Culture of Poverty and African-American Culture Discussion

The research article wanted to find a relationship between AA culture and the culture of poverty within the components of their work ethics, family ethics and welfare dependency. The results were not there to support their hypothesis; except for only one factor, poor AA believe that single mothers had the ability to raise children. In all other factors, this research did not find significant differences between AA and White culture. There were other factors that were mentioned in the discussion part of the research article that were very important; Factors such as age, gender, education, living region, religion, past experiences, race and welfare status were all very important information that can influence the answers of the participants. These factors are also unique to every individual. I would say that conducting this research had been a waste of time for the researchers, but necessary because of racism. There are people who need this confirmation that AA culture is not the culture of poverty, but what also really took me by surprise is how generalized the theory was among a largely populated ethnic group. How can one generalize that every individual in one ethnic group is the same? I think when we take a close look at the actions we make, it kind of boils down to modern racism. We are no longer in the day in age where openly racist comments are accepted nor supported (traditional racism); rather, we have transformed racism into something more subtle. So in the modern society that we live in today, when we see a Black child as the face of a commercial that is asking for the donation to stop hunger, we build a correlation between hunger and the face of this child. The more frequently we see this commercial the stronger the correlation becomes. This creates what our society desires, modern racism towards the AA group members. Unfair job conditions and wages? Should one stay in a shit job when we can receive the same income from government assistance? The answer to this question should be obvious. Of course, nobody would like to stay in a job position when they can receive the same income from not doing anything at all, but the fact is whether or not the individual has the desire to achieve something more. If you're no longer in the college student age range, have a limited time frame to complete your studies, want more income than what the government assistant programs will offer and is willing to work hard...get your CDL license. If you cannot drive, get a certificate in security. There are so many ways that you can get a job that will pay more than what government programs offer. If you cannot drive or stand for a long period of time, get your certificate to become a EMS. It really depends on the individual and their willingness to seek for solutions. I really don't believe that there are no answers to a question.

I am sure there is some true in every statement....there is laziness, there is fear, there is hope and there is also hopelessness. There is the crude reality out there of the marketing and the advertising using and taking advantage of some ideas that they know will make and take effect on others' hearts and minds. the system is becoming more and more jeopardized probably not only by the system per se but by us when we allow the discrimination and racisms to invade us selling us the idea that only the back population is poor and sad and lazy and all those lies. it is hard to define and respond all these questions when every time I hear you professor or my classmates talk and my heart and mind is rolling around this. at some point I feel that that misery out there is not so evident...we people do not pay attention to the real problem and we just act like robot trying to live and follow...the marketing....newspapers...forgetting that there are many out there suffering because of the lack of the opportunities...yes there are jobs out there...but is that really what we want? You want a job that just gives you some food and money to survive? Or it is better just to f!@#$ everything and live with some money and not working because at least you are having time for yourself.... I know it’s hard when you start opening your eyes and find a solution. It’s just hard but there must exist something to do...that is why in 3 weeks we are trying to have some impact in other people's lives. We must keep on working on this idea and see what happens and we may at least understand that if we all (society) work as a whole...we may do something...at least opens other people's eyes to this crude reality.....

I think that in regards to poverty Americans have the idea that only minorities are the ones struggling which is ridiculous. Poverty affects all people of all races. I feel this is the reason that one commercials and ads they show poor African Americans because the marketers feel that this will cause more Americans to be sympathetic. I thought the most heinous thing I read in the article was the claim that poverty exists because of African American women. When I read this i became instantly agitated, to me this accusation is horrifying. Lastly, in regards to whether or not i would want to work at the shit dead end job when i can sit at home and collect unemployment and be paid almost the same amount i feel the decision is easy. I would sit on my ass and collect. the system is screwed up beyond belief. It wouldnt make sense to me to bust my ass at work when i can sit at home and collect the same paycheck and i think until the system is changed to create a better incentive to be working nothing will change.

I do not believe lazy is the correct word to define or even suggest why poor people are in their position. It is a socioeconomical issue, but even more pertinent, it is an attitude issue. In ghettos, or any low socioeconomic area, there is an incredible pressure - an insurmountable weight, put on people striving for a better life. Unfortunately, this pressure is not uplifting or motivational, rather it is placed on them to ensure they do not succeed. It is used to cripple their efforts. There is a collective expectation of failure among the poor. This is why when one breaks free and becomes a success, it is a great story. This is unfortunate, as the hope for a better life should be the norm, not a story. We focus on children because as cliche as it may sounds, children are the future, and we have the best opportunity to develop their self esteem, self belief, and instill a strong sense of direction. The advertisements showing young black children creates an even stronger sense of hopelessness. When one is hopeless, one has no ability to self-motivate. This results in the idea of inertia, in both the individual and his/her society, as it is infectious. Once again, the term lazy in this context is wrong. Laziness implies opportunity, and/or the recognition that opportunity exists. I am not certain that poor people recognize opportunity right now.

After reading this article, I have mixed feelings over one particular point. Blaming the single mom for the laziness or unsuccessful upbringing of men seems ridiculous. If the single mom would do absolutely nothing to help her family, then again she would be the blame for the poor behavior her kids exhibit when older. Again, I go back to my original belief that you need inner motivation. I just don’t see how seeing your mother struggle, can motivate you to be lazy. I think this aside from being an ethnic racial issue, also a gender issue-the woman is the one to blame. It can’t be the man’s fault, the man who left his family to fend for themselves. When it comes to the commercials, pamphlets, and any type of advertising-I agree with Harry, people just don’t feel sympathetic to “whites” or anyone that belongs to non-minority groups. Everyone is so used to seeing children suffering n third world countries, than accepting that this is going on in our own country. My question is, why are there so many mission groups, church groups, and community-based groups planning fundraisers for countries in South America, Africa, India, and not for the kids that are living in the streets, a couple of miles away or around the corner from the church rectory? It goes back to our reality, which we’re all guilty of. We feel more “bad” for those children we see in the commercials building a fire in dirt roads, or those from our parents/ancestors country. The change needs to start with us, and in changing our mentality that kids overseas need more help than the ones in our neighborhoods.

I feel that poverty became associated with race, because people always want to view social and economic status of themselves and others, in a identifiable way. "Who is in our group, who is in the other group?" Once we determine what group we fit it, we tend to assign people around us, friends, family, peers to that group. Depending on what group you belong to, you also form mental images of what your perception of what the other groups are like. When we think of the very well off in our society, we imagine WASP types, but we generally don't immediately think of all the rich Asians, Hispanics, African-Americans, etc that also are in the ranks of the very rich. The same applies for the very poor. We put an easily identifiable face on poverty. As for why these faces became associated with poverty? History is the answer. In the U.S., especially before the civil rights era, ethnic minorities were considered to be poor, whether you were Black, Asian, or Irish didn't matter, you were the "other people" ie the poor.

I agree with alot of the other comments and you Professor on how sickening and disappointing it is when the propaganda used for poverty is related directly to a particular race, which in most cases are poor black kids. I believe they use mostly the black community as the face of poverty in America because it is viewed as the "worst" outcomes from lack of food and poor families which is highly racist. I believe they related poverty to the black community because of a purely racist ideology. In most commercials when they use the poor starving black kid to be adopted or to convince is to donate, they use those kids and families who are starving in the country of Africa especially the areas where there seems to be no hope for their survival. They believe that if they use these families as the face of their campaign they completely get the sympathy factor. They don't realize how detrimental it can be to the black community as a whole, and how degrading they actually are being. Instead of trying to help people move from a flawed and damaged mindset, they are managing to move backward simply through ignorance. Moynihan completely backs my argument up because of his article. We can't move forward if we keep these old mentalities with us. Laziness is a big problem, however, that can't also be synonymous with a culture or the culture of poverty. My belief is if a person of any culture or color is willing and determined and able to an extent, they can and will. Though the majority may be lazy, it's still only a belief, it isn't a fact until it becomes a practice, which I pray it never will. Another problem is the fact that over 50% of the nation's food is sent overseas to other countries and their community in poverty. And they wonder why people still suffer in poor communities throughout the US. It's all favoritism, and I believe they continue to do this just to keep a balance throughout the economy. Then again it might just all be conspiracies...

Its been in the fabric of American history that poverty is associated with race. It's unfortunate that the general public are ill informed about what poverty actually looks like in the United States. Since poverty is a business, the people running this said "business", play into these stereotypes instead of accurately portraying what really goes on. Honestly speaking if a white child was shown on the television instead of a dark skinned one, it will generate very few emotions from the people. A reason for this could probably be cause we the people have this belief hardwired in our brains that white can carry themselves, and they do n't need our help. The culture of poverty is different for all racial groups though. However, I do have a generalized image that comes to mind when I think about all these different racial groups. I can't pinpoint how I came to have this generalized image, but I have a pretty good feeliing that society helped form this generalization that I have. And concerning the benefits & unemployment, I'm all for working to make it through. When it comes to this subject, I believe that whatever you earn should be through working for it. Its just a bit frustrating to even. Think about how a good amount of people take advantage of these benefits. Why should the rest of us work hard to earn our keep while some people take advantage of the system. In any case, the system is messed up. And there is no such thing as a perfect system to deal with the issue at hand; there will allways be loopholes in any system.

I think blacks are used in these "charitable" commercials to gain more sympathy's for its viewers but I think this goes to show that black are looked down upon in away. Some people may not be conciously racist but they do have a way of differentiate poorness or sympathy based on skin color this keeping the "judging by color" alive. In some areas of America being black and poor versus being white and poor may still be a huge difference but the only way to get rid of that differentiation is to publicly consistently display that there is no difference and not only using blacks for these commercials. I think it would be great to for once see a true representation of the suffering of all of the races in America. In class we talked about immigrants working harder than natural born citizens. I do think this is true but I think apart of it is because of the society that America has. The American dream and wealth is constantly being sold to Americans and almost stomped into our brains to the point where those in poverty feel hopeless because it seems they can't possibly be successful according to society's standards where as in other countries success may be measured differently, by being able to provide for your family and make things better for the generations that follow.

I do not believe lazy is the correct word to define or even suggest why poor people are in their position. It is a socioeconomical issue, but even more pertinent, it is an attitude issue. In ghettos, or any low socioeconomic area, there is an incredible pressure - an insurmountable weight, put on people striving for a better life. Unfortunately, this pressure is not uplifting or motivational, rather it is placed on them to ensure they do not succeed. It is used to cripple their efforts. There is a collective expectation of failure among the poor. This is why when one breaks free and becomes a success, it is a great story. This is unfortunate, as the hope for a better life should be the norm. We focus on children because as cliche as it may sound, children are the future, and we have the best opportunity to develop their self esteem, self belief, and instill a strong sense of direction.

I think many factors play a role in the idea that only blacks live in poverty. First, history influences the way Americans think about the poor. We are constantly reminded that blacks was in the lowest rank of hierarchy. Second, we are always reminded that third world countries=African countries. If someone tells you to name the first continent that comes to mind of a third world country, the most common answer is probably Africa. We won't think to say Europe or Asia. Last, media probably plays the largest role. Media never represents what's real but is represented as what is accepted to be normal. It seems like blacks will always be the face of poverty because of what we are taught and the way society works. It seems like we will always be living in this imperfect world.

Why did poverty become dually associated with race? That is a good question, and I guess this has to deal with stereotypes again. When I asked my grand father about his opinion, I ended up with the answer that "poor people were lazy." Because he is part of the old school system, who never went to college and never really experienced unemployment, the notion of poverty takes a complete different aspect. Focusing on ads showing black children in misery didn't really help him removing his stereotypes from his mind, but emphasizes the idea of a divided society. Because our generation is much more tolerant, I have the feeling that racism still exist on both sides. The case of the United States is a more specific case since the black community is much more important than in other European countries. The history of the black community, from migration to slavery, can partially explain why such stereotypes are made. The end of segregation isn't that far from us and It is thanks to social movements in the 50's, 60's and 70's that African Americans succeeded in acquiring their rights. It is true that our today society accentuates a lot on the importance of education among people. Education might be the key to end stereotypes and prejudices. Thus, through education we learn that poverty isn't due to "laziness" but can be due to a fault within our system. As "Ordinary Poverty" well explained, "Black joblessness is not the result of young black men making a rational choice not to work. Rather, deindustrialization had a greater impact on black workers because they were concentrated in inner-city areas." Regarding the work conditions, I believe that some measures must be taken by the government in order to fight against oppression. As we all know, the minimum salary wage in NYC is 7.25/hour. Employers paying $3 to $4/hour their employees must pay the consequences of their actions. While reading the stories of workers struggling to make a living because of a wage of $4/hour, I believe it makes me reconsider the entire system. The question even overrides the political aspect and touches a more philosophical one, meaning: "What is a society? What is the role of a society? Is integration a duty?" While listening to the speech of President Obama on the reduction of the military budget, I wondered if the US could perhaps use these 50 billions of dollars to create real programs, or real companies who will hire homeless and working poor. Why not creating an agency that ll place people according to their skills, to offer them a work in these companies designed to reintegrate these people while giving them a real salary in exchange of their work? Is this idea completely utopian?

Often, people of the same race tend to reside in the same geographic location. So when there is an area that is on the poorer side of the spectrum, the people within that area are assumed to be of the same race. I think that's why and how poverty and race became associated with one another. After doing some research I found that African Americans make up 12.2% of the US population (coming in second after Whites who make up 63.7 % of the US population). I think the fact that African Americans rank higher than any other ethnicity in regards to the US population, and considering past class dicussions on their historical oppression and "fear of failure", contributes to their prominent existence in poorer communities. In short, they are usually seen as living in poverty more often than other races because not only are they still suffering the effects of oppression but they also make up a large percentage of this country's minority. I do believe that Black faces generate more sympathy because it is assumed that Whites have it easier when it comes to landing the job which Blacks would have to work twice as hard for that same position. I don't think "lazy" is the correct term to use when describing a person's feeling towards his or her lack of motivation when it comes to working. I think people are more discouraged than lazy. Working in an undesirable work environment and being turned down multiple times can take a toll on someone's self esteem. Although I believe that people should do whatever it takes to provide for themselves and their families (this includes taking unfavorable jobs and working upwards), it's really up to the individual to decide whether or not its worth the effort.

In regards to this article I think that it is much easier to claim that poverty is only seriously affecting one racial group, even though in reality it affects people from every group. I think part of the reason why they aren’t showing any poor white children in this country is because Americans are narrow minded in their thinking that poverty doesn’t affect the white people the same way it affects black children in this country. Seeing poor white children wouldn’t appeal to the consumer the same as seeing poor black children. The most troubling part of this article was claiming that poverty exists because of house holds ran by single black women. I just don’t know how anyone can blame someone who is trying to better her family with the minimal resources she has available to her. I think claiming it’s the fault of a single black woman goes back to the “the culture of poverty.” Often mothers are the ones who take on more responsibility than the fathers so it’s easiest to blame the person around most. I think that when it comes to working a job that you don’t enjoy taking the unemployment money seems so much easier. Why would you want to put yourself in a position where you are miserable everyday working for the same amount of money as you could sitting at home. I know it is really hard to work at a job that you hate going too but I think in the long run it will be more beneficial because you can use that experience to your benefit for a future better paying job.

Something that this class has opened my eyes to that I had never considered before (perhaps because I'm just not business savvy enough to realize this) is that "hunger" is a business, and as such, the people working in it try to make as much money as they can. Ironic, isn't it? Making money off of people who can't make enough money to feed their own families...but the saying is "all is fair in love and war," and maybe for today's society, we might add "and money." This strikes a nerve with our morality levels, because (while there are obvious limitations, contracts, etc that corporations and businesses have to undergo), is the use of black children in these "feed a family" commercials exploitation? It seems to me that there is a "race" of poverty because our society has created one; it seems to be a never ending cycle: historically, we have said that whites have had an advantage over blacks, but by always trying to "help, donate, feed a family" are we as a society crippling the image of blacks as self insufficient people, only propagating the stereotype of poorness? Studies like "The Culture of Poverty" and Moynihan's study and the fact that these commercials still exist today show that we haven't really changes mentalities on the matter. Which I agree, is a shame.

Poverty has become dually associated with race because it is easier for society as a whole to agree, not necessarily believe, that African Americans are the face of poverty. During class some students shared their opinions on different races that are in poverty. Some students mentioned that when they see an Asian kid that is in poverty you believe that he/she will eventually work hard to work their way out of poverty, while on the other hand you look at the black child and think "oh he is just going to stay there as his family has done for many years". Maybe that might be true but the important fact here is that African Americans are not the largest race that is in poverty; it's the white. However, it is easier to put a black child in a commercial and for everyone else to feel sorry for the black child because we genuinely think that he or she won't make it. We look at the whites, or even the Asian child and feel as though someone out there will help them get their life together. Just as hunger is a business so is poverty. Why not market a "brand" ( poor black children in poverty) that generates the most donations? What the organizations don't understand is that they are adding into the stereotype of what people believe is the culture of poverty instead of shedding light to the situation that there is no particular culture to poverty. It exists across all races and lives in all countries.

I would touch upon what I said in class, that it is more realistic for a black kid to be poor than a white kid in the consumers eyes. Not only is it more realistic, but i feel the general public understands that blacks are underprivileged and are therefore more inclined to participate in the giving of charity to them. I am sure that there are plenty of white poor people, but I don't think that the general public associates the white race with poverty as much as blacks, so in order to show the quintessential person who would need charity, it would be a POOR, BLACK, CHILD. and its not like there aren't any white people to feel bad for,there are plenty, but it is sort of a shame that a poor white kid doesn't get as much sympathy as a poor black kid. I mean it is so easy to associate a certain ethnic group with a certain personality trait or charichteristic , and stereotypes don't come from nowhere. But it is a shame its that way, because now, many people are buying into the sterotypes and can prejudge a person because of his ethnic background. I mean there is something to be said about going out and meeting more than one black person if you're white, and meeting more than one white person if you're black to then start generalizing comments about certain types of people. Or seeing more than one example of how a Jew screwed got his way by swiping a poverty card while living a lifestyle that appeared to be luxury. Maybe the fancy car wasn't his, maybe it was his father in laws, maybe that hotel was the only place that had kosher facilities...maybe the guy is in debt and he's traveling on someone else's wallet in order to do something about it in NY. i mean theres so many things that you can go and say, wow this guy is a piece of shit. but if ur not him, or God, u just don't Know for sure he did whatever u think he did for the reason whatever u thought it was.

Unfortunately I think we are raised to make judgements based on race in most instances, poverty being no different. When judging how someone will perform in school we associate Asians with better grades, and this is how we think, in terms of race and categorization. Hispanics are loud, whites are privileged, and so on and so forth, in our minds race can predict numerous behaviors in an individual. The idea of poverty and race is no different, of course we can judge a persons actions and mindset in poverty due to race, we think, because we can do the same for anything else. The idea of poverty having a specific race, or that different races behave differently while in poverty is simply ignorant. A person, no matter the race, will work hard to get out of poverty IF they are unhappy being there. If they are comfortable with their life and their social status, they will not. Not because of their skin color or where their parents are born, but because as humans we are survival instincts, some stronger than others. But if a person instinctually feels that they are not threatened or unfortunate they will see no need to do anything about their situation. The "culture of poverty" is more of a mindset shared among all the impoverished, no matter the color. It is the way those in poverty behave when they are comfortable in their poverty. But of course as with anything, humans love their heuristics, and are happier being able to label people based on mental shortcuts. Black=poor and lazy, white=rich and successful, this is easier to do because it would take too much time to look at everyone in poverty individually and care about their individual stories. Until we are able to seperate race from the equation, the number of those in poverty will remain the same or increase, because when you are taught that because you are a certain color you will live a certain lifestyle, you will believe and fulfill that idea. We are teaching our children that their race dictates their future, and that is quite possibly the most dangerous of lessons that can be taught, because it makes for a never-ending cycle of negative self fulfilling prophecies. Let's try teaching them that they all have a chance to be doctors and lawyers and are intelligent and successful, and let's see how many more minorities you will see in these positions.

I believe that the correlation between race and poverty is an idea that we built in our own minds. In reality, poverty is poverty no matter race you are. People in poverty suffer the same way, but the amount of light shed on their suffering is different. What we see (say on television) is usually what we believe to be true, especially when people haven't/don't see the world outside their comfort bubble. Back to our discussion in class, I believe that our government doesn't portray poor "white" people is because of shame and embarrassment. When we first learn about American history (even in elementary school), we are taught that the "white man" conquers all. They were the ones that came and took the land from the Native Americans, they were the ones who had black slaves, they were the ones who had all the rights and power. The "white man" just takes and takes and even though it is wrong, the conquering is more emphasized than the fact that the action was wrong. Because of the foundation we were given as children, we just learn to accept the fact that certain people have more power/advantages over others. I'm not trying to be racist or anything, but have you taken a look at history textbooks and their illustrations these days? If the government were to show a poor white child, it would be like negating past actions - the white man took five steps forward just to be seven steps backwards. The pride factor also comes into play too; the idea that we are better than that and we are a developed country who doesn't have any problems and we actually come assist you when you're in trouble. The sympathy is created within us, by ourselves, but IT WORKS because if it didn't why would there still be commercials for years and years of hungry black children. If it didn't hit our sympathy factor, the people who make these commercials would've tried something different. I didn't really enjoy the article we read because it seemed like the study just concentrated on blacks, but why? What about all the Chinese people living in poverty? The Hispanics? What happened to the studies of ALL THE OTHER RACES living in poverty?! If this article was to compare the poverty class of different races, then I would've been a lot happier. in regards to the lazy vs. disgruntled worker, there is a fine line between those two groups. The lazy work just does not care. He is happy with what he can get with whatever effort he puts and doesn't expect more. However, on the other hand, the disgruntled worker wants better for himself. He works to better his own life, either by a lot or just by a little, but they are searching for better. They go the extra effort hoping their boss, or someone will see it and be like "hey, you seem to be such a hard worker, here's a promotion" (okay, maybe not exactly in those words, but you get the point). I guess this can relate to the question we brought up in class about what are people working for? what are they TRYING for? My answer would be that people are just trying for better. Not everyone needs millions, but just a step up from what they have. Take my parents for example, when they first came here my dad was a delivery boy and my mom worked in a sweatshop and was paid by per foot of fabric she sewed. All they wanted and all they worked for was a better life, but they're content with not having millions because they just tell me they wouldn't know what to do with all that money. However, as long as they were happy and they could raise children, their life would be complete and I feel like most people are like that. if they can put a roof over their heads, food on the table, and have a little extra money left over, they'll be happy.

I agree with Emily about business aspects of commercials that rising money for hungry children. Since advertising is business, they are pressuring on compassion. It is the easiest way to show something that all people know about and they will feel sorry about, so they will donate their money to help. When people see a black child they remember everything they know about oppression of African Americans and since the oppressors were white people, they feel sorry for what their ancestors did. May be it is some kind of responsibility that white people feel towards African Americans. I don’t think that every race have different behavior that might be called “culture of poverty”. This concept is much broader and includes all poor people regardless of the racial group they belong to. This study finds that “In poor neighborhoods (of any race/ethnicity) … receipt of welfare becomes normative , or at least the stigma is removed”. It is the fact of not having money during the long period of time that influences people’s behavior more than cultural or racial differences. “Poor people are less likely than nonpoor individuals to socialize their children to work hard”, so again it is poverty that influences people’s believes, not the color of skin. In the article all studies were narrowed to finding relationship between being an African American and poor. The stereotype of black people being poor and lazy is taken from history. We should know history in order to avoid doing the same mistakes, but not to mistreat people. It is easy for people who are not familiar with the real situation to think that this stereotype is true. The situation and attitudes toward minorities has changed over the time. Even in 1960’s the situation was different from today’s. Now this study is not sufficient to make suggestions about current situation because we don’t know for sure if it has changed since then.

I personally thought the article and the study was simply trash, just like so many other researches that are being conducted today by psychologists (once I read that psychologists found out, through research, that the closer the members of the group are to each other, the less likely they are to blame an individual member if something goes wrong, and my thoughts were “It took two psychologists with Ph. D.s to figure this out through some studies?! Isn’t that common sense?”); the only difference was that this was written twelve years ago and very racist. Well, I know how psychologists really pride on being able to find and eliminate certain confounding variables – my professor would always be so keen on those whenever I designed some study; but the authors of this article did not even take into account something very obvious. Let’s just consider one of the conclusions that they came to – poor black parents are more likely than poor white parents to agree that a single parent can raise children on his or her own. I believe that those opinions have nothing to do with race; they are more related to a certain person’s culture or things that the person has experienced, and who knows what the participants have experienced; plus the researchers did not interview other minorities to later claim that, in general, the whites value family traditions more than others. Finally, when it comes to using a black African child in commercials asking for donations – I agree with Harry’s and the class’s general opinion “that Black faces generate more sympathy”, whereas if you see some white starving kid on a commercial, you will just assume that he or she will eventually find a way to get out of that poverty, and I think that is simply because when we see a starving kid from a minority group, we think of poor third world countries, while not too many people associate starving white kids with some slums that are right here in the city, as we are so used to seeing homeless people all around us.

Upon reading the professors entry for this topic I zoned in on the question of is there a 'culture of poverty' and the actions of racial groups in relation to their poverty level. My initial thought was media. As it was mention in class last night we tend to associate poor black people as 'ghetto' and living in projects. white people in poverty are generally classified as 'trailer park trash', Latinos in poverty are almost always considered immigrants and furthermore deemed 'wet backs' or some other racial slur. But why? where does this come from? The only answer I could instinctively come up with is the media. On tv, in movies, in music, everywhere we turn these stereotypes of each culture is projected out to us as a consumer and society. to continue on the idea of media, i still stand with my point in last nights class about why we don't see commercials with Americans or white Americans begging for food or money. In the eyes of the world, well most countries, the United States of America is a power house, for the most part we control everything. We can not afford to project this impoverished culture to the world, to countries that we are aiding. how can we help others when we cant help ourselves? Which of course is the question that I am now starting to ask myself with all the new information that is being brought to my attention. But I suppose all of this goes hand in hand with the 51% foreign aid.

Poverty is not specific to just one race, however it is portrayed that only African Americans seem to struggle.  It is because of marketing propaganda and the help a starving child commercials that society continues to perceives African Americans as the only struggling and povern culture when it fact, all cultures go through the same struggles. No matter how you look at it, you have poor Hispanics, poor Asians, poor whites so poverty is an epidemic in itself, it just happens to be that African Americans are the only ones that depicted in the media. It is because of this depictions that people perceive African Americans or others races to act in the manner that they do, but these are just stereotypes. Yes, there are some African Americans who are lazy and don't mint poverty, but the same can be said for any other ethnic group. It comes to a persons characteristics and the environment they surround themselves with. If you have poor people living around poor conditions but getting assistance than most will be content living the type of lifestyle however, you will have those who want to better themselves and their families. It all winds down to someones mental state. In terms of work ethic, I think all races have their pros and cons, but these articles seem to attack African Americans only. In regards to being happy with a shitty job or being happy unemployed, I feel like the shitty job is just more motivation for someone to better themselves and get the education they need to allow themselves the opportunity to move elsewhere where they can be happier and put their skills to use. Shitty jobs are just the beginning they don't have to be the career you choose, in most cases I think people stick with jobs to get by, but as soon as a great opportunity presents itself, they will jump on it for fear of being comfortable and staying at a dead end job, unhappy and with no kind of aspirations. After all the American dream is to start from nothing to become something so if that mean taking some shitty jobs along the way then you do what you have to in order to survive and feed your family.  I think the article is stating things that have been around for generations. People are always going to have the same perception of African Americans or minority groups because they don't educate themselves enough or aren't willing to  learn, it becomes ignorance and ignorance is bliss. People are going to continue to see things in this light because this is how the media perpetuates the situation. Films and books do the same and depict minorities as the weaker or lazier class, but in reality every culture has its share of lazy individuals. I think America continues to use the same propaganda videos to how poverty in other countries besides here because they don't want to seem weak, after all the U.S. is considered one of the super powers of the world so how bad would our image become if we are viewed as poor and battered as the third world countries depicted in those videos. I also agree with the comment Eric made, people sympathize more with the faces minorities in the videos especially African Americans, but only time can help change that as more an more people are becoming unemployed it is now a global issue and has affected people for all spectrums of the world so whose to say in the future that the videos will feature white children. The only problem is that people see white children as more privileged and less deserving than african Americans children because white children are more pampered or so that is the perception devised among society. The hardest part of trying to change people's mind is that some are very hard headed and stubborn to change their minds. Only time will tell, the change that can come to the world through these economically troubled times.

There are many competing theories trying to explain the cause of poverty. Most of them take culture as independent variable and poverty as the outcome, or reverse. But the question is to what degree can cultural variables. Is there significant difference between an African-American single mom and White American single mom? If African American single mom changes her culture, then she will get different outcome. Apparently, the answer is not. Most single parent families are more likely to experience poverty than others; no matter you are African- American or Asian-American. If culture is not the absolute input, it is just causally related to poverty. Why commercials aimed particularly at black children or the empirical research overrepresented African-American population? Beside academic model and business marketing, the other reason for the academic research, job categories brought so much attention on African Americans culture is the lack of exposure of other culture and had no context for understanding the cultural norms and practices of other minority population. For example, the Asian-American Study at CUNY is only available at very recent time. Media also plays an important role in enlarging and reinforcing poor and dirty African-American children image. For most of general public use the media as information resource, and thereby the more they watch television the more likely to incorporate what they have seen into their understanding of African American culture. Their television viewing experience is telling this is what millions of other African-American children look like. Same as the “laziness”, if those who have the power to name and to socially construct reality choose to see lazy poor black or hear lazy poor black, then you input black, you are more likely to get an output of poverty. Today, while we are continuously exposed to the image of poor lazy black, how many of us realize that the increased wealth, hard working black is hidden behind the scenes?

Professor, we live in a sick, sick world - period. I can't even begin to write down all my thoughts with what is wrong with our nation, our government, ourselves even. I think stereotyping is so 'easy' when trying to understand why things are being seen a certain way. I think every culture has stereotypes that may be true, but aren't necessarily true just for that culture. Each individual is different- a house full of people raised the same way with the same views being taught to them may grow up believing differently to one another. So no, I don't think suggesting that cultures of poverty are are certain way within the separate cultures. Poor black families, poor Latino families, poor white families behave and have mentalities that are produced from several variables - environment, situations, ideals, and influences. Which weighs more in one eye than the other depends on the person. We cannot assume all of the poverty-stricken are lazy. We tend to assume this for the majority, but as you mentioned in last night's class we delved deeper into that not being the case necessarily. The statistics shown in this article might be factual, but where are the other statistics and how can we infer in a way that is truthful. There are circumstances for each family that are different. Some people may be ill or unfit for careers. Others may have larger families to support physically. I don't think it is fair to criticize a certain group of people and judge why they are poor. I don't think it is fair for us to continue judging each other for the mundane things we judge each other on, but we are an imperfect race. I think trying - 'trying' (oh goodness, I am going to get in trouble with generalizing) is for us as well in helping the poor try to figure out a way that it can be easier for them to improve their quality of life. Workshops, reading material, classes, dedication of time - this can help those who want the assistance to better their lives. What do we do with those who choose to stay home and not look for any opportunities out there? I do not know. I really don't. That is the problem. What can we do to motivate them into believing they can change their lives? And who are we exactly to tell them to do that?

Going into a Black Studies class, I went in with an open mind being an African American women. But, when I read this article I did feel offend in some ways and took some stuff personally. Stated in the article, Moynihan felt that female-headed households in the black community discourages black males from getting a job, is not only racist but down grading to black women. Why should not black women pick up the slack of the men to take care of the household? That's telling them (black women), don't be the leader in the household, don't set an example, just sit there and watch your situation get worst, because you're going to discourage your mate from getting a job. I think this a sorry excuse why black men would not go out and seek employment. If anything, it should be motivation to go out and get a job. I feel Moynihan wanted black women to have no back bone and want better for themselves. I feel there no commercials that show dirty, hunger, and impoverished "American" or "white" children because American have an image and reputation to keep and they do not want to shed any light on the weakness of the country. "White Americans" is the typical American family thats living the American dream, so there should be no poverty amongst this racial group....so they think! They use black families/faces because African Americans do generate more sympathy. They feel/know that blacks do not get equal or the same opportunities as the "whites." They feel that blacks are not educated and are not able to have strong enough human capital maintain a job and therefore cannot maintain a household. So, using black faces does generate funds to cut poverty.

There is no easy answer why poverty became dually associated with race. We are all well aware that poverty exists among different races, across United States. For that matter, I do not believe that “culture of poverty” breeds with only particular racial group or that it is different among every racial group. However, if we do look at the statistics and US census records, we are faced with the fact that poverty of African-Americans is greater than any other racial group. If we look deeper into statistical evidence we realize that from, mid 1990 to 2000 poverty rate dropped a bit and in 2000 it began to rise again. Even though rates fluctuated over time, African-Americans still remain on top exceeding in numbers compared to other racial groups. As sad as it is, people took this fact and generalized everyone in that racial group. That is why, I believe, we see African-Americans are over exposed in media. People do not take time to think that they might be harming specific group of people, they do what’s easier to explain based on facts. In addition, there are many faults to our political structure as well. Does our government really try to help those in need? Maybe there are some sincere people in the political office, but majority of them use the poor so they can win elections. Do all these welfare programs really help the poor in the end? Politicians make promises to the poor to win them over and get elected to the office, but what’s next? Does anything change? It does not look like it to me. Yes they do “hand out food”, increase unemployment benefits, and create other welfare programs. What about education? Why do they keep increasing cost of that? Something that could actually help people in the long run. Or are there selfish reasons of the politicians? They need the poor, so they can be elected, they need to make false promises of the American dream to be elected, and they do not want to educate everyone so they could make decisions for themselves because they want these people to keep electing them. Ironically, every politician talks about helping the poor, where in fact they want them to feel oppressed because that’s what benefits them to become rich. I do not want to generalize every person holding political office, but these are the trends I see.

I think poverty became dually associated with race for the business aspect of it. People obviously know that there are ethnic minorities struggling and are stereotypically known to be in poverty, especially targeting African-Americans. With that in mind, they use it to their advantage to generate money, like what the professor said about hunger being a business. I think also that over time, it has been engrained in the minds of the American people historically and culturally that white people advance and have the advantage and everyone else is a minority and will have to work their way to the top. This ideology could potentially create a stereotype threat to minority groups who would like to believe in their own success but are afraid of the outcome or competition thus fulfilling the stereotypes. I don’t really think there is a “culture of poverty” for every racial group. I think that the conditions are similar in all races and people are struggling to make ends meet. I thought the article was an interesting read but I found the numbers to be a small representation of the African-American community as a whole and would have liked to see more studies done or statistics from other studies. From what I learned though, I understand that it is suggesting that “poor Blacks” do believe in the same work-ethics as mainstream society. I think that makes sense considering employment is important to a lot of people and just because you are poor doesn’t mean you don’t care about making a living or working. I know from my own personal experience, my aunt and uncle were under the poverty line and slowly moved out of poverty. They were able to move up in their jobs and found new jobs that paid more based on their existing promotions in previous jobs. Perhaps not all people in poverty are comfortable with being poor. Some may grow accustomed to living in those types of conditions. However, this is not the case with everyone in poverty. I think it’s normal for any worker to be disgruntled especially about working conditions. If I was working a shit job, I am sure I wouldn’t be the happiest camper. I don’t think it’s necessarily right to say that people shouldn't be disgruntled about work. I can understand how that could be interpreted for laziness. But who are we to say that they are just being lazy? Work conditions are important for anyone’s overall well-being and why should someone just shut up and be quiet? I don’t think it’s right to mistreat someone just because they are beneath you on the ladder and are working their way up. They should be allowed to voice their opinion and express their disgruntled feelings especially since this country prides itself on the freedom of speech. Sure we have freedom of speech, but at the cost of what? If someone is suffering in their job then maybe its okay to be unemployed until they find something better for them.