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.
what do you mean exactly by "democratizing" a single group of people? How is anyone not Democratized?
Quote:
assimilate
assimilation has to start with the people having a desire to assimilate. Also, assimilate to what, the suburbs? Not sure I understand that question either.
and
Quote:
ecomically equalize inner-city African-Americans?
A cultural change has to occur within the Black community to where things like a 70% out-of-wedlock birthrate or making statements that a Black scholar is "acting white" become a thing of the past.
''what do you mean exactly by "democratizing" a single group of people? How is anyone not Democratized?''
When you say group, I didn't mean African-Americans as a whole. I didn't mean upper-middle class, middle-class and working-class people of any background. I meant people who are impoverished stuck in a ditch they can't get out of in inner-cities. That's the opposite of what a democracy is about. In a democracy, all are supposed to be equal and have the same opportunities - but it's obvious that this actually doesn't exist. And it's not as if things will remain at the status quo. It's evident that the U.S. government and media doesn't mind making poor blacks look like the dog icon of this country that propels the rest of our economy. In a way, it's like classism for them.
They won't get out, unless significant change is brought out. If our government continues to waste money over in Iraq and on immigrants (both legal and illegal), real ''American'' problems like impoverished African-Americans in inner-cities and health care won't ever be reformed. I'm saying they aren't apart of a Democracy - or at least not this one. Living off welfare is socialism, not capitalism. It's not apart of the American dream. It's not to say that if enough didn't they could join the democracy if they had enough fire in their stomachs, but at this point in time - it doesn't seem like anyone has enough ''fire'' in their stomach. And even if they did have it, it's usually limited because people have little sense to back it up with.
assimilation has to start with the people having a desire to assimilate. Also, assimilate to what, the suburbs? Not sure I understand that question either.
I'm sure suburbs would be one option, but they could continue living in cities. That's not so much the problem. It's kind of like climbing the ladder. If people who are dirt poor climbed up to working-class stature, they'd inevitably be more proud to be the person who they are and would be Democratized - being that they'd be participating in predominant capitalist system and not a predominant socialist one.
The inner-city African-Americans people see in 2008 ancestors didn't not work. They worked and they worked hard just like anyone else. Most lived exactly like working-class whites. People had a drive to fight not necessarily to assimilate, but acquire their civil liberties during the Civil Rights movement. Since than though, poor African-Americans have just gotten worse and worse and don't have enough energy to over come this. If something is done about it now, the problem will only get worse.
''A cultural change has to occur within the Black community to where things like a 70% out-of-wedlock birthrate or making statements that a Black scholar is "acting white" become a thing of the past.''
That quote had good intention, but also goes against a main thing that could keep blacks behind. The words ''black community.'' Personally, I hear the word community tagged to everything today - which really causes us to question the integrity of any ''community'' period. There is no such thing as the ''black community.'' There is no such thing as the ''Hispanic community'' either (because they actually don't exist as a group that never was socially constructed by regular people). I think the better words you were looking for may have been ''black population.''
I will give you that there are such communities in small areas, religions and things like that - but a community is something that everyone is well acknowledging of. It's something that does good for people. Black people could care less for black people the same way whites could for whites. Most people in general could care less if the next person died. No one is going to give you money just because you look like them. No one is going to help anyone out. Each family should be their own community, rather than depending on the needs of others. Religion is a different story - because money usually isn't associated with that.
If there actually was a ''black community'', than these questions probably wouldn't have to raised. Especially by a most likely predominant non-black consensus. However, I do completely agree with the statement you made as long as the word ''population'' were there in place of community.
The wedlock statistic is definitely disturbing. And it's the right why I included it in one of the options on the poll I created. Hopefully, all of us (of all backgrounds) will be able to destroy what ''acting white'' or ''acting black'' is.
There are so many innacuracies in your initial statement that they beg correction:
Most poor people in the US are white, not black. Many live in rural areas and not inner cities. Increasingly poverty is found in suburbs more than city cores.
Most poor blacks work at jobs, the same as whites.
Johnson and Kennedy's programs were largely successful. By every measure blacks today are doing better than they were 30-40 years ago- during the Great Society era black poverty was cut in half. Two very successful programs have been Food Stamps and Head Start.
Blacks and whites both have high out-of-wedlock births. Black out-of-wedlock births are increasing, but so are white out-of-wedlock births. There are many sociological reasons for this, not all of them have anything to do with poverty. And I will be so bold as to suggest that out-of-wedlock births in themselves don't necessarily lead to dire social consequences. Sweden or Norway would be perfect examples of countries with high out-of-wedlock births but high productivity and standard of living.
Being African-American is no more anti-American or collectivist than being Irish-American or Italian-American. Blackness is a real social category and doesn't go away just because certain reactionaries try and wish it away; what you are advocating is denying a group the right to self-identify themselves and their interests, in effect you are saying blacks should be silent and submissive to the mainstream, and only relevent when the non-black majority says so.
There are so many innacuracies in your initial statement that they beg correction:
Most poor people in the US are white, not black. Many live in rural areas and not inner cities. Increasingly poverty is found in suburbs more than city cores.
Most poor blacks work at jobs, the same as whites.
Johnson and Kennedy's programs were largely successful. By every measure blacks today are doing better than they were 30-40 years ago- during the Great Society era black poverty was cut in half. Two very successful programs have been Food Stamps and Head Start.
Blacks and whites both have high out-of-wedlock births. Black out-of-wedlock births are increasing, but so are white out-of-wedlock births. There are many sociological reasons for this, not all of them have anything to do with poverty. And I will be so bold as to suggest that out-of-wedlock births in themselves don't necessarily lead to dire social consequences. Sweden or Norway would be perfect examples of countries with high out-of-wedlock births but high productivity and standard of living.
Being African-American is no more anti-American or collectivist than being Irish-American or Italian-American. Blackness is a real social category and doesn't go away just because certain reactionaries try and wish it away; what you are advocating is denying a group the right to self-identify themselves and their interests, in effect you are saying blacks should be silent and submissive to the mainstream, and only relevent when the non-black majority says so.
You got my endorsement on this reply and it would really serve people greatly if they did the research before they created and designed polls such as this one. I am not speaking about what the media communicates to you or what you read in the newspaper. There are thousands of scientific journals out their to view at your own leisure to make a better assessment of what has been sensationalized to you about different groups of people in our country. Please do a search on family research, sociology, psychology, and education journals to start empowering yourself with some real scientific data which has been subjected to some rigorous research methods. You can also go to many university or college sites to view recent thesis and dissertations on many research studies that have been conducted by students in many different majors.
There are so many innacuracies in your initial statement that they beg correction:
Most poor people in the US are white, not black. Many live in rural areas and not inner cities. Increasingly poverty is found in suburbs more than city cores.
Most poor blacks work at jobs, the same as whites.
Johnson and Kennedy's programs were largely successful. By every measure blacks today are doing better than they were 30-40 years ago- during the Great Society era black poverty was cut in half. Two very successful programs have been Food Stamps and Head Start.
Blacks and whites both have high out-of-wedlock births. Black out-of-wedlock births are increasing, but so are white out-of-wedlock births. There are many sociological reasons for this, not all of them have anything to do with poverty. And I will be so bold as to suggest that out-of-wedlock births in themselves don't necessarily lead to dire social consequences. Sweden or Norway would be perfect examples of countries with high out-of-wedlock births but high productivity and standard of living.
Being African-American is no more anti-American or collectivist than being Irish-American or Italian-American. Blackness is a real social category and doesn't go away just because certain reactionaries try and wish it away; what you are advocating is denying a group the right to self-identify themselves and their interests, in effect you are saying blacks should be silent and submissive to the mainstream, and only relevent when the non-black majority says so.
excellent reply and totally agree. The original post is full of a lot of racist generalizations whether the poster may have not intended it to be. First off what do you mean by making blacks "assimilate"? Assimilate into what? White culture?
Out of wedlock children? happens to every race except they only seem to be a problem when the parents are irresponsible for providing for their children.
lastly poverty is a socio economic status not a racial or political one. The best way out of poverty is through higher education or being a entrepeneur. Even an education at a trade school will lift someone out of poverty. The issue is one of motivation and a desire to better oneself. If that isn't there then their situation will remain bleak.
First thing to do is elminate entitlements. This country isn't based upon what is owed to anyone, but what that person can work for on there own. This is something that would need to be done over time. Also there are some people that have lived their entire life having the government support them. We need to slowly remove these people from the system. Install a new system but for those that are over 50 we allow them to opt out of the requirement to obtain an education. Also since they are of an age that it is hard to start over we allow them to maintain there lifestyle. All others will be under the following provisions including those that are living in the home of an individual that is over 50 and in the system.
Step 1. No more increased welfare benefits to anyone. Those in the system will continue getting what they are currently getting. If they have additional children that is on there back not on the back of the workers. Individuals that are elderly will be taken care of. Those that are unable to work because of an existing health issue that keeps them bed ridden will also be taken care of. Others will be looked at on a case by case basis.
Step 2. To remain a ward of the system all able bodied individuals between the ages of 18 to 50 will be required to go to school and improve themselves educationally. There are carreers that are in demand that will help these people to have a better life. Healthcare jobs that they can be trained to work, jobs in other fields that they can be trained to perform. Within a four year time frame you could teach all of these people a trade or a carreer that will allow them to be self supporting. Many educational opportunities can be done online now. There is little reason for someone not to be able to get an education. There will be a cost associated with this but that will be offset by the number of people that will have employment and will now be paying there taxes.
Step 3: There finances will be turned over to someone that can help them create a working budget that they will live by. The government is giving, then the government should have a say so in what is done with the money. Food is something that can be purchased, but only real food. Processed foods are out, vegtables, fruits, whole grains are in. We pay farmers subsidies to not grow things. Now lets pay the farmers for the food and use it to feed those in the system. Cable TV is something that isn't needed if you have no resources of your own. There are a lot of things that I have seen in homes of people that are on assistance that are not needed. They will need the internet, because they will be going to school.
Step 4: Alcohol, druggs, ciggarettes, fatty foods, or anything that would be deemed as not being essential would be banned. Many people within the system have problems with substances. They have no business having those items around in their life.
Step 5: Gang activity, loitering, doing anything that is illegal, any criminal act, would be grounds for removal from the system. Allow a three strikes and you are out policy with sever penalties for a first and a second offence and total removel on a third offence.
People don't have to follow the rules that I have listed, that is only for those that want to have assistance. For those that don't want government assistance, welfare, food stamps, housing, or anyother program that is out there they can continue doing what they want to do. They can decide not to get an education, stay in a gang, drink all they want. Just as long as the government is not assisting them in that lifestyle. In addition there are going to be cases that don't fit into the boxes that I have set. Allowances can be made. The goal is to remove as many people from the system as possible. Able bodied people can do all these things. An educated society is a society that can support itself. I am relatively sure that you will have very few college grads in the system. Lets help those that are in the system attain that goal.
If the nation were to change the entitlement system around welfare would cease to exist as we know it. Crime would decrease, innercity violence would decrease, more people would be better prepaired to take care of their own.
Cances are we wouldn't do away with poverty. We would be better able to assist those that are poor or working poor.
You can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink.
Theres so many programs out there to life people out of poverty, especially African Americans that if theyre not making a living its because they dont want to.
I think welfare reform would help alot. Nobody but people truly unable to work should get a dime. Its easier to get that horse to drink if its thirsty.
Theres no guarentees in this country, except the guarentee of oportunity. If folks choose not to take advantage of that oportunity why should I care?
People are sanctioned by not meeting the required mandates, such as not reporting to a training or work site for 30 hours per week Yes!! They have to report somewhere for at least 20-30 hours per week depending on what state you live in. I had to sanction many women who would not meet this requirement.
Most people on welfare today are ones that are physically or mentally handicapped, addicted to drugs, new to the system, or have had so many children that it usually is not beneficial for them to stay at any job for any long period of time because they surely will have barriers due to daycare, child being sick, no form of transportation, etc. It is messy and we have a good majority of them that work, but their wages are ridiculously low.
I have worked in family and child services/workforce development for 16 years and and I can honestly say that the system has come a long way from what it used to be. When welfare reform came along, those able bodied women got off of welfare, and many of them were educated and got decent jobs. I would love to see what they are currently doing in their lives. Many of them returned to finish college as well. That was back in 1996, mind you. I saw that cohort get it together and leave the welfare rolls. These later cohorts have a host of problems that are due to not being educated and probably are the offspring of the second or third generation parent who was crack/cocaine addicted.
The first cohort who left the welfare rolls did not want to use their life time benefits, remember after those run out in 5-7 years depending on what state you reside in-they no longer are entitled to any cash. Many still qualify for food stamps, housing, etc. But if she is not educated and has to accept a minimum wage job and only has one or two children, she can easily find herself losing something along the way due to possibly not being eligible any longer because of her scanty income which exceeds the federal guidelines for benefits-which starts the vicious cycle all over again. Rent increase, losing food stamps, child care expenses, utility bill, etc. The supports are not always there to prevent these misfortunes, so they give up just to start the cycle all over again.
Some of the latest research in workforce development speaks to the supports needed when they are facing these obstacles that prevent them from maintaining employment. We need to employ more job coaches and employment specialist, and make sure that these people know about the supplemental services that are available. A host of other things need to be done, which I will address another day.
In social services now they are hiring workers who have to now tend with more lower socioeconomic people who are drug addicted, or have mental illnesses, with some being very severe. Well most people hired usually must have prior training or the required education or both to serve this population. Many need certification or licenses, yet the salaries are not always attractive depending on what agency you work for. Some of the newer social service jobs now state that you may be subjected to physical violence by this population, especially juvenile offenders. WOW!! You really must want to be a servant to the public, when you accept a job such as this. They have it in red lettering on some State Sites, which of course red means WARNING!! This job may be hazardous to your life!! (LOL)!!
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.
