I acknowledge that may very well be so, although now we are in the realm of some subjectivity.
The only thing I've left to say is that with some imagination and creativity e.g. genetic manipulation, changes to legal codes, the development of new frontiers, it may be possible to improve the circumstances of all including the marginalized. A lot of legacy problems just drain away when you have economic growth and a clear vision of a better future. Absent that, old wounds tend to materialize to be the scapegoat for further conflict. It's not great, but it is human.
One observation I've made recently is that when people have a common overriding identity e.g. geeks in a hackerspace, other potential sources of conflict such as identifying as transvestite while others may identify as christian tend to fade away. That is the essence of tribalism and I'm convinced it has a lot to do with the future and the Net.
In one related example; consider 'African-Americans' stopping identification with Africa and instead black but America first i.e. a black American, not an African American. That in of itself would help enormously but not without some controversy.
A second but negative example is the Europeans and the recent migration issue. All manner of Europeans are feeling more 'European' purely by virtue of the other being not plus a potential common enemy in their midst. Ironic but true.
>It is a tautology.
Yeah, I meant:
"a subgroup of group G is X because of itself ("caused its own harm")"
Or:
"a subgroup is (a bad thing) X because of itself ("caused its own harm")"
>Violence can be opportunistic because you're a war-like tribe and have spotted a weakness in another tribe. Consider the Mongols attacking Europeans or the Zulu wiping out the Bush people. Do you consider that an external circumstance or a cultural choice?
A cultural choice.
>Ok. Well I don't live in the United States, but I can tell you that the same subgroup exists in places that never had a history of slavery e.g. Ireland. We have people directly from Africa who live here, and that same subgroup exists here, freshly minted as it were.
Those "fresh from Africa" weren't slaves in the US, but do come from the same legacy of several centuries of colonialism in Africa itself.
Heck, even their countries' borders where drawn on the map by white men to divide their plundering. Usually with a "divide and conquer" approach, to mix hostile or unrelated local groups/tribes in the same borders and control things playing each other against them. And the meddling, support of friendly lackeys in power, and "divide and conquer" has never stopped since (e.g. for one example few heard/care: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/inside-france... ).
>That's not to say it does not matter. Just that I am not accepting that line of argument. The Irish and Jews are not notably more violent and criminal than they were pre-genocide, and they were also oppressed for centuries.
Well, the Jews did establish a quite oppressive and one of the most war-ready and vigilant nation states to protect their identity post-WWII. And a lot of their culture was informed by the persecutions over the centuries.
That said, those persecutions were of a different nature than being held 2-3 centuries as slaves. And their being white, they could always mix far easier into society and climb socially, which they were fully allowed post-WWII. Britain had a Jewish PM back in 1874 -- for them to have a black PM back then would be unheard of and not just protested but derided.
Merely "group a was persecuted too, but is not X like group b" doesn't say much. The specifics of the persecution, and the relative historical accounts of both groups needs to be taken into account.
At some point or another, everyone has been persecuted (e.g. even whites living Europe because of religious persecution) but not all persecution is the same, and not all has hold for the same period, and not all took the same form.