Where I said substantial differences. If you look at a population where 95% of the population grows up and stays in poverty, and you look at a different population living within a couple miles of the first, and only 5% end up in poverty, then to not acknowledge that there are differences in opportunity is to have your head in the sand.
If you are talking about 35% vs 37%, there can be many reasons for that sort of discrepancy in outcome.
I am still not seeing what these other factors in play are. If these factors inhibit access to opportunity, then they are a factor that I am talking about. If the factors do not inhibit access to opportunity, then they are not things that would substantially alter outcomes.
Can you give me an example of one of these factors that can alter outcomes without inhibiting opportunity? I am not saying that they do not exist, only that I can’t think of any.
Right, and if one group of people made their fortunes as software engineers, and the other group makes their fortune as architects, then that is just an interesting observation about preferences.
If one group makes its fortune, and the other simply does not, then that is not about preference, that is about the actual ability to make that fortune.
And I think that assuming that different outcomes are not based on lack of opportunity is a far, far worse starting point. At that point, you are just looking at the people themselves, and looking to see what is inherently different about the people of group A vs the people of group B, which allows you to blame the differences in outcome based on perceived or stereotyped inherent differences between the groups.
Gender inequality is, sure.
The effects, however, are not generational.
Black parents tend to have black children, white parents tend to have white children.
All parents tend to have both boys and girls as children.
If we literally made everyone colorblind, where they were not ever able to tell the difference between a black person and a white person, it would still take generations to close the gap.
If we made everyone gender blind, the gap would be closed well within a generation.
Actually, now that I think about it, that’s actually not a bad example of one form of opportunity that is disparate that can result in different outcomes.
Many people do not get the HPV vaccine as a teen because their parents are religious or prudish and do not want their child getting anything that is related to sexual activity. I personally challenge these assertions, and see that that does actually create an inequality of opportunity as well, where those with those sorts of upbringings does not give them the opportunity to get proper medical treatment that may result in a rather different outcome later in life.
Maybe I am not pointing out well enough that I do consider the resources and attitudes that a parent brings to the table to also be part of the suite of opportunities one is offered. That’s why such things are generational in nature, the upbringing of today’s child is strongly affected by the upbringing of that child’s parents, which was based on the upbringing of the parent’s parents, and so on.
It’s an endless source of bafflement to see people arguing that the way to end systemic racism is to institutionalize policies based on race.
Ending discrimination by discriminating in favour of one group at the expense of all others on the basis of race it’s the kind of logic to be expected of an experiment where a subject’s brain is prodded with electrodes; which makes me believe that the motives are not what they are purported to be in the same way I wouldn’t believe the intentions of someone saying they want to put out a fire while holding a bucket of gasoline.
I would not immediately say it must be down to lack of opportunity. I would include it in my analysis as a possible reason, along with lots of other factors.
Would your immediate reaction to an 85%/15% discrepancy be to say that the opportunities must different?
Cultural, religious and educational background are obvious examples. They can all influence whether a person chooses to take up a freely available opportunity.
That assumption would not be worse but it would just as bad and not something I’d advocate. How about starting from the position that “We Don’t Know”? The three words most tragically underused in my opinion.
I guess I don’t understand what you mean by “generational”
Really? So in the countries that have moved the furthest towards ensuring gender equality we should be seeing an equality of outcome across the board?
Then I think we are indeed using different meanings of the word “opportunity” The HPV vaccine in the UK is offered to all children equally and parental permission is not required. That the children do not equally make use of that equal opportunity is down to other factors. If, for example, it was only offered to certain ethnic groups then that would constitute, for me, an inequality of opportunity.
Fine, I think we are divided on our use of the word “opportunity” but I think we’ve both got across clearly enough where we stand.
If that were my assumption as to what is going on here, then I would be baffled too.
However, what is going on here is an acknowledgment that racism will not end, and that the damage has been done, and how to address that damage.
I agree, so it’s a great thing that no one is advocating “Ending discrimination by discriminating in favour of one group at the expense of all others on the basis of race”, as that would be a rather silly idea, and is the sort of thing that only exists to be leveled as a disingenuous accusation against those who would like to see the damages done by racism amerloirated.
If you see anyone saying such, then look out, as it is a lie perpetuated in order to drive a wedge between US citizens of different melanin content, and the desire of one that makes such a claim is not to gain equality, but to distract from the inequality that exists.
You keep saying lots of other factors, what are those?
must be? No. Very very likely to be, enough so that that is my initial reaction unless given some pretty major factors, yes.
The educational part goes to the specific thing that I am talking about, generational effect of discrimination. Educated parents tend to produce more educated kids than non educated parents. If you damage the education of one generation, then you do damage down the line for many.
Religious is an odd one, as it created restrictions of opportunity that are voluntary. If people are happy with how their religion leaves them, then great. If they are not happy, then it’s a problem to be addressed.
For instance, if you looked at the number of STEM engineers coming from an Amish community, then you would probably see a bit of a disparity between them and the population as a whole. But, they are aware of that, they are aware of the opportunities that they pass up. They are even given an opportunity to leave the community. Those disparities can actually be chalked up to individual choice.
OTOH, if you look at some restrictive religions, where say women are not allowed to go to school, then that religion is certainly causing a negative effect on their opportunities.
If someone’s religion just forbids them from eating pancakes, then all they miss out on is pancakes.
Cultural is also something that I’m gonna have to disagree on. What “culture” do fellow US citizens, with just as long a history of being here, have after being enslaved, then segregated and discriminated against? They are americans, with american culture. However, what is not culture is the reaction that impoverished and oppressed people have to being impoverished and oppressed. If you do not value education, because you see that education does not help many of your peers, then you will not do as well. If you do not trust law enforcement, because you see that law enforcement does not help many of your peers, then you will not be as able to engage in society. This is not a cultural thing, this is a direct response to the actions that society has done to them.
Because if we start from “We don’t know”, then it is easy to go generations and generations and see the same things over and over, and still claim that “we don’t know”. People will still look at the person growing up in a household without proper nutrition, without any emphasis or assistance with education, without the same access to education, and without the same prospect in the event that, against those odds, one gets a proper education anyway, and say, “We still don’t know what is causing this discrepancy.” Well, that’s because that is willful ignorance. The evidence is available to anyone who does not wilfully ignore it.
How about, “We don’t know for sure what all the causes of the discrepancies are, but we seek to find out and work to eliminate those causes, even if it makes us a bit uncomfortable to realize the source of some of those discrepancies?”
I think that there is more than enough evidence out there to give us some pretty good indications as to at least some of the major causes of discrepancies, and it will take some convincing before I agree that a statistically significant number of people of a particular minority demographic just prefer a life of abject poverty.
At this point, anyone claiming that the reasons for the differences in poverty rates of different ethnic groups is unknowable just doesn’t want to know.
Poor parents tend to have children who grow up poor who tend to have children who grow up poor…
I don’t know what else could be meant by generational but a problem that persists through generations. What do you mean when you say generational?
We should probably not see substantially more impoverished women than men, or vice versa.
Your statement: “equality of outcome across the board” doesn’t mean anything other than presuming an absolute statement so that you can show some slight variation in the gender ratio of barbers in some country to prove that your argument against an argument I’ve not made is correct.
That’s not entirely true. If under 16, they can only consent to it if they are considered to be “Gillick competent”, but you seem to be really looking for examples to cherry pick from, to desperately try to find some statistical variance when the only factor is individual choice, when what I am talking about is the disparity in educational and employment opportunities for historically and contemporaneously marginalized groups of people. That you have to go so far as to reach across the pond to a particularly controversial medical procedure in a particular country to kinda sorta show that individual choice can end in a somewhat statistically “outcome”, is to pretty much acknowledge that such examples are pretty rare, and the factors and reasons for it are easily explained.
What you are talking about in this cherry picked example is children following the preferences of their parents. Personally, I feel that a parent that discourages getting a proper and highly recommended medical procedure is doing their child a disservice. But, if a parent says to their child, “Child, abject poverty is the way to go, and you should not choose differently.” then that is a parent that has been severely damaged by society, and should have quite a bit of assistance in raising their child to be a productive and engaged member of society.
I guess the question is, is whether we are willing to do anything to discover the reasons behind disparate outcomes, and work to reduce those, or if we, as beneficiaries of those disparate outcomes, ignore them at best, and also ignore that they are being perpetuated by those who choose not to ignore them, but prefer to increase them.
If the only people that note the color of one’s skin are racists, then the only different treatment that a minority will receive is negative.
You keep asking me that whilst at the same time giving lots of examples yourself.
I think it is clear from everything I’ve written that “I don’t know” would not merely be the end of the discussion.
Perfect. I couldn’t agree more.
If I were to use it at all then I’d use it in that way, which is why I don’t understand how gender-based discrimination isn’t “generational”.
I’ve not mentioned poverty at all.
I’m not dealing in abstract technicalities here. These are the realities. Given an absolute equality of opportunity we should not expect an equality of outcome. And to honest, you’ve already conceded that there are reasons why we might see inequality of outcomes that do not relate to inequality of opportunity.
Well that is only a moderate bar to clear. It assumes a level of understanding of treatment benefits and implications. My 13 year-old daughter only just recently had it and we weren’t asked to give to consent and didn’t know about it until afterwards. Quite right in my opinion.
well, I live in the UK and this story has been in the news this week. I didn’t have to stretch too far.
Vaccination?
I really didn’t have to look too far for any this. Not rare at all. The world is littered with similar examples where employment, education and medical inequality of outcome between groups is seen even when equality of opportunity is obvious.
Always useful to know the reasons, not always a good thing to reduce the disparity.
No one is advocating such things? Post #40, bolding mine:
From the Wikipedia page on Reparations for Slavery:
If you want to operate under an ad-hoc definition of what reparations means that’s up to you, but don’t call people disingenuous for arguing against its proper meaning.
I give examples of factors that should be accounted for and remedied, not factors to be dismissed and ignored.
But at this point in the discussion (not just ours here, but the discussion about racial relations going back well over a hundred years), to say that “we don’t know” is to say that that is the end of the discussion.
Cool. that’s all I’ve been saying, but we may have differing ideas on what seeking and eliminating those factors are.
Because both wealthy and poor parents have both boys and girls.
But poverty is what we are talking about. what statistical variation were you planning on spinning if I had acceded to answering your loaded question?
[quiot]
I’m not dealing in abstract technicalities here. These are the realities. Given an absolute equality of opportunity we should not expect an equality of outcome. And to honest, you’ve already conceded that there are reasons why we might see inequality of outcomes that do not relate to inequality of opportunity.
[/quote]
I have said that there are some obvious factors that we can see that may cause disparities, like if someone eschews STEM studies for instead Amish farming, that’s a choice that was made by the individual.
When you have two different groups, who are of the same culture and same nominal religion and who live only a mile from each other, and one of them continues to produce children who do not beak out of poverty, and the other produces children who maintain their middle class or better, then that does relate to inequality of opportunity, and I have yet to see you give me an example of any other factors that could be related to individual choice to explain it.
This is still something that is heavily influenced by parents, correct?
Well, unfortunately, yes, vaccination itself is becoming controversial due to idiots, but the HPV vaccine is controversial due to religion and prudishness.
Like? I mean, you used an example of a vaccine that some parents discourage their children from getting, and I say that, as far as an example of anything, that is a way that the failings of parents can be passed on to their children.
This does not go anything to address what I have been talking about, that people do not choose poverty.
Well of course not, especially if you are one of the one benefiting from that disparity. Would you feel any differently if you were one of the ones harmed by that disparity?
That noting the difficulties that one experiences due to the racism of others is not being punished, it is just being a empathetic human being. An altruistic one would even work towards eliminating those difficulties, which is something that is harder to do if you refuse to acknowledge the source of many of those difficulties, the different treatment they get at the hands of racists.
You are the one that is claiming that reparations attempt to “End discrimination by discriminating in favour of one group at the expense of all others on the basis of race”, that’s what I am calling disingenuous.
And some of those factors, to my mind at least, are not examples of a lack of opportunity. You think they are. I don’t think we are going to agree on that.
No, you are talking about poverty, I’m addressing your wider assertion that, in general, inequality of outcome must be a result of inequality of opportunity. I don’t agree with that. Now if you do start from that position then of course any factor that you think contributes to inequality of outcome has to be, by definition, contributing to an inequality of opportunity. That’s circular reasoning to me.
As for a loaded question? it is nothing of the sort. The gender discrepancy I was referring to was male v female primary school teachers. There is no barrier to men choosing such careers but I assume that you think fixing that discrepancy would be a good thing? perhaps open roles only to males to ensure a 50/50 split?
Or perhaps bricklayers and plumbers should ensure only female apprentices are taken on until we reach parity?
In UK football we see 33% of players are BAME, far above the actual ethnic breakdown of the UK, best to do something about the lack of opportunities there for white players yes?
The ultimate goal (for everything related to social justice policy) is a fair and equal society. I think reparations could be vital to achieving this goal, but they are by no means the only thing necessary.
I don’t believe reparations would necessarily be discriminatory towards anyone. A poorly designed reparations program could be, I suppose, but a well designed program wouldn’t need to be discriminatory at all.
Awarding reparations would severely inflame race relations in this country. Think about all the poor white conservatives whose jobs were exported to other nations and who feel disenfranchised and forgotten by the liberal left. How do you think they would feel if Black Americans, most of whom weren’t even alive before the Civil Rights movement, received reparations while they remain poor and forgotten?
It would be a rallying point that would be used by all the radical right groups to stir up anger and gain more members. I think it would be a real crisis.
And he specifies, rightly, that the brutality against African Americans AND Native Americans stands out separately from all other firms if discrimination that occurred in American history.
I think I understand your point but it sounds like you’re trying to say that white people would resent any attempts to level the playing field and that race relations would be better if black people continued to be the ones who remain poor and forgotten.
Genocide is a odd word to use. "Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part. "
Since it occured over 300 years, was mostly achieved with totally unplanned for germs before any serious settlement was done, and therer was simply no institutionalized systemic plan to wipe out all the natives (perhaps a tribe here or there, maybe) using that word to apply to the unfortunate series of events lessens the actual acts of genocide like the genocide of six million Jews in about a decade, thru a institutionalized systemic plan.
And if we did give the natives their land back, some 290 million of us would have to find new homes in say Europe. I dont think they would let 290 M Americans immigrate.
But yes, de- homing and a mass forced migration of 290 million Americans is exactly what “reparations” means, which is why they are stupid as all hell.