22414, your assumption seems to be|
Posted by BooDaah, Mon Aug-14-00 09:59 AM
that I'm addressing poor folk. i didn't mena to imply that only "poor" people can have the mentality about which i speak. the examples may have made it seem that way, but i know plenty of folks in all racial and socia econimic classifcation who fit the description i put forth.
on another note, perhaps this will make you happy. i'm judgemental. i'mma call it as i see it. you don't have to agree, like it, care or anything else. you're free to hold the same or differing opinions. the reason i'm discussing this is to create dialog. i don't think my solutions/viewpoints/comments are the necessarily the only one that is true, but at the same time the beliefs i hold, i hold for a reason. if that makes me an elitist/snob/judgemental in your eyes, then "whatevaman". show me where i'm wong and i'll admit it (again) with no problem, but to analyze (And then pass judgement on) rlly won't amount to much, because opinions are like a$$holes.
now back to your comments...
>This sounds like you are projecting
>your work ethic and determination
>to a group of people.
> Desire may be the
>key for YOU, but maybe
>not for others.
and where did i say (since by your own admission you're reading so closely) that whomever wasn't entitled to their opinion?
>Tenacity and Independance! a Boodaah
if you say so (cause i didn't). hmm, sounds like judgement to me.
>Independance! a Boodaah trait
you said that already.
>I think you get where I'm
actually, no i don't. please say what you gotta say directly.
>So, because that's what you believe
>in, we all should?
READ CLOSELY: where did i say or imply this?
>Damn. That's a very judgemental
fine. so be it. now that BooDaah has been determined to be judgemental, does this invalidate anything I've said?
> Everything that we have
>alluded to in this thread,
>lazyness, independence, ambition (all the
>human traits) are common in
>all walks of society.
>My point is that poverty
>doesn't have a thing to
>do with the human side
>of this equation.
what equation exactly? and who are you to say what does and doesn't play a part? your rhetoric is making your point smudgy because i REALLY don't know what you're talking about now.
>willing to bet that the
>percentages would say that there
>are as many lazy poor
>people as there are lazy
I don't doubt it, but i'm not a big fan of "percentages" (see other posts about how i feel that you can generate statistics to "prove" any point).
>is that we concentrate on
>the impoverished people and say
>to them "why are you
>poor? Johnny made it
>out of the ghetto, why
>are you still there?"
>Without really looking at the
You're assuming if you think this is what I'm doing. I never implied that the desire to overcome is the be all end all trait. Again I'm mentioning it as a vital ingredient. I honestly don't believe success on any level occurs in a vaccuum. You gotta have a whole lot of factors on your side to excel at anything in this world. I'm just mentioning one. We've talked at length about others throughout this board and I wanted to address one we haven't. Personal responsibility. In my eyes, we can march, protest, discuss, plead, beg, borrow and steal as many CHANCES for an opportunity as we want collectively, but ultimately it is up to every individual to decide what they want and how they're gonna go about getting it. Judgemental? You can call me that if that's what you want, I've been called worse.
> The other side of
>the equation is the system.
IF you're addressing governmental, economical, gender, and educational issues you must have missed where I mentioned those.
>Why are we blaming the victims
Who is BLAMING anyone? Regardless of how you look at it, the situation is effed up right? IN the end who suffers if "johnny" don't go to school/get a job? the system? hell no. johnny and johnny's people. so johnny needs to get smart enough to take care of his own right? if johnny waits for his "40 acres" he's going to be waiting a long damn time.
>When the government decided to provide
>housing, then they got into
>the business of providing shelter
>for the masses. Why
>did they decide to not
>maintain those properties and allow
>its own people to live
>in squalor? Once again
>we are saying to the
>have nots, its your fault
>you are there in the
you know what i'm saying? I'm saying that if you're there make the best of the situation. take care of the little you have and if you get the chance OVERCOME your situation because the very system that put you in that hole isn't going to pull you out. all i'm saying is that yo gotta try. all this other exposition is confusing me because it seems like you aren't paying attention to the point.
>Both of these fundemental needs are/were >controlled by the government.
Only to the extent that you allow them to be controlled. you're not seeing that. if your school is messed up then YOU gotta fill in the holes in your education (or you'r children's). If you live in a messed up neighborhood, do what you can to make it better or gett the hell out. if you don't like the rules the system sets up, you have to empower yourself with a means by which you can bend the existiing ones or just play a different game. it ain't easy, but it's possible (am i repeating myself?)
>Is it a coincedence that the people
>mostly effected by the government
>are the impoverished? The
>people who actually need the
You're seeing my point. if you rely on the government to take care of you, you're at it's mercy. if you ask it to help you then you have to jump through whatever hoops it sets up. is that fair? maybe not, but it's reality. the longer you play by those rules, the more apt you are to become reliant upon that help (or think that it's "owed" to you). it's not cool to allow outside entities to control you. the "system" is set up to keep things just as they are. meaning if you're poor, then you'll STAY poor unless you do something to change it. Same thing with the effed up public school system, same with the effed up job market.
>Also, it is no coincedence that
>PRIVATE companies are coming in
>and remaking both of these
Again though, this is trading one slavemaster for another. An even worse one actually, because you actually have a say who is in government, in private insitutions you're a$$ed out.
going to your race analogy. you're damn right we start off behind or at a disadvantage. but what option do you have other than to TRY to win? if you don't run at all, how can you even HOPE to win?
> An ambitous poor person,
>a lazy rich person and
a lazy rich person has an advantage (as we both agree). but if he runs a "lazy" race he'll be caught and surpassed by someone from behind if that person is running hard enough. the field isn't level, but so what? again, what choice do you have but to do the best your can?
>But what you don't get is
>a "culture of poverty".
You started by addressing me, now you're talking about s differnt subject that what I was addressing. To be honest, I'm not sure what "culture of poverty" is defined as. I'm addressing personal responsibility in the face or or leading to the generation of a mentality.
but whatever, i'm beginning to tire of this circular debate.
------QUOTE STARTS HERE------
** PLEASE READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES:
Sister SheRise's Activist Stew Recipe:
Step1:inform yourself step/Step2:inform others/Step3:discuss the problem/Step4: DISCUSS SOLUTIONS/Step5:EXECUTE SOLUTIONS/Step6:evaluate the results/Step7:start over at 1 until desired result is accomplished.