I recently had the good fortune to attend a conference that included a small group session purposed to discuss issues of systemic racism. Despite an atmosphere of (and explicit call to) collegiality, it was – shall we say – a rather passionate discussion.
The discussion subject was not whether America is “systemically racist,” a question that seems uniquely designed to provoke dysfunction, but of course this became the conversation’s focus. The substance of the discussion itself turns out not to matter, and I mean that quite literally. No clarity was achieved, although one participant passionately – as we’re agreeing to say – marched out in the middle.
The points that one might think are pertinent here, like that the first people to opine in the group (who happened to be black) both expressed that they themselves did not perceive having experienced racism in any significant way, are irrelevant. Within minutes, the dialogue fell to arguing over whether or not the United States is “systematically racist” or not—and that’s not a thing. “Systematic racism” isn’t a thing even in the Critical Theories of race, which have nevertheless managed to define an entire pantheon of species of racism that American people of color, and especially blacks, allegedly face in an “ordinary and routine” fashion.
Something jumps out here, then. Since at least half of the people weighing in on the problem were discussing it with a term that doesn’t exist, we should conclude that no one in the group had a clear enough idea of the relevant subject to discuss it with the clarity, depth, and nuance necessary to navigate such a sensitive topic. I think this is emblematic of part of the disconnect in the current national and international conversation about race: everyone cares a lot, and people have a lot of skin in the game (or they’re putting it in there), but they don’t have the foggiest idea what they’re really arguing over. Critical Race Theory is making this worse, not better.
It would be easy to believe that arguing over “systematic racism” instead of the similar-sounding “systemic racism” was a simple matter of ignorance or confusion. Maybe it is, but my sole contribution to this group discussion was to try to address that problem by asking one straightforward question: “Can anyone in this group, aside from myself, distinguish clearly between systemic racism, structural racism, and institutional racism?” The reply was swift and implied a finality to my commentary that I contentedly agreed to with a wry grin: “No!”
So there was some measure of self-awareness in the group, then — just not of the fact that knowing what one is talking about in a conversation full of emotional landmines is something close to square one. Yet this lack of clarity at the heart of discussing “systemic racism” isn’t a bug – it’s a feature. The now-famous “anti-racist” activist-historian Ibram X. Kendi has even bailed on the term in favor of the stand-in “policy,” which he uses in the broadest possible way (just as postmodern philosopher Michel Foucault famously did with terms like “politics” and “government” to mean roughly everything that governs people and their affairs, including themselves). The term — and the concept the term hopes to describe — is just a bad one.
Systemic racism is “racism” that’s built into and applied by “the system.” What system? Well, everything, essentially. Some features of “the system” in which systemic racism haunts our friends and neighbors of color are sometimes named explicitly: language, knowledge, norms, expectations, assumptions, law, law enforcement, criminal justice, culture, environment, history and its legacies, and endlessly so on. Systemic racism exists anywhere someone has enough will to find it. Other features of this omnipresent bigotry are far vaguer. They’re the products of “socialization,” which occurs, we must presume, in mysterious ways. Suffice it to say, nobody knows what “systemic racism” is at all except everyone who is ardently impassioned about arguing that they’ve experienced it, for whom it is everything that might make their point.
This conviction rightly implies that something that people “know when they see it” constitutes “systemic racism.” It’s a lack of equity, often coupled with a perception that some unfairness is at the bottom of the “the system’s” failure to produce equal outcomes (that’s what equity means, after all). Well, certainly, there isn’t equity in the sense that the various racial demographics statistically show equal outcomes, regardless of any inputs that might be called independent variables.
Further, sometimes there are legitimate claims upon unfairness: discrimination isn’t wholly over, can be subtle, and so on, and there are certainly statistical “racial” differences in starting places for many people that are the direct result of patently unjust — in fact, horrific — events in history. There are also the inertial hangovers of those historical injustices, many of which are barely a generation removed and exist quite poignantly in living memory. There are some reasons to believe that they also generate a set of perpetuating factors that can, in turn, seem (or be) legitimately unjust.
Not many people doubt any of this, though. The statistics are easy to read, even if they’re hard to explain, and we’re all aware that there are genuine issues of discrimination that occur at least sometimes in ways that, in aggregate, can be consequential. The question, though, is whether either of the terms “systemic” or “racism” rightly apply to this state of affairs.
Given that the implications are enormous if the answers are “yes” and that no one seems to know what systemic racism is clearly enough to even use the right word while discussing it, a more prudent answer would be “probably not.” “Systemic racism” is probably no better a way to describe the collection of circumstances and phenomena that certain activists want to associate with statistics about racial inequities than is “systematic racism,” which isn’t a thing at all—because it doesn’t happen anymore. “The system” is just too vague a locus for such an important question, and “racism” is necessarily too much a matter of intention and belief to seem to qualify for the word that already exists to describe it: disenfranchisement.
Statistically speaking, racial inequities exist, and this demands more clarity, not less, about the relevant issues. “Systemic racism,” as a concept, takes us directly away from this clarity and any possibility of a solution (as fundamentally remaking “the system” is a really bad plan of action and doing so by centering race is a clear move in the opposite direction from what we should want). Maybe, then, rather than getting lost in hot-button questions about vague concepts like “is America systemically racist?”, we’d be better off taking a step back to realize that it’s the wrong question. The idea itself doesn’t mean very much and means nothing that can lead us in the direction of solving any of the problems that bring it up in the first place.
This article was originally published at Roca News.
53 comments
So the person you mention is basically saying. “Feeling don’t care about your facts”. The persons actions are stupid but understandable. They are “True Believers” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer
If you enter into a discussion about the condition of anything, you concede the major assumption of that subject. Therefore, many times, you have already lost. Those who control the “narrative,” a pop term, will always get their way.
There are no races. This is the view of the often invoked “science,” as though it were a data bank, though college profs will not say that in class.
The concept found traction in the late Eighteenth Century as a narrative to justify social Darwinism which blessed the economic “survival of the fittest,” a quiet assumption of today’s elite or oligarchy, they being the fittest. However, there is a great hoopla that is sincere, but it is not the concept of racism and is sloppy logical constructions that leads to fake riots, doesn’t it?
Rather we are tribal animals. Our nature is that of looking to our tribe for security and sustenance, often a psychological one. We tend to favor our tribe and defend it. America was never “racist” though some of its yahoos adopted the buzz word as a way to protect their tribe, as perceived. The Civil War eventually became a moral battle regarding slavery though many in the South fought for states rights, a.k.a “don’t tread on me.” The racist America killed over 600,000 in a war to end slavery.
Bottom line, the world is filled with many cultures and traditions. Tribes have leaders and they can keep power by fomenting fear and anger with the tribe, as today’s subversives, the so-called “left,” demonstrate. America has been one of the most receptive to foreign cultures.
The only rule regarding citizenship in New Amsterdam (early NYC) was anyone was welcomed as long as they worked and believed in one God. If you read Dobson’s works, you see an entire literature and history that is being cancelled: the US was one nation under God. These were not buzz words.
Where all people understood, even the bad guys, the common law is based on the Bible and that there was an objective moral code to follow, this one belief system generated a tribe, that of “Christians” not religions, that was based upon individual morality and code of conduct. This is why we used to be a republic, another term redefined to con the people.
The census defines, now, “hispanic” as a race. ? You can’t prove that to people who are proud of their Spanish ancestry. Don’t dare raise that notion in public. More and more “races” give rise to more and more law and control, which are pointless other than as a statist tactic. Stupidity seems to flow from ignorance. George Orwell’s 1984 put hope for the future in the “proles,” the proletariat. The hero learned that was a pipe dream.
We did OK as a Christian (which included Hebrew tradition) democratic republic. To bad we let the tribalist dumb down the proles.
To gain perspective read Furgeson’s “Civilization: the West and the Rest.”
There is no racism, but their is identity politics of the Marxist tradition. There are cultures. There is prejudice for one’s tribe, which is NOT discrimination. Then, is an objective morality or none, as any good Marxist will explain. All this is simple.
Indeed
I was not surprised to read in the bio after the article that the author is a mathematician. In fact, as I read along I began to think of the differences in how our minds, perhaps brains, are wired. Some people require facts that can be measured and logically followed, others have what us called magical thinking, e.g., step on a crack break your mother’s back. My sister is always talking about karma. A friend reminds me whenever I speak with him about how astrology foretells all events. Yes, it helps answer some cumbersome and unsettling questions, but it’s still nothing less than fantasy. CJT works on this level. People who require facts, figures, empirical evidence and objective information are in a tail spin right now.
I think you are right. “Systemic racism” really does seem like “step on a crack, break your mother’s back.” This sort of thing is what always pushes me out of ideological groups. I’ve entered a lot of movements (the new age medicine movement, feminism, etc) with the hope that they shared my vision of “helping people live better lives.” I leave because it’s all feeling-based, toothless, exhausting, and inconsistent. It always ends with someone telling me that I take things too literally, or I didn’t believe enough, or that I’m obsessed with facts and figures and those things don’t matter.
They do matter. Those people are just stupid. Sorry, not sorry.
Nothing will be resolved to the satisfaction of neo-Marxists and the only viable response is one which is intentionally not allowed in the debate, the existence of God, hence the suppression of religion. Try to set aside religion and think of the God of Sinai in the context of an unfathomable intellect that chose a narrow sliver of humanity to carry and act as guardians of His instruction, Torah, as part of an actual plan to elevate mankind…and in context the stringent laws and codes of Torah make perfect sense.
This vast and unfathomable intellect does not recognize race per se but does recognize there are greater and lesser peoples and cultures, with the “prime directive” being the greater is to elevate, not rule, the lesser but never is the greater to be made less by contact with the lesser. It is a truth that has bound the Jews into the most creative and disciplined people the world has ever known.
In your book “Cynical Theories” you discuss the post-modern concept of “epistemic racism” meaning, as I understand it, the idea that the means of acquiring knowledge is limited and defined by one’s race and personal experience. I was curious at the time (and am still curious) if even the concept of “systemic racism” is simply a malaprop version of this more subtle postmodern concept.
I found that Americans understand racism the best when it is applied to the Jewish community and Europe. Using that group as a template, systemic & systematic racism are well documented throughout Europe culminating in the Holocaust. We have memorials in major cities to “never forget” even though this happened in Europe by Europeans against Europeans. The terms that were created to describe this form of racism took place in the late 19th and early 20th century. So new terms are invented and such kind of racism is documented.. If that is true for American Jews then why not American blacks
I’ve been suspicious of that for the past year or so: the people saying “systemic racism” ad nauseum have no idea what the word means, much less can provide supporting evidence. And they don’t care. They use words for effect, not to convey truth.
I have never been a Marxist, I despise postmodernism as a wacko ‘philosophy’, and the third wave of feminism (meaning Gender studies) has a lot of BS in it. However, concepts like ‘systemic racism’ or ‘white privilege’ don’t need a wacko theory to stand on its own.
Please watch it and tell me. If this is not systemic racism, then what is it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrHIQIO_bdQ&list=PLGIPdbOn5CzilPGp-dComFxa8BAqEXxNd&index=1
This doesn’t have to be explained as “system racism.” This is quite literally a cartoon of reality in every sense of the word. Yes this phenomenon shown in the video loosely exists out there. But reality is much more complicated than this. There are other explanations for why this sort of division occurs. It’s too much for a comment.
The problem with all these arguments is that they are narrow, and are unsubstantiated by real evidence. Evidence isn’t “this explanation I found online makes sense to me, therefore it’s correct, what else could be the explanation?” You have to say to yourself, “Let me think of all the ways this ISN’T the explanation, to break my hypothesis, to be sure that it really IS the explanation.” This is called falsification. You relentlessly try to show ways in which your hypothesis is incorrect.
What else might explain differing schools, opportunities, employment, income, etc.? I’m not going there in this comment. Nobody wants to have those conversations because they raise really upsetting and uncomfortable points.
Here’s why the simplistic argument of “systemic racism” falls apart: https://youtu.be/TBDfMQ27Asw?si=cj7t5IT4MTxMii3s
how can so many be so uninformed? Americans as a whole dont care about this subject. what most of us see is we are being forced to change our preferences.. i have a right not to like ugly people dont i?? dont i have a right not to like any race i want to dislike?? dont i have a right to my own preference?? who cares about these made up issues that the left bring to the surface. just because most Americans remain silent does not mean we will remain that way when it is time to take action. the war of words is destroyed by actions. the woke crowd is a joke. the real influence in america stands armed self trained and laughing at these intellectual notions.. we are all colors.all faiths, standing in one crowd without fear of tomorrow…
I enjoyed the article. I agree that “Systemic Racism” as a concept is absent of clarity and dangerously narrow in focus.
Yet, the concept of “Systemic Racism” is powerfully seductive and politically successful; its legacy is complete with an origin story of legalized slavery, eugenics, and a long tail of civil rights offenses and legislation. Those looking for a new “original sin” to hang their guilt or grievance will find within its popularity a rich source of comforting scripture and a congregation more than willing to salve anxieties with companies, neighborhoods, and governments.
So while I enjoy your writing, James, I am looking for your thoughts on what social theories and practices may provide a more suitable framework for evaluating and improving our civil structures. You and the other brave and brilliant minds who contribute to this site are a welcome antidote against the unsubstantiated echo chamber of critical race theory; I just wonder where you’d like to take those enlightened by your insights and looking for alternative models for social justice.
Or, as others have succinctly asked, if “is America systemically racist?” the wrong question, what is the right question?
To be more specific: what would you recommend as the right models and measures to evolve our social contract?
This is a thoughtful article that would have greatly benefited from a brief, cogent restatement of the core idea. It would have made it more accessible and palatable to those who are just beginning to come to grips with these arguments against illiberalism. Here is how I received it.
Systematic racism can be a “thing” if the system is well-defined and manifests concrete policies which support preference on the basis of race (i.e., apartheid). Thus, it can be identified and abolished.
Systemic racism is not a “thing” because there is no clearly specified system and no explicit policies or mechanisms based on racial preference. Thus, there is nothing beyond the possibility of an endless, amorphous “struggle.”
If “is America systemically racist?” the wrong question, then what is “the right” question?
A valid question I’d also like to see the answer to.
Perhaps a better question is “Why do free (democratic, market-based) societies produce unequal outcomes?”
“If we are free, we won’t be equal. If we are equal, we won’t be free.”
Rather, Patrick, how do populations in free societies produce their unequal outcomes?
Not to mention blacks because it’s so hot:
Why do Asian-Americans surpass whites?
Why do white Appalachians live in poverty?
Even the questions feel pushy unless we can continue to believe in scientific observation, recording, and analysis in the name of improving outcomes. Now how does it feel to ask:
How much more crime is in black neighborhoods compared to white ones?
The only question is to ask “are you a bigot?” Never let the focus stray into a collective.
Obviously you didn’t grow up in Baytown, Texas, or any other small town in Texas, during the 1940’s – 1960’s. You could have experienced it 24 hours a day.
Obviously no one is arguing that systemic racism didn’t exist over a half century ago.
Then obviously, you shouldn’t say it has magically disappeared. Could you watch this and tell me how this is not systemic racism?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrHIQIO_bdQ&list=PLGIPdbOn5CzilPGp-dComFxa8BAqEXxNd&index=1
Disparities created through racism, populist nationalism, and religious bias all continue to exist and indeed our history with them all leave a large fingerprint on our society. But it is inaccurate and frankly unhelpful to portray, say, the disparity in real estate values as being “caused” by systemic racism today. We need 21st-century models for evolving our social structures, not a retread of the 20th-century civil rights movement.
At what point did I say “it magically disappeared”? Systemic racism doesn’t exist in any meaningful sense anymore due to a variety of complex socio-political factors.
As for the video you presented, I will try to be brief. We’re offered hypothetical people, which is an extremely poor form of argument for the case the producers of that video are trying to make. Families of such significant socio-economic differences rarely live only a “few streets from one another”.
The video also fails in that it claims that schools are only funded by property taxes. They are not. Since the creation of the Dept. of Ed., federal and state governments have redistributed trillions of dollars into the education system (mostly for the poor and minorities) only to receive declining results for the investment. The private sector has also injected billions into poor and minority school districts. Never mentioned is the general catastrophic mismanagement of these school districts. No, it’s simply an issue of needing to funnel even more money at the proeblm.
The video then offers up the usual, simplistic “redlining” explanation, which only hinted at the fact that it applied to more than minorities, then a few sentences later implied that only minorities are affected. What the redlining argument fails to consider is that blacks were on the rise in terms of their socio-economic status in the late 1930s through the 1950s (this occurred while redlining was happening), and that at some point after that, they began to stagnate or fail to maintain their pace with whites. The other causal explanations for that fill volumes, but suffice it to say, there are alternative explanations in play that the video fails to address.
In 2006, we experienced a massive financial meltdown precisely because the government encouraged and mandated that banks lend to borrowers who had no business taking on mortgages. Most of these borrowers were minority applicants. In the end, minorities ended up being disproportionately impacted by the financial crisis. So, in that sense, you could say there was systemic racism, but it was not in the direction of the popular narrative.
And that was only one government initiative among hundreds, to go along with efforts from the private sector, to correct the perceived wrongs that “Kevin and Jamal’s” grandparents suffered. Those “systemic” policies no longer exist from their grandparents’ time. Since then we’ve had affirmative actions, trillions of dollars redistributed in the form of grants and tax credits; instituted preferential college admissions, scholarships, and preferential hiring practices – all geared toward minorities and no one else.
How long do we continue to pretend systemic racism still exists to oppress blacks while ignoring the numerous race-based initiatives implemented with the intention to help them? At what point do we examine alternate explanations that go beyond “Racism!™” to explore alternative explanations that take into account much more complex and nuanced variables?
I still think the ‘racist’ card is easy because it allows the people shouting it the loudest to ignore their own economic privilege. It also makes it easier for them to ignore the US economy’s shift to a predominantly service-oriented base, which is a disaster of major proportions for what was left of the working middle class. And it also leaves wide segments of the population vulnerable to what we’re seeing during the whole COVID thing…which coincidentally made most of the major protesting possible because people were out of work (service sector shut down to a major degree) and having boosted Federal income in the bargain.
If there’s anything systemic going on, I’d look more toward economics and trade policies than I would race.
GenXer,
I agree completely.
I’m never one to say that racism in the US doesn’t exist, surely it does. But systemic, widespread, genuinely oppressive racism? There are repetitious claims, with “stories” as supporting evidence, and little else. All the relevant data I’ve seen indicates the opposite.
Economic policy at all levels of government in the US, and cultural factors contribute far more towards socio-economic disparities than the ever-present, never-proven racism bogeyman. We have vast and varied race-based systems in place intended to correct inequalities, yet no one seems to have a problem with that. In response to their decades-long existence and failure to produce results in line with their putative goals, the excuse is that we just need more.
The “racism” allegation is probably the most useful mechanic in maintaining this cycle of failure. One need not worry about political failures when blinded by righteousness.
WOW, the video is only pretends to explain if you are very ignorant of history and reality!
Starts off with a lie about school funding. Like a lot in this video is pretends that it is 1930 or 1940 instead of today. Today the Fed does much of the funding and poor districts now routinely receive more funding per student than richer districts. This was not the problem, so it has not helped much. Swap the teachers from the wealthy districts with the ones from the por district and you would see better results……teacher quality is very low in por districts, but democrats do not care about students. only the political support from the teacher unions.
Zoning is bad, but not just for the reasons you think. Zoning WAS put in place , many times to hurt minorities. Zonng laws are most supported by leftists and democrats. BUT, zoning has little to do with educational outcomes, CULTURE is everything. Minorities that embrace education and western civilization do great. Those that buy into the “all cultures are equal” lie do not do well as all cultures are NOT equal!
Black college graduates these days are preferred by ALL major corporations and government agencies, so that part is totally wrong as well
The video conffuses bias with the human need to think about subjects we are not knowedgable about in simple terms….the forst chart all the examples were generally true except “Blacks are lazy” . so I am not sure why you think this is bad. It is human and unescapable tosimplify the world we live in. Not bias or bad, just real.
Culture is the issue, when young Black males who do well in school are attacked by their classmates for acting white, why don’t you blame educational outcome differences on this cultural reality instead of the BS you are buying into??
There is more wrong with this video, but most requires a lot of explaination that you would probably just deny.
Propaganda video, mainly false, divisive and counterproductive to helping make a better worlld.
Why don’t you try watching a couple dozen videos at “PRAGER U” on U-tube………..you really need the knowledge unless you merely want to be some one elses puppet.
Here’s a really uncomfortable thing to wonder that I am actually really personally disturbed by and keep trying to find reasons why this is wrong but I cannot yet falsify it. I will only share this anonymously because these days such a comment might land you in prison.
All of the other previously oppressed ethnic groups other than blacks came to this country on their own volition. That means this group was a selection of the most driven members of society who could make the trip on their own and deal with the immense struggles involved. Blacks were the only group brought here against their will, as captured people. This selected for the weakest, most “capturable” of the societies they were plucked from. Native Americans were already here, and were the conquered people. No selection effect toward “people who can endure struggle and rise above it” as is true with the other groups.
Some of these behaviors may be genetic. Or at least hereditary in that they are passed down behaviorally through families even if no genes exist. Thus, all other previously oppressed ethnic groups probably, on a population level, were able to overcome their situation here and rise above it in a few generations become more or less successful. On average. On a population level.
Because blacks and indigenous people were not selected for in the same way, you’ll get a more random assortment of ability to overcome struggle and succeed. Therefore, on a population level, on average…you will see less of an ability to rise above past oppression and improve circumstances, despite outside interventions like affirmative action, funding increases, etc.
Immediately any mention of these differences is accused of “scientific racism!!!!!” and “eugenics!!!” but they are not those things. They are icky, uncomfortable possibilities that indicate we should really only be working to remove barriers but then let groups choose their fate for themselves. If their cultures don’t like higher education, fine. That’s their business to decide and work out for themselves in time. We should not be expecting perfectly equal distributions of race and ethnicity in all careers. Jews and Asians and the various European whites may always be richer and better at academics than everyone else. So what? Blacks and Hispanics may always be better singers, dancers, and athletes than everyone else. So what? People are not all the same. There are exceptions to all groups — hence removing barriers and being kind to everyone regardless of ethnicity or race so the exceptions to each group can enjoy the life they want as well. So white rappers and black physicists can also do what they want to do without being treated like shit. And yeah, people will still make comments. Humans gonna human. But it won’t be the norm.
This is too hard for humans to admit to themselves for some reason. We seem to need everyone to be the same because we’re so fearful of racially-motivated genocides. I mean, those things are scary and worth being afraid of, but then we stick our heads in the sand over what to actually “do” about different outcomes.
You are confusing “systematic” with “systemic”. The article acknowledges that systematic racism used to be. The articles main point is about systemic racism, about how that is not a real thing
It is still wrong to call I “systemic racism.” Just; the town had a lot of bigots, and no one opposed them.
What is “the right” question?
Adjacent to your thoughts here, I’d recommend, if not aware, Media Manipulation.
In the spirit of Nassim Taleb’s ‘via negativa’.
Abstractly, the efforts are not awful, though, you will quickly observe, what they focus on is not an arbitration for objective Juvenalish contrition, i.e. ‘who will guard the guards’.
Most importantly, as of now, the work they are doing is not directly but adjacently interred to disrupt your toil on the supply chain side, if you will.
Interesting site. It didn’t take long to figure out their angle. Mentions of Extremist (right wing) appear near instantly, yet searching the site for the complement Extremist (left wing) reveals nothing. In fact, I found no abstract references or definitions of the left wing at all, let alone extremists of the sort.
It reminds me of the disappointing mediabiasfactcheck.org, which doesn’t seem to see an issue using sites and orgs it unambiguously labels as Left wing to evaluate outlets and orgs on the Right for “extremism”.
Good point. MediaBias, for example, places The Economist in the least biased category. Yet all the articles in it are written anonymously. Anonymous writers/lack of transparency is listed by Mediabias as a criteria (one of them) for describing “extreme” publications.
This is too bad. I have used that site as I thought it had a pretty good compass, but I guess I did not dig deep enough. Or maybe I let my own confirmation bias confirm what I thought of the source I was researching! Hah.
At the end of the day, sometimes it’s hard for me to discern what is intellectually honest journalism. On the other hand, sometimes it’s glaringly obvious which way a source leans by their writing. I try to go to the independent guys, over mainstream publications. I feel bad for the public in general when it seems there’s more and more articles given the title of “Fact Check: Whatever ridiculous claim we want you to believe” by so many major publications. I would assume a lot of people get taken in by these, since they say “fact check” in the title.
Thanks for the recommendation. I did visit it.
Information manipulation is old. Propoganda/fake news existed in ancient Rome. Sadly, it’s also very effective, but not on everyone. By now, I think it’s well know that article placement (lead story), font size (big more is impactful), word choice (emotional words are more impactful), number of times a story is repeated (more repetition produces more credibility and sense of size urgency) etc. are all tools used by people trying to persuade their readers.
As to the economic impact “systemic racism”, I think its devotees are practicing creative destruction, but not in a way that produces something better.
I wonder what Hayek and Von Mises would say about “systemic racism”.
Neo-Marxist revolutionaries intentionally create their version of Schumpeter’s gale, but unlike economics the ideology seeks to remove every vestige of the existing structure including the foundations. I am confident Von Mises would consider “systemic racism” nothing more than Planned Chaos with no end point except a Marxist victory i.e. there will never be a resolution until the establishment of a Marxist tyranny at which time those who did not contribute to history would be eradicated…per Marx and Engels.
Ummmm. Has anyone considered the notion that nebulously defined terms in anything, except the sciences is sometimes a feature, not a bug of the system? Even psychology research operationalizes (clearly defines) the terms to be used. At least it should.
Humans are free to, in fact encouraged, to develop their own interpretations. In the absence of knowledge, humans have a tendency to fill in the blanks. They then decide they’re satisfied they understand. Not all people, however, fall into this trap.
Also, I think it’s important to remember that humans are more likely to conform their behavior to group standards v not doing it. Also people tend to conform to group standards, even when the standards are know to be wrong! Check out the research by Solomon Asch, a social psychologist.
It’s an aphorism that “You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.” The corollary of which is that group discussions based in part on emotional issues *will* fail, and that the emotional issues will become more deeply entrenched.
The further non-intuitive corollary is that you should de-attend(?) such debates for fear of increasing the polarisation. Perhaps you should only engage with groups where the definitions are agreed by reasoned debate in advance?
Libertarians say that a mind made up without facts is very hard, if not impossible, to change with the actual relevant facts.
So what actually are the differences between systemic racism, institutional racisms, and structural racism?
” … just as postmodern philosopher Michel Foucault famously did with terms like “politics” and “government” to mean roughly everything that governs people and their affairs, including themselves”
Yes, because that’s what he was trying to talk about i.e. the various ways in which people govern themselves, one of which is what we tend to call ‘government’ (in the everyday sense of the word). Government, as far as professional politics is concerned, is still people relating to one another and managing each others affairs.
In fact, it’s a mistake to equate Foucault’s understanding of these terms with Kindi’s substitution of ‘policy’ for racism. Foucault isn’t trying to conceal what he’s attempting to do, and is merely trying to describe in the most accurate terms he has available to him the reality of humans organising the lives of each other. Meanwhile, Kindi seems to have used ‘policy’ as if to suggest that all government legislation is racist, and all racism is government legislation. Even Foucault never went that far!
James, I realise you’re not the biggest fan of Foucault, but his work is indispensable when it comes to any critique of the modern left (one of his favourite targets). If anything, he shows that no political movement – no matter how credible it may consider itself to be – can stand outside of the shifting, fluctuating system of power relations and proclaim itself to be correct. The violence of the modern left is found in the way they attempt to impose their language and methodology on various aspects of everyday life, along with academia and science.
I love your response. I have been saying something similar for years now. Foucault’s studies have been highjacked by the left to justify erecting a new set of power relations when, in fact, Foucault meant nothing of the sort.
I find it scary how many people are using the term “Systemic Racism” and obviously have no idea what it means.
Critical theory reminds me Ophiocordyceps unilateralis, the zombie-ant fungus.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/11/how-the-zombie-fungus-takes-over-ants-bodies-to-control-their-minds/545864/#:~:text=And%20its%20body%20belongs%20to,nutrients%20and%20hijacking%20its%20mind.
I have a definition (borrowed from Jane the Actuary) that nobody has disputed:
Systemic racism exists in any system where disparities in outcome can be observed along racial lines.
So, when Black and minority immigrants do awesome in USA compred to native USA citizens , are their observations and experiences the guide to ststemic racism or is it the low performing locals who disavow education and western civilization the guides to systemic racism??
You obviously did not read the article carefully or you chose to ignore the refutation of the simplistic definition you provide; a definition that hinges upon equity not equality and as such leaves a vast hole in logic and reason that has resulted an amount equal to the national debt being wasted on the ‘War on Poverty’ without moving the needle i.e. you cannot claim disparate impact when the black subculture refuses to admit it is entirely dysfunctional.
We commonly see large disparities in outcome among a cohort of siblings within a single family. We see disparities between the economic and educational outcomes between white people living in Silicon Valley and whites living in rural Appalachia. We see dramatic disparities between the children of Ghanan immigrants and the children of Haitian immigrants. We see huge disparities in the less accomplished educational and economic outcomes of American whites as compared to the more successful American descendants of Nigerians, East Asians, Pilipinos, Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Viet Namese, Iranians and Iraqis There are numerous causes of disparities in outcome that have nothing to do with racism.
That’s not going to work, as there are way too many variables to be able to point to “racism,” or any aspect of the “system,” whatever that means, to demonstrably prove that disparities between races can be tracked to either. In American culture, test results at the university level skew higher among Asian students (either longtime Americans, first or second generation, or on visas) than white students, and African students (either first/second generation or on visas) than African American students. How can Asian and African students surpass white and African American students, if the system is racist? Other factors explain these outcomes.
That majes ZERO sense
Same. I’ve thought so for ages.
I think you need to highlight the the word “systematic” more in the beginning. I read right past it, and I know that it’s supposed to be “systemic.”
Otherwise, great stuff as always!