A Analysis of Systemic Racism in the United States: From It's Inception to Current Day - Exhibit A

[BlackSand]

I generally believe that when people want to discuss a topic, then all participants should be clear and in agreement on how the subject of the discussion is defined.

Then let's do some defining...."Systemic racism"....Two words....Let's ask two easy questions...

First of all, is racism a choice made by people?

.

You cannot ignore the definition or implications of one word, to arrive at the definition and implications of the two words combined.

Racism is based off a choice the individual makes ... That is correct, because it is what the person believes.
Systemic Racism is the product of how the people that choose to be Racists, enforce their choice on others.

Authority or Power doesn't exist in a vacuum, and it's value is determined by how it is used to influence the actions or conditions of others.

.​

 

[Oddball]

I generally believe that when people want to discuss a topic, then all participants should be clear and in agreement on how the subject of the discussion is defined.

Then let's do some defining...."Systemic racism"....Two words....Let's ask two easy questions...

First of all, is racism a choice made by people?

.

You cannot ignore the definition or implications of one word, to arrive at the definition and implications of the two words combined.

Racism is based off a choice the individual makes ... That is correct, because it is what the person believes.
Systemic Racism is the product of how the people that choose to be Racists, enforce their choice on others.

Authority or Power doesn't exist in a vacuum, and it's value is determined by how it is used to influence the actions or conditions of others.

.​

"The system" is neutral...In fact, it doesn't even exist in the corporeal realm.

Can I borrow from you a bucket of "the system", if I promise to repay you at the end of the month with a barrel full of it?

 

[Mac-7]

1843 Champoeg territorial government adopted a measure “prohibiting slavery” that required slave holders to free their slaves with the added requirement that all Blacks must leave the territory within three years.

That sounds reasonable

The residents of the territory did not want slavery and that law would discourage the practice

 

[JoeMoma]

It makes the chronological argument that somehow past systemic racism indicates existing systemic racism within the whole system.

That is the kernel of the argument that certain posters make. It creates a dogma which does not allow for America or Whites to ever not be racists since history is set. It also does not recognize the incremental progress made with civil rights over the years. We are not perfect and never be perfect because we are human, but we have come a long way.

 

[BlackSand]

"The system" is neutral...In fact, it doesn't even exist in the corporeal realm.

Can I borrow from you a bucket of "the system", if I promise to repay you at the end of the month with a barrel full of it?

.

Lol ... Well duh ... "Systemic" is an adjective and not a noun.
Which means that in the phrase "Systemic Racism", it simply describes the condition on the noun.

To understand and apply the combination of the two ... You cannot separate them from each other.

More esoterically ... You cannot defeat the purpose of the phrase by eliminating a component ...
And understanding is based in figuring how something applies, instead of how it doesn't apply.

.​

 

[Oddball]

"The system" is neutral...In fact, it doesn't even exist in the corporeal realm.

Can I borrow from you a bucket of "the system", if I promise to repay you at the end of the month with a barrel full of it?

.

Lol ... Well duh ... "Systemic" is an adjective and not a noun.
Which means that in the phrase "Systemic Racism", it simply describes the condition on the noun.

To understand and apply the combination of the two ... You cannot separate them from each other.

More esoterically ... You cannot defeat the purpose of the phrase by eliminating a component ...
And understanding is based in figuring how something applies, instead of how it doesn't apply.

.​

"Systemic" is an adjective?!?.... How does that which you cannot quantify take action?

 

[BlackSand]

"Systemic" is an adjective?!?.... How does that which you cannot quantify take action?

.

Sweetie ... Don't even try to argue what you don't understand.
You can call an article of clothing a blue (adjective) shirt (noun).

Identifying it as a shirt (noun) ... Does not limit or qualify the color it can be, but limits and quantifies the type of clothing it can be.
Identifying it as blue (adjective) ... Does not limit or qualify the type of clothing it can be, but limits and quantifies the colors it can be.

To understand what the two words put together mean ... They both qualify, limit and quantify their desired expression of the combination of the two.

Furthermore ... If I told you to pick up the blue shirt in a pile of clothes of a multitude of colors ...
You would have a fucking clue towards actually understanding what I was trying to refer to and achieve.

The desire to try and say that clothes can be anything from hats to underwear, or there is a rainbow of colors ...
Wouldn't help you figure out a damn thing, or achieve the desired effect of providing anything that could be quantified, because there would infinite options.

To understand "Systemic Racism" you have to be able to understand how the words combined qualify and quantify a meaning.
Trying to figure how they don't qualify or quantify, only allows infinite possibilities, and would be completely devoid of any understanding.


Nutshell Version:
To limit the possibilities and variables ... Is to Qualify (type of possibilities) and Quantify (number of possibilities) ...
.​

 

[Oddball]

"Systemic" is an adjective?!?.... How does that which you cannot quantify take action?

.

Sweetie ... Don't even try to argue what you don't understand.
You can all an article of clothing a blue (adjective) shirt (noun).

Identifying it as a shirt ... Does not limit or qualify the color it can be, but limits and quantifies the type of clothing it can be.
Identifying it as blue ... Does not limit or qualify the type of clothing it can be, but limits and quantifies the colors it can be.

To understand what the two words put together mean ... Both qualify, limit and quantify their desired expression.

Furthermore ... If I told you to pick up the blue shirt in a pile of clothes of a multitude of colors ...
You would have a fucking clue towards actually understanding what I was trying to refer to and achieve.

The desire to try and say that clothes can be anything from hats to underwear, or there is a rainbow of colors ...
Wouldn't help you figure out a damn thing, or achieve the desired effect of providing anything that could be quantified, because there would infinite options.

.​

Don't condescend to me, chump...I've forgot more about linguistics and semantics that you'll ever know.

"Systemic" is what we in the biz know as a "nominalization"....It is an abstraction that does not exist, let alone does it make any choice to take independent action....Nominalizations supplant nouns in language, not adjectives.

Attributing a human choice (an actual adjective) to that which cannot be quantified is linguistic gobbledygook, utterly devoid of any meaning in a sane world.

 

[BlackSand]

Don't condescend to me, chump...I've forgot more about linguistics and semantics that you'll ever know.

"Systemic" is what we in the biz know as a "nominalization"....It is an abstraction that does not exist, let alone does it make any choice to take independent action....Nominalizations supplant nouns in language, not adjectives.

Attributing a human choice (an actual adjective) to that which cannot be quantified is linguistic gobbledygook, utterly devoid of any meaning in a sane world.

.

You obviously don't know more, and aren't interested in arriving at a better understanding.
What I expressed is how you prove (qualify/quantify) something, and is not ambiguous in regards to what you want to prove.

A human (adjective) choice (noun) ... Is how you are trying to qualify and quantify racism (noun).
In Systemic Racism ... Systemic (adjective) ... Qualifies and Quantifies the racism (noun) the person is referring to.

Any attempt to suggest otherwise ... Is just your desperate effort not to understand what they are trying to express or refer to ...
If you choose to refer to your ignorance, and desire to remain that way, as linguistic goobledygook ... It's of no consequence to me.

.​

 

[TheParser]

Exhibit A: The State of Oregon - Portland

I generally believe that when people want to discuss a topic, then all participants should be clear and in agreement on how the subject of the discussion is defined.

There are a lot of people who bristle at the term racism when used by black people, and many seem to particularly dislike the term "systemic racism" so I'll begin by defining each term as they are commonly used, I will do the same.

Systemic:
relating to a system, especially as opposed to a particular part.
[Note: The United States is made up of 50 individual states each having the freedom to pass their own laws and do things as is seem fit for the residents of that particular state. What's good for the people of California may not necessarily be feasible for the people South Dakota, therefore the use of the term "systemic" in this discuss refers to the United States as a whole affecting all 50 states]

Racism:
the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.

System racism in the United States then refers to a system where due to the "the belief" in the superiority of whites and the alleged inferiority of blacks caused the creation of a "system" of treaties, laws, acts, policies, procedures and social mores which were created with the intention of favoring whites at the expense of blacks and other non-whites. These laws, et al were not restricted to only some of the states such as the southern states which fought a civil war in order to continue the institution of chattel slavery, they were enacted in every single state of the U.S. therefore the racist antagonism, animosity, hostility, and hatred towards black people by those members of society subscribing to this white supremacist mind set was endemic to the entire United States, thereby making it "systemic".

Fact:
A fact is an occurrence in the real world. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience.

Proof/Prove:
demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

If a person has only heard something or heard about something but never seen or experienced it with their own eyes, then maybe they could be excused for having a limited perspective of certain topics. However when the evidence is put in front of their eyes and they still deny it's existence it kind of stumps me. My nature is to keep trying different ways of explaining the same thing in order to get my point across and I oftentimes do with I'm training someone but it truly is my opinion that the scientific method should be able to prove this if for no other reason that they don't have to guess at what people thought and believed at various points throughout our country's history. There were plenty of people who were more than happy to write down for prosperity their beliefs and motivations for the things they did thereby providing us with an accounting to simply read

The following article is very well written and in-depth in my opinion, however it's long and I'm only going to post excerpts:

The Racist History of Portland, the Whitest City in America​

It’s known as a modern-day hub of progressivism, but its past is one of exclusion.

[snipped]
From its very beginning, Oregon was an inhospitable place for black people. In 1844, the provisional government of the territory passed a law banning slavery, and at the same time required any African American in Oregon to leave the territory. Any black person remaining would be flogged publicly every six months until he left. Five years later, another law was passed that forbade free African Americans from entering into Oregon, according to the Communities of Color report.

In 1857, Oregon adopted a state constitution that banned black people from coming to the state, residing in the state, or holding property in the state. During this time, any white male settler could receive 650 acres of land and another 650 if he was married. This, of course, was land taken from native people who had been living here for centuries.

This early history proves, to Imarisha, that “the founding idea of the state was as a racist white utopia. The idea was to come to Oregon territory and build the perfect white society you dreamed of.” (Matt Novak detailed Oregon’s heritage as a white utopia in this 2015 Gizmodo essay.)

With the passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments, Oregon’s laws preventing black people from living in the state and owning property were superseded by national law. But Oregon itself didn’t ratify the Fourteenth Amendment—the Equal Protection Clause—until 1973. (Or, more exactly, the state ratified the amendment in 1866, rescinded its ratification in 1868, and then finally ratified it for good in 1973.) It didn’t ratify the Fifteenth Amendment, which gave black people the right to vote, until 1959, making it one of only six states that refused to ratify that amendment when it passed.

This history resulted in a very white state. Technically, after 1868, black people could come to Oregon. But the black-exclusion laws had sent a very clear message nationwide, says Darrell Millner, a professor of black studies at Portland State University. “What those exclusion laws did was broadcast very broadly and loudly was that Oregon wasn’t a place where blacks would be welcome or comfortable,” he told me. By 1890, there were slightly more than 1,000 black people in the whole state of Oregon. By 1920, there were about 2,000.

The rise of the Ku Klux Klan made Oregon even more inhospitable for black people. The state had the highest per-capita Klan membership in the country, according to Imarisha. The democrat Walter M. Pierce was elected to the governorship of the state in 1922 with the vocal support of the Klan, and photos in the local paper show the Portland chief of police, sheriff, district attorney, U.S. attorney, and mayor posing with Klansmen, accompanied by an article saying the men were taking advice from the Klan. Some of the laws passed during that time included literacy tests for anyone who wanted to vote in the state and compulsory public school for Oregonians, a measure targeted at Catholics.

It wasn’t until World War II that a sizable black population moved to Oregon, lured by jobs in the shipyards, Millner said. The black population grew from 2,000 to 20,000 during the war, and the majority of the new residents lived in a place called Vanport, a city of houses nestled between Portland and Vancouver, Washington, constructed for the new residents. Yet after the war, blacks were encouraged to leave Oregon, Millner said, with the Portland mayor commenting in a newspaper article that black people were not welcome. The Housing Authority of Portland mulled dismantling Vanport, and jobs for black people disappeared as white soldiers returned from war and displaced the men and women who had found jobs in the shipyards.

Dismantling Vanport proved unnecessary. In May 1948, the Columbia River flooded, wiping out Vanport in a single day. Residents had been assured that the dikes protecting the housing were safe, and some lost everything in the flood. At least 15 residents died, though some locals formulated a theory that the housing authority had quietly disposed of hundreds more bodies to cover up its slow response. The 18,500 residents of Vanport—6,300 of whom were black—had to find somewhere else to live.
Men wade through the Vanport flood in 1948 (AP photo)

For black residents, the only choice, if they wanted to stay in Portland, was a neighborhood called Albina that had emerged as a popular place to live for the black porters who worked in nearby Union Station. It was the only place black people were allowed to buy homes after, in 1919, the Realty Board of Portland had approved a Code of Ethics forbidding realtors and bankers from selling or giving loans to minorities for properties located in white neighborhoods.

As black people moved into Albina, whites moved out; by the end of the 1950s, there were 23,000 fewer white residents and 7,000 more black residents than there had been at the beginning of the decade.

The neighborhood of Albina began to be the center of black life in Portland. But for outsiders, it was something else: a blighted slum in need of repair.
* * *
Continued here:

The Racist History of Portland, the Whitest City in America

Proof:
1843 Champoeg territorial government adopted a measure “prohibiting slavery” that required slave holders to free their slaves with the added requirement that all Blacks must leave the territory within three years.

1844 Acts to prohibit slavery and to exclude Blacks and Mulattoes from Oregon were passed. The infamous “Lash Law,” required that Blacks in Oregon – “be they free or slave – be whipped twice a year until he or she shall quit the territory.” It was soon deemed too harsh and its provisions for punishment were reduced to forced labor.

Nothing in those laws says blacks are inferior. It was just understood they were never considered citizens. They were encouraged to leave as free men and go to another nation, an African nation.

Looks to me the point is that they were not welcome to be part of that community.

Not welcome does not mean inferior. There are plenty of people of my own race, who I would be happy to see "whipped twice a year" until they decided to leave America.

It is not because I consider them inferior based on race, we share race.

That is a very important point.

I think (my OPINION) that many people in the South after the Civil War did not think that the former slaves were "inferior."

They just felt that their culture was different.

They felt that Caucasians and African Americans would be happier if they both lived separate lives, so segregation was born and the Supreme Court of the time upheld this system.

After World War II, the feelings of some (many? most?) Americans changed. And so in the 1960s, de jure segregation in the South collapsed, and de facto (gentle) segregation in the North also came to an end.

 

[Oddball]

Don't condescend to me, chump...I've forgot more about linguistics and semantics that you'll ever know.

"Systemic" is what we in the biz know as a "nominalization"....It is an abstraction that does not exist, let alone does it make any choice to take independent action....Nominalizations supplant nouns in language, not adjectives.

Attributing a human choice (an actual adjective) to that which cannot be quantified is linguistic gobbledygook, utterly devoid of any meaning in a sane world.

.

You obviously don't know more, and aren't interested in arriving at a better understanding.
What I expressed is how you prove (qualify/quantify) something, and is not ambiguous in regards to what you want to prove.

A human (adjective) choice (noun) ... Is how you are trying to qualify and quantify racism (noun).
In Systemic Racism ... Systemic (adjective) ... Qualifies and Quantifies the racism (noun) the person is referring to.

Any attempt to suggest otherwise ... Is just your desperate effort not to understand what they are trying to express or refer to ...
If you choose to refer to your ignorance, and desire to remain that way, as linguistic goobledygook ... It's of no consequence to me.

.​

What in the name of Sam Hill are you blabbering about?

"A human" is a noun (i.e. person, place, or thing)..."Choice" is a verb (an action)...."Racism" is a human choice and course of action -or inaction such as the case may be- taken, and as such is also a verb...."Racism" also marginally qualifies as the aforementioned nominalization, dependent upon its place in the sentence structure.

"Systemic racism" is a linguistic nothingburger, to go with being the logical fallacy of strawman argument....."The system" (i,e, the root of "systemic") is an unquantifiable strawman, that cannot make any argument in its own defense....Any claim the "the system" is racist makes no more sense than claiming that it is orange.

 

[BlackSand]

What in the name of Sam Hill are you blabbering about?

"A human" is a noun (i.e. person, place, or thing)..."Choice" is a verb (an action)...."Racism" is a human choice and course of action -or inaction such as the case may be- taken, and as such is also a verb...."Racism" also marginally qualifies as the aforementioned nominalization, dependent upon its place in the sentence structure.

"Systemic racism" is a linguistic nothingburger, to go with being the logical fallacy of strawman argument....."The system" (i,e, the root of "systemic") is an unquantifiable strawman, that cannot make any argument in its own defense....Any claim the "the system" is racist makes no more sense than claiming that it is orange.

.

Perhaps you can tell me what ... I know you don't understand what you are talking about, and have no interest in better understanding it ... Means.
As soon as you can do that, we will better understand each other ...

.​

 

[Oddball]

What in the name of Sam Hill are you blabbering about?

"A human" is a noun (i.e. person, place, or thing)..."Choice" is a verb (an action)...."Racism" is a human choice and course of action -or inaction such as the case may be- taken, and as such is also a verb...."Racism" also marginally qualifies as the aforementioned nominalization, dependent upon its place in the sentence structure.

"Systemic racism" is a linguistic nothingburger, to go with being the logical fallacy of strawman argument....."The system" (i,e, the root of "systemic") is an unquantifiable strawman, that cannot make any argument in its own defense....Any claim the "the system" is racist makes no more sense than claiming that it is orange.

.

Perhaps you can tell me what ... I know you don't understand what you are fucking talking about, and have no interest in better understanding it ... Means.
As soon as you can do that, we will better understand each other ...

.​

Battle of wits with the unarmed.

bye

 

[BlackSand]

Battle of wits with the unarmed.

bye

.

I told you not try to argue it, and you would fight desperately not to understand.
Here's some simple grammar for you ... There wasn't a question mark in anything I posted.

Have a lovely day ...

.​

 

[MizMolly]

Is the blacks hatred of Asians and Jews systemic?

Blacks don't hate Asians and Jews. Furthermore blacks have not created a "system" of treaties, laws, acts, policies, procedures and social mores which were created with the intention of favoring blacks at the expense of Asians and Jews.

Why do you racists ask these stupid ass questions?

Which laws apply today?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Then let's do some defining...."Systemic racism"....Two words....Let's ask two easy questions...

First of all, is racism a choice made by people?

In my opinion Individual racism has to be a choice. There are plenty of people who have looked at the facts and evidence in the matter and concluded that the theory of white supremacy is a [social] construct and not based in reality of truth.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Since I posted this story it has been reported in the news that there are 3 survivors of the 1921 Tulsa race riot in which the affluent black community nicknamed the "black wall street" was destroyed during two days of rioting, arson and murder by a white mob of roughly 3,000.

I first posted about the Tulsa race riots on a different message board probably not even 10 years ago and there just like here, one of the first attempts to dismiss this horrendous act was to state it happened too long ago.

This event occurred during a time in the United States when racial segregation was the law of the land and justice was more often than not denied to black victim of white racist violence.

Other than systemic racism, does anyone have an explanation for not only how and why this occurred but why not a single white person was ever arrested, let along prosecuted and convicted for the destruction of lives and property that occurred? Remember that even though this occurred 100 years ago next month, there are still people alive who suffered through this horror.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

\

Exhibit A: The State of Oregon - Portland

I generally believe that when people want to discuss a topic, then all participants should be clear and in agreement on how the subject of the discussion is defined.

There are a lot of people who bristle at the term racism when used by black people, and many seem to particularly dislike the term "systemic racism" so I'll begin by defining each term as they are commonly used, I will do the same.

Systemic:
relating to a system, especially as opposed to a particular part.
[Note: The United States is made up of 50 individual states each having the freedom to pass their own laws and do things as is seem fit for the residents of that particular state. What's good for the people of California may not necessarily be feasible for the people South Dakota, therefore the use of the term "systemic" in this discuss refers to the United States as a whole affecting all 50 states]

Racism:
the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.

System racism in the United States then refers to a system where due to the "the belief" in the superiority of whites and the alleged inferiority of blacks caused the creation of a "system" of treaties, laws, acts, policies, procedures and social mores which were created with the intention of favoring whites at the expense of blacks and other non-whites. These laws, et al were not restricted to only some of the states such as the southern states which fought a civil war in order to continue the institution of chattel slavery, they were enacted in every single state of the U.S. therefore the racist antagonism, animosity, hostility, and hatred towards black people by those members of society subscribing to this white supremacist mind set was endemic to the entire United States, thereby making it "systemic".

Fact:
A fact is an occurrence in the real world. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience.

Proof/Prove:
demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

If a person has only heard something or heard about something but never seen or experienced it with their own eyes, then maybe they could be excused for having a limited perspective of certain topics. However when the evidence is put in front of their eyes and they still deny it's existence it kind of stumps me. My nature is to keep trying different ways of explaining the same thing in order to get my point across and I oftentimes do with I'm training someone but it truly is my opinion that the scientific method should be able to prove this if for no other reason that they don't have to guess at what people thought and believed at various points throughout our country's history. There were plenty of people who were more than happy to write down for prosperity their beliefs and motivations for the things they did thereby providing us with an accounting to simply read

The following article is very well written and in-depth in my opinion, however it's long and I'm only going to post excerpts:

The Racist History of Portland, the Whitest City in America​

It’s known as a modern-day hub of progressivism, but its past is one of exclusion.

[snipped]
From its very beginning, Oregon was an inhospitable place for black people. In 1844, the provisional government of the territory passed a law banning slavery, and at the same time required any African American in Oregon to leave the territory. Any black person remaining would be flogged publicly every six months until he left. Five years later, another law was passed that forbade free African Americans from entering into Oregon, according to the Communities of Color report.

In 1857, Oregon adopted a state constitution that banned black people from coming to the state, residing in the state, or holding property in the state. During this time, any white male settler could receive 650 acres of land and another 650 if he was married. This, of course, was land taken from native people who had been living here for centuries.

This early history proves, to Imarisha, that “the founding idea of the state was as a racist white utopia. The idea was to come to Oregon territory and build the perfect white society you dreamed of.” (Matt Novak detailed Oregon’s heritage as a white utopia in this 2015 Gizmodo essay.)

With the passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments, Oregon’s laws preventing black people from living in the state and owning property were superseded by national law. But Oregon itself didn’t ratify the Fourteenth Amendment—the Equal Protection Clause—until 1973. (Or, more exactly, the state ratified the amendment in 1866, rescinded its ratification in 1868, and then finally ratified it for good in 1973.) It didn’t ratify the Fifteenth Amendment, which gave black people the right to vote, until 1959, making it one of only six states that refused to ratify that amendment when it passed.

This history resulted in a very white state. Technically, after 1868, black people could come to Oregon. But the black-exclusion laws had sent a very clear message nationwide, says Darrell Millner, a professor of black studies at Portland State University. “What those exclusion laws did was broadcast very broadly and loudly was that Oregon wasn’t a place where blacks would be welcome or comfortable,” he told me. By 1890, there were slightly more than 1,000 black people in the whole state of Oregon. By 1920, there were about 2,000.

The rise of the Ku Klux Klan made Oregon even more inhospitable for black people. The state had the highest per-capita Klan membership in the country, according to Imarisha. The democrat Walter M. Pierce was elected to the governorship of the state in 1922 with the vocal support of the Klan, and photos in the local paper show the Portland chief of police, sheriff, district attorney, U.S. attorney, and mayor posing with Klansmen, accompanied by an article saying the men were taking advice from the Klan. Some of the laws passed during that time included literacy tests for anyone who wanted to vote in the state and compulsory public school for Oregonians, a measure targeted at Catholics.

It wasn’t until World War II that a sizable black population moved to Oregon, lured by jobs in the shipyards, Millner said. The black population grew from 2,000 to 20,000 during the war, and the majority of the new residents lived in a place called Vanport, a city of houses nestled between Portland and Vancouver, Washington, constructed for the new residents. Yet after the war, blacks were encouraged to leave Oregon, Millner said, with the Portland mayor commenting in a newspaper article that black people were not welcome. The Housing Authority of Portland mulled dismantling Vanport, and jobs for black people disappeared as white soldiers returned from war and displaced the men and women who had found jobs in the shipyards.

Dismantling Vanport proved unnecessary. In May 1948, the Columbia River flooded, wiping out Vanport in a single day. Residents had been assured that the dikes protecting the housing were safe, and some lost everything in the flood. At least 15 residents died, though some locals formulated a theory that the housing authority had quietly disposed of hundreds more bodies to cover up its slow response. The 18,500 residents of Vanport—6,300 of whom were black—had to find somewhere else to live.
Men wade through the Vanport flood in 1948 (AP photo)

For black residents, the only choice, if they wanted to stay in Portland, was a neighborhood called Albina that had emerged as a popular place to live for the black porters who worked in nearby Union Station. It was the only place black people were allowed to buy homes after, in 1919, the Realty Board of Portland had approved a Code of Ethics forbidding realtors and bankers from selling or giving loans to minorities for properties located in white neighborhoods.

As black people moved into Albina, whites moved out; by the end of the 1950s, there were 23,000 fewer white residents and 7,000 more black residents than there had been at the beginning of the decade.

The neighborhood of Albina began to be the center of black life in Portland. But for outsiders, it was something else: a blighted slum in need of repair.
* * *
Continued here:

The Racist History of Portland, the Whitest City in America

Proof:
1843 Champoeg territorial government adopted a measure “prohibiting slavery” that required slave holders to free their slaves with the added requirement that all Blacks must leave the territory within three years.

1844 Acts to prohibit slavery and to exclude Blacks and Mulattoes from Oregon were passed. The infamous “Lash Law,” required that Blacks in Oregon – “be they free or slave – be whipped twice a year until he or she shall quit the territory.” It was soon deemed too harsh and its provisions for punishment were reduced to forced labor.

I generally believe that when people want to discuss a topic, then all participants should be clear and in agreement on how the subject of the discussion is defined.

Then let's do some defining...."Systemic racism"....Two words....Let's ask two easy questions...

First of all, is racism a choice made by people?

I read the conversation between you and BlackSand and concluded that you are against the use of the word "systemic" to describe racism. Because a system doesn't have the ability to choose to be racist or not, only individuals can do that, while BlackSand has stated that "systemic" is merely an adjective used to describe the noun racism.

I have an example for you that hopefully will convey one of the ways systemic racism works.

I'm a software developer and let's say that I'm part of a team of 2 other developers. One of the developers is a racist who doesn't think much of white people, Developer A. One of my other team members is a racist who has some very strong [negative] opinions about black people who is Developer B while I make up the third member of the team and am neutral and generally unbiased when it comes to all races, Developer C.

We're asked to develop an application that law enforcement agencies nationwide will use to help them determine "who is likely to be a criminal" as they make contact with the public as they go about their day.

Before getting to the coding part we each develop a flow chart which maps out the logic that our application will implement. Both Developers A and B begin their profile of the subject by testing for race. When the subject is white or Asian, Developer B after traversing a series of other attributes comes up with a lower probably of the person being a criminal than when the subject is black or Hispanic while Developer A comes up with the opposite results, finding that blacks and Hispanics are less likely to be criminals than whites however due to the belief that the police are going to automatically be biased against this group of individuals Developer B essentially "boosts" their score, resulting in a lower, more favorable result.

I, Developer C ignore race altogether and begin with their criminal history, age, contact with the courts, etc.

A review of our logic prior to implementing the code discovers the biases written into the algorithms. If the logic developed by either Developer A or B is implemented into the final application which is then distributed to law enforcement agencies nationwide then can you see and understand why systemic racism gets developed and implemented. The more realistic scenario is that 100 years ago only white people, usually men, were making determinations regarding the worth and worthiness of the black people they came in contact with during a time when black people were legally second class citizens and did not have the same equal rights as whites, legally.

And by the way, the police in Florida have been using a predictive analysis application for at least several years

Florida Sheriff's Office Sued For Using 'Predictive Policing' Program To Harass Residents

Florida Sheriff's Office Sued For Using 'Predictive Policing' Program To Harass Residents​

Legal Issues

from the better-at-creating-litigants-than-fighting-crime dept​

Tue, Mar 16th 2021 3:33pm — Tim Cushing

The Pasco County (FL) Sheriff's Office is being sued over its targeted harassment program -- one it likes to call "predictive policing."

Predictive policing is pretty much garbage everywhere, since it relies on stats generated by biased policing to generate even more biased policing. In Pasco County, however, it's a plague willingly inflicted on residents by a sheriff (Chris Nocco) who has apparently described the ultimate goal of the program as "making [people] miserable until they move or sue."

Well, Pasco County's getting one of these outcomes, after years of hassling residents who happen to find themselves labelled as criminals or possible criminals by the Sheriff's faulty software. Under the guise of "fighting crime," Sheriff's deputies make multiple visits to residences deemed troublesome, ticketing them for unmowed lawns, missing mailbox numbers, or for "allowing" teens to smoke on their property.

This program has bled over into the area's schools, subjecting minors to the same scrutiny for failing to maintain high grades or steady attendance. In one case, a 15-year-old on probation was "visited" by deputies 21 times in six months. Since 2015, 12,500 "checks" have been performed as part of Office's predictive policing program.

The Institute for Justice is representing four plaintiffs, including Robert Jones -- a target of the program who did both things the Office wanted: moved and sued.

 

[BlackSand]

\

Exhibit A: The State of Oregon - Portland

I generally believe that when people want to discuss a topic, then all participants should be clear and in agreement on how the subject of the discussion is defined.

There are a lot of people who bristle at the term racism when used by black people, and many seem to particularly dislike the term "systemic racism" so I'll begin by defining each term as they are commonly used, I will do the same.

Systemic:
relating to a system, especially as opposed to a particular part.
[Note: The United States is made up of 50 individual states each having the freedom to pass their own laws and do things as is seem fit for the residents of that particular state. What's good for the people of California may not necessarily be feasible for the people South Dakota, therefore the use of the term "systemic" in this discuss refers to the United States as a whole affecting all 50 states]

Racism:
the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.

System racism in the United States then refers to a system where due to the "the belief" in the superiority of whites and the alleged inferiority of blacks caused the creation of a "system" of treaties, laws, acts, policies, procedures and social mores which were created with the intention of favoring whites at the expense of blacks and other non-whites. These laws, et al were not restricted to only some of the states such as the southern states which fought a civil war in order to continue the institution of chattel slavery, they were enacted in every single state of the U.S. therefore the racist antagonism, animosity, hostility, and hatred towards black people by those members of society subscribing to this white supremacist mind set was endemic to the entire United States, thereby making it "systemic".

Fact:
A fact is an occurrence in the real world. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience.

Proof/Prove:
demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

If a person has only heard something or heard about something but never seen or experienced it with their own eyes, then maybe they could be excused for having a limited perspective of certain topics. However when the evidence is put in front of their eyes and they still deny it's existence it kind of stumps me. My nature is to keep trying different ways of explaining the same thing in order to get my point across and I oftentimes do with I'm training someone but it truly is my opinion that the scientific method should be able to prove this if for no other reason that they don't have to guess at what people thought and believed at various points throughout our country's history. There were plenty of people who were more than happy to write down for prosperity their beliefs and motivations for the things they did thereby providing us with an accounting to simply read

The following article is very well written and in-depth in my opinion, however it's long and I'm only going to post excerpts:

The Racist History of Portland, the Whitest City in America​

It’s known as a modern-day hub of progressivism, but its past is one of exclusion.

[snipped]
From its very beginning, Oregon was an inhospitable place for black people. In 1844, the provisional government of the territory passed a law banning slavery, and at the same time required any African American in Oregon to leave the territory. Any black person remaining would be flogged publicly every six months until he left. Five years later, another law was passed that forbade free African Americans from entering into Oregon, according to the Communities of Color report.

In 1857, Oregon adopted a state constitution that banned black people from coming to the state, residing in the state, or holding property in the state. During this time, any white male settler could receive 650 acres of land and another 650 if he was married. This, of course, was land taken from native people who had been living here for centuries.

This early history proves, to Imarisha, that “the founding idea of the state was as a racist white utopia. The idea was to come to Oregon territory and build the perfect white society you dreamed of.” (Matt Novak detailed Oregon’s heritage as a white utopia in this 2015 Gizmodo essay.)

With the passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments, Oregon’s laws preventing black people from living in the state and owning property were superseded by national law. But Oregon itself didn’t ratify the Fourteenth Amendment—the Equal Protection Clause—until 1973. (Or, more exactly, the state ratified the amendment in 1866, rescinded its ratification in 1868, and then finally ratified it for good in 1973.) It didn’t ratify the Fifteenth Amendment, which gave black people the right to vote, until 1959, making it one of only six states that refused to ratify that amendment when it passed.

This history resulted in a very white state. Technically, after 1868, black people could come to Oregon. But the black-exclusion laws had sent a very clear message nationwide, says Darrell Millner, a professor of black studies at Portland State University. “What those exclusion laws did was broadcast very broadly and loudly was that Oregon wasn’t a place where blacks would be welcome or comfortable,” he told me. By 1890, there were slightly more than 1,000 black people in the whole state of Oregon. By 1920, there were about 2,000.

The rise of the Ku Klux Klan made Oregon even more inhospitable for black people. The state had the highest per-capita Klan membership in the country, according to Imarisha. The democrat Walter M. Pierce was elected to the governorship of the state in 1922 with the vocal support of the Klan, and photos in the local paper show the Portland chief of police, sheriff, district attorney, U.S. attorney, and mayor posing with Klansmen, accompanied by an article saying the men were taking advice from the Klan. Some of the laws passed during that time included literacy tests for anyone who wanted to vote in the state and compulsory public school for Oregonians, a measure targeted at Catholics.

It wasn’t until World War II that a sizable black population moved to Oregon, lured by jobs in the shipyards, Millner said. The black population grew from 2,000 to 20,000 during the war, and the majority of the new residents lived in a place called Vanport, a city of houses nestled between Portland and Vancouver, Washington, constructed for the new residents. Yet after the war, blacks were encouraged to leave Oregon, Millner said, with the Portland mayor commenting in a newspaper article that black people were not welcome. The Housing Authority of Portland mulled dismantling Vanport, and jobs for black people disappeared as white soldiers returned from war and displaced the men and women who had found jobs in the shipyards.

Dismantling Vanport proved unnecessary. In May 1948, the Columbia River flooded, wiping out Vanport in a single day. Residents had been assured that the dikes protecting the housing were safe, and some lost everything in the flood. At least 15 residents died, though some locals formulated a theory that the housing authority had quietly disposed of hundreds more bodies to cover up its slow response. The 18,500 residents of Vanport—6,300 of whom were black—had to find somewhere else to live.
Men wade through the Vanport flood in 1948 (AP photo)

For black residents, the only choice, if they wanted to stay in Portland, was a neighborhood called Albina that had emerged as a popular place to live for the black porters who worked in nearby Union Station. It was the only place black people were allowed to buy homes after, in 1919, the Realty Board of Portland had approved a Code of Ethics forbidding realtors and bankers from selling or giving loans to minorities for properties located in white neighborhoods.

As black people moved into Albina, whites moved out; by the end of the 1950s, there were 23,000 fewer white residents and 7,000 more black residents than there had been at the beginning of the decade.

The neighborhood of Albina began to be the center of black life in Portland. But for outsiders, it was something else: a blighted slum in need of repair.
* * *
Continued here:

The Racist History of Portland, the Whitest City in America

Proof:
1843 Champoeg territorial government adopted a measure “prohibiting slavery” that required slave holders to free their slaves with the added requirement that all Blacks must leave the territory within three years.

1844 Acts to prohibit slavery and to exclude Blacks and Mulattoes from Oregon were passed. The infamous “Lash Law,” required that Blacks in Oregon – “be they free or slave – be whipped twice a year until he or she shall quit the territory.” It was soon deemed too harsh and its provisions for punishment were reduced to forced labor.

I generally believe that when people want to discuss a topic, then all participants should be clear and in agreement on how the subject of the discussion is defined.

Then let's do some defining...."Systemic racism"....Two words....Let's ask two easy questions...

First of all, is racism a choice made by people?

I read the conversation between you and BlackSand and concluded that you are against the use of the word "systemic" to describe racism. Because a system doesn't have the ability to choose to be racist or not, only individuals can do that, while BlackSand has stated that "systemic" is merely an adjective used to describe the noun racism.

I have an example for you that hopefully will convey one of the ways systemic racism works.

I'm a software developer and let's say that I'm part of a team of 2 other developers. One of the developers is a racist who doesn't think much of white people, Developer A. One of my other team members is a racist who has some very strong [negative] opinions about black people who is Developer B while I make up the third member of the team and am neutral and generally unbiased when it comes to all races, Developer C.

We're asked to develop an application that law enforcement agencies nationwide will use to help them determine "who is likely to be a criminal" as they make contact with the public as they go about their day.

Before getting to the coding part we each develop a flow chart which maps out the logic that our application will implement. Both Developers A and B begin their profile of the subject by testing for race. When the subject is white or Asian, Developer B after traversing a series of other attributes comes up with a lower probably of the person being a criminal than when the subject is black or Hispanic while Developer Ancomes up with the opposite results, finding that blacks and Hispanics are less likely to be criminals that whites due to the belief that the police are going to automatically be biased against this group of individuals so Developer B essentially "boosts" their score.

I, Developer C ignore race altogether and begin with their criminal history, age, contact with the courts, etc.

A review of our logic prior to implementing the code discovers the biases written into the algorithms. If the logic developed by either Developer A or B is implemented into the final application which is then distributed to law enforcement agencies nationwide then can you see and understand why systemic racism gets developed and implemented. The more realistic scenario is that 100 years ago only white people, usually men, were making determinations regarding the worth and worthiness of the black people they came in contact with during a time when black people were legally second class citizens and did not have the same equal rights as whites, legally.

And by the way, the police in Florida have been using a predictive analysis application for at least several years

Florida Sheriff's Office Sued For Using 'Predictive Policing' Program To Harass Residents

Florida Sheriff's Office Sued For Using 'Predictive Policing' Program To Harass Residents​

Legal Issues

from the better-at-creating-litigants-than-fighting-crime dept​

Tue, Mar 16th 2021 3:33pm — Tim Cushing

The Pasco County (FL) Sheriff's Office is being sued over its targeted harassment program -- one it likes to call "predictive policing."

Predictive policing is pretty much garbage everywhere, since it relies on stats generated by biased policing to generate even more biased policing. In Pasco County, however, it's a plague willingly inflicted on residents by a sheriff (Chris Nocco) who has apparently described the ultimate goal of the program as "making [people] miserable until they move or sue."

Well, Pasco County's getting one of these outcomes, after years of hassling residents who happen to find themselves labelled as criminals or possible criminals by the Sheriff's faulty software. Under the guise of "fighting crime," Sheriff's deputies make multiple visits to residences deemed troublesome, ticketing them for unmowed lawns, missing mailbox numbers, or for "allowing" teens to smoke on their property.

This program has bled over into the area's schools, subjecting minors to the same scrutiny for failing to maintain high grades or steady attendance. In one case, a 15-year-old on probation was "visited" by deputies 21 times in six months. Since 2015, 12,500 "checks" have been performed as part of Office's predictive policing program.

The Institute for Justice is representing four plaintiffs, including Robert Jones -- a target of the program who did both things the Office wanted: moved and sued.

.

The legal system does have a process with defined parameters, and is related to the adjective Systemic.

That's why at some point I tried to explain that Systemic Racism would be Racism with applied process parameters (Authority).
For legal reasons, the desire to view a black man as a fraction of a man ... Would be Systemic Racism.

People just attempt to crawfish all over the place trying to avoid that Understanding.

It did exist, and to some degree still does.
The problem is that one side runs in one direction away from Understanding it ...
While the other side tries to run towards it because they want to satisfy a desire more than an Understanding.

In essence, the gap is never bridged because the sides are trying too hard to pull themselves apart.

..​

 

[IM2]

Exhibit A: The State of Oregon - Portland

I generally believe that when people want to discuss a topic, then all participants should be clear and in agreement on how the subject of the discussion is defined.

There are a lot of people who bristle at the term racism when used by black people, and many seem to particularly dislike the term "systemic racism" so I'll begin by defining each term as they are commonly used, I will do the same.

Systemic:
relating to a system, especially as opposed to a particular part.
[Note: The United States is made up of 50 individual states each having the freedom to pass their own laws and do things as is seem fit for the residents of that particular state. What's good for the people of California may not necessarily be feasible for the people South Dakota, therefore the use of the term "systemic" in this discuss refers to the United States as a whole affecting all 50 states]

Racism:
the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.

System racism in the United States then refers to a system where due to the "the belief" in the superiority of whites and the alleged inferiority of blacks caused the creation of a "system" of treaties, laws, acts, policies, procedures and social mores which were created with the intention of favoring whites at the expense of blacks and other non-whites. These laws, et al were not restricted to only some of the states such as the southern states which fought a civil war in order to continue the institution of chattel slavery, they were enacted in every single state of the U.S. therefore the racist antagonism, animosity, hostility, and hatred towards black people by those members of society subscribing to this white supremacist mind set was endemic to the entire United States, thereby making it "systemic".

Fact:
A fact is an occurrence in the real world. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience.

Proof/Prove:
demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

If a person has only heard something or heard about something but never seen or experienced it with their own eyes, then maybe they could be excused for having a limited perspective of certain topics. However when the evidence is put in front of their eyes and they still deny it's existence it kind of stumps me. My nature is to keep trying different ways of explaining the same thing in order to get my point across and I oftentimes do with I'm training someone but it truly is my opinion that the scientific method should be able to prove this if for no other reason that they don't have to guess at what people thought and believed at various points throughout our country's history. There were plenty of people who were more than happy to write down for prosperity their beliefs and motivations for the things they did thereby providing us with an accounting to simply read

The following article is very well written and in-depth in my opinion, however it's long and I'm only going to post excerpts:

The Racist History of Portland, the Whitest City in America​

It’s known as a modern-day hub of progressivism, but its past is one of exclusion.

[snipped]
From its very beginning, Oregon was an inhospitable place for black people. In 1844, the provisional government of the territory passed a law banning slavery, and at the same time required any African American in Oregon to leave the territory. Any black person remaining would be flogged publicly every six months until he left. Five years later, another law was passed that forbade free African Americans from entering into Oregon, according to the Communities of Color report.

In 1857, Oregon adopted a state constitution that banned black people from coming to the state, residing in the state, or holding property in the state. During this time, any white male settler could receive 650 acres of land and another 650 if he was married. This, of course, was land taken from native people who had been living here for centuries.

This early history proves, to Imarisha, that “the founding idea of the state was as a racist white utopia. The idea was to come to Oregon territory and build the perfect white society you dreamed of.” (Matt Novak detailed Oregon’s heritage as a white utopia in this 2015 Gizmodo essay.)

With the passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments, Oregon’s laws preventing black people from living in the state and owning property were superseded by national law. But Oregon itself didn’t ratify the Fourteenth Amendment—the Equal Protection Clause—until 1973. (Or, more exactly, the state ratified the amendment in 1866, rescinded its ratification in 1868, and then finally ratified it for good in 1973.) It didn’t ratify the Fifteenth Amendment, which gave black people the right to vote, until 1959, making it one of only six states that refused to ratify that amendment when it passed.

This history resulted in a very white state. Technically, after 1868, black people could come to Oregon. But the black-exclusion laws had sent a very clear message nationwide, says Darrell Millner, a professor of black studies at Portland State University. “What those exclusion laws did was broadcast very broadly and loudly was that Oregon wasn’t a place where blacks would be welcome or comfortable,” he told me. By 1890, there were slightly more than 1,000 black people in the whole state of Oregon. By 1920, there were about 2,000.

The rise of the Ku Klux Klan made Oregon even more inhospitable for black people. The state had the highest per-capita Klan membership in the country, according to Imarisha. The democrat Walter M. Pierce was elected to the governorship of the state in 1922 with the vocal support of the Klan, and photos in the local paper show the Portland chief of police, sheriff, district attorney, U.S. attorney, and mayor posing with Klansmen, accompanied by an article saying the men were taking advice from the Klan. Some of the laws passed during that time included literacy tests for anyone who wanted to vote in the state and compulsory public school for Oregonians, a measure targeted at Catholics.

It wasn’t until World War II that a sizable black population moved to Oregon, lured by jobs in the shipyards, Millner said. The black population grew from 2,000 to 20,000 during the war, and the majority of the new residents lived in a place called Vanport, a city of houses nestled between Portland and Vancouver, Washington, constructed for the new residents. Yet after the war, blacks were encouraged to leave Oregon, Millner said, with the Portland mayor commenting in a newspaper article that black people were not welcome. The Housing Authority of Portland mulled dismantling Vanport, and jobs for black people disappeared as white soldiers returned from war and displaced the men and women who had found jobs in the shipyards.

Dismantling Vanport proved unnecessary. In May 1948, the Columbia River flooded, wiping out Vanport in a single day. Residents had been assured that the dikes protecting the housing were safe, and some lost everything in the flood. At least 15 residents died, though some locals formulated a theory that the housing authority had quietly disposed of hundreds more bodies to cover up its slow response. The 18,500 residents of Vanport—6,300 of whom were black—had to find somewhere else to live.
Men wade through the Vanport flood in 1948 (AP photo)

For black residents, the only choice, if they wanted to stay in Portland, was a neighborhood called Albina that had emerged as a popular place to live for the black porters who worked in nearby Union Station. It was the only place black people were allowed to buy homes after, in 1919, the Realty Board of Portland had approved a Code of Ethics forbidding realtors and bankers from selling or giving loans to minorities for properties located in white neighborhoods.

As black people moved into Albina, whites moved out; by the end of the 1950s, there were 23,000 fewer white residents and 7,000 more black residents than there had been at the beginning of the decade.

The neighborhood of Albina began to be the center of black life in Portland. But for outsiders, it was something else: a blighted slum in need of repair.
* * *
Continued here:

The Racist History of Portland, the Whitest City in America

Proof:
1843 Champoeg territorial government adopted a measure “prohibiting slavery” that required slave holders to free their slaves with the added requirement that all Blacks must leave the territory within three years.

1844 Acts to prohibit slavery and to exclude Blacks and Mulattoes from Oregon were passed. The infamous “Lash Law,” required that Blacks in Oregon – “be they free or slave – be whipped twice a year until he or she shall quit the territory.” It was soon deemed too harsh and its provisions for punishment were reduced to forced labor.

.

However anyone may feel about Systemic Racism ... My white, black and red ass doesn't need to repeat the mistakes my ancestors made ...
In fatal attempts to correct the problems they created.

It's also not my problem if race pimps are just a bit jelly my bloodstream is more diverse than theirs.

That diversity is what allowed my closest ancestors to understand that purpose in the present, and vision towards the future ...
Beats animosity in the past, and the need or desire to pretend blaming someone dead, will fix their problems ...
Every Fucking Time.

.​

The problem is that you are repeating those mistakes and this consitent refusal to admit the problem is what made whites believe that blacks were happy being slaves, that blacks were happy with Jim Crow but agitators are telling blacks things. This is the same mentality we see here with the "white liberals are telling blacks they are victims" narrative people like you consistently repeat.

There is nothing in the opposition to systemic racism that is the same as past forms of racism and people today are being blamed for what YOU are doing right now. It's fine for you whites to run up behind an old racist talking that Make America Great Again shit, meaning you are fine with going back. to the past to credit the dead amd to use their ideas to solve percieved modern problems. Only until we bring up the truth of our experience do we get this excuse laden bs.

The past is evaluated all the time to improve conditions of the present. White racism has not ended, the impact of 245 years of continuing system predicated on white preference lives with us now and is a hurdle to national progress. The "I am not responsible" arttitude coming from whites like you who then start barking to us about taking responsibility is maddening. Practice wtf you preach, end the excuses.