I knew I'd get this reply from people who don't live in a ghetto, because only them think the stink of these shitholes isn't that bad. So here I go Takayanagi:
>Who decides what 'normal' is?
Common sense. Saying "I don't know nobody" isn't normal. Imagine you lived in a ghetto with your kid, and there's a billionaire who proposes to offer him a good education, wouldn't you want your kid to get out of that place ASAP.
The most probable outcome for a child who grew up in a ghetto isn't that bright, and refusing to acknowledge the benefit of the above plans just for the sake of political correctness and free choice isn't
>What makes your upbringing better than 'ghetto people'?
Everything. Growing up in a ghetto, you start in life with a handicap:
- They are stereotyped (for good reasons, because they probably fit that stereotype).
- They have to deal with things children don't have to deal with.
- They are, most probably, less educated than children who grew up in normal neighborhoods. Again, let's leave political correctness aside for a minute, this is a fact.
{
You're walking a very, very fine line between what is best for children, and what is just cultural indoctrination. Do you see how easy it is to slip between the two?
}
The line is so thick, it's not even funny. It's not cultural indoctrination, these are facts. There's a reason why ghettos suck, and why no one in his right mind would make a conscious choice of living there. Let alone with a kid.
{
What you're operating under is called cultural relativism. Melville Herskovits said it best, "Judgements are based on experience, and experience is interpreted by each individual in terms of his own enculturation."
}
Oh really, where did he live? And where did his children grow up and study? I bet he didn't send them to a slum just to be philosophical.
Try telling this to people living in those places. Anyone who says he lives there and is "proud" is full of shit. The minute they make it, they get out there. Only mobsters choose to keep living there because they'd be a nobody if they ever left.
Ghettos suck. This sentence would get an "Amen" from China to South Africa, and it doesn't even need to be translated.
>In other words, while you may believe that a 'ghetto' upbringing is worse than what you had, you came to that conclusion under a >biased observation.
Biased by numbers, yes. Criminality, illiteracy rate, rate of single moms, murder, poverty, health. Ghettos suck. If they didn't, we'd have no problems actively making a choice of moving there with our families. But we don't. Nobody who can afford to live elsewhere makes an active decision to live in a ghetto.
>Yes, there is a higher crime rate in 'ghetto' areas, but that has less to do with culture, and more to do with opportunity.
Isn't opportunity closely tied with culture?
How many startups have been started by a guy named Maleeek (with 3 'e' s) who grew up in a ghetto? If not none, then very few. Why? Because they didn't have the opportunity to drop out of MIT, Harvard, or Stanford or to get there in the first place for that matter.
Yeah, there are few people who "hustle". A very few. And these apples don't fall really far from the Hip-Hop tree. There are of course outliers, but they're that: Outliers. We need something consistent. Something we can see on a graph and say "Holy shit, the correlation!".
>And yes, there are parents who would prefer that their children not simply be 'white washed' into cultural conformity based on someone >else's standards.
Maybe. But I also think that most parents would prefer that to the most likely outcome of their kid. Any parent can choose to ignore the realities of the world just to make a point, or make the best out of the situation he's in.
1st, it's not for political correctness, not one bit. It's that your view is stating that those people are essentially less good at being people than what you are, and need a savior to fix them. That's just not true, regardless of what you believe.
That view was extremely popular in the 40's and 50's, and is also extremely ineffective. It's a true story.
What is effective, instead of indoctrinating 'ghetto people' to your "better" way of life, is providing them with opportunity. Look at areas, schools or neighborhoods than have been effective and successful, regardless of being in a 'ghetto'. There is one common theme; internal hope and prosperity. It doesn't take white culture to fix 'ghetto people'. It takes hope, opportunity, community investment and old fashioned work from those people living there. Without it, all you'll do is drain the youth from these communities, and allow real estate brokers access to swaths of uninhabited city centers.
Your argument is fundamentally wrong, and is incredibly ignorant of education and community development in failing areas. You are arguing that 'those ghetto people' are broken, their culture is broken, and only removing them from their surroundings and supplanting their culture can fix their problems. You're wrong, you're just wrong is all there is to it. That's been proven by history and research - I'm not at home and don't have access to a database, but you're wrong.
I'm not saying that ghettos need to remain for the sake of themselves, that the individuals living there love it, or that the people living in there start even close to the same footing as the rest of the world. I'm saying that the way to fix the issues associated with these areas isn't a white knight swooping in to save the poor colored kids; that.does.not.work. It's for these areas to be empowered through community investment to fix it for themselves.
Do you know the best way to empower a community? Education focused INSIDE of it.
And for Melville: I'm not certain that his upbringing is really all that important. Your argument here is really, really weak (and is an outstanding example of Ad Hominem; what does it matter where he's from?). You're arguing that, unless you are from a ghetto, you're not allowed to have an opinion on them. Where did you grow up?
But look at what you said "It doesn't take white culture to fix 'ghetto people'"..
This means your presupposition is that ghettos are predominantly non white, which means that you subconsciously think white folks don't have that problem, which in turns contradicts what you said about not needing white culture to fix ghetto people.. Which is not what I said.
It says a lot: If you can do feature exctraction on a social problem that easily, it means something is really screwd.
I also think there's an impedance mismatch here between what you say and what I understand, and vice versa. I agree on the fact that people living in ghettos must be empowered, and a way to do that in my mind was to get their children a better education, easing the financial burden on the parents, and shielding the children from their toxic environment.
If I went overboard, it's because it's too important to let ourselves dwell on rhetorics. My reasoning was: We may not be able to help the parents (they had their lives), but the children still have a chance. The parents played their turn, now it's the children's turn at life.
But I agree on your point about draining the youth from these communities. I haven't seen it that way.
{
I'm saying that the way to fix the issues associated with these areas isn't a white knight swooping in to save the poor colored kids; that.does.not.work. It's for these areas to be empowered through community investment to fix it for themselves.
}
Which would be easier if they had a better education, education which would be easier to obtain if they didn't have to hustle to eat, or have to choose which child to send to school, or chose if the child is going to eat or get an education.
>Do you know the best way to empower a community? Education >focused INSIDE of it.
I'd say education no matter where. As I said, my rationale is that children are too precious to waste on a social experiment of community stuff. They need education and be able to be children.
{
And for Melville: I'm not certain that his upbringing is really all that important. Your argument here is really, really weak (and is an outstanding example of Ad Hominem; what does it matter where he's from?). You're arguing that, unless you are from a ghetto, you're not allowed to have an opinion on them. Where did you grow up?
}
I didn't attack him, Loughla. I even agree with him. And I didn't even say you're not allowed to have an opinion unless you live there (I didn't say that). But the issue at hand has nothing to do with opinion. Living in a ghetto just sucks and nobody needs research or a PhD to know that. It's just reality, man. Not "perception" and not "endoctrination".
It's a toxic environment that would influence the most immune systems. And I didn't say it needs a "white knight", I didn't even mention a white dude saving the day (you did). You assumed that when I said "billionaire", the guy would be white.. Which again, says a frigging lot about the reality you are trying to polish. In other words: you are contradicting yourself because, deep down, in your guts, you don't feel that way about the issue.
Mentalist out (I'm not half as good looking as he is. Oh, well..).
>Who decides what 'normal' is?
Common sense. Saying "I don't know nobody" isn't normal. Imagine you lived in a ghetto with your kid, and there's a billionaire who proposes to offer him a good education, wouldn't you want your kid to get out of that place ASAP.
The most probable outcome for a child who grew up in a ghetto isn't that bright, and refusing to acknowledge the benefit of the above plans just for the sake of political correctness and free choice isn't
>What makes your upbringing better than 'ghetto people'?
Everything. Growing up in a ghetto, you start in life with a handicap:
- They are stereotyped (for good reasons, because they probably fit that stereotype). - They have to deal with things children don't have to deal with. - They are, most probably, less educated than children who grew up in normal neighborhoods. Again, let's leave political correctness aside for a minute, this is a fact.
{ You're walking a very, very fine line between what is best for children, and what is just cultural indoctrination. Do you see how easy it is to slip between the two? }
The line is so thick, it's not even funny. It's not cultural indoctrination, these are facts. There's a reason why ghettos suck, and why no one in his right mind would make a conscious choice of living there. Let alone with a kid.
{ What you're operating under is called cultural relativism. Melville Herskovits said it best, "Judgements are based on experience, and experience is interpreted by each individual in terms of his own enculturation." }
Oh really, where did he live? And where did his children grow up and study? I bet he didn't send them to a slum just to be philosophical.
Try telling this to people living in those places. Anyone who says he lives there and is "proud" is full of shit. The minute they make it, they get out there. Only mobsters choose to keep living there because they'd be a nobody if they ever left.
Ghettos suck. This sentence would get an "Amen" from China to South Africa, and it doesn't even need to be translated.
>In other words, while you may believe that a 'ghetto' upbringing is worse than what you had, you came to that conclusion under a >biased observation.
Biased by numbers, yes. Criminality, illiteracy rate, rate of single moms, murder, poverty, health. Ghettos suck. If they didn't, we'd have no problems actively making a choice of moving there with our families. But we don't. Nobody who can afford to live elsewhere makes an active decision to live in a ghetto.
>Yes, there is a higher crime rate in 'ghetto' areas, but that has less to do with culture, and more to do with opportunity.
Isn't opportunity closely tied with culture?
How many startups have been started by a guy named Maleeek (with 3 'e' s) who grew up in a ghetto? If not none, then very few. Why? Because they didn't have the opportunity to drop out of MIT, Harvard, or Stanford or to get there in the first place for that matter.
Yeah, there are few people who "hustle". A very few. And these apples don't fall really far from the Hip-Hop tree. There are of course outliers, but they're that: Outliers. We need something consistent. Something we can see on a graph and say "Holy shit, the correlation!".
>And yes, there are parents who would prefer that their children not simply be 'white washed' into cultural conformity based on someone >else's standards.
Maybe. But I also think that most parents would prefer that to the most likely outcome of their kid. Any parent can choose to ignore the realities of the world just to make a point, or make the best out of the situation he's in.