In a recent class we discussed the "phenomenon" of what boils down in my opinion to be the 21st century equivalent of voluntary segregation which in fact is the focus of this piece. Although segregation has been illegal for over hundred years, it appears that many people have decided to evoke an ideal of voluntary segregation. This ideal, while not new in our society nevertheless has the power to inspire fierce opposition and political debate from both ends of the spectrum.
On the one hand those that have acquired the financial aptitude to relocate to what that perceive to be a safer, more appealing destinations should have the ability to do so, others would argue that those that are left behind as a result of their strategical move become more disenfranchised as a result. For the sake of argument, I will attempt to address both sides of the coin and leave it to the reader to decide the right or wrong of it all.
First, the very nature of financial security tends to lead others to locations that were previously unattainable. Insomuch as those that are able to leave as a result of their new found economic status, there remain others that are not able to do so because of their equal financial inaptness as well as various other reasons which I will elaborate on later.
However, one could argue that financial stability alone is not the sole key to the proverbial door of happiness, but the end result of countless efforts, hard-work, not to mention education and the sheer determination of some individuals to succeed and to seek brighter pastures, albeit elsewhere, all while leaving behind the dark cloud of their often times unfortunate past. Therefore, the question bears attention as to why after economic security has been obtained by some, do outsiders seek to force the establishment of what "they" intended to flee in the first place. Why recreate habitats that obviously did not work?
Yet, on the other hand you have those that are left behind as a result of the migration of those like-minded and financially independent individuals. Well, as I stated previously, it is my opinion that financial freedom is not the beginning, but the end result of diligent efforts to afford the "good life." Therefore, mere accessibility to resources minus the basic drive to attain something better in life will result in fruitless attempts by many. As the old idiom states "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink" is truer today than ever before.
Additionally, with the growing number of people on public assistance, there is no real incentive to do better. In fact, it can be argued that the very nature of welfare has elevated the endless cycle of perpetual 'nothingness' and is handed down from generation to generation and this cycle which also facilitates a false sense of 'rewards for doing nothing,' is actually a primary cause of the breakdown of the essential family dynamic which consists of a two-parent household.
Furthermore, as the welfare system provides benefits for single mothers as long as the father of the children does not reside in the home ensures the continuation of this chaotic situation. As such, society's message is loud and clear and those that are apart of the system ensure the cycle repeats. However, I will digress and stay on the topic-at-hand which as I give further thought appears to be more of an issue of class rather than race, but not simply class alone, but class absent the drive which would equate to the eminent failure of these commingled communities.
In conclusion, I will leave on a positive note and state that there is hope for the future and as mundane and generic as it may sound, education is the key to a more positive future and within it does lie the ability to overcome economic and social barriers that still exist today. Yet, the mind-set of all parties involved has to change in terms of willingness to be more accepting and willingness to empower others. Therefore, I ask you, where do you stand and are you wiling to accept and empower others? Time will tell!
