|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 12:08 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
If I meant that the bus part was the uncommon part than yes, that would be disingenuous. There is a lot of crime in the urban black neighborhoods, but the randomness of this attack is what was unusual. |
There was no randomness here. What I saw was a woman who felt insulted and responded with excessive violence. Again, this form of behavior is not at all uncommon in these areas. |
Randomness in that they sprayed the entire bus, as opposed to drug that one person out and shot them. Gangs are, among other things, a business, and attacking civilians, especially white ones or random ones, that attract more police attention are uncommon.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Normal when there is violence it's over drug feuds, robbery, or if a gang member disrespects another one. |
If not for your choice to arbitrarily insist this behavior occurs only among gang members, you'd have perfectly explained this incident right here. Yet instead, you decide to declare it random in order to invalidate your own satisfactory explanation in order to cling to the notion that the larger surrounding community doesn't share in the cultural rot. |
Of course random blacks who aren't in gangs commit violent crime, as do random people from every race. The reason that it is statistically higher in urban black communities is largely because of gangs. This single incident is as indicative of an entire culture as are ones in Korean papers about foreigners doing drugs or having fake diplomas.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Poor areas where there are lots of drugs, and a drug war going on. That's not a cultural thing. |
What? Drug wars, gangs, and so forth don't just fall out of the sky like meteors. Far from being simple brute facts, they occur based on the behavior of the people who live in the region, and that behavior in turn is driven largely by culture. Do economics play a role as well? Certainly, but they're part of an overall cycle rather than being a pure determiner; just as economic circumstances influence local culture, local culture influences economic circumstances. That's precisely why these cultural infections are so insidious: they drag people down and, in doing so, also destroy the very hand holds which could best serve to help them back up (which is why I suggested earlier in the thread that one of the best things we as outsiders can do to cure these problems is to promote the kind of economic re-development that would most help this demographic). |
What was it about 1920's culture that encouraged the rise of the white gangster? Was it culture that encouraged families like the Kennedys to make money off of bootlegging, or gangsters like Capone to kill. Maybe it was the perverse economic incentives of prohibition. What happened after prohibition ended, was it the culture that stopped the gangs? I'm curious, could you espouse what cultural points exactly cause this violence?
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| When a white boy shoots up a school I don't think it's because of surburban white culture. |
If you really believe white suburban culture has had a 0% impact on such events, then you are once again being willfully ignorant. If, on the other hand, you don't believe that, then the above quote is not a true depiction of your stance on this matter. |
Zero percent, no, but certainly a low low percentage. |
None the less, this is quite different than your previous insistence, reducing our disagreement to merely a matter of degree. [/quote]
Of course our disagreement is merely a matter of degree. In some aspects you're right, but you overgeneralize too much, and place more emphasis on somethings that are less relevant, and less emphasis on things that are more relevant. If I said culture had 0% to do with it I'd be an idiot.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| I don't believe the fact that they listened to Marilyn Manson or that they grew up in a suburb was that relevant to what happened. |
As if cultural causes are that simple. "I listened to some punk music, now I'm a vicious psychopath. I listened to some rap music and now I want to sell drugs and rape some ladies."
| Leon wrote: |
| I wasn't really referring to the fact that Mexico is corrupt or dysfunctional as much as the recent widespread violence. The current high level of violence in Mexico is a fairly recent thing. It is not because of culture, it is because of drugs, the war on drugs, and the perverse economic incentives associated with it. |
The war on drugs does play a role, but what makes the war on drugs such a potent stimulator of such behavior in Mexico is the nature of the society itself, which in turn is dictated by the collective character of the people who live there. This is exactly what I'm talking about: you want to see only the surface, only the most proximate of causes. I'm not saying there's no room for such considerations -- after all, these superficial causes can tell us about what we as outsiders can do to assist our fellow man! -- but if one truly wishes to understand circumstances, one must look deeper. |
What part of Mexican culture are you talking about? Mexico is next to one of the biggest drug consumers to its north, and to its south are the biggest drug producers in the world. There is large scale poverty and lack of opportunity. Look deeper, why what do you think is deeper than that. Please elaborate.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| This is where I think you are off. Gang culture is a child of crack culture, and of poverty culture. Many of those involved in gang culture aren't poor. Most are, but blacks have less economic opportunities than whites. Many studies have been done that show that resumes with black sounding names get far fewer call backs than white sounding ones. Hell, many people consider my name to be a black name, so it affects me too man. (kidding, mostly) As long as it is seem as being more profitable to sling crack than to get a regular job, the culture will reflect that. It's more a matter of economics than culture. |
This doesn't exactly contradict my position, not really. Even if the advent of gang culture is comparatively recent, there's a reason it took root where it did, and that reason goes beyond purely economic concerns. All you're really doing here is taking my own position on the self-reinforcing cycle of culture, poverty, and violent crime, plucking out the "culture" element and saying, "This is off limits," in an arbitrary fashion, then leaving the rest more or less intact, acting as if poverty and violent crime form a complete, self-explanatory cycle on their own. It's an incomplete explanation though; economic status does not translate into violent crime in some perfectly-predictable 1:1 ratio, and culture is what determines the actual "rate of translation."
| Leon wrote: |
| This whole thread is based off of a single incident, or anecdote, if you will. |
No it's not. Certainly, a single incident is what the original post is superficially about, but as you yourself said this is hardly the first time topics like this have been posted, and as I've tried to remind you, meaningful statistical evidence stands behind it all. While we're discussing through the lens of the original incident in this thread, that incident serves as a surrogate for an entire class of behavior that one need only look at crime data to see is plentiful.
| Leon wrote: |
| You talk about statistics, so start a thread based on those, not on some appeal to emotion over a rare one time event and try and condemn an entire culture based on it. |
No need for a new thread; plenty of statistics on this matter have been posted on these forums, and everyone participating in this thread in good faith should be keeping them in mind with each post they make in this thread, or, for that matter, any other thread on this topic. That goes double for people such as yourself who have mentioned those other threads in hopes of bolstering, if ever so slightly, their own point.
| Leon wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
As far as sacered cows, not really. There is a lot wrong with black poverty culture. There is a lot wrong with white poverty culture, and hispanic poverty culture, etc. |
What is wrong with it, such that it's problematic, but has absolutely nothing to do with the kind of events we see here? Be specific. |
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here. Are you asking me about what is wrong with poverty culture, if you could clarify you're question I'd be glad to attempt to answer it. |
You said, "There is a lot wrong with black [white, hispanic] poverty culture." I'm asking you to list some of the items in that group of "a lot" of things, because contrary to your assertion, I think those problems are related to events like this. |
My assertion was that poverty culture is not just a black thing. Poverty is possibly related to an incident like this. As this sort of incident isn't widespread that I'm not really sure what you're aiming at here, with that question.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Not really, again southern white culture is way to big of a net. I'm white and southern, as are most of my friends. It's not our culture. It's the culture of white southern racists, but not white southerners. |
I've met Koreans who dislike kimchi as well, so does that mean I need to change the statement, "Kimchi is a part of Korean culture," to, "Kimchi is a part of kimchi-eating Korean culture?" Of course not. Generalizations do not apply to all specific cases. We both know this. Why pretend otherwise? What matters is frequency. |
And again you generalized far too much. You assign a negative cultural trait to a large multi-faceted group. It's absurd, generalizations are useful, but have to be used in a careful way. It's very different to make an innocuous statement like Koreans like Kimchi and to say that urban blacks culture causes them to be violent and commit acts like spraying a bus with bullets. Also, at least in my experience, a large majority of Koreans enjoy Kimchi, whereas a large majority of poor urban blacks are not violent criminals, nor are a majority of white southerners any more racist than anyone else. Your example was disingenuous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hold it, Leon. I made a very clear request of you, one you said you'd be happy to comply with. I asked you to list the aspects of poverty culture that are problematic. You know, the ones you said there were a lot of?
| Leon wrote: |
| There is a lot wrong with black poverty culture. There is a lot wrong with white poverty culture, and hispanic poverty culture, etc. |
Normally I wouldn't press, but you asked me a number of not dissimilar questions regarding my own position in your last post while simultaneously avoiding providing an answer of my own request, so before I dedicate time to providing a fleshed-out answer, I'm going to have to ask you do so first such that I can wrap up the point I was making -- a point directly relevant to the answering of your later-asked questions. You needn't be racially specific; a detailed list of the problematic aspects of poverty culture in general will suffice. Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Hold it, Leon. I made a very clear request of you, one you said you'd be happy to comply with. I asked you to list the aspects of poverty culture that are problematic. You know, the ones you said there were a lot of?
| Leon wrote: |
| There is a lot wrong with black poverty culture. There is a lot wrong with white poverty culture, and hispanic poverty culture, etc. |
Normally I wouldn't press, but you asked me a number of not dissimilar questions regarding my own position in your last post while simultaneously avoiding providing an answer of my own request, so before I dedicate time to providing a fleshed-out answer, I'm going to have to ask you do so first such that I can wrap up the point I was making -- a point directly relevant to the answering of your later-asked questions. You needn't be racially specific; a detailed list of the problematic aspects of poverty culture in general will suffice. Thanks. |
Ok, I'll attempt to answer it. It's a really rather broad question. This is going to be far from a complete answer as a complete answer would take several pages.
1. The concept of rising above your raising. You think you're too good for welfare, working at McDonalds, the local plant, etc. etc.
2. Larger rates of substance abuse.
3. Growing up seeing those who break the law as glamorous, while those who work regular jobs as suckers. (although there is probably some truth to this.)
4. Probably the biggest problem is the lack of emphasis on education.
These aspects affect most poor populations regardless of race or nationality. These are the problems I see with poverty culture. I don't think that they are the primary reasons, at least compared to systematic ones such as lack of economic opportunity and the availability of the drug trade. There are many other problems I'm sure, but like I said before you asked me a hugely broad question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm siding with the economic impact view. I am not buying the 'cultural' aspect as much.
In the mid to late 1800s, Irish Americans committed the majority of the crime in NYC. In fact, the term 'Paddy Wagon' replaced 'Police Wagon' because so many of them were filled with people of Irish descent. The Irish of NYC were at or near the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder at the time. A century or so later, after they have integrated into society and been accepted Irish American crime in NYC is a smidgen of what it had been.
On a much smaller scale the same can be said of Jewish Americans. Many jewish americans were part of criminal gangs or criminals in far, far higher numbers than today in NYC. A few notable ones became famous. Dutch Schultz, Mayer Lansky, Bugsy Segal. Why were so many Jews committing crimes as apposed to today? Economics. They faced rampant anti semitism and dire employment prospects.
Someone looking at the Irish in the 1800s and Jews in the 20th century could say it was 'cultural' the same as some are saying about blacks nowadays.
Also, poor people commit crime and poverty is an economic issue not cultural.
South Boston remains a large Irish American enclave (although greatly reduced by gentrificiation). They are also still many poor and working poor Irish Americans there. Irish Americans have completely been accepted and aborbed into America, however South Boston or rather the county its in, Suffolk, still has a crime rate that is far above the national average in all categories. http://www.clrsearch.com/South_Boston_Demographics/MA/Crime-Rate
Cleveland, Ohio has a large black population as well as crime rate that is far above the national average, no surprise there. Next to it is Cleveland Heights, which has 41% black population but its crime rate is well below its neighbor Cleveland. Why? Perhaps its because its socio economically much higher than Cleveland.
If culture was that important then all blacks in all socio economic groups would have a high crime rate. Middle class blacks have a very low crime rate. No big surprise there. West Virginia which has a large number of poor whites have a much higher crime rate than the average white family.
The problem I have with the 'its cultural' reasoning is that it sometimes leads to some who argue its possibly or is inate. Not saying anyone on this thread is saying that but it does get used by some as the basis to say certain ethnic or racial groups are inately more criminal. Using that line of thought for inncer city blacks then the same can be said of Italian Americans being inately predisposed to organized crime (Italian Mafia) or Jews on Wall Street inately predisposed to insider trading and other Wall Street crimes (Dennis Levine, Ivan Boesky, Michael Milkin, etc).
I also think the breakdown of the traditional family unit has a major cause as well. It has affected all Americans but since the advent of social welfare along with the drug epidemic, a whole generation of black males are no longer head of household. One thing that can be found amongst a significant number of inmates of all ethnicities is a broken home or female head of household.
Restoring the family unit, (difficult), providing a quality education or access to quality education because inner city schools are over crowded and do little teaching, rethinking this so called war on drugs, as well as access to good working class jobs I think would seriously cut down on inner city violence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| This is going to be far from a complete answer as a complete answer would take several pages. |
I'm glad you recognize that. Surely you understand that, when asking similar questions about Mexican culture or, worse, the culture of America in the 1920s (something I wasn't alive during, obviously, and have not studied especially in depth) are just as complex, and if anything more alien to us, being distanced from us either geographically (Mexico) or temporally (the 20s). If you don't mind, I'd prefer to stick closely to the group we were originally discussing. The conversation is sprawling enough without in-depth additions on those tangents.
| Leon wrote: |
1. The concept of rising above your raising. You think you're too good for welfare, working at McDonalds, the local plant, etc. etc.
2. Larger rates of substance abuse.
3. Growing up seeing those who break the law as glamorous, while those who work regular jobs as suckers. (although there is probably some truth to this.)
4. Probably the biggest problem is the lack of emphasis on education. |
Okay, let's work with that a little bit and see if you can't see where I'm coming from. If a group of people meets all four of those criteria, surely you see how their own behavior would continue to diminish their economic prospects in a self-reinforcing fashion. By glamorizing that which they should avoid (crime, laziness, substance abuse), despising that which they should endeavor towards (education and gainful employment), idolizing those who should be their enemies (criminals), and scorning those who should be their allies (educators, authority figures, and productive society in general), they trap themselves in their torment. And in their torment, they hurt one another.
How can you disagree, then, with my proposed solution? From the start I've pointed out ways our society can help ease them back into accord with the rest of us (ending the disasterous war on drugs and increasing employment opportunities). How can you deny, however, that cultural aspects like distaste for education, distaste for gainful employment, and glamorization of crime mandate an internal response? And for all your protesting otherwise, it's clear that a greater percentage of blacks are stuck in poverty culture than, say, whites; statistically speaking, this is a very real black problem, as unfortunate as that is. Call it a historic accident if you like; there's a reason I demured from recessiontime's suggestion that this is an ultimately genetic problem. I think it's solvable, not inherent. But by denying agency to the black community -- by trying to attribute the problems they face to purely outside forces, rendering them more object-acted-upon than co-actor -- you not only tell merely part of the story, but you deny them their due dignity.
Are there whites, hispanics, and so forth also stuck in variants of poverty culture? No doubt, but not necessarily to the same degree, and not necessarily expressing the exact same problematic traits, and many of the worst cases are cases of individuals infected by the very same culture that unfortunately inflicts much of the black community. Perhaps that gives you justification to demand it be called something other than "black culture," but when I gave calling it flat out "poverty culture" a try it didn't stop the indoctrinated zealots from screaming at me, so it's simply not worth the added nuance.
Now, as for certain other points you've made:
| Leon wrote: |
Of course random blacks who aren't in gangs commit violent crime, as do random people from every race. The reason that it is statistically higher in urban black communities is largely because of gangs. This single incident is as indicative of an entire culture as are ones in Korean papers about foreigners doing drugs or having fake diplomas. |
This attempt to carve gangs into their own, unique social group, entirely insulated from the larger culture that surrounds them isn't reasonable. I think you know that. I'll say it again: gangs are not a phenomenon that simply falls from the sky, some brute fact of the world which we must accept. They bud in certain communities, and not in some random, unpredictable fashion. What makes some social groups fertile soil for the gang weed, and others not? Well, no doubt there are many factors, and you've graciously listed some in your previous post.
| Leon wrote: |
| And again you generalized far too much. You assign a negative cultural trait to a large multi-faceted group. It's very different to make an innocuous statement like Koreans like Kimchi and to say that urban blacks culture causes them to be violent and commit acts like spraying a bus with bullets. |
Whether or not a generalization is valid has nothing to do with how innocuous it is, so let's put that aside.
| Leon wrote: |
| Also, at least in my experience, a large majority of Koreans enjoy Kimchi, whereas a large majority of poor urban blacks are not violent criminals ... |
Again, I think this is something you have to take statistical frequency into account regarding. Korean kimchi consumption is remarkable because it's atypical. The same is true, in my estimation, of urban black crime. Of course most black people aren't violent criminals, I never said they were. My case rather is that urban black culture results in unacceptably high, socially-destructive levels of criminal activity. Statistics bear this out. If my claim was, "All -- or even most -- black people are criminals," you'd have a sound point. That is not my position.
| Leon wrote: |
| ... nor are a majority of white southerners any more racist than anyone else. |
Seriously? You really believe that 4 in 10 Southerners still actively sympathizing with a political entity predicated upon black enslavement doesn't imply a greater amount of racism than the national average? You think 46% of Mississippi Republicans wanting interracial marriage illegalized (with only 40% answering that it should be legal!) implies a greater amount of racism than the national average? You don't think the harsh immigration laws directed at Hispanics in Southern states like Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia -- acts which sacrifice both taxpayer dollars and, at least if they work, the economic benefits of undocumented workers in order to curry favor with the white voter base -- imply a greater amount of racism? You don't think the fact that of the 10 states that lack race/ethnicity specific hate crime laws, 7 are in the South, implies a greater level of racism? Not at all? Not even a little?
Come on. Obviously there are plenty of Southerners who are no more racist than average (again with the whole concept of generalization) but to deny that the South is more inclined towards racism at all? Unreasonable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| This is going to be far from a complete answer as a complete answer would take several pages. |
I'm glad you recognize that. Surely you understand that, when asking similar questions about Mexican culture or, worse, the culture of America in the 1920s (something I wasn't alive during, obviously, and have not studied especially in depth) are just as complex, and if anything more alien to us, being distanced from us either geographically (Mexico) or temporally (the 20s). If you don't mind, I'd prefer to stick closely to the group we were originally discussing. The conversation is sprawling enough without in-depth additions on those tangents.
| Leon wrote: |
1. The concept of rising above your raising. You think you're too good for welfare, working at McDonalds, the local plant, etc. etc.
2. Larger rates of substance abuse.
3. Growing up seeing those who break the law as glamorous, while those who work regular jobs as suckers. (although there is probably some truth to this.)
4. Probably the biggest problem is the lack of emphasis on education. |
Okay, let's work with that a little bit and see if you can't see where I'm coming from. If a group of people meets all four of those criteria, surely you see how their own behavior would continue to diminish their economic prospects in a self-reinforcing fashion. By glamorizing that which they should avoid (crime, laziness, substance abuse), despising that which they should endeavor towards (education and gainful employment), idolizing those who should be their enemies (criminals), and scorning those who should be their allies (educators, authority figures, and productive society in general), they trap themselves in their torment. And in their torment, they hurt one another.
How can you disagree, then, with my proposed solution? From the start I've pointed out ways our society can help ease them back into accord with the rest of us (ending the disasterous war on drugs and increasing employment opportunities). How can you deny, however, that cultural aspects like distaste for education, distaste for gainful employment, and glamorization of crime mandate an internal response? And for all your protesting otherwise, it's clear that a greater percentage of blacks are stuck in poverty culture than, say, whites; statistically speaking, this is a very real black problem, as unfortunate as that is. Call it a historic accident if you like; there's a reason I demured from recessiontime's suggestion that this is an ultimately genetic problem. I think it's solvable, not inherent. But by denying agency to the black community -- by trying to attribute the problems they face to purely outside forces, rendering them more object-acted-upon than co-actor -- you not only tell merely part of the story, but you deny them their due dignity.
Are there whites, hispanics, and so forth also stuck in variants of poverty culture? No doubt, but not necessarily to the same degree, and not necessarily expressing the exact same problematic traits, and many of the worst cases are cases of individuals infected by the very same culture that unfortunately inflicts much of the black community. Perhaps that gives you justification to demand it be called something other than "black culture," but when I gave calling it flat out "poverty culture" a try it didn't stop the indoctrinated zealots from screaming at me, so it's simply not worth the added nuance.
Now, as for certain other points you've made:
| Leon wrote: |
Of course random blacks who aren't in gangs commit violent crime, as do random people from every race. The reason that it is statistically higher in urban black communities is largely because of gangs. This single incident is as indicative of an entire culture as are ones in Korean papers about foreigners doing drugs or having fake diplomas. |
This attempt to carve gangs into their own, unique social group, entirely insulated from the larger culture that surrounds them isn't reasonable. I think you know that. I'll say it again: gangs are not a phenomenon that simply falls from the sky, some brute fact of the world which we must accept. They bud in certain communities, and not in some random, unpredictable fashion. What makes some social groups fertile soil for the gang weed, and others not? Well, no doubt there are many factors, and you've graciously listed some in your previous post.
| Leon wrote: |
| And again you generalized far too much. You assign a negative cultural trait to a large multi-faceted group. It's very different to make an innocuous statement like Koreans like Kimchi and to say that urban blacks culture causes them to be violent and commit acts like spraying a bus with bullets. |
Whether or not a generalization is valid has nothing to do with how innocuous it is, so let's put that aside.
| Leon wrote: |
| Also, at least in my experience, a large majority of Koreans enjoy Kimchi, whereas a large majority of poor urban blacks are not violent criminals ... |
Again, I think this is something you have to take statistical frequency into account regarding. Korean kimchi consumption is remarkable because it's atypical. The same is true, in my estimation, of urban black crime. Of course most black people aren't violent criminals, I never said they were. My case rather is that urban black culture results in unacceptably high, socially-destructive levels of criminal activity. Statistics bear this out. If my claim was, "All -- or even most -- black people are criminals," you'd have a sound point. That is not my position.
| Leon wrote: |
| ... nor are a majority of white southerners any more racist than anyone else. |
Seriously? You really believe that 4 in 10 Southerners still actively sympathizing with a political entity predicated upon black enslavement doesn't imply a greater amount of racism than the national average? You think 46% of Mississippi Republicans wanting interracial marriage illegalized (with only 40% answering that it should be legal!) implies a greater amount of racism than the national average? You don't think the harsh immigration laws directed at Hispanics in Southern states like Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia -- acts which sacrifice both taxpayer dollars and, at least if they work, the economic benefits of undocumented workers in order to curry favor with the white voter base -- imply a greater amount of racism? You don't think the fact that of the 10 states that lack race/ethnicity specific hate crime laws, 7 are in the South, implies a greater level of racism? Not at all? Not even a little?
Come on. Obviously there are plenty of Southerners who are no more racist than average (again with the whole concept of generalization) but to deny that the South is more inclined towards racism at all? Unreasonable. |
I think that you misunderstood my intention of mentioning people in the 1920's and Mexicans. My point was that in all of those cases you had a substance that the government declared illegal, but that people would still want regardless. Maybe the difference between you and me is our view of culture. You seem to think that culture shapes circumstance, whereas my position is that circumstance shapes culture. It's obviously not an absolute thing, but a matter of degree. If I try in school, do my best, and see that a white person with the same grades as me gets a job and I can't then I will value education less. If I see the drug dealer with a nice car and the person working 9-5 with nothing to show for it, I won't value work. If authority figures come to my neighborhood and push around the men of the community and treat them in a harsh manner I won't respect authority. You pushed me on your question, and were right to do so, so here is a little pushing. I don't think that you fully understood my question so let me be more clear, what do you think is different about black culture and the white culture of the 1920's? Both had high rates of violence and criminality? As far as gangs, I can tell you the formula, it's very simple and reliable, any time you have a disenfranchised group with a lack of economic opportunities, where there is easy money to be made from organized crime there will be gangs, regardless of culture or ethnicity. Sure the black community could do a better job, but till they can get better jobs than it will be a losing battle.
Arizona isn't really a southern state. Sympathizing with the confederacy is different than being racist. Many are racist, but many had ancestors, or feel it's part of their heritage or still cling to states rights ideas. Mississippi is about as extreme as it gets, I'll give you that whites in Mississippi are much more racist, and many other undesirable things, in general. I leave this one alone as it doesn't have much to do with the real conversation, yes they're are, very generally speaking, more inclined to racism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
I think that you misunderstood my intention of mentioning people in the 1920's and Mexicans. My point was that in all of those cases you had a substance that the government declared illegal, but that people would still want regardless.
...
You pushed me on your question, and were right to do so, so here is a little pushing. I don't think that you fully understood my question so let me be more clear, what do you think is different about black culture and the white culture of the 1920's? |
I understood what you were driving at, but I can't be bothered to take everything we just went through regarding Black culture and repeat it with Mexican culture. It's too long a haul, and my arguments would be very similar to the ones I've all ready made, emphasizing that while yes, Mexico is afflicted by temporal circumstances that are less than ideal, there is more to their problem than, "Oh no, we have drug-producing nations to the South and drug-hungry America to the North, we have no choice but to helplessly despair." There is a reason Mexico is impoverished and unable to regulate itself effectively in this regard, and I suggest it really is similar to -- but less extreme than -- the reason blacks struggle in America, and that reason is the character of the people. You're not wrong that external factors play a role, but when your nation is a house of cards swaying in the breeze, sooner or later a strong gust is going to come along, and when it does, some cards are going to fall off.
As far as the 1920s go, I think the biggest difference is that due to the racial heritage of many of the criminals, they were far less of a cultural "closed system." Certainly pockets of cultural degeneration resulted in criminality taking root, but when the agitating influence was removed, unlike our unfortunate modern blacks they had far less a problem rehabilitating due to the fact that they were surrounded by other, healthier subcultures which they could easily assimilate with; the child of a reformed gangster would have had a much easier time dodging that unfortunate history than the child of a reformed black gang member, allowing criminality to drop off instead of becoming a generational, family-destroying burden. Urban blacks are fairly insular (whatever wall you think whites put up between themselves and blacks, blacks do the same and then some in my experience), and there is much less of of a nation-wide critical mass of more healthy black society for them to easily merge back into. This is why it's so important for the more clear-headed members of their community to step up and put in effort towards reform. Some do -- and that's an impressive, wonderful thing! -- but not enough have stepped up yet.
So to be clear, I think the primary difference regarding Mexico is merely one of degree and scale, while the difference regarding the 1920s is that the dysfunctional subcultures agitated by the stimulus of prohibition never became trapped in a cycle of dysfunction to the same degree due to being far more able to merge back into society full of more functional subcultures.
| Leon wrote: |
| Maybe the difference between you and me is our view of culture. You seem to think that culture shapes circumstance, whereas my position is that circumstance shapes culture. |
My position is that culture and circumstance shape one another in a kind of cyclical feedback loop. Both are important, which is why my view on how to address the matter comes from both sides.
| Leon wrote: |
| If I try in school, do my best, and see that a white person with the same grades as me gets a job and I can't then I will value education less. |
Yes, that is precisely how a person mired in a culture of failure would view it. On the other hand, an individual uplifted by a culture of success would recognize that college-educated blacks have lower unemployment that non-college educated blacks, and generally earn more as well. As such, they still obviously get comparative value out of education, meaning it would be both foolish and self-destructive to give up on it simply because whites find employment with greater ease comparatively. Right now black culture often does encourage young black men and women to think exactly like you've described. That's part of the problem I'm speaking about. The same go for your latter examples: the culture of failure encourages the easy path to quick riches as the drug dealer, the culture of success perceives the social, legal, and potentially fatal consequences waiting at the end of that road and discourages it. The culture of failure allows itself to be embittered towards authority and goes to war with it. The culture of success stands up against the real abuses while otherwise trying to work with authority. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
I think that you misunderstood my intention of mentioning people in the 1920's and Mexicans. My point was that in all of those cases you had a substance that the government declared illegal, but that people would still want regardless.
...
You pushed me on your question, and were right to do so, so here is a little pushing. I don't think that you fully understood my question so let me be more clear, what do you think is different about black culture and the white culture of the 1920's? |
I understood what you were driving at, but I can't be bothered to take everything we just went through regarding Black culture and repeat it with Mexican culture. It's too long a haul, and my arguments would be very similar to the ones I've all ready made, emphasizing that while yes, Mexico is afflicted by temporal circumstances that are less than ideal, there is more to their problem than, "Oh no, we have drug-producing nations to the South and drug-hungry America to the North, we have no choice but to helplessly despair." There is a reason Mexico is impoverished and unable to regulate itself effectively in this regard, and I suggest it really is similar to -- but less extreme than -- the reason blacks struggle in America, and that reason is the character of the people. You're not wrong that external factors play a role, but when your nation is a house of cards swaying in the breeze, sooner or later a strong gust is going to come along, and when it does, some cards are going to fall off.
As far as the 1920s go, I think the biggest difference is that due to the racial heritage of many of the criminals, they were far less of a cultural "closed system." Certainly pockets of cultural degeneration resulted in criminality taking root, but when the agitating influence was removed, unlike our unfortunate modern blacks they had far less a problem rehabilitating due to the fact that they were surrounded by other, healthier subcultures which they could easily assimilate with; the child of a reformed gangster would have had a much easier time dodging that unfortunate history than the child of a reformed black gang member, allowing criminality to drop off instead of becoming a generational, family-destroying burden. Urban blacks are fairly insular (whatever wall you think whites put up between themselves and blacks, blacks do the same and then some in my experience), and there is much less of of a nation-wide critical mass of more healthy black society for them to easily merge back into. This is why it's so important for the more clear-headed members of their community to step up and put in effort towards reform. Some do -- and that's an impressive, wonderful thing! -- but not enough have stepped up yet.
So to be clear, I think the primary difference regarding Mexico is merely one of degree and scale, while the difference regarding the 1920s is that the dysfunctional subcultures agitated by the stimulus of prohibition never became trapped in a cycle of dysfunction to the same degree due to being far more able to merge back into society full of more functional subcultures.
| Leon wrote: |
| Maybe the difference between you and me is our view of culture. You seem to think that culture shapes circumstance, whereas my position is that circumstance shapes culture. |
My position is that culture and circumstance shape one another in a kind of cyclical feedback loop. Both are important, which is why my view on how to address the matter comes from both sides.
| Leon wrote: |
| If I try in school, do my best, and see that a white person with the same grades as me gets a job and I can't then I will value education less. |
Yes, that is precisely how a person mired in a culture of failure would view it. On the other hand, an individual uplifted by a culture of success would recognize that college-educated blacks have lower unemployment that non-college educated blacks, and generally earn more as well. As such, they still obviously get comparative value out of education, meaning it would be both foolish and self-destructive to give up on it simply because whites find employment with greater ease comparatively. Right now black culture often does encourage young black men and women to think exactly like you've described. That's part of the problem I'm speaking about. The same go for your latter examples: the culture of failure encourages the easy path to quick riches as the drug dealer, the culture of success perceives the social, legal, and potentially fatal consequences waiting at the end of that road and discourages it. The culture of failure allows itself to be embittered towards authority and goes to war with it. The culture of success stands up against the real abuses while otherwise trying to work with authority. |
Ok, fair enough. I understand my your view and your understand mine. I will make a few last points to close up some loose ends. I think that the differnce in the 1920's is that prohibition ended, so the illegal alcohol trade ended. Crack and herion are still there, so the external stimulus hasn't ended. I think if you look at the rate of incarceration of black males due to the drug war, as well as things like the discreprencacy between the sentence for coke and crack it's easy to see how this has played a major role in the crisis. Is crack really 18 times worse than coke? Considering that our past two presidents, and many congress man indulged in the more expensive of the two, it's unlikely that that will ever change. As to Blacks seperating themselves from mainstream society, I agree. I think that mainstream society has a role in that. I mean Segregation is a recent, within many peoples lifetime thing. They should do more, but segregation still occurs in regards to public housing. I'm not sure how to change that to be honest, huge projects really are an insular world. I think as recent riots in Europe, the old political science truism that there is nothing more demographically dangerous than a group of young males with out jobs. Do I think that there is no fault within the black community, no that'd be a too simplistic view. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
