Philosophy discussion

These are troubling times. Not only has our nation and nations around the world been hit with the corona virus but the recent murder-by-police of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota has once again brought to the forefront the problem of systemic racism in both the police force but in society itself.
What can philosophers do to contribute to a solution? The first thing we can contribute is clarification. We can begin by offering clear definitions of the words "systemic" and "racism". Sociologists cannot begin their empirical research into the depth of systemic racism until they have a clear understanding of these words.
Second, philosophers can also contribute to some of the proposed solutions. For example, some politicians (notably Governor Tony Evers of Wisconsin) have suggested that we should treat systemic racism as a "public health crisis". What does this mean? What is public health? How are these words defined?
When we speak of private health (our own health, as individuals), we use words like 'good' and 'bad' or 'ill', as in 'good health' and 'ill health'. There are medical standards for determining whether an individual's health is good or bad. If there is such a thing as good and bad public health, are the standards the same or different? And generally, how do we decide upon and defend a set of standards for evaluating the health of the public?
Third, what would a public health response to systemic racism look like? This is not an empirical question. It is a question about the relationships between concepts. If racism, like the corona virus is conceived as an illness, then being a racist is something that one cannot help. It calls for a cure for those who suffer from the illness and a preventative to keep it from spreading. What would be offered as a cure and a preventative for racism? Would a cure take the form of an anti-racist drug or psychiatric “talk” therapy?
Fourth, if we recoil from the idea that racist people cannot help their racism, then what are the alternative responses to systemic racism? Punishment for practicing and encouraging racism? Education of all children from an early age by unbiased teachers in mixed-race classrooms (parents who resist will be prosecuted for child neglect)?
These are some of the questions that philosophers can ask. Can you help with answers? I would greatly appreciate your comments and suggestions.
Laurence Houlgate, emeritus professor of philosophy

I certainly do want to live under any police-state mandates of the kind you're speculating on in paragraph four of your post.

Nor do I ever wish to face accusations of thought-crime. The measures you aired just now strike me as wild over-reaction.

Anyone familiar with layman-level evolutionary biology should grasp that there are no valid racial differences at the level of human DNA. It is almost entirely a 'cultural' construct.

Nevertheless, 'group behaviors' are a part of our inherited instincts. Infants exhibit racial and other, 'them vs us' aversions while still in the cradle.

https://tinyurl.com/y6zd5nk4
https://tinyurl.com/y7nxzj6n

Unfortunately (or fortunately?) there's nothing to 'do' about any of this.
[save that we not lose our heads or run amok over news headlines, but that's just my private opinion]

After all, we can't put babies in jail. The science is clear: we are all racists to some degree. It's a survival mechanism which will not go away. However ugly, it is part of being human.

What I'd rather see talked about is an end to nationalism and patriotism. That's a discussion which never happens, even though governments routinely practice genocide far worse than any racism.

I am afraid that you completely misunderstand me. I am asking questions, not giving my answers to the questions. The answers that I give are hypothetical. They are answers that some persons might give and probably some have given these answers at some time or other.

I thought they were good questions, Laurence. I also agree with Feliks that racism may be a part of everyone to some degree. I found it everywhere I have traveled. In Vietnam, I saw how Vietnamese and Chinese and Cambodians all had thousands of years of racial prejudice behind them.

I've been in SE Asia myself. Latin America as well. Anyone who has traveled --if they're honest --will acknowledge that racism is worldwide.

The most minute difference between two islands in the Java Sea, will result in name-calling between two peoples. In the remotest, most pointless backwater of the globe, natives still slur each other with labels like 'monkey' or 'rat' or 'centipede'.

Truly, some more mature appreciation of all this needs to be attained other than childishly trying to 'eradicate' human spleen.

Designating anything as a 'problem' means 'the problem' will never go away.

What I detest most is the assumption that no American citizen should ever suffer at all, not a single hair on any American scalp should ever wilt ....when for years, we've casually sent soldiers all around the earth slaughtering "third-world" families. Our precious capitalism and our precious way-of-life. No mystery at all, as to how the rest of the world feels about us.

Laurence, thank you for your thoughtful introduction. I share your concerns about the current direction, suggesting we need clear philosophical understanding of terms before we can begin to approach solutions. Without a definition of "racism," how can we understand whether actions meet that definition? And, certainly without a definition of "systemic" we cannot begin to ask the question whether something is or is not systemic racism. It feels to me at first blush there is so much bleed-over between "systemic," "cultural," and "individual" racism that the term is could be used to describe anything.

I recommend a starting point, that we adopt the OED US definition for discussion. it reads:

"1Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."

Clearly, there is a lot of highly-level thinking in this definition. We would need to drill down to examine each aspect. Prejudice requires it's own definition:

"1Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." Etymology, "Latin praejudicium, from prae ‘in advance’ + judicium ‘judgement’."

I suppose there are two perspectives involved when using this term, epistemological and ethical. I believe we would need to address the epistemological concerns first.

I believe philosophically this definition is too broad, reason and experience. My first question is relying on what we as philosophers understand of epistemological justification, how could we add nuances to the elements of "reason" and "experience" in this definition to clarify the meaning of prejudice?

This question involves multiple perspectives, and focusing on all perspectives is untenable for discussion Let's limit the perspectives to a police officer apprehending a suspect. That perspective seems reasonable, given the current circumstances.

It seems to me that epistemological justification from the perspective of law enforcement officers needs to be based on empirical evidence, such as suspect has a weapon, a warrant sworn, a history of... violence, etc. These data points are clear and justifiable. But the definition of prejudice comes into play, because the epistemological method for police officers must go beyond empirical to a pragmatic epistemology as well. "Suspect is disobeying commands, moving towards his vehicle, reaching inside his vehicle, is black, and is said to be armed with a knife." While there are empirical elements involved in each statement, judgment here is open to pragmatic assessment in a life and death situation and filled with unknowns and nuances. What can philosophy offer to aid in such a circumstance?

Well. I myself can't foresee much benefit from appraising paramilitary personnel as if they are community college freshmen filling in an elective with 3 philosophy credits.

In the main, police officers are not a well-educated sector of our national workforce. They have more blue than anyone, in their blue collar. As well as rampant alcoholism, domestic violence, drug use, broken homes, and often criminal activities/criminal pasts of their own.

What can we reasonably expect from a mindset dominated by insularity and group-think? To 'fix' our police force might require 'fixing' United States culture itself. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Just saying...

The most desirable aim for totalitarian attitudes is a service-sector population that lolls around with our thumbs-up-their-asses debating and vacillating about "bad government" ...without ever actually doing anything about it.

They love this. Social media is a wonderful tool for keeping sheep tranquilized.

Faux-democratic (non-energized, non-participatory) 'chatter' which is lifeless and limp, is never a worry to them.

As long as we sit around chatting --'analysis paralysis'-- they've won.

I agree that racism is universal, in the sense of occurring in all cultures. It's probably universal, or close to universal, across individuals in at least minor ways (e.g., timing tests of word priming that reveals a racist upbringing---I've taken some, and guess what? I reveal a racist upbringing).

I differ with Feliks on a few interesting matters. Unimportantly, that races exist (if they didn't, widespread agreement on race membership would be miraculous). More importantly, that systemic racism is important to counter. Surely, nationalism beyond the innocuous rallying for one's World Cup team is politically undesirable, as Feliks suggests. But that doesn't mean that systemic racism shouldn't also be opposed. Nor does the fact that there is likely an evolutionary basis for racism, ethnocentricity, xenophobia, etc. Racism may have served our ancestors well without serving us well. As effectively participants in a world-wide civilization we have an interest in fostering international cooperation on such things as global warming and coping with refugees. Racism stands in the way of effective cooperation. It does so also within borders. It was and is a large part of Trumplican efforts to win power and divide Americans against each other.

Evolution is not destiny. As with most heritable features, it's not nature versus nurture; it's nature and nurture. Nurture, at least, we can do something about.

As for the meaning of "systemic racism", I think informally it's clear the contrast is with individual racism. Racists individually have (unfounded) beliefs about intellectual superiority, blah blah. Systemic racism refers to the lack of even approximately equal opportunity, equal distribution of wealth, etc. within a society, which lack can be traced back to actions taken by racists in power, or neglected or supported by other racists. I think most social scientists would have no difficulty understanding it in those terms, even if it's insufficiently rigorous for developing a philosophical logic.

Nicely stated, Kevin. A fine contribution to the thread. I mostly embrace your remarks.

Can I ask for clarity here:
"Unimportantly, that races exist (if they didn't, widespread agreement on race membership would be miraculous)."

Wouldn't it be better to agree that while the popular notion of races exists, biological races do not?

'Evolution is not destiny' is an interesting assertion I will mull over further in private. Good jab.

"Racism may have served our ancestors well without serving us well."

Survival ethics could change on the morrow. A comet might graze the earth; tsunamis might rage. Would 'cooperative global village' platitudes take priority then? Or would regional and "racial" (heavy quotes) again dominate the popular mindset?

I myself believe that under pressure, platitudes drop and animality returns. I'm against adopting artificiality in place of much more powerful instincts. Artifice is fine ...as long as the sun shines.

Provoked by your last paragraph: might we agree that "power and wealth distributed unfairly to citizens regardless of race" is a wart on the face of capitalism; and that cries for 'fair distribution' is a specific charge against capitalism, rather than racism?

Said another way: why does no one in the 'politically-correct' landscape today, attack the #1 problem: capitalism? Isn't that taking politeness too far?

If we solved the problems of capitalism first, wouldn't some of the problems of racism vanish?

Back to you.

Wouldn't it be better to agree that while the popular notion of races exists, biological races do not?

No. It would be less accurate. Surely, we can agree that common racial characteristics, such as, but not only, skin tone, are heritable. If such characteristics weren't heritable, crops and dogs could never have been driven by artificial selection; perhaps Darwin wouldn't have been inspired; it might have required the computer revolution before we figured evolution out. Since races as commonly understood are identified by a kind of loose grouping based on those heritable characteristics (as in Wittgenstein's open concepts), they exist in the same sense as any other such category. Or, do trees not exist?

Race is biologically real, heritable and amazingly unimportant for almost all human activities, at least normatively. Cognitive differences across racial lines, for example, are either non-existent or trivial, if you hold constant background, socially determined contexts.

While I don't think our differences are substantive here, I'm very much opposed to misrepresentations of evolution theory. They do not help. Being unclear about underlying concepts is where most bad philosophy, science and policy begins.

I don't know what your survivalist ethics stuff is meant for. Sure, under radically different circumstances, our behavior may change. I tend to plan for a combination of the likely and the important.

Re capitalism, you are mistaken in implying no one is attacking capitalism. I, one of many, grant that unrestrained capitalism, especially "movement conservatism", extremist libertarianism, etc., are major problems. But wealth inequality isn't entirely down to race-blind capitalism. The inequities are racially skewed, and that's a major problem in its own right.

"No. It would be less accurate. Surely, we can agree that common racial characteristics, such as, but not only, skin tone, are heritable. If such characteristics weren't heritable, crops and dogs could never have been driven by artificial selection; perhaps Darwin wouldn't have been inspired..."

That's not the popular definition of race. Popular definitions of race pre-suppose foolishness like 'negro chromosomes' or 'Asian blood' or 'Indian gene' ..all in the ridiculous sense of miscegenation; as if inheritable traits are the subsidiaries to their stereotype. If you're Asian, you're automatically, "good at mathematics", if you're black, "shiftlessness and laziness are in your nature". That kind of thing.

Such irrationality is what many citizens still believe today. It is this street-corner definition of race which scientists have long since disproved. So it is exactly as I said: there is no biological support for this clumsy cultural concept of race.

Nothing in your first paragraph is therefore germane, since we're talking at cross-purposes. It's not 'inheritable-ness' itself which matters. If grasping the concept of inheritable traits (fixed typo) was enough to dissipate racial debate, then controversy would have ended in 1866 with Mendel's pea-pod experiments.

"While I don't think our differences are substantive here, I'm very much opposed to misrepresentations of evolution theory. They do not help. Being unclear about underlying concepts is where most bad philosophy, science and policy begins."

I enjoy a successful career in government policy; and I haven't committed any errors in this thread. 'Taking someone to task' (for what you believe are 'misrepresentations' on their part) is setting yourself up for a fall. Instead, why not allow for the possibility of miscommunication in a web forum? When someone makes a casual comment, allow for shades of meaning which may not have gotten conveyed to you. Ask the commenter to clarify. Read replies calmly without reacting, without 'building a case against them'.

"Re capitalism, you are mistaken in implying no one is attacking capitalism."

Let me re-phrase. 'Criticism of capitalism' is not being voiced to any widespread, serious, or forceful extent among any important players on the field today. Your private attitudes toward capitalism, are all very well and good, but unless you're a representative at the United Nations passing the time here between votes...? I hope I can be excused for not taking you into account when I made my remark. I've only met you a few days ago.

For now, I stand by my suggestion that there's an overarching inequality that predicates all modern wealth inequality among 'races'. The Middle Ages in Northern Europe, for example. Where was the racial disparity in that very unequal economy? Clearly fiscal disparity existed within homogeneous societies before the Age of Exploration and the Discovery of the New World. This is something anyone ought to be able to agree with.

That's not the popular definition of race.

I'll choose to disagree about this. Sure, there may be (many) idiots who think of things as you suggest. But ordinary language is based on observable characteristics of race, both before and after genetics. When random people announce that races don't exist, I tend to assume they are speaking in ordinary English, unless they indicate some technical language is in play. I accept that "race" in the suggested technical language is just an empty concept. They might as well be arguing about the characteristics of unicorns. I also agree the debate should've ended with Mendel.

Your rephrasing wrt capitalism makes more sense than a blanket denial of criticism of capitalism. We can agree that there is not (yet) sufficient criticism, let alone well considered criticism.

The predating, and broader inequality, doesn't nullify the racial inequality, or render it unimportant. That's my modest point.

Race is a social construct and as such it is not considered part of the scientific classification system or taxonomy. As a social construct racism has served a purpose to segregate "the other" from our "tribe" either to create enemies to attack or to keep us safe from the unknown. The closer individuals of "other" tribes come to live together and to know one another the less racism there is. The social construct of racism either diminishes or is applied to another outsider "other" group. To combat racism we need to spend time getting to know "the others" in our communities in order to overcome the unknown. We are someone else's "other" just as they are ours.

Good man, Kevin.

David wrote: "The closer individuals of "other" tribes come to together and to know one another the less racism there is. ..."

David's assertion is a tender one. Well done, David. But, I privately wonder if it is always so.

The long history of warfare and enmity between (for instance) Germany and France; never abated despite close proximity and familiarity. The Caucasus lands versus Russia. Age-old enemies. Or, Arabs versus Jews.

Korea versus China. Japan versus China...numerous cultures in Southeast Asia are ever at odds with each other. You can go there right now and find them hating each other all the while living cheek-by-jowl. Generation upon generation. Hatfields and McCoys.

I might be inclined to imagine that 'the better you understand' (the other) ...the more so, 'familiarity breeds contempt'?

Science is a social construct. It again doesn't follow that it doesn't exist.

I would suggest to follow Socratic method of questioning and you would soon realize that those discussing the issues don't know what they are talking about. This is due the lack of clear definition of thesis, which is done on purpose. Which brings me to believe this is done for a different reason than would be made known to the general public.

Even here people just start to debate whether race exist and we should believe a or b. Rather than asking the question why do those that create the narrative want us to discuss it?

I belief the answer to that is clear, distraction tactics, while people are busy figuring out vague concepts and discuss topics which can be valid from multiple perspectives, policies are being implemented unseen by the general public.

Any reminder of the Socratic method is welcome.

But in this case --and in myriad other situations posed by modern society --most people don't know what they're talking about. Not even the experts know. Not even you or I know for sure. We're all stymied by this Gordian Knot.

And, who exactly, is an 'expert' on race? Perhaps, Martin Luther King was; but his life was cut short.

Even had King lived to teach us all about it, race is something about which debate never ends. It's a blame game; same as Palestinians vs Israelis in the Middle-East.

Nevertheless, any man can understand what is fair. Race is one of those things. You just feel it, the way Lincoln did. "As I would not be a slave, I would not be a master".

Yes: in today's modern news-media landscape, we are very likely being manipulated. Still, the idea of, "what is fair?" is always worth asking.

On the other hand, I am not a fan of this trendy term, 'systemic' racism. Gee, anyone who is part of a 'system' sure has a hard time defending themselves, don't they? What is there for them to say?

And by the way, what is 'the system' in question? Capitalism, no? So: who is willing to jump ship? Go ahead, we're waiting...

My point is: conveniently attacking a 'system' is often mere "group-think" and "knee-jerk thinking" dressed in other clothes. Certainly it flourishes with an under-educated audience. Even Socrates couldn't defend himself against such forces.

Not to under-estimate anyone's real pain and real suffering, but from where I stand a lot of the current hoopla resembles the famous hilarity from Monty Python:

"What have the Romans ever done for us? I mean apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health ...what have the Romans ever done for us?”

If it hasn't been coined already, I predict the next trendy buzzword will be: "systemic chauvinism".

::shrug::

Feliks wrote: "On the other hand, I am not a fan of this trendy term, 'systemic' racism. Gee, anyone who is part of a 'system' sure has a hard time defending themselves, don't they? What is there for them to say?

I actually think there is no systemic racism in the way it is is claimed. There is nowhere stated in the law or constitution that people with specific ancestry should be treated differently. The only place where I can think of systemic racism in lets say the U.S. is the race based collage admission. It's racist in a systematic way that people with different ancestry need different scores to get in to prestige collages!

But then again this thing is not really brought up as example of systemic racism in the media. But rather we hear about anecdotal cases.

Perhaps there's a slight misunderstanding, on your part. If you don't mind me pointing it out, I can explain where I believe you harbor a tiny misinterpretation.

The "claims" of systemic racism carry the weight that they do because the kind of racism at issue is always implicit rather than overt. It's precisely because it takes place "unacknowledged" --without any official verbiage, or sanction --that it is so insidious. Systemic-racism is something so subtle, it can influence us without our consciously recognizing it.

The classic example would be 'red-lining of neighborhoods' by American banks when deciding to grant loans to home buyers. A "black neighborhood" would be deemed by loan officers as 'in decline' and as a result, they would make it harder for anyone purchasing a house there to obtain a home loan. Thus, the proliferation of ghettos in American towns; thus "poor black neighborhoods" vs "middle-class white neighborhoods".

Bankers never exposed this metric to the public; it was never formalized. Never written down. It wasn't against the law. It was simply an unspoken little industry "rule-of-thumb" which bankers applied when making decisions among themselves. Systemic racism is almost never a very visible component of any law or constitution -- but the phenomenon still occurs, due to social mindsets.

The award-winning 1947 movie, "Gentleman's Agreement" illustrates this kind of thing with regard to American Jews, and another classic is the 1961/1964 book/film "Black Like Me" with regard to the black experience in the American South.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentlem...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_L...

I myself don't deny the concept of all this sub-surface racism, which is fairly well-established. But I question the schizoid character which stamps efforts to counter it. The frenzy returns us to an era of 'witchcraft trials'.

Feliks wrote: The classic example would be 'red-lining of neighborhoods' by American banks when deciding to grant loans to home buyers. A "black neighborhood" would be deemed by loan officers as 'in decline' and as a result, they would make it harder for anyone purchasing a house there to obtain a home loan. Thus, the proliferation of ghettos in American towns; thus "poor black neighborhoods" vs "middle-class white neighborhoods".

Bankers never exposed this metric to the public; it was never formalized. Never written down. It wasn't against the law. It was simply an unspoken little industry "rule-of-thumb" which bankers applied when making decisions among themselves. Systemic racism is almost never a very visible component of any law or constitution -- but the phenomenon still occurs, due to social mindsets.

You make a good point here but we have to ask the question is this example really systematic in it's approach? If it's never written down and was a common unspoken practice was it executed 100% of the time? Did every single bank and every single representative act in exactly the same way? Or did some of the banks and some of the representatives not follow this? Was this done in a step-by-step manner; methodical? For example in South Africa during apartheid or in US during segregation time we would have a system in place which would dictate something like this: if colored use bathroom A if white use bathroom B. This is clearly systematic and clearly race based. In your example it's racist for sure but I'm not sure it's systematic?

Also I made an error in not saying that there is no systematic racism now, because obviously in the past the west had systematized racism. So even if redlining was systematic, I assume it doesn't exist in present day?

It is no shame or embarrassment for us to help each other clear up tiny misunderstandings in such a vast topic, with so much history behind it. I'm glad you did not take offense at my providing some additional context for you to consider.

In your next two questions above: the second is the easier one to answer.

I can tell you that yes, the modern USA banking industry today, is very strictly monitored, for any hint of "red-lining". It is something for which bankers now can face serious legal consequences.

Your first question though: to my ears, it sounds oddly-constructed. It makes me wonder whether terms like 'system', 'systemic', and 'systematic' are perhaps causing you (or others) occasional confusion.

If an American factory worker assembles a product in a "step-by-step" manner: we might say he is being 'systematic'. He is being 'methodical'. We might also say he is: precise, deliberate, controlled, etc.

But this is not the same definition we use, if we speak of a 'system' he is a part of. For instance, if we note he is part of the system of American labor, we're concerned with work ethics he shares in common with other American working men. The matter is one of group psychology.

You ask whether if --granting that red-lining took place in America --whether it was 'systematic' --if, "not every single banking chain" participated. But this is not what we are concerned with when we assign blame for a systemic behavior.

Rather, we're interested in the attitudes of bankers as a group. Within this group, there was a longstanding, casually-accepted feeling that red-lining was 'harmless'. Well: why did they feel this way? That's the issue.

The simple answer to what you ponder is 'no'. Not every single US bank, not every single US bank chain, not every single US bank officer ever got out a red pencil for every single home loan, every single time they were asked to approve one. That would be a kind of absolute and unvarying circumstance which we know is rare in human affairs.

But it is irrelevant to the grievance itself. Red-lining is an example of systemic racism which we know happened a lot; it doesn't matter exactly how much it happened. Whether it was applied more times or whether it was applied less times than we imagine, any amount was too much; untold numbers of people were hurt by it. It is an un-American business practice and it went unchecked for far too long.

Today, we are interested in preventing not only red-lining but many other forms of similar discrimination. The way to prevent all such practices is to get at the group attitudes where they arise.

I hope you may find some usefulness in what I just described although it is naturally, all my own opinion merely. I'm willing to stand corrected by anyone else who reads this thread and sees a better way to define these ideas.

Another example just occurred to me (re: 'systematic' vs 'systemic':

When finally captured in 1960 and put on trial by the Israelis, the former Nazi Adolf Eichmann swore earnestly that he 'never personally participated' in any mass murder.

He claimed his involvement was much more remote and 'at a distance'. He was not 'hands-on'. He was 'not physically present' for it, he 'was never made personally aware'. He 'never saw it take place' before his eyes. He 'didn't personally oversee' the deportment of any Jew to any camp, ever.

But when he spoke this way, he was patently trying only to exculpate himself from blame, with a semantic trick. He harped on a supposed "lack of care" he personally exhibited as part of the process of deporting German Jewry. How could he be blamed for something towards which he was so un-deliberate, un-careful, and un-methodical about? A genuine murderer, (he insisted) is one who takes great care towards every detail.

The Israelis did not blink an eye at this obfuscation. They put him on trial and executed him. Eichmann's crime was being a willing participant in a system which had mass murder as its goal. He 'went along'. He aided and abetted. He was its instrument. He was guilty of furthering a heinous, --shared --idea.

He may have claimed he was personally un-systematic, but it didn't matter. He was still a part of the Nazi system for slaughtering Jews.

Feliks wrote: Your first question though: to my ears, it sounds oddly-constructed. It makes me wonder whether terms like 'system', 'systemic', and 'systematic' are perhaps causing you (or others) occasional confusion.

If an American factory worker assembles a product in a "step-by-step" manner: we might say he is being 'systematic'. He is being 'methodical'. We might also say he is: precise, deliberate, controlled, etc.

But this is not the same definition we use, if we speak of a 'system' he is a part of. For instance, if we note he is part of the system of American labor, we're concerned with work ethics he shares in common with other American working men. The matter is one of group psychology."

Well you might be right here, one thing which makes it very hard for me, is to grasp the meaning of what is implied with terms like 'systemic' in combination with racism. Definitions online seem very general in meaning, so I decided to look up the original definition and found the following.

Feagin defines systemic racism in the introduction to "Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations":

"Systemic racism includes the complex array of antiblack practices, the unjustly gained political-economic power of whites, the continuing economic and other resource inequalities along racial lines, and the white racist ideologies and attitudes created to maintain and rationalize white privilege and power. Systemic here means that the core racist realities are manifested in each of society’s major parts [...] each major part of U.S. society—the economy, politics, education, religion, the family—reflects the fundamental reality of systemic racism."

Which makes more sense to me now, however if the meaning is racism in each major part of society I would argue this is not true especially now. I'm having a hard time imagining negative racism towards non-whites in religion for example or even in spheres like education. One could imagine something on an economical or political level although I can't think of anything major in todays society. I don't live in the US so I might not have the full picture, but all of this feels blown up out of proportions.

The awkwardness is that his mega-definition extends as broadly as he can possibly go with it. He's practically talking about the whole of western civilization. I agree it does sound disproportionate.

It's easier to absorb, if you think of smaller sub-systems in society, where perhaps a traditional institutional psychology can often remain latent. For example: America's rural, municipal police forces; or the State Police which patrols highways in each of our fifty states. Or: our urban, inner city police forces. Arguably all of these law enforcement branches of government struggle with negative mindsets towards ethnic groups.

In the minds of countless policemen, there are some citizens who are 'more suspicious' than others. 'More likely' to be criminal than others. That is a 'systemic' racial attitude; due to the nature of police work. It is, 'cowboys vs indians'.

But it is too broad to say that simply because law enforcement is a government service, that all our government is tainted by this exact same professional group-think. After all, medical services are also offered by government; so do doctors and nurses perceive race in the same way that policemen do? No.

If one hunts and picks through areas of culture, one can always find backwardness. But it's not very apt to say "our whole education system", or "all our country's religion" is uniformly corrupted. That's silly.

Feliks wrote: "Another example just occurred to me (re: 'systematic' vs 'systemic':

When finally captured in 1960 and put on trial by the Israelis, the former Nazi Adolf Eichmann swore earnestly that he 'never p..."

I'm not very well versed with history of Eichmann but after a quick online search I get your point. I would however argue we should be careful with judging people for belonging to a system. A lot of people are members of Kim Jong-un communist party and if they wouldn't be they would either starve or end up in some labor camp being worked to death. I can imagine that it was hard to avoid being part of the Nazi system during Hitlers reign. I would guess it's not cheap or even possible for a German citizen to just uproot after an economic collapse and move to another country. And where would one go? In the US or Soviet Union you would have been put in to prison camps for suspicion of being a spy, other German speaking countries were also occupied. What should a person do in that situation?

I don't want to specificly defend this person because he was directly involved and had other options but choose to do what he did. But I just find it a scary notion that some organized group can go out and hunt you down for being part of some system. In todays society one could claim that a white American benefited from lets say slavery, even if it's not directly and thus should be judged for it?

That's a fair point to raise. I agree with you. Eichmann himself doesn't fit the scenario, (as he was an important architect of the Final Solution) but yes conceivably many other individuals --in many other cases --might be fully excusable.

As if we don't have more urgent national problems to solve than re-doing all our statuary.

Now that Confederate monuments throughout the South have fallen, the name of Columbus is slated next for wholesale redaction.

https://www.syracuse.com/us-news/2023...

Sometimes a cure can kill a patient swifter than a disease.