Fighting Stereotypes about Poverty While Avoiding Oversimplification

In the last two days I have read two pieces that provide radically different views of government programs and their use by those in poverty.  On the one hand there was a piece on Slate by Neil deMause which looked at the way Georgia has managed its Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program so that few families enroll relative to the number of poor in the state.  This piece clearly paints the state administrators as mean spirited and depriving potential clients of needed services. On the other hand Nicholas Kristof from the New York Times writes about families in Jackson, Kentucky pulling their children out of reading programs so they can continue to qualify as intellectually disabled and thus garner the family additional payments.  This strategy does not need much analysis to be seen as a horrible way to exploit a program at the cost of children’s future.

Taking these two pieces together make me understand how hard it is to simplify and generalize about the issues involved here.  Where I teach, at an independent school with  a yearly tuition of $25,000 or so, the students in my class usually have no firsthand experience of being in poverty although they may have observed poverty as part of service learning opportunities.  I often hear comments about the lives of the poor being easy because of government provided food, housing, and other benefits.  I also hear complaints about the poor lacking the work ethic (undermined by government programs) to move up in society.  The challenge comes in when I want to ask students to question those assumptions, but I do not want to error on the other side by painting a picture where all those in poverty are striving nobly against a hostile economic system.  The challenge is to teach nuance–always a grand difficulty.

Soup Kitchen Line (Getty Images picture from Slate)

Names and Stereotypes

A quick mashup of  two pieces I read recently

A couple of days ago I read this piece “My Name May Be “Ghetto,” But I’m Not!” by a black woman fighting against the stereotypes that come to people’s minds when they hear her name -Shenequa Golding.

Then I thought of a column I read about how the last name Sweeney is election gold in Northeast Ohio.  In it Brent Larkin notes, “I checked two decades worth of results and could not find a single contest where a Democrat named Sweeney lost in a general election for judge. And two longtime observers of the local judiciary said a Sweeney hasn’t lost such an election in at least 40 years.”  Larkin was commenting on the move by judicial candidate Cullen Goretzke to take his wife’s last name, Sweeney.

What then would happen if a candidate in Northeast Ohio happened to be named Shenequa Sweeney?  The stereotypically black first name paired with the traditional Irish-American judge last name, would the individual win?

Shenequa Golding

Cullen Sweeney

When Someone Else Can Challenge Your Racial Identity

If a person says they are white, black, Native American, Asian, etc. no one should challenge them.  As many, many photos show, it is virtually impossible for someone to look at someone else and come up with a perfectly accurate racial assessment.  Given that race is a social construct wherein we as a society have agreed that certain features lead to a certain label, this ambiguity makes sense.  And it makes sense that the individual has the right to self-identify.  This impassioned post “Why My Racial Background is None of Your Business” by Kristin Booker lays out the basic idea.  I particularly like the part where she toys with people by saying she a descendant of Yoda.

There do, however, seem to be exceptions to this rule.  One exception is for politicians or other public figures.  Like it or not, if a politician claims a particular racial identity the media can research that claim and opponents can, if there seems to be political benefit, challenge it.  For example if Mitt Romney claimed to be Latino because his family has roots in a Mormon community in Mexico, there could be research and critique.  Likewise, Elizabeth Warren’s claims of Native American heritage are open to investigation and comment.  The Scott Brown supporters doing the tomahawk chop and issuing mock war whoops are not excused, but his asserting she misrepresented herself is not a step into forbidden racial territory.

A related exception involves claiming a benefit based one’s racial identity, something Elizabeth Warren states she never did.  This is a very limited exception in that the person on the street should not, based on assumptions, question why someone who looks  to be one race has received a benefit designed for someone of another race.  There is so much guesswork and stereotyping involved in such a question.  On the other hand, a body handing out benefits to those of a specific race could call for evidence of membership.  This call for evidence happens with Native Americans and proving tribal identity.  I have not heard of it happening with other racial groups, and it would be a touchy topic, but what is there to keep a program awarding government contracts to minority owned businesses from asking for proof of minority status, or an organization offering similar scholarships asking for similar proof . The problem is that I am not sure what the proof would be.

Generally though, a person should be free to identify themselves however they wish without question, unless they step forward in someway either into public life or in pursuit of a specific benefit.

Clip from video showing Scott Brown supporters doing the tomahawk chop

 

 

KKK Wants to Adopt a Highway in Georgia: Counter Suggestion

The KKK has applied to adopt a highway in Georgia.  On legal grounds, they should be allowed to do so.  Legal precedent from Missouri establishes this right although in Missouri the Klan lost the slot due to failure to pick up trash.  There was also the problem of people repeatedly vandalizing the signs designating the portion of the highway as adopted by the Klan.  Given the constitutional reality I think it is important for anti-Klan Georgians to find creative ways to counter protest.  For example, posting alternative signs near the signs acknowledging the Klan or petitioning to change the name of that portion of the highway to honor someone with whom the Klan might disagree.  For example Missouri changed the highway’s name to the Rosa Parks Highway.  In this case I suggest the Loving Highway, named after the couple in Loving v. Virginia who won their case in front of the Supreme Court thus overturning laws banning interracial marriage.  One might not be able to to stop the Klan, but signs saying “Loving Highway” kept clean by the KKK would certainly undermine the message of hate.

Doonesbury, Funny but Innacurate

Doonesbury, 3.11.12, by G.B. Trudeau

I like this comic and thought it was funny on first reading. However, the word being applied to Obama in this case does not go with the punch line. Calling Obama a socialist is an economic critique and thus does not fit as a reaction to a black man with power. Calling Obama a radical fits more as a reaction to a black man with power. The term radical evokes Malcolm X and all kinds of other figures actually involved in the Black Power movement. Not to pick on the comic, too much, but just to make a language quibble. By the way, there is a conspiracy theory out there that Obama is the son of Malcolm X; I wonder if Trudeau is making a backhanded reference?

Boy Taken from Home over Weight Issue Returned

Graphic from Fox News

In October a boy in Cuyahoga County, Ohio was pulled from his home because he was overweight and the Department of Children and Family Services determined his weight was a health risk his mother was not successfully addressing.  He has lost 50 pounds staying with his uncle and is now going to come home.  The outcome seems good.  The boy did not stay in the foster home to which he was originally sent.  He got to say with his uncle, learned about nutrition, and lost weight.

However, I hope this case does not set precedent.  The success in this one situation should not mean that this is an example of best practices. The county should not be in the business of breaking up families in this manner and should instead leave children where they are and provide support.  I usually do not buy the critique of the government that asserts we are becoming a “nanny state,”  but when one takes a child away to provide him/her proper nutrition, that sounds like a nanny to me.