DJ Coma said:
Something that is not being looked at is which race has more people living in poverty instead of which race has more homeless people. Here is an article I found from the US Census Bureau.
"For non-Hispanic Whites, the poverty rate rose from 7.4 percent in 2000 to 7.8 percent in 2001. But poverty remained at historic lows for African Americans (22.7 percent)."
"The three-year-average (1999-2001) poverty rate for American Indians and Alaska Natives was 24.5 percent"
http://www.policyalmanac.org/social_welfare/archive/poverty_statistics2001.shtml
It doesn't have anything to do with the history you guys are arguing over, which I'm not going to get into because they both were fucked and it's pointless to argue something like who got fucked worse. It does show though that when it comes to poverty, Native Americans are right up there Blacks, and in these years, surpassing them in poverty levels.
... :eyecross: ...reading...reading...rea--
! What the hell? An actual argument? An opposing viewpoint with a solid foundation in both logic and research? No insults? No whining and name-calling? What in the HELL is going on here??
This is indeed the way to go. These are very good numbers you looked up. This is not a debate you want to approach, so I will not take it there.
Suffice to say, if the numbers were something like 20% poverty to 50% poverty, I would have no argument. But being as though they are so close, IMO, the driving factor becomes the necessities of life: Food, Shelter, Clothing, etc.
Food having been covered (I believe i covered it, at least), this leaves Housing and Clothing. Natives make their own clothing, so there's that one. Housing-wise...I mean, you can see the numbers.
The Average down-on-his-luck Native American, thrown out in the cold with only the clothing on his back and no place to stay, is better off than the African American in the same position. The Native is, in this scenario, more likely to have a family member or someone else who is willing take them in. This translates to presumably Stronger Families in the Native community (seeing as thought that would be a bitch of a stat to track down, i'll just leave that as an assumption and not a fact.)
In this way....Yes....I believe Natives have it better off. Once you have Individuals and Families, the next steps are Tribes (no pun intended) and then Cities. You could make an argument for lack of political representation, but that in itself is only the icing on an already delicious American cake, if i do say so myself. So you basically have a situation where Natives are more able to have Strong Families that do not leave their people `alone' (knowing what Tribe you're from helps), and a situation where you have 30 million black people that know fuck-all about their history, who could really give a damn about each other.
Its one thing to walk up to a Cherokee, and say "Help me, My Cherokee brother!" in the Cherokee Language. Its another to walk up to some random Black person and say "Man, help a nigga OUT! I ain't got nowhere to go!", no matter the accent.
Thats the main point I didn't set out intending to make, but.....there it goes.
Individual
Family Extended Family <---Most Blacks stop around here.
Tribe
Settlement <--Most Natives end up here, on the Rez.
City
County
State
Nation
World <--Whites aim for here.
When you're Black and shattered at the Family level, with limited Extended family to lean on, and a non-existant Tribe to back you up, that is a situation that places you at the absolute bottom of the...heh heh...totem pole.