Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Raising The Average

The 'average' American family is viewed as being the same - but different based on race.
Both the Happy Days and the Family Matters families would be seen as middle-class by most Americans today.
Both families stress education, hard work and possess a two-parent family unit.
Both models stress the parent's active involvement in the lives of their children.

But a Cosby model is seen as out of reach and unrealistic by most Blacks - and as a fantasy ideal by most whites.
But the distance from the Cunninghams and the Winslows to the Cosbys isn't really that much of a leap.
The first goal in establishing a more solid Black society should be first to establish a more solid Black family model.
From this two-parent foundation - the CHANCES of producing more Cosby-like offspring will increase.
If the "Average" increases from the middle and then outward - the strength of the whole will increase.
(Putting too much weight on one end or the other throws the whole system out of balance.)
IMO - We should stop focusing on the bottom or top ten percent, and instead focus on building a stronger core.


FreeMan said...

I'm not necessarily against increasing the core but what if the core is too small. What if it's not 10-80-10 but more like 10-15-75. How does the strengthening of the 15 make things better when still 75% are neglected and left there. How is 1 out of 4 being upwardly mobile a good thing for the whole. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong because maybe right now only 1 out of 10 is upwardly mobile right now so maybe 1 out of 4 is a good thing.

Mr. Noface said...

I agree with Freeman in the sense that "helping the middle helps everyone" model works best when the middle is the majority. In the cases where the lower class is the majority, then helping them will help everyone else (or at the very least elevate a bulk of the population to middle class status (making it the majority). From what history teaches us, this model never works in regards to raising the upper class (possibly because the upper class is never the majority).

brohammas said...

this isn't so much about numbers as it is how one finds themselves at either the top or the bottom.

most of these outliers are there by chance or because they already got the help... or got no help.

The middle is the group that is already active in self betterment but may not have resources or connections to make the next step up. At the same time they have enough support and resources to be proactive rather than those in poverty who are often trapped being reactive.

As I see it it is less about how many of these people there are, but more about which group can make the most sustainable progress, given a long term payoff as opposed to short term numbers game/gain.

uglyblackjohn said...

It's not that there are no (or not enough) Blacks who are middle class.
The problem lies in many thinking that Middle Class = Bougie.
And then it becomes a less than desirable condition.
When the culture desires stability, but then runs from it once it's achieved - the culture is flawed.

FreeMan said...

Well maybe they don't want stability. How about we try to get them to own things as the middle class is full of managers. I believe to think I struggled this long only to be at some bullshit job is a fallacy. I think people want more than the middle and they have seen what their parents got with that.

The middle does look bougie because it seems like they are imitating white culture. There isn't a command presence in being the guy who has been at the DMV for 20 years and got a old caddy. Sometimes people recognize BS but since nothing is offered most say they'd rather stay where they are. It's not the culture is flawed the direction provided by our leadership is ineffective and hasn't come up with a new mission. We aren't marching anymore and we don't want to overcome. This time we want to run shit!

Mr. Noface said...

The fact that we still need leadership points to the flaws in our culture.