It is not the case that people arguing for social justice think *every* disparity is a sign of racism. No one thinks that the disproportionate use of mayonnaise by white folks is worth talking about.

We *do* think that measures of the big 4... (1/15)

(1) Health
(2) Wealth
(3) Income
(4) Residence

Shows consistently that people of color fare less well. This is incontrovertible.

We think the causal mechanism creating this correlation is various practices we can lump together as "systemic racism". This would include... (2/15)

(1) Historical legacies of slavery, Jim Crow, redlining and segregation -> these left the black population unable to cultivate human and economic capital

(2) present inequities in the institutions that serve black folk - (e.g. poor school systems, aggressive policing)

(3/15)

(3) anti-black attitudes that make it difficult for black folks to enter into resource-rich white friendship/family networks.

This creates a qualitatively different environment for black folks, producing different outcomes. This is a "structuralist" explanation.

(4/15)

The counterclaim would be that this correlation is best explained through the cultural habits of black folk.

This is a "culturalist" explanation.

This has surface validity, but if we think critically, it is not the best explanation...

(5/15)

This claim rests on two unstated, and I think erroneous assumptions:

(1) That behavior arises out of thin air - people make decisions regardless of their circumstances.

(2) People do not adopt new behaviors in response to changes in policy/technology/economy.

(6/15)

If one assumes this, then the inevitable conclusion one must draw is that black folk cannot "figure out" how to navigate modern society as well as other groups.

This is why a culturalist argument is inevitably a racist argument.

(7/15)

In a society that does not organize itself racially, we should not see consistent differences along *racial* lines.

This is key:

Variation according to talent, personal preference, geography is expected - but not along *racial* lines *consistently* across the big 4.

(8/15)

The first objection will be "what about the Asians." This example actually supports the structuralist argument.

Consider this chart...

(9/15)

Asian populations in the United States that came as asylum seekers do not arrive with the same resources as Indian immigrants.

The low income of Burmese respondents is not because they can't "figure out" how to make money - they are a victim of their environments.

(10/15)

So, are cultural explanations completely unhelpful?

They are good for proximate explanations of population variation (explaining why in one generation a group does better than another) and for individual units (why one family or person is not doing as well).

(11/15)

As an analogy:

Americans are heavier now than they were 20 years ago. This is a population responding to environmental changes.

It would be ineffective to implore Americans to eat less - "just change your culture."

However... (12/15)

At the individual level, any given person can change their eating habits, especially if their localized circumstances allow it.

This is because of the greater variation at the individual and family level - rich Americans have more options than poor ones.

(13/15)

Therefore, policies change population patterns, not evocations to culture.

If we want Americans to be healthier as a population, we must change the environment they navigate.

(14/15)

Finally, an overreliance on decontextualized numbers can produce erroneous conclusions.

I think it is actually more important that the structuralist explanation is theoretically more sound that the culturalist one.

(15/15)