What is Systemic Racism?

[PawDawg]

You're missing the point. There are a disproportionate amount of blacks that are impoverished.

Yes, but the real problem (fatherless homes) didn't begin to grow until 1965. I've pointed to too much government and the wrong kind of government as the real problem. It's not a 200 year old problem it is a 50 year old problem. The same problem began to grow in white homes in 1965.

[Guisslapp]

Yes, but the real problem (fatherless homes) didn't begin to grow until 1965. I've pointed to too much government and the wrong kind of government as the real problem. It's not a 200 year old problem it is a 50 year old problem. The same problem began to grow in white homes in 1965.

Fatherless homes has always been a phenomenon seen at least twice as frequently in black homes since well before the 1960s. I posted a link to the graph, which also does show the growth for all races beginning in the 1960s.

Some tie the boost in the 1960s to birth control and legalization of abortion as it changed the dynamic of “you break you buy” and the shotgun wedding. Used to be people fooled around before marriage, but if there was an “accident” the man was expected to man up and marry and the woman was supposed to go along. That moral duty started to fade once technology gave women a little more control over reproduction. Men started to see pregnancy as more of a woman’s problem, and women now starting to have more work opportunities felt a little less beholden to a man she never wanted to marry.

It is not like people didn’t have premarital sex before. You just used to have a lot more shotgun weddings.

[DawgyNWindow]

Fatherless homes has always been a phenomenon seen at least twice as frequently in black homes since well before the 1960s. I posted a link to the graph, which also does show the growth for all races beginning in the 1960s.

Some tie the boost in the 1960s to birth control and legalization of abortion as it changed the dynamic of “you break you buy” and the shotgun wedding. Used to be people fooled around before marriage, but if there was an “accident” the man was expected to man up and marry and the woman was supposed to go along. That moral duty started to fade once technology gave women a little more control over reproduction. Men started to see pregnancy as more of a woman’s problem, and women now starting to have more work opportunities felt a little less beholden to a man she never wanted to marry.

It is not like people didn’t have premarital sex before. You just used to have a lot more shotgun weddings.

Or....could it be that the government benefits are greater if there is no "father" present?

[Guisslapp]

Or....could it be that the government benefits are greater if there is no "father" present?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bro...ed-states/amp/

[Guisslapp]

The benefits would be less than what another working spouse would bring in, right?

[arkansasbob]

Hey Bob,

I wasn't addressing you specifically, but that is a sentiment that I've read here on the board. I think it's very prevalent and I understand why. I think the specific examples are numerous for systemic disadvantage or whatever you and Brian think is an acceptable term, but that's a very narrow way to view the "issue". I understand the call for specific examples, but sometimes the sum is greater than the parts.

As I've said before, money is the root of all of this because politics is power and you don't have political access without money. An entire race was forced to spend a quarter millennium working to enrich someone else. Just as Brian said, the race started, but they weren't not yet allowed to run. Great wealth was amassed over those centuries and one race was prohibited from enjoying the fruits of their own labor. Not only that, but they couldn't vote for another 50 years.

So, you've got roughly 150 years of our nation's history where there was NO political advantage in advocating or representing black folks. Because they were 250 years behind in accumulating wealth, they couldn't use their money to obtain advocacy. Even now, most of their advocates are hucksters who use them for their votes (the way the GOP uses white Christians for theirs). The result has been that they are disproportionately represented in the ranks of the impoverished.

To me, it seems you have to close your eyes and your ears not to acknowledge how our history has disadvantaged the black population at a much higher rate than any other race.

i don't deny any of the history. the history is bad. my point is that it is not helpful to approach the problem in terms of race today.

let me put it this way: my children have many advantages in life, including a stable family life, parents that care about their education, parents with excess income, living in an elite school district, etc. yet there are people of color who have even more advantages than my children. if there are systemic issues that create disadvantages for those people because of their race, then we have a race issue that we need to address. if not, then we have other issues that need solving and bringing race into it only muddies the waters.

on the other end of the spectrum, we have white people that suffer most, if not all, of the disadvantages that exist today that are supposedly the result of systemic racism. do we want to elevate people of color but leave everyone else to fend for themselves?

if you have bought in to the "head start in a race" analogy, then you have fallen in the "us vs. them" trap. the white people's team had a head start on the black people's team. why do we have to be on teams according to race? and why are we racing to start with? is "getting ahead" the ultimate goal of life? painting these pictures only causes us to continue to think of each other as either "like me" or "not like me" based on color of skin. as long as that continues, real racism will continue.

so again, if there are situations where people are put at a disadvantage because of their race today, let's talk about those specific examples and address them. let's also work on correcting the wrongs suffered by americans because of conditions like poverty, family life, politics, etc. without trying to divide people on racial lines.

[DawgyNWindow]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bro...ed-states/amp/

More from Brookings:

"children in female-headed families are four or more times as likely as children from married-couple families to live in poverty. In turn, poverty is associated with a wide range of negative outcomes in children, including school dropout and out-of-wedlock births."

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/t...-middle-class/

It's not a lifestyle choice, it's a death sentence for children.

[DawgyNWindow]

"college-educated women have high marriage rates, low nonmarital birthrates, and low divorce rates. The marriage culture seems to be alive and well for those with a college degree."

[Guisslapp]

You are describing the cycle of poverty, but why are blacks more likely to be poor. Systemic racism?

[DawgyNWindow]

You are describing the cycle of poverty, but why are blacks more likely to be poor. Systemic racism?

No, there is no system of racism.

Blacks were poor through the 1960s because of slavery, racism and discrimination.

Since then, they are poor because they put their faith in the democrat party rather than themselves. And since it takes a couple of generations to escape the cycle of poverty, the breakdown of traditional values (pushed by the leftists) has hurt them the most.

Both sides are right.

[detltu]

i don't deny any of the history. the history is bad. my point is that it is not helpful to approach the problem in terms of race today.

let me put it this way: my children have many advantages in life, including a stable family life, parents that care about their education, parents with excess income, living in an elite school district, etc. yet there are people of color who have even more advantages than my children. if there are systemic issues that create disadvantages for those people because of their race, then we have a race issue that we need to address. if not, then we have other issues that need solving and bringing race into it only muddies the waters.

on the other end of the spectrum, we have white people that suffer most, if not all, of the disadvantages that exist today that are supposedly the result of systemic racism. do we want to elevate people of color but leave everyone else to fend for themselves?

if you have bought in to the "head start in a race" analogy, then you have fallen in the "us vs. them" trap. the white people's team had a head start on the black people's team. why do we have to be on teams according to race? and why are we racing to start with? is "getting ahead" the ultimate goal of life? painting these pictures only causes us to continue to think of each other as either "like me" or "not like me" based on color of skin. as long as that continues, real racism will continue.

so again, if there are situations where people are put at a disadvantage because of their race today, let's talk about those specific examples and address them. let's also work on correcting the wrongs suffered by americans because of conditions like poverty, family life, politics, etc. without trying to divide people on racial lines.

I agree with this for the most part.

I tend to struggle with the government enacting laws that have racial components to them as it seems to go against "all men are created equal". It seems like the task of social justice or re balancing would be better handled by non-profits or charities specifically set up to address the deficiencies.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

I agree with this for the most part.

I tend to struggle with the government enacting laws that have racial components to them as it seems to go against "all men are created equal". It seems like the task of social justice or re balancing would be better handled by non-profits or charities specifically set up to address the deficiencies.

AMEN!!! That would include churches obviously.

[Guisslapp]

I agree with this for the most part.

I tend to struggle with the government enacting laws that have racial components to them as it seems to go against "all men are created equal". It seems like the task of social justice or re balancing would be better handled by non-profits or charities specifically set up to address the deficiencies.

Nothing stopping them from doing that for the past 150 years. Why haven’t they solved the problem already?

[PawDawg]

Nothing stopping them from doing that for the past 150 years. Why haven’t they solved the problem already?

Because the government really wants the problem(s) to continue. I think you know that.

[Guisslapp]

Because the government really wants the problem(s) to continue. I think you know that.

Trump certainly benefits from racism.