This excellent video showed up on my FB feed. It shows how fortunate the "Lucky People" are.
I always wonder how it is that many "successful people" find it easy to proclaim their greatness and speed, and look down on others as failures... When they were just lucky to start life half way to the finish line.
Now how to fix the challenge is a different issue... But just acknowledging this reality is a first step that many people struggle with.
I always wonder how it is that many "successful people" find it easy to proclaim their greatness and speed, and look down on others as failures... When they were just lucky to start life half way to the finish line.
Now how to fix the challenge is a different issue... But just acknowledging this reality is a first step that many people struggle with.
107 comments:
"I always wonder how it is that many "successful people" find it easy to proclaim their greatness and speed, and look down on others as failures... When they were just lucky to start life half way to the finish line."
This an absolute load of hooey coming from you, John.
Remember, all people need to do is work hard, save, and invest...or that's what you CONSTANTLY tell us.
Moose
I am perfectly well aware and accepting of the problem and how fortunate I personally have been in life. As I said above...
"Now how to fix the challenge is a different issue... "
G2A How to Win the War on Poverty
Moose,
If I adopted an 18 year old who had experienced zero luck / privilege... I would not just offer them monthly checks and hope they would catch up... That is why the war on poverty was such a failure...
They need the tough love of a caring Parent to help them excel.
How would you ensure that your newly adopted "adult child"...
- Learned
- Worked
- Got and stayed married
- Saved
- Started investing
- Had kids
IN THAT ORDER... :-)
You miss the point. There are many people who never become "successful" despite doing all the right things. Your list is irrelevant.
Moose
Success is in the eye of the beholder.
I have many blue collar in-laws and friends who are living great lives with small houses, used cars and happy families.
I deem that successful...
What do you think one needs to be deemed "successful"?
I do have a hard time calling "privilege" because in reality it should be the norm...
What has actually happened is that the unlucky kids have been set at a disadvantage by their Baby Mama/Papa, the Social Services programs, the public schools, etc.
And as noted above, "success" is not the same "finish line" for everyone... And not only one person wins.
Here is some food for thought.
Now being married is not a requirement... But having 2 committed adults caring for and financially supporting the family certainly is if you want to eliminate poverty.
2 incomes and the extra help around the house is HUGE...
This video seems to be about how the outcome of races can be affected by some authority figure setting rules. What conclusions can we draw from that?
--Hiram
I'll just leave this here.
WP: Redlining was banned 50 years ago. It's still hurting minorities today.
Whenever we discuss this I always wonder if this is a race/religion issue or a business / risk avoidance issue.
"In the 1930s, government surveyors graded neighborhoods in 239 cities, color-coding them green for “best,” blue for “still desirable,” yellow for “definitely declining” and red for “hazardous.” The “redlined” areas were the ones local lenders discounted as credit risks, in large part because of the residents’ racial and ethnic demographics. They also took into account local amenities and home prices.
Neighborhoods that were predominantly made up of African Americans, as well as Catholics, Jews and immigrants from Asia and southern Europe, were deemed undesirable. “Anyone who was not northern-European white was considered to be a detraction from the value of the area,” said Bruce Mitchell, a senior researcher at the NCRC and one of the study’s authors."
If lenders were to red line / seek to avoid giving loans in a white dying coal mining community, would that be logical or discriminatory.
Middle class folks are reluctant to buy in those areas, why would a business want to give loans there?
It does seem complicated.
Hiram,
Which rules do you mean?
The guy in charge selected a number of issues. The issues he selected determined the response. The responses he got were suggestive. The good thing about metaphors is that they simplify complicated issues. The bad thing about metaphors is that they simplify complicated issues.
If this guy is so knowledgeable about races, could he go to Canterbury Park and consistently pick winners?
--Hiram
It's not complicated, it's racism.
The systematic exclusion of African-Americans from the primary means of wealth creation for middle-class families in the post-WW2 period -- home ownership -- is a large causal factor in the lack of virtue that you love to obsess over. Not to mention the fact that African-Americans weren't allowed (in many areas) to get loans in areas outside of the red zones (see the various Levittowns on the East Coast, for instance, or in areas of Chicago -- as Coates documented in his "Reparations" piece a couple of years ago). And then consider the reasons how African-Americans ended up clustered in major cities after the Civil War in the first place.
I am going to store this here for a future post... Or it may fit in here to.
Why do you think this occurred?
"reasons how African-Americans ended up clustered in major cities after the Civil War"
Conspiracy or "Birds of a feather flock together"?
I mean the towns in MN have definite ethnic majorities because people liked to be around people like themselves. Or did someone force the Swedes to move in next to their friends, family and countrymen?
"Conspiracy or "Birds of a feather flock together"?"
This isn't some sort of impenetrable mystery, John.
So are you saying there is a White Man conspiracy that has caused Somalian, Hmong, etc immigrants to live near each other in communities?
Our were the many China Towns in the country created by the White Men like the Indian reservations?
I know you love to blame the White folks for most social ills... But come now.
I understand that racism contributed to some of the current dysfunction, but as the Black woman in the Stossel piece says.
"That’s a fairly common view among conservatives, but among blacks, says Owens, it’s easier to tell your family you’re gay than to reveal that you’re a conservative.
“My entire family’s on welfare, save a couple people. What (welfare) does is essentially offer you some money and then say, ‘Whenever you work, you don’t make enough, so we’re gonna give you this much money on top of that.’” As a result, she says people think, “I don’t want to make more because the government is already giving me $500 that I don’t want to lose.”
Saying such things brings Owens criticism from social justice warriors of the left.
“What people don’t understand,” though, she says, “is how many black people are excited about what I’m doing ... how many are very aware that they have been duped by the left.”"
Sean,
I am wondering... Are you a racist then because you have chosen to live where there are pretty much no minorities?
If you wanted to by a rental property, would you buy it in Chanhassen or North Minneapolis? Rationale?
In 1860, there were 9x more African-American slaves in the South than free African-Americans in the North, and over 60% those Southern African-Americans were rural. If your theory is correct, African-Americans would have stayed in the rural South. Yet, they didn't. 6 million African-Americans decided to flee the South for Northern cities in the decades following the Civil War because the South was still ruled by white supremacy. This is not a mystery.
Not really... Almost all of our ancestors moved to the Northern United States for some reason...
Then they chose where to live and who to live by for different reasons.
Why did they settle in South Chicago / North Minneapolis for instance?
Why did/do they stay there?
Your ability to ignore facts is really quite remarkable.
As is your inability to answer straight forward questions. :-)
People are free to move where they wish to in America.
Many people choose to move out of the 494/694 loop to avoid the poverty, challenged schools, crime, etc that exists there. Are they all Racists for doing so?
Am I a totally racism free person since I chose to keep my family here? That is such a compliment... Thank You !!!
Where do you live again??? :-)
I think we are back to...
"Now how to fix the challenge is a different issue... "
To improve impoverished areas...
- should we force middle income dual parent families to live there?
- should we force private companies to do business there? (ie loans, stores, etc)
Do we help the unlucky by taxing the lucky in this way?
Or can we just help the unlucky change their beliefs, behaviors, effort, etc? (ie make them lucky)
"Many people choose to move out of the 494/694 loop to avoid the poverty, challenged schools, crime, etc that exists there. Are they all Racists for doing so?"
No, and I never said they were. What you fail to reckon with, though, is the fact that the suburban migration was white because in very real ways, even black middle-class families were prevented from moving to the suburbs in the 50s, 60s, and 70s by widespread discriminatory lending practices. Even today, home ownership rates for blacks severely lag those for whites *at the same income level*.
You can't solve the problem without recognizing what caused it.
Actually you are saying that banks are "racist" because they did not want to do business with people in communities that historically have cost them too much money. And your solution is that the government should force them to do so.
I am saying that people run to the outer burbs to escape the same folks / communities that the banks would like to avoid. Should the government force those people to move back into those communities to prove they are racist?
Actually one can solve a problem without knowing what caused it, and no one can change the past.. (window is broke, replace it... elbow hurts when I move it "this way", don't move it that way...)
So the important thing to solving a problem is understanding:
- What is the Problem Statement and Goal?
- Who are the stakeholders?
- What are the root causes that are causing the problem to persist?
- What improvements can be made to address those root causes?
- What resistance is there to change?
- How is that resistance overcome permanently?
Your review of historical issues is not to help solve the problem. It is to assign blame to people, many of whom are long dead.
"Actually you are saying that banks are "racist" because they did not want to do business with people in communities that historically have cost them too much money."
Well, kind of. I'm saying that banks did not base their lending decisions solely on the financial profiles of the loan applicants. That's a fact. It's not even a controversial one, given the historical record.
"Should the government force those people to move back into those communities to prove they are racist?"
Once again, you are assigning an argument to me that I am not making. Please discontinue this behavior.
"Your review of historical issues is not to help solve the problem."
Au contraire. The fact that you can't even face up to the breadth and depth of historical, documented racism means you're poorly equipped to handle the racism that still exists.
So again... I am not putting words in your mouth I am putting question marks at the end of the sentence...
Should the government force those people to move back into those communities to prove they are not racist? (should have been a not in there...)
Did you move out of the city to avoid minorities, poverty, crime, etc?
Or to ensure your children could avoid minorities, poverty, crime, etc?
Does this make you a racist?
Of course companies avoid high risk areas, and some people / businesses are racists.
Some interesting Facts and Data
I know you want to blame it on racism... But it pretty well matches the educational achievement gap... Or even the single parent family data... Or the crime data...
Whites / Asians do better.
Hispanics do a little worse.
Blacks are very challenged.
How do we help those kids?
Again that Black Woman speaks Truth to Liberals.
"Should the government force those people to move back into those communities to prove they are not racist?"
The basis of your question assumes that the reason those people left was racism. I reject that premise. Please stop doing this.
"Did you move out of the city to avoid minorities, poverty, crime, etc?"
I didn't move out of the city. We chose where we lived based on proximity to our employers.
"Whites / Asians do better.
Hispanics do a little worse.
Blacks are very challenged."
Blacks are very challenged because -- as I indicated before -- they have been systematically treated as second-class citizens economically for literally centuries. If your ancestors couldn't get bank loans or were prohibited from buying land in certain areas, how would they have done? Would their social structures have remained in tact?
Sean,
Why do you think most successful 2 Parent households leave poor communities, schools with high poverty or never move into them? (ie red lined areas)
Why do you think their motives are different from the banks and businesses who leave poor communities or never move into them?
Have you not heard of White Flight... Why do you think it was called that?
By the way, I have always worked in the outer burbs. I could have used the "closer to work" excuse many times. The upsides to my choice of living East of 494 are I exposed my girls to diverse communities / schools, they/we both helped the less fortunate in the schools, I commuted against traffic and my commute was of similar length to all 3 employers I have had..
Back to Problem Solving 101... This is the problem.
"Blacks are very challenged"
Many have:
- broken / single parent families
- live surrounded by similar challenged people
- higher gang membership rates
- lower capital / wealth / property levels
- lower academic capabilities
- the welfare dependency mindset
- poor personal finance role models / training
- lower incomes
Not to mention some small group of folks who are bigots and want to keep them down.
Now how to deal with this current reality is the challenge...
And that for better or worse starts with the parents / family...
"Have you not heard of White Flight... Why do you think it was called that?"
As I said yesterday (it helps if you actually, you know, read my posts instead of robotically spitting out your talking points):
What you fail to reckon with, though, is the fact that the suburban migration was white because in very real ways, even black middle-class families were prevented from moving to the suburbs in the 50s, 60s, and 70s by widespread discriminatory lending practices. Even today, home ownership rates for blacks severely lag those for whites *at the same income level*.
"Why do you think their motives are different from the banks and businesses who leave poor communities or never move into them?"
Banks and businesses (and government) created an environment of systematic racism and discrimination. That's far more sinister than individual families making individual decisions based on the environment created by those actions by banks, businesses, and the government.
"Not to mention some small group of folks who are bigots and want to keep them down."
Small?
Vox: Trump won because of racial resentment
You keep wanting to go back to "blame" and the past... And you want to ignore the wisdom of the Black Woman... Maybe it is that "White Liberal Guilt" thing.
I have no desire to blame or judge poor people for their role in how they ended up where they are. One can not change the past. The question is how to push and pull them to change their future and that of their children.
And I see no difference between private companies or private citizens leaving or avoiding "bad" neighborhoods. They both are putting their needs ahead of that community for better or worse.
Racism: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
Racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
As for the current state of racism...
It does not take many votes to sway Presidential election so I still believe the number is small. and Based on the definitions above, I still believe the number is small.
As for the VOX article... There are just too many confounding factors... If someone is against welfare, illegal entry/workers, broken homes, gang membership, failing schools, urban blight, poor parenting, etc the Liberals will try and tie those views back to racism when they may be totally unrelated.
"I have no desire to blame or judge poor people for their role in how they ended up where they are."
That's literally 75% of the content of your blog -- pointing out the flaws of poor people.
Interesting example.
Are you anti-Catholic because you are pro-LGBTQ rights?
Or do you just disagree with the beliefs and behaviors of some Catholic people?
OK, it may not be literally 75%, but a lot of it. You assign all the blame to behaviors, without looking at why those behaviors developed. If I ask you to build a house, but prohibit you from acquiring all the tools and materials required to build it successfully, and then blame you for your crappy house, how are you going to take my criticism?
Sean
G2A Judging vs Noticing
If you want to solve a problem and fix something, you can not deny the current state of reality.
Example: Single Parents households are strongly related to poverty and academic achievement issues.
"Are you anti-Catholic because you are pro-LGBTQ rights?"
That would likely make many, maybe most, Catholics (American, anyway) anti-Catholic. Your question is ridiculous.
Moose
Moose,
Good point. There are many Black people who disapprove of the beliefs and behaviors of other Black people. (link above) Does that make them Racist?
"Example: Single Parents households are strongly related to poverty and academic achievement issues."
Sure, but you have to know how you got there. Black communities have been subjected to centuries of racism -- and still face it today. But white guy John Appelen, who's never faced any of the struggles that those communities have faced in his own life and who is ignorant of the history, is the expert who can fix all those problems. Look -- he's got a chart and some bullet points! Let him whitesplain it all for you!
Okay, I'll let you suck me down the history rabbit hole...
For all those centuries of abuse, the Black Family structure did not implode until the war on poverty began...
Now when a Black Woman says it... Is that whitesplaining?
Candace Owens on White Guilt
Candace Rubin Interviewed
"For all those centuries of abuse, the Black Family structure did not implode until the war on poverty began..."
Even your link shows major differences before the War on Poverty.
"Now when a Black Woman says it... Is that whitesplaining?"
No, it's not. Perhaps you should consider what the difference is.
Wiki 1964 Civil Rights Act
1964 War on Poverty
I don't know to me it looks like the non-marital birth rates did not really take off until 1964...
And just think how bad things would have been if we had not legalized abortion
So when I agree with her or Don Lemon, and restate what they believe...
Somehow it is different?
"I don't know to me it looks like the non-marital birth rates did not really take off until 1964..."
Why the link to the Civil Rights Act?
And, the gap in black versus white birth rates in 1964 is approximately a 5:1 ratio.
"Somehow it is different?"
Yeah, it is. Totally different.
I am just looking for big factors / changes that occurred about that time. (ie causality) The big changes were legal birth control methods, civil rights changes,Free Love and the war on poverty.
The serious war on drugs came later.
The ratio between Black and White does not matter... What matters is that 70% of black children are born to single parent households.
So help me understand...
A white privileged guy like you espouses the views shared by some Blacks and that is correct / okay.
whereas
A white privileged guy like me espouses the views shared by some Blacks and that is not correct / okay.
What makes your perceptions and beliefs more correct than mine?
"The ratio between Black and White does not matter."
Sure, it does. Even those those numbers weren't high by today's standards, they were high by the standards back then and those ratios were used as excuses to do things like redlining and other forms of discrimination.
"What makes your perceptions and beliefs more correct than mine?"
It's not a matter of them being more "correct" per se. It's a matter of you substituting your experience for the experiences of those who don't have the privilege that we do and ignoring what they have to say.
You read Don Lemon's piece and think that validates your view that there really isn't much racism. You think "yeah, if they just pull up their pants, everything will be just fine". But that's not what Lemon is saying. He knows that racism is real, and if you've heard him talk beyond that one clip, he talks about it rather openly.
You posted the video at the top of this thread about privilege but don't understand what it means. When it came to the Brock Turner case, you were worried about him, not his victim. During the height of MeToo, you bemoaned the fact that without groping, you wouldn't be able to court a woman. You shrug your shoulders at sentencing disparities (or worse, sometimes you have said it's the right thing to do!) among races or the fact that folks with natural African-American hair are forced to straighten it to get or keep a job. You make excuses for the horrible treatment African-Americans receive (as a group) at the hands of police in this country.
I know you are obsessed with red lining / racism. But the reality is that capitalism trounces racism almost every time. If people are good credit risks, banks will always be there waiting to give them money.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that banks avoided certain areas and people because of the higher risk, not their race.
The same reason many White folks ran to or stayed in the outer burbs. They don't mind Black folks... They mind poverty, crime, disrupted classes, etc. The same reasons educated Black, Asian, etc folks leave the inner cities. Nothing to do with racism.
So does that mean you do the same?
"You read ???'s piece and think that validates your view that racism is rampant and preventing Black people from improving their situation."
Yes, I am concerned to ensure Brock and others get due process before they are tarred and feathered by the angry Liberal mobs.
Yes, I do think employees need to work to meet the requirements of the work place. And that police officers deserve due process before being jailed by the Liberal mobs.
Did you ever read or listen to Candace's comments?
She talks very directly to Liberal voters and asks that you stop labeling them all as victims that need you to save them.
"If people are good credit risks, banks will always be there waiting to give them money."
But, John, here's the thing: WE KNOW THAT WASN'T TRUE. Read the Coates piece where he details how even middle-class black families were prevented from taking out mortgages in certain areas or they got appreciably worse terms than whites with similar incomes. Read about Levittowns, cities that blacks weren't allowed to buy into. Government policies abetted and encouraged those decisions. (See NPR: A Forgotten History of How the U.S. Government Segregated America). Those are just a few examples. Use your Google, you can find lots more.
And every year, we *still* see banks getting busted for racial discrimination in the mortgage market.
I'll read it later. But again how does one prove causation or correlation?
With all the folks running or avoiding the inner city...
I am sure the investigators could tie that to race for the reasons I noted above.
Regarding Brock. His request for appeal was turned down.
Is this the Coates guy you are recommending as a reliable source?
"You read ???'s piece and think that validates your view that racism is rampant and preventing Black people from improving their situation."
I've never said that black people can't improve their situation.
What I've suggested is that responsibility doesn't fall on them alone. As a society, we have socially and economically disenfranchised black Americans -- from slaves to sharecropping to Jim Crow to redlining to sentencing disparities to police brutality -- yet, many still have the gall to point the finger at these communities without seeing the other fingers pointing back at them.
We see the same pattern emerging in white working class areas that have lost their manufacturing or mining or logging industries over the years. The economic disenfranchisement of those communities is causing social breakdown.
The difference, of course, is that we disenfranchised black Americans because of their race, and we're disenfranchising the white working class so the white financial class can get wealthy. Urban black communities fell prey cocaine and crack so we threw them in jail. Rural white communities are drowning in opioids and meth and we're trying to expand treatment.
"Is this the Coates guy you are recommending as a reliable source?"
You don't have to agree with his conclusions but his piece offers extensive documentation and reporting of how housing markets (specifically in Chicago) were discriminatory against African-Americans. But, you can literally find thousands of sources on the same topic. For instance, if you don't like Coates on discrimination in Chicago, well, here's the University of Washington on Segregated Seattle.
Or here are researchers from Augsburg and the U on Minneapolis. You want to know why blacks are concentrated in North Minneapolis? Because those populations in South Minneapolis were largely wiped out by racial covenants over the first half of the 20th Century.
Based on your sources, it looks like government race zoning became illegal in 1917 or so. And the Racially Restrictive Convenants became unenforceable in ~1946. And the Minneapolis map shows that there was plenty of property in South Minneapolis not under the Race Restrictive covenants.
And the history of red lining was pretty interesting.
"The National Housing Act of 1934 also played a part in popularizing these covenants. Passed during the Great Depression to protect affordable housing, the Housing Act introduced the practice of “redlining,” or drawing lines on city maps delineating the ideal geographic areas for bank investment and the sale of mortgages. Areas blocked off by redlining were considered risky for mortgage support and lenders were discouraged from financing property in those areas. This legislation was intended to ensure that banks would not over-extend themselves financially by exceeding their loan reserves, but it resulted in intensified racial segregation."
Remember one of my favorite sayings... "The Path to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions."
I do agree with you that bigoted people did bad things prior to 1960 that made it hard for Blacks and other minorities to get ahead. There is no question of this reality.
However the reality is also that people who can afford to have been fleeing North Mpls, and have been leaving those who can not behind. Is this Racism or a fear of crime, disrupted classes, etc?
Ethnic Makeup Change in N Mpls
And according to this it looks like we had almost no minorities in MN until 1960.(<2%)
Now it has been a delightful trip down the rabbit hole, but we really should get back to today's problem instead of feeling guilty for what people did 55 to 100 years ago.
_____
The disaster began in about 1965...
_____
Back to Problem Solving 101... This is the corrected problem statement in my mind, since race isn't a primary cause in my view.
"Poor people are very challenged"
Many have:
- broken / single parent families
- live surrounded by similar challenged people
- higher gang membership / crime rates
- lower capital / wealth / property levels
- lower academic capabilities
- the welfare dependency mindset
- poor personal finance role models / training
- lower incomes
These match up pretty well with the questions asked before the race.
So how do we:
- encourage 2 parent families
- ensure responsible parenting
- ensure good educations
- develop personal finance skills
- encourage learning and work, discourage welfare
- etc
The way to encourage two parent families is to engage in massive wealth redistribution. Unstable families don't cause poverty, poverty causes unstable families.
--Hiram
Hiram,
That is what Liberal folks like to say and yet families were poor before 1960. And yet they were MUCH more stable.
And the war on poverty tried your belief and it contributed to the decimation of many families. And worse yet it severely damaged the belief system of personal responsibility and the self confidence of millions.
See Daniel Patrick Moynihan's book on "the greatest economic change."
quotes
Republicans love to talk about Section II of the Moynihan Report and ignore everything that comes after it.
Excellent quotes... And he was a Democrat??? These are some of my favorites.
"The principal objective of American government at every level should be to see that children are born into intact families and that they remain so."
"Marriage orients men and women toward the future, asking them not just to commit to each other but to plan, to earn, to save, and to devote themselves to advancing their children's prospects."
"There is one unmistakable lesson in American history; a community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future - that community asks for and gets chaos."
I don't accept your frame of the problem, John, so I'm not going to argue it our your terms. If you think the problem really ended 60 years ago, you're nuts. Have fun!
Sean,
Okay, I skip to Chapter 5. The solution... And it seems in line with my preachings.
"The fundamental importance and urgency of restoring the Negro American Family structure has been evident for some time. E. Franklin Frazier put it most succinctly in 1950:
“As the result of family disorganization a large proportion of Negro children and youth have not undergone the socialization which only the family can provide. The disorganized families have failed to provide for their emotional needs and have not provided the discipline and habits which are necessary for personality development. Because the disorganized family has failed in its function as a socializing agency, it has handicapped the children in their relations to the institutions in the community. Moreover, family disorganization has been partially responsible for a large amount of juvenile delinquency and adult crime among Negroes. Since the widespread family disorganization among Negroes has resulted from the failure of the father to play the role in family life required by American society, the mitigation of this problem must await those changes in the Negro and American society which will enable the Negro father to play the role required of him.”61
Nothing was done in response to Frazier’s argument. Matters were left to take care of themselves, and as matters will, grew worse not better. The problem is now more serious, the obstacles greater. There is, however, a profound change for the better in one respect. The President has committed the nation to an all out effort to eliminate poverty wherever it exists, among whites or Negroes, and a militant, organized, and responsible Negro movement exists to join in that effort."
To Continue.
"Such a national effort could be stated thus:
The policy of the United States is to bring the Negro American to full and equal sharing in the responsibilities and rewards of citizenship. To this end, the programs of the Federal government bearing on this objective shall be designed to have the effect, directly or indirectly, of enhancing the stability and resources of the Negro American family."
"The President has committed the nation to an all out effort to eliminate poverty wherever it exists, among whites or Negroes, and a militant, organized, and responsible Negro movement exists to join in that effort."
Moynihan's actual proposals -- which weren't in the report itself -- envisioned a robust role for the federal government, specifically in providing direct assistance black families to integrate the suburbs and the creation of New Deal-style jobs programs to reduce black unemployment.
Sean,
I may be nuts, however I am least willing to focus on today and the future.
Whereas you seem to want to wallow in guilt over things you had no part in.
I recommend you read The Present
Maybe you shouldn't skip Section III.
Sean,
The problem with the Liberal agenda is that it forgets part of the goal... They pretty forget the responsibilities portion and read the bold instead. Maybe because they also can not release the guilt for what their ancestors did...
"The policy of the United States is to bring the Negro American to full and equal sharing in the responsibilities and rewards of citizenship."
"Whereas you seem to want to wallow in guilt over things you had no part in."
Stop trying to put me in your little boxes. I don't feel guilty over things that happened decades before I was born.
And just like with my kids... Giving "free money" out regularly without some expectations and accountability is a BAD thing for their long term development into a responsible adult.
Sean,
Sure you do or you would not focus on the past so intently.
We have learned that bad things happened, and easy welfare is not the solution...
What do we do now?
"Giving "free money" out"
Yet, that's what we did with white people when we let them go to the suburbs.
The city of Levittown, N.Y., was built via government subsidy and only whites were allowed to live there. In inflation-adjusted 2015 dollars, a house there cost $84,000 in 1947. Today, that $84,000 house is worth over 4.5x that amount. Generations of white Levittown families have benefited. (Bill O'Reilly grew up there.)
Free money worked out just fine for them, it seems.
Maybe you should just stop trying to project your pathologies on to me and stay focused on the issue.
Perhaps if we understood that single-parent white families are more prevalent today than was the case of black families in 1960? Or that unwed motherhood is now the condition of 3/4 of black kids? Whatever happened to that Great Society? Cure or CAUSE?
If you start focusing on solving todays problem, I will stop hypothesizing with why you insist on obsessing about the past.
This is an interesting historical piece regarding the Levittowns.
I am assuming like the Minneapolis map... There were places where race mattered, and more places where it did not. Just like covenants regarding "no sheds". Now do we focus on the places where White Christians went to hide or on all the rest of the available real estate...
I found this paragraph most interesting. It seems the people were as much or of a problem as the businesses. Just like White Flight and North Minneapolis.
"Though the Levitts made it an unofficial policy not to sell homes to minorities, they could not legally prevent an existing homeowner from reselling their home to black buyers. In 1957, William and Daisy Myers, a black couple with young children, bought a house in Levittown, Pennsylvania from the former owners. The Myers family faced endless harassment as well as implicit and explicit threats of violence from other residents in the community, with little help from the local police to keep the mobs of angry racists from congregating outside their home day and night. Through perseverance and courage, however, Myers outlasted their harassers and eventually succeeded in filing criminal charges against the worst members of the mob."
So getting back to the last ~50 years, people decided to create HUD in order to make up for the past sins of citizens and businesses.
It did not seem to work out so well. Yes or No?
Wiki Public Housing
"...with little help from the local police..."
IOW, institutional racism. You sure are blind.
Moose
"So getting back to the last ~50 years, people decided to create HUD in order to make up for the past sins of citizens and businesses.
It did not seem to work out so well. Yes or No?"
Well, no. Funny that it turns out that building shoddy high-rise apartment towers turns out to be a poor plan for urban housing.
Well that was 1957. And they did get some criminal charges filed.
Moose,
Just curious, what should the police have done to private white citizens standing in the road blocking cars from passing?
Is that them practicing their right to civil disobedience or a crime?
Sean,
I don't know... There are a lot of people who live in condominiums without resorting to gangs, drugs, welfare, etc. In fact most of Asia lives that way just fine.
"There are a lot of people who live in condominiums without resorting to gangs, drugs, welfare, etc. In fact most of Asia lives that way just fine."
As usual, you're missing the point.
Which part am I missing???
That the government gave people housing.
And people did not take care of it or each other.
Remember that word that Liberals policies have forgotten.
The policy of the United States is to bring the Negro American to full and equal sharing in the responsibilities and rewards of citizenship.
What did the government give people in Levittown versus Pruitt-Igoe?
"Just curious, what should the police have done to private white citizens standing in the road blocking cars from passing?"
If you can't see the difference between a protest and harassing specific people, you're not the moderate you say you are...not that anybody believes that anyway.
Moose
Sean, Do you mean this story
Moose,
Just concerned citizens standing in a road... I agree though that they should all be thrown in jail. :-)
If they want to picket, we have sidewalks for that.
"Do you mean this story"
Yes, that project (as an example). In Levittown, we subsidized quality housing that was owned by whites. In Pruitt-Igoe, we abandoned blacks in horribly constructed, poorly maintained rental high-rises.
"Just concerned citizens standing in a road... I agree though that they should all be thrown in jail."
I'm not going to play your stupid "everybody does it" "false equivalency" game, because I don't believe racists are the same as the victims of racism.
Moose
"I'm not going to play your stupid "everybody does it" "false equivalency" game, because I don't believe racists are the same as the victims of racism."
And even John's own highlighted text indicates they weren't just standing there -- "The Myers family faced endless harassment as well as implicit and explicit threats of violence".
Sean,
I think you should read my link in more detail. It questions many of the liberal assertions regarding the housing projects.
And I must be missing where the government spent much on the Levittown houses. And it seems those communities could have fallen into poverty and crime if different people had moved in there,or stayed there as others left. Kind like in the St. Louis projects or north Minneapolis.
Sean and Moose,
I understand that the Levittown blocking of roads was likely worse than idiots standing on 494. If not more annoying, it was likely more personally threatening.
However I assume the couple moved there with the intent to challenge the status quo, just as Rosa Parks did when she picked her bus seat, Driving social change is not without risk.
"It questions many of the liberal assertions regarding the housing projects."
There are lots of reason housing projects failed to be sure. A major part of that discussion, though, is in Levittown, we subsidized quality housing that was owned by whites. In urban housing projects, we abandoned blacks in horribly constructed, poorly maintained rental high-rises. A continuation of centuries of treating blacks as second-class (or worse).
"And I must be missing where the government spent much on the Levittown houses."
The FHA subsidized builders of white-only suburbs, which were then able to offer homes with little or no down payment. Combine that with the housing benefits in the GI Bill, which due to mortgage discrimination were essentially owrthless for African-American veterans and government spending in fact gave whites a significant leg up in the postwar period.
"Driving social change is not without risk."
So you're saying they deserved it? Cripes, you're a piece of work.
Next, you'll be telling us that the folks menacing the Myers were "very fine people".
They were likely fine people who had paid for a segregated community.
Judging people by today”s social standards is somewhat pointless.
This is an interesting interview.
Apparently the St Louis developments were meant for Blacks and Whites originally.
"When the Pruitt–Igoe towers were built, for example, in the early 1950s, there was two separate projects. The Pruitt towers were for African-Americans. The Igoe towers were for whites. And soon after they were filled, suddenly there became large numbers of vacancies in the Igoe project, the white project, and long waiting lists for the African-American project, the Pruitt project. And this was true of public housing all across the country. The white projects had large numbers of vacancies. Black projects had long waiting lists."
I wonder what the Igoe towers would have looked like now if their white tenants had stayed? Would that community have fallen apart...
According to this author, it sounds like the New Deal Democrats created a lot of the issues you are concerned about with the FHA and Government social engineering. Maybe that is a cautionary tale.
To err is human, to really screw up requires politicians and bureaucrats.
Moose and Sean,
Thanks for the learning experience. I do agree that our society has come a LONG WAY from the pre-1960s. It seems that many White people from both parties fought integration tooth and nail. And that motivated government and businesses to respond in kind.
In summary: Good intentions ==> Hell in a handbasket.
All this study of history does is point out that we once had a problem, and then government stepped in and made it far worse. Cart, horse, chicken, egg, tu quoque, I don't care. I am going to pull out the global warming "proof" and say that higher government spending to "end poverty" is directly correlated with MORE poverty. The fix is obvious.
The fix is not to worry about how successful people became so, but how unsuccessful people can be led to some success. Obviously what "we" are doing is wrong.
“Obviously what "we" are doing is wrong.”
Allowing an ever smaller percentage of the population to accumulate ever greater wealth leads to more poverty. I’d say your assertion that we are doing it wrong is correct.
Moose
Post a Comment