• Baden
    15.6k


    Don't know why you don't just use the term that describes what's being talked about, which is systemic racism. No-one here is claiming some absolute determinative power for it (of course, multiple factors affect outcomes). In fact, the argument in this thread is simply whether it exists or not. So, we agree on that, I guess. But if there is something I said you don't agree with, just quote me. Because I can't figure out what it is or whether it's someone else you disagree with.
  • Baden
    15.6k
    Jim Crow laws no doubt played an important role in the American psyche for both blacks and whites. To call them "systemic" racism does a disservice to those oppressed, abused, and murdered. Not affording protections against blacks against such practices (and even explicitly legalizing such practices) denies human beings of their most basic human rights.Hanover

    E.g. Are you talking to me here? I already made this distinction:

    E.g. if you've got a justice or policing system embedded in a culture that's only recently emerged from the acceptance of explicitly institutionalised racism, you need extremely strong safeguards to avoid the continuance of implicit racism in whatever ostensibly non-racist institutions are substituted.Baden

    So, maybe the language is tricky (and actually I was aware of that when I was writing the above) but explicitly institutionalised racism is not what we're talking about now. It's implicit in the supposedly non-racist structures that remain (or some of them at least).
  • Streetlight
    9.1k

    This was super interesting. Orlando Patterson was an incredible scholar of slavery and I've alot of time for him. I think he's right to insist that the problem is indeed, primarily economic. But I'm not convinced that one can so easily parse out economics and race. That something is primarily economic does not make it not about race - i.e. poverty is a racial problem. To steal @botheius's MLK quote form the other thread:

    "In 1863 the Negro was granted freedom from physical slavery through the Emancipation Proclamation. But he was not given land to make that freedom meaningful. At the same time, our government was giving away millions of acres of land in the Midwest and the West, which meant that the nation was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor, while refusing to do it for its black peasants from Africa who were held in slavery two hundred and forty four years. And this is why Frederick Douglass would say that emancipation for the Negro was freedom to hunger, freedom to the winds and rains of heaven, freedom without roofs to cover their heads".

    Or this, from Kwame Ture (mostly recently made known again by Spike Lee's Blackkklansman) and Charles Hamilton:

    "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.”

    These issues are not competing with each other. It does good to think through them together, of a piece with each other.
  • Baden
    15.6k

    Can't get through the paywall on that one. Got a hack?
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    Hit the escape button on your keyboard before the paywall loads.
  • Baden
    15.6k


    Ooh, got it hehe. On the Washington Post all I do is turn off javascript and it works.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    If systemic racism or any such kind of "cooperative" enterprise is or was underway then it serves as the strongest evidence for telepathy. How am I ever going to talk people into racist ideologies without giving myself away and in the process inviting trouble at my doorstep? Racism has a bad rep and for a good reason - people who are members of inherently immoral organizations will find it difficult to recruit other people without putting themselves in an awkward position.
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    Ah, this is good to know too, lol. Good trade :P
  • Baden
    15.6k


    Don't know why they made it so easy. Idiots. :lol:

    Anyway, re the article. The author recognizes systemic racism exists here:

    "Certainly, poor blacks are hurt by racial discrimination -- mostly in biased police behavior and draconian drug-sentencing laws that result in horrendous incarceration rates for young men. "

    But then points to other factors she thinks are more important. That's fine. It's not an unreasonable position to debate.

    E.g. I agree that it shouldn't be the case that "Any problem associated with blacks is simply assumed to be racist in origin."

    So, again, @Hanover I don't know what the precise bone of contention is.
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    Actually, reflecting on it a little, I do see where Patterson is coming from. I think there's a great deal to be said for not having every problem just put down to one's race. Like, I get that this can be patronizing. I imagine someone offering a kind of 'pity' to a poor black person, with the black person responding: "It's not because I'm black, it's because I'm poor!". It's not fair to have that label of race attached to anything. Sometimes you just want to be a poor person, without being reminded at each point that you're a poor black person (I'm thinking about an asymmetry with white people - poor white people just get to be poor; not always 'poor and white'). That added 'pressure' or association with race can be unfair and racist in itself.

    So it's tricky. I think it's necessary to acknowledge the implication of race and class. On the other hand I don't think it's fair to always have to foist the question of race onto people. I suppose there's simply no general model. Just gonna have to ask people what they think or prefer.
  • Moliere
    4k
    My impression is that alot of Americans think that black issues came to an end after reconstruction and it's been more or less hunky dory ever since. What say the Americans here?StreetlightX

    I'd say the school book story is that after MLK racism was solved, more or less.
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    :confused:

    D'oh, of course. God I was a hundred or so years off.
  • Moliere
    4k
    Heh, it's ok. It's just the myth handed down that needs to be dispelled. No need to feel like you need to know the myths of other countries that should go away anyways. :D
  • 180 Proof
    14.1k
    Is there racism in the U.S., yes, but is there "systematic racism," absolutely not.Sam26
    I beg to differ. :mask:
  • NOS4A2
    8.3k


    Thanks for writing that out.
  • Baden
    15.6k


    Not a bother.
  • NOS4A2
    8.3k
    Would “positive” racial and ethnic discrimination such as affirmative action qualify as systemic racism? Here in Canada there is the Employment Equity Act which requires federally regulated industries to favor women, people with disabilities, Aboriginal peoples, and visible minorities, or in other words, anyone but able-bodied light-skinned men.
  • boethius
    2.2k
    I'd say the school book story is that after MLK racism was solved, more or less.Moliere

    The white man is intelligent enough, if he were made to realize how black people really feel, and how fed up with all that compromising sweet talk -- stop sweet talking him, tell him how you feel, tell him how, what kind of hell you've been catching, and let him know that if he's not ready to clean his house up, if he's not ready to clean his house up, he shouldn't have a house. It should catch on fire, and burn down. — Malcolm X

    Turns out branding Martin Luther King an extremist and killing him, and then ignoring what he did have the time to say for over 50 years, was an act of pure lunacy ... if you cared about your children's future, which of course those in power do not; for their children are cozying up to a nice little fire in the alps right now, I think they're doing pretty good; I often wave to them on the slopes.
  • Hanover
    12.1k
    So, again, Hanover I don't know what the precise bone of contention is.Baden

    This:

    "Certainly, poor blacks are hurt by racial discrimination -- mostly in biased police behavior and draconian drug-sentencing laws that result in horrendous incarceration rates for young men. "

    But then points to other factors she thinks are more important. That's fine. It's not an unreasonable position to debate.
    Baden

    That is, I agree that racism is not the primary problem facing the African American community, and to the extent that racism does play a role in the continued oppression of it, it is of the sort practiced by the government that offers the greatest damage (e.g. police brutality and disparate drug sentencing). The racism of me subconsciously favoring my tribe is a universal problem facing us all, and I don't think we need to spend our time fretting about how we may be imperfect creatures in that regard. I'm not saying I ought celebrate my preference for those of my likeness, but I don't think that that is creating enough of an impediment that we need to riot, kneel, or even protest.

    While I recognize you've not argued all of what I've said (as some is responsive to Un's video), I do think we need to appreciate the profound difference between my propensity to hire a white person over a black and a black's propensity to hire a black over a white to be far different than a cop murdering a black man in the street and even the government permitting blacks be steered away from white neighborhoods.

    That being said, I echo the article I cited in its recognition of the drug laws being a primary driver of the police brutality issue. By making drug crimes felonies and creating such severe penalties for its possession, we have effectively criminalized an entire community and made it commonplace for armed officers to raid black communities and drag out the young males and throw them in prison. That does not engender trust for law enforcement, and the resistance to law enforcement in those communities is understandable. And let's not pretend that the white officers are more likely to do harm to black suspects than black officers. I've never seen any statistic that suggests white officers are less kind than their black counterparts.
  • bongo fury
    1.6k
    The racism of me subconsciously favoring my tribe is a universal problem facing us all,Hanover

    Then why is exotic erotic?
  • Gus Lamarch
    924
    I don't want to have anything to do with this forum after reading some of the most disgusting posts by those who run this forum.Sam26

    Should you not fight to demonstrate your point of view? Oh, If you do that without being very "politicaly correct" they ban you... Yeah, real.
  • Hanover
    12.1k
    Then why is exotic erotic?bongo fury

    I'm not sure that being sexually attracted to other races is proof of lack of racism. Sexual attraction originates from a different part of the brain than hate.
  • bongo fury
    1.6k
    I'm not sure that being sexually attracted to other races is proof of lack of racism.Hanover

    Agreed, put like that, it could be a kind of racism, or an aspect of it.

    But (to put the premise differently) the fact of our sexual attractions not being noticeably reduced by signs of genetic diversity at least calls into question the too-universally acknowledged 'truth' that racism is somehow innate.
  • Deletedmemberzc
    2.5k
    Would “positive” racial and ethnic discrimination such as affirmative action qualify as systemic racism? Here in Canada there is the Employment Equity Act which requires federally regulated industries to favor women, people with disabilities, Aboriginal peoples, and visible minorities, or in other words, anyone but able-bodied light-skinned men.NOS4A2

    How predictable. Caucasian males are suffering. Think of the tragic historical processes that have created their unconscionable plight.
  • Outlander
    1.8k
    I think the real question is, appropriately, what are non-Americans who are so quick to shame other nations doing for the "George Floyd's" at home or concepts responsible for why we even know about the incident in the first place like free speech, open internet, independent media, accountability of the state, etc.

    I'm not the only one who thinks this way as this article mentions.

    I know of no country that does not have some legacy past or even current of slavery, colonialism, racism, or expansionism.

    I have a few hunches. That I will keep to myself. Except to say, I really hope Trump didn't start an unwarranted global propaganda war he can't win leaving 350 million Americans to absorb the blowback.

    My own biases aside, I think know if non-Americans are using an American tragedy for the sole purpose of stroking their own national ego, especially those who couldn't care less about George Floyd or not just black people but minorities in their own country... black Americans should be pissed. Not to say many or even most are just, if your nation is less than 13% African or people can't just stop and record civil servants performing their duties and share it globally, the old adage of make sure your own house is in order first and the beam in your eye before the speck in your brother's both come to mind.
  • Banno
    23.3k
    ...the real question...Outlander

    So what is important in all this is how other countries see the 'mercans? That sorta misses the point.

    Scotty from Marketing tried to sell something along those lines - to avoid “importing the things that are happening overseas to Australia”. Then Rio Tinto blew up a 45,000 year old sacred site, and an aboriginal boy was videoed having his legs kicked out from under him by a cop who "was having a bad day". Other folk pointed out that indigenous Australians are the most incarcerated people on earth. All during Reconciliation Week.

    Watching the slow train smash of 'merica falling apart provides no such self-satisfaction.
  • Banno
    23.3k

    In recent years, the international community has sounded the alarm on the deteriorating political and human rights situation in the United States under the regime of Donald Trump. Now, as the country marks 100,000 deaths from the coronavirus pandemic, the former British colony finds itself in a downward spiral of ethnic violence. The fatigue and paralysis of the international community are evident in its silence, America experts say.
    The country has been rocked by several viral videos depicting extrajudicial executions of black ethnic minorities by state security forces. Uprisings erupted in the northern city of Minneapolis after a video circulated online of the killing of a black man, George Floyd, after being attacked by a security force agent. Trump took to Twitter, calling black protesters “THUGS”’ and threatening to send in military force. “When the looting starts, the shooting starts!” he declared.

    “Sure, we get it that black people are angry about decades of abuse and impunity,” said G. Scott Fitz, a Minnesotan and member of the white ethnic majority. “But going after a Target crosses the line. Can’t they find a more peaceful way, like kneeling in silence?”
    Ethnic violence has plagued the country for generations, and decades ago it captured the attention of the world, but recently the news coverage and concern are waning as there seems to be no end in sight to the oppression. “These are ancient, inexplicable hatreds fueling these ethnic conflicts and inequality," said Andreja Dulic, a foreign correspondent whose knowledge of American English consists of a semester course in college and the occasional session on the Duolingo app. When told the United States is only several hundred years old, he shrugged and said, “In my country, we have structures still from the Roman empire. In their culture, Americans think that a 150-year-old building is ancient history.”
    Britain usually takes an acute interest in the affairs of its former colony, but it has also been affected by the novel coronavirus. “We’ve seen some setbacks with the virus, but some Brits see the rising disease, staggering unemployment and violence in the States and feel as if America was never ready to govern itself properly, that it would resort to tribal politics,” said Andrew Darcy Morthington, a London-based America expert. During the interview, a news alert informed that out of the nearly 40,000 coronavirus deaths in the United Kingdom, 61 percent of the health-care workers who have died were black and or have Middle Eastern backgrounds. Morthington didn’t seem to notice. “Like I was saying, we don’t have those American racism issues here.”
    Karen Attiah
  • Outlander
    1.8k
    So what is important in all this is how other countries see the 'mercans? That sorta misses the point.Banno

    I was suggesting, to some, yes it is the only thing. It completely misses the point. And that was mine.

    Exactly. No one is protesting about that. Why do you think that is? Because it doesn't effect them. They have nothing to gain.

    Every country has had turmoil. Perhaps you're a glass half empty kind of guy. Darkest before the dawn isn't really your philosophy. That's fine. You could be right. I would however bet you money very little will change as a result of this as far as the national system. Maybe laws. Definitely not territory. Except, and this is important, those who do not abide by the Constitution (life, liberty, pursuit of Happiness, all men equal, etc) will be removed and may even be charged as the enemies of the State that they are, violators of 'color of law' will be punished timely and properly, and so on. Which only restores the idea and essentially gets it back on track. Basically all should be well. Got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette. Speaking of which... I'm hungry. :grin:
  • Brett
    3k
    You are simply trying to derail this conversation because obvious truths threaten your identity and you believe power should be enough to determine what the truth is. So you want to flex your trollish power here to frustrate good faith analysis and virtue signal to your cause. Maybe my diagnosis of your fascist psychology is off topic, but I'm glad you don't have a problem with that.boethius

    I wasn’t going to reply to this then I decided to, largely because I wanted to clarify my position to myself.

    I was not trying to derail the conversation. Nor was I doing it because the obvious truth threatens my identity or that power determines truth. What I was referring to was the idea that a truth had been assumed and was unquestionable. How can a statement or truth be tested, which it should be, unless there is room for dissent.

    What I meant when I said that I could prove there was no systemic racism easily if I had no disagreement was that proving something in an echo chamber with everyone agreeing with me would be easy, I would simply ban everyone who disagreed and remove any evidence that questioned my premise. Obviously to someone interested in truth the questioning would be welcome, it tests your ideas and opens you up to different perspectives, which helps you peel away the layers needed to reach the truth, which may or may not exist. My questioning of Baden’s reply to Nos4r2’s was because of this. On that OP you assume the truth of systemic racism without question and then look at this to address it in an effort to overcome it. Then many presented their evidence for systemic racism. Some were not convinced that there was systemic racism, which does not mean there is no racism. I don’t think any of my posts denied systemic racism anyway. But I was questioning whether that really was the basis for addressing racism in America. If you were interested in finding some truth to formulate a response to racism wouldn’t you want that bedrock idea you base everything on tested, made water tight. Maybe you’re convinced but that still doesn’t mean you’re right. That’s not a personal insult, it’s just that we can rarely be sure we’re absolutely right, not unless our point of view has been tested and survived. I think Baden was shutting down that essential element to a discussion, which is dissent.

    Now you either support dissent or you don’t. If you refuse it then you do yourself a disservice and probably others you support.

    Finally you refer to my fascist psychology and suggest that I’m virtue signalling. Is dissent now a sign of being a fascist? Does it mean you’re right wing because you question something or do I have to go along with everything to be accepted? And is that what you want from others?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.