Black Futurists In The Information Age 575
First of a series on "Technology and the Future."
Every new edition of "Technology and the Future," edited by Albert Teich, Director of Science and Policy Programs at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is a monumental event.
First conceived more than a generation ago and repeatedly updated, Teich's book - there are eleven new pieces in this edition (Bedford/St. Martin's) - is almost a literary marvel. It collects and reflects more smart and provocative thinking about the future of technology than any given decade's worth of newspapers and newsmagazines.
In the next few columns, I'll select several of the essays and ideas in Teich's brilliant book to talk about. Then I'll start waiting for the next edition.
***
Sooner or later, race surfaces in discussions of almost every social and political issue in America. Because computing is, on the surface at least, a color- blind culture, it's been slow to join in the conversation.
But as Timothy L. Jenkins, (Yale Law School graduate, CEO of Unlimited Vision, Inc., and one of the creators of the first black online forum on the Net) makes clear in his essay, "Black Futurists in the Information Age," the Net means very different things to different people.
Computing is as white an industry as exists in American life, as any high-tech worker can see just from peering around. Although middle-class African-Americans and other minorities are getting online in substantial numbers, there remains an enormous disparity between whites' computer use and blacks', especially among the so-called underclass.
Online culture is too diverse to generalize about in political terms. But if there any universally-shared ethic among the Net generation, it might be the belief that getting online is an individual responsibility. That might fairly be described as the federal government's attitude as well: Here's the tent; anyone who can make it inside is more than welcome. But everybody has to get there on his own.
Given their histories and experiences, this has enormous different connotations for blacks than it does for whites.
"The benefit and the burden of being black in America arise from the ability and the necessity to view the same things the rest of society sees differently," writes Jenkins. African-Americans are historically suspicious of the larger society's ability to interpret or understand the population it has excluded from so many areas for so long.
Jenkins agrees with most philosophers and social historians that, on the surface, there's every reason to celebrate the proliferation of new Information Age technologies. But along with many other blacks, he can't buy the idea that universally -available information leads inexorably towards democracy.
There is, writes Jenkins, "palpable" evidence that without major social intervention, "the utopian predictions of the Information Age for the society as a whole will paradoxically result in a doomsday scenario for the masses of black people."
Black political leaders don't really have a technological agenda, he writes, and most white politicians ignore the issue of technological equality. Blacks need to move from being gatekeepers to gatecrashers when it comes to technology, Jenkins writes, and to set forth an agenda for technology and the future. As it now stands, prophesies Jenkins, many blacks, already suffering economically in the early stages of Information Age, "may be like the canary in a coal mine, forecasting climactic dangers before they become a general manifestation."
In the final analysis, he writes, the essence of technology ought to be service. "Judged from that perspective, it remains to be seen whether the interests of the black community are served or sacrificed. Absent purposeful leadership involvement, either could be true." And there is anything but purposeful leadership. Black politicians have been as muddled in their discussions about technology and the future as members of Congress.
Writes Jenkins: "If its (technology's) prime effect is to reduce the labor force to an absolute minimum in order to maximize profits or to allow jobs to follow tax breaks and the lowest wages wherever they might lead, then technology, while benefiting some, will have failed us all!"
The equitable distribution of technology has never been a mainstream political issue in America, though it might have more impact on shaping the future than any other single social or political development.
The United States has been embroiled for years in a raging, obsessive debate about sexual imagery online. But apart from the techno-millenial blabber that occasionally erupts from Al Gore and Bill Clinton, hardly anyone mentions the whopper moral issue surrounding technology and the future: What will become of the people who can't or won't learn how to use new information technologies?
What kind of education will be available? What kinds of jobs will they have? What kinds of lives can they aspire to lead?
According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Jenkin's fears are well-grounded. About 42 per cent of all U.S. households now have a PC, says a government report released on July 9, l999 (www.usatoday.com). But they're in about 80 per cent of homes in which families make $75,000 or more a year and in fewer than 16 per cent in which families make less than $20,000.
Income isn't the only variable, found the Commerce Department. The gap in Internet use between whites and blacks expanded to 20.7 percentage points last year (32.4 per cent of white households vs. ll.7 per cent of black) from 13.5 percentage points in l997. The difference between white and Hispanic use in l998 rose to 19.5 percentage points from 12.5.
The recent history of computing is clear enough: technology provides an educational and economic bounty for society's best and brightest. The history of underclass Americans - especially black underclass Americans - strongly suggests that if any group is voluntarily or involuntary excluded, it will be the African-American poor.
If they don't catch up soon, Jenkins persuasively warns, they never will. Yet recent surveys show the techno-gap between haves and have nots widening, not shrinking. Don't look for politicians or the press to make this is a significant political issue in the coming presidential election either. It's much easier to exploit fears about new technology than to focus on its real consequences.
It's clear by now even to rabid Luddites that new information technologies will be critical in shaping economic and employment opportunity, freedom of speech and thought, educational advancement and, increasingly, political knowledge and participation. As such, cautions Jenkins, we stand on the threshold of the invention of what may well become a new worldwide technological caste system.
There is no real political ideology online, other than a vaguely Libertarian wariness of government intrusion and a widespread passion for the free movement of ideas and information. It is not an exclusionary culture.
But Jenkins is right. Hardly anyone has seriously addressed the long-term racial and class implications of the emergence of a new techno-elite in the United States - an educated, affluent, overwhelmingly white, and increasingly dominant group.
Next: Ethics for programmers.
Re:only 30 years ago. (Score:1)
30 years ago black families had less a percentage of illegitimate children, more black fathers at home with their families. Now it's worse despite the racially better conditions.
If YOU feel you owe it to them (I don't) then you open your bleeding ass wallet and make a personal committment. Don't commit me (taxes) to having to pay for them as well as work my 80 hours per week. If they want to be members of our civilization let earn their keep which I'm absolutely sure that, within a generation or two, they would do once the give aways from stupid bleeding liberal laws stopped.
Hey you SOB! I was born poor too. Our kitchen table was a damned wooden picnic table. We used to get one meat ball and fight over the extra one. My parents busted their butts working to allow their children to have a good private and then college education. And you dishonor their memory by implying that I should give up even one red hard-earned cent for other people who's mommas and daddies didn't give a damn about them. You're a traitor to true freedom and liberty.
Re:Feudalism != Darwinism! (Score:1)
Social Darwinism, to put it simply, is the concept of survival of the most socially fit. Some form of social mobility is a must for Social Darwinism. The typical example being the great American Robber Barons, some of whom came from nowhere to dominate the socio-economic scene. The means used were often ruthless enough to make Microsoft look like the Girl Scouts.
Feudalism is a system based around very stratified concepts of class level, obligation, and family. The idea of the vast majority of people, rich and poor, was that your lot in life was basically set. Not only could you not improve your station, it was morally questionable to even attempt it.
The very concept of the *best* rising to the top was totally alien to this entire society.
Nor is it fair to claim that 'people cared only for themselves'. The perceptual map of the average individual was set up around radically different lines than it is today, or than it was during the Roman Empire, when such a complaint might arguably have some validity. Ties along lines of family, allegiances, and friendships were every bit as strong, if not stronger than today. If the complaint is that most people didn't particularly care about complete strangers in different socio-economic classes, I suppose that is true, but then, it has *always* been true, to this current date.
Finally, the Middle Ages did not set Europe back 300 years. The Middle Ages was, more than anything, a time of cultural transition. Many concepts (the modern republic and legal system for example) have their roots during this time. The Renaissance was the culmination of the Middle Ages, (and renewed trade ties with Africa) not merely something that just popped out of the blue one day.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very glad I was not born during this time, it was decidedly unpleasant in many, many aspects. But it was not the black hole occupying time between Rome and the Renaissance that some people like to believe.
Think I'm deranged? Do some research on the time period. For a start, I highly reccomend le'Geoff's 'Medieval Civilization' and Bouchard's 'Sword, Miter, and Cloister'
As for it being a duty of anyone priviliged living in a civilized society to assist those who are less priviliged, I think that if that is your personal view of what you believe that you should be doing, than it is a highly admirable one.
However, I do not agree that it is the price you pay for living in the U.S. and I do not believe it should be either.
It is a good and decent thing to help those less fortunate than yourself, and I highly reccomend it. However, it is not, and should not, be made mandatory. Once you start mandating morality you wind up with the difficult question of whose morality. Whose values do you endorse across the board? So we just blithely let the government decide what causes are and are not worthy? I hope not.
Zach
Cyber Poverty Pimps (Score:3)
and decided to switch to computer consulting
I had to hustle a loan to by my first CP/M
computer. I had to bust my butt studying as well
as hold down a poorly paying full time job. All
this despite a college degree which was paid for
in part because my parents lived a moral life
(and stayed together) and because my mother
as well as my father spent a life working.
What I think I'm hearing by reading the article
and whom it quotes is that while it's ok for
white people to bust their ass 80 hours a week,
blacks need to be pandered to and helped.
If I was a black I would be insulted by the
cyber poverty pimps. I know self respecting
good black people who would be emarrassed to
hear that they need special help when they
seem to be doing just fine without the handouts.
I guess the new political pandering theme
would be: "A computer (and internet)
in every home" instead of the old "A chicken
in every pot".
Will I have to work 100 hours a week to pay
the extra taxes necessary to "fund" the
cyber silver platter for those unwilling to
put 80 hours a week in for themselves?
We're all bozos on this 100MHz bus (Score:5)
""The benefit and the burden of being black in America arise from the ability and the necessity to view the same things the rest of society sees differently," writes Jenkins. African-Americans are historically suspicious of the larger society's ability to interpret or understand the population it has excluded from so many areas for so long. "
As a young science nerd, bullied at school and beaten at home, I learned the 'ability and necessity to see things...differently' and became suspicious of jerks' ability to understand me, all without the 'benefit and burden of being black'.
Why must the discussion of the effects of oppression always devolve to racial semantics, immediately shutting out the common experience of ALL human political groups (i.e., two or more nekkid monkeys )? All can realize that, if one can't overpower the oppressor, the option is to outsmart them. Becoming "educated, affluent" now MEANS "increasingly dominant", able to push any agenda of merit, regardless of color. ( check out Bobby Seale's Page [bobbyseale.com]).
Racists have suckered the black kids really well; learning in school is "white", thus uncool, and resisting the establishment's agenda of getting them to study becomes the height of emotional fulfillment. Bingo! Another batch of burger-flippers propelled out the door in a puff of self-fulfilling despair. The alternative is 'submission' to 'the Man', an obvious dead-end, right? Well guess what - the institutions ( and cliques ) are hardly less oppressive for any outcasts! Where's the anger, the determination to OUTLEARN the clueless old biddy, the high-handed ass't-principal, and the smug jock thugs?
Insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly, expecting a different result. Smashing skulls with that jawbone no longer works at the 21st century's watering holes. The choice is to bite down, endure ( or teach yourself ), and learn, or to accept your masochism and let your morale improve with the beatings.
What some dead Klansman did to shatter the nerve of whatever good menschen, now poor, has no bearing on my aptitude as a programmer or the advantages that it merits. I'm refurbishing old junk boxes in my garage; I'll happily give a few to the Mexican family across the street, but will one of them learn enough to admin it themselves? I can only hope to impress them with the stakes involved in that decision - their daughter plays with mine, after all...
- A.Lurker@Hellmouth.Rim
This can't be first post, I previewed it too long.
African-Americans & Free/Open software (Score:1)
If Mexico can do it, why can't the US?
I've spent $30 in 2.5 years!!! (Score:1)
Who is the hell would spend that much on shoes?
BTW, My family is middle class and we live in the suburbs, my brother and sister have both buy many pairs of shoes every year.
Me, I'll stick with what feels good.
/. has restored my faith... (Score:1)
I hate listening to Jesse Jackson or people at the NAACP saying shit like they'll sue NBC to make them put clacks in starring roles on TV. Others saying how racist or insulting Jar-Jar is:
YOU PEOPLE ARE PATHETIC
Guess what, I bet one of the big reasons racism will continue is that some minorities feel they must shout from the hilltops about racial inequalities, etc. If they'd just shut up, people wouldn't care.
I have a part time job at a big company, and I needed to get my PC set up for NT and Lotus Notes and all. Guess what, the senior computer tech is black. But who cares. He's just a person. There's no conspiracy of people trying to oppress minorities, blacks in inner cities probably don't do any worse percentage wise than whites in inner cities. It's just that far more blacks are in inner cities than whites.
There are people at my HS in the suburbs who are black and whose parents pay a tuition so their kids can get a better education. Good for the parents.
Unfortunetely, many of these kids don't care and don't do work. Some do, and they do just as well as the kids that live in the suburbs.
I had aa kid in my math class two years ago, who was black, and who came in from the city. Well we had some weird debates in math class about racism. This kid was probably the most paranoid person I've ever talked to. He thought that the gov't was out to get blacks, that we were racists, that in fact we were inferior to him(and inferior to all blacks, he said he belonged to the 5% ers, anyone heard of this?), etc.
He was probably the most racist person I've ever known.
We also had a black speaker come to our school and talk to us about a bunch of things. One of the things she said was that pehaps John Brown(the pre-civil war guy) was really a good person, that the US gov't was making laws that prohibited people(aimed at blacks) from congregating in groups greater than 3 in public(meaning you couldn't go to a park w/ 3 other friends(this was supposed to be back years ago to try to stop protests)). That the US brought in cocaine to give to blacks in the inner city to put down protests. She also said that blacks should have a vioce in gov't. I asked what blacks would do different than whites, she said blacks wouldn't get power so why think about it. What BS. She also totally distorted facts about that incident in NYC last year where the cops shot the unarmed guy like 20 times.
She also vaguely mentioned that she worked in some gov't agency. We asked FBI, CIA? She said she couldn't say, but it was much higher-up than that.
My point is not that all blacks are like this, or that most are. That isn't true. But there are some people that love to get power by saying these things, and because the US treated minorities like shit for so long, now everyone thinks they're right or we should just let them preach this nonsense.
Everyone is basically equal, there is still some racism, but it is going down with every new generation. Let's not keep it going like this.
I also think affirmative action is about the worst idea ever. Hire people because they're qualified, not to be diverse.
Just my 2
Re:/. has restored my faith... (Score:1)
Oops (Score:1)
Re:/. may have restored your faith, but not mine (Score:1)
But when things like the million man march, etc. are organized I just think that is very negative. If whites had a huge white-power march, minorities would scream about racism. And they'd be right. Why not just let it die.
IMO, the best situation would be, at some point inthe future, for skin color to be as important as hair color. You don't see red-heads marching and asking for more roles on TV.
My point is that if black leaders keep hilighting differences in culture, how blacks are better, etc., racism will never die.
My ancestors who came to this country God knows how many years ago were German and French and Italian and I have no idea what else. But I don't care. I think of myself as an American. I think it's strange when people say, oh you're English or German or something. After a certain number of years here(IMO, as long as you were born here and basically consier yourself American), you are just American.
These people who try to convince me of how great such and such African culture is just seem weird. It's like: who cares, what does that have to do with you? My great great(who knows how many) grandfather fought in the civil war. So what? Does that make me look better? I don't think so.
I took AP Computer Science and guess what: no blacks. But there were 2 Indian Americans(as in India, not the Iroqois), and there was only one girl. So yes there are problems. But our school is about 50% female and no one is stopping the girls to take computer science. No one is stopping blacks either. If they choose not to, that's their choice, and it's no fault of mine.
Re:Feudalism != Darwinism! (Score:1)
And I hope to have officials elected that will do this. We still can vote those people in and out of office yah know.
So on the one hand you say that people cannot be trusted to donate freely, but on the other they can elect officials to force them to?
This is an inconsistent and hence invalid position. The fact of the matter is, any payment extracted unwillingly is theft by force, pure and simple.
Re:We're not better, we're just lucky (Score:1)
I'm wondering if there isn't starting to be a divide between the generations here. The first two apply to me but there weren't computers in homes when I was a kid and the 'computer' in my highschool was a teletype with a 300 baud modem connected to a 'mainframe' at the collage across the state.
I was writing programs, just for the fun of it, when I had no access to computers. I would go to the local Radio Shack and use the demo 'computer' (4Kbytes of RAM, I bet your keyboard has more now) to learn and enjoy. I dropped out of highschool but continued to learn computers and many other things.
The point being, I didn't need the 'net to learn... just good old RTFM. I leared computers and electronics because I'm obsessed with them. If anyone is obsessed with something, they will learn about it, regardless of what class/race they are. I worked at many drive-ins and shit jobs while at home I played with computers. I sought out and associated with other 'geeks'.
I'm now the Sr. Network Eng. at the 24th largest ISP. I hardly look at the education of job applicants... but rather look for the lust of computers and networks. Those that have it will learn what they need to know to do the job. Can't spell? Ok, can you configure ispell and use it? Ok, you're hired.
Another thing that seems to have been overlooked is that most IT people are in it for the pure love of tech. Most didn't get into the field for the money. I'm sure if you ask Rob if he put all the work into slashdot for the money, he'd just laugh at you and ask you to buy him a beer. We are just lucky that IT pays so well. I guess that I could have been wired to be a gearhead rather than a nethead I'd be making just a living wage working on cars. It takes about the same brains and the good ones are obsessed with it.
Most people I know have ended up in fields that they find interesting. As long as people make a comfortable living, no problem. Sure, most jobs require using a computer. The kid that changes my oil pulls up my record on a UNIX terminal everytime I pull up. Most McDonalds are more wired than most offices. When I was a kid (think early '70's) working at a place that required you to wear a radio headset would have been a dream. Now we 'pity' those people.
About 100 years ago the phone was a new as computers are today. Only the elite had them. Within a few decades, everyone had one. The same will happen with net access, but quicker. Look at what is happening with pagers and cell phones... everyone has them (blacks included).
This old-timer just says wait a few years and this whole topic will be moot. That doesn't mean don't help people that ask or stop coding freeware. It's just that I don't think it the crisis that Katz makes it out to be.
Re:More rationalization of the nanny-state (Score:1)
Nobody gets things on their own. The sooner society realizes that people rely on people, the better. I got to where I am not solely because of what I can do, but because people believed in me first and gave me that imporant spark which let me get to where I am.
I don't fully understand how it works, but essentially you get your self-worth from some kind of figurehead (be it a parent, a friend, hell even a stranger on the street). They instill that in you. A lot of kids don't have that today. Either the parents are too busy or just plain don't care or something. Regardless, that self-worth is the first thing.
After self-worth (and no I have no formal education on this at all, it's all from what I feel and have seen) comes self-discipline. You've got to want something bad enough that you're willing to do what it takes to get it. I may want a zillion dollars but if I don't have the self-discipline to do what it takes to get it, I won't get it. Self-discipline comes from knowing you're good enough to do it if you put your mind to and and are willing to work your ass off to get it.
See the problem for those who think that they did it all on their own? They needed self-worth first. Nobody has self-worth on their own; they get it placed inside of them by someone else.
Self-worth breeds self-discipline. Self-worth does not come without someone favouring you in some way. And that, right there, is what I think a lot of what you refer as "whiners" are not seeing. They think that they got self-worth by themselves, and they didn't.
Anyone of any importance has someone (or a few someones) to thank because of it. I'd wager that these someones probably aren't directly related to why that important person is important. Either they gave them a job, didn't report them to the police for doing something stupid, gave a caring word... something. People who say they did it all on their own are outright liars.
Re:More rationalization of the nanny-state (Score:1)
For the time you spent getting a reply screen up to write your witty response, I'd at least have thought you would have come back with some kind of rebuttal or theory of your own.
As is usual with anonymous posters, however, the S/N ratio is way out of whack.
Off Topic, but... (Score:2)
Anyhow, AAAS publishes Science [sciencemag.org], one of the long time standing top scientific journals, which has on occasion published bad science. While 90% to 99% of the submissions are top notch, bleading edge, Science is not definitive (Check the frequently quoted thing on global warming Rush L. loves to quote, but was later retracted). And Science has been pushing a lot of internet stuff lately, and my honest opinion is none of it is the quality of research that they publish on biology or environmental issues or other "true" sciences.
Sorry, I don't intend this to be a flame, but is the internet really a "science" like physics, chemistry, biology, and the likes? I do NOT think so. Because you can apply a scientific method to study internet traffic does not make the internet itself a science. In the defence of the internet, something doesn't have to be a science to be important, not much that goes on on Wall Street, or in Washington D.C. is "science" either, but it can be studied with a scientific method.
My opinion is Science (the journal) needs to get the heck out of "internet studies" and leave it to the people who do IT full time. I think a few of the editors are just feeling a little to "empowered" with thier publishing athority and making themselfs look a bit silly now that they figured out how to take a screenshot and get it published to a wide audiance... (So, in other words, I don't care WHAT they say at the AAAS about the net. They are important to the community of science, but they are out of thier element when when it comes to IT)
Groceries and Fast Food (Score:2)
To apply pure logic, one would think that low income areas would be the places where families needed to cook economical meals, and spend less in restraunts and convenient stores (meaning 24 hour a day corner stores with prices 3x what grocery stores charge). So, you might try to take a logical leap, and say "There are probably less convenient stores and restraunts in low income areas." BBBBBBzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Wrong answer.
7-11 and McDonalds have known for a long long long time that low income areas are good markets for them to expand into.
While we would all like to sit here "High And Mighty" saying how wonderful internet access is, and how people of a certian income or color need to have it, that's not how the world works.
If they want it, they will get it. Before you say they can't, check if they have cable, and how often they dine in a restraunt. Then look at the $9.95/month internet service ads and $399 computer that are on about every third page of thier local newspapers. Do you truely believe that there are people out there who choose to have internet, but can't get it (but somehow can have cable TV, eat in Burger King or McDonalds daily, have a $800 car stereo, etc...).
Now, I am not saying that people of a ethnic background, or people of an income level all have made a choice to be that way. Not at all. I just think it's a little short sighted to say it's color or income that prevents people from getting on the internet. As for evidence, I think McDonalds and 7-11 have pretty well defined where they can make a profit, why not deal with a basic need like food first?
Why would the internet be any diffrent than dining habits, cable TV, or anything else? I guess maybe I am not seeing this as a color thing, because the only clear thing I can see about the internet is income levels, maybe. But I would agree that the internet isn't for everyone, just like everything else.
Not everyone watches CNN, not everyone reads the Wall Street Journal, not everyone goes to college... Making the government pay for access so that everyone could isn't going to mean everyone will, and that everyone will benifit from it. All it will mean is that you gave the government more control over a part of your life, and another reason to justify taking more money for "taxes" out of your paycheck.
(BTW, I believe in the LP [lp.org] which is my primary reason to object to seeing making another government run program a bad thing, nothing to do with race, color, money, any of that.. We don't live in a free country anymore at all, if you think so, you have confused freedom with democracy. Democracy is just orginized mob rule, which can be as bad or worse as tyrany. What if tomarrow the majority desides that we should all drive Mini-Vans? Because "the people vote for it" or "it will make life safer and more consistant" doesn't mean it has anything to do with freedom. And yes, there isn't a country in the world I would rather be in, I like it here, I just think we're slipping a little bit into "we should be like the EU" Freedom does mean not opressing people of any race, religion, sex, or income. Socialism is a diffrent belief, which intends to insure that everyone be given similar goods and treatment, and calling that fair. Freedom allow one to benifit from thier own hard work, if you want to free the oppressed, give them the chances just like everyone else. If you want socialism, thier are plenty of other countries to choose from.)
Point of view? (Score:1)
Panaflex is speaking from his own personal experience which disagrees with some of the stuff that JK is rehashing. My experience agrees with that of Panaflex. When it comes to engineering, either you are good or you are on the path to management. Notice how skin color does not enter the equation, literally. Engineers appreciate that.
Funny how I don't notice skin color until someone suffering from "race accounting syndrome" mentions it. Can't call them racist, even though they obviously have an obsession with races. They'd get offended. You know, only white people can be racists, right? Now I check out the office map and see 8 colored people, and 22 non-colored. All the colored ones are good engineers BTW. The only ones that suck are non-colored and fortunately, they are managers where they are relatively harmless.
Everyone has 'net access here at work and at home.
Doesn't look like much of a problem to me.
no diff (Score:1)
Does anyone see the parallel?
Too bad so many minority whiners will never learn *that* lesson. If you can't afford something that you need, make your own, duh!
If the "minorities" are so stupid and prejudiced themselves that they choose their leaders based on skin color alone, so be it. Fools following fools deserve what they get.
BS (Score:1)
If you can't afford an entry level PC today, then you can't afford to waste time whining about it. Get to work, save your money, don't rent videos at blockbuster, go to the public library and educate yourself instead. A personal annecdote illustrates this very well. A man that has been a friend for twenty years was a burger flipper with only a high school diploma when I met him. Today he is a millionaire. How did he do it? It's really simple. He worked *hard*. Two jobs, seven days a week, no time spent wasting money on entertainment and 20 years later he is the wealthiest person I know and he is about to retire at the age of 40. My other friends and I have watched in amazement for 20 years as he has made the American Dream into reality right in front of our faces.
If I am denied boots, then I grow calluses on my feet and save my money until I can afford boots.
No whining, begging, or even demanding is required.
Still no diff (Score:1)
The point is, almost everyone can't easily afford something.
I am too poor to buy the boat I want. Do I whine about it? No, I plan a path to my goal and work and save in order to reach it.
You were too poor(in money) to buy a computer so did you whine about it? No, you spent what you did have(time) in order to get what you wanted.
Linus was also too poor in money to purchase what he wanted. Did he whine? No, he applied what he had, his expertise and his time, in order to get what he wanted.
As far as everyone having a chance, I agree. Everyone gets a chance. OK, now what about the people that throw their chances away? Do we offer them another, and another, ad infitum? I say no. It is not my responsibility to rescue fools from their follies. All these people who are supposedly deprived of access are simply lacking motivation and depriving themselves. So they don't have the bucks to buy a PC and 'net service. Let them go to the library. Don't have the bus fare? OK, let them decide that they want access to the 'net more than a beer or soda. If they choose to have a beer and hang out on the local street, so be it. I am not going to drive down there, pick them up, build them a house, buy them a car, fix dinner, install a PC and set up 'net service for them.
They can do it all themselves, if they want it bad enough!
Re:More rationalization of the nanny-state (Score:1)
--
If your map and the terrain differ,
trust the terrain.
Link to the Site (Score:1)
Re:More rationalization of the nanny-state (Score:2)
It's really whacked to think that you can make it to the top through the kindness of strangers.
A person living in the conditions you describe is highly unlikely to ever succeed, really. That's unfortunate. However, this should not prevent her from doing as well as possible. Which is a matter of one's own abilities and will more than anything else. Even if she can make her children's opportunities better, it's worthwhile. This does not guarantee the success of later generations however. They have to do the same thing; give their successors enough forward momentum to give them a chance.
The momentum can be financial success, but I don't think that's the only form it need take, and it's probably one of the worst types. A motiviation to succeed, a sense of ethics, a strong will, etc. are all the sorts of things that are frequently rewarded if you're going to use them right. Even if you're poor, giving your kids the drive to better themselves is more important than money. There are ways around money, but there aren't any around drive.
My paternal great-grandfather immigrated to the US from Russia. He eventually ran a scrap metal business in New Hampshire. His son, my grandfather, joined the Army Air Corps during the war, became a teacher, and after that took up various administrative jobs related to teaching. My father put himself through college and law school, and is now a successful lawyer. Upon leaving school, I started working and I've supported myself for some time now. I'm just starting out, but I want to surpass previous generations in being able to give that boost to my kids.
Some people just don't have what it takes, and will pretty likely fail. I know a lot of people like that. Ultimately it happens to everyone's line, and that's natural. When you get to be at the top of the heap there's not always anywhere to go.
The cycle that you speak of can be broken, but I don't think that that's the important issue here. Lots of people who happen to be minorities have the right kind of drive. Starting from a worse position (using wealth to gauge success) just means it'll take longer. The better people will, in time, rise to the top. Some of them have enormous forward momentum, and this can translate into inertia that their descendants can ride on for years.
If Gates gives all his money to his kids, his family will be set for a long time, but unless they have the right kind of spirit to them, sooner or later his descendants will be asking yours if they want space fries with that.
Just try to succeed. If you keep at it, and get your kids to do the same, and so forth, someday there will be rewards for it. Just don't go expecting to reap a thousand times what you sow.
Re:asisans and tests (Score:2)
During the Shogunate, which is what most people think of when they think medieval Japan, was quite similar to medieval Europe. There was a lot of social stratification, and not much social mobility.
When Perry opened Japan in the 19th century, some groups saw the advantages that access to the west could grant them, and this sparked the Meiji Restoration. During this period, Japan adopted a lot of things from the west, and it became possible for people to actually work hard and increase their, or at least their descendant's chances in life.
It's impressive as hell that the Japanese could go from their medieval culture to one that was a major world power in less than a hundred years. Given that this was happening at the same time as a dynastic cycle was ending in China (exacerbated by similar contact with the west), it doesn't seem likely that it's genetic.
Anyway, the culture hadn't changed _that_ significantly in some ways though. After we thoroughly destroyed Japan during the war, and sent MacArthur to rebuild it in his image, then Japanese culture was massively altered.
Flashing back to Perry, the nobility and samurai began to listen after they kept getting beaten in combat. This was a very basic way of measuring superiority, and new tactics (like adopting some of ours) were a smart plan. To keep trying the same thing would have been futile.
After the war it again became evident that old tactics, like conquering the Pacific Ocean and everything in and near it, were not going to go over well.
During the economic bubble of the 80's was probably Japan's height (so far) as a world power. They're still way the hell up there, but no one is seriously considering that they'll own everything anymore. Oddly enough, this is what people thought about Americans during the 50s and 60s.
I'd say that all of those generations, for whom failure was fresh in their minds, tried new things harder and found success.
Now we face the current generation, which is riding on the success of the prior one and is not actively going forward. IIRC they've got a nasty recession in Asia (and Japan specifically) right now. This should not daunt sufficiently motivated people. The US went from a crippling depression to being the #1 country in the world in less than twenty years. Japan went from rubble to a major world economic power in less than forty.
We, ourselves, may be having trouble, but it's interesting to note that the in charge generation here are the Baby Boomers, who also rode their parent's success and as they took over in the 70's and 80's we started having problems. My generation is up next, but a significant number (it's really stupid to measure these things by birthdate, I know - there will always be people too dumb to achieve anything no matter how rich or poor they are) are pretty hard driven sorts. I am, and my friends are. So this could be good, although it's horribly depressing if the failure that eggs us on to success is internal in origin.
So as for Japan, the 'otaku' generation (which only describes a small number of people, but is the only nickname I've heard) is probably going to screw up, and the one after that may do much better.
YMMV - I'm not a fortune teller, nor do I know very much about the Japanese. Corrections are gladly accepted.
Re:divisions (Score:2)
No I don't. Although the proper American English spelling of the word is 'color' there are a lot of bad spellers in America.
coler, culer, kulur.... you reading this Altus? ;)
Re:More rationalization of the nanny-state (Score:1)
no shit. And there are many, many more white people than black people in the U.S. So the difference is in one case color is a primary indicator of your economic status, and in the other case it isn't.
Re:No right to I*Net access (Score:1)
This misses the point, again. Steps people are taking today to bring minorities into the mainstream generally do not attempt to correct wrongs of the past, since, as you correctly point out, it can't be done. Rather, they try to address the widespread economic racism that has been demonstrated to exist in the U.S. E.g. the sting operations at realtors which have repeatedly established that blacks with identicle economic records are offered less favorable loan terms.
>BUT, if your great great grandfather stole my great great grandfathers horse and buggy, I'm not going to try to charge your daughter the cost of the horse and buggy. That would be ludicrous.
It's only ludicrous because of the "buggy" part. If we're talking about righting wrongs that happened in reality -- rather than your silly example -- we would start by taking land away from white families that got them from land grants which excluded blacks. The economic make-up of America would be a bit different if black families owned significant portions of the west and midwest.
Before accusing anyone of trying to correct wrongs of the past, remember that in America that would begin with taking land from white families and giving it to black families.
No one is proposing that.
(btw, I'm not suggesting your family has land, but rather that there is this bias in land holdings directly caused by racist land grants, among many other racist practices).
Re:More rationalization of the nanny-state (Score:1)
Or, more accurately, the government gave them free land based on their race, banks gave them better loan opportinities, based on their race, they were given better schools, based on their race, and they were given better jobs based on their schooling.
>Show me the documents
You might start with "Continuous vs. Episodic Growth: the case of blacks" (I believe that's the title, I don't have the author's name at the moment). It's a paper by an economist which didn't believe this bias existed, until he compiled the data. There are many others. You might also look into the history of sting operations on banks, realtors, etc., regarding their giving less favorable loans to blacks.
>As for that, I'd just have to say you're wrong. Most high paid jobs are high paying for a reason, it takes skill. Otherwise it wouldn't be high paying.
Dream on. To paraphrase a fortune on the Caltech undergraduate computer lab "Want a carreer paying over $100k to surf the web and write email? Consider computer science."
Re:But you do not simply ignore the problem! (Score:1)
No, this is false. There is an economics paper I've referred to elsewhere, "Continuous vs. Episodic growth" which compiles data on the economic status of blacks yearly since they were freed. In short, the status of the black community has not changed *at all* except after specific events, e.g. their migration from the south, WWII, and the passing of affirmative action. Otherwise, their economic status has been as flat as a pool table. Affirmative action is the only public policy besides entering a world war which has moved the black community toward the national average, and its effect has been long-lasting, not short-term.
And btw, affirmative action is not about lowering the boundaries. It's about correcting for measures (e.g. norm referenced test scores) which are known to be racially biased.
Re:No right to I*Net access (Score:1)
As I already said, no one is proposing that, so it's beside the point to accuse people of it.
You allow that we've taken land, e.g., from the natives, but then persist in this myth that we somehow earned it?
White ownership of land throughout the west & mid-west is directly because of racist practices, not because of any sort of meritocracy. These arguments about equal opportunity are nonsense. Given family farms for blacks a hundred years ago, and subsequent leveraging of that wealth into education & jobs -- as white families have been able to entrench themselves -- and you might be able to talk about equal opportunity.
Short of that, equal opportunity does not exist, unless we make some effort to provide it.
And the bottom line is, you really, really want to do this: it's going to be cheaper for you than paying the taxes to feed them, build the housing projects, mop up after the crime, keep them in
prison, pay the uninsured emergency room visits, and all of the other woes of our inner cities.
Give them training, and a good job, and everyone wins.
Re:Catch up or be left behind - the rules of histo (Score:1)
Well... perhaps consistent, but not constant. The relative poverty of the poor (relative to the rich) has varied hugely in this century, peaking before the depression, and shrinking fairly steadily until the 1980's. We're now about where things were before the depression: with the most wealth in the hands of the least number of people.
Re:If you make race the issue... (Score:1)
The priorities are different, but perhaps not for obvious reasons. Malcolm X wrote about white people being annoyed when black people got anything "nice", in particular a nice car. The truth is the whites were not annoyed by the car, but by what they saw as a waste of money. In the same position they would have saved for a house, etc.
Part of the problem is blacks don't see or don't have larger opportunities -- e.g. the loan issue I keep raising (that banks have been repeatedly found to offer worse loans to blacks, even blacks with identical financial histories). Saving for a house is not as realistic if the banker is holding you to a different standard.
If no one they know has gotten into a good school, it's not exactly on their mind to be preparing for a good school by investing in a computer. In contrast they may know of someone who went from the ghetto to professional basketball, so buying good shoes may look like a wise investment.
The issue really is about making opportunities as well as educating people about them. We are not
helpless to do this from the "outside". We can work to eliminate racially biased loan practices, etc., as well as fostering out-reach programs which teach kids about preparing for good schools and good jobs. We can work to eliminate racially biased admissions practices. If the admissions process is thought to be racist, many blacks won't even apply.
It is in everyone's best interest to do this quickly and effectively, because of the social costs of decaying inner cities.
Re:But you do not simply ignore the problem! (Score:1)
Yeah, that's clear. There is a huge problem of perception. In the long run it would definately be better to develop better testing paradigms, but unfortunately the testing practices in America seem to be getting worse, not better. Few have taken the time to investigate the validity of the tests we regularly administer to students.
>Wasn't it only introduced this decade?
No, it's been with us for three decades or so. It was one of the later civil rights acts. '64? Something like that.
Re:But you do not simply ignore the problem! (Score:1)
Asians are recent immigrants, so they both self-select, and are selected by U.S. immigration policy. That is, it tends to be the richer and more intelligent that make it to the U.S., and U.S. immigration policy attempts to select more skilled immigrants.
To make this comparison you have to first select by similar criteria whites & blacks before doing the comparison. Without a valid sample set your data is spoodge. There is no evidence of either a genetic or a cultural advantage of Asians, as there's no evidence of any advantage at all.
The second reason, which is more direct, is there is data showing that minorities who feel at risk because of their minority status perform less well on tests if they are asked about their ethnicity before taking the test. There's no definative theory why this is (AFAIK), but self-reporting indicates that filling out this information reminds the student of stressful racial issues, makes them doubt whether the test will be fair, etc., and their performance suffers.
Minorites who are not at risk due to their race, e.g. Asians, don't show this effect.
... all of which presents a further difficulty to testing. It's fairer to at-risk minorities to test them w/o having them fill out race info, but then it becomes very difficult to verify that tests are not racially biased.
Re:More rationalization of the nanny-state (Score:2)
Now squid proposes ability and gumption.
I hate to break this to you, but most high paid technology jobs are hardly rocket science. It's almost criminal how easy many of them are. People in the inner cities could and would do these jobs if they had the training and opportunity.
Widespread economic racism in America has been very well documented, even by economists who started out believing racism couldn't exist in a free market. If you need money to get on the net & light skin to get money, the equation is fairly obvious.
The only reason
In response to other posts, a few miracle stories of success are hardly relevant. The issue is bringing the average inner city person into the mainstream, not getting half a dozen geniuses.
And regarding the "nanny state", if you don't support efforts to move these people into the mainstream, you *will* end up supporting them via taxes.
If this hasn't been said, it should be. (Score:1)
My ethnicity is in a minority. Without these words being in this message, you would otherwise have had no idea. Nor would you know which minority I was a part of if I also did not say. Nor do you necessarily know that I'm telling the truth.
This is the Information Age, the dawn of the Scientific Age, precursor to the Space Age... Humanity is at an unprecedented point in history. Humanity has constructed devices that potentially allow the entire species to communicate with one another regardless of location anywhere on the planet. Anyone who identifies with computer culture should recognize this, let us focus on the issues, for those who don't quite understand:
All racism is ignorance. Any other outlook on racism is incorrect.
Though we are not all racist, we [the human race] are all guilty of ignorance.
Ignorance is a disease which can be cured. In an emerging economy where knowledge truly is the power, the cure is beginning to reach everyone.
Teach people how to learn, and you've given them the only tool they need to combat their own ignorance. Be patient with those who never learned how to learn, even the racists.
Ignorance itself needs to become recognized as the real threat, people will come around when they realize we truly are all the same. Homo Sapiens is a mammal with a diverse range of pigment. Any two participants of opposite sexes who fall anywhere within that range of pigment are going to have fertile offspring, unlike the Mule or the Liger.
You know what this means? Whether you're a Creationist or a Darwinist, people are all the same. Any other outlook is ignorant. Teach your children, learn from your neighbors, use the Internet.
Great, fine, wonderful.. That'd work out perfect at 0 degrees in a vacuum. What is the stumbling block? Culture.
Culture is entirely extra-genetic. Culture defines how a person identifies with the society around him. Look at "Internet Culture", if there could be said to be one. Anyone who identifies with this culture already knows race is a dead issue, but the many many legacy cultures aren't really even aware there's such a thing as an "Internet", much less that an online culture exists in that medium which only recognizes one's knowledge level as being the difference between people. Legacy cultures will wind up on the net somehow, and there will be great social upheaval. This is especially true in America, a country built from the ground up on prejudice; the cotton fields, the railroads, the textile and garment industry, factories, service sector, ad nauseum..
I remember when floppy disks cost $50, then they were $50 for a box of 10, then they were free, then AOL started giving away CDs which lie face down in the street.. How long until little computers start getting bundled with MicroTimes, and anybody who can read, rich poor, whatever, is on the net for 40 free hours, with the option of subscribing or tossing the little device away?? then what?? no more Legacy Culture issues, we can go forth with our new tools, and tackle a brand new set of problems which won't be as petty as race.. God or genetics [take your pick] didn't care to make us all the same color, why should it matter to us?
VT
"And even after all my logic, AND my theory, I add a motherfucker, so you ig'nant niggas hear me." -- Lauryn Hill
Re:Quick protest against the word "minority"? (Score:1)
These days, I think the word has come to mean "whoever's not in power". That's really what's most relevant about it anyway. Because various social structures have persistence (and other reasons), a true minority can still hold the bulk of the power. I think almost anyone would agree that white males dominate the power in America today. I'm not stating any further conclusions, not trying to start a flamewar, I'm just observing an obvious fact. (I'm a white male myself.) Ultimately I'd like to make gender and skin color irrelevant, but look at Congress and most CEO's today and you can see it's still an issue.
Re:Catch up or be left behind - the rules of histo (Score:1)
Hey, I'm all for it! I wish that everyone in America could rely on these basic elements of survival. Unfortunately, many here go without. It should be a no-brainer that if people aren't desperate for survival, we as a society would have a lot fewer problems (crime, etc.), but there is strong opposition in the USA against giving anybody *anything*. I don't know what country you live in, but I wish we had it as good here.
Re:Catch up or be left behind - the rules of histo (Score:1)
Accepted by you, perhaps. Welfare has never really been implemented well in America, having been continually crippled by political wrangling. Some form of welfare seems to work great in many countries outside of America, such as in most of Europe. People keep working, except without the edge of desperation we're used to in America. Some countries even have a higher standard of living than the US.
Re:Catch up or be left behind - the rules of histo (Score:1)
I don't know what country you live in, but that's certainly not true in America. Try telling that to all the homeless people I pass every day, including many who die on the street. Housing is not universally available, nor is food, nor is basic medical care. Homeless people don't even have a way to urinate legally, for Chrissake.
Excellent points! Please moderate this up. (Score:1)
This is information we should really be thinking about.
Easy-- they're talking about different years. (Score:1)
Library access is very overcrowded (Score:1)
Actually, this isn't true. I've been to a few libraries with Internet terminals. They're always full and have a line waiting for them. Access is limited to 15 minutes if there's a wait.
Believe me, I'd LOVE LOVE LOVE it if libraries had enough Internet access to meet the demand. I think it WOULD help with a lot of social issues. I think it would provide an excellent return on our tax dollars. Unfortunately, we're not there yet. If you think it would be a good idea, please tell your local, state, and federal legislators.
Re:Catch up or be left behind - the rules of histo (Score:1)
I've never been on welfare, but I hear it takes a bit more than that. It's by no means guaranteed. Even for those who do manage to get welfare, the payments usually don't cover basic expenses. Sometimes it doesn't even pay enough for rent, literally. Thus, many people end up living on the street, or in their cars if they have them.
Also, I think welfare payments end after two years. After that, no more.
Contrary to what you've been told, there is no real safety net in America. We have scapegoats instead, victims of propoganda that they're living like "European monarchy two centuries ago". (Note that the powerless are usually chosen for scapegoats, because they can't fight back.)
Street people are fucked one way or another - many of them have psychological issues and would die peniless and filthy in any system.
Well, maybe some would (though many countries don't have a homeless problem-- how does that happen?). But many homeless are not so different from you or me. If you started to interact with them, you'd find some intelligent ones.
Filthy? You would be too if you didn't have a place to shower. These people are perfectly capable of cleaning themselves; they just don't have a place to do so.
Psychological issues? Sure, who doesn't have those? And we'd have them a lot worse if we had to deal with being homeless all day and night, year-round. That's gotta screw up your mind. Risk arrest whenever you urinate or sit in one place too long. 90% of the people you pass on the street look at you in disgust, if they don't ignore you altogether. Can't get a job, because who would hire you? And the simple fact that hunger affects the mind in a way that's hard to control-- try it if you don't believe me (though the effects vary for different people).
Actually, I'm surprised how well most homeless people deal with it psychologically. I suspect I'd go totally nuts.
Re:Catch up or be left behind - the rules of histo (Score:1)
I have. I didn't.
Where on earth do you get your information? Specifically, where have you been and what did you see there? Otherwise, quit making up data and spreading ugly stereotypes. It's called lying, and you're harming people with it. And whoever told you these things is lying to you.
You're saying a caste system is a good thing?! (Score:2)
The reality of the modern economy is that more than a third of the population is limited by ability or gumption to working in the low-end service sector. We can't change that, and unless you want to make your own McFries, I humbly submit that we don't really want to.
This comment gives me the creeps. "We need to keep a third of the population uneducated, because we'll need servants."
What if it's your own brother or sister or mother that has to make those fries? How would you feel then? Would you help them improve their situation? If so, then you acknowledge that social connections do help. If not, then that indicates weak family bonds, IMHO.
It's a good thing there is some sort of inequality, as well. ... Do we really want a world in which everyone thinks he should be a sysadmin or a programmer?
You're confusing different meanings of the word "inequality". Of course we need different professions, but that doesn't mean one part of the population has to be controlled by another. Our economy doesn't have to devolve into a caste system, the way it has.
You're essentially saying "The caste system is a good thing, because I'm in the upper caste." (The scary part is that so many people agreed with this post.)
All I have to say on this matter is... (Score:1)
Re:If you make race the issue... (Score:1)
For example, a few months ago, Harper's Bazarre had an interesting stat. I don't remember the exact words/numbers, but these are close:
Dollars the average American highschooler spends on sneakers in a year: $1100.
Dollars the average inner-city African-American highschooler spends on sneakers in a year: $2400
The priorities are different. And we can't fix these from the outside. We can't drag them up-hill. It's finally a clear case where they can't scream and cry "racism".
There is one solution: That community must switch philosophies from that of entitled victim to that of self-empowerment. Just like the rest of us. They finally can't blame anyone else.
!Dozer wrote:
Re:That's a lot of shoes! (Score:1)
A big chunk of that difference can probably be explained by the higher prices charged by "inner city" retailers.
Re:Blarg! (Score:1)
Are we together or apart?
Do you want to do work or watch someone else work?
Put your hand in, don't put your hand out.
Re:More rationalization of the nanny-state (Score:1)
I believe that such funding is available to all students who wish to go to college. This is in the form of the federal student loan program. It is geared towards providing money to even the poorest students. You simply have to pay it back, with interest, after you graduate.
It would be great if all needy students could just get a handout, but not politically feasible (as the opinions of other posters here have demonstrated). Really though, I feel that the loan system is commendable. Often, loans will cover more than tuition, but books and sometimes part of living expenses. Interest rates are breath-takingly low, there is a payback plan for any situation, none of the plans puts a great stress on even a tight budget (under the control of a level-headed person).
Best of all, it's a smart investment from the government's standpoint! You get your money back (mostly), from a population that is college-educated (read: low default rates). Best of all, the primary side-effect is an infusion of educated young people into society.
(end propoganda)
"That's the great thing about kill-bots, you can always make more."
Re:If you make race the issue... (Score:1)
Extra sneakers, or a computer I can use to teach myself something? I wonder what the right choice could be?
The racial myth (Score:1)
If you look at it, suppose you're some poor black kid living in the inner city somewhere. Suppose you're sufficiently poor that buying a computer is totally impossible. There are still public libraries that have free Net access, where you can gradually learn how to use the Internet and a PC. If you really want to. But if you'd rather go play basketball on the almost zero chance of getting in the NBA someday, well, that's the choice you make. It's not because of your race, or your lack of money, it's a lack of desire to work at a goal. And that work ethic isn't something the government or whites can force on somebody.
And suppose you're a little better off than that. Suppose you're the average African-American, inner city youth. One of the other
The important question, I think, is why we don't see this happening. Why don't many blacks go out and use the opportunity to get into the high-paying IT fields? Or even a non-IT field where computer use is a plus?
My suspicion is that the problem is two-fold. First, some people just don't know about the opportunities that this could open up for them. They see the Net as some sort of porn-infested nightmare, since that's about all that public television says about the Internet. They don't see it as a path to success. Thus, learning about computers and the Internet are not a priority. Second, some people know about it but don't have the work ethic to get off their ass and do something to help themselves. They've been in this "I'm a victim" culture so long that they don't necessarily realize nobody's trying to keep them down.
The other interesting question is, what if anything can society do to wake these people up? Computers in schools aren't going to help if nobody uses them. I don't think that much can be done from outside the black communities, for the reason that it is a cultural problem. Black leaders ought to start worrying a little less over whether South Carolina flys the Confederate flag and more over things that matter, like the possibility of blacks getting left behind in the "Information Age". There isn't going to be any sort of economic equality between the races until blacks start taking advantage of the opportunities that are out there. Because it isn't their skin color that's holding them back - it's a cultural bad attitude towards education and computers.
Re:More rationalization of the nanny-state (Score:1)
Re:More rationalization of the nanny-state (Score:1)
guess what - even a human that has been labeled a minority by the govt can do some things on their own. i know you don't believe in this 'philosophy', but give it a chance.
bye now, i have to go back to keeping 'them' fat, dumb and non-rioting.
Re:More rationalization of the nanny-state (Score:1)
we? you mean you. i happen to value my life, regardless of what 'we' think.
"By deciding that all those lives are not worth anything, that even caring a little is a bad thing, you've managed to devalue your own life."
he's not saying others lives are worthless, he just values his own. big difference.
can you spot the pasted section? (Score:1)
That bit that quotes the government statistic has the number L-9-9-8 (as opposed to 1998) in it ...
OK, ok, so I haven't participated in the debate on sociological factors. But then, I'm german and I'm still mulling over the meaning of the choice of words in a recent press release of my government: they want people to take more "initiative" where Americans encourage "responsibility" ... should I agree?
Re:More rationalization of the nanny-state (Score:1)
Equality is not when a female Einstein gets promoted to assistant professor; equality is when a female schlemiel moves ahead as fast as a
male schlemiel.
-- Ewald Nyquist
Re:Where to you people come from? (Score:1)
Did your graduate school education leave you unable to parse the words "many," "most," and "all" correctly?
Here's some questions for your meritocractic worldview: George W. Bush,heir to an old fortune, does cocaine. So does some poor kid in Dallas. The latter gets caught, and does a minimum 15 year stint due to the mandatory sentencing guidelines that GWB has instituted in Texas. Now, does GWB get to be governor of Texas because he made the right choices?
Here's another. Michael Jackson gets paid more money to endorse a pair of sneakers than entire FACTORIES of women in Asia get paid to make them. Did he work for that money?
Re:Where to you people come from? (Score:1)
Re:Where to you people come from? (Score:1)
The fact that he didn't get caught is part and parcel of the continuing racism in this country: the selectiveness of law-enforcement. 27% of black men will go through the prison system - I believe as many as 70% of them for non-violent drug offenses. Law enforcement agencies target black (and often hispanic) men - racial profiling remains a widespread phenomenon. George W. Bush was never really in danger of being caught doing drugs unless he was INCREDIBLY stupid, while just being a black man driving a car can expose you to vehicular search.
The metric for a fair society isn't how it treats its best members, it's how it treats its average members, people who make some mistakes, aren't completely driven to success, and generally just want to get by.
Re:Where to you people come from? (Score:1)
The National Institute for Drug Abuse estimates that while 12% of drug abusers are black, 50% of drug possession arrestees are black.
55% of the prison population is black, despite the fact that only 12% of the US population is black. 96.5 % of those tried for crack cocaine charges are minorities, although 2/3rd of all crack cocaine users are white.
Look here (wherein Janet Reno admits a 100 to 1 disparity in enforcement, and commits to get it down to "only" a 10 to 1 disparity) [aclu.org] and here (a surprisingly good essay in a Scientologist magazine. Go figure.) [freedommag.org].
Re:Where to you people come from? (Score:1)
Note: talking about pervasive, systematic racism in law enforcement and the justice system is distinct from discussions about affirmative action or equal opportunity.
You want numbers> here are some numbers. Keep looking around that report for a more detailed breakdown. Frankly, I despair of knowing just what you think would qualify as a sound basis for criticism - you seem to have invested a lot of energy in trying to deny this phenomenon is real.
There was also a study in Florida done on pull-overs and searches of cars, and the numbers are available if you poke around on the web. (current Florida law makes it legal for police to sieze and sell your car and keep any cash over $100 if they just suspect you of drug activity.)
Re:Where to you people come from? (Score:1)
Re:Where to you people come from? (Score:1)
I meant, and subsequently linked to, the Nation Institute on Drug Abuse. I frequently mistype.
The crack-cocaine statistic is also from the report I linked to, and no one contests it. In fact, the difference between enforcement and sentencing procedures between races is well documented therein.
Racist role model crap (Score:1)
Re:More rationalization of the nanny-state (Score:2)
drugs half the time and unable to give you attention, let alone raise you, with a
boyfriend that beats her and sells drugs, where you don't play outside of the house,
and you're lucky to get enough food to eat, let alone nutritional food, that you'd be
able to end up where you are today? If you do, then you're living in a different reality
from the rest of us.
The funny thing is we encourage this type of lifestyle by subsidizing it.
We should be rewarding the poor people for making GOOD decisions, not bad ones
Re:African-Americans & Free/Open software (Score:2)
By letting Microsoft donate all this stuff to them. Most of us were first exposed to Microsoft and ran screaming to Linux, do you think they'll be any different? ;-)
If Mexico can do it, why can't the US?Because Mexico is a poor country to whom the idea of free software on inexpensive computers is a Godsend. In contrast, the US is a rich country that has the attitude that if it's free it can't be good.
Re:Whatever. (Score:2)
We should certainly help them, but in the right way. I would gladly give the unused computers and/or parts in my basement to a poor person who wants them.
But I would not want to pay the government more to create a Federal Commission to give computers to a few poor people that happen to meet its requirements, and line the pockets of bueraucrats and lobbyists.
With the governments track record, they probably wouldn't differentiate between a poor person who genuinely wants a computer to improve his/her life, and one who wants to sell it for drug or booze money
Re:Is this an American thing? (Score:2)
I've seen some of that.
The truth is that women just aren't interested in the numbers that men are. For example, I would love for my wife to get into a better paying tech job, but she makes excuses "I'm not smart enough", (yet she's smarter than many people that I work with) "It doesn't interest me" (yet many times she uses my computer more than me, and she's looked at as an expert on PCs where she does work.)
The College that I went to had a higher female enrollment, yet there was only one woman in CS in our graduating class
Re:Come and Get It! (Score:2)
The minority groups that seem to do well (Asians for example) don't have such leaders, they just go out and do what needs to be done.
Re:Quick protest against the word "minority"? (Score:2)
With such thinking, whites can never be a minority because discrimination against whites is termed "reverse discrimination", and is often deemed acceptable.
Re:Is this an American thing? (Score:2)
For example, any British Black I've ever seen speaks perfect English, in the US, we have this silly notion that the natural language for blacks is something called "Ebonics". Ebonics is an English subset. An employer would be as likely to hire an ebonics-speaking black for a good job as he or she would be likely to hire a street-slang speaking white kid who uses the word "sh-t" every third word.
open your mind first (Score:2)
Where did he say that? He said that there are some in the black community who criticize other blacks for trying to suceed. This is true. An "Oreo" is a person who is accused of being black on the outside, but white on the inside, the other two terms are different ways of saying the same thing.
But it seems that you can't even try discuss racial problems at any real depth because people like you will automatically jump in and label them a bigot.
Re:More rationalization of the nanny-state (Score:2)
a preacher state, actually. I hope you never make a bad decision.
Where in my post do I say that? Bad decisions are usually their own punishment. Do you like the idea of somebody snorting your tax money up their nose? I don't. I'd rather pay for rehab.
Re:open your eyes before typing (Score:2)
Well gee, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition!
Re:open your eyes before typing (Score:2)
Whether you see it or not, there is an Orwellian, New-Speak type mentality built into that type of thinking.
Re:Where to you people come from? (Score:2)
Um, I think you meant Michael Jordan? ;-)
Re:open your eyes before typing (Score:2)
In recent years there has been a real effort to get rid of male-only educational institutions by integrating them, while leaving female-only institutions intact.
My Wife is a feminist, and she attended a Woman's college. When I asked why this is fair, she tells me it's because in a male-only school, the men bind together and discuss how to oppress women.
Really?
Now my wife is generally an intelligent woman, but she's been brainwashed by this stuff
Re:Is this an American thing? (Score:2)
However even with many of the other English dialects you mention, the speakers have the same problem, if they don't learn to drop it, at least in formal situations (job interview or whatever), they won't go very far.
Up here in Bahs-tuhn (Boston) people take classes to learn to drop that regional accent for the same reason.
So anyway, I guess my point is that it bothers me to see things like ebonics advocated that will only futher hold back the blacks in this country. If it's used as a teaching tool, that's great.
Re:More rationalization of the nanny-state (Score:1)
We should be rewarding the poor people for making GOOD decisions, not bad ones
And punish them for making bad decisions? Now that is a nanny state! More like a preacher state, actually. I hope you never make a bad decision.
Re:If you make race the issue... (Score:1)
If you make race the issue then it becomes the focal point of the discussion. It seems to me that the issue is really one of economics - people that do not have the income available to them to purchase a computer and internet service. Those people could be white, black, hispanic, tall, short, fat, hairy or blue.
This of course ignores the question of why racial minorities are disproportionately economically disadvantaged. It is all very well (and quite fashionable in the Libertatrian white overclass) to say that these things should be race-blind, but the fact is we live in a society full of racists.
I'm not exaggerating. My ex girlfriend's parents had been middle class for generations and I met her at an Ivy league school. Her parents were racists who believed in segregation. "They will be happier." they would say. "Their cutlure is inferior" they would say. It drove me nuts hanging out with them. Multiply this by several million rich white folks (rich == members of the creditor class) and you begin to get an idea of what American minorities are up against.
Maybe the world doesn't owe us a living, but it doesn't owe us a peaceful life or the right to keep our wealth either, no matter how we obtained it. These things are cultural constructs we use to make life better for all. As the essay points out, unless these constructs work for all of us, Objective reality (in the form of hopeless violence from people who refuse to die off quietly just because the overclass views them as economically useless) seems hard to avoid.
Re:If you make race the issue... (Score:1)
As would I. I have actually heard that it is the other way around: There was some sort of convention here in Seattle the a month or two back and some minority spokespersons were joking about teaching white folks how to get connected.
A rumination on why might that be. Several years ago when I was in graduate school working on a math Ph.D., we all occasionally wondered why there were so few black mathematicians. There were (relatively speaking) plenty of doctors and engineers, but math was something that didn't seem to attract blacks. My own theory is that math doesn't pay as well so if you are from a background where you are the first person in your family to have a shot at a really good education and job, and you have technical aptitude, then you go into the professions that pay rather than those that don't. If your family has been doing all right for hundereds of years, then you don't really worry about making a little less money, but if you are the one escaping from the ghetto (and maybe trying to bring some of your extended family along) you are probably more conservative in your career choices.
Re:Not Good. (Score:1)
Part of the issue under discussion here is whether computers are luxuries. From an educational standpoint I think an argument can be made that net access is part of being educated. We educate folks in public schools because it is a social good that we all benefit from (well except in Kansas apparently;-))
Computers are tools; you do not have a right to own a computer.
I don't agree that a computer is just a tool, and the analogy to cars is a false one. Most areas provide public roads (free) so that we can all get around, and public transit (cheap to free) for those who cannot afford a car simply because we all benefit from increased mobility. We don't have to provide free computers to everyone, but improving access by dealing with social and education problems seems like a good idea to me. Besides, a machine for getting on the net is essentially free these days if you get a used one or sign up for some evil service that will shove advertising in your face. What is missing is education in their use and organization to provide the machines.
This I believe is just another example of 'class warfare' that goes on in America.
Oh come on. As if the rich and powerful are somehow the victims in America and have no way to defend themselves. If there is 'class warfare' in America (or anywhere else), guess who started it? Who runs the Fed so that it consistently benefits the creditor class (45% max of the population)? Who steals the wealth produced by workers to pay investor dividends? Who treats those same workers as commodities to be sacrificed for the quarterly earnings report? If that isn't warfare, I'd like to know what is.
Get to root cause (Score:2)
Never mind the fact that the inner city schools are falling apart. Never mind the fact that the kids that graduate from these schools can't read. Let's give them a computer on every desk and access the the Internet. That should fix everything.
Why is it that the media seems to see technology as some sort of universal panacea? A computer and Internet access is not going to fix a broken household.
The underlying problems are economic and social. One of the symptoms *may* be (I haven't seen good stats) less prevalent access to computer technology and the Internet.
Let's get to the root cause, and stop treating the symptoms.
-josh
Re:More rationalization of the nanny-state (Score:2)
> ability or gumption to working in the low-end
> service sector. We can't change that, and
> unless you want to make your own McFries, I
> humbly submit that we don't really want to.
>
What a depressing thought. Better start
stockpiling shotguns and canned food now then.
Moreover it isn't at all obvious that that a situation is natural, not more than a couple of hundred years ago everyone worked in the fields. To those who didn't that seemed quite natural too. Is there some reason why social development should stop at the end of the twentieth century?
Not Good. (Score:2)
Computers are tools; you do not have a right to own a computer. You may own a computer or you may not, that is ok, but it is not ok to say "I am poor, give me a computer because I cannot afford one for myself". An example: I currently do not own a car. It would help me a great deal to own a car, but I cannot afford one. It would also help a lot of people a great deal to own a computer. I don't have a 'right' to get a free car nor should someone have a 'right' to get a free computer.
This I believe is just another example of 'class warfare' that goes on in America.
Re:Ah, Kintanon, you're wasting your time (Score:2)
Re:More rationalization of the nanny-state (Score:2)
This is a racial issue in that there are more poor blacks and hispanics than poor whites.
But, dealing with this from a racial angle is completely wrong. Not only does helping someone because of their race pretty well equate with holding others back because of their race. (Would it be racism to give blacks a 50% off coupon for a computer? How about to do it for whites?)
What needs to be done is to target the situation people are in. If the poor can't get good schooling then chances are that they won't be eligible for any decent jobs, or better schooling, etc, and won't know what to do with a computer if the government requires that they be given one.
This is *not* a racial issue. I went to school with plenty of white kids who were destined to live McLives when I transfered into the inner city for my final year of high school.
We need to reach these children somehow. Offering them real choices and the education to make the most of their chances. It's not fair to say that the poor have as good of a chance at winning a scholarship when they have to grow up in a slum and are sick all the time and it's not enough to simply raise welfare payments hoping that it will miraculously make these children live an easier life.
I think advocates do themselves a disservice by making issues like this racial. I would be behind anti-poverty movements, but the minute someone brings race into it, like "Helping poor *black* families" I rebel completely. Treating one race differently from another is what got us into this mess in the first place and repreating that mistake won't help anyone.
So yes, technology is completely color blind. Computers don't care who hits their keys and the users at the other end won't know who you are unless you tell them. They are economically discriminatory because you need to buy them and they're fairly expensive to a family barely getting by as is.
There is a small racial issue here in that there are many poor blacks, but this just clouds the real issue by ignoring all the poor of other races.
If you make race the issue... (Score:3)
If you make race the issue then it becomes the focal point of the discussion. It seems to me that the issue is really one of economics - people that do not have the income available to them to purchase a computer and internet service. Those people could be white, black, hispanic, tall, short, fat, hairy or blue.
A specific demographic may have a larger number of economically depressed people per capita, but that doesn't mean that a poor person of European descent doesn't deserve the same access as some poor person of African descent.
I don't think access to a computer or the internet is a right of individuals, but it would be nice to make sure that we, as a society, help as many people get access as we can. (And free software matched with cheap hardware can really bring us a long way towards that...)
It would be great if everyone could afford a computer. It would also be great if everyone could afford a house, a car, and a nice cruise one a year...
Dozer
"The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be when you kill them."
Re:More rationalization of the nanny-state (Score:2)
The subject of your first paragraph could be black, white, hispanic, or asian, etc. Using racial instead of economic methods to identify such an economic situation is simply racist.
The reality of the situation is that the net is, at least until we hook up cameras to each PC, colorblind. I respectfully suggest that that is a Good Thing.
Re:More rationalization of the nanny-state (Score:2)
Yep, that's true.
Man, if I lived in a place where my work, talent, and capacity weren't rewarded (and I mean with cold, hard cash, not to mention the self satisfaction of a job well done), I'd just nip off and shoot myself.
Listen, my dad's a farmer, I know all about 'all sorts of effort with little gain.' It's just not the resposibility of me, or any (wo)man to make sure everyone is doing a job that is
1. worthwhile
2. making them feel good about life
3. feeding their families (which begs the question why anyone would start a family they could not guarantee to sustain)
Frankly the logic flaws about social responsibility in general are *huge* in this day and age. It really cannot be morally correct to force a man to feed another. Ever.
Re:More rationalization of the nanny-state (Score:2)
You don't get it, do you? Do you really think that if you yourself were born in the middle of a housing project, with 4 siblings, no idea who your father was, a mother on drugs half the time and unable to give you attention, let alone raise you, with a boyfriend that beats her and sells drugs, where you don't play outside of the house, and you're lucky to get enough food to eat, let alone nutritional food, that you'd be able to end up where you are today? If you do, then you're living in a different reality from the rest of us.
The point of this article is the fact that the economic disparity is also very much a racial one. Society has put the minorities into these poor situations because of countless years of prejudice. Now just eliminating the prejudice isn't enough. because we've established a cycle of poverty.
If you're going to live in a dream world, and pretend that everyone has a fair chance of rising to the top, then at least realize it's a dream world.
---
More rationalization of the nanny-state (Score:5)
The inequality of the Web is not racial - it's economic. It's a good thing there is some sort of inequality, as well. Remember the "Shoe Event Horizon" in Hitchhiker's Guide, where everyone on the planet was making shoes? That could be us. Do we really want a world in which everyone thinks he should be a sysadmin or a programmer?
The reality of the modern economy is that more than a third of the population is limited by ability or gumption to working in the low-end service sector. We can't change that, and unless you want to make your own McFries, I humbly submit that we don't really want to.
Let's keep the government and everyone else out of this and let the cream rise to the top naturally. Black, white, et al - who cares?
Re:More rationalization of the nanny-state (Score:2)
FUCK YOU! I WAS born into that kind of situation!
My dad beat my mom, we were poor as hell, lived in a little trailer for years and years!
I WORK HARD for what I get. I took years reading, researching, and learning everything I could about everything. I can pick any topic and at least know the basics. This isn't because I was born white, it's because I WORKED HARD. The nearest library was over an hour from my house. My school was 45 minutes away. The only thing within walking distance of my house is a STREAM!!
I borrowed books from my teachers, I read dictionaries and encyclopedias at school. I read my math book, my english book, and once a month I'd get to go to the library and get a few books.
I got a computer because my uncle got into the tech field and gave one to me for christmas. It was worth aout 100$ then, a 8088 system. Within 3 months I had one of the largest BBSs in north east Georgia.
So I say again, FUCK YOU. I don't 'deserve' anything except what I worked for.
Kintanon
Re:only 30 years ago. (Score:2)
Sorry to bring up the point that a culture (other than our own) in our country has suffered more than necessary.
Yes, I am sure that many of you were poor, and I am sure that many of your parents were poor. But at least your parents and grandparents were EQUAL CITIZENS of this country!
This goes a long way towards your children and grandchildren to eventually make it.
The fact that I want my tax dollars to help underpriviliged, prejudiced against kids makes me a traitor to true freedom and liberty?
You are either a blithering idiot, or you completely misunderstand me. I want everyone in this country to have equal opportunity, not standing... that does not exist right now. And I believe our tax dollars should go towards mending our mistakes in the past. And I want people like you to understand why these were mistakes.
I am far from a bleeding heart liberal, and I consider myself to be a huge advocate of liberty, freedom, equality and the capitalist society.
only 30 years ago. (Score:3)
There is often a reason why people are poor.
Some were born poor, without the means to rise above it. Whether lacking skills or the ability and oportunities to learn those skills, it rarely happens that someone is able to overcome their birthright. If all you know is based on ignorance and poverty, chances are, that is all that will ever come out of you.
Then there are people that are lazy. Their job or trade gets "replaced", and they simply do not want to learn another. Our society has made it relatively easy to live by essentially doing nothing. For many of these people the effort to get educated and get a job that might pay a smidgin above wellfare is not economically sensible.
Why are blacks considered poor and lazy?
You have to consider where these people come from. Here you have an entire race that did not earn their full participation in this country until only 30 years ago!!! That always blows my mind. This culture has been associated with poverty in the United States since the country was born. The majority of these people have known nothing but ignorance and poverty, and it is only because they had the bad luck to born black in the U.S.
It takes an exceptional person to rise above this. We all have seen it done on many occasions, but unfortunately the majority are not able to. And it is not because they do not try and are lazy, but because they have been ingrained that life is this way from the day they were born.
As to the people who state, "well now they have every oportunity as everyone else and we should not bend over backwards to accomodate them!", I do not really agree with. They do not have every oportunity in the world. Not when the a large number of them are born poor. That is a huge disadvantage, and the reason they were born poor is because of the direct (or lack of) actions of our country.
So I do think we need to go out of our way to help this society of poor black americans. I do think we "owe" it to them in a way. Not to go so far as to disadvantage others, but to concentrate more on giving more opportunities to rise above the poverty they have known for generations and generations. These are not people getting "replaced" and are now lazy... they never had a place!
And I guarantee that those that now and hopefully will have a place in our society, will stay there!
We need to go out of our way to give them the oportunities that we kept away from them only 30 years ago!
They are members of our civilization, and whether you like it or not, we have a duty to see that all of us can make it. Pure Darwinism worked in the middle ages... and society was set back 100's of years.
Nonsense (Score:2)
all of the Internet. The Internet is color-blind.
If racism is an issue it is only in America, think
of all the other non-white countries that are on
the Internet. I started out as poor, white
Euro-trash and I got on the Internet.
India is on the Internet (non-white)
Africa is on the Internet (non-white)
Asia is on the Internet (non-white)
Europe is on the Internet (mixed races)
South America is on the Internet (mixed races)
And what does that leave?
America has a race problem.
Get a grip, these problems are the results of
the sublte ontinuation of racist policies that
American society pursues. It is not the fault
of the Internet. Handle it!
Euro-trash American Geezer Geek!
Blarg! (Score:3)
You know, I'm getting sick of people screaming
about equality, and how so-and-so minority doesn't
meet this spec, and so and so minority isn't on
the same level as this other group of people..
Yes, we're all equal, then, we aren't. I can't
rap for the life of me, i'm just an average white
boy, I can't jump either. I can't cook well, I
certainly do not have the social ties or the
culture that I see in a lot of minority groups
all I have is what I've worked to aquire myself,
Knowledge. Pretty much what I'm saying is that
no matter what the color, we all have the -capacity-
to be 'equal' but you know, I think some of us
just don't want to be, maybe there are black
americans that just don't WANT to screw around
with computers, they're happy with their lifestyle
and their education, and what they do, and they're
good at what they do, when I probably suck at it.
As for this article, I look around at my coworkers
and have to say that it's total BS. I work in a
company that prides itself on the fact that it has
tapped the great resources in the masses of
america, all of america, the red, yellow, black,
white, orange and plaid.
Maybe if people will STOP looking at America as
being comprised of a lot of groups of people of
different colors we'll be able to get somewhere
and stop worrying about discrimination damnit,
I think the only reason the children even have
an inkling of discrimination is because they hear
about it so much, and they see it from their
parents, it WILL go away if we just stop making
it such a big deal, it seems now to just be
something to bitch and whine about. heh.
(/RANT)
doing the right thing (Score:4)
Everyone keeps harkening on, "Oh yeah, and you can SELL linux too." But you know what I think is another aspect of the revolution? The fact that you can make a $200 box for a home, with a free (as in beer) OS, so that your grandma or a poor inner-city youth can experience the same inforation as everyone else.
Freedom is not freedom if you have to buy it from (Choose your favorite software vendor).
Maybe it is not time yet to start calling for free beer (and the social-guerilla tactics are exactly why I like ESR), but soon (comrades) soon we should stop putting down and rather pick up our neighbors. Strange that code may set us free....