Systemic / Institutional / Societal Racism

[doug rr]

[Mickey]

Reminder that there was also a follow-up question that, surprise, circles back to the idea that there are structural determinants in our society based on racial classification!

They would, of course, fail to ask the follow-up question: why are there more black single-parent households? What historical and social forces might give rise to that phenomena?

[tree_]

I didn't fail to ask that question. I don't see proof it's because of systemic racism. It is a theory.

[Mickey]

You could try reading some actual theories instead of YouTube videos.

[McParadigm]

Why jump to the conclusion that systemic racism/skin color is the culprit? Couldn't it be fairly assumed that if you swap skin colors the results would be the same, given the cultures of the residents' neighborhoods were the same? If I were born into a crime family, it'd be fair to assume I'd be heavily influenced by crime culture no matter my skin color or wealth.

This study...

Similarly, white kids born into wealth are five times more likely to remain wealthy their whole lives than they are to fall into poverty, but black children born into wealth have a nearly 40% chance that they will fall into poverty during their lifetimes.

...compared outcomes for kids in the same neighborhoods. In other words, two families, same neighborhood, same income level, drastically different results.

[E.H. Ruddock]

If an entire race feels as though they are being kept from moving ahead in all aspects of life because of how the system currently is, isn't that enough proof? Or tree_, do you think that an entire race of people are just wrong about it? It should be noted, that entire race has a history of nothing but being told they aren't equal up until the 1960's, and even that is not even really true.

[digster]

I think what tree means by proof is the unveiling of a master plan by a mastermind, admitting that there was systemic racism. Which is not how this works, which I'm sure he knows. So if you set yourself up for a burden of proof that is by definition unattainable, you can retain deniability about it while still acting like you have an open mind on the subject.

In other words, things aren't going to suddenly turn around with more data.

[Mickey]

I would probably not phrase the argument the way Ruddo did, though I take his point, since on the one hand black people are not a monolith, and on the other hand centering subjective perception would give credence to things like "conservatives are persecuted on college campus" when in fact from a structural perspective they make all of the key decisions.

What I would say is that an actually open-minded person would ask why black families are more often broken, would note the role played by incarceration (among other things), would ask why more black people are incarcerated per capita, would find the oft-cited statistic that rates of criminal behavior are nearly identical across races, and would thus be at an impasse for finding any reason for this disparity other than a societal bias that treats black criminality as more serious of a threat than white criminality. What might one call such a structural determinant guided by race. I do wonder.

[E.H. Ruddock]

I would probably not phrase the argument the way Ruddo did, though I take his point, since on the one hand black people are not a monolith, and on the other hand centering subjective perception would give credence to things like "conservatives are persecuted on college campus" when in fact from a structural perspective they make all of the key decisions.

What I would say is that an actually open-minded person would ask why black families are more often broken, would note the role played by incarceration (among other things), would ask why more black people are incarcerated per capita, would find the oft-cited statistic that rates of criminal behavior are nearly identical across races, and would thus be at an impasse for finding any reason for this disparity other than a societal bias that treats black criminality as more serious of a threat than white criminality. What might one call such a structural determinant guided by race. I do wonder.

I'm trying to generalize it because it seems as though tree_ takes stats on individual topics and refutes them and then says "I don't see proof". You can refute all the stats you want by cherry picking and throwing out excuses, but when it boils down to it, listening to the people that are saying there is systemic racism might be the only way he gets it? But I do understand what you are saying about my post.

[wease]

I would probably not phrase the argument the way Ruddo did, though I take his point, since on the one hand black people are not a monolith, and on the other hand centering subjective perception would give credence to things like "conservatives are persecuted on college campus" when in fact from a structural perspective they make all of the key decisions.

What I would say is that an actually open-minded person would ask why black families are more often broken, would note the role played by incarceration (among other things), would ask why more black people are incarcerated per capita, would find the oft-cited statistic that rates of criminal behavior are nearly identical across races, and would thus be at an impasse for finding any reason for this disparity other than a societal bias that treats black criminality as more serious of a threat than white criminality. What might one call such a structural determinant guided by race. I do wonder.

I'm trying to generalize it because it seems as though tree_ takes stats on individual topics and refutes them and then says "I don't see proof". You can refute all the stats you want by cherry picking and throwing out excuses, but when it boils down to it, listening to the people that are saying there is systemic racism might be the only way he gets it? But I do understand what you are saying about my post.

There's nothing for him to get. He's a racist who's trolling.

[Mickey]

I mean I don't think tree_ has any interest in being convinced, or of more generally being dissuaded from his larger view that people operate with relative autonomy from history (wrong!) so my posts here are more about the issue in general than trying to persuade him. But like I said, I do think you have a point: the subjective experience of being black in America is evidence of either structural racism or mass delusion, not hard to see one of them as more plausible than the other.

[4/5]

You've been constantly telling us how 'open-minded' you are about all of this. Does it make you question your biases when another poster called exactly how this data would be read within a minute of me posting it?

Again, I'm open to actual proof. Haven't seen it yet. What I said was predictable because that's where the stats lead. We can talk about why so many black families are single-parent. I see no proof it's because of systemic racism.

So care to conjure up an alternative reason?

I think every other person in this thread would view the single parent/two parent data as a symptom of the systemic issues faced by Black people in this country, but you are offering that it's actually the cause. If that's the case, then what is it about Black people (since it can't be anything external by your logic) that causes so many of them to eschew the traditional bonds of matrimony? Since there's such an easy solution to the racial wealth disparity in this country (Just Get Married!) why are they refusing to marry?
This is especially confounding since since black people used to marry at the same or higher rates than white people until about 1960.

Spoiler: show

In the 1950s, after at least seventy years of rough parity, African American marriage rates began to fall behind white rates. In 1950, the percentages
of white and African American women (aged fifteen and over) who were
currently married were roughly the same, 67 percent and 64 percent,
respectively. By 1998, the percentage of currently married white women
had dropped by 13 percent to 58 percent. But the drop among African
American women was 44 percent to 36 percent—more than three times
larger.4 The declines for males were parallel, 12 percent for white men, 36
percent for African American men.
https://media.hoover.org/sites/default/ ... 721_95.pdf

Spoiler: show

The second key finding centers on race differences in historical marriage trends. Looking
from an extended historical frame of reference, we find that black men and women before World
War II entered into first marriages at younger ages and were less likely to be never married than
their white counterparts. Black men were less often never married compared with white men
until 1960, whereas black women were less likely to be never married than white women up until
1970. The turning point comes in 1980, when both black men and women begin a sharp increase
in the proportion never married by age 35 and age 45.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Cens ... 012-12.pdf

Again, since nothing external happened, just wondering what happened within the Black community from the 1960s-1980s to cause them to reject marriage in spite of the evidence that if they would just marry somebody everything would improve.

[Mickey]

Excellent post, which I assume will fall on deaf ears.

[Rob]

Excellent post, which I assume will fall on deaf ears.

Yeah great post 4/5.

[Rob]

These arguments always go the same way. The person (tree, in this case) simultaneously argues that it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the choices black people make. And even when you point out how ridiculous that is, they don't even flinch.

[Mickey]

These arguments always go the same way. The person (tree, in this case) simultaneously argues that it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the choices black people make. And even when you point out how ridiculous that is, they don't even flinch.

This is kind of the point that Barbara and Karen Fields make in their book, Racecraft--that any study attempting to prove racial disparity (like "making poor choices" or whatever) has *already* assumed its object by naturalizing the categories of race. It's a good book, the introduction is worth a read.

[tree_]

This is very difficult. I admit that I know nothing. I'm going to keep listening.

[tree_]

I guess my whole instinct on even talking about this comes from yes, racism exists and it can be hard to prove and accurately locate systemic racism, but is it relatively prevalent and is it improving? People are so outraged by racism and I think they're directing it in the wrong direction. There will always be violence, there will always be racism. What are we going to do about it? Scream at the universe? Can we locate an actual problem and work to fix it specifically? The stats with police violence actually show the odds of being killed by a police officer is virtually on par with being struck by lightning, and skin color doesn't really matter here either. And we get one video so people fill the streets protesting police to stop killing black men. It just doesn't fit. Yes, there needs to be police reform, but not because one black man gets killed. Police kill whites at a higher rate.

[Mickey]

....and we're back!

[epilogue]

I think what tree means by proof is the unveiling of a master plan by a mastermind, admitting that there was systemic racism. Which is not how this works, which I'm sure he knows. So if you set yourself up for a burden of proof that is by definition unattainable, you can retain deniability about it while still acting like you have an open mind on the subject.

In other words, things aren't going to suddenly turn around with more data.

Which allows the "open-minded questioner" (in this case, tree) to maintain their comfort and power and superiority. Which is racism.