Structural/systemic racism poll

[Politesse]

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?

We are, for instance, legally a monogamous nation, and one in which many of the central elements of African and Afro-Caribbean religions (such as animal sacrifices or spirit possessions) have no protection under the law, and as such are free to be (and are) overtly discriminated against by the laws of individual states. Even a cursory review of the case law shows that the racial undertones of such laws were not accidental, that Vodou and Santeria were being explicitly targeted for their racial associations, but since such cases fall into the grey area left by the 14th Amendment, there's no way to effectively challenge them on those grounds. So they remain, and are likely to continue remaining; the Supreme Court, at least will not challenge them unless new federal law should be made. On a similar note, part of the reason for this is that Afro-Caribbean religions are less likely to have federal recognition as a religion in the first place.

I concede your point that we might not categorize these as "structural", but to me a barrier that involves the apparatus of state to enforce it is structural racism, even if race is not the only factor involved with it. I'm a functionalist in my sympathies, and care more about whether a practical barrier to social expression and mobility exists than whether the common ideology says it ought to.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

California has voted to repeal civil rights legislation.

Link? I don't know what that last sentence refers to, and there are a lot of ways to interpret it.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

I am just fine with language requirements. I don't follow why you have affirmative action listed in there, can you expand on that?

 

[WAB]

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

California has voted to repeal civil rights legislation.

Link? I don't know what that last sentence refers to, and there are a lot of ways to interpret it.

I had put a link, but afterwards thought it best to delete it. Might not have been the best article.

 

[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.

I am just fine with language requirements. I don't follow why you have affirmative action listed in there, can you expand on that?

I support affirmative action type legislation provisionally, but it does tend to create racially subdivided cateories in the law and opportunities for racial inequalities to fester, especially if poorly designed; we have not eliminated structural racism entirely until such laws are not necessary.

Language favoritism does not occur without rational reason per se, but it does provide a convenient means of legal discrimination also. Thinking about it structurally, how important is it that voting materials are printed in the dominant language of a minority community? Again, race is not the only involved factor, but it is a connected issue, as even a brief review of the English-only literature will show you.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

I am just fine with language requirements. I don't follow why you have affirmative action listed in there, can you expand on that?

Not Politesse, but it's pretty clear to me? These are all current points of contention on the subject of racism and racial equity. He isn't saying it's good or bad perse, just pointing it out as a point of contention.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Keyword: "self". That's not discrimination.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Exactly. This is what it comes down to--cultural differences. That's why people don't like Section 8 housing. That's why people want to limit or prohibit rental property.

 

[Emily Lake]

I am just fine with language requirements. I don't follow why you have affirmative action listed in there, can you expand on that?

I support affirmative action type legislation provisionally, but it does tend to create racially subdivided cateories in the law and opportunities for racial inequalities to fester, especially if poorly designed; we have not eliminated structural racism entirely until such laws are not necessary.

Language favoritism does not occur without rational reason per se, but it does provide a convenient means of legal discrimination also. Thinking about it structurally, how important is it that voting materials are printed in the dominant language of a minority community? Again, race is not the only involved factor, but it is a connected issue, as even a brief review of the English-only literature will show you.

Thanks, your clarification makes sense. I've got a more or less similar view to AA.

Regarding language... I dunno. I think it would be easier and more reasonable all around if we just made english the official language and required middle-school level proficiency in it for citizenship.

 

[Politesse]

Regarding language... I dunno. I think it would be easier and more reasonable all around if we just made english the official language and required middle-school level proficiency in it for citizenship.

Some states treat upper-class American English as an official language, some do not. Guess which ones show more racial disparities in labor and education?

 

[ruby sparks]

Thanks, your clarification makes sense. I've got a more or less similar view to AA.

Me too.

Regarding language... I dunno. I think it would be easier and more reasonable all around if we just made english the official language and required middle-school level proficiency in it for citizenship.

I tend to think something similar.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

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.

Voting laws

 

[Testy Calibrate]

As to the structure vs systemic issue, a dynamic system has a structure and thag structure is the interrelationships between the elements. Myth and ceremony are structural in culture.

 

[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.

Link? I don't know what that last sentence refers to, and there are a lot of ways to interpret it.

Ah, I wrote "voted" instead of "will vote", my bad.

I'll quote the LA Times. They think it is a good thing to judge people based on race.

California Voters will be asked to restore Affirmative Action in November

Get rid of equal treatment under the law and enact judging people based on their skin color.

 

[Politesse]

The article, of course, says nothing of the sort... In fact, several of the lawmakers quoted in the article are saying exactly the same sort of nonsense as you.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Well, since "discrimination" works in one direction and "affirmative action" works in the other ... even though they are both judging people based on the color of their skin they are completely different. Therefore the LA Times article doesn't talk about discrimination, it talks about affirmative action, which has absolutely nothing in common.

No, the LA Times article says it is a good thing that equal treatment under the law is being repealed in favor of judging people by their skin color.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ah, I wrote "voted" instead of "will vote", my bad.

I'll quote the LA Times. They think it is a good thing to judge people based on race.

Do you want to have a third attempt?

 

[Rhea]

Legacy racism is according to an existing structure, rather than any explicit intent. Structural racism is about how socially generated "structures" drive racism,

Note that sometimes the “structural racism” is not the legal/administrative system that does racism, it is the legal/administrative system that permits it. That fails to stop it. That provides no recourse to prevent it.

An example of that is the “citizens arrest” bullshit, wherein racist people can go shoot Black people and the SYSTEM makes sure they have a fairly easy time never seeing justice over it.

More examples include racism in renting, lending, employment, sentencing.
The anti-affirmative action people will claim AA is an attempt to “judge people by their race” and it “destroys the civit rights act.” They are wrong. Instead, it it an attempt to dismantle the STRUCTURE that allows individual racists to act in racist ways with protection from the law. It is a method to root out systemic, structural racism that exists by the legal protection of it.

 

[Politesse]

Well, since "discrimination" works in one direction and "affirmative action" works in the other ... even though they are both judging people based on the color of their skin they are completely different. Therefore the LA Times article doesn't talk about discrimination, it talks about affirmative action, which has absolutely nothing in common.

No, the LA Times article says it is a good thing that equal treatment under the law is being repealed in favor of judging people by their skin color.

It, of course, does not say that either. It's like you were hoping we wouldn't read the link ourselves... Or, I suppose, like you didn't do so yourself.

 

[Trausti]

Legacy racism is according to an existing structure, rather than any explicit intent. Structural racism is about how socially generated "structures" drive racism,

Note that sometimes the “structural racism” is not the legal/administrative system that does racism, it is the legal/administrative system that permits it. That fails to stop it. That provides no recourse to prevent it.

An example of that is the “citizens arrest” bullshit, wherein racist people can go shoot Black people and the SYSTEM makes sure they have a fairly easy time never seeing justice over it.

More examples include racism in renting, lending, employment, sentencing.
The anti-affirmative action people will claim AA is an attempt to “judge people by their race” and it “destroys the civit rights act.” They are wrong. Instead, it it an attempt to dismantle the STRUCTURE that allows individual racists to act in racist ways with protection from the law. It is a method to root out systemic, structural racism that exists by the legal protection of it.

The way to solve past racism is with new racism.