> I suppose the argument could be made that the
> structural disadvantage is one that accrues to people
> from poor families.
If by "poverty" we mean not only less wealth but less power altogether, I'd say yes.
If U.S. society where regulated by "pure" markets, with individuals holding different amounts of wealth at a given time, then the oppression of Blacks would be solely the result of their having less wealth. For historical reasons, Blacks would be disproportionately represented in the working class. As a group, they would be more oppressed than Whites. But, as individuals, they would be oppressed "normally" -- roughly the same way as non-Black individuals of similar *economic* condition so as to make the social effect of their Blackness virtually irrelevant.
Markets would grind those initial conditions further, expanding the wealth of some individual Blacks, shrinking the wealth of others. As a result, the White-Black wealth gap (Black oppression) could increase or decrease. But individually, this effect (more or less oppression) would appear as random -- or rather as uncorrelated to race.
In reality, of course, in U.S. society, power is allocated through "impure" markets and other (non-market) mechanisms. The oppression of Blacks is multi-layered. And all these layers bunched together can partially offset or reinforce each other. It's a complex phenomenon. As far as Blacks are concerned, the resultant is one and the same thing: less social power, less freedom manifest in virtually all areas of social life. That said, I'm under the strong impression that if each of these influences were isolated and measured, it'd turn out that a large part of the oppression of Blacks is economic. But that's just my impression.
In any process or mechanism through which people negotiate or adjudicate power among one another (e.g. markets, democracies, families, etc.), the initial distribution of power is key. Think of a voluntary commercial transaction. Two parties enter into it with initial asymmetric power. If the asymmetry is small, you can safely assume the outcome will be win-win. Why would people enter into a *voluntary* transaction otherwise? With nothing else changing, the initial (more or less even) distribution of power would be reproduced.
If it shrinks or expands, it'll be only a little. Shocks external to the transaction may, of course, reinforce, dampen, or even reverse the initial relative power of the parties.
At some point, however, if you make the initial power asymmetry large enough, the "voluntary" character of the transaction will get void. The market mechanism (or any other mechanism for that matter) will be simply a cloak disguising the abuse of the weak by the powerful. And this abuse can be translated from mechanism to mechanism (e.g. from the economy to the legal system to the polity to the media to education, etc.), since power (what Marxists call the productive power of labor) is fungible. More simply put, money can corrupt the political system. A corrupt political system warps legislation and fiscal policy accordingly. A warped fiscal policy favors some people (politicians and their patrons, hard to distinguish between them some times), hands money to them at the public expense. Etc.
Judge Scalia said it best to the lawyer arguing before the Supremes the McCain-Feingold act, supposedly aimed to "reducing the influence of money" in politics: "Water will always flow down, counselor!" No matter what legal obstacles you place to keep money from influencing the political process, money (a form of social power) is fungible and will find the loophole. Big money is big power. The U.S. political system is biased by the initial inequality in the distribution of economic power. At some point, economic power will find its way and shape the outcomes of the political process. That doesn't mean that the outcomes of the political process will simply mimic the outcomes of markets. The logic of the political system is not the same as the logic of markets. But to some extent it is. To the extent it isn't, the political process will either offset or reinforce the inequality reproduced by the markets.
Suppose that, for a point in time, we know how economic power -- capital, wealth, financial assets, money -- is distributed between Blacks and Whites in the U.S. On average (according to the U.S. Census), the White-Black income gap of adults is 1.6 to 1 approx. The physical wealth gap is, I guess, 2+ to 1. Key alternative mechanisms by which power is distributed in U.S. society are (1) fiscal policy, (2) the legal system, and (3) political representation. We could measure, using some index of social power (e.g. money), how the ultimate benefits and costs (what economists call "incidence") are apportioned between Blacks and Whites through each of the three mechanisms listed. And we would be able to tell whether they lead to more or less polarization.
I don't have a clear impression as to whether fiscal policy mimics the inequality spewed by the markets. One would have to determine the incidence of taxes and expenditures between the races: government jobs, contracts, the differential impact of the tax code when variables other than income or wealth matter, etc. That's a bit too complicated and I wouldn't dare to speculate.
The legal system, on the other hand, the effective adjudication of rights and obligations (especially in the criminal judicial system) seems to me to have a significant racial bias -- way beyond the bias that could be explained by economic inequality. It seems to me that, given the social cost of a crime, if that crime is more likely to be committed by Blacks than by Whites then that crime will be more heavily punished by the law (and its actual enforcement). Although, it's not easy to tell without analyzing the data carefully whether the bias is against the poor -- and Blacks are disproportionately hit because they are more likely to be poor -- or indeed it hits Blacks because they are Black, the Black-White incarceration rate gap is too much (6+:1) -- 3 times what you'd expect from sheer Black-White economic inequality. (I know, the relationship between poverty and crime may be nonlinear, steeper slope as your income falls, but that raises the issue of *why*. In fact, the Blackness of U.S. poverty may explain that as well. Anyway, it seems like too much to me.) If my impression is correct, then that may be because the legal system is much less fluid, slower to adapt, to the political gains made by Blacks in the last few decades. So legal poverty is piled up on Blacks on top of their economic poverty.
In politics, my impression is that Blacks are more strongly represented than Hispanics. This is a case where I think Blacks may be offsetting their economic disadvantage. Blacks seem to be more united than Hispanics. Last time I checked, the percentage of Blacks registered to vote -- and the percentage that votes -- is about at par with Whites. (Hispanics are -- or were before the latest election cycle -- way behind.) Don't ask me to look for the data now. There are many cleavages among Hispanics. Not surprisingly, they have mostly to do with ethnicity. Yes, Indianness and Blackness! And with legal status. So Blacks are in a better position to take advantage of emerging political opportunities than Hispanics.
That said, political *representation* (again, last time I checked those figures) is still disproportionately favorable to Whites. So, in that sense, Blacks are still highly politically disadvantaged. Fortunately, the advantage shrunk significantly in the last few decades as a result of the movement for civil rights and continued Black militancy.
Aside from their economic, legal, and political disadvantage, are Blacks culturally or psychologically handicapped? Contrary to what Wojtek suggests, I don't think that -- in terms of consequences, social costs -- this residual disadvantage is really significant. It may outrage the good souls to see Black rappers use expletives in their art or Black women sway their hips too provocatively. But I'm completely underwhelmed by evidence indicating that this Black commercial culture is more morally depraved than White commercial culture, especially in terms of their social effects. Unfortunately, this cultural issues are the ones that, by innuendo, the White media and White politicians most dwell on. It's fodder for hypocrisy and moralistic demagoguery of the most noxious type. On top of their being socially disadvantaged, Blacks have to listen to their pukey moral sermons or insinuations? Thanks, but no thanks. (Please do not read this as a defense of violence, drug use, rape, killing cops, etc.
Not my point.)
That said, when *Black* celebrities, right or wrong, criticize their own culture in public, I may not like it, but I can understand it as a defense mechanism. That's how I take Bill Cosby's or Obama's emphasis on Black "personal responsibility." (I remember when I was a kid and my older brother got embarrassed by the things I did or say, he'd admonish me sternly in front of others to show that my behavior, stupidity, or whatever had nothing to do with -- you know -- genes. It was a silly way to preempt outsiders from developing stereotypes of our family.)
It's a matter of course that if people don't take personal responsibility they cannot advance their collective interests. So, I'm all for personal responsibility and good judgment in one's personal choices. But I don't think personal responsibility can be advanced by preaching. To the preachers I say: If you believe in personal responsibility, show it in your practice, and treat others with respect. (Easier said than done.)
Finally, if Blacks (or every other group) are at a disadvantage, then inequality among them weakens them, reinforces the disadvantage. Given the average social power of a Black individual, having a few with much and many with little weakens all Blacks. It makes collective action more difficult.
Now raise your hand if you got to read up to here. :-)