"On White Privilege"

[tatteredsoul]

Amputation?

Too late embolism has already been thrown.

 

[rturner76]

While i'm guessing (or at least hoping), that this reply was tongue-in-cheek, instead of discussion about the studies or offering alternative studies which demonstrate my claims to be false, we have responses like this, in which you assert that because a person belongs to a group which has certain traits, that those traits are directly applicable to every person in that group (which i specifically addressed in my previous posts).

Just because men are bigger than women (they are: http://www.theaveragebody.com/average_height.php), doesn't preclude a woman being the biggest person in the world. The recorded facts of the matter do support the most likely result (from what i could find in a quick search, there are 10 men recorded as taller than the tallest woman).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_people

Why is it when facts are presented, people want to attempt to ridicule the facts and derail the conversation?

The facts are dubious as eugenics has not been proven to be anything more than pseudoscience and mostly white supremacist theory. IQ testing can be culturally biased and is not always the most accurate indicator of intelligence. There are many kinds of intelligence for example someone maybe able to memorize text easily but lack critical thinking skills. The truth is even in the "facts" that you presented, they still don't know how much to attribute to pure genetics and how much is environment as different cultures emphasize different areas of study and different characteristics are important.

 

[whatbogsends]

The facts are dubious as eugenics has not been proven to be anything more than pseudoscience and mostly white supremacist theory. IQ testing can be culturally biased and is not always the most accurate indicator of intelligence. There are many kinds of intelligence for example someone maybe able to memorize text easily but lack critical thinking skills. The truth is even in the "facts" that you presented, they still don't know how much to attribute to pure genetics and how much is environment as different cultures emphasize different areas of study and different characteristics are important.

If you actually read my posts, i never claimed anything was "pure genetics", and the articles i posted posited other factors (such as natural selection) as possible causes for the factual differences in ethnic groups. The "fact" that there are no racial differences is an equally dubious proposition. What science is clear on is that there are quantitative differences in physical and mental attributes among ethnic groups. What is unclear is still the full diagnosis of the underlying reasons. Excluding one possible reason because it's offensive to liberal ideology isn't a full scientific exploration of the subject.

Regardless, it is foolish to assume equal capability or skill between different groups of people (just as it is foolish to assume equal capability or skill between any 2 given individuals). Assuming, without proving, that any and all differences in outcome are due to social racial bias doesn't move the discussion forward. The real discussion needs to involve much more nuance than "30% of the applicants to a position are black, so 30% of the hires should be black" that is consistently put forth.

As i've said many times, i 100% believe white privilege/racial bias exists (but likely has diminished from previous levels), and we should continue to take steps to reduce/remove it. I disagree with the argument that outcomes should be equal across ethnic groups, when there are, indeed differences (regardless of whether they are cultural or genetic). Moreover, if some of those differences are cultural (for example, work ethic promoted within a culture), the burden should be on that culture to change their focus on work ethic rather than the larger social fabric to yield improved outcomes regardless of cultural bias. As many have noted, whether it's genetic or cultural, asians don't experience the same "non-white" bias in terms of achievement, as they, as a demographic, outperform whites.

The environment in which any and all critique of the argument "all races should have equal outcomes" is labeled "racist" by one side of the argument shuts down conversation and isn't conducive for working towards improving the problem.

 

[ScottA]

The scientific studies establish no basis on which to believe that we should accept inequitable treatment of people based on race.



Better than Him? Can you demonstrate, from a sound exposition of Scripture, where I am incorrect about

- human society as a construct in which both good and bad are expressed, with the potential to improve
- God calling Christians to work for the good of their society?

I have not commented against such, but rather your propensity to put our social activity above God's own design, even saying, "you do not 'believe our society is structured by God."'

 

[SummerMadness]

There is absolutely no racial basis because race is not scientific, any other contention is false. There is not "purely genetics" because race is not genetics. The fact that race cannot be defined scientifically says a lot. What is black? Or is it Negroid? What is white? Or is it Caucasoid? That is not an actual "race."

 

[whatbogsends]

There is absolutely no racial basis because race is not scientific, any other contention is false. There is not "purely genetics" because race is not genetics. The fact that race cannot be defined scientifically says a lot. What is black? Or is it Negroid? What is white? Or is it Caucasoid? That is not an actual "race."

Do you believe in natural selection?

 

[whatbogsends]

There is absolutely no racial basis because race is not scientific, any other contention is false. There is not "purely genetics" because race is not genetics. The fact that race cannot be defined scientifically says a lot. What is black? Or is it Negroid? What is white? Or is it Caucasoid? That is not an actual "race."

If there's no race, there can be no societal racial bias (there would be nothing to base it on), and certainly no "white privilege" as there is no "white". I must have been wrong to think "white privilege" exist.

 

[Paidiske]

I have not commented against such, but rather your propensity to put our social activity above God's own design, even saying, "you do not 'believe our society is structured by God."'

Well, I don't think that's putting our social activity above God's design.

How is our contemporary secular democracy, with its particular cultural patterns of education, employment, economics, worship, family and relationships, friendships, leisure activities, fashion, and so on and so forth, "God's design"?

Did God design our school system? Did God design our businesses? Our banking system? On what basis do you claim this?

 

[SummerMadness]

If there's no race, there can be no societal racial bias (there would be nothing to base it on), and certainly no "white privilege" as there is no "white". I must have been wrong to think "white privilege" exist.

You're mixing two things up. Race is social, it is real in that context, the same way money has value. As biology, as genetics, race does not exist. White privilege has nothing to do with biology, it has everything to do with societal constructs and categorization.

 

[whatbogsends]

You're mixing two things up. Race is social, it is real in that context, the same way money has value. As biology, as genetics, race does not exist. White privilege has nothing to do with biology, it has everything to do with societal constructs and categorization.

If race is merely a social construct, how does society know who to be racist against? Who is black? Who is white?

For the record, just because delineations are gradual rather than distinct doesn't mean delineations don't exist, nor does it mean there aren't genetic factors. Gradual differences between ethnic groups are still differences.

Even the scientists who are among the "there is no race" proponents agree that there are genetic differences among what we perceive as races:

“Human populations certainly show genetic differences across geographical space, but this does not necessarily mean that races exist in humans.”

https://psmag.com/why-your-race-isn-t-genetic-559908897f93#.9ks8f3k95

That is someone who supports your position that "there is no such thing as race". That being said, he acknowledges the clear truth that there are genetic differences between societal groups.

You get offended by my suggestion that there is a genetic component to outcomes in the "social races", but those who make your argument that there are no races plainly acknowledge those genetic differences.

 

[SummerMadness]

If race is merely a social construct, how does society know who to be racist against? Who is black? Who is white?

For the record, just because delineations are gradual rather than distinct doesn't mean delineations don't exist, nor does it mean there aren't genetic factors. Gradual differences between ethnic groups are still differences.

Even the scientists who are among the "there is no race" proponents agree that there are genetic differences among what we perceive as races:

“Human populations certainly show genetic differences across geographical space, but this does not necessarily mean that races exist in humans.”

https://psmag.com/why-your-race-isn-t-genetic-559908897f93#.9ks8f3k95

That is someone who supports your position that "there is no such thing as race". That being said, he acknowledges the clear truth that there are genetic differences between societal groups.

You get offended by my suggestion that there is a genetic component to outcomes in the "social races", but those who make your argument that there are no races plainly acknowledge those genetic differences.

You ask and answer your own question, the determinations of who is white and who is black is based on a visual idea and classification, that is not biological. Africans are considered black, Europeans are considered white, but they are not biological groups. You just pointed to text saying that human populations show genetic differences across geographical space, you know like Africa. The continent of Africa has the most genetic variation of the human species. They are not different races of people, they are not a group of "biological blacks." You're still mistaking the idea that skin color is the genetic difference, when they're really referring to the genetic variation within humans. You can find distinct genetic differences between West Africans and Southern Africans, but you would probably say they are not a different race. Skin color is more related to distance from the equator, not genetic differences between ethnic groups. You also seem to mix up race and ethnicity; how many ethnic groups exist in the world? Are those all different races of people?

Is this a black woman?

Racially, yes. That's what people call her, but he is she part of the "biological black" group? No. This an Ati woman who is more genetically related to Asians than to Africans (you know, the "black" people). Race is a complete social construct, it is not biological.

There are no genes that make white people smarter, just as there are no genes that make black people more athletic. Socio-environmental factors drive those differences. If blacks are so athletically superior, why is the current heavyweight champion a white Brit and the previous one Ukranian?

If race was a determinant of intelligence, why has the racial gap shrunk? [1]
If race was a determinant of intelligence, why do African Americans that grow up with white parents do well, but appear to change after adolescence (you know the time when psycho/social constructs of race become part of their development)? [2]

Again, you've mistaken genetic differences of populations to mean skin color differences between groups.

 

[tatteredsoul]

You ask and answer your own question, the determinations of who is white and who is black is based on a visual idea and classification, that is not biological. Africans are considered black, Europeans are considered white, but they are not biological groups. You just pointed to text saying that human populations show genetic differences across geographical space, you know like Africa. The continent of Africa has the most genetic variation of the human species. They are not different races of people, they are not a group of "biological blacks." You're still mistaking the idea that skin color is the genetic difference, when they're really referring to the genetic variation within humans. You can find distinct genetic differences between West Africans and Southern Africans, but you would probably say they are not a different race. Skin color is more related to distance from the equator, not genetic differences between ethnic groups. You also seem to mix up race and ethnicity; how many ethnic groups exist in the world? Are those all different races of people?

Is this a black woman?

Racially, yes. That's what people call her, but he is she part of the "biological black" group? No. This an Ati woman who is more genetically related to Asians than to Africans (you know, the "black" people). Race is a complete social construct, it is not biological.

There are no genes that make white people smarter, just as there are no genes that make black people more athletic. Socio-environmental factors drive those differences. If blacks are so athletically superior, why is the current heavyweight champion a white Brit and the previous one Ukranian?

If race was a determinant of intelligence, why has the racial gap shrunk? [1]
If race was a determinant of intelligence, why do African Americans that grow up with white parents do well, but appear to change after adolescence (you know the time when psycho/social constructs of race become part of their development)? [2]

Again, you've mistaken genetic differences of populations to mean skin color differences between groups.

 

[whatbogsends]

You ask and answer your own question, the determinations of who is white and who is black is based on a visual idea and classification, that is not biological. Africans are considered black, Europeans are considered white, but they are not biological groups. You just pointed to text saying that human populations show genetic differences across geographical space, you know like Africa. The continent of Africa has the most genetic variation of the human species. They are not different races of people, they are not a group of "biological blacks." You're still mistaking the idea that skin color is the genetic difference, when they're really referring to the genetic variation within humans. You can find distinct genetic differences between West Africans and Southern Africans, but you would probably say they are not a different race. Skin color is more related to distance from the equator, not genetic differences between ethnic groups. You also seem to mix up race and ethnicity; how many ethnic groups exist in the world? Are those all different races of people?

Is this a black woman?

Racially, yes. That's what people call her, but he is she part of the "biological black" group? No. This an Ati woman who is more genetically related to Asians than to Africans (you know, the "black" people). Race is a complete social construct, it is not biological.

There are no genes that make white people smarter, just as there are no genes that make black people more athletic. Socio-environmental factors drive those differences. If blacks are so athletically superior, why is the current heavyweight champion a white Brit and the previous one Ukranian?

If race was a determinant of intelligence, why has the racial gap shrunk? [1]
If race was a determinant of intelligence, why do African Americans that grow up with white parents do well, but appear to change after adolescence (you know the time when psycho/social constructs of race become part of their development)? [2]

Again, you've mistaken genetic differences of populations to mean skin color differences between groups.

Intelligence is genetic/hereditary. Two smart people are more likely to produce a smarter child than two less intelligent people.

Natural selection exists as a phenomena. Traits, including size, strength, skin pigmentation, and yes, intelligence can evolve in a population over time depending on the influences of environmental factors upon that population.

There are genetic differences between ethnic groups. Some ethnic groups have statistically had different average characteristics.

There is no reason to expect "equal outcomes" in groups which don't have equal features.

No one said "race was determinant of intelligence" those are entirely your words, and vastly misrepresent everything i've said. In fact, i've specifically said that is not the case in multiple posts in this thread. You've mischaracterized my argument multiple times, rejecting out the science that does, indeed show genetic differences between ethnic groups because you draw the false assumption that this equates one to one as a determinant within race. That wasn't the argument i made, but it is the strawman you're arguing against.

 

[whatbogsends]

You ask and answer your own question, the determinations of who is white and who is black is based on a visual idea and classification, that is not biological. Africans are considered black, Europeans are considered white, but they are not biological groups. You just pointed to text saying that human populations show genetic differences across geographical space, you know like Africa. The continent of Africa has the most genetic variation of the human species. They are not different races of people, they are not a group of "biological blacks." You're still mistaking the idea that skin color is the genetic difference, when they're really referring to the genetic variation within humans. You can find distinct genetic differences between West Africans and Southern Africans, but you would probably say they are not a different race. Skin color is more related to distance from the equator, not genetic differences between ethnic groups. You also seem to mix up race and ethnicity; how many ethnic groups exist in the world? Are those all different races of people?

Is this a black woman?

Racially, yes. That's what people call her, but he is she part of the "biological black" group? No. This an Ati woman who is more genetically related to Asians than to Africans (you know, the "black" people). Race is a complete social construct, it is not biological.

There are no genes that make white people smarter, just as there are no genes that make black people more athletic. Socio-environmental factors drive those differences. If blacks are so athletically superior, why is the current heavyweight champion a white Brit and the previous one Ukranian?

If race was a determinant of intelligence, why has the racial gap shrunk? [1]
If race was a determinant of intelligence, why do African Americans that grow up with white parents do well, but appear to change after adolescence (you know the time when psycho/social constructs of race become part of their development)? [2]

Again, you've mistaken genetic differences of populations to mean skin color differences between groups.

Firstly, boxing isn't simply a measure of "athletically superior", and the differences between ethnic groups aren't "superior/inferior" (words that i didn't use to show differences, but you asserted in your rebuttal), they are differences.

More importantly, i have to ask if you understand how statistics work?

If i said there are 2 groups of 100 people, and group A has an average intelligence of 100 and group B has an average intelligence of 115, you do understand that the smartest person from either group could be from group A, despite the group having a lower average intelligence.

Statistics are a measurement of a population, and often quantify things in terms of mean (with standard deviations, medians, etc. An individual data point within a population is not, in any way, shape, or form "derived" from those statistics. Statistics aren't a predictor of the attributes of an individual within a described population.

All of your arguments are exactly that: because some data point (or points) doesn't reflect the statistics ("look at this woman, she looks black, but is asian" or "the two most recent heavyweight champions are white, so blacks aren't superior athletes"), there are no statistics or the statistics are somehow wrong. Not only do your counterpoints fail to remotely contrast anything i've said, they're logical fallacies which demonstrate a misunderstanding of statistics.

 

[SummerMadness]

What you're writing is pretty clear. There are two incorrect arguments being fielded. Race as biological is the first one. If race isn't biological, then you can't have racial bias is the argument in so many words. That is false, race is not biological, skin color differences is not an example of genetically different groups since you have many genetically different groups that are the same skin color. The Ati woman shown above is not Asian, she is just more genetically similar to Asians; nonetheless, she will be classified as a black woman because the categorization is social. The categorization is not about biological differences, this is the main reason that what is considered white has evolved over time (Irish people used to be classified as subhuman).

This goes to the next point, there are intelligence differences between racial groups, but these differences are not because of biology. Intelligence is heritable, but that does not explain the racial difference, the racial difference is strongly linked to the social mores of racism, which is a social, not biological, classification. Your logic: Is intelligence heritable? Yes. Is there a difference in IQ scores between racial groups? Yes. Then racial groups have inherited different levels of intelligence. No. That difference is caused by social categorization, not a measure of biology. The fact that the gap has narrowed as barriers of racism have been removed suggests that it's not biology.

But this goes back to your mischaracterization of genetic differences. When they talk about genetically distinct populations, they're not talking about skin color, skin color is related to distance from the equator. Genetic differences are about the genetic variation across humans, which does not break down into "racial groups." It's because race is not biology. That does not change the fact that racism is a reality.

 

[whatbogsends]

What you're writing is pretty clear. There are two incorrect arguments being fielded. Race as biological is the first one. If race isn't biological, then you can't have racial bias is the argument in so many words. That is false, race is not biological, skin color differences is not an example of genetically different groups since you have many genetically different groups that are the same skin color. The Ati woman shown above is not Asian, she is just more genetically similar to Asians; nonetheless, she will be classified as a black woman because the categorization is social. The categorization is not about biological differences, this is the main reason that what is considered white has evolved over time (Irish people used to be classified as subhuman).

This goes to the next point, there are intelligence differences between racial groups, but these differences are not because of biology. Intelligence is heritable, but that does not explain the racial difference, the racial difference is strongly linked to the social mores of racism, which is a social, not biological, classification. Your logic: Is intelligence heritable? Yes. Is there a difference in IQ scores between racial groups? Yes. Then racial groups have inherited different levels of intelligence. No. That difference is caused by social categorization, not a measure of biology. The fact that the gap has narrowed as barriers of racism have been removed suggests that it's not biology.

But this goes back to your mischaracterization of genetic differences. When they talk about genetically distinct populations, they're not talking about skin color, skin color is related to distance from the equator. Genetic differences are about the genetic variation across humans, which does not break down into "racial groups." It's because race is not biology. That does not change the fact that racism is a reality.

The whole premise of this thread is based on categorization by skin color. That's not my premise, that's the argument that you have supported from the beginning of this thread. That "whites" get special privilege. Are you suggesting now that "whites" doesn't refer to a skin color?

What are socially "whites" comprise multiple ethnic groups, similarly what are socially "blacks" comprise multiple ethnic groups. There can, indeed, be overlap between those ethnic groups in the population of "whites" and "blacks".

IQ is not solely distinguished by "social groups". A person changing social groups wouldn't suddenly get a higher IQ. The hypothesis that i referred to in the Time article (which was reporting based on studies) talks about natural selection as a possible reason for disparate IQs (among other traits) between ethnic groups. Just because the cause of the disparate IQ in a given ethnic group may have been caused by natural selection based on the preferences within that group doesn't mean that current social categorizations determine or influence the IQ of members of that hereditary group.

While there aren't distinct/sharp differences between "social blacks" and "social whites", there are statistical differences between those groups when measured, that can be attributed to genetics - not racial genetics, but social genetics that have evolved over time. Those disparities won't disappear overnight by changing the societal norms, nor should equal outcomes among those groups be expected in a non-biased system, because the differences between the groups already exist. Those differences may lessen over time as their social preferences change, but it's not at the feet of society to artificially dictate results to match demographics, because statistical differences in demographic groups does exist.

Statistics have meaning, and you can't pick and choose what statistics are meaningful. The statistics cited assessing the impact of white privilege most often speak strictly to the disparity of results, while wholly ignoring any disparity of traits of the populations to which the speak about.

As i've said numerous times in this thread, i do 100% believe that white privilege exists and we should work to eliminate any systemic bias towards whites (or any particular race). What i've also said that the best way to discuss "white privilege" is to include all of the underlying factors, as the topic is much more nuanced than you have made it out to be in these discussions.

 

[tatteredsoul]

No one is arguing the skin color implications of the OP as being a genetic issue, but that is a cultural and socioeconomic topic - not a biologic topic. It is not a biological fact that white privilege exists (in a vacuum.) Sociologically, and politically it more than exists - it is a serious issue for anyone who isn't "white."

We are talking PHENOTYPE, and the treatment you can get with that vs. GENOTYPE. If race was biologic, then why can Rachael D. vehemently identify as black by lightly tanning her skin and putting some curls and color in her hair?

Why are people treated differently based on how close to the status quo they look (i.e. white?)

Why do people severely tan, or severely bleach their skin if they didn't get treated differently for it?

Race is not a genetic issue; it is a socioeconomic and sociopolitical issue. And, the reason the inflated statistics show the abhorrent connections between "race" and intelligence is:

1) we have just barely come off of the eugenics culture of categorizing who deserves to exist based on how much they are wanted/needed (in public,)

2) we have just come out of very overt slavery, brutality, rape, genocide and segregation in the world, which purposefully put a certain demographics in abominable economic, social, political and cultural pits,

3) there is still a slight toward people who "look" like they are acceptable, and those who don't (ask anyone who looks Muslim, anyone who looks like a black guy in a Hoodie, a black woman with natural hair, or a Latino with tattoos and/or shaved head.) In other words, the mechanism that drives race relations in the States, and in the West generally, are ruled by STEREOTYPES, not genetics.

The statistics mean nothing; the grant money they receive is meant to promote the group(s) from which they received the money, while exhibiting a veneer of transparency and scientific honesty.

And, don't you understand that intelligence, for example, is an issue of resource and anthropological necessity, not genetics alone? Potential is more of a genetic issue, not intelligence - but you don't have to have a smart kid born from two smart parents. In fact, a running joke is two smart parents make a dumb baby, or two ugly parents make a cute baby. This is partly due to public misunderstanding of how traits can skip a generation.

There was a time when science said Black/Africans were animals, or at least lower than human (some people believe this still, and The Origin of Species author believed this, making "religious" crusades and campaigns seem "justifiable" with clergy and scientists preaching this.)

There was a time when homosexuality was considered a mental illness by science.

There was a time when women were considered dumber than men because their brains were smaller by science.

Then, you have former government officials ADMITTING that they put drugs in low income and ethnic neighborhoods on purpose - in order to keep their populations down, make them a criminal categoy, aND get the pepole to hate them and see them as drug addicted criminals who can't be helped.

Some of what you say sounds like Eugenics mixed in with CIA Watergate-age manifesto. I'm "black," and I have three degrees in physics and engineering. I went to college at 16 on academic scholarship. My family is full of either engineers, doctors, nurses or entrepreneurs. I am not an anomaly; there is just too much prejudiced misinformation put out with such frequency it marginalizes many groups' achievements.

Whenever black people allegedly commit a crime, they are animals. Or, the new N-word: thugs. This, of course, ignores how many people got away with crimes by blaming the black guy, and how many of those blamed "black guys" are being aqcquitted. It also ignores the profiling and prejudices that all but make them guilty until proven innocent (some people even posthumously bring up things done in the past to justify their prejudice (pre-judging).) Those things aren't advertised nearly as often as they happen because it would shatter the status quo.

If people knew the CIA (the same entity that dropped Crack cocaine in low income ethnic neighborhoods, and LDS on "hippie" college students) also crashed their Gulfstream 2 jet coming from Mexico with kilos of cocaine - what would they say?

If people actually read the declassified hearings, manifests and operations that worked to make certain ethnic groups social and economic pariahs, what would they say? How would it feel to know your championship of a cause was actually a well-orchestrated manipulation by people who wanted your support to continue eugenics programs?

Seriously, the "race is genetic for intelligence, strength, etc." argument is the exact ridiculous demogoguery that allowed Hitler and many other demagogues the citizen-supported platform to justify mass killings, war and imprisonment.

We are specifically talking about a socioeconomic and sociopolitical phenomenon.

 

[SummerMadness]

The whole premise of this thread is based on categorization by skin color. That's not my premise, that's the argument that you have supported from the beginning of this thread. That "whites" get special privilege. Are you suggesting now that "whites" doesn't refer to a skin color?

What are socially "whites" comprise multiple ethnic groups, similarly what are socially "blacks" comprise multiple ethnic groups. There can, indeed, be overlap between those ethnic groups in the population of "whites" and "blacks".

Where did I suggest that it doesn't refer to skin color? Are you suggesting that skin color is determined by melanin content, which is determined by your genes, therefore race is biological? Yes, skin color is determined by biology, but race is not. The fact that there is not an overlap between social and biology means that the social is not biological, that's the point. Biologically different groups are defined that way because they can be distinguished using rules that apply to all species. When it comes to humans, it is clear these biological rules do not apply, since it simply comes back to genetic variation within one group, homo sapiens sapiens.

IQ is not solely distinguished by "social groups". A person changing social groups wouldn't suddenly get a higher IQ. The hypothesis that i referred to in the Time article (which was reporting based on studies) talks about natural selection as a possible reason for disparate IQs (among other traits) between ethnic groups. Just because the cause of the disparate IQ in a given ethnic group may have been caused by natural selection based on the preferences within that group doesn't mean that current social categorizations determine or influence the IQ of members of that hereditary group.

I never said IQ was only distinguished by social groups. You're mixing two ideas again. Differences between groups is not caused by genetics. Yes, intelligence is partly genetic, but the differences we see in American society are not caused by genetics, it is caused by social choices in our society.

While there aren't distinct/sharp differences between "social blacks" and "social whites", there are statistical differences between those groups when measured, that can be attributed to genetics - not racial genetics, but social genetics that have evolved over time. Those disparities won't disappear overnight by changing the societal norms, nor should equal outcomes among those groups be expected in a non-biased system, because the differences between the groups already exist. Those differences may lessen over time as their social preferences change, but it's not at the feet of society to artificially dictate results to match demographics, because statistical differences in demographic groups does exist.

Everything you've written here is not scientific, you're still attempting to argue a distinct biological trait. Are you arguing that racism has created a distinct biological group? The differences seen between social groups are caused by social choices. Yes, erasing these social groups will not change things overnight. The effects of social classification will not simply disappear, it will take time. But there is no "biology" that will persist with the removal of racism, the difference was caused by societal choices and will disappear when those social choices becomes a thing of the past. We're not there yet.

Statistics have meaning, and you can't pick and choose what statistics are meaningful. The statistics cited assessing the impact of white privilege most often speak strictly to the disparity of results, while wholly ignoring any disparity of traits of the populations to which the speak about.

Statistics have meaning, but that doesn't absolve you from misinterpreting results. There are differences due to the social construction, it is not biological.

As i've said numerous times in this thread, i do 100% believe that white privilege exists and we should work to eliminate any systemic bias towards whites (or any particular race). What i've also said that the best way to discuss "white privilege" is to include all of the underlying factors, as the topic is much more nuanced than you have made it out to be in these discussions.

Sure, include underlying factors... biology is not one of them.

 

[com7fy8]

Can we all agree beautiful privilege exist?

And because men have learned to evaluate a woman by how she looks, a man possibly does not know how to love. So, the male who discriminates loses so much more than the woman loses by not being attractive to a man who does not know how to love.

And yet, in the culture where I am, it seems there are women who use looks to try to hook a man. But the bait you use can be what chooses the fish you catch.

being harassed, attacked, and killed by police.

And in Africa there can be military people who try to kill off whole ethnic groups of other Afros.

So, the problem is not about color or beauty, but that we all were born in sin and have some ability to judge people by what they look like, and if they are of our own feather or not.

Birds of a feather flock together,
and get bird flu together . . .
the bird flu of conceit.

And ones miss out on so much because they do not know how to love.

If you seek equality, it is good to evaluate how you want to be equal . . . what it will take to get what someone else has. Because if you desire to have what greedy bigots have, their ways might have made them able to get what they have; and so you might have to take on those evil bigoted greedy ways in order to have what they have. So, I would be careful about wanting what evil people have; at least, make sure you do not use evil ways to get things they have.

And show them how to love, so they can find out how, instead of only controlling them to accept you >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

 

[whatbogsends]

Where did I suggest that it doesn't refer to skin color? Are you suggesting that skin color is determined by melanin content, which is determined by your genes, therefore race is biological? Yes, skin color is determined by biology, but race is not. The fact that there is not an overlap between social and biology means that the social is not biological, that's the point. Biologically different groups are defined that way because they can be distinguished using rules that apply to all species. When it comes to humans, it is clear these biological rules do not apply, since it simply comes back to genetic variation within one group, homo sapiens sapiens.

I never said IQ was only distinguished by social groups. You're mixing two ideas again. Differences between groups is not caused by genetics. Yes, intelligence is partly genetic, but the differences we see in American society are not caused by genetics, it is caused by social choices in our society.

Everything you've written here is not scientific, you're still attempting to argue a distinct biological trait. Are you arguing that racism has created a distinct biological group? The differences seen between social groups are caused by social choices. Yes, erasing these social groups will not change things overnight. The effects of social classification will not simply disappear, it will take time. But there is no "biology" that will persist with the removal of racism, the difference was caused by societal choices and will disappear when those social choices becomes a thing of the past. We're not there yet.

Statistics have meaning, but that doesn't absolve you from misinterpreting results. There are differences due to the social construction, it is not biological.

Sure, include underlying factors... biology is not one of them.

I'm not saying "race is biological" i'm saying that "social race" is comprised of groups which share traits in common. Different "social races" possess different traits. Possession of a particular trait does not necessarily place a person in or out of a social group.

Genetic rules (dominant genes, etc) do apply to humans. Differences between can be influenced by genetics - not by "this race is X", but natural selection, which is the passing of certain traits on to those in that particular group. Natural selection is a genetic process.

When you say "Yes, intelligence is partly genetic, but the differences we see in American society are not caused by genetics, it is caused by social choices in our society." you are contradicting yourself. You acknowledge (correctly) that intelligence is partly genetic, but then deny genetic differences as part of the possible differences between ethnic groups in our society, attributing them solely to social choices. Are social choices influential? Absolutely? Are they the sole determinant? Absolutely not.

I'm not arguing a distinct biological trait. I'm arguing that different ethnic groups have statistically different traits. I'm arguing that socially, many "similar" ethnic groups are often grouped together in discussions about "race". I'm arguing that between any 2 given populations, there are disparities of traits, be those traits physical (such as height, weight, and skin color) or mental (intelligence). I'm arguing that between any 2 given populations which have different average traits, expecting equal outcomes is a fallacious argument.