I think the more telling test for bias (genetic, social, or otherwise) is to compare groups with long standing US ancestry with recent immigrants of the same background and education.

My understanding is that while we attribute much of inequality to bias in treatment, recent immigrants and their decedents vastly outperform comparable individuals with the same skin color.

To me, this indicates that much of the differences we observe are due to biases of past treatment, opposed to discriminatory treatment in the present.

Comparing modern African immigrants to modern day Black Americans descended from enslaved people is not going to get you a clean comparison by any means. Modern African immigrants are one the most highly educated groups of people in the US. And many of them come having already attained that education due to family money, intelligence, whatever. The poor or even average African immigrants has little chance of making it here. In other words, you are comparing an all star team to the general population.

And yes, biases of past treatment is one of the main issues that many are trying to correct with affirmative action-like programs. There doesn't have to be any modern, active racism at all to try and correct the terrible damage done in the past on a systemic basis. In many cases, this past injustice is exactly what systemic racism is referring to.

To be fair, I did say comparable background, which can include education. There easily is enough immigrants, even poor uneducated ones lacrosse decades to make this comparison.

From what I read, poor and average immigrants do great, even African ones. Even more so, the first generation born in the US.

My greater point doesn't negate the impact of past treatment. If anything, it's strongly supports it. What I think it adds to the conversation is the idea that the challenge is very different than overly simplistic model of skin color discrimination which most people around usually try to reduce everything to.

Miss attribution of the root cause leads to ineffective Solutions.

I agree that historic impacts can be scoped into the definition of systemic racism, but that doesn't mean that other tenants of systemic racism are not overstated or incorrect.

I doubt matching for education matches for potential. An American who drops out of highschool is not the same as a malnourished African who never had the chance

I think that is exactly what you would want such a study to detect, not something that you would be trying to control for.

It is a matter of what the hypothesis being tested is. If your hypothesis is that racial inequality is due to ongoing discrimination on the basis of skin color, finding that the cause is a difference in potential undermines that hypothesis.

If the difference in outcome is due to different potentials, not skin color, you can ask why are the potentials different.

I think this is the interesting and most relevant question.

Why are outcomes so different for a black person born dirt poor in the US with immigrant parents compared to a black person born dirt poor with slave ancestors?

This Cuts directly to the heart of why racial inequality is so persistent in the United States.

It's going to almost impossible to match backgrounds between the two groups and selection effects are huge.

Another question is what are people owed if someone's ancestors were under artificial selection by slavers for many generations?

I think a claim there may be legit. However I'd rather keep objective admissions and hiring and just give cash transfers. I can understand though that people want status as well as cash

I don't think matching backgrounds is particularly difficult depending on how specific you want to be. Would be pretty simple to do a controlled comparison black people born dirt poor in the US slave ancestry versus immigrant parents.

There are also cultural differences, I would bet they have different mindsets of 'grievance' vs 'opportunity' towards the USA

It would also be hard to not be affected by selection effects, eg compare Obama's dad who came to America for an economics PhD at Harvard vs someone whose ancestors were enslaved for hundreds of years

I think that I strongly agree. Any model of racial inequality that ignores such factors is flawed at best.

I think a candid discussion of the persistent cultural impacts of slavery are crucial too making meaningful progress towards equality.

I'm not saying that modern discrimination doesn't take place, just that there is a huge elephant in the room when many people discuss proposals to address inequality

Yes, sub-saharan diversity is even more diverse. But diversity among African Americans is still much higher than that of the white population. In fact, most African Americans descended from enslaved have 20-40% European/white DNA (and for unspeakable reasons, most of that DNA is of the supposedly wealthy, elite, most intelligent white progenitors of this country). So I just see no way to make any useful extrapolations based on genetics. Especially considering the externalities involved in being Black in America.

The white admixture could allow you to do admixture studies. Ie examine the inherited white regions see how white polygenic educational attainment scores vs pigmentation scores affect outcomes

This is explicitly forbidden in terms of use of the best databases however

https://stuartritchie.substack.com/p/nih-genetics