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.
In order to understand how we got here today, we have to understand the past. The problems being discussed today, they were going on nearly 100+ years ago. I wasn't talking about throwing money at problems. I am simply asking people to really think about how long these problems have been going on. I do look at it from a historical context. Why? Because these issues have been going on for a very long time. If Blacks were excluded from welfare programs and still had higher rates of fatherless homes and out of wedlock births, I do not see a reason to blame welfare for this.
So, what can failing communities do to try and turn things around?
Oh horsecrap. Throwing money at schools with a population of students that are criminal, that are raised to embrace violence, that disrupt classes will not fix the problem. More-it only makes it worse, it keeps rewarding failure. Want to fix schools? Expel the "problem" children and give the ones that want to make something of themselves a chance.
No one said anything about allowing students to disrupt classes. You're the one who brought that up out of nowhere, so I'm not sure why you're getting so easily confused.
The point is that if an area already has lots of problems and it is neglected even worse than it already is, the crime and poverty will just spiral out of control even more. And you can bet that more money will be spent, but on prisons instead of on resources that will at least help a good chunk of young people (those who you say "want to make something of themselves") who wouldn't have those resources otherwise. Just allowing the situation to get worse isn't a solution at all.
Not every child grows up with a silver spoon in their mouth and just because they don't doesn't mean they aren't worth investing in or that they are all "criminals".
No one said anything about allowing students to disrupt classes. You're the one who brought that up out of nowhere, so I'm not sure why you're getting so confused. The point is that if an area already has lots of problems and it is neglected even worse than it already is, the crime and poverty will just spiral out of control even more. And you can bet that more money will be spent, but on prisons instead of on resources that will at least help a good chunk of young people (those who you say "want to make something of themselves") who wouldn't have those resources otherwise. Not every child grows up with a silver spoon in their mouth and just because they don't doesn't mean they aren't worth investing in.
But what if an area hasn't been neglected. What if money and resources were allocated and have been for decades. Yet, not only do the problems persist they've grown worse.
But what if an area hasn't been neglected. What if money and resources were allocated and have been for decades. Yet, not only do the problems persist they've grown worse.
That's a fair question, and there isn't a completely easy answer.
Obviously, the people who live there (particularly youth) come from rough upbringings, and that runs back more than one generation. Those are the areas where positive role models, dedicated teaching staff, wraparound support services (dealing with kids' mental/physical/emotional health) have to be at more at an "intensive care" level, rather than being able to rely on that support from more stable home environments that youth would have in a middle class or wealthy area.
What is clear is that neglecting an area isn't going to reverse those problems. It will most certainly accelerate them, possibly so that they get so out of hand, odds are much grimmer that they can be improved in a reasonable amount of time.
A fragile area has to become stable before it can become thriving. But a fragile area left to its own devices to just implode is going to have ugly consequences for the areas around it.
In order to understand how we got here today, we have to understand the past.
Between now and the past, nothing has changed for the better.
The residents in the OP gave poorer neighborhoods plenty of chances for assimilation, many places have even gentrified poorer areas entirely (which was also deemed racist instead of charitable). For example places in NYC, Chicago, and DC used to be dangerously controlled by gangs but not anymore once gentrified.
But not every area can be saved, sometimes it just needs to be legally “walled off” from everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
They went up for all groups.
All groups do not rely on government assistance at the disproportionate rate of blacks.
You can’t rely on someone while blaming them for all your problems. Hence we have the ongoing trend of whites creating their own cities.
What is clear is that neglecting an area isn't going to reverse those problems.
But one can also argue many such areas are already chaotic and out of control. How much worse can it get? Well, one answer might be the problems could reach a point to where they bleed over into a neighboring community. O.k. but if this neighboring community has their own police force and demands it be pro-active. The riff-raff coming over might decide it best to commit crimes in their own communities. But what about these communities? Well, maybe it's about time residents talk to their local leaders and demand something be done.
In order to understand how we got here today, we have to understand the past. The problems being discussed today, they were going on nearly 100+ years ago. I wasn't talking about throwing money at problems. I am simply asking people to really think about how long these problems have been going on. I do look at it from a historical context. Why? Because these issues have been going on for a very long time. If Blacks were excluded from welfare programs and still had higher rates of fatherless homes and out of wedlock births, I do not see a reason to blame welfare for this.
I agree with you on this. Women have always been having babies out of wedlock but back in the day they were very often spirited away, their baby taken, then sent back home, none the wiser. This probably not so much for black women.
I think out-of-wedlock births are more a result of lack of role models and examples of successful family units. The absence of the father becomes normal thus out of wedlock births generational. Prior to the sixties the majority of AA households consisted of two parents so it can't be blamed on the effects of slavery. The sixties was also a time of civil rights and better job opportunities and the rise of middle class.
Welfare or no, most women do not want to raise children alone. Aside from the expense being a single parent is demanding, its difficult, it is lonley, it is exhausting. I dont imagine welfare is living a life of luxury. But women also dont want to raise children with abusive men, alcoholics, drug addicts, cheaters or layabouts.
You can edit the above to include anyone of any race/gender//identity/whatever.
Every "living wage" discussion blames any number of boogeymen for the plight of the worker who is not skilled nor looking to get skilled.
Every education discussion blames everyone on Earth OTHER THAN the student and their parents, with whom 100% of the blame lies.
Every interpersonal relationship discussion blames everyone other than the people in whatever dysfunctional relationship for their part in their own life. Divorce, abortion, you name it, we blame everyone EXCEPT the people actually making these choices.
Black people are neither special nor unique in the "blame everyone but myself for my troubles" game. If anything, it is everyone else being more willing to accept their nonsense than they would that same nonsense from anyone else. That, ironically enough, isn't their fault. If 10 different people of ten different socioeconomic/demographic categories tell me the same "di'int do nuffin, everyone is out to get me" nonsense, and I choose to take only one of those ten seriously and not the remaining nine...who gets the blame for me taking them and only them seriously?
Everyone does the exact same whining, and we choose who take seriously or don't. Personally, I think everyone is full of crap, so I don't take any of their (this being literally anyone who blames others for their lot in life) nonsense seriously. I make no socioeconomic/demographic distinctions, as I find "full of crap" to be a purely binary thing - you either are or are not full of crap, and that is entirely up to each individual.
Well said, BRAVO!
You can't help people who do not want to help themselves.
When Black Americans couldn't get welfare, out of wedlock birth rates were still 8 times higher for Black Americans than White Americans. Crime rates remained higher for Black Americans than White Americans. What was driving all of that in the days when Black Americans were basically excluded from welfare? Really, think about that.
"What was driving all of that"
You claim to know everything, you tell us.
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.
