DColeKC wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 7:18 pm
This topic is way too far over my head. I understand American has a race problem and I understand implying that the black community has things to work on can be perceived as a racist comment. Of course I don't intend it to be that way but it's no different than me saying white people have a lot of things to fix within their culture as well. What if the answer is everything? America still has things to fix as a country, white people still have things to fix (including breeding more racist) and minorities have cultural issues to address that only they can address. I do know one race telling a different race they need to fix something will result in positive change 0% of the time.
I'm not smart or eloquent enough to really explain this, especially in a message board post, but what is problematic isn't just "implying that the black community has things to work on." More fundamentally, it is the idea that there even is a monolithic "black community," apparently comprising all black people, who should be held responsible for the actions of other members of that community. The only thing that all black people intrinsically have in common is that they are black. I don't believe any individual is responsible for the actions of any other individual who is a total stranger to them. And when you argue that this community "has things to work on," you imply that the causes of and solutions to their problems lie within themselves and tacitly deny the role that racism and white supremacy have played in creating the material circumstances in which this "community" exists. You are ultimately saying that the "black community" has higher crime rates because something about being black simply makes you more predisposed to committing crimes. The "black community" has higher poverty rates because something about being black simply makes you less capable of achieving financial success. The "black community" has lower educational attainment because something about being black simply makes you less capable of achieving academic success. Etc etc etc. If someone believes that these things are biologically determined by race, then yes, that is racist. But if they are not racially determined like that, then we need to dig deeper than just saying that "the black community has things to work on."
It is also worth pointing out that the "black community," such as it exists, does
"work on" things. There is no shortage of stories about people stepping up to try to clean up their neighborhoods, shut down criminal activity on their streets, improve their schools, and so on. But the "black community" lacks power in this country, so these are generally small-scale, hyper local projects with varying degrees of success. You can "work on" things all you want, but without the appropriate tools (capital, political power, etc), you are never going to scale that up to societal-level change.
My money management comment was applicable to all people. It's why you see poor people strike it rich and end up poor again. This isn't unique to any one race. I was getting at handing over large chunks of money and hoping it helps or simply to check the box won't help. Well, maybe it will help a very slight amount but not to the level I believe the majority of this country wants to see.
I mean, you also see poor people strike it rich and then stay rich. Rich people can become poor by being bad with money (though even rich people who are bad with money have so much help that they can often stay rich in spite of themselves), but poor people can't become rich just by being good with money, because you need money in the first place.
As for the 1950's economy and high tax rates. Many factors went into that including coming out of WWII, TV's in homes, large companies merging and needing even more workers etc etc. Also, while the tax rates on the wealthy were higher, there were barely any wealthy people in 1950's compared to today's situation. Playing devils advocate, one could argue that the decrease in taxes has lead to the wealth this country has and if the high tax rates of the 1950's had stayed in effect, we could have been worse off for it. The poverty rate today is half of what it was in the 1950's despite the high taxes of the time.
The poverty rate had already fallen to around its modern level by the mid-60s, but the top marginal rate remained as high as 70% into the 80s. I'm trying to remember what happened in the mid-60s that might have slashed the poverty rate independently of tax rates. It's right on the tip of my tongue. I can't quite remember but I think it might rhyme with "freight momiety." Does that sound familiar to anybody?