3 ms·

> It's hard to believe you care about advancing the conversation when you respond with straw men and ad hominems You're right. Chalk it up to frustration in a

> It's hard to believe you care about advancing the conversation when you respond with straw men and ad hominems You're right. Chalk it up to frustration in a different thread. My apologies. > As for conspiracy theories, that's literally what "systemic racism" is I mean, that's clearly hyperbolic, right? Systemic racism is a real thing -- see red lining or Jim Crow. We can at least agree that the concept is useful and refers to a real phenomenon, even if we're going to debate the severity/degree of that phenomenon in the present. > you'd be trying to get rid of the weasel words I don't think systemic racism is a weasel word. I think it's a well-chosen, evocative, and just damn accurate noun for the concept it represents. Again, do you have an alternative word?

weberc2 9y ago
> You're right. Chalk it up to frustration in a different thread. My apologies. Thank you for the apology; I understand the cumulative frustration bit. Hopefully I wasn't the cause of the frustration in the other thread. > Again, do you have an alternative word? I would say "disparate outcomes that correlate with race" or some such. I don't object to "systemic racism" when it specifically means "disparate outcomes caused by racism" (e.g., redlining and jim crow); however, it's often used as a blanket term for any racial disparity whether or not there is evidence that it's actually part of the system and not simply the result of different choices made by different groups, or an artifact of documented historical oppression. In the latter case, its effect is to shut down any conversation about the actual cause of the disparity, because anyone who questions the systemic racism explanation is guilty of endorsing racism. So if that's not a weasel word, it's something similarly nefarious and inhibitive of dialog. I really think all parties (or at least those who aren't threatened by advancing the dialog) are better served by clear, meaningful terms, and I don't think that's what we have with "systemic racism". Insofar as it means what you say, then it's grossly and widely misused, which has the same effect as if the word were meaningless to begin with.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  I don't think the line you're trying to draw is easy -- or even possible -- to draw. What about cities that were originally segregated via red-lining, but now remain extremely segregated along those same geographic lines today even after those policies have been eliminated? Is that systemic racism? In almost all cases, systemic racism is caused by a complex mix of historical racism, contemporary racism, and rational economic choices that aren't taken with explicit racial intent but none-the-less help sustain the inertia of the system.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    > What about cities that were originally segregated via red-lining, but now remain extremely segregated along those same geographic lines today even after those policies have been eliminated? Is that systemic racism? Disclaimer: This is mostly exploring a society where racism (as it is traditionally defined) has been completely removed. This isn't what we have (we both agree on this point), but the exercise is still useful in theory. Assuming all such policies are removed, I would confidently say "no" for lots of reasons. Firstly, integration doesn't happen the moment racist forces are removed. Minority groups can and often do self-segregate for reasons that no reasonable person would identify as anti-minority racism (e.g., the social stability in a shared culture, hatred for people who look like historical oppressors [I guess this one is racism, but not one that is talked about under the rubric of 'systemic racism'], etc). Secondly, all else equal, a system in which wealth grows linearly would still see a growing disparity between disparate races even apart from racism; this is not desirable, but it's still not "systemic racism" in any meaningful sense. Thirdly, there are economies of scale to be had by participating in the majority culture, privileging those who've integrated over those who haven't--if you remove barriers to integration and some minority groups haven't integrated, they're at a disadvantage. Some might argue that this is systemic racism because the system privileges one group over another, but it's only related to race insofar as races tend to correlate with cultures, and also because it is a universal cultural reality completely divorced from any racist motive. Lastly, (by definition) different cultures make different decisions in different distributions--if some cultures make decisions that lead to poorer outcomes even if those cultures are the manifestation of historical oppression, it's still not systemic racism if all active forces of racism have been removed from the system. Of course, all of this goes out the window if "the system" encompasses minority cultures and "racism" is allowed to mean "any disparity between races"; however, no one uses it in that sense, or at least every time a moderate or conservative brings up one of these "different choices -> different outcomes" possibilities, legions of university professors and other esteemed progressives shout them down, "no, it's systemic racism!" implying that "systemic racism" excludes cultures that choose their own disparities. Of course, this whole semantic exploration is testament to the ambiguous nature of the term.

weberc2 9y ago

> You're right. Chalk it up to frustration in a different thread. My apologies. Thank you for the apology; I understand the cumulative frustration bit. Hopefully I wasn't the cause of the frustration in the other thread. > Again, do you have an alternative word? I would say "disparate outcomes that correlate with race" or some such. I don't object to "systemic racism" when it specifically means "disparate outcomes caused by racism" (e.g., redlining and jim crow); however, it's often used as a blanket term for any racial disparity whether or not there is evidence that it's actually part of the system and not simply the result of different choices made by different groups, or an artifact of documented historical oppression. In the latter case, its effect is to shut down any conversation about the actual cause of the disparity, because anyone who questions the systemic racism explanation is guilty of endorsing racism. So if that's not a weasel word, it's something similarly nefarious and inhibitive of dialog. I really think all parties (or at least those who aren't threatened by advancing the dialog) are better served by clear, meaningful terms, and I don't think that's what we have with "systemic racism". Insofar as it means what you say, then it's grossly and widely misused, which has the same effect as if the word were meaningless to begin with.

throwawayjava 9y ago
I don't think the line you're trying to draw is easy -- or even possible -- to draw. What about cities that were originally segregated via red-lining, but now remain extremely segregated along those same geographic lines today even after those policies have been eliminated? Is that systemic racism? In almost all cases, systemic racism is caused by a complex mix of historical racism, contemporary racism, and rational economic choices that aren't taken with explicit racial intent but none-the-less help sustain the inertia of the system.
- weberc2 9y ago
  > What about cities that were originally segregated via red-lining, but now remain extremely segregated along those same geographic lines today even after those policies have been eliminated? Is that systemic racism? Disclaimer: This is mostly exploring a society where racism (as it is traditionally defined) has been completely removed. This isn't what we have (we both agree on this point), but the exercise is still useful in theory. Assuming all such policies are removed, I would confidently say "no" for lots of reasons. Firstly, integration doesn't happen the moment racist forces are removed. Minority groups can and often do self-segregate for reasons that no reasonable person would identify as anti-minority racism (e.g., the social stability in a shared culture, hatred for people who look like historical oppressors [I guess this one is racism, but not one that is talked about under the rubric of 'systemic racism'], etc). Secondly, all else equal, a system in which wealth grows linearly would still see a growing disparity between disparate races even apart from racism; this is not desirable, but it's still not "systemic racism" in any meaningful sense. Thirdly, there are economies of scale to be had by participating in the majority culture, privileging those who've integrated over those who haven't--if you remove barriers to integration and some minority groups haven't integrated, they're at a disadvantage. Some might argue that this is systemic racism because the system privileges one group over another, but it's only related to race insofar as races tend to correlate with cultures, and also because it is a universal cultural reality completely divorced from any racist motive. Lastly, (by definition) different cultures make different decisions in different distributions--if some cultures make decisions that lead to poorer outcomes even if those cultures are the manifestation of historical oppression, it's still not systemic racism if all active forces of racism have been removed from the system. Of course, all of this goes out the window if "the system" encompasses minority cultures and "racism" is allowed to mean "any disparity between races"; however, no one uses it in that sense, or at least every time a moderate or conservative brings up one of these "different choices -> different outcomes" possibilities, legions of university professors and other esteemed progressives shout them down, "no, it's systemic racism!" implying that "systemic racism" excludes cultures that choose their own disparities. Of course, this whole semantic exploration is testament to the ambiguous nature of the term.