[machinerychorus]

The data for asian americans isn't shown on that graph because the underlying data used for the graph groups people into white, black, hispanic, and other. I apologize for saying "non-white" when I really meant "black and/or hispanic".

Yes, there are some ethnic groups that have higher median incomes, but that doesn't mean there isn't a racial disparity in america. The fact of the matter is that african americans, as a group, have much less wealth than white americans, as a group. If a person believes this is due to some "inherent racial trait", they're a racist, plain and simple. On the other hand, if one accepts that this is not due to any inherent racial trait, then one has to look at American culture and history with an open mind and try to understand how it came to be that way (the fact that asian americans don't see the same disparities as african americans is an important clue here).

I'm glad to see that you are interested in solving problems of inequality and engaging in a good faith discussion with me on this complex social issue.

[CWuestefeld]

If a person believes this is due to some "inherent racial trait", they're a racist, plain and simple.

From this I think you're (a) allowing that there might be cultural differences correlated with race that are causative; and (b) expressing that it's flatly impossible that there could be (statistically on average) genetic differences that contribute to greater or lesser success depending on the prevailing environment.

Point (b) sounds like a denial of the mechanisms of evolution that we have high confidence are correct, and Lysenkoism more generally. It's not that (b) is necessarily true, but your implication that it cannot possibly be true (or at least that admitting it's true makes one the worst sort of monster) is shutting science out of the discussion before it can even be consulted.

[endominus]

I don't think that's the most charitable possible interpretation of the argument, though I would heartily concede that the matter is heavily, and at times it seems even intetionally, obfuscated by the double meaning of the terms racial superiority/inferiority. To whit, they are used as both objective measures and moral ones, and vacillating between the two allows for specious arguments to be put forward.

An example of the first; we know that there are genetic differences in average heights of populations, and other physical measures; if a biologist were to tell me, for example, that people with lighter skin were superior at generating Vitamin D from sunlight, I would not be inclined to disbelieve them; there is strong evidence for heritability of traits as fine-grained as political leanings; and so on. Saying that a race has a superior economic position due to these factors is, as far as I can tell, usually insufficient - the differences are minor enough, and usually overshadowed by other factors like noise or culture, that I don't think the math adds up.

But there's also a moral judgement made in the racial superiority argument; that because Race A has higher incidence of traits X, Y, and Z, they deserve a higher place in society/greater wealth/whatever. This is a racist outlook because it prejudges people based on their race rather than their merits, and paints an entire race of individuals with the same brush. Still, this is the argument that many avowed racists have made in the past and many in the present are quite sensitive to it.

The difference is subtle but important; the first meaning acknowledges distinctions between races and ethnicities, but allows for individual variation and places no moral weight on those differences. The second implies that acknowledging differences between races is tantamount to declaring that one race deserves supremacy and obeisance from the others. The difficulty comes from people who believe the implication of the second meaning while hating the conclusion, and that's where you get Blank Slaters and, as you mentioned, Lysenkoism.

Arguing for the first meaning is not productive without disambiguating it from the second.

[CWuestefeld]

Your first meaning, the non-moral one, is what I had in mind. Clearly there are some people who would prefer to think about the alternative way, and they have my contempt.

But the popular culture today is, itself, trying to impute a moral judgment. Where most of us, I think, very much want to get past all this racial BS, we're being forced to view the world through a racial lens so that the "anti-racists" can make a moral judgment about observed differences in outcomes.

[ajross]

I made this point above and you didn't engage, but there's a point at which "wanting to get past all this racial BS" turns into "you can't teach kids that minority communities are poorer" or "you can't speak to Google employees about caste discrimination".

Where do you draw the line? Doesn't a straightforward interpretation of free speech and civil discourse demand that we let the assholes be assholes, and not cancel them?

From my perspective on the other side, I find it really weird that a bunch of highly paid, middle aged white professionals (and I'm one too) seem so threatened by college kids yelling about privilege or whatever. College kids have always been assholes. You don't remember meeting (or... being?) them?

[endominus]

>On the other hand, if one accepts that this is not due to any inherent racial trait, then one has to look at American culture and history with an open mind and try to understand how it came to be that way

Absolutely. My disagreement comes from the presented false dichotomy of the explanation being either racial inferiority - which neither of us believe - or ongoing systemic discrimination which (in my view) can only explain some of the problem. Further, I think that over-reliance on it as an explanation blinds its advocates to other possible causes and therefore other solutions.

Let's take a toy example for simplicity; a game of Monopoly. Systemic economic discrimination would take the form, perhaps, of one player having favorable rules; they get to reroll their dice, or get more money from passing Go!. Clearly unfair, and the solution would be obvious; equalize the rules. However, there are other ways the game can be tilted. If one player starts with more money, i.e. benefits from historical wealth, then they are likely to do win more often. This historical economic oppression is not the same as systemic discrimination - the rules affecting each player can be identical once the game actually begins - and requires different interventions to resolve.

I recall reading some time ago that immigrants to America from African nations tend to do better than the background African-American population, despite often coming with even less than a typical African-American family would have. One would expect them to experience just as much systemic discrimination, and they are just as impoverished as those who have experienced historical economic oppression, so that also does not seem to explain things fully. We can then turn to matters of culture and environment. If one of the players in the hypothetical Monopoly game pursues a non-optimal strategy (by refusing to buy real estate[0] for example) then they are likely to lose even with equal rules and starting assets.

The cultural explanation also helps understand why the Japanese, literally interned as prisoners en masse during World War II, and the Chinese, imported in their thousands as low-wage labor to build the railroads and both banned from owning property until 1952 [1], were able to bounce back into two of the most wealthy population segments in the country. Strong social cohesion and an understanding of long-term beneficial life strategies both help oppressed minorities overcome their situations. This is entirely independent of discrimination, which is why it is so frustrating to see, for example, no less a source than the National Museum of African American History and Culture [2] label traits like "objective thinking," "hard work being the key to success," and "delayed gratification" as aspects of white culture, and therefore alien.

Let's take another example - crime statistics. The "classic" systemic discrimination explanation of higher numbers of black people being incarcerated denies that actual crimes committed are higher and statistics showing that they are is a symptom of racist police forces and justice systems. To solve it, we need police and prison reform, racial sensitivity training, etc. The historical economic oppression explanation instead concedes that yes, black communities tend to have higher crime, but that is because of fewer opportunities available and recommends investment into education, reform of certification and some financial laws to make it easier for small black businesses to get started, and stronger investment into infrastructure to make it easier and safer for the population of inner city communities to access the job market. The cultural explanation also concedes that there is more crime there, and that black people have the power to solve that amongst themselves, by cooperating and developing stronger social norms that discourage violence. In one remarkable example, such an effort gave birth to hip-hop culture [3]!

Each explanation points at part of the problem; I hope you'll agree now that labelling only one as correct and sufficient, and saying that everyone who disagrees with it can only explain the problem through racism is non-productive. Even if the cultural and historical explanations are rooted in systemic discrimination of the past, they demand different solutions in the present to resolve, just as making a playing field even after one player has already accrued a significan advantage would not lead to a fair game.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlKL_EpnSp8 (NSFW, explicit visuals and lyrics) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Alien_Land_Law_of_1... [2]: https://archive.is/gyYNs [3]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-23/disruptin...

[machinerychorus]

You're correct, it's not as simple as "systemic oppression or racism". There are absolutely lots of factors, both historical and ongoing. I think I misunderstood the original comment I replied to, thinking that they were saying that racial disparities were not quantifiable. Rereading it, they are just saying you can't quantify how much is due to one specific cause, which I agree with.

I'm not really sure it's an important point though, since most of the things we can/should do to remedy it IMO (medicare for all, ubi/negative income tax, and in general a more expansive social safety net) don't depend on quantifying the harm done to an individual.