Re: Race and the Invisible Hand

Publisher's review and description of the book: 
"Race and the Invisible Hand" 
  - http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9439.html 
The book is subtitled: 
``How White Networks Exclude Black Men from Blue-Collar Jobs´´ 
It apparently concludes that the biggest difference responsible for
lower black earnings and status has to do with an existing network of
white social contacts that stands between the black men and their
potential jobs. 
The existence of racism as a widespread biological phenomenon raises
interesting questions about the power of percieved group membership to
influence reproductive success. Hopefully a good understanding the basis
of the phenomenon will help to deal with some of the conflicts it
causes. 
--
__________ 
  |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]


It's difficult for me to "personally" evaluate this study. If I walked
down the street a person would likely label me as a "white person". In
terms of the socio-economic class I have occupied that would be middle
class. But as you indicate the existence of racism is a widespread
biological phenomenon. Despite the ethnic diversity of the U.S. the
majority of Congress is "white" and "male". There is no question there
are ghettoes in the U.S. of largely minority populations. Let's assume
the author's premise is correct...that white networks exclude
African-Americans from blue collar jobs. This study focused on racism as
it applies to African-American black earnings and status. I think this
is fine but I wonder if the author offered any possible solutions. In
all honesty I don't think there are any real solutions at the moment.
There may be ways to mitigate such racism through laws, education, etc.
but that is not a lasting solution.   

You write, "The existence of racism as a widespread biological
phenomenon raises interesting questions about the power of percieved
group membership to influence reproductive success." I could be very
mistaken but my recollection of statistics is African-Americans
generally have more children than European-Americans. I'm pretty certain
they have more children out of wedlock. There are important reasons for
these statistics if they are accurate. So there is the possibility that
racism against African-Americans has not hindered their reproductive
success. Until recently they were the largest minority population. Now
Hispanics are the largest minority population in the U.S. Part of this
is due no doubt to the border between the U.S. and Mexico.

The Europeans came to North America and wiped out most of the indigenous
population. The United States was born. There were eventually
African-American slaves, Jews, Chinese immigrants, etc. but the
demography of the U.S. was primarily descended from Europeans.

Today the demographic picture of the U.S. is much different. Most
immigration is non-European. There have been several studies which
project European-Americans becoming a minority in the U.S. by 2100.
History has repeatedly shown minorities are frequently subject to
oppression and in some cases genocide.

The U.S. is not a melting pot. It may be easier for immigrants to come
to the U.S. and live than it would be in other countries but that
doesn't make it a melting pot. Racism exists among all groups in the
U.S. African-American, Asian-American, European-American, Hispanics,
etc. In terms of dominance in the workplace and elsewhere
European-American racism predominates but this does not mean it always
will. As previously mentioned demographic projections point to dwindling
European-American numbers and eventually this will translate into
diminishing European-American influence.

I don't see how this can be prevented from occurring short of a
balkanized totalitarian genocidal state. Does this mean
European-Americans will ultimately become a minority in the U.S. largely
cut off from powers of industry and governance and subject to oppression
and possibly even genocide? Of course, Hitler remarked how "Aryans"
(that nonsensical term) were absurdly small in numbers and subjugated
much larger "races" but that was in the context of colonialism not the
present day globalized world. Alas, within definite geographic
boundaries demographic trends will result in changes.

I've maintained for quite some time racism is sociobiological. In other
words it is biological and that aggression is an extremely important
part of it. I've also maintained our scientific and technological
evolution has far outpaced our biological evolution. To reiterate what
I've previously stated we can't wait for Darwinian evolution to catch
up. The earth is full of nuclear weapons, biological weapons, explosive
population growth, etc. 

The only solution is genetic engineering but the problem with this is it
will be a century or longer before genetic engineering advances to the
point where traits such as aggression can be modified. This, however, is
the only solution. As Hawking states, "We won't change much in the next
100 years". Do you feel comfortable Mr. Tyler?

Michael Ragland