If we look at the pop music or general music charts through much of the world- a 20 minute undulation is generally not on them. Opera generally does not top overall charts for some time. So of course, even though these things can take skill and be beautiful and masterful or artful- they may not be to the sensibilities of other cultures or translate to skills that are valued by others. So if the singing of group A is a lifelong skill but it is of a type that doesn’t generally have mass appeal outside their cultural familiarity and doesn’t translate to the type of vocal skills that are valued by mass markets of others, then despite their seeming advantage group A could even be at a disadvantage in singing related industries in this example!

.. vulgar might not produce many or any star singers. It is a fair generalization then to say culture A produces good singers and culture B is less likely to- but it is problematic to meet someone from culture B and assume they cannot sing. There may be members of culture B who sing wonderfully. Of course this is culture right? Enter a complication. Race and e think city are not intrinsically linked. There are often links between race and ethnicity, but the two are not fundamentally tied. So there are distinctions to be drawn between a racial group and an ethnic group and then demographics within that group and so on. It is also the case that if group A practice and sing their whole lives… when those who keep the traditional culture from group find themselves amongst other cultures- there is no guarantee that their traditional singing, no matter how masterful and artful, will be pleasant to others.

Other times such disparities can be to present inequities or historical ones which have created biases and led to unequal opportunity die to created bias. And sometimes it is a sort of natural consequence of general differences. One culture or group may emphasize values or priorities or traits or practices that tend to naturally lead to success in certain areas while others do not in general. In a hypothetical culture where requests and courtship and business deals were made by singing and responses are and rewards are determined by the quality of singing- we might expect that many of those persons might find success in or even dominate industries where a talent for singing is a key to success as most members of that culture will likely have been singing their whole lives with strong motivation to do well, and families will likely have generational knowledge and experience in teaching and improving singing. Conversely a culture where singing is not generally done or even is seen as..

So now we need to examine the community and try to discover why group A is so disproportionately poor to groups C and D. There is little support generically beyond possible predisposition to health conditions that are expensive and prohibitive (we can easily confirm those as a factor or remove them) to support a genetic reasoning for the disparity. There could he cultural factors, culture and history are often intertwined so we can examine those factors.
It’s a rabbit hole and seldom free from any need for interpretation but in the end we can find that sometimes “racial disparities” are in fact coincidental- that either people of a given race aren’t any more or less represented by race so much as people of a given race happen to be more likely to share some other factors that lead to that disparity and are not directly related to any sort of advantage or disadvantage per se, or that there is no unifying or compelling reason and by the laws of statistics these things can happen.

But if we find certain factors- let’s say that 80% of a workplace and job is race A, and we find that in that position 97% of people are from low socio economic backgrounds. So we look at the area where workers to that job come from and we see that races B and C are represented at 5% of households in low socio economic status and race A is represented at 90% of households at low socio economic status. 20% of the job is made up of races B and C, and when surveyed we discover that those from races B and C in the job are 97% low socioeconomic status. So what we have is a picture that points to that particular job not being biased towards people of a given group necessarily- among all races the common factor is low socio economic status. In simple terms- the job is mostly done by poor people and there are more poor people from group A than B and C combined.

So what applies as a generalization doesn’t necessarily apply universally. People often conflate the terms and concepts which leads to biases and such- the differences between an understanding that many “middle easterners” are Muslim and most Muslims do not eat pork vs. The assumption that someone who looks “middle eastern” must not eat pork. Of course there are non Muslims that don’t eat pork and there are Muslims that do eat pork and you might meet a “middle eastern” non Muslim that doesn’t eat pork because it doesn’t fit their lean protein nutrition plan or they just don’t like it. So we must be careful with generalizations.

We then must gather data from our larger groups outside - including jobs and socio economic status. This is where we can start to possibly see some generalities. Sometimes things are culturally specific. You might not see a lot of a certain group working in sales because their cultural beliefs in general are that the industry is somehow dirty or taboo for example. A culture as a whole may prize certain things and money is not always a primary motivator- religions and beliefs, prestige, traditions and heritage and more can factor in. Sometimes disparities can be attributed to culture in this way, and while that culture can apply broadly, there are of course people who don’t adhere as strictly to that culture or at all or are willing to step outside tradition and are progressive or non conformist etc.

We can then examine the less dominant groups and look for those same factors. We can then compare the similarities between our larger groups- often there are good odds that within a competitive field we can find that certain traits and histories are often common- in any top level competitive field you’ll often find people are… competitive.. driven… disciplined in their field, motivated, etc for example. But you might uncover some seemingly odd similarities. You might find that the top people in a field wether in a dominant group or not overwhelmingly come from “farm towns” or divorced homes. Any information we gather might be significant or might be coincidence or anomaly. Too early for conclusions.

So why and when is rave important? Well- we CAN do some generalizing. It’s a dirty word and we covered it is problematic- but generalization is practical and scientific if we remember to conceptualize it as a general and a place holder while we narrow in on data.
So it starts with groups. A job or industry Can be a group- so our NBA players let’s say. Then we observe similarities between people and group them. The common thing people do at least in this age is to observe an idea of race. So we see lots of black players in the NBA and few Asians. So now we have some groups. Not all black people or white people or Asians are the same or even very similar. we need to dig further.
If we examine the dominant group in detail, their education, career history, parenting styles and upbringing, socio economic status, psychological traits etc- we look for groups there. “Rich kids” “poor kids” single parent, those who excelled at academics and those who didn’t, personality types.

They can inevitably create concepts of inherent genetic and thusly racial or ethnic superiority or inferiority. People of a certain type being stronger or smarter or more resilient. People from groups that fairly exclusively or more commonly have certain diseases or allergies or other regressive traits or disadvantageous traits as “inferior” at a basic level. It can be viewed as “proof” by some of their own superiority or fitness for a task. If society believes red heads are genetically better at business- people wanting to succeed in business often might consciously or unconsciously favor red heads. So there are perils to the truth in that many are ill equipped to think. It’s blunt but some people just aren’t thinkers. They might even try their best but they will be often and terribly wrong when drawing their own conclusions, or when right may arrive by luck- like a child getting a single math problem correct despite not knowing how to get the correct answer through calculation. luck.

So that’s an u comfortable place. Eugenics is racist bunk science but we know that blonde hair or red hair or certain cancers or other conditions are sometimes much more prevalent or exclusively carried by certain genes. Myths about Africans and some genetic physical superiority for manual work and athletics have haunted the past few centuries and have dark legacies, various beliefs about intelligence and character or morality being in your genes- so we are understandably wary to start discussions that deal with there being certain probabilities that can be definitively traced to genes and often to ethnicity in a historical period- anyone can get sickle cell anemia but it is more prevalent in certain groups. The other huge problem there is that acknowledging these things not only links back to those shameful fallacies like eugenics,

But why would we need to bring race up if black players aren’t in a unified conspiracy to keep others out..? Well… we might or might not need to address race. It depends. If we observe and data supports racial disparity, figuring out causes and ultimately
Addressing those causes can require us to examine race. Saying something like “more basketball players aren’t Asian because Asians are short” is problematic. We know of at least one Asian NBA player in recent history who was quite tall, and many Asians are tall. Many are muscular or athletes. So why so few Asian NFL players or really- most major US sports? Well… saying that Asians are short is a generalization and if we try to apply that universally it is racist- but biologically there are often differences in general sizes and bone structures between people. We can’t always tell someone’s ancestry by looking at them but humans are pretty ok at figuring out a broad region or ethic group or genetic family of a person by visual cues.

uncommonly represented. So we do have to remember that observation is only a single step in deduction. We believe we observe something, a majority of nfl players are black. We can check the data. In that case- the data supports the observation. A lot of black football players. Ok. So now though- we can’t jump to a conclusion yet. We can’t just say the fact that most nfl players are black proves the nfl is racist against Asians or doesn’t offer opportunities to white players. People like to skip steps or often mix up the order. They’ll come up with a conclusion, then use observation to “prove it” and then say they are done, maybe then go look up facts to support their observations if they are particularly thorough.

nursing and much staffing in the medical field was by Filipinos. Of course a sport like basketball or football (American) a huge percentage of players are black or POC.
Is this a case where other groups don’t have opportunity in these fields or a case where the dominant groups in these fields dominate those fields because they don’t have other opportunities, or is it something else or a combination of factors? It is difficult often to say and perhaps ultimately these things can be open to interpretation. We are also subject to perceptive bias. So we might feel like we suddenly are seeing many green cars after buying a green car. Are there suddenly more green cars? Did you buying a green car trigger a fad? If we look at data we can often get some idea. Samples from traffic cameras or vehicle records can show us the number of green cars by date and give some insight to those perceptions. It could just be that you notice green cars or are in an area where green cars happen to be

You were proven correct with a disappointing swiftness.
It’s a touchy subject and of course people can be racist against whites- and there is this uncomfortable and difficult place where… it’s easy for me to say “why mention race at all” in such complaints- races aren’t councils where every member acts on orders in a unified front, so when we group by race we imply a sameness which is inherently problematic. There is some importance there though. In the sense that yes, if you look at all the highest paying jobs and a disproportionate majority of them are held by a single type or group- there may be issues of equity and opportunity. When you have direct evidence like… 200 odd years of systemic and social oppression… to pretty concretely show that such disparities aren’t some fluke… that does help paint a picture. But it is still rough. In the US North East it is classically the case that a large number of Nurses are of Caribbean decent. On the west coast it was long a thing that

There is a level of sensitivity there and historical prudence- “whites,” especially “white Americans” as a singular identity have not faced that sort of genocide. Have not faced being marginalized in society and having their homes and businesses and families and lives ripped away for the crime of “being white.” Far right but jobs would like to paint a picture that things like representation and measures to mitigate historical injustices that have disadvantaged certain groups disproportionately are some “white purge,” but the reality of the numbers don’t support those types of paranoid delusion or persecution complexes. Jews can show the math. There are Jews alive today who can tell you first hand, show you the scars even, if what happens when a nation sleeps through cries the Jews are to blame.

If the really slow kids still aren’t getting this- the Jewish people have suffered thousands of years of persecution, violence, exclusion and marginalization. Slavery. Often they have been targeted because they have excelled or thrived in certain industries- often industries that they were forced into or told were the only industries they could work in.
Jewish “purges” and social movements that have resulted unjustly in Jewish deaths and losses of liberties and property have often began in history with cries of “wealthy oppressed” picking a grievance in their personal lives, blaming it on the Jews, conflating the Jewish people with control or monopolization or conspiracy and thusly implicating them in the complaints of anyone else who might feel similar gripes or can find advantage in turning opinion against the Jewish people, and then where these things are accepted and absorbed, and no one has put a stop to it- bad things often happen.

For the slower kids who are still not getting this, when you talk about the transatlantic slave trade and practices of American racism through history, Jim Crow laws and police brutality and these things… do you think these experiences mean much or anything to the average African who’s entire family as far back as they know of has lived and generally thrived in Africa? Do you think the average multi generational “African American” that traces their history back to transatlantic slavery and knows nothing of their history or genetics before that- do you think that they have the same sensitivities and possible biases concerning tribal and national politics in Africa that an African might? They are both “black,” and yet their history diverges. The things they are sensitive to often diverge. Their lives experiences are different.

I’m glad. Thank you.

It happens. Badge of honor.

Regardless we have what could easily qualify as the third world war but isn’t Considered such. So the First World War? We can split hairs and negotiate with history but officially ww1 is the First World War.

Maybe they reasoned that western occupation or annexation of those lands risked ongoing conflict and possibly nuclear exchange with former Societs, current Russians, AND people of former soviet territories seeking to self govern. Maybe they figured that Russia Wu isn’t be so likely to use nuclear weapons against their own former and possibly future family states and in their own backyard. So maybe it was all largely a prudent and shrewd chess game to surround the new Russian federation with potentially hostile former states and provide an easy way to establish western fronts in the region to act in western interests- or maybe they were just being nice and didn’t think of any of that stuff when playing let’s make a deal with the former Soviets.

You can decide for yourself if America and other world powers facilitated and allowed the formation of a new Russian government out of some greater principles of nobility and self determination or if the threat of nuclear fire from remaining hardliners if pushed too hard guided American and other policies lost soviet fall. Maybe the west was super righteous and figured they’d allow lands once absorbed in the USSR to form local independent governments- or maybe they figured they could puppeteer many smaller and presumably Russian hostile neighbor states more safely and readily than a massive state.