Do Obama's daughters have lower access to education?

No.

So it's not about race. (I just gave you proof.)

It's about wealth and social class. Sure, those might correlate with race, and even be caused by racism (past or present), but virtually all real world consequences are downstream of wealth (in particular the ones mentioned: where you live, what you can afford, the amount of free time you have, your health, your nutrition, access to education/jobs, ...).

If you ignore wealth and focus on race, you're racist.

Has there ever been a poor person that has succeeded in our society? Of course. Therefore I proved money doesn't matter. (Do you see how stupid this argument is?)

> that means that lower access to education and economic attainment

But you're not arguing that we give opportunities to people without good access to education and poor finances. You're arguing we give opportunity based off race. In fact, there are far more white people in the US with poor access to education. If you really wanted to increase opportunities for such people you wouldn't accomplish it by judging by race.

> there are far more white people in the US with poor access to education

More total or more per-capita?

> What is that thing?

The people who study this stuff seriously end up concluding that cultural and domestic factors are the biggest predictor. There are plenty of minority groups who at one point didn't have any stuff, and were discriminated against (Jews, Irish, Italians, Chinese, Japanese, etc.). The main difference seems to be cultural values that prioritize the nuclear family and educational attainment. The SAT isn't racist, poor black people who study do far better than rich white people who don't.

If America was so racist, the single most successful ethnic minority wouldn't be Nigerians. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the culture, family, and values you grew up with.

>If America was so racist, the single most successful ethnic minority wouldn't be Nigerians.

Do you have a source for this? Not for debate, I'm genuinely wondering where the information comes from. From time to time I've heard things about people from Nigeria being hardworking - haven't looked into it very deep though.

Not a direct source but https://africacheck.org/fact-checks/spotchecks/yes-nigerian-... pops up as a fact check after the same claim was made by Candace Owens. This link (from 2018) refers to several reputable sources of the time. I would guess that there are updated data from the US Census Bureau et al if you want to double check, but from all sources linked it seems Nigeria is and has been on an upward swing as far as exporting educated, successful people to the U.S. (and perhaps retrieving them to prevent brain drain, but I cannot be sure).

FWIW and from anecdotal accounts of acquaintances of mine (not a lot but in the double digits), this comes down to a cultural focus on education and family structure from a young age. Compare to the culture and family values promulgated elsewhere.

> The people who study this stuff seriously end up concluding that cultural and domestic factors are the biggest predictor. There are plenty of minority groups who at one point didn't have any stuff, and were discriminated against. ...It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the culture, family, and values you grew up with.

This might actually be the best plausible argument in favor of affirmative action and D&I policies targeted towards these folks. By making it easier for them to enter especially high-skilled industry sectors such as tech we strengthen their incentive for adopting more effective cultural norms, which has significant benefits in the longer run.

(Unfortunately, this won't do any good if the educational system as a whole is not up to reasonable standards - if you're uneducated, you're still practically barred from the most productive and lucrative careers. And U.S. K-12 public education sucks.)

"The people who study this stuff seriously end up concluding that cultural and domestic factors are the biggest predictor."

Wasn't there a Harvard study that concluded the biggest factor was a 2 parent household?

> Of all the factors most predictive of economic mobility in America, one factor clearly stands out in their study: family structure. By their reckoning, when it comes to mobility, “the strongest and most robust predictor is the fraction of children with single parents.” They find that children raised in communities with high percentages of single mothers are significantly less likely to experience absolute and relative mobility. Moreover, “[c]hildren of married parents also have higher rates of upward mobility if they live in communities with fewer single parents.” In other words, as the figure below indicates, it looks like a married village is more likely to raise the economic prospects of a poor child.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/01/new-harvard-study-w... (Slate: What’s the most important factor blocking social mobility? Single parents, suggests a new study.)

https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/129/4/1553/1853754 ("Where is the land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States")

I wonder what affects family structure of non-white families?

Oh that's right... racism.

Why would racism affect the family structure of non-white families?

The industrial prison complex and war on drugs affect the family structure by removing members of the family.

orly? Then why do black Africans in America have strong family structures and therefore lots of success? Are they immune to racism?

What study or studies have been done demonstrating a causal link between their family structure and success?

What is their average household income?

What countries in Africa do most of them come from?

The grandparent post literally linked to a write up about a Harvard study showing that a two parent family is the biggest predictor for economic mobility. Other studies have shown that time spent studying (not race, not household wealth) is the biggest predictor of SAT scores and thereby university admission.

Of course, this has been known for very long. Moynihan was getting in trouble for saying it back in the 60s. It's also the reason why the Civil Rights Act includes women; a particularly angry racist congressman from Virginia added women to the bill (which was widely understood to be aimed at strengthening black fathers to keep families together) to get the whole thing killed (though some publications have argued that Smith was the Baptist rather than the bootlegger in the group that got women added to the bill). The bill was still destroyed by it, if not in the way originally pictured, since it passed.

>a particularly angry racist congressman from Virginia added women to the bill

Where do I read more about this?

The congressman you're looking for is Howard W. Smith. I'll let you pick a preferred source.

No, it's not, What the GP said is true. as I responded to someone else, you really should study Thomas Sowell because he articulates this stuff better than anyone else. I would specifically recommend Black Rednecks and White Liberals for a discussion about negative cultural elements that trace back to rural areas of Scotland, Ireland, and England, were transplanted to the American south, and eventually transplanted to African americans, who themselves eventually migrated from the south for more opportunity. He also talk about how leftists exacerbate the problem.

Wealth, Poverty, and Poltics reads like a textbook, but provides a wealth of information about causes of disparity that have nothing to do with racism. Similarly, conquest and cultures talks a lot about disparate impact throughout history.

One of the foundational tenets of CRT is that all racial disparity is caused by systemic racism, and, therefore, that all racial disparity must be addressed by systemic change until there are equal outcomes. This idea is fundamentally wrong on a billion levels, and also insanely harmful to society. It is one of the main reasons, if not the primary reason, why CRT is so wrong and so dangerous. When you diagnose the illness so completely wrong, and then diagnose the cause of the alleged illness so completely wrong, then, your prognosis is not only going to fail to improve anything, it's going to make things worse for everyone!

The poverty achievement gap is nearly 3x the race achievement gap. Targeting disadvantaged people seems like the better goal for equity.

Edit: according to this study, there is no race achievement gap—it is entirely accounted for by poverty

https://edsource.org/2019/poverty-levels-in-schools-key-dete...

The beauty of it is that you don't have to figure out what the underlying mechanism is. You just need to help people on the basis of those measurable metrics - poverty, access to education etc - while ignoring other factors. If it so happens that those other factors have a causal correlation with poverty etc, well, you've just mitigated that.

Why should there be any one, single thing? Maybe it's the aggregate of a million small factors which don't add up to any compact story. That's not a terribly exciting hypothesis, and I don't have any great answers for what to do about it, but it seems a lot more plausible than the epicycles required to explain how overrepresented people of color and Indian CEOs are compatible with a white-led racial hierarchy.