origin of conflict among Black diaspora

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

This is one of the dumbest shyt I've ever read

Then you really haven't spent too much time thinking about the predicament that Black people were in after the Civil War.

They had no culture aside from that allowed to them by White people or what they 'hid' from them.....which wasn't much.

Then again, your argument is with the man who wrote about it back in 1939 based on his own experiences, those of his contemporaries, and the many Black freemen and former slaves he interviewed as well as the data collected by the various Government agencies in-existence at the time........

 

[videogamestashbox.com]

It was a 'clash of cultures'. When Southern Blacks moved North (or to America from the Carribean/Africa), they encountered 'classes' of Blacks that didn't exist in the South. These 'classes' were actually imitating the traditions of Whites, particularly the middle-/working-classes as they had easiest access to them via working alongside them in the urban areas they immigrated to since they really had no traditions of their own after centuries of enforced slavery and institutional racism.

Read 'The Negro Family in the United States', and, 'Black Bourgeoisie' both from 1939 by where this issue was brought to light.​

Man watch who yall quoting up in here Frazier was one of those people pushing the idea that AA had no culture because of slavery and even went at it with the cac MELVILLE J. HERSKOVITS. who wrote the book "myth of the negro past" detailing/building the case for our cultural continuity...

The myth of the Negro past is one of the principal supports of race prejudice in this country. Unrecognized in its efficacy, it rationalizes discrimination in everyday contact between Negroes and whites, influences the shaping of policy where Negroes are concerned, and affects the trends of research by scholars whose theoretical approach, methods, and systems of thought presented to students are in harmony with it. Where all its elements are not accepted, no conflict ensues even when, as in popular belief, certain tenets run contrary to some of its component parts, since its acceptance is so little subject to question that contradictions are not likely to be scrutinized too closely. The system is thus to be regarded as mythological in the technical sense of the term, for, as will be made apparent, it provides the sanction for deep-seated belief which gives coherence to behavior.

This myth of the Negro past, which validates the concept of Negro inferiority, may be outlined as follows:​

1. Negroes are naturally of a childlike character, and adjust easily to the most unsatisfactory social situations, which they accept readily and even happily, in contrast to the American Indians, who preferred extinction to slavery;
2. Only the poorer stock of Africa was enslaved, the more intelligent members of the African communities raided having been clever enough to elude the slavers' nets;
3. Since the Negroes were brought from all parts of the African continent, spoke diverse languages, represented greatly differing bodies of custom, and, as a matter of policy, were distributed in the New World so as to lose tribal identity, no least common denominator of understanding or behavior could have possibly been worked out by them;
4. Even granting enough Negroes of a given tribe had the opportunity to live together, and that they had the will and ability to continue their customary modes of behavior, the cultures of Africa were so savage and relatively so low in the scale of human civilization that the apparent superiority of European customs as observed in the behavior of their masters, would have caused and actually did cause them to give up such aboriginal traditions as they may otherwise have desired to preserve;
5. The Negro is thus a man without a past.

The Myth of the Negro Past.
MELVILLE J. HERSKOVITS.
(xiv, 374 pp. New York: Harper Brothers, 1941.)

What did it profit the American Negro to be more closely identified with Africa? And what was Africa in the American mind? Herskovits knew that there had been large organized black states in Africa; that there were complex cultures there, and magnificent art, and fully developed religious orientations--but Americans in general did not know this, nor could they see the complexity and the richness of preliterate cultures in the manner of an anthropologist. Myrdal certainly was unconvinced. (He was quoted by Ralph Bunche as saying that "Mel Herskovits is rather crazy at present. He sees everything in the light of African inheritance.") Black scholars were divided. DuBois and Woodson praised Herskovits's effort. E. Franklin Frazier attacked it. Having recently published his magnum opus, The Negro Family in the United States, Frazier saw nothing of African survival or retention in the black American family. He also feared that the Africanist thesis would give support to black nationalists and white racists. For Frazier, as for many black scholars and intellectuals, Negroes wanted to be Americans, fully accepted as such, and nothing more.

- Out of Africa

Fraziers books hit around the time when people where exploring the extent of AA culture...

Africanisms in the Gullah Dialect
Book by Lorenzo Dow Turner​

​

...and frazier was on some other shyt.

Never quote E. Franklin Frazier in a political historical vacuum. The most principle/popular of contexts will be...
E. Franklin Frazier vs Melville Herskovits​

NOTE: Don't mistake northern "well off" AA in the 1800-1900s for all northern AAs then try and make that northern AA culture. You can't take the northern "Black Bourgeoisie" and try to position them as the totality of northerners at that time or the propagators/maintainers of northern AA culture(prior to/during) the great migration. Be careful how you interpret historical facts ...to be clear, that goes for me to

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Frazier was one of those people pushing the idea that AA had no culture because of slavery and even went at it with the cac MELVILLE J. HERSKOVITS. who wrote the book "myth of the negro" past detailing/building the case for our cultural continuity...

That is entirely false. Frazier pushed the idea that Black culture had been restrained by White Supremacy and the 'social norms' of the culture in which they found themselves, not that they had no culture of which to speak about....​

http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2720&context=jssw​

Viewed from the standpoint of its institutional character, the family may be regarded as disorganized when it does not conform to socially accepted norms of family life. But if we also view the family as an organized social group or cooperating unit with which the various members are identified and this identification is recognized by the community, then family disorganization may be defined differently.... In many sections of the rural South, especially in the plantation area, there are Negro families which do not conform to the institutional pattern of the American family. But it would be a mistake to label them as disorganized since they are stable groups and carry on the functions of the family. Therefore, in discussing family disorganization we shall be referring to the disintegration of the family group or its failure to function as a cooperating unit.

E. Franklin Frazier

Thus, Frazier observed that the legitimacy of family forms was defined by the state or by the community and that family organization and disorganization were defined by conformity to accepted norms or by the functional character of the group. Frazier recognized the former and emphasized the latter in his analyses and policy considerations. Therefore, in this case, Frazier took on characteristics of the cultural relativism school. Nonetheless, it is generally well known that Frazier did not believe that African culture had a principle role in the way the African-American family developed in the US. Frazier is usually contrasted with White anthropologist Melville Herskovits (1941/1958), who is often celebrated for his support of the idea that African cultural survivals or Africanisms persisted in the New World. However, we should understand that Herskovits recognized that disruptions to traditional forms of social organization could seriously disrupt culture, as did Frazier. Their differences often revolved around interpretation. For example, Frazier viewed commonlaw marriages among rural Blacks in the South as an adaptive response to the American experience that was related to the degree of acculturation to mainstream norms. Herskovits related this behavior to African marriage practices where sanction and consent by families were required and not the approval of the state (Frazier, 1939, pp. 133-136; Herskovits, 1941/1958, p. 171). Ironically, however, Herskovits (1941/1958) observed: "It goes without saying that the plantation system rendered the survival of African family types impossible, as it did their underlying moral and supernatural sanctions, except in dilute form" (p. 139).

The last bolded sentence is exactly what Frazier proved in his dissertation and follow-up books.​

The people who need to watch who they quote should actually read what the man wrote instead of relying on other peoples' interpretations of his writing....especially those who were not alive or not of the same ethnic group to witness it firsthand.​

 

[Rawtid]

Integration is the origin of conflict, imo. Before integration, all blacks were treated equally as poor by whites. Negros of all shade and class, used the colored restrooms, water fountains and entered from the rear of an establishment. We've always had intra-division such as light vs dark or house vs field, but it was further complicated when blacks willingly procreated with whites.

 

[videogamestashbox.com]

That is entirely false. Frazier pushed the idea that Black culture had been restrained by White Supremacy and the 'social norms' of the culture in which they found themselves, not that they had no culture of which to speak about....​

http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2720&context=jssw​

Thus, Frazier observed that the legitimacy of family forms was defined by the state or by the community and that family organization and disorganization were defined by conformity to accepted norms or by the functional character of the group. Frazier recognized the former and emphasized the latter in his analyses and policy considerations. Therefore, in this case, Frazier took on characteristics of the cultural relativism school. Nonetheless, it is generally well known that Frazier did not believe that African culture had a principle role in the way the African-American family developed in the US. Frazier is usually contrasted with White anthropologist Melville Herskovits (1941/1958), who is often celebrated for his support of the idea that African cultural survivals or Africanisms persisted in the New World. However, we should understand that Herskovits recognized that disruptions to traditional forms of social organization could seriously disrupt culture, as did Frazier. Their differences often revolved around interpretation. For example, Frazier viewed commonlaw marriages among rural Blacks in the South as an adaptive response to the American experience that was related to the degree of acculturation to mainstream norms. Herskovits related this behavior to African marriage practices where sanction and consent by families were required and not the approval of the state (Frazier, 1939, pp. 133-136; Herskovits, 1941/1958, p. 171). Ironically, however, Herskovits (1941/1958) observed: "It goes without saying that the plantation system rendered the survival of African family types impossible, as it did their underlying moral and supernatural sanctions, except in dilute form" (p. 139).

The last bolded sentence is exactly what Frazier proved in his dissertation and follow-up books.​

The people who need to watch who they quote should actually read what the man wrote instead of relying on other peoples' interpretations of his writing....especially those who were not alive or not of the same ethnic group to witness it firsthand.​

1. I have no qualms about it... the definition of hyperbole (though this is the root so I'll throw some leeway)

• obvious and intentional exaggeration.
• an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”.

2. I've already read and downloaded Clovis E. Semmes pdf a long while back. It doesn't change my position.
(Actually It's always been a good summary of exactly what I'm talking about)

3. Quote where E. F. Frazier makes the position that...

"..Black culture had been restrained by White Supremacy and the 'social norms' of the culture in which they found themselves..."

...and I'm not talking about your, my, or Clovis E. Semmes interpretations of what Frazier says, I'm talking about Frazier himself.

Now I can quote E. F. Frazier himself on the topic...

These scraps of memories, which form only an insignifi-
cant part of the growing body of traditions in Negro families,
are what remains of the African heritage. Probably never
before in history has a people been so nearly completely
stripped of its social heritage as the Negroes who were
brought to America. Other conquered races have continued
to worship their household gods within the intimate circle
of their kinsmen. But American slavery destroyed house-
hold gods and dissolved the bonds of sympathy and affec-
tion between men of the same blood and household. Old
men and women might have brooded over memories of their
African homeland, but they could not change the world
about them. Through force of circumstances, they had to
acquire a new language, adopt new habits of labor, and take
over, however imperfectly, the folkways of the American
environment. Their children, who knew only the American

environment, soon forgot the few memories that had been
passed on to them and developed motivations and modes
of behavior in harmony with the New World. Their chil-
dren’s children have often recalled with skepticism the frag-
ments of stories concerning Africa which have been pre-
served in their families. But, of the habits and customs as
well as the hopes and fears that characterized the life of
their forebearers in Africa, nothing remains. When edu-
cated Negroes of the present generation attempt to resur-
rect the forgotten memories of their ancestors, they are
seeking in the alien culture of Africa a basis for race pride
and racial identification. Hence, when a young sophisti-
cated Negro poet asks,

What is Africa to me?

and answers with true poetic license that the African heri-
tage surges up in him

In an old remembered way,^’

we hear the voice of a new race consciousness in a world of
conflict and frustration rather than the past speaking
through traditions that have become refined and hallowed
as they have been transmitted from generation to genera-
tion.




- E. Franklin Frazier
THE NEGRO FAMILY IN THE U.S.
pg.21-22

4. Your above bolden content isn't some kinda "get outta jail free card" nor is it any kind of vindication. I'm not saying he nor I ever argued (for or against)...

"that the plantation system rendered the survival of African family types possible, as it did their underlying moral and supernatural sanctions."

...about the closest you'd get to those conversations are people studying the gullah/geechee community in isolate.

The argument was as follows...

The study has progressed far enough, however, to indicate some
of the main lines of approach. We know today that the analysis of
African survivals among the Negroes of the United States involves
far more than the commonly attempted correlation of traits of Negro
behavior in this country with aboriginal tradition in Africa itself.
On the contrary, such an analysis, to be adequate, requires a series
of intermediate steps. A knowledge of the tribal origins of the
Negroes of this country is indispensable if the variation in custom
found among the tribes from which the African ancestry was drawn
is to be properly evaluated; and this is the more to be desired since
almost all those who write of the Negro make a capital point of this
variation variation in terms of the African continent as a whole,
however, rather than of that relatively restricted area from which
the slaves were predominantly derived. An analysis of the slave
trade as revealed in contemporary documents and in African tradi-
tions, to give us a knowledge of any selection it may have exercised,
and the reaction of the slaves to their status, is similarly essential.
The mechanisms of adjusting the newly arrived Africans to their
situation as slaves, and the extent to which these operated to permit
the retention of old habits, or to force the taking over of new modes
of behavior, or to make for a mingling of old patterns and newly
experienced alternatives, must be understood as thoroughly as the
data will permit.

Melville j. Herskovits
THE MYTH OF THE NEGRO PAST
pg7-8

I.E. we are talking about...

Culinary Africanism(retentions)

Spiritual Africanism(retentions)

Linguistic Africanism(retentions)

​

Musical Africanism(retentions)



​

​

 

[videogamestashbox.com]

​

5. Dr. Clovis E. Semmes can make interpretations that allude to some kind of "ironic" ideological overlap all he wants. It is a position paper after all...

Ironically, however, Herskovits (1941/1958) observed: "It goes without saying that the plantation system rendered the survival of African family types impossible, as it did their underlying moral and supernatural sanctions, except in dilute form" (p. 139).

That said I just go straight to the source to understand how they viewed aspects of each others work...

Yet on the intellectual level, a long line of trained specialists have reiterated, in whole or in part, the assumptions concerning the Negro past that have been sketched. As a consequence, diverse as are the contributions of these writers in approach, method, and materials, they have, with but few exceptions, contributed to the perpetuation of the legend concerning* the quality of Negro aboriginal endowment and its lack of stamina under contact. We may best begin our documentation of this system with a series of citations concerning the final, culminating element, leaving to later pages excerpts which demonstrate the tenaciousness of the other propositions that lead up to this last point.

...

Scholarly opinion presents a fairly homogeneous conception as to African survivals in the United States. On the whole, specialists tend to accept and stress the view that Africanisms have disappeared as a result of the pressures exerted by the experience of slavery on all aboriginal modes of thought or behavior. As a starting point for subsequent analysis, a few examples of this body of thought may here be given to make available its major assumptions. Representative of this point of view is the following statement of R. E. Park, who in these terms summarizes a position he has held consistently over the years :

My own impression is that the amount of African tradition which
the Negro brought to the United States was very small. In fact, there is
every reason to believe, it seems to me, that the Negro, when he landed
in the United States, left behind him almost everything but his dark
complexion and his tropical temperament. It is very difficult to find in
the South today anything that can be traced directly back to Africa.

E. F. Frazier, in his study of the Negro family, stressed this position in a passage where, speaking of the "scraps of memories, which form only an insignificant part of the growing body of traditions in Negro families" and which "are what remains of the African heritage" he says:

Probably never before in history has a people been so nearly com-
pletely stripped of its social heritage as the Negroes who were brought
to America. Other conquered races have continued to worship their
household gods within the intimate circle of their kinsmen. But Ameri-
can slavery destroyed household gods and dissolved the bonds of sym-
pathy and affection between men of the same blood and household. Old
men and women might have brooded over memories of their African
homeland, but they could not change the world about them. Through
force of circumstances, they had to acquire a new language, adopt new
habits of labor, and take over, however imperfectly, the folkways of the
American environment. Their children, who knew only the American
environment, soon forgot the few memories that had been passed on to
them and developed motivations and modes of behavior in harmony with
the New World. Their children's children have often recalled with skep-
ticism the fragments of stories concerning Africa which have been pre-
served in their families. But, of the habits and customs as well as the
hopes and fears that characterized the life of their f orebearers in Africa,
nothing remains.

Another student of the American Negro, E. B. Reuter, reviewing Frazier's work, gives unconditional assent to the point of view expressed in the preceding passage, when he writes :

The . . . Negro people . . . were brought to America in small con-
signments from many parts of the African continent and over a long
period of time. In the course of capture, importation, and enslavement
they lost every vestige of the African culture. The native languages
disappeared immediately and so completely that scarcely a word of
African origin found its way into English, owing to the dispersion, to
the accidental or intentional separation of tribal stocks, and to the sup-
pression of religious exercises. The supernatural beliefs and practices
completely disappeared; the native forms of family life and the codes
and customs of sex control were destroyed by the circumstances of slave
life; and procreation and the relations of the sexes were reduced to a
simple and primitive level, so with every element of the social heritage.


Melville j. Herskovits
THE MYTH OF THE NEGRO PAST
pg.3-4

BTW Dr. Clovis E. Semmes statements on R. E. Park doesn't give Franklin, nor you a pass on R. E. Park. I can quote Franklin himself till the sun comes down.

Why did the Negro slaves respond so enthusiastically to the proselyting efforts of Methodists and Baptist? From what has been pointed out concerning the manner in which the slaves were stripped of their cultural heritage, we may dismiss such speculations as the one that it was due to their African background. 22 We are on sounder ground when we note first that the baptist and Methodist preachers, who lacked the education of the ministers of the Anglican church, appealed to the poor and the ignorant and the outcast. In the crowds that attended the revivals and camp meetings there were numbers of Negroes who found in the fiery message of salvation a hope and a prospect of escape from their earthly woes........

22. See, for example, the opinion of Herskovits, concerning the influence of African river-cults. 'Social History of the Negro', in Carl Murchison, A handbook of social Psychology(Worcester, 1935), pp.256-7.


- E. Franklin Frazier
The Negro church in america
pg.8

...and few attempts have been made to determine whether or not the behavior of this folk exhibits anthing that may be reffered to African origins. Indeed, the matter has gone farther than this; it has been taken for granted by most students, both Negro and white, that the behavior of New World Negros is essentially European behavior -- though, to be sure of a more or less infantile order.

Melville j. Herskovits
Social History of the Negro
Carl Murchison, A handbook of social Psychology
pg 256

And I repeat

What did it profit the American Negro to be more closely identified with Africa? And what was Africa in the American mind? Herskovits knew that there had been large organized black states in Africa; that there were complex cultures there, and magnificent art, and fully developed religious orientations--but Americans in general did not know this, nor could they see the complexity and the richness of preliterate cultures in the manner of an anthropologist. Myrdal certainly was unconvinced. (He was quoted by Ralph Bunche as saying that "Mel Herskovits is rather crazy at present. He sees everything in the light of African inheritance.") Black scholars were divided. DuBois and Woodson praised Herskovits's effort. E. Franklin Frazier attacked it.Having recently published his magnum opus, The Negro Family in the United States, Frazier saw nothing of African survival or retention in the black American family. He also feared that the Africanist thesis would give support to black nationalists and white racists. For Frazier, as for many black scholars and intellectuals, Negroes wanted to be Americans, fully accepted as such, and nothing more.

- Out of Africa

6. Frazier "proved"...

The last bolded sentence is exactly what Frazier proved in his dissertation and follow-up books.​

Proved how? Cause you say so? Cause you believe his interpretation of the facts at hand? E. Franklin Fraser made assertions based on the facts at hand, filtered through his life's experience, and politics ...period(same as any other social scientist). He didn't "prove" anything(there's my hyperbole again), he merely built a case via his life's work. Which leads us to the final point...

7. His life's work is contentious and people need to be aware of the issues/politics/views surrounding his work. To use your source again...

Frazier as a Symbol of Scorn:
Argument and Counterargument​

Some scholars have examined Frazier's ideas on the AfricanAmerican family for their historical importance and sociological insight, but for others, Frazier has become a symbol of an approach to the study of the African-American family that blames the ills of the Black community on female-headed households, illegitimacy, and family disorganization. Some believe that Frazier felt that the African-American family must always conform to the norm of the nuclear family in order to be viable. Still others blame Frazier for setting in motion the view that the African-American family is typically broken and pathological. Even scholars who recognize that Frazier's work has been misrepresented may be inclined to ignore Frazier for fear of being associated with the negative images that have been painted of him. There is no question that Frazier made errors in judgment and exhibited certain biases in his sociological endeavors, but too often criticisms of Frazier are based on popular misconceptions rather than on close readings of his empirical works.

CLOVIS E. SEMMES
E. Franklin Frazier's Theory of the Black Family: Vindication and Sociological Insight
pg. 4

The above #7 is basically the gist of my contention. I know the issues surrounding him ...I assume you know them. But I'm not willing to assume the coli at large does. I'm just doing my due diligence. Now personally for raw data, statistics & first hand accounts; I've less of a prob with him. But when it comes to Fraziers interpretations of the data before him ...I do a 180. When people try to use his work ...especially his interpretations of data, the wall comes up & the gate comes down.

We then gotta do some boarder checks to see whats coming in da country.​

 

[videogamestashbox.com]

Sociologist Robert Staples, who spent much of his career writing about the Black family, has more than likely read Frazier. He correctly observed that sociologist Daniel Patrick Moynihan helped to popularize the view in public policy debates that the Black family is characterized by matriarchy (Staples, 1971, pp. 154, 157). Moynihan further surmised that the development of the Black community is retarded by a pervasive matriarchy, which, he said, is dysfunctional in a patriarchal society (U.S. Department of Labor, 1965/1981, pp. 29-32). Moynihan claimed that Frazier's work on the Black family supported these views. I will not attempt to assess this or other conclusions by Moynihan regarding the African-American family-which are complex and varied in their accuracy-but Frazier's vilification is to some degree a function of his association with Moynihan's ideas. Staples (1971) also observed that "The Moynihan theory of the black matriarchy derives from his findings that 25 percent of all black families have a female head" (p. 157). This observation is only partly true because Moynihan argued that a matriarchy also was characteristic of double-headed households among Black families ( U.S. Department of Labor, 1965 / 1981, pp. 29-32). Moynihan obviously did not limit his definition of matriarchy to family composition.

CLOVIS E. SEMMES
E. Franklin Frazier's Theory of the Black Family: Vindication and Sociological Insight
pg. 6

(time stamped for convenience)

​

7. His life's work is contentious and people need to be aware of the issues/politics/views surrounding his work. To use your source again...


The above #7 is basically the gist of my contention. I know the issues surrounding him ...I assume you know them. But I'm not willing to assume the coli at large does. I'm just doing my due diligence. Now personally for raw data, statistics & first hand accounts; I've less of a prob with him. But when it comes to Fraziers interpretations of the data before him ...I do a 180. When people try to use his work ...especially his interpretations of data, the wall comes up & the gate comes down.

We then gotta do some boarder checks to see whats coming in da country.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

6. Frazier "proved"...

Proved how? Cause you say so? Cause you believe his interpretation of the facts at hand?

No, because he actually backed his assertions with data taken directly from those affected and was well-sourced historically. There's no question he was interpreting those facts through his own experience and time. That isn't the issue. What is at issue is the misinterpretation of his views into something he never stated to the point that his argument is turned into something counter to his actual position which has been happening more and more these days.​

 

[videogamestashbox.com]

No, because he actually backed his assertions with data taken directly from those affected and was well-sourced historically. There's no question he was interpreting those facts through his own experience and time. That isn't the issue. What is at issue is the misinterpretation of his views into something he never stated to the point that his argument is turned into something counter to his actual position which has been happening more and more these days.​

8. I can't say I have an issue with that, that's a worthy fight


That said there is a distinction between...

• Frazier's own data (I've no prob with)
• Frazier's interpretations of his own data (I have a prob with)
• Others interpretations of Frazier's data (I'm cautious of)
• Others interpretations of Frazier's interpretations(You're cautious of ...and I acknowledge that caution as necessary also, though prob for additional reasons)

9. All academic assertions are based on relevant data(or should be anyway). That doesn't free their conclusions(assertion) from critique/criticism...

There is a distinction between the data and the interpretation...

This is exactly what I mean when I say it's not enough to know if you fail at the interpretation aspect.

I.E. it's not enough to say....

the food put into the pot is fresh
(we can all see and verify the information is true)

therefore whatever happens in the cooking process
(mental interpretation of that information)

what comes out of the pot will be edible & healthy.
(valid cognitive conclusion)

No! ...just because the ingredients are fine doesn't protect you from (burning or under cooking) your food
(coming to shotty conclusions)

This issue is the bases of what people call "smart dumb nikkas" People who have basic(...and sometimes complex) knowledge of things but come to asinine conclusions because of the way that they process(cook) that knowledge.​

To make things worse, often times people try to hide these shotty conclusions behind "facts". To quote Curtis Banks...

“Like a system of politics, science has sought foremost its own preservation,”

"Theory does not advance ideas (as the positivists asserted in the early part of this
century), theory justifies ideas. Empirical methodology is not a tool of revelation and
verification, but rather a tool of refutation and a shield of obstruction behind which the
ideas a theory justifies are operationalized as programs immune to self-interested
criticism. Therefore, the most crucial considerations in the development of theory are (1)
the ideological programs that theory is capable of justifying; and (2) the methodological
framework its protection and preservation demand."

The Theoretical and Methodological Crisis of the Africentric Conception
W. Curtis Banks
The Journal of Negro Education
Vol. 61, No. 3, Africentrism and Multiculturalism: Conflict or Consonance (Summer, 1992), pp. 262-272

To bring this back around to Frazier, his interpretations are not "proved" and therefore immune to criticism/critique because he...

No, because he actually backed his assertions with data taken directly from those affected and was well-sourced historically. There's no question he was interpreting those facts through his own experience and time. That isn't the issue. What is at issue is the misinterpretation of his views into something he never stated to the point that his argument is turned into something counter to his actual position which has been happening more and more these days.

...the validity of his data and the validity of his conclusions/interpretations are two related ...but distinct topics. Don't confuse the two. To quote your source again...

Frazier as a Symbol of Scorn:
Argument and Counterargument ​

Some scholars have examined Frazier's ideas on the AfricanAmerican family for their historical importance and sociological insight, but for others, Frazier has become a symbol of an approach to the study of the African-American family that blames the ills of the Black community on female-headed households, illegitimacy, and family disorganization. Some believe that Frazier felt that the African-American family must always conform to the norm of the nuclear family in order to be viable. Still others blame Frazier for setting in motion the view that the African-American family is typically broken and pathological. Even scholars who recognize that Frazier's work has been misrepresented may be inclined to ignore Frazier for fear of being associated with the negative images that have been painted of him. There is no question that Frazier made errors in judgment and exhibited certain biases in his sociological endeavors, but too often criticisms of Frazier are based on popular misconceptions rather than on close readings of his empirical works.

CLOVIS E. SEMMES
E. Franklin Frazier's Theory of the Black Family: Vindication and Sociological Insight
pg. 4

...and you can't hide(refutation) those errors & biases behind the shield of relevant "data" but for so long.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

...and you can't hide those errors & biases behind the shield of relevant "data" but for so long.

They are immaterial to the argument I'm making and don't invalidate any of the data.​

 

[videogamestashbox.com]

10.

They are immaterial to the argument I'm making and don't invalidate any of the data.​

8. I can't say I have an issue with that, that's a worthy fight


That said there is a distinction between...

• Frazier's own data (I've no prob with)
• Frazier's interpretations of his own data (I have a prob with)
• Others interpretations of Frazier's data (I'm cautious of)
• Others interpretations of Frazier's interpretations(You're cautious of ...and I acknowledge that caution as necessary also, though prob for additional reasons)

11.

They are immaterial to the argument I'm making and don't invalidate any of the data.​

9.

...
......​

...the validity of his data and the validity of his conclusions/interpretations are two related ...but distinct topics. Don't confuse the two. To quote your source again...

Frazier as a Symbol of Scorn:
Argument and Counterargument ​

Some scholars have examined Frazier's ideas on the AfricanAmerican family for their historical importance and sociological insight, but for others, Frazier has become a symbol of an approach to the study of the African-American family that blames the ills of the Black community on female-headed households, illegitimacy, and family disorganization. Some believe that Frazier felt that the African-American family must always conform to the norm of the nuclear family in order to be viable. Still others blame Frazier for setting in motion the view that the African-American family is typically broken and pathological. Even scholars who recognize that Frazier's work has been misrepresented may be inclined to ignore Frazier for fear of being associated with the negative images that have been painted of him. There is no question that Frazier made errors in judgment and exhibited certain biases in his sociological endeavors, but too often criticisms of Frazier are based on popular misconceptions rather than on close readings of his empirical works.

CLOVIS E. SEMMES
E. Franklin Frazier's Theory of the Black Family: Vindication and Sociological Insight
pg. 4

...and you can't hide(refutation) those errors & biases behind the shield of relevant "data" but for so long.

NOTE:
#10 is your issue surrounding Frazier.
#11 is my issue surrounding Frazier.

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Nothing you've stated has any bearing whatsoever on MY argument regarding Frazier's data in-regards to the subject discussed.

As such, I'm not commenting on them. They are moot.​

 

[videogamestashbox.com]

Nothing you've stated has any bearing whatsoever on MY argument regarding Frazier's data in-regards to the subject discussed.

As such, I'm not commenting on them. They are moot.​

​

That said there is a distinction between...

• Frazier's own data (I've no prob with)
• Frazier's interpretations of his own data (I have a prob with)
• Others interpretations of Frazier's data (I'm cautious of)
• Others interpretations of Frazier's interpretations(You're cautious of ...and I acknowledge that caution as necessary also, though prob for additional reasons)

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

​

You have no problem with his data and I'm not using HIS interpretations.

​

 

[videogamestashbox.com]

You have no problem with his data and I'm not using HIS interpretations.

​

​

That said there is a distinction between...

• Frazier's own data (I've no prob with)
• Frazier's interpretations of his own data (I have a prob with)
• Others interpretations of Frazier's data (I'm cautious of)
• Others interpretations of Frazier's interpretations(You're cautious of ...and I acknowledge that caution as necessary also, though prob for additional reasons)