A rapper in 1990s said, “You ain't never been to the ghetto, don't ever come to the ghetto. You won't understand the ghetto.” Washington Times, a conservative newspaper in DC, once stated that the Left was wrong to see the ghetto culture as being genuine. It said instead that it was based on the Southern white culture. It called them “black rednecks.” There are certainly things in common between the two. Both like to beat up women. Both are viciously assimilative and conformist. But the worst part about both is their anti-intellectual attitude. They think that kids who take school seriously are “know-it-alls” and “think they're better than everyone else.” So they destroy the best things that come to life there, resulting in vast destructive effect on both. What qualifies these people to say that they speak for “everyone else” - 7 billion people, most of them nothing like themselves? Whatever arrogance they ascribe to the serious student, theirs is far greater. And it is a far more destructive form of arrogance. The “nerds” and “know-it-alls” make meaningful contributions – in science, in engineering, in culture and in thought, in all sorts of ways. Whereas very little of any good is accomplished by gangsters and the KKK. Now many black people have a strong sense of victimization; and many of them have indeed learned all sorts of bad habits – both from Southern American whites and from the gangsters. All these habits however can be unlearned. That's what psychology is for; that's what sociology is for; that's what Christianity is for as well. I have known any number of intelligent and articulate people from the inner city. I've been for a long time a part of a mostly-black poetry group in DC, and for the most part I liked what I saw. One significant situation involved a member of the group, who was a teacher in inner city, noticing that the kids were all afraid to be different. One day he walked into the classroom wearing yellow pants. A student shouted, “Mr. Anderson, you are wearing yellow pants.” He deadpanned, “Why are you so afraid to be different?” Well there appears to be a good reason why they are afraid to be different. They have created a viciously assimilative culture that maliciously attacks anything that differs from it in any way, whether for good or for bad. The white man did not do this to them; they did. So now they viciously attack anything that differs in any way from themselves – meaning, anything with a chance at any actual kind of goodness or any actual kind of contribution to the world. They destroy the lights among themselves, and they live in hell. They are not in any way the only people in the world who do that. There are any number of folks in the South who drive around in trucks with signs “My son beat up your honor student.” They attack their best minds, and in so doing they destroy their own competitiveness. So now we see China, India and any number of other places getting ahead because they do not do such a thing. America loses competitiveness because of such practices. China and India did not do this to them, nor did the Jews or the liberals do this to them. They did it to themselves. Another practice that undermines America's competitiveness is its equation of creative and original thinking with psychopathology. If it is narcissistic to seek great success, or if it is narcissistic to have original ideas, then America owes most of what it has to narcissists. These would include its founders; most of its industrialists and business leaders; and its most influential scientists, inventors and thinkers. Both Clinton and Trump have been accused of narcissism, and the first has been one of its most successful presidents and the second has been a business visionary who has produced some of the best architecture in contemporary America. Steven Jobs and Bill Gates have been accused of narcissism as well, and the two between them have computerized the world. The idea that such things are narcissism cuts to the core of what made America great in the first place; and if America chooses to attack its best minds then the spirit that made America great would go elsewhere and make the rest of the world outcompete America. As indeed it well should. How can the inner city improve? Well the first thing that it can do is stop attacking the students who take school seriously. Doing so undermines education in inner city, and whatever money the government spends on the schools is money wasted if children do not actually want to learn. The problem with the educational system in the inner city is not lack of funding, but lack of interest. If the students do not want to learn, then no money spent would be enough. The parents must prevail on their children to learn, and the brutal gangs and cliques that take place in the schools must be disciplined and defeated. In Russia the way to keep students away from drugs and crime has been to create extended time programs for the students, where they are learning or playing. It has also been to assign lots of homework. I have also seen churches in America that create programs for teenagers to keep them playing basketball and learning the Bible instead of doing drugs. If either of this is done, there will be less influence of gangs and cliques and more of school; and instead of doing drugs and killing each other the kids would be learning. Another thing it can do is do away with assimilativeness. Most of the people who make meaningful contributions are people who aren't like those around them, and the inner city – and other places – must stop attacking people who differ from themselves. They have to stop acting like pigeons and start acting like human beings. The inner city gains nothing from attacking those who are different from them and in the process loses its best minds. The result is disastrous for the inner city and for the black race. Furthermore, if they think that studying is “acting white,” they will need to see more Chinese and Koreans among them. These people are not white, but they study harder than either the black people or the white people. The greater presence of such people will puncture the lie that these people claim – that they speak for “everyone else” and that the Chinese or the Koreans don't. And since many of these people are actually more racist than the white man, and many of them have complete contempt for American blacks, they will be shown that their problems are not only due to the white man, and whether or not they are due to the white man they are theirs to fix. Now there are any number of actual racists out there who claim that black people are inferior. I claim no such thing. I do however claim that inner city is inferior, and much of the reason for that is these people's doing. You do not outcompete the white man or any other man by attacking learning. Nor do you do such a thing by attacking your better minds. Once again, the problem is not the lack of funding for education. The problem is refusal to learn – and vicious abuse against those who do. They do need to unlearn the wrong things that they've learned from the South; they also need to unlearn the wrong things that they've learned from the gangsters. Neither influence is a good one. One came from the white man, and the other came from the black man. The black man – and woman – stand to rise to a much better place by rejecting both influences. Then they can create a truly genuine culture, one that is neither based on the customs of their enemies nor parasitical. It so happens that this has happened in American history. It was called Harlem Renaissance. The contemporary black cultural leaders stand to improve the inner city far more by looking toward that than toward the gangsters and drug dealers. There have also been black inventors and scientists who got respect of the white man. The black man will get much better respect by looking toward such influences and encouraging instead of attacking the better minds. So this, then, is the most important solution for the inner city. Stop attacking the students who are willing to learn, and stop making everyone copy one another. Both practices are completely ruinous, and they sabotage the black man. Instead encourage learning and encourage also individuality. And see more black people rise to respect and improve the inner city.
imo Harris is the best of the immersion travel writers, of course, I haven't read any other travel writer except John McPhee. Harris did an interesting summary of the Harlem Renaissance, lived in Harlem a year to get immersed to write the book. He had the boyhood benefit of a good father in the house who worked for the post office, a Benedictine hs education, then Stanford. I'm disappointed he moved to France, and wonder if he is disappointed -- the way France is now. Possibly of interest to you. He refuses to be put into a bottle and is not a standardized type of anything. imo you are correct about acquiring knowledge being a benefit to anybody. I discovered Harris by accident and was never particularly interested in his work because he is black, but because he is so good at his craft. McPhee is kind of technical, Harris has some small bit of that, but primarily puts the human side of things into his work. Yellow pants
