Follow me on Twitter!

Thursday, March 20, 2014

The root cause of a community's downward trend:

I think that where the disconnection between you two comes from the way you assign “bullying” to behavior that Leo and I do not. I think I can safely speak for Leo and me when we agree that most of the world’s population isn’t out to “hurt” anyone. It’s how being unaware, or denying certain truths, that we end up doing so. It’s rarely ever malicious, yet can still be just as damaging.

I respect your first hand opinion, but the definition seems fairly fitting to me especially given the way in which, IMO, racism has evolved to this point. This is the basis of my argument as far as this area of the subject is concerned - that racism has evolved into a form of bullying, as opposed to first hand, aggressive oppression. Obviously some cases are unique, in the same way that sometimes traditional bullying goes to far and becomes assault, harassment, etc., but now a days the vast majority of racism equates to racial slurs, jokes and name-calling. Very rarely does the system allow for blatant racism to be used to oppress an individual:

Actual Definition: 

bul·ly1
ˈbo͝olē/
verb
gerund or present participle: bullying
1. 1.
use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.
"a local man was bullied into helping them"
synonyms: persecute, oppress, tyrannize, browbeat, harass, torment, intimidate, strong-arm, dominate; More

Honestly though, that’s neither here nor there as far as the original debate is concerned, IMO.

That said:


Extreme Example:

Obama’s daughters were not born into poverty. They are growing up being given almost every luxury imaginable. Education, travel experiences, adult conversation and etiquette, etc. These young women have more opportunities to be successful than most other people dare dream. So if one becomes a doctor, and another a lawyer, and both end up rich and happy, few people would act surprised. Why? Because from the beginning, they were set up to be successful. Sure, it doesn’t mean they didn’t work hard, and that their lifestyle didn’t have its own issues and hardships. But relatively speaking, all they had to do was continue down a track that was already laid out for them. They didn’t have to “overcome”, but simply “not deviate”. The doors were already open. All they had to do was choose one, and walk through it. They don’t HAVE to be especially bright, or gifted, or extremely hard working (though they may end up being so). They just have to be “normal” in comparison to their surroundings, and their community will do the rest. Their success won’t be seen as extraordinary. It will be seen as normal.

I guarantee you, these ladies are not being taught that everyone else had the same opportunities as them. So when they get into Yale, Harvard, whatever, with the same kid from the South Bronx on a football/academic scholarship, I’m sure they won’t have issue saying to themselves, “That kid had half the opportunities, and had to work twice as hard to be in the same class as me.” And they will act to situations accordingly.

I agree. This is an example of the scenario I gave about inheritance being a big part of keeping ones line going in a positive direction, that’s not a secret. That’s the beauty of hard work; you can pass on the benefits to those you love most. That said, this specific debate has to do with a statement I made about this being a land of opportunity, not outcome. Your example bolsters what I am talking about, by showing how hard work on behalf of Obama benefited his children. I’m not by any stretch trying to say that there is not going to be an imbalance in living conditions, there will always be an imbalance, that’s the nature of a competitive environment, someone is always better than you or I; someone always has a one up in some way. This doesn’t mean though, that the opportunity to succeed isn’t there, because it is. Politicians, IMO, are not good examples to include in this discussion, though, for the simple fact that there are many perks available to them that the typical wealthy family may not have available to them. To somehow say that the reset button should be hit for every new generation that is born, though, is a bit far fetched, IMO.

But that also means that relatively speaking, the rest of the kids in the South Bronx who only “walked through the doors” they were given, weren’t necessarily “Lazy”, they just weren’t extraordinary, like the one who got in on the scholarship. The only difference, is that in their community, “normal” won’t get them as far is it would get Obama’s girls, because the communities are so fundamentally different.

Again, I don’t think the children of any politician would be good examples to give in this scenario, but that said, given your example and replacing Obama's girls with, say, a family from the Polo fields in Wellington, we could only draw the conclusion that those children would succeed because of the combination of what they were taught, how they were taught what they were taught, the work their parents put in for them. It’s a foundational issue and one that involves nurture as much as preexisting factors. Had the kids been taught that they were supposed to become basketball players and rappers, and that there were millions of people out there who hated them for no reason (which we can argue would be a true statement) rather than been taught that education was the norm, and that a real job in a booming sector was probably the best route, and then on top of that had these ideals reinforced by the actions of their parents, they would probably not get into Harvard, Yale, etc. I think this is an interesting example, particularly for me, because Karla was just accepted to Yale for her pre-med post bacc, and were talking about a girl who was born 3 months premature, whose family is still to this day in dire financial need, who came from an island in the middle of the Atlantic whose population speaks Spanish as a first language, and yet managed to put in the work, flew over here and will start at Yale this summer. Now, I know she has lighter skin than some folks, but I would venture to say that the reason she was able to do this was because even though her situation was dire, her foundation was supportive and nurturing, she was taught that she could do whatever she wanted, and the opportunities were there for her. If she manages to become very wealthy, would you say that we should then take what she has worked for, and give it to someone else who skipped school, did drugs, and rode their bikes around town all day while she was in class, so that those people can live the same as she eventually will? She came from a situation that was far different from ours, but if you asked her, she was used to it, so she doesn’t see it as her having to work any harder than any of us when it comes to the content of her education, rather she came to school, went to class, studied, on the same loans we all take out, and is now going to Yale. Why did she succeed? Because of her mindset, the way she was raised, and the messages she was taught. Do you think she would be in her current situation had she been taught that she was hated, preyed upon and should be a rapper? It’s a systemic issue with the messages and foundation of these children, not their situations – the re-engineering of one will lead to the evolution of the other, that said, there is no such thing as a magic wand that will automatically give everyone as much as the next guy/girl has, and creating racial division sure doesn’t do anything for the foundational stability of poor children.

It’s this type of awareness that Leo and I are saying we need to apply to our everyday living when we interact with others and judge education, economic, and social situations. Not so we feel guilty about our success, but so we have empathy, compassion, and context for why many others aren’t as successful. When we are telling them to “work hard and you can achieve anything” it’s important to realize that we may be asking something of them that we didn’t, and in all likelihood couldn’t, do ourselves given the same tools.

I agree, and I agree with your message of compassion. That’s why I feel so strongly about deleting this mentality of victimization, which serves no purpose other than belittling the individual. I just know how important a strong foundation is, I wouldn’t be here if my base weren’t solid and I didn’t put in the work, and that’s what we need to be teaching people, all while helping the out, but to sit back and say that the government should tax people who are successful, at a higher rate, to funnel money into a family that is not foundationally equipped to ever make it on their own, infuriates me - especially when we are fully capable of doing it on our own, and the governments only motivation is job security.

Simply saying this exists, doesn’t mean you are creating a society of victims and bullies. It simply means you see things for what they are, through a relatively clear set of contexts.

I’m not saying it does, but saying that there are difficult situations out there, and reprogramming the way an individual is raised, are two completely different issues.

Now I will agree with you that there are some out there who claim victimhood, but I would also argue that that’s not from the knowledge of what I just laid out. That sense of being a “victim” comes from simply noticing that something is OFF, being on the lower end of things and not being able to understand WHY. On the other end, we view “bullies” as those who come from being at the higher end of things, and not understanding HOW. Both these positions come from lack of context.

I would say that the some notion of victimization permeates through more than half of certain communities, IMO, most, not some. Yes, something is off in these situations, individuals were taught to live and act in a certain way, and that reverberated throughout their lives, causing them to not be as successful as others who were taught the right ways to succeed. Obviously not in every situation, but most. Some parents were addicted to drugs, were unable to raise their children effectively and didn’t do anything about their situation – while others were simply more concerned about buying iPhone's they couldn’t afford, their nails and their rides, than teaching their children to be financially responsible, to put education first and concentrate on building a good family and a future.

But both are not equally damaging. Because the ones on “top” don’t NEED this knowledge to be successful, while the vast majority of the ones on the bottom will continue to suffer if they are unaware. I believe this is why you call upon those on the bottom to rise up. Because you believe that’s the only way for them to succeed.

I disagree. Having the ability succeed and utilizing your capabilities to do so are two completely different things. Had I or Karla done nothing but bounce basketballs around all day, and blew our paychecks on shoes and iPhone's we couldn’t afford, all while I ran around worrying about being hated because my parents have money, would I expect us to be where we are? Nope. It wouldn’t happen. And sadly, this is the reality of most minority children because of the way they were brought up. I also disagree with your definition of successful individuals being “on top.” The comment actually concerns me because it would imply that we have come to a point where having the ability to care for a family and children, brought about by hard work and ethical living, is now considered being “on top,” or “superior” to most. What happened to the times when living in those types of situations was simply, normal? I’m not calling for them to rise up, I’m showing them how “we” live, and explaining that this is why we are where we are, and that it should be normal (and once was) for people/families to be raised this way and accomplish good things, as Karla and I have.


But Leo and I believe it just as important (if not, more so), for those on top to see their positions in proper context, because the systems many of them set up for success only work for “normal” people like them, or the extraordinary ones from the bottom. Many mistake their “normal” work for extraordinarily hard work, and don’t recognize the extraordinarily hard work of the few underprivileged as the statistical anomalies they are, relative to the normal or hard work of their communities. They see one rise up out of 100, and say, “See, the rest of you just need to work hard, like US.” Meanwhile ignoring the near impossible climb they never had to (and probably couldn't) climb themselves.

I’m not sure that “extraordinarily hard” is the right phrase to use when describing the path that the majority of those who live comfortably/well off take, simply because you’re referring to someone who falls below the poverty line. The methods you’re referring to are the things that normally successful and stable individuals do on a regular basis, because it’s how they were taught to think - some come from wealth, some do not. Also, working smarter does not mean that a job is not an important one. I make my living designing software and databases that make others jobs easier. At some point, someone designed tools to make my job easier, thus it the nature of innovation. As to your “normal work” analogy, I couldn’t be so bold as to assert that Engineers, Scientists, Physicist, Doctors, Lawyers and the like, have easy jobs – that notion is a bit concerning to me. Perhaps you’ve never taken a look at the hour’s med students or dentist works, and the nature of the information they are required to learn? I’m not sure a McDonald's drive thru worker, or a dollar store clerks requirements are quite on the same level, IMO. Obviously this is general, but I don’t think it’s far from a normal comparison. When a “normal” situation consists of single mothers beating kids in public, screaming at them in unrecognizable English, letting them do what they want, skipping school, aspiring to be basketball players instead of scientists, all while a father chills at the bus stop, calling women hoes, dressing like circus clowns and pretending they’re the “bosses” or rap music lore from the front seat of 92’ Mercedes E class, there is a serious need for intervention - injecting someone else’s money into that type of community, all while Farrackhan, Al Sharpton, Beyonce and JayZ are telling them that their situation is the result of “institutional racism,” does nothing to destroy the actual problem. This is the reality of the situation. I see it every day on my way to work, and again on my way home, when I see hoards of young minorities perched on the bus stop stoop when I'm walking to work, and then notice that they haven't moved when I'm walking home. I notice it when I see hoards of illiterate minority parents on television, screaming about every instance of white on black crime, all while blacks kill blacks by the busloads. There is a problem here, and it's not that were not paying enough attention to the imbalance, it's because were not addressing the real cause of the imbalance.






About Me: I am a Computer Scientist, more specifically a Database Administrator, a business man (Holding a Bachelors in Business with a focus in Enterprise Administration from Fordham University, Magna Cum Laude), a writer, a blogger, as well as a philosopher, a philanthropist (as much as one with limited finances can be..) a veteran, and in general, an all around thinker and do'er. My purpose is to point out that there is a reason for everything and an opinion for every reason. I am designed to interpret what I see and dictate what I've interpreted. My hope is that my words will not be seen as harsh, rather as liberating, and at very least, thought provoking. I enjoy everything from technology, to race relations, biology, genetics and economics.. for a start.. 

0 comments:

Post a Comment