Obama explains Black Americans to America

[Simon_Jester]

That strikes me as wrong because every disenfranchised class in history needed somebody to speak up for them even if they did not suffer through the same problems to the same degree. The abolition of slavery comes to mind. Without a Wilberforce it never would have succeded, yet Wilberforce was anything but black or non-privileged. And yet nobody can deny his importance.

It can be very wrong, yes but there are I guess historical reasons for such behavior. I guess part of it is a fear of some being used as a political pawn for purposes which were against their interests. There were such writers who did express a fear of their people being used as a pawn and had issues with those who arguably felt that they were manipulating 'their' people for such a purpose.

There are indeed such historical reasons. But (since I was one of the ones who asked this question in the first place, I feel entitled to weigh in)...

Put this way. If you're so afraid of being a pawn that you refuse to even participate, you don't stand much chance of winning the game.

I could echo Ahriman's words one for one: "If I ever said or implied that to be black is to be dirt-poor and ignorant, they would rightly be outraged. When one of their own says it, I only see nods. This really bothers me."

That kind of attitude is... it's almost a cartoonish example of "self-defeating attitude." It's about as close as you can get to a literal case of shooting yourself in the foot without using firearms.

Does Obama seek to gain some political leverage by being "the black president?" Yes. Could this conceivably lead to black voters being 'used' to further Obama or the Democrats' desire to remain in power? Yes.

Does that mean that it's logical, or smart, to start talking about how he doesn't have a right to say anything, when he tries to explain the anger over the Zimmerman case to white Americans? I think not. Because the alternative is not "more authentic black president," the alternative is "president who doesn't get it, and doesn't care if anyone else gets it." It's not like President Romney or McCain (or for that matter, President Hillary Clinton) would be trying to take white Americans aside and tell them why there's a problem here.

If you refuse to back anyone who wants to profit from your support, you're going to find yourself very short on advocates, because the only people who will do it at all are the ones who see you as a charity case, too weak to take care of yourself or produce leaders competent to do the job for you.

That's a crude reality, I know, but if you're not willing to face it you need to re-evaluate your political goals, and restrict yourself to things you can actually accomplish if you refuse to play the game.

[Saxtonite]

Put this way. If you're so afraid of being a pawn that you refuse to even participate, you don't stand much chance of winning the game.

I would say the argument is more of 'playing the game on your terms' or something similar, etc.

I could echo Ahriman's words one for one: "If I ever said or implied that to be black is to be dirt-poor and ignorant, they would rightly be outraged. When one of their own says it, I only see nods. This really bothers me."

That kind of attitude is... it's almost a cartoonish example of "self-defeating attitude." It's about as close as you can get to a literal case of shooting yourself in the foot without using firearms.

Sorry for using wiki again - but I find the 'anti-intellectualism' claim to be pretty overstated.

In 1997 the scholars Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig published a report finding that blacks do not face any stronger social pressures than whites to succeed in school, nor do they have greater feelings of alienation towards education in general. They noted anecdotal and ethnographic research confirming that minority students hold these views, but they concluded that these are not inherently generalizable and do not substantially affect student behavior in the classroom. They labeled the issue "something of a distraction" from what they saw as more important educational reforms.[2]
Though Ogbu's 1978 study's conclusion was widely discussed, a 2003 work also challenged its validity. In 2003, Karolyn Tyson, a sociologist, and William Darity, Jr., an economist, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, conducted an 18-month study at 11 North Carolina schools. The study concluded that white and black students have essentially the same attitudes about scholastic achievement; students in both groups want to succeed in school and show higher levels of self-esteem when they do better in school. They compared attitudes identified as acting white to the normal adolescent pains experienced in John Hughes' movies.[3]
A 2006 study titled An Empirical Analysis of "Acting White" by Roland G. Fryer, Jr., at Harvard University and Paul Torelli suggested that the phenomenon probably had little to no effect on students achieving at average levels, but might explain a significant role in the disparities between black and white students at high achievement levels.[7] Fryer has also written that, in contrast to Fordham and Ogbu's theory, "acting white" prejudices are actually more common the more integrated the school, with historically black schools free of any effects. He found that groups such as Italian immigrants in Boston’s West End and the Maori of New Zealand display similar behaviors

Stuart Buck, a lawyer, also explored this issue in Acting White: The Ironic Legacy of Desegregation (2010). He said that segregated black schools had featured teachers, counselors, and others of the same race as the student population, and the adults often acted as mentors to the students. Integration of many public schools since the mid- to late-20th century may have resulted in schools in which black students perceived they were controlled or dominated by whites. A black student trying to achieve high educational success may then be considered as trying to leave the minority group.[9]
Margaret Beale Spencer and Vinay Harpalani (2008)[10] argue that usage of the term "acting White" by Black teenagers does not reflect their cultural values; rather, it is a manifestation of their racial identity development, experienced in conjunction with normal adolescent hassles and peer pressure. Spencer and Harpalani employ William E. Cross's (1991)[11] Nigrescence framework and contend that Black teenagers' use of "acting White" in relation to academic achievement is similar to White teenagers's use of the term "nerd": the only difference is that Black teenagers express it in racialized terms, as in addition to normal teenage peer pressure, they are grappling with racial identity and what it means to be "Black." Expressions such as "acting White" may or may not reflect Black teenagers' cultural values, and their usage is sometimes counterintuitive: for example, Ogbu (2003) himself documented one instance where a Black teenage girl with natural hair was accused of "acting White" by her Black peers because "like White people, she did not have to process her hair." These kind of examples show that accusations of "acting White" are not fundamentally about Black cultural attributes (although such accusations may reflect these attributes). Rather, "acting White" is just a manifestation of racial identity development for Black children and teenagers, who are learning and defining for themselves what it means to be "Black"--in conjunction with normal adolescent peer pressure and hassles. That is also why such accusations are less common among Black adults, who have come to greater resolution regarding racial identity issues.

here

Does Obama seek to gain some political leverage by being "the black president?" Yes. Could this conceivably lead to black voters being 'used' to further Obama or the Democrats' desire to remain in power? Yes.

Does that mean that it's logical, or smart, to start talking about how he doesn't have a right to say anything, when he tries to explain the anger over the Zimmerman case to white Americans? I think not. Because the alternative is not "more authentic black president," the alternative is "president who doesn't get it, and doesn't care if anyone else gets it." It's not like President Romney or McCain (or for that matter, President Hillary Clinton) would be trying to take white Americans aside and tell them why there's a problem here.

If you refuse to back anyone who wants to profit from your support, you're going to find yourself very short on advocates, because the only people who will do it at all are the ones who see you as a charity case, too weak to take care of yourself or produce leaders competent to do the job for you.

That's a crude reality, I know, but if you're not willing to face it you need to re-evaluate your political goals, and restrict yourself to things you can actually accomplish if you refuse to play the game.

The lesser evil, indeed.

EDIT: I am interested, what would you say can be possible by 'not playing the game?' since you mentioned such?

[TheHammer]

The lesser evil, indeed.

EDIT: I am interested, what would you say can be possible by 'not playing the game?' since you mentioned such?

You can't opt out of the game. By "refusing to play" you are only playing badly

All bullshit aside, I'm curious if you take issue specifically with anything Obama said. Was there anything in any of his statements on why the black community was upset that you consider to be wrong? Whether you feel he was "black enough" or not, was his characterization more or less accurate?

[Saxtonite]

The lesser evil, indeed.

EDIT: I am interested, what would you say can be possible by 'not playing the game?' since you mentioned such?

You can't opt out of the game. By "refusing to play" you are only playing badly

All bullshit aside, I'm curious if you take issue specifically with anything Obama said. Was there anything in any of his statements on why the black community was upset that you consider to be wrong? Whether you feel he was "black enough" or not, was his characterization more or less accurate?

I largely agree with him, with some differences (i.e. I dunno if Federally going after Zimmerman is a good idea. I think Trayvon's family can sue Zimmerman though in federal court given the evidence requirements are much lesser for civil court than criminal courts. I also am more I guess supportive behind the principles behind "stand your ground" laws.)

Perhaps racial strife has lessened, or more accurate 'racism' among a lot of younger people. I wonder if it has just become hidden though (i.e. 4chan/stormfront). There's a lot of black people who are I guess.....30s-50s and middle class who have to 'ferret' out the racism if they encounter it. Perhaps what has happened now instead of active racism and segregation is 'de facto' segregation, i.e. more of the black/white/asians sitting with each other than with other friends - even though they have friends of a different ethnic group and are involved with them as well.

Here is an example: Apparently in New York City, the "vampire" scene has de facto separated, not out of intentional malice or racism into a "White-Asian" bloc and a "Black-Hispanic" bloc. Both interact but there is a tendency towards I guess interacting with like individuals. I mentioned earlier there is an anime club which was founded, not out of any school or college but a basic meetup. It is based out of Chicago's South Side and is pretty much African-American. Is that say 'segregation' or is that a simple reflection of the location?

EDIT: Yes I can determine simple unfamiliarity ("can i touch your hair") and whatnot from more I guess....questionable behaviors?

One thing I have noticed though is white american males raised in suburbs from the age of 18-30 or so or so are interested in ascertaining how "black" I am, while comparatively few black individuals have made such statements.

The "programs for african-american males" are....I guess interesting. I am not exactly a fan of 'traditional' gender roles but I know the programs need not be 'traditional' and 'masculine'. I.e. there were midnight basketball programs which in practice mainly kept largely young black males "out of trouble". There are many programs held at city parks or other programs which do the same thing also (i.e. craftworking, art classes, etc) but it's not limited to black males.

I know there are for example certain academic programs which are focused on "minorities" but not limited only to young black males. In general I am very iffy about all male charter schools, at least "Urban Prep" in my city (the 100% graduation rate? That's because they kick out 'trouble' students). Also I suspect there is some i guess cultural biases - this one guy I know who used to go there had issues with an instructor who was also black and male and who had a dislike for his "Emo" clothing. And it was I think just a neckring/collar, it wasn't chained/detailed/modified tripp pants or anything "extreme".

[Simon_Jester]

Put this way. If you're so afraid of being a pawn that you refuse to even participate, you don't stand much chance of winning the game.

I would say the argument is more of 'playing the game on your terms' or something similar, etc.

The problem is that no one gets to decide the terms of the 'game' of American politics and power structures. Except maybe the billionaires.

At best, power to set the terms of play comes with success within the game; the people best placed to manipulate the rules are the people who play regularly and well under the existing rules. Walking away from the table means you can't even hope to be a pawn; you become part of the table stakes.

I could echo Ahriman's words one for one: "If I ever said or implied that to be black is to be dirt-poor and ignorant, they would rightly be outraged. When one of their own says it, I only see nods. This really bothers me."

That kind of attitude is... it's almost a cartoonish example of "self-defeating attitude." It's about as close as you can get to a literal case of shooting yourself in the foot without using firearms.

Sorry for using wiki again - but I find the 'anti-intellectualism' claim to be pretty overstated.

What claim? You're missing something here- the point is not that 'all' blacks adopt self-defeating or anti-intellectual attitudes. It's that doing so is poisonous to success. Insofar as it happens it is bad. And it does happen some of the time.

Moreover, rejecting prosperous blacks as race traitors has exactly that effect, on the larger scale.

EDIT: I am interested, what would you say can be possible by 'not playing the game?' since you mentioned such?

Hm.

I would say...

Abject servitude to masters not of your choosing.

That's about it.

[Broomstick]

The "programs for african-american males" are....I guess interesting. I am not exactly a fan of 'traditional' gender roles but I know the programs need not be 'traditional' and 'masculine'. I.e. there were midnight basketball programs which in practice mainly kept largely young black males "out of trouble". There are many programs held at city parks or other programs which do the same thing also (i.e. craftworking, art classes, etc) but it's not limited to black males.

I have some reservations about programs targeted solely towards young, black men, yet they are also the most likely to be victims of homicide in the Chicago area. For all the fear white folks have of the Criminal Black, it's the young, black men who are most at risk even as they are all too often also the source of violence as well. I don't know - what alternative do you think there is? For my part, I'd happily fund midnight basketball right outside my bedroom window all night long if it would keep young people of any color from being killed or maimed. Too many young men in wheelchairs in my area as it is, and too many young men six feet under. If it's not the wars overseas it's the violence at home.

Sure, we should be helping everyone but for years one particular group has been bleeding the most. If we could end the cycle amongst them things would be much better for everyone.

In general I am very iffy about all male charter schools, at least "Urban Prep" in my city (the 100% graduation rate? That's because they kick out 'trouble' students).

I have long suspected that about that particular school... but god forbid anyone mention the discarded ones. What are they supposed to do? What do people think they do? Or is it easier to just pretend they don't exist?

One thing seems certain - young men of any group need guidance and they need positive adult male role models. Historically, if a young man didn't have a father he'd have a grandfather or an uncle or two. They need someone they can respect who can show them how to be a good man, show them how to be strong and gain true respect within their culture. Also to keep their shadier impulses in line. Looking around where I live - a city 85% black - I see a lot of women, a lot of mothers and grandmothers and aunts but really too few older men. The "get tough on crime" attitude applied to lesser offenses have stripped the older men from so many neighborhoods, and violence taken many others, with the result that too many young men don't have good guidance in early adulthood. They turn to less savory people because at least those men pay them attention and guide them one way or another, rather than either being ignored as if they were invisible or actively shunned and rejected.

[Saxtonite]

I have some reservations about programs targeted solely towards young, black men, yet they are also the most likely to be victims of homicide in the Chicago area.

Correct. But a program can be dedicated towards young black males without the cultural baggage which sets me off. For example, I do not exactly enjoy sports but summer basketball programs do not set off my 'fuck this restrictive gender role' trip-alarms. And such programs are not inherently exclusive I guess.

I do wonder what sorts of programs can be dedicated towards young black males which wouldn't drive off some possible applicants (for example, Morehouse College is an all-black, all-male college. It focuses on 'development' of black males. However you could argue their culture is heteronormative, sexist, strict and not open to personal creativity/different modes of thought. Admittedly I never went to Morehouse, and I have talked to a student who went there who liked it, but I have a sneaking suspicion that if I went there I'd have a lot of fun pissing a lot of people there off )

For all the fear white folks have of the Criminal Black, it's the young, black men who are most at risk even as they are all too often also the source of violence as well. I don't know - what alternative do you think there is?

You can probably modify existing programs for those purposes. Uh, for example there are pre-existing policy debate leagues. The Chicago Debate Leagues. I presume you know of urban debate leagues. They de facto focus on blacks more, or were originally founded for that purpose - underserved minority students - but I have not noticed a necessarily gendered aspect to the league.

Honestly re. reducing violence, legalization and decriminalization of many drugs will help (Ending Drug War etc). Then there is the iffiness of the state involving itself in some forms of mutually-agreed upon violence - i.e. people have some sort of disagreement and they go fight each other. I know this is not exactly most of the violence but that can help too. My uncle went to some YMCA place decades ago, but he didn't realize the boxing "training" for the day was a minister having gangbangers go fight each other in the ring. Apparently he lost a lot of the rounds.....

Do you think repealing gun bans will work? I suspect doing that as well as perhaps lowering the age to say 18 for ownership of guns would make things less violent, or more precisely make self-defense.....better? Things like the pre-existing tendency towards self/community policing as well as NGOs like "Ceasefire" being allowed to use extralegal methods to prevent violence is also good too (Ceasefire members, many being former gang members will be ok with allowing the people with disagreements to physically fight each other without weapons like guns/knives). Put more funding back into that program.

I have long suspected that about that particular school... but god forbid anyone mention the discarded ones. What are they supposed to do? What do people think they do? Or is it easier to just pretend they don't exist?

I am sure you have mentioned this before, but there is a disconnect in that people expect EVERYONE to go to college or whatnot when many people would be better choosing a trade in high school and working from there. Not everyone is set for college, and the pressure for even people going into trades to require an associate's is iffy itself.......

Also, from what I remember during their (Urban Prep) skills in Policy Debate: They dressed up well and brought wheelbarrows of evidence. Of course, a knowledgeable debater can still poke holes in their evidence as well as well as the whole 'being dressed well does not make one smarter' thing.

EDIT: I am sure this has been said before, Job programs. Programs for decent paying jobs. But I know the modern capitalist system will not allow such, *sigh*

Given the whole 'people with postgrads not even able to find shitty retail positions' thing and how that seems like something that will be structurally in place for a while.

One thing seems certain - young men of any group need guidance and they need positive adult male role models. Historically, if a young man didn't have a father he'd have a grandfather or an uncle or two. They need someone they can respect who can show them how to be a good man, show them how to be strong and gain true respect within their culture. Also to keep their shadier impulses in line. Looking around where I live - a city 85% black - I see a lot of women, a lot of mothers and grandmothers and aunts but really too few older men. The "get tough on crime" attitude applied to lesser offenses have stripped the older men from so many neighborhoods, and violence taken many others, with the result that too many young men don't have good guidance in early adulthood. They turn to less savory people because at least those men pay them attention and guide them one way or another, rather than either being ignored as if they were invisible or actively shunned and rejected.

Apparently at least some people who get into the gang life coming from coherent/intact two-parent households. I know that 'destroyed' single-mother households with no father is a factor in areas with high gang penetration, but I wonder how many people have -no- 'good' male role models, as like you mentioned there are still grandfathers and uncles which are some sort of influence in people's lives.

It also helps if the male influence is good and caring and not inherently violent or authoritarian.....

EDIT: I must specify this. Just because one is young, african-american and male does not mean the same policies will work on them, even if they grew up in a ghetto. If someone said "to be a man you have to do x, y and z" without any sort of evidence/explanation or what, or the statement made absolutely no sense or was useless "posturing" (i.e. 'fold your money like this, wear a hankerchief to "be a man", etc) I will have little incentive to listen. If the person phrased it like "many people say etiquette is in business situations to do X or Y" i would react better (i.e. phrasing things as in how some people do things in formal situations, and disentangling it from gender stereotypes/roles.)

[Broomstick]

Correct. But a program can be dedicated towards young black males without the cultural baggage which sets me off. For example, I do not exactly enjoy sports but summer basketball programs do not set off my 'fuck this restrictive gender role' trip-alarms. And such programs are not inherently exclusive I guess.

So far as I know the midnight basketball leagues are not and never have been exclusive to any one ethnic group, but since they're neighborhood-based and organized there are a quite a few teams that are exclusively one group or another. That reflects the demographics of the area, though, and not deliberate policies of inclusion/exclusion.

I do wonder what sorts of programs can be dedicated towards young black males which wouldn't drive off some possible applicants (for example, Morehouse College is an all-black, all-male college. It focuses on 'development' of black males. However you could argue their culture is heteronormative, sexist, strict and not open to personal creativity/different modes of thought. Admittedly I never went to Morehouse, and I have talked to a student who went there who liked it, but I have a sneaking suspicion that if I went there I'd have a lot of fun pissing a lot of people there off )

That just highlights this is not a problem with a one-size-fits-all solution. To me it too often seems that the only alternatives held up to young men are either the gangbanger or the regimented clone in a business suit and tie that matches all his fellows. Neither of those fits all black men, or all men of any color. We do have examples of both of those categories "succeeding" (gang leaders are successful for some definitions of the term, but their success is usually not so good for society at large) and in some ways Obama is now the epitome of the latter.

Unfortunately, right now the role models for young black men tend to be gangs (violence and short life expectancy being a problem), sports figures (requires both a certain luck of the draw physically and talent, so it's a crap shoot), ministers (I question if they benefit anyone other than their immediate family, some of them are quite adept at exploiting their communities), actors (but that's a group were, like 98% of the active members aren't able to make a living at it and need a "real job" while pursuing their passion), musicians (same problem as actors, with pressure to engage only in certain types of music - blacks are notoriously underrepresented in classical orchestras, for example, and still have problems with the pop category "country music", current success of Darius Rucker being a notable exception), and the "business man" model which isn't known for a lot of success but probably got a boost with Obama being elected PotUS (there's overlap between "business suit" and "politician"). So... one is criminal, most of the rest rely on luck including physical prowess/looks, most rely on talent (either social or performing) and very little on education, and the last one (the one that actually does require education to be successful) is too often attempted by clothing rather than substance (the fad to have black children at charter schools and private academy dress identically, usually in highly formal attire, is an example of this). This isn't really a good selection.

You can probably modify existing programs for those purposes. Uh, for example there are pre-existing policy debate leagues. The Chicago Debate Leagues. I presume you know of urban debate leagues. They de facto focus on blacks more, or were originally founded for that purpose - underserved minority students - but I have not noticed a necessarily gendered aspect to the league.

Right. A sort of distantly related example is the chess league someone started in the city prison system. It's after the fact/too late for many of these men, but it does promote thinking, planning, and other positives that may help some of the ones who return to society and try to go straight.

Honestly re. reducing violence, legalization and decriminalization of many drugs will help (Ending Drug War etc).

Unfortunately, legalizing drugs will not overturn any past convictions, leaving all too many either in jail for decades or with felony records burdening them. It would have positive effects going forward but still leave a lot of shattered lives, not to mention resentment.

Then there is the iffiness of the state involving itself in some forms of mutually-agreed upon violence - i.e. people have some sort of disagreement and they go fight each other.

That's why team sports used to be promoted so heavily for young men - they were an outlet for energy and aggression in young men. A football team at practice or at a game is not out robbing/mugging/whatever. Outside of sports, though, is a different matter, but young men used to be better supervised by older men. Unfortunately, sports have been cut over and over as a "luxury" with deleterious effects both on the physical condition of the young adults and the social structure. Sports can be done badly and abused as well (Penn State scandal comes to mind) but it's been known since Ancient Greece that they have benefits for young men.

Amateur boxing leagues used to be far more common, but are largely defunct now due to liability concerns. Now, it's indisputable that boxing carries real risks and people did (and still do) get hurt or killed, but it may be that shutting down such activities in the name of safety and/or liability has resulted in the neighborhoods becoming unsafe as there is no longer a regulated way for violent/aggressive impulses to be discharged. The carnage of boxing stayed in the boxing ring, drive-by punches did not kill innocent bystanders or three-year-olds playing on the family porch.

Do you think repealing gun bans will work? I suspect doing that as well as perhaps lowering the age to say 18 for ownership of guns would make things less violent, or more precisely make self-defense.....better? Things like the pre-existing tendency towards self/community policing as well as NGOs like "Ceasefire" being allowed to use extralegal methods to prevent violence is also good too (Ceasefire members, many being former gang members will be ok with allowing the people with disagreements to physically fight each other without weapons like guns/knives). Put more funding back into that program.

I have mixed feelings about the whole gun issue. Too little regulation can be as bad as too much. You don't want a situation where the laws tend to ramp up the stakes on conflict (arguably, one of the problems with the Zimmerman/Martin killing). On the other hand, you want people to be able to defend themselves and feel safe.

Community policing can be a good thing, but has potential pitfalls (Zimmerman/Martin again). It's also hard enough trying to keep bias out of the professional police, it's also a problem with the "amateurs". The socially popular people might get more protection than the marginal members of the community. It can also lead to some ugly forms of bias, basically running the "undesirables" out of a neighborhood based on criteria like skin color, language, religion, or other traits that have zero to do with criminality or safety. While the stereotype is of white bigots and sundown towns no group is immune to it, which has long been acknowledged. We don't gain anything if neighborhoods require membership in the "correct" group in order to live there, that's actually rolling back progress to a more segregated past. It's not that every neighborhood should be perfectly balanced racially/ethnically, I think there will always be concentrations of one group or another, but no one should be seen as too "outside" to make a good neighbor.

I have long suspected that about that particular school... but god forbid anyone mention the discarded ones. What are they supposed to do? What do people think they do? Or is it easier to just pretend they don't exist?

I am sure you have mentioned this before, but there is a disconnect in that people expect EVERYONE to go to college or whatnot when many people would be better choosing a trade in high school and working from there. Not everyone is set for college, and the pressure for even people going into trades to require an associate's is iffy itself.......

Given that we don't have a good apprenticeship system in the US the would-be tradesman needs to be able to go someplace to get reliable and good training. I don't think the community colleges are inherently a bad place for that given that the formal trade schools are largely gone.

I can only imagine the effect on a young person of the situation I've found myself in these last few years - I've been trying to learn a new trade but the first person who offered training to me wound up cheating me - I am in the process of taking them to court to recover wages they never paid me. It's a fucking difficult road even for someone pushing 50 with a lot of life and work experience to fall back on. A 20 year old in my position is far more likely to be totally screwed, or too discouraged to seek another place to get what they need (job and training) as I did, or negotiate the job interview process while being honest enough to say "yes, I am suing my former employer" but still convince the new one you won't sue him, will be a good employee, etc. If I could find a training program that it would be feasible for me to enroll in that would be, on many levels, MUCH easier to deal with. And don't get me started on the prejudices you face with any form of retail work, regardless of who you are and what you look like...

Also, from what I remember during their (Urban Prep) skills in Policy Debate: They dressed up well and brought wheelbarrows of evidence. Of course, a knowledgeable debater can still poke holes in their evidence as well as well as the whole 'being dressed well does not make one smarter' thing.

^ My point about the suits. Yes, I think it is important for anyone to be able to dress appropriately for the venue, and it can make a difference in one's mindset, but it can also be overdone.

EDIT: I am sure this has been said before, Job programs. Programs for decent paying jobs. But I know the modern capitalist system will not allow such, *sigh*

Right now, there are not enough jobs to go around. That's a huge problem for everyone, but it keeps being swept under the rug.

Apparently at least some people who get into the gang life coming from coherent/intact two-parent households. I know that 'destroyed' single-mother households with no father is a factor in areas with high gang penetration, but I wonder how many people have -no- 'good' male role models, as like you mentioned there are still grandfathers and uncles which are some sort of influence in people's lives.

An intact family isn't necessarily a good family, or a functional one. While a young man could have a good (however you define it) upbringing in an intact family without abuse or neglect and still turn criminal, it is FAR more common to find something horrible (but concealed) in the background of those "good" kids from "good" homes that turn out bad. Conversely when you find good kids from bad environments they almost invariably have some sort of good/positive influence from their elders - a poor family that values education and takes the kids to the local library, for example, or elders that instil self-discipline by example rather than the rod.

There is actually a subset of sociology that investigates that sort of thing - why some people turn out well despite bad or even horrific environments - but some of the answers they've found make people uncomfortable, implementing them would require widespread changes society doesn't seem to want to make.

EDIT: I must specify this. Just because one is young, african-american and male does not mean the same policies will work on them, even if they grew up in a ghetto. If someone said "to be a man you have to do x, y and z" without any sort of evidence/explanation or what, or the statement made absolutely no sense or was useless "posturing" (i.e. 'fold your money like this, wear a hankerchief to "be a man", etc) I will have little incentive to listen. If the person phrased it like "many people say etiquette is in business situations to do X or Y" i would react better (i.e. phrasing things as in how some people do things in formal situations, and disentangling it from gender stereotypes/roles.)

This reminds me of a conversation I overheard between a former co-worker, "Robert", and his son. Robert was a dark black man in a predominantly white man's field (insurance). This surprised some people who knew who from e-mails and phone calls because in the business world he spoke impeccable American English with a "white" accent. He was also one sharp dresser, again, impeccable is the word that comes to mind, perfectly fashionable and properly understated for the conservative, white world in which he worked. He was on the executive track, rising steadily, and pulled in a six figure income with plenty of extra perks. In other words, successful in business by anyone's standards. Also one of the most even-tempered human beings you could ever meet.

The conversation concerned his son, a teenager, and said son's schooling. The part that stands out was Robert, quite agitated, almost yelling at his son in full black dialect, what basically came down to (paraphrased) "If you want the house, the cars, the woman, and the toys your old man has you have to play the game. It doesn't matter how you talk or dress at home but you have to conform at work, you have to go to school and do well, and you have to play the game better than the white man does to succeed. No, it's not fair, but that's the way the world works and at least it's not as bad as it used to be."

I completely understand why Robert was shouting and upset - the stakes were pretty damn high for his kid, who was exactly in the most dangerous age range for a young, black man.

I also understand why the black community often focuses so heavily on appearance - they can't change their skin color but they can change their clothes. The successful black business people and politicians I've known are hyper-aware of clothing choices, probably because it's a part of their appearance they do have control over. I assure you white folks do not have the same laser focus. I also have some understanding of the factors involved, and being careful of one's appearance can be very much a positive. One black entrepreneur I find very interesting is Sean Combs, a.k.a. Puff Daddy, whose clothing line features a wide range. His suiting/business attire offerings are excellent. Since his company offers a range from casual to formal, not to mention featuring almost exclusively black models, it implies that one does not have to exist in a uniform of sorts but can be flexible, fluid, and shifting while still true to one's identity as African-American. I also don't miss that the male models dressed in his suits usually have very attractive women on their arms and very nice cars in the background - hey, sex sells. Wear my suits, get rich, and get laid - but without guns and violence in the picture, and from a man with plenty of "street cred".

I could go on, but you get the idea. Unquestionably, overall things ARE better than they were 40 years ago, a point Obama did mention in his speech. The work is not done, though, and won't be in our lifetimes. There is still a lot of ugly bias in our society that still hurts and kills.

[Saxtonite]

Unfortunately, right now the role models for young black men tend to be gangs (violence and short life expectancy being a problem), sports figures (requires both a certain luck of the draw physically and talent, so it's a crap shoot), ministers (I question if they benefit anyone other than their immediate family, some of them are quite adept at exploiting their communities), actors (but that's a group were, like 98% of the active members aren't able to make a living at it and need a "real job" while pursuing their passion), musicians

I can see that. I wonder how strong this 'pull' is compared to those of white americans though. There still is the same general 'pull' to be a famous movie star or in some reality show in the 'modern' USA, see the many many reality tv shows which have been released.

Also, hahaha ministry. Some of them seem to display copious amounts of bullshit. I remember one minister who was at this family reunion I was at who segued into talking about if Paul was Gay or not. I don't know how the hell that has to deal with a reunion to remember a long-dead Matriarch....

(same problem as actors, with pressure to engage only in certain types of music - blacks are notoriously underrepresented in classical orchestras, for example, and still have problems with the pop category "country music", current success of Darius Rucker being a notable exception),

Well early on there was a massive overlap and AFAIK the only difference between 'blues' and 'country' early on was record companies marketed 'country' to white southerners and 'blues' to blacks. There was a strong overlap. There has been a bit of a 'settling' in recent years though given the solidificationf of country demographics.

Unfortunately, legalizing drugs will not overturn any past convictions, leaving all too many either in jail for decades or with felony records burdening them. It would have positive effects going forward but still leave a lot of shattered lives, not to mention resentment.

The entire Prison System is fucked and ideally would be torn down and rebuilt from scratch, but you can start with releasing all those in jail for drug possession/manufacture/etc. And spread from there (i.e. gun/weapons laws, etc). Also, basically erasing peoples' criminal records.

That's why team sports used to be promoted so heavily for young men - they were an outlet for energy and aggression in young men. A football team at practice or at a game is not out robbing/mugging/whatever. Outside of sports, though, is a different matter, but young men used to be better supervised by older men. Unfortunately, sports have been cut over and over as a "luxury" with deleterious effects both on the physical condition of the young adults and the social structure. Sports can be done badly and abused as well (Penn State scandal comes to mind) but it's been known since Ancient Greece that they have benefits for young men.

Hmmm? Most of the advice you hear people online and in "Real life" about 'self-improvement' is basically pretty much to get physically fit and "jacked", and that's it. Just lift weights and all your problems will be solved. Also, I don't know exactly where sports has been cut as a 'luxury'. You could argue recess has been cut in some cases.

Amateur boxing leagues used to be far more common, but are largely defunct now due to liability concerns. Now, it's indisputable that boxing carries real risks and people did (and still do) get hurt or killed, but it may be that shutting down such activities in the name of safety and/or liability has resulted in the neighborhoods becoming unsafe as there is no longer a regulated way for violent/aggressive impulses to be discharged. The carnage of boxing stayed in the boxing ring, drive-by punches did not kill innocent bystanders or three-year-olds playing on the family porch.

I think a lot of them have been replaced with fight clubs, Martial Arts groups, semi-legit/local wrestling crews, and "Backyard wrestling". You can debate the merits and disadvantages of such events compared to "traditional" boxing leagues.

I have mixed feelings about the whole gun issue. Too little regulation can be as bad as too much. You don't want a situation where the laws tend to ramp up the stakes on conflict (arguably, one of the problems with the Zimmerman/Martin killing). On the other hand, you want people to be able to defend themselves and feel safe.

Personally, I could understand why -some- would escalate the situation if there is some sort of "honor" involved or something extremely important, but I would prefer people -not- engage in such behaviors. I would like to phrase things so that it is allowed but not encouraged. Having been in similar situations where someone has provoked you to the point of you wishing to fuck them up (and even before then), I really am iffy about putting people in jail for that.

I have long suspected that about that particular school... but god forbid anyone mention the discarded ones. What are they supposed to do? What do people think they do? Or is it easier to just pretend they don't exist?

Not everyone is suited for college yet society pushes that as the only option ignoring trades and whatnot. That's a fault of assuming everyone needs college, and arguably social expectations that "you should get a college degree so you dont have to work a shit menial job". And there's the inverse when they're angry college graduates dont want to do those jobs....when you TOLD them that they're crap and you shouldn't want them all your life.

Given that we don't have a good apprenticeship system in the US the would-be tradesman needs to be able to go someplace to get reliable and good training. I don't think the community colleges are inherently a bad place for that given that the formal trade schools are largely gone.

Correct. There's leftovers of trade apprenticeships but you have to look for them. Also, it's not that they're bad - it is again that community colleges still emphasize 'you need a degree' even if you don't and that causes unnecessary stress and expense on some people. If you are a 19 year old Mexican dide from Little Village going to do welding or automotive repairs and doesn't like writing in English much, and then you're given a bunch of English Writing courses.....well fuck

I had to take those damned composition courses SEVERAL times, and my composition was not exactly shit either. How do you need to know the exact details of sentence structure if you are writing reports or something?

^ My point about the suits. Yes, I think it is important for anyone to be able to dress appropriately for the venue, and it can make a difference in one's mindset, but it can also be overdone.

I am not too sure how much it affects someone's mindset. I wore a suit several months in a row or some dress clothes when looking for a job, or doing other things. I just got used to it and behaved the same way in a suit as outside of a suit.

There is actually a subset of sociology that investigates that sort of thing - why some people turn out well despite bad or even horrific environments - but some of the answers they've found make people uncomfortable, implementing them would require widespread changes society doesn't seem to want to make.

Like what? There were some studies which argue that parenting and whatnot are not as strong influences as made out to be and some people are just predestined to do certain things. Again, it depends on the study etc. I think it was a heritable IQ study and some other stuff.

The conversation concerned his son, a teenager, and said son's schooling. The part that stands out was Robert, quite agitated, almost yelling at his son in full black dialect, what basically came down to (paraphrased) "If you want the house, the cars, the woman, and the toys your old man has you have to play the game. It doesn't matter how you talk or dress at home but you have to conform at work, you have to go to school and do well, and you have to play the game better than the white man does to succeed. No, it's not fair, but that's the way the world works and at least it's not as bad as it used to be."

I completely understand why Robert was shouting and upset - the stakes were pretty damn high for his kid, who was exactly in the most dangerous age range for a young, black man.

Heh. Interesting. I wonder how useful it is though. As he admits you have to be better than the other people to even have a change to succeed, and even with that externalities such as recessions and whatnot kick you back. This ties again with what I mentioned a bit earlier: People who were told all heir lives that if they went to college, worked hard, got good grades they would graduate and people would call them for jobs. So even if you do all that bullshit and you're STILL unemployed and stuck and whatnot, I'd be mad. The Guy in Gang Leader for a Day - well the 'actual' Gang Leader - he had a college Degree. More incompetent and uneducated whites got promoted BEFORE him. He went 'fuck this' and went into the drug business.

And it's not just black people who are like that. Actually I would say middle-class white americans and asian americans would be screwed over by that WORSE. As in the "lied to all your life on the value of a college degree, ANY college degree by people in elementary, high school, your families, etc. and then you're in debt and working tables even if that. They have more of a right to be angry given they were basically who the "American Dream" was made for. I am African-American and I can certain understand how they feel, even if I did not go down their exact path in life. It's surprising that Occupy isn't stronger or still functioning as well as it was early on given that genuine anger

EDIT: Also, I just noticed this. I love how the father assumes because his son is not wanting to be completely white-washed he's at risk for falling into gang violence. Yes, I know -arguably- blacks even in middle class suburbs are more arguably threatened into falling into 'that' life due to friends, cousins, etc from the hood. I guess it's less strong for whites because they aren't specifically looked after for drugs/all the white drug dealers at raves and in the suburbs who 'pass' by. Still interesting though, given the trend of 'college students going into the ghetto to get drugs' as opposed to 'getting drugs from their friends'. Maybe it's mainly those who are new to an area who do such.

I also understand why the black community often focuses so heavily on appearance - they can't change their skin color but they can change their clothes. The successful black business people and politicians I've known are hyper-aware of clothing choices, probably because it's a part of their appearance they do have control over. I assure you white folks do not have the same laser focus. I also have some understanding of the factors involved, and being careful of one's appearance can be very much a positive.

Personally I never 'got' the "importance" of doing such even when going out casually. I wasn't treated much different/better in a suit than when in jeans or whatnot, even at formal clothing stores or something "upscale". I never saw people look at me 'better' etc when in dress clothes. Yeah, white americans don't care too much about exact clothing choices :p

Someone who was a sociology professor I knew/talked to a bit mentioned in general people who recently arrive at the middle class tend to care more about the exact looks and appearing "decent" than those who were in the middle class for several generations. It would make sense therefore for many black people to behave like that because they are insecure about their class status having recently arrived and tenuous about that.

[Broomstick]

I can see that. I wonder how strong this 'pull' is compared to those of white americans though. There still is the same general 'pull' to be a famous movie star or in some reality show in the 'modern' USA, see the many many reality tv shows which have been released.

Well, sure, white Americans have plenty of musicians, actors, sports, gangs, etc. they also have long had images of white doctors, dentists, business owners, teachers/professors, and so on in greater profusion than black Americans have. Whites usually operate from the default assumption all professions are open to them. Minorities are more likely to see themselves as constrained. It's not that a young black man can't have a white or Asian role model, but seeing someone who looks like you in a particular role makes it easier to imagine yourself in that role. When you consider an entire society such a small difference could have a significant impact on numbers.

That's why team sports used to be promoted so heavily for young men - they were an outlet for energy and aggression in young men. A football team at practice or at a game is not out robbing/mugging/whatever. Outside of sports, though, is a different matter, but young men used to be better supervised by older men. Unfortunately, sports have been cut over and over as a "luxury" with deleterious effects both on the physical condition of the young adults and the social structure. Sports can be done badly and abused as well (Penn State scandal comes to mind) but it's been known since Ancient Greece that they have benefits for young men.

Hmmm? Most of the advice you hear people online and in "Real life" about 'self-improvement' is basically pretty much to get physically fit and "jacked", and that's it. Just lift weights and all your problems will be solved.

The team sports encourage exactly that - team work. Helping your brother out to achieve a goal. It's not that individual sports aren't good - they are - but some exposure to team sports can provide benefits.

Also, I don't know exactly where sports has been cut as a 'luxury'. You could argue recess has been cut in some cases.

Sure, that too, but really, there is a push to cut everything BUT academics in some sectors.

Amateur boxing leagues used to be far more common, but are largely defunct now due to liability concerns. Now, it's indisputable that boxing carries real risks and people did (and still do) get hurt or killed, but it may be that shutting down such activities in the name of safety and/or liability has resulted in the neighborhoods becoming unsafe as there is no longer a regulated way for violent/aggressive impulses to be discharged. The carnage of boxing stayed in the boxing ring, drive-by punches did not kill innocent bystanders or three-year-olds playing on the family porch.

I think a lot of them have been replaced with fight clubs, Martial Arts groups, semi-legit/local wrestling crews, and "Backyard wrestling". You can debate the merits and disadvantages of such events compared to "traditional" boxing leagues.

OK, I can agree with that.

One of the benefits, however you cut it, it teaching young men how to channel energy and aggression in ways that don't harm others, or at least don't harm non-participants.

I have mixed feelings about the whole gun issue. Too little regulation can be as bad as too much. You don't want a situation where the laws tend to ramp up the stakes on conflict (arguably, one of the problems with the Zimmerman/Martin killing). On the other hand, you want people to be able to defend themselves and feel safe.

Personally, I could understand why -some- would escalate the situation if there is some sort of "honor" involved or something extremely important, but I would prefer people -not- engage in such behaviors.

Oh, I understand the impulse, I just don't think escalating up to violence should be condoned. I'd rather they find a way to satisfy honor that doesn't involve guns. You might as well argue for people settling "honor" disputes at 10 paces at dawn with chainsaws.

Having been in similar situations where someone has provoked you to the point of you wishing to fuck them up (and even before then), I really am iffy about putting people in jail for that.

Having the desire to fuck people up is one thing, actually acting on it and actually fucking people up is not acceptable, particularly not in densely populated urban areas.

I am not too sure how much it affects someone's mindset. I wore a suit several months in a row or some dress clothes when looking for a job, or doing other things. I just got used to it and behaved the same way in a suit as outside of a suit.

How much it has an effect varies depending on the person. For some people it's significant, for others less so.

There is actually a subset of sociology that investigates that sort of thing - why some people turn out well despite bad or even horrific environments - but some of the answers they've found make people uncomfortable, implementing them would require widespread changes society doesn't seem to want to make.

Like what? There were some studies which argue that parenting and whatnot are not as strong influences as made out to be and some people are just predestined to do certain things. Again, it depends on the study etc. I think it was a heritable IQ study and some other stuff.

For starters - reducing the primacy of the traditional nuclear family. It's more important that a child has adults who actually care about him or her rather than the specific genders or exact numbers involved. This cranks the handle of quite a few conservatives.

Another thing is that the push to reunite biological families is not always in the best interests of the children. Having been involved in terminating custody for people, even if only tangentially, I in no way think it should be done lightly but there are instances where it should be accelerated over current practice. A stable, long-term set of guardians is more important than repeated attempts to reunite with highly dysfunctional adults.

You have to provide a solid education, and that means paying teachers enough to encourage people to teach rather than go into other professions, and providing sufficient funding for small class sizes.

I could probably think of more, but I'm tired and I've been ill all day so will that do for now?

The conversation concerned his son, a teenager, and said son's schooling. The part that stands out was Robert, quite agitated, almost yelling at his son in full black dialect, what basically came down to (paraphrased) "If you want the house, the cars, the woman, and the toys your old man has you have to play the game. It doesn't matter how you talk or dress at home but you have to conform at work, you have to go to school and do well, and you have to play the game better than the white man does to succeed. No, it's not fair, but that's the way the world works and at least it's not as bad as it used to be."

I completely understand why Robert was shouting and upset - the stakes were pretty damn high for his kid, who was exactly in the most dangerous age range for a young, black man.

Heh. Interesting. I wonder how useful it is though. As he admits you have to be better than the other people to even have a change to succeed, and even with that externalities such as recessions and whatnot kick you back. This ties again with what I mentioned a bit earlier: People who were told all heir lives that if they went to college, worked hard, got good grades they would graduate and people would call them for jobs. So even if you do all that bullshit and you're STILL unemployed and stuck and whatnot, I'd be mad. The Guy in Gang Leader for a Day - well the 'actual' Gang Leader - he had a college Degree. More incompetent and uneducated whites got promoted BEFORE him. He went 'fuck this' and went into the drug business.

Two points here: Robert was (as best I understand it) not saying that "playing the game" would guarantee a good career, it was a minimum requirement to even get entry into the competition. He was trying to tell his son that if he didn't "play the game" he would have NO chance at the good life.

Of course, Robert was biased - he was advocating what worked for him, and doing his best to keep his son out of trouble. That's what a good, responsible parent does. That doesn't mean dad is going to be right on everything, but for Robert, that's how he saw the world.

As for the incompetent and uneducated being promoted first - everyone who isn't an able-bodied white male has had to face that prospect, it's not limited to black people by any means. These days, with the playing field becoming a bit more level, some white men have probably faced it, too.

And it's not just black people who are like that. Actually I would say middle-class white americans and asian americans would be screwed over by that WORSE. As in the "lied to all your life on the value of a college degree, ANY college degree by people in elementary, high school, your families, etc. and then you're in debt and working tables even if that. They have more of a right to be angry given they were basically who the "American Dream" was made for. I am African-American and I can certain understand how they feel, even if I did not go down their exact path in life. It's surprising that Occupy isn't stronger or still functioning as well as it was early on given that genuine anger

The thing is - when I was growing up and going to college having ANY college degree, ANY, really did give you a leg up in hiring and promotion whether that degree was related to the job or not. That didn't really change until the mid to late 1990's - unfortunately, that's now 10-20 years where a college degree is no longer such a sure bet.

So, were now in a bind where parents my age or older are trying to promote what worked for them - get a college degree of any sort - when it is no longer a sure bet or as solid an investment.

Also, I just noticed this. I love how the father assumes because his son is not wanting to be completely white-washed he's at risk for falling into gang violence.

Robert is slightly older than myself, in his era "white washing" really was about the only way a black professional could succeed. Things have loosened up since he was a young man, but he might not see that. There is still benefit in black people being able to "white wash" when they perceive it to be of benefit regardless of how they act outside those situations, just as there is benefit is someone Hispanic speaks good English on the job even if at home they exclusively speak Spanish.

I guess it's less strong for whites because they aren't specifically looked after for drugs/all the white drug dealers at raves and in the suburbs who 'pass' by.

Quite likely - young white men are not seen as threatening as young black men in our society.

Still interesting though, given the trend of 'college students going into the ghetto to get drugs' as opposed to 'getting drugs from their friends'. Maybe it's mainly those who are new to an area who do such.

So far as I can tell, someone in the circle of friends has to, at some point, go to the "bad side of town" to get the drugs.

I also understand why the black community often focuses so heavily on appearance - they can't change their skin color but they can change their clothes. The successful black business people and politicians I've known are hyper-aware of clothing choices, probably because it's a part of their appearance they do have control over. I assure you white folks do not have the same laser focus. I also have some understanding of the factors involved, and being careful of one's appearance can be very much a positive.

Personally I never 'got' the "importance" of doing such even when going out casually. I wasn't treated much different/better in a suit than when in jeans or whatnot, even at formal clothing stores or something "upscale". I never saw people look at me 'better' etc when in dress clothes.

Well, then perhaps things are changing. Or perhaps my sample is biased. Or it's a side-effect of many moving from the lower income levels to the middle class, as your professor suggested. Or it could be that, due to prejudice, even those blacks who have been middle-class for awhile remain insecure in a way their white neighbors do not.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, sure, white Americans have plenty of musicians, actors, sports, gangs, etc. they also have long had images of white doctors, dentists, business owners, teachers/professors, and so on in greater profusion than black Americans have. Whites usually operate from the default assumption all professions are open to them. Minorities are more likely to see themselves as constrained. It's not that a young black man can't have a white or Asian role model, but seeing someone who looks like you in a particular role makes it easier to imagine yourself in that role. When you consider an entire society such a small difference could have a significant impact on numbers.

This ties back into Saxtonite's having mentioned that in some ways desegregation has caused problems African-American communities, insofar as it results in fewer successful and visible black doctors, educators, and businessmen in the communities where most blacks actually live.

The team sports encourage exactly that - team work. Helping your brother out to achieve a goal. It's not that individual sports aren't good - they are - but some exposure to team sports can provide benefits.

They can also be a key venue by which young men encounter basically competent adult male role models- the men who coach and support the football team become go-to guys for troubles and questions when a kid on the team has a problem.

Personally, I could understand why -some- would escalate the situation if there is some sort of "honor" involved or something extremely important, but I would prefer people -not- engage in such behaviors.

Oh, I understand the impulse, I just don't think escalating up to violence should be condoned. I'd rather they find a way to satisfy honor that doesn't involve guns. You might as well argue for people settling "honor" disputes at 10 paces at dawn with chainsaws.

Having been in similar situations where someone has provoked you to the point of you wishing to fuck them up (and even before then), I really am iffy about putting people in jail for that.

Having the desire to fuck people up is one thing, actually acting on it and actually fucking people up is not acceptable, particularly not in densely populated urban areas.

Also, I think Saxtonite is missing the point that part of the reason we HAVE laws against assault and battery (and manslaughter and murder) is to deter people and make them get it through their heads that they must not use violence to solve their problems, satisfying as it would be to grab a club and bash someone's head in right that moment. That they must in fact learn coping strategies for not using violence in everyday society.

Because frankly, we couldn't have a civilization at all if we started fighting each other every time the little gibbering apes inside our brains told us to go whack someone with a club. Having people start shooting (or knifing, or sometimes even punching) each other every time they are "provoked to the point of... wishing to fuck [someone] up..."

That is NOT going to work.

You have to provide a solid education, and that means paying teachers enough to encourage people to teach rather than go into other professions, and providing sufficient funding for small class sizes.

In urban areas, I think we need more manpower more than we need higher wages. We can get intellectually adequate teachers, but the stress of handling disciplinary issues and large classes makes it very hard for them to do the job at the level their brains and raw ability would allow.

And we need a systematic way to deal with the residual 5% or so who have not learned self-discipline by the time they reach high school and are disrupting classes where we're trying to teach abstract academic subjects.

I could probably think of more, but I'm tired and I've been ill all day so will that do for now?

The conversation concerned his son, a teenager, and said son's schooling. The part that stands out was Robert, quite agitated, almost yelling at his son in full black dialect, what basically came down to (paraphrased) "If you want the house, the cars, the woman, and the toys your old man has you have to play the game. It doesn't matter how you talk or dress at home but you have to conform at work, you have to go to school and do well, and you have to play the game better than the white man does to succeed. No, it's not fair, but that's the way the world works and at least it's not as bad as it used to be."

I completely understand why Robert was shouting and upset - the stakes were pretty damn high for his kid, who was exactly in the most dangerous age range for a young, black man.

Heh. Interesting. I wonder how useful it is though. As he admits you have to be better than the other people to even have a change to succeed, and even with that externalities such as recessions and whatnot kick you back. This ties again with what I mentioned a bit earlier: People who were told all heir lives that if they went to college, worked hard, got good grades they would graduate and people would call them for jobs. So even if you do all that bullshit and you're STILL unemployed and stuck and whatnot, I'd be mad. The Guy in Gang Leader for a Day - well the 'actual' Gang Leader - he had a college Degree. More incompetent and uneducated whites got promoted BEFORE him. He went 'fuck this' and went into the drug business.

Two points here: Robert was (as best I understand it) not saying that "playing the game" would guarantee a good career, it was a minimum requirement to even get entry into the competition. He was trying to tell his son that if he didn't "play the game" he would have NO chance at the good life.

Of course, Robert was biased - he was advocating what worked for him, and doing his best to keep his son out of trouble. That's what a good, responsible parent does. That doesn't mean dad is going to be right on everything, but for Robert, that's how he saw the world.

As for the incompetent and uneducated being promoted first - everyone who isn't an able-bodied white male has had to face that prospect, it's not limited to black people by any means. These days, with the playing field becoming a bit more level, some white men have probably faced it, too.

My grandfather was Scotch-Irish and had to deal with less able people being promoted over him repeatedly... because he'd spent a decade or more at a low-level management job, essentially training the people who would get promoted over him, over and over and over.

It drove him to drink.

This is a problem women, and blacks, face far more often than white males. But it's a reality for everyone (some people are just not on the radar for promotions). And even for the groups it hits worst, it doesn't affect everyone... and even with the ones it does, the percentages are STILL better than they are for someone who decides to become a 'career criminal.' A very good chance of making a 40k annual salary until the day you retire is a hell of a lot better than most people can count on from committing crimes, especially once the risks of being randomly hurt or killed are factored in.

Personally I never 'got' the "importance" of doing such even when going out casually. I wasn't treated much different/better in a suit than when in jeans or whatnot, even at formal clothing stores or something "upscale". I never saw people look at me 'better' etc when in dress clothes.

Well, then perhaps things are changing. Or perhaps my sample is biased. Or it's a side-effect of many moving from the lower income levels to the middle class, as your professor suggested. Or it could be that, due to prejudice, even those blacks who have been middle-class for awhile remain insecure in a way their white neighbors do not.

Saxtonite also remarked that he (eventually) acted the same way in a suit that he acted out of one. It may be that this tends to neutralize any effect the suit might have.

In other words:
Suit plus Style: Changes the way you are treated by 10 points
Suit alone: 3 points
Style alone: 5 points
Neither Suit nor Style: 0 points.

Sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

[Broomstick]

You have to provide a solid education, and that means paying teachers enough to encourage people to teach rather than go into other professions, and providing sufficient funding for small class sizes.

In urban areas, I think we need more manpower more than we need higher wages. We can get intellectually adequate teachers, but the stress of handling disciplinary issues and large classes makes it very hard for them to do the job at the level their brains and raw ability would allow.

It still takes money society does not wish to allocate for schooling. Sure, pay for more testing but not pay for the resources - facilities and manpower - to educate. And we have to give teachers the authority to actually discipline classes and remove troublemakers without being threatened by parents, administrators, the kids, or lawsuits. The kids need to learn that if you don't behave you will be removed to a classroom with even stricter discipline and people to enforce it.

And we need a systematic way to deal with the residual 5% or so who have not learned self-discipline by the time they reach high school and are disrupting classes where we're trying to teach abstract academic subjects.

That costs money too, which society does not wish to allocate.

[Simon_Jester]

Broomstick, I'm not even arguing about the budget issue- just commenting on precisely what I think is needed.

Paying teachers that much more over the median income may not help- the sheer size of the workforce you need tends to defeat attempts to make it an elite workforce.

[Broomstick]

It doesn't have to be elite. It does have to be competitive with other occupations those people could be doing, with less aggravation and stress.

[Saxtonite]

The team sports encourage exactly that - team work. Helping your brother out to achieve a goal. It's not that individual sports aren't good - they are - but some exposure to team sports can provide benefits.

Ok.

Sure, that too, but really, there is a push to cut everything BUT academics in some sectors.

Weird. I thought the saying is they'll cut marginal acadmics to say preserve the football team.

Oh, I understand the impulse, I just don't think escalating up to violence should be condoned. I'd rather they find a way to satisfy honor that doesn't involve guns. You might as well argue for people settling "honor" disputes at 10 paces at dawn with chainsaws.

Having the desire to fuck people up is one thing, actually acting on it and actually fucking people up is not acceptable, particularly not in densely populated urban areas.

Well, beyond a certain limit I can see such a point. I remember someone mentioned in the past when there were fights the police would just make sure it's not too serious as opposed to charging assault or whatnot. Well, that was specifically I guess for bar fights and not 'jumping' people. Less of a legal 'trail' which follows people around, even arguably for those in say a corporate environment.

I could probably think of more, but I'm tired and I've been ill all day so will that do for now?

Ok.

The thing is - when I was growing up and going to college having ANY college degree, ANY, really did give you a leg up in hiring and promotion whether that degree was related to the job or not. That didn't really change until the mid to late 1990's - unfortunately, that's now 10-20 years where a college degree is no longer such a sure bet.

So, were now in a bind where parents my age or older are trying to promote what worked for them - get a college degree of any sort - when it is no longer a sure bet or as solid an investment.

Yeah. Unfortunately even when you mention the declining value of such a degree and how in cases you just get in debt, things get iffy. In some cases a degree just keeps you from 'falling' behind....ugh. I mean it is starting to get talked about in general if college is still worth it or not even in mainstream writings.

Robert is slightly older than myself, in his era "white washing" really was about the only way a black professional could succeed. Things have loosened up since he was a young man, but he might not see that.

Weird. Wouldn't he know black owned/ran businesses however? Then again many of them were in some cases white-washed too.

So far as I can tell, someone in the circle of friends has to, at some point, go to the "bad side of town" to get the drugs.

I remember someone saying....yeah many of the dealers are in the hood. Unless you make your own drugs (LSD/Weed for example) or order it off "Silk Road".....yeah largely they do go into the hood.

Well, then perhaps things are changing. Or perhaps my sample is biased. Or it's a side-effect of many moving from the lower income levels to the middle class, as your professor suggested. Or it could be that, due to prejudice, even those blacks who have been middle-class for awhile remain insecure in a way their white neighbors do not.

[/quote]

Yeah, a lot of the discussion is ancedotal.

Also, I think Saxtonite is missing the point that part of the reason we HAVE laws against assault and battery (and manslaughter and murder) is to deter people and make them get it through their heads that they must not use violence to solve their problems, satisfying as it would be to grab a club and bash someone's head in right that moment. That they must in fact learn coping strategies for not using violence in everyday society.

There are such things as mitigating circumstances in current legal systems, and in general some cultures are much more lenient on individuals who engage in such violence because it it felt that their honor was breached due to insult for example. And these aren't exactly desert Arabs and Pashtuns, these are white southerners in a first world economy integrated into the world system.

Because frankly, we couldn't have a civilization at all if we started fighting each other every time the little gibbering apes inside our brains told us to go whack someone with a club. Having people start shooting (or knifing, or sometimes even punching) each other every time they are "provoked to the point of... wishing to fuck [someone] up..."

In general humans have a strong in-built desire NOT to kill each other. They generally stop fighting when their opponent is disabled and unable to continue combat. Also, I didn't mean 'anytime someone is angry'. Limited violence might be good for some people and societies (i.e. legislated 'fight clubs' for the purpose of duels or whatnot)

[Simon_Jester]

Also, I think Saxtonite is missing the point that part of the reason we HAVE laws against assault and battery (and manslaughter and murder) is to deter people and make them get it through their heads that they must not use violence to solve their problems, satisfying as it would be to grab a club and bash someone's head in right that moment. That they must in fact learn coping strategies for not using violence in everyday society.

There are such things as mitigating circumstances in current legal systems, and in general some cultures are much more lenient on individuals who engage in such violence because it it felt that their honor was breached due to insult for example. And these aren't exactly desert Arabs and Pashtuns, these are white southerners in a first world economy integrated into the world system.

Letting people get away with violence because "they insulted my honor!" works better in a society that rejects multiculturalism.

If we all have the same values, it's easy for me to predict what might provoke you to violence, and avoid that. And I'd probably want to avoid it even if it wouldn't make you angry, because we share values. You don't like this thing, and I probably don't like it either. If, say, it is socially accepted that insulting a woman results in a man beating you up, men probably don't want to insult women and think it's wrong.

But what if we do not share the same values? To take an obvious example that's happened thousands or millions of times in real life, different people in America have different values about homosexuality. For a lot of people it's just this thing that happens, it's morally neutral. But because of religion or psychological factors, some people think it's a horrible perversion morally equivalent (or literally equivalent) to pedophilia.

Then the second class of person encounters a homosexual and decides to attack them because they're gay. Or because "I thought he was hitting on me and I don't swing that way!" This can easily result in some poor soul getting their teeth knocked out, or even killed, because of another person's paranoid reflex. It gets called "[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_panic"]gay panic[url]."

In, say, 1950... well, if a man could prove another man had made anything that even looked like homosexual advances toward him him, a jury would definitely let him get away with assault and battery. Because the jurors share his values, his belief that his "honor" is threatened by another man proposing to engage in sexual conduct with him.

Today, should that still be true? Should we take for granted that the homophobe's values and belief about his "honor" are more important than the incautious gay guy's right not to get beaten bloody in the street?

[Broomstick]

Robert is slightly older than myself, in his era "white washing" really was about the only way a black professional could succeed. Things have loosened up since he was a young man, but he might not see that.

Weird. Wouldn't he know black owned/ran businesses however? Then again many of them were in some cases white-washed too.

Yes, white-washing certainly did occur, up to instances of black-owned businesses hiring someone white (or of another ethnicity, but white usually worked best) to act as front men/women, but I think (we're venturing into opinion here, just to be clear) that when the highly segregated housing patterns started to dissolve a lot of black businesses were lost. The result was that the US went through a period of time when the number of black-owned and run businesses crashed (a lot of "corner stores" in black areas winding up owned by Asians is an example of this). Destroying the old inner city ghettos and creating "housing projects" also destroyed a lot of the small, black-owned and run neighborhood businesses. Robert would have grown up in this period, as I did. Since the 1970's that trend has, over the long term, reversed and we now how many more black owned and run businesses, and much more visible ones, than we did we I was young. Black entrepreneurs are still a minority, but they are common enough to no longer be remarkable, even freakish.

I'm not an expert on black American history, but something happened after Marcus Garvey died. If folks reading this are unfamiliar with who he is, he was most active early 20th Century (I'm sure sure he lived to see the end of WWII) and supported black power, unity, pride, and supporting one's own by, for instance, going to black owned businesses whenever possible. Post WWII things stalled, even went backward, and it took the mid-century Civil Rights movement to get things rolling forward again.

[Saxtonite]

Yes, white-washing certainly did occur, up to instances of black-owned businesses hiring someone white (or of another ethnicity, but white usually worked best) to act as front men/women, but I think (we're venturing into opinion here, just to be clear) that when the highly segregated housing patterns started to dissolve a lot of black businesses were lost.[ The result was that the US went through a period of time when the number of black-owned and run businesses crashed (a lot of "corner stores" in black areas winding up owned by Asians is an example of this). Destroying the old inner city ghettos and creating "housing projects" also destroyed a lot of the small, black-owned and run neighborhood businesses. Robert would have grown up in this period, as I did. Since the 1970's that trend has, over the long term, reversed and we now how many more black owned and run businesses, and much more visible ones, than we did we I was young. Black entrepreneurs are still a minority, but they are common enough to no longer be remarkable, even freakish.

Oh, that's not opinion - that' fact

A Country of Strangers and Disintegration: The Splintering of Black America mention examples of desegregation and integration destroying black owned businesses more effectively than even segregation violence did in some cases.

I'm not an expert on black American history, but something happened after Marcus Garvey died. If folks reading this are unfamiliar with who he is, he was most active early 20th Century (I'm sure sure he lived to see the end of WWII) and supported black power, unity, pride, and supporting one's own by, for instance, going to black owned businesses whenever possible. Post WWII things stalled, even went backward, and it took the mid-century Civil Rights movement to get things rolling forward again.

Eh? Garvey was more of a 'back to africa' person but there was aspects of that in his ideology. Actually, after WWII there was a bit of a change in black nationalist/economic thoughts as the earlier black nationalists were infected with "Western" culture and Christianity excessively. There were strains of Islamization etc in the black population in the US from the early 1900s, but it took off really after WWII and Africans in the United States remembering how they are African. The Rastafari is a related movement which grew up in that similar timeframe. "Black Nationalism in American Politics and Thought" mentioned more African aspects of post-WWII black nationalism.

Arguably things 'stalled' because of the social effects of the war, i.e. desegregation and some 'benefits' given to blacks due to the war, as well as a 'return' to severe 'conservatism' or something approaching such in 1950s America, but even then people knew 'the genie was out of the box' and the race problem would be something that had to be dealt with, even white americans....

Letting people get away with violence because "they insulted my honor!" works better in a society that rejects multiculturalism.

That would make sense regarding the behavior of white southerners in relation to multiculturalism and how the south did not have much immigration. Argentina was similar, but Argentina promoted (white) immigration which generated a unified Argentine identity stronger than provincial regionalism, etc and lessened class differences.

Today, should that still be true? Should we take for granted that the homophobe's values and belief about his "honor" are more important than the incautious gay guy's right not to get beaten bloody in the street?

Hmm. Regarding white southerners, many such gaybashers are still put in jail because it is considered 'wrong', but enough of the population still has such ideas that beating up a gay who hits on you is enough to prompt I guess lesser sentences than another incident. I guess the influences from the northern states, urbanization as well as immigration has lessened the honor culture (in general the larger the city, the lower the violence among white southerners)

[Simon_Jester]

Today, should that still be true? Should we take for granted that the homophobe's values and belief about his "honor" are more important than the incautious gay guy's right not to get beaten bloody in the street?

Hmm. Regarding white southerners, many such gaybashers are still put in jail because it is considered 'wrong', but enough of the population still has such ideas that beating up a gay who hits on you is enough to prompt I guess lesser sentences than another incident.

It also makes such incidents far more likely, this idea that it is permitted to beat people up because they slight your honor.

I guess the influences from the northern states, urbanization as well as immigration has lessened the honor culture (in general the larger the city, the lower the violence among white southerners)

That's kind of my point: the honor culture works least badly in a place where everyone shares the same values, and is prepared to spend their life carefully avoiding any act which might offend the very touchy men with knives around them (i.e. Bedouin Arabs). And where none of these rules changes much from generation to generation, so that your parents can teach you as a child how to avoid offending people, and you can spend your whole life using these rules for not offending people, and pass this knowledge onto your children, the same way you'd teach them to hunt or farm or do carpentry.

It works incredibly badly in modern cities, where social change is rapid. Where if you share your grandpappy's values in full, you are a minority of one. Where you can, no, will encounter lots of people who don't think like you, who don't fit into the neat little pigeonholes of your value system. Who cannot reasonably be expected to use their psychic powers to figure out which actions would "offend your honor" and avoid them... because every damn day they deal with dozens of people who all have different sets of buttons to push.

In that environment, if you can't learn to control your temper when your buttons are pushed, you are a danger to the social fabric.

[Broomstick]

Eh? Garvey was more of a 'back to africa' person but there was aspects of that in his ideology.

Garvey was hardly the only one promoting back to Africa (an earlier wave of that sentiment resulted in the nation of Liberia), and hardly the only one promoting blacks supporting black businesses, but he is one of the better known ones, especially outside of the black community.

Arguably things 'stalled' because of the social effects of the war, i.e. desegregation and some 'benefits' given to blacks due to the war, as well as a 'return' to severe 'conservatism' or something approaching such in 1950s America, but even then people knew 'the genie was out of the box' and the race problem would be something that had to be dealt with, even white americans....

There was a parralel with women and women's rights/treatment during that same time period. During WWII women were needed to supply labor and told they could do the work of men, and got used to getting paid, education, a life outside the home. Then WWII ended, the women were (figuratively) patted on the head and told to go home and be good little housewives again.

It's not coincidence that a lot of [insert name of group] right's movements surged in the 1960's, as that same treatment had happened to quite a few groups. The only folks surprised were the white men who couldn't figure out why all those folks didn't want things to be the way they were before. (And even quite a few white men saw what was coming anyway, or had figured out in the 1940's that all those groups were just as competent and capable as they were.)

I guess the influences from the northern states, urbanization as well as immigration has lessened the honor culture (in general the larger the city, the lower the violence among white southerners)

The larger the city and the denser the population the less that violence can be tolerated, that's a general rule pretty much everywhere and everywhen.

[Saxtonite]

That's kind of my point: the honor culture works least badly in a place where everyone shares the same values, and is prepared to spend their life carefully avoiding any act which might offend the very touchy men with knives around them (i.e. Bedouin Arabs). And where none of these rules changes much from generation to generation, so that your parents can teach you as a child how to avoid offending people, and you can spend your whole life using these rules for not offending people, and pass this knowledge onto your children, the same way you'd teach them to hunt or farm or do carpentry.

It works incredibly badly in modern cities, where social change is rapid. Where if you share your grandpappy's values in full, you are a minority of one. Where you can, no, will encounter lots of people who don't think like you, who don't fit into the neat little pigeonholes of your value system. Who cannot reasonably be expected to use their psychic powers to figure out which actions would "offend your honor" and avoid them... because every damn day they deal with dozens of people who all have different sets of buttons to push.

In that environment, if you can't learn to control your temper when your buttons are pushed, you are a danger to the social fabric.

What about the concept of "mitigating circumstances" though. Even in such a multicultural society, there are still certain things which are considered mitigating circumstances. Up to a certain point, there are still certain 'core' things which are accepted, i.e. the classic "you see your partner cheating on you/catch them and shoot your partner and the person they were fucking dead immediately". I would think certain other things, such as 'grave insults' could also be used in a similar nature, even in modern cities.

This book for exampel, as comedic as a lot of the content it, does mention how businesses based in the 'Dixie' region look less harshly on that sort of felony conviction, and I believe there are also studies on the decreased jail sentences for those who were in such a situation. I am not calling for "Anyone who 'feels' offended can go shoot off and whatnot." Hell, I am not calling for allowing you to kill someone who calls you a "Faggot" or anything like that either. There has to be a noticeably higher threshold for allowing violence, and even then it should NOT be deadly violence (this fits into how apparently in the past the police would make sure a fight was broken up as opposed to carting people into jail and charging for assault, and I would not consider that era necessarily more monocultural).

It's not coincidence that a lot of [insert name of group] right's movements surged in the 1960's, as that same treatment had happened to quite a few groups. The only folks surprised were the white men who couldn't figure out why all those folks didn't want things to be the way they were before. (And even quite a few white men saw what was coming anyway, or had figured out in the 1940's that all those groups were just as competent and capable as they were.)

There was also, as I mentioned earlier the impulses from the Cold War where the USSR was shown as more progressive re. gender and race relations which resulted in some impetus for change among many in the government. Some of it was arguably technology based (i.e. second wave feminism and labor-saving devices). The social stresses of the era did however prompt a more radical change quuicker than would have otherwise happened though.

The larger the city and the denser the population the less that violence can be tolerated, that's a general rule pretty much everywhere and everywhen.

The interesting thing though is in the past, violence was tolerated even more (i.e. bar fights among factory workers), at least the state did not emphasize anger managent or charging people for assault. However, there were also 'other' problems - i.e. Irish/German/Polish/Czech etc gangs beating each other up in the streets that were arguably less covered by the police.

[madd0ct0r]

But why do you need it?

Why do you need to include a concept of 'honour culture', of 'glorified codified violence'. What benefit does thing bring to society?

[Thanas]

Don't expect a reply, Tevar banned him for racism.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

When did that happen?

[madd0ct0r]

huh. ironic.