>I think I said that in my previous postings: because poverty in children is
>caused by poverty of their parents, and poor parents, being socially
>marginalised, are less likely to endow their children with 'social
>capital' (that is, manners, aspirations, credentials, social connections,
>etc.) required to gain access to the middle class status. I think that
>works for most societies, so I do not know why you mentioned "dark skinned
>kids" - certainly did not.
you have not explained:
1. why their parents are poor. 2. you have not addressed the many many people who do endow children with cultural capital, as best they can, and who, nonetheless, do not succeed. the evidence here is fairly uh...perversive. 3. you have not explained why if among the poor some or even many "make it" up and out of poverty, then why does poverty persist? 4. you have not explained why the poor are socially marginlized. there is no reason for this to be the case.
the thing that is troubling is that you ignore other things:
1. the fact that people with whom you are having this discussion have made clear where they stand wrt the structuralism-agency debate. we've all been pretty consistent in rejecting highly determinist explanations.
2. that this has all been done before and done so in far more judiciously. people have actually used research to back up their claims. they have rejected structural determinist theories but refuse to be seduced by theories of agency and choice. and, again, you ignore the fact that several folks here are quite capable of doing the same and of citing the very folks who've managed to avoid either extreme.
kelley
"i also would like an academic job. i am not very good at much else, plus i don't like following others' orders (and don't do it very well) or getting up in the morning for a 9 to 5. the idea of not being able to get an academic job makes me a little nervous since this is exactly why i went into a grad program." --Sarah M. Pitcher, Syracuse University (quoted w/ permission)