Racism and interracial couples in U.S.

[Blaupanzer]

Hera, as to you question: In general? No, likely not. He probably distorted his own statistics to justify his stand. He may believe that they are correct, but he probably has no real evidence.

As to the kids having problems, that depends on the means and position of the parents. If they are raised in majority-black areas as blacks, the problems aren't reflected in the statistics related to "troubled" youth. If the parents or their families have money and or positions of influence, then they are raised as priveleged, not based on race, per se. The tricky area can be lower middle class neighborhoods in large cities. Statistics do indicate that children with parents who identify as two separate races do have difficulties in such areas.

I've only seen limited sets of data on this based on a friend's research, so I can't say how this works in middle class and upper middle class areas or among the poor (lower class), but the information is not hidden, just very dispersed.

[Solomwi]

The guy does what he does because of past experience, if I understand correctly. If 9 interracial couples out of ten he has married end up divorcing, or their kids end up, er, troubled, is it surprising, if he feels they just don't work, and are generally a bad idea?

On that condition, no. But it's also not the issue. His experience with interracial couples doesn't matter, because he doesn't have the authority to decide who should and should not get married. His duty is to sign the marriage license if all the conditions precedent (the stuff the clerk mentioned in the article) have been met. Convincing him that the couple is going to have a long, happy marriage is not a condition precedent. In other words, here, even in Louisiana, a person's choice of spouse is not subject to the whim or approval of a justice of the peace.

[Blaupanzer]

I suspect it is subject to "whim" in Louisianna as long as some other JP will do it. This guy would never be that baldly assertive to a reporter if he could be forced to step down due to this view. This would be in line with KH's note about JP's not necessarily being judges.

[Heraclitus]

You said that certain beliefs about biological differences that are based on evidence would be considered simply evidence based belief not racialism. Or to rephrase it almost everyone would be considered racialist to a degree if he acknowledges these facts. And you also said the distinction between racism and racialism is rarley made and that racialists are most often branded racist.

So is it not logical from this that simply stating a fact can cause someone to call you a racist? And is it not true that being percieved a racist often comes with unpleasant consequences?

How ****ing stupid are you? I said that:

a) Often, what I would consider "racialism" is branded "racism"
b) A careless definition of racialism (one without a judgment on how self-evident/non-controversial a belief is) would brand almost everybody a racialist.

I never said that people in general had a careless definition of racialism

Holy ****, son. Get a ****ing grip.

Listen. I will try this again. Ignore all that I have said thus far.


This was the points I was trying to make but failed:

-Disscusion of racial differences if taboo.
-You can be called racist for citing respectable research or even evidence.
-Being called a racist is bad for you


I think there is a strong trend to misrepresent or even try to obscure findings by the mass media on research by of human diversity (this trend extends to all science but is particulary damaging for things where it collides with political/ideological interests, other examples of this may have been or are global warming, evolution, ect.)

I think this is bad, and I think we should at least acknowledge there are political interests trying to skew the science.

[Blaupanzer]

Political considerations have skewed the research and ruined the reputations of legitimate researchers. Some aras of research represent political minefields. May not be worth doing such research except for medical and treatment purposes. Even ethnic research can stir great controversy. Even when the research is based on actual, seemingly non-political data. Former colonial powers (the US is one) get especially close scrutiny worldwide.

[Solomwi]

I suspect it is subject to "whim" in Louisianna as long as some other JP will do it. This guy would never be that baldly assertive to a reporter if he could be forced to step down due to this view. This would be in line with KH's note about JP's not necessarily being judges.

You suspect wrong, which is one reason this is news. He's subject to the authority of the Judiciary Committee, so it's not really important that he necessarily be a judge. There are plenty of reasons he might be that baldly assertive even if he can be forced to step down (which would be for his actions, not his views). One is that he thinks, rightly or wrongly, that he's nestled into the GOB network enough that it won't happen. Another is that he's just not that bright, or didn't think his comments through to the conclusion that they'd get him into trouble.

[Blaupanzer]

Are you from down that way, Solomwi? Forgive me for already not knowing.

[KrazyHorse]

Solomwi

A little from column A, a little from column B...

[SpencerH]

Publishing medically relevant research that shows a difference between African-Americans and caucasians can be a career-ending political nightmare. As such, data that shows such differences often remains unpublished since no one wants to face a firestorm over innocuous unexpected results.

[KrazyHorse]

Is that really true? There seems to be more ethnicity specific medication indications/warnings around today than previously, or do you mean in specific touchstone issues like intelligence, criminality etc.

[Jon Miller]

When I went to an medical doctor from Africa, who mostly treated African Americans, he constantly had a looped informational tape in his waiting area. It did reference studies which showed that African Americans are more likely to have hypertension/etc. It was really quite direct. I have seen reference to similar stuff online.

JM

[Heraclitus]

Is that really true? There seems to be more ethnicity specific medication indications/warnings around today than previously, or do you mean in specific touchstone issues like intelligence, criminality etc.

The problem is that some health risks have been shown to correlate with tuchstone issues.

[SpencerH]

Is that really true? There seems to be more ethnicity specific medication indications/warnings around today than previously, or do you mean in specific touchstone issues like intelligence, criminality etc.

It was true for me and I doubt that I'm the only one. I unexpectedly came across variations in the ratios of immunoglobulin sub-types when I was studying gonorrhea that allowed me to segregate African-Americans from others. This was around the time that the Prof in Scotland was being piloried for merely suggesting that the differences in IQ might be determined genetically. Given the political climate we didnt publish it, so its fallen by the wayside (for now at least). It may, or may not, be relevant to higher incidences of some diseases in African-Americans but we may never know. Thats the problem. Sometimes it's the small unexpected findings that become important once published.

I've also seen in many medical journals, authors of good epidemiological studies of diseases that are more prevelant in African-Americans viciously attacked as racist.

OTOH if one flys 'beneath the radar' and minimizes the 'race' issue there is research money for studying diseases that are more prevelant in African-Americans.

[KrazyHorse]

Honestly, I've never seen a protest about a specific medical issue being studied by way of ethnicity. I also don't live in the bio world, so it's not like I can claim inside knowledge, but it doesn't sound like the sort of thing Al Sharpton gets worked up about.

[SpencerH]

I doubt he could read the articles but nevertheless just the possibility has a chilling effect IMO. It doesnt take too much racial controversy for university boards of enquiry (ie witchunts) to start lighting their fires.