Modern day systemic racism, does it exist?

[RDKirk]

Yes it did say a lot more; I was just saying it did not make the case that systemic racism is the cause of the disparities.

Past systemic racism is the cause. But having removed laws and prohibited the polices that caused the current conditions--that is, having created to a very great extent, systems of "fair procedure"--what more could or should be done?

I would be careful and narrow about laws and policies to create so-called "equity" (the term being used today for "equal outcomes"). I can't think of any situation where true "equal outcome" is desirable over "fair procedure."

I will be quick to point to "proportional outcome" as a watchpoint for at least the foreseeable future (I can't foresee beyond the maturation of the Z-Generation). By "watchpoint" mean it may indicate that a procedure somewhere in the system isn't fair...rather like the "check engine" light on an automobile dashboard.

 

[rturner76]

Yes it did say a lot more; I was just saying it did not make the case that systemic racism is the cause of the disparities.

Cool, agree to disagree. Just dismiss it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Where would you put Gen X'ers on that timetable? I've dealt with a ton of racist garbage.

I think we imagine most of America like the place we grew up.

I'm saying that because of the social thoroughness of America's apartheid system, we are still behind on race relations. I do believe that people born now will not have had the same experience I had, Hopefully anyway.

I think the black community is dangerously close to embedding a persecution complex like early Christians or Roma Gypsies.

I met a girl who was a Roma Gypsy once. Asked her about Romania....why her parents left. She said they fled terrible persecution for being gypsies. I asked for an example....like what specifically....

She said she once took her mom to the hospital and the person who came in after them got seen first. She was certain it was because they didn't like gypsies

That was her strongest experience.

When I see "American Apartheid" it looks like that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Dude, I'm not trying to debate you, I'm trying to teach you.

That's a bit like saying that "I'm not trying to engage in dialogue, I just want to preach".

Is it that hard to consider another position?

 

[Ana the Ist]

That is an example of systemic racism. Also, in many counties (Democratic as well as Republican) school zones are gerrymandered just as horrendously to make sure school tax zones keep high-value properties in separate districts from low-value properties.

It's certainly possible this is racially motivated.

My main issue on gerrymandering is that literally both sides do it. You can read about it in both sides media. Is Democratic gerrymandering less racist? I doubt it.

The whole process is pretty stupid. I can't honestly tell you what a non gerrymandered state looks like. I don't recall ever seeing it. Each side draws lines in their favor.

You mentioned proportionality as a possible indication of a problem. That's a rather good view. If you'll indulge me in a hypothetical practical example....

Imagine two schools. One student body is mostly white....the other mostly black. The white school draws from a larger tax base and student outcomes are better. This creates a disparity between student outcomes.

Seeing this, the mayor coordinates for better funding....the majority of which goes to the black school....and eventually, student outcomes equalize.

Yet in the process...we created another disparity. State funding is disproportionally higher at the black school. They get more tax dollars than the white school.

Realistically, if a disparity in of itself is an indication of bias....these are both legitimate problems. I think student outcomes are more important...but I don't have kids in school. If I did, I might feel cheated on the taxes.

A disparity is to be expected....top to bottom, left to right, across any groups we examine. Fixing one creates another. I don't see any problem with looking at them....but to draw conclusions about causality is overly simplistic. Disparities are the norm. Equal outcomes are the rarity.

 

[RDKirk]

Past systemic racism is the cause. But having removed laws and prohibited the polices that caused the current conditions--that is, having created to a very great extent, systems of "fair procedure"--what more could or should be done?

I would be careful and narrow about laws and policies to create so-called "equity" (the term being used today for "equal outcomes"). I can't think of any situation where true "equal outcome" is desirable over "fair procedure."

I will be quick to point to "proportional outcome" as a watchpoint for at least the foreseeable future (I can't foresee beyond the maturation of the Z-Generation). By "watchpoint" mean it may indicate that a procedure somewhere in the system isn't fair...rather like the "check engine" light on an automobile dashboard.

It's certainly possible this is racially motivated.

My main issue on gerrymandering is that literally both sides do it. You can read about it in both sides media. Is Democratic gerrymandering less racist? I doubt it.

The whole process is pretty stupid. I can't honestly tell you what a non gerrymandered state looks like. I don't recall ever seeing it. Each side draws lines in their favor.

You mentioned proportionality as a possible indication of a problem. That's a rather good view. If you'll indulge me in a hypothetical practical example....

Imagine two schools. One student body is mostly white....the other mostly black. The white school draws from a larger tax base and student outcomes are better. This creates a disparity between student outcomes.

Seeing this, the mayor coordinates for better funding....the majority of which goes to the black school....and eventually, student outcomes equalize.

Yet in the process...we created another disparity. State funding is disproportionally higher at the black school. They get more tax dollars than the white school.

Realistically, if a disparity in of itself is an indication of bias....these are both legitimate problems. I think student outcomes are more important...but I don't have kids in school. If I did, I might feel cheated on the taxes.

A disparity is to be expected....top to bottom, left to right, across any groups we examine. Fixing one creates another. I don't see any problem with looking at them....but to draw conclusions about causality is overly simplistic. Disparities are the norm. Equal outcomes are the rarity.

I explicitly said about "equal outcomes:"

I would be careful and narrow about laws and policies to create so-called "equity" (the term being used today for "equal outcomes"). I can't think of any situation where true "equal outcome" is desirable over "fair procedure."

Did you miss that, or did you ignore it purposefully?

Then I spoke of "proportional outcomes." I did not say "proportionality" to be applied anywhere willy-nilly such as in funding. I was speaking of outcomes.

Yes, a disproportionate outcome might be a flag of a problem in what we are trying to make a fair process. Or it might not. Jordan Peterson notes that in Scandinavian countries women are still disproportionately over-represented in fields like nursing and teaching, and also disproportionately under-represented in fields like engineering. Yet, there is no discernible cause in the process of education (either in the social environment or in formal education) that should have caused that disproportionality.

Yet, noting the disproportionality, it was worthwhile to research the cause. Sometimes the problem may have been fixed as well as it can be fixed, but even the people who are proportionately under-represented may take time--even a generation or two--to "step up to the plate."

I think that's a problem among black Americans today in the inner city. When I was in high school in the 60s, acquiring education was highly supported in my community. Whether one's political view was traditional (education being the key to successfully adopting Anglo-American culture) or revolutionary (the intellectual was considered key to successful revolution), education was prized and encouraged from all sides. I was called "the Prof" in school by other kids...and that was not a negative epithet.

There was no issue at that time about education being "trying to be white." That's an example of "stepping back" from the plate. But it's an example of a problem that may cause a disproportionate outcome that isn't a problem with the process of public school education. It's a problem of a different process.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Accused of illegally evicting Black and Latino renters, SoCal city, sheriff to pay $1 million​

A Mojave Desert community and sheriff’s department will be forced to spend nearly $1 million to settle a civil rights lawsuit alleging they discriminated against Black and Latino renters, the U.S. Department of Justice announced Wednesday.

Investigations by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and The Times have shown so-called “crime-free housing” laws have disproportionately affected Black and Latino residents, making it harder for them to rent apartments and leaving them at greater risk of eviction.

The settlement, which still needs approval by a federal judge, requires Hesperia and the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department to pay tenants harmed by a crime-free housing ordinance that required landlords to evict those who police had suspected were involved in criminal activity at or near the property — regardless of whether the allegations had resulted in an arrest, charges or conviction.

[If only we could use that on the White House!]

Clarke said that Hesperia’s crime-free housing rules were among 2,000 such policies — either local laws or police trainings — that existed in cities nationwide. Wednesday’s settlement, she said, was the first in a case where federal prosecutors challenged a city’s crime-free housing ordinance.

Before they passed their ordinance, city leaders and Sheriff’s Department officials said they were fed up with what they called an influx of residents who were committing crimes — even though the crime rate was stable at the time.

In 2016, Kimberly Hackett was living in a rented single-family home with her three teenage children when she called 911 nine times over three days to report her partner for domestic violence. Even though Hackett, who is Black, was the victim, the Sheriff’s Department notified her landlord about the numerous domestic disturbance calls and threatened the landlord with a misdemeanor under the crime-free housing law, prosecutors said.

After Hackett’s family was evicted she couldn’t find another place to live in Hesperia. They spent three months in an extended-stay motel before moving to Georgia.

The move was especially heartbreaking because her 15-year-old twins loved attending Oak Hills High School nearby, Hackett said in an interview. Leaving Hesperia also broke up Hackett’s family. Her 18-year-old son refused to go with them to Georgia because he wanted to remain in the community.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Accused of illegally evicting Black and Latino renters, SoCal city, sheriff to pay $1 million​

A Mojave Desert community and sheriff’s department will be forced to spend nearly $1 million to settle a civil rights lawsuit alleging they discriminated against Black and Latino renters, the U.S. Department of Justice announced Wednesday.

Investigations by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and The Times have shown so-called “crime-free housing” laws have disproportionately affected Black and Latino residents, making it harder for them to rent apartments and leaving them at greater risk of eviction.

The settlement, which still needs approval by a federal judge, requires Hesperia and the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department to pay tenants harmed by a crime-free housing ordinance that required landlords to evict those who police had suspected were involved in criminal activity at or near the property — regardless of whether the allegations had resulted in an arrest, charges or conviction.

[If only we could use that on the White House!]

Clarke said that Hesperia’s crime-free housing rules were among 2,000 such policies — either local laws or police trainings — that existed in cities nationwide. Wednesday’s settlement, she said, was the first in a case where federal prosecutors challenged a city’s crime-free housing ordinance.

Before they passed their ordinance, city leaders and Sheriff’s Department officials said they were fed up with what they called an influx of residents who were committing crimes — even though the crime rate was stable at the time.

In 2016, Kimberly Hackett was living in a rented single-family home with her three teenage children when she called 911 nine times over three days to report her partner for domestic violence. Even though Hackett, who is Black, was the victim, the Sheriff’s Department notified her landlord about the numerous domestic disturbance calls and threatened the landlord with a misdemeanor under the crime-free housing law, prosecutors said.

After Hackett’s family was evicted she couldn’t find another place to live in Hesperia. They spent three months in an extended-stay motel before moving to Georgia.

The move was especially heartbreaking because her 15-year-old twins loved attending Oak Hills High School nearby, Hackett said in an interview. Leaving Hesperia also broke up Hackett’s family. Her 18-year-old son refused to go with them to Georgia because he wanted to remain in the community.

Unreal:

"who police had suspected were involved in criminal activity at or near the property — regardless of whether the allegations had resulted in an arrest, charges or conviction."

...It's like getting expelled from high-school, but in a private, real world setting. How childish of a law. They should pay out way more than a million for that kind of law.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Accused of illegally evicting Black and Latino renters, SoCal city, sheriff to pay $1 million​

A Mojave Desert community and sheriff’s department will be forced to spend nearly $1 million to settle a civil rights lawsuit alleging they discriminated against Black and Latino renters, the U.S. Department of Justice announced Wednesday.

Investigations by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and The Times have shown so-called “crime-free housing” laws have disproportionately affected Black and Latino residents, making it harder for them to rent apartments and leaving them at greater risk of eviction.

The settlement, which still needs approval by a federal judge, requires Hesperia and the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department to pay tenants harmed by a crime-free housing ordinance that required landlords to evict those who police had suspected were involved in criminal activity at or near the property — regardless of whether the allegations had resulted in an arrest, charges or conviction.

[If only we could use that on the White House!]

Clarke said that Hesperia’s crime-free housing rules were among 2,000 such policies — either local laws or police trainings — that existed in cities nationwide. Wednesday’s settlement, she said, was the first in a case where federal prosecutors challenged a city’s crime-free housing ordinance.

Before they passed their ordinance, city leaders and Sheriff’s Department officials said they were fed up with what they called an influx of residents who were committing crimes — even though the crime rate was stable at the time.

In 2016, Kimberly Hackett was living in a rented single-family home with her three teenage children when she called 911 nine times over three days to report her partner for domestic violence. Even though Hackett, who is Black, was the victim, the Sheriff’s Department notified her landlord about the numerous domestic disturbance calls and threatened the landlord with a misdemeanor under the crime-free housing law, prosecutors said.

After Hackett’s family was evicted she couldn’t find another place to live in Hesperia. They spent three months in an extended-stay motel before moving to Georgia.

The move was especially heartbreaking because her 15-year-old twins loved attending Oak Hills High School nearby, Hackett said in an interview. Leaving Hesperia also broke up Hackett’s family. Her 18-year-old son refused to go with them to Georgia because he wanted to remain in the community.

Thank God we have laws and governing authorities in place to eliminate this kind of discrimination when it’s discovered.

 

[rambot]

I think the black community is dangerously close to embedding a persecution complex like early Christians or Roma Gypsies.

But you REALLY think that white Republican Christian fraidy cats are NOT? At least black people ACTUALLY HAVE a loooooong history of repression and mistreatment.

 

[rjs330]

You can learn more about the subject. You might learn something like this whole society, courts, government, is based on Eurocentric values and systems.

Really? What are we supposed to base them on? Spanish values and systems? African values and systems?
Chinese values and systems?

 

[rjs330]

Hofeller Files - Stephanie's Copy

Justice Department sues Texas over new redistricting maps | AP News

Opinion | Poverty as a Proxy for Race in Voter Suppression

Why Do Nonwhite Georgia Voters Have To Wait In Line For Hours? Too Few Polling Places

You want systemic racism, then here you go. Republicans have been known to gerrymander in ways to suppress nonwhite votes as they know they are not popular with nonwhites. Combine that with policies that make it disproportionately harder for poorer people to vote and reducing polling stations in nonwhite areas so the waiting times for voting is super long and you get targeted and systematic voter suppression of nonwhite people.

Gerrymandering is not about race. Don't be naive. It's about votes. Nothing more nothing less. Democrats do it too. Because it's about votes not race. Republicans know that blacks vote democrat by a HUGE marine and pretty much a solid block. If they can move districts to accommodate that and put primarily democrat voters in certain districts and keep them fromaking it difficult for republicans to win they do that. Skin color is not the deciding factor. It's not racist. It's pure political manipulation based upon areas known to vote Democrat.

Democrats do the same thing to republican areas. It's not based on race.

 

[RDKirk]

You can learn more about the subject. You might learn something like this whole society, courts, government, is based on Eurocentric values and systems.

What's wrong with that?

The problem has not been that Eurocentric values and systems are the basis, the problem is that they have not been equally administered. Justice Taney's Supreme Court ruling trailed on for a hundred years after he stated, "The black man has no rights that a white man is obliged to observe."

 

[RDKirk]

The system actually protects minorities so there is no systemic racism against them. You have racists in every race but thats not systemic racism.

It's not impossible for a system that protects minorities in some instances can also protect embedded racists in other instances. Take, for example, "qualified immunity" for police officers.

 

[RDKirk]

Gerrymandering is not about race. Don't be naive. It's about votes. Nothing more nothing less. Democrats do it too. Because it's about votes not race. Republicans know that blacks vote democrat by a HUGE marine and pretty much a solid block. If they can move districts to accommodate that and put primarily democrat voters in certain districts and keep them fromaking it difficult for republicans to win they do that. Skin color is not the deciding factor. It's not racist. It's pure political manipulation based upon areas known to vote Democrat.

Democrats do the same thing to republican areas. It's not based on race.

You just said is A =/= C even while saying A=B and B=C.

 

[Sabri]

Systemic Racism is everywhere. I am a African American woman. We own Our organization. However, we had to fight the state department of mental health ( for discrimination) due to not wanting to give our organization a contract to help Blacks in underserved communities. We had a case that included NAACP to assist with proving the State department utilized racist tactics to help those with mental
Illness. Lastly, our Justice system. Specifically, probation and parole. I have heard officers say they do better being sent back to jail. When talking about black males. Systemic racism is alive and well. Especially, if you are a minority and have a business in America.

 

[RDKirk]

You don't have to agree with me but you do need to learn more about the term. The racist system put in place 400-500- years ago in this country taught people to be racist (especially white people). That has been passed down to the current generation. That is what makes it systemic. It is a result of a racist system that we lived under for hundreds of years. You seem to think we can change 500 years of indoctrination in one or two generations. You're wrong and you need to learn more about the topic.

What do you mean by "the current generation?" Boomers, most certainly, because we were raised as children in a segregated society. Some of that is going to wash down to the X-genners. But I would argue not the Z Generation...at least not the kind of racism we were taught as kids in the 1950s.

It is possible for Z genners to become racist through their own experiences. Frankly, if all I knew about black people was what I saw in the mediat (even by our own creation, such as on TikTok), I'd be inclined to be prejudiced against black people myself. But I would not say the Z Generation is being taught by society, certainly not the way it was taught to us.

At this moment, we Boomers still control media, industry, and politics...and we are racist. But we'll be dead soon.

 

[Sabri]

It’s hard for non minorities to see systemic racism because it’s been that way or it’s the way they have always done it. This is wrong and not right. As an entrepreneur Black woman in America. I see it everyday. We have to fight for every little inch.

 

[rjs330]

You just said is A =/= C even while saying A=B and B=C.

No I didn't. Let me explain. The gerrymandering is about votes not race. They didn't say, "look here's a bunch of black people and we don't like black people because of the color of their skin so let's put them in this voting area.".

What is happening is "this area votes 98% for the democrats. Let's isolate that area.". The fact that it may be black people there is beside the point. It doesn't matter if it's balck or white it would be the same. That's what makes it not systemic racism.

That's why we can't say the democrats are racist toward whites when they gerrymander. Cause if blacks were voting the way whites in an area voted as primarily republican they would do the same thing.

This isn't blacks vs whites. It's republican voters vs Democrat voters

 

[RDKirk]

I never insisted otherwise. I have even said it's better now than it was. I just think there is an element that makes things harder for some people.

Compared to how hard it was for my parents...our situation today is a paltry complication. The fact that people have to talk about "microaggression" compared to my father being called by supervisor and coworkers "n-----" to his face...and had to accept it. Or that a supervisor could openly state that he'd never promote a "n-----" and that was the way things were.

And now we have people upset that Ikea offered fried chicken in its cafeteria in honor of Black History Month.

The level of racism that may still exist today is not sufficient to prevent anyone from flourishing, except by his own failure. We're at the level now that racism is no more significant in preventing a person from flourishing than the hardships commonly endured for many other discriminatory reasons, such as "pretty privilege" and "tall man privilege." And the same is true for sexism.