Schools report finds ‘jaw-dropping’ gap for black boys

[Bakustra]

Broomstick, I am not going to respond seriously to somebody whose idea of honest discussion is "give me a detailed plan for fixing what's wrong with our cities or it must be 'black culture' that's creating the problems".

Then how about you tell everyone except Broomstick HOW you plan to "fix the inner cities." We'll make her cover her ears while you provide us with details.

Buddy, it seems to me that you tend to avoid any real discussion, preferring instead to jump in threads and snipe at people. I wonder why that may be. So let me ask you something, then. What's your plan to fix "black culture"?

[Spoonist]

You know something? I would say that the majority of people in my high school were not particularly enthusiastic about education. I would say that a significant number "rejected and despised" education, to at least some extent. But the majority graduated. A good number went on to college. So I think that you're going to have to show examples of this happening.

You don't see the disparity?
I'd agree that the sentiment was anti-intellectual and anti-studying where I went as well. But guess what, parents make a difference, lots of those kids who claimed to hate studying did it because of pressure from parents (and to a lesser degree peer pressure). So if you have a culture that does not put that pressure on the kids on the fence, then you will have lots of less graduating.

As I said earlier in the thread this gangsta-rap culture is taken in wholesale in euro ghettos and elsewhere around the world. With almost negligent amount of 'blacks'. Instead its ME or slavs who propogate the myth that because of racism there is no use tryin harder. With the effect obvious in the second and third generation.
But I think its harder in the US since the media is so full of memes propagating the scary black myths, making things like gangs a more relevant option than they should have been.

Where I live we have brought in people every now and then for at least 800 years and you can see a similar pattern there. Sometimes a counter culture arises in the new arrivals, then the mainstream hits them hard with discrimination until the counter culture either goes away naturally or violently. Sometimes brining in a new wave changes the culture of the last wave because now there are someone one peg lower.
Same can be seen during historic empires and conquest.

As for a solution, I think someone already pointed out the obvious, increase the number of teachers etc, this so that kids in the trouble zone have other rolemodels/culture input than their parents. It used to be that we used religion for that but I think that everyone agrees that nowadays we know the drawback of that.

[Bakustra]

So? That's not necessarily a cultural problem, and even if it is, it's not a direct cultural problem the way people are suggesting. If there is a lack of parental support for education (maybe there is, maybe there isn't, but I'll tentatively agree) then part of that might be due to the prevalence of single-parent households where the parent works more than a full-time job to support the family. There might be cultural factors that lead to so many inner-city households being single mothers and families, but there's also the death and incarceration rates for black men that contribute as well.

I am immediately suspicious of the "culture of poverty" because it's a glib dismissal of two factors: 1, the concept of structural poverty, and 2, the responsibility of the dominant culture in shaping subcultures. It essentially seeks to heap all the blame on the shoulders of the failing individuals. Blaming the victim in the utmost. The lack of any real supporting evidence seems to bear out my suspicions.

EDIT: Frankly, you seem to have missed my point. If the attitudes of white youths and black youths are similar, that suggests that other factors than their attitudes are the problem- which is contrary to what other people are saying.

[Big Phil]

Broomstick, I am not going to respond seriously to somebody whose idea of honest discussion is "give me a detailed plan for fixing what's wrong with our cities or it must be 'black culture' that's creating the problems".

Then how about you tell everyone except Broomstick HOW you plan to "fix the inner cities." We'll make her cover her ears while you provide us with details.

Buddy, it seems to me that you tend to avoid any real discussion, preferring instead to jump in threads and snipe at people. I wonder why that may be. So let me ask you something, then. What's your plan to fix "black culture"?

Be that as it may, I'm not the one who got pissy and whiny and said:

I am not going to respond seriously to somebody whose idea of honest discussion is "give me a detailed plan for fixing what's wrong with our cities or it must be 'black culture' that's creating the problems

Last I checked, asking someone to explain their assertion isn't frowned upon on this board, but whining and bitching that your opponent is being mean and hates black culture, and therefore you're not going to respond to her, is. And I'd be happy to have a discussion with you, one you untuck your balls and answer Broomstick's question.

[Bakustra]

Buddy, it seems to me that you tend to avoid any real discussion, preferring instead to jump in threads and snipe at people. I wonder why that may be. So let me ask you something, then. What's your plan to fix "black culture"?

Be that as it may, I'm not the one who got pissy and whiny and said:

*I, SancheztheWhaler, believe that it is necessary to quote somebody twice when posting*

Last I checked, asking someone to explain their assertion isn't frowned upon on this board, but whining and bitching that your opponent is being mean and hates black culture, and therefore you're not going to respond to her, is. And I'd be happy to have a discussion with you, one you untuck your balls and answer Broomstick's question.

Well, see, if you were the master of debate like you waltz into threads regularly and claim to be, you would realize that such would be off-topic, and indeed a distracting red herring, from the main subject, that is, whether "black culture" is creating the gaps in education. Demanding that I respond to it is nothing short of an attempt to steer the subject away, and more importantly, making it contingent to whether my posts will be considered is frankly dishonest. I should not have to face the third degree on unimportant subjects before having my posts seriously considered. Now, if you were not quite so set on demonstrating your pure ignorance, you might have protested that I shouldn't ask you to answer questions before contributing to the discussion.

Frankly, I would rather have a discussion with the squirrels outside my window than with you, Sanchez. I judge them to be far less repellent and better conversationalists.

[Big Phil]

"Off topic?" How do you figure? Especially when the OP is about poor school performance among black kids, and improving performance in schools by black kids is just one of many issues under discussion

I get that you seem to have some personal issue with me and my debating style, but that doesn't excuse your ducking and weaving. If you don't really have any specific solutions, or you just don't want to discuss it, then fine, say so. But don't throw a tantrum and start blasting other posters because you don't like what they're saying or how they're saying it, simply to divert attention from the fact that you made a claim you're unable to support. That's dishonest and cowardly, and I doubt anyone is fooled .

To address the topic you seem to prefer talking about, black culture (but I won't address you, because I'm "repellent and a poor conversationalist"):

Bill Cosby, several years ago, excoriated popular black culture for preferring ignorant ganstas over educated professionals. Is he correct? Perhaps, but only up to a point. Others disagree (links below) and say that the problem isn't black culture, but structural problems within the education system.

Author Shelby Steele (in White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era) has another take, which suggests that as a result of the Civil Rights Movement, WASP culture in America was exposed for its hypocrisy and lost its moral authority. Instead of white people in charge and telling black people to be good boys (or else), now white people felt guilty for hundreds of years of slavery and racial inequality (Steele argues that this was for two reasons: to avoid being seen as racists and to embrace a vantage point where they could mete out benefits to disadvantaged blacks through programs such as affirmative action). He also argues that "blacks made a deal with the devil by exchanging responsibility and control over their destiny for handouts. He sees a deficiency in black middle-class educational achievement, further raising questions about claims of lack of equal opportunity."

In a nutshell, black culture is blaming all of their problems on white people and refusing to do anything to help themselves, and white people feel so bad about it that rather than say "get the fuck up and help yourselves," they continue giving black people handouts. His conclusion is that neither approach is beneficial, and unless black people are willing to take responsibility for their own communities and their own success (or failure), no amount of government intervention or white people coming in to "fix" their problems is going to change anything substantially.


http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/bcill.htm
http://www.diversityinc.com/article/499 ... Education/
http://www.theroot.com/views/we-dont-ne ... s-movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Guil ... Rights_Era

[Bakustra]

Oh, Lord, Sanchez! You make all your insults in complete seriousness? That's very illuminating, I must admit. But it is not a practice that I favor, generally speaking. I prefer making my insults with a song in my heart and a lightness in my step, if you don't mind me waxing poetic a little. But thank you for actually addressing the topic of the thread.

Unfortunately, the sources that you have provided are more than a little faulty. Shelby Steele uses the "bootstraps" argument and ignores any structural aspects of poverty. This is not a particularly strong argument, since it requires that the US be a near-perfect meritocracy, which it is fairly obvious to see that it is not. Do you have anything to support Mr. Steele's argument? For that matter, what is the difference between affirmative action and welfare programs, precisely, such that we should shut down one and not the other, and that we can differentiate "black culture" from "poor culture". Or do you not believe there is a difference?

[Simon_Jester]

Then how about you tell everyone except Broomstick HOW you plan to "fix the inner cities." We'll make her cover her ears while you provide us with details.

Buddy, it seems to me that you tend to avoid any real discussion, preferring instead to jump in threads and snipe at people. I wonder why that may be. So let me ask you something, then. What's your plan to fix "black culture"?

Actually, Bakustra, I'm curious about this too. What does it mean to you to "fix the inner cities?" What is entailed in that plan? What needs to be done?

You know something? I would say that the majority of people in my high school were not particularly enthusiastic about education. I would say that a significant number "rejected and despised" education, to at least some extent. But the majority graduated. A good number went on to college. So I think that you're going to have to show examples of this happening.

Broomstick already pointed to rural (white) Appalachia as an example of this: low graduation rates, low literacy rates... and a local culture that encourages people not to bother becoming literate or graduating from high school. Exceptions have to basically abandon the community to succeed, requiring luck, money, or incredible determination.

I am immediately suspicious of the "culture of poverty" because it's a glib dismissal of two factors: 1, the concept of structural poverty, and 2, the responsibility of the dominant culture in shaping subcultures.

How is it a dismissal of the idea that there are economic problems to say that economic problems are made worse by the culture that predictably evolves out of structural poverty?

Are you familiar with positive feedback cycles? The social sciences are full of them: problems in one area breed problems in another, that in turn make the original problem worse. Structural poverty and discrimination make it natural for the victims to build a culture of "fuck this noise, there's no point in trying to break out of the ghetto, I'm going to concentrate on swaggering and picking fights to impress my peer group." Which just happens to be a really bad response, on par with "I can't win this race so I'm going to shoot my foot off to show everybody how tough I am."

It essentially seeks to heap all the blame on the shoulders of the failing individuals. Blaming the victim in the utmost.

That's a lie, based on your own misreading of the thought processes of the people you're talking to.

EDIT: Frankly, you seem to have missed my point. If the attitudes of white youths and black youths are similar, that suggests that other factors than their attitudes are the problem- which is contrary to what other people are saying.

Only if outcomes are different. If you compare rural Appalachian whites to inner city blacks, they're not as different as you might think. In both cases you see drug problems, low median education, high illiteracy, multigenerational structural poverty... is it that much of a stretch to suppose that some of the same forces are creating these problems in both environments?

[Bakustra]

But then we don't have a "black culture" problem. If it's a problem that exists across racial lines, then it's not a question of race or race-based culture. If conditions are similar in rural Appalachia to those in the inner cities, and one is predominantly white and the other black, then there are problems here that transcend race. Perhaps this is a matter of poverty, rather than race. But in that case, citing racial culture as a factor is wrongheaded and misleading.

Perhaps my comments are not an accurate depiction of your mind, Simon. But when people say that blacks would be able to succeed if it weren't for affirmative action and a "culture of poverty", as in the OP article, and as in the responses to Cosby and Steele's book, and as in the comments of other people in the thread, it's not hard to connect the dots and say that people are blaming the impoverished people. But I was too hasty- after all, they do blame "white liberals" (and black liberals, and Latino liberals, and East Asian liberals...) for promoting affirmative action. Steele goes so far as to say that anybody supporting affirmative action is racist against African-Americans. Thank you for inspiring a correction.

As for fixing the inner cities, I'm not an expert. But my preliminary thoughts are 1) urban renewal projects to knock down abandoned buildings in too-poor condition to be refurbished, clean up parks, and modernize public buildings. This should then be followed by establishing more public spaces and greenbelts on some of the newly-available land. Modernizing private buildings should also be a priority, but that would probably require overuse of eminent domain, so probably what should be done is an incentive program for the landlords to do it.

2) Massive reform efforts for the public schools in those areas. What's needed is probably a overall restructuring of the way things are taught. Current high schools tend to induce apathy and antipathy in their students, and that creates problems when the students don't have restoring forces to keep them in school. So making school all-around more enjoyable and better is necessary. This would probably include re-establishing vocational and artistic curricula. Dealing with the gangs would be problematic at this point.

3) Adult education. Establishing free, subsidized programs to allow people to learn various skills that are handy for business (vocational skills, financial skills and basic accounting, computer use). 4) Establishing an economic base. Incentivize the creation of locally-owned businesses. I'd prefer to ban megastores and department stores outright from the city centers, those this is probably illegal and impractical. But carefully crafted taxation schemes should keep them out or uncompetitive. The goal, though, is to give the people economic power by allowing them to establish locally owned businesses and shops. While there probably won't be any large factories being established, developing local computer repair stores, groceries, clothing stores, hardware stores, restaurants and so on would enable people to start making money, give them work, and also revitalize the town. Concurrent with this, there should also be programs to encourage doctors, pharmacists, and other professionals to move into the city and establish themselves there.

5) The forces of the law. This should really be one of the first steps, and I honestly have the fewest ideas for this. But overall what needs to be done is to establish faith and trust in the police. This will essentially kill the gangs. One thing that could be done is to establish more transparency in the legal system. Essentially, allow urban police departments to integrate into the community as much as possible. One way might be to have open-houses at the courts and precints for people to learn about the law, or have free informational sessions and classes about the law. Another would be to establish openness in internal review procedures. If people can see why exactly an officer who shot a kid was found not guilty, then they will be easier to mollify. The law needs to become part of the people rather than an adversary to avoid or fight against. Of course, this will necessitate other shifts across the country, but you asked about the cities, not my other crackpot ideas.

This is incomplete and also reliant on larger sea changes, but they are my thoughts.

[Spoonist]

@Bakustra
Uhm you are mixing up the different posters here. I'll let it slide since I don't think I was clear enough on any intent.

So just a few comments:

I disagree with the notion of there being a collective culture shared by all poor of the same status. That is an oversimplification. What I was pointing out is that counter cultures have nothing to do with race but everything to do with propagating poverty over generations. In the US you have a very strong counter culture in the inner cities among blacks and latinos. Why or how others can cover better than me.

The slavery that is minimum wage in the US is just appalling. Especially when combined with forced measures for getting benefits like food stamps and similar. Saw a program about people forced to commute 3h both ways to a 8h job to qualify, and there was thousands of people like that. Imagine what effect that has on parent-child relations...

EDIT: Frankly, you seem to have missed my point. If the attitudes of white youths and black youths are similar, that suggests that other factors than their attitudes are the problem- which is contrary to what other people are saying.

Frankly?
That was a very strange way to formulate it. Of course there is other factors involved than just plain attitude, namely their cultural context, as in how their peers and parents act vs their attitude, which by the way was the discussion topic?

I'll just back out now, you are swinging in all directions which just doesn't leave a lot of room for observations or notes like mine. So please feel free to go back to the flaming of those who actually disagree.

[Bakustra]

Um, my point is that if these conditions aren't unique to African-Americans and African-American communities, one can hardly say that "black culture" is the deciding factor in hostility towards the establishment/education. Maybe I'm not being all that clear.

[fgalkin]

Um, my point is that if these conditions aren't unique to African-Americans and African-American communities, one can hardly say that "black culture" is the deciding factor in hostility towards the establishment/education. Maybe I'm not being all that clear.

The problem with black culture, is not that it's black, but that is has a disdainful attitude towards learning. Other cultures have the same disdainful attitude, and as a result, people from those cultures are, in general, less educated than average.

I can't believe it took three pages to get to this point.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Bakustra]

Um, my point is that if these conditions aren't unique to African-Americans and African-American communities, one can hardly say that "black culture" is the deciding factor in hostility towards the establishment/education. Maybe I'm not being all that clear.

The problem with black culture, is not that it's black, but that is has a disdainful attitude towards learning. Other cultures have the same disdainful attitude, and as a result, people from those cultures are, in general, less educated than average.

I can't believe it took three pages to get to this point.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Prove it. Prove that it's culture (and a unique culture for each disadvantaged community specifically) which is preeminently at fault for these results. In fact, explain why we have to classify Rural Appalachia separately from Urban America just on the basis of race. Go ahead. As for me, I can't believe that people still believe in the bootstraps model, but let's not let that stand between us.

EDIT:
Kindly provide the evidence soon.
-Bakustra

[fgalkin]

But then we don't have a "black culture" problem. If it's a problem that exists across racial lines, then it's not a question of race or race-based culture. If conditions are similar in rural Appalachia to those in the inner cities, and one is predominantly white and the other black, then there are problems here that transcend race. Perhaps this is a matter of poverty, rather than race. But in that case, citing racial culture as a factor is wrongheaded and misleading.

How 'bout the study in the OP?

Poverty isn't the sole explanation for the differences. The report found that poor white boys do as well at reading and math as non-poor black boys.

It's not just poor whites being worse at learning, it's poor Appalachian whites that are the problem

And how about the Native Americans? They have the worst educational track record of any group of minority group in the US- only 17% of them go to college. Except, of course, this has little to do with Native Americans being poor, and more with the schools being completely inadequate to reconcile their curriculum with their students' cultural values

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/INAR.html

Both on and off reservations many schools are not providing an appropriate education for Native students. They are denied teachers who have special training to teach Native students, they are denied a curriculum that includes their heritage, and culturally biased tests are used to push them out of academic programs. The supplemental add-on programs such as Indian Education Act, Johnson O'Malley (JOM), Bilingual Education, Special Education, and other federal programs of the last two decades have had a limited success in improving the education of Indian children. However, add-on programs are only a first step to making schooling appropriate for Native children. Native education must be viewed holistically rather than fragmented with basic skills, Native studies, and other classes taught in isolation from one another. In addition to treating the curriculum holistically, dropout prevention needs to be treated holistically. Students do not drop out of school just because of academic failure, drug and alcohol abuse, or any other single problem. Too often well meaning add-on remedial programs focus on finding the reason for failure in students and their homes, "blaming the victims." These programs treat the symptoms of the cultural conflict going on between students and teachers in school rather than the root problem. The idea that Native students are "culturally disadvantaged" or "culturally deprived" reflects an ethnocentric bias that should not continue. When schools do not recognize, value, and build on what Native students learn at home, they are given a watered-down, spread out curriculum that is meant to guarantee student learning but which often results in their education being slowed and their being "bored out" of school. The "traditional school system" has failed dropouts rather than they having failed the system.

And of course, let's not forget that Britain is facing the same problem. Guess it's not just an American Inner City problem, then.

By the way, there IS a group for which Bakustra's arguments are true. But even amongst Latinos, half do so because of poor English skills (and 52% of foreign-born Latino adults are high school drop-outs, compared with 25% of the native born)

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Big Phil]

Oh, Lord, Sanchez! You make all your insults in complete seriousness? That's very illuminating, I must admit. But it is not a practice that I favor, generally speaking. I prefer making my insults with a song in my heart and a lightness in my step, if you don't mind me waxing poetic a little. But thank you for actually addressing the topic of the thread.

Unfortunately, the sources that you have provided are more than a little faulty. Shelby Steele uses the "bootstraps" argument and ignores any structural aspects of poverty. This is not a particularly strong argument, since it requires that the US be a near-perfect meritocracy, which it is fairly obvious to see that it is not. Do you have anything to support Mr. Steele's argument? For that matter, what is the difference between affirmative action and welfare programs, precisely, such that we should shut down one and not the other, and that we can differentiate "black culture" from "poor culture". Or do you not believe there is a difference?

Bootstraps is your own strawman of his argument. I stated explicitly what his argument actually is. I'll quote it again: "blacks made a deal with the devil by exchanging responsibility and control over their destiny for handouts."

[Bakustra]

Oh, Lord, Sanchez! You make all your insults in complete seriousness? That's very illuminating, I must admit. But it is not a practice that I favor, generally speaking. I prefer making my insults with a song in my heart and a lightness in my step, if you don't mind me waxing poetic a little. But thank you for actually addressing the topic of the thread.

Unfortunately, the sources that you have provided are more than a little faulty. Shelby Steele uses the "bootstraps" argument and ignores any structural aspects of poverty. This is not a particularly strong argument, since it requires that the US be a near-perfect meritocracy, which it is fairly obvious to see that it is not. Do you have anything to support Mr. Steele's argument? For that matter, what is the difference between affirmative action and welfare programs, precisely, such that we should shut down one and not the other, and that we can differentiate "black culture" from "poor culture". Or do you not believe there is a difference?

Bootstraps is your own strawman of his argument. I stated explicitly what his argument actually is. I'll quote it again: "blacks made a deal with the devil by exchanging responsibility and control over their destiny for handouts."

That is bootstraps. It's saying that blacks could negate these disparities if they hadn't accepted the idea of affirmative action; in other words, they could pull themselves up without any help from the government, indeed government "help" only making things worse. I'm not sure what the major difference is between that and bootstraps, but maybe you have a handy chart to explain it?

[une]

Oh, Lord, Sanchez! You make all your insults in complete seriousness? That's very illuminating, I must admit. But it is not a practice that I favor, generally speaking. I prefer making my insults with a song in my heart and a lightness in my step, if you don't mind me waxing poetic a little. But thank you for actually addressing the topic of the thread.

Unfortunately, the sources that you have provided are more than a little faulty. Shelby Steele uses the "bootstraps" argument and ignores any structural aspects of poverty. This is not a particularly strong argument, since it requires that the US be a near-perfect meritocracy, which it is fairly obvious to see that it is not. Do you have anything to support Mr. Steele's argument? For that matter, what is the difference between affirmative action and welfare programs, precisely, such that we should shut down one and not the other, and that we can differentiate "black culture" from "poor culture". Or do you not believe there is a difference?

Bootstraps is your own strawman of his argument. I stated explicitly what his argument actually is. I'll quote it again: "blacks made a deal with the devil by exchanging responsibility and control over their destiny for handouts."

How much, "control over their destiny" did black people really have? Before integration and the establishment of programs like affirmative action, the black population of the US was significantly worse off than it is now.

[Bakustra]

But then we don't have a "black culture" problem. If it's a problem that exists across racial lines, then it's not a question of race or race-based culture. If conditions are similar in rural Appalachia to those in the inner cities, and one is predominantly white and the other black, then there are problems here that transcend race. Perhaps this is a matter of poverty, rather than race. But in that case, citing racial culture as a factor is wrongheaded and misleading.

How 'bout the study in the OP?

Poverty isn't the sole explanation for the differences. The report found that poor white boys do as well at reading and math as non-poor black boys.

It's not just poor whites being worse at learning, it's poor Appalachian whites that are the problem

And how about the Native Americans? They have the worst educational track record of any group of minority group in the US- only 17% of them go to college. Except, of course, this has little to do with Native Americans being poor, and more with the schools being completely inadequate to reconcile their curriculum with their students' cultural values

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/INAR.html

Both on and off reservations many schools are not providing an appropriate education for Native students. They are denied teachers who have special training to teach Native students, they are denied a curriculum that includes their heritage, and culturally biased tests are used to push them out of academic programs. The supplemental add-on programs such as Indian Education Act, Johnson O'Malley (JOM), Bilingual Education, Special Education, and other federal programs of the last two decades have had a limited success in improving the education of Indian children. However, add-on programs are only a first step to making schooling appropriate for Native children. Native education must be viewed holistically rather than fragmented with basic skills, Native studies, and other classes taught in isolation from one another. In addition to treating the curriculum holistically, dropout prevention needs to be treated holistically. Students do not drop out of school just because of academic failure, drug and alcohol abuse, or any other single problem. Too often well meaning add-on remedial programs focus on finding the reason for failure in students and their homes, "blaming the victims." These programs treat the symptoms of the cultural conflict going on between students and teachers in school rather than the root problem. The idea that Native students are "culturally disadvantaged" or "culturally deprived" reflects an ethnocentric bias that should not continue. When schools do not recognize, value, and build on what Native students learn at home, they are given a watered-down, spread out curriculum that is meant to guarantee student learning but which often results in their education being slowed and their being "bored out" of school. The "traditional school system" has failed dropouts rather than they having failed the system.

And of course, let's not forget that Britain is facing the same problem. Guess it's not just an American Inner City problem, then.

By the way, there IS a group for which Bakustra's arguments are true. But even amongst Latinos, half do so because of poor English skills (and 52% of foreign-born Latino adults are high school drop-outs, compared with 25% of the native born)

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

The study in the OP says that there is a disparity, and then the author editorializes about how this obviously means that BLACK CULTURE is the cause. Meanwhile, the only expert quoted thinks that it has more to do with early formative experiences and sociological and historical factors. That sure is some insidious BLACK CULTURE if it's responsible, then.

In fact, that's the problem with your UK article, too. You ignore that other people disagreed. It turns out that it may not be set in stone that BLACK CULTURE is the overriding factor. Using Native American culture is hilarious, since the point of that article is not that Native American cultures are anti-educational, but rather that current educational methods are not well-tailored for the cultural differences. Even then, I'm willing to bet that the crushing despair produced by massive, greater-than-the-Great-Depression levels of unemployment is also a factor, seeing as it contributes to alcoholism, suicide rates, and all the wonderful stew that characterizes the reservations.

Since you decided to go all third-person with me, it's sauce for the gander time! Now, let's take a look at the situation. We have 1)inner-city black kids and 2)rural Appalachian white kids, who have similar levels of educational problems and attainment.
The fgalkin method of analysis:
"Clearly, they coincidentally have cultures that devalue education, and this is the reason for the similarities."
My method:
"Well, maybe there's some common factor that is producing this effect. That might be worth investigating."

You're still a little deficient on the evidence.
Bakustra.

[Kyler]

This was a topic of discussion in college while I studied in secondary education. My multi-cultural education professor Dr. Omowale Akintunde. One of the craziest professor I ever had in college, but I probably learned more from him than any other teacher. The problem is not just with African Americans but it is also with all races. He believed the divide has more to do with social economic background than that of race. Black and Hispanics have a higher percentage of problems because a much larger percentage of their population lives below or near the poverty line. Non-Whites with the exception of Asians consistently score lower on standardized testing than White students.

Dr. Akintunde's dissertation involved finding out if you could teach inner city students (mostly black) music better with R&B and Rap than Classical music. His Ph.D. advisers at U of Missouri were not thrilled with his idea, but in the end he proved his hypothesis correct. Inner city youth learned music faster and better by listening to R&B and Rap. The kind of music they could relate too and listen too more frequently. While most traditional educators would disagree with his research because that kind of music is looked upon poorly by most educators. While he never tested it further, he believes in predominately white communities in the south, that you could teach children faster by using country music or similar instances across the whole US. Overall he says using classical music; that most children cannot relate too is incorrect, music teachers need to use music that their students can relate too to help teach them music either that be Rap, R&B, Country, Rock, or Pop Music. So part is the problem with the achievement gap is that teachers are not doing enough to bridge the culture gaps between the races to help their student learns. If the classic materials to teach students are not working because student can not relate to them then find new materials that they like and understand that will better their education.

Another major issue that shows why blacks consistently under perform whites, is the fact that a lot of black students attend schools that have consistently been under performing for years. In the current educational system under performing schools receive less funding because of their low test scores on standardized tests. Where schools that perform well on their tests receive full or even additional funding. Logic dictates that if you have under performing schools that they should receive more funding to get better teacher and materials. You should not make those schools try to raise their scores and standards with less funding, but with more. Less funding just makes a hard job a lot harder. If a school is performing way above the standards of a State, it should receive less funding because its students are doing well and need less help.

The racial educational divide is an extremely complicated subject and there are many causes. Dr. Akintunde always taught us that problems like this will only be solved when be people start talking about it. You have to confront the issue not hide from it cause the problem is not going to magically fix itself only hard work on everyone's part will do that.

[Broomstick]

Can anybody prove there is a causal link? All people are saying is "rap therefore conditioned to hate education!!!".

Actually, I haven't said that at all. Nor have I said poor black people "hate" education - I don't think they either hate or love it, they just do not value it in all too many cases. Those cases where education IS valued are far more likely to climb out of poverty than where it is not valued and that applies regardless of race.

Some of the problems of poor, urban blacks are, truly, due to discrimination. Others, however, are due to poverty, not racial discrimination, and other are due to not getting a good education, which consequences also happen regardless of race. What's really knocking the legs out from under poor, black, urban men is that they have MORE negative factors working against them than even their poor, black, urban sisters, much less wealthy white boys or whatever other group you compare them with.

I mean, what we have from the OP is a gap. People responded with "well maybe it's a culture of poverty, suck on deez nuts. :smug:" in the OP article. But that doesn't mean that they've proved anything.

Yeah, that's why they said "MAYBE", as in, might be but not certain.

It could be the results of discrimination or other factors. So I want people to provide some evidence for a causal link between "black culture" and these results, because it seems odd to take that as a given.

People don't work that way. There are, I'm sure some black men thoroughly steeped in inner city black culture who nonetheless do well for themselves (I'm looking at the pastor who just built a brand new big church a block away from me - thoroughly inner city Gary man, but doing very well for himself in an entirely legal enterprise. Oh, wait - that pastor has a degree. Education. Again.)

Firstly, you're wrong about East Asian immigrants. They still make less on average than whites do, but this is usually invisible because their median educational level is higher.

I submit that this may be important.

Me, too - look, East Asians have to be even more educated than white men to make an equal income. Well, gee - maybe that means black men need to be more educated than the average white man in order to obtain an equal salary. That is, of course, unfair... but it might also be a reason to emphasize education.

Broomstick, I am not going to respond seriously to somebody whose idea of honest discussion is "give me a detailed plan for fixing what's wrong with our cities or it must be 'black culture' that's creating the problems".

Then how about you tell everyone except Broomstick HOW you plan to "fix the inner cities." We'll make her cover her ears while you provide us with details.

Hey, I can play along with that. OK, Bakustra, ready? ::::covers ears:::: Go ahead and tell everyone else.... m'kay thanks.

You see, it's not ME saying the solution is "fix the inner cities" - YOU are saying that. What I'm saying is that education is even more important for minorites than for people who are part of the majority ethnicity. Please note the distinction.

So? That's not necessarily a cultural problem, and even if it is, it's not a direct cultural problem the way people are suggesting.

Culture can certainly be a factor.

Let's look at two "stateless" cultures in Europe: The Roma and the Jews. Both were, and still are, discriminated against. Both have been subjected to violent killings i.e. ethic cleansings, pogroms, genocide, etc. Both retain their own language and religion and customs distinct from the majority Europeans around them. Yet, the Jews have a reputation of being rich, and the Roma of being poor. Maybe the difference there isn't discrimination - which they both share - but how their cultures value education. The Roma aren't particularly big on formal education. Illiteracy is still a major problem. Jews, on the other hand, send their kids off to school and keep them there for years at a time. Hell, Jews even educated their women, at least to the point of being able to read a little, at a time when the dominant European cultures often didn't bother to educate their men, much less their women.

Yeah, how education is perceived is a cultural factor that certainly can have an impact. I'm sure there are ignorant, uneducated Jews and I'm sure you can find Roma with a college degree if you look hard enough, but take any period in history and on average the Jews are going to be materially better off than the Roma even during times when the Jews were segregated in ghettos and even subjected to ethinic cleansing. Again, you have to wonder if education is a factor here.

If there is a lack of parental support for education (maybe there is, maybe there isn't, but I'll tentatively agree) then part of that might be due to the prevalence of single-parent households where the parent works more than a full-time job to support the family. There might be cultural factors that lead to so many inner-city households being single mothers and families, but there's also the death and incarceration rates for black men that contribute as well.

And other ethnicities also have to deal with those problems. Even among the privelged group called "white people" single parent households are far more common in poverty-level households. Education on average is lower among poor whites. Lower paying jobs. Generations of poverty.

We know, because of things like the Census, that a higher percentage of black families are living in poverty than white families. I am happy to admit that racism is almost certainly a factor in the rate of poverty being higher among blacks. However, not all black people are poor. So clearly, some of them are managing to do better despite prejudice. Some, in fact, are doing extremely well by any standard. Why doesn't it make sense to look not only the problems of poor black family but also the common features of black families who succeed despite the obstacles that come from racism?

If successful (however you define it) black families have certain things in common would it be beneficial to replicate those factors, as much as possible, in poor, inner city black families?

You know, the current rap/gangsta/inner city culture is a recent phenomena. Prior to that were such musical genres and innovations like jazz and blues, which just as eloquently expressed the black experience, concerns, and culture. There was a thriving black culture centered on New York City's Harlem, and in New Orleans, and other locations. And it was black people who started the United Negro College Fund to educate their own because the rest of the society didn't give a fuck about them, and supported the historically black colleges that educated black people when no one else would. Funny thing that - some of those black colleges were so good that white people started going to them after the 1960's (because those colleges aren't allowd to discriminate on race any more than any other publicly supported education institution). >gasp!<

I am immediately suspicious of the "culture of poverty" because it's a glib dismissal of two factors:

No, it's not. Saying there are things common among the poor that might hold them back is no more "dismissing" than saying there may be things common to black people that hold them back. Recognizing that some of the problems of poor, urban black people are due to poverty at least as much as race is reality.

1, the concept of structural poverty, and 2, the responsibility of the dominant culture in shaping subcultures. It essentially seeks to heap all the blame on the shoulders of the failing individuals. Blaming the victim in the utmost.

And blaming it all on society absolves the individual of self-responsibility.

It's not either/or - MULTIPLE factors are in play here. Poverty is a liability. Lack of educaiton is a liability. Lack of opportunity is a liability. Being a minority is a liability. Being male is a disadvantage in regard to reading early and sitting still, both skills needed in education, and there is an abundance of data indicating that boys on average master these skills later than their sisters.

EDIT: Frankly, you seem to have missed my point. If the attitudes of white youths and black youths are similar, that suggests that other factors than their attitudes are the problem- which is contrary to what other people are saying.

Yes - as already pointed out the attitude of their PARENTS is a major factor as well. Children with single parents who insist their children study hard and stay in school tend to have better long term outcomes than children with two parents when those parents don't give a fuck or even just take the kid out of school for other purposes. That in no way negates the notion that the children's attitude is a factor.

The ugly truth is that, due to multiple factors and causes, there isn't a simple answer to the problems raised in this thread.

But then we don't have a "black culture" problem. If it's a problem that exists across racial lines, then it's not a question of race or race-based culture. If conditions are similar in rural Appalachia to those in the inner cities, and one is predominantly white and the other black, then there are problems here that transcend race. Perhaps this is a matter of poverty, rather than race. But in that case, citing racial culture as a factor is wrongheaded and misleading.

Oh, please - just because ALL poor people in America have certain problems in common doesn't mean that certain factors unique to a particular group aren't aggravating the situation.

You seem to be arguing that there has to be just one answer to what things are the way they are, and that's just not so. I've seen inner city poverty (because I've lived and worked in big cities, including working in social services - for five years I worked across the street from Cabrini-Green housing project in Chicago and dealt with hundreds of impoverished black people as part of my job) and Appalachian poverty (because my in-laws are from there, and most of them still live there) and really, there isn't as much difference as people think. Sure, SOME differences, some significant ones - fewer young white Appalachian males die from gunfire because of the simple fact the population density is MUCH lower and it's much harder to assemble a gang of any size, or to kill a lot of innocent bystanders. It's sure as hell isn't because young white Appalachian males aren't carrying guns or aren't shooting them - they DO, if anything they own and carry MORE guns than inner city black men. Both groups do a shitload of drugs - Appalachia favors meth, prescription opiates, and pot with a dose of glue/gasoline/other huffing while inner city blacks favor cocaine, heroin, and pot. Both groups seem prone to small and often radical Christian churches. Both groups have low education. Both groups have domestic violence problems. Both groups have higher than average incarceration rates than the dominant culture. Both have high unemployment. Those who escape often either buck the trend and get educated, or they join the military.

However, there ARE differences. Appalachia never developed the sports worship of the inner city. Perhaps it's because there are enough people living off the land (an option not available in the inner city) and thus working their asses off to survive that leisure time is spent horizontal rather than shooting hoops. And for damn sure, even those hillbillies are looked down upon and despised, white Appalachians do NOT have to deal with bias against their race (although Native American Appalachians do have the problem). And that might be a factor for why, despite doing poorly overall, hillbillies down in the holler still do slightly better than inner city urban blacks on several measures. But it's not a huge difference. At least some of the things holding both groups back having nothing to do with race, and should not be blamed on race, because that's looking for the wrong cause for those particular problems.

I'll also point out that Appalachia actually does worse in at least one area - neural tube birth defects. Last I heard, white Appalachia still had the highest rate of that in the nation, and it's strongly linked to poverty and poor nutrition in pregnant women. (Dark skinned people may actually be protected somewhat by their darker skins, as it prevent the UV in sunlight from breaking down folate in the body, so there may be a racial factor at work, but in this case it favors the dark skinned. Still, there is no reason even poor people in this country should have a folate deficiency, regardless of skin color, yet it happens. And it happens more often to white people than black people)

[Broomstick]

As for fixing the inner cities, I'm not an expert. But my preliminary thoughts are 1) urban renewal projects to knock down abandoned buildings in too-poor condition to be refurbished, clean up parks, and modernize public buildings.

This is actually being done in Chicago, which has been razing the project high rises and replacing them (at least in theory - the practice hasn't been perfect) with medium-rise buildings and scattered-site housing, sometimes in the form of rent subsidies.

This should then be followed by establishing more public spaces and greenbelts on some of the newly-available land.

Chicago has an enormous amount of green space - what's needed there is revitalizing the neighborhood parks. Detroit has a ridiculous amount of greenspace due to people abandoning entire blocks. It's not just green space, it's safe and attractive greenspace that is needed.

Just for free - I think there should be more encouragement of city gardens, especially where vacant lots can be utilized. People who work to grow a garden are less inclined to be destructive, it's a postive activity that provides exercise and fresh food (important in areas that are "food deserts"), and it puts land to use that would otherwise be neglected.

Modernizing private buildings should also be a priority, but that would probably require overuse of eminent domain, so probably what should be done is an incentive program for the landlords to do it.

Ah, but right now landlords are no more able to get a loan than anyone else. And some buildings it's just not practical to modernize a great deal, but they could still be made comfortable and safe to live in.

2) Massive reform efforts for the public schools in those areas. What's needed is probably a overall restructuring of the way things are taught. Current high schools tend to induce apathy and antipathy in their students, and that creates problems when the students don't have restoring forces to keep them in school. So making school all-around more enjoyable and better is necessary. This would probably include re-establishing vocational and artistic curricula.

Carol Mosely-Braun (former US Senator) was on local TV yesterday discussing how to reform education in Chicago. Some of her comments were quite interesting, but this post is already overly long. Let me know if you're interested in hearing any of them.

Dealing with the gangs would be problematic at this point.

Quite.

At least in Capone's day the gangs were mainly adults and they stayed out of the schools. Now, the gangsters are IN the schools.

3) Adult education. Establishing free, subsidized programs to allow people to learn various skills that are handy for business (vocational skills, financial skills and basic accounting, computer use).

Gotta start earlier than that - you need basic literacy. I was in the Public Aid office this week and overheard a woman who said she never progressed beyond fifth grade - and she's probably as old as I am, that is, in her 40's. In actual fact, there ARE such programs right now. They are not allowed to discriminate based on race, but hey, put one in Gary and demographics suggest 85% of the funds will wind up in black hands. Everything from GED through college, with varying levels of subsidies.

Of course, there ARE strings attached.... such as one program requiring participants to earn at least a B in all classes. Which isn't entirely unreasonable, provided you're tackling material you are actually ready to handle. Getting people to earn a GED is a very vital first step. THEN you can concentrate on vocational and other skills.

In my county, those who do not work yet receive Public Aid are required to attend seminars on various topics such as personal finance, how to dress/conduct onseself at a job interview, and so forth.

4) Establishing an economic base. Incentivize the creation of locally-owned businesses. I'd prefer to ban megastores and department stores outright from the city centers, those this is probably illegal and impractical.

Yes. Especially when they may be one of the few employers in the area.

The goal, though, is to give the people economic power by allowing them to establish locally owned businesses and shops. While there probably won't be any large factories being established, developing local computer repair stores, groceries, clothing stores, hardware stores, restaurants and so on would enable people to start making money, give them work, and also revitalize the town. Concurrent with this, there should also be programs to encourage doctors, pharmacists, and other professionals to move into the city and establish themselves there.

OK, THIS is an area where redlining comes into play - can't open or maintain a business if no one will give you a loan. Historically, banks have sometimes refused to loan to businesses or individuals based solely on location and no other reason, with the root issue being racism. That's also why between the end of the 19th Century and the mid point of the 20th there was a movement within the black community to support black-owned and black-run businesses. That's the era that saw Johnson Publishing establish Ebony and Jet - magazines by and for the black community. Slightly earlier (in 1905) the Chicago Defender was established (and it still exists today). I don't think young people today of any color (and certainly not those lacking in education, as they usually don't know their history well) realize just how vital, both as in "essential to existence" and "full of life", black owned and operated businesses were prior to the 1960's. As it happens, quite a few of those businesses have gone under due to lack of support. Others have become so mainstream (such as West Virginia State University and Bluefield State College) that their black origins are hidden or even forgotten. I don't know if this is an area that blacks have lost or gained ground in, to be honest.

5) The forces of the law. This should really be one of the first steps, and I honestly have the fewest ideas for this.

Honestly, it's a very tough problem. No one really has any great ideas on this one.

But overall what needs to be done is to establish faith and trust in the police.

Ah, but HOW? One answer is to hire more minority officers, and that certainly does help, but it doesn't solve all the problems.

In a city like Chicago, where corruption is rampant in all levels of the city government including the police, having "faith and trust" in the police is a problem for ALL races - but certainly worse for minorities.

This will essentially kill the gangs.

Hmm... maybe, maybe not. What ended the Capone wave of gangs and organized crime in Chicago wasn't better policing, it was the end of prohibition. There's still a problem with the Italian mob, and a few years ago a criminal Chinese Tong was busted in Chinatown in Chicago. However, one can reduce the influence, power, and crime of gangs by making gang membership less attractive. If people have alternatives to gangs they are less likely to join them. (The kid of one of my Other Half's landlords is now in his mid 30's and director of the music program for a Chicago public school as well as professional - he credits my spouse's getting him free music lessons, getting him into a community band, and encouraging him in music with keeping him out of the Latin gangs. He found something more attractive than the gangs and the drugs, and there was someone to encourage him to stay in school.)

One way might be to have open-houses at the courts and precints for people to learn about the law, or have free informational sessions and classes about the law.

Unfortunately, all too many in the inner city are familar with the courts from watching their loved ones put away for felonies. It is often their only view of the courts, and it colors their perception of the law, and justice.

The law needs to become part of the people rather than an adversary to avoid or fight against.

Yes, agreed. Unfortunately, making that change seems to be very difficult.

[Ritterin Sophia]

If conditions are similar in rural Appalachia to those in the inner cities, and one is predominantly white and the other black, then there are problems here that transcend race.

The question then remains, is it a culture that promotes ignorance or poverty itself that is the problem? Both are poverty stricken and both have cultures that promote ignorance.

That having been said, my own personal opinion on the matter is that the perpetual poverty experienced by both groups causes disillusionment with society brought on by the apparent lack of social mobility which feeds into the negative cultures of both demographics. At least that's how I as an Appalachian perceive it.

[Bakustra]

If conditions are similar in rural Appalachia to those in the inner cities, and one is predominantly white and the other black, then there are problems here that transcend race.

The question then remains, is it a culture that promotes ignorance or poverty itself that is the problem? Both are poverty stricken and both have cultures that promote ignorance.

That having been said, my own personal opinion on the matter is that the perpetual poverty experienced by both groups causes disillusionment with society brought on by the apparent lack of social mobility which feeds into the negative cultures of both demographics. At least that's how I as an Appalachian perceive it.

I agree personally as well. After all, you can see this with other groups too, and they expressed themselves through rebellion against and rejection of society. That is why I brought up the punk movement earlier. But in that case, the culture would not be helpful to work against, because the culture is more a consequence of the poverty than the other way around. Eliminating Appalachian culture and doing nothing else would simply result in its recreation, slightly different, over time. Can't fight a hydra by cutting off the heads.

I think that there's also discrimination to consider; some scholars have suggested that you can view Southerners and Appalachians as oppressed minority groups within the US. Most people generally associate the accents involved with stupidity and hickishness, the media treats the groups somewhat poorly... It probably is not to the same extent experienced by blacks and Latinos, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that being from the South or Appalachia diminishes your chances at a job outside of those areas. I think that there may have been studies on that too.

[Bakustra]

Broomstick:
Firstly, the problem I have with megastores (and doesn't Chicago ban big-box stores inside the city limits?) is that the profits are sucked out of the area and essentially vanish. This is pretty counterproductive for establishing a working city.

Well, the combined factors of functioning public areas, functioning schools, and a friendlier police force should help to damage the gangs. They form because of the lack of family for many kids, though, so national-level efforts as well as city-level efforts would probably be needed.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I think that there's also discrimination to consider; some scholars have suggested that you can view Southerners and Appalachians as oppressed minority groups within the US.

Whilst I can see the equating of Appalachians and blacks, I don't think the Southerners can be said to be oppressed to the same degree the other two are. For one Southerner comprises of just about anyone living in an area south of Virginia that doesn't live in a mountain range, which is a lot of people and far too much of the population for me to truly justify it under the traditional meaning of 'minority'.

The other problem is, I don't see the Southern equivalent of the Coal Wars where Appalachians who attempted to unionize against the Coal Operators for fair hours and wages were not only thrown out of their homes by the companies (they had nowhere else to live since they were paid in scrip which was only useful in company-owned businesses), but they ran armoured trains with machineguns on them through the tent cities (which were erected by the United Mine Workers of America as reprieve) shooting at not only miners but women and children as well. Not only did the government not do anything to help the Appalachians, but when they acted to defend themselves from the depredations of the Coal Barons and their 'Detectives' or as we'd call them today 'Private Security Contractors' (I prefer jack-booted thugs, myself) they were met by the largest violation of the Posse Comitatus Act ever and the miners were bombed and gassed by MB-1 bombers given to the Coal Barons by the US Army Air Service by order of President Harding.