Systemic Racism. What it means and what it DOESN'T mean.

No evidence? Try something. Take just about any large city. They have maps which show high crime areas. Notice that those high crime areas correspond to areas of high black concentration. How do you explain that? Whites are going into black areas and committing crimes? I suspect someone would notice that and yet it is not reported.

There has been numerous links showing they commit more crime. Pure logic says they commit more crime.

There is ample evidence. You just refuse to acknowledge it. You would be better served trying to show why rather than trying to disprove what is obvious.

 

I think you have that backwards.

70% of black children are born into single parent households.

 

Blacks commit more crimes than whites PER CAPITA. Here are some statistics from the FBI for 2018. I was too lazy to look for newer ones. these should suffice. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-43

 

Golem,

Crime rates are convincingly tied to economic status, not race. Inevitably and consistently, there will be more crimes in poor neighborhoods than in wealthy neighborhoods, regardless of whether they are predominantly white or black neighborhoods. Some snippets from the Bureau of Justice ...

Persons in poor households at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households (16.9 per 1,000).

The overall pattern of poor persons having the highest rates of violent victimization was consistent for both whites and blacks.

Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000)

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137

And from the Brookings Institute ....

Across all types of personal crimes, victimization rates are significantly higher for individuals living in low-income households, as shown in figure 2. In 2008, the latest year for which data are available, the victimization rate for all personal crimes among individuals with family incomes of less than $15,000 was over three times the rate of those with family incomes of $75,000 or more (DOJ 2010a). The most prevalent crime for low-income victims was assault, followed closely by acts of attempted violence, at 33 victims and 28 victims per 1,000 residents, respectively. For those in the higher-income bracket, these rates were significantly lower at only 11 victims and 9 victims per 1,000 residents, respectively.



https://www.brookings.edu/research/...crime-and-incarceration-in-the-united-states/

A simple Google search will result in innumerable similar articles. The validity of these facts is incontrovertible.

Generally speaking, the police and the criminal justice system react to these crimes. They don't manufacture them out of conscious or unconscious racism; they simply react to them, regardless of the race or economic status of the victim/offender.

For example, if you're a police chief of a medium sized city that puts 30 police officers out on patrol every night, are you going to put 15 of them into high-crime poor areas and 15 into low-crime wealthy areas? Are you going to have 15 of your officers going from call to call to call while 15 of your officers are twiddling their thumbs all night with little or nothing to do?

No, of course not. You will - yes, even you, if you were a police chief - put the majority of your officers where they are most needed, for you are duty-bound to do so. And, your officers will respond to and investigate crime just as aggressively in low-crime wealthy areas as they do in high-crime poor areas, but the numbers of those crimes by area are going to be higher in the poor areas. Again, this is not because you or your officers are racist. Neither you or your officers have any control over those numbers. Through no fault of your own, you are going to arrest and prosecute more poor people than wealthy people.

The income percentile of the top 20% starts at a household income of $142,000/year. I would be willing to bet that black and white households at that income level and above have the same low rates of crime victimization and the same low rates of criminal conduct that results in arrest and prosecution. I don't have a link to that specific research, but we do have research (shown earlier in this post) that shows that low-income whites are victims at about the same rate as low-income blacks, and so it would follow that high-income whites and blacks also have very similar lower rates.

And so, the problem is really not "systemic racism", but instead, it's the corrosive effects of being poor.

It follows then that we should be asking ourselves why poor people are poor, and what we can do as a society to enable them to lift themselves out of poverty. But if all we do is focus on race, we are going to fail like a blind boxer flailing at the air, because in 21st Century America, race and racism are not the drivers of crime and victimization.

Seth

 

Wrong.

 

which systems require racism?

 

None REQUIRE it. But it still exists.

 

If it isn't required then it has to be an individual thing. How does it still exist? Are there systems that encourage or support racism? Not many in my view. I run out of options after BLM, KKK and the skinheads.

 

I suppose you’re technically correct. Affirmative action programs are indeed systemic racism.

 

Nope.

 

Oh, I forgot, something can’t be racist, by definition, if it only harms whites, and sometimes Asians.

 

Still wrong.

 

So, if we take the charge seriously that "systemic racism" exists, then by definition affirmative action programs are one of the most well defined and obvious forms of systemic racism. You disagree. Why?

 

Fixing the damage caused by systemic racism is not racist.

 

I'm not sure affirmative action programs have fixed anything, first of all, and second, the answer, in your mind, to "systemic racism" is more systemic racism?

 

Well thought out. But it doesn't show systemic racism. Police departments send their officers were there is evidence of crime appearing. They distribute the amount of cops in an area based on how much crime is in any given area AND the type of crime in an area. Not just one or the other. You choose to focus on drugs in your post. But what about other types of crime? Murder for instance is a crime for which there can be no dispute (most of the time) on whether someone has committed it or not. So if you're trying to find out if blacks commit more crimes than whites that would be the statistic to look at. Murder is investigated the same no matter where you are at. The most expensive part of town, or the poorest. Homicide cops are not directed towards certain areas. Where as with drugs they are most easily found with in poorer neighborhoods. MUCH harder to find in richer neighborhoods, if only for the simple fact that crimes are generally committed less in richer neighborhoods vs poorer neighborhoods due to most rich people having alarms, gates, fencing, security etc etc. Therefore they tend to be sent to those poorer areas. Additionally cops tend to go for the low hanging fruit and, where possible, work their way upwards. Hence when investigating drug crimes they will pick up a user and try and get them to flip on the distributor, who will then hopefully squeal on who they got it from and up and up and up, as far as they can go. Not an easy task. I would even say that its FAR more difficult a job than finding out who killed the dead guy they found in the river (particularly since most murders are committed by people that know the dead person).

So really the logistics is what determines how things are investigated. Where things are investigated. And the outcomes of investigations.

In any case I find any and all statistics that claim to be evidence of systemic racism to be severely lacking. They are generally pointed at in much the same way that you have done here. The problem in your case is that you do not account for the reason why police departments do the things they do or the outcomes beyond that which supports your idea. Its just assumed that it has to do with systemic racism.

Personally I'm of the same mind as Ben Shapiro on this subject. I have no problem standing next to someone, for that person, when they have been racially discriminated against. Its a cut and dry situation. But there is nothing that can be done for something so nebulous as systemic racism. Seriously, there is nothing that can be done about it. Particularly with today's idea of what racism is. Which amounts to X affecting Y more than B therefore racism!!!. Basically if Y does not have an equal outcome of B when it comes to X then racism is the reason. That is about equity. Not racism. That is about the haves vs the have nots.

 

Nope. AA is not racism.

 

It is. Your claim is a textbook example of trying to have your cake and eat it, too, lol.

It's a system.
It's racism. We just clarified what racism was yesterday in another thread.

It's systemic racism.

 

Yep, and it's not racism. I will concede that its discrimination but not racism.

 

It's racism. It assumes that one or more races are inferior and need an exception, solely based on skin color. Textbook definition of systemic racism.

Biden's "restaurant aid" is systemic racism. It is prioritized based on gender and skin color. So it's systemic racism and systemic sexism.

 

Prove it's because of melanin and not because of poverty. Low education. No good jobs.

 

We all know it's not because of melanin. But that completely misses the point. BLM and it's supporters on the left think it is because of melanin.

 

Prove it's because of melanin and not because the system has forced many into poverty. Low education. And no good jobs.

 

Where white's enslaved them.
Redlining them into poverty.
Segregated them and put them at the back of the bus.
And systematically stepped all over them.

 

If someone is the victim of a crime is receiving restitution for that crime racist?