Skip to main content

The Unmentionable “F” (Father) Word


Wander into the badlands of any large city in the US, shout out “Father” and nothing will stir. Fathers are rare in this environment; far rarer, shall we say, in the north end of Hartford than they are in posh New Canaan. What happened to them? Have they all fled to the West Bank of Paris to become expatriate artists?

The problem is cultural, say most sociologists. Just as F. Scott Fitzgerald once said of the rich – “They are very different than you and I” – so is the underclass very different than the Middle Class or the Upper Class. No one pauses very long to entertain the question: Why are they different? That is one among many questions assiduously avoided whenever well intentioned liberals get together with equally well intentioned professors of raceology to discuss the equally absorbing question: Why can’t we have an honest discussion on race in America?


Answer: We can’t, among other reasons, because we shy from answering the all-important question posed two paragraphs above: Who killed Fathers in the African American community? Indeed, we refuse to acknowledge its importance. This question cannot be properly probed without mentioning the “U” word – underclass -- and its connection with households without fathers.

“Poverty” is the polite word most often used by polite liberals and more earnest progressives to describe the plight of the unmentionable underclass. And no, people who discuss these things are not racist for having so brashly mentioned the unmentionable; namely, that there is an underclass under the noses of most well-intentioned liberals and that this underclass has become a permanent feature of modern day America.

Poverty in the United States has never been, with some rare exceptions, permanent; in fact the impermanence of poverty is what has driven the desperate poor to the United States since its founding. The boast engraved on the pedestal of the Stature of Liberty -- “Give me your tired, your poor/ Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,/ The  wretched refuse of your teeming shore./ Send these the homeless, tempest-tost to me,/ I lift my lamp beside the golden door” – is a celebration of the impermanence of poverty. But an underclass has since become a permanent fixture of our social order; it is that very thing the huddled masses were hoping to escape in their desperate flight to America, where a steady advancement up the ladder of success was impeded by speedbumps rather than the fortress walls of a class system that in Europe kept the rich in splendor and the poor in rags, more or less permanently.

It seems ages ago that Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York warned us all that the African American family – dad, mom, kids -- was becoming an endangered species. Part of the problem was – and is – that the welfare system replaced Dad with a kind of sustenance that imprisoned people within the system; welfare clients were held in welfare cages on the periphery of poverty. The more they were helped, the more secure and inescapable their prisons became. A welfare state that was supposed to allow movement from temporary dependency to self-sufficiency became a more or less permanent holding cell, a purgatorium whose doors, unlike the door mentioned in the Emma Lazarus poem, never opened upon more hopeful vistas.

How many fatherless children are there in our welfare system? Lots and lots and lots. For the most part, fatherlessness is a precondition for receiving welfare. And many of the younger “fathers” of children born out of wedlock – how ancient that word sounds – have never made it to the alter. Some of them are in prison. Brought up without fathers themselves, they drifted – like ships without rudders, blown here and there by every ill wind. Their children will drift also, unless they are made of very stern spiritual stuff.

Grandmothers and grandfathers, if they have been lucky enough to remain together, may help. Ministers, priests, rabbis, imams, social workers, other siblings and teachers may help. Still, the chance that a young African American boy whose caretakers have relied on a social welfare system that strives inadequately to “play father to the child” will be able to navigate around the pitfalls that lead to gang affiliation, poor marks in school or a prison cell, is considerably more remote than would be the case if the boy were reared under the watchful eyes of a self-sufficient, responsible and employed father who would love and guide him down sure and well-marked paths. Our social welfare system, however solicitous it may be, has no ethical component to it. And that is what a father is: an ethicist more loving than a minister, a welfare provider more solicitous than a welfare system, a defender of his children more fierce and fearsome than a police chief, a lover of the mother of his children more tender and faithful than any fling of the moment.


Sons need fathers. And a society that cared for fathers and sons -- and its own welfare -- would not so perversely ignore the ruin at its door.

Comments

Greg Burns said…
I read a book on economics and technology in the early 70's where the author predicted a permanent underclass in America. His premise was that those lacking in basic language and behavioral skills would be left behind in a high-tech society. Bottom line, they would be without options and unemployable except for very basic, low wage jobs. He predicted that at the very least people will need to be able to read, write and speak to function independently in a civil manner within more structured and disciplined environments. Moreover, the author expressed doubt that proper skill development could be achieved by educational systems alone without the support of a disciplined family environment with the values to encourage academic achievement.
peter brush said…
an ethicist more loving
-------------
The modern democratic state is incapable of love. One might say that it is hostile to love, if one were to simply judge the results of the state's operations. It's inhumanity is manifest in its very architecture. It would be impossible, for example, for the Nutmeg State of Bureaus and Departments to come up with a building as grand, as charming, as lovely as the Capitol. Look at the Leg. Offfice Bldg. next door. Yet, there is precious little doubt that putting our kids in the State's hands for 13 years of "education" is Progress.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan recognized the anti-family, and therefor anti-cultural, effects of welfare back when he worked for Nixon. Yet, when it came to voting for a change Senator Moynihan chickened out while attacking in personal terms Nixon's Silent Majority. Klinton's welfare reform was "boob bait for bubbas."
Welfare is not the only cause of the cultural destruction of the black community. Two other ideas of consequence were the sexual revolution, which asserts that limiting sex to marriage prevents self-fulfillment, and black nationalism, whose manifestations include both grandiose delusions of black achievement and demands for reparations for ongoing victimhood.
Black culture has become merely Anti-. Jesse Jackson said it back at Stanford; heigh-ho Western Civ has got to go. But, there's no suitable replacement for our Constitution and laws, and no replacement at all for Natural Law. White liberals are the main culprits, willing to throw our heritage under the bus to flatter themselves with the idea that they aren't bitter clingers. (But, please, stay out of their school districts.) Those cities with large black populations are particularly barbaric, but barbarism is gradually engulfing the entire country.
----------
bar·ba·rism
ˈbärbəˌrizəm/
noun
1.
absence of culture and civilization.
"the collapse of civilization and the return to barbarism"
----------
The NEA's white liberals -- aided by black teachers, politicians and so-called black leaders -- cooperate to ensure that black parents who want their children to have a better education have few viable choices.

Whenever there has been a serious push for school choice, educational vouchers, tuition tax credits or even charter schools, the NEA has fought against it. http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2014/12/31/liberals-use-of-black-people-n1936579
peter brush said…
from Greek patriotes "fellow countryman," from patrios "of one's fathers," patris "fatherland," from pater (genitive patros) "father"
---------
Malcolm X argued: "The American black man should be focusing his every effort toward building his own businesses, and decent homes for himself. As other ethnic groups have done, let the black people, wherever possible, patronize their own kind, and start in those ways to build up the black race's ability to do for itself. That's the only way the American black man is ever going to get respect. One thing the white man never can give the black man is self-respect! The black man never can be become independent and recognized as a human being who is truly equal with other human beings until he has what they have, and until he is doing for himself what others are doing for themselves. The black man in the ghettoes, for instance, has to start self-correcting his own material, moral and spiritual defects and evils. The black man needs to start his own program to get rid of drunkenness, drug addiction, prostitution. The black man in America has to lift up his own sense of values."
Don Pesci said…
Right, X was primarily a moralist, a more persuasive one, I thought at the time, than MLK. He was assassinated by the agents of Louis Farrakhan, who since has apologized to his daughter.
peter brush said…
a moralist, a more persuasive one, I thought at the time, than MLK
---------------
Speaking of cruddy bureaucratic architecture, the monument to MLK in DC. is a hideous classic of Soviet realism.

King is held in high regard because he scolded us in the key of Abraham Lincoln, and because he carried on the tradition of protest previously established by Gandhi of the Inner Temple and Harvard's Thoreau. He is not noted for encouraging civilization, but for using civil disobedience to fight for "equality." Not only is he primarily responsible for the institutionalization of a black culture of protest, but his protest ethos has been adopted by an ever-growing number of alienated groups indigenous to 2015 Estados Unidos.

Malcolm X may not have been an American patriot, but his common sense advice to the black "community" bespoke a respect for natural law. Unfortunately, the "civil rights" movement subsequently has been dominated by criminals and frauds like H. Rap Brown, Huey Newton, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Charlie Rangle and Barack Hussein Obama. They teach us not to live well, but to forever protest, to question authority, to fight against American injustice.

Nor do our colleges and universities teach us to live well, but to be tolerant as hell and wicked open-minded.
I'd like to hear what Malcolm X might have to say about Sex Week at Harvard.
--------
http://www.hsexweek.org/

“I support sex week because we desperately need to re-examine the way society tells us to value ourselves and to value our bodies. We are worth being comfortable and happy […]Grace Huckins ’16

“I support Sex Week because I can’t stand how it’s socially acceptable for a man to talk about sex and enjoy sex, but if a woman does the same she […]
Don Pesci said…
Sex Week. We cannot too often be reminded of the differences between liberalism and libertinism. Liberalism has had many fathers, libertinism only one -- the Marquis De Sade, though Caligula may have great, great, great... grandfathered the movement. When his mother died, he ripped open her womb because he wanted to see where THE GOD -- i.e. himself -- had been born. Sex week in Rome, don't' you know.
Don Pesci said…
Dostoevsky probably said it best: Without God, anything is possible. And Chesterton said that atheists who do not believe in God do not therefore believe in nothing; they believe in everything -- like Sex Week in Harvard.

Popular posts from this blog

Obamagod!

My guess is that Barack Obama is a bit too modest to consider himself a Christ figure , but artist will be artists. And over at “ To Wit ,” a blog run by professional blogger, journalist, radio commentator and ex-Hartford Courant religious writer Colin McEnroe, chocolateers will be chocolateers. Nice to have all this attention paid to Christ so near to Easter.

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Did Chris Murphy Engage in Private Diplomacy?

Murphy after Zarif blowup -- Getty Images Connecticut U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, up for reelection this year, had “a secret meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the Munich Security Conference” in February 2020, according to a posting written by Mollie Hemingway , the Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist. Was Murphy commissioned by proper authorities to participate in the meeting, or was he freelancing? If the former, there is no problem. If the latter, Murphy was courting political disaster. “Such a meeting,” Hemingway wrote at the time, “would mean Murphy had done the type of secret coordination with foreign leaders to potentially undermine the U.S. government that he accused Trump officials of doing as they prepared for Trump’s administration. In February 2017, Murphy demanded investigations of National Security Advisor Mike Flynn because he had a phone call with his counterpart-to-be in Russia. “’Any effort to undermine our nation’s foreign policy – e