[happyscrappy]

Pretending that racism is the main problem with inner city poor actually contributes to the problem. Not all poor in the city have the same outcome. Victimology is crippling. If nothing I do is my fault, because racism, then why would I not do whatever I feel like, consequences be damned? It is white people's fault, right?

[rmxt]

Ignoring the disingenuity, if racism (e.g., redlining, gerrymandering, selective use of semi-legal police procedures, etc.) hasn't led to the current disparate state of affairs between races in America, then what has, pray tell?

"Racism" isn't merely a buzzword or an excuse if it's actually a historic and ongoing phenomenon.

[netfire]

I think racism plays a part, but there are are factors to consider as well, including victimology. The current way we are approaching race in america seems to be part of the problem.

We seem to be telling people of certain races that they are born disadvantaged, that they are somehow second-class citizens and not fully responsible for their actions or outcome of their life. We then distribute aid and provide services based not only on economic or educational status, but also on race, and we form organizations to benefit members of that race. We become outraged when their rights are violated (but no so much when the rights of members of another race are).

I don't think we'll truly eliminate racism in our society if we continue to focus on race the way we are. Instead we need to care just as much about the rights (or the violations of those rights) of a black man as we do a white man (or any other race). Race needs to not be considered when creating programs to benefit the poor or uneducated. After all, shouldn't a poor white man be just as entitled to our compassion and assistance as an equally poor black man?

Martin Luther King said "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." For me, that cuts both ways. Not only should we not be judged unfairly in a court of law or be treated different by police because of the color of one's skin. It should be a non-factor in determining any sort of benefit or assistance as well.

[beat]

The reason blacks growing up poor in this country suffer bad outcomes isn't because they're told that they're victims by well-meaning social programs. It's because they're treated like criminals and given very few opportunities to achieve something better.

[netfire]

They may not tell them that directly, but when you consider someone's race in giving aid, aren't you telling them that they are disadvantaged because of their race?

We should be focusing on helping someone because they are poor, because they are unjustly treated like criminals or because they have few opportunities to succeed, not because they are black or of a certain race.

[beat]

But the aid isn't itself racial. That's a myth.

Have you ever had to apply for any sort of public assistance? The process is tremendously slow, complex, and bureaucratic, driven largely by layers of demands for proof that the aid is actually necessary. The basic takeaway of this process for the person in need isn't feeling like a victim, but rather feeling like society assumes you're a lazy thief.

[netfire]

You say its a myth, but then don't provide not explanation as to why. I guess I don't understand how race-restricted aid isn't racial. By restricting assistance, scholarships and other aid to a particular race aren't you in essence saying that you care more about helping people of a certain race than you do about helping people of other races?

If a person is in the same circumstances, economic or otherwise, as another person, why should I only give aid to one of those people based on their race? How would restricting a scholarship to white students be less racist than restricting a scholarship to african-american students?