I saw [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/FragileWhiteRedditor/comments/kyo25g/fwr_says_theres_no_such_thing_as_systemic_racism/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) Reddit post today and it sparked a few questions.
For context, I consider my self sort of knowledgeable of social justice issues, but I don’t understand this one that much.
The responding Redditor says that if you remove all the racists from a systemically racist system, the system still favors a certain ethnicity. I am in no way trying to argue this, and I don’t not think it’s true, I just don’t understand what systems are in place that are racist by design. I acknowledge that if it weren’t for my white privilege, I would probably know. I definitely think that the system is racist, but I always thought it was the people applying it unjustly, not the system itself.
Thanks
Edit: I understand this is a pretty common question and I should’ve better explained my question specifically as something like:
“I understand that many modern social systems are based on unjust, racist treatment of certain groups, be it slavery, Residential Schools, or otherwise. I understand that this has lasting impacts on our society, and these policies and practices continue to negatively impact minority communities to this day. It is evident to me that, for only one example, a racist judge, would apply harsher sentencing to a individual, due to their ethnicity.
My question specifically is, like the Redditor stated: How is it that, even once the racist individuals within the system are removed, the system still favors one ethnicity, and oppresses the other?”
Thanks to some very helpful, and precise replies I much better understand systemic racism as a whole, and my question is answered. Thanks to everyone who put in the time to explain.
In: Other
Here’s an example. Imagine that because of the racism of previous generations, members of race A are on average much wealthier than members of race B. Due to the explicit preferences of employers and community members, people of race A tend to have higher paying jobs, and they own more (and more valuable) property, than people of race B.
Years go by. Then, after massive social upheaval in recognition of the injustice of this racial divide, it becomes widely accepted that it is wrong for employers to prefer not to hire someone who is of race B just because of their race. Likewise, it is unacceptable to prevent someone from buying a house in your neighborhood just because that person is of race B. Progress!
The problem is this. Since members of race B have previously been systematically prevented from these things, even after this social revolution they don’t have access to the wealth or the connections of a family who previously had access to these things. Members of race A, on average, still have more wealth, a higher education level, and tend to network with people who have more power. Insofar as these factors play into an individual’s success or failure in achieving their goals, members of race A will still tend to do far better than members of race B—regardless of the merit or talent of the individuals involved.
Moreover, nobody needs to be explicitly racist in order for this racial disparity to be upheld in future generations. A member of race A goes to Harvard (where his parents went). An equally talented member of race B goes to a state school (all he can afford). Both excel and get a high GPA. Both apply for the same jobs. The hiring committee ignores their races…and promptly hires the guy who went to Harvard over the guy who went to State. So the disparity is recreated for another generation. But nobody had to think about race at all in order to generate this outcome.
Latest Answers