What is Systemic Racism?

[arkansasbob]

Don't you think that goes both ways? Isn't this board a great example that the only issue that can't be discussed IS racism? Can you talk about the decline of the family without acknowledging that centuries of oppression based on race have led to incredible economic disparity (something like 70% of divorces site financial issues as the chief cause). Can we discuss education systems without talking about the economics of political influence? Can we talk about incarceration rates without talking about over-criminalization, for-profit prisons, and police as revenue generators?

not sure what you're getting at. perhaps you are assuming to know what i would say if i thought this were a safe place to discuss it. just like any complex problem, there is a complex web of causes -- some of which we can influence, some of which we can't, and some that would be difficult to address without negative unintended consequences. to boil it down to a statement that implies that people don't care about black people's lives really makes it difficult to seriously discuss.

[johnnylightnin]

not sure what you're getting at. perhaps you are assuming to know what i would say if i thought this were a safe place to discuss it. just like any complex problem, there is a complex web of causes -- some of which we can influence, some of which we can't, and some that would be difficult to address without negative unintended consequences. to boil it down to a statement that implies that people don't care about black people's lives really makes it difficult to seriously discuss.

I'm not trying to assume anything. I'm merely stating that a lot of the issues are tied up in the transparently racist structures and systems that were in place for centuries. I don't know that it's possible to address the issues that most reasonable people agree are issues without addressing those structures.

I don't think it follows that those who disagree with some part of the "movement" don't care about black people's lives...particularly as the movement currently exists. It's a statement we should all be able to affirm without qualification. Clearly, it's phrased as it is because, in much of our history as a nation, they didn't matter...at least not to the same degree.

[arkansasbob]

I'm not trying to assume anything. I'm merely stating that a lot of the issues are tied up in the transparently racist structures and systems that were in place for centuries. I don't know that it's possible to address the issues that most reasonable people agree are issues without addressing those structures.

I don't think it follows that those who disagree with some part of the "movement" don't care about black people's lives...particularly as the movement currently exists. It's a statement we should all be able to affirm without qualification. Clearly, it's phrased as it is because, in much of our history as a nation, they didn't matter...at least not to the same degree.

i think it's obvious than any sane and reasonable person would have no problem affirming the statement without qualification, if it didn't come with all of the baggage such that it doesn't mean what the words themselves mean on their own. why is this so hard to admit?

i also think that most sane and reasonable people want to address any remaining institutional structures that create racial inequality (i don't know what you mean by addressing structures that were in place for centuries). the problem is that there is disagreement on what those remaining structures are and the best way to address them, and there is no room for disagreement before the name calling (and worse) begins. earlier this week, i witnessed an otherwise reasonable person suggest that another person "suck on a shotgun" simply for saying "all lives matter" (another statement that we should all be able to affirm without qualification).

[JuBru]

i think it's obvious than any sane and reasonable person would have no problem affirming the statement without qualification, if it didn't come with all of the baggage such that it doesn't mean what the words themselves mean on their own. why is this so hard to admit?

i also think that most sane and reasonable people want to address any remaining institutional structures that create racial inequality (i don't know what you mean by addressing structures that were in place for centuries). the problem is that there is disagreement on what those remaining structures are and the best way to address them, and there is no room for disagreement before the name calling (and worse) begins. earlier this week, i witnessed an otherwise reasonable person suggest that another person "suck on a shotgun" simply for saying "all lives matter" (another statement that we should all be able to affirm without qualification).

Except this thread shows certain people do not accept those structures exist.

Saying "all lives matter" in response to "black lives matter" requires qualification upon qualification because it is not a reasoned or neutral response. It's a whataboutism with not substance. And you'll notice most that say "all lives matter" don't believe that.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

And you'll notice most that say "all lives matter" don't believe that.

Total BS!

[arkansasbob]

Except this thread shows certain people do not accept those structures exist.

Saying "all lives matter" in response to "black lives matter" requires qualification upon qualification because it is not a reasoned or neutral response. It's a whataboutism with not substance. And you'll notice most that say "all lives matter" don't believe that.

try to pretend you are someone else reading this post and see if you can detect the problem. this response is the mildest form of the exact reason we can't have an honest debate.

[turbodawg]

i think it's obvious than any sane and reasonable person would have no problem affirming the statement without qualification, if it didn't come with all of the baggage such that it doesn't mean what the words themselves mean on their own. why is this so hard to admit?

i also think that most sane and reasonable people want to address any remaining institutional structures that create racial inequality (i don't know what you mean by addressing structures that were in place for centuries). the problem is that there is disagreement on what those remaining structures are and the best way to address them, and there is no room for disagreement before the name calling (and worse) begins. earlier this week, i witnessed an otherwise reasonable person suggest that another person "suck on a shotgun" simply for saying "all lives matter" (another statement that we should all be able to affirm without qualification).

Decent post. Just say it: Black lives matter

Not that big of a disconnect, and it’s not hard to say.

[turbodawg]

Total BS!

Yes, all lives matter. Humor me: Just say black lives matter.

Black lives are part of all lives.

[brtransplant]

Yes, all lives matter. Humor me: Just say black lives matter.

Black lives are part of all lives.

Why should anyone have to "humor" you, or anybody else? Believing that ALL lives matter and refusing to segregate black lives as something special does not make one racist. Segregating black lives as the only lives that matter is what is racist.

[PawDawg]

Let's cut to the chase...

If you are in the cool kids club, you should work for reparations in all called for forms. I you are not in favor of ALL of the many forms of reparations, you are out of the club and we consider you an unreasonable racist who does not care about black people at all.

Sincerely,
Uncle Ben

[dawg80]

Since 1889 there has been an iconic brand in pancakes and syrup....Aunt Jemima. Now, the company is changing its name and symbol. The real historic figure, Aunt Jemima, had an interesting life. Born into slavery in Kentucky she eventually was freed and started her own business. It eventually grew into the very successful company we know today. Along the way she became a millionaire and lived out her life following the "American dream." I would think she would be celebrated, and her story trumpeted as someone who overcame the wrongs of slavery.

The libs were prepared for this and have already spun an unsupported retelling of the story of the woman whose image has been connected to the products. But, long before all this PC crap took hold, the true story of the woman, Nancy Green, was told in a newspaper article way back in the 1920's. Back when journalism actually was interested in the truth. In the 1930's a pair of brothers sued and claimed their mother was the woman in the image and that she was never compensated by the company. That was actually a separate issue since the image of "Aunt Jemima" has changed over the decades. Their case was dismissed.

Now "Uncle Ben's" will be changing. Fine by me...make "Aunt Jemima" and "Uncle Ben" white people, and pay some white folks for the use of their image. Better yet! make it some Irish dude, a leprechaun, and compensate all we oppressed Irishmen who have been used and abused throughout history.

And while all that is true, it does NOT fit the present day agenda, the narrative, that blacks are 100% helpless little children who NEED white liberals to rescue them. That's the real truth. It's all about pandering and trying to keep a group of people dependent on libs.

[johnnylightnin]

1. i think it's obvious than any sane and reasonable person would have no problem affirming the statement without qualification, if it didn't come with all of the baggage such that it doesn't mean what the words themselves mean on their own. why is this so hard to admit?

2. i also think that most sane and reasonable people want to address any remaining institutional structures that create racial inequality (i don't know what you mean by addressing structures that were in place for centuries).

1. I don't have any trouble admitting that I disagree with a lot of what is put forth by the organization. But I don't think it's fair to attribute every radical stance of everyone who's ever associated with the organization to what BLM is today (as you've already agreed, it's moved beyond the organization). Just as it isn't fair to equate everybody who has issues with BLM with Richard Spencer...or to equate protesters with rioters. There are some 13 chapters of BLM (organization) in the US...it's a fraction of a fraction of the protesters.

2. I mean that you can't understand the current structures without understanding the full effect of the past structures. The sheer dollar figure that was taken (by force) from an entire race is staggering (upwards of $50 Trillion if you consider native Americans and the time value of money). Having that sort of wealth taken from a group is going to lead to profound issues in education, crime, poverty, income, etc.

No, we can't cut that check, but we shouldn't act as though the figure doesn't exist.

[FriscoDog]

People are going after Gone with the Wind now, because of the character in the movie "Mammy". People are saying that this portrays racism and the movie should "disappear" and not be heralded as a classic. The interesting part about all of this is that the lady who played "Mammy" in Gone with the Wind, was the first African American woman to win an Oscar for her role. So by slamming this movie, this character, people are also taking away this huge accomplishment for this woman.

[Guisslapp]

People are going after Gone with the Wind now, because of the character in the movie "Mammy". People are saying that this portrays racism and the movie should "disappear" and not be heralded as a classic. The interesting part about all of this is that the lady who played "Mammy" in Gone with the Wind, was the first African American woman to win an Oscar for her role. So by slamming this movie, this character, people are also taking away this huge accomplishment for this woman.

People are saying it should disappear? What people?

The criticisms that it white washes slavery are legit.

[FriscoDog]

I work in a very diverse company. I have very good friends from people of very different cultures. I have spoken with them, especially 3-4 Nigerians who immigrated legally here to the US and now have dual citizenship in both US and Nigeria. When I asked them about this, Everyone of them said that this is crazy and that "All lives matter". Everyone of them support Trump, and when I asked why, they said they have seen corruption in government in Nigeria and other countries, lived under it. They see what the democrats have done in the last 3 years and say it is very much like what they have seen in Nigeria and elsewhere with corruption. They see more so with democrats, the absolute desire to obtain power at any cost and have commented how dangerous this is, especially if they actually obtain it. When I ask about how many US citizens believe that the US is evil, our history, etc. they all tell me that the US is the greatest country on the planet, and that is why they chose to come here. They also say that the US is the most generous country on the planet in terms of money and humanitarian aid that we give to the world. I thought I would share this from people that have a really unique perspective.