“There are persistent racial disparities in society; those disparities have a cause; therefore, there is systemic racism.”
Even this much is questionable. Simply digging down one layer deeper into ethnic groups makes these sorts of comparisons silly in my opinion. Is there something in American society that privileges Nigerians over Burmese? Lebanese over French? Why then the massive difference in outcomes?
One study found that Orthodox Jews have six times the family net worth of conservative Protestants. Is it remotely plausible that American society is biased in favor of Orthodox Jews and against conservative Protestants? Of course, not. If you doubt this check the Wikipedia article "Wealth and religion".
At some level, you are right. However, at a different level you are wrong. The USA mostly (not entirely) upholds 'enlightenment' values. These values are (by definition) race-neutral. However, as you point out, some groups do better than others in an 'enlightenment' system. To use a trivial example (with non-trivial consequences), Asians do better than whites on the Math part of the SAT. The SAT was not created to favor Asians. It was created as part of the overall 'enlightenment' project.
Do you think this is about enlightenment as much as just market capitalism?
We in the market value people who can do math and write because they can do useful stuff for us. Universities are valuable to the extent that they can signal to employers that their students will make good employees (which includes being able to do math and write, among other things).
I wouldn't draw much of a distinction between the enlightenment and market capitalism. I see them as closely related, if not more or less the same thing. Let me offer an example, in the pre-modern world, literacy and numeracy were relatively rare. The probability that a child would end up literate and numerate was primarily a function of who his/her parents were.
In the modern world, that is mostly not true. Is it market capitalism or is it the enlightenment that changed everything? Or was it a combination of market capitalism, the industrial revolution, and the enlightenment that changed everything? I lean towards a hybrid explanation with all of these factors being entwined (and in some cases more or less the same thing).
I would observe that market capitalism existed in ancient Greece, Rome, China, etc. without bringing much progress.
Finally. Tried and true philosophical tools relating to causal explanations applied to contemporary race theory. Amazing the results that leap forth when we go rational rather than political. Well done, though I think this really just skims the surface. Would love to see Achinstein's analysis of explanations used in this context even more rigorously.
Agree with the sentiment generally, but are we now conceding that mere disparate impact - even when adequately explained - can fairly be characterized as “racism”? Doesn’t there have to be evidence that a system is discriminating on the basis of race specifically, rather than some other factor (e.g. wealth) for it to be “racism” - systemic or otherwise? If so, I don’t think his Ferguson example is a good one, as it focuses on wealth and not race.
One study found that Orthodox Jews have six times the family net worth of conservative Protestants. Is it remotely plausible that American society is biased in favor of Orthodox Jews and against conservative Protestants? Of course, not. If you doubt this check the Wikipedia article "Wealth and religion".
2. One clue is to look at societies where ‘racism’ (the white kind) hasn’t existed for a very long time. The Haitian Revolution was 217 years ago. If ‘white racism’ was really such a powerful force, then Haiti should be highly successful. That does not seem to be the case.
3. In World War II, Japanese-Americans were interned in various camps and typically lost everything. Yet, by the middle 1960s, they were more successful than whites in America. Back then, racism towards Japanese-Americans wasn’t hypothetical or limited to the internment camps. See “ALIEN LAND LAWS IN CALIFORNIA (1913 & 1920)” (https://immigrationhistory.org/item/alien-land-laws-in-california-1913-1920/).
It should be noted that the Japanese-Americans in question were hardly elite. They were brought to America as farm laborers. However, even after the Word War II camps, they were highly successful. See “"Success Story, Japanese-American Style” (New York Times (1923-Current File); Jan 9, 1966)
4. It turns out that all of the most successful ethnic groups in America are non-white. Some are wildly more successful than white. Some statistics. Median Household income for Indian Americans ($107,390), Jews ($97,500), Taiwanese ($85,566), all Asians ($74,245) is greater than Whites ($59,698). As can you see, non-white ethnic groups are at the top and Jews earn (far) more than non-Jewish whites.
These numbers are real, but have two major problems. First, Asian households tend to be larger than non-Asian households. Using personal income provides a better measure than household income. Asian personal income is also higher than non-Asian personal income. However, the positive gap is not as large as the household income gap. The second problem is the nature of the 1965 Immigration Act. The 1965 Act favored (rightfully so) highly educated immigrants over less educated immigrants. The cliché Indian-American immigrant to the US is a doctor. Of course, that is a cliché. However, it is a cliché because it has some element of truth to it.
5. It turns out the school funding is not equal across the United Sates. New York state spends the most (over $24K per-student, per-year) and Utah spends the least (around $7K per-student, per-year). However, the results almost exactly the opposite of what ‘white racism’ theory predicts. Utah has higher test scores that New York state. Of course, ‘white racism’ theory would predict the Utah would spend more than New York state. That isn’t even remotely true.
6. Police fatalities are not equally distributed by race. In 2019, just 17 Asians were killed by the police. For whites the number was 406, and blacks 259. ‘White racism’ can not possibly explain the amazingly low number of Asians shot by police. For a typical factoid, in one year, two Japanese-Americans were arrested for murder. Not 200, or 200,000. Just two.
7. The Asian incarceration rate is 74.5% lower than the white incarceration rate and 95% below the black incarceration rate. ‘White racism’ can not possibly explain these astounding differences.
8. It turns out that schools discipline rates are tracked by race. See Figure 15.3 of “Indicator 15: Retention, Suspension, and Expulsion” (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_rda.asp). ‘White racism’ can not possibly explain these astounding differences.
9. That statistics for SAT scores, college enrollment/completion, arrests, etc. are all readily available by race. You can even find COVID-19 vaccination statistics by race. Invariably, you will find racial disparities and invariably Asians will be on top. So much for the mythology of ‘white racism’.
Mr. Lutz is a victim of the very tautology that he mocks. He begins with a premise that is false, then uses it as the basis for "proving" it false.
He asserts: "In the bad old days, the theory goes, racism was personal, a matter of individual racial animus. Personal racism was easy to identify and, thus, easy to stamp out, or at least to drive underground."
Where does he get the notion that those of us who use the term systemic racism see it as something new and different from what existed in this country from its earliest days? So he thinks that we think that the institution of slavery was "personal" and not systemic? That Jim Crow was somehow pre-systemic? Just because the term "systemic racism" has caught on as an accurate descriptor of how racism - despite our noble efforts to counteract or compensate for race-based inequities - continues to pervade our institutions and practices, does not mean that the past was not also infused with institutional racism.
While I, too, decry much of the language used by the left as ill-conceived and counter-productive, "systemic racism," though it may stick in the craw for some, is one of the sadly rare terms that captures quite accurately how racial discrimination insinuates itself into our society. If it sticks in your craw, then maybe you need to broaden your craw.
Jan 24, 2022·edited Jan 24, 2022Liked by Matt Lutz, Brendan Ruberry
There seems to be a bit of confusion in your critique.
The author asserts: "In the bad old days, THE THEORY GOES, racism was personal, a matter of individual racial animus..." Note the emphasis on "the theory."
You're quite right to say that systemic racism (or whatever we call it) pre-dates the term "systemic racism." Racism in the 1800s and earlier was both personal and systemic. The author never says otherwise.
What I think the author is saying is that, until recently, the emphasis on battling racism was primarily personal. In a million ways our culture has insisted that "If only people could stop being racist, then everyone would be equal."
But what we've discovered is that, despite most people not being personally racist to each other, disparities still exist. The term and theory of "systemic racism" has recently leapt into that void to explain why.
In short, the author's point isn't that racism itself changed from personal to systemic. The point is that the way we talk about racism—our "theory" of it—has changed. And that theory may or may not be helpful in our discourse.
Yes, I get and got the author's point, and I stand by mine. I think he misunderstands "the theory." I'm not sure why he even sees "systemic racism" as a theory, nor why he sees it as anything other than an institutionalization of what he identifies as "personal." Both have always existed in our society as established values, norms, and laws, and both have been opposed for nearly as long by those who saw them as wrong.
I agree. I define it as the laws and values baked into the system over centuries. Housing discrimination did not grow out of legal red-lining. But red-lining was used by banks and developers for decades to keep Black people segregated. The 'not in my backyard' phenomenon is still with us today. Why? because it's still backed into how property is valued, even if the distinction is explained as conflict between single house development and multi-housing. Mixed marriage was first outlawed, then frowned upon (by both Black and White) and only in the past couple of decades it has become something not as 'exotic' in practice.
The misstatement you point out struck me, too, as soon as I started reading the paragraph in question. The author does say flatly that the theorists of systemic racism regard past racism as personal. If he means, as they do, that racism was commonly regarded as personal in the past, then the sentence is faulty.
Unfortunately, the words and strategies now in play among those who reserve the term "antiracist" to their own political camp add up to a contradictory mess. Those who hew to the public statements of Ibram X. Kendi stress that racism is systemic *as opposed to* being personal and can therefore be discussed without blaming individuals. Others -- if not some of the same people on other occasions -- make the sociopolitical move of taxing white individuals with white privilege and hereditary complicity in past wrongs. By many accounts, this move has become standard practice in contexts from elementary-school classes to university faculty workshops and corporate HR.
It seems that the objective meaning of "systemic racism" has never stood a chance against the subjective urge to personalize it. The upshot is that positively racist individuals, who once faced stigmatization within their own race, now enjoy an implicitly equal footing with non-racist ones.
The impact of ‘Red Lining’ (if there was any) has been greatly exaggerated. The Boston Federal Reserve studied this question back in the 1990s and found little evidence of ‘Red Lining’. However, let’s assume the opposite. Let’s say that ‘Red Lining’ was intense and lenders were massively racist in their lending criteria. This should have created many opportunities for entrepreneurs (presumably black) to create/build banks for under-served markets. To use an obvious analogy, A.P. Giannini build Bank of America to serve a market that other banks ignore.
Let us consider the interesting case of Canada. Canada has no history of slavery and has no comparable history of Jim Crow. 'Separate but equal' is an American phrase, not Canadian. Yet the income gap in Canada matches the income gap in the U.S. Why is that?
Let us consider the interesting case of Haiti. Slavery and discrimination were abolished in Haiti some 220 years ago. Haiti should be some sort of earthly paradise, but strangely enough it is not.
Let us consider the interesting case of American Jews. Antisemitism goes a long way back in the US and certainly preceded the Revolution. There may have been less Antisemitism after WWII, but there was clearly more before WWII. Indeed, at one time every Ivy League school imposed explicit quotas on Jews (like the quotas imposed on Asians now). Logically we should expect Jews to have lower incomes and less wealth than non-Jews. However, that is not even remotely true.
Let us consider the interesting case of Japanese-Americans. According to the New York Times (in 1966) Japanese-Americans have faced the worst discrimination of any ethnic or racial group. If 'systemic racism' was really so pervasive and material, they should be the poorest group. Yet, even by 1966 they were more successful that whites.
By the way 'short-term internment of Japanese Americans during WW2' is not true. Japanese-Americans were sent to concentration camps for 3 years (in some cases 4).
I will assume that some survivors of the Nazis enjoyed great subsequent success. What that (if true) shows is that policy (even at the extremes) has less long-term impact than you might think.
I think the Brooking Institution report and data fails to agree with you that red lining (sans scare quotes) wasn't a very real and detrimental thing. This is one of numerous studies attempting to approximate wealth that was lost. And black people did create an alternate economy. And can you please share your Canada example data? A specific study please? Thanks! https://www.brookings.edu/essay/homeownership-racial-segregation-and-policies-for-racial-wealth-equity/
If you check, you will find that I already provided this link. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233008532_Black_Canadians_and_Black_Americans_Racial_income_inequality_in_comparative_perspective. I read the Brookings 'study' and the Boston Fed study. Wow, the Brookings 'study' was astoundingly superficial compared to the Boston Fed work. One of the first rules of statistics, is that 'correlation is not causation'. That basic truth would seem to be unknown to Brookings. I should mention that the Brookings 'study' contains no evidence that Red Lining has ever had an effect on anything. The authors simply assume this to be true.
In 1966, the New York Times published an article "Success Story, Japanese-American Style" that showed that Japanese-Americans were more successful than whites in spite of discrimination far more intense than Jim Crow (blacks were not interned in WWII, Japanese-Americans were). Systematic discrimination is just a tenet of the left folk religion ('woke').
I'm trying not to be snide, but maybe you should immerse yourself in some African-American history if you think there is some meaningful comparison here. Over two-hundred years of a racist-based slave-dependent economy, leading to a Civil War fought mainly over the ability to continue that system, followed by another hundred years of legally enforced brutal discrimination with thousands of vigilante lynchings and countless lesser legally sanctioned brutalities and indignities bears no comparison to the short-term internment of Japanese Americans during WW2. Do you want to compare those camps to Auschwitz as well? After all, many survivors of Nazi death camps became quite successful, too. Please reconsider your comparison.
The impact of ‘Red Lining’ (if there was any) has been greatly exaggerated. The Boston Federal Reserve studied this question back in the 1990s and found little evidence of ‘Red Lining’. However, let’s assume the opposite. Let’s say that ‘Red Lining’ was intense and lenders were massively racist in their lending criteria. This should have created many opportunities for entrepreneurs (presumably black) to create/build banks for under-served markets. To use an obvious analogy, A.P. Giannini build Bank of America to serve a market that other banks ignore.
Let us consider the interesting case of Canada. Canada has no history of slavery and has no comparable history of Jim Crow. 'Separate but equal' is an American phrase, not Canadian. Yet the income gap in Canada matches the income gap in the U.S. Why is that?
Let us consider the interesting case of Haiti. Slavery and discrimination were abolished in Haiti some 220 years ago. Haiti should be some sort earthly paradise, but strangely enough it is not.
Let us consider the interesting case of American Jews. Antisemitism goes a long way back in the US and certainly preceded the Revolution. There may have been less Antisemitism after WWII, but there was clearly more before WWII. Indeed, at one time every Ivy League school imposed explicit quotas on Jews (like the quotas imposed on Asians now). Logically we should expect Jews to have lower incomes and less wealth than non-Jews. However, that is not even remotely true.
Let us consider the interesting case of Japanese-Americans. According to the New York Times (in 1966) Japanese-Americans have faced the worst discrimination of any ethnic or racial group. If 'systemic racism' was really so pervasive and material, they should be the poorest group. Yet, even by 1966 they were more successful that whites.
By the way 'short-term internment of Japanese Americans during WW2' is not true. Japanese-Americans were sent to concentration camps for 3 years (in some cases 4).
I will assume that some survivors of the Nazis enjoyed great subsequent success. What that (if true) shows is that policy (even at the extremes) has less long-term impact than you might think.
The alleged existence of 'systemic racism' is just a key tenet of the religion of the left ('woke'). The facts don't support it, but so what? You just have to believe. It is a matter of faith.
I actually think the municipal funding example is one of MANY mechanisms that in total can be included under the umbrella of systemic racism. If you look at the history of cash bail, the way Jim Crow somewhat survived even after the 60s Civil Rights movements with rise of the industrialized prison complex, that road a wave of a racialized drug war where sentences for people of color were WAY higher for things like crack cocaine vs old regular cocaine (e.g. a relative of mine got probation for having way above the cocaine limit in the 1980s... you can bet that didn't happen to many black convicts in my Southern home state), you do start to find myriad of ways that create a lattice of oppression in their sum total. So yes, I'm all for outlining the specific policies, but you also sometimes have to back to up and see the forest for the trees.
This theory doesn't pass the smell test. Asian-Americans have arrest/prosecution/imprisonment rates far below whites. Is American society biased in favor of Asians? Hardly. Personal choices are (by far) the dominant factor in all cases.
Asian Americans don't have the same history of being the main source of chattel slavery to run an economic system, having had a Civil War fought over their liberation, been brought into civil society then cast out with Reconstruction/Jim Crow, been the subject then of a new system of imprisonment invented post-Reconstruction of the "chain gang", the hounded by an national organization invented for their persecution and murder (aka the KKK), then being beaten and murdered when they tried to vote and obtain equal education for 75+ years until the Civil Rights movement victories, so I think I smell very different histories as communities, which lead to very different outcomes.
The revolution in Haiti was 220 years ago. No more slavery, no Jim Crow, no KKK. So logically Haiti should be some sort of human paradise, but it is not.
Canada has a very different racial history than the US (no Slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, etc. ), but income gaps are the same as the U.S. Why is that?
Orthodox Jews have six times the net worth of conservative Protestants. Have Orthodox Jews subjected conservative Protestants to slavery, Jim Crow, and the KKK? I think not.
In this century, Japanese-Americans were more discriminated against than blacks (blacks were not sent camps, Japanese-Americans were). However, Japanese-Americans were more successful than whites by 1966.
Further info on Haitian history: they gained their independence from France in 1804... but France and the USA didn't recognized them as a sovereign nation until 1862. That didn't happen specifically because white slave owning south was worried about, you guessed it, enslaved people actually revolting for their own emancipation. This surely didn't help their growth or economy... neither did the US invading then occupying Haiti from 1915-1934, changing Haiti’s constitution, and in many ways further contributed to its ongoing instability, I think this being the longest occupation of a sovereign nation by the US since our occupation of Afghanistan. This doesn't excuse the human rights abused of the dictatorships to come, just saying we have a complicated history with Haiti and I wouldn't cite it as a one-to-one comparison with the USA unless you are willing to do a deep dive into Haitian history. Also, Canada's history with indigenous peoples is very similar to the USA, but if you want to look past the racialized or religious lens, you will see similar class stagnation of wages in both the USA and Canada, and the concomitant accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few. Finally, btw, Japanese Americans actually won reparations for their internment, which I would totally support for those African Americans who can trace their ancestry back to slavery, since having nothing, being forced into sharecropping, being denied home ownership where property allows for the accumulation of wealth with red-lining laws that were on the books until the 1970s, means that A LOT of wealth was denied or even appropriated for their labor in the 20th century.
"you will see similar class stagnation of wages in both the USA and Canada, and the concomitant accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few" which somehow explains the contemporary obsession with 'systemic racism'. Wesley Yang has observed with some suspicion that 'woke' took off as an ideology just after the GFC might have made neonliberalism less popular.
So the lack of diplomatic recognition from 1804 to 1862 was somehow decisive? 1862 happens to be 160 years ago. Of course, Haiti could trade with the rest of the world from 1804 to 1862 and neither France or the US were the dominant powers of the time. The UK was the dominant power and the UK recognized the Haitian government much earlier.
You state “neither did the US invading then occupying Haiti from 1915-1934, changing Haiti’s constitution, and in many ways further contributed to its ongoing instability”
That happens to be exactly wrong. The US sent troops to Haiti after the president was assassinated and years of chronic instability. The US invasion actually brought political stability and an economic boom. Quote from “GROWTH AND STRUCTURE OF THE ECONOMY”
“The nineteen-year United States occupation of Haiti (1915-34) brought unquestionable economic benefits. United States administrators controlled fiscal and monetary policy largely to the country's benefit. The United States military built major roads, introduced automatic telephones in Port-au-Prince, constructed bridges, dredged harbors, erected schools, established clinics, and undertook other previously neglected public works.”
Of course, 1934 was 88 years ago… But who is counting?
“Also, Canada's history with indigenous peoples is very similar to the USA, but if you want to look past the racialized or religious lens, you will see similar class stagnation of wages in both the USA and Canada, and the concomitant accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few.”
Trying to change the subject won’t help. Canada has a very different black/white history than the US, but quite similar income dynamics.
“Finally, btw, Japanese Americans actually won reparations for their internment”
Reparations for Japanese-Americans started in 1988. In 1966, Japanese-Americans were already more successful than whites.
Only slightly ad hominem. Is it not a reasonable request of someone who criticizes - especially from afar - to offer some suggestions for overcoming the problem that he identifies? Of course, if he had done this in his essay, neither the request nor the reprimand would have been warranted.
The author's suggestion is implicit in the description of the problem, namely, to enlarge the municipalities so as to share the burden of administration (including law enforcement) more broadly, thereby reducing the financial pressure on law enforcement to 'over-police'. The problem described is not unique to Ferguson, but to many small municipalities.
The Supreme Court could outlaw AA, which would reduce the level of racism in the US. Of course, that would upset liberals and the woke who believe in racial quotas.
Many people use the phrase "systemic racism" in an arm-waving way, to avoid saying "I'm sure it's racist, I just can't explain how"--and arguments like that don't have much legitimacy. But that doesn't mean systemic racism doesn't exist or isn't important. Here's an example: the suburban development was a great boon for those who could buy a house. It gave homeowners some real wealth--the home is most middle-class Americans' largest investment--and many other benefits: more room than they had in the cities they generally moved from, better health, better schools for their children. The combination of wealth, health and education available in postwar developments gave the first homeowners' children (the baby boom generation) a good start in life. Many got college degrees and went on to enjoy well-paid white-collar careers, often in suburban houses of their own. The mass migration from the cities to the suburbs was a major element in the rise in U.S. living standards in the latter half of the twentieth century.
But it wasn't open to everyone. The vast majority of suburban developments, in the North as well as the South, were explicitly whites-only. The Levittowns refused to sell homes to Black families and successfully defended the practice against lawsuits by the NAACP. And because Levitt won those lawsuits, every other suburban developer could do it as well--legally until the Fair Housing Act of 1968, and in practice for long after that. Not that individual bigotry wasn't deeply involved: the developers did this because many white homebuyers wanted to live in segregated neighborhoods. But the effect was that the vast increase in family wealth afforded by the ability to buy a suburban home and grow up in a suburban environment was in large part closed to Black people. This is a major element in the huge disparity in wealth between white and Black families today, in their different geographic distributions, and in their differences in education. It's a legacy that will continue for generations.
A great example - though I'm not sure this is counter to the article - this would be an example of digging deeper into the cause and identifying something more concrete that can be addressed, no?
In the case of suburban development, it brings up another issue though *not* addressed in the piece: how do we counteract the historical effects of something that was way worse in the past but still has lasting effects? Simply returning to neutral won't do it - but then implementing corrective or affirmative policies becomes a harder sell than the case of addressing underfunded municipalities that are forced to turn to fines.
I personally wouldn't advocate for race conscious programs to counteract past harms as they seem politically infeasible and divisive (perhaps it's unfair that these are infeasible). Instead, I would advocate for race neutral programs that help disadvantaged people, which will, in turn, disproportionally help black people so long as a gap persists. For instance: just building more housing (and if you like, set aside some as affordable, but helps either way), or having baby bonds, which could address both the wealth gap between black and white but also address growing inequality in general.
One study found that Orthodox Jews have six times the family net worth of conservative Protestants. Is it remotely plausible that American society is biased in favor of Orthodox Jews and against conservative Protestants? Of course, not. If you doubt this check the Wikipedia article "Wealth and religion". Blaming wealth disparities on public/private policies is just nonsense.
It seems to me that your entire train of thought is leading to one ultimate destination - the "Negroes are Inherently Inferior" station. My guess is that you will soon be stopping by the "William Shockley IQ Station" to refuel. Fortunately, most of us are not on board, and most of those who would be are people we would not want to associate with. Have a nice trip.
The phrase 'smell test' was used in the context of Asian arrest/prosecution/imprisonment statistics. Check tables 43A/B/C of the FBI/UCR data for arrest rates by race. Of course, Asians are vastly underrepresented. Also see the OJJDP data. Once again Asians are vastly underrepresented (except for prostitution and gambling). For imprisonment statistics, you can use Wikipedia. As one might expect, Asians are vastly underrepresented. I choose to live in a world based on facts and logic. How about you?
Okay, so come clean and don't tiptoe or mince words. What conclusion do you draw from the "facts and logic" about the causes of the persistent disparities in income and economic achievement, social status, and criminality, between African- Americans and Asians (and white folks)?
The essay is refreshing, and it's high time that someone take some air out of this inflated rhetoric.
As far as the author's contention that the focus on "systemic racism" comes from teleological thinking, I find that an intriguing theory. Here's an alternative theory for your consideration:
Progressives are notoriously unwilling to concede the achievement of progress (the reasons for 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 are themselves subjects of interesting speculation). The obvious progress on race, especially in reduced public manifestations of racial animus, then requires explanation.
The first attempt was "implicit bias" -- i.e. the racism was there even though we couldn't see it. That collapsed under the weight of problems with the techniques of measuring it and interpreting the results.
"Systemic racism" is the next foray. The racism is there even without racists.
'Systemic racism' is just a key tenet of the 'woke' religious faith. We have been here before. In Nazi Germany, the wreckers were supposedly wicked Jews. In Stalin's Russia, there we endless Trotskyite conspiracies (and Jewish conspiracies as well). In China during Mao's Cultural Revolution, supposedly 'capitalist roaders' were everywhere and sabotaging everything.
It was/is all BS. The 'woke' religion is just the latest form of insanity to invent a villian class (the supposedly omnipotent, much dreaded 'white male'). Yeonmi Park (an escapee from North Korea) has a good comment on this. Quote 'even North Korea was not this nuts' after attending an Ivy League school. When American universities have fallen below North Korea they have fallen very far indeed.
This article seems to me to overstate the problem. It already gives one clear example (in Ferguson) of a system that has racist effects. There are many such systems: eg think of how the criminal justice system works. It seems to me useful to flag that it is important to look for such systems, though I agree with the author that it is only when you get into the specifics that action is likely to be effective.
Distinguishing between means ("how") and intent does not eliminate the importance of intent. Redlining was the means by which African-Americans were denied access to credit and housing, but redlining did not come into being without the intent to cause that effect. Jim Crow was the means of segregating the races and denying equality of opportunity based on race, but the legal mechanism of Jim Crow did not come into being without the intent to cause those effects. "Systemic racism" should not be interpreted to imply that the original racist intent necessarily continues, but certainly reflects the persistent effects of the original mechanisms of imposed racial disadvantage as well as the potential motivation behind failing or refusing to dismantle those effects.
In 1966, the New York Times published an article "Success Story, Japanese-American Style" that showed that Japanese-Americans were more successful than whites in spite of discrimination far more intense than Jim Crow (blacks were not interned in WWII, Japanese-Americans were). Systematic discrimination is just a tenet of the left religious cult (better known as 'woke').
Peter - your persistence in your point in this forum is fairly exceptional, so I am trying to understand it. I am left wondering if all your examples about the prosperity of many non-white groups relative to whites in America in spite of periods of racial animus they historically faced only serves to highlight that the flaw in the term "systemic racism" is that it is not specific enough, IF it is being used primarily to describe the African-American experience? That's a big "if": I realise the term is often used to describe an instrument of American "white supremacy" (which the spectacular success of many non-white groups within this system would seem to disprove). But white supremacy and anti-Black are not the same prospects, though both are racism. Do you not concede that in the context of slave descendent African-Americans there has been centuries of what can only be described as systemic racism in slavery, Jim Crow laws, school segregation and red lining? And that this multi-generational experience of discriminatory laws and practices was more-or-less experienced uniquely by them, which puts the African-American experience in a different league to the experiences of other racial groups? And that perhaps you are not really comparing apples with apples? I will read your wikipedia link re. Canadian Blacks, but the fact that they have not experienced/emerged from the same history as US Blacks but experience comparable disadvantage doesn't in itself prove there is no systemic racism at play there either (nor does it prove there is). My own problem with the term "systemic racism", which I think we might agree on, is that - at its worst - it is used lazily to explain the persistent contemporary disparities in outcomes experienced by African Americans at a group level compared with other groups, as though this is caused by present-day/ever-present racism rather than being a legacy effect of past systemic racism. This is not to deny that systemic racism against Blacks may in fact exist today, only that one can't leap to that singular and simplistic a conclusion to explain current Black disadvantage.
"Do you not concede that in the context of slave descendent African-Americans there has been centuries of what can only be described as systemic racism in slavery, Jim Crow laws, school segregation and red lining? And that this multi-generational experience of discriminatory laws and practices was more-or-less experienced uniquely by them, which puts the African-American experience in a different league to the experiences of other racial groups?"
In 1966, William Petersen, a sociologist at the University of California, Berkeley wrote an article in the NYT with the tittle "Success Story, Japanese-American Style". Quote
"Asked which of the country's ethnic minorities has been subjected to the most discrimination and the worst injustices, very few persons would even think of answering: 'The Japanese Americans,' ... Yet, if the question refers to persons alive today, that may well be the correct reply."
My overall view is that racism has existed in the past (in the United States). Today, it is the reverse. For every racist marching in Charlottesville, the US has thousands of wokists enforcing AA (really just anti-white, anti-Asian racism). Of course, the comparison isn’t quite fair. Woke is the dominant ideology of every elite institution in America (Academia, K-12 education, government, the military, the FBI, the CIA, Tech, SV, Wall Street, corporations, the media, Hollywood. NGOs, etc.). Since the elite have far more power that folks marching with tiki torches, the reality is woke rule.
The endless hysteria about ‘systemic racism’, ‘white racism’, ‘white supremacy’ is just the latest elite BS to cover for the fact that the elite project has not worked. Urban schools (in some cases) are lavishly funded. Test scores remain rock bottom.
Do I think racism existed in the past in the U.S.? Sure. The largest lynching in U.S. history was of Chinese people in LA (15 victims in 1871). Japanese-Americans were sent to internment camps in WWII. The was some discrimination against Jews before WWII (less after WWII). Somewhat famously, the father of Governor Cuomo graduated first in his law school class (around 1950) and got zero jobs offers from WASP law firms in NYC. By the way, there is some evidence that college admissions is now biased in favor of Jews.
Do I think racism can have a real impact? I think the folks killed by the Nazis would be inclined to say yes. I think the Japanese-Americans in the camps in 1942, would be inclined to say yes. However, those are extreme cases.
Do I think racism (or slavery or ‘redlining’) has much impact in the US in 2022? No, not really.
By the way, the Canadian data is from an online paper, not Wikipedia. The income data is from Wikipedia.
It turns out the we have quite a bit of international data to look at. Haiti became independent in 1804 (and ended slavery, etc.). Haiti has a per-capita GDP of $2,962 (IMF, 2021). By contrast, Singapore became independent in 1965 (and ended British rule). Singapore has a per-capita GDP of $102,742 (IMF, 2021).
If ‘systemic racism’ was really that important, Haiti should be far richer than Singapore. However, that doesn’t seem to be the case.
“There are persistent racial disparities in society; those disparities have a cause; therefore, there is systemic racism.”
Even this much is questionable. Simply digging down one layer deeper into ethnic groups makes these sorts of comparisons silly in my opinion. Is there something in American society that privileges Nigerians over Burmese? Lebanese over French? Why then the massive difference in outcomes?
One study found that Orthodox Jews have six times the family net worth of conservative Protestants. Is it remotely plausible that American society is biased in favor of Orthodox Jews and against conservative Protestants? Of course, not. If you doubt this check the Wikipedia article "Wealth and religion".
At some level, you are right. However, at a different level you are wrong. The USA mostly (not entirely) upholds 'enlightenment' values. These values are (by definition) race-neutral. However, as you point out, some groups do better than others in an 'enlightenment' system. To use a trivial example (with non-trivial consequences), Asians do better than whites on the Math part of the SAT. The SAT was not created to favor Asians. It was created as part of the overall 'enlightenment' project.
Do you think this is about enlightenment as much as just market capitalism?
We in the market value people who can do math and write because they can do useful stuff for us. Universities are valuable to the extent that they can signal to employers that their students will make good employees (which includes being able to do math and write, among other things).
I wouldn't draw much of a distinction between the enlightenment and market capitalism. I see them as closely related, if not more or less the same thing. Let me offer an example, in the pre-modern world, literacy and numeracy were relatively rare. The probability that a child would end up literate and numerate was primarily a function of who his/her parents were.
In the modern world, that is mostly not true. Is it market capitalism or is it the enlightenment that changed everything? Or was it a combination of market capitalism, the industrial revolution, and the enlightenment that changed everything? I lean towards a hybrid explanation with all of these factors being entwined (and in some cases more or less the same thing).
I would observe that market capitalism existed in ancient Greece, Rome, China, etc. without bringing much progress.
Bravo. In other words, describing “what” and “why” is fine, but analyzing “how” is how you change things.
Finally. Tried and true philosophical tools relating to causal explanations applied to contemporary race theory. Amazing the results that leap forth when we go rational rather than political. Well done, though I think this really just skims the surface. Would love to see Achinstein's analysis of explanations used in this context even more rigorously.
Agree with the sentiment generally, but are we now conceding that mere disparate impact - even when adequately explained - can fairly be characterized as “racism”? Doesn’t there have to be evidence that a system is discriminating on the basis of race specifically, rather than some other factor (e.g. wealth) for it to be “racism” - systemic or otherwise? If so, I don’t think his Ferguson example is a good one, as it focuses on wealth and not race.
One study found that Orthodox Jews have six times the family net worth of conservative Protestants. Is it remotely plausible that American society is biased in favor of Orthodox Jews and against conservative Protestants? Of course, not. If you doubt this check the Wikipedia article "Wealth and religion".
Is America (the United States) systematically racist? There are a number of ways of looking at this, but they all yield the same answer. No.
1. The US and Canada have very different racial histories. However, the black/white income gap is remarkably similar. See “Black Canadians and Black Americans: Racial income inequality in comparative perspective” (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233008532_Black_Canadians_and_Black_Americans_Racial_income_inequality_in_comparative_perspective).
2. One clue is to look at societies where ‘racism’ (the white kind) hasn’t existed for a very long time. The Haitian Revolution was 217 years ago. If ‘white racism’ was really such a powerful force, then Haiti should be highly successful. That does not seem to be the case.
3. In World War II, Japanese-Americans were interned in various camps and typically lost everything. Yet, by the middle 1960s, they were more successful than whites in America. Back then, racism towards Japanese-Americans wasn’t hypothetical or limited to the internment camps. See “ALIEN LAND LAWS IN CALIFORNIA (1913 & 1920)” (https://immigrationhistory.org/item/alien-land-laws-in-california-1913-1920/).
It should be noted that the Japanese-Americans in question were hardly elite. They were brought to America as farm laborers. However, even after the Word War II camps, they were highly successful. See “"Success Story, Japanese-American Style” (New York Times (1923-Current File); Jan 9, 1966)
4. It turns out that all of the most successful ethnic groups in America are non-white. Some are wildly more successful than white. Some statistics. Median Household income for Indian Americans ($107,390), Jews ($97,500), Taiwanese ($85,566), all Asians ($74,245) is greater than Whites ($59,698). As can you see, non-white ethnic groups are at the top and Jews earn (far) more than non-Jewish whites.
These numbers are real, but have two major problems. First, Asian households tend to be larger than non-Asian households. Using personal income provides a better measure than household income. Asian personal income is also higher than non-Asian personal income. However, the positive gap is not as large as the household income gap. The second problem is the nature of the 1965 Immigration Act. The 1965 Act favored (rightfully so) highly educated immigrants over less educated immigrants. The cliché Indian-American immigrant to the US is a doctor. Of course, that is a cliché. However, it is a cliché because it has some element of truth to it.
5. It turns out the school funding is not equal across the United Sates. New York state spends the most (over $24K per-student, per-year) and Utah spends the least (around $7K per-student, per-year). However, the results almost exactly the opposite of what ‘white racism’ theory predicts. Utah has higher test scores that New York state. Of course, ‘white racism’ theory would predict the Utah would spend more than New York state. That isn’t even remotely true.
6. Police fatalities are not equally distributed by race. In 2019, just 17 Asians were killed by the police. For whites the number was 406, and blacks 259. ‘White racism’ can not possibly explain the amazingly low number of Asians shot by police. For a typical factoid, in one year, two Japanese-Americans were arrested for murder. Not 200, or 200,000. Just two.
7. The Asian incarceration rate is 74.5% lower than the white incarceration rate and 95% below the black incarceration rate. ‘White racism’ can not possibly explain these astounding differences.
8. It turns out that schools discipline rates are tracked by race. See Figure 15.3 of “Indicator 15: Retention, Suspension, and Expulsion” (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_rda.asp). ‘White racism’ can not possibly explain these astounding differences.
9. That statistics for SAT scores, college enrollment/completion, arrests, etc. are all readily available by race. You can even find COVID-19 vaccination statistics by race. Invariably, you will find racial disparities and invariably Asians will be on top. So much for the mythology of ‘white racism’.
Mr. Lutz is a victim of the very tautology that he mocks. He begins with a premise that is false, then uses it as the basis for "proving" it false.
He asserts: "In the bad old days, the theory goes, racism was personal, a matter of individual racial animus. Personal racism was easy to identify and, thus, easy to stamp out, or at least to drive underground."
Where does he get the notion that those of us who use the term systemic racism see it as something new and different from what existed in this country from its earliest days? So he thinks that we think that the institution of slavery was "personal" and not systemic? That Jim Crow was somehow pre-systemic? Just because the term "systemic racism" has caught on as an accurate descriptor of how racism - despite our noble efforts to counteract or compensate for race-based inequities - continues to pervade our institutions and practices, does not mean that the past was not also infused with institutional racism.
While I, too, decry much of the language used by the left as ill-conceived and counter-productive, "systemic racism," though it may stick in the craw for some, is one of the sadly rare terms that captures quite accurately how racial discrimination insinuates itself into our society. If it sticks in your craw, then maybe you need to broaden your craw.
There seems to be a bit of confusion in your critique.
The author asserts: "In the bad old days, THE THEORY GOES, racism was personal, a matter of individual racial animus..." Note the emphasis on "the theory."
You're quite right to say that systemic racism (or whatever we call it) pre-dates the term "systemic racism." Racism in the 1800s and earlier was both personal and systemic. The author never says otherwise.
What I think the author is saying is that, until recently, the emphasis on battling racism was primarily personal. In a million ways our culture has insisted that "If only people could stop being racist, then everyone would be equal."
But what we've discovered is that, despite most people not being personally racist to each other, disparities still exist. The term and theory of "systemic racism" has recently leapt into that void to explain why.
In short, the author's point isn't that racism itself changed from personal to systemic. The point is that the way we talk about racism—our "theory" of it—has changed. And that theory may or may not be helpful in our discourse.
Hope this helps.
Yes, I get and got the author's point, and I stand by mine. I think he misunderstands "the theory." I'm not sure why he even sees "systemic racism" as a theory, nor why he sees it as anything other than an institutionalization of what he identifies as "personal." Both have always existed in our society as established values, norms, and laws, and both have been opposed for nearly as long by those who saw them as wrong.
I agree. I define it as the laws and values baked into the system over centuries. Housing discrimination did not grow out of legal red-lining. But red-lining was used by banks and developers for decades to keep Black people segregated. The 'not in my backyard' phenomenon is still with us today. Why? because it's still backed into how property is valued, even if the distinction is explained as conflict between single house development and multi-housing. Mixed marriage was first outlawed, then frowned upon (by both Black and White) and only in the past couple of decades it has become something not as 'exotic' in practice.
Asian-Americans were barred from owning land throughout much of American history. Are they poor today as a consequence? Hardly.
The misstatement you point out struck me, too, as soon as I started reading the paragraph in question. The author does say flatly that the theorists of systemic racism regard past racism as personal. If he means, as they do, that racism was commonly regarded as personal in the past, then the sentence is faulty.
Unfortunately, the words and strategies now in play among those who reserve the term "antiracist" to their own political camp add up to a contradictory mess. Those who hew to the public statements of Ibram X. Kendi stress that racism is systemic *as opposed to* being personal and can therefore be discussed without blaming individuals. Others -- if not some of the same people on other occasions -- make the sociopolitical move of taxing white individuals with white privilege and hereditary complicity in past wrongs. By many accounts, this move has become standard practice in contexts from elementary-school classes to university faculty workshops and corporate HR.
It seems that the objective meaning of "systemic racism" has never stood a chance against the subjective urge to personalize it. The upshot is that positively racist individuals, who once faced stigmatization within their own race, now enjoy an implicitly equal footing with non-racist ones.
The impact of ‘Red Lining’ (if there was any) has been greatly exaggerated. The Boston Federal Reserve studied this question back in the 1990s and found little evidence of ‘Red Lining’. However, let’s assume the opposite. Let’s say that ‘Red Lining’ was intense and lenders were massively racist in their lending criteria. This should have created many opportunities for entrepreneurs (presumably black) to create/build banks for under-served markets. To use an obvious analogy, A.P. Giannini build Bank of America to serve a market that other banks ignore.
Let us consider the interesting case of Canada. Canada has no history of slavery and has no comparable history of Jim Crow. 'Separate but equal' is an American phrase, not Canadian. Yet the income gap in Canada matches the income gap in the U.S. Why is that?
Let us consider the interesting case of Haiti. Slavery and discrimination were abolished in Haiti some 220 years ago. Haiti should be some sort of earthly paradise, but strangely enough it is not.
Let us consider the interesting case of American Jews. Antisemitism goes a long way back in the US and certainly preceded the Revolution. There may have been less Antisemitism after WWII, but there was clearly more before WWII. Indeed, at one time every Ivy League school imposed explicit quotas on Jews (like the quotas imposed on Asians now). Logically we should expect Jews to have lower incomes and less wealth than non-Jews. However, that is not even remotely true.
Let us consider the interesting case of Japanese-Americans. According to the New York Times (in 1966) Japanese-Americans have faced the worst discrimination of any ethnic or racial group. If 'systemic racism' was really so pervasive and material, they should be the poorest group. Yet, even by 1966 they were more successful that whites.
By the way 'short-term internment of Japanese Americans during WW2' is not true. Japanese-Americans were sent to concentration camps for 3 years (in some cases 4).
I will assume that some survivors of the Nazis enjoyed great subsequent success. What that (if true) shows is that policy (even at the extremes) has less long-term impact than you might think.
I think the Brooking Institution report and data fails to agree with you that red lining (sans scare quotes) wasn't a very real and detrimental thing. This is one of numerous studies attempting to approximate wealth that was lost. And black people did create an alternate economy. And can you please share your Canada example data? A specific study please? Thanks! https://www.brookings.edu/essay/homeownership-racial-segregation-and-policies-for-racial-wealth-equity/
If you check, you will find that I already provided this link. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233008532_Black_Canadians_and_Black_Americans_Racial_income_inequality_in_comparative_perspective. I read the Brookings 'study' and the Boston Fed study. Wow, the Brookings 'study' was astoundingly superficial compared to the Boston Fed work. One of the first rules of statistics, is that 'correlation is not causation'. That basic truth would seem to be unknown to Brookings. I should mention that the Brookings 'study' contains no evidence that Red Lining has ever had an effect on anything. The authors simply assume this to be true.
In 1966, the New York Times published an article "Success Story, Japanese-American Style" that showed that Japanese-Americans were more successful than whites in spite of discrimination far more intense than Jim Crow (blacks were not interned in WWII, Japanese-Americans were). Systematic discrimination is just a tenet of the left folk religion ('woke').
I'm trying not to be snide, but maybe you should immerse yourself in some African-American history if you think there is some meaningful comparison here. Over two-hundred years of a racist-based slave-dependent economy, leading to a Civil War fought mainly over the ability to continue that system, followed by another hundred years of legally enforced brutal discrimination with thousands of vigilante lynchings and countless lesser legally sanctioned brutalities and indignities bears no comparison to the short-term internment of Japanese Americans during WW2. Do you want to compare those camps to Auschwitz as well? After all, many survivors of Nazi death camps became quite successful, too. Please reconsider your comparison.
The impact of ‘Red Lining’ (if there was any) has been greatly exaggerated. The Boston Federal Reserve studied this question back in the 1990s and found little evidence of ‘Red Lining’. However, let’s assume the opposite. Let’s say that ‘Red Lining’ was intense and lenders were massively racist in their lending criteria. This should have created many opportunities for entrepreneurs (presumably black) to create/build banks for under-served markets. To use an obvious analogy, A.P. Giannini build Bank of America to serve a market that other banks ignore.
Let us consider the interesting case of Canada. Canada has no history of slavery and has no comparable history of Jim Crow. 'Separate but equal' is an American phrase, not Canadian. Yet the income gap in Canada matches the income gap in the U.S. Why is that?
Let us consider the interesting case of Haiti. Slavery and discrimination were abolished in Haiti some 220 years ago. Haiti should be some sort earthly paradise, but strangely enough it is not.
Let us consider the interesting case of American Jews. Antisemitism goes a long way back in the US and certainly preceded the Revolution. There may have been less Antisemitism after WWII, but there was clearly more before WWII. Indeed, at one time every Ivy League school imposed explicit quotas on Jews (like the quotas imposed on Asians now). Logically we should expect Jews to have lower incomes and less wealth than non-Jews. However, that is not even remotely true.
Let us consider the interesting case of Japanese-Americans. According to the New York Times (in 1966) Japanese-Americans have faced the worst discrimination of any ethnic or racial group. If 'systemic racism' was really so pervasive and material, they should be the poorest group. Yet, even by 1966 they were more successful that whites.
By the way 'short-term internment of Japanese Americans during WW2' is not true. Japanese-Americans were sent to concentration camps for 3 years (in some cases 4).
I will assume that some survivors of the Nazis enjoyed great subsequent success. What that (if true) shows is that policy (even at the extremes) has less long-term impact than you might think.
This essay is interesting and useful, but it needs another “[sic]” after “cut and dry”. The phrase is “cut and dried”.
The alleged existence of 'systemic racism' is just a key tenet of the religion of the left ('woke'). The facts don't support it, but so what? You just have to believe. It is a matter of faith.
I actually think the municipal funding example is one of MANY mechanisms that in total can be included under the umbrella of systemic racism. If you look at the history of cash bail, the way Jim Crow somewhat survived even after the 60s Civil Rights movements with rise of the industrialized prison complex, that road a wave of a racialized drug war where sentences for people of color were WAY higher for things like crack cocaine vs old regular cocaine (e.g. a relative of mine got probation for having way above the cocaine limit in the 1980s... you can bet that didn't happen to many black convicts in my Southern home state), you do start to find myriad of ways that create a lattice of oppression in their sum total. So yes, I'm all for outlining the specific policies, but you also sometimes have to back to up and see the forest for the trees.
This theory doesn't pass the smell test. Asian-Americans have arrest/prosecution/imprisonment rates far below whites. Is American society biased in favor of Asians? Hardly. Personal choices are (by far) the dominant factor in all cases.
Asian Americans don't have the same history of being the main source of chattel slavery to run an economic system, having had a Civil War fought over their liberation, been brought into civil society then cast out with Reconstruction/Jim Crow, been the subject then of a new system of imprisonment invented post-Reconstruction of the "chain gang", the hounded by an national organization invented for their persecution and murder (aka the KKK), then being beaten and murdered when they tried to vote and obtain equal education for 75+ years until the Civil Rights movement victories, so I think I smell very different histories as communities, which lead to very different outcomes.
The revolution in Haiti was 220 years ago. No more slavery, no Jim Crow, no KKK. So logically Haiti should be some sort of human paradise, but it is not.
Canada has a very different racial history than the US (no Slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, etc. ), but income gaps are the same as the U.S. Why is that?
Orthodox Jews have six times the net worth of conservative Protestants. Have Orthodox Jews subjected conservative Protestants to slavery, Jim Crow, and the KKK? I think not.
In this century, Japanese-Americans were more discriminated against than blacks (blacks were not sent camps, Japanese-Americans were). However, Japanese-Americans were more successful than whites by 1966.
Further info on Haitian history: they gained their independence from France in 1804... but France and the USA didn't recognized them as a sovereign nation until 1862. That didn't happen specifically because white slave owning south was worried about, you guessed it, enslaved people actually revolting for their own emancipation. This surely didn't help their growth or economy... neither did the US invading then occupying Haiti from 1915-1934, changing Haiti’s constitution, and in many ways further contributed to its ongoing instability, I think this being the longest occupation of a sovereign nation by the US since our occupation of Afghanistan. This doesn't excuse the human rights abused of the dictatorships to come, just saying we have a complicated history with Haiti and I wouldn't cite it as a one-to-one comparison with the USA unless you are willing to do a deep dive into Haitian history. Also, Canada's history with indigenous peoples is very similar to the USA, but if you want to look past the racialized or religious lens, you will see similar class stagnation of wages in both the USA and Canada, and the concomitant accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few. Finally, btw, Japanese Americans actually won reparations for their internment, which I would totally support for those African Americans who can trace their ancestry back to slavery, since having nothing, being forced into sharecropping, being denied home ownership where property allows for the accumulation of wealth with red-lining laws that were on the books until the 1970s, means that A LOT of wealth was denied or even appropriated for their labor in the 20th century.
"you will see similar class stagnation of wages in both the USA and Canada, and the concomitant accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few" which somehow explains the contemporary obsession with 'systemic racism'. Wesley Yang has observed with some suspicion that 'woke' took off as an ideology just after the GFC might have made neonliberalism less popular.
So the lack of diplomatic recognition from 1804 to 1862 was somehow decisive? 1862 happens to be 160 years ago. Of course, Haiti could trade with the rest of the world from 1804 to 1862 and neither France or the US were the dominant powers of the time. The UK was the dominant power and the UK recognized the Haitian government much earlier.
You state “neither did the US invading then occupying Haiti from 1915-1934, changing Haiti’s constitution, and in many ways further contributed to its ongoing instability”
That happens to be exactly wrong. The US sent troops to Haiti after the president was assassinated and years of chronic instability. The US invasion actually brought political stability and an economic boom. Quote from “GROWTH AND STRUCTURE OF THE ECONOMY”
“The nineteen-year United States occupation of Haiti (1915-34) brought unquestionable economic benefits. United States administrators controlled fiscal and monetary policy largely to the country's benefit. The United States military built major roads, introduced automatic telephones in Port-au-Prince, constructed bridges, dredged harbors, erected schools, established clinics, and undertook other previously neglected public works.”
Of course, 1934 was 88 years ago… But who is counting?
“Also, Canada's history with indigenous peoples is very similar to the USA, but if you want to look past the racialized or religious lens, you will see similar class stagnation of wages in both the USA and Canada, and the concomitant accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few.”
Trying to change the subject won’t help. Canada has a very different black/white history than the US, but quite similar income dynamics.
“Finally, btw, Japanese Americans actually won reparations for their internment”
Reparations for Japanese-Americans started in 1988. In 1966, Japanese-Americans were already more successful than whites.
Perhaps Prof. Lutz has some positive ideas about overcoming racism problems here in the US, rather than pontificate from his safe seat overseas?
ad hominem
Only slightly ad hominem. Is it not a reasonable request of someone who criticizes - especially from afar - to offer some suggestions for overcoming the problem that he identifies? Of course, if he had done this in his essay, neither the request nor the reprimand would have been warranted.
The author's suggestion is implicit in the description of the problem, namely, to enlarge the municipalities so as to share the burden of administration (including law enforcement) more broadly, thereby reducing the financial pressure on law enforcement to 'over-police'. The problem described is not unique to Ferguson, but to many small municipalities.
The Supreme Court could outlaw AA, which would reduce the level of racism in the US. Of course, that would upset liberals and the woke who believe in racial quotas.
Many people use the phrase "systemic racism" in an arm-waving way, to avoid saying "I'm sure it's racist, I just can't explain how"--and arguments like that don't have much legitimacy. But that doesn't mean systemic racism doesn't exist or isn't important. Here's an example: the suburban development was a great boon for those who could buy a house. It gave homeowners some real wealth--the home is most middle-class Americans' largest investment--and many other benefits: more room than they had in the cities they generally moved from, better health, better schools for their children. The combination of wealth, health and education available in postwar developments gave the first homeowners' children (the baby boom generation) a good start in life. Many got college degrees and went on to enjoy well-paid white-collar careers, often in suburban houses of their own. The mass migration from the cities to the suburbs was a major element in the rise in U.S. living standards in the latter half of the twentieth century.
But it wasn't open to everyone. The vast majority of suburban developments, in the North as well as the South, were explicitly whites-only. The Levittowns refused to sell homes to Black families and successfully defended the practice against lawsuits by the NAACP. And because Levitt won those lawsuits, every other suburban developer could do it as well--legally until the Fair Housing Act of 1968, and in practice for long after that. Not that individual bigotry wasn't deeply involved: the developers did this because many white homebuyers wanted to live in segregated neighborhoods. But the effect was that the vast increase in family wealth afforded by the ability to buy a suburban home and grow up in a suburban environment was in large part closed to Black people. This is a major element in the huge disparity in wealth between white and Black families today, in their different geographic distributions, and in their differences in education. It's a legacy that will continue for generations.
That's systemic racism.
A great example - though I'm not sure this is counter to the article - this would be an example of digging deeper into the cause and identifying something more concrete that can be addressed, no?
In the case of suburban development, it brings up another issue though *not* addressed in the piece: how do we counteract the historical effects of something that was way worse in the past but still has lasting effects? Simply returning to neutral won't do it - but then implementing corrective or affirmative policies becomes a harder sell than the case of addressing underfunded municipalities that are forced to turn to fines.
“Counteract the historical effects…..” Are you talking about reparations?
Not necessarily - but that would be an example. Others might be: affirmative action at universities. For housing, perhaps something like this https://shelterforce.org/2021/10/28/making-inclusionary-housing-programs-a-force-for-racial-equity/ though that stops short of explicitly proposing setting aside units based on race.
I personally wouldn't advocate for race conscious programs to counteract past harms as they seem politically infeasible and divisive (perhaps it's unfair that these are infeasible). Instead, I would advocate for race neutral programs that help disadvantaged people, which will, in turn, disproportionally help black people so long as a gap persists. For instance: just building more housing (and if you like, set aside some as affordable, but helps either way), or having baby bonds, which could address both the wealth gap between black and white but also address growing inequality in general.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/close-racial-wealth-gap-baby-bonds/613525/
This is nonsense. I actually lived in Levittown when I was growing up. Levittown had black and white families. By the way, 1968 was 54 years ago.
One study found that Orthodox Jews have six times the family net worth of conservative Protestants. Is it remotely plausible that American society is biased in favor of Orthodox Jews and against conservative Protestants? Of course, not. If you doubt this check the Wikipedia article "Wealth and religion". Blaming wealth disparities on public/private policies is just nonsense.
It seems to me that your entire train of thought is leading to one ultimate destination - the "Negroes are Inherently Inferior" station. My guess is that you will soon be stopping by the "William Shockley IQ Station" to refuel. Fortunately, most of us are not on board, and most of those who would be are people we would not want to associate with. Have a nice trip.
I choose to live in a world based on facts and logic. How about you?
You've confirmed my suspicion. Clearly, "not passing the smell test" is in the nose of the beholder.
The phrase 'smell test' was used in the context of Asian arrest/prosecution/imprisonment statistics. Check tables 43A/B/C of the FBI/UCR data for arrest rates by race. Of course, Asians are vastly underrepresented. Also see the OJJDP data. Once again Asians are vastly underrepresented (except for prostitution and gambling). For imprisonment statistics, you can use Wikipedia. As one might expect, Asians are vastly underrepresented. I choose to live in a world based on facts and logic. How about you?
Okay, so come clean and don't tiptoe or mince words. What conclusion do you draw from the "facts and logic" about the causes of the persistent disparities in income and economic achievement, social status, and criminality, between African- Americans and Asians (and white folks)?
The essay is refreshing, and it's high time that someone take some air out of this inflated rhetoric.
As far as the author's contention that the focus on "systemic racism" comes from teleological thinking, I find that an intriguing theory. Here's an alternative theory for your consideration:
Progressives are notoriously unwilling to concede the achievement of progress (the reasons for 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 are themselves subjects of interesting speculation). The obvious progress on race, especially in reduced public manifestations of racial animus, then requires explanation.
The first attempt was "implicit bias" -- i.e. the racism was there even though we couldn't see it. That collapsed under the weight of problems with the techniques of measuring it and interpreting the results.
"Systemic racism" is the next foray. The racism is there even without racists.
'Systemic racism' is just a key tenet of the 'woke' religious faith. We have been here before. In Nazi Germany, the wreckers were supposedly wicked Jews. In Stalin's Russia, there we endless Trotskyite conspiracies (and Jewish conspiracies as well). In China during Mao's Cultural Revolution, supposedly 'capitalist roaders' were everywhere and sabotaging everything.
It was/is all BS. The 'woke' religion is just the latest form of insanity to invent a villian class (the supposedly omnipotent, much dreaded 'white male'). Yeonmi Park (an escapee from North Korea) has a good comment on this. Quote 'even North Korea was not this nuts' after attending an Ivy League school. When American universities have fallen below North Korea they have fallen very far indeed.
This article seems to me to overstate the problem. It already gives one clear example (in Ferguson) of a system that has racist effects. There are many such systems: eg think of how the criminal justice system works. It seems to me useful to flag that it is important to look for such systems, though I agree with the author that it is only when you get into the specifics that action is likely to be effective.
Distinguishing between means ("how") and intent does not eliminate the importance of intent. Redlining was the means by which African-Americans were denied access to credit and housing, but redlining did not come into being without the intent to cause that effect. Jim Crow was the means of segregating the races and denying equality of opportunity based on race, but the legal mechanism of Jim Crow did not come into being without the intent to cause those effects. "Systemic racism" should not be interpreted to imply that the original racist intent necessarily continues, but certainly reflects the persistent effects of the original mechanisms of imposed racial disadvantage as well as the potential motivation behind failing or refusing to dismantle those effects.
In 1966, the New York Times published an article "Success Story, Japanese-American Style" that showed that Japanese-Americans were more successful than whites in spite of discrimination far more intense than Jim Crow (blacks were not interned in WWII, Japanese-Americans were). Systematic discrimination is just a tenet of the left religious cult (better known as 'woke').
Peter - your persistence in your point in this forum is fairly exceptional, so I am trying to understand it. I am left wondering if all your examples about the prosperity of many non-white groups relative to whites in America in spite of periods of racial animus they historically faced only serves to highlight that the flaw in the term "systemic racism" is that it is not specific enough, IF it is being used primarily to describe the African-American experience? That's a big "if": I realise the term is often used to describe an instrument of American "white supremacy" (which the spectacular success of many non-white groups within this system would seem to disprove). But white supremacy and anti-Black are not the same prospects, though both are racism. Do you not concede that in the context of slave descendent African-Americans there has been centuries of what can only be described as systemic racism in slavery, Jim Crow laws, school segregation and red lining? And that this multi-generational experience of discriminatory laws and practices was more-or-less experienced uniquely by them, which puts the African-American experience in a different league to the experiences of other racial groups? And that perhaps you are not really comparing apples with apples? I will read your wikipedia link re. Canadian Blacks, but the fact that they have not experienced/emerged from the same history as US Blacks but experience comparable disadvantage doesn't in itself prove there is no systemic racism at play there either (nor does it prove there is). My own problem with the term "systemic racism", which I think we might agree on, is that - at its worst - it is used lazily to explain the persistent contemporary disparities in outcomes experienced by African Americans at a group level compared with other groups, as though this is caused by present-day/ever-present racism rather than being a legacy effect of past systemic racism. This is not to deny that systemic racism against Blacks may in fact exist today, only that one can't leap to that singular and simplistic a conclusion to explain current Black disadvantage.
"Do you not concede that in the context of slave descendent African-Americans there has been centuries of what can only be described as systemic racism in slavery, Jim Crow laws, school segregation and red lining? And that this multi-generational experience of discriminatory laws and practices was more-or-less experienced uniquely by them, which puts the African-American experience in a different league to the experiences of other racial groups?"
In 1966, William Petersen, a sociologist at the University of California, Berkeley wrote an article in the NYT with the tittle "Success Story, Japanese-American Style". Quote
"Asked which of the country's ethnic minorities has been subjected to the most discrimination and the worst injustices, very few persons would even think of answering: 'The Japanese Americans,' ... Yet, if the question refers to persons alive today, that may well be the correct reply."
My overall view is that racism has existed in the past (in the United States). Today, it is the reverse. For every racist marching in Charlottesville, the US has thousands of wokists enforcing AA (really just anti-white, anti-Asian racism). Of course, the comparison isn’t quite fair. Woke is the dominant ideology of every elite institution in America (Academia, K-12 education, government, the military, the FBI, the CIA, Tech, SV, Wall Street, corporations, the media, Hollywood. NGOs, etc.). Since the elite have far more power that folks marching with tiki torches, the reality is woke rule.
The endless hysteria about ‘systemic racism’, ‘white racism’, ‘white supremacy’ is just the latest elite BS to cover for the fact that the elite project has not worked. Urban schools (in some cases) are lavishly funded. Test scores remain rock bottom.
Do I think racism existed in the past in the U.S.? Sure. The largest lynching in U.S. history was of Chinese people in LA (15 victims in 1871). Japanese-Americans were sent to internment camps in WWII. The was some discrimination against Jews before WWII (less after WWII). Somewhat famously, the father of Governor Cuomo graduated first in his law school class (around 1950) and got zero jobs offers from WASP law firms in NYC. By the way, there is some evidence that college admissions is now biased in favor of Jews.
Do I think racism can have a real impact? I think the folks killed by the Nazis would be inclined to say yes. I think the Japanese-Americans in the camps in 1942, would be inclined to say yes. However, those are extreme cases.
Do I think racism (or slavery or ‘redlining’) has much impact in the US in 2022? No, not really.
By the way, the Canadian data is from an online paper, not Wikipedia. The income data is from Wikipedia.
It turns out the we have quite a bit of international data to look at. Haiti became independent in 1804 (and ended slavery, etc.). Haiti has a per-capita GDP of $2,962 (IMF, 2021). By contrast, Singapore became independent in 1965 (and ended British rule). Singapore has a per-capita GDP of $102,742 (IMF, 2021).
If ‘systemic racism’ was really that important, Haiti should be far richer than Singapore. However, that doesn’t seem to be the case.