[GGG]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Am I reading that wrong, because it seems like it's data across all incomes? As you suggest, there's clearly no reason to think that these trends are directly correlated to skin colour, and are more likely to be related to socio-economic status. If that's the case, shouldn't any solution be aimed at people having the requisite socio-economic status rather than people with a certain skin colour? As you said yourself, skin colour clearly isn't the cause, so why would we make it a key consideration in addressing the issue?

Historical realities and legacies of oppression that have led more blacks to be poor than whites, for one. I'm sure you could probably make some sort of case about cultural factors, but even if you assume that's just noise, we're still talking more about an issue of economic status than anything else. But that's not a factor that's faced by black people and not white people in any practical sense - if you're poor, you're poor, regardless of how you get there, and you face a similar set of challenges and trends that affect your outcomes (not that I'm saying they're identical, but I would think geography creates as much variance as race).

Here is a great presentation of a recent study done showing the affect of race after accounting for sociology economic status, parental conditions and many other commonly cited factors outside race to explain inequality. It's American so not directly relevant to this conversation but is a direct rebuttal to these assumptions.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...black-men.html

One of the most popular liberal post-racial ideas is the idea that the fundamental problem is class and not race, and clearly this study explodes that idea,” said Ibram Kendi, a professor and director of the Antiracist Research and Policy Center at American University. “But for whatever reason, we’re unwilling to stare racism in the face.

”