After typing the above, I checked another source, "The QPB Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins," and it confirms what David N. says:

"The O.E.D., however, doesn't dishonor the Romany people, deriving gyp from gee-up, which meant "to treat roughly" in some locales in England. The gippos theory also saves face for the gypsies. A gippo, later shortened to gyp, was a short jacket worn by the valets of Oxford undergraduates in the 17th Century. The word gyp this theory holds, was evenutally applied to the servants themselves, who were often cheats and thieves."

This QPB book, by the way, says that the reason that the Romany are called Gypsies in England is because the English mistakenly believed that they originally were from Egypt, and hence Gyptsies or Gypsies.

Okay...so if the common perception (even if wrong) is that gyp stems from gypsy, which refers to the Roma people...is it wrong to say you got gypped? I'd say it is, because the intention is there, even if the insult doesn't mean what is thought. It'd be insulting for some racist to call someone niggardly, mistakenly thinking it was derived from the word ######, wouldn't it? He thinks he's using a racial slur, just like someone (who is aware of the disputed gypsy etymology) who says gypped.

I hope that's not too scattered to make sense.

pwned/pwn3d's genesis is the mistyping of owned. Therefore, it is pronounced owned.

Kevin: I assume most people use the term "gypped" to mean they got "gypped", not to mean that they felt like they just got taken by some gypsies.

And the wussification of America continues apace.

I just saw the latest numbers on the deficit... the Bush Administration is totally WASPing us.

(hmm... doesn't seem to work)

I just saw the latest numbers on the deficit... the Bush Administration is totally WASPing us.

"Jewing" doesn't really make sense either. Maybe "the Bush administration is totally f****** us."

Bush ain't all that conservative economically. This admin spends like a drunken sailor and is protectionist. And they ain't inflation hawks.

Personally, I think that the best admins are the gridlocked ones. Those seem to tend to curb the excesses of either party, but I haven't taken a civics calss since the Royals heyday.

Maybe "the Bush administration is totally f****** us."

how 'bout the r word?

I haven't taken a civics calss since the Royals heyday.

We all long for the good old days of Chuck, Diana, and that wacky Margaret. The House of Windsor is a much less fun place now.

Personally, I think that the best admins are the gridlocked ones. Those seem to tend to curb the excesses of either party, but I haven't taken a civics calss since the Royals heyday.

I am not a political scientist, but the first two years of the Clinton administration look pretty damn good in retrospect. Massive deficit reduction, increased progressivity of the tax code, major new money for the Earned Income Tax Credit, major increase in spending on college education, Breyer and Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, and not even a single preemptive, disastrous invasion of another country.

Hell, single-party rule got the New Deal, the Great Society and the Civil Rights Act passed as well.

Matt,

The American people loved those two years so much that they tossed out every single marginal Democrat and put the Republicans in charge of both houses of Congress.

My preference is for gridlock. The Congressional Republicans, when Clinton was president, had a more cautious approach to spending. It was in the Gingrich-Clinton years that the economy really took off, that the budget became balanced, that welfare was reformed, that free trade expanded with the GATT, and that the bad ideas of the Republicans were tossed out by Clinton and that the bad ideas of Clinton were rejected by the GOP in Congress.

Under Bush, the Congressional Republicans have done a terrible job of controlling spending, and they deserve to be tossed out this year. However, because of gerrymandering, which (at least where I live, in California) Democrats agreed to whole-heartedly, it's unlikely that there will be much turnover, as almost all incumbents are in safe districts, now.

Bush ain't all that conservative economically.

As one who considers himself somewhat fiscally conservative, I'd agree with this and add that it's a massive understatement. The word "trainwreck" should be in there somewhere.

The American people loved those two years so much that they tossed out every single marginal Democrat and put the Republicans in charge of both houses of Congress.

So what? The fact that in 1994 (a) americans didn't have the benefit of 12 years of hindsight, and (b) were putting the finishing touches on a 30 shift of conservative southerners to the republican party doesn't really have anything to do with whether the policies enacted in 1993-94 (namely, the 1993 budget act) objectively helped the country.

Whoa, this thread took some odd twists and turns somewhere. Last I checked it, people were still talking about Hee Seop Choi.

"Hell, single-party rule got the New Deal, the Great Society and the Civil Rights Act passed as well."

One out of three aint bad.

"I am not a political scientist"

Biggest understatement of the thread so far...

I realize no one's really talking about Choi anymore, but I take it that the general consensus is that this is a good move?

I'm just curious about how they get rid of Snow or Lowell to make room for Choi.

I'm just curious about how they get rid of Snow or Lowell to make room for Choi.

maybe they could give mike lowell a cushy ambassador job?

Remember guys, Choi has been just brutal against LHP.

I'm just curious about how they get rid of Snow or Lowell to make room for Choi.

That's what I'm wondering.

I think this, and the release of Carlos Pena, definitely re-iterates to the fact that cheap, decent-hitting 1B/DH types are not hard to find.

Which makes me wonder why so many teams seemingly have trouble finding them.

Remember guys, Choi has been just brutal against LHP.

There are definitely worse scenarios for the BoSox than a Choi/Youkilis platoon at first.

If they do it, JRE,if they do it...

If they do it, JRE,if they do it...

Sure.

The most likely scenario right now seems to be a Snow/Youkilis platoon, no?

pwned and pwn3d are pronounced owned.

It's pronounced "poned", as in rhymes with "boned".

Unfortunately, yes.

Well, if its all riht with everybody else, I just gonna go with "boned" from now on.

*right*

It's pronounced "poned", as in rhymes with "boned".

I find it disturbing that someone would ever need to pronounce that word.

If anyone ever did, I would take that as a sign to not take seriously anything they had to say.

There are definitely worse scenarios for the US than a Gingrich/Clinton platoon at first.

I worry about the Snow/Youkilis platoon, but I haven't heard much about Snow being the starter in that scenario. Most of the stuff I've seen (Francona's anti-Youk comments notwithstanding) seems to point to Youkilis being the starter and getting more at-bats than Snow, which isn't what would happen if they were in a traditional platoon.

The depth chart on the Red Sox site shows Youkilis as the starting 1B, for what that's worth.

Has anyone kept track of the ST games well enough to know how much Youk has played at 3B? It seems like lately they've been keeping him comfortable at the hot corner, which suggests they are keeping their options open. I assume Francona makes out the ST lineup cards, so this seems like a good sign.

I don't envision a straight Youkilis/Snow platoon either; perhaps Snow starts against some righties at Fenway? Supposedly his hit-charts suggest a good Fenway swing.

I can't see them ridding themselves of Lowell's contract. They've given the back-up job at 1B to guys like McCarty and Olerud in the recent past, so that favors Snow getting the back-up role over Choi. Choi has an option, and I think he'll start the season in Pawtucket. If Snow hits even a little bit, we may not see Choi this year in Boston at all.

I was reading that socialist rag The Economist on the plane down to Florida this week and even they were referring to Bush jr. as incompetent.

Wow.


Fyi,
while I read the aforementioned magazine religiously, it did "endorse" Kerry over Bush. As a general policy stance, its probably right of centre, but by some American standards, it may almost lean left.

I would say the Economist is quite conservative economically, but moderate to left-leaning socially. The Economist also supported the war in Iraq.

Anyway...

Did You Know: that Coco Crisp's real name, Covelli, is short for Machiavelli? Apparently, people used to call his father "Covelli," or something like it, because he was somehow Machiavellian. Perhaps we should call Coco "The Prince"-- though I still prefer to call him "T-Bone" in honor of a great Seinfeld episode.

I find it disturbing that someone would ever need to pronounce that word.

If anyone ever did, I would take that as a sign to not take seriously anything they had to say.

zomg, ur teh suxx0rz, lol.

Sadly, I'm afraid you're right, Joe.

I would say the Economist is quite conservative economically, but moderate to left-leaning socially.

Wow, the Economist is libertarian?

The Economist also supported the war in Iraq.

oh.

I once bet a fellow dinner that it would snow in April in Boston. I won, but he welshed on the bet and we ended up going dutch.

I find it disturbing that someone would ever need to pronounce that word.

If anyone ever did, I would take that as a sign to not take seriously anything they had to say.

Why thank you. Should I ignore you from now on as well?

Okay...so if the common perception (even if wrong) is that gyp stems from gypsy, which refers to the Roma people...is it wrong to say you got gypped? I'd say it is, because the intention is there, even if the insult doesn't mean what is thought. It'd be insulting for some racist to call someone niggardly, mistakenly thinking it was derived from the word ######, wouldn't it? He thinks he's using a racial slur, just like someone (who is aware of the disputed gypsy etymology) who says gypped.

It might make sense, if that were really the common perception, but I don't think it is. I had never heard that until a decade or two after I started using the word gypped. It just never occurred to me that there might be any connection.

Hell, single-party rule got the New Deal, the Great Society and the Civil Rights Act passed as well.

That's like touting the Treaty of Versailles by pointing out that it got us Hitler, Mussolini, and the Great Depression.

That's like touting the Treaty of Versailles by pointing out that it got us Hitler, Mussolini, and the Great Depression.

Of those 3, the Civil Rights Act = which?

I would say the Economist is quite conservative economically, but moderate to left-leaning socially.

Wow, the Economist is libertarian?

The Economist also supported the war in Iraq.

oh.

Well, it's possible to be a libertarian hawk. It's not a monolithic weltanschaung.

Whoa, this thread took some odd twists and turns somewhere. Last I checked it, people were still talking about Hee Seop Choi.

Well, I saw it was 300 some posts long and assumed it had morphed into a stathead debate. Imagine my surprise when I saw gypsies and economics.

Well, I saw it was 300 some posts long and assumed it had morphed into a stathead debate. Imagine my surprise when I saw gypsies and economics.

I figure Backlasher will be disappointed if he stumbles across this thread.

Whoa, 345 and 347 are serious flamebait. Paging Dr. Retardo, Dr. Retardo to the Choi thread stat.

I find it disturbing that someone would ever need to pronounce that word.

If anyone ever did, I would take that as a sign to not take seriously anything they had to say.

Wow. Talk about close-minded. Online games have used voice communication for years, so any word common in print is going to have a spoken form as well.

I've heard "owned", "poned", and "pooned". Either of the first two sound fine to me, but I rather like the mild dissonance created by writing "pwned" and saying "owned".

I feel Retardo's handle may be somewhat insensitive.

Sure, but would you use the term "murder" casually in conversation around an eight-year old whose parents were just murdered? If you used it in general conversation and someone who had just lost a loved one to murder was upset, would you apologize and try not to use the term again or would you say, "The colloquial use of the term dictates that you shouldn't be upset when I use that term!"

I largely agree with most everything that you say on this subject, but I would offer a slight dissent.

Political Correctness becomes a problem when it robs one of the ability for expression. Conversation and dialogue is not about sitting down and editing something 100 times to reach a scholarly level of expression. Its often about extemporaneous thought.

To that extent, I think both context and diction is very important.

A term like "raped" or "rape" has carried a definition of "improper treatment" or "plunder" for nearly as long as the specific instance of "forced sexual intercourse" And the use of metaphor is usually considered a good thing in expression.

As can be seen by this thread "gip" or "gyp" wasn't even connoted to the term "gypsy" in origin or with use.

While you are absolutely correct that the use, intent and propriety of these terms can be improper; that is not the normal use. In fact, I thought you once gave the best example. IIRC, the use of the cliche, "a chink in the armor" If someone is saying this in a generalized manner, e.g. the overuse of spreadsheets by the A's is a chink in the Moneyball armor, it should not carry anymore connotation than appears on its face. If, however, someone is saying this around Asian Americans as some sort of bad joke, then its uncalled for.

But I do not like the practice of taking terms or words that in one context can be offensive, and considering it verboten for all uses.

Forcing homonyms or rhyming words into a coversation to offend is juvenile. It's the same as a kid saying, "a beaver's dam" as a way to get around the prohibition against swearing. And forcing "a Dutch Dyke" into a conversation to make a pun on an offensive usage of term "dyke" is mean spirited.

There probably aren't many proper uses for the derogatory phrases involving "jew". I also seldomly see anyone use a word like "niggardly" without it being a backhanded usage toward anyone of african heritage. Its just a word that has dropped out of normal parlance.

So I do see clear differences in certain words, terms or expressions and their propreity. A word that does not have any non-derisive usage should be avoiding unless you are specifically quoting behavior. For instance, "Did Mark Furman call you a __________?" A word that is so removed from common parlance that would only be used for a bad joke should be avoided, although their may be proper uses. For instance, their may actually be a time when you must discuss a Dutch dam. Terms that have very narrow derisive, insensitive, or narrow minded uses should not be railed against unless they are used in that specific manner.



With that being said, "Gay" is very perplexing to me. It did not carry a derisive usage when I was growing up. It was actually the word that some of the political and social lobbies of homosexual persons wished to use describe the class of homosexual persons. The reason seemed to be because the word "homosexual" had itself become derisive in usage. Now it seems that people have taken that word and turned it into a derisive term.

I often wonder if other progressions have that same phenomena. I hear the term "african american" actually used derisively at times. When it is used derisively, its usually intonated differently. At some point, would the term "African American" become derisive without the intonation? It seems in the 70s the term "black" was used without derision, and it grew to actually become a derisive term. And Dubois himself once used the term "colored" which also grew to be derisive.

From a linguistic perspective it just seems that any term used to discuss any minority will eventually grow into a derisive term after the passage of time. I don't know how you can halt that without addressing the core of racist tendencies.

And that is also my current fear wrt Political Correctness as a practice. Prior generations very often use terms that are not meant to be derisive, but are interpreted as derisive. This is even more true with those that develop legitimate cognitive problems that intefere with language. It makes people seem insensitive when their is no intent on being insensitive.

And the third problem I have is the people that becomely overly matronly regarding the practice of policing language. I see no reason to ever ban terms like \"#### of the walk"; \"### for tat"; etc. just because someone is overly sensitive and too lazy to police based on their heightened sensitivities.

I figure Backlasher will be disappointed if he stumbles across this thread.

Not at all. Its just like the thread where people are saying that Beane has discovered some insight into baseball because he is going to rely on "pitching and defense."

For the most part, my points wrt Choi, Beane, DIPS, and steroids have been made, and the results have turned out to be even larger than my advocacy.

The most interesting thing is when people that make even harsher comments regarding any of those subjects reference me or others as having some extreme view by rewriting history.

That is the most amazing thing, how their minds work to actually create little fictions so they can convince themselves of their own rationality or intelligence. And if we ever show them the real history, the thread goes meta, and we get blamed for that too.

just because someone is overly sensitive and too lazy to police based on their heightened sensitivities.

I should also mention this is another thing that bothers me. There are some people that are so lazy at communication they can't write anything without trying to narrowly confine behavior into their limited set of preconceive notions. And somehow they view themselves as being more erudite than those that use curses or modern metaphors. They don't even realize that the latter persons are expressing themselves for more emotionally and clearly than the Victorian behavior they seem to admire.

I can easily list many Primate cursers, including two who have been sanctioned that are far more entertaining, engaging, and educational than the Victorian set of PHats.

From a linguistic perspective it just seems that any term used to discuss any minority will eventually grow into a derisive term after the passage of time. I don't know how you can halt that without addressing the core of racist tendencies.

Yes, this I believe is a vital insight. In fact, in my studies, I've found that the term for "special needs" (I really am not using this example to pick at RETARDO, this is the one I happened to focus on in my studies) has migrated in this fashion in BOTH Japanese and English multiple times, and from second-hand accounts of others, this is true in other languages as well.

The idea of creating new language is general coming from two motives:
1) A genuine desire to address the hardship of those that the original term is used against.
2) An inability to see the depths of social descrimination and the resultant desire for a quick solution.

As you say, without addressing the causes and motivations behind the core discrimination, you are basically cutting off the hydra heads while twice as many grow back. (There is another apt metaphor that could be used that actually is often employed in the "clever" way that you critique in your post.)

My belief is that PC-ness is a battle between two groups equally disinterested in addressing those root problems:
1) Folks who are satisfied with checking off a list of "100 things to avoid so you can call yourself a non-racist" (and attacking those who haven't memorized the list).
2) Folks who like to use the term "PC" as a way to supress any speech criticizing the oppression of minority groups.

Speaking without empathy for others or their viewpoints will not improve the situation, whether we do it maliciously or while avoiding a list of "racist words".

The only section of your post I would question is your use of the word "intent" in the second to last paragraph.

Surely being unintentionally insensitive is not something to aspire to. In any social interaction, there is a tremendous range of potential, and it is worth striving to be the best communicator possible, not non-malicious and clueless.

I don't suggest we police language--none of us is a perfect communicator so we would have to draw an arbitrary line. I suggest we constantly evaluate language and the speech of others and in such a way learn from each other.

The most interesting thing is when people that make even harsher comments regarding any of those subjects reference me or others as having some extreme view by rewriting history.

That is the most amazing thing, how their minds work to actually create little fictions so they can convince themselves of their own rationality or intelligence. And if we ever show them the real history, the thread goes meta, and we get blamed for that too.

I feel you. I too find it interesting on my good days, which I strive to make everyday. But I do have days where I find this simply maddening.

The only section of your post I would question is your use of the word "intent" in the second to last paragraph.

Surely being unintentionally insensitive is not something to aspire to. In any social interaction, there is a tremendous range of potential, and it is worth striving to be the best communicator possible, not non-malicious and clueless.

I agree that we should not aspire to cluelessness or non-malicious and offensive, but I do think that intent is still important.

I presume that we are in a similar age group, have experience with multiple persons, and have no diagnosed cognitive difficulties. There is little excuse when either of us use a term that is insensitive.

But teenagers from closed communities, or elderly people using syntactical or diction structures that were more in common from years ago, I do think some latitude should be given. The former should have attention drawn to the conduct; the latter should maybe be left alone.

For instance, based on gagne's explanation, he truly saw the word "gay" as having to different definitions: (1) a person attracted to a person of the same sex and (2) lame. He processes those meanings as being different and distinct. So he makes a bad pun on what he perceives as being two different meanings of the word. In fact, it would seem to be that could even be considered a positive development in attitude that the first definition is perceived be devoid of any wrongful connotation.

Nevertheless, the etymology of the second definition is a problem, and gagne's usage is certainly not desirous. It would seem to me that pointing out that the behavior is non-desirous is better than per se deriding the behavior.

I do not wish to ever offend someone on illogical or uncontrolled basis. And I certainly would never, ever try to offend someone like Sam, who I respect a great deal.

But sometimes the measure of correction or the impact of the event seems to require a little more economy.

My belief is that PC-ness is a battle between two groups equally disinterested in addressing those root problems:
1) Folks who are satisfied with checking off a list of "100 things to avoid so you can call yourself a non-racist" (and attacking those who haven't memorized the list).
2) Folks who like to use the term "PC" as a way to supress any speech criticizing the oppression of minority groups.

I think this is one of the biggest reasons that I empathize with many of your points of view. I detest those that outwardly want to show the world they are compassionate and then exhibit actual behaviors that exacerbate societal problems. And I do believe it takes an act of cognition to ensure that you don't serially become the person that you don't like. And sometimes you have to recognize that bias influences your decisions more than you would like it too.

Victorian set of PHats

The only ones that I think are Victorian are Furtado and maybe Forman; if I understand your use of the term correctly. Dial and Szym probably don't care for the nanny. Enders always complained about it. Werr is so pro-free speech that he'd defend the right to say "fire!" in a crowded movie house. Murphy doesn't care, as long as you don't call him grandma.

If you're talking about what topics can be broached, that might be a different story, but I don't necessarily think so. It seems easier to get under the skin of mere posters than the folks with keys. Anyways, there was a recent thread where Harvey's grandson expressed an unpopular opinion about Rob Neyer(it was a Rob and Rany thread). He was roundly castigated, but I don't think that anyone tried to silence him. And I don't think that that's gonna change what he says or how he says things. He seems to have an independent streak and a thick skin.

"#### of the walk";

Somebody do a Sean Connery impression, NOW!

Murphy doesn't care, as long as you don't call him grandma.

Can we call him chief?

Hang on... let me test the Nanny:

Bakayaro

Awesome. Score one for the foul-mouthed

Dude, "bakayaro" is not even a ??????.

Let's try: ???????!

Haha, take that, Nanny!

"something something most high?"

According to Wikipedia, Victorian morality "... can describe any set of values that espouses sexual repression, low tolerance of crime, and a strong social ethic." This may be correct, I don't know. Most of what I learned about that time and place was from reading Sherlock Holmes. I guess you could add imperialism to the mix.

I'm not sure who on Primer that describes. Sure, some might fit one or two of the criteria, but I can't think of anyone at the moment who fits all three. If folks here are imperialist, they usually keep it to themselves (with exceptions). It doesn't describe Treder. Remember the chair throwing incident? And, according to BL, his policy would be "...roid them up (or have them throw 200 pitches a game)and let God sort them out."

I love "Victoria" by the Kinks, so it could describe me.

I prefer the Old 97s "Victoria", myself.

Also, Foucault demonstrated that the theory of repressed Victorian sexuality was greatly developed in accordance with regimes of power that looked to make all aspects of sexuality objects of knowledge and created a false impression that there was something secretly locked in our "sexualities" that we needed to expose and gain knowledge of.

Also, I have pretty high hopes for Hee Seop. He doesn't look like he'll ever be more than a platoon player, and he may not have a perfect swing, but I think there's a very solid contributor even with those flaws, and significant upside if he can make improvements. I think it's best to start him in AAA for depth and for everyday play, but when one of the 1B/3B gang goes down, I hope Choi rather than Snow gets the first shot at starting. Doesn't seem too likely.

Also, I love Choithread.

Also, Foucault demonstrated that the theory of repressed Victorian sexuality was greatly developed in accordance with regimes of power that looked to make all aspects of sexuality objects of knowledge and created a false impression that there was something secretly locked in our "sexualities" that we needed to expose and gain knowledge of.

I love it! I mean, I don't! I mean, Foucault can Fouc off.

This is a fascinating take on race by one of my favorite sociologists.

That's a great article.

It does seem, to paint with a comically broad brush, that the economicizing of various social scientific and humanistic disciplines is finally reversing a bit. I'm very interested to see to what degree Patterson is engaging with critical theory and cultural studies - that article sounds very much like he is entering that conversation.

Foucault may fouc off, but Patterson sounds very much wrapped up in his project to me.

Foucault may fouc off, but Patterson sounds very much wrapped up in his project to me.

Have you read Patterson's Rituals of Blood, Matt?

i started reading htat article when i found it on the floor at a coffee shop over the weekend ... maybe i'll finish it now.

It does seem, to paint with a comically broad brush, that the economicizing of various social scientific and humanistic disciplines is finally reversing a bit.

BTW, Matt, I didn't quite understand this criticism. What are you saying?

A term like "raped" or "rape" has carried a definition of "improper treatment" or "plunder" for nearly as long as the specific instance of "forced sexual intercourse"

Actually, longer. It derives from Latin 'rapere,' which usually has the meaning "to seize or grab, snatch." The narrower sexual connotation was derived from the more general meaning.

With that being said, "Gay" is very perplexing to me. It did not carry a derisive usage when I was growing up.

Bl, I think you are missing the point about the usage of gay in this thread. Whether or not calling a homosexual "gay" is derisive is not the point of that was raised in this thread. It is the usage of gay as a synonym for "lame" or "stupid" that is arguably problematic.

In my view, this usage is inappropriate. But the line is a difficult one to draw. Is the term sinister offensive because it originated with the idea that lefties were evil?

In Canada, up until 15 years ago, the day that law firms called law students to hire them (and therefore the day that some people didn't get hired) was called "Black Friday" because of the potential for receiving bad news. The black law student community found this offensive and the term has fallen out of use (mostly). I think that is oversensitive and a difference in kind than the above use of gay, but people's mileage varies on this.

And don't get me started on seminar, women etc.

I haven't read Rituals of Blood, sounds like I should take a look.

I sorta meant economicizing in two senses, both the privileging of the quantitative in analysis and the conflating of the economic subject with the human subject - the focus Patterson talks about in his introduction to the OpEd:

the rejection of any explanation that invokes a group's cultural attributes — its distinctive attitudes, values and predispositions, and the resulting behavior of its members — and the relentless preference for relying on structural factors like low incomes, joblessness, poor schools and bad housing.

It sounds, to generalize a ton from one OpEd and some brief encounters with some of his other work, like Patterson doesn't want to separate the two, broadly outlined as subjective and objective concerns, but rather to see how the two construct each other without being reducible to each other. Which sounds a lot like post-structuralist analysis to me. The following two paragraphs especially:

Likewise, a cultural explanation of black male self-destructiveness addresses not simply the immediate connection between their attitudes and behavior and the undesired outcomes, but explores the origins and changing nature of these attitudes, perhaps over generations, in their brutalized past. It is impossible to understand the predatory sexuality and irresponsible fathering behavior of young black men without going back deep into their collective past.

Second, it is often assumed that cultural explanations are wholly deterministic, leaving no room for human agency. This, too, is nonsense. Modern students of culture have long shown that while it partly determines behavior, it also enables people to change behavior. People use their culture as a frame for understanding their world, and as a resource to do much of what they want. The same cultural patterns can frame different kinds of behavior, and by failing to explore culture at any depth, analysts miss a great opportunity to re-frame attitudes in a way that encourages desirable behavior and outcomes.

I posted this in the Lounge, since JC kindly linked that great Patterson op-ed there. I'm late to the party, as usual.

(PS - I have never been able to understand Foucault)

Thanks JC, that's a fascinating article. Like any short treatment on the topic he presents the quantitative vs. qualitative dichotomy among social scientists as being a little more black and white than it perhaps is; or maybe that perspective just shows that I've been out of academia for a little too long.

At least among people that I know who spend time thinking about the topic - who tend to be less oriented to academia and more towards organizing - the shades of gray that he presents are quite visible.

That being said, I like the way in which he derided those who offer explanations that allow no agency and those who refuse to accept that there are factors outside of the individual that has an impact on what choices are made by individuals. There rightly should be a pox on both houses.

This reminds me some of the story of how the black power movement evolved from the non-violent SNCC and then how it disintegrated as leadership became less committed to social change and more to self-aggrandizement. In many respects it was an embodiment of that "cool-pose culture" that Patterson identifies as one the major problems.

This poses an interesting question; to a certain extent the "cool-pose" is attractive because it appeals to the majority culture. It does so in a large part because of how marketing muscle gets behind it. Cool-pose sells, and reinforces the coolness. So it becomes even more attractive, even as it becomes more destructive to black males.

That raises an ethical question about marketing and how advertising, fashion, the music and film industry (among others) are complicit in the very real, continued failure of black males to achieve. Is this an instance where a visible hand needs to correct for the actions of the invisible hand?

Part of me can't help but think that there's something even deeper involved, having to do with why this culture accepts - with some hand-wringing - the deplorable state of affairs. I'll leave that aside because that will send me hurtling towards Freud and I've got too much #### to do for that.

I like MCoA's take on how the two forces prop each other up, too. I have no idea what school that may be, however.

That raises an ethical question about marketing and how advertising, fashion, the music and film industry (among others) are complicit in the very real, continued failure of black males to achieve.

The one time a Black Dude becomes president he gets shot.

Is there a password I can use to access to the article?

Do you use bugmenot? Otherwise registration is free and doesn't result in spam.

Let's try: ???????!

To quote "Saved", "He's saying he likes #####!" *record skip*

JC, I think the above article is very relevant and that the hypothesis that he introduced is a vital litmus test for any attempt at social change.

However, his summary of Orfield's arguments is unfair, unless Orfield has regressed, and his application of his own argument shows a deep ethnocentrism.

He is absolutely right that many social scientists (not Orfield) paint a victimization picture of urban youth that tends to be condescending and disempowering toward the very people they claim to be empathizing with.

But his dichotomy between the socioeconomic oppression and cultural factors is baffling to me, as it replicates many of the flaws of the arguments that he is critiquing.

I have the same experience as Scott above--the vast majority of community leaders and educators I work with are deeply aware of this dynamic.

I don't want to be rude, but they tend have a more nuanced understanding than Patterson appears to. To see their arguments recycled and then tilted toward Patterson's ethnocentric perspective is remiscent of Columbus discovering America. (Note that I'm not making a racial perspective argument here, yes, African Americans can be ethnocentric against other African Americans.)

There's two points which I wanted to critique, both of which are addressed in part in this paragraph.

For young black men, however, that culture is all there is — or so they think. Sadly, their complete engagement in this part of the American cultural mainstream, which they created and which feeds their pride and self-respect, is a major factor in their disconnection from the socioeconomic mainstream.


First of all, I agree with Scott's assessment that this correctly argues that media, fashion and other industries are complicit in perpetuating the images that drive this process. However, the idea that black males created these cultural propeties is something of a misnomer. While violent, misogynous rap may have originally been created by African Americans, it was a natural outgrowth of a diverse hip-hop cultural scene that was at one time predominantly constructive. The people who made the decisions to promote this destructive version over the positive versions were not predominantly black, nor initially were its greatest supporters.

Furthermore, I feel that Patterson, by attempting to cast the cultural inputs as categorically negative--leading to an addiction to violent street culture, poor academic achievement, and unhelpful, illusionary self-esteem, is either knowingly or unintentionally pushing a assimilationist agenda.

My experience is that it is exactly these polar categorizations of culture that are the core problem. Given the choice of accepting the "white culture" which is categorized to include an ethnocentirc form of academic achievement, or the "pose culture" which is written to include violence and self-destructive behavior, youths begrudgingly choose the latter. I imagine I would make the same decision if those really were my only two choices.

The problem with the former choice is the Asian American experience where many of us accepted assimiliationist agendas to a large degree and were not given equal status in America--still marginalized generations later. Is our state better than that of African America? That's not the point--there are more than the two choices above.

What I teach my students is that there are plenty of other choices. They must learn to question both the elements of urban culture that threaten to drag them into the abyss, but also those from the mainstream that deny them their self-esteem. When taught that approach, I find that students become strong enough to face the myraid obstacles that their peers in richer, whiter America do not.

They can retain their informed point-of-view that mainstream America hates them and wants them dead or standardized tests are a vehicle of hate, or that people who mock hip-hop culture are bigots, but still put all of their energy into intellectual and spiritual development.

It's a tough road and that's where the socio-economic factors are vital again. Given atrocious inequities in socio-economic areas, there is little or no margin of error for urban, youths of color. If they change their mind and decide to pursue education at 17, they are not going to be facing the same choices that 17 year-olds in affluent, white communities are.

Patterson's argument fails again here:

To the contrary, it has powerful support from some of America's largest corporations. Hip-hop, professional basketball and homeboy fashions are as American as cherry pie. Young white Americans are very much into these things, but selectively; they know when it is time to turn off Fifty Cent and get out the SAT prep book.

He acts like this is some kind of virtue on the part of white youth. It may be on an individual level, but to trace trends, white youths, especially males increasingly DON'T know when to turn off fifty-cent, but are protected by the fact that "pose culture" has little or no capacity to grow into "gang culture", their zealous, but shallow immersion in hip-hop culture and the fact that "Cherry Pie" America is waiting and actually providing them an enticing alternative. Finally, their socio-economic privilege gives them the parachute to coast safely into assimilate mainstream culture. Once there, they can preach their "I learned the hard way, unlike those fools who never learned" stories avoiding the topic of their own privilege.

In the end, we shouldn't be satisfied with that either. We need kids of any ethnicity who will throw their SAT prep book against the wall because it's stupid, but then pick it back up and study it because it presents powerful opportunities to change the society.

Obviously, my own arguments are full of my own social prejudices. I guess the test for me is that I've seen dozens of administrators attempting to employ Patterson's polar views, and the students simply don't respond to them--for good reasons. Rather than sitting back and saying, "There has to be some measure of personal responsibility!" why not use alternative empowerment schemes that are far more successful in motivating youth into taking that responsibility?

He acts like this is some kind of virtue on the part of white youth.

That seems to be the basis of your critique of Patterson, and I can see where you're coming from.

He regularly talks about changing behavior toward more "desirable" outcomes, but he never theorizes, here, on what basis we might guage desirableness. I decided, from this article, to give the benefit of the doubt because I like his methodology, and I figured that the ethics/policy issues would be discussed in a more academic discussion.

I think you point to two areas where he seems to conflate the "desirable" with mere assimilation. In other words, there seems to be here a "white" thing to do that the blacks should simply opt into. Such an analysis, I think, would priviledge the subjective far above the objective - in other words, Patterson here doesn't seem to be taking into account the structures of the world that make it more likely that black youth will make the choices they do, and give a different meaning to similar behaviors by young men of different backgrounds. I hope that these are just evidence of sloppiness in dealing with a massive subject in an OpEd, but I agree they are quite troubling.

By the way, have you read Kimberle Crenshaw on "intersectionality"? I just read an article by her a couple weeks ago, and I thought there was some really excellent stuff in there. (cite: Crenshaw, K. 1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43(6) 1241-99.)

I don't like any discussion of the "anti-achievement mentality" among young black men that doesn't take into account examples of similar mentalities among other cultures or time periods. Watch Goodfellas. There have always been young men who dropped out of school because they thought the thug life was cooler. Show me a culture that doesn't pick on nerds and I'll.... buy a house there.

If (for the sake of argument) young American black people in 2006 are unique, I'd guess the difference is that young people are under less pressure to succeed from their parents. That's probably because a lot of them effectively don't have fathers. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, might not one solution to this problem be to stop locking up so many such fathers for nonviolent crimes?

Patterson here doesn't seem to be taking into account the structures of the world that make it more likely that black youth will make the choices they do, and give a different meaning to similar behaviors by young men of different backgrounds.

Man, I just don't see this at all; in fact, this seems to be his concern w/reductive analyses. He wants to know the same things as you: why are black youths making the choices they are, even when the economy is growing and drawing more people into it?

Bl, I think you are missing the point about the usage of gay in this thread. Whether or not calling a homosexual "gay" is derisive is not the point of that was raised in this thread. It is the usage of gay as a synonym for "lame" or "stupid" that is arguably problematic.

In my view, this usage is inappropriate. But the line is a difficult one to draw. Is the term sinister offensive because it originated with the idea that lefties were evil?


I think the thread left that point a few posts ago. I understand the chastisement of gagne and the basis the stonethrowers had for the chastisement.

My comment is more of a linguistic observation. It may be juvenile, but I don't claim to have in depth experience in the area.

It just seems that language and expression is in a cycle of forestallment and will continue to be so until you address the problems of bias and emotion.

I could take any subset of the population and call them "glimmering sunbeams" If that subset of the population is subject to bias and hate, over the course of time "glimmering sunbeam" would grow to be a derisive term, even if said term was meant to be neutral or positively connotative.

The fact that the word "gay" has come to have a linguistic meaning of "lame" is just another exemplar of that effect, IMHO.

Forty years ago, "gay" just meant "happy" Then "gay" took on the meaning of same-sex orientation. "Lame" is undoubtedly an outcome of that intermediate step. The How and When is beyond my knowledge. The Why seems to be a supportable inference.

As someone else mentioned, the same progression can be seen with those with cognitive limitations based on the connotation of "retard." The word itself has many exceptable uses. And in its derisive form its probably even pronounced and inflected slightly different.

Backlasher, you have been a glimmering sunbeam in this thread.

As someone else mentioned, the same progression can be seen with those with cognitive limitations based on the connotation of "retard." The word itself has many exceptable uses. And in its derisive form its probably even pronounced and inflected slightly different.

Here in the Boston area, it's pronounced "re-tah-did".

Anyway, you don't mean "acceptable", do you?

Anyway, you don't mean "acceptable", do you?

I did. Thanks for the correction. I think its perfectly legitimate to discuss how something may retard growth or retard progress.

For a brief period of time "moron" was a scientific classification.

And there is nothing wrong with discussing a subset of the population that has differing sets of cognitive limitations. In fact, it may be important to do so for the purpose of diagnosis and eligibility for protection of rights.

The problem is whatever term that we use appears doomed to be derisive at some future point in history.

What troubles me is that some groups appear to demand the right to be offended at nearly everything, which not only causes resentment but makes me very uncomfortable - and not just because I don't know how to express myself. I am in fact a member of such a demanding group, and it worries me a lot.

Man, I just don't see this at all; in fact, this seems to be his concern w/reductive analyses. He wants to know the same things as you: why are black youths making the choices they are, even when the economy is growing and drawing more people into it?

Well, it's going to be real hard for us to agree on what the connotative language and intention in the article is. As MCoA said, it could be that he just couldn't discuss anything constructive in a little OpEd piece. I think some of his language that he just choose to include suggests an intentional dichotomy between socio-economic problems and the culture he points to as a major source of the low achievement.

Intentional denial of basic human rights to any population over a long-term would likely lead to a deep mistrust of the social mechanisms for advancement, often to a self-destructive extent.

I'm not saying that to disempower black males as "victims", only to point out that we need to understand this reality before we are likely to have much success in changing this culture.

If we could actually provide equitable law enforcement, health care, and most importantly education to all populations, while helping students design for themselves alternative cultures focusing on construction rather than destruction, I think their plight would improve relatively rapidly. Maybe with a true "All deliberate speed"?

What troubles me is that some groups appear to demand the right to be offended at nearly everything, which not only causes resentment but makes me very uncomfortable - and not just because I don't know how to express myself. I am in fact a member of such a demanding group, and it worries me a lot.

What's the difference between "demanding the right to be offended at nearly everything" and "demanding equal empathetic attention"? I'm not asking rhetorically.

I think that difference is where you'll find the difference in responsibility between "people destructively playing identity politics because they are hurt and don't know what else to do" and "People of privilege who want to be able to say anything with no empathy for anyone with no negative ramifications".

What troubles me is that some groups appear to demand the right to be offended at nearly everything, which not only causes resentment but makes me very uncomfortable

I agree. I'm really tired of Republicans playing the victim card.

I think some of his language that he just choose to include suggests an intentional dichotomy between socio-economic problems and the culture he points to as a major source of the low achievement.

I'll have to re-read the op-ed, and re-read your comments E-X, but I think there's considerable overlap between you and Patterson's POVs. If I read him correctly - which is arguable, as I'm limited to the op-ed - he appears to reject the same false dichotomy that you do. I read him saying that it's the intersection of socio-economic forces and culture that is at issue.

"white culture" which is categorized to include an ethnocentirc form of academic achievement

E-X, what do you mean by this?

For young black men, however, that culture is all there is — or so they think. Sadly, their complete engagement in this part of the American cultural mainstream, which they created and which feeds their pride and self-respect, is a major factor in their disconnection from the socioeconomic mainstream.

I think the level of engagement all groups of youngsters have with pop culture is disturbing but perhaps that is besides the point. I also think many kids really don't know anything other than their own culture and I think it does point to why kids should be exposed to different cultures with different value systems so they can choose for themselves.

Perhaps the real shame of it all is that kids have to make choices about the direction of their life when they're often too young to make good choices and bad choices are so hard to redeem.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, might not one solution to this problem be to stop locking up so many such fathers for nonviolent crimes?

And requiring work/training/responsibility while in prison so that they have a better chance of making it when they get out.

I'll have to re-read the op-ed, and re-read your comments E-X, but I think there's considerable overlap between you and Patterson's POVs. If I read him correctly - which is arguable, as I'm limited to the op-ed - he appears to reject the same false dichotomy that you do. I read him saying that it's the intersection of socio-economic forces and culture that is at issue.

I agree, Scotto. I don't quite get the criticism; it seems to involve an uncharitable read of Patterson's piece.

Hey JC, do you know who that Scott guy that E-X referred to above might be?

keine Ahnung.

My bag. Poor typing combined with overstatement tends to lead to confusion. I was referring to what you gleaned from the article concerning the involvement of media and the need to "correct the invisible hand".

Looking at it again, the hypothesis was yours, the agreement with it is mine. Sorry about that.

Anyway, I'm re-reading the original article, and I'm still getting the same read. I have to go teach, but I'll try to provide some exact quotes later.

All I have to say is this:

If Gagne is an accurate depiction of White Youth and White Culture...

Man you guys are screwed.