Kevin, the point is that black immigrants, no matter what their past is in their country of origin, come here with a fresh start in a different environment whereas the black people already have been affected by the domiant theme over a long period of time. Yes, black immigrants will eventually be affected as well (take a look at the history of the first big wave Caribbean immigrants from the 50s), but, not initially, to the degree of existing black citizens. That makes a huge difference. If you want to make a interesting comparison, it might make more sense to compare the subgroup living in the hood in Baltimore with the same subgroup living in the hood in Kingston, JA. I suspect that you would find similar levels of social "pathologies". Also, I would hestitate to suggest black immigrant groups not from Africa seem, as a group, to be better able to take opportunties presented to them. I don't think that's generally true.

We're going to have to disgree about whether using the recent history of inner-cities is productive or relevant. I just don't see how you can possibly ignore the many past/current elements which have/had a large effect on the shape of inner-cities today. Frankly, I think it's absurd to reduce it to the Cosby show versus 50 Cent. Btw, unless they catch the reruns on Nickelodeon, most of the kids in HS today, have not seen the the Huxtables on anything near a regular basis. For them, Cosby is that old guy in dark sunglasses ranting at and berating them. The main problem is that Patterson is basing his theory on an story told to him by a teacher friend because it confirms his suspicions and he's frustrated with measurements (e.g. doing actual work). Instead of taking the self-aware posturing of the kids as causal fact, wouldn't it make more sense to follow/study the kids to see exactly what happens?

"Now, to me, this raises an interesting point--obviously there's plenty of "white trash" around. Whites are the majority on welfare, etc. So is there any reason to believe that all black folk can be lifted out of poverty and pathology when the dominant opressor race can't do that for its own brethren within the current social system (although the poor in the US aren't as bad off as 3rd world poor who live on less than $1 a day a lot of the time)."

Excellent point.

Btw, thanks for the good discusssion.

Given the silly judgemental hysteria of some here, her comments were refreshingly measured and sensible. Some of you folks are ridiculous.

While I agree with your latter sentiment, your earlier take on snooping is exaggerated and backward. Asking that someone who supposedly cares about you to respect some of your privacy is not demanding absolute privacy in general nor immunity from the curiosity of others. Sure, people come across things but that's a lot different than actively looking through others stuff for something. Also, the "you must have something to hide if..." reasoning is just a ready and weak justification/rationale for insecure (what you call curious) behavior that the snooper already knows is suspect.

While I can see how some might read it as an "okay" for "Barely Legal", I didn't take it that way at all. His main point about the US being uptight about sex compared to some parts of the world (in this case Brazil) and especially about how we treat violence as opposed to sex is correct.

The histrionic stuff about AIDS and Prostitution and grinding poverty and, I think someone even called him a child loving pervert, is a bit much. Yes AIDS, Prostitution and poverty are all big problems in Brazil. Although not as big, they are problems here as well. So? His main point about Brazil and some other parts of the world as it relates to their more relaxed attitude toward sex is still right.

But, I did love the idea that a Brazilian bikini wax (btw, all waxing hurts) is an example of a perverse male? imposed oppression against women because it makes a woman's privates "look like a child's". Too funny. Unfortunately, vanity and fashion are more to blame than the perverted Patriarchy. I guess Brazilian women decided that hair sticking out of thongs and other skimpy undies/beachwear/clothes wasn't all that attractive and decided to take matters into their own ...well, maybe not their own...hands.

Stick to your guns. While your situation was different than the LW's, you'd be wise to avoid "advice" that's offered between snide insults. Like below.

That should have been veiled insults as opposed to snide ones...

Of course you were giving Sarah advice and you were being a bit snide about it, but, I do agree with you that her situation was different than the LWs. I guess I just didn't see her letter as advice to the LW per se. No biggie...

Xema,

Perhaps you should reconsider your remarks again. While I've already agreed with you that Sarah's situation was different than the LWs, you're going way too far and probably reading way too much into Sarah's letter. How am I an enabler by telling her she's fine? I have no even remotely objective reason to think otherwise and her solution, or more accurately, her post-marriage vow, not to be emotionally bullied in the future seems to make plain sense.

Now what was that about now giving her advice? ;-)

Xema,

Seriously what? This is not serious at all, but, it is strange that you're still going on about it. Okay, I'm an enabler, Sarah's not fine and somebody else here is jealous of you. Happy now? You win.

PS - Sarah, if you're still out there, I hope you're ROTFLYAO. That would probably make more sense than anything said here.

The previous Letter should have had my name attached to it.