Quote:
Originally Posted by zerospinboson
It wasn't so much the "lower SES children underperform" thing that bothered me. It was that the blame for that was put on the lower SES children (or their parents), after what, 1 fully grown & children of their own generation of affirmative action?
Like you said, two generations later. Following your logic, you seem to be implying that racism doesn't matter, because "things will turn out all right" a generation or two later. (Considering that the prejudice against Irish, and later Italians etc. also came from Social Darwinist/racist thinking, with the IQ test being "invented" specifically for the purpose of "proving" they were less intelligent, by doing silly stuff like pointing at pictures of bowling alleys and asking what was missing from them. Social sciences indeed.)
|
I must have written poorly. The statements I wrote were chosen because I thought I could write them in an appropriately value-neutral way, not because I was trying to use their
content to make a point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerospinboson
My thing I took issue with, however, hardly was that there are legitimate and illegitimate generalizations.
Even when you ignore the fact that we have no negative connotations with "smarter" and "Roman Catholic", there is a qualitative difference between "most hispanics are RC", as these statements have no evaluative component, whereas (per your example) "most (really all) Irish people are backwards" or worse, "blacks force us to change the country('s educational standards) for the worse" do, and rather big ones at that.
I'm perfectly aware of the trend and problem she was hinting at, I just don't like where she put the explanation/blame for it.
|
Um... That's pretty much the point I was after. I guess I just wasn't direct enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerospinboson
[SNIP -- mostly 'cause I don't disagree (much)]
The problem of "inner city schooling" came up when, in the early 1990s? I'm guessing it had something to do with the affluent part of society fleeing inner cities to the suburbs, and that came up in the '80s or so, so that leaves (working from the assumption that schools were really, really great after the segregation ended, which wasn't at the same time in every state) less than 30 years, or a generation and a half or so of people who got a good chance at a decent education, after which the odds for that started decreasing, because the better teachers didn't want to teach at problem schools anymore.
Sure, "standards were lowered", but I'm guessing that was more because the costs went up and people became less willing or able to pay for these (as well as added costs needed for the extra schooling needed mentioned by kazbates) than it was because that one ethnic group ( that only makes up 12% of the population) was really that incorrigible.
So yes, I could've done as you do, and "ignored" that part of the statement, but I don't really see why offhand remarks like that one should go unchallenged. |
The "problem of inner city schooling"
began to appear in the 1950s, but didn't have that name yet. Back then it took the form (in the North) of worse results for "the school on the wrong side of the tracks" (perhaps due to lower funding, perhaps other factors -- I make no claim here as to
why). BTW, the "wrong side of the tracks" definitely held the lower SES folks, but that was usually a racially mixed group. This problem, however, is not what I was after in my prior message. Rather, I was attempting to poke you to attack the generalizations for their (perhaps unintentional and probably-but-not-certainly-unwarranted) negative connotations, rather than for being "generalizations."
And I was also trying to poke DG (and any others whose statements I missed) to write a bit more carefully. More careful statements would either (a) decrease the level of "you're just generalizing" rejoinders and so help us focus on specific issues in society, or (b) really clarify the posters attitude (and the reasons for it) so that we can usefully discuss
those issues.
The in-between generalization-with-bad-connotations form leads to flame-wars and talking at cross purposes IMNSHO (In My Not So Humble Opinion). More careful writing (from all comers) leads to more productive discussion.
Xenophon
P.S. And what does NOFI stand for???
P.P.S And since I, of course,
NEVER get my wording wrong or write in ways that create an unintended impression...
...I'm expecting a hail of incoming rocks from those whose writing styles I just disparaged. <Ow. OWWWW!!!>