The predominant factor in black deaths by police is more crimes commited - not racism

[Jolly_Penguin]

Nothing inherently wrong with discussing and examining and testing.and debunking any of those ideas.

Ideas and arguments should never be dismissed merely because they are distasteful.

But isn't there general consensus that such hypotheses have long been debunked?

Indeed.

 

[Axulus]

Ok, so let's take your simple example and add a few details to it. We have 100 people in society, 3 of them are slave owners, 18 are slaves. One slave owner owns 12 slaves, another owns 5, the last one owns 1 - closer to the real distribution it was back then.

The vast majority of contribution of the pie of the 18 goes to those 3, and very slightly to the other 79 non slave(r) population through lower prices of whatever the slaves make.

Now, the question is whether society as a whole benefits from the slave situation like you claim from the standpoint of the non-slaves and their decedents.

Economics 101 says that labor and capital are substitutes - the cheaper the labor, the less investment in capital - if I have a dollar to spend and I need to increase production, I can spend it by buying more labor or I can spend it by investing in capital. If one dollar buys me more labor (slavery) - then I allocate more dollars to it than capital investment. As a result, capital investment in the country is less. The other 79 therefore become slightly less productive (and earn lower wages) as a result of the diminished capital investment.

Furthermore, what about an alternate situation where there were no slaves, where those individuals are free to obtain an education and develop more skills and work freely for themselves or anyone else? Think of the contributions they could make that would benefit society as a whole. Surely some of those now free slaves would contribute good ideas and or discover something (whether it be new business processes or academic research) that makes the economy and society just a little bit better. In other words, they would contribute to economic growth much more so than they did while slaves. The pie is smaller since they are slaves.

Now let's fast forward to the situation when slavery is outlawed. Our economy has a smaller GDP than it would otherwise have for the reasons above, and the 79 non-slaveholders and their families are all worse off because of it - less tax revenue to support government services, slightly lower wages, and lower capital stock. No question that the 3 slave holding families benefited, but are you really going to argue that their benefit outweighs the loss to the 79 non-slaveholders (to say nothing of the damage to the slaves themselves)?

History called to say you're full of shit. History says that slavery was the economic engine of the South, creating the cotton empire.

Your history revisionism is transparent - the South was far poorer than the north, one of the reasons they lost the civil war from the far more productive and prosperous slave free north. Economics explains it quite well, which I see you don't even attempt to refute.

 

[Axulus]

But isn't there general consensus that such hypotheses have long been debunked?

Indeed.

Then I presume it wouldn't be difficult to produce a citation or source to such consensus? For example, try taking a look at the Wikipedia article to learn the background on the debate, which has this quote:

While several environmental factors have been shown to affect group differences in intelligence, it has not been demonstrated that they can explain the entire disparity. But on the other hand, no genetic factor has been conclusively shown to have a causal relation with group difference in intelligence test scores. Recent summaries of the debate call for more research into the topic to determine the relative contributions of environmental and genetic factors in explaining the apparent IQ disparity among racial groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

Doesn't sound like much of a consensus to me. Which is exactly why I've said I don't completely dismiss the idea that there is such a difference. I'm waiting for the evidence to come down strongly on one side or the other, as all rational and freethinking people should do.

 

[George S]

Slavery is a social ordering. With slavery there is a class of humans who may be owned. Higher up the scale are those in voluntary indentured servitude in return for valuata. They have presold their ownership and get it back at the end of the contract. Higher still are company towns. They are paid so little all their pay goes to the landowner as rent and to the company store for goods. Next come the wage slaves. Working for just enough to have a roof overhead and food on the table in a mindless job with no future. The rat racers are next, our merchant class. Good men who find out in later life that they did not know their family because of racing rats. We employed slaves and ordered them to give their lives for a cause they did not believe in. My number came up in the draft lottery. What we do today is voluntary indentured servitude. They must obey our warrior class.

Slaves to custom only are next. Sons and daughters of the rich slaveowners. Almost there.

Freethinkers break even those final bonds and are truly free, even when not at liberty. The artists and philosophers. Freedom is not a right at all. We always have that. Liberty, on the other hand is more like a tree that needs watering from time to time. And careful pruning for good new growth. I worry over that tree's health.

 

[Axulus]

People have said "it could be incomplete and useless because of X", they never demonstrated X, just posited it which I couldn't counter and I already agreed to. So no comment that there is no data that demonstrates racism in police killings and arrests?

And also no data to prove there isn't racism in police killings and arrests; especially given the fact that the self-reported numbers are also identified as "justifiable" hoomicides which by definition would mean any "non-justifiable" homicides would be left out.

You can't prove a negative. I simply provided an plausible explanation for the disparity between black and white deaths at the hands of police and provided available data to support it. Those who claim racism in deaths at the hands of police need to build up their own case regardless of whether they agree that my explanation is plausible or not. Tearing down my explanation doesn't mean that police departments are racist in determining whether to take actions that lead to deaths of blacks vs whites.

 

[Axulus]

John Elliott Cairnes, an economist, reckoned that slavery stifled economic growth in the South. Cairnes argued that reluctant workers depleted soils more quickly. In addition, scientific agriculture was impossible. Reluctant slaves, with little interest in learning, had no interest in using new farming techniques. And this meant that Southern farms lost competitiveness to their Northern counterparts.

Others reckon that slavery made it difficult for the South to establish trading networks. According to Ralph Anderson and Robert Gallman, slavery forced planters to diversify their economic activities. The costs of owning a slave—such as food and shelter—were pretty constant. And so if plantations specialised in a certain crop, they left themselves open to sudden drops in income and consequently big losses. But by pursuing a range of economic activities, they had a steadier revenue flow to match their fixed costs.

Diversification posed problems. Messrs Anderson and Gallman argue that it inhibited trade within the South—and, consequently, the development of towns and villages. Slaveowners found it easier to produce something themselves, rather than buy it. And the South found it difficult to develop a manufacturing industry—instead, it depended on imports from the North. As a result, economic growth was stifled.

Slavery hindered the development of Southern capitalism in other ways. Eugene Genovese, writing in 1961, reckoned that the antebellum South was not profit-seeking. In fact, slavery was not even meant to be profitable. Slaveowners were keener on flaunting their vast plantations and huge reserves of slaves than they were about profits and investment. Rational economic decisions were sacrificed for pomp and circumstance.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/09/economic-history-2

 

[Davka]

History called to say you're full of shit. History says that slavery was the economic engine of the South, creating the cotton empire.

Your history revisionism is transparent - the South was far poorer than the north, one of the reasons they lost the civil war from the far more productive and prosperous slave free north. Economics explains it quite well, which I see you don't even attempt to refute.

You've been refuted, and your grasp of history is pathetic. Go back a mite further than the Civil War, you might discover how far up your ass your head is.

 

[arkirk]

This data and analysis looked specifically at racism being a contributing factor to black deaths at the hands of police, the political topic of late which is claimed or assumed by the protesters. The data does not support that claim. I don't deny that racism plays a part in influencing police interactions with blacks, but the higher crime rates is the far more significant/predominant factor in all of this. Furthermore, surveys can't tell you objective apples to apples comparisons of the magnitude of the discrepancy of police interactions with blacks vs. whites. You yourself have said the black community is very mistrusting of the police, so mightn't that influence perceptions of encounters and therefore bias survey results, as psychological science suggests? This is _not_ to say there is room for significant improvement in the way that the police interacts with all citizens, and that there is some additional concern with the way it interacts with the black community. Just that the claims of racism seem to be over-exaggerated or, in some cases (deaths by police), most likely wrong. The magnitude of the racism that the protesters and the black community are claiming do not seem to be supported by the best objective data we have available (which isn't to say that this means or that I believe there is zero racism. There definitely is some).

- - - Updated - - -

He presented his argument, with data that can be examined and challenged, and instead of making some sort of counter argument (which I presume wouldn't be hard to do), you just call him a racist. I'm afraid he is the one who looks more reasonable here.

Pigs look reasonable too, but if you wrestle them you both get muddy - and the pig likes it.

Yes, we all know those journalists over at the public channel 4 are all a bunch of racist pigs. You couldn't tell a racist apart from your left foot.

And you do? Definers like you tend to define away the weakest parts of your arguments. Black people get busted more, killed more etc..because they are more carefully scrutinized for minor crimes cops ignore when white people commit them. Axulus' argument supporting the inherent wickedness of black people helps make them more liable to be watched, ordered around, arrested, and if they don't like that, killed. It is a slippery slope and a young white cop with a gun facing one of those black demons...what's a young fella to do anyway? Never mind the fact that he approached and accosted and ordered the black guy around...usually into something called the felony position...and he very likely will find something on the black kid even if it is not there...and lacking that, he can just shoot the guy and say he failed to obey his lawful orders....It really is cut and dried how it works.

 

[laughing dog]

John Elliott Cairnes, an economist, reckoned that slavery stifled economic growth in the South. Cairnes argued that reluctant workers depleted soils more quickly. In addition, scientific agriculture was impossible. Reluctant slaves, with little interest in learning, had no interest in using new farming techniques. And this meant that Southern farms lost competitiveness to their Northern counterparts.

Others reckon that slavery made it difficult for the South to establish trading networks. According to Ralph Anderson and Robert Gallman, slavery forced planters to diversify their economic activities. The costs of owning a slave—such as food and shelter—were pretty constant. And so if plantations specialised in a certain crop, they left themselves open to sudden drops in income and consequently big losses. But by pursuing a range of economic activities, they had a steadier revenue flow to match their fixed costs.

Diversification posed problems. Messrs Anderson and Gallman argue that it inhibited trade within the South—and, consequently, the development of towns and villages. Slaveowners found it easier to produce something themselves, rather than buy it. And the South found it difficult to develop a manufacturing industry—instead, it depended on imports from the North. As a result, economic growth was stifled.

Slavery hindered the development of Southern capitalism in other ways. Eugene Genovese, writing in 1961, reckoned that the antebellum South was not profit-seeking. In fact, slavery was not even meant to be profitable. Slaveowners were keener on flaunting their vast plantations and huge reserves of slaves than they were about profits and investment. Rational economic decisions were sacrificed for pomp and circumstance.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/09/economic-history-2

I find it hard to believe that any competent economist would argue that the economic structure of the South inhibited trade because there are always comparative advantages. As to the last claim, "rational economic decisions" are those that enhance the decision-maker's view of his/her welfare, not some 20th century economist's view of what that ought to be.

 

[Davka]

Axulus knows what real racism is, and it sure as shit isn't starting a racist thread with an ancient trope about how black people have it coming.

 

[Metaphor]

Wrong. Nobody is excluding the 18 from making the pie larger, just from reaping the benefits. we're talking about slavery, remember? Are you really going to claim that the slaves in the cotton fields contributed nothing to the economy?

Are we talking about slavery? Because systemic slavery ended over 150 years ago in the American South. So no, White people alive today do not benefit from slavery. You might as well say Black people alive today benefit from slavery.

Apart from the morality of it, from an economic standpoint, any product that requires slave labour to produce is a gross waste of resources and a misdirection of capital. We simply don't know how large the pie could have been were it not for slave labour.

Now, the minority of people who were slave owners in the antebellum South benefitted from slaves when they had them, but the entire South, and the entire world, would have been better off without slavery.

I now live in a world that has less wealth than it could have had, because some Whites in the South owned slaves 150 years ago.

White people are worse off because of slavery. Not better.

 

[George S]

Indeed.

Then I presume it wouldn't be difficult to produce a citation or source to such consensus? For example, try taking a look at the Wikipedia article to learn the background on the debate, which has this quote:

While several environmental factors have been shown to affect group differences in intelligence, it has not been demonstrated that they can explain the entire disparity. But on the other hand, no genetic factor has been conclusively shown to have a causal relation with group difference in intelligence test scores. Recent summaries of the debate call for more research into the topic to determine the relative contributions of environmental and genetic factors in explaining the apparent IQ disparity among racial groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

Doesn't sound like much of a consensus to me. Which is exactly why I've said I don't completely dismiss the idea that there is such a difference. I'm waiting for the evidence to come down strongly on one side or the other, as all rational and freethinking people should do.

We have run an experiment. What IQ measures is the ability to do well on tests. Period. It does not test a nebulous thing called intelligence. The ability to do well on timed tests is surely one kind of intelligence. Having been a Mensa Proctor I studied up on the tests I was giving. The IQ test was invented so that it could be determined who would do well in higher (high school) education. All later tests are normalized to a prior standard. IQ testing has evolved, of course, but still correlates very well with the original. It works! People who do well on timed tests do okay in high school and even university! Next question.

It is lousy at predicting success in life. Extreme IQ (beyond 6 sigma) has a negative correlation with income compared to minimum for Mensa. At the Annual Mensa Gathering the talk entitled "If we're so smart why aren't we rich?" is always well attended. So is the mixer with the title "If you can't get laid at a Mensa AG, you can't get laid." with a performance of "I wanna be seduced. (Some performers in drag, some not, you decide.)" High IQ means you can do well on timed tests. Now compute how much of your life you spend taking timed tests. Real useful, huh.

 

[Metaphor]

Put simply: it is a very bizarre position to argue from for a white candidate to protest his not being considered for a job posting that says "Seeking highly qualified educators from a minority background." No doubt they'll still do it, though; I have heard of people attempting to sue employers who excluded them because they were not bilingual (I often wonder if "Did you not realize that the job posting was for a bilingual service rep?" would be the judge's very first question).

So what you're telling me is that by 'identifying a need', you're free and morally right to do whatever it is you need to do to fill that need? This is screamingly absurd.

Imagine a school where most students are White. Imagine that the school has conducted research that shows that White children learn best with a White teacher, and do poorly with a Black teacher. Imagine also that the same outcomes are not observed for Black students ie the colour of the teacher makes no difference to the learning outcomes of Black students.

Are you seriously contending that the school, having identified a good reason to have only White teachers, are now free to advertise for 'A qualified teacher from a White ancestry'?

 

[Axulus]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/09/economic-history-2

I find it hard to believe that any competent economist would argue that the economic structure of the South inhibited trade because there are always comparative advantages. As to the last claim, "rational economic decisions" are those that enhance the decision-maker's view of his/her welfare, not some 20th century economist's view of what that ought to be.

And your assessment about the idea that slavery helped power the US economic boom just before and during the industrial revolution and made the country more prosperous? You find that plausible?

 

[Metaphor]

Apparently the only example you can handle is applicants to school. The world is larger than that.

No, it's not the only example I can 'handle'. It is the example that I know the most about, though, and the example where I'm able to most clearly articulate what I'm arguing. If you'd like to discuss some other aspect, let's discuss it. But you can't simply handwave away my examples.

Without a well-defined objective measures of what constitutes the best qualified candidate, your argument is pointless.

Please tell me in what situations the race of an anaesthesiologist is a relevant consideration in predicting her performance?

You have yet to come up with a well-defined measure.

Of academic success? You can use several. Grade point average. Completion on time. Published, peer-reviewed research.

I don't know there is no doubt what predicts academic success without defining academic success. And none of this is relevant to people applying for jobs.

Since your stock and trade is academic success, I should have thought it were obvious. High grades. Completing your degree on time. Completing higher and research degrees.

Tell me: when does race become a factor of merit when applying to be a firefighter?

That involved rejection solely on a demographic characteristic which is not the same as selecting qualified candidates partly on demographic characteristics.

No, it's not exactly the same, in the same way that slavery is not exactly the same as sitting at the back of the bus. But the insidious principle behind it -- that an immutable characteristic like your race can be fairly applied to your detriment -- fueled both.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

History called to say you're full of shit. History says that slavery was the economic engine of the South, creating the cotton empire.

Your history revisionism is transparent - the South was far poorer than the north, one of the reasons they lost the civil war from the far more productive and prosperous slave free north.

Half right. The North was more productive because they had diversified their manufacturing base and moved away from agriculture as their primary source of income. The southern states' primary cash products were cotton, tobacco and food products for which domestic demand wasn't actually all that high, and most of their income and consumption came from trade with northern states and international export of their products to other countries.

Going to war with the North actually cut off their primary source of industrial goods, and the Union Blockade cut them off from their trade partners abroad. Despite this, the Confederacy was actually able to compete with the Union industrially for much of the war until Union generals adopted the then-unprecedented tactic of "total war," deliberately targeting the Confederacy's industrial base with the intention of destroying its capacity to fight.

There's also the oft-ignored fact that the South retained some of the most brilliant and creative engineers in the Union at the time, hence its development of the CSS Virginia -- the world's first ironclad warship- and H.L. Hunley, the first submarine in history to sink an enemy warship.

The south didn't loose the war because they were poor. They lost the war because the Union beat the shit out of them.

 

[laughing dog]

I find it hard to believe that any competent economist would argue that the economic structure of the South inhibited trade because there are always comparative advantages. As to the last claim, "rational economic decisions" are those that enhance the decision-maker's view of his/her welfare, not some 20th century economist's view of what that ought to be.

And your assessment about the idea that slavery helped power the US economic boom just before and during the industrial revolution and made the country more prosperous? You find that plausible?

Please provide a quote of mine to that effect.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Put simply: it is a very bizarre position to argue from for a white candidate to protest his not being considered for a job posting that says "Seeking highly qualified educators from a minority background." No doubt they'll still do it, though; I have heard of people attempting to sue employers who excluded them because they were not bilingual (I often wonder if "Did you not realize that the job posting was for a bilingual service rep?" would be the judge's very first question).

So what you're telling me is that by 'identifying a need', you're free and morally right to do whatever it is you need to do to fill that need? This is screamingly absurd.

What's absurd about it? "We need more black teachers on our staff. Why? Because we suspended a black kid for displaying a batman logo we mistakenly thought was a gang sign and now all the black parents think we're a bunch of elitist crackers. Damage control, baby!" What's absurd about deliberately looking for a candidate who can offer a new perspective that differs from the established way of doing things, especially if management realizes a lack of perspective is the crux of the problem in the first place?

The only reason to protest it at all is if the search for such a candidate is stipulated in a police document or an organization-wide initiative. That, as I said, is a puzzling position to argue from; if organizations have the right to make hiring decisions based on what they feel they need, the fact that they bothered to tell you what they're looking for isn't all that damming.

Imagine a school where most students are White. Imagine that the school has conducted research that shows that White children learn best with a White teacher, and do poorly with a Black teacher. Imagine also that the same outcomes are not observed for Black students ie the colour of the teacher makes no difference to the learning outcomes of Black students.

Are you seriously contending that the school, having identified a good reason to have only White teachers, are now free to advertise for 'A qualified teacher from a White ancestry'?

Of course they're free to do that. They would, of course, have to leverage doing so against the inevitable ill will that doing so would generate for the broader community. That's the funny thing about affirmative action programs: the people most offended by it are entitled young white conservatives who interpret any attempt to promote social justice for minorities as somehow being an attack on them and/or their heritage. Ironically, these then constitute a very vocal minority that can generally be ignored simply because they have better things to do and nothing to gain by pressing the issue further. OTOH, "white only" hiring policies generally alienate minorities that are already feeling the effects of institutional and not-so-institutional racism in the recent past and are much less likely to let it slide. Therefore those kinds of policies are either never published openly, or are only adopted/announced by organizations that don't expect to have to deal with black people in the first place (e.g. some Unions implicitly exclude black people by requiring a letter of recommendation from existing members, who just so happen to all be white).

 

[laughing dog]

No, it's not the only example I can 'handle'. It is the example that I know the most about, though, and the example where I'm able to most clearly articulate what I'm arguing. If you'd like to discuss some other aspect, let's discuss it. But you can't simply handwave away my examples.

I can when they are not relevant.

Please tell me in what situations the race of an anaesthesiologist is a relevant consideration in predicting her performance?

First I need to know the point of this question.

Of academic success? You can use several. Grade point average. Completion on time. Published, peer-reviewed research.

Any of those is pretty one dimensional.

Since your stock and trade is academic success, I should have thought it were obvious. High grades. Completing your degree on time. Completing higher and research degrees.

I think academic success means a more fully educated person. Grades are a very imperfect measure of that. I have never understood the completion of a degree on time as a measure of academic success. Completion of higher degrees is more a measure of the tolerance of low standards of living than anything else.

Tell me: when does race become a factor of merit when applying to be a firefighter?

When communities expect their firefighters to reflect their demographics.

No, it's not exactly the same, in the same way that slavery is not exactly the same as sitting at the back of the bus. But the insidious principle behind it -- that an immutable characteristic like your race can be fairly applied to your detriment -- fueled both.

I seriously doubt that even the people who applied and enforced Jim Crow laws thought they were fair or even fairly applied. Same for slavers and slave owners.

 

[Metaphor]

What's absurd about it?

I should have thought my example clarified it.

"We need more black teachers on our staff. Why? Because we suspended a black kid for displaying a batman logo we mistakenly thought was a gang sign and now all the black parents think we're a bunch of elitist crackers. Damage control, baby!" What's absurd about deliberately looking for a candidate who can offer a new perspective

No. You didn't say 'look for a candidate with a new perspective.' You said look for a candidate of a particular race.

Do you think every Black person is interchangeable with any other? I can only think you believe that, since apparently any Black person is able to provide this 'perspective' that eludes all White people.

that differs from the established way of doing things, especially if management realizes a lack of perspective is the crux of the problem in the first place?

Skin colour is not a perspective.

If you want a different 'perspective', then establish what you want and look for it. But don't use race as a proxy and pretend they're the same.

Of course they're free to do that. They would, of course, have to leverage doing so against the inevitable ill will that doing so would generate for the broader community.

So, it's fine to hire people based partly on race, wholly on race, or indeed, on any criterion you care to name, as long as you've got community support?

So, people who refused to hire Blacks based solely on race in the 1950s were morally right?

That's the funny thing about affirmative action programs: the people most offended by it are entitled young white conservatives who interpret any attempt to promote social justice for minorities as somehow being an attack on them and/or their heritage.

So, allowing race to influence hiring=social justice? Are we supposed to take that as gospel, or can you demonstrate the link between the two?