NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Something that has always bothered me is how, despite generations of assistance of various sorts, there has always been a hard core of young, unemployed African-American men. As best I could tell, nothing seemed to help resolve this. This article suggests that what is really needed is an increasing emphasis on culture. I strongly recommend this article, especially if you live in America. Please take a few minutes and read the entire article, which is three pages long.

Pages Two and Three are posted later in this thread,
for those of you who want to actually read the article.

A Poverty of the Mind (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/opinion/26patterson.html?th&emc=th)


By ORLANDO PATTERSON
Published: March 26, 2006
Cambridge, Mass.

Plight Deepens for Black Men, Studies Warn (March 20, 2006) SEVERAL recent studies have garnered wide attention for reconfirming the tragic disconnection of millions of black youths from the American mainstream. But they also highlighted another crisis: the failure of social scientists to adequately explain the problem, and their inability to come up with any effective strategy to deal with it.

The main cause for this shortcoming is a deep-seated dogma that has prevailed in social science and policy circles since the mid-1960's: the rejection of any explanation that invokes a group's cultural attributes — its distinctive attitudes, values and predispositions, and the resulting behavior of its members — and the relentless preference for relying on structural factors like low incomes, joblessness, poor schools and bad housing.

Harry Holzer, an economist at Georgetown University and a co-author of one of the recent studies, typifies this attitude. Joblessness, he feels, is due to largely weak schooling, a lack of reading and math skills at a time when such skills are increasingly required even for blue-collar jobs, and the poverty of black neighborhoods. Unable to find jobs, he claims, black males turn to illegal activities, especially the drug trade and chronic drug use, and often end up in prison. He also criticizes the practice of withholding child-support payments from the wages of absentee fathers who do find jobs, telling The Times that to these men, such levies "amount to a tax on earnings."

His conclusions are shared by scholars like Ronald B. Mincy of Columbia, the author of a study called "Black Males Left Behind," and Gary Orfield of Harvard, who asserts that America is "pumping out boys with no honest alternative."

This is all standard explanatory fare. And, as usual, it fails to answer the important questions. Why are young black men doing so poorly in school that they lack basic literacy and math skills? These scholars must know that countless studies by educational experts, going all the way back to the landmark report by James Coleman of Johns Hopkins University in 1966, have found that poor schools, per se, do not explain why after 10 years of education a young man remains illiterate.

Nor have studies explained why, if someone cannot get a job, he turns to crime and drug abuse. One does not imply the other. Joblessness is rampant in Latin America and India, but the mass of the populations does not turn to crime.

And why do so many young unemployed black men have children — several of them — which they have no resources or intention to support? And why, finally, do they murder each other at nine times the rate of white youths?

What's most interesting about the recent spate of studies is that analysts seem at last to be recognizing what has long been obvious to anyone who takes culture seriously: socioeconomic factors are of limited explanatory power. Thus it's doubly depressing that the conclusions they draw and the prescriptions they recommend remain mired in traditional socioeconomic thinking.

What has happened, I think, is that the economic boom years of the 90's and one of the most successful policy initiatives in memory — welfare reform — have made it impossible to ignore the effects of culture. The Clinton administration achieved exactly what policy analysts had long said would pull black men out of their torpor: the economy grew at a rapid pace, providing millions of new jobs at all levels. Yet the jobless black youths simply did not turn up to take them. Instead, the opportunity was seized in large part by immigrants — including many blacks — mainly from Latin America and the Caribbean.

One oft-repeated excuse for the failure of black Americans to take these jobs — that they did not offer a living wage — turned out to be irrelevant. The sociologist Roger Waldinger of the University of California at Los Angeles, for example, has shown that in New York such jobs offered an opportunity to the chronically unemployed to join the market and to acquire basic work skills that they later transferred to better jobs, but that the takers were predominantly immigrants.

[ This important article is three pages long. Please read the rest of it here (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/opinion/26patterson.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th). ]

When I go trapping for young, black men it is skin them and use their pelts to make coats.

I hope you're black, because otherwise you're about to get in big trouble.

I hope you're black, because otherwise you're about to get in big trouble.

You have no sense of humor... and it's humor not humour you silly Brits...

COMMENTARY: Something that has always bothered me is how, despite generations of assistance of various sorts, there has always been a hard core of young, unemployed African-American men. As best I could tell, nothing seemed to help resolve this. This article suggests that what is really needed is an increasing emphasis on culture. I strongly recommend this article, especially if you live in America. Please take a few minutes and read the entire article, which is three pages long.

Interesting article. But I suspect posters here are going ignore it and just get on with the standard screaming match that passes for discourse here.

(And Fiddlebottoms, would that be the origin of Davy Crocketts cap?)

You have no sense of humor... and it's humor not humour you silly Brits...

It's not our fault you silly Yanks can't spell...

You have no sense of humor... and it's humor not humour you silly Brits...
And troble not trouble... wait... gah! stupid language.

Anyway, race issues in the US are waay to sensitive. Far too much to be healthy, and as long as they remain so it'll be impossible to fix the problems that certainly exist. For starters, you can't even say there are problems without being labelled a racist.

Seriously, this looks well worth reading in its entirety, but I'm not interested in registering with NY Times. Any chance of a link to the article posted elsewhere?

And troble not trouble... wait... gah! stupid language.

Anyway, race issues in the US are waay to sensitive. Far too much to be healthy, and as long as they remain so it'll be impossible to fix the problems that certainly exist. For starters, you can't even say there are problems without being labelled a racist.

Absolutely correct. Although I'd start with the idea that race actually exists being the most signifcant obstical to actually getting on to fixing the problems of various ethnic populations in the US.

It's interesting, but I'd like to see some numbers. I mean, the hiphop gangbanging culture pretty much started out in the 90's. What happened to that group between the end of the 60's (When Jim Crow went bye bye) and then, 30 years later? Did the employment rate go up? What's the explination?

Why is it that everybody knows what the problem really is except social scoetists and politicians? It's the parents. Hell, they almost say it in that article!

"He also criticizes the practice of withholding child-support payments from the wages of absentee fathers who do find jobs, telling The Times that to these men, such levies "amount to a tax on earnings." "

Right there. There it is.

Do you know how difficult it is for one caring parent to raise a child on a low income? There's not enough hours in the day. Two jobs, unaffordable daycare and a complete lack of concern on the part of government has left even decent parents in a trap. Nevermind if that one parent doesn't care either.

Interesting article. But I suspect posters here are going ignore it and just get on with the standard screaming match that passes for discourse here.
I know. Sigh. Perhaps some few will read it and have intelligent comments to make. One can only hope.

I know. Sigh. Perhaps some few will read it and have intelligent comments to make. One can only hope.
I'd like to read the whole thing. Any way around registering for the NY Times?

I know. Sigh. Perhaps some few will read it and have intelligent comments to make. One can only hope.

Intelligent comments are all well and good. But they get you nowhere.

What we really need is some good honest silliness. http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/aetsch/cheeky-smiley-023.gif

(And Fiddlebottoms, would that be the origin of Davy Crocketts cap?)
Somehow, ever how low I manage to aim, you drop a level beneath.

I'd like to read the whole thing. Any way around registering for the NY Times?
bugmenot.com

I think said article is dead wrong, for several reasons. First, the starting premise of the article, that sociology's dominant focus is on socio-economic factors, is completely wrong. Marxist interpretations of sociology haven't been dominant for thirty years. Secondly, I think that a greater focus on socio-economic factors would explain a lot of why young African-Americans are left out, but to do so raises uncomfortable questions. Simply put, the decline of the black male is directly correspondent to economic policies that gutted work opportunities in the inner city after the sixties, as well as social policies that focused heavily on race-specific crimes, such as our unquestionably racist drug-"prevention" and incarceration programs. Simply put, we give black males no hope to make a living but through hustling drugs, and then we lock them up for years at a time because of mandatory-minimum sentencing, all of which creates a generation of fatherless black males who merely repeat the process.

It's a great article, thanks for posting it. I think it makes a lot of sense, unfortunately, I also believe the author and any one who agrees with him is likely to be labeled as racist for blaming the black culture as one of the main, if not the main reasons for the plight of young, black men in this country.

Intelligent comments are all well and good. But they get you nowhere.

What we really need is some good honest silliness. http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/aetsch/cheeky-smiley-023.gif
Haven't been listening to your old Birds albums lately eh? Even silliness has a time and place to not be ;)

I think said article is dead wrong, for several reasons. First, the starting premise of the article, that sociology's dominant focus is on socio-economic factors, is completely wrong. Marxist interpretations of sociology haven't been dominant for thirty years. Secondly, I think that a greater focus on socio-economic factors would explain a lot of why young African-Americans are left out, but to do so raises uncomfortable questions. Simply put, the decline of the black male is directly correspondent to economic policies that gutted work opportunities in the inner city after the sixties, as well as social policies that focused heavily on race-specific crimes, such as our unquestionably racist drug-"prevention" and incarceration programs. Simply put, we give black males no hope to make a living but through hustling drugs, and then we lock them up for years at a time because of mandatory-minimum sentencing, all of which creates a generation of fatherless black males who merely repeat the process.

I believe the article totally contradicts you. Sociology does tend to focus on socio-economic factors when describing the plight of black males by, as the article notes, focusing on their poverty and the economic things that can be done to bring about a higher standard of living, such as education, which, as the article points out, is something that is rejected by young black males in favor of the pose' mentality. The article points out, contrary to your claims, how in the 90's economic opportunity expanded at all levels at an unprecedented rate, yet black males stayed out of it in favor of the "gansta" life style.

Haven't been listening to your old Birds albums lately eh? Even silliness has a time and place to not be ;)

Perhaps.

But is this that time? I think not. http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/dancing.gif

Damn you Eut! This is the first time I acutally read the entire article, and now I feel I need to explain why I disagree with it.

I feel the blacks are stuck because of their environment. They're stuck in the ghetto, surrounded by hopeless older blacks who gave up back in the days that were worse.

Now I'm not some expert, I never studied this. But I feel I'm educated on it.

The older blacks werent accepted, so they gave up. They then passed this "just give up" feeling on to the young. They taught them that it just isnt worth it to go out and apply themselves. Then,along with that,they see the crime going on around them. They don't see the bad things about it. They see the parts of how it's possible to survive, the "benifts" of doing it.

They grow up around crack houses and it becomes them. They don't go "ew, crack house" they shrug it off and continue their lifes.

They're forced into this. I'm not going pull the race card, but I think it's part of it. It's poverty that keeps them down. That makes them give up. That sends them to jail.


I don't know if that makes sense or if it's bullshit.. but hey, thought I'd give it a try..

Damn you Eut! This is the first time I acutally read the entire article, and now I feel I need to explain why I disagree with it.

I feel the blacks are stuck because of their environment. They're stuck in the ghetto, surrounded by hopeless older blacks who gave up back in the days that were worse.

Now I'm not some expert, I never studied this. But I feel I'm educated on it.

The older blacks werent accepted, so they gave up. They then passed this "just give up" feeling on to the young. They taught them that it just isnt worth it to go out and apply themselves. Then,along with that,they see the crime going on around them. They don't see the bad things about it. They see the parts of how it's possible to survive, the "benifts" of doing it.

They grow up around crack houses and it becomes them. They don't go "ew, crack house" they shrug it off and continue their lifes.

They're forced into this. I'm not going pull the race card, but I think it's part of it. It's poverty that keeps them down. That makes them give up. That sends them to jail.


I don't know if that makes sense or if it's bullshit.. but hey, thought I'd give it a try..

Think about it, you do in fact agree with the article, despite your claim it is "poverty that keeps them down" you explain that by saying bigotry kept them down in the "old days" and they passed on to the new generation a culture of "don't even try, it will get you nowhere." So it is their culture telling them not to try, that this is the best it can be that is keeping them down, not the poverty itself. It a culture that tells them that poverty is all they can have so why try for more.

"Generations of help" is a falsity. But we aren't supposed to discuss that de jure segregation only ended four decades ago, because of course we are oh so much better now.

Most problematic about the culture hypothesis, to me, is the lack of a real solution. The natural result of this is that it is routinely used as a way to absolve the US system (term used loosely, if you don't know what I mean I'll clarify) of significant blame, despite the fact that the US system deserves significant blame, and perhaps more than that.

The idea that racism has somehow disappeared from our society is absurd, and the idea that it has no effect on these issues is even more absurd. One thing rarely considered is that many young black males probably behave in these manners because they are expected to - not by their parents, but by their white peers.

Somehow, ever how low I manage to aim, you drop a level beneath.

Just be glad I didn't post that the first way it popped into my head when I read your post - with words other than "Davy Crockett"....

The older blacks werent accepted, so they gave up.

Um, not exactly. They weren't accepted, so they fought and struggled for years and still weren't accepted.

They then passed this "just give up" feeling on to the young. They taught them that it just isnt worth it to go out and apply themselves.

Have you considered that one reason this attitude is so strong may be that there is some truth to it?

Damn you Eut! This is the first time I acutally read the entire article, and now I feel I need to explain why I disagree with it.

I feel the blacks are stuck because of their environment. They're stuck in the ghetto, surrounded by hopeless older blacks who gave up back in the days that were worse.

Now I'm not some expert, I never studied this. But I feel I'm educated on it.

The older blacks werent accepted, so they gave up. They then passed this "just give up" feeling on to the young. They taught them that it just isnt worth it to go out and apply themselves. Then,along with that,they see the crime going on around them. They don't see the bad things about it. They see the parts of how it's possible to survive, the "benifts" of doing it.

They grow up around crack houses and it becomes them. They don't go "ew, crack house" they shrug it off and continue their lifes.

They're forced into this. I'm not going pull the race card, but I think it's part of it. It's poverty that keeps them down. That makes them give up. That sends them to jail.


I don't know if that makes sense or if it's bullshit.. but hey, thought I'd give it a try..
*wades delicately into dangerous waters*

yes. that is true for those of whatever race who grow up in poverty in poor neighborhoods. rotten schools, broken families, surrounded by gangs and drugs, they have a huge burden to overcome just to reach the middle class. one mistake and they are trapped right where they started.

but its my understanding (only second hand as i dont know any young black men) that there is a feeling in middle class black teens that education and striving for more is "white". that to be authentically and proudly black is to speak ghetto english, to be ignorant of everything but the streets, to disrespect women, etc. these kids are a huge problem since they can fall into poverty or the lower middle class by not doing what their parents did to secure a middle class life. how do you reach kids who have what they need to succeed but refuse to use it?

Interesting article. But I suspect posters here are going ignore it and just get on with the standard screaming match that passes for discourse here.

(And Fiddlebottoms, would that be the origin of Davy Crocketts cap?)

probably true....it makes valid points,but then again....life is funny as to why people do what they do.

i can see a big problem in america with poor people(not just blacks or other minorities)seeing the local football star driving a brand new escalade...and living in a mansion,and the constant bombardment of commercials telling you that unless you have this or that...your a nobody.
they see some chosen few living the life of tv locally....and the music videos reinforce the mindset,that the girls wont want you unless your wearing the newest kicks,or driving something flashy.

not to excuse crimminal behaviour,people make decisions and need to live with them,but being constantly told that your nothing unless your the materialistic twit on tv...does tend to motivate people to want what they cant have,due to their economic circumstances.

some work harder,some commit crime to get what everyone else has(in their minds)

i dont think there is any simple answer,i want a lot of stuff i cant have...i aint willing to be a crimminal to get it,i have kids that i wont leave behind to go to jail if i get caught commiting a crime,but at the same time...if i was single and young and had no prospects..i may consider crime as a way out and a way to get the shiny new objects always advertised.

i hope that made some sense,i have been told i am one for not making much sense...lol...and it is true.
i cant type and i cant formulate thoughts while typing..so i hope this wasnt to disjointed.

basically,i dont condone crimminal behavior to gain material possessions,but i understand why some may...except bush...they allready have tons of loot.

The article suffers the delusion of ethnicity as a source of character. Even the apparently tight segment "young black men" (besides being defined by uncontained subjectivity) is too vague to repesent anything. Plus, there's always "a single black culture", never a single "white one" - imagine how easy it would be: since "whites" have been known to enslave and curse, this article is just a poor attempt at reestablishing our supremacy.


As to young people and criminality not meeting at a junction in other countries (note that the op said it's "not even in Latin America"), I'm sorry, but that's just stupid.

I believe the article totally contradicts you. Sociology does tend to focus on socio-economic factors when describing the plight of black males by, as the article notes, focusing on their poverty and the economic things that can be done to bring about a higher standard of living, such as education, which, as the article points out, is something that is rejected by young black males in favor of the pose' mentality. The article points out, contrary to your claims, how in the 90's economic opportunity expanded at all levels at an unprecedented rate, yet black males stayed out of it in favor of the "gansta" life style.

It's not a matter of contradiction; it's a matter of which premises undercut which premises. If it's true that Marxist sociology hasn't been dominant for quite some time (which is true), and it's also true that Marxist sociology is the field that focuses heavily, if not exclusively, on socio-economic factors in explaining social behavior, then I find it hard to see how the premise of the article that focus on socio-economic factors has detracted from real explanations of African-American male behavior is true. We haven't been focusing on economics to explain behavior since the seventies; how then can we be explaining current African-American behavior through economics?

I am well aware of what the article cites, but I think it's incorrect. It ignores structural considerations (considerations, mind you, that despite what the article asserts have been ignored for thirty years) that explain why the posse mentality is one of the only ways up and out of chronic, persistent poverty. It is undoubtedly true that the posse mentality hurts the ability of blacks to rise out of poverty now, but the cause of the posse mentality in the first place was clearly not cultural, but rather a combination of discriminatory crime policies and evisceration of inner-city job opportunities. The simple fact is that the 90's economic expansion boosted wages primarily through expanding work times in existing jobs, not through providing middle-class opportunities to the unemployed. As such, of course the boom left African-American men behind, but not because of gangs; instead, it was because they had no job opportunities in the first place, and the boom did not offer any new jobs that were preferable to the hustling lifestyle they have presently.

Damn you Eut! This is the first time I acutally read the entire article, and now I feel I need to explain why I disagree with it.

I feel the blacks are stuck because of their environment. They're stuck in the ghetto, surrounded by hopeless older blacks who gave up back in the days that were worse.

Now I'm not some expert, I never studied this. But I feel I'm educated on it.

The older blacks werent accepted, so they gave up. They then passed this "just give up" feeling on to the young. They taught them that it just isnt worth it to go out and apply themselves. Then,along with that,they see the crime going on around them. They don't see the bad things about it. They see the parts of how it's possible to survive, the "benifts" of doing it.

They grow up around crack houses and it becomes them. They don't go "ew, crack house" they shrug it off and continue their lifes.

They're forced into this. I'm not going pull the race card, but I think it's part of it. It's poverty that keeps them down. That makes them give up. That sends them to jail.


I don't know if that makes sense or if it's bullshit.. but hey, thought I'd give it a try..

i find your argument very valid.

You have no sense of humor... and it's humor not humour you silly Brits...
It is humour and I am not a Brit. :)

It is humour and I am not a Brit. :)
I've said this before, we'll start putting superfluous U's in our words when you Canadians start pronouncing the u's already in words like "out" and "about."

;)

I'd like to read the whole thing. Any way around registering for the NY Times?
I can post them if you like.

I believe the article totally contradicts you. Sociology does tend to focus on socio-economic factors when describing the plight of black males by, as the article notes, focusing on their poverty and the economic things that can be done to bring about a higher standard of living, such as education, which, as the article points out, is something that is rejected by young black males in favor of the pose' mentality. The article points out, contrary to your claims, how in the 90's economic opportunity expanded at all levels at an unprecedented rate, yet black males stayed out of it in favor of the "gansta" life style.
Ahhh! Someone who has actually read the article!

Brings up some food for thought, yes?

(Page 2 of 3)

Why have academics been so allergic to cultural explanations? Until the recent rise of behavioral economics, most economists have simply not taken non-market forces seriously. But what about the sociologists and other social scientists who ought to have known better? Three gross misconceptions about culture explain the neglect.

Plight Deepens for Black Men, Studies Warn (March 20, 2006) First is the pervasive idea that cultural explanations inherently blame the victim; that they focus on internal behavioral factors and, as such, hold people responsible for their poverty, rather than putting the onus on their deprived environment. (It hasn't helped that many conservatives do actually put forth this view.)

But this argument is utterly bogus. To hold someone responsible for his behavior is not to exclude any recognition of the environmental factors that may have induced the problematic behavior in the first place. Many victims of child abuse end up behaving in self-destructive ways; to point out the link between their behavior and the destructive acts is in no way to deny the causal role of their earlier victimization and the need to address it.

Likewise, a cultural explanation of black male self-destructiveness addresses not simply the immediate connection between their attitudes and behavior and the undesired outcomes, but explores the origins and changing nature of these attitudes, perhaps over generations, in their brutalized past. It is impossible to understand the predatory sexuality and irresponsible fathering behavior of young black men without going back deep into their collective past.

Second, it is often assumed that cultural explanations are wholly deterministic, leaving no room for human agency. This, too, is nonsense. Modern students of culture have long shown that while it partly determines behavior, it also enables people to change behavior. People use their culture as a frame for understanding their world, and as a resource to do much of what they want. The same cultural patterns can frame different kinds of behavior, and by failing to explore culture at any depth, analysts miss a great opportunity to re-frame attitudes in a way that encourages desirable behavior and outcomes.

Third, it is often assumed that cultural patterns cannot change — the old "cake of custom" saw. This too is nonsense. Indeed, cultural patterns are often easier to change than the economic factors favored by policy analysts, and American history offers numerous examples.

My favorite is Jim Crow, that deeply entrenched set of cultural and institutional practices built up over four centuries of racist domination and exclusion of blacks by whites in the South. Nothing could have been more cultural than that. And yet America was able to dismantle the entire system within a single generation, so much so that today blacks are now making a historic migratory shift back to the South, which they find more congenial than the North. (At the same time, economic inequality, which the policy analysts love to discuss, has hardened in the South, like the rest of America.)

So what are some of the cultural factors that explain the sorry state of young black men? They aren't always obvious. Sociological investigation has found, in fact, that one popular explanation — that black children who do well are derided by fellow blacks for "acting white" — turns out to be largely false, except for those attending a minority of mixed-race schools.

An anecdote helps explain why: Several years ago, one of my students went back to her high school to find out why it was that almost all the black girls graduated and went to college whereas nearly all the black boys either failed to graduate or did not go on to college. Distressingly, she found that all the black boys knew the consequences of not graduating and going on to college ("We're not stupid!" they told her indignantly).

SO why were they flunking out? Their candid answer was that what sociologists call the "cool-pose culture" of young black men was simply too gratifying to give up. For these young men, it was almost like a drug, hanging out on the street after school, shopping and dressing sharply, sexual conquests, party drugs, hip-hop music and culture, the fact that almost all the superstar athletes and a great many of the nation's best entertainers were black.

(Page 3 of 3)

Not only was living this subculture immensely fulfilling, the boys said, it also brought them a great deal of respect from white youths. This also explains the otherwise puzzling finding by social psychologists that young black men and women tend to have the highest levels of self-esteem of all ethnic groups, and that their self-image is independent of how badly they were doing in school.

Plight Deepens for Black Men, Studies Warn (March 20, 2006) I call this the Dionysian trap for young black men. The important thing to note about the subculture that ensnares them is that it is not disconnected from the mainstream culture. To the contrary, it has powerful support from some of America's largest corporations. Hip-hop, professional basketball and homeboy fashions are as American as cherry pie. Young white Americans are very much into these things, but selectively; they know when it is time to turn off Fifty Cent and get out the SAT prep book.

For young black men, however, that culture is all there is — or so they think. Sadly, their complete engagement in this part of the American cultural mainstream, which they created and which feeds their pride and self-respect, is a major factor in their disconnection from the socioeconomic mainstream.

Of course, such attitudes explain only a part of the problem. In academia, we need a new, multidisciplinary approach toward understanding what makes young black men behave so self-destructively. Collecting transcripts of their views and rationalizations is a useful first step, but won't help nearly as much as the recent rash of scholars with tape-recorders seem to think. Getting the facts straight is important, but for decades we have been overwhelmed with statistics on black youths, and running more statistical regressions is beginning to approach the point of diminishing returns to knowledge.

The tragedy unfolding in our inner cities is a time-slice of a deep historical process that runs far back through the cataracts and deluge of our racist past. Most black Americans have by now, miraculously, escaped its consequences. The disconnected fifth languishing in the ghettos is the remains. Too much is at stake for us to fail to understand the plight of these young men. For them, and for the rest of us.

Ahhh! Someone who has actually read the article!

Brings up some food for thought, yes?
I DID read it, Eut, but I was left with far more questions (like the time period between the end of Jim Crow and the 90's) than were readily addressed by the article.

i find your argument very valid.
The author of the article doesn't.

I DID read it, Eut, but I was left with far more questions (like the time period between the end of Jim Crow and the 90's) than were readily addressed by the article.
Uh ... I suspect he was limited to a set number of colum inches.

COMMENTARY: Something that has always bothered me is how, despite generations of assistance of various sorts, there has always been a hard core of young, unemployed African-American men. As best I could tell, nothing seemed to help resolve this. This article suggests that what is really needed is an increasing emphasis on culture. I strongly recommend this article, especially if you live in America. Please take a few minutes and read the entire article, which is three pages long.

~~SNIP!!
I put it down to mostly hate and intolerance.

A bunch of us were down in North Carolina playing a round of golf at Marsh Harbor. One of our friends is a truly black gentleman from Guyana but living in Canada since the early 70's. We were all well dressed in dress pants and sport shirts. My friend and I were in the washroom when another golfer entered. He stared at my friend the whole time, did his business, and washed his hands. Not a word was spoke. When the other guy was drying his hands, he looked at my friend with such disgust, you could see the hate in his eyes.

I have seen it in these threads too many times. Hate and intolerance.

Uh ... I suspect he was limited to a set number of colum inches.
Quite possibly, yes, that's why there's academic journals and the importance of understanding newpaper sound bites vs a peer reviewed study. My point being that it is interesting, and it gives something to think about, but it also raises a lot more questions than it answers.

What DID happen to that group?
Latin America is also experiancing a huge crime wave with drugs and gangs, is it really different from the problems faced by African-Americans?
If it is cultural, what does that mean?
How are poor Black males different from middle class ones, do they have different cultures then? One group does suceed more after all.

So on and so forth.

I put it down to mostly hate and intolerance.

A bunch of us were down in North Carolina playing a round of golf at Marsh Harbor. One of our friends is a truly black gentleman from Guyana but living in Canada since the early 70's. We were all well dressed in dress pants and sport shirts. My friend and I were in the washroom when another golfer entered. He stared at my friend the whole time, did his business, and washed his hands. Not a word was spoke. When the other guy was drying his hands, he looked at my friend with such disgust, you could see the hate in his eyes.

I have seen it in these threads too many times. Hate and intolerance.
Did you even bother to read the article, or just give vent to your own prejudices and preconceptions?

Ahhh! Someone who has actually read the article!

Brings up some food for thought, yes?

I read it. It's nothing new, nothing "fascinating", not a fresh analysis at all. I've heard the same line repeated ad infinitum; it's a common justification given by educated upper middle class whites as to why the proportions are so slanted.

Quite possibly, yes, that's why there's academic journals and the importance of understanding newpaper sound bites vs a peer reviewed study. My point being that it is interesting, and it gives something to think about, but it also raises a lot more questions than it answers.

What DID happen to that group?
Latin America is also experiancing a huge crime wave with drugs and gangs, is it really different from the problems faced by African-Americans?
If it is cultural, what does that mean?
How are poor Black males different from middle class ones, do they have different cultures then? One group does suceed more after all.

So on and so forth.
Uh ... the author covered all of that. His primary point is that you can't simply fiddle with economic solutions in the hope that they will solve what seems to be more of a cultural problem. He is trying to open the door to more studies from a cultural perspective, not resolve the problem with one article in the New York Times.

I read it. It's nothing new, nothing "fascinating", not a fresh analysis at all. I've heard the same line repeated ad infinitum; it's a common justification given by educated upper middle class whites as to why the proportions are so slanted.
Your own prejudice is showing. There's a vast difference between using a little understood culture as a "justification" for problems on the one hand, and trying to overcome prejudices like yours on the other.

Uh ... the author covered all of that.

No, actually he didn't. He didn't make any comparison to other groups suffering from long-standing economic deprivation, except one to Latin America that in fact contradicts his major point, because similar results are evident. South Africa too.

No, actually he didn't. He didn't make any comparison to other groups suffering from long-standing economic deprivation, except one to Latin America that in fact contradicts his major point, because similar results are evident. South Africa too.
What about South Africa?

Your own prejudice is showing.

I don't believe I argued for or against the author's point of view in the post you replied to. I was merely pointing out that both you and he have it wrong if you hold that this point of view is unique.

There's a vast difference between using a little understood culture as a "justification" for problems on the one hand, and trying to overcome prejudices like yours on the other.

I don't see what my prejudice or lack of prejudice has the slightest to do with the question at hand.

What about South Africa?

It's full of AIDs and dying.

Too many big words for me to understand, but it's still the same, the Aferican American culture has been in decline since MLKJR and X were killed. As they say though, every cause needs a few martyrs.

Don't get me wrong, it's sad, but one middle class white kid can't do anything about it, besides buy crack from the blackdrug dealers and help them get rich.

...I'm kidding on a few points there.

What about South Africa?

Extremely high crime rates, and the continuing poverty for large portions of the black majority despite the end of apartheid.

Uh ... the author covered all of that. His primary point is that you can't simply fiddle with economic solutions in the hope that they will solve what seems to be more of a cultural problem. He is trying to open the door to more studies from a cultural perspective, not resolve the problem with one article in the New York Times.
Hmm, maybe I mistated then. I don't believe that he made a good case that it is more of a cultural problem; or rather it is their cultural problem. As opposed to a cultural problem that is caused by the rest of America as well I mean.

Did you even bother to read the article, or just give vent to your own prejudices and preconceptions?
Your usual controversial self replies. :rolleyes:

I read the article. At the end is this:

The tragedy unfolding in our inner cities is a time-slice of a deep historical process that runs far back through the cataracts and deluge of our racist past. Most black Americans have by now, miraculously, escaped its consequences. The disconnected fifth languishing in the ghettos is the remains. Too much is at stake for us to fail to understand the plight of these young men. For them, and for the rest of us.

My prejudices? I related an actual occurrence. You don't like my opinion. No surprise.

Preconceptions can lead to unwarranted fears. I could tell you some stories but it is getting late.

Anyways, the fact remains the part that is bolded. For the "plight" to be eliminated will take a lot of tolerance and a lot less hate. You might not see it on these boards, but I sure do.

The author of the article doesn't.

bet the author aint living in a crack house,or even been to a ghetto.

no disrespect,but ivory tower types are great on thinking they know things...cause their education tells them so,but are way short on real life knowledge.

no disrespect.

but i bet you have middle class black friends that pulled themselves up by their bootstraps,and that is great and remarkable.but it is not reality for millions of young black kids with no dads,crack whore moms....and have lived on the dole for years.

i agre,the only ones that the young blacks can depend on our themselves...but is not that asking a bit more then is reasonable,considering their life lessons?

i don't condone crime,but you have to ask yourself...if your mom was a crack whore...you were left alone in a crib when you were 2,never had a dad to teach you shit...and saw only the thugs get respect...what would you think?

i have seen babies covered with cockroach bites,when i worked in the city,the mom was sooo zoned on dope the baby was wailing and i wanted to cry...how can you blame that poor child..it's whole world was misery..i actually called social services once..to get a kid....but now he has no family and is thrust into a mix of kids that are just like him ...or worse...sociopathic.

i am not some crimminal coddler,but i am a realist...you had a dad or at least a family i bet,and i did as well...put your self in some 2 year olds shoes..with cock roaches crawling all over him/her and a crack whore mom...

it really sucks..i hate crimminals...but we are creating them,or the dems policies are,or whatever...the fact remains..how can we exspect civilized behaviour from people that are treated like animals?

i woke up to a leave it to beaver mom...he woke up if he slept at all to cockroaches crawling up his nose...while mom did a trick on the couch to get some dope.

big difference wouldnt you say?

do i forgive crimminal behaviour...no....is it as cut and dried as people like to think...no

this country needs to do something serious to address the horror kids go thru or it will never change.

or maybe we are creating a permanent underclass/jail system so all us white guys have jobs in the crimminal justice system?

i know it sounds cynical..but what else can you think?

sorry for my rant..i am a gun owning white rich guy...but i was taught by my mom to think about the position others may be in.

some of us are lucky..some arent..i understand that..and even if i was starving i wouldnt hurt someone to eat..but again..i was raised that way..tell that to some kid in the hood.

i have no answers,but i know blaming a kid for trying to survive/eat in the land of plenty is kinda hypocritical.

we(white and people with extended families are pretty lucky)in this country.

again i dont condone crimminal activity..but i for sure understand it...


and i am far from being a liberal...or conservative.

i just hate seeing any child suffer then be blamed for what they do to survive.or what they are told they need to survive.

another rant that is probably disjointed as well...my bad.

The article is severly flawed. In the first place socio-economic factors are cultural. It's either dishonest or erroneous to claim that social analysis has ignored culture for the last 30 years in favour of structural-functionalist explanations. In fact modern classics in the Marxist-economic/structural functionalist genre such as Phillipe Bourgois' "In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio" do not ignore non-structual cultural factors, but rather incorporate them as integral aspects of their analysis.

The article is severly flawed. In the first place socio-economic factors are cultural. It's either dishonest or erroneous to claim that social analysis has ignored culture for the last 30 years in favour of structural-functionalist explanations. In fact modern classics in the Marxist-economic/structural functionalist genre such as Phillipe Bourgois' "In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio" do not ignore non-structual cultural factors, but rather incorporate them as integral aspects of their analysis.


i'm a dope..in english please?

bet the author aint living in a crack house,or even been to a ghetto.

no disrespect,but ivory tower types are great on thinking they know things...cause their education tells them so,but are way short on real life knowledge.

no disrespect.

but i bet you have middle class black friends that pulled themselves up by their bootstraps,and that is great and remarkable.but it is not reality for millions of young black kids with no dads,crack whore moms....and have lived on the dole for years.

i agre,the only ones that the young blacks can depend on our themselves...but is not that asking a bit more then is reasonable,considering their life lessons?

i don't condone crime,but you have to ask yourself...if your mom was a crack whore...you were left alone in a crib when you were 2,never had a dad to teach you shit...and saw only the thugs get respect...what would you think?

i have seen babies covered with cockroach bites,when i worked in the city,the mom was sooo zoned on dope the baby was wailing and i wanted to cry...how can you blame that poor child..it's whole world was misery..i actually called social services once..to get a kid....but now he has no family and is thrust into a mix of kids that are just like him ...or worse...sociopathic.

i am not some crimminal coddler,but i am a realist...you had a dad or at least a family i bet,and i did as well...put your self in some 2 year olds shoes..with cock roaches crawling all over him/her and a crack whore mom...

it really sucks..i hate crimminals...but we are creating them,or the dems policies are,or whatever...the fact remains..how can we exspect civilized behaviour from people that are treated like animals?

i woke up to a leave it to beaver mom...he woke up if he slept at all to cockroaches crawling up his nose...while mom did a trick on the couch to get some dope.

big difference wouldnt you say?

do i forgive crimminal behaviour...no....is it as cut and dried as people like to think...no

this country needs to do something serious to address the horror kids go thru or it will never change.

or maybe we are creating a permanent underclass/jail system so all us white guys have jobs in the crimminal justice system?

i know it sounds cynical..but what else can you think?

sorry for my rant..i am a gun owning white rich guy...but i was taught by my mom to think about the position others may be in.

some of us are lucky..some arent..i understand that..and even if i was starving i wouldnt hurt someone to eat..but again..i was raised that way..tell that to some kid in the hood.

i have no answers,but i know blaming a kid for trying to survive/eat in the land of plenty is kinda hypocritical.

we(white and people with extended families are pretty lucky)in this country.

again i dont condone crimminal activity..but i for sure understand it...


and i am far from being a liberal...or conservative.

i just hate seeing any child suffer then be blamed for what they do to survive.or what they are told they need to survive.

another rant that is probably disjointed as well...my bad.

Maybe we should work more against the socio-economic status of cockroaches. Sheesh.

i'm a dope..in english please?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_functionalism

In Marxist theory, it's called "dialectical materialism." Basically, the idea that all units of society have to be understood as part of the totality, and derive their nature and function from their relations to other parts of society. In accordance with this principle, it is further argued that since the necessary basic function of society is to provide economically for its members, culture is highly influenced by economic factors.

Maybe we should work more against the socio-economic status of cockroaches. Sheesh.


that was helpfull and gave me a great insight into the issue.

to quote..."sheesh":sniper:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_functionalism

In Marxist theory, it's called "dialectical materialism." Basically, the idea that all units of society have to be understood as part of the totality, and derive their nature and function from their relations to other parts of society. In accordance with this principle, it is further argued that since the necessary basic function of society is to provide economically for its members, culture is highly influenced by economic factors.


thank you for bothering to post the definition/and making it easier for me to understand.
i wiil state i am a devout capitalist..as in..i like what i earn and so forth...but i understand the point made with your reference.

my brother who is a multi millionaire and a devout marxist(go figure)always argue about this exact topic.
he is more eglatarian then i...and he is rich.

i dont want this to devolve into a debate about socialism and capitalism...i respect your views...greatly...i am somewhat leaning your way..but i just love the fact that i can buy a lambo if i get lucky.

i am not the brightest bulb...so the definition you posted was still a bit beyond me.

am i incorrect in assuming that the lowest class of society is no different then the top dog?

if so..why the disparity of income or for want of a better analogy...why do some have dachas and others drink paint thinner?

i suppose life is what we make it...in any system....but i prefer to be free and not dictated to..as how i live...by some social engineer or a bush bot....but i guess i am antiquated in that respect.

i am an american i i like to be free to do what i want..walk nakid in my yard and such....but i understand,if i deter others from being right wing nuts...then i am infringing on their rights.

i digress..i just wanted to thank you for giving me the definition.

always good to learn things.

thank you for bothering to post the definition/and making it easier for me to understand.
i wiil state i am a devout capitalist..as in..i like what i earn and so forth...but i understand the point made with your reference.

It doesn't necessarily have much to do with capitalism and socialism, except as Marxists use it. Some of the more orthodox and fanatical ones have used the concept to blame capitalism for racism, religious fundamentalism, homophobia (once homosexuality stopped being classified as "bourgeois decadence"), sexism, etc., which of course would be magically sweeped away once the proletarian revolution came along.

It's just a concept in sociology, one that has many applications. It does tend to be generally more in tune with leftist politics than rightist, because on issues like this one, and others like the threat of Islamic terrorism and the horrors of Third World poverty, rightists tend to emphasize what they call "personal responsibility" while leftists tend towards an analysis of institutional oppression. It is not, however, in itself anti-capitalist; in fact some (Thomas Friedman, for instance) have used the basic thought behind it to argue for the promotion of more free-market reforms, so that the cultural problems stemming from the economic deprivation non-market economies are supposed to cause can be solved.

i am not the brightest bulb...so the definition you posted was still a bit beyond me.

Let's take the example of one cultural factor that many advocates of the culture hypothesis blame for the maintenance of poverty among blacks - peer pressure. People don't want to advance because it isn't the "black thing to do" - it's leaving their community behind, a kind of betrayal. Let's take it for granted that this cultural phenomenon actually exists, to avoid that issue.

The idea is that this particular cultural aspect is not so much a cause of economic deprivation as it is a result. Since a particular aspect of culture has to be "in tune" with the society as a whole, this aspect must serve some function - it plays a certain role in the maintenance of the society. This one's easy to explain away. Long-term economic deprivation for a community necessitates a strong sense of solidarity. The solution, of course, is not to wail about "black culture," but to liberate African-Americans economically so that such conformity is no longer a necessary aspect.

Or another one, common among Marxists: religion. It is the "opiate of the masses" - it is the force that allows the proletariat to be content in its poverty and oppression and not to rebel against the system. It plays a certain role within capitalist society, fills a certain vacuum, and is thus not something distinct from the capitalist mode of production, but rather an element of it. As such, getting rid of capitalism will result in getting rid of religion in its present form, supposedly.

Well, aside from the poverty and the aftereffects of racism that have been noted, I'd like to mention another reason that was only barely touched upon: the lack of positive role models.

A young, poverty-stricken black (or of any race) person in the ghetto knows that they don't have a realistic chance of making anything of themselves. Even if they get an education, it's not going to lead them anywhere. However, sometimes someone in that situation has a role model who worked hard, got an education, etc. and can motivate the young person to do the same. Unfortunately, for various reasons, the poor don't have positive role models, and so the cycle continues.

This is only part of the reason, though, racism and poverty are also prevalent.

a) It's quite a simple matter in statistics to determine whether or not any given factor is significant in producing (or at least being correlated with to the point where it is very likely that one causes the other and predictions can be made) an outcome. If there was this "blackness = inability due to faulty culture" factor, don't you think some scholar would have picked it up?

Sadly, their complete engagement in this part of the American cultural mainstream, which they created and which feeds their pride and self-respect, is a major factor in their disconnection from the socioeconomic mainstream.b) Sounds like normal mainstream culture isn't feeding their pride and self-respect. Which should make you wonder.

c) As always with these types of arguments, the real-life implications are generously left out of the picture. This article basically says that black kids are following the wrong culture, have the wrong likes and dislikes and therefore end up poor.
Which leaves us with two possibilities:
1 - We can blame them for being poor, sitting back in our comfy chairs watching their black ass being arrested on TV and not have to feel bad about it.
2 - We need to outlaw their modern culture and reeducate them to be like good white kids.

Maybe that is why Economists don't bother with racial profiling: It doesn't solve anything.

... it is not reality for millions of young black kids with no dads,crack whore moms....and have lived on the dole for years.



OUCH! I'm sure glad you're not 'defending' ME with statements like that.

Perhaps one problem being that there is a huge disconnect between what ghetto denizens see as appropriate and encouraged behavior in their social interaction (ie militant thug life) and what is appropriate behavior if you want to maintain a job or succeed economically (ie dress and speak in a semi-professional manner)?

Ask anyone who manages a retail store, fast-food chain, or otherwise interviews candidates for entry level / low wage jobs. One big reason why whites, asians, and latinos are far more likely to be hired than a young black man is due to the typical manner in which they dress, the way they speak, and lack of respect.

Most of the young black applicants that I have had to deal with have dressed very inappropriately (size 50 jeans hanging halfway to their knees and a ratty old t-shirt big enough to use as a tent, etc), speak with atrocious grammar (it ebonics yo), and have an attitude of disrespect (because doing anything other than acting like they could and would kick you ass at any moment would lose them face on the street). Acting like some tough gangbanger thug is not the way to get a job, but that’s the way a lot of those raised in the ghetto think is the only way to be a ‘respectable’ member of the community.

While only about 10% of the boys actually behave reasonably, about 80% of the girls that apply for a job are appropriate, so it isn’t that they are completely ignorant of proper behavior but rather that they choose to behave in that manner.

Maybe that is why Economists don't bother with racial profiling: It doesn't solve anything.
As usual, you have missed the entire point of the article. :rolleyes:

As usual, you have missed the entire point of the article. :rolleyes:
The article basically says that if we want to understand what is going on (and by that the assumption is for social scientists to include it in their modelling - economists are mentioned numerous times), we need to add a factor for skin colour/the culture that comes with it.

You tell me what the definition of racial profiling is.

So what point did I miss?
Indeed, if you don't see what the implications of this article are, I would think you might not have thought about it enough, not I.

"Generations of help" is a falsity. But we aren't supposed to discuss that de jure segregation only ended four decades ago, because of course we are oh so much better now.

Most problematic about the culture hypothesis, to me, is the lack of a real solution. The natural result of this is that it is routinely used as a way to absolve the US system (term used loosely, if you don't know what I mean I'll clarify) of significant blame, despite the fact that the US system deserves significant blame, and perhaps more than that.

The idea that racism has somehow disappeared from our society is absurd, and the idea that it has no effect on these issues is even more absurd. One thing rarely considered is that many young black males probably behave in these manners because they are expected to - not by their parents, but by their white peers.

The truth of an hyposthesis is not in how it can solve a problem, but in how well it matches all criteria of the situation.

The larger issue is definitely "culture".... And it is a culture which expands even past the limited scope of the article... America is a consumerist culture... A culture driven more by "image" and vanity than anything else. Where appearance means more than reality... In the black community it pushes upon the youth the "gangsta" image, and it has similar feats in other communities.

We live in a culture which thinks teachers "give" children grades (rather than children earning grades), and which considers financing a 42" plasma TV, and slapping $500.00 sneakers on their kids feet more important than their kids academic performance.

There is no real solution (in a governmental sense) to the problem; the solution requires direct action by the individuals of society to rear a new generation not driven by consumerism.

What about South Africa?


South Africa's criminal and educational problems are created by three overlapping problems. Firstly the overwhelming wealth gap between middle class and poor. Secondly the built up education and resource deficit - the result of Apathied. Finally the pent up agression and the acquired culture of violence that has its roots in pre-colonial rivalries, but has been exasperated by the last 200 years. How far these factors in South African relate to the ghettos of the US (or to the Falavas of Brazil and "suburbs" of Port o Prince for that matter) is entirely up for debate

Everything I know about black people, I learned from this website: http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/