Tuesday, September 22, 2020

Can facts be racist?

Here's a fact:

[D]ifferences in home and neighborhood quality do not fully explain the devaluation of homes in black neighborhoods. Homes of similar quality in neighborhoods with similar amenities are worth 23 percent less ($48,000 per home on average, amounting to $156 billion in cumulative losses) in majority black neighborhoods, compared to those with very few or no black residents

(And here is some analysis of that fact.)

Here is another fact:

The government-sponsored Home Owners’ Loan Corporation drew a line around Bedford-Stuyvesant on a map, colored the area red and gave it a “D,” the worst grade possible, denoting a hazardous place to underwrite mortgages.

Lines like these, drawn in cities across the country to separate “hazardous” and “declining” from “desirable” and “best,” codified patterns of racial segregation and disparities in access to credit. Now economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, analyzing data from recently digitized copies of those maps, show that the consequences lasted for decades.

As recently as 2010, they find, differences in the level of racial segregation, homeownership rates, home values and credit scores were still apparent where these boundaries were drawn.

And here is a recent data point:

Abena and Alex Horton wanted to take advantage of low home-refinance rates brought on by the coronavirus crisis. So in June, they took the first step in that process, welcoming a home appraiser into their four-bedroom, four-bath ranch-style house in Jacksonville, Fla.

The Hortons live just minutes from the Ortega River, in a predominantly white neighborhood of 1950s homes that tend to sell for $350,000 to $550,000. They had expected their home to appraise for around $450,000, but the appraiser felt differently, assigning a value of $330,000. Ms. Horton, who is Black, immediately suspected discrimination.

The couple’s bank agreed that the value was off and ordered a second appraisal. But before the new appraiser could arrive, Ms. Horton, a lawyer, began an experiment: She took all family photos off the mantle. Instead, she hung up a series of oil paintings of Mr. Horton, who is white, and his grandparents that had been in storage. Books by Zora Neale Hurston and Toni Morrison were taken off the shelves, and holiday photo cards sent by friends were edited so that only those showing white families were left on display. On the day of the appraisal, Ms. Horton took the couple’s 6-year-old son on a shopping trip to Target, and left Mr. Horton alone at home to answer the door.

The new appraiser gave their home a value of $465,000 — a more than 40 percent increase from the first appraisal.

Nothing but facts and data here, no different from the fact (and it is a fact) that blacks are by and large better basketball players than whites, and that this is not because blacks are taller (because they aren't).  To this point I have drawn no conclusions and made no value judgements.  All I've done is cite facts from credible sources.

Now, I am going to draw a conclusion, and then I'm going to make a value judgement, but I want to make it very clear that I am not going to take a position on the titular question of this post (because I have learned the hard way that that is fraught with all manner of rhetorical peril).  The conclusion I draw is this:

The facts I've presented above are an indication of the existence of a very serious problem in our society, and this problem has something to do with race.

Note well that I have intentionally said nothing about the exact nature of this problem except that it is serious and it has something to do with race.  In particular, I have not said that it has anything to do with real estate prices nor with playing basketball.

Now, I can imagine at least three different kinds of reactions to this:

1.  "Yes, there is a problem.  It is mainly a result of some external influence over which blacks have little to no control, like systemic institutionalized racism, or well-meaning but ultimately misguided government intervention, or something like that."

2.  "Yes, there is a problem.  It is mainly a result of some deficiency in the black community and so only the black community can do anything about it."

3.  "I disagree that these facts are an indication of a problem.  This is just the free market operating as expected (or something like that).  Everything is as it should be."

There is a fourth possibility.  Someone could reject the premise that these "facts" are in fact facts and say that they are lies, the product of a disinformation campaign, or something like that.  Fake news.  For the purposes of this discussion we can discount this.  The fact (and on this view it is manifestly a fact) that lies like this can so effectively masquerade as facts is a problem in and of itself, and that brings up back to 1-3.

Now I am going to make my value judgement: if you subscribe to reaction #3 then there is something deeply wrong with you.  If you can look at the current state of affairs and say that there is no problem at all, that this is the best humanity is capable of, that there is nothing left for our society to aspire to, then you are suffering from some kind of serious mental deficiency.  You either lack empathy or imagination or the ability to properly process information or something.  If that offends you, then you should probably stop reading my blog and seek counseling.

If you are still with me, then we agree that there is a problem, but potentially disagree on its nature and source.  That's fine, reasonable people can disagree about these things.  But now here are a few more facts:

1.  There was at one time legal institutional discrimination against black people in the United States, first through chattel slavery, and then through Jim Crow laws.

2.  Neither slavery nor Jim Crow were ended by societal consensus.  Slavery was ended by a civil war, and Jim Crow was ended by a series of Supreme Court decisions in the 1950s and the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act in the 1960s, i.e. well within living memory.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was highly contentious, with the Southern states overwhelmingly opposed to it.

3.  Before the Civil War, negro slavery (as it was then invariably referred to) was openly defended by many Southerners as a positive good:

Slavery as a positive good was the prevailing view of White Southern U.S. politicians and intellectuals just before the American Civil War, as opposed to a "necessary evil." They defended the legal enslavement of people for their labor as a benevolent, paternalistic institution with social and economic benefits, an important bulwark of civilization, and a divine institution similar or superior to the free labor in the North.  Proponents of enslavement as "a good — a great good" often attacked the system of industrial capitalism, contending that the free laborer in the North, called by them a "wage slave", was as much enslaved by capitalist owners as were the African people enslaved by Whites in the South.

The right of white people to own negro slaves was explicitly enshrined in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, which specifically provided that, "No ... law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

So for hundreds of years there were substantial numbers of people in the U.S. willing to defend, at times quite literally with their lives, not just racial discrimination against blacks, but race-based chattel slavery, and willing to do so openly and on the merits.  The defenders of slavery genuinely believed in their heart of hearts that they were the good guys.

Very few people openly advocate racial discrimination on the merits today, but there are some who do.  That link is to a video, one which I find rather shocking, but it is worth watching.  I am, of course, repulsed by the ideology espoused by the subjects of the film, but I really do think that these people believe in their heart of hearts that they are the good guys.  Furthermore, I respect the fact that they are willing to stand up openly for what they believe.  They wear the badge of "racist" with pride (4:00).  They leave no doubt about where they stand: "We are a white nation, founded for and by the white man." (2:40).  And, it is well worth noting, that that, too, is a fact.


13 comments:

Don Geddis said...

@Ron: "I am not going to take a position on the titular question of this post"

That's a shame, since that was a key conflict in the previous discussion.

"The facts I've presented above are an indication of the existence of a very serious problem in our society, and this problem has something to do with race."

Agreed.

"I can imagine at least three different kinds of reactions to this"

There are more possibilities other than just the three (or four) you have outlined (some of which were suggested in the previous discussion).

"that this is the best humanity is capable of, that there is nothing left for our society to aspire to"

On the contrary, there is tremendously more to aspire to. But the path to these greater potential heights does not (in my opinion) run through avoiding difficult truths about the world and promoting fantasy lies instead. (Your previous comments about self-fulfilling prophecies notwithstanding.)

"reasonable people can disagree about these things. But ... openly advocate racial discrimination on the merits today ... I really do think that these people believe in their heart of hearts that they are the good guys."

I hope you're not suggesting that people that disagree with you are similar to those that "defend ... race-based chattel slavery". That only you are actually a good guy, and anyone who disagrees with you is necessarily mistaken, not just on the facts, but even on basic ethics and morality. That would kind of be assuming the conclusion, wouldn't it?

Publius said...

What is your Ehtical basis?

>Homes of similar quality in neighborhoods with similar amenities are worth 23 percent less ($48,000 per home on average, amounting to $156 billion in cumulative losses) in majority black neighborhoods, compared to those with very few or no black residents

How many majority black neighborhoods did you and your wife shop in when buying your last home? Sounds like you could get some good deals in majority black neighborhoods.

This is also a fact. Why aren't you and your wife living in the Tenderloin district of San Francisco?

> Ms. Horton, a lawyer, began an experiment:

That's not an experiment -- there's no control. You'd have to run it like 10 times or more to reach any conclusion. Besides, the first appraisor was black and the second one was white. What does that tell you?

>So for hundreds of years there were substantial numbers of people in the U.S. willing to defend, at times quite literally with their lives, not just racial discrimination against blacks, but race-based chattel slavery, and willing to do so openly and on the merits.

... and the other half of the country was opposed to slavery and attacked it, quite literally with their lives. The reason the Civil War was fought was that there was an opposing side, which thought slavery was immoral. Yet you think White people must pay reparations, even those who lost family fighting against slavery in the Civil War.

Very few people openly advocate racial discrimination on the merits today,

So the "war on slavery" and "racial discrimination" has been won.

but there are some who do.

A small amount of people, which you obsess over. They're insignificant, but you obsess over them -- and the Demonrats inflate it to a majority of all white people.

Yet their are moral meta-questions you haven't addressed:
1) Are white people required to like black people and live among them? Is it immoral for white people not to live among black people? Is is immoral for black people not to live among white people?
2) Are jews required to intermarry with Catholics? Is it immoral for jews not to want to marry a Catholic? Should the government institute required inter-faith single mixing parties in order to promote inter-faith marriage?

Once I went to Japan and visited the company cafeteria. A woman came up to me and asked, "Are you so-an-so, who requseted the printed spec? It's ready for you>" Why, yes I was. How did she know I would be the one from the America who requested the spec? Could it be that I was the only one with blond hair in the entire cafeteria? Was it racist for her to assume I was the American? If I saw another person in the cafeteria with blond hair and sat with that person, would that be a racist decision?

"We are a white nation, founded for and by the white man."

Is that immoral? On what ethical basis do you conclude it is immoral?

Is it immoral for Japan to limite immigration in order to preserve its Japanese culture? On what ethical basis do you conclude that?

Is it immoral for Israel to declare itself the "Jewish homeland"? Or should Israel promote itself as a secular govermnment, with a unique tradition of Israelies, whom are not necessarily jewish?

Don Geddis said...

A podcast that Ron should really listen to: Sam Harris's recent interview (#217) of Columbia University professor John McWhorter about his upcoming book The New Religion of Anti-Racism.

McWhorter is talking about you, Ron. Listen to the podcast, and hear him describe you. You have the passion of a "recent convert" who has discovered a new religion (and has abandoned rationality for the purity of your new faith).

Don Geddis said...

Worse still, many of Ron's proposed "interventions" have a good chance of being counterproductive. Ron worries about a self-fulfilling prophecy, but doesn't seem to consider that his recommended adoption of victimhood mentality may cause behavior changes that in fact make the very problem we're trying to solve worse.

The policies that Ron advocates are like the TSA's "security theater" in the airports. There is little concern about whether they actually work, and have any positive effect on the problem. That isn't of interest. What is of interest is signalling: to demonstrate publicly that you are a person that "cares". That virtue-signalling public statement is the real goal; the actual effect on the population is hardly important.

It's similar to minimum wage laws. There is an actual economic question about whether adopting (higher) minimum wage laws do in fact benefit the population of low-income workers. (And the actual evidence is frustratingly mixed on this question.) But hardly anyone cares about the economics. Instead, it becomes a political question: either you care about the plight of low-income workers, in which case you must favor higher MW laws; or else you're a greedy rich person who wants to exploit those less fortunate, in which case you must oppose MW laws. But almost nobody (except economists) actually care about the real world effects of minimum wage laws (and whether they in fact help or harm the population of low-wage workers).

Ron said...

> > "We are a white nation, founded for and by the white man."

> Is that immoral?

Yes.

> On what ethical basis do you conclude it is immoral?

Because the United States was not vacant land when the white man arrived. The white man took the land by force from the red man and tilled the soil using forced labor by the black man. The United States was not built on the white man's labors, at least not in the South. It was built at the tip of the white man's spear and the white man's lash. If you don't see the immorality in that there is something deeply wrong with you.

> Is it immoral for Japan to limite immigration in order to preserve its Japanese culture?

I don't know much about Japanese history, but AFAIK Japan was not founded on conquest of native people, and never imported slave labor, and so does not have a racially segregated underclass of people descended from slaves. So their situation would seem to be analogous to native Americans keeping white people out. And no, I don't think that would be immoral. They were here first.

> Is it immoral for Israel to declare itself the "Jewish homeland"?

There is no moral equivalence here. When Israel was founded, Jews had recently been the target of a very-nearly-successful genocide. The circumstances of the founding of Israel are in no way comparable to those of the founding of the U.S. (This is not to say that Israel is sinless; it isn't. But its sins are very different and discussing them will do nothing but muddy the waters.)

Publius said...

The Sins Of Our Fathers

> > "We are a white nation, founded for and by the white man."

> > Is that immoral?

@Ron:
>Yes

Perhaps I should narrow the question and not quote you.

The question would be: is a racially homogeneous nation intrinsically immoral? Whether that race be white, japanese, korean, etc? Consider this map of ethnic diversity and this map of european ancestry -- is it intrinsically immoral to have high ethnic homogeneity or a high percentage of european ancestry?

> On what ethical basis do you conclude it is immoral?

Because the United States was not vacant land when the white man arrived. The white man took the land by force from the red man and tilled the soil using forced labor by the black man. The United States was not built on the white man's labors, at least not in the South. It was built at the tip of the white man's spear and the white man's lash. If you don't see the immorality in that there is something deeply wrong with you.

So the United States was founded ... just like every other country was. All the people who did that are dead. Why do you feel guilty about it?

In addition, your narrative is highly simplified. To begin with, the ancestors of Native Americans emigrated from Asia and displaced (i.e., killed off) an an even earlier people, the Clovis people. Second, the various Native American tribes warred with each other, stole women and children from other tribes, and held slaves. Third, when Europeans arrived, they would often align with one European over another and go to war with them. Fourth, the most devastating factor in the collapse of Native American populations was old word diseases, especially smallpox -- killing 90% of the population.

However, the fallacy you are engaging is is called presentism, the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past. You also engage in chronocentrism. This biases your analysis.

Then there is the fact that all the people that did those things are dead.

> Is it immoral for Japan to limit immigration in order to preserve its Japanese culture?

I don't know much about Japanese history, but AFAIK Japan was not founded on conquest of native people, and never imported slave labor, and so does not have a racially segregated underclass of people descended from slaves. So their situation would seem to be analogous to native Americans keeping white people out. And no, I don't think that would be immoral. They were here first.

OK, your first moral principle: If you were there first, it is moral to stay racially homogeneous.

> Is it immoral for Israel to declare itself the "Jewish homeland"?

There is no moral equivalence here. When Israel was founded, Jews had recently been the target of a very-nearly-successful genocide. The circumstances of the founding of Israel are in no way comparable to those of the founding of the U.S.

Your second moral principle: If your ethnicity was the victim of attempted genocide, it's moral to take someone's land as your homeland and stay ethnically homogeneous.

(This is not to say that Israel is sinless; it isn't. But its sins are very different and discussing them will do nothing but muddy the waters.)

On this, you are probably right.

Ron said...

> is a racially homogeneous nation intrinsically immoral?

No. But I do think it is undesirable. I believe that there is value in diversity.

> All the people who did that are dead. Why do you feel guilty about it?

I explained that in my original post on this topic: "None of my ancestors ever owned slaves. But there is no question that I have received preferential treatment because of the color of my skin. Cops don't harass me. Prospective employers don't look at me sideways. I have shared in an inheritance of wealth that was built in no small measure on the backs of of the forced labor of black people that the descendants of those laborers have not shared. My undeserved share of that inheritance is in and of itself a wrong that needs to be set right, notwithstanding that I had no direct hand in bringing it about."

> an an even earlier people, the Clovis people

Yes, but the Clovis people are now extinct so it is too late to set that right.

> the various Native American tribes warred with each other, stole women and children from other tribes, and held slaves

Just because some native Americans were not sinless that does not justify slaughtering them and taking their land.

> when Europeans arrived, they would often align with one European over another and go to war with them

Just because some native Americans were naive and foolish that does not justify slaughtering them and taking their land.

> old word diseases

Just because Europeans had help from nature that does not change the fact that they slaughtered the native Americans and took their land.

> Then there is the fact that all the people that did those things are dead.

But the descendants of the people who did these things are not dead, and the fact that their ancestors did these things have a material impact on the circumstances of their descendants. If the reason I can occupy your land is that my father killed your father, I don't get to absolve myself of moral responsibility by telling you to choose better parents next time.

> If you were there first, it is moral to stay racially homogeneous.

If you were there first then you can stay racially homogeneous without having to kill or forcibly relocate anyone, which makes it marginally more acceptable. But I'm an idea-ist. My core moral principal is that one should strive for diversity of ideas, and I don't believe that xenophobia is conducive to that, even if it does not involve genocide.

> Your second moral principle: If your ethnicity was the victim of attempted genocide, it's moral to take someone's land as your homeland and stay ethnically homogeneous.

No, that's not what I said. I did not say that the establishment of Israel was *moral*, only that there was no moral equivalence between that and what Europeans did in North America. Israel's situation is ridiculously complicated and morally ambiguous. The situation in North America is totally black-and-white (pun very much intended).

Publius said...

href="https://t.ly/afMj">Matthew 25:40

@Ron:
>No. But I do think it is undesirable. I believe that there is value in diversity.

Ah, diversity, the secular region of our times. Believed as a matter of faith.

But . . . what does the science show?
1. Diversity leads to conflict
2. Diversity leads to lower-trust communities

The "studies" on diversity are weak, and with respect to reducing "groupthink," are exclusively in the political arena, in regards to making policy decisions.

"If there is any place in the Guinness Book of World Records for words repeated the most often, over the most years, without one speck of evidence, “diversity” should be a prime candidate." -- Thomas Sowell

@Ron:
Just because some native Americans were not sinless that does not justify slaughtering them and taking their land.
Just because some native Americans were naive and foolish that does not justify slaughtering them and taking their land.
Just because Europeans had help from nature that does not change the fact that they slaughtered the native Americans and took their land.


Aren't you engaging in presentism? Do you think the contemporary people of the time felt justified in their actions?

> Then there is the fact that all the people that did those things are dead.

>My undeserved share of that inheritance is in and of itself a wrong that needs to be set right, notwithstanding that I had no direct hand in bringing it about."

You've done nothing unethical in utilizing the advantages available to you.
Guilt and criminal culpability do not pass down through the generations, or by race, or by religion.

But the descendants of the people who did these things are not dead, and the fact that their ancestors did these things have a material impact on the circumstances of their descendants. If the reason I can occupy your land is that my father killed your father, I don't get to absolve myself of moral responsibility by telling you to choose better parents next time.

In this example, you have done nothing unethical. You are not morally responsible for the crime of your father.

Perhaps A Different Model

I don't think the crime/guilt/atonement model is very useful, nor is it necessary.

Say you didn't know the history at all (and let's face, many people don't). You simply look around our society and observe that some people are disadvantaged in regards to others.

You could still be driven by your ethical philosophy to want to help the disadvantaged people, irregardless of how it happened.

A moral case can be advanced to help disadvantaged people without blame or guilt.

Isaiah 58:10


Ron said...

> Believed as a matter of faith

I made no factual claims about diversity. I prefer diversity for its own sake. And I prefer the company of those who value diversity.

(The above notwithstanding, diversity is objectively beneficial from a Darwinian point of view. The more diverse a population is the more resilient it is in the face of environmental challenges.)

> You've done nothing unethical in utilizing the advantages available to you.

I never said that I did.

> You could still be driven by your ethical philosophy to want to help the disadvantaged people, irregardless of how it happened.

Of course you could, but that is missing the point rather badly. History matters. How someone got to be where they are matters. If someone is disadvantaged because of decisions they themselves made on an otherwise level playing field, that is on them. If someone is destitute (or dead) because they have black skin, and because they live in a society where black skin is taken as a marker for being somehow less-than, then that is on the people who hold power in that society. That's me. And that's Don. And I presume that's you too.

Publius said...

Even reading a newspaper takes place a few nanoseconds in the past

@Ron:
>Of course you could, but that is missing the point rather badly. History matters.

It a very real sense, history doesn't exist. The only existence is the now.

If some people are taken as being less-than, your ethical philosophy could be opposed to that, and you could work to change it.

Or, if you are a hard-core Darwinian, you could say it's an example of survival of the fittest, and work to expand your advantages and further diminish the people who are disadvantaged.

Ron said...

> The only existence is the now.

So what? Yes, the only thing that exists now is "the now" (I would call it "the present" but whatever). That doesn't change the fact that history matters. Jesus's ministry is much further in the past than slavery or Jim Crow. That doesn't make it irrelevant.

> if you are a hard-core Darwinian

The thing you creationists seem incapable of grasping about hard-core Darwinism is that individual organisms are not the main players on the Darwinian stage. That would be genes and memes. Organisms are just by-products, and brains are just by-products. We are not the main attraction, we're a side show.

Because we're a side-show, we are not bound to follow the Darwinian rules, which are, after all, just unavoidable consequences of the laws of physics. We have free will. We can make choices that genes and memes can't. We can decide to pursue goals that are at odds with the goals of our genes, goals that go beyond the raw tribalism that kept us alive in our ancestral environment. We can transcend our history, and we can transcend Darwin.

But only if we choose to.

Publius said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Publius said...

For My Yoke Is Light And My Burden Easy

>> The only existence is the now.

>So what?
Yes, the only thing that exists now is "the now" (I would call it "the present" but whatever). That doesn't change the fact that history matters. Jesus's ministry is much further in the past than slavery or Jim Crow. That doesn't make it irrelevant.


History is interesting and informative, that's why we study it.

But the past has no causative effect on your future.

Say you just parachuted into a crocodile farm. It doesn't matter the Hindenburg caught fire in 1937.

> if you are a hard-core Darwinian

>The thing you creationists

I'm not a creationist, but continue ...

seem incapable of grasping about hard-core Darwinism is that individual organisms are not the main players on the Darwinian stage. That would be genes and memes. Organisms are just by-products, and brains are just by-products. We are not the main attraction, we're a side show.

That was a useful model for about 40 years, but now it's limitations are apparent. The more complete model is Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. In the more modern synthesis, we are not side show; in fact, in some cases, the phenotype will lead the genotype in evolution.

Because we're a side-show, we are not bound to follow the Darwinian rules, which are, after all, just unavoidable consequences of the laws of physics.

Well ... can't you say that about just about everything?

We have free will. We can make choices that genes and memes can't. We can decide to pursue goals that are at odds with the goals of our genes, goals that go beyond the raw tribalism that kept us alive in our ancestral environment. We can transcend our history, and we can transcend Darwin.

Indeed. We have the power to cause unnatural selection.

But only if we choose to.

We also need some agreement on which direction "transcendence" lies.