Charlie corners Jerome in a dark alley and punches him in the stomach. Then he body slams him and gouges out his eyes. Charlie then gives him a few chops to the kidneys, laughing as Jerome cries out. Charlie then does the unbelievable and rapes Jerome.
Suddenly, Jerome escapes! But Charlie’s right after him and catches up to him in another alley. Charlie pulls out a noose and strings Jerome up by his neck. As Jerome struggles to stay alive, Charlie pulls out all of his pockets, robbing him blind.
“STOP!” Jerome finally says. And Charlie comes to his senses and stops the violence. He even cuts the rope from Jerome’s neck so he can breath.
“I’m not going to apologize,” Charlie says. “But let’s call a truce, ok?”
Charlie holds out his hand, but Jerome–still trying to catch his breath–won’t take it.
“Well fuck off, you pessimistic bastard!” Charlie says. “You wouldn’t be still on the fucking ground if you’d just forgive and forget! And don’t act sancitimonious! You know you would have done the SAME thing if you had been in my shoes! And I didn’t even hurt you that bad! It happened so long ago, it’s like it never happened. Now get up, you sorry sack!”
Jerome gets up, but he can never feel as tall as Charlie. His muscles are tender and sensitive because of the pummeling that Charlie gave him. He has bad eyesight because the pain and humiliation has been so blinding. He is salty because Charlie and his friends keep making fun of him. He has low self-esteem because he can’t forget the beating and the name-calling. He has aspirations and Charlie promises help, but Charlie is a liar. He’s your best friend one day and he’s your enemy the next. He smiles in your face, all the while stabbing you in the back…
Part of Jerome believe he deserves it. Part of him wants to kill himself, he hates himself so much.
But another part wants to succeed, to show Charlie and everyone else, to show himself that he’s Just as Good as Everyone Else. So he trudges along, the Pessimistic Bastard, surviving just like everyone else despite the bumps and bruises he still has to treat. He takes pride in his accomplishments, and has a wall full of certificates, trophies, and plaques. He even has money now, much more than Charlie took from him. His pride almost makes him forget about Charlie and the beat-down that happened “so long ago”.
“Hey, you still suck!” Charlie and his crew shout at him gleefully as Jerome walks to work.
Jerome puts on his earphones and gives them all the finger.
Re-read the thread. You are badly misstating the flow of the conversation. It goes like this:
OP posts about Caucasian Club; folks comment and discuss
I enter the thread by basically parodying one of Diogenes’s posts.
We then hijack into whether or not “black” and “African American” mean “descended from slavery.”
Diogenes, in defending his proprietary definition, towards the bottom of page 3, claims that Africans descended from slaves have unique cutural burdens to carry vis-a-vis blacks who came here after slavery (his precise words: “cultural trauma which is unique to slave descendants.”
I ask, basically, what about the Jews? Jewish hijack ensues.
We get back to the “stolen culture” stuff around the bottom of page 4. Note that at this point, we’re still talking about the rape of African culture via the institution of slavery.
Eventually, the issue of a performance gap works its way into the discussion.
So here’s the real point: I’ve been suggesting that this pyschocultural explanation is faulty – the fact that one’s ancestors weren’t, for example, allowed to import their African religious beliefs when they were taken into slavery has fuck-all to do with the existence of the current performance gap.
I’ve also suggested that a negative present cultural environment is a better explanation for that gap. And doubtlessly, more recent examples of discrimination plays a role in explaining that culture. But I also think the relentless focus on those examples is an even more serious problem, because it serves to reinforce and perpetuate a culture that says success is impossible. **
Point of fact, I initiated precious little of this. My posts have pretty much been responses to items raised by other posters.
And as for “reading the fucking posts” – anyone can lift things out of context. If you’ll look at each of your examples, you’ll see I responded appropriately given the context in which each point arose. Don’t just lift quotes from other posters – look at the posts that gave rise to those comments, and to my responses thereto.
I’ve been quite clear about the distinctions I’m drawing and why. See, for example, my response to even sven on page 5. You have no excuse for suggesting otherwise.**
Apparently not everyone, since folks like Diogenes are eager to trace racial problems to “cultural trauma unique to slave descendants.” **
Actually, I do it because the bulk of this discussion has related to the psychocultural effects of the institution of slavery. And I didn’t bring that up; Diogenes did. **
And be deprived of your charming company? **
Nonetheless, there are white kids in Newark, just as there are black kids in the suburban areas you listed. And again: I agree that much can be done to improve poor schools. Disagreement on racial issues does not equate to disdain for the poor. **
Well, I don’t assume that “white kids are superior in every and all situations.” Indeed, on an individual level I know there are exceptionally sharp black kids and exceptionally dumb white kids; I’ve seen that personally. But we’re talking about aggregates, not individuals. And on an aggregate level, even when socioeconomic factors are controlled for, blacks tend to underperform whites. See, e.g., John Ogbu’s work studying the Shaker Heights, Ohio schools. **
Well, sure; socioeconomic factors are the single largest determinant of academic success; one would expect rich blacks to outperform poor kids of any color. And again, I agree that much can be improved in our poorer school districts. What’s your point?
Again: even when such factors are controlled for, a racial performance gap exists. How do you explain that? **
Where in my posts do you conclude that “beef with whitey” is the sole aspect of the cultural ills I describe? Indeed, going back to my first point on the matter, I used a Chris Rock routine as an illustration that didn’t mention “whitey” at all. What you describe in your cousin is an apt example of what I’m talking about – a culture that says hard work is a waste of time, a culture that minimizes the value of education, and a culture that elevates the thug is a very real and persistent problem. **
None of the people I have cited to are “psuedo-intellectuals;” they are all respected researchers in their field. And yes, respected academic studies have more evidentiary value than a random individual’s personal experience.**
[/QUOTE]
So what you’re telling me, Dewey, is that your beef has been ONLY with DtC’s stance that slavery is the most important difference between black immigrants and black Americans?
That you weren’t responding to my posts, which dealt with slavery and discrimination, but only with DtC’s?
That you have no problem accepting the role of Jim Crow on present-day disparities?
Because that’s the only way what you are saying makes sense to me.
And if you addressed my posts and the posts of others, why are you now, on page 6 of this thread, talking JUST about slavery? If you know we threw discrimination on the table, why are you trying to convincing me that the debate has been about slavery ALL ALONG?
Just stop.
Yes, I know all about the friggin aggregates. I was responding to a specific point you had raised. I wasn’t challenging the goddamn statistics.
Dewey, I have already answered this question. Either you are not reading my posts, or I am not writing very clearly. I don’t think it’s the latter. I think you’re just posting because you don’t want to give up. Fine, neither do I.
Of course you don’t think they’re psuedo-intellectuals. What they say agrees with the opinions you already have about us. Plus, people like your authors provide a nice, oversimplified view of black Americans that you can swallow easily over Sunday breakfast. You don’t have to befriend a black person and ask them what’s going on because you have a book that gives you everything you need to know. Black people are objects to be studied and analyzed and argued about, but to get to know? Why would we ever want to do that?
No, I’m saying that my posts regarding slavery, including those posts that reference slavery indirectly (“long ago past,” “great-great-grandfathers” and the like), are a response to the thesis Diogenes and others have advanced, namely that the institution of slavery inflicted a unique psychocultural harm on black society.
**
The bulk of my replies to you have dealt with your repeated, nearly-willful distortions of my position. **
I do not deny that Jim Crow and segregation led us to where we are today. I do not, however, put great stock in the theory that the aftereffects of Jim Crow have a longer half-life than plutonium. I think the obsessive focus on the past has become a barrier to achievement – it fosters a view that the deck is hopelessly stacked against black achievment, something which I do not think is true in this modern age. At some point, it’s best to stop marching on Selma and start marching towards the future. **
Again: because you took posts of mine that dealt only with slavery and tried to make them about something more. If I’ve harped on that fact, it’s only because you’ve been oblivious to my repeated correction of your misstatement of my point. **
You go first. **
You said I believed that “white kids are superior in every and all situations,” something that is completely false, something that could only be written by someone who did not understand that my posts are dealing with aggregates rather than individuals. That, or someone who’s willing to lie and distort to win cheap points. Your pick. **
Actually, I don’t think they’re pseudo-intellectuals because they are respected academics at important institutions of higher learning, whose work has been recognized as important contributions to their respective fields of study. **
Fuck you, dearie. As I’ve noted, I’ve had professional dealings with black attorneys who I respect and admire. As trite as it sounds, I have black friends as well. Your notion that somehow I wish to remain separate and apart from black people is woefully misguided.
And I’ll note that some of the academics I’ve cited – notably Ogbu and McWhorter – are black themselves. When I turn to their work, it’s literally a black person who’s informing me about the state of black America. Are those guys just a bunch of Uncle Toms to you? Do you see them as betraying their heritage?
You keep talking about people beating a drum about past oppression, but who is doing this? Even Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have moved away from the past. Both of them are very up on their current events.
I’ve very familiar with civic organizations in the urban/black community. They focus on boosting the self-esteems and professional outlook of children. They focus on crime in our communities, and providing assistance to the homeless and poor. They provide support networks for fighting against discrimination and injustice. I don’t know of any organization that focuses on the past.
Unless you can give me an example of someone or something that spends more energy on the past than on the future, I’m just going to keep believing you don’t know what you’re talking about, despite the books you’ve read.
And hon, I know exactly who Ogbu and McWhorter are. I know who Stanely Crouch, Larry Elder, and the ever-loving Thomas Sowell are, too. And I respect them as learned people, but I don’t agree with a lot they they say. No, it’s not a 100% disagreement, but I think they oversimplify AND overstate a lot of things. They are popular because they are conservative on issues of race, not because they are necessarily right. Americans as a whole are conservative on issues of race, and they embrace others, especially black others, that think likewise. Americans will embrace a Sowell before they embrace an Ellis Cose, even though the latter is much more respected by blacks (especially middle- and upper-middle-class blacks) than the former.
If what you see in real life contradicts with what you read in a book, which do you put more weight in? Of course, if you don’t have any experiences, you’re going to believe the nice, shiny book. And who could blame you? Me, I accept some of the truths in both while staying on the defence just in case someone tries to tell me I’m a “random”, “analomy”, or “anecdote”.
And have you discussed this topic with your black friends? Have you said to their faces that their “culture” has “ills”? Have you said to their faces how you think Jim Crow and slavery have been overexaggerated?
How do you think they would respond if they were privy to this thread?
And maybe you have talked to them about this. And maybe they agree with you that black people are where we are because we haven’t worked hard enough. But I have a feeling most black people don’t feel like this.
This might be the pessimist in me speaking. I must remind myself that it’s “ill” for me to be pessimistic.
I haven’t read the whole post here but I have a thought. I am a senior at my high school so I’m thinking I’m going to start the European Decent Club. It is the same thing only more “politically correct” although I was under the impression that Caucasion was politically correct as well too.
This is simply not true. I’ll cite the suppression of assorted Caucasian cultures under Ottoman rule for a start. Then there’s the Arab occupation of Spain.
Going back a bit, there’s the Roman Empire (technically, Italy is in a seperate continental plate) and before that the hegemony of Carthage.
Then there’s the recent experimentation with Communism. You remember that construct which dominated much of Europe for a time, don’t you?
I specifically stayed away from folks like Elder and Crouch, as they are political commentators, not academic researchers. Sowell does a little of both, although his area of academic focus is principally economics.
It’s not so easy to dismiss the late John Ogbu. His particular area of expertise was sociology, and he didn’t have any particular axe to grind when he did his study of Shaker Heights. Nor am I aware of him ever staking out a political position; indeed, he took great pains to discourage the politicization of his work.
Ditto John McWhorter. His book, Losing the Race, is not a “conservative” book by any means. McWhorter is not a political figure.
**
Depends. Is the book written by credible scholars performing well-designed studies, scholars who marshal ample relevant evidence to support their theses? In that situation, I’m better off trusting the more objective source than my own subjective (and possibly non-representative) experience.
**
Yes, yes and yes. Some agree, some disagree, some think I’m partially right and partially wrong.
Look, this is the last thing I’ll say on the issue of my personal relationships with minorities: I have had the pleasure of knowing many. My closest friend in law school was Hispanic. And I’ve not shied away from controversial topics with them (indeed, I was part of the last class admitted to the University of Texas Law School before the Hopwood decision invalidated the use of affirmative action there, so as you can imagine, these sorts of things were the “hot topic” of conversation at the time). So please, spare me the “you’re just a white guy who doesn’t want to deal with minorities” schpiel. It is both stupid and false, and it only diminishes you to make that kind of accusation.
This mantra of yours is the main reason why you keep getting flamed. Clearly you are tired of hearing about slavery and Jim Crow, and so you keep asking the same questions over and over again, hoping that eventually someone will come and validate your own opinions about why blacks underperform. What’s obvious to me is that you are more obsessed with the past than any one else in this discussion. You are obsessed with denying its significance. You are obsessed with portraying it all as being “long long ago”, when in actuality leagues of people, both black and white, can remember the days when black people attending state universities was practically unheard of.
I don’t know what you want, Dewey. We could, if you want, turn a blind eye to the past and pretend that the reason why whites make more money than blacks is because whites are inherently superior to the black folks. We could pretend that all that slavery and Jim Crow stuff happened so long ago that its effects on the present are neglible. But why? It would be a lie.
The greatest barrier to achievement is feeling that something is wrong with you and then letting that feeling of inferiority steer you towards mediocrity. Maybe, just maybe, that is one of the reasons why kids don’t apply themselves to the fullest. Call it a “cutural ill” if you must. However, I see it as a byproduct of a certain kind of conditioning. Expectations have been mentioned before. I think environment is also important. Who you are surrounded by growing up can influence your outlook. If your role models are atheletes and muscians, then that’s probably going to be what you aspire to be. If you have a more diverse range of role models, then your aspirations will probably reflect that.
Do black kids and white kids have the same role models? If the answer is no, why is that? This is a question that I would actually like to see you address, Dewey.
I’m black, have black friends, and we rarely if ever harp about The Old Days. Only when someone asks “why are black people so ___?” do I feel compelled to remind them about history.
The problem I have, is that I’m a “mutt”, so to speak, and I’m a straight male. I love the idea of certain groups taking pride in their heritage and sexuality. I’m also a little jealous, though. I wish I had more history. I wish I had a place to go where I could “fit in” purely for being born with the background that made me who I am. I want there to be a section of books in the book store for me and people like me. I want to see a TV channel devoted to me, and people like me. I want to be a part of something. I don’t JUST want to be a part something I created on my own, but I want to be a part of something that helped created and define me. Then again, I guess it can be nice to have such a large backround I guess…
-anyway.
There’s no doubt that having “black” skin, for the most part, means living with the cruel prejudices of others in many parts of the world. I feel that in this country, (please don’t hate me for this, I’m trying my best to put this in a way that can’t be taken out of context), there CAN be more of a specific type of support for people with black skin, (that’s not motivated by any prejudice directed towards white people), that isn’t their for people with white skin. This is probably because most of the people I’ve known to be prejudice towards blacks don’t discriminate between one black person from another, it doesn’t matter where they, or their ancestors came from, people often just hate you anyway. The support I’m talking about has nothing to do with politics, just pride. It’s about making people feel good about who they are, despite what other people may say that puts that person down. The problem is, everyone wants to feel good about who they are. Although white people may not have to live with as much of the same discrimination, I don’t understand why it’s OK to have for one group and not another.
I KNOW there’s a lot of people who feel ashamed, or guilty for being white. Black people can often get a lot support to never feel guilty for who they are. White people can get support, but for the most part, they get it from people who hate blacks. Even though it’s ridiculous to be ashamed of the color of your skin, there are quite a few white people who don’t consider comments directed towards whites as “racist”, that, if directed towards blacks, would be considered EXTREMELY racist. There are a quite a few comedians, black and white that take advantage of this, (IMHO). A black comedian can make fun of white people, and black people alike, and maintain their popularity. Then there are white people… who make fun of white people. I’m not saying that I personally find this offensive, I would love to live in a world where everyone can be mocked out, in a ‘playful’ way. When certain people demand a certain amount of respect, however, I think it should be mutual. No one should expect any less. Everyone has the right to say what they want to say, but (IMHO), it seems to be in poor taste that a group of people can get upset over a joke directed at them, when they themselves are immune to most of the backlash when they, themselves, can make the same joke directed at other groups. It’s excepted by SOME white people out of guilt, because many would be offended if the same joke were directed towards blacks, (“Cracker” being and acceptable word). Some white people, of course, would laugh either way.
No race or ethnic groups are without their skeletons in the closet, after all, we are all just human. Of course there are going to be some major blemishes in our past. I just hope that everyone can one day be secure in embracing their heritage. Even the “mutts” like me.
I think I’ve been pretty clear: a shift in cultural mores. A good start would be to recognize that while shitty things happened in the past, those shitty things are not chaining anyone to the ground – particularly for wealthy blacks in places like Shaker Heights. Another would be a move away from notions that academic success equates to a betrayal of one’s culture. Still another would be an end to elevating common thugs to street heroes – fewer posters of 50 Cent and more posters of Condoleeza Rice (not because of her politics, but because of her accomplishments). **
I have never, not once, said anything remotely resembling this. I have pointed to performance differences and sought to explain them based on external factors. I have said nothing about, and do not believe in, internal, inherent differences between the races.
Given that the performance issue, in your view, only entered later, why did you post your completely erroneous parody of Diogenese’s post to begin with? To the extent that there is “white culture” in the U.S. it is congruent with the overall culture of the U.S. Within that larger group, there are various subcultures: Irish, Polish, Italian, as well as Cuban, Puerto Rican, Central American, black, etc. The fact that black stands out as an individual subculture (rather than manifesting as Kenyan, Nigeria, Ghanian, Congolese, etc. subcultures) is directly related to the fact that the process of slavery did in fact, destroy the original cultures of those imported as slaves. Note that the Census Bureau’s lump group “Hispanic” has been criticized because there are distinct large subcultures within those groups who are bound only by Spanish language. Your first post was wrong, regardless that it may have only been intended to point out errors of overgeneralization from Diogenes, thus:
When Metacom pointed out that white “usually” referred to simply skin color while black “usually” referred to the descendants of slave, you (literally) cried “Bullshit.” Given that the discussion was a general one regarding society in the U.S., your denial was absurd (particularly in light of your attempt to pretend that there were enough non-slave black descendants to outweigh the “usually” that Metacom had used). Further, you said to Pizzabrat:
This is utterly disingenuos. “African-American” entered American English as a “common” term when Jesse Jackson emerged from a meeting of Civil Rights leaders and announced that they had decided that that expression was their choice of self-identification, specifically for those blacks who were not recognized by their hyphenated-American neighbors as having a parallel cultural affiliations. The phrase would serve no purpose for someone who could already refer to himself/herself as Kenyan-American. (Personally, I think the media should have used the phrase exclusively for Jackson and his buddies until such time as there appeared to be a genuine consensus from the black community that they actually approved of it. However, in the context that it was proclaimed and adopted, asserting that the term is not specific to descendants of slaves needs a lot more support than arguing the opposite.)
I think you’ve raised a number of good points, but you can hardly be upset with the “other side” distorting your message when your message started off so far over in error.
I have not seen anyone claim that the majority of blacks in the U.S. today suffer simply because they were enslaved. The discussion to the point where you parodied Diogenes had been pretty much limited to claims of some “white culture” (separate from American culture) that might be celebrated with calls (such as yours) to tell blacks that they ought to stick to celebrating individual cultures from Africa rather than the black American culture that was imposed on them.
Once the discussion has spun off from cultural associations to economic woes, however, it is again disingenuous to claim that those woes are not shaped by the experiences of Jim Crow and Lynch Law along with continuing racial discrimination.
It is fine to tell some group that they should simply pick themselves up by their bootstraps. On the other hand, one might actually make efforts to let them know it is possible, given that they have already pulled themselves up on more than one occasion, only to be slapped down. Some commitment to demonstrate that we are not going to repeat the past oppressions might make a good start when we claim that they can achieve whatever they wish.
I would agree that it is unlikely in 2003 that we would repeat the patterns of lynching prominent members of their communities or of burning down their neighborhoods if they got too wealthy or of firing them from governmental positions if they had “too much” authority or of forcing them to abandon their homes to floods in order to provide free labor to save white folks’ homes. (These are the memories that many people still carry of actions upon their parents and grandparents who were “too” successful and which shape current attitudes.) On the other hand, it does nothing to encourage their trust to pass laws that are de facto imposed primarily on blacks while pointing to the veneer of de jure impartiality (compare laws for crack and powder cocaine–along with money spent on enforcement–to the bridges beneath which wealthy Frenchmen may not sleep). It does nothing to encourage their trust to have a president proclaim that “We didn’t have any racial problems when I was a boy growing up in Dixon Illinois” in the context of black leaders “creating” problems, when blacks recognize that lynchings in that state had silenced the people he thought were just ever so content.
I would tend to agree that Jackson seems to have lost his way and that Sharpton is simply playing for power. I would also tend to agree that Diogenes overstated the case for his objections to a “white” club or to “white” culture in the U.S. On the other hand, errors in your arguments helped get this discussion sidetracked quite a while back.
Sorry. I had misread “freed” as “free” and mistakenly thought you were making a point about those who were already free before the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment.
Who is making the claim that past events are “chaining anyone to the ground”? It’s been said ad nauseum that past events have resulted in present day problems, and I don’t see how you can dispute that.
You say this as if you have an inside view into this particular “phenomenon”, when you really don’t know anything more than what you gleaned from someone else. Truth of the matter is disdain for academic success is probably more rooted in socioeconomic status than race. After all, white kids are known to throw the word “nerd” and “geek” around pretty generously, and last time I checked those words are still insults. And yet no one faults their culture when they do this. Let a black kid rag on one of their peers for being a bookworm and suddenly its a case of “betrayal of one’s culture”.
This double-standard irks the fuck out of me. The same social ills you want to condemn in black people are common to your own race. Maybe you don’t see this because no one writes books about The Cultural Ills of White People. But that doesn’t mean it’s not there. I’ve seen it with my own eyes.
This is where you stop talking about black people and start talking about society in general. How many posters are up of any dignified intellectuals, be they white or black? Sorry to break it to you, but there ain’t none. I could say the same thing about Brittany Spears that you’re saying about 50 cent. These are media icons, characters out of popular culture. They are there to make money, not to bolster up the esteem and potential of our youth. To get posters up of Connie Rice instead of 50 cent, society as a whole will have to change. And radically.
But in essence what you are saying is not far from my idea about role models. A kid who identifies with 50 cent may think it’s easier to follow in his footsteps than to become a doctor or lawyer, especially if he hasn’t been exposed to many doctors or teachers who look like him. A kid who doesn’t have to search very far to find successful people will probably see a wider range of options than the kid who only sees success on MTV or ESPN.
Given that the discussion is pretty clearly one of society in the U.S., particularly as we see it today, these comments are so far out in left field as to be meaningless. If you wanted to at least pretend you were participating, you could have pointed to discrimination aimed against Jewish, Irish, Italian, or Polish immigrants.
Well, except that we definitely are seeing these pesky studies in which kids of different races, in the same schools, from families of the same socioeconomic backgrounds are getting noticeably different grades and test results.
Note that when Ogbu went in to examine the Shaker Heights schools, it was at the invitation of black parents who had already seen the discrepancies and wanted to know why.
Now, my memory of Ogbu’s results are different than those of Dewey. I recall that Ogbu found a significant difference between black and white parents’ involvement, with white parents paying more attention to homework and teacher meetings and so forth. (And since Ogbu’s report was published, there has been an increase in black parental involement and a decrease in the gap between black and white student scores. This would tend to support the notion of the immediate past having a bearing on the present, as the parental attitudes are more likely to be learned behaviors which today’s black parents did not experience in their youth.)
On the other hand, the point that Dewey raised is, indeed, one that has been raised on multiple occasions from within the Shaker school district. It has come from black kids expressing the feeling that they had better not try too hard or risk being stigmatized. A white kid calling a white kid a brainy nerd is liable to be seen as a sign of jealousy (or good-natured ribbing), while the black-on-black parallel as reported by black students has nothing good natured about it.
How important is this teen culture? I dunno. Is it a legitimate problem or an excuse? I don’t know that, either. However, the issue shows up in the Cleveland Plain Dealer every year or so, so it appears to be an issue that the black community of Shaker Heights finds vexing.
Parental involvement does make a difference. I can personally attest to this. Perhaps the parents in the Shaker Heights study should be surveyed to find out why their involvement was less than optimal. It’s an interesting question with an answer probably rooted in the upbringing of the parent.
by tomndebb
I think that white kids being called nerds do take it as an insult, but because white nerds are known for growing up to be rich and powerful (a la Bill Gates), the sting of the insult is dampened a bit. The role models for black kids, however, are disproportionately atheletic and music-oriented; there are very few black nerds who stand in the spotlight. If you look at actors, very few black actors are cast in nerdy protagonist roles. I think that’s a reflection of how society views black people, and that view shows up in our kids as well. As this view changes in society, so will it change in our kids. Black and white.
The bully who sees bookishness as being incompatible with blackness overly subscribes to conformity, and so does the bully who sees bookishness as being incompatible with his concept of coolness.
It is also puzzling to me since I did not observe this attitude in inner city schools where I would have thought that it would have been more prominent.
You are so right. I wish I had thought about a club for that purpose when I was teaching. But for general self-esteem, there would be no reason to break it down on a racial basis.
I believe that you honestly think that, but I would think all of us could pretty much make the same claim.
I haven’t sensed anyone saying that. I have the feeling that your personal experience is more limited than some others here. That is not intended as a criticism – just an observation.
Oh, please. Notice the next statement that you made:
One man’s exaggeration is another man’s hyperbole?
Nothing in this thread fosters that view. This thread isn’t about hopelessness at all. And history is part of who we are today – like it or not. That includes slavery and Jim Crow laws. That’s why it’s so important to focus on self-esteem issues and not on the hopelessness that you seem to think Blacks are focused on. Maybe the attorneys that you know and the friends that you have no longer have those issues. But I’ll bet that they haven’t dwelt in a place of hopelessness either. And although they are not back in Selma, I suspect that they will not deny the importance the Civil Rights Movement of the mid-Twentieth Century (also a part of their history) has had on their success. But you know them, I don’t. They could be an exception.
There is probably not much more that I can say to add to this discussion unless someone has a specific question about something I’ve said. Others are more eloquent or more experienced.
I still think my point reasonably accurate – I think it much more sensible to ascribe culture to groups geographically, and that the nature of the discussion boxes one in to referring to things in racial terms (did southern blacks have anything to do with the Harlem Renaissance?) **
Because it is bullshit. Cultural discussions aside, “black” is most commonly understood as a description of skin color, not of ancestral heritage. Kofi Annan is properly described as “black” even though he isn’t even American, much less descended from slaves. **
And “gay” once meant someone who was happy and carefree. So what? What matters is how the term is commonly understood today.
And frankly, I think your notion that Jackson, et al, meant to exclude black naturalized citizens from inclusion in the term “African American” is erroneous. I’d like to see a cite to that effect. Indeed, I’m pretty sure that when Jackson, et al, were raising a ruckus over Amadou Diallo and Abner Louima – both immigrants – they referred to them as “African-Americans.” Maybe they missed a memo. **
You’re right. It’s a good thing I never claimed that, isn’t it? Indeed, it’s a good thing that I specifically disclaimed such a view. **
Meaning…what? That Jim Crow might return? Does anyone consider that a serious possibility? **
I think much is wrong with American drug policy, so you won’t find a defense of it from me. But the notion that the harsher crack laws are racially motivated is stupid. Those laws were bourne of legislative panic and overreaction at the rather sudden appearance of crack on the drug scene. I agree that the differing sentences are stupid, but it’s silly to say that they represent a nefarious plot to incarcerate the black man.
I also realize that just because the racial angle is stupid doesn’t mean that people won’t believe it. How many people still believe that discredited story about the CIA running drugs into California? So yeah, there’s a perception problem. But what to do about it? Reduce the sentence for crack? A pol that even suggests it suddenly becomes “soft on crime” and unelectable. Raise the sentence for powder? Does anyone really want to make the drug laws more onerous just to sate an ill-founded complaint? **
It is no longer 1980, and it’s telling that you have to reach back 23 years to find this example.
Now we have a president barely capable of managing the English language who coughs out phrases in Spanish on campaign stops to appeal to Hispanics. Indeed, a president who appoints blacks to significant places of responsibility. It is, to put it mildly, a different world.
This is correct, and if I minimized it I didn’t mean to. I still think this falls under the banner of cultural ill – parents who don’t pay attention to homework and the like are sending a message to their kids that academics aren’t very important.