Exactly-one needs to compare comparable groupings. The whole point of my comment above was, poor whites and poor blacks are not comparable groupings.
Yes, an apt comparison.
By way of an answer, educate me on this score–in Tzarist Russia, how much Jewish blood would it take to taint an individual as inferior/evil–as one of them?
The burden you face–and have thus far shirked–is coming up with a compelling alternative explanation for the striking difference in SES that exists between AAs and whites. That is, if slavery/JC/de facto segregation are not the cause that started the AA community down the path to its current SES (and acted as guardrails keeping it on that path), then what was the cause? What is your alternative theory of the case? Can you come up with an explanatory force–a cause–that cannot itself be subsequently traced back to slavery/JC?
Completely agreed. Not to absolve the Right for their racial transgressions (and there are many), but the Left - namely the gentry liberal set - do this largely in part because of their soft thinking and galactic naivete.
That makes no sense, of course they are. They have to get educations, get jobs, feed families, transact business, etc. in the same society - all the things that drive your income and net worth.
Uh huh. And what of the cultural factors that deeply influence their relative abilities to achieve these goals?
You want to equate the groups on a few economic markers, totally ignoring cultural status as if it played no role in SES achievement. It does. Culturally speaking, members of one group have an invisible ball-and-chain on their ankles that profoundly impairs their ability to get an education, a job, etc. It’s an encumbrance you insist on ignoring. But just because you choose not to see it doesn’t mean it’s not there.
In this regard (racial generalizations), I can’t say I blame libs all that much for this learned response re: never admit any blame. The generalizations of MANY whites for decades (that still exist in pretty high density in a lot of rural areas) aimed negatively at blacks was immense. When I was a kid, if we drove down the street and a black guy was walking on the sidewalk, we were all told to lock our doors. As we drove down the street past a pedestrian. In a town with virtually no crime.
Ultimately, I think a big portion of that shift is coming/came from members of the AA community joining the republican party. People like Ben Carson are forcing many people that hold these racial views to draw a distinction between “the blacks” and the blacks. The AA community, and those that defend them so intensely, have an ingrained fear of returning the entire race to a “them” after they just spent so much time fighting their way out.
The problem with that line of reasoning is that you can use it to explain away anything. Does that card get to stay in the game forever?
I’ve been using the term “culture” in this discussion, but I think a better word might be “values”. Mom and dad working together to raise their kids, even if they weren’t together, was something I had all around me growing up. Part of my culture, if you will. That’s just how you did it, and the men who bailed out on that most fundamental of tasks generally weren’t thought of very well.
Somehow that value has lost its significance, and not just with blacks.
If the chain of events you put forward is the best explanation, and the main cause of all of this is really slavery, why have non-black communities seen a similar increase in rates of single motherhood?
How do you explain the erosion of that core value in white and hispanic communities? What forces are at play, if not a culmination of bad individual choices that people managed to avoid in years past?
Furthermore, why are the Asians NOT experiencing the same thing? What do you think is going on?
That’s precisely what we’re trying to measure by controlling variables across comparable groups.
Step one - identify comparable groups with which to evaluate the outcomes.
No, I want to evaluate those cultural things while controlling for other variables that might influence the outcome.
A completely false statement, refuted by by own statement that I recognize that racism impacts outcomes. That isn’t the question - the question is does it cause outcomes?
You’re fine skipping the proof portion of supporting the conclusion. I’m not.
No, not forever. Reasonable people can disagree as to what is the expiration date on this argument, but it’s hard to countenance a compelling argument for an expiration date of ‘never.’ (Although I would argue that reasonable people would not contend it’s completely expired at this point.)
A fair question.
I haven’t thought about it, so don’t have an opinion worth sharing on the subject.
Ditto.
I shall allow you to parse the nuances differentiating the impacting and causing of outcomes. Meanwhile, I await your theory of the case.
So your position on reparations can be summarized thusly:
Whites are responsible for their actions both past and present, to the point we are guilty of and have benefited from the “original sin” of slavery/Jim Crow. This is true regardless of when our ancestors arrived and where they lived/whether they owned slaves. Whites owe blacks due to the different levels of wealth and the unfair tilt of American society. Whites are in a sense ‘hyper’ responsible for their actions (even those of their ancestors).
Blacks are victims of circumstance and can neither be wholly responsible for their individual actions nor their cultural norms that hurt their people and put them behind in society.
I don’t think that’s a fair characterization of EyeDentist’s intent or his position. Not at all.
I think there’s a super-uncomfortable-for-a-lot-of-people-to-talk-about argument to be made that certain aspects of leftist rhetoric and policy has been severely detrimental to the black community, and to society in general, but that’s a whole other thread. That’s where I think you’re going with this line of thought, but there are ways you can bring that up without impugning the character of our friend.
I don’t think that’s true about your opinion, but if you decide to give it the requisite thought, I would be genuinely interested to hear your ideas on the matter.
No character assassination intended. I made a statement about the argument. Not ED.
Why are humans different than other mamals? Why aren’t we still running around naked without tools and fire? The defining characteristic of humans is their ability to reason, problem solve and have self determination… to move beyond instinct… have agency if you will.
When you argue that one group of people has less agency and responsibility than another because of race, that argument robs them of their humanity.
It is paternalistic and patronizing at the absolute best, and a cynical racist method of control at worst.
I can’t square treating an entire group of people like hapless children with the modern ethos of egalitarianism.
These all raise serious questions as to the truth of your basic premise - that the reason for AAs’ lack of income and net worth is a function of racism against them. Wouldn’t it be wise to think about these things before hunkering down on that premise as true?
I think the better theory is that two factors - culture and political economy - are driving the disparity, and it’s a disparity not confined to or driven by race. In fact, on the impersonal external factor side of things, it’s far more about class than race. The same kind of doors to instant upward mobility that are being shut in the face of aspiring AAs are being shut in the face of rural white kids.
And on the individual side, as @twojarslave has pointed out, personal choices are taking a terrible toll, not just on AAs, but whites as well.
The largest driver, IMO, is political economy. The working and middle classes are not building wealth like they once did. Most AAs fall into this group (as does everyone else) and are seeing incredible headwinds to economic security and opportunity.
Racism exists, and it still hurts AAs. But far greater problems exist that are causing AAs and similarly situated people to fall behind.
It’s kinda hard to believe it’s not all but expired when a mixed race President governed for 8 years, we have a Congressional Black Caucus, a black SCOTUS, and something like 8% of US millionaires are black while being only about 12% of the population.
This is said in the context of US history. The KKK is all but irrelevant in 2017.
I don’t follow. Are you pre-supposing rate of millionaires should be an exact match to a percentage of the population? Only about 3% of US households are “millionaires” of which 8% are black. Were there any in 1960?
How many slaves were millionaires or the 1800s equivalent?
The point is, a significant percentage of black American’s are rather successful in this country. I just used millionaires to illustrate that point.
Not if that group is being prevented from exercising agency by forces beyond its control.
I can’t square an adult seriously believing the pie-in-the-sky notion that a true ‘modern ethos of egalitarianism’ exists. Or even if it does, that it has been around for longer than, literally, a few years. And if it does, that its nouveau existence somehow immediately erases the effects of 400 years of an ethos of, shall we say, non-egalitarianism.
@twojarslave’s questions concerned one cultural development of relatively recent vintage, that being the sharp increase in unwed motherhood. As he pointed out, this phenomenon spans multiple races and incomes. Given that it is not limited to the AA community, I acknowledged (via implication) that the parsimonious explanation for this would be that it owes not to the legacy of racism, but to something at work in the American culture writ large (@twojarslave preferred the term values; I won’t quibble). I am puzzled by your suggestion that his argument concerning this one specific trans-racial development impugns the entirety of my argument.
I find the emphasized quote simply astonishing in how ahistoric it is.
In that regard, how far back (historically) are you willing to extend this theory? That is, how long do you think it has been “far more about class than race”? Surely you wouldn’t contend it was in play while chattel slavery was the law of the land. So, at what point after the Emancipation Proclamation did the disadvantages of being black become outweighed by the disadvantages of being poor? For example, was there a time when poor people were lynched just for being poor? Was there a time when white-robed individuals rode the countryside terrorizing and intimidating poor people just for being poor? Were crosses burned in front of the homes of poor white people? Were there signs over water fountains that said Poor People Only? Were poor white people redlined out of certain neighborhoods?
Get back to me when the entire SCOTUS is black, and we’ll talk.
Not when it is embedded in the white-supremacist movement generally, it isn’t. (Charlottesville, anyone?)
No, the point is how few black Americans are “rather successful” when compared to other racial groups. The existence of a relatively few AA superstars who managed to achieve escape velocity is not compelling evidence of anything other than 'things aren’t as bad as they used to be.’
Hold on. What, exactly, is absurd about it? Historically, the SCOTUS has been comprised–overwhelmingly, to the point of almost exclusively–of white males. On those occasions when the SCOTUS was all white, did you say to yourself ‘That’s ridiculously absurd’? If not, why not? That is, why is the existence of an all-white SCOTUS ‘normal,’ but the prospect of an all-black SCOTUS ridiculous?