Meta Culture and Race

Meta-Culture and Race

In light of the recent events in Ferguson, and in other communities around the country, I find it necessary to elaborate on an issue that seems to emerge and a great deal of confusion is associated with it; racism. Now, the issue of police abuse and brutality is not a race issue in and of itself. For after all there are countless incidents involving police shootings and white residents as well. And so, at base, these are two separate issues. However, in many communities around this nation, there is an outcry of racism. The question then becomes, are these complaints nothing more than ‘sour milk’ from people that have made poor choices in life and thus looking to blame others or is it something else or somewhere in between these two? Here, we will explore these issues and how they pertain to race, poverty and purportedly systemic abuses of power.

Statistical Criminal and Economic Analysis of People of Color in the US

If we are to address the topic of race and more specifically people of color and their association with poverty and crime, we must understand and explore the demographics and statistics concerning them.

Firstly, as far as statistics, African Americans rank highest than any other (White, Hispanic, etc.) in poverty; save Native Americans. For,

Nationwide, during 2007 and 2011, which encompasses the recession and the immediate aftermath, 43 million Americans — or slightly more than 14 percent — lived in poverty. But not every group was impacted equally. The poverty rate was 27 percent for American Indians, 26 percent for African Americans and 23 percent for Hispanics. Among whites and Asians, less than 12 percent were poor. The federal threshold for poverty is about $11,500 in annual income for an individual and about $23,000 for a family of four.1

The economic disparity we see between whites and people of color unfortunately has not diminished in recent years. The civil rights movement decades ago, it would seem (if it is deemed relevant at all) would certainly have had an impact on improving the economic stations of African Americans in our nation. But as the numbers bear out, they have not.

Secondly, crime rates of communities largely African American experience significantly higher crime than those of white communities. Consider this statistic, “the offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most murders were intraracial, with 84% of white homicide victims murdered by whites, and 93% of black victims murdered by blacks.”2 And so, intraracial murders certainly suggests that these are incidents of homocides within the communities of the perpetrators. We could, here, evaluate the panoply of criminal statistics from petty robberies to homocides, but it suffices to say that crime rates are higher in African American communities

Incarceration rates also reflect disparities in whites as opposed to African Americans. Consider this, “According to the BJS non-Hispanic blacks accounted for 39.4% of the prison and jail population in 2009, with whites 34.2%, and Hispanics 20.6%. The incarceration rate of black males was over 6 times higher than that of white males, with a rate of 4,749 per 100,000 US residents.”3

And so, this begs the question, why? Why does it seem that African Americans are more likely to commit crimes than whites, or even hispanics? This is not an easy question to answer. And while many on the right are quick to point out the crime statistics, they are hesitant to offer an answer to this question. For, after all, if one leaves it there, without any qualification or explanation, there is a tendency towards an unspoken racial bigotry.

Race and Culture

And so, are there literal differences biologically between African Americans and Whites, so much so, that this would explain the statistical disparities between the two groups, and others? Some may think so. For accepting blindly differences in say IQ scores by some studies can be take out of context. Consider the recent study conducted by the University of Delaware in reference to IQ disparities and race.

The IQ debate became worldwide in scope when it was shown that East Asians scored higher on IQ tests than did Whites, both within the United States and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro American culture (Lynn, 1977, 1978, 1982; P. E. Vernon, 1979, 1982). Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; that for Whites, about 100; and that for Blacks, about 85 in the United States and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa. Most of the early research was conducted in the United States, but some was also performed in Canada and the Caribbean (Eysenck, 1971, 1984; Jensen, 1969, 1973; Osborne & McGurk, 1982; Shuey, 1958, 1966; cf. Flynn, 1980; Kamin, 1974; Lewontin, Rose, & Kamin, 1984). In the United States, 15% to 20% of the Black IQ distribution exceeds the White median IQ, so many Blacks obtain scores above the White average. This same order of mean group differences is also found on “culture-fair” tests and on reaction time tasks. Hundreds of studies on millions of people have confirmed the three-way racial pattern (Jensen, 1998b; Lynn & Vanhanen, 2002; Rushton, 2000).4

Does this suggest that African Americans are not as intelligent as whites or asians and therefore less likely to make rational decisions; which would explain the higher criminal statistics? Actually not at all. For this study, as any study which examines IQ tests and race, ignore poverty rates in concert with IQ. Consider that “the single most important finding related to the debate over IQ and heredity is the dramatic rise in IQ scores over the past century. This so-called Flynn effect, which was discovered by psychologist James Flynn, undercuts claims that intelligence stems primarily from nature and not nurture.”5 Therefore, it is more likely to suggest that IQ has to do with cultural or economic disparities in society rather than biological ones.

Since IQ has more to do with situational rather than biological factors, could this also be true as to criminal statistics? If it is the case that IQ is situational and cultural, why not criminal and aggressive trends we see? In a recent interview with Psychology professor Andrew Ward, there seems to be a clear connection between communities of poverty, not merely the conditions of individual poverty. For, “from a psychological perspective, Ward said there was very little connection between poverty and crime. Rather, it is the environment of poverty that can lead people to commit crimes. “It’s not just being poor, but it’s being around lots of poor people,” Ward said. “The relationship between poverty and crime is in areas of concentrated poverty, like these inner city areas.” Ward said living in an area of concentrated poverty can be a catalyst for futility. “It can be a contributing factor of hopelessness and despair,” he said. “‘What do I have to lose? I might as well commit a crime.’ But really, anyone can go into despair.” Another factor is what Ward called the “escalation of violence.” “There is phenomenon among people who live in concentrated poverty,” Ward said. “I call it pre-emptive aggression. If you’re someone who lives in an area that’s kind of dangerous, you commit an act of crime so people know not to mess with you. You need to show you’re tough, but now I have to be tougher than you, so I need to go commit a worse crime.”6

In conclusion, it would seem that the answer to our earlier question is clear, ‘why is there more crime in African American communities?’ Because there is more poverty in them. And to suggest that African Americans are more prone to violence and criminal behavior because of race confuses the situation of poverty most find themselves in and the statistics. For, generations of hopelessness and poverty are just expressed in the facts of poverty in African American communities.

A Brief History of Racism and a Possible Future Solution to it

It isn’t enough to state a problem. For leaving it there without looking toward a solution is not only negligent but lazy. And the best way to understand the cause of the problem, which would help navigate towards a solution, is by looking back at history.

Historically, North Africa was a large part of Western culture going back to Phoenician settlements, Hellenistic culture and the Roman Empire. More specifically, Greek city states (as well as Roman imperialism) had a distinct character that is absent in modern times. For although each state, or Roman province, was made up of varying peoples from different regions and thus 'racial’ backgrounds, they had a common cultural character to them that united them. We could call this a meta-culture that, like the sky, everyone stood under. Likewise, the Roman Empire, which resembled the Hellenistic one prior to it save its central control of imperial policies, embraced its diversity while maintaining a cultural unity that defined everyone within the Empire as a ‘Roman.’

However, after the fall of the Roman Empire, and with the advent of the Dark Ages, provinces returned to local control and significantly reduced mobility within a larger imperial community. The ‘sky’ of meta-culture had dissolved and all that was left was regional isolationism. And while figures such as Charlemagne attempted to re-establish the metropolitan character of Rome, all this resulted in was the establishment of centers of learning and academia; rediscovering works of Latin that had been lost for almost a century. Therefore, the fuedal elites were privvy to education and the masses reduced to serfdom and local toil of the land.

In light of this Dark Age that evolved into a Medieval established feudalism, suspicion of ‘foreigners’ was equated with threats to local established order. What had been a tradition of slavery for conquered enemies in Greece and Rome would become one of enslavement of those in regions underdeveloped and foreign to the ‘enlightened’ cultures of the Enlightenment and beyond. Therefore, diaspora of Africans and others from far away lands as conquered by states that had emerged from the ashes of Rome would ignore the cosmopolitan ‘meta- cultural sky’ of the greater society of Man and enslave an entire continent of people. As a result, an entire culture would be disenfranchised for the sake of ensuring a class of agricultural landlords in places like the Caribbean, Deep South and other places around the globe.

The solution therefore is quite simple, a return to the metropolitanism of Greece and Rome. For, although even in our nation, we have universal principles that unite us in principle, we do not have a culture that unites us as a people; like that of the ancients. We need to promote a meta-culture that transcends white, black, hispanic, etc. Obviously the implementation of such a cultural change is not one that is simple, but at least we understand what needs to be done.

1. Morello, Carol. Poverty Rates Higher for Blacks and Hispanics than Whites and Asians. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/poverty-rates-higher-for-blacks-and-hispanics-than-whites-and-asians/2013/02/20/401e6a6e-7b78-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html.

2. Cooper, Alexia (2012). Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008. p. 3. ISBN 1249573246.

3. Kouzmin, Alexander (2012). State Crimes Against Democracy: Political Forensics in Public Affairs. p. 138. ISBN 1137286989.

4. Rushton, Phillipe J. and Jensen, Arthur J. Thirty Years of Research on Race: Differences in Cognitive Ability http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

5. Horgan, John. Should Research on Race and IQ be Banned? Scientific American. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/05/16/should-research-on-race-and-iq-be-banned/

6. Markeley, Ben. Poverty on Trial: Does Poverty Cause Crime? http://blogs.jccc.edu/campusledger/2012/05/08/poverty-on-trial-does-poverty-cause-crime/

Scientific Realism part 1

I have debated and discussed this topic with many people and the issue always comes up of the burden of proof. For more often than not, many that claim to be materialists, and atheists in virtue of naturalism and materialism (although they never claim to be materialists-just atheists), suggest that if one believes in metaphysics, the afterlife, God and the like proclaim that the burden of proof lies with the metaphysician. This is due to what they say are superfluous claims that are not found in observation. In short, this sort of atheist suggests that their view of reality is an observed view, while the contrary one is based on fantasy and imagination. But is physicalism observed? I mean, does one 'observe' hydrogen? Does one 'observe' photosynthesis? Does one 'observe' gravitational orbits? The answer may surprise you. For the materialist atheist, the answer is yes. But he or she fails to realize that scientific descriptions are NOT observations. Observations are precisely those phenomena in our consciousness. Observations are 'things' we are aware of and nothing more. The moment we start to describe them as to understand them, we assign to them some grand vision of reality that helps us make sense of the whole of it and the things we experience. The sky overhead, the grass and soil below, the stars in motion, the swirling microscopic particles all succumb to our definitions of them which fit into a genera philosophie. In the strictest sense, observation is phenomenology. Terms we use to describe what we experience reduce it's raw nature to a palpable schematic. And so, the 'burden of proof' is no less in the hands of the metaphysician as the physician. When we say a person is a human being and a human being is a mammal and a mammal is a biological organism we are appealing to a taxonomy with a rather complex layered set of beliefs about the world. The metaphysician does not deny that people are mammals. But when the materialist states as such, he or she is not using the same taxonomic set of assumptions the metaphysician is. For the materialist assumes the mind emerges from biology while the metaphysician does not. But to stand on the 'burden of proof' in favor of the former is to suggest that biology is observed while souls are not; when neither are observed. One does not observe biology, one describes what one observes AS biological. And so does the one describe conscious states AS of the soul. So, let the atheist assume he or she has the higher rational ground to stand on. For in reality, we are all stuck in the cave forced to see shadows of things and describe them the best we can.

Ferguson

As to what happened in Ferguson, should we be surprised? This has been brewing for years, like a kettle of coffee spilling over. But what is to come? And even more, what is the cause of it all? These are tricky questions to answer, and personally I do not think anyone has an answer to them fully. However, if I were to guess, I would say that it perhaps has something to do with the way our culture has developed. We have seen the middle class shrink significantly. We have made no attempts at stabilizing our economy as to ensure economic equality, at least on a reasonable level. The race issue in our country has more to do with poverty than with anything in my view. Until we address these issues, we are doomed as a nation.

I am beginning to think that what we call Science is an uncritical, non-philosophized examination of experience. For modern Philosophy is nothing more than the Science of reality. Traditional Philosophy would tell us not 'what' something is, but 'how' we come to know anything at all, what we know, how we know it, whether we can know this or that and why we can and cannot know certain things. Not until these questions are answered can we proceed to a science about anything. But we have proceeded. We were far to antsy to get things done, we forgot why we were doing them in the first place and what we were doing it with. Science uses a fabric that it does not understand, but takes for granted it is of a certain sort and quality. Too many assumptions. That is all!

Sticks

He plays with his sticks day in and day out. In his bed, immobile and unassuming, he screams for food and beverage when they are needed. The whole time he plays with sticks, stacking them here and there sometimes, other times, waving them like a flag or some important signal for the pilot of a plane to see. But no one would ever have guessed there was an importance to these useless acts. The seemingly insignificant employment of play, of what we view as mindless leisure, could very well be the most important work of all. He sees something that needs to be done, that is all. And isn't that all that work is? And so, with every careful gesture that has no physical importance, we can be assured there is the utmost importance for Heaven or Faerie!

Untitled

I really dislike titles sometimes. So I didn't put one up. I won't even grace this post with a theme or anything like that. I don't even know why I am writing. I actually don't have anything to say really. Feeling rather visceral at the moment, chided and disdained. If any of you have something to say, by all means write something.

Mind

I would have to say that one of the most strikingly bizarre words that we use in the English language is ‘Mind.’ For one cannot go a whole day, or at least it would seem, to witness the term used in a variety of forms. “Are you out of your mind?” Is one example that represents its noun form. While, “do you mind?” Demonstrates the verb form. And yet, I am still confused as to what the word ‘Mind’ means. Oh sure, dictionaries and etymological entries presumably provide ample definitions and origins of the word, but upon a less cursory inspection, one will find all of these unsatisfactory. When used in the first sense it conjures up an image of some 1950’s sci-fi film with bulbous headed humanoid aliens using their super cerebral powers to control the thoughts of their victims. In the latter sense, however, one is tempted to think of a Victorian gentleman, wearing white gloves and a top hat, in mid conversation with an equally elegant audience of upper crust acquaintances saying something to the effect of “if you don’t mind my saying.” In short, the connotative meaning is no less enigmatic than the denotative one. If we cannot agree on a clearer definition and usage of the term ‘mind’ why then do we evaluate the quality of it so frequently? With a preoccupation on IQ tests and academic achievement, we think that Mind, whatever it is or does, can somehow be assessed by quality and quantity. Some minds are ‘bigger’ than others, storing warehouses of information in them. Others are valued by their speed and agility; almost like a cheetah or falcon. The ‘more’ they can store, or the quicker they can access information, they better they are. Popular TV shows depict ‘brainy’ figures of mental superiority confounding the ‘average’ or ‘substandard’ mind with physics’ data and mathematical formulas with the effect that their minds are somehow better than others. And aside from the fact that we cannot ‘count’ the items in a mind, or stand next to the track where minds race and measure their quickness with a stopwatch, we are confident that we have some legitimate means of appraising minds. And yet, all of this fails to address mind in the second sense; as in a verb. A towering intellectual will no doubt be proud of his or her capabilities. But what if others were to ‘mind’ the way he or she acted in public or in private? And even more, what of those that were ‘mindful’ of his or her misbehavior? Is it not possible that those renouncing the intellectual’s conduct be somehow his or her intellectual inferior? Wouldn’t this present the puzzling dilemma of an inferior being at the same time one’s superior? After all, Heracles once fooled the great Atlas, possessing the intellect of a titan, into taking the burden of the world back as to adjust his garment. And Zeus’ infidelity was condemned for centuries by mortal men whose noggins could hardly contain an infinitesimal fraction of the knowledge of a god. Here is a suggestion, and a humble one at that. I propose that we approach the term with the same sense of syntactic apathy as we do with terms like ‘Love’ or ‘Beauty.’ We always accept the more liberal interpretation of these words and their meaning, and so why can’t we do the same with ‘Mind?’ Certainly we could hold out for a definitive and precise sense of the term, but it would seem we would end up in a Platonic cave listening to lectures by a two and a half thousand year old echo of speeches by Socrates. For just as ‘Love’ is nothing more than the affection and passions we have which translate into personal commitments to others and Life matters themselves (and ‘Beauty’ being in the eye of the proverbial beholder), then I see no reason we cannot be content with what ‘Mind’ in general is considered; that which brings things to, and maintains for us, the knowledge we have-tacitly or otherwise; an immeasurable non-quantifiable knowledge only qualified by the conscious awareness of the reality surrounding a person. That is my opinion; that is, if you don’t mind my saying so.