At the University of California Berkeley, we had two lively discussions on the claim, “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” We decided to feature both as our final two episodes in Kendipalooza this week. This conversation occurred in Dwinelle Hall during Peter’s Reverse Q&A event at Berkeley. Participants looked at the claim through various lenses, including Christianity, wealth inequality, and the Armenian genocide.
I really love seeing these discussions — especially this one because these kids seemed really enthusiastic to answer the questions and think about it. I would love to see more teachers embrace this style of teaching. Even with young children, asking questions to get them to think through concepts can be invaluable to their overall education. Better yet, they feel self-confidence and empowerment for working through the problems on their own.
Thanks for posting these. They should be required watching for all teachers.
These students seemed pretty thougthful. I enjoyed this one. I'm skeptical of the idea that disparities in wealth last forever because it's passed on from generation to generation. Here is an excerpt from The Son Also Rises by Gregory Clark which has an interesting discussion of the downstream effects of a land transfer (obviously not airtight case, but it's something interesting):
"If social status is largely transmitted through inherited genes or familial cultures, then shocks to wealth should have a much smaller effect on social status over generations than wealth that is gained through some inborn higher level of social competence. It is difficult, however, to find instances of random shocks to wealth that are uncorrelated with the characteristics of recipients for which we can observe the effects on the next generation. In an interesting and ingenious study, Hoyt Bleakley of the University of Chicago and Joe Ferrie of Northwestern University document one such random shock to wealth and its generational consequences. The removal of the Cherokee from the eastern part of the United States, following the passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, opened up for distribution large parcels of land in northwest Georgia. The state of Georgia organized a lottery to distribute eighteen thousand 160-acre parcels of land in Cherokee County in 1832.
Adult males resident for at least three years in Georgia were eligible to one draw in this lottery, and almost all eligible men entered. The winners constituted just under one-fifth of the adult male population. The parcels of land had an average value equal to the median wealth in Georgia by 1850. Further, the land could be immediately sold: the winners did not need to take possession themselves or to homestead their property. So the lottery prize was equivalent to a large cash transfer (equivalent to nearly $150,000 today) to a random selection of adult males in Georgia.
Tracking winners and their sons through the United States censuses of 1850, 1870, and 1880, Bleakley and Ferrie show, first, that by 1850, winners were indeed richer on average than losers. The value of the allotted land by then averaged $900, and the average wealth of winners was $700 higher than that of losers. So the winners were able to retain much of the benefit of winning for at least some years.
However, when we look at the children of the winners in 1870 and 1880, we see little sign that the good fortune of their fathers significantly changed their life chances. They were no more literate than the children of losers. Their occupational status was no higher. Their own children in 1880 (the grandchildren of the 1832 winners) were again no more literate. Worse, they were significantly less likely to be enrolled in school than the grandchildren of the losers.
The comparative wealth of the children of lottery winners and losers is harder to estimate precisely; data on childrens wealth are available only for 1870. Wealth is not statistically significantly higher for lottery winners’ children, but the variance is so great that we cannot rule out the possibility that the wealth gains from the lottery were indeed transferred to the children. What we do observe is that a substantial shock to wealth alone did little to change the social status of families in nineteenth-century Georgia."
If a group of leaders in a movement tell the people in that movement they have been cheated or wronged in the past and they’ll never amount to anything without an external remedy, I think a large part of the wronged people will give up. Those people will be more willing to grasp at the external remedy rather than be their own story and work to better themselves.
I call it the Battered Wife Syndrome in that the husband berates the wife and tells her she is worthless, nobody will love her and she will never amount to anything. The wife often has low to no self esteem, becomes depressed and begins to believe what the husband says. It is why some people remain in abusive relationships.
If you tell a group of people that their skin color predisposes them to failure and they’ll never overcome that, mentally, those people have a larger obstacle to get past. This is where equality became equity.
A teacher telling their students that school is a waste of time because they are only going to be as smart as their current grade level would be ridiculed and fired. Why does a part of society tolerate the words of Kendi as gospel?
I really love seeing these discussions — especially this one because these kids seemed really enthusiastic to answer the questions and think about it. I would love to see more teachers embrace this style of teaching. Even with young children, asking questions to get them to think through concepts can be invaluable to their overall education. Better yet, they feel self-confidence and empowerment for working through the problems on their own.
Thanks for posting these. They should be required watching for all teachers.
These students seemed pretty thougthful. I enjoyed this one. I'm skeptical of the idea that disparities in wealth last forever because it's passed on from generation to generation. Here is an excerpt from The Son Also Rises by Gregory Clark which has an interesting discussion of the downstream effects of a land transfer (obviously not airtight case, but it's something interesting):
"If social status is largely transmitted through inherited genes or familial cultures, then shocks to wealth should have a much smaller effect on social status over generations than wealth that is gained through some inborn higher level of social competence. It is difficult, however, to find instances of random shocks to wealth that are uncorrelated with the characteristics of recipients for which we can observe the effects on the next generation. In an interesting and ingenious study, Hoyt Bleakley of the University of Chicago and Joe Ferrie of Northwestern University document one such random shock to wealth and its generational consequences. The removal of the Cherokee from the eastern part of the United States, following the passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, opened up for distribution large parcels of land in northwest Georgia. The state of Georgia organized a lottery to distribute eighteen thousand 160-acre parcels of land in Cherokee County in 1832.
Adult males resident for at least three years in Georgia were eligible to one draw in this lottery, and almost all eligible men entered. The winners constituted just under one-fifth of the adult male population. The parcels of land had an average value equal to the median wealth in Georgia by 1850. Further, the land could be immediately sold: the winners did not need to take possession themselves or to homestead their property. So the lottery prize was equivalent to a large cash transfer (equivalent to nearly $150,000 today) to a random selection of adult males in Georgia.
Tracking winners and their sons through the United States censuses of 1850, 1870, and 1880, Bleakley and Ferrie show, first, that by 1850, winners were indeed richer on average than losers. The value of the allotted land by then averaged $900, and the average wealth of winners was $700 higher than that of losers. So the winners were able to retain much of the benefit of winning for at least some years.
However, when we look at the children of the winners in 1870 and 1880, we see little sign that the good fortune of their fathers significantly changed their life chances. They were no more literate than the children of losers. Their occupational status was no higher. Their own children in 1880 (the grandchildren of the 1832 winners) were again no more literate. Worse, they were significantly less likely to be enrolled in school than the grandchildren of the losers.
The comparative wealth of the children of lottery winners and losers is harder to estimate precisely; data on childrens wealth are available only for 1870. Wealth is not statistically significantly higher for lottery winners’ children, but the variance is so great that we cannot rule out the possibility that the wealth gains from the lottery were indeed transferred to the children. What we do observe is that a substantial shock to wealth alone did little to change the social status of families in nineteenth-century Georgia."
wow! some intelligent young people who didn't reflexively jump on the racial justice bandwagon. how did that happen?
It is so assuring that this kind of teacher are really still exists. I'm so enthusiastic to answer myself 😂
If a group of leaders in a movement tell the people in that movement they have been cheated or wronged in the past and they’ll never amount to anything without an external remedy, I think a large part of the wronged people will give up. Those people will be more willing to grasp at the external remedy rather than be their own story and work to better themselves.
I call it the Battered Wife Syndrome in that the husband berates the wife and tells her she is worthless, nobody will love her and she will never amount to anything. The wife often has low to no self esteem, becomes depressed and begins to believe what the husband says. It is why some people remain in abusive relationships.
If you tell a group of people that their skin color predisposes them to failure and they’ll never overcome that, mentally, those people have a larger obstacle to get past. This is where equality became equity.
A teacher telling their students that school is a waste of time because they are only going to be as smart as their current grade level would be ridiculed and fired. Why does a part of society tolerate the words of Kendi as gospel?