TY again for the referral, Sir Clifton. And I gotta say, it was an *armful.* I'm still thinking about the overall scheme of the article, but here are a few minor points that may interest a few. Quotes preceded by “>”.
> “There would be no races in the steady state of any dynamic social system unless, on a daily basis and with regard to their most intimate affairs, people paid assiduous attention to the boundaries separating themselves from racially distinct others. Over time, race would cease to exist unless people chose to act in a manner so as biologically to reproduce the variety of phenotypic expression that constitutes the substance of racial distinction.”
Per below link, Whites intermarry at about the same percentage as Black women (10 – 12%). Black men intermarry twice the rate of Black women. In total, Blacks intermarriage rate is 18% and Whites 11%. I’m not at all sure that the percentages tell the whole story. Given the *number* of people by race.
But mebbe more to the point is that, according to this article I read a year or more ago, I think the point was that in 40 years there’s gonna be so much interracial marriage that a lotta this is gonna be a moot point. (lotta “points” ;-) “The Myth of a Majority-Minority America.” https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/myth-majority-minority-america/619190/
But I think the most important point in the whole article, that wasn’t involved in the text much, is the following:
‘> “The perspective I am promoting about social capital does not require special, race-targeted social policy. Most policy initiatives aimed at improving the lives of our most disadvantaged citizens should not, and need not, be formulated in explicitly racial terms or understood as a remedy for racial injuries. We have to find what works for disadvantaged people in America, period.”
I’d hafta read it again, but I believe that most-a the places where it said “Black” or “African American” it would-a been *just* as appropriate to say “poor people.”
For example this applies to all races:
‘> “To the extent that African-American youngsters do not have the experiences, are not exposed to the influences, and do not benefit from the resources that foster and facilitate their human development, they fail to achieve their full human potential.”
This ignores the bigger problem that virtually *nobody* in our society comes even *close* to reaching their *full* potential. Unless You think spending hours on social media or binge-watching Netflix counts.
‘> “"First, all human development is socially situated and mediated."
IMO, "All" should be replaced by "the best." In my experience, anyway.
TY again for the referral, Sir Clifton. And I gotta say, it was an *armful.* I'm still thinking about the overall scheme of the article, but here are a few minor points that may interest a few. Quotes preceded by “>”.
> “There would be no races in the steady state of any dynamic social system unless, on a daily basis and with regard to their most intimate affairs, people paid assiduous attention to the boundaries separating themselves from racially distinct others. Over time, race would cease to exist unless people chose to act in a manner so as biologically to reproduce the variety of phenotypic expression that constitutes the substance of racial distinction.”
Per below link, Whites intermarry at about the same percentage as Black women (10 – 12%). Black men intermarry twice the rate of Black women. In total, Blacks intermarriage rate is 18% and Whites 11%. I’m not at all sure that the percentages tell the whole story. Given the *number* of people by race.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/05/18/1-trends-and-patterns-in-intermarriage/
But mebbe more to the point is that, according to this article I read a year or more ago, I think the point was that in 40 years there’s gonna be so much interracial marriage that a lotta this is gonna be a moot point. (lotta “points” ;-) “The Myth of a Majority-Minority America.” https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/myth-majority-minority-america/619190/
But I think the most important point in the whole article, that wasn’t involved in the text much, is the following:
‘> “The perspective I am promoting about social capital does not require special, race-targeted social policy. Most policy initiatives aimed at improving the lives of our most disadvantaged citizens should not, and need not, be formulated in explicitly racial terms or understood as a remedy for racial injuries. We have to find what works for disadvantaged people in America, period.”
I’d hafta read it again, but I believe that most-a the places where it said “Black” or “African American” it would-a been *just* as appropriate to say “poor people.”
For example this applies to all races:
‘> “To the extent that African-American youngsters do not have the experiences, are not exposed to the influences, and do not benefit from the resources that foster and facilitate their human development, they fail to achieve their full human potential.”
This ignores the bigger problem that virtually *nobody* in our society comes even *close* to reaching their *full* potential. Unless You think spending hours on social media or binge-watching Netflix counts.
‘> “"First, all human development is socially situated and mediated."
IMO, "All" should be replaced by "the best." In my experience, anyway.
TY again. May have more, or mebbe not.