[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
if you follow the logic of your argument, that it is a black decision rather then outside influence, black's economically infererior position can only be explained by racial pathology.

[/ QUOTE ]

"False dichotomy", a common logical fallacy. In this instance, it is a hidden assumption which gives rise to the false dichotomy.

Your conclusion is not ineluctable, and here's why: because your logical chain is predicated on the unspoken assumption that various groups will produce the same results if outside conditions are the same. But that is not true in the real world: different groups sometimes produce widely varying results even given the same conditions (especially so with groups of humans).

It's similar to the fallacious thinking used by some claiming Wal-Mart discriminates against women: Wal-Mart, on average, does not pay women as much as men; hence Wal-Mart must be discriminating against women. But that erroneously relies on the unspoken assumption that in the absence of discrimination, pay results would be the same. That assumption is fallacious--and in the case of female employees, there are in fact real-world reasons that have nothing to do with discrimination as to why women earn less (a few reasons are: maternity leave, time spent out of the work force raising kids, fewer years in the same career job or with one company, and the fact that men are on average more competitive and tend to work longer hours). Now, maybe Wal-Mart discriminates against women anyway, and maybe the lawsuit has other merits. But disparate pay rates between employees of different sexes at Wal-Mart is not prima facie evidence of discrimination, and it's a fallacy to think it is.

It simply isn't true that all groups, even very similar groups, will ultimately produce the same results given the same outside conditions. There are just too many variables involved, especially when humans are concerned--and one thing leads to another, and pretty soon you have individuals and even groups going down quite a number of different paths. Furthermore, as Robert Frost wrote, "way leads on to way."

So the fact that American black culture has taken certain twists and turns can be in part explained by historical oppression, in part by other cultural heritage, and in part simply by random variables, and one thing leading to another. In addition, the cultural impact of just ONE PERSON can sometimes outweigh the cultural impact of thousands of persons. The "human variable" is enormous indeed. The same may be said for certain key ideas.

Therefore, the fact that significant elements of black culture have in recent years embraced some very negative and destructive patterns, cannot be attributed only to "EITHER historical oppression OR racial predilection". There are simply too many variables involved, and throw in a little chaos theory as well, and the vast creative diversity of humans, and the fact that some cultural phenomena may tend to snowball or "fad", and it can be seen that the cultural potpourri, and currect trends, are far too complex to lay entirely at the feet of either "historical oppression or racial predilection.

On another track, an example which occurs to me: Gangsta rap became a huge fad, and advocates much violence and negativity. Perhaps chaos theory partially contributed to the initial "catch-on" phase of gangsta rap (I don't know the history of gangsta rap; just offering a hypothetical). It would not be surprising if the popularity of gangsta rap to some degree helps perpetuate those negative cycles previously mentioned, would it? This might be an example of a cultural phenomena snowballing and producing consequences well beyond the impact of that which started it in the first place.