Some interesting points in this thread that gave me pause for thought.
That said, I am still in denial that it can all boil down to something so simple as a genetically processed adaptation to physical surroundings.
So simple? I counter with so complex and and all-encompassing. The power of our genes in forming our social world and even our outlook is pretty significant. I'd never dismiss that influence as being something simple.
Maybe I'm not understanding you.
I believe you did. While ones race is genetically distinguishable, racial groups are
not, in fact, biologically different in significant ways. The level of melanin in ones skin cells has about as much relevance upon cultural behavior as their blood type being type A, B, or O.
While I can agree that the genetic/chemical makeup of an
individual is significant to that particular individual's behavior, I do not agree that the level of melanin has significant impact upon an individual's genetic/chemical make up. Ergo, the level of melanin in ones skin has no significant impact.
As a reasonable intellectual I can vote with a desire for equality, I believe it is right, and therefore I could argue that giving an advantage to minorities levels the playing field. (If only it had worked that way.)
Which equality are you speaking of, of opportunity or of outcome? Creating a society of equal opportunity doesn't solve any problems for those on the losing end are still just as bitter as if they were denied opportunity and perhaps even more bitter because if opportunity is denied they can find psychological refuge in the believe that they would be on top of the world but for denied opportunity but when that pretty little lie is blown to smithereens, how to explain failure? The bitterness at the unjustness of unequal outcomes is still present and perhaps elevated.
I was speaking specifically on the
political advantage of forwarding a 'race card' agenda - because it appeals to a larger majority of people, rather than
only the minority.
That said, if, by your argument, offering equal opportunity creates
further bitterness because of a perceived failure of equal opportunity, then it would support my overall argument that such racial bitterness is a learned behavior and not based upon any genetic/chemical hallmark that determines ones race.
I would further argue that failure to succeed on any level is NOT reserved only for minorities, there are millions of white American's who have 'failed to succeed' the difference is that these white failures, in the past and in general, are not taught that it is because of the color of their skin, but rather they are taught that they need to try harder. This does not seem to be the case on the other side of the color spectrum, they are in fact, taught the opposite.
That said, the temperance of the condition of natural 'misbehavior' has always been one's social culture.
Social culture is not some independent variable draped over people. It is the product of groups of people and at the foundation of social culture is biology, so to the extent that biology differs so too will social culture.
I disagree that it is a biological difference - see my first point.
Race has only a minor part in the overreaching modern culture of America, it is only the ostensible use of the race card in American history that lends credence to an argument that race is the basis of minority 'failure.'
Race in not only a minor part of American culture, it is the dominant factor shaping American culture. It's effects reach far and wide even when there is no apparent racial contribution. For instance, the drive to higher education and the resultant credentialism in the employment market has its roots in Civil Rights litigation - employment exams resulted in too many blacks failing and so the Supreme Court made them illegal. Employers need a way to judge the intellect of applicants and college degrees became a proxy measure. Employers are NOT using the skills an employee learned in a Woman's Studies class or in a History of the Civil War class. People are wasting years of their lives and spending house downpayments in order to earn a credential when a simple 90 minute employment exam would actually better predict job performance. All of this is unnecessary but has arisen due to racial politics in American society.
If America had followed a different path with regards to slavery, repatriation of slaves and multiculturalism, it would be vastly different than what we see today.
You've taken my encompassing argument and used to it apply to a specific issue.
Ultimately, though it appears you agree with me, "...it is
only the ostensible [aka plausible] use of the race card in American
history that lends credence [belief] to an argument that race is the basis of minority 'failure' [in MODERN America]" ~ Ergo, my over all opinion that there is little coherent tribal argument in modern America for racism,
except that which has been forwarded on political advantage and has been thusly
taught to modern American's.
To address your specific points; yes, I also believe that if America had followed a different path, things would be different. However a discussion in depth of where we went wrong, is nothing more than a long-winded side track to my opinion on the OP's question ~ that I believe racism is a taught culture rather than "human nature" as the OP and others have argued.
Presently, when I review a resume I cannot know the color of the prospective employee, I can only go by what is writ in their resume. To proclaim that I am a racist because I chose an employee "based upon their color" is therefore a lie. Arguing that it was the color of the skin that influenced my hiring decision is utter bullshit and merely a facetious use of the 'race card' steeped in history ~ to even remotely make that connection I would have to have knowledge of the skin color which implies that I in fact accepted the potential hire's resume as a "qualified" candidate and then determined in interview that because they were black I chose someone else. This is a bias falsity forwarded by political agenda, not actual reality.
Actual reality says that a business will, in fact, hire the most qualified person for their particular opening, period. To forward that argument, if your black potential hire comes into an interview with an apparent chip on their shoulder toward whites, then they are not likely to get hired because they are less likely to integrate with their co-workers. That is to say, despite the fact that their resume showed them to be "qualified" for the position, their personality precluded their hire. It is not, however, exclusively a racism issue, a case in point:
I have personally been passed up for a position because they felt my confidence and intelligence would be perceived as arrogance by co-workers and cause conflict. Now, I 'could' claim that the underlying reason I was not hired was due to a bias against intelligence OR I can accept that I was not hired because the employer felt I was not a good fit for the position. My particular upbringing leans toward the latter. In the case of the black potential hire, their upbringing oft ignores other plausible issues, and proclaims it must be racism.