I have no idea how any of this, or your complaint about Sessions’ comment, connects to the thread topic.
Is the thread not about throwing non-Anglos under the bus?
Does this not relate to the systemic reduction in rights to “non-whites” in the country that were established post Bacon’s rebellion?
Why shouldn’t it be considered a dog whistle directly aimed at some of the major campaign themes provided by the Trump administration?
How about the convictions that directly relate to systemic bias that were handed down today related to Law Enforcement?
This too. Perhaps someone else will be along that can make heads or tails of your post and give you a useful response, but I’m not that person.
Oh, are you unaware that “white” as a legal concept didn’t exist previous to Bacon’s rebellion?
Or about just in the past few months where the POTUS made comments about how Haitian immigrants “all have AIDS” and Nigerians would never “go back to their huts.”
Are you unaware that accusations of racism have peppered Sessions’s career?
Is it that hard to see that a attorney general candidate is an important role?
What if Black individuals were more likely to be stopped, charged and convinced of crimes due to their skin color.
What if it is true that this happens despite no evidence that they are actually more likely to be breaking laws when income is accounted for?
Would you admit that there is systemic racism and an inequitable application of the law based on a non-biologically meaningful categorization like race?
Because that is what the data actually shows.
I’d be interested in seeing your data on this point (although I think you’re missing some important links in your analysis). Anyways, cite?
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/frisk7.pdf
Your turn, can you provide a cite?
Edited to add another cite, which is easier to read showing higher contraband rates for “white” stops.
I can keep going here…but can you do more than hand wave it away?
As there is no biologically meaningful difference in the arbitrary socially constructed racial definitions we use, please provide any cite to explain these differences, or try to prove that there is a biological difference if you want to go down that rat hole.
You’re going to have a to be a bit more specific that that. What do you want a cite for?
None of these appear related to the point I asked for a cite about, which was this: “no evidence that they are actually more likely to be breaking laws when income is accounted for”
Of course there are biological differences. Things like life expectancy, average height and weight, rates of diseases, all vary between races. That isn’t intended as a claim that one race is superior to another, just an acknowledgement that there are real differences, ones we can measure via statistics, among our various self-identified racial groups.
You didn’t read the cites, or you didn’t read them objectively.
Here is another link to show the bias in policing.
http://www.princeton.edu/~fmg/JMP
I figured you would hand wave away this data, but note above post’s quote, with more selective bolding to see if you can see it better.
That directly contradicts your attempted strawman.
Provide a cite that shows those differences like life expectancy, average height and weight are due to DNA, and not due to social pressures or social implications of social realities like …white privilege…
You are begging the question here, there is MORE DIVERSITY in sub-Saharan Africa than the entity of the remainder of the world, and there is more genetic diversity within these arbitrary groups than there is between them.
You are making a claim that the eugenics era concepts of race are biologically significant, provide a cite.
Here is mine:
Your entire argument is begging the question, and there is no biologically significant differences with pre-germ era, eugenics groupings of Negroid, Caucasoid or Mongoloid like you claim, provide a cite if you are making such an unsubstantiated claim.
You completely missed my question. Earlier, you said this:
I’d actually, genuinely, like to review whatever study you have that talks to this specific point. I imagine it’s probably titled something along the lines of “an examination of rates of criminality among races which accounts for income disparity” or something like that. Do you have something along those lines? I don’t care to read a bunch of generic studies about police bias, and I didn’t attempt a strawman of anything AFAIK, but I would actually like to read scientific literature that studied the rates of criminality among population subgroups that accounted for income levels. Do you have it?
I think that I’ve already stated my position plainly enough. I believe there are some places in the country where the court systems treats black suspects worse than white suspects. I do not see any reason to make up the term “white privilege”, much less to drive the hysterical obsession that some folks have with using that term in every other sentence. I’ve already stated why. Andrew Sullivan also has a good essay touching this and similar topics that represents my opinion.
There are races other than blacks and whites, though the blog post that you linked to doesn’t mention them. So to determine whether better treatment of drug crime suspects is exclusive to being white, one would need to investigate how Asian, Latino, Native American, multi-racial, and other groups are treated by the same court system. Absent any data on that, we have no way of knowing whether certain types of treatment are exclusive to whites.
Further, the definitions of “white” and “black” are arbitrary, as is being discussed in another GD thread right now. The official definition says that descendants of original inhabitants of the Middle East and North Africa are white. Obviously some or all of those people could just as easily be classified as members of other races. So if the official definition changes at some point, would those of Middle Eastern or North African descent spontaneously become unprivileged?
Some people don’t even know what their ancestry is. Are we supposed to believe that such people simply can’t know whether they’re privileged or not? And what about my cousin Daniel, who is both white and Hispanic? Is he privileged or unprivileged? Is everything easier for him, or harder?
And then what about people who grew up thinking that they were white, but then took a DNA test and found out that they are actually black? Does everything suddenly become hard for them at the moment that they get the DNA results, or is their past re-written so that everything from birth is retroactively made harder?
I never made the claim that the differences were “due to DNA”. You seem to be imagining me making a lot of arguments that I’m not making. Please try to stick to the words I type.
Read the cites I already provided, they provide the statistical models that they used to correct for this.
Still you need to come back with ANY evidence that the eugenics era racial categories are biologically valid groupings outside of the social construct of race.
Until you can do so I will assume that you are hand waving away that reality.
There is no biological basis for the common race groupings, they are arbitrary outside of accounting for the self created realities of the social construct (which are very real but not based on biology)
OK, if they are not based on DNA, they are based on sociological impacts like unequal opportunity, so do you concede that different outcomes based on privilege and not on inherited traits?
Heritage is not Ancestry, and we are all African at some point, your entire point there is invalid.
Privilege is not a simple True or False, is is multifaceted and how do we address if if we ignore that it exists like your post seems to suggest.
You seem to still think I’m making an argument about genetics. I’m not. Do you understand that? When I say that the average life expectancy for whites is 79 and for blacks it’s 75.5 (cite), I’m making no claim about the reason for that disparity, I’m just noting a fact.