Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

On C-Span he spoke about Black students being disinterested in his class while White students were interested. He spoke of Black students not trying. He then said he noticed this trend throughout his life. I would not dispute much of what he had to say on C-Span, but I am not sure about his conclusions or his concerns. He seems to take these antidotes and use them to make an argument about anti-intellectualism among Black Americans.

I think one could make the argument for anti-intellectualism in the larger American culture. His argument that Blacks are more likely to tease one another about doing well in school then other races can only be antidotal. I am certain some whites are anti-intellectual. I love county music and I have heard quite a bit of redneck pride that is definitely anti-intellectual. How intellectual is 'Joe six-pack'? (Has anybody caught Jay Leno's average American answering his questions - their intelligence is truly frightening.)

As a former teacher and student, I have seen disinterested students they come in all races and socioeconomic classes. (When I was in high school students who were more interested in getting high then doing their schoolwork were called derelicts. There was no racial or economic requirement to become a member of that group.) This man even used the term 'oreo' and said he knew a black astrophysicist was an 'oreo' because a typical black would not study such a field. Who on earth would be a typical astrophysicist? Anyone in that field would be exceptional regardless of race. Is Stephen Hawking typical?

He reminded my of an Asian who wrote a book saying he was white because he read Foreign Affairs and worked in the White House. He was not white; he was an elite. Plenty of White people will never read Foreign Affairs or work at the White House, but they will not mistake him for a White man either.

In his talk, he mentioned his concern that middle-class blacks are not doing as well on SATs as poor whites. He seems to imply there is a correlation between income and academic achievement. Most studies show parent's education, not their income, is a more reliable predictor of academic success. It should certainly not be assumed that poor whites necessarily lack education when women of divorce see their household incomes fall by more than half. Or, when women choose to stay at home the family income again falls, so we have no way of knowing the education level by merely looking at their income level. Additionally we have no way of knowing whether middle-class Blacks are college graduates. (My father is middle-class ($70,000+ annual salary) and my parents are high school graduates.)

I cannot let pass the notion that Asians are smarter on average then anyone. The book the Bell Curve was poor scholarship the author wrote of causalities and correlations when his own data showed the very relationships he was writing about were statistically insignificant. His own regressions did not prove any of his assertions. Back to Asians, when we have such a problem with the sample pool it is hard to say anything meaning full about their average intelligence. In this country, Blacks and Whites both have a much larger sample then Asians.

Since we have much broader percentage of our population receiving education, our average will be lower. In Africa, primary education is received by 81 % of the population, secondary by 34 % and higher education by 7%. In America, primary education is received by 100% of the population, secondary by 75 % and higher education by 37%. In Asia, primary education is received by 100% of the population, secondary by 57 % and higher education by 11%. Our low outliers will certainly help to pull down our average, while low Asian outliers will not even be in their pool, and there very high achievers will be over represented. Even Japan, a very wealthy country with universal education begins to track students much early than the United States and compulsory education ends in the 9th grade.

The Asian populations that are in the United States are self-selecting, since they are over represent by the most industrious and ambitious (how else would they have managed to migrate here. Even smuggled Chinese immigrants pay over $30K. Given the countries level of poverty one can imagine that is not the poor uneducated country peasant that migrates here.) As long as many immigrants represent brain drain from their countries of origin, we will see their children in the first generation doing better then the average American.

Most migrant populations are more ambitious and industrious then the US average. Africans and Caribbean Blacks are often more successful in the first (native born) generation than an average of native born Blacks of many generations. (To arrive at an average we will be including our high achievers our average achievers and our low achievers their low achievers are in their home countries making soccer balls and ours are right here sweeping floors.)

The US overall has always benefited from the productive energy of it new immigrants. Immigrants often think Americans are lazy. In comparison, too them we often are but we also know how the system works. Most American are not trying to be number one when just being in the middle allows us to live quite well. We have one of the largest middle-classes in the world. Even America's working poor have more material prosperity then all but the elite in some countries. I mean they have cars, televisions, telephones, in-door plumbing, etc. (Even the health insurance crises of 44 million uninsured in a country of over 270 million means that only 16% of the US population are uninsured while 84% have health insurance.)

I am probably in the first generation of Black Americans that has not had to be twice as good to get half as far. It was my goal to be able to be mediocre and still achieve the American dream. It has taken us a few generations to learn how to do that; Whites have known it for a long time.