quote:"Dealing with race is about educating white folks." Howard Dean seems to have said this. That'll bring in those Southern pickup guys! They love being singled out for 'education'! ... Yes, Dean was apparently pandering to Boston Globe columnist Derrick Z. Jackson. But that's hardly an excuse.
So, does he think that will get him elected, does he really believe that the solution is that simple, and does he care that I now, sadly, think he's an idiot?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a perfect example of why Dean will not win a national election. He is an out of the closet "progressive"(i use this term to avoid the usual carping about the definition of liberal). Most of the democrat party is made up of progressives. This is why Dean is so popular with the voters in democrat primaries.
Dean is exposing exactly how most progressives feel about issues like race, international relations, economics, etc. Look how at home and relaxed Al Gore looked when speaking with Dean. He had dropped the sham of centrism and embraced his true beliefs.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
If you are referring to Dean, yes. Any solution that doesn't deal with the problem is wrong. Educating white people (the presumed source of the current problem) will not increase black test scores, improve black neighborhoods, or start black businessmen on their way.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky, yeah. Racism is alive and well and must be dealt with and eradicated, but it is by no means the sole source of misery and the only solution to changing the situation.
In other words, it is also emasculates and strips the impoverished of any power. It's saying that their fate is completely, entirely, and utterly in someone else's hands, and for the situation to change, they just need to kick back and wait for everyone to be educated enough to finally hand over the keys to the kingdom.
It's incredibly insulting, and it's simplistic. It raises the question of whether he has the ability to lead - if he doesn't know where the problem is, how can he possibly help fix it?
One thing that Clinton did do right was his attitude toward race while he was in office. Not the pandering bits (location of office in Harlem after taxpayers objected to funding two floors in downtown Manhattan - the most expensive real estate in the world - for an ex-president to run his wife's campaign), but the quotes mentioned on Slate. I actually like that.
[ January 02, 2004, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's easy to pick out one-liners and call them simplistic. How about you examine his views on racial inequality in toto? I'm sure he's said more on the matter than this.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"He/They didn't/don't really mean that." is my new favorite way of not allowing facts to disctubr opinions.
In other words, if you are asking if he has said somthing completely different when talking to a different audience, I've no doubt that he has and he would. But then, that's disturbing in and of itself.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I'm rather proud that Dean's honest about his positions. Look at Bush -- his positions suit the political climate of the time, and I seriously doubt he has any real principles that interfere with his crusade to funnel money to the rich. Does anyone really question Bush's corruption? Isn't it refreshing to have a leader who's honest about his beliefs, and isn't afraid to voice a mistake rather than regurgitate boiled circumlocution that doesn't actually say anything?
I still can't get over how the Bush administration is now denying that they led the American public to believe that Iraq had WMD.
(Examples of positions taken, though preached against, include the tariff on steel and the war against Iraq, to pre-emptively strike the coming question.)
Dean may not be entirely right -- prejudice is found on both ends of the political spectrum -- but he is right insofar as I have yet to hear of many cases of black people keeping the white man down. Curing racism is about integrating the establishment with the oppressed, and I most of the reluctance I've seen to integrate comes from the establishment. Though I'm sure the white rush to suburbia wasn't influenced by a desire for segregation.
I agree that Dean's making a subtle mistake here. Dealing with race may be about getting rid of white ignorance, but it's also important to provide education to blacks and Hispanics -- the way to deal with race isn't about, as Dean seems to believe from this probably-out-of-context quote, educating only whites. But shame on you, Kat. To complain that Dean's an idiot for risking political points by accurately identifying the primary cure for race relations is poorly performed political propaganda at its worst.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, you're like that series of Onion articles about Bush.
Bush on Economy: We Must Attack Iraq. Lalo on Dean: Bush is Evil.
He didn't say primary solution, and he didn't say most important solution. He said it is the solution. He's either pandering shamelessly, or else he's an idiot.
[ January 02, 2004, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he’s right, although I would have said “dealing with racism,” not “dealing with race.” Dealing with race involves all sorts of issues like the ones raised earlier – test scores and disintegrating neighborhoods, etc. But racism is (I believe) primarily a white problem. The fact that we (those of us who are white) tend to think of it as about minorities instead of about ourselves is a way to push off responsibility for dealing with it.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Dealing with race is about educating white folks," Dean said in an interview Tuesday on a campaign swing through the first primary state where African-American voters will have a major impact. "Not because white people are worse than black people about race but because whites are in the majority, and therefore the behavior of whites has a much bigger influence on hiring practices and so forth and so on than the behavior of African-Americans."
Are you of the honest opinion that taking that soundbite in context makes no difference at all? Even including the next sentence makes a world of difference. Do you need me to point out how?
posted
Bush's lack of any ideological core doesn't make Dean's position any less wrong. This all returns us to same tired accusations and counter-accusations about who and what is the cause of racism, etc. Dean clearly thinks that all white people are the cause of racism.
The biggest part of this problem is encouragement of victimhood by the current black leadership. No one is responsible for one's self, there's always someone or something to be blamed. When this cancerous attitude can be purged from the exploitative black leadership, progress can begin.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Yes, that I can agree with. Racism is a problem for the people who are subject to it and can fixed only by the people who practice.
For the subject of race, though, and all those issues, Dean's statement is wildly simplistic and short-sighted.
I guess the question is, if he's not an idiot, which part of the above statement did he not mean?
I'm sure there will be a retraction of some sort soon.
ae: The expansion of the quote doesn't help. It still means that the entire onus for solving all of a population's problems are everyone except the population itself. It's depriving those with problems themselves to say that.
[ January 02, 2004, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:He didn't say primary solution, and he didn't say most important solution. He said it is the solution. He's either pandering shamelessly, or else he's an idiot.
Really? One slightly inaccurate statement (see dkw's post) makes someone an idiot? Do you see any irony in this, you of the excluded middle?
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The expanded version of the quote further explains that it wasn't an isolated, misspoken statement. It's entire philosophy. he expanded that the cure of problems with race rest entirely with education of the majority.
That doesn't address the test scores, family situations, crime rates, or any of the other issues. He either doesn't see a need for action in those areas, thinking education would cure it all (short-sighted), or else doesn't see any reason to talk about it if he does (bad leader).
I'm serious. There are many things I like about Dean. But this quote is a problem.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The expansion of the quote doesn't help. It still means that the entire onus for solving all of a population's problems are everyone except the population itself. It's depriving those with problems themselves to say that.
Or it means that Dean's focusing on a particular aspect of the problem, i.e. discrimination. The logical conclusion is he's using the term "race" inaccurately; what he really means, as dkw says, is "racism". Alternatively, he really is blissfully and entirely unaware of the problems of test scores, crime, etc. Does this seem to be the most likely explanation to you? Well, apparently so, but why?
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm baffled. I'm genuinely baffled. It's easier for you to conjure all this than (provisionally) accept the explanation that where he says "race", he really means "racism"? Really?
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:He didn't say primary solution, and he didn't say most important. He said the only solution. He's either pandering shamelessly, or else he's an idiot.
Where did he say "only"? And you have yet to provide this quote in its context -- do you have it, or are you believing the worst you can convince yourself to believe?
By the way, this was an absolutely brilliant way to deal with ae's question:
quote:It's easy to pick out one-liners and call them simplistic. How about you examine his views on racial inequality in toto? I'm sure he's said more on the matter than this.
"He/They didn't/don't really mean that." is my new favorite way of not allowing facts to disctubr opinions.
In other words, if you are asking if he has said somthing completely different when talking to a different audience, I've no doubt that he has and he would. But then, that's disturbing in and of itself.
First you completely rewrite what Nick said, then go on to declare that Nick's asking what Dean's said to other audiences. All he's asked for his a summary of Dean's stance on race relations, and how this quote relates to Dean's stance overall.
Providing the speech -- or hell, even the paragraphs surrounding -- this quote came from would go a long way from changing your stance as wild-eyed conservative anxious to "prove" Dean's racism to giving (or removing) your claim any solid footing.
[Edited to remove a paragraph that wasn't worth writing.]
quote:"Dealing with race is about educating white folks," Dean said in an interview Tuesday on a campaign swing through the first primary state where African-American voters will have a major impact. "Not because white people are worse than black people about race but because whites are in the majority, and therefore the behavior of whites has a much bigger influence on hiring practices and so forth and so on than the behavior of African-Americans."
Wow. What a difference context makes.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What difference? It didn't change the original statement.
All objections still hold true - he places the entire onus of changing the situation on everyone else. It's still simplistic, it's still pandering, and it's still short-sighted. There are just more words.
[ January 02, 2004, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you please define "the situation"? Because if you're including things like test scores in there, I think you're being intellectually dishoenst, because as I've pointed out, the simplest explanation is that he's using the word "race" imprecisely, nnot that he's entirely ignorant that problems such as test scores exist.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean lower test scores, high poverty rates, higher illegitimacy rates, the current NEED for affirmative action, all of that.
If you change the word "race" to "racism", the quote makes a semblance of sense. You can do that if you like.
That could be a fun game, though. Let's replace the words we don't like with words we do of our favorite politicians, and claim that's what they actually meant.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
1) Are you saying there aren't times when that's not what they actually meant? How ever do you make sense of Bush?
2) I don't know Howard Dean from Adam. All I know is that half the US residents I know online crea—erm, are all excited over him, and the other half think he's the devil.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's a pretty simplistic view itself, don't you think? That the only reactions you have ever found about a politician with no power is enthusiasm and hate?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't any sort of view at all. It's a bland description of what I've seen.
You know what's missing from your post, by the way? A "blatant point-dodging" smiley. Hatrack really needs one of those.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Dean's wrong if he really meant that as it is. The country as a whole has already been educated more than enough on the issue of race - you can hardly avoid it if you wanted to! I think the problem is almost the opposite sort of thing - we need to learn to think LESS about race. A person's race should not be a factor that immediately comes to mind when getting a first impression of someone. Achieving this is not a matter of education; it's a matter of time.
Having said that, I think I've already made myself clear on why issues like these aren't all that relevant in this particular election. I think eliminating affirmative action is important, but we can take care of that easily enough once we deal with more important matters - matters that could undermine the country itself, such as the erosion of civil rights and the provokation of anger, hatred, and terrorism by the foreign policy of the Bush administration.
quote:If you are referring to Dean, yes. Any solution that doesn't deal with the problem is wrong. Educating white people (the presumed source of the current problem) will not increase black test scores, improve black neighborhoods, or start black businessmen on their way.
Yes it will. If you don't understand why, ask yourself are the educators, the leaders in test scores, the people in the better neighborhoods, and those who start the most successful businesses.
Granted, this is only part of the solution, but without white America, there is a certain extent to which black people have a blind leading the blind problem. Then once you take out athletics and entertainment as legitimate industries-- and there are a few very good and a few very bad reasons to do this-- that leaves industries dominated by white people who like giving the good cushy jobs, their wisdom, and second opportunities to their friends and family members and friends of friends, without honestly registering that this is what is going on. It does a good job of eating away at the black middle class.
Here is the original article that puts the story in context. Did it really take that much digging to put find it? Especially considering that it was linked to the page.
quote:For all the fire of that moment, Dean said the Democrats cannot run away from a blunt, if gently blunt, discussion about race...."Dealing with race is about educating white folks," Dean said in an interview Tuesday on a campaign swing through the first primary state where African-American voters will have a major impact. "Not because white people are worse than black people about race but because whites are in the majority, and therefore the behavior of whites has a much bigger influence on hiring practices and so forth and so on than the behavior of African-Americans." It is unknown whether Dean's style of education will have a big influence on either white or African-American primary voters at the expense of, say, Wesley Clark's experience with affirmative action in the military or John Edwards's Clintonesque folksiness. While the Republicans have baldly capitulated to racism in modern presidential campaigns, such as appearing at Bob Jones University and claiming we are so close to a "colorblind" society that affirmative action programs can be dismantled, the Democrats have struggled to find a message that attracts swing white voters and loyal voters of color at the same.
posted
No matter what you might think of his statement, Javert, politically, I think he just won many, many black votes with that statement. The only reason politicians do things are for votes and to stay in office and to get elected. Period. Logic has nothing to do with anything. Truth has nothing to do with anything. You are running as the person your voters want you to be. In this case, since Dean is running in the Democratic primary, which is determined by not a few black votes, he has made a very bold, very politically savvy statement that will further help him to get the nomination.
There are two kinds of campaigns that Democrats can run at this point, ones that cater to the center-right, or ones that cater to the left. Now, Bush has been campaigning to the center-right and appears to pretty much have a lock on it. If this is the case, why fight him over votes that you're probably not going to get anyway? I mean, Bush has actually given people money for their vote. It's really amazing when you look at it. Last year's rebates were nothing but the biggest, fattest chickens the world has ever seen for people to put in their pots.
Who is Bush not campaigning to? The left. Again, looking at the numbers, Democrats stay home at much higher ratios than Republicans. So, the theory is that all people have to do is vote the way they did in 2000, but the Democrats can bring in a few more votes, and they will win. If you look at how voters rate Bush and how they say they're going to vote, this theory seems to be legit. It is striking to note that Republicans are almost all going to vote for him and Republicans are almost all going to vote against him.
More Democrats stay home than Republicans. Despite this fact, Democrats almost won the White House last year. So, a winning strategy is to 'energize you base' so to speak by letting them know that you really are a 'liberal'. The theory is that you will encourage them to vote for you.
The spin that Dean is some 'extreme left' candidate a la OSC is just that, spin. The only people Dean is extreme to are people like OSC who, contrary to his opinion of himself, are no more 'real' Americans than I am. The things Dean is saying (barring the conversational 'Soviet Union' type gaffes) are solidly Democrat. The positions he is taking are those that a Democrat will often take. Nothing new about Dean other than the fact that he's not hiding the fact that he's a liberal and he's not campaigning for the center.
edit: I am really tired. Sorry for all the bad grammar.
posted
It wasn't meant to be a concise analysis, it was meant to be a soundbite. I happen to agree with the basic sentiment, not particularly oddly.
If he were asked to write a paper on the subject I don't doubt his position would be quite complex. You don't write papers in interviews.
Furthermore, one thing I quite like is he actually ventures forth something that seems like an opinion, rather than a bleh, meaningless statement. Here's Bush on racism: "In terms of being a president that says there's no place in racism it starts with saying there's no place for racism in America....And that's what leadership needs to do. Leadership needs to stand up and say, and condemn racism and condemn prejudice and hold people accountable as an individual, not as a group."
Which boils down to racism is bad, and we shouldn't punish groups because of it. Bleh, bleh, bleh.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That he will lose the election is your opinion and remains to be seen. I'm just laying out to you what I think his thinking is. And ALL politicians say what they think will get them votes. I just don't put Dean on a pedestal like some people put Bush on a pedestal, I guess. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat: I know lots of educated black people (not surprising, I'm at a college in a widely black city). I also know lots of black people who are poorly educated, and lots of white people. I've met many of them while taking food to the homeless. The problem with education in this country is not one of race, imo, it is one of poverty.
I think Dean was quite correct on what will result in the end of racism. And even if we end racism, the poor black people will still be the poor black people, in the majority, and their eduction will still suck, mostly.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lalo said: Does anyone really question Bush's corruption?
Yes. There are many people who do not think Bush is corrupt. Dean’s comments on NAFTA show how he blows with the political wind.
quote:Lalo said: To complain that Dean's an idiot for risking political points by accurately identifying the primary cure for race relations is poorly performed political propaganda at its worst.
He has not identified the primary cure for race relations. Anyone who thinks the government is capable of “educating” the general public in such a way as to change deeply help perceptions and philosophies is naïve. Anyone who thinks it is desirable is scary.
What do you propose? National ad campaigns: “Don’t be a racist.” “Acknowledge your deeply held racist attitudes.” “The following announcement is aimed at white audiences. If you are not white, please turn the channel because you don’t need to become a better person.”
posted
Fugu, from the quote and the context, it doesn't look like he was talking solely about racism. If he was, then yeah - racism is a problem I believe education can fix.
He wasn't though - he was talking about "race" in general. I suppose the wiggle area is what you think he meant when he said race. In that sense, it was a marvelous quote. Some people can assume he meant merely racism, and other can assume he meant all the problems that seem to go with race, and everyone's happy.
Well, except me. I think he's an idiot for saying it. It isn't practical, and I love ideals, but leaders need a plan to change ideals into action that would work.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if you have ever improved your standardized test scores. But I did by a truly absurd amount, and I did it by consciously casting off slang and learning traditional english vocabulary and sentence structure. I don't regret my choice because there is a sort of confidence that comes with speaking well. Had I made this decision earlier and with more commitment, I doubt I would be such a mumbler today.
The problem of test scores is a problem of vocabulary and communication. The other side standardized testing, math, will come with general academic acquity, but the most pressing problem is english, plain and simple. The problem is not knowing what a word means in a reading and comprehension sample, or in an analogy section, then not having your parents know, not having any of your friends know, and not ever hearing a reference made by any of your friends or family so it's not even in the deep recesses of your brain. And then it's a problem of your teacher not realizing or having the resources to address your ignorance, and the voters saying that since you failed this test, you are stupid anyway, and we aren't going to waste our hard-earned tax-dollars trying to introduce you to a word that everybody, in their circles, anyway, knows.
The most frustrating part of tutoring the SAT is watching kids fail question after question because of vocabulary. And I can imagine that the most frustrating part of teaching interviewing techniques is watching good people get passed over because of non-mainstream communication and diction. And educating white people will stop the bull in the china shop which is the influential white person who spends his capital, time, wisdom and energy in accordance with his racial preferences yet doesn't realize that he is doing so. These are the people who are numerous and scary. The ones who say that they aren't "racist," but could never imagine themselves selling to, renting to, investing time into, buying from, or hiring a black person, unless that person is over-qualified.
The problem isn't in the racial sentiments, it's glossing over of the fact that those sentiments cause huge public problems.
But then again, one of the perks of being white, ensconced in privilege and discrimination, is that you don't have to listen to a word I say. It's a problem of freedom and the degree to which white people's ignorace of their own individual or institutional biases suffocate black people's ability to perform public business. ___________________
There is another analogy to card games. There is a saying about how you should never sit-down to play a card game for money unless you know all of the rules. There is nothing more frustrating than thinking you win the pot, and all of the sudden another rule pops out. Well, it's kind of like that. Now to the host of the game, the rules are elementary. He has been playing this game since he was young, and it is so natural that when he explained the rules to his guest, he may have elided over some of the finer points. But to be sure, when the cards are all played and some of the more obscure rules are inforced, the host finds it his duty to inforce them, and true, any less dilligence in following the rules, all of the rules, would be unfair to the game and to the rest of the players. But then you have the guest, who bet his entire wad because according to his knowledge he had a winning hand, but he is now penniless, and so distraught, he leaves the party early. Now later on in the evening, over the game and a few jugs of wine, the remaining players start talking about stock tips.
posted
I don't think Dean, or much of anyone else, believe race itself is a problem. I don't think his suggestions could "solve race" in any conceivable way it could be considered a problem, so I am forced to conclude he meant racism, particularly as the rest of his quote is clearly a solution for racism.
Could you show me firstly, what race problem Dean may have been alluding to, and then how his proposed solution would have any bearing on it whatsoever? I simply don't see a way to assume he meant anything other than racism. I don't even really know what a race problem would be, unless one was a rather rabid racist.
And if we're going to consider all politicians on the exact words out of their mouths, I assume you will not be voting for Bush, the king of stumblers? I think its a silly reason, myself.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know if you have ever improved your standardized test scores. But I did by a truly absurd amount, and I did it by consciously casting off slang and learning traditional english vocabulary and sentence structure.
Yes, I have. I retook the GRE last fall and improved my scores in verbal and analytical by a whopping amount.
No idea how I did it, though. My first thought was a lowered opinon of the test. Suspect practicing how to do a computer test instead of a paper test helped immensely.
In that case, I was not cognizant of the method of taking a computer test. The solution was to educate me as to how to take a computer test.
In your above scenario, I completely believe you improved your scores. It also sounds like you did it by learning a wider vocabulary. In that case, your education improved your test scores. Not the education of the people who gave the test.
A better education is needed, but it's needed for everyone. Informing (white) teachers that their kids may not encounter these words at home may help bring their awareness, but it's still just an intermediary step to the kids' education.
In this case, better education for the kids' would improve test scores. If Dean had mentioned that, he would have some of my respect. Clinton, on this issue, does, because it looks like he did mention it.
quote:I don't think his suggestions could "solve race" in any conceivable way it could be considered a problem, so I am forced to conclude he meant racism,
That's because the quote itself makes him sound like a simple-minded idiot, so supporters must assume he didn't actually mean it. You can do that.
[ January 02, 2004, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I don't understand how people can complain about Dean being too wishy-washy on issues while simultaneously claiming he is not wishy-washy enough to win the national election.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:How will educating white people improve test scores of black kids?
It depends on what you think the reason is for black kids getting lower average test scores. If you believe that having teachers who are both good educators and also believe that people of all races are capable of learning, then educating white people may help improve black kids' test scores. If you believe that having a stable home with a decent income helps test scores, then you might think that having employers who do not discriminate may help improve black kids' test scores. However, if you believe that teachers and employers are already doing fine at that, then continued education of white people may not be particularly useful.
--------------
Here's a strange dilemma I have. If race in America is really not that big a problem anymore, that is, if teachers put the same faith in all students, if employment really is a meritocracy, if university acceptance really is a meritocracy, in short, if people really are colorblind and educated about race, then why are African- and Latin-Americans, on the average, worse off than Caucasians? Now, clearly, not everyone arguing against things like affirmative action or whatever think that we have achieved such a widespread state of enlightenment, but my impression has been that some people do. If things really are equal (or if minorities have the advantage because of affirmative action), then the fact that minorities tend not to fare as well in our society would seem to imply that they truly are inferior. But I know nobody is suggesting that, so what alternative am I missing?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, let me make sure I understand you correctly: it is your belief that that one sentence indicates that Howard Dean does not know that blacks have lower test scores than whites (among other things); either that or he thinks that educating whites will close the gap. Is this an accurate representation of your opinion?
So you think both Dean and Bush are simple-minded idiots, because both have said stupid sounding things? I'm pretty certain you don't think that for Bush, and perhaps you should read some of Dean's policy statements:
posted
Maybe it's a matter of starting farther behind. If everyone is improved across the board, those that are behind stay behind?
----
Personal theory, derived from a private point of view, TIFWIW:
I lived in Detroit for a while aways back, and I was floored by the lack of men.
Everywhere. We'd go to people's homes, and there'd be four generations of women doing their level best, and the only males around were under sixteen. Where the heck were the men? I talked to my DL (who'd been there several months longer), and it was like an Abbott and Costello routine.
"Where are all the men?" "I know!" "I mean, these are families that came from somewhere. Where are they?" "I know!" "Dang it, I'm not commenting, I'm asking!"
In answer, many are in prison, many are dead, and many are, seriously, just walking around the city.
I don't have any experience with Latino culture, so I won't venture any kind of opinion, but I seriously think that a major component of any child's preparation for the world is a stable family with a mother and a father who are dedicated to providing their kids with a home they can count as a haven from the world and an education that can use to build a better world.
For what it's worth, in my opinion, that's what's missing. It's hard to concentrate on school when there's chaos at home. It's hard to conceive of another world when the one around you says the fate of young black men is prison, death, or eternal poverty. It's hard to concentrate on school when your culture says that those who care about grades are traitors to their race.
That is CRAP. The above problems are real, if they were fixed many of the current woes would at least be comparable to the rest of Americas, and NONE of the above would be fixed by WHITE education.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and I might point out he spends quite a while talking about means improving equality of educational opportunity.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's a strange dilemma I have. If race in America is really not that big a problem anymore, that is, if teachers put the same faith in all students, if employment really is a meritocracy, if university acceptance really is a meritocracy, in short, if people really are colorblind and educated about race, then why are African- and Latin-Americans, on the average, worse off than Caucasians? Now, clearly, not everyone arguing against things like affirmative action or whatever think that we have achieved such a widespread state of enlightenment, but my impression has been that some people do. If things really are equal (or if minorities have the advantage because of affirmative action), then the fact that minorities tend not to fare as well in our society would seem to imply that they truly are inferior. But I know nobody is suggesting that, so what alternative am I missing?
You forgot to factor in that it takes time to adjust to equality. I am not giving my opinion on the status of minorities, but workplace and educational equality are much closer to where they should be than they have been in the past. Consider the situation of Irish immigrants in the later 1800s and early 1900s. They were a despised minority and faced overwhelming, systematic discrimination. As times and attitudes changed and new laws were passed, their situation got better and their socio-economic status improved. However, it was a gradual process, not an overnight change.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
