Posted on 10/26/2005 9:20:58 AM PDT by EveningStar
Probably the single greatest problem between blacks and whites in America is that we are forever witness to each other's great shames. This occurred to me in the immediate aftermath of Katrina, when so many black people were plunged into misery that it seemed the hurricane itself had held a racial animus. I felt a consuming empathy but also another, more atavistic impulse. I did not like my people being seen this way. Beyond the human mess one expects to see after a storm like this, another kind of human wretchedness was on display. In the people traversing waist-deep water and languishing on rooftops were the markers of a deep and static poverty. The despair over the storm that was so evident in people's faces seemed to come out of an older despair, one that had always been there. Here--40 years after the great civil rights victories and 50 years after Rosa Parks's great refusal--was a poverty that oppression could no longer entirely explain. Here was poverty with an element of surrender in it that seemed to confirm the worst charges against blacks: that we are inferior, that nothing really helps us, that the modern world is beyond our reach...
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Your story is appalling but, I suspect, instances like this occur across the country every day. It is a shame that we are put in a position of defending ourselves when we have not done anything wrong. I for one "own" neither shame nor guilt for things other people did in the past. My only constructive suggestion for avoiding a similar situation in the future is to help your office establish Radio Rules ... either each individual can listen quietly to whatever they want, or the use of a radio should be strictly prohibited. Alternatively, use an earphone.
I am reminded that a bank in England has recently prohibited the use of an image of a piggy bank, traditional symbol of thrift, from its advertising because it might offend muslims.
What is this world coming to?? [rhetorical]
I know ... and agree.
Unfortunately what those like you and Hastert do, is portray the Republican Party as an unfeeling doze it down in the face of a disaster entity.
That's crap. If you want to have a converstion see if you can do so with insulting me personally. First you say I'm ignorant then now I'm unfeeling. You are wrong on both counts.
Besides living next to a port in the past my family owned property in a floodway and I was involved in selling that property to the county here in Texas. I had talked to FEMA about selling it to them and had done reasearch on FEMA/NFIP and their various programs for such things. The property in question was in a flood hazard zone in a floodway. Nothing could be built on the property unless the structure was elevated a certain number of feet above the floodplain.
Almost all of New Orleans we now see is in a floodway. In any other part of the country after such a flood FEMA/NFIP would require that the flood zone maps be modified to reflect this. Because of this FEMA/NFIP would: 1)Change the zone on their maps to reflect the actual risk thus significantly increasing the cost to insure existing structures; 2) Prohibit building in the floodway zones unless the construction was elevated "X" number of feet; 3) Buy out the flooded properties, scrape the structures off and leave the land bare.
Prior to Katrina areas that flooded during Katrina and again after Katrina are in low risk zones. Which is absurd. And that means that everyone else had been subsidizing the cost to insure those structures. I doubt this will change becase if it does it will be near impossible to build in some of those areas unless the building are WAY up in the air. No insurance, no loans.
Not shortly after Katrina hit Congress quitely passed a law and Bush signed it it that gives FEMA/NFIP direct access to the US Treasury to pay FEMA/NFIP claims. I recall that it was about $3.8 billion or so. And that's the initial cost. Which mean Eskimos are paying taxes to fund flood insurance claims in New Orleans. Add this to all the SBA and other low or nearly no interest loans that the gov't gives out after these disasters (which a lot of people will default on) and you have some major money.
As I said before, I'm not adverse to New Orleans being rebuilt. If the marketplace says to rebuild then tha's just fine. But, if the taxpayer will be paying for the reconstruction of New Orleans over and over and over it makes no sense. You might want to compare New Orleans to other places that have greater than normal chances for disaster but New Orleans is unique in that it has to have pumps running 24/7 just to stay dry. Unlike fires or earthquakes, tornados, etc. the exposure to significant hazard is constant. The water is always all around it. And the place is sinking with every tick of the clock. And besides the hurricane problem what about somebody just blowing up a few levees at once?
I have a couple of swimming pools. It has never occured to me to drain a pool and put the house furniture in the and live there. for those that think that is a good idea your term "ignorant" cetainly applies.
Agreed. That last one is probably almost as strong of a kick in the teeth as slavery was. I don't think the Klan could have come up with a better plan to destroy the black family and plague blacks with poverty for generations than the modern welfare state if they had tried.
Whites need to face up to why black people still think they are racist. Black people need to face up to why white people think they are dangerous, bad neighbors, and bad employees. The best place to start solving that problem would be to stop living up to the worst stereotypes of the other side.
Is this statement really racist, or is there enough evidence to make such a statement plausable? Let's look at some facts:
There are really two black cultures - let's call them "middle class" and "welfare".
* Middle class adult blacks have a work ethic substantial enough to remove them from the ghettos where the welfare culture resides; and, by and large, have both a mother and a father presiding over their home. The father provides discipline for his young males so that they grow up "civilized".
* Welfare adult blacks make poor decisions about education, poor decisions about promiscuous sex and birth control, and most families are headed by a single mother. Some of these black mothers work at low paying jobs, some rely on welfare. A consequence is that most young black male welfare children don't adequate discipline from their mothers, and do not have a live-in father to provide both a male perspective and discipline; and thus many grow up "uncivilized", absorbing the welfare culture. Most of them are downright hostile to education. As a consequence, a large percentage of the males in prison are black, a larger percentage than there are in the population as a whole. It is not politically correct to notice this.
* A black pop-culture has evolved from the welfare black culture (e.g., rap ) that glorifies violence, glorifies promiscuity, and relegates females into the role of "hos" and "bitches", mere objects of sexual conquest.
* Some children of middle class blacks absorb the culture of the welfare blacks, in part from the pop-culture and in part by the peer pressure to "not act white". It is politically incorrect to notice this.
When white or black children go to school with a combination of welfare blacks and middle class blacks that have absorbed the welfare black culture, the presence of students who do not value education holds back those who do value education; moreover, violence is always just below the surface. Notice that the culprit here is culture, not skin color. It is politically incorrect to assert this.
Given these facts, is it racist to believe that are negative aspects for white children to go to school with welfare blacks? Every parent wants to protect their children from danger, and this is definitely a possible danger. Many rational parents would decide not to subject their children to such a danger.
Lest you think this is just an academic arguement, consider the following situation. It was reported to me last week that a small race riot occurred at my local highschool. When they dug down into it, they discovered that:
* a young black male repeatedly asked a white girl out on a date, and she repeatedly politely refused.
* at some point, the young black male asserted to the white girl that she was being racist if she didn't date him (and have sex with him); she was offended, and again refused.
* the next time the young black male asked her out, she said: "I've tried to be polite, and you aren't getting the message. So, let me be blunt. I don't date niggers."
* The young black male, who was 8 inches taller and 80 pounds heavier than her, hit her in the face with his fist, breaking her nose, causing a massive nose bleed, and knocking her down to the floor.
* Several nearby young white males jumped on the black male, some to stop him, others to punish him.
* Several young black males jumped in to protect their friend.
* More and more students, both white and black, joined the melee, and it took quite a while to calm things down; fortunately, there was not much permanent damage to the participants.
Such events are of course not the norm, but still are far from rare. And, when such events happen even once, the story is repeated and embellished for some time.
So, given that such situations exist, is it racist for me to strongly consider sending my child to a private school that is not overrun by the black welfare culture?
Your lack of knowledge of New Orleans is apparent. Living next to "a port" grants you no knowledge of what the largest port in the US does.
There is no conversation with people who support a forget about rebuilding initiative. Heres a clue, every state in the union recieves tax payer moneys to recover form some disaster or another whether it be man made or natural. Did you bother to read the link? I doubt it.
I agree that the cultural identity is the problem, but I don't think blacks necessarily had to select the lowest common denominator to set as the cultural standard for judging the "authentic blackness" of their culture. In the 1950s, there were black thugs and lowlifes and pimps, just as there are now; but this "culture" was not considered the defining image of what it meant to be black. My best friend in Junior High, who was black, was much more ambitious than I (she wanted to be a neurosurgeon!) and was probably the most well-spoken and refined member of our class. She wasn't from a high-income family, btw; her father was dead and her mother was an elementary school teacher. Her grandmother, who lived with the family, took in ironing.
I think that the Great Society/welfare state defined all black people as being automatically part of the lowest rung of their "culture," and in addition, whites regarded this part of the black experience as exotic (it also confirmed the white racism that did exist, making whites feel free to consider all blacks feckless and inclined to crime). The promotion of blaxploitation movies and even the promotion of gangsta rap was started and bankrolled by whites, who made a pretty penny off of defining "black culture."
Of course, the effect of accepting this image of themselves and their collective experience has been disastrous to blacks as a group, and has created a massive pull of downward expectations among young blacks.
Both sides' assumptions can be backed up by anecdotal evidence like yours, which is precisely my point. Both sides have all too many members willing to live up to the worst stereotypes of the other side. And, yes, that includes the GOP.
Please give some examples of such disasters on the scale of the one in New Orleans where the probability of future occurrences of the same magnitude is 100%. You can't.
You will not find disasters on this kind of scale where the future occurence cannot be mitigated. For example, in San Francisco there have been earthquakes but the effect of future earthquakes has been dramatically relieved due to the change in the way buildings have been constructed. Unless New Orleans magically rises above sea level+ it will flood again. Heck, it's sinking.
New Orleans is a man-made snafu.
Given these facts, is it racist to believe that are negative aspects for white children to go to school with welfare blacks?
So, given that such situations exist, is it racist for me to strongly consider sending my child to a private school that is not overrun by the black welfare culture?
To be completely fair, there is, and has always been, a viable black middle class in New Orleans. They are educated and self-sufficient, maintain their property, educate their children, support cultural activities and are civic-minded. In the main they send their children to private and/or parochial [mostly Catholic] schools. They choose not to sacrifice their children to the failed public schools in the City.
Are they racist ... or, do they just have the best interests of their children at heart?
If someone else makes similar decisions, are they racist ... or, do they just have the best interests of their children at heart?
I agree with you.
it is SUCH a PITA that reasonable people cannot publicly discuss this topic without [expletive] dung-brains popping in to hurl invective.
I worked on the docks in the port of New Orleans as recently as 1995.
At the time, it remained fairly labor intensive.
I disagree a bit, and I think Shelby Steele was also doing so. By refusing to own up to our attitudes, we perpetuate these old stereotypes, and the shame and inaction that that brings. However - he says that "white" America has owned up and made progress, but now it's time for "black" America to do the same. Good essay. SS, as always, is a very brave and thoughtful writer.
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.