African immigrants to the U.S. are among the most educated groups in the United States. Some 48.9 percent of all African immigrants hold a college diploma. This is more than double the rate of native-born white Americans, and nearly four times the rate of native-born African Americans.[13] According to the 2000 Census, the rate of college diploma acquisition is highest among Egyptian Americans at 59.7 percent, followed closely by Nigerian Americans at 58.6 percent. [14] [15]
In 1997, 19.4 percent of all adult African immigrants in the United States held a graduate degree, compared to 8.1 percent of adult white Americans and 3.8 percent of adult black Americans in the United States, respectively. [16] According to the 2000 Census, the percentage of Africans with a graduate degree is highest among Nigerian Americans at 28.3 percent, followed by Egyptian Americans at 23.8 percent. [17] [18]
Of the African-born population in the United States age 25 and older, 87.9% reported having a high school degree or higher,[19] compared with 78.8% of Asian-born immigrants and 76.8% of European-born immigrants, respectively.[20]
Africans from Nigeria (89.1 percent), Ghana (85.9 percent), Botswana (84.7 percent), and Malawi (83 percent) were the most likely to report having a high school degree or higher. Those born in Cape Verde (44.8 percent) and Mauritania (60.8 percent) were the least likely to report having completed a high school education.[21]
I'm having trouble understanding how racism is holding the black man down.
Well I guess anyone who can afford to emigrate to the USA rather than Europe (which is much closer, and MUCH easier to get to for most africans) is probably relatively wealthy for an African.
It takes a lot of effort and determination to move from most of Africa to the US so it follows that they put the same effort and determination into schooling.
Corpsesarefun wrote: It takes a lot of effort and determination to move from most of Africa to the US so it follows that they put the same effort and determination into schooling.
There you go. Frazzled's theory is that immigration to the states is effort, thus acting like a test. The hard working people become immigrants to the US generally. I know all my neighbors in Houston are very hard working people. My Austin neighbor - who is a major contractor - will only people he directly knows or immigrants. Its not the pay. Its the fact they work much harder and do much better work than your generic US native, especially teenagers.
Many african immigrants are not rich though. The illigal immigration trade is bringing many poor Somalians and Nigerians up through Latin American routes. It was a very interesting article on National Geographic.
I wonder how many terrorists have come up from this route.
On a science-fiction note, Heinlein talked about that in Time Enough For Love.
Not in regards to race, but in regards to how pioneers and colonists, at least anyone who goes voluntarily to make a new life in a far place, are more motivated and on average more intelligent than people who don't. In TEfL he was talking about colonizing other planets, and how the folks who did so were stronger and harder-working and more adaptable people than the relatively soft folks who stayed back on Earth.
I can actually agree that they work harder in school from experience. I had some African immigrants in classes, and they work their asses off. The only person I saw work harder than them as the girl from Kuwait.
Because those born here are born in to a culture that doesn't encourage successful lives. Also, because those who manage to successfully immigrate in to the US are the exceptional persons.
African Immigrants who become Americans are African Americans as far as I'm concerned. And Black Americans just sounds silly. I haven't met many people who get pissy about just being called black.
Melissia wrote:Because those born here are born in to a culture that doesn't encourage successful lives.
People say that here too. I'm not so sure. Honestly I feel sorry for a lot of people in the lower socio-economic class, especially those who aren't too bright. They will never get a decent job, but throughout growing up they're led to believe that they will, and they gakky jobs are below them. I think we're culturally in denial about the existence of working class jobs.
Medium of Death wrote:Blacks?
Really?
That is being kept in the title?
African American or Black Americans at a push, surely.
Blacks. Black people.
Have some sense of context, it's obviously not being used pejoratively.
It couldn't possibly have anything to do with people who immigrate because they are refugee's from their own country and your government is willing to take them in and take care of them. With all sorts of socialist programs including paying for their college degrees.
It could only mean americans who can't afford to go to college because their own government won't pick up the tab are lazy.
Testify, I think you are on to something, about the denial.
I heard an interview not too long ago with the president of a mid size company in the northwest that said they can not find enough machinists and welders. The jobs are available, but no young people are interested in the work. The old guys are well, getting old and wanting to retire.
He suggested the same thing, people are in denial about working class jobs and being raised to believe they can all do something much better.
One of the suggestions that came out of it was media, yes mass media. you know, television shows. We have a ton of programs about random rich people and their "reality" lives. or whatever. But we rarely if ever see a positive image, much less a show about standard working class folk. The last 2 shows I can think of that even came close were Roseanne, and Grace Under Fire.. Roseanne was the more popular, and was all about the drama and making fun of being poor.. Grace Under Fire was a little better, but then of course not as popular.
Lesson for the kiddies, train and study and prepare, when oppurtunity knocks, and it will, you will be ready. Now all you have to be is brave enough to grasp it.
Mannahnin wrote: On a science-fiction note, Heinlein talked about that in Time Enough For Love.
Not in regards to race, but in regards to how pioneers and colonists, at least anyone who goes voluntarily to make a new life in a far place, are more motivated and on average more intelligent than people who don't. In TEfL he was talking about colonizing other planets, and how the folks who did so were stronger and harder-working and more adaptable people than the relatively soft folks who stayed back on Earth.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Possibly because the social factors holding black americans down isnt just tied to affirmative action?
........ I'm not quite getting where affirmative action came into a thread about how immigrants from africa are generally more educated than white people from america let alone black people from america... but do tell. And you meant "aren't", not "isnt"
Speaking out of context maybe but in my experience comparing why certain groups of blacks are doing better than others inevitably drags affirmative action into it.
Maybe Im just being racist.
Also hard to lump Egyptian Americans in with blacks in America.
Plus arent immigrants in general better students than the average American?
Poor American black people are no different from poor American white people.
And no different from "poor" people anywhere. Colour is irrelevant, you should try walking around a council estste in Britain.. its just a big freakshow of chain smoking, obese drunks who will all die before they hit 60.. and people think we are doing them a favour by giving them wellfare cheques?!
Poor people in the west get used to dependence on welfare, they drink, they eat, they feth like rabbits and their kids do the exact same thing. They get used to sitting on their arses and have no get up and go.
To be honest, If my rent was paid and I always had money for booze and fags, I don't think id be motivated to try either, I think its a vicious cycle, and I can fully understand why they become trapped in it. Why risk going to University when you can stay in the comparative safety of your council house, and sure you aren't well off, but you are always fed and you can get drunk a few days of every week.
Immigrants will be willing to put some effort in to every aspect of their lives, or they would have just sat on their asses instead of you know.. taking the time to come to the US!
Poor people generally stay poor. I think it takes a very strong individual to have some get up and go when both his/her parents have been on wellfare for ten years and that is all they have ever known.
I second that. Poverty leads to handouts, continued poverty leads to regular handouts, regular handouts lead to lazyness, lazyness is addicting and leads to Poverty...
The only reason African Americans have a higher unemployment rate then other nationalities is because of the above cycle. No amount of intervention is going to motivate them, its putting a band-aid on an infected wound that needs to be cut open and allowed to drain.
Immigrants are going to be motivated to work. They came here for a better life. Heck, you need a good education just to pass the Citizenship test. Which, on a side note, I think ALL Americans should be required to take it to get their full rights. Its silly how the majority of people know very little about our nations history.
I always imagined that only the best have the money and credentials come to the states, and when they do, they come here with intent to become educated and prosperous. They're very hardworking people, and they're usually successful.
I don't think anyone really thinks about Africans when they refer to the "Black Man". Africans don't identify with black groups or niches, like churches, or barbers, or more importantly, identify themselves as "black". It's a funny thing, but understandable.
Maybe having worked in the admissions department for a University skews my opinion but (obviously) most Africans applying for our services were already from rich families or had some kind of scholarship; which meant all the migrants we were bringing into the country were likely already affluent and were attaining an education.
I'd imagine that we'd need to see statistics about how African migrants are getting into the US; I think you'd find that a lot only get their Visas because they are coming for an education; they don't represent the full gambit of the society they are coming from as African-Americans do in the US. The logic of OP would be like me suggesting that if wealthy African-Americans came to the UK for an education, then the majority of African-Americans must be smarter/better educated than the UK's domestic black population.
The social circumstances for black people in the US are not the same as the social circumstances for immigrants.
Immigrants, especially nowadays with an increasing focus on skilled immigration, almost always tend to come from at least middle class backgrounds.
Black people born in the USA are typically lower income earners, with a significant portion in outright poverty.
Poor parents beget poor children. Middle class parents beget middle class children. There's some mobility but the rule is pretty strong in general.
You can look at these circumstances, realise what they are and accept this, or you can go with the mattyrm method of believing poverty is an inherent moral failing some people are born with.
Or that laziness is an inherent moral failing many people are born with and circumstances where you are given a free ride and not forced to do much of anything will not change that condition.
Most people in a relatively wealthy country aren't forced to do much of anything. Being "given a free ride" is usually something that only happens in wealthy families. I don't think it's a particularly accurate description of the meager existence maintained by anyone's who's on welfare and not working their ass off.
Amaya wrote: Or that laziness is an inherent moral failing many people are born with and circumstances where you are given a free ride and not forced to do much of anything will not change that condition.
And so do we conclude that given most of these welfare deadbeats were born into poor families, that such laziness is genetic? Or do we consider that the circumstances play a powerful part, and picking out one socio-economic group and saying 'they're the horrible ones who make it worse for us and we should mean to them' is just about making ourselves feel good.
This crap rings hollow whether its bagging out the rich or the poor.
Laziness being an inherent trait seems to essentially imply that there's a large section of society that even in the most adverse of conditions would choose to be lazy parasites; it seems like a justification for productive elements of said society to be burdened with forever maintaining said bloodsuckers?
If you were born in a culture that placed no value on education, in fact if you tried to become educated you would be constantly insulted, were provided sufficient funds for food, shelter, cigs, and booze, can you honestly say that you would go bust your ass to try and make something of yourself?
Anyone who has worked in various entry level positions can tell you that most employees in said positions are bad. If a paycheck doesn't motivate you to at least attempt to do a decent job, what will?
Nothing short of actually needing to work to survive will motivate a previously "lazy" person, and then lots of people will likely turn to crime instead of honest labor.
Thats the biggest reason we can't just cut benifits to the people on welfare that are just mooching off of society. Crime would likely soar, heck there could even be full blown riots.
Exactly. It is a self perpetuating problem. You can not expect people getting on welfare to be motivated to work harder to get off of it unless they are forced to work just to survive. I've known dealers and a smart one can make a fat amount of cash with minimal risk just selling weed. Why work twice as long for a quarter the reward?
I love it. People born into improvised blighted inner city areas don't fail to get ahead because of a lack of opportunity, inadequate services, dismal educational offerings, systemic discrimination and criminal justice policies that only serve to strengthen the hold of crime over those areas.
Nope.They're lazy welfare fat-cats, who'd get ahead if only they put in the effort to try but don't because the government is off spending your hard earned tax money to give them free booze and cigs. I learn something every day!
I just love it when reality falls in line with a simple narrative that helps reinforce the idea that I earned everything in my life without any kind of extraordinary benefit from the structures and institution around me and those that don't, not only are at fault for their own lack of success but continue in that state in a way that attacks me. It makes it so easy to then frame them as an enemy or a problem, needing punishment or correction rather than as real people who might be deserving of respect, help or consideration.
*phew* I mean for a moment I thought I might have to consider that some people are genuinely held down by their circumstances and I'd have a hard time getting angry over the few meager programs that help them hold on.
Anyone who has worked in various entry level positions can tell you that most employees in said positions are bad. If a paycheck doesn't motivate you to at least attempt to do a decent job, what will?
The chance for advancement or skill development?
Most entry level positions are gak, and the people that work in them are treated like gak. Why am I going to put effort into a job that offers me nothing but more of the same menial work and a small paycheck?
You act as if access to trade skills is non existent or prohibitively expensive. Why settle for making $8/hour at some entry level place when showing initiative and effort will increase that amount by 50-100% in the short term and possibly more in the future?
Maybe I'm insane or just benefited from good parenting, but no matter how gakky the job is I have a desire to be the best at it, whether I hate it or not. Half assed effort is unacceptable.
Henners91 wrote: Laziness being an inherent trait seems to essentially imply that there's a large section of society that even in the most adverse of conditions would choose to be lazy parasites; it seems like a justification for productive elements of said society to be burdened with forever maintaining said bloodsuckers?
Melissia wrote: Because those born here are born in to a culture that doesn't encourage successful lives.
No, their narrow perception of "success" is being a one in a million pro athlete, some sort of pseudo-criminal rapper, or someone who has successfully worked the system so they "get paid".
I agree that most immigrants that come here are coming from "Rich" families. However, Rich in Africa/Asia is not the same as Rich in North America. When I was younger, I visited a middle-class neighborhood in Indonesia (island of Sumatra). They had power for 3 hours a day (evenings, so mostly for lighting, not AC). That is pretty good, since most people did not have electricity at all. Even our poorest 1% in North America have more than middle-class in most countries.
Middle-Class income in India is not what it is in the USA. An income of 25K Indian Rupees per month is middle-class, and that is about $500 per month. Thesepeople send their sons and daughters to the US to get educated.
I don't think it's a poor/rich statement. I think it's a motivation statement. Those that want to succeed in the USA, can. You have to look at it individually, because motivation is an individual thing. Students whose families scrimp and save to send their first-born to the US for college are very motivated to succeed. They will graduate (since graduating college just takes effort, graduating with an Engineering/Bio-Medical degree may take some skill).
Amaya wrote: You act as if access to trade skills is non existent or prohibitively expensive. Why settle for making $8/hour at some entry level place when showing initiative and effort will increase that amount by 50-100% in the short term and possibly more in the future?
The point is that the probability of earning more than $8/hour when all you're doing is working at a job paying that is exceedingly low. Indeed, when I worked minimum wage that job was right about my lowest priority in terms of economic advancement. I put in exactly the amount of effort I needed to in order to not be fired, and often deliberately attempted to avoid doing even that. In essence I was working to maximize my return while minimizing any effort I put forth, this was done out of spite and a desire for personal efficiency.
You can talk about trade skills all you want, but most minimum wage positions don't involve them. Unless following cooking instructions, washing dishes, and stocking shelves count as trade skills.
Middle-Class income in India is not what it is in the USA. An income of 25K Indian Rupees per month is middle-class, and that is about $500 per month. Thesepeople send their sons and daughters to the US to get educated.
Not without significant financial aid they don't. Of course, lots of developing nations provide aid to students that want to study abroad, on top of what they'll likely receive from the institution in question. Even then you don't see many international students that are middle class in their country of origin. Speaking only to my experience, every international I knew in undergrad essentially grew up as a member of the jet set.
Same reason most immigrants do better than most Americans, especially younger ones:
The immigrants are actually willing to work for it, and work hard.
Many Americans (especially the younger ones) feel that they are entitled to being rich, they should be given a good job, and that only a little effort (if any) is all that is required to be successful.
The immigrants are willing to do crappy jobs to move ahead, gain experience, and work their asses off to get ahead. As a professional driver, I see it all the time. Young American salespeople are getting fired for lack of performance (I take their company car from them) because they don't want to put in the hours. But the African cab drivers who take me to them are willing to work 18+ hour days to make more money and get ahead.
No, their narrow perception of "success" is being a one in a million pro athlete, some sort of pseudo-criminal rapper, or someone who has successfully worked the system so they "get paid".
Actually he kind of stayed in the subject in a off sort of way......
No, their narrow perception of "success" is being a one in a million pro athlete, some sort of pseudo-criminal rapper, or someone who has successfully worked the system so they "get paid".
Actually he kind of stayed in the subject in a off sort of way......
Saying that black people stay poor because they believe their only options are to be athletes, 'criminal' rappers, or on welfare and following it up by claiming that the community disdains education is only on topic if the topic is "racist stereotypes I heard about minorities".
Look at this man working on his rap lyrics so he can become somebody.
I would list other black scientists and intellectuals, but I don't really think it would make a difference.
You make that bet because you don't know what you are talking about. If you had half the knowledge you assume you do, you wouldn't say such silly things.
You also never answered Mannahnin's question either, which came well before mine.
Feel free to list off all of those scientists and intellectuals that are an influence on popular culture.
I'm not arguing that there aren't Black intellectuals and scientists. I'm arguing that, for the most part, they don't influence young people's decisions a 100th as much as athletes and rappers do.
Not a big fan of Newt (he's a pompous arse)... but this was an epic smackdown of Mr. Tingle:
“Why do you assume food stamp refers to black? What kind of racist thinking do you have?” Gingrich said as Matthews tried unsuccessfully to interrupt him. “Wait a second, you’re being a racist because you assume it refers to black... "
“You sit here and chuckle about it as if it’s not a game you’re playing,” Matthews said. “You’ve got that diabolic smile of yours, and you know you think you’re winning here, but everybody out there who’s black or white know exactly the game that’s being played here.”
“No, here’s the game. You have the worst president,” Gingrich said.
”
I appreciate the idea that somehow non-black teens are obsessed with academics and scientist while black people are only concerned with pop culture, but since now you want to know influences on pop culture that aren't 'criminal' rappers or professional athletes:
Tavis Smiley
Cornell West
Chuck D (a rapper, but not a 'criminal' rapper)
KRS-1 (a rapper, but not a 'criminal' rapper)
Jill Scott
Denzel Washington
Donald Glover
Gabourey Sidibe
CCH Pounder
India Arie
Maya Angelou
Terry McMillian
Aaron McGruder
President Barack Obama
Michael Steele
Quincy Jones
Branford Marsalis
The Hughes Brothers
John Singleton
Spike Lee
Oprah Winfrey
Gabrielle Douglas (an athlete, but not a high paying or professional one)
Levar Burton
Amaya wrote: Exactly. It is a self perpetuating problem. You can not expect people getting on welfare to be motivated to work harder to get off of it unless they are forced to work just to survive. I've known dealers and a smart one can make a fat amount of cash with minimal risk just selling weed. Why work twice as long for a quarter the reward?
Freakonomics, for all it's problems, actually has a pretty good section on this issue. The first thing they point out is that guys working in drug gangs make crap all money. The guy at the top does great, but the guys underneath him could get paid more working at McDonalds.
This then leads into speculation on why they'd undertake the risk of jail or violence, to earn less money. The biggest answer is that to each person working in the gang they think it is more likely they'll move up the chain than they would at McDonalds, even though this likely isn't true. The other issue is basically pride - there is a sense of power in working for a criminal group, whereas it is quite degrading to work at a fast food store.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chongara wrote: I love it. People born into improvised blighted inner city areas don't fail to get ahead because of a lack of opportunity, inadequate services, dismal educational offerings, systemic discrimination and criminal justice policies that only serve to strengthen the hold of crime over those areas.
Nope.They're lazy welfare fat-cats, who'd get ahead if only they put in the effort to try but don't because the government is off spending your hard earned tax money to give them free booze and cigs. I learn something every day!
I just love it when reality falls in line with a simple narrative that helps reinforce the idea that I earned everything in my life without any kind of extraordinary benefit from the structures and institution around me and those that don't, not only are at fault for their own lack of success but continue in that state in a way that attacks me. It makes it so easy to then frame them as an enemy or a problem, needing punishment or correction rather than as real people who might be deserving of respect, help or consideration.
*phew* I mean for a moment I thought I might have to consider that some people are genuinely held down by their circumstances and I'd have a hard time getting angry over the few meager programs that help them hold on.
I especially the underlying assumption that people in middle class lives aren't also lazy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tye_Informer wrote: I agree that most immigrants that come here are coming from "Rich" families. However, Rich in Africa/Asia is not the same as Rich in North America. When I was younger, I visited a middle-class neighborhood in Indonesia (island of Sumatra). They had power for 3 hours a day (evenings, so mostly for lighting, not AC). That is pretty good, since most people did not have electricity at all. Even our poorest 1% in North America have more than middle-class in most countries.
Middle-Class income in India is not what it is in the USA. An income of 25K Indian Rupees per month is middle-class, and that is about $500 per month. Thesepeople send their sons and daughters to the US to get educated.
I don't think it's a poor/rich statement. I think it's a motivation statement. Those that want to succeed in the USA, can. You have to look at it individually, because motivation is an individual thing. Students whose families scrimp and save to send their first-born to the US for college are very motivated to succeed. They will graduate (since graduating college just takes effort, graduating with an Engineering/Bio-Medical degree may take some skill).
I think the problem with the above is that a direct comparison of material wealth is a really superficial view of society and economic structures. The best starting point would be to realise status and expectation matters at least as much as actual property.
A person in US society might have a nice TV and other knicknacks that'd be the envy of a reasonably prosperous business owner in Vietnam, but that's just stuff. What matters at least as much is that everyone in the US sees that guy as poor and because of that most assume he is lazy. Odds are he's been knocked back from plenty of jobs as well, and there's a fair chance his parents had much the same experiences.
And no, the Indian middle class isn't sending their children to be educated in the US. The Indian upper class is doing that, because a $500 a week income does not give you the purchasing power to put your kid through foreign education.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SlaveToDorkness wrote: I'm not arguing that there aren't Black intellectuals and scientists. I'm arguing that, for the most part, they don't influence young people's decisions a 100th as much as athletes and rappers do.
I agree, to a large extent. But what you're missing here is that this isn't a black people problem, it's a poor people problem. You think in impoverished rural high schools in Alabama or wherever the white kids are posting pictures of scientists on their walls? Nah, they're looking at pictures of quarterbacks or whatever.
That poverty happens to be more common in black communities is a product of history, but it doesn't make the issues of poverty uniquely black issues. They're still just issues of poverty.
Not a big fan of Newt (he's a pompous arse)... but this was an epic smackdown of Mr. Tingle:
Except, of course, that the Newt knew exactly what he was doing, and what he was doing was race-baiting.
I mean, this stuff has been on record for decades. Here's Lee Atwater from 1981; "You start out in 1954 by saying, "[see forum posting rules], [see forum posting rules], [see forum posting rules]." By 1968 you can't say "[see forum posting rules]"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "[see forum posting rules], [see forum posting rules]"."
That said, I think it is important to point out that the Republican party has likely more or less moved past the Southern Strategy now. The only real effort at that kind of dog whistling since the mid-90s was from the Newt, and he went down in flames and only polled votes at all because of the general weakness of the Republican field in this last primary.
Ahtman wrote:I appreciate the idea that somehow non-black teens are obsessed with academics and scientist while black people are only concerned with pop culture, but since now you want to know influences on pop culture that aren't 'criminal' rappers or professional athletes:
Tavis Smiley
Cornell West
Chuck D (a rapper, but not a 'criminal' rapper)
KRS-1 (a rapper, but not a 'criminal' rapper)
Jill Scott
Denzel Washington
Donald Glover
Gabourey Sidibe
CCH Pounder
India Arie
Maya Angelou
Terry McMillian
Aaron McGruder
President Barack Obama
Michael Steele
Quincy Jones
Branford Marsalis
The Hughes Brothers
John Singleton
Spike Lee
Oprah Winfrey
Gabrielle Douglas (an athlete, but not a high paying or professional one)
Levar Burton
Nearly everyone on that list is an actor or artist. The vast majority of blacks that you are visible in the media are actors, artists (musical), or athletes. There are only a handful of them that are visible in other pursuits and some of them (Powell, Rice, Thomas) are labeled as racial traitors for their political views.
I can't even name a single contemporary black author of fiction and the only one I can think of is that is remotely recent is the author of Things Fall Apart (which is an amazing novel). Of course I think that part of the problem is that many black authors immediately venture into African-American literature and don't write for a mainstream audience.
Amaya wrote: Nearly everyone on that list is an actor or artist.
What part of influencing pop culture was that difficult to understand? The number of living scientists and academics that influence pop culture can be counted on one hand practically, and as sebster pointed out, though I wouldn't even relegate it to the poor, kids in school of all ethnicity and socioeconomic classifications aren't putting up posters of academics and scientists. Slave said they all wanted to be pro athletes, 'criminal' rappers, or living on welfare. This is a list of pop culture celebrities that are none of those things.
Amaya wrote: The vast majority of blacks that you are visible in the media are actors, artists (musical), or athletes.
What world are you living in where the pop culture heroes of the white community are tenured professors and published scientists? I'd like to go to the schools where Virginia Apgar and Eric Habswam are the teens choice of discussion at the lunch table. Even in college pop culture still dominates. Celebrities by definition are more visible than other members of society, it is a pretty intrinsic element to being a celebrity. I'm also not sure it is really a bad thing to appreciate someone who is skilled at acting, playing an instrument, or knows their way with the written word.
Amaya wrote: I can't even name a single contemporary black author of fiction and the only one I can think of is that is remotely recent is the author of Things Fall Apart (which is an amazing novel). Of course I think that part of the problem is that many black authors immediately venture into African-American literature and don't write for a mainstream audience.
Part of the issue is that you seem to think your limited knowledge on the subject is somehow represents a a comprehensive analysis of the subject. If you actually were a cultured and well read student of the arts and literature you probably wouldn't have as much trouble thinking of any names. Hell, I listed two authors in the above list and it seems you didn't realize it.
Stephen Barnes is a reasonably well-known black sci-fi author. I think you'd like him.
-------
But yeah, most of the people who are influential in popular culture are actors and artists of various kinds. That's what STD said- "influence on popular culture".
StD wrote:I'm not arguing that there aren't Black intellectuals and scientists. I'm arguing that, for the most part, they don't influence young people's decisions a 100th as much as athletes and rappers do.
Yeah, no shocker. How many white or asian (or whatever) intellectuals and scientists can you name who influence ANY teenager's decisions 100th as much as athletes, rappers, and other celebrities and entertainers do?
As far as scientists and intellectuals who are prominent in popular culture go, Neil DeGrasse Tyson is kind of at the top of the heap nowadays.
Amaya wrote: I can't even name a single contemporary black author of fiction and the only one I can think of is that is remotely recent is the author of Things Fall Apart (which is an amazing novel). Of course I think that part of the problem is that many black authors immediately venture into African-American literature and don't write for a mainstream audience.
Part of the issue is that you seem to think your limited knowledge on the subject is somehow represents a a comprehensive analysis of the subject. If you actually were a cultured and well read student of the arts and literature you probably wouldn't have as much trouble thinking of any names. Hell, I listed two authors in the above list and it seems you didn't realize it.
Do you know what the words fiction and contemporary mean?
And your little list is great, it really is, you just listed a bunch of people that have a bigger white following or are no longer a major influence.
Lil'Wayne, Jay-Z, 50 Cent, Biggie, Tupac, Nas, and similar artists are all bigger influences on black teenagers then anyone you listed with the possible exception of Denzel Washington. Do you honestly think anyone knows who KRS-1 is anymore?
I would get in arguments with coworkers about hip hop and bring up KRS-1 and none of them under 30 had a clue as to who he was. You think Community is being watched in the 'hood? You think some, to quote Ving Rhames, "hard pipe hitting <brothers>" are bumping Childish Gambino? Maybe someone analogous to Twofer is, but in my experience working with blacks...HELL NO.
Maybe it's just a product of the south, I'd like to think the east coast still has some decent taste, but the blacks down here would listen to crunk and snap over MosDef and Kweli every time they were given the choice. The last decent rapper to get any airplay in SA was Chamillionaire and that was 6 years ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote: Stephen Barnes is a reasonably well-known black sci-fi author. I think you'd like him.
Took me forever to find him, it's actually spelled Steven. He wrote a few episodes for the 1995 Outer Limits series, the only one I particularly liked was Music of the Spheres, but I'm pretty sure all the other episodes were fairly decent.
Amaya wrote: Exactly. It is a self perpetuating problem. You can not expect people getting on welfare to be motivated to work harder to get off of it unless they are forced to work just to survive. I've known dealers and a smart one can make a fat amount of cash with minimal risk just selling weed. Why work twice as long for a quarter the reward?
Freakonomics, for all it's problems, actually has a pretty good section on this issue. The first thing they point out is that guys working in drug gangs make crap all money. The guy at the top does great, but the guys underneath him could get paid more working at McDonalds.
This then leads into speculation on why they'd undertake the risk of jail or violence, to earn less money. The biggest answer is that to each person working in the gang they think it is more likely they'll move up the chain than they would at McDonalds, even though this likely isn't true. The other issue is basically pride - there is a sense of power in working for a criminal group, whereas it is quite degrading to work at a fast food store.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chongara wrote: I love it. People born into improvised blighted inner city areas don't fail to get ahead because of a lack of opportunity, inadequate services, dismal educational offerings, systemic discrimination and criminal justice policies that only serve to strengthen the hold of crime over those areas.
Nope.They're lazy welfare fat-cats, who'd get ahead if only they put in the effort to try but don't because the government is off spending your hard earned tax money to give them free booze and cigs. I learn something every day!
I just love it when reality falls in line with a simple narrative that helps reinforce the idea that I earned everything in my life without any kind of extraordinary benefit from the structures and institution around me and those that don't, not only are at fault for their own lack of success but continue in that state in a way that attacks me. It makes it so easy to then frame them as an enemy or a problem, needing punishment or correction rather than as real people who might be deserving of respect, help or consideration.
*phew* I mean for a moment I thought I might have to consider that some people are genuinely held down by their circumstances and I'd have a hard time getting angry over the few meager programs that help them hold on.
I especially the underlying assumption that people in middle class lives aren't also lazy.
The difference is that the Middle Class can afford to be lazy, to a point. Thats almost the definition of "middle class", someone who has enough money to set aside for lesure but still has to work the majority of the time. Said work usually requires a college education and usually doesn't involve loads of hard labor. Exceptions exists of course, an industrial welder makes real good money, needs a degree of some sort, and is a laborious job.
The lower class can't improve their lot and move into the middle class by being "lazy"
Its worth pointing out that there are MORE white people in the lower class then there are people of color. Now %s flip this around, but I think this is an issue where %s just don't paint the entire picture, and certaintly don't help racial tensions. A poor white person is much less likely to gain benifits, such as scholarships, then a poor black person due to affirmative action. This is actually hurting far more people then it helps, and I think the whole idea of making amends for dead people's wrong doing is silly. The people directly effected, and that caused the issue, are long since dead. Let the past lie in peace. Time heals wounds, if the wound doesn't keep getting reopened because we're constantly reminding people of it.
Enough time has passed to where the disadvantages caused by Slavery arn't an excuse anymore. Its a crutch that people are riding and mooching off of. I'm sure the ancestors of many of today's african americans would be ashamed of whats happening today.
The very fact there are millions of white people in the lower class says that Slavery is not the cause of someone's poverty. Poverty is an undeniable fact of any society. There will always be poor people, if its not one reason its another. The best you can do is alleviate the suffering, while not allowing free rides. Sure, the government can and should have welfare for those down on their luck. But I think they should work for their handout.
Families on welfare should be required to give so many hours of community service in exchange for their foodstamps or carepackages. The county needs all the municipal buildings painted, have those on welfare come in and paint. Park/building maintainance, minor road repairs, staffing the public library, school repairs/servicing, etc...
Thing can even be organized at the state and federal levels. Able bodied men that are out of work can be bussed places to work on government projects like Highway construction, bridge building, land clearing, etc... The government could hire out these people on welfare to private companies at low prices. For example, say its time for Dole to harvest some produce in California. They could pay the government for Welfare workers to help with the harvest. Cheaper then paying standard laborers, if the labor is of variable quality, the government has an income stream, and the Welfare recipients get their welfare, experience to put on their resume, and possably a foot in the door for gaining a future job.
Such work would be gassigned based on your individual circumstances. Obviously if you can't pick veggies in the hot sun you won't get sent to do it. And if you happen to have a particular skill then you can get sent somewhere that skill can get put to use. An automechanic might get assigned to do some repair on police vehicles for example.
Took me forever to find him, it's actually spelled Steven. He wrote a few episodes for the 1995 Outer Limits series, the only one I particularly liked was Music of the Spheres, but I'm pretty sure all the other episodes were fairly decent.
Sorry, was going from memory and misspelled. I was thinking more of his novels- like the Aubry Knight books, and his collaborations with Larry Niven.
To immigrate to the US, you have to be more determined than the average person. The legal immigration process is not an easy one. And the illegal immigration process is still difficult too.
I don't...I guess care would be the right word...about science fiction in general to read anything more than select authors so I'm sure there are many less popular/influential authors that I am not aware of. I know intellectually that there are minorities (in the sense of English speaking authors) who write and direct in the genre, but no one has emerged on par with the giants yet.
I almost think that young blacks with the potential to become great authors due to their skill with imagery, metaphors, etc, become great MCs instead.
I'd like to hear more about how Amaya knows what the black community knows, wants and desires. Apparently only white people like Chuck D, and all young black people are ignorant of all but a thin band of artists and individuals. Sure, blacks that aren't really black, like Twofer might know, but those 'pipe hitting [brothers]' are really ther representatives of the black community. You must be the king of the black people, with such insight and knowledge.
Also, you might not want to be the white guy using a quote referring to black men as [brother] unless you want to seem like an ignorant fool, and then compounding a it by quoting an 18 year old movie in a call for more contemporary examples.
I love how you quit on arguments and turn everything into personal attacks.
Edit: How old are you Ahtman? I think you've probably lost touch with the younger generations. I would also love to know the last time you've had a conversation with a black male under 30 who's done time, sold drugs, has been on welfare, or experienced similar problems.
Grey Templar wrote: The difference is that the Middle Class can afford to be lazy, to a point. Thats almost the definition of "middle class", someone who has enough money to set aside for lesure but still has to work the majority of the time. Said work usually requires a college education and usually doesn't involve loads of hard labor. Exceptions exists of course, an industrial welder makes real good money, needs a degree of some sort, and is a laborious job.
No, that isn't the definition of middle class at all. It's a term with complex and diverse definitions, and none of them that I've ever seen have ever included laziness.
The lower class can't improve their lot and move into the middle class by being "lazy"
While noting we're talking very generally here, that's true.
But it leaves you with the argument that a middle class guy who takes the benefits of his parents social circumstances and lazily cruises through life landing in a middle class job just like his parents... then turns around and tells a poor person they're lazy because they haven't advanced above the circumstances they were born into.
It's self congratulating nonsense.
Its worth pointing out that there are MORE white people in the lower class then there are people of color.
Raw numbers are meaningless, because they're influenced more by the sheer numbers of white people than the actual ratios within economic groups. Black people are twice as likely to be below the poverty line as white people.
Enough time has passed to where the disadvantages caused by Slavery arn't an excuse anymore.
Except that wealth and poverty both last for many generations. The Rockefellers and Kennedys today aren't among the richest people in the world because they just happen to be as hard working and smart as their parents, who just happened to be as smart and hard working as their parents. Most of their success comes from being born into the status, wealth and social advantages of having very wealthy parents.
In the very same way poverty lasts for generations as well.
Slavery isn't an excuse. It's simply what happened, and the socio-economic impacts of that are still felt today.
As much as I agree with the sentiment that a person shouldn't use their poor beginnings as an excuse, greater society cannot just pretend that such things aren't still a factor.
The very fact there are millions of white people in the lower class says that Slavery is not the cause of someone's poverty. Poverty is an undeniable fact of any society. There will always be poor people, if its not one reason its another.
The fact that black people are in poverty at a rate of about double that of white people says there's some other factor in place other than just 'some people are gonna be poor'.
The best you can do is alleviate the suffering, while not allowing free rides. Sure, the government can and should have welfare for those down on their luck. But I think they should work for their handout.
I agree entirely. I think putting conditions on welfare, and refocussing programs away from poverty relief and towards making people employable, productive members of society is absolutely the way to go.
Thing can even be organized at the state and federal levels. Able bodied men that are out of work can be bussed places to work on government projects like Highway construction, bridge building, land clearing, etc...
The problem here is that much of this work is done by heavy machinery. You can't just get any unemployed person and put them in a grader.
So what actually becomes an option is to put them through a training course in heavy machinery, with a job at the end of it on a road crew at minimum wage. At any point during their work they would be free to get a job with their new skills working for a higher wage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote: Edit: How old are you Ahtman? I think you've probably lost touch with the younger generations. I would also love to know the last time you've had a conversation with a black male under 30 who's done time, sold drugs, has been on welfare, or experienced similar problems.
Do you not see the problem here? Any black person that isn't knee deep in your ideas of black culture is dismissed as not really counting.
Here's the thing - the 2010 census in the US gives a socio-economic picture which just is not as simple as the impression you are giving. 27% of black people earn between $25k and $50k. 23% earn between $50k and $100k. 9% earn more than $100k. You don't get those kind of incomes among a group that just dreams of being sports stars and rappers.
You can make the case that among black people there is a group focusses on poor role models, as their paths to success are either improbable (sports stars) or downright anti-social (gangster rappers) but you can't make that claim for the black population as a whole. The numbers above are not the numbers you'd see for a group of failed sports stars and gangster rappers.
And then, once you recognise it only matches with a minority of the black population, and that population is largely born into poorer economic circumstances, it isn't hard to realise the same issue exists among white kids born into poor economic circumstances.
Mannahnin wrote: Stephen Barnes is a reasonably well-known black sci-fi author. I think you'd like him.
-------
But yeah, most of the people who are influential in popular culture are actors and artists of various kinds. That's what STD said- "influence on popular culture".
StD wrote:I'm not arguing that there aren't Black intellectuals and scientists. I'm arguing that, for the most part, they don't influence young people's decisions a 100th as much as athletes and rappers do.
Yeah, no shocker. How many white or asian (or whatever) intellectuals and scientists can you name who influence ANY teenager's decisions 100th as much as athletes, rappers, and other celebrities and entertainers do?
.
True. This thread is about finding an explanation for the difference between Black Americans and immigrated Africans though. It's got nothing to do with the differences in White/Black/Asian cultures. That was Aht's assumption.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: True. This thread is about finding an explanation for the difference between Black Americans and immigrated Africans though. It's got nothing to do with the differences in White/Black/Asian cultures. That was Aht's assumption.
It seems odd to assign assumption to what you believe I meant when it seems you can't even get across what you mean. You are the one that blamed the black community for only wanting to be pro-athletes, gangsta rappers, or welfare recipients and went on to say they disdain education.
Amaya wrote: Edit: How old are you Ahtman? I think you've probably lost touch with the younger generations. I would also love to know the last time you've had a conversation with a black male under 30 who's done time, sold drugs, has been on welfare, or experienced similar problems.
Do you not see the problem here? Any black person that isn't knee deep in your ideas of black culture is dismissed as not really counting.
Here's the thing - the 2010 census in the US gives a socio-economic picture which just is not as simple as the impression you are giving. 27% of black people earn between $25k and $50k. 23% earn between $50k and $100k. 9% earn more than $100k. You don't get those kind of incomes among a group that just dreams of being sports stars and rappers.
You can make the case that among black people there is a group focusses on poor role models, as their paths to success are either improbable (sports stars) or downright anti-social (gangster rappers) but you can't make that claim for the black population as a whole. The numbers above are not the numbers you'd see for a group of failed sports stars and gangster rappers.
And then, once you recognise it only matches with a minority of the black population, and that population is largely born into poorer economic circumstances, it isn't hard to realise the same issue exists among white kids born into poor economic circumstances.
I'm really sick of people talking about context and then completely ignoring it. I am not discussing all blacks in America. I am discussing a specific group, the young and poor located in the south.
It is a very large group by that census's own admittance, 100-(27+23+9) = 41.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: True. This thread is about finding an explanation for the difference between Black Americans and immigrated Africans though. It's got nothing to do with the differences in White/Black/Asian cultures. That was Aht's assumption.
It seems odd to assign assumption to what you believe I meant when it seems you can't even get across what you mean.
I'm sorry to have assumed you'd read the thread title.
You are the one that blamed the black community for only wanting to be pro-athletes, gangsta rappers, or welfare recipients and went on to say they disdain education.
Can you point out to me where I said it wasn't so in other communities? We're talking about the difference in native and immigrant thought processes (in case I need to remind you so my point is understandable.).
Apprenticeships are extremely rare, having been replaced by pay as you go vocational training for the most part*, and the majority of the apprenticeships that do exist are confined to the construction industry; which presents obvious problems in the present market over and above that sort of single-sector method of education.
This isn't to say its impossible to develop trade skills working in minimum wage equivalent positions (Though no vocational program is actually minimum wage.), its just far more difficult (And less likely.) than other methods of advancement.
*Some high schools also offer vocational coursework either directly, or through exchange programs with a community college. But, if your high school doesn't do this, you're out of luck.
And your little list is great, it really is, you just listed a bunch of people that have a bigger white following or are no longer a major influence.
Lil'Wayne, Jay-Z, 50 Cent, Biggie, Tupac, Nas, and similar artists are all bigger influences on black teenagers then anyone you listed with the possible exception of Denzel Washington.
I imagine that your list also has a much larger following among white Americans, and further that white athletes, artists and actors have a greater cultural influence than white academics.
I mean, if I say the name "Saul Kripke" do you know who he is? Probably not, but he's one of the foremost logicians on the planet. The same applies to Alexander Wendt, Robert Keohane, Andrew Moravcsik, Benoit Mandelbrot, and Mitchell Feigenbaum in their respective fields.
Hell, I imagine most teenagers, regardless of race, couldn't name even relatively famous academics like Richards Dawkins, Sam Harris, or Fareed Zakaria.
Amaya wrote: Edit: How old are you Ahtman? I think you've probably lost touch with the younger generations. I would also love to know the last time you've had a conversation with a black male under 30 who's done time, sold drugs, has been on welfare, or experienced similar problems.
Do you not see the problem here? Any black person that isn't knee deep in your ideas of black culture is dismissed as not really counting.
Here's the thing - the 2010 census in the US gives a socio-economic picture which just is not as simple as the impression you are giving. 27% of black people earn between $25k and $50k. 23% earn between $50k and $100k. 9% earn more than $100k. You don't get those kind of incomes among a group that just dreams of being sports stars and rappers.
You can make the case that among black people there is a group focusses on poor role models, as their paths to success are either improbable (sports stars) or downright anti-social (gangster rappers) but you can't make that claim for the black population as a whole. The numbers above are not the numbers you'd see for a group of failed sports stars and gangster rappers.
And then, once you recognise it only matches with a minority of the black population, and that population is largely born into poorer economic circumstances, it isn't hard to realise the same issue exists among white kids born into poor economic circumstances.
I'm really sick of people talking about context and then completely ignoring it. I am not discussing all blacks in America. I am discussing a specific group, the young and poor located in the south.
It is a very large group by that census's own admittance, 100-(27+23+9) = 41.
Yeah, I assumed we were past having to specify what we meant when we said "african americans"
Those african americans that are making >$25k are year are those that arn't being held back. Lets talk about the 41% that are stuck in the lower class.
They are the ones who will not have proper role models or the drive needed to improve their lot. Being poor is a self-continuing situation, but only if nothing is done to attempt to change it.
Now if the very people who are stuck in the rut arn't trying to change their circumstances, why should the government come in to help and play favorites with the poor who arn't even motivated to help themselves?
I speak in generalities. There are poor people who are trying their darndest to get ahead, but for every one of those there are a couple of slackers whose only ambition is to sit on the couch, eat, sleep, get high/drunk, and reproduce.
And your little list is great, it really is, you just listed a bunch of people that have a bigger white following or are no longer a major influence.
Lil'Wayne, Jay-Z, 50 Cent, Biggie, Tupac, Nas, and similar artists are all bigger influences on black teenagers then anyone you listed with the possible exception of Denzel Washington.
I imagine that your list also has a much larger following among white Americans, and further that white athletes, artists and actors have a greater cultural influence than white academics.
Hell, I imagine most teenagers, regardless of race, couldn't name even relatively famous academics like Richards Dawkins, Sam Harris, or Fareed Zakaria.
You didn't mention anything about percentages, and to the extent that you might have intended to it was in a sense that was amorphous and anecdotal. The larger point of my contention being that athletes, artists, and actors have a much greater impact on popular culture than any other category of public figure, regardless of their racial origin.
And, if you want to talk about popularity by racial category, I think the only artist you mentioned who is demonstrably more popular among African Americans is Lil'Wayne. When he actually was popular 50 Cent was a major icon of pop culture, while Biggie, Tupac, Nas, and Jay-Z remain so to this day; especially Jay-Z and Nas. Of course, it helps that the latter two aren't dead.
Strictly anecdotal, but I have encountered very, very few young black males who disliked rap. By comparison, there are many young white males who openly hate rap (especially on the internet) or only listen to very select artists. I don't think that it is a stretch by any means to suggest that the percentage wise the number of young black male fans of rap is double or triple that of their white counterparts.
By default, the odds are that any rapper/MC has a greater impact (percentage wise) on the black community than s/he does on the white community. There are of course a handful of artists, that blacks simply do not listen to at all. A good example of that would probably be someone like Hopsin, who, based on his shows, has a massive white following and minimal black fan base.
Amaya wrote: Strictly anecdotal, but I have encountered very, very few young black males who disliked rap. By comparison, there are many young white males who openly hate rap (especially on the internet) or only listen to very select artists. I don't think that it is a stretch by any means to suggest that the percentage wise the number of young black male fans of rap is double or triple that of their white counterparts.
I know quite a few, though they tend to be better educated or well off economically. Conversely, I know very few well educated, economically prosperous young white males that don't like rap.
Amaya wrote: I'm specifically referring to those in the bottom 41%. Where are you located at? Maybe the white hate for rap is just a Texas thing.
Well above that, though even thinking back to high school rap was no more or less popular than any other type of music. The only kids I remember being vehemently opposed to it were hardcore metal fans, which tended to be similarly dislike my people who were heavily into rap, while both groups hated country. Of course, the hate for country probably has a lot to do with growing up in the Chicago area.
Educated whites probably listen to Rap because its different then what they normally do.
I suspect it has more to with being willing to separate the music itself from any cultural ties it may have. Though there are also plenty of people in academia that will tell you that listening to rap makes you some kind of oppressor by way of co-opting the experience of a minority group.
Chicago probably produces higher quality rap than the entire south put together as well. Common, Chali 2na, Kanye West, and Lupe Fiasco makes for a pretty solid lineup.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: True. This thread is about finding an explanation for the difference between Black Americans and immigrated Africans though. It's got nothing to do with the differences in White/Black/Asian cultures. That was Aht's assumption.
The difference between African immigrants and Black americans was sorted within the first half of the first page. Middle class is middle class, poor is poor. That issue is done.
That led into a greater conversation on why poverty led to more poverty, to which it was suggested that stereotypically black cultural elements are the primary driver. Which has been debated since then, in a roundabout kind of way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote: I'm really sick of people talking about context and then completely ignoring it. I am not discussing all blacks in America. I am discussing a specific group, the young and poor located in the south.
Well, the context is slavetodorkness commenting directly on 'black culture', and you coming in to comment on the same side, without ever really differentiating your position from the one slavetodorkness was making. I've read back through your posts and fair enough that you were talking about poverty in general, but I should point out you never really made it clear you were talking about poverty in general.
It is a very large group by that census's own admittance, 100-(27+23+9) = 41.
Absolutely, and the level of poverty within any ethnic group should be unacceptable to any wealthy society. My point is that solving that issue won't come through making broad generalisations about that ethnic group as a whole, when the real picture is so much more complicated than that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, I assumed we were past having to specify what we meant when we said "african americans"
Those african americans that are making >$25k are year are those that arn't being held back. Lets talk about the 41% that are stuck in the lower class.
They are the ones who will not have proper role models or the drive needed to improve their lot. Being poor is a self-continuing situation, but only if nothing is done to attempt to change it.
Now if the very people who are stuck in the rut arn't trying to change their circumstances, why should the government come in to help and play favorites with the poor who arn't even motivated to help themselves?
I speak in generalities. There are poor people who are trying their darndest to get ahead, but for every one of those there are a couple of slackers whose only ambition is to sit on the couch, eat, sleep, get high/drunk, and reproduce.
No, you speak in terms of blame, and that's basically just a wrong headed view to the issue. Take out the personal judgement and look at the issue in terms of what is best for you, and for everyone as a whole - right now because of the circumstances they were born into a lot of people are likely to unproductive or minimally productive members of society, and they in turn are likely to produce children who are just as minimally productive. Programs that can end that cycle mean reduced social welfare expenditure and increased tax revenue, which is good for everyone else as that means less tax burden for the rest to pay.
And yeah, it is about helping those who'd help themselves. Which is exactly why programs should be targetted towards skills improvement and the like.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote: Trying to think of good/decent southern artists.
9th Wonder (DJ, worked with Murs)
Outkast
Geto Boys
Chamillionaire
Big KRIT
BoB
Jay Electronica
And that's about it...
Wait, Chamillionaire is considered good? I mean, I'm not having a go here because rap is one of those things I basically just don't get, but I thought he was a punchline to jokes?
I think the fact they don't value education and have poor role models is a problem. Trying to make it as a rapper in a massively over saturated market, superstar athlete or dealing are not acceptable choices. The question becomes, why are those the only choices? It's the product of a welfare state. A lot of people will not work to get off of that unless they are in a culture that values work ethic. Even though a lot of these guys get into their 20s and bust their asses then, they're still screwed by lack of education, trade skills, or criminal record.
It honestly pisses me off, because I've known these guys who will work hard, hell maybe ever harder than me and I had the whole German work ethic crap practically beat into me, but they're just spinning in the mud for those reasons. I can't even begin to imagine how much of a struggle it must be to be still living at your mom's, have no HS diploma, trying to work 50+ hour weeks, get a GED and be in your mid to late 20s. Unless you're mentally tough as hell that's got to wear you down.
There is no easy answer as to how to implement change and I don't if change is even possible without confronting the ghetto culture. When I say the ghetto culture I am not referring to black culture or the hip hop culture. They may all be intertwined in a fashion, but the ghetto culture is obsessed with "keeping it real", gang banging, making easy money, tribal/racial hatred (gangs and racial conflicts between blacks, hispanics, asians, and whites), and does not value education, work ethic or women. It is overly pervasive and a negative influence that a lot of rappers/MCs are contributing to even if that is not their intent.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Chamillionaire is 100 times better than the typical crap that gets played on SA hip hop stations.
Amaya wrote: I think the fact they don't value education and have poor role models is a problem. Trying to make it as a rapper in a massively over saturated market, superstar athlete or dealing are not acceptable choices. The question becomes, why are those the only choices? It's the product of a welfare state.
The problem, fundamentally, is that this conclusion of yours doesn't line up with economic history at all. Before the welfare state there wasn't poor people climbing into the middle class - back then social mobility was much worse, not better. One of the major reasons the US right now has worse social mobility than most other developed countries is the smaller/tighter welfare system.
I agree that little value for education is the major problem, but the welfare state thing is a total red herring.
Chamillionaire is 100 times better than the typical crap that gets played on SA hip hop stations.
Okay. Just curious, is that your opinion, or is that something generally believed among hip hop fans? I ask because over here rap isn't as big, with only a couple of songs charting each year (and most of those are more club music than standard rap).
He's generally regarded as above average. In all honesty, Southern "rap" is typically so terrible that I have trouble taking anyone who likes it opinion on music seriously. He's actually tolerable.
