Xpost of Sklansky Thread From Philosophy Forum

What are people's assessments, in context of BluffThis's argument, of West Africa (Mali, Ghana, etc) during the 1000ish-1300ish AD? I believe its lauded as one of the most advanced and powerful civilizations of the time, and certainly composed almost entirely of blacks. There was, of course, a dominant arab/muslim(?) culture present that had made its way across the desert from its origins.

[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.

[Jdanz]

i respect the argument but in this case i disagree (or possibly i don't disagree, but there might not be any reason to be talking about the issue then.

First of all we're working with terms like race that are inherently fuzzy. I sincrely doubt anyone can adquetley define what being black is. Secondly the issue was frames in terms of taking responsiblity, which to me implies choice, choice is an active element that isn't chaos.

The orignal poster certainly doesn't view "the rap fad" as chaotic, he views it as an irresponsible choice (i tend to disagree, but that's neither here nor there). The OP is simply not concerned with chaos theory.

I personally don't see these macro effects as the result of chaos, but of way leading to a way in a logical manner. However, i believe these causal linkages are so confusing and complex as to be to a large degree unintelligable, certainly as they're acting, maybe for all time. This while importantly different is largely indistinguishable from chaos.

The problem with accepting this view, is then there is no discussion. If social change is based in chaos then there's simply no reason to disucss it, as chaos plays such an unknowable but significant role that any active policies effects would be almost completely unpredictable.

Yet history has shown that it is in fact predictable. For instance American history tells us that in two or three generations an immigrant group is basically assimilated. If we're going to talk about blacks in comparison to them, then they immigraten en mass at the VERY EARLIEST in 1965, and imagine were not treated equitably at that point (and are still not treated equitably now). However this is/has been true for many other groups and i have great faith that it will be true for the black race as well, given a long enough period of ability to coexist without active and systematic discrimination.

The reason i say this is because if you look thoughout history this is invariably true, no race has shown any prediliction towards greatness above any other. The "Great" civilizations have occured spontaneously all throughout time from a variety of races, hence i have to reason to think race is not the causal issue of black under achievement. However there is a very compelling (though certainly not provable) explination in as much as it's only been 40 years since we legislated inequality.

People act as if slavery was over in 1860 and then everything was cool, why hasn't the black buisness community established itself like the white? well try being a black person and getting a loan up until almost yesterday. I'm not trying to say there isn't a difference between blacks and whites in America, but i have every reason to believe that this has to do with 300 years of inequity as opposed to consious choice over 40 years of freedom.

edit: sorry for all the grammer/spelling i'm just a lazy bastard and i just finished a final.

[Jdanz]

yes groups are different, history has shown time and again that race isn't the reason why group succeed or fail. So if race isn't the causal mechanism, but this group has underachieved, what are we talking about?

Obviously this under acheivement can be viewed in many ways, oen as essentially unpredictable, a la MMMMMMM, two as a result of the group's inherent qualities, or three as a result of actions outside of the groups control.

The results can be either random, endogenous, exogenous, or some combination thereof. ALL the evidence points towards door number three as the most likely and most important of the possible explinations.

[MMMMMM]

I'm not saying social change is BASED in chaos; rather, that chaos contributes something, that's all.

But more importantly, I am saying that regardless of chaos theory, you are definitely employing a false dichotomy in your argument, because it is untrue that different groups of humans will always produce the same results under the same conditions. Humanity is far too diverse for that to be the case. This is so whether you are talking about groups of "race," or about other groups.

[BluffTHIS!]

What problem exactly do you have with simply saying that any given ethnic group's cultural norms might be seriously flawed and harmful to them instead of using all that sociology mumbo jumbo and insistence that outside forces must be responsible for the majority of the reasons that one of those groupls might not do as well as others in the same society?

[MMMMMM]

Another way to look at this, Jdanz, is to imagine the following: two random groups of 1000 humans on two isolated islands in the South Pacific. No outside influences whatsoever. Would they independently develop the same cultures, religions, languages? 300 years from the outset, might they not have widely differing customs, learning, etc? Even if enormous differences did not exist after 300 years, you can be sure there would be many smaller differences, and varying cultural developments and traditions.

Therefore, it would be wrong to assert that all in culture is developed EITHER due to historical pressures or racial predilection. In this imagined scenario, the false dichotomy of such a choice would be readily apparent. And it is also a false dichotomy to argue that all black culture must either be the result of long-past historical influences or racial predilection. Culture is something that is evolving, developing, growing all the time, and even building on itself; and it is created in the present moment, as well as carried on.

[Jdanz]

i think i may have mispoken in my first post, but i think my following post made it clear that i do agree with you.

Groups certainly diverge, i mean black skin has to do with an evolutionary bottle neck, i'm not saying that groups aren't different.

What i am saying is that there is a massive amount of evidence that black underperformance is not in fact due to this bottleneck but due to historical oppression. I happen to have studied the Irish famine pretty extensively, but having a pretty fair amount of knowledge about that, i see them as a near perfect parrallel for a society where one groups social and economic rights were systematically disrespected.

I can't think of any other group where the laws that held them from owning land or participating in government were so similar, so when i look towards the history of the repeal of these laws (in the Irish case) i see what i expect to happen in the black case, an incredibly slow and painful process of overcoming historical disadvantage.

I'm not argueing that groups aren't different, i'm argueing it would be absoultely absurd to think that because we changed some laws a little while ago that the race's economic situation should now be similar. This is quite like pvn's dislike of the somalia arguement, it completely ignores incredibly relevent historical context.

groups are different, but it's pretty clear that the difference in how "black america" has developed stems from other reasons then that.

First of I want to aplogize for not reading all the responses to an excelent topic..its been a long day and Im tired so Ill make it quick. I have the distinct advantage of growing up in an all lower income, black community(Im white, but dont hold that against me..hehe) My observations if you will..many black americans feel a sense of entitlement, and can you blame them, decades of federal assistance, where you are rewarded for dropping out of school and having children out of wedlock in the form of a gov. check which rivals that of a min. wage paying job. I saw first hand women having more kids in order to get more money or selling then food stamps for cash, sad but true. There is no greater recipe for disaster then single, uneducated, moms raising kids, our prisons are find examples of this. At best youre almost destined for a life of struggle and mediocroty. Black students who would try to excell in school were called or accused of "acting white" and that wasnt meant as a compliment. Remember, many Asians grow up in these same neighborhoods, and there were a few sprinkled throughout my hood, the difference being they came from a very strict two parent home with parents whose only concern was making sure their kids made it. Of course I saw that in black homes as well, just not as prevalent.

The ironic thing of it is that as far as racism is concerned, until very recently, areas of large black populations(innercities) were, are, almost entirely dominated by left leaning local black politicians or their white counterparts. I have more thoughts and observations but Im tired.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Guns, Germs, and Steel.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not a completely hopeless case.


link