[somewhereoutth]

However, for the class in question - African-Americans - is it not the case that they have been in America for generations, and so these cultural 'characteristics' would have been far more influenced by their experience in America (at the hands of the ruling white population) than anything that they might have brought with them over the Atlantic?

Unless you think the 'characteristics' have a strong genetic component, and so we are back to racism.

[lolinder]

African Americans have retained a pretty distinct identity throughout this time. There are a lot of shared cultural artifacts to be sure, but the existence of a completely distinct dialect of English with its own distinctive grammar is solid evidence that the cultural overlap is not complete.

I resent the implication that any claim of genetic differences amounts to racism. We need to be able to have a reasonable discussion about genetics that doesn't come with all the value judgments that people assign to different genotypes. It's a bald fact that there are genetic differences, and that shouldn't be controversial. The inferences we draw from that fact can be racist, but the fact itself is just a fact.

The only conclusion that I'm arguing for is that people are born and raised differently, and we should expect to see different outcomes as a result. It's pretty obvious that we have not yet reached the point where the differences in outcomes are due exclusively to different choices, but we should expect to eventually reach such a point! People prioritize different things in their lives, and sometimes people prioritize things that the majority doesn't believe are important. That doesn't make them flawed people.