How do we solve racism in the US?

[J Boogie]

Eric, I think it's valid to believe that there might be some problems in black culture that can't blamed 100% on white supremacy.

However you DID title the thread "How do we solve racism in the US?" so it doesn't make much sense to focus on how black people can improve.

If you had titled it something like "How can we achieve equality in the US?" it would make much more sense to focus on how black people can improve.

That being said, Ixtap, I think you'd benefit intellectually from considering the viewpoint of John McWhorter if you're not familiar.  This is from 2006 and it's still incredibly relevant today.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5628075

And the actionable step is??

When was the last time you saw a community change their culture when imposed from outside? Short of successful genocidal events (e.g. Arab invasion of Parsia in the 7th century A.D. I'm deliberately staying off examples closer home so as not to rile up some folks) - that does not happen!!! So, it's none of your business changing black culture unless you are black talking to a black audience!!

What was your point again?

As I've stated previously, my point is that white people can help by being more intentional about the media they consume. White people are the largest consumers of rap, and we should be responsible about it instead of entrenching negative stereotypes that are damaging to the black community.

People keep acting like I'm trying to lecture black people about what they should do to improve their communities. No, what I'm doing is advocating for white people to STOP supporting the toxic role models who say and do things that we would be upset to witness our children say and do. Many white people have dabbled in their culture in harmful and vulturous ways and I am advocating we end that.

[Kris]

Eric, I think it's valid to believe that there might be some problems in black culture that can't blamed 100% on white supremacy.

However you DID title the thread "How do we solve racism in the US?" so it doesn't make much sense to focus on how black people can improve.

If you had titled it something like "How can we achieve equality in the US?" it would make much more sense to focus on how black people can improve.

That being said, Ixtap, I think you'd benefit intellectually from considering the viewpoint of John McWhorter if you're not familiar.  This is from 2006 and it's still incredibly relevant today.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5628075

And the actionable step is??

When was the last time you saw a community change their culture when imposed from outside? Short of successful genocidal events (e.g. Arab invasion of Parsia in the 7th century A.D. I'm deliberately staying off examples closer home so as not to rile up some folks) - that does not happen!!! So, it's none of your business changing black culture unless you are black talking to a black audience!!

What was your point again?

Also, it reeks of assimilationism.

I suggest reading “How to be an Antiracist” by Ibram Kendi.

[GuitarStv]

Eric, I think it's valid to believe that there might be some problems in black culture that can't blamed 100% on white supremacy.

However you DID title the thread "How do we solve racism in the US?" so it doesn't make much sense to focus on how black people can improve.

If you had titled it something like "How can we achieve equality in the US?" it would make much more sense to focus on how black people can improve.

That being said, Ixtap, I think you'd benefit intellectually from considering the viewpoint of John McWhorter if you're not familiar.  This is from 2006 and it's still incredibly relevant today.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5628075

And the actionable step is??

When was the last time you saw a community change their culture when imposed from outside? Short of successful genocidal events (e.g. Arab invasion of Parsia in the 7th century A.D. I'm deliberately staying off examples closer home so as not to rile up some folks) - that does not happen!!! So, it's none of your business changing black culture unless you are black talking to a black audience!!

What was your point again?

As I've stated previously, my point is that white people can help by being more intentional about the media they consume. White people are the largest consumers of rap, and we should be responsible about it instead of entrenching negative stereotypes that are damaging to the black community.

People keep acting like I'm trying to lecture black people about what they should do to improve their communities. No, what I'm doing is advocating for white people to STOP supporting the toxic role models who say and do things that we would be upset to witness our children say and do. Many white people have dabbled in their culture in harmful and vulturous ways and I am advocating we end that.

Your argument is that white people are listening to rap and this is damaging black communities because the white people then become more racist?

[J Boogie]

No, I'm saying white people economically contribute to the success of rappers. We should make sure those we patronize are good role models, ie Common, Kendrick, rather than TI or Rick Ross. Our dollars can play a big role in determining their success and popularity and we should keep that in mind.

[mathlete]

It’s systemic and institutionalized racism. I’m 1,000% sure of that.

Slavery. Plessy v Ferguson. FHA Redlining. The Anti Drug Abuse Act. The answers are in these policies.

[js82]

Oh, and if you really want the black community to give a flying fuck about education, try making school funding more equitable, instead of designed to help the rich get richer.

Try stopping teachers from giving harsher punishments to black students for the same behaviors.

Try having more black teachers.

Try having content in the classroom that includes black culture. Not just history, but actual black kids in the books doing actual black things. Make math word problems more inclusive. Change up the names. Change the examples.

It just doesn't matter how many celebrities tell them to study hard, if the system is rigged against them.

(Disclaimer - I'm very white, and will never have a true insider's perspective on what racism looks like in the USA)

To me, this a hugely necessary part of it.  Fund the schools.  Pay the teachers what's necessary to ensure you have quality teachers in every public school.  Make sure that black kids have the same access to quality education that richer, whiter kids do from the very start.  Obviously there's way more to it than this, but we need to make sure that we're giving kids every opportunity to succeed from an early age.

Seems like decriminalizing MJ and wiping clean the record (+ releasing from prison as applicable) of anyone who was ever arrested/prosecuted for non-violent MJ crimes would go a long way towards opening up some opportunities for people who had the door slammed on them very early on.

Decriminalize possession, period(as well as all the minor BS that people who don't have the resources to fight tend to get stuck with).  And quite frankly, non-violent, non-theft crimes shouldn't be allowed for consideration as part of an employment application.

[Bloop Bloop]

Systemic racism (sexism, etc) is hard to stop because to really defeat it, you need to put in place affirmative action programs. And while many people say they like that, that usually stops when their own interests get threatened.

For example, I'd love to see every child in the country (whose parents earn under a certain income) get free tuition vouchers. I'd love to see more scholarships for bright children from poor families. I'd love to see colleges barred from accepting dumb students from rich (predominantly white) families on legacy scholarships and other contrivances. I'd love to see our testing system overhauled to become less "game-able". The SAT shouldn't have the same format every year. It should be much harder to prepare for; that way, ability is privileged over preparation.

But all of those things will hurt the industries and demographics that currently benefit from it.

White Americans will say they want to do something about racism. But how many of them are willing to change the system so that the structural advantages change from favouring most white people to favouring most black people?

That's your problem right there.

[Wrenchturner]

Systemic racism (sexism, etc) is hard to stop because to really defeat it, you need to put in place affirmative action programs. And while many people say they like that, that usually stops when their own interests get threatened.

For example, I'd love to see every child in the country (whose parents earn under a certain income) get free tuition vouchers. I'd love to see more scholarships for bright children from poor families. I'd love to see colleges barred from accepting dumb students from rich (predominantly white) families on legacy scholarships and other contrivances. I'd love to see our testing system overhauled to become less "game-able". The SAT shouldn't have the same format every year. It should be much harder to prepare for; that way, ability is privileged over preparation.

But all of those things will hurt the industries and demographics that currently benefit from it.

White Americans will say they want to do something about racism. But how many of them are willing to change the system so that the structural advantages change from favouring most white people to favouring most black people?

That's your problem right there.

I appreciate that your suggestions of affirmative action were not built around skin color.  The problem with setting up programs specifically around skin color is that they can lead to the "bigotry of low expectations".  Definitely better to build programs built around income and competence that will help minorities in a secondary way.

It's difficult to suggest corrections for a group I'm not part of.  I generally prefer bottom-up solutions for that reason.  The people that know best how to help a group are members of that group.

From reading Thomas Sowell, it's evident that African-Americans had their culture stripped from them during slavery.  He points to this as the root cause of many societal issues that exist within that community, like fatherless homes which cause all sorts of problems.

That's where rap culture gets involved.  Rap and gangster culture is not great in many ways but it does represent an effort to build a social identity.  How this evolves, I don't know.  Time is the biggest healer, but the systemic issues cause individuals to misbehave which reinforces the systemic issues.  I don't think a third party agency can resolve this, but what do I know.

[expatartist]

To the OP, I highly recommend "The 13th" by Ava DuVernay examines links between US slavery and today's high incarceration rates, particularly of black men https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krfcq5pF8u8 Produced by Netflix, free to watch this month.

Re schools, This American Life did a brilliant two-part podcast on how US schools remain essentially segregated via legacies of redlining and Jim Crow laws, and now because white families "want a good education" for their own children - https://www.thisamericanlife.org/562/the-problem-we-all-live-with-part-one

[Michael in ABQ]

So the claim that poor neighborhoods get different funding than rich neighborhoods, is this based on large urban areas that are actually broken up into many smaller cities with different property tax bases? I.e. the City of Los Angeles proper is only a small chunk of what most people consider Los Angeles. But Inglewood, Santa Monica, Compton, Bell, Glendale, etc. may all have varying levels of school funding based on their property tax base and local government funding priorities. Five years ago no one outside of St. Louis had ever heard of Ferguson, MO. Now many people realize that it is one of multiple small cities that make up what we think of St. Louis. Each with their own police department, schools, local government, etc. Is this what people mean when they talk about neighborhoods - separate incorporated cities?


Albuquerque Public Schools covers the entire city, from the relatively wealthy neighborhoods in the north-east part of the city, to the poorer neighborhoods in the southern part of the city. The district has about 80,000 students in a city of around 600,000 (metro area is probably 800-900,000 - only a couple of separate cities that are truly considered suburbs).

The schools in the wealthier areas get no more funding per student than the ones in the poorer areas as far as I can tell. The state provides much of the funding with local property taxes making up most of the rest (federal money is a small percentage). Those tax rates are the same across the city and I am not aware that the money paid by a property owner in one part of the city is allocated specifically to their local school instead of the whole district. Incidentally despite having much higher funding than the average schools in surrounding states New Mexico has long been near the bottom of the list for school performance nation-wide. Usually trading places with Washington D.C. and Mississippi.

So if the difference in performance, quality, etc. isn't the funding it must be the teachers and/or the students. I would guess most teachers want to work in a "good" school because they could focus more on teaching, and less on being social workers and surrogate parents. So you probably get a lot of self-selection of more experienced teachers wanting to work in those schools versus the ones where half the class may be below grade level or struggling with all of the numerous issues that are correlated with poverty. As for the students, I think we can all acknowledge a pretty strong correlation between poverty and school performance. As for the causation, I'll leave that issues aside as I'm sure there is enough research for thousands of PhDs on the subject but I have not read it so I won't try to speak on it.

[Bloop Bloop]

There are very, very easy ways to solve the structural inequalities in schools but no one really wants to tackle them.

One way would be to prohibit schools from charging fees over a certain amount. Sounds crazy, right? But I would advocate heavily for that. Here in Australia most essential medical procedures are paid for by the government and people only pay privately if they want particular convenience or speed. You're not paying for quality (other than in a few areas like midwifery). There is no reason why we couldn't import that attitude onto our schools, except that rich parents are too afraid that their dumb children will get exposed that way.

A second way would simply be to scale all standardised tests and university entrance exams according to school cohort position. That is, the highest scoring kid in the poor school receives the same score as the highest scoring kid in a rich school. The 50th percentile kid in a poor school gets the same score as the 50th percentile kid in a rich school. That would very quickly equalise schools. But again, rich parents don't want that. They secretly want to be able to pay for their children's success in life, but that comes at a cost to the meritocracy that we all say we want.

[Michael in ABQ]

There are very, very easy ways to solve the structural inequalities in schools but no one really wants to tackle them.

One way would be to prohibit schools from charging fees over a certain amount. Sounds crazy, right? But I would advocate heavily for that. Here in Australia most essential medical procedures are paid for by the government and people only pay privately if they want particular convenience or speed. You're not paying for quality (other than in a few areas like midwifery). There is no reason why we couldn't import that attitude onto our schools, except that rich parents are too afraid that their dumb children will get exposed that way.

A second way would simply be to scale all standardised tests and university entrance exams according to school cohort position. That is, the highest scoring kid in the poor school receives the same score as the highest scoring kid in a rich school. The 50th percentile kid in a poor school gets the same score as the 50th percentile kid in a rich school. That would very quickly equalise schools. But again, rich parents don't want that. They secretly want to be able to pay for their children's success in life, but that comes at a cost to the meritocracy that we all say we want.

The number of kids in private schools is relatively small in the U.S. - about 10% https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=55

Student and Family Characteristics
In fall 2015, some 69 percent of all private elementary and secondary students were White, 9 percent were Black, 10 percent were Hispanic, 6 percent were Asian, 1 percent were Pacific Islander, one-half of 1 percent were American Indian/Alaska Native, and 4 percent were of Two or more races. In comparison, 50 percent of traditional public school students in fall 2015 were White, 15 percent were Black, 26 percent were Hispanic, 5 percent were Asian, less than one-half of 1 percent were Pacific Islander, 1 percent were American Indian/Alaska Native, and 3 percent were of Two or more races. For public charter school students, 33 percent were White, 27 percent were Black, 32 percent were Hispanic, 4 percent were Asian, less than one-half of 1 percent were Pacific Islander, 1 percent were American Indian/Alaska Native, and 3 percent were of Two or more races.

However, those children in private schools are more likely to have parents who have college degrees or advanced degrees, two-parent households, wealthier households, etc. Basically all of the characteristics that are correlated with higher student achievement - regardless of race. Would eliminating those private schools and enrolling all of those kids in public schools increase the education of their poor classmates with a single parent who has a high-school education or less? Or would those same students perform better regardless of the setting because they have a stable home life with parents that are more likely to value education (as evidenced by their own educational attainment)?

[mm1970]

The schools in the wealthier areas get no more funding per student than the ones in the poorer areas as far as I can tell. The state provides much of the funding with local property taxes making up most of the rest (federal money is a small percentage). Those tax rates are the same across the city and I am not aware that the money paid by a property owner in one part of the city is allocated specifically to their local school instead of the whole district. Incidentally despite having much higher funding than the average schools in surrounding states New Mexico has long been near the bottom of the list for school performance nation-wide. Usually trading places with Washington D.C. and Mississippi.

This depends.  A brief foray in the internet suggests that Albuquerque may actually do this.  However, where I live, there are 2 different funding formulas.  The state funded, and the property tax funded.  If your property tax income is high enough, you become "basic aid", meaning - the district keeps a certain % of property taxes for schools.  If it is not, then the state "makes up the difference", and the district funding is per student.

Our district is funded per student.  Approximately $8000/ year.  The one next door is basic aid.  Where Oprah lives.  $22,000 a year.

Regardless, you are missing the big thing: parental donations.  The "highest ranked" (wealthiest) elementary school in our district raises $600,000 a year in PTA donations.  That can pay for a whole lot of extra.  The lowest ranked may make a few hundred selling popcorn.

However, those children in private schools are more likely to have parents who have college degrees or advanced degrees, two-parent households, wealthier households, etc. Basically all of the characteristics that are correlated with higher student achievement - regardless of race. Would eliminating those private schools and enrolling all of those kids in public schools increase the education of their poor classmates with a single parent who has a high-school education or less? Or would those same students perform better regardless of the setting because they have a stable home life with parents that are more likely to value education (as evidenced by their own educational attainment)?

On this one, here's the thing.  I pulled up data from 10 randomly selected elementary schools in Albuquerque.
The two ranked a 10 had a percentage of students living in poverty: 9%, 21%
The two at an 8: 38%, 60%
The two at 6: 57%, 100%
The four at 2 an 4: 100%

Poverty of families is a STRONG correlation (the strongest, really).  Where schools have a smaller % of students in poverty - they get two advantages.  More money from donations for extras, and fewer students who need additional intervention.

For fun I found the PTA budget for one of the #10 schools.  $130,000 a year, $30,000 of that for a STEM teacher.  Because STEM is extra, and the poor kids don't get it.

Would it help if private school parents put their kids in public schools?  In a word, yes.  Multiple studies have shown that having having higher achievers in classes brings up the whole class.  Plus, those private school dollars get donated to the PTA.

[jeninco]

I definitely agree that high-quality education for all students is mandatory to help achieve something closer to equality. This also means no religious zealots on school boards gutting science and history curricula...

However, I have some experience (as a very engaged parent) in some of these school questions, so here are a couple answers from our district:

Achievement (i.e. average test scores) mostly tracks with socio-economic status. So schools with higher average scores are almost higher SES schools. (and this is nationwide, not a "my district" thing.) Colorado now tracks "growth", which measures how much an individual student's scores changed year-to-year versus other students in their academic cohort, so it's a much better measure of how an individual teacher is doing. Good principals use this information, poorer ones not so much.

PTA budgets vary WIDELY, as @mm1970 pointed out. Our district requires schools to "tithe" or donate some amount (I don't know if it's 10%) of what they raise (probably above a certain amount) to a fund that gets distributed to lower income schools, but it not much of a leveler. Adjacent elementary schools can have PTA/PTO budgets that vary by $100,000.

Teachers do opt to teach in lower-income, higher second-language learner schools. However, these teachers (in our somewhat limited experience) are then not very interested in providing challenging content to advanced/gifted kids from higher SES households -- that's not who they came to teach. In our case, this led to us getting an administrative transfer from the district to move to a school where our kids would be challenged and engaged. Expecting my gifted, very active then 8-year old son to spend hours a day quietly twiddling his thumbs was a non-starter for us, and was beginning to result in undesirable behavior.

The problem that we're now seeing at the high school level is that some of these kids who went to the schools that focus on second language learners are arriving at HS testing two or more years behind in reading, and struggle to do basic arithmetic. How can they take standard HS classes if they can't read for content? And I do math tutoring, and it's really tough to get a kid through the content of geometry class if s/he can't do multiplication.

So, yeah -- I'm all in favor of more parents sending their kids to public schools (and being engaged there), but there's still a system to push against...

[mbl]

Oh, and if you really want the black community to give a flying fuck about education, try making school funding more equitable, instead of designed to help the rich get richer.

I work in an urban elementary school.   I will limit my comments to what follows and it's a small thing but I believe one of the first steps.   So many of our kids don't have their parents/guardians/foster parents/grandparents simply look at what comes home in their back pack.   Even if they can't read English(we have liasons who can help), there is no connection there.  It doesn't make them bad, just disengaged.  Whatever the reason, it has an impact, particularly on young kids(my class is Kindergarten).  Many are immigrants, some are homeless, most live in single parent households.   We know that home lives can be difficult.   Any response and communication will let the teacher know enough to help the kids.  Reading to little ones is so important but many parents don't( and actually most are able just don't).  For the kids who have parents who are paying attention to what is going on with their school work, these kids tend to do better .  This is not an indictment, just a small observation and a facet of a much larger picture.  Engagement.  Keep in mind that many teachers not only help their students but the families as well by providing information to resources and contacts as needed.

Try having more black teachers.

We live in a city with a black mayor, chief of police, school superintendent,  many in education who are black, LatinX,  Bhutanese,  Congolese and many more.   We have a black pastor who works as a school aid.  He is an awesome man and his presence  whether in school or church(amazing preacher) can only influence young kids so much.  Again, once they go home, the real learning and lessons are given.  5 minutes at home can undo anything and everything done at school, church, sports....whatever.

Try having content in the classroom that includes black culture. Not just history, but actual black kids in the books doing actual black things. Make math word problems more inclusive. Change up the names. Change the examples.

We celebrate so many festivals, holidays and events that are specific to the Afro-American,  Afro-Caribbean and African cultures in our school.  This school is geared to those that attend it.



Social programs help to feed kids, fix their teeth,  get their shots and other health care,  get them to school, watch them after school and other crucial things...when they're available.   But the government is NOT in the business of restoring and building families.  I don't have the answer to that but know that is center stage in the pursuit of healing, equality and peace

Once again,  JMHO

[mm1970]

Some poor families are disengaged because they are barely surviving.

One of my son's 1st grade classmates had a parent murdered.  Child and siblings now living with grandparents.  Thank goodness for public housing... until they got into a house this child had never ever had a bed.  How do you think that affects the ability to study?

Homeless, multiple jobs, multiple families to a household.  Kids can't make the bus or to school on time because they don't have an alarm clock and their parents get home from work at 3 pm.  Is a kindergartner expected to get themselves up and ready for school?

You can't get the kind of engagement you need when families are living in poverty.

[ctuser1]

The way I see it is this:
1. There are big, nebulous issues like underachievement in schools, appropriate levels and usage of welfare, lack of stable families etc. etc. etc. These problems don't have any "easy" solutions.
2. Then there are crises screaming at everyone's face every day of their life. Blacks are at a much higher risk of systemic violence - of being shot and killed by police, of being incarcerated etc. etc. etc.

I doubt there will be any near term "solution" to the issues like #1. However, the near term crises, of "systemic violence" is something that is much easier to fix. The fixes are almost entirely external, they generally don't call for changing the black culture, and are far more easily measurable and actionable. i.e. there is and was zero excuses of why these were not fixed yesterday.

If it was up to me, I'd much rather focus on the systemic violence than the other structural issues. Else there will be much discussion for a few weeks or months, and everyone will conclude there is nothing to be done.

[mbl]

If it was up to me, I'd much rather focus on the systemic violence than the other structural issues. Else there will be much discussion for a few weeks or months, and everyone will conclude there is nothing to be done.

Seeing this violence up close with kids will break your heart.   
Watching two 6th grade girls pummel each other over a nasty remark and having a crowd of kids surround them and encourage the confrontation is just tragic.    It happens on a regular basis in our school. 

We were walking the kindergartners out to the play ground when we got caught in the middle of it.  We were right by the gym doors so we moved them in there and out of the way.
The school security guard (Ms. Alvarado) pulled them apart and dispersed the crowd. 

This is what the kids see and witness as a normalized behavior.  Teachers, social workers and the principal can talk about respect and communication all the time in order to try and change the hearts and minds of the kids.   But the adversary is what happens when they're not in school. 

There isn't a teacher in this school(K-8....which is ill advised to begin with) who doesn't try everything they can think of to serve their students.  Most of the kids respond to those who show they care and are engaged and informed about them.

I attended a baptism of one of the 4th graders at their church downtown.  She almost lost it when we showed up and she saw us. 
We said we'd attend and followed through.   Trust....trust in doing what you say you will.  That Pastor I talked about who is an aid in our school is the Preacher there.  Out of a congregation of over 300, he eyeballed us when the service started, made us stand up during the greeting and made a point to welcome us.   He told the whole congregation that this 4th grade girl had her teachers from school here to celebrate her baptism.   She didn't stop talking about it for weeks.

I'm no saint or savior,  not any different than anyone here and I didn't describe the above to highlight myself.  You can call me whatever you want, doesn't matter.   Just wanted to show an example of those things that I think are effective because they can help build trust and demonstrate care.

[mbl]

Some poor families are disengaged because they are barely surviving.

One of my son's 1st grade classmates had a parent murdered.  Child and siblings now living with grandparents.  Thank goodness for public housing... until they got into a house this child had never ever had a bed.  How do you think that affects the ability to study?

Homeless, multiple jobs, multiple families to a household.  Kids can't make the bus or to school on time because they don't have an alarm clock and their parents get home from work at 3 pm.  Is a kindergartner expected to get themselves up and ready for school?

You can't get the kind of engagement you need when families are living in poverty.

All of that is true.  But if you believe, in those circumstances, that a parent should be excused from any responsibility to help their child with school,  the most important academic resource a child has, is lost to him/her.   Without support at home, even the most minimal attention, that child will often have a dismal chance at mastering the most basic skills in school.   And, if not their parent to advocate for them, then who?  The teacher, with 20 other children in the class?  The social worker, with 800 other kids on her roster?  The school psychologist, again with hundreds of kids in her radar space?  The principal?  The school safety officer?  Who should be the child's advocate first and foremost?  Respect parents in involving them, raising the bar on the expectation of being a partner in their child's education. 

Non of the above circumstances creates a situation where a parent can't check a kid's backpack at least once a week.  Every parent in our classroom has a cell phone.....every single one regardless of their situation.  It's verified with the school as if a kid get's sick or something happens the school has to be able to reach them.   The thing is, some of the parents don't respond to the teacher's request for a conversation or update.  They don't communicate.  Whatever the reason, their child is bearing the consequence.

[Travis]

It’s systemic and institutionalized racism. I’m 1,000% sure of that.

Slavery. Plessy v Ferguson. FHA Redlining. The Anti Drug Abuse Act. The answers are in these policies.

Whatever you all come up with to enact, train, or force racial equality for the youngest generation, legislate something that forces Gen X and Millenials to comply, and wait for the rest of the baby boomers to die. The people who violently opposed the civil rights movement are still alive and they still vote. They had children who shared their values. Those children are our current crop of senior politicians. The cops who came of age during the 1980s drug wars now run the unions. This isn't going to be solved in a year or even ten. You can change all the minds you want, but until those folks with the power of the pen and the people who keep them on power are completely flushed from society you're going to have to deal with institutional level opposition.

I realize I'm not actually offering anything constructive right now, but it felt like an elephant that needed pointing out.

[J Boogie]

The way I see it is this:
1. There are big, nebulous issues like underachievement in schools, appropriate levels and usage of welfare, lack of stable families etc. etc. etc. These problems don't have any "easy" solutions.
2. Then there are crises screaming at everyone's face every day of their life. Blacks are at a much higher risk of systemic violence - of being shot and killed by police, of being incarcerated etc. etc. etc.

I doubt there will be any near term "solution" to the issues like #1. However, the near term crises, of "systemic violence" is something that is much easier to fix. The fixes are almost entirely external, they generally don't call for changing the black culture, and are far more easily measurable and actionable. i.e. there is and was zero excuses of why these were not fixed yesterday.

If it was up to me, I'd much rather focus on the systemic violence than the other structural issues. Else there will be much discussion for a few weeks or months, and everyone will conclude there is nothing to be done.

I think the reason there is so much political crashing of heads on this issue is because the left cites #1 as evidence that #2 exists and the right insists that the worst of 2# is ancient history.

Then the left insists that the right must be dictionary definition racist to believe that #1 is the default for those of African heritage. But the non-racist right believes its more due to the mistakes made by big government in "replacing" black fathers by giving single mothers welfare and incentiving them to go it alone, getting the benefit of an earner without any of the costs of having to deal with a spouse.

I think the truth is that the most egregious institutional racism is behind us, but like slavery it caused harm far beyond the time it stood as the law of the land - whether it be the family wealth that was never built up through home ownership due to redlining, or the psychological trauma inflicted from any number of legal injustices. And so the "New Jim Crow" (mass incarceration et al) is no explicitly racist like the original Jim Crow, but rather the State's way of (mis)managing the effects it caused by the original Jim Crow.

My view is that our current institutional racism is only half the battle. Once it is dismantled, we'll still have the same problems to solve that mass incarceration is partially masking. But it's the part of the battle that white people can help with the most. As Travis mentioned, our younger generations are likely to arrive at far more just solutions than mass incarceration.

I guess all this is to say that I agree.

[GuitarStv]

But the non-racist right believes its more due to the mistakes made by big government in "replacing" black fathers by giving single mothers welfare and incentiving them to go it alone, getting the benefit of an earner without any of the costs of having to deal with a spouse.

What exactly are the 'costs of having to deal with a spouse'?  I have had a spouse for more than a decade.  My spouse makes my life better.  Not worse.  There are no 'costs of having to deal with a spouse' at all . . . unless the spouse is abusive, or a terrible match.  In which case, why would you try to economically force people to maintain failed relationships?

Attempting to force a woman to stay in a relationship that she doesn't want to be in isn't racist.  It's kinda horrific and disgustingly sexist behaviour though.  Must be hard for the people who support that stance not to giggle when they hear the national anthem and the 'land of the freeeeeeeeee' part that singers always hold a little too long at baseball games come up.  Because they're arguing that women should not be free to choose who they live with.

I think the truth is that the most egregious institutional racism is behind us, but like slavery it caused harm far beyond the time it stood as the law of the land - whether it be the family wealth that was never built up through home ownership due to redlining, or the psychological trauma inflicted from any number of legal injustices. And so the "New Jim Crow" (mass incarceration et al) is no explicitly racist like the original Jim Crow, but rather the State's way of (mis)managing the effects it caused by the original Jim Crow.

I have to disagree with you.

To take a single, simple stat to look at . . . let's examine drug use vs drug arrests.

 


White people use far more drugs, and sell drugs at about the same rate as black people.  Police target and arrest black people at radically higher rates.  What non-egregiously racist explanation is there for this?

[J Boogie]

But the non-racist right believes its more due to the mistakes made by big government in "replacing" black fathers by giving single mothers welfare and incentiving them to go it alone, getting the benefit of an earner without any of the costs of having to deal with a spouse.

What exactly are the 'costs of having to deal with a spouse'?  I have had a spouse for more than a decade.  My spouse makes my life better.  Not worse.  There are no 'costs of having to deal with a spouse' at all . . . unless the spouse is abusive, or a terrible match.  In which case, why would you try to economically force people to maintain failed relationships?

Stv, c'mon.
A big part of the reason your spouse makes your life better is because she labors for the sake of the family, as you do. In the absence of that, many people would prefer to make decisions unilaterally rather than have to compromise. Relationships require nurturing which requires effort - if the option was there to receive the benefits of someone laboring for your family without having to consider any of their input, deal with any of their in laws, put away any of the stuff they leave out, etc etc many people would be tempted to go that route. Yes, we get married because we love someone, but we often work through the tough times because we know it would be tougher without them. Now imagine during the next argument you have where your spouse's faults are laid bare that their main contribution is easily replaced.

At any rate, the phrase "economically forcing people to maintain failed relationships" is an obvious mischaracterization of the theoretical position that welfare should be reformed to remove the perverse incentive for mothers to leave their husbands.

[J Boogie]

I think the truth is that the most egregious institutional racism is behind us, but like slavery it caused harm far beyond the time it stood as the law of the land - whether it be the family wealth that was never built up through home ownership due to redlining, or the psychological trauma inflicted from any number of legal injustices. And so the "New Jim Crow" (mass incarceration et al) is no explicitly racist like the original Jim Crow, but rather the State's way of (mis)managing the effects it caused by the original Jim Crow.

I have to disagree with you.

To take a single, simple stat to look at . . . let's examine drug use vs drug arrests.

White people use far more drugs, and sell drugs at about the same rate as black people.  Police target and arrest black people at radically higher rates.  What non-egregiously racist explanation is there for this?

I said "the most" egregious institutional racism is behind us. The disparity in drug-based arrests pales in comparison to the instituional racism of the Jim Crow era.

[GuitarStv]

But the non-racist right believes its more due to the mistakes made by big government in "replacing" black fathers by giving single mothers welfare and incentiving them to go it alone, getting the benefit of an earner without any of the costs of having to deal with a spouse.

What exactly are the 'costs of having to deal with a spouse'?  I have had a spouse for more than a decade.  My spouse makes my life better.  Not worse.  There are no 'costs of having to deal with a spouse' at all . . . unless the spouse is abusive, or a terrible match.  In which case, why would you try to economically force people to maintain failed relationships?

Stv, c'mon.
A big part of the reason your spouse makes your life better is because she labors for the sake of the family, as you do. In the absence of that, many people would prefer to make decisions unilaterally rather than have to compromise.

But that's the thing.  A relationship that is a lot of work and labour is likely doomed/miserable.  If someone in a relationship isn't happy to help the other make their life better and compromise on things, we shouldn't be trying to force them to stay together.  They shouldn't be in a relationship.

Relationships require nurturing which requires effort - if the option was there to receive the benefits of someone laboring for your family without having to consider any of their input, deal with any of their in laws, put away any of the stuff they leave out, etc etc many people would be tempted to go that route.

The benefits of someone laboring for a family go way, way, way beyond money.  Getting welfare in no way replaces what a spouse means in a relationship, and it's kinda a ridiculous idea to even float.  It implies that the reason most people stay together is the money that the other person brings . . . and frankly, that sounds like a really unhealthy way to live.

Yes, we get married because we love someone, but we often work through the tough times because we know it would be tougher without them. Now imagine during the next argument you have where your spouse's faults are laid bare that their main contribution is easily replaced.

The tough times that my spouse and I have have never been tough because of each other . . . and it is impossible to replace the contributions my spouse makes.  If my spouses main contribution to the relationship was money . . . then we don't really have a relationship.  In that case I'm a kind of paid prostitute/maid/cook/handyman combination.

At any rate, the phrase "economically forcing people to maintain failed relationships" is an obvious mischaracterization of the theoretical position that welfare should be reformed to remove the perverse incentive for mothers to leave their husbands.

If mothers with children are staying or leaving their husbands purely for the tiny monetary gain that is received from welfare (which is a median value of about 28 grand a year if all possible benefits are claimed - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/05/grothman-single-parents-welfare/), then they never had a relationship worth saving to begin with.

I said "the most" egregious institutional racism is behind us. The disparity in drug-based arrests pales in comparison to the instituional racism of the Jim Crow era.

Fair enough.

[Michael in ABQ]

I think the truth is that the most egregious institutional racism is behind us, but like slavery it caused harm far beyond the time it stood as the law of the land - whether it be the family wealth that was never built up through home ownership due to redlining, or the psychological trauma inflicted from any number of legal injustices. And so the "New Jim Crow" (mass incarceration et al) is no explicitly racist like the original Jim Crow, but rather the State's way of (mis)managing the effects it caused by the original Jim Crow.

I have to disagree with you.

To take a single, simple stat to look at . . . let's examine drug use vs drug arrests.


White people use far more drugs, and sell drugs at about the same rate as black people.  Police target and arrest black people at radically higher rates.  What non-egregiously racist explanation is there for this?

Opportunity. It is much easier to arrest somebody standing on a street corner selling drugs than someone doing the same thing behind closed doors. Who are the people most likely to sell drugs on the street? Somebody with poor economic prospects living in a city who is likely in a gang. Who belong in gangs? Generally people in the underclass. You don't really hear about British or French gangs in the US because they were always on top. Irish, Jewish, Italian, Mexican, black, etc. pick any immigrant group that's not on the top of the heap politically, socially, economically, and that is who will form gangs to protect themselves from the more powerful groups surrounding them.

If you've ever seen the movie "Pulp Fiction" there is a drug dealer portrayed who deals heroin out of his house to a select clientele. What are the odds that guy will get arrested versus the guy trying to sell crack cocaine on a street corner to a much larger group of customers e.g. as portrayed in the excellent HBO series "The Wire".

Once that black person is arrested the odds of them going to jail are much higher due to some factors that are racism and some that are not. What determines whether you can hire a lawyer instead of relying on a public defender? The color of your skin or the size of your bank account? How a judge, jury, prosecutor, etc. perceive you? Whether you will be offered a plea-bargain or if the prosecutor will simply drop the charges if presented with a person who won't plead guilty?

[Samuel]

The way I see it is this:
1. There are big, nebulous issues like underachievement in schools, appropriate levels and usage of welfare, lack of stable families etc. etc. etc. These problems don't have any "easy" solutions.
2. Then there are crises screaming at everyone's face every day of their life. Blacks are at a much higher risk of systemic violence - of being shot and killed by police, of being incarcerated etc. etc. etc.

I doubt there will be any near term "solution" to the issues like #1. However, the near term crises, of "systemic violence" is something that is much easier to fix. The fixes are almost entirely external, they generally don't call for changing the black culture, and are far more easily measurable and actionable. i.e. there is and was zero excuses of why these were not fixed yesterday.

If it was up to me, I'd much rather focus on the systemic violence than the other structural issues. Else there will be much discussion for a few weeks or months, and everyone will conclude there is nothing to be done.

Except you can't easily separate #2 from # 1. I'm not excusing true police brutality or denying the need for reforms but when our society asks police to be the civil servants of last resort and places them right at the kinetic intersection of all the underlying #1 problems we're setting ourselves up for bad outcomes and perpetuation of the underlying trends. The #1 issues drive increased attention from and interactions with law enforcement, which then reinforces the disparate outcomes and public perceptions. 

I suspect that soon enough we're all going to find this is not as easy a fix as you anticipate.

[boy_bye]

I think the truth is that the most egregious institutional racism is behind us, but like slavery it caused harm far beyond the time it stood as the law of the land - whether it be the family wealth that was never built up through home ownership due to redlining, or the psychological trauma inflicted from any number of legal injustices. And so the "New Jim Crow" (mass incarceration et al) is no explicitly racist like the original Jim Crow, but rather the State's way of (mis)managing the effects it caused by the original Jim Crow.

I have to disagree with you.

To take a single, simple stat to look at . . . let's examine drug use vs drug arrests.

White people use far more drugs, and sell drugs at about the same rate as black people.  Police target and arrest black people at radically higher rates.  What non-egregiously racist explanation is there for this?

I said "the most" egregious institutional racism is behind us. The disparity in drug-based arrests pales in comparison to the instituional racism of the Jim Crow era.

you are seeing things from a very privileged and academic perspective here. and even if we had somehow gotten rid of institutional racism in the here and now, the effects of institutional racism accrue over generations. black folks alive today have far less wealth, more likelihood of being in prison, a higher chance of dying from everything from covid-19 to police brutality, as a DIRECT RESULT OF HISTORY.

just as white families accrue privileges over every generation during which they are well-fed and able to accrue  wealth and pass those privileges on to their children, black families have accrued the effects of hundreds of years of enslavement and discrimination and exclusion from powerful places, and passed those on to their children.

jboogie, racism is far more complex and deeply embedded in american culture than you think it is. i encourage you to do some more research and reading on redlining, voter suppression, lynching, denial of wealth-building opportunities, and the many other atrocities that white americans have visited on black americans. it's not as simple as, well, MLK happened and now racism is all better. you have a lot to learn here, friend, as the vast majority of us do.

[mm1970]

jboogie, racism is far more complex and deeply embedded in american culture than you think it is. i encourage you to do some more research and reading on redlining, voter suppression, lynching, denial of wealth-building opportunities, and the many other atrocities that white americans have visited on black americans. it's not as simple as, well, MLK happened and now racism is all better. you have a lot to learn here, friend, as the vast majority of us do.

The voter suppression is downright shocking, egregious, and it seems like they aren't even trying to hide it anymore.

[nessness]

It seems that we've moved on, but white people discussing problems with black culture is super problematic to me.

Let black people decide what problems exist within black culture, and how to fix them. White people - focus on dismantling structural racism and confronting the racist beliefs held by your relatives, friends, neighbors, and selves (yes, many, if not most, white people who want to solve racism have some racist beliefs themselves).

[SotI]

(yes, many, if not most, white people who want to solve racism have some racist beliefs themselves).

I cannot comment in US affairs, although I find the violence and mutual distrust described here and in the news pretty shocking. So this may be considered off-topic:
Imo the above statement sounds to be very "Westerner"-centric.   Racism - or more generally speaking - tribalism is a pretty global feature not limited to "white" culture. People are people. (Not saying that this makes it any better).

If this is meant to indicate that a lot of discussion by white people smack of paternalism when discussion other cultures or communities, I would agree, though.

[nessness]

(yes, many, if not most, white people who want to solve racism have some racist beliefs themselves).

I cannot comment in US affairs, although I find the violence and mutual distrust described here and in the news pretty shocking. So this may be considered off-topic:
Imo the above statement sounds to be very "Westerner"-centric.   Racism - or more generally speaking - tribalism is a pretty global feature not limited to "white" culture. People are people. (Not saying that this makes it any better).

If this is meant to indicate that a lot of discussion by white people smack of paternalism when discussion other cultures or communities, I would agree, though.

The thread title is "How do we solve racism in the US?", so yes, my response was US-centric. I don't feel particularly qualified to comment on race relations in the rest of the world.

I agree to an extent that tribalism is universal, but power structures are important too, and you can't ignore the long history of slavery and institutional racism in the US.

But yes, it is absolutely paternalistic for white people to say that black people just need to value education and marriage and then racism would go away.

[rob in cal]

  In terms of long term social outcomes for people of any race or background, I would argue that  growing up in a single parent household makes life that much more challenging and with Black children growing up in single parent households at a much higher rate than others, that's another challenge. I was part of a single parent household growing up for just a few months, but had my mom not met my step dad when she did its likely that we were headed for poverty real quick.  As a parent of two kids now grown I know that if I had been a single parent we'd have been worse off financially, socially and emotionally.
Not saying that having a similar family structure of Asian Americans or middle class and above White Americans will all of a sudden create this new utopia, but it would seem like that would be one big step in the right direction.

Another thought, is what about lessons from other groups on the outskirts of predominant WASP American such as impoverished Slavic peasants (here's looking at you great grandpa), Jewish emigrants from Tsarist Russia, Arabs and most recently non-wealthy Asian immigrants such as those who came from South East Asia fleeing communist takeovers in their countries. What lessons can be drawn from their experiences adapting to a new country? The Jewish experience is amazing in its strong march up the latter from the bottom of White America to success in so many fields.

[Buffaloski Boris]

I think you're asking a good question, but the wrong one: I think a better question is: "how do we actually inspire people to talk with and befriend people who aren't like them and who might not agree with them?"  Because that's where you see the progress.  And the question implies that "racism" is is somehow solvable.  I don't think it is.  You're always going to have narrow minded people. But you can minimize it.  And we sure aren't doing a very good job of that, particularly of late.   

When it comes to race, there is an ever evolving orthodoxy that cannot be questioned, at least in public and increasingly not online. And therein lies the dilemma.  You can't fix a problem unless you strike at the root.  And how can you do that if people can't have a candid discussion? 

Here's an example of what I'm talking about.  A person on a website is participating in a conversation.  They note that the US was built by one group.  It was implied that it was whites.  That was not stated though.  Another person took great offense, calling it a white supremacist dog-whistle.  The site moderator got involved and agreed that it's a white supremacist dog-whistle and bans the original poster.  Now, I'm no expert on white supremacist dog-whistles, but implying that the US was built by whites seems rather benign in the grand schema and just happens to be mathematically factual; up until fairly recently, the US has been an overwhelmingly white country.  So would I be considered a black supremacist engaging in dog whistling if I were to note that Ghana or Nigeria was built by blacks? 

So I don't think we solve racism.  Because people are people and can sometimes be rather narrow minded.  And because truly thorny race-related issues dare not be discussed. 

As for the more general idea of how do we improve folks emotional resilience so they can have friendships with people who aren't like them, I think we still might be able to discuss that. Maybe. So long as people don't get too offended.   

[ctuser1]

Here's an example of what I'm talking about.  A person on a website is participating in a conversation.  They note that the US was built by one group.  It was implied that it was whites.  That was not stated though.  Another person took great offense, calling it a white supremacist dog-whistle.  The site moderator got involved and agreed that it's a white supremacist dog-whistle and bans the original poster.  Now, I'm no expert on white supremacist dog-whistles, but implying that the US was built by whites seems rather benign in the grand schema and just happens to be mathematically factual; up until fairly recently, the US has been an overwhelmingly white country.  So would I be considered a black supremacist engaging in dog whistling if I were to note that Ghana or Nigeria was built by blacks? 

mathematically factual -> Some slaves would like to disagree. They were a critical path component to almost all economic activity.

seems rather benign
This one is a bit more convoluted.

It's not what you say that makes you a racist bastard, but your intent. I can make black/white/brown/pick-your-favorite-ethnic-group jokes over a beer all the time (and I have), some of which can be considered very offensive if taken out of context. If anyone feels offended I will probably think of him/her as a snowflake but would respect that he/she has every right to have different set of sensibilities than I do**. To me, there is no harm done here because the "intent" behind these sometimes-offensive-words-spoken-behind-closed-doors-over-a-glass-of-beer was not to cause harm.
**Indeed I have good friends who are full-blown snowflakes. I adjust what I say in their presence, and I don't consider them inferior in any way because of having a heightened sensibilities than is "normal" to me.

Now bring yourself to this specific statement in today's political context. What is the intent with which someone would make that statement? Is there *anything* other than a white supremacist angle to it? Let's assume, for argument's sake, there is!! What will 99 out of a 100 people listening to this argument take it as? Will they take it as anything other than dog whistle?

So here we go!! It was a dog whistle because it is *known* it will be interpreted as such.

It is a question of the concept of personal responsibility. The people who called themselves "conservatives" for the past 50 years have never been very good with the concept of personal responsibility. You know, when you say something or do something, you are responsible for the outcome? If you are making a statement that will be taken a certain way by 99% of the listeners, then you are personally responsible for how it will be accepted. Claiming incompetence in understanding the consequences is no excuse.

[expatartist]

what about lessons from other groups on the outskirts of predominant WASP American such as impoverished Slavic peasants (here's looking at you great grandpa), Jewish emigrants from Tsarist Russia, Arabs and most recently non-wealthy Asian immigrants such as those who came from South East Asia fleeing communist takeovers in their countries. What lessons can be drawn from their experiences adapting to a new country? The Jewish experience is amazing in its strong march up the latter from the bottom of White America to success in so many fields.

There's a vast difference in outcome when you consider the examples above vs:
1) The ways in which (most) African-Americans' ancestors were brought to the US
and
2) The century and a half of active disenfranchisement, often via legislation, since the abolition of slavery

[GuitarStv]

I think you're asking a good question, but the wrong one: I think a better question is: "how do we actually inspire people to talk with and befriend people who aren't like them and who might not agree with them?"  Because that's where you see the progress.  And the question implies that "racism" is is somehow solvable.  I don't think it is.  You're always going to have narrow minded people. But you can minimize it.  And we sure aren't doing a very good job of that, particularly of late.   

When it comes to race, there is an ever evolving orthodoxy that cannot be questioned, at least in public and increasingly not online. And therein lies the dilemma.  You can't fix a problem unless you strike at the root.  And how can you do that if people can't have a candid discussion? 

Here's an example of what I'm talking about.  A person on a website is participating in a conversation.  They note that the US was built by one group.  It was implied that it was whites.  That was not stated though.  Another person took great offense, calling it a white supremacist dog-whistle.  The site moderator got involved and agreed that it's a white supremacist dog-whistle and bans the original poster.  Now, I'm no expert on white supremacist dog-whistles, but implying that the US was built by whites seems rather benign in the grand schema and just happens to be mathematically factual; up until fairly recently, the US has been an overwhelmingly white country.  So would I be considered a black supremacist engaging in dog whistling if I were to note that Ghana or Nigeria was built by blacks? 

So I don't think we solve racism.  Because people are people and can sometimes be rather narrow minded.  And because truly thorny race-related issues dare not be discussed. 

As for the more general idea of how do we improve folks emotional resilience so they can have friendships with people who aren't like them, I think we still might be able to discuss that. Maybe. So long as people don't get too offended.

The thing is, dog whistle or not, the claim you're defending is factually wrong.

First of all, 'Whites' are not a uniform single group.  The white people involved in building the US was were a mix of English, Dutch, German, Polish, Irish, Italian, Scottish, Ukrainian, Russian, French, etc.  They followed many different religions and practices.

But even from the earliest, the United States was also built and formed by the contributions of non-white people from around the world.  Native people have always been in the US.  Many Chinese people were involved in building the railways.  Black people were enslaved and responsible for most of the agricultural work being done in the Southern US early on.  (This is also where your 'overwhelmingly whit country' statement falls apart too.  Although not a majority, there were quite a few non-white people in the US at most parts of its history.)

The early US was RULED by white people (though not a homogenous group of white people).  It was certainly not built by them (alone) though.

[js82]

I think you're asking a good question, but the wrong one: I think a better question is: "how do we actually inspire people to talk with and befriend people who aren't like them and who might not agree with them?"  Because that's where you see the progress.  And the question implies that "racism" is is somehow solvable.  I don't think it is.  You're always going to have narrow minded people. But you can minimize it.  And we sure aren't doing a very good job of that, particularly of late.

I agree, and I think a lot of it starts with more people learning to listen with genuine interest and the goal of understanding, rather than starting to formulate a response/rebuttal before hearing the entirety of what someone has to say.

A major obstacle to addressing racial issues in this country is opposition from people who don't understand the extent of those issues - and in many cases that lack of understanding comes from not understanding what "a typical day in the life" looks like for someone who's vastly different from themselves(ALL of us have our own blind spots here).  I know a LOT of people who I don't consider to be intentionally racist, but definitely don't fully understand the kinds of adversity that people vastly different from them frequently encounter.  I think simply getting people to hear about these human experiences on an individual level goes a long way towards helping people realize that not everyone is treated the same way by the rest of the world.

Another part of it is getting people to understand that just because we say that one thing is a problem, it doesn't mean that we're saying other things are not also problems.  You often see this in the tension between poor whites and minorities in this country - people who grew up in poverty, but who are not minorities often feel that discussion of white privilege means that people are ignoring the effort it took them to overcome their own disadvantages, even if that's not the intent.  Some of this is the result of partisan politics, where different groups are pitted against each other because it's politically expedient to do so.  But it's critical to be mindful of when we discuss these kinds of issues - one person's adversity does not make another person's adversity any less real.

[Buffaloski Boris]

I think you're asking a good question, but the wrong one: I think a better question is: "how do we actually inspire people to talk with and befriend people who aren't like them and who might not agree with them?"  Because that's where you see the progress.  And the question implies that "racism" is is somehow solvable.  I don't think it is.  You're always going to have narrow minded people. But you can minimize it.  And we sure aren't doing a very good job of that, particularly of late.

I agree, and I think a lot of it starts with more people learning to listen with genuine interest and the goal of understanding, rather than starting to formulate a response/rebuttal before hearing the entirety of what someone has to say.

A major obstacle to addressing racial issues in this country is opposition from people who don't understand the extent of those issues - and in many cases that lack of understanding comes from not understanding what "a typical day in the life" looks like for someone who's vastly different from themselves(ALL of us have our own blind spots here).  I know a LOT of people who I don't consider to be intentionally racist, but definitely don't fully understand the kinds of adversity that people vastly different from them frequently encounter.  I think simply getting people to hear about these human experiences on an individual level goes a long way towards helping people realize that not everyone is treated the same way by the rest of the world.

Another part of it is getting people to understand that just because we say that one thing is a problem, it doesn't mean that we're saying other things are not also problems.  You often see this in the tension between poor whites and minorities in this country - people who grew up in poverty, but who are not minorities often feel that discussion of white privilege means that people are ignoring the effort it took them to overcome their own disadvantages, even if that's not the intent.  Some of this is the result of partisan politics, where different groups are pitted against each other because it's politically expedient to do so.  But it's critical to be mindful of when we discuss these kinds of issues - one person's adversity does not make another person's adversity any less real.

 Very well said.

Only thing I could add to your excellent remarks is that you have to be willing to engage people, even those you really, really disagree with.

[Wrenchturner]

It's not what you say that makes you a racist bastard, but your intent. I can make black/white/brown/pick-your-favorite-ethnic-group jokes over a beer all the time (and I have), some of which can be considered very offensive if taken out of context. If anyone feels offended I will probably think of him/her as a snowflake but would respect that he/she has every right to have different set of sensibilities than I do**. To me, there is no harm done here because the "intent" behind these sometimes-offensive-words-spoken-behind-closed-doors-over-a-glass-of-beer was not to cause harm.

You know, when you say something or do something, you are responsible for the outcome?  If you are making a statement that will be taken a certain way by 99% of the listeners, then you are personally responsible for how it will be accepted. Claiming incompetence in understanding the consequences is no excuse.

These are fundamentally conflicting statements.  Agree/disagree? 

[ctuser1]

It's not what you say that makes you a racist bastard, but your intent. I can make black/white/brown/pick-your-favorite-ethnic-group jokes over a beer all the time (and I have), some of which can be considered very offensive if taken out of context. If anyone feels offended I will probably think of him/her as a snowflake but would respect that he/she has every right to have different set of sensibilities than I do**. To me, there is no harm done here because the "intent" behind these sometimes-offensive-words-spoken-behind-closed-doors-over-a-glass-of-beer was not to cause harm.

You know, when you say something or do something, you are responsible for the outcome?  If you are making a statement that will be taken a certain way by 99% of the listeners, then you are personally responsible for how it will be accepted. Claiming incompetence in understanding the consequences is no excuse.

These are fundamentally conflicting statements.  Agree/disagree?

Yes, I see the conflict, as stated. Perhaps I should clarify a bit.

Let's say I am at work, and I make an insensitive comment about a penny pinching Jew, without realizing that the new intern is Jewish and is taking offense, then I could and should be held responsible (for being an idiot, if nothing else) even if I did not intend to cause "offense" but said it as a joke.

Now, if I make the same comment to a friend I've known for 10 years, over a beer (and he responds "you bloody boring nerd, what do you know of penny pinching....") - it's unlikely to cause offense. The reason is, in this context I am judged not by what I say, but what is the intent of what I say. I could utter far less offensive-sounding words, with far more malicious intent, and cause more offense (e.g. if I made a calm, reasoned argument about Holocaust Denial).

So I am (and should be) judged differently depending on the context. When I am addressing strangers, I need to be careful of the way things will be received. When I am addressing people I know a lot more, I can be far more carefree with the knowledge that as long as I don't "intend" to cause offense, I likely won't. And even if I say something really callous, I will apologize when made aware of my stupidity and things should be fine.

I did not clarify this "context sensitivity" in my last post. Once included, it should resolve the conflict you pointed out - no?
 

[Wrenchturner]

It's not what you say that makes you a racist bastard, but your intent. I can make black/white/brown/pick-your-favorite-ethnic-group jokes over a beer all the time (and I have), some of which can be considered very offensive if taken out of context. If anyone feels offended I will probably think of him/her as a snowflake but would respect that he/she has every right to have different set of sensibilities than I do**. To me, there is no harm done here because the "intent" behind these sometimes-offensive-words-spoken-behind-closed-doors-over-a-glass-of-beer was not to cause harm.

You know, when you say something or do something, you are responsible for the outcome?  If you are making a statement that will be taken a certain way by 99% of the listeners, then you are personally responsible for how it will be accepted. Claiming incompetence in understanding the consequences is no excuse.

These are fundamentally conflicting statements.  Agree/disagree?

Yes, I see the conflict, as stated. Perhaps I should clarify a bit.

Let's say I am at work, and I make an insensitive comment about a penny pinching Jew, without realizing that the new intern is Jewish and is taking offense, then I could and should be held responsible (for being an idiot, if nothing else) even if I did not intend to cause "offense" but said it as a joke.

Now, if I make the same comment to a friend I've known for 10 years, over a beer (and he responds "you bloody boring nerd, what do you know of penny pinching....") - it's unlikely to cause offense. The reason is, in this context I am judged not by what I say, but what is the intent of what I say. I could utter far less offensive-sounding words, with far more malicious intent, and cause more offense (e.g. if I made a calm, reasoned argument about Holocaust Denial).

So I am (and should be) judged differently depending on the context. When I am addressing strangers, I need to be careful of the way things will be received. When I am addressing people I know a lot more, I can be far more carefree with the knowledge that as long as I don't "intend" to cause offense, I likely won't. And even if I say something really callous, I will apologize when made aware of my stupidity and things should be fine.

I did not clarify this "context sensitivity" in my last post. Once included, it should resolve the conflict you pointed out - no?

You make a strong case.  I prefer to favor the second scenario more, simply because your audience can change quickly these days.  There's also a distinction between you making an off-color joke at work and a comedian making one when on stage, and those two situations tend to get lumped together.  I don't have a great solution, but I would prefer to rely on assumption of good faith first and foremost.  It would be more ideal in the first case if this person were to assume you are joking FIRST, even though they don't know you.  I know that doesn't cater to people's "truths" or experience and it's a large request, but there does seem to be an eagerness toward offence in our current culture that is not helping the identification of actual bigotry and ignorance.

This might be a controversial statement, but part of what heals bigotry is a lack of incitement from the receiving party.  A good example is the pejoratives "gay" and "fag", which in my opinion have almost entirely lost their strength.  Virtually all people don't care about sexual orientation anymore and homosexuality has been almost fully integrated into culture.  If someone uses these as pejoratives in public, they are almost certain to receive more negative attention than the person receiving the pejorative.  Maybe that's not a perfect example but it seems to be the case.

[Kris]

It's not what you say that makes you a racist bastard, but your intent. I can make black/white/brown/pick-your-favorite-ethnic-group jokes over a beer all the time (and I have), some of which can be considered very offensive if taken out of context. If anyone feels offended I will probably think of him/her as a snowflake but would respect that he/she has every right to have different set of sensibilities than I do**. To me, there is no harm done here because the "intent" behind these sometimes-offensive-words-spoken-behind-closed-doors-over-a-glass-of-beer was not to cause harm.

You know, when you say something or do something, you are responsible for the outcome?  If you are making a statement that will be taken a certain way by 99% of the listeners, then you are personally responsible for how it will be accepted. Claiming incompetence in understanding the consequences is no excuse.

These are fundamentally conflicting statements.  Agree/disagree?

Yes, I see the conflict, as stated. Perhaps I should clarify a bit.

Let's say I am at work, and I make an insensitive comment about a penny pinching Jew, without realizing that the new intern is Jewish and is taking offense, then I could and should be held responsible (for being an idiot, if nothing else) even if I did not intend to cause "offense" but said it as a joke.

Now, if I make the same comment to a friend I've known for 10 years, over a beer (and he responds "you bloody boring nerd, what do you know of penny pinching....") - it's unlikely to cause offense. The reason is, in this context I am judged not by what I say, but what is the intent of what I say. I could utter far less offensive-sounding words, with far more malicious intent, and cause more offense (e.g. if I made a calm, reasoned argument about Holocaust Denial).

So I am (and should be) judged differently depending on the context. When I am addressing strangers, I need to be careful of the way things will be received. When I am addressing people I know a lot more, I can be far more carefree with the knowledge that as long as I don't "intend" to cause offense, I likely won't. And even if I say something really callous, I will apologize when made aware of my stupidity and things should be fine.

I did not clarify this "context sensitivity" in my last post. Once included, it should resolve the conflict you pointed out - no?

You make a strong case.  I prefer to favor the second scenario more, simply because your audience can change quickly these days.  There's also a distinction between you making an off-color joke at work and a comedian making one when on stage, and those two situations tend to get lumped together.  I don't have a great solution, but I would prefer to rely on assumption of good faith first and foremost.  It would be more ideal in the first case if this person were to assume you are joking FIRST, even though they don't know you.  I know that doesn't cater to people's "truths" or experience and it's a large request, but there does seem to be an eagerness toward offence in our current culture that is not helping the identification of actual bigotry and ignorance.

This might be a controversial statement, but part of what heals bigotry is a lack of incitement from the receiving party.  A good example is the pejoratives "gay" and "fag", which in my opinion have almost entirely lost their strength.  Virtually all people don't care about sexual orientation anymore and homosexuality has been almost fully integrated into culture.  If someone uses these as pejoratives in public, they are almost certain to receive more negative attention than the person receiving the pejorative.  Maybe that's not a perfect example but it seems to be the case.

So... I’m guessing you must be gay, to be the judge of whether those pejoratives have lost their strength?

Because you must have had the recent experience of what it’s like to be cornered by people chanting those terms at you, and wondering whether you’d be beaten... and I guess as a gay man, you confidently decided there’s no way you would be hurt?

[Travis]

The Virginia GOP is trying to throw one of its own Congressmen off the ballot because he officiated a wedding between two of his male employees.

Trump is rolling back civil liberties protections for the LGBT community.

Just because public slurs are fading away doesn't mean racism and homophobia are as well. Governing bodies around the country are still hell bent on legislating LGBT into being a status of less than a citizen.

Being gay in America is still a precarious position.

[Wrenchturner]

It's not what you say that makes you a racist bastard, but your intent. I can make black/white/brown/pick-your-favorite-ethnic-group jokes over a beer all the time (and I have), some of which can be considered very offensive if taken out of context. If anyone feels offended I will probably think of him/her as a snowflake but would respect that he/she has every right to have different set of sensibilities than I do**. To me, there is no harm done here because the "intent" behind these sometimes-offensive-words-spoken-behind-closed-doors-over-a-glass-of-beer was not to cause harm.

You know, when you say something or do something, you are responsible for the outcome?  If you are making a statement that will be taken a certain way by 99% of the listeners, then you are personally responsible for how it will be accepted. Claiming incompetence in understanding the consequences is no excuse.

These are fundamentally conflicting statements.  Agree/disagree?

Yes, I see the conflict, as stated. Perhaps I should clarify a bit.

Let's say I am at work, and I make an insensitive comment about a penny pinching Jew, without realizing that the new intern is Jewish and is taking offense, then I could and should be held responsible (for being an idiot, if nothing else) even if I did not intend to cause "offense" but said it as a joke.

Now, if I make the same comment to a friend I've known for 10 years, over a beer (and he responds "you bloody boring nerd, what do you know of penny pinching....") - it's unlikely to cause offense. The reason is, in this context I am judged not by what I say, but what is the intent of what I say. I could utter far less offensive-sounding words, with far more malicious intent, and cause more offense (e.g. if I made a calm, reasoned argument about Holocaust Denial).

So I am (and should be) judged differently depending on the context. When I am addressing strangers, I need to be careful of the way things will be received. When I am addressing people I know a lot more, I can be far more carefree with the knowledge that as long as I don't "intend" to cause offense, I likely won't. And even if I say something really callous, I will apologize when made aware of my stupidity and things should be fine.

I did not clarify this "context sensitivity" in my last post. Once included, it should resolve the conflict you pointed out - no?

You make a strong case.  I prefer to favor the second scenario more, simply because your audience can change quickly these days.  There's also a distinction between you making an off-color joke at work and a comedian making one when on stage, and those two situations tend to get lumped together.  I don't have a great solution, but I would prefer to rely on assumption of good faith first and foremost.  It would be more ideal in the first case if this person were to assume you are joking FIRST, even though they don't know you.  I know that doesn't cater to people's "truths" or experience and it's a large request, but there does seem to be an eagerness toward offence in our current culture that is not helping the identification of actual bigotry and ignorance.

This might be a controversial statement, but part of what heals bigotry is a lack of incitement from the receiving party.  A good example is the pejoratives "gay" and "fag", which in my opinion have almost entirely lost their strength.  Virtually all people don't care about sexual orientation anymore and homosexuality has been almost fully integrated into culture.  If someone uses these as pejoratives in public, they are almost certain to receive more negative attention than the person receiving the pejorative.  Maybe that's not a perfect example but it seems to be the case.

So... I’m guessing you must be gay, to be the judge of whether those pejoratives have lost their strength?

Because you must have had the recent experience of what it’s like to be cornered by people chanting those terms at you, and wondering whether you’d be beaten... and I guess as a gay man, you confidently decided there’s no way you would be hurt?

Maybe I am.

Are white people allowed to comment in this thread, or are they excluded since they don't have direct experience?

This is a weak argument.

The Virginia GOP is trying to throw one of its own Congressmen off the ballot because he officiated a wedding between two of his male employees.

Trump is rolling back civil liberties protections for the LGBT community.

Just because public slurs are fading away doesn't mean racism and homophobia are as well. Governing bodies around the country are still hell bent on legislating LGBT into being a status of less than a citizen.

Being gay in America is still a precarious position.

Fair enough. 

[Kris]

It's not what you say that makes you a racist bastard, but your intent. I can make black/white/brown/pick-your-favorite-ethnic-group jokes over a beer all the time (and I have), some of which can be considered very offensive if taken out of context. If anyone feels offended I will probably think of him/her as a snowflake but would respect that he/she has every right to have different set of sensibilities than I do**. To me, there is no harm done here because the "intent" behind these sometimes-offensive-words-spoken-behind-closed-doors-over-a-glass-of-beer was not to cause harm.

You know, when you say something or do something, you are responsible for the outcome?  If you are making a statement that will be taken a certain way by 99% of the listeners, then you are personally responsible for how it will be accepted. Claiming incompetence in understanding the consequences is no excuse.

These are fundamentally conflicting statements.  Agree/disagree?

Yes, I see the conflict, as stated. Perhaps I should clarify a bit.

Let's say I am at work, and I make an insensitive comment about a penny pinching Jew, without realizing that the new intern is Jewish and is taking offense, then I could and should be held responsible (for being an idiot, if nothing else) even if I did not intend to cause "offense" but said it as a joke.

Now, if I make the same comment to a friend I've known for 10 years, over a beer (and he responds "you bloody boring nerd, what do you know of penny pinching....") - it's unlikely to cause offense. The reason is, in this context I am judged not by what I say, but what is the intent of what I say. I could utter far less offensive-sounding words, with far more malicious intent, and cause more offense (e.g. if I made a calm, reasoned argument about Holocaust Denial).

So I am (and should be) judged differently depending on the context. When I am addressing strangers, I need to be careful of the way things will be received. When I am addressing people I know a lot more, I can be far more carefree with the knowledge that as long as I don't "intend" to cause offense, I likely won't. And even if I say something really callous, I will apologize when made aware of my stupidity and things should be fine.

I did not clarify this "context sensitivity" in my last post. Once included, it should resolve the conflict you pointed out - no?

You make a strong case.  I prefer to favor the second scenario more, simply because your audience can change quickly these days.  There's also a distinction between you making an off-color joke at work and a comedian making one when on stage, and those two situations tend to get lumped together.  I don't have a great solution, but I would prefer to rely on assumption of good faith first and foremost.  It would be more ideal in the first case if this person were to assume you are joking FIRST, even though they don't know you.  I know that doesn't cater to people's "truths" or experience and it's a large request, but there does seem to be an eagerness toward offence in our current culture that is not helping the identification of actual bigotry and ignorance.

This might be a controversial statement, but part of what heals bigotry is a lack of incitement from the receiving party.  A good example is the pejoratives "gay" and "fag", which in my opinion have almost entirely lost their strength.  Virtually all people don't care about sexual orientation anymore and homosexuality has been almost fully integrated into culture.  If someone uses these as pejoratives in public, they are almost certain to receive more negative attention than the person receiving the pejorative.  Maybe that's not a perfect example but it seems to be the case.

So... I’m guessing you must be gay, to be the judge of whether those pejoratives have lost their strength?

Because you must have had the recent experience of what it’s like to be cornered by people chanting those terms at you, and wondering whether you’d be beaten... and I guess as a gay man, you confidently decided there’s no way you would be hurt?

Maybe I am.

Are white people allowed to comment in this thread, or are they excluded since they don't have direct experience?

This is a weak argument.

The Virginia GOP is trying to throw one of its own Congressmen off the ballot because he officiated a wedding between two of his male employees.

Trump is rolling back civil liberties protections for the LGBT community.

Just because public slurs are fading away doesn't mean racism and homophobia are as well. Governing bodies around the country are still hell bent on legislating LGBT into being a status of less than a citizen.

Being gay in America is still a precarious position.

Fair enough.

I think if you are gonna argue that gay slurs have lost their strength, you might want to have direct experience that speaks to it.

So... ?

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

I can tell you how you fail to solve it, and that's by insisting that both sides have good points etc etc blah blah. Actually, you only have one side. Stop gaslighting black people by telling them racism isn't systemic/they shouldn't take it so seriously/they need to get over the past etc etc. Listen to what the problem is. Acknowledge the hurt. Change what is needed.

[J Boogie]

I think the truth is that the most egregious institutional racism is behind us, but like slavery it caused harm far beyond the time it stood as the law of the land - whether it be the family wealth that was never built up through home ownership due to redlining, or the psychological trauma inflicted from any number of legal injustices. And so the "New Jim Crow" (mass incarceration et al) is no explicitly racist like the original Jim Crow, but rather the State's way of (mis)managing the effects it caused by the original Jim Crow.

I have to disagree with you.

To take a single, simple stat to look at . . . let's examine drug use vs drug arrests.

White people use far more drugs, and sell drugs at about the same rate as black people.  Police target and arrest black people at radically higher rates.  What non-egregiously racist explanation is there for this?

I said "the most" egregious institutional racism is behind us. The disparity in drug-based arrests pales in comparison to the instituional racism of the Jim Crow era.

you are seeing things from a very privileged and academic perspective here. and even if we had somehow gotten rid of institutional racism in the here and now, the effects of institutional racism accrue over generations. black folks alive today have far less wealth, more likelihood of being in prison, a higher chance of dying from everything from covid-19 to police brutality, as a DIRECT RESULT OF HISTORY.

just as white families accrue privileges over every generation during which they are well-fed and able to accrue  wealth and pass those privileges on to their children, black families have accrued the effects of hundreds of years of enslavement and discrimination and exclusion from powerful places, and passed those on to their children.

jboogie, racism is far more complex and deeply embedded in american culture than you think it is. i encourage you to do some more research and reading on redlining, voter suppression, lynching, denial of wealth-building opportunities, and the many other atrocities that white americans have visited on black americans. it's not as simple as, well, MLK happened and now racism is all better. you have a lot to learn here, friend, as the vast majority of us do.

Not to be confrontational, but it basically seems like you have re-stated my original comment. I think we're on the same page.

[boy_bye]

I think the truth is that the most egregious institutional racism is behind us, but like slavery it caused harm far beyond the time it stood as the law of the land - whether it be the family wealth that was never built up through home ownership due to redlining, or the psychological trauma inflicted from any number of legal injustices. And so the "New Jim Crow" (mass incarceration et al) is no explicitly racist like the original Jim Crow, but rather the State's way of (mis)managing the effects it caused by the original Jim Crow.

I have to disagree with you.

To take a single, simple stat to look at . . . let's examine drug use vs drug arrests.

White people use far more drugs, and sell drugs at about the same rate as black people.  Police target and arrest black people at radically higher rates.  What non-egregiously racist explanation is there for this?

I said "the most" egregious institutional racism is behind us. The disparity in drug-based arrests pales in comparison to the instituional racism of the Jim Crow era.

you are seeing things from a very privileged and academic perspective here. and even if we had somehow gotten rid of institutional racism in the here and now, the effects of institutional racism accrue over generations. black folks alive today have far less wealth, more likelihood of being in prison, a higher chance of dying from everything from covid-19 to police brutality, as a DIRECT RESULT OF HISTORY.

just as white families accrue privileges over every generation during which they are well-fed and able to accrue  wealth and pass those privileges on to their children, black families have accrued the effects of hundreds of years of enslavement and discrimination and exclusion from powerful places, and passed those on to their children.

jboogie, racism is far more complex and deeply embedded in american culture than you think it is. i encourage you to do some more research and reading on redlining, voter suppression, lynching, denial of wealth-building opportunities, and the many other atrocities that white americans have visited on black americans. it's not as simple as, well, MLK happened and now racism is all better. you have a lot to learn here, friend, as the vast majority of us do.

Not to be confrontational, but it basically seems like you have re-stated my original comment. I think we're on the same page.

not really. you are basically saying that racism per se is over, and we are just dealing with the after effects.

but that's clearly not true. sure, "the most egregious" institutional racism was slavery, and that is (mostly) over (if you don't count incarcerated people's labor being compelled without payment) ... but even what you might call "less egregious" still shows up as PLENTY egregious for many many people. i mean, try to tell tamir rice's family that racism isn't as bad as it used to be ...

[mathlete]

The United States has a pretty aggressively racist head of state. Many state legislatures take steps to suppress voter turnout on racial lines. The North Carolina GOP did this just a few years ago in what was a pretty open and shut case.