Systemic racism

Mithrae said:

But that would suggest that racism is NOT the problem; that the disparities affecting black Americans are circumstantial rather than institutional, and if the root circumstances were changed as you've suggested (to which no obvious hurdle exists) the outcomes would be equal.

Your article suggests regarding college admission that it could be largely a "pipeline" effect from inequalities in childhood education, but couldn't that be the case for basically all of the disparities highlighted?
Poor early education leading to poor college education, leading to lower employment rates > higher crime rates > more heavily policed neighbourhoods > higher incarceration rates > more single-parent familes > lower household incomes > poorer neighbourhoods > poor early education...

Is that disparity in early education a consequence or sign of racism in the system? Inadequate policies, for sure, but racism? One of sources cited in your article shows that states such as New Jersey, Conneticut and California provide more funding per student in predominently white school districts than non-white, while states like South Carolina, Louisiana and Mississippi spent more per student in predominantly non-white districts. Nationally, southern states average out as more equitable than northern states. If that's an indication of systemic racism, then it doesn't seem to align with the narrative often portrayed. Quite possibly, race has nothing to do with those education policies regardless how disastrously they have played out. And if so, then all the partisanship and divisively resulting from highly-charged accusations of racism perhaps runs the risk of impeding rather than promoting much-needed reform.

Click to expand...

Paragraph 1
The data in both the article in Business Insider I posted (my first link didn't work) and the EdBuild Organization you linked to, agree with me. Twisting it around to fit your preconceived notion, 'I know better' is a common response when conservatives are confronted with data they find uncomfortable. They blame someone/something else, sweep it under the rug and not talk about it, or just flat out deny it exists.

Paragraph 2
No. The article does not state, nor "suggest" that college admissions could be a pipeline effect from inequalities in education and could not be the case for all disparities. Your circular logic is a fallacy, completely ignoring that most are the result of racism. Red lining, white flight that keep blacks out of well funded white neighborhoods, even when they can afford to move into one. Poor education, parks and other amenities are due underfunded school districts, created by Repubs. Add employment discrimination and over policing.

Continued...

Paragraph 3
This Is the first sentence in the page you linked to:


Take a close look and read the statistics on the site you posted. They give a clear picture of the discrepancies of school funding across the nation and the reasons why. Out of all that data, you pull a few minor details to make your point, while ignoring the big picture.

I will leave you with one more source and only say that, far and away, academia, institutions and real world experience have documented the why's and how's of systemic racism. Although I'm sure you can find some reactionary, or some very fine people on the other side like our white power racist president who will deny or forevermore be asking for evidence...

"...Several key factors exacerbate this vicious cycle of wealth inequality. Black households, for example, have far less access to tax-advantaged forms of savings, due in part to a long history of employment discrimination and other discriminatory practices. A well-documented history of mortgage market discrimination means that blacks are significantly less likely to be homeowners than whites,3 which means they have less access to the savings and tax benefits that come with owning a home. Persistent labor market discrimination and segregation also force blacks into fewer and less advantageous employment opportunities than their white counterparts.4 Thus, African Americans have less access to stable jobs, good wages, and retirement benefits at work— all key drivers by which American families gain access to savings. Moreover, under the current tax code, families with higher incomes receive increased tax incentives associated with both housing and retirement savings.6 Because African Americans tend to have lower incomes, they inevitably receive fewer tax benefits—even if they are homeowners or have retirement savings accounts. The bottom line is that persistent housing and labor market discrimination and segregation worsen the damaging cycle of wealth inequality..."

The reactionaries who claim there's no major hurdles, no systemic, or enough racism in America to cause these huge discrepancies agree with the white nationalists, who believe blacks are just lazy, criminals, or some other negative stereotype. Claiming these are the only reasons for their condition, I claim it's racism and both the articles and the studies by the government and institutions we've both posted, agree with me.

This is my last post on this for the reasons in #52

Mr Person said:

You do the same thing every time: announce a "question", agree with those who say what you meant, tell everyone else they are wrong, and act like this shows arrival of reasoned conclusion rather than hamfisted pruning.

You are defending/apologizing for systemic racism. That's bad.

Click to expand...

I have absolutely no desire nor need to accept any information as fact without proof. why would you ask someone to do so unless you have no proof that something is actually happening?

that is bad.

Hypothetical said:

I have absolutely no desire nor need to accept any information as fact without proof. why would you ask someone to do so unless you have no proof that something is actually happening?

that is bad.

Click to expand...

:lamo

Yeah, uhuh, and every last one of you thinks that it looks clever to say that, then invent fake standards for what counts as proof, each one designed to lead to the conclusion you want to be true. If subject is on right, accusations are not evidence; if target on left, Trump threatening investigation is proof of guilt. Yadda yadda vomit yadda.

Same pattern every time. You attempt to "win" a debate by acting entitled to declare what is evidence, and you contradict youraselves across subjects.

And you actually think it bootstraps your tribalist swill into credibility. You actually think that...

Good4Nothin said:

I am not trying to prove anything. I am asking for evidence and opinions.

Click to expand...

Evidence? Who needs evidence? We don't need no sticken evidence. It's an accusation...a shame...a sin...your supposed to accept it at face value.

SoCal said:

Mithrae said:

SoCal said:

If you were dirt poor, raised and live in crappy neighborhoods with little opportunity (of course they're always exceptions), you'll be more predisposed to smoke and abuse alcohol. If blacks had the same wealth, education, healthcare, lived in the same nice neighborhoods, etc., etc., there would not be these disportionate statistics.

Click to expand...

But that would suggest that racism is NOT the problem; that the disparities affecting black Americans are circumstantial rather than institutional, and if the root circumstances were changed as you've suggested (to which no obvious hurdle exists) the outcomes would be equal.

Click to expand...

Paragraph 1
The data in both the article in Business Insider I posted (my first link didn't work) and the EdBuild Organization you linked to, agree with me. Twisting it around to fit your preconceived notion, 'I know better' is a common response when conservatives are confronted with data they find uncomfortable. They blame someone/something else, sweep it under the rug and not talk about it, or just flat out deny it exists.

Click to expand...

Those are some fine insults you've got there, but you haven't answered my comments. Disadvantages can be circumstantial or they can be institutional or systematic. Coming out of the mid 20th century black Americans were obviously in highly disadvantaged circumstances: But you have said that if those gaps in wealth, education, residency and so on were closed (and with no legal obstacle in the way, your link suggests that many are indeed narrowing over time) then "there would not be these disportionate statistics" and, conversely, that if someone else found themselves in the same circumstances as many black people then you would expect much the same outcome. Maybe you just chose your words poorly, before considering the ideological implications?

Mithrae said:

Your article suggests regarding college admission that it could be largely a "pipeline" effect from inequalities in childhood education, but couldn't that be the case for basically all of the disparities highlighted?
Poor early education leading to poor college education, leading to lower employment rates > higher crime rates > more heavily policed neighbourhoods > higher incarceration rates > more single-parent familes > lower household incomes > poorer neighbourhoods > poor early education...

Click to expand...

Paragraph 2
No. The article does not state, nor "suggest" that college admissions could be a pipeline effect from inequalities in education and could not be the case for all disparities.

Click to expand...

The article does explicitly suggest that "The pipeline is part of the problem – if fewer Black children go to schools with robust resources or even maths and science classes in high school, then there will be fewer students who have the support and credentials to go to college." Blind denial is not a very good argument.

Your circular logic is a fallacy, completely ignoring that most are the result of racism. Red lining, white flight that keep blacks out of well funded white neighborhoods, even when they can afford to move into one. Poor education, parks and other amenities are due underfunded school districts, created by Repubs.

Click to expand...

Arguing by assertion is not a good argument either, and blind denial is an even worse look when it's so brazenly partisan: As I showed, the EdBuild report indicates that southern states have less educational inequality than northern states. "EdBuild singles out 21 states — including California, New Jersey and New York — in which mostly white districts get more funding than districts composed primarily of students of color. . . . This power dynamic looks different in the South, where school district lines are often drawn along county lines, making districts larger across the board. Researchers found that funding looks more equal in states like Georgia and Alabama." In fact overall, decidedly Democratic states (<47% Trump supporters in 2016) spend ~$14 billion more on predominantly white school districts, while "Repub" states (>53% Trump supporters in 2016) actually spend ~$130 million less on white districts. Grab a spreadsheet and check for yourself.

If you're going to claim that this educational disparity is an example of 'systemic racism,' then the data suggests that it is Democrats who are the main promoters of racist policies. But again I have to wonder: If educational disparities are an issue - and it seems from this data that they really are, perhaps to the extent of being one of the root causes exacerbating many of those other disparities - then using highly-charged claims of 'systemic racism' as a partisan political prop would seem more likely to impede progress rather than helping any way. For some reason you seem consistently unwilling or unable to comment on that point.

Felis Leo said:

Perhaps systemic racism is a real thing in the way that the men and women running the NAACP and others mean it. But I am quickly coming to believe that many of the people who bring up "Systemic Racism" are simply using it as a partisan deflection to describe why the American urbanized black poor face victimization by violent crime, police brutality, poor education, and poor employment prospects and general poverty and immiseration in cities run mainly by people claiming to be looking out for their interests, i.e. the Democratic Party. The vast majority of the cities where the worst acts of police violence against innocent black people have occurred, or, where innocent black people face danger of death by criminal violence are run largely by Democrats, often with veto-proof majorities, and that is whether we are talking about Chicago, or a Baltimore.

....

Click to expand...

My friend, you are capable of being better than this. I'm sorry to say it, but his is a fundamental flawed and accusatory diatribe devoid of any intellectual effort. It's a complete and utter fail as an argument. There are elements that I agree with, but they are couched in ahistorical and blatantly partisan bull**** that beggars response. Let me be specific:

It is true that "the American urbanized black poor face victimization by violent crime, police brutality, poor education, and poor employment prospects and general poverty and immiseration in cities." On this we agree, but it is not limited to cities. It extends to suburbs and rural enclaves as well. You attribute this to "mainly by people claiming to be looking out for their interests, i.e. the Democratic Party." Horse hockey. Democrats came to power in most of these locations because of the violent crime, police brutality, poor economic prospects and education, etc. Those conditions far preceded the electoral processes that brought the current administrations into office. It's not like they suddenly sprang forth because Democrats took charge. I know you're more aware of history than that, so I'm surprised. This is the development of centuries, and reinforced periodically, and brutally.

Why, for example, are so many cities peopled with people of color? Where did they come from, and why are they there? The prospects for employment, and a better life. Better than what? Well, slavery, initially, then share cropping, and economies that evolved from the plantation, then factory systems that were dependent on their free, then cheap labor. It's not like this is a hidden history. Former slaves moved to cities in droves because the prospects for labor were better there than the hell they had escaped. They weren't educated because, for the most part, it was prohibited. They were exploited mercilessly for decades ac they tried to make better lives for themselves and their families. Even in northern enclaves they were treated differently - worse - than their lighter-skinned peers. Until 1964 - in my lifetime - it was legally sanctioned. Whenever opportunities to get ahead, to stabilize, to get established presented themselves they were taken away. Plessy v. Ferguson was the law of the land for 6 decades; Woodrow Wilson, that "good Virginian" segregated the federal civil workforce and demoted the "negroes" that populated their ranks. Jim Crow laws prevailed for nearly a century, even outside the south. Redlining still exists, despite its explicit prohibition. The patterns and practices that established segregated neighborhoods, poorer schools, and limited economic prospects also still exist.

Yet, you want to pretend none of that existed, still exists, and that the new Democratic leadership (distinct from the old Democrats) won't employ their magic wands for nefarious, craven reasons. Here's a news flash: magic wands don't exist. They've been handed **** sandwiches and you want to blame them for their poor food choices? It took centuries to establish this crooked system. How long do you think it SHOULD take to dismantle it (while being actively opposed at every step). They still don't have the economic resources, the infrastructure, or the manpower to accomplish that miracle.

Wake up and be serious. Yours was not a serious post.

Lutherf said:

That didn't stay up long. Seems it wasn't a YouTube approved narrative.

Here's a shorter version - Those fireworks you’ve been hearing… : baltimore

Anyway, this may not be exactly what it looks like. The kid doesn't exactly run away so I'm not really sure that he wasn't a willing participant somehow.

Click to expand...

this is another thing we desperately need to do is petition youtube , twitter and facebook to STOP their politically motivated moderating.

or start other services and use them instead.

NWRatCon said:

My friend, you are capable of being better than this. I'm sorry to say it, but his is a fundamental flawed and accusatory diatribe devoid of any intellectual effort. It's a complete and utter fail as an argument. There are elements that I agree with, but they are couched in ahistorical and blatantly partisan bull**** that beggars response. Let me be specific:

It is true that "the American urbanized black poor face victimization by violent crime, police brutality, poor education, and poor employment prospects and general poverty and immiseration in cities." On this we agree, but it is not limited to cities. It extends to suburbs and rural enclaves as well. You attribute this to "mainly by people claiming to be looking out for their interests, i.e. the Democratic Party." Horse hockey. Democrats came to power in most of these locations because of the violent crime, police brutality, poor economic prospects and education, etc. Those conditions far preceded the electoral processes that brought the current administrations into office. It's not like they suddenly sprang forth because Democrats took charge. I know you're more aware of history than that, so I'm surprised. This is the development of centuries, and reinforced periodically, and brutally.

Click to expand...

Hi, NWRatCon, I meant to address your post earlier but did not have the time. I will be brief. First, I do not attribute the horrible treatment black people have received to the people claiming to be looking out for their interests, i.e. the Democrats. My point is this: the Democrats have done little to nothing to help the inner city black communities. The same poor neighborhoods plagued with violence and inequity are still dens of violence and inequity

And I believe the reason the Democratic Party has done little to nothing to really address these problems: Because they have monopoly power. Let us take Chicago, a city in which the Democrats have had complete and total control not for years, not for decades, but for over half a century. When you have monopoly power, and people have no other viable option other than to vote for party members pre-selected by a party machine, why on Earth would change come about?

If you hired a contractor to fix a broken foundation in your home, that is one of the hardest things he could possibly do. But if you see that all he does is simply patch over the cracks in your walls, but still charges you top dollar, you might be tempted to fire him. But then, if he is the only contractor in the tri-state area, you are stuck with him.

NWRatCon said:

Yet, you want to pretend none of that existed, still exists, and that the new Democratic leadership (distinct from the old Democrats) won't employ their magic wands for nefarious, craven reasons. Here's a news flash: magic wands don't exist. They've been handed **** sandwiches and you want to blame them for their poor food choices? It took centuries to establish this crooked system. How long do you think it SHOULD take to dismantle it (while being actively opposed at every step). They still don't have the economic resources, the infrastructure, or the manpower to accomplish that miracle.

Wake up and be serious. Yours was not a serious post.

Click to expand...

I may no such pretense that what you are saying did not exist and that history began tabula rasa post Jim-Crow. While I was being somewhat sardonic, my point is nevertheless serious. People such as yourself bend over backwards to make excuses for those in power not using their power to push for substantive change for the people who are in the worst positions and who their power could most benefit. You point to the past centuries of slavery and oppression. Okay, I accept all that happened. But none of this detracts from my point that, again, the Democrats have monopoly power in many such places like Chicago. Not majority power where they have to give and take. Monopoly power, as in the Mayor is a Democrat and the City Council contains only Democrats, with a token number of independents. Thus, they have an extraordinarily high degree of authority to change the systems and to better people's lives. All of these issues can be addressed, but are not other than with pretty yet empty words.

So either the Democratic Party is structurally and organically incompetent at helping impoverished and downtrodden people (and poorer black people specifically), or, for whatever reason, they do not care to do so. Nothing else explains it.

Felis Leo said:

Hi, NWRatCon, I meant to address your post earlier but did not have the time.

Click to expand...

I wanted to acknowledge that I saw your post and intend to reply, but it will require some quiet time that I won't have until later in the day. I think we have much we agree upon within the disputation, and I want to tease those elements apart.