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

[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 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."