As far as the educational system, it is well known if you live in a economically oppressed neighborhood, your school is not going to be up to the same standard as a school in an economically affluent neighborhood, and a kid attending the affluent school is going to have greater access to college-ready courses compared to the kid attending the school in the economically oppressed neighborhood, and due to economics, black kids are more likely to live in an economically oppressed neighborhood. But this sounds like more of an economic problem rather than a systemic racist problem.
As far as the justice system, if you are poor, and living in an economically oppressed violent neighborhood, the police will treat you differently than they will treat those living in an economically affluent neighborhood, because they are more likely to fear for their safety in the violent neighborhood as opposed to the safer neighborhood. Black people are more likely to live in high crime areas. Again; an economic problem as opposed to a systemic racist problem.
As far as inequality in housing, if you are living with a single parent (usually a mother), you are more likely to be poor, than someone living in a 2 parent household. Women generally make less money than men, so a woman head of household is far less likely to make as much money as a household where both parents work. The more money the household makes, the better home they can afford. Black households are far more likely to have a single woman as head of household than other races; but this is more of a cultural problem than a systemic racist problem
Hey
@Ken-1122, you may have missed this but I asked Akita about one of the first bits of "evidence" he posted. It was this link about disparities in hospitals.
Cardiovascular disease is the No. 1 killer for all women.
www.heart.org
If you read the article, it sounds as if a close connection between racism and Healthcare outcomes was found in the research. I found that surprising, because I've never seen anyone prove such a thing conclusively. I also found it suspicious that it linked to two celebrity experiences...but not the research. That's a big red flag.
Here's the research.
Right at the beginning of the paper you'll notice a couple of statements....
"Bias, stereotyping, prejudice, and clinical
uncertainty on the part of health care providers may contribute to racial and ethnic disparities
in health care. While indirect evidence from
several lines of research support this statement,
a greater understanding of the prevalence and
influence of the processes is needed and
should be sought through research.
* Finally, racial and ethnic minority patients
are more likely than white patients to refuse
treatment, but differences in refusal rates are
generally small. Minority patient refusal does
note fully explain health care disparities."
According to the research he cited....bias and racial stereotyping "may" contribute to healthcare outcomes. The research isn't saying that it proved a connection...it's saying that it may contribute....as in, it might be one of many things to contribute to different outcomes.
What's another example of something that contributes to different outcomes? How about the fact that minorities refuse treatment more often. No...they don't refuse treatment often enough to account for all differences in outcomes. They definitely contribute to differences in outcomes though.
This is a government funded study....and even then...it was unable to prove any direct connection between biases and healthcare outcomes. Then articles like the one cited completely distort and exaggerate the findings.
If this is the quality of evidence that someone is posting....I generally don't waste time with every bit of evidence they post. I simply point out that the first thing they posted admits it's not evidence....and ask if the rest of the evidence is that bad. If the poster insists it isn't...I take a look at the second piece of evidence cited. If it's just as bad....then I'm done wasting time with that poster.
You're giving people way too much credit in their ability to identify evidence.