Okay. I’ll read them a bit more closely.

http://bit.ly/ANTIRACISMRESOURCES

For white people.

Actually I might know the problem. Refer here and here. Let me know what you think, — StreetlightX

“Seven of the 10 states with the highest poverty rates in the U.S. are in the South ... These areas have a long history of poverty and there are many factors contributing to it, but the most obvious are that they were agricultural economies first and foremost with light emphasis on education and innovation.

High school graduation rates for African-American and Hispanic students are almost 20 percentage points lower than for other ethnic groups ... Without the knowledge and skills required for well-remunerated work in the modern workplace, each succeeding generation of undereducated adults merely replaces the one before it without achieving any upward mobility or escape from poverty”. https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/poverty-united-states/

From what I’ve read the biggest contributors to poverty for all people is: low education, teen births, imprisonment and poor health.
This creates low opportunities for employment or better paid work which leads directly to poverty, which leads to breakdown of the family, crime, neglect of education, dependency and unemployment. It’s the vicious cycle of poverty.

Racism may contribute to some of this, but does it contribute to a failure in education, teen births and family breakdown? Everyone who is uneducated gets low wages or fewer opportunities.

Would blacks be deprived of access to education? I don’t know. If they were I would regard that as racism.

In response to your posts about a Marxist point of view I understand the relationship of poverty and race to class issues.

“If you help all poor people equally regardless of race, you disproportionately help black people automatically because the poor are disproportionately black.
— Pfhorrest

Who could argue with this? I don’t doubt that systemic racism existed in the south. But there seem to be real factors besides racism that have contributed to black poverty.

Would blacks be deprived of access to education? I don’t know. If they were I would regard that as racism. — Brett

If I am not mistaken, school funding in the US is based on the tax income of the school district. The obvious result of that is that poor districts have little money while having higher needs (poor families can supply less homeschooling).

Now combine this with a history of segregation and housing policies that have made sure that poor black people only live in districts with other poor black people. Thus, the whole vicious cycle gains a racial dimension.

But there seem to be real factors besides racism that have contributed to black poverty. — Brett

Aside from the vicious cycle of poverty, driven by capitalism, what real factors are there? The most obvious seem to be: slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, housing policy. Policies that kept wealth out of the hands of black people, imposed on the basis of race.

Since we're psychologising, this is a bit of an advert, but it's convinced me I need this book...



The idea that the police are institutionally a separate race, with a particular history of trauma is particularly interesting and relevant to current affairs. The focus on the body is in itself a therapy needed by most philosophers.

If I am not mistaken, school funding in the US is based on the tax income of the school district. The obvious result of that is that poor districts have little money while having higher needs (poor families can supply less homeschooling). — Echarmion

That appears to be true about school funding. But you would need to persuade me that the government consciously created that system to deprive blacks of an education. The OP is why is systemic racism happening? That means now. If the restrictions governments have towards education is poor policy that impacts on blacks that have found themselves in circumstances created by past actions that does not equate to systemic racism now. The policy of education budgets based on taxable income is obviously absurd, but as I said, I don’t imagine it was implemented as a racist act.

But there seem to be real factors besides racism that have contributed to black poverty.
— Brett
— Echarmion

Aside from the vicious cycle of poverty, driven by capitalism, what real factors are there? — Echarmion

This is your position then, that Capitalism created racism.

But you would need to persuade me that the government consciously created that system to deprive blacks of an education. — Brett

I don't know when this system was set up. I doubt anyone consciously sat down and said "lets set up school funding so it disadvantages black people". Presumably, that wouldn't even have been necessary, given that there was more direct segregation still in place. But assuming they realized that this disadvantages black people, do you think that, on average, they'd have cared? I don't.

In any event, I think you're getting hung up on direct intent as a defining characteristic of systemic racism. I think the problem with systemic racism is precisely that it creates outcomes that diverge by race without relying on any mustache-twirling villians. To use a popular quote: all that is required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

The OP is why is systemic racism happening? That means now. If the restrictions governments have towards education is poor policy that impacts on blacks that have found themselves in circumstances created by past actions that does not equate to systemic racism now. — Brett

I think that is exactly what systemic racism is like. Policies that "happen" to impact people differently along racial lines. Of course you wouldn't conclude systemic racism from a single policy. But if there is a bunch of policies that are connected to very obvious and direct racism in the past, then I'd consider that sufficient evidence.

The policy of education budgets based on taxable income is obviously absurd, but as I said, I don’t imagine it was implemented as a racist act. — Brett

But there were a bunch of other racist acts that led to the policy affecting people the way it is today.

This is your position then, that Capitalism created racism. — Brett

No, racism is simply part of the human condition. I do think that capitalism feeds racism though.

I think that is exactly what systemic racism is like. Policies that "happen" to impact people differently along racial lines. — Echarmion

Well I would call that neglect. One might call it racism if they were inclined. However, whatever it is the result is the same, which is poverty.

In other countries, such as Spain or North Korea, police are more brutal than in the US.

If someone commits to a crime like George Floyd, then they can expect force from police. In North Korea, criminals can expect a similar outcome as George Floyd.

This doesn't mean police are immune to crime, in the case of George Floyd, he should not have been killed. However, police do put their lives on the line to protect citizens from criminals. If George Floyd had been resisting arrest, then the officer's life comes before his.

As for systematic racism; that's a tin-foil accusation.

No-one but ordinary citizens are out to get blacks, which is natural when mixing races. Black Panthers exist too, there will always be tension between different genetics.

No the Government or Corporations are not racist, in fact they support the very opposite.

This is your position then, that Capitalism created racism — Brett

Will reply more in depth later but the first substantial step in abolishing racism is to abolish capitalism yes.

Aside from the vicious cycle of poverty, driven by capitalism, what real factors are there? The most obvious seem to be: slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, housing policy. Policies that kept wealth out of the hands of black people, imposed on the basis of race. — Echarmion

Perhaps the inability to engage in the racial problems of the present and having a discourse that goes in circles?

People ought to understand that nothing will change if people are successfully divided.

The idea that the police are institutionally a separate race, with a particular history of trauma is particularly interesting and relevant to current affairs. — unenlightened

I hope that this is a 'figure of speech' and not an idea taken literally that the police is a separate race. That would sound as sinister racism to me.

It seems to me that the past dropped a very big problem on our doorstep. We, being the present Capitalist system, already had policies of neglect and abuse in place that affected people in a negative way and both failed to help those of the white population in poverty or drove others into it. When the black population was integrated into this population they represented a far greater proportion of people in poverty than the poverty stricken white population. Those policies applied to poor whites had the same affect on blacks but in greater numbers. The numbers were possibly so big that they created a worse situation for those same people, a situation they would find hard, if not impossible, to get out of.

Will reply more in depth later but the first substantial step in abolishing racism is to abolish capitalism yes. — StreetlightX

I knew that was coming.

Well I would call that neglect. One might call it racism if they were inclined. However, whatever it is the result is the same, which is poverty. — Brett

So, let's fight poverty. I think we can all get on-board with that. Let's take the current protest, reinforce it, and make it about poverty more generally as well.

Perhaps the inability to engage in the racial problems of the present and having a discourse that goes in circles? — ssu

Perhaps, though I am not entirely sure what you'd refer to.

People ought to understand that nothing will change if people are successfully divided. — ssu

That is an important point. But unity cannot take the form of unified inaction. The line "don't divide people" can also be used to stifle protest. "why must bus drivers put their issues before anyone else's needs", "why do these black people chant about black lives when white people live in poverty too" are things I have often heard. It frames standing up for your rights as a form of division. But isn't it the case that e.g. poor white people could just as easily augment the protests with their numbers, and use the increased powerbase to tackle more general problems?

I hope — ssu

Don't. Watch the video and decide. I'm just talking telegraphically. I don't think it's sinister, I think it's dexter, that's why I'm sharing it. But you know races are social constructs, and institutions are social constructs, right? So maybe put "for therapeutic purposes" in there as a conditional modifier, and take a deep breath.

It seems to me that the past dropped a very big problem on our doorstep. We, being the present Capitalist system, already had policies of neglect and abuse in place that affected people in a negative way and both failed to help those of the white population in poverty or drove others into it. When the black population was integrated into this population they represented a far greater proportion of people in poverty than the poverty stricken white population. Those policies applied to poor whites had the same affect on blacks but in greater numbers. The numbers were possibly so big that they created a worse situation for those same people, a situation they would find hard, if not impossible, to get out of. — Brett

This is almost exactly right, with the caveat that the problem is not just a hangover from the past. The past did indeed drop a very big problem on our doorstep, but the present reproduces and entrenches those problems. We're not just dealing with lingering effects from the past (although that is part of the story). We are also dealing with structures that re-produce, re-instantiate and ensure that those problems handed down form the past continue to effect us in the present. Those structures also militate against ameliorating those problems. There is a present agency at work, and not simply a passivity - and that agency is political and economic.

As for the fact that these structures have the same affect on blacks but in greater numbers - or rather in disproportionate numbers - that's just what systemic racism is. You've described it in your own words! You just haven't given it a name. The vicious cycle of poverty you described does not just 'contribute' to racism. The vicious cycle of poverty is racist. Poverty is racist. And look, if the contingencies of history turned out differently, and it was, say, whites who were disproportionality caught up in the reproducing net of poverty, then that too would be racist. But that's not largely the world we live in. And yeah, of course there are poor white people - this simply means that they have every reason to stand in solidarity with poor blacks. Or poor anyone for that matter, and all with each other. Workers of the world fuckin' unite.

As for the fact that these structures have the same affect on blacks but in greater numbers - or rather in disproportionate numbers - that's just what systemic racism is. — StreetlightX

Bingo.

A long day in Sydney.





*Why Sydney? Because Australia murders its indigenous Australians unaccountably at rates even higher than the US. At least 30,000 people at these protests.

for the fact that these structures have the same affect on blacks but in greater numbers - or rather in disproportionate numbers - that's just what systemic racism is.
— StreetlightX

Bingo. — Baden

Or we could just call it poverty, and probably have a more accurate description of the problem, so we know how to address it better.

Why would erasing a key element of the problem from an analysis make it better? It's like saying - yes, I know that car is on fire, but forget that, let's just figure out how fires work. That's a very dumb thing to do.

Why are people so scared about race? .

Maybe it is a key element, I don't really know, I'm not an American, so I can't really say for sure.

But what i do know is that there is a temptation to paint something in a certain light for political reasons.

And I just think words have a certain meaning, and so does racism, and from what I've read on this thread the problem seem to have more to do with poverty. This poverty has its origins in racism for sure, but it doesn't seem clear to me that this is still the main problem. And so maybe it is better to call it what it is, so we know how to deal with it.

Maybe I'm totally off base, in that case I apologies for my ignorance.

Well, what street said. There is systemic classism and systemic racism and they work together to propagate poverty. The more information we have about each and how about each works, the better we can deal with them. It's not about pointing the finger at some specific capitalist or racist pulling a lever somewhere (though that does happen), it's about admitting that society is not what we would want it to be re race and poverty and trying to do something about it. That should not be a threat to anyone with good intentions.

Poverty and racism are not in competition with each other. They work to enforce each other to the extent that poverty itself can - and should - be understood as racist from the get-go. Again, this doesn't mean that poverty only affects one race rather than other. But that it disproportionately does, and that it helps sustain this disproportion, makes attempts to not address poverty attempts to entrench racist structures.

One thing I haven't mentioned is that concrete instances of racism are born out of this structural disproportion. People see wretched black folk - made wretched by poverty - and think: 'my Gosh, it must be the color of their skin'. And when those wretched folk do terrible things, for lack of opportunity, people think: 'it must be the color of their skin'. This stuff self-enforces and self-sustains. No one is born racist. People become so.

Crosspost!

Yes I actually agree they are intertwined... in Europe things are arguably somewhat similar with muslims, although to a lesser degree no doubt.

But maybe the point I want to make is that there used to be the kind of racism that was blatantly based on race. One was inferior based solely on the colour of their skin. Now it's more the kind of racism born out of 'induction', I think... some think blacks or muslims are inferior because they are generally poorer, have a lesser education and therefore also tend to turn to crime more often because they are poor. It's a vicious circle. So i guess what I'm saying is that this kind of racism is maybe better solved by addressing the poverty, instead of more of the same 'PC'-like measures.

Yeah, poverty absolutely has to be addressed. But again, it's not a competition. These are twin evils that work to enforce and perpetuate each other, and why not address both together rather than just one? Here's a apropos quote from Kwame Ture and Charles Hamilton (from a book written in 1967!) which gets at this two-pronged nature of racism:

"Racism is both overt and covert. It takes two closely related forms…we call these individual racism and institutional racism… The second type is… far more subtle, less identifiable in terms of specific individuals committing the acts. But it is no less destructive of human life. The second type originates in the operation of established and respected forces in society, and thus receives far less public condemnation than the first type… It is institutional racism that keeps black people locked in dilapidated slum tenements, subject to the daily prey of exploitative slumlords, merchants, loan sharks and discriminatory real estate agents. The society either pretends it does not know of this latter situation, or is in fact incapable of doing anything meaningful about it.” (Black Power: The Politics of Liberation).

If what is called structural racism is being highlighted here, it's because it so often forgotten about, or else simply outright denied. It's been 60 years since that passage above was written. We're still dealing with the same problems as if they were discovered yesterday.

Yes, I certainly don't disagree with the issues being put forward here, I'm just not sure I would call it racism as such. Well maybe it is... but in the end those slumlords, merchants, loansharks don't really care about race, I don't think, they care about the money, and race only play a role insofar they think it is an indication of how much money one has. So yeah, I think that problem could be largely solved with them not being poor.

More on why this shit works:

“By interpreting inner-city violence and poverty as glaring manifestations of the failure of blacks to live up to American values [conservative politicians] helped create and legitimize a new form of prejudice.” That racial resentment fueled a long “period of retrenchment” that rolled back many of the civil rights movement’s gains.

Recent history, however, suggests that the current protests are more likely to liberalize racial attitudes than prompt backlash. So far, Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests have pushed whites’ racial attitudes in a progressive direction, especially among young people.

...Racial attitude shifts were larger in the places with BLM protests. Political scientist Shom Mazumder’s recent study, “Black Lives Matter for Whites’ Racial Prejudice,” shows that from 2014 to 2018, white racial resentment declined more in areas with BLM protests than in areas without them."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/05/floyd-protests-will-likely-change-public-attitudes-about-race-policing-heres-why/

More self-education: 13th on Netflix.

I'm interested in clarifying concepts and not in normalizing confused usages of terms. — 180 Proof

How can your narrow definition “manifest systemic discrimination” be a clarification of what racism is? A lonely white man sitting isolated in his home just hating all black people and having a secret desire to see them killed, wouldn’t be called a racist according to your definition. It wouldn’t be manifest – it’s happening in secret, it wouldn’t be systemic – the man is alone, and it’s not a matter of discrimination – he isn’t doing anything.

You are effectively denying that racism can be an attitude of hatred existing in individuals. What do you gain by such a narrow definition? It would mean that if all overt instances of discrimination disappeared from the system, racism would be eradicated. But don’t you agree that something ugly would still exist? In the minds of people there would still be racial prejudice and even if it didn’t appear in the system of society, individual resentment would still be bad enough. You don’t call that racism, so I suppose you don’t find it necessary to fight against it. If it’s not visible in the system, it’s not a problem, is that so?

No, all kinds of racial resentment should be fought, so why not call it all racism so the enemy can be recognized?