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.”
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
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.”
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
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?
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...
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.