On Condescension, Prognostication & The Educational Gap

via Forbes.com:

He’s right. The spread between rich and poor has gotten wider over the decades. And the opportunities for the 99% have become harder to realize.

The President’s speech got me thinking. My kids are no smarter than similar kids their age from the inner city. My kids have it much easier than their counterparts from West Philadelphia. The world is not fair to those kids mainly because they had the misfortune of being born two miles away into a more difficult part of the world and with a skin color that makes realizing the opportunities that the President spoke about that much harder. This is a fact. In 2011.

I am not a poor black kid. I am a middle aged white guy who comes from a middle class white background. So life was easier for me. But that doesn’t mean that the prospects are impossible for those kids from the inner city. It doesn’t mean that there are no opportunities for them. Or that the 1% control the world and the rest of us have to fight over the scraps left behind. I don’t believe that. I believe that everyone in this country has a chance to succeed. Still. In 2011. Even a poor black kid in West Philadelphia.

*gets in time machine and goes back to 2008*

Oh, snap!!! Obama's the President of the United States!! You know what that means! We live in a post-racial society! Race doesn't exist anymore. A charismatic, smart, half-Kenyan man from Hawaii can ascend to the top of the political world, so that means that every minority should be able to do comparably!

*gets back in time machine and goes to present-day*

Oh, wait... Educational gaps are still tremendous. Poverty is still rampant. Employment is sparse. But Obama's President, so none of that matters.

Such is the society we live in today... A society where the haves continually look down on the have-nots... A society where even in the face of mounting evidence that the system is no more fairly skewed that the lottery, people continue to cry 'self-determination'... A society where a man with admittedly no knowledge of growing up poor feels compelled to cast judgment on the poor. While I am no urban sociologist, I've seen enough of the ills of urban sprawl to know that the odds do not favor children in the inner city. From dilapidated and underfunded schools, to a lack of a successful network supporting them, is it really that hard to see why poor black children gravitate towards endeavors far-removed from academia?

The author, a 'mediocre accountant' and owner of a 10-person accounting firm, is engaging in what I like to call condescendent prognostication - the use of one's lofty ideals to scrutinize the actions of and portend the paths of those in a more precarious situation than he. He claims to be a supporter of Obama and the 99%, but is essentially echoing the unfounded sentiments of the 1%, namely:
- If you're poor, underprivileged, or the like, it's your fault
- The government and related entities have no responsibility to help those who can't help themselves
- There are more than enough resources to help the underprivileged

The author gets even more haughty in his rhetoric:

President Obama was right in his speech last week. The division between rich and poor is a national problem. But the biggest challenge we face isn’t inequality. It’s ignorance. So many kids from West Philadelphia don’t even know these opportunities exist for them. Many come from single-parent families whose mom or dad (or in many cases their grand mom) is working two jobs to survive and are just (understandably) too plain tired to do anything else in the few short hours they’re home. Many have teachers who are overburdened and too stressed to find the time to help every kid that needs it. Many of these kids don’t have the brains to figure this out themselves – like my kids. Except that my kids are just lucky enough to have parents and a well-funded school system around to push them in the right direction.

Technology can help these kids. But only if the kids want to be helped. Yes, there is much inequality. But the opportunity is still there in this country for those that are smart enough to go for it.

This type of grandstanding is only upended by the fact that the author says himself that his children have the resources (parents and good schools) to properly advance. When did complete hypocrisy and sociological blinders replace the social contract of Roosevelt's New Deal? When did the American tenet of every citizen's unalienable rights to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' fall victim to 'you're on your own social policy'? The problem here isn't the author's proclamation that the will to succeed doesn't go unnoticed. It's that he fails to fully acknowledge the crumbling systems around the same 'poor black kids'. Rather than addressing the systematic failures, he asserts that these children should aspire to be the best of the worst. How is that remotely inspiring? Even if an poor black kid in West Philadelphia does gain straight A's in a terrible school, chances are he will still be drastically behind his affluent counterparts across town.

The educational gap in this country is beyond detestable, not because kids don't want to learn, but because most people removed from the worst education systems in our country have little stake in it. They can point the finger and be condescending because they admittedly have never lived in conditions anywhere close to the ones they criticize. It's like a king pointing down at peasants, scoffing at the squalor they live in: easy. I beg the question to Mr. Marks and any other critic of 'poor black kids', what would you do to improve these schools, aside from claim that the kids need to try harder? What solution do you have for the dwindling quality of teachers, curricula, infrastructure and resources? What answer do you have for the student who have no clue what Google Scholar, SparkNotes, Evernote or the CIA World Factbook are? My guess is none.

That is the plight of the condescending prognosticator. They scream that if you're not winning the race, then you should run harder instead of blaming the busted soles on your sneakers. Maybe I'm rambling. Maybe undue outrage is coming towards the author for his clearly misinformed stance. The one thing I'm certain of is that there are many more Gene Marks' out there. They live anywhere from quiet, isolated suburban neighborhoods to high rise penthouses believe that self-determination is all one needs to be successful. For the amount of technological resources they espouse can help 'poor black kids', it would behoove them to use these same tools to see that the world isn't as cut and dry as they think.

Dear Black History Month

Today's the 28th of February, which only means one thing: Spring Break!!! No... Sadly, the end of February evokes one of my favorite times: your end, Black History Month. I know you're wondering: 'What's wrong with this fool?' and 'Why would he want me to end?'. Just consider this, BHM. At the beginning of the month, you were the number 3 Trending Topic on Twitter (#blackhistorymonth). Today, you were nowhere to be found in the top ten, and after extensive Googling, I found you were somewhere among the 50s. Now, that's not to say that Twitter's fickle, ever-changing palate is indicative of the direction that your celebration is taking. Yet, one can't help but think that after, let's say Valentine's Day, the amount of attention that's paid to you decreases exponentially.

BHM, the reason I find you so lame is because, quite frankly, I don't believe we need you. In my 22 years on this planet, I've been witness to year after year of school productions, TV specials, random periodicals, store promotions, and now even sneakers all 'commemorating' your legacy. Since when has the recognition of a race's accomplishments in western world come standard Nike-trademarked footwear? It's even funnier that those sneakers did come out, considering the stereotype about black people and kicks. I'm surprised there isn't a blackhistorymonth.com at this point, with how much of a ploy you've become.

I think you've become a platform for everyone to slop on an extra helping of ethnocentric semantics over a plate of already-known facts. Seriously, BHM. Do we need you to remind us of our accomplishments? Shouldn't we lament these facts and pride points and people every day? Why take the shortest month, add your name to it, and for 28 16 (prorated for bad memory, All-Star Weekend and Valentine,s Day) days have everyone piously pledge allegiance to 'Blackness', when we all know on March 1st, everything is going straight back to normal. I realize that's a very cynical view, but with all of these fools quoting the same lines from the 'I Have a Dream' speech (the Letter from the Birmingham Jail was better, anyway), I can't help but give you the side-eye.

BHM, you've given us a pass to be all about peace and black love and Afrocentricity for a month, without realizing that the people we celebrate today struggled 365 days, 24 hours and 7 days a week... AND they didn't have you to rile them up every 11 months. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and the 3 other black historical figures my grade school history books talked about didn't do all that good stuff (along with a lot of bad; check MLK's rap sheet, seriously) because they knew they'd have a month of people quoting them and talking about them. They did it so that people could advance without the same fight. They didn't want you to be a celebratory 'month'. They wanted black history in the everyday little things, not just for a month. That's what King was talking about in the 'I Have a Dream' speech: his kids playing in the front yard, not a military coup or weeklong sit-in where everyone is singing 'Wade in the Water', donning dashikis and eating bean pies.

BHM, I won't sit here and say I'm on the frontlines in Libya dodging bullets for freedom, or in court still trying to litigate on Sean Bell's behalf, but I surely am trying to make something of myself. Your celebration shouldn't be a catalyst for our awareness and recognition of the 'struggle'. It should be a high point, if anything. We should be striving to make those legacies we hear about worth something every day. That's why I'm happy you're over. Now, we can get back to work. Now, we don't have your shadow over us to make EVERYTHING black. I can disagree with my black brethren without getting the 'self-hating black man' speech. We can just drop the 'month' and get down to making #blackhistory...

Dear Tucker Carlson

I always find it sad when political 'pundits' weigh in on certain issues, especially ones dealing with race, crime, the President and facets of culture unfamiliar to them. They speak so freely about such issues, usually with misinformation and hateful dialogue, but blast anyone with a slightly different opinion. They come out saying things, that if the people they were criticizing said, the entire world would grab pitchforks and ready the gallows. Your rhetoric is right up that alley, Tucker. I usually don't like commenting on anything you do, simply because it's as useless picking an intellectual argument with a 1st grader. Even if what you're saying makes little sense, you're still going to pull out the 'But you've got cooties/you're stupid/you're a booger-face' argument. That said, I can't let these comments pass.

Tucker, first of all, where in tarnation do you get off saying that Michael Vick should be executed for his dog-fighting incident? You said you're a Christian, and 'believe fervently in second chances', so what gives? Let the man live! You say he's some 'creepy, rich, overpaid football player'. The last time I checked, you weren't rubbing pennies together to heat your house, were you? Your friends (who usually are just as dumb as you) are right. My reservations and about the severity of his acts aside, Vick paid his debt to society and is constantly reminded of what he did every time he has to show his face at some PETA event to save face. Execution for dog-fighting? Come on, Tucker... You own dress shoes and belts, and eat meat. Do you feel any ill-sentiment about that? Maybe you should be executed for driving a car with leather seats, or wearing wool sweaters. You eat chewing gum or Jello? We should put you in the electric chair, then. Tucker, my point is that we use products from animals every day. That Vick got into it with dogs pales in comparison to the cruelty that livestock and other animals used for production face. We don't execute the guys who kill bears that attack people. Should we really still be vilifying Vick?

Second off, since when is it wrong for the President to have an opinion on things? For God's sakes, if our President can't have a stance on an issue, then who can? Barack is a football fan, so he's got to have something to say about the whole Michael Vick saga. Why are you allowed to have a section on your show completely dedicated to thrashing the name of anyone you disagree with, but President Obama can't laud the efforts of the Philadelphia Eagles to give someone a second chance? If you can spread hate, misinformation and right-wing agenda like they're popsicles, why can't the President spread love and admiration for a man who laid not a finger to another human being?

Thirdly, is it just me, or do political pundits like yourself catch erections from seeing a public figure (most of the time, black) lost in the criminal justice system? Seriously, Tucker. I guarantee if John Doe from Anytown, USA was caught doing the same thing, his punishment would be little, if any compared to Vick's. Americans have a nasty habit of holding celebrities and athletes to higher standards than themselves. We can cheat, lie, steal, fornicate, kill, and do every other crime under the sun, but if a public figure does it, the entire world turns against them. I'm sick of the American media making celebrities of people and then tearing them down when they inevitably make lapses of judgment. Why do a celebrity's illicit acts hold more gravity than that of every other man? Do we really have to invest that much into what someone in the public eye does? I know this is a media-based society, but sheesh! Tucker, it's clear you're the type of personality that thrives on sensationalism when dealing with anything you don't agree with. It's as if you're a controversy-sniffing dog (pun intended). Tell you one thing... I wouldn't mind if Vick had put your fear-mongering behind down. *hides from PETA backlash*