Reflections on White Anti-Intellectualism
Reflections on White Anti-Intellectualism
(Or, What'cha Want With all That Book Learnin'?)
By Tim Wise
September 14, 2008
To hear an awful lot of white folks tell it, the problem with black people is that they just don't want to work hard enough in school. They act up and refuse to study or get good grades, because they don't want to be put down for "acting white." In other words, the African American community is beset by a culture of anti-intellectualism, contrasted, one supposes with our own white culture of studiousness and academic achievement.
When making this argument, and knowing that it might sound a bit disparaging, even racist, we white folks love to refer to the high-profile black folks who agree with us. So we point to Bill Cosby, for instance, who said this same thing a few years ago and hasn't stopped saying it yet. The fact that a dozen or so studies have found that there actually is no unique peer pressure or ostracism that black kids experience for doing well in school (over and above that which all kids who are viewed as brainy often face) fails to move them. The fact that longitudinal data actually shows that black students are the most likely to believe in the importance of getting a good education, the least likely to cheat and the least likely to skip class appears to matter not.
But what I have always found interesting about the anti-intellectualism charge coming from whites and pointed at persons in the black community, is how readily it emanates from a group of people (white adults) who seem to actually revel in anti-intellectualism, as evidenced by our voting behavior and political sensibilities, made especially clear during the current political campaign.
What else but a deep contempt for education (or book learnin' as we sometimes jokingly refer to it in the South) could explain why Barack Obama's Harvard Law School education can be mocked as elitist and out of touch, while John McCain's bottom-feeder academic record and Sarah Palin's four colleges in six years and degree from the University of Idaho, makes them ready to lead, and more like "normal people?" (And please, don't tell me how it isn't his education that poses the problem, but rather his comments about rural folks clinging to God and guns when times are tight, since a week after he made that comment, Dick Cheney implied that West Virginians were all a bunch of inbreds, and rural whites didn't seem to care, since at least he isn't an uppity black guy).
What else but a deep contempt for education could render Obama's time as a law professor, teaching constitutional law at one of the nation's finest law schools, all but irrelevant in the eyes of millions? To hear a lot of people tell it, his time in the classroom doesn't count, and doesn't indicate anything about his fitness to be president (even though, ya know, being an expert on the Constitution is intuitively a good thing for the president to be, or one would think), but having been a prisoner of war, or a hunter and hockey mom, and "just like the neighbor next door," makes you fit for the nation's highest offices.
What else but a deep contempt for education could explain the free pass given to George W. Bush for bragging at a Yale commencement a few years ago that he had been a C student, but that was OK, because even with a mediocre academic record you could go on to be president? If a black person told students that, they'd be viewed as downgrading achievement, but not Bush. Is it the accent? Is that all it takes to make people think you're one of them? A bubba drawl and the spinning of downhome homilies? Or the fact that you like to shoot guns? If this is the love for learning, and the intelligence that white folks seem to think blacks inadequately value, can I suggest that perhaps such intelligence isn't all it's cracked up to be?
What else but a deep-seated anti-intellectual streak could explain why so many white voters in 2000 and 2004 regularly mentioned how they preferred Bush because he was the "kind of guy you feel you could have a beer with" (as if that had anything to do with being the leader of the so-called free world), and how they disdained the intellectual certitude of Gore and Kerry, whose command of policy details made them feel like they were being talked down to?
What else but a commitment to the long-term abdication of critical thinking could explain why millions of whites take so quickly to Rush Limbaugh: a guy whose motto for years was that he would "tell you what to think" and whose fans call themselves "ditto" heads (as in, "same as above," which is nearly the perfect metaphor for people who follow someone else like sheep).
In fact, the white love of anti-intellectualism in politics goes back quite a ways further than that. So when Ronald Reagan decided to skip out on a policy briefing during an important overseas trip, all so he could watch The Sound of Music on television, or when he regularly failed to know the names of foreign leaders, most white folks still loved him and considered him a great leader. Perhaps it was because he had a ranch, liked to wear cowboy hats, and had that folksy aw-shucks grin?
As a white person, and as one with plenty of antiracist and critical-thinking white friends, I realize that not all whites fall into this anti-intellectual trap. Perhaps most don't. But it appears that enough do to make a difference in elections. And surely, the embrace of anti-intellectualism is at least as severe in the white community as it is in the black community, where we constantly hear talk of it, coming from the very white folks who then turn around and tell us that the Earth was created only 5000 years ago, and that despite having no scientific training, they are sure that global warming is a myth, but that Obama really is a Muslim, or maybe the anti-Christ (as once-upon-a-time celebrity, Victoria Jackson claims on her website).
In short, when it comes to "acting white," if the term means paying no attention to policy details, but rather voting for the person who you'd most like to hang out with at a sports bar, then perhaps we need not only black and brown folks to forswear such lunacy, but for those of us who are white to turn on whiteness too. To not do so would be to confirm that whiteness is inversely related to mental acumen. I for one, would like to think we were capable of better. But as for evidence to support my hope? Well, I'm still waiting for that.
- Login Or register To Post Comments
- Send To A Friend
RSS- Bookmark With:
Lee Evans says:
Hypocricy as a Way of Life
Tim:
I totally agree with your analysis of things and I share your frustrations. It is an uphill battle but not an entirely impossible task to counter-act the rising tide of stupidty that is encouraged and fostered in our society. You and thousands like you contribute to the defusion of this mass-madness everytime you give voice to reason. However, we must all do our part by not allowing insanity and propaganda replace reality and reason.
Frederic Christie says:
Great Article
Great article as always, Tim.
I should note that not every study confirms that there are no differences between black students and other students. Ed Gordon's fantastic News and Notes had a discussion on this very topic. What studies that have found tendencies of black anti-intellectualism have found, though, is that this can't be possibly separated from racism, as Steinberg would note. A lot of black children, understandably, expect that a lot of hard work in academics won't give as much as a lot of hard work developing musical, entertaining or athletic talent. So the studies conclude that those children who do study hard suffer from peer pressure not to.
What struck me most about listening to the program was how seriously they took this study, even when they felt that the studies you cite are far more compelling, and how seriously they took Cosby's allegations. Far from the patterns of vicious denial and counter-attack that characterize whites when they are criticized, this was sober commentary discussing what actually may be wrong with the black community and what can be done to avoid it. I couldn't find the contrast clearer.
So I imagine you'll get tons of hate mail for daring to suggest that whites have any kind of anti-intellectual streak.
I should note, of course, that Bush won neither election, and that a lot of this embrace of anti-intellectualism is mythical, but I do agree that I see a lot of it. But, of course, as Chomsky would note, that can't be separated from classism either. There are some understandable raising of the haunches in response to folks like Gore. I've never found in my interaction with all sorts of people that intellectualism was considered a problem. When I mentioned why I hated Democratic liberals, for example, I started getting some attention.
M E says:
Welcome to the dumbing down
Welcome to the dumbing down of America. It's no coincidence those red states are also the most uneducated. I think this anti-intellectualism also comes from the fact that many of these people are incredibly uneducated themselves. The Republican party and that conservative Christian faction has seized on this, fostered it, and for years now, has been circulating this notion that educated people are elitist and untrustworthy. It's a political tactic to gain control over the masses. It's perfect, because the people who aren't educated will swallow almost anything they are fed in an emotional way. Conservative America no longer appeals to rational thought. Stephen Colbert has totally tapped into that concept. They are "gut thinkers", and therefore completely empty rhetoric about "Country First" and Kerry being a traitor (Swiftboating) appeal to this uneducated demographic. And of course, this active fostering of ignorance in favor of "gut thinking" by the Republican machine allows them to tap into things like racism. Ironically, Bush/Rove used it against McCain when they ran against each other during the primaries (McCain has an adopted black child, whom, not so oddly considering their audience, they don't publicize. In 2000, Rove spread a rumor that "McCain has an illegitimate black baby").
If people were to think rationally (er...BRAIN thinking) they would have to see that a top-of-the-class Harvard graduate with actually rational arguments supporting his positions would be a better choice than the guy who, according to Wikipedia "studied only enough to pass subjects he struggled with, such as mathematics" and the hockey mom with the gun. Instead, they don't even question their "gut thinking" that the black guy who has been suggested "might be a Muslim" is bad, and the war hero with the hot chick running mate is good. And the Republicans want to keep things this way to stay in power. They want a dumb America. It serves them perfectly.
White anti-intellectualism is currently trying to replace teaching evolution in favor of creationism, get rid of sex education, replacing "FAITH" with actual facts. Anti-intellectualism has been growing here. When McCain's spokesperson was asked to EXPLAIN a remark on CNN, CNN was punished for going "rational", and McCain pulled out of his interview with Larry King because "CNN went over the line". This is such a clear example of the whole anti-intellectualism in the Republicans. It was a clear message that they were not engaging in rational debate, and patriotism and emotional rhetoric were not to be strayed from, and the media better remember it. See the interview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDK-gC0Go7g
I don't think the white Christian "anti-intellectualism" is any less threatening to the institution of learning/education than the gangster/hip-hop culture. It's total hypocricy for people to focus on one without seeing the other.
Frederic Christie says:
I Think The White Anti-Intellectualism Is Worse
"I don't think the white Christian "anti-intellectualism" is any less threatening to the institution of learning/education than the gangster/hip-hop culture. It's total hypocricy for people to focus on one without seeing the other."
Of course, but the point is that the prevailing hypocrisy is the white one.
More importantly, I don't think they're exactly analogous. For one thing, it's not a clear case that rap and hip-hop routinely decries education. People like Jay Z and Ice T are clearly smart guys who try to build businesses and soften their image as they age. And numerous studies of gangster culture have shown that it's actually fairly entrepeneurial and often has very sophisticated business moves. Further, underground and political rap and hip-hop, which even very mainstream singers do (let alone folks deeper underground like Immortal Technique, the Flobots, etc.) are very explicitly political, revolutionary and pro-education. Check out the Boondocks: A show with some popularity (though some controversial elements too) coming from the black community featuring Samuel L. Jackson and Charlie Murphy yet satirizing those tendencies and advocating radical self-education. Second, while both tendencies against intellectualism stem from the decay of popular institutions, blacks have a better excuse because they face not only politics, class, capital and globalization but also race. And even if gangster culture eschews education, that is still a far cry from actively arguing AGAINST established science theory like the Christians do.
M E says:
Hypocricy
Oh, definitely the prevailing hypocricy is the white one. I totally agree. The problems with glorifying gangster culture are actively discussed in the media, and some of the loudest protestors are those within the black community who are willing to look at those issues openly. Nobody, particularly not people in mainstream white culture, talks about how the Christian right are working hard to denigrate rational thought and intellectuals.
And 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. I am thrilled to see this development and hear these bands, because it is one of empowerment rather than defeatism. I don't put them in the same category at all. However, I can't defend gangsta rap in the way you do. I understand how it developed, but I do not think it is positive or empowering. I don't believe the "entrepreneurial" skills of rappers equates intellectualism at all. Pimps are entrepreneurial too. So are drug dealers. Doesn't mean they are educated. The fact that gangsta rappers have found ways to exploit people even more vulnerable than they are (women, mostly black women) and glorify dealing drugs and killing their own, all self-loathing activities incidentally, may be entrepreneurial, but calling it pro-education is for me, putting lipstick on a pig (may I add that that phrase's recent fame is yet another example of uneducated America that hasn't heard it before and equated it with a sexist slur).
But I am in wholehearted agreement that hypocricy regarding these things is coming from the white culture which is all too happy to jump on the gangsta rap debate, but not interested in a self-reflective debate about the Christian white glorifying "salt-of-the-earth" "regular guy" "stay-home-mom" (i.e. anti-intellectual) culture over education.
Preston Thomas says:
?
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.
Frederic Christie says:
Oppressed Consciousness
"I don't believe the "entrepreneurial" skills of rappers equates intellectualism at all. Pimps are entrepreneurial too. So are drug dealers. Doesn't mean they are educated."
Here we get into a discussion about what "intellectualism" really means. Chomsky, for example, argues that he finds much more admirable or educated or intellectual about the guy who fixes his car than the Professor of English who could only get into trouble if he got a comma wrong. Clearly, there is intelligence, skills and knowledge involved in running these businesses. The fact that they don't have an MBA by their name doesn't make it any less valid: In fact, in a lot of ways I'd argue it's much MORE valid given how empty a lot of college economics and such are and how much MBAs have to pick up on the job anyways. I'm reminded of Trading Places, where Eddie Murphy's character uses his understanding of con games to be a businessman. While this is obviously a humorous exaggeration, I think the core point of the film is nonetheless still well taken.
"The fact that gangsta rappers have found ways to exploit people even more vulnerable than they are (women, mostly black women) and glorify dealing drugs and killing their own, all self-loathing activities incidentally, may be entrepreneurial, but calling it pro-education is for me, putting lipstick on a pig (may I add that that phrase's recent fame is yet another example of uneducated America that hasn't heard it before and equated it with a sexist slur)."
First of all, I didn't say pro-education, I just said that this isn't ESCHEWING education and is recommending to use your brain and think for yourself. Very few gangster songs say "Don't go to school" (unlike, say, the Beastie Boys, who have recommended just that in "Fight for your Right to Party"). They don't say that going to a UC would be "gay". They talk about the skills and charisma to succeed somewhere else, in a place that is of course created by racism. That is a FAR cry from white Christian anti-intellectualism, which actively tells people to turn their brains off, ignore science, etc.
But second, this is a very white liberal (mis)understanding of rap and hip-hop. Del tha Funkee Homosapien, for example, can release a song with some gangster elements, but also on one of his early tracks talking about riding on the bus mock the undereducation and low intelligence of the thugs mocking him for riding on the front (and point out the irony that Rosa Parks fought to get the front of the bus open and now blacks seem to insist on hanging in the back). More importantly, his 3030 album under his Deltron Zero moniker talks about an anti-capitalist former mech soldier neuromancer who perfectly blends technology and magic in order to be a rap superhero against the system. It's not like Del is totally underground, either: People know him as the rapper from The Gorillaz. Damn It Feels Good to be a Gangster, popularized in Office Space by the Ghetto Boyz, has a brilliant satire of Bill Clinton at the end, pointing out that he was just as much a gangster as any hood in Harlem, and also talking about helping the poor with their "bills". Ice Cube and NWA always had quite serious social criticism. Busta Rhymes' Millenium album had a great opening sequence where a little girl asks what's going to happen after 2000 and her father responds something to the effect of a post-apocalyptic world ruled by corporate warlords battling with cybernetic soldiers while staving off a super plague. Coolio's Gangsta's Paradise is quite self-aware criticism of the very nature of the gangster mythos. That's not even talking about explicitly political MCs like The Flobots, Immortal Technique, etc. The irony is that even as I can command all these examples, I still think of some imaginary group of really hateful, silly, utterly worthless hip-hop and rap, even though I can't name any examples.
And that's not all. Like I pointed out, The Boondocks (both as a comic and as a cartoon) was quite explicitly pro-education. Puff Daddy's Vote or Die campaign (however brilliantly satirized by South Park) was a quite real and authentic PSA. So all such comments show, I think, is how out of touch the listener is.
In short, even when we point to a very controversial part of the black community's culture, the story is very mixed. That makes sense: You'd expect consciousness from an oppressed people.
Brandon Pilcher says:
I agree
Let me add that, to me, most of the "gangsterism" you see in the hip hop subculture seems phony and nothing more than an collection of fads and adolescent feigning of rebelliousness, similar to the Goth and punk subcultures seen among white kids. On the other hand, the fundies are dangerously sincere in their opposition to established scientific theories.
Brandon Pilcher says:
Right-wing intellectualism
It has been my experience that a lot of conservatives in the US, for all their scolding of black students, tend to be very anti-intellectual, especially anti-academic, themselves. I've noticed that conservatives like David Horowitz whine about academia being dominated by those evil liberals discriminating against conservatives. Of course, the possibilities that common conservative beliefs don't stand up to the scrutiny of most learned people, or that culturally conservative people may be less interested in education than cultural liberals, does not occur to them. Personal responsibility, schmesponsibility.
That said, if black students value education to a similar degree to whites, why do they tend to achieve lower scores on tests? Anyone have a good guess?
Frederic Christie says:
The Usual Suspects
"That said, if black students value education to a similar degree to whites, why do they tend to achieve lower scores on tests? Anyone have a good guess?"
A variety of factors.
The big one is stereotype threat. That is, even blacks that luck into the same economic and educational options fear when taking many standardized tests that they will confirm stereotypes about their race and thus either move too fast or too slow. As anyone who's taken a standardized test will tell you, the big thing is to keep clear and avoid being nervous. This additional burden of racial stigma is quite serious. This is part of the reason why black students in general and affirmative action beneficiaries both in education and employment do as well or sometimes better as white colleagues when abstracting out things like class, even despite many other disadvantages that are quite serious.
Second, most testing schemes are culturally prejudicial. That combined with stereotype threat is why the SAT is such a terrible predictor of long-term college success.
Third, the obvious culprits: Failing schools, disproportionate likelihood of being in remedial classes, parents more likely to be working all the time to support the family, parents more likely to be in jail, less access to prep materials or tutors, being disciplined more often in school, proctors paying more attention to cheating, etc. etc.
Lee Evans says:
Black vs White Test Scores And Racist Propaganda
"That said, if black students value education to a similar degree to whites, why do they tend to achieve lower scores on tests? Anyone have a good guess?"
Without engaging in a long-winded pseudo-intellectual dissertation on statistics and what's wrong with them, let's avoid drawing the line in the sand that puts the academic achievements of whites against those of blacks. Because to do so would be to engage in yet another distraction that would lead the conversation off into another maze of racist propaganda for which the end assertion would be that blacks are inferior to whites intellectually.
Instead, if we were to take off the mask and stop playing games the following should be evident:
Blacks by in large not only started their lives in this country as slaves but there was a practical interest in keeping them ignorant. When they were free from it, they found themselves in a society that shut them out of educational and economic opportunity at every turn. The most blatant forms of this discrimination persisted with legal sanction until less than 50 years ago. Therefore, the staggering social and economic implications of this shouldn't require further examination.
Therefore, why not ask the following questions:
(1) Of the whites who receive higher scores on tests. what percentage of the pool do these whites represent of all whites who took the said test and for whites who achieved lower scores on the test why?
(2) For the black who took the said test who out scored whites, what does it say about the whites who received lower scores? And what does any of this have to do with the price of rice?
M E says:
Prophetic
Take the following statement in context of the current regime, apply it to Americans across the board and see how frighteningly parallel it is. It's a tried and true tactic, and blacks were the guinea pigs. Republicans are working to get Americans as ignorant as possible, and history could be prophesy:
"...there was a practical interest in keeping them ignorant. When they were free from it, they found themselves in a society that shut them out of educational and economic opportunity at every turn."
M E says:
Scores
Really good point about conservatives wanting academia to reflect their values, but not getting that those values simply don't stand up to educated scrutiny. It's like the media always wanting a "balanced" perspective, and putting an irrational crackpot on to present two equally weighted perspectives. I'm sorry, facts usually have one perspective. For example, the idiom "lipstick on a pig" has one historic meaning. Period. There's no two perspectives there.
As far as black test scores, there are a myriad of reasons test scores are lower for blacks. Valuing an education doesn't mean *getting* an education. A lot of it has to do with the fact that blacks tend to have worse economic status. This means both parents may have to work and can't be there to act as tutor for their kids or make sure they do their homework after school. It means black kids may be more susceptible to street culture and/or gangs. It may mean the "lucky" kids have to take a bus to better schools in affluent areas to get a better education. Where I went to school, inner city minorities were bussed in from as far as 2 hours away. While I was getting my sleep at 5 A.M., they were standing at a bus stop. After school, they were on a bus while I was doing extra-curricular activities. And so on...
Of course, not every black child fits into the above scenarios. But they are common, and that's not even to go into the internalized identity stuff that black kids may have that might affect their performance.
Ryan Mishap says:
punk
Pilcher obviously knows nothing about punk, its diversity, or the thousands of punks around the world who work in a thousand ways to make their communities a better place.
Frederic Christie says:
There Are Shallow Subcultures
Ryan: I'm practically a lifelong punk, but it is true that many kids in middle school to high school listen to punk music and pop punk and get into fairly shallow subcultures because of it.
Robert Gray says:
Where to start?
Tim,
The institutionalized version of what you speak of is called "No Child Left Behind," which, upon even superficial critical scrutiny, reveals itself as a blatant attempt to teach children not to think, leading them, rather, to simply and passively ingest an official, standardized curriculum based on good, solid, traditional American (i.e., white, bourgois) values.
I guess the thinking is that "if they don't know any better, perhaps they won't vote our asses out..." Which is really telling, especially when you consider that the economy is currently doing what it is, arguably because of policy decisions led by McCain, and yet he still has a very good chance of winning this election, presumably because people feel he's better for the economy. It's not "sad," as you said in another post--it's f'ing infuriating.
Rob
Wendy Babiak says:
Maybe there's something in the water...
Christopher Williams, an English scholar, wrote a fascinating and somewhat scary book called Terminus Brain: Environmental Threats to Human Intelligence. While certainly we can blame white privilege, and the media, and television as a national pastime, and deteriorating educational standards, and Christianofascism, etc., I think as a society we also need to consider that there's a very good chance that there are chemical reasons for the downturn in intelligence. And there IS certainly a downturn in intelligence. When linguists analyze letters sent by common people on the wagon trail to the west a hundred years ago, it's shown that average people had vocabularies that would make even yours and mine seem paltry.
Which all makes this election process a bit hairy, doesn't it? The Republicans have shown that they have no shame when it comes to manipulating the electorate with emotional appeals, especially fearmongering, which is far too effective among the stupid.
Frederic Christie says:
Emptiness of Institutions
Actually, I don't accept that conclusion. For one thing, people on the wagon trail didn't know about general relativity, or television, or so forth. There is a wealth of knowledge we have that others don't. Also, IQ seems to be higher on average now than in the past.
But I think the biggest point is the one Chomsky makes: Listen to any sports radio show. Suddenly, people are involved, energetic, deeply informed, perfectly aware of an array of minutiae, and challenging of authority and expertise. This is, of course, despite the fact that the expertise in throwing a ball and making championship level plays is much more specialized and inaccessible than political or economic information, where one really just needs basic research skills.
I think the most massive problem explaining American ignorance is the decay of functioning institutions. If there's a society where the majority have wanted socialized health care for decades yet only now that it's costing the corporate oligopoly it enters into public discussion, of course people are going to be unaware of geography, or who's on the Security Council. Such information isn't useful if one can't shape policy.
Wendy Babiak says:
No
IQ is not higher now on average, it's lower. Mr. Williams cites plenty of studies to verify that. The fact that people are capable of remembering sports trivia doesn't change that, nor does the fact that science has ploughed ahead. 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.
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.
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.
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). 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. 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. And what can we expect when we've had a president for eight years who doesn't read and who also hasn't "made up his mind about evolution"? 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.
Frederic Christie says:
Reply
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.
Andre M says:
I disagree
I'm a 29 year old black man from philly, a city that is alomost 50% black. I must admitt that your claims about black people and students doesnt fit with my personal experiences in the slightest, it doesnt even jive with the actually statistics.
You claim black students are "the least likely to skip class", the dropout rate for blacks is higher than the dropout rate for whites which suggests the exact opposite, since dropouts often cut class spiral downwards then drop out(source: nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/droppub_2001/). You also claim that "studies have found that there actually is no unique peer pressure or ostracism that black kids experience for doing well in school". There are studies that have shown that black kids who do well in school are less popular and have less friends than white students who also do well in school.
And I don't agree with everything that Bill cosby says, but I agree with the spirit of his rhetoric. I wish I had a dollar for every black person I knew that passed up in your face opportunities like College, business ownership,etc because of their own poor decisions, I would have a fortune. The fact is whites have given us massive oppotunities to succeed in western civilization, something that they built. And they've given us access to amazing technologies/resources that could give anyone the upper hand if he/she were willing to put in the time and effort. The fact is the only thing that seperates poor blacks from upper middle class blacks is decisions making and talent. I've been around long enough to see successful blacks take opportunities that almost every black is presented with. I'm not talking about oprah or anyone super-wealthy. Just blacks who took widely available opportunies and grinded at it, now they own homes, cars, and have more assets than debts.
You consistantly condemn whites for behaviors that blacks are even more guilty of in your claim that " the embrace of anti-intellectualism is at least as severe in the white community as it is in the black community". The fact is there is no shortage of blacks that believe in biblical creationism, and I've meet many more whites that accept evolution than blacks and i grew up around blacks. And Like i told you in an email there are plenty of blacks that believe you are going to hell, another thing that you critized whites for. But maybe you don't care, maybe you just view us blacks as some kind of pawn. In that case there's no need to pay attention to our details, just the politics.
Frederic Christie says:
Reply to Andre
"You claim black students are "the least likely to skip class", the dropout rate for blacks is higher than the dropout rate for whites which suggests the exact opposite, since dropouts often cut class spiral downwards then drop out"
Well, this "suggesting" is simply wrong and you didn't do your homework to find out otherwise. The National Center for Educational Statistics indicates otherwise (Tim cites them here: http://raceandhistory.com/selfnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1040950156,64587,.... ) . All of Tim's statistics are in fact the case, which would seem to indicate that higher dropout rates must have another cause than skipping class.
It appears to be the case that dropout rates are higher for blacks and Latinos, particularly in California. But to imagine that this has to do with anti-intellectualism and not to do with racism seems to me to be highly questionable. First of all, the white dropout rate is still abysmal, and yet that doesn't lead to charges of white anti-intellectualism, which is Tim's main point. Second, we don't have any studies that indicate why the dropout rate is so high. I can present at least a few hypotheses that can't be extricated from race: Black and Latino students dropping out to get a job to support their family; black and Latino students dropping out because they have rationally assessed that their high school isn't going to provide alternatives or possibilities; black and Latino students dropping out to join gangs so as to make at least some money and have at least a chance of financial advancement; black and Latino students dropping out at frustration at attending remedial classes or failing schools; etc.
"You also claim that "studies have found that there actually is no unique peer pressure or ostracism that black kids experience for doing well in school". There are studies that have shown that black kids who do well in school are less popular and have less friends than white students who also do well in school."
Like I noted in the comments, there have been studies both ways. The studies you mention were routinely attacked immediately for being quite flawed, and in fact many of them do not compare students to white schools but only focus on black schools and notice that such behavior exists but don't comment on the comparative amount of it. Further, they don't compensate for class differentials, which would be vital to do since it'd make some sense prima facia that generally poorer people place generally lower value on education. Suffice it to say that the jury is far from out.
What those who commented on the studies pointed out was that when such behavior occurs it itself can't be separated from racism. As Tim pointed out in White Like Me, if white teachers and the white school system imply that you're somehow inferior, or if your school is failing in general and that is the message being sent clearly, one is quite likely to preserve one's self-esteem by simply pretending that those things don't matter. Screw your grades. Now, this is obviously a bad response, but the point is that it comes from a real place. White students overwhelmingly have no such excuse. As Steinberg would argue, cultural values generally resonate with real arrays of outcomes. When social mobility is at an all-time low (as even The Economist admits and in fact is quite concerned by) and when this general economic fact is amplified by specific racism at blacks, it makes some sense for kids to try to grasp at straws at being entertainers or sports stars, since they have no other options. The time spent getting an A is far less likely, or so they assume (more rightly than a white student doing so), to get them a shot than time spent practicing basketball.
Trust me, going to a white high school, there's plenty of reasons to spend your time chilling at the river or getting high or playing sports or cutting class than going to class. What's worse about this behavior, though, is not only how widespread it is (as the white community's massive drug use rates show) but also how little of a barrier to progress it is. Only in white communities could you have a phenomenon called "senioritis", where seniors literally stop caring about school, stop showing, stop handing in homework assignments, etc. because they know that a) the college of their choice has already accepted them and they'd have to bomb not to get in, b) teachers don't want to deal with their parents for denying their children their hopes and dreams, c) teachers generally want the kids to attend college and d) the whole school system doesn't want to keep these kids behind. There's no reason to try anymore, or so most white seniors seem to think. This kind of behavior is "boys will be boys" when done by whites, anti-intellectualism when done by blacks.
And notice the specific genre of "Inner city school teacher bucks the odds" movie. Why are there no movies where a teacher has to buck the odds and get the attention of a bunch of privileged white kids?
"I wish I had a dollar for every black person I knew that passed up in your face opportunities like College, business ownership,etc because of their own poor decisions, I would have a fortune."
Of course, but whites pass up those possibilities too and Cosby's scorn isn't directed at them.
The point was that Cosby's rant was sharply disconnected from the actual facts and from the community at large. Nonetheless, I was astounded to find that News and Notes with Ed Gordon took the studies of black anti-intellectual behavior in high school and the Cosby debacle seriously. I simply didn't. And that's the core point: Despite the faults of Cosby's speech, it was directed at his own community. But then whites jumped on the bandwagon saying the same thing. And that's quite a different thing.
"The fact is whites have given us massive oppotunities to succeed in western civilization, something that they built."
No, actually, neither of these are "facts", they are highly contentious theories that actually don't hold water.
First of all, it is idiotic to say that whites built Western civilization. Whites took substantial portions of what we consider integral to Western civilization, such as gunpowder, not to mention massive resources and knowledge from the Chinese and the Muslims. Whites then similarly did so when robbing the world with their colonial barbarism. Numerous fauna and flora we consider essential to "Western" civilization actually grew in the Americas. Then, most importantly to your point, America in particular was built thanks to black slaves, dead Native Americans, Asians helping with the railroad and Latina/os giving up their land and transferring a lot of culture to the Southwest.
Of course those identified as white made achievements: Newton, Einstein, Bell, Edison, Tesla, etc. But had their society not been crushing the world, they would have been joined by other geniuses, people like Carver.
Second, blacks own 1% of the national wealth now. They should own 13%. You could argue that even 1% of American wealth is quite an amazing sum, but that's not very impressive because it still means y'all are getting screwed by an order of magnitude. This is especially true when you consider how much blacks have disproportionately given to whites. Consider all the decades of slavery which should have been time for those families to build up just like white families have. Indeed, if anything, blacks should have slightly MORE than their white counterparts, if only because so many black families have been here for centuries while numerous white families immigrated far more recently.
More importantly, it's still an idiotic assertion. Because just as the white proportion of the wealth is sharply maldistributed among a small rich oligopoly and a large poor and middle-class, so too is the wealth maldistributed in the black community with a few Tiger Woods and Oprahs hogging quite a bit of the wealth. That's not stemming from racist intent, of course, but it is racist impact: America's inequity and social immobility slam those in particular who are at the bottom of the rungs already.
"And they've given us access to amazing technologies/resources that could give anyone the upper hand if he/she were willing to put in the time and effort."
If that's the case, why aren't there so many white billionaires?
Simple: When it comes to white folks, our eyes are clear. We know that the fact that those technologies and resources are OUT THERE doesn't prove they're accessible to the average Joe. The economic statistics are quite clear: The vast majority of the population will not move up or down from their economic strata, and those strata are sharply differentiated.
Even barring racism, only a tiny minority of blacks would still have access to those resources. But racism in some ways hits the rich the most disproportionately. It is the black and Latino middle-class that is among the hardest hit by the subprime meltdown, for example, because of the illegal and racist disproportion of the subprime loans that community was offered even when they actually deserved normal loans.
The very fact that Bill Gates can have a GDP equivalent to Norway, and others can have similar levels of wealth (the Waltons, Oprah, etc.) itself precludes the vast majority from having anything more than a pittance.
"The fact is the only thing that seperates poor blacks from upper middle class blacks is decisions making and talent."
This is also not a fact but an assertion, and a highly unbelievable one at that.
Do you imagine that a lot of successful blacks had successful parents with at least some wealth and education? If so, that CANNOT be due to decision-making and talent, but due to luck in the genetic lottery.
Clearly luck, learning how to play the game, etc. matter.
But let's say you are in fact right. So the hell what?
Of course a tiny minority will always have so much merit that they can rise up, combined with a little bit of luck to get them the right circumstances. This is even true in SLAVE societies: Frederick Douglass. That says nothing about the vast majority or the social system in question: Those people are outliers.
Even at the height of slave systems, we had Frederick Douglass. Even at the height of Jim Crow, we had Madame C. J. Walker. But to deny that blacks faced equal opportunity thanks to either of those two would be repugnant, racist idiocy of the highest order.
Similarly, the fact that some with quite a lot of talent, luck and good decision-making can rise up doesn't mean that those with just a little less of each are getting a fair shake too. As Oprah discovered when she tried to buy jewelry, all her advantages ended up still not wiping the black from her face. There is NO WAY that blacks can be getting a fair shake when studies show that white excuses for bad credit are listened to and excused while black excuses are not, or that black-sounding names get called back less often for interviews, or so forth.
"You consistantly condemn whites for behaviors that blacks are even more guilty of in your claim that " the embrace of anti-intellectualism is at least as severe in the white community as it is in the black community". The fact is there is no shortage of blacks that believe in biblical creationism, and I've meet many more whites that accept evolution than blacks and i grew up around blacks. And Like i told you in an email there are plenty of blacks that believe you are going to hell, another thing that you critized whites for. But maybe you don't care, maybe you just view us blacks as some kind of pawn. In that case there's no need to pay attention to our details, just the politics."
Andre, you were doing so well up 'til this point. The simple fact is that the proportion of those who believe in the things Tim cited and the publically notorious faces and movements that cause those things is overwhemingly white.
Let's say that 90% of the black population thought Darwin was an idiot. That still wouldn't matter, Andre, because 90% of the black population thinking anything doesn't change very much politically. But when massive proportions of the WHITE population think such idiocy, they get serious attention and policy changes. So their anti-intellectualism deserves serious scorn, yet we don't hear about it racially when it's white folks who do it.
And, of course, it's not the only type of white anti-intellectualism. White frat boy anti-intellectualism, the type I cited, where playing some Halo and getting a kegger and starting a riot, is also serious, yet it is coddled.
You appear to be a black conservative. Fair enough, but you're just as wrong as Larry Elder, and I'd say dreadfully out of touch with your community...
Andre M says:
Thanks for your response.
Thanks for your response. btw I'm not a conservative, I like obama more than mccain, I just like the truth even if it's politically incorrect.
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.
You claim, "First of all, it is idiotic to say that whites built Western civilization. Whites took substantial portions of what we consider integral to Western civilization, such as gunpowder, not to mention massive resources and knowledge from the Chinese and the Muslims."
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. 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.
Secondly, Western europeans weren't the first to eliminate a COMPETING people, or to occupy their lands, or to own slaves. Muslims even owned european slaves at one point in history, and Arabs have conquered white territories. Even turkey which is now islamic was once populated by christian europeans, but it was taken away. But how often are arabs or turks made to feel guilty because of there successes over others including europeans, almost never. 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.
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.
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 reason blacks were enslaved was because of our own barbarism, short sightedness, and lack of innovation. We allowed ourselves to be exploited. The whites could have built their new american nations without our labor, of course that's the main thing we had to offer was labor. The Europeans had been architects of great civilizations since Greece and Rome, and had developed many technologies right in europe and later in the americas. If I were white i would be proud of our victories over other groups, in games that have been played sense the dawn of humanity. 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.
You claim "Do you imagine that a lot of successful blacks had successful parents with at least some wealth and education? If so, that CANNOT be due to decision-making and talent, but due to luck in the genetic lottery."
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. When I went to college I meet a lot blacks from poor backgrounds like me who are now making yearly incomes in the 60 and 70 thousands easy, some make more. 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. 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.
My freakin black momma dropped out of college, then later got knocked by a man she knew probably wasn't going to stick around. I've NEVER heard her mention racism, because whitey gave her a shot and she f--ked it up. Whites were good to her, better than the blacks were in many cases so she has to swallow her own mistake. USA kept the option open to her to constantly every year for decades, now at 51 she wants to do something more meaningful with her life. What a joke.
So in my 20+ years of living in black neighborhoods racism almost never comes up in dialogue, and if it does it's almost always something that happen far away and/or long ago. We know racism is still ALIVE and WELL. We also know the opportunities are amazing and numerous, almost brings a tear to my eye when I think of all that I have been offered, and what i've accomplished. I love Western Civilization, I'd pick this over nations run by blacks any second of the day. Even more blacks are coming to this nation and Europe from africa despite all the supposedly "insurmountable" racism you and Tim wise talk about. We love it here!
You said, "The very fact that Bill Gates can have a GDP equivalent to Norway, and others can have similar levels of wealth (the Waltons, Oprah, etc.) itself precludes the vast majority from having anything more than a pittance."
So bill gates and oprah should give there more money away to the people with less money. Redistribution of wealth. You and Tim wise remind me more and more of Karl Marx everytime you condemn hardworking people that who have achieved this kind of success. The fact of the matter is if it wasnt for the these wealthy innovators we would all have much less and be much worse off. People need to be compensated for their risk taking in ways determined by reasonable regulations, but not Marxist ideology about how the rich shouldnt be allowed to get rich.
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. Some inherited wealth but plenty of self made fortunes. This shows that the average joe/jane can do it in the USA. It's almost impossible to be a billionaire, but there are over a million millionaires in this nation. Everyone from Eminem to oprah to sumner redstone and many others who made it big but started out broke, because they tried something different, only to be condemned by a few who didnt even want to take the risks.
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. Creationism and the rejection of billions of years is more popular in the black community overall than in the white community. Not to mention white scientist laid down the reasoning behind billions of years of existence for the earth and universe, whites have been shown to be the most intellectual. Sure there are high profile whites who embrace literal biblical creation but a higher percentage of whites accept scientific fact on this issue than blacks. Overall blacks are the most guilty of anti-intellectual, it's us, we are the most superstitious and least logical. Keep in mind whites brought the world into the modern age with their invention of cars, planes, computers, discovered electricity, atomic elements, etc, etc, i could go on for days. Whites are not the most anti-intellectual group, but one of the most intellectual, if not the most intellectual period.
Frederic Christie says:
You're Racist
"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.
Andre M says:
I'm not a racist
I will touch on many of your new points but not the same old ones, it gets repetitive. Firstly, I don't discriminate on the bases of race anyway. I look at individual attributes excluding race, that's right everything but race when I'm coming to conclusions about individuals.
"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?"
Interesting, In many ways the magnitude of european conquest isn't a sign of barbarism or evil, but merely a product of technological prowess and knowledge of the known world. Which began to exceed that of non-European conquerors. If the Arabs had the same technology and know how the Europeans did they would have done much the same thing. The only thing that kept Arabs/Persains/Eyptains and others from world domination is inability, definately not a peaceful egualitarian nature . The Arab also treated black and white slaves harshly. And even continued slavery for a time after the Europeans tried to end it. Even to this day Berbers (an "Arab looking" people who live in north africa) are known to have black slaves and hold them hostage, in a sort of racial slavery which was never pioneered or unique to the West.
The Greeks who were attacked by Persians and defeated the Persians were forced by the Persians to be conquerors so they themselves would not be conquered. It's an interesting Paradox. Indeed, Europeans may have put their descendants in more jeopardy by not conquering more territories and committing more genocides. 200-300 years from now it might turnout that whites were too civilized/ethical and not barbarous enough if they're being conquered by the Chinese or some other group using technologies that originated in the West.
The fact is Europeans could have committed many more genocides just to eliminate other "conquerors" like the Arabs or Persians or Mayans, rid the world of future competition. And they could have kept the black slaves as slaves and even enslaved more people. Blacks still have slaves and so do some non-black north Africans. But the fac