When candidates for President of the United States choose to play to racial stereotypes, it does little to educate and improve race relations among a growing ethnically diverse electorate. The travesty and tragedy of resorting to using distorted, divisive and derogatory languages and images to describe a whole group of people have untold, and unfortunately, lasting consequences.
Republican Candidate Newt Gingrich’s description of poor children is one of those tragic travesties. Gingrich said recently, “Really poor children, in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day, they have no habit of I do this and you give me cash unless it’s illegal.”
At the end of this column, I offer Mr. Gingrich a characterization of rich children. It would be great to hear his response. Who does he think the characterization describe?
No in his description of poor children, Gingrich did not use the words black children or Hispanic children. But as you heard or read his comment, did poor white children immediately come to mind?
When scholars, politicians, and pundits normally refer to the poor in America, who are they talking about?
But the harm does not stop there. Gingrich would have you to believe that ALL poor people are lazy; no one works in neighborhood after neighborhood; and those that do only sell drugs? He, in one statement, dismisses ALL of the working poor adults, many of them working two jobs to support their families as well as doing what they can to give their children a good future.
Has he ever heard of the working poor – black, white, Hispanics, and other ethnicities? He does not have to look very far into the backgrounds of black leaders from his own party. Does he know anything about Colin Powell? What about the parents of Herman Cain?
Many blacks who earned a good living being laborers, janitors, garbage workers, etc. and who built middle class lives, came from poor families, poor neighborhoods. Graduates from college, who become teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, and yes politicians, have more often than not come from poor families and neighborhoods.
Newt Gingrich also forgot that the vast majority of poor people in this country are white. So is he also calling poor whites, lazy with children who never see them go to work unless it is to sell drugs?
An informed electorate is a powerful electorate. The public should not let Newt Gingrich or any other candidate paint a great portion of the American population with a false a divisive broad brush.
Yes, many poor children – whites, blacks, Hispanics, and others – have parents who do not have full time jobs or a good education. But the reasons go far beyond them happening to be poor and choosing to live the “Life of Riley.” Living daily in poor neighborhoods – with poor housing, poor schools, high crime rates – is not exactly a life of luxury.
I suppose Mr. Gingrich will also say that American history, policies of wanton racism and discrimination had nothing to do with breeding and perpetuating the plight of the poor. Even worst, Mr. Gingrich seems to think that he, if he were to become President, nor the government and its policies should have anything to do with making it better.
What would Mr. Gingrich think of a comment like this to describe all rich children?
“Really rich children, in really rich neighborhoods have no habits of working hard and really have nobody around them who have earned their money without exploiting, gouging, and cheating others. So literally, they are insensitive to the plight of the middle class and working class. They have a sense of entitlement when it comes to getting into the best schools or getting the best jobs whether they are qualified or not. They have no sense of working and pulling themselves up by their boot straps because they were born with silver spoons, all the boots, clothes, and cars they need, afforded them by the exploitation of others.”
What do you think, Mr. Gingrich, is that an accurate description of rich children? It sounds very similar to your characterization of poor children. One could argue, however, rich children have gotten the better end of the deal.
What do you think?
Comments
Wrong
I already am thinking it is a poor idea to comment on such a poorly written and ignorant article. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Gingrich supporter in the least bit, but I think this needed to be addressed. I believe the main problem the author had that started this article was a statement that Gingrich made where he characterized children in poor neighborhoods in a negative light. Now for a minute lets think. If a neighborhood is very poor, isn't it to assume there are few people with full time or even part time jobs.now assuming there are few jobs, there are few people with jobs. Which means there are few people for children to look up to who are going to a job on a regular basis. If you are brought up around people who are not working or being productive, wouldn't you assume that it was the norm and you would let your life take its course to end up that way? I am personally a big believer in nurture over nature. The way you are brought up is going to that precedent in how you form your life. This is also why I disagree with the statements made about rich children. I come from a well to do family and personally have had a job since I was 15. Just because one is well off doesn't mean one automatically has no sense of working hard. If you are brought up in an unproductive environment, then that is what you will become accustomed to and it will become a tragic circle of looking for assistance and not trying to better the group. The last thing I want to touch on is the fact that the author stated that Gingrich seemed like he wasn't responsible for making things better. I think it is the exact opposite. It is partially our governments fault that there are the chronically poor. Over the years, the government has made it too easy for people to get assistance and not be productive themselves. We need to start forcing people to get up and make a change for themselves. Not sit around and wait for an opportunity to come to them.
Agreed
I completely agree with the cirticism that you are offering about this article. It is one-sided and stererotypical itself. I also come from a middle class family but choose to start working at 16 and have not stopped since. I did not work because I had to necessarily in the beginning but just because it felt right and my work ethic is strong. Children do watch those around them and although they will follow by example they can also decide to change at some point and follow their own path. I completely agree with your statement about the government making assistance too easy to obtain. Where is the motivation to work when the government is paying you not to work?
Reply
I agree with you completely on what you have said. I would like to take it one step farther with the government. I agree that the government has made it easy to get assistance and with that I believe that do not show any benefits for people to work hard. The government gives people money to stay home and collect unemployment and then taxes people at a high rate who are working hard and earning money to support themselves.
wrong
I think the basis of your argument is ignorant in a way. First of all what he said about rich people was supposed to wrong. He did it on purpose to say that you can't generalize people like Gingrich did in the first place. Second he pointed out how most people do have jobs or even 2 jobs to support there family so that's obviously the complete opposite of lazy. His other point that you obviously missed is the racial derived policies and oppression in this country that still exist has lead to most of the people being in this situation in the first place. Many black people entire lineage lived in poverty due to racism that even after civil right, jobs didn't hire them. Have you ever heard of the Good ol' Boy system? the one that only hired whites to higher positions in businesses. Living in poverty is an automatic set back. Coming from the inner city i know this more than anybody how hard it is because everything works against you including horrible school systems that are basically a joke and a continued sense of feeling like your not supposed to do better. Is it possible? yes but is it harder than somebody in a middle class family living in the suburbs? absolutely. I'm not saying middle class people don't work as hard but your naive if you think being born into a middle class situation isn't a head start over poverty.
A Passionate yet Flawed Article
I do agree that this article seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to Mr. Gingrich's statement. Perhaps it is my current status as a student that makes me consider his statement from a theoretical standpoint. Specifically, I am left wondering if Mr. Gingrich (or his speech writers or advisers) had any sociological background. If they did, they might have considered making his point in a different, more palatable way. Perhaps they could have leaned on learning theories (e.g. differential association) and framed it such that having a lack of positive (i.e. working) role models led children from poor neighborhoods to form positive associations with daily routines Mr. Gingrich finds detrimental to being productive. What about Swidler's Toolkit Theory? Maybe he could have suggested specific survival techniques (e.g. navigating the social welfare bureaucracy or even leveraging it to the best benefit) were being passed along instead of how to get into a good school or complete a successful job search. But then, that comes dangerously close to suggesting a culture of poverty and, in all likelihood, would garner even harsher condemnation. While I agree it was a poor choice of words on Mr. Gingrich's part, I think it is a stretch to characterize it as a racist rant.
Wrongly Interpreted
Gingrich brings up a valid point that childhood development is strongly influenced by the environment of the child. In addition,he does not target one race of people which in my opinion does not necessarily make this statement one that is racist. I think it is important to create opportunites for the poor children in order to pull them out of the vicious cycle of poverty.
It is true that he does not
It is true that he does not target one race of people, but when you think about it, he is a republican candidate. Most politicians would choose their words wisely, but you can also see the gap in the statement he made. In his speech, it can be implied that he feels most poor people are likely to do negative actions, resulting with the criticism that he does stereotype.
Stereotypes
Personally, I have to agree with this article that Gingrich is negatively stereotyping poor individuals. The writer poitned out arguments such as how he felt poor people were likely lazy and want easy money. He is very one-sided in his opinions and it could be seen that he is very ethnocentric on his opinions of the poor.
one sided article
This article is one sided in my opinion. I think it capitalizes on the fact that Gingrich talked about poor families and did not make a rich statement as well. It may be a stereotypical statement to make but how untrue is it? I know that there are people who are working hard to support themselves but in my opinion and from what I have seen, I think it is safe to say that many people are collecting off the government and have no intention of developing a work ethic to be successful.
I agree that the article is
I agree that the article is one-sided but again you are making an assumption just as the article is about poor people. We are automatically stereotyping them as never wanting to work when maybe the majority actually want to...that is something we do not know and shouldn't assume
newt gunray
This makes me think of how young this countryis yet how deeply divided our country is towards race. The Earth is over 6.5 billion years old and the United States has been around for a little more than 200 years and in those 200 years the United States has managed to discriminate against just about every race imaginable. In that time I am actually impressed how subtle politicians have become in pointing which race causes the most problems without directly pointing them out or how just about anyone can be insulted by anything and all things politicians say and do.
Race is always involved
I just think it is crazy that we still segregate statistics based on race. Race will continue to be in our society and will never be erased becuase it is just the norm now. Stereotypes are so common in society and this article just examplifies it in both race and economic class. Our society will be divided forever with these stereotypes.
Further thinking.
Unfortunately, I agree with you that race will continue to be a factor in politics and societal outlooks on the world. However, if we recognize this, then why aren't we doing something to stop it? One obvious way to do this is to send a message to Mr. Gingrich that people don't agree with his statement and that his comments are a prime example of the perpetuation of racism in society. Politicians, or at least good politicians, are supposed to unite people together, not tear them apart based on race, gender, social class, etc...
Overgeneralization
Gingrich's comment is a perfect example of a broad generalization by a politician. "Poor" is such a subjective term. What constitutes poverty? For some people, poverty can be measured monetarily but it can also be measured in terms of ones experiences in life. To say that poor children will have "no habits of working" is completely false. We have seen time and time again in history how people from an economically disadvantaged background rise above their circumstances to become highly successful in life. Just because someone is "poor" does not mean that they aren't doing everything they can to support their family, which can include a low paying, degrading job. There are so many factors that Gingrich is unaware of (why someone may not be working, etc...) that it is rude and un-American to make such a oversimplified remark. I in no way would ever support Gingrich, or any Republican candidate for that matter, and this is a perfect example of why.
Working Hard or Hardly Working?
This Article talks about a common misconception that people have today. People see poor people as lazy because they do not have money and if they were not lazy they would have money and not be poor. Poor people are really not all lazy, just like all rich people are not all hard workers. Those who are poor and struggling to get by typically are the one's that work the hardest. When poor people are called lazy, it makes no sense to me. These "lazy" people work more than one job most of the time to try and support their families. Its funny how rich people are seen to do a lot when in reality they usually have other people do their work or they just inherit their money. I wish people gave credit to those who are struggling because they deserve credit for their work too.
I would like to add to this
I agree with you and would like to add that laziness and hard work are relative to many factors including culture. Some people are also more efficient with their time usage. One person can accomplish in an hour what takes another 8. Does that make either of them lazy? Everyone has different strengths and weaknesses and that is what compliments one another in our society so that we can work together. One the surface it may look like one is working harder but is the others contribution any less valuable because they didn't sweat? If we didn't have the janitors of the world what would it look like? In a business everyone becomes equal really fast if you run out of toilet paper. Different opportunities and talents is what brings us to where we are. I have no issue with anyone doing any job so long as they do their best at it and are happy. I would also add that it is important that they respect others as well as themselves.
I agree
I think I wouldn't think that he meant it specifically for those races if he wasn't stressing this point in South Carolina which is historically one of the more racist and conservative states. I'm not saying being conservative is the same as racist but many racist identify with that political view. Another reason I believe this article is Gingrich's other comments saying,"African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps." This is obvious racism that he used to play towards the audience he knew would identify with this and people who probably didn't know that the overwhelming majority of people on food stamps are white people. The other problems you can argue are just generalizations that are being misunderstood. This quote is not. Which leads me to believe it was a subtle racism in an attempt to grab the southern vote. You can't look at our history and act like racism in or past has not contributed to most of the poverty for African-Americans, Hispanics and others and the sad fact is people don't credit this stuff because tv and movies tend to portray these people as lazy and always on wel-fare (although you can only be on it for 6 months)or just drug dealers or thugs. Is there some truth to this yes but it's still wrong to generalize.
Always be differences
After reading this essay and the previous comments, I find it difficult to understand why our society today still struggles with issues of race and discrimination as a whole. Every individual will always hold their own opinion and feel strongly about it, what I don't understand though, is why exactly we feel the need to continually discriminate and criticize. Especially through the discussion of poor people in this essay, the argument is very one sided and I believe this to be an accurate depiction of our society. Why can't we all just appreciate others differences accept them?
What can be done
I do believe that stereotyping has unfortunately become such a common practice that escaping it becomes nearly impossible; but while Gingrich’s comments are a bit unsettling, it’s merely an opinion, just like that of the person who wrote this article. And because we can’t control the opinions of anyone (nor should we want to), in the end, I don’t feel that it matters all too much. Yes, an understanding of others is ideal, but we don’t live in an ideal world, and when we get down to the core of things, whether or not those around us participate in using such generalizations, we are only each responsible for the ways in which we as individuals speak and act; the fact that others make racist or discriminating comments doesn’t have any bearing on the lives of those around us or even those that are being spoken about. With this in mind, I believe that the only thing that these comments do is give us an insight as to who we wish to surround ourselves with, or in this case, elect to lead our country. In short, I just don’t think it matters all too much what people say because its something that is out of our control, we can only do our best to understand each other and lead by example.