It’s sounds like you are acknowledging systemic racism but just don’t want to call it that.
If you have a magic box and you put people in line for the magic box and the people are substantially the same aside from skin colour going in and on the other side of the box the outcomes are sorted by skin colour you have a systemically racist box.
There are likely a lot of factors that go into making that box Systemically racist. Some might not be controllable by the people in power. I think you are limiting systemic racism to power structures created by white people to disenfranchise black people as opposed to the more general systems in society which Negatively affect POCs to a greater degree then Whites.
Both are examples of systemic racism.
We would really need to dig into the data. The "box" as you say is not an algorithm with clear formulas. Different ethnic groups within the black community have significantly different outcomes. Different white communities have different outcomes, which are also clearly delineated. Why do Russian-Americans earn vastly more than Yugoslavian Americans?
Neither of these outcomes is clearly explained by race. The average income of a two parent black families isn't that far off of white two parent families for about 25 years now. Average incomes (mean and median) are greatly skewed by single mother families. Median incomes in the south are lower than median incomes in the northern states - and the south has a larger population of blacks, skewing in the national average.
Hughes (in the article linked above) highlighted an interesting outcome of the disparity fallacy:
"The disparity fallacy holds that unequal outcomes between two groups must be caused primarily by discrimination, whether overt or systemic. What’s puzzling about believers in the disparity fallacy is not that they apply the belief too broadly, but that they apply it too narrowly. Any instance of whites outperforming blacks is adduced as evidence of discrimination. But when a disparity runs the other way—that is, blacks outperforming whites—discrimination is never invoked as a causal factor."
Racism exists, absolutely. However. The argument for systemic racism being the driving force behind the disparity between blacks and white is a facile argument that is simply a classic example of confusing correlation with causation.
The truly insidious result of the systemic racism argument is that it removes agency. It implies that outside factors are more important than intrinsic factors when it comes to success. If you convince someone that they will be the victim of oppression and racism, it will be demotivating. I believe that this is why the messages of Obama, McWhorter, Hughes, Sowell, Elder, and Loury are the most hopeful ones.
We would really need to dig into the data. The "box" as you say is not an algorithm with clear formulas. Different ethnic groups within the black community have significantly different outcomes. Different white communities have different outcomes, which are also clearly delineated. Why do Russian-Americans earn vastly more than Yugoslavian Americans?
Neither of these outcomes is clearly explained by race. The average income of a two parent black families isn't that far off of white two parent families for about 25 years now. Average incomes (mean and median) are greatly skewed by single mother families. Median incomes in the south are lower than median incomes in the northern states - and the south has a larger population of blacks, skewing in the national average.
Hughes (in the article linked above) highlighted an interesting outcome of the disparity fallacy:
"The disparity fallacy holds that unequal outcomes between two groups must be caused primarily by discrimination, whether overt or systemic. What’s puzzling about believers in the disparity fallacy is not that they apply the belief too broadly, but that they apply it too narrowly. Any instance of whites outperforming blacks is adduced as evidence of discrimination. But when a disparity runs the other way—that is, blacks outperforming whites—discrimination is never invoked as a causal factor."
Racism exists, absolutely. However. The argument for systemic racism being the driving force behind the disparity between blacks and white is a facile argument that is simply a classic example of confusing correlation with causation.
The truly insidious result of the systemic racism argument is that it removes agency. It implies that outside factors are more important than intrinsic factors when it comes to success. If you convince someone that they will be the victim of oppression and racism, it will be demotivating. I believe that this is why the messages of Obama, McWhorter, Hughes, Sowell, Elder, and Loury are the most hopeful ones.
so you believe Blacks and hispanics are just to stupid to do well, that its their fault.
Any time discussion becomes bogged down in definitions and terminology, it becomes pretty useless to me and I get lost.
I thought systematic racism implied that rules/laws were in place to facilitate descriminating against POC. I think this no longer exists.
The believe the problem instead is that there is a whole #### ton of racist #######s.
The funniest thing about that bat#### Laura Ingraham interview is for most of it she's trying to steer him away from going even further off the rails. I can only imagine what an unedited version of that interview with an interviewer who'd be egging him on would look like.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
We would really need to dig into the data. The "box" as you say is not an algorithm with clear formulas. Different ethnic groups within the black community have significantly different outcomes. Different white communities have different outcomes, which are also clearly delineated. Why do Russian-Americans earn vastly more than Yugoslavian Americans?
Oh look, the shifting of the goalposts has begun! I'm waiting for the last vestige of the "intellectual dark web set" and the good old stand-by of a semantics argument - we have a difference of opinion of what that term means, so lets argue that instead! All of this is strangely familiar, right down to the reliance on a Quillette article. It is a classic alt-right trap, one Jordan Peterson would be proud of. I think this requires invoking one of my favorite articles from Wired, Calling Bull#### skewers the World's BS Merchants.
George Carlin proposed a taxonomy for three kinds of bothersome people: those who are (1) “####ing stupid,” (2) “full of ####,” or (3) “####ing nuts.” Then he explained how to identify each. “Full of ####” people, he said, were averse to telling the truth but weren’t necessarily unintelligent. Bull#### purveyors might be manipulative or provocative or just plain liars, but they weren’t crazy or stupid.
In 2020, Carlin’s categorization is no longer sufficient. The act of being “full of ####” and producing bull#### has since undergone a Cambrian explosion. Today’s bull#### is more diverse, with many more faces, personalities, and types of camouflage. Carlin’s world was also waist deep in political liars, but it didn’t have automated bots propagating bull#### that can spread to the minds of billions (interpreted as fact) within minutes. In the face of robo-bull####, Carlin’s algorithm looks like retro-tech. “Full of ####” people and nonpeople are now everywhere—some are both crazy and stupid—and their lies and deceit are unraveling the social order.
So let me just call this post what it is, BULL####!!!
Quote:
Neither of these outcomes is clearly explained by race. The average income of a two parent black families isn't that far off of white two parent families for about 25 years now. Average incomes (mean and median) are greatly skewed by single mother families. Median incomes in the south are lower than median incomes in the northern states - and the south has a larger population of blacks, skewing in the national average.
Bull####! Data from the US Census Bureau.
So Blacks make 65% of median income. Hispanics make 81% of median income. Whites make 118% of median income. So those black families aren't that far off from whites? Almost $30K isn't "that far off." As far as economic growth in the past decade, blacks have seen their real incomes shrink by 2.1% while whites have seen theirs rise by 2.3%.
20.8% of black families live in poverty compared to 10.1 of white families.
The median household net worth of an African American family is $16,300, compared to $162,770 for white Americans.
41% of black families have retirement savings, with a value of $29,200, compared to 68% of whites, with a value of $79,500.
I could go on and on, because "the data" continues to stack up against your bull#### argument.
Quote:
Hughes (in the bull#### article linked above) highlighted an interesting outcome of the disparity fallacy:
"The disparity fallacy holds that unequal outcomes between two groups must be caused primarily by discrimination, whether overt or systemic. What’s puzzling about believers in the disparity fallacy is not that they apply the belief too broadly, but that they apply it too narrowly. Any instance of whites outperforming blacks is adduced as evidence of discrimination. But when a disparity runs the other way—that is, blacks outperforming whites—discrimination is never invoked as a causal factor."
Racism exists, absolutely. However. The argument for systemic racism being the driving force behind the disparity between blacks and white is a facile argument that is simply a classic example of confusing correlation with causation.
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
Quote:
The truly insidious result of the systemic racism argument is that it removes agency. It implies that outside factors are more important than intrinsic factors when it comes to success. If you convince someone that they will be the victim of oppression and racism, it will be demotivating. I believe that this is why the messages of Obama, McWhorter, Hughes, Sowell, Elder, and Loury are the most hopeful ones.
Yes, outside factors are more important that intrinsic factors. When there are systemic barriers to pretty much every agency that allows for upward mobility, all the intrinsic factors in the world mean nothing. You could have the greatest business idea in the world, but if no bank is willing to lend you money, and no investor is willing to listen to you because of the color of your skin or where you come from, the chances of the revolutionary idea seeing the light of day is almost nil. Systemic racism, now being re-branded as "unconscious bias", is real, and all the name dropping in the world is not going to change that. Your argument is not only dishonest but, in the immortal words of George Carlin, it's bull####.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
I thought systematic racism implied that rules/laws were in place to facilitate descriminating against POC. I think this no longer exists.
It's partly this - and yes they do still exist, mostly relating to drug charges, but there are some other examples, even though they might not be intended to target black people. The other part, and at this point probably the more significant part, is the legacy of many years in which overtly racist policies existed that sort of shaped American society into its current form. The precise degree to which those two factors result in the worse outcomes for black people that we see in the USA in the present day is debatable, but it doesn't seem likely that that degree is in any way minor.
So I think you have it precisely backwards. I don't think Blake gets shot in the back by that cop because the cop has no regard for black peoples' lives and thinks they're inferior. I think part of the reason that black people like Blake find themselves in that situation in the first place more often than white people do (per capita) is in no small part to do with those historical factors and their legacy, along with, as noted, unfairly designed criminal policies.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I thought systematic racism implied that rules/laws were in place to facilitate descriminating against POC. I think this no longer exists.
There can be unwritten rules that establish institutional racism. Banks having unwritten policies that require greater collateral for POC. Renting preferences based on color or ethnicity. Systematic restrictions on polling places in predominantly minority precincts. Racial profiling. The list goes on and on.
And yes, there are still plenty of racist laws on the books. A Virginia commission discovered over 100 still on the books and being enforced. Laws are continually being drafted and voted into existence that have the intent to target or disenfranchise specific racial groups. Voter ID laws are a good example, as they clearly target specific groups of people for exclusion. You can look no further than SB 1070 in Arizona that is designed to target and terrorize people of Latin American heritage.
It's easy to tell ourselves that institutional racism is a thing of the past. That because we don't see or experience it means it isn't happening. That's where the term "white privilege" comes into play. We don't see or feel it because we are not the target group. If you were the member of a group who was subject to stop-and-frisk, heightened numbers of unwarranted traffic stops, had your voting rights infringed up, did not have access to the same economic tools of others, and carried the stigma of false negative stereotypes, then you might better understand the issue.
The issue with systemic racism is that it can come in two forms:
(1) Intentionally Targeting POC but disguised as something else.
As New Era cited, Voter ID laws which sound fair enough "show ID to vote" but the result is ensuring POC who are less likely to have ID for various reasons can't vote.
That is systemic racism.
(2) Unintentionally. That laws are passed innocently enough where an unintended consequence disenfranchises POC.
This could be an unintentional bias when interacting with a POC. A heightened sense of fear, perhaps a default mindset of thinking a suspect is armed if of colour, versus unarmed if white. That heightened sense of fear doesn't mean a person is evil, or bad. Its an unintentional bias they may not be aware of.
Alternatively, unintentional systemic racism can have the entire system populated by people who aren't racist, but due to the system POC are still negatively affected.
Stating there is systemic racism does not mean that all the actors within the system are they themselves racist. It doesn't mean the system is intentionally racist. It means the outcomes that negatively affect people based on race and should be fixed.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Maritime Q-Scout For This Useful Post:
I don’t think he’s imagining things, I think he had his thug squad on a plane as he described and realized part way through he shouldn’t have said anything.
Remember the federal officials “kidnapping” in Portland and NYC?
Any time discussion becomes bogged down in definitions and terminology, it becomes pretty useless to me and I get lost.
I thought systematic racism implied that rules/laws were in place to facilitate descriminating against POC. I think this no longer exists.
The believe the problem instead is that there is a whole #### ton of racist #######s.
The system can have informal and formal aspects. While formal racist institutions are mostly gone (Indian Act?) the informal institutions (e.g. norms of behaviour, culture) are very much around.
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
The Following User Says Thank You to Fozzie_DeBear For This Useful Post:
