I can understand Orlando Patterson's frustration in the NY Times article and I'm glad he pointed out that the "acting white" nonsense has been proven to be mostly false, but, he errs in his what I call "gangsta rap" culture analysis and appalling "predatory sexuality" comment. The latter is too stupid to comment on. I'll just assume he let his frustration get the better of him. Firstly, it is not simply a case of life imitating art. It is mostly art imitating life. Sure, the videos tend to be exaggerated bs, but, they do reflect "the streets". That's the appeal to certain young black males that folks like Patterson don't really get. Those guys see people who come from their hoods, look like them, dress like them, act like them and think like them, making it big. It's not nearly as remote an experience for them as a Hollywood actor or pro athlete.

Anyway, they are not embracing a "culture" created out of whole cloth by somebody else. They are affirmimg a somewhat accurate reflection of their lives, and of course like young boys since the beginning of time, trying to be cool and get girls. While it's a good discussion to have about the possible effect of those things, particularly as it relates to educational achievement, it would be astoundingly stupid to imply that, for example, the "culture of gangsta rap" killed Keith Stephens because all of the things that make up gangsta rap images and supposed influences have been around in those hoods and elsewhere long before gangsta rap even existed. Btw, most of the rap referred to as gangsta rap isn't gangsta rap. For the most part, gangsta rap died with NWA, Tupac and Biggie.

The problem with using a culture explanation in this case is that it's an easy way out and lazy thinking. For example, again, I'll use crime stats and, while they are national, I'll use NYC. It's a fact that the overall crime rate has significantly dropped here (last 16 years straight) and, as such, less people are being assaulted, robbed and killed. So, if an "embrace of gangsta rap culture" causes, among other things, violence, then how do you explain the fact that violence steadily decreased exactly during the period when the "embrace" says it should have risen? Also, the HS dropout rate for Blacks decreased during the "gansta rap culture" time as well. It's now at 10.9% for all Blacks. And lo and behold, while still too high (66.2% overall 15-44 yr old and 64.8% 15-19 yr old), even the births to unmarried mothers declined during the period too. I guess all that "predatory sexuality" is going elsewhere. So, some of the major social ills that are supposedly the result of embracing of gangsta rap subculture have in fact declined during the embrace. Time to get a new theory Professor, this one is done. Get back to work.

The truth is that the "social ills" rates have always been higher for the subgroup that Patterson is talking about but you simply can't ignore that the overall trends (even among the group in question) are down. Also, as you indicate with your real estate scheme example, the general cultural message is not unique to gangsta rap images and neither involve going to college and putting your time in entry level jobs. The general cultural message is as American as (I hate to say it) apple pie. Although I would imagine that going from a petty street thug to mega-stardom would be harder than getting rich off real estate with No! Money! Down!. Unless of coures you're the infomercial hustler who is selling the get rich quick plans. I do agree with you that certain folks usually have a cushion, so to speak, when their get rich quick schemes don't go well, but again, that's always been the case, no?

Finally, again I agree that the cultural aspect of challenge is probably not the best choice for the majority of young men in the subgroup, but I think it borders on irresponsibility for folks like Patterson to focus on a particular cultural explanation without providing the context. The immigrant thing is a false dichotomy. Whatever race they are, it's a bit much to directly compare their "fresh start" experiences to people who are on the tail end of a long historical experience. I mean to truly understand current inner-city issues, at the very least, you'd have to draw a straight line from the 60s to now (e.g. civil rights, race riots, white flight, loss of job base, redlining, heroin epidemic, "Rockefeller drug laws", crack, school re-segregation and the general gutting of public education, 90s economic boom and crime drop and so on... ). You can't ignore those things and say if you all stoppped attempting to "Get Rich or Die Trying", then all will be well. I guess I'm more of an optimist than Patterson. You can't have number drops that significant over a decent period of time without people in that subgroup being part of the drop. Yes, it's slow and frustrating but it's heading in the right direction. Let's keep it that way!