Well p6, back for another look.

If James would have left the moral judgement out, and had accounted for important exceptions, he'd have been dead on.

Moral issues are religous by nature, and to pass judgement on someone's morals in this context is to antagonize. Further, there are important exceptions, which need to be acknowedged and praised for what they are. But the biggest barrier by far to the education of black urban children is lack of parental involvement and control. These parents often care in some abstract space that their children aren't doing very well, but it doesn't compel responsible action..

This neglect creates a culture where peer pressure to fail exceeds any force for good.

Furthermore, this is a black problem. It afflicts and destroys nearly all public schools wth > 95% black enrolment. It's not caused by white people in the slightest, except as they allow it to continue because they're scared of being called racists if they point to the real problem or propose real solutions. The guy berated here needs some lessons in communication, but he was trying to say something important.

I'm familiar with an organization called "Teach for America". Teach for America operates on the premise that black schools fail for lack of good teachers. They recruit new college graduates, mostly non-black, typically from disciplines other than education. People not intending to teach, let alone in an urban school. They whip them through a summer program after graduation, and, feeling like your basic idealistic do-gooder, into the system they plunge.

Some find it surprising that the first day of school results in parents calling up saying "you're white, you have no business here". They find it surprising that students have no fear of repurcussions from "I'll kick your fucking ass". Because there are none. They find it surprising that half the students do exactly nothing in class involving education. Because they can, and the teacher is not allowed to do anything effective about it. Calling the parents results in a fight with the parent (or the parent irrationally lashing out against everyone around including the student).

So you tell us, p6. Do you see a problem? If so, is it a problem which is important? And finally, if so, if you were king, what would you do to solve it?

But the biggest barrier by far to the education of black urban children is lack of parental involvement and control. These parents often care in some abstract space that their children aren't doing very well, but it doesn't compel responsible action..

My problem with this is, you're guessing. More accurately, you're saying what would have to be true if you behaved the way you feel Black folks do.

Now, I can go into all the detail of the physical circumstances that make it hard on parents and families, but you know them already, you know they increase the odds against you. And I'm not talking race issues (for now). I'm talking then need for two or more incomes to keep a family afloat. Things like that. My parents have been together for GOD knows how long, but as a kid I didn't see much of either because they worked two jobs each.

And these are facts: drug users are the great majority of our incredibly large prison population, drug use is proportionately the same in the Black and white communities, yet most of the prisoners are Black.

Since what you see depends on where you look, they are obviously looking for the most part in Black communities. Now that had the race flavor but consider what would happen to the white conmmunities if their young men were the focus of all that attention.

We're not talking a simple lack of interest. Coincidentally I just posted a link to Reason Magazine's discussion of NCLB.

This neglect creates a culture where peer pressure to fail exceeds any force for good.

That's simply not the case. You're implying that all or most Black people fail…however you choose to define that, you'll find that's not the case. Most Black folks do not go to jail, barring stupid cops picking on kids that are just hanging out.

Furthermore, this is a black problem. It afflicts and destroys nearly all public schools wth > 95% black enrolment.

What else do those schools have in common? You've chosen a correlation, not a cause.

Some find it surprising that the first day of school results in parents
calling up saying "you're white, you have no business here". They find
it surprising that students have no fear of repurcussions from "I'll
kick your fucking ass".

What do you want? You think a couple of do-gooders will turn around a situation that has been building for decades? That's like expecting Oprah to end poverty by giving away cars.

You think teachers are the ONLY thing needed…especially new teachers they have no reason to assume is any different than the last new teachers?

We need deep reality checks. And what I'd do about it would probably get me assasinated because I'd require a nice, physically based worldly education and no school…none…would have outdated material or crumbling buildings. And I'd bring back phonics. And then I'd begin studying how to teach because we obviously haven't figured that out.

I would also recognize the world around the facts and skills we need to teach. That two income thing is the major stressor for most folks—I'm sure you've heard of latchkey kids. THese issues will be resolved only by parents having time to dedicate to their kids (which means a probably impossible adjustment to the economy) or by developing social institutions needed to support families under current conditions.

So I don't have a final formula. Just a view of the issues.

But the biggest barrier by far to the education of black urban children
is lack of parental involvement and control.

My problem with this is, you're guessing. More accurately, you're
saying what would have to be true if you behaved the way you feel Black
folks do.

I'm partially guessing about the cause alright, based indeed on my own experiences. I'm not guessing about the lack of involvement and control.

Things like that. My parents have been
together for GOD knows how long, but as a kid I didn't see much of
either because they worked two jobs each.

I observe you as successful. They must have done something ok, if imperfectly.

We're not talking a simple lack of interest.

Probably not. But we are talking lack of appropriate action.

This neglect creates a culture where peer pressure to fail exceeds any force for good.

That's simply not the case. You're implying that all or most Black
people fail…however you choose to define that, you'll find
that's not the case.

I know enough black people p6 to not claim anything like that. What I did observe was a particular urban black school. In that school, most black kids failed, in an educational sense. Way more than half. Long ago I sorted it out that the successful black people I know didn't attend such a school. That their childhood was far more like mine than what these students were experiencing. I don't know what percentage of those failed kids end up in prision, but surely it's significant.

Furthermore, this is a black problem. It afflicts and destroys nearly all public schools wth > 95% black enrolment.

What else do those schools have in common? You've chosen a correlation, not a cause.

If a problem is afflicting a black school, it's a black problem regardless of cause.

Some find it surprising that the first day of school results in parents
calling up saying "you're white, you have no business here". They find
it surprising that students have no fear of repurcussions from "I'll
kick your fucking ass".

What do you want? You think a couple of do-gooders will turn around
a situation that has been building for decades?

1. I want disruptive kids removed from the school.
2. I want disruptive parents removed from the school.
3. I want kids to be taught in their margin, meaning, it's better for them to be learning how to multiply integers rather than failing to learn how to add fractions. It's better to graduate a semi-skilled construction worker than a failed preppie. I think we need a system which combines the best of the American system with the best of the world eductional system. The world system is based on testing and tracks. Every few years you take a test and the results put you on a track.

I'd keep the American notion that anyone can try and try again, such that they eventually could move up off a lower track.

I would dump in a heartbeat the American notion that all first graders could succeed at Harvard if only the educational system doesn't let them down.

You think teachers are
the ONLY thing needed…especially new teachers they have no reason to
assume is any different than the last new teachers?

I believe good teachers are important, but the system I observed simply burned though them because of lack of reward. The Teach for America mechanism was not working. Yes, even in this school there were some important exceptions. Kids who five years later are excelling. But to watch the majority of one's students fail utterly will sap the energy of even the most dedicated teacher. To observe the reasons for that going unaddressed leaves no hope.

And I'd bring back phonics. And then I'd begin
studying how to teach because we obviously haven't figured that out.

You and I have agreed before, p6.

We're not talking a simple lack of interest.

Probably not. But we are talking lack of appropriate action.

Looks that way to folks who have the resources to take the appropriate response, doesn't it?

You and I have agreed before, p6.

Yup.

Strikes me our difference is long vs. short term approach. Both are needed…I don't argue for short term fixes because everyone else already does. And a proper long term plan takes the short term stuff into account anyway.

I also don't want to commit to a short term plan until some momentum has built up behind a long term plan.

Looks that way to folks who have the resources to take the appropriate response, doesn't it?

It's interesting to examine the history of horrible parenting.

We don't have to look that far back to find kids attending school who couldn't afford shoes, and thus, embarassingly exposing the poverty, attended school barefoot.

And yet, these kids succeeded, because their parents were good parents.

In this era, truly bad parents in the style we've discussed had their kids removed from them. This was rare, because horrible parenting was rare. The community did not tolerate it. All with vasly fewer resources than today's failing communities.

It's got nothing to do with resources.

It's got a lot to do with seeing the dignity of the parents to supercede the interests of the children. It's got a lot to do with a society which is willing to persist with programs which park entire communities of people into dysfunctional contexts for life, thinking that they're doing better than nothing.

Back to the past. Say the '30s. Almost everyone was poor. Yes, there was welfare, but it was profoundly different. The big one, it was local. The local county taxed itself and distributed money to the poor. But you know, they cared to see that they were getting what they were paying for, and by and large they did.

Indeed, there were plenty of things wrong with life in the '30s, but we've lost the value provided when assistance comes with an expectation of value. We've lost the interaction between the the recipient community and the donor community.

Those horrible parents we're discussing need our attention more than our money. Some will prove beyond help, and their kids need to be separated from them. Others will respond, albeit sometimes grudgingly, making a lot of noise about the attention being unwelcome. They will feel like they are being treated like children themselves.

It's a process often painful to both sides, but history shows it works, and results in strong communities with less personal division between rich and poor.

Lovely theory. But that only works when those being developed feel a part of the community that is shaping their lives. Otherwise it feels like domination…as, in fact, it is.

You've got to do it without the domination thing. That NEVER makes a people feel welcome and never makes a people welcome others.

And the fact is, it takes resources to do what YOU suggest.

Of course it's domination, and would be unwelcome.

But domination is totally compatible with community. Domination is required when things are off track. It's required. This kind of situation is not going to be cleaned up by voluntary changes in behavior. Change must be forced.

This is what I meant by putting the dignity of the parents ahead of the needs of the children. Until we can get past some barrier which says we can't insult the misbehaving parents, we can't make any progress.

Yes, it would require resources. However, success has a thousand fathers.

But domination is totally compatible with community. Domination is required when things are off track. It's required. This kind of situation is not going to be cleaned up by voluntary changes in behavior. Change must be forced.

We are no longer sympatico. If I accept this I'm sure we disagree on whose behavior needs domination. Given that Black folks don't run the show, changing us won't change how things work.

The important thing is, you know your approach is an attempt to dominate. Whether you disrespect those who resist domination is the next point of interest.

It's about horrible parents, not "Black folks".

Indeed, most people, black and white alike, continue to stick with the opinion that failed children is a price well worth paying to avoid insulting adults.

The years and generations go by.

It's about horrible parents, not "Black folks".

Oh?

Conservatives are greatlt concerned about the message that is sent by decisions and statements.

Furthermore, this is a black problem. It afflicts and destroys nearly all public schools wth > 95% black enrolment.

What else do those schools have in common? You've chosen a correlation, not a cause.

If a problem is afflicting a black school, it's a black problem regardless of cause.

But domination is totally compatible with community. Domination is required when things are off track. It's required. This kind of situation is not going to be cleaned up by voluntary changes in behavior. Change must be forced.

So this domination is to be inflicted on Black people. Because it's a Black problem regardless of its actual cause.

Think a while.

So this domination is to be inflicted on Black people.

So p6, you think the status quo is a good buy? You think those failed kids are worth it, as a defense aginst black adults being insulted?

As to simpatico, it doesn't attract an audience.

So this domination is to be inflicted on Black people.
So p6, you think the status quo is a good buy? You think those failed kids are worth it, as a defense aginst black adults being insulted?

And you think the solution is to force people to better position themselves on a rotting floorboard?

As I said, I have a view of the problem, and a major part of it is the mainstream perception of Black folks as objects to be manipulated to prove some agenda of theirs correct. Another is we have always lived in the interstices of society…when society rolls over some of us get crushed. And historically, every time Black folks rose up out of those interstices we were beaten back down, legally and physically.

And yet we still advance. Gotta be scary as hell to a certain type. Which is why the KKK wears white hoods--so no one can identify who is wearing the sheets with yellow stains.

Your solution…apply more force…fails. It's that simple. Besides, we've been dominated since Massachussetts legalized slavery. Look how THAT turned out.

As to simpatico, it doesn't attract an audience.

I could have said your opinion is full of shit…

Look, I'm still fixing links I broke with this reorganization of my sites. So I have a choice: keep wandering through the issue to see where you're going or point you to my understanding of the heart of the problem. I referred to it on Blogcritics in my first long discussion with Eric. Check it out, come back.

Your solution…apply more force…fails. It's that simple.

It doesn't fail when examined historically.

It doesn't fail when examined in a family context in millions of families all over the world.

It doesn't fail in the context of the Mormon church (which I don't agree with religiously, but find an interesting social experiment because it is successful).

Furthermore, this kind of force is strongly correlated with a sense of belonging to a community. A community which cares. A community which takes pride in all success, but particularly success from a difficult position. A community which raises self esteem. A community which is willing and able to force the issue when it needs to be forced.

==
Feel free to ignore me p6 and I'll go away. I think any blog benefits from having active intellectual controversy, and I'm happy to be part of that, but surely you have no obligation to continue if it's not entertaining to you. For after all, that's what we're here for. To entertain ourselves and our audience. To enjoy.

Feel free to ignore me p6 and I'll go away.

???

I haven't ignored anyone, though some wish I had. And entertainment isn't quite what's on the plate here. You got a genuine disagreement, a constructive approach, an interest in which you are forming an opinion, fine but if you're here because it's a fun issue to dispute, frankly you're not welcome. This is not a fun issue for any Black person.

But to the point…

Your solution…apply more force…fails. It's that simple.

It doesn't fail when examined historically.

It doesn't fail when examined in a family context in millions of families all over the world.

It doesn't fail in the context of the Mormon church (which I don't agree with religiously, but find an interesting social experiment because it is successful).

But in the most recent 385 years of history it has failed with Black Americans. Miserably. Our colony being internal to the Empire made a lot of difference. Plus in every case where it succeeded, both parties ultimately agreed they were members of one community.

We've never had that in the USofA. And it wasn't Black folks who were the obstacle, was it?

Truthfully, I'm not sure flesh can support more force than has already been appied. There is a limit. A physical, not psychological or spiritual but a physical limit beyond which you are a destroyer…no matter your intent.

And (collective) your intent is to solve (collective) your problem, not ours…even though helping us solve our problem would ultimately eliminate yours.

This is not a fun issue for any Black person.

That's a matter of individual choice.

I would observe that fun does not imply frivolity, insincerity, or lack of seriousness.

If your ideas are sound, and attractive to an audience, they will survive my comments. And if my ideas are sound and attractive, they will survive your comments. You, I, and the audience can all derive pleasure from the process. I'm not one of those who seeks to have a colorblind society. I'm one of those who derives pleasure from exploring the differences.

But in the most recent 385 years of history [force] has failed with Black Americans. Miserably.

History is rich with lessons for the present, but is only a limited source of information regarding why we are what we are. Our parents and our own experiences have made us what we are, not events of 300 years ago. Suggesting that slave era force is comparable to a community forcing the issue of bad parents is patent hyperbole. It fails to engage the point. Suggesting that slave era force is something which defines living black people is directly contradicted by the existence of millions of successful Blacks in America today.

And (collective) your intent is to solve (collective) your problem, not ours

As you might guess p6, I don't live amongst street crime.

even though helping us solve our problem would ultimately eliminate yours.

I'm sure that if I was not a newcomer, I'd understand your proposal better. But as it is, I don't understand it beyond that it rejects force as a technique.

If your ideas are sound, and attractive to an audience, they will survive my comments. And if my ideas are sound and attractive, they will survive your comments.

There's a level on which I'm really curious about this aspect of the last few comments. I don't believe "check it out, come back" is a sign of avoidance or even annoyance.

But in the most recent 385 years of history [force] has failed with Black Americans. Miserably.

History is rich with lessons for the present, but is only a limited source of information regarding why we are what we are. Our parents and our own experiences have made us what we are, not events of 300 years ago.

So when you said

It doesn't fail when examined historically.

I should have just ignored it.

Okay.

Our experience includes our environment. That's physical and social. And the same goes for our parents. And their parents…and suddenly you're talking about people who knew ex-slaves personally. If you can accept people going almost to war for the right to fly the Confederate battle flag you need to be more understanding of Black folks.

And socially the whole nation lets Black kids know exactly what they need to be to get paid. The mainstream says it doesn't want them gangster but buys up all the violent commercial rap, the video games, inflate their mannerisms and wear them like blackface makeup. This nation, by its behavior wants Black folks to be degenerate. Non-threatening and entertaining, but degenerate. And they pay for it. Well.

I don't believe "check it out, come back" is a sign of avoidance or even annoyance.

Got it, p6. I'm here.

The general nature of lessons from history is of analogy. As we know, analogies are never perfect, but it's not unusual that we can find some historic situation which seems close to the present one, and we can see how things worked or how they worked out.

That's way distinct from using history to define the present, particulary when such a definition is negative in its affect on how people see their potential.

But back to the analogy. I see nothing even close that we might learn from the slavery era to life in the present. In a context where families could be and frequently were forcefully split up, you're not going to find much community.

However, in the first half of the recently departed century, despite segregation, overt, effective barriers to success, active politicians who belonged to the KKK, large scale black migration to the industries of the north, and substandard funding for black schools, what we do not find are anything close to the failed inner city school we find today. We find that the worst of that era is, socially, far better than the worst of today. Nor is this contextual success derived from anything white people did, it was nearly completely because there did exist a community, and that community had its standards. These people were poor and playing a game rigged against them, but they supported each other. Imperfectly, of course.

It's that notion of community which is collectively missing from the parents of failing kids in today's failed schools. Instead, those who are on the ball fear retribution if they get involved. Eventually they move to somewhere where life is better.

It's that notion of community which has been destroyed by impersonal welfare programs, and other social phenomena designed to protect the dignity of adults, at the expense of children, who in turn become bad parents.

However, in the first half of the recently departed century, despite segregation, overt, effective barriers to success, active politicians who belonged to the KKK, large scale black migration to the industries of the north, and substandard funding for black schools, what we do not find are anything close to the failed inner city school we find today.

You don't find anything like the inner city in the first half of the twentieth century.

There's a Taoist saying: "When the wrong man uses the right means, the right means works the wrong way." And the requirements for healing are greater than those for growth.

You're speaking for the greater American society, built by, and to meet the expectations of, "The Greatest Generation." You have every reason to feel the domination of the mainstream as benevolent despotism. But the growth of the mainstream was paid for by damage to the Black communities. And to say that those so damaged should simply be whipped into shape is sadistic. Metaphorically so.

Black America needs no less than what was done for mainstream America. Not for reparations but because we did the things the mainstream claims earned it.

Now, if you have issues with the programs put in place ostensibly for this purpose, fine. White folks designed them, decided how they would work and who would benefit from them…I got issues too. And even so, had they not been fought tooth and nail to this very day it would all likely be over by now.

But the claim is now being made that Black people don't deserve this. That claim is historically blind.

Now, if you have issues with the programs put in place ostensibly for this purpose, fine. White folks designed them, decided how they would work and who would benefit from them…I got issues too.

So again we find common ground. The audience quickly looks forward.

Forgive the re-ordering.

Black America needs no less than what was done for mainstream America.

The era when things first went off track is one and the same as the era when a lot of things got on track. The '60s. The best of the 60's we know well, and can discuss. The worst of the '60s, and the direct cause of todays failed inner city shcools, was Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. Maybe more precisely, the worst of the '60s was a serious defect in the implementation of Johnson's Great SOciety.

The underlying social drive of the Great Society was that all Americans are entitled to a dignified life containing basic human requirements; he set out to utilize the power of the federal government to achive this end. He started the federal programs Food Stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), and Women with Infants and Children (WIC).

By some measures, these programs have been tremendously successful. Millions of currently successful Americans owe their success at least in part to these three programs. The problem is that when individual people fail to respond positively, even for extended periods, no one cares. No one cares because the rules are set by the federal government, affected by wishful, muddled analysis. The money comes from the sky. And the losers are trapped with no way out.

And even so, had they not been fought tooth and nail to this very day it would all likely be over by now.

I don't understand, can you elaborate?

Forgive the re-ordering.

Understandable. It's a tactic with few peers.

Black America needs no less than what was done for mainstream America.

The era when things first went off track is one and the same as the era when a lot of things got on track.

That may be true for the mainstream. I guess that depends on what the track is.

But for things to go off track they must first be on track, which was never the case for the Black communities. Your starting point of the 60s is arbitrary.

The track for individuals is that economic path laid out for the mainstream after WW II: education, employment with upward mobility, home ownership, supported by a wide dissemination of information about the programs and active help by its administrators.

The track for immigrant communities (which is my favored model for comparison: see Still the Promised City?: African-Americans and New Immigrants in Postindustrial New York by Paul Waldinger) is even more constant.

We are not off track because we were never allowed on track.

And even so, had they not been fought tooth and nail to this very day it would all likely be over by now.

I don't understand, can you elaborate?

You can.

Name a technique or program intended to close the gap between the Black and white communities that has not been rejected.

Your starting point of the 60s is arbitrary.

In 1955 we still had "whites only" and the back the bus. Enforced by the force of law. More relevant to this discussion, we had areas where Blacks (and only Blacks) lived, and areas where they were not allowed to live. We had schools where only Blacks attended, and schools where Blacks were not allowed to attend.

In 1975, all that was gone, replaced by affirmative action. The legal atmosphere was pretty much as we see it today, modulo some changes in affirmative action. So something important happened during the '60s.

We also observed the migration of Blacks from segregated, substandard areas into inner cities. Blacks came to own what had been prestigious neighborhoods only ten years before. Whites, and other non-Blacks, as we recall well, rapidly fled to the suburbs as crime rates rose. Again, between 1955 and 1975.

Now one might think that the new inner city Black communities would be the same as the old segregated black communities, but it wasn't to be. Fear of crime came to dominate the reaction to crime. In the neighborhoods I know best, the vast majority of people do not participate in crime or sell drugs. But they are scared, and don't confront it. This fear is a poison to the community, a poison which keeps the community from functioning as the community it once was.

The kids however are not scared. The thrills and cash from drugs are frequently irrestible.

One could also observe that many successful blacks have joined whites in the suburbs, but far from all have. Most homes are owned by people in the neighborhood, but often rented out. One guy might own three houses on the street, renting two of them out. Success by any definition, but he's still there. There's thousands of this guy in Boston, Detroit, and Oakland, and in other cities I've not studied.

Who are not out there are this guy's grandkids. He understands the problem, and he wants his grandkids to succeed. His kids are usually old enough to have moved away, or if they still live there, the grandkids attend a private school and maintain activities which isolate them from the local kids. And we're back to the public schools, which are increasingly left overpopulated with the kids of bad parents.

Bad parents who subsist on impersonal welfare in a context where no one confronts them. Bad parents who raise kids who become bad parents.

===
Can you offer us a synopsis of the book, P6? Maybe you could start another item to discuss the fate of immigrants as compared to Blacks.

Name a technique or program intended to close the gap between the Black and white communities that has not been rejected.

Any program intended to "close the gap" is in fact wrongheaded. The goal is an increase in the ratio of succesful Blacks / failed Blacks.

In 1975, all that was gone, replaced by affirmative action. The legal atmosphere was pretty much as we see it today, modulo some changes in affirmative action. So something important happened during the '60s.

Agreed. It just wasn't what needed to happen. I've already said what that is.

Can you offer us a synopsis of the book, P6?

Could. Won't. Anyone who is genuinely interested will follow through. Not to mention that I get to direct the discussion on P6 if it's going to be directed.

Name a technique or program intended to close the gap between the Black and white communities that has not been rejected.

Any program intended to "close the gap" is in fact wrongheaded. The goal is an increase in the ratio of succesful Blacks / failed Blacks.

Name a technique or program intended "increase…the ratio of succesful Blacks / failed Blacks" that has not been rejected.

Name a time when there was an "increase…the ratio of succesful Blacks / failed Blacks" when the white community didn't respond with violence, legal obstructionism, foot-dragging, and claims the effort on our part is undeserved.

Name a time when there was an "increase…the ratio of succesful Blacks / failed Blacks" when the white community didn't respond with violence, legal obstructionism, foot-dragging, and claims the effort on our part is undeserved.

Any program with a chance of success will be opposed by a substantial number of people who are either emotionally, monetarily, or ideologically invested in getting it stopped.

Take "charter schools". Charter schools are publicly funded, but privately operated. That's a bit scary, and screwy things have in fact occurred. They pretty much have to take any student who applies, but they can kick out disruptive students.

Teacher's Unions hate them, because the best of them make the local public schools look like the shameful mess they are. The unions indeed do their best to obstruct this program, although I've never heard of any violence.

Now I'm gussing this isn't quite what you meant, p6, but it's what comes to mind when I look around to see what you're talking about. Is there something else I should be seeing?

There's something else you should be saying. Let's break it down.

1 - name a program designed to increase the ration of successful Black folk to unsuccessful Black folks.
2 - of the programs you name, which have had a chance to operate unobstructed?

You know that's what you've been asked for.

Ok, I'll try to name them at all.

No program which uses the government to force one man to give up his position to another based largely on racial differences is worthy of discussion. Once we allow the government to start picking winners and losers from among races you can bet that it won't be long before we start changing winners.

But there do exist programs which are positive, with no losers (beyond taxpayers). Their intent is to improve the rate of success.

So here's what I can think of.
Head Start
Sesame Street
No Child Left Behind
Various programs intended to insure that kids know English
Various programs intended to recruit Blacks in particular to prestigious institutions
The fact that any black professional can get hired, at the head of the line, at any large company in America who is hiring such people at all. I.e., voluntary discrimination in an effort to present a good image.

Now, which of thos programs have majority support in the white communities?

This without discussing your assessment of them. However, I reject this one

The fact that any black professional can get hired, at the head of the line, at any large company in America who is hiring such people at all. I.e., voluntary discrimination in an effort to present a good image.

because the criterion was its intent is to increase the ration yaddayadda. This, in fact, is the reason I complain about: that it is done to resolve white folks' issues.

Thinking about it, you don't have to deal with this one either.

Various programs intended to recruit Blacks in particular to prestigious institutions

because those programs have been flat rejected. Now the programs are to increase diversity, recruit minorities across the board, to give white folks the exposure to minorities they need to deal with an increasingly diverse world.

To say that's for Black folks is like saying a cake is made "for" an egg you add to the batter.

Neither Head Start nor Sesame Street target Black folks specifically. Leave them out too.

Well, actually, tham means NCLB is out of considertion too.

Gee. You got nuthin'.

Want to try again?

When examining programs intended to increase the success rate of black children (and in turn, adults), why would we leave out programs which are racially neutral?

why would we leave out programs which are racially neutral?

Because there's no such thing.

But if we pretend there is, your list is a pre-kindergarten program and a TV show because the jury is still out on NCLB. This is what you'd have Black America build on.

I'm telling you Black America should get exactly what was given white America, and for the same reasons it was given. Do you deny either statement?

And for the record, if I denied it, if I said Black Americans can extract a fair share of America, standing in its minority position, with white America as firmly in control of the society and economy as it is, if I denied it that would be the strongest Black Supremacist statement possible. To say that 13% of the nation concentrated in some 7% of the land mass can force its will on the majority is a pretty piss-poor statement about the majority, isn't it?

But if we pretend there is, your list is a pre-kindergarten program and a TV show because the jury is still out on NCLB. This is what you'd have Black America build on.

I've never observed a "Black America" in need of something to build on. The Blacks I know well are all successful. I do observe unusuccessful Blacks, but "Black America" can't be only them.

However, we're interested in getting more of the uncessessful ones to become successful. In this context, yes, I think both Head Start and Sesame Street have a minor, but positive effect.

I also think both try to be race neutral. Do you observe them as failing to achieve that goal?

I'm telling you Black America should get exactly what was given white America, and for the same reasons it was given. Do you deny either statement?

So what do you see when you see "Black America"? What do you see when you see "White America"? I'm perfectly willing to engage the question, but I simply do not see anything which collects into any singularity for either one.

I also think both try to be race neutral. Do you observe them as failing to achieve that goal?

Yes. They consciously insure the various races are represented and are very cautious about how they represent each. Very, very race conscious.

So what do you see when you see "Black America"? What do you see when you see "White America"? I'm perfectly willing to engage the question, but I simply do not see anything which collects into any singularity for either one.

If you really did not see the singularities you couldn't talk about a thing being a "black problem" as you have.

You're spinning rather than being honest. And I won't explain anything you've already shown you're aware of.

Not to mention it's a avoidance of the question you have yet to answer. Scroll up the page a little way, I'm sure you'll find it.

If you really did not see the singularities you couldn't talk about a thing being a "black problem" as you have.

Definitions, but I take your point. I meant that differently, but maybe the way I meant it was muddled.

If we see a group of people with a problem, and all the people are black, are we observing a black problem? Previously, I suggested yes. NOw, I think we agree, that's not sufficient to define a "black problem". To be a black problem, we need at the very least a problem which is somehow directly related to being black. Sickle Cell Anemia might qualify. I'm not ready to claim that "horrible parenting" is tied to being black, because I don't know of any evidence for such a claim. Ok?

It's not "spinning" to see 40 million black people while failing to see a "Black America" which needs help. To do the latter first requires one to see the group rather than the individuals, and second to see that the group needs help.

If you'd like to group unsuccessful blacks into some category we can discuss, that's fine. Some valid generalizations exist. We can identify a set of problems which affect nearly all of them. We can discuss potential solutions. But you can't meaningfully title that group "Black America". On the other hand, if we group all black Americans together, we have very few if any valid generalizations. We can't make statements about problems or solutions, because the group has subsantial members with no problem and needing no solution.

==
Indeed, Head Start and Sesame St are very race conscious, and in a sterile sort of way. I'm not sure that's not "neutral", though.

So it's possible to be race concious and race neutral at the same time. Fascinating.

If you'd like to group unsuccessful blacks into some category we can discuss, that's fine.

That's not my issue, remember?

Shifting the discussion to "unsuccessful Blacks" is a shift away from the important stuff. Conterbalance racism and we'll take care of being sucessful. We've done so well with the open opposition of the mainstream…since you never even attempted to say the mainstream has supported the efforts for Black folks to gais some sort of equity I assume you yield the point…just imagine how well we'd do with a commitment to address the damage willfully inflicted on the Black communities by the government of this country.

As I said before, as you never addressed, the Black communities should get exactly what the white communities did.

Can you give a valid reason to deny us?

We've wandered all over the place, but it's all in print. You should review the thread. Remind yourself of the positions you've argued and the questions you've avoided answering…I am very aware of all of the. Add that you advocate dominating Black folks for not adapting well to a system we're not allowed to adapt to and you could easily be classified as an enemy.

If you're honest you'll recognize the possibility.

Shifting the discussion to "unsuccessful Blacks" is a shift away from the important stuff.

Well fine, then let's discuss successful Blacks. But what we can't sensibly do is to discuss all Blacks as if they're facing the same problems and deficiencies, because they do not.

We have a similar problem with "the mainstream". Are their nut case racists among the mainstream? I assume so, but I don't know any of them personally, nor do I interact with any of them online. In general I observe that people who are looking for someone to feel superior to are projecting their own feelings of inferiority, a line seriously devoid of entertainment value.

When I look around my world, "the mainstream" in fact applauds success, and particularly Black success. My world isn't the whole world, but it's not some gated paradise either.

So I observe no singular mainstream doing damage to some singular Black America.

I observe a lot of successful people of all races.

I observe a lot of unusccessful people of all races. I observe a phenomenom which appears peculiar to inner city black neighborhoods, the failing inner city school. It's peculiar because I don't observe any non-black analogs in other places.

When I check out the neighborhood to see how these unsuccessful students live, I find that they live with horrible parents. The horrible parents do not live in geographic isolation from success, but they do live in personal isolation from it. Because they're allowed to.

I'm fully aware that those horrible parents don't consider me their friend. That at any moment they prefer to continue with what they're doing rather than take the first step toward success, and they oppose people like me who, under threat of removing their children and their welfare, would demand improvement.

I'm fully aware that if we asked them "what would help you become successful", we would get asked for money, not personal involvment. I'm fully aware that people are telling them that their failure is not the result of bad decisions every day, but rather is caused by people like me who are willing to discuss forcing them to improve.

I'm tempted to classify such people, the people who point to something other than bad decisions, as the enemy of failing black students. I don't, because someone who is sincerely trying to help is not the enemy, even when they're utterly misguided and are pointing in the direction of continued failure.

Well fine, then let's discuss successful Blacks. But what we can't sensibly do is to discuss all Blacks as if they're facing the same problems and deficiencies, because they do not.

That's why I'm not discussing Blacks. You are.

I'm discussing the social conditions that obstruct Black people universally, across the board, though in ways that differ by social class. THAT is Black folks' problem.

I'm fully aware that if we asked them "what would help you become successful", we would get asked for money, not personal involvment. I'm fully aware that people are telling them that their failure is not the result of bad decisions every day, but rather is caused by people like me who are willing to discuss forcing them to improve.

The problem is you don't require improvement from anyone else. You don't even acknowledge the damage purposely inflicted that must be addressed.

The result of that looks EXACTLY like the response southern white folks have to having (a recently read quote) "PC shoved down our throat."

I observe a lot of unusccessful people of all races. I observe a phenomenom which appears peculiar to inner city black neighborhoods, the failing inner city school. It's peculiar because I don't observe any non-black analogs in other places.

When I check out the neighborhood to see how these unsuccessful students live, I find that they live with horrible parents. The horrible parents do not live in geographic isolation from success, but they do live in personal isolation from it. Because they're allowed to.

Are you seriously suggesting horrible parents are unique to inner city Black folks?

Tell me, what causes failure in white people? Pick whatever subset you like.

Tell me, what causes failure in white people?

Pretty much the same thing. Bad parents raise failed children who become bad parents raising failed children.

What is peculiar to inner city black areas is achieving a failure concentration level needed to destroy an entire school. One reason seems to be that it's more expected to fail as a black parent than as a white parent.

However, the solution is the same, and impersonal welfare doesn't work any better for failing whites than it does for failing blacks.

I'm discussing the social conditions that obstruct Black people universally, across the board, though in ways that differ by social class. THAT is Black folks' problem.

So explain for us p6, if you were King, what would you do to improve the success rate of black students?

What is peculiar to inner city black areas is achieving a failure concentration level needed to destroy an entire school. One reason seems to be that it's more expected to fail as a black parent than as a white parent.

That is white people's expectation, yes.

Nevermind that schools aren't properly supported (tax base, not emotion). It goes back to another question you never answered: what else do they have in common?

THAT is where you should be looking. You'll even be able to help white folks that live in the same conditions if you do.

So explain for us p6, if you were King, what would you do to improve the success rate of black students?

I'd leave it to the educators instead of the politicians.

And I'd give Black folks the same social and economic support white folks got.

That is white people's expectation, yes.

I was raised in a small town, about 7000 people, a long ways from any city.

In this town was exactly one black family. It was a 3-generation family, but basically one family.

I don't need to tell you that this family was successful, because you already knew that. It was unremarkable in context. No one imagined that they would fail.

Now I realize of course that this experience is atypical, and not really something one can generalize from, but on the other hand it's an example of something which did work.

I'd give Black folks the same social and economic support white folks got.

So how would that go?

I'd give Black folks the same social and economic support white folks got.

So how would that go?

The track for individuals is that economic path laid out for the mainstream after WW II: education, employment with upward mobility, home ownership, supported by a wide dissemination of information about the programs and active help by its administrators.

Ok, I'll buy that. I'd sure define success as a job and home ownership. Most people cease that "upward mobility" stuff somewhere along the line, but surely we wouldn't be satisfied if functioning people couldn't mobile up to a job enabling home ownership. That's what I want for my kids for sure.

But what would it mean to do it? Simply making education available is clearly insufficient. Without education one's choices in a job are surely limited to choices with little upward mobility.

So we're back to failing schools and failing students, and what to do about them.

But what would it mean to do it? Simply making education available is clearly insufficient.

It's a start, and more than has been done so far.

Don't knock it until you try it.

Speaking of trying things, do you think Black people should get the same assistance white people have? And if you don't answer this time that will close the conversation.

do you think Black people should get the same assistance white people have?

Sure, except that I'm still not sure what you're intending that to mean. You know me well enough to know I wouldn't favor assistance programs which neglected Blacks; no one else would either.

Consider that the failed school I know best was funded at a level (per student) substantially above the level of the best public schools in the state. All schools are, by default, funded at the same level. You don't get more money by doing well, but you do get more money by being among the worst ten schools in the state. The failing status got state attention, and more money, but that wasn't the problem.

There may well be solutions better than mine. I'd like to participate in a discussion of what they might be.

do you think Black people should get the same assistance white people have?

Sure, except that I'm still not sure what you're intending that to mean.

Well, I've posted it like three times in this thread.

You know me well enough to know I wouldn't favor assistance programs which neglected Blacks; no one else would either.

But I have this concern that when you say "not neglecting Blacks" you mean "dominating Blacks" without concern for correcting white folks' behavior as well.

And to be honest, I know humans, not you per se. I actively chose to be patient because you actively pursued the conversation. It is as new to me to have a calm discussion with someone with erroneous ideas on race as it is for you to discuss dominating Black people without being called racist.

All schools are, by default, funded at the same level.

You're really out of the loop.

Schools are funded by property taxes. Wealthier communities get better funding.

Let me ask this: do you know any wealthy school districts that are failing? Those 95% Black schools you mentioned that universally fail; are they wealthy districts?

There may well be solutions better than mine. I'd like to participate in a discussion of what they might be.

It would be useless at this point. We need an understanding on what needs to be fixed before we could get to the how.

Well p6, based on reaearch I have to back off a bit. I overgeneralized. Whiie my claim about funding is correct with respect to the school I know best, and all schools in California, it is not entirely true for every state in the country. Apparently, it is only totally, and constitutinoally true in Ca, MI, and HI. Some states fund unequally, although this seems to be far less a factor than it was 40 years ago. If you have observed unequal funding, I accept that.

Howerver, I will point out again that the failed school I know best is overfunded as compared to the most successful public schools in the state.

But I have this concern that when you say "not neglecting Blacks" you mean "dominating Blacks" without concern for correcting white folks' behavior as well.

You're really concerned that I'm willing to insult a bad parent of a failing child? NOt that you or the audience doubts it, but I suggest the exact same remedy for failing white parents.

Let me ask this: do you know any wealthy school districts that are failing?

No, I don't. Could it be that successful people tend to be better parents?

Those 95% Black schools you mentioned that universally fail; are they wealthy districts?
No, but they're not devoid of successful people either. Further, the schools are funded at a higher level than the successful schools. The evidence is overwhelming that lack of funding isn't the problem, and that more funding is not the solution.

But I have this concern that when you say "not neglecting Blacks" you mean "dominating Blacks" without concern for correcting white folks' behavior as well.

You're really concerned that I'm willing to insult a bad parent of a failing child?

No.

I'm concerned that it's an expression of an overall attitude that has inflicted massive damage on the Black communities already. I'm afraid it's not reducable to a mere insult (unless you're talking the medical term).

I'm concerned that you would let white folks off scott free and expect me to accept inflicting all the change on Black folks. Because when white folks get flaky again they'll look at us and demand me change. Again.

Time to stop that cycle. Time for white folks to get serious about getting right.

Let me ask this: do you know any wealthy school districts that are failing?

No, I don't. Could it be that successful people tend to be better parents?

Could it be that wealthy school districts don't have decaying buildings, outdated books, teachers that have no connection to their kids and culture? Could it be that kids from wealthy parents have no doubt they are accepted and supported? Could it be that wealthy parents can afford tutors and all manner of ways to enrich a child's experience?

Could it be that wealthy districts are just as full of inherited wealth that disqualifies the owner from consideration as "successful" because they didn't do a damn thing to get it?

Aristotle said a certain degree of wealth is a requirement for wisdom and happiness (Nicomachean Ethics, I think...been a while). I suspect you agree.

I'm concerned that it's an expression of an overall attitude that has inflicted massive damage on the Black communities already.

An attitude that the cycle of failure must be forcefully broken?

I'm concerned that you would let white folks off scott free and expect me to accept inflicting all the change on Black folks.

Unnamed white people with vaguely unsumpathetic behavior aren't causing this problem. Bad parents, with clearly identifiable behavior are causing this problem. People who observe that behavior and blame someone else are not helping.

Could it be that wealthy school districts don't have decaying buildings, outdated books, teachers that have no connection to their kids and culture?

The school I know best had none of these things. None. The taachers were mostly black, qualified, and looking educate. The facility was modern, nothing wrong with it. The administration was in fact a bit suspect, but they may not have been free to really address the issues either.

An inssue we've not crossed: 30 years ago schools were funded based on enrollment. Massive truancy was observed in failing schools, and now the schools are funded based on daily attendance. Maybe this one doesn't universally generalize either, but the effect has not been positive. It's a primary reason why disruptive kids are not suspended. So they're not truant, they're disrupting classes. Not an improvement.

Could it be that kids from wealthy parents have no doubt they are accepted and supported?

This one might be closer. Indeed, kids of successful parents (success is the desired goal, not "wealth") feel better about themselves. Kids whose interaction with their parents is dysfunctional are far more likely to feel unwanted; frequently, they literally are unwanted.

Could it be that wealthy parents can afford tutors and all manner of ways to enrich a child's experience?

Tutors are rare, but enrichment is not. Enrichment does not take wealth. It does take involvment. It taks going places, seeing things, and having experiences with other people. Taking kids to the zoo is cheap and highly enriching. Taking them to the park is enriching. Just being part of their life, being supportive and loving is enriching. All of these things are regularly done by successful parents of all races, and are avoided by failing parents. Taking a kid to Paris is no more "success granting" than taking him to the local downtown for lunch.

Could it be that wealthy districts are just as full of inherited wealth that disqualifies the owner from consideration as "successful" because they didn't do a damn thing to get it?

No. This is America. Truly wealthy districts are rare, and the children of wealthy people tend to attend private school in any case. The typical successul school district is a place where poor people greatly outnumber the wealthy, but where successful parents continue to send their kids to public schools, and where such students massively outnumber the kids of failing parents.

Sure, I agree that success is rewarding. That one of our goals is to make sure that children experience success early and often. I'd have such a goal for adults as well, and in some abstract sense I do. However, I suppose I agree with you, if they're determined to remain failures, I'd leave them go. I'd like to break the kids loose.

I'm concerned that it's an expression of an overall attitude that has inflicted massive damage on the Black communities already.

An attitude that the cycle of failure must be forcefully broken?

An attitude that white people are not the creators of the situation that needs forceful breakage. An attitude that only Black people must change. An attitude that allows white folks to continue with the same manipulations that caused the problem and will re-cause it if they are not stopped.

Unnamed white people with vaguely unsumpathetic behavior aren't causing this problem.

You're right. Well known conservatives with active hostility to Black folks prevent any approach to a real solution.

People who observe that behavior and blame someone else are not helping.

Then stop. Make unnamed white people take responsibility for their part of the mess.

Could it be that wealthy school districts don't have decaying buildings, outdated books, teachers that have no connection to their kids and culture?
The school I know best had none of these things. None. The taachers were mostly black, qualified, and looking educate. The facility was modern, nothing wrong with it. The administration was in fact a bit suspect, but they may not have been free to really address the issues either.

Statistical outlier.

We're dealing with collective issues. It makes no sense to do an analysis based soley on exceptions.

Which school are you talking about anyway? Unnamed schools are piss-poor examples and not something you can really base a conversation on. Okay, you can talk about them, but it's just talk.

The typical successul school district is a place where poor people greatly outnumber the wealthy,

And an upwardly mobile middle class vastly outnumber both.

Now, if you really want to talk the "typical" you really have to drop your best example, don't you?

An attitude that allows white folks to continue with the same manipulations that caused the problem and will re-cause it if they are not stopped.

If you think white people are doing things right now which is causing this problem, then let's see what you mean. Something identifiable.

You're right. Well known conservatives with active hostility to Black folks prevent any approach to a real solution.

Is this what you mean? You think that well known conservatives have any affect whatsoever on failing inner city parents?

Which school are you talking about anyway?
Lowell Middle School, Oakland. Enter that into Google and you can find lots of information about the problem, and various controversy about any potential solution. I don't see where it's a statistical outlier. To the contrary, I see plenty of evidence that other failing schools are failing for the same reasons that Lowell is failing.

And an upwardly mobile middle class vastly outnumber both {poor and wealthy].

Correct.

Now, if you really want to talk the "typical" you really have to drop your best example, don't you?

Eh? I believe Lowell is typical of a failing inner city school. I don't believe it's typical of an American public school.

You're right. Well known conservatives with active hostility to Black folks prevent any approach to a real solution.

Is this what you mean? You think that well known conservatives have any affect whatsoever on failing inner city parents?

No, they have an effect on failing inner city schools.

We're talking past each other. I never said unskilled parents don't need help. But you're saying underfunded schools don't need funding. All that's needed is to punish the parents.

Give the Black community the same things the white community has been given and we'll handle the rest.

I never said unskilled parents don't need help. But you're saying underfunded schools don't need funding. All that's needed is to punish the parents.

Maybe I should restate what I said regarding what needs to be done for failing inner city schools:

For the short term, remove disruptive students and parents from the school. Tolerate no behavior which disrupts the educational environment. Reward those who do care to achieve education.

For the long term (in other words, I agree these can't be done without a basic shift in our analysis of the problem):
1. Teach in the margins, teach what a student will learn rather than above that.
2. Insist on better parenting, under threat of loss of child custody.

===
Give the Black community the same things the white community has been given and we'll handle the rest.

The community under discussion, nearly all black, has a massive gulf between success and failure. Successful community members are afraid of crime, mind their own business, and get their kids into some alternative to the regular public school. They get along fine with white people. Failing community members just want to be left alone to fail, and fail they do. They'll play any card, including some illogical race card, to be left alone. What can we give this community which will help? "What the white community has been given" is hard to get a grip on. Successful communities, including black communities, give to themselves. And it works.

Bad parenting is not simply "unskilled". It's not lack of skill which values intoxicants above the interests of one's own offspring. It may be lack of skill which results in the vulgar, degrading outburst being a primary mode of parental communication with such kids, but surely lack of community confronting either one is essential in perpetuating the cycle.

The community under discussion, nearly all black, has a massive gulf between success and failure. Successful community members are afraid of crime, mind their own business, and get their kids into some alternative to the regular public school. They get along fine with white people.

Everyone is "afraid of crime" except criminals…and even they don't want OTHER people doing crime on THEM.

Mind their own business? Which means they have no community or what?

And most folks, Black or otherwise, do pefectly well with their public school education.

"What the white community has been given" is hard to get a grip on.

I've already spelled it out four times and will not do so again. Go back and actually consider what I'm saying.

Bad parenting is not simply "unskilled".

Then you're talking either a vanishingly small fraction of the communities or simply your own preconceptions.

By the way, you should know the comments on any given post close in one month so there's a limit to this conversation. You got like two weeks to come up with something convincing.

Lord, where do you find the patience to deal with know-nothings like dwshelf? From his first two or three entries, his agenda is clear: He is a Great White Father here to straighten the darkies out. From there his remarks are just one ill-considered, unsubstantiated and/or bigoted claim after another.

I believe Bill James is purposely currying favor with his constituency with the remarks he made. The current version of 'blacks are inferior' is the 'moral degeneracy' tirade he engaged in. Visit just about any neo-Confederate or far Right site and you will see it there. Futhermore, another Right Wing Republican elected official in North Carolina, Billy Yow, raised his profile and approval rating considerably by making similar remarks during the last couple years. The highlight was when he designed and marketed a tee-shirt picturing a white kid urinating of a flag marked NAACP.

Meanwhile, that Charlotte school system is in federal court because of a problem. Inept black students? No. Inept white administrators. They seem to have mismanaged the system out of much of its money.

I got several things working here, Mac. As I told him some 30 comments ago, this ain't exactly about entertainment. That sets me in a particular mode.

dw is by no means a know-nothing. But my "patience" comes from knowing for a fact there's nothing he can do to really support his case. Catching and pointing out evasions is a useful demonstration for others. Showing you don't have to allow him to control the language and terms of the discussion, especially in my house, is useful.

His patience with me has the same basis. Unfortunately for him, his arguments are all conceptual. By keeping it real…and rational…you get folks to say things like that they feel dominating Black folks and letting white people ttally off the hook is the right thing to do. You might remember when Solo (nee S-Train) had his burglar problem, I drew out an admission from one of his biggest detractors that the reason he didn't believe it had nothing to do with fact. It was he was afraid Black people would start shooting white racists and he'd be on the list.

I feel I'm serving roughly the same function for my communities that dw is serving for his--strong backstop for the gatekeepers. His communities have structure…we need that. We've been responding amoeba-like, shifting shape and absorbing blows. But you need a skeleton, a solid core, an internal structure, to apply leverage.

I intend to show that possible. I hope to initiate the process or to help anyone that can get it rolling before I can. So the patience is not for dwshelf. Not at all.

I thank you for your patience, p6, even though I benefit from something intended for the audience. I sometimes feel this way when I enjoy the view of a fine looking, sexily dressed young lady in public. She looks that way to attract the gaze of men all right, but I strongly suspect I'm not among the men whose gaze she's seeking to attract. But I silently thank her nonetheless.

I'm quite willing to believe that solutions exist beyond my own imagination. I wasn't born believing what I now propose, I developed this analysis from experience and interaction with other people.

Further, I've come to understand analyses which I do not accept, but for which I understand the intellectual compulsion on other people. In other words, these alternatives are not simply attractive to those who operate on emotion or other unthinking behavior, but they are intellectually compelling in some context I've not experienced or explored. This is analytic progress. While I agree I don't as yet grasp the nuances of the context which so powerfully defines your analysis, I've gained a bit of insight for which I thank you. I hope the audience has similarly benefitted.

I hope you're not too offended, but you were the one that cast the conversation in terms of the audience. And I did warn you, I don't do this for enjoyment.

Here's the thing: you argue within a paradigm while I argue about it…I see no need to accept a paradigm that I find insulting and hostile, whether or not I find you to be so. In fact, I don't even have to consider whether or not you as a person are hostile.

Changing ideology without changing the culture that creates ideology changes little. In those rare moments that it happens, the content of a specific brain may be modified ever so slightly. Unfortunately, the context that produced the content is unaffected by...

I didn't come here to get offended p6, it wasn't among the possibilities. Nor do I mind the intemperate reactions of my fellow commenters. That's the territory.

I write for the audience because it helps me write about what I think rather than what I feel.

It seems a reasonable stopping point for a variety of reasons. For one, as you have suggested, we seem to have explored the territory as best we were going to do. As you might guess, this isn't the first time I've engaged this question. It has however been unique, and educational in a way I've not experienced before. I thank you for that. It's time for me to back off, absorb the experience, and assemble a more complex position.

As VC hints, ideology doesn't change by epiphany. We do observe however that a lifetime results in major changes for many, maybe most as they gain experience with other people. Good experiences drive good changes. For me, this has been a good experience.

Excellent, because it wasn't my intent to drive you away.

I find it necessary to keep in mind the difference between getting in someone's head and getting in their face. I find them mutually exclusive and only one of the two options EVER works.

--Changing ideology without changing the culture that creates ideology changes little.--

Ideology and the culture in which it is prevalent interact. Changing the culture without changing the ideology.....just won't happpen. A simple example is 'PC' language. It might be annoying for some, but it alters the symbolic context of both speaker and listener enabling discussion/communication that could previously have been mired in unintentional (or intentional) emotion.

Really bad example imho. One might note the parallel rise and coalescence of the right into the dominant political force in America. I believe the imposition of PC language could be more persuasively shown to have a causal bearing on the proliferation of conservative talk radio -(conservative radio talkers certainly make that claim)- than of a context for useful or change inducing deliberation. Talk radio has arguably proven itself an extremely effective medium for influencing American politics and culture - precisely because it not only evokes but amplifies and sustains a set of emotional habits within its audience.

At the risk of piling on, I would also note the rise of the socio-economically segregated prison industrial complex on the back of the war on drugs. This cultural trend has had a powerful material impact on the socio-economic plight of segregated ghetto communities, and conversely, a powerful material impact on segregated rural communities that have realized the economic benefits of hosting the prison industrial infrastructure. Unfortunately, for one and all, the war on drugs and concommittant prison industrial does not appear to have reduced by a single jot or tittle the mass quantities of drugs peddled and consumed in America, but I digress.....,

Given a non-critical examination of the history of social change in America, it's understandable - in a purely symbolic way - how someone confined to a symbolic mode of awareness i.e., someone on the outside looking in, might come to imagine that a unilateral intervention to remove children from "immoral" parents would work to positively improve education outcomes in failing inner city schools. If memory serves correctly, something like this recommended cultural imposition was attempted on Australian and Native American aboriginal children?. Presumably, a similar axis of logic holds sway among the architects of our unilateral invasion of Iraq who we're told sincerely believe in the process of middle-eastern culture change or *democratization* that they've initiated.

However, let us be insofar honest with ourselves. An invasion is the ultimate material imposition of political will by one cultural group intent on materially changing or even eliminating another cultural group. If we view American culture as a language and cultural continuum, does it really make sense to formulate American culture change in terms of invading ghetto homes and liberating poor black children from parents who "lack the desire to act properly"? Proponents of the failed war on drugs would tell you that tale, but not only has the policy been less than fully successful, the motives underlying the policy may even be suspect.

For a Christian country, we certainly seem to have lost our collective moral bearings. The possibility of change - whether personal or collective - requires observing, remembering, and understanding. It requires examining one's own life to note patterns of repetition. Anamnesis is the precursor to admitting even the possibility of change. Without anamnesis, one is effectively, psychologically, outside of one's selves. This is what I elsewhere referred to as the hypnotic sleep of the ritual habitual.

Change, at the individual and collective levels, depends on even more than recognizing recurrent patterns. Real change depends on something grievously mistranslated as repentance metanoeia, but which really means something quite different than what we typically associate with *repentance* (meta=beyond and nous=mind.) When I get a minute, I'll elaborate more fully on the concept of metanoeia.

At the risk of piling on, I would also note the rise of the socio-economically segregated prison industrial complex on the back of the war on drugs.

This is a topic I need to write about.

cnulan, while ideological change did not progenerate this thread, it is one that is inherent to such discussion as without the possibility of change, such conversation's point becomes solely to converse.
I'm not sure why you felt the analogy to be so weak, or how you jumped straight to conservative talk radio, but throughout your piece your excellent use of language serves to reiterate the point that I was trying to make; namely that words, as representatives of ideologies have the ability to alter the meaning of the speaker/receiver relationship for better or worse. I do view American culture as a language and cultural continuum. To have meaningful ideological change then, the actors must reinforce said change with its language. Politically Correct language is a wee contribution to an overarching challenge.
Perhaps we'll just agree to disagree on that point as I find the rest of your content to be insightful and poignant.

To get past being on the outside looking in, the actors must drop their representational barriers altogether and engage one another directly in gestural and behavioural communion.

Increased familiarity - not with representations of people - but with the genuine *article*, is the ONLY means by which Americans may rid themselves of their personal fears and collective insanity.

Racism is more than simply an ideological pathology