Con side:
- The 1994 Census Bureau counted 10 million poor blacks to 25.4 million poor whites.
- The poverty rate and number of families in married households rose to 10% and 7.6 million in 2003.
- Nearly twice as many white as black children are growing up in poverty-stricken homes
- Far more whites than blacks are getting food stamps, housing subsidies, health care through Medicaid and other forms of public assistance
In looking into the propaganda techniques that were used, Harwood (1997) blatantly uses quotes by Jesse Jackson to persuade or dissuade the reader's viewpoint. However, Roth (1997), who is a professor, does appear to be doing a well researched study, but mentions issues of discrimination and assertions on race and poverty as the basis of his study so I found it very hard to associate him with propaganda.
As for evidence of logical fallacies on the part of the authors, Harwood's (1997) article was based on statistics from 1982 to 1992 and Roth's (1997) study was based on reports from 1960-1991.
Roth states. “That the median income of black households in 1990 amounted to 58% of median income white household's income. This figure is almost unchanged from what it was in 1950, when black families had 54% of the median income of white families. The figure rose to 61 percent in 1970, but since then has dropped back to the 58% figure cited above, close to what it had been in 1950. The gap, therefore, between the incomes of black and white households is substantial and long-standing; it is a very large difference, and it is important to understand why it exists”.
Based on the US Census report the median income for African Americans was just around 62% of the median income for non-Hispanic Whites. So in my opinion, this reduces Harwood's (1997) article to sheer fallacy, it is poorly studied, and does a disservice to African Americans by reporting facts incorrectly.
Errors of perspective
Harwood's (1997) perspective on Black and White poverty and racism while based on some truths, myths and apparent biased opinion were ill conceived and distorted. While he quoted what he stated were facts, gave numbers and percentages, in 1991 the recession had just ended, the US Census Bureau's median level for African American family households was still below that of Whites, Hispanics and Asians.
Errors of procedure.
- The Purpose - To persuade the reader to the viewpoint of the author. I do not believe either was able to provide enough credible information to persuade me. Roth (1997) was much more effective that Mr. Harwood (1997).
- Credibility - Harwood, a reporter for the Washington Post was totally opinion based.
- Was it true? Under Citations, each author cited many articles, periodicals, and further readings but where did they get their numbers
- Both authors supplied facts and statistics without citing the sources for those facts
I had no way of knowing where each author got their statistics and facts that they each quoted. I therefore can only assume that Harwood (1997) as a reporter was writing an article in which he offered an opinion that was not fact based. Mr. Harwood quoted two market-based sources, The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education and the marketing bible, American Demographics, reported in 1996 but failed to provide accurate information and report actual facts. Roth (1997) on the other hand did seem to base his assertions on academic and government studies, because he is a professor, I had expected citations so I can only assume that perhaps he was writing a non-academic article.
Errors of Reaction
Any errors of reaction on either Authors part would be based on the passion of the argument. Both authors were passionate in their persuasive argument but Roth (1997) had more facts to back his argument. The error is in the basis of the opinion, in Harwood's (1997) case that more white people than black people are poverty stricken and that more are on welfare, which he failed to prove because government reports and studies on poverty do not back his assumptions.
How credible is each author? What are the author's credentials for writing this presentation? Byron M. Roth is a professor of psychology at Dowling College in Oakdale, New York, besides writing Discrimination Does Not Cause Poverty (1997), he also wrote, Prescription for Failure: Race Relations in the Age of Social Science, and Decision Making - Its Logic and Practice with John D. Mullen, therefore, we can assume he is an expert on cultural relations. The late Mr. Richard Harwood (1997) was a noted Washington Post political columnist and writer. He had credibility as a political writer and I am sure he had much experience as a political reporter, but this does not make him an expert on race relations and his sources appear to be questionable.
Overall, which author impressed you as being the most empirical in presenting his or her thesis? Why? Richard Harwood (1997) impressed me the most as being empirical as he seemed to have based his article solely on opinion while Byron M. Roth (1997) did appear to base his article on logic.
Are their any reasons to believe the writes are biased? If so why do you think they have these biases? I think that both are biased in their subject matters. Harwood (1997) wants to convince the reader that there are more poor white people than poor black people. Roth (1997) wants to convince the reader that the structure of the family as opposed to discrimination is the reason for the overall black poverty. Both authors show bias in favor of their particular viewpoint.
With which side do you personally agree with now that you have reviewed the material in these articles? Byron M. Roth (1997). I do not support the assumption that discrimination does not cause poverty. I believe that there are many factors that contribute to it and I question why is it, that the median income level for African Americans has only risen to 62% and why it has remained unchanged since 2002. Roth was able to persuade me on the facts. Why? In conducting my research I began to see that his facts and numbers were supportable based on documented government reports. In conclusion, I found the Critical Issues Analysis an interesting exercise in research and critical thinking on opposing viewpoints.
