No, that's 0 for 2, sport. It means being aware of racism at each level and doing something about it at each level (relational, systemic, community) but it seems you think it does not exist -- so we are at an impasse.
Your construct only works if every single person sees racism at all three levels forever and always. Someome discounting your basic construct does not make it more true nor them more racist. Simply repeating it as some sort of natural law doesn't make it more true either. Say, for example, via magic wand all racism at all levels were eradicated by all measures - you would still insist on the Truth of the construct, meaning it never was valid. If racism isn't actually pervasive throughout every person, institution and community, then your logic fails. Finally, you excluded the power angle. You meant to say all white people are racist in every way...not all people generally.
For profit research is not the same thing. You've happened upon the pay to play 2020 version of the tobacco industry playbook of denial (using Quillette and the Manhattan Institute as intermediaries). Not the same thing as:
We are talking about federally funded research here. The people you name are not serious researchers - who have spent their entire careers studying the subject.
The two sources you cite engender about as much trust as someone who thinks they can do surgery because they stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. Its not a topic to vacation at, you are either studying the social determinants of health or you have some sort of filtered opinion (which is called anecdotal).
As someone who has research published in peer-reviewed journals, I can tell you for a fact that what you appear call "non-profit" research is just as biased as for-profit research. Publication is a game of getting the right people as co-authors and finding topics that are "acceptable" to the journal editors.
Your credibility, the process for peer reviewed research (which can be biased), and the publication game are not the central issues of the point being made.
Who do you believe?
Heather McDonald or Glen Loury who are writers or lifelong academics who have research the social determinants of health (17 in all - each with Doctorate/MD in a field that is specific to this research).
Don't know? Well then, maybe spend the 4hours watching the documentary of their work - It ran on PBS for about 6 months and received awards from the National Academy of Sciences & Institutes of Medicine.
Do you not realize that Glenn Loury is an academic? Quillette is a publication that is filled with academics that are not able to get their ideas published due to the biases I referenced in my previous comment. While I agree that Heather MacDonald is not a great example, there are many academics out there that are trying to fight against the CRT theories you are preaching.
Quite right I did not look into Dr. Loury's background before posting - He is an economics professor who is published on race and responsibility. He's a self-styled contrarian and looks to be a productive and interesting scholar at Brown. He sounds like from his CV someone who is modeling his career after Thomas Sowell.
All for academics finding their audiences too. My audience is not CRT, and I am not preaching it as a solution or a salve. What I am saying is in direct response to posters who think Limbaugh was not racist. The average person is a poor predictors of other's racism. We are much better at identifying how we (ourselves) might replicate racism (Overt, covert/institutional, and internalized)forms.
As someone trained as a family therapist, we already the work starts with thyself, and not telling others who they should be. However, when confronted with ignorance, bullshit or avoidance, Brother Dr. Cornell West reminds us that "when you place a high value on the truth, you have to think for yourself".
I'd amend that to reflect upon one' self/one's relationships to create awareness so as to limit harm to others, especially people who have been systematically oppressed by systems of white supremacy.
I think that unfortunately the term "racist" has become too loaded and people have a visceral reaction to it. Personally, I have advocated for years that we are all racist. But, that is because that is how our brains have evolved. I prefer to say that we are tribal. That is unfortunately just part of human nature. Additionally you are not going to get positive reactions when you talk about white supremacy. The definition of that has recently changed and expanded to mean anytime there are different outcomes between groups. So, many are going to not respond positively to you when you say it.
As someone who also has an MA in counseling psychology I would like to push back on your desire to create in/out groups based on skin color. I do not believe that is a mentally healthy approach and will only lead to more internal strife for all.
If you have an interest in understanding an alternate perspective that I feel sheds light on some of the internal struggles of real people and debunks much of what we have been taught as fact, I found a trio of books to be very enlightening and they did a nice job building on each other.
First: The World of Patience Gromes provides a historical perspective of a women who was a 3rd generation freed slave. It describes the changes in the Black community through the first half of the 20th century.
Second: White Guilt by Shelby Steele. He provides his first hand experiences as a Black man before, during, and after the civil rights era.
Third: Winning the Race by John McWharter. He describes the reality of what happened during the post civil rights era and with data debunks many of the myths we have all been told for our entire lives. His writing supports everything you will have read in both Patience Gromes and White Guilt.
My position is that the two articles you provided are not research. They are opinions for pay. Research starts with a research question, involves questions of design, sampling, population under study, and a whole host of factors which scientists use to replicate findings. This is important to back any claims made.
Now, you can spout your troll farm 15 types of logical fallacies brand of persuasion to attempt to convince readers here that you know what you are talking about, and taunt with competitive debate pleas, but the fact that you would offer these two "stories" in the same breadth with this group of 17 nationally recognized scholars (some who are both MDs and Phds) is absurd.
Maybe our time talking these things through is over as I am getting the corporatist shill vibe, masquerading as someone who pretends to know about research around race, research methods, credibility of authors, propaganda and pseudo writing techniques of persuasion.
A "Social Engineering" debate? Maybe anyone in grad school can grasp the meaning of that term. I'm get a vibe here that is politically incorrect thus subject to cancel. OUT,
One can actually proves racism exists (internalized) from neonatal studies on women of color who have lived in this culture one generation. They tend to have worse birthing outcomes by a factor of 3 I believe. Saying this another way, there is something in this culture which makes child birth more dangerous for black women, especially. The main theory is that multitude of stressors (safety, socio-economic differentials, housing, support, and a slew of other variables) cause an overload of stress hormones, often associated with systemic or institutional racism, that cause pre-mature death in black babies at 3-4 times the rates of other ethnicities.
And we do not see this at all with women who are first generation Africans who give birth here. This is a problem embedded in systems and our culture not individuals.
Ok, I'll bite. What you're talking about a couple of papers on race and infant mortality written by a neonatologist (Richard Davis MD). I read through the papers and his premise is that black-American women lose their babies at a higher rate than black-African women. He goes on to opine that since the genetic make-up of the two groups are the same, then the only possible reason for the difference in birth outcomes is the discrimination that black-American women must have experienced during their pre-natal years. His papers are rife with should have, could have, would have type language but no testable data to support his hypothesis. It stands to reason a stressed out pregnant woman, regardless of color, is going to have prenatal problems and it wouldn't surprise me to find out that these woman tragically lose their babies at a higher rate. To say that this body of work is proof of systemic racism is not defensible. To say that there may be other issues aside from racism and/or relevant cultural factors is the more valid argument.
First, let's get on the same page. This is not some random guy from the internet's opinion. This is a line of inquiry from scholars in multiple fields. So, a white male 50 something professor from the Midwest is not being asked for his individual opinion.
Second, birth outcomes are one very specific variable where we can account for differences among culture, genomes, socio-economic status and an entire slew of factors that impinge upon why Latin or Caucasian women do not experience neo natal outcomes at similar rates.
Third, proving racism exists is not difficult (except for resistance from those who would argue it away as non-existent, or deny the past history of white supremacy in this culture (native Americans, African slave trade are two of many examples). This is not me complicating the topic of racism and the proof of it, but finding the best, most honest location where its expression appears to be most apparent.
Fourth, median income is a poor predictor for many research topics - since the middle of a range does not contextualize much about findings. Person A makes 18K at or just above poverty line -- does not tell you much (they could be a worker from McDonalds or coach in the fancy soccer club in the country). Its explanatory value is minimal.
But the deaths of our most valuable and vulnerable citizens (babies) provides some insight into what is happening beneath the surface of society. To a lesser extent, one might make the same claim of life expectancy (Case-Deaton Studies being relevant).
So, in summary. Its not me, it is an entire generation of doctors, epidemiologists, and basic researchers who are studying infant mortality for a specific reason, with the locus point being (racism and stress hormones (or internalized racism). Median income is a poor predictor for most research questions and there are a couple of places one might look for racism which are better, like life expectancy rates for people with similar social determinants for health.
If they controlled for otherwise obviously confounding variables like parental status of the mother growing up, mother's current marital status and employment status, you could have something.
But not more than Raj Chetty, who has controlled for everything possible with the entire US Census data set (meaning every American) and seen that the racial income gap persists down to the neighborhood level when all factors are controlled for. In males. It inverts in females. Black women make more.
so everyone's racist. which means it doesn't matter.
No, that's 0 for 2, sport. It means being aware of racism at each level and doing something about it at each level (relational, systemic, community) but it seems you think it does not exist -- so we are at an impasse.
Your construct only works if every single person sees racism at all three levels forever and always. Someome discounting your basic construct does not make it more true nor them more racist. Simply repeating it as some sort of natural law doesn't make it more true either. Say, for example, via magic wand all racism at all levels were eradicated by all measures - you would still insist on the Truth of the construct, meaning it never was valid. If racism isn't actually pervasive throughout every person, institution and community, then your logic fails. Finally, you excluded the power angle. You meant to say all white people are racist in every way...not all people generally.
Its not my construct but the work of many scholars - here is one that is particularly good because she makes it simple. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.90.8.1212
Please read the following two rebuttals to the scholarly work you site:
https://www.city-journal.org/achievement-gap-explains-demographic-disparities
https://quillette.com/2021/02/10/unspeakable-truths-about-racial-inequality-in-america/
These essays address the true elements of the societal ills you are concerned with. They are painful truths.
For profit research is not the same thing. You've happened upon the pay to play 2020 version of the tobacco industry playbook of denial (using Quillette and the Manhattan Institute as intermediaries). Not the same thing as:
https://unnaturalcauses.org/from_the_experts.php
We are talking about federally funded research here. The people you name are not serious researchers - who have spent their entire careers studying the subject.
The two sources you cite engender about as much trust as someone who thinks they can do surgery because they stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. Its not a topic to vacation at, you are either studying the social determinants of health or you have some sort of filtered opinion (which is called anecdotal).
As someone who has research published in peer-reviewed journals, I can tell you for a fact that what you appear call "non-profit" research is just as biased as for-profit research. Publication is a game of getting the right people as co-authors and finding topics that are "acceptable" to the journal editors.
Your credibility, the process for peer reviewed research (which can be biased), and the publication game are not the central issues of the point being made.
Who do you believe?
Heather McDonald or Glen Loury who are writers or lifelong academics who have research the social determinants of health (17 in all - each with Doctorate/MD in a field that is specific to this research).
Don't know? Well then, maybe spend the 4hours watching the documentary of their work - It ran on PBS for about 6 months and received awards from the National Academy of Sciences & Institutes of Medicine.
Do you not realize that Glenn Loury is an academic? Quillette is a publication that is filled with academics that are not able to get their ideas published due to the biases I referenced in my previous comment. While I agree that Heather MacDonald is not a great example, there are many academics out there that are trying to fight against the CRT theories you are preaching.
Quite right I did not look into Dr. Loury's background before posting - He is an economics professor who is published on race and responsibility. He's a self-styled contrarian and looks to be a productive and interesting scholar at Brown. He sounds like from his CV someone who is modeling his career after Thomas Sowell.
All for academics finding their audiences too. My audience is not CRT, and I am not preaching it as a solution or a salve. What I am saying is in direct response to posters who think Limbaugh was not racist. The average person is a poor predictors of other's racism. We are much better at identifying how we (ourselves) might replicate racism (Overt, covert/institutional, and internalized)forms.
As someone trained as a family therapist, we already the work starts with thyself, and not telling others who they should be. However, when confronted with ignorance, bullshit or avoidance, Brother Dr. Cornell West reminds us that "when you place a high value on the truth, you have to think for yourself".
I'd amend that to reflect upon one' self/one's relationships to create awareness so as to limit harm to others, especially people who have been systematically oppressed by systems of white supremacy.
I think that unfortunately the term "racist" has become too loaded and people have a visceral reaction to it. Personally, I have advocated for years that we are all racist. But, that is because that is how our brains have evolved. I prefer to say that we are tribal. That is unfortunately just part of human nature. Additionally you are not going to get positive reactions when you talk about white supremacy. The definition of that has recently changed and expanded to mean anytime there are different outcomes between groups. So, many are going to not respond positively to you when you say it.
As someone who also has an MA in counseling psychology I would like to push back on your desire to create in/out groups based on skin color. I do not believe that is a mentally healthy approach and will only lead to more internal strife for all.
If you have an interest in understanding an alternate perspective that I feel sheds light on some of the internal struggles of real people and debunks much of what we have been taught as fact, I found a trio of books to be very enlightening and they did a nice job building on each other.
First: The World of Patience Gromes provides a historical perspective of a women who was a 3rd generation freed slave. It describes the changes in the Black community through the first half of the 20th century.
Second: White Guilt by Shelby Steele. He provides his first hand experiences as a Black man before, during, and after the civil rights era.
Third: Winning the Race by John McWharter. He describes the reality of what happened during the post civil rights era and with data debunks many of the myths we have all been told for our entire lives. His writing supports everything you will have read in both Patience Gromes and White Guilt.
Your response does not address the issues in the articles cited. This is a classic logical fallacy.
Your position that these are not Federally funded thus not credible is laughable.
Please address the points made in the articles.
If you decline I will assume you cannot debate.
Thank you,
My position is that the two articles you provided are not research. They are opinions for pay. Research starts with a research question, involves questions of design, sampling, population under study, and a whole host of factors which scientists use to replicate findings. This is important to back any claims made.
Now, you can spout your troll farm 15 types of logical fallacies brand of persuasion to attempt to convince readers here that you know what you are talking about, and taunt with competitive debate pleas, but the fact that you would offer these two "stories" in the same breadth with this group of 17 nationally recognized scholars (some who are both MDs and Phds) is absurd.
Academia gets a lot of things wrong, but anyone who has taken a basic research class in grad school can point out the difference between (Manhattan Institute & Quillette as anything but pay to play - social engineering think tanks (see here: https://www.manhattan-institute.org/about?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI1IOPu-H07gIVFovICh1wDAlPEAAYASAAEgI5U_D_BwE )
Maybe our time talking these things through is over as I am getting the corporatist shill vibe, masquerading as someone who pretends to know about research around race, research methods, credibility of authors, propaganda and pseudo writing techniques of persuasion.
A "Social Engineering" debate? Maybe anyone in grad school can grasp the meaning of that term. I'm get a vibe here that is politically incorrect thus subject to cancel. OUT,
One can actually proves racism exists (internalized) from neonatal studies on women of color who have lived in this culture one generation. They tend to have worse birthing outcomes by a factor of 3 I believe. Saying this another way, there is something in this culture which makes child birth more dangerous for black women, especially. The main theory is that multitude of stressors (safety, socio-economic differentials, housing, support, and a slew of other variables) cause an overload of stress hormones, often associated with systemic or institutional racism, that cause pre-mature death in black babies at 3-4 times the rates of other ethnicities.
And we do not see this at all with women who are first generation Africans who give birth here. This is a problem embedded in systems and our culture not individuals.
Ok, I'll bite. What you're talking about a couple of papers on race and infant mortality written by a neonatologist (Richard Davis MD). I read through the papers and his premise is that black-American women lose their babies at a higher rate than black-African women. He goes on to opine that since the genetic make-up of the two groups are the same, then the only possible reason for the difference in birth outcomes is the discrimination that black-American women must have experienced during their pre-natal years. His papers are rife with should have, could have, would have type language but no testable data to support his hypothesis. It stands to reason a stressed out pregnant woman, regardless of color, is going to have prenatal problems and it wouldn't surprise me to find out that these woman tragically lose their babies at a higher rate. To say that this body of work is proof of systemic racism is not defensible. To say that there may be other issues aside from racism and/or relevant cultural factors is the more valid argument.
hmmm could it be that pregnant African immigrants behave differently than pregnant US blacks?
https://unnaturalcauses.org/
Social Determinants of Health is a term you could explore more of as well.
if you define racism that way, then you don't need to go farther than median income to "prove racism exists"
First, let's get on the same page. This is not some random guy from the internet's opinion. This is a line of inquiry from scholars in multiple fields. So, a white male 50 something professor from the Midwest is not being asked for his individual opinion.
Second, birth outcomes are one very specific variable where we can account for differences among culture, genomes, socio-economic status and an entire slew of factors that impinge upon why Latin or Caucasian women do not experience neo natal outcomes at similar rates.
Third, proving racism exists is not difficult (except for resistance from those who would argue it away as non-existent, or deny the past history of white supremacy in this culture (native Americans, African slave trade are two of many examples). This is not me complicating the topic of racism and the proof of it, but finding the best, most honest location where its expression appears to be most apparent.
Fourth, median income is a poor predictor for many research topics - since the middle of a range does not contextualize much about findings. Person A makes 18K at or just above poverty line -- does not tell you much (they could be a worker from McDonalds or coach in the fancy soccer club in the country). Its explanatory value is minimal.
But the deaths of our most valuable and vulnerable citizens (babies) provides some insight into what is happening beneath the surface of society. To a lesser extent, one might make the same claim of life expectancy (Case-Deaton Studies being relevant).
So, in summary. Its not me, it is an entire generation of doctors, epidemiologists, and basic researchers who are studying infant mortality for a specific reason, with the locus point being (racism and stress hormones (or internalized racism). Median income is a poor predictor for most research questions and there are a couple of places one might look for racism which are better, like life expectancy rates for people with similar social determinants for health.
If they controlled for otherwise obviously confounding variables like parental status of the mother growing up, mother's current marital status and employment status, you could have something.
But not more than Raj Chetty, who has controlled for everything possible with the entire US Census data set (meaning every American) and seen that the racial income gap persists down to the neighborhood level when all factors are controlled for. In males. It inverts in females. Black women make more.
https://unnaturalcauses.org/
prove (wish there were an edit button)
Very well, weтАЩre all racist. So?
That means all-
All peoples are racist.
Whites idiotically tried to change that, and are suffering the consequences of going to war with human nature, instead of accepting it and moving on.
WeтАЩre all paying for WhiteyтАЩs mistakes. Whitey should stop making it, absolutely stop apologizing for anything, and get back to running things.
The rest of you have been a terrible disappointment, to say the least.
Lets go back to having a functional society.
Get out of the way, and just let us run the place.