Question regarding the public reactions to racism

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Oct 15, 2003
16,387
2,598
1,743
So Cal
#41
That is a strange way of saying you don't believe there is such a thing as systemic racism. I strongly disagree.

Lets start with the criminal justice system, specifically the drug war. Whites and blacks use drugs at almost exactly the same rate (https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/hidden-costs-drug-prohibition), but blacks are jailed at anywhere from 4-6 times the rate for the same offense. When jailed for the same offense, they are jailed longer than whites (https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...onger-prison-sentences-than-white-men-for-the). You also have the crack and cocaine discrepancy in sentencing where crack had penalties 100x greater per weight, despite the fact that the active dose was not 100x smaller. This was implemented in the mid 80's and not revised until 2010! (https://www.ussc.gov/research/congr...port-congress-impact-fair-sentencing-act-2010). Drug offenses according to this report were the plurality of all offences at over 38%. (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vfluc.pdf)

Then, with a larger percentage of those incarcerated with felonies, they no longer can get a decent job after they are released, cannot support their kids effectively and at that point it has a community effect.

I would say that the majority of the people who are involved in the criminal justice system are not racist, although a few are, and the policies put in place and how they were executed (the Broken Window theory of policing), had an impact that heavily impacted minorities in a negative way.

Then you have policies like redlining, which were ended long ago, but had a major impact on wealth building---just look at how much housing and property values have gone up since then. Many blacks were prevented from getting into the market at all, or if they did, they could only purchase homes in poorer areas.

Its one thing if everyone started off at a roughly similar place and one group fell far behind on their own volition. Using a running analogy: It is another thing to not be allowed to participate at all for a couple hundred years, then when they are allowed to participate, have to run with a weighted backpack for another 100 years. When the weighted backpack is removed, they get time penalties for doing stuff other people in the race are doing.
and …. none of that explains why I was a poor white kid from non-privileged economic conditions, that did not get hooked on crack or coke, and worked everyday of my life from the age of 13, and paid my way though college without loans or government assistance.

You know what, I seem to recall a lot of black people attending OSU at that time (and even now).

In the 60's and even the 70's some, there was wide-spread racism and systemic problems (that was my youth), and a big struggle for equality, which was attained.

This current movement is not about race and it is not about equality - it appears to be about either reparations (something for nothing), or about affirmative action (something for nothing). (return to affirmative action is on the CA ballot this Nov.)

None of the prominent black leaders (Sowell, Leo Terrell, Sen Scott, etc. agree with your position.

In Los Angeles, the racial tensions in HS, is between the blacks and the Hispanics, I was subjected to racism when I lived in a predominately Hispanic community.
 
Oct 7, 2008
1,353
322
1,713
#42
Pretty telling we are this far in this thread and no one can make a understandable argument that systemic racism exist at any, more than very minor, level in today’s world.
I think that answers the OP question.
Here's the info I came across that opened my eyes to what people mean when they say systemic racism. It's long, and it completely contradicts what most people in here believe, so it will likely get ignored, but that's ya'lls problem not mine.

"You can't interpret the economic and social situation of the African American community in a vacuum without considering the broader history of racism in America. We know from centuries of research that the most important type of wealth is generational wealth, assets that can pass from one generation to another. You wouldn't have the opportunities that you have today if your parents didn't have the opportunities they had, and they in turn wouldn't have had their success in life without the success of your grandparents, etc.
Considering that we know this, consider the economic plight of the average African American family in America. When slavery was abolished, there were no reparations. There was no forty acres and a mule. There was no education system that was both willing and able to accommodate African American children, to say nothing of illiterate adults. With the exception of a brief moment of Reconstruction, there was no significant force dedicated to upholding the safety and political rights of African Americans. Is it any wonder that sharecropping became such a ubiquitous system of labor? For many freed slaves, they quickly wound up working for their masters once again, with very little changes in their day to day lives. And through all of this, white America was profiting off of the work of black America, plundering their property and labor. When slavery was abolished, it was a more lucrative field than all of American manufacturing combined, including the new railroad. The American industrial revolution/rise of big business was already booming, but it was overshadowed by the obscene wealth of plantation slavery. By 1860, one in four Southern Americans owned a slave. Many southern states were majority black, up to 70% black in certain counties of my home state Virginia, the vast majority of them unfree laborers. Mississippi and South Carolina were both majority black. There's a reason that the South was able to pay off its debts after the Revolution so quickly. When you consider just how essential black uncompensated labor was to this country, it's no exaggeration to say that slaves built America.
From this moment onewards til about the 1960s, racism was the law of the land. Sharecropping was slavery by another name and "separate but equal" was an offense against human rights, and those two institutions alone created a massive opportunity gap that has continued repercussions in the today. But what very few people consider is the extent to which the American government empowered people to create or acquire wealth during this time, and the extent to which they denied black Americans the same chances. There was no "Homestead Act" for black people, for instance. When FDR signed the Social Security Act, he specifically endorsed a provision that denied SS benefits to laborers who worked "in the house or the field," in so doing creating a social security net that the NAACP described as "a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.” Black families paid far more than their white counterparts trying to support past generations instead of investing in the future. During the Great Depression, elder poverty was above 50%. Consider on top of this how expensive it is to be poor, especially when you are black. If your son gets sick but you are white and can buy insurance, you will be set back the deductible and copay. If you are black and shut out of an insurance market, you may burn your life savings on care and still not find an good doctor willing to help a black patient. This idea that the poor and socially disadvantaged are more vulnerable is called exploitation theory, and it's really important to understanding race in America.
Nowhere is exploitation theory more important than in housing. It's obvious that desegregation was never a platform that this nation embraced wholeheartedly, but the extent that segregation was a manifestation of formal policy is something that often gets forgotten. The home is the most important piece of wealth in American history, and once you consider the home ownership prospects of African Americans you'll instantly understand how vital and essential the past remains in interpreting the present when it comes to race.
During the 1930s, America established the FHA, an agency dedicated to evaluating the worth of property and helping Americans afford homes. The FHA pioneered a policy called "redlining," in which the worth of a piece of property was tied to the racial diversity of its neighborhood, with more diversity driving down price. When white homeowners complained that their colored neighbors drove down prices, they were speaking literally. In addition, the FHA and other banks which used their ratings (which were all of them, more or less) resolved not to give a loan to any black family who would increase the racial diversity of a neighborhood (in practice a barrier of proof so high that virtually no black families received financial aid in purchasing a home). These practices did not end until 1968, and by then the damage had been done. In 1930, 30% of Americans owned homes. By 1960, 60% of them did, largely because of the FHA and the lending practices its presence in the market enabled.
Black families, cut out of this new American housing market and the government guarantees which made it possible, had nowhere to go. This was all taking place during the Great Migration. Black families were fleeing from old plantation estates where they still were treated like slaves, and traveling to the North in search of a better life. When they arrived, there was nowhere to live. White real estate owners quickly realized how to exploit the vulnerability of the black community. They bought up property and sold homes to African American families "on contract." These contracts were overpriced, and very few could afford to keep their homes. To make matters worse, these contracts were routinely broken. Often contracts guaranteed heating or other bills, but these amenities would never be covered. Even though black families "bought" these houses, a contract is not like a mortgage-- there was little to no expectation of future ownership. The owners of these contract houses would loan the property, wait for payments to cease, evict the family, and open the house up to the next gullible buyer fleeing from lynching in the south. None of it mattered. By 1962, 85% of black homeowners in Chicago lived in contract homes. And these numbers are comparable to cities all across the country. For every family that could keep holding onto the property til these practices were outlawed, a dozen spent their life savings on an elusive dream of home ownership that would never come to fruition.
This practice of exploiting African Americans to sell estate had real consequences. As black contract buyers streamed into a neighborhood, the FHA took notice. In addition to racist opposition to integration from white homeowners, even the well-intentioned had difficulty staying in a neighborhood as the value of their house went down. How could you take out a loan to pay for your daughter's college or finance a business with the collateral of a low-value piece of land? White flight is not something that the U.S. government can wash its hands of. It was social engineering, upheld by government policy. As white families left these neighborhoods, contract buyers bought their houses at a fraction of the cost and expanded their operation, selling more houses on contract and finally selling the real estate to the federal government when the government moved into public housing, virtually ensuring that public housing would not help black families move into neighborhoods of opportunity. And the FHA's policies also helped whites: without the sterling credit ratings that businessmen in lily-white communities could buy at, there would be no modern suburb. All of this remains today. When you map neighborhoods in which contract buyers were active against a map of modern ghettos, you get a near-perfect match. Ritzy white neighborhoods became majority-black ghettos overnight.
I said that this was all going to be a history lesson, but there's an important facet of sociology that you need in order to complete the story. There's a certain type of neighborhood that's known as a "nexus of concentrated poverty," a space where poverty is such a default state that certain aspects of economic and social life begin to break down. The level is disputed, but for the purposes of the census the U.S. government defines concentrated poverty as 40% or more of residents living below the poverty line. At this level, everything ceases to function. Schools, funded by taxpayer dollars, cannot deliver a good education. Families, sustained by economic opportunity, cannot stay together. Citizens, turned into productive members of society through ties to the economic well-being of that society, turn to crime out of social disorder. In America today, 4% of white adults have grown up in such neighborhoods. 62% of black adults were raised in them.
You are right to note certain facets of black society: the drug use, family anarchy, etc are not imaginary, though they certainly are not policed fairly or represented honestly in the white American consciousness. But these are the symptoms, not the causes of black poverty. Go to the spaces of concentrated white poverty, and you will find similar statistics. The reason that black society is the way it is is that black families have been systemically cut out of the normal avenues of upward mobility, and that has more to do with white supremacy than with saggy jeans or rap music."
 
Oct 7, 2008
1,353
322
1,713
#43
Pretty telling we are this far in this thread and no one can make a understandable argument that systemic racism exist at any, more than very minor, level in today’s world.
I think that answers the OP question.
More importantly, you say you have to see evidence of systemic racism in today's world. You do understand that the past creates the present, correct? There was undoubtedly systemic racism all throughout our country's history. Do you guys not understand how that attributes to the America we live in today, or do you simply not care?
 
Oct 15, 2003
16,387
2,598
1,743
So Cal
#44
Here's the info I came across that opened my eyes to what people mean when they say systemic racism. It's long, and it completely contradicts what most people in here believe, so it will likely get ignored, but that's ya'lls problem not mine.

"You can't interpret the economic and social situation of the African American community in a vacuum without considering the broader history of racism in America. We know from centuries of research that the most important type of wealth is generational wealth, assets that can pass from one generation to another. You wouldn't have the opportunities that you have today if your parents didn't have the opportunities they had, and they in turn wouldn't have had their success in life without the success of your grandparents, etc.
Considering that we know this, consider the economic plight of the average African American family in America. When slavery was abolished, there were no reparations. There was no forty acres and a mule. There was no education system that was both willing and able to accommodate African American children, to say nothing of illiterate adults. With the exception of a brief moment of Reconstruction, there was no significant force dedicated to upholding the safety and political rights of African Americans. Is it any wonder that sharecropping became such a ubiquitous system of labor? For many freed slaves, they quickly wound up working for their masters once again, with very little changes in their day to day lives. And through all of this, white America was profiting off of the work of black America, plundering their property and labor. When slavery was abolished, it was a more lucrative field than all of American manufacturing combined, including the new railroad. The American industrial revolution/rise of big business was already booming, but it was overshadowed by the obscene wealth of plantation slavery. By 1860, one in four Southern Americans owned a slave. Many southern states were majority black, up to 70% black in certain counties of my home state Virginia, the vast majority of them unfree laborers. Mississippi and South Carolina were both majority black. There's a reason that the South was able to pay off its debts after the Revolution so quickly. When you consider just how essential black uncompensated labor was to this country, it's no exaggeration to say that slaves built America.
From this moment onewards til about the 1960s, racism was the law of the land. Sharecropping was slavery by another name and "separate but equal" was an offense against human rights, and those two institutions alone created a massive opportunity gap that has continued repercussions in the today. But what very few people consider is the extent to which the American government empowered people to create or acquire wealth during this time, and the extent to which they denied black Americans the same chances. There was no "Homestead Act" for black people, for instance. When FDR signed the Social Security Act, he specifically endorsed a provision that denied SS benefits to laborers who worked "in the house or the field," in so doing creating a social security net that the NAACP described as "a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.” Black families paid far more than their white counterparts trying to support past generations instead of investing in the future. During the Great Depression, elder poverty was above 50%. Consider on top of this how expensive it is to be poor, especially when you are black. If your son gets sick but you are white and can buy insurance, you will be set back the deductible and copay. If you are black and shut out of an insurance market, you may burn your life savings on care and still not find an good doctor willing to help a black patient. This idea that the poor and socially disadvantaged are more vulnerable is called exploitation theory, and it's really important to understanding race in America.
Nowhere is exploitation theory more important than in housing. It's obvious that desegregation was never a platform that this nation embraced wholeheartedly, but the extent that segregation was a manifestation of formal policy is something that often gets forgotten. The home is the most important piece of wealth in American history, and once you consider the home ownership prospects of African Americans you'll instantly understand how vital and essential the past remains in interpreting the present when it comes to race.
During the 1930s, America established the FHA, an agency dedicated to evaluating the worth of property and helping Americans afford homes. The FHA pioneered a policy called "redlining," in which the worth of a piece of property was tied to the racial diversity of its neighborhood, with more diversity driving down price. When white homeowners complained that their colored neighbors drove down prices, they were speaking literally. In addition, the FHA and other banks which used their ratings (which were all of them, more or less) resolved not to give a loan to any black family who would increase the racial diversity of a neighborhood (in practice a barrier of proof so high that virtually no black families received financial aid in purchasing a home). These practices did not end until 1968, and by then the damage had been done. In 1930, 30% of Americans owned homes. By 1960, 60% of them did, largely because of the FHA and the lending practices its presence in the market enabled.
Black families, cut out of this new American housing market and the government guarantees which made it possible, had nowhere to go. This was all taking place during the Great Migration. Black families were fleeing from old plantation estates where they still were treated like slaves, and traveling to the North in search of a better life. When they arrived, there was nowhere to live. White real estate owners quickly realized how to exploit the vulnerability of the black community. They bought up property and sold homes to African American families "on contract." These contracts were overpriced, and very few could afford to keep their homes. To make matters worse, these contracts were routinely broken. Often contracts guaranteed heating or other bills, but these amenities would never be covered. Even though black families "bought" these houses, a contract is not like a mortgage-- there was little to no expectation of future ownership. The owners of these contract houses would loan the property, wait for payments to cease, evict the family, and open the house up to the next gullible buyer fleeing from lynching in the south. None of it mattered. By 1962, 85% of black homeowners in Chicago lived in contract homes. And these numbers are comparable to cities all across the country. For every family that could keep holding onto the property til these practices were outlawed, a dozen spent their life savings on an elusive dream of home ownership that would never come to fruition.
This practice of exploiting African Americans to sell estate had real consequences. As black contract buyers streamed into a neighborhood, the FHA took notice. In addition to racist opposition to integration from white homeowners, even the well-intentioned had difficulty staying in a neighborhood as the value of their house went down. How could you take out a loan to pay for your daughter's college or finance a business with the collateral of a low-value piece of land? White flight is not something that the U.S. government can wash its hands of. It was social engineering, upheld by government policy. As white families left these neighborhoods, contract buyers bought their houses at a fraction of the cost and expanded their operation, selling more houses on contract and finally selling the real estate to the federal government when the government moved into public housing, virtually ensuring that public housing would not help black families move into neighborhoods of opportunity. And the FHA's policies also helped whites: without the sterling credit ratings that businessmen in lily-white communities could buy at, there would be no modern suburb. All of this remains today. When you map neighborhoods in which contract buyers were active against a map of modern ghettos, you get a near-perfect match. Ritzy white neighborhoods became majority-black ghettos overnight.
I said that this was all going to be a history lesson, but there's an important facet of sociology that you need in order to complete the story. There's a certain type of neighborhood that's known as a "nexus of concentrated poverty," a space where poverty is such a default state that certain aspects of economic and social life begin to break down. The level is disputed, but for the purposes of the census the U.S. government defines concentrated poverty as 40% or more of residents living below the poverty line. At this level, everything ceases to function. Schools, funded by taxpayer dollars, cannot deliver a good education. Families, sustained by economic opportunity, cannot stay together. Citizens, turned into productive members of society through ties to the economic well-being of that society, turn to crime out of social disorder. In America today, 4% of white adults have grown up in such neighborhoods. 62% of black adults were raised in them.
You are right to note certain facets of black society: the drug use, family anarchy, etc are not imaginary, though they certainly are not policed fairly or represented honestly in the white American consciousness. But these are the symptoms, not the causes of black poverty. Go to the spaces of concentrated white poverty, and you will find similar statistics. The reason that black society is the way it is is that black families have been systemically cut out of the normal avenues of upward mobility, and that has more to do with white supremacy than with saggy jeans or rap music."
That is exactly the false narrative that we're talking about.

Leo Terrell said it well, on Levin's show Sunday June 28.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6167910723001#sp=show-clips


It's worth a long hard listen....
 
Oct 15, 2003
16,387
2,598
1,743
So Cal
#45
More importantly, you say you have to see evidence of systemic racism in today's world. You do understand that the past creates the present, correct? There was undoubtedly systemic racism all throughout our country's history. Do you guys not understand how that attributes to the America we live in today, or do you simply not care?
It's just not true. It is an excuse. Black people in this country did not have these types of problems until the Democrats tried to fix them, and created all of the problems that exist.

The statistics exist if you care to look into it. Black families were no more likely to be singly parent households than the rest of America, and on and on.

It is attitudes like yours that continues to perpetuate the problems.

Leo Terrell, a prominent Civil Rights Attorney, flat out said that systemic racism does not exist in America. DOES NOT EXIST.

Why should I belive your opinion over his?
 
Oct 30, 2007
4,072
3,500
1,743
#46
Here's the info I came across that opened my eyes to what people mean when they say systemic racism. It's long, and it completely contradicts what most people in here believe, so it will likely get ignored, but that's ya'lls problem not mine.

"You can't interpret the economic and social situation of the African American community in a vacuum without considering the broader history of racism in America. We know from centuries of research that the most important type of wealth is generational wealth, assets that can pass from one generation to another. You wouldn't have the opportunities that you have today if your parents didn't have the opportunities they had, and they in turn wouldn't have had their success in life without the success of your grandparents, etc.
Considering that we know this, consider the economic plight of the average African American family in America. When slavery was abolished, there were no reparations. There was no forty acres and a mule. There was no education system that was both willing and able to accommodate African American children, to say nothing of illiterate adults. With the exception of a brief moment of Reconstruction, there was no significant force dedicated to upholding the safety and political rights of African Americans. Is it any wonder that sharecropping became such a ubiquitous system of labor? For many freed slaves, they quickly wound up working for their masters once again, with very little changes in their day to day lives. And through all of this, white America was profiting off of the work of black America, plundering their property and labor. When slavery was abolished, it was a more lucrative field than all of American manufacturing combined, including the new railroad. The American industrial revolution/rise of big business was already booming, but it was overshadowed by the obscene wealth of plantation slavery. By 1860, one in four Southern Americans owned a slave. Many southern states were majority black, up to 70% black in certain counties of my home state Virginia, the vast majority of them unfree laborers. Mississippi and South Carolina were both majority black. There's a reason that the South was able to pay off its debts after the Revolution so quickly. When you consider just how essential black uncompensated labor was to this country, it's no exaggeration to say that slaves built America.
From this moment onewards til about the 1960s, racism was the law of the land. Sharecropping was slavery by another name and "separate but equal" was an offense against human rights, and those two institutions alone created a massive opportunity gap that has continued repercussions in the today. But what very few people consider is the extent to which the American government empowered people to create or acquire wealth during this time, and the extent to which they denied black Americans the same chances. There was no "Homestead Act" for black people, for instance. When FDR signed the Social Security Act, he specifically endorsed a provision that denied SS benefits to laborers who worked "in the house or the field," in so doing creating a social security net that the NAACP described as "a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.” Black families paid far more than their white counterparts trying to support past generations instead of investing in the future. During the Great Depression, elder poverty was above 50%. Consider on top of this how expensive it is to be poor, especially when you are black. If your son gets sick but you are white and can buy insurance, you will be set back the deductible and copay. If you are black and shut out of an insurance market, you may burn your life savings on care and still not find an good doctor willing to help a black patient. This idea that the poor and socially disadvantaged are more vulnerable is called exploitation theory, and it's really important to understanding race in America.
Nowhere is exploitation theory more important than in housing. It's obvious that desegregation was never a platform that this nation embraced wholeheartedly, but the extent that segregation was a manifestation of formal policy is something that often gets forgotten. The home is the most important piece of wealth in American history, and once you consider the home ownership prospects of African Americans you'll instantly understand how vital and essential the past remains in interpreting the present when it comes to race.
During the 1930s, America established the FHA, an agency dedicated to evaluating the worth of property and helping Americans afford homes. The FHA pioneered a policy called "redlining," in which the worth of a piece of property was tied to the racial diversity of its neighborhood, with more diversity driving down price. When white homeowners complained that their colored neighbors drove down prices, they were speaking literally. In addition, the FHA and other banks which used their ratings (which were all of them, more or less) resolved not to give a loan to any black family who would increase the racial diversity of a neighborhood (in practice a barrier of proof so high that virtually no black families received financial aid in purchasing a home). These practices did not end until 1968, and by then the damage had been done. In 1930, 30% of Americans owned homes. By 1960, 60% of them did, largely because of the FHA and the lending practices its presence in the market enabled.
Black families, cut out of this new American housing market and the government guarantees which made it possible, had nowhere to go. This was all taking place during the Great Migration. Black families were fleeing from old plantation estates where they still were treated like slaves, and traveling to the North in search of a better life. When they arrived, there was nowhere to live. White real estate owners quickly realized how to exploit the vulnerability of the black community. They bought up property and sold homes to African American families "on contract." These contracts were overpriced, and very few could afford to keep their homes. To make matters worse, these contracts were routinely broken. Often contracts guaranteed heating or other bills, but these amenities would never be covered. Even though black families "bought" these houses, a contract is not like a mortgage-- there was little to no expectation of future ownership. The owners of these contract houses would loan the property, wait for payments to cease, evict the family, and open the house up to the next gullible buyer fleeing from lynching in the south. None of it mattered. By 1962, 85% of black homeowners in Chicago lived in contract homes. And these numbers are comparable to cities all across the country. For every family that could keep holding onto the property til these practices were outlawed, a dozen spent their life savings on an elusive dream of home ownership that would never come to fruition.
This practice of exploiting African Americans to sell estate had real consequences. As black contract buyers streamed into a neighborhood, the FHA took notice. In addition to racist opposition to integration from white homeowners, even the well-intentioned had difficulty staying in a neighborhood as the value of their house went down. How could you take out a loan to pay for your daughter's college or finance a business with the collateral of a low-value piece of land? White flight is not something that the U.S. government can wash its hands of. It was social engineering, upheld by government policy. As white families left these neighborhoods, contract buyers bought their houses at a fraction of the cost and expanded their operation, selling more houses on contract and finally selling the real estate to the federal government when the government moved into public housing, virtually ensuring that public housing would not help black families move into neighborhoods of opportunity. And the FHA's policies also helped whites: without the sterling credit ratings that businessmen in lily-white communities could buy at, there would be no modern suburb. All of this remains today. When you map neighborhoods in which contract buyers were active against a map of modern ghettos, you get a near-perfect match. Ritzy white neighborhoods became majority-black ghettos overnight.
I said that this was all going to be a history lesson, but there's an important facet of sociology that you need in order to complete the story. There's a certain type of neighborhood that's known as a "nexus of concentrated poverty," a space where poverty is such a default state that certain aspects of economic and social life begin to break down. The level is disputed, but for the purposes of the census the U.S. government defines concentrated poverty as 40% or more of residents living below the poverty line. At this level, everything ceases to function. Schools, funded by taxpayer dollars, cannot deliver a good education. Families, sustained by economic opportunity, cannot stay together. Citizens, turned into productive members of society through ties to the economic well-being of that society, turn to crime out of social disorder. In America today, 4% of white adults have grown up in such neighborhoods. 62% of black adults were raised in them.
You are right to note certain facets of black society: the drug use, family anarchy, etc are not imaginary, though they certainly are not policed fairly or represented honestly in the white American consciousness. But these are the symptoms, not the causes of black poverty. Go to the spaces of concentrated white poverty, and you will find similar statistics. The reason that black society is the way it is is that black families have been systemically cut out of the normal avenues of upward mobility, and that has more to do with white supremacy than with saggy jeans or rap music."
I don't think anyone will dispute the fact that things like slavery, oppression, & historical systemic racism have played a big part in where the African American community is today. Those are well documented facts. But the question is, what about our current system is systemically racist and needs to be changed?
 
Oct 7, 2008
1,353
322
1,713
#47
and …. none of that explains why I was a poor white kid from non-privileged economic conditions, that did not get hooked on crack or coke, and worked everyday of my life from the age of 13, and paid my way though college without loans or government assistance.

You know what, I seem to recall a lot of black people attending OSU at that time (and even now).

In the 60's and even the 70's some, there was wide-spread racism and systemic problems (that was my youth), and a big struggle for equality, which was attained.

This current movement is not about race and it is not about equality - it appears to be about either reparations (something for nothing), or about affirmative action (something for nothing). (return to affirmative action is on the CA ballot this Nov.)

None of the prominent black leaders (Sowell, Leo Terrell, Sen Scott, etc. agree with your position.

In Los Angeles, the racial tensions in HS, is between the blacks and the Hispanics, I was subjected to racism when I lived in a predominately Hispanic community.
I'm kind of like you that way- I used to be upset at the term 'white privilege' because my family are teachers and farmers and I paid for my college, etc. I think the thing that separates me- the past that affects me- is that I have a good support system. I had good parents, good grandparents, all that stuff to help me and shape me. Whatever socioeconomic situation we're born into, we're far more likely to end up in than to pull ourselves out of. People like you are the exception, not the rule.

Also, I'll give your video a watch when I have some more time. Thanks for sharing!
 
Oct 7, 2008
1,353
322
1,713
#48
It's just not true. It is an excuse. Black people in this country did not have these types of problems until the Democrats tried to fix them, and created all of the problems that exist.

The statistics exist if you care to look into it. Black families were no more likely to be singly parent households than the rest of America, and on and on.

It is attitudes like yours that continues to perpetuate the problems.

Leo Terrell, a prominent Civil Rights Attorney, flat out said that systemic racism does not exist in America. DOES NOT EXIST.

Why should I belive your opinion over his?
Why should you believe his opinion over the thousands of black voices who have been trying to get through to you for decades? Nothing Republicans love more than the lone black man who will tell them what they want to hear.
 
Oct 15, 2003
16,387
2,598
1,743
So Cal
#49
I'm kind of like you that way- I used to be upset at the term 'white privilege' because my family are teachers and farmers and I paid for my college, etc. I think the thing that separates me- the past that affects me- is that I have a good support system. I had good parents, good grandparents, all that stuff to help me and shape me. Whatever socioeconomic situation we're born into, we're far more likely to end up in than to pull ourselves out of. People like you are the exception, not the rule.

Also, I'll give your video a watch when I have some more time. Thanks for sharing!
There are plenty of black people that have stories just like mine - Larry Elder tells his all the time; poor black kid from Compton, to attorney, to syndicated talk show host.

Ben Carson has a great book about his struggles.

if our stories are the exception rather than the rule, then it has nothing to do with systemic racism. (which does not exist - all of these black people will tell you the same thing).
 
Mar 11, 2006
2,509
1,745
1,743
#50
More importantly, you say you have to see evidence of systemic racism in today's world. You do understand that the past creates the present, correct? There was undoubtedly systemic racism all throughout our country's history. Do you guys not understand how that attributes to the America we live in today, or do you simply not care?
I think your long cut-n-paste was informative. I don’t have argument against it. Nor should I. The past does have a lot of ugly and unfair facts.

But nearly everything that was mentioned ended 3 generations ago. How many generations do we keep going with victimization?

I understand that lack of generational wealth hurts people. No doubt I have some friends that a pretty darn wealthy and it really doesn’t tie back to their talents, but what they inherited from the parents/grandparents. And certainly minorities are disproportionally affected due to past racist policies. Again, no argument. But that it not the point.

We don’t live under those situations today. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people that succeed without generational wealth. My father-in-law is a great example. He was an immigrant to this country at 15. He left his parents and came to the US to live with his married sisters family (and they were far from even middle class). He never went to college, but used his trade skills as an electrician to build an extremely small company that afforded him the ability to raise his family very modestly. One thing he did do was insure all eight of his kids went to college. And all are now successful...a couple very successful.

I applaud ideas that help people in poverty. As a country, we should continue to explore ideas to assist people to move up in class. But this should be targeted to people by the income level, not by the colors of their skin.
 
Oct 15, 2003
16,387
2,598
1,743
So Cal
#51
Why should you believe his opinion over the thousands of black voices who have been trying to get through to you for decades? Nothing Republicans love more than the lone black man who will tell them what they want to hear.
Tell me you did not just ask that question.... dear lord.

Because.... he is one that REPRESENTS those folks. CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY. He is on the FRONT LINE. DEFENDING THEM.

ALL of the prominent black leaders say the same thing... all of them. You simply choose to listen to people that echo your position.

It is not a Republican or Democratic "issue", other than the Democrats want to repress the black people, as they have done throughout history.

I would only ask that you open up and listen to the real leaders of the black community (not the Al Sharpton's, or Maxine Watters'). The majority of the black community want education reform, they want school choice - the democrats oppose them. The Dems do not want the blacks to have access to quality education.

Listen to the black community, not the BLM anarchists. Not the ignorant kids like Chubba, who have no idea what they are talking about.
 

Ptak'sNewspaper

Territorial Marshal
Sep 30, 2004
6,651
4,762
1,743
On Tour with the Gap Band
strikeupthegapband.com
#52
You're so all out WRONG. Most people fear the police ever since being kids. I certainly fear the police. I even feared firemen as a child. Back when I was playing with fire in the sandbox and heard a siren, I would put out that fire as fast as I could. My friend, whose father was a fireman even more didn't want to get caught.
And we’re supposed to take any of your posts seriously after this one? LOL.
 
Oct 7, 2008
1,353
322
1,713
#53
I think your long cut-n-paste was informative. I don’t have argument against it. Nor should I. The past does have a lot of ugly and unfair facts.

But nearly everything that was mentioned ended 3 generations ago. How many generations do we keep going with victimization?

I understand that lack of generational wealth hurts people. No doubt I have some friends that a pretty darn wealthy and it really doesn’t tie back to their talents, but what they inherited from the parents/grandparents. And certainly minorities are disproportionally affected due to past racist policies. Again, no argument. But that it not the point.

We don’t live under those situations today. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people that succeed without generational wealth. My father-in-law is a great example. He was an immigrant to this country at 15. He left his parents and came to the US to live with his married sisters family (and they were far from even middle class). He never went to college, but used his trade skills as an electrician to build an extremely small company that afforded him the ability to raise his family very modestly. One thing he did do was insure all eight of his kids went to college. And all are now successful...a couple very successful.

I applaud ideas that help people in poverty. As a country, we should continue to explore ideas to assist people to move up in class. But this should be targeted to people by the income level, not by the colors of their skin.
I agree with a lot of this. My favorite part of the Republican doctrine is the personal responsibility aspect. I think a lot of black people want to blame ALL their problems on white people. But that's humans really- if life doesn't turn out the way we want it to, it's always someone else's fault. So few of us can point the finger back at ourselves. I'm an incredibly optimistic person, I think if you look at the entire arc of humanity it's always bent in the direction of good. And I think we're getting there. I'm not sure reparations would help- maybe if we all just listened a little more and acknowledged America's bad parts post-slavery.
 
Oct 7, 2008
1,353
322
1,713
#54
Tell me you did not just ask that question.... dear lord.

Because.... he is one that REPRESENTS those folks. CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY. He is on the FRONT LINE. DEFENDING THEM.

ALL of the prominent black leaders say the same thing... all of them. You simply choose to listen to people that echo your position.

It is not a Republican or Democratic "issue", other than the Democrats want to repress the black people, as they have done throughout history.

I would only ask that you open up and listen to the real leaders of the black community (not the Al Sharpton's, or Maxine Watters'). The majority of the black community want education reform, they want school choice - the democrats oppose them. The Dems do not want the blacks to have access to quality education.

Listen to the black community, not the BLM anarchists. Not the ignorant kids like Chubba, who have no idea what they are talking about.
Oh yeah. I forgot you're the guy I think is level headed until he starts talking very much.
 

GodsPeace

Joshua 1:9
Aug 20, 2004
32,455
13,980
1,743
41
Stillwater
#55
Where do you see systemic racism in our society?
Democratic controlled cities seem to have it bad. Whatever keeps Chicago Chicago is bad. Cleveland defunded their police to an extent which disproportionally affects those on the lower economic scale which includes minorities. Minneapolis seemed to have it really bad.

Also, Mount Rushmore, Abraham Lincoln Emancipation Statue, John Brown Statue, Arlington Cemetery, Detroit, Baltimore, etc etc etc.

This response might be silly to you. Oh well.
 

GodsPeace

Joshua 1:9
Aug 20, 2004
32,455
13,980
1,743
41
Stillwater
#56
My guess is the reason you seem to be upsetting a couple of posters is that you asked questions that they cannot rationally defend.

Specifically about renaming buildings: I, for one, am fine with renaming of buildings. I don’t have any need to keep the name of Murray Hall. And the group did it the right way. The group neither tore down the name nor vandalized the building. They took their grievance to an authority and that authority made a decision.
What a great use of the 1st Amendment. That 5th right buried in the back has to do with petitioning the government for the redress of grievances. A constitutional Festivus Pole if you will. OSU, as a government entity, responded. Well done everyone.
 
Oct 15, 2003
16,387
2,598
1,743
So Cal
#57
I agree with a lot of this. My favorite part of the Republican doctrine is the personal responsibility aspect. I think a lot of black people want to blame ALL their problems on white people. But that's humans really- if life doesn't turn out the way we want it to, it's always someone else's fault. So few of us can point the finger back at ourselves. I'm an incredibly optimistic person, I think if you look at the entire arc of humanity it's always bent in the direction of good. And I think we're getting there. I'm not sure reparations would help- maybe if we all just listened a little more and acknowledged America's bad parts post-slavery.
and there-in lies the problems.... America's "bad parts" , according to whom?

America's "bad parts" are solely - "progressivism". American's best parts are capitalism. Until we can get that back as a common ground, we will continue to struggle as a Union.
 
Sep 29, 2011
1,520
340
713
60
Breckenridge, CO
#58
Here's the info I came across that opened my eyes to what people mean when they say systemic racism. It's long, and it completely contradicts what most people in here believe, so it will likely get ignored, but that's ya'lls problem not mine.

"You can't interpret the economic and social situation of the African American community in a vacuum without considering the broader history of racism in America. We know from centuries of research that the most important type of wealth is generational wealth, assets that can pass from one generation to another. You wouldn't have the opportunities that you have today if your parents didn't have the opportunities they had, and they in turn wouldn't have had their success in life without the success of your grandparents, etc.
Considering that we know this, consider the economic plight of the average African American family in America. When slavery was abolished, there were no reparations. There was no forty acres and a mule. There was no education system that was both willing and able to accommodate African American children, to say nothing of illiterate adults. With the exception of a brief moment of Reconstruction, there was no significant force dedicated to upholding the safety and political rights of African Americans. Is it any wonder that sharecropping became such a ubiquitous system of labor? For many freed slaves, they quickly wound up working for their masters once again, with very little changes in their day to day lives. And through all of this, white America was profiting off of the work of black America, plundering their property and labor. When slavery was abolished, it was a more lucrative field than all of American manufacturing combined, including the new railroad. The American industrial revolution/rise of big business was already booming, but it was overshadowed by the obscene wealth of plantation slavery. By 1860, one in four Southern Americans owned a slave. Many southern states were majority black, up to 70% black in certain counties of my home state Virginia, the vast majority of them unfree laborers. Mississippi and South Carolina were both majority black. There's a reason that the South was able to pay off its debts after the Revolution so quickly. When you consider just how essential black uncompensated labor was to this country, it's no exaggeration to say that slaves built America.
From this moment onewards til about the 1960s, racism was the law of the land. Sharecropping was slavery by another name and "separate but equal" was an offense against human rights, and those two institutions alone created a massive opportunity gap that has continued repercussions in the today. But what very few people consider is the extent to which the American government empowered people to create or acquire wealth during this time, and the extent to which they denied black Americans the same chances. There was no "Homestead Act" for black people, for instance. When FDR signed the Social Security Act, he specifically endorsed a provision that denied SS benefits to laborers who worked "in the house or the field," in so doing creating a social security net that the NAACP described as "a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.” Black families paid far more than their white counterparts trying to support past generations instead of investing in the future. During the Great Depression, elder poverty was above 50%. Consider on top of this how expensive it is to be poor, especially when you are black. If your son gets sick but you are white and can buy insurance, you will be set back the deductible and copay. If you are black and shut out of an insurance market, you may burn your life savings on care and still not find an good doctor willing to help a black patient. This idea that the poor and socially disadvantaged are more vulnerable is called exploitation theory, and it's really important to understanding race in America.
Nowhere is exploitation theory more important than in housing. It's obvious that desegregation was never a platform that this nation embraced wholeheartedly, but the extent that segregation was a manifestation of formal policy is something that often gets forgotten. The home is the most important piece of wealth in American history, and once you consider the home ownership prospects of African Americans you'll instantly understand how vital and essential the past remains in interpreting the present when it comes to race.
During the 1930s, America established the FHA, an agency dedicated to evaluating the worth of property and helping Americans afford homes. The FHA pioneered a policy called "redlining," in which the worth of a piece of property was tied to the racial diversity of its neighborhood, with more diversity driving down price. When white homeowners complained that their colored neighbors drove down prices, they were speaking literally. In addition, the FHA and other banks which used their ratings (which were all of them, more or less) resolved not to give a loan to any black family who would increase the racial diversity of a neighborhood (in practice a barrier of proof so high that virtually no black families received financial aid in purchasing a home). These practices did not end until 1968, and by then the damage had been done. In 1930, 30% of Americans owned homes. By 1960, 60% of them did, largely because of the FHA and the lending practices its presence in the market enabled.
Black families, cut out of this new American housing market and the government guarantees which made it possible, had nowhere to go. This was all taking place during the Great Migration. Black families were fleeing from old plantation estates where they still were treated like slaves, and traveling to the North in search of a better life. When they arrived, there was nowhere to live. White real estate owners quickly realized how to exploit the vulnerability of the black community. They bought up property and sold homes to African American families "on contract." These contracts were overpriced, and very few could afford to keep their homes. To make matters worse, these contracts were routinely broken. Often contracts guaranteed heating or other bills, but these amenities would never be covered. Even though black families "bought" these houses, a contract is not like a mortgage-- there was little to no expectation of future ownership. The owners of these contract houses would loan the property, wait for payments to cease, evict the family, and open the house up to the next gullible buyer fleeing from lynching in the south. None of it mattered. By 1962, 85% of black homeowners in Chicago lived in contract homes. And these numbers are comparable to cities all across the country. For every family that could keep holding onto the property til these practices were outlawed, a dozen spent their life savings on an elusive dream of home ownership that would never come to fruition.
This practice of exploiting African Americans to sell estate had real consequences. As black contract buyers streamed into a neighborhood, the FHA took notice. In addition to racist opposition to integration from white homeowners, even the well-intentioned had difficulty staying in a neighborhood as the value of their house went down. How could you take out a loan to pay for your daughter's college or finance a business with the collateral of a low-value piece of land? White flight is not something that the U.S. government can wash its hands of. It was social engineering, upheld by government policy. As white families left these neighborhoods, contract buyers bought their houses at a fraction of the cost and expanded their operation, selling more houses on contract and finally selling the real estate to the federal government when the government moved into public housing, virtually ensuring that public housing would not help black families move into neighborhoods of opportunity. And the FHA's policies also helped whites: without the sterling credit ratings that businessmen in lily-white communities could buy at, there would be no modern suburb. All of this remains today. When you map neighborhoods in which contract buyers were active against a map of modern ghettos, you get a near-perfect match. Ritzy white neighborhoods became majority-black ghettos overnight.
I said that this was all going to be a history lesson, but there's an important facet of sociology that you need in order to complete the story. There's a certain type of neighborhood that's known as a "nexus of concentrated poverty," a space where poverty is such a default state that certain aspects of economic and social life begin to break down. The level is disputed, but for the purposes of the census the U.S. government defines concentrated poverty as 40% or more of residents living below the poverty line. At this level, everything ceases to function. Schools, funded by taxpayer dollars, cannot deliver a good education. Families, sustained by economic opportunity, cannot stay together. Citizens, turned into productive members of society through ties to the economic well-being of that society, turn to crime out of social disorder. In America today, 4% of white adults have grown up in such neighborhoods. 62% of black adults were raised in them.
You are right to note certain facets of black society: the drug use, family anarchy, etc are not imaginary, though they certainly are not policed fairly or represented honestly in the white American consciousness. But these are the symptoms, not the causes of black poverty. Go to the spaces of concentrated white poverty, and you will find similar statistics. The reason that black society is the way it is is that black families have been systemically cut out of the normal avenues of upward mobility, and that has more to do with white supremacy than with saggy jeans or rap music."
I don't think anyone will dispute the fact that things like slavery, oppression, & historical systemic racism have played a big part in where the African American community is today. Those are well documented facts. But the question is, what about our current system is systemically racist and needs to be changed?
I agree. 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago the black community was trying to recover and even overcome significant racism. But racism itself doesn’t explain many of the challenges facing the black community. Challenges like fatherless homes, unwed mothers, higher than average substance abuse, higher than average dropout rates, higher than average unemployment rates, higher than average criminal activity, and incredibly high black on black crime, just to name a few.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Oct 15, 2003
16,387
2,598
1,743
So Cal
#59
Oh yeah. I forgot you're the guy I think is level headed until he starts talking very much.
that's It, turn it into a personal attack on me.... I have not shared my opinion I have only tried to point out the other side of the discussion, as presented by black leaders. First you attacked those leaders as "pawns of the Republicans" (so to speak), when that didn't work you go after me for having the gall to even post on the topic.

If you're out of facts to defend your false narrative, then I would suggest you move on, rather than start attacking those hat have points with which you disagree.

You keep speaking in broad generalities about some perceived inequality, while I have given you at least half a dozen black individuals who stake their very livelihoods and reputations to present positions that are completely opposite of your narrative. It has nothing to do with me.

If you disagree with these individuals, then that is on you.
 
Sep 29, 2011
1,520
340
713
60
Breckenridge, CO
#60
I hear there is systemic racism embedded in our justice system, education system, corporate job environments, sports leagues, and various other institutions and organizations. While there may be some level of racism contained therein, IMO, the problems the black community experiences in those environments have many root causes which won’t be meaningfully solved by curing any imbedded racism that may exist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That is a strange way of saying you don't believe there is such a thing as systemic racism. I strongly disagree.

Lets start with the criminal justice system, specifically the drug war. Whites and blacks use drugs at almost exactly the same rate (https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/hidden-costs-drug-prohibition), but blacks are jailed at anywhere from 4-6 times the rate for the same offense. When jailed for the same offense, they are jailed longer than whites (https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...onger-prison-sentences-than-white-men-for-the). You also have the crack and cocaine discrepancy in sentencing where crack had penalties 100x greater per weight, despite the fact that the active dose was not 100x smaller. This was implemented in the mid 80's and not revised until 2010! (https://www.ussc.gov/research/congr...port-congress-impact-fair-sentencing-act-2010). Drug offenses according to this report were the plurality of all offences at over 38%. (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vfluc.pdf)

Then, with a larger percentage of those incarcerated with felonies, they no longer can get a decent job after they are released, cannot support their kids effectively and at that point it has a community effect.

I would say that the majority of the people who are involved in the criminal justice system are not racist, although a few are, and the policies put in place and how they were executed (the Broken Window theory of policing), had an impact that heavily impacted minorities in a negative way.

Then you have policies like redlining, which were ended long ago, but had a major impact on wealth building---just look at how much housing and property values have gone up since then. Many blacks were prevented from getting into the market at all, or if they did, they could only purchase homes in poorer areas.

Its one thing if everyone started off at a roughly similar place and one group fell far behind on their own volition. Using a running analogy: It is another thing to not be allowed to participate at all for a couple hundred years, then when they are allowed to participate, have to run with a weighted backpack for another 100 years. When the weighted backpack is removed, they get time penalties for doing stuff other people in the race are doing.
Regarding the justice system. It’s hard to know what to believe because statistics are gathered, parsed and reported in significantly different ways. For example, many defendants are arrested on multiple charges, but plead out to a single charge. Also, many defendants are arrested with or without a criminal history. Also, comparing jurisdictions means potentially comparing different mandates from the public, different political environments, and different prosecutors. Some jurisdictions are heavy minority, some very light minority.

I will say any defendant with access to expensive representation is more likely to get a better result, but in and of itself, that’s not racism, just an unfortunate flaw in our justice system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk