Tiassa
05-27-04, 08:07 PM
I had no idea this was going on. (I'm removed from television these days.) So, without further preface:
• Asim, Jabari. "Did Cosby Cross the Line?" Washington Post, May 24, 2004. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51273-2004May24.html
That same element can be found in Cosby's remarks. It is true that some blacks continue to engage in conduct that contradicts and undermines the aims of the civil rights movement. He has every right to take them to task. It is far less amusing that Cosby, a multimillionaire, chose to criticize "the lower economic people" when evidence of the habits he condemned -- misplaced priorities, negligent child-rearing, deteriorating morality -- can be found at every level of American society. Why single out poor people, who are least able to defend themselves?
You needn't be poor, of course, to wonder why it's possible to be shot in the head for stealing Coca-Cola or pound cake when people who steal much more (Tyco, anyone? Enron?) get away with a slap on the wrist or less. The few poor people present when Cosby spoke were probably too busy carrying trays and taking orders to pay much attention to his remarks. If he had been able to talk with any of them later, say at the bus stop or while they walked to their second job, he'd find that many "lower economic people" are calling for more policing, not less. They just want unequal law enforcement replaced with intelligent, community-oriented and compassionate applications of justice -- the very goal to which the champions of Brown v. Board dedicated their talent and lives. (Asim)
I admit, it's a variation on the theme I'm most familiar with. My reaction to Asim--I haven't read or heard the full text of the Cosby remarks--is to wonder about the correlation between poverty and some of the the characteristics apparently related in Cosby's speech.
As many minorities who have achieved a socially-acknowledged success will tell the rest of us, it's rather hard to pull yourself out of the environment of poverty. While liberalism does tend to portray the poor as victims, the poor are, indeed, victims unto themselves to no small degree.
But Asim's pointing to the problems of other social strata is certainly an interesting variation on the theme of defending the poor against such direct criticism. I don't know how much more effective it will be than the victimization cry.
It seems to me that poverty and certain behaviors that contribute to poverty are, indeed, locked in a symbiotic cycle. And breaking that cycle can be difficult when operating in a society that depends on maintaining a certain poverty-class.
I don't know. There just seems to be an unnecessary judgment in specifically singling out those least-empowered to respond. That's not to say that we should not account in some way for the contributions of the behavior of the poor to poverty, but people respond to the environment in which they develop, and the poverty class continues to thrive insofar as the raw numbers of, for instance, poor families is concerned. I'm looking at Census Bureau statistics (http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html) right now, and it's rather fascinating. The lowest poverty rate for families occurred in 1973-74, though the table only reports 1959 - 2002.
Fascinating stuff. (Yawn.)
So what's fair in this political poverty game?
• Asim, Jabari. "Did Cosby Cross the Line?" Washington Post, May 24, 2004. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51273-2004May24.html
That same element can be found in Cosby's remarks. It is true that some blacks continue to engage in conduct that contradicts and undermines the aims of the civil rights movement. He has every right to take them to task. It is far less amusing that Cosby, a multimillionaire, chose to criticize "the lower economic people" when evidence of the habits he condemned -- misplaced priorities, negligent child-rearing, deteriorating morality -- can be found at every level of American society. Why single out poor people, who are least able to defend themselves?
You needn't be poor, of course, to wonder why it's possible to be shot in the head for stealing Coca-Cola or pound cake when people who steal much more (Tyco, anyone? Enron?) get away with a slap on the wrist or less. The few poor people present when Cosby spoke were probably too busy carrying trays and taking orders to pay much attention to his remarks. If he had been able to talk with any of them later, say at the bus stop or while they walked to their second job, he'd find that many "lower economic people" are calling for more policing, not less. They just want unequal law enforcement replaced with intelligent, community-oriented and compassionate applications of justice -- the very goal to which the champions of Brown v. Board dedicated their talent and lives. (Asim)
I admit, it's a variation on the theme I'm most familiar with. My reaction to Asim--I haven't read or heard the full text of the Cosby remarks--is to wonder about the correlation between poverty and some of the the characteristics apparently related in Cosby's speech.
As many minorities who have achieved a socially-acknowledged success will tell the rest of us, it's rather hard to pull yourself out of the environment of poverty. While liberalism does tend to portray the poor as victims, the poor are, indeed, victims unto themselves to no small degree.
But Asim's pointing to the problems of other social strata is certainly an interesting variation on the theme of defending the poor against such direct criticism. I don't know how much more effective it will be than the victimization cry.
It seems to me that poverty and certain behaviors that contribute to poverty are, indeed, locked in a symbiotic cycle. And breaking that cycle can be difficult when operating in a society that depends on maintaining a certain poverty-class.
I don't know. There just seems to be an unnecessary judgment in specifically singling out those least-empowered to respond. That's not to say that we should not account in some way for the contributions of the behavior of the poor to poverty, but people respond to the environment in which they develop, and the poverty class continues to thrive insofar as the raw numbers of, for instance, poor families is concerned. I'm looking at Census Bureau statistics (http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html) right now, and it's rather fascinating. The lowest poverty rate for families occurred in 1973-74, though the table only reports 1959 - 2002.
Fascinating stuff. (Yawn.)
So what's fair in this political poverty game?