Analysis of Racism: Misattribution of Income-Level Aggression

Great work on this article!

I agree with your results when I specifically follow your line of reasoning, but I think that this only represents one aspect of racism. From the dictionary.com definition:

1.a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

There are many reasons behind racism as defined above, and socioeconomic status and attribution of violent behavior are only two of them. Perceptions of intellectual inferiority, inferior work ethic, and various other things are all big pieces of the puzzle. In this sense, your hypothesis holds, as these are all (arguably) traits that can be found as much in class differences as race.

The difference is that there are people who don't really care about any of those things; they believe that blacks, for example, are inferior simply because they are black; beyond this, everything discussed above is a moot point. Assimilation, thusfar in American history, means being accepted as having no cultural differences to that of the mainstream 'white' population. Most Blacks, along with other minority groups, don't have this available as an option - as Americans still judge based on skin color, no matter how innocently, assimilating into the mainstream is only possible if one becomes either a token member of their race, or can pass as white.

Anyway, away from that tangent, racism may be 'false' or faulty logic, but it still exists in a very tangible way in America and elsewhere in the world. I'm glad that you realize that the things racism uses to support itself are bull@!$%#; I just wish the rest of America could do the same.

I think I may have found some scholars who can help you. This group, Understanding Prejudice.org has a panel of experts who are versed in the field and can provide feedback on research and methodology. I think you should contact one or some of them and submit your model. And see what they think.

You're welcome. I hope it helps. Who knows, someone may have a similar model constructed already. :)

I still think you've missed the mark here.

Racism, however, does not distinguish between sub-groups but blankets them into a single group. While there may have been immigration of blacks of all origins as you mentioned, I think that it was statistically insignificant.

Individuals in groups distinguish amongst themselves and racists do too. Hence (and from personal experience) you have racists who distinguish individuals as exceptions to their stereotypical rules ("All blacks are this, but i don't consider you black.") I will track down some info for you to help explain my problem with your hypothesis.

If this is your hypothesis:

I assume that racism is misattribution of characteristics of a social class to race

I think you can arrive at an answer and violence need not play a part of it. And is it not at a minimum "prejudicial" (if you are going to use one false characteristic) to choose violence as that one?

I first showed that cross-race violence is very low. I did use homicide statistics (lacking other), but I think the point is still valid. Consequently, since violence against blacks is committed primarily by blacks, the violent crime against blacks becomes an indicator of violence by blacks.

This analysis is bothersome to me. I can't quite express it, but again something about it strikes me as faulty logic. I need to think about how to explain where I think you've gone wrong here.
Again, I think your final answer --

Although racism being an emotional entity impossible to eliminate along with other bigotry in the near future, I would support affirmative action as a significantly lesser evil

-- something is needed even if it isn't the best solution. And I think you've tried to put a quantitative analysis on a difficult problem. Kudos for that.

So are you saying that all Russian immigrants from say mid 1970 to 2000 were of the same social and economic class? I'm sure there must be some who were of a lower standing. And some who might not have assimilated quickly in to the American life. See I would think that if you could show that it is class distinction or socio-economic disctinction -- within a single ethnic group -- you might be on to something... so within the Russian immigrant population you have educated PhD.s like your father, and then lower class Russian who are in the service trade and some who are involved in criminal activity. Can you build an analysis of how the actions of one of these groups affect the perception of white non-Russians about them? I don't know if that makes sense, it's late I'm getting sleepy, but i hope you get it...

I will find you something from Cornel West and Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and a few others that might help.

I guess I should be glad the numbers don't bear out my pessimism, but somehow it just doesn't feel as though things are better. I wonder, is it just because that's the way news stories slant, or a measure of my fatalism?

I guess the question in my own mind, is just how much of reality is reflected by numbers on income and violence? It's good that the numbers are changing favorably.

I don't know why all that text came out bolded. I entered no coding for bolding, and when it appeared that way in the preview I did try to undo it, to no avail. Similarly, I tried to separate the two links I provided at the top, but could not. There are actually two links there, as you will see if you click. Apologies for the appearance of my comment.

Similarly, I do not know why the last paragraph functions as a link to the Bolden site. I connected no link to the text of that paragraph.

Pseudonihilist, I tried to point Nikita to a site where "openly racist" information would not be included and he would be able to get an academic expert who studies this topic, and would be more familiar with methodology of how to measure what Nikita is trying to measure.

That some white people fear black people because they are afraid that any black person they come in contact with is destined to do them harm is unfortunate, and for most of those white people, an exaggeration of the actual likelihood that they would be the victim of black on white crime.

It seems to me -- and this is not my field of expertise either -- that depending on the combination of search criteria he selects, the experts listed at that site (from 2 to over 600 academics) would be able to assess his model and help him adjust it so that it accurately builds the connection I think he's trying to present.

I would classify the Boyden site as racist and unreliable.

Nikita, I think your demonstration and conclusion are sound: improved economic conditions will most likely be accompanied by a decrease in violence by the black minority population, which will in turn contribute to a decrease in racial prejudice. However, the cross-race disproportion will work against that decrease. Even as rates of violence by both blacks and whites decrease, and even with the black rate decreasing more sharply, so long as the disproportion remains it will remain a factor, I think. Your analysis does not explicitly address that, I believe, so I was simply adding it to the equation, in a manner of speaking. But I'll admit that I find the disproportion interesting in and of itself. My impression is that most people are not aware of just how pronounced it is, and my suspicion is that the reason for that is that it doesn't comport with the politically correct script followed by the press and our educational systems. That's basically why I made the comment I did.

I agree and I'm glad you came to the same conclusion. Education is necessary for the socialization of the lower classes. As the lower classes become more educated certain things will invariably happen, to wit: conception rates (due to increased sex education) will go down, birth rates will go down (due to less conceptions but also to abortions) and crime rates will go down (educated people are just as likely to be dishonest, but they are more likely to have equal access to resources and thus less incentive to commit crime, also the children of educated parents are less likely to commit crime).

It might be scarcity, or it might be the idea that there's 'nothing to lose when you're at the bottom of the ladder.' Of course this is just me talking out of my ass (and on painkillers) but I'd imagine that those with tangible deterrents to violence and crime (losing a good job, valued property, etc.) have more reasons not to commit it.

I think that is a more accurate way to measure racism. I would say try the military as a population group because it is the same employer, who uses the same standards for hiring and promotion for everyone, at a military base where people live in similar housing (save for officer and enlisted separation). It's a controlled group. But here again, you have the variable of people coming into the military with prejudices and opinions hard coded. Or try a large company, start with one that has a diverse workforce -- say Coke or Pepsi -- and work outward from the workplace. I don't know, but give it a shot.

Set up a situation that could measure attitudes/perception. Subjects would self-identify to the degree of their prejudice (not at all, a little, some, a lot, etc,). Test to redistribute based on actual prejudice. Then present a profile that is neutral, a list of characteristics that could define any group, an equal number of positive and negative characteristics. Have the test subjects rate the characteristics as being more or less descriptive of whites or the "minority." Then use those characteristics to describe a protagonist. In the first scenario, for example, the protagonist finds a wallet with a sum of money it, the protagonist needs money. Ask test subject what protagonist does? Test subject with a minority protagonist in same situation. For each you could ask which group is more likely to?... and a series of common stereotypes which are attributed to one race or another. Is the minority more likely to take the money or return it? Who is more honest? etc.

I'm just rambling off the top of my head, but I'd try to measure preceptions in a race neutral case study, and then more targeted to pinpoint attitudes about violence, if that's where you wanted to go. And you could further test reactions by having the interviewer be white for some segments and minority for others.

I still think the folks at UnderstandingPrejudice.org or any of the other research labs that focus on racism would be able to help you far more than I. I can suggest that something isn't "ringing true" or doesn't sound quite right, but they are far more talented and skilled at developing models to test ideas than I am.

I would just say that since prejudice or racism is the problem of the Observer and not the Observed, the measure of the decline or increase of racially negative attitudes should be made by measuring the Observer (the person holding the belief system) and not the person who is being judged (the racial minority). As a minority, I can't control what you think about me regardless of my circumstance. So to measure whether I commit more or less violence -- against whites or those of my own kind -- and link that to my economic status -- doesn't make the Observer any less likely to be racist or hold racist opinions.

What changes those opinions is the Observer having contact with said minority group a sufficient number of times to either reinforce his opinion, or a sufficient number of times to prove his opinions unfounded. The "sufficient number of times" variable is important because many racists will continue to hold their opinions regardless of the falsity of them, by suggesting that any examples of falsehood that are presented illustrate the exception to the rule and not the rule itself. (That is "there are good negroes and bad negroes.") The problem is the Observer, not the Observed.