Black Boys
Dave Jones
2/18/06
“Black Boys” Reflection
The ‘No Child Left Behind’ act is probably the most cleverly named pieces of legislation in United States history. How can anyone argue against having no children left behind in the great rat race of American life? We are, after all, a society that superficially and overwhelmingly supports the equalization of all citizens’ opportunities in order to maximize the degree of Social Darwinism that underwrites all of our bourgeois desires. One might read Weber’s analysis of the Protestant Work Ethic and Capitalism for more detail. This potential situation of all America’s children, however, beginning at the starting line of the race is obviously not the actual situation – the poor, disenfranchised, and marginalized of our society (we can all agree) rarely make it to the starting line. Thus the cultural hero emerges, the person who works his or her way out of the nothingness of poverty by merit and hard work, a poster child that elitists can point to and say, “This is how it should be done; why can’t the rest of you disadvantaged people do that?” An unfair sentiment indeed, but rare it is when someone raised with the proverbial silver spoon even realizes it. Luckily, our friends in the Bush administration can see beyond that. Or rather, they can convince America that it sees beyond that. We are already starting to witness the failures of this legislation on the macroscopic scale let alone the microscopic detail issue of black boys. America does not really want to help these children; America simply wants to convince itself that it is. Rhetoric such as ‘No Child Left Behind’ operates inversely proportional: the more clever the wording and the warmer and fuzzier it makes the half-educated middle-upper class feel about social justice, the more assured one can generally be that the actual effect of such legislation will be null and void.
2/18/06
“Black Boys” Reflection
The ‘No Child Left Behind’ act is probably the most cleverly named pieces of legislation in United States history. How can anyone argue against having no children left behind in the great rat race of American life? We are, after all, a society that superficially and overwhelmingly supports the equalization of all citizens’ opportunities in order to maximize the degree of Social Darwinism that underwrites all of our bourgeois desires. One might read Weber’s analysis of the Protestant Work Ethic and Capitalism for more detail. This potential situation of all America’s children, however, beginning at the starting line of the race is obviously not the actual situation – the poor, disenfranchised, and marginalized of our society (we can all agree) rarely make it to the starting line. Thus the cultural hero emerges, the person who works his or her way out of the nothingness of poverty by merit and hard work, a poster child that elitists can point to and say, “This is how it should be done; why can’t the rest of you disadvantaged people do that?” An unfair sentiment indeed, but rare it is when someone raised with the proverbial silver spoon even realizes it. Luckily, our friends in the Bush administration can see beyond that. Or rather, they can convince America that it sees beyond that. We are already starting to witness the failures of this legislation on the macroscopic scale let alone the microscopic detail issue of black boys. America does not really want to help these children; America simply wants to convince itself that it is. Rhetoric such as ‘No Child Left Behind’ operates inversely proportional: the more clever the wording and the warmer and fuzzier it makes the half-educated middle-upper class feel about social justice, the more assured one can generally be that the actual effect of such legislation will be null and void.
posted by David Jones | 18:44
2 Comments:
More cleverly named than the Patriot Act?
How dare you state the obvious, Robbie - again!
I had given this a little thought when I was writing, however, and I still think No Child wins, since the Patriot Act's overt, over-the-top rhetoric is a little more transparent to the general public than No Child's. The slightly subtler and less confrontational phrasing gives No Child the slight edge.
Post a Comment
<< Home