(I apologize; in the first version of this blog, I referred to Kerry Kennedy as Robert Kennedy's son when in fact Kerry is the late Robert Kennedy's daughter. I have fixed it below).
OK, while we debate the definition of poverty (my last post), there still remains the problem of what we do about poverty. I mean, it's one thing to define the problem, but that could take some time.
Meanwhile, nothing gets done.
And what we have done - at least in this country - isn't working.
In a recent Huffington Post column by Kerry Kennedy, the daughter of the late Robert Kennedy, about a totally unrelated topic, Kennedy summed up the problem nicely and very unintentionally when she pointed out:
" ... I couldn't help but think of the trip that my father, Robert Kennedy, made to the Mississippi Delta in 1967. That trip transformed him. He was horrified by the poverty, the children whose bellies were "swollen with hunger"; he believed we had a duty, as a nation, to relieve their suffering and soothe their pain. He returned to Washington determined to extend food stamps to the poorest Americans, despite a cash-strapped administration and an unyielding Congress. Today, the children and grandchildren of those very same families continue to suffer from systemic governmental neglect, the debilitating heritage of communities -- African-American, Vietnamese, Laotian, Native American, and poor white -- marginalized by skin color, religion, education level, income, or access to power. It is long past time for federal action. ..."
Italics are mine.
In 1967, Robert Kennedy determined that it was the duty of this nation to relieve suffering and soothe the pain of the poorest by giving them food stamps. And now, 43 years later, a younger Kennedy inadvertently admits it didn't really work because those same families continue to suffer.
Here's the problem as I see it.
I have written about something called "Maslow's hierarchy of needs'' before. This guy Maslow teaches that humans have a descending order of fundamental needs: physical fulfillment (food, warmth, etc); safety (love, belonging); and self-esteem.
In its war on poverty, the government (through tax payer financing) has spent 50-plus years trying to provide physical fulfilment with subsidized housing, food stamps, etc.
And it has tried to provide safety, although not done very well, by providing child care, pre-school programs, after-school programs, etc.
What it has not been able to do is find a workable method for providing self-esteem.
It's not just the government. Most of our "charities'' - whether secular or church-based - have followed the same model. We're great at providing shelter, food, medical benefits, education, entertainment ...
But it's all about giving. And taking.
Which is not conducive to building self-esteem.
The other day I was listening to a debate between two women over government subsidized healthcare. One of the women, an African-American, confessed that she'd had four government-funded abortions and been on welfare. Then one day she realized that it was too easy not to take responsibility for her actions and decided it was up to her to change her life.
In fact, she practically screamed at the other woman, a Caucasian, saying something to the effect of, "I wish all of you white do-gooders would just leave us in the inner city alone. What you're offering is racism, pure and simple. Providing birth control and abortion is just a way of killing off blacks. All you do is tell us that no matter what we do, you'll be there to fix everything for us. And what has it gotten us?"
The other woman was, as you'd expect, equally angry. She argued that providing health care like birth control and abortion was critical, a right of all people. In fact, she said, it wasn't just poor minorities. She said there were college students who couldn't afford birth control. In fact, she was once one of those young college girls who at times couldn't afford birth control, and where would she be if she hadn't been able to go to the local clinic to get it?
It was suggested to this "white do-gooder'' that maybe if she couldn't afford birth control, she could have decided to abstain from sex or be willing to accept the consequences of her actions, but the woman scoffed as if that was the most ridiculous idea she'd ever heard.
But that was exactly the point: by providing clean-up services, "do-gooders'' take away responsibility. The African-American woman was screaming that the minorities in the poor areas would never learn responsibility if the government was always there to protect them from their consequences.
Somehow, even the most well-meaning "do-gooders'' among us, have to find a way to help people understand that accepting responsibility for their actions is the first step toward understanding their value as individuals, what the Founding Fathers wrote accepted as fact that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights ...'
But those "rights" never meant free food, free housing, free clothes, free health care, free cell phones ( http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_749344.html - Pennsylvanians on welfare get free cell phones).
At the same time, we do have to find a way to treat all people - perhaps especially people in poverty - with respect. Because showing respect for people builds self-respect in those people. Even the most successful person in the world walks a little taller when invited by the President of the United States in for a private meeting at the White House. It's just human nature to feel a little better about yourself when you feel respected.
It's difficult not to treat people with needs as people "in need." It's difficult, because it is human nature to feel superior to someone when you are helping them; just as it doesn't take long for a person to feel less self-respect when he is forced to accept help too often.
See, people need to believe they have some control. Maybe not in the big things, at least not right away. But the little things are a start; decisions on how to live, regardless of circumstance.
Here is where those of us that want to help people in poverty come in.
Poet Maya Angelou said, "
Too many times we treat those we see as having needs as being "in need," and I think there is a difference.
Sometimes there is nothing we can do about the need. But we can let people know all of us have needs, and how we respond to those needs - the decisions we make to address those needs - is what builds self esteem.
You don't determine your worth by how much stuff you have. Poor people have stuff.
More and more, I think the key is respect. Even if it means respecting the fact that someone might not have what we consider to be the basic necessities.
Otherwise, just like Kerry Kennedy, in 43 years we'll be looking around saying, "It's still not working."
You know the definition of insanity, right?
Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.
No comments:
Post a Comment