Are Blacks & Whites TRULY equal?

[SSY]

He posted a list of questions under a spoiler tag about how you are treated in the world and what priviedge you may or may not have, in an attempt to suggest white people are treated differently as an ingrained societal system.

[Wraitchel]

He posted a list of questions under a spoiler tag about how you are treated in the world and what priviedge you may or may not have, in an attempt to suggest white people are treated differently as an ingrained societal system.

I believe that the point was actually to make white people aware of the many ways in which we benefit from being on top, socially speaking, without even being aware of it. It was eye opening for me when I read a similar list in a book I mentioned in a previous reply. The point was not to label anyone who benefits from white privilege as a racist. The point was to increase awareness so we will not go on saying stupid things about how laws enacted to ensure a place for minorities and women in the workplace are no longer needed.

[curiosityandthecat]

A racist is someone who bases decisions about others on their race and not on the individual characteristics of that person, nothing more or less.

...someone who makes decisions about others based on their race, precisely. Decisions that are informed by a system and society in which one race is inherently more valued and able than another (at least, ostensibly) via the media, social norms and values. How is my definition any different from yours? The only difference I see is that, in mine, the person is called a "racist" while in yours, I would call that person a "prejudiced, racist asshole".  

I believe that the point was actually to make white people aware of the many ways in which we benefit from being on top, socially speaking, without even being aware of it. It was eye opening for me when I read a similar list in a book I mentioned in a previous reply. The point was not to label anyone who benefits from white privilege as a racist. The point was to increase awareness so we will not go on saying stupid things about how laws enacted to ensure a place for minorities and women in the workplace are no longer needed.

That's right. Also, the racism I'm talking about is specific to the United States. I in no way want to insinuate that I am speaking or making claims about racism in any other country or society. I haven't lived in any, I haven't studied any, and I don't want to speak about any. All those items in that list were actually questions Peggy McIntosh was asking herself when she was struggling with how to expand her work on feminism and the male power structure into the world of race. I don't think they should be qualified. If one answers "Yes, but..." to every one, then there's an obvious attempt to justify the privilege that's being acknowledged.

[SSY]

If by ensure women a place in the workplace, you mean deny an equaly qualified man/transgender a place in the office, I agree with you.

Making a decision based on anything other than the person qualification/ability is sexist, there is simply nothing else to it.

If the woman is the best candidate, she gets the job on her merit, if she is not the best candidate, it will go to someone else. There is no benefit to having a woman in an office just becuase she is a woman.

If a woman is the best candidate and is denied the job based purley on the prejudice of the employer, then she can take it to a sexual discrimination tribunal and make her individual case. Affirmative action is reverse discrimination, and all discrimination based on sex or race is wrong.

[SSY]

A racist is someone who bases decisions about others on their race and not on the individual characteristics of that person, nothing more or less.

...someone who makes decisions about others based on their race, precisely. Decisions that are informed by a system and society in which one race is inherently more valued and able than another (at least, ostensibly) via the media, social norms and values. How is my definition any different from yours? The only difference I see is that, in mine, the person is called a "racist" while in yours, I would call that person a "prejudiced, racist asshole".  
.

I don't understand you, I say a racist is someone who makes decisions based on races, you agree and go on to say the qualities ascribed to these races are brought about by a person exposure to their society. They are making a decision based on race, and is therefor a racist.

However, before, you said "Being a "racist" is simply not actively refuting the system of White privilege.", you seem to have changed your mind.

Or are you saying that a white person is incapable of not being a racist becuase they must hold certain views they picked up from their society, and that they must be unable to make decisions about others without resorting to these views if they have them? Are you saying that someone who does not activley refute white priviledge will also hold views that other race are beneath them?
You are saying that being raised in a white world will automatically lead people to make racist decisions?

I disagree. Not only is it possible for a white person to have views about other races that are fair and balanced ( I'm sure you would drop yourself in this catagory ),  but also to make decision about others based on factors apart from their race. i simply view people as people.

I am going to throw this out there. I do beleive there are differences between statistical averages in races. just as it is well acknowledged that white guys tend to be taller than chinese guys. Not every white guy is taller than every chinese guy, but if you took a thousand random of each, the odds are the, the ghostfaces would have a higher mean height. I believe things like this can extend to IQ, physical characteristics, etc. Many of these correlations have been well documented and studied, even though they almost certainly draw vilification of the rest of the world.

I do not view myself as a racist, for one simple reason, I do not make decisions based on race. If I was an employer, and I had an east asian ( typically of a higher IQ) and a black guy ( typically of a lower IQ, statistically speaking of course ), I would not hire the asian without thought. I would conduct both interviews to see which one had the higher IQ ( I am correlating job performance to IQ here as an example ) as I know two things. Odds are,1 the black guy will score lower on his IQ test, if i were to interview a thousand such pairs of interviewees, 2, there is every chance this particular black guy could beat the asian guy on his IQ test. I dont care what race my employee is, as long as he is smart, so I hire the one with the higher IQ.

After a thousand interviews, It is likley that my company will be over 50% east asain ( I am assuming a somehwat strange country here, with only blacks, east asians, and some weird pair based job application system that stipulates a mixed race pairing here ). This does not mean I am racist, this is simply a refection in the diferences between races. No one person was given treatment based on their race, no black person was discriminated against, and no asian was given a free ride.  this is an example about how one can hold well reasoned, researchec views about differences in races, and yet still, not be a racist.

As I said before, equality of oppurtunity, not of outcome, that is fair.

[curiosityandthecat]

I don't understand you, I say a racist is someone who makes decisions based on races, you agree and go on to say the qualities ascribed to these races are brought about by a person exposure to their society. They are making a decision based on race, and is therefor a racist.

However, before, you said "Being a "racist" is simply not actively refuting the system of White privilege.", you seem to have changed your mind.

The two are not mutually exclusive. At it's core, being a racist is not actively refuting the system of (insert dominant race here) privilege. There are layers surrounding it. This is partially what makes racism a complex problem.

You are saying that being raised in a white world will automatically lead people to make racist decisions?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that being White places a person (in the United States) in a position of arbitrary power and privilege. Being Black places one in a position of arbitrary weakness and oppression. There are exceptions. I'm speaking broadly. Systemically. Nobody chooses to be born White or Black, as has been mentioned. I'll add that life isn't fair, and sometimes those in power need to feel just a little bad about it in order to lean things toward getting better.

I do not view myself as a racist, for one simple reason, I do not make decisions based on race. If I was an employer, and I had an east asian ( typically of a higher IQ) and a black guy ( typically of a lower IQ, statistically speaking of course ), I would not hire the asian without thought. I would conduct both interviews to see which one had the higher IQ ( I am correlating job performance to IQ here as an example ) as I know two things. Odds are,1 the black guy will score lower on his IQ test, if i were to interview a thousand such pairs of interviewees, 2, there is every chance this particular black guy could beat the asian guy on his IQ test. I dont care what race my employee is, as long as he is smart, so I hire the one with the higher IQ.

Nobody likes to view themselves as a racist. Well, some do, I'm sure, but I'm talking about normal, regular people like you or me. What you're talking about is meritocracy. "Smarter guy, more merit, better job" in essence. However, you're not paying attention to why this is. I had the fortune of growing up White, male, and in an affluent Ohio suburb. I went to good schools, never worried about money, always had a car, and never worked for good grades. Do I have more merit than someone drastically different from me because of this? Using merit is a tricky concept: who decides what it is?

Pick any inner city Black kid from a Chicago ghetto and put him up against some Chinese American kid from the Bay, and yes, there is going to be a difference in standardized test scores. But why? (I could go on for days about standardized tests, including IQ, but I won't. That's for another thread.    ) Is it something inherent about their skin color or eye shape? Of course not. It comes from the chances and opportunities they've had, the chances and opportunities and the amount of work done by their parents, and their parents, and their parents. It comes from the system in which they are allowed or not allowed opportunities based solely on characteristics they themselves had absolutely nothing to do with: location of birth, skin color, family history, etc.

Is this the "equality of opportunity" you're talking about?

[SSY]

In the first part of tyour post, you are wrong. I am sorry, but people do not get to define their own words.

From wiki:Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

from dictionary.com ;a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

merriam webster says :1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

You seem to be confusing a non racist with an anti racist activist.

edit: wiki says this also :By its nature, anti-racism tends to promote the view that racism in a particular society is both pernicious and socially pervasive, and that particular changes in political, economic, and/or social life are required to eliminate it.

Seems much closer to your view point.

In the third part of your post, you seem to be confusing being poor with being black. If a black kid went to the best schools and had private tutored, compared to some ghtoo bred asian kid, i am sure the black kid could do better on certain standardised tests. The determining factor you are pointing out here is access to education, which means money. The race is unimportant in your example, only money is.

I deliberatley chose IQ test, as it is not ( or at best, minimally with culture fair IQ tests ) affected by schooling. I never got taught how to do those questions with rotating shapes or those verbal logic puzzles at school, I never practiced them until i had taken an IQ test. I delebiratley associated IQ with job performance, pre empting your questions about judging merit. I showed one example, whereby a company could have few black people in it and not have anything to do with racism.

If you have a problem with poor people not getting as good an education, set up a collge fund for poor people, not poor black people, its simply another form of racism.Sophus was on the money with his comments about the negro college fund.

Studies done on adopted children in mixed race type families have demonstrated the correlation between IQ and race, while eliminating the socioeconomic factor. Also, the fact that you got good grades without working suggest that instead of having a good school or money, it was your intelligence that got you those grades, you should have been able to get them at any school, ghetto or not.

Also, I never suggested that skin colour or eye shape affect inteligence, it is down to the brain, but there are correlations between races and intelligence. I think a lot of people will not allow themselves to believe this becuase of an ultra PC, white guilt rideen world, where anyone who thinks like this is demonised. Just last year research at y university was terminated because it was moving towards differences in races and IQs, the results were not even examined, the research was terminated before the testing phase was over. People have no problem accepting white guys are taller than chinese guys on average, without having to come up with loads of reasons for this accounting for the chinese guys disadvantaged start in life or similar, so why the same about intelligence? If one can be racially correlated, surley the other can?

[Wraitchel]

If by ensure women a place in the workplace, you mean deny an equaly qualified man/transgender a place in the office, I agree with you.

Making a decision based on anything other than the person qualification/ability is sexist, there is simply nothing else to it.

If the woman is the best candidate, she gets the job on her merit, if she is not the best candidate, it will go to someone else. There is no benefit to having a woman in an office just becuase she is a woman.

If a woman is the best candidate and is denied the job based purley on the prejudice of the employer, then she can take it to a sexual discrimination tribunal and make her individual case. Affirmative action is reverse discrimination, and all discrimination based on sex or race is wrong.

In an ideal world, I would agree with you, but what does it mean if studies continue to show that women and minorities are more likely to be unemployed right now than white men are? What does it mean if women who are employed are still making 81 cents on average for every dollar a man makes? Here is a link to US dept of Labor statistics for December 2008. Note that a white men over the age of twenty have a 4.1% unemployment rate. Women over 20 have a 6.8% unemployment rate. Black men over 20 have an 8.4% unemployment rate. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm and here is a table comparing wages by race and gender since 1970. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0882775.html

[SSY]

You can't just jump to discrimination. The gender pay gap has been widley explained before any way.

Women tend to go for less "high flying careers" than men, they also tend to take several years out to look after their kids, a big lapse like that will hurt your employment prospects.

men are seen as breadwinners, there is a much higher stigma attached to a man being out of work than a woman, perhaps driving them to seek work more vociferously, or accept any job. The women listed as unemployed may be acting as carer to some form of dependant or other, a traditionaly female dominated role.


Also, way to pick the employment rate form the month that illustrates your point, what about dec 07, when the femal umployment rate is lower. Actually, 6.8 % is not even on there, whats wrong with you? if you post a link to the table, at least quote the right numbers, even if you are trying to show your point. the mens un employment rates in that table are consisantly higher. I may be missing something though

As for the black being less employed, im guessing a societal/cultural/racial issue, probably a combination of all three.

You can't assume something is different, there for it has been discriminated against its not like that. Even though men are under employed from your table, im not whining about the workforce hating men, I am willing to explain it in other ways.

[Wraitchel]

You can't just jump to discrimination. The gender pay gap has been widley explained before any way.

Women tend to go for less "high flying careers" than men, they also tend to take several years out to look after their kids, a big lapse like that will hurt your employment prospects.

men are seen as breadwinners, there is a much higher stigma attached to a man being out of work than a woman, perhaps driving them to seek work more vociferously, or accept any job. The women listed as unemployed may be acting as carer to some form of dependant or other, a traditionaly female dominated role.


Also, way to pick the employment rate form the month that illustrates your point, what about dec 07, when the femal umployment rate is lower. Actually, 6.8 % is not even on there, whats wrong with you? if you post a link to the table, at least quote the right numbers, even if you are trying to show your point. the mens un employment rates in that table are consisantly higher. I may be missing something though

As for the black being less employed, im guessing a societal/cultural/racial issue, probably a combination of all three.

You can't assume something is different, there for it has been discriminated against its not like that. Even though men are under employed from your table, im not whining about the workforce hating men, I am willing to explain it in other ways.

This particular male to female pay comparison does not compare female daycare worker wages to male CEO wages. It compares equivalent jobs... such as male CPA to female CPA of the same level. If it compared wages across the board, it would be drastically more severe.   As for the unemployment table, you're right. I was looking at the Dec 2007 data. Oops, my bad.  However, the gap between white males over 20 and black males over 20 was even wider a year later, with black males being much more likely to be unemployed. You should know that the unemployment data are based on people who actually apply for unemployment benefits. It doesn't count female caregivers and stay at home moms.

[keith2004]

I don't know where to start in this thread, from what i read ( i did not read every post) it seems that there are more than a few misunderstanding, and i did not see any self-identified "Black" or "African American" person responding.

So as an Black person i will.....

I understand the resentment that many white people have to programs like affirmative action ect.

And i have heard of people not exactly liking the fact that Black people have College Funds, NAACP, Black Caucus in congress, BET (Black Entertainment Television), Black Magazines Ect.

The Basic reason for this is Black people had to create their Own Music channels, Magazines, Ect. because they were not welcome in others. They were not accepted as a part of Mainstream American culture so they developed their own subculture.
Though many of there Prejudices have disappeared I don't (and most Black people) feel that there is no reason to throw away the creative outlets this culture created after being excluded for so long.

As for Programs and Organization that were created to help Black People, they are not all still Relevant (the fact that NAACP has colored in it still makes me wonder) and i think the Congressional Black Caucus is Irrelevant, and other entities may become irrelevant as time goes on, but as the Minority in any Democratic Country Blacks will need people looking out to make sure the Majority does not impose unfair or undue rules or practices. YES we have a Black President in a few days, but White Men still hold the majority of the power.

[DennisK]

Keith,
Thanks for your perspective.  I agree with most of what you said and I'll take your word on the rest I know little of.

As I see it, it simply boils down to power.  Those who have it rule.  In our country, whites have an overwhelming majority of the power and, therefore the whites make the rules.  And as long as we see differences in race and cultures, equality will remain a myth.

[SSY]

This particular male to female pay comparison does not compare female daycare worker wages to male CEO wages. It compares equivalent jobs... such as male CPA to female CPA of the same level. If it compared wages across the board, it would be drastically more severe.   As for the unemployment table, you're right. I was looking at the Dec 2007 data. Oops, my bad.  However, the gap between white males over 20 and black males over 20 was even wider a year later, with black males being much more likely to be unemployed. You should know that the unemployment data are based on people who actually apply for unemployment benefits. It doesn't count female caregivers and stay at home moms.

Link to study please.

With regards to unemployment figures, several things. You admit men are less employed than women, this seems fine to you, but black guys being less employed than white guys is some heinous crime of discrimination? Why do you only address that issue?

You are obviously suggesting that white men have an advantage in getting employed, or perhaps people discriminate against black males when doling out jobs. I would like to see some evidence for this, you can not make an observation ( differing employment rates ) and then attach an arbitary explanation for it, surely an atheist would know better. If you can offer proof it is becuase black guys are discriminated against, I will look at it seriously. My view, it could well be something to do with the typically lower scores acheived by black pupils in school exams of all levels making them less employable.

Do the statistics include people who apply for benefits or those that receive them? I imagine there is a difference.

[curiosityandthecat]

Sorry I'm just getting back to this. It's heavy stuff and I've had other things to do.

From wiki:Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

from dictionary.com ;a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

merriam webster says :1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

You seem to be confusing a non racist with an anti racist activist

The definition I gave for "racist" is not opposed to those definitions; it is part and parcel. Someone who does not refute the system of racial power, thus, by buying into that system, maintains the "belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits" or "inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement". One would not come to have those thoughts if they were not presented at some time (much the same as we often espouse the view that everyone is born an atheist, and only becomes a theist when exposed to those views, as atheism is the default position).

The assumption is that to be a non-racist one would have to go waive signs in picket lines or become politically involved in some other way. I never made any sort of statement. Being a non-racist (or anti-racist) could be as simple as chastising friends or family members for making racist, derogatory remarks. To join in (or, I would go so far as to say, simply not speaking up against) these remarks or jokes is sufficient enough to make someone a racist. That does not mean that person is going to go join the KKK or wear White Power t-shirts.

Regarding race and socioeconomic status, there is a clear correlation between the two. Nobody in their right minds would even try to refute that. One EBSCOHost search for "race" and "socioeconomic" returns nearly 2000 articles. Narrowed down to academic journals published in the United States still returns over 500. The point I'm making is that the race of someone has no inherent affect on how much money they make; the system in which the race is judged, does. Here's just a few sources pulled at random.

[spoiler:i4y4odzd]Albrecht, D., Mulford, C., & Edward Murguia, A. (2005, Summer2005). MINORITY CONCENTRATION, DISADVANTAGE, AND INEQUALITY IN THE NONMETROPOLITAN UNITED STATES. Sociological Quarterly, 46(3), 503-523. Retrieved January 16, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

Cardarelli, R., Cardarelli, K., & Chiapa, A. (2007, August). The Modifying Effects of Education and Income on Hispanics Reporting Perceived Discrimination. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 29(3), 401-407. Retrieved January 16, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

Does Socioeconomic Status Matter? Race, Class, and Residential Segregation. (2006, May). Social Problems, Retrieved January 16, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

Grodsky, E., Warren, J., & Felts, E. (2008, August). Testing and Social Stratification in American Education. Annual Review of Sociology, 34(1), 385-404. Retrieved January 16, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

Hardaway, C., & McLoyd, V. (2009, February). Escaping Poverty and Securing Middle Class Status: How Race and Socioeconomic Status Shape Mobility Prospects for African Americans During the Transition to Adulthood. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 38(2), 242-256. Retrieved January 16, 2009, doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9354-z

Hochschild, J., & Weaver, V. (2007, December). The Skin Color Paradox and the American Racial Order. Social Forces, 86(2), 643-670. Retrieved January 16, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

Hunt, M. (2007, June). African American, Hispanic, and White Beliefs about Black/White Inequality, 1977â€"2004. American Sociological Review, 72(3), 390-415. Retrieved January 16, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

Williams, D. (2008, September 2). Racial/Ethnic Variations in Women's Health: The Social Embeddedness of Health. American Journal of Public Health, 98, S38-S47. Retrieved January 16, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.[/spoiler:i4y4odzd]
While it may be ostensibly obvious that good grades should get students into whatever schools they want, it's not realistic to believe that. Let's imagine a Black student who lives 10 miles away from a mostly White private school that she is certainly qualified to attend. Does she have transportation? What will her peers think, and how will that affect her self esteem? Can her parents afford it (KRIVO, L., & KAUFMAN, R. (2004, August). HOUSING AND WEALTH INEQUALITY: RACIAL-ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN HOME EQUITY IN THE UNITED STATES. Demography, 41(3), 585-605.)? Would the school administration welcome a Black girl in the first place? Will the students at the private school treat her poorly or differently? Will she feel like she is selling out? She has an IQ of 153. Does that matter in the light of all the social forces?

Race is a social construct. 2000 years ago when Cleopatra ruled Egypt, there was no concept of race. Skin color didn't matter. We have made it matter. The thing about height is a poor example. With the exception of giantism and dwarfism, there is typically no stigma attached to height. There is also no perceived correlation between height and intelligence or ability (with the exception of maybe basketball players, ability-wise). If things are "down to the brain" like has been suggested, then let's look at that closer.

The brain is formed via nutrients in the diet (in utero, and then in early childhood). Poor diet, poor brain development (along with everything else), lower intelligence. If I am wrong, please tell me. It's a demonstrable fact that in mostly Black neighborhoods the produce at grocery stores, just to use one example, is often of a lower quality than that found in affluent White neighborhoods. Meat also tends to be of a lower quality. Be this a result of poorer equipment like freezers and coolers, or improper storage, I do not know; the fact remains. Following this to it's logical conclusion regarding brain development and function, is it still "down to the brain" when the cards are stacked against minorities when they're still in the womb?

Hrm, lunch time. Gotta go.

I'm really enjoying this, by the way!  

[SSY]

The definition I gave for "racist" is not opposed to those definitions; it is part and parcel. Someone who does not refute the system of racial power, thus, by buying into that system, maintains the "belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits" or "inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement". One would not come to have those thoughts if they were not presented at some time (much the same as we often espouse the view that everyone is born an atheist, and only becomes a theist when exposed to those views, as atheism is the default position).

No, while someone who is a racist will obviously not fight against your supposed system fo white priviledge, it is not nessacerially true in reverse. You say unless you refute the white priviledge system, you buy into it, I not only disagree with that, you have also made the assumption the system exists in the first place. Just because I do not go out of my way to support strawberry jam, that does not mean I like rasberry jam. And people don't just hold views they are presented with, they could have developed them themselves, just as someone could come to their own conclusions about god not existing without even hearing about Mr dawkins.

The assumption is that to be a non-racist one would have to go waive signs in picket lines or become politically involved in some other way. I never made any sort of statement. Being a non-racist (or anti-racist) could be as simple as chastising friends or family members for making racist, derogatory remarks. To join in (or, I would go so far as to say, simply not speaking up against) these remarks or jokes is sufficient enough to make someone a racist. That does not mean that person is going to go join the KKK or wear White Power t-shirts.

Again, I am sorry, but you are only a racist if you hold racist views ( one race is inherently superior to others ). Your statment would mean that not actively trying to disprove god or convert friends and family to atheism would make one a theist, this is obviously not true. if someone just stays out of religious discussions, or lets their family say grace without a chastising them, they can still be plenty atheist.

Regarding race and socioeconomic status, there is a clear correlation between the two. Nobody in their right minds would even try to refute that. One EBSCOHost search for "race" and "socioeconomic" returns nearly 2000 articles. Narrowed down to academic journals published in the United States still returns over 500. The point I'm making is that the race of someone has no inherent affect on how much money they make; the system in which the race is judged, does. Here's just a few sources pulled at random.

Could you furhter elaborate on the system in which the race is judged, does?

While it may be ostensibly obvious that good grades should get students into whatever schools they want, it's not realistic to believe that. Let's imagine a Black student who lives 10 miles away from a mostly White private school that she is certainly qualified to attend. Does she have transportation? What will her peers think, and how will that affect her self esteem? Can her parents afford it (KRIVO, L., & KAUFMAN, R. (2004, August). HOUSING AND WEALTH INEQUALITY: RACIAL-ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN HOME EQUITY IN THE UNITED STATES. Demography, 41(3), 585-605.)? Would the school administration welcome a Black girl in the first place? Will the students at the private school treat her poorly or differently? Will she feel like she is selling out? She has an IQ of 153. Does that matter in the light of all the social forces?

Your questions again mix up being poor with being black. If a white female student lived 10 miles from school, with no transportation, would she magically be able to get to school any easier than a black person? If her parent can't afford school for her, it is becuase they are poor, not becuase they are black, a poor white family would not be able to conjure the money from thin air. I can not see a reason the school admin would not welcome her for being black, if they do, soley on the basis they are black, then that is purley down to thier own racism, same for the students of the school. there is no legal statute legalising or condoning discrimination against her. Similarly, should some whit efmaily move into harlem and send their daughter to a local school, mostly black, do you think her peers will look down on her? how will this effect her self esteem?  Will the students at the school treat her poorly or differently?

Race is a social construct. 2000 years ago when Cleopatra ruled Egypt, there was no concept of race. Skin color didn't matter. We have made it matter. The thing about height is a poor example. With the exception of giantism and dwarfism, there is typically no stigma attached to height. There is also no perceived correlation between height and intelligence or ability (with the exception of maybe basketball players, ability-wise). If things are "down to the brain" like has been suggested, then let's look at that closer.

You missed my point, I am saying there is a connection between race and height, people are fine with that, as soon as you ask about race and intelligence, people get all indignant and up in yo face aout it.

The brain is formed via nutrients in the diet (in utero, and then in early childhood). Poor diet, poor brain development (along with everything else), lower intelligence. If I am wrong, please tell me. It's a demonstrable fact that in mostly Black neighborhoods the produce at grocery stores, just to use one example, is often of a lower quality than that found in affluent White neighborhoods. Meat also tends to be of a lower quality. Be this a result of poorer equipment like freezers and coolers, or improper storage, I do not know; the fact remains. Following this to it's logical conclusion regarding brain development and function, is it still "down to the brain" when the cards are stacked against minorities when they're still in the womb?

Again, you mix black with being poor, a poor white person would not have access to Organic free range corn fed chicken either. Also the effects of diet on the brain may hve an effect, but you can not put all differences in IQ down to that.

Hrm, lunch time. Gotta go.

I'm really enjoying this, by the way!  

I have been waiting for Godwin's law to be invoked for a while now, the lack of it makes this the most well reasoned debate I have had on the subjct actually.