I spent my childhood in southeast asia. No one was what would be considered anything other than various levels of poor compared to the US.
All of us neighborhood kids ran around in semi-feral packs and played together, being home before night, and I enjoyed it very much. Yes, there was a lot of work to be done. But kids got to be kids, too, and suffered none of the overscheduled insanity I see around me nowadays.
Slight aside- I honestly think that being able to contribute to the household from a young age was good for our mental health, too. Even if (as an example) hunting grasshoppers for a snack was silly fun together, we were proud to hand over our catch, and it felt good to be appreciated by the adults.
It is sometimes used like “lucky” because people who have no idea what it means get it confused with “fortunate” and use the two interchangeably.
If you want to use it to mean “lucky” it should be in the sense of “a purely accidental thing that happened to be good”, not just any good thing that happened.
If I travel to a foreign city on a whim and meet my future spouse there, that might be fortuitous. (It would also be fortuitous if I travel on a whim to a foreign city, get hit by a truck, and end up paraplegic.) If I train for years and finally manage to achieve my dream of running a marathon, that is not fortuitous.
Your link offers the definition “Happening independently of human will or means of foresight; resulting from unavoidable physical causes.”
In many (most?) cases, not becoming addicted to alcohol is a straightforward result of deliberate repeated choices not to consume much alcohol.
There are also people who regularly binge drink and don’t become addicts per se... I guess you could call that both fortuitous and fortunate?
Or we can go all out and deny any human agency or choice, in which case I guess everything becomes fortuitous. This makes the word not very useful though.
What does being white have to do with predominant parenting practices? If you would like to point out differences in parenting practices by race/wealth/class and possible causes for said discrepancies, then please do so.
I mean, considering the era they quoted, I would say that black people might've had a bit more trouble raising kids than white people in the 1950s-1970s for reasons I hope would be incredibly obvious.
Compared to whites in that time period, sure. The raising of kids seems to me to be a multifaceted issue. One interesting example: most would agree that having two parents in a household is better for raising kids. In the early 20th century, despite racism and segregation, black divorce rates and birth outside of wedlock was much lower than it is for blacks today. Of course, those rates have gone up for all races over time but more drastically so for blacks. As a result, the children are often brought up with one parent (which most would agree, means the children are worse off in that respect compared to black children of say 100 years ago). Whether or not this trend is a good or bad thing is a completely different discussion than that of the causality.
Yes, but the point is that the era we tend to romanticize the most with 'free range parenting' tended to be something exclusive to white and/or affluent parents. Black children didn't really have that luxury at the time considering the systemic racism they encountered every step of the way.
As a poor white kid when I grew up my parents didn't have the luxury to let me do my own thing because they were often out fishing for a week+ at a time out in the bay area. So I was either waiting in the dock house playing video games for shorter fishing trips or out there on the boat with them for longer excursions.
I see your point and concur. I do wonder though - in many ways diversity of cultures, nationalities, and races has enriched America and provided many things that other countries simply don't have - does this same diversity also make mixed communities less trusting resulting in less 'free range parenting'?
In other words, whites in that era who practiced 'free range parenting' presumably lived in mostly white communities. If the communities were more mixed at the time, would 'free range parenting' have been as common, even if the affluence and social status of whites was the same?
Another question - what were the parenting techniques like from other races at the time in America? I'm thinking Chinese/Japanese immigrants, Hispanics, Jews, etc. Were well-to-do whites the only ones who largely practiced this style of parenting or were there others?
I sympathize with your intent, but when I was a poorish, urban black kid (30-40 years ago) we were completely free range. I was raised by a single mother who didn't even make it home from work until 7:30-8:00 (like many), and my range was anywhere within a mile or so of my house from probably about 12 years old on.
It wasn't a luxury to be unsupervised... the black people I knew growing up didn't really have a culture of oversupervision to rebel against. We were expected to be able to handle ourselves.
All of us neighborhood kids ran around in semi-feral packs and played together, being home before night, and I enjoyed it very much. Yes, there was a lot of work to be done. But kids got to be kids, too, and suffered none of the overscheduled insanity I see around me nowadays.
Slight aside- I honestly think that being able to contribute to the household from a young age was good for our mental health, too. Even if (as an example) hunting grasshoppers for a snack was silly fun together, we were proud to hand over our catch, and it felt good to be appreciated by the adults.