Quote from: twarga on July 21, 2005, 08:09:28 AMI took a Sociology class (yes, intro) and we watched a really good documentary about education in the U.S. Many of the schools in the poor, primarily black areas were deplorable. These kids are sent the message from age 5 that they are not worthy of a warm, dry classroom with enough books, paper, and pencils. Where's the incentive to learn? Where's the desire to spend 8 hours per day there? To add insult to injury, they would get to see nice schools when they traveled there for sports or other programs, and the inequity would become very personal. If your school didn't have working plumbing, but had crumbling ceilings and rats, would you want to go there? Would you want to teach there? This documentary showed that when the school building was safe, warm, and inviting, with a positive attitude toward learning, drop out rates decreased and test scores increased.In fact, some students in the DC public school system took matters into their own hands by taking pictures of the deplorable conditions this past spring with their cell phones and sending them to the media. Parents and students had been complaining for years about the broken lockers, crumbling walls and ceilings, and unsanitary lunch rooms to no avail. The schools wouldn't allow the media in to take their own pictures, but the students were more than happy to capture the dangerous, unsanitary conditions for them. Whenver a topic of sociology comes up, I retain a great deal of caution. The entire field is a practice of circular reasoning in the guise of pseudo-science. In hard sciences, one gathers evidence and tries to disprove a hypothesis, or in essense practices a 'must be true' mentality. Sociology works backwards, by assuming one of 2 major paradigms, functional and conflict and recklessly fits the evidence into the 'could be true' world. Obviously if one assumes a conflict paradigm and seeks evidence to support this social-stratification theory, any theory, regardless of evidence to the contrary, can be supported. No different than a pessimist, optimist and neutralist view of the world. What I find most disturbing is the acceptance of social conspiracy theories to racial problems. It simple terms, you can never challenge a conspiracy minded individual because the challenge is considered part of the conspiracy. As for conditions of the schools, I submit this is a minor issue. I use to be a sentimentalist to the same type of stories of your post, but after travelling to 3rd world countries and observing the conditions that people live in and do excel, I quickly grew a tough-love attitude. If one is more concerned about the maudlin color of paint than burying their heads in the books, that is an artifact of mismatched priorities. While I don't dispute that changing the majority view is part of the solution, the more significant cahnge has to come within the individuals of the minority groups. Why do some minority and immigrant groups excel while others continue to languish, while experiencing equivalent discrimination? The answer is related to how and the extent that individuals within the groups process their social persona. Currently, African American role-models are not a positive influence. Hollywood has some influence on this, as do the political leaders. If one is constantly barraged with allegations of injustice that has and continues to happen to their people, the negative becomes internalized and magnified beyond a level that is realistic. The effect is very similar to a person who rightly or wrongly believes their parents are to blame for the inadequacies later in life. While I remain skeptical of the magnitude, there was an interesting passage in 'blink' talking about how some groups of African Americans who were asked to identify their race on the GRE, prior to taking the exam, performed 50% worse than those African Americans who were not asked to identify. In essense, their perception of themself as part of the group has a more damaging influence than the clandestine white test-takers trying to keep groups down through standardized testing.
I took a Sociology class (yes, intro) and we watched a really good documentary about education in the U.S. Many of the schools in the poor, primarily black areas were deplorable. These kids are sent the message from age 5 that they are not worthy of a warm, dry classroom with enough books, paper, and pencils. Where's the incentive to learn? Where's the desire to spend 8 hours per day there? To add insult to injury, they would get to see nice schools when they traveled there for sports or other programs, and the inequity would become very personal. If your school didn't have working plumbing, but had crumbling ceilings and rats, would you want to go there? Would you want to teach there? This documentary showed that when the school building was safe, warm, and inviting, with a positive attitude toward learning, drop out rates decreased and test scores increased.In fact, some students in the DC public school system took matters into their own hands by taking pictures of the deplorable conditions this past spring with their cell phones and sending them to the media. Parents and students had been complaining for years about the broken lockers, crumbling walls and ceilings, and unsanitary lunch rooms to no avail. The schools wouldn't allow the media in to take their own pictures, but the students were more than happy to capture the dangerous, unsanitary conditions for them.
Sociology is a pseudo-science. And even that is being VERY generous. In reality, a more appropriate description is something along the lines of total sh*t. Its nothing more than liberal indoctrination taught in universities.
"Curiously, when bombarded with facts and history, white people seem to absolve themselves of responsibility more than what is realistic. Funny, huh?"And what the heck would you be talking abotu here? You REALLY think that white people today are to blame for the injustices that took place two hundred years ago, and that they should somehow PAY for this? Give me a break.
Quote from: ImVinny! on July 21, 2005, 10:04:20 AM"Curiously, when bombarded with facts and history, white people seem to absolve themselves of responsibility more than what is realistic. Funny, huh?"And what the heck would you be talking abotu here? You REALLY think that white people today are to blame for the injustices that took place two hundred years ago, and that they should somehow PAY for this? Give me a break.Also, I think you're losing perspective of the fact that these injustices are not isolated to "two hundred years ago". The US government praticed and enforced discrimination against people of color a mere 50 years ago.
HowardDavis - your philosophy class was obviously intro then. Who were you studying? Kant? Or were you studying Mill? We discriminate against the majority all the time. We discriminate against the minority all the time. I think it depends on the reason. Study past intro to philosophy, then get back to me. And what the hell are you saying discrimination doesn't justify discrimination for? That's a stupid statement. Affirmative action isn't trying to justify the discrimination of the past. Putting stupid comments in only detracts from your arguement overall for future reference.Long post...been a long day. Hope you all have a good night though.