But see, I was simply pointing out reasons why a black person may not have been able to vote. That doesn't say that it only applies to blacks, just that the results of an election may not (and usually don't, anymore) reflect the will of the people.
And I totally understand that; but for it to be a reason that a BLACK person may not be able to vote (as opposed to any other demographic) it has to be exclusive to that demographic. And none of those things are. They are, frankly, all excuses, as proven by the two most recent Federal elections, where black turnout was equal to ('08) and exceeded ('12) white turnout. What changed on that Tuesday?
Latent racism doesn't mean there's a white guy going, "Fuck black people, they're inferior." It means the way in which the laws are enacted and enforced have unequal impact along racial lines. Plus, assuming the black guy would represent black people is absurd. He could advocate policies that most black people don't support or which arent helpful to most black people. Like Hermain Cain. Voting for the black guy because he's black is racist as well, so it does litttle to actually absolve the system of racism.
And more importantly, with the level of corruption in our system, just electing more blacks doesn't mean the system will change. It's not because of racism per say, more greed, but it helps perpetuate a system which unfairly harms blacks and other minorities moreso than whites.
I understand what "latent" means.
I get the statistics, and there is some correlation with what you are saying but in my experience (I am not an expert, but my experience is not minor; I am certified in Six Sigma, which is a statistics-based analytical tool) one of the main problems with statistical analysis is not proving correlation, but rather proving cause and effect. I have no doubt that certain laws and certain schema tend to impact blacks differently than other demographics, but as I have tried to show (poorly) it is often just as much if not more impactful to certain economic classes.
And yes, of course electing the black candidate because he is black is "racist". ANY time "skin color" is a factor EITHER way it is technically racist. But, by way of example only, I point to Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter's comments on the night of the '08 election when interviewed following the concession by McCain: "We have been waiting 400 years for this moment!!!!!!". Uh, who's we and where did the "400 years" come from; at my count the US was 'in play' for about 232 years at that point... please don't try and tell me there wasn't ONE VOTE for Obama that wasn't because he was black. I don't claim that is the ONLY reason he was elected (it was, as I usually say, economics, even if the economics was totally wrong), but it IS a factor. And if even those that WOULD vote for a black candidate because of his/her skin color don't bother, there is no answer for that other than APATHY, and not the kind that El Barto is talking about.
D'oh, I knew I should have just done the math, what I get for being lazy. Misread that table (obviously).
But why don't those people finish highschool? Often it's bad schools, which are underfunded and poorly staffed. That, and they see a broken system around them where getting their diploma won't do them as much good. They don't see the jobs or opportunities, and it creates a vicious cycle. More black people havinh a diploma wouldn't make more jobs are change the laws ofs scarcity, so in a sense, it's also pragmatically irrelevant as far as I can see.
Plus, like you said, you just undermined your own argument. More white people are poor. Therefor, more whites should be in prison for the same offenses if the main driving force were purely economic. Poor whites have just as much incentive to sell drugs as poor blacks, and there are a lot more of them. We should expect a higher percentage of blacks to be in prison than whites, given the statistics, but the prison population should reflect the society at large, and it doesn't, and by a long shot.
The problem was that I know the general facts, that more whites are poor than blacks, and so I was lazy in finding support for that when I needed it. Partly cause one-handed typing is aggravating, and the less I had to write, the more it pleased me.
Look no harm no foul on the mistake, we all make them, and it doesn't change your argument. I get where you are coming from. And yes I undermined my own argument, because the stats don't lie. But, in a different sense, they do. Read "Dumbing Down Our Schools" by Charles Sykes if you haven't already (by the way, to anyone here with a kid, you owe it to yourself and them to read that book. You don't have to agree with all - or any - of it, but it will give you insight if you are looking to do the best you can by your kid re: education). The single greatest PREDICTOR (remember, we're trying to dig deeper than just "correlation") of a student's success is not race, and it isn't even (directly) the economics of the schools (some of the poorest performing schools actually get some of the most funding, though admittedly sometimes there is a lag between the funding and the performance). Grossly simplifying it is "what do the kids do over the summer". Again, grossly simplifying, and this involved a multitude of factors, including economics, but generally speaking, the kids that stay "educationally focused" through the summer through reading lists, camps, etc. outperform those that "take the summer off".
You can't really point to "race" here, unless you are willing to risk saying that some races are "lazier" than others. I don't mean that literally, it's meant a little facetiously, but I am serious to the extent we are getting close to the area that is an untenable argument for me: I don't doubt that some families have "given up" for many of the reasons stated here, but I don't think it is unfair to say that if you make a choice - regardless of how attractive (or not) the other choices are - you have to own your consequences.
People thought that removing the militarized police response would just allow looters and rioters to have a free for all. But what we saw was nothing of the sort, and that the looting and rioting was a response to the police. I'm suggesting that generally disarming the police would be like this, that when we escalate the situation by arming the police, we create the very problem we use as justification for the escalation. Like when people say drugs should be illegal because of gang violence and such, even though there's gang violence because it's illegal.
Eh, I understand you now, but that is apples and oranges. You are not dealing with a closed system in the latter case, and you have a TON of money involved which skews things dramatically. And don't confuse a "militarized police response" with a general disarming.