Simply enough, the underclass is the subset of homosapiens BOTH genetically and memetically disadvantaged. Look at success stories--a member of the underclass can escape through superior genetics (ie, physical ability in the case of NBA draft picks) or superior memetics (a strong church upbringing that inculcates a value system welcomed by society).
We can do nothing about the genetics, but we could do a lot more about the memetics. Culture of Blame, or Culture of No-responsibilty will never work.

Could it be that the problems we see in the Arab Muslim world are due to the same mindset? Insallah, Allah wills it. The same attitude that what happens is due to fate and not the individual. Except of course for the radical Islamists, who very much take fate into their own hands.

This is what SOME kids learn from their "parents:"

America is the most racist country in the world. White people hate you. The police are out to get you, any way they can. You won't get ahead in America because you're black. Republicans hate welfare because they hate black people. I don't care where you got that money, but just don't get caught. People only end up in prison because they didn't have enough money to get a good lawyer and get off. That's the only reason rich people stay out of jail, because they're the biggest crooks of all....

Listen to that B.S. for ten or fifteen years growning up, and it'll be the rare child who succeeds.

wilsonkolb at October 3, 2005 11:51 AM

Care to go beyond ad hominem, and list any PROVEN example of President Bush personally profiting, in any way, from his presidency? One example that puts any cash at all in his pocket....

I truly appreciate that my suggestion was acted on at this blog, thanks!
One reason that the Murray column interested me is my personal backround: my mother was 16 when I was born, father 17, my mother had 5 kids by age 26 and was on and off public assistance when not working as a truck stop waitress. But I was fortunate to be born before the underclass mentality had metatastisised into the trailer courts of America, from the black and Puerto Rican communities, as it has today.
I agree that Daffydd hits the nail on the head saying values are the critical issue in addressing this, but he begs the question, who sets our public values/morality agenda? The answer is as timely as today's news - more than any other institution it is the Supreme Court. It was the Warren Court that invented a right to privacy (i.e., a license to ignore uptight stereotypes) and have the govt pay for your decision. It was the SCt that said the government has no right to define who is a family for welfare/assistance purposes. It was the SCt that said it was enherently racist for employers to look at a young person's high school transcript or recommendations when hiring a new employee, thereby turning high school into a 4 year babysitting service, I could go on and on.
The only way we are going to fundementally address the problems of the underclass is to purge the Augean Stables of the judiciary - with the so-called "right to privacy" fundementally reformed. Until the state can tell a welfare mother that if you are too disorganized to support yourself and your current children, you are too disorganized to be having sex without mandatory contraception, we will never stop this downward spiral in our society.

Civics? Civics classes won't do a thing without motivation. Historically the motivator was religion. It provided the structure, strategy, and principles. Civics provides mechanics and tactics. It worked for generations because the vast majority subscribed to the religious principles. Once religion was stripped away, the ultimate punishment and reward system was lost. In such a situation, Civics becomes simply another dry academic subject which will wither away in about a generation, as we have seen. Maybe somebody can give me an example to cure my pessimism, but I am unaware of any successful civilization which I would want to model that excludes religion, and I certainly don't think we are in the process of providing such an example in the U.S., Canada, or Europe.

PBSWatcher,

For all our flaws and problems, we are still by far the most religious society in the industrialized world. Even Al Sharpton, off camera and away from his funding sources, has been critical of the Court's banning of prayer in school,for example. If civics were meant to include references to our religious heritage and the need for private morality as a necessary precondition for democracy to work (i.e., Washington's farewell address as President would be an excellent example)I think your objections would be resolved.

Beebop--

I would like to share your optimism, but I don't. We are the most religious society in the industrial world, that is a sad commentary in itself. Our commitment to religion continues to wane as a nation. While resistance is stiffening to that trend, I don't see the trend reversing any time soon. Al Sharpton and anyone else has to be off camera and sotto voce on this topic to avoid heavy criticism. Civics as you describe it would be an improvement, albeit second hand, but who is going to breathe life into such a program given the tide of opposition? Where is that breath going to come from given the decline in personal belief? Going through the motions would be a waste of time. References to a history of belief won't be any help, unless there is actual current belief driving the message which in turn must fall on receptive ears, i.e. ears conditioned by belief.

Beebop and others,

You are mistaken if you think that religion is declining in America. What is happening is a replacement of a God-centered religion with a Man-centered one. Atheism, socialism, secular humanism, and environmentalism all have a religious nature.

I am not familiar with Islam, Paul, but Christianity is founded on two things. First you must have faith in God, who created everything. Second, you must show your faith in your actions/work. Jesus didn't tell Caesar that he must help the poor via taxation. He told all of us who believe in Him to help the poor personally, for the poor ye shall have with you always. Compassion is a personal ministry, done on your own time and with your own dime. "Liberals" have redefined compassion as robbing Peter to give greedy Paul a handout.

The contents of me humble head is spinning faster (over this Big Lizards Topic) than the fastest Liberal could latch onto Dualistic words of communication, and turn such into a World *CRISIS* overnight...so to speakspeakspeakspeak.

What is the underclass?

Interesting question, especially here in America, but i suppose that even in America we can have “Classes” of humans. If one would think back to the early days of Fascist Germany, recalling how the Dualistic word “Jew” was used back then, and then move back into the present-day...now, substitute that Dualistic word “Jew” usage from back then with the present-day usage of the Dualistic word “Rich”, and one can quickly link Fascism to the current dogma of America’s Democrat Party. OK...“Classes” of humans are now established here in America.

Do the “Rich” need to pay more Taxes? Are the “Rich” not paying their fair share when compared to the Taxes that the poor pay?

All Federal Income Taxes Paid in the United States

Apparently the “Top 50% of Wage Earners” pays “96.54%” of the Federal Income Taxes, huh. The “Top 5% of Wage Earners” pays “54.36%” of the Federal Income Taxes...hold on, i must’ve typed the wrong number there!?! Excuse humble Low and Ignorant Insane terrible-at-typing hermit me whilst i check the numbers...

i’m back, the numbers are correct, and the “Top 5% of Wage Earners” do pay “54.36%” of the Federal Income Taxes!?!?! Heck, after checking, i found that the “Top 50%” included “those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003.” Clearly, “couples filing jointly” probably have Children, work hard, and pay their fair share. i want to know who and what this other...this ‘Bottom 50%’ that pays just 3.46% of all collected Federal Income Taxes are complaining about!!! Scheeesh!!! Most of the ‘Bottom 50%’ must be complaining, since almost 50% of voting Americans apparently support the Democrat Party. Yes, i understand than far too many Americans pay no Tax, and that not all Americans Vote.

Hurricane Katrina has exposed a lot more than just the poor (non-Tax payers) and an “underclass” that pays 3.46% of the Federal Income Taxes!!! New Orleans and Louisiana have been a Democrat Party ‘Strong Hole’ for decades, so a *LOT* of non Tax payers and 3.46% Tax Payers have been voting in that area...so to speak of them being bussed to voting booths and such during elections.

There are not many countries on the Planet Earth, where a human actually has the freedom to move ‘UP’ in life, but America is certainly one of them, if not the only one. Beebop mentioned (in this Thread), that Beebop’s Parents start producing Children at a young age, and that Beebop’s Mom had had “5” by the time that She reached 26 years of Dualistic age. My Mom and Dad started at a later age and had 6. Dad was in the Army...Infantry...has 3 Combat Infantry Awards, would’ve had 4, but he was sent into the Intelligence section after ‘63/’64 Vietnam. Enough said...

The Democrat Party should get into the ‘Chattel Business’ since they are sooooooooooooo good at producing ‘vOtErS’ that produce votes instead of eggs, milk, meat, hide, etcetera.

KårmiÇømmünîs†

Well said. We'd all do well to listen to Theodore Dalrymple, for he is wise. I wrote about this a few days ago and described it as "cultural" poverty instead of "economic" poverty. You can be economically poor, usually temporarily, without being culturally poor. But where cultural poverty rules, there's always the economic kind right there with it. That's the nature of the underclass.

http://hydeandgeek.blogspot.com/2005/10/race-to-bottom-culture-to-top.html

One post edited for libelous material.

Wilson Kolb, why do you do this? You know you cannot make false charges like that. If you want to get sued, go do it on your own blog; I have no intention of sitting next to you at the defendant's table.

The other things you wrote are false but not defamatory, or else opinion; but that last remark was utterly libelous.

Dude, you are going to have to think before you post, or you will be posting somewhere else. This was strike number two-and-a-half; thus, even a half-strike will get you bounced from here permanently.

I like diversity of thought; but the emphasis is on the word "thought." I won't hesitate a nanosecond to nuke an unthinking troll.

If you have a point, see if you can make it without degenerating into mindless invective. The preview button is your friend.

Dafydd

Mr. Kolb proves once again the intellectual poverty of most of the left these days, where ANY discussion, ANY topic, ANY time is a reason for Bush bashing. Our host has more patience that I would: I'd have nuked his comments already.

I was going to point out that Mr. Bush didn't invent poverty or the underclass, any more than he invented hurricanes or global warming. This issue isn't about the current administration. It's an issue Democrats and Republicans have both flubbed.

But then I saw the comment above where he said

"p.s.: God, do I ever love farting in the elevator."

Which suggests to me that we're dealing with a twelve year old on his mom's computer. And that I'm wasting keystrokes trying to rebut.

Run along, Wilson, and let the grown-ups discuss serious things.

Great post, man. I've liberally quoted from it here:

http://www.englishandwhite.com/rattler_gator_blog/2005.10.01_arch.html#1128516895439

You're right on the money, of course, and if it takes a brigade of folks to confront the well-meaning crowd -- well, that will just have to be done.

One hurdle that truly has to be cleared are old, documentable grievances. I like to use these --

[1] a famous quote attributed to Douglas MacArthur in an address to the 1933 graduating class at West Point:
A good soldier, whether he leads a platoon or an army, is expected to look backward as well as forward, but he must think only forward; and,

[2] one of (I think) my own, but I may very well have picked it up somewhere along the way:
You can be technically right, yet remain fundamentally wrong.

That second one is extremely hard for us black folks to accept. Extremely hard.

RattlerGator:

Your point number 1, the MacArthur quotation, is extremely apt here. Dinesh D'Souza wrote an excellent book some years ago titled the End of Racism (Free Press, 1996), in which he posited that racism, as we understand the term and concept, far from having always existed, was actually quite recent, starting around the 1600s. (Slavery has always existed; what was new was the idea that people's worth was tied to their skin color.)

Consider, for example, how Shakespeare deals with Othello, a dark-skinned Moor from North Africa: nobody in the play (or the audience) in 1605 thought it unreasonable that a black man (as they thought of Moors then) would be a general in the army of Venice; and the only person using race as a weapon against Othello is Iago... clearly the vile villain of the play.

D'Souza's thesis was that until Europeans encountered the tribes in the sub-Saharan African interior, nobody equated skin color with intelligence, civilization, or talent. After all, the Ethiopian and Somali kingdoms were by and large on the same civilization level as Europe, as were the Moslem realms just across the sea in Arabia. The Chinese were, if anything, more advanced.

But the Europeans were appalled when they first encountered (as slaves) people from what today are called the two Congos, Uganda, the Central African Republic/Empire/Republic, and so forth. They were far more primitive than other countries, including other black African countries on the coast -- which is why Ethiopia, Somalia, and the North African countries so easily enslaved the tribes of the interior and sold them to Arabs and Europeans -- and Europeans were at a loss to explain why.

Racism, argues D'Souza, began then: as Europeans struggled to explain the evident differences in civilization, they increasingly turned to the only obviously visible difference: racial characteristics. Ethiopians were forgotten, and Ugandans and Congolese became the paradigm of the black "race." White Europeans built up an elaborate heirarchy of racial superiority that (surprise, surpise) had themselves at the apex.

Because it has a definite beginning, D'Souza (a native of India) believes it can have a definite ending. It's not "hardwired" into our brains.

He also argues that what many black activists claim is actually true: many of the negative, destructive elements of black American culture did, in fact, arise during the time when they were held as slaves, and in direct reaction to slavery. For example, when escape was virtually impossible, mindless rebellion could be a good thing: it would inspire and give hope to those slaves too old or too afraid to rebel and suffer the whip. Also, since many plantations enforced virtually no law regarding interactions between slaves, violent gang behavior was sometimes necessary to stay alive (think of a prison, which is a lesser version of a plantation).

So in that sense, people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan are actually correct: white people did, in fact, have a lot to do with creating the destructive behaviors that plague the black community today.

But to get back to your MacArthur quote, the emphasis should be on the word "did," past tense. Those guilty people are long dead, as are even most of those perpetuating racism during the Jim Crow period. Bull Connor died thirty-two years ago at the age of seventy-six, for example; were he alive today, he would be 108 years old! (Robert Byrd is still sucking air, however.)

Whatever the cause, and whoever was to blame in earlier eras, today, right now, it is up to blacks to change the culture of their own youth; nobody can possibly do it for them, just as nobody outside of the American Vietnamese or Jewish communities can change the negative aspects of those cultures, either (extreme clannishness and xenophobia, for instance).

As much as I dislike Farrakhan, he has actually done far more than Jackson or Sharpton to tell blacks that each man or woman is responsible for reforming his or her own life. Probably due to his own anti-white racism, Farrakhan despises welfare handouts, and he instructs his young, male followers to earn their own way in life and take responsibility for their own women and children. (He has his own problems, of course, mostly with violence and megalomania. And numerology.)

So I think you're exactly right: what is needed is to think "forward," not obsess on the past. However just some of those accusations may be, the actors are all dust now, and the crimes are history, not current events; dwelling on them won't get anyone even an inch closer to solving his present-day problems.

Dafydd

"effective argument from the other side."

Huh?

How are a series of lame, off-topic remarks to be construed as effective argument?

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)