreliable and irresponsible, your mind will assume that is why the person is not there yet. If the person has the reputation of being reliable and responsible, then you assume something must have happened out of the ordinary, which held the person up.
Here is the problem. There are millions of lives that we have never met to know their individual habits or anything about them. Metaphorically, when they fail to travel the route in 30 minutes or less, how does our minds reconcile this and what does our conclusions say about us? Why would or do we assume irresponsibility in the absence of any knowledge of the person? In the absence of knowledge of others, all that we have to go by is our own personal experience…..and the reputation/stereotypes of others. Would we assume that the successful person, who failed to travel the route, and left you waiting, did so because of irresponsibility, or would you be more inclined to believe that of a poor person? Would you be more inclined to believe one cause over another based upon the persons race?
When we do not KNOW, based upon not bearing witness directly, what we conjecture is based upon our personal experience and prejudice. If you have worked hard and followed a certain path and found success, you assume that everyone can. When everyone does not, you assume a flaw, because it worked for you. However, just because you like a song that does not mean another person will. Just because you liked a meal that does not mean another person will. Just because you climbed a tree and found fruit, does not mean that another person will. Your personal experience is only proof of what worked for you and is not evidence that it should work for other.
Do you assume personal flaw or abnormal circumstance, when people you do not know and have never met fail to travel the route of life in the same time as you? Most of what I read is that people assume personal flaw 8 out of ten times. Ergo, poor people are usually poor because of personal flaws. Ergo, black people are behind because of personal flaw….and not abnormal circumstance. This is called PREJUDICE. Prejudice with power, as in majority rule, creates self fulfilling prophecies as the larger society treats people as if they are flawed and it turn the reaction creates a flaw in them. Society does not want to invest in people that it sees as flawed. They see such investment as a waste....and even punitive upon the people who have to pay taxes to fund wasted investment in flawed peoples. The lack of investment in people assumed to be flawed, while others are invested in, self reinforces the assumption that the people are flawed, because the lack of investment produces socioeconomic results....that are flawed.
No two people can occupy the same time and space. Hence, no one has walked in the shoes of another. You can only judgment if you occupied the same time and space and the unique stimuli per unique time and space. In other words, you have not experienced what another person has experienced to know whether or not you would have done better or worse or to know whether the outcome the person had was normative, based upon the situation. Black people do not know what it is like to be white and white people do not know what it is like to be black. We have not walked in each others shoes.
I sit and read comments and think.....OMG. People are not doing what they were doing in 1950.....but they sure are thinking the same way.
You make so many excuses at every conceivable level that you can't even define success or happiness. If everything is equal, what does anything matter except, I guess, dollars in the bank?
You make so many excuses at every conceivable level that you can't even define success or happiness. If everything is equal, what does anything matter except, I guess, dollars in the bank?
When you do not know a person nor a situation, because you have not met them nor lived it , what qualifies you to be the arbiter of what is an excuse vs what is the causation? let me answer that for you. NOTHING!! When you make such conjecture, in the absence of knowing, you are simply saying that you see the person as beneath you, for obviously you would have risen above the situation....and if not....would not be making any excuses for your failure.....right? Essentially what you are saying is that you would have conquered any situation that they failed, but in the slim, slim chance that you could not......you would not make an excuse but simply accept that you are a failure. Stop me were I am wrong.
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 12-31-2015 at 08:46 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
