I don't know how long this thread will last, but I thought It would be good, constructive food for thought, and in light of the raging Supreme Court and Education debates, relevant.

The state of Israel will sponsor a two-week trip to any person who can demonstrate that he or she is so much as 1/8 Jewish. It's called the 'Birthright,' and in a modern, rootless world, its purpose is to maintain the integrity of the Jewish tradition and help guide people in the changing world by giving them a sense of heritage, a place of origin to call home.

If this seems strange, we Americans make a similar pilgrimage in flocks every holiday season-- to Paris, home of the enlightenment, and many of the ideas that shaped our Democracy. After all, if it was just about the coffee, we'd stick to Starbucks.

What I'd like to propose is the novel and possibly controversial idea of an West African birthright program intended for high school students, primarily, but hopefully not exclusively Black high school students-- After all, mainstream American culture is nothing if not disproportionately affected by African retentions. If we owe our national government to the French, we owe a great deal of our national identity to the Congolese. For example, Cowboy culture is definitively a Fulani retention.

The problem is that unlike Israel, the African states from which America originated (Congo, Senegal, Angola, Liberia, Nigeria, Ghana), could never fully pay for such a program (though it would be a boon for tourism)-- and unlike shoppers on the Champs-Elysees, the families this program would target might not necessarily be able to afford it either.

So, the education department would have to pay for it, which is nothing unusual-- we fund plenty of high school study abroad programs.


Questions:

1.) Given the somewhat race-selective criteria, would such a program be a fair use of tax-payer dollars? Would it promote divisive, ethnic particularism?

2,) If it was, just, totally unjust, would the benefits outweigh the injustice it promoted?

3.) What do you foresee that those benefits might be?

We do?

1.) Given the somewhat race-selective criteria, would such a program be a fair use of tax-payer dollars? Would it promote divisive, ethnic particularism?

Unless this opportunity is open to everyone from any ethnic background, this would be un-Constitutional. If it were open to everyone, I do not think that it would be all that divisive. Of course, if there was a caveat that you had to visit the country of your heritage (or, more probably, one of your heritages), then there may be some problems. What do you mean I can't visit Australia or the French Riviera? What do you mean I have to go to the Congo or Chad or Iraw or some other war torn country?

One thing that might be useful is getting people in touch with their heritage. For example, my father's side of the family is completely Polish. My mother's a mix of Irish, Scottish and some other ethnicities.

Now, the descendants of slaves might be surprised (or alarmed!) that although they might celebrate Kwanzaa in a celebration of their African roots, they are not likely the decendants of a Swahili speaking African country (such as Kenya, Tanzania or Uganda). They are much more likely to be from Akan countries in Western Africa. In fact, Swahili speakers were the slave traders of East Africa--centered primarily in Zanzibar.

2,) If it was, just, totally unjust, would the benefits outweigh the injustice it promoted?

I don't know if it would be just or unjust, but it would be completely not affordable. If it were contained to those of African descent, it would be both unjust and probably not very fruitful. Students that can't learn very well in their current environment would be sent to a third world country (are there any non-third world countries in sub-Saharan Africa these days since the Cote d'Ivoire "revolution"/coupe?) to study. And we expect them to get a better education there than they can in Los Angelas or Pittsburgh? I doubt it.

3.) What do you foresee that those benefits might be?

Free vacations for select students?

No. Further it's a terrible idea. Someone will call me jingoistic or whatever but frankly it's time to stop hyphenating your nationality and using division to get to your ethnic percentages. You're not a 1/4 Irish a 1/4 German and 1/2 Italian. You were born in Brooklyn, NY. So was your mother. Heck, probably even your grandmother! You're American. Forget all that other non-sense. There's more than enough good culture right here in America either stolen, borrowed or invented.

In someways this idea was successfully "debunked" (not the best word) by the Trevor Richards incident wherein Trevor, a White South African student in Omaha, Nebraska was suspended from school for entering himself for an African-American award. The truth of the matter is that Trevor was the probably the only actual African American in the school.

Huh? I am not entirely sure what you want me to answer here. However, since I think this is a terrible idea the answer is, "No."

None.

I'll spare the standard weariness over the oppostion to hyphenated-Americans because even its adherants admit it is jingoism of the most wearisome kind.


If we were to spend money on this while our schools go underfunded, you'd have one very angry turnea.

I wish those who desire a better future for at-risk kids would focus on the actual educational difficulties that put them at risk.

I would love for exceptional students to travel the world, it would have been a dream come true for a kid like me who never traveled outside the country, but there are bigger fish to fry.

Would it promote racial division?

Lord, no. That's a red-herring, always has been.

Well certainly under this supreme court it would be; but I'm not sure that would be totally out of league with other race-based policies in our education system. For example, plenty of essay contests and scholarships are open to one race, or women, or what-have-you. Now I don't know, frankly, how many if any of those are federally funded, I don't know how many federally funded scholarships have diversity quotas they have to reach, and I don't know if any or all of that would be unconstitutional, or not, frankly.



First of all, there are plenty of stable, english-speaking African nations to choose from. Nigeria has its safe parts, so does Kenya, so does South Africa, not so sure about Botswana, Malawi has a reputation for being western-friendly, as does Ghana. I'm sure there's other countries I'm forgetting about,



I agree, and if I believe it would help say, at-risk, poor rural, southern scotch-irish youth to visit Ireland or Scotland -- and i think it very well might -- then I'd be all for that, too.



Well, yes and no. Sources say a ballpark of 40 percent of Slaves brought to the Southern United States were Bantu-speaking Congolese, meaning that they were certainly influenced by Eastern African culture, but were not, technically, East African.
African history is one of mass migrations, and as a result, influences and languages travel far and wide across the continent.

For example the Akans you speak of -- who actually make up a much larger part of Carribbean society than American -- migrated southward from the Senegambian region, which is where a lot of slaves who were brought to Mississippi, and the more norther parts of the the slave territories came from. Anyway, back to the lecture at hand.



Yes, very true. However, Education that's really worth its price so often is just out of reach. There's a high, what do they call that, price break?



I'm not sure, I recognize I'm coming at this with the mixed blessing of personal experience, but I have, overall, been extraordinarily impressed with the quality of African public education. This is because 1.) every single student knows the value of education 2.) it costs a lot, so kids who are doing poorly are just taken out of school 3.) there isn't a smart-aleck culture so much as here. 4.) the urban environments produces a different kind of pressure, for example, you have less problems with drugs, depending on the city (Lagos is problematic, for instance), 5.) because the government spends a lot of money, relatively speaking (by our standards the schools are structurally quite bare), so it is a major cultural priority 6.) education is a ticket to America. And then, theres always private schools, in any country, where foreign diplomats and business people send their kids.

And as for the dangers of the third-world, like so many other places, it depends completely on where you're staying. In almost any third world country, you can find large enclaves that are incredibly safe, upper-class, recognizably western, stable, have airconditioning, of course electricity, high-speed internet etc. Shying away from, say, Victoria Island in Nigeria, would be like calling Greenwhich Connecticut dangerous because the Bronx is nearby.

I have no illusions that any American government -- save maybe in some progressive, economically booming city like New York or Atlanta or San Fran -- would ever even consider this. Which really just goes to show the limits of our imagination, the limits of our educational priorities, and our limited taste for the third world -- especially Africa.

A thought occurs to me...

It's Israel the finances students coming to its shores . If the host country foots the bill I think this could be a wonderful idea, so long as it is carried out with sensitivity to all ethnic backgrounds.

Foreign travel would certainly enhance the education of most students. I say most because some mentally retarded students function at a near vegetative level and wouldn't benefit. Students in wheelchairs present a problem, but they can be accomodated.

Ideally, it would be nice if every high school student could get a foreign tour of choice. There could be a broad African tour, a broad European tour, etc.

I don't have a solution for financing this. Obviously some students couldn't afford a trip without some type of public funding.

1.) Given the somewhat race-selective criteria, would such a program be a fair use of tax-payer dollars? Would it promote divisive, ethnic particularism?

I find the analogy with the program sponsored by Israel to be forced. As has already been noted, there is the matter of payment. If a particular West African nation wishes to offer payment to allow African-American students (or any other American students, for that matter) to visit, I don't think anybody would object. When the taxpayers are asked to foot the bill, it becomes a different matter.

I also think that such a program, if sponsored by the American government, would cause a great deal of resentment from those excluded from it. Why should I not visit the homeland of my ancestors, many might rightly ask. No matter how well-intended a program, I think that it would lead to a great deal of controversy.

Let me state here that I have no objection whatsoever to the concept of a "hyphenated American." It is a matter of simple accuracy to describe me as a "French-Canadian American" or a "Mexican-American." There is nothing divisive about being aware of one's ancestry. I might also note here that, for many complex reasons, the African-American experience is, for most persons, different from the experience of most other Americans. This is a simple fact, no matter how race-blind you may be.

2,) If it was, just, totally unjust, would the benefits outweigh the injustice it promoted?

I don't think so.

3.) What do you foresee that those benefits might be?

Awareness of some of the reasons for the uniqueness of the African-American experience is a worthy goal. Being exposed to the culture of another land is a worthy goal. Being aware of one's ancestry is a worthy goal. There are many ways this can be done, both within the public education system and outside of it. This particular program may not be the best way to accomplish these goals.

1.) Given the somewhat race-selective criteria, would such a program be a fair use of tax-payer dollars? Would it promote divisive, ethnic particularism? Any race-selective criteria would be unconstitutional, and therefor not a "fair use of tax-payer dollars." Yes, it would likely promote divisive ethnic particularism, although it is possible that American blacks travelling back to their homelands would come to realize just how American they actually are, and how they have very little beyond skin color in common with Africans.

2,) If it was, just, totally unjust, would the benefits outweigh the injustice it promoted? Huh?

3.) What do you foresee that those benefits might be?
To restate, the key possible benefit would be the recognition by participants that they have much more in common with their fellow Americans of assorted colors than they do with Africans of like color.

To be clear, I believe that there are already private entitites underwriting programs of this sort. Let them do it. Ben Johnson and Oprah Winfrey have the dough.


Bullhockeypucks. Many, if not most students couldn't afford a trip without some type of funding assistance. There is no requirement for the funding to come from the public purse. Private contributions could easily pay.

Considering all the African friends I have back at college, I really doubt it.

The Jingo-bells ringing again?

Or perhaps you might realize how African-influenced our American culture really is. Especially if you're from the South.

I'm going to leave this topic be from here out. More or less, I've said what I had to say, asked what I had to ask.

Americans!

The rest of the (English-speaking and European) world does this already - it's called the Gap Year (google it if you don't believe me). Typically, school leavers take a year out before going to university to flit about the planet. Or, they take a year out after university and before taking up a job to do it.

Increasingly, it's common in middle and older age groups too - either as a planned gap between jobs, a paid sabbatical, or a spur-of the-moment splurge of a sudden windfall.

Mostly it's funded by savings (usually Mum & Dad's, though often with vacation work money too) or by simple debt, rather than by either one's own government or by that of the countries visited.

A rare example of Americans being lazy and government dependent while the rest of the world shows get-up-and-go, independent adventurism?

Nah - it's just the fashion and the legislation.

Fashion - Most gap-year people do and see the same things - India, Thailand, Australia/New Zealand, the Inca trail, Cambodia, etc. And for the rest it's a competition to go to the most obscure, least "touristy" destinations, thus turning them into tourist destinations. It just isn't as fashionable to spend time in Italy or Germany any more (unless you're on a city break or a stag/hen weekend).

Legislation - Europe (at least) has a legal MINIMUM of 20 days' paid hoilday for all full time employees, over and above national holidays (such as Christmas or New Year). America has - last time I looked - a legal minmum of zero, while American employers average at 10 per year on the number of paid vacation days they allow. Instead of making up spurious ways to get your taxpayers (or someone else) to fund foreign holidays, why don't you just campaign for decent vacation provision from your employers?

Which makes it fundamentally different than what is being proposed here both in purpose and in means of implementation. The Gap Year is more akin to working overseas or vacationing (probably depending upon your wealth) than an educational experience. It's like a sabbatical.

Gap Year is a relatively new "tradition". Americans value work more than play (sadly, in the view of many). This tradition may never catch on in the US.

It would be an unconstitutional and unethical use of tax-payer dollars. First, unConstitutional. As AMlord said, a race-based and tax payer funded program, regardless of its content, would be a flagrant violation of the 14th Amendment. By definition, not all students would have an equal opportunity under the law to visit their "homelands" for "free". It is purely subjective to say that Western African culture is "more significant" than [insert country here]'s culture. Irish-Americans would have a legitimate argument for their "birthright", as would Italian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, etc. etc. Philosophically, I disagree with it for its aforementioned inequality/inconsistency but also for the simple reason that it takes money from one citizen so that another citizens son/daughter can visit a foreign country, and that concept, to me is offensive. If an American student wants to explore his or her culture, fine, but they do not have the right to do so, nor do they have the right to be funded in their attempts by other people.

No, they would not. The "benefits" of such a program would be subjective and intangible, while the injustices would be measured in an all-too-tangible 'dollars lost'. Again, I have no problem with individuals interested in their heritage. My problem begins and ends with individuals presumptuous enough to believe that I should pay for their interest in their heritage.

CP

Life is about power and control; so, our nation's youth should be studying successful nations and mimicing what is successful there and modifying it to make it our own. We should be studying the UK, France, Germany, Japan, and China, and learning all we can about them, their language, and their successes and failures. We are then well-armed....

As was discussed in Guns, Germs and Steel, nations with the best technology will overwhelm those that fall by the wayside, and we need to work hard at staying cutting edge. Learning about underwhelming, failing African cultures will not do much good in this regard.

Most US universities have study-abroad programs, for those of you overseas observers. My alma mater had actual campuses in the UK, France and Italy, and has established several more since I graduated.

If these African nations wish to pay for US students to study there, that is fine. I do not think this would be of much benefit to our students, but it may help the African nations build American awareness of their local issues.

As far as the Jews go, they have always set themselves apart, for at least 4,000 years. They work hard at not being assimilated. I would suggest history validates that this approach is a mixed blessing....

China? I can count the number of African nations with repressive measures as bad as China's on my left hand: their names are Zimbabwe, Sudan, Cote D'Ivoire and Libya. Funny that a naton's humanitarian record does not represent its success as much as its GDP.

My point: you fail to account for the utter seriousness with which education is regarded in the developing world: it is precisely because that there IS something to emulate that I have proposed this program. Because it satisfies a liberal desire for government intervention where free market capital can't seem to flow; and it satisfies a conservative desire for a cultural change that would inspire more hard-working students, i.e. less dependence on gov't. The purpose is for students to realize how much opportunity they have in America, and to get some vague idea of how good we have it, and how much good we could do for the world at large.

High school students don't study abroad and meet with The G8. They don't copy Tony Blair's notes on funding NHS healthcare. They meet with other students and mimic their behavior.

And while European students, in my observations, do tend to learn more languages than American students, I've never witnessed a profound difference in classroom behavior. At least not in London, the only European schools I've ever been in. Education may be better over there, but to kids who can legally drink at age 16, its all the same bullocks as it is stateside. These are generalizations, and maybe someone can enlighten me otherwise.

Frankly, i think this should be pan-racial, and not limited to Africa; if only there were there more English-speaking third world nations outside of Africa. I just think that perspective is an obvious antidote to the adolescence that sinks to many otherwise promising students who don't have the option of floating through college on their parent's buck... anything to get those kids in scholarship range is to me, good public education policy.

Secondly, I think we as Americans need to be more aware of the developing world, Latin America in particular (our own backyard, from whence come so much of our produce, drugs and low-paid workers.)

However I agree with all the voices saying how prohibitively expensive this program is. So it's a purely inspiration idea, meant to foster a wider debate, which, thankfully, it has.