You note: I would be hard pressed to put the blame squarely on welfare programs without analyzing other aspects of society that led to the decline.

You would agree that my use of the words “roughly coincides” does not equally translate to the use of your words “put the blame squarely”…….

Obviously, the first 42 years after emancipation did not segue into the period beginning 42 years ago without any influence from the intervening period. That would be patently foolish.

My point is that the emancipated black was turned loose in an often hostile society and made to fend for himself with scant help from the government or existing institutions. I compared that and contrasted it with the black emancipated from de facto and de jure segregation/discrimination coupled with the power of the federal government, the Civil Rights Acts, a multitude of welfare programs, Affirmative Action and a general public will to promote black success.

There is no question that the “middle period” was troubled by a resurgence of the KKK in the ’20′s, a militant Southern apartheid at the hands of Southern Democrats, unions that shut blacks out, and a general loss of small farms and small town economies during the depression.

However, during this same period, blacks created colleges, continued to acquire medical degrees, create small businesses to serve their communities and staff a segregated system of education, hospitals, transportation, etc. Black literature flourished and the music could not be stopped. Names like Scott Joplin, Fats Waller, Bessy Smith, Louie Armstrong, Count Basie, Lena Horne, Ella Fitzgerald, Paul Robeson, Marian Anderson, Duke Ellington, Earl Peterson, Lionel Hampton and on and on were super stars that crossed the color line.

There was a mass migration of blacks from the South to the manufacturing North in this era. The North had little experience at segregation and not much of a taste for it. While the unions tried to keep blacks out or in the lower ranks, the Republicans answered in turn by enacting “open shop” and “right to work” laws in order to bypass the union requirements on who could be hired and who couldn’t. Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and other states all passed open work laws that benefited the growing black work force. It was not until the late 1950′s that the AFL-CIO saw the value of openly including blacks in their membership. (It was the Teamsters Union who held out the longest.)

A great deal of heavy lifting was in place for the re-emancipated black to succeed. Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, the Eisenhower first Civil Rights Act, the Eisenhower directed integration of the Little Rock schools through the power of the National Guard, the Johnson Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voter’s Right Act, Urban Renewal, Affirmative Action…….etc, etc, etc.

Martin Luther King was assassinated and replaced by……………. Malcom X, Rap Brown, Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson? (It would seem to be a group of mo’ money, mo’ money, mo’ money snake oil salesmen.)

It is high time that the poverty pimps to retire. There is a vibrant black middle and wealthy class that have gone beyond the color line mentality. Why does anyone want to hang on to the old hatreds? Showing up on time with a good attitude and the ability to get the job done will win every time.

The concept that you speak of has not escaped my thought process. My whole point has been that you can not make an honest comparison and contrast of the two time periods without examining the period between the two.

There are numerous scholarships specifically for Asian Americans:

http://www.scholarships-ar-us.org/scholarships/asian.htm

I will be interested to learn the identity of the Booker T. Washington of the last 50 years. No, not interested: fascinated and astounded.

All historical analysis is steeped in the process of comparing and contrasting. Without honing that skill, history has nothing to teach. Somehow that concept has escaped your thinking process.

If by affirmative action you mean going out of your way to find those who are of minority races, then I’d say it was ok. If you mean establishing percentages, then it’s not. I agree with you that class is a factor – bootstrapping is tough when you’re starting from way behind the starting line. But class is a factor that affects people of all races – not just blacks and latinos.

>>Some of these commenters need to keep it real and admit that really they think it’s OK that certain segments or groups in society can get scholarships, just not black or Latino folks.>>

I don’t think people really object to scholarships going to certain groups of people, but if it’s specifically to “blacks” or “latinos”, then it’s certainly hypocritical to object to having scholarships for “whites” or “asians”. It’s the problem of qualifying for a scholarship solely on the basis of skin color that gives people a problem. If a young person comes from a well situated middle class family, it’s offensive that s/he should get a scholarship solely because s/he is black or white. If you give a scholarship to a young person who has come from poverty, then I’m all for the scholarship – no matter what color the person is.

Some of these commenters need to keep it real and admit that really they think it’s OK that certain segments or groups in society can get scholarships, just not black or Latino folks.

I think that folks would feel better if that was off of their chests.

I’d definitely respect a person who said that.

Even your questions edify…

Yesterday, I read that only 2% of those eligible for free taxpayer funded tutoring actually bother to attend and the city of Austin is lacerating itself over its neglect of the poor and its responsibility for the racial learning gap. Meanwhile, notices have been sent home to all parents, teachers have personally contacted them, students have been notified over and over, and there has been advertising.

In addition, the attendance rate of those who have sought tutoring is 40% at best and there are over twenty programs they they can attend.

Ergo, the teachers are going to start going to each home and “beg” the parents to take an interest in the education of their children.

In addition, taxpayers will now be soaked for additional millions as the ad campaign is stepped up to make tutoring “look like fun.” Maybe they should hold tutoring at a mall and give away gift cards to make sure that students will take advantage of what is offered on a silver platter.

I am a bit perplexed, as well.

There has been an outrageous internal collapse within the black family structure that roughly coincides with the massive increase with government welfare programs that began in the early 1960′s.

I serve on a multitude of boards in my community that deal with providing services to the needy. These include transportation to and from medical services. Transportation to jobs. Jobs workshops. Meals on wheels. Home repairs or even building homes and additions. Free medicine. Tax preparation to obtain earned income payments. Public housing/Section 8 advocacy and representation. Child care services. Medicaid and public health advocacy. Free legal aid. Drug rehabilitation. Offender aid and restoration. General community resources networking. One group sets up “homework centers” in homes and provides tutors.

And we still have plenty of people who would rather let their eight year olds run around at midnight while they are busy entertaining their own desires.

I am not fed up or turned sour, but I sure am perplexed by those who won’t take a little bit of effort to help themselves and blame it all on things that they never, ever experienced themselves. I think that is a cheap and demeaning slap at those who did have a legitimate gripe.

I will be interested in your edifying reply.

Could you be a bit more specific? Is there somewhere in the world that you find treats its average citizens – regardless of color – better? How(meaning in what ways) do you think the establishment screws over the average citizen?

>>All they care about is your social status and money. >>

Who is “they”? That actually sounds pretty unracist to me. What standards would you suggest they apply?

Helitrope, We are talking about totally different eras that had totally different social structues and prior historical influences. To basically ignore any history between the periods, is a diservice to the debate and it misses key elements. I suggest that you read up on the history between those time periods and then come back to me. It seems to me like we are debating apples to oranges.

The black family was intact. Great efforts were expended to get an education. There was an extremely wealthy and prestigious upper crust of black society in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York and elsewhere.

If it could be done then, why is it so hard now? Didn’t Brown v., the various Civil Rights Acts, Affirmative Action, etc. give blacks enough incentive? And look at the incredible welfare structure that has underpinned the whole last half century. Food, housing, earned income payments, medical care, child care assistance, job training and countless private and public outreach programs. What makes this period stand in such sharp contrast from the period after the Civil War when the blacks fought for advancement?

Been reading LaShawn for long?

>>The sad thing about all of this is that we get so caught up in the race fight that we lose sight of other issues that keep the rich in power, the middle class squeezed and the poor left behind.>>

It’s called _money_. Those what has gets, and those what hasn’t, don’t. Somebody’s _always_ going to be in power…how do you decide who that’s going to be? By lottery? Wasn’t there a Rudyard Kipling story about that? “The poor you will always have with you” is a given. The only way _not_ to have a group of poor in society is to have everyone have exactly equal amounts of assets. Now, how will you achieve that goal? We don’t start out life with the same assets – some people have an intelligence that benefits in our technological society. Some blacks (from another topic)were born with greater physical assets that benefitted them in _that_ society (and these days, seems to do pretty well in _our_ entertainment oriented society). There _is_ no equality, never will be. Do you have a problem with that?

And also, why are people so concern about how “others” got their job when I never hear the same concerns when a member of their own race gets a job because of who their parents are or relatives or friends in high places? If we are going to moan and groan about preferential job treatment based on race, we should also moan and groan at preferential job treatment based on social status, wealth, and privilege. I am all for elminating all preferences not just the ones that some deem anti-white. The sad thing about all of this is that we get so caught up in the race fight that we lose sight of other issues that keep the rich in power, the middle class squeezed and the poor left behind.