Would MLK Be Proud?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Black leaders are built up and are creatures of the media. We don’t perceive Condi and Colin as black leaders because they are Republicans.[/quote]

Or it could be that they’re followers and not leaders. Don’t get me wrong, Colin Powell probably could have been a great leader, but stepped aside for the Secretary of State position.

Wow, an entire political party that has been in existance for 150 years has managed to do more for black people than 2 media figures, what an accomplishment.

Great, fall back on the one recognizable instance of Republicans doing something to advance black people - ole’ Honest Abe. Do you really believe that Republicanism of today shares anything with the Republicanism that Abe embodied?

[quote]BabyBuster wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Black leaders are built up and are creatures of the media. We don’t perceive Condi and Colin as black leaders because they are Republicans.

Or it could be that they’re followers and not leaders. Don’t get me wrong, Colin Powell probably could have been a great leader, but stepped aside for the Secretary of State position.

The Republican Party has done more for black people in this country than twits like Al Sharpton or Jesse ‘The Reverend’ Jackson.

Wow, an entire political party that has been in existance for 150 years has managed to do more for black people than 2 media figures, what an accomplishment.

For example, the first Republican President…

Great, fall back on the one recognizable instance of Republicans doing something to advance black people - ole’ Honest Abe. Do you really believe that Republicanism of today shares anything with the Republicanism that Abe embodied?[/quote]

Both have been very near the top in the chain. Either is waaaay more qualified than Barack Obama to be President.

You do realize that Democrats simply play the black voters? For example, what did the Great Society program do for the black community? The poverty rate in the US changed from 15.6% to maybe 15.5%. Wow!!

From Wikipedia (fixing my bad memory):

"Alan Brinkley has suggested that the gap between the expansive intentions of the War on Poverty and its relatively modest achievements fueled later conservative arguments that government is not an appropriate vehicle for solving social problems.

[3] The poverty programs were heavily criticized by conservatives like Charles Murray, who denounced them in his 1984 book Losing Ground as being ineffective and creating an underclass of lazy citizens.

One of Johnson’s aides, Joseph A. Califano, Jr., has countered that, “from 1963 when Lyndon Johnson took office until 1970 as the impact of his Great Society programs were felt, the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century.”[9]

The poverty rate for blacks fell from 55 percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 1968.[11]. However, the poverty rate among black families fell dramatically from 1940 and 1960 (87 percent to 47 percent), suggesting poverty rates would have continued falling without the War on Poverty.[12]"

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Ummm…African American Studies is not just history. It is the combined study of philosophy, religion, culture, history, etc, and how it relates to African Americans–therefore very diverse. Don’t be so narrow-minded.

And, like every major that ends in “Studies”, it is a complete waste of an academic discipline. These areas are nothing but therapeutic survey courses where the brain is shrunk, not expanded.
[/quote]
Most studies in the university system are a product of supply and demand. This study exists because someone thought it relevant enough to pursue on their own and thus became the first expert on it and started offering courses in it.

If it was not relevant students wouldn’t persue it. To say it is a waste of academic discipline implies you think there is nothing original in “African American” culture worth knowing…don’t you think that is kind of short sighted? Why is it ok to study sociology and not African American studies?

[quote]
Plus, it reinforces the myth that Blacks all have a monolithic viewpoint and experience, which causes problems most of us don’t particularly care for - that was the point.[/quote]

They do under many circumstances…slavery, for example. Music, religious practices, and food culture can also be viewed from a “monolithic” perspective. I could go on and on. If you don’t care it is your choice not to study it but don’t knock the whole of the discipline because you think it irrelevant.

There are many aspects of American culture that are offered as stand alone disciplines do you also think they are not worth study too?

[quote]huey.ot wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Ummm…African American Studies is not just history. It is the combined study of philosophy, religion, culture, history, etc, and how it relates to African Americans–therefore very diverse. Don’t be so narrow-minded.

And, like every major that ends in “Studies”, it is a complete waste of an academic discipline. These areas are nothing but therapeutic survey courses where the brain is shrunk, not expanded.

Plus, it reinforces the myth that Blacks all have a monolithic viewpoint and experience, which causes problems most of us don’t particularly care for - that was the point.

Exactly. African-American history is still American history. We don’t have majors dedicated to Jewish-American history or Chinese-American history… because such majors wold be ridiculous.

What would make sense to me would be a major in American history… and a student of such a major would have a rich understanding of important developments DEALING with African-Americans and their slavery and subsequent emancipation and their role in the civil rights movements, etc…

but what I’m trying to get at is that you don’t need a major dedicated to something that’s false. That false thing being: some sense of a monolithic black culture.

Guess what? Not all black people are the same. I don’t think it makes any sense to label blacks as a unique culture… as much as it makes no sense to give whites a unique culture.

Color isn’t the same as culture. Color doesn’t inicate history.
[/quote]

The great thing about people like you and Dunderbolt (people who assume knowledge is supposed to serve some higher end) is that people like me (who “know” otherwise) run the world and the people like you in it. Thus, you will never be enlightened.

[quote]Hanzo wrote:
Several universities have Hispanic Studies and Asian-American Studies programs as well. The reason such programs exist is that oftentimes history has, somewhat conveniently, overlooked to mention these in textbooks.

[/quote]

Hanzo, would that be a picture of “Bubba-Chuck” in your avatar?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…is that people like me (who “know” otherwise) run the world and the people like you in it. Thus, you will never be enlightened.[/quote]

Wow. That’s very cool. Do you think, since you run things, you could, well, you know, like, send me a few million dollars in a plain brown envelope? That’d be really nice.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
BabyBuster wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Black leaders are built up and are creatures of the media. We don’t perceive Condi and Colin as black leaders because they are Republicans.

Or it could be that they’re followers and not leaders. Don’t get me wrong, Colin Powell probably could have been a great leader, but stepped aside for the Secretary of State position.

The Republican Party has done more for black people in this country than twits like Al Sharpton or Jesse ‘The Reverend’ Jackson.

Wow, an entire political party that has been in existance for 150 years has managed to do more for black people than 2 media figures, what an accomplishment.

For example, the first Republican President…

Great, fall back on the one recognizable instance of Republicans doing something to advance black people - ole’ Honest Abe. Do you really believe that Republicanism of today shares anything with the Republicanism that Abe embodied?

Both have been very near the top in the chain. Either is waaaay more qualified than Barack Obama to be President.

You do realize that Democrats simply play the black voters? For example, what did the Great Society program do for the black community? The poverty rate in the US changed from 15.6% to maybe 15.5%. Wow!!

[/quote]

And we all no how important qualifications are, right? I mean, just look at the bastion of qualification that is our current President. Ran every business he’s every been a part of into the ground? Check. Ran the state of Texas into the ground? Check. Strong qualifications there.

And what, exactly, makes Condi so qualified? That she’s been able to lie in hearings so succcessfully? That she’s been so able to regurgitate Bush’s opinions?

And how about Powell? When he got disgusted with the things that his Commander in Chief was doing, did he use his position to try and change things to how he thought they should be? No, actually, I think he quit.

Great examples of leadership.

And did I realize that the democrats were simply playing black voters? No I guess I hadn’t, but thanks for bringing up such a thoughtful question to get me to start examining the issue. I guess their support for affirmative action and other social programs intended to help all minorities is just a way to dupe them. Glad you got me thinking about that.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Most studies in the university system are a product of supply and demand. This study exists because someone thought it relevant enough to pursue on their own and thus became the first expert on it and started offering courses in it. [/quote]

The demand side of students should never drive education - not completely.

Unfortunately, your assessment is wrong - the “Studies” discpline involve zero intellectual rigor. You won’t get educated from taking them - you will learn som stuff, but you won’t get much of an education. The curriculum is therapeutic - it doesn’t challenge anyone’s thinking, it doesn’t make you work through hard problems.

Oh, and when did I say I thought sociology was a good use of time?

To be fair, it is a better use of time than any “studies” class, but not by much.

Well, no, they don’t. At least we all hope they don’t.

And why would I not knock the whole of a discipline if I thought it was irrelevant?

It is not the topic per se - it is what you get out of it at the end. You major in “Whatever Studies”, I will assume you did nothing hard, only had your previous views reinforced instead of challenged, and wasted your money on your education. There is zero rigor involved - they are unserious, cupcake academic disciplines.

[quote]pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…is that people like me (who “know” otherwise) run the world and the people like you in it. Thus, you will never be enlightened.

Wow. That’s very cool. Do you think, since you run things, you could, well, you know, like, send me a few million dollars in a plain brown envelope? That’d be really nice.

[/quote]

Pookie, as intelligent as you are I think you sometimes do not generalize enough–smart ass!

Brown paper bag is on the way…please fill it for me. Denominations of $20 would be great…easier to break at the strip club.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

The great thing about people like you and Dunderbolt (people who assume knowledge is supposed to serve some higher end) is that people like me (who “know” otherwise) run the world and the people like you in it. Thus, you will never be enlightened.[/quote]

Is this a joke? You “know” otherwise? What do you “know”?

Surely if you did, your postings would be a bit more impressive.

Oh wait - I recall. You are the one that said the academics are so much smarter than everyone else, and, as coincidence would have it, you are an academic.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Most studies in the university system are a product of supply and demand. This study exists because someone thought it relevant enough to pursue on their own and thus became the first expert on it and started offering courses in it.

The demand side of students should never drive education - not completely.

If it was not relevant students wouldn’t persue it. To say it is a waste of academic discipline implies you think there is nothing original in “African American” culture worth knowing…don’t you think that is kind of short sighted? Why is it ok to study sociology and not African American studies?

Unfortunately, your assessment is wrong - the “Studies” discpline involve zero intellectual rigor. You won’t get educated from taking them - you will learn som stuff, but you won’t get much of an education. The curriculum is therapeutic - it doesn’t challenge anyone’s thinking, it doesn’t make you work through hard problems.

Oh, and when did I say I thought sociology was a good use of time?

To be fair, it is a better use of time than any “studies” class, but not by much.

They do under many circumstances…slavery, for example. Music, religious practices, and food culture can also be viewed from a “monolithic” perspective. I could go on and on. If you don’t care it is your choice not to study it but don’t knock the whole of the discipline because you think it irrelevant.

Well, no, they don’t. At least we all hope they don’t.

And why would I not knock the whole of a discipline if I thought it was irrelevant?

There are many aspects of American culture that are offered as stand alone disciplines do you also think they are not worth study too?

It is not the topic per se - it is what you get out of it at the end. You major in “Whatever Studies”, I will assume you did nothing hard, only had your previous views reinforced instead of challenged, and wasted your money on your education. There is zero rigor involved - they are unserious, cupcake academic disciplines. [/quote]

I don’t see how you can make a value assessment on “therapeutic” learning. Is that not enough value? What you say about African American studies can be applied to every subject–they all fulfill a therapeutic need to “know”.

You operate under the assumption that there is no intellectual value to understanding specific culture–which answers the question, have you ever taken such a course? No. Theories on African American culture are very thought provoking and offer many differing view points. At the undergraduate level your assessment may have merit as the only curriculum addressed is usually the professor’s own. This is not true of higher level courses and is usually a function of original research and dissertation.

As a general guideline most undergraduate work is a waste of time intellectually because the only goal of the student is to finish the “required” course work with a passing grade–but this does not mean we can dismiss a particular subject as unworthy of study.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Hanzo, would that be a picture of “Bubba-Chuck” in your avatar?
[/quote]

the one and only

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

The great thing about people like you and Dunderbolt (people who assume knowledge is supposed to serve some higher end) is that people like me (who “know” otherwise) run the world and the people like you in it. Thus, you will never be enlightened.

Is this a joke? You “know” otherwise? What do you “know”?

Surely if you did, your postings would be a bit more impressive.

Oh wait - I recall. You are the one that said the academics are so much smarter than everyone else, and, as coincidence would have it, you are an academic. [/quote]

I know what not to make assumptions about-- this is the hallmark of intellectual and rational thought–which cannot be taught. Say what you want but your arguments make my case for me.

Academics are not smarter by their own virtue–they simply have learned how to learn. What makes an individual smart–and this is my own opinion–is knowing how to apply knowledge without a reference frame; e.g., without instruction, etc.

Do not mistake what we view as being intelligent (having a high IQ) with being an academic–the two aren’t even related to one another.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
BabyBuster wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Black leaders are built up and are creatures of the media. We don’t perceive Condi and Colin as black leaders because they are Republicans.

Or it could be that they’re followers and not leaders. Don’t get me wrong, Colin Powell probably could have been a great leader, but stepped aside for the Secretary of State position.

The Republican Party has done more for black people in this country than twits like Al Sharpton or Jesse ‘The Reverend’ Jackson.

Wow, an entire political party that has been in existance for 150 years has managed to do more for black people than 2 media figures, what an accomplishment.

For example, the first Republican President…

Great, fall back on the one recognizable instance of Republicans doing something to advance black people - ole’ Honest Abe. Do you really believe that Republicanism of today shares anything with the Republicanism that Abe embodied?

Both have been very near the top in the chain. Either is waaaay more qualified than Barack Obama to be President.

You do realize that Democrats simply play the black voters? For example, what did the Great Society program do for the black community? The poverty rate in the US changed from 15.6% to maybe 15.5%. Wow!!

[/quote]

Kinda like how Republicans play the relgious voters. Since most of em who are screaming the loudest about morals and values are some of the debased immoral people I can think of, in or out of politics, in either party. I guess it’s probably a draw. Democrats certainly do ‘play’ black voters to some degree. It’s also indisputable that they have more iniatives designed on aiding the underpriviledged. Poverty’s a dicey issue, and one that will probably never be solved. What have Republicans done to combat it? Trickle-down economics that never trickles down?

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Poverty’s a dicey issue, and one that will probably never be solved. What have Republicans done to combat it? Trickle-down economics that never trickles down?
[/quote]

The big irony is that poverty is a necessary part of free-market enterprises becaue without it markets would be over-run with inflation. Poverty sets the price of labor.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The big irony is that poverty is a necessary part of free-market enterprises becaue without it markets would be over-run with inflation. Poverty sets the price of labor.[/quote]

I’m not an economics expert, but it seems to me that most systems that aren’t based on free markets tend to solve the poverty issue by making everyone equally poor. Personally, I’d rather risk being poor, but at least have a chance to attain better through my efforts.

By the way, how do you define “being poor?” Just to make sure we’re talking about the same situation.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I don’t see how you can make a value assessment on “therapeutic” learning. Is that not enough value? What you say about African American studies can be applied to every subject–they all fulfill a therapeutic need to “know”. [/quote]

You are missing the meaning. “Therapeutic” doesn’t mean “filling a desire to know” - it means “to make someone feel better about themselves”. Knowledge should not be shoehorned into the mere purpose of reaffirming someone’s desires. You say knowledge should have no end - but the “Studies” curricula all have very specific ends: that is only reason they exist.

Further, “studies” disciplines are really just pop culture dressed up as serious undertaking. And if someone told you they majored in “pop culture”, I suspect you wouldn’t think much of their education.

Here is the problem - some educations are better than others. Again, we run into your nihilism - that one education is no better than another. Fantastic for your dreamland which you like to refer to - not here. Some kinds of knowledge are better than others, and a good education involves imparting knowledge no matter whose ox is gored.

Under your theory, a major that teaches that scientifically the earth is flat is no different that one that scientifically teaches the earth is round. Not all knowledge is equal, and to be frank, it bothers me that a teacher buys into that theory.

No, learning about parts of culture can be fabulous - ask an history or anthropology professor - you keep missing the point. It is not about the topic matter being bad - it is about the nature of the education.

Think of it this way - math is a very useful subject. But if a math class was taught in that there no right answers to math problems, math itself is still useful, but that math class - as it is educating people - is worthless.

Sure we can - and we do it all the time. Not every subject is a class for higher education. As an example, some suggested there be an “Obese Studies” major unto itself - so students could major in the study of how fat people are treated in society. Worthwhile educational undertaking?

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

You do realize that Democrats simply play the black voters? For example, what did the Great Society program do for the black community? The poverty rate in the US changed from 15.6% to maybe 15.5%. Wow!!

Kinda like how Republicans play the relgious voters. Since most of em who are screaming the loudest about morals and values are some of the debased immoral people I can think of, in or out of politics, in either party. I guess it’s probably a draw. Democrats certainly do ‘play’ black voters to some degree. It’s also indisputable that they have more iniatives designed on aiding the underpriviledged. Poverty’s a dicey issue, and one that will probably never be solved. What have Republicans done to combat it? Trickle-down economics that never trickles down?[/quote]

You’re solution then is a government program? How many of these do we have to try before we accept the fact that FREEDOM WORKS! Let the market choose.

‘Underprivileged’? What’s that mean? Does it mean that someone else has the ‘privilege’ of access to MY hard-earned money? Because they NEED it? So ambition is here to serve the lazy? Ability is here to serve the incompetent?

What makes you libs think this muck of contradictions can ever work? The Soviet Union tried this on a grand scale and look what they got.

Is this what you guys are secretly after?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I know what not to make assumptions about-- this is the hallmark of intellectual and rational thought–which cannot be taught. Say what you want but your arguments make my case for me. [/quote]

How do my arguments make your case for you? I am curious.

Well, that is mighty self-complimentary of you, but many academics enjoy tenure, research, and insulation from the workaday world, which is more demanding. I think you should be a bit more realistic about academia.

Your other point is a bit fuzzy though - academics rarely have the burden of applying their knowledge in the real world. There is a certain sterility to much academic thought because it doesn’t venture far enough outside the cozy confines of the coffee house to have enough application. That doesn’t mean that we throw away academia - rather it is that we should not overrate academics.

I don’t - IQ, in my view tells little - but academics aren’t really ‘rare birds’, they are people who enjoy using their talents to teach and research instead of in other productive ways. It does not follow that that choice to use their talents in a particular way means they have an intellectual advantage over the people who chose a different path (jobs and professions outside academia).