ogc163
Superstar
Article by Hughes that gained some traction
Black American Culture and the Racial Wealth Gap - Quillette
Dissenting From the Racial Orthodoxy at Columbia
- Thread starter ogc163
- Start date
Article by Hughes that gained some traction
Black American Culture and the Racial Wealth Gap - Quillette
Article is garbage.
It's startling how much history this writer overlooks to make his argument.
Like the reason why former slave-owning States are poorer than their Northern counterparts is due to the South largely relying on slave labor as it's main economic force; the South's entire system of production was based around it.
So much so, that they introduced vagrancy laws--a precursor to Jim Crow--to mass incarcerate newly freed, jobless Black men to work in labor camps after the Civil War.
Turns out, slavery in America is illegal...unless you're incarcerated.
There's several other things that I noticed, but this was the point that stuck out to me the most.
COMPLETE garbage.
I can't wait until this dweeb enters the real world. Ole "I'm not oppressed" ass.
I know his type well. They think they're unique and rarified. Wait till he enters the real world.
For instance, he's a philosophy student. He's not a business student. Lets see him see how "the market" treats his ass instead of being some lackey for right-wing think tanks. And he even says he's not a republican but likes those sorts of "just asking" arguments.
The dumbass doesn't even realize he's being used.
Althalucian
All Star
He just regurgitates conservative thinking. Another black pawn. Look at his twitter, too. Black people need to break from these intellectual "masters."
The first section of the essay is poorly argued on almost every level.
When he pointed out that the northeast is wealthier than the southeast, did he just completely ignore that that's in part because there are so many more impoverished Black families in the southeast?
Not to mention that White flight and other issues led to plenty of White wealth leaving the region.
Tries to talk about Black incomes increasing faster than White incomes during the middle of the 20th century, but ignores that because of their lower absolute incomes and the fact that they didn't have access to the mortgages the White people had access to, they couldn't build wealth with that income.
How do you respond to a point about building wealth via mortgages and ignore that Black people couldn't access those mortgages.
Then he jumps straight to the model minority myth, the whole "If Japanese people could be wealthy despite discrimination than why not Black people," totally ignoring that a huge % of Japanese immigrants were professionals and others who were specifically selected for skills that could quickly build wealth, not some random disadvantaged subset of the population.
Claims that Asian-Americans "were never favored" while ignoring that they WERE selected to take predominantly the already-primed-for-wealth high skills immigrants, especially when you're talking Korean, Japanese, and Chinese immigrants. Does he want to look at the data for refugees and economic immigrants, for Hmong and Cambodians and Samoans, and see if they have the same great wealth gains he boasts about for other groups boosted by including many carefully selected professionals?
Then he says that historical racism can't explain disparities in groups of the same race by showing that Black Americans with American ancestry have lower wealth than Black Americans of Caribbean ancestry, which ignores that those people have different histories, especially including the different selection that we just talked about. Do all Black Carribeans end up in America, or do professionals and those with means have a better shot than an impoverished, unskilled person?
The second section on spending patterns has some fair points, but he spends little time trying to understand why those differences are there. if spending patterns are a problem (and in some families they are) but you don't understand why they're a problem, you're not going to address them.
The third section has plenty of issues, but I'm tired.
When he pointed out that the northeast is wealthier than the southeast, did he just completely ignore that that's in part because there are so many more impoverished Black families in the southeast?
Not to mention that White flight and other issues led to plenty of White wealth leaving the region.
Tries to talk about Black incomes increasing faster than White incomes during the middle of the 20th century, but ignores that because of their lower absolute incomes and the fact that they didn't have access to the mortgages the White people had access to, they couldn't build wealth with that income.
How do you respond to a point about building wealth via mortgages and ignore that Black people couldn't access those mortgages.
Then he jumps straight to the model minority myth, the whole "If Japanese people could be wealthy despite discrimination than why not Black people," totally ignoring that a huge % of Japanese immigrants were professionals and others who were specifically selected for skills that could quickly build wealth, not some random disadvantaged subset of the population.
Claims that Asian-Americans "were never favored" while ignoring that they WERE selected to take predominantly the already-primed-for-wealth high skills immigrants, especially when you're talking Korean, Japanese, and Chinese immigrants. Does he want to look at the data for refugees and economic immigrants, for Hmong and Cambodians and Samoans, and see if they have the same great wealth gains he boasts about for other groups boosted by including many carefully selected professionals?
Then he says that historical racism can't explain disparities in groups of the same race by showing that Black Americans with American ancestry have lower wealth than Black Americans of Caribbean ancestry, which ignores that those people have different histories, especially including the different selection that we just talked about. Do all Black Carribeans end up in America, or do professionals and those with means have a better shot than an impoverished, unskilled person?
The second section on spending patterns has some fair points, but he spends little time trying to understand why those differences are there. if spending patterns are a problem (and in some families they are) but you don't understand why they're a problem, you're not going to address them.
The third section has plenty of issues, but I'm tired.
Mehrsa Baradaran keeps shooting his shyt down on twitter too
This is a really baffling choice for a podcast guest, and I'm disappointed with the decision. It seems like Harris is still upset about the discussion w/ Ezra Klein, and needed a token to regurgitate his views back to him and his audience. What's most disappointing is the absolute ball washing I listened to Harris give Coleman, even though Coleman's views aren't particularly interesting or new ... and as another poster pointed out, often leaves out important historical context.
I get that it's hard to talk to people you don't agree with, and that no one likes being accused of racism. But to have this no-name kid on to talk about the harmful effects of affirmative action and gangster rap is downright patronizing. I would have much rather him spoke with, say, a Cornel West or Marc Lamont Hill, so at least there's some pretense of scholarship and expertise. I'm not even saying I fundamentally disagree with Coleman broader points ... but the optics on this are all wrong for Harris.
ogc163
Superstar
I think Harris is either tone deaf or just doesn't want to engage with the Black left on a deeper level. If you don't feel as though the likes of Coates or Jelani Cobb are objective/technical enough then you can invite a Sandy Darity, James Forman, or Darrick Hamilton on this show. I'm even more disappointed in Loury because he should know better than to prop up such mediocrity, it seems as though his annoyance with Coates has led him down an unfortunate path in which he co-signs irrational/lazy right wing stances. Atleast McWhorter can claim to be intellectually consistent over the last 2 decades, Loury has proven to be fickle as fukk.