|
Many people will face inequities based on their upbringing and heritage, but it has nothing to do with race. A black child, born in the modern US, is - ceteris paribus - not likely to end up any worse off financially than a white child. Therefore - as Arbiter said - race is no basis upon which to measure (or excuse, rather) "the (im)balance of wealth or influence within society".
It is, however, an inescapable fact that wealth is cyclical and readily propagated along hereditary lines almost as well-defined as those of race. Rich parents will give birth to rich children drowned in opportunity and poor parents will give birth to poor children starved of it - this is the basis on which the (im)balance of wealth and power is maintained. Until every child has adequate opportunity to self-actualise (through education etc.), all this talk of "individual mobility" and "the testicular fortitude to succeed" (wtf  ) is completely meaningless. In our respective societies, barring a few rare exceptions to the rule, wealth will beget wealth and poverty will beget poverty. This has nothing to do with desire, it has everything to do with opportunity. Until every child has access to a quality education, the propogation of wealth along hereditary lines will continue. This concept, by the way, isn't capitalism, it's aristocracy.
So, to answer your question about the "racial heirarchy" in the US, the reason why black (and hispanic and other) people rank consistently lower than white Americans in social indicators has less to do with race than the fact that individuals of these ethnicities have, more often than not, have entered the country as an underclass and the system is inadequately supported to redress this (im)balance of power in subsequent generations, even in this age of racial equality and affirmative action. Until even the poorest in our societies have adequate opportunities to make a life for themselves, the cycle will, sadly, continue.
___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/
|
