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 have to just laugh at the ridiculous posts that say "MORE MONEY!" When someone writes that it just screams: guilty white liberal who hasn't actually done any work in these communities.
A close relative of mine taught in Camden and can attest to the fact that plenty of money gets thrown at these schools, however the corruption is extraordinary. All the money gets eaten up in administrative costs until there is nothing left for the kids. As for the kids, most get away with acting like maniacs but openly admit that if they lived in the burbs their PEERS would never let them get away with it.
PS, I know this may be controversial, but I really think that welfare hurt the lower class of this country. It completely eliminated accountability, and I think hurt the black community and lower-class in general. I was listening to a radio show one time, and someone stated that almost directly after welfare was started blacks primarily became one-parent households. Before this supposedly although they were poor, they typically had two parents. That is another thing that I belive really hurts our ghettos is the absence of fathers. I'm glad there is now a limit on how long it can be used.
Yes, this is true about the out of wedlock birth rates among blacks. It was always higher than the white out of wedlock birth rate, but still far from the norm. It started skyrocketing in the last half of the 1960s.
Now, 70% of African American children are born out of wedlock. Unfortunately, it's not much better in the rest of America, since 40% of kids are born to unmarried parents.
This is not good, financially or emotionally, for parents, their kids, or the country as a whole.
I'm glad to report that it's not just conservatives sounding off the alarm bells on this any more:
Not to start a political dispute or tell you who you should vote for, but Democrats tend to care more for the ghettos and people with lower income, while Republicans think that people in the ghetto choose to live there or are too lazy to make more money, so they don't want their tax dollars to help those people. They are also not too concerned about it because everything is fine in their suburban estate. It's like Ice Cube said in Boyz N The Hood, "Either they don't know, don't show, or don't care about what goes down in the hood."
Democrats pretend to care more but pander to the poor for votes and power. Their policies often hurt the people they say they're helping. But because the poor are ignorant, especially on issues of economics (heck, even a lot of middle class people are, too), they tend to go for what looks easy, which unfortunately, almost always creates a lot more problems than it looks on the surface.
The example of welfare creating a high % of single parent housholds is apropos.
Last edited by mysticaltyger; 03-02-2010 at 01:57 AM..
One thing about American cities...they are seldom static, and neighborhoods within them are re-inventing themselves all the time. There are neighborhoods here in Atlanta that I had written off even 15 years ago that have made big comebacks...ie East Atlanta, Old Fourth Ward and Kirkwood.
That's true in some cases, but not in others. There are plenty of slums in Philadelphia, St. Louis, and Detroit that have been that way for decades, unfortunately.
But you are right, things have begun to change in some cities in the last 15 or 20 years, but not all.
Today i went through the ghetto. It made me so sad
i want to know what can be done to help them. Is there anything at all? Or do you think they should be left alone?
We can start by acknowledging that there is no such thing as ending poverty or income equality. This would be a huge first step.
Next, we can eat a little humble pie and address each ghetto on its own and try to figure out the specific factors that have led to the state of the particular ghetto. Each one is different and therefore suggests different solutions.
We can then examine options at our disposal from the conservative to the radical--and I mean the truly radical.
We can then examine previous attempts in the past and why they failed.
Then one designs several options each requiring a different level of effort and commitment from both the population in the ghetto and outside of the ghetto.
As this is done, one must be ready to acknowledge that there are people within the ghetto who are actually doing quite well and some that are even profiting from the misery of those in the ghetto. Neither party will give up their gravy train without a fight--including fights involving violence and death.
Once this proposed solutions are stress tested, one must go in see it through to completion.
In reality, all previous efforts fail in the final two steps. And as a result, choose to contain the ghetto and eliminate its presence from our daily lives. When all is said and done, nothing is done and ghetto persists according to its own rules and justice.
So how to dismantle? Three solutions. One, recognise that outsiders are disinterested or actively resistant to a concerted effort to restructure the ghetto and that insiders are diverse, with many seeking no change. Two, with that recognition comes the equally profound recognition that any concerted effort to restructure the ghetto will be strictly democratic in nature but autocratic and fascist. This island of un-Americanism must exist for about a generation and a half if the ghetto is to be completely remade with its current residents.
Two, another solution is to incentivize replacement and gentrification. This is a popular solution which unfortunately saves the location of the ghetto but not its inhabitants. The latter are forced to fend for themselves elsewhere or simply die out.
The third and perhaps best solution is to assume that the transforming the ghetto is hopeless. Instead, the plan should be to draw out the best energy of the ghetto until slowly but surely, the ghetto itself dies by abandonment (the place, not the people) and the place is no more. Exit is powerful agent for change when the solution above is not politically tenable.
The final two solutions are more politically acceptable but take place over 30-50 years and do not directly address the plight of the inhabitants. Like it or not, this is the reality.
One would like to think that the "autocratic fascist" solution is what we would want. But in reality absolute power corrupts absolutely and even the most decrepit communities are worsened when power is concentrated into the hands of a few.
My vote: an aggressive bleed off. Yes, a small number are sacrificed, but a large number are also saved. All doing nothing does is condemn all to its horrors.
What makes a ghetto? What gives it the particular traits that afflict it? What makes it dangerous? ...Its inhabitants.
I come from a poor white town. The poverty rates equal or exceed what one would find in inner-city neighborhoods. There are no murders there. People leave their doors unlocked. Yards and homes are well-kept. I also know a lot of "crust-punk/activist" types. They have no money. Yet they grow their own food, engage in community activities, and keep their old houses in good repair through good old fashioned community spirit and elbow grease.
It all comes down to having the right attitude. People in the ghetto often don't have it. They are often held captive by an acerbic pessimism and fatalism about their communities and situations. It doesn't matter how much money you pump into these places...the people will destroy everything they touch. It's all they know and it's all they do.
Much has been written about poverty, universities spend tons on studies in order to assist the states in the policy making for the various social services. Poverty is kind of industry unto itself, the social services in each state rely on the poverty stricken populace to support the huge infrastructure of jobs, it's a growth industry and like the "war on drugs" it has a lot of families incomes depending on it.
Of course we can peruse the debate boards and see the self styled social scientists putting forth their valued observations on this most complex problem, some won't bother to read even the thinnest of texts to get an idea regarding the scope of our stratified economy and the consequences we will face when the gap between have and have not gets too wide. Research on the causes of poverty show the entrenched class system to be part of the problem and never part of the solution, as long as there are those on the bottom to look down on American's will do so. It's easier to show disdain than to have the compassion to help.
Our own brand of poverty has already become a talking point for those on bluster radio who would have you believe that the poor are in that condition because they lack the will and drive to succeed, they of course don't mention the fact of our not being able to provide 100% employment or anything close to it could possibly be a contributing cause. The long term outlook for the US suggests a growth in the ranks of our poor, maybe then we'll se some up close re-evaluation of US poverty take place. I have seen my city grow poorer by the decade, some of the early gentrification has worn thin and shows a lack of sustainable support for the idea of a growing poverty existing side by side with the privileged classes.
Today i went through the ghetto. It made me so sad
i want to know what can be done to help them. Is there anything at all? Or do you think they should be left alone?
If you think of helping the people, then no - you can't help them. If you think of helping the city(as a territory) then simply kill them all or deport them.
i speak from personal experience-- no stranger to the hood. not by spending lots of money not by trying to help.
but by giving help when it is requested by those truly striving to improve themselves.
many just want the cash. many do not want a fair deal, many want revenge.
codependent nation.
Agrred that socailissues are the first thing that has to change;otherwise its just throwing more money after bad like our school issues.If it were just a matter of moeny then our worse getto problem would be in two rural agreas of the country that have 80% of the poverty in this country;but its not. that is alos why we concentrate 80% of our pverty resources in the urabn areas. There is a great difference between being poor and the problems that many urban areas have.
Last edited by texdav; 03-03-2010 at 11:24 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.
