The Ghetto is Public Policy

[StrangeSox]

I have never said the teams are fair, the teams are anything but fair. The problem is that the article doesnt really understand the teams. The teams are rich and poor, not black and white.

 

There are more than two "teams." The sociological concept of intersectionality examines how these different categories (male/female, straight/bi/gay, cis/transgendered, black/white/asian/indian, rich/poor, christian/hindu/atheist, etc. etc.) intersect in society. An example of this from the article would be comparison of upper-middle class black and white families: "Sharkey’s research shows that black families making $100,000 typically live in the kinds of neighborhoods inhabited by white families making $30,000."

 

edit:

 

So the deck is stacked, but the stacking is based on wealth. You cant compare Obama's child to a kid on the south side, it does not matter if they both came from slave families, if they both suffered racism, whatever. Those decks have been reshuffled a million times

 

I have to ask again, have you read the article yet? He explicitly uses Obama's children as a point of comparison.

Edited May 28, 2014 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Come on now...how can you say this after you just listed all the advantages you have

 

I'm not saying you're a bad guy or anything, and I have had the same benefits as you...but it certainly allowed for a greater margin of error to accomplish what you did compared to someone without those same advantages.

 

Born on third and think you hit a triple...

 

But you're exactly right, you shouldn't feel bad or guilty about it. The privileges you enjoy because of how you were born and the society you live in are not something you can individually control. Recognizing what those advantages are and working for a more just society, however, is something that is within your control.

[StrangeSox]

How does reparations fix any of that going forward?

 

What do we mean by reparations? Again, this article does not advocate for any specific form of reparations. It references one form that would literally just be a study of the legacy of slavery and what sort of reparations may be appropriate. Others have advanced an idea of reparations that would be education and training programs and jobs programs with a goal of racial justice but which would be available to all of the country's poor.

[StrangeSox]

I agree education is the key, but plopping a new building with state of the art tech in the middle of the ghetto isn't going to change anything. Kids have to want to be in school. They have to escape the streets. More money may help some, but it's not going to change a lot of what is going on in the poorest areas of the city.

But again, a lot of what's going on in the poorest areas are direct results of public policy that created ghettos and prevented the creation of wealth in black communities.

 

What can society do to make kids want to go to school?

Edited May 28, 2014 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

But again, a lot of what's going on in the poorest areas are direct results of public policy that created ghettos and prevented the creation of wealth in black communities.

 

What can society do to make kids want to go to school?

 

How about a portion of society deciding being intelligent isn't a bad thing? Do you know how many times I have heard the term "Acting White" used as a term of derision from one black kid to another, relating directly to having too good of grades or scores?

[cabiness42]

I agree education is the key, but plopping a new building with state of the art tech in the middle of the ghetto isn't going to change anything. Kids have to want to be in school. They have to escape the streets. More money may help some, but it's not going to change a lot of what is going on in the poorest areas of the city.

 

It's not just building new schools--it's putting the people and programs with the schools to change the communities.

 

First of all, every elementary school in disadvantaged areas should have an attached child care/pre-school/tutoring for kids age 3-12 that is open 6am-8pm M-F year round. Attached, but run separately from the school so as not to be an additional burden to the principal/teachers. Cost is free up to whatever parents are deemed to be able to pay. This frees parents up to be able to hold down jobs without having to worry about child care, which is a very big problem in the schools. The second thing this accomplishes is that it gets kids in the habit of being at school every day from an early age. The third thing it accomplishes is that it gets the basics of learning instilled in the kids before they reach kindergarten. Add adult learning opportunities for parents. They can go learn valuable skills in one room while their kids are down the hall learning in another.

 

Secondly, the schools need to be very aggressive in dealing with absences. This requires non-teacher human resources that most schools can't afford. If a kid is absent from school and the parent does not call in the absence, the school tries to call the parent. If the parent can't be reached or is reached but is unaware of the absence, the school goes looking for the kid. An entire department dedicated entirely to making sure that kids are in school.

 

There is a ton more but these are two of the biggest things.

 

The culture change has to happen over generations. Start with the smallest children, and 20+ years from now you will start seeing real progress. One of the problems is that we have no patience and we keep trying to just throw money at quick fixes that don't work.

[southsider2k5]

It's not just building new schools--it's putting the people and programs with the schools to change the communities.

 

First of all, every elementary school in disadvantaged areas should have an attached child care/pre-school/tutoring for kids age 3-12 that is open 6am-8pm M-F year round. Attached, but run separately from the school so as not to be an additional burden to the principal/teachers. Cost is free up to whatever parents are deemed to be able to pay. This frees parents up to be able to hold down jobs without having to worry about child care, which is a very big problem in the schools. The second thing this accomplishes is that it gets kids in the habit of being at school every day from an early age. The third thing it accomplishes is that it gets the basics of learning instilled in the kids before they reach kindergarten. Add adult learning opportunities for parents. They can go learn valuable skills in one room while their kids are down the hall learning in another.

 

Secondly, the schools need to be very aggressive in dealing with absences. This requires non-teacher human resources that most schools can't afford. If a kid is absent from school and the parent does not call in the absence, the school tries to call the parent. If the parent can't be reached or is reached but is unaware of the absence, the school goes looking for the kid. An entire department dedicated entirely to making sure that kids are in school.

 

There is a ton more but these are two of the biggest things.

 

The culture change has to happen over generations. Start with the smallest children, and 20+ years from now you will start seeing real progress. One of the problems is that we have no patience and we keep trying to just throw money at quick fixes that don't work.

 

At the formative years stage, it is the parents who aren't sending their kids to school. They don't see a value in it. That is the culture.

[cabiness42]

At the formative years stage, it is the parents who aren't sending their kids to school. They don't see a value in it. That is the culture.

 

Yes, but parents also see the value in not getting harassed by the school constantly. If they know that someone will be pounding on their door or visiting them at work every time the kid is absent, their attitude will start to change quickly. The problem is, schools don't have the resources to do this, so the parents get away with it.

[Jenksismyhero]

It's not just building new schools--it's putting the people and programs with the schools to change the communities.

 

First of all, every elementary school in disadvantaged areas should have an attached child care/pre-school/tutoring for kids age 3-12 that is open 6am-8pm M-F year round. Attached, but run separately from the school so as not to be an additional burden to the principal/teachers. Cost is free up to whatever parents are deemed to be able to pay. This frees parents up to be able to hold down jobs without having to worry about child care, which is a very big problem in the schools. The second thing this accomplishes is that it gets kids in the habit of being at school every day from an early age. The third thing it accomplishes is that it gets the basics of learning instilled in the kids before they reach kindergarten. Add adult learning opportunities for parents. They can go learn valuable skills in one room while their kids are down the hall learning in another.

 

Secondly, the schools need to be very aggressive in dealing with absences. This requires non-teacher human resources that most schools can't afford. If a kid is absent from school and the parent does not call in the absence, the school tries to call the parent. If the parent can't be reached or is reached but is unaware of the absence, the school goes looking for the kid. An entire department dedicated entirely to making sure that kids are in school.

 

There is a ton more but these are two of the biggest things.

 

The culture change has to happen over generations. Start with the smallest children, and 20+ years from now you will start seeing real progress. One of the problems is that we have no patience and we keep trying to just throw money at quick fixes that don't work.

 

Illinois already has the daycare system http://www.childrenshomeandaid.org/page.aspx?pid=317 Perhaps it can be expanded, and maybe that's the route to go. But the problem is kids are still going home afterwards. Just like kids a little older, as soon as they go home, they go back to their block and it becomes a territorial thing. Gangs aren't about drugs like they used to be, they're simply about made-up bulls*** territory. And it's a perpetual cycle that starts with young kids.

 

My solution would be military schools. Ship kids off to different states. Incorporate them into other towns/cities that are not Chicago neighborhoods. Let neighborhoods like Englewood and Austin die out. Hopefully in a generation or two, no one lives there anymore and/or they slowly become more gentrified.

 

I'd also offer up money to females to get their tubes tied. Sign on the dotted line, take the cash, don't have any babies. The state will pay for the reversal procedure after a certain amount of time IF you can prove you're economically and socially ready for it.

 

[StrangeSox]

Your solution is eugenics and the tearing apart of families?

[Soxbadger]

There are more than two "teams." The sociological concept of intersectionality examines how these different categories (male/female, straight/bi/gay, cis/transgendered, black/white/asian/indian, rich/poor, christian/hindu/atheist, etc. etc.) intersect in society. An example of this from the article would be comparison of upper-middle class black and white families: "Sharkey’s research shows that black families making $100,000 typically live in the kinds of neighborhoods inhabited by white families making $30,000."

 

The problem is that the whole article is just making conclusions without really explaining:

 

And just as black families of all incomes remain handicapped by a lack of wealth, so too do they remain handicapped by their restricted choice of neighborhood. Black people with upper-middle-class incomes do not generally live in upper-middle-class neighborhoods. Sharkey’s research shows that black families making $100,000 typically live in the kinds of neighborhoods inhabited by white families making $30,000. “Blacks and whites inhabit such different neighborhoods,” Sharkey writes, “that it is not possible to compare the economic outcomes of black and white children.”

 

WHY?

 

Thats the problem I have, no one wants to turn the mirror and ask WHY. Are blacks being prevented from living in white neighborhoods? Is there some sort of current policy that prevents black people making $100k from living in a nicer suburb?

 

If there is, then go after it.

 

But if black people are just choosing to live in worse neighborhoods, who am I to tell them what to do?

 

The saddest part of the entire article was this:

 

One thread of thinking in the African American community holds that these depressing numbers partially stem from cultural pathologies that can be altered through individual grit and exceptionally good behavior.

 

Like those African Americans are bad people because they think through hard work and dedication people will respect them more individually.

 

Its sick, its twisted. When anyone has the audacity to say "Maybe we should fix our own mess" they get attacked. Because you know, saying that maybe we could do better, is racist.

 

That is my problem with this whole calamity of an article.

[Jenksismyhero]

Your solution is eugenics and the tearing apart of families?

 

How is it any worse than going to prison multiple times? You've got to break the cycle of these gangs. How else do you do it unless it becomes a 24/7 removal from the situation for a generation?

 

Edit: Sorry, let me clarify. I think we should ship kids off to military schools or private schools IF they are the type of kids to get in trouble. Obviously if it's a good kid who wants to go to school, shipping them off makes no sense.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Soxbadger]

At the formative years stage, it is the parents who aren't sending their kids to school. They don't see a value in it. That is the culture.

 

According to the article you are now racist for saying that a person could perhaps improve their own lot in life. That is just racist at the core, there is nothing wrong with people not sending their child to school, its just a racist belief that somehow if you do better youll get more respect.

[cabiness42]

Illinois already has the daycare system http://www.childrenshomeandaid.org/page.aspx?pid=317 Perhaps it can be expanded, and maybe that's the route to go. But the problem is kids are still going home afterwards. Just like kids a little older, as soon as they go home, they go back to their block and it becomes a territorial thing. Gangs aren't about drugs like they used to be, they're simply about made-up bulls*** territory. And it's a perpetual cycle that starts with young kids.

 

My solution would be military schools. Ship kids off to different states. Incorporate them into other towns/cities that are not Chicago neighborhoods. Let neighborhoods like Englewood and Austin die out. Hopefully in a generation or two, no one lives there anymore and/or they slowly become more gentrified.

 

I'd also offer up money to females to get their tubes tied. Sign on the dotted line, take the cash, don't have any babies. The state will pay for the reversal procedure after a certain amount of time IF you can prove you're economically and socially ready for it.

 

OK, I followed that link, and my head hurts from reading all the acronyms and restrictions. I'm talking about something much more basic--the school has an adjoining facility that is open 6am-8pm M-F year round. Very simple, basic, on-site registration with no red tape. You don't have kids going home to their "turf" right after school. You have them there until 8pm or whenever a parent can come and get them.

 

No, it's not going to eliminate gang activity, but it's a huge step in the right direction.

[Balta1701]

How is it any worse than going to prison multiple times? You've got to break the cycle of these gangs. How else do you do it unless it becomes a 24/7 removal from the situation for a generation?

 

Edit: Sorry, let me clarify. I think we should ship kids off to military schools or private schools IF they are the type of kids to get in trouble. Obviously if it's a good kid who wants to go to school, shipping them off makes no sense.

Not quite sure which ages you're talking about and maybe the effect would decline as the child approached 18, but there is IMO very conclusive data out there which clearly shows the single worst thing you can do for a child is tear it away from its parents and send it somewhere else. Unless the child's life is literally in danger, there is absolutely huge emotional damage from tearing children away from even less-than-fit parents. You literally see worse outcomes from removing kids from homes where drugs are a problem than you do by leaving them in there.

[Soxbadger]

We dont really want to eliminate gang activity. Too much money in them mines.

[StrangeSox]

The problem is that the whole article is just making conclusions without really explaining:

 

 

 

WHY?

 

Thats the problem I have, no one wants to turn the mirror and ask WHY. Are blacks being prevented from living in white neighborhoods? Is there some sort of current policy that prevents black people making $100k from living in a nicer suburb?

 

If there is, then go after it.

 

But if black people are just choosing to live in worse neighborhoods, who am I to tell them what to do?

 

It's not "making" a conclusion there but simply reporting a fact that other research has found. It's an article in a magazine about a large, broad topic, not a detailed research paper on a narrow, specific issue. Perhaps the answer to your question lies in the cited research work. It's a good question and if you asked him via twitter or his comments section or email, he'd probably respond.

 

The saddest part of the entire article was this:

 

Like those African Americans are bad people because they think through hard work and dedication people will respect them more individually.

 

Its sick, its twisted. When anyone has the audacity to say "Maybe we should fix our own mess" they get attacked. Because you know, saying that maybe we could do better, is racist.

 

That is my problem with this whole calamity of an article.

 

I don't think that's the right reading of what he's saying at all, and you can look back to some of his other articles like the "other people's pathologies" one I linked for some more writing specific to that situation. It seems to me that you're bringing a bunch of prior assumptions about what TNC is saying into your reading of the article and its coloring your response to it. And it's not something that TNC came up with, the "twice as good" idea.

Edited May 28, 2014 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

OK, I followed that link, and my head hurts from reading all the acronyms and restrictions. I'm talking about something much more basic--the school has an adjoining facility that is open 6am-8pm M-F year round. Very simple, basic, on-site registration with no red tape. You don't have kids going home to their "turf" right after school. You have them there until 8pm or whenever a parent can come and get them.

 

No, it's not going to eliminate gang activity, but it's a huge step in the right direction.

 

It's a step, but you're talking about a 6-8 hour portion of the day. While it might be important for some, the majority of those kids are going to go home and be stuck in the same BS as the other kids in school.

 

[southsider2k5]

According to the article you are now racist for saying that a person could perhaps improve their own lot in life. That is just racist at the core, there is nothing wrong with people not sending their child to school, its just a racist belief that somehow if you do better youll get more respect.

 

Again, it isn't just one race being referred to there.

[StrangeSox]

Again, it isn't just one race being referred to there.

 

That's also not anything that the article is saying either

[Jenksismyhero]

Not quite sure which ages you're talking about and maybe the effect would decline as the child approached 18, but there is IMO very conclusive data out there which clearly shows the single worst thing you can do for a child is tear it away from its parents and send it somewhere else. Unless the child's life is literally in danger, there is absolutely huge emotional damage from tearing children away from even less-than-fit parents. You literally see worse outcomes from removing kids from homes where drugs are a problem than you do by leaving them in there.

 

Emotional issues with a future is better than no emotional issues and no future IMO. And again, we're talking about kids who are in juvi, jail or dead by the time they're 25 anyway.

 

 

[cabiness42]

It's a step, but you're talking about a 6-8 hour portion of the day. While it might be important for some, the majority of those kids are going to go home and be stuck in the same BS as the other kids in school.

 

Like any improvement, the change will be gradual. However, I think you underestimate the number of parents who will jump at FREE CHILD CARE and have their kids there quite a bit. That's up to five hours after the school day and up to 14 hours a day while the school is on breaks. That's a lot of time off the streets, and that's a lot of time that a lot of kids spend learning things, even if it isn't academically rigorous like regular school.

[Jenksismyhero]

We dont really want to eliminate gang activity. Too much money in them mines.

 

I dunno about money, but it certainly centralizes the crime and the city and suburbs are all big fans of that.

[StrangeSox]

Somewhat related, there was a recent study that got some publicity that found that, even starting as young as preschool, black children are treated more harshly than white children. They're far more likely to be suspended for the same sorts of things white children might get a slap on the wrist for.

[Balta1701]

Emotional issues with a future is better than no emotional issues and no future IMO. And again, we're talking about kids who are in juvi, jail or dead by the time they're 25 anyway.

And what I'm saying is that the data are quite conclusive. The more times you pull kids away from parents, even unfit parents, the more adults you wind up in Jail or dead. You aren't saving kids by taking them out of those homes.