Modern day systemic racism, does it exist?

[Bradskii]

3 out of 4 back children are born to single mothers. Single mothers are 6 times more likely to be poor than 2 parent households.

I’m not the one claiming all of this happens; you are. I’m saying if teachers, cops, military officers are doing all of these things you say they are, THEY are the problem; not the system they are violating when they do this. They are the problem even if they are doing it unintentionally.

Yes! If the system requires you to treat everybody equally, and for whatever reason you don’t, how can you call this a problem with the system? Please explain.

Yes, they are doing it unintentionally. We are all prone to this. It's subconscious and unless we specifically correct for it then we have no control over it. We can't change human nature. And yes, the systems require one to act fairly, but if they don't account for implicit bias, the results aren't necessarily fair.

So we need to change the systems we employ when making decisions.

 

[Bradskii]

What you wrote fails to prove the poster incorrect.

Rjs said it was a modern term. It isn't.

 

[Bradskii]

Unequal outcomes don't and never have proven systemic racism.

A dog is an animal with 4 legs. A four legged animal is not necessarily a dog. Unequal outcomes don't prove racism but racism results in unequal outcomes.

 

[gaara4158]

You are assuming again. You assume there is a lack of social mobility.

Can you please give us some things that black people can't do or pursue that white people can?

If all you’re going to say in response to my presentations of objective facts is “you’re assuming,” I bid you good afternoon. Social mobility is notoriously low in the US among first world nations, ranking 27th globally just below Lithuania. Now apply some logic to that. If it’s hard to ascend the social strata in the US, and Black people start out lower on average, then life is inherently harder on average for Black people from the moment they’re born. Please point out the assumption I have made within this line of reasoning.

Yes you are assessing data with an extremely biased viewpoint. Your world view drives your application. You assume simply because certain things are happening they are happening because of systemic racism. Yet you have failed to prove your assumptions.

You continue over and over again to fail to prove there is systemic racism. If something occurs and that something would occur based upon the activities of the area no matter who lives there, then there is NO such thing as systemic racism.
If white people lived predominately in white ghettos and the police police the same way then systemic racism is a fallacy.

You have already acknowledged systemic racism, you simply refuse to label it as such. You insist on defining systemic racism as racially discriminatory laws and regulations being implemented for the purpose of disadvantaging The Blacks(TM), which is of course illegal, and anything less is simply meritocracy in action. I suppose you can’t help it.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes, they are doing it unintentionally. We are all prone to this. It's subconscious and unless we specifically correct for it then we have no control over it. We can't change human nature. And yes, the systems require one to act fairly, but if they don't account for implicit bias, the results aren't necessarily fair.

Whatever unfairness results in not a result of the system, but the people within the system; hence racism not systemic racism.

So we need to change the systems we employ when making decisions.

Whaaat??? That’s like outlawing guns, then acting surprised when only the outlaws have guns! NO! If certain people have already shown they will buck the system and do their own thing, you change the type of people you employ.

 

[rjs330]

Rjs said it was a modern term. It isn't.

Ha already corrected you on this. Why aren't you listening? He never claimed systemic racism is a modern term. He's already reminded you what he said. I'm not sure why you won't hear him.

 

[Ken-1122]

If all you’re going to say in response to my presentations of objective facts is “you’re assuming,” I bid you good afternoon. Social mobility is notoriously low in the US among first world nations, ranking 27th globally just below Lithuania.

Really? Then why does the richest people on Earth always seem to live in the United States? (Currently 8 of the top 10 richest live here) and 80% of the richest in this country are first generation rich.

10 Surprising Millionaire Facts That You Never Knew

And you always thought they have it easy. Didn't you?

www.fearlessmotivation.com

Now apply some logic to that. If it’s hard to ascend the social strata in the US, and Black people start out lower on average, then life is inherently harder on average for Black people from the moment they’re born. Please point out the assumption I have made within this line of reasoning.

Black people do start of lower on average, but there are already plenty of systems in place that specifically help black people succeed, that do not help white people. So there is already a lot being done.

 

[rjs330]

A dog is an animal with 4 legs. A four legged animal is not necessarily a dog. Unequal outcomes don't prove racism but racism results in unequal outcomes.

Of course racism does. That's the whole idea behind it.

But thats not the claim you and others have made. You claimed that unequal outcomes proves systemic racism.

They don't. And you know it.

 

[Bradskii]

If certain people have already shown they will buck the system and do their own thing, you change the type of people you employ.

You've already agreed that it's subconscious. So it's not valid to say that people are 'bucking the system'. Nobody is immune from this.

 

[Bradskii]

Of course racism does. That's the whole idea behind it.

But thats not the claim you and others have made. You claimed that unequal outcomes proves systemic racism.

They don't. And you know it.

I don't know how many examples you actually need...

The army promotion example was an excellent one. White people were being treated unequally, being promoted over black people when they had the same or similar qualifications. And the army recognised this. They identified it as a problem. It obviously, and I mean obviously was concerned with race. Those making the decision were not consciously making racist decisions (apart from any obvious racists). It was being done subconciously.

 

[Ken-1122]

You've already agreed that it's subconscious. So it's not valid to say that people are 'bucking the system'. Nobody is immune from this.

Actually I think it was YOU who claimed it was subconscious. I was simply responding under the assumption that what you said were true. Personally I have my doubts concerning much of the stuff chocked up to “unconscious bias” but rather than going off topic in an attempt to refute this claim, I preferred to choose my battles and respond as if subconscious bias is the reason for which you claimed it is.
However; if we assume “subconscious bias” is the reason, changing the system will not accomplish anything, we need to hire people who don’t have that type of subconscious bias. And don’t go saying everybody has subconscious bias, just because you might have it doesn’t mean everybody else has it.

 

[Bradskii]

However; if we assume “subconscious bias” is the reason, changing the system will not accomplish anything...

Yes it can.

Back to the army example. Black recruits were being promoted less than equivalently qualified white ones. So...simply take the photo of the recruit out of the paperwork. A ridiculously simple change to the system which solved the problem.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes it can.

Back to the army example. Black recruits were being promoted less than equivalently qualified white ones. So...simply take the photo of the recruit out of the paperwork. A ridiculously simple change to the system which solved the problem.

Fair enough; some things can be done. But neglecting to do this does not make the system racist, it just means the system in place isn't doing everything possible to prevent racism.

 

[Bradskii]

Fair enough; some things can be done. But neglecting to do this does not make the system racist, it just means the system in place isn't doing everything possible to prevent racism.

Overtly racist systems have been dismantled. You can't hire or fire based on race. So I think we're on safe ground saying that they no longer exist (with perhaps some obscure examples). So systems in place today are meant to be completely unbiased - but, by the way they are set up and considering the unconscious biases that are prevelant in society, some result in prejudicial outcomes

Now you can, and have, suggested that it's the individual at fault. And it's obviously individuals who are making the decisions. But racism (and sexism and ageism and any other type of -ism you want to bring to the table) is often implicit and not explicit. It's unconscious. It appears unbid. So I'm not prepared to label anyone a racist because of that. I'm not going to blame them.

So what's at fault? Where is the problem? Can't we say that it's the system itself that results in prejudicial outcomes? Can't we say that if we understand the problem, as the army did, and change the system, then the problem disappears?

If we allow systems to continue that we know will result in unequal treatment based on race then cannot we call that systemic racism? The answer is obvious to me.

 

[Pommer]

Fair enough; some things can be done. But neglecting to do this does not make the system racist, it just means the system in place isn't doing everything possible to prevent racism.

Why wouldn’t we do everything possible to eliminate (or prevent) racism?

 

[Ken-1122]

So what's at fault? Where is the problem? Can't we say that it's the system itself that results in prejudicial outcomes?

No. As I said before, the problem is the person, even if they are doing it unintentionally; not the system in place.

Can't we say that if we understand the problem, as the army did, and change the system, then the problem disappears?

I doubt a single change is gonna fix everything, there are likely multiple issues resulting in the problems and many of those issues are likely unknown; but of course the system should do as much as it can to fix what it becomes aware of. I think what the army did was more proactive than reactive; they fixed the possibility of a problem existing before it was known to be a problem.

 

[Ken-1122]

Why wouldn’t we do everything possible to eliminate (or prevent) racism?

I think they should! But I think it’s almost impossible to know all the problems. Suppose for example, people born in certain areas of the country, or even in specific foreign countries; are usually raised in a culture where they are more likely to have subconscious biases than those born elsewhere, but the institution employing them is unaware of this data? You can’t blame the institution for the subconscious biases these people will eventually bring to the table can you? My point is, this is not a case of institutional racism.

 

[Bradskii]

I think what the army did was more proactive than reactive; they fixed the possibility of a problem existing before it was known to be a problem.

No, they became aware that there was a problem. And they changed the system to correct it. The system was what needed to be changed. You can't accurately test every single person for any and all unconscious biases he or she may have. And what would you do even if you could? Adjust every single decision that person makes to allow for all of them?

Or, as the army sensibly did, knowing that you can't control subconscious prejudices, change the system. And if that's the only thing that you can change and changing it solves the problem then it should be obvious what was causing it. Intentionally causing it? No, because we aren't talking about overt, explicit racism, but subconscious, implicit racism.

 

[Bradskii]

You can’t blame the institution for the subconscious biases these people will eventually bring to the table can you? My point is, this is not a case of institutional racism.

You can blame the institution if it is aware of the problem and does nothing to correct it. And as we have seen throughout this thread, people deny that these type of problems even exist.

You can't correct for a problem if you you claim that there is no problem.

 

[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 the CIA is in the drug business. They use high-level drug dealers/smugglers as assets in order to get information on foreign nationals. In return, they get a pass on their pipeline.