White privilege and other matters

[Hugo]

On that note, I just hammered through the first few chapters of a book by Bettina Love on Abolitionist education and I'm really trying to give it a chance and read it with an open mind. However, in the first chapter she makes multiple references to white - whiteness, white rage, white supremacy, whitesplain, white flight...... Each and every reference to white has a negative connotation. It's basically "white Man bad".

I just don't know what you are supposed to do with that.

[Tichtheid]

@Hugo, whilst King remains a giant in the civil rights movement, to be fair to him he writes from 50, 60 years ago. I won't argue against economic disparity being a huge problem, THE problem, but, and I'm repeating it, racism exists at all levels of the economic ladder.

Someone's "middle class-ness" isn't going to shield them from stop and search, from unwitting discrimination in jobs and promotion, education, in effect any part of life where the outcome isn't entirely in your own hands.

[Hugo]

@Hugo, whilst King remains a giant in the civil rights movement, to be fair to him he writes from 50, 60 years ago. I won't argue against economic disparity being a huge problem, THE problem, but, and I'm repeating it, racism exists at all levels of the economic ladder.

Someone's "middle class-ness" isn't going to shield them from stop and search, from unwitting discrimination in jobs and promotion, education, in effect any part of life where the outcome isn't entirely in your own hands.

The point is neither is someones whiteness. A working class white has narrow options for housing, employment, education, will not be portrayed favourably in the media, is treated with callous disregard by the political elite and with suspicion by the police.

[Tichtheid]

@Hugo, whilst King remains a giant in the civil rights movement, to be fair to him he writes from 50, 60 years ago. I won't argue against economic disparity being a huge problem, THE problem, but, and I'm repeating it, racism exists at all levels of the economic ladder.

Someone's "middle class-ness" isn't going to shield them from stop and search, from unwitting discrimination in jobs and promotion, education, in effect any part of life where the outcome isn't entirely in your own hands.

The point is neither is someones whiteness. A working class white has narrow options for housing, employment, education, will not be portrayed favourably in the media, is treated with callous disregard by the political elite and with suspicion by the police.

From one of the links posted earlier this morning

Leroy Logan, 62, is a former Met officer and ex-chairman of the National Black Police Association.

Twenty years after Macpherson, he says the force remains institutionally racist.

Logan says improvements were made post-Macpherson, such as hate crimes now being identified, but adds: "We still don't have the promotion of equality and justice in the organisation.

"Black officers are disproportionately subjected to discipline compared to their white counterparts.

"You still see black staff hugging the lower ranks and they aren't breaking through to the upper levels of the organisation."

He adds: "We still have disproportionality in stop and search, where a black person is five times more likely to be stopped by police than their white counterparts.

"They are 20 times more likely to be stopped under section 60 roadblocks and you are more likely to be Tasered if you are black.

"So even if this is unconscious bias, the fact the police force know these figures but have not decided to question why this is happening and haven't addressed it - it is institutionally racist."

Logan runs a leadership programme called Voyage Youth and says the young people he works with have the same attitude towards the police as he did in his younger years.

"They say they are over-policed and under-protected. They don't feel safe."

He adds: "In London we have white British gangs, Bengali gangs, eastern European, you name it.

"So why is it that 80% of them on the [police] gangs matrix is black? What happened to the rest of them?"

[Random1]

listening is indeed good, as that can provide leads on where to look for empirical evidence of the cause of their experience.

People experiencing things doesn’t mean they know the cause and certainly doesn’t mean we change policy at a national level based upon personal experiential information.

I don't think anecdotes can be dismissed either, though. Empirical data is often the collection and analysis of anecdotes.

The Macpherson Report concluded that there was institutional racism at the Met, some twenty years on the experience young black men have with the police hasn't changed much.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47300343

Anecdotal evidence can definitely be dismissed in terms of science. Unless there is a proper, variable controlled (preferably blind) case study.

All the links you posted on the other page are pretty poor in terms of evidence base. The first one in particular is just awful in terms of objectivity.

It could have been in the guardian.

We’ve mentioned that most social science just doesn’t produce the sort of robust evidence any trained scientist would recognise.

On the topic of institutional racism - yes, I’m not saying that doesn’t exist. Certainly the police have been in that category.

Are saying that’s the same as systemic racism though?

[Tichtheid]

listening is indeed good, as that can provide leads on where to look for empirical evidence of the cause of their experience.

People experiencing things doesn’t mean they know the cause and certainly doesn’t mean we change policy at a national level based upon personal experiential information.

I don't think anecdotes can be dismissed either, though. Empirical data is often the collection and analysis of anecdotes.

The Macpherson Report concluded that there was institutional racism at the Met, some twenty years on the experience young black men have with the police hasn't changed much.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47300343

Anecdotal evidence can definitely be dismissed in terms of science. Unless there is a proper, variable controlled (preferably blind) case study.

All the links you posted on the other page are pretty poor in terms of evidence base. The first one in particular is just awful in terms of objectivity.

It could have been in the guardian.

We’ve mentioned that most social science just doesn’t produce the sort of robust evidence any trained scientist would recognise.

On the topic of institutional racism - yes, I’m not saying that doesn’t exist. Certainly the police have been in that category.

Are saying that’s the same as systemic racism though?

The links within the articles were interesting, I thought.

Social science cannot produce the same type of research expected by physics or other sciences, it just doesn't work that way. To say that traditional science is the only valid method of working is not something a proper scientist would say.

Institutional racism is a synonym for systemic racism.

[Random1]

I don't think anecdotes can be dismissed either, though. Empirical data is often the collection and analysis of anecdotes.

The Macpherson Report concluded that there was institutional racism at the Met, some twenty years on the experience young black men have with the police hasn't changed much.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47300343

Anecdotal evidence can definitely be dismissed in terms of science. Unless there is a proper, variable controlled (preferably blind) case study.

All the links you posted on the other page are pretty poor in terms of evidence base. The first one in particular is just awful in terms of objectivity.

It could have been in the guardian.

We’ve mentioned that most social science just doesn’t produce the sort of robust evidence any trained scientist would recognise.

On the topic of institutional racism - yes, I’m not saying that doesn’t exist. Certainly the police have been in that category.

Are saying that’s the same as systemic racism though?

The links within the articles were interesting, I thought.

Social science cannot produce the same type of research expected by physics or other sciences, it just doesn't work that way. To say that traditional science is the only valid method of working is not something a proper scientist would say.

Institutional racism is a synonym for systemic racism.

No, but they could produce science in the same way medicine does. Case studies are fine, as long as the scientific method is used. It’s just lazy.

On the definition of institutional vs systemic; that’s why I’ve loved this thread - I’ve learnt loads, as people like you have taken the time to respond - thank you.

My assumption was that institutional was based on an institute eg the police or education etc. So a large phenomenon confined within a single institute. My thought process was that an institute was like a corporation, and can have a culture and can act like a body corporate ie tantamount to an individual.

The fact that it’s defined as the same as systemic racism means I don’t believe in institutional racism, whereas I thought I did!

[Tichtheid]

The fact that it’s defined as the same as systemic racism means I don’t believe in institutional racism, whereas I thought I did!

Does that mean you don't think the Metropolitan police are institutionally racist, despite Macpherson and despite the facts and figures given in the quote I posted?

[Random1]

The fact that it’s defined as the same as systemic racism means I don’t believe in institutional racism, whereas I thought I did!

Does that mean you don't think the Metropolitan police are institutionally racist, despite Macpherson and despite the facts and figures given in the quote I posted?

No, I do think they were institutionally racist.

That’s the distinction I was making - but you explained why I was wrong on systemic and institutional racism being the same.

My thought was that there’s a difference between one large entity (eg the police) being institutionally racist compared to an entire system of racism.

An institution like the police can be racist collectively, in the same way a corporation can have a culture of bad behaviour, like the banks prior to the crash. That’s why businesses put culture at the very heart of their strategy and identity. Businesses with that sort of cohesive identity can, and do, act like a single corporate body.

But systemic (in its non-social science) definition is literally ‘everything’ root and branch, meaning; economics, education, judiciary, immigration, housing, welfare, health etc. Etc. Being racist.

That’s a different beast altogether - that’s endemic racism being at the core of the system.

Hence the distinction I made. Otherwise, if you prove that the police are institutionally racist, you then make the case that the entire system of the Uk is racist, as institutionally means the same as systemic.

Seems a bit of ill thought out word play to me, but that’s a game the post modernist like to play all day long.

[Tichtheid]

Here's a link to an article in the FT https://www.ft.com/content/b51d534f-551 ... 6f39955d8f

It contains links to a few interesting pieces, there are more than this but here is a few I read to at least the executive summary

Lammy Review of outcomes in the criminal justice system https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... nal-report

Timpson Review on School Exclusions https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... review.pdf

McGregor-Smith Review of Race in the workplace https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ith-review

They seem to uphold the view that there is unconscious, systemic bias across these aspect of life. There is no one-size-fits-all and people from different ethnicities have different experiences, eg Asian kids are less likely to be excluded from school than white kids, who in turn are less likely to be excluded than black kids.
The cjs doesn't appear to be overtly racist, but the outcomes are still that black youths and adults are disproportionately represented in prisons, so although bias is not overt there is still a problem, which is what the concept of white privilege is all about, it's trying to shine a light on why these over-representations are happening

[Random1]

Here's a link to an article in the FT https://www.ft.com/content/b51d534f-551 ... 6f39955d8f

It contains links to a few interesting pieces, there are more than this but here is a few I read to at least the executive summary

Lammy Review of outcomes in the criminal justice system https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... nal-report

Timpson Review on School Exclusions https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... review.pdf

McGregor-Smith Review of Race in the workplace https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ith-review

They seem to uphold the view that there is unconscious, systemic bias across these aspect of life. There is no one-size-fits-all and people from different ethnicities have different experiences, eg Asian kids are less likely to be excluded from school than white kids, who in turn are less likely to be excluded than black kids.
The cjs doesn't appear to be overtly racist, but the outcomes are still that black youths and adults are disproportionately represented in prisons, so although bias is not overt there is still a problem, which is what the concept of white privilege is all about, it's trying to shine a light on why these over-representations are happening

Thanks for those - again, they seem to support a set of people trying to match the results to a theory rather than the other way around.

We’ve discussed it previously on the thread, the fact that some races are out performing white people would usually be a pretty strong reason for the theory of white privileged to be challenged. Then once you pick at the datasets, they are utterly unscientific.

The reason I found the akala interview interesting was that he was acknowledging that the systemic issue is likely to be class, and that white working class and black working class are downtrodden by the same system.

[Tichtheid]

Well no, the relative success that people of, eg, Chinese ethnic origin in school and university does not mean there is no structural bias in the systems.

On housing https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpoli ... n-housing/

To be honest I’m running out of steam, minds are made up.

[Random1]

Well no, the relative success that people of, eg, Chinese ethnic origin in school and university does not mean there is no structural bias in the systems.

On housing https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpoli ... n-housing/

To be honest I’m running out of steam, minds are made up.

Can you expand on that for me please? Are you saying the system is selectively racist towards Afro Caribbean people only?

A second query; On the sources you’re providing and the fact that my mind is made up; I’ve seen nothing that provides decent evidence that they system in the Uk is racist - unless you’re viewing things that have a disproportionate impact upon people due to their life choices? Which may be why we’re at an impasse.

For instance, in the last article you posted, it says

“The Government’s audit also fails to record the growing body of evidence that points to welfare reforms disproportionately impacting ethnic minorities. The roll-out of Universal Credit is having greater effects on the living standards of BAME people since a larger percentage experience poverty, receive benefits and tax credits, and live in large families. Larger household size also means that ethnic minorities are far more vulnerable to housing displacement because of the Bedroom Tax or subject to financial penalties if they do not move to a smaller home.”

Is that the sort of systemic stuff you’re saying the Uk is guilty of? As in, a policy decision has been made, and the personal choices of people (eg family size) in the BAME community mean the policy impacts them disproportionally?

[Tichtheid]

Well no, the relative success that people of, eg, Chinese ethnic origin in school and university does not mean there is no structural bias in the systems.

On housing https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpoli ... n-housing/

To be honest I’m running out of steam, minds are made up.

Can you expand on that for me please? Are you saying the system is selectively racist towards Afro Caribbean people only?

A second query; On the sources you’re providing and the fact that my mind is made up; I’ve seen nothing that provides decent evidence that they system in the Uk is racist - unless you’re viewing things that have a disproportionate impact upon people due to their life choices? Which may be why we’re at an impasse.

For instance, in the last article you posted, it says

“The Government’s audit also fails to record the growing body of evidence that points to welfare reforms disproportionately impacting ethnic minorities. The roll-out of Universal Credit is having greater effects on the living standards of BAME people since a larger percentage experience poverty, receive benefits and tax credits, and live in large families. Larger household size also means that ethnic minorities are far more vulnerable to housing displacement because of the Bedroom Tax or subject to financial penalties if they do not move to a smaller home.”

Is that the sort of systemic stuff you’re saying the Uk is guilty of? As in, a policy decision has been made, and the personal choices of people (eg family size) in the BAME community mean the policy impacts them disproportionally?

Your last sentence is an example of Fundamental attribution error - the idea that circumstances are a matter of personal choice, or down to character.

One of the way this manifests itself is, as is mentioned in this article,

This error “lays the groundwork for beliefs that would tend to justify [systemic] inequality,”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... althy-bias

[Random1]

Ah, think I’ve wrapped my head around your position now.

It feels like you’re saying that policy makers are making policy and more often than not the same people end up on the wrong end of those policies. that’s what creates the systemic part of discrimination?

That’s regardless of whether the policy writers intend for that impact or not.

So, if a general policy principle is to write welfare policy for people with 2.4 children (or whatever the national average is these days), then that will impact bame people disproportionately as they tend to have larger families.

This would then contribute to systemic racism?

Have I understood that correctly?

[Tichtheid]

Ah, think I’ve wrapped my head around your position now.

It feels like you’re saying that policy makers are making policy and more often than not the same people end up on the wrong end of those policies. that’s what creates the systemic part of discrimination?

That’s regardless of whether the policy writers intend for that impact or not.

So, if a general policy principle is to write welfare policy for people with 2.4 children (or whatever the national average is these days), then that will impact bame people disproportionately as they tend to have larger families.

This would then contribute to systemic racism?

Have I understood that correctly?

I don't know how it works as I only have a superficial knowledge of how policy is made, but people of colour are telling white people that race is an issue that they face in their day to day and that systemic racism exists.

There were many links to articles and books in the pieces I posted yesterday.

[Random1]

Ah, think I’ve wrapped my head around your position now.

It feels like you’re saying that policy makers are making policy and more often than not the same people end up on the wrong end of those policies. that’s what creates the systemic part of discrimination?

That’s regardless of whether the policy writers intend for that impact or not.

So, if a general policy principle is to write welfare policy for people with 2.4 children (or whatever the national average is these days), then that will impact bame people disproportionately as they tend to have larger families.

This would then contribute to systemic racism?

Have I understood that correctly?

I don't know how it works as I only have a superficial knowledge of how policy is made, but people of colour are telling white people that race is an issue that they face in their day to day and that systemic racism exists.

There were many links to articles and books in the pieces I posted yesterday.

I think you’ve led me by the hand to a really interesting realisation (on my part), it joins up a number of aspects of the thread and makes some of the competing ideas actually compatible.

In terms of your query on policy making, generally, on the big stuff, there’s an approach of utilitarianism (with a small u). By that, I mean that policy makers try to do the most good for the most people e.g. the setting up of the nhs or the court system or educational systems.

Sometimes it means doing the least harm to as many people as possible, that tends to be the thought behind taxes, data regulation, infrastructure projects etc.

Now, what that means is that generally policy makers tend to focus on the average person, and how their policy impacts them.

I’ve never really thought about it in this way, but that means that the system, by trying to be utilitarian in nature is not catering for minorities e.g. those who tend to have larger families in one of the examples you gave earlier.

The system is being designed for the average family, not for larger families, not for smaller families, but the average. That means that cohorts that tend to have larger or smaller families are at a disadvantage.

That also lines up with what was being said earlier by others in the thread about the system not being racist, but instead, simply favouring the majority population.

This also now gives me an explanation as to why guilt isn’t a pre-requisite of white privilege.

Indeed, white privilege could easily be replaced by ‘majority privilege’ and it would cover many things from race, sexuality, disability, religion etc etc.

It means no guilt, and then also a proper conversation can be had to whether a system based on the most good for the most people is desirable or not.

This has probably been obvious to many, so apologies for my slow walking.

[Tichtheid]

Well, all I can say is good luck telling those who experience systemic racism that there is no such thing.

[Random1]

Well, all I can say is good luck telling those who experience systemic racism that there is no such thing.

I’m confused.

I am effectively saying that I’m coming around to agreeing that it does exist from an outcomes perspective.

Caused by policy makers, in attempt to serve the majority, building in a systemic disadvantage for minorities - I’m not quite there yet, but I’m defo starting to understand things from that angle.

Your response suggests you think there is intent to disadvantage people due to race - that’s a whole different beast - absolutely nothing you’ve posted or written points to intent, just outcomes.

[Tichtheid]

Well, all I can say is good luck telling those who experience systemic racism that there is no such thing.

I’m confused.

I am effectively saying that I’m coming around to agreeing that it does exist from an outcomes perspective.

Caused by policy makers, in attempt to serve the majority, building in a systemic disadvantage for minorities - I’m not quite there yet, but I’m defo starting to understand things from that angle.

Your response suggests you think there is intent to disadvantage people due to race - that’s a whole different beast - absolutely nothing you’ve posted or written points to intent, just outcomes.

I don't think the structural racism is merely down to benign "unintended consequences", not in the light of Windrush deportations, denial of legal representations, the deliberate creation of a "hostile environment", a name chosen by government.

There was nothing benign about the current prime minister's racist remarks, they are a matter of public record, likewise the worst of the Brexit loons talking about being overrun by immigrants - remember Farage and the "Breaking Point" poster? That got a cooing reception from the press, which also battered on about judges being "traitors" for upholding the law.

The institutional racism that still exists in the Met, despite Macpherson, which was over 20 years ago btw, is not an unintended consequence.
The Grenfell Next of Kin group are demanding that the inquiry look at the race aspect of the tragedy, as well as the class issue.

There are a whole load of glass ceilings, incidents of overt racism and just too many coincidences to be explained away as unintended consequences, of which there may be some, but taken together with the more sinister aspects of government and other institutional policy plus a hostile media, this doesn't paint a pretty picture.

[Random1]

Well, all I can say is good luck telling those who experience systemic racism that there is no such thing.

I’m confused.

I am effectively saying that I’m coming around to agreeing that it does exist from an outcomes perspective.

Caused by policy makers, in attempt to serve the majority, building in a systemic disadvantage for minorities - I’m not quite there yet, but I’m defo starting to understand things from that angle.

Your response suggests you think there is intent to disadvantage people due to race - that’s a whole different beast - absolutely nothing you’ve posted or written points to intent, just outcomes.

I don't think the structural racism is merely down to benign "unintended consequences", not in the light of Windrush deportations, denial of legal representations, the deliberate creation of a "hostile environment", a name chosen by government.

There was nothing benign about the current prime minister's racist remarks, they are a matter of public record, likewise the worst of the Brexit loons talking about being overrun by immigrants - remember Farage and the "Breaking Point" poster? That got a cooing reception from the press, which also battered on about judges being "traitors" for upholding the law.

The institutional racism that still exists in the Met, despite Macpherson, which was over 20 years ago btw, is not an unintended consequence.
The Grenfell Next of Kin group are demanding that the inquiry look at the race aspect of the tragedy, as well as the class issue.

There are a whole load of glass ceilings, incidents of overt racism and just too many coincidences to be explained away as unintended consequences, of which there may be some, but taken together with the more sinister aspects of government and other institutional policy plus a hostile media, this doesn't paint a pretty picture.

Sorry for the delay, been a busy boy, and I wanted to make sure my response wasn’t rushed. I’ve taken your sections in the bold below, and then my answers are in normal text.

I don't think the structural racism is merely down to benign "unintended consequences", not in the light of Windrush deportations, denial of legal representations, the deliberate creation of a "hostile environment", a name chosen by government.

I think the windrush scandal is a good example where racism is shown not to be a major factor in society; literally everyone beyond the home office was abhorred by the way they were treated. Even the daily mail was angry about it.

The windrush generation are as British as any of us - if even our right wing press agree with that, and we’re up in arms about their treatment, then that’s not a sign of a rampantly racist society for me.

The hostile environment is a classic example of the old maxim of setting simplistic numerical targets as being the way to ruin everything. The nonsense of controlling immigration based upon arbitrary numbers was and is a disgrace - and unfortunately it’s not uncommon in government - they also did it with universal credit, hospital building, nurse numbers, dementia tax, procurement etc etc. Government by numbers is always open to civil servants doing shitty things chasing their targets.

There was nothing benign about the current prime minister's racist remarks, they are a matter of public record, likewise the worst of the Brexit loons talking about being overrun by immigrants - remember Farage and the "Breaking Point" poster? That got a cooing reception from the press, which also battered on about judges being "traitors" for upholding the law.



Your point of highlighting the Brexit stuff on farage posters and judges being harassed
is such a good argument for my point rather than yours - both of these relate to trying to stop free movement of Europeans -largely white Europeans.

Where did their privilege go? Surely they’re better placed than our non-white brits due to their inherent privilege from your perspective?

Or is it that the majority in any system is generally protectionist and that race has fuck all to do with it?

The whole EU experience is a really good leveller.

The institutional racism that still exists in the Met, despite Macpherson, which was over 20 years ago btw, is not an unintended consequence.
The Grenfell Next of Kin group are demanding that the inquiry look at the race aspect of the tragedy, as well as the class issue.

Now this is where we have a decent level of agreement - the grenfell stuff has an interesting potential for a case study. There are plenty of privately owned blocks wrapped in ACM. So it may be possible to contrast the socio economic variable.

Is there a disproportionate number of non-whites in the privately owned blocks wrapped in acm? If there is, then that would be good evidence that it’s a race issue and not economic.

Suspect it won’t be the case though, as the choice of cladding had fuck all to do with race; it was a penny pinching attitude across the entire construction world, with yet another numerical target being at the heart of it. It’s called ‘value for money’ - which is the source of much ill across the country as it’s just a euphemism for ‘cheapest’

There are a whole load of glass ceilings, incidents of overt racism and just too many coincidences to be explained away as unintended consequences, of which there may be some, but taken together with the more sinister aspects of government and other institutional policy plus a hostile media, this doesn't paint a pretty picture.

Ultimately, just because a significant number of people believe something to be true, doesn’t make it true. Coincidences, even lots of them doesn’t make it true, otherwise all religions are true etc.

Proper evidence is required.

And again, this, for me at least, is about identifying the true challenge rather than getting side tracked into division

I genuinely think the only evidence base that is conclusive on societal inequality is that poverty and a lack of education are the things that drive inequalities. Let’s tackle that and stop focussing on skin colour.

[Tichtheid]

I think the windrush scandal is a good example where racism is shown not to be a major factor in society; literally everyone beyond the home office was abhorred by the way they were treated. Even the daily mail was angry about it.

The questions is whether or not institutional or structural racism exists.

This was Home Office policy, how much more institutional does it get?

The Grenfell issue is ongoing, as I say the relatives are asking for the race aspect of it to be looked at as part of the process

Your point of highlighting the Brexit stuff on farage posters and judges being harassed
is such a good argument for my point rather than yours - both of these relate to trying to stop free movement of Europeans -largely white Europeans.

Does this look like it was about white Europeans?

breaking point.jpg (333.3 KiB) Viewed 857 times

[Random1]

I think the windrush scandal is a good example where racism is shown not to be a major factor in society; literally everyone beyond the home office was abhorred by the way they were treated. Even the daily mail was angry about it.

The questions is whether or not institutional or structural racism exists.

This was Home Office policy, how much more institutional does it get?

The Grenfell issue is ongoing, as I say the relatives are asking for the race aspect of it to be looked at as part of the process

Your point of highlighting the Brexit stuff on farage posters and judges being harassed
is such a good argument for my point rather than yours - both of these relate to trying to stop free movement of Europeans -largely white Europeans.

Does this look like it was about white Europeans?

breaking point.jpg

Yep, fair enough, my memory failed me there. The farage poster is a good example of racism in play.

[Random1]

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/bla ... e-officers

Now this is the sort of study required. With proper behavioural scientists.

It, on the surface, is seriously robust (analysed over a million events) and is specifically designed to control critical variables.

Love to see a similar study in the Uk.

Tl;dr version, white male officers are shown to arrest more, stop more and use violence more compared to other demographics.

The researchers caveat at the end to say they can’t tell why there is a difference, and hopefully the research will continue.

[Slick]

A bit off topic but I see the Booker prize winning author that was asked to translate Amanda Gormans poetry into Dutch has now pulled out and apologised for being so insensitive because she is white.

Eating itself.

[C69]

A bit off topic but I see the Booker prize winning author that was asked to translate Amanda Gormans poetry into Dutch has now pulled out and apologised for being so insensitive because she is white.

Eating itself.

liberal stupidity in all it's glory

[FalseBayFC]

White privilege is this. Take the UK, NZ, USA, Australia and South Africa. Look at every PM, President and CEO of a top 100 company up to that point. To make it fair lets do it as at 1990. Probably 99 percent white. Do another test in 2021. How much has each country changed.

In each of these countries, non whites are over represented in prison incarceration, poverty, and every other measure of social equality. White privilege persists and is a real thing.

[Hugo]

White privilege is this. Take the UK, NZ, USA, Australia and South Africa. Look at every PM, President and CEO of a top 100 company up to that point. To make it fair lets do it as at 1990. Probably 99 percent white. Do another test in 2021. How much has each country changed.

This is an interesting line of thinking which I see variants of here and there.

You have listed English speaking countries (although Canada would probably have been a better fit than South Africa) that have been settled by white people and where white people have historically held power. Your contention is that the same people hold power today in those countries than did thirty years ago and because they are drawn from the majority white population that this is indicative of white privilege.

Why does this standard only seem to be applied in countries where the majority population is white? Why do people have an expectation that white people should give up power where they have it but no such expectation exists for any other demographic anywhere else in the world?

[FalseBayFC]

White privilege is this. Take the UK, NZ, USA, Australia and South Africa. Look at every PM, President and CEO of a top 100 company up to that point. To make it fair lets do it as at 1990. Probably 99 percent white. Do another test in 2021. How much has each country changed.

This is an interesting line of thinking which I see variants of here and there.

You have listed English speaking countries (although Canada would probably have been a better fit than South Africa) that have been settled by white people and where white people have historically held power. Your contention is that the same people hold power today in those countries than did thirty years ago and because they are drawn from the majority white population that this is indicative of white privilege.

Why does this standard only seem to be applied in countries where the majority population is white? Why do people have an expectation that white people should give up power where they have it but no such expectation exists for any other demographic anywhere else in the world?

Its not a question of giving up power. The pathway to the positions of power is just much easier for white people. Why weren't or aren't POCs represented proportionately in these areas? To my mind there are two possible reasons, only one if which is right.- 1. Their race makes them less capable or 2. Society, its institutions and systems somehow favours one group over another.

The same can be said for prison incarceration. Either you believe POC havve a higher tendency toward criminality for whatever reason. Or our society perpetuates social conditions that cause it.

[Hugo]

White privilege is this. Take the UK, NZ, USA, Australia and South Africa. Look at every PM, President and CEO of a top 100 company up to that point. To make it fair lets do it as at 1990. Probably 99 percent white. Do another test in 2021. How much has each country changed.

This is an interesting line of thinking which I see variants of here and there.

You have listed English speaking countries (although Canada would probably have been a better fit than South Africa) that have been settled by white people and where white people have historically held power. Your contention is that the same people hold power today in those countries than did thirty years ago and because they are drawn from the majority white population that this is indicative of white privilege.

Why does this standard only seem to be applied in countries where the majority population is white? Why do people have an expectation that white people should give up power where they have it but no such expectation exists for any other demographic anywhere else in the world?

Its not a question of giving up power. The pathway to the positions of power is just much easier for white people. Why weren't or aren't POCs represented proportionately in these areas? To my mind there are two possible reasons, only one if which is right.- 1. Their race makes them less capable or 2. Society, its institutions and systems somehow favours one group over another.

The same can be said for prison incarceration. Either you believe POC havve a higher tendency toward criminality for whatever reason. Or our society perpetuates social conditions that cause it.

Lets assume everything in this post is 100% accurate the question remains - why is a white person having more ready access to power in a white majority country considered bad rather than a natural consequence of human nature?

Lets say you emigrated to Egypt or Japan, how many generations of your family do you think it would take for you to get some sort of foothold into the corridors of power? Do you think being a non native, white foreigner would count in your favour or against you?

[Chilli]

This is an interesting line of thinking which I see variants of here and there.

You have listed English speaking countries (although Canada would probably have been a better fit than South Africa) that have been settled by white people and where white people have historically held power. Your contention is that the same people hold power today in those countries than did thirty years ago and because they are drawn from the majority white population that this is indicative of white privilege.

Why does this standard only seem to be applied in countries where the majority population is white? Why do people have an expectation that white people should give up power where they have it but no such expectation exists for any other demographic anywhere else in the world?

Its not a question of giving up power. The pathway to the positions of power is just much easier for white people. Why weren't or aren't POCs represented proportionately in these areas? To my mind there are two possible reasons, only one if which is right.- 1. Their race makes them less capable or 2. Society, its institutions and systems somehow favours one group over another.

The same can be said for prison incarceration. Either you believe POC havve a higher tendency toward criminality for whatever reason. Or our society perpetuates social conditions that cause it.

Lets assume everything in this post is 100% accurate the question remains - why is a white person having more ready access to power in a white majority country considered bad rather than a natural consequence of human nature?

Lets say you emigrated to Egypt or Japan, how many generations of your family do you think it would take for you to get some sort of foothold into the corridors of power? Do you think being a non native, white foreigner would count in your favour or against you?

Very good point.

[FalseBayFC]

This is an interesting line of thinking which I see variants of here and there.

You have listed English speaking countries (although Canada would probably have been a better fit than South Africa) that have been settled by white people and where white people have historically held power. Your contention is that the same people hold power today in those countries than did thirty years ago and because they are drawn from the majority white population that this is indicative of white privilege.

Why does this standard only seem to be applied in countries where the majority population is white? Why do people have an expectation that white people should give up power where they have it but no such expectation exists for any other demographic anywhere else in the world?

Its not a question of giving up power. The pathway to the positions of power is just much easier for white people. Why weren't or aren't POCs represented proportionately in these areas? To my mind there are two possible reasons, only one if which is right.- 1. Their race makes them less capable or 2. Society, its institutions and systems somehow favours one group over another.

The same can be said for prison incarceration. Either you believe POC havve a higher tendency toward criminality for whatever reason. Or our society perpetuates social conditions that cause it.

Lets assume everything in this post is 100% accurate the question remains - why is a white person having more ready access to power in a white majority country considered bad rather than a natural consequence of human nature?

Lets say you emigrated to Egypt or Japan, how many generations of your family do you think it would take for you to get some sort of foothold into the corridors of power? Do you think being a non native, white foreigner would count in your favour or against you?

Well the Brits emigrated to South Africa, America, New Zealand and took control and power immediately. After 350 years we had our first black African president. This still hasn't happened in NZ, Aus or Canada. So I don't get your point.

Also this doesn't explain why non-whites in these countries still battle with health, high prison rates, lower average incomes, lower expected lifespans etc.

[Chilli]

Its not a question of giving up power. The pathway to the positions of power is just much easier for white people. Why weren't or aren't POCs represented proportionately in these areas? To my mind there are two possible reasons, only one if which is right.- 1. Their race makes them less capable or 2. Society, its institutions and systems somehow favours one group over another.

The same can be said for prison incarceration. Either you believe POC havve a higher tendency toward criminality for whatever reason. Or our society perpetuates social conditions that cause it.

Lets assume everything in this post is 100% accurate the question remains - why is a white person having more ready access to power in a white majority country considered bad rather than a natural consequence of human nature?

Lets say you emigrated to Egypt or Japan, how many generations of your family do you think it would take for you to get some sort of foothold into the corridors of power? Do you think being a non native, white foreigner would count in your favour or against you?

Well the Brits emigrated to South Africa, America, New Zealand and took control and power immediately. After 350 years we had our first black African president. This still hasn't happened in NZ, Aus or Canada. So I don't get your point.

Also this doesn't explain why non-whites in these countries still battle with health, high prison rates, lower average incomes, lower expected lifespans etc.

Also a very good point

[notfatcat]

Lets assume everything in this post is 100% accurate the question remains - why is a white person having more ready access to power in a white majority country considered bad rather than a natural consequence of human nature?

Lets say you emigrated to Egypt or Japan, how many generations of your family do you think it would take for you to get some sort of foothold into the corridors of power? Do you think being a non native, white foreigner would count in your favour or against you?

Well the Brits emigrated to South Africa, America, New Zealand and took control and power immediately. After 350 years we had our first black African president. This still hasn't happened in NZ, Aus or Canada. So I don't get your point.

Also this doesn't explain why non-whites in these countries still battle with health, high prison rates, lower average incomes, lower expected lifespans etc.

Also a very good point

It's a good point because he unashamedly refers to non-whites. This whole white privilege thing is designed to be anti-white. It's as if these people believe BAME people all have the same culture, tradition, values, class, background and history, and that the only thing holding them back is the evil indigenous white population. If they truly care about diversity and equality of outcome (which I happen to think is a daft expectation) then they wouldn't bang on about BAME against white, they would distinguish between different Asian ethnicities, different black ethnicities etc. and look at the differences between the successful/prosperous and the poor/downtrodden. But they don't.

[Hugo]

Its not a question of giving up power. The pathway to the positions of power is just much easier for white people. Why weren't or aren't POCs represented proportionately in these areas? To my mind there are two possible reasons, only one if which is right.- 1. Their race makes them less capable or 2. Society, its institutions and systems somehow favours one group over another.

The same can be said for prison incarceration. Either you believe POC havve a higher tendency toward criminality for whatever reason. Or our society perpetuates social conditions that cause it.

Lets assume everything in this post is 100% accurate the question remains - why is a white person having more ready access to power in a white majority country considered bad rather than a natural consequence of human nature?

Lets say you emigrated to Egypt or Japan, how many generations of your family do you think it would take for you to get some sort of foothold into the corridors of power? Do you think being a non native, white foreigner would count in your favour or against you?

Well the Brits emigrated to South Africa, America, New Zealand and took control and power immediately. After 350 years we had our first black African president. This still hasn't happened in NZ, Aus or Canada. So I don't get your point.

Also this doesn't explain why non-whites in these countries still battle with health, high prison rates, lower average incomes, lower expected lifespans etc.

My point was why is it considered bad for white people to have advantages in a society where they comprise a majority?

I just can't imagine circumstances under which people would say it was unfair if systems in non white countries favoured the dominant, native populations.

[Chilli]

Well the Brits emigrated to South Africa, America, New Zealand and took control and power immediately. After 350 years we had our first black African president. This still hasn't happened in NZ, Aus or Canada. So I don't get your point.

Also this doesn't explain why non-whites in these countries still battle with health, high prison rates, lower average incomes, lower expected lifespans etc.

Also a very good point

It's a good point because he unashamedly refers to non-whites. This whole white privilege thing is designed to be anti-white. It's as if these people believe BAME people all have the same culture, tradition, values, class, background and history, and that the only thing holding them back is the evil indigenous white population. If they truly care about diversity and equality of outcome (which I happen to think is a daft expectation) then they wouldn't bang on about BAME against white, they would distinguish between different Asian ethnicities, different black ethnicities etc. and look at the differences between the successful/prosperous and the poor/downtrodden. But they don't.

Also an excellent point.

Thete are so many different ways of explaining this. If you keep a level and clear head, it is difficult to not be a little in both camps.

[notfatcat]

Also a very good point

It's a good point because he unashamedly refers to non-whites. This whole white privilege thing is designed to be anti-white. It's as if these people believe BAME people all have the same culture, tradition, values, class, background and history, and that the only thing holding them back is the evil indigenous white population. If they truly care about diversity and equality of outcome (which I happen to think is a daft expectation) then they wouldn't bang on about BAME against white, they would distinguish between different Asian ethnicities, different black ethnicities etc. and look at the differences between the successful/prosperous and the poor/downtrodden. But they don't.

Also an excellent point.

Thete are so many different ways of explaining this. If you keep a level and clear head, it is difficult to not be a little in both camps.

Thomas Sowell has been explaining these things for a very long time.

[FalseBayFC]

If there is no white privilege then how do you explain the vast difference in income and social outcomes between whites and non-whites in English speaking countries?

[FalseBayFC]

It's a good point because he unashamedly refers to non-whites. This whole white privilege thing is designed to be anti-white. It's as if these people believe BAME people all have the same culture, tradition, values, class, background and history, and that the only thing holding them back is the evil indigenous white population. If they truly care about diversity and equality of outcome (which I happen to think is a daft expectation) then they wouldn't bang on about BAME against white, they would distinguish between different Asian ethnicities, different black ethnicities etc. and look at the differences between the successful/prosperous and the poor/downtrodden. But they don't.

Also an excellent point.

Thete are so many different ways of explaining this. If you keep a level and clear head, it is difficult to not be a little in both camps.

Thomas Sowell has been explaining these things for a very long time.

The same Thomas Sowell who said:

"One can cherry-pick the factual studies, or cite some studies that have subsequently been discredited, but the great bulk of the studies show that gun control laws do not in fact control guns. On net balance, they do not save lives, but cost lives."

Sorry he's full of crap on most issues.

[notfatcat]

If there is no white privilege then how do you explain the vast difference in income and social outcomes between whites and non-whites in English speaking countries?

How do you explain any disparity when looking at race or ethnicity? How do you explain the over-representation of blacks in US basketball or English football - black privilege?