The Racism Treadmill

[Rion]

The disparity fallacy and the denial of cultural factors conspire to create a dynamic that I call the Racism Treadmill: as long as cultural differences continue to cause disparities between racial groups, and as long as progressives imagine that systemic racism lies behind every disparity, then no amount of progress in reducing systemic racism, however large or concrete, will ever look like progress to progressives.

Indeed, it may be a mistake to think of progressives as engaging in progress-oriented activism to begin with, because that would imply that they are progressing towards some specified endpoint. But if the progressive definition of ‘progress’ ends with a disparity-free world that will never—indeed could never—exist, then progressives are left with a Sisyphean politics; an agitated march to nowhere in particular.

I submit that the Racism Treadmill, and the dogmas that motivate it, account for much of the progressophobia of the activist Left on the topic of race. The Treadmill shows itself in the way progressives appropriate the tragedies of history in order to summon rhetorical gravitas in the present. Carceral policy is not just bad, it’s the “New Jim Crow”; posting reaction GIFs on social media that portray black people is “digital blackface”; and, even though three separate analyses have found no racial bias in police shootings, such shootings are said to be “reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching,” as a United Nations report put it. It seems as if every reduction in racist behavior is met with a commensurate expansion in our definition of the concept. Thus, racism has become a conserved quantity akin to mass or energy: transformable but irreducible.

...

The War on Racism, though intended to be won by those prosecuting it, will, in practice, continue indefinitely. This is because the stated goals of progressives, however sincerely held, are so apocalyptic, so vague, and so total as to guarantee that they will never be met. One often hears calls to “end white supremacy,” for instance. But what “ending white supremacy” would look like in a country where whites are already out-earned by several dark-skinned ethnic groups (Indian-Americans top the list by a large margin) is never explained. I would not be the first to point out the parallels between progressive goals and religious eschatology. Coates, for instance, professes to be an atheist, but tweak a few details and the Rapture becomes Reparations––which he has said will lead to a “spiritual renewal” and a “revolution of the American consciousness."

Read the rest here: The Racism Treadmill - Quillette

It's an incredibly well-written, and well researched essay. It also sums up many of the problems I have with those who try and keep racial animosity stoked, either out of ignorance of what they're doing, or out of some twisted sense of purpose.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The War on Racism, though intended to be won by those prosecuting it, will, in practice, continue indefinitely.

No worries in Christ Jesus Messiah King of the Jews.

The battle is Yahweh's, and by Him was already won, utterly and completely for Ekklesia in Christ Jesus Their Savior.

 

[A_Thinker]

The disparity fallacy and the denial of cultural factors conspire to create a dynamic that I call the Racism Treadmill: as long as cultural differences continue to cause disparities between racial groups, and as long as progressives imagine that systemic racism lies behind every disparity, then no amount of progress in reducing systemic racism, however large or concrete, will ever look like progress to progressives.

Noone would deny that the country has made great strides in racial equality during the last 150 years.

Similarly, hopefully, noone would deny that this country has a past rooted in racism.

It is, therefore, not inappropriate that some would think that there might be more work to do on this front. This doesn't, in and of itself, mean that there is more work to do to counter racism, just that it is not inappropriate to be on the lookout for signs that there is still work to be done.

I just gave a poster on another forum some helpful hints about freeing his lawn from some common weeds. The advice that I gave him should be a good start on accomplishing what he wants. But it would be foolish to think that maintenance/more work will not be required later in the season ... or next year, ... or the next. Because weeds will tend to reoccur, if not actively worked against on a consistent basis.

So, I also advised him to "keep a lookout" for signs that other weed/lawn treatments might be necessary ... because, if you don't, ... you may soon have a yard full of dandelions again ... and nobody wants that ...

 

[Rion]

Noone would deny that the country has made great strides in racial equality during the last 150 years.

Plenty of people do just that. The author even mentions a few.

 

[Always in His Presence]

great read

 

[rambot]

Noone would deny that the country has made great strides in racial equality during the last 150 years.

Similarly, hopefully, noone would deny that this country has a past rooted in racism.

It is, therefore, not inappropriate that some would think that there might be more work to do on this front. This doesn't, in and of itself, mean that there is more work to do to counter racism, just that it is not inappropriate to be on the lookout for signs that there is still work to be done.

I just gave a poster on another forum some helpful hints about freeing his lawn from some common weeds. The advice that I gave him should be a good start on accomplishing what he wants. But it would be foolish to think that maintenance/more work will not be required later in the season ... or next year, ... or the next. Because weeds will tend to reoccur, if not actively worked against on a consistent basis.

So, I also advised him to "keep a lookout" for signs that other weed/lawn treatments might be necessary ... because, if you don't, ... you may soon have a yard full of dandelions again ... and nobody wants that ...

Lovely reply. Thank you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The disparity fallacy and the denial of cultural factors conspire to create a dynamic that I call the Racism Treadmill: as long as cultural differences continue to cause disparities between racial groups, and as long as progressives imagine that systemic racism lies behind every disparity, then no amount of progress in reducing systemic racism, however large or concrete, will ever look like progress to progressives.

Indeed, it may be a mistake to think of progressives as engaging in progress-oriented activism to begin with, because that would imply that they are progressing towards some specified endpoint. But if the progressive definition of ‘progress’ ends with a disparity-free world that will never—indeed could never—exist, then progressives are left with a Sisyphean politics; an agitated march to nowhere in particular.

I submit that the Racism Treadmill, and the dogmas that motivate it, account for much of the progressophobia of the activist Left on the topic of race. The Treadmill shows itself in the way progressives appropriate the tragedies of history in order to summon rhetorical gravitas in the present. Carceral policy is not just bad, it’s the “New Jim Crow”; posting reaction GIFs on social media that portray black people is “digital blackface”; and, even though three separate analyses have found no racial bias in police shootings, such shootings are said to be “reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching,” as a United Nations report put it. It seems as if every reduction in racist behavior is met with a commensurate expansion in our definition of the concept. Thus, racism has become a conserved quantity akin to mass or energy: transformable but irreducible.

...

The War on Racism, though intended to be won by those prosecuting it, will, in practice, continue indefinitely. This is because the stated goals of progressives, however sincerely held, are so apocalyptic, so vague, and so total as to guarantee that they will never be met. One often hears calls to “end white supremacy,” for instance. But what “ending white supremacy” would look like in a country where whites are already out-earned by several dark-skinned ethnic groups (Indian-Americans top the list by a large margin) is never explained. I would not be the first to point out the parallels between progressive goals and religious eschatology. Coates, for instance, professes to be an atheist, but tweak a few details and the Rapture becomes Reparations––which he has said will lead to a “spiritual renewal” and a “revolution of the American consciousness."

Read the rest here: The Racism Treadmill - Quillette

It's an incredibly well-written, and well researched essay. It also sums up many of the problems I have with those who try and keep racial animosity stoked, either out of ignorance of what they're doing, or out of some twisted sense of purpose.

Great essay Rion...though I think it's likely to fall on deaf ears here. I've made many of these same points in discussions with various posters...and I've found that they largely get ignored completely by those posters when they reply. It's a special kind of cognitive dissonance that allows regressives to continually ignore the obvious flaws on their reasoning. I think there's an emotional element to that, and I'll explain more on that...

I do disagree with the author on a couple of points. For example, when he said...

1. "Facts like these, however, are never explained in terms of discrimination in favor of blacks. Indeed, why progressives only commit the disparity fallacy in one direction is never explained. "

I think it's rather easily explained. Those progressives and sjws who are entrenched in this kind of thinking have all but annihilated any semblance of rational discourse and open dialogue. I've considered myself a leftist (though more moderate than most) and this is the only time when I can remember the left openly discouraging discourse on the topic and championing a close-minded approach. The modus operandi of the left is to shut down dialogue about the topic and label those who disagree as racists and "part of the problem". So to someone on the left...trying to engage these flaws in logic with rationality and dialogue runs that person the very serious risk of being labelled as a racist and vilified by their own group. It's like a Christian trying to discuss a mistake in the bible during Sunday school....they're more likely to be ostracized as a troublemaker than allowed to engage in thoughtful, rational discourse.

2. The second part I disagree with is how the author frames this leftist narrative as endless...as the ever expanding definition of racism allows for even the slightest incident of no real consequences to be considered a problem. He kind of frames it as a strength of the narrative...but I see it as a weakness. Outrage is like willpower...people don't have an inexhaustible supply. So while the narrative was running strong 8 years ago when it centered on police shootings...it's running at maybe half that power on the new wave of outrage, calling the police on blacks for minor incidents. This is something that many many whites...including myself...have experienced, so it's harder to frame as racist than a cop shooting an unarmed black man. Over time, we've gone from over racism (segregation and the klan) to covert racism (implicit biases) to what I like to call "I can't believe it's not racism, lite". As it's moved along this track....I've seen more and more former sjws calling their beliefs into question and outright challenging the assertions of their peers. It's a slow death of a faulty narrative.

If race-baiters and outrage professionals don't find better examples of "racism" fairly soon...they may end up needing to get real jobs.

The attacks on intellectualism should've been a wake up call for most of the left that something was wrong with their narrative regarding inequality. It's taking longer than I would've liked...but I do see an increase of those on the left willing to challenge this lazy thinking, or at least abandon their support of it. I've even noticed that that some of the posters I used to discuss these things with have been notably absent. It reminds me that no one can successfully argue against the truth forever.

Thanks for the article Rion.

 

[rambot]

Plenty of people do just that. The author even mentions a few.

Really? I skimmed the article but I only really saw the Malcolm X quote that DIRECTLY indicated that no real progress has been made in 60 years.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The first sentence sets up a straw man and from what I saw while skimming, it never redeems itself. His "second natural experiment" in particular is so absurd that I can't tell if he's dishonest or just has no idea what he's talking about.

Granted, neither of these natural experiments prove that culture, specifically, caused the divergent outcomes. It’s impossible to disentangle confounding variables like immigrant self-selection, demographic differences, and other unknown factors. But the results of these natural experiments do suggest that the role of systemic bias as a causal factor in the creation of unequal outcomes has been greatly exaggerated. If systemic bias accounted for as much of the variance in success as progressives seem to think it does, then it’s unlikely that groups that experience equal amounts of systemic bias would achieve such wildly different levels of success.

lol, yeah you can account for those variables, if you conduct your studies properly. Researchers do that all the time.

It's an incredibly well-written, and well researched essay.

No, it's not well researched. To his credit, though, that's better than I could do as a sophomore.
https://heterodoxacademy.org/a-tale-of-two-columbia-classes/

It also sums up many of the problems I have with those who try and keep racial animosity stoked, either out of ignorance of what they're doing, or out of some twisted sense of purpose.

Stoking racial animosity is exactly what this author is doing - he's just doing it in the other direction. He's feeding the ideologies of folks who would ignore ongoing racist issues and instead blame it on black culture, and he's using faulty arguments to do it.

 

[Rion]

The first sentence sets up a straw man and from what I saw while skimming, it never redeems itself. His "second natural experiment" in particular is so absurd that I can't tell if he's dishonest or just has no idea what he's talking about.



lol, yeah you can account for those variables, if you conduct your studies properly. Researchers do that all the time.



No, it's not well researched. To his credit, though, that's better than I could do as a sophomore.
https://heterodoxacademy.org/a-tale-of-two-columbia-classes/





Stoking racial animosity is exactly what this author is doing - he's just doing it in the other direction. He's feeding the ideologies of folks who would ignore ongoing racist issues and instead blame it on black culture, and he's using faulty arguments to do it.

Except that he isn't. He is saying that while there are issues to be discussed with respectto racism, that a certain type or group are so obsessed with calling everything the new Jim Crow or something else, that they are actually holding back genuine progress.

Most people don't support racism, and don't deny that there are still some racists around. However, you screaming at some poor guy who is struggling to make ends meet to check their privilege in between drinking your over priced swill from Starbucks, doesn't help. In fact, it makes them feel less likely to believe that other situations are legit because of that sort of thing. Claiming that the whole country is racist just makes most of them to stop sympathizing with you. Claiming that the exception is the rule makes them stop taking you seriously.

 

[TerranceL]

Except that he isn't. He is saying that while there are issues to be discussed with respectto racism, that a certain type or group are so obsessed with calling everything the new Jim Crow or something else, that they are actually holding back genuine progress.

Most people don't support racism, and don't deny that there are still some racists around. However, you screaming at some poor guy who is struggling to make ends meet to check their privilege in between drinking your over priced swill from Starbucks, doesn't help. In fact, it makes them feel less likely to believe that other situations are legit because of that sort of thing. Claiming that the whole country is racist just makes most of them to stop sympathizing with you. Claiming that the exception is the rule makes them stop taking you seriously.

Its out that bleating, "wolf" every time you see something you don't like doesn't work out well. Who knew?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The first sentence sets up a straw man and from what I saw while skimming, it never redeems itself. His "second natural experiment" in particular is so absurd that I can't tell if he's dishonest or just has no idea what he's talking about.

I don't think his opening statement is so much a literal claim as it is a traditional essay opener...designed to grab attention.

Moreover, I don't think it would be that far off to claim progressives treat racism as the most important issue in the US today. I can't think of another issue they give more attention to...with maybe the brief 6-12 months when #MeToo was a big deal.

lol, yeah you can account for those variables, if you conduct your studies properly. Researchers do that all the time.

Some of those variables can be accounted for...in some research...but not always and rarely completely. The point he's making is that one cannot account for all variables...and its a valid point. People too often treat sociology like a hard science with factual conclusions, and increasingly that isn't the case. Sociological conclusions should be treated as educated guesses...sometimes not even good guesses.

No, it's not well researched. To his credit, though, that's better than I could do as a sophomore.
https://heterodoxacademy.org/a-tale-of-two-columbia-classes/

He's creating an argument against the narrative that disparity=racism...what part of the research do you think is lacking?

Stoking racial animosity is exactly what this author is doing - he's just doing it in the other direction. He's feeding the ideologies of folks who would ignore ongoing racist issues and instead blame it on black culture, and he's using faulty arguments to do it.

I might have missed it....but I didn't see him "blaming" any disparity upon black culture. He simply made the point that the left is illogically dismissing the idea that culture plays a role in these disparities.

The fact that you're suggesting the mere notion that culture plays a role in these disparities equates to "stoking racial animosity" really just proves his point.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Except that he isn't. He is saying that while there are issues to be discussed with respectto racism, that a certain type or group are so obsessed with calling everything the new Jim Crow or something else, that they are actually holding back genuine progress.

I don’t think he’s stoking those fires deliberately, but I also don’t think his arguments are as benign as your summary.

Most people don't support racism, and don't deny that there are still some racists around. However, you screaming at some poor guy who is struggling to make ends meet to check their privilege in between drinking your over priced swill from Starbucks, doesn't help. In fact, it makes them feel less likely to believe that other situations are legit because of that sort of thing. Claiming that the whole country is racist just makes most of them to stop sympathizing with you. Claiming that the exception is the rule makes them stop taking you seriously.

That’s fine, but that’s not what he saod.

I don't think his opening statement is so much a literal claim as it is a traditional essay opener...designed to grab attention.

His four opening paragraphs are about “denialism [of] racial progress”. He absolutely treats it as literal.

Moreover, I don't think it would be that far off to claim progressives treat racism as the most important issue in the US today. I can't think of another issue they give more attention to...with maybe the brief 6-12 months when #MeToo was a big deal.

You can believe that it’s still really important while also acknowledging that we’ve made progress. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Anybody who says we haven’t made progress is an idiot. But anybody who says that complaints about ongoing problems equates to a denial of all progress is also an idiot.

Some of those variables can be accounted for...in some research...but not always and rarely completely. The point he's making is that one cannot account for all variables...and its a valid point. People too often treat sociology like a hard science with factual conclusions, and increasingly that isn't the case. Sociological conclusions should be treated as educated guesses...sometimes not even good guesses.

He didn’t claim that it was hard or uncommon to control for those variables; he claimed that it was impossible, and made zero effort to do so.

He's creating an argument against the narrative that disparity=racism...what part of the research do you think is lacking?

All of it. He didn’t conduct any research. He didn’t even do a survey of existing research. This is, essentially, a mediocre undergrad term paper with some sources and halfway decent writing, but a number of obviously faulty arguments.

I mean... My experience with research doesn’t extend much beyond listening to podcasts and hanging out with academics, and even I know that claim about it being “impossible “ to control for those variables is absurd. I wouldn’t even say that while drunk, and I say all kinds of stupid stuff then. But apparently a 20yo philosophy sophomore has even less experience.

I might have missed it....but I didn't see him "blaming" any disparity upon black culture.

That’s what the whole section about west indian immigrants was about.

The fact that you're suggesting the mere notion that culture plays a role in these disparities equates to "stoking racial animosity" really just proves his point.

I’m not naive enough to think that culture doesn’t play a role. Yes, that’s probably a big part of why blacks dominate basketball, hispanics baseball, and whites hockey. It’s also why Appalachia has churned out few great scientists or academics but loads of celebrated generals; and why some Asian countries excel at training high tech workers but few successful entrepreneurs or artists.

But talking about cultural shortcomings is one thing. Using them to paper over the negative effects of racism is another.

 

[Tanj]

Agree with @iluvatar5150 on the stats part. Anyone with even a moderate understanding of multivariate statistics knows how to control for known confounding factors, and you don't have to move too far up the knowledge tree to get information on the unknown ones as well.

 

[Ana the Ist]

His four opening paragraphs are about “denialism [of] racial progress”. He absolutely treats it as literal.

From the very first paragraph...

"Aside from outlawing formalized bigotry, many progressives believe that things haven’t improved all that much. Racist attitudes towards blacks, if only in the form of implicit bias, are thought to be widespread; black men are still liable to be arrested in a Starbucks for no good reason; plus we have a president who has found it difficult to denounce neo-Nazis. If racism still looms large in our social and political lives, then, as one left-wing commentator put it, “progress is debatable.”

I bolded the parts which prove you wrong. He clearly acknowledges that progressives recognize laws against racial discrimination as progress...but that the debate there has been progress apart from that. He even quotes them to back up his point.

You seem to be trying to engage in some semantic nonsense here.

You can believe that it’s still really important while also acknowledging that we’ve made progress. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Anybody who says we haven’t made progress is an idiot. But anybody who says that complaints about ongoing problems equates to a denial of all progress is also an idiot.

He isn't saying that though...he actually quoted progressives saying that racial progress is debatable.

Moreover, you aren't really arguing that he's wrong. Do you think we've made significant progress after outlawing overt racism? Or do you think that progress is insignificant or debatable?

He didn’t claim that it was hard or uncommon to control for those variables; he claimed that it was impossible, and made zero effort to do so.

Well he did include "unknown factors"...so on that point he's absolutely correct.

It's a point that almost always gets overlooked unless the results of the research don't support the progressive narrative.

All of it. He didn’t conduct any research. He didn’t even do a survey of existing research. This is, essentially, a mediocre undergrad term paper with some sources and halfway decent writing, but a number of obviously faulty arguments.

So...what point do you think he should've done research to support? Because most of the points he's making are clear logic in my mind. For example...

If there's significant cultural differences between blacks and whites in regards to beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors...then those cultural differences cannot be dismissed outright as possible explanations for disparities.

It's not a difficult logical observation to follow....yet progressives seem to dismiss such possibilities without any examination at all.

I mean... My experience with research doesn’t extend much beyond listening to podcasts and hanging out with academics, and even I know that claim about it being “impossible “ to control for those variables is absurd. I wouldn’t even say that while drunk, and I say all kinds of stupid stuff then. But apparently a 20yo philosophy sophomore has even less experience.

Lol really? So you think it's possible to control for unknown factors?

I'm not going to claim my experience with research is all that amazing either...I learned a lot more about reading/comprehending research and political/sociological/psychological research methods....than I did actual research.

What I can say is that it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to draw hard conclusions about motivations for behaviors in research. The easiest, and most direct, way to research something like that is to simply ask someone why they did something. The obvious problem with that is if you're trying to find out if racism is the primary motivation for a behavior (let's say...pulling over a driver) you would need to control for every other possible motivation....and that's where you're crossing into the realm of the near impossible, if not impossible.

That’s what the whole section about west indian immigrants was about.

Actually, I think the point he was making was that one couldn't simply dismiss culture in that case and blame racism...since for all practical purposes, both groups were of the same race (black) and environment, but experienced significantly different outcomes.

I’m not naive enough to think that culture doesn’t play a role. Yes, that’s probably a big part of why blacks dominate basketball, hispanics baseball, and whites hockey. It’s also why Appalachia has churned out few great scientists or academics but loads of celebrated generals; and why some Asian countries excel at training high tech workers but few successful entrepreneurs or artists.

But talking about cultural shortcomings is one thing. Using them to paper over the negative effects of racism is another.

Here's the problem though...you're starting with the conclusion that racism is the cause of outcomes without even considering the impact of culture.

If we were looking at the issue of police violence, for example (not brutality specifically, but simply looking at who gets injured by police more often) wouldn't one need to consider cultural attitudes towards police, and any possible connection between those and the respective rates at which racial groups resist arrest?

I mean, I've seen studies on police violence...and I've seen them draw the conclusion that racism is to blame for disparities, but I've never seen them control for these factors.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Agree with @iluvatar5150 on the stats part. Anyone with even a moderate understanding of multivariate statistics knows how to control for known confounding factors, and you don't have to move too far up the knowledge tree to get information on the unknown ones as well.

I must've missed that part in school then. How exactly does one control for an unknown factor?

 

[KCfromNC]

Stoking racial animosity is exactly what this author is doing - he's just doing it in the other direction. He's feeding the ideologies of folks who would ignore ongoing racist issues and instead blame it on black culture, and he's using faulty arguments to do it.

Just throwing this out there, as it comes to mind when I see threads like this started :

More Than Half of Russian Facebook Ads Focused on Race

 

[iluvatar5150]

From the very first paragraph...

"Aside from outlawing formalized bigotry, many progressives believe that things haven’t improved all that much. Racist attitudes towards blacks, if only in the form of implicit bias, are thought to be widespread; black men are still liable to be arrested in a Starbucks for no good reason; plus we have a president who has found it difficult to denounce neo-Nazis. If racism still looms large in our social and political lives, then, as one left-wing commentator put it, “progress is debatable.”

I bolded the parts which prove you wrong. He clearly acknowledges that progressives recognize laws against racial discrimination as progress...but that the debate there has been progress apart from that. He even quotes them to back up his point.

You seem to be trying to engage in some semantic nonsense here.



He isn't saying that though...he actually quoted progressives saying that racial progress is debatable.

Moreover, you aren't really arguing that he's wrong. Do you think we've made significant progress after outlawing overt racism? Or do you think that progress is insignificant or debatable?

I think we've made significant progress. I think the magnitude of that progress is debatable.

The fundamental natures of gravity and space-time are debatable, too, but that doesn't mean physicists don't believe they exist.

He's committing a straw man fallacy by using that author's statement about blacks' position in the social heirerchy to paint all progressives as being unable or unwilling to admit any progress.

Well he did include "unknown factors"...so on that point he's absolutely correct.

When your research suggests that there are unknown factors at work, you go looking for explanations. That's what researchers do. Unknown doesn't mean "unknowable".

So...what point do you think he should've done research to support? Because most of the points he's making are clear logic in my mind. For example...

He could've done research to support his claim that progressives don't acknowledge progress on racism.

He could've done research to measure the effects of culture on a given phenomenon/stat (e.g. high school graduation rates).

If there's significant cultural differences between blacks and whites in regards to beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors...then those cultural differences cannot be dismissed outright as possible explanations for disparities.

It's not a difficult logical observation to follow....yet progressives seem to dismiss such possibilities without any examination at all.

No, we don't dismiss it without any examination at all.

To wit:
http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/race_summary.pdf

The author cites this paper, and the NYT article that summarized it. He uses the NYT article as an example of his "disparity fallacy", wherein a progressive sees a racial disparity and immediately jumps to racism as an explanation. However, if you read the paper, you'll see that three of the big factors they identify are general poverty in the surrounding area, racism among whites and presence of father figures within the black community. Those are, indeed, all cultural issues. Poverty breeds certain negative cultural issues. Lack of role models breeds others. And white racism, well...

But they're all cultural issues borne ultimately out of racism. Why do blacks tend to be more poor than whites? Because whites forced them into poverty through various means. Why are there so few father figures in those communities? Because we forced them into poverty (which decreases family stability), aggressively policed them (taking the men out of the homes and putting them in jail), and then made it more difficult for ex-cons to re-integrate into society (more poverty and crime, hooray).

Actually, I think the point he was making was that one couldn't simply dismiss culture in that case and blame racism...since for all practical purposes, both groups were of the same race (black) and environment, but experienced significantly different outcomes.

His error is in assuming that those two groups are treated similarly, which is a silly assumption to make, but not all that surprising since he seems to be a student of Thomas Sowell who, IME, seems to make errors like this when it suits his agenda.

Yes, West Indians and African-Americans have more-or-less the same skin color. But racism (or bigotry, if you want to get particular) can often be more complicated than just "black=bad; white=good". It's not uncommon at all for immigrants to be treated one way and natives of the same race to be treated in another.

I don't have the Sowell book he cites, but I did find this description of it:

Black Economist Thomas Sowell – Champion of A Color-Blind Society -- by Allan Brownfeld

In the case of blacks in the United States, Sowell shows that West Indians have advanced much more rapidly than native-born American blacks because of major cultural differences. In the West Indies, slaves had to grow the bulk of their own food — and were able to sell what they did not need from their individual plots of land. They were given economic incentives to exercise initiative, as well as experience in buying, selling, and managing their own affairs — experiences denied to slaves in the United States.

The two black groups – native-born Americans and West Indians -- suffered the same racial discrimination, but each advanced at dramatically different rates. By 1969, black West Indians earned 94 percent of the average income of Americans in general, while native blacks earned only 62 percent. Second-generation West Indians earned 15 percent more than the average American. West Indians owned more than 50 percent of all black-owned businesses in New York State. The highest ranking blacks in the New York City Police Department in 1970 were all West Indians, as were all the black judges in the city.

It is a serious mistake, Sowell believes, to ignore the fact that economic performance differences between whole races and cultures are “quite real and quite large.” Attitudes of work habits, he argues, are key ingredients of success or failure. The market rewards certain kinds of behavior and penalizes other behaviors – in a color-blind manner. Blaming discrimination by others for a group’s status, he states, ignores the lessons of history.

I'm still skeptical that they truly did suffer the same racial discrimination, but for the sake of argument, let's assume they did.

Sowell points to their ancestors' education and work experience as the reason behind the financial success of the West Indian immigrants. Fine, okay, I can buy that.

But why didn't the ancestors of the black non-immigrants have that same education and experience?

Sowell even kind of answers that: white racism.

Here's the problem though...you're starting with the conclusion that racism is the cause of outcomes without even considering the impact of culture.

If we were looking at the issue of police violence, for example (not brutality specifically, but simply looking at who gets injured by police more often) wouldn't one need to consider cultural attitudes towards police, and any possible connection between those and the respective rates at which racial groups resist arrest?

I don't ignore the impact of culture. I look at the things that happened to influence that culture.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think we've made significant progress. I think the magnitude of that progress is debatable.

And what's the difference between "significance" and "magnitude" in your mind here?

He's committing a straw man fallacy by using that author's statement about blacks' position in the social heirerchy to paint all progressives as being unable or unwilling to admit any progress.

Even though in the sections that I bolded, he clearly isn't making that claim?

Shall I quote them again?

When your research suggests that there are unknown factors at work, you go looking for explanations. That's what researchers do. Unknown doesn't mean "unknowable".

Lol or you blame it on racism and move on...

Seriously, the research you're quoting at the bottom of this post does exactly that! Black men struggle financially compared to white counterparts....black women however do not.

So how does racism explain this? It doesn't...but that doesn't stop the researchers from making that claim. Clearly other factors are at work.

He could've done research to support his claim that progressives don't acknowledge progress on racism.

Beyond quoting them as saying so?

He could've done research to measure the effects of culture on a given phenomenon/stat (e.g. high school graduation rates).

It's rather difficult to identify a cultural difference and then, even once identified, measure the effects of that difference.

For example, I may be able to identify a cultural difference between blacks and whites in their levels of trust of the police...but how exactly would I measure the effect of "trust" on police interactions?

There's things sociology can show and things it cannot.

No, we don't dismiss it without any examination at all.

To wit:
http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/race_summary.pdf

The author cites this paper, and the NYT article that summarized it. He uses the NYT article as an example of his "disparity fallacy", wherein a progressive sees a racial disparity and immediately jumps to racism as an explanation. However, if you read the paper, you'll see that three of the big factors they identify are general poverty in the surrounding area, racism among whites and presence of father figures within the black community. Those are, indeed, all cultural issues. Poverty breeds certain negative cultural issues. Lack of role models breeds others. And white racism, well...

Those aren't aspects unique to black culture. Being poor isn't unique to blacks...neither is having or lacking a father. When the author is talking about "cultural factors"...he's talking about aspects of black culture which are different from other cultures.

As for "white racism"...tell me you don't see an issue with this...

"Black men who grow up in tracts with less racial bias among whites – measured
by testing for implicit bias or explicit racial animus in Google searches—earn more
and are less likely to be incarcerated."

Measuring "racial bias" by how many times the "n-word" came up in google searches is, frankly, a worthless method.

But I digress...you may or may not remember a discussion we had (you and me specifically) at least months ago, if not a year or so, when I suggested that cultural factors may be the cause of poor educational outcomes for black boys. You argued that even when everything was the same (income levels, two parent households, etc) black boys saw worse outcomes...so it had to be racism.

Then I showed you studies from way back in the 90s-00s that showed, for whatever reason, black parents didn't read as much to their children as white parents. That's a cultural factor...a cultural difference between blacks and whites regardless of income level, number of parents in the household, etc. The study showed that whenever black babies were adopted by white parents...regardless of income level...those educational outcomes disappeared completely.

Since those studies came out...you've probably seen study after study on "why racism is the reason black boys are doing worse in school"...as if we haven't already identified why they have worse outcomes already. You've seen them jump to the conclusion that it must be racism...as if a majority of schoolteachers across the nation are all racist towards blacks (a fairly preposterous notion of you think about it).

The reason why racism is blamed and culture is ignored is simple....it's narrative driven garbage. It's what you believe...so it's what you want to read....so it's what gets made into headlines. "Study shows black parents don't read to their kids as much as they should" isn't going to get a lot of traction with the leftist media.

But they're all cultural issues borne ultimately out of racism. Why do blacks tend to be more poor than whites? Because whites forced them into poverty through various means. Why are there so few father figures in those communities? Because we forced them into poverty (which decreases family stability), aggressively policed them (taking the men out of the homes and putting them in jail), and then made it more difficult for ex-cons to re-integrate into society (more poverty and crime, hooray).

Again, being poor and/or fatherless isn't unique to blacks. These simply aren't cultural factors...and I certainly hope you wouldn't call being "poor and fatherless" aspects of "black culture".

His error is in assuming that those two groups are treated similarly, which is a silly assumption to make, but not all that surprising since he seems to be a student of Thomas Sowell who, IME, seems to make errors like this when it suits his agenda.

Where does he make that error? I recall him staring specifically that racism exists.

Yes, West Indians and African-Americans have more-or-less the same skin color. But racism (or bigotry, if you want to get particular) can often be more complicated than just "black=bad; white=good". It's not uncommon at all for immigrants to be treated one way and natives of the same race to be treated in another.

Then that wouldn't be racism.

I don't have the Sowell book he cites, but I did find this description of it:



I'm still skeptical that they truly did suffer the same racial discrimination, but for the sake of argument, let's assume they did.

Sowell points to their ancestors' education and work experience as the reason behind the financial success of the West Indian immigrants. Fine, okay, I can buy that.

Their ancestors were slaves...that's why he used them for the comparison.

But why didn't the ancestors of the black non-immigrants have that same education and experience?

Sowell even kind of answers that: white racism.

I didn't see that in the link you provided...what part are you referring to?

You're actually committing the same kind of fallacy the author is talking about. You're suggesting there's some special kind of racism that affects these two cultural groups of the same race differently...yet I'm betting you would balk at such an explanation of disparity between outcomes for Polish and French whites.

I don't ignore the impact of culture. I look at the things that happened to influence that culture.

You seemed to understand the concept when you mentioned cultural differences in attitudes towards basketball explaining the makeup of the NBA...but then you threw it away when you claimed poverty and being fatherless as aspects of culture.

 

[iluvatar5150]

And what's the difference between "significance" and "magnitude" in your mind here?

Magnitude would be a more objective or quantifiable measure of the significance.

e.g. That guy is significantly taller than the average person. What does that mean? 10%? 20%? 100%? An actual height measurement would describe the magnitude of the significance.

Even though in the sections that I bolded, he clearly isn't making that claim?

Shall I quote them again?

Allow me:
"Aside from outlawing formalized bigotry, many progressives believe that things haven’t improved all that much. "

Lol or you blame it on racism and move on...

Seriously, the research you're quoting at the bottom of this post does exactly that! Black men struggle financially compared to white counterparts....black women however do not.

So how does racism explain this? It doesn't...but that doesn't stop the researchers from making that claim. Clearly other factors are at work.

As I explained the last time we talked about this, racism + other variables (e.g. sexism) explains it.

Beyond quoting them as saying so?

He took one quote from one author who was making a somewhat different (albeit related) point. He didn't ask that author any follow up questions for clarity, nor did he ask anybody else to express their opinions. Even assuming that he accurately reflected the views of that one author at HuffPo (who was also an undergrad at the time, I might add), he made no attempts to establish that the HuffPo author's views were in any way representative of a larger population.

It's rather difficult to identify a cultural difference and then, even once identified, measure the effects of that difference.

For example, I may be able to identify a cultural difference between blacks and whites in their levels of trust of the police...but how exactly would I measure the effect of "trust" on police interactions?

I don't know - I'm not a sociologist. I would imagine that there are ways to measure trust of any kind. (this kind of info would be relevant not just to social scientists but also to folks in marketing). So, if I had to guess, I would measure a population to determine their baseline levels of trust in a variety of institutions (including police); I would implement comprehensive monitoring of all police interactions (for the purpose of collecting good data); and then I would wait until an incident happened (e.g. questionable shooting) that could conceivably erode the public's trust in the police. Then I would look at the police interactions for a period of time after the incident to determine if there were any changes noticeable (e.g. more resisting, fewer calls made). If, for example, fewer 911 calls are made despite crime rates staying constant, then that would be a clue that residents might trust the cops less.

Those aren't aspects unique to black culture. Being poor isn't unique to blacks...neither is having or lacking a father.

No, they're not unique to black families, but they are bigger problems, statistically, among the black community than they are among other communities.

When the author is talking about "cultural factors"...he's talking about aspects of black culture which are different from other cultures.

I know. I also know he doesn't really define what these cultural elements are or could be, except for a fear of "acting white". But given that those researchers controlled for education, income, and neighborhood (all of which are huge factors in "culture"), and still found a big gap for black boys, it would seem that "acting white" might not be as big a factor as he'd like to think.

As for "white racism"...tell me you don't see an issue with this...

"Black men who grow up in tracts with less racial bias among whites – measured
by testing for implicit bias or explicit racial animus in Google searches—earn more
and are less likely to be incarcerated."

Measuring "racial bias" by how many times the "n-word" came up in google searches is, frankly, a worthless method.

Yeah, sure, it sounds silly on its surface. But if there's a strong correlation between it and these negative outcome, then maybe it's indicative of something. You don't get to rule it out just because you think it's stupid.

But I digress...you may or may not remember a discussion we had (you and me specifically) at least months ago, if not a year or so, when I suggested that cultural factors may be the cause of poor educational outcomes for black boys. You argued that even when everything was the same (income levels, two parent households, etc) black boys saw worse outcomes...so it had to be racism.

Then I showed you studies from way back in the 90s-00s that showed, for whatever reason, black parents didn't read as much to their children as white parents. That's a cultural factor...a cultural difference between blacks and whites regardless of income level, number of parents in the household, etc. The study showed that whenever black babies were adopted by white parents...regardless of income level...those educational outcomes disappeared completely.

Since those studies came out...you've probably seen study after study on "why racism is the reason black boys are doing worse in school"...as if we haven't already identified why they have worse outcomes already. You've seen them jump to the conclusion that it must be racism...as if a majority of schoolteachers across the nation are all racist towards blacks (a fairly preposterous notion of you think about it).

The reason why racism is blamed and culture is ignored is simple....it's narrative driven garbage. It's what you believe...so it's what you want to read....so it's what gets made into headlines. "Study shows black parents don't read to their kids as much as they should" isn't going to get a lot of traction with the leftist media.

I remember us having conversations, but I don't remember that study, nor can I find it online. Can you give me the link to it again?

Where does he make that error? I recall him staring specifically that racism exists.

Yes, he says that racism exists, but he assumes that both the immigrant and the non-immigrant groups experience the same racism: "But despite being subjected to the same racist treatment by local whites". I don't know what evidence Sowell provided for this in his book, but I'm skeptical. It is not at all uncommon for immigrants to be treated one way and natives of the same color to be treated another way. In France, for example, it works in the other direction - native French blacks are accepted, while black immigrants from North Africa are discriminated against.

Additionally, in the next paragraph, he sort of hand-waves away immigrant self-selection, which can be a huge factor.

Then that wouldn't be racism.

Yes, it would be. It just wouldn't be the only factor.

I didn't see that in the link you provided...what part are you referring to?

In the first paragraph of what I quoted. He describes how the West Indian slaves were given incentives to work for themselves, while American slaves weren't. Those American slaves were deprived of that autonomy because of racism and racially-based oppression.

You're actually committing the same kind of fallacy the author is talking about. You're suggesting there's some special kind of racism that affects these two cultural groups of the same race differently...yet I'm betting you would balk at such an explanation of disparity between outcomes for Polish and French whites.

Why would I balk at that if it looked like a viable explanation?

You seemed to understand the concept when you mentioned cultural differences in attitudes towards basketball explaining the makeup of the NBA...but then you threw it away when you claimed poverty and being fatherless as aspects of culture.

Poverty and fatherlessness aren't aspects of culture? AFAIK, they're aspects of poverty culture.