Do you actually believe that the majority of black identified Americans who receive advanced degrees are not able to write and/or think critically?
The majority?! Good Lord, no. How on earth could you possibly read into what I wrote as (1) applying to today and (2) applying to the majority?
Nevertheless, if you are asking for sources that this has indeed happened in some generations, I submit John McWhorter, Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America (New York: The Free Press, 2000) and Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt, Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1994). The former study is optimisitic that things can possibly be turned around. The latter is pessimistic, suggesting that U.S. academia is irretrievably corrupted outside of the hard sciences. Black Studies departments today, for example, teach that Africans brought civilization to the New World, that classical Greece "stole" Black technology, that AIDS is genocide. Mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology are not yet contaminated but vanishingly few Black students enter these careers. There is no doubt that some degrees have in fact sometimes been awarded to some incompetents merely because some of their ancestors were mistreated by other ancestors. It has happened in the past. It still happens today. It is not a Good Thing.
Joined: 02 Feb 2007 {Posts: 255 } Location: California
Posted: Sun 07 Oct 2007 21:18 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
The subject of this thread is: May "Whites" Discuss "Blackness"?
LSGH wrote:
ALL legal Americans have FULL license to discuss Blackness, Whiteness, Etc.
caribj wrote:
However if you want to have a sensible discussion about blackness it will make sense to have some black people on the panel, wouldnt it?
Straw man. First warning. The subject of this thread is NOT "May Blacks discuss Blackness." The subject of this thread is written above. [snip]
Straw man back at you. Caribj isn't inferring the topic is "may blacks discuss blackness".
Anyone can discuss anything. The question really is how much credibility or authority do such discussions have. That, I believe, is Caribj's point. And its a damn good one!
Joined: 02 Oct 2007 {Posts: 226 } Location: Seattle
Posted: Mon 08 Oct 2007 11:10 Post subject:
Quote:
Yes. Pro-Black zealotry is more tolerated by today's U.S. society than pro-White zealotry, or pro-Mulatto zealotry (or anti-racialism zealotry, for that matter). I think that it is because many USAmericans feel that they must atone for the horrific treatment inflicted upon African Americans in the past. Hence, they do not hold African Americans of today to the same standards as everyone else.
That's treason.
Last edited by lsgh on Tue 04 Dec 2007 23:54; edited 1 time in total
Most self identified blacks in this country are "black" regardless as to what their ancestral mix might be.
In the light of rule 3.3.11, please clarify exactly what you meant by the underlined word above.
Seriously.
If you meant "of sub-saharan ancestry," then the sentence says: Most self identified blacks in this country are of sub-Saharan ancestry, regardless as to what their ancestral mix might be. This is self-contradictory as well as factually inaccurate. (Every member of our species has sub-Saharan ancestry, and most people in this hemisphere with transatlantic slave ancestry are not even USAmericans, much less African Americans.)
On the other hand, if you meant "of African-American self-identity," then the sentence says: Most people who self-identity as African-American self identify as African American. This would be tautological nonsense.
There are online discussion groups where you can be unintelligible and get away with it. This is not one of them.
Given that we are talking about the USA "black" (note quotes) refers to its use in the US, together with the term self identified. As you full well know some one can be significantly Native American like Smokey Robinson, majority white like Alicia Keyes, or almost exclusively SSAfrican like Wesley Snipes. They all identify as being "black". So in the USA for those who identify usising the label "black" their ancestry is not the issue as clearly these three persons have different ancestral mixes. Their ethnic identification is "black". "Black" in this case describes ethnic identity, not ancestral composition.
The term African American is becoming increasingly problematic (note the Obama debate) and not every one who considers themselves to be self identified "blacK" considers themselves to be African American. I suspect that most people who self identify as African American will also self identify as "black", but the opposite isnt always the case.
Do you actually believe that the majority of black identified Americans who receive advanced degrees are not able to write and/or think critically?
The majority?! Good Lord, no. How on earth could you possibly read into what I wrote as (1) applying to today and (2) applying to the majority?
Nevertheless, if you are asking for sources that this has indeed happened in some generations, I submit John McWhorter, Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America (New York: The Free Press, 2000) and Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt, Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1994). The former study is optimisitic that things can possibly be turned around. The latter is pessimistic, suggesting that U.S. academia is irretrievably corrupted outside of the hard sciences. Black Studies departments today, for example, teach that Africans brought civilization to the New World, that classical Greece "stole" Black technology, that AIDS is genocide. Mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology are not yet contaminated but vanishingly few Black students enter these careers. There is no doubt that some degrees have in fact sometimes been awarded to some incompetents merely because some of their ancestors were mistreated by other ancestors. It has happened in the past. It still happens today. It is not a Good Thing.
While I am sure that there are blacks AND LATINOS (they also benefit fropm affirmative action but we never seem to remember this) might gain access to schools for which they are academically not prepared I very much doubt that professors apply different standards than they do to other students. In fact this in part explains higher drop out rates among minorities.
Few black sudents graduate with Black Studies degrees.
The subject of this thread is: May "Whites" Discuss "Blackness"?
LSGH wrote:
ALL legal Americans have FULL license to discuss Blackness, Whiteness, Etc.
caribj wrote:
However if you want to have a sensible discussion about blackness it will make sense to have some black people on the panel, wouldnt it?
Straw man. First warning. The subject of this thread is NOT "May Blacks discuss Blackness." The subject of this thread is written above. [snip]
Straw man back at you. Caribj isn't inferring the topic is "may blacks discuss blackness".
Anyone can discuss anything. The question really is how much credibility or authority do such discussions have. That, I believe, is Caribj's point. And its a damn good one!
Yes I was wondering where I stated that whites arent permitted to discuss blackness. In fact I did state a very valuable role that they can play in this discussion. I merely stated that to have a panel of nonblacks with NO BLACKS involved discussing blackness makes no sense.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
