Posted on 07/25/2005 4:34:39 PM PDT by StoneGiant
"“One must question the validity of the white middle-class lifestyle from its very foundation because it has already proven itself to be decadent and unworthy of emulation,” wrote Joyce Ladner (who later became the first female president of Howard University) in her 1972 book Tomorrow’s Tomorrow."
"actually turned out to be a curse on the very people it was written to save."
Yep, partly because of the liberally educated idiots like the one quoted above.
self ping for later reading
Yes, indeed. The destruction of black families and communities through 'welfare' was merely the pilot project for what amounts to a war on all American families and communities.
I suppose our betters feel that a little social dislocation is a small price to pay for the creation of a progressive and socialist America.
Apparently, you missed my point, giving is not asking; these people must be first made to feel like they are needed, how, I don't know. But it certainly isn't the present case where society labors more to appease the hungry crowd than to feed them what they truly need.
One cannot lead the unwilling, they may only drive them.
1) I didn't say it was "character building." But tell me how enabling generations of welfare dependency is "character building."
2) The CRA of 64 didn't eliminate segregated bathroom facilities. Brown did.
3) The legislative solution, coming as it did ahead of the moral reformation, did nothing but create a climate of distrust between the races. Worse, it advanced the notion that moral problems could be solved by well-intentioned bureaucrats.
4) If you've got a point to make, make it without the sarcasm, or expect the same in return.
That quote could just as easily come from The Communist Manifesto.
To assume that black women prefer a welfare check to a long term supportive, protective relationship with a man is somewhat ridiculous from my point of view as a woman (though not black). Experience indicates that it is men who have chosen to make themselves irrelevant in the lives of their children, not women.
My own white husband decided, after six and a half years of marriage, when our daughter was three, that he didn't want to be married anymore. First he met with my mother to try and convince her that his responsibilities as a father should be assumed by her and my father (needless to say his name is mud in their house) then, failing that, he told me that as a self-respecting woman, I shouldn't accept child support from him.
The issues are complex, but have nothing to do with government or welfare except that welfare inadequately fills a gap where a man refuses to step up to the plate and take responsibility for his family. Without welfare, he would be the same irresponsible man, but his children would be in worse shape.
Marriage rates have consistently been lower for blacks than whites, even before welfare. It is also interesting to note that illegitimate birth rates began to level off in the early 90s before welfare reform. Is it possible that enforcing child support requirements has made men more responsible? I think it is. Government used to be pretty indifferent to enforcing child support orders.
If you want black men, and all men for that matter, to take responsibility for their families, hold them accountable for the children they create, don't let them use government as a 'scape goat, and don't let them blame the mothers who almost always are stuck trying to pick up the slack. Don't laugh when a man answers the question, "how many children do you have?" with "(fill in the blank) that I know of".
My mother talks about a layover in Texas on a train trip she took at 21 from Minnesota to visit relatives in California during the mid 40s. She said the way blacks were treated by whites disturbed her to the point of making her ill. She said she never imagined that one group of human beings could behave that way towards another and wanted no part of it.
Because, my friend, that is part of the "culture of life".
for later read
The distrust existed independent of Civil Rights legislation. Moral problems can't be entirely solved by law, but does that mean law should not take a moral stand before culture and individual behavior? By your reasoning, we should wait until abortions are no longer sought before passing a law against it, murder and theft should be things of the past before it is forbidden.
No, it means that in order for a law to be effective, there needs to be a moral consensus. "Government of, for, and by the people" requires that the law serve the people, not vice versa. It is logically impossible for a true democracy to impose an order not sought by the populace at large. Yet that is precisely what CRA64 did.
By your reasoning, we should wait until abortions are no longer sought before passing a law against it
That's certainly arguable. What is NOT arguable is that doing so would make the law against abortion infinitely more successful. In fact, it might obviate the need for such legislation at all. And by YOUR argument, Prohibition should have worked.
murder and theft should be things of the past before it is forbidden.
Murder and theft are already opposed by the vast majority of the people. They always have been. No such consensus existed against racial discrimination. And the paltry attempt to legislate a conscience on the matter has done nothing but give rise to an entitlement mentality, a continuing culture of despair, and a deeper schism between the races.
Great read!
Of course it is. The problem has been, though, that (as you can rehearse) some men, not all of them black, have not been nurtured into internalizing that role. (You say your husband's name is mud with your parents; it should be mud with everyone who attended your wedding and gave presents to celebrate it). And my point was that a matriarchal family structure replicates itself - it naturally tends to raise boys to be peripheral to the family as adults, and to raise girls to expect the same of their boyfriends - and their sons.And unfortunately - tragically - there is a limit to what the government can do about it. As Jack Kemp used to emphasize, "if you pay more for something you get more of it" - and if the government pays for broken homes, on the margin it enables more homes to break. If the man can't earn more than welfare will pay, his efforts are useless to the family. If he can't earn the minimum wage, he can't get a job at all. The "Great Society" program might as well have been designed to break up - even to prevent the very formation of - black two-parent families.
And what about black people, should the law serve them and be of them too?
It is logically impossible for a true democracy to impose an order not sought by the populace at large. Yet that is precisely what CRA64 did. I remember hearing MLK speak at Stanford University in the 60s. He was not suggesting that the law could be used to force whites to "love" black people, but that the law be used to "protect" the lives, property and rights of black people.
Most Americans were ready for change in the 60s. A minority were not and some will never be.
Exactly
I agree they have, but that's no excuse for 70% illigitimacy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.