Jump to content

Interesting Article Re Byu Student Fighting Racism


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I still have a hard time with that.  I think the Civil Rights Act went a very long way is dismantling "institutional ... structures" that treated people differently (in employment, education, housing, commerce, etc.) based on race.

I don't know what you mean by "social structures."

A big problem with these sorts of the discussions is the persistent and stubborn vagueness of the claims.  We don't really get into a level of specificity and detail such as could allow for reasoned discussion, empirical analysis, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

So you do agree that being enslaved over generations did have a major impact? Are you arguing that any remaining significant harms from slavery were mitigated by the Civil Rights Act?

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 7/17/2020 at 11:08 AM, pogi said:

This just demonstrates my point that it is not as much about skin color and more about cultural traits, and values, etc., which can be broken down even further to familial traits and values.   Cultures who prioritize education, hard work, and smart financial prowess, succeed (in general).  Asians make far more money than white people, not just by household but by individual income on average.  If you work harder and prioritize education and high paying careers, you will succeed.  The system is built to reward those traits over skin color.  It is not about white privilege, it is about priority and value privilege's.  There can be a down-side to prioritizing money and success however, that people are not considering.  White people have suicide rates that double that of black people in America.  Is that also a white privilege? 

It is more compex than that though.  Hispanics are extremely hard workers, but they don't make as much as Indians?  Why?  Probably because the values they prioritize, and work towards, are simply different, and not because of their skin tone (which is the same).  Even hard work is not enough, it is about prioritizing traits and skills that are more profitable.  Education is not as much as a priority (in general) in Hispanic homes as it is in Indian homes.  High paying medical and technology careers are not as much a priority (in general) in Hispanic homes as it is in Indian homes.  Indians are not naturally better spellers than white people, but they excell at spelling bees because that is what they prioritize.  The system does not favor the skin color of Indians.  It favors their values, and work ethics, and learned skills.

The difference is that they don't allow others to give them their identity.  They create their own.  They are not limited by believing that they are deprivileged and can't succeed in this system.  The power of belief and self-perception is everything.  It is all about self-perception.  If one perceives and is taught from a young age, "you can't make it if you are not white", "the system is rigged", "you are not privileged", "you are less then...",   They are much more likely not to succeed.  If one is instilled with positive self-perception, "you are privileged", "you will be the top of your class", "you will succeed in life", then that person is much more likely to succeed.  It is cultural messages.   I believe it all boils down to cultural self-perception.

Think about how disempowering this message is to a people "I will use my white privilege to help disadvantaged black people."  It reinforces the harmful self-perception and unhealthy dynamic that keeps some people of color down.  It feels so patronizing. It feels so powerless and dependent on white people.  I am confident that if Indian people held that same self-perception, they would be in the same unsuccessful place.  

Cultural perspectives run deep, and I don't think any one individual is to blame for their cultural perceptions, but neither are we helping the problem with patronizing and demoralizing messages of "I will use my white privilege to help out those below me..."  Instead we need to find a way to instill positive values and self-perceptions in a culture that believes they are deprivileged, and those who truly believe that way, are more likely to act the part.  I believe that cultural self-perception changes everything.

I think when you look at families with mixed race kids, raised form infancy, I doubt that you will see much if any difference in perceptions of privilege between the kids.  A black kid who is raised by a family that prioritizes education, work ethics, and teaches sound financial skills and encourages their kids to succeed will do MUCH better than a white kid raised in the same neighborhood by a family who isn't involved in their kids education and teaches that it is too hard to compete in this world, and demonstrates terrible financial practices and lets their kids play video games all day.  Culture and self-perception is WAY more powerful than skin color.  I am not saying that skin color plays absolutely zero role, I just think we are giving it more power (which is the opposite of what we should be doing) than it deserves.  And THAT is disempowering and hurting more than helping the end goal. 

The success of Asian immigrants is less about culture and more about socioeconomic status. We do not have a lot of poor Japanese, Korean, and Chinese immigrants. Saying that kind of thinking leads to success and ignoring the fact that generally it means their parents had success is missing the point. You also ignore the difference between people just arriving and bringing some of their culture and socioeconomic status with them and those who have lived as an underclass for generations as somehow comparable.

The power of belief and self-perception is not everything. Try that as a Korean student in a Japanese school (whenever racism gets too depressing look overseas to see how far we have come by comparison) and see if all goes well. I am not saying that a positive outlook and a belief in oneself is bad but it is not a panacea that will solve discrimination.

"I will use my white privilege to help disadvantaged black people". This kind of approach is hated by everyone who understands the fight for racial equality. As you point out it is infantilizing. Hence why "being a good ally" has so many hits on Google. There is a tendency to take a fight that should be pioneered by others and making it about you.

I would read up more about mixed race children before sticking with that assumption. Even mixed Asian Americans face problems and it is harder for Hispanic and Black children with mixed heritage. It does not make the child bad or the parents bad but everyone should be aware that it is going to have challenges. Saying that involved parents help is true but you are overemphasizing this point.

  • Like 2
Link to post
54 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The success of Asian immigrants is less about culture and more about socioeconomic status. We do not have a lot of poor Japanese, Korean, and Chinese immigrants. Saying that kind of thinking leads to success and ignoring the fact that generally it means their parents had success is missing the point. 

I disagree.  Socioeconomic status plays less a role than culture and familial money mindsets.  Many Asian immigrants do not immigrate to the US with a high socioeconomic status.  Neither do Nigerians.  Yet both groups do better than white European immigrant ethnicities.  (Asians lose a lot in converting to the US dollar, whereas Europeans benefit by the conversion.)

I recommend reading Rich Dad, Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki (a non-white author).   He is spot on about the power of culture and mindset. 

Give money to a person who comes from a family with poor money culture, and they will lose the money in no time.  Give the same money to a person who comes from a family wich rich money culture, and they will leverage it for their benefit.  We see this with lottery winners who come form poverty.  Wee see bankruptcy with lottery winners more frequently within 3 -5 years than we do with the general public.  It is a myth that giving poor people money (and thus a high socioeconomic status) will solve their generational and culturally based economic problems.  Money culture.  Work culture.  Values culture. That is most important. 

Quote

The power of belief and self-perception is not everything. Try that as a Korean student in a Japanese school

I am talking about America not Japan.  By "belief", I am talking about money culture, work ethics, and profitable values, etc.  Those are more powerful than color of skin in America.  

 

 

 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 2
Link to post
1 minute ago, pogi said:

I disagree.  Socioeconomic status plays less a role than culture and familial money mindsets.  Asian immigrants do not typically immigrate to the US with a high socioeconomic status.  Neither do Nigerians.  Yet both groups do better than many white European immigrants. 

I recommend reading Rich Dad, Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki.  

Give money to a person who comes from a family with poor money culture, and they will lose the money in no time.  Give the same money to a person who comes from a family wich rich money culture, and they will leverage it for their benefit.  We see this with lottery winners who come form poverty.  Wee see bankruptcy with lottery winners more frequently within 3 -5 years than we do with the general public.  It is a myth that giving poor people money will solve their economic problems.  Money culture.  Work culture.  Values culture. That is most important. 

Actually the lottery tends to ruin everyone whether poor or well off.

The impact of finances on behavior is important but you ignore why the impoverished tend to be spendthrifts and it is actually very logical. If you are relatively poor and are in a position to reasonably save $100 a month you might do so. Then some minor crisis comes up (traffic ticket, minor medical situation, unexpected home repairs, child needs something, etc.) it wipes out all your reserves with ease and possibly puts you into debt. Have this happen several times over several years and you probably have almost no savings and no discretionary money and possibly are in greater debt. The whole system seems to not work. Saving does not enable you to have things you want and the savings never sticks around so why bother. Make hay while the sun shines. You can argue that they have less debt then they would otherwise but that is not a strong incentive. This is why the poor often seem so irresponsible. Those who have tried it largely found out it did not pay off. Of course some people with iron wills or natural talent break out of that quagmire but suggesting everyone could suddenly do it is unrealistic.

On the other hand if you can save $1000 a month you can sock that away and actually see growth and an increase in security when expenses come up AND you still have the funds to get the stuff you want. The cycle is self-reinforcing and the good money habits continue.

If you are a child of parents in the first example you never learn good money habits because your parents never had any to give. In the second you probably do (unless you are spoiled or something).

It is a myth that giving the poor cash handouts will solve their problem; that is true. As a side note the same applies to corporations but we ignore that when bailouts are suddenly needed. Socialism for the wealthy but capitalism for the poor. The solution is to create an economy where a full-time job automatically has a livable wage so the self-defeating cycle of poverty ends. This requires giving work in general a sense of dignity instead of a tiered system of 'haves' and 'have nots' and will make us face hard decisions and hopefully craft a national consensus that if a job cannot support the person working it said job probably shouldn't be allowed to exist.

This may all be moot. We are hitting new thresholds in automation where we may soon just not have enough of a need for labor for our current economic model to work at all. We probably have a few more years before the US needs to worry about that. The mass retirements coming up will probably raise the value of labor temporarily unless immigration massively increases (probable) or people start having larger families immediately (unlikely). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
16 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am talking about America not Japan.  By "belief", I am talking about money culture, work ethics, and profitable values, etc.  Those are more powerful than color of skin in America.  

I am not sure that they are. I do maintain that one's skin color is a powerful modifier whether it is the most powerful or not.

Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The success of Asian immigrants is less about culture and more about socioeconomic status. We do not have a lot of poor Japanese, Korean, and Chinese immigrants

There are a lot more Asian immigrants than just those, many who come as refugees. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
28 minutes ago, pogi said:

 Give the same money to a person who comes from a family wich rich money culture, and they will leverage it for their benefit. 

Did you see the info I posted about downward mobility?  That would indicate the above isn’t always true and less true for blacks than whites. 

Edited by Calm
Link to post
28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The impact of finances on behavior is important but you ignore why the impoverished tend to be spendthrifts and it is actually very logical...The whole system seems to not work. 

No.  It is the opposite of logical.

I 100% disagree.  The system works fantastically.  Dave Ramsey has proven that it works over and over and over and over and over and over...….. again.  I am one of his students and I have proven that it works. "Live like no one else so that later you can live like no one else".   It works.  If you struggle to pay your rent and feed your family, don't buy the newest iPhone, a brand new Mercedes, and a 72 inch big screen with every subscription possible! 

I am a testament that it works.  In my first 5 years of marriage, through hard work and tremendous sacrifice, I whittled away $65,000 in debt while on a menial construction worker salary and my wife working a menial call-center salary.  Today, my wife doesn't work, and I work a not high-paying nurse job and am more financially comfortable and secure than most people I know who make 3 times as much as I do.  It is less about how much you make and more about how you spend it. 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 2
Link to post
Just now, pogi said:

No.  It is not logical.

It actually is. Many (not all) people are willing to sacrifice if they can see a great endgame. If the sacrifice seems to generate nothing people stop.

Just now, pogi said:

I 100% disagree.  The system works fantastically.

No, it doesn't.

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Dave Ramsey has proven that it works over and over and over and over and over and over...….. again.  I am one of his students and I have proven that it works. "Live like no one else so that later you can live like no one else".   It works.  If you struggle to pay your rent and feed your family, don't buy the newest iPhone, a brand new Mercedes, and a 72 inch big screen with every subscription possible! 

Dave Ramsey teaches basic budgeting. It works if you have enough income to implement it. If you don't it does not. It does help many who would spend themselves into poverty otherwise and that is good as far as it goes.

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am a testament that it works.  In my first 5 years of marriage, through hard work and tremendous sacrifice, I whittled away $65,000 in debt while on a menial construction worker salary and my wife working a menial call-center salary.  Today, my wife doesn't work, and I work a not high-paying nurse job and am more financially comfortable and secure than most people I know who make 3 times as much as me.  It is less about how much you make and more about how you spend it. 

The median income for a full-time nurse is about $10,000 a year over the median US household income (which includes both incomes in dual wage earner households). I am glad it works for you but your success says more about the spending habits of the people you know and that you are making a decent wage than it says about the justice of our economic system. If you are a single mom making $25,000 a year it is unlikely she can scrimp and save and live a relatively wealthy life later on by saving now. Some can be in that state and beat it but others cannot or do not.

There is also the dirty little secret that if everyone who could followed Dave Ramsey's advice the economy would collapse and need to be rebuilt.

Link to post
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It actually is. Many (not all) people are willing to sacrifice if they can see a great endgame. If the sacrifice seems to generate nothing people stop.

No, it doesn't.

Dave Ramsey teaches basic budgeting. It works if you have enough income to implement it. If you don't it does not. It does help many who would spend themselves into poverty otherwise and that is good as far as it goes.

The median income for a full-time nurse is about $10,000 a year over the median US household income (which includes both incomes in dual wage earner households). I am glad it works for you but your success says more about the spending habits of the people you know and that you are making a decent wage than it says about the justice of our economic system. If you are a single mom making $25,000 a year it is unlikely she can scrimp and save and live a relatively wealthy life later on by saving now. Some can be in that state and beat it but others cannot or do not.

There is also the dirty little secret that if everyone who could followed Dave Ramsey's advice the economy would collapse and need to be rebuilt.

My MIL has no degree, hasn't worked in over 30 years, hit some financially difficult times (basically lost everything, including their home) and just got a job working at Lowes - she makes way more than $25,000/year.

Strip me of my license, my degree, my job, my savings, move me to the ghetto on a salary of $25,000, change my skin color, and I would be out of that situation in not long.  Why?  Because I own something far more valuable/powerful/profitable than my skin color - my upbringing. 

The long-reaching chains of poverty culture are incredibly powerful. We are more limited by our cultural upbringing than anything else, and that's what makes this problem so complex and difficult to change.  By focusing so heavily on skin color, we are missing the more visceral issues. 

Here is my prediction:  If we could magically eradicate racism and prejudice from America (without addressing poverty culture), in one decade we would largely see the same economic disparities that we see today following the same cultural/familial/generational lines.  It will do little to nothing in addressing economic disparities. 

On the other hand, if we could somehow address poverty culture (without addressing skin color), and we would see significant improvement in disparity in a decade as compared to the other method. 

By focusing so heavily on skin color while neglecting more visceral issues, we are crippling our ability to make any lasting change.  I believe that if we can address these other issues, skin color will largely become a non-issue in terms of income inequality in no time.  

I agree that there should be less income disparity between the CEO's and the dishwashers, but that is not a skin color-issue.  I believe that same problem would exist in America today if we were all white.  That is a problem of pure greed, and not white-privilege.

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

Did you see the info I posted about downward mobility?  That would indicate the above isn’t always true and less true for blacks than whites. 

Not yet.  I don't have a lot of time to read unfortunately.  Mostly just posting in-between calls.  I will get to it though.  thanks.

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, pogi said:

Not yet.  I don't have a lot of time to read unfortunately.  Mostly just posting in-between calls.  I will get to it though.  thanks.

This is the essential bit, I can find more details when you have time to read, just let me know. 
 

Quote

Perhaps unsurprisingly, they find that downward mobility is much higher among black Americans and American Indians than among white, Hispanic, or Asian Americans. White children whose parents are in the top fifth of the income distribution have a 41.1 percent chance of staying there as adults; for Hispanic children, the rate is 30.6 percent, and for Asian-American children, 49.9 percent. But for black children, it’s only 18 percent, and for American Indian children only 23 percent.

Indeed, black and American Indian children born into upper- or upper-middle-class families are nearly as likely to fall to the bottom fifth of the income distribution as to stay in the top fifth.

 

Link to post
On 7/17/2020 at 11:49 PM, BlueDreams said:

Race and culture definitely overlap....and having cultural experiences that work in the US where specific european cultures dominated standard practices would definitely lead to an advantage. BUT there is a limit to this and economic success is only one measure of privilege in the US. 

For example my bio-dad is nigerian by birth. So he didn't have the same cultural baggage and disadvantage that black americans faced. His american journey started in his 20's and to get here, he also had to be extremely resilient and scrappy in the first place. Most of his siblings still live in Nigeria and several simply didn't have the potential opportunity to move here. That in and of itself is a sifting process that makes the comparisons a little uneven. 

Fast forward a bit and my father lives a very comfortable life. He lives in a middle-upper middle class home. He's received a college education, and his children received good educations. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have a reduced experience of privilege in his community and a fair share of prejudice. It just means he's financially privileged at this point in his life (not when he was living in a warehouse). There are different forms of privilege and one form of privilege doesn't necessarily cancel out others.

 

With Luv,

BD 

 

I agree that economic success is only one measure of privilege.  I am mostly addressing economic disparities though as that seems to be the focus of most people here.

What about your own experience, how has your skin tone affected your advantage/privileges as compared to your white peers?  Do you feel a significant disparity between your quality of life and that of your white peers, because of the color of your skin?   If I remember right, you are half-white/half-black.  Could some of your father's lived experience in the US be due to cultural differences that any immigrant might struggle with?  I am not questioning the accuracy of your father's experience, I am more curious as to your (more culturally/native born American) experience with black skin without the cultural baggage that you mention of other black Americans. 

I have no doubt that prejudice and racism exists, and that it can lead to unwanted experiences in life, but does emphasizing white privilege improve the quality of life for black people in general, or does it further reinforce stereotypes based on skin color?  Does teaching children that they are "deprivileged" because they are black, and that white people are privileged above them, help or hurt in the long-run? Will teaching this to black children more likely cause them to look favorably or dis-favorably upon white people?  At what point does it become a derogatory term which further exacerbate skin-color issues? 

My children have albinism, they should be considered hyper-privileged, right :)?   However, I guarantee that my children will experience far more discrimination and persecution in their life-times than just about any black person in America today.  Just 2 days ago I watched the movie Old Dogs on the Disney channel.  There was a line in the movie where John Travolta looks at Robin Williams with disgust and tells him that he looks like an albino.  The shot then pans over to his dog that cocked his head in disgust also.  I too cocked my head in disgust, but for different reasons.  How derogatory is that?  People are way more tolerant of discrimination and prejudice against people with Albinism than black people.  I also watched an episode of "What Would You Do?".  It showed a couple teenage punks bullying a person with Albinism for being a pale freak albino in the streets of New York.  Not one person stepped in or intervened, or even seemed concerned.  Could you imagine if it was a black person being bullied because of how dark their skin was?   If you think black people are deprivileged, imagine being a white black person!  I watched a documentary about an African American with albinism who felt severely persecuted by her own race because of the color of her skin.  She didn't feel like she fit in with white people because she was black, and she didn't feel accepted by black people because she was white.  She felt like she didn't belong anywhere.  It was one of the saddest documentaries I have ever seen. 

Would it be helpful or hurtful to my children's well-being and sense of self-respect to reinforce that they are deprivileged because of the condition/color (or lack thereof) of their skin and hair?  Would it be more helpful or hurtful to emphasize to my children that other people are more privileged above them, and that they are deprivileged in life?  I don't think that anyone can deny that non-albino's are privileged above people with albinism, but how is emphasizing that going to help my kids?  "I am privileged and you are not", I just don't see how that is going to help my kids sense of self-worth.  Nor do I think it is going to change the minds and prejudice of non-albino's. 

 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

This is the essential bit, I can find more details when you have time to read, just let me know. 
 

 

It is interesting that Asians are even less likely than white people to have down-ward mobility.  If skin color and racial prejudice of white people towards others was the primary factor at play here, then we wouldn't expect to see this. 

Link to post
On 7/17/2020 at 10:08 AM, pogi said:

This just demonstrates my point that it is not as much about skin color and more about cultural traits, and values, etc., which can be broken down even further to familial traits and values.   Cultures who prioritize education, hard work, and smart financial prowess, succeed (in general).  Asians make far more money than white people, not just by household but by individual income on average.  If you work harder and prioritize education and high paying careers, you will succeed.  The system is built to reward those traits over skin color.  It is not about white privilege, it is about priority and value privilege's.  There can be a down-side to prioritizing money and success however, that people are not considering.  White people have suicide rates that double that of black people in America.  Is that also a white privilege? 

It is more compex than that though.  Hispanics are extremely hard workers, but they don't make as much as Indians?  Why?  Probably because the values they prioritize, and work towards, are simply different, and not because of their skin tone (which is the same).  Even hard work is not enough, it is about prioritizing traits and skills that are more profitable.  Education is not as much as a priority (in general) in Hispanic homes as it is in Indian homes.  High paying medical and technology careers are not as much a priority (in general) in Hispanic homes as it is in Indian homes.  Indians are not naturally better spellers than white people, but they excell at spelling bees because that is what they prioritize.  The system does not favor the skin color of Indians.  It favors their values, and work ethics, and learned skills.

The difference is that they don't allow others to give them their identity.  They create their own.  They are not limited by believing that they are deprivileged and can't succeed in this system.  The power of belief and self-perception is everything.  It is all about self-perception.  If one perceives and is taught from a young age, "you can't make it if you are not white", "the system is rigged", "you are not privileged", "you are less then...",   They are much more likely not to succeed.  If one is instilled with positive self-perception, "you are privileged", "you will be the top of your class", "you will succeed in life", then that person is much more likely to succeed.  It is cultural messages.   I believe it all boils down to cultural self-perception.

Think about how disempowering this message is to a people "I will use my white privilege to help disadvantaged black people."  It reinforces the harmful self-perception and unhealthy dynamic that keeps some people of color down.  It feels so patronizing. It feels so powerless and dependent on white people.  I am confident that if Indian people held that same self-perception, they would be in the same unsuccessful place.  

Cultural perspectives run deep, and I don't think any one individual is to blame for their cultural perceptions, but neither are we helping the problem with patronizing and demoralizing messages of "I will use my white privilege to help out those below me..."  Instead we need to find a way to instill positive values and self-perceptions in a culture that believes they are deprivileged, and those who truly believe that way, are more likely to act the part.  I believe that cultural self-perception changes everything.

I think when you look at families with mixed race kids, raised form infancy, I doubt that you will see much if any difference in perceptions of privilege between the kids.  A black kid who is raised by a family that prioritizes education, work ethics, and teaches sound financial skills and encourages their kids to succeed will do MUCH better than a white kid raised in the same neighborhood by a family who isn't involved in their kids education and teaches that it is too hard to compete in this world, and demonstrates terrible financial practices and lets their kids play video games all day.  Culture and self-perception is WAY more powerful than skin color.  I am not saying that skin color plays absolutely zero role, I just think we are giving it more power (which is the opposite of what we should be doing) than it deserves.  And THAT is disempowering and hurting more than helping the end goal. 

I responded to another post of yours and somehow missed this one when doing so. I still stand with my assertions that racial privilege and economic privilege overlap, but I would have probably changed a few things based on this context.

I just want to point out a few things. There are definitely groups of people that are generally considered outside the anglo-saxon and/or white categories that tend do better in a US economy than others. That's never been in question for people who've studied these trends and patterns. What is in question is exactly WHY. And that's where it gets complicated. Part of this is cultural value and focus. There can be a strong focus on having successful children in certain communities, but these also became baked into american stereotypes of said communities which though there are problems as well with these stereotypes and can close certain doors, it can leave certain economic doors fairly open. For example, Asians being smart as a common stereotype won't bias a boss to hiring them in well paying careers in the medical field. BUT other stereotypes can also hurt them (asian men are less attractive, for example, leading to difficulty with dating sites or in the acting world in the US, etc). Cultural push to seeking out white collar jobs and having a model minority stereotype will open SOME doors, while leaving others still difficult to walk through.

Another problem with lumping this all as culture is that the evidence doesn't fully support it.  A couple years ago, there were a couple major studies on race and economic mobility over generations. Among the results that black children were less likely to maintain the level of socioeconomic status that they grew up in and more likely to fall into poverty, there also appeared to be a stark difference based on gender (ie black men had the larger effect, black women did not). In upper income levels, the gap actually increases though both white and black boys fair better than their poorer counterparts. They noted that there are circumstances where this gap is reduced or mitigated. It entails lower poverty communities, with higher percentage of present fathers, and lower racial bias/stigma in the area. These communities though are few and far between, according to the study. Two important quotes:

Quote

Because of these differences in economic mobility, blacks and American Indians are “stuck in place” across generations. Their positions in the income distribution are unlikely to change without efforts to increase their rates of upward mobility

Quote

Black children are much more likely to grow up in single parent households with less wealth and parents with lower levels of education – all factors that have received attention as potential explanations for black-white disparities. But, when we compare the outcomes of black and white men who grow up in twoparent families with similar levels of income, wealth, and education, we continue to find that the black men still have substantially lower incomes in adulthood. Hence, differences in these family characteristics play a limited role in explaining the gap.

Quote

Both black and white boys have better outcomes in neighborhoods commonly perceived to be “good" areas: Census tracts with low poverty rates, high test scores, and a large fraction of college graduates. However, black-white gaps are larger on average for boys who grow up in such tracts, because whites benefit more from living in such areas than blacks do.

 

Too lazy to fix the quoting structure. The full report is 100+ pgs, but it can be found at the beginning of this link if you're interested https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/21/17139300/economic-mobility-study-race-black-white-women-men-incarceration-income-chetty-hendren-jones-porter 

Lastly, this focus on culture as the problem ignores one's own cultural biases in scoping out a problem. The white american ethos believes strongly in individualism, working hard to get ahead, and that anyone who puts in the effort can make it. These aren't necessarily bad, but they hold a blind spot to systemic problems and difficulties and just how important they are in effecting people's outcomes in society. It also pushes out societal introspection and keeps this problem marginalized as simply a black american issue. The rest of society can be expunged from any form of responsibility to this. And it can equally lead to an unintentional jugdment on black american culture and subesquently people. The underlying message is unintentionally that something about black culture is antithetical to success and they should fix it if they want to get ahead.  

And even on the parts that may have more black american community issues do not note that at times the larger society and culture is putting exaggerated stress on said community. So some may be drawn to the part about absentee fathers....but that ignores that part of the reason there’s higher numbers is disproportionate incarceration rates. Said rates are based on long standing national and state policies that dramatically increased our prison population and out culture that’s built around punishment moreso than reform and reintegration into society. 

I will not say that cultural/economic factors do not have a place in these issues. They do. But sussing them out from all the other larger societal/historical/dominate cultural factors isn't really possible. And in doing so or deemphasizing their influence can be just as diempowering/demoralizing. 

Edit: I just noticed your most recent post. I don't know how much these overlap, but I'll be sure to respond more if needed when I have the chance.  

With luv,

BD

 

Edited by BlueDreams
  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, pogi said:

It is interesting that Asians are even less likely than white people to have down-ward mobility.  If skin color and racial prejudice of white people towards others was the primary factor at play here, then we wouldn't expect to see this. 

Except Asians (for the most part) have been "whitened" in our society (one of the links I posted earlier dealt with this) and the racial prejudice of the "model worker" works for them economically speaking.  There are likely other factors that complicate the picture, but those are significant imo to getting certain Asian groups comparable to whites.

Edited by Calm
Link to post
8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It actually is. Many (not all) people are willing to sacrifice if they can see a great endgame. If the sacrifice seems to generate nothing people stop.

No, it doesn't.

Dave Ramsey teaches basic budgeting. It works if you have enough income to implement it. If you don't it does not. It does help many who would spend themselves into poverty otherwise and that is good as far as it goes.

The median income for a full-time nurse is about $10,000 a year over the median US household income (which includes both incomes in dual wage earner households). I am glad it works for you but your success says more about the spending habits of the people you know and that you are making a decent wage than it says about the justice of our economic system. If you are a single mom making $25,000 a year it is unlikely she can scrimp and save and live a relatively wealthy life later on by saving now. Some can be in that state and beat it but others cannot or do not.

There is also the dirty little secret that if everyone who could followed Dave Ramsey's advice the economy would collapse and need to be rebuilt.

You need to get out more.

I personally know people who have never earned much more than minimum wage who have accumulated large sums of wealth. They just had to sacrifice a bit.  (Yes they are people of color).

Link to post
58 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I personally know people who have never earned much more than minimum wage who have accumulated large sums of wealth. They just had to sacrifice a bit.  (Yes they are people of color).

Did they run into any particular issues before they were able to accumulate enough to have a safety net?  Such as significant medical costs, an accident requiring major car repairs, did they have to care for extended family?

I would assume there would be a significant number who did not run into issues due to being relatively healthy, possibly having public transportation available or luck with not having accidents, etc.

Edited by Calm
Link to post
3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I responded to another post of yours and somehow missed this one when doing so. I still stand with my assertions that racial privilege and economic privilege overlap, but I would have probably changed a few things based on this context.

I just want to point out a few things. There are definitely groups of people that are generally considered outside the anglo-saxon and/or white categories that tend do better in a US economy than others. That's never been in question for people who've studied these trends and patterns. What is in question is exactly WHY. And that's where it gets complicated. Part of this is cultural value and focus. There can be a strong focus on having successful children in certain communities, but these also became baked into american stereotypes of said communities which though there are problems as well with these stereotypes and can close certain doors, it can leave certain economic doors fairly open. For example, Asians being smart as a common stereotype won't bias a boss to hiring them in well paying careers in the medical field. BUT other stereotypes can also hurt them (asian men are less attractive, for example, leading to difficulty with dating sites or in the acting world in the US, etc). Cultural push to seeking out white collar jobs and having a model minority stereotype will open SOME doors, while leaving others still difficult to walk through.

Another problem with lumping this all as culture is that the evidence doesn't fully support it.  A couple years ago, there were a couple major studies on race and economic mobility over generations. Among the results that black children were less likely to maintain the level of socioeconomic status that they grew up in and more likely to fall into poverty, there also appeared to be a stark difference based on gender (ie black men had the larger effect, black women did not). In upper income levels, the gap actually increases though both white and black boys fair better than their poorer counterparts. They noted that there are circumstances where this gap is reduced or mitigated. It entails lower poverty communities, with higher percentage of present fathers, and lower racial bias/stigma in the area. These communities though are few and far between, according to the study. Two important quotes:

Too lazy to fix the quoting structure. The full report is 100+ pgs, but it can be found at the beginning of this link if you're interested https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/21/17139300/economic-mobility-study-race-black-white-women-men-incarceration-income-chetty-hendren-jones-porter 

Lastly, this focus on culture as the problem ignores one's own cultural biases in scoping out a problem. The white american ethos believes strongly in individualism, working hard to get ahead, and that anyone who puts in the effort can make it. These aren't necessarily bad, but they hold a blind spot to systemic problems and difficulties and just how important they are in effecting people's outcomes in society. It also pushes out societal introspection and keeps this problem marginalized as simply a black american issue. The rest of society can be expunged from any form of responsibility to this. And it can equally lead to an unintentional jugdment on black american culture and subesquently people. The underlying message is unintentionally that something about black culture is antithetical to success and they should fix it if they want to get ahead.  

And even on the parts that may have more black american community issues do not note that at times the larger society and culture is putting exaggerated stress on said community. So some may be drawn to the part about absentee fathers....but that ignores that part of the reason there’s higher numbers is disproportionate incarceration rates. Said rates are based on long standing national and state policies that dramatically increased our prison population and out culture that’s built around punishment moreso than reform and reintegration into society. 

I will not say that cultural/economic factors do not have a place in these issues. They do. But sussing them out from all the other larger societal/historical/dominate cultural factors isn't really possible. And in doing so or deemphasizing their influence can be just as diempowering/demoralizing. 

Edit: I just noticed your most recent post. I don't know how much these overlap, but I'll be sure to respond more if needed when I have the chance.  

With luv,

BD

I think that there is much evidence that does support the premise that poverty culture plays more of a role in poverty than skin color.  Think about how significant the role of poverty culture plays in poverty in general.  There are plenty of white impoverished people.  The culture is passed on from generation to generation.  It is extremely hard to break.  Even being white can't break the cycle. We can't blame the color of their skin for their poverty.  If changing the color of a person's skin can't fix poverty among white people, what makes us think that eliminating prejudice and racism will fix the poverty problem among black people?  If we think that poverty culture is strong among white people, think about how much stronger it would be coming from a history of hundreds of years of slavery and knowing nothing but poverty after that?   If the grasp of poverty culture is so powerful among white people, why should we suspect that it is any different among black people?

We simply don't have enough information to conclude that color is the primary contributing factor of downward mobility between races.  If anything, those studies show that we should be decrying "Asian privilege".  There could be plenty of cultural factors that might explain downward mobility between different cultures. 

Quote

 

Again, we do not deny the importance of macrostructural conditions, such as the concentration of wealth and income, the spatial segregation across classes and racial groups, or the per- sistent international migration of labor and capital. Instead, we argue that since human action is both constrained and enabled by the meaning people give to their actions, these dynamics should become central to our understanding of the production and reproduction of poverty and social inequality.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/lamont/files/reconsidering_culture_and_poverty_2.pdf

 

 

You mention some of the problems with early culture poverty theory back in the 60's.  Much of it led to victim blaming and ignored structural problems, etc.  The thing is, people are about as much in control of their poverty as they are in control of their culture.  Not much control there.  Blaming people for their culture/poverty will not solve anything.  Understanding the poverty as largely a cultural perception issue however, can help us better address the problem of poverty through appropriate systemic structural changes.  Much more effective than pointing the finger at white-privilege and largely blaming white people's prejudices for black people's problems.   Telling people in poverty that they simply need to change their perceptions and culture is not going to solve anything.  Giving them equal opportunity and eliminating skin-color prejudice will not solve the problem either.  Poverty needs to be viewed as a societal problem.  Drugs are a big problem that contribute to poverty.  The difference between a rich kid with a drug problem and a poor kid with a drug problem is that the rich kid has parents with the resources and cultural wherewithal to help rescue them.  Poor kids will need societal and structural support to provide those resources that their parents can't offer.  This NPR episode addresses that:

Quote

Kids in the ghetto do not have that, you see. And what we're hoping to do is to provide these kids with the same resources to help them recover, to help them move out of situations that are ultimately detrimental. That's why I emphasize the Harlem Children's Zone. Here, we have a program that gives kids the opportunity and also make kids aware that they have something to look forward to, and their behavior changes as a result.
These kids are not involved in drugs, for the most part. They're not having children out of wedlock. They're studying hard. They're excited about school because they have been given the opportunities and they have been made aware that they have a future.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102246990

I truly believe that the "white-privilege" mentality largely misses the issue and will not solve anything.  If anything, it will exacerbate racial tensions and further divide us.  I also find it disempowering for the same reasons that co-dependency is disempowering.  We need to find systemic ways to create structural resources to address negative cultural influences in the home, much like the Harlem Children Zone.

 

 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to post
4 hours ago, pogi said:

What about your own experience, how has your skin tone affected your advantage/privileges as compared to your white peers?  Do you feel a significant disparity between your quality of life and that of your white peers, because of the color of your skin?   If I remember right, you are half-white/half-black.  Could some of your father's lived experience in the US be due to cultural differences that any immigrant might struggle with?  I am not questioning the accuracy of your father's experience, I am more curious as to your (more culturally/native born American) experience with black skin without the cultural baggage that you mention of other black Americans. 

First, i would state that being mixed is not the same as being black. I look significantly different than my full black siblings. I’m significantly lighter, my hair’s different, my racial identifiers can be a little bit chameleon, based on where you see me and when. Growing up in a white/mexican american family i still stood out. From time to time i’d experience the hard stare in the south. But i’ll never forget the difference of walking and interacting with one side in UT compared to with my black side. The attention and interactions were often notably different. Not all the time. But consistently none the less. My bio-dad had found ways to diffuse the awkwardness with people he interacted with. He’d tease them and warm them up and make it less awkward. But i never experienced that walking with my white mother or lighter siblings. 

He, my nigerian born step-mom, and my peruvian husband all share a lot in common as immigrants. But being an immigrant doesn’t fully account for some of the other treatments and experiences my bio dad in a place and time that was really REALLY white. My husband also sees the racism that exists in the US.

 

My experience of being mixed in the US also differs. In the sense of upward mobility that’s honestly too hard to say. My circumstances were easier in a lot of regards growing up than my next brother in line who ID’s white (he’s half moroccan but with no connections to said side). His start was ROCKY. Mine was mitigated by a lot of factors and I recognize that at key moments i was extremely lucky/blessed with people who helped open opportunities for me to walk through. If we hadn’t moved from a neighborhood going down hill to a more upper middle class texan town I would have never had my young women’s group that gave me better models for happiness and more stabe friendships. If i hadn’t had my “college coach” (a member of our ward) to help me navigate getting into school, i may have never made it to BYU. If I hadn’t connected with the dean and my future chair while in my undergrads - both interested in helping minorities succeed and develop - i may have not made it into my master’s program. I didn’t have nearly the amount of experiences other candidates had because I couldn’t afford to. I needed to work to barely make ends meet with limited help from family. At each transition in my life i had supportive usually white figures who knew there were likely racial and familial disparities that could act as barriers for me to move forward. I doubt any of them would assume they did much, but what they did do in essence was use their privilege and opportunities to help me out at very crucial periods in my life. 

Being mixed both afforded me some white privilege while also experiencing racial biases/prejudice. One of my big concerns raising my daughter is raising her in UT. My black siblings are all generally good and relatively well adjusted though my teen black brother has already experienced police issues. They all had more opportunities than some of their peers. My half navajo brother’s mom knew this and had him sent up off the reservation to my dad’s better school system to help assure a better future for him. But my half-sister who i havehad  limited contact to and she in turn has limited black contact growing up in UT county...well her journey was rough. And some of that’s familial with her immediate family. Some of that is race based. She seemed to accept blatant racist bullying with a shrug and sense of normalcy that horrified me. She had an eating disorder in high school. She had a very poor sense of who she was as a person. She’s also the sibling that looks the most like me. She’s not the only story i’ve heard of rough development as a racial minority in UT. I didn’t have that. Most of my childhood I didn’t stand out. My friends were always diverse. And so i’ve been looking for ways to mitigate the problems i’ve seen happen from raising a child in a very white state. And i’ve seriously contemplated moving out of the country for a time while they’re young to broaden their view. 

I guess that’s a long way of saying it’s complicated. But I wouldn’t say I’m handicapping my child by teaching them about potential racia issues may come up. My daughter also has a genetic (non-visible) disorder. Due to her needs, i’ll teach her what she needs to be aware of and the best ways to care for her health and manage the disorder. The US has problems that are based on historical and current racism. In order for her to grow healthier i want her to be aware of these and understand the best ways to manage it. 

With luv, 

BD 

  • Like 4
Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Did they run into any particular issues before they were able to accumulate enough to have a safety net?  Such as significant medical costs, an accident requiring major car repairs, did they have to care for extended family?

I would assume there would be a significant number who did not run into issues due to being relatively healthy, possibly having public transportation available or luck with not having accidents, etc.

The ones I know had some medical issues, but that didn't stop the overall strategy.

The key is to invest instead of spend.

The typical way is to pack two or three families in one house, money saved on rent is put into a house. House is paid off quickly, and other houses are purchased. 

Often medical expenses are not much of a problem because low income qualifies them for medicaid.

One of the people I am thinking of right now has three houses paid off. They still work in the fields for extra cash.  Most public assistance programs go off of income, not assets so they still qualify and often take advantage of these programs.

The key for these people is that they leverage the system rather than be held back by it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Danzo said:

The typical way is to pack two or three families in one house,

Smart move.  Too bad more Americans don't see that as a good strategy for new marrieds.

Link to post

I'd be interested in hearing perspectives on this story: Rutgers English Department to deemphasize traditional grammar ‘in solidarity with Black Lives Matter’

Quote

The English Department at Rutgers University recently announced a list of “anti-racist” directives and initiatives for the upcoming fall and spring semesters, including an effort to deemphasize traditional grammar rules.

The initiatives were spelled out by Rebecca Walkowitz, the English Department chair at Rutgers University, and sent to faculty, staff and students in an email...
...
Titled “Department actions in solidarity with Black Lives Matter,” the email states that the ongoing and future initiatives that the English Department has planned are a “way to contribute to the eradication of systemic inequities facing black, indigenous, and people of color.”

One of the initiatives is described as “incorporating ‘critical grammar’ into our pedagogy.”

It is listed as one of the efforts for Rutgers’ Graduate Writing Program, which “serves graduate students across the Rutgers community. The GWP’s mission is to support graduate students of all disciplines in their current and future writing goals, from coursework papers to scholarly articles and dissertations,” according to its website.

Under a so-called critical grammar pedagogy, “This approach challenges the familiar dogma that writing instruction should limit emphasis on grammar/sentence-level issues so as to not put students from multilingual, non-standard ‘academic’ English backgrounds at a disadvantage,” the email states.

“Instead, it encourages students to develop a critical awareness of the variety of choices available to them w/ regard to micro-level issues in order to empower them and equip them to push against biases based on ‘written’ accents.”

More here:

Quote

As a result of its mid-June meeting, the committee will also:

  • Require all English instructors to remotely attend at least one workshop on "how to have an anti-racist classroom."
  • Organize two teach-ins focused on Black Lives Matter, anti-racism, police brutality, and prison reform.
  • Develop internship initiatives to support the goals of "diversity and equity" and to "decolonize the Writing Center."
  • Design the reading for Rutgers Day 2021 to address anti-black racism and social justice.
  • Organize readings in 2020-2021 addressing issues related to the Black Lives Matter movement and systemic racism.

This seems like a pretty bad idea.  "The soft bigotry of low expectations" comes to mind.

At 17, I joined the Army and spent a year learning Russian 8 hours a day in a military language school in California.  At 19, I entered the MTC and started studying Mandarin Chinese, and then continued that study for two years while serving my mission in Taiwan.  At 21, I returned home and enrolled at BYU and majored in Chinese.  During this time I not only studied Chinese in school, I also continued to study it in a military setting.  Some years later, I enrolled in law school and started studying how to write "like a lawyer."

In all of these linguistic efforts, the objective was to help me assimilate into a broader culture and milieu.  My military instructors would have done me no favors by teaching me "non-standard" Russian so as to accommodate my "disadvantage" of it being a second language.  The whole point is is to overcome that disadvantage, rather than let it predominate over my efforts.

The same goes with Chinese.  A missionary could hope for no better compliment about his Mandarin than to be told that he sounded 标准 (biāozhǔn), or "standard."  Conversely, it was discouraging to have people comment about my 美国口音 (Měiguó kǒuyīn), or "American accent."  The objective was not to broadcast my Americanness, but to fit into the Mandarin-speaking milieu.  There was plenty about me that was obviously "American."  I sought to honor the Chinese culture by gaining some measure of proficiency in its language.  It would have been, well, pretty weird for me to insist on maintaining habits of pronunciation, cadence, grammatical structures, vocabulary, etc. that mark me as an outsider and novice.  Or worse, as a person not particularly interested in mastering the language.  

I am grateful my military instructors, my MTC instructors and fellow missionaries, my professors at BYU, etc. were more interested in helping me learn and grow than in pandering to me.  The whole point of learning and education is to push us out of our comfort zones, to introduce to us new ideas and new skill sets.  To equip us to participate in the work force in meaningful and effective ways.

Rutgers is, I think, doing a disservice to its students.  Instruction in English should be about . . . instruction in English.  Not indulging in distractions about "'anti-racist' directives and initiatives ...including an effort to deemphasize traditional grammar rules."

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
Link to post
Quote

Instead, it encourages students to develop a critical awareness of the variety of choices available to them w/ regard to micro-level issues in order to empower them and equip them to push against biases based on ‘written’ accents.”

From the way it is described, it sounds like a great idea to me. They will be taught a variety of writing styles rather than a monolithic one and they can choose the ones that fit the purpose of their writing.  It doesn’t say the rules will be thrown out for technical writing, for example. 
 

No more 8th grade English teachers docking students for perfectly acceptable variations on “color” like “colour”.  It will make writing more interesting imo for writers and readers. And hopefully those trying to match dialects will have better examples to choose from so they don’t end up making a character look uneducated. 
 

Quote

The whole point of learning and education is to push us out of our comfort zones...

And insisting on a one size fits all writing rules is a massive comfort zone, imo. 
 

I always thought it was silly that Americans had to republish English texts to fit their American version out of concern they wouldn’t sell well when the whole point of many of those texts were to expose them to new ideas.

For example, “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone” is tons better than the “Harry Potter’s and the Sorcerer’s Stone”. The first hints at a distinguished and intricate history that kids might actually learn about while the latter is ‘oh, goody, another fantasy novel’.

Edited by Calm
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...