I do agree completely, but it should be pointed out that she, before mentioning inner city blacks, also mentioned: > Nor are the single-parent, antisocial habi

I do agree completely, but it should be pointed out that she, before mentioning inner city blacks, also mentioned: > Nor are the single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working-class whites Its a bit silly to split that along racial terms (both Wax and the offendees)... There are plenty of single-parent antisocial working-class blacks as well. In my mind the real conflation is the difference between an eagerness and hopefulness for upward mobility and what Wax calls "Bourgeois" or "European" values. Bourgeois is a vastly superior word than European - the two are only conflated because for much of human history, only some Europeans were wealthy. The author could have saved herself a boatload of trouble (if she in fact is _not_ racist) by just pointing out that no one really knows what a modern, international, not-ruled-by-whites Bourgeois society will look like - but that we ought to bring back a general respect for nice things - rather than a lionization of poverty. What I think a lot of rich/college educated white people don't understand is that the lionization of poverty was done _by the impoverished_ - media creation was finally in our grasps, so jazz, hiphop, rap, etc bloomed. It's only inevitable that there will be an identity conflict as the poverty and hardships are (thankfully!) eased over time by technology and wealth. The solution to people being proud of being poor is _to have no more poor people_ - and the solution to that is not cultural, it's economic and legal.