That's simple. Tim was taking his usual position of saying that the group outcome differences that we see in Baltimore and elsewhere are completely the product of institutional racism. That's simply not true and is a dangerous narrative that must be eradicated for two reasons: (1) it will never solve the issues of those communities; and (2) it engenders hostility toward people who are not responsible for those outcome differences.
If you guys want to throw out the "racism" label, blaming outside groups for outcomes that they are not responsible for is a form of "racism" (though that term is meaningless since it is used in so many ways that it no longer has any true meaning.)
Discover Magazine: "The history of a population affects it genome, and its genome effects the nature of its traits and diseases."
Well I don't have to agree with Tim either.
I do think the effects of slavery and segregation are real though, but I don't think I go all the way to buying into 'institutional racism' as being 'the' cause for what ails inner Baltimore and cities like it. Reality is black (and white) families used to be more stable and in my opinion urban planning and social policy decisions on a
local level have oftentimes been disastrous. - Here in NO a well known decision was to put up the I-10 extension through a successful, historic black neighborhood, it was a beautiful highlight of NO, it is now a wreck, a problem area. That's just an example, I bet Baltimore has some. These were the disciples of Robert Moses.
However, I'm not sure how you feel about federal policy but if you argue against the social policies in recent decades in any way for what has happened it seems contradictory to also blame genetics. One of my big problems with taking the science you offer to the level of eugenics (which in my opinion is where you're going) is that it escalates to not only personal views but also social policy ones which require saying persons of a given racial classification will and must act in a particular manner so therefore social policies must be adjusted to reflect that. This is extremely problematic from a social point of view but it is also wrong on a factual, personal level and also on a moral level.
I will say though it is at least intellectually consistent, I think one problem that people on the far left have is that they are not intellectually consistent on this, if you believe in "race" then a whole lot of things follow if you do follow that, there is no better example of this than the 1935 Nuremberg Laws. I know that carries freight, a lot of it, but reality is you won't find a better/worse process for assessing and determining race, and if so, then what? What for? If people want to institute policies based on race to counter "institutional racism" and if they do that then they must also, just like the far right, begin by determining who belongs to which 'race'.
To me it is a deep, ugly, socially, morally and scientifically unsupportable rabbit hole. If you want to say trivial fun things like my great great grandfather was a social convivial man who enjoyed beer and salty seafood and all his heirs are like that too, fine, but please don't get into the 'all Irish are prone to drinking and fighting' routine and the like - which this is in essence (just fill in a different 'race' and characteristic) - because if it does not apply to all Irish (just an example, and hypothetically) what is the point of raising it in the first place, at least in the context of social policy? The whole thing crumbles quickly.