The tragedy in all this is that people have "gingerly" pushed all of this to the side, to the detriment of generations of black youth. The greatest act of modern racism has been the silence where criticism was needed.
"Schools report finds Ã?Â¢??jaw-droppingÃ?Â¢?? gap for black boys...
The study concluded that the school performance gap between black boys and white boys couldn't be chalked up to poverty alone.
Poverty isn't the sole explanation for the differences. The report found that poor white boys do as well at reading and math as non-poor black boys. That will give a boost to those who argue for the need to look at differences in culture and child-rearing techniques. That "culture of poverty" approach, championed by the late New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has long been treated gingerly, out of concern that emphasizing cultural differences could be perceived as a form of racism. But it has been making a comeback of late."
as far as i know, international studies have shown that the main factor correlated with illiteracy is not poverty, but monoparental family.
if US black families are statistically more often monoparental than US white families, there is probably no need for another explanation.
in France, we are starting to see the opposite phenomenon in our "banlieues" (the poor and ghettoized urban aeras in periphery of the main cities).
in these urban aeras, poor native kids tend to be more often illiterates than second generation immigrants from Africa and Maghreb or third generation immigrants from Portugal, probably because divorces, remarriages and dislocated families are quite rare among these muslims and catholics families.
i bet this won't really surprise you.
as i teach French litterature in high school i see this phenomenon everyday in my classroom.
I just finished The Making of Intelligence by Ken Richardson, last night.
He makes a very compelling case for abandoning traditional IQ testing and presents it as in fact based on a culturally-biased, circular logic.
Anyway, to this topic, he also presents the idea of a cognitive-cultural complex as the overarching force for the development of intelligence. In the instance of broken or single-parent families, the argument would go that there is a large component of the cultural stimulus missing from the child's life, so their intellectual development would be stunted.
I wonder if it's isolated to literacy or also extends to mathematics, etc... of course, literacy is the foundation for most studies...
Dunno, ppl get all touchy feely discussing this stuff for obvious reasons, although they don't have much problem accepting that there probably never will be white Hussein Bolt etc. This may sound a little hitler-esque but there are well documented differences between say mongoloids and sub-saharan africans, denying them is just silly.
Statistics don't speak for the individual. There are always outliers. Besides, the groups you mentioned aren't mutually elusive. Are you saying that a person with any white DNA couldn't be as fast as bolt? You have to realize ethnic groups themselves are at least partially blurred if not more or less imaginary. They aren't real things.
what about a white rapper and black golfer, hyuck hyuck.
I disagree with DD's stance on a lack of true ethnicity. There definitely strong genetic differnces between these ethnic groups, completely supportable with scientific evidence. I would liken ethnicity in people to breeds in dogs. Even though they are the same species, there are inherent differences not only in the way they look but also behavior and physiology. Also supported by science but people call it racist to study human behavior in such ways.
The individual subjects being the only things existing is exactly what I've been arguing. And the blurring of ethnic/racial lines does mean that the groups don't really exist.
And you're an idiot, because if I (or any intelligent person) were betting they wouldn't factor in skin color at all, they'd use track record.
And even if you did go based on color, your thought is still dumb, because virtually all 100m sprinters are black and all swimmers are white. Your assertion that you would bet on the race that virtually all persons in that sport are doesn't add any value to the betting selection. You essentially you just claimed you'd bet on everyone.
And even if that weren't the case, the assertion is still dumb because you are apparently forgetting that skin tones go across the spectrum and can even change due to diet or sun exposure. There is no black/white line in skin tone. Are you asserting that the darker a persons skin is the faster they can run on average? So if there were 2 people of African dissent, you would bet on the one with the darker skin?
Also, are you aware that the black race has genetic groups that are essentially on opposite ends of the spectrum when if comes to muscle composition and explosive power generation? There is a large population of black genes that are terrible for explosive running?
Obviously judging by your post you can't participate in a civil discussion so I don't see a point of arguing with you here. This though is the most retarded thing I've heard today : "And the blurring of ethnic/racial lines does mean that the groups don't really exist."
Lol. I suppose just because there's a poor poodle-amstaff mix bastard somewhere means that there are no poodles or amstaffs. Brilliant!
Science cannot scientifically categorize each persons ethnicity. They are statistical averages of population centers. Nothing more. It's like talking about the physiological difference between a new yorker and a person from LA. Its a statistic but the scientific physiological group "new yorker" isn't a real thing.
Plus, your analogy to dogs is a poor one. Specific dog breeds are much less homogeneous than the entire human race. You cannot compare differences in humans to differences in dog breeds, the 2 are orders of magnitudes apart.
However, if you want to go there, I can. Do you know what a dog breed is? By definition it is really nothing more than a record or document saying a dog belongs to a group. You could have a dog that fits the perfect standards of a breed and isn't classified as such because it doesn't have papers. You can also have the best pedigreed dog in the world end up with a trait that disqualifies it from the breed, REGARDLESS of genetic heritage. For example, if a malamute has blue eyes it's disqualified. A dog breed is really not much more than a paper trail in the world of imagination along with some general physical traits not related to ancestry. You should also know that breed standard change drastically year to year. You can have a perfect award winning purebred that after a couple of years is way out of standard.
I'm not saying we can't use science to study them and use what we know to better help people. But I take issue when people define themselves by it. It isn't real. It should affect you the way it does most people. And even then it's generally better to access individual events by the individual event itself and not among imaginary blurry estimated approximations.
Not to the extent of scientific fact. You cannot give me a sequence of DNA that specifies an exact ethnicity and isn't possible in other ethnicities. And even if there were, this misses the fact that people of mixed ethnicity still blur the lines.
And definitely no assessment of life situations ever includes an investigation into the genetic makeup of an individual.
Besides you have been reduced to only talking about strictly ancestry at this point and NOT the physical or physiological traits we associate with race.