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.
Okay, you call it ''racist generalizations'' - yet can speak for yourself and can barely go into detail about why do you don't like my posts. Wouldn't calling it ''racist'' when it obviously isn't be a generalization too?
''First off what do you mean by making blacks "assimilate"?''
Okay, to all of you who wondered why I made my polling question so simple - this is why.
Do me a big favor. Please do it for me.
Read the word before African-Americans on the top of the thread. Where did I say blacks? Either you're lazy or have a hard time interpreting things, but I actually did describe in detail that this wasn't a ''black issue.'' In fact, I said being black had nothing to do with it. West Indians, Africans and black people who live in around the globe have nothing to do with this. In fact, southerners and many in affluent suburbs don't have much to do with this either. I said inner-city African-Americans. I often said impoverished inner-city African-Americans. I'm well aware and noted that the people who I am speaking about are no where near the majority of African-Americans. Why is that so difficult for you to believe? Why can't I talk about the issue involving impoverished African-Americans, without having someone being unintelligent enough to broaden all my statements so it magically makes sense to his little mind?
I did not say blacks. I didn't even say African-Americans. I always use an adverb so I carefully make sure that people like you don't have to label me as you want just so it makes you feel like a big boy. I didn't say African descendants. I didn't say black people and actually took the initiative to describe in detail everything I just mentioned. Unlike most other Americans, I also acknowledge that there are black immigrants in this country.
''Assimilate into what? White culture?''
I meant for that population of impoverished inner-city residents to assimilate into the United States. To assimilate educationally and economically and develop self-reliance. To myself, there is no such thing as white culture. There are obviously three physical races in this country and even globally: White, Black and Asian. Those aren't cultures. Next time, ask me. Don't assume. Especially if your assumption is wrong. It's wrong and only shows to us that you can't handle thinking past things that aren't simple.
''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.''
Yes, but 70%? Obviously, it's higher for those who are poor and in inner-cities. I wasn't even the one who provided that statistic, although I agree with it. Why don't you take the argument up with him? It's an obvious problem that is well accelerated in the impoverished African-American population. Did you also know that 11 percent of African-Americans have some sort of criminal history? I believe that is in between 5 to 10 times the amount for whites. And obviously, for those who are males who live in inner-cities - you could imagine how high that number really is. Just for African-American males as a whole, the number is about 20%. For you to deny and shun such an idea is why things will look no different - if not worse, in 2050, than now.
''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.''
That's true, but it doesn't mean it doesn't get associated with that. To one, if you were black and lived in a crappy part of a city and that's all you saw day after day growing up, what do you think it becomes? And politics is involved in this because other people (immigrants) are being highly preferred over them for several ones. And also because the U.S. Government does little to stop it.
To those, seeing their parents uneducated and possibly having criminal histories and not believing their such bad people is a scapegoat acquiring an education. And not enough have enough capital to start out with to become entrepreneurs. It can't be denied that inner-city African-Americans have gotten the raw end of every deal. And it will only get worse unless something is done about it. It will take attention from the whole population, rather than just those who we are talking about. That's why I give John Edwards credit, because not many other candidates have focused in on poverty as a whole.
''and in case you're wondering i'm hispanic'''
Too bad the world doesn't agree. Go to the United Nations, say that and see how seriously people take you. You may be ''Hispanic'', but it doesn't mean you aren't white (and possible the descendant of a much more oppressive white than a pre-WWII descended American) or black.
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.
''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. ''
Completely true. Any entitlements we are to give to ourselves should be completely voluntary (i.e. political interests, religion). In fact, that's true for all societies. That is one of the most necessary elements in all Democracies.
''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.''
Once again, good point. I agree all the way. This problem would help solve that for all impoverished people. Reducing welfare little by little will be necessary, but will require the government (both federally and locally) to be committed to such a process. As you noted, those who are only around 50 are more than capable of still working. And those who are elderly and disabled should be taken care of.
''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.''
This would work too, but could still be hard to motivate. I think the best thing this country could do is to provide free college education and health care to all. If we eliminated the war that seems to be helping the destroying our economy and currency, along with slowing down legal immigration and rationing the number of how many illegal immigrants could stay - we'd have the money to do this. Still though, the motivation is the hardest part. And step two definitely can't happen without step one being successful.
''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. ''
Exactly. This is where Americans would start getting uncomfortable though. People always have a way of being intimidated by government intervention. Especially upon economic issues. And things like what they can have and what they can't, even if they sadly aren't working. Democrats would be much more in favor of this process, but than again - Republicans would be much more in favor of step one. In order for both steps to work, but parties would need to compromise with one another.
''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.''
Getting things like drugs off the black market might not be possible, but this definitely would be necessary. The problem is lobbyists wouldn't allow this to happen. Especially those who work for the cigarette companies. Wasn't there a recent provisionary made in this country that raises the taxes on those who smoke - so the money could invest it into health care? It's ironic - because the government would be promoting the idea to destroy your health, just so they could attempt to fix it. It's be like a doctor punching you in the face and saying let me heal you.
''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.''
Definitely through all the previous steps you mentioned, this would slowly disintegrate on it's own. I think laws need to be better enforced, but the only way to fix this problem is to force people out of where they live - if they aren't paying to live there. This is exactly what's going on in New York City. In fact, a former pro baseball player Mo Vaughn pretty much bought out some of the worse apartment buildings in Brooklyn. He built new buildings and renevated ones that still had potential.
He than began selling them off and allowing them to be rented for high rent. This inevitably kicks the trash out of the neighborhood. And once you lose public assistance especially in an expensive city like NYC, it's difficult to get a new spot - especially in another borough. Acquiring rent control is more possible, but that requires one to work - which inevitably often happens.
''Cances are we wouldn't do away with poverty. We would be better able to assist those that are poor or working poor.''
That's the basic goal. Hopefully, we could build off that.
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?
You're right. Getting people motivated is the biggest problem. The best thing we could do is say to people that they won't be able to live if they don't work. That's how it is in other countries. It sounds mean, but if one were scared of literally starving and ending up homeless - they'd change. That's how capitalism works. The government's job is to get that horse thirsty.
Welfare reform would be as essential as immigration reform. It's unfortunate not enough people talk about it, even though both seem to work hand in hand. And you ask why should you care? Because people who don't make an effort cripple a Democracy. I'm sure they don't help our declining currency either. We should care because poor people of all backgrounds are our fellow citizens. And even if we choose not to care about them, we should definitely care about their children - who mean much to our future. Especially considering their fertility rates are higher than the educated middle-class.
''Most people on welfare today are ones that are physically or mentally handicapped,''
Do you really believe that? That isn't anywhere near entirely true. Those who are physically and mentally handicapped, as well as elderly are a significant portion - but plenty are more than physically capable of working. It's not say that people don't exaggerate or make up things though. For example, if you're a non-working diabetic living in housing projects - I really doubt diabetes has anything to do with that.
''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.''
Yes, it did. But you should know first-hand that there are still the same people who are in the same ditch. There are generations of families who live off of government assistance. The simple question is why do we allow such a thing to happen. If we didn't allow this to exist, people would integrate into mainstream America and if they chose not - well, die. How else could we put it? Capitalism and not working doesn't working. If they knew they couldn't eat, they wouldn't have children (or give their children up for adoption).
They truly can't love their children if that's the kind of life they want to provide for them. And not working won't equate to them not living. People will sell drugs and do what they got to do to make money. If the government stepped in on those who don't work and told them we're going to take your children if you don't work, people will directly motivated to not allow such a thing to happen.
''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)!! ''
True. Being that Sociology is my major in college, I have often considered becoming a social worker, but doubt I would for all the reasons you mentioned. Not to mention the crappy pay.
This issue hits close to home for me, but I only have two comments:
- The government has nothing to offer in terms of solutions (unless you count working for the government in some capacity).
- The individuals and their families are responsible for solving the problems they face and accepting responsibility for their actions.
''- The government has nothing to offer in terms of solutions (unless you count working for the government in some capacity). ''
That's wrong. The government could cut welfare and follow fiscal conservatism. That would inevitably assimilate those who choose not to work. As Soon2BNSUPRISE mentioned, the government be more involved in people's nutrition, what they can't have and what they should have (i.e. they shouldn't have cable, but should have the internet for school). The government could do plenty, but doesn't do enough. And for what they do, is the wrong things. They basically just want to throw cash and food stamps and let these people sort their problems out for themselves. Rather than more intelligently, hiring more job coaches and providing better tax breaks to companies that could help get these people back to work. Much of our focus and money are being put in the wrong places.
''- The individuals and their families are responsible for solving the problems they face and accepting responsibility for their actions.''
Entirely true, but if you take the perks out of their lifestyles of the status quo, they'll be forced to integrate into the real world.
''And the original poster has absolutely no clue as to how offensive, condescending, patronizing and intellectually insulting his/her post is.''
Okay, sorry for ''thinking outside the box.'' Maybe I'd be better off pretending life was flowers and roses rather than acknowledging that inner-city non-working African-Americans with high baby out of wedlock and incarceration statistics didn't exist in alarming numbers. You must want me to be just like our government who doesn't seem to care about them. They give them enough to live, but know that's enough to keep them living like crap and not wanting out of such a lifestyle. It's crafty and the reason why I said the government and media uses inner-city impoverished African-Americans as a dog icon to propel mainstream Americans of all races. This is in politics and other controversies for a reason you know.
''First, the original poster would be well served to learn and understand who [we] Black Americans were and are. Notice how his or her reference point is poor and inner-city Blacks (who are, by the way, the minority of the Black population)?''
Wait, wait, wait. Now you're throwing words in my mouth. It's as if you're naturally triggering yourself to believe I'm sure a hate-filled person, before even engaging in a political argument with me. Does the media have something to do with that?
I do understand more than well who black Americans are. They are Americans just like anyone else. Not black. Not white. They are as hard working, patriotic and loving as anyone else. They are my fellow citizens. They are the same as me - a human being with red blood. I even explained how that my country is 17% black is equivalent that my chance of marrying a black female is 17%. I deny all collective ideals that do nothing more than separate and isolate people.
Why do you believe I said the impoverished inner-city African-Americans are the majority of African-Americans? They're not and I even explained in detail in my extremely long posts that they aren't. I even went out of my way to say that most African-Americans aren't associated in what I'm describing to prevent possible ignorant assumptions of what I'm talking about. I'm speak upon the impoverished part of our population. That means making under 20 thousand a year. That's about 10 percent of the United States.
The other approximate 90 percent of our population has nothing to do with this thread. Understand that clearly. The argument is the 10 percent. The argument is how to get that 10 percent to be much lower. And out of that 10 percent, too much of it is African-American. And they usually aren't southern or in decent suburbs as I've explained. This problem is only isolated most significantly to inner-city residents. And even many African-Americans in inner-city are middle and working-class. They aren't even included in this argument, although poverty has a much higher percentage to the whole African-American population of most major cities than rural and suburban areas.
''Second, he or she has the gall to suggest that [we] Blacks stop referring to ourselves as such.''
Once again, I said all American citizens should stop. I said it's healthy as long as it doesn't go too far. In other words, being proud of who you are physically is great. Marrying someone who looks similarly to yourself is human-nature. Understanding history is important too. However, poor inner-city people allowing this to be excusable from economically assimilating isn't acceptable. And the idea of socially constructed ''blackness'' works hand in hand with this.
A big problem with this is the media. The media labels blacks as blacks, before Americans. This causes much polarization and stereotype. Many people buy into this. I'm not saying that idea of blackness should completely disintegrate, but it'd be healthy if it minimized. In a liberated economically and educationally advanced era, basing how we live off things we can't control is contradictory. It challenges individualism, which is the opposite of Americanism. By the way, I'm a he and my name is Tom.
''In other words, "if African Americans would stop referring to themselves as African Americans, they'd be better off". ''
Well, now you're just changing my the interpretation of my words around, aren't you? I'm not saying being African-American shouldn't be a healthy title, but shouldn't be the only or most important title as it appears to be especially for those who are poor and need an excuse to believe why it is the way they live that way. This isn't a problem for working-class and middle-class people. They see themselves as individuals and Americans more than anything else. The problem is in the impoverished, because it's an indirect defense mechanism that helps heal pain for the day - but not for the long run.
''The irony is lost on this person that centuries ago, [we] were in fact, named without our consent by the so-called "mainstream". ''
Yes, it is irony. Didn't the same thing happen to those in the West Indies though? And look at them today. They're arguably more advanced than we are. Countries that are nearly entirely the descendants of African slaves who have some of the most European names (like Jamaican Prime Minister Portia Simpson-Miller). They know their history as well as anyone else, but don't let it effect their economic and educational lives. The same exact statement applies to most African-Americans, so don't get me wrong. However, it's still an alarming percentage for how many are impoverished. I'm not judging African-Americans as a whole, so please don't take it that way. I'm focusing on the impoverished section of the population of all races, but particularly inner-city African-Americans because they are more effected than anyone else.
''And now the "mainstream" sees fit to advise us to stop referring to ourselves in the same context as that "mainstream" initially demanded. ''
Sadly, you're somewhat right. The idea of socially constructed whiteness and blackness didn't even come about in this country until the early 1800's. I'm not disagreeing with your assertion, but I'm simply say that this is the only way to healthily see all Americans united as one - especially economically. Remember, it's only an idea - not even necessarily one that has much acknowledgment. Just an idea. Who even ever said that is what the mainstream wants though? People who may be participating in this thread may be apart of the mainstream, but it doesn't mean the whole mainstream is participating on here. Most could care less for everything we've discussed.
''I could go on and on pointing out the fallacies, distortions, misinterpretations and downright foolishness of the original post. But suffice it to say that people who understand themselves to be so superior as to advise an entire population of Americans on how to best comport themselves''
What makes you think I see myself as superior? I'm not. I don't expect people to necessarily believe my ideas. I'm one person. I'm simply trying to create ideas to deplete poverty for people of all backgrounds. I'm sorry you try to bring a negative connotation to that.
''I say take the plank out of your own eye before you focus on the speck in mine.''
And to those who are impoverished with possible criminal records and children out of wedlock, do you say the same? Or would you prefer for them to just be blind? Maybe you should be helping contribute to focusing your attention for how people could make their way out of poverty, rather than just trying to pick out one little element of my argument - and branching off away from what I've actually been discussing.
I'm an African-American and i voted for #2 and #4. #2 beacuse i feel that illegals have the worst effect on blacks. #4 is an obvious answer but most polcitians wont do it or even mention it b/c they are afraid of upsetting blacks. News flash; Our rising black middle class wont be sad about welfare cutting b/c we are out making ends meet for ourselves and we are getting sicker and sicker of our lazy brothers and sisters doing nothing and living decently while we work two or 3 jobs just to live decently.
One choice that should be mentioned is to somehow make our parents be parents and force our kids to get all the education they can. Black kids are defintely not stupid, the difference is in some households there is h*%^ to pay for bringing home lousy grades (mine was one of them) while other households condone bad grades.
I agree that options 2 and 4 are the best and most realistic. You're right about the politicians. It's all about votes, and they won't get their votes if they reduce the perks of their day to day lives. Depleting of welfare will be necessary to ensure that people won't have that safety net. And more than all, you're right that it all starts off in the home and what kind of grades everyone's children are getting.
The last sentence is not only true, it actually negates the first part of your post. I'll explain:
I've long been a part of the Black middle class--the majority of our population. And I've never lost a job to, been displaced by, or otherwise had my occupational opportunities affected by a so-called "illegal". And I dare say that most people in the Black middle class--if they're honest--will say the same.
Since when have non-Black and non-Latino and non-Asian Americans been concerned about Black folks losing low-paying, dead-end jobs?
You're right. Anyone who has an education, is an entrepreneur, a police officer, a retail employee or anything of that nature won't be effected. Those who are effected are working-class. An unnecessary competition is creating a large burden for them. Employers will simply make the economical choice of choosing those who are willing to do more for less. Those who are middle-class aren't effected by this. Only the blue-collared lower-middle class and poor. The poor's opportunities will be limited in progressing to acquire working-class stature if legal and illegal immigrants are replacing their jobs. All poor people have the opportunity to acquire education and middle-class stature if they want it, but most people don't just two pegs that quickly.
''Since when have non-Black and non-Latino and non-Asian Americans been concerned about Black folks losing low-paying, dead-end jobs?''
Well, ''Latino'' actually don't exist - I hope you understand. I'm sure everyone on here already is aware of my disgust for the term ''Hispanic'', ''Latino'' or anything that interchangeably has the same meaning.
You could have just said non-black though. I don't exactly understand what ''non-Latino'' and ''non-Asian American'' had to do with that. Or you could have said people in general - because I really doubt working and middle class blacks care for those who you described either. No one really cares, but all Americans should be concerned. We should want our citizens to be able to live the best lives possible.
I hate welfare in general, but I would rather pay welfare to a white or black American than to an illegal immigrant.
I agree with that. Hopefully though, our government could figure out a way to little by little disintegrate the welfare system and either legalize or deport illegal immigrants.
NYC0127, this entire post is exactly why as a Black American, I have never trusted a white who labels themselves a liberal or progressive. I know I say this a lot, but this has to be one of the most racist posts I have ever read since joining this site. I did not even bother to read each and every response you made, because they are so long winded, inconclusive, and leave much to be desired. Here's how I’ll tackle your argument. I'll start with an introduction, a body, and a finish with a conclusion, so that it clear, concise, and straight to the point. I will title this rebuttal to your nonsense, "Why race is only used by racist when tackling the question of Poverty"
Title "Why race is only used by racist when tackling the question of Poverty"
By: Truthhurts
Introduction: During the past 30 years, many progressive liberals have attempted to characterize poverty in terms of race. The presumption that race is somehow indicative of poverty, ignores the individual aspect of human nature. This philosphy attempts to place individual characteristics into collective group assignments, strictly based upon ones race. This is wrong for a number of reasons. In this rebuttal I will explore why individual characteristics, race, and collectivist attitudes to poverty are more destructive, dishonest and harmful than the actual characteristics of poverty itself.
Point 1 - Individuals Characteristics and Poverty. The founding fathers, of the United States, founded this country on the principles of respecting citizens based on their "individual" choices. Their intent was not to selectively group individuals of one race into a collective pot. Poverty is individually based on the choices made by a particular individual, regardless of his race, gender, and religious preference. Individual members of society, who choose not to invest in their human capital (education), work hard, live morally chaste lives, obey the law, place themselves at far greater risk of living in poverty than citizens who take pride in those following characteristics.
Point 2 - Collectivist Attitudes and Grouping by Races - During the last 30 years collectivist have been attempting to draw racial correlations to poverty. Typically liberals would prefer to disregard characteristics of poverty and focus on racial elements of poverty. This is not only racist, but completley divorces understanding individual characteristics of poverty. It remarries poverty with race ( a collectivist view point) instead of individual characteristics that are displayed by those in poverty. When people attempt to define individual characteristics of poverty based only on a person race (eg he's a black male in the inner city, therefore he is poor) they end up with a collectivist approach to individual problems. This sort of thinking is extremely dangerous, because it only take race into account and does not focus on the individual characteristics, which are displayed by people who are poor. It is safe to say, that whites who do not invest in their human capital, work hard, live morally chaste lives, obey the law, place themselves at far greater risk of living in poverty than whites who do not display these individual characteristics.
Point 3 - How collectivist are harmful and destructive to the groups they claim to help. Collectivist, racist, progressive, liberal are all synonymous, because they do not respect the human as an individual, but prefer to group humans problems based solely on race, with little to no respect or regard for individual human characteristics. Therefore, an honest dialogue can never be reached when an individual views you as a collective member of a group. Instead of asking the question of what makes a black man successful, they are more interested in focusing on what makes a man poor and why these are characteristics only exhibited by blacks? The real question is what characteristics do successful individuals follow versus what characteristics do unsuccessful people follow? Highly successful individuals regardless of race, invest in their human capital (go to college etc), live productive morally chaste lives, and are law abiding citizens. Individuals who are most likely unsuccessful have invested limited amounts of resources in their human capital, live highly unproductive morally destructive lives, and are usually involved in disobeying the law at higher rates.
Conclusion - Liberals for the benefit of separatism and collectivist racial efforts would prefer we all ignore individual characteristics of unsuccessful people, but focus on race to define why they are unsuccessful. He is poor because he is black. He is rich because he is white. They will continually fail to take an introspective look at what characteristics cause one to be poor versus the characteristics that cause one to be successful. The racial identity has nothing to do with the characteristics of success or failure, but the individual actions of the person take precedent over the color of their skin. Regardless of race those individuals that exhibit successful individual behavior will be successful and those individuals that exhibit poor or failing behavior will be failures. It is not rocket science. NYC, if you had a real interest in eliminating poverty, you would go straight to the source of poverty, which are individual characteristics not race. White poor people do not act any different than black poor people. Black successful people are no different than white successful people. Therefore the issue does not remotely revolve around race, but what individual characteristics a person displays. We can all certainly agree, that one who is educated, morally chaste, and law abiding will be extremely more successful than an individual who is uneducated, morally corrupt, and hesitates obeying the law. To answer your question the simpliest answer is always the easiest. How do you eliminate inner city black poverty? The same way you eliminate white poverty.
1. Education
2. Access to Jobs
3. Characteristics of Successful Individuals
If you would like me to provide the out of wedlock rate for poor whites i'd be glad to go from country to country and provide those statistics. If you would like me to find the unemployment rate of poor whties i'd gladly give all those statistics, but i highly doubt you're really interested in a real debate about poverty.
Last edited by truthhurts; 02-28-2008 at 02:29 PM..
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.
'''