Quote:
Originally posted by enigma_AKA
Are we holding ourselves to that so-called moral standard now, though?
For one thing, to quote a friend of mine, "WE can't do what THEY do" or basically, when we don't go to school, when we don't settle down and have lot of babies, when we glorify lifestyles not becoming of men and women of character, WE aren't able to rely on family for financial and monetary support; WE cannot claim legacy to get into schools; WE are not close enough to resources that would enable us to have a better quality of life (i.e. Whites who are poor, with the exception of a few, live relatively close to middle/upper class areas, allowing them better schooling, better access to healthcare, more examples of success versus Blacks, who oftentimes concentrated in the urban areas, do not have access to these things) so we, systematically haven't been able to take use of advantages unavailable to us.
|
So, is the problem here an innate DISPROPORTIONATE immorality in the black community, or a lack of resources to mitigate against the bad choices of a PROPORTIONATE population of immoral people in our community? What you see as a lack of moral standards and high immorality, I see as a lack of resources to mitigate against the average immorality of any group of people. What I fear is that we will idolize morality over and above other spiritual principles like justice and love. What you have so brilliantly articulated is what I was saying in my post. Due to the lack of resources, moral choices have different consequences for black people. You seem to be at ease with this reality, but I call this reality unjust and must be checked if we are serious about social change. How can we call for morality if we don't call for justice? Without justice, people don't see the hope that presses us towards morality (Check Jesus' interaction with the adulterous woman).
Quote:
Originally posted by enigma_AKA
Why aren't there more eligible, accountable men available? ....
Women with many children/out of wedlock probably ....
And THIS is the base of that: why don't we say "No, you don't have to have sex! You are not a dog in heat---and if you feel so compelled to behave as such, USE a CONDOM!" Free clinics are begging people to use them but, 'It doesn't feel right with a condom' or 'He says if I use one then I don't love him/trust him'. ...
|
I tend to disagree that we are not preaching traditional values in our community. Have you been to church in the inner city lately? We shame folks all the time about shackin', makin' babies, and not having good jobs and being responsible. What isn't preached in our churches/community is the necessity of critical thought in our moral strivings. Questions like "Why do we sin?" and " What role does sin play in our lives as it pertains to maintaining our own psychological needs in light of our social condition?" and "What issues actually characterise our social condition the most?" would go a long ways in curbing not only the immorality that is observable, but also the less observable systemic oppression that is in our society. Maybe, many of the immoral choices you note are the result of adverse social conditions, not the cause of the conditions. This is how the cycle of poverty persists, because many of the moral choices are made in response to and are constrained by poverty.
Resources constrain choices. For example, if you are sick and have no money, chances are you will have to make choices about your healthcare that you wouldn't have to make if you had money. You seem to take this as a given and a natural consequence and/or motivator to not be poor. I say that it doesn't have to be this way. No human being should have to decide between eating a meal and getting medication, regardless of how we may feel about how their "moral character" characterized their financial status. There are some things that I thought even the founding fathers of this country agreed were rights given to people by God, regardless of race, class, or creed. One of those things was "Life". Government was instituted in this country to protect everyone's natural rights. But, with the capitalist logic, only capital gives people the "natural right" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So, if you are poor, then you need to not be poor so that you can choose your medicine, or evacute in the face of a killer storm. If you rely on the government to protect your right to live, then that would be abdicating your responsibility to the government, and only people who are infantile in morals need to be "babysat" by the government. Your God given humanity is not enough to justify valuing you if you don't have money. Poverty in a capitalistic society should not be a moral judgement, but an economic reality. But many times, that economic reality serves to dehumanize the poor in most folks minds. I think that is a crying shame.
Blackwatch!!!!!!