[QUOTE=Nzinga, Seated]
Well, I don’t like the phrase “loyalty to one’s home turf”. I am the first to admit that I have a soft spot for poor black people. I know them well. I work with them, I have taught them (ran a daycare center for 5 years) love them, been raised by them. They are me and I am them. *I don’t consider living amongst them to be a bad thing. * Period. If that makes me some kind of street gang minded woman being ‘loyal to my home turf’, then that is fine. But the wording sure does bother me there.
Also, I know this is an unpopular view but I will grit my teeth and stand by it. I *do * believe that hardworking people have an entitlement to some luxuries. Being born poor is hard work. Your parents were poor and uneducated, raised under Jim Crow, or raised under parents who were, and there is great pride in overcoming either oppression or the effects of oppression to educate yourself and buckle down to hard and smart work.
Struggling people have the right to some luxury just like anyone else. I promise you, not getting a fast car is not going to lift these families out of poverty. Is there wiser investments that could be made? Yes. Do I think they deserve to be looked down upon or mocked because they chose a luxury item with the money they worked for? No.
[/QUOTE]
I assure you no offence was implied by the phrase “loyalty to one’s home turf”. Indeed, I’m not actually certain how such a phrase can be taken as offensive, or as having anything to do with “street gangs”.
I simply meant the sense, if you like, of neighbourhood solidarity you describe with such phrases as “They are me and I am them”.
I agree that the presence, or lack, of any particular luxury - such as a fancy car - will not, in and of itself, make the difference between middle-classdom and poverty.
Rather, I would submit, the sense of priorities symbolized by such a purchase, the afore-mentioned “live for today and not tomorrow” attitude that, if taken literally, is not condusive to future financial and social well-being.
There may be all sorts of reasons why such an attitude is common within a particular community. That doesn’t change the cold, hard fact - that some attitudes towards spending are more likely to lead to continued deprivation than others.
To my mind, it is doing no-one a favour to insist that these choices are equally valid, unless one also wishes to insist that continued inequality and poverty is “equally valid”. Me, I’d prefer to see poverty minimized.