Discussion: Racism - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
But both are still racism, which reflects this thread's title. The point you make is that the effects of racism against whites are generally weaker than the effects of racism against minorities. That will inevitably be the case while whites remain a majority. But the ignorant, small-minded, bigoted sentiments behind racism in each guise remain the same.

My point is white racism is not a prevalent problem. To return to my medical analogy, comparing racism against black people to racism against white people is the functional equivalent to comparing cancer to the common cold.

Racism against white people exists. But the effects of it are minuscule. As such, it does not warrant the attention or remedies that is warranted to combat racism against black people.
 
My point is white racism is not a prevalent problem. To return to my medical analogy, comparing racism against black people to racism against white people is the functional equivalent to comparing cancer to the common cold.

Racism against white people exists. But the effects of it are minuscule. As such, it does not warrant the attention or remedies that is warranted to combat racism against black people.
Statistically speaking, white people are more likely to be the victim of an interracial crime than the perpetrator
 
Oh jeez, that is such a silly statistic to bring up in a conversation about racism. Of course fewer white people commit crimes. That's because fewer white people are in a position to commit crime.

There are a few leading theories on the cause of crime but they generally fall into two broad categories: rational choice theory (crime is a choice) and conditioning theories (crime is something one is groomed into based on social circumstance, environment, education, etc).

If you look at it in terms of rational choice, then you must accept crime is a choice. So the obvious reaction of those looking to undermine black folks is "WHITE PEOPLE AREN'T CHOOSING TO BE CRIMINALS BUT BLACK PEOPLE ARE!" But that ignores the rational part of rational choice theory. The theory holds that one knows the benefits of crime vs the consequences (imprisonment, possible harm or death, etc) and chooses to commit crime because it is in their best interest to do so compared to the alternative. Basically it is the age old question do you steal a loaf of bread or do you starve? If we accept rational choice theory we must also look at the root causes of the choice. Social inequity puts more black people in a position where crime is a rational choice than white people. Why? Poverty. Economic inequity has (statistically) placed African Americans in a position where they have nothing to lose and crime is the most rational choice to get by. White people, by and large, do not fall into that economic bracket. Therefore: less crime.

Conditioning theories work along the same lines. Simply put, more black people are in ghettos, crime filled neighborhoods, etc, than white people. Therefore, a child is a product of his environment and is conditioned into crime.

There are a lot of subcategories within these two realms, but almost every theory of crime falls into one of those two broader categories.

My point being this, your statistic ignores the root causes of crime and does not take into consideration that crime is a result of institutional racism.
 
Pathetic.
I know! Can't bring up any points so insult the post. Gotcha! :up:

I think, and I don't want to speak for Sawyer, but I think he is reflecting on the level of intellectual dishonesty in this thread among certain posters trying to equate the racial inequity African Americans have faced to so called "white discrimination."

The notion of white discrimination is absurd. Are there people who are mean to others because they are white? Sure. Are there people who say things like "cracker" to diminish whites? Yep. Are there those who paint with a broad brush and accuse white people of being evil. Again, yes.

None of that is real discrimination. Not compared to the plight that African Americans have faced in our country. White people do not have a long history of being discriminated against. White people are not still suffering due to the INSTITUTIONAL inequity in our country that existed until about 30 years ago. White people are not getting pulled over for being white. White people are not being shot for being white.

"Reverse-discrimination" is, as Sawyer put it, a false equivalence. To complain about white discrimination is essentially the same as someone with a paper cut whining about how hard they have it to someone in a full body cast.

Matt! Where have you been?! Good post fyi!
 
To become an equal society, we must right the wrongs of a past that most of us didn't live in or perpetuate. That's the mantra of today. It's not let's move forward together. Now white guilt is a thing among millenialls. It's not race that's the problem, it's socioeconomics that's the problem. The poor are too busy bickering at each other over race while 1% race baiters reap the rewards of the ongoing battle that they never want to end.
 
My point is white racism is not a prevalent problem. To return to my medical analogy, comparing racism against black people to racism against white people is the functional equivalent to comparing cancer to the common cold.

Racism against white people exists. But the effects of it are minuscule. As such, it does not warrant the attention or remedies that is warranted to combat racism against black people.

Any racism is a problem Matt wtf? I can't believe you are justifying white racism because it's not as bad as what's happening over here to minorities. You made a medical comparison so I'll do the same: Oh you have HIV? Well I have an inoperable brain tumor so HIV ain't that bad, get over yourself. Wtf? The effects are equal to each person Matt. How dare you scoff off a white discrimination because it's not as bad as black discrimination. That's the attitude that keeps the race war alive and well. People separate themselves culturally and wonder why racial tensions still exist. Literally what the flying ****...you of all people with your education I would have thought would be above all of this.
 
Oh jeez, that is such a silly statistic to bring up in a conversation about racism. Of course fewer white people commit crimes. That's because fewer white people are in a position to commit crime.

There are a few leading theories on the cause of crime but they generally fall into two broad categories: rational choice theory (crime is a choice) and conditioning theories (crime is something one is groomed into based on social circumstance, environment, education, etc).

If you look at it in terms of rational choice, then you must accept crime is a choice. So the obvious reaction of those looking to undermine black folks is "WHITE PEOPLE AREN'T CHOOSING TO BE CRIMINALS BUT BLACK PEOPLE ARE!" But that ignores the rational part of rational choice theory. The theory holds that one knows the benefits of crime vs the consequences (imprisonment, possible harm or death, etc) and chooses to commit crime because it is in their best interest to do so compared to the alternative. Basically it is the age old question do you steal a loaf of bread or do you starve? If we accept rational choice theory we must also look at the root causes of the choice. Social inequity puts more black people in a position where crime is a rational choice than white people. Why? Poverty. Economic inequity has (statistically) placed African Americans in a position where they have nothing to lose and crime is the most rational choice to get by. White people, by and large, do not fall into that economic bracket. Therefore: less crime.

Conditioning theories work along the same lines. Simply put, more black people are in ghettos, crime filled neighborhoods, etc, than white people. Therefore, a child is a product of his environment and is conditioned into crime.

There are a lot of subcategories within these two realms, but almost every theory of crime falls into one of those two broader categories.

My point being this, your statistic ignores the root causes of crime and does not take into consideration that crime is a result of institutional racism.
So you concede that committing a crime is a personal choice? And poor people commit crimes more than non-poor people.

White people worked to get out of the ghettos.

Which party is the dominant party in the inner cities?
 
C4p5B94WQAAhbRI.jpg:large

C4pjd67WIAUw_BX.jpg


The level of false equivalence. I can't even.

Reminds me of bigots and homophobes saying Kim Davis is like Rosa Parks. It's the sort of dumb **** that makes me want to introduce my steel toe boots to people's testicles at a high velocity.
 
My point is white racism is not a prevalent problem. To return to my medical analogy, comparing racism against black people to racism against white people is the functional equivalent to comparing cancer to the common cold.

Racism against white people exists. But the effects of it are minuscule. As such, it does not warrant the attention or remedies that is warranted to combat racism against black people.

The problem with this logic is that only extends to a structural perspective and not a personal one. Being discimrinated against based on arbitrary demographics personally affects people roughly the same, although the structural consequences are obviously quite different as you mentioned.

If a racist comment is made in this thread it affects individuals, it's not institutional. A problem with the approach people take to being racist against whites, and the defense in this thread, is that if it isn't institutional it doesn't matter. Making no distinction between the personal and the structural is a problem and particularly in this thread people conflate the two.

If someone makes jokes or comments against Asians or African Americans, do Asian individuals take less offense or are they less affected because they're not structurally discriminated against?
 
Chaseter said:
To become an equal society, we must right the wrongs of a past that most of us didn't live in or perpetuate. That's the mantra of today. It's not let's move forward together. Now white guilt is a thing among millenialls. It's not race that's the problem, it's socioeconomics that's the problem. The poor are too busy bickering at each other over race while 1% race baiters reap the rewards of the ongoing battle that they never want to end.

To become an equal society we don't have to "right wrongs of the past that most of us didn't live in or perpetuate." We do have to purge the remnant effects of the previous generations' sins, however.

Imagine being in a race (a foot race, not an ethnic group). Your opponent's track lane is completely clear. Yours has hurdles. And you have to start 50 yards behind your opponent. Even if we move you up to the same starting position, should we pat ourselves on the back and say "job well done, everything is equal now!"?

Because of 250 years of racial inequity, African Americans face far more metaphorical hurdles than white people. There is inequitable pay, inequitable opportunity, disparate treatment from police, etc. Until those wrongs are righted, we are not an equal society. Nor is our generations' hands clean. Its too easy to pat ourselves on the back and say "we didn't have slaves! Why should we have white guilt!?" But such completely discounts the fact that institutional still bias and inequity exists and white people implicitly benefit from it.

chaseter said:
Any racism is a problem Matt wtf? I can't believe you are justifying white racism because it's not as bad as what's happening over here to minorities. You made a medical comparison so I'll do the same: Oh you have HIV? Well I have an inoperable brain tumor so HIV ain't that bad, get over yourself. Wtf? The effects are equal to each person Matt. How dare you scoff off a white discrimination because it's not as bad as black discrimination. That's the attitude that keeps the race war alive and well. People separate themselves culturally and wonder why racial tensions still exist. Literally what the flying ****...you of all people with your education I would have thought would be above all of this.

I'm not justifying it. I am saying that the effect is minuscule. In the law, there is a misconception that anyone can be sued for anything. The reality is, you generally cannot be held liable, even if you committed a civil tort, if there are no actual damages. The effect of racism against white people simply does not have the same type of damage, does not wreak the same type of havoc on people's lives, as racism against black people has done throughout our country's history and continues to do.

Comparing it to HIV is disingenuous. It may offend someone on a micro level, but on a macro level (and that is where the real discussion should take place, breaking it down to a micro level is a way to dodge the argument by scoffing at all the horrible people who ignore "reverse-racism" while ignoring the institutional effects of racism) there is virtually no damage. The more apt comparison is comparing "white racism" to a paper cut or stubbed toe. It might hurt, but you don't go to the hospital or need a ton of treatment to fix it. Meanwhile, racism against black people is cancer. It destroys entire groups of people's lives on a macro level (I am not talking about some hillbilly using the N-word...I am talking about the institutional effects of racism). Racism against white people simply does not do that. It is micro.

So you concede that committing a crime is a personal choice? And poor people commit crimes more than non-poor people.

White people worked to get out of the ghettos.

Which party is the dominant party in the inner cities?

No, that is not what I said. If you'd like to have an intellectual conversation, I'd ask you to read my entire post rather than skim through the first paragraph and put words in my mouth to fit your argument. I said that rational choice theory is one of two prevalent theories on crime. If anything, there is more empirical support for conditioning theories.

As to the "white people worked to get out of the ghetto" nonsense...that discounts the institutional roadblocks faced by African Americans. Saying that is basically like a spoiled white kid whose daddy paid his way through college, lecturing a classmate about taking out too many student loans.


The problem with this logic is that only extends to a structural perspective and not a personal one. Being discimrinated against based on arbitrary demographics personally affects people roughly the same, although the structural consequences are obviously quite different as you mentioned.

If a racist comment is made in this thread it affects individuals, it's not institutional. A problem with the approach people take to being racist against whites, and the defense in this thread, is that if it isn't institutional it doesn't matter. Making no distinction between the personal and the structural is a problem and particularly in this thread people conflate the two.

If someone makes jokes or comments against Asians or African Americans, do Asian individuals take less offense or are they less affected because they're not structurally discriminated against?

Its not that it doesn't matter. Its that there is no real damage from it. Personal offense is not a societal harm and cannot be remedied. To go back to the legal analogy that I was using with Chaseter, regarding damages...if a perspective client comes into my office and says "I slipped on a wet floor in a store with no sign!" my first question will be, "were you hurt?" If the person says "I scraped my knee but that's about it" that is the end of it. They may have been hurt personally, embarrassed, etc...but there are no actual damages so as to allow for a legal remedy.

Being called a cracker may hurt you individually, but there are no actual damages in the societal sense. You aren't starting at a grossly unequal point because someone called you a cracker. You aren't losing out on jobs, being targeted by police disproportionately, etc because someone called you cracker.

So is it a problem? Sure. But it is a very micro problem that really isn't a societal concern, any more than society is concerned about the guy who gave me the finger while driving the other day.
 
Oh jeez, that is such a silly statistic to bring up in a conversation about racism. Of course fewer white people commit crimes. That's because fewer white people are in a position to commit crime.

There are a few leading theories on the cause of crime but they generally fall into two broad categories: rational choice theory (crime is a choice) and conditioning theories (crime is something one is groomed into based on social circumstance, environment, education, etc).

If you look at it in terms of rational choice, then you must accept crime is a choice. So the obvious reaction of those looking to undermine black folks is "WHITE PEOPLE AREN'T CHOOSING TO BE CRIMINALS BUT BLACK PEOPLE ARE!" But that ignores the rational part of rational choice theory. The theory holds that one knows the benefits of crime vs the consequences (imprisonment, possible harm or death, etc) and chooses to commit crime because it is in their best interest to do so compared to the alternative. Basically it is the age old question do you steal a loaf of bread or do you starve? If we accept rational choice theory we must also look at the root causes of the choice. Social inequity puts more black people in a position where crime is a rational choice than white people. Why? Poverty. Economic inequity has (statistically) placed African Americans in a position where they have nothing to lose and crime is the most rational choice to get by. White people, by and large, do not fall into that economic bracket. Therefore: less crime.

Conditioning theories work along the same lines. Simply put, more black people are in ghettos, crime filled neighborhoods, etc, than white people. Therefore, a child is a product of his environment and is conditioned into crime.

There are a lot of subcategories within these two realms, but almost every theory of crime falls into one of those two broader categories.

My point being this, your statistic ignores the root causes of crime and does not take into consideration that crime is a result of institutional racism.
If I'm a victim of a crime simply based on the color of my skin, it doesn't make any difference to me if the attacker is poor or not. Is the attack less serious or problematic if the attacker is poor? I don't disagree with most what you're saying and never did I imply that black people are biologically prone to commit crime. But when discussing racism, should we ignore the actions of racist individuals? You're implying that racism against whites is not serious but if people are getting attacked and even killed, that is serious.
 
No, I am not implying anything. I outright stating that on a macro level, racism against white people is not serious.

On a micro level it certainly is, when race is a motivating factor in a crime against a white person. But we have a solution to that in place: the criminal justice system. If an individual breaks the law, for whatever motivation, they are arrested, tried, and if guilty punished. That is the micro approach. The micro level problem has to be resolved on a case by case basis, just due to the nature of a micro level incident, which is small, personalized, etc. My point being, we have a solution in place to resolve those incidents.

It's when you get to the macro level that we come up short. That is where we need a societal resolution to combat institutionalized discrimination. And frankly, I do find it disingenuous to claim that discrimination against whites is a macro problem on any level as some in this thread seem to suggest.

And that gets back to Sawyer's claims of false equivalencies. Using micro level problems (individualized, isolated hate crimes) as a retort to a wide spread macro level problem (institutionalized discrimination) is a false equivalency.
 
No, that is not what I said. If you'd like to have an intellectual conversation, I'd ask you to read my entire post rather than skim through the first paragraph and put words in my mouth to fit your argument. I said that rational choice theory is one of two prevalent theories on crime. If anything, there is more empirical support for conditioning theories.

As to the "white people worked to get out of the ghetto" nonsense...that discounts the institutional roadblocks faced by African Americans. Saying that is basically like a spoiled white kid whose daddy paid his way through college, lecturing a classmate about taking out too many student loans.
Ok. In 2017, what are the institutional roadblocks? Which institution is set up specifically to hold black people back? And only black people, because other non-white people don't seem to have the same problem.

And I always hear about this institutionalized racism like it's a fact yet never hear of a solution against it. What can be done?
 
My point is white racism is not a prevalent problem.

It is a prevalent problem in this thread. That is what I find so astounding. We have a lot of armchair Mackandal's here pontificating on the evils of racism while being gratuitously racist themselves. I don't know whether it is pure rank hypocrisy or if there is an element of cognitive failure, but it is certainly unacceptable.
 
Its not that it doesn't matter. Its that there is no real damage from it. Personal offense is not a societal harm and cannot be remedied. To go back to the legal analogy that I was using with Chaseter, regarding damages...if a perspective client comes into my office and says "I slipped on a wet floor in a store with no sign!" my first question will be, "were you hurt?" If the person says "I scraped my knee but that's about it" that is the end of it. They may have been hurt personally, embarrassed, etc...but there are no actual damages so as to allow for a legal remedy.

Being called a cracker may hurt you individually, but there are no actual damages in the societal sense. You aren't starting at a grossly unequal point because someone called you a cracker. You aren't losing out on jobs, being targeted by police disproportionately, etc because someone called you cracker.

So is it a problem? Sure. But it is a very micro problem that really isn't a societal concern, any more than society is concerned about the guy who gave me the finger while driving the other day.

The issue here Matt is you're conflating institutional engagements and personal ones. The logic behind this response seems to be that because whites share an arbitrary marker with the supposed institutions subjugating people they deserve less consideration and courtesy than others not enjoying institutional privilege. So being called a cracker hurts me individually, but since individual issues are not the issue is it fine for whites to call black people ******? That's not institutional, it's personal then? According to your logic institutional issues are the "concerning" ones, so personal ones don't prevent non-whites from getting jobs, or getting into college (SAT scores are scaled to favor black Americans and detriment Asians, as an aside), or treatment by police, right?

The major issue with this logic is that it then becomes permissible to devalue the necessity of considering whites in personal engagements because they're alleged to enjoy institutional privileges (over which they have little control) - how do you measure someone's proximity to that privilege? If a white hobo is less privileged institutionally does that mean he deserves more personal courtesy?

The astounding thing, and what bizarrely feeds into white supremacy, is that the extension of your argument is that the more institutional, economic, or political "privilege" someone is seen to have the less and less they need to be considered individual human beings, it's like they're these privileged beings beyond the grasp of minor things like common courtesy or respect. The emotions of a white don't matter because they enjoy economic privilege, it's the equivalent of saying the rich or privileged are soulless automatons. Don't get me wrong, I would agree that institutional and structural racism are issues that need to be addressed, but it is a pathologically warped view to suggest that non-whites don't have to consider the non-economic/political/institutional aspects of a white when personally engaging them simply because they may or may not have been beneficiaries of privilege. You make whites sound like faceless vessels of privilege.

When the assumed composition of a group usurps the individual experience of the individual we've truly gone through the looking glass, treating whites as human beings and addressing institutional imbalances are not opposed to one another. Effectively, as long as no broader "societal" trend is impacted upon the individual experiences of whites are merely academic? That's quite a trip.

Effectively; The more structural benefit someone enjoys = The less human they are.
 
Last edited:
Yes. And it's an early formulation of the thinking that led to the ostracism of Jews because of their supposed wealth and power.
 
I didn't want to draw that comparison since I'd probably be accused of being an alarmist, but it bears more than a passing resemblance.

The retort will simply be that because whites are a statistical majority they can't be targets of a genocide so people should just relax about any discourse that paints whites as non-emotive golems.

The message being passed to whites now is that they're represented by the aggregate benefit of the group, and that if you happen to fall in the middle or low end of the group you're just **** out of luck since you're not privileging right, and you still don't deserve to be thought of as an individual, just a statistic. This feels like an incredibly dangerous precedent. We can't condone use of racial slurs or hold harmful beliefs against certain groups because they've got less money than others, but denigrating beliefs and comments are alright against those who have power and privilege purely by association? The value of an individual human beings thoughts and feelings condensed into whether or not they're thought to be privileged, whether or not the privilege has manifested or not?

Jesus Christ, heaven help the USA.
 
Last edited:
I think Matt's argument is more sociological in nature and DP's is psychological. Which means this debate will likely never reach a compromise.
 
It's far simpler than that, sociology is a superordinate study of what is effectively social psychology. They don't operate separately, one (sociology) operates as a summation of the other (psychology). What is being argued in this thread is that the psychology of the individual can be disregarded as a mechanism in order to equalize the sociological. Doesn't that sound quaint, disregard individuals in the hopes it corrects their conduct on the mass scale…?

This is patently insane because human beings do not (I'm perplexed this needs to be articulated) operate as extensions of their demographic categories - we are all human beings, we do not function outside our own experiences. The sentiment in this thread is that not only must whites be allies in order to undo the (again, for the cheap seats, admittedly skewed political and economic outcomes) wrongs of the past, but they must also forsake any respect for their own sovereignty as their association with privilege makes them less worthy of individual consideration.

Consider this;

Call whites crackers (and by extension other racially motivated negative actions) = Does not affect the aggregate economic/political benefit, so the individual is not worth considering. Again, the importance of the individual's psychology is voided because of real or perceived position in society.

Call non-whites [insert slur] (and by extension other racially motivated negative actions) = Because of their supposed subjugation at the hands of a system populated by some whites it is undesirable. Again, the importance of the individual's psychology is exalted because of their real or perceived position in society.

The only logical conclusion this draws is that the value of one human being's individual experience is externally dictated to them by virtue of the social groups they fall into. This is as regwec identified precisely the rhetoric the Nazis used to frame the Jews, they were not people, they were merely vessels of privilege that was being taken from the ethnic German. Whites framed in this thread are not people, they are vessels of undeserved privilege that must be equalized, and disregarding their individual sovereignty is an acceptable measure to do so.

It is impossible to separate sociology from psychology, it shouldn't even be a debate that you don't change anything at a systemic, sociological level without respect for the basic tenets of how human beings function as people. That is, of course, until you classify one group in that sociological environment as post-human.
 
Last edited:
As someone who studied sociology, I think you're turning this into too much of an individual thing. We don't operate in vacuums. Our personal experiences have a hell of a lot to do with the society at large. They're defined by society. We are products of our environment.

Obviously, the rhetoric seen in this thread of blaming the white guy for everything will change nothing. It will change absolutely nothing. But people need to understand that they are where they are because of many factors in their lives (race being one of them). Once people can acknowledge that, then changes can be made (social welfare programs, education, drug addiction therapy, etc etc).
 
As someone who studied sociology, I think you're turning this into too much of an individual thing. We don't operate in vacuums. Our personal experiences have a hell of a lot to do with the society at large. They're defined by society. We are products of our environment.

Obviously, the rhetoric seen in this thread of blaming the white guy for everything will change nothing. It will change absolutely nothing. But people need to understand that they are where they are because of many factors in their lives (race being one of them). Once people can acknowledge that, than changes can be made (social welfare programs, education, drug addiction therapy, etc etc).

As someone who studied psychology, I don't think I am. The relevance of a person's experiences may be shaped by society, but our processing of those experiences is influenced by - surprise, the people experiencing the events: Us. I have no right to tell you how your individual experience is allowed to be perceived by you because of external patterns (none of which you had a direct hand in shaping, by the by). Let's say your pet dies, that's an emotional issue and you're white so you deserve less sympathy and consideration because you're privileged. A family member dies? Ditto. You get a terminal illness? Well, you're privileged so you'll likely have all the resources to survive it. If not, unlucky. People are blending economic and political representation with the validity of personal experience, I don't know how this conversation is even being entertained.

I'd like to use moviedoors as an example (nothing personal man, you're just the most neutral white person that's ever posted in here); He's a white guy with his own personal blessings and obstacles in life, doesn't seem like a billionaire and not a pauper, how the **** is it anybody's right to tell him what he should or shouldn't tolerate aimed at him simply because of his association to privilege? The message being sent to him and other "normal" (non trust fund baby whites) is his feelings don't matter, he's just a cracker, and because calling him a cracker doesn't damage his ability to get a job, or vote, or (theoretically) move into a specific neighborhood its inconsequential and complaining about how it affects him personally is just whiny.

I'm repeating this again, it violates every principle of how human psychology works that you can mistreat individuals and expect harmonious repair to happen at a macro-level. What is being advocated for in this thread is that the individual psychological consideration of whites is irrelevant, because it doesn't affect their (again, unquantifiable) privilege. Groups aren't privileged, individuals are. What is Warren Buffet to the average white homeless guy? This thread tells me both of them are equally inconsequential as human beings because the billionaire shares a skin color and apparently a history with the homeless guy, and if you average it out the homeless guy has privilege because of that skin color.

Since this can get convoluted; let's boil this down for simplicity's sake: We are currently arguing whether someone's lived experience can be evaluated for them because of their demographics. That is stunningly bizarre.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Electra. I am attempting to have a macro level conversation. DP and others are attempting to have a micro level conversation. Both are fine conversations to have, but they are essentially two different conversations being had. As such, we are simply talking in circles with each of us talking about two very different things.

At any rate, I find that when the "plight" of the white man is compared to the persecution of Jews is as good of time as any to leave a conversation, so I am going to politely excuse myself. :yay:
 
No, we aren't talking in circles. You and others are making the claim that societal change is possible without regard for the personal wellbeing of the members of the society you want to change. You think you can build a robust house using ****ty bricks.

Matt, you're a lawyer, right? You telling anybody that sociology can be discussed in isolation of human psychology seems a bit rich and has about as much validity as you giving your opinion to a civil engineer on the bridge he's building. Do psychologists lecture you on legal protocol, and should they? No, they shouldn't. Every human being thinks they're an expert on humans and society, just like everyone who owns an appendix is capable of an appendectomy, right?

Nobody compared the plight of the white man to Jews being persecuted in Nazi Germany, and you're blatantly misconstruing that point and removing all detail from the statement. The correlation was the way that Jews were framed being quite similar to the way people are talking about whites here, as entities that lack agency and must be acted upon as undeserving of the privilege they possess.

There's going to be simple litmus test for the success of this approach, it'll keep going the way it's going and we'll all have to see 20 years from now whether it was successful. Fortunately most people don't have these extreme views about whites, but it's rather telling how much conviction people can put into such warped beliefs. It's bizarre that saying "respecting a person's individual experience" becomes a bone of contention deserving multiple qualifying posts. Respecting whites as individuals and achieving a redress of the skewed political and economic concentration in the USA aren't opposing positions, in fact the former is necessary for the latter, and the fact that it's even being argued is ridiculous.
 
Ok. In 2017, what are the institutional roadblocks? Which institution is set up specifically to hold black people back? And only black people, because other non-white people don't seem to have the same problem.

And I always hear about this institutionalized racism like it's a fact yet never hear of a solution against it. What can be done?

Before I leave this thread, I would like to point out, if you have to ask these questions, you are being willfully ignorant and that is something I will not stand for. Reasonably people can disagree reasonably (see, Dead President and I). But I will not stand idly by as you spout false statements. Now, more than ever, is it crucial that we not stand for "alternative facts."

On average, black men make 73 % of what white men make. So for every $1.00 a white man makes, on average a black man would make $0.73 (source, Pew Research study published in July 2016).

In terms of police stops, in the most recently reported year (2011), 13 % of the black population were stopped by police. 10 % were white. Of those stops, 84 % of the white people were pulled over for valid reasons. Only 68 % of the 13 % of black people were pulled over for valid reasons. Only 2 % of white drivers were searched in traffic stops. Compare that to 6 % of black drivers. All of these statistics can be attributed to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (a bureau of the United States Department of Justice).

There are two nuances that should be added to the BJS stats. First, though the numbers may seem small, these are out of total U.S. population. So a 3 or 4 % difference represents literally millions of Americans for each percentage point.

Second, these are, as mentioned, the numbers from 2011. The BJS compiles traffic stop stats once approximately every three years. So 2014 or 2015 numbers have been compiled but have not yet been calculated or released. Those numbers will likely show a rise in disparity between black and white people due to the rise of the BLM movement, which early studies indicate has led to increased enforcement against black people by police as push back.

These are simply two examples. There are more. Another example would be schools. High quality teachers generally avoid lower income districts. These schools are primarily populated by black students. These school districts are also generally funded poorly due to the tax income of their residents. This leads to poorer African Americans receiving lower quality, often inadequate, education (which limits opportunity for college and career choice later in life).

Further, you seem to operate under the faulty assumption that institutional racism is a bunch of white men, in a room, smoking cigars, evilly plotting to destroy black people and keep whites on top. Its not. Institutional racism are internalized feelings, policies, etc that have a disproportional impact on certain races.I t can be overt (i.e. a cop who intentionally follows and stops a black man because he is driving "too nice of a car" or is in "too nice of a neighborhood") or it can be covert. For example, Missing White Woman Syndrome. An observed and studied pattern of the media to give coverage to white women who go missing, are murdered, raped, etc while completely ignoring similar stories about women of color. This is not a case of a racist news producer saying "focus only on the whites!" Rather it is a subconscious effect caused by the fact that missing white women tend to play more to the sympathies of white people, who are the majority and therefore make up larger ratings blocs/newspaper sales demographics, etc. So they play up the stories that stir up the emotions of that group while ignoring those that do not. This would be an example of covert institutional racism.

Another example of covert institutional racism would be the effect of these policies. For example, African Americans are at higher risk of heart disease and diabetes due simply to the fact that junk food is cheaper and many African Americans live in poverty (due in part to the aforementioned factors). It can be as simple as that.

So there are five examples of road blocks that African Americans face in higher proportion than white people in 2017 due to institutional racism.

And to answer your question as to how to combat it, it largely starts with schools. As stated, primarily black school districts generally have poorer funding and due to that inferior teachers. Creating more opportunity for young African Americans by improving their quality of education would go a very long way.

It also starts with acknowledging a problem exists rather than brushing it off and saying "IN 2017 WE ARE TOO ENLIGHTENED FOR THIS NONSENSE!" Because institutional racism is often either overt but internalized (i.e. police pulling over black men) or covert, it is easy to ignore this problem. Simply acknowledging it and actively attempting to eliminate certain aspects (for example, improving quality of predominantly African American schools, ensuring pay equality) can go a long way.

As to institutionalized police racism, a lot of that can be solved with community policing. I am not going to get into a huge rigamaroll about what community policing is. You can Google it. But studies have shown that it OVERWHELMINGLY helps to combat institutional police racism and actually reduces crime as well.

Finally, to refute one more of your little alternative facts, it is not only a black thing. The BJS numbers are pretty similar between blacks and Latinos. Latino schools tend to suffer the same drawbacks as predominantly black schools, etc. So yep, not an exclusively black thing.

Anyway, I am outta this thread. Thank you for reminding me of why I avoid it like a plague.
 
You liked macro discussions a moment ago Matt, why don't we chat about how mistreatment by police by race matches income level and station in society exactly: Asian, White, Hispanic, Black - in descending order, exactly. It's amazing how people can only try and prove their institutional racism "alt facts" when they compare white and black exclusively and try and eliminate all other racial groups as far as possible. The strange thing is institutional racism appears to be very much based on the amount of income being made by the race's in question, that's a little bizarre...

It's convenient to ignore macro discussions when correlation between class and institutional treatment becomes stronger than race and treatment by institutions, isn't it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
202,359
Messages
22,091,975
Members
45,886
Latest member
Elchido
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"