October 6th Homework

Malerie Brill

October 6^th, 2011

SSN 182.6858

Professor Galvin

“How Urban Ethnography Counter Myths about the Poor” Pages 185-199 (Judith Goode)

In this article Goode attempts to refute the stereotypes of poor people. They are not irrational people. With their limited choices, they make rational solutions to fix their problems. Goode suggests that instead of looking at the people as the problem, we must look at the economy and political structure and fix that.

Family is an important part of survival for the poor. If one home and family is linked to another family, they can help each other out in the harder times. Many families are “doubling up” and moving in together to strengthen that bond of trust. Mullings (1995) showed that many times when people see a black unwed mother with children, they look down on her as being irresponsible and stupid. When in reality, her family is what is keeping her together. The sacrifices she has to make and the investments for their future inspire her to push through life.

Goode discusses welfare programs, and says that throughout recent years, research shows that poor people are not lazy. They want to work. Working in the programs is hard. Many of the providers are dishonest which then makes the welfare workers afraid. The workers sometimes hide things from their overseers and that could cause a lot of problems and make them seem as if they are dishonest as well. That’s why many people resort to underground work.

I think the point of this article was a fantastic one to think about. Poor people should not be categorized as lazy and unwilling to fix their lives. Yes, some do not care, but so many of them do not like where they are at. They want better jobs, they want nicer homes, and they want to provide for their families. We are people stereotype to a fault. If we actually got to know these people, we would see that they are trying very hard to make a better life for themselves and their families.

“Gangs, Poverty, and the Future”  Pages 232-242 (Vigil)

The article “Gangs, Poverty, and the Future” gave us a look into some impoverished neighborhoods (barrios) in Los Angeles, CA and why poverty and gangs go together.  Vigil suggests that the main reason for the rise of street gangs is poverty. Because many of these neighborhoods lack strong families, good education, and healthy law enforcement, gangs replace family, education, and law enforcement. Because of racial discrimination, many of the neighborhoods that have gangs are in spatially distinctive neighborhoods. They are set away from nicer areas. Many Mexicans and African Americans make up a large part of the gangs. It is difficult for youth in these types of areas because no matter if they are involved in a gang or not, they are affected by it. Many people seek out gangs when school or family has failed. For many of them, it is something to keep them safe as they live in their neighborhood. They feel a sense of worthiness in a gang that they could not find anywhere else. Many of the kids join gangs to get attention because they did not get any at home. Most drop out of school because the schools in their area are no good.  The California budget for prisoners is the same amount of money as the Los Angeles school district. The problem with that is that there are over 700,000 kids vs the 150,000 prisoners. The school system is a joke and the drop out rate in the Los Angeles district is 30-59% in inner-city neighborhoods. The kids that do make it through high school usually have a hard time finding good opportunities available to them afterwards.

Reading this article made me very sad. Because of the way many of these children are raised, they usually do not see any other way of living their life. I don’t think this goes for all people living in an inner-city neighborhood, but it is harder for them to get out of it and go make a good life for themselves. I think the government should use money to help the school systems and living conditions in those areas instead of spending it on something unimportant. We tend to avoid those areas and try to forget about them, when in reality, we need to be helping people out of those areas. We should be helping to make better education and job opportunities for them.

“Office Work and the Crack Alternative among Puerto Rican Drug Dealers in East Harlem” Pages 202-216 (Bourgois)

Bourgois talks about why some people deal drugs instead of work. Most of them start out at a young age working. They drop out of school because a job is more appealing. But, the problem comes in when they realize that they are not being treated the same at their job whether it is because of the way they are acting or because of their lack of education. Most of them are males and they have a hard time working in a situation where a woman is in a higher position then them. One man that Bourgois interviewed was named Primo. He started out working in an office. Things went downhill when his female boss would tell people he was illiterate. He didn’t know what that meant, so he had to look it up in the dictionary. He became angry that she was using a word to disrespect him that he didn’t even know. He then goes on to say his crack house franchise owner Rocky would never disrespect him. Primo felt he was more educated than Rocky because he had a GED.  He was more comfortable being involved with dealing drugs than working in a white collared environment. Working in the street, Primo was respected and excelled in the street’s underground economy.

Now days, heroin and crack are still a multi-billion dollar business that affects families living in the inner city.  It is not as open as it once was – now it is run indoors and quiet. Many of those who deal drugs have jobs as well.