Structural/systemic racism poll

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

But these aren't racism. The schools are a reflection of the students they get. They aren't spending all that money on security to punish blacks, they're spending it because they need to. There's also the issue that putting expensive stuff in such a school is just throwing money away--it's just going to end up broken or stolen in short order. This is a community problem and can only be fixed by fixing the community issues. That's very hard, though, it's much easier to scream "discrimination!"

 

[Trausti]

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

I agree with that completely.

I may be splitting hairs here (I probably am) but the only question I am not sure about is whether the dry, unprimed pump is racism, or the product of racism.

I realise that it doesn't make it unimportant in the slightest which it is, because either way, it's a relevant factor. I think I am being pedantic about definitions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

But these aren't racism. The schools are a reflection of the students they get. They aren't spending all that money on security to punish blacks, they're spending it because they need to. There's also the issue that putting expensive stuff in such a school is just throwing money away--it's just going to end up broken or stolen in short order. This is a community problem and can only be fixed by fixing the community issues.

You mean dealing with the systemic issue of self-perpetuating poverty... where people don't even have access to banks to start trying to make things work? I guess it s a lot easier to say it is communal though. After all, white teens don't steal shit... like ever.

 

[ruby sparks]

I would pose that the majority of structural racism arises as a result of legacy factors..

Yes. Now we can fully agree. Sorry, I may have missed or misread this earlier.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

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.

Structure, in a social science sense, doesn't exactly need to be intentionally designed for the purpose of its effect. In fact, probably most effects are unintentional. Myth and ceremony are critical aspects of social structures and those play out in an institutional context. Iow, if the ceremonies are typically exclusive, the effect is also exclusionary.

 

[Trausti]

If it's settled science that blacks are kept down in America, it stands to reason that they should be doing better elsewhere. OK, where?

 

[Testy Calibrate]

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.

But these aren't racism. The schools are a reflection of the students they get. They aren't spending all that money on security to punish blacks, they're spending it because they need to. There's also the issue that putting expensive stuff in such a school is just throwing money away--it's just going to end up broken or stolen in short order. This is a community problem and can only be fixed by fixing the community issues. That's very hard, though, it's much easier to scream "discrimination!"

Generational poverty is part of the equation for sure but a brutal regime begets a brutal citizenry too. There is no way to extract one from the other. Systemic changes end up being generational changes most of the time so at some point, the brutality of the legal system needs to be checked for a future generation to succeed

 

[Trausti]

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.

But these aren't racism. The schools are a reflection of the students they get. They aren't spending all that money on security to punish blacks, they're spending it because they need to. There's also the issue that putting expensive stuff in such a school is just throwing money away--it's just going to end up broken or stolen in short order. This is a community problem and can only be fixed by fixing the community issues. That's very hard, though, it's much easier to scream "discrimination!"

Generational poverty is part of the equation for sure but a brutal regime begets a brutal citizenry too. There is no way to extract one from the other. Systemic changes end up being generational changes most of the time so at some point, the brutality of the legal system needs to be checked for a future generation to succeed

Choices matter. A lot. You are not chained to where you were born; especially in the US. This applies to everyone, blacks, too. Indeed, middle class blacks oppose the mindset of the 'hood.

'It's not my fault you paid $250,000 and I paid a buck'

Three years ago, Lamar Grace left Detroit for the suburb of Southfield. He got a good deal — a 3,000-square-foot colonial that once was worth $220,000. In foreclosure, he paid $109,000.

The neighbors were not pleased.

"They don't want to live next door to ghetto folks," he says.

That his neighbors are black, like Grace, is immaterial. Many in the black middle class moved out of Detroit and settled in the northern suburbs years ago; now, due to foreclosures, it is easy to buy or rent houses on the cheap here. The result has been a new, poorer wave of arrivals from the city, and growing tensions between established residents and the newcomers.

"There's a way in which they look down on people moving in from Detroit into houses they bought for much lower prices," says Grace, a 39-year-old telephone company analyst. "I understand you want to keep out the riffraff, but it's not my fault you paid $250,000 and I paid a buck."

The neighbors say there's more to it than that. People like John Clanton, a retired auto worker, say the new arrivals have brought behavior more common in the inner city — increased trash, adults and children on the streets at all times of the night, a disregard for others' property.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

I almost put a prophetic "in before someone posts about choices" but didn't.

 

[Emily Lake]

The term "structural" as it's defined here threw me off a bit. But yes, at the end of the day both of these (as defined) exist to a moderate degree. It's hard to really nail down the distinction, but I think a lot more of the disparities are driven by implicit racial bias than by systemic racism.

 

[Jarhyn]

The term "structural" as it's defined here threw me off a bit. But yes, at the end of the day both of these (as defined) exist to a moderate degree. It's hard to really nail down the distinction, but I think a lot more of the disparities are driven by implicit racial bias than by systemic racism.

I think these are two sides of the same coin though. It comes together with the existence of "correlation -> causation" ideology: implicit racism comes in large part from the existence of the status quo, and the implications that the continued lack of momentum is due to a lack of effort rather than a lack of opportunity, which in turn justifies to some the continued systemic hurdles.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Speaking about structural racism, would we agree it is structural if it is government policy?

California has voted to repeal civil rights legislation.

 

[Trausti]

Speaking about structural racism, would we agree it is structural if it is government policy?

California has voted to repeal civil rights legislation.

But that's the good kind of structural racism, apparently.

 

[Politesse]

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).

I would say that the remaining elements of structural racism that exist in the government are fairly serious matters, even though the Constitution has ostensibly much such discriminations illegal. There are yet some stiff battles to fight. Blatant favoritism of Protestant Christianity under the Law. Language and dialect favoritism. Indian policy. Affirmative action. Immigration policy. Mass incarceration. Voting rights in disenfranchised areas. We have some big hills to conquer yet.

 

[Jarhyn]

Speaking about structural racism, would we agree it is structural if it is government policy?

California has voted to repeal civil rights legislation.

Such a thing would be *systemic* racism, not structural racism. If it were true. Which you have not yet established through any kind of documentation.

 

[ruby sparks]

Speaking about structural racism, would we agree it is structural if it is government policy?

California has voted to repeal civil rights legislation.

Such a thing would be *systemic* racism, not structural racism. If it were true. Which you have not yet established through any kind of documentation.

Yes, the term 'stuctural' is a bit confusing, I think.

It implies that the racism is in the structure. Your analogy of the unprimed pump is quite a good one I think.

Possibly even better is an architectural analogy. Bricks. Brick walls even. Let's say the position, thickness and arrangement of brick walls and what they structurally support are the way they are at least partly because they were built (when they were) for unfair reasons (let's say racist ones). The question is, are the walls racism, or are they the result of racism? I have a feeling that it could be argued either way. Again, I stress that this may be a pedantic distinction in some ways, but at the same time I think it is useful, possibly as useful as the distinctions between intentional and unintentional.

I also think it confuses people, when they read that something is claimed to be structural racism. For example, the OP definition (taken from wiki if I recall right) emphasises practices when defining structural, whereas there is a difference between structures and what goes on inside them.

It's my guess that when people read the word structure, they think of.......structures. Things fixed in place (even if modifiable).

This is not to discount the ramifications of legacy factors, obviously, only to distinguish them from other factors. Those who might deny structural racism may say that structures can't be racist, intentionally or otherwise.

ETA: see my reply to politesse below. If I accept that, away from analogies with walls and pumps, there are legal structures (which I do) then I have undermined my own point, for who would say that there can't be racist laws?

I don't mind admitting to being confused.

 

[ruby sparks]

.... I think a lot more of the disparities are driven by implicit racial bias than by systemic racism.

Yes, but when there are enough people practicing the implicit bias, especially if such people have any important social roles and/or are grouped by those roles, it can become systemic (or the alternative terms, 'social' or 'institutional'). So implicit bias is not just something that has individual effects.

Very confusing.

I think one key thing to say is that many things are interlinked and overlapping, often in complicated ways.

 

[ruby sparks]

I would say that the remaining elements of structural racism that exist in the government are fairly serious matters, even though the Constitution has ostensibly much such discriminations illegal. There are yet some stiff battles to fight. Blatant favoritism of Protestant Christianity under the Law. Language and dialect favoritism. Indian policy. Affirmative action. Immigration policy. Mass incarceration. Voting rights in disenfranchised areas. We have some big hills to conquer yet.

I tend to agree. Let's not get into whether we mean exactly the same thing when we use the term structural and leave that aside. In some ways it's not central.

Do you have an example in mind for the favoritism of Protestant Christianity under the Law? If so, it might not be hard to include that under structural, since we could say that laws are (legal) structures*. We may need to note that that sort of favouritism does not immediately of itself suggest a racial aspect. Possibly that goes for some of the others too. I am not saying race is not intertwined with them.

* The obvious examples are apartheid laws, or Jim Crow laws. Definitely structural, imo. But largely not extant.

 

[Jarhyn]

I would say that the remaining elements of structural racism that exist in the government are fairly serious matters, even though the Constitution has ostensibly much such discriminations illegal. There are yet some stiff battles to fight. Blatant favoritism of Protestant Christianity under the Law. Language and dialect favoritism. Indian policy. Affirmative action. Immigration policy. Mass incarceration. Voting rights in disenfranchised areas. We have some big hills to conquer yet.

I tend to agree. Let's not get into whether we mean exactly the same thing when we use the term structural and leave that aside. In some ways it's not central.

Do you have an example in mind for the favoritism of Protestant Christianity under the Law? If so, it might not be hard to include that under structural, since we could say that laws are (legal) structures*. We may need to note that that sort of favouritism does not immediately of itself suggest a racial aspect. Possibly that goes for some of the others too. I am not saying race is not intertwined with them.

* The obvious examples are apartheid laws, or Jim Crow laws. Definitely structural, imo. But largely not extant.

Again, structural preference for Protestant Christianity comes largely from existing mechanics: imagine an assembly that has a policy that there may be ONE invocation for the session, and the person to do the invocation will be the result of a vote.

Not only is this structural, it is systemic, at least within my mental model of the two. How? If the Protestants don't want to hear another religion giving their invocation, they will generally always have the plurality or even straight majority to prevent it.

Of course this has come under recent challenge from organizations such as CotFSM and TST, which have pushed for equal representation insofar as inclusion beside Protestant/christian monuments. Even so, this still does not even begin to balance the biases in representation. It's easier to open a church than a mosque.