Could You Do Me A Favour And Delineate These Forms Of Racism?

There are many ways to “know” things.

Some things we know because they’re a core part of our experience: I know that I exist. I know that pleasure is preferable to pain. I know that Adam Sandler isn’t funny. 

Other things we know because we’ve figured them out: I know that 2 + 2 = 4. I know that objects fall when I drop them. I know that eating yellow ice is rarely worth the risk. 

But the overwhelming majority of things we “know” are just things that the people around us believe. 

In my article, How Did Everybody Get So Sensitive?, I challenged, amongst other things, what some people think they know about racism. 

Anthony had questions. He begins with a quote from the article.

---

Anthony:

“Racism is not “privilege plus power.””

This is the definition for "systemic racism," but NOT for "social racism" or "cultural racism."

---

Steve QJ:

“This is the definition for "systemic racism," but NOT for "social racism" or "cultural racism."“

Could you do me a favour and delineate these forms of racism?

---

Anthony:

I write more about them here:

https://eichy815.medium.com/heres-how-you-can-identify-an-ism-a7542d924a2c

Systemic Racism = Prejudice + Power (or Privilege)

Social Racism = Prejudice + Bullying (or Bigoted Harassment)

Cultural Racism = Prejudice + Groupthink (or Mob Mentality)

---

Steve QJ:

“Systemic Racism = Prejudice + Power (or Privilege)”

I see that you've defined Systemic Racism like this in your article:

"Systemic Racism: governmental or institutional policies that exclusively disenfranchise BIPOC Americans in favor of White folks"

Can you think of any policies that exist today that this describes? Obviously this existed in the past. But I'm struggling to see how this isn't a battle that's already been won.

There is, of course, the challenge of correcting for the result of those policies on some people of colour (and, yes, some white Americans too). Attempts, like AA and DEI have been mixed at best, sadly. Some think reparations are the answer. That's a long, difficult conversation. But I'm not convinced that a racial lens is any use in that correction.

---

Anthony:

Redlining, gerrymandering, racial profiling, disparities in school funding, police brutality, water-treatment neglect...these practices disproportionately target majority-BIPOC communities.

I have very nuanced views on reparations or affirmative action. I'd support those policies if they were implemented mindfully. But I oppose the notion of giving a $250,000 check to every Black person descended from slaves...or giving applicants preferences mostly based on the racial category into which they fall.

---

---

I had a little side bet with myself that redlining would appear on this list. 

I’ve noticed that for a lot of modern progressives, time doesn’t exist in the conventional sense. Slavery, de jure segregation, contract buying, when it’s convenient, these things exist in a kind of “eternal now,” where they’re just as relevant in 2024 as they were in 1824 or 1924. 

The legacy of redlining still affects some black people today, of course. Some white people too. But we can’t talk intelligently if we can’t admit that this is a separate problem.

---

Steve QJ:

“Redlining, gerrymandering, racial profiling, disparities in school funding, police brutality, water-treatment neglect...these practices disproportionately target majority-BIPOC communities.”

I did specifically ask for policies that exist today and fit your definition of "governmental or institutional policies that exclusively disenfranchise BIPOC Americans in favor of White folks."

Racial profiling would fit this standard if it were a policy, but it's not, is it? Nothing else on this list does.

Again, I'm not arguing that racism no longer exists, of course it does. I'm arguing that a racial lens (as opposed to a wealth/class lens) is not the best way to address any of the problems you've listed here.

---

Anthony:

I never said a racial lens is "the best" way through which everyone should view the world. It's one of many ways, and they ought to work in conjunction with one another.

No, we don't find any police departments that specifically say "Go out of your way to target suspects with darker skin tones." But it's essentially a policy, in practice, when power abuses go unchecked through honor codes and lack of consequences.

---

Steve QJ:

“But it's essentially a policy, in practice, when power abuses go unchecked through honor codes and lack of consequences.”

Yes, but you're conflating police brutality with racial discrimination here. People of all colours suffer police brutality.

My point, both here and in the article, is that there are many real problems in the world. Some of them disproportionately affect black people. But that doesn't mean it's accurate or helpful to call them some new variant of racism.

Sometimes—I would argue often—the issue at the institutional level is that problems affect poor people. And black people are disproportionately poor. In these cases, I think the smart thing to do is focus on the poverty.

To extend the analogy, the more lenses you try to look through at the same time, the greater the chance you'll end up with a distorted image. Even if it's not perfect, as very little ever is, the most helpful thing to do is usually to use the lens that gives you the most accurate picture.

---

Anthony:

So police brutality happens because the police officers target someone based on their income level?

Black and Brown people are targeted more disproportionately compared to White people. Do you believe that's because Black and Brown people are statistically less wealthy?

---

Steve QJ:

“So police brutality happens because the police officers target someone based on their income level?”

No, it happens partly because there are too many poorly trained or psychologically unsuitable people serving as police officers, partly because accountability mechanisms for police officers are sorely lacking, and partly because poor areas are policed more heavily because poor people commit more street-level crime.

Note that I didn't use the word "race" once here.

Yes, black and brown people are targeted disproportionately by police. And part of the reason for that, as we all know, is that black and born people commit a disproportionate amount of crime. You can't get at this problem if you can't admit this aspect of it. But as we also know, black and brown people are disproportionately poor. So yes, in a way, I think they're targeted by police more because they're less wealthy.

Of course, straight up racial discrimination is also a factor. Racism in policing is an issue alll over the world. I speak from experience. But solving the problems listed in my first paragraph, none of which have anything to do with "race," is far more achievable and would make life far better for black and brown people, than putting these officers through some kind of “racial sensitivity” training and hoping they'd come out of it racially enlightened.

---

“Yes, black and brown people are targeted disproportionately by police. And part of the reason for that, as we all know, is that black and born people commit a disproportionate amount of crime.”

I’m gently irritated every time I have to point this out. Partly because I hate the dumb, race-essentialist takes that are usually tied to it, and partly because everybody already knows it.

Yet some people have convinced themselves that the best way to deal with police violence against black people is to completely ignore one of the central causal factors.

---

Anthony:

What factors do you believe contribute to this disproportionate statistic? Do you think it's reasonable to be concerned about the school-to-prison pipeline?

---

Steve QJ:

I think we're in danger of drifting very far from the original point here.

I'm not a sociologist, so I'm undoubtedly missing some points here, but some obvious factors include the aforementioned poverty, including lower standards of education and educational resources in poorer areas (this is the main source of the school-to-prison pipeline), example set by peers and public figures (rappers spring to mind), parental engagement, the narrative, sometimes correct, but oftentimes not, that black people are doomed to fail if they try to succeed by conventional means, on and on.

Again, all of these issues, except the last I guess, can be attacked without ever focusing on skin colour. They affect all children. But poor kids disproportionately. If, in the process of addressing those issues, you help a disproportionate number of black kids, great! That's what you'd expect to see. But if you tell yourself and those kids that the issue is "racism" you make it almost impossible to really address the nuance.

---

Anthony:

I think the real problem is this zero-sum mentality that it has to be one or the other. That we must focus ONLY on skin color or focus ONLY on income level.

In reality, race and class are intertwined. Have you read Dorothy Brown's "The Whiteness of Wealth"?

---

Steve QJ:

We've completed the move from a conversation about definitions to a conversation about activism, which we could take forever hashing out. So I'll just say this, as it sums up the aspect of progressive activism that I find most infuriating.

Do you have any sense of how difficult it is to design and implement effective policy for a single issue? Do you see how slowly conversations about police reform, say, move? And how often they fizzle out onto nothing? Especially because you're constantly battling the tide of idiots screaming things like "aBoLIsH tHe PoLiCe!!" Yet you're suggesting splitting focus between several areas, the racial aspects of which are almost entirely downstream of the universal issues that might, at least, gain widespread support and will make a bigger difference in black people's lives.

Yes, I agree that race and class are (currently, not necessarily) intertwined. But in almost all cases, class is the relevant lever to pull if you're striving for the most meaningful effect.

One of the main points I'm making in the article is that activism should focus on the big, measurable problems first, then adapt if necessary. It's the emergency room doctor dealing with gunshot wounds before broken legs. The brand of “we can do it all” activism you're advocating almost always leads to nothing much happening at all. Sadly, the evidence is very clear that we cannot, in fact, walk and chew gum at the same time.

---

Anthony:

I feel that you're misrepresenting my worldview, here. No group or coalition can "do it all." That's why we need multiple coalitions each working on specific emphases in tandem.

I don't know where you got the idea that I support "Abolish the Police" as either a slogan or a movement. Why is it impossible for one faction of lawmakers to work on police reform while another faction focuses on income inequality?

---

Steve QJ:

“I don't know where you got the idea that I support "Abolish the Police" as either a slogan or a movement.”

No, sorry, I wasn't suggesting you were one of the Abolish the Police people. I was saying that attention inevitably gets split on important issues when the goals are too diffuse. And that leaves a vacuum for the idiots to rush into. The abolish the police people draw attention and public sympathy away from those pushing for common sense police reform. So in the end, all efforts fail.

BLM is a perfect example of this. Billions of dollars in donations, the attention of the whole world, meetings at the White House, and nothing to show for it except the illegal enrichment of the founders and their families and, I would argue, deeper racial divisions. Not because there weren't dedicated, hard-working people involved with BLM, especially at the grass-roots level, not because there weren't genuine problems to fix, but because instead of forming a national or even international movement for police accountability that would have helped everybody (black and brown people most of all), it became a narrow, confused, and divisive movement centred around "fighting racism."

It's not "impossible" for lawmakers to work on multiple things simultaneously. Just as it's not "impossible" for the average person to get six-pack abs, write a novel, and run a successful cheese-importing business simultaneously. But the reality is that most people are lucky if they achieve one of these things. Big legislative efforts require media attention and funding and take years of continuous focus. They also need to be concrete and measurable. And more often than not, in 2024, efforts to "fight racism" are just incoherent, virtue-signalling, vibes-based distractions.

---

Anthony:

I agree with you about how ineffective the "fight racism" message is. Part of the problem I see BLM having is that too many of their participants ignore (or gloss over) the policy proposals and, instead, lean heavily into performativity and feel-good rhetoric.

I also concur with you that the media tends to ignore serious attempts at reform by groups of lawmakers -- probably because those individuals usually aren't very showy or controversial. Politicians need to learn how to employ more effective strategies for getting the media to take notice in ways that won't turn off large swathes of voters.

---

We don’t talk enough about how language constrains our thinking. 

If enough people around you use a term like “systemic racism,” it might never occur to you to define it in concrete terms. Or worse, you might fail to think about your definition carefully enough.

You might just decide to fight this evil thing, inspired by the convictions of the people around you. And when the problems downstream of it don't get better, convince yourself that this is evidence of how pervasive and intractable this problem is. 

Police brutality, disparities in school funding, water-treatment neglect, most people, regardless of their skin tone, want to solve problems like these. But if you want to solve a problem, and especially if you want your solutions to be effective, you have to know—not just think you know—what you’re fighting. 

---