I would throw segregation out immediately. Humans are tribal. They self segregate without govt intervention. Hence having a “little Italy” and “Chinatown” in every city. But Asians and Indians that emigrate here make better choices then the whites born here, whilst remaining segregated.
So how does Slavery which ended in 1864 and JC which ended in 1964 affect a Chicago inner city 17yo’s decision to murder someone today?
Absurd! All humans want to be forced to interact with all others! That’s the most basic of human desires.
As a PSA, you’re still really bad at trolling. Even Raj’s burner accounts did better than this. C’mon man…
If you have evidence that humans do not wish to be forced to interact with others, please provide it.
First rule of the internet. Never feed the trolls.
I accept your concession.
Same thing with communism. Communism pretty much completely subverted the traditional nuclear family during its 70 odd years in the Soviet Union.
A huge amount of single parent households in Russia and you’ve got violence, murder and drug abuse by the truckloads. As Russians are as pale as they come, it’s pretty obvious it’s not a race thing.
By the way, I don’t think “trolling” is quite what you think it is. I’m not attempting to provoke anyone with my posts. I hope no one has any problem determining which posts are serious and which are jokes. I’m 99.999% sure Basement_Gainz knows that what I said is not what I believe.
Says isn’t trolling while saying some posts are jokes while others are serious. C’mon man.
2/10
Off the top of my head:
Slavery/JC/de facto segregation lead to inadequate education and limited employment opportunities. Which lead to economic anxiety/frailty. Which leads to the inability to accumulate trans-generational wealth. Which leads to family instability. Which leads to poor early education and inadequate pre-school-age stimulation. Which leads to poor impulse control. Which leads to acting out. Which leads to knocking up a high school girl up and skipping out on raising the kid.
When I use the term segregation, I’m not talking about who you sat with at lunch in high school.
See above.
How many first generation immigrants can claim to have brought the products of trans-generational wealth with them?
Not gonna lie. Apart from the last part which kinda had to be a leap for time’s sake, this follows a pretty good logical progression.
Not that it’s an excuse in society for specific cases, but changes in averages have a pretty big effect when the scale is tens of millions.
But if you’re trying to truly dig out cause and effect, wouldn’t it be better to compare against better, more accurate benchmarks? The “white versus black” zero sum framework serves an ideologically convenient purpose, but if there is to truly be an objective analysis on cause and effect, that comparison needs to be between more comparable experiences.
I don’t know. Certainly many–perhaps most–did not. But neither were they burdened with the hopelessness–the learned helplessness, if you will–of being black in America.
It does, but the convenienced ideology is not mine. Put simply, the ‘white vs black’ dichotomy is part-and-parcel of an historical attempt to placate and mollify poor whites by inculcating in them an ‘At least we’re not black’ cultural mindset. As Coates put it in his Reparations article:
"When enslaved Africans, […] were brought to the colony of Virginia in 1619, they did not initially endure the naked racism that would engulf their progeny. Some of them were freed. Some of them intermarried. Still others escaped with the white indentured servants who had suffered as they had.
[…]
For the next 250 years, American law worked to reduce black people to a class of untouchables and raise all white men to the level of citizens. […At] the beginning of the 18th century, two primary classes were enshrined in America.
“The two great divisions of society are not the rich and poor, but white and black,” John C. Calhoun, South Carolina’s senior senator, declared on the Senate floor in 1848. “And all the former, the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class, and are respected and treated as equals.”
The point being, there was a conscious effort to convince poor whites that they were superior to equally-poor AAs–that they (poor whites) were of a piece with their rich white brethren, rather than their equally poor AA contemporaries. Thus, for this reason if nothing else (there are many more), the two groups are not comparable.
But this is a non-sequitur. If we’re trying to truly determine cause and effect, you compare against comparable groupings. And of course they’re comparable, because they’re going to have similar contexts (lack of wealth inheritance, similar education, etc.).
You don’t pick a comparison because someone once liked to talk about a “dichotomy”, which is irrelevant - you pick a comparison to logically and rationally try to control variables by examining similar experiences.
“White versus black” doesn’t accomplish that. Period.
Couldn’t you make an argument for intentionally keeping it broad in a ‘white v black’ sense due to the population size? The nature of averages and std can make many things extremely predictable when you scale it out to the density of such large subsets of people.
Usually known in Tzarist Russia as “hey, we might be dirt poor serfs but at least we’re not Jews”
The thing that shocked me in the US is how all-encompassing the term “black” (or African-American) is. It literally covers the entire spectrum.
For what I’ve seen in Brazil for example, people like Colin Kaepernick or Alicia Keys would be considered “white” by societal standards.
Yet I understand they’re “black” from a societal standpoint in the US? That’s weird.
How it is that people of mixed African and European descent never acquired a separate identity in general historical discourse(s) about race in the US, like they have in countries such as Brazil and South Africa?
America is/was breathtakingly talented at over generalizations. (Yes, I see the irony)
But I’m not sure the comparison would be meaningful if we did. Here’s the essential claim: AAs have tried to do the same things as similarly situated whites, but despite effort and similar choices, AAs haven’t seen the same results, and the reason for that lack of same results is racism.
Ok - the only way to truly determine whether racism is the cause of that lack of same result is level out the variables and compare to people who start with similar experiences and starting points. So, not only working class whites, but Hispanics and other migrants who began their American experience in similar situations.
None of this is to even remotely suggest that racism doesn’t exist or that it doesn’t impact AAs experience and net worth - but the claim isn’t “it’s a factor”, the claim is “it’s the cause of”.
This seems to link back to the overuse of AAs plight to describe their woes en masse. Talking point liberals are guilty of the same crimes as their republican counterparts to never be willing to accept blame of any sort, because for some reason ANY blame nearly instantly becomes ALL the blame in today’s society.
Imo, it’s alright to say that blacks have historically had a much much rougher time of it compared to whites, while also saying that a sizable chunk of the black population clearly doesn’t fill their days with perfect decision making. These 2 statements don’t have to invalidate each other, but for some reason in today’s society, they do.