> Why are you replying to my comment with this? It has no relevance to anything I wrote.

You emphasized systemic racism as being a major cause, but group differences can be both non-biologic and NOT related to systemic racism

> not only the value system of the victims but also that of the perpetrators and the system itself.

This assumes the answer (systemic racism) in the premise. The values of the system can be good (agency, hard work, academic pursuit, etc) and misaligned with some group. That group would then do poorly, but not because the system or its values are racist.

> And also consider the history.

I did, this is why I compared to early/mid 20th century Ashkenazi and mid/late 20th century Asians. Both were very persecuted.

> And consider the financial differences that often exist

Most asians fleeing to the US in mid 20th century were much poorer than both current as well as at that time median underperforming groups in the US.

> Consider destruction of cultures.

If anything, current underperforming groups (eg african americans) are famous for having a lot of cultural products. This is where they thrive.

> Consider the dietary and health issues that are faced.

Again, both ashkinazi and asian groups suffered famines + serious malnutrition. Very few in american disadvantaged groups are in danger of starvation or serious malnutrition.

> Consider the overwhelming economic and media environments that 7 years olds grow up within and how that environment is often more impactful than parents could ever hope to be.

Everyone has access to all the same media. There is a significant effort (which I agree with) to over-represent underprivileged groups as successful heroes in modern TV/etc. Parents have significant influence on which media mix is consumed and what counts as "success." Both asians and ashkinazi were represented very negatively in the media mix of mid 20th century, yet they thrived. Nigerian american diaspora today thrives as well (unlike most other african american groups).

> And, if we want to focus on biology, consider the role that vision, in particular color of skin, plays in our emotions, decision and behavior. Consider how we use color of skin to read health and emotions and intentions and how it might be harder to read those when the skin is imbued with unfamiliar tones and how on a population level, such misreads can build into mistrust and conflict.

I specifically didn't focus on biology, but Ashkenazi were clearly targeted based on how they looked. Caricatures of "the Jew" were popular and everywhere in early to mid 20th century Europe. People perceived them especially as untrustworthy. Asians are also obviously and easily identified by a quick look at their face. South asians also have "brown" skin color, that is very similar to that of disadvantaged groups in the US, yet they do well academically/financially/etc. Most people can't tell apart nigerian americans from other african americans, yet nigerian americans tend to do well.

---

In all of this i'm not saying hardship doesn't exist, or that racism doesn't exist, or that differences are biological. I am saying that there is a confounding factor that is essentially bigger then all of this. I think this confounder is "culture/value system" of the group. Not all cultures/value systems are equal, not all of them lead to the same outcomes, these differences are not racist.