In which I pit aspects of the African American culture of today [Archive]

EvilHamsterOnCrack

03-29-2005, 06:14 PM

AKA: "In which I make many many people mad at me"

-------------
Let me start this off by saying I'm not a racist. I'm a hippie liberal, multicultural, tolerant person, anything but a racist. It is in fact for the SAKE of MLK and the civil rights leaders and prominent blacks that I make this rant, so that their great work doesn't get shoved down the toilet.

Bill Cosby is right. A culture that glorifies thugs, idiots, and "ghettoness" is wrong. I go to a public high school, and I have friends who are black. These same friends are made fun of as "acting white" because they actually have good manners, speak normally, dress normally, actually work in school, and don't try to act like idiots. Does noone else see a problem here? I have nothing against black people, and I hate to see this happening to our youth. Since when is it cool to fail out of school and act like a retard all day? And not because you're stupid, but because you want to live up to a standard of cool that revolves around acting the dumbest you possibly can. I can understand culture differences, where different cultures do things differently, for a variety of reasons. What I don't get, is that african americans have come so far since the 50s, MLK's dream realized, we HAVE the same opportunities, but so many kids I see just throwing it away. I see all the problems in inner city schools, and thus I can understand the problems there, and I want the government to step in, actualyl create good programs in those areas, for those underprivledged kids who have nothing else. My problem is with the kids here in suburbia. We go to a perfectly fine school, with relatively good facilities and reasonably good teachers (that's not saying much but still), but when there is a self imposed standard of just pure idiocy, it tears me apart to see such potential go down the drain for "coolness".

Now I know that I will get posts here calling me a racist or a bigot, but I'm not. And I see the same problems among many kids of other cultures, but it's fairly obvious where it's prevalent. What I want to know is... am I looking at this the wrong way? Is there somethign I don't see? I want to be educated, just help me out, or at least to discuss this.

EvilHamsterOnCrack

03-29-2005, 06:18 PM

whoops, forgot to include the bill cosby quote:
[I]"People marched and were hit in the face with rocks to get an education, and now we've got these knuckleheads walking around."[/quote]-Bill Cosby

pizzabrat

03-29-2005, 06:32 PM

It's the best way to get laid.

EvilHamsterOnCrack

03-29-2005, 06:38 PM

It's the best way to get laid.

So is GHB.

tomndebb

03-29-2005, 06:43 PM

World Eater

03-29-2005, 06:53 PM

I think all kids these days seem to be knuckleheads, each group for their own reasons.

duffer

03-29-2005, 07:04 PM

If you're still in High School, I'm impressed. You're well on your way to earning full rights and privileges of Doperdom.

Though I would agree that the disclaimers should be ratcheted down a bit on the racist front. Just accept the fact that someone, someday, is going to accuse you of being racist. Keep yourself above the fray and you should do fine. You're years ahead of where I was at your age.

In other words, good OP. Never lose your common sense. :)

pizzabrat

03-29-2005, 07:11 PM

Your post has some worthwhile discussion points, but you would probably get a better and more thoughtful reaction if you didn't spend 10% of your effort trying to beat us over the head with the idea that you are not racist. Just make your point and move on.

Similar discussions have been held on this board, in the last year, including:

What went wrong with Black Americans? (http://boards.straightdope.com/rsdmb/showthread.php?t=297604)
Bill Cosby attacks some in black community again (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=264499)
Cosby continues to "hit the nail on the head" (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=264458)

Those threads suck. They're just a bunch of fogey-style, misguided rehashings of stereotypes in an unconstructive attempt to blame and criticize. This is the first time I've seen someone on this board mention the "cool" factor - that blacks are expected to be "cool" above everything else, which is an actual phenomenon, something that makes me think this is a genuine observation and cry of frustration rather than a lazy hate-rant.

Anyway, of course you notice it in suburbia - that's where a person's "black identity" would be most in question. You have to black-it-up extra out there to prove that you can still handle yourself on the streets. I grew up in a mostly black area where no one really felt the need to doubt their blackness, but I went to an HBCU that was a magnet for black identity-crises victims.

Harborwolf

03-29-2005, 07:12 PM

Geez man, when the hell did we allow the grand dragon of the kkk poster priviliges?

Well, somebody was going to do it. Figured it might as well be me.

Duffer is right. Sooner or later somebody is going to call you a racist. It will be undeserved, but it likely will happen. Just know that you are not and move on.

brownie55

03-29-2005, 07:45 PM

Well, fuck me, but I am actually going to try to respond to the OP or "Silly white boy" I can hear you giggling now.

It's not about any of that, it's about really saying something. I grew up in an era when nigger was as accepted as hello. Yeah, it hurt a lot of people, but it also allowed those same people to rise above it and become stars. People like those that sweated and suffered with me in the 'Nam era service. We both got spit on for wearing the same uniform at a time it was not cool. Never mattered to us, we knew what it took, and those civilians that spit on us, well, we took it together.

Those of you that would look at stereotypes, Well, fuck you. I'll take the man that I bled with over your posturing today, tomorrow, and yeah, forever.

Today, maybe, cool wins, but give people a real issue, the differences fade. Squeal a bit, but how many "racist" emails do you see coming back from where our troops are together? Links to"racist" e-mails from the current conflict?"

ReuvenB

03-29-2005, 07:52 PM

I understand where EvilHamster is coming from. I, too, go to a public high school (in fact, i'm pretty sure a lot of dopers do). I don't, however, see black kids getting called "white." Maybe I'm missing it. But the African-Americans in my AP Physics class (and trust me, we are the dorkiest of the dorks. the proud, the few, the elite, the physics geeks) have never been called white, or if they have been, they've never told me or anyone else.
Yes, I see the kids who act stupid in order to look cool. If you missed my rant on the counseling office at my school, then I'll tell you that I've been placed in a Magnet 10th grade English class, when I'm a Junior who passed 11th grade English with an A last year. Let's chalk it up to a bit of human error.
Now, in my English class, where I see this phenomenon occur, it's not just black kids. It's also the white kids. And the Hispanic kids. It's anyone who feels like "being cool." Why making life a living hell for the teacher, selling drugs, and beating kids up makes you cool is beyond me, but I'm not trying to understand. What I am trying to say is it's not merely a "black" problem. It's everyone's problem.

SteveG1

03-29-2005, 08:00 PM

I think all kids these days seem to be knuckleheads, each group for their own reasons.
Every generation is a bunch of knuckleheads, according to the previous generation. That's why we all pass down such fairy tales and lies such as:

In my day kids had respect.
In my day kids did what they were told.
In my day we ate dirt and were thankful for it.
In my day we walked barefoot, in the snow, uphill both ways to get to school.
In my day, kids were seen and not heard.
In my day we ate our disgusting veggies because people are starving in Europe/Asia/Africa/whatever.
In my day blah blah blah blah blah.

Everyone alive could call bullshit on the above "In my day" stories.

We all swore to Almighty Og we would never repeat this when we grew up. Guess what. We do. :D

Face it. We were all knuckleheads, and age has nothing to do with it. I'm still a knucklehead. I've learned to go with the flow and enjoy it.

Nightime

03-29-2005, 08:41 PM

What I don't get, is that african americans have come so far since the 50s, MLK's dream realized, we HAVE the same opportunities

I wouldn't go quite that far. Most racism is not so obvious. It's actually so invisible that even the people perpetuating it don't realize they are doing so.

For example, one of the most destructive things for black americans in the 20th century was that whites would move out of neighborhoods when blacks moved in.

The reason? Blacks moving in lowered property values. Whites were scared the values would go even lower, so they sold.

See? No racism at all, just good economic sense.

And it resulted in the fact of blacks having much, much less financial worth on average. I think this kind of thing is still pretty common today.

Then there are things like how asians who came to the country with money and education are compared to blacks, and people ask why blacks don't act like them. Nice.

Having said that, it sucks to call anyone names because they want to work hard or perform well academically.

threemae

03-29-2005, 09:48 PM

I'm certainly not planning on flaming the OP, and I believe you when you say that you aren't a racist.

That said, it needs to be stressed that some black students are under pressure from some cultural ideas that stress hipness over intellect, but certainly not all. I go to a college so white that looking out over the glistening during the lunch hour can cause permanent blindness, but I'd say that I have a disproportionate number of blacks in my biochem classes than in the college as a whole.

Basically, like all of adolescensce, these things too will fade. And I think that looking at real statistics rather than making vague guesses from personal observations will reveal that, demographically, black and white people are now more demographically similar than they've ever been and the gap in income, availability of health care, employment, etc. continues to decline. Basically, I can't look at real statistics and say that black culture or youth is any more emperiled than it was before or that things are suddenly getting worse. The black kids in your high-school that unfortunately feel pressured to dumb-it-down will eventually leave high school and it's associated pressures and rise to their natural level of ability. Hopefully they'll end up in college where they can be in an environment that nurtures rather than criticises intelligence sooner rather than later.

Also, even though there were no racial overtones to it, I felt pressure in high school too to not be a "dork." I did all sorts of stupid things like smoking weed, driving recklessly, drinking excessively, and not particiating in class to (unsuccessfully) prove that I was cool and nothing horrible came of it in the end. This was nothing intrinsic in the white culture of the day, it was teenagers being teenagers.

Raising academic standards and creating challenging public schools where learning is valued is the answer, and I see no reason to be particularly worried about how "black culture" of today will wreck decades of progress in approaching equality.

shy guy

03-29-2005, 10:09 PM

I agree with threemae.

If we judged white people by what they were like in high school, we wouldn't come away with too favorable a view of them, either. Teenagers in general glorify "thugs, idiots, and 'ghetoness'" in various forms and always have.

FinnAgain

03-29-2005, 10:51 PM

I don't think this is unique to any one ethnic group. As part of my graduate studies I'm in a multicultural issues class, and I hear this sort of thing all the time, by people who are getting MA's and PhD's !

In academic jargon, 'whiteness' is the 'culture of hegemony' round these parts. We've had several people in the class, especially white women oddly enough, point out how uncool they are and how their students point out all the time 'how white' they're being.

I've tried in vain to point out this is as racist as to talk about 'how black' someone is being, but to no avail. I think the lunatics now have the keys to the asylum, and I doubt this phenomena is going to get better. After all, 'acting white' includes using proper grammar, knowing facts, etc... And we sure as heck can't have that, now can we? Just wouldn't be cool.

brickbacon

03-29-2005, 11:54 PM

Bill Cosby is right.

Bill Cosby is an old angry man who is out of touch with reality. Very little of what he said was insightful or meaningful.

A culture that glorifies thugs, idiots, and "ghettoness" is wrong.

Please point to a time in history when thugs and idiots weren't glorified. They are few and far between. That is the normal order of things. If you really want to stop this glorification, you can tell white people to stop buying rap records and seeing gangsta movies. That's not gonna happen.

I go to a public high school, and I have friends who are black. These same friends are made fun of as "acting white" because they actually have good manners, speak normally, dress normally, actually work in school, and don't try to act like idiots. Does noone else see a problem here?
The issue is far more complex than you make it out to be. I certainly agree that it's a problem, but to describe the problem in the way you did will not lead to any meaningful changes.

What I don't get, is that african americans have come so far since the 50s, MLK's dream realized, we HAVE the same opportunities, but so many kids I see just throwing it away.

This is ridiculous. If you really think blacks and whites have the same opportunities, you are tragically myopic. In fact, many things have gotten worse for blacks since the 50's. While much of the outward racism is gone, it's not far beneath the surface.

Now I know that I will get posts here calling me a racist or a bigot, but I'm not. And I see the same problems among many kids of other cultures, but it's fairly obvious where it's prevalent. What I want to know is... am I looking at this the wrong way? Is there something I don't see? I want to be educated, just help me out, or at least to discuss this.

I think what you are missing is that black people are a large, eclectic group that cannot be "understood" anymore than one can understand white people. I get tired of having this discussion all the time. Many of the things you mention are seen as wrong and retarded because people view societal standards by what white people do. It's a very ethnocentric way of looking at things.

For example, this "thug behavior" you castigate didn't begin when black music/culture began to influence the mainstream media. For every rapper that Bill O'Reilly complains about, there are a dozens white actors, musicians, and artists that get a pass for promoting the same types of behavior.

Another example is how many people decry the use of black slang (esp. on this board). This is the height of arrogance and stupidity. White people have been changing the language as they see fit for centuries. Yet, when Black people do it, it's ignorant and "a sign that we can't learn the language". It's usually not a matter of colloquial language interfering with comprehension. It's more about people prejudices.

Also, the fact that White America insists on keeping a collective "permanent record" of everything bad any black person has ever done, then asking every black individual to account for these things, and be responsible for the behavior of others doesn't help. It's pretty damaging to the psyche when you are asked to atone for things you has nothing to do with.

Basically, I think understanding how/why things are they way they are has to focus more on the source of the problem.

FinnAgain

03-29-2005, 11:59 PM

brickbacon

03-30-2005, 12:27 AM

Cite?

If don't realize that every Black journalist has suffered because of Jayson Blair and that every young Black kid suffers because of things [insert rapper] has done, then there is no point in having this discussion. Every time a famous Black person screws up, you can expect a referendum on why Black America is failing society.

Seems then that 'White America" would be an odd phrase to use.
How so?

FinnAgain

03-30-2005, 12:33 AM

If don't realize that every Black journalist has suffered because of Jayson Blair and that every young Black kid suffers because of things [insert rapper] has done, then there is no point in having this discussion.

So in other words, no cite?

Every time a famous Black person screws up, you can expect a referendum on why Black America is failing society.

Got a cite for that one too? Or does it also have to be taken on faith?

How so?

Hrm... I thought it was pretty clear. If you can't speak to what 'black people' are doing any more than what 'white people' are doing, then it's somewhat squirly to turn around and talk about what 'White America' is doing.

Greathouse

03-30-2005, 09:39 AM

brickbacon, why are you so angry?

Must be all that rap music.

Weirddave

03-30-2005, 10:09 AM

SteveG1

03-30-2005, 10:20 AM

Oh great, brickbacon has shown up to show us the "real reasons things are the way they are": It's because black people are black, and all of us evil white people are keeping them down. No, don't argue or expect cites, that's just how it is, and if you don't just roll over and admit it, you're a fool or a tool. :rolleyes:
Yup, that's it! Damn I love having that kind of power! What a rush to know I can crush total strangers, at will, and don't even need a reason. ROFL.

It isn't that way people, those of us of the "caucasian persuasion" don't keep anyone down, we don't want to, we don't have the power or the know-how, we have enough problems running our own lives. Only the crazies in the funny uniforms and the stupid titles want to do that, and we whites have just as much contempt for them as any black person does.

threemae

03-30-2005, 11:03 AM

If don't realize that every Black journalist has suffered because of Jayson Blair and that every young Black kid suffers because of things [insert rapper] has done, then there is no point in having this discussion.

Ah, yes, the much loved and respected, "If you don't agree with my point already, you're too stupid to possibly comprehend it," style of debate.

Bippy the Beardless

03-30-2005, 12:44 PM

Has any Black journalist suffered because of Jayson Blair?

threemae

03-30-2005, 12:55 PM

Has any Black journalist suffered because of Jayson Blair?
Including Jayson Blair.

Does he still have that book deal? If so, here's my new life plan:

1. Get a job at NY Times
2. Pull Stories out of my ass
3. Get caught and fired from the Times
4. Profit!!!

even sven

03-30-2005, 01:05 PM

smiling bandit

03-30-2005, 01:22 PM

Then there are things like how asians who came to the country with money and education are compared to blacks, and people ask why blacks don't act like them. Nice.

Ah... :dubious:

If don't realize that every Black journalist has suffered because of Jayson Blair

Really? Jason Blair was black?

kidchameleon

03-30-2005, 01:27 PM

If don't realize that every Black journalist has suffered because of Jayson Blair

He's black?

kingpengvin

03-30-2005, 01:36 PM

Regarding the OP. I think the biggest problem with teens (and probably always has been) is this desire to obtain "coolness"

Funny thing is everything we once thought of as cool turns out to be idiotic in the light of maturity. I remember Big hair, parachute pants, painters caps and Grown men in Spandex and mascara was seen as cool by some. Yeesh.

For some reason a majority of youth has always embraced idiocy as something to aspire to. In my opinion it's most likely because most youths are in fact still having trouble sliding from the freedom of childhood into the more responsible adult world.

Possibly, to fight the overwhelming stress, they turn to stupid behaviour kind of like a way to stay a child.

If you really think about it the word cool should be substituted with the word idiotic.

Watch it's easy.

"Hey you know what would be (idiotic)?"
"What?"
"Tie your belt to my bumper get on your skate board and I'll tow you down the street"
"Man, that is the (Stupidest) idea ever"

OR

"Look I just spent 350 bucks on a pair of sneakers that have wings and flashing lights on the side. I have to make sure they don't get wet or touch pavement. They are so (idiotic)"

FinnAgain

03-30-2005, 01:36 PM

threemae

03-30-2005, 02:01 PM

http://www.editorsweblog.org/040308_BurningDownMyMasters.jpg

http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1052591733831_2003/05/12/wld_blair_jayson.jpg

Indeed, it appears so. Also, here's Blair's new book. I haven't read it, but I'm somewhat suprised by the title. I thought that Blair had acted somewhat reticent and apologetic in the wake of his "uncovering," but perhaps not.

threemae

03-30-2005, 02:03 PM

Yeah, I thought that all journalists caught heat because it was revealed that the NY Times had a duplicitous scamming 'journalist' on staff who hadn't been exposed for years. I was unaware that all the white journalists were exempt from fact checking. But hey, who am I to ask for a cite?
Yeah, didn't they end up finding out that one of their travel writers was making up/phoning stuff in, and didn't they throw his lazy ass out on the curb as well?

I mean really, for Christsakes, you're getting paid to travel on an expense account by the NY Times and write about the lovely times you had in some lovely local. Nobody's telling you to review the Baghdad Hilton. And yet you still decide this is just too hard and make up travel stories? Travel stories, people, travel!

FinnAgain

03-30-2005, 02:19 PM

brickbacon

03-30-2005, 02:27 PM

So in other words, no cite?

OK. I see you want to act like an asshole, and ask my to post a bunch of sites detailing what should be painfully obvious to anyone who doesn't live under a rock.

Here (http://www.maynardije.org/news/features/030521_blair/) is the first site dealing with Jayson Blair. Allow me to highlight the relevant parts.

"Enemies of newsroom diversity now see Blair as exhibit A in their argument that diversity programs promote double standards. They are wrong. But that doesn't mean the implementation of such programs can't be critiqued. And diversity pressure is only a thread in a story with many ragged edges," says a Columbia Journalism Review online commentary, "Trouble at The Times."

[and]

Diversity initiatives, never popular in white America, are viewed as "mechanisms to avoid discrimination lawsuits," says Diversity Inc., an online magazine. And now, says the publication, because of Blair, a "diversity poster child for dishonesty, journalistic fakery and tokenism," The Times "has damaged the credibility of diversity initiatives and insulted all the qualified journalists of color who have loved a chance to work there."

[and]

On ABC-TV's "Nightline," May 15, anchor Chris Bury asked National Association of Black Journalists president Condace Pressley, "Do you worry that, fairly or unfairly, this whole episode may stigmatize African American journalists?"

Pressley ignored the bizarre "fairly or unfairly" phrase and said yes she did. "There are some 300-plus members of my organization who are under 30 and upholding the tenets of journalism very well every day. And I know that they are just terrified that their editors are going to look at them in a different way because of this incident."

[and]

Now, outside the newsroom, Blair's blackness is the only thing that matters. Scott Simon, anchor of National Public Radio's Weekend Edition, spoke May 17 of journalistic fabricators. He mentioned Stephen Glass whose prevarications at the New Republic magazine led to his dismissal there. Glass, subsequently fired, is now promoting his roman a clef about his misdeeds on, among other places, CBS’s "60 Minutes." Simon ended his comments about journalistic fakers by saying Glass "wasn't an affirmative action hire." He didn't explain how he knew.

Actually, everybody knows. That's the tag that's hung on practically all blacks hired these days by journalistic enterprises. And by equating Blair with affirmative action, and diversity, it becomes possible for the "anti" crowd to chop down two undesirables -- blacks and diversity -- with one swing of an axe.

It's not the same when a white journalist fabricates. The Boston Globe columnist, Mike Barnicle; fired, apparently reluctantly, by the Globe. Now he's on television and writing for the New York Daily News. Michael Daly, fired by the same Daily News, now back there writing a column. No weeping and wailing by white journalists about their future in the news business; Ruth Shalit, fired for fakery by the New Republic. No questions about whether, fairly or unfairly, the various episodes would stigmatize white journalists. No "terrified" young journalists. These white journalists are simply "bad apples."

That should elaborate on the point I made. If that's not enough for you, you can reference these (http://www.alternet.org/story/15870) cites (http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/may03/142420.asp) as (http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030514/5155431s.htm) well (http://www.nationalreview.com/clegg/clegg051903.asp).

If (http://www.nyage.net/from_50_cents.HTM) you (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3677687/) want (http://www.crimelibrary.com/classics4/oj/) more (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm) examples (http://racerelations.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp%2Ddyn/articles/A59055%2D2004May26.html), please (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/billcosbypoundcakespeech.htm) look (http://www.lsadc.org/faq/index.php?aaa=ebonics.htm) at these (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12052) cites.

I'm still working on cites stating the Earth is round. Don't worry, I'll get around to it.

Anaamika

03-30-2005, 02:30 PM

He's black?

Bingo. I didn't know either.

Then there are things like how asians who came to the country with money and education are compared to blacks, and people ask why blacks don't act like them. Nice.
Ah...:dubious:

Count me :dubious: too. Do all Asians come to the country with money and education?

brickbacon

03-30-2005, 02:35 PM

Or how about Rick Bragg (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51506-2003May28?language=printer)?

Obviously the picture they put up of him is in error, as friend Brickbacon assures us that there was some sort of witchhunt against black journalists. Certainly the washington post will retract that picture and put up a picture of a black man. Right? :dubious:

Did I say witch hunt? I said that whenever a black person screws up, all of us have to suffer. Clearly, Jayson Blair's dishonesty will hurt other Black journalists. Even the fact that his behavior is used as an excuse to critique diversity goals, affirmative action, etc. is proof that his behavior will affect all black people. I don't remember people saying Stephan Glass' plagiarism would hurt white journalists. Please read a more about the situation before you make assumptions.

gigi

03-30-2005, 02:42 PM

These same friends are made fun of as "acting white" because they actually have good manners, speak normally, dress normally, actually work in school, and don't try to act like idiots.
I think "normal" might be something of a loaded word to use. A hippie like you ;) shouldn't be expecting people to conform to any particular style of dress or speech.

FinnAgain

03-30-2005, 03:04 PM

OK. I see you want to act like an asshole, and ask my to post a bunch of sites detailing what should be painfully obvious to anyone who doesn't live under a rock.

Ah, I see. You're an asshole who acts like a fucking primadonna when asked to provide proof.

For your first two quotes it says nothing about black journalists, but diversity programs. Second, just who are these "enemies of newsroom diversity." Surely as a piece of journalism they can name names and provide factual confirmation, right?

As should be obvious, there's a huge difference between not wanting to have programs which hire people specifically because of the color of their skin, and not wanting to hire people who happen to have a certain skin color. It should also be obvious that if less qualified candidates are brought in to fill diversity quotas, and some of those candidates turn out to be liars, then yes, people might just rethink non-merit based programs.

Your third quote deals with asking a woman to have powers of precognition. Who cares if she thinks it'll have certain effects, especially if you can't provide any cites to prove her claims and psychic powers.

Fourth, you point to young black journalists fearing that they'll be stigmatized as proof that they are. This is half assed at best.

You got any proof that there's actual discrimination?
And no, I'm not going to read through all your cites judging from the fact that your main cite in this post is ridiculous in the extreme.
Prove that as a result of Blair's actions black journalists are discriminated against.

I'm still working on cites stating the Earth is round. Don't worry, I'll get around to it.

Awwwww. Does a request to prove your assumptions somehow fall outside the bounds? Are your ideas gospel? Mmm hmmmmm.

Did I say witch hunt? I said that whenever a black person screws up, all of us have to suffer.

For which you've provided no proof. You've shown that someone hired based on afirmative action has made people question afirmative action. This is a long way from proving that black journalists are disrciminated against.

Clearly, Jayson Blair's dishonesty will hurt other Black journalists.

Clearly :dubious:
Your powers of precognition are also in dispute, I'm afraid. Got any proof to back up your claims?

Even the fact that his behavior is used as an excuse to critique diversity goals, affirmative action, etc. is proof that his behavior will affect all black people.

Are you an idealogue?
It's proof that someone hired through that program tarnished the image of that program. Nothing more.

I don't remember people saying Stephan Glass' plagiarism would hurt white journalists.

And I don't remember people saying that Blair will hurt black journalists and then proving it.

Please read a more about the situation before you make assumptions.

Please prove your assumptions before you make them.

FinnAgain

03-30-2005, 03:14 PM

"Blair, who is African-American, was hired at the Times under a program designed, in part, to attract more racial diversity to the newspaper, leading critics to question whether editors had overlooked his faulty work to protect a black reporter on a fast track to success. Boyd denied that charge but Raines admitted in a staff meeting it was possible Blair's race had a minor influence on how he was treated." (http://www2.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/06/05/nytimes.resigns/)

threemae

03-30-2005, 03:15 PM

kidchameleon

03-30-2005, 03:31 PM

Count me :dubious: too. Do all Asians come to the country with money and education?

The transcontinental railroad gave stock options to all it's workers. :rolleyes:
That's like saying people from the middle east immegrate with loads of cash. :dubious:

jeevmon

03-30-2005, 03:44 PM

I don't know about impact on black reporters, but it is a telling comment on racial attitudes today that the Jayson Blair incident was seized upon as an opportunity to muse as to the merits of affirmative action and minority recruitment programs, whereas the discovery that Jack Kelley, a white reporter at USA Today, engaged in similar (and arguably more egregious (http://fairchance.civilrights.org/research_center/details.cfm?id=22836) ) fabrications was viewed as simply a case of a bad apple. No one asked if Jack Kelley received preferential treatment or consideration because he was white. Or if maybe there is a problem with unqualified white reporters in the newsroom.

There are also studies showing that candidates with "black" names (http://www.povertyactionlab.org/papers/bertrand_mullainathan.pdf) face discrimination in hiring, and that a white felon is more likely to be considered for a job than a black non-felon (http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/pager_ajs.pdf).

To suggest that racism is gone completely would be completely myopic.

FinnAgain

03-30-2005, 03:55 PM

I don't know about impact on black reporters, but it is a telling comment on racial attitudes today that the Jayson Blair incident was seized upon as an opportunity to muse as to the merits of affirmative action and minority recruitment programs, whereas the discovery that Jack Kelley, a white reporter at USA Today, engaged in similar (and arguably more egregious (http://fairchance.civilrights.org/research_center/details.cfm?id=22836) ) fabrications was viewed as simply a case of a bad apple.

Um... no, that's not telling at all.
Jack Kelly wasn't hired from an afirmative action program.
If a less qualified candiate (Eg. Blair) is hired through a diversity program, then it makes sense to question the hiring of less qualified candiates.

There are also studies showing that candidates with "black" names (http://www.povertyactionlab.org/papers/bertrand_mullainathan.pdf) face discrimination in hiring, and that a white felon is more likely to be considered for a job than a black non-felon (http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/pager_ajs.pdf).
To suggest that racism is gone completely would be completely myopic.

There's a big difference between showing that racism still exists and proving that black journalists are in any way handicapped by Blair's actions.

Giraffe

03-30-2005, 03:59 PM

I'm still working on cites stating the Earth is round. Don't worry, I'll get around to it.Don't worry, I've got you covered (http://nexus.polaris.net/services/image-archive/space/earth//earth.jpg).

gytalf2000

03-30-2005, 04:29 PM

There was just a thread in IMHO where many, many, many dopers said they would be uncomfortable living in a predominately black neighborhood (of course, some people said they'd be fine with it). Do you really believe that this is the sign on a healthy society that has eliminated racism?

Hey, two of my white childhood friends moved into predominantly black / hispanic neighborhoods. They were about as non-racist as you can get when we were growing up together. After experiencing quite a bit of racial bullying, getting told "You don't belong here!", having their kids harrassed at school, etc., they have since concluded that they would never voluntarily go back to a minority neighborhood if they could possibly help it! They call themselves "racially aware" now and are quite bitter about their experience.

I was also very liberal about racial matters when I was growing up. (I dated a black girl in college.) In my late twenties I went to a predominantly black university to get a Master's Degree in Education. I was also told "You don't belong here!"; people tried to intimidate me on many different occasions.

My point? We certainly have not eliminated racism. Racism comes in all colors, there are plenty of black racists out there, as well as whites. I just get really tired of the "eternal black victim" attitude, when nowadays they are just as likely to be perpetrators of racist actions as they are victims!

mswas

03-30-2005, 04:32 PM

Also, the fact that White America insists on keeping a collective "permanent record" of everything bad any black person has ever done, then asking every black individual to account for these things, and be responsible for the behavior of others doesn't help. It's pretty damaging to the psyche when you are asked to atone for things you has nothing to do with.

I'd just like to point out that I as a white person was singled out on this level just the other day. I find most often that this cultural accounting is levelled at me by people who are NOT black. People saying that I have a responsibility to change things because I have benefitted as a white person. So while I don't have a problem with benefitting myself, and am unwilling to undercut myself to lower myself to the level of someone less fortunate, I am perfectly willing to accept the responsibility of helping my fellow man, black or white, but I have to be successful and receive benefits before I can pass any on. I just get a little tired of the rage at white people being levelled at me. So it cuts both ways on this particular issue of accounting, and while it happens more often that someone who is not black levels it at me, that doesn't mean black people never hold white people to this type of accounting.

Funny thing is everything we once thought of as cool turns out to be idiotic in the light of maturity. I remember Big hair, parachute pants, painters caps and Grown men in Spandex and mascara was seen as cool by some. Yeesh.

Or what about when power suits, martinis and Mercedes Benzes were considered cool? Or that stupid time when it was cooler to have a Blaupunkt stereo than a Magnavox? And remember when the kids thought that working on Wall Street was so much cooler? Or when all those older 'kids' told us how much cooler it was when they were doing it back in the 60s and how we're all just copy cats who are copying youth off of them? What about all those people who thought it was cool to invade Iraq? Or what about back when we were kids and it was so awful if that bitch was wearing the same dress? Man dumb fucking kids with their silly notions of cool.

Even the fact that his behavior is used as an excuse to critique diversity goals, affirmative action, etc. is proof that his behavior will affect all black people.

Yes, it will affect black people, but how it will affect black people is what will determine whether or not it sets black people back. Maybe it will just show that black people don't need quotas to get them a job. That would affect them certainly.

Most of your cites show that black reporters feared being discriminated against, not that they actually were being discriminated against.

I'd forgotten the Jason Blair story until you brought it up.

I have felt greater fear in black neighborhoods that I have lived in, because I was at greater risk. This does not apply to all black neighborhoods. It doesn't mean I didn't feel out of place in white neighborhoods either. Once I was strip searched publically without provocation by some cops in a suburban white neighborhood, and that made me wary of small white towns in New Jersey. Pretending like some black neighborhoods are not something worthy of watching your back in, is naive at best. Also, sometimes it's just a matter of "strange unfamiliar surroundings", and not a matter of racism.

Personally, I'd appreciate it if people would stop asking me to solve macrocosmic issues that are really interpersonal, and I can't do anything about. If you want me to treat you like a human being, consider it done, but if you want me to make someone else treat you like a human being, I'm sorry, but I can't do that. I don't lump all white people, or all black people into a category, I'd appreciate the same courtesy from anyone I'm dealing with.

Erek

brickbacon

03-30-2005, 04:33 PM

Well, brickbacon, I feel that there's an important distinction here between creating a witch hunt against black reporters and criticising affirmative action programs. If affirmative action programs get cut down because of Jayson Blair, that doesn't mean that suddenly black reporters will have to be more qualified than their white counterparts to earn a position, they simply no longer have to be less qualified to get a position.

I see this as an argument against afirmative action. Other reporters and staffers at the NY Times were complaining about Blair and some have said that there were signs that editors should have more readily picked up upon but choose to overlook due to their affirmative action policies. When it ended up being a huge fuck up for all parties involved, this has unfairly gone back to work against numerous qualified black reporters that didn't need affirmative action to get hired in the first place.

It's the same here at my undergrad school. My impression is that the vast majority of black students at my school would have gotten in anyway without affirmative action, but the presensce of affirmative action is causing people to unfairly stereotype black students as less capable or academic. Given that, even for CU Boulder, the black population far outnumbers the football program, a large number of black students that I've talked to often have people ask them about their involvement in the football program for no reason what so ever beyond their race. Asking a 6 foot 155 lb. biochem major what position they play on the football team? :rolleyes:

I think that this is a valid argument against affirmative action.

Since when does Affirmative Action = less qualified. That is a fallacy and is completely unsupportable. Besides, Jayson Balir was more than qualified to work at the New York Times. This (http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/arts/bal-as.blair23,0,3313659.story) article discusses some of the things he'd done before plagiarizing.

The university could have chosen one of several eminent journalism alumni for the video: TV news anchor Connie Chung, Pulitzer prize-winner Patrick Sloyan, columnist DeWayne Wickham, among them. But in 2000, Blair must have seemed an obvious choice. He had been the second African-American editor of the student paper, the Diamondback. He had held internships at three of the nation's top newspapers. And, shortly after leaving Maryland, he had risen from intern to staff writer at The New York Times -- all by the age of 24.

Black or white, Jayson Blair had a pretty impressive record (on paper) when he was hired by the NYT (probably better than most applicants). To claim he wasn't qualified is ridiculous. Nobody has ever claimed he was a bad reporter or an untalented writer. He has no intellectual shortcomings. It's his dishonesty that was the at issue. The problem was that the NYT didn't check their facts. They didn't check to see if he had graduated, they didn't investigate his character, etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with AA or the program they had in place.

FinnAgain

03-30-2005, 04:39 PM

""Does that mean I personally favored Jayson?" he added, a moment later. "Not consciously. But you have a right to ask if I, as a white man from Alabama, with those convictions, gave him one chance too many by not stopping his appointment to the sniper team. When I look into my heart for the truth of that, the answer is yes."" (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/15/business/media/15PAPE.html?ex=1112331600&en=61e7dc7ab31bd989&ei=5070&oref=login)

FinnAgain

03-30-2005, 04:43 PM

A more inclusive quote.
And, no character flaws from a "former total cokehead?"

" If there were any doubt about Jayson Blair's character, he revealed himself as a charlatan in an extraordinary interview by Sridhar Pappu in the New York Observer. Blair admitted to "abusing alcohol and doing drugs, cocaine to be specific." The extent of Blair's self-immolation was evident in his description of himself as a "former total cokehead."

Apparently still delusional in his Observer interview, Blair stated he was not an "affirmative action hire." The plain truth is that Blair got his job at the Times and was promoted because of a program of racial preference.

Howell Raines, the Times’ executive editor, recently admitted this much when he stated: "Our paper has a commitment to diversity and by all accounts he appeared to be a promising young minority reporter. I believe in aggressively providing hiring and career opportunities for minorities. Does that mean I personally favored Jayson? Not consciously. But you have a right to ask if I, as a white man from Alabama, with those convictions, gave him one chance too many by not stopping his appointment to the sniper team. When I look into my heart for the truth of that, the answer is yes." (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/29/170732.shtml)

brickbacon

03-30-2005, 04:48 PM

Yes, it will affect black people, but how it will affect black people is what will determine whether or not it sets black people back. Maybe it will just show that black people don't need quotas to get them a job. That would affect them certainly.

Most of your cites show that black reporters feared being discriminated against, not that they actually were being discriminated against.

I'd forgotten the Jason Blair story until you brought it up.

True, but most of those affected by Jayson Blair don't know they were. They were never hired.

I have felt greater fear in black neighborhoods that I have lived in, because I was at greater risk. This does not apply to all black neighborhoods. It doesn't mean I didn't feel out of place in white neighborhoods either. Once I was strip searched publically without provocation by some cops in a suburban white neighborhood, and that made me wary of small white towns in New Jersey. Pretending like some black neighborhoods are not something worthy of watching your back in, is naive at best. Also, sometimes it's just a matter of "strange unfamiliar surroundings", and not a matter of racism.

First, I never mentioned Black neighborhoods in this thread. Of course many black neighborhoods in the US are dangerous, but that doesn't mean that's the reason most people don't want to live in black neighborhoods. It's like when people claim there are no babies to adopt. This is bullshit, there are plenty of non-white babies, or disabled babies that would love a home. Just like those people who repeat that fallacy, there are people who say all black neighborhoods are dangerous, when in reality, they think black people are dangerous. There are plenty of middle class minority neighborhoods that many white people won't live in.

Personally, I'd appreciate it if people would stop asking me to solve macrocosmic issues that are really interpersonal, and I can't do anything about. If you want me to treat you like a human being, consider it done, but if you want me to make someone else treat you like a human being, I'm sorry, but I can't do that. I don't lump all white people, or all black people into a category, I'd appreciate the same courtesy from anyone I'm dealing with.

Erek

Fair enough. Just try not to pretend that racism and discrimination doesn't affect Blacks in numerous ways.

FinnAgain

03-30-2005, 04:52 PM

True, but most of those affected by Jayson Blair don't know they were. They were never hired.

You ever going to provide proof for this claim? Or just keep making it and hope that if you say it enough it'll become true?
Obviously not all black people need affirmative action, and many are qualified, right? So cutting back on affirmative action wouldn't affect them, right?
You've still not proven that the Blair scandal had anything to do with the status of non-affirmative action hires.

mswas

03-30-2005, 05:02 PM

brickbacon: I wasn't referring directly to you with my black neighborhoods comment. It was brought up in the thread by someone else.

FinnAgain: It's pretty hard to prove or disprove whether or not someone as actually affected by Jason Blair. There is no statistic for what Human Resources Managers were thinking as they tossed resumes into the shredder. So asking for a cite is pretty disingenuous. I personally doubt that black hires were all that adversely affected by Jason Blair, but there is no way to prove or disprove that.

Racism certainly exists, and it definitely affects people's hiring decisions, but I don't think it's a problem on the level most people make it out to be, and I think that clinging to it as a root cause is a major source of the rift between 'white' and 'black' people.

Every time we make an impression on someone we meet, we have a chance to chip away at their presumptions, if we go in with a presumption about their presumption, we're only going to see a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Erek

brickbacon

03-30-2005, 05:03 PM

A more inclusive quote.
And, no character flaws from a "former total cokehead?"

Do you actually read what other people post? Where did I say he had no character flaws? Please tell me. In fact, I stated it was some of character flaws that became a problem. Besides, what does his coke habit have to do with AA? Are you stating that you think the AA leads to more people with coke habits being hired? Do you think Black people are disproportionately coke addicts? How would getting rid of the program prevent another Jayson Blair. Conversely, would only hiring minorities get rid of people like Stephan Glass or Rick Bragg?

I say no. Dishonesty is dishonesty. An asshole is an asshole. AA has nothing to do with it.

FinnAgain

03-30-2005, 05:24 PM

FinnAgain: It's pretty hard to prove or disprove whether or not someone as actually affected by Jason Blair.

Then it's rather silly to state as a fact that people weren't hired due to it, eh?

So asking for a cite is pretty disingenuous.

You might wanna look up the word 'disingenuous'.
I don't think it means what you think it does.

This is the Dope for crying out loud. Asking for proof is now beyond the pale? :rolleyes:

I personally doubt that black hires were all that adversely affected by Jason Blair, but there is no way to prove or disprove that.

Sure there is. Show me non AA hires pre and post Blair. That'll at least be a start.

Do you actually read what other people post? Where did I say he had no character flaws?

Do you actually read what you post?

Since when does Affirmative Action = less qualified. That is a fallacy and is completely unsupportable. Besides, Jayson Balir was more than qualified to work at the New York Times.

So while he was on his rise to power he was, in his own words, a total cokehead. This doesn't mean he was less qualified? :dubious:

Besides, what does his coke habit have to do with AA?

I've already furnished you with quotes that the Times was more agressive in keeping him on than if he'd not been black. Obviously the behavioral abnormalities native to cokeheads were overlooked due to their policies regarding AA.

How would getting rid of the program prevent another Jayson Blair.

How would hiring based only on merit ensure that merit was the prime characteristic they selected on? Jeez, I have no idea.

Conversely, would only hiring minorities get rid of people like Stephan Glass or Rick Bragg?

Are we into strawman territory, or taking a logical premise to an absurd conclusion? I can't quite tell.

brickbacon

03-30-2005, 06:06 PM

So while he was on his rise to power he was, in his own words, a total cokehead. This doesn't mean he was less qualified? :dubious:

What? When he was more than qualified when he was hired. His resume was better than most people's at that point. Just because he began to fuck up means nothing.

I've already furnished you with quotes that the Times was more agressive in keeping him on than if he'd not been black. Obviously the behavioral abnormalities native to cokeheads were overlooked due to their policies regarding AA.

Has nothing to do with AA. This (http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/dont_quote_me/multi-page/documents/04284663.asp) words my sentiments nicely.

But if Blair’s story is most definitely not a cautionary tale about affirmative action, his race is, nevertheless, relevant to what happened at the Times. That’s because Raines himself was unusually susceptible to the charms of an ambitious young black reporter. A liberal who grew up in segregated Alabama, Raines was a lifelong crusader for racial equality; his sincerity was unquestioned, even if it occasionally came across in a condescending manner. Blair did get his foot in the door at the Times through a minority internship program, but affirmative action hardly explains what happened once he was put on staff. In Mnookin’s telling, though, how Blair’s race may have played to the sensibilities and insecurities of the Times’ white Southern editor explains a lot.

Blair was. if nothing else, a great liar. Like any great liar, he prays on peoples weaknesses to further his own goals. The fact that he was black is incidental. If he was white, he would have made up stories about growing up in segregated Alabama to endear himself to Raines. To point to a AA is crazy.

In this (http://slate.msn.com/id/2082896/#ContinueArticle) article, a reporter gives insight as to how skillful a liar Blair was.

I wouldn't deny anybody the joy of pillorying the Times, but don't automatically assume you'd have policed the Blair beat any better. My friend Dennis Cauchon, a national reporter for USA Today, no softie when it comes to his scorn for the Times' handling of the episode, kicks himself for not uncovering Blair's fictions. Cauchon writes via e-mail:

We covered two of the same stories: MIA Jessica Lynch in Palestine, W. Virginia, and MIA Brandon Sloan in Cleveland. I commented to USA Today colleagues that it was odd that I didn't see a New York Times reporter—I always look—at the scene and how the New York Times stories were full of inexplicable errors. In Palestine, he described the road to Lynch's house as a one-lane gravel road when it's a narrow two-lane paved road. How do you get that wrong? I wondered. And he got the name wrong: it's Mayberry, not Mulberry. How do you get that wrong when Mayberry is so much better? He described a church service in Cleveland that I attended with four other reporters. When I read his account eight days later, I thought, gee, he must have kept a very low profile because the church wasn't that big and I didn't see him. Good for him, I thought. And good for him for getting an interview with the minister father who refused to talk that day, other than receiving line chit-chat, saying it was a day of worship. The story had factual errors, including that the service happened a week earlier than the story indicated. But I chalked it up [to] ... well, nothing. I just thought it was odd.

That Blair hoodwinked Cauchon, as doubting a skeptic as you'll ever meet, proves to me how unwilling we all are to believe that a trusted reporter would lie, lie again, and lie some more.

The obvious parallels between the Jayson Blair caper and the spy escapades of Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen should sober the gotcha patrol currently buzz-bombing Howell Raines. Accomplished liars will beat polygraphs, mislead interrogators, and hoodwink the most sophisticated security regime. So hate Raines as much as you want, and denounce the Times to your heart's content, and demand as much genuflecting from the paper's editors as you desire. Just remember the last time you were conned.

Blair was a master of deception. Just like most white reporters caught plagiarizing, he was able to con people using every advantage he had. It has nothing to do with program aimed at diversity.

How would hiring based only on merit ensure that merit was the prime characteristic they selected on? Jeez, I have no idea.

You would have a point if AA resulted in unqualified people being hired to do jobs. More specifically, Jayson Blair being unqualified to work at the NYT. He was qualified.

His was a good candidate on paper. Him being black had nothing to do with him being hired. If there was no program, he would have been hired anyway. To blame AA is erroneous.

Weirddave

03-30-2005, 06:17 PM

You would have a point if AA resulted in unqualified people being hired to do jobs. More specifically, Jayson Blair being unqualified to work at the NYT. He was qualified.

His was a good candidate on paper. Him being black had nothing to do with him being hired. If there was no program, he would have been hired anyway. To blame AA is erroneous.
Than it must be equally erroneous to claim that his firing damaged AA, right? Since he wasn't an AA case and all.

Unless you're one of those idiots who is convinced that everything is due to race, anyway.

brickbacon

03-30-2005, 06:31 PM

Than it must be equally erroneous to claim that his firing damaged AA, right? Since he wasn't an AA case and all.

Unless you're one of those idiots who is convinced that everything is due to race, anyway.

I didn't say it damaged AA. I said it makes it harder for other black people.

FinnAgain

03-30-2005, 06:41 PM

What? When he was more than qualified when he was hired. His resume was better than most people's at that point. Just because he began to fuck up means nothing.

Yes, it does. I've provided you with Raines' quote. Twice now.

Has nothing to do with AA. This (http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/dont_quote_me/multi-page/documents/04284663.asp) words my sentiments nicely.

Yes... and yet I've already shown you that Raines kept him on staff longer than he would had he not been black. There's no evading that I'm afraid. No matter what anybody else tries to say Raines really thought, we have Raines' own words.

Blair was. if nothing else, a great liar. Like any great liar, he prays on peoples weaknesses to further his own goals. The fact that he was black is incidental. If he was white, he would have made up stories about growing up in segregated Alabama to endear himself to Raines. To point to a AA is crazy.

Hrmmm. Let's see. We have Raines' own words, and we have your spin. And to listen to what Raines himself said is crazy? Mmmm hmmm.

Blair was a master of deception. Just like most white reporters caught plagiarizing, he was able to con people using every advantage he had. It has nothing to do with program aimed at diversity.

Do I have to repost, a third time, what Raines himself said?
Claim it had nothing to do with diversity, and do it over, and over, and over again. But you'll still be wrong.

You would have a point if AA resulted in unqualified people being hired to do jobs. More specifically, Jayson Blair being unqualified to work at the NYT. He was qualified.

Hrm. He was hired when he was, what, 23 or 24? And fired when he was 27? And during this time he was a 'total cokehead', in his own words. And you're still going to claim he was qualified?

Leaving aside his drug abuse, let's see what else we can find on this 'qualified' individual.

"Blair was hired as part of an affirmative-action program (the Times itself has admitted that it "offered him a slot in an internship program that was being used to help the paper diversify its newsroom") and clearly kept on long after it was obvious that he could not write stories without making things up (he'd already been bounced from the metropolitan desk for "mistakes and unprofessional behavior," according to the Associated Press). Indeed, one of Blair's editors sent an e-mail to newsroom editors over a year ago that said, "We have to stop Jayson from writing for the Times. Right now."" <snip>"(Blair came to the Times without graduating from Maryland)" (http://nationalreview.com/clegg/clegg051303.asp)

"At summer's end, The Times offered Mr. Blair an extended internship, but he had more college course work to do before his scheduled graduation in December 1998. When he returned to the Times newsroom in June 1999, Ms. Rule said, everyone assumed he had graduated. He had not; college officials say he has more than a year of course work to complete." (http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2003/05/11/ambition_to_burn_jayson_blair_at_the_new_york_times.php)

"By January 2001, Blair had worked his way from police reporter to staff reporter on the metropolitan desk, even though some of the editors with whom he worked expressed concerns about his work, according to the Times investigation. In April 2002, Jonathan Landman, the metropolitan editor, was so concerned about the quality of Blair's work and the number of errors he was making that he sent an e-mail to newsroom administrators saying, "We have to stop Jayson from writing for the Times. Right now."
Blair was eventually promoted. " (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/10/ny.times.reporter/)

His was a good candidate on paper. Him being black had nothing to do with him being hired. If there was no program, he would have been hired anyway. To blame AA is erroneous.

Again, yes, some of his early work looked good. But the Raines quote clearly states that he was given preferential treatment due to the color of his skin.

FinnAgain

03-30-2005, 06:42 PM

I didn't say it damaged AA. I said it makes it harder for other black people.

And you still haven't proven that claim.
But you keep repeating it.

FinnAgain

03-30-2005, 06:51 PM

Than it must be equally erroneous to claim that his firing damaged AA, right? Since he wasn't an AA case and all.

Except, of course the NY Times "offered him a slot in an internship program that was being used to help the paper diversify its newsroom."

But certainly only a crazy person living under a rock would think that someone given an internship in order to help diversify the newsroom would have been given an internship in order to help diversify the newsroom.

FinnAgain

03-30-2005, 07:03 PM

Can we get back to the original sillyness that spawned this hijack?

Also, the fact that White America insists on keeping a collective "permanent record" of everything bad any black person has ever done,

then asking every black individual to account for these things, and be responsible for the behavior of others doesn't help.

I said that whenever a black person screws up, all of us have to suffer.

Care to support any of these with facts (finally?)
Point to where "White America" (what a hoot) keeps a "collective permanent record." and that "all" black people are judged by it and asked to be responsible for it?

Nightime

03-30-2005, 07:15 PM

Count me too. Do all Asians come to the country with money and education?

I didn't say anything of the sort. However, whites don't tend to compare blacks to asians who lack money and education.

Whites *use* educated asians as a way to denigrate blacks.

It doesn't have to be all asians. The fact is, relatively recently America has seen an influx of asians with money and education, and whites have taken advantage of this by portraying asians as a "model minority" and asking why blacks aren't more like them. As if they are in anywhere near the same circumstances.

Moreover, even the earlier, predominantly poor asian immigrants had something blacks did not: a solid culture and history. That allowed them to pool their resources. Blacks on the other hand had their culture and history effectively erased by slavery. It is ridiculous to compare them unfavorably to asians.

Keep in mind, I'm talking about whites using asians against blacks. Asians are also a victim in the whole process.

Only the crazies in the funny uniforms and the stupid titles want to do that, and we whites have just as much contempt for them as any black person does.

If only that were true. The fact is that the racism's effects are still extremely powerful today, even if people truly believe in equality.

As I mentioned earlier, it would be hard to overestimate the effect of whites moving out of and refusing to move to neighborhoods because of blacks moving there.

Historically, property values have plummeted as a neighborhood becomes a "black neighborhood." There is something very sad about the idea of a proud black family buying a home, only to see it become nearly worthless when whites refuse to live in the area. Yet that is what happened, and it caused enormous damage which still resonates today. And even now, can you honestly tell me it doesn't *still* happen?

Weirddave

03-30-2005, 07:20 PM

As I mentioned earlier, it would be hard to overestimate the effect of whites moving out of and refusing to move to neighborhoods because of blacks moving there.

Historically, property values have plummeted as a neighborhood becomes a "black neighborhood." There is something very sad about the idea of a proud black family buying a home, only to see it become nearly worthless when whites refuse to live in the area. Yet that is what happened, and it caused enormous damage which still resonates today. And even now, can you honestly tell me it doesn't *still* happen?
Yes. Get over yourself.

FinnAgain

03-30-2005, 07:22 PM

Whites *use* educated asians as a way to denigrate blacks.

Irony so thick you can cut it with a knife.
"White people" don't do that, racists do.

Nightime

03-30-2005, 07:33 PM

"White people" don't do that, racists do.

Not necessarily. I think a lot of people really don't see the problem in comparing asians to blacks like that. We're not talking about KKK here, these are normal people, and probably nice.

Yes. Get over yourself.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2004/09/dramatic_gaps_i.php

"“Research has shown that blacks and Hispanics have limited access to the most favorable neighborhoods and housing,” noted Krivo. “Whites’ prejudice against living near minorities reduces the demand and hence the value and appreciation of homes owned by blacks and Hispanics.”

http://12.100.23.254:8080/bj/projects/color/hous6.html

FinnAgain

03-30-2005, 07:36 PM

Not necessarily. I think a lot of people really don't see the problem in comparing asians to blacks like that. We're not talking about KKK here, these are normal people, and probably nice.

But the point is, not all white people do it.
And even if a white person draws a comparison it's not, necessarily, in an effort to denigrate blacks.
Those who do use it as a putdown are acting in a racist manner.

Nightime

03-30-2005, 07:43 PM

And even if a white person draws a comparison it's not, necessarily, in an effort to denigrate blacks.

True. But the effect is still to denegrate blacks and to minimize the very real hurdles they face, even if that is not the intent.

Also, it gives a false impression that the problem is solved, leading us to stop looking for ways to help.

Weirddave

03-30-2005, 07:47 PM

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2004/09/dramatic_gaps_i.php

"“Research has shown that blacks and Hispanics have limited access to the most favorable neighborhoods and housing,” noted Krivo. “Whites’ prejudice against living near minorities reduces the demand and hence the value and appreciation of homes owned by blacks and Hispanics.”

http://12.100.23.254:8080/bj/projects/color/hous6.html

That study has nothing to do with your claim that I am disputing, to wit, white folks universially scream "OH MY GOD! NIGGERS!! SOMEBODY THINK OF OUR PROPERTY VALUES!" and then move when black families move to their neighborhoods. Over the last 20 years I've lived everyhere from working class neighborhoods to upper middle class ones with some houses in the almost $1,000,000 price range. Black families have moved into all of them during my period of residence, and never once have I heard a sentiment even close to what you are saying is commonplace. I suspect you're seeing boogeymen that don't exist anymore as a way of reinforcing your feelings of persecution.

FinnAgain

03-30-2005, 07:50 PM

True. But the effect is still to denegrate blacks and to minimize the very real hurdles they face, even if that is not the intent.

I don't agree.
I think it's a realization that there are hurdles, and a question as to why the approach of dealing with them isn't similar. More than one black activist (to tie this back to the OP) has pointed out that 'black culture (whatever that is) doesn't respect academics highly enough. Now I don't know if that's true, but there are sure a bunch of black people who've made that point.

Also, it gives a false impression that the problem is solved, leading us to stop looking for ways to help.

I'm sure the problem of racism and disadvantage isn't solved, but it's also not necessarily wrong or racist to look at strategies one group uses which work.

pizzabrat

03-30-2005, 08:02 PM

I don't agree.
I think it's a realization that there are hurdles, and a question as to why the approach of dealing with them isn't similar.

Because they're two entirely different groups with no similarities whatsoever (oh wait, both are not white, so I guess that's close enough :rolleyes:)! At best, someone who makes that comparison is an ignoramus who should be given one chance to be educated about the fallacy in making it, and then ignored if he still doesn't get it, and at worst a racist who is just looking for a cheap way to rationalize his predudice.

Nightime

03-30-2005, 08:09 PM

I suspect you're seeing boogeymen that don't exist anymore as a way of reinforcing your feelings of persecution.

First of all, I don't feel persecuted at all because I'm a white male.

Second of all, you are wildly exaggerating what I said. It certainly doesn't happen as much as before, and I made a point of saying that those involved are probably nice people and not the monsters you describe, but the lingering effects are still overwhelming.

I'm sure the problem of racism and disadvantage isn't solved, but it's also not necessarily wrong or racist to look at strategies one group uses which work.

It becomes a problem because I would estimate that *most* people don't realize why the comparison is wrong.

Most people don't recognize the problem in comparing relatively recent immigrants with money and education to blacks.

They don't see the problem in comparing people who have a solid culture and history which allows them to pool their resources with people who had their culture, families, and history erased.

Nightime

03-30-2005, 08:11 PM

"The researchers emphasize that residential segregation and other forms of discrimination in housing and mortgage markets are particularly important because home equity is the largest component of wealth for most households."

I meant to add this to the last post to give more detail of why the housing/property values has been so destructive to blacks.

FinnAgain

03-30-2005, 08:14 PM

Because they're two entirely different groups with no similarities whatsoever

Riiiiight...
So they're not both minorities who've had to overcome prejudices and gain social power?
You can't look at what effect having a culture which values education might have?
We can't ever compare things, we've got to look at everything in a vacuum?

At best, someone who makes that comparison is an ignoramus who should be given one chance to be educated about the fallacy in making it, and then ignored if he still doesn't get it, and at worst a racist who is just looking for a cheap way to rationalize his predudice.

Ah, I see, the "Either you agree with me or you're stoooopit!" defense.

Nightime

03-30-2005, 08:29 PM

It certainly doesn't happen as much as before

OK, one last addition and I'm out of here.

The reason the damage is sustained even though the prejudice is greatly decreased is that it is no longer necessary to be overtly prejudiced to maintain segregation.

The segregation which was created by past overt discrimination is already in effect.

It's almost enough to make one wonder if there is something wrong with reaping the rewards of that past overt discrimination, or whether something ought to be done to mitigate the lingering harm it still causes.

pizzabrat

03-30-2005, 08:48 PM

Riiiiight...
So they're not both minorities who've had to overcome prejudices and gain social power?'

I see, so "both are non white" is enough of a similarity for you.

You can't look at what effect having a culture which values education might have?

Ok, now do you honestly think there could be any reaction to that other than resentment over your implication that blacks don't value education?

Ah, I see, the "Either you agree with me or you're stoooopit!" defense.

I don't know where that came from...

FinnAgain

03-30-2005, 09:03 PM

I see, so "both are non white" is enough of a similarity for you.

"In opposition to the dominant culture" is a definition which ethnogrophers the world over find to be meaningful. Sorry that you don't.

Ok, now do you honestly think there could be any reaction to that other than resentment over your implication that blacks don't value education?

Have you missed then number of academics and/or celebrities from the black community who themselves say that blacks don't value education enough? Take the issue up with them, not me. Like, say, Cosby's point as quoted in the OP.

Or, points like this guy's
"There is also evidence that many Black males view sports or music as more promising routes to upward mobility than academic pursuit" (http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/er/pntroub2.html)

Now, this may very well be false. But I would question why members of the black community keep saying it. Self-loathing?

I don't know where that came from...

Um... read what you just said maybe? What do you think you just implied about anybody who holds a contrary position to yours? (Hint, it involves the word ignoramus.)

Random

03-30-2005, 09:16 PM

I see, so "both are non white" is enough of a similarity for you.

Ok, now do you honestly think there could be any reaction to that other than resentment over your implication that blacks don't value education?

I don't know where that came from...

[Eric 'Otter' Stratton] Gee, you're dumb [/Eric 'Otter' Stratton]

FinnAgain

03-30-2005, 10:57 PM

Or how about this cite, from the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education? (http://www.jstor.org.content.lib.utexas.edu:2048/view/10773711/di007672/00p01702/0?currentResult=10773711%2bdi007672%2b00p01702%2b1%2c04&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FResults%3FQuery%3D%26hp%3D25%26so%3Dnull%26si%3D1%26 mo%3Das%26All%3Dathletics%26Exact%3D%26One%3D%26None%3D%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26jt%3D%26ic%3D10773711%26ic %3D10773711%26node.Education%3D1%26node.African+American+Studies%3D1)

Notice, espeically, the last few paragraphs on the first page and first few on the second. Containing quotes like this:

Black males who seek to improve their opportunites through the educational process are often accused by their peers of "acting white."

I'm not the one who's making up this research. If you want to find fault with their data or methodology be my guest, but pretending that I'm the one saying this, and not black scholars, is false.

FinnAgain

03-30-2005, 11:11 PM

Or this, from the Journal of Negro Education (http://www.jstor.org.content.lib.utexas.edu:2048/view/00222984/di990483/99p0476a/0?currentResult=00222984%2bdi990483%2b99p0476a%2b0%2cFF01&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FResults%3FQuery%3D%26hp%3D25%26so%3Dnull%26si%3D1%26 mo%3Das%26All%3Deducation%252C%2Bathletics%252C%2Bmales%26Exact%3D%26One%3D%26None%3D%26sd%3D%26ed%3 D%26jt%3D%26ic%3D00222984%26ic%3D00222984%26node.Education%3D1%26node.African+American+Studies%3D1) (Started by Howard Univ)

pizzabrat

03-31-2005, 05:39 AM

Again, I'm assuming your point isn't just to denigrate blacks, but I can't figure out what you expect me to do with these "revelations".

pizzabrat

03-31-2005, 05:56 AM

Whoops, that'll teach me to respond without even reading the cites. I could only get to the first one (the others required registration), and it was a detailed analysis of different ways peer pressure can contribute to underacheivement. Interesting how you distilled it into "blacks don't value education". I'm out of this idiotic thread.

Sample_the_Dog

03-31-2005, 06:47 AM

FWIW, I grew up in a Southern milltown, 60/40 white/black, that didn't integrate its schools until well into the 1970s. Knuckleheadism wasn't restricted to the black kids.

There was a general dislike for academic achievement.

But more importantly, no group liked to see a natural member go over the wall.

I knew a couple of black kids (two, a boy and a girl, come instantly to mind) who appeared culturally white -- and not just white, but middle-class "preppy" kind of white. And yes, they were called "white" by a lot of the black kids as an insult.

I also remember a friend, a black kid, who had many white friends and moved easily between those worlds (or as easily as one could... it was easier to do on the high school campus than off it). But he was definitely culturally black. He was tall, handsome, athletic, hip, smart, and quick-witted, and knew how to get along with adults -- just an all-around "I wanna be that guy" kind of kid. So he was a kind of superstar, and exceptions were made for him.

Also, there were a (very) few white millkids who hung around with the white preppies from the brick house neighborhoods. They were called "goody goodies" by the other kids from their areas and jeered at and disliked in the same way that the "oreos" were by many of the blacks.

So I don't think it has anything to do with "African American culture". It's human nature. If there's a group that's perceived as being more priveleged than yours, anyone in your group who seems to be trying to join that group becomes an outcast among his former peers. Because it's an indirect insult. The home group feels that the cross-over is saying they're not good enough for him.

FWIW.

FinnAgain

03-31-2005, 11:06 AM

Again, I'm assuming your point isn't just to denigrate blacks, but I can't figure out what you expect me to do with these "revelations".
Whoops, that'll teach me to respond without even reading the cites.

But not from kneejerking so hard that you rattle your brains.

I could only get to the first one (the others required registration), and it was a detailed analysis of different ways peer pressure can contribute to underacheivement.

Translation: male youth culture in certain black communities does not value education enough.

Moreoever, your reading skills leave a lot to be desired I'm afraid. How about the study which showed that sports and music are viewed as more promising avenues of upward mobility than education? Does this show that education is valued highly enough? How about the fact that the second of three cites I linked to talked about a lack of role models? Or the presentation of sucessful blacks in the media which informs children's choices? Or talking about an "anti-achievement ethic"?

It'd help if, ya know, you read the damn cite before trying to talk about it. Obviously the problem is not just peer pressure, according to black scholars at least. So you can try to paint me as a racist, but what will you say about them and their findings?

Interesting how you distilled it into "blacks don't value education".

God you're a moron. I pointed out how there isn't a high value placed on education in a certain culture. (eg. black male youth culture). And I cited where scholars and researchers, who are black, discuss factors in society and culture which make education seem less valuable. Ignore those all you want.

I'm out of this idiotic thread.

No no. I think what you meant to say was "I'm out of this thread, and I'm an idiot."

Sample_the_Dog

03-31-2005, 11:12 AM

How about the study which showed that sports and music are viewed as more promising avenues of upward mobility than education? Does this show that education is valued highly enough? How about the fact that the second of three cites I linked to talked about a lack of role models? Or the presentation of sucessful blacks in the media which informs children's choices? Or talking about an "anti-achievement ethic"?
I still don't understand why blacks are being singled out over this. Seems to me there's an anti-academic ethos in many American cultures, including white cultures. Ditto for these other problems -- glorification of sports/entertainment figures in the media, and lack of adult male role models in the home.

FinnAgain

03-31-2005, 11:19 AM

I still don't understand why blacks are being singled out over this. Seems to me there's an anti-academic ethos in many American cultures, including white cultures. Ditto for these other problems -- glorification of sports/entertainment figures in the media, and lack of adult male role models in the home.

I'm sure you could also discuss white cultures... but look at the research I posted. There is a significant dispairty in the black community between black girls, and black boys. Numerous studies have confirmed this.

I'd also point out that there is still racism, and blacks do still need to overcome adversity. The best way to do so is through education. It's not as important for someone already in the dominant culture, although of course it's still important.

So to get back to the OP and Cosby's point: the civil rights movement fought to have equal acess to education, amongst other things. Young black males are more likely to have problems in school for a variety of reasons, ranging from teachers (who are often black) who don't have faith in them, to a youth culture which does not value education enough.

mswas

03-31-2005, 02:11 PM

FinnAgain: I don't think that cites are out of place here. I was just saying that it could very easily be acknowledged that cites for that particular piece of information, "whether or not people were hurt by Jayson Blair overall", would be rather hard to come by. Being that this forum is a bunch of armchair philosophers for the most part anyway, I think a little bit of understanding of that would go a long way. I think you posted a lot of interesting stuff in your cites, and your cites were very valuable to this thread. Addressing that brickbacon was stating his opinion as fact because it is shared by many other people, is valid, but to keep going 'cite, cite, cite' gets extremely irritating, just acknowledge that you aren't gonna get a cite, be understanding about why that cite isn't forthcoming, and maybe try to come to mutual understanding rather than trying to 'win'.

I don't think you're out of line in this thread, but you have been something of a prick about it.

IMO why I don't like race arguments is that it inevitably becomes a method for people to toss their rage back and forth, and has little to do with whether or not they actually legitimately are racist or not. To me, racism is so entrenched now that everyone is trying to defend themselves FROM racism, more than they are actually racist.

And to the rest of you, saying, "white people do this...", is incredibly racist and offensive btw. I agree that comparing asian immigrants to the descendants of black slaves is idiotic at best.

Let's just hope that in the next genocide they go for the ethnograhers first. I am so sick of the fucking race debate. Dominicans are they black or hispanic? what about Chinese Cubans? What race are they? Weren't the Irish treated like 'niggers' 150 years ago in this country? There is just no such thing as a monolithic race, the very concept is a mental disorder that most of us share.

Erek

FinnAgain

03-31-2005, 02:21 PM

FinnAgain: I don't think that cites are out of place here. I was just saying that it could very easily be acknowledged that cites for that particular piece of information, "whether or not people were hurt by Jayson Blair overall", would be rather hard to come by.

:headdesk:
If it can't be proven, then it shouldn't be presented as fact!

Addressing that brickbacon was stating his opinion as fact because it is shared by many other people, is valid, but to keep going 'cite, cite, cite' gets extremely irritating, just acknowledge that you aren't gonna get a cite, be understanding about why that cite isn't forthcoming, and maybe try to come to mutual understanding rather than trying to 'win'.

A cite isn't forthcoming because his position is full of shit.
And no, I'm not going to stop pointing that out until he retracts his (unproven!) assertions.

I don't think you're out of line in this thread, but you have been something of a prick about it.

Fair enough. You see me as you want, I see you being a lazy anti-intellectual anti-scientific fluffy bunny who thinks that demands for proof are somehow wrong.

I agree that comparing asian immigrants to the descendants of black slaves is idiotic at best.

Why, exactly? Or is this the "if you disagree with me you're stooopit!" defense, again?
Is it not valid to state that varying 'groups' have entered this country with little to no social status and gained social power via education? Or are we not allowed to discuss this fundamental dynamic now out of some pc bullshit?

Searching For Truth

03-31-2005, 02:44 PM

In response to the OP:
I'm a middle class white kid, too, so I'll try to be careful where I step here, but I do feel compelled to say a few things.

I recognize the situation you describe-- the handful of black kids in my AP classes stood out from the other black kids at school. They tended to hang out with white kids MUCH more than other black kids. Here in college, I'm friends with a group of freshmen, all of whom are white except for one. He is frequently teased for 'not really being black.'

I believe that blacks and whites often do NOT have the same opportunities in this country today. African-Americans may no longer be legally enslaved, but they are still oppressed in many ways.

In reference to the 'rap culture' of today that I heard someone say something along these lines yesterday: "Do you think it's only black kids buying these CDs? And who do you think is producing the music? and videos? that's right, white people. It's not a black people problem, it's a social problem."

And to echo gigi, I, too would urge you to consider your use of the word 'normal' in relation to speech and behavior. You could think of it in terms of standard when it comes to speech-- such as, why don't some black people speak standard English? Think, too, about what makes you think of 'normal clothing' as normal, etc.

Duke of Rat

03-31-2005, 02:46 PM

I still don't understand why blacks are being singled out over this. Seems to me there's an anti-academic ethos in many American cultures, including white cultures. Ditto for these other problems -- glorification of sports/entertainment figures in the media, and lack of adult male role models in the home.

I think the main difference is the misconception that blacks are at a disadvantage simply for being black. While a white kid could slack off and just be a slacker (since he was not assumed to be from an underpriveledged group), when a black kid slacks off (for whatever reason) he is seen as slapping the face of all the civil rights advocates who have fought so that he may start from equal footing as the white kid.

Nobody had to fight for the white kid to get to be equal with anybody, he can blow it all off and just be a loser, but the black community has had to fight for decades just to get on even ground. When their youth blow it off it is seen as more of a crime given the struggles others have put forth just for them to have the opportunity.

And for intelligent black kids to underachieve simply because it's not "cool" to excel academically is just such a waste, both of their lives and the lives of those who have fought on their behalf.

I hope this didn't come off as condescending, and no I don't have a cite for every word here. This is just how it's been explained to me by the parents (coworkers) of black kids here.

holmes

03-31-2005, 03:11 PM

Nobody had to fight for the white kid to get to be equal with anybody, he can blow it all off and just be a loser, but the black community has had to fight for decades just to get on even ground. When their youth blow it off it is seen as more of a crime given the struggles others have put forth just for them to have the opportunity.

Let's ignore for the moment that all white people aren't created equal. A big part of the Civil Rights movement was equality. That cuts in all directions...a black person shouldn't have to be credit to his race anymore and I find threads like this a throwback to that mindset.

There's a line in Guess Who's Coming To Dinner and I'm going by memory, in which Syndey's "father", is telling Sydney that he "owes" him, and Syndey says, "No I don't, you did what you were supposed to do, but now it OUR time." "Get off our backs....man".

Sure, I think African-Americans still don't get as much slack as they should, when things go wrong; but part of being equal also means being allowed to have a certain amount of screw-ups, that look like you. If we would stop making this a "black" problem and just a "slacker" problem, we would all be alot better off.

And I'll add, this it's not uncommon for white people to accuse blacks who speak, dress and behave "normal" of acting white as well...this cut boths ways.

[respect knuckles]tap[/respect knuckles]

jsgoddess

03-31-2005, 03:29 PM

Is it not valid to state that varying 'groups' have entered this country with little to no social status and gained social power via education? Or are we not allowed to discuss this fundamental dynamic now out of some pc bullshit?

Interesting. Perhaps these quote will make things clearer.

Prove to me that any group is real, and not just a linguistic fiction, first.

No I mean that groups have no objective existance, at all.
They're in our heads, not in reality.

But I do believe that if students were trained in proper semantic habits, nobody could speak to the ultimate character of any 'group'.

Groups are aggregates of individuals, they do not exist without those individuals. You can never point to a group without mentioning the people in it, and once you do that, you must take into account that they are different and divergant....

Duke of Rat

03-31-2005, 03:36 PM

Nobody had to fight to integrate white kids into my school..they were already there. Nobody had to fight to allow white kids to be admitted to U of Alabama.

All I was trying to say, if race or civil rights didn't matter, then why were people fighting for them? Why was it important to integrate black kids into white schools if it didn't matter?

It WAS important, and it DID matter. At least the people who fought so hard for integration and civil rights THOUGHT it did. For (some) black kids to just disown all that work and fight that was done on their behalf just breaks the hearts of a lot of people who had hoped that their legacy would be to achieve greatness instead of throw it away lest they appear to not be cool.

Do you think Martin Luther King Jr. would be proud of kids who, instead of achieving excellence through education, decided that getting good grades made them look weak to their peers? I can't believe for a second that he would be anything but mortified. In the documentary "When We Were Kings", Mohammed Ali gives a little speech aimed towards black youth, beseeching them to stay in school (ostensibly to get an education) and stay away from drugs. Do you think Ali would approve of the mindset that good grades=loser?

White kids are not all equal, but there was nowhere near the struggle for white equality with white as there was black equality with white. It's the white kids game to lose, the black kids to win. But to win, you have to play the game, and this seems to be the sticking point: If you play this game, you are selling out to whitey. And that's a shame.

FinnAgain

03-31-2005, 03:45 PM

Interesting. Perhaps these quote will make things clearer.

You've missed the point js.
There was a reason that I put the word group into soft quotes in the first quote of mine.

The fact of the matter remains: Education is the best method for individuals to gain social power. As such, one can point to strategies (eg. education) which work.

FinnAgain

03-31-2005, 03:52 PM

If we would stop making this a "black" problem and just a "slacker" problem, we would all be alot better off.

Why?
The black academicians I've cited say it's a black problem.
Statistics say that it's a problem which is pronounced in young black males. Even if we recast this as a slacker problem, then why are so many young black men becoming slackers?

The cites I've provided, and I can add more, all say that there is something in the operational dynamic of a certain culture. This does not mean that all people who happen to be black follow these trends, or that the same forces converge and effect all people who are black in the same way. But this does mean that there are certain social factors which play a role in certain individuals' realities.

FinnAgain

03-31-2005, 03:56 PM

And just because I've got a few more words on this topic js, it's somewhat less than cool to take off topic and out of context quotes of mine and attempt to set up an analogy in a situation which is totally different. In specific, the quote of mine you used to start your post refers to 'groups' having social status. Do you deny that society grants 'groups' social status?

One does not need to assume that a 'group' is real in order to realize that people will act as if it is. One also does not need to assume that a 'group' is real in order to realize that individuals will be affected by the perceptions and attitudes of other people who lump them into a group.

Next time, please address the subject matter rather than sniping with out of context quotes.

holmes

03-31-2005, 04:02 PM

C'mon man. There were schools and communities that didn't let Jews in, or the Irish or the Italians. Did we need armed troops, no...but let's not gloss over that lots of people got the short end of stick here...the difference is of course, society eventually let them have a shot at the long end...but that's a different thread.

I don't know where you guys get this "selling out to whitey" stereotype from, I would imagine the same source that you hold up as "proof" of anti-education. This is not unique to African-Americans, from Apples, to Bananas, to Oreos and everything in between, there's always been a certain segment of a group that goes against the mainstream. That is normal...what isn't normal is the constant mantra that African-Americans must be more than human or because little Timmy blows off school he's a race-traitor and his spiting on MLK's grave.

Stop expecting African-Americans to be better or worst than the rest of society. You and the others do a great disservice to the majority of African-Americans to thrive and contribute to this country, by using a minority within a minority to pain a picture that anti-education is somehow rampant within the community.

holmes

03-31-2005, 04:14 PM

FinnAgain

03-31-2005, 04:17 PM

Stop expecting African-Americans to be better or worst than the rest of society. You and the others do a great disservice to the majority of African-Americans to thrive and contribute to this country, by using a minority within a minority to pain a picture that anti-education is somehow rampant within the community.

Actually, that seems to be the point of the scholarly journals I've cited. Not that they're expected to do better or worse, but when young black males are consistently performing at a lower level than they're capable, and there are cultural forces at work, than those forces should be analyzed. One expects there to be random distribution, but there is not. And, again, it's black scholars who are making this point. Are they doing themselves a disservice? If black scholars and members of the community discuss social factors, should we ignore them?

FinnAgain

03-31-2005, 04:21 PM

I would pointing out that they're or YOU are calling them Blackacademicians, as opposed to being just academicians, might be heads up where their focus lies. That's not a bad thing, but If I decide to study why girls do poorly in mathematics, you might question my moviation if I said it was FEMALE problem, as opposed to a societial one.

It's valid to point out that they're black academicians in order to deflect cries of racism.
It's also valid because there is a cultural dynamic at work. As for your example, there's already a wealth of data on the [i]female[/b] segment of our population and how they're affected by society.

Just to make this crystal clear, there's nothing inherent in being black that causes this. There is, according to the research, something inherent in the societal forces to which black male children in speicific are subjected which are causing this phenomena.

Again I would imagine I could go to Northern Ireland and come up with a similar focus or the Koreans in Japan or whenever a minority group is. Humans react pretty much the same way, in the same environment. Go back 70 years and you'll find the same problem within the Irish community in New York. The problem is the same...the difference is, how long it lasts.

Well, we can imagine it, but is it true? I've not done the research, but is there data to support the hypothesis that social factors contributed to a specific segment of Irish imigrants selling themselves short?

pizzabrat

03-31-2005, 04:31 PM

Actually, that seems to be the point of the scholarly journals I've cited. Not that they're expected to do better or worse, but when young black males are consistently performing at a lower level than they're capable, and there are cultural forces at work, than those forces should be analyzed. One expects there to be random distribution, but there is not. And, again, it's black scholars who are making this point. Are they doing themselves a disservice? If black scholars and members of the community discuss social factors, should we ignore them?

You should ignore them, because you're an arrogant (and baselessly so) little crap with nothing constructive to say about the subject. Besides denigrating blacks as being purposeful underachievers, what is your point?

monstro

03-31-2005, 07:13 PM

Duke of Rat, I don't disagree with you completely, but I don't think you will get people to improve themselves by citing an external factor, like the sacrifice of of parents' and grandparents'. I didn't excel in school because of MLK. I excelled because I thought I was capable and had aspirations. It had nothing to do with the civil rights movement.

Being "cool" is what kids do. I will never forget the day when all the kids in my orchestra class was acting up in high school (even me, and I was a goody goody) and the substitute (a black guy) started yelling just at the black kids. He called us sambos and pickaninnies, while ignoring all the white kids in the room. I suppose he was of the mindset that we black kids should act like grateful little angels, but how is that freedom? The civil rights movement was about treating people like individuals. Why should I be held to a higher standard than other people?

When I was in school, black kids who succeeded were not called wannabe whites. My AP classes were populated by black kids and none of us were teased for being "white". Now, I have been teased in that way because of my appearance and lack of "coolness" (inability to dance, speak slang, taste in music, etc.) but not because of my brain.

I argue that the kids who get that label thrown at them are the ones who have disassociated themselves from black people or do not have black people as friends. When I was in college, I remember black classmates laughing about this guy on campus--a black guy--who seemed to go out of his way to hang out with whites. And yes, he talked "white" (it wasn't an absence of slang or ebonics in his speech...it was more like his inflection and style). It is still unfair to make fun of someone like this, BUT realize that it isn't simply dumb=cool=black.

Is it not valid to state that varying 'groups' have entered this country with little to no social status and gained social power via education? Or are we not allowed to discuss this fundamental dynamic now out of some pc bullshit?

What makes this a "fundamental dynamic"? Say it plain, without the academic gobblygook.

It doesn't do much good to compare Asians to the descendants of African slaves. The differences outweigh the similarities. One is light-skinned. The other is dark-skinned (in other words, more different from "mainstream). One came over here voluntarily, with strong cultural attachments. The other was brought over here involuntarily, with culture almost completely raped away. One group came over facing the xenophobia usually associated with immigration, as well as some nasty incidents of racism. The other faced 300 years of race-based oppression--including massive economic and political disenfrancisement. One group has a list of positive stereotypes attached to it. The other has a long list of negative stereotypes. And on and on...

As pizzabrat said, the only commonality between Asians and blacks is that they are racial minorities. Just like apples and oranges are both fruits. We can discuss "fundamental dynamics" as much as we want, but what good will it do except remind us how there isn't anything "fundamental" about the model-minority mythology of Asian Americans.

It's valid to point out that they're black academicians in order to deflect cries of racism.

Black academics can be racist too. Even racist (and classist) against others of their "group".

Anti-intellectualism is rampant in our society. Period. I believe it is more heavily entrenched among black kids. But most ills in our society tend to impact black people, because of our long-time historical position on the bottom rung of everything.

I will also say this: success in schools can be defined in a multitude of ways. Earning astronomical GPAs and taking a full slate of advanced courses is one way of being successful. But excelling in sports, music, and participating in excurricular activities like student council, clubs, and civic groups are also routes to success. It seemed to me that growing up, white kids in my school were more likely to stick to the books and make good grades. You could be bet on all the advanced classes being predominately white. Meanwhile, black kids dominated the band and chorus, all the sports (except for soccer), cheerleading, color guard, most of the clubs, and filled the ranks of student government. Most of the student aides were also black. My HS was 60% black, but the skew in representation was not proportional.

It was a big deal when two of the white girls in my class decided to try out and then join the all-black cheerleading squad. I don't think anti-white racism had kept them out all those years; it was simply their own perception that cheerleading was a "black" thing at our school. And I'm sure some of their friends disapproved with them bucking the status quo like that.

My point is that there are cultural difference at play, but probably not in the way most people think. If you come from a culture that values well-roundedness, socialibility, and performance-related activities, your focus will be on extracurricular activities. If you come from a culture that values competitiveness and intellectualism, your energies will be directed towards academics. I believe it is unfair to villify either of these avenues to "success". They are different but not inherently inferior or superior to one another.

holmes

03-31-2005, 08:00 PM

Sample_the_Dog

03-31-2005, 08:33 PM

Duke of Rat

03-31-2005, 08:36 PM

holmes

03-31-2005, 08:51 PM

Well, we can imagine it, but is it true? I've not done the research, but is there data to support the hypothesis that social factors contributed to a specific segment of Irish imigrants selling themselves short?

Sorry I forgot my cite and quote:

There is strong statistical evidence to support Dr. Syrkin's viewpoint. The Jews and Chinese were the only "old" immigrants who made effective use of education in the first and second generations. Most other immigrant groups concentrated on finding work and did not begin to take schooling seriously until their third and fourth generations in the United States — when education became closely related to job opportunities.

Italians, for example, were extremely hostile to the schools — a heritage of suspicion derived from their experiences in southern Italy. Attempts to establish compulsory schooling were regarded as a plot of the northern Italian government to disrupt traditional family values, and most southern Italian peasants lived in a society so poor and isolated that it was impossible for them to see any practical value in learning to read and write. In America, Italian parents did see that basic literacy was an asset to their children but they were not interested in education on a higher and more sophisticated level. In 1911, an ethnic breakdown of New York high school graduates turned up such a small percentage of Italian-Americans with diplomas that they were regarded as "statistically insignificant." Irish-Americans followed with only .1% graduating from high school; Americans of British descent with 10.8 per cent, and German-Americans with 15%. The highest percentages of high school graduates — 16 percent — were of Russian origin. (This group included Jews.2) At the college level, the evidence was even more dramatic. In 1910, only 94 second-generation Italian-Americans were attending any institution of higher education in New York City (despite the existence of tuition-free City College).

Cite (http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF001974/Jacoby/Jacoby02/Jacoby02.html)

So were the Italians, Irish and the rest selling themselves short? This is nothing new, nor unique. If sports, entertainment or even crime has visual reward, while education doesn't appear to, then a certain segment of the popular will gravitate towards that.

It is dishonest IMO to make this a "black" problem when is a caste one and while quoting "blacks" makes for a nice shield, it doesn't as Monstro noted, defect charges of classism and elitism; which may be the underlying moviation for such studies.

FinnAgain

03-31-2005, 09:01 PM

You should ignore them, because you're an arrogant (and baselessly so) little crap with nothing constructive to say about the subject. Besides denigrating blacks as being purposeful underachievers, what is your point?

Moron. You accusing black scholars of denigrating blacks? Crawl back into your hole dumbfuck.

FinnAgain

03-31-2005, 09:10 PM

What makes this a "fundamental dynamic"? Say it plain, without the academic gobblygook.

Sorry it's in plain English. No, I won't restate it as it's pretty damn clear. "academic gobblygook" indeed.

It doesn't do much good to compare Asians to the descendants of African slaves.

So it wouldn't do any good to take one individual who attained social power through education, and compare him/her to another individual who did not gain social power because they did not go through the route of education?

We can discuss "fundamental dynamics" as much as we want, but what good will it do except remind us how there isn't anything "fundamental" about the model-minority mythology of Asian Americans.

You don't see a difference between children who embrace academia and those who reject it? That isn't fundamental enough for you?

Black academics can be racist too. Even racist (and classist) against others of their "group".

:rolleyes:
When you've named people of the same 'race' racist for pointing out problems in their culture, you've totally watered down the word racism until it means nothing, at all.

Anti-intellectualism is rampant in our society. Period. I believe it is more heavily entrenched among black kids.

And yet you continue to argue. Odd, that.

I will also say this: success in schools can be defined in a multitude of ways. Earning astronomical GPAs and taking a full slate of advanced courses is one way of being successful. But excelling in sports, music, and participating in excurricular activities like student council, clubs, and civic groups are also routes to success.

Um, no.
Throwing a ball has zilch to do with academics.

My point is that there are cultural difference at play, but probably not in the way most people think. If you come from a culture that values well-roundedness, socialibility, and performance-related activities, your focus will be on extracurricular activities. If you come from a culture that values competitiveness and intellectualism, your energies will be directed towards academics. I believe it is unfair to villify either of these avenues to "success".

Nope.
One will get you a job and social power, the other ends once you leave high school.

They are different but not inherently inferior or superior to one another.

Having the ability to interact with the bussiness world isn't superior to the ability to not make any money but be able to throw a ball? Academics give you social power. Sports, unless you're one of the top percent, do not.

FinnAgain

03-31-2005, 09:12 PM

Define selling themselves short.

I think I already have.
Having the ability to do better but choosing not to.

Unless you believe that black males are somehow not at smart as black female or whites? If you don't believe that, then you have to accept that they're not living up to their potential.

FinnAgain

03-31-2005, 09:14 PM

So what? Who's to say this disparity doesn't exist between boys and girls among whites?

Burden of proof.
If it exists, prove it.

So were the Italians, Irish and the rest selling themselves short?

Obviously, yes.

holmes

03-31-2005, 09:21 PM

Obviously, yes.

So then why make this a black issue? What's the reason? If you agree that all groups sometimes sell themselves short, what's the purpose in focusing on one? Wouldn't society be better served by changing the societial issues that cause such a problem, as opposed to declaring that Black Males are either genetically less intelligent than Black females and Whites or are failures by their own design?

FinnAgain

03-31-2005, 09:36 PM

So then why make this a black issue?

Because it was an Irish (etc) issue then when it affected Irish children. And your own cite states that it was due to their culture. It affects black children now, specificaly young black males. Do you deny that the trends for young black males are disturbing? Should we ignore them? Or should we try to help?

What's the reason? If you agree that all groups sometimes sell themselves short, what's the purpose in focusing on one?

Because you focus on the individuals who're selling themselves short, and why they're doing so. Then you try to fix things. Or you throw your hands up in the air and decide that it's not pc, so fuck it all.
If there are currently any other groups which are selling themselves short, I suggest we help them too. But the cites I've provided (and I can provide more) point to specific cultural problems. Other cultures would have other problems which might have the same effect.

Wouldn't society be better served by changing the societial issues that cause such a problem, as opposed to declaring that Black Males are either genetically less intelligent than Black females and Whites or are failures by their own design?

...
Changing societal issues is the same damn thing I've been talking about!
Haven't you read the cites I've posted?
I never claimed they were genetically less intelligent, indeed, the fact that blacks are equal to anybody else is cause for concern over the performance of young black males.

Do you deny the research? If so, please point out where it is false. If you can't do that, isn't it time to actually look at the social dynamics which cause this problem rather than pretending they're not there? And, yes, selling one's self short is a failure of one's own design, but it doesn't occur in a vacuum. Again, did you read my cites? It's only one factor of many, all of which need to be changed. But all of them need to be changed.

Sample_the_Dog

03-31-2005, 10:25 PM

Burden of proof.
If it exists, prove it.
Sorry, but I'm not the one making the claim. You say that this disparity proves something about black culture. But you argue from ignorance. If this disparity is meaningful, it's up to you to show that it deviates from norms in other groups.

monstro

03-31-2005, 10:26 PM

Sorry it's in plain English. No, I won't restate it as it's pretty damn clear. "academic gobblygook" indeed.

It isn't pretty damn clear. What do you mean by "fundamental dynamic" in the context of the history of Asian immigration? I'm asking partly because it makes no sense to me and partly because it contradicts what you've said in the past about groups not being fungible. This cite-laden article (http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/model02.htm) highlights that latter point.

So it wouldn't do any good to take one individual who attained social power through education, and compare him/her to another individual who did not gain social power because they did not go through the route of education?

Stop moving the goal posts. The discussion was on groups, not individuals.

Black people have valued education since it became legal for us to become educated. It is offensively wrong to cite lack of respect for education as the reason why black people have not succeeded.

If you want to affirm the value of education, I will join you. Education is certainly a great thing. But telling blacks to look at the success of Asians in this country as proof that the only thing keeping them back is their own stupidity and laziness (not saying you are doing this, but the model minority mythology encourages this thinking) is wrong.

You don't see a difference between children who embrace academia and those who reject it? That isn't fundamental enough for you?

These were not the two groups you were talking about earlier. Don't get it twisted.

When you've named people of the same 'race' racist for pointing out problems in their culture, you've totally watered down the word racism until it means nothing, at all.

No it doesn't. Ever heard of the term "self-hatred"? I believe it is possible to hate others of your group, especially if you were brought up believing you were somewhat "different" or "special". Why wouldn't I call a person like this "racist"?

Now, I don't mean to imply anything about the black academics you've cited. They probably are not racist. But as a wise woman once said, my skinfolk aren't necessarily kinfolk. I'm not automatically comforted by the way someone looks if what they're selling smells suspect.

And yet you continue to argue. Odd, that.

WTH?

Um, no.
Throwing a ball has zilch to do with academics.

Throwing a ball has zilch to do with academics, but that does not mean it isn't a route to success. Why do you want to argue over such a basic point?

Having the ability to interact with the bussiness world isn't superior to the ability to not make any money but be able to throw a ball? Academics give you social power. Sports, unless you're one of the top percent, do not.

In my post, I talked about sports, music, social and civic clubs, and leadership positions. And yet you focus on one thing--"throwing a ball".

Academics give you social power, but it is not the only way. I have a sister who was hellion in secondary school. Smart girl but she didn't try. A "C" was a good grade for her. Never got past her community college associate's degree. And yet, she's making a ton more money than I am, the Ph.D in the family. She's doing it legitimately as a financial advisor for Wachovia.

She will always be more "successful" than I am, and I will tell you why. First, she's sociable. Loves to talk and glad-hand. She loves people and has the strong temperate for dealing with their "issues". Me? I cower when I'm meeting new people. I'm shy and inhibited when I speak, and I get tired easily in social situations. Secondly, she's a self-starter and risk-taker. She has no problem picking up and leaving a dead-in job because she's got supreme self-confidence in herself. Lastly, she knows a lot of things from her diverse experiences. She's worked in retail, nursing care, street hussling, you name it. Well-rounded is my sister's middle name. Meanwhile, all I know is aquatic invertebrates. Ooh, I'm so smart :rolleyes:

My sister's valuable skills weren't acquired through pressing her nose to a book. By everyone's standard, my sis was just another disappointing black kid because she had a low GPA. Boy were they wrong.

I was a nerd in school. I never went out and partied. I never joined clubs or went out for teams. I was all about making good grades and impressing my teachers. While my sister was developing her social and survival skills, I was counting the setae on copepods' legs. How is that "success"? And why should I find fault with a culture that places more value on social and survival skills than accumulating esoteric knowledge?

"Throwing a ball" does not have equal footing with reading and writing, not only socially but intrinsically. This fact means that if I ever have kids, I will emphasize books over balls and microphones. But that doesn't mean I will not encourage my kids to excel in non-academic pursuits. Nor will I deter them from going after a "non-intellectual" career path if they feel so inclined. I think all of us--black people and white people--could benefit from striking a better balance.

FinnAgain

03-31-2005, 10:29 PM

Sorry, but I'm not the one making the claim. You say that this disparity proves something about black culture. But you argue from ignorance. If this disparity is meaningful, it's up to you to show that it deviates from norms in other groups.

You fucking kidding me?
You're the one arguing from ignorance as you've evidently not read my cites. The third in specific goes over the demographic breakdown.

Trying reading material before you try to debunk it, mmmkay?
I've already shown that it deviates from the norms of other 'groups'. Try reading cites instead of kneejerking at their mention.

holmes

03-31-2005, 10:40 PM

That was the Italians. The majority of immigrants valued cash in pocket over potential cash in the future. This is exactly what's going on now.

During the first three decades of the twentieth century, most Americans were unconcerned about the high dropout rate. There was no national consensus about the desirability of universal high school education, much less college education. If a student dropped out of high school, his parents did not necessarily regard him as a failure. In many second-generation immigrant homes, a high school student was praised for quitting school and getting a job to increase the family income. The dropouts who were a societal norm only 40 years ago are now perceived as a social tragedy because they cannot find job

The reason why you don't make this a 'black' issue is that all blacks don't have the same lifestyle and history. Hell first you have to define black. A haitian, isn't going to have the same 'history' as a cuban or an African-American.

The same 'cultural' reasons for the Irish is the same for all immigrants, they needed to work, to generate income; today, not in 15 years. After several generations education has a value. African-Americans due to Jim Crow and segregation has pushed that generational shift back several more generations than it should have. That will pass, it already has. I still say you're using a small percentage to cry the sky's falling.

It's not PC to realize that African-Americans don't need special treatment, for a common historical problem. Besides I think African-Americans have had enough "help" from the Great White Father. Thank you very much.

Unless you have some mojo that will make sports, entertainment and crime, less profitable than most jobs an education can bring, I feel you're wasting your time. Who among us, wouldn't want to be a rock and roll star, an All Star Player or Superfly?

Some of us realize that's not going to happen, others don't. Such is life.

There's a quote, I can't remember who said it, but a leader is asked what can the white man, do to help the Negro? His answer, "Leave us alone."

You want to help? Make sure the playing field's level and get out of the way.

mswas

03-31-2005, 10:40 PM

:headdesk:
If it can't be proven, then it shouldn't be presented as fact!

agreed

A cite isn't forthcoming because his position is full of shit.
And no, I'm not going to stop pointing that out until he retracts his (unproven!) assertions.

His position isn't full of shit, it's just that the data is extraordinarily hard to come by. I doubt there has been a study about the effect of Jayson Blair upon the reputation of black Americans.

Fair enough. You see me as you want, I see you being a lazy anti-intellectual anti-scientific fluffy bunny who thinks that demands for proof are somehow wrong.

You're right, because I think wasting your time saying cite cite cite cite cite cite cite makes me an anti-intellectual. You've filled this thread asking for a cite not because you want a cite, but because you know one won't be forthcoming, and you want to lord it over him so you can win. How about this, I am ok with you asking for a cite for the same issue five times. Then after that I become an anti-intellectual and hate evidence...grr!

Why, exactly? Or is this the "if you disagree with me you're stooopit!" defense, again?
Is it not valid to state that varying 'groups' have entered this country with little to no social status and gained social power via education? Or are we not allowed to discuss this fundamental dynamic now out of some pc bullshit?

If you can't see how an immigrant family with saved income and awareness of a venerable tradition sending members of their family to use that startup capital in the US to create a business that can then be used to bring more of their family members over to the US with pre-supplied work, is different from a Black American who was descended from a black man and woman brought over by two different slave ships, and then sold at five years old having no idea what tribe his parents were even from who then lived in poverty and who's grandfather wasn't allowed to drink out of 'white' water fountains is different, then you are stooopit.

And you say I am the one who is anti-intellectual. Intellectuals don't need proof for every little thing said in a conversation. They are willing to accept certain things, such as the difference between the asian family and the black family and not harp on it so the flow of the conversation can continue.

Again, so you are not confused, my issue with citecitecitecitecitecitecitecitecite isn't that you wanted a cite from him initially, it's that you never accepted it when one wasn't forthcoming.

Erek

FinnAgain

03-31-2005, 10:45 PM

It isn't pretty damn clear.

Yes, it is. Cleaving to education yields rewards.

Stop moving the goal posts. The discussion was on groups, not individuals.

Um, no, the discussion was on problems within black culture. As it happens, they affect individuals.

Black people have valued education since it became legal for us to become educated. It is offensively wrong to cite lack of respect for education as the reason why black people have not succeeded.

Take it up Howard University. :rolleyes: Offensively wrong indeed. Better call the PC police.

If you want to affirm the value of education, I will join you. Education is certainly a great thing. But telling blacks to look at the success of Asians in this country as proof that the only thing keeping them back is their own stupidity and laziness (not saying you are doing this, but the model minority mythology encourages this thinking) is wrong.

It's not saying that it's the only thing, but the statistics I've provided show that amongst young black males, education is often not valued highly enough. No, it's not a panacea, but it is a first step. If you don't want to focus on Asians as a 'group' I'm with you. Let's instead focus on individuals and academics.

These were not the two groups you were talking about earlier. Don't get it twisted.

Yes, they are.
Don't get it twisted.

No it doesn't. Ever heard of the term "self-hatred"? I believe it is possible to hate others of your group, especially if you were brought up believing you were somewhat "different" or "special". Why wouldn't I call a person like this "racist"?

So if a black person does the research (which nobody has yet denied. Odd, that.) And comes to the conclusion that there are societal factors, they must be self-hating? Why can't anybody in this thread touch the data?

Now, I don't mean to imply anything about the black academics you've cited. They probably are not racist. But as a wise woman once said, my skinfolk aren't necessarily kinfolk. I'm not automatically comforted by the way someone looks if what they're selling smells suspect.

Yes yes, it smells suspect. But please point out either flaws in their data or methodology.

WTH?

My sentiment exactly.

Throwing a ball has zilch to do with academics, but that does not mean it isn't a route to success. Why do you want to argue over such a basic point?

Um... because atheltics is a route to sucess for less than one percent of those who shoot for it, and academics is a route to sucess for most of those who shoot for it?

In my post, I talked about sports, music, social and civic clubs, and leadership positions. And yet you focus on one thing--"throwing a ball".

Pardon me.
Sports: less than one percent.
Music: less than one percent.
Social and civic clubs: less then one percent.

I just picked the most ridiculous example you put forward. Academics is the only way one can have any guarante of upward mobility.

Academics give you social power, but it is not the only way. I have a sister who was hellion in secondary school. Smart girl but she didn't try. A "C" was a good grade for her. Never got past her community college associate's degree. And yet, she's making a ton more money than I am, the Ph.D in the family. She's doing it legitimately as a financial advisor for Wachovia.

How common is she? How many people without any degrees, what-so-ever, are hired over this with PhD's?

She will always be more "successful" than I am, and I will tell you why. First, she's sociable. Loves to talk and glad-hand. She loves people and has the strong temperate for dealing with their "issues". Me? I cower when I'm meeting new people. I'm shy and inhibited when I speak, and I get tired easily in social situations. Secondly, she's a self-starter and risk-taker. She has no problem picking up and leaving a dead-in job because she's got supreme self-confidence in herself. Lastly, she knows a lot of things from her diverse experiences. She's worked in retail, nursing care, street hussling, you name it. Well-rounded is my sister's middle name. Meanwhile, all I know is aquatic invertebrates. Ooh, I'm so smart :rolleyes:

And yet, I'd bet you'd have a much easier chance getting a job dealing with aquatic invertebrates than she would. Social skills are important, but when you submit a resume they don't care how chatty you are.

My sister's valuable skills weren't acquired through pressing her nose to a book. By everyone's standard, my sis was just another disappointing black kid because she had a low GPA. Boy were they wrong.

How many people with low GPA's go on to great things? Is she an exception, or the rule?

I was a nerd in school. I never went out and partied. I never joined clubs or went out for teams. I was all about making good grades and impressing my teachers. While my sister was developing her social and survival skills, I was counting the setae on copepods' legs. How is that "success"? And why should I find fault with a culture that places more value on social and survival skills than accumulating esoteric knowledge?

Because one will get you a job in your field, and the other won't.
No matter how well she's able to schmooze, she's not going to get the same jobs you could.

"Throwing a ball" does not have equal footing with reading and writing, not only socially but intrinsically. This fact means that if I ever have kids, I will emphasize books over balls and microphones. But that doesn't mean I will not encourage my kids to excel in non-academic pursuits. Nor will I deter them from going after a "non-intellectual" career path if they feel so inclined. I think all of us--black people and white people--could benefit from striking a better balance.

Perhaps. But if you want your kid to have the best chances at the most jobs, you'll make sure they go to college.

mswas

03-31-2005, 10:48 PM

Why, exactly? Or is this the "if you disagree with me you're stooopit!" defense, again?
Is it not valid to state that varying 'groups' have entered this country with little to no social status and gained social power via education? Or are we not allowed to discuss this fundamental dynamic now out of some pc bullshit?

No the issue is that you are lumping people into this "other" category that is neither compelling nor accurate. They sure can better themselves through education, but if one side has more money initially they also have more status initially.

One simple thing to remember is that the asian immigrant is more likely to have access to a familial tradition than a black slave. That in and of itself makes all the difference.

Erek

FinnAgain

03-31-2005, 10:52 PM

The reason why you don't make this a 'black' issue is that all blacks don't have the same lifestyle and history. Hell first you have to define black. A haitian, isn't going to have the same 'history' as a cuban or an African-American.

Okay, so we recast it as 'students who are considered to be and treated as black students." What does that change?
Moreoever, the cites I provided state that this is a black issue due to certain cultural issues, presentations in the media, etc... Can you please point out where they went wrong on their specific points?

That will pass, it already has. I still say you're using a small percentage to cry the sky's falling.

Show that it already has.
The studies I linked to discuss a widespread problem. If they're wrong, please show me exactly where.

It's not PC to realize that African-Americans don't need special treatment, for a common historical problem. Besides I think African-Americans have had enough "help" from the Great White Father. Thank you very much.

So the studies I linked to were, what, wrong, lying?
If they're wrong, please point out exactly where. Same for if they're lying.

Unless you have some mojo that will make sports, entertainment and crime, less profitable than most jobs an education can bring, I feel you're wasting your time. Who among us, wouldn't want to be a rock and roll star, an All Star Player or Superfly?

I don't need any mojo.
Look at the average starting wage of a college grad.
Then look at the average starting wage of someone playing guitar in their mother's garage because they haven't been discovered yet.
Then look at how many kids want to be rock stars, versus how many actually make it.

You want to help? Make sure the playing field's level and get out of the way.

I see. So the statistical trend towards failure in young black males should just be ignored. Making education equal doesn't help level the playing field. Let 'em all fail! Hell, I'm white, who the hell am I to help students whose skin color is different than mine?

holmes

03-31-2005, 11:02 PM

The reason to help them is because they're your students, not because they're your burden. And yes if they won't tow the line, then the hell with them and try to help others.

It looks to me the only PC'er here is you and a bit of an elitist too.

I can't get your cites to work, they all lead to the UofT log in.

monstro

03-31-2005, 11:04 PM

And why should I find fault with a culture that places more value on social and survival skills than accumulating esoteric knowledge?

As I wrote the above, I was reminded of a Politically Incorrect I once watched. Chris Rock was one of the guests. As usual, Bill Mahr was talking in a bit of a rambling, loving-to-hear-his-own-voice kind of way when suddenly, Chris Rock interupted with:

"What the fuck are you talking about, man?!"

The crowd roared.

I find Bill Mahr funny in an intellectual way. I find Chris Rock hilarious in an emotional way. There's no reason why intellectual humor should be placed on a pedastal over more heart-felt stuff. Why should it be? Funny is funny.

If black culture exists (and I think it does), I think you will find emotionalism emphasized over intellectualism. You can be smart, but don't be cold in your demeanor, emotionally stiff, and bent on living by a bunch of uncomfortable mores (like staying up all night so you can get an "A" on the AP English exam). In other words, be "cool" man. Just chill..till the next episode.

FinnAgain

03-31-2005, 11:05 PM

His position isn't full of shit, it's just that the data is extraordinarily hard to come by. I doubt there has been a study about the effect of Jayson Blair upon the reputation of black Americans.

Are you for real????
First you agree that statements which can't be proven shouldn't be presented as fact. And then you deny that the presentation of statements which can't be proven as factual is full of shit.
Goddamn!

You're right, because I think wasting your time saying cite cite cite cite cite cite cite makes me an anti-intellectual. You've filled this thread asking for a cite not because you want a cite, but because you know one won't be forthcoming, and you want to lord it over him so you can win. How about this, I am ok with you asking for a cite for the same issue five times. Then after that I become an anti-intellectual and hate evidence...grr!

I don't know what your deal is, honestly. A cite isn't forthcoming because he can not prove his point. And yet, he won't retract it. What else am I supposed to do other than point that out whenever he makes his unproven claims? It's not about winning, it's about truth!

If you can't see how an immigrant family with saved income and awareness of a venerable tradition sending members of their family to use that startup capital in the US to create a business that can then be used to bring more of their family members over to the US with pre-supplied work, is different from a Black American who was descended from a black man and woman brought over by two different slave ships, and then sold at five years old having no idea what tribe his parents were even from who then lived in poverty and who's grandfather wasn't allowed to drink out of 'white' water fountains is different, then you are stooopit.

Oh please!
I lived in Manhattan, I saw the situation that many Asian imigrants lived in. They certainly weren't hiding money under the floorboards. And yes, you want to bring history into it, fallaciously. The fact remains that whether your grandparents were yak herders or oil barons, unless you've got a huge chunk of cash then education is your most sure fire way to upward mobility.

And you say I am the one who is anti-intellectual. Intellectuals don't need proof for every little thing said in a conversation. They are willing to accept certain things, such as the difference between the asian family and the black family and not harp on it so the flow of the conversation can continue.

Mmm hmm. So in your world, intellectuals accept things just so the conversation can continue. (psst, that's cocktail party hostesses, not intellectuals.)
Nobody has claimed that asian families and black familes are the same. There is, however, a claim that those which value education highly are more upwardly mobile. There are also claims (made by scholars, with data), that many young black males do not value education.

Again, so you are not confused, my issue with citecitecitecitecitecitecitecitecite isn't that you wanted a cite from him initially, it's that you never accepted it when one wasn't forthcoming.

So the fact that he can't prove his assertions and yet won't retract them reflects badly on me?
I'm supposed to "accept" that his position is totally devoid of factual confirmation? Just let that slide, eh? So the conversation can continue?

"The moon is made of green cheese. I won't prove it. Just accept it as true so we can keep talking." :rolleyes:

No the issue is that you are lumping people into this "other" category that is neither compelling nor accurate. They sure can better themselves through education, but if one side has more money initially they also have more status initially.

Who cares if they have more status or less? That's completely beside the point!
The point is that regardless of starting status, education improves it.

One simple thing to remember is that the asian immigrant is more likely to have access to a familial tradition than a black slave. That in and of itself makes all the difference.

Wow... you'd think my cites would have mentioned something like that. Oh, wait, they did. :smack:

FinnAgain

03-31-2005, 11:14 PM

The reason to help them is because they're your students, not because they're your burden.

If you think that the welfare of my students isn't my burden, you've not taken enough courses on education.

And yes if they won't tow the line, then the hell with them and try to help others.

Shit. I'm glad teachers are trained in the exact opposite paradigm.
"Kid has a problem? Fuck 'em! There are other kids."

It looks to me the only PC'er here is you and a bit of an elitist too.

Riiiight. I'm an elitist because... I use data? I believe that education is valuable? Do tell. As for me being PC, I don't know what to say to that. It's just loony.

I can't get your cites to work, they all lead to the UofT log in.

K, hold on.

2nd cite:
Why the Large and Growing Gender Gap in African-American Higher Education?
The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 19. (Spring, 1998), pp. 34-35.

3rd cite:
Educating and Motivating African American Males to Succeed, by Antoine M. Garibaldi
The Journal of Negro Education © 1992

(sorry, JSTOR is being odd and won't let me record two cites at once it seems. And it's got the first one cached even though I've removed it.)

FinnAgain

03-31-2005, 11:18 PM

I find Bill Mahr funny in an intellectual way. I find Chris Rock hilarious in an emotional way. There's no reason why intellectual humor should be placed on a pedastal over more heart-felt stuff. Why should it be? Funny is funny.

And you'd have a point if we were talking about comics.
But we're not.
Trying to get a job which requires a college degree by cracking jokes won't get you that far.

If black culture exists (and I think it does), I think you will find emotionalism emphasized over intellectualism. You can be smart, but don't be cold in your demeanor, emotionally stiff, and bent on living by a bunch of uncomfortable mores (like staying up all night so you can get an "A" on the AP English exam). In other words, be "cool" man. Just chill..till the next episode.

So you want to apply for a top flight, high paying job. And you say that you've got no credentials, but man are you ever chill.

"Sir, we're looking for someone with five years of experience as well as an MA or preferably a PhD."
"Well, I didn't stay up all night to get any A's, but I'm pretty chill!"

Think you're going to get the job?

mswas

03-31-2005, 11:20 PM

I don't need any mojo.
Look at the average starting wage of a college grad.
Then look at the average starting wage of someone playing guitar in their mother's garage because they haven't been discovered yet.
Then look at how many kids want to be rock stars, versus how many actually make it.

I disagree, everyone needs mojo, some more than others.

Do leading examples work for you usually? There is no starting wage for playing guitar in your mother's garage because there isn't any revenue coming in. You can't compare that to someone with an employer with revenue.

You're making the assumption that the kid playing guitar can ONLY play guitar. What if he can: Build a guitar, Do lighting, Run a sound board, Fix an amp, Recone a speaker, build a stage, build a set, play weddings and bat mitzvahs? None of these REQUIRE a college education.

When I was 22 I was making $ 40k a year + benefits full medical/dental and a 401k not having a lick of college. I was teaching all the college graduates how to use a computer at the most basic level. My friend who HAS a college degree just told me how great it was that he was getting a raise from $ 12 an hour to $ 15 an hour. I charge anywhere from $ 40-100 an hour.

The whole "Everyone needs college" thing is a myth, and I know a lot of people pretty bitter about that whole myth.

Being social and gregarious can get you a whole lot in this world. I have gotten a number of my contacts that have turned into jobs from going out partying and doing lots of drugs with them.

The truth is, a college degree doesn't hold as much weight as it used to because of people like you thinking it's a panacea for all of society's ills, when in reality what's happened is a lot of young kids in a whole lot of debt with very few prospects, and even less prospects for all the kids that DIDN'T go into debt. By perpetuating that myth, all you do is water down the effect of a college degree.

Maybe the backlash caused by this myth is why people of ALL races don't respect it.

Erek

FinnAgain

03-31-2005, 11:34 PM

Do leading examples work for you usually? There is no starting wage for playing guitar in your mother's garage because there isn't any revenue coming in. You can't compare that to someone with an employer with revenue.

Most people who want to be rock stars, aren't. As such, they have no revenue. Most people who go to college get jobs. As such, they have revenue. Honestly, what else is there to say?

You're making the assumption that the kid playing guitar can ONLY play guitar. What if he can: Build a guitar, Do lighting, Run a sound board, Fix an amp, Recone a speaker, build a stage, build a set, play weddings and bat mitzvahs? None of these REQUIRE a college education.

How many multitalented individuals like that are there?
How many could find work?
Yes, it's possible to earn a good living without a degree.
It's not likely though.

When I was 22 I was making $ 40k a year + benefits full medical/dental and a 401k not having a lick of college. I was teaching all the college graduates how to use a computer at the most basic level. My friend who HAS a college degree just told me how great it was that he was getting a raise from $ 12 an hour to $ 15 an hour. I charge anywhere from $ 40-100 an hour.

There are exceptions to any rule.
Do most people, without experience in computer science/technology, who don't have degrees, go on to make lots of money?

The whole "Everyone needs college" thing is a myth, and I know a lot of people pretty bitter about that whole myth.

Funny... virtually every job that's high paying which I see demands at least a college degree. Don't confuse 'you don't need a college degree' with 'a college degree doesn't provide an advantage.'

Being social and gregarious can get you a whole lot in this world. I have gotten a number of my contacts that have turned into jobs from going out partying and doing lots of drugs with them.

Ah, that's how we should instruct our children.
Fuck school, go out, party and do drugs. Put that on a resume.

The truth is, a college degree doesn't hold as much weight as it used to because of people like you thinking it's a panacea for all of society's ills,

Actually, I've specificaly said education isn't a panacea.
And as for why it doesn't hold as much weight, it's because it's now the accepted minimum.

when in reality what's happened is a lot of young kids in a whole lot of debt with very few prospects, and even less prospects for all the kids that DIDN'T go into debt. By perpetuating that myth, all you do is water down the effect of a college degree.

So, even in your warped view, those who go to college have more prospects than those who don't (eg. those who don't go into debt for education.)

Maybe the backlash caused by this myth is why people of ALL races don't respect it.

Or maybe it's because it's the minimum requirement and employers are asking for more?

----------
But ya know what? It's late, I'm tired, and my head hurts.
I've provided the research, and the scientific studies. More is out there if you look it up.
I'm done with this. Let's all pretend that college isn't a better thing than a high school degree, and the statistics aren't something to be worried about. I'm through.

mswas

03-31-2005, 11:35 PM

Are you for real????
First you agree that statements which can't be proven shouldn't be presented as fact. And then you deny that the presentation of statements which can't be proven as factual is full of shit.
Goddamn!

Not being able to prove something does not make it false.

I don't know what your deal is, honestly. A cite isn't forthcoming because he can not prove his point. And yet, he won't retract it. What else am I supposed to do other than point that out whenever he makes his unproven claims? It's not about winning, it's about truth!

The truth is that it may or may not be true. He believes it to be true, you don't have to, but going citecitecitecitecitecitecitecitecitecitecite is pedantry NOT intellectualism.

Oh please!
I lived in Manhattan, I saw the situation that many Asian imigrants lived in. They certainly weren't hiding money under the floorboards. And yes, you want to bring history into it, fallaciously. The fact remains that whether your grandparents were yak herders or oil barons, unless you've got a huge chunk of cash then education is your most sure fire way to upward mobility.

Yes, many asian immigrants, but the specific example was that of asian immigrants that started out with a leg up.

Mmm hmm. So in your world, intellectuals accept things just so the conversation can continue. (psst, that's cocktail party hostesses, not intellectuals.)
Nobody has claimed that asian families and black familes are the same. There is, however, a claim that those which value education highly are more upwardly mobile. There are also claims (made by scholars, with data), that many young black males do not value education.

Yes, education CAN improve upward mobility. I'll give you a hint, those of us outside of collegiate circles refer to "education" as "learning". It might help you when communicating with the plebes. The difference between "learning" and education is that you can do it anywhere, and not just in the collegiate temples where you are supervised by the academic priests. Maybe just maybe, they don't believe in the education you're selling. You have shown an ignorance of the problem when Monstro used the Chris Rock vs Bill Maher example. You don't have to approach education as a WASP in order for it to be lofty enough. Chris Rock even has a joke about that. "Keeping it real? Yeah, keeping it real dumb.", Chris Rock is a brilliant and educated man, but he is most definitely cooler than Bill Maher who is also a brilliant and educated man.

So the fact that he can't prove his assertions and yet won't retract them reflects badly on me?
I'm supposed to "accept" that his position is totally devoid of factual confirmation? Just let that slide, eh? So the conversation can continue?

Yes, you made your point, it's time to move on. Mojo would help you in this. Or else if you need a cite you can just refer to tact (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tact)

"The moon is made of green cheese. I won't prove it. Just accept it as true so we can keep talking." :rolleyes:

Until they can prove that the moon landing wasn't performed in a film studio I guess we'll never know for sure. Though it looks grey from here, sometimes red, or even blue. I've never seen it look green.

Who cares if they have more status or less? That's completely beside the point!
The point is that regardless of starting status, education improves it.

You know what I can agree with this without needing a cite. I have transcended being a mere intellectual and am now elevated to the status of COCKTAIL HOSTESS!

Wow... you'd think my cites would have mentioned something like that. Oh, wait, they did. :smack:

I'm sorry if I missed something in your volumes and volumes and volumes and volumes and volumes and volumes of cites.

Erek

mswas

03-31-2005, 11:44 PM

Most people who want to be rock stars, aren't. As such, they have no revenue. Most people who go to college get jobs. As such, they have revenue. Honestly, what else is there to say?

Would you say that most people with college degrees have a job in their field?

How many multitalented individuals like that are there?
How many could find work?
Yes, it's possible to earn a good living without a degree.
It's not likely though.

I know a whole fucking lot of them. Anyone who has gone out and participated in life actually.

There are exceptions to any rule.
Do most people, without experience in computer science/technology, who don't have degrees, go on to make lots of money?

Do most people with college degrees go out to make lots of money? Is money the standard by which all success should be measured? What salary constitutes lots of money?

Funny... virtually every job that's high paying which I see demands at least a college degree. Don't confuse 'you don't need a college degree' with 'a college degree doesn't provide an advantage.'

Most people in successful positions I know of, whether they went through college or not carved out their own niche in society.

Ah, that's how we should instruct our children.
Fuck school, go out, party and do drugs. Put that on a resume.

Just debunking myths. Winners do occasionally use drugs. ;)

Actually, I've specificaly said education isn't a panacea.
And as for why it doesn't hold as much weight, it's because it's now the accepted minimum.

So, even in your warped view, those who go to college have more prospects than those who don't (eg. those who don't go into debt for education.)

Or maybe it's because it's the minimum requirement and employers are asking for more?

Would you say that it's a good thing that it is the minimum requirement even though employers often have to retrain college graduates because they have few practical skills?

----------
But ya know what? It's late, I'm tired, and my head hurts.
I've provided the research, and the scientific studies. More is out there if you look it up.
I'm done with this. Let's all pretend that college isn't a better thing than a high school degree, and the statistics aren't something to be worried about. I'm through.

It's not your data we have the problem with, it's your elitist attitude. Your data's great, we appreciate it. College isn't universally better than a High School Diploma. A sense of purpose and some goals help a whole lot.

Erek

monstro

03-31-2005, 11:59 PM

Um, no, the discussion was on problems within black culture. As it happens, they affect individuals.

No, the discussion which prompted me to enter the fray was when you started talking about Asians and drawing comparisons with blacks. We are having multiple discussions here, not one. But I understand if you want to forget what you said earlier.

Take it up Howard University. :rolleyes: Offensively wrong indeed. Better call the PC police.

The only person here talking about PC is you. Stop it.

It's not saying that it's the only thing, but the statistics I've provided show that amongst young black males, education is often not valued highly enough. No, it's not a panacea, but it is a first step. If you don't want to focus on Asians as a 'group' I'm with you. Let's instead focus on individuals and academics.

If we want to fix the under-achievement of black males--and you have stated that this is a "black" problem--how does it help matters to target individuals?

You use individuals and groups interchangeably almost. They are not the same thing. If underachievement is a problem of black culture, it makes sense to tackle this thing at the level of groups. And get this: There is nothing wrong with this strategy!

So if a black person does the research (which nobody has yet denied. Odd, that.) And comes to the conclusion that there are societal factors, they must be self-hating? Why can't anybody in this thread touch the data?

Yes yes, it smells suspect. But please point out either flaws in their data or methodology.

I don't have any beef with your academics' data, for the last time. I don't have a beef with the citations you've posted. My issue was with you highlighting their "blackness" as if this in itself would deflect charges against racism. It doesn't.

Um... because atheltics is a route to sucess for less than one percent of those who shoot for it, and academics is a route to sucess for most of those who shoot for it?

Atheletics and academics are not as mutually exclusive as you're making it sound like. The former has helped hundreds of thousands enter college and obtain degrees. It is the degree that perhaps gets them into the workforce, but "throwing a ball" was the route that got them to that point.

Pardon me.
Sports: less than one percent.
Music: less than one percent.
Social and civic clubs: less then one percent.

Cite for such small percentages?

I know most colleges and universities look favorably on extracurricular activities to the point that they are almost required for admittance. Isn't our entertainment industry composed of much more than 1% of the population? How about professions that are community-oriented? It seems to the above activities has helped much more than one percent of the population reach success. Our society isn't run by brainacs, thank God.

I just picked the most ridiculous example you put forward. Academics is the only way one can have any guarante of upward mobility.

I didn't put forward "throwing a ball". You did. And the fact that you would belittle sports like that reflects on your own snobbery.

There are no guarantees in this society. Having a BS or BA does not entitle you to more money, more power, or anything else you define "success" as being. You are more likely to make money if you have a college career, yes. But I know plenty of people who have all kinds of fancy alphabets who can't find a job and are actually doing worse than their parents.

How common is she? How many people without any degrees, what-so-ever, are hired over this with PhD's?

I'm not arguing that people without college degrees aren't at a disadvantage with those who have college degrees. Nothing I've said should give you this idea. My point is that it isn't the "book stuff" you learn in school that dictates your success. Having the degree and the high GPA is going to help you, sure, but so is being socially aware, plucky, savvy, practical, and taking risks.

I don't believe my sister is such a rarity. I've met many people who were "late bloomers" or underachievers in school who turned out to go on to great things. They may not be driving luxury automobiles and living in mansions, but they are successful because they are happy.

And yet, I'd bet you'd have a much easier chance getting a job dealing with aquatic invertebrates than she would. Social skills are important, but when you submit a resume they don't care how chatty you are.

Of course I would. But I'm more likely to be rejected for a variety of positions--most of the positions out there, in fact--simply because I am over-qualified. My skill set is overly specialized.

How many people with low GPA's go on to great things? Is she an exception, or the rule?

Maybe I should do a survey on the board and have Dopers post their high school GPA alongside with their present salary. I don't think my sister is an exception or the rule, but I do not have the data to back me up. Do you, for your assertion?

Because one will get you a job in your field, and the other won't.
No matter how well she's able to schmooze, she's not going to get the same jobs you could.

Why do you keep saying this? I can't get the same jobs that she can, nor do I want to. That doesn't mean she's more or less successful than I am.

Perhaps. But if you want your kid to have the best chances at the most jobs, you'll make sure they go to college.

If they are so inclined. Some of the best paying jobs out there are for the trades. I believe thousands of kids are being rangled into college when they'd do best in a vocational school. Our society is raising a bunch of snobs who think they're too good to fix a car, drive a bus, snake a toliet, install an air conditioner, and run a forklift. Pretty soon we'll see plenty of Ph.Ds doing these occupations. That's when we'll all start wondering how we lost our way to common sense.

I will encourage my kids to go to college because you're right; college will see them to most jobs. But this is an artifical requirement. Society ran just fine fifty years ago when most folks had a high school degree. It wasn't academics that made people "losers" and "winners" back then. It was that other, "less important" stuff.

monstro

04-01-2005, 12:19 AM

And you'd have a point if we were talking about comics.
But we're not.
Trying to get a job which requires a college degree by cracking jokes won't get you that far.

So you want to apply for a top flight, high paying job. And you say that you've got no credentials, but man are you ever chill.

"Sir, we're looking for someone with five years of experience as well as an MA or preferably a PhD."
"Well, I didn't stay up all night to get any A's, but I'm pretty chill!"

Think you're going to get the job?

You are a giant jerk.

Look, if you are going to ruminate about "black culture this", "black culture that", it might help you to understand how "black culture" differs from mainstream culture. And guess what? The differences are much more nuanced and complicated than dumb=cool=black. It has to do with how black people are raised to interact and relate with themselves and others. In some cases, these cultural ways breed success. In others, it does not.

Black culture isn't failing most blacks, obviously, since most of us are middle-class, hard-working Americans. And one need only turn on the TV or listen to the radio and get evidence that black culture actually promotes high levels of success in some venues. Villifying routes of success that don't match some arbritrary standard is ridiculous to me.

Of course, the whole point of me bringing this up wasn't to argue against the OP. I do believe anti-intellectualism is a big problem in the black community. But I also think black people aren't losers when it comes to other areas of life and living. Our success in these areas shouldn't be ignored or downplayed as being insignificant--in fact our ways should be respected and emulated.

I am "chilling" right on outta here.

Sample_the_Dog

04-01-2005, 06:46 AM

You fucking kidding me?
You're the one arguing from ignorance as you've evidently not read my cites. The third in specific goes over the demographic breakdown.

Trying reading material before you try to debunk it, mmmkay?
I've already shown that it deviates from the norms of other 'groups'. Try reading cites instead of kneejerking at their mention.
No, I'm not kidding you.

I did read the Noguera article, but the only mention of girls I found was a reference to the Luker pregnancy study.

The Journal of Black in Higher Ed and Journal of Negro Ed cites required registration with UT, including DOB, which I prefer not to do.

I didn't read the Blair cites because I assumed they weren't relevant.

Could you post the relevant stats in a quote box, please? It should be easy for you to find.

Keep in mind, too, that I'm not saying that this effect is uniform among whites, but can be expected to vary according to socioeconomic status and perceived social status.

I've seen this effect in the real word, and not just in the schools I went to as a kid. I know that it's not just the African American culture that suffers from this kind of anti-intellectualism.

Also, the influences I mentioned in my earlier post (glorification of sports/entertainment figures in the media, and lack of adult male role models in the home) are prominent in many cultures -- again, not treating white culture as monolithic. So again, I don't believe they can be credibly cited as causative.

If you can post some relevant passages from your sources, or point me to print sources or online sources that don't require intrusive registration, I'll be glad to check them out, because I'm genuinely interested in the subject.

Thanks.

jsgoddess

04-01-2005, 08:15 AM

If black culture exists (and I think it does), I think you will find emotionalism emphasized over intellectualism. You can be smart, but don't be cold in your demeanor, emotionally stiff, and bent on living by a bunch of uncomfortable mores (like staying up all night so you can get an "A" on the AP English exam). In other words, be "cool" man. Just chill..till the next episode.

Certain forms of education are very solitary pursuits, and if a culture promotes being social over being solitary, that would go a long way toward explaining why that culture might be a bit leery of things that isolate their young people.

I could see that being true of many black communities, especially when it's a threatened community. (It is definitely true of the white community in which I live. Make friends and you might get help when you need it. Go to school and you still might need help but you haven't spent the time building the network.) Networking, having someone watching out for you and keeping you safe, would be a much more immediate benefit when the culture perceives an "enemy at the gate" so to speak. Which is more useful if you feel threatened, straight As or a big group of friends? I'd go with the latter!

holmes

04-01-2005, 09:26 AM

Too bad you bailed FinnAgain this thread might actually gotten really interesting. Anyway the charges of elitism has nothing to do with requiring cites ( you notice no one seems able to access the cites you've provided; but will haven't claimed your "proof" is irrelevant.), but your determination that unless someone attains a B.A. they are doomed to failure or that a B.A. will ensure you a stepping stone to success.

As Monstro and others have noted, success is not just a matter of a resume and this is a country founded on self-made people. It's the one quality we still value and I like the others know many people who through their own strength of will and determination make a good, decent living....without more than a high school degree from a third rate school.

It's cite time, I know how much you love the cites.
More Than 3.7 Million African Americans Now Hold a Four-Year College Degree

Fifteen years ago only 11.3 percent of the adult black population held a college degree. Now the percentage has grown to 17.3 percent. More than 3.7 million African Americans alive today hold a four-year college diploma.

Recently, a subscriber to JBHE called to tell us that he loves our journal but that he wishes it were possible to have fewer articles telling us that life is unfair and that blacks are having trouble making it in college. Well, here is a story that should please that reader.

At the time of the Harlem Renaissance in the 1920s, at best 10,000 American blacks — one in 1,000 — were college educated. We are now thrilled to report that there are more than 3.7 million African Americans alive today who hold a four-year college degree.

The breakdown is as follows: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are about 2,676,000 blacks in this country who hold a bachelor's degree only. And there are an additional 829,000 African Americans who have a four-year college degree plus also hold a master's degree. An additional 135,000 blacks hold a professional degree in fields such as law, business, or medicine. Another 100,000 African Americans have obtained a doctorate. Overall, 3,736,000 African Americans possess a four-year college degree or higher.

In 2003, 17.3 percent of all African Americans over the age of 25 held a college degree. This figure has increased significantly from 13.8 percent in 1996 and 11.3 percent in 1990.

Things are getting better, no?

This article also speaks a bit about the gender gap :

Some 539,000 black women hold a master's degree compared to 290,000 black men. Thus, black women hold nearly two thirds of all African-American master's degrees, an even larger share of their total in bachelor's degree attainments.

Up until very recently, black men continued to have a lead over black women in their numbers of professional degrees. But in this group black women now have a slim lead. About 72,000 black women have a professional degree in the United States today compared to 64,000 black men. But black men still hold the lead in doctorates. Black men hold 64,000 of the 100,000 doctorates held by living African Americans.

Due to the huge advantage black women hold over black men in college and graduate school enrollments today, these statistics on the gender gap in African-American degree attainments will grow considerably wider in the years ahead.

This is a matter for grave concern. The chances for disharmony within African-American marriages will almost certainly increase due to the differences in educational background and the resulting unequal economic opportunities available to each spouse. It is likely, too, that marriages among educational unequals will produce low self-esteem among the male partners. As a result, marriages between spouses with significantly different levels of education may be more prone to divorce and spousal abuse than marriages in which the spouses have similar educational backgrounds.

WFT? Is this the type of 'sources' you're citing? The Black man is so weak and insecure, that if his spouse makes more money, he's going to beat her? You did cite the Journal of Black Higher Education, right?

http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/44_college-degree.html

you with the face

04-01-2005, 10:57 AM

And just because I've got a few more words on this topic js, it's somewhat less than cool to take off topic and out of context quotes of mine and attempt to set up an analogy in a situation which is totally different.

You may not see it, Finn, but your posts in this thread do appear to contradict ideas you've expressed in other threads. I'm not saying this to inflame, because I don't think you're a bad guy. But it is obvious that in this thread your standards of judgement are much more narrow-minded than they appear in other discussions.

Remember featherlou's thread, Girls, have some respect for yourselves (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=307832&page=2&pp=50)? Here are things you said:

I just don't understand this concept of objectification. I honestly don't see how it's any different than using sex appeal. If I want someone to check out my body instead of my mind, that's my choice. There are varying strategies to getting what you want, and that one seems valid to me.

So what about education and intellect? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're only talking about attracting mates, and not much more. But it seems like when it comes to sex appeal vs. mind, you seem to hold them as equally valuble traits. I don't see you insisting on one being better than the other. Can't say that here, though.

I'm hardly able to pass judgement on someone's personal behavior which doesn't affect me.

Except if they are black guys trying be cool, right? Then you can judge them all day. And with much vehemence. ;)

If someone prefers cheap sex to meangingful relationships, and doesn't want the burden of being an intellectual, who am I to say differently for their life?

Yes, who's to say indeed.

Again, I'm not trying to poke you with a stick or anything. Just pointing out that even within your own belief system, things are not that black and white. Who is to say that success should always be measured by money, degrees, and job titles? Just as you have admonished others for judging women for getting by on their boobs instead of relying on their brains, allow others to admonish your attitude towards those who pursue non-intellectual tracks in life.

Peace.