Systemic racism is a form of racism that is expressed through the practices of institutions in their interactions with socially dominated racial groups, and that serves to reinforce the dominated status of those groups. Systemic racism may be enshrined in law (e.g. apartheid systems) or it may be a matter of practices/policies involving legal interpretation and/or extralegal actions discriminatively applied by those with discretionary power, direct or indirect, at any level of the system. Examples of systems where systemic racism may apply include justice, education, and health in both their private and state-managed manifestations. — Baden

What are the names of the institutions? Aren't there institutions that are socially dominated by blacks in the U.S.?

So, what is the solution to this form of systematic racism? Blacks need to pump out more babies so that they are no longer the minority? I love how these definitions are pronounced without even understanding how one would solve such a problem the definition entails.

You've earned Chrome ignore — Baden

Perhaps the OP is a chatbot.

You're the one making the claim that racism is systematic*. Now define systematic, and point out the system* and members of the system that are racist. — Harry Hindu

Okay, Harry. Prove you're not a cunt. :chin:


(re: Bitter Crank's post 3 weeks ago, p.3 of this thread*)

They're saying there are situations where the way a society allocates resources protects one race and exposes the other to social disintegration, educational and nutritional deficits, and gang violence.

"Systemic racism" isnt the best terminology for it because much of it, as Bittercrank pointed out, is the legacy of historic racism, and corruption that may or may not be related to racism.

It's more poetically speaking that racism is embodied by economic, political, and judicial systems.

Okay, Harry. Prove you're not a cunt — 180 Proof

:meh:

I can point you to a history book - THE COLOR OF LAW (2017) - that will show that we do not have, and have not had equality of opportunity. We need not go back as far as the 18th and 19th centuries and slavery. Let's go back to the 1930s. — Bitter Crank

But this is 2019. What are the racist institutions in 2019? Are you saying the FHA is still racist today? Did it take this long for you to point out the racist institution?

They're saying there are situations where the way a society allocates resources protects one race and exposes the other to social disintegration, educational and nutritional deficits, and gang violence.

"Systemic racism" isnt the best terminology for it because much of it, as Bittercrank pointed out, is the legacy of historic racism, and corruption that may or may not be related to racism.

It's more poetically speaking that racism is embodied by economic, political, and judicial systems. — frank

Right, so we don't have laws and institutions where the way society allocates resources and protects one race and exposes the other to social disintegration today. It's more about that the effects of the racism in previous systems that have carried over generationally. Given that, what are the proposed solutions? More vague generalities?

If noticing color in the past lead to racist systems and institutions, then why isn't the solution to be color-blind today? Why isn't the solution to ignore race and treat people equally today?

We like to point out racist people from previous generations and take down their statues, so why would you want to go back to those racist ways by using race to divide people?

If you search for disparities between tall and short, fat and thin, you’ll find them. The point is you’re not tackling a problem at all, but projecting groups and taxonomies onto vast swaths of disparate individuals. — NOS4A2

On one level you're right: part of the cultural problems surrounding race is to do with how we form inappropriate social expectations - how we stereotype, how we selectively know and do not know, how we selectively include and exclude people from our social groups.

This is the kind of thing that inspired a girl (this happened to my friends and I while out) to ask me to protect her from my arabic friends because they seemed like a threat in the bar.

Even on this level, we have to think about where these expectations are coming from; how are they produced and reproduced in the culture.

On another level; you're not saying anything of relevance to a vast swarthe of conditions that differentially effect demographics. The causal mechanisms here are economic trends and policies on the back of historical prejudice. These are not reducible to inappropriate expectations, even though their public legitimation often comes along with cultural production of racial difference (propaganda, nationalist sentiment, "coming over here and taking our jobs" etc).

If you reduce everything to cultural expectations, you miss one of (and the major source) the engines keeping inequality of opportunity in place.

If noticing color in the past lead to racist systems and institutions... — Harry Hindu

To make sense of what follows this I think you should probably explain exactly what “noticing color” means in this sentence.

First, people should understand that if they're having trouble finding the job they want, it's not because of affirmative action. You have to figure out what you want, figure out who you have to be to get it, then make the plan, and work the plan.

Any time you spend blaming your problems on what other people are doing is wasted time.

What's the solution to race problems in America? There is no solution. If everybody adopted the anit-Rand attitude of: your problems are my problems, then a solution would develop naturally.

The funny thing about that: the people who advocate the anti-Rand attitude can be relied upon to turn on their fellow humans who happen to be conservative like a bunch of rabid dogs. They'll turn on each other in a heart beat. The Europeans ones will foam and bark about their fellow humans who happen to be American. IOW, it's all talk, or rather it's all endless fucking whining with no interest at all in follow through.

Such is life. All problems end in the grave.

What's the solution to race problems in America? — frank

According to the OP, it's to be colourblind, meaning (according to the OP) not being racist. I suppose the OP has a point, whatever suspicion of alt-right sophism is aroused. Since the abolition of slavery, systemic racism has continued to blight black lives. The OP apparently admits that, and prescribes systemic colourblindness. Hmm.

The funny thing about that: the people who advocate the anti-Rand attitude can be relied upon to turn on their fellow humans who happen to be conservative like a bunch of rabid dogs. They'll turn on each other in a heart beat. The Europeans ones will foam and bark about their fellow humans who happen to be American. IOW, it's all talk, or rather it's all endless fucking whining with no interest at all in follow through. — frank

Tomorrow is nearly yesterday and everything is stupid.

But out of that mindset, part of it is figuring out wtf to do, wtf we can do. The anglophone internet's a good place for that, being a microcosm of our shared culture.

So Zhou is essentially correct in how you define racism. Ok.

The OP apparently admits that, and prescribes systemic colourblindness — Chris Hughes

It's true that social engineering meant to reverse the effects of racism has unwanted side effects.

Is that what you mean?

But out of that mindset, part of it is figuring out wtf to do, wtf we can do. — fdrake

About the fact that humans are assholes?

About the fact that humans are assholes? — frank

We can be assholes. Ideally we set things up so the effects of us being assholes are minimised. You know, good laws and policies.

[

We can be assholes. Ideally we set things up so the effects of us being assholes are minimised. You know, good laws and policies. — fdrake

It's so great to get Norway's insights on that issue.

It's so great to get Norway's insights on that issue. — frank

You don't get Norway's insights. You get an irritated internet lefty's. Mine. But I do find value in reminding people about the relevance of politics in public. And of thinking about what to do.

But I do find value in reminding people about the relevance of politics in public. And of thinking about what to do. — fdrake

Fair enough.

Fair point.

That’s another problem: the causes are so innumerable that disparities cannot be chalked up to just discrimination, privilege or systemic whatever. These causes are not limited or confined to this or that group.

I suggest we’ll never know the causal mechanisms until each case is taken into account, and we abandon demographic, ethnic or race thinking from our analysis. We’ll always see disparities between these groups, but by looking for them through such a lens we risk blinding ourselves to every individual case therein that might not fit within such a mental apartheid. So to flip the criticism, the ones ignoring the disparities between individuals and the causes of these disparities are the color-conscious.

I’m not sure that’s the case.

What is the difference between your definition and his characterisation of it?
Aren’t you saying that racism is when someone thinks there are categories of humans defined by physical traits?

I suggest we’ll never know the causal mechanisms until each case is taken into account, and we abandon demographic, ethnic or race thinking from our analysis. — NOS4A2

I don't think that's true. The value of framing things systemically is precisely to highlight that such issues should also be addressed through policies and political action; thinking of things systemically lets you get a handle on what's causing what.

So, Glasgow's knife crime goes down a lot due to child education in poorer families and benefit schemes, with little to no additional investment in police presence. This policy came from looking at who was committing the knife crime (demographic factors), looking at case reports, economic data... It wasn't 'because the kids were Glaswegian", it was "because the kids were poor and disadvantaged and desperate".

London's knife crime and police presence? Not the same story. Extra police, not doing anything about the knife crime. The media framing it as a black on black violence problem? This is exactly what highlighting that an issue is systemic in a public arena attempts to mitigate. And what do you know, when policies are adopted that are a result of well structured analysis... They work better.

Looking at things in that way is how you criticise, make and propose effective policies. Looking at things on an individual level is how you resist any such policy as unfair.

"Colour-blindness" ceases to be a cause for equality of opportunity when it is invoked to argue against well motivated policies to address racial disparity (race here is really an economic proxy variable, racial minorities have poorer conditions for historical reasons which have remained unaddressed). It ain't 'because they're black' or 'because they're white' now, it's where they are, what they have to work with, and how that constrains or enables their capacities.

Edit: one part of this, which remains unaddressed, is that governments know that race and economic class intersect, this is why euphemisms work. In the US, just look at how "Border control is a jobs issue" transformed into "Mexicans are rapists and thieves". The same people who support those who say "border control is a jobs issue" are now those who support "Mexicans are rapists and thieves"... coincidence? Nah. Political discourse employs euphemisms so white dupes like us can be colourblind and have our racial disparities...

My definition is “ In it’s purest form, racism is the belief that the species may be divided into separate biological taxonomies called “race”.

His characterization is “ anything that takes race into account”.

It's true that social engineering meant to reverse the effects of racism has unwanted side effects. Is that what you mean? — frank

No, I meant that the Count prescribes no race-based social engineering at all because, supposedly, it's based on a false distinction. (Hence, supposedly, the unwanted side effects.) There's a slippery circularity there. Hence my suspicion of alt-right sophistry.

There's a slippery circularity there. Hence my suspicion of alt-right sophistry. — Chris Hughes

He's definitely a troll. Hes not in the US, so maybe not alt-right, but one of its kin.

It’s true. I think me examining these things on an individual level leads to me seeing them as unjust. To my mind these “well-motivated policies”, what they call “positive discrimination”, are unjust, because they favor certain racial groups at the expense of others, whether they are effective or not.

Political action on racial grounds is wholly dangerous. Even if they are effective, the last thing I’d like to see are race-based groups vying for political power on those grounds. Perhaps, as you said, it shouldn’t be done on the individual level, but they they can never be fair or just in their application.

He's definitely a troll. Hes not in the US, so maybe not alt-right, but one of its kin.

If you guys can be trolled by opposing opinions perhaps I’m not the problem.

Well taxonomy is a scientific term, a scientific biological categorisation. I dont think thats whats commonly meant when people refer to race, I think they mean a category based in obvious physical differences.
Maybe thats why there has been such contention on this topic, some people are using the academic meaning of “race” (as it might be used to describe an alien “race” for example) and others a laymens usage that is simply noticing differing physical traits like skin colour or bone density or hair color.
So what word do you use to describe the latter cases? If thats not “race”, what is it?

Political action on racial grounds is wholly dangerous. — NOS4A2

The people who are disenfranchised or adversely effected as a demographic aren't, like, demanding stuff because they're black or trans or whatever. They're demanding stuff because of concerns common enough that it makes sense to organise as a demographic. Adopting the signifier of the demographic as a name, like marketing, forming broader lines of solidarity. That these concerns are reflected by social/economic conditions is what justifies organising along those lines.

Some poor black single mother in a ghetto trying to work 2 jobs and raise kids at the same time, kids don't get food every day at home due to poverty (choice between electricity and food, say). She'd not be like "my kids need food because I'm black", she's like "I live in this place that makes it hard to live, so do other people nearby... so do lots of racial minorities... huh, let's organise along those lines to try and get some food".

It isn't just "identity politics", it's organising around common concerns that happen to coincide with racial consideration (due to the history of colonialism-racism and how that interacts with economic conditions).

He's definitely a troll. Hes not in the US, so maybe not alt-right, but one of its kin. — frank

A vampire?

If you guys can be trolled by opposing opinions perhaps I’m not the problem. — Nosferatu

Trolls don't oppose opinion, they distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory messages with the intent of normalizing tangential discussion.