I actually thought that President Biden‘s words after the verdict were empathetic, thoughtful, spot on, and generally unprepared, which is when he’s usually best. Why couldn’t one of our GOP leaders taken the lead on this? I didn’t see a single one give a meaningful speech or statement.
A good portion of our criminal code, in virtually every state - north and south - is rooted in racism, or at best a “classist“ mindset. Just because it was 50, 80, 100, or 150 years ago doesn’t mean it’s still not built that way today. New intentions doesn’t alter the outcome that much. Acknowledging that problem he’s not a “ Leap backward” to me, or weaponizing it. If it were a “weapon,“ who would this weapon be aimed at? The truth hurts enough, why does it need to be classified a weapon?
A shrinking minority of Americans still defend this broken system, but the tide is turning. That tide can be uncomfortable to some. It is broken because it was designed that way from the beginning. The foundation, walls, and roof are fatally flawed. Putting new curtains on isn’t a “step forward,“ until we acknowledge the deeper issues that have brought us here. 🙏🏻 Conservatives should be leading on this issue. Conservatives (in the north) used to be part of the solution.
If the laws themselves are racist then are the people enforcing them by definition racist? Name some racist laws and let’s repeal them. How does that change policing and use of force? Or do you mean dismantle the police?
Of course not. But your offense was at the term “systemic racism,” not “specific per-cop racism.”
And it’s not purely racist in the overly simplistic word that triggers people, but the effect. Many of these laws had to be veiled in how they were designed, but were known to target minority and poorer classes.
To start, *criminal justice* laws- Marijuana laws (and beyond), crack vs powder cocaine, asset forfeiture, cash bail rules, pull over quotas, court management, minimum sentencing, qualified immunity, warrant laws, and others have had a far disproportionate effect on black and brown Americans.
And I know you don’t like this topic, but *voting laws* beyond basic free photo ID and transparency are a form of over regulation designed to lower participation. I wrote about it at length. I can’t accept this “oh shucks, it’s about integrity” line. It’s about lowering participation. And those affected are overWHELMINGLY minority classes.
*Zoning laws* are others that far too often tel Americans where they can and can’t live or build a business. As an elected local official I was shocked at how much power of discrimination we had.
Finally, *occupational laws* have a history of being passed with the rationalization of serving the public good but their enforcement and costs overwhelmingly effect minority classes.
As I said, these are not simplistic answers, but the proof is in the pudding. I would start with criminal justice reforms, but when discussing systemic “racism,” it’s much more nuanced. I prefer to call it “systemic inequity,” to avoid this distracting semantic debate. But it was the classification of Biden’s speech that I took exception to more than the term itself.
I hope that better explains my position.
Frankly, it seems I just authored another post. Maybe I should just do one. Lol ;)
It sounds like you're arguing that laws with inequitable outcomes are by definition racist or racially constructed to oppress or suppress Black people or other minorities. I am willing to examine the laws one by one, but the laws you cited: marijuana, asset forfeiture, cash bail, qualified immunity, etc., seem to have an enforcement component. Arguing that the laws themselves are systemic racism is a very broad brush with no way to prove they're not since outcome is the measure. Saying we should not make or should repeal any laws with undesirable racially diverse outcomes is a dangerous proposition, which I don't think you're suggesting. Removing those laws may lead to worse racial consequences, but ones that don't fit the current political narrative (e.g. Black on Black murders).
Technically I argued (purposefully) that the laws themselves are not always inherently racist, but have racial impacts, often by intention. The enforcement of them is an entirely separate but parallel issue. TOGETHER they represent “systemic racism” as it’s seen by our more liberal neighbors. It’s all semantics in the end, but oversimplified language on their end or ours fails to really help us under and what the other is saying. I’ve been fortunate to have some patient liberal friends over the years that don’t mind my occasional indignation. I may not agree with them on how to fix problems but we end up agreeing on the original problems most of the time.
It’s the inability to recognize the problem to begin with that will keep us from every solving it no matter who is in charge.
Btw, the two segments of Cuomo/Lemon on CNN last night were insightful, as they both stood by the Columbus Ohio cop, while discussing the Chicago 13 yr old shooting in the context of MPS shootings and the Chauvin trial. Interesting watch if you have it DVRd. Good commentary from both sides IMO.
Not to get too much in the middle of this excellent discussion, but also consider the history of marijuana laws and their intent/target (the unconstitutional Tax Stamp Act).
In regards to "black on black murders": if you have a concentration of a particular community in an area, then the crimes committed are likely to occur within that community. Why then isn't there also a discussion about white on white murder? It's not like there's a lack of data available on such crimes. Is it due to perhaps a racial blindspot, or just something that hasn't been considered?
It's the inability to recognize problems from other people's eyes that keep us from ever solving them no matter who is in charge. Most sane folks can recognize a large problem, and yes it is OK to differ on solutions. We generally have enough laws for our problems, but fall short on reaching the right results due to human failings.
I actually thought that President Biden‘s words after the verdict were empathetic, thoughtful, spot on, and generally unprepared, which is when he’s usually best. Why couldn’t one of our GOP leaders taken the lead on this? I didn’t see a single one give a meaningful speech or statement.
A good portion of our criminal code, in virtually every state - north and south - is rooted in racism, or at best a “classist“ mindset. Just because it was 50, 80, 100, or 150 years ago doesn’t mean it’s still not built that way today. New intentions doesn’t alter the outcome that much. Acknowledging that problem he’s not a “ Leap backward” to me, or weaponizing it. If it were a “weapon,“ who would this weapon be aimed at? The truth hurts enough, why does it need to be classified a weapon?
A shrinking minority of Americans still defend this broken system, but the tide is turning. That tide can be uncomfortable to some. It is broken because it was designed that way from the beginning. The foundation, walls, and roof are fatally flawed. Putting new curtains on isn’t a “step forward,“ until we acknowledge the deeper issues that have brought us here. 🙏🏻 Conservatives should be leading on this issue. Conservatives (in the north) used to be part of the solution.
If the laws themselves are racist then are the people enforcing them by definition racist? Name some racist laws and let’s repeal them. How does that change policing and use of force? Or do you mean dismantle the police?
Of course not. But your offense was at the term “systemic racism,” not “specific per-cop racism.”
And it’s not purely racist in the overly simplistic word that triggers people, but the effect. Many of these laws had to be veiled in how they were designed, but were known to target minority and poorer classes.
To start, *criminal justice* laws- Marijuana laws (and beyond), crack vs powder cocaine, asset forfeiture, cash bail rules, pull over quotas, court management, minimum sentencing, qualified immunity, warrant laws, and others have had a far disproportionate effect on black and brown Americans.
And I know you don’t like this topic, but *voting laws* beyond basic free photo ID and transparency are a form of over regulation designed to lower participation. I wrote about it at length. I can’t accept this “oh shucks, it’s about integrity” line. It’s about lowering participation. And those affected are overWHELMINGLY minority classes.
*Zoning laws* are others that far too often tel Americans where they can and can’t live or build a business. As an elected local official I was shocked at how much power of discrimination we had.
Finally, *occupational laws* have a history of being passed with the rationalization of serving the public good but their enforcement and costs overwhelmingly effect minority classes.
As I said, these are not simplistic answers, but the proof is in the pudding. I would start with criminal justice reforms, but when discussing systemic “racism,” it’s much more nuanced. I prefer to call it “systemic inequity,” to avoid this distracting semantic debate. But it was the classification of Biden’s speech that I took exception to more than the term itself.
I hope that better explains my position.
Frankly, it seems I just authored another post. Maybe I should just do one. Lol ;)
Thanks for the engaging discussion.
PS - no one of any serious import believes in dismantling the police. So intend to avoid the topic and breathing air into the silliness of it.
It sounds like you're arguing that laws with inequitable outcomes are by definition racist or racially constructed to oppress or suppress Black people or other minorities. I am willing to examine the laws one by one, but the laws you cited: marijuana, asset forfeiture, cash bail, qualified immunity, etc., seem to have an enforcement component. Arguing that the laws themselves are systemic racism is a very broad brush with no way to prove they're not since outcome is the measure. Saying we should not make or should repeal any laws with undesirable racially diverse outcomes is a dangerous proposition, which I don't think you're suggesting. Removing those laws may lead to worse racial consequences, but ones that don't fit the current political narrative (e.g. Black on Black murders).
Technically I argued (purposefully) that the laws themselves are not always inherently racist, but have racial impacts, often by intention. The enforcement of them is an entirely separate but parallel issue. TOGETHER they represent “systemic racism” as it’s seen by our more liberal neighbors. It’s all semantics in the end, but oversimplified language on their end or ours fails to really help us under and what the other is saying. I’ve been fortunate to have some patient liberal friends over the years that don’t mind my occasional indignation. I may not agree with them on how to fix problems but we end up agreeing on the original problems most of the time.
It’s the inability to recognize the problem to begin with that will keep us from every solving it no matter who is in charge.
Btw, the two segments of Cuomo/Lemon on CNN last night were insightful, as they both stood by the Columbus Ohio cop, while discussing the Chicago 13 yr old shooting in the context of MPS shootings and the Chauvin trial. Interesting watch if you have it DVRd. Good commentary from both sides IMO.
Not to get too much in the middle of this excellent discussion, but also consider the history of marijuana laws and their intent/target (the unconstitutional Tax Stamp Act).
In regards to "black on black murders": if you have a concentration of a particular community in an area, then the crimes committed are likely to occur within that community. Why then isn't there also a discussion about white on white murder? It's not like there's a lack of data available on such crimes. Is it due to perhaps a racial blindspot, or just something that hasn't been considered?
Clarification: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.
It's the inability to recognize problems from other people's eyes that keep us from ever solving them no matter who is in charge. Most sane folks can recognize a large problem, and yes it is OK to differ on solutions. We generally have enough laws for our problems, but fall short on reaching the right results due to human failings.
Amen Ed, amen.
My response to part of Steve’s thoughts. Thanks for the discussion Steve, it made for some good food for thought in my next piece:
https://www.theracketnews.com/p/is-systemic-racism-real-and-does
Very thoughtful piece. I will have a bit more to say after I digest it.