Had a good lunch with a friend today -- a guy who reads this blog, so perhaps he'll chime in on this post. He mentioned at one point that he's been volunteering for a while as a mentor to minority students in a poor part of Dallas. He's a white man with a family living in comfortable circumstances, and wanted to give something back to kids who don't have the same opportunities as his kids have.
The story he told was pretty depressing. He said working as a mentor to these poor black kids has been frustrating. I'm going to paraphrase our long conversation, but the gist of it was this: these kids share our planet, but they live in completely different worlds. The key is that material poverty isn't the cause of their suffering. It's culture. N. told me that the children he's been working with live in a situation of more or less anarchy. One year they're living with their grandmother. The next they're living with their mother and her boyfriend du jour. There's no stability in their lives. Their father has children by three different women.
The kids come from a culture that apparently has little concept of time, structure and personal accountability. He said that if the kids agree to go do something he's arranged with them, maybe only one time out of three will they actually turn up. Last year he paid for them to go to camp. The day before they were set to leave, he called their grandmother to see if they were ready. "Oh no," she said, "they went with their daddy this week." The thing is, said my friend, in the world they live in, this is normal. He said that it's very difficult keeping in touch with the kids he mentors, because so many people in their world fail to pay their phone bills on time that they're constantly having their phones turned on and off.
I could tell this whole conversation grieved my friend, who has a big heart for these kids. He went on to say that the academic situation for kids like them is horrible. Their school district is one of the worst in Dallas. Leaving aside problems with the teachers, there's really only so much any school, no matter how excellent the teaching staff and how expensively outfitted the building, can do when the children have no support from their parents (or actually, parent singular -- if that).
N. said he once went to a high school football game in the district, and took his two sons. Big mistake. He said that you'd have thought it was a big college game, given the turnout -- this is Texas, and people like their high school football -- but at two o'clock on a Saturday afternoon, scores of these parents were sitting in the parking lot getting drunk and smoking pot. When the game started, they were in the stands cursing the referees. Like I said, no order, internally or externally.
"Where do these kids get their moral sense?" I asked. N. said, "What moral sense? I'm telling you, the kinds of things you and I take as given, these kids know nothing about."
I hope I'm conveying to you how troubled N. was by what he was telling me. There was not the least sense of superiority in his tone or his words. There was nothing but concern, and a sense of helplessness. I told him that in our editorial board discussions of public education, many of my colleagues seem to think that if we only pour more money into the system, fiddle with the testing and carry out other procedural fixes, somehow we'll turn the situation around for the kids in these impoverished, low-performing districts. My view is, from talking to teachers about the role parenting and culture plays in the mental lives of their students, that this is naive.
N. shook his head. "Money is not going to do much for these kids," he sighed, adding that the culture these kids come from is unbelievably self-sabotaging.
I think the reason N. feels so down about it, and so powerless, is that there really is only so much outsiders can do. We -- meaning middle-class and upper-class people of all ethnicities, who live in stable environments -- don't want to leave children who didn't ask to grow up this way to the mercies of the selfish adults who refuse their duty to care for their own kids. But what realistically can be done? I really want to know.
You might remember my story some time ago about a black pastor who moved in from out of town and took over a church in a struggling part of town. The pastor and his wife started an afterschool program so the kids from the church could have a safe place to go study and hang out after classes, to stay out of trouble. They were startled to see that the children would show up at their house ... and all fall asleep. Come to find out that the kids were living in home environments of such chaos -- absent fathers, their mothers staying up till all hours partying with their boyfriends, etc. -- that they literally weren't getting enough rest. That's how profound are the problems these poor children face. That's how massive are the barriers that irresponsible adults put in front of their children's path out of poverty.
One's heart breaks. But what can be done to rescue those children? Anybody have any ideas. Any honest discussion of this issue has to go into the land-mine territory of race and class. So let's not avoid that. But be careful to be civil.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
"You offer up your happy mammy/maid stories to demonstrate life in the 1950s wasn't so bad on the race front, and I'm the one called a troll. I guess that says it all."
"Happy mammy"?
But I didn't do what you claim at all, Daniel. I know it, you know, everyone else knows it, because the posts say differently.
Against abstract, ideological claims of all sorts regarding the Fifties, I simply offered an anecdote of one black maid working well and proudly in her work for a white family who employed her, who demonstrated mutual human respect (Was she faking it, Daniel? You tell me.) between paid employee and employer, which relationship of mutual human respect, pride in work, appreciation of work, and appreciation of skill beyond work--as a culinary master we never had prior need or use of--was extended with her being selected as the one entrusted to prepare and provide the food for my wedding.
That's all I related, Daniel, not some abstract, flatulent ideological blast generalizing the Fifties, just one story of racial culture slowly and microscopically transforming one human relationship at at time.
Outside the abstract nebula of your "vast reading", down here in the grubby little world of human reality, that's how it happens, one respectful human relationship at a time.
"Happy mammy"?
"I learned something I know emphatically well by its absence in contemporary urban culture: a neighborhood is a community, small in scope, with two simple values that transcend ethnicity, language and economic status: you look after your neighbors' well being, and you protect the children no matter whose blood parents they belong to." Franklin
Old buddy, I'm ashamed to say that I've never seen this "conservative-values" side of you before.
I wish everyone would appreciate the beneficial results of real (i.e., faith-based) community, which worked, not perfectly, but so much better than the horrors we see in Dallas, DC, NYC or any of the other Ninth Ward-style Democratic communities. Those represent our present-day feudal system where the local, State and Federal political classes legislate the necessities of life in exchange for power, i.e., votes. Conservatives need not apply.
The "absence in contemporary urban culture" which you noted is really just the absence of Judeo-Christian morality. God bless the true Black ministers (not the two TV hucksters) and God bless Bill Cosby, but what we have are two BIG problems: (a) secular humanism's degenerate filth and licentiousness whereby babies are conceived then mostly killed (Margaret Sanger would be smiling, if she could) and (b) the secular version of morality,i.e., tax the working class and give the money to the welfare class. Ted Kennedy's and John Edward's and Ichabod Crane's wealth is not taxed (ever wonder why just income is taxed?), so the latter version of morality works like a charm. You've heard it before: If you rob Peter's income to pay Paul, you will always get Paul's vote.
And the former BIG problem, the lure of licentiousness, is as powerful and destructive as drugs. It keeps the welfare class (and others) hooked and "happy" for the reasons you described well.
I know you don't agree with me totally, but I think we can agree on this: "The poor you will always have with you", and "It's better to light one candle than to curse the darkness". Those statements--the situation and the cure-- are where Rod's friend seems to be coming from.
The last post is mine.
Don't worry, Cleveland. I don't seem to have much cause to show that side of me. No smiley on this one; I may be a liberal, and a rather strong one at that, but I have nearly as much contempt... no, strike that, I have equal contempt for both sides of the aisle, if albeit for a slightly different list of reasons for each. I have unlimited contempt for approximately 50% of the eligible voters of our great nation. I think that about covers it, eh?
I've walked in Paul's shoes, before I became a Peter. I'll leave that at that.
My disagreements with you, good sir, at least in this topic are mostly rhetorical, and therefor superficial. I'm honored to share this space with you.
"As I've said on here a number of times, a basic rule of economics is, "if you pay for something, you get more of it." Pay unmarried women on welfare to have kids? Guess what? More kids! Pay able bodied adults not to work? Guess what? They won't!"
And, on the other hand, if you pay rich farmers not to grow food, they will grow less of it. Maybe we should be paying poor women not to have children. But of course, we don't believe in paying poor people for much of anything, whereas we will subsidize rich people at the drop of a hat.
It's a very inefficient system of incentives. What do you have to offer Bill Gates to persuade him to make an extra million? And on the other hand, how bad do you have to make the prisons to make them worse than the neighborhoods most of their inmates come from, and how much does THAT cost? Whereas studies of white-collar crime tell us that it takes very little jail time to deter stock fraud and embezzlement, and very little in the way of incentive payments to encourage mothers to get their kids to school every day.
The carrot works better than the stick on poor people, because they have so little experience of it, and the stick works better than the carrot on the rich, for the same reason.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.