Black and White

I'm of the belief that if we were to just stop all efforts at "levelling the field", it would work out on its own. However, that'd take perhaps centuries (certainly generations), and possibly involve some serious backlash once the "rich white" sect had its hands untied, so the short term ramifications would probably not be worth it. We're pretty much dedicated to this route now, and we need to see how it plays out.

 

I don't have a lot of time for this right now, but I'll take an initial stab at it.

I'm not so sure that it would work out on it's own, but I agree that if it did, it would take a very long time.

Anyway, addressing dmc's original post, I think it's pretty hard to deny that an undercurrent of racism against blacks still exists. I do agree, however, that some (not all, or even most) people in the black community like to play the race card at every opportunity, and this can create a backlash that doesn't really help if we're trying to eliminate racism.

The question as to how best to level the playing field is indeed a tough one. There are definite drawbacks to affirmative action, but as Fel said, we're comitted to the path now, so unless someone can come up with something better (and that someone probably isn't going to be me), we should see it through.

 

It is no secret that blacks are known for abusing the welfare system and milking it for all it's worth. I would imagine some poor whites share in that action, but it is the blacks that are particularly known for it. Could it be that the idea that you are more likely to be poor if you are black, have to do with children of welfare parents being raised under the welfare system.....and then going on to perpetuate the same? Having 10 kids under welfare that we, the taxpayers are paying for? And why not? Their parents did it.....it worked for them. What job could possibly pay them what they get from the government, for essentially doing nothing other than giving birth? And on and on it goes.

 

Ah, but which playing field are we leveling? Is it the 'inclusion' field? Do you think blacks are (or would be) denied access to higher education just because they were black? That's what affirmative action is based on, and I think, at this point, it is by and large unneccesary. The poverty issue is another playing field, and one that still needs to be leveled. But that can be done with scholorships and the like. The black kid still has to earn the spot, but now he gets help paying for it. I'd much rather see all the money going into affirmative aciton now go into something like that instead.

My point, however, is that a large portion of young black people today (at least around here) are growing up under the impression that if they act oppressed, people will let them walk all over them. They see what their parents and grandparents accomplished through struggle and suffering as free rides for themselves. They are taught (by parents or other teens) that 'The Government' and 'The Man' and 'The White Man' and 'Crackas' are the enemy, and that any action that such entities support must be an attack on blacks (or atleast that's how they come off). I'm sure some of the black people in jail are there because of poverty, and I wouldn't be shocked to hear that a few of them are there just because of racism, but I'd be willing to bet a majority of the black people in jail are there because they chose to do something that attacked these percieved power systems, even if they were just mindless, pointless acts of rebellion.

You all know what I'm talking about. It's commonly called the 'gangsta' mentality, but 95% of them are young black people, and 80% of young black people are them. Again, this is from personal observations and estimates from around here. Percentages may vary.

 

If, by "abuse" you mean "use", then you have a point. A larger percentage of black people are on welfare because a larger percentage of them are poor. Using the benefits for which you qualify is not "abuse". We all know that, in order to really make a good wage nowadays, you are usually going to need a degree. Now, do you think someone who grew up in poverty would be more or less likely than someone who grew up middle class will be more likely to get a college education?

 

Data, please.

 

First off, I meant "abuse" -- there are many blacks that have no intention of getting off of welfare -- they have a free ride (oh and wait...speaking of rides....these are the ones with cadillacs parked out front of the grocery stores that will hold the food they just paid for with food stamps).

"A larger percentage of black people are on welfare because a larger percentage of them are poor."

Where do you think the classification of "poor" comes from? From the Welfare rosters, that's where. So which comes first, the chicken or the egg? I know, personally, of a few black students here at school who are on welfare, with 3 or 4 kids each, getting financial aid, that refuse to attend class, cheat their way through, flunking the same class 2 and 3 times. They have no interest in being students -- they see the financial aid as ANOTHER handout, a system to be abused. I've had these individuals in my classes and have flunked them over and over again. Look around at your universities -- there are many blacks that fit this description, just as there are those blacks who truly DO want an education and EARN IT. One of the brightest students I've ever had is black and in my IT class this semester. So I'm not saying ALL blacks fit the "abuse" category -- but when it comes to Welfare abuse, they by far tip the scales.

 

You don't seriously believe this, do you? Why would you check the welfare rosters, when not everyone who qualifies actually gets welfare, when you could check income levels with the IRS? Or the census bureau? I'm with Amaster. Data, please.

 

You're going to check income levels with the IRS, when many of the severely poor don't work? I wasn't stating that ALL poor people are registered in the welfare rolls -- I was referring to his classification of "poor" as defined by the Census -- and referring to the statement that was made under the other topic. Different measures of poverty.

 

I would not know where they check that in the US but in Finland it's up to you to prove that you earn little enough to be qualified for getting unemployment benefits. This is usually done by submitting your tax information.

 

No-one can stay indefinitely on welfare without working. To get state funds, you are required to prove that you are working or that you are at least looking for a job (which, in Iowa, means applying for a minimum of 2 jobs a week). That said, anyone who qualifies for welfare is also going to qualify for the EIC, so, if they aren't filing for taxes, they're losing money. All that aside, the Census is likely the best place to look for poverty figures, especially since they actively try to count homeless people (who almost never get welfare).

 

And I'm saying that if you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide data, not anecdotes.

 

I think that you have to focus on what you can do as an individual, the things that are within your own power. As far as I can see, that means something as simple as treating everyone as individuals and doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Sounds simplistic and a bit , but that's my view.

 

quote from Spell Checker dictionary:
"2 a (1): preconceived judgment or opinion (2): an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge "

Based on the above we are all to some extent or other prejudiced.

I have personally suffered from prejudice both racially and for where I was born so I feel rather strongly about it. That said I do have mixed feelings about 'Affirmative Action'. I think it is needed but also that it perpetuates itself. 'Affirmative Action' is run by bureaucrats and bureaucrats like job security just as much as the next guy. Instead of encouraging people to learn to fish they keep feeding them fish. If you want data I will run a Google search and see what I can come up with.

I think education is the key to helping; both education for the 'oppressed' and education for the oppressor.

 

AMaster -- What I provided was my opinion, based on my experiences. You can call it what you like, if "anecdotes" suites you, then so be it. I've lived all over the US and over 15 years in the southeast -- I've observed what I've been talking about first hand. I've lived in very poor black neighborhoods, where I was one of a handful of whites. You, on the other hand, may have observed things differently.

I have spent over an hour trying to find Welfare abuse data for the sake of the argument, without much success. However, as I said earlier, what I've stated here is my opinion based on what I've seen. And on the topic of taking me seriously or not - it doesn't much matter to me if you do or if you don't -- I'm not trying to win you over. These kinds of discussions are most usually polar I think, without much swaying between the ranks. When discussions occur between people, I don't think to ask people for their facts to support their opinion -- I try to respect their opinion for what it is, though I may not agree with it and will challenge it -- I guess I'm not a very good debater.

 

My boss frequently argues, from his experiences, that any white man who walks into a black neighborhood will get his ass kicked or worse (I've live in a "black" neighborhood for the last 2-3 years), that blacks and hispanics don't take care of their kids, that any time a white man is outnumbered by black people, they will beat him up, that half of all black people in Louisiana are on welfare (it's actually a bit under five percent and 80% of those recipients are actually children) and that the black majority (which is nonexistent, since 64% of the Louisiana population is actually white) stops the government from changing the laws. He says these things from his experience and refuses to acknowledge any factual evidence which countermands his conclusions. If your anecdotes are based in reality, they will stand up to factual scrutiny. If they do not, it's probably because they aren't true.

 

You seem to want to make the leap from the fact that welfare abuse data isn't that readily available to the fact that what I say isn't true. I do research for a living and if I thought some premise wasn't true simply because it didn't surface immediately, I'd be in a sorry state -- and I'd get nothing published. Fortunately, that's not the case. Or do you maybe think that I should spend hours researching something that is discussed here? Well I don't. I don't have that kind of time. And... if you want to go down the fact route----I have yet to see one piece of so-called "fact" that you have posted in this thread. Please, save your judgments for someone else. You are entitled to your opinion;I'm entitled to mine. The truth of your argument is certainly no more justified than mine.

 

To address the original topic, there are two separate but intertwined issues of social justice. The first relates to poverty, the second to race.

Poverty is heritable. Yes, this goes against conventional wisdom--'hard work is all you need to be successful'--but it's fully supported by all the data I've seen (I can provide). People who are born into poverty tend to remain there. People born with social advantages--'my parents went to college'--tend to inherit thosel. I could go on at length, but that's the gist of it.

The second is that a disproportionately large number of blacks are impoverished. This is in large part a legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Poverty is heritable, a disproportionately large number of blacks are born into poverty--therefore a disproportionately large number of blacks remain in poverty.

So, as to whether it's valuable to continue attempting to level the playing field; yes, but it's more important to address poverty in a general way. If poverty were addressed, the remaining imbalances would be reduced as a result.

I don't think my experience is relevant, which is why I'm not basing arguments upon it. I don't think your experience is relevant either, which is why I'm not interested in arguments based upon it.

When we're talking about national policy--or at least these national policies--personal experience shouldn't enter the equation. If it does, it should be used to illustrate a conclusion drawn from data.

As for why I called your arguments in this thread anecdotal, here's what wiki has to say:

"Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote, or hearsay. The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, as evidence that cannot be investigated using the scientific method. The problem with arguing based on anecdotal evidence is that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; only statistical evidence can determine how typical something is. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy."