The many debates on systemic racism in America are flawed

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 238
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
There have been many debates on this site with the charge that systemic racism exists in America. Those making the charge often even include definition of systemic racism, and that definition is reasonably consistent that systemic racism, or institutional racism, as opposed to individual racism, includes the necessity of there being current statutes and procedural policies that allow racial animus in this country.

Those debates supporting the proposition that system racism exists all cite documents of government agency reports, academic studies, and industrial reports of demonstrated racial animus, complete with statistical data. The flaw in every one of these arguments, in every debate, is that none of these reports and studies include citation of a single current legal statute or procedural policy that stipulates the allowance of racial animus. None. Zip.

If you claim that systemic racism is based on such laws and policies, why don 't any of you cite them? Your claim, alone, by your own definitions, fail to impress.

Until someone can cite such current laws and policies, by which virtual all proponents of the notion define their cases, all your reports ands studies and statistics are sounding brass, full of fury, but signifying nothing.

Cite a law. Cite a policy. That's all. The caveat is that they must be current. Jim Crow is not current, I couldn't care less what SloJoe says, because he cannot and does not cite currency, either. Find one and give it voice. Then, you have case. Without it, you got squat.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fauxlaw
What definition of SYSTEMIC RACISM are you employing?
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@oromagi
I agree with the definition as stated above:  

Those making the charge often even include definition of systemic racism, and that definition is reasonably consistent that systemic racism, or institutional racism, as opposed to individual racism, includes the necessity of there being current statutes and procedural policies that allow racial animus in this country.
Any racism other than that is individual racism, regardless of the number of individuals who express it, because they are not backed by any legal statute or procedural policy. That they are backed by reports and studies with statistical data, notwithstanding, there is no defined "system" behind it, because reeports and studies, and their data do not have the imprimatur of systemic law and policy at any level of jurisdiction.

If there is, someone would have demonstrated it by now. No one has.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
One might argue, in use of terms de jure and de facto,  that systemic racism in the U.S. is neither de jure, nor de facto. 

De jure systemic racism  implies that whether or not racism exists in reality, there is legal recognition of it.

De facto systemic racism implies that legally and procedurally, there is real systemic racism.

Neither condition holds.
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@fauxlaw
Jim Crow laws existed and is being recognized throughout history since then.

Jim Crow laws practice systemic racism.

Thus, systemic racism, as an idea, exists.
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Intelligence_06
Flying spaghetti monster exists as a concept. Doesn't mean the thing actually exists, only the concept exists. 
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
P1: As usual, when one proposition fails, the syllogism fails, and is not longer a syllogism.

P2: "Jim Crow laws practice systemic racism" is a failed proposition since Jim Crow laws no longer exist to practice currently.

C: In legal practice, systemic racism no longer exists.
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@fauxlaw
I agree with you that systemic racism cannot definitionally exist without any laws or policies that can be identified as discriminatory. It should be case closed. However, this type of reasoning has failed to prevent a large number of Americans succumbing to Wokeness. That means to continue gaining ground in the culture war, we have to go beyond this argument in attacking CRT. Of course, this applies in the context of the U.S. more than other countries.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
What definition of SYSTEMIC RACISM are you employing?
Phenomenal question.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
One might argue, in use of terms de jure and de facto,  that systemic racism in the U.S. is neither de jure, nor de facto. 

De jure systemic racism  implies that whether or not racism exists in reality, there is legal recognition of it.

De facto systemic racism implies that legally and procedurally, there is real systemic racism.

Neither condition holds.

ALSO, [LINK]
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
C: In legal practice, systemic racism no longer exists.
Why do minorities receive longer sentences for the same crimes ? [LINK]
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I agree with you that systemic racism cannot definitionally exist without any laws or policies that can be identified as discriminatory.
Consider the following, [LINK]
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
If you claim that systemic racism is based on such laws and policies, why don 't any of you cite them? Your claim, alone, by your own definitions, fail to impress.
A system that does nothing to mitigate potential (and demonstrable) bias by the individuals responsible for enforcing the law could be considered a system that at best, IGNORES the bias that contaminates its operation and at worst, PROTECTS the bias that contaminates its operation.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Why do minorities receive longer sentences for the same crimes ? 
Because individuals within the system are not following the law, but that's individual racism, not systemic, by definition. The laW DEFINES THE CORRECT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE. People are disobeying the law, and should be prosecuted for that, not by changing the system, yet again.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
A system that does nothing to mitigate potential (and demonstrable) bias by the individuals responsible for enforcing the law could be considered a system that at best, IGNORESthe bias that contaminates its operation and at worst, PROTECTS the bias that contaminates its operation.
So, address the real systemic issue: Prosecution of wrong doers. The system is not the problem. How the system is utilized is the problem. Address THAT. And don't use Hillarious Balloon Girl for your prop.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Deeds are actionable documents of execution of law and policy, but are neither the law nor the policy. Neither the law nor the policy demands the alleged verbiage as reflected on these actionable, executed documents.  Again, individual racism, even on a large scale.

Is the distinction becoming clear, yet?
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
That link did not cite a current law or policy that is discriminatory in it's nature.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
So, address the real systemic issue: Prosecution of wrong doers. The system is not the problem. How the system is utilized is the problem.
THERE IT IS.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
That link did not cite a current law or policy that is discriminatory in it's nature.
The DEA itself was created in order to aggressively incarcerate minorities and hippies.

This has not changed.
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
And do laws regarding illicit drug use only apply to black people? Or is everyone equally forbidden from using certain drugs?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
And do laws regarding illicit drug use only apply to black people? Or is everyone equally forbidden from using certain drugs?
Since blacks are 40% of drug violation arrests but only 13% of admitted drug users, there is an apparent disparity of 27 percentage points.


BUT BEYOND THAT, YOU SEEM TO BE GLOSSING OVER THIS,

"We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” [LINK]
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
You seem to have completely glossed over my questions:

Do laws regarding illicit drug use only apply to black people? Or is everyone equally forbidden from using certain drugs?
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@fauxlaw
I understand the distinction you are making.

  • So when Ronald Greene was beat to death by six Louisiana State troopers on May 10, 2019 that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because no law allowed those troopers to beat an unarmed man to death as punishment for resisting arrest.
  • And when those troopers lied on their arrest reports and lied to Greene's widow saying that Greene had died in an auto accident, that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because no law allowed those troopers to lie and cover up their murder of Greene.
  • And when those troopers turned off their body cameras or else lied about having any body camera footage of the murder that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because the law clearly states that those troopers must have their body cameras running at all times.
  • And when the County Coroner falsely attributed Greene's death to car accident and made no report of the many deep lacerations and bruises and taser prongs stuck in Greene's body, that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because the law clearly requires the County Coroner to make accurate statements during an autopsy.
  • And when Troop F commanders threatened internal investigators who wanted to charge the troopers that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because by law police commanders are supposed to charge known murderers and not cover up when the murders are committed by co-workers.
  • And when the Louisiana State Patrol refused to release any body camera footage or discuss Greene's death for two years that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because  state officials are not allowed by law to knowingly cover up internal investigations or conceal evidence in  a murder.
  • And when the Governor of Louisiana backed the LSP's refusal to release body camera footage or discuss Greene's death because investigation were still active two years out that was not SYSTEM RACISM because Governor's are not permitted by law  to knowingly conceal evidence of a murder.
  • And when the LSP decided to scapegoat one officer and that officer then died in a car accident a few hours later that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because state officials are not allowed by law to scapegoat one man for a murder done by six men.
  • And when the LSP slapped a different officer on the wrist and refused to charge the rest of the murderers with anything, in spite of the recommendations of internal investigators and in spite of the active cover up, that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because police officers are required by law to charge people with murder when detectives have determined that a murder has been committed.
  • And when evidence emerges that Troop F has a long history of accusations of racially motivated violence against black motorists around Monroe, LA and a long history of cover-ups and most of Troop F command resigns to avoid any backlash, that is not SYSTEMIC RACISM because the law does not allow for racially motivated violence against motorists and the law requires the State to prosecute those officials who cover up such incidents.
So, while any reasonable person might conclude that Troop F, the Louisiana State Patrol and the highest-ranking state officials all worked together as an institution to promote racist violence, created a system that covered-up racist violence and therefore forgave if not actively encouraged racist violence no person might reasonably call that system of racist violence SYSTEMIC RACISM so long as the definition of SYSTEMIC RACISM only accounts for the TEXT of current statutes and procedural policies and never accounts for the conduct of racist institutions and systems which may only  be properly seen as large interdependent hierarchies of  officially appointed individuals, independently breaking the law en masse and never as part of any inherently racist system.

I understand the distinction you are making.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Do laws regarding illicit drug use only apply to black people? Or is everyone equally forbidden from using certain drugs?
THEY SHOULD APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL PEOPLE, BUT APPARENTLY THERE IS SOME EXTREMELY PERSISTENT DISTORTION IN ENFORCEMENT.

PERHAPS WE CAN AGREE THAT THERE IS NOT EXPLICIT "RACISM" IN THE LETTER OF THE LAW (although the criminalization of recreational drug use is "racist" in and of itself) BUT ALL THAT ASIDE, THERE IS CLEARLY "RACISM" IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
so long as the definition of SYSTEMIC RACISM only accounts for the TEXT
A system that does nothing to mitigate potential (and demonstrable) bias by the individuals responsible for enforcing the law could be considered a system that at best, IGNORES the bias that contaminates its operation and at worst, PROTECTS the bias that contaminates its operation.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
So then you fault fauxlaw's definition of SYSTEMIC RACISM  for failing to account for the conduct of racist institutions as welll as the failures of government systems built to hold such institutions accountable?
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Wait, why is criminalization of drug use racist?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
So then you fault fauxlaw's definition of SYSTEMIC RACISM  for failing to account for the conduct of racist institutions as welll as the failures of government systems built to hold such institutions accountable?
(IFF) the "institution" itself is 100% "neutral", (AND) (IFF) the "institution" does nothing to safeguard against enforcement BIAS (AND) (IFF) the "institution" generates statistically significant and persistent disparity in outcomes based purely on "racism" that cannot be explained by some other quantifiable factors (THEN) the "institution" is functionally-indistinguishable from a "racist" "institution" (de facto systemic-racism)
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Wait, why is criminalization of drug use racist?
"We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” [LINK]
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Wait, why is criminalization of drug use racist?
Wait, isn't that fact well established?   Weed was legal when George Washington grew it but when William Randolph Hearst bought a monopoly in timber he began to call weed a "drug" and then a "dangerous drug" across his newspaper monopoly, which created the myth of reefer madness just as saloon culture was really taking off with the white people.  Hearst got no pushback because weed was only popular with non-white cultures at the time.  Police enthusiastically embraced that redefinition and quickly made it their favorite felony to arrest (mostly black) people for.  Once weed became popular with white after the 60's, the process of de-criminalization began.  When whites put cocaine in their soda pop and opium in their toothache medicine,  they were called drugs but pharmaceutical drugs.  As whites switched to uppers and downers after their popular adoption during World War II, mostly non-whites were left with the cocaine and opium habits and so those drugs got re-classified from licit to illicit. There was definitely a racist component to Prohibition, given that saloon culture was popularized by (Catholic) immigrants and non-whites.  Temperance was popular within Great Awakening protestants and the protestant reaction to saloon culture was closely associated with the second rise of the Klan.  I think current definitions are definitely working hard to remove racial preferences but I don't think history lets us pretend that which drugs get criminalized and which don't never had a well documented racist bias.