7 ms·

What exactly are the powers and material structures that contribute to the perceived racism in our society? From my limited understanding of this position, it

What exactly are the powers and material structures that contribute to the perceived racism in our society? From my limited understanding of this position, it sounds like the goal is a dismantling of police and courts which form the backbone of a civil rule of law society.

zasz 6y ago
Systematic exclusion of black people from social programs, like the GI Bill and Social Security, and redlining, which prevented black Americans from building up wealth through homeownership the way white Americans were. "The Color of Law" is a good book on redlining. To expand on the bit about Social Security, farmworkers were excluded, since farmworkers tend to be not white. It was a nice sneaky way to be racist without coming out and doing so explicitly.
- twybriny 6y ago
  One of the things that confuses me quite a bit is the focus on laws that expired or have been abrogated 50-60-70-150 years ago and make it as if everything wrong with contemporary American society is caused directly by such laws and nothing else. * GI Bill: adopted in 1944, expired in 1956. * Social Security: adopted in 1935, unclear what the impacts were at the time. Unclear what the impacts are today. * Redlining: created in 1934, illegal since 1977. As an immigrant that landed in US post 2000 with $1000 to my name and a tenuous F1 situation, all this sounds like ancient history. Much more stringent appear, in no particular order and not pretending to be exhaustive: * the whole F1/H1B situation, which depresses the domestic labor market in technical jobs, especially software, but also research at large * global competition, especially with China * the over financialization of the economy * the profits accumulating at the very top since the 2008 Great Recession * the explosion of real estate market in big cities, way above what we pretend the inflation rate is * manufacturing decline * offshoring of entire industries to East Asia * right now, the covid19 lockdowns which are destroying the service economy, which was supposed to be the future of jobs * the decimation of small business America due to same covid19 lockdowns. * specifically for the black community, the lack of academic achievement * the rise of the gig economy and Amazon warehouse jobs * the opioid, homelessness and suicide crisis * the obesity crisis, and the related food deserts Again, not a young black guy or gal. But if I'd were, there'd be 10 high priority items on my worry list before I'd get to the Civil Rights Era. As a nation we seem to have abandoned the middle and working class of all colors. The public discourse is obsessed with Instagram influencers and race histories half a century old if not older, sometimes much older.
  - agar 6y ago
    I can't weigh in from personal experience, but I look at it like a marathon. One set of runners face a first half of the race with mud, crushed glass, vertical climbs, and other obstacles, while other racers had a nice tailwind and extra drink stations. Regardless of the obstacles faced in the second half (which are still more numerous than the competition's), can't you understand why runners would still look back at that first half to explain their fatigue, anger, and feelings of injustice? Particularly when looking ahead and thinking, "Oh God, this crap /again/??" The marathon in this example actually spans multiple generations, but even the horrible segregation of the 50's was experienced first hand by the parents of black people still in the workforce today. Sounds like you came into the race halfway through. As an immigrant you're still facing those unfair obstacles in front of you, but just remember that you don't have the fatigue of carrying the baggage from the first half.
    - AuryGlenz 6y ago
      You could also argue that the large majority of black people still alive came in to the race halfway through as well. At some point it just becomes an excuse. Constantly blaming other people is a good way to never have any self improvement.
      - malandrew 6y ago
        What you’re describing is known as the soft bigotry of low expectations and the anti racism crowd is perpetuating this form of systemic racism: https://1776unites.com/featured-essays/the-1619-project-perpetuates-the-soft-bigotry-of-low-expectations-by-ian-v-rowe/ https://1776unites.com/featured-essays/the-1619-project-perp...
      - imtringued 6y ago
        Obviously the best way to get out of a bad situation is to help yourself first. The hardest part of this problem cannot be solved by outsiders but outsiders can certainly prevent progress if they put their minds to it. If you are a victim of discrimination then you must demonstrate through your own power that you you can succeed despite the discrimination. If you depend on help from others then you may not be taken seriously and you might never learn to help yourself.
- 3nob9sh3nsOwn 6y ago
  Adolph Reed has written on the Social Security exclusions that you're referencing, and the issue is not so clear cut: [1]. The initial iteration of Social Security excluded many types of temporary and informal labor. Although black workers were disproportionately impacted by these exclusions, the large majority (about 75%) of people who were excluded were white. One possible reason why these exclusions were in place is that getting accurate payroll figures for informal jobs is difficult. In any case, these exclusions were lifted between 1950 and 1955. Keep in mind that Social Security was not the only New Deal program, and things like the Public Works Administration disproportionately benefited African Americans. The New Deal was extremely popular among African Americans, and is one of the major reasons why most African Americans switched over to voting for the Democratic Party. That's what makes the recent narrative that the New Deal was racist (and to blame for today's disparities) so strange. 1. https://newrepublic.com/article/155704/new-deal-wasnt-intrinsically-racist https://newrepublic.com/article/155704/new-deal-wasnt-intrin...
nouveaux 6y ago
If a publicly traded company is not doing well, the CEO gets canned and no one bats an eye. If one department is not doing well, it's very common to just fire a bunch of people or get rid of the department completely. The idea of "dismantling of police" does not mean we do not offer protection. It just means that the current organization "police" is not providing the services it's customers want. Years of "tweaking" the police orgs have failed to provide results. It's time to create a new way to protect citizens.
- 1121redblackgo 6y ago
  New way same as the old way presumably. This is a baby with the bathwater situation. It can be fixed no need to scrap it.
  - geggam 6y ago
    Not sure I agree. The concept of meeting mental illness or crimes of poverty / lack of education with escalating violence is really uneducated at best. Violence being the language folks use after all else fails. Starting with violence means you don't really care about solving the problem and just want the incident to go away
  - nouveaux 6y ago
    I would agree with you that there would be the same if it's the same people running. This is the systematic part that needs to change. When companies fail, there is a new CEO, new board, new executives. Let's do the same with failed police departments. There is 0% chance that all police departments will all change in 2020. I'm happy to voice my support that some cities are willing to try new things. If it works great. If not, back to the drawing board.
  - fzeroracer 6y ago
    With what, exactly? You can pass more laws, but laws don't matter if the police don't obey them anyways. You can enforce things like bodycams, but then the police cover up the cams or conveniently turn them off. At what point will you be convinced that you need to start over? Because removing corruption is like removing an invasive species: you don't solve it by taking a half-assed attempt with trimming and call it a day.
triceratops 6y ago
> it sounds like the goal is a dismantling of police and courts which form the backbone of a civil rule of law society. It's not. The goal is to demand equal protections under the law for all, eliminate racial bias in policing, judging and sentencing, and make police themselves follow the law. Don't be misled by the "defund police" mantra. It's just a way to divert resources to community engagement programs and/or get out of contracts with police unions. It doesn't literally mean "shut down the police department and courts". > From my limited understanding of this position At least you're honest about it. I'd encourage you to educate yourself instead of just relying on soundbites and scare-mongering media headlines (not saying that's what you've been doing so far).
- cmdshiftf4 6y ago
  >It doesn't literally mean "shut down the police department and courts". This doublespeak, which reminds me of the whole "Kill All Men" issue, which itself was quickly followed by a rush to say "Noo you stupid man, we don't mean kill all men, just some men", makes my skin crawl. Let's take a quick look at the dictionary: Defund: verb prevent from continuing to receive funds. If you are failing to use the language correctly, correct yourself. Don't attempt to gaslight people and twist the meaning of established terms.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    If it helps, I think "kill all men" is reprehensible and illegal. "Defund police" even taken literally, is neither of those things, so you're drawing a false equivalence. If you eliminate funding for an existing police department, firing all of the employees, and divide all of its functions, including dealing with violent criminals, and performing investigations, up among other departments (both existing and new), isn't "defund" accurate? That's the most extreme position on the spectrum along which police reform plans lie. "Defund police" is a pithy catchphrase, an opening position for negotiations. I don't think the language is what needs "correcting". It's important to educate oneself on the issues instead of assuming the worst about anyone you disagree with.
    - 6y ago
bsanr2 6y ago
The backbone of the rule of law is its legitimacy in the eyes of the people. Police brutalizing journalists on camera in clear violation of the law (and presumably with no rectification in court to come) probably does more to dismantle that legitimacy than anything a protestor could do.

zasz 6y ago

Systematic exclusion of black people from social programs, like the GI Bill and Social Security, and redlining, which prevented black Americans from building up wealth through homeownership the way white Americans were. "The Color of Law" is a good book on redlining. To expand on the bit about Social Security, farmworkers were excluded, since farmworkers tend to be not white. It was a nice sneaky way to be racist without coming out and doing so explicitly.

twybriny 6y ago
One of the things that confuses me quite a bit is the focus on laws that expired or have been abrogated 50-60-70-150 years ago and make it as if everything wrong with contemporary American society is caused directly by such laws and nothing else. * GI Bill: adopted in 1944, expired in 1956. * Social Security: adopted in 1935, unclear what the impacts were at the time. Unclear what the impacts are today. * Redlining: created in 1934, illegal since 1977. As an immigrant that landed in US post 2000 with $1000 to my name and a tenuous F1 situation, all this sounds like ancient history. Much more stringent appear, in no particular order and not pretending to be exhaustive: * the whole F1/H1B situation, which depresses the domestic labor market in technical jobs, especially software, but also research at large * global competition, especially with China * the over financialization of the economy * the profits accumulating at the very top since the 2008 Great Recession * the explosion of real estate market in big cities, way above what we pretend the inflation rate is * manufacturing decline * offshoring of entire industries to East Asia * right now, the covid19 lockdowns which are destroying the service economy, which was supposed to be the future of jobs * the decimation of small business America due to same covid19 lockdowns. * specifically for the black community, the lack of academic achievement * the rise of the gig economy and Amazon warehouse jobs * the opioid, homelessness and suicide crisis * the obesity crisis, and the related food deserts Again, not a young black guy or gal. But if I'd were, there'd be 10 high priority items on my worry list before I'd get to the Civil Rights Era. As a nation we seem to have abandoned the middle and working class of all colors. The public discourse is obsessed with Instagram influencers and race histories half a century old if not older, sometimes much older.
- agar 6y ago
  I can't weigh in from personal experience, but I look at it like a marathon. One set of runners face a first half of the race with mud, crushed glass, vertical climbs, and other obstacles, while other racers had a nice tailwind and extra drink stations. Regardless of the obstacles faced in the second half (which are still more numerous than the competition's), can't you understand why runners would still look back at that first half to explain their fatigue, anger, and feelings of injustice? Particularly when looking ahead and thinking, "Oh God, this crap /again/??" The marathon in this example actually spans multiple generations, but even the horrible segregation of the 50's was experienced first hand by the parents of black people still in the workforce today. Sounds like you came into the race halfway through. As an immigrant you're still facing those unfair obstacles in front of you, but just remember that you don't have the fatigue of carrying the baggage from the first half.
  - AuryGlenz 6y ago
    You could also argue that the large majority of black people still alive came in to the race halfway through as well. At some point it just becomes an excuse. Constantly blaming other people is a good way to never have any self improvement.
    - malandrew 6y ago
      What you’re describing is known as the soft bigotry of low expectations and the anti racism crowd is perpetuating this form of systemic racism: https://1776unites.com/featured-essays/the-1619-project-perpetuates-the-soft-bigotry-of-low-expectations-by-ian-v-rowe/ https://1776unites.com/featured-essays/the-1619-project-perp...
    - imtringued 6y ago
      Obviously the best way to get out of a bad situation is to help yourself first. The hardest part of this problem cannot be solved by outsiders but outsiders can certainly prevent progress if they put their minds to it. If you are a victim of discrimination then you must demonstrate through your own power that you you can succeed despite the discrimination. If you depend on help from others then you may not be taken seriously and you might never learn to help yourself.
3nob9sh3nsOwn 6y ago
Adolph Reed has written on the Social Security exclusions that you're referencing, and the issue is not so clear cut: [1]. The initial iteration of Social Security excluded many types of temporary and informal labor. Although black workers were disproportionately impacted by these exclusions, the large majority (about 75%) of people who were excluded were white. One possible reason why these exclusions were in place is that getting accurate payroll figures for informal jobs is difficult. In any case, these exclusions were lifted between 1950 and 1955. Keep in mind that Social Security was not the only New Deal program, and things like the Public Works Administration disproportionately benefited African Americans. The New Deal was extremely popular among African Americans, and is one of the major reasons why most African Americans switched over to voting for the Democratic Party. That's what makes the recent narrative that the New Deal was racist (and to blame for today's disparities) so strange. 1. https://newrepublic.com/article/155704/new-deal-wasnt-intrinsically-racist https://newrepublic.com/article/155704/new-deal-wasnt-intrin...

nouveaux 6y ago

If a publicly traded company is not doing well, the CEO gets canned and no one bats an eye. If one department is not doing well, it's very common to just fire a bunch of people or get rid of the department completely. The idea of "dismantling of police" does not mean we do not offer protection. It just means that the current organization "police" is not providing the services it's customers want. Years of "tweaking" the police orgs have failed to provide results. It's time to create a new way to protect citizens.

1121redblackgo 6y ago
New way same as the old way presumably. This is a baby with the bathwater situation. It can be fixed no need to scrap it.
- geggam 6y ago
  Not sure I agree. The concept of meeting mental illness or crimes of poverty / lack of education with escalating violence is really uneducated at best. Violence being the language folks use after all else fails. Starting with violence means you don't really care about solving the problem and just want the incident to go away
- nouveaux 6y ago
  I would agree with you that there would be the same if it's the same people running. This is the systematic part that needs to change. When companies fail, there is a new CEO, new board, new executives. Let's do the same with failed police departments. There is 0% chance that all police departments will all change in 2020. I'm happy to voice my support that some cities are willing to try new things. If it works great. If not, back to the drawing board.
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  With what, exactly? You can pass more laws, but laws don't matter if the police don't obey them anyways. You can enforce things like bodycams, but then the police cover up the cams or conveniently turn them off. At what point will you be convinced that you need to start over? Because removing corruption is like removing an invasive species: you don't solve it by taking a half-assed attempt with trimming and call it a day.

triceratops 6y ago

> it sounds like the goal is a dismantling of police and courts which form the backbone of a civil rule of law society. It's not. The goal is to demand equal protections under the law for all, eliminate racial bias in policing, judging and sentencing, and make police themselves follow the law. Don't be misled by the "defund police" mantra. It's just a way to divert resources to community engagement programs and/or get out of contracts with police unions. It doesn't literally mean "shut down the police department and courts". > From my limited understanding of this position At least you're honest about it. I'd encourage you to educate yourself instead of just relying on soundbites and scare-mongering media headlines (not saying that's what you've been doing so far).

cmdshiftf4 6y ago
>It doesn't literally mean "shut down the police department and courts". This doublespeak, which reminds me of the whole "Kill All Men" issue, which itself was quickly followed by a rush to say "Noo you stupid man, we don't mean kill all men, just some men", makes my skin crawl. Let's take a quick look at the dictionary: Defund: verb prevent from continuing to receive funds. If you are failing to use the language correctly, correct yourself. Don't attempt to gaslight people and twist the meaning of established terms.
- triceratops 6y ago
  If it helps, I think "kill all men" is reprehensible and illegal. "Defund police" even taken literally, is neither of those things, so you're drawing a false equivalence. If you eliminate funding for an existing police department, firing all of the employees, and divide all of its functions, including dealing with violent criminals, and performing investigations, up among other departments (both existing and new), isn't "defund" accurate? That's the most extreme position on the spectrum along which police reform plans lie. "Defund police" is a pithy catchphrase, an opening position for negotiations. I don't think the language is what needs "correcting". It's important to educate oneself on the issues instead of assuming the worst about anyone you disagree with.
  - 6y ago

bsanr2 6y ago

The backbone of the rule of law is its legitimacy in the eyes of the people. Police brutalizing journalists on camera in clear violation of the law (and presumably with no rectification in court to come) probably does more to dismantle that legitimacy than anything a protestor could do.