
Why Race Relations Got Worse: Our Conversations Are Increasingly Tribalistic - bkohlmann
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439431/race-relations-getting-worse-america-why?target=author&tid=997024
======
coldtea
Unless the underlying economic issues are tackled (basically blacks being hit
with a huge economic disadvantage for generations due to racism and issues
stemming from it (redlining, segregation, Jim Crow, poorly funded school
districts, etc.), race relations can't progress much further.

That's because they are also "class" relations, and US society sees it fit to
offend, deride and look down upon the poor. So when blacks are predominantly
poorer, the will be looked down.

People are less inclined to be racist to middle class/richer families (and the
inverse is the reason that most can be trivially discriminating and offensive
against poor white people "white trash", "trailer tress", the homeless, etc --
the poor, even white ones, are fair game for discrimination and abuse).

And this can't be trivialized to "it's 2016, slavery stopped in 1865, they had
all the chances to bounce back". Black people alive today, in their 60s, have
faced segregation. It's not some ancient history. Their parents faced Jim
Crow. They couldn't get job opportunities, study where they wanted, etc.

When parents are held down, their kids wont get the education their white
middle class peers afforded for theirs. And that will pass on to the next
generation, keeping them poorer. And there has been plenty of racism in hiring
decisions, redlining, etc since the 70s to assure this goes on. "Affirmative
action" compared to the damages done is a drop in the bucket.

~~~
internaut
That sounds right, but is it right?

If I understand your position correctly then there is no room for the
possibility that blacks (or the so called white trash) are getting in their
own way. You have to look upon that possibility as a hypothesis to test for.
Otherwise we might as well be treating minority group X like our pets instead
of being autonomous human beings.

There have existed a great many persecuted peoples in recent history, the
Irish, the Jews, the Chinese, the Roma. My race I know did much better abroad
than in our home country, evidently institutional constraints were real.

If you don't look at all the data you're going to open to the reasonable
accusation of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

In my view the question to ask is: Do there exist places on earth where this
minority X have better metrics (or subgroups within the population)? Here we
ignore genetics and environment questions entirely, we are simply searching
for evidence contrary to our (often considered disagreeable in our present
culture) hypothesis that the people X are the cause of their own suffering.

If not, then by induction we accumulate evidence in favour of the hypothesis.
If so, then there is something that can be changed to improve circumstances.

For what it is worth, it seems clear to me that whenever there exist new
frontiers, fresh cultural experiments can take hold and there can be new
beginnings, with America itself being an example of that.

Even were it all genetics I would still have some optimism because this is
something we can intelligently design around with our technologies, although
that line of reasoning is treated as being deeply suspect in our present
culture and time. I don't think that can last for much longer though, I and
many others see those moral qualms as preposterous as the protests of the
anti-vax people.

The last thing I'll say is more subjective, but I agree that class issues are
_the_ problem the US and Western countries face today. Had we superior
economic growth these could be papered over but we don't have the kind of
growth we need for that and so they shall have to be faced head on. Stephen
Pinker's book on violence reminds me of the futurists who predicted permanent
state of peace before world war 1, I think we're heading into some choppy
waters.

~~~
coldtea
> _If I understand your position correctly then there is no room for the
> possibility that blacks (or the so called white trash) are getting in their
> own way. You have to look upon that possibility as a hypothesis to test for.
> Otherwise we might as well be treating minority group X like our pets
> instead of being autonomous human beings._

I could acknowledge a subgroup of a larger group "causing their own harm".
E.g. white trash, or a subgroup of blacks.

On the other hand, I don't see how a group like blacks can in general, and for
its majority, "cause its own harm", in a different amount than another group.

Unless there is evidence of genetic differences to cause discrepancies, I
would expect both blacks and whites to have similar percentages of people that
"cause their own harm" all other things being equal.

Which is not what we see.

But of course, all other things are not equal either. One group was extracted
forcefully from their native culture and country and forced to work as slaves
for centuries, the other was not. One group faced persistent persecution and
specific laws against it until late in the 20th century, the other did not.

~~~
internaut
> On the other hand, I don't see how a group like blacks can in general, and
> for its majority, "cause its own harm", in a different amount than another
> group.

Alright, I see that to be in error.

Suppose we were talking about sex differences. Feminists frequently point out
that men are murderous. They commit almost all murders. Usually of other men.
Clearly this is a subgroup in the general population that causes
disproportionate problems in an area that another group i.e. women, do not.

I'm not a feminist but I've no trouble or dispute with the notion that men are
more violently dangerous than women. We are. It is a fact.

This of course is not an argument to discriminate against all men. Evidently
there are different sorts of discrimination. Some wise, some sexist.

> Unless there is evidence of genetic differences to cause discrepancies, I
> would expect both blacks and whites to have similar percentages of people
> that "cause their own harm" all other things being equal.

That is exactly what conservatives, reactionaries and others do say. They say
there is evidence of genetic differences which lead to different outcomes.

This is not a black/white thing by the way, that is just an American-centric
example. We could easily talk about Europeans and Japanese people too,
Europeans are significantly more likely to be violent than Japanese people.

Of course average rates of violence is not the only criteria on which people
should be judged. There are other things humans do besides that!

> But of course, all other things are not equal either.

Right, exactly.

> One group was extracted forcefully from their native culture and country and
> forced to work as slaves for centuries, the other was not. One group faced
> persistent persecution and specific laws against it until late in the 20th
> century, the other did not.

That is true, and yet if I remember correctly poor whites in Appalachia have
fewer years of education and lower incomes than poor (predominately urban)
blacks.

This is incidentally why I believe class issues are more problematic for
America in the future than race. Race has and is been used as a proxy for
class and this is failing to make sense of the world as it is.

To put it like this: I see America a big place where a lot of people got
jumbled up together in a haphazard fashion. Then over time, and especially in
the last century assorted mating has resulted in concentrations of similar
people.

Birds of a feather flock together.

It is funny because in Europe the opposite is kind of happening. At least
these are my impressions for whatever they are worth.

It does though give a policy prescription for poor people. They could be
distributed randomly by family over a wide geographical area.

At least that is one view, I had better stop now before I get called Stalin or
Hitler. ;-)

~~~
coldtea
Let's lay it out more clearly.

Let (a) => a group can have a much larger subgroup of its members be something
X compared to other groups (e.g. more black criminals than whites, more
violent Europeans than Japanese, etc.).

Let (b) => an X subgroup is X because of itself ("caused its own harm").

So, I'm not saying (a) or (a)+(b) can't happen.

What I'm saying is that for (b) to hold, the group should have either a
genetic reason to be so, or a cultural one, and the cultural one must also be
of their own choosing (e.g. not imposed upon them by external
pressure/circumstances).

What I'm also saying is I don't see (b) holding for blacks.

I haven't seen evidence (aside from far-right/racist writings) that they have
genetic reasons to be more criminal, etc.

And I haven't seen much in their criminality / culture that can't be explained
by their status as ex-slaves/racism targets/subjects of racist
legislation/practices, etc.

In other words, I think that for (b) to hold, you have to be in control of
your destiny/world in a way that slaves by definition are not, and ex-
slaves/second-rate citizens arguably are not.

~~~
internaut
> Let (a) => a group can have a much larger subgroup of its members be
> something X compared to other groups (e.g. more black criminals than whites,
> more violent Europeans than Japanese, etc.).

Sure.

> Let (b) => an X subgroup is X because of itself ("caused its own harm").

It is a tautology.

> What I'm saying is that for (b) to hold, the group should have either a
> genetic reason to be so, or a cultural one

Hmmmmm. We agree that there exists a reason for everything. Any subgroup (even
My Little Pony advocacy groups) exists for a reason.

Whether in the case of violence and/or criminality it is genetic or
environmental is one I'm not going to address here because I think it is too
complicated to answer convincingly in one way or another and I think we would
be fools to be totally confident an answer without years of study.

> and the cultural one must also be of their own choosing (e.g. not imposed
> upon them by external pressure/circumstances).

Violence can be opportunistic because you're a war-like tribe and have spotted
a weakness in another tribe. Consider the Mongols attacking Europeans or the
Zulu wiping out the Bush people.

Do you consider that an external circumstance or a cultural choice?

Seems like it could be both simultaneously.

> What I'm also saying is I don't see (b) holding for blacks.

Wait, I thought we were talking about subgroups in a subset? Which is it? The
group or the subgroup?

> And I haven't seen much in their criminality / culture that can't be
> explained by their status as ex-slaves/racism targets/subjects of racist
> legislation/practices, etc.

Ok. Well I don't live in the United States, but I can tell you that the same
subgroup exists in places that never had a history of slavery e.g. Ireland. We
have people directly from Africa who live here, and that same subgroup exists
here, freshly minted as it were. That is inside of twenty years. Racism is
quite unusual here, and you certainly couldn't claim 'structural racism'.

I don't claim to know if it is genetic or cultural, but I am not buying the
historical slavery/oppression argument. Groups of people are just not that
sensitive to trauma over generations or we (the Irish famine) would have never
have survived. What happened to the Jews was just as bleak and yet they have
rebounded in living memory.

That's not to say it does not matter. Just that I am not accepting that line
of argument. The Irish and Jews are not notably more violent and criminal than
they were pre-genocide, and they were also oppressed for centuries.

Now if some analog of the IRA or Mossad's assassination squads existed, then a
historical oppression argument would tally up better. The recent sniper
shootings for example, seem to fit into that category better.

~~~
coldtea
>> Let (b) => an X subgroup is X because of itself ("caused its own harm").

>It is a tautology.

Yeah, I meant:

"a subgroup of group G is X because of itself ("caused its own harm")"

Or:

"a subgroup is (a bad thing) X because of itself ("caused its own harm")"

> _Violence can be opportunistic because you 're a war-like tribe and have
> spotted a weakness in another tribe. Consider the Mongols attacking
> Europeans or the Zulu wiping out the Bush people. Do you consider that an
> external circumstance or a cultural choice?_

A cultural choice.

> _Ok. Well I don 't live in the United States, but I can tell you that the
> same subgroup exists in places that never had a history of slavery e.g.
> Ireland. We have people directly from Africa who live here, and that same
> subgroup exists here, freshly minted as it were._

Those "fresh from Africa" weren't slaves in the US, but do come from the same
legacy of several centuries of colonialism in Africa itself.

Heck, even their countries' borders where drawn on the map by white men to
divide their plundering. Usually with a "divide and conquer" approach, to mix
hostile or unrelated local groups/tribes in the same borders and control
things playing each other against them. And the meddling, support of friendly
lackeys in power, and "divide and conquer" has never stopped since (e.g. for
one example few heard/care:
[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/inside-
france...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/inside-frances-
secret-war-396062.html) ).

> _That 's not to say it does not matter. Just that I am not accepting that
> line of argument. The Irish and Jews are not notably more violent and
> criminal than they were pre-genocide, and they were also oppressed for
> centuries._

Well, the Jews did establish a quite oppressive and one of the most war-ready
and vigilant nation states to protect their identity post-WWII. And a lot of
their culture was informed by the persecutions over the centuries.

That said, those persecutions were of a different nature than being held 2-3
centuries as slaves. And their being white, they could always mix far easier
into society and climb socially, which they were fully allowed post-WWII.
Britain had a Jewish PM back in 1874 -- for them to have a black PM back then
would be unheard of and not just protested but derided.

Merely "group a was persecuted too, but is not X like group b" doesn't say
much. The specifics of the persecution, and the relative historical accounts
of both groups needs to be taken into account.

At some point or another, everyone has been persecuted (e.g. even whites
living Europe because of religious persecution) but not all persecution is the
same, and not all has hold for the same period, and not all took the same
form.

~~~
internaut
> At some point or another, everyone has been persecuted (e.g. even whites
> living Europe because of religious persecution) but not all persecution is
> the same, and not all has hold for the same period, and not all took the
> same form.

I acknowledge that may very well be so, although now we are in the realm of
some subjectivity.

The only thing I've left to say is that with some imagination and creativity
e.g. genetic manipulation, changes to legal codes, the development of new
frontiers, it may be possible to improve the circumstances of all including
the marginalized. A lot of legacy problems just drain away when you have
economic growth and a clear vision of a better future. Absent that, old wounds
tend to materialize to be the scapegoat for further conflict. It's not great,
but it is human.

One observation I've made recently is that when people have a common
overriding identity e.g. geeks in a hackerspace, other potential sources of
conflict such as identifying as transvestite while others may identify as
christian tend to fade away. That is the essence of tribalism and I'm
convinced it has a lot to do with the future and the Net.

In one related example; consider 'African-Americans' stopping identification
with Africa and instead black but America first i.e. a black American, not an
African American. That in of itself would help enormously but not without some
controversy.

A second but negative example is the Europeans and the recent migration issue.
All manner of Europeans are feeling more 'European' purely by virtue of the
other being not plus a potential common enemy in their midst. Ironic but true.

------
acjohnson55
Only halfway done, but a good article so far. This coming from someone who is
biased to skepticism toward the National Review.

> Alone among the countries in the world, it has attempted to construct not
> just a state of different tribes, but a nation of them — white and black,
> Christian and Muslim, and many others, too.

This perception of exceptionalism is amusing to me, since I'm currently
sitting in South Africa.

Update: Just finished the article, and I remained impressed. Unfortunately for
the author, he's probably going to have to switch parties to find an audience
for his ideas. It's really, really tough to imagine the GOP being able to
rebuild the bridges it has burned with minorities in the Obama era.

We're headed for a huge realignment in American politics. The GOP elite who
have stuck with Trump have sealed their own fates. The Democratic elite are
already courting them. But neither are doing much to appeal effectively to the
poor, white or black.

It remains to be seen whether we'll see a movement that captures both, as well
as grabbing some of the intelligentsia. The Sanders campaign came close, but
what's needed is something on the order of a political party.

~~~
Senji
>But neither are doing much to appeal effectively to the poor, white or black.

Trump has not stopped talking about economic protectionism and the blue collar
workers, job creation etc. If that's not appealing to the poor I don't know
what you want.

~~~
acjohnson55
That's true. I phrased my point poorly. He's certainly appealing to a sense of
frustration. But he's not providing actual viable solutions. Of course, mere
pandering is more than the party elites are doing. They've been counting on
success repackaging the same tired ideological lines that no one really cares
about when they're actually losing their clout.

