DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... The Implications of Racism

No, my numbers are numbers. You are saying that the black person has to compete with 7 white people, I am saying that ANY 1 person has to compete with the rest of the applicants. It doesnt matter if your black or white, you are competing with the same number of PEOPLE

If your great Grandfather had a major debt, and this debt followed your grandfather, that made his life harder, which followed your father which made it harder for him and now this debt makes your life harder.

Make sense?

I can make my own decisions but that doesn't mean, that I am on the same playing field as others.

No, I was talking about AA and giving real numbers why AA helps and real numbers to show a real disadvantage that blacks are at because of the current population. My numbers are based on the census not made up to try and argue a point.

So I guess no Hispanics were applying for that job?

Hispanics can be of any race...

I would also say that Black people are what ..... 13% of the total US population? That means that they are almost always going to compete with more people who are not the same race as they are, than those who are.

If we were to use the US population as a benchmark, then for every 100 applicants, roughly 62 would be White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, 13 would be Black, 17 would be Hispanic, 1 would be an American Indian, and 5 would be of Asian background. The rest would be mixed or other. US Census data

The Black person, just strictly by the numbers, has a 13% chance of getting a particular job, if there are no other factors involved. This assumes all equally qualified candidates, and having no other criteria, with their applications randomly assigned a number, and then having a number drawn from a hat. However, there are always other criteria, from interview skills, to the way someone is able to answer specific job related questions, and so on.

See we are thinking the same thing. I just propose we try to fix the education system, rather than find a way to just make the poor be non-poor. Because essentially, those in school have little say it what happens with the money in the household. We need them to earn their way out, so that they can appreciate it more and pass that trait on to the next generation.

IMO that is the only way we can overcome it. Anything we are given without having to put in any effort or work to obtain, has little if any value to us.

But we can try to do something in the school system. The whole "grade" system and in k-12 is wonderful, but since not everyone learns at the same rate, maybe we need to split it into more. It seem through the years we have gone from having different levels of proficiency classes to everyone in one class and all learn at the same pace, whether they get it or not. I'm sure this is due to money constraints on schools, as well the whole "Don't want to hurt their self-esteem" movement that seems to be taking over our society.

I don't have the answer, but I am sure there is someone smarter than I that can come up with one. A way to make learning fun, to help children see that a good education can get them out of where their family is. Maybe an incentive to keep putting in the effort.

The Hispanic/Latino naming dispute is an ongoing disagreement over the use of the ethnonyms "Hispanic" and "Latino" to refer collectively to the inhabitants of the United States who are of Latin American or Spanish origin—that is, Hispanic or Latino Americans. The usage of both terms has changed to adapt to a wide range of geographical and historical influences. The term "Hispanic" was used first; later, some Hispanics in the western United States came to prefer the term "Latino."

While the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, "Hispanic" is a narrower term which only refers to persons of Spanish-speaking origin or ancestry, while "Latino" is more frequently used to refer more generally to anyone of Latin American origin or ancestry

http://en.wikipedia.org

There was a study (I believe it was in Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers -- which is a must read btw) about how kids from all school districts in the state of Maryland are learning at the same rate. The inequality in education appeared, in this study (which I'm slightly skeptical of), during the summer. The study said that families in the middle class and above could afford summer education (whether it be camps, tutors, or schools) while poorer people could not. So, a possible solution, assuming this study is valid (which I'm slightly skeptical about. I feel like there's a moderate to large advantage for schools in the suburbs like Centerville, Solon, Mason, and Dublin than their inner-city counterparts), would be having year round school.

It's an interesting idea, one I'm not sure how I feel about it, but it is interesting.

I dont think you are understanding what I am trying to say, which can be difficult on a message board.

Lets say 10 people interview for a job. 7 white, 1 black, 1 asian, 1 hispanic person.

You are looking at it that the white person has a 70% chance of getting the job. I look at it as I dont care about the other black person, the other white person, the other hispanic person, I and I alone have a 10% chance of getting the job.

That is the problem, people look at it as blacks vs white, vs hispanci, vs whatever, it has nothing to do with that. YOU and I are indivduals, and should be solely treated as individuals. That was the purpose of AA, If more white or more hispanics are more qualified for the job, then so be it. Its up to the individual to make themselves more qualified, not rely on a law to get them the job.

Lebron James kids will have more of a chance to go to school than my kids ever will. I dont need schools to educate my children, I can educate them myself if need be.

For the most part I agree but kids in poverty often have to think about other things like not eating dinner, helping to take care of other siblings(parent(s) are at work or lazy) deal with drugs, abuse and other things that will not allow them to focus on school. I know first hand.

What did this have to do with anything I said?

That I agree with that statement 100%.

But look at this too, I have hard enough of time to take care of my OWN family, let alone pay or take care of someone elses. Not that I am against charity or helping anyone else, but my family comes before anyone elses. Those kids wouldnt be in that perdicament if they didnt have low life parents, which takes this to a completely different topic so I am not really going to get into that.

Because it goes back to the fact (which is how I read it, which I may be wrong entirely if I am please excuse me) that only poor kids have bad education and only minorities have poor kids and thats why their is racism.

I was pointing that my kids are not going to have the same advantages of Lebron James, and are considered "poor", however they are not racist nor am I.

Again, after reading your post the first time, thats what I got out of it, which now that I read it again I do not believe that is what your point was. But thats what my reply was about.

And I was also pointing out the fact that if the school was not providing for my kids the edcuation that they needed it was up TO ME to provide it, not for me to make a year long school.

The answer is yes to all of these- and more.

The common denominator among all of these factors is poverty- and to get at the roots of poverty, we must examine how it was formed in the first place.

Ignoring the long-term historical origins of poverty (that date back to Reconstruction), instead, let's look at post WWII migration patterns to see the origins of modern-day urban poverty. Just after the end of WWII, GI's came home with opportunities to rebuild their lives. Education opportunities, home-purchasing loans, etc. At that time, cities were vibrant centers of culture, commerce and social diversity.

Then in the 50's, suburbs began popping up, which led to the phenomenon known as "white flight." Now, some people left because of a desire to distance themselves from minorities, but I believe the lion's share of suburb migrants left because of the lifestyle it offered (large yards, room to breathe, etc).

BUT: and this is key- we also had this real estate practice called 'redlining'... a policy by which certain neighborhoods were protected from minority ingress. City maps were hung on walls with literal red lines drawn to delineate where agents could and could not show homes to prospective buyers. That practice was commonplace for 30 years until it was outlawed (however, I believe it is still practiced to some extent today).

How does this matter in the context of our discussion? It's simple- tax bases. Schools are funded through tax income, and quality is directly related to monetary resources. More money equals better schools, higher pay for teachers, more resources for facilities. Couple with that, industry's flight from towns, and there was a financial infrastructure crash that crippled nearly ever major metropolitan center during the 60's-70's.

Those who couldn't afford to move were stuck. Those who wanted to move, but were limited in where they could go, were stuck on a rung just above the poorest of the poor... and those who got out were insulated from the calamity. They sat on their suburban patios, reading the local news, shaking their heads at the decline of the city they no longer lived in.

Here we are, 50 years later, with the problem even more pronounced, as the inner-city population is now 3 generations into the cycle of perpetual destitution. Tax rates are no better, schools are crumbling, and there is no money to repair/replace them. Add to that a lack of incentive for promising and talented teachers to stay (when they could earn better income from other school districts for the same job description), and the conditions born of poverty 1/2 century ago are now self-perpetuating.

It's true that poverty is an 'equal opportunity oppressor,' but our history has set up certain segments to be more afflicted than others This is a specific example of my earlier posts regarding racism as an institution in society. The system was not specifically set up to hold down a segment of the population, but it was a major contributing factor by making it easier for some to explore ALL available options. Those whose options were more limited found their lives effected very differently.

To fix this problem will require several changes:

a reversal of migratory patterns, beginning with business and industry. A new commitment to the urban centers will find a potential workforce that's already in place, waiting for a chance. I know of few people who wouldn't trade a life on welfare/margins of society for a real job at a living wage, and a chance at communal legitimacy.

Renewed commitment to education: with a better tax base, funding for updated facilities would help a lot. Renew interest in ed degrees, by including incentives for graduates who commit to 5 years service in urban school systems. Hire school/home liasons to maintain contact/involvement with the families of students.

And this, as well: clean up inner-city neighborhoods one block at a time. In my own town, there are at least a dozen spots that have been transformed from squalid hives of wretchedness into respectable, self-sustaining neighborhoods. Run-down homes were renovated/repaired. Crime left in a hurry. Families maintained the properties. It was incredible- and uplifting to the max. And it all started with a couple folks on the block fixing up their homes and starting a neighborhood garden. String enough of these blocks together, and whole sections of the city can be transformed in a matter of a few years. It's starting to happen in Detroit, under the radar... and it's very cool to see how different things are now than just 4-5 years ago.


these ideas are a start. I could bang out more.... but I have a job that's calling me.

more later,
Clem

I agree with this. I'm not sure where it went, but I had a paragraph that was on this, about helping the kids learn in school, as well as provide some help and guidance while out of school.

I agree completely, and those solutions are great.

Let me return the favor. This is a fine post with fantastic solutions.

Wow! There were some really, really great posts since I last looked.

Not all are great. There is still some bickering between which race is most misunderstood, faces the most bias, etc, etc...........


but, there were so many great posts where people said let's look past our differences and try to find solutions. That's freaking awesome. You guys are educating me. Any good teacher knows that if he/she has 25 students in the room that there are then 26 teachers in the room.

I'm not sure if any of us know exactly what will work and won't work. Hell, I know I don't. I have some ideas, just like many of you guys. But, one thing is for certain........if we ALL come together [screw that, it's impossible to have that dream......but if the MAJORITY of us come together] and work to solve problems rather than bitch about the other side and allow the anger and resentment to build, this world will be a much better place.

Bob Marley once sang........



Hmmm.......where am I going w/this? My brother had some of the greatest points, but he chose war over peace. Does anyone see how different races could interpret these lyrics differently?

I say we concentrate on the positive lyrics. And make it happen. Let's come together as one.

I don't say war. I say let's come together. Let's ensure that "...the colour of a man's skin
Is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes." and let's say Unity rather than War.

Yea, I thought I remembered hearing that somewhere before.

A follow-up to my previous post, where I discussed post-war social migratory patterns, and their impact on large municipalities.

In that post, I outlined how racially-based real estate housing practices led to the homogenization of suburbs, and how the flight of commerce and industry followed them out of the cities (and in some cases, overseas). I also gave a few examples of new-ish ideas that could reverse a half-century's worth of flight, neglect and decay.

I should start by saying this: I don't expect a mass migration from the 'burbs back to the cities any time soon. That trend took 3/4ths of a century to solidify itself, and that much inertia is never "turned around on a dime." James Cameron could never have made his movie 'Titanic' if the original ship could move like a sports coupe...

But I DO see a myriad of ways in which metropolises like Detroit, Cleveland, etc. can begin to turn things around. I gave a few starting steps in my previous post.

Here are a few other practical ideas that might work in the inner city environment... because that's the American community we're really talking about, for the most part.

1. Enterprise Zones The jury's still out on whether they work all the time or not... but there have been enough success stories for us to analyze. We can now track why some worked, and some failed. Tweak the particulars, and try it again- in the areas of deepest need. At worst, the idea will yield marginal benefits. At best, it could be dovetailed in with the initiatives that I outlined in my previous post.

2. Microbanks. This can include elements of Microfinance and Microcredit, which have been proven to do for impoverished peoples what large banking institutions have been unable and even unwilling to even attempt.

Whole communities of impoverished African countries have empowered their own people to rise out of poverty and desperation, by employing these tactics. If it can work in some of the most economically oppressed places on Earth... why can't it work for folks in our own country who face the same socioeconomic challenges?

Community Empowerment Zones: Take your typical 4-block impoverished neighborhood "in the 'hood" as our example (...since well ALL seem to work well with stereotypes...). In this district, struggling families are fighting to keep their kids safe. Dad/Mom teams and single Moms are working 2-3 part-time jobs to provide for their families. Gangs, drugs and crime are rampant.

Community leaders and local police make a pact to fix a 4-square block of that district, as a start. Police agree to place beat cops on increased foot/bike patrol, with the express purpose of actually knowing the neighborhood from a street-level perspective. Cops become familiar faces in the community, which breeds a sense of trust over time. In return, Good People in the neighborhood begin to actually COOPERATE with local law enforcement... and some (perhaps many) of the 'at-risk kids' in the district are not just seen as potential (or true) gang-bangers by "drive-by cops" in patrol cars... because these people now actually KNOW each other.

______________________

If the trusted local community leaders are working in concert with local law enforcement, the prevailing atmosphere of mistrust between community and law enforcement can be diminished- leading to a better overall environment for those who are really trying to make a good life for themselves. The citizens really CAN 'take back' their communities.


Encourage the companies and industries who relocate to these new zones to 'buy in' to the community initiatives.

It's good for business, if they can ply their trade without hassles from a dysfunctional environment. It's good for profits, because they have a new workforce that will be loyal to them for life. AND.. it's good for PR... because they've just "one-upped" their competition- who are still out-sourcing their work to China, Mexico, and Bangladesh.

______________________

I have no guarantees that these approaches will bring about a renaissance to America's current inner-city plight, but I ask you all:

What could possibly be lost by trying?


Dovetail these ideas with the ones I previously outlined- and give me a good reason why these initiatives SHOULD'NY be attempted.

I await your considered responses.

Seeking a better future for us all,
Clem.

Great post Clem and add to the real estate factor the GI Bill.

Loans were provided for WWII soldiers so they could buy into the suburbs. The banks were actually advised to avoid loaning to black soldiers because they would be unlikely to afford making the payments.

It's facts like these that make it difficult for me to avoid repeating black v white blaming and come up with solutions.

IMO the first step to creating solutions is to acknowledge there is a problem and that problem belongs to all of us.

My solution is to solve the economic inequality that is happening to ALL of us. Then I would agree with the idea that it's possible to raise yourself out of poverty and black v white would be a smaller concern.

Solve the economy first then we can tackle education, discrimination and whatever.

That doesn't mean "rob the rich". It means everybody has a responsibility to solve OUR problem and there are irresponsible economic policies that make the problem more difficult to solve.

I'm the mark of unabated racism on a regular basis. From people on the street to government employees with authority to affect my life.

My crime? I'm white.

How does it affect your life though?

I know right?

My be a hard knock life to be less likely charged with a crime compared to minorities, more likely to get a job and given credit.

The struggle is real.

Lurker, Clem has some great ideas, things that are working or at least have the possibility to work. The one thing that I notice through is points is that there is only so much the government can do. The government can make things available, but the government can't make people stay off drugs, in fact, the movement is to make more drugs legal. The government can't make families stay together, giving kids more stability.

there are things the government can do to help but in the end it's going to take individuals in each community, in each family, that decides to make a difference.

Another great post Clem, as always, and I'd like to add something as rockdogg added the GI bill.

A more mobile population. As transportation to travel longer distances become more affordable to the general masses, most every family had a car, public transportation reaching out farther, it gave people the ability to live farther from where they worked. And in some ways, allowed them to escape work by being out in the "burbs".

There tends to be many factors in why things happen, especially when we are talking as broadly as a diverse population. And there will be many things that will need to take place to fix problems or side effects that they caused.

There seldom is a one-solution-fits-all answer, and each community and neighborhood, may need different intervention to help. Which is one thing the government tends to not be good at. They want what works in downtown Detroit to work in Boise, Idaho, and it usually doesn't work that way.

Every fast food place, every grocery store, every outdoor maintenance crew, every large box store, and nearly every gas station I go to in my area is full, wall to wall, with Hispanics, working their butts off. I have met and gotten to know many of them and I can't remember even one time they mentioned anything about racism or bigotry. I'll have to make a point of it to ask them about it.

So Clem, great ideas... when are you running for office?

Let me throw out a few challenges that occur in the inner city.. and for the record, a lot of cities are experiencing more economic vitality with the Y Generation.. this generation is more interested in moving into active cities than they are moving out to the burbs in their 20s and they are putting off starting a family. Cities are clamoring for some type of affordable housing in the city to accommodate this.

The problem cities have is that they tend to go from one extreme to the other. They have a poor neighborhood, developers view that as ripe for the picking. They can get it cheap, they can build high-end condos, a marina, a stadium, whatever.. and they end up with a nice area but they have priced out the locals who used to call it home. In essence they have displaced the problem more than they have solved it.

The other problem is property taxes. I've witnessed some run down neighborhoods in DC go through the kind of transformation you are talking about where they start gardens, clean up the streets, clean up the graffiti, push out the crime... and you know what happens? Yuppies are then attracted to those neighborhoods, start buying the properties, drive up the property values, and over time, those who did all of the work can't afford to live in the neighborhood they built any more.

Thoughts?

Gentrification hosts a lot of problems indeed. Good post, DC.

'Gentrification'... I wondered when someone would bring that up. This is only an issue if the areas are still overpopulated with poor/subsistence occupants.

That's why my first post dealt with the concept of business and industry moving in first. It all pretty much hinges on this happening early in the renewal process.

If the businesses honor their agreement with the city to commit to hiring from the local population in exchange for favorable tax rates, the indigenous population can now afford the homes (and the new property taxes).

It is essential that the city itself be THE major player in the urban planning. They must be there to broker with developers deals that include the current population (like NYC's 'rent control' policy, 'grandfather clauses,' etc). I assume they'd do this by setting up competition among the developers themselves. Most of these depressed areas have large swaths that are city property already, so the seller gets to set the conditions of sale. Developers who don't wish to meet the conditions will drop out of the running. The city can then negotiate with those developers who are willing to work with the city under the proposed conditions.

For urban renewal to work, most or all of these ideas must be in play. Some of these ideas rely on outside forces coming in. Some rely on the efforts of those already there. The causes of urban decay were many and varied; the solutions will have to be just as diverse. Being realistic, not all of them will be smashing successes. In those instances, it will be important to evaluate the reasons why... and decide if they need to be adjusted for improvement or scrapped outright. If dumped, there must be a new idea implemented that serves the same purpose.

The important point here is that something- ANYTHING- be tried... and positive momentum be established. Up 'til now, the biggest problem has been inertia- the probs have been around for so long, it takes a supreme effort to effect ANY change at all. Most of the malaise we've seen has been due to meager, half-hearted attempts at finding solutions. One or two ideas, haphazardly implemented are doomed to failure. Problems as big as the ones seen by CLE and DET require a comprehensive approach that not only addresses the surface ills, but also fundamentally changes the entire culture of urban life.

It will probably take a generation to accomplish it, but it can be done.

And DC: I have no interest in running for office. Two reasons why:

1. I'd never get past the pre-campaign vetting process.
2. I want to be free to leave whenever I want- so I can go fix the Cleveland Browns. They are going to take a lot more work!

DC this was probably the best post I have read on here. Personal responsibility is something most of this country lacks.

That happens when you talk to yourself all the time.

by rock above:

"How does it affect your life though?"

Well... since you asked.

For starters, start taking inner-city buses on a regular basis like I do.

Assuming you're white:

1) you will not feel comfortably safe,
2) you will be treated with indignation,
3) you will be offered regular chances to "Wanna do sumpthin 'bout it?"

As far as government employees go. Let me put it this way: Given my decent work ethic, if I was black, I'd have a really good paying job.

If you don't necessarily believe that I'd say you're naive.

But how else does one get great answers?

The government can do nothing about poverty, broken families, crime, or anything else other than to make it worse. Passing laws will not stop poverty, broken families, crime or anything else. It only makes it illegal or gives the government reason to crack down on its citizenry. Calling on the government to do anything for you is like calling the devil to save your soul. It is not likely to help.



In the end the government can do nothing for you. You recognize it yourself but you have to quantify it by saying it has to be individuals but you keep the government helping moniker. Why?



I disagree. A majority of people take personal responsibility for their lives. It is the minority who force themselves onto the majority through the use of the government.

Because the government can make resources available like low interest loans to people who otherwise couldn't get loans, the government can clean up its own property, like it's city parks and other common areas, the government can set aside land for the development of office parks and industrial parks that are located in places where it is convenient for lower income folks to work.

In the end, all the government can do is make things available for people to use, if the people choose not to use them then I agree, there is not much the government can do.

I thought that this was interesting.

Louisiana Literacy Test 1960's

i just looked at that test.

yep, i wouldn't have been voting back in the day.