Anna suggests that perception is reality. I agree to this extent: I believe there is wisdom in the statement: "Whether you believe that you can or that you can't, you are probably right."
A real leader seeks to inspire, to encourage, to challenge his followers to be better than they are, to raise their sights, to rise above what they see as possible. (Isn't that what we were told from the Conference Center all day yesterday and today?) One can become popular by telling people what they want to hear -- especially by telling them that their problems are not their own fault. Telling people that they are largely responsible for their own circumstances probably won't win many votes; but it is the truth. And it is the only way to help the downtrodden extract themselves from their current plight. Wallowing in self-pity and whining won't do it. A real leader will seek to change the perception. And a real leader can succeed in motivating some people to change.
There was a black mother on Good Morning America a couple of days ago whose 8-year old son had had the chance to ask Obama a question at a recent campaign event. The boy had told his mother that he wanted to be a gangster when he grew up, because gangsters made a lot of money. His mother showed him a picture of Obama and told him that the president makes a lot more money than a gangster. So now the boy says he wants to be president when he grows up. A little encouragement at a young age may work miracles.
Blacks in a ghetto (or Hawaiian activists, for that matter) aren't likely to listen to you or me tell them they can pull themselves out of their surroundings and accomplish whatever they really want. But they might listen to an Obama say that. There are a number of black writers that make that point, but they are drowned out by the activists who call them "Oreos" or "Uncle Toms."
My friend Larry Elder quoted black Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson: "The sociological truths are that America, while still flawed in its race relations ... is now the least racist white-majority society in the world; has a better record of legal protection of minorities than any other society, white or black; offers more opportunities to a greater number of black persons than any other society, including all those of Africa." Yet activists heap mountains of verbal abuse on Larry for speaking out against what he calls the "victicrats." One of his recent columns contains a sampling.
The Rev. Wrights, Louis Farrakhans and Jesse Jacksons in America are making too much money and have amassed too much power from Black victimization to want to acknowledge that white racism in the U.S. is largely a thing of the past. Back in 1911, Booker T. Washington said, "There is [a] class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. ... There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public." (Quoted in Elder's book, Showdown.) He thought it true then; it is ever so much more true today.
Take Rev. Wright. I see no useful purpose in standing at the pulpit and condemning outsiders -- it does nothing to encourage the congregants to be better, only emboldens them to blame others for their problems. What if, instead, he condemned illegitimacy, drug-dealing, prostitution, crime, men abandoning their responsibilities as fathers and husbands. What if he challenged his congregants to be different from the stereotypes they so strongly condemn -- challenged the youth to stay in school, to learn to work, to become self-sufficient -- and established programs to help them change. He might then make a real and positive difference. In the final analysis, we each only have the power to change one person -- ourselves; and that's the change, I believe, upon which a preacher (or a leader) ought to focus.
Family Pictures 2023
1 day ago
7 comments:
I believe that Rev. Wright has done those things and has been extremely instrumental and effective in improving education in his area. Fox news tends to show the same clip over and over. I've read one of his sermons all the way through and I believe he does try and encourage his people to rise above. Also, apparently the structure of his speech goes way way way back. It follows the pattern of the Passion of Christ...The suffering (the part that the media has fixated on), the crucifixion, and finally the triumphant ressurection. I guess it is a classic form of sermon and has a very long history not just in this country but everywhere. If Mormon sermons followed the trend it would probably dwell on the struggles of the pioneers, their lowest points and their excruciating suffering, and then move onto how they overcame and triumphed and succeeded (oh wait we get a lot of that in our sermons). So anyway, considered in context, it appears that this form of sermon ends triumphantly and encourages people to rise above their circumstances.
Honestly, though, the fact of the matter is the majority of people aren't even listening to any of the candidates, especially those that need to be told they aren't victims. I have a pretty pessimistic view that the majority of Americans are completely stupid. Nice, yah? But you listen to man on the street interviews and it is frightening. I was listening to NPR the day of the Wisconsin primary and they were in a donut shop interviewing the "folks" ( a lovely condesending title that helps politicians keep people in their place) about who they were going to vote for. Their answers were something similar to these:
"I think I hate Bush so I won't vote for McCain."
"I think that Obama looks real nice so I'll vote for him."
"I loved Bill Clinton so I'll vote for Hilary."
"McCain was a prisoner of war so I'll vote for him."
Brilliant! No one had a clue about any issues. When the interviewer asked them they didn't know healthcare from an Iraq war. I've heard plenty of other interviews that were quite similar, so I don't have much faith that the general population even paid attention to what Barak said anyway, so maybe what he said and didn't say is a moot point.
I agree that anyone can lift themselves out of their situation if they are encouraged and shown a better way, but the fact of the matter is those that need it the most often don't get that opportunity.
There was a special on PBS called Hobart's Shakespeareans. It is about a 4th (?) grade teacher in a formerly crappy school in a rotten area of LA. The children in his class come from the worst of the worst situations, no fathers, drug, gangs, poor school system etc. He takes these kids, introduces them to success by not allowing anything but success, takes them into his home as a group for nice dinners with his wife where they learn what a family dinner could be like. They study Shakespeare and put on a play at the end of the year. They are only allowed to get top scores in math, reading, and history, otherwise they don't get to participate in the Shakespeare program, which surprisingly becomes a very effective incentive. The kids arrive at school 2 hours before it starts, because he has offered to help them with their homework outside of school hours and frankly the kids just can't get enough of him, so wether they need the help or not they come early and stay late. He is a wonderful example to the kids. He electrifies their curiosity. He has had such success (his students have gone on to Ivy League schools and are in successful careers) that his former students have donated significant amounts of money which allows him to take his students on a trip to DC where they stay in the finest hotels and eat in the finest restaurants. Once they realize there is a better life out there, almost without exception they all become highly successful and work very hard at school in order to escape inner city blighted lives. Kudos to Hobart. The very very very sad reality is this is not a common experience. Kids don't always have the mentors they need to show them a way out. And victims of abuse and children of drug addicted parents are damaged goods and can't always find a way out and I would argue become victims of their circumstances. The kid in our neighborhood that I mentioned earlier is broken. He steals and lies and cheats, for no real reason. He can have what he wants. He goes to a school where he gets one on one attention. He has church leaders, a grandma, teachers, doctors, mental health experts, trying to help him, but he really is broken. The wiring isn't right.
I have a HUGE belief that the first year of life is hugely profoundly formative. I think the connection between a mother and her baby is more significant and formative than is currently known. I think proper bonding place a huge role in brain development. I know this isn't scientific evidence, but after being a mom and a nanny I have a pretty major gut feeling about this one. It is one reason I think daycare is going to prove to a poor way to raise children. When the daycare children become the backbone of the country I think we will be in trouble. So of course in principle I believe what you say, but as I said perception is reality. If a person thinks they can succeed they usually can, but if they don't have the first clue what success is or how to go about making changes, how can they? You and I have had few obstacles in our paths, but some have HUGE obstacles and need guidance and don't often get it. And is a presidential candidate going to be the one to reach the Dickens-character members of society? I doubt it. Who listened/read Obamas speech start to finish? Intellectuals, political junkies, a handful of average citizens, the media, and....well that is probably it. The rest probably heard a snippet of it on the 10:00 news as they waited for the weather or didn't even know he gave a speech on race.
One more point. Those pointing out that victimization is a state of mind and get everyones blood boiling ought to study human nature and find a more effective way of making their point. It is a valid and important point and should be made. But again, PERCEPTION IS REALITY and so arguing that someones reality is phony isn't going to get much traction.
Can't disagree with any of Anna's post. Too bad there isn't a way to encourage (and reward) the Hobarts of the world. In my ideal world, when someone succeeds like that in a tough situation, others would try to find a way to copy his methods and apply them elsewhere. Teacher's colleges would be teaching the "Hobart method."
I also agree that some folks (and kids) are broken and generally beyond fixing. On the Big Island, 75% of the homeless have mental or drug/alcohol problems, or both. The poster chilren used by homeless advocates, however, don't reflect that reality.
I, too, worry about the long-term consequences to society when we not only have a generation raised in day-care, but as a consequence have a generation that has no concept of "mothering."
Nevertheless, I still believe that good, inspiring leaders can make a difference; and I resent those with natural talent who choose to pander and demogogue rather than lift up their followers.
Heard Larry Elder on O'Reilly today, talking about what you mentioned. How there is more opportunity here for a person than any other country in the world. He closed by saying if you can't make it here, you can't make it anywhere.
I know that some people are disadvantaged and have to work harder than others to make a living or find success, but that's the way it has always been. I don't know if any amount of socialism or government interference will change that. Perhaps when Obama is elected we'll get to see him test that principle.
I think in general, people in America are lazier than they have been in the past. That goes for all races. It is easier to call on the government for help and listen to people assure you it's not your fault than to work hard and make changes. My friend Jeff manages KFCs in Northern California, where legal and illegal Mexican workers laugh when he talks about how expensive it is raising a family anymore. "You pay for diapers and formula? The government will pay for that!"- was one thing they mentioned they get for free, acting like he was an idiot for not taking advantage of free stuff. Meanwhile they drive nicer cars than he does...
I think of the story of Chris Gardner, which Pursuit of Happyness is based on. He struggled, worked hard and did what he wanted to do. As far as I know he talks to people now and inspires them to set goals and work towards them, teaching that people may achieve great things if they work hard. He doesn't seem to dwell on his being suppressed and discriminated against, or talk about the evils of the world or the hatred in it. He doesn't encourage people to wallow in their hatred or self-pity, but is a very positive person.
He has found success by looking beyond the obstacles.
Of course there are people who cannot make it on their own due to health, mental or other problems, and simply do not have a way out. I think the percentage of this group is probably smaller than we think now and programs and help for them is most likely sufficient once the others are weeded out.
What needs to be done now to help others in poverty and in need?? Higher taxes to spread around to the poor who may or may not be working as hard as they can to make it on their own? Where is the incentive to work hard and find success when you know that more money will be taken from your own pocket to be given to others? Where is the incentive to work when people not wanting to know they will be taken care of no matter what?
I don't know what to do about it all. But it does seems so obvious what many of the black leaders do, and have done since Booker T.'s time. The quote was pretty amazing. Apparently not a lot has changed in some ways.
Interesting to note that since Jeremiah Wright 'retired', his church has bought him a nice big mansion to move into. Where is it at? In one of the most exclusive and overwhelming white neighborhoods in Chicago.
Maybe he really does preach unity and is setting the example by immersing himself in such a horrific community. Maybe it is something else. And how come the white devil allowed him to join them anyway? I just hope his new neighbors don't capture him and inject him with AIDs or something.
Bill, I used to think we should institutionalize or replicate succesful programs, but...
It seems that something gets lost in translation (especially if the government is the administrator). Sometimes I think a person is the key to the success and a person can't be replicated. I am reading the book about Greg Mortensen building schools for girls in Northern Pakistan, and really doing amazing work, but he is the key to the success of this important anti-terrorist work. The kids school is successful mostly in part to our amazing director. I guess that is sort of pessimistic, and I know that good can happen by following other successful programs. I guess I just think the government only knows how to turn a successful program into a failure.
It's 2 a.m. and I can't sleep, so I decided to catch up on my blog reading (and Whoppers eating--since I think anyone who can't sleep at 2 a.m. deserves chocolate). Anyway, it's been interesting.
In this foggy state of mind, I've thought of a similar, but different, issue which I've discussed at length with those close to me. We'll see if you make the connection. (And if not, you've all ready heard my excuses.)
I am concerned about the number of children who are diagnosed with one thing or another. (And this is not to say that there are not real issues--but the numbers concern me.) And so here is my question: Do we do someone a favor when we tell them they are (fill in the blank).
An example: I work with a woman who is fighting to get her 6th grade son diagnosed as emotionally disabled. She is doing this because she anticipates problems down the road and wants to have things in place so that she can insist that exceptions be made for him. (He can take longer to graduate, he doesn't need to fulfill all the requirements in a given class, etc.) So I have thought a lot about this issue: do you do someone a favor when you give him a label? Yes, it may give understanding--but it also gives limitations. Is it really doing him a favor to tell him that he doesn't have to do all the math problems because he's emotionally disabled? Helen Keller became the woman she became because Anne Sullivan wouldn't give her excuses--and who is more deserving of excuses than a deaf and blind person!!!! Anyway, this is a question I toss around now and then.
Do you see the connection--or are these merely ravings caused by sleep deprivation?
P.S. I agree that a leader needs to raise the sights of those he leads, inspiring them to better themselves. Certainly, everyone will not listen--but some will. And what else can he do?
Uncle Bill invited me to chime in on these discussions. It looks like these are older posts, but I thought I would add my thoughts on this one. I lived for a year in one of the crime capitals of America. The heroine capital, more murders than days in the year, extreme ghetto Baltimore. I lived in the inner city in a high rise, walked by soup kitchen lines to get to the shuttle, then traveled through ghetto neighborhoods with boarded up doors and broken windows, on my way to school. In the hospital, the patients were mostly inner city African-Americans. I came away with some strong impressions. The first: I think I read Anna making the same point – it is much harder for a person to overcome the ghetto mentality and free themselves from poverty than any of us can imagine. I used to be unsympathetic, but my observation is that it is 10 x more complex than we realize. It is heart breaking! Start from birth. A child is born probably to a single mother who is most likely abusing drugs, hence health problems for the baby (crack babies, drug addictions from birth, fetal alcohol syndrome, premies, any number of congenital problems). Also, mother is probably malnourished and not interested in breast feeding. The mother is emotionally immature and often really damaged, usually from a cycle of abuse that she endured in her home (or on the street, wherever her home is) and dysfunctional relationships with men, including the man who just left her when she got pregnant. The child is neglected, often abused, probably underfed, unloved, and grows up witnessing violence on the street on a regular basis. In essence, the child is taught from birth that he/she was never wanted, is undeserving of receiving love, and has no more value than the trash that’s been piled up on his front lawn for years. The only messages that enter this child’s consciousness tell him he doesn’t have a chance. The family has no transportation so they are limited to buying the only food that’s offered within walking distance, which is junk food like McDonalds. They can’t afford more healthy food even if it were offered. They don’t enjoy the benefits of proper nutrition. There are environmental concerns too (lead paint, chemicals in the neighborhoods, etc.) Without transportation, they never leave their patch of ghetto where they form all their ideas. I remember we met a black adult woman who made it clear to us she had never seen a white person before, except on TV, even though she lived within blocks of more prospering neighborhoods. She stared at us and finally said: “I like white people because I like so-and-so (some white rapper whose name I didn’t recognize). A lot of the people in the inner city ghettos are as isolated as the Texas polygamist compound residents. We don’t understand how they can have so much hate and self-loathing, but we are so far removed from their experiences. The schools are terrible. When they become a little older, they may face a choice of starving (because their parents don’t have enough money to feed them) or learning the art of drug dealing in order to survive. Before they have much of a chance, they are very very wounded and the cycle continues. Mental illness is a huge factor as well, often correlating with drug abuse, and causes so many to end up homeless. I wish that adults (or promiscuous 11 year olds) who are unable to provide for a good childhood couldn’t conceive, but they seem to be the most fertile people on the planet. It is a very sad situation. Basically, I became convinced that we simply cannot judge them.
My second impression: government handouts are not the answer (although I do believe government has the obligation to make sure no one in this country is starving). I’ve thought that the ideal system is for individuals to rise up and help the poor directly (or through churches or non-profits). When people receive money from the government, they don’t see it as a gift that they should take and improve upon. When one person helps an individual directly, there seems to be more of a sense of debt and gratitude on the part of the receiver. I think this personal touch leads to more motivation, accountability, and the personal attention so many of them need.
This ended up a little longer than I expected.
Cheers,
Danielle
Post a Comment