Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
That's exactly what Will has been saying all along. I don't know why you keep saying otherwise.
Will's stance (correct me if I'm wrong, Will): The best way to pay back the black community is to improve conditions for all poor people (of which blacks constitute a disproportional percentage).
|
Ahhhh but there it is..... "The best way to pay back a certain community (blacks)."
It doesn't say HELP ALL..... it says pay back one race.
My argument is if you truly are wanting to help ALL, you wouldn't need that little phrase.
I have a feeling the Hispanic community would argue that they are disproportionately in poverty. So could some nationalities, some religions, and so on. ALL have legitimate claims. NOONE in the US should have to live in poverty.
When we add caveats like.... well if we put more into social programs it'll help this ONE group more.... is saying that the others in poverty are not as important. You can claim otherwise but why keep adding that caveat if not to keep focus on that ONE group.
I'm all for social programs with spending restraints and fiscal responsibility. But my question for those who like to focus on just ONE select group is this: What happens if the whites, Hispanics or whatever group in poverty starts succeeding and that ONE (the blacks) doesn't? Were those programs then "racist" and thus we need to do more for the blacks and make those programs race specific because obviously they were racist... others made it out but the blacks were held down yet again.
Do you not see the hole you are digging yourself into?