Here are some stats for you Timing.... Compiled stats Percentage of U.S. population that is black: 13% The percentage of 18-to 24-year old blacks who had completed high school in 1975: 64.8%. In 1995: 76.9% The percentage of 18- to 24-year old blacks who were enrolled in college in 1975: 20.7%. In 1995: 27.3% The percentage of blacks over the age of 25 who had completed four years of high school or more in 1975: 42.5%. In 1995: 73.8% Percentage of white Americans who believe "a good education is essential to get ahead": 59%. Percentage of black Americans who believe this: 54% Percentage of white American workers who say they are confident with their ability to "advance themselves within their present company: 72.9% Percentage of African-American workers who say this: 87.1% Looks like things are getting better to me.... DaDakota
I don't know your background . .. so i cannot comment on your circumstances. BUT wealth *is* accumulated by wealth a healthy PERCENTAGE of wealth is inherited. So if you inherited that wealth that was made by your grandfathers and Great grandfathers . . they made their money in a time when competition from black folx was negligable because they were not able to play the game. Black folx generally do not have the economic based on inherited wealth. As you said .. . most of the wealth has only happened in the last 40 yrs. [I'm suuure u can find some exceptions .. . there are ALWAYS exceptions] So in general by and large most black have farther to go as a rule. Rocket River that's fair
DaDakota, Do you beleive that the impoverished blacks [or people in general] are poor because of poor work habits? Rocket River
Originally posted by DaDakota What a bunch of crap. Just because people with white skin have 7 times the wealth does not mean they are running around putting that wealth in the pockets of WHITE people only. Yeah I know a lot of rich white people who network with poor black people. Timing, why don't you get past the race thing and do us a chart on how much money RICH people have versus poor folks, that is more relavent. Since black people disproportionately make up more of the poor people it's idiotic for you to tell me to get past "the race thing". Race has NOTHING to do with it, what you are talking about is the HAVES and the HAVE NOTS, and that has been the case forever, and I am working VERY VERY hard to become one of the haves......and anyone is welcome to make a go of it too, white or black. You tell me why % wise there are a lot more black HAVE NOTS than there are white? Is that's just some weirdo coincidence? Nah... Here is a question for you...since white people have SEVEN times the wealth, how many more WHITE people are there in America...if it is SEVEN times or more, then your argument (However weak it is) falls completely apart, because the median range of people is much smaller in the black community. LMFAO!!!! This is wealth PER household smart guy. Try again...
No way River, I think most people that are rich have taken advantage of situations. Take Bill Gates for instance, the richest man in the world....he took advantage of a situation and got rich....and he did not inherit his wealth. Same with Michael Dell & the guy from Oracle etc...etc...etc.... None of these RICH white folx built their fortunes on the backs of slavery. Timing, my point is that the MEDIAN is much smaller when you have a smaller total number of people. I think EVERYONE has opportunities and it is up to EVERYONE on their OWN to take advantage of them. Risk = Reward.......or sometimes failure....trust me, I know all about failing...as I did a few times before my business took off. DaDakota
Oh ok, maybe I misread. I think if you took an average it honestly wouldn't be much different from the median. I agree that everyone has opportunities but they're definitely not equal opportunities and that is the problem.
Bill Gates comes from an Affluent background. Dell didn't come from abject poverty either. Check their backgrounds. Their Schools, Their ties to others. THIS informal accesses are some of the barriers to riches. BEST WAY TO LEARN HOW TO GET MONEY IS TO ASK PEOPLE WITH MONEY or look at those under similar circumstances to yours Why do you think Black Kids strive to be entertainers and Athletes. Cause those are the most prevalent and prolific Rich people they know. So, if they want to be rich . . these seem like the most realistic. I'm not saying it is right but . . my point it that their *is* a culture of poverty. Their is a level of LEARN behavior that is not condusive to building riches. that Role Model crap is real. That not what you know but who u know IS REAL. Networks, etc. Networks that have been in place for generations are working for some and barring others. Even If i grant you Gates, Dell, and Oracle guy. . . . these are EXCEPTIONS . . I can point to PErcy Miller [Master P], Sean Combs and Russel Simmons. Even the guy that use to own BET. but their are millions and thousands that make their millions through access and inheritence. Trust me. . . I'm looking to risk . . .looking to gain everyday. When I take my shot .. I feel i have to make it a good one. . . becuase honestly .. . i feel it i miss. . . . . I might not have another one. . . . . . becuase imo the price of failure for a black person . . is alot higher. Rocket River
Just curious: For those of you who against affirmative action, how many of you would support admissions and scholarships availability tied to parents and grandparents wealth/education? Similarly, how many of you for affirmative action would view it mostly OK to use social class instead race (which overlap quite a bit) as the primary approach to level the playing field? I'll offer my opinion in the case of higher education. I think we should do most scholarships and grants on the basis of family education/income (agree this can be hard to determine but that is another discussion). I think this would address much of the concerns about minorities, yet be more palatable to the majority. However, I still would support some race/ethnicity based policies. For instance, there is a shortage of health care workers who desire to, and are effective in (some times there are language or cultural barriers, and to ignore they could impact delivery of care is just to illogical), treating minority populations. I have no problem having public policies trying to get a workforce better able to address the needs of that population even if race/ethnicity/multi-lingualism becomes a positive factor in admissions. Also, I know some may disagree with this approach fundamentally. That all public scholarships/grants should be solely merit based thus even the richest would qualify. I believe the philosophy of this view is that it is better for all US society if we ignore all social conditions (class, ethnicity, race, etc) and just focus on objective merits. While I don't share this view (again, I am for heavily addressing class differences in public funding and admissions, and further in some special cases using race/ethnicity/multi-lingual skills as well), it will be more clear where you are coming from if this is your view. Personally, I think this approach would go down a lot better if people like Al Gore and G.W. Bush didn't get into programs/schools they probably would not of based on “objective merits”. Affirmative action in higher education has been going on for centuries, it formally was mainly a tool of the rich and politically powerful alumni however. This kind of AA has to be admitted as unfair as it gets--to both get people into schools/programs because of their connections over objective merits and then to have those connections in place post-school for further advantage.
Very simplistic and too broad. Fame and having a surplus of good looking men or women to pick from are factors. Not to mention the fact that your fictional kid seems more male than female. For while it's true that black women strive to sing and act or play sports, far less do compared to males. In fact, I'll bet that if you were to poll 1000 kids as to what job they'd choose regardless of preset boundries, that given the means w/o racism, who would they most like to be bill gates or micheal jordan/whitney houston; they'd choose jordan and houston at least 90% of the time. But why? Why would they take less money to be a basketball player or a singer? Because, for one, it's sexier. Keep in mind the question has nothing to do with the likelihood of the job, but only on which they prefer.
Hydra: You mentioned inner city schools. Have you ever actually BEEN to one? I have on many occassions gone with my father to schools in Houston considered inner city. How can education be "cool" when the schools are falling apart and the teachers are too afraid to actually go into the neighborhoods to teach? Compare Wheatley or Booker T. Washington High School with Kingwood High or Clear Lake High. There is NO comparison. The quality of educational materials, infrastructure and teachers are substantially higher in the suburban districts. And those are the high schools who get most of the money. You cannot imagine the conditions for the grade and middle schools. And yet, every time HISD has a bond election, the same group of suburbanites led by radical right wing conservatives get together to oppose the rate increase. One year, when more than a dozen schools were shut down with fire code violations, HISD put a bond proposal on the ballot and the same opposition suggested that, rather than raise the standards of the schools, we should LOWER the fire code standards, essentially saying that kids' lives were less important than their tax dollars. When you have that kind of element in your community, how would you feel if you were in their situation?
Jeff, Now that is something I can support, there should be one state wide tax and the money should be divided up equally. Every kid should have the same education especially if it is government funded. If the rich people want to send their kids to a private school that is ok with me. School should be equal for everyone as should scholarships etc. Now Grants should be awarded to help the lower income people who do not qualify for scholarships. DD
I have been to all kinds of schools. The inner city ones weren't even the worst, the country ones were. I did not go to the best high school around. I went to a catholic high school with outdated books that were falling apart, rampant drug use, and very little in terms of class choice (we didn't have woodshop, metalshop, or any kind of shop for that matter.) A good portion of my school was minority (mostly hispanic), I want to say at least 60% minority, but I don't have the numbers. The teachers made less than their public school counterparts. The emphasis was placed on learning though. As a result, something like 98% graduate and ~90% go on to college. The neighborood thing has nothing to do with any legislation. Neighborhoods are made of people and if teachers are afraid to go there it is because the people in that neighborhood do not have enough pride in the place that they live to make it safe. If the citizens called the cops on all of the drug dealers, you can bet it would be a safer place to live. This is kind of a big tangent so I won't say anything else about it. Ultimately, we need to teach children that the drug dealers and the celebrities should not be their goals, but instead the teachers, doctors, engineers, etc. Since I am from California, I don't know any of those schools. As the son of a teacher and the brother of another, I would love for schools to get more money. I am also in favor of vouchers that let kids go to the best schools, and for school accountability, so that schools will be made to meet at least minimum standards. Ultimately though, I think that it is up to the parents to teach their children that at least a high school diploma is critical to their success. I won't go into how advertising holds up those most impossible to emulate as role models. I think it is important to note that both in the issues you raised and in my response, neither of us mentioned race (outside my personal experience with the domographics of my high school, something more directed at those who might say catholic HS = rich white folks).
DaDa, I think you're comparing too different things. Sure, Dell and Gates weren't gazillionaires while they were growing up, but I guarantee you they weren't pooling their change together to watch crackheads light up so they could have a good laugh (see Edgerrin James article, the first one). Are you saying that the opportunity for a middle class person (black or white) are the same for poor people (black or white)? I don't think you could say that within reason. However, I would even take that to another level, in that I believe a middle class black person has fewer opportunities than a white person in a less fortunate situation. It sucks, but the good ole boy system is alive and well. Like river said, it really is who you know.
Prem, I am just saying that a majority of the wealth in America was earned LONG after slavery was abolished. If we pay reparations for that, what about reparations to all the child workers that were exploited at the beginning of the industrial age, they are a lot MORE responsible for the accumulation of wealth then the slaves. Most of the wealth acquired by exploiting slavery was lost during the civil war. Also, I would like to thank everyone for making this a thread worth reading. It has been a bit heated, but the posts have been of a very high quality and have definitly made me think, and that is a good thing. DD
I agree with DaDa about the quality of this thread. Actually the quality of this whole bbs both basketball, and hangout, related is in general top notch. You guys Rock!
Seeing as this thread seems to be almost dead, I want to say three things. 1)I don't know anyone that ever inherited more than $2,000 from any deceased relatives. How can you make a blanket statement sayin that all white ppl are better off because they got their money from previous generations? 2)I would like to echo DaDakota's expression of thanks for the viewpoints and information. This is indeed a thorny subject and as long as we as Americans can rationally discuss these subjects and strive for better solutions together, things will get better for all of us. 3) Jeff, it appears you were wrong. We can discuss subjects like race without degenerating into pissin' contests. Good job all.
I don't know that it's about money inherited from past generations, as much as it is education, and and educated environment inherited from past generations. It's also about the people who've held office and made political connections from past generations.
But once again, The only point I was making was that you(not *you*,but others) can't make blanket statements sayin that whites are further ahead because of inherited power. It may be that way for some, but the vast majority have to fight for all they have...not because of some inherited power,money or education. I was the first in my family to graduate from college, we have no political power and no inherited money...can you say that I am advantaged *just* bacause of my skin color? If you do, then your dead wrong..I have had to fight and scrape and budget for everything I have (which aint much)...Thats my only point.
You can attack individual spokes of an arguement. 1. Can you agree that YOUR GRANDFATHER [if you are white i do not know] had more OPPORTUNITIES than MY GRANDPA? The deprivation of rights and opportunities of black folx has artificially lowered the starting point of most black folx, IMO. From the Education levels, Social interactions, money, etc. The state of Black Folx is not solely based on Slavery. I'm saying the affects of slavery, jim crowe laws and various prevalent racist attitudes that were inacted and support by our government are far reaching and strong. To dismiss it as . . well you free now is simplistic to me. Where one starts in life is based on where their parents started/ended etc. So if you artificially r****d a parent's life then you by proxy r****d the life of the child and that child's child. Rocket River I never doubt that this conversation could be had without moronicism.
Sorry, but since no one answered my question the first time I wanted to bring it up again. I am really trying to find out if focusing more on class differences for affirmative action-type programs is viewed as a less polarizing but yet also proactive approach to address discrimination.
