Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 72

Thread: Black on Black Violence / Murder: Why Is it Taboo to Discuss? How Do We Fix it?

  1. #61
    Site Supporter Trooper224's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Wichita
    There are two things at play: persecution culture and victim culture, the two aren't always the same thing.

    Given their cultural history here in the US, african americans have a valid reason for subscribing to both, to a certain extent. However, these things have become so ingrained in their collective consciousness that it's hard to put it aside. Persecution culture has become a thing in white america as well, with victim culture seemingly the 'tude of the day among everyone.

    Espousing to such viewpoints can be a comfort. It's convenient to have someone out there to blame for all of your ills, to point the finger at when your life doesn't turn out like you think you deserve. However, it can also be used as a crutch that becomes hard to put aside so you can own your own shit.
    We may lose and we may win, but we will never be here again.......

  2. #62
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    ABQ, NM
    My Mother and my Sister both taught in Title I schools, which means almost all the students were from poor families. They have both taught in schools where the entire student body was eligible for free lunch. In too many cases, that was the only meal those kids could depend on. My Sister still teaches in such a school.

    Overwhelmingly, they say that good parents almost always raise good kids, and bad/absent/abusive parents raise kids that struggle and cause lots of problems in the classroom. Regardless of genetic background, the parents that back up the teachers and work with the teachers on behavioral problems or studying or anything else have children that succeed and grow that school year, and kids adjust for the better whenever the parents hold their children accountable for misbehavior in the classroom.

    The parents that verbally assault teachers for daring to punish their precious little Johnny-do-nothing are almost always defending children with massive behavior or attitude problems, which emboldens them, and then sets the stage for those kids to disrespect law/authority in general. It also sets a false expectation that their parents will always bail them out when they fuck up.

    Years ago, before my Mom retired I remember her telling me about a student she had, a 5th grader, that stood up on a table, dropped his pants, and urinated all over the table and on at least two other students. The Mom came in and screamed at the top of her lungs at my Mom for almost 20 minutes, screaming that she'd have my mother's job for accusing her son of doing something so gross and disgusting and that some other student's behavior or my Mom's teaching must have made him do that. The parents of the students who were urinated on were not impressed, needless to say, and demanded that student be removed from the class. All of the students that were asked about that kid all agreed that he was persistently disruptive and regularly pulled other student's hair, tripped them, pushed them, etc.
    Turned into a real clusterfuck that kept my Mom up for weeks until that student was put on an individual education plan (IEP) that moved him and his problems into another class - whereupon he kept acting like a little shit and his mother kept screaming at teachers for daring to do anything to punish him.
    The school was powerless to address that problem student. Worse still, other students seeing that little shit get away with such behavior emboldened them to do the same shit.

    I don't know where that kid is now, and that's been at least 12-13 years so he's probably an adult now, but I doubt he's anywhere good.

    If I had to make a difference in this problem not just for folks of a specific genetic background, but for all students in all schools across the country - I'd give the schools the ability to separate persistently disruptive students, and expel the students that simply will not stop disrupting the educational process in their classrooms.
    Public schooling is a privilege and it should be treated as such.
    There's always going to be that ugly end of the bell curve in any given population of students, but forcibly keeping that end of the bell curve mixed into already overcrowded classrooms and absorbing a massively disproportionate amount of Teacher's effort and school resources for dubious if any real benefit to the community or society is simply not viable for the long term. Schools in lower-income areas are disproportionately affected and damaged by this problem for all the cultural reasons already discussed here.

    Teachers are leaving the profession in droves because they can't teach the kids that actually want to learn. They're too busy filling unreasonable administrative requirements levied upon them by outsiders who've never taught a classroom full of students, and too beaten down from the verbal abuse and emotional stress from disruptive children and parents - with little if any backup or meaningful support from their administration. It got so bad in my Mom's last year of teaching that I genuinely worried for her health. My sister and I both celebrated when we convinced our Mom to retire a year before she'd planned. A few years into my Mom's retirement now, she wonders why she didn't do it sooner.

  3. #63
    Site Supporter rob_s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SE FL
    Quote Originally Posted by Seven_Sicks_Two View Post
    "Proper application of resources" is one thing... "Increase the budget of _____ program in the hope it finally works this time" is something else entirely. The latter seems to be the far more common strategy.
    of course, which is my point, I just think we need to be clear that we *can* spend our way out of this, we just have to spend smartly.

    IMHO, education is where we have to start. I had a long talk with my kids the other night at dinner about education and the what and the why. I explained to them *why* we learn history (hint, it's not so that we can memorize some date of some battle), and *why* we learn math (hint, it's not so that you can balance a checkbook, although that's a good start), and I explained to them *why* being educated matters (hint, it's not so that you can get a job at McDonald's). I also pointed out to them that it was entirely unlikely that any of their teachers understood these concepts, and *that* is why their education was boring and sucked.

    I'll give you a specific example...
    I used to be adamantly against "free lunch" programs in the schools. "Fuck them, their parents should pay for their food, not me, and if their parents can't feed them then their parents shouldn't have had them". Then I learned some things. I learned that for many kids, M-F and during the school year are the only days they have reliable food sources, and even then it's only two meals a day. And when you don't eat, or can't eat, you can't very well learn calculus, because your body is pretty much reduced to survival mode. That's why poor kids sleep in class, not because they're lazy (and not, although I'm sure it's the case sometimes, that their parents either allowed them to stay up to late or encouraged them to), but because their bodies are exhausted by a lack of fuel. Once I learned more about the science and the sociology behind the free lunch and breakfast programs, I became an ardent supporter.

    I was anti-abortion. And I was damn sure certain that the government shouldn't be paying for them. Then I learned the Freakonomics explanation about the drastic drop in "youth crimes" coincidence with Roe V Wade. I changed my mind.

    Now I'm not claiming here that my position (oversimplified) is that the government should be guaranteeing 3 meals a day for every child and providing free abortions to everyone that wants them (although that's pretty close to my actual position, FWIW), but I am using these as examples of places where (if you agree with the conclusions), a proper application of money could drastically change society.

    and, to my initial point about education, these policies would reduce the overall strain on the education system. Which isn't to say that we shouldn't still continue to increase funding for government schools. We should continue to strengthen our education system, and make it not about a participation award (why anyone celebrates a high school diploma is beyond me) or a transfer of wealth (middle class parents pay a fee to ensure their kids become middle class parents, it's called "college tuition), or a business (which is what those colleges really are). If people are worried (as you should be) that the current school system is overrun with socialists and socialist ideas, then we should ensure that the curriculum is vetted by bi-partisan groups and agree to throw out the outliers (like creationism to the right and "non-binary gender" on the left). and once we make a high school diploma mean something, we should make having one a pre-requisite for voting.
    Does the above offend? If you have paid to be here, you can click here to put it in context.

  4. #64
    Site Supporter 0ddl0t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Jefferson
    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    maybe you already did, but can you provide examples of "racially tinged laws"? links to actual statutes would be awesome.
    Federally? The Gun Control Act of 1968, Controlled Substances Act 1970, Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1986, The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, etc. There were many more on the state level. Many of these were tailored to (or unevenly enforced so as to) disenfranchise Blacks via the 14th Amendment's vague exception for those who participate "in rebellion, or other crime" after the Voter Rights Act of 1965 ostensibly marked the end of Jim Crow. Example of one such state law: Alabama's Jim-Crow era vagrancy law sentencing to the chain gang those leading an "idle, immoral, profligate life."


    Gun Control's racist origins go back to our nation's founding, but can be summed up by Florida Supreme Court Justice Buford in 1941:
    "[t]he original Act of 1893 ... was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers ... and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied. ... [I]t is a safe guess to assume that more than 80% of the white men living in the rural sections of Florida have violated this statute. It is also a safe guess to say that not more than 5% of the men in Florida who own pistols and repeating rifles have ever applied to the Board of County Commissioners for a permit to have the same in their possession and there has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people, because it has been generally conceded to be in contravention to the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested."

    Ronald Reagan got in on the racist gun control action as governor of California with the passage of the Mulford Act in 1967 (a direct response to lawfully armed Black Panthers) and again as president in 1986 with the Firearm Owners' Protection Act which banned automatic weapons in light of their increasing use by minority gangs during the crack epidemic.

    The racist origins of drug laws can be best illustrated by Harry Anslinger, who suddenly switched positions to champion anti cannabis laws only after his position as head of the bureau of Narcotics became threatened towards the end of prohibition:
    “Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men" and “There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.”


    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Lehr View Post
    I think he mistakenly typed Republican when he actually meant Democrat.

    One take, think it's been mentioned before:

    Democrats' fear of being labelled soft on crime was the impetus behind the 1986 law that introduced mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses....
    Centrist Democrats' embrace of "tough on crime" laws was in response to the success of the Southern Strategy. And there were mandatory minimums before with the Boggs Act of 1952 and the Narcotics Control Act of 1956 (repealed in 1970 after so many white hippies were sent away in the 60's).
    Last edited by 0ddl0t; 07-08-2020 at 06:04 PM.

  5. #65
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by JRB View Post
    My Mother and my Sister both taught in Title I schools, which means almost all the students were from poor families. They have both taught in schools where the entire student body was eligible for free lunch. In too many cases, that was the only meal those kids could depend on. My Sister still teaches in such a school.

    Overwhelmingly, they say that good parents almost always raise good kids, and bad/absent/abusive parents raise kids that struggle and cause lots of problems in the classroom. Regardless of genetic background, the parents that back up the teachers and work with the teachers on behavioral problems or studying or anything else have children that succeed and grow that school year, and kids adjust for the better whenever the parents hold their children accountable for misbehavior in the classroom.

    The parents that verbally assault teachers for daring to punish their precious little Johnny-do-nothing are almost always defending children with massive behavior or attitude problems, which emboldens them, and then sets the stage for those kids to disrespect law/authority in general. It also sets a false expectation that their parents will always bail them out when they fuck up.

    Years ago, before my Mom retired I remember her telling me about a student she had, a 5th grader, that stood up on a table, dropped his pants, and urinated all over the table and on at least two other students. The Mom came in and screamed at the top of her lungs at my Mom for almost 20 minutes, screaming that she'd have my mother's job for accusing her son of doing something so gross and disgusting and that some other student's behavior or my Mom's teaching must have made him do that. The parents of the students who were urinated on were not impressed, needless to say, and demanded that student be removed from the class. All of the students that were asked about that kid all agreed that he was persistently disruptive and regularly pulled other student's hair, tripped them, pushed them, etc.
    Turned into a real clusterfuck that kept my Mom up for weeks until that student was put on an individual education plan (IEP) that moved him and his problems into another class - whereupon he kept acting like a little shit and his mother kept screaming at teachers for daring to do anything to punish him.
    The school was powerless to address that problem student. Worse still, other students seeing that little shit get away with such behavior emboldened them to do the same shit.

    I don't know where that kid is now, and that's been at least 12-13 years so he's probably an adult now, but I doubt he's anywhere good.

    If I had to make a difference in this problem not just for folks of a specific genetic background, but for all students in all schools across the country - I'd give the schools the ability to separate persistently disruptive students, and expel the students that simply will not stop disrupting the educational process in their classrooms.
    Public schooling is a privilege and it should be treated as such.
    There's always going to be that ugly end of the bell curve in any given population of students, but forcibly keeping that end of the bell curve mixed into already overcrowded classrooms and absorbing a massively disproportionate amount of Teacher's effort and school resources for dubious if any real benefit to the community or society is simply not viable for the long term. Schools in lower-income areas are disproportionately affected and damaged by this problem for all the cultural reasons already discussed here.

    Teachers are leaving the profession in droves because they can't teach the kids that actually want to learn. They're too busy filling unreasonable administrative requirements levied upon them by outsiders who've never taught a classroom full of students, and too beaten down from the verbal abuse and emotional stress from disruptive children and parents - with little if any backup or meaningful support from their administration. It got so bad in my Mom's last year of teaching that I genuinely worried for her health. My sister and I both celebrated when we convinced our Mom to retire a year before she'd planned. A few years into my Mom's retirement now, she wonders why she didn't do it sooner.
    My niece taught middle school Spanish in Durham, NC. She lasted about a dozen years. Her principal did not back her on disciplinary issues and she simply quit. Middle school boys telling her how they wanted to F her. She is very much happier now running her own business.

  6. #66
    Member olstyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Minnesota
    Quote Originally Posted by deputyG23 View Post
    My niece taught middle school Spanish in Durham, NC. She lasted about a dozen years. Her principal did not back her on disciplinary issues and she simply quit. Middle school boys telling her how they wanted to F her. She is very much happier now running her own business.
    Teacher and cop are two job fields I think we're going to see less and less intelligent, capable people signing up for, possibly until we reach a crisis point of not having enough warm bodies for either. I certainly wouldn't encourage anyone I like to do either - there are far too many horror stories from both.

  7. #67

  8. #68
    Site Supporter Totem Polar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    PacNW
    Quote Originally Posted by ER_STL View Post
    I have no clue who that guy is, but I agree with him.

  9. #69
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Away, away, away, down.......
    Terry Crews dropping some truth bombs on CNN and getting cut off because he won’t tow the party line.

    im strong, i can run faster than train

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by ER_STL View Post
    Preach It !!!

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •