5 ms·

I think the Amy Cooper/Christian Cooper incident from a few weeks ago was the most important 'teachable moment' that we've had in years. I am somewhat disappoi

I think the Amy Cooper/Christian Cooper incident from a few weeks ago was the most important 'teachable moment' that we've had in years. I am somewhat disappointed that it was overshadowed by protests against police brutality, because I thought it was a very 'teachable moment' that illustrated the type of racism that still exists behind a facade of tolerance. Police abuse is sort of a separate issue relating to training and accountability. While it is very definitely fueled by racism and classism, I feel like it is an issue that affects all races, albeit blacks more because of long standing economic and cultural issues. The 'warrior cop' mentality affects us all, and is something that has been slowly improving in many large cities. "Personal racism" is tough. Racism is a broad term for many things. If my neighbor plays their stereo too loud and they're white, I might call them 'white trash' in private conversation, and depending on their race I might adopt a different epithet. That isn't to say I would deny them opportunity or hate them because of their race, just that their race is a convenient attachment point for my general dislike of them. Now I'm not saying that is good or excusable, but I think it is a different thing than denying someone rights or opportunities because of their color, or making assumptions about them based on their background. When people of color don't feel safe to walk the streets of their own neighborhood because a Karen can report them as suspicious and the authorities take that seriously and escalate the situation, there very definitely is systemic, structural racism at play. If this were just happening to blacks who appeared 'urban' you might have a point, but it affects even well dressed black people and there are countless stories backing that up. Hell, ten years ago an aquaintence was profiled because her dark Italian skin made her appear Mexican to some stupid AZ cops. I am a long haired white guy who has also been bald, so I get what you're saying. For years I could guarantee I would have the last open seat on a plane next to me, I'm assuming because of the way I look. That doesn't negate the experiences of people of color, it just adds another facet to the way people can prejudge you. If anything, it should illustrate how bad things could be if you weren't white.

mythrwy 6y ago
Maybe I'm not understanding the term "structural". To me the word indicates institutions officially set up to behave in a racial manner, i.e segregation. Obviously we don't have much or any of that anymore. But I agree racism and profiling (which I think of as a separate issue... note, I do think it's an "issue") exist. I just balk at the use of the term "structural". Structural is rounding up Muslims in Western China. Structural is passing a law that says if you are black you can't come in. We don't do structural anymore. Which isn't to say we don't have racism or racial problems or classism or profiling or injustice, obviously we do. Unlike the average San Francisco resident I've actually spent a lot of time around blacks and black communities so this isn't theoretical one dimensional abstract signaling of the type that is unfortunately too common lately. The issue is deep and not nearly as simple as one sided "structural racism social injustice". A lot of it comes down to culture and how people feel about proper behavior. Along with contempt for cultures that don't have the same values. And willingness to engage in violent behavior. But I don't deny black Americans have a rough time with the police and I do think we should do something about that. Maybe that is what is meant by "structural" in which case I agree, no argument. I'm not sure what to do about people not liking each others culture though. I expect the bigots are the ones missing out, but I don't know if we can legal that problem away.
- screenbeard 6y ago
  Something doesn't have to be encoded in law to be structural. If a cop racially profiles a black man and harasses him and his boss doesn't discipline him, that's structural. The structure has failed to provide the right outcome.
  - mythrwy 6y ago
    I don't agree. "Structural" indicates a structure or framework (in this case the legal system) independent of individual actors. A cop and his boss acting badly may be systemic. It isn't structural.
    - CathedralBorrow 6y ago
      Would you be content with replacing "structural racism" with "systemic racism" in that case?
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    Those are examples of individual racism. You cannot make a law that erases individual racism. You can make one that erases structural. If a department of cops are individually racist and therefore have the effect of profiling people regularly, there is simply no law that can prevent that.
- nl 6y ago
  That's a different definition to what is commonly accepted. Structural racism is often called systematic or institutional racism[0]. It doesn't have to be deliberate, but instead is something that perpetuates reduced status of a racial minority by the way laws or institutions are structured. A commonly used example is the difference in laws and sentencing between crack and powered cocaine. The 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act created a mandatory minimum sentence on 5 years for 5 grams of crack cocaine, but the same Act made the 5 year minimum sentence apply to 500g of powered cocaine[1]. This doesn't appear to have been deliberately racist, and instead it was mostly in response to media hype about crack. But it had the result of meaning blacks were much more likely to be sentenced to prison for minor drug offences. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism [1] https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/crack-vrs-powder-cocaine-one-drug-two-penalties.htm https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/crack-vrs-po...
mythrwy 6y ago
"That doesn't negate the experiences of people of color, it just adds another facet to the way people can prejudge you. If anything, it should illustrate how bad things could be if you weren't white." Yep that was exactly my point and why I related the story. I learned that people really are profiled and harassed based on their looks or certain assumptions about them. It really does happen.
- CathedralBorrow 6y ago
  > It really does happen. But not in any structured way, but rather in random human behavior that we might never be able to correct, right?
gwright 6y ago
It is pretty clear that you and the parent's author aren't using the same definition of "systemic". It is very difficult to devise reasonable plans of action when the core terms in the dispute are ill-defined. There also seems to be a current of thought that any attempt to clarify or analyze the situation is an attempt to diminish the grievances. This anti-intellectualism coupled with the chaos and violence of a mob is frightening.
- sdenton4 6y ago
  Instead of expecting every commenter to live up to your standard of evidence - lest the entire movement be labelled an anti-intellectual mob - why don't you go get educated yourself? Here's a movie, Thirteenth, which VERY CLEARLY defines and examines structural racism in the criminal justice system in the US, and how it evolved directly from the systems of slavery and its sequel, Jim Crow. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krfcq5pF8u8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krfcq5pF8u8 This analysis and conversation has been building for literally decades. It's like showing up for the fifth week of an algebraic geometry class and calling it 'anti-intellectual' because you can't be bothered to pick up Euclid...
  - gwright 6y ago
    I did not say either interpretation of "systemic" was wrong, just that they were not identical. Both interpretations can be used to have meaningful discussions but only if it is clear which definition is being used first. And thanks for proving my point that some people view any attempt to analyze the situation as an attempt to diminish the grievances.
    - sdenton4 6y ago
      I said nothing about 'diminishing grievances.' I was responding to a) calling the protestors an anti-intellectual violent mob, and b) an apparent ignorance of the basic terms of the discussion. Again, go educate yourself.
      - 6y ago
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> structural racism I think "structural racism" is one of the biggest branding failures of the whole movement. To begin with, it uses the word "racism" to refer to something unintentional, when it normally implies intentionality. That needlessly makes people defensive. So then they want to deny that it's happening rather than admit there is a problem, which is the first step to solving it. Before even step one you've already lost. Then the definition comes out as something like, structures that produce a racial disparity. But before controlling for confounders that's just everything. There are a slew of factors that correlate with race -- income, culture, in some cases biology (e.g. for Vitamin D). If lower income people get worse outcomes then all else equal, black people will get worse outcomes as a result of lower incomes. Which implies a poverty problem in those cases rather than a racism problem, which means you need anti-poverty solutions. If you try to insist on a racism frame there, all you're doing is making enemies out of lower income white people who might've been your allies against the actual root cause which affects them too. And you make it all too easy for opponents to reveal the confounders and show that the "racism" isn't there, even though the problem is still there, because the problem wasn't "racism" (as it's commonly understood) to begin with. It's easier to actually solve the problems if you stop having to constantly fight with people over calling it that.
- gizmo 6y ago
  "Structural racism" is not a branding failure, it's an academic term that has been used for a long time and it only takes a minute or so to explain to anybody willing to listen. People don't become defensive because of the word "racism", people become defensive when they're told that behavior that used to be okay is no longer okay, and that they have to change. People don't like being told they're wrong no matter which words you use. Your poverty example strikes me as disingenuous because poverty for black people is considerably worse than poverty for white people, even when you control for the big confounders, precisely because of racism. Which means that anti-poverty measures can be a great thing but they will not by themselves be sufficient to level the playing field. It's funny how it's always --other-- people who are getting defensive, who will refuse to listen, who are lost before the arguments have even been expressed. You're fighting on behalf of a demographic that doesn't exist: people who aren't racist but are unwilling to listen for 2 minutes to an explanation of systemic racism. I bet you just dislike the concept of systemic racism yourself and you're using hypothetical alienation of ignorant poor white people as a cover.

mythrwy 6y ago

Maybe I'm not understanding the term "structural". To me the word indicates institutions officially set up to behave in a racial manner, i.e segregation. Obviously we don't have much or any of that anymore. But I agree racism and profiling (which I think of as a separate issue... note, I do think it's an "issue") exist. I just balk at the use of the term "structural". Structural is rounding up Muslims in Western China. Structural is passing a law that says if you are black you can't come in. We don't do structural anymore. Which isn't to say we don't have racism or racial problems or classism or profiling or injustice, obviously we do. Unlike the average San Francisco resident I've actually spent a lot of time around blacks and black communities so this isn't theoretical one dimensional abstract signaling of the type that is unfortunately too common lately. The issue is deep and not nearly as simple as one sided "structural racism social injustice". A lot of it comes down to culture and how people feel about proper behavior. Along with contempt for cultures that don't have the same values. And willingness to engage in violent behavior. But I don't deny black Americans have a rough time with the police and I do think we should do something about that. Maybe that is what is meant by "structural" in which case I agree, no argument. I'm not sure what to do about people not liking each others culture though. I expect the bigots are the ones missing out, but I don't know if we can legal that problem away.

screenbeard 6y ago
Something doesn't have to be encoded in law to be structural. If a cop racially profiles a black man and harasses him and his boss doesn't discipline him, that's structural. The structure has failed to provide the right outcome.
- mythrwy 6y ago
  I don't agree. "Structural" indicates a structure or framework (in this case the legal system) independent of individual actors. A cop and his boss acting badly may be systemic. It isn't structural.
  - CathedralBorrow 6y ago
    Would you be content with replacing "structural racism" with "systemic racism" in that case?
- missedthecue 6y ago
  Those are examples of individual racism. You cannot make a law that erases individual racism. You can make one that erases structural. If a department of cops are individually racist and therefore have the effect of profiling people regularly, there is simply no law that can prevent that.
nl 6y ago
That's a different definition to what is commonly accepted. Structural racism is often called systematic or institutional racism[0]. It doesn't have to be deliberate, but instead is something that perpetuates reduced status of a racial minority by the way laws or institutions are structured. A commonly used example is the difference in laws and sentencing between crack and powered cocaine. The 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act created a mandatory minimum sentence on 5 years for 5 grams of crack cocaine, but the same Act made the 5 year minimum sentence apply to 500g of powered cocaine[1]. This doesn't appear to have been deliberately racist, and instead it was mostly in response to media hype about crack. But it had the result of meaning blacks were much more likely to be sentenced to prison for minor drug offences. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism [1] https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/crack-vrs-powder-cocaine-one-drug-two-penalties.htm https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/crack-vrs-po...

mythrwy 6y ago

"That doesn't negate the experiences of people of color, it just adds another facet to the way people can prejudge you. If anything, it should illustrate how bad things could be if you weren't white." Yep that was exactly my point and why I related the story. I learned that people really are profiled and harassed based on their looks or certain assumptions about them. It really does happen.

CathedralBorrow 6y ago
> It really does happen. But not in any structured way, but rather in random human behavior that we might never be able to correct, right?

gwright 6y ago

It is pretty clear that you and the parent's author aren't using the same definition of "systemic". It is very difficult to devise reasonable plans of action when the core terms in the dispute are ill-defined. There also seems to be a current of thought that any attempt to clarify or analyze the situation is an attempt to diminish the grievances. This anti-intellectualism coupled with the chaos and violence of a mob is frightening.

sdenton4 6y ago
Instead of expecting every commenter to live up to your standard of evidence - lest the entire movement be labelled an anti-intellectual mob - why don't you go get educated yourself? Here's a movie, Thirteenth, which VERY CLEARLY defines and examines structural racism in the criminal justice system in the US, and how it evolved directly from the systems of slavery and its sequel, Jim Crow. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krfcq5pF8u8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krfcq5pF8u8 This analysis and conversation has been building for literally decades. It's like showing up for the fifth week of an algebraic geometry class and calling it 'anti-intellectual' because you can't be bothered to pick up Euclid...
- gwright 6y ago
  I did not say either interpretation of "systemic" was wrong, just that they were not identical. Both interpretations can be used to have meaningful discussions but only if it is clear which definition is being used first. And thanks for proving my point that some people view any attempt to analyze the situation as an attempt to diminish the grievances.
  - sdenton4 6y ago
    I said nothing about 'diminishing grievances.' I was responding to a) calling the protestors an anti-intellectual violent mob, and b) an apparent ignorance of the basic terms of the discussion. Again, go educate yourself.
    - 6y ago

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> structural racism I think "structural racism" is one of the biggest branding failures of the whole movement. To begin with, it uses the word "racism" to refer to something unintentional, when it normally implies intentionality. That needlessly makes people defensive. So then they want to deny that it's happening rather than admit there is a problem, which is the first step to solving it. Before even step one you've already lost. Then the definition comes out as something like, structures that produce a racial disparity. But before controlling for confounders that's just everything. There are a slew of factors that correlate with race -- income, culture, in some cases biology (e.g. for Vitamin D). If lower income people get worse outcomes then all else equal, black people will get worse outcomes as a result of lower incomes. Which implies a poverty problem in those cases rather than a racism problem, which means you need anti-poverty solutions. If you try to insist on a racism frame there, all you're doing is making enemies out of lower income white people who might've been your allies against the actual root cause which affects them too. And you make it all too easy for opponents to reveal the confounders and show that the "racism" isn't there, even though the problem is still there, because the problem wasn't "racism" (as it's commonly understood) to begin with. It's easier to actually solve the problems if you stop having to constantly fight with people over calling it that.

gizmo 6y ago
"Structural racism" is not a branding failure, it's an academic term that has been used for a long time and it only takes a minute or so to explain to anybody willing to listen. People don't become defensive because of the word "racism", people become defensive when they're told that behavior that used to be okay is no longer okay, and that they have to change. People don't like being told they're wrong no matter which words you use. Your poverty example strikes me as disingenuous because poverty for black people is considerably worse than poverty for white people, even when you control for the big confounders, precisely because of racism. Which means that anti-poverty measures can be a great thing but they will not by themselves be sufficient to level the playing field. It's funny how it's always --other-- people who are getting defensive, who will refuse to listen, who are lost before the arguments have even been expressed. You're fighting on behalf of a demographic that doesn't exist: people who aren't racist but are unwilling to listen for 2 minutes to an explanation of systemic racism. I bet you just dislike the concept of systemic racism yourself and you're using hypothetical alienation of ignorant poor white people as a cover.