[prottog]

> Or weren't given access to the same loans (including federally subsidized loans)

I'm not sure which time period you're talking about, but if it's the Boston Fed 1992 research on mortgage loans, then it has had legitimate academic challenges to its methodology.

> So as a white male, when you inherit your parent's house

The same advantage goes to a black male who inherits his parent's house, and the same disadvantage to anyone of any color who did not inherit a house.

> where most research has been done for white ethnicities

The US was nearly 90% white as recently as 1960, and was 75% white as of the 2000 census, so of course most research that has been done in the past was done with white research subjects.

Ultimately, nobody serious rejects the fact that there was past de jure racial discrimination against blacks in this country. What many people challenge is the notion that present de jure discrimination is the only way to remedy past de jure discrimination.

[kenjackson]

> I'm not sure which time period you're talking about, but if it's the Boston Fed 1992 research on mortgage loans, then it has had legitimate academic challenges to its methodology.

I was referring to redlining. See https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history...

> The same advantage goes to a black male who inherits his parent's house, and the same disadvantage to anyone of any color who did not inherit a house.

Of course, and any difference in equity associated with the house. Around 75% of whites own a home versus 45% of blacks. And as you know -- homeownership is the single largest source of wealth for most people in the US.

> The US was nearly 90% white as recently as 1960, and was 75% white as of the 2000 census, so of course most research that has been done in the past was done with white research subjects.

Of course. I'm talking about proportional representation. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4670264/

> Ultimately, nobody serious rejects the fact that there was past de jure racial discrimination against blacks in this country. What many people challenge is the notion that present de jure discrimination is the only way to remedy past de jure discrimination.

The person I was responding to seemed to be making that assertion. And I never said that discrimination was the only way to remedy past discrimination.

The part that's disheartening is that so many people are so up in arms about affirmative action -- and how its discriminatory. But consider everything else we discussed (and there's a lot more) as having no real impact. I mean, why are we even talking about it...