Systemic racism (split from The Killing of George Floyd: The Last Straw?)

[Moreno]

What % of a total white population in US white racists constitute? Those who are capable to cause any significant harm to blacks by beating, insulting, firing out of job for no reason, etc?  Whites constitute 61.5 % of a total US population and blacks around 13%. It means that if number of white racists would constitute 20% of whites, then their total number would still be lower than the total number of blacks in US. How they would be able to organize a systematic racism? And there are always a lot of whites who are willing combat racism actively. 

[dimreepr]

25 minutes ago, Moreno said:

What % of a total white population in US white racists constitute? Those who are capable to cause any significant harm to blacks by beating, insulting, firing out of job for no reason, etc?  Whites constitute 61.5 % of a total US population and blacks around 13%. It means that if number of white racists would constitute 20% of whites, then their total number would still be lower than the total number of blacks in US. How they would be able to organize a systematic racism? And there are always a lot of whites who are willing combat racism actively. 

How is any of this relevant to the topic?

You should watch the video's myself and INow posted, it explains the difference between systemic racism and simple bigotry/hatred.

7 minutes ago, lightout said:

Hello, people. So, what do you think about these protests and riots? Is it possible to create a survey in this topic? I am interested in the percentage of different opinions.

I suggest you start a new topic, alternatively you could read this one. 🙂

Edited June 5, 2020 by dimreepr

[iNow]

I see Moreno that you edited your post after I replied, so let me answer:

22 minutes ago, Moreno said:

I whish to know what % of whites in US are involved in systemic racism?

You should conduct a study then, instead of expecting others to keep spoon-feeding you answers that you don’t seem to either comprehend or acknowledge, but the answer here is simple: Anyone not helping to solve the problem is part of the problem.

Edited June 5, 2020 by iNow

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Moreno said:

What % of a total white population in US white racists constitute? Those who are capable to cause any significant harm to blacks by beating, insulting, firing out of job for no reason, etc?  Whites constitute 61.5 % of a total US population and blacks around 13%. It means that if number of white racists would constitute 20% of whites, then their total number would still be lower than the total number of blacks in US. How they would be able to organize a systematic racism? And there are always a lot of whites who are willing combat racism actively. 

For the first 8 or 9 decades in the USA (and decades more before it became the USA), slavery existed. Many of the rules ingrained into the system were thus biased toward whites. Even after the civil war ended, whites still held political and economic power. 

You quote today's demographic numbers but that's meaningless when discussing history. Even up through 1990, the US was >80% white, and arguably had a higher proportion of racists in the population as we go back in time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States#Historical_data_for_all_races_and_for_Hispanic_origin_(1610–2010)

And comparing raw numbers is a flawed analysis, since rights and opportunities have not been equal. It wouldn't matter in elections if blacks had been 50% of the population, if large numbers of them were prevented from voting.

[dimreepr]

As this is a new thread, this is the simple explanation, I refered to in the OP,  of systemic racism as it applies to America.

 

Edited June 5, 2020 by dimreepr

[Moreno]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

As this is a new thread, this is the simple explanation, I refered to in the OP,  of systemic racism as it applies to America.

 

1) Colored people in US were not prevented to do any private business activity in 160 years. Nobody prevented them to create enterprises, open banks, save money and accumulate capital, hire their fellows. Why they suppose to depend solely on white favors in our days? 

2) Private businesses and employers suppose to value their profits most of all. Why they suppose to reject a colored candidate if he/she can potentially bring them more profit than a white candidate? They will go bankrupt if they will hire all the white fools instead of colored smarties (or contra).  

3) Why all white people suppose to share collective responsibility for some private banks who refuse to give credits to some colored people? If colored people don't like they may ask for a loan in a state bank of Nigeria.

4) First time I hear that refusing in loan by private bank based on a region of a city where person lives instead of a personal data/record is a common practice.

5) The richest ethnicity in US per capita are East Indians. A dark-skinned colored people.

Video - dragged by head and shoulders. 

Edited June 5, 2020 by Moreno

[dimreepr]

Just now, Moreno said:

1) Colored people in US were not prevented to do any private business activity in 160 years. Nobody prevented them to create enterprises, open banks, save money and accumulate capital, hire their fellows. Why they suppose to depend solely on white favors in our days? 

In order to be a bank, you have to have money... 😒

2 minutes ago, Moreno said:

2) Private businesses and employers suppose to value their profits most of all. Why they suppose to reject a colored candidate if he/she can potentially bring them more profit than a white candidate? They will go bankrupt if they will hire all the white fools instead of colored smarties.

The mistake you're making here is supposing the candidates are only equal when the white folks have been eliminated. Watch the movie "hidden figures.

10 minutes ago, Moreno said:

3) Why all white people suppose to share collective responsibility for some private banks who refuse to give credits to some colored people? If colored people don't like they may ask for a loan in a state bank of Nigeria.

4) First time I hear that refusing in loan by private bank based on a region of a city where person lives instead of a personal data/record is a common practice.

5) The richest ethnicity in US per capita are East Indians. A dark-skinned colored people.

That's just bollox.

 

[Moreno]

What do you think about this book?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

Quote

In order to be a bank, you have to have money... 😒

How rich were Irish, Norwegians or Koreans 160 years ago?

Edited June 5, 2020 by Moreno

[dimreepr]

14 minutes ago, Moreno said:

What do you think about this book?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

Adam Smith was essentially a moralist, who imagined the best economy includes everyone...

[Moreno]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

And comparing raw numbers is a flawed analysis, since rights and opportunities have not been equal. It wouldn't matter in elections if blacks had been 50% of the population, if large numbers of them were prevented from voting.

How long ago and in which exactly places?

Edited June 5, 2020 by Moreno

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, Moreno said:

How long ago and in which exactly places?

This year. 2018. 2016... pretty much every election before those... How many examples will you need before you realize you're on the wrong side of this one?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/poll-prri-voter-suppression/565355/

Quote

The results, especially when analyzed by race, are troublesome. They indicate that voter suppression is commonplace, and that voting is routinely harder for people of color than for their white counterparts.

<...>

The numbers not only suggest that policies such as voter-ID requirements and automatic voter purges do, indeed, have strong racial and ethnic biases, but also that there are more subtle barriers for people of color that compound the effects of these laws. 

<...>

These results add credence to what many critics of restrictive voting laws have long suspected. First, voter-ID laws and other, similar statutes aren’t passed in a vacuum, but rather in a country where people of color are significantly less likely to be able to meet the new requirements. Whether intended to discriminate or not, these laws discriminate in effect, and while there is no evidence that they’ve averted any kind of fraud, there is plenty of data detailing just how they’ve created Republican advantages. In that way, Trump’s chances in 2016 may have turned not only on the approval or disapproval of white voters, but also on how effectively state laws, access issues, and social penalties conspired to keep black and Hispanic voters away from polling places.

More numbers and examples at the link.

[Moreno]

Regarding access to good education. In some countries like Canada and possibly UK/rest of EU universities are in hands of govt. mostly and inexpensive. Often there is no even serious entering exams. Does it help colored people much more than in US? It would be interesting to compare. 

Don't many US universities have quotas for colored people? Is receiving good education such a tremendous problem?

Edited June 5, 2020 by Moreno

[Moreno]

11 hours ago, swansont said:

discussing history. Even up through 1990, the US was >80% white

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States#Historical_data_for_all_races_and_for_Hispanic_origin_(1610–2010)

Probably it included "Hispanic". Non-Hispanic whites constituted merely 75% in 1990.  

https://www.marketingcharts.com/demographics-and-audiences-41558

Now they constitute only 59%.

[swansont]

13 minutes ago, Moreno said:

Probably it included "Hispanic".

Right. That changes it to 1970.

13 minutes ago, Moreno said:

Non-Hispanic whites constituted merely 75% in 1990.  

Merely? 

[Moreno]

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

Right. That changes it to 1970.

So, how is it relevant today in this context something that took place 30-50 years ago? What is your point? I thought the present situation is more important that something took place in the past.

Edited June 5, 2020 by Moreno

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Moreno said:

So, how is it relevant today in this context something that took place 30-50 years ago? What is your point? I thought the present situation is more important that something took place in the past.

The topic is systemic racism. You’re the one who implied everything has been fine for the past 160 years. i.e. we’re discussing history. I’m pointing out that historical demographics are different from today’s. 

Systemic racism wasn’t put into place this year. 

[Moreno]

I think there could be an educational programs, increased bursaries and student loans that facilitate access to education to people with lower incomes, but do not see a reason or moral justification to do it along racial lines.

If we dig dipper and wider in history, then there were cases of wide scale white slavery, when colored people kept many white slaves, or oppressed white people for hundreds of years. The best known is Mongol Empire. I hope it doesn't mean that Mongols need to pay reparations to Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians and hurry to create for them a quota places in Ulanbaatar universities? And I hope it doesn't mean we need to talk about collective guilt of all the Asians before all the Whites for all the times to come? Many Whites came in US from countries (such as Poland, Sweden or Ukraine) which never had any slavery, colonies or official racial segregation. Majority of countries with predominantly European population never had something like this. And if some US or British whites like to think about white collective "guilt" what gives them right to talk from the name of entire white race and involve many whites who have no any historic relation to all this?

Edited June 6, 2020 by Moreno

[Strange]

31 minutes ago, Moreno said:

I think there could be an educational programs, increased bursaries and student loans that facilitate access to education to people with lower incomes, but do not see a reason or moral justification to do it along racial lines.

If you did that you would be surprised to find that you were doing it on racial lines. 

[swansont]

 

1 hour ago, Moreno said:

If we dig dipper and wider in history, then there were cases of wide scale white slavery, when colored people kept many white slaves, or oppressed white people for hundreds of years. The best known is Mongol Empire. I hope it doesn't mean that Mongols need to pay reparations to Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians and hurry to create for them a quota places in Ulanbaatar universities? And I hope it doesn't mean we need to talk about collective guilt of all the Asians before all the Whites for all the times to come? Many Whites came in US from countries (such as Poland, Sweden or Ukraine) which never had any slavery, colonies or official racial segregation. Majority of countries with predominantly European population never had something like this. And if some US or British whites like to think about white collective "guilt" what gives them right to talk from the name of entire white race and involve many whites who have no any historic relation to all this?

Relevance to the topic?

17 hours ago, Moreno said:

Regarding access to good education. In some countries like Canada and possibly UK/rest of EU universities are in hands of govt. mostly and inexpensive. Often there is no even serious entering exams. Does it help colored people much more than in US? It would be interesting to compare. 

Then go compare. Do your own research. 

17 hours ago, Moreno said:

Don't many US universities have quotas for colored people? Is receiving good education such a tremendous problem?

Yes, it’s a problem. Can you figure out why?

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Moreno said:

If we dig dipper and wider in history, then there were cases of wide scale white slavery, when colored people kept many white slaves, or oppressed white people for hundreds of years. The best known is Mongol Empire.

That is some Olympic Gold Medal level "whataboutism" there. Impressive.

[swansont]

Moreno’s gone, but I will bring up one example I was just reminded about: wage theft is not a criminal act. If your employer shorts your paycheck, they haven’t broken a criminal law. If you take something of value from your employer, you have.

In the former case, you will likely have to go through a civil process to recover the stolen money. Not everyone can afford a lawyer to do this. In the latter case, the state will handle prosecution. One of the inequalities baked into the system that benefits whites at the expense of minorities 

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

I was just reminded about: wage theft is not a criminal act. If your employer shorts your paycheck, they haven’t broken a criminal law. If you take something of value from your employer, you have.

I was not aware of that. (It appears to be true in the UK as well.) That is a great example of structural power imbalance.

And it is true of employment more generally. I saw some comments online recently (which I think were related to BLM) saying things like "well, if you don't like what your employer  does, you can go and work somewhere else" (a classic argument against strikes and organised labor). But that ignores the fact that most people are not in a position to easily find another job. And, you can be fairly sure that the people making these suggestion are (a) in the privileged position of being able to do that (or feeling that they could, which is just as important) and (b) predominately white.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 6/7/2020 at 8:35 AM, swansont said:

Moreno’s gone, but I will bring up one example I was just reminded about: wage theft is not a criminal act. If your employer shorts your paycheck, they haven’t broken a criminal law. If you take something of value from your employer, you have.

In the former case, you will likely have to go through a civil process to recover the stolen money. Not everyone can afford a lawyer to do this. In the latter case, the state will handle prosecution. One of the inequalities baked into the system that benefits whites at the expense of minorities 

What you described can benefit employers over employees, and it is more common that the employers are white and employees minority than the other way around.

Does that make it part of systemic racism? (not that you made that claim, but you certainly have stated it as a racial issue)

Or is it simply where people have an imbalance of power over others, regardless of ethnicity?

 

[swansont]

9 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What you described can benefit employers over employees, and it is more common that the employers are white and employees minority than the other way around.

Does that make it part of systemic racism? (not that you made that claim, but you certainly have stated it as a racial issue)

Or is it simply where people have an imbalance of power over others, regardless of ethnicity?

 

Yes, it’s part of systemic racism, because whites have the bulk if the power to make the rules that give them an advantage. It doesn’t matter that they are leveraging power against poor folks; that just hides the racism under a veneer. The US has laws that would prevent overtly racist rules. 

The imbalance of power is one problem, and the disproportionate way it is exerted, or the disproportionate impact, is another.

 

[dimreepr]

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes, it’s part of systemic racism, because whites have the bulk if the power to make the rules that give them an advantage. It doesn’t matter that they are leveraging power against poor folks; that just hides the racism under a veneer. The US has laws that would prevent overtly racist rules. 

The imbalance of power is one problem, and the disproportionate way it is exerted, or the disproportionate impact, is another.

In the UK, systemic racism is now expressed through poverty, and TBH I'm not sure which version is worse.  

They both authorise, "legitimate" hatred, of those who want to impinge on their "well deserved" privilege. The main difference is, a black face is easier to spot (OK, that version is worse).