When bigotry ends

This assumes that the difference in poverty and incarceration rates between blacks and whites is driven by racism.

I would refine that to say that, when poverty rates and incarceration rates are at rough parity for whites and blacks from similar backgrounds, we might be getting closer. That is, if a white from a single teenage mother is no more or less likely to be poor or in prison than a black person, we can start to say that racism is mostly solved.

It’s like the “women earn 77 cents when men earn a dollar” meme. The difference exists, but it is not driven for the most part by sexism, and entirely eliminating sexism isn’t going to bring women’s earnings into parity with men.

Regards,
Shodan

Unless you have a different suggestion, the alternative explanation is that the higher rates for poverty and incarceration are inherent to black people - that they have an inherent propensity to be unemployed and to commit crimes. This theory itself seems racist to me.

I’m willing, however, to accept it as a hypothesis but in my opinion it’s the least likely explanation for the evidence. Racism exists; we have all seen examples of it even if we argue about how much of it there has been. But nobody has found a poverty gene or a crime gene. So I think we should go with racism as an explanation rather than genes.

I will never allow my daughter to marry a Hawaiian beach boy. That’s just how it is.

Yes, we are definitely tribal. If you look at the names that various groups give themselves, the names usually mean “the people” or “the chosen ones” or something like that. We have examples from ancient times, as well – Jews and Gentiles; Greeks and barbarians, etc.

If you are saying the only two possible explanations for disparate poverty and incarceration rates are 1) racism or 2) genetics, I can’t see why that would be true. What makes you think that those are the only two possibilities?

Regards,
Shodan

Bigotries have ceased when groups have assimilated into the majority culture and have largely ceased being identifiable subgroups. I’m not aware of any groups that have maintained distinct identities that have ceased being subject to bigotry.

IMO the modern tendency to celebrate ethnic and cultural differences and group identities is likely to maintain bigotry at current levels indefinitely.

We cringe. What is **Shodan **going to reveal to us, what breathtaking insight is he just about to reveal? We are tormented by a coquettish reluctance, he has The Shit, right at his very fingertips. Any moment now, the lightning bolt of brilliance will strike!

Astonish us! Or must we beg?

Ah! Its our fault. Should have known.

I guess you’re much happier to have it be someone else’s fault. Unsurprising.

If only the slaves (or black Southerners during Jim Crow) had assimilated! What were you thinking, slaves? You just needed to stop celebrating your ethnic and cultural differences! :slight_smile:

Yes, I’m snarking (why? because I love.).

A more serious response: I think groups maintain group identity and ‘celebrate’ ethnic and cultural differences, in general, to survive and thrive in the face of brutality, discrimination, and oppression. I think the brutality comes first, forcing the brutalized group to unite and support each other (which requires group identity and celebrating differences), and when such brutality (and its brothers oppression and discrimination) stops, the group identity and celebration of differences gradually fades away, to background-level celebrations like those of Irish and Italian Americans today.

And what exactly would the “majority culture” be in a country like the USA?

I’m not sure I understand the question. I don’t know that majority culture is something that can be described “exactly”.

But the general point is that the more distinctive and separate a given subculture is, the more bigotry they’ll encounter (all else being equal). For this reason, the OP’s comparison of current bigotry to historical examples which have faded with time is not a valid comparison. At this time there’s more of an emphasis on maintaining a distinct ethnic and cultural identity and emphasizing differences between subgroups than there was at the time those other groups assimilated.

I assume he’s saying that another possible explanation is that it’s due to economic or historical factors. For instance, if most Vietnamese-Americans came here as extremely poor boat people immigrants a generation ago, but they faced zero racism, you’d still expect them to be poorer than average.

Seriously, dude? You claim that bigotry would cease to be if minorities would just assimilate to the majority culture and you can’t even describe what that is? Ok then.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of “culture” or just “majority culture”? If the former, then I can’t help you, you need to read up on it. But if you have “culture” down pat, then I can tell you that “majority culture” is the culture of the majority.

There.

Well considering I’m far from a member of the “majority culture,” it would be nice to have an idea of what you think it is.

It’s completely irrelevant to this discussion. As long as it exists then my point holds.

Dude you’re the one who brought up assimilating to the majority culture as way to end bigotry. This is a thread about ending bigotry, is it not? Then what does majority culture mean? That’s all I’m asking.

As above, the general concept of majority culture doesn’t need further explanation, and the specifics of what constitutes the majority culture at this time (if this is what you’re asking) are irrelevant to the discussion.

I have nothing further to add.

Certainly settles that!