It reminds me of Uncle Clarence's gun rights argument. I don't need good reasons to believe in things that don't exist.
How To Understand "Acting White"
Could desegregation have caused the culture of academic underperformance?
By Richard Thompson Ford
Posted Monday, July 5, 2010, at 6:47 AM ET
Some black students in the 1990s had a derisive name for their peers who spent a lot of time studying in the library: incog-negro. The larger phenomenon is all too well-known. Many blacks—especially black young men—have come to the ruinous conclusion that academic excellence is somehow inconsistent with their racial identities, and they ridicule peers for "acting white" if they hit the books instead of the streets after school. The usual explanations for this self-destructive attitude focus on the influence of dysfunctional cultural norms in poor minority neighborhoods: macho and "cool" posturing and gangster rap. The usual prescriptions emphasize exposing poor black kids to better peer influences in integrated schools. Indeed, the implicit promise of improved attitudes through peer association accounts for much of the allure of public-school integration.
But suppose integration doesn't change the culture of underperformance? What if integration inadvertently created that culture in the first place? This is the startling hypothesis of Stuart Buck's Acting White: The Ironic Legacy of Desegregation. Buck argues that the culture of academic underachievement among black students was unknown before the late 1960s. It was desegregation that destroyed thriving black schools where black faculty were role models and nurtured excellence among black students. In the most compelling chapter of Acting White, Buck describes that process and the anguished reactions of the black students, teachers, and communities that had come to depend on the rich educational and social resource in their midst.
Share
Comments
Academic Excellence Might Be Inconsistent, But Only For A Few
The core mission of modern American Universities, indeed of the modern American Educational System, is threefold: (1) prepare lower-class citizens for blue-collar labor; (2) prepare middle-class citizens for white collar labor; and (3) prepare (a) upper-class citizens and (b) lower-class or middle-class but intellectually-gifted citizens willing to master and reproduce upper-class Euro-American cultural values, beliefs, and dispositions for ruling the middle-class and lower-class.
A lower-class or middle-class but intellectually-gifted non-Euro-American student might not act consistent with his or her native cultural values, beliefs, and dispositions if he or she were to excel academically at a modern American University. He or she might perceive and be offended by the subtle or blatant pro-Euro-American cultural attacks that would take place in his or her mandatory courses, and perhaps in his or her elective courses.
But this intellectually-gifted student would not refrain from excelling academically because he or she were incapable of excelling. Nor would he or she refrain from excelling to such an extent that he or she would seriously jeopardize proving he or she could master and reproduce the necessary levels of upper-class Euro-American cultural values, beliefs, and dispositions required to compete for the social rewards--wealth, power, or prestige--he or she desired.
Still, this culturally unbowed student might limit the Euro-American influence on him or her to the extent he or she prudently could, and, by doing so, refrain from mastering and reproducing some aspects of upper-class Euro-American values, beliefs, and dispositions in ways that might cause him or her to get a few more Bs or Cs than he or she would if the institutions seeking to "educate," train, and otherwise prepare him or her for society weren't so clearly pro-Euro-American and anti- just about everything else.
This would be a very rare student indeed.
The other 99.9% of non-Euro-American students need to get in where they fit in, grin and bear it academically and culturally, master and reproduce upper-class Euro-American culture as best they can, and then go compete for society's middle-class and upper-class social roles.
That's one perspective, I
That's one perspective, I suppose.
I see the human's task as mastering the knowledge and social interfaces necessary to live as you will. Since those social interfaces aren't quite the same in all situations, I see code switching as more valuable than full assimilation.
Hm
1) They picked the right guy to review it (author of The Race Card)
2) The review doesn't encourage me to read the book
I'm reading the review late in the evening. But apparently both author and reviewer accept the premise that "many" young black men equate academic excellence with "acting white"-- and therefore underperform in a talismanic attempt to ward off being accused of this. I might check the book out to see if the author really does have empirical data to support his argument.
"I see code switching as more valuable than full assimilation."
One must learn at least two codes to switch between codes. And when one code consistently rewards you with more wealth, power, or prestige than another, the "richer" code can have a powerful, even if painful, influence, often causing one to devalue or lose the ability to reproduce the "poorer" code over time.
The code I had to master and reproduce to excel academically in universities, the code I'm using as I write this comment, is not my native code. For example, I had to use a different English dialect than my native English dialect, even though my native English dialect (AAVE), as folks who've read a few introductory linguistics books know, is no less efficient and is in some ways more elegant than the English dialect I had to master and reproduce to excel in univerities. Moreover, my native English dialect, which I did not dare use in university classrooms, was marginalized by most of the Euro-American cultural vangaurds who taught my courses and measured my ability to memorize, analyze, synthesize, and reproduce upper-class Euro-American culture relative to my peers.
As an undergraduate, I turned my back on my native code in order to excel academically. In law school, as the only African American male (faculty, students, and administrators included) in the entire law school community who had come from lower-class circumstances, I defended my native code more, not necessarily by reproducing my native code's English dialect but by reproducing its value system, which, more often than you might imagine, was at odds with the value system the law school promoted, incented, and rewarded. Lucky for me, almost all my law school courses proved to be intellectually unchallenging, so I was able to do well academically despite rebuking many of the strong incentives encouraging me to value like, believe as, and hold the dispositions of my upper-class Euro-American peers and professors.
One must learn at least two
Every Black person learns at least two codes.
As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote:
So we agree here. Where I don't know that we agree is that positive feedback from the Black communities is more accessible to Black folk than that from white communities.
I've always enjoyed our discussions so don't think I'm trying to put you off, but is this connected to a belief in a "culture of underperformance" among Black folk?
Replies
1) I would not dispute you if you'd wrote "Every Black person is incented to master and reproduce at least two codes." But there are likely at least thousands of lower-class Black Americans who can live their entire lives without ever having to master and reproduce a second, non-native code. These Black Americans could live their first few decades without travelling outside their states or regions or municipalities within their states. They could even support themselves economically. (First-generation Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal, can survive just fine in some places using only their native code.) But I don't want to debate that.
2) MLK's quote rings true. He had an amazing sociological and social psychological intuition. Moreover, he lived during an era when sociologists' and social psychologists' grasp of the cultural forces that he described and their affects on those who would become upper-class Blacks was still faint. It's much less faint now.
3) My original argument targeted a small segment of minorities--the intellectually-gifted but lower-class or middle-class non-Euro-American willing to master and reproduce upper-class Euro-American cultural values, beliefs, and dispositions. Make that group even smaller and cut-out its middle-class members. I suspect the lower-class members who remain are more likely to perceive positive feedback from folks who reproduce non-upper-class-Euro-American cultural values, beliefs, and dispositions than from White folks who reproduce the upper-class Euro-American cultural values, beliefs, and dispositions reproduced in our most prestigious K12 schools and our universities.
4) Me too, ever since my Maxambit days. Though I stopped blogging in 2007, you're one of 5 bloggers I've continued to read and learn from.
5) Yes.
First, I agree that most Blacks, I suspect about 99.9% of us, really can't afford not to excel academically. Doing so would limit our abilities to reproduce the aspects of the upper-class Euro-American culture that almost all of us must master and reproduce to compete effectively for wealth, power, and prestige in a society politically and economically dominated by upper-class Euro-Americans.
Second, I argue that, for about .1% of us, the intellectually-gifted, excelling academically may require them to knowingly turn their backs on their native cultures--their native dialects and native values--if they came from classes other than the upper-class.
Third, the process of turning their backs on their native cultures is near-synonymous with "acting white" because "acting white" is or could be understood as trying to master and reproduce upper-class Euro-American cultural values, beliefs, and dispositions.
Fourth, because "acting white" can be, for lower-class and middle-class Blacks, the equivalent of knowingly or unknowingly turning their backs on their native cultures--mastering and reproducing the upper-class Euro-American culture at the expense of their native cultures to increase their ability to acquire wealth, power, and prestige in a society in which their native cultures are neither politically nor economically dominant--the ridicule some lower-class and middle-class Blacks receive from Black peers who are more reluctant to culturally turn their backs might be based in something far more sociologically or psychologically complex than a superficial analysis of this "acting white" phenomenon would allow most of us to grasp. The ridicule you wrote about in the original post, depending on its nature and motivations, could very well be a form of cultural counterattack, a way of culturally fighting back.
6) Whether it's the most prudent way of culturally fighting back is not an issue I'm willing to debate. I suspect we would agree it is not. That it may be a noble way of fighting back is something I wanted to bring to your and your readers' attentions. I wanted to do this so neither you nor they would quickly dismiss the phenomenon the book might help explain (I probably won't read it, but not because I'm not interested in its arguments). The book, if its author has a sophisticated grasp of the "acting white" phenomenon, may help the reader understand that the ridicule of others for "acting white" might not be primarily driven by a "self-destructive attitude" or by "dysfunctional cultural norms in poor minority neighborhoods." Indeed, it might be driven by something far more culturally noble, the attempt to preserve a "poorer" native culture that is being attacked by a much "richer" upper-class Euro-American culture.
E.C.
@ E.C.
I'm not sure that what you wrote above is what you meant. It seems to contradict, at least in part, your speculations about the reasons for cultural counterattack. If what you wrote above is true then no cultural counterattack would take place or its practitioners would number only a relative handful of folks.
First, I agree that most
That would be all of us...including those who, like most humans, do not aspire to leadership.
This is where I disagree with Martin Luther King Jr. It NEVER happens unknowingly. You are too fully engaged with your local culture to fail to see it slipping away. You yourself would seem an excellent example of it.
Most of us...Americans...do not attend college. Prior to this economic collapse, most did well enough that tolerating the forms we know is the path of least resistance. That alone pokes a big hole in your argument.
And your argument does not establish a "culture of underperformance" among Black folk. If anything it militates against such an argument.
In any event, if one sees "acting white" with all the term's implications as a serious problem, one has been away from the block too long to accurately assert anything about it. "Acting white" is "acting as though those issues and events of importance to Black folk are unimportant and to be dismissed." It's not the education that is the focus of disdain, it's the dismissal of Black folks' interests that gets folks dismissed. And why shouldn't it?
In any event, if one sees
That just about sums it up. At least for me.
Truth? Fourth, because
Truth?
It ought to sum it up for E.C., too.
My opinion of the book remains that it's an attempt to give solid reasons to believe a gross error.
@P6
This is my main point of curiosity about Buck's book, how the author has determined there's an issue beyond drive-by media stories. Is it a created narrative? Seriously, I know people of all races and creeds who have shown disdain for "college boys" (never "college girls" in my experience) lacking what they would call real-world experience or common sense. But that's far from disdain for education itself. My experience is that black people are quite proud and supportive of educational achievement by other black people.
Replies
After re-reading what I wrote, I believe I communicated myself correctly and consistent with earlier writings in this thread. The reasons for the possible cultural counterattacks or for possible instances of culturally fighting back aren't things I'm attempting to explain. I assert that the ridicule, in some instances, may be a form of cultural counterattack or instances of culturally fighting back. My key goal in this thread is to suggest that the bases for the reasons, if any exist, may be more complex than superficial analyses of "acting white" would enable most of us to grasp. You may be more qualified to explain (1) whether there are reasons, and if there are, (2) what those reasons are and (3) how those reasons (a) dispose folks against instances of acting white (which I do not define in this thread as excelling academically but as excelling at mastering and reproducing upper-class Euro-American culture, something that can lead to excelling academically in some contexts) or (b) incent the folks who ridicule others for acting white. I'm admittedly unqualified.
E.C.
@ ProfGeo
It's the reason I'm NOT curious about the book.
My key goal in this thread
Which is why the argument is useless, even if "acting white" were a real phenomenon as conceived of by the mainstream and those who would justify its judgements at the expense of Black people's reality.
"Acting white" is "acting as though those issues and events of importance to Black folk are unimportant and to be dismissed." It's not the education that is the focus of disdain, it's the dismissal of Black folks' interests that gets folks dismissed.
So...you're not talking about what the book is talking about at all.
This is the point where I normally disengage.
You get to assert, but you don't get to claim you assertion is not an attempt at an explanation.
Replies
My conception of "acting white" is trying to master and reproduce upper-class Euro-American culture. It is not trying to excel academically. Excelling academically, insofar as doing so is unrelated to trying to master or reproduce a non-native culture, is not unique to upper-class Euro-American culture. Although, depending on the reasons for doing it, I believe (but cannot prove social-scientifically) that excelling academically can be a byproduct of acting white in some instances.
I'm not ready to assent on this point, not because I doubt you are likely correct, but because I know too little about the psychology behind it to assent and will not rule out the possibility of unknowing occurrences.
I'm not sure which part of my argument that pokes a hole in.
I did not intend to establish a culture of underperformance exists. I'm not sure what a culture of underperformance would be. My arguments have focused on the possibility that cultures are battling and ridicule for "acting white" might be a byproduct of their battles in some instances.
Acting white, at least my conception of it, is not a "serious problem." Indeed, I suspect that for all but about 1 in 1000 of us, it would be the most prudent thing to do for folks who desire to compete for middle-class or upper-class opulence in the U.S. through professions other than professional sports or other forms of entertainment.
E.C.
Replies
Ouch. Understood. Until next time.
E.C.
Understood You sure?
You sure? Because I think it's important that we discuss issues as they are generally conceived. Remember Roland Fryer's paper on the econmic impact of "acting white"? In the best freshwater economist style he defined the term in a way totally alien to its common use (he was just counting the number of friends of other races people had). As a result the paper said nothing about any Black person's experience, and mainstream folk all over the country said "See? They do think doing well in school is acting white" when his research said nothing of the kind.
If you want to argue that assimilation is the road Black folks should take...that is what I understand you to be arguing...that's a whole different discussion than this book inspires. Unless Mr. Buck is also redefining the term.
Non-Euro American Cultural Excellence
If there were to be a highbrow sort of non-Euro set of standards what would they be and how would they be communicated? Taking the tangent that some fraction of 'acting white' is a cultural battle against a presumably provincial native culture, what is the result? I think, for example of Albert Murray, Stanley Crouch, Wynton Marsalis and Gerald Early in the context of their contribution to Ken Burns' Jazz documentary. Is the 'documentary film' an example of a reproduction of "upper-class Euro-American cultural values, beliefs, and dispositions?". Consider the controversy over the status of Louis Armstrong. He was clearly in all ways excellent and superior in his skills and talent, and he changed American music. As a consequence he was sponsored by the American (and European) ruling classes. Surely there weren't many average black Americans at the Newport Jazz Festival at its inception.
I would also comment on the extent to which there is something of an overproduction of those cultural signifyers that don't result in any great shakes. I envision legions of cultural aesthetes in the American academy that can quote the proper interpretation (which they live by) of Euro-American upper class cultural matters chapter and verse, but it does nothing to advance them very far. Ask any private school teacher.
I think that the game for power and the game for public legitimacy are separate and distinct and that few things can be said with certainty about assimilation into that culture of the Euro-American upper-middle and upper class. Rather, I believe that most of America sees through their bosses, and more of them are like Louis DePalma than Steve Jobs.
Replies
Not really. But it's difficult to be sure about this sort of blog exchange (I won't call this a debate, because we did not both define our terms or agree on a resolution for which one of us took the affrimative and the other the negative). What I do know is this is P6, your house. You control the rules, even if you don't articulate or follow them. You are entitled to steer these threads however you wish. I was just dropping a few thoughts about a concept--one that I defined sufficiently enough to allow careful and charitable readers to follow and understand.
I don't. I think that's lazy as a general practice. Instead, I believe it's important to define key terms at the onset. Then, there's less of a chance that people will have good excuses to misunderstand us. (Reading too quickly or interpreting another's arguments uncharitably are not good excuses for failing to grasp another's meaning).
Scholars, as well as bloggers, even former bloggers who are now merely occassional blog commentators, SHOULD define terms the ways they intend to use them. That gives their readers what they need to determine whether they want to keep reading. Definitions are the beginning stages of academic arguments. They're the foundations if you will. But the arguments, as a whole, are what matter, not their definitions.
That assimilation (a term heretofore undefined in this thread, but I believe I glean the gist of your intended meaning from the context) is the road Black folks should take is not what I wanted to argue. If I were to argue it, I would argue an economic should rather than a moral should, meaning I would ground my justifications in the economic costs and benefits or the utility of assimilating or not assimilating, not the broader moral or religious consequences.
In summary, at the beginning, with my first comment, I merely wanted to caution you against making a hasty conclusion about the author's work, his arguments, or the explanatory power of his social scientific theories. One should read for onself before condemning or speaking ill of another's work. I don't always agree with others' interpretations of arguments. And I rarely read social science book reviews that clearly indicate to me the reviewer fully grasped the writer-scholar's arguments. For this particular book, one neither of us has read, I wanted to give you at least one reason to be more cautious before dismissing it based on another's review. I offered you an argument that something other than a "culture of underperformance" (whatever that means) could explain why Blacks ridicule other Blacks for "acting white" as I defined the term. This was my way of suggesting that the author might have something to offer that would help his reader understand the reasons why Blacks ridicule Blacks for certain "acting white" behaviors, even if he came to the wrong conclusions or developed lackluster theories. Alternatively, I offered you an argument that might lead you to consider that the author's work might have explained something that shouldn't be labeled a "culture of underperformance" but rather a "culture of cultural defense." The ideas and concepts I dropped in this thread are not easy to follow, and should be read carefully, if the objective is to grasp them fully. A closer, slower, less subjective read might lead you to conclude they are not completely "Useless" to you or your readers, despite their unedited and extemporaneous nature.
But again, this is P6, your house. And I respect your rules, at least the ones I can percieve.
E.C.
@ E.C.
Well, the refs always have different rules than the players. But for the record, I start steering the conversation whem someone gets willfully disruptive. Strangers (which you gentlemen are not to me, even if you are to some of the readers) are tested. We got unregistered folk (for instance, Big Man) who get posted as soon as I see their name. And people who choose to piss me off, for whatever reason, are never forgiven. Never.
See First we have to define...
If defining things first insured clarity, we'd have no lawyers.
When you define a term in ways other than the way it is generally used, you will be generally misunderstood. I remember reading The Critique of Pure Reason and picturing car parts when Kant discussed the manifold.
The fact is, I don't define things. I indicate them.
That was easy, wasn't it?
That is the meaning you put across when you say
The other 99.9% of non-Euro-American students need to get in where they fit in, grin and bear it academically and culturally, master and reproduce upper-class Euro-American culture as best they can, and then go compete for society's middle-class and upper-class social roles.
Ask anyone but the rest of the conservative cohort that's visiting.
E.C., if an engineer writes a book on how to build perpetual motion machines, how serious are you going to take it?
That's how seriously I take any assertion that sees a "culture of underperformance," the term used by the reviewer and author as a synonym for "acting white," as a substantial issue.
If that's what the author was proposing that would be the idea I considered. It was not. And I'm not looking for an excuse for his error.
And also for the record, when I asked if this was connected to the belief in a "culture of underperformance," you said, "Yes." So you can hardly blame me for thinking that's what you were talking about.
Tell you what, Cobb. If
Tell you what, Cobb. If you're willing to discuss the topic of the book, I will subsequently discuss your tangent. Deal?
If?
I wonder how Japanese culture was communicated for centuries? Or Chinese, or Hindu, both of which go back thousands of years? I wonder how Africans filled the libraries in Timbuktu? And the Aztecs, the Mayans. Hell, just look at Martha's Vineyard.
How are Euro standards communicated?
More of a general human impulse.
They don't have to. Most of everyone's culture is filler. Check the NY Times best seller list. Or better, Amazon.com's.
Okay. Now what does any of that have to do with the "acting white" phenomenon?I don't want to be searching for a connection when none is forthcoming.
Advice & Apologies
No blame, just advice. (1) Read first to understand the writer, not to find easy ways to fallaciously or superficially dismiss the writer. (2) Read the writer broadly, rather than narrowly, until you fully grasp the writer's meaning. (3) Arguments are not personal. They are not contests. They are for the participants' and audience's education. They are not things the participants, if they understand the true purpose of argumentation, should set out to win. The only people who win arguments are audiences. But audiences can also lose arguments. That happens when the participants attempt first to beat each other rather than understand each other.
I'm no longer a blog ninja, if I ever was. I gave that gig up in 2007. It didn't pay well (in fact it didn't pay at all). Moreover, since its core purpose was self-centered blogger turf-protection, it usually took me away from my quasi-altruistic goals for blogging with the public. These days, I merely try to understand what bloggers like you, Cobb, CNu, and Spence are trying to say. Occasionally, when I take breaks from my professional labors, I leave comments in the good blogs I read. Sometimes my comments further the discussions or arguments. Sometimes, as may be the case in this thread, they don't.
I will stay on (your) point and abide by your rules the next time I comment in your house. If I can't to that, I'll just read. Please accept my apologies if I caused you to waste time or if I offended you. That was not my intention. Thank you for doing what you do here at P6.
E.C.
No blame, just advice. (1)
I agree with you but I think this advice only applies to a relatively small handful of folks who take the time to put their thoughts on paper. I don't for one moment believes it applies to Stuart Buck's book or Richard Thompson Ford's review. There is no culture of academic underperformance among Black Americans.
(1) Read first to understand
Sorry. I've looked into this nonsense for decades. Literally. I don't have the time to waste on it anymore.
If you want to investigate perpetual motion machines just because the instructions to build one are printed in a book, feel free.
Who's arguing?
Alrighty then, the book's not for us
I suspect we can concur the book is not for us (the "typical P6 audience"). Unfortunately, we can't refute it without at least skimming it for its main argument. I agree with E.C. on understanding the writer and how to do it. I work far less at understanding the reviewer-as-writer but I do look for reviewer's agenda.
BTW in checking things out, I'm not into paying retail for certain books, inflating their sales and supporting certain authors in the style to which they're accustomed. My fervor doesn't extend that far. I'll get Acting White from the library. (I bought The Bell Curve for 25 cents at a library sale, and will probably note that point of pride in my memoirs.
)
Perpetual motion
Well, I'm perfectly willing to give space to anyone who wants to review it (including the Conservative Cohort). I am not interested in personally wasting that much time on things that have no redeeming social value. Web space is cheap, though.
Bought the Book
After skimming its introduction on Yale University Press's website for the book, I bought the book. At only 272 pages, with the time I spent in this thread, I probably could have read half of it.
Though it's not squarely related to my areas of scholarly or professional expertise, I've read much of the esoteric, peer-reviewed literature published on this "acting white" subject during the last 20 years. The former Harvard Law Review editor Stuart Buck seems to have read it as well. I don't know Buck. I don't know his agenda. I don't care. I know how to read closely. I know how to take arguments apart like an analytical philosopher or a lawyer. In short, I know how to defend myself against propoganda and slick rhetoric. So I'm unafraid. And, based on my brief but informed skim, I highly doubt reading his book will waste four to eight hours of my leisure time when I sit down with it next month.
E.C.
I tend to agree with P6.
I tend to agree with P6. With so little precious time, why waste it taking apart an obviously spurious thesis? I think it's enough to dismiss the book, and to note that euro-american culture is still eating up this flawed way of thinking. I would add, that the afro-diaspora is moving forward, away from the eyes of the NYT or Slate, to a place where such ideas as discussed in the book and this thread are starting to starkly appear nonsensical and irrelevant.
Technically O/T
... unless you include "having too many books around" as "acting white."
While I'm advocating for skimming books that we believe in advance are going to suck (or which offer nothing new), I look around and realize that I have bunches of books written by and about African Americans/other minorities, and there are quite a few I only skimmed and will not read, and several I retain just because they look pretty good next to a book I really did read. I must "give back to the community" soon.
@profgeo
My wife has over the last few years, been forcing me to give away or sell my library. My solution is to get the services of an operator that can convert my books into a pdf format, and only keep my favorites on the shelf.
@ E.C.
Take an extra half hour to sum up his argument, and I'll post your summary.
@keto
That reminds me of the "mom threw out my comics" scenario. The cycle of abuse continues, generation to generation...
Seriously, though, going electronic (as suggested in another thread by P6) is a good route when the physical book doesn't have any particular value for you. I also made significant headway a few years ago with a hard rule: Two books out for every book that comes in. Period. Then I fell off the wagon. Time to put that rule back into effect.
I'm not that smart
I'm not smart (or careless) enough to try to summarize a scholar's work, especially a new synthesis of prior scholarly works and a new set of scholarly arguments like the one Buck has apparently produced and one of the world's best academic publishers has reviewed and edited, in a half-hour. Nor would I attempt to. I won't be reading Buck's book to post a review. I'm not a professional critic. I'm not a book reviewer. I'm not even a blogger anymore.
I'll be reading the book for information and ideas that will help me do the community-focused work I do and have done for years. I'm on the internet this summer more than I've been since 2007 because I'm preparing for a bar exam this month and need to take quick breaks every 90 minutes or so to keep myself sane. After that bar exam, I'll get back to my professional and community-focused labors, where I try to transform abstract ideas into concrete actions that help people whose names I know and faces I see.
E.C.
Arguments & Recipes
An analogy I like to use when explaining the nature and components of arguments goes like this...
Arguments are like recipes. Their premises are their ingredients. Their conclusions are their dishes.
I share this analogy in this thread to suggest that Buck's dish (the conclusion) may be as you predict a disaster. Indeed it may taste awful. But that doesn't mean the ingredients he used were bad. It might mean he combined or mixed good ingredients poorly. A different chef might use the same ingredients to make a delicious dish.
I don't have to agree with Buck's conclusions to gain value from his premises. His is a new scholarly work. It cites and summarizes many important works in the field. It uses new data in new ways. I'll be looking for value in Buck's premises first. After that, I will look for value in his conclusions as well.
E.C.
@ E.C.
I'm not looking for a summary of Buck's work. Just of the book. More specifically, I would be looking for something more than an assumption that a culture of underperformance (which, specifically, is what is being asserted) actually exists...because if there is no support for the idea, if there's only the assumption, the book is not just useless, it's destructive.
However, I'd be satisfied if you simply tell us if there is information and ideas you can use, and what they are. In fact, I think I'd prefer that. It doesn't have to be literature...a simple list would do.
Re: blaming integration
I strongly support Black businesses and community institutions but I have been a bit disturbed by recent rhetoric blaming every problem in the Black community on integration. Especially when well meaning Blacks (ie Derrick Bell) trumpet it. Integration is definitely not a cure all. Sure it was not good to dismantle many Black institutions but this theme is increasingly trumpeted: if Blacks hadn't integrated, we would have strong businesses, role models, communities, etc.
As if everything had glided along on parallel tracks forever the problems we have wouldn't have emerged. I don't disagree a lot of related problems occurred as integration came about but a lot of these arguments are almost boiling down to: if we had stayed on the Black side of town, everything would be ok. Everything was getting better "on its own" etc.
I wasn't alive back then but everything was not OK. I know enough from history and relatives to see some of the same problems were still around. Not to knock places like the Black community in Tulsa or Atlanta, but places like that were the exception not the norm. Most people were not middle class and most did not have a great education. In any case, some of these same "pathologies" are now cropping up in working class White communities (see a recent issue of The Atlantic) so just integrating I doubt is not the full story.
...recent rhetoric blaming
My understanding of Derrick Bell's work is different than yours. I'd be interested in finding out what made you feel he was blaming the Black community's issues on integration. I believe he noted the change from integration-as-tactic to integration-as-goal, which I think was a serious error.
Re: Derrick Bell
I guess maybe I exaggerated...I was going on memories of seeing him talk and speaking to him at college 10 years ago. I did find this sentiment pretty widely held when people wanted to blame low Black entrepreneurship, community, or family issues though. It is by no means the only cause and I'm still not sure it is the primary one.
@ Lord Phat
You'll note I didn't dispute your central point.