No, you've misconstrued the controversy I was referring to.
I don't think I have, but for the record, what's with this reviving of 70s controversies and using them against Biden?
It goes back to the late 60s and early 70s, when black children were believed by some psychologists to have impoverished intellects that were associated with poor linguistic skills. Biden was responding specifically to a question about reparations and race relations, not whether it was generally a good idea to read to children. Your article had nothing to do with it. Biden was associating racial bias with his past understanding of what the root causes were of poor academic performance in African American children.
My article had to do with the general idea that parental involvement significantly affects early childhood intellectual development. And if, on average, black parents are less involved (for whatever reason) it would have consequences to their children's academic performance no matter what the schools do. But saying anything that even obliquely suggests that black people might be partially responsible for difference in academic achievement is
verboten because it is not politically correct. "Blame whitey" seems to be the only acceptable answer to anything race-related.
Again, you insert a red herring into the discussion. Biden was talking about exposing black kids to a wider range of vocabulary than he mistakenly believed they were.
Why do you think he was mistaken?
And it's not a red herring - it shows how NYC proposes to deal with a difference in academic achievement. Not very productively in my opinion.
His remarks really harkened back to the old controversy over IQ discrepancies between black kids and white kids. If you are really interested in it, you should read this article by Bill Labov that was published back in 1972:
Academic Ignorance and Black Intelligence.
I think it's pretty obvious both genetic heredity and environment - including home environment - play a role in developing intelligence. Schools play a role too obviously, but can't be solely blamed. And I completely disagree with him that teaching black children using Ebonics (or AAVE if you insist) is a panacea, or even advisable. We do not suggest Appalachian children be instructed in Hillbilly either. That's based on the first part of the article. It turned out to be TL/DR.
Derec, you are "too deep in with identity politics" for me.
Not at all. I am merely responding to the identity politics that has infected the Left and the Democratic Party.
You can't stop posting things about race and your perception of liberal hypocrisy on that subject.
You can't really blame me given how much currency that topic is being given. Just look at the Democratic debates.
Elizabeth Warren doesn't dwell on the topic, and she takes positions on race relations that are fairly standard for Democrats (and that I wholeheartedly support).
You support "reparations"?
You think Michael Brown was "murdered"?
I'm not a fan of the term "reparations", but that is something that Democrats are going with.
Well that's the word that has been in use since well before it became fashionable for high-ranking Democratic politicians to support it. In any case, it's not the word but the concept that is objectionable.
My problem with it is that average Americans are going to perceive it as something other than what it is really about,
It's pretty clear what it is about - give free stuff to blacks because of their race.
and the label is what trips them up.
Nope. It's the race-based benefits that trips people up together with "collective guilt" used to justify it.
But Democrats are notoriously ineptt at framing policies in language that doesn't scare the bejeebers out of people who are not part of their ideological base. Republicans seem to be much better at that, IMO.
True, but in their defense, it is pretty hard to polish that particular turd.
Probably not. He really doesn't help her to pivot towards the middle ground, which she will need to do in the general election.
I think he would help her do that. Plus he is young (unlike her) and from the Mid-West, which is the region Dems lost to Trump.
He likely will not be able to deliver Indiana to her electoral count, and most Americans are probably still ignorant of the fact that he is in a same-sex marriage.
He doesn't need to deliver Indiana necessarily.
If she wins the nomination, then I suspect she will pick someone who will help her with turning out African American voters (almost 25% of Democratic voters) and Latinos.
92% of blacks already vote Democratic, as well as a large majority of hispanics. With her calls for reparations, calling Michael Brown's killing "murder" and opposition to deporting illegals, she'lll do fine with these demographics. Where she will struggle is Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania - i.e. states carried by Trump that Dems need at least some of.
As more people become aware of it, it will have a negative impact on large numbers of voters. Buttigieg actually has some negative electability issues in that area. However, she will likely find some other role for him in the federal government, if elected. Probably a cabinet secretary.
I read about it. Some black thug got shot by police and somehow it's Buttigieg's fault. I still think he is a viable Veep choice for somebody like Warren. Who do you think she would pick?
