Pants-of-dog wrote:Since no one was able to bring up a concrete example of an issue affecting rich BIPOC or poor whites that could be useful in determining how to reduce the opportunity gap, this corroborates my idea that it would be better to tackle classism and racism simultaneously.
If you want another example, one can simply note non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black households face similar rates of violent victimization once controlling for income/poverty status, middle- and high-income households also face similar rates of violent victimization regardless of their race/ethnicity (figure 4):
Bureau of Justice Statistics (2014) wrote:...
Poor whites and blacks had higher rates of violent victimization than poor Hispanics
The overall pattern of persons in poor households having the highest rates of violent victimization was consistent for both non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks (figure 4). The rate of violent victimization was 46.4 per 1,000 for poor whites and 43.4 per 1,000 for poor blacks. For both groups, persons in high-income households had the lowest rates of violence. However, this pattern did not hold for Hispanics. In 2008–12, the rate of violent victimization for Hispanics did not vary significantly across poverty levels.
At each of the poverty levels measured, there was no statistically significant difference between whites and blacks in the rate of violent victimization. Among persons in mid and high-income households, the rates of violence were similar for whites, blacks, and Hispanics. However, poor whites and blacks had higher rates of victimization than poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000). Poor Hispanics had similar rates of violence as blacks living in high-income households (22.7 per 1,000).
...
Pants-of-dog wrote:Also, conservatives suffer from a misconception when they argue that rich black people benefit the most from affirmative action. This is not the case. White women are the main recipients. But conservatives do not think of affirmative action as helping white people. In the minds of conservatives, AA has been racialised and is perceived as helping Black people, and thus race based affirmative action is opposed. Gender based AA that helps white women is almost completely ignored.
Is this attempt to deflect criticism supposed to be a defense of affirmative action? We're clearly talking about race-based affirmative action since we're discussing systemic racism, and the obvious comparison is therefore between rich Blacks and poor Blacks. Also, I will note there are far more white women than African Americans regardless of their gender, with the obvious implications about what one could expect about the distribution of beneficiaries.
Not that gender-based affirmative action is any better as far as focalization is concerned, as it also largely benefits upper and upper-middle class women over poor ones for exactly the same reasons.
One would think affirmative action is not meant to benefit those who are already among the haves in society.
If this is your "defense" for affirmative action, it's probably one of the worst ones I've seen.