I never claimed it did.

My argument was because all political groups are social groups you cannot reject the latter without also rejecting the former.

Your acceptance of national patriotism and rejection of ethnic/racial identity is inconsistent at least as you have framed your argument.


The point is to remove these concentrations of poverty entirely, not build projects next to rich neighborhoods, but allow individuals on residential support to rent housing on the private market in areas that are not poverty stricken.

It based around a voucher program.

Furthermore how does living next to a housing project decrease one's socio-economic status materially except as a result of irrational social stigma?

If your answer is higher crime can you back that with evidence. Show that crime is higher in the area surrounding a housing project?


Not if they take the capital and connections with them.


Public policy has always been a crucial tool in improving the economic status of Americas.

Both of the enforcement end where discrimination is made more costly to the infrastructure of development both physical and educational.

You cannot legislate good will directly, but you can change the situation on the ground which will in turn affect attitudes.


Let's not blame the messenger. The whites involved are responsible for their own apathy. If they can't handle being confronted with the truth that's no reason to soft-peddle it.

The trouble is that instead of looking for ways to improve the situation many people have just looked for the easiest justification to absolve themselves of all responsibility.

It's not how we talk about the issue that's the problem it's just pure selfishness.

Amazing response.

The indigent were "trapped" where they already lived--the projects were built in their neighborhoods. Can you imagine the screaming if people were uprooted from their neighborhoods? And no way is it fair to move the indigent into upscale neighborhoods (even if we could afford the huge dollars needed to do this), destroying the value of the upscale properties in the process.

One must earn one's way into upscale surroundings--no "Trading Places" scenario will work because those relocating do not have the background and behavior to fit in. It is a gradual process, an acculturalization process, and not merely the function of money. And, the longer we indulge anti-social and criminal behavior in the name of righting past wrongs, the longer this admittedly difficult process will take.

And, unlike Jim Crow restrictions, no one made anyone live in the projects. One was free to move any time.

I am reminded of a black fellow named Alonzo Herndon (1858-1927), one of the first black millionaires in the US. Born a slave in rural Georgia and freed in 1865, he moved ultimately to Atlanta and to the very top of the heap, all on his own. Now, according to accepted gospel, what he accomplished was impossible--Jim Crow, KKK, Deep South--no way. How did he do this? Well, I doubt he did it waiting for someone to make the way all smooth and nice:

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-1917






See above.




See above.









The first public housing in the US was Techwood Homes, built in Atlanta in 1936, and now torn down; however, many projects were built up until the 1960s. It was an attempt at giving new housing to the indigent or lower wage earners, but you are still not blaming the inhabitants for the ruining what was new and nice in 1936. The people that lived there turned it into a pit in the 1960s. Up until that time, Techwood was not a bad place to live and I even know some older folks who lived there shortly after WWII. No drugs, no violence. That came later....







Turnea, that is one of the great quotes of our time. A corollary: "When adjusted for my handicap, my golf game is shown to be just as good as Tiger Woods' game." The govt cannot fix behavior. It is fixed on an individual, family-by-family basis by people who decide to expect more of themselves and their kids. These people look around them, see who is successful, and emulate them. There is no other way. And, just giving people money won't fix it--just take a look at lottery winners who end up broke in a very short period of time:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Savin...irMillions.aspx

My family lived through the Great Depression. Both sides. None of my aunts or uncles turned to crime to support themselves. None of them decided they should abandon being polite, or behaving in a socially acceptable manner, just because they were out of work and hungry. Either one behaves, or one does not. And if one does not, as we are all prideful, one often finds an excuse for why it cannot be one's own fault.

My wife's grandmother, who lived in rural eastern Kentucky and whose husband was a coal miner/ farmer and dirt poor, raised 13 kids. She had a nice saying: "Either teach your kids to behave when they are young, or the police will do it for you when they are older."




There is no denying your statement above, Turnea. The problem is, programs have been put in place; billions upon billions have been spent; and, some progress has been made. But some worthless people of all races and creeds will always be criminals and losers and we have to deal with them as they come; but those that make it--all races---at some point have to decide to make it for themselves. The govt cannot rebuild pride and determination, but building in ready-made excuses for failure can sure sap pride and determination. Every time someone takes a "permanent" hand-out, every time someone decides someone owes them, then a little bit of that pride and determination gets chipped away....

Who were your best teachers in school, the ones you look back on with the most fondness? The ones who taught crib courses, or the ones that expect the world of you?

I guess I look at it like this. I have friend, a very successful attorney, who told me he hoped to make life much easier for this kids than he had it growing up. I told him to be careful on how much ease he bestowed. I told him that what made him great was his struggle. You cannot get big biceps without doing heavy lifting, and no one can do that lifing for you.

At some point, the crutches have to be thrown down and the excuse making has to stop....when is that, Turnea?

Agree somewhat. My contention would be on the word prevents. Makes harder, yes. But I don't think that extends to the point where it can't happen, therefore it doesn't really prevent it. I think this is an important point, and not just semantics, because of what the distinction means in terms of individuals moving forward. If someone is told they can't do something, they won't.



You can't, and specific issues like this should definitely be addressed by changes in policy, if such change is indeed needed (and I do tend to see some truth in your argument on this point).



They can't. However, does that mean they can't succeed in school? No. Again, this makes it harder, I agree. But not to the point where it can't happen. The difference is, again, that if we tell people they can't overcome these things, they won't even try.



Yes, it is cyclic, and difficult to get out of. But, what is better...telling a group that they can indeed better themselves, or telling them that society won't allow it? Empowerment vs. victimization. I think empowerment is a better course. Let's consider the alternative. Does it really help to tell Blacks that they can't raise themselves up?



Again, agree. Note that here, though, you are talking about the issue in a race neutral tone, which is what I believe will get better results. Also, as I stated above, while these trends do work against those in these cycles, it doesn't prevent them from being broken. Telling people they can overcome these issues is, to me, better than telling them they can't.



... and a good one. I like this approach, and think it could be successful. To try to work this back to the original topic, which focused on Obama's popularity--this seems pretty close to his viewpoint, correct?



Is it the truth, though? You make some generalizations in here I would disagree with, for example. This is exactly why so many Whites are apathetic to the cause. They keep hearing such generalizations, which frequently don't apply to them, and they do indeed tune them out. Who wouldn't? Most Whites today had nothing to do with the creation of the problems discussed here. So, being cast into such generalizations isn't going to engender any will to resolve them--it's going to create the very apathy you rail against. To follow your analogy...let's not blame the innocent bystanders, either. If someone did nothing wrong, then having someone else keep telling them about how selfish they are is indeed going to get tuned out. There is a line there between presenting the issue and calling for action, and playing a blame game on people that had nothing to do with causing the problem. Given that, it is indeed how you talk about the issue that will determine how it is received. In fact, it is completely how you talk about the issue that will determine the messages effectiveness.

Again, to try to bring this back to the topic of Obama's popularity among Whites, I think it is because of how he talks about the issue. And I don't think it is due to White Guilt..in fact, I think it is more the opposite. Looking forward, as opposed to looking backwards, which again is, I believe, a strong theme in Obama's stance on racial issues.

Property values need not be affected at all if the people with Section 8 vouchers are dispersed rather than concentrated.

...and every program involves some complaints so I'm not sure what your point is on that note. They aren't exactly ecstatic about the current situation either, I'm pointing out what works better and what would make sense if the concerns was more about moving people off housing assistance than moving them away from the rest of us.


Oh nonsense, people in subsidized housing aren't there because they can't behave properly. On the contrary people with criminal convictions find themselves without housing aid in a hurry.

The program is based on what percentage of income a person would have to spend on housing in an attempt to limit that value. In other words... it's just the money.



Link
Crime is linked to poverty, we know that. The problem was that the projects became poorer when all other income groups where encouraged to move out.

Concentrated poverty was the cause of the deterioration, not the effect.


Is that what you took from my statement?

Allow me to try again.

When adjusted for income and living area (urban, suburban, rural) the differences in crime rate between races are minuscule. This indicates that culture is not the problem, its the same old socio-economic rules that made turn of the century tenements housing packed to the brim with Irish immigrants the hell on earth that Stephen Crane wrote about in Maggie. Or the Eastern Europeans that Upton Sinclair wrote about The Jungle.

The Gangs of New York?
Once upon a Time in America?

Any of this sounding familiar?

The same reason every poverty stricken ethnicity in this country has been blamed for having a inferior culture... until they didn't.


Life is complicated. It's cute to claim that you'll overcome no matter what the challenges, but it's also pretty pointless.

Public policy is about dealing with mass phenomena. Individuals have always overcome extreme hardship but that can never be an excuse to turn a blind eye to the average person.

That kind of reasoning is an excuse for anything. They're were some escaped slaves that made good too. That doesn't mean it's acceptable.

Hobbes:
We are not blameless, none of us.

The minute we start protesting our innocence in the face of the facts we cause all progress to grind to a halt.

A lot of what I said apply to white Americans today.

They've got to face facts.

Two points: First...what exactly is it that White Americans of today are guilty of? I think I understand what facts you're talking about, from previous threads...that being that racial prejudice exists today, and that it does impact Blacks today. Correct? If so, no argument there. However, that doesn't makes Whites today guilty of anything. Fortunate, perhaps, but guilty?

The second point would be that my whole point here is not that some of this isn't true, but that it is more constructive to focus on what one can do rather than what some other group needs to do for you. Relying on someone else to fix one's state in live is just seldom the best use of time---better to address the issue yourself, even if obstacles exist. Which doesn't exclude policy decisions from the process, but neither should policy changes be waited on, with issues used as a reason for not progressing without them. Do you disagree with that? I get the impression that we're talking around each other's points. I don't disagree with alot of what you are saying, I just don't think it should be the only focus either. Also, that even when it is the focus, it will get a better response if it is brought up in socio-economic rather than racial terms. The latter, especially when combined with things that Whites should feel guilty about, just makes Whites defensive and therefore resistive to change. As you have stated several times here...most of these are socio-economic issues, not racial ones. Why couch them in terms that just impede their resolution?

Turnea


This line of silliness never changes does it? lets look at what you wrote and be specific because you have me scratching my head over here. Lets look line by line because I want to know what exactly your implying Turnea. Here you wright.......

Let's not blame the messenger. The whites involved are responsible for their own apathy. If they can't handle being confronted with the truth that's no reason to soft-peddle it.

Tell us what the truth is exactly, whats that truth that whites cant handle man, I'm so curious now. Either im in the dark about something each white man does to deny the truth, or you have a warped perspective of what the truth is. This is what I believe, every man, and I mean every man, I don't care if your black, white, yellow or green, every man is responsible for their own actions at this point in time in America. Do some whites have reason to feel guilty over their own racism? Absolutely, but then again so do some Blacks in America. The problem with people like you is you cluster everyone together into this one group, that is surely in denial, or out to get you, or whatever. Thats Racial Profiling, which is in itself one of many indicators of racism. So is there anything you feel guilty about? Perhaps using the events of the past to justify your feelings towards whites? Who knows, but you know what I wont assume anything because I don't know who you are, or what you think. Lets look at the next line........

The trouble is that instead of looking for ways to improve the situation many people have just looked for the easiest justification to absolve themselves of all responsibility.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT ?????? I have news for you, Responsibility applies to individuals not races Turnea. You think I feel responsible for how minorities live their lives, lol? I'm not responsible if an African American chooses to become a drug dealer. Barack Obama has a very real shot at becoming president of the United States for goodness sake, and its because he had motivation to do so. This applies to every race and every person in this country. I don't buy for a second that whites have some reason to feel guilty for the current state of another race, while people like you are supposedly the messengers speaking the truth. Now I cant speak for all other whites, and many whites do have reason to feel guilt for their own racism. However as I said before responsibility is received on a personal basis not race by race. If you don't understand that, then I don't know what to say for you.

Maybe.

People tend to be apathetic about racial matters for the same reason they're apathetic about political ones: discussing race generally leads to zero progress and a lot of animosity (case in point, this thread). Why bother skipping through a racial mine field, carefully avoiding things one can and cannot say, when its so much easier to simply avoid the problems.

As long as the controversy (not importance), and thus, sensitivity, surrounds race, people will find avoidance easier. As I said earlier in the thread:

Until people feel safe to express their ideas and ignorance about race without getting chastised, they will find apathy the easier route. They are victims, not enemies.

Turnea said:
How far does that excuse get you elsewhere?

I suffer every time I hear that quote repeated. Do you know why? I've heard it a hundred times, and it's always assumed that I, a non-black, disagree that blacks were mistreated. You know why? Because "I'm not black, and therefore I don't understand." Do you know what it's like to be painted like that?

See, here's where I begin to tune out. The obvious blame lies because of white people, and if not a person, a system. Usually a system as a part of America, which turns into "America is racist". Racism is a product of hatred, a hatred that's taught by white people, which leads to back to the beginning of the cycle.

It's not that I'm not interested in black history. It's that it's always presented to make "certain" people feel guilty for a crime that they didn't commit. Saying America is Racist is getting soooooo yesterday...

It's like saying Germans today support Hitler.

It's like saying Christians today approve of the Crusades.

And you know, maybe 1% of Germans would support Hitler, and maybe 1% of the nutty "God Warrior" types would approve of the Crusades. Never mind the progress history has bestowed on the other 99% who see what utter garbage that kind of mentality really is. Let's just keep bashing EVERYBODY because "a few" instances of racism, or hatred, or Crusade-hungry morons spout a few words today.

It's juvenile to think that everyone feels the way the mere most-unsavory 1% of people feel.

I almost hope that Obama gets the Presidential bid. For ONE reason: Maybe once "The Man" is a black man, we can finally put an end to racially blaming someone else, unless the black "Man" isn't black enough. Perhaps we'll need an even 51 black presidents for it to TRULY be equal.

The point is that there never seems to be a point where blacks will draw the line like they have a fair shake and need to make the best of opportunities.

Nobody answers the question of "What will it take to please the black community". I'm truly lead to believe that nothing ever will. Of course, money is always suggested as part of reparations. Again, a point where I begin to tune out. I'm not interested in paying someone for being black when being black means being the victim of a perpetrator that wasn't me.

Turnea said:

So let me try something here. Since I'm (sorta) a Christian, let me take that sentence and tailor it to my means here. Let me know how this sounds to you: Ready?

Let's not blame the messenger. The whites athiests involved are responsible for their own apathy. If they can't handle being confronted with the God's truth that's no reason to soft-peddle it.

Now, if my goal was to be right within my own opinion and peers, then I'm completely justified for making a statement like that, as ignorant as it may be.

If my goal is to reach out and appeal to people who may not necessarily agree, or who wouldn't necessarily naturally see my point of view, I have failed miserably. Oh, those that are like me, or who agree with me anyway will cheer my loud-and-proud words. However, I missed a golden opportunity to reach someone new, or to extend a hand to understand someone who isn't what I am. I just catered to "my own" crowd. It does nothing to bring other people into it - in fact, that very example is why people run from the church. People "who aren't like me" run because the internal self-important attitude appears insane. Likewise, people who aren't black have a hard time aligning with blacks because then that person will be judged by HIS "like" peers. It's almost a recipe for disaster. Hey, look! There's the white guy whose friend cracked a black joke. They must think alike!

The way I see it, whites are tired of being beaten with the "racist" accusations. So if blacks want to stand up and proclaim "truth" and point blame on everyone else, and the natural reaction is one of defense, the who wants to return kindness to that? Apathy is a breath of fresh air. Of course, that apathy translates into "arrogance" and white people "not caring". So then, not only is the inability to discuss such issues the fault of white people, but so is the ignoring of the issue altogether. That doesn't leave many options, now, does it?

It suggests that there are "good guys" and "bad guys" when what we need is dialogue, humbleness and the ability to disagree without enflaming a community - and sometimes disagreeing vehemently. Both races are made up of good guys intertwined with a few bad apples. What's wrong with just saying that?

Suggesting things like the LA Riots over Rodney King was because there were no blacks on the jury suggests that 10 whites, a Filipino and a Hispanic were all irreparably racist, ignored every bit of legitimate evidence and hated black people, despite the fact that the Prosecuting Attorney got to pick from the jury pool, too! As a result, 60 people died, more than 2,100 people were injured, and between $800 million and $1 billion in damage was wreaked on a city OF blacks BY blacks. That sent a message, but not an effective one.

Oh, never mind the guy was on PCP, he was innocent, right? He wasn't running from the cops. His REAL mistake was being black.

And you know what? They blamed white people. First the cops (and legitimately so!). But they didn't stop there. Then they attacked the jury. Then the city. Then the National Guard for restoring a lame semblance of order. They'd have blamed Clinton, but he was the first black president.

That suggests that the only color of people who can fairly judge white cops are black people, because black people are innocent when the cops are white. That's racist in and of itself. And you can't always blame the media for that. I've HEARD people say stuff like that. "It's the POH-leese. Or "Driving while Black". It's ridiculous. Stop speeding.

Now what if I deem that the truth? Yeah, how ya like THEM apples? (not really, but making a point)

Finally, if the schools in "black" areas are that bad, then homeschool. I'll never understand why ANY parent would knowingly send their kid to a broken school. If you want better, demand better, and then get better. Crazy quarter-cracker Greeks like myself have found that the best education can be found at the child's comfortable pace (instead of waiting for the dumb mouth-breathers to catch up or the delinquents to stop shooting paper clips in the ceiling), and can improve the chances of testing higher and getting into a better school. See how I pointlessly brought race into that equation? And how it did nothing to assist my point except point out my ethnicity and its perceived status? If being a quarter-cracker Greek were a bad thing (and in the Italian and Black neighborhoods I grew up in, it was!), I could use that my my advantage. Which is what I see here.

"Black people have it bad"
"We've always had it bad"
"Worse than everyone else"!

How many times did you hear an adult say, "Well, if everyone else ran off a cliff...." before you were insulted from hearing the same stupid "adult logic" over and over - instead of actually considering, "Gee, what if everyone else DID run off a cliff..." My point being as soon as the words "what if everyone....." hit your eardrums, you knew what was coming next. In your head, you're thinking "yeah yeah, okay shut up, I get the point..."

People are tired of being called racist to the point where they either say "whatever", or knowingly engage a ticking time bomb. Those are truly the two choices people have today. That's why we discuss it on the internet and not in real life.

Why is black progress in America ignored by whites? I dunno. Probably for the same reason black progress in America is ignored by Native Americans. Or Filipinos. Or Hispanics. Or Cubans. Or the Chinese..... ...they're not black! Why would Jews go door to door and pass out WatchTower pamphlets, or Muslims go slinging the Book of Mormon?

It's not that they don't respect other religions. It's not a matter of intolerance. It simply doesn't serve their purpose. And they wouldn't do it just to prove they were "tolerant". Why would they? Yet, the whites are being demanded to "recognize". That's the turn off. That's what I see.

Tonyman said:

I'm rather surprised you didn't go ahead and just answer them for me.

This is the year 2007, where blacks are excluded from no higher education.

HERE ARE SOME STATISTICS that say it's working. And it should!

I could be totally poor, and a black person could be totally poor. But he'll get tuition money because he's black. I've always thought that interesting. It's another assumption, like all white people are rich and have tons of money to send their kids to school. I have no problem with ANYBODY offering money for ANY group of people. But it's the automatic assumption that it MUST exist, because everyone else has it better. Turnea said so himself.

Tonyman said:

MTV didn't even first air until August 1981. Michael Jackson's Thriller was an MTV Exclusive. Prince had more airplay than Bon Jovi, and I saw Janet Jackson videos and more Paula Abdul than a human should consume.

But you bring up an excellent point.

MTV also excluded women (unless they were ditzy or portrayed as sluts or obsessed fans), as many of the early videos were white male rock BANDS, serving the heavy demographic of white male rock FANS.

First they had Headbanger's Ball to reach the obvious demographics and easily accessible variety of videos. Then they had Yo! MTV Raps to attempt to reach other demographics.

Interestingly enough, when Viacom bought BET, it allowed programming that MTV never would have allowed. Do you think that even self-respecting black women enjoy the way they are portrayed in rap videos? This self respecting black woman can't even figure out who BET's intended audience is. Or what Genre of Black that "Variety Black" should be.... and winds up insulted!

However, MTV knows that I'll watch Whitesnake's "Here I go again" video every time they play it because it has Tawny Kitaen humping a car that I'll never be able to afford. And I don't care what color you are... That's hot.

The pattern I see, Tonyman is profit. Rap videos weren't bringing in the same viewership that rock videos were in the 80's. Rap was merely emerging as a street art-gone-mainstream. Millions of invested dollars say that Viacom has to turn a profit or close the doors. So do you cater your up-and-coming-cable-network to a small audience, or a large audience? You do the math.

All 15 of Viacom's Board of Directors are white. While one may claim that this is yet another example of how whites rule America, I would suggest that white people owning a network soley consisting of, and serving black people is pretty out of the ordinary, no? Of course, a Resolution of Viacom's Diversity is demanded, and for their attempts in bringing BET mainstream, it seems clear that some of those 15 distinguished Directors will probably have to step down for a woman or a black person "because it's forward thinking diversity".

Well, here's how they put it:

See, I find that fascinating. It's another automatic assumption that the board DIDN'T consider women or minorities before, and that droves of them were ready to be interviewed only to be informed it was a rich white male club.

No mention of experience, education or ability.... - those silly things stockholders come and go over - but the presence of women and minority racial groups. And as a result, blacks don't even know WTF is going on with BET.

THAT is Affirmative Action at work! And that's exactly why people should be judged soley on their merits and NOT the color of their skin.

Two different ways to phrase the same essential question.

One a little (lot) more reasonable than the other (thank Hobbes ) but both with essentially the same answer.

I addressed this in my first post.



Rather than wasting time and space with point by point critique of posters I'll try and reach a general understanding.

azwhitewolf
You should note you haven't actually presented a counter argument at all. You simply label the truth of the matter an "excuse".

In the real world "Why" matters, whether you call it an excuse or not. You want to know why black Americans lag behind economically, I told you.

If you don't really care why, then feel free to say so.

To my oppostion in general:

The major mistake in reasoning you are all making is trying to evaluate public policy without considering mass behavior.

I agree that individuals can succeed under almost any circumstance, but when making policy decisions you must consider the rule, not just the exception.

The focus on the individual is not germane to the actual debate here. We are considering blacks as a group.

As I demonstrated to Hobbes with my breakdown of Chinese immigration, it is not because blacks behave any more irresponsibly than Chinese or White Americans that they are behind economically.

Essentially people are people. The only difference is that blacks where systematically forced into poverty for hundreds of years in this country.

It is a racial issue because it was because of their race that they are placed in this position, no other reason.

We must begin to learn from history, there is no story of an oppressed ethnicity that pulled itself up by it's bootstraps in American history, at least not before several generations of entrenched poverty.

I invite you to look for one and I'll show you what I mean. Public policy has always played a fundamental role in fighting poverty successfully.

I think picking the Irish as a good group example is a poor one. I'll get to that in a minute.

The stereotypical black excuse, like you are making, is that black poverty begets black crime. Let's take a look at this from Eli Lehrer, an editor of The American Enterprise:

"While it is tempting to blame the slumping economy, economic barometers like the unemployment rate have never correlated with crime rates. The 1990s were witness to the only American economic expansion on record during which crime rates fell. Crime plummeted during the Great Depression and the severe recession of the early 1980s. The late 1960s and late 1980s, on the other hand, saw the combination of full employment, rising wages, and soaring crime rates. In any case, crime had to increase sooner or later: Murder would have vanished completely in many cities around 2010 had the trends of the late 1990s continued. "

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comm...ehrer072302.asp

And this from Francis Fukuyama, Hirst Professor of Public Policy and the director of the International Commerce and Policy Program at George Mason University, in Virginia:

"The notion that poverty and inequality beget crime is a commonplace among politicians and voters in democratic societies who seek reasons for justifying welfare and poverty programs. But although there is plenty of evidence of a broad correlation between income inequality and crime, this hardly constitutes a plausible explanation for rapidly rising crime rates in the West. There was no depression in the period from the 1960s to the 1990s to explain the sudden rise in crime; in fact, the great American postwar crime wave began in a period of full employment and general prosperity. (Indeed, the Great Depression of the 1930s saw decreasing levels of violent crime in the United States.) Income inequality rose in the United States during the Great Disruption, but crime has also risen in Western developed countries that have remained more egalitarian than the United States. America's greater economic inequality may to some degree explain why its crime rates are higher than, say, Sweden's in any given year, but it does not explain why Swedish rates began to rise in the same period that America's did. Income inequality, moreover, has continued to increase in the United States in the 1990s while crime rates have fallen; hence the correlation between inequality and crime becomes negative for this period.

http://www.wesjones.com/fukuyama.htm

The bolded text indicates that during the greatest run of collective poverty we have ever had as a nation, the Great Depression that levelled many (including many quite wealthy white folks) and led to a 25% unemployment rate (we are below 5% unemployment now), the crime rate went down. According to your analysis, crippling, hopeless poverty like this should have caused a dramatic increase in the crime rate--maybe even a social war!

One could argue that social spending from the New Deal moderated crime rates during the Depression, but social spending during and following Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" initiative through the end of the 20th Century puts Depression-era programs to shame.

Poverty does not cause crime; a sub-society that tolerates crime, makes excuses for crime and does not demand excellence fosters crime. Does a significant portion of US black culture tolerate crime by looking the other way at drug use and drug sales, at street hustling, and at robbery and theft? Do a significant number of activists all but call for black-on-white crime as a legitimate way to redress grievances and then complain about the high incarceration rates for blacks?

As far as the Irish go, well, during their big wave of immigration, they were viewed as more pitiful and dangerous as a group than blacks:

The Chicago Post wrote, "The Irish fill our prisons, our poor houses...Scratch a convict or a pauper, and the chances are that you tickle the skin of an Irish Catholic. Putting them on a boat and sending them home would end crime in this country."

http://www.kinsella.org/history/histira.htm

The Irish are no longer viewed in this light, for a number of reasons, but they were--only a little more than 100 years ago....

Non-interest/apathy as a source of blame can only be used to a certain extent. We don't blame blacks for the defeats of gay marriage (talk about refusal to be part of the solution), or asians for the lack of black freedoms.

In other words, I'm about as responsible for the current public policy and cultural bias left over from Jim crow as my Asian friend, Jacky. Its not obvious to me why my apathy is to blame, but his is not.

Turnea said:

Then you didn't read my argument at all. It's a shame, because I put a lot of time into it in trying to make some pretty rounded points.

But to reiterate:

YOU say blacks don't get a fair education.
I say that there's an alternative.

YOU say that blacks suffered long and hard.
I didn't really disagree there, did I? Wow, that was an amazing "excuse" I made, huh?
Apparently the "explanation" from most white people that "tolerance is important for everyone" isn't good enough either.

You say that blacks don't get a fair shake.
I made the counterpoint that blacks often have a habit of blaming white people, blaming America, and placing the blame on everybody.

"Blacks don't get a fair shot at Education".
I pointed out the alternative opportunities that I can personally attest work. For kids of any color.

Whites have no apathy. Whites don't listen. Whites don't care.
Whites are getting accused of racism at every turn. Do you even see the stereotype? I'll ask again, who wants to return roses for rocks?


Smells like a lot of excuses. "Historically speaking". What about now?

I made the counterpoint that even the black community has many opportunities, but replaces them with excuses.

Schools are one.
Jobs are another.
Affirmative Action is in place. It sure doesn't benefit me. It's not my fault it doesn't benefit you. "Historically", however, it really is my fault, is how I'm supposed to take that.

So that's 5 "counter-arguments that I didn't make" so far...

Turnea, you just said that to make me react. Knock it off.

I'm actually pretty passionate about justice and equality. I'm extremely passionate about people getting along and living in peace together. I do believe in bringing people together. But part of that is examining both sides. I examine white racism, and agree with you - it was never right, and it does have historical consequences. Now examine your side. Blacks can get rioters to unite for havoc over a terrible court decision. But you can't collectively picket a school district. 10,000 people were arrested in the Rodney King verdict. But you can't get 100 people to raise awareness or protest for "terrible schools" or "racist employers"? White and Asian businesses were targeted. You can't say racism isn't alive on the Black side of the spectrum either. That said, Reginal Denny was rescued by a black man. So there ARE good AND bad people of all races.

So it IS individual, and not a group. If I looked at blacks like you look at whites, what would my opinion of black people BE, Turnea?

As far as saying, "AZWW, you don't care, feel free to say so", if you think I spent that much time typing that many points to be dismissed in three mere sentences because "I don't care", then perhaps that's an indication as to why this kind of debate continues. Even in the face of solutions, suggestions, and ideas... it is not I that is giving excuses, Turnea. You complain that whites don't see blacks in a fair light. That they are "apathetic" and "don't care about black people". Some whites (and then the rest of us) are willing to make it right. So stop making us the brunt of your argument. We could always give up, but then we'd be apathetic.

I guess people want to have THIS KIND OF DEBATE every time race is brought up.

Turnea said:
Partially? For real? How can white people be a part of the solution when they are simultaneously part of the problem?

"Whites have to change before blacks can ______"
"Blacks need to ______, but whites ______"

Again, it seems that the onus of change and the blame FROM the black community is justified: that blacks shouldn't have to take responsibility for their own community because the current situation is "not their fault". Black teens are arrested by white cops for breaking the law, and it's an instant judgment of racism. See, that's what I don't get. I hear, "Whites are racist. That's wrong. And it's even worse when those crackers target black people."

Wait..... what?!

Whites should feel obligated to "make it right", but there's no expiration or "end point" where any effort would be noticed or appreciated. Over and over I ask "What would make it right? What would make it equal?". [crickets] ......................... [/crickets]

This "race war" reminds me of Private Heath's "Christmas Truce" of 1914 when the English and Germans who were shooting at each other were cautious, but took a chance to fellowship via voluntary cease-fire with the German enemies because it was Christmas. There was a mutual respect for a sacred holiday and each took a break of what they were trained to be doing to do a better thing.

It pains me that, two groups sharing the same country can't do the same in their own civil war. White groups and Black groups can't find a cease fire within the mutual respect of America to sit down, stop firing shots and hang out to find solutions? Both sides are really wanting to find a solution instead of doing the same pointless fighting and passing it down to the next generation. I believe that because human nature is instilled - opinions are learned - and wanting peace is human nature. Just like wanting to talk to your enemy instead of putting a bullet in his head. We're trained to shoot back and forth when our soul wants to make peace.

HOW do we come out of the trenches to enjoy each other's company?

If the answer is "We can't" or "It's too late", Turnea... feel free to just say so.

I've got to be out of town for a couple days and I'm behind on my packing for this morning flight so I'll be brief and general and deal with clean up later

quick interesting point about correlation between unemployment and crime and clearly I should have been more specific, it is concentrated poverty that inevitably causes crime

Dispersed poverty would but they're is the little trouble of who exactly to rob in the dust bowl. They're all miles away.

Your point about the Irish just supports my argument, every poor ethnic group in Americans history has been the target of bigoted aspersions on their "subculture"

Irish, Italian, Polish, Black, Hispanic... whoever it's always they're inferior culture. Until they finally claw they're way out. Now we find Italian and Irish culture interesting and even glamorous, go figure.

It's the same old baloney that always happens.

BH

The reason why whites are emphasized is because they are a majority in demographics and a near monopoly on political power As I told Hobbes we all have some measure of responsibility.

..but those with more power naturally are going to catch more flack.

azwhitewolf
Once again that's not an actual argument, it's rhetoric.

"There's an alternative" What exactly is that supposed to mean or prove

What I'm asking you for is for you to either disprove the claim that blacks are economically disadvantaged primarily because of the history of discrimination or alternatively to agree with that claim and then explain why we shouldn't care.

I never claimed blacks cannot succeed as individuals, it's the mass behavior 'm talking about. We are comparing whole populations according to the questions for debate, so you have to confront the group dynamics.

As I've explained before there is no conceivable set of circumstances that precludes to possibility of individuals succeeding. This was true even before abolition.

That is all beside the point.

I haven't even discussed [i]current[i/] racism in this thread.

If you consider the people on this thread racist, or this discussion to be somehow racist, then this country is in deep trouble. Maybe the problem is in what you perceive to be racist. Are the eggshells getting even thinner?

Hobbes

I would debate you... but you basically agree with me and I with you. I will address this one misgeneralization, though.



First point, victimization is simply what is. But Blacks are not raised to be victims anymore than Whites, Hispanics, or any other culture, past, future, present. To the contrary, we are taught that we will have to work even harder to achieve what a White counterpart to achieve a similar level of success. So no it doesn't help to tell Blacks they can't raise up, but nor is that being done. Yet, do you find that in the White community this is the perception of what Blacks relay to each other?? This "You'll never make it out so just lay it down and give up." mentality.

Hobbes, let's talk about this idea of race neutral terminology. I have no problem with using it, neither does some one like Barack. But do you honestly feel that the White majority won't simply associate the word "Urban" with "black or Hispanic" if it is used more frequently when talking about problems facing minorities? Your Rush's and Hannities, and Ingrams, will just start also using the word "urban" when preaching their racial messages of division...

But yeah I have no problem with race neutal terms..

Quick


I didn't have to highlight anything here. Quick highlights a key points. Poverty is not the greatest culprit of inequalities of urban life.

Quick, does your article state why violent crime went down....



Amazing isn't it. More?? Sure.



My point is not to debate, the merits of the War on drugs, but to illustrate that White America went through the ravage effects of prohibition, the rise in gangsterism, they had the "blueprint"!! Poverty itself breeds a form of helplessness, hopelessness and disparity, so it is no secret you find the greatest market for substance abuse in the slums of our country.

The first prohibition lasted for a little more than a decade and reaked havoc, this has lasted for almost three decades with little support for an end.

Now unlike before the community the new war on drugs is ravaging is not the White community. It is the urban community, which is predominately filled with minoroities. But unlike Whites, minorities do not have the political power to stop the laws or overturn federal edicts as Whites did.

We are dependant on them to open their eyes, see the damage of failed policies is doing to their fellow Americans, and push for change. It's like saying we should start rebuilding homes destroyed by a storm.... as the storm still rages. The storm must subside.

White apathy must subside, that way laws and policies can be put in place to stop the quicksand urban people find themselves trying to build on.

Becoming Human


Whites are not to blame simply, because they are White. They are to be held responsible because they have the political power to stop injustice, but choose not to. If we are in China we wouldn't blame Whites that you have to register to have more than one kid.

With power comes responsibility. Have you seen the U.S. Congress?? Do you honestly not see the sheer amount of White people??

Two points:

First, there was incredible, concentrated poverty in the cities during the Depression. Don't go Grapes of Wrath on me--it was a novel. Remember that in the 1930s, the US was an industrial society and the hardest hit were laid off industrial workers in the cities. When laid off, they couldn't even farm to obtain food. They had nothing:

"The most direct measure of the building economic disaster after 1929 was the unemployment rate. National unemployment climbed from 3.2 percent in 1929 to 8.7 percent in 1930, 15.9 percent in 1931, 23.6 percent in 1932, and 24.9 percent in 1933. Mining towns and cities built around heavy industry felt the impact worst. More than 75 percent of the families in Butte, Montana, were on relief by the early 1930s. Steel mills in Gary, Indiana, laid off 90 percent of their workers. Cleveland’s machine tool industry shut down completely for lack of factory expansion. Cities like Toledo, which supplied parts for automobiles, virtually collapsed. The unemployment figures for individual cities were little more than guesses, for even a person with a job might work short hours and two-day work weeks. Estimates for late 1931 and early 1932 put Philadelphia’s army of unemployed at two hundred-fifty to three hundred thousand, Chicago’s at six to seven hundred thousand, and New York’s at eight hundred thousand to one million."

http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects...Depression.html

And, many of the unemployed protested, or organized into unions, but... the crime rate went down!

Second, let's go back to your Irish point.

Ethnic groups are like brands.

When the Korean car brand Hyundai hit the beaches in 1986, making cars that were cheap to buy yet very cheaply built, they were panned by enthusiast magazines, consumer magazines, and the public. The company lost lots of money in the US. The brand had negative cachet. Now, at that time, not all Hyundai cars were bad, not all had problems, but the entire brand was tagged with a negative cachet.

Hyundai tried to redress this problem by offering the 100,000 mile/10 year powertrain warranty, the longest in the USA. They studied Japanese brands to improve their game. The suffered losses, but they stuck with it.

In 2006, Hyundai sold 189,427 cars in the USA, and this year they launched their first luxury car. In Consumer Reports' "best buys" for 2008, 2 of 10 were Hyundais. They have made it. Today, while some Hyunai cars will surely break and have problems, the perception, the brand cachet, is that the brand is a reliable car that is a good value. Cheap no more!

Indeed, I study J.D. Power automobile rankings, and no matter how good (or bad) a brand's stats may be, it is hard to change people's minds about cars. Mercedes has had several very bad years recently in JDP initial quality, but very few people will admit it....


Right now, in America, the Japanese-American ethnic brand stands for smart, hard working, mathematically inclined kids; the Jewish-American ethnic brand stands for smart, hard working kids, probably headed towards law, medicine or entertainment management.

Is this wildly oversimplistic? Absolutely. Do lots of people think this way? Almost everyone, to a greater or lesser degree. You included, Turnea. Heck, blacks "brand" whites all the time. The reason all America laughed (sometimes guardedly) at Archie Bunker's simple stereotypes is because we all held them, to a greater or lesser degree. Blacks included. The world works with shorthand stereotypes of almost everything--we all look to branding, in clothes, in cars, in people.

How did these "brands" get this way? A sufficient number of brand members over a significant period of time built the brand's reputation. Reputation, good or bad, takes time to build, and time to change. The Irish immigrant had a terrible brand, but today that branding is hardly mentioned outside of history books.

The problem with the African-American "brand" today is it is characterized as getting special help but still underachieving and prone to criminality and other anti-social behavior. The statistics available back this up. Are these HUGE oversimplifications? Of course. But blacks I am sure want to change their brand identity, most importantly to themselves, and also to others, regardless of how unfair it is to characterize an ethnic group so simply.

How does one change one's brand? You organize (which blacks have done rather well), and then as a sub-culture decide you will do everything possible to insure that when crime is reported, blacks are not in the report, and that when increasing success is reported, blacks are at the head of the class. This requires difficult, concentrated, long-term effort. It is not easy. And, unfortunately, a number of black organizations who could lead the re-branding effort benefit very much from the poor branding....

While there are many problems related to this "branding"--the nearly 80% of births out of wedlock in the black community, insuring lots of day care babies and other difficult family situations; a difficult social history; etc.; if black Americans want the brand to change, then they must change it, as there is no way accomodation from other subcultures can do it. Indeed, such accomodations re-energize the poor brand image. At some point, the accomodations must end for the brand to change.

Fulminating and propogating stories of the evil white man and how the evil white man "owes" blacks something continues to reinforce a negative brand image, most importantly to blacks themselves, but also to non-blacks.

It is really that simple--but that complex.

Is white guilt a driving force behind support of Barack Obama?
I must be something ignorant 'cause I think most whites, whether they make a majority or minority behind Obama's driving force, don't support the man out of guilt but instead support him because his message resonates, they agree with his policies, they like his brand of personality cult above all others or some combination.

But as a Hispanic maybe I don't rate white enough and thus I am blind to the truth.

Doesn't it occur to you that what you call 'white apathy' is actually more another way of looking at the question of drugs? That for the majority of Americans, drugs represent something far more dangerous than mere alcohol which has always been a wide spread social phenemenon. I'm not saying I agree with them, but it does strike me that to compare the laws against drugs, which are in place in every single country on Earth, save Holland with regards to marijuana, with the prohibition against alcohol is a bit far fetched.

Alcohol is so old and integral a part of European culture that it cannot be compared with drugs like heroin, cocaine and ecstasy. I don't know if your aware of this, but drinking alcohol in old Europe was a method of staying healthy because the water here was so dirty it would kill you. The tradition of drinking alcohol and the benefits it gave, meant that every adult during the prohibition had something cherished taken away from them.

The drugs you are talking about on the other hand have never conferred any advantage to their users, are far more potent, if not to say down right dangerous, and have not been around for thousands of years. The point being, maybe white people don't see it as apathy to keep drugs illegal. They see it as common sense because people who take drugs are a liability where as people who drink alcohol, generally aren't.



It could just be the peak on your party cap that is obscuring your vision

Sorry, Turnea, for contributing to the pileup =D.


It feels like something gets lost when we aggregate individual white people into a white group. Looking at things from a micro-perspective again, I don't feel politically more powerful than my Asian friend, despite having such heavy representation of my skin color in politics. He has as much power to select representation in congress as I do; I'm not sure whites in general can draw a disproportionate amount of the blame.

Really, I'm trying to zero in on the question: Are whites responsible for the current socio-economic conditions of blacks in America?

It doesn't seem like either of you are saying that the average, typical, apathetic and individual white bears anymore responsibility that the typical, apathetic hispanic or asain. If thats the truth, I don't understand the emphasis on whites in general instead of non-action in general.

Droop




Droop Ive heard you on Americas debate radio call in a few times, you seem rational enough to understand some demographics. I think what you see is largely a misconception, at least today it is. When you look at congress, and in fact all of Washington what you see is a white majority just like me, correct? Now because of this white majority, you assume the system is in one way or another rigged to keep whites on top. That there is still enough racism in the system to keep the control and power in the hands of the white man. You may then naturally assume this filters into the court systems, and even our police departments. Am I close?

I beg to differ on this, is there still racism in Washington and in our court systems and police departments? Absolutely, there's no denying that. However this isn't our system. You speak of the system as if it belongs to decedents of white Europeans. This would have been a valid argument as late as the 1960's but times have changed. Do you want to know why Washington remains primarily white? Demographics, its that simple. Because the majority of this nation is white, its gouvernment reflects that.

Look at some Census figures from this link..........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States


This is the breakdown of race in this nation.........

White -- 73.9%
African American -- 12.4%
Asian -- 4.4%
Native American and Alaskan Native -- 0.8%
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander -- 0.1%
Other/multiracial -- 8.3%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) -- 14.8%

In other words there are enough crackers like me here to butter up and feed to all of Ethiopia, in turn solving their Famine crisis. Well, for lack of a better example. Now I'm willing to bet that Washington is not far off from these figures either. I don't have the race makeup of Washington but I am willing to bet it resembles the stats above, give or take a few %. If you really believe the system as it stands in 2008 is favored for whites, what will you say if Obama becomes president next year? That the system is set up to the advantage of the white man? Even though the president of that system is half black himself, and the ones most responsible for voting him in were white democrats? Think about that, whites make up the majority of the Democratic party as well, yet he looks to be the one that is going to get that nomination, and quite possibly the presidency. Is America really as bad off as you, Nighttimer and Turnea let on?

When Azwhitewolf said that a part of him wants Obama to be president, I actually agree with his reasoning. Because its going to become increasingly difficult for minorities to hold on to these arguments of the past with him as president. We should be looking forward not backwards anyway. I mean all of us together. Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, we should all remember and learn from the events of the past, and never forget history. However we do that so we can be better people for it, and look forward. I'm tired of hearing people say whites are responsible for the current state of minorities when our laws are equal. Are there some white people who try to suppress other races and limit their progress? Sure there are but they make up a very small percentage of whites today. What Id like to hear are some of the African Americans here stand up and say racism today is a two way street, and speak out against racist African Americans when they read about them and talk to them. When a person does that it shows that they are truly an advocate for equality, rather than an advocate for the wellbeing of their own race alone.

MOIF



No.

1. There is already a blueprint as to what will happen if you criminalize drugs to the degree that has been done. If you want to criminalize drugs you do it to a level that will not devastate whole communities. It is apathetic when one says "it isn't devastating to my community, so go ahead"

2. Why disparity between criminalization of dealer and user? Possession with intent to sell is a greater charge than possession. There is no rocket science going on here. If there were no drugs there would be no users. But if there are drugs and if there are users there will be dealers. Suburbanite John and Jane do not want their son Johnny Jr, who has the world at his feet, to be labelled a felon for smoking a little weed,... but they do not care if city slicker Jamal or Julio, who have nothing, are labelled felons for selling the weed their son is happily smoking.

In other words, politicians are able to wage this "war" in such a way, that those white with the political might are willing to stand on the sideline. I'm not saying that many Whites believe the War on drugs are just, but as long as it isn't their kid going to Jail with violent criminals for non-violent crimes they are more willing to "not care"

3. We've spent billions and billions on a "War" that has done nothing but lock up a disproportianate amount of minorities, devastate urban communities, and over filled our Jails. Why are we wasting this money that has accomplished nothing... again apathetic Whites who are not affected.

So to sum it up... OK drugs are bad. But if a war on drugs is not a solution(which it hasn't been), but rather a major factor of devastation to some of our more impoverished American communities, why has there been no strong effort by those with the political power to stop it?

Becoming Human



Because, in general, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians do not have the numbers to create the necessary political changes that would uplift impoverished and urban communities. In general, Whites have those numbers but they won't do it.

I'm with you Becoming Human, individually your average White person is no more powerful than me, a Black man, or an Asian American politically or economically.

Droop, I just can't get behind your argument on this. The drug laws are not a conspiracy to keep the blacks down. Do you really think that the black community would suddenly take a leap forward once drugs were decriminalized? And harsher penalties for dealers just makes sense. It's not a tool to keep rich white kids out of jail - that's what lawyers are for, and if you are rich and black, they will do the same for you.

The reason whites don't push to legalize drugs is not apathy, and it's nothing racial - we just don't think anything good would come of it. In fact, the prospect scares the crap out of most people. I'm all for legalizing weed, but that's it. I don't think it's possible to be a "social" heroin user. While the drugs themselves might be legal, they will still cost money, and that's bad news for car stereos everywhere.

----------------------------------------

As for the "apathy" argument that's been bouncing around, I say, "What apathy?" What, exactly, are whites supposed to do here? What are we supposed to vote for that hasn't been voted for already? Discrimination is already illegal. We have affirmative action. Busing was tried (bad idea). School funding, at least here in Ohio, is always at issue in state government, and changes are in the works. The process has not stopped - discrimination, poverty and education are still everyday issues, and they get addressed all the time. What more does government, or society, have to do to solve the problem?

Turnea said:

Okay, for the third time. If you don't like the schools where you argue that black children fail, use the government system and home or charter school your kids. There's no reason for putting up with a bad, underfunded "ghetto" school system. That was one.

I gave you five examples of how blacks have more options of personal responsibility and opportunity than ever before. FIVE. Either debunk them or ignore them. But don't tell me I didn't give you an argument - engage or don't. I was a dummy for writing them out twice. It's not happening a third time.

Turnea said:

The entire country can't figure it out, and you want me to prove.... exactly... WHAT?

30 years ago, yes. Blacks WERE disadvantaged because of discrimination.
Now? No. You and I have an equal shot at getting the same job. Actually, I take that back. Depending on how many minorities work for the company, YOU might even have a BETTER chance, because there's more of me than you, and no HR manager wants the suggestion of "not having enough minorities" surfacing around the water cooler.

You think I have a rich white dad leaving a fortune of inheritance for me? You'd be wrong twice.

But here we go again. It's almost like the progress that HAS happened with the majority of whites that ARE tolerant and open-minded is repulsive to you.

Turnea said:

Well, I've heard some quotes that come pretty close to "blacks cannot succeed". Followed by "because of whites". I've most certainly seen "blacks don't get justice", followed by "because of whites". How intricate do you want me to get here?

If the individual chooses that argument, then the individual is guilty of the same stereotyping and bigotry we're trying to go away from.

If the group chooses that argument, then it's a crapshoot of what would make it right.

I find it hard to believe that a group of any whites, collectively, issuing an apology is going to change the hearts and minds of the black community. If in their entire lifetime, one of them had uttered a stereoypce, it would be dragged out, and the whole thing would be meaningless. On purpose.

Turnea said:

You haven't seen an ounce of racism from me.

And that's the trouble with lumping "black groups" and "white groups". As much as you can make a generalization, there's always an exception, and THAT, my friend, is what the focus is turned to. That's not problem solving. That's pointing, and accusations, and doing anything except solving the problem. It's so distracting and enflaming that it stunts any progress towards a solution.

I'm not sure which alternative course of action you are advocating, nor how this can be defined along racial lines.


Because dealers are making a profit.


Why should John and Jane care about Jamil and Julio if these two individuals are making a profit from their son's self destructive tendencies?

Are you suggesting that any interest John and Jane expend on Jamil and Julio is going to see a reasonable return on their efforts?


No whites went to jail then?

Again, why should whites care if minorities end up in prison for drug related offences they themselves chose to commit?

And whats going to change in the racial debate if next year Barack Obama legalises cocaine? (for example).


Because drugs are bad? Because the likely impact of legalizing drugs is going to see even more erosion of the social fabric, especially in lethargic communities more apt to dream up excuses and avoid the responsibility for their own prediciment (classic junkie behaviour).

We see the same thing happening in Greenland. I don't know if your aware of whats happened lately on Greenland, but basically it comes down to this: The Inuit are not like Europeans. They never had access to alcohol for many generations and so they are far less immune to its effects. In recent years, entire towns of Inuit have collapsed as practically every single adult is dead drunk all day long. Alcohol has been rationed, but this hasn't prevented the problem. There is nothing wrong with the Inuit. They are human beings like us in every other respect but when they come into contact with alcohol, a legal drug to which they no natural defences, they have fallen.

There is every reason to suppose that other communities who have no natural defence against other drugs, in this case cocaine and the like, would be equally prone to eventual social collapse if those drugs were made legal. This is not apathy, it is a common sense which every single nation in the western world recognises.

As for those advocating the legality of marijuana, I would advise them to look at what life is like in Somalia where khat is chewed all day long. Holland may have its marijuana free zones, but many Dutch see this tolerance as something of a nuisance. There is no common consensus on the issue. Expand this attitude towards all of Europe and the social and economic effects would be catastrophic.

In other words its not being punished for taking drugs thats keeping people down. Its taking drugs.