• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When Did Systemic Racism End?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Most of this thread appears to try to do something that is not possible to do in the United States.

Racism and White Supremacy has no eternal political party. Indeed there are no such thing as eternal political parties in America and no reason to believe there should be or would be. Hence as to the specific topic of the thread there is only:
- Resisting Racism and White Supremacy
- supporting Racism and White Supremacy
- being non-committal which is simply a somewhat passive form of supporting Racism and White Supremacy

Racism and White Supremacy exist, become institutionalized and thus systemic. This is as it was and as it is today in America. Presenting anecdotal anomalies in an effort to deny this is in a word quant, decidedly American and irrelevant. I wish these anecdotal anomalies were relevant. They are closer to incidental than they are to relevant. This includes the election of a non-white President. Heck that there are black CEO's is more significant than having elected a non-white President. This is not to say that Racism and White Supremacy are wholly American characteristics. They are however predominantly WASP characteristics elevated to science and systemized by American WASPs to such an extent that the German Nazis learned their Race Science from ........AMERICANS.

The plain truth of it is that Europe (the ancestral home of the WASP) was always resource poor. Hence they determined that they needed to colonize.....to conquer as a means to to survival. While there were other ways and are other means to survive, why settle for being one of many when you could convince yourself that you deserved the spot at the top of a totem.

The problem we have in the United States is that science caught up to our founding documents written by Racist White Men and at least ambiguous if not downright even handed in their treatment of race as seen through the prism of "the Equality of Man". I surmise that the Founders did not believe Racism and White Supremacy and Suffrage as seen through the eyes of their era would last indefinitely in this country. However they began another somewhat quant American practice of government kicking the can down the road. They kicked it down the road to Lincoln who tried to address it in his time not because he held heartfelt concerns about racial equality but because he knew the country had to move away from chattel slavery. It was then kicked down the road until Black Americans could no longer deny their suppression as Citizens and forced White Americans who still had most of the power to recognize the circumstance as untenable. The Arc of Justice is not an arc at all. It is more a line with defined kinks such as Lincoln and the Civil War, Civil Rights Legislation and SC decisions of the 1950's and 60's and the Great Society. Reparations of a sort to Native Americans are another example.

So yes, we still have Systemic Racism today. I am old enough to realize that it will still be with us as a country when they finally put me in the ground. These days I satisfy myself searching for and anticipating the next kink in the Line of Justice.
 
Last edited:
That depends by what you mean by "systemic"?

If you mean in the traditional sense, racism built into the system, ie: our system of government?
Then there is no racism, as there is none built into our system of government.

I'm not sure that's correct. Consider two hypotheticals: First, I bribe someone's boss to sack him, I set fire to his house so all his possessions burn, then I kidnap him and lock him up in a pit. Then later on I open the trapdoor and say he's free to go, and walk off whistling. I'm no longer actively oppressing him, so does that make everything okay? Obviously not. Until I ensure that his losses are restored and his life back on track (at the very least), he's still suffering my oppression. Second, suppose a law were enacted requiring that animals for food must be killed by gunshot, brain trauma or lethal injection only, or alternatively a law prohibiting spoken (rather than sung) lyrics in musical tracks. Effectively, among other things kosher butchering or hip-hop music are now illegal. But the laws do not actually say anything about race or culture, right, so does that mean that they're not racist or otherwise bigoted despite their predictable, disproportionate impacts on particular groups? Seems to me that if laws or regulations have racially discriminatory consequences which are obvious or predictable yet left uncorrected, then they are racist laws even if they don't directly specify race.

Both of those ideas/principles are applicable in the case of the American system at large, aren't they? After centuries of slavery, Jim Crow laws, open bigotry, redlining and so on, the gap has never been closed; the victims have never had their lives and circumstances set back on track; black people are still born and raised disproportionately in the pit where their race was thrown, and merely leaving the trapdoor open and not actively keeping them down wouldn't magically change it into not being a racist circumstance anymore. However - continuing or even further exacerbating that fact - in a very real sense black people are being kept down as well; numerous facets of the American system, by disadvantaging the poor generally inevitably (and predictably) have a disproportionate impact on black people who have always been disproportionately poor. Just a few examples include
> district-based school funding, meaning kids in poorer neighbourhoods are disadvantaged by attending underfunded schools (when broken down along racial lines, a problem which is worse in Democrat-leaning states than Republican ones as a point of interest);
> criminalization of recreational drugs (at least, recreational drugs not popular with middle- and upper-class white folk in the 19th and early 20th centuries), means that poor people/neighbourhoods with disproportionate police contacts are disadvantaged more from such policies even if drug usage rates were equal;
> prohibitive healthcare costs, in a system which often literally amounts to "your money or your life," means poor and hence disproportionately black folk suffer from treatable ailments and lack of regular check-ups/early detection;
> a 'tough on crime' focus on punitive incarceration rather than preventive social services/rehabilitation/etc. (the USA having by far the highest incarceration rate among developed countries and the world's largest prison population, breaking up families, forcing minor offenders into prolonged contact with other criminals and making it harder to find legitimate work after release; all disproportionately affecting poor communities where desperation and crime are more common and policing more concentrated).

The famous quote of Reagan's advisor Lee Atwater is obviously quite relevant here (though as we now know, he was wildly incorrect in assuming that individual racism going underground meant that it was being done away with):
You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger". By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger". So, any way you look at it, race is coming on the back-burner.​
 
Last edited:
I think even conservatives will agree that systemic racism was indeed a very real problem in the past. What else could one call the slave economy and Jim Crow laws of the South, the red-lining of cities, etc? But most conservatives say systemic racism is no longer an issue. So when exactly did it end?
Not too long after the system officially changed. I would say by 75 it was mostly gone.

There is nothing remotely systematic racist happening now.
 
It's not the "minority lawyers, doctors, SCOTUS Justices, Congresspeople, and even a minority President" that you should be looking at for being thumbed down by systemic racism. Look at the lower middle class POC. Everything that you take for granted is denied them on a regular basis.
Examples of things denied them?
 
Not too long after the system officially changed. I would say by 75 it was mostly gone.

There is nothing remotely systematic racist happening now.
So, if all things being equal, a white person and a black person get caught with weed or apply for an apartment or go the Dr and get treated differently, why does that happen?

(Feel free to Google - racial disparity, healthcare, housing, justice system for more info.)
 
Not too long after the system officially changed. I would say by 75 it was mostly gone.

There is nothing remotely systematic racist happening now.
Laughably blind. I guess you think voter suppression is not aimed at Minorities. Your boy Tucker ripped the band-aid off of that one though many of us did not need Tucker to tell us what was going on.

I guess you also think Minorities are not denied access to home buying and even renting in certain neighborhood thus relegating them to substandard services like a lack of pharmacies and doctors and all sorts of things we take for granted. Red lining is STILL done to this day.
 
So, if all things being equal, a white person and a black person get caught with weed or apply for an apartment or go the Dr and get treated differently, why does that happen?

(Feel free to Google - racial disparity, healthcare, housing, justice system for more info.)
The vast majority of any disparities are likely due to different a handful of factors:
1. Different starting points. Blacks had much less wealth to start with and so it's hard to advance. There exist large blocks of white underclass in inner cities that have very similar life results as blacks. It's not a race issue it's a class issue.

2. Social issues
A.
Getting a good job is often a result of social networking. Blacks are less likely to run in social circles with employers. But again the same is true in some white subcultures. This as well as the first is a legacy effect of slavery no doubt.

B.
Birds of a feather flock together. This is natural and normal but it plays into the last point. Different cultures and likes dislikes etc means an employer is slightly less on average likely to choose a black. Just like they are less likely to choose a yankees fan if they are a fellow yankees fan. A hip-hop inner-city white will have similar issues with an employer. They will feel less comfortable with them and tend to flock to someone more likely to have things in common with.

C. Higher percentage of blacks make negative lifestyle choices that hinder economic success. Like, having kids early and out of wedlock, not getting a highschool diploma. Not trying married etc. There is research on this. The disparity between blacks and whites is very small when comparing those who avoid these negdtive choices. It's probably the biggest factor of all.



The reality is The vast majority blacks that make good choices are living the american dream and are middle class. The stats shown this.
 
Laughably blind. I guess you think voter suppression is not aimed at Minorities. Your boy Tucker ripped the band-aid off of that one though many of us did not need Tucker to tell us what was going on.

I guess you also think Minorities are not denied access to home buying and even renting in certain neighborhood thus relegating them to substandard services like a lack of pharmacies and doctors and all sorts of things we take for granted. Red lining is STILL done to this day.
Pure bs. There are no blacks being denied access to home buying. This is absurdly false.
 
Tell me. What was given to me, a European White Male, that is "denied on a regular basis" to the "oppressed" blacks?
Tell me.
A decent education. If you believe public education in the United states is funded fairly and equitably between mostly white middle class neighborhoods and low income black neighborhoods, your completely wrong.
 
Last edited:
The vast majority of any disparities are likely due to different a handful of factors:
1. Different starting points. Blacks had much less wealth to start with and so it's hard to advance. There exist large blocks of white underclass in inner cities that have very similar life results as blacks. It's not a race issue it's a class issue.

2. Social issues
A.
Getting a good job is often a result of social networking. Blacks are less likely to run in social circles with employers. But again the same is true in some white subcultures. This as well as the first is a legacy effect of slavery no doubt.

B.
Birds of a feather flock together. This is natural and normal but it plays into the last point. Different cultures and likes dislikes etc means an employer is slightly less on average likely to choose a black. Just like they are less likely to choose a yankees fan if they are a fellow yankees fan. A hip-hop inner-city white will have similar issues with an employer. They will feel less comfortable with them and tend to flock to someone more likely to have things in common with.

C. Higher percentage of blacks make negative lifestyle choices that hinder economic success. Like, having kids early and out of wedlock, not getting a highschool diploma. Not trying married etc. There is research on this. The disparity between blacks and whites is very small when comparing those who avoid these negdtive choices. It's probably the biggest factor of all.



The reality is The vast majority blacks that make good choices are living the american dream and are middle class. The stats shown this.
So, you're saying, all things being equal, if a white person and a black person get caught with weed or apply for an apartment or go the Dr and are treated differently, it's because of the black person's behavior?
 
I think even conservatives will agree that systemic racism was indeed a very real problem in the past. What else could one call the slave economy and Jim Crow laws of the South, the red-lining of cities, etc? But most conservatives say systemic racism is no longer an issue. So when exactly did it end?
Well, we conservatives did think that systemic racism had ended, but it didnt. Its alive and well in deep Blue cities sheltered within deep Blue states that have seen one party democrat rule for half a century or more.
 
I'm not sure that's correct. Consider two hypotheticals: First, I bribe someone's boss to sack him, I set fire to his house so all his possessions burn, then I kidnap him and lock him up in a pit. Then later on I open the trapdoor and say he's free to go, and walk off whistling. I'm no longer actively oppressing him, so does that make everything okay? Obviously not. Until I ensure that his losses are restored and his life back on track (at the very least), he's still suffering my oppression. Second, suppose a law were enacted requiring that animals for food must be killed by gunshot, brain trauma or lethal injection only, or alternatively a law prohibiting spoken (rather than sung) lyrics in musical tracks. Effectively, among other things kosher butchering or hip-hop music are now illegal. But the laws do not actually say anything about race or culture, right, so does that mean that they're not racist or otherwise bigoted despite their predictable, disproportionate impacts on particular groups? Seems to me that if laws or regulations have racially discriminatory consequences which are obvious or predictable yet left uncorrected, then they are racist laws even if they don't directly specify race.



The famous quote of Reagan's advisor Lee Atwater is obviously quite relevant here (though as we now know, he was wildly incorrect in assuming that individual racism going underground meant that it was being done away with):
You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger". By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger". So, any way you look at it, race is coming on the back-burner.​

Great post.

Your first paragraph describes the American legal theory "disparate impact discrimination," about laws, rules, and practices that appear to be neutral on their face but that negatively effect one protected group much more than another. But that assumes that the negative impact is unintentional. If intentional, I believe the term is disparate treatment.

If intentional, then the appearance of neutrality is essential, as your Atwater quote makes evident.

They need to be able to pursue racist policies while at the same time deny that they are doing so.

And if you look at the reactions of the vast majority of conservatives on this forum, it has been a wildly successful strategy.
 
Great post.

Your first paragraph describes the American legal theory "disparate impact discrimination," about laws, rules, and practices that appear to be neutral on their face but that negatively effect one protected group much more than another. But that assumes that the negative impact is unintentional. If intentional, I believe the term is disparate treatment.

If intentional, then the appearance of neutrality is essential, as your Atwater quote makes evident.

They need to be able to pursue racist policies while at the same time deny that they are doing so.

And if you look at the reactions of the vast majority of conservatives on this forum, it has been a wildly successful strategy.

You clearly do not understand the primary definition of racism or racist.
 
"There are good people on both sides" is how Trump phrased it when asked about the WHITE SUPREMACIST march at Charlottesville in which one of them ran over and killed a counter-protestor.
Really? What sort of "good" person would want to join an advertised WHITE SUPREMACIST march?
What kind of good people are out rioting, looting, assualting cops and civilians, committing arson on private businesses and police stations and federal court houses in democrat run cities? Low lifes, but the left seem to justifiy whatever they do.
 
What kind of good people are out rioting, looting, assualting cops and civilians, committing arson on private businesses and police stations and federal court houses in democrat run cities? Low lifes, but the left seem to justifiy whatever they do.
The topic at this point is what Trump said in his dog whistle to the white supremacists: "fine people" he said.
 
Great post.

Your first paragraph describes the American legal theory "disparate impact discrimination," about laws, rules, and practices that appear to be neutral on their face but that negatively effect one protected group much more than another. But that assumes that the negative impact is unintentional. If intentional, I believe the term is disparate treatment.

If intentional, then the appearance of neutrality is essential, as your Atwater quote makes evident.

They need to be able to pursue racist policies while at the same time deny that they are doing so.

And if you look at the reactions of the vast majority of conservatives on this forum, it has been a wildly successful strategy.
So Bidens relief bill giving millions to farmers only if they are black is illegal becuase it protects one group and not another.
 
The simple answer is it hasn't . . .

systemic, systematic and institutionalized racism is alive and well unfortunately

Of course, things are better than they used to be in our society and we are improving but things like this aren;t magically erased . . it lingers because its part of the culture that has to be removed and that takes time

There is another weird issue that only seems to exist mainly on the internets

the better question would be

are there really people that think systemic, systematic and institutionalized racism doesn't exist?

and an even better, better question would be . . when WILL it end?

well it won't be in my lifetime, thats for certain, unfortunately . .

and im not sure END it the right word, probably just get to such low levels it don't really matter as far as the impact on society goes.

So ill guess 3 generations maybe? like another 60 years minimum but probably more like 90
 
So, you're saying, all things being equal, if a white person and a black person get caught with weed or apply for an apartment or go the Dr and are treated differently, it's because of the black person's behavior?
No
 
Well I'm not a "Conservative" but I would say that since we have minority lawyers, doctors, SCOTUS Justices, Congresspeople, and even a minority President, that cries of "Waaaa systemic racism!!" are falling short.
I acknowledge the problems in the past and racial history in the US but I think that until here recently we were moving beyond it pretty well.
Now: *sigh*.
I just dont know. Theres a lot of White Guilt out there IMO and racism against Whites, a lot of finger pointing and scapegoating.
I'm not sure we're moving in the right direction anymore.

Regarding Geoist's original question, is, "recently" around 2015 or 2020?
 
Well I'm not a "Conservative" but I would say that since we have minority lawyers, doctors, SCOTUS Justices, Congresspeople, and even a minority President, that cries of "Waaaa systemic racism!!" are falling short.
I acknowledge the problems in the past and racial history in the US but I think that until here recently we were moving beyond it pretty well.
Now: *sigh*.
I just dont know. Theres a lot of White Guilt out there IMO and racism against Whites, a lot of finger pointing and scapegoating.
I'm not sure we're moving in the right direction anymore.
Qualified people fill those positions, touting that we have allowed these minorities to fill them is systemic racism, IMO. There's a lot of white grievance and white victim-hood by many on the right, but there certainly is not any racism against whites, to even say that is racist.
 
So Bidens relief bill giving millions to farmers only if they are black is illegal becuase it protects one group and not another.

No.

If you honestly want to know how disparate impact theory works, you could start with the 1971 Supreme Court case Griggs v. Duke Power Co.

But we both know that the chance that you honestly want to know about it is almost zero. You just made that post to score imaginary points about a Biden proposal using a legal theory that you don't understand.
 
When a person dances around condemning white supremacy and then has others explain his statements and then backtracks the explanation, that is not condemnation.

- Trump's initial statement did not specifically condemn white supremacy.

"We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides."

-The WHITE HOUSE issued a statement of condemnation specifically calling out white supremacy and 'splained Trump's statement.

"The president said very strongly in his statement yesterday that he condemns all forms of violence, bigotry and hatred, and of course that includes white supremacists, KKK, neo-nazi, and all extremists groups. he called for national unity and bringing all americans together,"

- A few days later at an infrastructure (LOL) press conference, Trump backtracks.

you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.
You’re misquoting him, too. You’re leaving out what he said next.
 
If those of you on the Systemic racism is over end of this argument think you have a point maybe you should simply change the Minority and try to make your argument. Where are most Native Americans today after WASP genocide, and endless treaties made and broken by the United States? Oh let me guess, they are still stuck in the mud because THEY ARE INFERIOR!!!!!

Poor bastards are so inferior that they were unable to take full advantage of being DISCOVERED!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom