Negative Programming and the Term Disadvantaged Youth.

Post Reply New Topic

In America, whenever they are referring to children from impoverished backgrounds from a single parent home, often African American, they call them "Disadvantaged Youth" which sounds like such children will never get anywhere in life, they are destined to fail.


Usually, children from two parent homes aren't considered disadvantaged, but I've been wondering...could they be under certain circumstances, as in, too many siblings? Like if a man and woman have ten kids, but they stay married, and all these kids were born a year or so apart so the mom has to take care of several small children all at once, so she's tired, and even though the man works and might make an ok salary, it doesn't go that far considering all his dependents. This sounds like a situation that is disadvantaged compared to a mom and dad with maybe three or four kids at the most where the dad and mom both have good jobs and can give them all the attention and nurturing they need.

There's a reluctance to call any situation that involves two non minority parent families disadvantaged so why use the term at all, if it's something more than merely a negative programming tool. They use it to program minority kids from single parent homes into believing they are at a disadvantage when compared to everyone else because they believe there's a foolproof way to raise kids and if you follow the formula, everything will turn out perfect so they discount any other scenario as being bad, or disadvantaged when this might not necessarily be true.

Are you saying minority parents are hypnotizing kids into thinking that they are disadvantaged to other kids?

No. I am saying the term "disadvantaged youth" sounds negative and if it has no relevant meaning in the greater scope of humanity. It should have broader implications to include families with two parents and many children.
Did you know many of these disadvantaged ones end up in prison? It's obviously a negative term! Why not just say "kids from single parent families," or "children from families with more than five kids?"

I mean, the needs of an entire demographic of kids could be ignored because they are not recognized as needing services of some kind when, in fact, they could be in dire need of them.

I can easily see how kids in families that are not 'disadvantaged' really could be. If there is no love, and all they get are material things, they could easily grow up to be emotional cripples. This society has a nasty habit of associating wealth with happiness. I don't see a child in a impoverished family as necessarily disadvantaged, when they could get what they really need, LOVE.

I think it gets easier after the 3rd child, from a parenting standpoint. Because as those children get older, they help raise the younger ones and bring them in line with the family's expectations. Other issues, such as financially supporting such a large family, are certainly real, but I think most large families tend to manage.

Single parent minority households are incredibly disadvantaged because of the likelihood that children born in that setting, will never escape the trappings of poverty, are very high. That tends not to be the case with people who have more then 6 kids.

There is no sure-fire way to raise children, but it is a fact that single-parent minority households not only don't do very well in the short term, but also produce children who will spend their lives dependent on governmental financial subsidies just to get by. Many large families also depend on SNAP benefits but for the most part, it doesn't become the way in which they feed themselves for the rest of their lives, and leaving government subsistence, their alternatives for a better quality of life doesn't involve crime.

Bullflop.

Disadvantaged means disadvantaged, meaning lacking advantages.

Having an impoverished background, particularly with only one custodial parent in your life, and the wrong color - that's a lot of non-advantages.

So much in life is down to who you know, and who you are related to. How much money you come from is just part of it.




Large families are the norm where i come from. I have four brothers and three sisters myself. Not a damn one of us isn't doing well, because we come from long lines of learned professionals.

We were never well off. We were in the zone between poor and middle class, frankly. Most of our neighbors were steel workers, and we fit right in, aside from being more bookish.



I think you are making incorrect assumptions here.

It's not that they believe there is a foolproof way to raise kids. I mean sure republicans blather on and on about the plight of the nuclear family, the horrors of single mothers, etc, but they're full of horse crap.

If you inherit over $200,000,000.00 like donald trump, it's hard to fail. It can be done, but it's harder.

Our president is a minority with only one custodial parent, who then died, leaving him to be raised by his grandmother.

He turned out ok because guess what, his maternal grandparents were white hippies. White hippies who could afford to travel and have a place in Hawaii. His mother was named stanley for crying out loud. This is all part & parcel to a lifestyle that means that you can go to a good law school without a whole lot of effort.

So many things in life aren't supposed to be determined by who you're related to, but guess what, in part they are.

Part of it is psychological. Outcomes are determined in part by what you are willing to try to do, and poor minority kids, regardless of how many parents they have, grow up with a limited concept of what they believe they might be able to accomplish. Whether or not pointing out to them that they don't have as many advantages in life as other kids is a part of that, but i don't think it's a big part.

The PC people don't want anyone to feel shame for say under-age pregnancy, welfare, poverty, being fat, being ugly, being dumb, failing school, committing crimes ... NOTHING IS EVER WRONG WITH YOU is their message ....

If something supposedly is, then it's because you are "disadvantaged" somehow.

However, it's a fallacy.

Your are fat , however, it's not your fault; it's because you didn't have enough access to nutritional information.
Your are dumb, however, it's not your fault; it's because you didn't have enough access to learning.
You are a drop out, however, it's not your fault; it's because you didn't have enough support to keep you in school.
You are unathletic, however, it's not your fault; it's because you didn't have enough motivational support to get you involved.

Nothing is ever your fault; it's the fault of the "system".

and GIVE US MORE MONEY to help these "disadvantaged" youths.

The argument assumes that a financial change would affect a better outcome when it might make it worse.

I disagree with the use of that term and nothing you can type will change my mind. It's negative. It implies hopelessness. People should be glad they are alive, not convinced they are forever disadvantaged. Once alive, you can do anything. Most of what you accomplish is possible because you believe you can do it but if people are shoving terms like "disadvantaged" at you, it's like getting the wind knocked out over and over. It isn't fair to any kid to call them that and some people could be disadvantaged that you never imagined are simply because society chooses to ignore their problems since they come from two parent families, they cannot possibly have them.

Isn't it ironic that the War on Poverty has created more poverty? Makes you wonder what the politicians were thinking ( if they were ).

I think school should be a supportive place and it would help if it were. It would keep students engaged, thus, creating a better result.

As for athletics, I always hated being athletic. It was uncomfortable. I hated running in particular. In aerobic classes I was always the most uncoordinated one. I would do well in freestyle, disorganized, creative dance. I hated softball because I had a perpetual phobia about getting hit with the ball and would flinch and run away. I also disliked the long, monotonous process of waiting for other kids to hit the ball into the field so I could catch it. How boring. Basketball was okay but those other people always in my way ruined my enjoyment. One time in volleyball, I got hit in the face with the ball and hated that.

Billiards is alright.

Swimming is fun but when I was younger, I hated swimming across the pool. Being in the cool water splashing around is alright.

Roller skating was always fun and I loved that! No aches and pains or fears there.

I like miniature golf but real golf is boring.

Be wrong all you want.

I grew up with a lot of advantages that most people never had. Those people, compared to me, were disadvantaged.

I am, compared to some, disadvantaged. Compared to say, people named Romney.

Socioeconomic mobility is largely a myth. The vast majority of people in any country stay solidly within their own socioeconomic group throughout their entire life. People escape generational poverty at about the same rate as they win lotteries.

In this country, the the majority of young adults right now can't expect to do as well as their parents did.

I agree. Or to spell things out further, I believe Ana has it pretty much back to front when she claims the term "disadvantaged youth" is designed to harm those blacks who get labelled "disadvantaged". The term is actually primarily designed to harm whites by guilt-tripping them. Really, Ana's post a bit like claiming the term "white privilege" (the term, not the thing - whatever it is) was invented by the system to keep non-whites down.

Of course, if living around whites is so bad for blacks, then racial separation is the obvious solution. I could talk more about who or what is preventing that (hint: not racist white people) but my post would just get removed.

By the way Ana, what happened to those posts you used to make about space gods and suchlike? It seems like you've decided that acting offended on behalf of people of colour is better for your street-cred.

You proved my point! People are disadvantaged in general, so why do we need some negative label? Why not just say, children from impoverished homes? The number of children you have is directly related to whether your family is living in poverty. Why do we have to make out kids from two parent families are automatically fine while the rest are damaged when in reality, there are kids from two parent homes who are just as damaged? All my life I have heard negative brainwashing about how you had to be a certain person from a certain background to be granted the status first class human rather than second class citizen.

Because having only one adult person to take care of you and being the wrong color are additional disadvantages.

We can and should try to help these kids out. Ultimately, escaping a legacy of poverty will require some people to take a chance on them. Both universities and employers will have to decide to accept what they will perceive as risk.

I came from a single parent home and I can tell you there were times when people were jealous of me and when I was jealous of them. It's because kids from two parent homes thought I had less demands put on me and I didn't have such a strict upbringing. They wished their dads hadn't yelled at them, hit them with belts or chewed them out.They envied me for not having to go through that at times. Same with being an only child. At times they jealous of me because I didn't have to deal with siblings and got all the attention from my mom. Anything I wanted, the money was always there because I didn't have a brother or sister wanting something, too. No competition for purses. Everyone said I was spoiled and they looked for ways to limit what I was given out of fear of me being this way. Of course they tried to brainwash me and at times they were successful at depressing me but I was no worse or better off than they and they were no worse or better off than I.
At times I felt lonely and wished I had siblings. I longed for a dad who would go kick ass for me from time to time, too. It's a matter of people wishing for different situations but each one has it's good and bad parts. It leads me to believe we are all advantaged and disadvantaged in our own unique ways.
Look at all the white kids who imitate black culture. They get called wigger but it's more about they envy being black. Black people wonder why a white kid would ever want to be black because they have been programmed to believe black automatically mean "disadvantaged." If that's true, why is it the white kids do not think that? Instead the wear the same clothes, listen to hip hop, try to manipulate their hair into the same styles as black kids. Because of all this negative programming, it doesn't occur to the black kids, those on the outside looking in might actually think their looks and way of life is more desirable.
Then you have black kids who think if they were white, everything would be easy. Because of what we are led to believe by our culture and society, we make assumptions about others that aren't necessarily based entirely in reality and we undervalue ourselves for whatever reason, or we rationalize why it's okay to neglect our own needs based on the misconception, since I am this way, I do not have any needs and am blessed while the others will always be unlucky and underprivileged.

Let go of the idea that anyone is disadvantaged and work from this realization we are all fortunate to be here experiencing life. It's a positive thing and we have the power to do great things with the time we are given. This time is a gift the universe has bestowed upon us all. None of us are disadvantaged. By being born, we are tremendously advantaged! The challenge is to self actualize by overcoming all the lies and negative programming humans subject themselves too only to "psyche" out the competition.