Which has always bothered me, since there are other explanations (lifestyle habits, genetics, poverty) that would explain the difference, in whole or in part. It's a politically convenient assumption that goes contrary to Occam's Razor.
"This is not only false, but dangerously false. We are in the process of discovering that certain classes of popularly-prescribed drugs (eg ACE inhibitors for blacks, certain chemotherapy drugs for Asians) are ineffective or even toxic for populations not represented in the relevant drug development research cohorts. It's not identity politics to note that pharmacokinetics can differ between individuals and populations. These differences do not explain all of the population-level morbidity and mortality differences between ethnicities, but they are significant when investigating differences between groups on the same course of treatment."
When you say "your assumption seemed to be" aren't you really talking about your own assumptions about what I'm thinking (but didn't write)?
> since there are other explanations (lifestyle habits, genetics, poverty) that would explain the difference, in whole or in part.
This doesn't contradict the meaning of "structural, systemic racism", but it explains it. When pharmacies are making drugs that are only effective for white people, and not researching effectiveness on black people, that's structural racism almost by definition.
Obviously pharma companies are responding to financial incentives, and if it's not profitable for a company to research treatments specifically helping a minority group then they're probably not going to. Less availability of pharmaceuticals makes treatment harder, causing what is available more expensive or leading to complications that require more further medical treatment (and cost more money); and those who choose not to get treatment will find themselves with further medical conditions later. In the end it would cost the minority more money, which they likely cannot pay for other systemic reasons, so more often they would be denied access to a hospital outright. Everyone involved is responding to natural incentives, but the net result still becomes [minority group] is neglected because of the color of their skin.
> Did you read the whole comment?
When you write like this it feels like you're attacking the character of the person you're talking to, which makes the whole conversation more toxic to follow.
https://www.amazon.com/Color-Law-Forgotten-Government-Segreg...
Blaming genetics for such a wide range of negative outcomes is silly if you're looking for a simple explanation. Consider this[1] paper on cervical cancer. There are nine different genes linked to it. Now do that for every relatively worse health outcome. That's the opposite of simple.
Lifestyle is even more nebulous. It encompasses so much that suggesting it's a kind of verbal jujitsu to suggest it's an adequate use of Occam's Razor. There are hundreds of lifestyle factors and you can weight them however you want to get the result you want.
All of those are about as broad and as simple as racism, which you appear to categorically disregard as a plausible explanation.
You dismissed one assumption and named three more. Please explain which applies to Occam's razor.
If you can then explain how your selection isn't related to structural racism and isn't politically convenient for you, I'd appreciate it.
Because there is a direct correlation between observable characteristics like obesity and poverty to health outcomes for people of all races. If a fat, poor white woman in Appalachia has heart problems in her 40s and receives low quality care, is that a result of systemic racism?
And as others have pointed out, we don't know the entire scope of genetic effects, but we know they exist to some degree (which was the whole point of the article).
The centuries-long existence of slavery, segregation (which was brutal oppression, including lynching), and racism isn't an "assumption", but indisputable fact. Occam's Razor is not a real arbiter of truth, but in this case it cuts the other way: Racism is the simpler and blazingly obvious explanation, backed by endless reearch and even the most casual observation. You really have to work to contrive explanations that don't include systemic and structural racism.
> poverty
Another outcome of those centuries.
Things that are wrong can be obvious to individuals and groups of people. It's certainly not obvious to half the country, and that "endless research" is tainted. How long do you get to keep your job in academia if you point out the primary drivers of black misery in the US (out of wedlock births, drugs, and violence) are self inflicted?
To "point out" something (in academia or elsewhere), that something must be a fact.
It's almost as if the sins of the past affects the lives of people in the present somehow.
In any event, if free will isn't a thing, there's no point in trying to make the world a better place, right, so we should just leave things as they are?
You are suggesting that there isn't widespread racism now? What knowledge or basis do you have for all this?
> if free will isn't a thing
So either there is no free will or there are no systemic problems? Are poverty in Somalia and Kirghistan systemic issues, or is it just a failure of the people there that they don't live like people in the Bay Area? In the U.S., is poverty on Native American reservations, and among almost every group that isn't white men, just due to laziness? Society, health care, schools, the economy, racism, etc. - all have no effect?
It's certainly obvious to the most of the U.S., and facts are not subject to a popularity vote regardless.
> "endless research" is tainted
Easily said, but completely unsubstantiated
> How long do you get to keep your job in academia if you point out ...
Can you substantiate that such a thing is true, and then answer your question? One thing that will lose you your job in academia is making intellectually weak, baseless claims. Academia doesn't run an affirmative action program to include all political ideologies; you have to actually have evidence and good arguments.
I seem to recall "scientific consensus" being important on certain things?
That seems way more likely to me than oft-hinted-at-by-the-"politically-incorrect" "here's a cluster of people who all made the same bad decisions or were victims of the same bad luck in the same way, for no underlying reason other than genetic factors also associated with the color of their skin." That's pretty damn "politically convenient" if you're not in the minority population, too - "hey guys, it's not our fault! They just suck!" Hard to imagine something more politically convenient to the lucky than that.