Quote:
Yes, poor people commit more crimes, and blacks are over-represented in poverty statistics, as well, hence they are more likely to commit crimes and much more likely to commit violent crimes due to their increased poverty rate. However, the sticking point for many who believe America has an issue with systemic racism is the way we handout justice disproportionately to certain minority groups, or the way we inadvertently contribute to this increased poverty rate. Mandatory minimums were basically a way for us to disproportionately incarcerate the undesirable, crack using minorities of the inner city population. Blacks are also much more likely to get harsher sentencing than their white counterparts with an average of 10% longer sentencing for similar federal crimes compared to whites. Incarceration of non-violent, no victim offenders leads to increased single parent households exacerbating poverty and leading to less stable homes for black children to grow up in.
Spoken like someone who just watched
13th and accepted every argument they made at face value without examining them.
Mandatory minimums came about not because of a desire to incarcerate 'the undesirable minorities', but because the public believed breathless accounts in the news about the scourge of crack in our communities, i.e. hyperbole. Politicians running for office always want to depict themselves as tough on crime, and the way to do that was to push for mandatory minimum sentences for the crime scaring the most of their constituents, and at that time, it was anything to do with crack. So what is the minimum sentence for cocaine? Well, my opponent is in favor of that sentence, and he is
weak on crime, while I am tougher on crime than him, so make it 2x the minimum. Oh, my opponent said 2x the minimum? He's weak on crime, make it 4x the minimum. Oh, he said 4x? Make it 10x. And that is how you end up with mandatory minimum sentences that are worse for crack than cocaine. It isn't because of the ridiculous bogeyman of 'racism', it is because politicians wanted to be re-elected, and a central part of campaigns in the '90s was being tough on crime.
Quote:
There is also an unfortunate example in Georgia last year of two white men gunning down a black man for jogging through their neighborhood and somehow remained out of jail until the video was leaked (a video the police already had access to) and public outcry finally lead to justice being served. This was a case that perfectly demonstrated the uphill battles that many minorities, and most specifically, black Americans have to go through to be heard and to be taken seriously.
You can argue all you want about the legality of the two men who chased down Ahmaud Arbery, and I'll listen. However, when confronted with armed men with guns, Arbery chose to fight, and attacked someone with a gun while he was unarmed. You know what happens when you bring nothing to a gunfight? You lose.
Are you going to bring up Breonna Taylor next, and blame her death on the police, and not her own participation in drug dealing, her boyfriend's attempt to use her as a human shield, or the obvious money grab by her family?
People making stupid choices with their own safety (Arbery) or participating in criminal activity (Taylor) does not equal racism.
Quote:
Another example is subconscious racism effecting our hiring practices. There have been several studies demonstrating black and Asian individuals increasing their probability of being hired by "whitening" their name. Many of us also had help through networking with family and friends to get the jobs we have today, where unfortunately blacks typically do not know as many individuals in positions of power. This is all ignoring the fact that we are only 3 generations removed from the Jim Crow South where blacks were treated as second class citizens for decades and just 160 years removed from slavery which is a hell of a hole for an entire minority group to try to climb out of.
The resume culling practice argument ignores the fact that you go through culling at every single level of the employment process. Even if you believe people will reject a resume solely based on the name on it (and yes, I've probably watched the same episode of
Freakonomics on this topic that you did), you're ignoring the fact that you still have to get through the interview phase and people still have to like you to feel comfortable with hiring you. You know who often fails this portion of the interview process? Unattractive people. Introverts. People with social anxiety who don't interview well. Is it racist? No. It is simply unfair. Life isn't fair. Sometimes, people are unlucky. Once you understand this, you won't be so quick to claim racism is the cause of all ills in society.
Quote:
Whether you believe any of the above is actually racism or just the unfortunate consequences of past wrongs and individuals who still hold certain prejudices, I think it is important we at least understand the argument regarding systemic racism because it's important. This is not to give anyone a pass for committing violent crimes and this is also not to belittle those minorities and non-minorities who grew up in poverty and were able to make it out without resorting to crime. Bobby Shmurda was clearly an idiot who deserved to be locked up, but I figured I could at least give a bit more nuance to the discussion as opposed to letting this place be an echo chamber.
The argument on systemic racism is not important, it is wrong. You didn't come here to give 'nuance' to the discussion, you came here to lecture others by repeating the talking points of those who believe in systemic racism.
You appear to be a believer in critical theory, which views everything through the prism that there is an oppressed group and an oppressor. Critical racial theory applies this viewpoint to race relations, so any struggle by minorities is not due to bad luck or mistakes on their part, but simply because they're the oppressed being victimized by their oppressors.
This kind of Results-Based Racism (RBR) is the underpinning of all claims of systemic racism. If you look at stats the right way, you'll find 'racism' everywhere. Guess what, America is not about equality of outcome, America is about equality of opportunity. Everyone is given a fair shot. Are some people lucky because they have certain advantages that make it easier for them to succeed in life? Yes. Does that make others without those advantages the victims of racism? No. It makes them unlucky. Some people are also lucky in that they don't suffer major illnesses during their main working years, so they never miss work, and are able to save and invest without interruption, and build wealth. Others are not lucky, and miss work because they come down with cancer, and need time for treatment and recovery. Is the person who missed work and accumulated less wealth because he came down with cancer a 'victim' of 'racism'? No, he was just unlucky. But per critical racial theory and its adherents like you, if the cancer victim is a minority, he's a victim of racism. You're not looking at the fact that they had the same opportunities, you're looking at the results, and determining your viewpoint based on results.
It is now 2021. Regardless of race, if you started saving $25 a week in January 1991 and invested it ($100 a month, $1200 a year) in an S&P 500 index, you'd have $249k today, 30 years later. Regardless of race, regardless of skin color, regardless of job, everyone had that same opportunity starting in 1991. There is one definition of wealth today that says if you have over $100k in an investment portfolio, you're wealthy. So everyone had the same opportunity to go from working a job to becoming wealthy in the last generation. If you didn't become wealthy in the last 30 years, are you a victim of racism? Believers in CRT (and people like you) will certainly claim you're a victim. Are people who made the decision to save and invest and stay disciplined through the last 30 years to acquire wealth the winners of a 'racist' system? No. They're just lucky they had someone explain investing to them, and the discipline to make a plan and stick to their plan and not panic when things didn't go their way. They're fortunate they didn't become greedy, and chose to re-invest dividends when they received them.
Stop swallowing propaganda like
13th, and actually think for yourself.
