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.
Not too long after the system officially changed. I would say by 75 it was mostly gone.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?
Examples of things denied them?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.
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?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.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.
The vast majority of any disparities are likely due to different a handful of factors: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.)
Pure bs. There are no blacks being denied access to home buying. This is absurdly false.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.
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.Tell me. What was given to me, a European White Male, that is "denied on a regular basis" to the "oppressed" blacks?
Tell me.
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?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.
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 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?
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.
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."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?
The topic at this point is what Trump said in his dog whistle to the white supremacists: "fine people" he said.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.
So Bidens relief bill giving millions to farmers only if they are black is illegal becuase it protects one group and not another.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.
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?
NoSo, 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?
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.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.
So Bidens relief bill giving millions to farmers only if they are black is illegal becuase it protects one group and not another.
It is unfortunately true.Pure bs. There are no blacks being denied access to home buying. This is absurdly false.
You are simply wrong. Go read the full quote.Thank you for admitting that Trump said that there were "good people" in the WHITE SUPREMACIST march.
You’re misquoting him, too. You’re leaving out what he said next.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?