Interesting discussion I’ve somewhat unwittingly started. Hate to stop a productive thing, so…
I actually don’t think there is an organized conspiracy to kill poor blacks in America. However, I do believe (and have science to support it) that our government’s policies and false ideologies promote hurtful and even deadly outcomes for our nation’s poor, most specifically American blacks. And yes, I do believe that in the deepest, darkest recesses of the hearts of our nation’s rulers, in those places they don’t talk about at parties, they feel that the best thing for the country would be a mass cleansing of poor blacks from our world. And more, I don’t think it’s all that secret. Quoting Richard Baker, the republican representative from Louisiana, in the days immediately following the storm: “We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn’t do it, but God did.” Doesn’t this sound like someone who just wants to rid himself of a problem, not serve the needs of people?
The idea that poverty is a problem of lazy, dependent people is a folk notion: a common sense belief based on dominant views that are so pervavise that they are accepted as fact. It is a notion so ingrained in our pysches it is hard to know where to begin to debunk it. Further, where I have the biggest problem is that this becomes linked automatically to blacks, and specifically, to black women: who, in line with folk notion, are unmarried, government dependent, baby makers. In very simple terms, the science on poverty, reproduction, and labor not only refutes these false ideas, but in many cases completely blows it all out of the water.
This is why Bennett’s comments make me crazy. People will balk at his comments as inappropriate; it’s obviously in bad taste to suggest that an entire generation be eliminated due to the color of their skin. However, in the back of their minds, folks actually think that this would be a good thing: that restricting black women’s reproductive capacity would in fact, reduce crime, possibly lower welfare roles, and do a heck of a lot of other positive things. And again: the science and the truth of the issue will be ignored. Part of our comfort is in believing these false facts. It’s much easier to blame the poor for poverty than it is to recognize the complexities of it.
I don’t particularly feel the need to write a scientific discourse on this in a blog, although I certainly have academic material that I’ve written in the past (fully cited and referenced) that I’d be happy to pass on. (Delighted, actually… reproduction and poverty is essentially the stuff that gets me up in the morning.) My academic training and experience is heavy in the study of poverty and I think it’s important to keep this type of discourse open in friendly conversation. I do not believe, nor have much respect for, the “branding” of America, where we all stay a-political and without opinion at the risk of offending. We should be talking about these issues because they matter.
Fluorescences | 02-Oct-05 at 7:28 am | Permalink
But see, this is where you SHOULD write a scientific discourse. Because if you have the information and understanding at your disposal, who will write it if you don’t?
You should read Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s 1965 paper on poverty and the black family for the Department of Labor if you haven’t already. Classic white paper.
Holly | 02-Oct-05 at 8:40 am | Permalink
It’s not one paper. Tons of little papers, writing assignments, responses to articles, exercises, etc. And nothing I’ve said is that unique. I didn’t do the research, I just happened to have read it and be trained in how to critically think about it.
Holly | 02-Oct-05 at 8:52 am | Permalink
Okay. So you know I’m not bluffing, I’ll post a common myth and my brief response here in the comments. (I’m happy to share more, but the length and academic nature is such that I’d rather send you paper(s) and get comments directly.)
MYTH #1:
Poverty and welfare dependence are long-term consequences of teen childbearing that would be avoided if teen mothers postponed their first-births until their 20s.
ANSWER:
False fact. The folk notion that poverty and welfare dependency are long-term consequences of teen childbearing is ideologically consistent with the dominant worldview on teen motherhood. The prevailing beliefs about the consequences of teen childbearing have been based on cross-sectional comparisons or bivariate analyses that lack detailed controls for family background such as SES, race, etc., creating biased results that misrepresent the true association between the variables (Geronimus and Korenman, 1993, May). This association has impacted research to the point where evidence has been completely misrepresented, enforcing the idea within social, cultural, and political circles that teen childbearing leads to poverty and dependency. U.S. public policy is so attached to this dominant ideology that welfare reform has sought to reduce teenage childbearing in an effort to save welfare cost, an effort informed not by science, but by cultural ideology. However, studies do exist which represent a more reliable estimation of the relationship of teenage pregnancy and welfare cost. Hotz et al (1997) is especially valuable in understanding the association between teenage pregnancy and social problems because the authors explore the causal relationship between the two by studying cause and effect (would social problems be alleviated if the women who become teen mothers postponed childbearing?). The authors find that teenage childbearing has no significant effect on the earnings of those mothers over time; in fact, these mothers work longer and earn more over their lifetime than if they would have postponed childbearing. When the dollar amounts of this additional employment (and the taxes it generates), are compared to welfare expenditures, the study shows that there will not be any substantial savings in social costs from decreases in rates of teenage childbearing.
WORKS CITED
Geronimus, A.T. and Korenman, S. (1993, May). The socioeconomic costs of teenage childbearing: evidence and interpretation. Demography. 30(2):281-90; discussion 291-6.
Hotz, V.J., McElroy, S.W., Sanders, S.G. (1997). The costs and consequences of teenage childbearing for mothers and the government. Chicago Policy Review; 1(1):55-94.
Violet | 02-Oct-05 at 9:18 am | Permalink
Well stated, kiddo. Much of the problems I see on your blog discussion are because you have factual knowledge of how povery operates in this country, whereas most people don’t ever look it in eye. They rely instead on conjecture and opinion based on wishful thinking–after all, if bad things happen because of defects in “those people,” we never need worry about it happening to us. We hope.
We isolate our poor in parts of communities that make it possible for an average citizen to never come in contact with it. This is why so many people are lashing out at the media–the media broke the unspoken agreement we have that we are NOT required to look at the poor, and the media put it in our face, day after day. The media will emerge as the bad guy in this mess because they made us see, even if just for a moment.
The reality is that many of the New Orlean’s poor will not return there, but they will be replaced by other poor people. Why? Because the big hotels and bars and restaurants NEED people who will work for minimum wage, and people in even more depressed areas (they do exist) will go there to take those jobs, not realizing that the economy in a tourist town is so expensive that they will struggle to live on what they make. Because the irony of these discussions about the poor and welfare is that most of those people left behind were not living on welfare, they were WORKING poor.
As you know.
Violet
Randy | 02-Oct-05 at 6:34 pm | Permalink
A question raised in Katherine’s comment is one of the one’s that is at the top of my mind in regards to class in this country. Why is it that people of all colors that come to this country as immigrants (Eastern European, Chinese, African) with little english language skills and less money are able to in one generation become sucessful, put their children through college, and in the case of at least fifteen or so first generation Chinese families we know literally become millionaires, while the poor and middle-class people I went to High School with are still in Va Beach working minimum wage jobs?
The only difference that I have seen is that first generation immigrants out of necessity have a stronger sense of community and help support each other’s success. I just don’t know if that is enough to explain the difference in economic fortune?
Holly | 02-Oct-05 at 9:04 pm | Permalink
I don’t know Randy, but if you know 15 millionaires, I want to hang out with your friends! 🙂
If I’ve learned anything from the study of poverty, it is that any assumption should be carefully guarded. What we think we know and what the realities are are very different things. Also, the world is a very different place now for immigrants than it used to be. PRWORA (1996) had drastic implications for working poor and was particularly harsh on immigrants. Further, as Violet pointed out, we do not see the poor. We live separately from them, we ignore them, we blame them for their positions, and for our social ills. This has pretty profound implications for how we judge others.
If immigrants did well in this country on the whole, we would know it — it would show up in a variety of ways: health outcomes, tax reports, and simply demographics. The fact is, like all working poor in this country, they don’t do well here at all. Immigrants are an interesting group because their health problems actually increase the longer they are in this country. And since the mid-1980s, only one group of folks is steadily growing in wealth: those already wealthy. The middle class is slowly disappearing… and it’s not moving up.
Anthropologic literature suggests that extensive family and social networks are keys to success for any socially disadvantaged group (the academic term is “kin networks”). We also know from this literature that some are better at it than others. It can be dependent on things like jobs (are you traveling around the country working in fields or living together and swapping domestic and wage labor?), existing wealth, availability of property, and frankly, luck.
Violet | 03-Oct-05 at 6:14 am | Permalink
Because it’s not ALL immigrants who come here and become successful, Randy. We notice the success stories, they stick out. My father’s family came here from Italy in the late 1800’s and of some 80+ of my first cousins, there are about 5 of us I would consider successful (“successful” meaning able to give our kids a decent life, nobody in my family has become a millionaire). The rest are at the mercy of the working class economy and have actually lost ground, going from unskilled industry jobs to working at Walmart, or working multiple menial jobs.
Since the mid-1900’s, this country has only allowed well-connected immigrants to enter the country, except for a few exceptions (Vietnamese and Cuban refugees), and of course, the illegal population. So the immigrants who enter now have at least family members already here who sponsor them. They can provide a safety net while the new arrivals get established, and oftentimes places to work in the family business.
Add that to the fact that foreign schools are doing a better job of educating their students, even in poor countries, than we are doing here . . . but that’s another discussion.
Anonymous | 04-Oct-05 at 11:54 am | Permalink
Is there a myth about there being a culture of poverty?
Elizabeth attended a workshop that was discussing intergenerational poverty (as opposed to situational poverty). That certainly seemed to have elements of a culture that would make it very difficult to get out of poverty. The workshop leader pointed out that it’s also difficult to move from middle class to upper class. Or to move down, in some ways. The language, the rules, everything changes to some extent.
I know this has been explored in a number of ways in a number of different places (Pygmalion / My Fair Lady, even).
I also recall some of the disdain that some groups in my Appalachian elementary/high school had for education. But there were enough people around in other groups that they were hardly a majority. But they were almost universally in families that had been poor for generations. They were also white.
How much of the “culture of poverty” is mythical?
-allen