The first milestone will be to pass out of 6th grade by taking an all day comprehensive exam. Pass that and yopu get to go to 7th grade. Fail it and you can pretty much kiss any chance at a middle-class life goodbye.

If you should somehow mangae to get all the way to the West in your education before failing, you might as well never return home. To slink back home like the prodigal child, would be like wearing the scarlet letter “F” for failure, daily shaming your extended family, while the beggars snigger at you from the aforementioned ditches.

Shame is a powerful motivator for sucess and the soft bigotry of low expectations effectively destroys that. What ails the American lower class is a lack of shame — lots of it.

All this only confirms what we all already know – loan gaps exist between races- the crunch question again, is why? The report discussed above shows a gap for people lumped in similar income categories, but such lumping tends to conceal and disguise important information with each category about people, information that lenders always take into account. Anyone can define an arbitrary range of say $30,000 to $50,000 per year and look at loan denial rates, but what is the detail of people INSIDE that range? Someone with a bankruptcy or a string of unpaid credit card debts will be received less favorably, even though they may fall within the “same” range. In other words, this report seems to suffer from a case of mishandled aggregates, lumping together people that SEEM similar, but in reality are quite different. The writer above says the data has been handled “in a very useful way”. Sure. Useful to liberals, to yet again, manipulate aggregates to insinuate “discrimination” rather than break down the details so we can get a more objective picture.

Liberals for example are quite happy to lump in East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans) with islanders from the Pacific. After all they SEEM similar- they ain’t white, and some population strands of Chinese and Japanese for example, are found in the Pacific rim. But such an aggregate conceals important cultural and economic differences. Contrary to what some liberals seem to think, all people in the “Pacific Rim” are NOT alike. East Asians for example have long outperformed Pacific islanders in both their home islands and the continental US, a pattern that goes back for over a century.
——— Likewise when liberals talk about the pay “gap” between men and women, they are careful to lump all women together and insinuate “discrimination” and “chauvinism”, when it has long been known that marriage and childbearing are the most important factors affecting female pay (less working hours for example do mean less pay, hard as I know this is to believe:). Single women for example, with the same education, qualifications, hours per week, and in the same jobs have achieved pay parity with men long ago. But since this calls into question claims of “chauvinism” feminists prefer to duck the data by using conveniently selected aggregates, just as assorted liberals do on the matter of race.

A very selective presentation of the facts.
Most successful Asian sub-groups did NOT come to the US with college educations or business experience. Two of the most successful groups are Chinese and Japanese who have been coming to the US for over a century. Primarily of peasant or laboring background, they typically started at the bottom of the US economy, as farmers and laborers, primarily in the Western states like California. Over time, they rose. More recent immmigrants like Koreans are better educated, but they too start at the bottom of the ladder, with heavy concentration in the long hours retail sector, and without the language advantage of white or black Americans.
Hull’s mention of “Asian-Pacific Islanders” workers lumps together people like Japanese, Koreans or Chinese with less prosperous , less educatedSamoans, Tongans, folks from Guam etc. Nor is this lack of relative prosperity solely a problem on continental US soil. Many in the home islands of such immigrants are heavily dependent on government welfare subsidies. Samoa and Guam are cases in point. Why lump them together here, but separate them out earlier?
Hull is careful to pick out the most prosperous Asians for his first example, then selectively lumps in the least prosperous for his second. In any event, both examples fall flat.
=========================================

While superficially complimentary to Asian Americans, the real purpose and effect of this portrayal is to celebrate the status quo in race relations. First, by over-emphasizing Asian American success, it de-emphasizes the problems Asian Americans continue to face from racial discrimination in all areas of public and private life. Second, by misrepresenting Asian American success as proof that America provides equal opportunities for those who conform and work hard, it excuses American society from careful scrutiny on issues of race in general, and on the persistence of racism against Asian Americans in particular.” The model minority myth allows us to pretend that racism does not exist. Unfortunately, that is not yet the case.

Again dubious. Exactly how pointing out Asian success in some areas “excuses American society from careful scrutiny on issues of race” or allows us to “pretend that racism does not exist” is unclear. If anything, the success of some Asians has provoked even more careful scrutiny on the matter of race in some quarters. The federal government in recent years for example brought complaints against some colleges for discriminating against Asians. Despite better academic records, they were denied admission into certain colleges, while less qualified whites, blacks and hispanics were given slots. See for example: http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/004079.html
If anything the “denial” of race is not so much on the part of conservatives but of liberals, who typically avoid mentioning Asian success since it throws their whole dubious “affirmative action” agenda into question. Asians are an embarrassment to liberals. They speak of scrutiny as regards race, but only if it is “politically correct” scrutiny involving “approved” victim groups.
Indeed when race scrutiny highlights Asian success, or how Asians are being hurt by Affirmative Action, liberals typically are not very interested.

A very selective presentation of the facts.
Most successful Asian sub-groups did NOT come to the US with college educations or business experience. Two of the most successful groups are Chinese and Japanese who have been coming to the US for over a century. Primarily of peasant or laboring background, they typically started at the bottom of the US economy, as farmers and laborers, primarily in the Western states like California. Over time, they rose. More recent immmigrants like Koreans are better educated, but they too start at the bottom of the ladder, with heavy concentration in the long hours retail sector, and without the language advantage of white or black Americans.
Hull’s mention of “Asian-Pacific Islanders” workers lumps together people like Japanese, Koreans or Chinese with less prosperous , less educatedSamoans, Tongans, folks from Guam etc. Nor is this lack of relative prosperity solely a problem on continental US soil. Many in the home islands of such immigrants are heavily dependent on government welfare subsidies. Samoa and Guam are cases in point. Why lump them together here, but separate them out earlier?
Hull is careful to pick out the most prosperous Asians for his first example, then selectively lumps in the least prosperous for his second. In any event, both examples fall flat.
=========================================

While superficially complimentary to Asian Americans, the real purpose and effect of this portrayal is to celebrate the status quo in race relations. First, by over-emphasizing Asian American success, it de-emphasizes the problems Asian Americans continue to face from racial discrimination in all areas of public and private life. Second, by misrepresenting Asian American success as proof that America provides equal opportunities for those who conform and work hard, it excuses American society from careful scrutiny on issues of race in general, and on the persistence of racism against Asian Americans in particular.” The model minority myth allows us to pretend that racism does not exist. Unfortunately, that is not yet the case.

Again dubious. Exactly how pointing out Asian success in some areas “excuses American society from careful scrutiny on issues of race” or allows us to “pretend that racism does not exist” is unclear. If anything, the success of some Asians has provoked even more careful scrutiny on the matter of race in some quarters. The federal government in recent years for example brought complaints against some colleges for discriminating against Asians. Despite better academic records, they were denied admission into certain colleges, while less qualified whites, blacks and hispanics were given slots. See for example: http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/004079.html
If anything the “denial” of race is not so much on the part of conservatives but of liberals, who typically avoid mentioning Asian success since it throws their whole dubious “affirmative action” agenda into question. Asians are an embarrassment to liberals. They speak of scrutiny as regards race, but only if it is “politically correct” scrutiny involving “approved” victim groups.

When the same scrutiny highlights Asian success, or how Asians are being hurt by Affirmative Action, liberals typically are not very interested.

Few deny disparities in loans, but are the disparities due SIGNIFICANTLY to race? It would be deny that that somewhere out there, some financier was practicing bias, but how significant is the problem overall for blacks- 10%? 40%? No one seems to know. Hull cites an article that says says that “latest research” found bias even when creditworthiness was the same. It may very well be, but the latest research is not specifically detailed and was this matter people with the same creditworthiness being turned away a widespread problem, compared to the typical reason for turning down applicants- weaker credit histories? Also to be noted, most small busineses are started with personal savings and loans from acquantainces and relatives, not financial institutions or government agencies.

These practices among many others (such as health care: http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3740/4475.aspx “The report from that study, Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care, found that a consistent body of research demonstrates significant variation in the rates of medical procedures by race, even when insurance status, income, age, and severity of conditions are comparable. This research indicates that U.S. racial and ethnic minorities are less likely to receive even routine medical procedures and experience a lower quality of health services.) are not fiction and they contribute to the current problems of many underclass African-Americans.

Again, we all know “disparities” exist, but what is the cause? Racism? Some of the same medical authorities cited at Institutes of Health note that many blacks engage in more risky behavior on the average than other groups, ranging from drug use or unprotected sex, to more smoking. Blacks are also less likely to follow doctor’s instructions on the average. Google black AIDS rates for example and note how behavior plays a part. In other words the question of PERSONAL BEHAVIOR arises. But it is taboo to talk about THAT in many quarters. Few can deny that poverty plays a part. The poor have long had lesser health care than the rich. Poverty may indeed be the more relevant factor. Behavior may be another. Part of the problem is using “poor” as a synonym for “black”. Strange as this may sound, they are NOT the same thing. If we are going to solve black folks health problems, let’s keep our definitions clear, and put ALL the facts on the table in an empirical way, rather than the all too typical method of throwing out a statistic then gliding swiftly on to imply “racism”.

To prove discrimination use the DEFAULT rates. Anything else is BS.

Have fun.

I know quite a few Vietnamese, Korean and Laos immigrants who set up shop in black areas in the late 80′s, early 90′s and are now thriving. They fled communism. Many of them are my friends, well mostly their kids.

I can’t say that I dont know alot of successful black business people who came from the inner city because I do. They are all over here in Charlotte. Many many people have taken advantage of the opportunity to do well in business, of all colors.

I learned a ton from these brilliant business people in running my own business.

I agree with you on this, Lashawn…I love it too when people are willing to go against the odds, in the most un-welcome areas and make a success out of it.

In America, I think God gives every able-bodied and minded person the opportunity to do great things economically for themselves so that He will be blessed by it. We’re the only country in the world to have this opportunity available to everyone RIGHT NOW.

However, that person MUST choose to act on it.

Most importantly they don’t care about racism because they have concluded that racism is an integral part of the American society

This is true for the successfull/unsuccessful. Those who are successful recognize that the world is inherently unfair – racism, sexism, ageism exist – but they work within the confines of the conditions set for them. They succeed by working harder, working longer, and giving not 100% but 200%.

Is it harder? Yes! Is it unfair that you have to work harder just because you were born black/poor/ugly/etc? Yes! Should it be changed? Yes! CAN it be changed? Probably not.

And hey, there is nothing wrong with complaining about how unfair everything is. Complain that “da man” is keeping down. Complain that women make less than men. Believe about all these institutional disparites if you want. But what is all the complaining getting you? Nothing that will better your lot in life.

I think that is the big difference between the disadvantaged groups (not just blacks) and the successful members of that disadvantaged groups. We recognize that it IS unfair. But we work around it and achieve.

“Conservatives argue that every problem reflects some kind of personal defect, while liberals argue that every problem is because of oppression. Both perspectives have some truth in them but neither of them alone offers the whole truth. Not every poor person is poor because they are immoral, just like not every weathy person is weathy simply because they worked hard and were virtuous. To acknowledge that we do not yet live in a colorblind society does not mean that people are not responsible for their behavior.”

That was so well spoken. I couldn’t agree more. But I would hasten to add that the ideology currently holding most political power in America places far too much emphasis on personal attributes to account for one’s lot in life. To me, this emphasis seems more than a little self-serving. The rich (and those who conspire to become rich) take great comfort in the idea that the poor are deserving of their fate, that they have no hand in the creation of poverty, and that they themselves got to where they are solely through their own virtue, totally independent of public resources.

In his book “The Working Poor”, David Shipler finds that poverty in America is indeed partly the result of structural conditions that hinder the poor, of predation on the poor by a whole host of exploitative agents, and of the personal failings of poor individuals. So he does put a lot of emphasis on personal responsibility, examining how many individuals find themselves in poverty largely due to their own self-destructive personal choices. But what I found most interesting about Shipler’s work was his finding of just how intertwined all of these underlaying causes are. Structural impediments, exploitation, and personal failing feed off of each other.

Anyway, I’d highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to see beyond the simple, self-serving dogmas of conservatives and liberals.

Everyone knows that residual racism exists. Now what? Stay paralyzed by fussing over the problems that racism causes, or get on with things and overcome the problems? Is there really any valid choice but the latter?

My experience with public schools is that there is a pernicious, liberal reverse discrimination that says we need to reward the self esteem first and worry about the basics later.

I have witnessed the growth of a cottage industry of “race card” players who protect the most needy students from having to perform and improve by calling a “race foul.” (Think ebonics, for example.) Algebra, a foreign language, proper English and a computer keyboard are colorblind to the nth. You either can or you can’t and where you live or came from has not a thing to do with the results.

Of course all this is made doubly difficult if you are sitting in a puddle of self-pity or loathing. My belief is that those who claim racial bias against them outnumber those who actually encounter racial bias by a 1000 per cent. (Now watch me get creamed for the per centage number I have chosen.)

Washington DC should have the best darn black school system ever. All the elements are there: high per pupil expenditure, black teachers, administrators, school board, etc. You know the story. So what is going on? Intra-racial bias?

In my view one of the top 10 lies/myths about American Blacks is the lie/myth that they sit down and cry about it.

The progress and gains made by American Blacks in “the last 40 years” should be enough to dispell it, but it doesn’t because the liberal and conservative media both have a vested interest in presenting this view.