CNNs Black in America w/ Soledad O'brien: July 19-27

[AKA_Monet]

Did anyone catch the "aftershow" on AC360 where Anderson glared at Soledad about the paid little boy and his family being kicked out of their apartment and unable to find another one? LOL...

[PerroLoco]

The successful Smith family that they profiled is headed by an Omega. It was good to see. Too bad that represents only about 30 % of our families. The Tara Hill chick on the aftershow was too much

[titan257]

I found the series to be repetitive of most specials on this topic shown recently. I too wish we could take this dialogue further and find some solutions to these issues rather than stating the obvious. I would like to mention that I am intrigued by my sisters and brothers who have negative opinions about the story. All of these educated black folks talking about they couldnt stomach the special because all it did was perpetuate stereotypes. "Where is the story about educated black people because they do exist?" I just feel like why create a show based on such a small proportion of our community. Why start saying yes, we are making small leaps toward finding a solution to the issues we have with those few families doing alright. So the majority can glaze over the issues and say, See if some of them can make it out of the hoods then its a decision that they are making and theres not fundamental problems inherit here. I hope im not rambling but I was upset by this response. Soledad never said there were no successful blacks but she isnt going to waste her time making a special about it, thats not her purpose. Her purpose is to get dialogue started to fix the problems. If thats what you wanna see, then u need to make a special and send it to cnn. I just wish we can talk more about solutions and just not identifying the problems.

[Professor]

i think the series opened the eyes of the general population as well as let out a few things that aa don't rarely share with other races. i'm impressed with the piece and think it is an excellent opportunity to create dialoge and foster learning.

what i did not like about the show last night was the profile on the black guy that worked for the school system. a great effort was given to show that he was not a "sell out." if you recall, he moved from the inner city to an almost exclusive white neighborhood, sent his kids to private school, etc. as a means of improving the life of his family. however, as the piece continued to air, we saw two of three kids were married to white women, the oldest son who is a da said he sees no color while in court, the youngest son clearly identified with non-blacks . . . my point being the piece really did make him seem like a sell out.

i liked the part that talked about how we need to be responsible for our own.

sorry - i'm rushing to key this and don't have time to fully develop the thoughts - will get back

[PerroLoco]

Overall, I would rate the show a C-. There was nothing new that any AA did not already know. I also resent the "dead beat" dad piece in that the focus was on the men exclusively. Fathers of all races are not doing their jobs just as those Black men were portrayed. However, those mothers were more complicit and responsible for their current condition. Birth control anyone? The mother with the 4 kids by the man 20 yrs older than her who never married her or took care of his kids? Why keep pumping them out. Last night, the girl was pregnant with twins by another guy before her child's 1st birthday!!! These people are a burden to our race and their is no social program to replace common sense and basic morality. That is why 50% of our people will always be mired in mediocrity.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by PerroLoco

Overall, I would rate the show a C-. There was nothing new that any AA did not already know.

Unfortunately, there are some blacks who didn't know that there is a 70% single parenthood (motherhood) rate in the black community and/or they didn't know the implications of that. I don't know how blacks can't know this because beyond reading research on this topic, it is almost common knowledge that when you meet blacks in a certain age range, they are most likely from a single mother household. And these blacks will constantly talk about "my mother..." so you know the father was physically and/or emotionally absent. It hurts many black folks' feelings when you talk about this. However, the fact of the matter is that no matter how great yo mama was, you're still a statistic and whatever successes your family and you have, you are defying the odds.

Originally Posted by PerroLoco

I also resent the "dead beat" dad piece in that the focus was on the men exclusively. Fathers of all races are not doing their jobs just as those Black men were portrayed.

Sure, men are more likely to be absent than mothers (although, I know examples of single parent fathers and deadbeat mothers--very rare) in every racial group because of how we are socialized to believe that men and the family aren't one in the same. But this is specifically significant in the black community because we are hit with these social issues at a disproportionate rate. Small representation in the total U.S. population but overrepresentation in single parenthood, crime, and other social problems.

General observation: This series should have been called "Issues Concerning Blacks in America" or something that would let folks know that they were going to focus more on social pathologies. Certainly no one should believe that being "black in America" is synonymous with poverty, single parenthood, and overall negative life experiences that can be traced back to slavery. To represent the complete black American experience, and not just social issues that we are disproportionately and structurally experiencing, there should have been a better balance of positive experiences across gender and social classes. If that's not what CNN was going for, so be it.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by Professor

what i did not like about the show last night was the profile on the black guy that worked for the school system. a great effort was given to show that he was not a "sell out." if you recall, he moved from the inner city to an almost exclusive white neighborhood, sent his kids to private school, etc. as a means of improving the life of his family. however, as the piece continued to air, we saw two of three kids were married to white women, the oldest son who is a da said he sees no color while in court, the youngest son clearly identified with non-blacks . . . my point being the piece really did make him seem like a sell out.

I think the issue was with this vingnette that this guy is "supposed to be what all Blacks should strive for"... LOL...

Now tell me how is CNN or ANYBODY gonna tell me how to be "Black in America"???

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by PerroLoco

I also resent the "dead beat" dad piece in that the focus was on the men exclusively. Fathers of all races are not doing their jobs just as those Black men were portrayed. However, those mothers were more complicit and responsible for their current condition. Birth control anyone? The mother with the 4 kids by the man 20 yrs older than her who never married her or took care of his kids? Why keep pumping them out. Last night, the girl was pregnant with twins by another guy before her child's 1st birthday!!! These people are a burden to our race and their is no social program to replace common sense and basic morality. That is why 50% of our people will always be mired in mediocrity.

To add to what DSTChaos said:

Yes, there are plenty other ethnic groups of men who are "dead beat". But a 70% statistic is very difficult to refute. Many of our kids are NOT in two parent households. And today's economic realities of that lack is from a time long different with a 1950's mentality of a "nuclear family" which is NOT 21st century, modern thinking... Some countries accept these "moralities" that are actually occurring, today.

Yes, the issue is that women need to keep their legs closed--not because of moral issues--but because of HIV infections. Having sex in these days with a "poly amourous" nature is just unsafe because of this. It is interesting that every time a woman fails to use any kind of protection and winds up pregnant (again), it is more amazing that these kind of women are not getting HIV infected--maybe they are, but the stats have not become overwhelmingly alarming for the mainstream, etc.

The other issue is that folks who are getting busy and crankin' out kids also lack the knowledge of being parents. That natural parenting instinct is a myth. Also we no longer live in the close-knit family groups like we did in the past. Generally, we live in a global village exchanging information at lightening speeds. So, without some kind of massive intervention program that usually either religious institutions and/or governments employ, we will see more of this problem.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

That natural parenting instinct is a myth.

GET THAT SAID!!! It is learned.

On a related note:

If I hear ONE MORE PERSON talk about the natural maternal instinct (or how women naturally fantasize about their dream mate and fantasy wedding since childhood---different topic ) I am going to SCREAM. If more women socially felt that they could abandon their responsibilities, there would be more deadbeat mothers than there are--not because more women would be defying nature but because more women would be defying socialization. I'm not saying that this would be liberating to women but it is a realistic depiction of what childrearing and parenting are about--learned roles and duties.

Being able to have children and be involved in nurturing and child rearing is as much, if not more, learned (and sometimes forced) as it is natural. When men have no choice but to be the sole nurturers and caregivers for children, they are fully capable of doing everything except for the childbirth-related stuff.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

On a related note:

If I hear ONE MORE PERSON talk about the natural maternal instinct (or how women naturally fantasize about their dream mate and fantasy wedding since childhood---different topic ) I am going to SCREAM. If more women socially felt that they could abandon their responsibilities, there would be more deadbeat mothers than there are--not because more women would be defying nature but because more women would be defying socialization. I'm not saying that this would be liberating to women but it is a realistic depiction of what childrearing and parenting are about--learned roles and duties.

Isn't that what "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley is about? In his fictitious sci fi book, the fetus+placenta was removed and grown in a large "vat" until birth. Several movies have variated on the this theme. But what if the human female did not have to become physical mothers anymore?

I do agree there is socialization involved in the "REARING" of children. The more organized the civilization, the longer the "REARING" of the child. However, poor health is a huge culprit in behavior... And poverty usually connotes poor health. And since these women are getting impregnated under impoverished conditions and it is likely that these children will be raised in poor health from the cradle to the grave, it is interesting that as Blacks in America, we have not grossly suffered all out breeding deficits--given that we have been here for ~20+ generations.

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Being able to have children and be involved in nurturing and child rearing is as much, if not more, learned (and sometimes forced) as it is natural. When men have no choice but to be the sole nurturers and caregivers for children, they are fully capable of doing everything except for the childbirth-related stuff.

That is the thing, men do not have the childbirth hormonal explosions as a woman does. And if the "pair-bond" is unstable--which in this series it says they are--then, men cannot fulfill their duties for being fathers--essentially, men just give up... Basically because they were allowed to do that as boys, they grew up in a society that permitted giving up (not sacrifice--but just not trying and without effort), and no one expects (my trigger word for the week ) anything beyond all that from them.

So in essence, we have witnessed a ton of kids that only using sex to prove that it feels good without repercussions or responsibilities. Then when that repercussion/responsibility sets in and they try, the powers that be and economy makes it difficult to proceed because of judgment. It's like, "whoo hoo" feel good about you and me however that means, but because you got caught up with the extras associated, you should be permanently penalized. I think that skips over some real issues and inhibits us from real solutions.

[TruGRITS]

I agree with the above comments concerning the limited perspective of the series. I felt that it was more geared towards ignorant (genuinely unknowing) people of other races (esp. whites) in effort to remove some of the "secrecy" that can be present between the Black community and the rest of the world. Unfortunately, I think many non-blacks who already hold us to certain stereotypes had those same stereotypes reaffirmed by this segment and that non-blacks who really don't care/don't know about our community now have that same limited perspective on us as the special did.

Also, I find it interesting and noncoincidental that this special aired in the middle of a presidential campaign where there is a black man running for the leading position of our country.

[tld221]

Originally Posted by TruGRITS

Also, I find it interesting and noncoincidental that this special aired in the middle of a presidential campaign where there is a black man running for the leading position of our country.

yup.

i pondered the other day that if indeed Obama does win, does that mean we get to keep this week on CNN, at least for the next 4 years? or are we relegated back to the measly 4 weeks in February?

[christiangirl]

^^^I bet we get our 28 days plus one in November. Not much more, though.

Originally Posted by titan257

I too wish we could take this dialogue further and find some solutions to these issues rather than stating the obvious.

Thank you. I thought the special was greatly informative for those who aren't aware --sort of like a Problems in Black America 101. I had a general sense of knowledge of everything covered (the parts I got to see), but as far as specific numbers and percentages, I did learn some new things. At the very least, it sparked an interesting debate between me and my mother about whether I should move to DC or not. I just feel (and have always felt) that we as a people spend a good deal of time discussing the present state of things and where our issues originated (read: whose fault it is). When are we going to dedicate ourselves to finding solutions? When are we going to highlight those solution-focused efforts that are taking place now rather than focusing on those deep, introspective individuals who keep re-hashing what we already know trying to find some overlooked statistic? I held a forum about this in college, but all that came of it was an hour of a room full of people blaming "the man."

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

When are we going to dedicate ourselves to finding solutions? When are we going to highlight those solution-focused efforts that are taking place now rather than focusing on those deep, introspective individuals who keep re-hashing what we already know trying to find some overlooked statistic?

I don't know what environments that you all exist in but the environments that I exist in do focus on structural and individual (yes, both structural and individual level because we need to focus on both) solutions and preventive measures, both research-wise and practitioner-wise.

I really don't know what folks are expecting. We have all sorts of organizations and individuals, with interests in the black community and social issues, who do more than talk about it.

Are people waiting for a town hall meeting/CNN special format or for some widely publicized efforts? Are people waiting to see some largescale, visible improvement before they believe that something is being done? Are people waiting for the ills of the black community to suddenly be erased? Are blacks suddenly not supposed to be disproportionately impacted by certain social problems? Is every black family supposed to be raising their children better for folks to believe that there are efforts to strengthen the black family and attribute some of our problems inward rather than outward?

I hope those are not what you people are waiting for. Collectively, we need more but that doesn't mean that we don't have anything.

[TruGRITS]

i understand what ChristianGirl is saying about being more solution-focused, but at the same time, in order for us to find and/or create efficient and effective solutions, we have to understand the sources of our problems. If you cut a weed above ground, it will cease to be an eye-sore temporarily, but surely it will return. The only way to get rid of it permanently is to remove the roots. We can't be expected to fix problems if we don't completely understand why the problems arise in the first place. And I believe that there is so much finger-pointing and excuse-making during the solution-finding process that it makes it difficult for us as a people to move forward.

Plus, there is so much disunity within our own race - between socioeconomic , educational, and ideological lines - that we run into issues with communicating amongst ourselves. So even when we do find solutions and try to implement programs to improve the community, many times, the people who could benefit from it the most are either unaware or don't take advantage of the opportunities.

It's sometimes difficult to see progress, but it is happening. We just need a hell of a lot more...