James Patterson: "Freedom Is Not Enough"
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-06-10/james-patterson-freedom-not-enough
A renowned historian examines the origins of the Moynihan Report. Released 45 years ago, it described the deterioration of black family life in America's cities. He explores the report's aftermath and the impact of its arguments on modern welfare and family policies.
Guests
James Patterson
a professor of history emeritus at Brown University and the author of "Restless Giant," "Brown v. Board of Education" and the Bancroft Prize-winning "Grand Expectations."
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
As a black woman born into an upper middle class family, I know what was meant by the report. My parents, at my dad's death in 2003, had been married 56 yrs. I am the oldest of five girls. We are all college educated. Our children the same. My husband and I were married, at his death, also in 2003, for 32 years and we have three adult children. There is this consensus in my community that it is fine to have five children by five men. I find it gross. There seems to be more of an impetus to have children than to get an education and a life, first. I have four grandchildren. Our youngest daughter and her husband's children. They have no others, either. I'm a black woman and I cannot understand the mentality.
Unquestionably, African Americans have suffered for generations as the result of discrimination. What no one ever seems to mention is that no one--white, black, brown, red, or yellow--is forced to have unprotected sex with unreliable men, or to have children whom they cannot or will not support. How can anyone who behaves this way expect to complete an education and move out of poverty, and why should people who don't make these poor choices be forced to subsidize those who do?
1. I wish Dr. Patterson would comment on how the term "benign neglect" got associated with Moynihan and how it fueled anger about the report. I don't think Moynihan was a racist.
2. Charles Murray IS a racist who wrote a book and has promoted the view that blacks lack the smart genes to close the achievement gap. Citing him without pointing out who he is was a big oversight.
One of the reasons for the lingering problems of black society is the statement made earlier by the guest' "republicans didn't vote for the civil rights act". This myth has been perpetuated for so long, intentionally and otherwise, that we have black society voting in the 90% range for liberal candidates and ideas. To ignore other modes of thinking simply because of a perceived racism is detrimental to the black community and will continue to remain a serious problem.
How about the role of institutional racism? Has Dr. Patterson read the work of the George Fredrickson on White Supremacy and the "new cultural racism"? The issue of lack of opportunity has never disappeared. In fact, the white middle class is now becoming more like the poor black family.
Does the good professor understand that white men with high school diplomas make as much money as black men with college degrees? The statement that not even jobs can help black people is utterly ridiculous. I guess the explanation is a bad pregnancy gene. Why is the incarceration rate so high? The war on drugs is a war on young black men. He has no idea of about real employment, please talk to someone with real facts, not fake ones.
It's unfortunate that people, such as the last caller, continue to focus on and whine about peripheral issues rather than honestly confronting the fundamental problem that the Moynahan Report identified. Unfortunately, the most salient consequence of that report was the onset of the mortal and moral disease of political correctness which plagues us and threatens to bring us to our knees today.
Thanks to Mr. Moynahan for pointing this out and thanks to the D R Show for presenting this topic.
I teach a pre-kndergarten class for at-risk students. Most of the families are listed as single-parent families. However, a number of them have two parents in the home, and both attend conferences and school functions. While not married, they have been together throughout the child's life. Low-income families often find it difficult to give up food stamps and health care to marry.
This program did not emphasize, enough, the focalpoint of basic factors that still serve as barriers to the quality of African-American life in our country's cities.
Of course, self-reliance and self-awareness are important--in order to improve anyone's lot in life.
But it is no longer as 'fashionable', to point out that societal and institutional racism is still prevelant in our country.
When it comes to something as controversial as racism, and our attitudes towards racism, we need to believe that we are making progress in our country's awareness and our country's objectivity.
But when our country suffers from economic decline, it is still easy to look for scapegoats.
So we, therefore, during these times, tend to look away from what all of us are doing wrong.
Instead, we turn our attention--perhaps somewhat more readily and frequently--toward those, whom we feel, are screwing up.
What about the role of government in getting rid of fathers from family life?
From skewed welfare incentives that mistakenly incentivized families who broke up, to biased family courts that oust good fathers and give custody and control to mothers disregarding fathers, what about the role of government in getting rid of fathers from family life?
I think the nuclear family is important for all of us black and non-black people. We need more support for couples; married and to be married. I wish we had more workshops available for marriage preparation, and established marriages. Couples need information and support to help them nurcher their relationships. A good marriage is the foundation of the nuclear family
I'm saddened and disgusted by this show's attack on poor people. Is DRShow trying to take over the crown for being "Fair and Balanced"? Patterson, Obama, Cosby, and Diane Rehm are all people of privilege who seem to have nothing better to do than criticize poor people for being poor and living under the social ills linked to poverty. If they really wanted to do something about the plight of Black and other impoverished people, they would move to the Black community and offer alternatives instead of attacking poor people in books, speeches, and radio shows.
I do not think that the show nor Dr. Patterson are attacking poor people for being poor. I'm glad that somebody is discussing this very important issue in our society. However I would like to hear a feminist perspective on it. Why is nobody mentioning increasing incomes of black women or creating a society in which women do not have to depend on men financially. Also, it seems to me that the problems in poor families are structural in nature and therefore it doesn't make sense to analyze them through a ideological perspective, such as considering it "to be disgusting" to have children from multiple fathers. A lot of things we are taking for granted in our life are situationally tied to our position in society and access to resources.
I do not think that the show nor Dr. Patterson are attacking poor people for being poor. I'm glad that somebody is discussing this very important issue in our society. However I would like to hear a feminist perspective on it. Why is nobody mentioning increasing incomes of black women or creating a society in which women do not have to depend on men financially. Also, it seems to me that the problems in poor families are structural in nature and therefore it doesn't make sense to analyze them through a ideological perspective, such as considering it "to be disgusting" to have children from multiple fathers. A lot of things we are taking for granted in our life are situationally tied to our position in society and access to resources.
Which is more radioactive -- to point out that societal and institutional racism is still prevalent, or to criticize individuals for the part they play in their own dire predicaments? It's no contest. The former is embraced, regardless of the accuracy of the specific comment, while the latter draws condemnation of "racist" -- even when it comes from the likes of Bill Cosby.
The social ills linked to poverty are real factors, but they are not the most important ones. Individuals who have stopped trying to better themselves and the world in which they live in wholesome and meaningful ways, and have turned instead to making, selling and/or using drugs, reckless sexual conquests, and satisfying their own material or physical urges instead of society's needs are their own -- and our -- worst enemies. This comment applies not only to poor WHITE and BLACK and others of all colors, but to the decadent wealthy.
Poor people who are doing their best and are NOT behaving irresponsibly need not be offended by the comments expressed on this program. People (regardless of socioeconomic status) who are demonstrating a lack of character and moral fiber NEED to be, for lack of a better word, "attacked." As long as we excuse this sort of behavior, regardless of the cause, we are enabling and endorsing it. We will change it only when decent people stand up and decide it is not acceptable and take meaningful action to help bring about real change. Until then, it's up to the individuals. Some are passing the test quite impressively. Too many are throwing up their hands -- or, more appropriately, holding them out to be filled.
Agreed.
Younger people don't realize that there were once not only "moderate' Republicans, and even "liberal" Republicans in the northeast!
50 years ago, so-called Rockefeller Republicans were socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and were vital to the passage of the Civil Rights laws.
Current southern Republicans are either former Democrats, from the 'separate and equal" mentality, or doctrinaire libertarians (i.e. Rand Paul).
So much for "all the problems urban Blacks have come from the War on Poverty", a line very popular in people who say that they hate government interference but who often, I'm afraid, are just in love with inequality---some people can't feel high without knowing that "other people who aren't like me" are very low, either because of God's Will (Calvinism), genetics (racism), or the actions of the Most Holy Free Market (Social "Darwinism", better described as "Dumbed-down Spencerism").
They started as low as they could be, because we made sure of it (see: laws against teaching slaves to read). When they started to develop a middle class in the South, we invented Jim Crow; things were so bad in the South that they were willing to completely change their way of life and move to a cold, urban, place, because there were _jobs_ there...then the jobs went away.
Of course the Great Society screwed up some things. One of the principles of liberalism, as opposed to doctrinaire modes, is the willingness to try things, and then try something else when they don't seem to work. FDR did pretty well thereby, but Mr Nixon had little sympathy for the basic ideas of the Great Society (he tended toward the racist theory that nothing could be done for these brutes, and didn't mind white people's being poor if they still voted for him for cultural reasons), so it was more a matter of letting funding and/or oversight dry up, a receipt for failure.
Freedom is not enough, since the system of private property (which I basically like) inevitably creates artificial property forms that tend to beggar those already on the bottom. (Thomas Paine believed that every child, on attaining her majority, be compensated richly for the fact that what had once been unclaimed resources had been privatised, with the assistance of the State's brute force.) Freedom is not enough if the only choice you ahve is "bad' or "worse", or even Hobson's.
In explaining and understanding why so many births in the U.S. today are out of wedlock, social researchers might want to examine the impact of the many famous and wealthy movie star and celebrity couples who have children out of wedlock. Not sure what such a research project would reveal, but movie stars and other celebrities in our socielty are trend-settiers on other matters.
Diane Rehm could have been much less deferential to James Patterson's claims that people who are critical of Moynihan's portrayal of poor African American families are simply 'shooting the white messenger'. We have had four decades of debate over this question and the opposing side was not given any voice by Diane Rehm and, when callers raised some of the relevant points, they were not answered. Professor Patterson seems to believe that Freedom IS Enough, since at least three times he suggested that no government action in favor of equality and could or should happen. Rather, he suggested that poor black people 'have to get it together'. He noted that conservatives at the time thought that nothing should be done for poor black people because they couldn't change. Now he seems to be one of them. Rather than being a lost opportunity to do something, by his logic the Moynihan report was a lost opportunity to do nothing. Diane Rehm should have on a critic of the whole underclass approach, like Adolph Reed.