Does systemic racism exist in the US?

[Lord Thesaurian]

Several variables have been discussed. You’re welcome to review the analyses instead of referring to them as “throwing around statistics.”

[antaeus]

Several variables have been discussed. You’re welcome to review the analyses instead of referring to them as “throwing around statistics.”

For context I was referencing Cope and these comments: "Fortunately it won't require twenty-six charts (most of which curiously ignore Asian Americans) to debunk the above post. Only one simple, yet repeatedly ignored, sentence is necessary. Disparities in group outcomes do not prove ongoing systemic discrimination." "With regards to the “contextual factors” of police shootings, the NYPD found in 2012 that even though the majority of suspects shot by the police were black, an even greater majority of those shooting upon police were black."

Who at the same time acknowledges that disparate outcomes can be found in the statistics, but does not accept that as a metric for evidence of systemic problems - and doesn't present what metric would be acceptable, or why these disparities would exist. This follows Ludicus's epic statistic post, which also doesn't really address any other reason for 'why' the statistics might be that way.

To be clear again, I don't agree that systemic racism is as significant as presented by some here. But I also remain unconvinced by those who outright rule it out. As I've said earlier, I think it's very much about context, and probably not a case of all or none as the simplists on both sides here would like to argue.

[Lord Thesaurian]

No one’s touchy. The context has been provided by those causally linking selected disparities to systemic racism. Those claims have been analyzed. You said you’re interested in analysis. Feel free to review them.

[athanaric]

And while it has increased for white people since the 1980s, it's remained stagnant for Black people.

Speaking of racism, is there any reason to write "black" with a capital B when you're using the (grammatically correct) lower case for "white people" in the same context? Is there a country called "Black(-istan)" that I'm unaware of?

[mishkin]

Speaking of racism, is there any reason to write "black" with a capital B when you're using the (grammatically correct) lower case for "white people" in the same context? Is there a country called "Black(-istan)" that I'm unaware of?

And how do you think that is racism? ("speaking of racism", you have said).

[sumskilz]

Speaking of racism, is there any reason to write "black" with a capital B when you're using the (grammatically correct) lower case for "white people" in the same context? Is there a country called "Black(-istan)" that I'm unaware of?

And how do you think that is racism? ("speaking of racism", you have said).

In the context of "white people" or "black people", the words "white" and "black" are functioning as adjectives to describe phenotype, so they aren't proper nouns to be capitalized. As a matter of style choice, it's grammatically permissible to write "Blacks" or "Whites" because the words are functioning as terms for ethnic groups, and sometimes I do this so that there will be a symmetry with Latinos and Asians for example. What is weird is to capitalize one but not the other, especially when they're being used as adjectives. I wouldn't consider it any more than a microaggression, but in many cases it appears be done deliberately by the same people who would be upset if the variance in capitalization were reversed.

All these terms are stupid for various reasons in my opinion, but I continue to use them because they're widely understood.

[Muizer]

Like all the other statistics presented on this page, these stats alone mean nothing except what they literally present.

But like all other stats shown on this page, they beg the question why?

Perhaps we should stop throwing statistics at each other. There are lots of statistics in this thread now, and not many of them are really being disputed. Perhaps we should do a little more analysis of what might lead to these situations? I'm looking less at those who agree that systemic racism exists. I understand their belief that disparate outcomes is evidence of aa systemic problem. I'm more interested in analysis from those who don't think that systemic racism exists on what causes the evidenced disparate outcomes between different ethnic, cultural etc groups.

Seconded. For the most part, the statistics demonstrate the reality of worse outcomes for black people. There have to be causes. I don't know if an alternative to structural racism has been formulated yet. It seems for some reason its opponents do not feel the need to do so. Well, if they do not, then perhaps I can try to piece it together from the arguments they have presented against structural racism. I'd say the argument runs something like this:

Since the mid sixties, or not long after anyway, black people have had equal rights and opportunities to everyone else. Therefore, to the extent that black outcomes are still significantly worse than average, this is the result of black people not taking these opportunities

Can those who deny the existence of structural racism please raise their hands if this reflects their position, provide an alternative, or 'forever remain silent'?

[mishkin]

In the context of "white people" or "black people", the words "white" and "black" are functioning as adjectives to describe phenotype, so they aren't proper nouns to be capitalized. As a matter of style choice, it's grammatically permissible to write "Blacks" or "Whites" because the words are functioning as terms for ethnic groups, and sometimes I do this so that there will be a symmetry with Latinos and Asians for example. What is weird is to capitalize one but not the other, especially when they're being used as adjectives. I wouldn't consider it any more than a microaggression, but in many cases it appears be done deliberately by the same people who would be upset if the variance in capitalization were reversed.

All these terms are stupid for various reasons in my opinion, but I continue to use them because they're widely understood.

Microagression? So Ludicus hates himself "a little bit" for being white? Returning to the original accusation (athanaric post), I really find it difficult to believe that Ludicus thinks that the white race should be discriminated against for being inferior. Just my opinion.

[DaVinci]

Back to the title question: Alone when the term "race", "races" is used in public context documents, may it be laws, "official" history texts, schoolbooks, government ordered/paid polls, studies, papers ... whatsoever and by politicians, whoever of the public life, is clear sign, that systemic/structural racism exists.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Seconded. For the most part, the statistics demonstrate the reality of worse outcomes for black people. There have to be causes. I don't know if an alternative to structural racism has been formulated yet. It seems for some reason its opponents do not feel the need to do so. Well, if they do not, then perhaps I can try to piece it together from the arguments they have presented against structural racism. I'd say the argument runs something like this:

Can those who deny the existence of structural racism please raise their hands if this reflects their position, provide an alternative, or 'forever remain silent'?

This false framing relies on willful ignorance of the entire thread thus far. Again, as I said, the premises and context of the discussion of systemic racism were provided by those making affirmative claims asserting its existence based on its alleged causal role in selected racial disparities. These claims have been individually addressed on their own terms, including related confounding factors that undermine the assumptions underpinning said claims. The inevitable fallback position of those supporting related claims seems to be that these confounding variables cannot describe the entire phenomenon with the same degree of universal philosophical certainty attributed by the systemic racism narrative to any and all instances of racial disparity, therefore systemic racism must still play a causal role. This “god of the gaps” approach to proving systemic racism is a matter of unfalsifiable conviction, not proof.

Some racial disparities heretofore addressed cease to exist when controlling for relevant factors. Others are demonstrated to be impacted by multiple concrete elements shown to play a role, rather than the presumed and unproven element of current systemic racism. Those who are genuinely looking for alternative explanations can review the pile of cited analyses.

[Muizer]

This false framing relies on willful ignorance of the entire thread thus far. Again, as I said, the premises and context of the discussion of systemic racism were provided by those making affirmative claims asserting its existence based on its alleged causal role in selected racial disparities. These claims have been individually addressed on their own terms, including related confounding factors that undermine the assumptions underpinning said claims. The inevitable fallback position of those supporting related claims seems to be that these confounding variables cannot describe the entire phenomenon with the same degree of universal philosophical certainty attributed by the systemic racism narrative to any and all instances of racial disparity, therefore systemic racism must still play a causal role. This “god of the gaps” approach to proving systemic racism is a matter of unfalsifiable conviction, not proof.

Some racial disparities heretofore addressed cease to exist when controlling for relevant factors. Others are demonstrated to be impacted by multiple concrete elements shown to play a role, rather than the presumed and unproven element of current systemic racism. Those who are genuinely looking for alternative explanations can review the pile of cited analyses.

So many words to say nothing at all. Yours has to be a contender for worst post of the thread.

[Lord Thesaurian]

So many words to say nothing at all. Yours has to be a contender for worst post of the thread.

Ironic, to say the least. Pleading ignorance only further discredits your premise. If you’re unwilling to part with your false framing, you’re not in a position to demand counterarguments from people, especially when factual discussion of selected disparities, which you and your interlocutor claim to look for, have already been provided. I can only consider your non-response to be a concession that you’re not actually interested in it to begin with.

[Ludicus]

Microagression? So Ludicus hates himself "a little bit" for being white? Returning to the original accusation (athanaric post), I really find it difficult to believe that Ludicus thinks that the white race should be discriminated against for being inferior. Just my opinion.

Thank you Mishkin.
I never realized how much I hate myself...

Fortunately it won't require twenty-six charts (most of which curiously ignore Asian Americans) to debunk the above post.

Don't worry, you are protected: institutional racism kills blacks and protects whites.

Structural racism and myocardial infarction in the United States

Soc Sci Med. 2014 Feb; 103: 42–50.
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.07.021

Results indicated that Blacks living in states with high levels of structural racism were generally more likely to report past-year myocardial infarction than Blacks living in low-structural racism states. Conversely, Whites living in high structural racism states experienced null or lower odds of myocardial infarction compared to Whites living in low-structural racism states. These results raise the provocative possibility that structural racism may not only harm the targets of stigma but also benefit those who wield the power to enact stigma and discrimination.

In many cases, the relationships between structural racism and health are linked to state-level policies and practices that are ultimately amenable to change. For example, the civil rights movement in the 1960s precipitated legislation and policies that reduced Black-White gaps in wages, wealth, and representation in government and professional jobs (Darity & Mason, 1998; Grodsky & Pager, 2001), which in turn contributed to a substantial reduction in Black-White health disparities, such as infant mortality (Almond, Chay, & Greenstone, 2006), in the following decade (Krieger, 2012). This trend towards equality, particularly with regard to indicators of wealth, has since been reversed (Kochhar, Fry, & Taylor, 2011), as have the concomitant improvements in racial health disparities. One of the advantages of focusing on state-level indicators of structural racism in this study is its direct application to the development of policy interventions that may protect against discrimination and promote equal opportunities and access to health-enhancing resources among Blacks in the United States.

Highligths,
Among Blacks, high structural racism was associated with increased odds of MI.
Among Whites, high structural racism had null or inverse effects on MI.
Structural racism may harm its targets while benefiting those who enact it.

[Lord Thesaurian]

There is a growing research literature suggesting that racism is an important risk factor undermining the health of Blacks in the United States. Racism can take many forms, ranging from interpersonal interactions to institutional/structural conditions and practices. Existing research, however, tends to focus on individual forms of racial discrimination using self-report measures. Far less attention has been paid to whether structural racism may disadvantage the health of Blacks in the United States. The current study addresses gaps in the existing research by using novel measures of structural racism and by explicitly testing the hypothesis that structural racism is a risk factor for myocardial infarction among Blacks in the United States. State-level indicators of structural racism included four domains: (1) political participation; (2) employment and job status; (3) educational attainment; and (4) judicial treatment. State-level racial disparities across these domains were proposed to represent the systematic exclusion of Blacks from resources and mobility in society.

In order to separate the effects of structural racism from individual-level factors that may influence the prevalence of myocardial infarction, analyses were adjusted for respondent age, sex, education, household income, and medical insurance.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art.../#!po=0.714286

The study explicitly states it relies on the same unproven premise as a baseline against which it measures its conclusions; that is, assuming disparate outcomes must be caused by systemic racism. Without demonstrating how factors 1-4 are in fact caused by systemic racism, these can hardly be accepted a priori as universal standards of measurement. There is also no accounting for how these factors affect each other and therefore subsequent assumptions, and controlling for income, sex, education etc would not address that. It can be reasonably assumed that someone with a lower socioeconomic status would be more likely to experience health problems. The study’s unproven premises make it impossible to parse those effects apart from each other, let alone any causality of systemic racism.

These confounding variables are not even theoretical in nature. For example:

Our search identified 2041 citations, of which 40 articles met our inclusion criteria. Selected articles dated from 1991–2018 and were conducted primarily in Europe, the USA, and Canada.

Poor health is often associated with lower rates of voting. This was consistent across diverse health outcomes, jurisdictions and governments. A few studies provided weak evidence that voting may lead to better health and well-being although there have not been enough studies in this area to strongly confirm this association.

https://publichealthreviews.biomedce...85-020-00133-6

If there is strong evidence for poor health outcomes influencing lower rates of voting, and weak or no evidence for causality in the opposite direction (which also makes intuitive sense), it is hardly reasonable to cite an unfounded assumption of systemic racism in a further assumption of causation in poor health outcomes. If anything, the NIH study appears to have flipped causation here in a way that contradicts existing and more comprehensive analysis. What one can see here is not that lower political participation is caused by systemic racism, let alone that lower political participation causes poor health outcomes. The far more likely reality is precisely the opposite; that poorer health outcomes cause lower rates of political participation (or cause worse employment and job status, etc etc).

Given the methodological problems and unfounded assumptions underpinning the NIH study’s conclusions, it would be difficult to justify those conclusions as a standard of measurement, let alone use them as proof of systemic racism.

[Ludicus]

My friend,you are unwilling to accept the fact that Americans are still witnessing health disparities that were generated and maintained by a society having dual roots of democracy and slavery.

[Infidel144]

Are there any countries with racial minority populations, that don't have systemic racism?

[Ludicus]

Looking a the rise of systemic racism in Europe, it's a pandemic, right now.In fact, Europeana are also uncomfortable talking about structural racism.Structural Racism inside Europe: A statement by the European ...

----
In America,things are changing... Biden makes historic pick with Haaland for Interior secretary ...

Rep. Deb Haaland (D-N.M.) has been selected to lead the Interior Department in President-elect Joe Biden's administration, making history as the first Native American tapped for a Cabinet position.
(...) Haaland, who has been backed by a number of progressive groups as well as tribes (...)
...The agency that was set up eons ago, Interior, to basically disenfranchise and colonize Indigenous America

[Muizer]

Back to the title question: Alone when the term "race", "races" is used in public context documents, may it be laws, "official" history texts, schoolbooks, government ordered/paid polls, studies, papers ... whatsoever and by politicians, whoever of the public life, is clear sign, that systemic/structural racism exists.

That sounds more like social acceptance of overt racism, which really is individual racism on a grand scale. The risk you run by defining it this way is that you limit yourself to properties of society (the 'structure') that can be reduced in a deterministic fashion to individual racist actions.

[Lord Thesaurian]

My friend,you are unwilling to accept the fact that Americans are still witnessing health disparities that were generated and maintained by a society having dual roots of democracy and slavery.

In terms of poor health outcomes, poor dietary choices and lower levels of physical activity are key factors associated with worse outcomes among African Americans. Unfortunately more predictable and mundane than centuries of racist conspiracy.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...BA49D399303971

https://cebp.aacrjournals.org/conten...supplement/c48

Plus, if you’re going to make nebulous assumptions about “roots” and trends across decades and centuries, you’re going to have to account for how those same roots caused disparate health outcomes among other non-white demographics that are better than white outcomes.

[antaeus]

In terms of poor health outcomes, poor dietary choices and lower levels of physical activity are key factors associated with worse outcomes among African Americans. Unfortunately more predictable and mundane than centuries of racist conspiracy.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...BA49D399303971

https://cebp.aacrjournals.org/conten...supplement/c48

Plus, if you’re going to make nebulous assumptions about “roots” and trends across decades and centuries, you’re going to have to account for how those same roots caused disparate health outcomes among other non-white demographics that are better than white outcomes.

This is a good rabbit hole to go down, because it is an area where multi-generational trends can actually be influential on the present even without any current systemic racism, and it's an area where perhaps both sides of this argument could find come commonality...

I'm also thinking we need to do more in this conversation to understand that this isn't an all or nothing thing (and thus avoid using outcomes for different groups as evidence for or against the thread's premise - prejudice isn't an on/off switch. It can be subjective and relative: My grandfather hated the Japanese till the day he died, but had no problem with anybody else).

Speculating for a moment, but long term multi generational poverty that we see in the present - including the poor health, education and employment outcomes (and the poor personal choices that are more likely to occur under those circumstances), may be symptomatic of systemic racism 30 or 50 or 80 years ago rather than centuries (this doesn't need to be 'about “roots” and trends across decades and centuries' - Remember that in the United States there are still many people alive today who were literally born both into poverty, and a prejudicial legal framework that was undoubtedly systemic racism). The fact that those demographic indicators have not always improved significantly since the adjustment of legal frameworks in the 1960 (or 70s or 80s or whenever), might be more to do with the fragmented and lacklustre approach to poverty that is seen in the US, rather than evidence of systemic racism still at play.

In this respect, some of what people are presenting as evidence of systemic racism is exactly that - evidence of systemic racism (but in 1955 or 1964). It is also evidence of how poor the United States has been as a nation at dealing with endemic poverty since then.