4 ms·

> On the other hand, I don't see how a group like blacks can in general, and for its majority, "cause its own harm", in a different amount than another group.

> On the other hand, I don't see how a group like blacks can in general, and for its majority, "cause its own harm", in a different amount than another group. Alright, I see that to be in error. Suppose we were talking about sex differences. Feminists frequently point out that men are murderous. They commit almost all murders. Usually of other men. Clearly this is a subgroup in the general population that causes disproportionate problems in an area that another group i.e. women, do not. I'm not a feminist but I've no trouble or dispute with the notion that men are more violently dangerous than women. We are. It is a fact. This of course is not an argument to discriminate against all men. Evidently there are different sorts of discrimination. Some wise, some sexist. > Unless there is evidence of genetic differences to cause discrepancies, I would expect both blacks and whites to have similar percentages of people that "cause their own harm" all other things being equal. That is exactly what conservatives, reactionaries and others do say. They say there is evidence of genetic differences which lead to different outcomes. This is not a black/white thing by the way, that is just an American-centric example. We could easily talk about Europeans and Japanese people too, Europeans are significantly more likely to be violent than Japanese people. Of course average rates of violence is not the only criteria on which people should be judged. There are other things humans do besides that! > But of course, all other things are not equal either. Right, exactly. > One group was extracted forcefully from their native culture and country and forced to work as slaves for centuries, the other was not. One group faced persistent persecution and specific laws against it until late in the 20th century, the other did not. That is true, and yet if I remember correctly poor whites in Appalachia have fewer years of education and lower incomes than poor (predominately urban) blacks. This is incidentally why I believe class issues are more problematic for America in the future than race. Race has and is been used as a proxy for class and this is failing to make sense of the world as it is. To put it like this: I see America a big place where a lot of people got jumbled up together in a haphazard fashion. Then over time, and especially in the last century assorted mating has resulted in concentrations of similar people. Birds of a feather flock together. It is funny because in Europe the opposite is kind of happening. At least these are my impressions for whatever they are worth. It does though give a policy prescription for poor people. They could be distributed randomly by family over a wide geographical area. At least that is one view, I had better stop now before I get called Stalin or Hitler. ;-)

coldtea 10y ago
Let's lay it out more clearly. Let (a) => a group can have a much larger subgroup of its members be something X compared to other groups (e.g. more black criminals than whites, more violent Europeans than Japanese, etc.). Let (b) => an X subgroup is X because of itself ("caused its own harm"). So, I'm not saying (a) or (a)+(b) can't happen. What I'm saying is that for (b) to hold, the group should have either a genetic reason to be so, or a cultural one, and the cultural one must also be of their own choosing (e.g. not imposed upon them by external pressure/circumstances). What I'm also saying is I don't see (b) holding for blacks. I haven't seen evidence (aside from far-right/racist writings) that they have genetic reasons to be more criminal, etc. And I haven't seen much in their criminality / culture that can't be explained by their status as ex-slaves/racism targets/subjects of racist legislation/practices, etc. In other words, I think that for (b) to hold, you have to be in control of your destiny/world in a way that slaves by definition are not, and ex-slaves/second-rate citizens arguably are not.
- internaut 10y ago
  > Let (a) => a group can have a much larger subgroup of its members be something X compared to other groups (e.g. more black criminals than whites, more violent Europeans than Japanese, etc.). Sure. > Let (b) => an X subgroup is X because of itself ("caused its own harm"). It is a tautology. > What I'm saying is that for (b) to hold, the group should have either a genetic reason to be so, or a cultural one Hmmmmm. We agree that there exists a reason for everything. Any subgroup (even My Little Pony advocacy groups) exists for a reason. Whether in the case of violence and/or criminality it is genetic or environmental is one I'm not going to address here because I think it is too complicated to answer convincingly in one way or another and I think we would be fools to be totally confident an answer without years of study. > and the cultural one must also be of their own choosing (e.g. not imposed upon them by external pressure/circumstances). Violence can be opportunistic because you're a war-like tribe and have spotted a weakness in another tribe. Consider the Mongols attacking Europeans or the Zulu wiping out the Bush people. Do you consider that an external circumstance or a cultural choice? Seems like it could be both simultaneously. > What I'm also saying is I don't see (b) holding for blacks. Wait, I thought we were talking about subgroups in a subset? Which is it? The group or the subgroup? > And I haven't seen much in their criminality / culture that can't be explained by their status as ex-slaves/racism targets/subjects of racist legislation/practices, etc. Ok. Well I don't live in the United States, but I can tell you that the same subgroup exists in places that never had a history of slavery e.g. Ireland. We have people directly from Africa who live here, and that same subgroup exists here, freshly minted as it were. That is inside of twenty years. Racism is quite unusual here, and you certainly couldn't claim 'structural racism'. I don't claim to know if it is genetic or cultural, but I am not buying the historical slavery/oppression argument. Groups of people are just not that sensitive to trauma over generations or we (the Irish famine) would have never have survived. What happened to the Jews was just as bleak and yet they have rebounded in living memory. That's not to say it does not matter. Just that I am not accepting that line of argument. The Irish and Jews are not notably more violent and criminal than they were pre-genocide, and they were also oppressed for centuries. Now if some analog of the IRA or Mossad's assassination squads existed, then a historical oppression argument would tally up better. The recent sniper shootings for example, seem to fit into that category better.

coldtea 10y ago

Let's lay it out more clearly. Let (a) => a group can have a much larger subgroup of its members be something X compared to other groups (e.g. more black criminals than whites, more violent Europeans than Japanese, etc.). Let (b) => an X subgroup is X because of itself ("caused its own harm"). So, I'm not saying (a) or (a)+(b) can't happen. What I'm saying is that for (b) to hold, the group should have either a genetic reason to be so, or a cultural one, and the cultural one must also be of their own choosing (e.g. not imposed upon them by external pressure/circumstances). What I'm also saying is I don't see (b) holding for blacks. I haven't seen evidence (aside from far-right/racist writings) that they have genetic reasons to be more criminal, etc. And I haven't seen much in their criminality / culture that can't be explained by their status as ex-slaves/racism targets/subjects of racist legislation/practices, etc. In other words, I think that for (b) to hold, you have to be in control of your destiny/world in a way that slaves by definition are not, and ex-slaves/second-rate citizens arguably are not.

internaut 10y ago
> Let (a) => a group can have a much larger subgroup of its members be something X compared to other groups (e.g. more black criminals than whites, more violent Europeans than Japanese, etc.). Sure. > Let (b) => an X subgroup is X because of itself ("caused its own harm"). It is a tautology. > What I'm saying is that for (b) to hold, the group should have either a genetic reason to be so, or a cultural one Hmmmmm. We agree that there exists a reason for everything. Any subgroup (even My Little Pony advocacy groups) exists for a reason. Whether in the case of violence and/or criminality it is genetic or environmental is one I'm not going to address here because I think it is too complicated to answer convincingly in one way or another and I think we would be fools to be totally confident an answer without years of study. > and the cultural one must also be of their own choosing (e.g. not imposed upon them by external pressure/circumstances). Violence can be opportunistic because you're a war-like tribe and have spotted a weakness in another tribe. Consider the Mongols attacking Europeans or the Zulu wiping out the Bush people. Do you consider that an external circumstance or a cultural choice? Seems like it could be both simultaneously. > What I'm also saying is I don't see (b) holding for blacks. Wait, I thought we were talking about subgroups in a subset? Which is it? The group or the subgroup? > And I haven't seen much in their criminality / culture that can't be explained by their status as ex-slaves/racism targets/subjects of racist legislation/practices, etc. Ok. Well I don't live in the United States, but I can tell you that the same subgroup exists in places that never had a history of slavery e.g. Ireland. We have people directly from Africa who live here, and that same subgroup exists here, freshly minted as it were. That is inside of twenty years. Racism is quite unusual here, and you certainly couldn't claim 'structural racism'. I don't claim to know if it is genetic or cultural, but I am not buying the historical slavery/oppression argument. Groups of people are just not that sensitive to trauma over generations or we (the Irish famine) would have never have survived. What happened to the Jews was just as bleak and yet they have rebounded in living memory. That's not to say it does not matter. Just that I am not accepting that line of argument. The Irish and Jews are not notably more violent and criminal than they were pre-genocide, and they were also oppressed for centuries. Now if some analog of the IRA or Mossad's assassination squads existed, then a historical oppression argument would tally up better. The recent sniper shootings for example, seem to fit into that category better.