[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

That's just blaming the victim though.

Saying "What did you expect? Being so anti-racism, and anti-bigotry, and forcing (ugh) inclusiveness and promoting love over hate? Of course people are going to hate you!"

I'd rephrase that as: "If you foster group political identities for groups A, B, and C, while villifying group D, don't be at all surprised when group D starts deliberately acting like a group and enters the fray." While we can come up with all sorts of ethical reasons why A, B, and C deserve to villify group D, and why it's unjust for group D march under a group banner like A, B, and C, the simple fact is it's going to happen. When you divide people into groups, and encourage them to identity with those groups, you will get conflict. Always. And if the political stakes in the struggle are high, that conflict will get ugly.

Catholics and Protestants were at each other's throats for centuries. Fought wars that left millions dead. Persecuted and tortured and oppressed one another. Within living memory the parents of a Catholic girl would strongly disapprove of the notion of the her marrying a Protestant boy. Today, that conflict has more or less disappeared. Why? Because religious identity became less important.

The only way to reduce group conflict is to minimize the importance of group identity.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

In your opinion, what's the single largest factor in 'black culture' not 'taking responsibility for their children' and not 'prioritizing education'?

I'm no expert. There does seem to be an honour culture at work that makes young men strive to impress other young men rather than the wider community. This is one of the consequences of boys raised without dads, so there's obviously a multi-generational effect at work.

But it's worth noting that the level of family breakdown we're seeing is fairly recent (last 60 years or so). Families were of course broken up during slavery, with terrible consequences. But African Americans had established pretty stable family structures by the early 20th century.

I'll also point out that we're also seeing the same trend towards single parenthood in poor and working class whites, with the same devastating effect. So whatever culture is making men neglect to stay and raise children, while women continue to have children such men, it's not restricted to black Americans. But since it does effect blacks disproportionately, it's in their interests to address it.

Since Asian American families show substantially lower rates of single-parent families than White Americans, maybe it would be worthwhile to compare the two to understand what Asians are doing right. Is it cultural prohibitions against drug and alcohol use? Greater involvement of grandparents in family support? That high value placed on education? I don't know. But this issue is too serious to shy away from uncomfortable findings.

I'll turn around and pose a question to you. Why the resistance to the notion that both external and internal factors shape the outcomes of groups and individuals? Surely you've seen individuals in your own experience who have had some say in how their lives turned out - who weren't simply empty vessels acted upon by irresistible social forces.

Originally Posted by rubecube

So I take it your against affirmative action then?

Beyond educational subsidies for disadvantaged groups, yes.