Showing posts tagged poverty

Why Whites Hate Affirmative Action

gradientlair:

Lack of knowledge on the actual policies. Very few people actually understand the original executive orders, subsequent judicial decisions and legislation beyond sound bites via “news” that is insistent upon painting this as “taking stuff” from Whites for Black people (as if it is “just” about Black people). Honesty, how many White people have reviewed the actual history of why this is needed? It’s almost as rare to find as anyone who calls themselves “patriotic” who has actually read the Constitution or a Christian who has read the Bible. Media soundbites shaped by bigotry (in a White supremacist capitalist patriarchal society) absorbed by many Whites whose life ideologies have been shaped by bigotry is not going to produce the nuance and thought necessary to understand affirmative action. (Even so, these two simple, non in-depth cartoons explain this almost as well as the complex legalese: 1 and 2.)

Anti-intellectualism. Piggybacking on the first point, the current culture of anti-intellectualism doesn’t encourage most White people (and Americans at large) to actually investigate things they are “for” or “against.” It’s much simpler to decide to be “for” anything shaped by a legacy of White supremacy and White privilege and against anything that appears to be contrary to the former. Whites are used to being a “baseline,” the “norm,” or not considered a group at all, but those whom other groups are compared to.  Sociopolitically, many Whites are having a “day of reckoning” moment by even being classified as a “group,” or a “race” as Tom Scocca pointed out so well in a recent article about Romney’s overwhelming support from Whites. These factors contribute to the resistance to affirmative action.

Ahistorical views on race. If a White person takes the “why isn’t there a White history month” and “why isn’t there a White Entertainment Television station” stances on Whites and the media, it can be safely assumed that they are either uneducated or being willfully ignorant about the role of race in America and why certain spaces exist for Black people amidst the media, public discourse and culture itself. By pretending that the tide of history has no racial element, they can then infer that if everyone “is equal” (as if being equal means being treated equally) Black people are “unfairly” getting “goodies” through affirmative action. This also ignores the fact that even with said theoretical ”goodies,” unemployment, health care, finances, real estate, and more is markedly worse for Black people (and other people of colour) versus White. The latter is written off as Black “character failures” in the ever so common victim blaming ideologies such as American “exceptionalism” and even “patriotism” at times. This is where LIES about “poverty culture” come about as a way to praise greed, wealth and Whiteness and demonize suffering, poverty and Blackness.

The concept of what “greatness” is. The inherent racism involved in assuming that someone White is always “more” qualified, as if being White is a skill itself, is common in everything from college admissions to employment applications. The idea is that some “stupid” minority “stole” a slot from the perfect White knight on a horse who deserved things because he “worked” for them prevails. Further, the idea that perhaps a series of advantages afforded by White privilege is “hard work” would be even more humorous if it wasn’t despicable. Said privileges often place Whites ahead in spaces by sheer virtue of the luxury of Whiteness, not any actual work.  The myth of meritocracy is a plague on the American psyche. (Christopher Hayes wrote about this oh too well in his book Twilight Of The Elites - America After Meritocracy. Also, I recently read a fascinating study about the REALITY of financial aid versus the myth that “stupid” minorities “take all of the college monies,” and other assorted lies.)

A zero/sum view of racism. Ultimately, many Whites feel that any joy, success or progress in Black life means misery, failure and regression in White life. Period. This tunnel vision view is rooted in racism and fear. Research has revealed that many cisgender heterosexual White men feel like the “real” victims in America. Even if they are victims, would that not be at the hands of men just like them, except of a higher social class? Not to them. Racist social narratives involve the worship of “job creators” (the same ones who fire these men) as heroes because after all, they share Whiteness even if they don’t share class, status or cash. Other research has revealed that while some Whites view past times (during and pre-Civil Rights era) as a time more racist against Blacks, they view today as “more racist” against Whites. Of course this is false and has more to do with the idea of some Black people not suffering and Barack Obama’s existence more than any in-depth study of how race is a primary factor to consider when examining socioeconomic status. The enlightened exceptionalism involved in some who even choose to praise Oprah or Beyonce or LeBron James is what allows them to pretend that life for the average and for most Black people has dramatically changed, when for many, it has not. Claims of “reverse racism,” which doesn’t exist, are more common now than ever.

People who benefit from affirmative action also want it destroyed. While more than anyone else, White women have benefited from affirmative action, many of them stand with White men against affirmative action while simultaneously benefiting from it. Most people now know the name Abigail Fisher and know it well. Further, many older Black people (primarily men from what I’ve seen) want it dismantled despite the fact they benefited from it in the past. They clearly knew that in their time especially, being qualified was not enough. Assumed inferiority blocked their way.

Related Posts: CEO? Have A Seat. Kthanxbai., Black Woman? Want A Job? Register On Monster.com As A White Woman, False Equivalence, Kerry Washington Talks Affirmative Action On Real Time

(Reblogged from witchsistah)
It bears mentioning that nations with high-performing school systems—whether Korea, Singapore, Finland, or Japan—have succeeded not by privatizing their schools or closing those with low scores, but by strengthening the education profession. They also have less poverty than we do. Fewer than 5 percent of children in Finland live in poverty, as compared to 20 percent in the United States. Those who insist that poverty doesn’t matter, that only teachers matter, prefer to ignore such contrasts.

The Myth of Charter Schools by Diane Ravitch | The New York Review of Books (via robot-heart-politics)

but america is exception we dont have to listen to anything from other countries

(via ludwigfearurbach)

(Reblogged from bubonickitten)
invisiblelad:

christopherstreet:

Do you think it’s fair that the Waltons control 40% of the wealth in America, earn BILLIONS, and yet they pay their employees slave wages and don’t employ them full time so they are not eligible for health insurance?

Reblogged for commentary, tremendous wealth made even more so by not providing their employees with a liveable wage. 

invisiblelad:

christopherstreet:

Do you think it’s fair that the Waltons control 40% of the wealth in America, earn BILLIONS, and yet they pay their employees slave wages and don’t employ them full time so they are not eligible for health insurance?

Reblogged for commentary, tremendous wealth made even more so by not providing their employees with a liveable wage. 

(Reblogged from invisiblelad)
(Reblogged from invisiblelad)
If my father were alive today, he would be in his 90s. He grew up financially well off in the Depression but his disinheritance by his father and service in WWII opened his eyes to the suffering of most of the world. He did not contribute to charitable religious organizations, preferring to support governmental or secular groups. Here’s why: I vividly remember driving by the Salvation Army store one day, and my father saying he wouldn’t give them a cent. When I asked why, he said, “they make those poor bastards say a prayer before they’ll give them a hot meal.” He believed, rightly or not I cannot say, that religious charities served the poor only to recruit them to their faith. The thought of a man bending his knee to a god he didn’t believe in, in exchange for a hot meal, made my father sick. Government doesn’t make you say a prayer before they give you a hot meal. This has always been a very powerful argument, to me, for supporting public social programs over private charity.
(Reblogged from bluntlyblue)
(Reblogged from invisiblelad)

poverty porn

thegoddamazon:

golden-zephyr:

I am so tired of seeing only photos of poor and dirty Roma children or begging women on the corner of a street.

Yes, there are many, many of us living in exclusion, abject poverty, and terrible sanitary and social conditions…

but, not all of us.

In a way, this promotes another stereotype—to be a gypsy is to be poor and dirty and a beggar.

That’s not true for all of us though… but, I think that this stereotype feeds into the fact that we are not seen as Roma if we are not dirt poor and educated. Sometimes even having a house excludes us from being considered “true Roma”…

Sometimes, I feel like I can’t win.

You ain’t never lied.

(Reblogged from heirofmedusa)

Question for liberals

stfuconservatives:

liberalchristian:

stfuconservatives:

thetruthisouttheree:

Okay, so I know that one of the major criticisms Democrats make about Republicans is that we don’t care for the poor.

How do you figure that? You’re right that we don’t want the government to do that through the welfare/ food stamp system. But this is not because we’re greedy and unwilling to help people. It’s because we would rather help the poor ourselves than have a big government collect money from everyone. This devalues the spirit of giving and free will. It should be done voluntarily, and we should be able to choose who we help. Under socialist programs, you have forced giving, and those who benefit from these entitlements are known to be corrupting the system. They’re not looking for work, and they’re just using crazy sums of taxpayer money to buy drugs and alcohol. I mean, look at the people occupying Wall Street. They’re clearly not working because they’re too busy breaking the law by using drugs, destroying property, and assaulting people. Are these really the people we should be giving to (or rather, forced to give to)?

Please tell me the rationale behind these socialist ideas. I would really appreciate if someone could explain it to me, and preferably go beyond the cliche “we’re helping the poor.” Because I believe that’s important too, but I’m curious to know why you think your way works better than the people helping the poor on their own and how you justify the corruption that’s happening. Thanks.

The poor can’t really “help themselves” when we allow businesses to stomp all over their employees and take away benefits in the name of “creating jobs.” The poor can’t “help themselves” without access to education, transportation, and basic needs like food and shelter.

The poor are not “using crazy sums of taxpayer money to buy drugs and alcohol.” That attitude is the disgusting poverty-policing that conservatives use to distract people from how much taxpayer money is given as breaks to the wealthiest people in our country. The average family of 4 people can expect $500 a month in food stamps and $900 a month for their welfare check. That’s $1400/month for 4 people, or $350 per person. To live and eat for a month.

Oh, and they ARE looking for work. You have to be actively looking for work to receive unemployment benefits. Again, you’re vilifying the poor with absolutely no statistics to back up the idea that they’re lazy government parasites.

The people who participated in OWS were not all unemployed, or drug users, or assaulting people or destroying property. Some people took time off work to demonstrate their unhappiness with the system.

The corruption in our government is a direct result of allowing corporations and rich people to buy politicians and pay lobbyists to write our laws. Explain to me how a poor person can “help themself” with a dwindling minimum wage, underfunded schools, and poor-hating attitudes like yours. And please, show me a government or country where that mindset has actually helped people.

You’re a disgusting classist who is playing right into what the Republicans want you to believe about “helping people help themselves.” Congratulations! You’re well on your way to being a disdainful upper-middle-class scumbag who doesn’t give an *actual* shit about other people.

-Jess

While I like most of your post, I think you miss what this person said about “we would rather help the poor ourselves”- not that the poor need to help THEMSELVES. In other words, all charity should come from private individuals because, presumably, private individuals are better determiners of who is deserving of charity and not wasting it.

Which is a ridiculous argument. For one, private individuals don’t make enough donations to benefit all the people who are legitimately suffering and not on drugs or just lazy. Private charities are not widespread enough and don’t have resources enough to cover every case. For another, the charities an individual donates to are not likely to be giving money less often to corrupt/lazy/drug-taking people than the US government would be, simply on the virtue of it being an individual choice. As an individual, I can attest that my charity-giving inclinations are poorly thought out, poorly researched, and generally based on whoever makes me feel most guilty. Granted, I’m a biased sample… but how would a publicly owned system be LESS likely to respond to public demand than millions of individual choices? If the system is broken, we can change it.

For a third, this isn’t a battle over whether or not money should be spent by the government. Money IS spent by the government, and no one(with the possible exception of Ron Paul) argues that it SHOULDN’T be. Why is it completely valid that I, a pacifist, am forced to pay taxes that enable the government to fight in unnecessary wars, and completely invalid for pseudo-moral conservatives to engage in the collective need to feed the poor?

^^ See also.

Hey, I’m all for helping the poor ourselves using our own money. What do you think a “government” is?

(Reblogged from mumblingsage)

Indiana Democrat foils attempt to mandate drug testing of welfare recipients with sneaky amendment

shortformblog:

  • the planIndiana Republican Jud McMillin (yes, just one “d”) introduced a bill in the Indiana General Assembly that would have required random drug testing of welfare recipients.
  • the sabatogeDemocratic legislator Ryan Dvorak added an amendment to also require drug testing for elected officials in the state. McMillin withdrew the bill. source

» The nitty-gritty: ”If we’re going to impose standards on drug testing,” Dvorak said, “then it should apply to everybody who receives government money.” McMillin claimed that he had to withdraw the bill after Dvorak’s amendment was added, due to a 1997 Supreme Court ruling that it’s unconstitutional to drug test candidates for elected office…but that logic is flawed, as the Dvorak Amendment would have only required testing of officials already in office, not candidates. Surprisingly, McMillin said he plans to introduce a new version of the bill….that requires lawmaker testing as well. “Give me the cup right now and I will be happy to take the test,” McMillin said.

Read ShortFormBlogFollow

(Reblogged from shortformblog)
(Reblogged from karnythia)