One cannot, mathematically, turn two things that are equal into two unequal things without those two things being acted upon differently in degree and or kind, over time. No matter what people say emotionally, logically and mathematically, you cannot turn equality into inequality and have it not be explained by one entity being treated differently than another entity.
People dance around it, but the race debate, in particular the white/black race debate, is rooted in this binary option. Are blacks and whites equal in their innate capacity to produce socioeconomic and behavioral success or are they inherently unequal? We know the statistics on poverty, unemployment, crime, test scores, etc. We know that black's perform below white's in these socioeconomic metrics. Is the root of the performance/outcome gaps the result of being inherently unequal or is it the resultant of being acted upon differently by society over several centuries?
Logically, one cannot believe that blacks and whites are inherently equal in their capacity to produce socioeconomic success and not explain the current socioeconomic gaps between the two races as being the result of unequal treatment. Let me repeat. The only way to produces an inequality from two things that were equal is if, and only if, the two things are acted upon differently in degree or kind. Let that resonate in your mind. Think of examples of how two equal things can become unequal without being acted upon differently. Granted, we cannot always see or measure everything that is having an impact, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
When people dismiss the āblack experienceā (The things that happened to blacks in America in degree or kind different from others) as an āexcuseā or an old played out reason, they are essentially arguing that external forces is not responsible for creating nor conserving the socioeconomic racial inequalities. When people mention the Jews, the Irish, the Chinese or other oppressed groupsā¦.again, they are arguing that the root of the inequalities is not external. They are saying that others had the SAME (was it really) experience, but with better outcomes. Again, it is an argument to debunk external causes for the inequalities. Itās saying that the premise of blacks and whites being inherently equal in the capacity for socioeconomic success is a fallacy and that the history of racial discrimination against blacks is simply a smoke screen or deflection.
Some people will say that itās not either or, but rather, a combination of both. In other words, itās a combination of internal and external things with blacks. However, how can the socioeconomic GAPS between blacks and white be explained by a combination of internal and external factors? Well, if one said that half the gap is the result legacy of racismā¦.but the other part of the gap is rooted in the nature of blacksā¦.that is still an argument that blacks are inherently unequal in capacities to produce socioeconomic success on par with whites. Itās saying that even without the history of racial discrimination against blacksā¦ā¦black outcomes would still be unequal (below) the performance of whites statistically.
In conclusion, the racial debate is essentially an argument of racial supremacy and inferiority and which race is which. That is the ROOT of every participantās argument. However, the primary usage of the term āRacismā is essentially just that. It is the belief that race plays a major role in explaining outcomes, which implicitly is to reject other external factors such as being acted upon differently in degree or kind by external forces, as explanations. This is what racism isā¦ā¦itās the idea that some races are superior to other races. Few people debate using those terms, by they argue it implicitly by rejecting every argument that does not suggest that blacks are inherently inferior.
People dance around it, but the race debate, in particular the white/black race debate, is rooted in this binary option. Are blacks and whites equal in their innate capacity to produce socioeconomic and behavioral success or are they inherently unequal? We know the statistics on poverty, unemployment, crime, test scores, etc. We know that black's perform below white's in these socioeconomic metrics. Is the root of the performance/outcome gaps the result of being inherently unequal or is it the resultant of being acted upon differently by society over several centuries?
Logically, one cannot believe that blacks and whites are inherently equal in their capacity to produce socioeconomic success and not explain the current socioeconomic gaps between the two races as being the result of unequal treatment. Let me repeat. The only way to produces an inequality from two things that were equal is if, and only if, the two things are acted upon differently in degree or kind. Let that resonate in your mind. Think of examples of how two equal things can become unequal without being acted upon differently. Granted, we cannot always see or measure everything that is having an impact, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
When people dismiss the āblack experienceā (The things that happened to blacks in America in degree or kind different from others) as an āexcuseā or an old played out reason, they are essentially arguing that external forces is not responsible for creating nor conserving the socioeconomic racial inequalities. When people mention the Jews, the Irish, the Chinese or other oppressed groupsā¦.again, they are arguing that the root of the inequalities is not external. They are saying that others had the SAME (was it really) experience, but with better outcomes. Again, it is an argument to debunk external causes for the inequalities. Itās saying that the premise of blacks and whites being inherently equal in the capacity for socioeconomic success is a fallacy and that the history of racial discrimination against blacks is simply a smoke screen or deflection.
Some people will say that itās not either or, but rather, a combination of both. In other words, itās a combination of internal and external things with blacks. However, how can the socioeconomic GAPS between blacks and white be explained by a combination of internal and external factors? Well, if one said that half the gap is the result legacy of racismā¦.but the other part of the gap is rooted in the nature of blacksā¦.that is still an argument that blacks are inherently unequal in capacities to produce socioeconomic success on par with whites. Itās saying that even without the history of racial discrimination against blacksā¦ā¦black outcomes would still be unequal (below) the performance of whites statistically.
In conclusion, the racial debate is essentially an argument of racial supremacy and inferiority and which race is which. That is the ROOT of every participantās argument. However, the primary usage of the term āRacismā is essentially just that. It is the belief that race plays a major role in explaining outcomes, which implicitly is to reject other external factors such as being acted upon differently in degree or kind by external forces, as explanations. This is what racism isā¦ā¦itās the idea that some races are superior to other races. Few people debate using those terms, by they argue it implicitly by rejecting every argument that does not suggest that blacks are inherently inferior.
Last edited:
