Being born in the ghetto = "being born into a version of genocide"?

[magellan01]

@Blake

On re-reading I agree that’s a reasonable interpretation. If that was his intent then I withdraw my original comment.

OTOH if that was his intent then it is blatant classism at its worst. Blaming ‘the poor’ for the problems of ‘the poor’ as though the group is an entity meets the classic definition of classism: Bias based on social or economic class.

The damage we are discussing is not self inflicted. Poor people are individuals just as Americans are individuals. Saying that “most of the damage being done to the poor is self-inflicted” is as offensive as if someone said “Most of the damage done by childhood sexual assault in America is self-inflicted?. Would you honestly let such a statement pass unchallenged? Yet the intent and construction of both statements are identical. The group as a whole may be inflicting this damage on other individuals in the group, but in no way are the acts self inflicted.

Huh? In the first paragraph here you seem to accept the observation I made that you were conflating two different entities—the individual and the poor as a group—by using “self-inflicted” to refer to both groups.

Then in the third paragraph you go and make the exact same erroneous conflation. No one is saying (they may correct me if I am wrong) that a poor person (individual) is responsible for the situation he is born in to. The entity being described as having “self-inflicted” their poverty is the poor as a group, specifically as it applies to communities where poverty is a generationally recurring theme. While there is no doubt that factors from outside their world come to bear on their plight, to claim that there aren’t completely internal factors indicates willful blindness. I assume you acknowledge the existence of these internal factors, but think they are minor compared to those attributal to our society in a larger sense. Is that right?

It seems to me that the much larger problems are internal (self-inflicted), as many of them are cultural. If education is perceived to have no value, that’s an internal problem. If young males are allowed to get young girls pregnant with near impugnity, and then not have to provide for that child and help raise it, that’s an internal problem. If young girls see pregnancy as a badge of honor, that’s an internal problem. If young people are not taught to think long term, that’s an internal problem.

As far as your equating the statement that poverty is self-inflicted with childhood sexual assault being self-inflicted, it depends how you mean it. As has been pointed out, no one is claiming that a poor child is responsible for being poor. So if you are again trying make that part of the discussion I can offer nothing except to point out the error. If, on the other hand, you mean the childhood sexual assault is self-inflicted on society by society, you may have a point. IF childhood sexual assault becomes more and more common (as I think it has) then, yes, society should look at itself and examine why this is happening? Have we become too tolerant of sexual predators? Is our society sexualizing children? Has the break down of the nuclear family incresed the danger to children? Etc. That said, I do not think your comparison is particularly helpful to the discussion.

@Blake

But how does that mean that the damage inflicted on those children is self-inflicted? How is damage done to a child self-inflicted simply because the child and the parent fall into the same social group? It would seem from this that we must conclude that any damage done by sexual assault of children by Catholic priests was self-inflicted. After all both victim and perpetrator were members of the same social group.

Again, I think you’re confusing entities. No child is responsible for being sexually abused. No one is saying that, just as no one is saying that a child is responsible for being born poor. Asd far as the Catholic Church, given the great incidence of sexual abuse and the number of years that it has occured over, then yes, it is self-inflicted. There was a culture of denial/tolerance/protection that allowed what might have been isolated instances to reach the gross proportions it did.

@Blake

Ultimately of course people should choose to fund these opportunities because they are saving their own children and grandchildren. Centres of poverty and crime are not helpful to anyone. The very fact that slum-dwellers are increasing in number faster than responsible people A who have chosen to have fewer children and later means that the problem is getting worse and is ultimately unsustainable. People who refuse to fund solutions to the problem are only pushing a worse problem on their children.

I agree with most of this. But throwing money at the problem alone will do little if anything.

@Blake

Unfortunately human nature being what it is we don’t think like that. We seek to, if not actually punish then at least not reward, “people who did not make responsible choices” by forcing their children to inherit all the problems of poverty. And as a result those children go on to become “people who do not make responsible choices”. And our children have to choose to deal with their situation or else to ignore it and so the cycle continues.

And every generation the problem gets worse and the pool pf poverty and violence becomes a greater drain on the ever dwindling population who “make sacrifices to make sure their children have opportunities”. Like it or not the ghettos are a drain, the only choice is whether they are small drain on the current generation in an attempt to solve the problem, or an unsustainable drain on the future when the problem is truly insoluble.

Yes. So what do you propose?

I just previewed this and see that the discussion has moved forward, so instead on commenting on the rest of your post, I’d like to just say that I think both furlibusea and Askia make excellent observations.

[Blake]

@smiling bandit

… there’s a difference between saying that the solution is for the afflicted individuals to develop the skills, knowledge base, and other requirements neccessary for success and “to quit suffering from the problem.”

Indeed there is.

In contrast there is no difference between your suggestion that the only solution for individuals to learn how to get out of the ghetto is for individuals to go through the painful process of learning how to live outside the ghetto and saying “quit suffering from the problem”. No difference whatsoever.

I do understand now what you were trying to say. You just didn’t say it very clearly.

More to the point, you have no actual argument against me.

Of course I have no argument against you. What you have posted has been truisms. There is no argument against truisms. They are true. That doesn’t make them in any way helpful or enlightening.

Of course now that I understand that what you meant to say was ‘the only solution for individuals to learn how to get out of the ghetto is for individuals to develop the skills, knowledge base, and other requirements neccessary for success outside the ghetto’ I still have no argument agianst you. But that;s because you are correct.

The problem is not money or government assistance, it’s imagination and support. And governments cannot make those things.

Not directed against you, but I am struck by the fact that you can believe that government can’t provide the solution, while raindog apparently believes that only government can provide the solution.

I agree that imagination and support are essential ingredients in any solution. I don’t entirely agree that government can’t provide support. For example wealthier kids can generally rely on parents helping them with homework. The parents are providing support. Why couldn’t a government employee provide similar support for poor children?

Obviously government can’t provide all support but I don’t agree that it is powerless to provide any support.

Bureaucrats and even school counselors can’t really encourage someone to be all they can be (to borrow the old Army saying).

Too true. However something as simple as the presence of (younger) teachers who grew up in that situation was invaluable to me. Teachers and police are about the only people a lot of these kids see in real life that aren’t part of their environment. Knowing that some teachers and some cops really did grow up in that situation and really did make it out can go along way to encouraging poor kids to be all they can be.

Unfortunately when I wa sgrowing up very few teachers at lower end schools came from similar schools themselves for various reasons, and almost no young teachers came from there.

That’s why the military has been pretty good for the poor. Aside from learning discipline, if neccessary, it really encourages people to be the absolute best. More to the point, it creates new formal and informal social bonds with a new network of encouragement and support.

Yep.

[Blake]

magellan01, you are 100% correct regarding ‘self inflicted’. My cock-up. I tend to get a little [ahem] hostile when I see those sorts of suggestions. In my experience 99% of the time they are used as an excuse to do nothing and to blame all the problems of the poor on the poor. As if ‘self-inflicted’ somehow or other equates with ‘freely chosen’. ie 99% of the problems of black people are self inflicted, therefor black people freely chose to be poor.But that’s my hang-up and I see nothing to imply that in any of the posts here. Apologies to all.

Having said that I really don’t see the statement that the situation is ‘self inflicted’ as being helpful in any way in this case. Almost all human problems are self-inflicted if we are simply looking at groups. I can’t quite see what we are supposed to gain by the apparently trivial observation that a self-perpetuating cycle is self-perpetuated. I can see the benefit in understanding that it is a generational cycle but I can’t quite see the benefit in simply stating that fact when it is already universally known and accepted.

I agree with most of this. But throwing money at the problem alone will do little if anything.

It’s worked well so far hasn’t it?

Yes. So what do you propose?

Nuke the planet form orbit. It’s the only way to be sure. Then we start again. Maybe next time they get it right.

[smiling_bandit]

Of course I have no argument against you. What you have posted has been truisms. There is no argument against truisms. They are true. That doesn’t make them in any way helpful or enlightening.

I disagree. Too many people get into the habit of thinking about getting some magic solution to fall from the sky. Not just liberals or conservatives. I think it’s vitally important to remember that at the heart of the problem - and solution - lies individuals. Is it cliche? Maybe. But it’s the difference between effective and ineffective policy.

Not directed against you, but I am struck by the fact that you can believe that government can’t provide the solution, while raindog apparently believes that only government can provide the solution.

I agree that imagination and support are essential ingredients in any solution. I don’t entirely agree that government can’t provide support. For example wealthier kids can generally rely on parents helping them with homework. The parents are providing support. Why couldn’t a government employee provide similar support for poor children?

Different kinds of support. I’m talking moral support. Much more important, and so much harder. It’s the critical problem, and government per se can’t help. They can hire employees to assist people, but only those employees can choose to put in the neccessary interest and effort to make it work. And no regulation or job description can adequately force people to be helpful and mentor-ish.

Plus, even things like help with homework ultimately have to be chosen by the student. And they’re not likely to do that unless encouraged by parents or mentors. Catch 22.

And of course, the very people who do invest that emotional energy in helping and really do make a difference all too often burn out. And once that happens they leave, unable to do any more good.

[raindog]

Blake,
May I ask, how old are you?

[Blake]

@smiling bandit

I disagree. Too many people get into the habit of thinking about getting some magic solution to fall from the sky. Not just liberals or conservatives. I think it’s vitally important to remember that at the heart of the problem - and solution - lies individuals. Is it cliche? Maybe. But it’s the difference between effective and ineffective policy.

I guess this is also the reason why some people felt the need to point outthat human problmes are casued by humans.

But I dunno. I see a lot of ineffective policy and very little effective policy, yet at various times various people have ascribed the probelm to individuals or to ‘society’ in almost any blend you care to mention. Yet few policies have been effective.

I’m talking moral support. Much more important, and so much harder. It’s the critical problem, and government per se can’t help. They can hire employees to assist people, but only those employees can choose to put in the neccessary interest and effort to make it work. And no regulation or job description can adequately force people to be helpful and mentor-ish.

Of course there are ways of providing moral support aside from hired employees.

The fact is that many poor people are demoralised because they feel totally detached from the rest of society and essentialy abandonded. Moral support in that case very possibly could come from the state, although experience suggests that it might be hard to effectively implement.

Plus, even things like help with homework ultimately have to be chosen by the student. And they’re not likely to do that unless encouraged by parents or mentors. Catch 22.

Not really.

I agree that ultimately those things have to be chosen by the student. But in many cases students will choose that, if they have the capacity to make that choice.

It’s kind of hard to choose when you have to do your homework at the kitchen table surrounded by a tribe of siblings, a mother preparing dinner and the neighbours beating the shit out of each other next door. Not an envirnment conducive to study.

There is certainly an element of catch-22 but the cycle can also be broken in many cases by something as simple as giving kids an opportunity to do their homework. It doesn’t matter whether children choose to do their homwork or not if they have no opportunity to do it.

And of course, the very people who do invest that emotional energy in helping and really do make a difference all too often burn out. And once that happens they leave, unable to do any more good.

All too common.

[Blake]

@the raindog

Blake,
May I ask, how old are you?

You could just about have guessed from the information posted in this thread. I’m 34.

Why do you ask?

And is there any chance of you adressing my last post to you? I really would be interesting in hearing why you assumed ‘government’ in my posts instead of ‘charities’ or ‘individuals’ or ‘corporations’.

[raindog]

@Blake

You could just about have guessed from the information posted in this thread. I’m 34.

Why do you ask?

And is there any chance of you adressing my last post to you? I really would be interesting in hearing why you assumed ‘government’ in my posts instead of ‘charities’ or ‘individuals’ or ‘corporations’.

The post absolutely surprised me actually.

I mean it is a general conversation and all, but I think anyone reasonable person would read your comments and perceive a bias towards government action of some sort. Not just your words, but the gist of your disagreement with Little Nemo I think would leave most people thinking that you perceive the need for government to take the lead in whatever ‘solutions’ are needed.

I mean I really can’t see how anyone couldn’t come to that conclusion!

Look at the paragraph right before you addressed me. (in the same post) The first thing you’d do is hire social workers! What really surprised me is that you finsihed the post by saying that it appeared that it was me advocating government action, and you were arguing the opposite. It left me totally confused.

Dude, I was totally confused.

[Blake]

@the raindog

Dude, I was totally confused

You certainly are.

I mean it is a general conversation and all, but I think anyone reasonable person would read your comments and perceive a bias towards government action of some sort.

The fact that you can’t point to a single instance that even vaguely implies gvernment action tells us all we need to know. You are attempting to superimpose yoour own prejudices over my posts.

Look at the paragraph right before you addressed me. (in the same post) The first thing you’d do is hire social workers!

Yeeeesss, and your point would be what exactly?
Once again you are posting total non sequiturs. Someone specifically asked me what I would do to solve this problem if I had unlimited funds.

Me, a private citizen. My money, not taxpayers funds.

How the hell can even you twist that into implying any governmental involvement at all. It’s the diametric opposite of governmental involvement. It is exclusively and entirely restricted to the acts of a private citizen and the utilisation of private income.

Oh that’s right, it’s not what is clearly posted, it’s this nebulous ‘tone’. :rolleyes:

Anyway raindog I’ve asked you several times to point to anywhere that I implied or sugegsted government involvement of any sort and you have been unable to do so. I think that pretty much clarifies that you are simply utilising strawman and that I never said any such thing

I assume you have absolutely nothing of any validity to contribute to the thread.

[Bertie_Wooster]

I hate to interrupt this conversation, especially because I am learning from it. But I feel the need to. I want to ask what Askia meant by the word “andragogical”. It’s not a word I have in the dictionaries available to me, and I can’t think of a typo that would result in “andragogical”.

For what it’s worth, I was raised in a sort of petit bourgeois existence in Mineola, Long Island, New York. I work now in a library in Baltimore. Now, most of the actual work in my library is performed by minimaly-educated (and when I say that, I mean at best a high school diploma) workers. The work they do is the essential work; one is very well-off with a classification system, but unless someone actually arranges the books in order…

Anyway, I seem to see a pattern among these workers. They are intelligent (they need to be to work in a library to begin with). They are hard-working (they are eager to work rather odd hours, to an extent that makes me feel like a piker for working just one evening a week). But, they also seem to see having a child, alone, as no big deal. Most of these workers are young women, and have, in the apparent abscence of the fathers, are raising small children (quite sweet little squirts, if you ask me, but then I’m a bachelor, and don’t have to change diapers). I think Blake’s postings here have helped me understand what has been before a mystery to me: why such otherwise intelligent and hard-working women rising from the lowest class could have this (to me) bizarre attitude. They have never met anyone who has postponed her fecundity; it is a natural rite-of-passage to have had a child.

Well, I babble; what does andragogical mean?

[Bertie_Wooster]

@Bertie Wooster

Most of these workers are young women, and have, in the apparent abscence of the fathers, are raising small children (quite sweet little squirts, if you ask me, but then I’m a bachelor, and don’t have to change diapers)

I invite readers to pick the verbs they find most congenial. Oh, and if anyone wants to know, I’m 38 years old. Today, in fact. Overindulgence, I hope, will exzcuse my poor verb choice.

[raindog]

Blake
I think you did a good job of describing things in your initial post, but I don’t think you’ve made a case for the root of the problems, or a cogent set of thoughts to solve the issues.

So I apologize for misunderstanding you. It appeared that you do in fact see the problems rooted in the individual—even though you disagreed with Little Nemo who essentially said that exact thing. And none of your posts seem to address the individual like magellan01 did in his/her [outstanding] posts,or the real world examples that furlibusea in his/her posts. (which was also an outstanding post)

In fact I went back over every single word of your posts, and unlike **treis, Little Nemo, magellan01, or furlibusea **you haven’t held the individual accountable once that I can tell—instead focusing on all the opportunities that are somehow being witheld from them, or the need for outside help to educate them.

Further, you see the solutions in the individual, even though you didn’t mention them at all. In order to disabuse me of my delusions, I’ll go back to your posts and ask you to clarify, OK? How’s that?

Blake Making opportunities available to poor people. And I mean making it truly available, not simply hypothetically available.

Specifically what opportunities? What do you mean by “hypothetical” ones? Who makes then available, and who was
holding them back before?

Blake Conditions that are guaranteed to keep you in poverty.

Specifically what conditions are you talking about?

Blake The only solution is making opportunities like the opportunity to enforce basic labour conditions…

Specifically what are you talking about? “Enforcing labor condition” doesn’t make sense. Every employer in America is required by Federal Law to put up posters that outline the rights of workers under federal statutes. It includes the addresses and phone numbers for workers who feel that they’re being treated unfairly under the law. Most states have similar requirements. Further, in most cases the NLRB has a strong bias in favor of the worker—as it should.

As to unions, there is nothing stopping anyone from trying to organize. In fact there are some postive people who are trying to shake up the labor movement. The Service Employees International Union is working very hard to breathe life back into the labor movement. Tell me specifically what this,"solution is making opportunities like the opportunity to enforce basic labour conditions… " means in specific, practical terms.

Blake And how exactly do you intend to force people to meet your standards when they don’t have the resources and knowledge required to meet your standards?

What standards?

People need the opportunity to meet “our” standards to be able to meet “our” standards.

** Blake** What opportunity? Who gives it to them? Who’s keeping it from them now?

Blake Once again though, you overlook the fact that people can’t follow the rules if they have no opportunity to follow the rules.

What opportunity do they not have?

Post 14:

Blake What programs are in place to educate people how to live oustide the ghetto?

What programs are you suggesting?

Blake How are they to obtain the extra money required to live outside the ghetto?

Please explain–what money? for what? to whom? from whom? Please be specific.

Blake…Ultimately of course people should choose to fund these opportunities because they are saving their own children and grandchildren…People who refuse to fund solutions to the problem are only pushing a worse problem on their children…

This is interesting to me. Who are these people, what are they funding and where does the money come from?

Blake
No, that’s one thing that all sociologists agree on. No culture ever develops an inclination to change from within (excepting cases of innovative technology, which are hardly likely to be invented in a ghetto). Such changes have to come from outside and be sold to the people in these neighbourhoods.

This too is interesting to me. What changes are you talking about? And who are these outside people who are making changes and selling them to the inner city? Plese be specific.

Blake What is needed is for outsiders to educate these neighbourhoods that finishing high school is a realistic goal.

Who are these outsiders? And, what specific is the education you’re talking about?

Blake Then once we’ve achieved that then we need to educate them that finishing high school is path to success and respect (and make such a claim true). You can’t simply expect a community that has never seen any good come form finishing high school to spontaneously become inclined finishing high school. That’s totally unrealistic. The inclination to change has to instilled by education and propaganda. There is no way it can come form within.

Who is “we’ve?” Why can’t it come from within?

Blake We also have to ensure that they have the opportunity to make good choices.

How would you go about this? Please be specific.

Blake I also mentioned the lack of opportunity to understand that things like college scholarships exist for poor people, the lack of opportunity to dissociate form violent neighbourhoods and so forth.

How is this lack of opportunity manifested in a practical way? What would you do to solve it?

Blake, with all due respect you seem to have a tendency to take any disagreement as a personal affront and go zero-to-sixty full battle mode. You asked me once, not several times, and I answered you, even quoting you. It seemed to only make you ready for a fight, which is exactly what it seemed you did with **Little Nemo **and treis.

Now I’ve answered you, in greater detail. This isn’t a street fight dude. You don’t need to treat it like one.

[doreen]

[QUOTE=Blake]

That’s true in the example you provide where most students at an inner city school plan to attend college. But I doubt if most inner city schools have a 45% college application rate.

You misunderstand. 48% of those who graduated in 2004 planned to attend college. But only 29% of the students graduate in four years. Most students don’t attend college- most don’t even graduate. There must be some difference between the graduates who plan to attend college, and those who don’t , and the difference isn’t in the neighborhoood or the school, or because it never occured to the students that someone from the neighborhood could attend college. The difference is in the student, the family or the student’s social group. Those attitudes are going to be nearly impossible to change from outside. And I suspect that the attitudes are a far bigger problem than the practicalities. If Susie wants to go to college, and her parents just didn’t know it was possible, then caseworkers, counselors etc might make a big difference . If Susie’s parents don’t want her to go to college because she’ll then “think who the hell she is” ( feel that she is superior to her parents), they are not going to change their minds because a caseworker, teacher ,etc comes to talk to them a few times.

[Blake]

@the raindog

In fact I went back over every single word of your posts, and unlike…you haven’t held the individual accountable once that I can tell…

Oh for crying out loud, what is so hard for you to understand here? I spelled this out for you in simple words when you first brought up this strawman.

I haven’t held the individual accountable once because I haven’t held anyone accountable. What part of that simple fact don’t you get?

I will ask you again, what is this obsession you have with laying blame. You ducked this question the last time I asked it, now I would like an answer. Why do you feel that I should be forced to lay blame in order tobe even able to discuss the problem?

Once again I suspect that you are doing nothing more than try to surperimpose your own beliefs onto what I have clearly posted.

Further, you see the solutions in the individual, even though you didn’t mention them at all.

WTF are you talking about? What do you mean I didn’t mention them at all? Every single post in this thread has been about nothing but individuals.

In order to disabuse me of my delusions, I’ll go back to your posts and ask you to clarify, OK? How’s that?

Given that you don’t even understand “I never assigned blame to anyone, and I never singled out individuals for blame” I suspect it’s not worth it.

Specifically what opportunities?

I have no intention of listing the hundreds of thousands of opportunities I can think of. If you really need specific examples of unavailable opportunities I have mentioned at least 6 in this thread. Start with them.

What do you mean by “hypothetical” ones?

hypothetical

Who makes then available, and who was
holding them back before?

Everybody. The entire human race ultimately.

Specifically what conditions are you talking about?

In what context?

“Enforcing labor condition” doesn’t make sense. Every employer in America is required by Federal Law to put up posters that outline the rights of workers under federal statutes. It includes the addresses and phone numbers for workers who feel that they’re being treated unfairly under the law. Most states have similar requirements. Further, in most cases the NLRB has a strong bias in favor of
the worker—as it should.

Sigh.
I will simply quote what sven said in her very first post. You tell me what part you don’t understand, mmmkay?

he says …. “Why didn’t your report them to the labor department?”, and it’s hard to explain to him that we had no concept of that. We simply had no idea what our rights were or how we could go about defending them. All we knew was lawyers were expensive and anything we did would put what little we did have at risk. You aren’t born knowing what you can achieve and how you can achieve it.

You have managed to ask exactly the same question that sven has pre-emptively answered. I’m nit sure whether that means you haven’t read the thread, or haven’t understood the simple fact that the presence of posters does not mean the presence of communication.

The fact that you fail to understand a simple point made by sven as well as grossly misunderstanding simple points made by myself should tell you something. The fact that nobody else has managed to misunderstand those posts, and indeed several have made point of noting how helpful and clear they were, should tell you something.

Tell me specifically what this,"solution is making opportunities like the opportunity to enforce basic labour conditions… " means in specific, practical terms.

It specifically means specifically in specifically practical specific terms that specific poor specific people specifically can’t specifically gain specific access to specific basics of specific labour conditions as sven specifically explained her very specific post.

What part of that specifically didn’t you understand?
And the rest of raindog’s piost is simply a string of the same thing. Request s for questions that have already been answered by myself and numeous other posters.

The simple fact is raindog is that all you have brought to this debate is your laughable contention that a private citizen spending his funds employing private citizens is advocating government involvement. A point that I notice you have refrained from making again now that I have pointed out how ridiculous it was.

Oh yeah made the equally laughable suggestion that anyone who studiously avoids laying blame with any party is favouring the poor. :rolleyes:

Do you actually have anything to add to this debate? I mean, do you have any genuine points to make that aren’t laughable misrepresentations of what I clearly posted?

[raindog]

Blake
I’ve seen this from you before while lurking. You start out strong—but you don’t have the legs to finish.

You also seem to have a patholigical need to see anyone who disagrees with you as an enemy of sorts.

I have a sense you grew up ‘in the hood’ the same way that Vanilla Ice did. Best as I can tell, you didn’t grow up in the inner city but in a typical working class neighborhood. Frankly I don’t think you have the same perspective as someone who did.

In spite of your protests that the rich people don’t know, I think it is you who doesn’t have the perpspective or the experience of living in the “ghetto.”

You asked me,* “Just for ineterest’s sake can you possibly pull out some quotes where you believe I am portrayingthe poor as victims? Or where you think I am blaming the govenrment for the problems?”*
and…
“But if you can provide a few quotes of where you believe I said anything remotely like that I may be able to clarify it for you and for other posters.”

Your answers speak for themselves.

[raindog]

It specifically means specifically in specifically practical specific terms that specific poor specific people specifically can’t specifically gain specific access to specific basics of specific labour conditions as sven specifically explained her very specific post.

What part of that specifically didn’t you understand?

I’m not really sure…

I know I asked you, not sven…

How’s that?

[Blake]

@doreen

There must be some difference between the graduates who plan to attend college, and those who don’t , and the difference isn’t in the neighborhoood or the school, or because it never occured to the students that someone from the neighborhood could attend college. The difference is in the student, the family or the student’s social group.

There’s no doubt about that. As I said, I graduated from college as did one of my siblings and all but one of us finsihed High School despite our circumstances. And of course the difference was in the family and socila group.

Once again though we are back to the OP.

With a little luck and hard work these kids can make it. With alittle luck and hard work you can become a millionaire selling Amway. Those statements are both true, but in both cases the odds are against you. There’s no doubt that some kids manage, but most don’t.

The issue to me is how to give the maximum number of opportunities to those who possibly can make it. That includes the availability of role models who made it and the knowledge that college is a viable option. That doesn’t mean that every poor kid with a role model and that knowledge will make it through college. We know that isn’t true. But we can almost guarantee that all the kids who don’t have a role model or knowlegde of these options won’t make it tghrough.

Those attitudes are going to be nearly impossible to change from outside.p

I’m not sure I agree. And I hope you are wrong, because we know from experience those attitudes can’t change form the inside. We’ve had families locked in this trap for 3 generations at least now, and the problem is getting worse, not better. Quite clearly the conditions don’t exist within these communities to change those attitudes.

And I suspect that the attitudes are a far bigger problem than the practicalities.

I don’t think you can seperate them. The attitudes stem from the practicalities. If you don;t change the pratcicalities you sure can’t change the attitude. Poor people have worse schools, are discrimintaed against by the police, have worse roads and other services in their neighbourhoods and so on as other posters have described in detail. Those are praticalities, and while they remain unchnaged it’s going to be hard to change the attitudes that produces.

If Susie wants to go to college, and her parents just didn’t know it was possible, then caseworkers, counselors etc might make a big difference . If Susie’s parents don’t want her to go to college because she’ll then “think who the hell she is” ( feel that she is superior to her parents), they are not going to change their minds because a caseworker, teacher ,etc comes to talk to them a few times.

This is true, but in my experience thats not a common attitude. Most parents do want their kids to succeed and tink they are better than them, even if they are uncomfortable with it. It’s largely the circle of freinds thatahve trouble with people getting ‘uppity’. And if the viewpoint of all children could be changed that would cease to be an issue.

[raindog]

sven
Are you prepared to act as spokesman for Blake? He apparently seems unable to rise the occasion of responding to the questions* he asked of me.*

And, apparently he thinks highly of you…

[Blake]

As I suspected raindog, you have absolutely no contribution to make to this thread. All you have contributed is strawman misrepresentations of my position and repitations of questions long since answered.

And now you have resorted to blatant ad hominems. Nice one. :rolleyes:

[raindog]

I know now the poor are screwed, I mean screwed.

Everybody is against them—and I mean everybody is against them—in fact the whole human race.