I’m not quite sure you have an understanding of “gangsta rap” as you claim. The juxtaposition that white Christian anti-intellectualism and gangster/hip-hop culture tread forcibly together in opposition of education is outlandish. Detractors of hip-hop culture within the Black community do so because of its influence as a cultural movement. If hip-hop was just your run of the mill music genre with hardly a fan base there would be a whisper of a dissenting voice. And like wise if gangster rap stayed within the co-culture (not sub-culture) of the “hood” and only affected those in it much of the noise would also be null and void. As the remnants of segregation become forgotten by some, the diversity of blacks becomes more and more self evident to many; and, here lies the problem for a lot of black folk. Gangster rap is the experience of a mere stratum of blacks so then why is it the only image available –and as such, why must I have to be compared to this image. What you actually find here is a comingling of hoped for contemporary status and the nauseatingly constant repudiation of the negative historical perception of blacks and the behavior that is thought to reinforce it. Gangster rappers aren’t saying anything that isn’t already lauded by mainstream American society: misogyny, sexism, violence, promiscuity, drug use. Come on, this is what Americans are made of. It’s just that blacks have the precarious situation of being the face that is all too often associated with these human behaviors and tendencies. As you your self analogized hip-hop culture to white Christian anti-intellectualism and not the latter to a more comparative population of black Christian anti-intellectualism. So, your biased subjectivity as of the identity (face) of anti-intellectualism within the black community shines through. This is the same point argued in the article –blacks chastised for the same behavior that is prevalent amongst different groups in American.

“I totally see that there are other forms of hip-hop and rap that are RISING to the surface that decry the stereotypes and sexism that other ‘gangsta rap’ has put forth.” As if this kind of rap is relatively new or something. So Naughty by Nature, Arrested Development, Common, Queen Latifah etc. etc. etc. all of those who would be and are currently clumped into “afrocentric rap” have just emerged. Weren’t they out two + decades ago? Oh how quickly we forget, or did you never know? Don’t get me wrong. As many have stated some artists make it hard to defend rap, but the real question should be, why does it have to be defended and defended so extensively and repeatedly.

Of course some of the blame should be allocated to rappers but this is the psychosocial dynamics of a cadre of different factors. This is the exploitation, by the music industry, of a co-culture of blacks who used rap as a modality to express their experience in American society. White America’s fascination with blacks is what propelled it, as the majority of rap listeners are Caucasian white male youth. Remember the movie CB4. Now, in contemporary times, do you readily see the watered down commercialized rappers that say and behaviorally portray whatever they believe will sell. Can you blame them though? They are obtaining the American dream. Who cares if they didn’t grow up in the projects, or didn’t go to jail for murder. These days this argument doesn’t have to be made all you need is a catchy chorus/beat put together a flashy video and millions flock to the stores on your album release date, buy the hoody you wore in your video, and buy the cell phone you flashed. Let’s face it, Americans buy to belong. Kanye West and Pharrell are a testament. The gangster rapper doesn’t have to be all that gangster anymore as America’s preoccupation with thug life is not all that effervescent as it was in the 90’s.

Maybe you need to hear it from an “educated” brother; I’d suggest reading Black Men Emerging: Facing the Past and Seizing a Future in America by Joseph White and James Cones. Who like countless others, Na’im Akbar - Wade Nobles - Molefi Asante – Kobi K. Kambon – Francis Cress Welsing – Michael Eric Dyson – Cornel West – Edmund Gordon etc. etc. etc., long ago stated the position that Frederic Christie articulated to you earlier. Educated (especially within the context that you use it – traditionalist) and intellectual are two different phenomena all together. You concentrate on behavior that is reprehensible in your examples while nullifying the cognitive and calculative prowess it might take to run a drug trafficking empire or the tenacity and drive to spend ten years making mix tapes to finally be recognized as a legitimate rapper. Extract the social deviance and attend a level of scrutiny to the “intellect” behind the pariah façade.

The data doesn't say that uniformly. http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.881,y.0,no.,content.true,page... . "Average scores on intelligence tests are rising substantially and consistently, all over the world. These gains have been going on for the better part of a century—essentially ever since tests were invented. The rate of gain on standard broad-spectrum IQ tests amounts to three IQ points per decade, and it is even higher on certain specialized measures. In the Netherlands, for example, all male 18-year-olds take a test of abstract-reasoning ability as part of a military-induction requirement. Because the same test is used every year, it is easy to see the mean score rising, in this case, at about seven points per decade."TIME had an article about this at some point as well, ironicallyas part of an article talking about growing stupidity of Americans children. The question, of course, is what that means. Very little, really. Our idea of testing intelligence is fundamentally chimerical. Putting aside numerous issues like class, race, education, geography and culture, the fact is that an IQ test can even in THEORY only test particular types of intelligence. These types of intelligence may be valued, but the fact is that almost everything humans do uses some kind of intelligence: Writing, reading, art, mathematics, music, sports, etc. all have techniques, disciplines and areas of the brain. So the very notion of the IQ test is that we should weight only very particular types of intelligence. Even if their study was 100% accurate (which it isn't: we have no idea how to really test intelligence), it would still only speak to some types of intelligence and thus still be making a social judgment.

"The average modern human may be more knowledgeable about the facts of the universe than someone on the wagon trail, but that doesn't make them more intelligent."

It doesn't? If you define intelligence as innate capacity, then no, probably not (though the data you cite does NOT say that we've lost since the wagon trail, which would be impossible since the IQ test didn't exist back then; rather, people arguing that Americans are getting dumber point to a particular time period sometime in the 20th century, which actually disproves your point since before then there were gains), though the data I cite above indicates yes. But if you mean intelligence as the capacity to perform tasks, then without a doubt. Trying to intellectual separate innate intelligence and learned intelligence, nature and nurture, is also a chimera: The two interrelate with each other.

"I'm just saying that the decine in intelligence it multifactorial (most things ARE a result of more than one cause), and that we shouldn't ignore the impact of environmental degradation. The decline of the Roman empire was in part attributable to the lead poisoning from their pipes. We would be foolish to think that our brains are immune to the impact of contaminants in our food, water, and air supplies. This is a human problem faced by the entire globe. Contaminants don't respect political boundaries or race."

There was lead poisoning among the rich in Rome. But it is highly contentious, actually, to say that that actually played a serious part in the decay of Rome. A lot of the worst decisions and damage came centuries after the pipes were installed.

Of course I think environmental degradation and toxins have wide-ranging and holistic impacts. But it's a dead end argument, IMHO, to talk about this having impacts on intelligence, due to the very weakness of the intelligence tests.

And, incidentally, contaminants DO respect political boundaries or race, if one remembers that the rich can afford to send the polluting devices elsewhere, increase the efficiency and decrease the emissions of things plaguing them, and afford better health care after the fact.

"That said, I agree that our society is not structured to reward independent thought, intelligence, or intellectualism. AND, as Mr. Wise points out, that this anti-intellectualism is often criticized in the black community (by whites and blacks) while being rewarded among the conservative elements of the white community. Already 20 years ago the sadly late comedian Bill Hicks had a very funny bit about being asked once in Kentucky, alone with a book at a diner, by a fellow patron, "What you readin' for." (Not what are you reading, but what are you reading FOR.) In my own family I was treated like a bit of a freak for preferring books to the less edifying pastimes of my siblings."

That fact has been around for awhile. As Mark Twain put it, "It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practise either of them." Schools are designed to teach conformity and obedience.

Also, it depends on what you mean by intellectualism. If you call what Henry Kissinger calls intellectualism, then society is actually very rewarding of it. If you call what Chomsky does intellectualism, not as much. It is certainly possible to attend college, learn to conform to that intellectual circle and reap some benefits.

What I'm talking about is the breakdown in institutions caused by the "democratic deficit" of the neo-liberal economy. As corporations become more powerful and as states become weaker, people's perceptions of their own ability to affect change and participate meaningfully declines.

"I would argue that religion plays at least as large a role as the decay of functioning institutions in American ignorance. Religion condemns independent thought, and rewards conformity and blind acceptance of scripture (as well as blind acceptance of whatever pronouncements flow from authority). "

Does religion really do that?

The Quakers I have had the privilege of interacting with have been among the most peaceful, conscientious, independent-thinking, wonderful people imaginable.

Religions are at least in part institutions, and like all institutions they can be designed to create different pressures. Obviously a lot of big churches in thus country try to teach conformity, radical religious ideology and so forth. But that's not religion.

Further, religiousity in that sense goes up as institutional participation goes down, and thus it is a part of the very mechanism I'm talking about. When participation in civic life becomes less possible, people find alternative communities, and religion is fantastic for it.

"Having just escaped the Bible Belt after spending almost 13 years in Louisiana, I can attest that the majority of people there are taught to test fact against scripture rather than scripture against fact. "

You can't attest to that by definition, being one person. That's a very unscientific mindset...

"It's a sad state of affairs when the majority of science teachers don't accept the fact of evolution, and don't know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory."

Do you have a citation to that effect? Because even Trueorigins.com's highly partisan data varies: http://www.trueorigin.org/edupolls.asp .

"We're having to borrow post-grads from Europe and Asia because we don't have enough students in science ourselves to do our research, and we're falling further and further behind in technological development, including medical research. It's a mess. Racism plays a part, yes, but it's not the whole picture, nor is fascism. It's going to take a wider view than any of these single issues to see our way clear."

Actually, I think racism plays a relatively small part in these phenomena but that the decline of political institutions plays a massive role.

"As far as whites missing class goes, I'll give you that one because I haven’t found any sources for that outside of Tim wise's own claim. And hey Einstein was known for skipping class, what it comes down to at the end of the day is completion of academic tasks, and performance on benchmark tests. I read through much of Tim wises claims in the article. Where are the outside sources. It just seems like a bunch of claims."

See Brandon's citation, and like I told you originally it's the National Center for Education Statistics.

"And hey Einstein was known for skipping class, what it comes down to at the end of the day is completion of academic tasks, and performance on benchmark tests."

Well, no, Einstein supposedly was known for having some troubles there too thanks to dyscalcula. The only way academic tasks and benchmark tests are relevant is if there are equal opportunities to pass them. But there simply aren't, from stereotype threat to the known nature of the SAT as culturally sensitive to blacks being put into remedial classes more often. Even Northwestern University concedes in their holistic admissions policy that someone from a school without an AP program is simply not going to be able to get as high of a grade.

"First off, western civilization existed long before gunpowder, islam, and trade with Chinese. Indeed, western european empires were even successful before this islam and gunpowder."

That's very true, which is why I said what is INTEGRAL to Western civilization was often taken from those sources. But first of all, the further back you go, the further it becomes from "Western civilization". Considering the Roman Empire's absorption of Alexander's empire, for example, which in turn had heavy Persian/Babylonian and Egyptian influence (and Egypt's own independent influence on Rome), it's very difficult to look at the Roman Empire and say "Yup, this is Western civilization". Because so many elements that we now consider Western were not integral to it and many elements integral to the Romans are not parts that transferred.

"Europeans invented all sorts of things to support their ancient civilzations, like the Roman aqueduct. These brilliant civilizations existed long before columbus/gunpowder/steel and the take over of the Americas. So your starting point is just wrong."

See above. Putting that aside, if we go that far back then we also have to honor the achievements of African empires (whose wealth from Mansa Musa was integral in revitalizing the European economy and creating the Renaissance), Chinese scientists (the Taoists, for example, had endocrinological information far beyond their time, including steroids thousands of years before the Europeans!), Indians, etc. We also have to acknowledge some fairly ugly facts, like the fact that the Roman Empire was a brutal, expansionistic monarchic empire with slavery, inequal treatment of women, etc.

In any respect, all of this could hardly be relevant when talking about the last five hundred years of history. Nor do I find much to be thankful for from an unprecedented history of genocide and barbarism.

"Secondly, Western europeans weren't the first to eliminate a COMPETING people, or to occupy their lands, or to own slaves."

Which is moot to a) the unprecedented scale of them doing so and b) the fact that these cultural elements are nothing to be thankful for.

Regarding a): No previous group of conquerors had influence on six continents. And the Europeans' mode of slavery inherited from the Portugese was worse than almost any preceding form, since most previous forms of slavery had the explicit possibility of a slave purchasing their freedom whereas the European slave system was racialized and applied not only to the first generation of the captured but to "all their further increase", in theory until the end of time. The Europeans' conquest of the planet was unimaginably destructive, with consequences that are still being felt the globe over. As Nehru pointed out, there was a direct correlation between how poor an Indian region was and how long the British were there. Bengal, for example, used to be unimaginably wealthy. Now it is Bangladesh. There really is nothing in history on the magnitude of the European conquest. Need I point out the Holocaust?

Regarding b): Just as no one excuses the Sudanese genocide thanks to culture and history, so too do we not get off the hook for the cultural lessons we absorb just because others happened to do it too. There is basic moral responsibility. There are basic ethics. And the problem with your viewpoint here is that you simply cannot believe it, given that you elsewhere hold people to a particular standard, never mind that throughout history people have embraced alternatives to science or education or...

"The fact is Whites are ones constantly condemned for doing what everyone else has been doing, and of course whites beat many tribes/civilizations in a game they DIDNT invent but are a part of simply because they are human."

Whites are 'condemned' thusly (and, by the way, we routinely go after China for doing things that have been done since the birth of humanity, and Iraq, and Afghanistan; I guess the North Koreans SHOULD be thankful to Dear Leader, right?) because there is human progress, because being the worst among a pool of the bad is still bad, and because we have basic moral standards.

The European conquest of the world has set back the world centuries, in scientific achievement, in population growth (poverty and pre-industrialization is directly correlated to overpopulation), in ecological destruction. It is inexcusable and we lose our humanity every second we defend it.

So this is all a massive red herring designed to lead us off the trail from the fact that you are proposing that we be THANKFUL for our heritage. That we be thankful for racism, imperialism, sexism, etc. Just because it's historic. Well, everything is historic, so every claim you make is also irrelevant. It's a non-starter.

"The fact is whites are no more barbaric than many non-white groups, whites just developed amazing technologies, to be leaders in a game we all play."

The 'winner' of the game to be most the barbaric is the loser.

"Even before Columbus entered the Americas there was War, Slavery, Exploitation, even human sacrifice to various gods. But so often Native Americans are portrayed as "peace-loving" victims of Whiteys "barbarism". Natives were victims of there own "barbarism" before whitey."

Which is moot as to whether or not they were better off being murdered or not being murdered. Which would you prefer, Andre?

"Most cultures and human groups take great pride in their conquests and victories, especially if its over a rival, except white people. Many whites would foolishly deny themselves this, and buy into absurd "white guilt". Wake up! Arabs/muslims and any other group that has managed to punch blows to europeans won't feel any guilt."

Not only is this racist (since plenty of Muslims actually don't want to repeat the expansionism or empires of their ancestors, only a tiny group), but so what? If the rest of the world wants to embrace barbarism and violence, let them. If indeed we are the only people capable of self-examination (an utterly absurd and in fact laughable hypothesis), then congratulations to us, because we are now the most advanced civilization by exactly that merit.

The problem with this standpoint is that it's very convenient now when we are in fact on top. When we are not, when the Chinese or Japanese or whomever eclipses the Americans does so, then this ideology is a claim to roll over.

But it's all moot because you don't believe a damn word you're saying.

"Truth be told, there is no shortage of examples of successful and unsuccessful blacks who come from the very same neighborhoods and face the same challenges."

Which is why you shouldn't quote out of context. Because as I originally argued, a) coming from the same neighborhood doesn't mean that everyone in that neighborhood has the same background in education, or the same wealth; b) other factors that have a lot to do with luck such as one's skills being currently useful in the economy, playing the game and not getting caught, etc.

More importantly, the same was true of the neighborhood Madame C.J. Walker and the farm that Frederick Douglass emerged from, yet to say those proved that there was equal opportunity for blacks would be idiotic and racist, no matter the mouthpiece.

"And I’ve never meet a black person who wasn’t making it because of racism, But i've meet plenty of my own kind who have passed up so much that America has offered."

Then you're just not paying any attention. Because there are plenty of whites who pass up quite a lot of opportunities too, people I know, who get excuses. Paris Hilton and Britney Spears can screw up their life despite only arguable talent and it can still never really catch up to them. And even poor whites who screw up can turn around, get help from friends and family, get a loan to buy a house, go to school and fly right, whereas blacks who screw up don't get those chances. The question isn't, "If someone makes 100% perfect decisions, can they succeed?" It turns out that if someone does so, combined with some luck, they can become emperor after having been a slave. The question is, "Is the average package of opportunities and choices equally available?" No, it simply isn't. That means that racism is real, and given natural variation in human capability blacks will as a group suffer. And, of course, as Andrew Brimmer notes, that's all irrational because prejudice against blacks costs the whole economy billions in productivity.

"And Its funny you bring up the super-wealthy, there are many people on the forbes 400 list that come from humble beginnings some even dirt poor beginnings."

The majority of whom are white, meaning they had doors open that blacks in the same position didn't. But "many" and "the majority" are not the same, Andre. The majority of the corporate, political class come from the same elite backgrounds, are socialized at the same schools, and are very tightly intertwined. More importantly, the window of opportunity for them to begin was the 70s, 80s and early 90s. Social mobility has gone DOWN during that period, not up. This means we will see less and less such exceptions.

You're simply arguing against economic fact, Andre: If you are poor, the economy is currently designed so that you will stay that way. Ditto for the rich. This isn't up for debate. Bill Gates having a middle-class background doesn't disprove it. Get some basic economic argumentation under your belt.

None of this, mind you, was an ARGUMENT to my point about the super-rich, which is that if they are allowed to have that much wealth (and that is a social decision: a different economy, different financial decisions, different fiscal policy, would go a different way), there simply CANNOT be as much wealth for the rest of us.

You may also be interested to know that those companies on the Forbes 400 almost all have or had extensive public investment into them in particular or into their enterprise in general, and many were saved from total collapse by the government. Microsoft, for example, wouldn't exist were it not for taxpayer moneys going into computation, the Internet and automation. That is also part of white, rich privilege: The government giving them opportunities.

"They were given more, then decided to settle for less because they didnt want to put in the effort or take on the challenge, so they settled for less. God bless them. LOL. But you won't hear many blacks in the poor ghettos or in the prisons blaming whitey anymore. They don't have a leg to stand, and they know it. Almost all of them had a chance to clean up their acts and they know it. You and Tim wise don’t know it or don't want to admit it."

Polls show you're wrong, Andre, and at this point you are just putting your foot in your mouth with your own private estimation.

For example: "Fifty-seven percent of blacks said “a lot” of racial discrimination exists, and only 10 percent of whites said the same. A third of whites said “most” racial tension is caused by blacks, and only three percent of blacks said the same." http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2008/09/23/blackwhite-racial-perceptio...

That's the majority of the community, Andre. So either you're hanging out with the wrong people or, more likely, you're just not listening to what they actually say.

You move onto say that blacks from Africa are coming here despite racism. But there are so many problems with this it is staggering to choose where to begin. For one: Blacks in Africa are not magically free from racism. European and American colonialism keep them far poorer than even our own native blacks. Coming to the imperial heartland doesn't disprove the impact of racism, it actually PROVES it. The fact that making dangerous trips and risking everything to transplant themselves elsewhere is better than staying at their home is a tribute to how much their situation has been eroded thanks to colonialism. Second: Black males in Harlem have the same mortality rate as people in Bangladesh. For many blacks, this IS a Third World country, no matter what you believe. Third: The fact that people may perceive opportunities does not ipso facto prove they are there. Many Viet may think that this is a land of opportunity, yet that doesn't stop them from having among the highest rates of welfare receipt in the country. (Fun fact: All of the Viet in my apartment benefit from some form of public subsidy.) Fourth: American wealth is so egregiously imbalanced compared to the rest of the world (thanks to theft, of course) that having even a .00001% chance at a slice of that pie is worth it. That doesn't mean that the chance at the pie is actually realistic.

You argue that blacks are aware racism is real yet oddly enough don't think it actually impacts their lives. This would be a very strange position for blacks, or indeed anyone, to hold. Actually, polls show that most blacks report some discrimination impacting them at some point. And most blacks saw racism in the handling of Katrina; I bet you only saw them being critical of the Bush administration, right?

You remind me of Uncle Ruckus from The Boondocks, frankly...

"This shows that the average joe/jane can do it in the USA."

No, it simply doesn't. Pointing to a group of around 2000 people and saying "Look! A fraction of these people are from middle-class backgrounds! The system works!" is the height of social science idiocy and would get you laughed out of any statistician's office. In a nation with around 300 million people, of course a tiny fraction will move up or down. But the vast majority will not and can not.

How in God's name, for example, can those kept structurally employed, the 3-7% (more if you count people who are structurally part-time or temp workers), possibly have an even leg up? They CAN'T GET A JOB! The economy makes it literally impossible, guaranteeing through fiscal policy, that that group cannot ever find a job. Yes, it's not the same 3-7% of the population. But it is part of the population. You honestly seem to think that if some people have to spend six months to two years without any kind of employment, they'll be able to easily catch up to doctors who worked the whole time at five times the salary the poor made when employed. Frankly, more idiocy about the economy I haven't seen in awhile.

" It's almost impossible to be a billionaire, but there are over a million millionaires in this nation."

So, 1/300 of the population. That's .33333%. THAT'S your argument? That less than one percent of the population somehow means that the remaining 99.66667% have a fair shot?

"And I'll end it with the "myth of anti-intellectualism" in the black community is no myth at all. Like I pointed out previously. Anti-intellectualism is anti-intellectualism, there's no need to condemn whites more for this more than blacks."

Ummm, yes there is. Because even when it's the same, white anti-intellectualism has more impact.

But you clearly aren't even trying to have the argument anymore. Tim's point is that they shouldn't be treated differently. But, they are. No one talks about white anti-intellectualism as white anti-intellectualism. They talk about black anti-intellectualism as black anti-intellectualism. Get the difference?

In short: Western civilization has stolen so much wealth we should be thankful for it and be completely fine with murder because other people are, racism is real but it actually has no impact, and millionaires mean that the poor have an even chance despite the economic facts to the contrary. Have I gotten it roughly right?

Blacks own 1% of the nation's wealth, Andre. Not the 12% of the population they make up. There is no explanation for this besides racism. None.