Read this book! Not only was "The Philadelphia Negro" a groundbreaking piece of sociological research in its day (the late 19th century), the book also goes a long way to explain the historical roots of much of what we see today in Philadelphia and other cities in America. Organized simply and effectively into clear chapters, we learn how African Americans really lived in Philadelphia after emancipation; detailing family and household arrangements, employment, education, health and religion. Elijah Anderson's introduction is a fantastic bonus, helping to illuminate the book even more. Everyone living in Philadelphia should read this!

Du Bois himself called The Quest "an economic study of some merit." Wow, it sure was an emotionally engaging economic study to read! This book is a page-turner. Du Bois attempts to take his reader into the heart of American neoslavery without using the traditional form of slave narrative. The fictional work of this famed writer of "The Souls of Black Folk," is a penetrating glance into soul of a nation built on dehumanizing labor.

More East Asians than Whites qualify for entrance to top universities in the U.S. East Asians also average higher SAT scores and GPAs than do Whites. In turn, White averages are above those of Hispanics, whose average scores are above those of Blacks. In the music, sports, and the entertainment industries, however, Blacks are disproportionately over-represented.

Two main theories have been put forth to explain such racial- and ethnic-group differences in average rate of socially-valued outcomes: (1) the distribution model, and (2) the discrimination model. The two models may each be partially correct.

The discrimination model focuses on social and institutional practices that discriminate against members of one group (or favor members of another), thus tilting the "playing field." This model assumes that in the absence of discrimination, outcomes should be about equal for all populations; thus evidence of differential performance in itself constitutes proof of discrimination. Factors hypothesized under this model to cause mean racial group differences include relative poverty, anti-Black bias, a lack of access to legitimate channels of upward mobility, and dysfunctional family organization growing out of the legacy of slavery.

Loury's "stigma theory" is an extreme special case of the discrimination model. Well articulated, it builds on Erving Goffman's idea that some people carry bodily marks (stigmata) that incline others to judge them negatively. (Goffman's stigmatized classes were the blind, the deaf, the "crippled," the drunk, the ex-mental patient, and the homosexual.) According to Loury's extension, in a white racist society, Blacks have been tagged with a disreputable reputation, a "spoiled identity" that leads others to doubt their worthiness, or if they even share "a common humanity with the observer" (p. 6). Loury believes only more powerful affirmative action programs can rid our society of such "insidious habits of thought, selective patterns of social intercourse...and defective public deliberation..."(p. 168).

The alternative distributional model, in contrast, explains both the overlapping of racial groups and the offset in their means in terms of intrinsic group characteristics -- for example, heritable differences in average IQ, proneness to crime, athletic ability, and other biological variables such as body type, hormonal levels, personality and temperament. In contrast to the discrimination model, under the distributional model, population differences are expected to occur, and to do so globally.

While Loury's explication of his position is well argued, his cavalier dismissal of distributional theories makes his book one of advocacy, not science. His stigma theory rests on the week reeds of verbal argument, not the bricks and mortar of statistical analysis and hypothesis testing. Right from the get-go, he high-handedly states it as an "axiom" (p. 5) that racial differences in IQ are not biological and that "this book is not the place to make that case" (p. 6), thus granting himself carte blanche to withhold from his readers one hundred or more years of research about group differences in brain size, sex hormones, as well as trans-racial adoption studies, within-family social mobility, and the worldwide distribution of cognitive ability. To cite one established empirical finding that undercuts his theory, Blacks do not underachieve scholastically only in "white majority countries" like the U.S., Britain, and Canada, where, in principle, "stigma theory" could apply. Africans in Africa (whose average IQ = 70) score even further below the White average IQ of 100 than do African Americans (average IQ = 85), perhaps because African Americans have about 25% White genes. (Those seeking detailed information, complete with citations to the original scientific research, should refer to my RACE, EVOLUTION, AND BEHAVIOR, purchasable via amazon.com).

Some have suggested that it is unkind to call attention to such facts because we cannot expect our society to accept the genetic component in the mean-group differences in IQ and other traits and still maintain its ethical commitment to equality before the law. Yet, we do acknowledge that some families within an ethnic group, as well as individuals within a family, do better in school, in sports, in music, or in inspiring or in helping, than do others. We should, therefore, by extension, be able to generalize to our entire human family. If viewed against the backdrop that group differences are simply aggregated individual differences, it should be easier to acknowledge openly the reality of genetic differences, which deep down inside we all recognize.

The current issue of the Journal of Economic Literature (December 2002) has a review of Loury's book by Steven Raphael (Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California at Berkely) on pages 1202 - 1214. The JEL is a peer reviewed journal; the article is very thoughtful and well written. Raphael's article ends with the following sentences:

"While many may take issue with Loury's analysis of racial inequality in the United States, a careful study of this book is sure to challenge one's assumptions and to force the reader to think more deeply about the stubbornly and profoundly persistent and profound social disadvantage of African-American. On this basis alone, the book is a must-read." (page 1213)

The JEL arrived this morning and I ordered a copy today.

This is text of my letter replying to JP Rushton's useful review of my book.

Oct. 16, 2002
"I disagree with you about what the scientific evidence establishes regarding "natural distribution" differences between racial groups, though that will not come as a surprise to you. What might surprise you though is that I agree with your criticism of my "Anti-Essentialism Axiom." In retrospect, I should not have framed the matter that way (in the language of formal logic, etc.) I ought simply to have said something like, "some people [JPR, eg.] think inherent
difference on the average in group capacities explains this phenomenon. Others disagree. I take the latter position, and argue from this point forward on that supposition. (Evidence can be found in support of both positions. This is not the place to review the voluminous evidence one way or the other on this question -- a task which, if properly done, would
require a book unto itself.) Those who disagee with me about this are unlikely to be persuaded by the argument to follow, though they may find food for thought there. Those who agree with me, however, will want to explore the implications that flow from that supposition of (nearly) equal natural capacities..."

You are not the first person to read me as being sly or dissembling, when all I intended was to put forward a short-hand version of the point of view just expressed.

I'm glad you found my position to have been well expressed.

Finally, I would merely note that the "stigma" theory has not yet been tested. It is not true, as you assert, that no evidence exists to support it. (It is true that I provide little supporting evidence in the book. You should stay tuned; I'm still working on the problem.) But, there is a growing body of evidence in social psychology (for instance, see the pieces
by Claude Steele et al., or Susan Fiske in Vol.II of the recently updated "Handbook of Social Psychology".) My book is a little theoretical primer, a conceptual piece, not a comprehensive empirical assessment of the issues. (That is to come.) As a social scientist, a Fellow of the Econometric
Society, etc., I know the difference between rhetoric and science. I also appreciate the value of both arts. We will see soon enough whether any scientific support can be given to the speculative argument of my book.

Thank you for sharing your review with me. GL

There is no doubt that Wole Soyinka is a good writer - his Nobel prize was justly deserved and not a case of affirmative action as another reviewer insultingly suggested. However, someone encountering Soyinka for the first time in this book would not be tempted to try reading his more famous writings: this book is, to be frank, not well written. Based on three lectures Soyinka gave at Harvard University in 1997, Soyinka touches upon the very topical reparations controversy in the first essay, praises the Senegalese writer Leopold Senghor in the second and spends the last examining African poets' attempts to deal with the legacies of colonialism and racism.

Through all three lectures Soyinka employs a very dense style, one that might have worked well when speaking for an academic audience at Harvard but one that does not translate well onto the written page. Phrases like 'slaves into the twentieth-first century, mouthing the mangy mandates of mendacity, ineptitude, corruption and sadism' sound impressive but are merely a means for Soyinka to play around with words when he could be spending his time seriously addressing very important issues like reparations. When he does get down to business, he writes that 'reparations would involve the acceptance by Western nations of a moral obligation to repatriate the post-colonial loot salted away in their vaults, in real estate and business holdings' but never goes into detail exactly what this would involve. What is more disturbing is his frequent references to the U.S., which reveal his real ignorance about American life: examples include his belief that David Duke could have been elected President in 1992 and that the Ku Klux Klan held or holds a 'tentacular hold over power structures across the United States.' If he knows so little about the country where he is giving his lectures (and also holds a job as a Professor at Emory University), should we trust him to do a good job at addressing the international debate on reparations?

I didn't give this book one star for the fact that Soyinka's second and third lectures are reasonably coherent and do a good job of tracing the literary history behind Negritude. (For instance, he discusses the reasons why American black writers were in closer contact with Francophone blacks rather than their Anglophone brothers.) Yet even here he does not attempt to present any kind of thesis, but is merely contented with quoting various poems and doing some quick literary analysis.

Readers with an interest in discovering why Soyinka won the Nobel Prize should thus turn elsewhere.

Wole Soyinka's mastery of the English language, as I have had occasion to say on another forum, borders on the supernatural. And perhaps therein lies the man's flaw--but that is a matter I will get to in a minute.

"The Burden of Memory, the Muse of Forgiveness," you must understand, is "in the obligatory [Soyinka] fashion," a compilation of oral lectures the learned professor gave at Harvard. You must understand too, that the writing is basically academic, and suited more to an oral lecture. And because we speak of Soyinka, the writing is characteristically difficult.

So then, his lectures-turn-books (including, of course, "The Burden of Memory, the Muse of Forgiveness") are not the best of works with which to appraise Soyinka's genius. For a true appreciation of Soyinka's literary prowess, you must read his plays and novels.

The flaw, of which I spoke earlier, is captured in the question a friend once posed to me (not Soyinka): "Is not the purpose of language to communicate?" Without a full-fledged dictionary, and the will to re-read whole paragraphs, one would struggle to keep up with Soyinka's writing.

In all, whether one likes it or not, the man is a literary giant, period!

I was extremely impressed with Professor Soyinka's argument for reparations not only for Africa, but for all victims of enslavement, colonialism, and oppression. His style may be difficult, but for the able reader it is an excellent introduction to the conditions, both past and present, contributing to the current state of affairs throughout the African continent. It provides much food for thought on the question of just what is justice. Bob Marley's song "War" was constantly in my mind. It would be an honor to shake Professor Soyinka's hand.

I wanted this book to drop some science on me about the recent waves of shows that I cared about -- but this book didn't do it. It doesn't seem like she talked to any of the people that really mattered -- maybe she talked to a few people on this show and than, but I didn't know more after reading this book than from reading TV guide. I didn't like this book because it seemed like she had one thing to say and kept saying it over and over again and did not delve into anything with any depth.

Bravo to Kristal! I have had a tremendous interest in the behind-the-scenes events of Black television. I read tv credits with a microscope (figuratively speaking) and it was a joy to read excerpts of Kristal's interviews with the likes of Ralph Farquhar, Robert Townsend and Yvette Lee Bowser. These are my role models and now Kristal Brent Zook is one as well.

We are short on critics with the type of sensibilities Kristal clearly has for the black community, political viewpoints and scholarship.

I look forward to more from Dr. Zook. Color by Fox is a great start. Don't miss out on the first publication from someone from which we are sure to hear more.

This is a seriously important book. Zook makes a strong claim for the appeal of such Black-produced shows like In Living Color, Roc, South Central, The Fresh Prince of Bell Air, Living Single, Martin, and New York Undercover to a largely Black audience. Zook argues and illustrates how these shows were built off a Black autobiographical tradition of Black writers, producers, and actors. As I remember watching the shows, they often dealt with intraracial group issues that though not always easily understood by white viewers were nevertheless both entertaining and culturally important to Black viewers. I'm not sure if there are similiar or better works published that deal with Zook's claims and analysis. Many of the shows listed above delt with complicated issues of race, class, and gender surely not found in mainstream shows. In her analysis, she explores four common traits that reappear in these shows: "these can be summarized as: autobiography, meaning a tendacy toward collective and individual authorship of black experience; improvisation, the practice of inventing and ad-libbing unscripted dialogue or action; aeasthetics, a certain pride in visual signifiers of blackness; and drama, a marked desire for complex characterization and emotionally challenging subject."

An entire media literacy course could be built around this book. Probably at no other time or in the near future will we see Black representation as culturally sensistive as it was during the time these shows were cast on Fox. It's important that we use these shows as case studies for the future of Black representation in the media.

I would love to dialogue with others who choose to read this book. Write me not at the above address, but at BChavanu@excite.com.

I wasn't impressed with this book in the least. From what I hear, Carby is THE charismatic figure in Yale's Afro-Am department and students love her. Still, this work was a bunch of tired literary criticism that really went nowhere. When you have great works on black masculinity by Devon Carbrado, Michael Dyson, etc., there's no reason to read this. Even womanist scholars such as hooks and Hill Collins have written better stuff on black men than this book. Not too impressive.