Is there still systemic racism in the Us

December 22, 2017, 6:27 am

Agree19 Disagree7

73%
27%

The debate "Is there still systemic racism in the Us" was started by person on December 22, 2017, 6:27 am. 19 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 7 people are on the disagree side. People are starting to choose their side. It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.

Nemiroff posted 9 arguments, historybuff posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
ChangeMyMind posted 11 arguments, DrMrDaniel posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.

historybuff, Nemiroff, judas, bernie2020, Moonlight, chandu, RavenclawOwl, Gorgon, ConyGoalard, unknown123 and 9 visitors agree.
ChangeMyMind, DrMrDaniel, brontoraptor, bruh352 and 3 visitors disagree.

Nemiroff
replied to...

legally there is history like where predominately black jobs (field work, house keeping) were exempt from minimum wage laws), how black veterans were excluded from housing benefits (levittown). The effects of both of these can be directly linked to today.

then you have non legal ones (not illegal tho) like the harsher penalties and increased enforcement for identical crimes with identical histories, the not caring about private sector abuses like red lining.

1 year, 5 months ago

ChangeMyMind, again, haven't researched this in a long time, and my ability to vet information was certainly not as strong back then, so take this with many heapfuls of salt:
Some attribute Johnson with ulterior motives, and there is a quote attributed to him, (the claim being he said this at the signing of the bill,) "this will have those n****** voting Democrat for 200 years." Some believe that the Great Society act was both a sort of political bribe, and was supposed to sabotage the economy of black neighborhoods by providing bad incentives.
Certainly, via the economic theory popular to many at the time, the Great Society Act would be considered harmful to black people by many people at the time.


Whether a conspiracy or not, many take the act as a genuine act of sincere charity. I can only say I stood by the former claim, (that it was an attempt at sabotage,) once upon a time, but I'm agnostic about it today, and have been too busy to update my information for a while, now.

Hope this clarifies my position. Or....kind of sort of lack of position. I'm definitely open to new information.

1 year, 5 months ago

The whole purpose of great society was to end poverty, help the environment and foment equality. Are you saying that it was SARCASTICALLY racist?

1 year, 5 months ago

It's been a long time since I considered the matter---if I recall, the Great Society act was written by President Johnson to be a kind of sabotage. If true, then it would most certainly be a kind of racist policy.

1 year, 5 months ago
DrMrDaniel
replied to...

please, name some examples.

1 year, 5 months ago

There seems to be. I wouldn't argue that there is systematic racism in every system in the US, but there are definitely institutions that have a problem.

1 year, 5 months ago

I'm not talking about the law being racist. I'm talking about the culture of the government being systemically racist. if you aren't a part of that government then whether or not you personally are a racist doesn't have any bearing on the systemic racism of the government. I was not trying to say your opinion doesn't matter. it certainly does.

as for Trump, I think his racism was well planned. Republicans use fear as their primary tactic. Whether it is Mexicans, Muslims or Communists they just love pointing fingers at foreigners. it has gotten them elected many times.

1 year, 5 months ago

What? let me see if I understand. In your opinion, unless I am part if the government my personal opinion on the laws being racist (or not) are irrelevant? Doesn't that assume that everyone outside of the government is blind to what the government does? that people outside of the government are therefore inherently too stupid to understand the impact that laws have? and if that's the case, wouldn't that be true for you also?
I could not disagree anymore with this statement. I think that every citizen has the responsibility to educate themselves as they choose those who make laws for us, and in my case this is not a responsibility that I take lightly. So no, historybuff I think my opinion as a voter is very much relevant, and I believe so because #democracy.

As far as Trump' s statements on Mexicans. I would not dare defend those statements, because they were hurtful, doesn't matter how you look at them. Those statements, so stupidly spoken, have forever tainted a law against illegal immigration. Every time America discusses how to move forward towards illegal immigration, this comes to light; and I think it's relevant. It's important to address and understand the meaning behind every law. America deserves answers. And although I am all for the controlling of illegal immigration, I will never be for it, if the idea is to keep a particular race group away. That is racist. But I doubt Republicans wanted that, I just think Trump is very dumb.

So you see historybuff, I may (or may not be in the government), but I don't think that my affiliation to government relieves me of the responsibility of making educated decisions when it comes to my future and the impact of laws in the society I live in; therefore, my opinion on whether laws are racist or not is 100% relevant.

1 year, 5 months ago

unless I am mistaken, you are not a part of the government. therefore your personal opinions on racism isn't really relevant to whether or not there is system racism.

I would argue that both parties, but in particular the Republicans, use race and descrimination as a political tool. for example, Trump saying Mexican imigrants are rapists while talking about building a wall to keep try to keep them out.

1 year, 5 months ago

Is it your personal experience that this is the case? or is this just an "if"?
Like I mentioned, prejudice is alive and kicking. But until there is undeniable proof that the US has a systemic racism problem, I will continue to play the part of a good citizen like the majority of Americans.

1 year, 5 months ago

it doesn't have to be a written law to be systemic. if I own a company and only promote racist men, then I am creating a system with systemic racism.

The law says I can't choose not to promote people based on race, but it's not exactly enforceable if I don't tell anyone what my real reasons are. with people like trump drumming up racist fear and hate, they are continuing the process.

1 year, 5 months ago

Oh yeah, for sure. It does not surprise me that there is still prejudice in the US. I merely believe that from prejudice to systemic racism there's a gap; a legal gap. I understand that the former does influence the latter, but our system of checks and balances works better than most countries. Therefore, it is my belief, that in order to claim systemic racism we must provide proof that there are LAWS that are racist.

Otherwise, I can sit here and agree with you all day that companies would most likely call Bryce back than Jawan; or that Lamar may get 2 months in prison for shoplifting, when Steph might get community service.

I'm not oblivious to prejudice, but I should mention that prejudice is highlighted and we forget that the majority of Americans are doing the right thing. It's easy to get caught up on examples (and I don't mean we should dismiss them, I'm all about addressing this behavior) but it's very important to remember than most of us do not treat others based on race, religion, sexual orientation.... most of America is doing the right thing, therefore, in my humble opinion, systemic racism does not exist in the US.

1 year, 5 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

high enough income they tend to get off completely free, but I'm certain the study controlled for that as well and just monitored the racial disparity. it's all about media portrayals and for decades black = criminal or thug.

I'll have to find this study/studies later on.

There's also the study that sent hundreds of resumes, identical with different names and surprise, Harvard grad jewuan gets way less call backs then Harvard grad John. also tips.

1 year, 5 months ago

I hear you about the punishments; I do think that prejudice is very much alive. Beyond race, I am more inclined to say that people of low resources tend to get harsher punishments than those of high income.

As far as the housing laws etc, are those laws still in place today? Because if we go back to history, I am certain we will encounter plenty of examples that show systemic racism. But, will we encounter laws that hold back minorities TODAY?

1 year, 5 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

legally there is history like where predominately black jobs (field work, house keeping) were exempt from minimum wage laws), how black veterans were excluded from housing benefits, and in general were blocked from the movement of subsidized homes for poor people (levittown and many suburbs), getting rental projects instead which builds no wealth. (let's not turn this part towards personal responsibility, just comparing government treatment by race.

then you have non legal ones (not illegal tho) like the harsher penalties and increased enforcement for identical crimes with identical histories, the not caring about private sector abuses like red lining.

1 year, 5 months ago

I see. I won't say I mocked the article per se; but imo, I tend to lose respect for media once they've shown agenda or missed steps in research. As far as my lack of countering, I will say it again, i was familiar with the issues therby posed in the article. I happen to remember talking about it with some friends at the time of happening, it's all. If there is any other examples you'd like to provide which proves SYSTEMIC racism in the US, I am all about moving on to talk about those.

1 year, 5 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

oh no, I just meant the article to be a summary of and example of what I saw as the most obvious example of systematic attempts at using voter IDs in blatantly racist ways. your free to introduce counter points, but hopefully to the issues brought up at your request.

you also mocked the article and the source at the end of your post, without countering anything it said.

I'm not sure about the articles at the time the scandal broke, but this is based on the results of a judge ruling and actual evidence.

also, voter Id wasn't even one of the examples I listed when you asked. it's absolutely valid, I just forgot about it, but there's a whole list of other examples that I'm sure make a much stronger case in combination.

1 year, 5 months ago

The one thing I find unfair is that we are using this article as the only source for the debate. If we do, then yes, you'll always be right and I'll always be wrong. My take is, than when the scandal came out, depending on what your news source was, it was reported differently. Some sources, to the best of my recollection, were explaining that the racial breakdown statistics mentioned were only a portion of the statistics provided to the law makers. However, they were the center of attention in order to make the claim of racism.

In other words, nobody talked about the statistics obtained that showed the breakdown by income, county, education level.... I guess it was not controversial enough.

To summarize, I am not saying that the law is not racist, but that there's not enough evidence to claim racism on this topic.

1 year, 5 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

is it unfair to expect points I was asked to provide by you ("You mentioned "voter suppression laws", talk to me about those please.") to be addressed?

also it appears you must have misunderstood the article. The situation it was reporting was that lawmakers didn't request statistics based on democrats but openly judged which id's they would take based entirely off race data directly.

this situation is blatantly disgusting and there wasn't much nuance to discuss so the reporter asked the question "WHAT IF they had gotten the same results from targeting party lines instead of race, would that be ok even tho the effect would be the same?". and the answer to this question was far from your interpretation that race and democrat discrimination is the same, instead he stated the nonpartisan conclusion that "I tend to look at these cases differently and take it from the point of view of the voter and ask the question, does the state have a good reason to burden voters, to make it harder to register and vote?"

it appears to me that it is not the article that has partisan undertones, but your reading of the article that is partisan.

with that in mind, your #1 is invalid. they never said all minorities are democrat. it's a fact that many are. and ultimately their conclusion had nothing to with that.

and your #2 is absolutely right, but I don't see the relevancy of that point to this situation. what the lawmakers in these 2 states did was blatantly racist. that is a word that shouldn't be thrown around carelessly, just like rape. but I have no issue with calling a rapist a rapist. same goes for racists.

btw, welcome to the app, I hope you stay long. but a word of advice, texts walls are not conducive to quick replies. some tasteful spacing and formatting helps alot.

1 year, 5 months ago

That's not fair Nemiroff. You want me to argue based on the article. I did not read it fully because I did remember that controversy during the last election. If we argue based on the article alone I am hence limited to it's contents and tone (far left), might as well have me write a book report. So, to satisfy the control you wish to exert over this debate (lol), I went back and read the full thing. And I was not wrong. There are many far left undertones, and many assumptions. Let me show you, perhaps this will better express my feelings on the matter:
"And so how do you decide whether discrimination against Democrats is the same thing as discrimination against, say, African-Americans or Latinos? And that's something that the 4th Circuit, in its opinion, struggled with and said, look, if you target a party knowing that this is the party that is favored by minority voters, that's race discrimination even if it's not driven by racial hatred or racial animus."
This is a quote given by the professor brought in to give an in-depth explanation on the North Carolina law issue.
1.) Not all minorities are democrats. There is a tendency, yes, but it's not an absolute. The article talks about how the law makers requested statistics INCLUDING STATISTICS BY RACE. It doesn't mean it was the only "pie chart" the law makers requested. However, it centers on making a scandal about the fact that there was a race category on their research. I would love to hear about all the categories the research was based upon, but in here, NPR chose to pick and choose to rattle the cage. The article does not mention the chunk of poor whites who did not possess the necessary ID either.
2.) Why is it so easy to call something racist? I mean, I'm not a fan of politics, and it is no secret that politicians use the law to their advantage while it may not be morally right. But Nemiroff, I feel from the bottom of my heart that we have become impervious to the gravity of the USE of the word and we throw it around so easy. Calling something racist should be a grave accusation, same as accusing someone of rape. They are both heinous in my book. And until, you provide evidence beyond reproach that America has SYSTEMIC racism taking part on today's society, we should be careful about labeling things as racist too quickly.

1 year, 5 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

did you read the article because it looks like you didn't.

the lawmakers asked for specific data to see which populations had which id's and then only allowed ids minorities tend not to have.

and then idk about Carolina, but Texas at the same time reduced dmv hours and shut down branches near poor neighborhoods making it next to impossible for people with limited transportation and hectic schedules to even acquire these far off ids. all while democrats were just trying to broker letting dmvs stay open for a single weekend per month.

it's often good to understand or at least read the points being made before over simplifying and dismissing them.

1 year, 5 months ago

Ah... I remember this... I also remember thinking and racking my brain as to why asking for ID was racist... It wasn't about asking for ID from black people only, it was because the wanted to ID people, EVERYONE. You know, like when you purchase alcohol. It just so happens that many of the registered voters did not possess a photo ID because they were cheap. That's all there's to it. Why is it easier to target this law as racist, than to question why people with low resources do not find it a priority to own am ID. NPR, although a trusted source in my opinion, really stretched the truth on this one.

1 year, 5 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

https://www.npr.org/2016/07/31/488151559/racially-discriminatory-intent-and-voter-id-laws

1 year, 5 months ago

You mentioned "voter suppression laws", talk to me about those please.

1 year, 5 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

but that's a tangent ;)

There are no laws in this country that explicitly target race (except affirmative action) but there is racism in other senses.

legally there is history like where predominately black jobs (field work, house keeping) were exempt from minimum wage laws), how black veterans were excluded from housing benefits (levittown). The effects of both of these can be directly linked to today.

then you have non legal ones (not illegal tho) like the harsher penalties and increased enforcement for identical crimes with identical histories, the not caring about private sector abuses like red lining.

these aren't all part of "the system" but they are found frequently throughout many systems, and can thus be considered systematic.

1 year, 5 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

completely seperate from the racial argument, I can deny that opportunity exists. and that denial is indiscriminate of race... it's a just that much more harder if your of certain heritages.

1 year, 5 months ago

I am curious as to what laws you refer to... please enlighten me. Racism is very much alive but to claim that racism exists by the system's design is not only a giant leap but a big fat lie. Show me a minority that was born poor and stayed poor forever, and I will show you another who under same circumstances succeeded. You cannot deny that opportunity exists, but instead, I invite you to truly appreciate what hard work really looks like. I refuse to believe that in America you cannot achieve what you want through hard work and dedication... Change my mind!

1 year, 5 months ago

this is a big country as parts of it are still very racist. the voter suppression laws in several states is proof of it being systematic in those states.

but most of the racism is in the results, not the intentions. it feels like this nation has been waging a war on the poor and middle class, and with most minorities being mostly poor, it feels like being born a minority is a sentence of life long poverty and an absence of opportunity.

most of the nation is not explicitly racist, but our policies and systems still do have systematic racist effects.

1 year, 8 months ago
Discuss "Is there still systemic racism in the Us" people politics relationships
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.