Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 227

Thread: Does systemic racism exist in the US?

  1. #61

    Default Re: USA elections 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    Taking Asian Americans as a benchmark would be a mistake. Over 75% of Asian American adults are foreign born. As such their group stats cannot be considered to reflect 'outcomes' in any way relevant to this discussion.

    https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018...-among-asians/
    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ian-americans/
    Your position is that collective responsibility exists for the existence and perpetuation of racial inequality, and for ending it, that only racists aren’t on board with that premise, and that disparate outcomes by race are the only necessary proof of systemic racism. You are therefore responsible for solving the systemic racism proven by these disparate outcomes systemically favoring Asian Americans above all other racial groups. Your deflections to other factors potentially contributing to these observed disparities just means you don’t want to do anything about them.
    Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; December 08, 2020 at 09:15 AM.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  2. #62

    Default Re: USA elections 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Your position is that collective responsibility exists for the existence and perpetuation of racial inequality, and for ending it, that only racists aren’t on board with that premise, and that disparate outcomes by race are the only necessary proof of systemic racism. You are therefore responsible for solving the systemic racism proven by these disparate outcomes systemically favoring Asian Americans above all other racial groups. Your deflections to other factors potentially contributing to these observed disparities just means you don’t want to do anything about them.
    I recall yet a time when people at least had the decency not to contradict themselves in plain sight.



  3. #63
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Patrician Artifex Magistrate

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    11,087

    Default Re: USA elections 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Your position is that collective responsibility exists for the existence and perpetuation of racial inequality, and for ending it, that only racists aren’t on board with that premise, and that disparate outcomes by race are the only necessary proof of systemic racism. You are therefore responsible for solving the systemic racism proven by these disparate outcomes systemically favoring Asian Americans above all other racial groups. Your deflections to other factors potentially contributing to these observed disparities just means you don’t want to do anything about them.
    I apologise for assuming it would be obvious that in the context of structural racism we were actually talking about outcomes for people born and raised in the society under discussion. Evidently that was too much of a leap.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  4. #64

    Default Re: USA elections 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    I apologise for assuming it would be obvious that in the context of structural racism we were actually talking about outcomes for people born and raised in the society under discussion. Evidently that was too much of a leap.
    >Structural racism doesn't apply to immigrants.

    It's becoming comedic now.



  5. #65

    Default Re: USA elections 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    >Structural racism doesn't apply to immigrants.

    It's becoming comedic now.
    Not only that, but coincidentally, Asian immigrants are more likely to work in blue-collar and service occupations and have, on average, worse socioeconomic profiles than U.S.-born Asians. Ergo the assumption that Asians have better outcomes because they are mostly foreign-born isn’t even true.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  6. #66
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: USA elections 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    >Structural racism doesn't apply to immigrants.

    It's becoming comedic now.
    To an extent, there is basis to look at the issue from this angle. Talking about inequality of outcome should take into account the context of individual origin. For example, East Asian immigrants come from countries which have cultural history of educational and employment excellence that goes back millennia. People are born and grow up with a cultural expectation of what it takes to achieve. On the other hand Black Americans come from a cultural background of legal and cultural exclusion and deliberate disenfranchisement from cultural history and from both educational and employment excellence going back half a millennia. For Black Americans it is two-fold - as the White Americans they have a shared cultural history with - come from a cultural background of oppressing Black Americans.

    This in part is where extreme post-progressive thinking comes from - that the very structure of culture has prejudice baked into its linguistic and behavioural building blocks, and that structure of oppression is different depending on cultural background - explaining why there are different outcomes for different cultural groups within the US. When people arrive in the United States, they bring with them their own expectations on how to live within a new society and that combines with the structural inconsistencies within the US to create unequal opportunities of varying degrees depending on background. This also applies to white immigrants and their decedents.

    I'm not saying whether I agree with this viewpoint or not, but I do understand where the thinking comes from, and can explore it's logic without the need to revert to accusing something I don't agree with of comedy. You're a logical thinker. You can test your logic by exploring ideas you don't agree with.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  7. #67

    Default Re: USA elections 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    To an extent, there is basis to look at the issue from this angle. Talking about inequality of outcome should take into account the context of individual origin. For example, East Asian immigrants come from countries which have cultural history of educational and employment excellence that goes back millennia. People are born and grow up with a cultural expectation of what it takes to achieve. On the other hand Black Americans come from a cultural background of legal and cultural exclusion and deliberate disenfranchisement from cultural history and from both educational and employment excellence going back half a millennia. For Black Americans it is two-fold - as the White Americans they have a shared cultural history with - come from a cultural background of oppressing Black Americans.

    This in part is where extreme post-progressive thinking comes from - that the very structure of culture has prejudice baked into its linguistic and behavioural building blocks, and that structure of oppression is different depending on cultural background - explaining why there are different outcomes for different cultural groups within the US. When people arrive in the United States, they bring with them their own expectations on how to live within a new society and that combines with the structural inconsistencies within the US to create unequal opportunities of varying degrees depending on background. This also applies to white immigrants and their decedents.

    I'm not saying whether I agree with this viewpoint or not, but I do understand where the thinking comes from, and can explore it's logic without the need to revert to accusing something I don't agree with of comedy.
    The source of my amusement is not disagreement but the plainly contradictory arguments being made to sustain a failing narrative. Allow me to elaborate:

    After having failed to produce hard evidence of systemic racism, my interlocutor claimed that any and all differences in outcome between racial groups are necessarily a consequence of systemic racism. He went on to state that anyone denying this was a racist. When it was pointed out to him that Asian Americans – and not white Americans – are, by almost all relevant metrics, at the apex of American society, he responded by claiming that most Asian Americans are immigrants and immigrants are (for some reason) immune to structural racism.

    This had the effect, first, of contradicting his initial point that all differences in group outcomes are necessarily a consequence of systemic racism (thereby rendering him a racist by his own measure), and second, of inadvertently implying, that millions of low-skilled, non-white immigrants in the US (mostly from Central America) are also not affected systemic racism - a point which undermines the very liberal mythology he is trying to protect.

    A further but no less amusing irony was that by drawing our attention to the fact that many Asian-Americans immigrants are hired into highly-skilled, well-paying jobs, he accidentally sabotaged the evidence presented by one of his allies which suggests that there is a bias against non-whites in the employment market.

    You're a logical thinker. You can test your logic by exploring ideas you don't agree with.
    I do not require you to bait me with flattery.
    Last edited by Cope; December 08, 2020 at 06:42 PM.



  8. #68

    Default Re: USA elections 2020

    A recap of key claims affirmatively hypothesizing examples of racial inequalities caused by systemic racism, given the new thread:

    Claim: the disparity in penalty for crack cocaine versus powder cocaine is correlated with disparate outcomes by race caused by systemic racism.

    From the citation:
    Because of its relativelowcost,crack cocaine is more accessible for poor Americans, many of whom areAfrican Americans. Conversely, powder cocaine is much moreexpensiveand tends to be used by more affluent white Americans. Nationwide sta-tistics compiled by the Sentencing Commission reveal that AfricanAmericans are more likely to be convicted of crack cocaine offenses,while whites are more likely to be convicted of powder cocaine offenses. Thus, the sentencing disparities punishing crack cocaine offenses moreharshlythan powder cocaine offenses unjustly and disproportionately penalize African American defendants for drug trafficking comparable tothat of white defendants.

    https://www.aclu.org/other/cracks-sy...ck-cocaine-law
    Verdict: Mostly false. While it is true that there were disparate penalties for crack versus powder cocaine enacted, this observation does not establish causality for the disparity, let alone subsequent outcomes, by systemic racism, especially given potential confounding factors.

    The rationale for the difference in penalty was presumed at the time as a general belief that crack is more dangerous/harmful to society due to its extensive proliferation and widespread use, particularly in urban areas. The article does not dispute this.

    The assumption that crack was penalized more heavily in order to target urban blacks in such a way that can be causally linked to disparate racial outcomes doesn’t hold up to scrutiny:
    The participants were all ages 12 and older. Social and environmental risk factors that might confound racial comparisons were held constant through an epidemiologic strategy involving the poststratification of participants into neighborhood risk sets. The analysis used a conditional logistic regression model to estimate the relative odds of crack use by race/ethnicity. Results revealed that, given similar social and environmental conditions, crack use does not strongly depend on race-specific personal factors. Findings did not refute previous analyses, but provided evidence that prevalence estimates unadjusted for social environmental risk factors may lead to misunderstanding about the role of race or ethnicity in the epidemiology of crack use. Future research should seek to determine which characteristics of the neighborhood social environment are important and potentially modifiable determinants of drug use.

    https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publicatio...aspx?ID=154366
    Despite widespread popular accounts linking crack cocaine to inner-city decay, little systematic research has analyzed the effect of the introduction of crack on urban crime. We study this question using FBI crime rates for 27 metropolitan areas and two sources of information on the date at which crack first appeared in those cities. Using methods designed to control for confounding time trends and unobserved differences among metropolitan areas, we find that the introduction of crack has substantial effects on violent crime but essentially no effect on property crime. We explain these results by characterizing crack cocaine as a technological innovation in the market for cocaine intoxication and by positing that different types of crimes play different roles in the market for illegal drugs. In a market with incomplete property rights and inelastic demand, a technological innovation increases violence on the part of distributors but decreases property crime on the part of consumers. We also find evidence that the increase in urban crime during the 1980's occurred in two distinct phases: an early phase largely attributable to the spread of crack and a later phase largely unrelated to it.

    https://www.nber.org/system/files/wo...6353/w6353.pdf
    Claim: The disparity in drug arrests despite equivalent percentages of drug use is caused by systemic racism.

    The citation states:
    The analysis leaves unexplained 13 percentage points (the difference between 36% and the explained 23%). Perhaps the 13 percentage points or some portion of them reflect a practice of police unjustifiably overarresting blacks, but not necessarily. Besides discriminatory arrest practices, there are numerous other possible explanations. Suppose, for example, that criminally active persons who use drugs (both whites and blacks alike) tend not to admit drug use when asked in a household survey. This is not wild supposition, given that, in the National Institute of Justice's Drug Use Forecast survey, about half of arrested suspects testing positive for drug use were drug-use-deniers
    (they denied using drugs but urinalysis indicated otherwise). Although arrested whites and arrested blacks were about equally likely to be drug-use-deniers, these results nevertheless have implications for the SAMHSA survey. A larger fraction of the black population than the white population consists of criminally active persons and, therefore, a larger fraction of the black population than the white population would consist of criminally active persons who use drugs but deny it.13 Consequently, the SAMHSA survey would probably understate the difference between whites and blacks in terms of drug use. Whether the effect of such drug-use-denial among criminally active persons is large enough to account for the unexplained 13 percent is not known, but research on the topic should pursue this possibility.

    https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rdusda.pdf
    Verdict: Mostly false. While there is a racial disparity in drug arrests, the citation identifies a number of confounding variables that render causality by alleged systemic racism an unproven assumption.

    Claim: The legacy of redlining policies prove systemic racism because these formerly redlined areas are still majority-minority and correlate with higher levels of income inequality in formerly redlined cities.

    Redlining buttressed the segregated structure of American cities. Most of the neighborhoods (74%) that the HOLC graded as high-risk, or “Hazardous” eight decades ago are low-to-moderate income (LMI) today. Additionally, most of the HOLC graded “Hazardous” areas (nearly 64%) are minority neighborhoods now.

    https://ncrc.org/wp-content/uploads/...ch-HOLC-10.pdf
    Verdict: Mostly false. While it is true economic and racial disparities exist in formerly redlined neighborhoods, the study explicitly states it does not address the causal role between redlining and the observed racial disparities. This is problematic for someone attempting to use the study to establish causation linked to systemic racism. There is no correlation between rates of black residence and formerly redlined neighborhoods.



    This is, at a minimum, an important caveat to the causal conclusions one might draw from the observations made by the NCRC study. The causality of redlining on majority-minority residence is further undermined by a confounding factor left unaddressed by this study: immigration.





    Immigration trends comport with the NCRC’s observation of minority neighborhoods in formerly redlined areas, as well as the finding that “there is significantly greater economic inequality in cities where more of the HOLC graded high- risk or “Hazardous” areas are currently minority neighborhoods.” Given the confounding factor(s), no causality has been demonstrated that would prove systemic racism based on observed racial and economic disparities in formerly redlined neighborhoods.

    Claim: The legacy of redlining policies proves systemic racism because loan terms were much less favorable in these areas, and this formed the causal factor in the current wealth gap
    Loans in these neighborhoods were unavailable or very expensive, making it more difficult for low-income minorities to buy homes and setting the stage for the country’s persistent racial wealth gap. (White families today have nearly 10 times the net worth of black families and more than eight times that of Hispanic families, according to the Federal Reserve.)

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...orities-today/
    Verdict: Mostly false. In addition to the factors discussed above, Fed research established markedly different causal conclusions. The primary driver of the black-white wealth gap has not been ROI nor inheritances, as the traditional racial bias narrative would suggest, but labor income.
    While portfolio differences are real and impactful, these data suggest that portfolio differences are not the most significant factor contributing to the racial wealth gap. Gittleman and Wolff estimate that over 1984–1994 the wealth gap would have closed by only an additional 4 percentage points if black households had held the same portfolios as white households.

    Menchik and Jianakoplos (1997) estimate that between 10 percent and 20 percent of the racial wealth gap can be accounted for by inheritances, while Gittleman and Wolff (2004) find that if black households had the same inheritances as white households, the wealth gap would have closed by an additional 5 percentage points. However, differences in inheritances do not appear to drive the racial wealth gap simply because so few households, whether black or white, receive what could be considered “large” inheritances (Hendricks, 2001).

    Our study offers a new perspective on the racial wealth gap by capturing the dynamics of wealth accumulation. While our study is only one contribution in the broader literature on the racial wealth gap, our analysis supports the conclusion that the racial labor income gap is the primary driver behind the large and persistent difference in average wealth between black and white households.

    https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroo...ealth-gap.aspx
    As for labor income:
    We estimate wage gaps using nonparametric matching methods and detailed measures of field of study for university graduates. We find a modest portion of the wage gap is the consequence of measurement error in the Census education measure. For Hispanic and Asian men, the remaining gap is attributable to premarket factors—primarily differences in formal education and English language proficiency. For black men, only about one-quarter of the wage gap is explained by these same factors. For a subsample of black men born outside the South to parents with some college education, these factors do account for the entire wage gap.

    https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspac...452?sequence=1
    These findings are consistent with the returns to education on black wages
    Studying working and non-working men, we find that, after closing substantially from 1940 to
    the mid-1970s, the median black-white earnings gap has since returned to its 1950 level, while
    the positional rank the median black man would hold in the white distribution has remained little
    changed since 1940. By contrast, higher quantile black men have experienced substantial gains in
    both relative earnings levels and their positional rank in the white earnings distribution. Using a
    new decomposition method that extends existing approaches to account for non-participation, we
    show that the gains of black men at higher quantiles have been driven primarily by positional
    gains within education level due to forces like improved access to quality schools and declining
    occupational exclusion. At the median and below, strong racial convergence in educational
    attainment has been counteracted by the rising returns to education in the labor market, which
    have disproportionately disadvantaged the shrinking but still substantial share of blacks with
    lower education.

    This analysis reveals several key findings. First, the increase in returns to education over the latter half of the study period has been principally responsible for the lack of positional gains for low-skilled black men since 1970. In fact, racial convergence in educational attainment would have led to strong positional gains for black men at the median and below, except that these men faced strong
    structural headwinds from the simultaneously increasing rising returns to education, both in terms of wages and in the probability of employment. In essence, the relative gains that low-skilled black men have made through the acquisition of more education have been directly countered by the increase in the
    labor market returns associated with the racial differences in education that
    remain.12 Taken as a whole, our results imply that the progressively worse
    economic outcomes of black men in the lower and middle parts of the earnings
    distribution in recent decades have been primarily the result of structural
    changes to the economy that have devastated the working lives of low-skilled men
    more generally, especially the strengthened relationship between education and
    economic rank.

    Second, in sharp contrast to the median, the positional gains of high-skilled
    black men have been largely due to improvements in relative position within
    education categories, especially among those with some college and a college
    degree. The vast majority of the relative gains of black college-educated men
    occurred in the 1960s and 1970s and these gains have held through the end of the
    study period as an increasing share of men have attended college. These results
    suggest that much of the decline in racial earnings differences among high-skilled
    men has been the result of more equal access to quality higher education and
    high-skilled occupations and professions.

    https://www.nber.org/system/files/wo...22797.rev0.pdf
    Claim: Voter ID laws are proof of systemic racism because they are caused by the legacy of Jim Crow.

    While these laws are allegedly passed to secure elections, they impact communities of color in ways only reflected in our Jim Crow past. Looking at voter ID laws alone, we know that although 11 percent of Americans lack government-issued photo ID, 25 percent of African-Americans, 16 percent of Hispanics, and 18 percent of elderly voters do not have this form of ID. States have also passed restrictions on early voting and community voter registration drives. Communities of color are more than twice as likely to register to vote with these groups, and they use early voting days at a much higher rate than the general population.

    https://www.brennancenter.org/our-wo...ontinues-today
    Verdict: Mostly false. No evidence is given in the article for its comparison between Jim Crow laws and voter ID. The only explanation given in support of that argument is theo observation that a larger portion of African Americans are don’t have photo ID. The most common reason for a lack of photo ID is living in an urban area where public transportation is available and thus the need for drivers licenses is decreased. Again, no evidence was given for the comparison between Jim Crow laws and essentially living in an urban area and/or being too old to drive.

    Claim: The existence of hiring bias proves systemic racism that causes disparate outcomes.
    "This study investigates change over time in the level of hiring discrimination in US labor markets. We perform a meta-analysis of every available field experiment of hiring discrimination against African Americans or Latinos (n = 28). Together, these studies represent 55,842 applications submitted for 26,326 positions. We focus on trends since 1989 (n = 24 studies), when field experiments became more common and improved methodologically. Since 1989, whites receive on average 36% more callbacks than African Americans, and 24% more callbacks than Latinos. We observe no change in the level of hiring discrimination against African Americans over the past 25 years, although we find modest evidence of a decline in discrimination against Latinos. Accounting for applicant education, applicant gender, study method, occupational groups, and local labor market conditions does little to alter this result. Contrary to claims of declining discrimination in American society, our estimates suggest that levels of discrimination remain largely unchanged, at least at the point of hire."

    https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2.../11/1706255114
    Verdict: Mostly false. The author(s) present an observation of disparity with no analysis of causal factors, thus causation is not established. The assumption of causation based on disparate outcomes is further undermined by the fact hiring biases have been found to work in favor of as well as against black or white applicants.

    https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-47013-001

    Moreover, racially disparate outcomes don’t necessarily persist when inputs are randomized through proxies under similar methodology.
    We sent nearly 9,000 fictitious resumes to advertisements for job openings in seven major cities in the United States across six occupational categories. We randomly assigned names to the resumes that convey race and gender but for which a strong socioeconomic connotation is not implicated. We find little evidence of systematic employer preferences for applicants from particular race and gender groups.

    https://economics.missouri.edu/worki...419_koedel.pdf
    Claim: Systemic racism doesn’t need to be proven by empirical causation because it is the result of implicit biases.

    Verdict: Mostly false. Evidence indicates while changes in implicit measures are possible, those changes do not necessarily translate into changes in explicit measures or behavior.

    Using a novel technique known as network meta-analysis, we synthesized evidence from
    492 studies (87,418 participants) to investigate the effectiveness of procedures in changing
    implicit measures, which we define as response biases on implicit tasks. We also evaluated these
    procedures’ effects on explicit and behavioral measures. We found that implicit measures can be
    changed, but effects are often relatively weak (|ds| < .30). Most studies focused on producing
    short-term changes with brief, single-session manipulations. Procedures that associate sets of
    concepts, invoke goals or motivations, or tax mental resources changed implicit measures the
    most, whereas procedures that induced threat, affirmation, or specific moods/emotions changed
    implicit measures the least. Bias tests suggested that implicit effects could be inflated relative to
    their true population values. Procedures changed explicit measures less consistently and to a
    smaller degree than implicit measures and generally produced trivial changes in behavior.
    Finally, changes in implicit measures did not mediate changes in explicit measures or behavior.
    Our findings suggest that changes in implicit measures are possible, but those changes do not
    necessarily translate into changes in explicit measures or behavior.

    This meta-analysis found that implicit measures can be changed and identified the
    approaches that are most successful in doing so. However, we found little evidence that changes
    in implicit measures translated into changes in explicit measures and behavior, and we observed
    limitations in the evidence base for implicit malleability and change.

    These results produce a challenge for practitioners who seek to address problems that are
    presumed to be caused by automatically retrieved associations, as there was little evidence
    showing that change in implicit measures will result in changes for explicit measures or behavior.
    This is particularly true for the domains of greatest interest to many practitioners – intergroup
    bias, health psychology, and clinical psychology. Our results suggest that current interventions
    that attempt to change implicit measures in these domains will not consistently change behavior.

    https://devinelab.psych.wisc.edu/wp-...Measures-1.pdf
    This article reports a meta-analysis of studies examining the predictive validity of the Implicit Association Test
    (IAT) and explicit measures of bias for a wide range of criterion measures of discrimination. The meta-analysis
    estimates the heterogeneity of effects within and across 2 domains of intergroup bias (interracial and interethnic), 6
    criterion categories (interpersonal behavior, person perception, policy preference, microbehavior, response time, and
    brain activity), 2 versions of the IAT (stereotype and attitude IATs), 3 strategies for measuring explicit bias (feeling
    thermometers, multi-item explicit measures such as the Modern Racism Scale, and ad hoc measures of intergroup
    attitudes and stereotypes), and 4 criterion-scoring methods (computed majority–minority difference scores, relative
    majority–minority ratings, minority-only ratings, and majority-only ratings). IATs were poor predictors of every
    criterion category other than brain activity, and the IATs performed no better than simple explicit measures. These
    results have important implications for the construct validity of IATs, for competing theories of prejudice and
    attitude–behavior relations, and for measuring and modeling prejudice and discrimination.

    http://bear.warrington.ufl.edu/brenn...d-jpsp2013.pdf
    Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; December 08, 2020 at 09:14 PM.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  9. #69
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: USA elections 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The source of my amusement is not disagreement but the plainly contradictory arguments being made to sustain a failing narrative. Allow me to elaborate:

    After having failed to produce hard evidence of systemic racism, my interlocutor claimed that any and all differences in outcome between racial groups are necessarily a consequence of systemic racism. He went on to state that anyone denying this was a racist. When it was pointed out to him that Asian Americans – and not white Americans – are, by almost all relevant metrics, at the apex of American society, he responded by observing that since most Asian Americans are immigrants, they are for some reason immune to the disadvantages of structural racism.

    This had the effect, first, of contradicting his initial point that all differences in group outcomes are necessarily a consequence of systemic racism (thereby rendering him a racist by his own measure), and second, of inadvertently implying, that millions of low-skilled, non-white immigrants in the US (mostly from Central America) are also not affected systemic racism - a point which undermines the very liberal mythology he is trying to protect.

    A further but no less amusing irony was that by drawing our attention to the fact that many Asian-Americans immigrants are hired into highly-skilled, well-paying jobs, he accidentally sabotaged the evidence presented by one of his allies which suggests that there is a bias against non-whites in the employment market.
    I think as I described in my previous post, and perhaps as your interlocker failed to clarify, is that experiences of racism, both implied "systemic" and casual, are not a universal or monolithic in nature. It is not the case whereby racism affects all people in the same way or that it is perpetrated in the same way by all perpetrators. I think you're being disingenuous structuring the debate in this manner - particularly in terms of the attempt at the ironic "gotcha".

    For example, the recent Github controversy over the use of terms like blacklist and whitelist, suggests a complaint over the structure of the language we use. Without getting into that rabbit hole again, the issue in this case is that seemingly certain words come loaded with meaning from the experiences of slavery that the ancestors of many black Americans experienced which leads to subconscious biases. Now I don't buy the argument, but what I'm illustrating here is that this is a debate over structural racism that does not reference immigrants from Vietnam or Morocco, and that the debate can't just be reduced to whether systemic racism exists universally for all non-white people equally or not. It is context dependent.

    I think that anybody who suggests that all people experience the same racism in the same way are clearly wrong. I know you don't like widening conversations to the point of invalidating the premise, but as I hinted at in my previous post, there are a lot of determinative factors in the experiences of different people or groups of people that lead to vastly different experiences of racism - even before we start investigating whether there might be structural elements to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    I do not require you to bait me with flattery.
    Based on your response to my post relative to the previous, it appears you do
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  10. #70

    Default Re: Does systemic racism exist in the US?

    While on the subject of language we use, I think it applies both ways. "Systemic Racism" is a loaded term, with the latter in particular coming into overuse for something that was initially quite a bit more specific. It harms discussion when the term 'racist' can be thrown about errantly in the conversation and when it implies a level of active repression on fear/hate that isn't even a conscious or I dare say unconscious factor likely for the vast majority of people accused of perpetuating it. What it was formed by, which was likely very real racism, is not necessarily what it is today in any active sense. So I push back against the normalizing of the broad use of 'racism' precisely because it harms conversation about a subject that could be approached more evenly with other, admittedly not as snappy or catchy phrases.

  11. #71

    Default Re: Does systemic racism exist in the US?

    Definitions, syntax, semantics are not relevant to the question of systemic racism. More than one definition of systemic racism has been provided demonstrating a common understanding of what it is. The claims hypothesizing the existence and impact of systemic racism are either falsifiable on their own terms, or not. Accusing people of being racist, disingenuous, etc for expecting claims of systemic racism to be proven doesn’t mean there is merely a difference in philosophical premises, or that the debate needs to be framed in such a way to arrive at universally agreed upon a priori assumptions. It suggests that the quasi-religious ethos that has foisted false and misleading claims of systemic racism onto the current political discourse is as unfalsifiable as it is divisive and ultimately harmful.

    Like any societal project, attempts by the corporate and political establishments to engineer a top-down cultural revolution to distract from real problems will depend on a variety of factors, none of which include the question of whether or not the systemic racism narrative is actually verifiable or true.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  12. #72
    Morticia Iunia Bruti's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Deep within the dark german forest
    Posts
    8,405

    Default Re: Does systemic racism exist in the US?

    In the not racistic US another Africanamerican, Casey Goodson, has been shot in Columbus because the Police confound him with another person.

    If the security forces are not hidden racistic, perhaps they have a problem with their training and nerves( too much ex-soldiers with Post-traumatic stress syndrome)?
    Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
    And tomorrow you'll be on your way
    Don't give a damn about what other people say
    Because tomorrow is a brand-new day


  13. #73
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    a 7/11 parking lot with Patron and LaCroix
    Posts
    20,181
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Does systemic racism exist in the US?

    It's hilarious to me when people seriously ask questions like "Does systemic racism exist in America?" when there are people still alive today who had to use separate bathrooms from white people. Yeah, no systemic racism exists in America, that's kind of our entire shtick. You don't think systemic racism exists in a country where the federal government had to send troops in to force schools to allow black students to attend? You don't think systemic racism exists in a country that allows things like the Tulsa Race Massacre and the lynching of Emmett Till to go unpunished?

    If the security forces are not hidden racistic, perhaps they have a problem with their training and nerves( too much ex-soldiers with Post-traumatic stress syndrome)?
    Former soldiers turned cops often have better behavior and less use of force incidents than non-military trained police. The rules of engagement when overseas are vastly different than when you're in the U.S and that leads to police officers who aren't nearly as trigger happy. Often times it's the cops who weren't cut out to join the military or didn't meet the mental/fitness requirements for service that are the most gung ho.

    I don't think very many police shootings of innocents has been as the result of police PTSD, if any at all.
    Last edited by Akar; December 09, 2020 at 11:34 AM.

    Check out the TWC D&D game!
    Message me on Discord (.akar.) for an invite to the Thema Devia Discord
    Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan







  14. #74

    Default Re: Does systemic racism exist in the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    It's hilarious to me when people seriously ask questions like "Does systemic racism exist in America?" when there are people still alive today who had to use separate bathrooms from white people. Yeah, no systemic racism exists in America, that's kind of our entire shtick. You don't think systemic racism exists in a country where the federal government had to send troops in to force schools to allow black students to attend? You don't think systemic racism exists in a country that allows things like the Tulsa Race Massacre and the lynching of Emmett Till to go unpunished
    The question in the OP is "Does systemic racism exist in the US?", not "Did systemic racism exist in the US 50 years ago?".

    Of course, you could argue that racial quotas are systemic racism as well, in which case I'd be inclined to agree.

  15. #75
    Morticia Iunia Bruti's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Deep within the dark german forest
    Posts
    8,405

    Default Re: Does systemic racism exist in the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    ...
    Former soldiers turned cops often have better behavior and less use of force incidents than non-military trained police. The rules of engagement when overseas are vastly different than when you're in the U.S and that leads to police officers who aren't nearly as trigger happy. Often times it's the cops who weren't cut out to join the military or didn't meet the mental/fitness requirements for service that are the most gung ho. ...
    Thank you for your explanation. I wasn't aware that veterans are more calm and reasonable and less trigger happy policemen.
    Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
    And tomorrow you'll be on your way
    Don't give a damn about what other people say
    Because tomorrow is a brand-new day


  16. #76

    Default Re: USA elections 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    It's hilarious to me when people seriously ask questions like "Does systemic racism exist in America?" when there are people still alive today who had to use separate bathrooms from white people. Yeah, no * systemic racism exists in America, that's kind of our entire shtick. You don't think systemic racism exists in a country where the federal government had to send troops in to force schools to allow black students to attend? You don't think systemic racism exists in a country that allows things like the Tulsa Race Massacre and the lynching of Emmett Till to go unpunished?
    There are still those who remember the British Empire at its greatest extent. Things change, the world moves on. The Crow laws – which we are agreed were an example of institutional racism - would never have been repealed if systemic racism was America’s “whole shtick”.

    Former soldiers turned cops often have better behavior and less use of force incidents than non-military trained police. The rules of engagement when overseas are vastly different than when you're in the U.S and that leads to police officers who aren't nearly as trigger happy. Often times it's the cops who weren't cut out to join the military or didn't meet the mental/fitness requirements for service that are the most gung ho.

    I don't think very many police shootings of innocents has been as the result of police PTSD, if any at all.
    Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    I think as I described in my previous post, and perhaps as your interlocker failed to clarify, is that experiences of racism, both implied "systemic" and casual, are not a universal or monolithic in nature. It is not the case whereby racism affects all people in the same way or that it is perpetrated in the same way by all perpetrators. I think you're being disingenuous structuring the debate in this manner - particularly in terms of the attempt at the ironic "gotcha".

    For example, the recent Github controversy over the use of terms like blacklist and whitelist, suggests a complaint over the structure of the language we use. Without getting into that rabbit hole again, the issue in this case is that seemingly certain words come loaded with meaning from the experiences of slavery that the ancestors of many black Americans experienced which leads to subconscious biases. Now I don't buy the argument, but what I'm illustrating here is that this is a debate over structural racism that does not reference immigrants from Vietnam or Morocco, and that the debate can't just be reduced to whether systemic racism exists universally for all non-white people equally or not. It is context dependent.

    I think that anybody who suggests that all people experience the same racism in the same way are clearly wrong. I know you don't like widening conversations to the point of invalidating the premise, but as I hinted at in my previous post, there are a lot of determinative factors in the experiences of different people or groups of people that lead to vastly different experiences of racism - even before we start investigating whether there might be structural elements to it.
    It has been acknowledged that in-group preferences exist, that biases exist, that discrimination exists and that systemic racism did exist in America. Given the laws, institutional policies, social expectations and cultural pressures which encourage (if not enforce) anti-discriminatory practices, what’s being requested is clear evidence of ongoing systemic racism supported by consistent reasoning.

    One of the central obstacles to a “nuanced” discussion in this area is the cynicism of those who have no interesting in “exploring” sociology, but who merely wish to advance a political, race-populist agenda. These are the people – some participating in this thread - who insist on falsely framing all race-related issues as a “universal or monolithic” phenomenon in which white Americans/Europeans are necessarily an oppressor class and all others are victims.

    Exposing the fabrications and hypocrisies of such people has nothing to do with pursuing “gotcha” moments. It is simply the case that their contortions, as harmful as they are, are often comically incoherent.

    Based on your response to my post relative to the previous, it appears you do
    I'll endeavour to pay you more attention in future.
    Last edited by Cope; December 09, 2020 at 02:04 PM.



  17. #77
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    a 7/11 parking lot with Patron and LaCroix
    Posts
    20,181
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Does systemic racism exist in the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    The question in the OP is "Does systemic racism exist in the US?", not "Did systemic racism exist in the US 50 years ago?".

    Of course, you could argue that racial quotas are systemic racism as well, in which case I'd be inclined to agree.
    The point is that given the extent that systemic racism existed in America, even only 50 years ago, it's crazy to suggest that systemic racism has been completely eradicated in that time. Strom Thurmond was a senator until 2003. Are we seriously going to try to convince ourselves that the problem has just gone away as soon as it's not *technically* legal to be racist? The unequal and racist application of a technically non-racist law is still systemic racism. Stop and frisk didn't specify you would search only minorities, but that's almost exactly how it worked out to be.

    Check out the TWC D&D game!
    Message me on Discord (.akar.) for an invite to the Thema Devia Discord
    Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan







  18. #78
    irontaino's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    4,613

    Default Re: Does systemic racism exist in the US?

    Don't cha know, Akar? Hundreds of years of racial animosity that deeply ingrained itself into the culture just up and vanished because a piece of paper was signed. So what if in living memory, photos of lynched black corpses surrounded by smiling white revellers made the rounds in the U.S. as postcards? Sure, those racist politicians and police officers that fought tooth and nail to preserve de jure institutional racism kept their jobs and held away over future generations, but never mind that. According to a segment of this country, racism is over
    Fact:Apples taste good, and you can throw them at people if you're being attacked
    Under the patronage of big daddy Elfdude

    A.B.A.P.

  19. #79

    Default Re: Does systemic racism exist in the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by irontaino View Post
    Don't cha know, Akar? Hundreds of years of racial animosity that deeply ingrained itself into the culture just up and vanished because a piece of paper was signed. So what if in living memory, photos of lynched black corpses surrounded by smiling white revellers made the rounds in the U.S. as postcards? Sure, those racist politicians and police officers that fought tooth and nail to preserve de jure institutional racism kept their jobs and held away over future generations, but never mind that. According to a segment of this country, racism is over
    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The law, institutional policies and social expectation all strongly point to the fact that systemic racism does not currently exist in America. No one of any note or relevance argues that "racism is over because laws".



  20. #80
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    a 7/11 parking lot with Patron and LaCroix
    Posts
    20,181
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Does systemic racism exist in the US?

    And yet here we are, having to explain to people that just because Jim Crow is gone doesn't mean racism is gone.

    Check out the TWC D&D game!
    Message me on Discord (.akar.) for an invite to the Thema Devia Discord
    Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan







Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •