Slumdog Millionaire

But…but…those poor can't vote for an American politician, and in the end, providing causes for politicians to justify the bribes they take in office is really what "the people" and the specifically "the poor" are for. If a particular group of poor can't get a politician elected, expand his power or provide bribes or if less poverty for destitute Indians means that an American might have to adjust by going through the "horror" of finding a different job, then those poor are useless poor. Utterly inconsequential. I'm obviously being sarcastic, but my sarcasm doesn't make it untrue.

My father-in-law was a doctor with the WHO, stationed in Delhi and Bangladesh among other similar places. He spent a lot of his time teaching primary care – teaching people basic sanitation like digging a hole in the ground for excrement, boiling water before drinking it and not denying water to people who suffer from diarrhea because denying them water would kill them. They thought that diarrhea meant that the sick person (usually afflicted with Cholera or dysentery) had too much water in his system. My husband saw a fight break out between orphaned street children and a couple of stray dogs over a moldy orange in Dhaka. This is poverty. Most Americans have no idea what poverty is.

"My husband saw a fight break out between orphaned street children and a couple of stray dogs over a moldy orange in Dhaka. This is poverty. Most Americans have no idea what poverty is.
Posted by: Methinks | Dec 2, 2008 6:14:02 PM"

Americans see the pictures infrequently but have no ability to comprehend. You have to walk through it, do business in it, have some sort of relationship to it as your husband did to comprehend that poverty is not some hollywood script that people can walk away from. It is today, it will be tomorrow.

When my crew left Africa in 1962 I saw knifings in fights over the garbage and trash we threw out in dumpsters on the docks. Along with the scenes from Lagos, Pointe Noire, Freetown, Dakar, Monrovia, et.al., I'll never forget that.

You're right, Aaron. I have seen too many conservatives show as much lack of concern about "the poor" as I have seen liberal disdain about "the rich" in policy discussions. Both of those views are inherently polarizing.

I have been thinking quite a bit about tone lately. Being a professor in an astoundingly liberal campus, I find that tone is more important than content. My own politics are opaque to my students as a matter of principle, but I have become keenly aware that positioning makes all the difference, which is why I tend to position policy alternatives in terms of the expected benefits to society's poorest. The idea that free trade may be good for the average person because it expands choice and reduces prices means little to the "socially conscious." But the fact that WalMart shoppers are disproportionately lower income folks, and millions of Asians are being lifted out of poverty by sourcing to WalMart at least gets people to rethink their knee-jerk sense of WalMart as pure evil.

I find that the most difficult barrier in policy discussions is the sense that intent is more important than effect. If the people creating call centers are merely seeking profit in providing their benefits, then their intent is seen as evil, and their benefits are seen as accidental. It's not until I suggest that secondary consequences of policy often have a greater impact than primary effect, and that secondary effects tend to be concentrated on the poor, that people begin to open their minds to economic thinking.

People actually like to think in economic terms, but doing so forces them to exercise new muscles. Economic thinking is stunted by the way issues are discussed in the popular press (I don't blame the press for this). When people start to think of secondary consequences as predictable, not accidental, then they can begin to see that those who argue liberalization policies are actually motivated by the same intent that motivates the most liberal among us.

MHodak, I find your perspective on how you present your material to be quite interesting. While I can certainly agree with the approach, I'm not at all sure I agree with the intended results.

I saw the movie referenced here at an art-house cinema, as a part of an "indoctrination" course presented by the bank for which I work. The bank has transferred 3,000 jobs to Bangalore in an attempt to engage in labor arbitrage. Staff locally were asked to participate in a series of "cultural familiarity" events in which management attempted to convince everyone that offshoring jobs is SUCH a wonderful policy.

Yes, you're absolutely correct in that the knock-on effect of this retrenchment is to increase the standard of living in India, and the massive investment in new infrastructure (power plant, water plant, new buildings and a new corporate campus, complete with residential facilities) will benefit Bangalor immensely.

However, there is also a knock-on effect in the Bank, as 1,500 staff are delcared redundant and released from service. So, while labor arbitrage makes the lives of Indians better it does so at the expense of Australians.

How do you balance one against the other?

Is it "better" (A very imprecise term) to put 1,500 Aussies out of work in favor of 3,000 Indians? Is there something more "noble" about impoverishing some to lift others out of poverty? Do Aussies "deserve" jobs more than Indians, or vice versa?

Yes, when thinking in 'economic terms' one needs to consider more than just the obvious initial effect of a given decision. As you say, it's the secondary and tertiary influences that often carry greater weight.

Personally, I am not one of those folks who believes that I owe something to those who live in poverty. Yes, in the "birth lottery" I managed to be born into an affluent culture (An American working in Australia). Others lost the lottery and ended up in places far less desirable.

That, however, neither indebts me to them or them to me. On that basis, my sympathy for the residents of Bangalore is far less than it is for the fellow in the office next to mine. So, I work toward making it increasingly difficult to transfer jobs to India and easier to hire staff in Australia.

Lastly, we hear – constantly – that the quality of labor in India equals that elsewhere in the world and that transferring tasks to Bangalore is a cost-effective way of accomplishing the same job. To that I respond: Rubbish.

It takes anywhere from 2x-3x as many staff in India to perform the same task as a single individual in Melbourne. Quality is measurably lower (especially when using standardized quality metrics), turnaround time is abysmal, management costs are higher, and there are cultural issues that make reliance in Indian staff very, very difficult.

(As an example of cultural issues, we are unable to rely in Indian staff to engage in anything other than a rote performance of their job desccription. Indian staff are not capable of meaningful analytical thought when it comes to problem solving, analysis or design. We can only use Indian staff for the most basic tasks, and even then – again, using standard measurements – they're substandard.)

Unfortunately, most companies in Australia have offshored their customer service call centres. It's functionally impossible to talk with an Aussie or American regarding your phone bill, utilities services, computer questions or credit cards. I wouldn't mind if the staff answering the phone were more than living cyphers, reading from a script and incapable of varying from that planned pabulum. However, none of the call center staff can do more than rudimentary functions and do them poorly.

No, when it comes to this subject – one for which our esteemed hosts seem to hold near and dear to their hearts – I don't share in this sappy, softheaded perspective that offshoring and outsourcing is better for "everyone".

I regret having to say that I am shocked at the intelligence and respect to differences of thought and opinion on this blog. I guess I have come to expect the lowest common denominator on the web. The quality of the comments is indicative of the minds that read Roberts.

Yes, we can have deep intellectual discussions about poverty, but what dedicated EconTalk followers really want to know about your moviegoing experience is: did you buy popcorn? The large tub?

Aaron,

Without revealing too much, I didn't have the same advantages as you and I lived in a South Bronx ghetto in the 70's. So, I'm somewhat familiar with American poverty.

I love the way you think – mostly the part where you own it as your opinion and don't wish to coerce others to behave as you would. I don't know what it means to "write off American poverty". How does not writing it off manifest itself?

Besides the politicization of "the poor", I point out that there American poverty – even the one you describe – doesn't compare to poverty in most of the rest of the world. The reason I point that out is that there are those make such impassioned speeches about "ending poverty" while opposing the very opportunities to end it.

Compassion for people in terrible circumstances regardless of the country the are in is a very nice thing. I find too often people confuse their feelings of condescension with compassion (why would you feel that someone born with normal intelligence needs your compassion?), but that's a discussion for another time.

We are not equally capable. But we are also not equally endowed with good health, long lives, luck and beauty either. We are also not equally motivated. Even if two people are equally capable, they do not have the same preferences. For example, I gave up having children and almost all my leisure time in favour of my career. Most of my equally capable friends chose children and more leisure time over career and money. If you're going redistribute my income to equalize my income with theirs, shouldn't you redistribute some of their children and leisure time to me? Absurd. How do you differentiate between conscious decisions and capability?

As for rationality, I believe we are all rational. I think behaviours appear irrational to outsiders because they don't have all the information that went into the decision. Thus, I think that people are too quick to judge a decision as irrational simply because they wouldn't have made the same decision in the same circumstances.

Interesting conversation, Aaron.

IMHO

Let me address the last paragraph of Methinks' post above: I agree with her to the extent we would be talking individuals. However, when one can see over a broad spectrum of people the same actions that can only be called irraltional, whither then does our conclusions go?

I also agree with you about feeling compassion; however, again my compassion and yours probably part company in many ways. For instance I can feel compassion for the children of a marriage that is abusive, regardless of which parent is the abuser. I can feel compassion for the children of the parents one of which is an alcoholic. Etc. however, I feel no real compassion for the parents themselves. The wife/husband of an abusive mate is obviously in the marriage as the result of a rushed or poor decision, a decision that may not have been made had more time been devoted to the selection process of mating. The same with alcoholism.

Lust, ignorance, rebellion, desparation, and pregnancy. has driven many a youngster to get married to mates that time proves to be clearly sub-human in love, concern, and attitude. It is tough to be sure, but avoidable by some clear tough thinking. Do we only learn clear tough thinking by having to suffer bad choices? I don't think so.

In essence what I am saying is that when I know that a person's misery is almost certainly the result of their own poor decision making, I find it difficult to feel compassion beyond the superficial. I might extend a helping hand, but when I see the hand is now being abused it will be withdrawn.

You see Aaron, you get that American poverty is plateaus above poverty in the rest of the world, but how many of your circle of friends do? How many of your acquaintances do? What percentage of Americans can see pictures or video of a stick thin black woman holding a stick thin swollen belly child to her hip wandering through a dry desert wasteland for as far as the eye can see in search of wood for the fire to cook her meal on and understand that it isn't a script that ends when the camera goes away. That is life for one hell of a lot of people. In pure simple desperation where would this stick thin woman with the stick thin child go when the pangs of hunger (life) grow so great that her impulse is to lay down and die? I tell you where that is, Aaron, it doesn't exist. She lays down and dies.

In America there are some, probably could count them on your fingers and toes, that exist in that kind of poverty; but most of what we call poverty is regal compared to the scenario I just descrived in the last paragraph. In America when those who feel pangs of hunger that desperate, they simple find a nearby rescue mission and are fed, cleaned, and provided with a bunk for the night. All across America, the number that lay down and die, because of lack of help, in any given year can be counted on one hand.

There is a huge huge tremendous large difference in what we call poverty and what others call poverty.

Africa is not the only place that has poverty that is beyond American's comprehension, by no means is it the only.

Aaron, the Asians (mostly Vietnamese) that came to the Houston, Gulf Coast area, in the late 70s and 80s were not welcomed with open arms by the locals. In the shrimping industry it even escalated to shooting confrontations before cool heads stepped in on both sides, Vietnamese and Gulf Coasters; and, accomplished education of the new Vietnamese shrimpers to laws and customs and educated the locals to the understanding that they were dealing with people who had drive, desire, ambition, intelligence, and a desire to fit in. In the end it all worked out. In other areas it took Vietnamese time to become accepted in the fields of medicine, business, education, or in other words general society. But, they accomplished it to a remarkable degree in just a few decades. Upon their original immigration they suffered the pain of the same prejudice as any other group. They just dealt with it better.

I guess what I am saying is that if institutional racism can be used to explain why one group hasn't made progress, why didn't it hold back others?

Does the existence of exceptional individuals deny the generalities? In my opinion the answer is no. Do the generalities disprove the existence of exceptional individuals? Again my opinion is no.

If I write the word, Amish, doesn't your mind pull up certain generalities to apply to that word? Would either of us be willing to be that those generalities fit every single Amish person. I doubt it. However, would we both be willing to bet that the majority fit the generalities? I would, don't know about you.

Why is it that when one group hits the brick wall of institutional racism they simply step back figure it out and do an end run on it? Whereas, some others make that wall their very existence, and allowing it to be the roadblock that they claim it is? Attitude? Enculturation? Here I freely admit that I do not know for certain. But, did not the Asians come from a culture far removed from ours in so many ways? They experienced culture shock equal to being freed from slavery, in my opinion.

Then there is the fact that most blacks that were sold into slavery were sold by their own kind, their own countrymen, who obviously did not consider them human. Their own neighbors rounded them up like cattle and sold them off. They immigrated from the world of slavery to the world of freedom, much like the Vietnamese, only blacks had the advantage of knowing how the system worked, and they are still blowing it. Before you stand firm on the belief that only blacks were considered subhuman, I suggest you read you history about how the Chinese who were brought over to build the railroads were treated. Check out the historical documentation of the signs, "Irish need not apply" or words to the same effect. That Walter Williams' great grandfather was a slave (don't know this for a fact, only assume it) limited his ability in just what way? How did it limit his elevation in the world of academics?

The wall of institutional racism, is something that, I personally believe, many do not want removed because that is the crutch that brings the welfare.

How do we build a world of Kum-ba-ya singers when some will help build the fire to sing around and others always wait for the fire to be built (and then complain because they didn't get front row seats)?

All across the world the scenario is the same. If one wants to live like their parents, then one simply does what their parents did and it usually works out. If one wants better than what their parents had then one must (I repeat – MUST) do things that their parents refused to do. America is no different in this.

You expressed excitement about the people of New Orleans making good choices in education post Katrina; Yea, bro, I can get excited about anything that helps my children as long as "you are paying for it"! But, will I, have I, ever made the effort to provide (fund) those choices on my own? Ahhh, different story, eh? What does the hard historical evidence tell us about that? You can't just dismiss the past out of hand. Past performance counts when assessing the future potential.

Let's just sit back and watch and see how long this New Orleaner's enthusiasm holds. When it begins to take effort on the part of the parents, I wonder what will happen?

As long as you are paying for it, Aaron, and as long as you are willing to continue paying for it, I can envision one hell of a life of education and experience for myself.

But, what's my track record of doing it for myself? That's the question that needs to be asked, in this case; and, in the case of the housing crisis. What's my track record?

When you are paying for it, how long are you going to accept my endless bushel baskets of excuses I dump on you each time you see failure and you ask where your money is going? At what point do you say enough is enough, my compassion for you is destroying the good life I wanted to build for my family?

Aaron, do you know why the military academys are so successful at graduating a high percentage of very well educated men and women? It really is simple. Not only are the individuals typically self driven to begin with, but they do not spend their school years sitting by, surrounded by, deadbeats who don't give a shit, everyone is self motivated and ambitious.

What happens to your boy or girl when she spends the majority of her educational years surrounded by (all those she could touch with a 15 foot pole) deadbeats who couldn't care less about an education and only want to get the f..k out for the day and go get wasted on the drug de jour and then blast their brains out with hip hop or rap? And, those deadbeats around your child, Aaron, we both know they aren't all black or brown, many are white who have adopted the attitudes. The point is, how easy is it in those circumstances for your child to concentrate on the education and maintain his/her own individual ambition and drive?

Last but not least, I often wondered in the past why blacks have not turned within as a group and created their own "Ole Boy" networks, that should have happened somewhere in the late 1800s. Why aren't there sections of cities with heavy black populations where upscale shops, restaurants, and fabrication plants as well as entertainment can be found in what is considered the "black" area? Ladies say here in Houston, "Let's go shopping on Harwin street or Chinatown", but, never do I hear any of them say, "Let's go down to the 3rd. 4th, or 5th Ward and go shopping". There is nothing there, and it has been how many years, 150?

I wish I knew the reasons or the answers to my own questions about this reality, but I don't have them. I only know what I have seen here in America and in my extended travels and living in other countries around the world, and I can only compare that with what I see here.

In closing, it is a curious thing and I mention it in relation to your question about what I think of immirgrants from black Africa that have come to America since slavery ended, and I would assume this to mean most particualarly in the last 30 years. I can only tell you what I observed when I spent time in Africa.

We had a sizable black segment to our operation. Those American blacks universally despised the black Africans, considering them to be less, and it showed when they went out into the community; and, the black Africans universally detested the black Americans for their wealth and arrogance.

How that translates into black Africans being accepted into American black communities is something I as yet have no knowledge of.

I take people face to face and give everyone equal opportunity to earn my respect and trust; but, I refuse to dismiss that vast amount of data I have accumulated about generalities when dealing with groups. I will (and have) work, play, socialize and trust anyone until they give me proof that it just can not be.

Only at the most basic level of humanity could we be said to be all the same and even that isn't consistent.

IMHO

One of the most interesting and powerful things about this discussion is how different our experiences AND our perceptions of our experiences are.

vidyohs, thank you, as faultolerant said, for your honestly. I think there's a lot of truth in what you've stated, especially with regard to what one needs to do to survive, to transcend a parent's circumstance, etc.

Just a point of clarification – when I mentioned differentiating between black Americans and other groups, I was thinking Carribbean immigrants. As a generality, they tend to follow more typical patterns that the Asians you've described. They work together, they strive and move up.

My own experience of black America is different than yours. I realized this reading your post. First of all, I want to say, too, that I'm not, emphatically not saying that continuing the status quo welfare state for anyone, the way it's been run, is a particularly good idea. I (like most of the Americans of any stripe that I know) espouse personal responsibility, look down on people who seem content to live off of handouts, etc.

So, given that difference I'll tell you about another one. My parents were part of the early 1960's civil rights movement. They're too old (thank god) to be hippies, which meant they marched from Selma to Montgomery, attended the I Have A Dream speech and took part in life-threatening southern voter drives. So, I have grown up exposed to the many many black people that they knew, the vast majority of whom were hard-working, church-going honest, well-heeled people who just wanted to be afforded the basic rights and dignities that their white counterparts had. They wanted to drink from the same fountains and vote in the same elections and be able to go into a store and exchange a friendly hello with their white neighbors without worrying they'd be chased by a lynch mob. Did those desires, did that struggle, keep them from working hard and paying rent on time and trying to make things better for themselves? Hell no. They did both. When they got those things they celebrated, then went back to work.

Then there's the issue of culture. I'm in what you might call the culture industry, an industry that African Americans have contributed to mightily. I don't have the same aversion to all hip hop you seem to – though what's on the radio now is dreck. So I don't see most black people as being willing to accept a handout and live like their parents did. I see many many as being strivers through creative expression. Black people were integral in inventing jazz, blues, rock and roll, all of which define America's vaunted place culturally in the world. When I travel (not as widely as you have, but throughout Western Europe, the former Soviet Union and Mexico), everyone is mimicking American musical forms, often then refracting it through native forms again, which is fantastic. Everyone sees American politics as a cartoon, and American culture as incredibly evolved. I know this is a generalization – but we seem to be trafficking in them here – so much of that culture is based in African American synthesis and invention, that hearing the impact it's had on the world it becomes impossible to be anything but in awe.

And incidentally when I teach "business of art" workshops the conversation is often on how the arts contribute to a vibrant economy, so perhaps there are extrapolations a better-versed economist could make here.

And vidyohs. I've worked in Houston's 3rd Ward. (I work as a playwright and actor and was commissioned – don't worry not with taxpayer money – to make a play there) At various times in history it was a cultural destination – people shopped there, went to concerts there, etc. It was (and is becoming again) Houston's Harlem, it's Bourbon Street. There's a great art organization that helps (god forbid, I know) helps neighborhood residents in trouble get back on their feet and also houses art installations and performances. It is called Project Row Houses and it's run by neighborhood residents. It's become internationally known as a community-building, wealth building art and social service project that arose directly out of its own population. No handouts. Self reliance. The art is often of mixed caliber but the vibe, if you'll pardon the expression, is fantastic. There is immense possibility in those rooms. It serves the children of abusisve parents, and serves the parents who've chosen to exit those relationships.

In NY there's Harlem, there's Fort Greene, there's Weeksville. So my town has several destination spots. Please come visit!!!

I don't dismiss your generalizations or your broad experience, but I hope you'll take mine into account, too.

And last, my friends understand the differences among American, African and Eastern European poverty the same way I do. They wouldn't be my friends otherwise!

Well Aaron, I got up this morning, read your post and started writing. Then I had to put it aside and take my wife to keep an appointment with her eye surgeon.

Now I see your addendum, I reread your post and I read my beginning and I just feel that we have pretty much said and made our points on the subject of poverty in America. So I deleted all that I wrote.

On other issues that came up I could go a long time but I won't go into detail.

You mention all the contributions blacks have made to our society and I agree; however, there are some "contributions" you forgot to mention. For instance there is the coarsening of our culture in many ways: The word motherfucker as a noun or adjective and used in common everyday language. There are the senseless aggrandizing self congratulatory excessive displays after even the most minor accomplishment such as making a free throw in a basketball game, tackling a runner, or carrying the ball across the goal line. There is the pants worn down and buckled around the thighs with the ass hanging out in underwear. There are the boom boxes in inappropriate public places and the cars with sub-woofers that deafen everyone within 3 hundred yards and break dishes at a half mile. And an official attitude from government that woe betide anyone that say them nay in a forceful way.

The concept of good sportsmanship has been shot out of the saddle by the me me me me me, I did it, I did it, I did it, look at me, look at me, look at me, displays that began with mainstreaming of the black athlete.

Could possibly the continued poverty of blacks somehow be laid at the feet of their so-called leaders? Since Martin Luther King, the black leadership seems to have devolved onto the shoulders of hustlers like Jesse Jackson, Gus Savage, Al Sharpton, et. al. who can muster some support, but it never translates into improvement in the lives of blacks. It only seems to enrich Jesse's bank account and position. Are the black leaders in any African nation any different from Jesse? It seems not.

The Asians and the Middle Easteners created their power in the face of the Anglos and essentially owe them nothing in the way of obligations when they meet to discuss issues. Black leaders seem to have been created, back door style, and also seem to owe allegiance to the broader Anglo power structure. Jesse et. al. are given a lot of leeway, but in the end seem to march to the tune of the Democrat leadership/party.

Anyway, I want to leave this discussion with a quote and a comment.

"Wars have seldom been won by fatalism, and battlefield victories against great odds have regularly changed the direction of history. "One of the perennial infirmities of human beings," writes the late British historian Arnold Toynbee, "is to ascribe their own failure to forces that are entirely beyond their control."

Aaron, I am impressed with your intellect and ability to express yourself. So, go with me here and let's paraphrase at least part of that quote and see if your imagination takes you in the same direction mine took me when I first read that.

Success has seldom been won by fatalism, and advancement-in-society victories against great odds have regualrly changed the world. "One of the perennial infirmities of human beings," writes Arnold Toynby, "is to ascribe their own failure to forces that are entirely beyond their control."

Do you see how that paraphrase fits our discussion precisely? The concepts are the same.

My rural life in Texas and Arizona taught me self responsibility and consideration for my fellow man. This coupled with hard nosed leadership early in my navy career also strengthened my belief in speaking the language and expressing myself in the words of responsibility.

No one who ever worked for me, works with me, is my children, or is married to me ever says, "I didn't have time."

They learned quickly that that phrase could only be possible in the most extreme dire circumstances involving sudden natural disaster such as a comet strike.

The phrase is, "I didn't make the time."

The phrase, "I couldn't do it" in my world becomes, "I didn't do it."

I never gave a task to anyone that "couldn't do it".

The point is that when I am in the position of teacher to anyone, I teach first and foremost that there will be no excuses and we will learn to talk the language of responsibility. Without that standard too many conversations wander aimlessly, or become much like a tennis game in which an attempt to express a thought is batted back and forth over the net until someone finally accidentally hits a winner by using the right word.

Have you ever been in conversations like that? What's the point? The point is that if we won't even speak the truth to ourselves how can we be expected to succeed at anything.

Any roadblocks in the path of blacks since the case Brown Vs The Board of Education back in the fifties are roadblocks that are self constructed and can be removed by simply being honest with oneself in planning the needed tactics to end personal poverty.

As Arnold Toynby, above, is pointing out too many people blame others for their failure…..even when they know that haven't even made an initial effort to start much less succeed or fail.

No excuses.

Perhaps black America has been taught to place its destiny in the hands of others and only the rare few ever step and out and say, "Bullshit! I am going to succeed on my own." Perhaps the teachers were your grandparents and my grandparents, the leaders they accepted, or it is possible that black people themselves simply took the "you owe me" road.

In 150 years it seems to me, IMHO, that a mass exodus from the bottom would have been attempted, were it truly in the general character to be willing to exchange constant and intense effort for progress off the floor of income.

Perhaps, Aaron, I am being harsh and the mass exodus I speak of is finally happening as we discuss this. I hope so. It would be great for all of us.

I have quoted Ayn Rand before and I do again; "The very best thing you can do for the poor, is don't be one." (I add on, "and teach that to others."

Great discussion, sir, and I appreciate your consideration of my views and I hope I have offered the same to you.

Aaron,

Hope you come back for one last look, because there are ends to tie up.

Wish we could sit and do this over a good glass of red or maybe a glass of Samuel Adams Ale because it would go so much faster. I really do have rational reasons and easily explainable reasons for thinking the way I do.

Yes we do have much in common in our views, and it isn't ironic at all, it is natural. People who have an intellect and use it, if they do not make a practice of lying to themselves, will usually see things pretty much the same way.

My daughter holds a Masters in dance from the U. of Colorado at Boulder, she dances, teaches, and coreographs for a couple of groups. Her fiance holds a Masters in music, and is an outstanding player of the vibes, or any percussion instrument. He has his own group, "the Greg Harris Quintet", and he plays in the Bluegrass music group known as the "Flexigrass", he teaches as well as plays.

They move in the arts circles and have different views on blacks than I do, and my daughter and I discussed this on Thanksgiving day as we walked my small pasture. Good Gosh, Aaron, I know that people view things from different perspectives! However, is the perspective a valid one for making decisions based on the broad perspective or is it too narrow?

My gosh how stupid would I be to assume that because my neighbor was white and a good guy, that all white neighbors are going to be good guys? I make my points based not on the individual, but on the broader generalities and there are differences, extreme differences, that show up when one does that.

Of course white kids have boom boxes and sub-woofers in their cars, now. My point was that that was a culture coarsening that came from the blacks, not something that originated in the white community. The white kids are just copying as they have been carefully taught to do by the massive push beginning in the late 60s to not just mainstream black culture but to make an icon of it. Please don't try to tell me this didn't happen, I watched it.

My very intelligent daughter and her husband of the time, sat in front of me in the year 2000 and answered my question, "what percentage of the American population is black", with the answer of 40% give or take a one.

They could only have formed that opinion as a result of the constant enculturation of the MSM, TV in particular, and the PC schooling they received.

When I told them it was actually 12%, they couldn't believe me. I had to drag them to hard data that made my point.

Why did they get the idea that America had a 40% black population? Maybe it was because that more often than not on TV if 3 people are shown in a commercial or show, at least one of them are black. TV, in its shows and commercials presents a totally unrealistic view of the balance of races in America. It does so because in the late 60s those who move America decided that it would be so.

I can guarantee you, Aaron, that if one white kid, or black kid in my hometown of 1957, had installed sub-woofers or speakers capable of that kind of disturbance in their cars and driven through town, they would never made it once through town from one end to the other before someone stopped them and destroyed the speakers and probably kicked the shit out of the kid. And, in my opinion, deservedly so. The cops definitely would have had they come on them first. Plus, when they got home and the parents found out what happened the kid would have had the shit kicked out of him again. There was no CPS that the kid could call and complain to, and thank God for that.

What happened? (Rhetorical question, because I know what happened. Do you?)

I would no more make the claim that the race of black people is sub-human than I would try and make the case the muirgeo is a capitalist. But, please don't try and tell me that there aren't differences, not when I have walked the places of their origination plus the places of their stagnation here.

I was being gracious in my last post about black exodus from the economical bottom because frankly I haven't seen the evidence yet. I take you at your word on the 3rd ward, but I can tell you that if there is something happening there, the vast majority of Houstonians don't have a clue about it. Of course that leaves the 2nd, 4th and 5th wards to account for.

I too can take you places in Houston where there are dynamics that might lead you to believe that something large is happening, but it is an isolated illusion, the only thing happening is where I took you.

When I met my wife in 1989, she spent the next three years being periodically terrified at the places I took her in our shopping or restauant seeking. I couldn't understand her fear or apprehension at being in the areas I took her to. Hell, people are great when you treat them as interesting equals. She eventually settled down and realized how much fun having a huge diverse community can be. We go to Mexico, China, Cuba, Guatemala, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Spain, England, Turkey, India, Japan, Chile, Morocco, and Thailand for dinner. We get along and have a ball everywhere we go because on the individual level, or in small settings, people act one way, whereas in large populations they act different.

However, at the same time we both work still and we share observations about how corporate life is conducted. Her as an employee and myself as an independent techinical video contractor. I see the corporations from the outside, she sees hers from the inside.

What is one conclusion? If you hire a black woman, for Gods sake don't try to fire her until you have documented her piss poor performance for at least two years and even then expect a law suit. I mean a black woman has a two-fer going on you, black and female. And, don't think for one moment, Aaron, that those black women aren't totally aware of it.

One other conclusion: if it comes to a question of the group's performance or protecting the position of a shitty lazy black co-worker……baby, you can forget the group's performance. They will close ranks on you faster than a Cheeta can run down a sick Gnu.

I sincerely do think that the day will come when blacks, as a race, take their place in earned economic equality among men; but, I still don't see it happening yet. Too much excuse making, too much welfare, too much "you owe me" mentality.

People like me, that remember history as a happening not just a writing, will soon be gone and the PC crowd will have it all their own way.

It will be a sad day when that happens.

Think of the dead sea.

99.5 of black people voted for Obama despite the fact of total lack of qualifications, despite the fact that hope and change was an obvious lie, despite the fact that he could not get a security clearnace to work in any government department requiring one because of his past associations, despite the self confessed affinity for Islam over American freedom that he wrote, didn't matter….Obama was half black and that was close enough. Not all black, but close enough to get a lock step vote.

Long lasting structures always have a good foundation, plants always have a root, and cultural practices always have a point of origination that includes time and creator.

Subwoofers in cars did not originate with white kids in white communities, no more than did pants belted around the thighs did.

Senseless extravagant self aggrandizing arrogant posturing over minor acheivements did not originate with white athletes.

That those things are copied by whites merely attest to the fact that humans seem to always sink to the lowest common denominator unless flogged to maintain standards.

Aaron,

In my opinion, the answer to your first question above is that circling the wagons is a defensive move and defensive moves are holding moves, protecting turf, they are not about gaining ground or position. While a successful lawsuit on discrimination charges may benefit one individual in reality it hurts the group in the long run. It can, and does, encourage many prospective employers to take longer harder more evaluating looks at black prospective employees. And, to complete the answer, no this isn't what other competing races do. At least not from what I have seen in three states I have lived and worked in. Again, in my opinion, from long observation no other races relies on government intervention and support as do the blacks. And, yes blacks in America have had a rough row to hoe, but again I go back to the blatant prejudice and discrimination againt the Irish, Polish, Italians, and yes Jewish people during the late 1800s and early 1900s when those groups immigrated. That prejudice and discrimination was just as crippling as what blacks face. The Japanese even wound up in concentration camps.

The answer to your second question is yes. I absolutely think white people, youth, are capable of exhibiting behavior of the lowest denominator and of being led into such by those who have been annointed the "ultimate in cool", plus it pisses their parents off and that makes it "way cool". White people are as easily trained as any other people and white people have been carefully trained since the mid 1960s to think that anything a black person does is the "ultimate in cool", particularly black entertainers, and something to be emulated. If the powers that be ignore people like me and continue the training of the children then people like me are virtually powerless to stop it and as we have seen over and over a repeated lie (or idea) becomes the truth rather quickly. ((Now this topic goes really much more deep than your question and my answer, but I doubt if either of us has the time to spend working it out via this post or even e-mail)) It is not that white kids are powerless, it is that they have been indoctrinated in the superior coolness of blacks and while they don't always universally copy, at the same time they don't question, they don't dare question. All kids (black included) have been carefully enculturated in the idea that to question the official PC line is being judgmental and being judgmental is an evil attitude of angry white men.

Fortunately the black fad of pants around the thighs thing hasn't been wildly accepted by much but infrequent fools in other races.

One of my points is that of the perpetuated myth of black superiority in "coolness and soul", but the other is what began this discussion and that is that I believe that blacks position at the lower ends of the economic scale is not to be laid at the feet of white people.

Aaron, LOL, to tell me that there was a golden age of hip hop music is like telling me that there was a golden age of television. No there wasn't. Well, okay, to be honest I will retract that….if you like hip hop then hip hop had a golden age, an opinion that I can not argue with your right to have.

My music collection and appreciation spans the globe, from China, through asia, the middle east, Africa, the Americas and even Europe. From Japanese Koto solos to hard rock, I can put it on for you. But, brother I just have to tell you that if you want hip hop or rap, I am at a loss.

To tell you the truth, Aaron, I have long been afraid for where our people (Americans) are going because I have seen the quality of education drop so badly and the quality of training in character and the ability to think independently drop right with it.

I hate to do it but I have to say that I see TV as being the prime source of mental garbage and sewage that has debased our national character and is debasing it today. In order to get and keep viewers each network, each source, is compelled to constantly move the standards of quality and taste lower and lower, each competing to offer the more shocking, vulgar, and titillating so that their ratings will deserve advertising dollars. I see rap as a so-called art form in just that light, it is sewage at the most elemental level.

It is late and I have an early start tomorrow so I am going to end this tonight. However, I really do have some comments to make in answer to the rest of your post. Which is thought provoking, just today I did two intellectual hairpin turns on a thought. I particualarly want to go back to the language of excuse. Reread the large paragraph about your mother and her experiences.

Hola Aaron,

Before I get into this I'd like to address the brighter side of things.

I briefly checked out your website. If the hosts do shut us down then perhaps we can continue via e-mail. You mentioned coming to Houston frequently, if you (and your wife) do and you'd like to get together for dinner and conversation my wife and I would enjoy that. Just bear in mind that I am the Jurassic T-Rex here.

As you mentioned, Houston has become a very cosmopolitan city and has some very good restaurants. If you go to the Boulder, Colorado area you could do worse than contact my daughter and her guy as well as your own people. Greg and Lynda are collaborating on fusing his music and her dance together for performances.

Now, the language of excuse. I am very familiar with it and I know the personal and public devestation it can bring.

The large paragraph you wrote above about your mother's experience contained the language and intent of excuse and you slipped right into it, unconciously I am sure.

There are people who wear their pants around their thighs and there are people who have baggy pants. The difference is easy to distinguish. Those who have reached adulthood and who have baggy pants but have had no indoctrination in belts which are designed to clasp the pants around the waist and hold them up albeit however baggy they may be, are truly rare individuals wouldn't you say? The first is intentional and the latter sloppy at worst. Can children look sloppy as the result of circumstances that are in their parents control? Absolutely. However, I think as I said above that the difference is easy to spot and easily correctable if the child's attitude is good.

I firmly believe in my Iceberg Theory of social observation, that says when one first notices an aberration of behavior in the populace it means that the aberration is already too prevelant to overturn, because by then you are only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

If a black kid wears his hiking shorts belted around his thighs while in the deep forest and there are none to see him but the trees, is he still "ultra cool" or just stupid?

Would you have the intellectual courage to question the soundness of that kid's thinking and character. Would you ask yourself the deep question of "why would someone put form over function when it is an obvious detriment to his performance"? What mental processes, or lack thereof, does that reveal about the person?

An act of that nature in such circumstances isn't just a juevenile rebellion, it does say something deeper about the person.

So we see men wearing their pants buckled around their thighs, ass hanging out in underwear, and we know that it is happening in numbers that are uncombatable. Those numbers say about the group what the act says about the individual, would you not agree?

BTW I am not fixated on asses hanging out of low slung pants, it is just one of the many, and very obvious, social idiocies that I see as a cry for attention merited on form rather than substance, a cry very common in the black population, IMHO.

Form as I am using it here means that a behavior that is done to create an illusion of worth or importance. Function or substance I use to denote behaviors that do provide tangible measurable worth or value.

Back to the deep forest question. I live in the country, semi-sort of, our rural development is country and everyone generally has two to three acres and houses can be spaced well apart, with country open spaces to the backs and/or sides. When we bought this place, our view from the front was of open fields, scrub pastures, and some fingers of forest.

Now I have a neighbor across the road and their house occupies the third of my view to the left. The family is black and my wife and I know them and get along with them well. George and I shared several pots of coffee during the aftermath of hurricane Ike, and since he isn't country by nature my experience in living country has been an aid to him on several occassions. George's house, on 3 acres, faces the road at the bend, to both sides he has forest or scrub field, and in back a huge 200 acres rice field…..country.

George has a son, that seems to be useless as tits on a boar hog. I know he holds no job, he is definitely beyond High School, does not go to college, maybe has been involved in armed robbery, and has fathered at least one out-of-wedlock child who is now also being raised by George and Anita.

My contract video is erratic to say the least, so I am home at irregular times.

In the deep forest with no one to see.

I have seen George's son, at midday, in the country, with no one to see, walking the long drive talking on his cell phone while holding up his shorts which he always keeps belted around his thighs. I have watched him shooting hoops alone, holding up his shorts with one hand while he shoots with his other, then stumbling around to try and corral his misses.

With no one to see, is he still "ultra cool"? Or, is that behavior stupid?

Is that behavior the attempt, by a man who has no substance with which to face the world, to draw attention to himself based on nothing but form? Do people with substance do things to repel like minded and behaving people of substance? Is that a practical pragmatic thing to do?

I am sorry, but I am judgmental enough to say that there is something wrong with the man in his brain. He has some twists that are not conducive to him ever being anything but broke or in prison.

Now, my final question on that subject is; do you think he is unique or the tip of a very large iceberg? I am sure that you know by now what I think.

I'd like to go back to the discussion of black poverty and efforts, or lack thereof, to advance out of poverty.

Education, like I said previously, in all my life in many locales I have never seen angry whites out on the streets beating black kids away from school, nor making law that prevented them from going to school. Segragation, yes, but not solid denial. Let us get that firmly fixed in our discussion, blacks in 1950 had better school facilities and adequate resources than Abe Lincoln did, yet he excelled. Why? It obviously isn't the facilities or the resources because those who want education prevail no matter what if they can just put their hands on the resources and have occassional help. The worst schools in Texas still have students each year who are ready for college, the number per school may be small but they do exist. The only explanation, in the midst of the horrendous drop out rates and the fumbling slugs that "earn" degrees that qualify them for remedial courses, is that those students wanted what was offered and made the consistent self-motivated effort to get it. That, coincidentally, is also the explanation for Abe Lincoln.

The people who want it do not let circumstances get in the way and do not make excuses.

I am southern, I was born and raised predominantly in Texas and Arizona. I am acutely aware of what goes on in this country, and I can tell you that the KKK are more of a myth than a reality in any meaningful way, I don't care what bullshit agenda the Southern Poverty Law Center (or whatever it is called) may propagandize.

Are race relations absolutely peachy keen in the USA? No. Relations are generally edgy and superficially cordial at best and can and may erupt in violence at any time and in strange ways. I am not talking just south here. For every atrocity commited by white(s) against black(s) in the south, I can throw two equal or worse back at you that happened in the north. The only difference is that the black on white atrocity is quietly and quickly buried, while the white on black is bally-hoo'd to death ad nauseum by the media.

Who are the people who are holding back blacks? After 50 plus years since Brown V Board of Education shouldn't we have an identifiable group, gang, or organization that is spread across 50 states? It is not you or I, Aaron, so who is it? Who is it that is deliberately placing roadblocks, even today, in the paths of blacks obtaining an education and acquiring wealth creating skills (outside of pro sports and other entertainment)? I'd like to hear one black person say, "I couldn't get an education and it is Mr. XYZ's fault, everytime I tried to get to school he and huis organization blocked me and chased me away." Tell me who it is if it is real and not just an excuse.

We in America have allowed a huge excuse to be constructed around us and we are discouraged from examining that in an honest and open manner. In other words, we lie to ourselves with more than just official encouragement but from official coercion as well.

If, as Gus Savage claimed, blacks can't be racist then obviously they are incapable of hate crimes; and that Aaron, is exactly how the media reports the news.

Are these kinds of lies good for America or bad. Are they going to cause eventual reckoning that is most likely to be resolved in violence as the favored and their supporters attempt to hold their advantage at all costs?

I think you would get a lot out of the book, "The Post American World" by Fareed Zakaria. It is a very pro-America book but it lays out reality in a way one can't ignore and I could not help but wonder as he asks if America has what it takes to revitalize itself and resume and/or retain its position of leadership in the world, can America do it if we continue to lie to ourselves on so many levels and continue to persue the repeated failure of socialism while the rest of the world embraces the wonders of capitalism? Do we do it by continuing to make excuses and to carry on our back the increasing weight of those "who will not"? (And, I don't care if those "who will not" are white or black, they've been carried far enough)

Brown Vs Board of Education, 1954. We know it took many more years for actual desegragation to happen across all of the USA. So, let's take a mean year of 1962 for the purposes of this part of the discussion. Grade one to grade 12, 12 years obviously. We can agree that black kids already in school to at least the level of grade 6 have already probably had their attitudes towards education and school firmed up. So, let's write off the first 12 years and just discuss the second wave of kids that begin school never having known segragated schools. That would happen about 1968 at worst. So by 1978 why was the drop out rate and failure rates for blacks still way above other races except maybe mexicans? Let's extend it out and ask by 1990 why was the same and worse stagnation still seen in black education and why was the drop out rate and poor education of whites beginning to show up so clearly after having segragation for some 24 years? By 2002 the only change seems to be that the situation has grown progressively worse. Why?

The evidence is pretty clear to one who takes a clear objective view that intergration has not lifted blacks but has actually degraded the education of all of the general population except those who, like Abe Lincoln, will get it no matter what the circumstances.

Even if we consider all the other factors that contribute to the over-all general erosion of the American character, education, abilities, and productive ambition, such as the white European religion of socialism, we still find the blacks at the lower rungs. Why?

Look at ancient history, Africa has been a resource for all other peoples; but, in spite of all the natural reources and bright people that can be found in black Africa, Africa remains a resource and not a leader in any capacity. This can not be an accident, it can't be written off to just white prejudice because it goes back 3000 years before Christ. If there is not a basic difference in the mental makeup between blacks and other races, what is the explantion for that?

South of the Sahara Africa exhibits no evidence of great civilizations and achievements like one sees in Central and South America, Asia, India, and Europe. the best that can be offered is the "Great city of Zimbabwe", which has been touted as the equal of the American Indian achievements. However pictures of that city show that its architecture and construction, while spacious and large in area, is in no way a match in even a minor way to the accomplishments of the civilizations of Central and South America. My brothers and I stacked flat stones in the Arizona hills as kids as we made our play forts and those forts resemble the city of Zimbabwe in construction.

Good agricultural land, temperate climates, and, in general, available game obviously created lifestyles that approached the edenistic ideal in many places. Nature seemed to be less of a challenge than wild beasts and neighboring tribes. Is that enculturation still the driving force in the black character, even those who have been removed from it for centuries?

These are answers worth asking in my opinion and facing front on and not hidden or forbidden

Aaron, I can't fault the people of Africa for wanting to live a simple life much like their parents did, if that is what the want. There is much to be said for that lifestyle, great material wealth and vast accumlations of things is not what I call the good life. Especially when it comes at the cost of so much that is calm, good, and nurturing.

Going back to education and black ambition. There are two ways to achieve equality of two separate levels. you can bring the bottom level up, if you can; or, you can undercut the upper level and drop it to the level of the bottom layer.

Education and opportunity has been available to any black that wanted it since 1954, even if that took an uphill battle that a white kid may have not had to fight against. Yet the uplifting of the mass hasn't happened. All of America has progressed but in the same strata and order as it began. I still have to ask, why?

There is a dynamic that we Americans still have not figured out and confronted; and, until we do we will have this same edgy brushing up against each other relationship that exists now. You and your wife, like my daughter and her guy, may not feel it or think it; but, out in the street, in the offices of corporations, in the government offices that serve you, and in the greater society people know it, both black and white. The reckoning hasn't happened yet and we can only pray that it is a peaceful one when it comes, because black people would be making a huge mistake to believe they have the numbers and strength to subjugate the whites of America, or even to carve out a chosen part of America.

I see things in those terms as having to be considered because yes it can happen here. I watched video of Reginal Denny being dragged into the streets, in the South Central L.A. riots back in the 90s, by four thugs who were perfect strangers to him, they beat and kicked him and then slammed a cement cinder block into his head in attempts to kill him, and to my sure and certain knowledge none of the four ever served any hard time for their crime. No, my friend, when the facade is shattered and the gloves come off, it can happen here in small pockets and potentially in massive efforts should the right circumstance instigate it.

What's the answer(s), lord I only wish I knew, and I will admit that I only have opinions on some things, some judgment on others, but mostly questions that need to be asked and examined in detail until answers can be found.

It isn't enough to make the excuse and say, "well white kids do this and white kids might do that", or that we both recognize that kids will be rebellious and follow examples that put them in conflict with their parents or society in general. Both of us know that at a certain point most of those rebellious white kids out grow it and go on to at least be self sufficient or productive beyond that, while blacks kids seem to infrequently find their feet and at best keep their heads somewhat above water. Plus that excuse just doesn't answer the broader questions in any way.

The other factor that seems to weigh in is that in all other nations where blacks were imported as slaves, none has a current dynamic economy as a result of the black participation past or present. The black experience there mimics the black experience here, people in general mired in poverty and making no seeming determined effort to climb out unassisted. And, in most of those places there has been touted as being less prejudice and institutional racism than here, yet the results seem to be the same.

I worry about our country and all of the people in it, black, brown and white, Aaron. I won't live to see the real troubles, probably; but, my kids, your kids, and the grandchildren will. I worry about the Obama presidential victory with a democrat house and Senate and what it will produce over and above the crap that Bush has mnagaged to produce. I worry about their use of law to ruin our country in pursuit of ideals that will never come to fruition and to which the pursuit will cause certain ruin as it always has. Will they have their heads screwed on straight when those times come? I hope so.

Sorry to end on such a note.

I look forward to your response and as soon as I can locate my daughters wibsite address, I'll send it to you so that should you want to make the connection with a colorado group you can.