Debt To Society
- Thread starter J.B
- Start date
What fraction was it pre-integration when both colors were bussed past a school that they could walk to because it was not "their color"?J.B said:
It seems obvious to me that if the system has separate school based on anything, that the bussing cost will be higher.
Take an exterme example, to see this point clearly: Six different schools, three for girls and three for boys. Each of these three is restricted to one hair color. I.e. Red headed boys go only to one of the six, blond girls only to another of the six, etc. What do you think the bussing cost would be then?
Thus it would seem that transportation cost were reduced, not increased, by integration.
Billy T said:
No, you've got it all wrong! The black kids were bussed OUT of their own school areas, and INTO the white schools. In pre-integration days, black kids went to school in the ghetto schools, and white kids went to school in the white areas of town!
Blacks and whites didn't live in the same area/neighborhood as you've tried to claim! Thus the original comment by J.B. is correct.
Baron Max
Yes, I agree there are transition cases where "forced integration" by bussing mainly black kids from black neighborhoods to previously all white schools resulted in increased transportation cost.Baron Max said:
But:
(1)This is a transition problem, the long term effect as neighborhoods become more integrated is an ecconomy in transportation cost.
(2)The extent of "force integration" via bussing was relatively small (It is essentially non-existent today.) compared to the universal bussing in pre-integration era. (for kids, of both colors, who lived too far from the "correct" school.) - The cost of picking up one white kid in a black neighborhood is per mile of bus travel, not by the number of kids moved.
Billy T said:
It may reach that point someday, but except for a few isolated cases it's still not true today. I could show you areas in Chicago, NYC, Boston, Baltimore, Atlanta (and probably others if I think about it while) where there is cross-busing for distances that exceed 30 miles. And while that may not sound like much, it really is. Not only that but it makes it tough on all the kids, too, Some of them have an extra hour added to their travel time - both in the morning AND in the afternoon.
I lived in Baltimore (Grad student at JHU) and yes there are parts that were (possible still are) essential all black neighborhood. I do not have a map, but I bet no point in Baltimore is more than 15 miles from the beltway. I find your numbers, for Baltimore at least, hard to believe.Light said:
Also note that Baltimore is a port city and like most port cities, has many small ethnic neighborhoods. I do not recall many details, but that made Baltimore an interesting place to live. My ex-wife, was Norwegian, and the Norwegian Church was in one not far from JHU hospital, which is in a mainly black area, but I think it no longer functions. Polish, (plus all the East Europeans) Greeks (and all the Mediterraneans) had neighborhoods.
Do I understand you correctly? You are saying that the total bus travel today in US due to "forced integration" bussing is greater than pre-integration days when busses might travel many miles to bring one or two, very-poor, white kids out of their "black getto" to a white school in almost every southern city?Light said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Baron Max:
No. Many American schools are still vastly under-funded.
Because it is extremely difficult to drag yourself out of poverty. It's ok for you to complain, while you sit on your porch with your gun, Baron, but at some point you should try learning something about people less privileged than yourself. It might open your eyes a little.
Correct.
I think you are speaking from a position of practically zero knowledge. This is just knee-jerk conservatism.
J.B:
Among first-world nations, American schools are among the worst in the world.
How does this match up against your previous statement about schools being so good? You seem to be arguing both sides at once.
Are you talking aggregate, or per capita? I assume aggregate.
No. Many American schools are still vastly under-funded.
Because it is extremely difficult to drag yourself out of poverty. It's ok for you to complain, while you sit on your porch with your gun, Baron, but at some point you should try learning something about people less privileged than yourself. It might open your eyes a little.
Correct.
I think you are speaking from a position of practically zero knowledge. This is just knee-jerk conservatism.
J.B:
Among first-world nations, American schools are among the worst in the world.
How does this match up against your previous statement about schools being so good? You seem to be arguing both sides at once.
Are you talking aggregate, or per capita? I assume aggregate.
James R said:
Each school system is funded based on the tax-base of those who live in that district. To rob one district in order to fund another is not only wrong, it's unconstitutional!!
If people want to live in a better, more well-funded school system, then they should MOVE to that district. If they can't afford to move or live in that district, then they should get a better job.
James R said:
What ye're saying is true ...but it's always been true! Our very freedoms are based on the work-ethic and that struggle to succeed. If we take that away, by giving people whatever they need, we've lost much of those freedoms and, worse, we've created a group within the society that are nothing but beggars! Why should ANYONE work, when they can sit on their asses, do nothing, and get paid for it?
James R said:
Why? Because you say so? Or because the liberals of the world are saying so ...even while they all live in riches and luxury? If those who made those same claims as you do actually did what they preached, James, then y'all wouldn't have to bother me and those like me. As it is, people make those claims of compassion, but they want to FORCE ME to feel the same.
Fuck it!! If you want to help people, then please do so. If I don't want to help others, then why should I be forced to do so? I see it as y'all not wanting to just help the poor, but you want to steal/take from those who've worked hard for what they have. That ain't very nice, James! And it's also contrary to our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
James R said:
And I think ye're speaking from a position of dreamworld fantasy liberalism with nothing but dreams of future idyllic life. Yours is just knee-jerk liberalism and fantasy.
James R said:
I said ...."...WERE among the best in the world." Until we started fuckin' with it with ideas of liberalism and doo-gooder bullshit!
As it is now, ye're right ....at the present time, we've fucked up the system of quality schools by taking in kids who are so fuckin' stupid and aggressive and militant that we've ruined any semblance of education for our children.
Baron Max
Baron Max:
It's a chicken an egg situation, then, isn't it? To get a better job, they need a good education. But they can't get a good education without getting a better job. Your approach to do nothing and let the poor suffer shows a lack of moral fibre. But then again, we already know that doesn't worry you (see my levels of morality thread).
Two points here. First, perhaps you'd like to try living off welfare "handouts" for a while, and see whether you'd be happy "sitting on your ass". No, Baron, I think that many unemployed people would love to have a job.
Second, I'm not only talking about the unemployed here. There are people who work two or three jobs, yet still live below the poverty line. It isn't that they aren't trying, Baron.
You benefit from having an underclass, Baron, even though you pretend you do not. The guy working at McDonald's (or wherever), who cooks your cheap burger for the minimum wage, supports your privileged lifestyle. You live partly at the expense of those less well-off than you are. Not that you recognise that.
I think it is your fantasy that you have what you have, and live as you live, solely because of your own efforts. You don't acknowledge all the things your society has given you, but denied to others equally (or more) worthy.
No. Quality schools have largely been unaffected. It is the bad schools which have got worse. The quality schools still churn out privileged students who go to Harvard and Yale, as usual.
What happened to the great American ideal of equal opportunity? Are the words of your Declaration of Independence just hollow, idealistic "bullshit", in your opinion?
It's a chicken an egg situation, then, isn't it? To get a better job, they need a good education. But they can't get a good education without getting a better job. Your approach to do nothing and let the poor suffer shows a lack of moral fibre. But then again, we already know that doesn't worry you (see my levels of morality thread).
Two points here. First, perhaps you'd like to try living off welfare "handouts" for a while, and see whether you'd be happy "sitting on your ass". No, Baron, I think that many unemployed people would love to have a job.
Second, I'm not only talking about the unemployed here. There are people who work two or three jobs, yet still live below the poverty line. It isn't that they aren't trying, Baron.
You benefit from having an underclass, Baron, even though you pretend you do not. The guy working at McDonald's (or wherever), who cooks your cheap burger for the minimum wage, supports your privileged lifestyle. You live partly at the expense of those less well-off than you are. Not that you recognise that.
I think it is your fantasy that you have what you have, and live as you live, solely because of your own efforts. You don't acknowledge all the things your society has given you, but denied to others equally (or more) worthy.
No. Quality schools have largely been unaffected. It is the bad schools which have got worse. The quality schools still churn out privileged students who go to Harvard and Yale, as usual.
What happened to the great American ideal of equal opportunity? Are the words of your Declaration of Independence just hollow, idealistic "bullshit", in your opinion?
You know, if they had not integrated the schools, there was a very real danger of black schools becoming more competent than white schools. Who needed it more? A good and competent teacher who has the support of her community and students can teach children more with almost nothing than an incompetent white bitch who has a million dollar annual budget for her classes.
The trouble with allowing ourselves to be "improved" by white people's programs is that it gives them license to pursue their programs. White people don't even educate their own (again, I am white). They indoctrinate them to perform their parts. I can't really speak for the black schoolteachers of the 1950s, but they had a high stake in making sure that their students could read, write, do arithmetic, and speak clearly.
The trouble with allowing ourselves to be "improved" by white people's programs is that it gives them license to pursue their programs. White people don't even educate their own (again, I am white). They indoctrinate them to perform their parts. I can't really speak for the black schoolteachers of the 1950s, but they had a high stake in making sure that their students could read, write, do arithmetic, and speak clearly.
James R said:
You post that like it's something new and different starting just today!! James, that same issue has been in human societies since the beginning of time ...perhaps even before that! Ain't nothin' new, James ....ye're just doin' what you do best ...talkin' to hear yourself talk! Psycho-babble bullshit.
James R said:
Assigning labels, James? Name-calling? Personal attacks? That ain't nice, is it? When did you learn to do that?
James R said:
Well, James, there are lots and lots of jobs. I once shoveled shit outta' the barns for horses and cattle for three months ...every day, all day, except Sundays! There was a study done here in Dallas a few years ago ...handouts, welfare, food stamps, etc. versus working for a living. Guess which came out ahead of in numbers?? Yep, it was usually better for the family to stay on welfare ...they had more money and more food! And that's exactly what we've done by sticking to your "high moral fibre" psycho-babble bullshit ....we've CREATED a nation of wefare recipients ...parasites, James, para-fuckin'-sites, and millions of the bastards!!
James R said:
Like what? Please enumerate those things.
Baron Max
James R said:
Equal opportunity? James, the opportunity is there for the asking ...but it is/WAS also the freedom of the employers to choose who they wanted to hire! No where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it say that the employer is forced to choose a black man equally to a white man (or whatever!).
Ye're once again using those high-sounding ideals in a false attempt to seem moral and good ...but it don't work with me, James! I've heard all that psycho-babble bullshit all my life ....and it's the same now as it was then ...nothing but psycho-babble bullshit!
I'll say it again ......if all of those who CLAIMED that they weren't racist actually practiced that lofty goal, then there'd almost no racism anywhere in the world. But, since racism is rampant, could that possibly mean that there are more racists than y'all think? ...and as many liars as I think???
Baron Max
Baron Max said:
With a message like that, you expect anyone to believe that you are other than a troll who is deliberately disruptive?
I stand by my statement. Small schools with the support of their community have a chance of being a lot more competent than "advanced" or "hi-tech" schools like the typical school that whites think of as schools, and this is especially true of the 1950s when this bussing stuff started.
MetaKron said:
Hmm, that is NOT what you said earlier! I'll repeat it here so everyone can see what you said, and why I answered the way I did:
"You know, if they had not integrated the schools, there was a very real danger of black schools becoming more competent than white schools.'
And I, of course, answered: "Surely you jest!"
Note the difference in those two statements? Or can't you actually see/read what you said, how you said it?
And calling me names is not very nice. Where did you learn such manners?
Baron Max
Baron Max:
I know you're content to sit back and let things go on as they always have. You're all right, so why worry about anybody less fortunate, right? But not everybody thinks like you. They don't assume that we live in the best of all possible worlds, like you do.
Not attacking, Baron. Just observing. You yourself admit you don't care about other people, so don't pretend you're offended by my comments.
Then can you blame people for staying on welfare? To me, this suggests that the minimum wage should be increased. But you would prefer to scrap welfare instead. Why? Because for some reason you actually want a society which promotes great inequality. I can't begin to comprehend your rationale for that. But wait! On second thoughts, it's not that you WANT that. It's just that you don't care. Right?
I think it will be a more instructive exercise for you to think about it yourself.
I know you're content to sit back and let things go on as they always have. You're all right, so why worry about anybody less fortunate, right? But not everybody thinks like you. They don't assume that we live in the best of all possible worlds, like you do.
Not attacking, Baron. Just observing. You yourself admit you don't care about other people, so don't pretend you're offended by my comments.
Then can you blame people for staying on welfare? To me, this suggests that the minimum wage should be increased. But you would prefer to scrap welfare instead. Why? Because for some reason you actually want a society which promotes great inequality. I can't begin to comprehend your rationale for that. But wait! On second thoughts, it's not that you WANT that. It's just that you don't care. Right?
I think it will be a more instructive exercise for you to think about it yourself.
Speaking of debts to society, I think that the relationship should be reciprocal. If society has taken it upon itself to repress the individual, allegedly for the good of other individuals, it has forced itself upon that individual. It has forced its care upon that individual. It has diminished that individual. The individual is not more safe, he or she is less. This kind of violation is a very heinous one. The society owes a huge debt to anyone it has done it to.
James R said:
Ye're wrong, James! The difference is that I help those in my own area, rather than make some big issue about people thousands of miles away ...for whom I couldn't help even if I wanted to. And, James, if everyone were like that, then we'd not even have such problems to talk about, would we?
But see, there are those who talk up a big issue, make it some kind of religious/moral duty ....what I call psycho-babble bullshit.... to sound like they're really moral and compassionate toward the entire human race all of the fuckin' world. And they keep on preaching, while those people starve to death!! Psycho-babble bullshit. DON'T TALK, DO SOMETHING!
James R said:
So by that, for all of those people, I have to assume that everyone in their immediate area is doing just wonderful, and the doo-gooders have now branched out to other parts of the world to spread their riches and doo-gooding help??? ...there is no hunger and poverty anywhere close to a doo-gooder, right???
James R said:
No, James, ye're wrong! I want the welfare to go to people who really need it and can't find a job and don't have any family who's able to help. However, my "welfare" would be to find them a job, not give them money!!! They'd EARN their "welfare", it wouldn't be handed to 'em on a silver platter.
James, think about it; Why is it that illegal Mexicans can come into this great nation and find work, save money to send back to their families and STILL have food and a place to live? How can THEY do it, but the blacks can't???? And the blacks are fuckin' legal citizens, for god's sake!?!?!
Baron Max
What’s the point of paying compound interests on a debt that is not meant to be paid in full?
Eventually all those duped into paying through the nose want to pass on the debt so as to finally manage to enjoy the dividends.
That’s when they start speaking about morality and the honor of being a good tax-payer and a noble citizen.
The notion of nobility is constructed to enforce a correct behavior. Going against it is supposed to make you feel ashamed.
What is shame, anyways? Hmmmmmm?
Eventually all those duped into paying through the nose want to pass on the debt so as to finally manage to enjoy the dividends.
That’s when they start speaking about morality and the honor of being a good tax-payer and a noble citizen.
The notion of nobility is constructed to enforce a correct behavior. Going against it is supposed to make you feel ashamed.
What is shame, anyways? Hmmmmmm?