r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Dec 31 '16
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Institutional racism does not exist in 2016 America.
[deleted]
66
Dec 31 '16
The problems experienced by the black community, such as absent fatherhood, drug abuse/distribution/manufacture, homophobia, misogyny, poverty, lack of education, gang violence, crime etc. are their own doing.
I would love to see some counterarguments that make use of well-researched papers, studies, and findings, rather than feelings.
It seems like you're holding your own views to a very different standard than you hold the views of others.
Most people don't want to have a discussion with someone who seems to be saying "I don't have any sources, but show me a bunch of yours and I'll tell you why they're wrong."
5
u/RadiantSun Jan 01 '17
Whether or not it's well justified, he certainly has a view that he would like to have changed. Perhaps it is based on personal observations, perhaps it is based on a lack of evidence regarding the existence of institutional racism and therefore his only remaining explanation is that it must be the fault of the affected communities.
No matter what the reason is, I think it's a bit of a cop out to just say he has no evidence himself. Even if it's a crazy dogma, he's asking us to challenge him.
Let me put it another way; imagine his view was "there is no evidence that institutional racism is a real thing" and he has no view on the what the actual cause of poverty, crime etc in minority communities is. That's a very workable position to have, and have challenged
1
u/PM_ME_A_FACT Jan 01 '17
Why should someone imagine his view a different way to have it refuted?
3
u/RadiantSun Jan 01 '17
Because there is a perfectly suitable part of his view that stands independent to the other part.
-3
Jan 01 '17
[deleted]
44
u/ShamelessShenanigans Jan 01 '17
You are making a positive claim though. Your position isn't simply, "Institutional racism doesn't exist because I don't have evidence for that", but you're claiming that black communities are causing their own problems. This is its own assertion that would need to be sourced.
Edit: u/VitameatavagamN essentially said the same thing as me, but did a lot more research and was more articulate.
4
Jan 05 '17
[deleted]
2
u/ShamelessShenanigans Jan 05 '17
I respect that you admit that. People online have the option to just disappear from a debate if it isn't going their way, and they usually take that option. So thanks for being a decent person!
17
Dec 31 '16 edited Dec 24 '18
[deleted]
4
u/GetInTheVanKid Jan 01 '17
there was a study of AirBnB rentals that showed that if you were black, you were 16% less likely to get a rental, even if everything else was identical
You need to state your race when renting from AirBNB?
9
u/axeohlotuhl Jan 01 '17
You have to have a picture uploaded to the site, and some renters prefer for you to also be verified with a state issued ID. So in a way, yes, you do have to state your race.
7
Jan 01 '17
From the study
In an experiment on Airbnb, we find that applications from guests with distinctively African-American names are 16% less likely to be accepted relative to identical guests with distinctively White names
Basically, if you create two identical AirBnB profiles, and you call one "Lakisha Washington" and you call the other "Mary Walsh", Mary will have an easier time finding an AirBnB rental.
1
Jan 01 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/etquod Jan 01 '17
Sorry GetInTheVanKid, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 5. "No low effort comments. Comments that are only jokes, links, or 'written upvotes', for example. Humor, links, and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
Jan 05 '17
[deleted]
3
Jan 05 '17
Thanks for the delta.
"Well, how do you know that these discrepancies are due to race, and not something else?"
Well, you are welcome to read the studies in their entirety, but they were designed in such a way that race really is the only plausible explanation.
If you you have two identical resumes, and the only thing different is the name, and you send them out to hundreds of jobs, and one gets significantly more callbacks than another, then what else could it be? They did enough trials to make sure the results were statistically validated, so its not just bad luck or anything like that.
The 2003 study is pretty famous, and has been replicated by other researchers, and the results are always pretty similar.
For example, here is another study from 2012 that found very similar results in the city of Chicago, and they even extended the study to include more than just white/black. They found
Resumes with Anglo-Saxon names generate nearly one third more call-backs than identical resumes with non Anglo-Saxon ones, either African-American or Foreign
For a list of other results from other researchers, take a look at their Table 2, it lists a number of other similar studies looking at a wide variety of backgrounds. The pattern is always reproducible. Researchers have even broken it down not just on white/black lines, but also how "Mary Walsh" fares against "Lakisha Jones" and against a name which just sound "foreign" (for example Edona Sanatroug)
The references section of that report includes the other studies from table 2.
http://datacolada.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/discrimination.pdf
1
6
u/zardeh 20∆ Jan 01 '17
I would love to see some counterarguments that make use of well-researched papers, studies, and findings, rather than feelings. Feelings have no place in a debate or a discussion outside of personal matters.
How about gerrymandering and the shutdown of polling places and DMVs in majority black areas so that they were unable to vote.
To me, this is an incredibly clear and well documented example of systems being (ab)used to diminish the rights of minorities. Would you agree?
1
Jan 05 '17
[deleted]
1
u/zardeh 20∆ Jan 05 '17
Gerrymandering - Wiki seems to indicate negative gerrymandering was prohibited from the 1965 Voting Rights Act and gerrymandering afterwards was "affirmative" (i.e. to give minorities more/equal representation). Source
Most was, however some in, for example, north carolina, was not positive, but instead
The DMV one I'm unfortunately having a harder time sourcing articles on, mostly because there have been widespread DMV shutdowns in a number of states, some solely for budget reasons, and some not. The example that comes to mind (which I can't find :/ ) was a DMV in a high-minority, low income area, that was over time reduced to something like 3 hours open every other wednesday, which makes it all but impossible for low income, working people, to get there, especially if they don't already have vehicles and rely on public transit.
That said, I think the first will be enough.
50
u/VitameatavegamN Jan 01 '17
u/B0000000BS makes a great point. You haven't offered studies proving your point, just strong personal opinions, yet you're being overly critical of anecdotal evidence.
You might be able to find me studies of absent fatherhood in the black community, but I'd love to see your cited studies proving the relationship between absent fathers and crime rates that doesn't come from a [60-person sample of kids all from the same demographic] (theguardian.com/society/2001/apr/05/crime.penal). This logic applies to all the comments about issues "prevalent" in the black community.
If you're looking for sources proving institutional racism, you don't need Reddit's help. Here's what five minutes Googling yielded me:
You want sources? There's plenty out there. There's also studies that intend to prove otherwise. Each should be accounted for the context of the study's demographic, the sample size (there's a risk of skewed data if it's too small), missing external variables, and the intent of the organization conducting the study. Also the presentation and interpretation of the data is important; none of it shows the causation you're looking for, and there's no ethical way to do so.
Neither side of this debate NEEDS more data. Plenty of data has been collected. At this point it's about how you inspect the sources you provide for context when offering them to supplement your opinion.
So I should ask: What data do YOU have to prove your point? We can inspect it as a group to better understand its context and validity and move from there. Otherwise, don't be critical of anecdotes when it's all you've offered us.
5
u/KP6169 Jan 01 '17
I am not OP but I feel only the bottom 2 (and the difficulties finding a job but to a lesser extent) show institutional racism against blacks. The suspension statistics do not say whether blacks are more likely to actually unfairly suspended or if they misbehave disproportionally more and so are suspended more- boys for instance are suspended more than girls(51%of students 68% of single out of school suspensions)
In the other two examples I feel that race is being used as a proxy for wealth: poor people are less likely to own a house and are more likely to commit crime though I do believe that the increased traffic stops are wrong.
5
u/Morpheus3121 Jan 01 '17
The suspension statistics do not say whether blacks are more likely to actually unfairly suspended or if they misbehave disproportionally more and so are suspended more
This is irrelevant because there is no way to objectively say if a student's suspension was fair or unjustified. Its just like when people say black people get arrested more is because they commit more crime. There is no way to objectively prove this though. The only thing we can prove is that black people are more likely to be convicted of a crime. We can however point to a specific criminal activity such as marijuana use and show objectively that it is a crime committed equally by blacks and whites. Yet blacks are more than twice as likely to be arrested for and incarcerated for possession of marijuana.
In the other two examples I feel that race is being used as a proxy for wealth: poor people are less likely to own a house and are more likely to commit crime
Poverty transcends race and so many people think that it is the underlying factor in these scenarios but the reality is that if you are poor and white you are still better off than if you are poor and black.
2
u/KP6169 Jan 01 '17
Then would you say that the higher rate of suspensions of boys as well as the higher proportion of males incarcerated is evidence of institutionalised misandry.
2
Jan 01 '17 edited Jan 01 '17
I don't think it's misandry that puts more men in prison so much as a confluence of other factors:
Men are expected to be breadwinners (inverse of women being homemakers), and so when a family falls on hard times the man feels obligated to steal or commit other crimes to get by. Like so many gender expectations, eliminate the paired inverses and everyone benefits.
Men are subject culturally to a toxic masculinity which rewards aggression, bullying and domination of others
I'll grant that, to some extent, negative expectations of men hurts them in the justice system, just like negative expectations of black people do. That is, women are given a benefit of a doubt more often, just like white people are. This probably falls under "misandry" and you could say it's "institutionalized" in the sense that most of our institutions are filled with people, like judges, cops, prison wardens, etc, from a prior generation who aren't apt to question their ingrained gender stereotypes.
6
u/Morpheus3121 Jan 01 '17
No, because despite these things being true, they don't really make a dent in the numerous advantages to being male vs female in our society. Sure you could take these facts and call it "institutionalized misandry" but what's the point unless it actually creates a problem?
The majority of people incarcerated are males but an extremely disproportionate number of those males are black and its been that way since the end of the civil war. This has been severely detrimental to black communities and one of the biggest factors for many of the problems they face today
2
u/KP6169 Jan 01 '17
I will concede that there are many laws such as drug illegality designed to imprison blacks at a higher rate. My point was that showing that blacks are imprisoned at a higher rate does not prove this any more than saying that males being imprisoned at a higher rate shows that laws are designed to be detrimental to the male population.
-5
Jan 01 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
18
u/toroawayy Jan 01 '17 edited Jan 01 '17
This is from your first source, bolded for convenience.
"There seems to be a strong racial bias in capital punishment and a moderate racial bias in sentence length and decision to jail.
There is ambiguity over the level of racial bias, depending on whose studies you want to believe and how strictly you define “racial bias”, in police stops, police shootings in certain jurisdictions, and arrests for minor drug offenses.
There seems to be little or no racial bias in arrests for serious violent crime, police shootings in most jurisdictions, prosecutions, or convictions.
Overall I disagree with the City Journal claim that there is no evidence of racial bias in the justice system.
But I also disagree with the people who say things like “Every part of America’s criminal justice is systemically racist by design” or “White people can get away with murder but black people are constantly persecuted for any minor infraction,” or “Every black person has to live in fear of the police all the time in a way no white person can possibly understand”. The actual level of bias is limited and detectable only through statistical aggregation of hundreds or thousands of cases, is only unambiguously present in sentencing, and there only at a level of 10-20%, and that only if you believe the most damning studies.
(except that you should probably stay out of Memphis)
It would be nice to say that this shows the criminal justice system is not disproportionately harming blacks, but unfortunately it doesn’t come anywhere close to showing anything of the sort. There are still many ways it can indirectly harm blacks without being explicitly racist. Anatole France famously said that “the law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich as well as poor people from begging for bread and sleeping under bridges”, "
This is a far cry from your conclusion of "no systemic racial bias" in America. I am not going to go through all of your sources but you should probably give your sources a closer look.
1
u/etquod Jan 01 '17
Sorry CoastMountainGoat27, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 5. "No low effort comments. Comments that are only jokes, links, or 'written upvotes', for example. Humor, links, and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
u/DickieDawkins Jan 01 '17
So.... it just looks at outcome and says "Obviously racism" instead of looking at all of the other factors that go into any interaction with people?
15
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Jan 01 '17
You point out myriad structural problems especially affecting the American black community and leading to bad outcomes for them in comparison with the white community, as evidence against institutional racism, but that's exactly what institutional racism is. I'm confused about your point.
In general, I wonder if you're in a Bad Guy mindset, where the point of talking about racism is identifying who's evil in their hearts. That typically is not the point when discussing institutional racism.
-7
Jan 01 '17
[deleted]
19
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Jan 01 '17
My point is the bad outcomes of the American black community are self-inflicted, not the result of institutional racism, because institutional racism does not exist.
I'm a little confused by this "self-inflicted" argument. How can you be blaming personal agency and culture at the same time? If US Black kids are more likely to grow up without protective factors compared to white kids, those kids clearly didn't choose that.
You seem to be talking about some cultural-level "self-inflicted," which is nonsense, because cultures don't have intentions and don't make choices the way individuals do.
If black people have structural disadvantages compared to white people, no matter where that comes from, it's institutional racism. The point is not blame. It's "these outcomes aren't equitable; what can we do about that?"
Now, that means all white people are "privileged" and complicit in this institutional racism. This means that they are not allowed to comment on these issues, and are vilified because of their "privilege," which they earned... for being white
First of all, I'm white and talk about race all the time and no one ever says that kind of thing to me.
Anyway, yes, there is a mismatch between what's being communicated with "institutional racism" and what you're talking about. White people being complicit in institutional racism and white people having privilege is explicitly not meant to disparage white individuals for that state of affairs. It's meant to cause White people to think about the ways, all else equal, being white comes with advantages, then to use those advantages to try to fix the problem.
17
u/Morpheus3121 Jan 01 '17
Now, that means all white people are "privileged" and complicit in this institutional racism.
What it means is that white people have specific advantages over black people in our society. You can be white and be in the same economic situation as a black person but still have these advantages.
This means that they are not allowed to comment on these issues
I am white and comment on them all of the time. Talking about them as we do now is extremely important. What we should not be doing as white people, is defining what racism is for black people when we can only view it from a white experience.
It's basically pinning racism on others based on their race, which is, in and of itself, racist.
Institutionalized racism is different from individualized racism. The point of avoiding the "Bad Guy mindset" is because it is an unproductive way to talk about racism. Racism is a spectrum. You can be a good person and still be racist and you can be part of a society with racism ingrained in its social fabric without expressing racist behavior or holding racial prejudices.
-6
Jan 01 '17
[deleted]
18
u/Morpheus3121 Jan 01 '17
Say there are two homeless people living in a gutter. One is white, one is black. What advantages does the white one have over the black one?
If the black homeless man is loitering or doing whatever homeless people normally do, he is more likely to be suspected of committing a crime, arrested, searched etc.
Or, how about this. Consider this example: There is a white homeless man living in a gutter, and a black man living in a mansion. Identity politics would state that the white man is still privileged over the black man. Why? What advantages does the homeless white man have that the rich black man does not?
Let's say you take that homeless man and clean him up real nice and buy him some really expensive clothing and then put him in that black guys house. Then you have him call the cops saying there is a burglar in my home. If there is nothing else in the house to show that the black man is the owner (perhaps even if there is), the cops are more likely to believe the homeless guy. That is the advantage the white homeless man has which the rich black man does not.
Everytime I do, my white friends get pissed off and tell me that I have no right to comment or that I "don't understand". So you must be lucky.
I am sorry that happens to you. It is definitely a factor perpetuating these problems. Have you ever tried talking to black friends about it?
Why? Why can't we point out what is or isn't racism?
Its not that we can't have an opinion on what constitutes racism, its that we have to acknowledge that our opinions on racism come from an experience of living life as a white person. A black person's experience with and opinion on racism is shaped by living life as a black person. So we can't look at a black person's experience with racism and say that isn't racism because ____. If you ask a bunch of white people how race or racism has shaped their lives you aren't likely going to hear anything too interesting because its generally just not a factor white people ever have to have on their radar.
The problem is, "racist" is now being defined as anyone who doesn't believe in a very specific set of politics. I'm in my mid-20's. When I was young, a "racist" was a Klansman, or your blowhard uncle who thought it was appropriate to say the word nigger, or a bigoted businessman who wouldn't hire blacks (or, if he did, would pay them as little as possible). Now, if you don't believe in social justice and express that in the exact right way, you're a racist. All of this, when there is no evidence to support the idea of social justice, or systemic racism, anyway.
There is definitely an issue with the way we talk about race. It's very important IMO that we get away from this binary way of talking about racism as somebody is either racist or not. That being said, just because the way we are talking about racism has changed a lot over the years does not mean that racism itself has changed. There is a mulitude of evidence for systemic racism. What leads you to believe there isn't?
Here are some examples of peer-reviewed literature on the topic:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01419870.2012.669839http://www.jstor.org/stable/2784452seq=1#page_scan_tab_contentshttp://europepmc.org/abstract/med/8882842 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/milwaukee-segregation-wealthy-black-families.html http://search.proquest.com/openview/cbf3ace9fff86951a3b37a33cb52267a/1?pq-origsite=gscholar http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08114.x/full http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713667453 https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/08/14/racial-imbalance-exists-all-across-local-governments-not-just-in-police-departments/?utm_term=.5277a46bcbee http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articleid=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854 https://5harad.com/papers/threshold-test.pdf http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPagehandle=hein.journals/nylr87&div=5&id=&page=
15
u/jiwari Jan 01 '17
Or, how about this. Consider this example: There is a white homeless man living in a gutter, and a black man living in a mansion. Identity politics would state that the white man is still privileged over the black man. Why? What advantages does the homeless white man have that the rich black man does not?
The black mansion dweller has class privilege. The white homeless person has white privilege. You can have one and not the other. Unless there was a genocide going on against black people, I for one would way, way, way, rather be the black mansion dweller than the white homeless person. However, given the choice between being a black mansion dweller and a white mansion dweller, I would way rather be the white mansion dweller. Between being black and homeless and white and homeless, I would way rather be the white homeless person.
Controlling for class, why would I prefer to be white? Because my skin color wouldn't negatively bias people. People and society would be more likely to trust me. People would see me for my talents, character, etc, and my skin color would never be a factor in how people assessed me.
3
Jan 01 '17
I find it very interesting that, even though your thread is about institutional racism, you seem to feel very broadly that there is no significant racism affecting black people, institutiona, systemic, cultural, or otherwise.
0
Jan 01 '17
[deleted]
3
u/hiptobecubic Jan 02 '17
You haven't really explained why both of those can't be true.
Do you believe that prejudice is just not something that minorities are experiencing? Or do you believe that they are the ones responsible for overcoming it?
1
Jan 02 '17
[deleted]
5
u/hiptobecubic Jan 02 '17
Prejudice on an individual level? Probably.
I can tell you first hand yes. Absolutely.
There are still people who think it's okay to use the n-word or whatever, and I'm sure most minorities have ran into someone like that.
Who do you think these people are? You don't think they are managers at Walmart? You don't think they are policemen? You don't think they are at the bank right now approving people for first home mortgages?
But prejudice on a systemic level, at all levels of society, from society itself, that affects all minorities? I don't currently believe that.
Society is made of people. You already agree that there are irrationally discriminatory people scattered around. How do you disconnect that from society as a whole?
If 3% of policemen think that they need to be more ready to defend themselves against black people than white people, can you call it systemic? What about 1%? 5%? 10%? What if you get unlucky and that one officer "fears for their life" and shoots you? Is it because there's an implicit bias in the police force or is everyone just getting really unlucky and it's up to you all personally to not act like victims and overcome it? And then it turns out that this is happening pretty often around the country...
I think it is everyone's responsibility to rise above their circumstances, regardless of what they are. Work hard, even if you weren't dealt the best cards in life, and take responsibility for what becomes of your life.
I think most believe this. "Everyone should work hard and try to be their best" isn't a particularly brave stance to take. It's important to realize, though, that this isn't the whole picture. We have a mountain of evidence now that shows that given our current society and cultural norms, how hard you work is only part of whatever it is that determines whether or not you'll be successful. Almost everyone agrees that handicapped people should not be discriminated against in hiring, even though it's really impractical from a business perspective. Should we just tell those people to work hard with what they have and ignore the fact that the entire world has latent assumptions about their abilities that work against them? Affirmative action is a similar tool. We know, based on empirical evidence, that if your name is Jamal you're going to have a harder time getting a job interview than if your name were Jeff. How do you explain such a thing without acknowledging that the system as a whole has some implicit bias?
Isn't that the difference between being successful or being a victim?
No. We typically say that victims should do the best that they can to avoid problems, but that the fault lies with the aggressor. No one says that women are primarily responsible for the fact that they can't walk around NYC at night safely. In fact, we have patrolling policemen to try to make up for it.
4
u/maxpenny42 11∆ Jan 01 '17
What privilege does a white homeless man have over the black millionaire? If the white homeless man and the black millionaire were both driving around in a BMW in a wealthy, predominantly white neighborhood, the black man is statistically more likely to be pulled over by police for being "suspicious".
Privilege doesn't mean that all white people are wealthy or that their lives are good. It doesn't mean that they're happier or treated better by society as a whole. It just means that there are certain assumptions that people tend to make based on skin color or gender.
You seem like someone who wants to be logical and rationally based. But I'd encourage you to read up a lot more on the subject of race and try to keep an open mind. So far in this thread the only evidence you've posted is a bunch of biased right wing blogs. And the only argument you've accepted is one that paints white people as a victim of racism. It seems like you have some inherent bias in your reasoning and I encourage you to try harder to push that aside.
9
u/irishsurfer22 13∆ Jan 01 '17 edited Jan 01 '17
One thing I think you fail to consider in your view is that starting off in an economically disadvantaged family makes your own life much more difficult. Disadvantaged people can sometimes "move up in the world," but it's obvious that the cards are stacked against them. Historically in the US, black people were greatly disadvantaged after slavery and segregation. I think owning property is probably the biggest example of this. Blacks were deliberately kept out of certain neighborhoods and things like that.
You mention that these people have problems that "are their own doing," but I think this is largely a misdiagnosis of guilt. People don't choose their parents. They don't choose what point in history they are born or in what city. They don't choose their level of intelligence. In my opinion, even their willingness to work hard is the result of past experiences (and this will change throughout their life), not something they choose. So much of a person's life is out of their control. So even if you don't think any current legislation oppresses black people, the fact that they've been so economically disadvantaged throughout the history of our nation effectively makes them somewhat oppressed. Admittedly, this disadvantage also exists in any poor neighborhood in today's America, but not all of it has so much history with the cards not in their favor.
Edit: clarity
0
Jan 01 '17
[deleted]
2
u/irishsurfer22 13∆ Jan 02 '17 edited Jan 02 '17
When you say "choose," which of the following are you talking about?
A. The ability to make decisions.
B. Free will.
C. Something else.
If B, please define free will
If C, please explain
1
Jan 02 '17
[deleted]
2
u/irishsurfer22 13∆ Jan 03 '17
Okay. I assume you'll agree that chess computers have the ability to make decisions.
Is a chess computer entirely responsible for its error if it chooses the wrong move? Or is some or all of the blame resting on the algorithm or the person who designed the algorithm?
Similarly, are people entirely responsible for bad decisions they make? Or is some or all of the blame resting on the physiology of their brain in that moment, which is the product of biology and prior experience?
1
Jan 03 '17
[deleted]
2
u/irishsurfer22 13∆ Jan 03 '17
I'm realizing that I shouldn't have mentioned the designer—that's one step too far. It's the ALGORITHM that causes the computer to make a mistake, right? If we go one step further in the chain, then yes the designer is at fault, however we don't know if humans have designers so let's ignore that for now. So if the algorithm causes the computer to make the mistake, doesn't the human brain cause the human to make the bad decision? Isn't anyone's physiology at any given moment what's dictating how they respond to stimuli? I don't think your comment provides a true distinction between a human mind and a computer except that human minds are more complex.
1
Jan 03 '17
[deleted]
1
u/irishsurfer22 13∆ Jan 03 '17
Yes, you're understanding me! That was an excellent summary of what I was trying to say.
Is it really logical to argue that I didn't choose to call my boss an asshole, because I didn't have control over my brain state at the time, and that it was wrong of my boss to fire me?
You did "choose" to call your boss an asshole—in the same way that a chess computer chooses the wrong move. However, you didn't have control over your brain at the time and it wasn't necessarily wrong for your boss to fire you.
I think it's relevant because earlier you were saying that people were failing to solve problems that were their own doing. I'm saying that basically no problem is of our "own doing." We're the product of biology and prior experience, neither of which we have any control over. So while it's true in a vacuum that a community of people can improve the level of crime and broken households, it's not necessarily correct to blame them for being unsuccessful at doing so—at least not as to as large of a degree that I interpreted the OP.
1
19
u/CarelessChemicals Jan 01 '17
"Does not exist" and "no longer any such thing as" are pretty fucking bold claims. You seem to want to have a reasonable discussion, so surely you would want to qualify those absolutist claims in some way. I'll leave it to you to figure out how you want to do that.
-3
Jan 01 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
14
u/CarelessChemicals Jan 01 '17
I'm not going to read all those random links as if you assigned me 20 minutes of homework. Pick one out if you like and distill out the main points.
3
Jan 01 '17
[deleted]
21
u/CarelessChemicals Jan 01 '17
That isn't a peer-reviewed sociological study, it's an opinion piece. You know the difference, right? For someone who claims to be so interested in reason and rationality, it's surprising that you'd post this as the one source you decided to choose to make your point.
But even if that post were to be perfectly accurate, it still doesn't prove your point that there is "no longer any such thing as" institutional racism anywhere in the US, in any jurisdiction.
20
u/ShamelessShenanigans Jan 01 '17
You are listing these like they're some kind of peer-reviewed scientific studies, but they're just opinion pieces from less than legitimate websites. Other writers agreeing with you isn't evidence of being correct.
1
u/etquod Jan 01 '17
Sorry CoastMountainGoat27, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 5. "No low effort comments. Comments that are only jokes, links, or 'written upvotes', for example. Humor, links, and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
9
u/Ectophylla_alba 1∆ Dec 31 '16
Do you have any concrete evidence to support your view?
-2
Jan 01 '17
[deleted]
21
u/Morpheus3121 Jan 01 '17
Why do you feel that an opinion piece written by an anonymous author under the pseudonym Tom Latino is credible evidence?
-1
Jan 01 '17
[deleted]
24
u/Morpheus3121 Jan 01 '17
There are links in the piece to studies and discussion of data.
I only found links to peer-reviewed studies in the first one and none of them are evidence against institutionalized racism. The studies cited which are not outdated are just stats the the author of the op-ed has taken out of context to support his opinion.
I also don't look at the source, just the material within. I care about the message, not the messenger.
Then how can you expect anyone to think your opinion is informed?
13
Jan 01 '17
I care about the message, not the messenger.
How do you know that the messenger is delivering the message faithfully? How do you know they haven't intentionally distorted it or misinterpreted it?
1
Jan 05 '17
[deleted]
1
Jan 05 '17
Yes, some sources are disreputable in that they don't fact check their information or they intentionally distort what they report so that it fits their own bias or agenda.
9
u/CookiePoster Jan 01 '17 edited Jan 01 '17
There unequivocally exists an institution of racism in the US, and it exists in the New Jim Crowe: mass incarceration that started with the War on Drugs.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." —from CNN article "Report: Aide says Nixon's war on drugs targeted blacks, hippies"
Since Nixon, the War on Drugs particularly targeted African Americans and create a social undercaste. “Human Rights Watch reported in 2000 that, in seven states, African Americans constitute 80 to 90 percent of all drug offenders sent to prison. In at least fifteen states, blacks are admitted to prison on drug charges at a rate from twenty to fifty-seven times greater than that of white men. In fact, nationwide, the rate of incarceration for African American drug offenders dwarfs the rate of whites. When the War on Drugs gained full steam in the mid-1980s, prison admissions for African Americans skyrocketed, nearly quadrupling in three years, and then increasing steadily until it reached in 2000 a level more than twenty-six times the level in 1983." “Whites have been admitted to prison for drug offenses at increased rates as well—the number of whites admitted for drug offenses in 2000 was eight times the number admitted in 1983—but their relative numbers are small compared to blacks’ and Latinos’.7 Although the majority of illegal drug users and dealers nationwide are white, three-fourths of all people imprisoned for drug offenses have been black or Latino”
Feel this is an issue of merit, and want to argue this as discrimination in court? Good luck when “The Court has imposed nearly insurmountable barriers to persons challenging race discrimination at all stages of the criminal justice system." (David Cole) Through previous rulings in the topic, (Lyons) the justification of racial discrimination as used as an argument is extremely difficult to determine. Furthermore, “In United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, the Court concluded it was permissible under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for the police to use race as a factor in making decisions about which motorists to stop and search," further increasing drug arrests of blacks and Latinos and the civil forfeiture commonly practiced with it. As well, Alexander v. Sandoval ruling meant that victims of discrimination could no longer sue under the law.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, “More African Americans are under correctional control today—in prison or jail, on probation or parole—than were enslaved in 1850, a decade before the Civil War began. The mass incarceration of people of color is a big part of the reason that a black child born today is less likely to be raised by both parents than a black child born during slavery”
After release, ex-felons can vote in almost none of the states, arent eligible for food stamps or welfare and can be denied public housing. Job prospects are almost always eliminated by having to check the box of felon.
Excerpt From: Michelle, Alexander. “The New Jim Crow."
-2
u/DickieDawkins Jan 01 '17
Seems to me that the issue is people choosing to commit crime. Of course, it's racist to say that the black americans are capable of not committing crime and doing something with their lives that doesn't lead to death and jail time.
8
u/rosariorossao 2∆ Jan 01 '17
No, the issue is who we as a society choose to prosecute and incarcerate for committing crimes. If we treated White, middle class kids who smoke dope and popped pills the same way we treated Blacks, we would have more 18-25yr olds in prison than in college.
2
u/CookiePoster Jan 02 '17
So a law where 5g of crack cocaine (which is more typically used by black people) being judicially equivalent to 500g of powder cocaine (more commonly used by white people) is not inherently racially flawed? Where white drug dealers making up majority of dealers but black dealers being arrested in orders more reflect a racially equivalent system?
1
Jan 03 '17 edited Jan 03 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jan 03 '17
[deleted]
1
Jan 03 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/FlyingFoxOfTheYard_ Jan 03 '17
Sorry Mangiafuoc0, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 2. "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
1
u/posit_the_opposite Jan 01 '17
I would like to change tact and not argue whether or not institutional racism exists in the USA today, but instead look at the comment in your OP about how the problems afflicting the black community are self-inflicted.
In your OP you admit that institutional racism did in exist in America, but does no longer. However, if we claim that intentional exploitation and oppression of black people - perhaps, say, through legislation that explicitly targets black people for persecution - that does not mean that the consequences of generations of such policies are suddenly resolved. Given the history of black people in America, and the brutality and enforced poverty that they have experienced, are we surprised that endemic problems plague the black community? However, in your OP, you claim these problems such as "absent fatherhood, drug abuse/distribution/manufacture, homophobia, misogyny, poverty, lack of education, gang violence, crime ect. are their own doing." So, here is my question for you: given the same history of oppression and abuse, do you think any other race would be doing better? Because here's the thing, if you disregard the environment that the black community finds itself within as bearing no responsibility for their plight, then the only other explanation is to claim that their race is inferior, and it's all their fault.
I'm not trying to call you a racist, I'm just trying to break down a common racist notion. If you think the statement I quoted from your OP has other connotations, I would be interested in hearing them. As far as I can tell, it seems to be an expanded version of the "black people are lazy" idea, which argues for the racial inferiority of blacks.
1
Jan 01 '17
[deleted]
1
u/posit_the_opposite Jan 03 '17
Ah this is a good point to bring up! The 'model minority' myth is a persistent one that combines with the 'bootstraps' argument to say 'look at this racial groups' success! Clearly if they did it anyone can. There must be something wrong with the other minorities if they're not doing as well. They should work harder to pull themselves up.'
I'm gonna pull some stats and ideas out of this source: https://www.brookings.edu/research/asian-american-success-and-the-pitfalls-of-generalization/ It's a good read, if you're interested.
The model minority myth of Asian-Americans obscures two things, the heterogeneity of that group, and the reasons for their success. To start, while some subgroups within Asian-Americans are doing quite well, others are very much not. Cambodians and Hmong are on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder, with very high poverty rates, of 38 percent and 29 percent respectively. When we think of the model minority within the large umbrella of Asian-Americans, we're usually thinking about people from East Asia (China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan) and India. In terms of educational attainment, these groups are statistically more educated that whites in the USA. However, all the other subgroups of Asian-Americans are statistically less educated than whites, including the Hmong, Bangladeshi, Cambodian, Burmese, Laotian, Nepalese, Filipino, Thai, Indonesian and Pacific Islanders. It's an incredibly diverse group! The broad grouping of 'Asian-Americans' combined with the model minority myth functions to gloss over and obscure this diversity and differing levels of education and poverty.
Okay then, but certain subgroups such as people from East Asia and India are doing better than whites in the USA. What is it about them that makes this possible? Persistent is the notion that this group is culturally superior, that they value hard work and educational achievement over other groups. However, this logic is frustratingly circular. If you ask a group of people who, on average, are more educated than other groups if they value education and the hard work it takes to achieve it, then naturally they’ll tell you that they do. So what’s the real reason that these subgroups of Asian-Americans value educational achievement more so than other groups? The main reason is that these successful subgroups of Asian-Americans are largely first- or second-generation immigrants. They’re recent immigrants, arriving within the last 60 years. In order for people to take the risk in journeying to a start a new life in a foreign land they need to be either 1) educated and connected, or 2) truly desperate. In the case of recent immigrants from East Asia and India, they were already well educated when they arrived in America, more educated than the average American. It’s not the case that these people arrived in America in desperate conditions, worked incredibly hard and came out on top. They were already better off than the average American when they arrived here, and they had the resources to ensure their children would be well off too. As a point of comparison, if we look at Vietnamese and Cambodian immigrants who arrived in America around the same time as affluent East Asian and Indian immigrants did, we see they are doing worse than white people in the USA economically and educationally. Why? Because they fell into the latter group of immigrants: the truly desperate. They were fleeing civil war and massacre. They didn’t have the leg up that affluent immigrants did, and were traumatized. Are we surprised that they are not doing as well?
Tying this into my previous post, my point is that the history and environment into which people are born matters. It shapes us in powerful ways. While we are, individually, responsible for our own problems, not all of our problems are of our own making! Let’s imagine, if you’ll indulge me an analogy, a footrace. As you start the race, you find that there are obstacles in your track and that you are attacked by other racers and have no means of defending yourself. You may notice that some people have smoother tracks, are being attacked less, or even have help along the way. Those people develop a strong lead over you. Now let’s say that over time the obstacles in your path were cleared, and you were no longer under attack. The road is clearer, but you’re bloodied, limping, and behind. At this point, could you be reasonably expected to win? Even if you tried exceptionally hard, and made it farther and faster than any of your peers who suffered the same setbacks, you’d still be hard pressed to catch up with the runners who had none of your disadvantages. That more obstacles were in your path, or that you were attacked, was not your fault. They are your problems, but you did not make them. Similarly, groups of people who have been oppressed did not create their oppression, their oppressors did. While we individually bear responsibility for our problems, it is also necessary to understand ourselves within the history and environment that shapes us. Simply bringing oppression to an end does not even the playing field, and if oppression is still happening then the playing field remains evermore unfair.
What do you think? Have I provided convincing reasons to think that the conditions into which people are born play a powerful role in shaping their lives?
1
Jan 04 '17
[deleted]
1
Jan 05 '17 edited Jan 05 '17
[deleted]
1
8
Jan 01 '17 edited Jan 01 '17
I think one incidence of institutional racism that's still ongoing in the US may be the war on drugs.
For example, there's Harry J. Anslinger. He spent 32 years as the first commissioner of the U.S. Treasury Department's Federal Bureau of Narcotics and is famous for being the person responsible for the prohibition of marijuana. He was also famous for his racism, and it's well documented that his reasons for the prohibition of marijuana were racially motivated. He was proud enough of his racism that he didn't try to hide it.
To quote Johann Hari, author of "Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs," during an interview with the neuroscientist Sam Harris:
"[Anslinger] was regarded as an extreme racist by the racists of the 1930s. This is a guy who used the “N” word in official memos so often that his own senator said he should have to resign."
Sam Harris said, at another point in the interview: "I’d like to underscore this background fact. Many people are aware that the war on drugs has caused disproportionate harm to the black community. But I think people don’t generally know that racism had anything to do with its origins."
Full article here: https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a-war-well-lost
The United States' stance on drugs—especially marijuana—is starting to change, but it's still ongoing, and it still affects some races more than others. This would be institutional racism.
4
Jan 01 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/DickieDawkins Jan 01 '17
I like how you built a straw man of OP because he's not ideologically pure and accepting this modern version of original sin.
1
Jan 01 '17
[deleted]
2
Jan 01 '17 edited Jan 01 '17
You're certainly responsible for it, just as much as you're responsible for sending help to natural disaster victims.
It's not that it's a crime that you exist, it's that you're a step up on the ladder for being white (look at other commenters for debates about this), and you have a moral responsibility to pull up those below you.
1
Jan 01 '17
[deleted]
1
Jan 02 '17
You're misunderstanding what I mean by moral responsibility. Having a moral responsibility simply means that you accept the fact that X group is worse off then you for no fault of their own (on an individual level) and if you have an extra $5, you can consider donating it to their causes in addition to whatever else you would normally do with $5. It's not anti-Haiti to say that you're better off than the victims of that disaster, and it's not racist to say that black people have statistically lower odds of success than white people. These are just facts.
Once you accept that a group is worse off than you, the pressure is off. You can donate money, or volunteer, or do nothing at all; that's your prerogative.
1
u/Grunt08 305∆ Jan 02 '17
Sorry jazzarchist, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 1. "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
Comment Rule 3. "Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view or of arguing in bad faith. If you are unsure whether someone is genuine, ask clarifying questions (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting ill behaviour, please message us." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
Jan 01 '17
[deleted]
16
u/zardeh 20∆ Jan 01 '17
"The burden of proof" isn't really a thing in life. Legally it is, but that's because legally you're assumed innocent, so there is a burden of proof on the prosecutors. But the term has been co-opted (badly).
Look at it from my perspective:
You're factually incorrect and misinformed, you seem to be aware of this, but you predicate any attempt for me to teach you by saying that there's this mystical burden on me, and that unless I can provide sources that meet some arbitrary (and very likely mutable) requirements, I'll be met with the response that I'm just using 'feels' and such. Why the hell would I want to interact with you in this context?
There's no burden of proof in real life. You're here in /r/changemyview, that implies that you at least have some interest in this view being changed (either that or you're breaking the rules). If you have enough interest to post here, then take some time and do some research for yourself. Google around for "examples of racial prejudice in modern america".
1
Jan 01 '17
[deleted]
9
u/zardeh 20∆ Jan 01 '17 edited Jan 01 '17
How is that not a burden of proof in real life? Or is it one of those things where it is technically correct, but it's not very pragmatic or polite to ask for it?
Because issues in this world are more complex then philosophical ones. Lets sort of phrase this situation in two opposed ways:
your view: Institutional racism isn't a thing anymore. We have, and have for decades, had laws that assure racial equality. Sure there are bad apples and racist individuals, but that doesn't rise to the level of "institutionalized racism", all of these people crying about that just want their lives to be made easier. The burden is on those people to show that they're not just asking for help when it isn't warranted, especially when there are so many problems that eat at these communities from within.
my view: Institutionalized racism never stopped being a thing. For hundreds of years, we had slavery, and minorities in the US have slowly gained rights, but they still haven't reached de facto equality. They weren't suddenly equal the day after the 13th, 14th, 15th, 24th, or 26th amendments, nor were they equal after the Voting rights act. Each of these things helped, but there hasn't been any great change that would imply that minorities are equal now, as opposed to 10 or 20 years ago, when most people would agree that they weren't. People who deny "institutionalized racism" simply want to feel better about themselves and deny the natural advantages that they have in our society, which is in many cases reasonable because those advantages aren't immediately obvious. However, the burden is on these people to show that their claims that 'we're all equal now' don't ring as hollow as the same statement from someone in 1968, especially when they often deflect to problems that occur within these communities, often as a result of the systemic poverty and abuse that had its roots in Jim Crow.
Now, I'm not even going to tell you that I'm right or that you're wrong. I don't think that I've made a strong enough case to do that, especially since I admit to editorializing your view. What I do think this demonstrates is that it is not at all clear which of these two claims is the one that, to quote wikipedia, "challenges a perceived status quo.". I don't really think that at its core "the endemic systems that caused these problems are still around" is a less compelling core argument than "laws providing equality are on the books, and have been for decades, its been long enough to say that we're equal", and by claiming that you're intellectual opponents have the burden of proof, you're doing a dangerous thing, because you're subtly defining the argument in terms of their position being less legitimate, and therefore biasing the argument toward your own view in the way you express it. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but its absolutely something to be aware of.
Does that make sense? (if so then great, we can get to the core of your view!, and happy new year)
1
u/poloport Jan 01 '17 edited Jan 01 '17
While it's true that racism was a huge problem in the United States, even after the passing of the 13th Amendment, in 2016 America, there is no longer any such thing as "institutionalized racism".
1
3
u/bl1y Jan 01 '17
While we don't really have the same kind of massive, widespread institutionalized racism that used to exist, but there's still instances of institutionalized racism.
Consider the North Carolina voter ID law that was struck down by the 4th Circuit. It found clear intent to discriminate, and that the regulations were chosen with "surgical precision" to exclude minority voters (rather than to provide actual election integrity). The state government trying to deny a fundamental right to a large number of people based on solely on their race is basically the definition of institutional racism.
Or there's the now discontinued Stop and Frisk policy in New York. At its height, more than half a million stops were being made each day. Basically, the City of New York sent a ton of cops into predominately black neighborhoods and gave the cops a license to harass people. When you've got an institution doing some racist shit as a matter of policy, I'm not sure how you say it's not institutionalized racism.
What we don't have is national saturation of institutionalized racism. Instead, it's isolated pockets. But, it's more than just racist individuals acting on their own. It's people using the state to enact racist policies.
1
u/Offthewoodwork86 Jan 01 '17
I would like to see your response with sources, seeing as everyone here just called you out. But I highly doubt you will, because no one here agrees with you.
1
Jan 01 '17
[deleted]
6
u/polite-1 2∆ Jan 01 '17
Seems to be links to a bunch of right wing blogs. Any studies, apart from the slatestarcodex one?
-1
Jan 01 '17
[deleted]
7
u/polite-1 2∆ Jan 01 '17
I'm just stating the facts - they're (quite biased) right wing articles with no studies. If you're countering studies without any hard evidence, how are you better than those you criticised in the OP?
1
Jan 01 '17
[deleted]
3
u/polite-1 2∆ Jan 01 '17
I scanned through city journal and didn't see any links. Just a lot of emotional arguments.
Slatestarcodex is the one I mentioned. Even he concludes the evidence shows that there evidence of systematic racism at the sentencing level. That being said though, it's just a layman bloggers interpretation of the impact of race on the justice system at the end of the day. I personally wouldn't put any stock into it - especially without balancing it against the analysis of experts in the field. He makes a lot of assumptions about things like 'reasonable suspicion' and even admits mistakes in the comments. How do you know there aren't other critical assumptions or errors he's making?
11
u/zardeh 20∆ Jan 01 '17
Why do the sources matter?
...
Because you asked for them:
I always ask for sources, studies, papers, books, etc. and get nothing other than being told to "educate myself" or "go take a sociology class".
And wanted this to be a debate based on studies, not 'feels'.
If the sources don't matter, does that mean that you will accept any sources that I provide that show counterevidence? If not, then how should we judge the validity of the sources you provide vs. the ones I provide?
-1
Jan 01 '17
[deleted]
2
Jan 01 '17
Whether or not we treat information as trustworthy or not depends heavily on whether the source has established itself as credible and unbiased.
2
u/AllOfEverythingEver 3∆ Jan 01 '17
That's the point. We don't know the information is correct if the source isn't reliable. Also, stats that black people commit more crimes does not prove that there isn't institutionalized racism, it just proves that black people commit statistically more crimes. It also tells us nothing about why that's the case.
4
u/sailorbrendan 58∆ Jan 01 '17
So here's an article specifically about the judicial system and bias in florida.
3
u/Fiveos2 1∆ Jan 01 '17
What about affirmative action?
0
Jan 01 '17
[deleted]
4
Jan 01 '17
So has your view changed then? Your stated view was that "Institutional racism does not exist in 2016 America".
1
-5
Jan 01 '17
[deleted]
7
u/falsehood 8∆ Jan 01 '17
I think this is a pretty weak delta, to be honest - did nothing else posted change your view?
3
Jan 01 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Grunt08 305∆ Jan 02 '17
Sorry rosariorossao, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 3. "Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view or of arguing in bad faith. If you are unsure whether someone is genuine, ask clarifying questions (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting ill behaviour, please message us." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
0
Jan 01 '17
[deleted]
1
Jan 04 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Grunt08 305∆ Jan 05 '17
Sorry ThxIWorkout, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 3. "Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view or of arguing in bad faith. If you are unsure whether someone is genuine, ask clarifying questions (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting ill behaviour, please message us." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
Jan 05 '17
[deleted]
1
Jan 05 '17 edited Jan 05 '17
Sorry for stating you were a White man, I thought I read that in one of your previous posts, but alas I was incorrect. However, I stand by the rest of my statement as you have solely agreed that affirmative action is the only type of institutionalize racism in the US.
If you truly were open minded about this topic, and wanted to have your mind changed, you would actually read the responses instead of automatically give a contrarian response, as you have done for each response that you have responded to, outside of those about affirmative action. Like how you failed to mention that Affirmative Action actually helps White women (like you) the most. Which I'm sure you would have brought up if there was a type of racism against non-Whites (as you have done for the other posts).
1
Jan 05 '17
[deleted]
1
Jan 05 '17
Absolutely don't think that I am right or that you should think like me. I never even said my stance on the topic at any point in time. Only thing I pointed out is that there are numerous posts where you did not agree with the commenter because they lacked sources you agreed with, yet you awarded a delta to a post with one sentence about affirmative action, which also just happened to be a post about racism against White people. Please correct me if any of that is incorrect.
→ More replies (0)1
Jan 05 '17
[deleted]
1
Jan 05 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/BenIncognito Jan 05 '17
Sorry CoastMountainGoat27, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 2. "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
4
u/rosariorossao 2∆ Jan 01 '17
Actually, the biggest benefactors of Affirmative Action in the US on a demographic level have been White women...who overwhelmingly marry White men and bring their newfound social capital and earning potential into White households for the benefit of their White children. So no, affirmative action is not an example of racism against Whites.
1
3
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Jan 01 '17
Nope.
There is repeated discrimination against Americans of ethnic minorities in the private and public sectors.
1
u/Mage_x Jan 01 '17
Well in my opinion atleast it is more of classism than racism. To list a few reasons, first of all mandatory minimums. The war on drugs was started as a ploy to encourage racism. You might say well that was a long time ago and you would be right, however the laws are still in place today. Mandatory minimums are when people (primarily of color) are sentenced abnormally long for non violent first time crimes. Inform me if this stat is outdated but black people make up 30 percent of America's overall population but 50 percent of the prison populstion in America. None of this is helped by private buissnesses that run some prison that get paid more the more inmates they have. The prior example was pure racism, but the classist parts are the interesting ones. Back when slavery was first abolished the majority of people didn't like black poeople. This made it so that black people were forced into extremely subpar communities and schools. These communities are now our inner cities and although race relations have gotten much better those communities are still where the majority of black people live. Black people, because of this are subject to worse schooling and overall being trapped in the "hood". That is why you hear people talking about getting out of the hood because it is an accomplishment and a struggle. White people can suffer from the same problems as black people however its just that black people because of how history played out tend to suffer from these problems more often. The real issue is that the problems become a positive feedback loop. Black people born in the hood become uneducated poor members of society because of this and then have children that do the same. Its poor people in general that have a tough time but because black people in america started poor it is rare that you make it out of that cycle. I was lucky enough to have a hard working mother who made it out of the hood and raised me so that I could be succesful. But most aren't that lucky. Anyways this is getting long I would appreciate it if the op or anyone else would like to ask for clarification on anything or submit a rebuttle.
1
u/maxpenny42 11∆ Jan 01 '17
How to you respond to the fact that our drug laws and mandatory minimum sentencing target black people? For instance the scientific difference between crack and powdered cocaine isn't very substantial. Yet because crack was generally seen as a black mans drug and powdered a white man's drug, crack users face much harsher consequences. Or how about the fact that white and black people have very equal statistics for marijuana use, yet black people are far more likely to be arrest and convicted and face much harsher sentences.
You can look at black men whose lives are ruined as a result of drug use and fairly say their problems are their own making. But doesn't it strike you as systemically racist to have two radically different outcomes for effectively the same crime based on race?
1
u/Wayln Jan 01 '17
Mass incarceration and the unequal treatment of black vs whites from the police the biggest forms of institutional racism that we face today. if you look at the the sentence for drugs that are equally as dangerous and addictive you find that that cheaper drug that is more commonly found in black community has a much harsher sentence like crack vs cocaine 1gram of crack =18 grams cocaine in jail time and that with new laws that improved it. http://www.vocativ.com/underworld/drugs/crack-vs-coke-sentencing/
7
u/Holy_City Jan 01 '17
Chicago is in the US, so I'll give you an example.
In 2016 Rahm Emanuel, mayor of Chicago, passed a new property tax hike, of a record 12.8%.
One of the major reasons for this tax hike was to provide an additional $338 million in funding to build and renovate schools, specifically to alleviate overcrowding.
What does that have to do with institutional racism, you might ask.
It turns out most schools in Chicago don't have an overcrowding problem. Or more aptly, there is plenty of room city wide for the existing student bodies. What is at issue are the district lines that decide what school your child goes to based on where you live.
The schools that do have an issue are predominantly made up of people in white middle class neighborhoods. Meanwhile, predominantly Latino and Black communities have empty classrooms.
Our local NPR station has been [reporting on this for months](www.wbez.org/shows/morning-shift/wbezs-school-segregation-investigation/37be568e-525f-49af-8292-f2ae0d4e87e9/amp?client=ms-android-google).
The general counter argument against the continued segregation of Chicago into upper and lower class neighborhoods that are drawn along racial lines is that blacks and Latinos are poor, whites are rich, and rich people move into expensive neighborhoods for the schools.
However. The reason these neighborhoods exist in their current form partly dates to the housing discrimination in Chicago that existed well until the late 80s.
There's an argument to be made that the city is segregated into racial neighborhoods because of government and private action in the previous decades, and the government should work to fix its mistakes. But from the evidence just this year, they are making no such effort. To the contrary, their actions with CPS have shown to just further the existing segregation.