October 11, 2008
The Great African-American Awakening
From The City Journal:
Why do so many blacks, especially men, find it so hard to grasp the opportunity that is theirs for the taking? Why are “so many of our black youth squandering their freedom?” Cosby and Poussaint’s answer is that the social structure and culture of poor black neighborhoods distort the psychology of the children who grow up there, often shackling them in “psychological slavery.” The authors zero in on the permanently destructive effects of fractured families and slapdash child rearing—much more slapdash than middle-class parents, with their years spent nurturing, encouraging, and cajoling their children, could easily imagine. “In the neighborhood that most of us grew up in, parenting is not going on,” Cosby told the NAACP. “You have the pile-up of these sweet beautiful things born by nature—raised by no one.”
Certainly their fathers aren’t raising them. That 70 percent illegitimacy rate, troubling in itself, isn’t evenly distributed but is concentrated in poor neighborhoods, where it soars above 85 percent and can approach 100 percent. “A house without a father is a challenge,” Cosby and Poussaint write. “A neighborhood without fathers is a catastrophe.” That’s because mothers “have difficulty showing a son how to be a man,” a truly toxic problem when there are no father figures around to show boys how to channel their natural aggressiveness in constructive ways. Worse still, the authors muse, “We wonder if much of these kids’ rage was born when their fathers abandoned them.”
More here.
Posted by Azra Raza at 07:47 AM | Permalink










Comments
I'll put this article on my "to-check" list.
As an aside I would suggest that in attempting to see the essence of things it is often helpful to look behind the show, and seek out the hidden premises.
In that spirit it would be helpful and pertinent to know the publisher of this article is City Journal, which, according to Wikipedia, is published by the Manhattan Institute, a "conservative, market-oriented think tank established in New York City in 1978 by Antony Fisher and William J. Casey..."
Yes, that William J. Casey.
Readers of course buy their own ticket and take their own ride, but in an age where American conservative thought has produced such declining values and rough beasts - slouching, in this case, towards Brooklyn - it is useful to have a some background on the source and authorship of what one is about to read.
As mentioned, initially, I haven't read this article. It appears from the blurb to be well written, though one must be wary of confusing eloquence for truth. Many would argue that I need to read the article before presenting my concern. I considered that progression, but soon realized that the order of progression is at the heart of my point. As a reader I need to be made aware of any "full disclosure" issues before I read, not after.
The lack of up front full disclosure is very much like getting a phone call where the caller asks to speak to someone without first identifying themselves. As a matter of both courtesy and trust it is the responsibility of the caller to identify themselves - prior to their request - as they have made their way into the sanctuary of your home, or office, with their call.
On these grounds I suggest that when appropriate, aggregating editors on the web give more consideration to the notion of full disclosure at the top of the page rather than the bottom. I wouldn't bother offering such an idea for consideration at your average web publication, but at 3QD I always feel as though I'm in the presence of those who are "above the fold."
These ideas are not meant to target the Manhattan Institute or the writer, Mr. Magnet. Their publication has had great impact on urban policies for both Giuliani-era New York City as well as national welfare-reform in the 90s, among other accomplishments. My motivation for writing, on this particular concern, is the horrific displays of hatred I have seen this past week in videos of many conservative supporters of Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin.
I realize the racism we witnessed in these events were many miles removed from the Manhattan Institute, and Mr. Magnet. However, out in the country, where I came from, there is an old saying about "dancing with them that brought you." In that light, when it comes to reading articles on race in America, I need to know who my dance partner is, and whether the tune is a tango or the twist.
On these matters in general the gate swings both ways. In this particular instance, it swings hard to the right.
Posted by: James Blount | Oct 11, 2008 12:05:21 PM
Mr. Blount, you have given us the perfect example of reverse McCarthyism.
Posted by: faze | Oct 11, 2008 4:44:18 PM
Mr. Blount has gifted us with a thoughtful comment we'd do well to reflect on. Inspiring reflection is the *opposite* of McCarthyism, not its "reverse".
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Oct 11, 2008 7:27:36 PM
Your piece speaks well of many valid problems facing our people, but I tend to focus on progress . . .
The urgency to revive the power of our people in unity to achieve more positive and productive outcomes for our youth is obvious. As a proponent in the belief we are strongest and at our best when we rise as one, I welcome collaborations towards a common cause and for a greater good.
Let’s continue to encourage others to actively participate in uplifting the quality of life and learning for our children.
And, together, we will show the world how beautiful, smart and special they really are.
R. Lee Gordon
President / Co-Director
UniTee Design, Inc. / The Better Detroit Youth Movement
www.uniteedesign.com / www.betterdetroityouth.org
rgordon@uniteedesign.com / rgordon@betterdetroityouth.org
Toll Free: 888.OUR.RBG.TEES / Phone: 313.516.8384 / Fax: 313.342.6324
Posted by: R. Lee Gordon | Oct 11, 2008 11:42:37 PM
In my opinion, the style of the comment (above) is just the kind of polished, risk-and-content-free language favored by CEOs and politicians the world over. It's hard not to be cynical after watching a few decades of reform initiatives, task forces, social programs, charities and supposed grass-roots organizations doing nothing more effective than advancing the careers (or lining the pockets) of their executives.
I think the issue needs a serious re-think (devoid of platitudes and flowery oration). I think America needs an *attitudinal revolution* (re: race, assimilation, ethnic "authenticity", masculinity, et al), first of all, and funneling money towards the problem won't accomplish much.
For example, how can there possibly be progress as long as young black males are being brainwashed (in the millions) to think of intelligence, articulacy, and politeness as "white", or feminine, values? The dead-eyed, prison-buffed, money-mad hero-thug, as an aspirational avatar, must die.
Incidental question: who do you think has had a more negative impact on the general situation of Black Americans.... George Wallace or Al Sharpton?
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Oct 12, 2008 12:07:27 PM
Steven, not everyone writes as well as you and Langston Hughes, after all. The content I read is that R. Lee Gordon is seeking collaborators to help overcome the effects of:
"For example, how can there possibly be progress as long as young black males are being brainwashed (in the millions) to think of intelligence, articulacy, and politeness as "white", or feminine, values? The dead-eyed, prison-buffed, money-mad hero-thug, as an aspirational avatar, must die."
youtube
youtube
beacon
yale
That avatar made flesh IS dying. Guys like Geoffrey Canada are doing what they can to change that fate.
Posted by: CriticalMassI | Oct 12, 2008 1:16:03 PM
We'll have to do something about popular culture first, CM. The hopeful and uplifting narratives you cite are certainly comforting (even addictive) but they are nothing new; neither are jobs programs, computers (in a few) inner city class rooms, and lurid tell-all memoirs of gore in the ghetto. Oprah and Obama and Mr. Canada are the exceptions that prove the rule. Meanwhile, the problem continues.
You'll have to parse my theory more carefully before being in a position to refute it (clearly, you miss the point if you post those Youtube links as a rebuttal); how has the image of "the authentic black" changed in your (and everyone else's) mind in the hours since I posted the previous comment?
More thought, less sentiment: how about a t-shirt with *that* on it?
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Oct 12, 2008 2:43:11 PM
Steven, "More thought, less sentiment: how about a t-shirt with *that* on it?" If I wear my Obama T, does that cover it?
I have no idea what WE are supposed to do about popular culture. It's not surprising that the dominant culture has helped spawn and sustain gangsta rap, for example. I'd like to hand out free copies of Frederick Douglass' autobiography, but I think it's already free on line. How many TV-watching kids want to read it? Poor black kids are not the only ones who can't read very well.
What do you mean by authentic black? As opposed to artificial black? Authentic: James Baldwin? Maya Angelou? Ossie Davis? Muhammad Ali? Mme. C. J. Walker? Artificial: Adam Clayton Powell? Father Divine? Mme. C. J. Walker?
I thought your response to R. Lee Gordon was flippant and a bit antagonistic. I posted the those sites because I thought they were examples of the kind of education efforts Gordon is trying to promote. If you visit his sites, you can see he's not merely hawking T-shirts, but is trying to further education among kids in black communities.
The problems continue the same way the dominant culture's do: 1929 redux, Vietnam syndrome in the Middle East, people living as wage slaves and plugged in to consumerism. What can we do about any of this?
"The dead-eyed, prison-buffed, money-mad hero-thug, as an aspirational avatar, must die." Seems more people should learn that John D. Rockefeller isn't a good avatar to emulate.
Posted by: CriticalMassI | Oct 12, 2008 4:41:10 PM
CM:
"Steven, 'More thought, less sentiment: how about a t-shirt with *that* on it?' If I wear my Obama T, does that cover it?"
If you're asking me if fetishizing a cool black man as a style accessory to affirm your bona fides as a cool white man (I'm presuming) is the way to move forward, my answer is no.
If you have to ask, "What do you mean by authentic black?", it's clear you haven't spent a fraction of the time thinking *seriously* about this issue that I have. Ad hoc blog retorts are one thing; serious debate is another.
"I thought your response to R. Lee Gordon was flippant and a bit antagonistic."
Read it again; maybe you'll detect educated (on the issue) exasperation instead.
Meanwhile, I think your hurt/outrage/sanctimony on the feller's behalf is patronizing (along with that last link you posted).
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Oct 12, 2008 5:01:03 PM
Steven,
I posted the Avalon link because I lost (misplaced) the full Douglass text I wanted to post, but never mind. My T-shirt is in support of the campaign, so it's temporary election wear, not a fashion fetish.
It is presumptuous of you to say that I have not spent as much time as you have thinking about this issue because I have no idea what you mean by authentic black. What do you mean?
Hurt and outrage? No. Perhaps sanctimonious. The guy came here to find support for helping educate kids and you sounded so accusatory, as if you thought his real motive was to make money moving merchandise.
Anyway, it sounded like you wanted an argument as opposed to dialogue, but maybe I think that because my thinking deviates from formal male debate style vs. ad hoc retort style. Also could be I've become addicted to those Krishnamurti and David Bohm YouTubes.
Oh, BTW, I'm female. Partial disclosure: white female. Interesting without first names we get ungendered (desexified) in cyberspace.
Posted by: CriticalMassI | Oct 12, 2008 5:33:19 PM
James,
I suspect no-one would be calling for a "full source disclosure" rule if an article was posted by a paper that was funded by a left wing think-tank.
Regardless, while I appreciate the importance of tracing sources, we should probably be mindful of committing the basic logical fallacy that makes the validity of an argument hinge on where it's coming from. The problem with 3QD instituting such a rule is that it would encourage its readers to commit just such a fallacy.
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Oct 12, 2008 6:13:49 PM
Well, then, CM, let me correct my statement to:
"If you're asking me if fetishizing a cool black man as a style accessory to affirm your bona fides as a cool white woman is the way to move forward, my answer is no."
My suggestion for "step one" in the long-term process of "moving forward", re: race: move to the single-standard system. Since when is an advertisement, and a website, default evidence of a man's good works? Since when are hopeful platitudes an acceptable ersatz for radical change? You see a Black man with an evangelical lilt to his presentation and your liberal lauding gland kicks in.
If the man is on the level, he can engage the criticism; he can also ignore me, excoriate my comments, whatever. But his blackness doesn't make him a saint, and his comment (the style *is* the content) strikes me as more of the same palliative positivity that Americans (yeah: my bete noire) are famous for.
Maybe I'm just grumpy because I never got that "We Are the World" pin I donated 25 bucks for in 1985?
But, seriously: I'd like to read some *radically* fresh, mercilessly cogent, ideas on all this. The approved way engenders stasis. There's a slow-motion, PR genocide afoot in America: Blacks are doing triple-duty as a congenital underclass and the domestic boogieman (to prop up all those Homeland Security/Law-n-Order candidacies) and the jesters of the Republic: why?
And it all ties in (wheels within wheels) to all those other debates we've been having...
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Oct 12, 2008 6:36:36 PM
Nick:
I'd say the opening line of the article speaks volumes: "Why do so many blacks, especially men, find it so hard to grasp the opportunity that is theirs for the taking?"
Well, consider this:
"Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them 'lazy,' 'violent,' responsible for their own troubles."
If the Democratic nominee for the President of the United States faces racial discrimination of that magnitude (from his own bloody supposedly liberal-leaning party), where does that leave an ordinary black-skinned human? "Opportunity" is not the first word that springs to mind.
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Oct 12, 2008 7:09:12 PM
Steven,
I'll respond at greater length later. I've fallen behind in my chores, so I can't tarry long.
Liberal lauding gland? Maybe, but remember, you're the one who wanted free violins and Suzuki lessons for the children.
The site isn't default evidence or proof of good works, but I thought you should have given him the benefit of the doubt before launching an attack. Often people write in generic executive style because that's what they've been TAUGHT.
Maybe blacks are doing triple duty because of conventional divide and conquer strategies and to keep white folks in line. You know, if you don't toe the line, prison industries await you, too.
I don't know. The whole society is SICK nearly beyond reform or repair. That's why I've been tarrying in the Bilgrami thread, seeking insight into resacralization of the world. So far am only about a third of the way through the video discussion.
Anyway, I don't think people are going to make progress through being subjected to condemnatory sorts of speechifying, which Bill Cosby seems think is effective. But I agree with you that Norman Vincent Peale-ism, the Coue method and New Age affirmations are pernicious positivities.
More later.
Posted by: CriticalMassI | Oct 12, 2008 7:18:02 PM
"Anyway, I don't think people are going to make progress through being subjected to condemnatory sorts of speechifying..."
Of course no one's going to make progress, or fall behind, for that matter, based on the fact that I'm being blunt in expressing my personal opinion, CM. I think we have to get over that superstition: that "niceness" thing. It's good in line at the supermarket; useless in a frank discussion. If I *meant* to "condemn" what I see as the same old, age old, value-free happy talk of generic uplift in Mr. Gordon's ad/comment, the tools I chose were perfect for the job.
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Oct 12, 2008 7:39:21 PM
Oh dear. I failed to communicate. I didn't mean you, Steven. I flipped back to Bill Cosby in the article without making that abundantly clear.
And now I really am disappearing.
More anon.
P.S. Re: your tools being perfect for the job. You can still be tactful without sugar coating it.
Posted by: CriticalMassI | Oct 12, 2008 7:59:12 PM
Hi Steve,
Yeah, I agree. The article is loaded with a nasty subtext, but that's exactly the sort of substantive point I'd rather we be encouraging people to discover.
What I don't think we should be doing is ignoring the substance and focusing too much on the organization/people that the content comes from.
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Oct 12, 2008 8:53:38 PM
"The dead-eyed, prison-buffed, money-mad hero-thug"
You have a gift, Steven. I think you should consider marketing a line of "Enemies of the People" (TM) action figures. There'd be Aunt Betty (comes with Bible and Focus on the Family membership card) and Morally Relativistic Sensitive Liberal Guy (cries real tears!) and now Dead-Eye Hero-Thug (ghetto cruiser sold separately)
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Oct 12, 2008 9:56:48 PM
Funny, Vicki! And I agree with you, Nick -- this article is a tonal nightmare. One must wonder if the same tone would have done nicely for an essay about the prospects of white children who cope with the stresses of poverty as they grow up in single-parent families with abundant half-siblings. Or maybe white kids like that are just kids with an uphill battle?
It enrages me that some of the worst tragedies that blight the lives of poor children everywhere -- crucial amounts of inattention, bad role-modeling, the devastating failure of parental encouragement to achieve, to name just a few -- are from time to time niftily located in Black America. Black America would be included -- just not targeted -- if paternal responsibility and all-around good parenting were encouraged in a colorblind way by Cosby and Poussaint, among others. They have guidance of value to offer all kids in their mid-to-late teens who must struggle hard against bad odds to put a responsible adulthood together. I do not see what good it does to locate "the problem" in a black community; that's just one more way of singling out black youth in poverty as the cause of its own deeply compromised prospects.
Oh, not that I disbelieve in personal responsibility, one of the cornerstones of a good life whether or not one raises children. But I have helped to teach parenting classes to teen-aged mothers -- of all colors -- whose children have been removed from them, and this is one form of remediation that is successful only if disapproval and blame are withheld. Could there be others?
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Oct 13, 2008 12:04:29 AM
All jokes aside (funny as they are, and they *are* effing funny, they don't really count as valid points, unless Elatia and Vick are claiming that Aunt Betty isn't a sociopolitical problem, and that the dead-eyed hero-thug is welcome in their rumpus rooms any time):
The problems are that (A) the powerful need for healing narratives (and hugs, and "tact") blunts our ability to see the larger problem(s) clearly and to act (against tradition/convenience if need be)... and (B) the effect of decades of intensely focused, normative propaganda (many books, most movies, most television, most pop music) are not going to be unravelled in any timespan under decades and C)... the agonies of the congenital underclass are now (after the evil pump was primed by B) self-perpetuating.
Stating "C" is not nice, or tactful, or Politically Correct, but it is true. This is not blame-placing (the institutions of slavery and bred-in-the-bone white racism surely get the lion's share of the blame), and it's not to say that the self-perpetuating self-destruction isn't *still* accelerated by the external factors cited above.
Now, we don't stand a chance of curing Aunt Betty of *her* racism... it's a deeply-ingrained, visceral program (just visit a McCain rally). What I'd like to do is get the NWPs (Nice White Persons) to confront *theirs*. It's the *friendly racism* we can do something about.
Here's a little quiz (snork):
1. Mid-20th Century Appalachians spoke a dialect of English (part archaic, part insular pidgin) which was to some American ears near-incomprehensible; wouldn't it have been reasonable (at the very least symmetrical) to have called this dialect (or group of related dialects) "White English"? (Y) (N)
2. A black teenage male is overheard/observed listening to (and enjoying) The Smiths on his ipod. Your first response is to A) signal with a thumbs-up that you, too, once owned that record B) chuckle C) wonder if he's Gay
3. Is Condoleezza Rice
A) a Fascist B) a Pawn C) an Oreo
4. Morgan Freeman, Sidney Poitier and Nelson Mandela are all A) symbols B) graced with fair-to-middling acting skills C) dignified
5. There are two recordings of a well-known Jazz standard; one played by an all-black ensemble, the other by white Germans: are you confident that you can properly identify which is which in one listen? (Y) (N)
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Oct 13, 2008 5:43:24 AM
Steven,
Who are the Smiths?
If you believe it's self-perpetuating, what actions do you think NWPs should take to help break the cycle? Take racism lite quizzes?
By tact I meant being polite, and I know you value politeness. Maybe Gordon hasn't been back to talk to us because he thinks I was patronizing. Or maybe your dismissal of his letter was not the perfect way to start a conversation.
I think the article perpetuates quite a few distortions, particularly on incarceration:
bostonreview
You mentioned the evil pump priming. I see Canada's work as a positive (sorry) pump priming to start to reverse the damage. If you don't agree with Canada's approach, what actions do you think should be taken?
I don't know if the figure is accurate, but the article mentioned gangsta rap reaping $4 billion annually. Hurray for the free market in psychological enslavement. It's the American way. Of course, one can take the high road and make a bundle in the TV sit com business.
Posted by: CriticalMassI | Oct 13, 2008 1:21:13 PM
Post a comment