If poverty leads to crime, then how come Appalachia has a lower crime rate than the national average?
Let's take a look:
Atrocity tourism only works one-way and some who can't get enough of it πΉπΌππ² to gawk at people living in grinding, hope destroying poverty as long as they're not white
They'd probably laugh if you mention the white ghettos in South Africa
Shoutouts to @ARCgov for their incredible work in detailing this catastrophe that people do their best to avoid discussing or even thinking about at all
@ARCgov What comes to mind when you think of the word "poverty"?
Now remove subsidized vouchers paying for modern forced Central Air (HVAC) with which to set at 85F in the dead of winter paid for by tax payers, running water and electricity. Add stoves that run on wood or coal for heat
@ARCgov No government supplied vouchers are sent to Appalachian families to burn said wood either
Don't cut wood = no heat
Not many Section 8 vouchers either for that matter in this neck of the woods. No WIC checks, no EBT cards either
@ARCgov Owsley County, Clay County, Knox County and McCreary County in Kentucky
Or Wilcox and Sumter County in Alabama
Or Quitman County in Mississippi
All synonymous with "slow motion catastrophe" and "entire communities disintegrating" but no one ever talks about it
@ARCgov I always wondered where the reflexive disdain for "white trash" comes from, it often comes from people who've never hung out or partied with them
There's a city/country whites point to be made here, among others. Now that fentanyl entered the server everyone forgot about this
@ARCgov Truly, if anything is systemic, it is the living Hell that make up the lives in Appalachia
RW culture war guys don't like to talk about it cause they're poor. LW culture war guys hate them cause they're white and mock them in ways that defy proper description
Discussing places like Appalachia (or the Ozarks, for example) invoke grinding poverty on American soil so hardly anyone does it
Class is an underpinning of culture yet avoided by the right and grossly misunderstood on the left but through a lens of hating white people
The Mennonites have done more to alleviate the suffering here than the Federal Government and never asked for anything in return. Think about that for a moment
Moonshiners? Sure. Criminals? Of course, they're everywhere. Hilljack scrappers tearing copper wiring out of buildings before the sun comes up? Yup
And yet there is an astonishing lack of gang activity from the people living here, and the crime rate is below the national average
Interestingly enough, there are non-whites who live in abject misery that left wing of culture war avoids mentioning entirely
Indian reservations are home to astonishingly fucked up living conditions. Guess they better start transitioning to get some eyes and ears on them, too
There are numerous factors as to why this is. A declining coal industry, out-of-state corporate interests, drugs (as if someone wants them there, wild how opiates claimed so, so, so many lives in this area), but there's gotta be something else behind it. Right?
Some posit its dey cultcha. In a more developed form, the culture of poverty explanation also informs J.D. Vanceβs argument in Hillbilly Elegy, which he describes as a book about a βculture that increasingly encourages social decayβ in the context of regional economic decline
Others suggest the βresource curse,β or the idea that places with a lot of natural resources are likely to be poorer because resource industries, like coal mining, dominate the local economy and prevent other economic sectors from growing
Just like swaths of the third world
Almost sixty years ago, it was just slightly less fucked up as it is today. Hard to imagine that politicians used to openly talk about this mess
Even harder to imagine people acting on their convictions and do something about it on their own volition
Although the culture of poverty and resource curse explanations provide very different stories for why Appalachia is poor, they are similar insofar as they present Appalachiaβs poverty as a straightforward, apolitical problem to be solved. As they are most often presented, both
the culture of poverty and resource curse just seem to exist - natural problems of the mountains waiting to be fixed by the government, NGOs, or whoever else
As they are most often presented, both the culture of poverty and resource curse just seem to exist - natural problems of
the mountains waiting to be fixed by the government, NGOs, or whoever else Thereβs little room in these theories for history, politics, or the ongoing struggles to control Appalachiaβs resources
Without a doubt, the most popular of the critical theories is the internal colony
model. Developed in the 1970s to provide a political explanation for Appalachiaβs poverty, the internal colony model likens the region's relationship to the rest of America to that of a colony with its colonizer. Under this theory, out-of-state companies came into the region to
In part because it taps into Appalachiaβs deep history of labor conflict, the internal colony model remains a popular explanation among activists fighting against the idea that Appalachia is βnaturallyβ poor. However, the theory has also drawn criticism and for good reason
For one, in comparing Appalachia to historic colonies like India and many African countries, the internal colony model tends to hide the fact that the regionβs European inhabitants did in fact colonize it from Native Americans. Additionally, in presenting a homogenous, victimized
Appalachia, the theory can erase important differences within the region
It also removes the entrenched local elite. Like most culture war guys they can't be bothered and are desperate to stay invisible enough to not let on how oblivious they are to things just a few miles away
You'd figure that of all people, the living examples of physiognomy gone wrong who've never went a day without would point out the obvious like
βSeventy to 90 percent of land in some counties is still absentee or corporate land, and a lot of the coal and timber companies leased
their land from these companies. Harvard University actually still has a chunk of land. Itβs the connection between this land grab and local gatekeepers thatβs importantβ said no culture war guy ever
Its a shame, they have platforms and choirs they preach too who'd listen
Its not just the sissies brimming with macho insecurity, hiding behind Greek statue pfps but look like bike seat sniffers out of a sex offender lineup from a 90s sitcom and their inability to affect change in meatspace
Poverty in 2021 looks different than in 1964 β but the US
hasnβt changed how it measures whoβs poor since LBJ began his "war on poverty" which has been just as effective as "the war on drugs"
In Mark Robert Rank's 'Confronting Poverty' he details, among other things, how the approach that the government came up with in the 1960s is
still - despite its many shortcomings - the governmentβs official measure of poverty and used to determine eligibility for hundreds of billions of dollars in federal aid
This is serious, and warrants attention not just for the issues in Appalachia but from coast to coast
Broadly speaking, poverty means not having the money to purchase the basic necessities to maintain a minimally adequate life, such as food, shelter and clothing
The government came up with its official method for counting poor people in the mid-1960s
First, it asks, what does
it cost to purchase a minimally adequate diet during the year for a particularly sized family? That number is then multiplied by three, and you have arrived at the poverty line. Thatβs it
If a familyβs income falls above the line it is not considered in poverty, while those
third of its income on food and the remaining two-thirds on all other expenses
Therefore, the logic was that if a minimally adequate diet could be purchased for a particular dollar amount, multiplying that figure by three would give the amount of income needed to purchase the
basic necessities for a minimally adequate life
Back in 1963, that translated into a poverty line of US$3,128 for a family of four. In 2019, the same familyβs poverty line stood at $26,172. For an interesting contrast, thatβs less than half what the average American polled in
2013 said was the βsmallest amount of moneyβ a family of four needed to get by, or $58,000
The federal government adjusts the poverty line annually to reflect increases in the cost of living. The cutoff itself varies by the number of people in the household, while a householdβs
annual income is based upon the earnings of everyone currently residing within it
Using this measure, 10.5% of the U.S. population was in poverty in 2019, the most recent data available
Keep in mind, though, these thresholds represent impoverishment at its most opulent level
Among those living below the poverty line, 45% live in βdeepβ poverty, which means they live on less than half of the official poverty line
The government uses the official poverty line as the base to determine whoβs eligible for a range of social programs, from Medicaid to the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. For example, to qualify for SNAP, a household must be below 130% of the poverty line for its size
So, in other words, its not THE reason but A reason why shit is fucked is how the gubmint counts the poor
But Appalachia is a part of The
United States, and while poverty isn't delegated to just one region the issue of miscounting the poor lends itself to this astonishingly fucked up ordeal that for most people who don't live there just fades into the background
Uh oh, there goes that word again. "Poor"
Can't post le ebin maymays about something like that. Nothing you can keep on your phone when it comes up so you can wallow in the crapulence of "haha, I posted it again!"
So its no surprise Appalachia, among other topics often avoided entirely, is a no-go zone for both sides of
culture war
You can't fix a problem you're not allowed to talk about, so callous indifference for one's fellow Americans can easily be masked by silence
If Appalachia can see resolve, then the rest of the country has more than a pipedream of unfucking itself
The hypothetical worse of "it can always be worse" is basically Appalachia. If it were ever anything other than what it is today, then there's no excuse why elsewhere can't improve
Its hard here in America, but they've always had it worse. Speaking of America, that's something
culture war guys on both sides get wrong as if by design. Yes, I know its fun to poke fun at the mincing dandyfops on the right with their Tonka Tuff super huge tough lord macho escapism LARP as much as its fun to laugh at the left with their inability to wrap
their warped minds around concepts like "society dictates language, its not the other way around no matter how much you tweet and scream and insist" or wealth being the one true privilege (although the right excels at sidestepping this truth, but for different reasons). But
there is abundant room for improvement in Appalachia, and in a way its a sad microcosm of these United States
Incremental improvement happens at the local level, but it is the least sexy or exciting thing in the world to discuss compared to whatever passes as news these days
People can, and should, take their cue from Appalachia. People who enacted change there got up off their ass and left no stone unturned because as pointed out earlier - a buncha Mennonites did more than the fucking government as a whole
No one is coming for them, they know this
One day we'll strive towards a more perfect union as laid out in the preamble of the constitution. Despite some drastic shortcomings and weird blind spots in what resembles "discourse" these days - of all the sinking ships in the world ours is the best
God Bless America
So let's round this out with some fancy book learnin' so you can walk away with some context to one of the most beautiful and tragic corners of these United States
I'd like to thank @HillbillyPixie for putting me on to some (most) of these:
>Henley
When Elmer Wayne Henley was fourteen years old, he was approached by a candy factory worker named Dean Allen Corll. Corll had an interesting business proposition: he'd give Elmer two hundred dollars for every boy Elmer brought over to Corll's home
Elmer's friend David Brooks was in on the deal too, and Corll supplied him with a car to make transporting the boys that much easier. Never mind the fact that Brooks was way too young to drive
Match Group controls 80% of more of the dating app ecosystem, which includes Tinder, Hinge, and OkCupid
They have been hemorrhaging money for a year now, and only pulled a little over $3 billion last year
For reference, Facebook is worth over $1.3 trillion right now
They are broke, and just $4 billion will buy a controlling stake in them
But I wouldn't recommend that. The truth is dating apps canβt be scaled further. Theyβre dead end
Western women are at saturation point, in fact their user base is dropping off. Things like Plenty of Fish donβt have any female users below the age of 35 and post 50 the jaded user base falls off a cliff
Roman emperor and Stoic philosopher, born in Rome AD 121, the date of his birth being variously stated as the 6th, 21st and 26th of April. His original name was Marcus Annius Verus
His mother Domitia Calvilla (or Lucilla) was a lady of consular rank, and the family of his
father Annius Verus (prefect of the city and thrice consul), originally Spanish, had received patrician rank from Vespasian
Marcus was three months old when his father died, and was thereupon adopted by his grandfather. The moral training which he received from his grandfather
Rob Rue owns Littleton & Rue INC. Littleton & Rue INC owns Littleton Properties of Springfield LLC which owns many rental properties in Springfield, Ohio
He rents out his properties to Haitians migrants that now make up a third of Springfield using Housing Vouchers which are paid for by the United States Federal Government
He then raises the rent to 3, 4 or 5 thousand a month and the gibs go straight to his bank account
The rise in average age of parenthood is a far larger problem than people realize
One of those things that is well known in the scientific community but no one talks about it because
- the implications are uncomfortable
- it's not in anyone's political interest to talk about it
This is a gross and oversimplified explanation, but here we go:
Older fathers result in all kinds of polygenic and autosomal dominant genetic disorders, and older women literally give birth to genetically older offspring
If a woman gives birth at 40, her kid will be the genetic equivalent of a 5-10yo in terms of genomic ageing
If this kid is a girl, grows up and gives birth at 40, her kid will be the genetic equivalent of a 7-14yo. And so on