Structural/systemic racism poll

[ruby sparks]

Definitions for the purpose of the poll:

Structural racism: Structural (sometimes called social) racism is the formalization of a set of institutional, historical, cultural, and interpersonal practices within a society that more often than not puts one social or ethnic group in a better position to succeed and at the same time disadvantages other groups in a consistent and constant matter that disparities develop between the groups over a period of time.

Systemic racism: a subtype or variant of structural racism. Systemic (sometimes called institutional) racism is a form of racism that is embedded as normal practice within society or an organisation. It can lead to such issues as discrimination in criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power, and education, among other issues.

If you vote, feel free to post a comment to elaborate or explain.

The poll is specifically about the existence of the phenomenon in current times, not the past (albeit the current situation may be a legacy of the past).

 

[rousseau]

I'd be interested in hearing a few examples of what others consider fitting those definitions. I definitely think there is something that closely resembles structural/systemic racism, although I'm more inclined to believe that most communities are structured to empower those who already have power, which has the consequence of oppressing minorities who often lack that power. So not explicitly racist, but indirectly oppressive.

IOW, I suspect the major force leading to inequality for minorities is natural prejudice - people who were born racist, and who will always be racist. If white people wield most of the power, they'll naturally favour other whites, which makes it harder, not impossible, for black people to access power.

I also find the term 'structural' a bit odd, as I'm usually skeptical that there is any conscious intent to build a world in a particular way, with particular motives. That is, beyond people wanting to acquire more power for themselves, which is just human nature.

 

[ruby sparks]

I also find the term 'structural' a bit odd, as I'm usually skeptical that there is any conscious intent to build a world in a particular way, with particular motives.

Structural racism does not necessarily imply a conscious intent. Even the word racism on its own does not necessarily imply that.

That is, beyond people wanting to acquire more power for themselves, which is just human nature.

Sure. And in another place or time, it could be (and has been) racism by any human ethnic/racial group against any other human ethnic/racial group. The poll is about the USA specifically, and for the purposes of the poll, the racism being asked about is the anti-black type. A bit narrow perhaps, but that's the thing I was interested in at this time.

 

[rousseau]

I also find the term 'structural' a bit odd, as I'm usually skeptical that there is any conscious intent to build a world in a particular way, with particular motives.

Structural racism does not necessarily imply a conscious intent. Even the word racism on its own does not necessarily imply that.

Maybe I misunderstand the term, but I think if the system has no conscious intent, then the term structural is arbitrary and what we're seeing is just the result of how people organize themselves. I always assumed that 'structural' implied intentional deliberation to build a world which worked in a particular way.

It's an important distinction because it means the difference between intentional malice, and 'this is just how people work' and we're fighting natural instincts. To me structural also implies that we can build the world another way.

But again, maybe I don't fully understand the term.

 

[Gospel]

I voted it does not exists. My vote is based on USA law as written. I'm not denying that private citizens choosing to conduct themselves (business and personally) in a way that makes things difficult for minority groups is a thing. My vote is that by law they do not have that power and said Structural/systemic racism only exist because we the people allow it.

 

[ruby sparks]

But again, maybe I don't fully understand the term.

There's a great deal of material out there that is readily available by googling.

 

[ruby sparks]

I voted it does not exist............structural racism only exists because we the people allow it.

Looks like a contradiction?

In any case what I would say is that laws on paper are one thing. What goes on in society is another. I don't deny that it's a good and progressive thing that (as far as I am aware) the laws are (now) equitable. But for example and to illustrate the point about laws, it was illegal for the US Department of Agriculture to not award financial assistance grants to black farmers on a fair basis, but they still did it, to almost all black applicants nationwide for many decades including up to end of the 20th C apparently, so that would qualify as structural/systemic racism. Granted that was over 20 years ago (with some rumblings thereafter, including that according to the Government Accountability Office, as of 2009 problems resolving discrimination complaints at the USDA persisted) and it came to light and lawsuits were brought and the government had to pay out enormous sums in compensation (reportedly the largest Civil Rights payout ever, over US$1 billion so far) presumably at the taxpayer's expense. So, arguably a good outcome in the end (though only after a lot of damage had been done and the black farmer population drastically depleted) but other times the laws are not necessarily enforced, and/or practices go on covertly. But the relevant point is, it is one obvious example of structural racism in the presence of written laws that would prohibit racial discrimination. There would be many other examples, not necessarily to do with government or public bodies, especially if we use the term 'social racism' (which is an alternative term for structural racism).

To my mind and fwiw, and others may disagree, the option 'does not exist' is basically untenable. I would accept that it does not exist to a large degree.

 

[rousseau]

But again, maybe I don't fully understand the term.

There's a great deal of material out there that is readily available by googling.

Fair enough. The Wikipedia page seems vague but my gist if your meaning is - structural racism is any institutionalized prejudice. Maybe what I'm getting at then, is another level of distinction - whether the prejudice arises from implicit or explicit bias. My argument would be that most of the issues people of colour face in the US comes from implicit, not explicit bias.

But for what it's worth I voted that 'some' structural bias exists.

 

[ruby sparks]

But for what it's worth I voted that 'some' structural bias exists.

Me too.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I voted it does not exists. My vote is based on USA law as written. I'm not denying that private citizens choosing to conduct themselves (business and personally) in a way that makes things difficult for minority groups is a thing. My vote is that by law they do not have that power and said Structural/systemic racism only exist because we the people allow it.

There are still some areas where it hasn't been completely rooted out.

 

[Gospel]

I voted it does not exist............structural racism only exists because we the people allow it.

Looks like a contradiction?

In any case what I would say is that laws on paper are one thing. What goes on in society is another. I don't deny that it's a good and progressive thing that (as far as I am aware) the laws are (now) equitable. But for example and to illustrate the point about laws, it was illegal for the US Department of Agriculture to not award financial assistance grants to black farmers on a fair basis, but they still did it, to almost all black applicants nationwide for many decades including up to end of the 20th C apparently, so that would qualify as structural/systemic racism. Granted that was over 20 years ago (with some rumblings thereafter, including that according to the Government Accountability Office, as of 2009 problems resolving discrimination complaints at the USDA persisted) and it came to light and lawsuits were brought and the government had to pay out enormous sums in compensation (reportedly the largest Civil Rights payout ever, over US$1 billion so far) presumably at the taxpayer's expense. So, arguably a good outcome in the end (though only after a lot of damage had been done and the black farmer population drastically depleted) but other times the laws are not necessarily enforced, and/or practices go on covertly. But the relevant point is, it is one obvious example of structural racism in the presence of written laws that would prohibit racial discrimination. There would be many other examples, not necessarily to do with government or public bodies, especially if we use the term 'social racism' (which is an alternative term for structural racism).

To my mind and fwiw, and others may disagree, the option 'does not exist' is basically untenable. I would accept that it does not exist to a large degree.

Your example highlights both the issue as well as the flaw in my vote precisely. Consider this, what is the structure/system denoted by structural/systematic? If we're talking about the governing body of the USA the actions in your example is not a part of that structure/system thus making those actions on the part of the US Department of Agriculture illegal. Those actions have the characteristics and effects of being structural/systematic however when challenged it turns out (as your example revealed) it is/was neither as it was ruled unlawful thus not supported by the structure/system. Yet what we have In your example are private citizens acting within the government in a way that generated the results and appearance of structural/systematic racism. So calling it social or (if I may) civil racism as opposed to the OP could be a more accurate term.

 

[ruby sparks]

what is the structure/system denoted by structural/systematic?

In the OP definitions, 'systemic' covers 'embedded in the normal practices of society or an organisation'. So that could be, for example, the housing market.

 

[Jarhyn]

what is the structure/system denoted by structural/systematic?

In the OP definitions, 'systemic' covers 'embedded in the normal practices of society or an organisation'. So that could be, for example, the housing market.

Or the educational system, school policies, teacher quality, and associated opportunities.

I would pose that the majority of structural racism arises as a result of legacy factors, both in the form of networking opportunities for the privileged, and educational/policing redlines.

I would not want to raise a child in my current school district, where all the budget goes towards metal detectors and security instead of theaters and classrooms and teachers.

And beyond that, simply the fact that minorities have so much less economic momentum per capita is itself "systemic".

But whenever you propose methods to equalize economic momentum within society, or to equalize educational opportunities, the racists flip their shit.

 

[ruby sparks]

what is the structure/system denoted by structural/systematic?

In the OP definitions, 'systemic' covers 'embedded in the normal practices of society or an organisation'. So that could be, for example, the housing market.

Or the educational system, school policies, teacher quality, and associated opportunities.

I would pose that the majority of structural racism arises as a result of legacy factors, both in the form of networking opportunities for the privileged, and educational/policing redlines.

I would not want to raise a child in my current school district, where all the budget goes towards metal detectors and security instead of theaters and classrooms and teachers.

And beyond that, simply the fact that minorities have so much less economic momentum per capita is itself "systemic".

But whenever you propose methods to equalize economic momentum within society, or to equalize educational opportunities, the racists flip their shit.

Yes. And to some extent, I do understand where they are coming from, if the problem is a legacy one. They were not born when the, let's call it in that case 'actual racism', was going on, they have just benefitted from it, in many or most cases indirectly.

I am not sure whether legacy situations fit under the umbrella terms structural or systemic racism. I tend to think they do not fit within the main body of either. But they are nonetheless relevant considerations, even if not central to either type of racism, imo.

The incessant claims that 'it's actually socioeconomics' and 'race is a proxy for socioeconomics' are pretty much false because of this.

 

[Gospel]

what is the structure/system denoted by structural/systematic?

In the OP definitions, 'systemic' covers 'embedded in the normal practices of society or an organisation'. So that could be, for example, the housing market.

I'd argue the idea that normal practices of society is defined more by what said societies laws are than specific groups inside said society; but that's none of my business (Kermit Sipping tea gif).

 

[ruby sparks]

I'd argue the idea that normal practices of society is defined more by what said societies laws are than specific groups inside said society.

I might disagree.

However, imo, it doesn't really matter that much which is 'more' (and it would not be easy for anyone to come up with reliable proportions) if we allow it's partly both, which it surely must be. In other words, laws on paper, or even just codes of conduct, are not enough, albeit they help a lot.

 

[Jarhyn]

Or the educational system, school policies, teacher quality, and associated opportunities.

I would pose that the majority of structural racism arises as a result of legacy factors, both in the form of networking opportunities for the privileged, and educational/policing redlines.

I would not want to raise a child in my current school district, where all the budget goes towards metal detectors and security instead of theaters and classrooms and teachers.

And beyond that, simply the fact that minorities have so much less economic momentum per capita is itself "systemic".

But whenever you propose methods to equalize economic momentum within society, or to equalize educational opportunities, the racists flip their shit.

Yes. And to some extent, I do understand where they are coming from, if the problem is a legacy one. They were not born when the, let's call it in that case 'actual racism', was going on, they have just benefitted from it, in many or most cases indirectly.

I am not sure whether legacy situations fit under the umbrella terms structural or systemic racism. I tend to think they do not fit within the main body of either. But they are nonetheless relevant considerations, even if not central to either type of racism, imo.

The incessant claims that 'it's actually socioeconomics' and 'race is a proxy for socioeconomics' are pretty much false because of this.

Legacy racism is according to an existing structure, rather than any explicit intent. Structural racism is about how socially generated "structures" drive racism, and the geophysical and economic "structure" of all the black people out there, black people can't access good schools, black people can't access better career opportunities, and black people can't access better outcomes from the criminal justice system. These layer together to create a structural barrier to advancement that white people do not experience. Hence structural racism.

 

[Gospel]

I'd argue the idea that normal practices of society is defined more by what said societies laws are than specific groups inside said society.

I might disagree.

However, imo, it doesn't really matter that much which is 'more' (and it would not be easy for anyone to come up with reliable proportions) if we allow it's partly both, which it surely must be. In other words, laws on paper, or even just codes of conduct, are not enough, albeit they help a lot.

When I used the word more I didn't intend to make a measurement. My mistake because that's what the word means. My belief is laws represent the expectations of the society as a whole & society's structure/system is a manifestation of said society's agreed upon laws. Groups inside said society that break the law also breaks from society's structure/system (thus state and federal prosecutors represent state and federal government). To then say unlawful actions by those who broke the law is a part of the structure/system just doesn't work for me. Yes there are criminals, yes their actions adversely affects society at large and in some cases at a magnitude that takes the likeness of it being structural and systematic but there is a huge difference between the law itself making acts that adversely affect society acceptable vs one that doesn't (which I'm fucking proud to say America has the latter on paper). So to me paper does matter, as it was indeed legal to own slaves in the USA on paper and now it is not legal on paper. It took time for the slaves to become free long after it became law that they were free. The same will happen to the structural/systematic racism the law upheld in the past that many benefit from today all be it much much longer.

EDIT: I'd like to point out that there was a time in America where it was unimaginable that we'd have Police officers charged for killing a black man or CEO's of companies stepping down for racist comments.

 

[ruby sparks]

Legacy racism is according to an existing structure, rather than any explicit intent. Structural racism is about how socially generated "structures" drive racism, and the geophysical and economic "structure" of all the black people out there, black people can't access good schools, black people can't access better career opportunities, and black people can't access better outcomes from the criminal justice system. These layer together to create a structural barrier to advancement that white people do not experience. Hence structural racism.

I don't think we disagree radically, but as I said, that, for me, is not necessarily under the centre of the umbrella term structural racism.

But then, the term can be and has been interpreted in different ways, so I'm only expressing an opinion about it.

In any case, whether we agree or disagree, I think it's important to both make the distinctions (whether the different things are under the same part of the umbrella or even if one is just outside the umbrella) and to take account of legacy factors, because they are important considerations, whether they are under the umbrella or not. Personally, I would place them close to the edge of the umbrella, but still under it.

At the centre, for me, would be 'practices' which for me was the key word in both the OP definitions. I would not tend to place things that result from previous practices as centrally.

But I can see your different point, and I think it's valid too. In fact, keep talking and I might agree with you. I'm being indecisive now.

 

[Jarhyn]

Legacy racism is according to an existing structure, rather than any explicit intent. Structural racism is about how socially generated "structures" drive racism, and the geophysical and economic "structure" of all the black people out there, black people can't access good schools, black people can't access better career opportunities, and black people can't access better outcomes from the criminal justice system. These layer together to create a structural barrier to advancement that white people do not experience. Hence structural racism.

I don't think we disagree radically, but as I said, that, for me, is not necessarily under the centre of the umbrella term structural racism.

But then, the term can be and has been interpreted in different ways, so I'm only expressing an opinion about it.

In any case, whether we agree or disagree, I think it's important to both make the distinctions (whether the different things are under the same part of the umbrella or even if one is just outside the umbrella) and to take account of legacy factors, because they are important considerations, whether they are under the umbrella or not. Personally, I would place them close to the edge of the umbrella, but still under it.

At the centre, for me, would be 'practices' which for me was the key word in both the OP definitions. I would not tend to place things that result from previous practices as centrally.

But I can see your different point, and I think it's valid too. In fact, keep talking and I might agree with you. I'm being indecisive now.

So, practices factor heavily into the systemic aspect of legacy racism.

What percentage of jobs do you think get landed without a number of preexisting connections within the industry? Perhaps with a friend or relative in the desired career field? Insider connections are everything in terms of seeking jobs effectively.

What do poor minority communities conveniently not have access to? Insider connections. Why? Because there are few people from black communities "inside". Even poor white people at least have a chance of going to SOME peer or friend group and having access to those connections.

And don't get me started about "credit checks". If you paid for your education on a credit card as a first generation college grad from a poor family, good luck passing on that aspect.

And then there's the box on hiring applications. "Have you ever been convicted..." Of course, thankfully that is going away in more and more jurisdictions.

All these are products of the problem of a lack of economic momentum; if there wasn't such a problem with making ends meet, many black people would face fewer of these barriers that have been erected structurally.

It's kind of like that old story I heard a couple times in church back in the day. Imagine walking up to a pump in a desert. Of course, you know there is water at the bottom of the well, but you can't pump it out. Why? Because pump mechanics require that the pump be "primed" with water.

The difference here is that there are two pumps, as in America, racism has divided communities by race mechanically through historical redlining. The white people's pump is primed, with a huge stack of water jars in case the pipe goes dry. On the other hand, the pump for black people is dry as a bone and not a jar in sight.

The pump needs to be primed.