I wrote the following post some time ago now, but unfortunately I allowed it to languish on my desktop. Now that I’ve finally gotten around to tidying up that same ol’ desktop, I came across it and thought it was interesting enough to actually post. I think I have a few of these abandoned posts, so I’ll try to pace myself when it comes to finally posting them (!)
FYI, luc is here responding to something I posted about the racist practice in real estate known as redlining, which has been outlawed, although that hasn't altogether eradicated the practice:
Thanks, I didn't know that, but yes, these things exist, or anyway used to. What comes to mind as well is voting district partitioning, where you create the districts in such a way that you take a chunk of a black district and mix it with white districts to make it impossible for blacks to get a majority for a black candidate. Not sure if this is still practiced, but it certainly was in the past.
However, there are still many things wrong with the term "systemic racism" in my opinion.
First, of course, the term represents a whole ideology today - white people are inherently racist and "privileged", the whole postmodern look at the world through the lens of power play, even the idea that blacks are inherently better suited for higher positions etc., all these ideas being jumbled in various degrees. It would help if people talked about redlining if they want to talk about redlining, instead of using ideologically loaded terms like "systemic racism".
Second, things like redlining or discriminatory voting district partitioning etc. are not by default "systemic racism". They are discriminatory policies against a minority. Who says they are motivated by racism? And if so, to what degree? There have been plenty of white minorities who have been discriminated against in the US, like Irish, Italians, Polish and so on. So we don't know if discriminatory policies against blacks are motivated by racist ideologies or just by the usual in-group/out-group thinking, or the normal efforts by an existing elite to protect itself against competition from "newcomers". Not to say that racism doesn't play a role or doesn't exist, of course, but we need to be precise here. Discriminatory policies don't automatically imply racism.
Third, thanks to all those sociological theories and of course Marxist thinking, there is a huge overemphasis on "the system" in today's political thinking as opposed to people. But people write laws, people enforce them (or not), people are racist, not systems. So if you talk about "systemic racism", show me the actual people who are racists and who perpetuate racism, and prove that they really do think black people are an inferior race, or something like that. It is people who can make a difference if they are in a position of authority, either positive or negative, even in bad systems. Of course, the institutional context matters too, but always talking about "institutionalized racism" and what have you is kind of shifting the responsibility to some nameless "system", away from individuals.
I think that details and precision matter here. Otherwise, we can quickly fall into "camps" or think in ideologies rather than trying to learn something, osit.
Hi
@luc. Yes, I know what you mean about the term "systemic racism." In fact, I was going to have a go at the term in that last post of mine, but I decided that it was a somewhat different topic, and I didn't want to over-complicate things. So, I'm glad you brought it up. And you make a lot of good points. I think it's useful to consider its emphasis on systems/ideologies over individuals, and how problematic that is. As you say, why not specifically address these problems, such as redlining, for example -- and I appreciated the site I linked to since it offered real, in the world, remedial measures one can take when encountering this problem.
I did a brief search and learned that "systemic racism" is an idea developed by sociologist Joe R. Feagin, and explicated in his book, "Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations." I haven't found the date of its first printing, it's up to the fourth edition now. Oh, just checked again -- apparently, its initial printing was 2006. As to the term “systemic racism" itself, it would be interesting to know when it was first used, and whether Feagin actually coined it.
I have to say, I was surprised to learn that Joe R. Feagin, who is in his eighties now, is white -- and quite "privileged," as esteemed academics go:
en.wikipedia.org
[Education]
"After completing his undergraduate education at Baylor University in 1960, Feagin moved to Boston where he went on to earn his Ph.D. in sociology (social relations) from Harvard University in 1966. He was the Scholar-in-Residence at the U.S. Civil Rights Commission (1974–1975).[2] Currently, he is the Ella C. McFadden and Distinguished Professor of Liberal Arts at Texas A&M University.[3] His research and teaching interests concern mainly the development and structure of racial and gender prejudice and discrimination, especially institutional and systemic discrimination and racism."
Of course, I don’t personally know this Feagin person. Maybe he's a perfectly wonderful man seeking to eradicate racism in the United States and beyond. However, already my "social engineering" red flag is starting to assert itself. In line with that, it's rather telling he got his PhD. at Harvard in the 60’s since so much was “being decided” at Harvard at that time. Timothy Leary comes to mind, and the experiments in mind control using LSD. (I'm just now reading the latest tome on Charles Manson: CHAOS, by Tom O'Neill, which further delineates the "covert" role of LSD, specifically regarding the processing of Manson's malignantly deranged enclave known as “The Family.") In any case, it’s something to consider: the long term social engineering underlying so much of what we are presently seeing.
Back on Feagin… admittedly, I have not read his book, but from what I’ve gathered, it seems that "systemic racism" insidiously sees racism in every aspect, every institution, founding document -- thought -- in American society. The fact that society is complex, that class plays a role, regardless of race, that, as luc pointed out, many ethnic groups have their stories of prejudice, violence, hatred and oppression -- all such points would seem to take a back seat to this
a priori principle, thanks, perhaps in large part, to this white, male, "privileged" academic, Joe R. Feagin, who, from his earliest days at Harvard (as I mentioned, a 60’s hotbed of social engineering), developed this now weaponized idea that’s currently targeting the foundational premises of this democracy of ours.
As far as the targeting of our schools with these ideas, we now have the introducing of a book titled “White Fragility,” by Robin DiAngelo (which I believe has been mentioned on this thread before). I just looked DiAngelo up… sort of interesting that this “whiteness studies” professor is teaching in
Seattle).
Anyway, here’s Tucker Carlson’s scathing critique of DiAngelo and her book:
Excerpt from Carlson’s above book review:
“Worrying about economic injustice is just another symptom of… brace yourself here: racism; of white fragility. Get it? Maybe you’re starting to understand why
corporate America absolutely loves this book. Why? Because Robin DiAngelo absolves them of their crimes. Apple, and the health insurers, and the credit card companies get off scot free because the real problem, Robin DiAngelo tells them, is white racism. And what a relief for them to learn. $6000 dollars an hour [her speaking fee] is a small indulgence to pay for that kind of forgiveness. Thank you, Reverend DiAngelo, we appreciate the house call!”
Plus, the propagandist nature of the letter is pretty obvious for everyone to see, e.g. "your bumbling response to the COVID pandemic".