 |
|
Good post. I'd like to add, however, that those poor choices
Posted on: June 4, 2020 at 12:35:30 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
72858
Member For:
21.60 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
aren't limited to the black community but seem to be far more common there at the moment because of choices made by non-blacks. I'm speaking not only of the ripple effect of the ramifications of the rampant racism in many parts of society at the time of the Civil War and in its wake, but also in government programs that were intended by most to help overcome those ramifications and of the devastation caused to black families by slavery.
I think some of the core movers of the government programs and/or their implementation did not have the best interests of blacks as their primary goal. Some of them had other goals and were using the blacks and others as tools to help bring the country to its knees economically as a means to effect a massive change in government. The perversion of the school system was similarly planned by some and for the same reason, to effect a massive change in government.
I know that sounds crazy to most, and in a sense the motivations are in a sense irrelevant, but I think it is pretty obvious to most that some government programs helped destroy black family life. Of course blacks in general were the first victims, but that was only the start.
The Cloward–Piven strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy was embraced by the left & the communists & anarchists share the same goal of destroying our existing government to replace with ones they prefer.
The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty
The theory here, to force change through chaos, was among the most provocative of the 1960s.
byFrances Fox Piven, Richard A. Cloward
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2010/03/24/weight-poor-strategy-end-poverty
In implementing this policy social workers were often sent out encouraging poor families, who were disproportionately black, to split up so that they could collect (maximum) welfare and government benefits. Husbands and wives were actually encouraged to get a divorce... just on paper... so that they could collect things like welfare, child and health benefits, food stamps and so on. Many resisted as most in the black communities at least had strong families. But they were told that the father could just move to an apartment a few doors down, or to a home a block or two away and they could still be together. Over time, more and more gave in, especially as they started seeing the cash flow to the families of friends and neighbors who took the bait.
It started to snowball and became more and more common. Over time, of course, the fathers tended to get together with their families as often as they first did. This was exacerbated by the problem that sometimes their benefits could be terminated if they decided that they weren't really separated/divorced. Having separate homes also led to other problems like making it easier for one party or another to cheat and for arguments to lead to staying away from each other for ever longer periods of time. Eventually, it led to an attitude that a marriage license was unnecessary and fatherless homes had become the norm.
Young daughters figured out, or were told, that if they didn't like being told what to do that they could get their own homes compliments of the government if they got pregnant out of wedlock. They could then be the boss of the home. Of course that was a trap for them, but many were too immature to see the full ramifications of what was going on and how that would impact their own lives and those of their children.
This trap destroyed many families that got sucked into this way of thinking and living and now we are in the 2nd & 3rd generations of those who fell for it.
Sociologists have shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that fatherless homes are terrible environments for the children. The risk of drug addiction, murder, prison, dropping out of school are all many multiples of the risks for intact families. The risks for 2nd & 3rd generations are even worse.
Former US Ambassador Alan Keyes http://loyaltoliberty.com/ said that he grew up very poor, but the families were intact and they used to joke that they didn't need to worry about getting robbed because no one in their community had anything worth stealing. That isn't the case today. People in the ghetto have much to fear. The promise and dream of an easier life because of the government help has turned into a nightmare with no real solution in sight.
I think some of the core movers of the government programs and/or their implementation did not have the best interests of blacks as their primary goal. Some of them had other goals and were using the blacks and others as tools to help bring the country to its knees economically as a means to effect a massive change in government. The perversion of the school system was similarly planned by some and for the same reason, to effect a massive change in government.
I know that sounds crazy to most, and in a sense the motivations are in a sense irrelevant, but I think it is pretty obvious to most that some government programs helped destroy black family life. Of course blacks in general were the first victims, but that was only the start.
The Cloward–Piven strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy was embraced by the left & the communists & anarchists share the same goal of destroying our existing government to replace with ones they prefer.
The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty
The theory here, to force change through chaos, was among the most provocative of the 1960s.
byFrances Fox Piven, Richard A. Cloward
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2010/03/24/weight-poor-strategy-end-poverty
In implementing this policy social workers were often sent out encouraging poor families, who were disproportionately black, to split up so that they could collect (maximum) welfare and government benefits. Husbands and wives were actually encouraged to get a divorce... just on paper... so that they could collect things like welfare, child and health benefits, food stamps and so on. Many resisted as most in the black communities at least had strong families. But they were told that the father could just move to an apartment a few doors down, or to a home a block or two away and they could still be together. Over time, more and more gave in, especially as they started seeing the cash flow to the families of friends and neighbors who took the bait.
It started to snowball and became more and more common. Over time, of course, the fathers tended to get together with their families as often as they first did. This was exacerbated by the problem that sometimes their benefits could be terminated if they decided that they weren't really separated/divorced. Having separate homes also led to other problems like making it easier for one party or another to cheat and for arguments to lead to staying away from each other for ever longer periods of time. Eventually, it led to an attitude that a marriage license was unnecessary and fatherless homes had become the norm.
Young daughters figured out, or were told, that if they didn't like being told what to do that they could get their own homes compliments of the government if they got pregnant out of wedlock. They could then be the boss of the home. Of course that was a trap for them, but many were too immature to see the full ramifications of what was going on and how that would impact their own lives and those of their children.
This trap destroyed many families that got sucked into this way of thinking and living and now we are in the 2nd & 3rd generations of those who fell for it.
Sociologists have shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that fatherless homes are terrible environments for the children. The risk of drug addiction, murder, prison, dropping out of school are all many multiples of the risks for intact families. The risks for 2nd & 3rd generations are even worse.
Former US Ambassador Alan Keyes http://loyaltoliberty.com/ said that he grew up very poor, but the families were intact and they used to joke that they didn't need to worry about getting robbed because no one in their community had anything worth stealing. That isn't the case today. People in the ghetto have much to fear. The promise and dream of an easier life because of the government help has turned into a nightmare with no real solution in sight.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
Good post. I'd like to add, however, that those poor choices - JeffB MU - 6/4 12:35:30