'Blacks need to get their act together' vs 'AA social troubles are an American problem'

[orcenio]

I got this debate from a recent discussion on race from bloggingheads.tv; here are the condensed arguments:

Glenn's main argument (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/31656?in=27:40&out=29:56) (~2min).
Amy's argument (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/31656?in=33:00&out=34:00); Part 2 (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/31656?in=31:30&out=32:50) (~2min).

The full contextual discussion (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/31656?in=27:40&out=36:50) (10min).

Amy is arguing a position that holds AA as the main contributors to their own social problems. Earlier in the discussion she compares AAs to a parable (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/31656?in=04:40&out=05:40) that says although AAs were wronged in ways that effect them to this day, the only thing holding blacks back (right now) are themselves.

Glenn seems to think that this is an incorrect way to look at the current social problems that effect AAs, as it doesn't view them within the framework of the larger American society; this 'lazy thinking' would ignore any root (non-racial) social causes and limit any discussion/solution to just the 'in-group'.

While I do see much value in Amy's points (there is no God-like outsider who can impose social order), I lean more towards Glenn's position (I think that it is too simplistic to just limit the discussion/problems/solutions to within the in-group/race).

[Really Not All That Bright]

I think that's pretty obvious. There are certainly issues within the black community which need to be addressed by the black community, not least of which is the belief that anyone who cares about education is "acting white". However, it's clear from the fact that the largely unrelated black communities of Europe are doing just as poorly that African-American culture is not all, or even most of the problem.

[orcenio]

I think that's pretty obvious. There are certainly issues within the black community which need to be addressed by the black community, not least of which is the belief that anyone who cares about education is "acting white". However, it's clear from the fact that the largely unrelated black communities of Europe are doing just as poorly that African-American culture is not all, or even most of the problem.cite please.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I don't see how it's possible to say that black people or "black culture" is the only thing holding blacks back without a necessary implication that there is something inherently, biologically wrong with them. In other words, saying "it's just them" is an implicitly racist statement.

[Malthus]

I don't see how it's possible to say that black people or "black culture" is the only thing holding blacks back without a necessary implication that there is something inherently, biologically wrong with them. In other words, saying "it's just them" is an implicitly racist statement.

I don't get it. How is saying that there is something amiss with the culture of group A necessarily imply that there is something inherently, biologically wrong with group A?

I can easily see that the one could be a sort of acceptable "code word" for the other, but not that it necessarily implies the other.

[Really Not All That Bright]

cite please.
Here's a spreadsheet breaking down UK GCSE scores by local school authority and race. If you scroll all the way down, you can see the percentage of students, by race, who scored at made at least 5 C-or-better grades on the GCSEs (competency exams administered to 15-16 year olds in the UK). Black students did 3% worse than whites and mixed-race students, and 6% worse than Asians (for the UK, Asian = South Asian, not Oriental).

[Really Not All That Bright]

It's a little harder to find numbers for the rest of Europe, unfortunately - the French government does not collect data on race, for example.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I don't get it. How is saying that there is something amiss with the culture of group A necessarily imply that there is something inherently, biologically wrong with group A?

I can easily see that the one could be a sort of acceptable "code word" for the other, but not that it necessarily implies the other.
What causes culture? Is it internal or external? If it's external, it' can't be "just them," if it's internal, then what does that actually mean? culture is a dependant variable. Something has to cause it. Why is black culture (whatver that actually even means) the way it is? What makes black people create a self-defeating culture?

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Both statements, and thousands of others, are in some sense true. Shit's complicated. It isn't actually very difficult or in any way contradictory to simultaneously hold in one's head the fact that there's a significant historical bias against black "success" and the idea that when people fuck up, ultimately, they are responsible for it. So, yeah, it's a collective problem. And yeah, shitty behavior is shitty behavior; cut that out.

Amy Wax's thesis is that the main problem holding blacks back is a self-contained behavioral problem, though, which I think goes way too far. How on earth would anybody even have a frame of reference from which to make that statement? Are there other Americas where, in a couple of decades after a mostly successful but also troubled civil rights movement, minorities are all CEOs of major corporations?

[Frylock]

Here's a spreadsheet breaking down UK GCSE scores by local school authority and race. If you scroll all the way down, you can see the percentage of students, by race, who scored at made at least 5 C-or-better grades on the GCSEs (competency exams administered to 15-16 year olds in the UK). Black students did 3% worse than whites and mixed-race students, and 6% worse than Asians (for the UK, Asian = South Asian, not Oriental).

Isn't the disparity much, much wider in the US though? (Hard to say exactly since we don't have the same exams here, of course...)

[Malthus]

What causes culture? Is it internal or external? If it's external, it' can't be "just them," if it's internal, then what does that actually mean? culture is a dependant variable. Something has to cause it. Why is black culture (whatver that actually even means) the way it is? What makes black people create a self-defeating culture?

One thing culture isn't, is biologically determined.

I'm not arguing the validity of the "Black culture = the problem" point, just the absurdity of claiming this argument is the same as being racist.

Certainly, I can see an argument like 'hundreds of years of slavery, racism and oppression in America have created a Black "underclass" culture which is deeply disfunctional, and which perpetuates itself even once the slavery, racism and oppression which created it has been mostly removed'. Dunno if that is a good argument or a bad one - I'm no scholar of Black cultural history - but one thing is sure, it isn't obviosly racist.

[Damuri Ajashi]

I think its a bit myopic to say that "black culture" is the ONLY thing holding back AAs in this country. Its also silly to think that there isn't more the AA community can do to imrpove its situation.

For example, I find the poisonous lyrics in rap counterproductive. When did black guys stop calling each other brother and start canning each other niggah? Its as if women started calling each other kuntz.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Isn't the disparity much, much wider in the US though? (Hard to say exactly since we don't have the same exams here, of course...)
Yes, but education in the UK is governed at the national level, not at the state level (since there aren't any states). That means they don't have the sort of huge geographic swings in school quality which we have here, which affect black students disproportionately (being more likely to go to school in the South or in inner cities).

[Guinastasia]

Here's a spreadsheet breaking down UK GCSE scores by local school authority and race. If you scroll all the way down, you can see the percentage of students, by race, who scored at made at least 5 C-or-better grades on the GCSEs (competency exams administered to 15-16 year olds in the UK). Black students did 3% worse than whites and mixed-race students, and 6% worse than Asians (for the UK, Asian = South Asian, not Oriental).


Uh, I think you forgot to link to it. ;)

[brickbacon]

I'm sorry, but I think it's pretty undeniably that both are factors. However, all cultures impact and inform one another. You cannot fix cultural pathologies without addressing the extent to which they've informed other cultures, and fixing those as well. More importantly, just saying it's a Black problem is not a solution, it's just a way for society to wash their hands of the issue.

PS. That lady is really condescending and disingenuous. I'm pretty used to the whole, "I'm not a racist/bigot, but [insert something racist]", but do we really need to give these people book deals and attention?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Uh, I think you forgot to link to it. ;)
Why... yes, yes I did. :smack: Here it is (https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=t590WJyalxzhDUXQn9DFogw#gid=0).

[Anaamika]

Why... yes, yes I did. :smack: Here it is (https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=t590WJyalxzhDUXQn9DFogw#gid=0).

And the conversation kept going! I felt like the Emperor had no clothes. :)

[Really Not All That Bright]

I thought I told you to stop peeking through that window. :mad:

[Diogenes the Cynic]

One thing culture isn't, is biologically determined.
I disagree with this actually. Biology has a large degree of influence. Culture is a biologically evolved characteristic in the first place. Biology isn't the only variable, but its a variable. The biological influences are universal to the species, though. they don't vary by ethnicity or "race."
I'm not arguing the validity of the "Black culture = the problem" point, just the absurdity of claiming this argument is the same as being racist.

Certainly, I can see an argument like 'hundreds of years of slavery, racism and oppression in America have created a Black "underclass" culture which is deeply disfunctional, and which perpetuates itself even once the slavery, racism and oppression which created it has been mostly removed'. Dunno if that is a good argument or a bad one - I'm no scholar of Black cultural history - but one thing is sure, it isn't obviosly racist.
If that's the case, then the causes are external, and the problem can't be blamed on just them. That's my point. The only way to say it's only them (i.e. to deny any larger external variables) is to blame it on biology.

[Sampiro]

Pardon what might be a hijack but it seems relevant to me: is the "being a good student is acting white" meme real or just something that gets reported a lot? Anecdata only but I've known many black college students and they don't seem to scorn intellectual pursuits any more than white students (some certainly do of course but so do many white students). College is a very different environment than high school of course, so I'm interested if black primary school students disdain academics more than white primary school students.

[Nzinga, Seated]

Pardon what might be a hijack but it seems relevant to me: is the "being a good student is acting white" meme real or just something that gets reported a lot? Anecdata only but I've known many black college students and they don't seem to scorn intellectual pursuits any more than white students (some certainly do of course but so do many white students). College is a very different environment than high school of course, so I'm interested if black primary school students disdain academics more than white primary school students.

Yeah, I was just about to post this.

I only speak for my own experience with blacks that I know, having been born and raised in ghetto black culture, but my take is;

There is 'being smart' and there is 'acting white'. Both of these terms were often used when I was growing up. Being smart was very much praised by everyone I knew, kids and grownups, poor family members and well to do family members, everyone I knew. If you did well in school, it was bragged about. Not being able to read or reading slow in school was the quickest way to get you ragged on until you cried. Learning was good and I have never, ever heard different in the black culture that I am familiar with.

'Acting white', while a stupid term, to be sure, was a very common term. It meant a certain way of talking, walking, dressing and acting that blacks perceived as 'white' behaviors. It was cool to be smart, but if you affected a 'white' accent you were put down for that. A lot of black kids I know were raised around mostly whites, and they weren't putting on a white accent...they really talked that way. But the were put down too.

You can be the smartest kid in school and still be cool. But if you were the smartest kid in school and acted 'nerdy' 'geeky' or 'white', you were put down.

Two different things entirely. I hear very often that being smart = acting white in the black community, but that has not been my experience at all. I wonder why so many white people I talk to about it think that?

I will use my daughter as an example. She has had some issues with kids in our culture because of her ways. Unlike me, she doesn't 'talk black', she doesn't use a lot of black slang (she uses tons of 'internet' slang, though) and she doesn't have...soul, I guess. She is into stuff like anime and she wears glasses and is kind of awkward. She gets crap from kids in our culture about those things in particular. She gets told she 'acts' or 'talks' white sometimes. Nothing to do with her intellect.

But I only speak from my viewpoint.

ETA: it may be true that blacks don't place as much time, energy and importance on education as others. Poor blacks, I mean, and blacks in the ghettos. Other things may take precedent over education, which is a shame, but true, I think. But that is entirely different than this 'smart = acting white' stuff I have been hearing.

[Sampiro]

ETA: it may be true that blacks don't place as much time, energy and importance on education as others. Poor blacks, I mean, and blacks in the ghettos. Other things may take precedent over education, which is a shame, but true, I think.

I also don't think that's uniquely black. I grew up in the rural area where there was a lot of poverty (tin roofed shacks and such) and most of them, especially those with single parents, didn't place a lot of emphasis on education or "book learnin'", both black and white. When your mom has $10 to last a family of 6 for two weeks it's probably difficult to care about the Fillmore Administration, The Great Gatsby or how to say "I have a dog with large white spots" in Spanish.

[Malthus]

I disagree with this actually. Biology has a large degree of influence. Culture is a biologically evolved characteristic in the first place. Biology isn't the only variable, but its a variable. The biological influences are universal to the species, though. they don't vary by ethnicity or "race."

In that humans are capable of culture, yes. Not "biologically determined" in the sense relevant here - by ethnicity or race.

If that's the case, then the causes are external, and the problem can't be blamed on just them. That's my point. The only way to say it's only them (i.e. to deny any larger external variables) is to blame it on biology.

Yeah, but that's trivial, mere blame-assigning. Stating that their culture is "the fault" of things that happened in the past does not help, since those things cannot, in point of fact, be changed - assuming the theory is generally true, all that can be changed is within the control of the persons within that culture - that is, the Blacks themselves.

It is sort of like saying 'it's not solely your fault you are a criminal, it is also the fault of your terrible upbringing'. That may well be true, but the "upbringing" part can't be changed, since it now lies in the past.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

In that humans are capable of culture, yes. Not "biologically determined" in the sense relevant here - by ethnicity or race.
Correct, but any assertion that only black culture is holding black people back leaves no other inference possible.
Yeah, but that's trivial, mere blame-assigning. Stating that their culture is "the fault" of things that happened in the past does not help, since those things cannot, in point of fact, be changed - assuming the theory is generally true, all that can be changed is within the control of the persons within that culture - that is, the Blacks themselves.
So what's wrong with thos blacks that they won't change themselves?

[Malthus]

Correct, but any assertion that only black culture is holding black people back leaves no other inference possible.

No other inference but what?

So what's wrong with thos blacks that they won't change themselves?

Their culture, presumably.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

No other inference but what?
But that the problem is inherent to their genetics.
Their culture, presumably.
That's just begging the question.

[Blake]

. Black students did 3% worse than whites and mixed-race students, and 6% worse than Asians (for the UK, Asian = South Asian, not Oriental).

A 3% discrepancy across a national population? Is that even significant? Given the discrepancies between schools and between socioeconomic groups, I'm going to guess that there is in fact no significant difference between blacks and any other race in this instance.

[Blake]

...any assertion that only black culture is holding black people back leaves no other inference [But that the problem is inherent to their genetics]


Huh. :confused:

So if I claim that only the GM corporate culture is holding back GM, then I mean that there is a genetic problem amongst GM executives?

Do you understand that a culture can be real without having any genetic basis whatsoever? That Blacks or GM executives can have a real culture that causes real problems without that culture being in any way genetically determined?

[sisu]

You can be the smartest kid in school and still be cool. But if you were the smartest kid in school and acted 'nerdy' 'geeky' or 'white', you were put down.

I will use my daughter as an example. She has had some issues with kids in our culture because of her ways. Unlike me, she doesn't 'talk black', she doesn't use a lot of black slang (she uses tons of 'internet' slang, though) and she doesn't have...soul, I guess. She is into stuff like anime and she wears glasses and is kind of awkward. She gets crap from kids in our culture about those things in particular. She gets told she 'acts' or 'talks' white sometimes. Nothing to do with her intellect.


They are not unique to being black. If you are a nerd etc at a white school you will get picked on.

[monstro]

I agree with Nzinga about the "acting white" thing. As a kid, I got much kudos from my black brethren for being smart. The only time I got called "white" was when people were talking about my speech, which lacks an obvious "blaccent", having grown up with parents from the Midwest. And my ambiguous looks didn't help. But no one told me to stop acting white just because I read a lot or enjoyed science.

To me, it's almost like a chicken-egg thing. AA culture has its problems, but where did they come from? Did they just arise in a vacuum? Or those same causes still in existence, just in a more hidden, insidious form?

Individuals have to work their hardest to overcome every obstacle that comes their way and do their best to avoid creating their own obstacles. I definitely think that should be pointed out. But ignoring that our society has historically placed more obstacles in front of other groups than others, and many people and families still bear the effects of those obstacles, can't be glossed over either.

[amarone]

Pardon what might be a hijack but it seems relevant to me: is the "being a good student is acting white" meme real or just something that gets reported a lot? Anecdata only but I've known many black college students and they don't seem to scorn intellectual pursuits any more than white students (some certainly do of course but so do many white students). College is a very different environment than high school of course, so I'm interested if black primary school students disdain academics more than white primary school students.
By comparing black college students, you are looking at the wrong people. Clearly they would not view doing well at school as something to be scorned. Try getting the opinions of blacks who did not go to college. Did a significant number of those people not do as well in school (and therefore not go to college) because they did not want to "act white"?

[Alessan]

What causes culture?

History, mostly. Culture is formed to a large degree by the experiences a group went through in its past.

[monavis]

I got this debate from a recent discussion on race from bloggingheads.tv; here are the condensed arguments:

Glenn's main argument (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/31656?in=27:40&out=29:56) (~2min).
Amy's argument (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/31656?in=33:00&out=34:00); Part 2 (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/31656?in=31:30&out=32:50) (~2min).

The full contextual discussion (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/31656?in=27:40&out=36:50) (10min).

Amy is arguing a position that holds AA as the main contributors to their own social problems. Earlier in the discussion she compares AAs to a parable (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/31656?in=04:40&out=05:40) that says although AAs were wronged in ways that effect them to this day, the only thing holding blacks back (right now) are themselves.

Glenn seems to think that this is an incorrect way to look at the current social problems that effect AAs, as it doesn't view them within the framework of the larger American society; this 'lazy thinking' would ignore any root (non-racial) social causes and limit any discussion/solution to just the 'in-group'.

While I do see much value in Amy's points (there is no God-like outsider who can impose social order), I lean more towards Glenn's position (I think that it is too simplistic to just limit the discussion/problems/solutions to within the in-group/race).

One can say,"Some balcks and also some people, need to get their act together,but not lump people into one big block. Many blacks have their act together, and many white or other skin colors need to get their act together as well. I personally know many blacks who are doing just fine. and I know a lot of whites who are not!

[FuzzyOgre]

an obvious "blaccent",

monstro, that was an awesome portmanteau.

[Nava]

Another issue about comparing the situations of blacks in the US with their situation in other countries where they constitute a large racial group is how long have blacks been there and how did they get there.

There have been blacks in peninsular Spain since... since we were Romans, at least, but they haven't started being a significant group until the last 20 years (less outside the biggest cities). Comparing the situation of second-generation immigrants to Spain or Italy with that of nth-generation descendants of slaves is a bit of a case of "apples and oranges", comparing 1st-generation with nth looks more like "apples and hamburgers"; there are many ways in which the black populations of these countries will resemble the Hispanic population of the US (they're from different countries but get lumped together in the perception of the receiving culture, for many of them their native language is not the local language), others in which they have different problems altogether (unlike those Hispanics or AAs, the black immigrants in Spain or Italy don't have a common language; many of them are illiterate or barely-literate-in-one-language but speak half a dozen languages). Being able to compare those populations will require large studies, which in many cases would require data that, as RNATB mentioned for France, will not be collected by the government. And what do you do with, say, my baker's children? Spanish mother, Nigerian father. So do we classify them as "black", "mulato", "interracial", "intercultural"? Do we classify the children of a Nigerian parent and a Guinean one as "intercultural" as well, but not as "interracial"?

[Malthus]

But that the problem is inherent to their genetics.

That's just begging the question.

Nonsense. Aside from the fact that only homo sapients is capable as far as we know of what we think of as "culture", there is no genetic basis whatsoever for culture. Thus blaming "culture" for problems cannot, logically, imply anything about the genetics of the persons involved.

[Malthus]

Another issue about comparing the situations of blacks in the US with their situation in other countries where they constitute a large racial group is how long have blacks been there and how did they get there.

There have been blacks in peninsular Spain since... since we were Romans, at least, but they haven't started being a significant group until the last 20 years (less outside the biggest cities). Comparing the situation of second-generation immigrants to Spain or Italy with that of nth-generation descendants of slaves is a bit of a case of "apples and oranges", comparing 1st-generation with nth looks more like "apples and hamburgers"; there are many ways in which the black populations of these countries will resemble the Hispanic population of the US (they're from different countries but get lumped together in the perception of the receiving culture, for many of them their native language is not the local language), others in which they have different problems altogether (unlike those Hispanics or AAs, the black immigrants in Spain or Italy don't have a common language; many of them are illiterate or barely-literate-in-one-language but speak half a dozen languages). Being able to compare those populations will require large studies, which in many cases would require data that, as RNATB mentioned for France, will not be collected by the government. And what do you do with, say, my baker's children? Spanish mother, Nigerian father. So do we classify them as "black", "mulato", "interracial", "intercultural"? Do we classify the children of a Nigerian parent and a Guinean one as "intercultural" as well, but not as "interracial"?

The 'rules' by which people classify themselves and are classified by others into distinct racial groups are themselves cultural, and vary from place to place. Thus, in North America, a person with one Black and one White parent is usually classified as "Black" rather than "mulatto" or "White".

[Nava]

Yeah, but that's in the US. In Spain, those particular four kids are viewed as anything from "black" to "mulatto" (actually the term "café con leche" is much more commonly used), and are barely old enough to self-define. So, in order to compare US data with Spanish data, do we use the Spanish definitions or do we impose US definitions on Spanish people?

[Malthus]

Yeah, but that's in the US. In Spain, those particular four kids are viewed as anything from "black" to "mulatto" (actually the term "café con leche" is much more commonly used), and are barely old enough to self-define. So, in order to compare US data with Spanish data, do we use the Spanish definitions or do we impose US definitions on Spanish people?

It depends on what you intend to measure.

In my opinion, any hope of meaningfully measuring the relative progress of some defined group like "Blacks" is hopelessly compromised by definitional problems. The term is used by different people in different ways, as your Spanish/US example amply demonstrates - in the US, President Obama would be "Black", but perhaps not in Spain.

To my mind, the relevant facts are culture and socio-economic group (which may be defined by "race", and maybe not). Attempting to generalize based on "race" and find some sort of inherent, genetic basis for culture and socio-economic status reminds me of those odd studies in Victorian England that purported, against all logic, to show that Cockneys were of a distinct evolutionary species from the English upper class, which explained their poverty, small average size, odd use of slang, etc.

[Really Not All That Bright]

monstro, that was an awesome portmanteau.
It's not original to monstro (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blaccent), but yes, it's awesome.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Nonsense. Aside from the fact that only homo sapients is capable as far as we know of what we think of as "culture", there is no genetic basis whatsoever for culture. Thus blaming "culture" for problems cannot, logically, imply anything about the genetics of the persons involved.What I'm trying to say is that people who blame only "black culture" (or say things like "black people are holding themselves back") are using code for "blacks are genetically inferior." Black culture (to the extent that such a thing even exists) does not exist in a vaccum and it cannot be neatly segregated from the macro culture.

[Barkis is Willin']

In this day and age it is not fair to say that black peole are suppressed. It was true 50 years ago. And maybe there has not been enough time for the entire black cutlure to completely change. But if the culture must change, whos is responsible for that? Even if the culture was created, at least partially, by those other than blacks themsleves, aren't black people still responsible for changing their own attitudes/habits/behavior/priorities. The problem is not biological. Thus, black people have the ability to change themselves if they want to, just like anyone else does.

Just read a few of Bill Cosby's speeches on the issue. He stresses that black people should stop worrying so much how they're viewed by others and worry more about how they judge and treat themselves. The best way to overcome racial and social judgments is to do something about it (e.g. get an education, work hard) not to continue to blame others and wait for social justice to be handed out.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

What's wrong with those black folks that they won't get educations and work hard?

[Malthus]

What I'm trying to say is that people who blame only "black culture" (or say things like "black people are holding themselves back") are using code for "blacks are genetically inferior." Black culture (to the extent that such a thing even exists) does not exist in a vaccum and it cannot be neatly segregated from the macro culture.

As I noted in my very first post on the matter:

I can easily see that the one could be a sort of acceptable "code word" for the other, but not that it necessarily implies the other.

[Barkis is Willin']

What's wrong with those black folks that they won't get educations and work hard?

There a lot of things going on. According to Bill Cosby, one obstacle is language. Unfortunately, this obstacle will be difficult to overcome because the language techniques have been handed down from one generation to the next.

They're standing on the corner and they can't speak English. I can't even talk the way these people talk: 'Why you ain't,' 'Where you is' ... And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk. And then I heard the father talk. ... Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. ... You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth! - Bill Cosby

Another issue is prioritization. Cosby says many low income families are spending hundreds of dollars on sneakers while ignoring educational tools. Why is that happening? I don't know, you'd have ask the people doing it.

The point is, some people, and this isn't even limited to black people, need to change their attitudes and behaviors to become more socially accepted and give themselves a chance to succeed.

[Shodan]

What I'm trying to say is that people who blame only "black culture" (or say things like "black people are holding themselves back") are using code for "blacks are genetically inferior." Unfortunately, this is gibberish. Culture is not set by genetics, and therefore it cannot be code for anything of the sort.

Regards,
Shodan

[Alessan]

Life isn't fair. You can talk all day about how all your society's problems are someone else's fault, and there's a good chance that you'll be 100% right,but it won't change a thing. The people who wronged you will never make it right. That's the unfair part: it may be their fault, but fixing it is your responsibility.

The African American community's problem's are almost completely the fault of white America, but white America won't solve them. Nobody will. As the hot dog seller said to the Buddhist monk, change comes from within.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Unfortunately, this is gibberish. Culture is not set by genetics, and therefore it cannot be code for anything of the sort.
The accuracy of the first statement does not in any way prevent people from using it as code anyway. These are morons we're talking about.

[Barkis is Willin']

Life isn't fair. You can talk all day about how all your society's problems are someone else's fault, and there's a good chance that you'll be 100% right,but it won't change a thing. The people who wronged you will never make it right. That's the unfair part: it may be their fault, but fixing it is your responsibility.

The African American community's problem's are almost completely the fault of white America, but white America won't solve them. Nobody will. As the hot dog seller said to the Buddhist monk, change comes from within.

Bolding mine. I was with you until that part. Is that like saying terrorism is the result of Islam? I mean, white America is a pretty broad brush. You could also say Obama would never be president were it not for white America. So white American giveth and white America taketh away? I'll grant you that some ignorant white Americans certainly played a huge role in forming black culture some time ago, but anymore you can't blame white America.

[Nzinga, Seated]

There a lot of things going on. According to Bill Cosby, one obstacle is language. Unfortunately, this obstacle will be difficult to overcome because the language techniques have been handed down from one generation to the next.

- Bill Cosby

Another issue is prioritization. Cosby says many low income families are spending hundreds of dollars on sneakers while ignoring educational tools. Why is that happening? I don't know, you'd have ask the people doing it.

The point is, some people, and this isn't even limited to black people, need to change their attitudes and behaviors to become more socially accepted and give themselves a chance to succeed.

Wow. Bill Cosby is really dumb. I never knew that.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Pardon what might be a hijack but it seems relevant to me: is the "being a good student is acting white" meme real or just something that gets reported a lot? Anecdata only but I've known many black college students and they don't seem to scorn intellectual pursuits any more than white students (some certainly do of course but so do many white students). College is a very different environment than high school of course, so I'm interested if black primary school students disdain academics more than white primary school students.

My experience (which is decades old so things may be different now), the school environment diverges starting around middle school.

I would be interested in data on traditionally black all girls schools and how their graduates do and traditionally black military schools (if they exist) and how their graduates do.

[Damuri Ajashi]

But if you were the smartest kid in school and acted 'nerdy' 'geeky' or 'white', you were put down.

Its a very rare combination to be both socially adept and intellectually inquisitive at a young age.

She has had some issues with kids in our culture because of her ways. Unlike me, she doesn't 'talk black', she doesn't use a lot of black slang (she uses tons of 'internet' slang, though) and she doesn't have...soul, I guess. She is into stuff like anime and she wears glasses and is kind of awkward.

I don't know if this is any consolation but I was staying at a hotel where an anime convention was going on (people were dressed up as all sorts of things) and at least 10% of the kids there were black, and they were mostly girls. I'm just saying that anime seems to be at least ass popular among black girls as it is in the general population.

[you with the face]

Its a very rare combination to be both socially adept and intellectually inquisitive at a young age.

No, it's really not all that rare. There are plenty of smart people that were socially skilled as kids. Just as there are plenty of jocks who were bright and literate. Not everyone who wears coke bottle glasses is smart and not every kid who is popular is anti-intellectual.

[Alessan]

Bolding mine. I was with you until that part. Is that like saying terrorism is the result of Islam? I mean, white America is a pretty broad brush. You could also say Obama would never be president were it not for white America. So white American giveth and white America taketh away? I'll grant you that some ignorant white Americans certainly played a huge role in forming black culture some time ago, but anymore you can't blame white America.

By "white America", I don't neccessarily mean current white America. Most of the damage was done in the past.

[Sampiro]

An interesting enigma to me as a southerner is that the black people I know on first name basis can almost to a person perfectly mimic not just white dialect but a variety of white dialects: redneck, patronizing rich-bitch, "full of shit" white politician, and the slightly vaguely midwestern "CNN" voice (the U.S. equivalent of "received pronunciation"). Most are usually done with a bit of overemphasis for comedic effect, but you know exactly what type of person they're imitating.

The white people I know on first name basis can almost to a person perfectly mimic not just black dialect but a variety of black dialects: histrionic pissed off older black woman, over enunciating black preacher, ghetto thug, patronizing old man and "full of shit" black politician.

They rarely imitate the other race in front of them, but it's something you just learn to do almost subconsciously, almost like another language and complete with syntax and pronunciation eccentricities. (In Alabama for example it's common to hear uneducated blacks ask "what time it is?" and to occasionally drop the last consonant [what time i' i'?] while uneducated whites tend to overenunciate random last consonants and stretch random vowels ["What ti-i-ime izzzzzz it?"].)

Most also have a sort of diglossia: how people, regardless of race or social class, speak with their peer group is a lot different than how they speak in public. (I do this- I talk really fast when I'm around friends but slow it down and have marginally more accent when speaking in public because I'm accused of sounding snobby or English when I speak in my regular voice. Around gay friends my voice gets a tad nellier of course. Of course diglossia is not unique to any region but pretty much universal.

It's proof, at least to me, that dialect is largely if not exclusively a matter of choice and cultural identity. Whether all are created equally is I suppose a separate debate.

[scamartistry]

clearly it comes down to culture. Cultures are different for whatever reason. You dont need to involve genetics. Compare Jews and Gypsies as an example of two rather distinct cultures, both have a long dark history of prosecution. Now cultures adapt to situations and also evolve from them.

When it comes to academia, the jewish culture arm their sons and daughters better for scholarly success when compared to Gypsy dito.

I do not have a cite for this but I am willing to take a guess.

This can be transferred to any group/class/culture.So what is the controversy? cultures are different.

[Grumman]

The accuracy of the first statement does not in any way prevent people from using it as code anyway.
Considering that the only person using this code here is you, perhaps you should stop trying to derail the thread?

[Chen019]

clearly it comes down to culture. Cultures are different for whatever reason. You dont need to involve genetics. Compare Jews and Gypsies as an example of two rather distinct cultures, both have a long dark history of prosecution. Now cultures adapt to situations and also evolve from them.

When it comes to academia, the jewish culture arm their sons and daughters better for scholarly success when compared to Gypsy dito.

This can be transferred to any group/class/culture.So what is the controversy? cultures are different.

Yes, and different cultures can lead to some traits & genes getting passed on more than others. The Ashkenazi Jewish example you provide is an example of this.

Ashkenazi literacy, economic specialization, and closure to inward gene flow led to a social environment in which there was high fitness payoff to intelligence, specifically verbal and mathematical intelligence... As with any regime of strong directional selection on a quantitative trait, genetic variants that were otherwise fitness reducing rose in frequency.

http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

This is also seen in terms of 'middle class traits' being selected for in structured agricultural societies.

In my recent book, A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World I argue two things. First that all societies remained in a state I label the “Malthusian economy” up until the onset of the Industrial Revolution around 1800. In that state crucially the economic laws governing all human societies before 1800 were those that govern all animal societies. Second that was thus subject to natural selection throughout the Malthusian era, even after the arrival of settled agrarian societies with the Neolithic Revolution.

The Darwinian struggle that shaped human nature did not end with the Neolithic Revolution but continued right up until the Industrial Revolution. But the arrival of settled agriculture and stable property rights set natural selection on a very different course. It created an accelerated period of evolution, rewarding with reproductive success a new repertoire of human behaviors – patience, self-control, passivity, and hard work – which consequently spread widely.

And we see in England, from at least 1250, that the kind of people who succeeded in the economic system – who accumulated assets, got skills, got literacy – increased their representation in each generation. Through the long agrarian passage leading up to the Industrial Revolution man was becoming biologically more adapted to the modern economic world. Modern people are thus in part a creation of the market economies that emerged with the Neolithic Revolution. Just as people shaped economies, the pre-industrial economy shaped people. This has left the people of long settled agrarian societies substantially different now from our hunter gatherer ancestors, in terms of culture, and likely also in terms of biology.

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/07/social-darwinism-21st-century-edition.html

Also, see 'The 10,000 Year Explosion' reviewed here:

Farmers store wealth; wealth is always unequally distributed where there is phenotypic variation in the ability to acquire it, and social mobility.Variance in reproductive success increased in settled societies.But the pathways to that reproductive success vary between populations: different traits are desirable in different places. It follows that there is selection on diverse personalities and cognitive abilities among various populations.

For example, in East Asia the 7R allele of the DRD4 gene (an allele associated with ADHD) is almost absent, but importantly, alleles derived from the 7R allele are common. That suggests that the 7R allele did not play well in East Asia although it may have been quite a benefit in other populations. http://www.atypon-link.com/AAP/doi/pdf/10.1375/twin.12.4.409

[Damuri Ajashi]

No, it's really not all that rare. There are plenty of smart people that were socially skilled as kids. Just as there are plenty of jocks who were bright and literate. Not everyone who wears coke bottle glasses is smart and not every kid who is popular is anti-intellectual.

Maybe rare is not the right word. Its uncommmon. How many valedictorian/salutatorians do you think were also the class president or the prom queen, or the captain of the football team for that matter.

[you with the face]

Maybe rare is not the right word. Its uncommmon. How many valedictorian/salutatorians do you think were also the class president or the prom queen, or the captain of the football team for that matter.

The spectrum between socially inept geek and prom queen/king is huge. Posessing a full set of social skills doesn't necessitate you being the most popular person in the room. You can't just look at the extremes and draw the conclusion you have.

Maybe my K-12 experience was completely different than yours, but I found that most kids who were well-liked and admired were also the smartest. They got top grades, were involved in extracurriculars (like sports), and were respected by the adults in the school. Those who were socially inept and unpopular weren actually less likely to be smart than the popular ones were. In fact, sometimes they were made fun of because they weren't as quick in class. They were easy targets because they didn't fit in and lacked the skills to do so (which is different than not fitting in because you simply don't want to...these kids generally weren't targets).

The whole "acting white" thing in my experience wasn't about being smart so much as exhibiting behaviors associated with white stereotypes. Like talking in what appears to be an affected "white" manner or showing more interest in "white" things (like heavy metal) than "black" things (like R&B).

[monavis]

I wonder if the people who fear or distrust people of different skin color or etc. never grew up knowing anyone of that difference.

I feel fortunate to have grown up in a rural area where there was one Black family, they were very nice people and were liked by all the neighbors. My experiences in my years have been very good with black people. We were taught to accept them for who they were not what color or other differences they had. In all my later years I have had good experiences with black people. And I have had experiences living in a bad white area where some of those people hated blacks because only their skin color.

In my beliefs there is only one race, that is the human race and people have different colored skin, different eyes, ears etc. I would hope that some day soon people will begin to see people as people, not worry about their color, sexual preferences,size, or if they have a handicap. Treat them as they would want to be treated. It is like looking at a black spot on a white paper and seeing just the speck, not the whole picture.

It is sad to read of the young blacks killing so many of their own color;it is something I wonder about, and hope they will someday see that they are also harming themselves and the other people like themselves.

[Frylock]

I wonder if the people who fear or distrust people of different skin color or etc. never grew up knowing anyone of that difference.

I feel fortunate to have grown up in a rural area where there was one Black family, they were very nice people and were liked by all the neighbors. My experiences in my years have been very good with black people. We were taught to accept them for who they were not what color or other differences they had. In all my later years I have had good experiences with black people. And I have had experiences living in a bad white area where some of those people hated blacks because only their skin color.

In my beliefs there is only one race, that is the human race and people have different colored skin, different eyes, ears etc. I would hope that some day soon people will begin to see people as people, not worry about their color, sexual preferences,size, or if they have a handicap. Treat them as they would want to be treated. It is like looking at a black spot on a white paper and seeing just the speck, not the whole picture.

It is sad to read of the young blacks killing so many of their own color;it is something I wonder about, and hope they will someday see that they are also harming themselves and the other people like themselves.

That post consisted in a series of anti-racism pieties, followed by a closing statement chock full of racist presuppositions.

Very strange.

[Gestalt]

Wow. Bill Cosby is really dumb. I never knew that.

Yeah, I think he has a reputation for rambling on and on about what black communities do wrong in a way that makes him sound like a sheltered old white man from kansas.

[Broomstick]

ETA: it may be true that blacks don't place as much time, energy and importance on education as others. Poor blacks, I mean, and blacks in the ghettos. Other things may take precedent over education, which is a shame, but true, I think. But that is entirely different than this 'smart = acting white' stuff I have been hearing.
I don't want to side track too much, but my experience with poor white people living in ghettos/slums is that they, too, will have priorities that don't put education first. Some of the problems of poor blacks are problems of poverty, not race, and they have them in common with other poor people regardless of color. But, due to stereotyping, and the fact that poor white people can sometimes blend into the scenery better than black people of any income level, that connection is often missed.

[Broomstick]

There a lot of things going on. According to Bill Cosby, one obstacle is language. Unfortunately, this obstacle will be difficult to overcome because the language techniques have been handed down from one generation to the next.
They're standing on the corner and they can't speak English. I can't even talk the way these people talk: 'Why you ain't,' 'Where you is' ... And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk. And then I heard the father talk. ... Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. ... You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth!
- Bill Cosby
That reminds me of any incident with a black co-worker of mine from, oh, about 15 years ago. He was a very erudite black man - the sort who would use a word like "erudite" in casual conversation. Very smart, highly educated, dressed well, absolutely impeccable manners, talked like an Ivy League graduate (which, if I recall, he was). A major part of his job was being the representative of a conservative, predominantly white corporation in circumstances requiring negotiations.

So, one day, I was quite surprised to hear him on the phone in his office speaking in the most ghetto "blaccent" and vocabulary. Of course, he knew that dialect, but it was so out of character to hear him speak like that.

He was addressing his high school age son who, apparently, was quite enamored of "gangsta" style and culture. My co-worker was, apparently, making it clear to his son that he was just as familar with black culture as white, and that if the young man wanted the money, the cars, the vacations, the mini-mansion is the upscale suburbs, the summer home, and all the other accoutrements of the wealthy upbringing he had enjoyed he would do well to emulate his father and learn to "talk white", "dress white", and "act white" on the job, because that's how you got ahead in the business world. And then you could go home at night and be as ghetto as you wanted to be. It was a much more certain method of achieving financial success than trying to be the next big rap star.

One of the key routes to success is speaking the language of the dominant culture fluently, regardless of what you speak at home. That's true everywhere.

[Justin_Bailey]

Maybe my K-12 experience was completely different than yours, but I found that most kids who were well-liked and admired were also the smartest. They got top grades, were involved in extracurriculars (like sports), and were respected by the adults in the school. Those who were socially inept and unpopular weren actually less likely to be smart than the popular ones were. In fact, sometimes they were made fun of because they weren't as quick in class. They were easy targets because they didn't fit in and lacked the skills to do so (which is different than not fitting in because you simply don't want to...these kids generally weren't targets).

I gotta agree with this. Maybe not "the smartest", but all of the really popular kids were all A or B students. The dumbest kids mostly tended to be the burnouts and the bullies that were just as hated by the popular students as they were by the nerds. And because the popular kids and the nerds often shared a lot of classes, it was unheard of to see one of them make fun of a nerd for being smart. Maybe for being a little clueless, but that's to be expected.

[Sampiro]

If you watch white teen sitcoms, especially the older ones, the main characters are rarely brainiacs: Mike Seaver (idiot- Kirk didn't have to stretch for that one), Zack Morris & Slater (Zack was always scheming how to steal grades or put a roofie in Kelly's slushy and Slater was a wrestling jock but neither were Honor Society), Wesley from Mr. Belvedere, Fonzie, all of the guys from Boy Meets World, Joey Lawrence from Blossom (whoa!), etc.. In Breakfast Club where Emilio Estevez and Judd Nelson and Molly Ringwold are the cool kids. There are lots of other examples.

The ones who were bright included Screech, Urkel (yeah I know he's black but... mainly he's Urkel), Mike's anorexic sister on Growing Pains, Malcolm from Malcolm in the Middle (brilliant but completely neurotic and self absorbed), Marcia's insectuous boyfriend on The Brady Bunch, Anthony Michael Hall in... well, every Anthony Michael Hall role. I think Richie was bright on Happy Days but who wouldn't be after his parents killed his brothers for dribbling the basketball in the house? And besides, Ron Howard wasn't what you'd call a teen heart throb.

Granted there were more bright good looking girls than there were bright guys on these series, but only to a point. The real brainiac girls were more like Screech's girlfriend (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dJ03fUS7HtU/SI8qCo-GMqI/AAAAAAAAATo/PXfOTMEN114/s400/violet.jpg) than Kelly.

There's a definite anti-intellectual trend in American pop culture and I have seen it in college students, but it's not a race issue. A lot of the brightest kids are so very clearly used to hiding their lamps under a bushel that in freshmen year many struggle with the issue of coming out as intellectual almost as if it were gay (and of course they're surrounded by a lot of kids who were C high school students and will be C college students).

I was involved with College Bowl as an undergrad and as a faculty member for a while; for those not familiar it started out as a TV show and is still played by a lot of colleges- essentially academic team meats. Now while I would never expect College Bowl to have it's own stadiums, it's infuriating that this is 100% knowledge based and we had to have fundraisers to get a new $300 buzzer system. When my team from a small public Alabama college beat Harvard at an invitational- repeat, we beat Harvard's team- we sent it to the school paper and it got a blip on the back page while the basketball team got a huge story on the front page and the school soccer team you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who gave a damn about got a big write up on the inside. Also frustrating: we only had money to go to regionals because of a grant from a private foundation (some schools didn't even have that) and the only reward we got was a $200 bookstore stipend; the soccer team members, not one of them American born, got full ride (tuition, board, books) scholarships. Deemphasis of education is definitely subject to socioeconomic factors, but it's very definitely an American rather than an African American problem.

I do agree with Cosby on things like illegitimacy rates and buying $250 sneakers you can't afford, and with many other things for that matter including proper grammar, but again that's not just a black issue.

[Lakai]

Black culture comes from racism. Without racism there would be no such thing as black culture. All blacks really have nothing in common except a long history of racism.

Unless you want to believe that blacks are born different, then the only way they can become different is by getting treated differently. A black child growing up in the same community as a white child should have the same culture, unless there is something happening to black children that isn't to white children. The only thing that explains the difference is racism. That's the only thing that affects all black people regardless of money, nationality, religion, sex, or personality.

How does racism create black culture? One way is that if you think white people are racist, you'll want to avoid everything associated with them. That includes the culture of power and success that you need to adopt to become powerful and successful.

Another way is that school teachers can expect less from minority students than from white students, and give up on them more easily. When that happens, the student will believe she isn't worth the effort and start to place less value on her education.

Next the police might target minorities more than white people because they believe minorities commit more crimes. This leads to more minorities being arrested and perpetuates the stereotype when in reality it's just the police who target them more. If police enforced drug laws in suburban neighborhoods the same way they do in inner city neighborhoods, then we'd see more white people get arrested.

It's a self perpetuating cycle. Racism makes people different, and those differences are then used to justify the racism. If our institutions really treated black people the same way they treat whites then we'd all have the same culture.

[Chen019]

Unless you want to believe that blacks are born different, then the only way they can become different is by getting treated differently...

Next the police might target minorities more than white people because they believe minorities commit more crimes. This leads to more minorities being arrested and perpetuates the stereotype when in reality it's just the police who target them more. If police enforced drug laws in suburban neighborhoods the same way they do in inner city neighborhoods, then we'd see more white people get arrested. .

And sexism is responsible for men having higher imprisonment rates? Is racism to blame for East Asians having lower rates of imprisonment than whites? These differences are seen globally.

See page 151 of chapter 7 ' Biosocial criminology: new directions in theory and research' by Walsh & Beaver. Evolution provides a powerful mechanism for understanding the distribution of traits and behaviours within and across groups.

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=PPiXCcch_msC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Biosocial+Criminology:+New+Directions+in+Theory+and&source=bl&ots=jREV6A3RMK&sig=-G6U8x7nPzqeUTgd6YHQDCnzbvk&hl=en&ei=2HbDTKbtCZSksQPE34DLCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAw#v=snippet&q=wright&f=false

[Lakai]

And sexism is responsible for men having higher imprisonment rates? Is racism to blame for East Asians having lower rates of imprisonment than whites? These differences are seen globally.

East Asians are from another country. Differences between sexes can be explained by biology.

How do you explain a black and white child of the same sex and nationality growing up to be different?

[Blake]

How do you explain a black and white child of the same sex and nationality growing up to be different?

A child is born. He is the son of an out-of-work factory worker who has not seen the Valium-addicted, chronic depressive mother since he told her to "abort the bastard".

And in the very next delivery room at the exact same minute another child is born. He is the son of a nuclear physicist who is CEO of his own company married for 10 years to a former beauty queen who is now the owner of her veterinary practice.

How do you explain these two children of the same race and nationality growing up to be different?

Are you also going to ascribe that to racism, dispute the fact that they are the same race? Or do you think perhaps that culture and upbringing might be playing some role?

Anyone who really expects the two children in the above example to grow up the same is living in fairyland. Both children will have very different life stories, and race will play no part in them whatsoever.

So why assume that, if the first child is statistically more likely to be black and the second white, the differences in that case must be primarily attributable to racism?

[Lakai]

I'm assuming everything about the kids are the same except race.

[Blake]

I'm assuming everything about the kids are the same except race.

If everything about them is the same then they have, by definition, not grown up different.

If you can find me say, 10 examples example of where a Black child and a White child have been the same in every way except race, and evidence that the Black children grows up different despite that, then you might have a point. As it is you are asking us to explain why the Venusians have scales rather than fur. My response is "What damn Venusians".

On average Black children perform more poorly than white and grow up to be less successful. On average of course they also have poorer, less educated parents with a higher incidents of single parent families. We also know that, on average, White children born to less educated parents and single parent families do less well at school and grow up to be less successful. So suggesting that only racism is to blame for the lowered performance of Blacks is an extremely hasty induction.

Doens't it make a teensy bit more sense to blame on factors that have been proven to reduce performance?

[Lakai]

Doens't it make a teensy bit more sense to blame on factors that have been proven to reduce performance?

I thought so too, but I can't find any data to back that up. Whenever studies are done with controls for economic, national, and gender factors, blacks still perform worse than whites in schools. Blacks do even worse with out the controls of course, because many of them are poor and have single parents like you've mentioned.

[Blake]

I thought so too, but I can't find any data to back that up. Whenever studies are done with controls for economic, national, and gender factors, blacks still perform worse than whites in schools. .

I would be interested in seeing these multiple studies that control for all the economic, cultural, gender, family, nutritional and historical factors.

Can you please point these out to me? My back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that a sample size of approximately 400, 000 children of each race, each with detailed information on family history, diet etc, over 18 years would be needed to produce a meaningful result. With such major studies I am surprised that I never heard of them.

I look forward to seeing your references.

[Chen019]

East Asians are from another country. Differences between sexes can be explained by biology.

How do you explain a black and white child of the same sex and nationality growing up to be different?

Did you read the chapter that I referred to above?

Are you aware that there are East Asians born & living in the US?

What biological differences explain the difference between the genders? Testosterone? You realise that also varies between ethnic groups?

[Lakai]

I would be interested in seeing these multiple studies that control for all the economic, cultural, gender, family, nutritional and historical factors.

Can you please point these out to me? My back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that a sample size of approximately 400, 000 children of each race, each with detailed information on family history, diet etc, over 18 years would be needed to produce a meaningful result. With such major studies I am surprised that I never heard of them.

I look forward to seeing your references.

All those factors aren't controlled all at once. One study is done controlling for income levels only. Then another might be done controlling for nationality or number of parents. Pick any factor known to produce lower school performance; if you do a study controlling for that factor, blacks will still do worse than whites.

Did you read the chapter that I referred to above?

I'm not going to run out and get a copy of the book.

Are you aware that there are East Asians born & living in the US?

As I'm sure you're aware that they're called East Asians because someone from their lineage was from East Asia.

What biological differences explain the difference between the genders? Testosterone? You realise that also varies between ethnic groups?

Women have lower upper body strength and the ability to make babies.

[Chen019]

As I'm sure you're aware that they're called East Asians because someone from their lineage was from East Asia.



Right, so what was the point of your comment above that "they are from another country"? In the US they have lower crime rates even adjusting for poverty. See p32 and 33 of Walsh 'Crime: A Biosocial Analysis':

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=vgHgNsmZ3vsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=race+crime+biosocials&source=bl&ots=PB0-b-YJpd&sig=E0uIiShYRpmMXKvgBCq4bTCmYTo&hl=en&ei=SLTDTOWvAZTksQPZt934Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=East%20Asian&f=false

Women have lower upper body strength and the ability to make babies.

And the major factor underlying the gender difference in criminal behaviour is testosterone (p 90 Handbook on Crime and Deviance By Marvin D. Krohn, Alan J. Lizotte, Gina Penly Hall)

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=kKLeD2lYOrwC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=testosterone+and+gender+crime+differences&source=bl&ots=e2wHiRmJlh&sig=6EJ1C0yWi2DhWAPhdr8sEqWqcdE&hl=en&ei=JrbDTO2-I4nAsAOOz4nsCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CDwQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=testosterone%20and%20gender%20crime%20differences&f=false

Mean testosterone levels in blacks were 19% higher than in whites, and free testosterone levels were 21% higher. Both these differences were statistically significant.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3455741 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3455741

Dr. Demers and his colleagues have found evidence that testosterone levels and androgen precursor steroids may vary among different ethnic populations.

-- A study of Portuguese, American, and Asian men, for example, revealed that the average testosterone level in the Portuguese subjects was ~ 500, in Americans, ~ 450, and in the Asian population, ~ 400.
http://mentalhealth.about.com/od/mensmentalhealth/l/blmenpause.htm

[Blake]

All those factors aren't controlled all at once. One study is done controlling for income levels only. Then another might be done controlling for nationality or number of parents. Pick any factor known to produce lower school performance; if you do a study controlling for that factor, blacks will still do worse than whites.

Right, and what does that tell you?

Can I ask, have you done any sort of statisttics or analysis studies at all? Because this seems like a really simple problem, yet you are jumping to the hastiest conclusion possible. To simplify:

1) We know that, on average Blacks perform worse at school than Whites.

2) We know that numerous factors have adverse effects on school performance, such as home life stability,parental involvement, nutrition etc.

3) We know that, on average, Black children are more exposed to all of those adverse factors than whites.

4) When we do a study that eliminates only one of those factors, Blacks still perform worse.

The obvious conclusion: Because Blacks are simultaneously exposed to multiple conditions that have proven to have an adverse effect on performance, we would expect that removing just one factor would not equalise performance. This conclusion is borne out by our results.

Your hasty conclusion: Despite Blacks being simultaneously exposed to multiple conditions that have proven to have an adverse effect on performance, removing just one factor should still equalise performance. Because it doesn't, racism must be the cause of the inequality.

Do I really need to explain to you why your conclusion is a textbook example of a hasty induction, and hence completely logically invalid.

[astro]

I think the root of black problems is that a long, long history of (quite literally) dis-empowering and dehumanizing blacks, and most specifically black males and making it very difficult for them to be able to form effective households, has led to a largely matriarchal centric, single mother black culture, with black males having little to attach themselves to, and few effective cultural role models for how to succeed in a modern industrialized society. A male+female household black family is the exception, not the norm in American society.

Single mother households are considerably more economically and resource deprived (on average) than mother+father households and have considerably less "social capital" to work with. The boys have no effective onsite male role model and are often left to fend for themselves in that regard. IMO this is the genesis of 90% of the dysfunction that effects blacks in American society.

It took over 300 years to destroy male + female black families. Expecting that the damage is going to be erased if only those shiftless Negroes would pull up their socks and get on with it is kind of insane. How do you "fix" black male disenfranchisement and virtual social emasculation that's so socially and culturally ingrained at this point it's practically organic? Waving their arms and saying "get over it" is about as much as white people are willing to contribute to that fix.

[Lakai]

Right, so what was the point of your comment above that "they are from another country"?

It wasn't clear that you were referring to East Asians in America when you simply said East Asians. However, the difference between East Asians in America and the rest of America can be explained by the influence of East Asian culture on East Asians. Either by being born there or through being raised by people who were born there. Their biology has nothing to do with the difference.

And the major factor underlying the gender difference in criminal behaviour is testosterone (p 90 Handbook on Crime and Deviance By Marvin D. Krohn, Alan J. Lizotte, Gina Penly Hall)

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=kKLeD2lYOrwC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=testosterone+and+gender+crime+differences&source=bl&ots=e2wHiRmJlh&sig=6EJ1C0yWi2DhWAPhdr8sEqWqcdE&hl=en&ei=JrbDTO2-I4nAsAOOz4nsCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CDwQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=testosterone%20and%20gender%20crime%20differences&f=false

Then why does your site say that: "No one claims that testosterone is a major or even minor cause of criminal behavior, only that it is the major factor that underlies gender differences." (p. 90)



The obvious conclusion: Because Blacks are simultaneously exposed to multiple conditions that have proven to have an adverse effect on performance, we would expect that removing just one factor would not equalise performance. This conclusion is borne out by our results.

Your hasty conclusion: Despite Blacks being simultaneously exposed to multiple conditions that have proven to have an adverse effect on performance, removing just one factor should still equalise performance. Because it doesn't, racism must be the cause of the inequality.

Do I really need to explain to you why your conclusion is a textbook example of a hasty induction, and hence completely logically invalid.

OK, I'll agree with you here.

But what is causing blacks to have more conditions than whites that have been proven to negatively affect school performance?

[Blake]

But what is causing blacks to have more conditions than whites that have been proven to negatively affect school performance?

Culture.

[Blake]

It took over 300 years to destroy male + female black families. Expecting that the damage is going to be erased if only those shiftless Negroes would pull up their socks and get on with it is kind of insane. How do you "fix" black male disenfranchisement and virtual social emasculation that's so socially and culturally ingrained at this point it's practically organic? Waving their arms and saying "get over it" is about as much as white people are willing to contribute to that fix.

The problem with this argument is that the problem was nowhere near as severe until the late 1960s. So in that regard the problem has been created by liberated, socially equal Blacks with full civil liberties. IOW the family unit was destroyed by Blacks, not by whites.

So in that regard it is indeed a self created problem.

This really isn't a problem that White people can fix. Contraception is as freely available to Blacks as Whites, Blacks can't be forced to use it. Since the problem has worsened as Black education has improved, it seems pretty clear that education isn't going to solve it. This is a problem where the cause is so private and personal that the the solution can only possibly be achieved internally.

And until people start admitting that for the vast majority of women and children, single parent families are very bad things indeed, that ain't gonna happen.

[Chen019]

It wasn't clear that you were referring to East Asians in America when you simply said East Asians. However, the difference between East Asians in America and the rest of America can be explained by the influence of East Asian culture on East Asians. Either by being born there or through being raised by people who were born there. Their biology has nothing to do with the difference.

Then why does your site say that: "No one claims that testosterone is a major or even minor cause of criminal behavior, only that it is the major factor that underlies gender differences." (p. 90)

How do you know that biology has nothing to do with differences in criminal offending between individuals or groups? Science is only just starting to uncover the genetic variants that increase the risk of violent behaviour. Genes differ in frequency across groups. http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/01/metric-on-space-of-genomes-and.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121093343.htm

[monavis]

That post consisted in a series of anti-racism pieties, followed by a closing statement chock full of racist presuppositions.

Very strange.

I do not get your point. I have black nieces and nephews and they are not of a different race, so how can it be racism? There is just one race, that is the human race.

The fact that there are so many young black people in the cities, like Chicago killing each other, (and of course it isn't because they are black), but even the Black people there are concerned about so many good young blacks being killed. The one's who do the killing belong to gangs (in the most part), and kill a lot of other's in their homes buyshooting at another and hitting someone sitting in their living room or on their porch etc.. What is raciest about that?

[astro]

The problem with this argument is that the problem was nowhere near as severe until the late 1960s. So in that regard the problem has been created by liberated, socially equal Blacks with full civil liberties. IOW the family unit was destroyed by Blacks, not by whites.

So in that regard it is indeed a self created problem.

This really isn't a problem that White people can fix. Contraception is as freely available to Blacks as Whites, Blacks can't be forced to use it. Since the problem has worsened as Black education has improved, it seems pretty clear that education isn't going to solve it. This is a problem where the cause is so private and personal that the the solution can only possibly be achieved internally.

And until people start admitting that for the vast majority of women and children, single parent families are very bad things indeed, that ain't gonna happen.

The disorganisation and instability in black families is a direct result of generations of slavery which still resonates to the present day. Black family structure was crushed for over 200 years and the black male essentially booted out of the standard male+female resource model.

As you note a workable solution is complex and may be impossible to achieve in the near term, but the matriarchal centric black family with the single female household at it's center and the black male on the periphery has been the default black family model for many generations, not just since the 60's.

[Lakai]

How do you know that biology has nothing to do with differences in criminal offending between individuals or groups? Science is only just starting to uncover the genetic variants that increase the risk of violent behaviour. Genes differ in frequency across groups. http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/01/metric-on-space-of-genomes-and.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121093343.htm

Until science proves conclusively that race causes someone to become more violent, I'm not going to assume that differences between races are significant enough to treat the races differently.

Culture.

Now we're back to the question of how this culture that drives problems in the black community was created.

At one point I said "how does a white kid and black kid grow up to be different?" What I should have said is how did they come to have different cultures. If they both live in America and both have American families, and they're both from the same neighborhood, why are their cultures different?

[Chief Pedant]

East Asians are from another country. Differences between sexes can be explained by biology.

How do you explain a black and white child of the same sex and nationality growing up to be different?

Both Nurturing and Biology. Biology is much more specific for racial groups than for "nationality." One is the country you define as home. The other is the gene pool from which your specific set of genes is drawn. A black Norwegian isn't very likely to get fine blond hair and a pale complexion, for example.

Any number of studies show that eliminating differences in nurturing does not eliminate outcome differences among various groups, including the very large and loose groups of "self-identified race/ethnicity" (SIRE groups). Even when you take children of different races raised in the same family--i.e. adopted blacks into white families--you still can't eliminate differences. And of course, if you take children from the same biologic parents raised in the same family, you still get variation. It's different genes that drive our differences when we normalize nurturing, whether it's at a family level or a group level.

It's an incorrect, but common, assumption that "race" groups don't differ biologically in the overall gene pool from which they derive their genes. They do, and so gene prevalences for traits vary by race (and many other types of) groups. And of course there are many, many, more specific sub-groups other than the crude one of self-defined "race" whose biological differences can be even more specifically shown.