Jump to content
270soft Forum

How Anti-Racist Are You Poll


How to be an Anti-Racist Poll  

6 members have voted

  1. 1. Check all of the below that you DISAGREE with:

    • Denial is the heartbeat of racism.
    • Saying one is "not racist" signifies neutrality: "I am not a racist, but neither am I aggressively against racism." 
    • The opposite of "racist" is not "not racist." It is "anti-racist."
    • Racist and anti-racist are not fixed identities. We can be racist one minute and an antiracist the next. 
    • A racist is one who is supporting a racist policy through their actions or inactions or expressing a racist idea. 
    • Racism is a marriage of racist policies and racist ideas that produce and normalizes racial inequities.
    • The fact that 71% of White families live in owner-occupied homes, while only 45% of Hispanics and 41% of Blacks do is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed.
      0
    • There is no such thing as a race-neutral or nonracist policy, as each policy produces or sustains racial inequity or racial equity. 
    • We all have the power to discriminate. Only a few have the power to make policy.
    • The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination
    • The most threatening racist movement is not the "Alt-Right" but the regular American's drive for a "race-neutral" country. 
    • Racial groups are equals in all their apparant differences--there is nothing right or wrong with any racial group.
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: White people are more likely than Black and Hispanic people to sell drugs, and the races consume drugs at similar rates; yet, Blacks are more likely to be jailed for drug offenses. 
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Non-violent Black drug offenders stay in prison for about the same length of time as violent White drug offenders
    • High unemployment corresponds with violent crime; racial minorities do not correspond with violent crime.
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Black people comprise 13% of the population and at least 26% of those killed by police. 
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Unarmed black men are twice as likely to be killed by police as unarmed white men. 
    • There is no such thing as a dangerous racial group; there are only dangerous individuals. 
      0
    • Colorism is a serious issue among blacks and whites, creating inequities between light color blacks and dark color blacks. 
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Lighter skin people are more likely to receive good paying jobs and get accepted to better schools than dark skin people. 
    • Racist ideas suspend reality and retrofit history, including individual histories
    • Increased voter suppression in the states is making it harder for minorities to vote out people who are not promoting anti-racist policies.
    • A large percentage of black people hold anti-black racist ideas. That is, ideas that sustain or increase racial inequity. 
      0
    • Black people can be racist because black people do have power, even if limited. 
      0
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Only 27% of white cops think the issue of blacks being killed more often than whites by violent cops are signs of a broader problem, compared to the 57% of black cops. 
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: The black poverty rate is 3x the white poverty rate
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Black unemployment is 2x that of white unemployment
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: The median net worth of white families is 10x more than black families
    • To love capitalism is to end up loving racism
    • The idea of the dangerous black neighborhood is the most dangerous racist idea.
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Black women with college education make the same or less as a White woman with a high school degree.
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Black women have to earn an advanced degree to earn as much as a white woman with only a bachelor's degree. 
    • The United States is a racist nation because its policymakers and policies have been racist from the beginning.
    • Racism has always been terminal and curable. Racism has always been recognizable and mortal. 
    • [Check this if you don't disagree with any of the above]
  2. 2. Kendi lists 11 things that should be done to make America more anti-racist. Check those that you DISAGREE with:

    • Admit racial inequity is a problem of bad policy, not bad people. 
    • Identify racial inequity in all its intersections and manifestations. 
    • Investigate and uncover the racist policies causing racial inequity. 
    • Invent or find anti-racist policy that can eliminate racial inequity. 
    • Figure out who or what group has the power to institute anti-racist policy
    • Disseminate and educate about the uncovered racist policy and anti-racist policy correctives
    • Work with sympathetic anti-racist policymakers to institute anti-racist policy
    • Deploy anti-racist power to compel or drive from power the unsympathetic racist policymakers in order to institute the anti-racist policy. 
    • Monitor closely to ensure the anti-racist policy reduces and eliminates racial inequity.
    • When policies fail, do not blame the people. Start over and seek out new and more affective anti-racist treatments until they work. 
    • Monitor closely to prevent new racist policies from being instituted. 
    • [Check this if you don't disagree with any of the above]
  3. 3. After considering the above, Ibram X. Kendi would likely consider me......

    • Anti-racist, because I actively support anti-racist policy and anti-racist ideas.
    • Racist, because even if I am not actively supporting racist policies and ideas, I am indirectly sustaining these ideas through my inaction in supporting anti-racist policies and anti-racist ideas.
    • I disagree with Kendi that being neutral on race is racist and that being just "not racist" is racist. Thus, not being "anti-racist" does not mean one is racist.
  4. 4. Will the United States ever have approximate equality/equity among different races, ethnicities, gender, etc.?

    • Yes, but it will take a lot of effort and determination by federal, state, local governments and the citizens and companies therein.
    • No, our country was founded on an inequality/inequity that will be impossible to shake.
    • I don't know/don't have a hunch
      0
  5. 5. Is capitalism and/or Socialism helping or harming the quest for racial inquity

    • Capitalism is absolutely anti-racist; Socialism is absolutely racist
      0
    • Capitalism is more anti-racist than Socialism
    • Socialism would be more anti-racist than Capitalism
    • Socialism is absolutely anti-racist; Capitalism is absolutely racist
      0
    • It is unclear to me if any of these systems have any impact on racial inequity or not.


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Actinguy said:

The reason for the disqualifications were actual racist government policies that prevented bank investments in minority neighborhoods.  Spread out over the past 100 years, this has created a huge gap in generational wealth between the races.

And very real actual racist policies that continue to criminalize people of color and sabotage any chance of economic progress among communities of color. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ok boomer. This is just so patently false and myopic that that's all you get in response. The fact that you like civil rights protesters to children tells me all I need to know about your views on rac

This might be the most racist thing ever posted on this former not posted by the user Koneke.  Blacks as a whole commit fewer felonies than whites. Blacks are disproportionately incarcerated long

Or... hear me out... we as conservatives begin to make our case. America is a nation infected by racism. This cannot be denied. Our government uses its authority to deprive constitutional liberti

Posted Images

39 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Of course!

Note that major parties usually are offering solutions to the same (or similar) problems. They just think the problem is best solved in different ways.

For example, access to quality education. Conservatives tend to think applying market principles ('school choice') will significantly improve school quality, across the board but especially for students living in poorer neighbourhoods. Liberals tend to think increasing funding for schools (increased teacher pay, smaller class sizes, and so on) and in particular for schools in poorer districts will significantly improve them.

 

You also have a lot of people that refuse to do anything pro-active about race, liberal or conservative. 

Liberal inactive is either—just throw money at it without any clear plan or do something that is mostly just symbolic. 

Conservative inactive on race is either—get defensive or retaliatory towards civil rights supporters and efforts for reform or stick only to rhetoric “More must be done..” but then don’t actually do anything. 

The difference between a liberal and a progressive, by my definition, is that a progressive doesn’t ever show these two forms of inaction. They have a plan—however idealistic—that they wish to throw their money at, and they want real reform and not symbolism. 

The inaction on the part of liberals is mostly done to seemingly check something off their resume for their upcoming reelection. Any real attempt at change carries the risk of blunder and courage is too lacking or re-election is too Comfortably certain to take a risk. 
 

These forms of inaction occur elsewhere also. Doesn’t just apply to race issues. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

And very real actual racist policies that continue to criminalize people of color and sabotage any chance of economic progress among communities of color. 

That is a pretty bold statement you're making. Please show me a policy that "sabotages ANY chance of economic progress among communities of color." If anything, it's the opposite. Colleges and universities and "woke" companies are falling all over themselves to hire minorities. Affirmative action is still a thing (though it shouldn't be). I'm sorry but if you're going to claim that there's some nebulous "system" out there that confers privilege among one racial group and oppression for another, you ought to at least be able to show us what it is. And a disparate impact is not enough, it has to be deliberate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Actinguy said:

The reason for the disqualifications were actual racist government policies that prevented bank investments in minority neighborhoods.  Spread out over the past 100 years, this has created a huge gap in generational wealth between the races.

Key words here are "were" and "spread out over 100 years." Yes there's a generational wealth gap, we should do all we can to help enable people of minority races, but what racist government policies existed in 1999? What is preventing minorities TODAY, in the year 2020, from achieving just as much as whites? What about Asians, they are a minority and they make more and have more success even than whites?? We can't do anything about the past, but the best we can do is create equal opportunity NOW, and we've done a pretty good job in doing that. Again I stand by my original point - forcing equity for equity's sake doesn't get at the underlying issue. In the modern era, where systemic racist policies are all but extinct (if not, then show me one), how do we give minority communities the support they need, if any? Affirmative action and similar programs, at best are papering over the cracks. IF systemic racism did still exist (it doesn't), then end those specific policies, but artificially producing "equitable" outcomes helps no one and accomplishes nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, servo75 said:

Key words here are "were" and "spread out over 100 years." Yes there's a generational wealth gap, we should do all we can to help enable people of minority races, but what racist government policies existed in 1999? What is preventing minorities TODAY, in the year 2020, from achieving just as much as whites? What about Asians, they are a minority and they make more and have more success even than whites?? We can't do anything about the past, but the best we can do is create equal opportunity NOW, and we've done a pretty good job in doing that. Again I stand by my original point - forcing equity for equity's sake doesn't get at the underlying issue. In the modern era, where systemic racist policies are all but extinct (if not, then show me one), how do we give minority communities the support they need, if any? Affirmative action and similar programs, at best are papering over the cracks. IF systemic racism did still exist (it doesn't), then end those specific policies, but artificially producing "equitable" outcomes helps no one and accomplishes nothing.

I have asked you this question at THREE separate times on this thread, and each times it was pivotal and question to the statement it was in response to, and it is equally so in response to this one. You have ignored it THREE times, and each succeeding statement it's been in response has shown a complete and utter lack of even the basest acknowledgement of the purpose of the question, for a FOURTH time, is:

On ‎7‎/‎12‎/‎2020 at 5:10 PM, Patine said:

Are you aware of the difference, especially regarding societies and the application of laws, judiciary action, and governance, of the terms "de jure," and "de facto?"

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, servo75 said:

That is a pretty bold statement you're making. Please show me a policy that "sabotages ANY chance of economic progress among communities of color." If anything, it's the opposite. Colleges and universities and "woke" companies are falling all over themselves to hire minorities. Affirmative action is still a thing (though it shouldn't be). I'm sorry but if you're going to claim that there's some nebulous "system" out there that confers privilege among one racial group and oppression for another, you ought to at least be able to show us what it is. And a disparate impact is not enough, it has to be deliberate.

*Sigh*

It's called the Predatory Welfare State. It's called the Police State. It's called the War on Drugs. It's what Lyndon Johnson was talking about when he said "I'll have those n****** voting Democrat for 200 years." You've already had redlining explained to you several times so you should be able to piece this out.

Wealth in America is generational. Everyone knows this. The best econonomic indicator for your level of success is how successful your parents were before you, this is true for the vast supermajority of Americans. What is the most valuable thing you own? It is likely your property/home. White American families have been building wealth since they first immigrated to the United States. Black American families, however, have been forced to start over and over again each generation really up until redlining was banned in 1964. So that's 4 centuries of wealth development for white America and roughly 50 years for Black America. We then add in the predatory welfare state.

This is the targeted attack on the black family launched by the Great Society. This is the continuation of dependence in black community. Continuing to block out investment in those communities, and I'm not talking about just public investment, I'm talking about the private investment that comes with resources being readily available in those communities. Once the economic rug was pulled out from under the black communities it was incredibly easy to criminalize them. You overpolice the neighborhoods and throw a slanted criminal justice system at them that targets black people for the same crime but at different rates such as Drug policy that held predominantly black-used Crack at 100x longer than predominantly white-used Coke. Or the 1994 crime bill which amped up penalties and targeted black offenders even more. This is how you disguise modern systemic racism. You pull out the economic rug and then make it easier to criminalize entire populations of people.

I oppose affirmative action in private spheres, I think it's unconstitutional. But what is a far greater evil than affirmative action is all of the targeted laws that have demolished black economic prosperity and home ownership in this country and have led to mass incarceration and criminalization of people of color.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, servo75 said:

Key words here are "were" and "spread out over 100 years." Yes there's a generational wealth gap, we should do all we can to help enable people of minority races, but what racist government policies existed in 1999? What is preventing minorities TODAY, in the year 2020, from achieving just as much as whites? What about Asians, they are a minority and they make more and have more success even than whites?? We can't do anything about the past, but the best we can do is create equal opportunity NOW, and we've done a pretty good job in doing that. Again I stand by my original point - forcing equity for equity's sake doesn't get at the underlying issue. In the modern era, where systemic racist policies are all but extinct (if not, then show me one), how do we give minority communities the support they need, if any? Affirmative action and similar programs, at best are papering over the cracks. IF systemic racism did still exist (it doesn't), then end those specific policies, but artificially producing "equitable" outcomes helps no one and accomplishes nothing.

What has held them back in 1999?  The previous 100 years.

Thats what I’m talking about when I’m discussing generation wealth.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

I have asked you this question at THREE separate times on this thread, and each times it was pivotal and question to the statement it was in response to, and it is equally so in response to this one. You have ignored it THREE times, and each succeeding statement it's been in response has shown a complete and utter lack of even the basest acknowledgement of the purpose of the question, for a FOURTH time, is:

On 7/12/2020 at 7:10 PM, Patine said:

Are you aware of the difference, especially regarding societies and the application of laws, judiciary action, and governance, of the terms "de jure," and "de facto?"

I truly do not think he does at this point. This is the crux of the argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hilarious that @Patine gets bogged down in these Vietnams of arguments with @Actinguy and @Wiw and seems to ignore engaging with @servo75 who is clearly stating stuff more worthy of condemnation. On a side note, I'm glad @Reagan04 and @Actinguy are debating against @servo75 antiquated, provincial racial-ignorant stances. I'm pretty busy this week, but he's been mostly ignoring what I've said anyway and is responding to other people. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I find it hilarious that @Patine gets bogged down in these Vietnams of arguments with @Actinguy and @Wiw and seems to ignore engaging with @servo75 who is clearly stating stuff more worthy of condemnation. On a side note, I'm glad @Reagan04 and @Actinguy are debating against @servo75 antiquated, provincial racial-ignorant stances. I'm pretty busy this week, but he's been mostly ignoring what I've said anyway and is responding to other people. 

How have I ignored engaging with @servo75, if I may ask? He's ignored a pivotal question that calls out his views entirely FOUR TIMES, and I have tried to drill this forth with him. How is that "ignoring engaging with him." I think the fact that he has ignored this well-placed question four times shows his position has pretty much damned itself, as has his refusal to engage with me, because my question is the one he just can't touch with a self-righteous and smug dismissal so easily. I think you really should reevaluate my tactic, here, and give me some credit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Patine said:

How have I ignored engaging with @servo75, if I may ask? He's ignored a pivotal question that calls out his views entirely FOUR TIMES, and I have tried to drill this forth with him. How is that "ignoring engaging with him." I think the fact that he has ignored this well-placed question four times shows his position has pretty much damned itself, as has his refusal to engage with me, because my question is the one he just can't touch with a self-righteous and smug dismissal so easily. I think you really should reevaluate my tactic, here, and give me some credit.

Oh never mind then. I thought that was in response to @Actinguy

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2020 at 7:01 PM, Patine said:

I have asked you this question at THREE separate times on this thread, and each times it was pivotal and question to the statement it was in response to, and it is equally so in response to this one. You have ignored it THREE times, and each succeeding statement it's been in response has shown a complete and utter lack of even the basest acknowledgement of the purpose of the question, for a FOURTH time, is:

 

 

On 7/16/2020 at 7:04 PM, Reagan04 said:

I truly do not think he does at this point. This is the crux of the argument.

Don't tell me what I do and do not understand. What is the relevance of the question?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2020 at 7:42 PM, vcczar said:

I find it hilarious that @Patine gets bogged down in these Vietnams of arguments with @Actinguy and @Wiw and seems to ignore engaging with @servo75 who is clearly stating stuff more worthy of condemnation. On a side note, I'm glad @Reagan04 and @Actinguy are debating against @servo75 antiquated, provincial racial-ignorant stances. I'm pretty busy this week, but he's been mostly ignoring what I've said anyway and is responding to other people. 

The argument has been about systemic racism. Talk about ignoring questions, I keep asking for a specific law with racial intent as it's intended purpose and no one can provide an answer. So the matter is closed as far as I'm concerned. All this stuff about de jure and de facto, state your reason for asking this or what difference it makes and we can talk further. Otherwise I will not go around in circles. If you're going to call me racially ignorant, antiquted and provincial, you might want to at least attempt to give some examples and back yourself up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, servo75 said:

 

Don't tell me what I do and do not understand. What is the relevance of the question?

The relevance of my question is that your ENTIRE argument rests on the situation at hand being judged on a PURELY de jure interpretation of affairs and thus saying, "no institutional racism exists and opportunity for all citizens is equal." You are utterly and completely (and possibly strategically) ignoring the de facto part of the equation, which is by far the most serious and real part in the modern day and age.

Link to post
Share on other sites

De jure and institutional are practically the same thing. De facto is not law. De facto therefore cannot be institutional or systemic.

There, you have my answer. Like it, or don't like it. But this conversation is concluded as far as I'm concerned. I've stated my case, and I'm far too busy to go in circles or down unnecessary rabbit holes. I've said when I came back to the forum that I would avoid such things, and I've said far too much on the subject already. I will debate no further unless provided with a new fact or argument. This is pointless.

One more thing, if you're going to insult me @Patine @vcczar, at least have the decency do it to my face, instead of in the third person. That will incur my wrath and disrespect more than anything else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, servo75 said:

De jure and institutional are practically the same thing. De facto is not law. De facto therefore cannot be institutional or systemic.

You just don't get it, do you? You seem to be a babe in the woods about a lot of harsh realities in this world that just clash with your antiquated, naïve, and ivory tower world view, and shut them out through utter denial - and try to shove this denial down a lot of peoples'  throats. The world is, in fact, an ugly, corrupt, broken, disappointing, unjust, unfair, and, at least, atrocious place. And before you say the common saw I know you like to say on these statements, it's not just because of some "political Left destroying proper Constitutional law and killing pure Libertarianism, which would make our world ideal if properly followed." The fault is not a partisan or ideological one, and is not part of the socio-political divide, though putting all, or most, of the blame, "on the other side," is a very common tactic to cope with things - the "stab in the back myth," within Nazi ideology was also such a socio-political scapegoating as much so as any going on today. It's a actually a failing of human nature, and the whole byzantine web weaved by social and political interactions - and no one movement is going to be the "heroic," one to solve all these problems by just getting their way completely - that will horribly make things worse, no matter who that group is. But, the fact of the matter, the letter of the law is not the only factor in the question at hand, and to say it is is absurdly detached from the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, servo75 said:

De jure and institutional are practically the same thing. De facto is not law. De facto therefore cannot be institutional or systemic.

There, you have my answer. Like it, or don't like it. But this conversation is concluded as far as I'm concerned. I've stated my case, and I'm far too busy to go in circles or down unnecessary rabbit holes. I've said when I came back to the forum that I would avoid such things, and I've said far too much on the subject already. I will debate no further unless provided with a new fact or argument. This is pointless.

One more thing, if you're going to insult me @Patine @vcczar, at least have the decency do it to my face, instead of in the third person. That will incur my wrath and disrespect more than anything else.

It was to your face or I wouldn’t have tagged you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

You just don't get it, do you? You seem to be a babe in the woods about a lot of harsh realities in this world that just clash with your antiquated, naïve, and ivory tower world view, and shut them out through utter denial - and try to shove this denial down a lot of peoples'  throats. The world is, in fact, an ugly, corrupt, broken, disappointing, unjust, unfair, and, at least, atrocious place. And before you say the common saw I know you like to say on these statements, it's not just because of some "political Left destroying proper Constitutional law and killing pure Libertarianism, which would make our world ideal if properly followed." The fault is not a partisan or ideological one, and is not part of the socio-political divide, though putting all, or most, of the blame, "on the other side," is a very common tactic to cope with things - the "stab in the back myth," within Nazi ideology was also such a socio-political scapegoating as much so as any going on today. It's a actually a failing of human nature, and the whole byzantine web weaved by social and political interactions - and no one movement is going to be the "heroic," one to solve all these problems by just getting their way completely - that will horribly make things worse, no matter who that group is. But, the fact of the matter, the letter of the law is not the only factor in the question at hand, and to say it is is absurdly detached from the world.

I'll say it once more. Provide me the name of a system or institution that is racist in its intent and I'll take everything back. If not we're done here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, servo75 said:

I'll say it once more. Provide me the name of a system or institution that is racist in its intent and I'll take everything back. If not we're done here.

That easy? Lol. DEA. Right there. For a law, current day Cannabis laws were created with the intention to deport hispanics, who are the time were the primary users of the plant. We can see that the intent behind it 1.) Hasn't changed due to the fact that Hispanics and other POC are arrested for cannabis use more than whites, despite whites using it more. 2.) Hispanics were deported on possession charges en-masse during the Bush, Obama and now Trump admin. 3.) There was no other reason to establish cannabis laws rather than to cuff people on small infringements so that they were no longer a nuisance to the police. It is pretty important to note almost all Cannabis raids until the 1960s were in Mexican-American neighborhoods, this ramping up during the Great Depression.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, servo75 said:

I'll say it once more. Provide me the name of a system or institution that is racist in its intent and I'll take everything back. If not we're done here.

You haven't been paying attention to @Reagan04, @Actinguy, @vcczar, and myself. The laws, themselves, as specifically written, are not racist. But there are "grey areas," in their de facto enforcement and application at Local, State, and, at times, Federal levels that all effectively racist policy to be gotten away with without being formally "legal," or "illegal," - as I said, these many "grey areas," - the "Devil is in the Details," as the idiom goes. The law-enforcement, judicial and correctional systems are a glaring example of this, but there are others. Plus, because the great majority of wealth and power over commerce is in the hands of White people, a fair number of whom are racist - even if not publicly - and the vaunted laws of freedom of business you so praise, allow - policies in hiring, promotion, buying and selling, where to open businesses and make them easily available to whom, whom to prioritize laying off, etc. - allows racist conduct to be enacted unchallengeably in many situations there. But just demanding the strict "letter of the law," to prove or disprove the whole issue is either very disingenuous or very naïve, one of the two.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patine said:

You haven't been paying attention to @Reagan04, @Actinguy, @vcczar, and myself. The laws, themselves, as specifically written, are not racist. But there are "grey areas," in their de facto enforcement and application at Local, State, and, at times, Federal levels that all effectively racist policy to be gotten away with without being formally "legal," or "illegal," - as I said, these many "grey areas," - the "Devil is in the Details," as the idiom goes. The law-enforcement, judicial and correctional systems are a glaring example of this, but there are others. Plus, because the great majority of wealth and power over commerce is in the hands of White people, a fair number of whom are racist - even if not publicly - and the vaunted laws of freedom of business you so praise, allow - policies in hiring, promotion, buying and selling, where to open businesses and make them easily available to whom, whom to prioritize laying off, etc. - allows racist conduct to be enacted unchallengeably in many situations there. But just demanding the strict "letter of the law," to prove or disprove the whole issue is either very disingenuous or very naïve, one of the two.

He said intent. Luckily there are a lot of laws that were written at the time with the intent of the author to be racist, he knows this, so do you and I. He just wants us to provide a direct quote of "This law applies only to white people", well obviously they don't exist anymore, that verbiage ended in 1968. That doesn't mean racism ended in 1968.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, wolves said:

He said intent. Luckily there are a lot of laws that were written at the time with the intent of the author to be racist, he knows this, so do you and I. He just wants us to provide a direct quote of "This law applies only to white people", well obviously they don't exist anymore, that verbiage ended in 1968. That doesn't mean racism ended in 1968.

No. Racism did not end in 1968 and that was never my claim. When people say "institutional" and "systemic" they need to provide an institution or a system that endorses racism DE JURE.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, wolves said:

That easy? Lol. DEA. Right there. For a law, current day Cannabis laws were created with the intention to deport hispanics, who are the time were the primary users of the plant. We can see that the intent behind it 1.) Hasn't changed due to the fact that Hispanics and other POC are arrested for cannabis use more than whites, despite whites using it more. 2.) Hispanics were deported on possession charges en-masse during the Bush, Obama and now Trump admin. 3.) There was no other reason to establish cannabis laws rather than to cuff people on small infringements so that they were no longer a nuisance to the police. It is pretty important to note almost all Cannabis raids until the 1960s were in Mexican-American neighborhoods, this ramping up during the Great Depression.

 

I have a lot of problems with the DEA, and with our drug laws. And I do agree that at first they may have had racist intent. The word "marijuana" was an invention to make the drug seem "more Mexican" to drive public opinion against it. But that was then, this is 2020. Btw, I'm against ALL drug raids and ALL incarceration for minor felonies. As for POC being arrested for cannabis use (which let me be clear, NO ONE should be arrested for) more than whites, I'd like to see the statistics on that, and the breakdown of the crimes being arrested for. It's very easy to point to higher arrest rates for blacks and Hispanics but is that racist in intent? Do they commit more crimes per capita? The FBI statistics say yes. Our disconnect here is on two words, "systemic" and "institutional." When you say a SYSTEM, you imply that the entire system, the entire law is designated for the purpose of bringing down a race of people who they deem inferior to themselves.

I never said that there's no racism, no inequity. Obviously there is. Racism will always be a part of our society and no amount of "multiculturalism" or "sensitivity training" will get rid of it. But do we address the source of the problem, including legal, cultural, funding, or do we simply blanketly blame this etherial and nebulous "systemic" racism and concern ourselves more with guaranteeing equitable OUTCOMES rather than equal opportunity? Because you can't have both. Why don't we offer more school choice in the inner city communities (which by the way polls have shown inner city minorities really do want), more options, loosen up regulations and minimum wage restrictions that simply price young people out of gainful employment from which they can learn vital skills and responsibilities? All of this government intervention to force-feed equity ignores the underlying problems, and in many cases makes them worse.

I just refuse to live in the past and would prefer to focus on where we go from here. Blaming systemic racism for every ill facing the POC communities is futile, pointless, it picks at the scabs of the past rather than trying to heal them!

The problem with that equity vs. equality graphic you're using ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, servo75 said:

No. Racism did not end in 1968 and that was never my claim. When people say "institutional" and "systemic" they need to provide an institution or a system that endorses racism DE JURE.

The written law, as worded, is not always, or even, usually a good indicator of "institutional," or "systemic," ANYTHING. You put too much faith in the laws, as written, themselves, and not enough appreciation in those humans who are empowered or delegated to enforce them, interpret them, or protect others against their breaches, on the ground. Plus, as I've said, current corporate laws allow corporate employers, real estate barons, providers of services, etc., to enact a lot of racist policies and get away with it - and, yes, the corporate marketplace is an institution is society, by definition, even if not a government-owned one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, servo75 said:

I have a lot of problems with the DEA, and with our drug laws. And I do agree that at first they may have had racist intent. The word "marijuana" was an invention to make the drug seem "more Mexican" to drive public opinion against it. But that was then, this is 2020. Btw, I'm against ALL drug raids and ALL incarceration for minor felonies. As for POC being arrested for cannabis use (which let me be clear, NO ONE should be arrested for) more than whites, I'd like to see the statistics on that, and the breakdown of the crimes being arrested for. It's very easy to point to higher arrest rates for blacks and Hispanics but is that racist in intent? Do they commit more crimes per capita? The FBI statistics say yes. Our disconnect here is on two words, "systemic" and "institutional." When you say a SYSTEM, you imply that the entire system, the entire law is designated for the purpose of bringing down a race of people who they deem inferior to themselves.

I never said that there's no racism, no inequity. Obviously there is. Racism will always be a part of our society and no amount of "multiculturalism" or "sensitivity training" will get rid of it. But do we address the source of the problem, including legal, cultural, funding, or do we simply blanketly blame this etherial and nebulous "systemic" racism and concern ourselves more with guaranteeing equitable OUTCOMES rather than equal opportunity? Because you can't have both. Why don't we offer more school choice in the inner city communities (which by the way polls have shown inner city minorities really do want), more options, loosen up regulations and minimum wage restrictions that simply price young people out of gainful employment from which they can learn vital skills and responsibilities? All of this government intervention to force-feed equity ignores the underlying problems, and in many cases makes them worse.

I just refuse to live in the past and would prefer to focus on where we go from here. Blaming systemic racism for every ill facing the POC communities is futile, pointless, it picks at the scabs of the past rather than trying to heal them!

The problem with that equity vs. equality graphic you're using ...

 

e93a3c3.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...