OK, I was a Clinton delegate in the caucus earler this year. I have just been watching and waiting since then. And, I have been impressed with the conduct of Senator Obama's campaign. I have also found myself often disapointed in the actions of Senator Clinton's "many friends and relations". I find myself many miles (and almost a whole day) left of opportunities for first hand research, so I have appriciated the conversations going on on the other side of this forum. I just finished reading the new World Watch column. I appreciate Mr. Card's research, as always, and am persuaded by his opinion. What do the rest of you think?
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
I suspect Clintonites won't be swayed by reading it, by I share your opinion that it was a good essay, analytical and logical. I enjoyed reading it, and his thoughts on the Obama-Wright stuff matched my own. I haven't read the theses of Michelle or Hillary, though, so I can't voice my opinion on those.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hot damn that was a good essay.
I'd like to read both the documents in question, or at least the sections that Card read. It's hard to gauge his analysis of their analysis without knowing what he was analyzing.
But what he had to say about Wright and Obama, that I greatly enjoyed. It was a very cogent analysis.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It occurs to me that OSC doesn't really write to persuade. He writes to lay out how he arrives at an opinion, which is sometimes the same thing but not necessarily.
He does not do what we love about his fiction, which is to enter the mind of the opponent and show how they appear to themselves, but he sort of approaches it with Hillary in this piece.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I think for once I agree with him about Wright and Obama, but dang, does he ever hate Clinton. I think that gives him a bias of sorts, but he's right on the money about Wright.
But, this aside, when will black culture be considered AMERICAN culture and not something separate? It's something that tends to annoy me for some reason. Especially since American food, music, art and literature wouldn't be quite the same witout blacks
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"But, this aside, when will black culture be considered AMERICAN culture and not something separate?"
When blacks consider themselves American without a hyphen and Americans realize it is the hyphen that makes American culture. It is a paradox to be sure.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Historically speaking though, blacks have been considered marginalized Americans. But, so have quite a few people. Irish people for example. Mormons too. Not to mention Native Americans. There are a lot of different groups apart of the cool tapestry of awesome American culture.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's a problem on both sides. Not only do people need to stop marginizaling them, but then need to stop identifying themselves as such as well. So long as they separate themselves willingly, they'll never integrate in the same way immigrant groups did in the 1930's and back.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I also liked a lot of what OSC wrote, especially in regard to Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis.
However, I think he's made the same mistake that most journalists and commentators have made about Reverend Wright - assuming the small collection of soundbites we've been exposed to actually characterizes his sermons.
The reason that assumption stands is that the press has done a typically lousy job of investigating the story. There are a couple of exceptions - Roland Martin on CNN has been watching DVDs of Wright's sermons and transcribing some of them.
But a really great piece of investigative work was done by a reporter in the UK - who actually went and bought two books of Wrights's collected sermons and read them:
quote:There are several books with his name on them in one form or another, to which he appears to have contributed an introduction or some such, but none he's actually written and just these two that I could find that are collections of his sermons.
They are 1993's What Makes You So Strong? Sermons of Joy and Strength from Jeremiah A Wright Jr, and 1995's Good News! Sermons of Hope for Today's Families. Both are published by Judson Press, the publishing arm of the American Baptist Church (as distinct from the Southern Baptist church; the American Baptist Church is moderate-to-liberal in orientation).
Those seeking more evidence of Wright's venom (as if we didn't have enough) will be disappointed. Indeed the 18 sermons collected herein don't have the kind of provocative hate in them that we've seen in some YouTube clips. There are passages where he talks, sometimes bluntly, about the black race's unique burden in America, and America's cruel treatment of black people over history. But all that of course is true. And in general, the passages like this don't dwell on the history for its own sake, or for the purpose of bringing his audience to a boil about America. The ill-treatment is usually stated as a given that the parishioners will know and agree with already. From there, he tends to move on to optimistic messages, urging his listeners to put their faith in Jesus and stay on course.
Then there's Wright's comments about AIDS - to me the focus on this has been misplaced. My impression is that there are more people than people here might like to think who hold to this conspiracy theory or similar ones.
It's easier to understand why Wright and others might believe this particular *unfounded* "plot" against a group in this country if there was more familiarity of just how many times government-backed medical professionals exploited unwitting disadvantaged groups of people in this country. (Tuskegee is only the most notorious example - and it's not even the worst)
This last bit is something I'll get around to blogging about by next week sometime.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
sndrake, I was just about to post the something very similar. Since the Rev. Wright controversy started, I've done a bit of research and think that Card's conclusions are way off base.
When taken in context, Wright is never justifying victimhood and inaction, his comments about race seem more to be aimed at motivating black people to take responsibility for their own lives and communities because they can't wait for the rest of America to do it.
I also think he if fundamentally in error when he says "the way their brains work is almost certainly locked in stone by that age. In short, we can tell from these papers how smart they are, how open-minded, how incisive, how analytical."
I have now advised many students doing masters degrees and Ph.Ds. I generally meet these students after they've finished their undergraduate work when Card says the way they think is "almost certainly locked in stone". And I can tell you that every one of the students who I've watched go through the process of getting a Ph.D has undergone enormous changes in the way they think. Not just in what they think, but in the specific skills Card refers to analytical ability, open mindedness, incisiveness. And my anecdotes are backed by research that shows that while there is relatively little change in the critical thinking ability of students during their undergraduate education, there are enormous increases in students critical thinking skills in the process of getting a Ph.D. If the process of getting a Ph.D. can cause people to significant change the way their brains work (and it absolutely does), then so can other life experiences. Peoples brains are not set in stone at some point in their early twenties.
I was quite impressed with his comments on Michelle Obama's senior thesis but felt his analysis of Hillary's was too strongly colored by his own prejudice against her. It wasn't simply that his conclusions were a rehash of complaints he and others have made about Clinton in the past, it was that those complaints weren't supported with the kind of detail and thoughtfulness he used when discussing Obama's thesis. Though Card is always pointing out how other people's biases influence their perception of events, in his reviews he usually seems to be blind to how his own biases skew his perceptions.
And I'm not saying that because I disagree with Card's assessment of Hillary. I actually share his bias. But unlike Card I recognize that I hold the bias, that the bias is based largely on a media portrayal which I can not back up with any independent experience. I'm constantly looking for evidence that my bias is wrong and Card doesn't seem to be.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I figured that his set-up of the whole article was wonderfully tongue-in-cheek.
quote: So let's look at Wright's comments and see what they mean, and then at Obama's reaction and see what that means, and then I'll give you the final, absolutely true answer about how much difference it should make in deciding how to vote.
And then, just for good measure, I'll take on a comparison between Hillary's and Michelle Obama's senior theses, and, because my goal is to be profoundly useful to the world, I will tell you what is significant in these papers and what is not.
Of course, he realizes that his opinion is just that -- his opinion, and that everyone is bound to have one -- particularly about this -- and if you frequent this wonderful forum, particularly about his opinion.
That being said, I quite appreciated the article. Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
I appreciated the article, but like Rabbit I found the analysis on Clinton to be inequal to the analysis of Michelle Obama. I also disagreed with the statement about how the way you think is set in stone at age twenty, but that type of statement is typical OSC boilerplate, so I'm not surprised to read it.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
It's established that a general way of thinking is established at an early age. While positions, priorities, thoughts, interests, etc. may change, the way a person thinks is pretty adamant throughout life, short of especially traumatic or revelatory experiences.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Isn't there still neuronal development up until the 20s?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: It's established that a general way of thinking is established at an early age. While positions, priorities, thoughts, interests, etc. may change, the way a person thinks is pretty adamant throughout life, short of especially traumatic or revelatory experiences.
What is meant by "the general way of thinking"? The particular qualities that Card mentions -- incisiveness, analytical ability and open-mindness do change significantly in process of getting a Ph.D so they are not locked in stone as he suggests.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "But, this aside, when will black culture be considered AMERICAN culture and not something separate?"
When blacks consider themselves American without a hyphen and Americans realize it is the hyphen that makes American culture. It is a paradox to be sure.
Hmm...
Very well put.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I definitely think this was a good article, but I don't know how impartial I am. Was I okay with it because I see a definite recovery from the ranty "leftaliban" season or am I just shifting to some automatic favor because he's talking up my favored candidate?
eh. who knows. I might be fanboying. Seemed good, though.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by Adam_S: I appreciated the article, but like Rabbit I found the analysis on Clinton to be inequal to the analysis of Michelle Obama. I also disagreed with the statement about how the way you think is set in stone at age twenty, but that type of statement is typical OSC boilerplate, so I'm not surprised to read it.
I should have known from reading this, that this was Adam_S.
Also, I've been reading his column weekly for 7 years and haven't seen this particular boilerplate before. I don't agree with what he said, but I think your manner of dismissing it is lame.
If it is so obvious that we can't judge her by a paper she wrote so long ago, why was it suppressed in the first place?
And while someone's manner of thought can be cultivated in a Ph.D. program, don't we judge people as fit for doctoral training based on where they are at the end of the bachelor's education?
Posted by Broncey (Member # 11562) on :
That easy huh? See that is the problem. I recall in the preface of Magic Street, Orson Scott card pointed out, that he didn’t know enough about African-American (OMG! I used a Hyphen!) culture, and what it was like to be one, to write a book on it.
So why is that everyone seems to have the solution to all of our problems as a race, yet no experience as. (I am referring to your usage of pronouns like "They" "Them" etc.)
We are never going to start looking at ourselves as Americans, because AMERICA doesn’t look at us as Americans. Granted we ourselves have alot to do with it, but the fact still remains that we LOOK DIFFERENT, that alone seperates us. It is much easier to immigrate into a society when your skin and hair look JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSES.
Example, Executive Order 9066. Most military commanders were not intelligent enough to tell the difference between the asian cultures. so alot of Chinese went into those "exclusion zones”. We have to first change public perception, and that begins with education. A person incapable of critical thinking, is unable to comprehend that voting for Obama, because he is a "black” man, is just plain silly.
p.s. Please to meet you. I am Broncey. I have lurked here for years. I am home sick with Bronchfluenza cold.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: And while someone's manner of thought can be cultivated in a Ph.D. program, don't we judge people as fit for doctoral training based on where they are at the end of the bachelor's education?
People are judged "worthy" of a phd program based upon where they are at just before they apply. For example, if you go and spend 5 years working in the field and have impressive references, that could very easily make up for a lousy gpa and horribly written papers as a bachelor's.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
If it is so obvious that we can't judge her by a paper she wrote so long ago, why was it suppressed in the first place?
[/QB]
I'm not really sure why, but I imagine to avoid the creation of "make news" story during the Clinton administration.
You can see the thesis now, just like any other Wellesley College thesis- you just have to go over in person, since theses have historical value to the college and live in Archives. Also, you aren't supposed to photocopy ENTIRE books from any library, why would distribution of a thesis be any different?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Welcome to Hatrack, Broncey.
quote:very easily make up for a lousy gpa and horribly written papers
I don't know if you really meant "very easily" there. Seems like too often there will be people with both a good GPA and good extracurriculars in your way.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I look around at people in my program and there are several who would not have gotten in if they had applied right out of college. From talking to the faculty, these students are often preferred (they have lived in the real world, learned the value of hard work the hard way, etc). I would be very surprised to see my school accept someone with an excellent undergrad record who hadn't done anything for five years.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)