Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?

I've skimmed through this thread and no doubt have missed what I was looking for. My bad! I'm looking for any reasonable, reasoned, thoughtful responses to the OP. It's enough if someone will just reference the page numbers. To be candid, what I'm finding is that many of us are skilled at verbal tantrum, but the subject itself isn't addressed until 400 years of greater, sometimes lesser, and never entirely absent persecution, marginalization, victimization, resulting usually in poverty, hopelessness, despair, and rage - for the survivors - are at least a little bit understood, acknowledged, accounted. Call it collective empathy, but I don't think that will do it. It seems to me it's a matter of hurt so large and deep that every person must take on a share of it, to grasp and understand - to feel - it, as best they can. And even at a distance it's heavy. Nor is any mature American exempt from his or her share of this burden. For a start - just a start - I commend to all, even those who have read it, Lincoln's Second Inaugural speech,

https://www.nps.gov/linc/learn/historyculture/lincoln-second-inaugural.htm

But they're not in the streets, I wonder why? — fdrake

Good question but best if they stay home.

Good question but best if they stay home. — Marchesk

What do you think the answer is?

Apparently, it's a crazy idea the way I phrased it. — Baden

So you’re idea is to maintain the status quo? You think that minorities having the right to arm themselves has worked to help prevent police brutality, discrimination, etc.?

What do you think the answer is? — fdrake

Not a shootout and not one group of protesters fighting another angry group.

The police departments need to be reformed. People need to vote for candidates who make that a priority.

Why don't you just read what I wrote. Then quote and comment. It's quicker.

That's a great way to get a whole bunch of people killed. Not sure why the Koch brothers would care though.

Would the police have acted the way they did with Floyd if the members of that community were walking around armed with guns? I’m not sure they would have.

The police departments need to be reformed. People need to vote for candidates who make that a priority. — Marchesk

Thank you.

Now, the same people are boggling at suggestions for minority communities to arm themselves in the face of the criminal justice system failing them, again — fdrake

It's good that there is so much shock and awe that minority communities might organize and defend themselves against being treated like punching bags by racists in the security forces and elsewhere. It shows the tactic might actually work.

Not a shootout and not one group of protesters fighting another angry group. — Marchesk

I meant specifically; why do you think that 2nd amendment gun nuts aren't out protesting with their guns already, when they've seen journalists being fired on, peaceful protesters being assaulted, people being fired on while standing in the doorway to their own private property?

If the right to form an armed blockade of a public building is there, why can't the communities do so in in public? Why is the knee jerk response to suggestions of these communities bearing arms dismissal and panic whereas for a bunch of white nutjobs blockading a political building the POTUS could not have been more enamored?

Yes, and not every one of them needs to be armed. But having organized armed groups to protect them in the face of other organized armed groups (like the police) wanting to harm them has obvious deterrent potential.

There have been a couple heavily armed rednecks defending both protesters and property, but certainly not enough.

The Panthers doing armed policing of police is part of what got the state to panic so much they made COINTELPRO, it's a good start.

Well, if conceiving reality is toxic then so be it because this is the way the powerful act as though they conceive. I think you are not so naive as to not know that.

So where does the middle class fall in this divide? How about the upper middle class? How about the wealthy disabled kid? Does he still qualify as one of the elite? Where do wealthy minorities fall? Do blacks who own their own successful businesses qualify as elites?

I understand there are elites out there... I just think there are a lot of shades of grey and when it comes to social class in America some people define elite as $1M net worth, others as $10M, or $100M... it's not always clear. Then you take into account that someone may be disabled or very awkward or unattractive. I do stand against laws that favor the elite, by the way, like accredited investor rules.

I think its toxic though to have an entire mindset or mentality just based on "punching up" or fighting those with privilege. Pretty much everyone is both privileged or unprivileged in certain ways.

I meant specifically; why do you think that 2nd amendment gun nuts aren't out protesting with their guns already, when they've seen journalists being fired on, peaceful protesters being assaulted, people being fired on while standing in the doorway to their own private property? — fdrake

It's not their fight, and they tend to be more pro-police and military. It's the elected officials they have a beef with. In particular, Democrats.

Also some of them are full of shit.

Your tone was hysterical not your content. — Baden

The entire tone in this thread is histerical IMO, some of your comments included.

But I know if I were living in 1960s-70s Ireland where systemic discrimination was similarly rife, I would have wanted to arm myself as some did. The British and their bigoted police never respected anything but force. — Baden

And how did that work out for the people that armed themselves? Not a rhetorical question, I'd like to know if you think the counter-violence was worth it.

Everyone protected
their right to free speech — fdrake

What's the alternative?

Now, the same people are boggling at suggestions for minority communities to arm themselves in the face of the criminal justice system failing them, again. — fdrake

Aren't those communities already armed? Has there been some kind of systemic disparity in the availablity of guns?


I entirely agree with that quote, but I think it also intentionally refrains from calling out rioting as a viable strategy to actually change anything. Do you think I am wrong about that assessment?

Would the police have acted the way they did with Floyd if the members of that community were walking around armed with guns? I’m not sure they would have. — NOS4A2

I am not sure either, but I think it's likely that for everyone of these highly publicised cases, there are 10 that get swept under the rug. And in those 10, more guns means even more reasons to kill a bunch of "suspects".

You mean like this?

Black people need to arm themselves with the most powerful weapons legally available and when they see a cop trying to murder one of their community, make a citizen's execution arrest. — Baden

Seems like the status quo to me. Unless you don’t think black people arm themselves. Have you not seen videos of black people pointing guns at cops? Usually doesn’t end well.

Baden doesnt even try to make sense, but you usually do. My best guess us that you've gotten the impression we're having a race war?

Yes, and not every one of them needs to be armed. But having organized armed groups to protect them in the face of other organized armed groups wanting to harm them has obvious deterrent potential. — Baden

Also obvious civil war potential.

Here's one idea for reform. A national registry for bad cops so they don't get rehired.

You keep saying that but you have demonstrated no ability to quote me and argue against the points I've made, whereas others have and though I don't necessarily agree with them I can respect that. Anyway, I think I've made plenty of sense and I've already challenged you to show me where I'm wrong re this post you called "bullshit".

"The two groups I'm talking about are the elites, i.e. politicians, the donors who buy policy from them, and their apparatchiks in local administrations vs. the poor and minorities. Now we both already know, unless we live on different planets, that the more powered group are utterly self-interested both economically and politically and this leads to systemic discrimination and injustice, which is a form of violence against the less powered one. So, what's utterly horrible is to expect the poor to play Jesus while the rich and powerful are the only ones allowed to be Machiavellian. I mean, just to give one recent example, it was the poor who lost their houses and the rich whose investments were bailed out after the '08 crisis. The state (controlled by group 1) could have bailed out homeowners but it didn't and preferred to inflict the violence of depriving them of a place to live rather than risk hurting group 1's interests (even though group 1 would have hurt a lot less). That's vicious self-interested violence at work (your house is taken from you, your business is burned down, what's the difference?). And the fact that its obfuscated by layers of ideological bullshit only makes it more, not less, pernicious. So, again, the moral foundation your argument rests on is nothing but politically-loaded quicksand and there is no reason for anyone not sharing your skewed perspective to accept it. If you don't make an effort to see past it, we'll go nowhere. And that doesn't yet mean that burning down Target stores is justified or effective, it only means we've got to the point where it's not necessarily unjustified or at least not any worse than what's been done to the people who are doing it. From there, we move on to tactics. Could it work?"


You ran away then so here's my challenge again. Tell me why that's bullshit and I'm not trying to make sense or just admit that your comment was just more empty rhetoric.



:lol:

https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law

It is a big deal. See the penalties.

You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you? Go look through my recent posts to see what more specifically I'm suggesting.

It is a big deal. See the penalties. — Outlander

Yeah:

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if an

Problem is you need the Justice System to enforce it. I'll agree with Street about one thing in this thread. The officer should be charged with 2nd degree murder. And the other three are accessories.

No, I'm trying to stick to what facts I believe.

(1) There's a long history of cops killing black people under ultra suspicious and avoidable circumstances; so much so it happens uproariously every year. At some point it becomes a pattern - it's been a pattern for a long time.
(2) Put that in a political and economic context; the groups that are disproportionately effected by such brutality are also severely economically disadvantaged; their schools are worse, their neighbourhoods have less money, they have much less social capital to leverage into organisational influence, nevermind political influence.
(3) Put that in a political context where minority communities are gerrymandered so their votes matter less, in a context where no politician they could vote for actually would implement or even study targeted measures that would mitigate the disadvantages they have.

All of those things together put minority communities in the US into a massive pressure cooker; they don't get political representation, they have no easy means of getting political interventions useful for them, at least one of the parties they could vote for benefits from them having less representation, they are deprived of economic advantages; they work worse jobs, their lives are harder, and all the socially acceptable channels they can use to make themselves heard fall on deaf ears.

In their history, it takes them fighting for their own rights to get heard. Be it Garvey, MLK, Malcolm X or the Panthers; they're all addressing the same issue in different ways; the hitherto unsolved problem of systemic injustice against minority communities in the US, and their alienation from any socially acceptable means of addressing it. This is an alienation from justice.

MLK wanted the same opportunities and representation for everyone; minority votes get gerrymandered into irrelevance, the current POTUS is aware that mail voting empowers communities that struggle to join polling lines for various reasons and Tweets about it; getting massive approval. Imagine you live in a context where your fellow citizens are happy that your community's democratic powers are weakened. There is formal equality under the law, but no functional equality under its enforcement. There is formal equality in political representation; but political parties gain from doing what they can to undermine minority votes.

(If you've ever read self reports from POCs in heavily policed communities in the US you'll probably get more idea of the sheer terror and necessay adaptations, I remember reading somewhere that kids get lessons from their parents in how to avoid getting the shit beaten out of them or worse by cops)

Garvey, Malcolm X and the Panthers were more radical; they believed that since their communities were in no position to gain political leverage which could then be turned into functional equality, their communities should self organise and seize it for themselves. It is no coincidence that doing that gets you watched and disrupted by the FBI.

Imagine that every time you bring up that the law and its enforcement function differently for your community, someone will always bring up that you're formally equal under the law so what's the big deal? And time passes, a few months go by and another unarmed community member dies to a cop. and the cop walks off with a light sentence or no charge at all. I bet you'd be angry.

I'm for protesters arming themselves for the same reason I'm for them using video cameras; it forces a lethally armed police force with a history of brutality against minorities in situations like these to be able to be held accountable. Cops are not minority communities' friends, they show up in force whenever those communities start looking like they're trying to gain more political autonomy.

And I get super duper frustrated with the eternal impetus of centrist commentators to wait and work through official channels; there's just no forum in which even the problems of minority communities will even be recognized as problems, because addressing them requires systemic changes.

It's fair to point out that the "elite" or "powerful" are not such an easily definable group, but, no, I don't mean the middle class. The middle class eventually needs to be won over not attacked. Might say more on this later.

And, by the way, you can attack elites through general strikes, boycotts, rent strikes etc. as well as some forms of violence against their material interests. All I'm saying is there is no moral obligation for an oppressed and cheated group to play by rules set by (and to the advantage of) those oppressing and cheating them. Again, seems obvious to me.

The entire tone in this thread is histerical IMO, some of your comments included. — Echarmion

Honestly, if you look at my posts as a whole, I've made only a couple of rhetorically loaded points and have stuck mostly to a fairly sober line. It actually took considerable effort. :razz:

And how did that work out for the people that armed themselves? Not a rhetorical question, I'd like to know if you think the counter-violence was worth it. — Echarmion

Re the most recent armed struggle, that's too long a question to answer here and I think we'll never know for sure. It's complicated too by the fact that several unjustifiable atrocities were carried out by the Republican side as well as the British. During the previous struggle for independence from 1919-1921 though (which independence was won only for the South), what did demonstrably and unequivocally work was organized targeted violence against elite figures in the British army (with operations led primarily by the revolutionary leader, Michael Collins). When the big boys couldn't sleep soundly in their beds, they came to the table. Cut the snake off at the head and it shall slither to you.

Also obvious civil war potential. — Echarmion

Let's not revert to hysterics, eh? :wink:

This is was also a step in the right direction where the police chief tells officers to resign who didn't have a problem with kneeling on someone's neck for nine minutes.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/500022-tennessee-police-chief-tells-officers-who-dont-have-an-issue-with-george?fbclid=IwAR3KVB5jdTzgVPWcKehFYNVcDIIHHSIsOegVB5de10NKQ8cS-xfATQFCj4o

There's a long history of cops killing black people under ultra suspicious and avoidable circumstances; so much so it happens uproariously every year. At some point it becomes a pattern - it's been a pattern for a long time. — fdrake

As always, a very well thought out post, but you've given me an opportunity to gripe. Yes, there's a loud uproar every time a cop kills a black person, even when the cop was a black man (as happened last summer). For some strange reason we don't hear any uproar about something that is much more common: drive-by shooting victims. They come in all shapes and sizes, but they're always black. There was just a really poignant one in Indiana where a 12 year old boy held his twin brother in his arms as his father raced to the hospital. The boy died. The shooter was never identified, but we all know who it was: gangs do it as initiation. Where's the outcry? Why doesn't Michelle Obama talk about how badly this hurts? Why doesn't somebody try to tear down a Target store over it?

Because nobody cares. That's why.

George Lloyd's story strikes a chord that gets attention. Same for Aumaud Arbery and all the others who've died because somebody thought they could get away with it. The protests say: "You didn't get away with it." The looting says: "We have no self respect, so go ahead and discard us."

Put that in a political and economic context; the groups that are disproportionately effected by such brutality are also severely economically disadvantaged; their schools are worse, their neighbourhoods have less money, they have much less social capital to leverage into organisational influence, nevermind political influence. — fdrake

In some places there are large neighborhoods where most people are black, not all, but most. In other places the races aren't separated like that. Where there is separation, there's definitely an economic reason for it. Places like that are like pits that people have to claw their way out of, and obviously a lot of people never make it out. That's not where I come from, so I see it as an outsider.

My understanding is that after Clinton was president, there were economists who wanted to do something about it. They claimed that sooner or later the US would suffer if it just let people languish in desperation. Unfortunately the next wave was conservative and they were forgotten. Even stuff that the government had been doing to extend ladders down into the pits were abandoned.

Was it racism? I don't know. I do know that racism is generated by it though.

Put that in a political context where minority communities are gerrymandered so their votes matter less, in a context where no politician they could vote for actually would implement or even study targeted measures that would mitigate the disadvantages they have. — fdrake

Sure. I live in a community that was gerrymandered all to hell. They put a line straight through the middle of a predominately black college so students didn't know where they were supposed to vote.

In October 2019 the district maps were struck down by a state court and the state legislature was told to redraw them fairly. They didn't do it fairly, but it's more fair than it was. Democrats will pick up two congressional seats. It needs to be ruled on again, and it will be. They won't change it this year, though.

The notion that no progress can be made within the US system is wrong and it's a damaging idea.

I'm for protesters arming themselves for the same reason I'm for them using video cameras; it forces a armed police force with a history of brutality against minorities in situations like these to be able to be held accountable. Cops are not minority communities' friends, they show up in force whenever those communities start looking like they're trying to gain more political autonomy. — fdrake

The situation is more complex than you're giving it credit for.

Black Americans are Americans, through and through. Totally. Even if they say they hate America and they don't belong to it, they're being quintessentially American about it. If some nation threatens the US, they're threatening a large population of Black Americans.

Where there are cops who are racist, they need to be weeded out. The notion that they're all racist is ridiculous.

And I get super duper frustrated with the eternal impetus of centrist commentators to wait and work through official channels; there's just no forum in which even the problems of minority communities will even be recognized as problems, because addressing them requires systemic changes. — fdrake

You waive the world "centrist" around like it's meaningful here. It's not. It's black activists and community leaders who are appealing to people to see that they can make change through the system. Yes, I get that the system is fucked up. I understand that you think you understand that better than me, I can't do anything about that.

Nice talking to you. Really. :smile: