mztgert
1yr ago
Newly published research now shows that the wealthiest black women also have high infant mortality rates, which does not trend down as income trends up as it does for whites
I still fail to understand why social scientists and government researchers treat "white" as the default in a state with the demographics of California.
More strikingly, and not mentioned in the article but obvious in the graph, the poorest Hispanics have 25% less than the infant mortality of whites, and the poorest Asians have 50% the infant mortality of whites. (Theirs, too, trends down by income).
These type of graphs without confidence internals are useless. The odd increase in infant mortality among white mothers going from 10% to 20% income rank suggests low amounts of data.
Any hypothetical racist structure would harm the recent Chinese and Honduran as much as the African American except for most picky of racists.
I see no reason to assume that. It's entirely possible that California is a land where whites, Hispanics and Asians live in harmony oppressing blacks. Not saying it is true, but probably more realistic than the 35% white population somehow oppressing everyone else.
But it may also be that intelligent black women are being swooped up by corporations at a higher rate, and if they are marrying black men
Would be interesting to study this. FWIW, I'd be surprised if the majority of higher income Black women in CA aren't outmarrying.
I recently read Hanania's year old post - The Problem with White Male Liberalism. Hanania steelmans the far-left ("woke") position:
The idea that the modern economy, the American system of government, and contemporary science were created by white men is not a fantasy the woke imagined out of thin air… Their implicit argument — that these great things happened to be created by white men only through some accident that has no implication for how they function today — does not seem very credible.
meaning that the white male liberals that dominate liberal spheres have two positions:
-
They can bend over backward for diversity, which often means compromising their principles to achieve the right demographic balance.
-
Or they can ignore the issue, having no good answer to the question of why people should join a movement in which white males predominate.
Ignoring the gender issue and focusing solely on ethnicity, I'd counter that this isn't even historically true. Liberal movements have always been very welcoming to ethnic minorities. The original Enlightenment Thinkers were primarily Christian-raised-- and somehow years later you see liberal movements having a significant overrepresentation of Jews. I have no doubt that other outperforming minorities, such as Indians, will continue to punch above their weight in these movements as well. But somehow this fact gets ignored (even by liberals seeking to defend their inclusiveness) and to add to the complexity, any minority group that successfully assimilates into the elite just becomes viewed as "white" themselves (yes, I've even noticed immigrants to Silicon Valley referring to Asians and Indians as "white"), making white dominance of elite movements self-fulfilling.
More to the point, why is this even an effective attack (on the members)? Universal political and intellectual movements aren't going to be reflective of the overall population - they are going to skew toward intelligence, high class, and assimilation away from ethnic tribalism. Growing up in 2nd generation Asian majority schools in the Bay Area, there wasn't much surprise that (in the minority) white kids were the more liberal ones (e.g. more supportive of say gay marriage) -- they didn't have the same connection to conservative social values the 2nd gen immigrants had. And frankly, it really never seemed that important -- different demographic balances existed and if you were so weak-minded that you still were using activity participants' ancestral balance as a predictor for what you should be doing, you probably weren't going to be a non-conformist movement leader anyway.
Sure, but the question is why.
Doesn't seem universally true on absolute metrics. Virtually all black Barbados has a life expectancy 4 years higher than California blacks -even though CA has a far higher development level overall.
More options
Context Copy link