The police murdered a human being. The color and sex are irrelevant. The fact that protests happen as a result of a black person being killed when many whites have been killed by the same method indicates that White Lives Don't Matter as much a Black Lives. But then there are many more Black Lives taken at the hands of other Blacks, but no protests as a result of that either, so it seems that only Black Lives Ended by Police Brutality Matter is what "Black Lives Matter" really means.

Police brutality happened. Did racism happen? How would we know - simply because the color of the skin was different? Don't you need to know what is in the mind of the individual if they aren't using racial slurs to make it clear that it was racism?

Race baiting is when you assume racism is the cause of some conflict simply because the color of skin is different, as a means to promote special treatment for a particular group. When a white person disagrees with a black person on anything, the white person is racist. Anytime that a conflict arises between two people and their skin is of a different color, racism is automatically assumed to be the cause. Why, when there are so many other possible explanations as to the cause of the conflict? Because pushing agendas are more important than finding truth.

The fact that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites puts them into contact with police at a higher rate than whites. When accusing the system of being racist, you accuse the jurors, prosecutors and judge of being racist too. So why are we only hearing about cops being racist? Where are the stories about doctors saving white lives as opposed to black lives? Where are the stories about teachers giving black children F's while giving white children A's? Where is this systemic racism, and what privileges do whites have that blacks don't? Is it really that we don't have the same privileges, or is it that we don't take advantage of the same privileges - like free public education? If a group receives handouts from the government that you only qualify for by being a member of a particular group, then those are privileges that the other groups don't have, even though there are members of other groups that have the same need (they are in poverty). If systematic racism were real, then how could it ever be that there are many whites with less than many blacks?

Don't you need to know what is in the mind of the individual if they aren't using racial slurs to make it clear that it was racism? — Harry Hindu

Maybe you need to educate yourself on what systemic racism entails. If doesn't require overt acts of racism. That blacks are treated differently by police is well known. It's precisely why this white woman said what she said:

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000007159234/amy-cooper-dog-central-park-police-video.html

She didn't call in the hopes of coincidentally getting a racist on the line. She called knowing that her framing of being threatened by an African American, when she bloody well wasn't, would illicit a faster and harder response from the police.

The rest has been discussed at length in this thread. Meanwhile, you can read up here : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRlF2_zhNe86SGgHa6-VlBO-QgirITwCTugSfKie5Fs/edit?usp=drivesdk

If systematic racism were real, — Harry Hindu

You also need to look up the difference between 'systemic' and 'systematic'. They're not the same thing. As I mentioned before, the objections to the idea that systemic racism exists tend to be based on misunderstandings about what's being talked about. But the term has been explained in the thread and explanations are not exactly difficult to find online, so there's no excuse for not knowing what it means.

+Pretending that a social phenomenon that's been studied, documented and written about for decades doesn't exist is about as plausible as claiming the moon landings never happened.

Here are just a couple of the thousands of academic papers written on the subject. We can argue about how prevalent systemic racism is but the idea it just isn't there is a conspiracy theory. Anyone who denies that, please do present your peer reviewed academic papers supporting your position (hint: there are none).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953613005121

https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/unilllr2004&section=46

https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/cpilj8&section=12

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/016059761103500304

The Grievance Studies Affair showed us just how much stock we should put into academic studies in the social sciences.
These are the same academics that changed the definition of racism to “prejudice plus power” bullshit.
Im not saying no stock at all should be put into these sorts of academic papers, but its certainly not indisputable that systemic racism exists, nor is it akin to believing the moon landings were faked. The definition of systemic racism may be so loose as to be only implausibly denied, but then it fails to pack any punch as a real problem...certainly not as real a problem as actual racists and racism found in a disturbingly high levels throughout the US.
Have you ever heard of Thomas Sowell? He doesnt believe in it, he is an academic. Do you have any peer reviewed papers refuting his writing on it? You said No peer reviewed papers that refute systemic racism? Did you even check? Ill bet you checked with the same authority you are referencing the academic papers of, the same authority that taught you this stuff in the first place. Strikes me as a bit circular.
Its not as one sided and obvious as you are portraying it to be, and trying to dismiss people arguing against the existence of systemic racism comes off as a cheap, strawman tactic.

Reading that, I think we might disagree about the extent of the specific role racism plays in the problems facing black communities, but not the existence of systemic racism (and you gave a good example of it in your last paragraph). As for black cops vs white cops, I don't know, but any functionary of a systemically racist system playing their part as performative of that system has a role in propagating the racism of that system. That doesn't make them racist, just "doing their job". That's part of what's pernicious about systems. They compromise you.

This also relates to @StreetlightX's question "where are the good cops?". A cop qua functioning node in a systemically racist system can't be good by definition. Only cops actively resisting the system could be. But, in a sense, a resister is not really a cop anymore. Not from the perspective of the system at least. So, it's maybe not a fair question without qualification. There are "good cops" in the sense of good people who become cops and whose intent is benign, or even benevolent, but insofar as they follow the written and unwritten rules of cop culture (over which they don't have individual control) there's a sense in which they can't be good. Back to the problem being primarily systemic than being about "good" vs "bad" cops.

A cop qua functioning node in a systemically racist system can't be good by definition. Only cops actively resisting the system could be. — Baden

Why are the other cops required to 'actively resist' the disproportionate effect of their institution's role on minorities in order to avoid charges of complicity? It seems an odd 'guilty by association' response.

If a policeman carries out his duty doing the best he can to serve everyone equally, he will nonetheless disproportionately disadvantage minorities. That's the nature of systemic racism. To fight it, one needs to change the system. But the same is true of almost all economic systems. Even buying and selling property. Are all homeowners therefore complicit for taking part in the systemically racist property market. Low cost clothing, car manufacture, commodities trading, banking, healthcare, social care... All are systemically racist, they all have a proven disproportionately negative effect on minority groups. So is everyone who participates in such institutions complicit?

I've no problem at all with the answer being yes. I think it very likely to be true. But if it is, then what is the advantage of one undoubtedly complicit group of people speaking so disparagingly about another undoubtedly complicit group of people. Why not simply look to fix their own affairs?

Systemic oppression of minorities is ultimately about greed, a bigger cut for a smaller group of privileged people. So it's not that hard to see who's benefiting most from it (and therefore most complicit in its perpetuation). It's not the head of the police force who's sitting on his own private island sipping margaritas whilst all this happening...

Why are the other cops required to 'actively resist' the disproportionate effect of their institution's role on minorities in order to avoid charges of complicity? It seems an odd 'guilty by association' response. — Isaac

That wasn't really where I was going with that. In fact, the point I was making was more like depending on how you frame it, the question "where are the good cops?", is in a sense unfair. Anyhow, working now, but I'll get back with more on this later.

the point I was making was more like depending on how you frame it, the question "where are the good cops?"", is in a sense unfair. — Baden

That pretty much answers my point with regard to the quote. It makes more sense from that angle, but I didn't get that from your original post.

The wider point still stands though, I think. I don't see why anyone (who is undoubtedly complicit in some systemically racist institution) should even really be taking part in the dismantling of another before setting their own house in order first. The feeling is of vacillating capriciously between whatever institution is the bogeyman of popular media at the time. Nothing ever really gets done because that particular devil becomes old news too quickly to really get substantially reformed, and any progress that is made is often held back by the inevitable defensiveness the 'us vs them' framework generates.

It's a lot easier to turn up to a few hours of protest than it is to change one's job, shopping habits, social life and personal habits. And I'm talking here about the 'solidarity' of those privelidged enough to make such changes, not those who are straight jacketed by poverty.

Collective problems require - in fact can only be addressed by - collective action. Capitalism wins by means of social atomization. So much more to say but I am so tired. Here:

https://youtu.be/G8Vy7OrHR50

I had to follow Baden's advice and look up the meaning of the word. This seemed very clear: fwiw:

"Others, like systemic and systematic, have different definitions. According to Dr. Paul Brians, a former Washington State University English professor and leading authority on grammar, systematic relates to an action that is done “according to some system or organized method.” If you sort your M&Ms by color and eat the blue ones last, you’re doing it systematically. Sometimes, Brians explains on his website, systematic is used when a behavior—however unintentional it may be—is so habitual that it seems to be the result of a system. If you forget to lock your front door every time you leave the house, someone might say that you have a systematic pattern of forgetfulness.

Systemic, meanwhile, describes something that happens inside a system or affects all parts of a system. It’s often used in scientific contexts, especially those that involve diseases or pesticides. If a cancer is systemic, that means it’s present throughout the body. If you’re describing how the cancer progressed, however, you could say it spread systematically from organ to organ. As Grammarist points out, systemic can also denote something that is “deeply ingrained in the system,” which helps explain why you sometimes hear it in discussions about social or political issues. When Theodore Roosevelt served as the New York City Police Commissioner, for example, his main goal was to stamp out the systemic corruption in the police department.

In short, systematic is used to describe the way a process is done, while systemic is used to describe something inside a system."

Collective problems require - in fact can only be addressed by - collective action. Capitalism wins by means of social atomization. — StreetlightX

I think that's what I'm trying to say (though re-reading I can see how it might come across as divisive).

The solution is that we collectively say "we're not going to be complicit in this anymore".

That's not what I see happening here, what's happening here (and has happened before in my country after Stephen Lawrence) is that one institution is pilloried for its part (and the police were shamefully responsible in that case), for just as long as it's in the news, never long enough to get the job done properly (the Macpherson recommendations still haven't been fully implemented). Meanwhile, the problem silently shifts elsewhere (technology manufacturing, for example - see Nigeria's experience with mobile phone companies).

If everyone is primed to join the latest social movement we get great benefits in terms of solidarity and vocal power, but it comes at a cost, it's too fickle, fizzles out too early, and often the very single-issue focus which gives it its power is what allows those very institutions to sidestep the real problem.

Maybe policing reform really will make a huge difference to the lives of minority groups in America, but as I said to Baden, it's not the chief of police who's sitting on his private island. So whatever function the police played in maintaining the flow of money and power from these groups to that guy only need shapeshift to some other institution.

We need to learn to recognise the pattern, not just the instantiation.

I've started this thread for the sole reason of allowing those who want to claim it [systemic racism in the US] doesn't — Baden

exist to have "their say."

It's all about discrimination and distinction. And these are survival traits. The ability to distinguish and discriminate, then, being in our DNA, systemic to us. Us being any living thing whose living presence is in any part predicated on some ability to tell this from that.

Without evidence I'm going to guess that equally primordial is us-good, you-different-bad. No doubt there's some grey in this - most of us carry some Neanderthal DNA, for example. But at the same time, there aren't any more Neanderthals and haven't been for quite a while.

This needn't be a long post. Have we, do we, make systematic and institutional - systemic - that which is systemic even in our persons? Ans.: all the time: it's not who we are; rather it's what we are! That leaves only the question, what are we going to do with it/about it? Failure to take up this question, implications and all, as primary, is either gross ignorance, confusion, and stupidity, or just viciousness, or a dangerous admixture - and being human, there's plenty of that.

First of all (to be completely clear), I believe systemic racism DOES EXIST. And existing now, therefore it has existed for at least since the time of the beginning of the slave trade. It is perhaps the largest, worst, and most sustained crimes in world history. It was so evil and devastating that the effects are still being experienced over 150 years after the official end of slavery in the United States.

If it was even possible for White American authorities and capitalists to have rectified the situation regarding former slaves in the years after the civil war ended is a debatable point. (How much is one human life worth? Existentially and in terms of money? How about a million human lives?) But the clear fact is that the overall situation was definitely NOT made even remotely fair for those of African ancestry at the time by “those in power”.

From that point in time and space to the present moment in the USA, there was and is a lot going on. Some improvements, some backsliding or regression, some of a “mixed-bag” situation regarding race relations and “equal treatment” or whatever term one could use to express some basic standard of fairness. So to get a view of the “big-picture” (stretching over hundreds of years and many continents), some abstraction (or imagination, if you prefer) is perhaps necessary or helpful.

One could (unfortunately and sadly) name dozens of racially unfair practices. From redlining to “profiling” to voter disenfranchisement to lower pay for the same job, etc. And also sad to say, these are not historical aberrations from the distant past. They are current realities and issues.

To sort through this pile of unfair (to put it mildly) practices, one could perhaps put them into two large groups or “piles” for purposes of trying to understand the overview in an abstract way, as mentioned above. Both “piles” describe the continued exploitation of blacks* or people of color (and those of other or mixed races who may consider themselves as part of a “black family”) after the supposed end of slavery. The two prongs to be described offer a type of dualism, or of a “one-two punch” (so to speak) against blacks in the USA as a whole.

For the sake of simplicity and clarity, I will call these extremely broad classifications of racism “The Goodies” and “The Baddies”. These two names do not necessarily denote whites as “good”, and blacks as “bad”. There is however, a strong element of that thought throughout BOTH prongs of systemic racism.

So now, some definitions of the terms The Goodies and The Baddies.

The Goodies. By this I mean (in a blanket statement) all that The Powers That Be (TPTB) (mainly white, male, and wealthy... to be perhaps overly general) wanted, but simultaneously judged to be illict in some way, particular activities and goods. It is the “forbidden fruit”. From sex to drugs to gambling to guns, the list goes on. This refers to whatever was forbidden by law or Bible or social conventions (or some combination of those), but still greatly desired. In a nutshell, this is an example of the classic “not in my backyard” NIMBY thinking and acting. The black ghettos were over time made into a de facto nighttime amusement park for those from so-called proper backgrounds and positions. Keeping the white bedroom communities pure, and going slumming in the less-developed poor Black areas whenever the mood struck.

The Baddies. Of course, the existence of the activities described above are unfair and hypocritical enough. But (not surprisingly) it doesn’t end there. Everything has its price. The Buddha described ignorance as an unending cycle of greed and aversion, of desire and hatred. So comes the flip side of the systemic racist coin. The Baddies refers to the punishment meted out to those involved in the business of supplying and satisfying the eternal and repressed lust described previously. Because, despite the overwhelming demand and the continued existence of these “illegal activities”, they are by the standards and laws of TPTB worthy of punishment.

Hence, a “justice system” (the term would be laughable if it didn’t have such tragic effects) that is OVERWHELMINGLY and DISPROPORTIONATELY focused on people of color. From police officers to lawyers to judges to prison owners and operators and the millions of others (of all races) employed to assist the process. It is an actual and literal INDUSTRY. This much is indisputable. Now, of course there are the truly guilty and dangerous individual criminals (of any and other races) prosecuted by this system. That is obvious. This gives the institution its validity and understandable authority. No problem with that aspect, for the most part. But the problem comes from the legal institutions made into FINANCIAL INDUSTRIES, feeding on the bodies of people of color, and those in their families. There are indeed good police officers, lawyers, and judges. But they are swimming upstream against a strong current. And it is difficult not to be infected when swimming in a river of garbage.

Now, obviously there is no ABSOLUTE distinction between Blacks and Whites here. There are millions of mixed race. There are White drug dealers and pimps. There are Black Federal Judges. This is so obvious that it hardly needs mentioning. We are trying to get a relative view here, not an absolute rule.

One could also draw many parallels between the internal American-USA forms of exploitation and racism, with the externally and outward-directed phenomenon of US Imperialism, especially after WWII.

It is like slavery never ended... it just changed form.

And has spread with little resistance or regard for whom it hurt. So that now, this is not a Black* American problem. It is a virus threatening the health of the entire global population.

( * I have never been completely comfortable with the terms “black” and “white” to describe entire races of people. These terms are simplistic to the point of being problematic. Personally, I have never seen a completely white nor a completely black person. But that is for another discussion).

The Grievance Studies Affair — DingoJones

Had to look it up, this was what I found.

Despite claims to the contrary, the highly political, both ethically and methodologically flawed “experiment” failed to provide the evidence it sought. The experiences can be summed up as follows: (1) journals with higher impact factors were more likely to reject papers submitted as part of the project; (2) the chances were better, if the manuscript was allegedly based on empirical data; (3) peer reviews can be an important asset in the process of revising a manuscript; and (4) when the project authors, with academic education from neighboring disciplines, closely followed the reviewers’ advice, they were able to learn relatively quickly what is needed for writing an acceptable article. The boundary between a seriously written paper and a “hoax” gradually became blurred. Finally (5), the way the project ended showed that in the long run, the scientific community will uncover fraudulent practices.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0162243920923087?journalCode=sthd#

The "legacy of slavery" argument is not just an excuse for inexcusable behavior in the ghettos. In a larger sense, it is an evasion of responsibility for the disastrous consequences of the prevailing social vision of our times, and the political policies based on that vision, over the past half century. [...] The welfare state has led to remarkably similar trends among the white underclass in England over the same period. — Thomas Sowell

https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2015/05/poor_blacks_looking_for_someon.html

I had to go back and check, to see if I was understanding it right. The prevailing social vision in America has the same result as the welfare state in the UK. So the thesis is that the problems in America are due to too much welfare? Now I think an argument can be made along these general lines, that welfare can be disempowering, and especially when it is done in a top-down patronising manner, but that the US suffers from an excess of welfare or that any kind of socialism has prevailed for the last 50 years is complete lunacy.

And you might think I was reading too much into this, if I did not mention the title of the piece:"Blame the welfare state, not racism, for poor blacks' problems."

Yeah, that's a decent one. The way I tend to think of it is along these lines too:

In short, systematic is used to describe the way a process is done, while systemic is used to describe something inside a system — tim wood

Another way to put that would be doing anything predictably in response to a stimulus or following a method can be called 'systematic' and this can easily be applied to individuals, but 'systemic' (in any social context) refers to the characteristic behaviour of organizations and institutions. Anyhow, thanks, I hope everyone gets this now.

(E.g. an example of systematic racism could be someone crossing the street every time they saw a black person, in which case the 'systematic' part becomes rather superfluous. Just call it racism. 'Systemic racism' is a phrase worth hanging onto though, particularly as what it describes tends to be much more subtle. And too subtle for some apparently...)

↪unenlightened This was very good. The more people hear and understand the impact of redlining, the better:

"The Federal Housing Administration institutionalized the system of discriminatory lending in government-backed mortgages, reflecting local race-based criteria in their underwriting practices and reinforcing residential segregation in American cities. The discriminatory practices captured by the HOLC maps continued until 1968, when the Fair Housing Act banned racial discrimination in housing.

But 50 years after that law passed, the lingering effects of redlining are clear, with the pattern of economic and racial residential segregation still evident in many U.S. cities — from Montgomery, Ala., to Flint, Mich., to Denver. Nationally, nearly two-thirds of neighborhoods deemed “hazardous” are inhabited by mostly minority residents, typically black and Latino, researchers found. Cities with more such neighborhoods have significantly greater economic inequality. On the flip side, 91 percent of areas classified as “best” in the 1930s remain middle-to-upper-income today, and 85 percent of them are still predominantly white".

It's possibly the biggest injustice in modern American history that almost goes totally unremarked upon. Not that it's all down to redlining of course. But gosh was it terrible (in fact it still exists). Unsurprisingly, it's roots are economic. — StreetlightX

Indeed.

And based upon the idea that a property owner(or the group rather) ought get to choose who all is allowed in the community... Liberty and freedom and 'right' to choose one's neighbors by virtue of being a landowner.

Gather a group of racists and Viola! systemic racism.

Not really sure what response youre looking for here...you found a criticism. It was controversial, as expected. No one thought the Grievance studies people would go “youre right, you got us, we are full of shit and service ideology over true academic truth.”.
Look harder, you will see that the criticisms are very weak and if you don’t, look up “confirmation bias”.
Also, I referenced Sowell as an example of an academic who doesnt buy systemic racism to show that its not foolish to deny it exists. There are other examples, plenty of reasonable people question the claim of systemic racism. I wasnt positing Sowells body of work for argumentation.
Anyway, not sure what your point is.

Also, I referenced Sowell as an example of an academic who doesnt buy systemic racism to show that its not foolish to deny it exists. — DingoJones

Yeah, but based on what he says, it is foolish. Not just a poor example, but a negative one. And that matches the criticism I quoted of grievance studies: politically motivated, and rather showing the opposite of what it claims. So I'm not really looking for any response, merely flagging up what looks as though it is a waft of smoke being blown on your part.

Well Ill leave it for readers to figure out which of us is blowing smoke. Hopefully they put more effort than you did.

I wouldn't say either of you are, that is to say not earnestly arguing opposing viewpoints with relevant information to consider. However as it stands, you seem to be the one who is stopping short in this particular exchange. :)

Anyway. I believe there is both systemic and systematic racism in human society everywhere. The majority or status quo wants to maintain itself. It's human nature. A white (or black) majority doesn't want to be replaced by any other group, black, Asian, or whatever.

Obviously there is more than that going on when it comes to race relations in the US. Someone posted something along the lines of "a rich black man in a suit will be viewed/treated the same as a poor white punk". I want to doubt that as a common view as I certainly wouldn't but again I'm sure some would.

I just think it's important to distinguish an officer being uncharacteristically hostile (as in he's normally not) toward a respectable looking (all we can judge about character/danger is appearance) black man walking down a random street and an officer being on a hair trigger when facing someone blasting violent music, wearing "street clothes" that could easily conceal a gun, maybe having gang or teardrop tattoos, and speaking rude or in an unintelligent manner in an area that has a high murder rate and gang activity. It makes all the difference. You don't want to be the boy who cries wolf. You definitely don't want to make it where criminals can torment and destroy black communities unabated simply because they happen to be black. Actually. Perhaps some do...

Racism is systemic in the U.S. The emphasis upon the inequality built into various policies Is important as history and means to preserve influence over the future. There is an element of signification that is usually removed from such considerations in the name of objectivity. That element is what Ralph Ellison focused upon in the Invisible Man; Blackness is needed to experience Whiteness.

That quality has a political dimension where the Buchanans can talk about preserving "Western Civilization" instead of race. But that trick works only because of a dynamic where the unifying principle of many very different groups is that they are not black.

But what Ellison observed, along with Martin Luther King Jr., is that there is a psychological dimension to the problem of identity. If it is based upon a negation: Only the difference can connect a person to what is happening. The "race" in that picture is not a picture at all. Just an empty frame.

In a racist society, it is not enough to be non-racist, we must be antiracist. — Angela Davis

In order to deny that the USA is still "a racist society" you have to also deny her well-documented, 231 year history of LEGAL slavery, segregation, militarism & incarcerationism, as pointed-out here, which is delusional and/or (deliberately) racist.

The past is never dead. It's not even past. — William Faulkner

Watch this : https://www.instagram.com/tv/CBHRUMSJH1B/?igshid=12j3s6gon05s0

Much respect for the black people on PF and other online communities taking the time out for educating us on shit we should've figured out on our own years ago.

Better question for this thread is, is questioning the existence of systemic racism in the US, an act of racism itself?

Believers in free-will will often dismiss the notion of systemic racism since they are biased towards looking at the world through the lens of liberal free will and agency of the individual.

However, the more commonly proved determinism demands that systemic racism exists in our timeline of history. All the events against black people and communities for over 400 years has a deterministic line of causality that cannot break free from the consequences we see today.

Free will is an illusion and so is the idea that because black people and communities now have total free will agency in society, they will just break free of the deterministic consequences of what has happened before.

Believers in free-will and many liberals advocate for this line of thinking, but that thinking is rationally just plain illogical. So the conclusion is that systemic racism does exist and anyone who says otherwise needs to actually prove the consequences of determinism to be wrong.

You also need to look up the difference between 'systemic' and 'systematic'. They're not the same thing. As I mentioned before, the objections to the idea that systemic racism exists tend to be based on misunderstandings about what's being talked about. — Baden

Systemic racism obtains when a system(s) function (regardless of explicit rules) to favour certain racial groups over others. — Baden

The misunderstanding is yours. As I already have stated, we have a system that favors blacks, as you need to have a certain the color of skin to obtain certain handouts paid for by all taxpayers, to say certain words that others can't, to ignore the plight of others in favor of the plight of "your people" as if "your people" matter more, and to make assumptions about individuals based on what clothes they wear (police uniforms) and the color of their skins (whites are racists).

So who is it with the privilege?

Maybe you need to educate yourself on what systemic racism entails. If doesn't require overt acts of racism. That blacks are treated differently by police is well known. — Benkei

Is it not also well known that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites?

If it is okay for blacks to use the fact that some police are corrupt to then make the assumption that all police are corrupt, then how is it not okay for police to assume that blacks commit crimes?

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. If it is wrong to make assumptions about an individual based on the interactions you've had, or heard about, with other individuals that share some characteristic, then it is wrong for others to do.

So blacks are doing the same thing that they are accusing the police of doing. When you get two individuals that already have negative assumptions about the other, then it is no wonder that the we have the events that we do. Where does it stop? How do we stop it? It seems to me that it is incumbent upon both parties to make changes in the way that they think about each other.

As I already have stated, we have a system that favors blacks, — Harry Hindu

Better question for this thread is, is questioning the existence of systemic racism in the US, an act of racism itself? — Benkei

Not only questioning it but pretending it's the opposite of what it is in some cases, apparently. Anyway, I'm out. I'll leave someone else to deal with the right wing tinfoil hat brigade.

As I already have stated, we have a system that favors blacks — Harry Hindu

The amount of ignorance and lack of education in this comment is too low quality for me. Maybe you should be educated by someone who actually knows her shit about all of this, and look at the video with Kimberly Latrice Jones above that Benkei posted.

Better question for this thread is, is questioning the existence of systemic racism in the US, an act of racism itself? — Benkei

I would say it's a form of appeasement of it. I also think that many people will defend against the idea of systemic racism because acknowledging it would mean that their world view of individualistic free-will has problems. They do not defend their view with facts, but out of the necessity to deny any form of systemic or structure since their ideology cannot exist if such systems and structures exist.

For them, the very notion of a structure and systemic thing is an attack against their worldview, that's why they abandon facts and knowledge in favor of empty phrases and low-quality arguments.

Is it not also well known that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites?

If it is okay for blacks to use the fact that some police are corrupt to then make the assumption that all police are corrupt, then how is it not okay for police to assume that blacks commit crimes?

If it is wrong to make assumptions about an individual based on the interactions you've had, or heard about, with other individuals that share some characteristic, then it is wrong for others to do. — Harry Hindu

I'm not making assumptions about individuals in the police force at all, systemic racism isn't about personal agency. It's how society acqueisces, or worse has people like you excusing it or denying it, that causes systemic racism to endure.

The comparison between police and blacks ignores historic causes and the continued effects they have to this day. So apples and oranges.

I would say it's a form of appeasement of it. I also think that many people will defend against the idea of systemic racism because acknowledging it would mean that their world view of individualistic free-will has problems. They do not defend their view with facts, but out of the necessity to deny any form of systemic or structure since their ideology cannot exist if such systems and structures exist.

For them, the very notion of a structure and systemic thing is an attack against their worldview, that's why they abandon facts and knowledge in favor of empty phrases and low-quality arguments. — Christoffer

Weird. Even chaotic systems, eg. where everyone would be a self sufficient atomised unit in society, patterns emerge. Even if hardcore individualism and agency was a thing, you can still have systemic racism as an emergent property of the whole. That's why even when there would be no racists, society could still be racist.