CRT - Page 30 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15177903
So the USA is systematically racist.

Unemployment rates:

https://www.macrotrends.net/2621/black- ... yment-rate

"Employment fragility is at the center of racial disparities in wealth in the United States.1 Black and Latino communities, in particular, experience higher rates of unemployment and more frequent and longer periods of joblessness. Also, when employed, these groups experience serious wage disadvantages. As such, analyzing unemployment disparities by race and gender provides insight into the work that remains to be done to close the racial wealth gap.2"

http://globalpolicysolutions.org/resour ... ethnicity/

Incarceration rates:

"The problems with the prison system only continue when one looks at the obvious racial and gender disparities. For example, while black inmates make up nearly 40% of the prison population, they only make up 13.40% of the total US population. Native Americans represent 2.30% of the incarcerated population and only 1.30% of the population. 58.70% of the prison population is white, which includes Hispanic Americans. "

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/inc ... e-u-s.html

Poverty rates:

"The figure shows that for Blacks, the poverty rate of 18.8% in 2019 was the lowest rate observed since poverty estimates were first produced for this group for 1959. The previous low for this group was 20.8% in 2018.

Poverty rates in 2019 were also the lowest ever observed for Hispanics (15.7%), compared to the prior low of 17.6% in 2018. Poverty statistics for Hispanics date back to 1972.

The Asian poverty rate of 7.3% was also the lowest on record.

The 2019 poverty rate of 7.3% for non-Hispanic Whites was not statistically different than the previous low (historically adjusted) of 7.2% in 2000 and 7.3% in 1973."

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/ ... -2019.html

Redlining:

"Redlining is a discriminatory practice that puts services (financial and otherwise) out of reach for residents of certain areas based on race or ethnicity. It can be seen in the systematic denial of mortgages, insurance, loans, and other financial services based on location (and that area’s default history) rather than on an individual’s qualifications and creditworthiness. Notably, the policy of redlining is felt the most by residents of minority neighborhoods. "

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/redlining.asp

"For decades, many banks in the U.S. denied mortgages to people, mostly people of color in urban areas, preventing them from buying a home in certain neighborhoods or getting a loan to renovate their house. The practice — once backed by the U.S. government — started in the 1930s and took place across the country. That includes in many of the nation's largest cities, such as Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Tampa and others with large minority populations. "


Redlining's legacy: Maps are gone, but the problem hasn't disappeared

By Khristopher J. Brooks

Updated on: June 12, 2020 / 8:25 AM / MoneyWatch

A 2008 video of Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg attributing the housing crash largely to "redlining" has thrust the term into the national conversation. Although redlining — a form of lending discrimination — has been outlawed for decades, its scars remain visible in many communities across the U.S., experts say. Read on to learn more about redlining and its impact.
What is redlining?

For decades, many banks in the U.S. denied mortgages to people, mostly people of color in urban areas, preventing them from buying a home in certain neighborhoods or getting a loan to renovate their house. The practice — once backed by the U.S. government — started in the 1930s and took place across the country. That includes in many of the nation's largest cities, such as Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Tampa and others with large minority populations.

As a result, banks and other mortgage lenders commonly rejected loans for creditworthy borrowers based strictly on their race or where they lived. As part of that practice, financial firms, real estate agents and other parties demarcated geographic areas that were effectively off limits for issuing loans.

"Scholars who study housing discrimination point to redlining as one factor behind the gulf in wealth between blacks and whites in the U.S. today. Black families have lost out on at least $212,000 in personal wealth over the last 40 years because their home was redlined, said real estate app Redfin. "

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/redlining- ... -comments/

"Majorities of both black and white Americans say black people are treated less fairly than whites in dealing with the police and by the criminal justice system as a whole. In a 2019 Center survey, 84% of black adults said that, in dealing with police, blacks are generally treated less fairly than whites; 63% of whites said the same. Similarly, 87% of blacks and 61% of whites said the U.S. criminal justice system treats black people less fairly."

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... n-the-u-s/

CRT is absolutely correct, the USA is systemically racist.
By wat0n
#15177906
Of the things you mentioned there, only redlining is a true example of systemic racism (institutions had a policy of refusing loans based on race), and it's been illegal for quite a while too.

Thankfully, too, the gaps in the other dimensions you included have also been closing down. Like poverty:

Image

I think this points towards the gradual erasing of the effects of the Jim Crow system in place until the 1960s. Those effects can't disappear overnight, and here's hoping the process accelerates.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15177907
CRT is absolutely correct, the USA is systemically racist.


Sort of.

The US IS systemically racist. Nobody denies that. CRT does not accurately describe why. You just did point out some reasons why.

At the heart of the matter though is the undeniable fact that over 70 million Americans voted for the openly racist candidate last cycle and more than that for the openly racist party. THAT is what ought to be the story.

And note that redlining is not a governmental issue. It is already illegal. The problem is enforcement and industry does not want it. So it will not happen.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15177909
wat0n wrote:Of the things you mentioned there, only redlining is a true example of systemic racism (institutions had a policy of refusing loans based on race), and it's been illegal for quite a while too.

Thankfully, too, the gaps in the other dimensions you included have also been closing down. Like poverty:

Image

I think this points towards the gradual erasing of the effects of the Jim Crow system in place until the 1960s. Those effects can't disappear overnight, and here's hoping the process accelerates.


No they are all examples of systemic racism. Care to explain why you think they aren't?
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15177910
Drlee wrote:Sort of.

The US IS systemically racist. Nobody denies that. CRT does not accurately describe why. You just did point out some reasons why.

At the heart of the matter though is the undeniable fact that over 70 million Americans voted for the openly racist candidate last cycle and more than that for the openly racist party. THAT is what ought to be the story.

And note that redlining is not a governmental issue. It is already illegal. The problem is enforcement and industry does not want it. So it will not happen.


Where is it that you think CRT goes wrong explaining? As far as I know CRT doesn't try to explain the origins of xenophobia, it just says that the difference in treatment between race are socially constructed and not biological.

Concerning redlining. Doesn't matter that it's illegal now. The point is that it was sanctioned by the system.
By wat0n
#15177912
PataOneil wrote:No they are all examples of systemic racism. Care to explain why you think they aren't?


Sure. Just because two different subpopulations have different unemployment rates, poverty rates, or incarceration rates it does not necessarily mean those are caused by present-day discrimination. There is no reason to assume that is so obviously the case if there are also differences between the same subpopulations in other dimensions like occupational choices.

Even worse, it's also possible legacy effects of past discrimination still linger even after it has ended. For instance, you can still find racial gaps in several outcomes in South Africa today, even though Apartheid ended in 1994 and the ANC has ruled the country ever since (and I don't think one can accuse it of being bigoted against Blacks). The effects of past systemic discrimination don't simply disappear overnight, and that's true even if the system is not currently discriminating against anyone (or even if it's attempting to compensate for past discrimination).

Redlining is different in that regard, because you could easily see the system was designed to discriminate, simply by reading the laws/ordinances or (if the discrimination was not meant to be made explicit) by reading the legislative history behind them, by failing to provide any plausible alternative explanations for why the system is showing those differences or (if there are plausible alternative explanations) refusing to do anything to alleviate or correct the situation (it should be noted that for the other outcomes, there are in fact policies to that effect, such as income redistribution, anti-poverty measures and antidiscrimination laws).
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15177913
"Sure. Just because two different subpopulations have different unemployment rates, poverty rates, or incarceration rates it does not necessarily mean those are caused by present-day discrimination. There is no reason to assume that is so obviously the case if there are also differences between the same subpopulations in other dimensions like occupational choices"

So first of all, this is not about now it's about the entirety of US history... as you acknowledge later in your post when you discuss legacy effects. Trying to push it into the now discounts the very legacy effects you are talking about. Those legacy effects ARE systemic racism.

Second, so when two different subpopulations have different results what DOES account for that?
By wat0n
#15177916
PataOneil wrote:"Sure. Just because two different subpopulations have different unemployment rates, poverty rates, or incarceration rates it does not necessarily mean those are caused by present-day discrimination. There is no reason to assume that is so obviously the case if there are also differences between the same subpopulations in other dimensions like occupational choices"

So first of all, this is not about now it's about the entirety of US history... as you acknowledge later in your post when you discuss legacy effects. Trying to push it into the now discounts the very legacy effects you are talking about. Those legacy effects ARE systemic racism.


I'm referring to the US now and that's also what CRT claims. We can't change the past, so you are basically saying the US can't stop being systemically racist or South Africa can't stop being an Apartheid society even if you completely upend your legal system if you adopt that standard.

Is the US currently a systemically racist country?

PataOneil wrote:Second, so when two different subpopulations have different results what DOES account for that?


Depends on the case, but for instance there are differences in occupations by race and also in occupational preferences:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4412174/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 20-09693-5
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15177918
No in fact CRT does not restrict it's claims to the US now. Doing so simply wouldn't be possible since they are drawing evidence from the past. And no I'm not saying that the US can't stop being racist. I'm saying that it ISN'T stopping being racist.

Yes the USA is systemically racist. I've already made that point clear, and I've given you current evidence of that. And you tried to redefine systematic racism by limiting all the effects to the now. In fact the NIMH study explicitly does not attempt to explain this question.

" Future studies should not only consider why groups differ in their access to and participation in the labor market but also the mechanisms that account for how they become stratified into work."

Do me a favor would you quote the parts of those articles that you cited that establish whatever your point is? Because both of those article support my position. Seems to me that saying that black people like different vocations simply slides by that fact and kicks the can down the road without trying to explain why different skins tones should impact someone career choices.

Furthermore, the studies you cited acknowledge the role of racial disparities due to difference in opportunity... which is racism. And there is the fact that these studies specifically acknowledge that race is a factor in the differences here. Because that is exactly what they are studying. The Springer study is behind a paywall, so you've only cited the abstract. Which leaves out the details of the study.

The NIMH study overtly acknowledges that racism is present...

"Analysis of R/EM and gender distribution among occupations over the past forty years is an ideal snapshot of time to investigate disparities in the representation of men, women, and racial/ethnic groups across occupations. Since the enactment of several federal and legislative efforts prohibiting discrimination and mandating affirmative action, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, its related amendments, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1965, R/EMs and women have had greater access to diverse occupations. Yet, several studies by Tomaskovic-Devey and his colleagues revealed that workplace desegregation for Black Americans and Hispanics in 2002 was the same as the 1980 levels (see Tomaskovic-Devey & Stainback 2007). Moreover, Stainback, Robinson, and Tomaskovic-Devey (2005) noted that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 shifted focus toward age and disability discrimination, resulting in slowed racial integration in the workplace and declines in women's entry into managerial occupations (Browne & Askew, 2005; Cohen, Huffman, Knauer, 2009)."

So, you are making my point with this citation.

I'd also like to point out that you are claiming to talk about now, based on studies from the past. Which seems to contradict your position fairly dramatically.
By wat0n
#15177922
PataOneil wrote:No in fact CRT does not restrict it's claims to the US now. Doing so simply wouldn't be possible since they are drawing evidence from the past. And no I'm not saying that the US can't stop being racist. I'm saying that it ISN'T stopping being racist.

Yes the USA is systemically racist. I've already made that point clear, and I've given you current evidence of that. And you tried to redefine systematic racism by limiting all the effects to the now.


Claiming "that racism is embedded in American society and its legal systems in order to uphold the supremacy of white persons" is in (gasp!) present-tense. It is fundamentally about what the US is doing now.

PataOneil wrote:Do me a favor would you quote the parts of those articles that you cited that establish whatever your point is? Because both of those article support my position. Seems to me that saying that black people like different vocations simply slides by that fact and kicks the can down the road without trying to explain why different skins tones should impact someone career choices.


It doesn't matter why, if it's a choice and not an imposition from the institutions.

PataOneil wrote:Furthermore, the studies you cited acknowledge the role of racial disparities due to difference in opportunity... which is racism. And there is the fact that these studies specifically acknowledge that race is a factor in the differences here. Because that is exactly what they are studying. The Springer study is behind a paywall, so you've only cited the abstract. Which leaves out the details of the study.

The NIMH study overtly acknowledges that racism is present...

"Analysis of R/EM and gender distribution among occupations over the past forty years is an ideal snapshot of time to investigate disparities in the representation of men, women, and racial/ethnic groups across occupations. Since the enactment of several federal and legislative efforts prohibiting discrimination and mandating affirmative action, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, its related amendments, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1965, R/EMs and women have had greater access to diverse occupations. Yet, several studies by Tomaskovic-Devey and his colleagues revealed that workplace desegregation for Black Americans and Hispanics in 2002 was the same as the 1980 levels (see Tomaskovic-Devey & Stainback 2007). Moreover, Stainback, Robinson, and Tomaskovic-Devey (2005) noted that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 shifted focus toward age and disability discrimination, resulting in slowed racial integration in the workplace and declines in women's entry into managerial occupations (Browne & Askew, 2005; Cohen, Huffman, Knauer, 2009)."

So, you are making my point with this citation.

I'd also like to point out that you are claiming to talk about now, based on studies from the past. Which seems to contradict your position fairly dramatically.


I'd advise you to check figure 1 from the paper by Tomaskovic-Devey & Stainback here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Rights_Act

Although desegregation has slowed down, it's not really the same as before the passing of the Civil Rights Act. It's also possible that some workplace segregation happens, too, due to different occupational choices or differences in location preferences. And of course, one may wonder up to what extent do some ideological trends explain it, not simply white supremacism either as even some CRT proponents support racial segregation in some contexts - maybe just as they want segregated safe spaces in college, they also want segregated safe spaces in the workplace.

As for why I cited that study: I was underscoring that different occupational choices are a thing, and the second link was to show that there is most definitely a role for differences in occupational preferences too. You can download the latter on sci-hub, one of its conclusions is that these racial differences have been changing for more recent cohorts and also shows some evidence of different preferences at the stage of deciding what to major in, i.e. even if these differences in occupational choices are due to stereotyping, such stereotypes may actually be changing for newer generations.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15177923
"Claiming "that racism is embedded in American society and its legal systems in order to uphold the supremacy of white persons" is in (gasp!) present-tense. It is fundamentally about what the US is doing now."

And it is as your own citations acknowledge, even you acknowledge this when you talk about legacy effects.


"It doesn't matter why, if it's a choice and not an imposition from the institutions."

Of course it does, since the institution in play in this regard is the economy itself.


You are ignoring the evidence in your own citation to push your unsupported theory. The study you cited says that segregation continues and is not improving.

Just because people choose different occupation and those choices can be racially linked goes nowhere to support your position that the USA is not currently racist.

The studies you cited disagree with your position.

As far as white supremacy goes.. that's a fringe group kind of thing. The more important movement is white nationalism. But both are inherently racist movements, and both currently have a large impact on the USA right now. Both of the these movement support replacement theory. Which is concerned specifically with fears of white people being replaced by people of color.

I don't see that you've made any progress toward opposing CRT since your own citations support the theory, as well as your admission of legacy effects.

What am I missing in your ideas?
By wat0n
#15177925
PataOneil wrote:And it is as your own citations acknowledge, even you acknowledge this when you talk about legacy effects.


No, not really.

PataOneil wrote:Of course it does, since the institution in play in this regard is the economy itself.


No, it's not. The economy is not an institution :roll:

PataOneil wrote:You are ignoring the evidence in your own citation to push your unsupported theory. The study you cited says that segregation continues and is not improving.


See figure 1 and you tell me if their measure of segregation is flat or decreasing.

PataOneil wrote:Just because people choose different occupation and those choices can be racially linked goes nowhere to support your position that the USA is not currently racist.


But it does mean you have to remove that effect to claim your data is proof of the US being systemically racist.

PataOneil wrote:The studies you cited disagree with your position.


How so?

PataOneil wrote:As far as white supremacy goes.. that's a fringe group kind of thing. The more important movement is white nationalism. But both are inherently racist movements, and both currently have a large impact on the USA right now.


In what way exactly?

PataOneil wrote:I don't see that you've made any progress toward opposing CRT since your own citations support the theory, as well as your admission of legacy effects.

What am I missing in your ideas?


Perhaps you could actually look up what does "legacy effect" mean.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15177927
wat0n wrote:No, not really.


Oh yes, really. I've quoted the sections that do so. Denial is not an argument. It is the lack of an argument.

"No, it's not. The economy is not an institution ."

Sure is, it's instituted by the US constitution and policy.

"See figure 1 and you tell me if their measure of segregation is flat or decreasing. "

The point is that it is still there. Currently in the now. Are you consciously moving the goal posts?

"But it does mean you have to remove that effect to claim your data is proof of the US being systemically racist."

Not since the very effect itself could be a example of racism... as acknowledged in your own citations.

"How so?"

By showing that segregation and disparities by race still exist.

"In what way exactly?"

By electing a white nationalist president who then went on to support Neo Nazis and White Nationalism. Same dude was acknowledged by his own party as a racist.

"Perhaps you could actually look up what does "legacy effect" mean."

No need to do that, since I understand exactly what it means. It means in this case that the effects of past racist policies are still being felt today... which means that racism is still being experienced today. Which is my point.

I find your opposition to CRT confusing, since you haven't actually manage a coherent argument against it.
By wat0n
#15177929
PataOneil wrote:Oh yes, really. I've quoted the sections that do so. Denial is not an argument. It is the lack of an argument.


If so, then explain in detail how did you arrive to that conclusion. Repeating ad nauseam won't make your argument any stronger.

PataOneil wrote:Sure is, it's instituted by the US constitution and policy.


No, it's not :roll:

The Constitution does not decide that any given group will need to face a certain unemployment or poverty rate. Neither does policy.

PataOneil wrote:The point is that it is still there. Currently in the now. Are you consciously moving the goal posts?


This is a meaningless claim. There can be segregation even if there is no discrimination at all.

If I prefer to live in a city instead of the countryside, it does not mean I'm discriminating against hillbillies :roll:

PataOneil wrote:Not since the very effect itself could be a example of racism... as acknowledged in your own citations.


"Could" being the operative word here. It's also possible it's not.

PataOneil wrote:By showing that segregation and disparities by race still exist.


If I prefer to live close to the sea, it does not mean I'm discriminating against people who live in the mountains either.

PataOneil wrote:By electing a white nationalist president who then went on to support Neo Nazis and White Nationalism. Same dude was acknowledged by his own party as a racist.


And before that, they voted for an African American president. Guess Americans were not racist in 2008, but became racist in 2016 :roll:

PataOneil wrote:No need to do that, since I understand exactly what it means. It means in this case that the effects of past racist policies are still being felt today... which means that racism is still being experienced today. Which is my point.


And yet it also means such effects may remain even after those policies have ended and therefore there is no systemic racism. You said it yourself: Past racist policies.

PataOneil wrote:I find your opposition to CRT confusing, since you haven't actually manage a coherent argument against it.


Read the thread, we can discuss standpoint theory and other aspects of CRT if you want.

We could discuss if it can be used to justify the segregation you are so up against, for instance. I can note you skipped that part over, I wonder why? ;)
By Pants-of-dog
#15177930
wat0n wrote:But it's then not quite true to say that discrimination is then embedded in the law, at all, in either case. Why? Because antidiscrimination law opens a venue for doing away for any discriminatory laws.


It is logically possible for discrimination to be embedded in the law, and at the same time antidiscrimination law can opens a venue for doing away for any discriminatory laws.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, anti-discrimination law would only need to be used as way of getting rid of racism in law if and only if racism was embedded on law in the first place.

That's actually also questionable, though. Disparate impact (even in a business context) requires more than simply showing a difference exists. It must also not be justified from a business perspective.


Posting one possible justification for one episode of systemic racism in law corroborates the existence of systemic racism in that particular episode and merely explains why it is allowed to continue. And since this same criticism does not discuss any of the other examples of systemic racism, we can safely say that there are many uncontested examples of systemic racism in US law.

——————————

Drlee wrote:@Pants-of-dog

Nobody is censoring teachers.


Yes, they are.

Many states now explicitly ban any discussion of systemic racism by teachers.

They are establishing educational requirements. Teachers are employees of the public and hired to teach what they are told to teach. If they want to teach what their heart desires they can teach in the private school system. And if they can find one that will let them.

Your assertion that CRT would only be taught in law school is absurd.


You are incorrect about my assertion about where it will be taught.

I am discussing where it is actually taught right now.

———————————

Gardener wrote:Yes. It is called 'crime', caused by 'criminals'.


Not always. For example, if Walgreens were to refuse to pay all their black employees a percentage of their wage, it would only be a civil infraction and not a criminal one.

It was not a factor in the George Floyd murder !

That reminds me.. I really must book an appointment with my dentist.


I disagree. I think the murderer would not have killed Mr. Floyd in front of a crowd of cameras if he did not think that his badge and the fact that his victim was black were going to get him acquitted.

Until the media uproar and the protests, he was right.

Is this an ACTUAL 'actually', or a narrative 'actually' which can mean anything you want it to be ?


The former.

There is no ban on teaching about the hypothesis of systemic racism. The 'ban' is only on teaching Critical Race Hypothesis. Just as there is a 'ban' on teaching Nazi Racial Eugenics (with textbooks by Hans F. K. Günther), or the ethos of Scientology, or Flat Earth Theory, or the Ptolemaic model of the universe.


The ban exists in Florida.The exact wording has been posted in the relevant thread. To ignore this fact is to simply ignore reality. If you believe things that are directly contradicted by facts that are already presented, this will not be a fruitful discussion.

Oh yes it IS.


Please provide evidence for this claim. Thank you.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15177932
Well if you are tired of me repeating myself. I'll come back later when you aren't nauseated. You might also stop asking me to repeat myself as you've done throughout your last post.

:)

Have a nice day.
By wat0n
#15177934
Pants-of-dog wrote:It is logically possible for discrimination to be embedded in the law, and at the same time antidiscrimination law can opens a venue for doing away for any discriminatory laws.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, anti-discrimination law would only need to be used as way of getting rid of racism in law if and only if racism was embedded on law in the first place.


Or it could be used to prevent racism from becoming embedded into the law in the first place. Historically, racism was indeed embedded into the law and passing the current antidiscrimination law was the way to undo this embedding - but that was the past, presently it would seemingly be more useful to prevent these gains from being undone. It's why antidiscrimination laws should remain in place even if discrimination was in fact purged from society at some point.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Posting one possible justification for one episode of systemic racism in law corroborates the existence of systemic racism in that particular episode and merely explains why it is allowed to continue. And since this same criticism does not discuss any of the other examples of systemic racism, we can safely say that there are many uncontested examples of systemic racism in US law.


What is this supposed to mean exactly? You have yet to prove those episodes are in fact due to systemic racism and that there is no business justification for them.

@PataOneil sure, you can keep believing that wanting to live in a suburb also discriminates against city-dwellers if you want :|
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15177940
"@PataOneil sure, you can keep believing that wanting to live in a suburb also discriminates against city-dwellers if you want"

{SMH}

You are upset. I'll talk with you when you've calmed down.
By Pants-of-dog
#15177941
wat0n wrote:Or it could be used to prevent racism from becoming embedded into the law in the first place. Historically, racism was indeed embedded into the law and passing the current antidiscrimination law was the way to undo this embedding - but that was the past, presently it would seemingly be more useful to prevent these gains from being undone. It's why antidiscrimination laws should remain in place even if discrimination was in fact purged from society at some point.


Anti-discrimination law written in 1964 cannot prevent racism from being embedded in law before that. Time travel is not possible.

Nor does it prevent racist law after that. It only serves a legal foundation for challenging the racist law.

What is this supposed to mean exactly? You have yet to prove those episodes are in fact due to systemic racism and that there is no business justification for them.

@PataOneil sure, you can keep believing that wanting to live in a suburb also discriminates against city-dwellers if you want :|


It means that examples of systemic racism are rife, and that if you wish to argue that there is no systemic racism in US law, it will be a difficult argument for you to make.
By wat0n
#15177946
Pants-of-dog wrote:Anti-discrimination law written in 1964 cannot prevent racism from being embedded in law before that. Time travel is not possible.

Nor does it prevent racist law after that. It only serves a legal foundation for challenging the racist law.


Antidiscrimination law is often used as a way to nullify discriminatory local laws, particularly those in place before the antidiscrimination law was enacted to begin with :|

Pants-of-dog wrote:It means that examples of systemic racism are rife, and that if you wish to argue that there is no systemic racism in US law, it will be a difficult argument for you to make.


You have yet to show they are quite obviously and not simply possible examples of systemic racism. In reality, it's far from clear that's actually the case and even researchers often make it clear discrimination is only one possible (non-mutually exclusive) explanation for those differences.

It's precisely why it's not that easy to detect systemic racism in the US today, as opposed to the time when it was an explicit or very thinly veiled policy enshrined under the law and there were no laws to fight discrimination.
  • 1
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 53
Is Marxism old-fashioned?

Human civilization also has been occurring only o[…]

you've exposed your level of mental midgetry to a[…]

Still not getting jabbed. :) https://www.bbc.c[…]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

Yep. Got Pfizerised a couple of months back. The f[…]