From MP Reparations
I agree with Joe, what are these folks thinking and what world do they live in? Saying this about the 2 most expensive districts in the state. And criticizing the charters who get ~50% of that funding. It is amazing.Thoughts?
“When it comes to the education crisis in Minneapolis and St. Paul public schools there is no money, there is no funding, nobody can come up with any solutions,”
As for causation and reparations: Now it is terrible that African Americans were brought here against their will, abused, worked, violated and killed. And thankfully the USA ended this deplorable practice before 1870.
Now my ancestors came here broke and speaking Norwegian sometime about then. They learned English, worked hard, made good choices and were pretty successful. My point is that blaming an event that occurred over 150 years ago for ones current state has got to be the most foolish thing I have heard of.
70 years ago Germany and Japan were totally destroyed and now they are 2 of the most successful countries in the world. I think these folks should be looking inward instead of outward.
It raises a good question, does it not? How much more money, put into the St. Paul and Minneapolis schools-- the two most expensive in the state already-- would erase the achievement gap between blacks and whites? How could the (new, extra) money be spent to achieve that desirable result?
ReplyDelete" Now it is terrible that African Americans were brought here against their will, abused, worked, violated and killed. And thankfully the USA ended this deplorable practice before 1870."
ReplyDeleteAnd then most of them found themselves systematically discriminated against in all areas of life -- from voting to public accommodations to access to what we consider the normal means of wealth building (banking, mortgages, etc.). They didn't get to participate fully in the American experience the way that our ancestors did. And that legacy still lives on today in many ways. You can argue that perhaps we shouldn't do anything about it -- but there's no doubt that what has happened over the last 150 years profoundly impacts our society.
Even North of the Mason Dickson line where we are enlightened?
ReplyDeleteYes, even north of the Mason-Dixon line. Seriously, have you not heard of "redlining"? Banks are to this day still illegally discriminating against African-Americans in the housing market. (Just last year, Associated Bank was found guilty of it in the Minneapolis, Milwaukee, and Chicago areas.)
ReplyDeleteFound a Park Ranger in Louisiana who gave that uppity New Yawk woman her comeuppance. She was roundly criticizing this good ol' boy for the way Southerners treated "black people." "Ma'am," he said, "you don't know us. We have grown up with black people all our lives. We live near 'em, work beside 'em, our kids play with their kids. You folks up north, you put them off in ghet-toes [two syllables in Louisiana] and don't hardly ever see one, nor want to. Now who's more racist?"
ReplyDeleteHUD / Assoc Bank
ReplyDeleteRemember when I said the government contributed to the 2008 meltdown... Apparently it forces Banks to give loans in questionable / high risk areas. This an interesting settlement, happy I don't have to give out loans on North Mpls property...
"denial of mortgage loans to African-American and Hispanic applicants and the provision of loan services in neighborhoods with significant African-American or Hispanic populations"
Just curious, is it racism that we fund the Mpls / St Paul schools at a higher rate?
ReplyDeleteOr that N Mpls grocery stores charge more because they have additional expense due to the high risk in the community?
What about having security guards in the urban Public libraries? Is that racism? Should we stop doing it?
At what point do folks figure out that it is the behavior of the people / community that are driving the differences, not their race?
"Apparently it forces Banks to give loans in questionable / high risk areas."
ReplyDeleteThe Case for Reparations
ReplyDeleteIf you can get past the provocative title, you find a detailed history of how post-slavery racism (in the North often as much as the South) destroyed wealth creation and family structure in African-American families.
Sean, that's a fascinating comment. Sure, racism "held down" black people for a long time-- 100 years-- and it was more obvious in the Democrat South than the more Republican North. "destroyed wealth creation" is true, but "destroyed... family structure"? Whom do we blame for that, since it is most prevalent in Democrat-led cities of the North, and coincides with the Democrats' "war on poverty"?
ReplyDeleteSean,
ReplyDeleteThat was a LONG article... I understand some of your points, however it does not explain the total disintegration of the Black family structure and all the kids in those homes.
State of Unions
As I noted above. I think those factors are more important than home mortgages.
I believe we have discussed in the past that the ability to get good jobs helps families to form and stay together. Low income whites have joined the trend of most babies are now born to single mothers.
ReplyDeleteabout reparations I am in favor of taking steps to reduce the racial disparities in jobs, housing, education etc. I don't know enough about it to support or oppose any specific steps.
"Low income whites have joined the trend of most babies are now born to single Mothers."
ReplyDeleteAnother sign that our modern societal moral decline and welfare are primary causes of poverty. That is why I usually try to focus on other poverty causes, and not race.
I think we can point to a very definite time and cause for the increase in unwed motherhood, welfare and poverty. Originally conceived as aid to widows and orphans, or AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), there was always a "welfare worker" coming around for a "home visit" every so often. Their stated purpose was to help out the family, see how they were doing, etc., but their official purpose was to find out if there was a "man in the house." Because if there was a man in the house then /he/ was responsible for that woman and her kids, not the taxpayer. Sometime in the 60s, somewhere around the start of the so-called War on Poverty, Democrats decided that this wasn't fair, somehow, and eliminated the home visits. Welfare became not only an entitlement and a way of life but created such absurdities as a woman on welfare having another child – something relatively difficult without a "man in the house." Sure, moral decay was also setting in, what with "free love" and "if it feels good, do it," but government simply offered too much incentive for it.
ReplyDeleteLately some have suggested taking some of the incentive out of the welfare program, by requiring women to name the father of the child (especially those born while on welfare) and then taking the father to court for child support. Requirements to seek work or job training have also proven effective at reducing welfare rolls, and of course, once someone becomes more responsible in that way they also become more responsible in other ways. It isn't that the poor are different from "us," it is that we have not offered them the opportunity and incentive to NOT be.
"I believe we have discussed in the past that the ability to get good jobs helps families to form and stay together."
ReplyDeleteLaurie's got it. After hundreds of years of slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, and other forms of discrimination, the impacts on African-American families is undeniable.
"That is why I usually try to focus on other poverty causes, and not race."
ReplyDeleteIt's true that there are many causes of poverty. But we can't completely untangle hundreds of years of history from what is happening today -- not when there's so much evidence that African-Americans still face structural hurdles that others don't face.
I think we have offered them plenty of opportunities, however as you said no one is checking in and pushing them to improve their beliefs, attitude, behaviors, habits, etc.
ReplyDeleteEven with continual coaching and motivational efforts it very challenging to get people to change their life long habits, beliefs, actions, etc. As long as that check comes in with few requirements, why would anyone really consider changing?
It is like expecting my 20 year old daughter to suddenly change her spending habits with no guidance or carrots/sticks... It is not going to happen...
Sean and Laurie,
ReplyDeleteForming and staying together as a family is a moral / practical choice and it can take a lot of HARD WORK, tolerance and patience.
Free Love (ie less religion) and Welfare pretty well wiped out 2 of the motivators. The American culture that supports personal freedom, personal happiness and less effort pretty much finished off the rest.
That is why all of the single parent household stats are increasing.
Blaming it on race, poverty, etc is silly. I have friends who are broke and sticking it out. I have friends who are well to do and divorcing.
Sean, I like your approach of treating poverty as something other than a racial problem, as we should, while accepting that racism and its aftermath have made black people disproportionately poor. But I must also note that unwed motherhood among blacks is somewhere around 70% whereas for whites it is about 30%. Is that because black people are disproportionately poor, or is it because unwed-motherhood-driven poverty is disproportionately black?
ReplyDeletetry using the google- see who is getting married as it correlates to education and income levels. Hint - well educated and higher income people are following the traditional path -education jobs marriage children. It is lower income women who are becoming single mothers at a higher rate. we have covered this before.
ReplyDeletedon't trouble yourself with the google. Here is a link for you:
ReplyDeleteWhy is marriage thriving among the affluent
Nixon staffer John Ehrlichmann, interviewed in 1994, said this:
ReplyDelete“You want to know what this was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
That was the start of the "War on Drugs". Not to fix the drug problem, but to disrupt black communities for political gain.
Was your family subject to that government harassment?
VOX Article
ReplyDeletePlease note even the author questions this... And it would be fascinating to see which homes were broken into... My guess it was these folks and similar fringe groups. It sounds like they were somewhat of an insurgency.
"This is an incredibly blunt, shocking response — one with troubling implications for the 45-year-old war on drugs. And it's possible Ehrlichman isn't being totally honest, given that he reportedly felt bitter and betrayed by Nixon after spending time in prison over the Watergate scandal. But it's not implausible."
" Hint - well educated and higher income people are following the traditional path -education jobs marriage children. It is lower income women who are becoming single mothers at a higher rate. we have covered this before. "
ReplyDeleteLaurie once again raises the chicken or egg question. Do people fail to follow the traditional path because they are poor, or are they poor because they failed to follow the traditional path? I think it is reasonably clear that both are true. It goes back to the War on Poverty, when it became necessary for poor (and unfortunately predominantly black) families to split up in order to qualify for welfare payments. About the same time, public schools became far less effective at teaching the attitudes and knowledge necessary to escape poverty. The result is a "welfare culture"or "entitlement mentality" by which too many no longer even recognize the traditional path as desirable or beneficial. Until government changes its approach, the War on Poverty will be lost, with millions of innocent civilians as casualties.
"In too many cases, if our Government had set out determined to destroy the family, it couldn't have done greater damage than some of what we see today."
ReplyDelete--Daniel Patrick Moynihan