Modern day systemic racism, does it exist?

[Ana the Ist]

You could have easily checked. From wiki: 'The term institutional racism was first coined in 1967 by Stokely Carmichael and Charles V. Hamilton in Black Power: The Politics of Liberation.'

Maybe you missed it....but the definition given for systemic racism doesn't involve or require any racism.

That's well over fifty years ago. Plus this, which just about sums up everything that a few people in this thread have been trying to get across:

'Carmichael and Hamilton wrote in 1967 that while individual racism is often identifiable because of its overt nature, institutional racism is less perceptible because of its "less overt, far more subtle" nature. Institutional racism "originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society, and thus receives far less public condemnation than individual racism".[3]

Again, we aren't even talking about racist procedures or rules.

Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the UK's Lawrence report (1999) as: "The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin". It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour that amount to discrimination through prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.'

What's the difference between this and individual racism?

If someone treats someone differently because of their race...that's individual racism.

As another poster said....

Systemic racism doesn’t require any racist actors or laws to enforce explicitly racist rules - it is merely the result of nominally unbiased systems operating the same towards members of all demographics, but whose effects differ along racial lines.

See the difference?

Unbiased systems operating the same towards members of all demographics.


Say it with me now....

Operating the same towards members of all demographics.

You pulled a definition of institutional racism that talks about treating black people differently. That's not systemic racism.

 

[Bradskii]

Nowhere in there was structural racism or institutional racism described as "inequal outcomes."

We weren't even looking at "inequal outcomes" in 1967 (I was there, then). We were looking at equalizing opportunities and removing specific legal, procedural, regulation, and policy structures that we could specifically identify.

That sounds pretty desperate. You claimed the term was modern. It isn't.

And 'looking at equalizing opportunities and removing specific legal, procedural, regulation, and policy structures that we could specifically identify' obviously meant that you wanted to remove those structures because they had a negative impact on people specifically because of their race. Negative impact as in unequal outcomes. If the outcomes weren't unequal then there'd be no problem.

 

[Bradskii]

Maybe you missed it....but the definition given for systemic racism doesn't involve or require any racism.

I can't treat this comment seriously. The Carmichael was Stokley Carmichael and the Hamilton was Charles V Hamilton. And the quote is from 'Black Power: The politics of liberation.'

What in heaven's name did you think they were writing about?

The rest of the post isn't worth a response.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I can't treat this comment seriously. The Carmichael was Stokley Carmichael and the Hamilton was Charles V Hamilton. And the quote is from 'Black Power: The politics of liberation.'

I've probably forgotten more about black liberationism than you can look up and I'm far less impressed with the Stokely Carmichaels of the world than you.

What in heaven's name did you think they were writing about?

Not systemic racism.

The rest of the post isn't worth a response.

Really? Cuz just two pages ago you seemed really impressed by the same poster posting the exact same definition....

Here's your response...

Well over a thousand posts and it's about time this was pointed out. Although it won't change the conversation because those who deny that anything like systemic racism exists will ignore it.

Oops! What happened? That's the quickest flip flop in CF history. 2 pages ago you were singing his praises....now it's not even worth responding to lol.

If you're still struggling with the concept after a thousand posts....maybe it's time for a nap and a new topic.

 

[RDKirk]

That sounds pretty desperate. You claimed the term was modern. It isn't.

And 'looking at equalizing opportunities and removing specific legal, procedural, regulation, and policy structures that we could specifically identify' obviously meant that you wanted to remove those structures because they had a negative impact on people specifically because of their race. Negative impact as in unequal outcomes. If the outcomes weren't unequal then there'd be no problem.

No, I claimed that it has been recently re-defined as "inequal outcomes."

 

[RDKirk]

And 'looking at equalizing opportunities and removing specific legal, procedural, regulation, and policy structures that we could specifically identify' obviously meant that you wanted to remove those structures because they had a negative impact on people specifically because of their race. Negative impact as in unequal outcomes. If the outcomes weren't unequal then there'd be no problem.

No, we were not looking at unequal outcomes, we were looking at the specific wordings that themselves were clearly racist.

We were looking for fair processes, not equality of outcomes.

 

[Bradskii]

Not systemic racism.

From the same source: 'Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism...'

Another: 'Systemic discrimination can be described as patterns of behaviour, policies or practices that are part of the structures of an organization, and which create or perpetuate disadvantage for racialized persons.'

Another: '“Systemic racism”, or “institutional racism”, refers to how ideas of white superiority are captured in everyday thinking at a systems level: taking in the big picture of how society operates, rather than looking at one-on-one interactions.'

Another: 'Johnson defined systemic racism, also called structural racism or institutional racism, as "systems and structures that have procedures or processes that disadvantages African Americans." '

Another: ' Institutional racism: (noun) Discriminatory policies and practices favorable to a dominant group and unfavorable to another group that are systematically embedded in the existing structure of society in the form of norms.'

I might be able to understand if you disagreed with aspects of systemic racism. But actually insisting that it doesn't exist and even denying the very terms used to describe it seems bizarre.

 

[Bradskii]

No, I claimed that it has been recently re-defined as "inequal outcomes."

Good grief...what else is racism but a concept that results in unequal (and obviously negative) outcomes for people based purely on their race? When was racism ever defined as having equal outcomes?

 

[Ken-1122]

They were local

So they come down hard when American citizens bring in drugs, but look the other way when foreigners do it? Is that your claim?

 

[Ana the Ist]

From the same source: 'Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism...'

Another: 'Systemic discrimination can be described as patterns of behaviour, policies or practices that are part of the structures of an organization, and which create or perpetuate disadvantage for racialized persons.'

Another: '“Systemic racism”, or “institutional racism”, refers to how ideas of white superiority are captured in everyday thinking at a systems level: taking in the big picture of how society operates, rather than looking at one-on-one interactions.'

Another: 'Johnson defined systemic racism, also called structural racism or institutional racism, as "systems and structures that have procedures or processes that disadvantages African Americans." '

Another: ' Institutional racism: (noun) Discriminatory policies and practices favorable to a dominant group and unfavorable to another group that are systematically embedded in the existing structure of society in the form of norms.'

I might be able to understand if you disagreed with aspects of systemic racism. But actually insisting that it doesn't exist and even denying the very terms used to describe it seems bizarre.

Take it up with @gaara4158...

It's his definition you praised, it's his definition I'm going by....

I can't help it if you disagree with him. It doesn't have anything to do with me at all. If you can't agree with other posters who believe in systemic racism on what systemic racism even is....it sounds like the sort of thing that you need to work out amongst yourselves first before you complain about anyone who doesn't believe in it. It doesn't exactly help your credibility when you can't even agree amongst yourselves.

 

[Bradskii]

No, we were not looking at unequal outcomes, we were looking at the specific wordings that themselves were clearly racist.

We were looking for fair processes, not equality of outcomes.

All right, I'll bend over backwards to say 'unequal opportunities' as opposed to unequal outcomes. But I think we both know that you knew exactly what I meant.

 

[Ken-1122]

From the same source: 'Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism...'

Another: 'Systemic discrimination can be described as patterns of behaviour, policies or practices that are part of the structures of an organization, and which create or perpetuate disadvantage for racialized persons.'

Another: '“Systemic racism”, or “institutional racism”, refers to how ideas of white superiority are captured in everyday thinking at a systems level: taking in the big picture of how society operates, rather than looking at one-on-one interactions.'

Another: 'Johnson defined systemic racism, also called structural racism or institutional racism, as "systems and structures that have procedures or processes that disadvantages African Americans." '

Another: ' Institutional racism: (noun) Discriminatory policies and practices favorable to a dominant group and unfavorable to another group that are systematically embedded in the existing structure of society in the form of norms.'

I might be able to understand if you disagreed with aspects of systemic racism. But actually insisting that it doesn't exist and even denying the very terms used to describe it seems bizarre.

Can you list some systems or institutions that have procedures and processes that disadvantage African Americans?

 

[Bradskii]

Take it up with @gaara4158...

It's his definition you praised, it's his definition I'm going by....

I can't help it if you disagree with him. It doesn't have anything to do with me at all. If you can't agree with other posters who believe in systemic racism on what systemic racism even is....it sounds like the sort of thing that you need to work out amongst yourselves first before you complain about anyone who doesn't believe in it. It doesn't exactly help your credibility when you can't even agree amongst yourselves.

What he said in part was: 'systemic racism doesn’t have anything to do with people being racist.'

I take that as @gaara4158 meaning individual and overt racism. Which is not what systemic racism is. Obviously, as I have posted any number of definitions. But you can't seem to grasp that concept so I'm not sure that explaining it again is going to help.

 

[Bradskii]

Can you list some systems or institutions that have procedures and processes that disadvantage African Americans?

Here's plenty of examples from Australia re health: Institutional racism in Australian healthcare: a plea for decency

And here for the US: 5 Examples of Systemic Racism in the USA

But really, are you suggesting by asking that it doesn't exist? Do you think we are talking about actual company policies or written procedures? Which, I surely don't have to tell you would be illegal?

 

[Ken-1122]

are you suggesting by asking that it doesn't exist?

(Ken)
Yes.

Do you think we are talking about actual company policies or written procedures? Which, I surely don't have to tell you would be illegal?

Yes. Systemic/Institutional racism has been outlawed.
In order for there to be institutional/systemic racism, the institution itself, or that specific jurisdiction must be created in such a manner that the institution will remain racist no matter the person(s) holding positions within it.
In short -- If you are given free reign to remove all racist people within that jurisdiction, and replace them with a new group of people, hand chosen by you; would said racism remain?
Let’s take a police department for example. If removing/replacing the variables from the system, in this case the officers, would cleanse the system of racism, then institutional racism does not exist.
However, if you remove/replace all variables within the system with new variables known to be non-corrupt from the systems intention (in this case if you replace all cops with people known to not be racist), yet the system remains corrupt (racist here), then institutional racism exists.
Now I have no doubt that there are systems and institutions where racist people are in positions of power and they may go against the laws and procedures of the institution in order to discriminate against people of another race, but that isn't institution racism, that is an individual racist using the institution in a way it was not meant to be used to discriminate against others. That would not be an example of institutional racism, but individual racism.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Good grief...what else is racism but a concept that results in unequal (and obviously negative) outcomes for people based purely on their race? When was racism ever defined as having equal outcomes?

Let's imagine a law that carries a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence for anyone caught dealing crack cocaine as a 1st time offender.

Let's imagine a judge who gives every 1st time offender 5 years....it doesn't matter what race, or gender, age, religion, etc. He gives them all 5 years.

Let's imagine a police force doing exactly what we want them to....pursuing crime ridden areas and arresting all crack dealers they cam find...regardless of race or anything else....

Yet, despite the lack of any racism or discrimination....Black men make up a disproportionately high number of arrests and convictions.

Is this systemic racism in your opinion or not?

 

[rturner76]

So they come down hard when American citizens bring in drugs, but look the other way when foreigners do it? Is that your claim?

My claim is that they actively participate in global distribution for top-tier organizations. They use the money to pay for their private wars.

 

[RDKirk]

All right, I'll bend over backwards to say 'unequal opportunities' as opposed to unequal outcomes. But I think we both know that you knew exactly what I meant.

If you really meant "unequal opportunties," then you don't mean "systemic racism" as it is currently defined.

 

[RDKirk]

(Ken)
Yes.

Yes. Systemic/Institutional racism has been outlawed.
In order for there to be institutional/systemic racism, the institution itself, or that specific jurisdiction must be created in such a manner that the institution will remain racist no matter the person(s) holding positions within it.
In short -- If you are given free reign to remove all racist people within that jurisdiction, and replace them with a new group of people, hand chosen by you; would said racism remain?
Let’s take a police department for example. If removing/replacing the variables from the system, in this case the officers, would cleanse the system of racism, then institutional racism does not exist.
However, if you remove/replace all variables within the system with new variables known to be non-corrupt from the systems intention (in this case if you replace all cops with people known to not be racist), yet the system remains corrupt (racist here), then institutional racism exists.
Now I have no doubt that there are systems and institutions where racist people are in positions of power and they may go against the laws and procedures of the institution in order to discriminate against people of another race, but that isn't institution racism, that is an individual racist using the institution in a way it was not meant to be used to discriminate against others. That would not be an example of institutional racism, but individual racism.

To some extent, there should also be protections in the process to check the power of individual racists within the system to substantially affect the process--because we know such people exist--and thereby keep the process fair.

For instance, the US Air Force enlisted promotion system was redesigned in the late 60s to greatly diminish the input of individual supervisors. It would take something drastically negative (and properly documented) for the supervisor to prevent the promotion of someone who had assiduously applied himself to studying for the promotion examinations. The US Navy during that period also applied rules to black or overcome racist individual input into the enlisted promotion system.

None of that prevents results from being unequal. It just means the process is as fair as practicably possible.

 

[Bradskii]

(Ken)
Yes.

Yes. Systemic/Institutional racism has been outlawed.
In order for there to be institutional/systemic racism, the institution itself, or that specific jurisdiction must be created in such a manner that the institution will remain racist no matter the person(s) holding positions within it.
In short -- If you are given free reign to remove all racist people within that jurisdiction, and replace them with a new group of people, hand chosen by you; would said racism remain?
Let’s take a police department for example. If removing/replacing the variables from the system, in this case the officers, would cleanse the system of racism, then institutional racism does not exist.
However, if you remove/replace all variables within the system with new variables known to be non-corrupt from the systems intention (in this case if you replace all cops with people known to not be racist), yet the system remains corrupt (racist here), then institutional racism exists.
Now I have no doubt that there are systems and institutions where racist people are in positions of power and they may go against the laws and procedures of the institution in order to discriminate against people of another race, but that isn't institution racism, that is an individual racist using the institution in a way it was not meant to be used to discriminate against others. That would not be an example of institutional racism, but individual racism.

Let's look at education from the second link I gave you:

'According to the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, Black preschoolers are 3.6 times more likely to be suspended than their white peers. Black girls in particular are much more likely to be suspended compared to white girls, but it isn’t because they’re committing worse offenses. According to a report from the National Women’s Law Center, Black girls are 5.5 times more likely than white girls to be suspended. Native American girls are 3.3 times more likely to face suspension. Schools with a higher percentage of Black students also receive less funding and less access to computers and the internet.'

Now are those individual decisions to suspend a black girl overtly and intentionally racist? In all probablity not. But does the system result in a minority being disadvanted along racial lines? Obviously yes. So as well as there being at least some decisions being based on race, it beggars belief to say that there are not inherrent problems within that system to begin with.

As an example, if someone became a teacher in a school where one group is being suspended at 5x the rate of all others then there'd be a natural tendency to think that, on average, they were 5x as badly behaved. And human nature being what it is, there'd be a tendency to consider that group as more likely to offend and punishment doled out would reflect that to some extent.

Are individuals making those decisions? Of course. But the problem is self perpetuating. Within that system it has become institutionalised. And conscious effort needs to be made to correct it.

But what do we get in threads like this when this is pointed out? Well, mostly a denial that there is even a problem. A denial that even if there is it's not systemic. And even a denial that that has nothing to do with institutional racism - but which, hey - doesn't exist either. Despite the legions of examples being given. Plus of course the usual denial of any personal racist attitudes.

Most of this is real head-in-the-sand stuff.