I disagree with the premise of your argument that all Blacks belong to the same group and thus face the same social conditions. Anyone can see that is not the case (which is also true of any other ethnic group). In fact, ethnic stereotype (a belief that all members of an ethnic group look, think and act the same) is one of the central features of racist beliefs.
Even if we make a highly improbable assumption that all memebers of an ethinc group face the same type of obstacles - that is still insufficient to claim that all members of that group will react in the same way to these obstacles. Some will see that as a reason to work harder to succeed, other will use as an excuse to sit on thei hand s and do nothing, still other will ignore it altogether.
>
>CB: The difference between whites and blacks AS GROUPS or socially is
explained by a social factor. Individuals blacks and whites may be
exceptions to the social generalization. For example, I have three
university degrees. Do you have more ? If not, then you and I as
individuals are an exception to social generalization that whites have more
education than blacks, but that exception doesn't invalidate the
statistical generalization or the social explanation of that generalization.<
There are lies, damn lies and statistics. WE live under the tyranny of statistical majority, when the statistical properties of the group are seen as a norm, and emprically observed cases as deviations from that norm. But the fact of th ematter is that statistics are simply a shorthand, an abreviated way of representing multiple observations that may or may not reflect material reality.
The "norm" you refer to, that Blacks have more education than whites simply refelcts different likelihood of people of different skin color having a college degree. However, when you talk about exception to that "rule" you implictly assume that having this or that level education is essential to generalized black or white experience - for exception exists only if there is a rule. But that is an instance of ecological fallacy or attributing properties of a group to members of that group.
Let me illustrate that win the example of insurance practice of charging higher rates by age, gender or zip code. Th eunderlying assumption is that peopl ein the same age, gender or zip group face the same risk of accident.
That assumption is true from the point of insurance company that is NOT in the business of predicting individual behavior but in the business of socialization of risk - that is calculating the total amount being risked and distributing it among members of a risk category: the total value of property times the risk factor (plus insurer's profit) divided by the total number of insured individuals.
However, what makes sense form th epoint of view of the insurer, makes no sense when applied to individual behavior. Car accidents are caused by individual behavior not membership in a risk category. Therefeore, the risk of an individual driver getting into an accident must be calculated not based on risk group membership but on the factors characterising that particular individual. A male under 25 can be a very cautious and skillful driver hence his risk of getting into an accident might be very low, despite being in a "high risk" category. Is he an excpetion to a "rule"? The answer is yes ONLY is we assume the insurance agency's point of virw as "more real" than emprical reality of that person's life. BUt if we consider that person's skill and driving habit, we will his getting into accident as an excpetion rathr than a rule (despite his membership in "high risk" category.
The same thing applies to other group properties. We all argee that the "bell curve" argument is witchcraft not science not because it miscalculated R squares, but because it attributes statistical properties of a social groups (mean achievement scores) to individual members of these group (their cognitive abilities). On the same principle, reversing that line and explaining individual experiences by statistical properties of group is also witchraft. Thus your getting three university degrees is the norm rather then an exception, given you life history (btw, i've got also three degrees and work for a prestigious university - that is an exception if compared to the experience of Eastern European immigrants in Chicago or New York, but a "norm" given my background).
In plain English, if each time I apply to different gradual school I get a reply that they do not accept Eastern Europeans, each time I try to get a job I hear that Eastern European need not apply, each time I try to open my own business I either cannot get a permit, get boycootted, or something bad happend to my facilties - so finally, having no other way of supporting myself, I rob a bank - I can explain my criminal act by discrimination of Eastrn Europeans. If, on the other hand, I figure that I will be probably better off robbing a bank than going to school, getting a job or starting my own business - the sole explanation of my act is my perception of the chance of my success. Past collective experiences of the group of which I feel to be a member may play very different roles in forming that perception. I can see the dumb Pollack jokes as a challenge to show the damn Yanks than I am better than they think and go to a graduate school, or use as an excuse to rob them of their money. Or I can be motivated by something that has nothing to do with my Eastern Eurpean origins.
A broader point is that both social sciences and public discourse are affected by a particularly nasty variety of statistical platonism. We tend to view abstract ideas, especially those represented by quantitative propeties of artificially constructed groups, as more real than empirical reality (or "historical individuals" as Max Weber used to say). That is particularly evident in socio-and econo-babble that referes to statistics as "facts." Statitics are NOT facts - they are mathematical constructs. Even if they occasionally represent facts - theydo so ina very very schematic and arbitrary manner. Of course, stats are not the only examples of platonic ideocracy - social mythologies are another one - but they tend to be taken more seriously than other varieties.
>
>The fact that human agency shapes our lives does not mean that social
strucutures , such as racism, also shape our lives. Diallo could have had
all the human agency in the world, but it wouldn't have saved him from
being murdered because he was Black, i.e. a member of a GROUP, a social
cause of his death.
Diallo death was an exception, given his personal background or even group membership as an African immigrant. His death has nothing to do with him, otehr than being in a wrong place at a wrong time. What needs an explanation is the behavior of the cops who killed him - and that explanation lies in the life histories and experiences of these specific individuals, and NOT in their impited motives, thoughts or group membership. To my knowledge, it has not even been established if they held racist attitudes, but even if they did, there is a big difference between beliefs and acting on these beliefs. In other words, there are many bigots and most of them have guns, but only few of them go out and shoot the people they hate.
In my opinion, the two main contributing factors behind Diallo's death are the law enforcement policies based on the 'war on crime' principle - for which the policy makes should be held responsible, but they got easily off the hook by charging those who actually pulled the trigger - and conseqently, the ineptitude of the police officers who were trained to fight a war instead of doing a police work. Interestingly, the official explanation why the NATO mission in Kosovo is a failure holds that the Army was trained to fight a war not to do the police work. By the same logic does not apply to police brass and political leaders who train their officers to fight a war on crime instead of community policing.
wojtek
>