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.
Give me a friggin break. If they are mired in poverty because they don't have the intellectual stimuation to develop their brains, it is what they deserve. I'm tired of feeling sorry for people who don't care enough to help themselves.
20yrsinBranson
So what you are saying is that the children who were studied deserve to live in poverty, because their parents, for whatever reason, also live in poverty, and they will, as adults, have no idea how to get out?
I recommend any of Jonathan Kozol's books to you... great ones are Rachel and her Children, and Savage Inequalities.
Many years ago I read a research on separated twins where one was raised up by a wealthy couple and the other by a poorer couple and they were tracked from infancy to adulthood. It was basically a study of whether it was genetic or environment that affects one's station in life. The findings showed the result is more leaning towards genetics as the main determinant. Majority of the twins ended up in the same situation later in life. Some twins became criminals while others became professionals and statesmen.
So what you are saying is that the children who were studied deserve to live in poverty, because their parents, for whatever reason, also live in poverty, and they will, as adults, have no idea how to get out?
I recommend any of Jonathan Kozol's books to you... great ones are Rachel and her Children, and Savage Inequalities.
I am saying that life is what you make of it. Poverty is no excuse for ANYTHING. There are so many opportunities out there for disadvantaged people it makes your head spin. Yes, if they do not have the INCENTIVE to try to do better for themselves and their children, then they DO DESERVE everything they get - in spades.
And as a blissfully childfree person who strongly believes that poor people should not even CONSIDER having children that they cannot afford, I'm afraid your book recommendations are wasted on me, brother (or sister, as the case may be).
The books might open your mind, childfree or not. I had no idea what the conditions were like in schools in inner city Bronx, for example... the teachers (well, when they show up) are instructed to teach children important skills like using a McDonald's cash register. They teach that the kids would be very lucky to get a factory job. For these children, I just don't think most of them even KNOW what is possible in the world. They have no idea what it even takes to get out of the ghetto, much less what steps to take to start. Hard to believe for most of us, I know.
There was a time in this country when children did not have the educational benefits that are available to them now. During the early part of this century, our society was predominately agricultural and children as young as three or four years old were expected to WORK on the family farm in any capacity that they were able. Often, they did not go to school regularly, they very seldom completed grammar school, let alone high school. They did not have exposure to books, nor museums and I doubt that they hardly ever played "games".
Yes, but see, the skills those children picked up were also the skills that led to a person being successful in that day and age. There was a match between predominant cultural values and what these children were learning from their experience. I'd argue that that isn't the case now.
^
I don't see how it can be viewed as being "natural" in a genetic way to explain why low income people are the way they are. It seems more enviromental. Like the article pointed out many kids in low income areas aren't being stimulated mentally in the same way well off kids are in their enviroments(more books in the home,more vacations,educated parents etc).
I agree with you 100%. When we LABEL kids, then our expectations are also lowered. I find it quite insulting, being a person who grew up in one of the most notorious cities in California-COMPTON and poor, to have a teacher or school system that thinks that my environment is an excuse for why I can't be taught at higher levels.
I sadly went through high school not being able to express myself verbally and in writing. I had a teacher tell my classmates and I how we couldn't express ourselves, even though it was her job to teach us how to express ourselves.
It was when I went to UCLA with my poor academic preparation for University work that inspired me to become a teacher so that I could make a difference in my students' lives.
I am saying that life is what you make of it. Poverty is no excuse for ANYTHING. There are so many opportunities out there for disadvantaged people it makes your head spin. Yes, if they do not have the INCENTIVE to try to do better for themselves and their children, then they DO DESERVE everything they get - in spades.
And as a blissfully childfree person who strongly believes that poor people should not even CONSIDER having children that they cannot afford, I'm afraid your book recommendations are wasted on me, brother (or sister, as the case may be).
20yrsinBranson
This thread is about those children. Writing them off as undeserving of special attention simply guarantees the continuation of the cycle.
If there is a proven difference between the brains of the impoverished and the well off, I'd assume the main reason would be stress levels, and not always that the child themselves is living a stressful life, but that children pick up on the stresses their parents are feeling. For most of us living below the poverty line, nutrition is not likely to be the cause, as children often have access to healthy food at school, not to mention the food stamp program, WIC, and local food banks. Granted, I realize there are plenty of children who do not receive the nutrition they need, but I only assume that this is because they are living in ultra remote areas without transportation to decently priced shopping areas, or that their parents for whatever reason do not seek out outside help.
As to what these children are exposed to, books are cheap, I'm really surprised at how many people mentioned that these kids might not be able to have many books around! I mean, are you serious? The only reason books wouldn't be around is if the parents aren't interested in reading or if they aren't interested in having their children read. For those of us that are life long lovers of books, we definitely make having books around a priority (and myself, we rarely visit the public library, but we do buy tons from thrift stores and will often buy books new from Scholastic). Second, almost all museums have one free (or very cheap) day a month. Third, the internet is usually available somewhere for most people in the USA, even if it's just an hour here or there at the public library, which allows children to be exposed to any topic.
Someone mentioned that situational poverty was more the case during times like the Great Depression, and alluded that generational poverty is the case for the majority of today's impoverished people. I have no idea where you got that idea, if there's a study or article out there that you came across I'd be interested in reading it. According to a recent Sociology course most of the poverty in our country is situational (loss of job, death, divorce, etc), and in my observations that is definitely true. On the flip side these studies pointed out that the majority of children who were raised in poverty, do not usually continue in poverty as adults, at least not to the extent they were raised in.
Someone mentioned that situational poverty was more the case during times like the Great Depression, and alluded that generational poverty is the case for the majority of today's impoverished people. I have no idea where you got that idea, if there's a study or article out there that you came across I'd be interested in reading it. According to a recent Sociology course most of the poverty in our country is situational (loss of job, death, divorce, etc), and in my observations that is definitely true. On the flip side these studies pointed out that the majority of children who were raised in poverty, do not usually continue in poverty as adults, at least not to the extent they were raised in.
I provided a link to the person doing research on that. What "sociology course" are YOU talking about?
So you don't know anyone in poverty whose parents were also poor, and whose grandparents were also poor? I guess we can all stop ranting about those welfare kids growing up to be teenage welfare parents themselves, then, huh? Personally I don't know many (any?) people in poverty now as adults who were middle-or upper-class as children.
Quote:
The only reason books wouldn't be around is if the parents aren't interested in reading or if they aren't interested in having their children read.
I agree, there are free and inexpensive ways to obtain books. But why might those parents not be interested in using them? Could it be because reading does not have as high a value to them as it might to someone else? And is that the child's fault? Some of those children do discover books anyway, I've had some of those. But just because some don't doesn't mean they're lazy slobs, or not using their IQs in other ways.
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.
Personally I don't know many (any?) people in poverty now as adults who were middle-or upper-class as children.
