The big issue I have with the examples given in this thread and others is that virtually any regulatory law could be considered racist. Why? Because any regulatory law has a cost, right? If I have to have a safety inspection sticker on my car, or pay taxes on my house, or get a building permit before I do outside repairs, renew my drivers license, or any other of the million things that the government requires you to do, then that cost will certainly hit poor people harder than it will a middle class person and very much harder than it will a rich person. And as minorities are overrepresented in the class of poor people, these regulatory laws harm minorities, and viola, all laws are racist. Am I off base?
Also I have a huge problem with the term “disenfranchisement” as it pertains to these voting laws. They may be unwise, but let’s look at them for what they are. Democrats benefit from extended voting so it is no surprise that they would want voting stretched out as long as possible. Republicans do not, so it is no surprise that they want it constrained as possible. Flip the vote benefit and the party positions would flip. Race is not an issue in that: politics are. And as far as “harm” to blacks, a dose of history teaches that blacks were once deprived the right to vote at all, and then denied the right through grandfather clauses and ridiculously administered literacy tests.
I think Frederick Douglass would roll over in his grave if you said that blacks were being disenfranchised because of a requirement that they actually show up at the polls on election day.
So, yeah, it sucks to be poor, and that is what I am hearing in the examples. But to throw the Molotov cocktail of “racism” at many of these laws seem most unfair and unhelpful. And, again, I might be off base here, but to accuse many of the poor whites who suffer under the same system of being part of the problem just alienates an ally who would agree with you 100%.
And that shows then the ignorance that is needed to help unjust laws to keep the status quo. The latest elections showed that few votes make a huge difference, the overrepresentation of minorities being poor is also coming thanks to past racist policies. Meaning that minorities are overrepresented by people that have a lot of difficulties going to the polls on election day.
Mind you, that cut is before conservatives reached for the big lie to justify making it worse for blacks and other minorities to vote in the next elections.
Only with the last phrase. Recognizing that many regulatory laws harm the poor and minorities more than the rich and white is the first step. The second step isn’t to declare that ‘all laws are racist’ in a deliberately myopic manner intended to be dismissed as ridiculous.
The second step is to realize that this disparate impact means the government should be judicious in adding regulatory laws. Add them when they are legitimately necessary for the functioning of society and the safety of people who live here.
Let’s talk about voting laws. By adding voter ID, we impact poor and minority voters more than we do rich and white voters. Therefore, we should only implement these laws if they are really necessary to prevent fraud. We should prove to ourselves (using objective facts and data) that this fraud happens, and is widespread enough to justify the impact on poor and minority voters. This has not been done.
Let’s compare this to building permits and code enforcement. It costs more money to build a safe home than an unsafe home, it takes more time, more materials, more inspections and more skills. This harms the poor financially, but it is a legitimate goal for the government to ensure that residential buildings are safe for people to live in. We know what happens when there are no building codes, and no safety protocols for low price housing.
A quick reference to a rather complex issue: the disparity in sentences for crack vs. powdered cocaine (PDF):
The Executive Summary is a quick read.
I don’t know how we get to “intention,” really, in issues like this one, but I do know how economics plays.
When we take some of the poorest people in the country, and we lock them up, they generate – for argument – $15-60,000/year in incarceration costs (and law enforcement, and justice system costs).
They’re your bread-and-butter. They keep the lights on and the payroll met.
In the for-profit system, that’s lining the pockets of corporate types and shareholders. In the public system, that’s taxpayers supporting and perpetuating leviathan systems that profit from misery and need to be fed.
By incarcerating those with the least, and with the least access to competent representation.
Remember: in the US, a poor, innocent man is probably more likely to go to prison than a wealthy, guilty man.
Assume I disagree with you on this. I say that it is my home, my name is on the deed and if I want to do electrical work it is none of the government’s damned business. Is it fair to call your opposition to my opinion a racist one?
Can you flesh this out a bit? I really don’t understand.
Housing codes protect rich and poor, and protect the next buyer, and also the neighbors. Car registration protects all drivers and all people, if the registration requires inspection for safety and emissions. Voting restrictions affect the poor and minorities, and the benefits are…?
There are arguments for and against all of these things. You happen to agree with these regulations. If I disagree, can I call your argument racist as the additional costs will be a burden on the poor and thus minorities?
It seems that all that you are saying is that you agree with some regulatory restrictions and because you see a benefit, that will burden minorities, your justification for them outweighs the harm to minorities. But if someone sees a justification in voter ID, then that is simply racist. Why can’t that label apply to any regulatory law that you or I disagree with?
IOW, any law which costs individuals money which you oppose, the opposing side is racist.
Well, that’s what CRT is trying to flesh out. Is the intent or the result of laws and regulation racist? Do current laws and regulations have a racist history or are helping to perpetuate systemic racism or disparate racial outcomes?
So, maybe they look at the law that requires drivers’ licenses and conclude, even though they fall more heavily on the poor and minorities, the poor and minorities benefit from a licensing system (due to safety, insurance, other concerns), and also the licensing system was never set up to target minorities.
Conversely, someone applying CRT to election law that gets rid of Sunday voting will look at the racial history of election laws that definitely targeted minorities, and also note that Sunday voting is very popular among Black church-goers. They will further note that eliminating Sunday voting will do nothing to benefit Black voters, and conclude that there is a disparate impact on Blacks for laws that eliminate Sunday voting.
A claim that any regulation that I don’t like is racist seems really silly to me.
No, because I can produce evidence of how many people wind up dead or burned or homeless because of bad wiring. Objective evidence of people harmed by the lack of regulations.
Absent that evidence, with nothing but “I think it’s probably dangerous” to support those regulations, then yeah, my support of regulations that harm poor and minority members of society is, if not actively racist, passively racist.
So then I point out the hundreds of thousands of other people who haven’t burned up or died from home wiring and put it right back on you. Does your racism rise or fall based on expert testimony of the need for professional inspection of home wiring?
I’m not Cheesesteak, but I don’t think that’s what he or she is saying, and it’s not what I’m saying.
Lots of laws and regulations fall heavily on the poor, and since many minorities in this country are more likely to be poor, they will fall more heavily on minorities. No one would argue that fuel efficiency standards were put in place to target minorities, even though they may drive up the price of a car, making it harder for the poor and minorities to get one.
But, there are some things that fall heavily on the poor for no apparent benefit (for example, restricting Sunday voting) and some things that, while neutral, may perpetuate previous racial injustice (for example, local funding of schools, given the housing and job discrimination of the past).
I think I’m coming to the end of my useful contribution to this thread. It doesn’t seem like you’re engaging productively with some of your claims and accusations.
I’m sorry you are frustrated and want to leave, but again, it seems like anyone could take the tack that you are taking. There are legitimate disputes about any regulation (which the costs will fall on the poor and minorities).
Under CRT as has been described, any person who is arguing against the regulation could say, as they already believe, that the regulation is purposeless, or has so little purpose as not to be sufficient to overcome the harm to minorities as the regulation will do.
I’m not here to debate Voter ID, drivers licenses, home inspections, or a thousand other regulations. I’m sure that besides voter ID, you have a regulation in your state or town that you think is complete bullshit, as do most people. My point is that this simple disagreement, that the regulation is not needed and thus harms minorities, does not make the regulation a racist one. It is just an unwise one, or a stupid one, in yours or my opinion. Our elected representatives voted on it.
And maybe you think that voter ID is racist–if that is repealed does CRT collapse? I think not. That is for another thread. This one is about CRT and how the whole fucking society is racist. And with this broad definition, anything can be defined that way. There should be some limiting principle. You said “targeted” earlier. I thought we were having a good discussion.
I think this is a straw man – as far as I understand, proponents of CRT aren’t saying the whole fucking society is racist. Also, they aren’t saying, “I don’t like this regulation, therefore it’s racist.” They lay out their arguments, discuss this history, show the disparate impact.
For example, it’s clear that, in the past, banks would discriminate against Black homebuyers and business owners, either by giving them higher rates or simply not lending to them at all if they wanted to buy a house in the “wrong” area. Over time, this has led to disparities in homeownership and business ownership. So, should there be efforts to encourage banks to reach out to minorities? Should regulations provide subsidies to minority neighborhoods?
Wait, isn’t targeting minorities for subsidized loans itself racist? Sure, that can be argued. But, maybe it still makes sense, given the history of discrimination against minority homebuyers and entrepreneurs.
So, I’m trying to describe my understanding of what goes into this kind of discussion, and you come back:
You’re just not engaging substantively, from my perspective. You’re coming back with bizarre claims about all regulations being racist or no regulations are racist, and you’re discounting the cases and analysis made by those studying this field. It makes the conversation and debate frustrating and uninteresting.
But aren’t those impacts reasonably ameliorated with subsidies or tax credits, just f’rinstance ?
The impact of building codes is salutary, even if it’s disproportionate. There are reasonable potential remedies for that kind of disparate impact.
The impact for – as I referenced – drug policies(, employment discrimination, housing laws, disparate law enforcement practices, discrimination in health care, etc.,) are not nearly so easily addressed with simple transactional options.
Which only supports the notion that “disproportionate impact” isn’t the same thing as racist.
When it comes to things like elections, firms and individuals are employed specifically for their ability to mine and analyze demographic data.
While I can’t read minds, I can tell you that these people are more than capable of differentiating between “poor and white” and “poor and ‘of color’” when it serves their aim.
That’s a very fair point and I’m still trying to understand. So this regulation or law is not racist, but these over here are. And if we look down, “God view” as it were, then the system is racist?
Putting that aside because I may be wrong, but your “redlining” example is clearly and obviously racist and I disapprove of that and AFAIK is no longer a thing either explicitly or implicitly. It’s done. So what is the next step? You then make an argument for what amounts to affirmative action which is not a new thing nor is the debate.
I guess my ultimate question is: What is the end game or the solution and what should I do as a white male? Agree with affirmative action? What else?