Critique of Black Culture

[lookout123]

syc - i don't naively believe this nation was once united and it has become divided. but once upon a time the goal of those less fortunate, due to segregation and economics, was to join the ranks of the fortunate. to be a part of what they were missing out on. that was the whole point of the civil rights movement. a group of people were unfairly denied access to opportunities simply because the color of their skin. the laws have changed. access is there. unfortunately, there are people that prefer crying about lack of opportunity, instead of taking advantage of the opportunities already available. achievement isn't easy, but it is possible. it shouldn't be easy. i have yet to see a successful person of any color who is obsessed with the roadblocks in front of them. most successful people don't have time to stand and bitch about why life is unfair to them. they are too busy working toward a goal. they may acknowledge the difficulties along the way but they focus on the possibilities in front of them. and i think that is what bill cosby and others have been trying to say.

[elSicomoro]

Who do you trust more? SSA or AARP?

Originally Posted by lookout123

the laws have changed. access is there.

Laws have indeed changed, and I think they're helping. But like I said last night, you can't legislate thoughts and emotions.

unfortunately, there are people that prefer crying about lack of opportunity, instead of taking advantage of the opportunities already available. achievement isn't easy, but it is possible. it shouldn't be easy.

What you call "crying about lack of opportunity" others see as expressions of legitimate concerns.

i have yet to see a successful person of any color who is obsessed with the roadblocks in front of them.

I happen to know quite a few successful people that are concerned about the roadblocks that they and their people continue to face, namely my in-laws.

most successful people don't have time to stand and bitch about why life is unfair to them. they are too busy working toward a goal. they may acknowledge the difficulties along the way but they focus on the possibilities in front of them. and i think that is what bill cosby and others have been trying to say.

Similar to what I said above, what you call "standing and bitching about why life is unfair to them" some see as legitimate complaints, concerns and/or voicing opinion.

I think a lot of what Cosby has said has been spot on, though some of it has been just plain silly.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by sycamore

I think I'll keep the '46-'64 years for the Boomers along with Gen X ('65-'75 or '79 or '81...no one seems to agree on this one like they do on the Boomers). Gen X was a great punk band...The 13th Generation sounds like some crappy '70s lite rock band.

Born 1943-1960 An idealist generation, often stressed out. Some sources suggest true baby boomers were born between 1946 to 1964 after World War II to experience the pop media revolution and the ideal of peace in our times.

Not everyone agrees.

[elSicomoro]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Not everyone agrees.

Put it this way...quite a few people agree that the Baby Boomers were born between 1946 and 1964. The same cannot be said for Generation X.

Bastard.

[xoxoxoBruce]

And quite a few people disagree, saying it's '43 to '60. It appears the social security people are among that group. :p

[russotto]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

And quite a few people disagree, saying it's '43 to '60. It appears the social security people are among that group. :p

Any definitions of the Baby Boomers that have a date of conception preceding V-E day are pretty silly.

[Undertoad]

I can describe the change in a way that makes it obvious to you specifically Syc; dig this;

In autumn 1982 I started DJing dance parties at my college. That year there were two "staples" that we had to play or there would be trouble amongst the drunken sorority sisters. One was "Paradise by the Dashboard Light", the other was "Working for the Weekend".

These were kids who thought the Cars were "edgy" and the Police were "too weird". Adam and the Ants, or Adam Ant solo, would enrage them. Billy Idol released his first solo album in 1982 and it contained "White Wedding" and "Dancing with Myself" and it DID NOT PLAY. They HATED it! Those drunken sorority sisters were born in 1960-61.

By 1985, though, things changed. I could see it happening. By the end of 1985 we were able to play Depeche Mode, and by 1986 they became critical. Idol's first album finally played and then and then his initial EP with "Mony Mony" suddenly reappeared, and THAT became the song we HAD to play. Those drunken sorority sisters were born in 1963-64, the front for the arrival of the new culture.

Or, take Elvis Costello. Did you know his ONLY charting song was "Everyday I Write the Book" in 1983? Before that, no EC song made the "Top 40". Because the baby boomers couldn't relate so well, but the 13ers/Xers understood.

But the true anthem of the early Xers is "How Soon is Now". This brilliant song includes as original a signature guitar riff as you'll ever hear... hard and edgy and a little frightening, it's as closely tied to the song as the opening of "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction". But is there a single "classic rock" station in the USA that has played it ONCE? No. That right there is the defining cultural line; if you dug it, you are 13er/Xer, if not, you are Boomer.

It took until 1993 for another anthem to appear to represent the second wave of Xers.

[xoxoxoBruce]

What you call "crying about lack of opportunity" others see as expressions of legitimate concerns.

The "expressions of legitimate concerns" is the right, if not duty, of every thinking person. The difference lies in if they are expressing these concerns while working to improve their lot or while waiting for someone else (gumint?) to do it for them.

aside- From what I've seen the best shot at equal treatment for minorities and women is through labor unions. While not perfect, because they are run by people, Unions are small enough organizations that if you feel you're not being treated fairly you can interact personally with the leadership. The Union keeps the Company from abusing you (at least abusing you more than others) and if the Union is abusing you, both the Company and the Feds are willing to step in on your behalf. I don't want to derail this thread so if you have a beef with unions please start a new thread.

[elSicomoro]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The "expressions of legitimate concerns" is the right, if not duty, of every thinking person. The difference lies in if they are expressing these concerns while working to improve their lot or while waiting for someone else (gumint?) to do it for them.

Keep in mind, though, that many people believe that the government should take care of such issues. That's not necessarily good or bad...it just is.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by sycamore

Keep in mind, though, that many people believe that the government should take care of such issues. That's not necessarily good or bad...it just is.

I think it's bad and I think it's a product of the welfare system.
That mentality of, it's the gumints job, has been seeping into the thinking of the general public, for the people that grew up in the welfare system as a given and for the people who were not in the system thinking "well if they gumint can take care of those people on welfare they can damn well take care of my problem.
The other thing being "if the gumint can spend $300 million studying the sex life of a tree frog they can damn well take care of my problem".
I think most people will agree that any problem the gumint sets out to handle, is going to cost too much and take too long, at best.

[ladysycamore]

Originally Posted by sycamore

Keep in mind, though, that many people believe that the government should take care of such issues. That's not necessarily good or bad...it just is.

IMO, the government has a responsibility to take care of it's citizens, to a certain degree.

Notice people: I didn't say in EVERY sense, so don't get on my damn case about handouts, etc.

[elSicomoro]

That's interesting, UT. I don't think Strauss & Howe are phony at all, and I apologize if it seemed like I was totally dismissing them.

Having only been a child in the early 80s, I don't have such a detailed reference. From what I've seen, most people over 40 don't get Metallica, Nirvana or Depeche Mode. Many people 25-40 do. Right now, a lot of kids under 25 love bands like Chevelle and The Used...I'm 29, and I don't care much for them.

[Undertoad]

Yup... for me, it was Good Charlotte. Holy crap, they just *suck*, don't the kids see it? What is it with this youth culture!

[elSicomoro]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Yup... for me, it was Good Charlotte. Holy crap, they just *suck*, don't the kids see it? What is it with this youth culture!

They're hit and miss with me...I like some of their stuff. I have a soft spot for them b/c they broke while we lived in DC, and they're from nearby Waldorf, MD. Kind of like how I have soft spots for Philadelphia artists, even if I don't like them (Freeway, Jaguar Wright).

[Undertoad]

Eve and of course The Roots which we have talked about before. Does Philly get its props for turning out such legitimate musicians as its contribution to hip hop?