How could the United States fully Democratize, assimilate and ecomically equalize inner-city African-Americans? (unemployment rate, salaries)

[caution]

This issue hits close to home for me, but I only have two comments:

- The government has nothing to offer in terms of solutions (unless you count working for the government in some capacity).
- The individuals and their families are responsible for solving the problems they face and accepting responsibility for their actions.

[backfist]

Originally Posted by happ

What a revolting racist poll that I will not participate in

And the original poster has absolutely no clue as to how offensive, condescending, patronizing and intellectually insulting his/her post is.

First, the original poster would be well served to learn and understand who [we] Black Americans were and are. Notice how his or her reference point is poor and inner-city Blacks (who are, by the way, the minority of the Black population)?

Second, he or she has the gall to suggest that [we] Blacks stop referring to ourselves as such. And then he or she goes on to refer to us in that very same manner. In other words, "if African Americans would stop referring to themselves as African Americans, they'd be better off". The irony is lost on this person that centuries ago, [we] were in fact, named without our consent by the so-called "mainstream". And now the "mainstream" sees fit to advise us to stop referring to ourselves in the same context as that "mainstream" initially demanded.

I could go on and on pointing out the fallacies, distortions, misinterpretations and downright foolishness of the original post. But suffice it to say that people who understand themselves to be so superior as to advise an entire population of Americans on how to best comport themselves ...

I say take the plank out of your own eye before you focus on the speck in mine.

[The Dissenter]

I'm an African-American and i voted for #2 and #4. #2 beacuse i feel that illegals have the worst effect on blacks. #4 is an obvious answer but most polcitians wont do it or even mention it b/c they are afraid of upsetting blacks. News flash; Our rising black middle class wont be sad about welfare cutting b/c we are out making ends meet for ourselves and we are getting sicker and sicker of our lazy brothers and sisters doing nothing and living decently while we work two or 3 jobs just to live decently.

One choice that should be mentioned is to somehow make our parents be parents and force our kids to get all the education they can. Black kids are defintely not stupid, the difference is in some households there is h*%^ to pay for bringing home lousy grades (mine was one of them) while other households condone bad grades.

[backfist]

Originally Posted by Alanboy395

I'm an African-American and i voted for #2 and #4. #2 beacuse i feel that illegals have the worst effect on blacks. #4 is an obvious answer but most polcitians wont do it or even mention it b/c they are afraid of upsetting blacks. News flash; Our rising black middle class wont be sad about welfare cutting b/c we are out making ends meet for ourselves and we are getting sicker and sicker of our lazy brothers and sisters doing nothing and living decently while we work two or 3 jobs just to live decently.

The last sentence is not only true, it actually negates the first part of your post. I'll explain:

I've long been a part of the Black middle class--the majority of our population. And I've never lost a job to, been displaced by, or otherwise had my occupational opportunities affected by a so-called "illegal". And I dare say that most people in the Black middle class--if they're honest--will say the same.

Since when have non-Black and non-Latino and non-Asian Americans been concerned about Black folks losing low-paying, dead-end jobs?

[Tom Lennox 70]

I hate welfare in general, but I would rather pay welfare to a white or black American than to an illegal immigrant.

[The Dissenter]

Originally Posted by backfist

The last sentence is not only true, it actually negates the first part of your post. I'll explain:

I've long been a part of the Black middle class--the majority of our population. And I've never lost a job to, been displaced by, or otherwise had my occupational opportunities affected by a so-called "illegal". And I dare say that most people in the Black middle class--if they're honest--will say the same.

Since when have non-Black and non-Latino and non-Asian Americans been concerned about Black folks losing low-paying, dead-end jobs?

i stand corrected, backfist.

[GregW]

OP - there are more contridictions in this essay than in the bible. Pure unadulterated blather not worthy of a serious response.

[nyc0127]

Hey Magnulus, I'm going to quote like this instead of doing it the normal way to save some space on the thread.

''Most poor people in the US are white, not black. Many live in rural areas and not inner cities. Increasingly poverty is found in suburbs more than city cores.''

You're right. I didn't say any of that wasn't true though. Read my first post. I said poverty exists in this country as a whole for people of all races and that the issue is highly neglected. However, I said the poverty that exists for African-Americans in inner-cities is most highly accelerated. I would like to cover all parts of poverty, but I don't know if there is enough time to do that. Eventually, I may create that on another thread though. In general, the reasoning for how to correct this is similar to the poverty for whites - but it can't be denied that it exists higher for blacks, especially in inner-cities. That is why they average nearly 20 thousand less a year in salary.

''Most poor blacks work at jobs, the same as whites.''

That's absolutely true. I didn't say the predominance of African-Americans didn't work. They work and work hard just like anyone else. You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm focusing in on the impoverished section of the population. Not African-Americans. Most African-Americans actually aren't impoverished if you looked at it from an overview of the United States. Black doesn't necessarily equal poor, but poor to commonly equals black. I believe we should do something to get on the right track to correcting this.

''Johnson and Kennedy's programs were largely successful.''

Were they really? I mean for the day, they might have been. For southerners, they may have been. But how exactly was accelerating welfare funding, building people homes that shouldn't even be lived in and other various programs driving the impoverished? Those programs may have helped the middle-class blacks of the time and even some of the working-class blacks who turned it up a notch, but those who were already poor or close to it only got worse. It's because there were options to still live if you didn't want to work. However, if you don't want to work, are under 65 and have the physical capabilities to - you probably shouldn't be living in the United States. Obviously though, most Americans (and especially the impoverished) have never significantly deeply looked into and assessed that option.

''By every measure blacks today are doing better than they were 30-40 years ago- during the Great Society era black poverty was cut in half.''

Well, I respect your opinion - but I don't think you're looking at the whole picture. Maybe you're basing off the people you know, or the city, state or region you live in. I wouldn't necessarily call Food Stamps a good program. Although it provides money for those who don't want to work, that's the exact kind of anti-capitalistic safety net that prevents people from working. They don't exactly provide the greatest food, but you ever hear the expression on one of those older TV shows? It refers to the man of the house saying - who puts the food on your table and shelter over your head? The answer for that before the 60's for all Americans was their father. Nowadays, although minimal compared to the general population - it's not their father, but rather the government. Is it really any different for them than someone who lived in the Soviet Union?

Middle-class blacks have progressed. No doubt that. Most who climb out of poverty do. It's the poor that is getting poorer. They're standing idle, while everyone else is moving forward. This isn't healthy for the United States. If we tell ourselves that inner-city African-Americans aren't so bad economically, than we'd only be prolonging the problem. That's the exact approach the U.S. government has, because they'd rather focus their attention on grooming working-class immigrants.

''Blacks and whites both have high out-of-wedlock births.''

Well, that depends on what your definition of high. Any number could be too high, but nearly 70%? That's 7 out of every 10 people. That is no where near the statistic for whites or anyone in this country who isn't black. Obviously, we know that number is much lower for southerners - because they're more religious, conservative and economically stable corresponding to their respective areas. In affluent suburbs, it's lower too. Could you imagine how high that number is in the worst parts of inner-cities like Philadelphia? It's probably over 90%.

Whites definitely have this problem too, but it's undeniable that it's less. And they often turn out with better outcomes. They'd obviously have a big advantage because they'd probably have a family that makes more money. Besides that, I'm sure all of you are well-aware of what a ''shot gun wedding'' is. Having a baby out of wedlock isn't a horrible idea if it's planned, but unplanned pregnancies and especially for teenagers absolutely destroys all family values. It also says something about stupid people of all backgrounds in this country are. There is a 24 hour pill. Even if you were dumb enough to do it with out a condom, what's the farthest anyone might live from a store like CVS, Rite Aid or Walgreens that sells that? Take it and you'd still most likely get away with that mistake.

''And I will be so bold as to suggest that out-of-wedlock births in themselves don't necessarily lead to dire social consequences.''

You're partly right. However, in this country - it usually leads to negative results. The main factor is economics. Truthfully, if the father stayed with the mother and economically provided for her and even allowed the mother to develop her own career - that marriage title wouldn't really mean much. However, our society (as many do) denotes ''unplanned births'' as ''mistakes.''

People regard those who do such a thing to be irresponsible which leads to a lot of embarrassment. I don't know if they got a statistic out there for this, but I guarantee you that the percentage for how many father's stay with mother's is higher for non-blacks than it is for blacks. I'm basing this off personal experience. Money and education is the main indicator in all of this - which is why I'm focusing in mostly on what plan could work on economically assimilating impoverished inner-city African-Americans.

''Sweden or Norway would be perfect examples of countries with high out-of-wedlock births but high productivity and standard of living.''

Once again, marriage isn't as hounded upon there. Not as many dads just walk away. Their society is more educated. Even if there having babies out of wedlock, it doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't planned. Those countries got universal health care and better prenatal care. They have lower fertility rates with not so overwhelming immigration, so they're able to work harder on improving the lives of their own citizens.

''Being African-American is no more anti-American or collectivist than being Irish-American or Italian-American.''

Well, I'd agree with such a notion - but being Irish-American or Italian-American simply doesn't exist in this country. I could tell you first-hand because those are two out of the three nationalities I descend from (Spaniard is the other). They don't exist. They are useless titles that any white person could include themselves in. They determine nothing socially or economically. Many are mixed, also diluting the importance. Most people of Italian descent can't speak the language of their ancestors. Most aren't interested in any of their heritage, and if they are - they significantly curve it to their own interests. And many Irish descendants of those who came during the mid-1800's often quit on the one thing that helped them retain their imagery - Catholicism. Those titles are for the history books. Nothing more, nor nothing less.

Being African-American exists. Since the 1960's, Americans have lost connection with one another. They have become more individualized, don't know people in detail as much and developed a better conscience for that it's not right to judge where you don't know. People don't know who Johnny down the block is anymore for a lot of reasons. Life was getting expensive. Women went back to work and develop their own careers. People moved out to suburbs. People became much less religious and stopped caring for other people.

It came down to the fact that Americans judge with their eyes in this modern era, rather than with their brains and/or creativity. If people see a black person, they judge based on that. If people see someone who is Asian or white, same thing. Unless you're talking to a delusional old person who lived through that era or a weirdo, I really doubt you'd see people commonly saying ''oh, that guys Irish.'' Americans base off of what they can see, rather than what they can think. Since the 60's, we've all become more like one another than having differences that arguably made our ancestors who they were.

''Blackness is a real social category and doesn't go away just because certain reactionaries try and wish it away''

I'm not saying it should or could go away altogether. I'm simply saying to take the factions that make it so important out of it. In other words, if blacks lived on the same blocks and made the same exact money as whites - why would people pride themselves on being black? Why do you think African and West Indian immigrants don't care or speak much upon being ''black?'' Sure, people could do it a little if they feel the need to pride themselves in things they can't control - just like how a white nationalist may, but big deal. It won't go that far. Being black should be nothing more than a physical thing. And if it is going to be a social thing, it should be contained at a level that you could maintain you're pride - but not let it overwhelm you into isolating and segregating yourself from the total population.

Certain things will continue to fall in the ideas of socially constructed whiteness and blackness. The biggest idea is marriage. That is sociological. However, here's the thing that disgusts me. It happens all the time. I live in New Jersey (suburban Philadelphia). Where I live is probably around 15 to 20 percent black. Most people are on the same page economically, because it's very expensive here. There aren't many apartments and a half-way decent house that isn't like 100 years old goes for 300 thousand+ and has taxes for averagely near 7 thousand year and hefty insurance too. The education system is also very good because it's funded by those real-estate taxes. There are divisions - primarily in places like Camden, but the area is not that bad.

Hypothetically though, if you were to go into a mall and see a pack of twelve black kids (or twelve white kids) together - who you know probably aren't related, dating or anything else - it has to raise a question. I notice this all the time. This isn't a problem everywhere, but to myself - that's wrong. I'm talking about every kid, not a mixture. We're all Americans. And not all of us live in different areas or have different income levels. For foreigners within their respective groups, it's understandable because of linguistics and people trying to feel more culturally comfortable. However, I just don't believe ''black'' culture should exist. You don't see people in other countries believing in that like Americans do. I'm not saying I'm right - it's an opinion, but it's undeniably a segregation method too.

The same thing occurs if you go into Manhattan. You'll see a pack of nine white kids together who you know probably don't live within New York City boundaries, and even if they did - you'd much doubt that the demography of that area is representative of their pack. Same thing if they were coming from a suburb. I really doubt those areas are the way they're showing it to be. I just don't believe this is healthy, but I could be wrong. However, it is segregation and often causes people to base off stereotype and not personal experience leading to big social and economic divisions.

I have friends of all backgrounds. I have dated and would marry a women of any race, background and religion. The way how I see it, if 17% of my county is African-American - than there's a 17% my possible wife (if I choose to get married) will be. I know not everyone is that lucky or has that same approach, but it would be highly valuable.

''what you are advocating is denying a group the right to self-identify themselves and their interests,''

Does that group even exist though? Is there any unity? They only unity you could witness comes out of those who are already middle-class and only out for their own economic interests. In other words, losers like Al Sharpton (who may as well be white) are everything that is wrong with a possible ''black community.'' How many of you have ever heard him speak upon issues that didn't involve blacks or race in general (not counting him pocketing funds).

That is why it's somewhat refreshing to see a guy like Barack Obama (although half black and didn't have enslaved ancestors) - because he's a person, rather than a ''black person.'' And if he becomes president, it will be as Barack Obama and not ''black Barack Obama.'' Maybe the media will try making it seem otherwise, but that's the truth. It gives off the idea that black people are too unintelligent to be worried about anything that the rest of the population is. It enforces to consume that it's the only thing they're capable of thinking about.

I'll give an example. When we hear about issues involving health care, gay marriage, stem-cell research and anything else - almost all the time the media coverage on those is far below the 12.5% black population it's represented by. If there was an idea of unified ''blackness'' in this country, than I highly doubt that predominantly non-black groups would have to work so hard to try to help them fix their problems. Than if you see the media covering brainstorming groups - they'll ask how does the war in Iraq effect the ''black community?'' Or the ''black vote.'' Why can't they just be ''the vote?'' Asking it like that is the exact practice of segregation. And no one challenges it. If anything, considering how long most of their ancestors have been living in the United States and because they're 17 percent of the military - they should be addresses as Americans only.

''in effect you are saying blacks should be silent and submissive to the mainstream''

As I said before, it might sound mean - but it's the only way how inner-city impoverished African-Americans will assimilate. I didn't mean be silent in the regard as Americans though. They should be as involved as any other citizen of the United States when it comes to issue - like health care, the war in Iraq, the economy or gay marriage. They shouldn't be silent. However, achieving full assimilation economically and in all fashions in life will require some sort of silence (or dissolving interest) of ''blackness.'' Ask those in the West Indies that.

Sure, they could rave on about ''black pride'' or stupid things like that - but it would interfere their every day lives and would step in the way of their national pride. That is the only way how to acquire full economic assimilation. It's either ''blackness with large amounts of poverty who consume themselves with collective ideals'' or ''mainstream American economically middle-class stature who are out for their own personal interests.'' Which sounds better? Those who are already assimilation (unless they BS themselves) almost entirely choose the second option.

[anonymous]

I don't think any of your proposed solutions would be effective.

In fact, I don't think any amount of legislation or policy will result in economic equality among blacks and whites. Increased size/scope of government is the problem, not the solution.

In my opinion, the most effective "solution" the government can provide is to try not to enact policies that negatively affect blacks more than the general population.

[nyc0127]

Originally Posted by Heaveno

You got my endorsement on this reply and it would really serve people greatly if they did the research before they created and designed polls such as this one. I am not speaking about what the media communicates to you or what you read in the newspaper. There are thousands of scientific journals out their to view at your own leisure to make a better assessment of what has been sensationalized to you about different groups of people in our country. Please do a search on family research, sociology, psychology, and education journals to start empowering yourself with some real scientific data which has been subjected to some rigorous research methods. You can also go to many university or college sites to view recent thesis and dissertations on many research studies that have been conducted by students in many different majors.

Well don't get me wrong, I didn't intend for this polling question to be related to geniuses. I intended it to be related to the average thinker of America, or maybe slightly a little above average. It's not like there is a lot of room in each option either. I'm simply giving off general ideas for how to take the first steps in fixing a problem that only seems to be getting worse. Each one of those options I gave is a big problem for inner-city African-Americans and is effects people economically. I will notice that the options are broad, but they're not inappropriate.

Tell me how those options would be wrong. He didn't do that. He was basically saying my style of thinking i the wrong way. He didn't critique the exact quote of those options. The other guy who did that (doc1) I give more credit to, because that would be a more respectable argument.

I have researched information through universities and more intelligent resources than the typical ones the media offers. What does that have to do with the wording of the options I provided? Are you denying that all four of those things are not big problems to the impoverished inner-city African-American population?

OPT 1 - The idea of ''blackness'' is getting many segregated. It causes isolation and polarization. The idea of us being white, black or Asian constantly being reinforced on every job application or every time we watch TV overshadows the importance of us being Americans. It prides more within collective increments within America, which divides our country. It causes much of the national pride to disintegrate - which actually has happened.

OPT 2 - Uneducated working-class legal immigration is a big problem to the poor African-American population. It's a big problem to all working-class Americans. It's unnecessary competition. In other fields, it is - but we have plenty of Americans who are willing to do all jobs. Employers hate stereotypical nuisances. They'd rather hire employees they know won't complain, will work harder and will believe the pay is actually more than what it is - because it's a lot more than what he would have made back home. The ones that are usually done by those who know one wants to do ends up with illegal immigrants. If wages are risen and many are deported, this would help allow the problem to resolve. We have 303.5 million citizens right now, and not everyone lives so great. What's it going to be when we have a projected 428 million people in 42 years?

OPT 3 - Okay, so enforcing laws doesn't seem manageable. I'm right there with everyone on that. That was just an idea. Having a baby out of wedlock really can't be enforced. I think it could if enough people agreed with the idea just like child support, but it's not my expectation? Is having babies out of wedlock not a highly accelerated problem corresponding the general population though? Are you proposing that we should just ignore this? If you have an idea of how I should have written that option or any of those, let me know. I'll listen.

Taking children away from criminals, drug-users and non-working parents is more realistic. The problem is it isn't enforced enough. Creating better laws that make this easier for social workers would be valuable. It'd also inject fear (which doesn't sound right, but is necessary to get better results sometime) - because no one would want to lose their children. Typically, using and/or selling drugs and not working probably isn't the most recommendable resume to ''keeping your children.''

OPT 4 - Personally, I voted for the second option - but could have easily voted for this option. The difference is how realistic I believe this could be. I believe that both are equally as important to one another, but I doubt welfare will be significantly reduced. Sadly, and I admit it's a big problem of my party - the Democratic party is more than half in control of this country. They won't allow that to happen. Even if the were slightly less than half, they still wouldn't allow this to happen. The idea of providing a home to everyone isn't bad, but it contradicts capitalism and the American dream. In certain areas socialism is needed and will inevitably exist (and also go away) - like universal health care and social security (eventually it will be privatized after there is no more money in it).

Rationing legal immigration (and especially uneducated working-class ones who would cost money to make sure their children end up middle-class) may not seem realistic either, but it's something that both parties don't necessarily differentiate much on the other. Illegal immigration is another story (although not so much more John McCain who seems to be a Democrat on that issue). However, legal immigration is arguably a bigger problem (those who overstay visas still did come legally - so I'm not going to include their impact on Mexican illegals) - because it will increase our population in large numbers and cause neglect to Americans who already don't live will.

I'd like to say option one happen too, but I doubt it. The government apparently loves having their division one basketball player who averages triple-doubles (''Hispanic'' immigrants) - because the countries they come from (and especially Mexico) don't want these citizens anymore and we do. And the government could groom them however they want. They should are against impoverished blacks. The media does all the dirty work for the government. If none of you don't believe me, try to find some clips of all those TV networks in 2000 that continually kept saying ''Hispanics are the new largest minority in the United States.'' What they forgot to mention to all of you was that the U.S. government re-classified Hispanic not to actually be a race anymore. And in fact, being that the people who technically fit the categorization of ''Hispanics'' was that close to blacks in 2000 - considering 3 percent of ''Hispanics'' are actually black, blacks still would have surpassed ''them'' anyway. The media obviously has their ways of spreading ignorance though and the government doesn't seem to mind.