<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: grab your highlighter
Review: For anyone interested in how the politics of race are presented in today's world (affirmative action, prison sentencing, etc.), this book is a definite must-read. The authors analyze the conservative's overly-simplistic view of race as being based simply on whether a person exhibits overt prejudice while ignoring the larger implications of accumulated wealth and advantages enjoyed by whites from years of legal discrimination.The authors poke holes in much of the misinformation coming from the conservative side of the aisle, and reveal just how sinister and permeating racial bias still is in America. Grab this book, a good cup of coffee, a high-lighter, and become updated on the dynamics of race in 2003 America.
Rating:
Summary: Race remains our most significant social issue
Review: I read this book hoping to find some ideas about the status of race in post civil rights America. Although I found the book helpful and infomative, I do remain highly concerned that the issues the book addresses seem static. The authors do offer a lot of statistics and concise ideas to help understand the problems concerning race in America. The attack on the racial realists and conservitive views on race really caught my attention. I find the arguements in this book far more convincing. I struggled to articulate how the conditions of American culture create a negative experience for blacks, but this book articulates the message clearly. I find myself reading and hearing arguments about race with a new understanding.
Rating:
Summary: Race remains our most significant social issue
Review: I read this book hoping to find some ideas about the status of race in post civil rights America. Although I found the book helpful and infomative, I do remain highly concerned that the issues the book addresses seem static. The authors do offer a lot of statistics and concise ideas to help understand the problems concerning race in America. The attack on the racial realists and conservitive views on race really caught my attention. I find the arguements in this book far more convincing. I struggled to articulate how the conditions of American culture create a negative experience for blacks, but this book articulates the message clearly. I find myself reading and hearing arguments about race with a new understanding.
Rating:
Summary: Informative & Thought-Provoking
Review: It presents information in such a way that you are at the very least, forced to consider what they've presented. As a self-identified "African-American" who considers himself a conservative, I think this book does a great job of presenting the foundation of how the problem of race still exists and presents pragmatic ideas - however controversial - that are far better, in my view, than maintaining the status quo. If those who on principle oppose these ideas (specifically, the conservatives this book spends a lot of time lambasting) would come out with substantive data to disprove what this book says, the race debate would become a lot clearer and would bring us closer to realizing a better America for all.
Rating:
Summary: Informative & Thought-Provoking
Review: It presents information in such a way that you are at the very least, forced to consider what they've presented. As a self-identified "African-American" who considers himself a conservative, I think this book does a great job of presenting the foundation of how the problem of race still exists and presents pragmatic ideas - however controversial - that are far better, in my view, than maintaining the status quo. If those who on principle oppose these ideas (specifically, the conservatives this book spends a lot of time lambasting) would come out with substantive data to disprove what this book says, the race debate would become a lot clearer and would bring us closer to realizing a better America for all.
Rating: 
Summary: 3.5 stars, against Stephen Thernstrom
Review: Should one send political scientists to do a historian's job? That is the question one has to ask about this book compiled by a consortium of political scientists, in response to the "racial realism" of today's right-centrist consensus. This consensus, argued by such authors as Jim Sleeper, Tamara Jacoby, John McWhorter, The New Republic and the renowned historians of American immigration Stephen and Abigail Thernstrom, argue that racism is not really a problem in American life. To the extent that African-Americans are disadvantaged it is because of their own failings or, somewhat more tactfully, the failings of the black politicians and the guilty liberals they (overwhelmingly) support. This book argues that this fundamentally optimistic view is wrong. They are right to say so and their book is very detailed and comprehensive (the Thernstroms in particular are repeatedly criticized). Still the book is not perfect. The book makes an error in numbering its footnotes in chapter five. It also incorrectly says that until recently there were no African-Americans elected from North Carolina since Reconstruction (one in fact was elected in 1898). The style is not very engaging, it consists mostly of summaries of papers in economics, political science, sociology and the other social sciences. The result is a certain dryness and abstract quality that could use more historical analysis (the treatment of unions is somewhat superficial). The discussion of racism is not the most thoughtful available (and little is said about Latinos). Nevertheless one should not ignore its points. "Racial realists" argue that racism is not a problem because only a handful of people would support racist attitudes in opinion polls. There are several problems with this argument. Aside from the fact that people do not necessarily volunteer their support of unpopular ideas, it turns the concept of racism and racist harm into a question of pure malice. If there is none (or if it somehow "rational") there is no racism. One might ask why showing discrimination should require showing malice, when other torts merely require showing negligence? Also it is a non-sequitur to argue that if whites are not malicious, blacks and/or liberals must have screwed up. Moreover, rephrasing the question can lead to rather different results: in a 1980 poll only 5% supported segregation, but only 40% supported a law stating that a homeowner could not refuse to sell because of race. The authors go on about how in the post-war period African-Americans were discriminated in social security legislation, GI bill benefits and housing segregation. We also relearn about the insufficiently notorious effects of urban renewal and automation. What is best about the book are the statistics it provides showing consistent racial gaps, even when corrected for class, age, income or any other variable. For example 53% of mortgages in black Chicago middle-class neighbourhoods are from sub-prime lenders, whereas only 12% of mortgages in white neighbourhoods are. African-Americans are 25% less likely to get mammograpy screening, notwithstanding age or income, while a 1985 Massachusetts study showed that whites underwent significantly more corony surgery than blacks. 61% of basketball players were black in 1996-97, but 81.5 % of coaches were white; 52% of football players are black but in 2001 nearly 97% of head coaching positions were white. During the 1990s in Los Angeles, Latinos make up 41% of the population, but only 6% of the jurors. It is often said that spiralling illegitimacy is the key reason for persistent black poverty today, but the President's Council of Economic Advisers has noted that the poverty gap would have fallen by only a fifth had there been no changes in black family structure since 1967. Likewise the Thernstroms et al have argued that high black youth unemployment is the result of their demand for excessive wages. Yet studies have shown that their length of employment is not correlated with wage demands. The gap between black and white test scores has infuriated potential university students. But the correlation between scores and success is somewhat weaker for women and Asians. Another questionable use of data by "racial realists" is their concentration of Berkeley in the 1980s. There the white graduation rate within 6 years was 88% but only 59% for blacks. But in 28 other colleges the white average was 86% and the black average 75%. Might this not say more about the problems of particular universities than an inherent cultural failing of African-Americans? We also learn about a third wave of criminology scholarship and we learn how only 26% of the gap between blacks and whites drug offences in Pennsylvania is the result of the higher arrest rate among blacks. Even after making every allowance Georgia blacks are five times more likely to get life sentences for drug offences than whites. We see at every stage of the arrest process, from scholars such as Madeline Wordes, George Bridges, and Michael Leiber, a clear bias against African-Americans. Although the prospect that somewhere, somehow affirmative action might hurt white men has haunted the conservative imagination, only 4% of 1990-94 sex/age discrimination suits were launched by white men, (yet they file three-quarters of age discrimination suits). Oddly enough, racial realists have blamed blacks for inadequate black representation. Supposedly they won't vote for whites. Yet in the past few decades only 0.5% of white majority districts elections have chosen a black representative. And whites have shown great reluctance or active hostility in voting for blacks in prominent elections in Chicago, Philadelphia and California. The authors conclude with sensible suggestions for reforms in education, stronger civil rights protection and an improved welfare state.
Rating:
Summary: 3.5 stars, against Stephen Thernstrom
Review: Should one send political scientists to do a historian's job? That is the question one has to ask about this book compiled by a consortium of political scientists, in response to the "racial realism" of today's right-centrist consensus. This consensus, argued by such authors as Jim Sleeper, Tamara Jacoby, John McWhorter, The New Republic and the renowned historians of American immigration Stephen and Abigail Thernstrom, argue that racism is not really a problem in American life. To the extent that African-Americans are disadvantaged it is because of their own failings or, somewhat more tactfully, the failings of the black politicians and the guilty liberals they (overwhelmingly) support. This book argues that this fundamentally optimistic view is wrong. They are right to say so and their book is very detailed and comprehensive (the Thernstroms in particular are repeatedly criticized). Still the book is not perfect. The book makes an error in numbering its footnotes in chapter five. It also incorrectly says that until recently there were no African-Americans elected from North Carolina since Reconstruction (one in fact was elected in 1898). The style is not very engaging, it consists mostly of summaries of papers in economics, political science, sociology and the other social sciences. The result is a certain dryness and abstract quality that could use more historical analysis (the treatment of unions is somewhat superficial). The discussion of racism is not the most thoughtful available (and little is said about Latinos). Nevertheless one should not ignore its points. "Racial realists" argue that racism is not a problem because only a handful of people would support racist attitudes in opinion polls. There are several problems with this argument. Aside from the fact that people do not necessarily volunteer their support of unpopular ideas, it turns the concept of racism and racist harm into a question of pure malice. If there is none (or if it somehow "rational") there is no racism. One might ask why showing discrimination should require showing malice, when other torts merely require showing negligence? Also it is a non-sequitur to argue that if whites are not malicious, blacks and/or liberals must have screwed up. Moreover, rephrasing the question can lead to rather different results: in a 1980 poll only 5% supported segregation, but only 40% supported a law stating that a homeowner could not refuse to sell because of race. The authors go on about how in the post-war period African-Americans were discriminated in social security legislation, GI bill benefits and housing segregation. We also relearn about the insufficiently notorious effects of urban renewal and automation. What is best about the book are the statistics it provides showing consistent racial gaps, even when corrected for class, age, income or any other variable. For example 53% of mortgages in black Chicago middle-class neighbourhoods are from sub-prime lenders, whereas only 12% of mortgages in white neighbourhoods are. African-Americans are 25% less likely to get mammograpy screening, notwithstanding age or income, while a 1985 Massachusetts study showed that whites underwent significantly more corony surgery than blacks. 61% of basketball players were black in 1996-97, but 81.5 % of coaches were white; 52% of football players are black but in 2001 nearly 97% of head coaching positions were white. During the 1990s in Los Angeles, Latinos make up 41% of the population, but only 6% of the jurors. It is often said that spiralling illegitimacy is the key reason for persistent black poverty today, but the President's Council of Economic Advisers has noted that the poverty gap would have fallen by only a fifth had there been no changes in black family structure since 1967. Likewise the Thernstroms et al have argued that high black youth unemployment is the result of their demand for excessive wages. Yet studies have shown that their length of employment is not correlated with wage demands. The gap between black and white test scores has infuriated potential university students. But the correlation between scores and success is somewhat weaker for women and Asians. Another questionable use of data by "racial realists" is their concentration of Berkeley in the 1980s. There the white graduation rate within 6 years was 88% but only 59% for blacks. But in 28 other colleges the white average was 86% and the black average 75%. Might this not say more about the problems of particular universities than an inherent cultural failing of African-Americans? We also learn about a third wave of criminology scholarship and we learn how only 26% of the gap between blacks and whites drug offences in Pennsylvania is the result of the higher arrest rate among blacks. Even after making every allowance Georgia blacks are five times more likely to get life sentences for drug offences than whites. We see at every stage of the arrest process, from scholars such as Madeline Wordes, George Bridges, and Michael Leiber, a clear bias against African-Americans. Although the prospect that somewhere, somehow affirmative action might hurt white men has haunted the conservative imagination, only 4% of 1990-94 sex/age discrimination suits were launched by white men, (yet they file three-quarters of age discrimination suits). Oddly enough, racial realists have blamed blacks for inadequate black representation. Supposedly they won't vote for whites. Yet in the past few decades only 0.5% of white majority districts elections have chosen a black representative. And whites have shown great reluctance or active hostility in voting for blacks in prominent elections in Chicago, Philadelphia and California. The authors conclude with sensible suggestions for reforms in education, stronger civil rights protection and an improved welfare state.
<< 1 >>
|
