[quote name='nasum']institutional racism? Judges are elected, meaning they can be removed if the populace thinks they aren't serving the community fairly. Why not get out and vote anti-incumbent for judges if you've elected one that you feel is racist?[/QUOTE]
Not all judges are elected. I'd wager to say that most judges in this country aren't.
Juries are served by a random selection of people in the community. If you live in a predominantly black neighborhood, and you're found guilty by a jury, are the blacks on the jury guilty of racism?
Juries are not random. The jury "pool" may be random, but those chosen to sit on a jury to hear a case aren't. The prosecution, defence, and judge decide who sits on a jury. You might not be able to stack a jury full of black people, but when a black person is going to trial, you can sure as hell stack the jury full of white people.
And yes, black people can have internalized racism. Look at Bill Cosby and Morgan Freeman. Hell, Michael Jackson.
The judge sets the sentence, vote them out. The cops make the arrests, they're hired by city officials, so your elected city council and such are also racist. VOTE THEM OUT if you're dissatisfied. Shit, point this out to enough people and you may even get elected yourself if you cater to the whims of the disenfranchised.
You want the disenfranchised to vote out people perpetuating institutional racism. This makes NO SENSE.
Unless I was pointing out a contradiction, or being sarcastic for the sake of a point, I don't recall pointing out that blacks have it worse than whites. At least, not to the extent that the world is against them. I think they have it worse when it comes to living conditions, mainly because it seems that nobody wants to do anything about the problems. It's easier to blame others for the shortcomings of a shitty life.
So we're back to poor black people are poor because they're black and since they're black, they're poor?
Lemme break it down for you so hopefully you'll understand this time. I might be using some terms you're unfamiliar with so look them up before you post:
The US was an apartheid state up until about 1964. That was when overt and outright racism and discrimination was "outlawed" in certain areas of society. You know that thing in the Depression called the New Deal and the GI Bill? For all intents and purposes, it never went to people of color. I shouldn't need to enumerate how bad it was for black people back then. White people had priority in hiring and schools were not desegregated. This created the white middle-class. As for generational wealth? Black people were never given anything. Sharecropping is not ownership. Slaves were not reimbursed for their labor. They were not given an education. Do you know what that means? It mean generational poverty on a massive scale. Property taxes were made to stay within a community. This means that some school districts, mostly white, were much better than ones in black communities. This should sound familiar to you as well.
So not only were black people not given an education, able to take advantage of programs that they should qualify for, but they were actively prohibited from participating in any socio-economic mobility. When it came to the FHA, black communities were specifically targeted as being non-viable for loans where as white communities we're given a pass. This was the status quo up until about 1964. What it comes down to is that black people in this country were never really even given a chance.
If you followed that and it didn't go over your head, you can apply that to the nonsense you've been posting and see how ridiculous it is.
And with all the n word thrown around in rap music and such, that isn't a badge of honor to some? Basically as long as it isn't a white dude calling you that, it's cool right? Richard Pryor said it best when he said he wasn't going to use that word anymore because he doesn't want to be that.
It's a term of kinship and unity. It's about empowerment and subverting it's influence. Why should you care how people want to relate to one another anyways. Do you find it unfair that they can say something you can't? When a white person used to say n****r, they were exercizing their power and authority over someone. If black people want to reappropriate it, what's the harm in that.
The lack of resources is due to the sparse population. There's less income in the area in terms of property taxes and whatnot to hire more police.
Good thing the taxes from more well-to-do areas are redistributed to other areas that aren't doing as well.
You're seemingly accusing these areas of being a good ol' boys club and that they don't care about crime.
Where'd that come from? No, I'm accusing the system of being highly selective in who it directs it's attention to.
If you're honestly going to tell me that a repeat offender with the same record, arrested in the same circumstances, by the same officer, tried by the same jury and sentenced by the same judge will get a different result based on race then I can no longer argue this point with you. Perhaps it's naive of me to believe that justice is that blind, but I simply cannot believe that two people who are identical in every way but skin color will get a different sentence.
Why is it so difficult to believe? Even if you take race out of the equation and apply class, it's grossly unbalanced.
The resources are there. The kids aren't going to a classroom without a teacher. The books are there. The federal funding for education is there. The teacher's unions are there to lobby for money. What isn't there? Kids that actually want to learn. As pointed out in the other thread by MSI Magus, the culture willfully embraces failure, otherwise you're a snitch or a Tom or whatever. But now you're forcing me to paint with a broad brush which I'm trying to avoid.
Maybe because you're painting yourself into a corner. What is black culture then?
I had to go to a wedding in rural Wisconsin a year or two ago. They had some dumb kids out there. Why? Because they weren't interested in learning. It's the same situation anywhere. If you have kids that aren't interested in learning and would rather goof off, they're likely to be
ups regardless of creed.
And those country bumpkins will still have it better than a black person in similar circumstances.
Your last counterpoint still doesn't address personal accountability. However your second does which raises an interesting point. Policies that keep people poor. Follow the money, why is it advantageous for those in power to, through policy, essentially propogate failure? Who benefits most from promising extra benefits to the poor?
What is it with your fetish with personal responsibility. Doesn't personal responsibility lie with BOTH parties involved in any transaction? There is no such thing as a rational actor when perfect knowledge doesn't exist.
You want to know who benefits? The power elite. You know what happens to money that goes to welfare? It shoots straight back up to the top. It reinforces the system. The proles need to be distracted and kept dumb enough not to overthrow the power elite.
Throughout all of this, you've basically pointed at me and said "This is an example of a racist who doesn't burn crosses but is one anyways", yet you've offered nothing. How should we, as a society, absolve the problems of which you speak and still remain fair to everyone?
I've offered you nothing?
What you've pointed out:
Institutional Racism (I'm grouping inequal sentencing and economic issues here, feel free to divest)
Lack of education
Preference towards whites
and a few others as well.
Help me out here.
Well looky here. Looks like I offered something afterall.
Look, if you Really want to learn about this stuff, start here and read some entries:
http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/
If you're not interested in learning, well, I'll just keep calling out racism in your posts and ideology.