Race

[T1000]

Why is race still an issue with anyone? I can understand race being an issue a hundred years ago when you could be separated by many miles from the next town. No mass communications. No extensive travel. But now, at least in the US, everybody knows blacks, whites, Asians, Hispanics, etc. We all know that race has nothing to do with how anyone acts in and of itself. We all see all races portrayed positively and negatively in mass media. Yet racism persists with no logical basis. Is it genetic? Could one race actually be genetically predisposed to avoid another race?

[DV8]

Race is still an issue because, overall, there are still significant differences in culture and subculture.

[Van Der Litreb]

Well, with different races often come different cultures. Unfortunately, but naturally, people still attribute particular cultural mindsets with particular races.

[edit: Deev beat me to it. Ooh, beat me again..]

[T1000]

I use to believe that. However, most people are exposed to such a large degree to members of other races that they intellectually have to know that this is BS. Sure there are hip-hop gang tattooed blacks. And sure there are white sheeted redneck white nutcases. However they are such a small minority of both races that "cultural" racism does not make any sense. There is probably greater cultural SIMILARITY between rural southern whites and rural southern blacks. Yet there still exists, in some areas a great degree, abject racism. In both directions. Even their religious beliefs tend to be almost identical, most are evangelical Christians.

[Van Der Litreb]

Yes, well, now we're getting into a rather US-specific area.

[3278]

Sure there are hip-hop gang tattooed blacks. And sure there are white sheeted redneck white nutcases. However they are such a small minority of both races that "cultural" racism does not make any sense.

But cultural racism isn't based on extremist stereotypes, it's based on everyday interaction. 90% of the people I see hit their children in public are black. 100% of the people who yell "faggot" at me when they see I have no windshield are black. 80% of the people who I see cause trouble in restaurants are black. As such, I maintain certain statistical generalizations about black people, because I can't tell culture from a look. Is it fair? Well, no. But it's not racist, either, since I do the same thing with white kids in red baseball hats. It's how we sort things, and if there's one thing humans love to do, it's sort things.

[Cain]

32's actually right on that point. Not his assesment of blacks, of course, just about everyone I see who does everything he describes is white. But it is everyday interaction that sets the stereotype.

I once tried to get people to list a famous Asian male movie star, who is not either known for martial arts action or comic relief. The discussion broke down over what constituted "action roles" "comic roles" and "famous", but no one could come up with a household name in a major American movie. That's why the stereotype of an asian male is always either a kung-fu hero or a joke, if not both.

I wouldn't use 32's term of "sorting things"; I think the better description is that humans like to generalize. It's far easier to generalize people based on their looks than their lives; you don't see their culture or their lifestyle when you see someone at the supermarket, after all.

[Salvation122]

I once tried to get people to list a famous Asian male movie star, who is not either known for martial arts action or comic relief.

Well, Garret Wong's on television, albeit in reruns right now. Does he count?

[Cain]

Depends. How many people would recognize the name, outside of Trek fans?

If you want a more fair, objective challenge, try this one: Name an Asian male who has scored multiple top-10 Billboard hits, as either the frontman for a band or solo. Bonus points if he's done it over multiple years, and even more points if it's been done over decades.

[Salvation122]

Garret Wang, my mistake.

[Cain]

Proves my point. How many people would mistake Brad Pitt's name?

[3278]

32's actually right on that point. Not his assesment of blacks, of course, just about everyone I see who does everything he describes is white.

Dude, you live in Seattle. 70% of the people are white, only 9% are black. We have twice as many blacks here, and I live a block from the hood, and spend most of my time in the hood. [Don't look at me; my friends just don't seem to be able to find nice neighborhoods.] At least half of the people I see every day are black. 90% of the people you see hitting their kids are white? Well, yeah; 90% of the people you see are white. Anyway, I suppose I should just chalk this one up to diverging experience; it just bothers me when people don't see what's right in front of my face, if you see what I mean.

I wouldn't use 32's term of "sorting things"; I think the better description is that humans like to generalize. It's far easier to generalize people based on their looks than their lives; you don't see their culture or their lifestyle when you see someone at the supermarket, after all.

To expand, people like to sort things by generalizing, because really, that's all you can do, or at least the smartest thing. If 90% of the things that hit you are baseball bats, you're going to start getting cautious about baseball bats.

Now, I think that's fine, personally. But the problem is that people aren't baseball bats. If you start breaking every bat you see, or assuming every stick will hit you, the wood won't mind. But it's not fair to judge people based on these generalizations if that judgement is used in such a way as to infringe on the rights of the judged.

And that's the lesson, I think: you think Native Americans are all alcoholics because every one you met was? Fine. But you can't refuse to hire a Native American as a bartender on the speculation that he will behave according to your preconceptions.

[Cain]

Dude, you live in Seattle.... At least half of the people I see every day are black. 90% of the people you see hitting their kids are white? Well, yeah; 90% of the people you see are white.

This is where I do slap you around for making a silly assumption. How on earth do you know that? For all you know, I could live in the projects; in fact, given what I have shared about my finances, I'm surprised you haven't thought that already. There are black people in Seattle too, you know. Tacoma, the city just to the south of here which non-Washintonians consider to be part of the Seattle area, has the infamous "Hilltop" neighborhood-- it was called Little Comptons for a long while, and I did live there. Earl, you really do know better than to make an assumption like that.

*thwaps 32 for being silly*

However, I'll concede the point on divergent experiences; I'll simply say that 99% of what I've seen is from poor families, in poor neighborhoods. If all the people you know of a given group are poor, it's no wonder you'd be more apt to assign behaviors to them based on their appearance rather than their socioeconomic background. Quite honestly, that assumption is not only very common, but the reason for a lot of the racial problems that still exist.

[3278]

Divergent experience, then.

[mrmooky]

I once tried to get people to list a famous Asian male movie star, who is not either known for martial arts action or comic relief.

I'll assume you want an American name, so I'll give one: B.D. Wong. Sure, he does both serious and comic acting - but so do half the actors in Hollywood.

[Daki]

I once tried to get people to list a famous Asian male movie star, who is not either known for martial arts action or comic relief.

I'll assume you want an American name, so I'll give one: B.D. Wong. Sure, he does both serious and comic acting - but so do half the actors in Hollywood.

Takeshi Kitano. *much with the bowing and paying homage*

[JetPlane]

Being racist isn't genetic, but like early political loyalities, they are passed down through the family.

My mother pretends as if she isn't racist, but she stereotypes black mothers as all being "crackwhores". My grandfather is incredibly racist, and I've heard him say this exact thing.

I guess the only good part is my grandfather is a full-out racist, while my mother thinks she isn't one, but still has those feelings down at her core.

I'll take to anyone if I can have an intelligent conversation with them, but I have problems with people with accents, such as what my mother refers to as the "black accent", aka ebonics dribble. It doesn't sound intelligent to me, and I have a problem talking to people that talk in such a way that I have /no/ idea what they're saying half the time. But, I would be more willing to try to talk to someone from another country than someone who just entirely spoke in "black" lingo.

But, my best friend is black. He has an afro and he even sticks a ridiculous pick into it that has a fist on the top that says "black love". We've been friends for years, and we can talk about anything together, including race. But, I've never looked at him and thought, "I'm better than him."

Racism will persist until people as a whole find something else to feel that they're better than.

Or until we all interbreed until we're all one color(But we'll probably find ways to be racist even then).

[T1000]

I admit it is a generalization but there appears to be a thread of thought in some of the previous posts the appear to be (at least in the US) of not so much racism as categorizing blacks as generally poor and whites as generally rich in comparison. How much does the perceived economic disparity "color" our tendency toward racial views?

Is what we call "racism" driven more by perceived economic differences then actually by race itself? Is this the real emotional dividing line between the races rather then simply color?

On the other hand there are differences even in the black population between dark skinned blacks and lighter skinned blacks. Is this driven by economic perceptions rather then race?

[T1000]

I almost forgot George Takei and Pat Morita.

[Salvation122]

George Takei works, though he still has that Star Trek stigma that Cain apparently doesn't like, but Pat Morita is most assuredly known for his martial arts stuff.

[Gunny]

what I've noticed in my travels through US cities (not rural areas).

- no matter your race, people of low/no income behave on a 'street' level. (speaking in slang lingo, aggressive towards each other and more so towards those of higher income appearance, all seem to have the same behavior traits such as body language, tone of voice and dress, etc.)

- no matter your race, people of high income behave on an 'elite' level. (speak in such ways as if to talk over target audience heads, competitive with each other openly or secretly, accustomed to having his/her way, often spendthrifts, often patronize those of lower income even if only a slight difference in $$$, etc.)

people of middle brackets are the wild cards. attitudes, behaviors and stereotypes vary to an incredible degree. of course, there are always wild cards in every income bracket. for example, someone who goes from one bracket to another (up or down). I think it's too hard to catagorize people because location and economic status plays a big part in behavior.

that doesn't mean I don't stereotype. generally I see people as a blank slate until they begin to display their traits (by behavior, body language, attitude, speech). then I usually stereotype that person into a certain group. I base my racism on my observations of behavior. yes, I admit it. I can be quite racist, but not to a point of hatred and violence.

[3278]

I admit it is a generalization but there appears to be a thread of thought in some of the previous posts the appear to be (at least in the US) of not so much racism as categorizing blacks as generally poor and whites as generally rich in comparison. How much does the perceived economic disparity "color" our tendency toward racial views?

For myself, not at all. Then again, I don't tend to notice a person's economic level nearly so much as their social level, their level of education, and their culture. But I may be something of an exception, since I grew up poor, ended up upper-middle class, and am now /very/ poor, so I've seen all the sides of wealth.

[Cain]

As a quick note: I have no idea who BD Wong is, or Takeshi Kitano. George Takei himself isn't well-known, although his role is. Garret Wang isn't well-known outside of Trek fans. Pat Morita also is known for both comic relief (Arnold from Happy Days) and martial arts (Mr. Miyagi).

"Famous" is such a subjective term, this question really isn't that good of one. The music question is better, as it's much more objective.

Back on topic: I think Gunny and Jetplane have got it, as well as T1000. Economic level frequently equals social level, so if you're noticing a "street" culture and social level, odds are that you're subconsciously judging people based on economic level.

[T1000]

George Takei works, though he still has that Star Trek stigma that Cain apparently doesn't like, but Pat Morita is most assuredly known for his martial arts stuff.

First off anybody that doen't like Star Trek is a panty wearin sissy boy.

And Pat Morita has been in over 44 films, and is presently doing "the odd couple" on stage with Sherman Hemsley (Played George Jefferson on All in the Family and the Jeffersons). He may have become famous due to his Oscar Nomination for Karate Kid but he was know for 30 years before that.

But it that is not enough how bout Dean Cain, Robert Ito, or Keanu Reeves.

[Gunny]

First off anybody that doen't like Star Trek is a panty wearin sissy boy.

I tolerate Trek to a point and yes, I do wear panties. thanks for asking.

[3278]

Economic level frequently equals social level, so if you're noticing a "street" culture and social level, odds are that you're subconsciously judging people based on economic level.

I honestly don't know what it's like in Washington, or in the south, or Texas/Chicago, or T1000-land, but here in Michigan, there's a drastic difference between poor white people and poor black people, in terms of culture, language, behavior, and so on. Saying poor people act "street level" no matter their culture is like saying rich Germans and rich Americans act the same, you know?

I think dismissing racial/cultural differences as all economic minimizes the reasons that black american culture and white american culture are different, namely the history of treatment of blacks in this country.

[Gunny]

racism goes both ways 32. blacks can be just as racist towards white people as whites can be to blacks. if you have ever seen Rainbow PUSH tv, you see constant bombardment of speakers telling blacks to return to their roots. return to their African heritage. yet, on the same foot, they demand white people treat them differently because of their ancestoral African culture as well as treat them the same as whites because they're American.

not to mention constantly slapping the slavery thing in /everyone's/ faces as an excuse for behavior and demanding things that our gov't doesn't even give to anyone else, otherwise it's racist. heaven forfend that black colleges get all these tax breaks, donations and stay strictly black while black groups attack white colleges for not admitting black students.

[Edit: GODDAMNIT!! I can't spell for shit today!!!]

[3278]

Oh, I hear you.

[Gunny]

sorry, didn't mean to vent on you.

[Cain]

Just for the record: I checked with my girlfriend, who thought Picard was the original Star Trek captain. After a moment of thought, she told me that the original crew consisted of: "That guy who does the priceline commercials, the guy with the spock ears, the black woman, the black man, and Scotty".

I think dismissing racial/cultural differences as all economic minimizes the reasons that black american culture and white american culture are different, namely the history of treatment of blacks in this country.

If you look at the history, it *is* all economic; the majority of black culture was founded in slave culture, and slavery was started for economic reasons.

I also suspect that if you actually tabulated behaviors, as opposed to appearances, you'd see the similarities. To clarify-- to your eye, a poor black person and a poor white person probably act quite differently. However, if we were to observe and record instances of a single behavior occuring-- let's say, slapping your child at a supermarket-- and then analyzing that data for occurances cross-race and cross-class, and adjusting for sample sizes, I think you'd find that white people have virtually the same instances of the behavior as blacks.

Heck, I'll even pose that to you as a challenge. I've got to go shopping soon, anyways; I'll take some observations, you do the same the next time you go shopping, and we'll compare. Feel up to putting your money where your mouth is?

[3278]

I think dismissing racial/cultural differences as all economic minimizes the reasons that black american culture and white american culture are different, namely the history of treatment of blacks in this country.

If you look at the history, it *is* all economic; the majority of black culture was founded in slave culture, and slavery was started for economic reasons.

But that's not the kind of "economic" being discussed. We were discussing individual economies, individual wealth.

I also suspect that if you actually tabulated behaviors, as opposed to appearances, you'd see the similarities.

I do tabulate behaviors. I mean, that's what I do, all the time. That's where I form my beliefs from. It's not like I look at a black woman and say, "Hmm. Looks like a child beater." Appearance doesn't mean a whole lot to me, beyond giving me a frame of reference as to what /sort/ of person I'm dealing with.

If I see a white male in his mid-40s driving a Lexus and paying for his gas at the pump with his WorldPerks card, I can guess that he's a specific sort of person. If I see a young Latino male washing dishes at a restaurant - Onissimo in the house! - I can guess what sort of person he is. Now, I may not be right - the white guy may have stolen the suit and the car and the credit card; the chico may not be carrying weed - but my personal experience with the sort of person who possesses these characteristics tells me that it's more likely they belong to the type their appearance represents than to some other type.

Clothing, hair, shoes, jewelry, car, choice of payment at the gas station, choice of gas station, selection of items at the supermarket, color of lipstick; all of these things and many many more are good, solid diagnostic tools which can be used to form generalizations about class which will more likely be correct than incorrect. But like all statistics, you just have to remember that it's still very possible that you're wrong, and you need to adjust your behavior according to every new input you recieve from the person.

If you see someone from a distance in a suit and tie, you form one opinion, but you can't lock that in and treat the guy like a suit. If, as you approach, you listen to his diction, you watch his body language, and you realize he's from Gowen - a rural community north of me - then you have to adjust your mental image of him from "suit" to "guy from Gowen in suit."

That's what I do, at any rate; I suppose not everyone consciously counts and tabulates all the behaviors of all the people they see.

So, yeah, I've taken the challenge already. Sorry.

[edit]And, for the record, according to NCANDS and the census, whites make up 75% of the population, and 50% of abused children are white. Blacks make up 12.3% of the population, and 25% of the abused children.[/edit]

[Cain]

I do tabulate behaviors. I mean, that's what I do, all the time. That's where I form my beliefs from.

That's not tabulating behaviors, that's purely subjective observation. What I suggest is actual study-level observations. Tell you what, I'll even go first, I'll post something in a day or two. It'll take me that long to go shopping, take some observations, and code them. Since I'm now without my stat programs, and can't do them longhand, I'll just post the raw data. Once you see what I'm doing, I'll challenge you to do the same.

And, for the record, according to NCANDS and the census, whites make up 75% of the population, and 50% of abused children are white. Blacks make up 12.3% of the population, and 25% of the abused children.

And they also make up a disproportionate number of the poor in this country. Sorry, your correlation does not hold.

[3278]

I do tabulate behaviors. I mean, that's what I do, all the time. That's where I form my beliefs from.

That's not tabulating behaviors, that's purely subjective observation. What I suggest is actual study-level observations.

Cain, you don't understand. That's exactly what I do, all day. I'm obsessive-compulsive and a math freak. I count shit.

Whew; now this is the hard sentence: You have, on multiple occassions, distorted, falsified, or invented evidence to support your case. Which is not to say you shouldn't post your raw data; just don't be surprised if people don't believe it.

And, for the record, according to NCANDS and the census, whites make up 75% of the population, and 50% of abused children are white. Blacks make up 12.3% of the population, and 25% of the abused children.

And they also make up a disproportionate number of the poor in this country. Sorry, your correlation does not hold.

That's the intelligent person's version of, "Did not!" Let's see some real numbers. How many low-income blacks are child abusers, versus how many low-income whites?

[Cain]

Cain, you don't understand. That's exactly what I do, all day. I'm obsessive-compulsive and a math freak. I count shit.

Whew; now this is the hard sentence: You have, on multiple occassions, distorted, falsified, or invented evidence to support your case. Which is not to say you shouldn't post your raw data; just don't be surprised if people don't believe it.

At least I have hard data.

The following observations were based on approximately a forty-five minutes worth of observation, at two different grocery stores. The first sample was taken at approximately 8pm PST, the second an hour later, at a different store.

There were relatively few people with children in both samples, with notably fewer in the second group, possibly due to time and day of the week. These samples only include those with young children, obviously pre-teen or younger. The children varied in age from infant to apparent pre-teen; however, the majority were apparently of elementary-school age or younger.

The first sample consisted of 8 parent/child combinations. No differentiation was made due to parents being present as a couple or as an individual, nor on the number of children present. Of this group, two were apparently of African ethnic origin. The second sample consisted of two parent/child combinations, of which one was of apparent African ethnic origin.

The sample data was coded according to the following system: Racial group was defined as either 1=Caucasian, 2=Black, 3=Other. The behavior of the parents was observed, and coded according to the following system: 0=No discipine observed, A=Calm, verbal correction observed, B=Tense verbal correction or sudden physical correction, C=Use of derogatory terms, yelling, hard physical correction, D=Physical strikes, yelled obsecnities, other extreme reactions.

Data set was as follows:
I. 1 0
II. 1 0
III. 1 A
IV. 2 A
V. 3 0
VI. 2 0
VII. 1 C
IX. 1 0
X. 2 0

As you can see, even adjusted for numbers, the racial differences do not suggest that black people are more likely to utilize yelling/extreme discipline than white. The small sample size forbids any firm conclusion, and no conclusions can be drawn from a single set of observations. However, there does not appear to be a significant increase in extreme discipline in blacks as compared to whites.

That's the intelligent person's version of, "Did not!" Let's see some real numbers. How many low-income blacks are child abusers, versus how many low-income whites?

I just gave you real numbers. Your turn. Link your sources, since you brought it up. I'll wager they've got an adjustment for economic level on the same link.

[Szechuan]

I just gave you real numbers.

I'd like to note that the logic behind drawing a judgement or conclusion for an entire race based on ten people observed at a supermarket within 45 minutes of each other is flawed, at best.

[Cain]

I did say as much:

The small sample size forbids any firm conclusion, and no conclusions can be drawn from a single set of observations.

[3278]

You have, on multiple occassions, distorted, falsified, or invented evidence to support your case. Which is not to say you shouldn't post your raw data; just don't be surprised if people don't believe it.

At least I have hard data.

Cain, I quoted two sources, each of which have as their sample size the entire population of the United States of America, some 281,421,906 people, one of which involved 950,000 people, and costs $6.9 billion. You counted 8 families in a grocery store. Please don't claim your data are superior to mine.

Link your sources, since you brought it up.

NCANDS and the Census. Google.

[Szechuan]

I did say as much:

The small sample size forbids any firm conclusion, and no conclusions can be drawn from a single set of observations.

Scanned for your disclaimer, didn't see it. My bad.

Edit: Actually, I'd like to add my two cents.

I'm far from a sociology major, but I had to do a paper related to this sort of thing just a few months ago.
Has anyone here considered the effects of social stratification on these economic/ethnic groups?
American and Canadian society (singled out for the purposes of this discussion) is supposed to be one in which anyone can move up the social ladder fairly openly provided they expend the effort - a meritocracy, if you will - but this doesn't really ring true.

The general idea behind stratification is that people born into high economic standing generally end up better off in the end than those born in lower brackets, regardless of the effort expended on the part of the subject.
For example, two children have, say, an even 90% average across the board. One, however, comes from a family making $30,000 a year, and the other from a family making $100,000 a year. I'm using Canadian funds because I'm more familiar with their approximate worth vs. the cost of education here.

Kid 1 can work their ass off for scholarships and apply for loans, etc.. to afford their post-secondary education. Kid 2 merely has to ask for their tuition money.
Kid 1 may have to drop out to help support their family by working a service job, simply not be able to scrounge up the money to go. Kid 2 has trust funds.

This is, admittedly, a simplified example, but the theory is still sound. People from lower brackets have to work so much harder to get where they are that many fall out of the running due to family concerns, expenses, and stress.
This causes the negative racial stereotypes to remain, because at the turn of the century most minorities were looked down upon and generally prevented from getting anywhere, and the effects are still influencing today's world.

Sure, a disproportionate amount of criminals in USA prisons may be black or hispanic - but there's also a disproportionate amount of blacks and hispanics in ghettos where crime is more commonplace because of this stratification.

I don't have much to add to this beyond injecting some information here and there. Perhaps it can help clarify some aspects of the discussion.

[Cain]

That's exactly my point, Szech. While 32's making this bold claim about the number of abused children, that's a far and away different subject than what he's describing. Besides which, the census does also show us a stronger correlation between blacks and poverty than 32's alleged suspicion, and he hasn't linked the NCANDS data page that he's referring to. I'm not about to go sifting for that data, since you've kindly referenced other evidence.

[3278]

That's exactly my point, Szech. While 32's making this bold claim about the number of abused children, that's a far and away different subject than what he's describing.

How? I'm not certain what this means. Perhaps if you would directly rebut me, as opposed to speaking about me, a more productive discussion would be possible.

Besides which, the census does also show us a stronger correlation between blacks and poverty than 32's alleged suspicion...

Please explain what correlation I suspect, and how that correlation is different than that provided by the census.

...and he hasn't linked the NCANDS data page that he's referring to.

My <a href=http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publ ... ologies</a>.

[FlameBlade]

Sure, a disproportionate amount of criminals in USA prisons may be black or hispanic - but there's also a disproportionate amount of blacks and hispanics in ghettos where crime is more commonplace because of this stratification.

Oooooooh! Maybe that's because black and hispanic are serving more longer/severe sentence than white people. And white people tend to get lighter sentencing...

At least, that's what I hear...

[3278]

Or maybe it's because black and hispanic urban cultures in America glorify violence and criminality as the only "cool" way to become successful. Blaming racism for the high rate of black and hispanic criminality is just as wrong as blaming economics, and it's anti-racism: "The problem couldn't /possibly/ be the fault of the blacks in the country; it must be the man, keeping them down."

[Cain]

How? I'm not certain what this means. Perhaps if you would directly rebut me, as opposed to speaking about me, a more productive discussion would be possible.

Ok, fine. You claim your belief is based on personal observation, which you also claim is empirical, as you are "obsessive-compulsive and a math freak." However, I've countered your personal observations with other, empirical, personal observations. I'm challenging the empirical nature of your observations, and challenging you to actually code and classify the behaviors you claim, in a fair and objective fashion. The structure I used before works well enough; there are no major methodological flaws, only sample-size issues.

Please explain what correlation I suspect, and how that correlation is different than that provided by the census.

That somehow, "black culture" encourages child abuse more than "white culture". And the correlation does not hold, in terms of raw numbers or once corrected for poverty level.

My apologies.

Thank you, trying to sift through all the availiable data makes things much easier. If we go to a subtable, we can see that when broken down by race, black children are less likely to suffer abuse than white. We also have this section, which also gives some telling information:

Compared to White children, African American children were 22 percent less likely to experience recurrence. Children of Hispanic ethnicity were 16 percent less likely to experience recurrence than White children.

So, your assumption does not fit the facts.

Or maybe it's because black and hispanic urban cultures in America glorify violence and criminality as the only "cool" way to become successful. Blaming racism for the high rate of black and hispanic criminality is just as wrong as blaming economics, and it's anti-racism: "The problem couldn't /possibly/ be the fault of the blacks in the country; it must be the man, keeping them down."

Who's blaming racism? Economics is all that's needed. About a century ago, most he statistics applied to African-American men-- high school dropout rate, 1 in 4 being in jail, extended sentencing-- matched the numbers for Irish men. People then blamed the "Irish culture" for glorifying violence and criminality as the best way to get ahead. They were wrong then, too.

[3278]

Ok, fine. You claim your belief is based on personal observation, which you also claim is empirical, as you are "obsessive-compulsive and a math freak." However, I've countered your personal observations with other, empirical, personal observations.

Ah. Well, how about we ignore my personal observations. I'll completely drop them, because they're not important, and they're not at all conclusive. So I'll stop talking about my nonscientific observations if you'll stop talking about yours.

Please explain what correlation I suspect, and how that correlation is different than that provided by the census.

That somehow, "black culture" encourages child abuse more than "white culture". And the correlation does not hold, in terms of raw numbers or once corrected for poverty level.

It does hold in terms of raw numbers: Whites make up 75% of the population, and 50% of abused children are white. Blacks make up 12.3% of the population, and 25% of the abused children. And if the correlation doesn't hold when corrected for poverty level, I have not seen any statistical evidence to support that. Could you please provide some?

If we go to a subtable, we can see that when broken down by race, black children are less likely to suffer abuse than white.

I'm sorry, but that table only applies to recurrence, as does the other evidence you provided. The applicable statistic would be <a href=http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publ ... ce>here</a>. To quote: "More than half of all victims were White (50.6%); a quarter (24.7%) were African American; and a sixth (14.2%) were Hispanic. American Indian/Alaska Natives accounted for 1.6 percent of victims, and Asian-Pacific Islanders accounted for 1.4 percent of victims."

The appropriate census figures, just so you have them, are <a href=http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QT ... P1>here</a>, where you can see in the table RACE, that 77.1 percent of the population is white, and 12.9 percent are African-American.

Who's blaming racism? Economics is all that's needed. About a century ago, most he statistics applied to African-American men-- high school dropout rate, 1 in 4 being in jail, extended sentencing-- matched the numbers for Irish men. People then blamed the "Irish culture" for glorifying violence and criminality as the best way to get ahead. They were wrong then, too.

Well, I'm not certain you're right about that last part, but even so, what was true for the Irish in 1900 is not necessarily applicable to African-American men in 2003. Given the radically differing circumstances surrounding each culture, I would think you'd need to establish more of a causal link than similar misbehavior to establish identical causes.

[Cain]

I'm sorry, but that table only applies to recurrence, as does the other evidence you provided. The applicable statistic would be here.

Actually, the applicable table is here, it's the one it references. If you look at the numbers listed on the bottom, you see black children being listed at 213,386/24.7%, and white children at 436,576/50.6%. The rules of the table work as follows:

This table breaks down the child victims by race. In the first column, it first lists the name of each State. The following columns each list race classifications as follows: African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, White, Multiple Race, Hispanic, Unknown/Unable to Determine, Total Victims. Each of these columns has two parts. The first is the number of children in each State who were classified as the specified race and the second is the percentage of maltreated children who were considered that race.

213,386 is roughly half of 436,576; so the occurance seems to be proportional. You, being a math freak, can tell us the exact proportions; I'm not feeling up to it right now. Remember, the first number is the total number of children classifed as a given race; the second number is specifically the percentage that was maltreated, across the state.

Well, I'm not certain you're right about that last part, but even so, what was true for the Irish in 1900 is not necessarily applicable to African-American men in 2003. Given the radically differing circumstances surrounding each culture, I would think you'd need to establish more of a causal link than similar misbehavior to establish identical causes.

It's actually not all that difficult to establish a parallel case, if not an identical one; around the 1900s, most of the Irish were immigrants, fleeing the potato famine. As a result, most of them lived in poverty. When we look at similar ethnic groups living in poverty, and seeing similar results (like the hispanics you mention) then we can see that poverty-linked behaviors transcend culture.

And if the correlation doesn't hold when corrected for poverty level, I have not seen any statistical evidence to support that. Could you please provide some?

Certainly.
Some highlights from that link, with emphasis mine:

Girls are sexually abused three times more often than boys.
Boys are at a greater risk of serious injury and of emotional neglect than are girls.
The incidence of fatally injured girls declined slightly, while the incidence of fatally injured boys rose.
Found no race differences in maltreatment incidence.
Poverty is significantly related to incidence rates in nearly every category of maltreatment. Compared to children whose families earned $30,000 or more, children in families with annual incomes below $15,000 were:
* More than 22 times more likely to experience maltreatment under the Harm Standard and 25 times more likely under the Endangerment Standard.
* More than 44 times more likely to be neglected, by either definitional standard.
* Over 22 times more likely to be seriously injured using either definitional standard.
* 60 times more likely to die from maltreatment under the Harm Standard.

[Marius]

If you look at the numbers listed on the bottom, you see black children being listed at 213,386/24.7%, and white children at 436,576/50.6%. . . . 213,386 is roughly half of 436,576; so the occurance seems to be proportional. You, being a math freak, can tell us the exact proportions; I'm not feeling up to it right now. Remember, the first number is the total number of children classifed as a given race; the second number is specifically the percentage that was maltreated, across the state.

213,386 is roughly half of 436,576, and accordingly, 24.7% is roughly half of 50.6%. These are, in fact, the statistics Earl has been quoting so far: that a group comprising around a tenth of the total population accounts for roughly a quarter of abuse cases. Remember, the first number is the total number of victims classified as a given race; the second number is specifically that number's corresponding percentage of the total number of victims.

And if the correlation doesn't hold when corrected for poverty level, I have not seen any statistical evidence to support that. Could you please provide some?

By my own statistics, Whites comprise 55% of those living below the poverty line. Blacks are 20.3%, Asians 4%, and Hispancis 18%. For comparison, they comprise 50.6%, 24.7%, 1.4%, and 14.2% (respectively) of child maltreatment cases. Those proportions are much more consistent, no?

[Cain]

Allow me to restate the exact wording of the table, with an emphasis added:

This table breaks down the child victims by race. In the first column, it first lists the name of each State. The following columns each list race classifications as follows: African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, White, Multiple Race, Hispanic, Unknown/Unable to Determine, Total Victims. Each of these columns has two parts. The first is the number of children in each State who were classified as the specified race and the second is the percentage of maltreated children who were considered that race.

Note that it is the "number of children in each state", and not "the number of maltreated children" in each state. Even if that interpretation is wrong, the second link makes it abundantly clear that race does not change the incidence rate.

[Marius]

Note that it is the "number of children in each state", and not "the number of maltreated children" in each state.

I saw the exact wording of the table, and I knew instantly that it is misleading and wrong. Anyone with a brain can see that. Every single number - every individual reported in that chart - is a victim. There were 41 White victims in the District of Columbia. Nobody thinks that there are only 41 children in the whole city.

[Cain]

And even then, the second link makes it clear race is not a factor. Heck, let's link the actual study in question:

Child's Race and Relationship to the Perpetrator. Because the perpetrator's race was not known for children submitted to the study solely through non-CPS sources, the child's race was examined in connection with the relationship to the perpetrator and with the nature and severity of the maltreatment.

For overall abuse, child's race reflected no notable connection to the relationship with the perpetrator. However, among sexually abused children, white children constituted a greater proportion of children who were sexually abused by their birth parents than of those sexually abused by other parents and parent-substitutes, and by others. Among physically abused children, white children were more prevalent among those who were physically abused by other parents and parent-substitutes than among those who were physically abused by their birth parents or among those physically abused by other types of perpetrators. Although non-white children were the minority of victims in all categories, they were more prevalent among children who were physically or sexually abused by perpetrators other than parents or parent-substitutes.

This section refers to proportions, and does give corrected information. So, asserting that black familes have a higher incidence of abuse, corrected or otherwise, does not match the facts.

[Marius]

And even then, the second link makes it clear race is not a factor.

I know. I never once thought that it was. But I'm still going to correct you when you make big mistakes.