In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values

This is a classic reactionary comment that doesn't understand the asymmetry between the "bourgeoisie" and the lower classes.

The "hegemonic" "bourgeoisie", secure in the status quo, sees politics as a game for "opportunists", while the oppressed classes lay aside their differences so they can try build enough power to overthrow the oppression and end their suffering.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1013753/quotes/qt1525548 [City Councilman Dan White is complaining that he is having trouble getting re-elected because his base doesn't have any problems that need government intervention, while 'lucky duck' Harvey Milk has the natural support of the gay voter base who want the police to stop murdering them.]

Dan White: You have an issue [gay rights]. Harvey Milk: It's more than an issue. This is our life we're fighting for.

Lets imagine a culture that says anyone that has brown eyes is a non-person and can be owned. Once owned that person can be beaten, raped, or killed at the whine of the owner. Further more, any crime comes with a price tag, if you pay the price, you can do whatever you want with no legal repercussions.

I think we can rank our current culture as better than that one. If we can rank two culture than it is possible to compare them. That said, we might not be able to conclude if Japanese or German culture today. But we can say that Sudan could be improved by adopting parts of those cultures.

I think saying we cannot rank cultures leaves up hobbled when it comes to critically evaluating them.

From the original article:

These basic cultural precepts reigned from the late 1940s to the mid-1960s. They could be followed by people of all backgrounds and abilities, especially when backed up by almost universal endorsement. Adherence was a major contributor to the productivity, educational gains, and social coherence of that period.[1]

People attach happy ideas during this time because during good economic times, things just work on all cylinders. However, two major things were happening that actually led to the advancements and fruitfulness of the time mentioned from 40s to mid 60s.

1) World War II happened and ended, everyone was obliterated but the US. This led to massive gains in all areas of wealth and industry. It was a war that took us to a superpower, and at the time, everyone owed us money. Good economic times lead to more ability to have kids and a solid consumer base to support middle class housing/restaurants/retail etc.

2) Women started entering the workforce and diversity started to happen opening up the workforce that was previously built for 1 person to provide for multiple people and salary needed for that, to suddenly having sometimes 2 in the house that brought in double the money needed for a time.

You could say a move away from family focused housing and middle class retail/restaurants is a problem, but that is more to do with wage stagnation and the internet/productivity. People can't afford to get married and have multiple kids as they could before, wages have not truly kept up and been steadily dropping since the 70s as well as share of productivity/GDP gains[2].

People have more kids in good economic times and less kids in bad economic times[3][4], same reason there was a baby boom in the time they mentioned from the 40s to the mid 60s. The 90s are similar in terms of good economic times, people had more kids, people bought more homes, more products, people were getting wage increases, new technologies/innovation that gains advantage worldwide etc.

In the end it is economics and timing, whatever is popular during those times people will attribute it to their own confirmation biases.

[1] http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/commentary/paying-the-p...

[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=2Xa

[3] http://www.prb.org/publications/datasheets/2012/world-popula...

[4] http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/10/12/in-a-down-economy-...

Well sure, but they were natives that weren't part of the "culture" one pictures when one imagines an average New Zeala---ohhhhh

It's likely being down-voted because it is brought up in the context of black Americans. In this context a quite frustrating argument familiar to black Americans often follows:

"If the Jews are okay, then how come you couldn't figure it out? HMMMMMM? That's what I thought." is heard often when bringing up the American Jewish within the context of this discussion. While I don't agree with down-voting a comment that smells similar to something toxic (I doubt the grand-parent intended this interpretation). The highly negative reaction is likely due to the frequency with which this argument is brought up, and its lack of any validity.

Comparing the American Jewish to African-Americans is an apples-to-oranges comparison. The time spans for the comparison are horribly different - When were Jews recently generationally slaved for centuries?

The thing that really annoys me about this comparison between Jews and African Americans is "because of their strong values of hard work, family, and creativity". In my opinion these values of Jewish Americans are obtained through the tightly ingrained religious and familial structures. Unlike the Jewish, however, African-Americans' culture was systematically annihilated when they were enslaved. There are few traces of African religions and customs that remained after slavery. Any shared values were destroyed by such an event. You can similarly say that the massive amounts of black males that have since been imprisoned for minor drug crimes in the U.S. has had a similar effect on the familial unit.

The plights of Jewish and Black Americans in the U.S. have been very different. This is likely why people reacted poorly to the subject being brought up.