Putting more force and “oomph” into a morally corrupt and biased justice and law enforcement system is racist (and stupid, and morally corrupt, and counterproductive, etc.). Most of the crime reforms of the past few decades have not been good policy, and have just increased the carceral state, enriched the private prison industry (which should be abolished entirely), and disproportionately harmed people of color.
For decades, various forms of racism have been politically acceptable or even beneficial, and this was a more recent incarnation of this. The best I can say of it is that it could have been much worse.
Wow, so now we’re doing the thing where you just call something racist? Does it require racist intent, or is it sufficient to just have someone, somewhere, who is a minority to be disadvantaged by the policy for it to be “racist?” More important, can one disagree about whether that disadvantage will happen, or whether it dooms the policy altogether?
Any policy that decreases crime without violating the Constitution is good policy. We do have serious problems that need to be addressed regarding race and crime, such as police brutality against minorities, the sad state of our prisons, and sentencing disparities. But putting more police on the streets and toughening sentences is not racist, despite the disparate racial impact. Especially since there was a disparate racial benefit. Black communities arguably benefitted a lot more from crime reduction than white communities, although that has led to more gentrification as young professionals move into traditionally black neighborhoods now that they are safe, thus pushing longtime residents out due to higher housing costs. But I don’t think anyone predicted that.
This is my opinion – in order, my answers to your questions are “??”, “it depends on the issues and effects in question”, and “of course”. I’m not the final arbiter of what is or isn’t racist – I’m just arguing my opinions… shouldn’t warrant a “wow”, unless stating opinions that differ from yours is shocking.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to argue a “disparate racial benefit” for black people, considering how many are imprisoned, including so many for non-violent crimes (and crimes with racially disparate sentencing policies and practices).
My criticism is far more with the justice and law enforcement systems as a whole – I believe that individual policies of the last few decades which have “strengthened” existing biased policies and practices are racist, but this is almost incidental, and there needs to be much broader (and dare I say radical) change in law enforcement and justice to fix this.
When has it not been a matter of opinion? And of course a policy can be racist without racist intention – if someone really thinks crack cocaine is worse than cocaine, and advocates punishing possession of crack much more harshly, that’s still racist regardless of intent. If someone really thinks that black people would be helped by being relegated to a permanent legal status of children, with others as their guardians, then that’s still a racist policy, regardless of the intention.
Some folks think that miscegenation produces unhealthy or otherwise less-able children – it’s a racist belief, even if they think they’re protecting children.
Yes, I know; we’ve had this discussion elsewhere. I think racism is still depressingly ubiquitous in our society, even as it’s improved massively in so many ways, and I think it ought to be called out wherever it rears its head, whether intentional or not.
I seriously think it’s a bad idea to use “racist” to describe anything that has a disproportional effect on the races. Racist is way too charged a word - and strongly implies intent.
That’s about having a different intent - not the absence of intent. That’s a policy directly related to race.
How the hell does calling out “unintentional racism” help stop intentional racism? It seems like you want to equate the too, as if someone who hurts one race completely by accident, and even with a policy that is otherwise a good one, is the same as a Klan member.
I don’t think you can even declare that all policies that negatively affect blacks is racist. It might have an overwhelmingly good outcome for society as a whole, or even for blacks in the long run.
Again, I think you’re throwing that word around too freely.
Former Exalted Cyclops of the KKK, Robert Byrd, was not only tolerated by the Democrats he was elected their leader in the Senate for twelve years, and named to chairman of the the most powerful Senate Committee for ten years, as late as 2009. They seemed fine with him using not coded racist language.
The current leader in the Senate was tolerated for using racist language.
They still trumpet the minimum wage despite its overtly racist origins.
Yep – after expressing enormous regret for his past white supremacism, Byrd remained a Democrat in good standing.
Unlike, say, Jesse Helms.
He quickly apologized.
Unlike, say, Jesse Helms.
The Democrats suck on this issue, they’re just way, way less bad (since the Civil Rights era) than the Republicans. Since the 60s, the Democrats have been milquetoast in rejecting white supremacists and white supremacism; and since the 60s, the Republicans have sought the votes of white supremacists, and often supported white supremacist office-holders.
Look, it’s understandable that Republicans are defensive about this issue. But this is about how the parties switched. It’s history, and it’s true, but it also doesn’t mean the Republicans are all racists or no Democrats are racists. It’s likey that fewer from both parties are racist today.
I don’t necessarily use it for any disproportionate effect, but I disagree about intent.
Just one example – there are many others (like the drug one I mentioned).
I want to stop unintentional racism and intentional racism. I think calling them out helps this effort, and ignoring any instances hurts. I don’t think you fully understand my position, but if a policy (in general) helps white people and hurts black people, then it’s quite likely a racist policy, regardless of intent, in my view.
We’ve had this discussion about intent before. I can’t read minds, and I don’t think it matters. I’m interested in actions and effects, not in motivations. Most white Americans don’t hate black people, and don’t want to harm black people, but there are still many remnants of white supremacy that do this. Most cops don’t hate black people, and don’t want to harm black people, but they take part in and even protect a partly white supremacist system that does this.
A decent guy cop who is silent about the racist misbehavior of his cop buddy may not bear any animus to black people at all, but by staying silent, he is taking part in ongoing white supremacist and racist practices. A Congressman or Senator who didn’t denounce Jesse Helms for his near-open white supremacism may not bear any animus to black people in America, but by staying silent, they are taking part in ongoing white supremacist and racist practices. A political strategist who gins up racial fears with an advertisement about a black convict who escaped and committed rape and murder may not bear animus towards black people, but he’s taking part in white supremacism.
I don’t know, nor do I particularly even care (for low-level strangers, at least), whether certain individuals are racists in their hearts. You might notice that, for the most part, I don’t label people as racists, unless they’ve explicitly stated something that can unequivocably be described as so. But I have no such compunctions about labeling actions, or assertions, as racist. I care if people do racist things, or if they serve and support institutions that do racist things.
That’s a horrible, and dangerous, position. It means you are willing to label people as racist who are not, or to ignore racists who are.
You don’t see how it matters whether they meant to do them?
I consider racism to be a really awful thing to believe in, and if you called me one, I’d take it very personally. I also would be very distressed if you used “racist” to refer to something I did, and then expect me to not care about what you think of my intent.
You can’t just excuse yourself from this. You’re dealing with people, not just policies.
And again, this is why so many well-meaning, non-racists are so disgusted with some social justice warriors who think “Racist!” is their word to throw about at will. They shut it out and don’t join the effort to fix those policies.
Who have I called racist? What have I done wrong here? Did you miss the part about me not calling you, or anyone, really, aside from Jesse Helms, a racist? You don’t appear to be arguing with what I’ve written.
If you call a policy “racist,” you imply that the person who proposed or implemented the policy is racist.
And just saying you don’t mean it that way isn’t enough. Don’t be surprised when people get angry when you use it that way. That’s just the way it is. “Racist” strongly implies the presence of intent. The only time that’s not true is when you talk about a “racist system” or something like that, and everyone understands that those who created that system (who had intent) are mostly dead now. Just be careful with the word.
No I don’t – I don’t imply anything at all about the person, except that they said or did something racist in a particular instance. You know, like most humans have at some point in their life, including me.
I call 'em like I see 'em, and I want people to do the same for me.
I’m not surprised at all. I think lots of folks need a metaphorical shock to their system to learn. The truth, as I see it, anyway, isn’t always easy.