DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
quote:
There is a level (nearly) playing field, but it isn't at first grade. It's at birth.
I'm not so sure about that. My eldest goddaughter's umbilical cord wrapped around her neck in utero, impeding the flow of oxygen to her brain. As a result, she was born with a host of both physical and mental disabilities. Then there are those afflicted with fetal alcohol syndrome or issues relating to premature birth.
Thus the "nearly" part. But, birth is likely the only place where the playing field is actually level, barring abnormal events involved in the birth.
quote:
quote:
You can't guarantee a level playing field when so much of the playing field has nothing to do with school.
True. Yet the idea that we're all launched into the world with equal opportunities and that the failure to "succeed" reflects only individual failings and not any sort of systemic issues seems to persist in some parts of our society.
quote:
An inner city resident is going to tend to have fewer "perks" in life than a resident in a suburb, in general.
Probably true. It seems a little dismissive, though, to write off key elements of success--decent parenting, the support of a loving and stable family, early and persistent exposure to reading and other educational pursuits, the instilling of a work ethic, adequate medical care, etc.--as "perks."
Very true, but I did put it into quotes as it was not necessarily what I wanted to say, but the best word I could find at the time.
quote:
quote:
Is that up to the school or government to make up for? Fuck no, it isn't!
To whom then does the duty fall?
I suppose we could simply smile amid the success our "perks" helped bring us and say, "Sorry, kids. You lost the socioeconomic lottery, and now you're fucked. Good luck with those bootstraps!"
Personally, I tend toward FDR's perspective: "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
A big part of success or failure has to do with your upbringing, your home life, and your home environment.
Heard a story Thursday at a family gathering. It seems my grandfather, a first generation Italian American was working in a steel mill when he was drafted to go to WWII. The Government went to the foreman (an Irishman) and asked him for a list of all the employees who weren't absolutely essential. Oddly enough, it turned out that all the Italians weren't essential, but all the Irish were. My Grandfather was in the 4th wave that landed on Normandy, and he fought his way up to the Battle of the Bulge where he was captured. He spent 9 months in WWII and was medically discharged. Now, he worked his ass off and my Dad, Uncle, and Aunt were provided a very comfortable life because of his work ethic. My Dad had that same work ethic, and he was working three jobs while going to grad school full-time and being a husband and father of a baby, and a newborn (for the last 6 months of school). This ethic stuck with him and provided my 3 siblings and me with a very comfortable upbringing. We never were truly in need, but we didn't get everything we wanted.
My Grandfather was discriminated against (and was extremely racist himself), yet he did what he had to do. That helped my Dad and his brother and sister get a leg up. Should they have been able to take advantage of that, or did my Grandfather toil for, essentially, nothing? Should my Dad's work ethic not have resulted in a lifestyle that gave us kids a stable life in a suburb? Should his work to better our lives not have resulted in a better life for us?
No, a child born into a slum isn't at fault for his setting. That would be on the parents. It's not easy to pull oneself up out of poverty and could easily take several generations. While that sucks, imagine how much better off that family will be. It takes a lot of work. It takes a completely different mindset and behavior pattern. Those are not things that are likely to be gained by Government largesse, but by some internal motivation.
The President and First Lady had tough path to where they are. They both have stated that the difficulties they faced and overcame made them who they are today. The First Children are reaping the benefits of Michelle and Barack's toiling. Isn't that the way it should be? Denying that struggle and achievement will also reduce the sense of accomplishment, and all the internal benefits it brings.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: What constitutes racial discrimination? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread