Congratulations All! This was one of the lesser trafficked posts in HWFO Substack history but blew the lid off on "most commented on." Pat yourselves on the back!
You didn't give any space to the many floating definitions of racism. What use is there in discussing unconsciuos bias if "All White People Are Racist"? This is the plurality of the confusion.
The system you lay out isn't racist. You use the phrase "different racial outcomes;" the legal term is "disparate impact." This is not racism.
I have a system for you:
Imagine that a certain trait, like long-leggedness, affected a runner's performance in a footrace. Imagine that this trait was disproportionately prevalent in population B. Individuals in B would disproportionaly win footraces. In your imagination, is something "Systemically Racist" here?
If you havent grokked it, blacks have longer limbs than whites. There are other physical differences which further explain why East Africans dominate distance running, and why there will never be an East African Michael Phelps. If you were told otherwise, you were lied to. We all have to grow up at some point.
If someone is discriminating unjustly, that is racism. If they're hidden behind an institution and passing laws to hurt blacks, that's institutional (systemic) racism. Otherwise, it's not racism.
And disparate impacts don't have to be intentional to be unjust: too much inequality, regardless of the source, is bad. But progressive taxation isn't antiracist.
If all inequality is racism, nature appears to be pretty racist.
I’m a little surprised that anyone on the Right is disputing the well-known racist history of gun control. So just like with those on the Left who refuse to see the connection, there’s probably some serious cognitive dissonance going on here.
Maybe the term “systemic racism” just triggers some people—so they stop listening. And thinking.
Maybe some people so identify with the police that they perceive anything that sounds remotely critical of the police to be a direct attack on themselves and their way of life.
Maybe some people look at crime statistics and come to the conclusion that black people are getting what they deserve.
And maybe some people prefer to see class, education and wealth inequality as far more consequential than anything involving race.
Whether or not any of these people consider themselves to be “racists” is irrelevant. After all, as you noted, rich white Progressive who want to outlaw guns and continue stop-and-frisk programs never see themselves as racists. They rarely even recognize their paternalism. The puppets on Avenue Q probably got it right when they sang, “Everybody’s a little bit racist.”
The common thread here is that most people aren’t capable of or willing to consider any introspection, particularly on a topic that has become so explosively polarizing. As Clay Shirky wrote back in 2016, “The internet means we can now see what other people really think. This has been a huge huge disappointment.”
I think it's fascinating looking at the reactions to this post from different circles. The Slack loved the article, reddit liked it but had some aversion to the "systemic racism" nomenclature, and the comments here had an extreme aversion to it. I speculate that's because the term has become so loaded by bad actors who can't explain it that it elicits a visceral response.
Let's suppose I accept your premise, that that's an example of systemic racism. If so, it isn't going to be fixed by defunding the police, mandating antiracism training in the workplace, or teaching kids CRT in kindergarten. In other words, all of the policy prescriptions that supposedly follow from the existence of systemic racism are still crap.
While I certainly don't disagree with everything in the article, I am a bit tired of racism being used to describe every social issue. If anything it is classism, not racism as there are plenty of wealthy people of color and plenty of poor white people.
Statistics will show that it is disproportionately one race over the other that fits in one socio-economic level or the other, but that is the problem with statistics that are desegregated by race. They continue to push the stereotypes that breed racism and the problem feeds on itself.
If we can stop using the term "racism" to label social issues, maybe people on the "right" (since we are all about labels) will realize that it affects them as well. The knee-jerk reaction to people labeling an issue with racism is to call BS. If those pushing the agenda called it "Systemic Classism" I personally would have no problem getting behind it.
The same applies to "Critical Race Theory". It's biggest flaw is the fact that it is actually a racist concept. To assume everyone from one race has had the same experiences and problems is incredibly flawed. If the folks who claim to be so against labels and stereotypes can stop stereotyping we might find some common ground again some day.
"Judge a man not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character" -MLK
I share a lot of your views, but there's an important thing you're missing. If you have systemized classism, and it's enforced visually, then it goes beyond classism and disproportionately affects people who *look* like that class.
So in this example, if you have identical people except for skin tone, both of a lower socioeconomic class, one gets thrown up against the bricks more than the other because their race is more easily identifiable as being within that class.
And the point of the article was to get rid of the dang law so nobody is doing the classism shit, which in turn means they're not doing the "systemic racism" shit.
You’ve just described how every non-homogeneous society works. Britain has had systemized classism for centuries, and they’ve been enforcing it visually for centuries, too.
Expanding your explanation to other crimes, enforcement of laws violated more frequently by lower socioeconomic classes is systemically racist, and on that basis should be rescinded. E.g. Assault, murder, robbery, etc. The elite classes are more likely to have a good lawyer that will successfully represent them. Therefore the outcomes which are plainly known to the police, are racially unbalanced in prevalence, prosecution and adjudication.
Shall we create an argument to rescind these laws?
Assault, murder, and robbery have a victim. People carry guns (even illegally) in areas prone to assault, murder, and robbery to protect themselves from being victims.
That doesn't refute CaptainJohn's point. It just means you favor "systemic racism" in the enforcement of laws against violent crime but not in the enforcement of gun restrictions.
If you are arguing in favor of repeal of victimless crime statutes that primarily impact lower socioeconomic classes, how would you exempt from your argument mere possession of large and very large quantities of currently illegal drugs? It is currently assumed that possession of large quantities indicates an intent to commit a crime - distribution and sale - for which many people are in jail. This implication of intent to commit a crime could easily be applied to gun possession. How, or would you separate these "crimes"?
Secondly, how would you isolate from your argument the repeal of any criminal law that might be argued as having only public benefit?
I would not exempt possession of illegal drugs. I would question why we make drugs illegal, and if the illegality of the drugs is being made for societal benefit, I'd look for better solutions than the drug war.
I'm all for changing the gun laws in NYC, but the above demographic aren't criminals because they're caught with guns, they're caught with guns because they're criminals...
Further, the history of black armed self defense in the USA is a history of illegal ownership. I have a black friend who grew up in the projects and he thinks the 2A is sorta stupid because everyone he knows has an illegal gun anyway. Black folks never cared about the constitution in the first place because it wasn't doing them any good. This is a problem with getting 2A outreach into the black community, because they don't trust it.
I suspect it is more about the easier access to stolen weapons in some communities rather than a fuss over the law. Imagine buying at a gun store for full price vs typical half price street sale. I do wonder what the Chicago serial number survey will say but I expect not many actual gun dealers will pop out. I've seen people with a box full of various pistols for sale - few of high value but some really looking quite knocked about. Most gun show folk wouldn't have a second look.
NAAGA membership is actually something like 60% female. And there's no firm data on that, but folks in NAAGA have told me in confidence that they suspect the membership differential is an artifact of how many black males have criminal records due to getting sucked up into the criminal justice system. Folks of all stripes, but particularly gun folks, need to start taking a broader look at the systemic stresses on that community. At a minimum in regards to gun ownership.
Learned something new - National African American Gun Association. Duplicative of the NRA I belong to. Could be a good organization given that NRA is too associated with "patriots", in disfavor with some. The point of felons not able to have firearms has some merit but it only seems a way to stick somebody with extra charges should they get caught with a gun doing a minor crime.
The problem as I see it is that more Black men are wanted for murder than any other demographic. So that is what I see as the key to police stops of Black men... they are the ones doing the killing. That's not racist. It's the sad reality. We need to look at the reasons they are resorting to violence and try to address that.
Wow. I like most of your stuff, BJ. You know that. But this one is a stretch. Just my opinion, and please don't take offense, but that's some tortured logic there. 'It's harder for poor people to fight (or pay to navigate) oppressive laws; black males are more prevalent among the poor (presumably than white males); ergo, oppressive laws = systemic racism.'
Please don't misconstrue. I won't be "unsubscribing" and I won't stop reading your stuff. I just don't think the argument here really proves anything.
I was definitely curious how my readers would take this. The folks on Slack were "this is obvious," as were my connections at NAAGA. OSD liked it but wanted to steer clear of publishing it there because it's culture war related. The comments here have been very "anti."
All of which is fine.
The important takeaway here is not only that any system of oppression like this that disproportionately affects poorer folks will disproportionately affect black folks, but further that any enforcement mechanism that requires the enforcers to seek out poorer folks visually is going to affect black folks *even more.*
I don't disagree with any of that. But when you associate crime with black skin, non-criminals get stereotyped. AND THEN when the "crime" is some dumb artificially concocted bullshit such as NYC gun laws (or cigarette taxes or similar) then the boot comes down harder on the communities who *look* like they may have crossed the artificially concocted bullshit.
Imagine a world where real, legit crime is perfectly evenly distributed across race but socioeconomic class isn't. In that imaginary world they're still throwing black males up against the wall purely because they have a skin tone that more easily identifies them as a socioeconomic class that can't afford to hire a lawyer to get them a carry permit.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I work with cops. Literally, thousands of them. That isn't the world we live in today and hasn't been for quite some time.
It's okay. If we all agreed about everything, we'd be little different than the ants you wrote about a few years back. Same algorithm; same result. That was a great blog post, and I don't mean to diminish this one by comparison. All good my friend. :-)
Congratulations All! This was one of the lesser trafficked posts in HWFO Substack history but blew the lid off on "most commented on." Pat yourselves on the back!
Illuminating as always, if not quite persuasive
You didn't give any space to the many floating definitions of racism. What use is there in discussing unconsciuos bias if "All White People Are Racist"? This is the plurality of the confusion.
The system you lay out isn't racist. You use the phrase "different racial outcomes;" the legal term is "disparate impact." This is not racism.
I have a system for you:
Imagine that a certain trait, like long-leggedness, affected a runner's performance in a footrace. Imagine that this trait was disproportionately prevalent in population B. Individuals in B would disproportionaly win footraces. In your imagination, is something "Systemically Racist" here?
If you havent grokked it, blacks have longer limbs than whites. There are other physical differences which further explain why East Africans dominate distance running, and why there will never be an East African Michael Phelps. If you were told otherwise, you were lied to. We all have to grow up at some point.
If someone is discriminating unjustly, that is racism. If they're hidden behind an institution and passing laws to hurt blacks, that's institutional (systemic) racism. Otherwise, it's not racism.
And disparate impacts don't have to be intentional to be unjust: too much inequality, regardless of the source, is bad. But progressive taxation isn't antiracist.
If all inequality is racism, nature appears to be pretty racist.
We've covered other racism definitions before. I'll throw you some links.
https://hwfo.substack.com/p/the-two-confusing-definitions-of
Now obviously that covers the two versions of individual racism and doesn't cover the systemic end. This is also good I think:
https://hwfo.substack.com/p/explaining-the-social-justice-woke
I’m a little surprised that anyone on the Right is disputing the well-known racist history of gun control. So just like with those on the Left who refuse to see the connection, there’s probably some serious cognitive dissonance going on here.
Maybe the term “systemic racism” just triggers some people—so they stop listening. And thinking.
Maybe some people so identify with the police that they perceive anything that sounds remotely critical of the police to be a direct attack on themselves and their way of life.
Maybe some people look at crime statistics and come to the conclusion that black people are getting what they deserve.
And maybe some people prefer to see class, education and wealth inequality as far more consequential than anything involving race.
Whether or not any of these people consider themselves to be “racists” is irrelevant. After all, as you noted, rich white Progressive who want to outlaw guns and continue stop-and-frisk programs never see themselves as racists. They rarely even recognize their paternalism. The puppets on Avenue Q probably got it right when they sang, “Everybody’s a little bit racist.”
The common thread here is that most people aren’t capable of or willing to consider any introspection, particularly on a topic that has become so explosively polarizing. As Clay Shirky wrote back in 2016, “The internet means we can now see what other people really think. This has been a huge huge disappointment.”
I think it's fascinating looking at the reactions to this post from different circles. The Slack loved the article, reddit liked it but had some aversion to the "systemic racism" nomenclature, and the comments here had an extreme aversion to it. I speculate that's because the term has become so loaded by bad actors who can't explain it that it elicits a visceral response.
Which itself is a common HWFO topic.
https://hwfo.substack.com/p/not-your-imagination-society-is-going
Let's suppose I accept your premise, that that's an example of systemic racism. If so, it isn't going to be fixed by defunding the police, mandating antiracism training in the workplace, or teaching kids CRT in kindergarten. In other words, all of the policy prescriptions that supposedly follow from the existence of systemic racism are still crap.
While I certainly don't disagree with everything in the article, I am a bit tired of racism being used to describe every social issue. If anything it is classism, not racism as there are plenty of wealthy people of color and plenty of poor white people.
Statistics will show that it is disproportionately one race over the other that fits in one socio-economic level or the other, but that is the problem with statistics that are desegregated by race. They continue to push the stereotypes that breed racism and the problem feeds on itself.
If we can stop using the term "racism" to label social issues, maybe people on the "right" (since we are all about labels) will realize that it affects them as well. The knee-jerk reaction to people labeling an issue with racism is to call BS. If those pushing the agenda called it "Systemic Classism" I personally would have no problem getting behind it.
The same applies to "Critical Race Theory". It's biggest flaw is the fact that it is actually a racist concept. To assume everyone from one race has had the same experiences and problems is incredibly flawed. If the folks who claim to be so against labels and stereotypes can stop stereotyping we might find some common ground again some day.
"Judge a man not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character" -MLK
I share a lot of your views, but there's an important thing you're missing. If you have systemized classism, and it's enforced visually, then it goes beyond classism and disproportionately affects people who *look* like that class.
So in this example, if you have identical people except for skin tone, both of a lower socioeconomic class, one gets thrown up against the bricks more than the other because their race is more easily identifiable as being within that class.
And the point of the article was to get rid of the dang law so nobody is doing the classism shit, which in turn means they're not doing the "systemic racism" shit.
You’ve just described how every non-homogeneous society works. Britain has had systemized classism for centuries, and they’ve been enforcing it visually for centuries, too.
And I think that's wrong. Personally. YMMV.
I guess I’ve spent too many years traveling around the world listening to how other people describe their own cultures and their own histories.
Expanding your explanation to other crimes, enforcement of laws violated more frequently by lower socioeconomic classes is systemically racist, and on that basis should be rescinded. E.g. Assault, murder, robbery, etc. The elite classes are more likely to have a good lawyer that will successfully represent them. Therefore the outcomes which are plainly known to the police, are racially unbalanced in prevalence, prosecution and adjudication.
Shall we create an argument to rescind these laws?
Assault, murder, and robbery have a victim. People carry guns (even illegally) in areas prone to assault, murder, and robbery to protect themselves from being victims.
That doesn't refute CaptainJohn's point. It just means you favor "systemic racism" in the enforcement of laws against violent crime but not in the enforcement of gun restrictions.
If you are arguing in favor of repeal of victimless crime statutes that primarily impact lower socioeconomic classes, how would you exempt from your argument mere possession of large and very large quantities of currently illegal drugs? It is currently assumed that possession of large quantities indicates an intent to commit a crime - distribution and sale - for which many people are in jail. This implication of intent to commit a crime could easily be applied to gun possession. How, or would you separate these "crimes"?
Secondly, how would you isolate from your argument the repeal of any criminal law that might be argued as having only public benefit?
I would not exempt possession of illegal drugs. I would question why we make drugs illegal, and if the illegality of the drugs is being made for societal benefit, I'd look for better solutions than the drug war.
I'm all for changing the gun laws in NYC, but the above demographic aren't criminals because they're caught with guns, they're caught with guns because they're criminals...
Not when they're thrown up against a wall and their only crime is carrying the gun illegally.
And I imagine in some of those neighborhood, they need that gun to protect against real criminals.
Further, the history of black armed self defense in the USA is a history of illegal ownership. I have a black friend who grew up in the projects and he thinks the 2A is sorta stupid because everyone he knows has an illegal gun anyway. Black folks never cared about the constitution in the first place because it wasn't doing them any good. This is a problem with getting 2A outreach into the black community, because they don't trust it.
I suspect it is more about the easier access to stolen weapons in some communities rather than a fuss over the law. Imagine buying at a gun store for full price vs typical half price street sale. I do wonder what the Chicago serial number survey will say but I expect not many actual gun dealers will pop out. I've seen people with a box full of various pistols for sale - few of high value but some really looking quite knocked about. Most gun show folk wouldn't have a second look.
NAAGA membership is actually something like 60% female. And there's no firm data on that, but folks in NAAGA have told me in confidence that they suspect the membership differential is an artifact of how many black males have criminal records due to getting sucked up into the criminal justice system. Folks of all stripes, but particularly gun folks, need to start taking a broader look at the systemic stresses on that community. At a minimum in regards to gun ownership.
Learned something new - National African American Gun Association. Duplicative of the NRA I belong to. Could be a good organization given that NRA is too associated with "patriots", in disfavor with some. The point of felons not able to have firearms has some merit but it only seems a way to stick somebody with extra charges should they get caught with a gun doing a minor crime.
The problem as I see it is that more Black men are wanted for murder than any other demographic. So that is what I see as the key to police stops of Black men... they are the ones doing the killing. That's not racist. It's the sad reality. We need to look at the reasons they are resorting to violence and try to address that.
Wow. I like most of your stuff, BJ. You know that. But this one is a stretch. Just my opinion, and please don't take offense, but that's some tortured logic there. 'It's harder for poor people to fight (or pay to navigate) oppressive laws; black males are more prevalent among the poor (presumably than white males); ergo, oppressive laws = systemic racism.'
Please don't misconstrue. I won't be "unsubscribing" and I won't stop reading your stuff. I just don't think the argument here really proves anything.
I was definitely curious how my readers would take this. The folks on Slack were "this is obvious," as were my connections at NAAGA. OSD liked it but wanted to steer clear of publishing it there because it's culture war related. The comments here have been very "anti."
All of which is fine.
The important takeaway here is not only that any system of oppression like this that disproportionately affects poorer folks will disproportionately affect black folks, but further that any enforcement mechanism that requires the enforcers to seek out poorer folks visually is going to affect black folks *even more.*
When asked "Why do you rob banks?", bank robber Willie Sutton responded "Because that's where the money is."
Why do police officers search out and find more crime in poorer areas? Because that's where the crime is. As an example among many: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2016/09/26/why-disadvantaged-neighborhoods-are-more-attractive-targets-for-burgling-than-wealthy-ones/
I don't disagree with any of that. But when you associate crime with black skin, non-criminals get stereotyped. AND THEN when the "crime" is some dumb artificially concocted bullshit such as NYC gun laws (or cigarette taxes or similar) then the boot comes down harder on the communities who *look* like they may have crossed the artificially concocted bullshit.
Imagine a world where real, legit crime is perfectly evenly distributed across race but socioeconomic class isn't. In that imaginary world they're still throwing black males up against the wall purely because they have a skin tone that more easily identifies them as a socioeconomic class that can't afford to hire a lawyer to get them a carry permit.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I work with cops. Literally, thousands of them. That isn't the world we live in today and hasn't been for quite some time.
It's okay. If we all agreed about everything, we'd be little different than the ants you wrote about a few years back. Same algorithm; same result. That was a great blog post, and I don't mean to diminish this one by comparison. All good my friend. :-)