4 ms·

> you don't know the difference between systemic racism (baked into institutions) and individual racism This does confuse me, yes. How can institutions or the

> you don't know the difference between systemic racism (baked into institutions) and individual racism This does confuse me, yes. How can institutions or the system be systemically racist, yet strive to suppress white nationalism? Isn't that the definition of anti-racism?

jfengel 3y ago
"Systemic racism" is about the quiet, daily, "small" racisms that most people don't notice or pay any attention to. As an example, consider the ban on affirmative action programs, while leaving in place things like legacy admissions. The latter isn't isn't explicitly racist, and yet it tends to benefit the people who come from families admitted at a time when they were explicitly racist. That's just one of countless possibilities. Each one is, potentially, easily dismissed as unimportant. But there are a lot of things that, collectively, add up to serious problems for people who have been historically disadvantaged on the account of their race. It's sometimes called "racism without racists", because it disadvantages some people even without conscious dislike of them. We started talking about anti-racism a decade ago or so, when the swastika-wearing white nationalists were excluded from practically all polite society, but that systemic racism was still causing a lot of problems. It was different from merely being not-racist, but seeking out the hidden causes of disproportionate effects. Since then, just plain white nationalism has had a stronger resurgence. And a lot of people who consider themselves not-racist have a tendency to say, "Well, they've got their right to be racist as long as they're not being violent", ignoring the ways that threats are hard to prosecute but still have consequences. They get to consider themselves non-racist because at least they're not actively wearing white robes and using racist slurs. A lot of people still don't want to do business with explicit racists, and they scream bloody murder about it, even though it's exactly the same kind of free-association that the racists are relying on that somebody will support them. The effect is that we're dealing with both explicit racism and systemic racism at the same time. They're different and sometimes opposed, even though they also bolster each other.
- jevoten 3y ago
  > As an example, consider the ban on affirmative action programs, while leaving in place things like legacy admissions. The latter isn't isn't explicitly racist, and yet it tends to benefit the people who come from families admitted at a time when they were explicitly racist. Now I'm even more confused. Legacy admissions would seemingly benefit whites the most (I guess it depends how many generations back you look), who are also the most under-represented group in the Ivy league [1]. Did you mis-speak, and meant to use legacy admissions as another example of anti-racism? [1] https://archive.org/details/ivy-league-demographics https://archive.org/details/ivy-league-demographics
  - jfengel 3y ago
    The current admissions to Ivy League schools were influenced by affirmative action policies, which boosted black numbers. Whites are not under-represented because of black students, but because of Asian students, who have a much stronger cultural push to academic achievement. In the future, the number of black students will likely fall. Whites will still likely be under-represented because of over-representation of Asians, but that's a cultural matter. Whites do still benefit from legacy admissions; it's just not sufficient to overcome the cultural push. I'll admit I'm suspicious that you couldn't figure it out for yourself. Surely my point was clear: a program that benefited blacks was canceled, while leaving in place one that benefits non-blacks. It's the conflict between the two that exemplifies the example of systemic racism.

jfengel 3y ago

"Systemic racism" is about the quiet, daily, "small" racisms that most people don't notice or pay any attention to. As an example, consider the ban on affirmative action programs, while leaving in place things like legacy admissions. The latter isn't isn't explicitly racist, and yet it tends to benefit the people who come from families admitted at a time when they were explicitly racist. That's just one of countless possibilities. Each one is, potentially, easily dismissed as unimportant. But there are a lot of things that, collectively, add up to serious problems for people who have been historically disadvantaged on the account of their race. It's sometimes called "racism without racists", because it disadvantages some people even without conscious dislike of them. We started talking about anti-racism a decade ago or so, when the swastika-wearing white nationalists were excluded from practically all polite society, but that systemic racism was still causing a lot of problems. It was different from merely being not-racist, but seeking out the hidden causes of disproportionate effects. Since then, just plain white nationalism has had a stronger resurgence. And a lot of people who consider themselves not-racist have a tendency to say, "Well, they've got their right to be racist as long as they're not being violent", ignoring the ways that threats are hard to prosecute but still have consequences. They get to consider themselves non-racist because at least they're not actively wearing white robes and using racist slurs. A lot of people still don't want to do business with explicit racists, and they scream bloody murder about it, even though it's exactly the same kind of free-association that the racists are relying on that somebody will support them. The effect is that we're dealing with both explicit racism and systemic racism at the same time. They're different and sometimes opposed, even though they also bolster each other.

jevoten 3y ago
> As an example, consider the ban on affirmative action programs, while leaving in place things like legacy admissions. The latter isn't isn't explicitly racist, and yet it tends to benefit the people who come from families admitted at a time when they were explicitly racist. Now I'm even more confused. Legacy admissions would seemingly benefit whites the most (I guess it depends how many generations back you look), who are also the most under-represented group in the Ivy league [1]. Did you mis-speak, and meant to use legacy admissions as another example of anti-racism? [1] https://archive.org/details/ivy-league-demographics https://archive.org/details/ivy-league-demographics
- jfengel 3y ago
  The current admissions to Ivy League schools were influenced by affirmative action policies, which boosted black numbers. Whites are not under-represented because of black students, but because of Asian students, who have a much stronger cultural push to academic achievement. In the future, the number of black students will likely fall. Whites will still likely be under-represented because of over-representation of Asians, but that's a cultural matter. Whites do still benefit from legacy admissions; it's just not sufficient to overcome the cultural push. I'll admit I'm suspicious that you couldn't figure it out for yourself. Surely my point was clear: a program that benefited blacks was canceled, while leaving in place one that benefits non-blacks. It's the conflict between the two that exemplifies the example of systemic racism.