Systemic Racism (Best Arguments)

If you can look at both sides best arguments (and counter-arguments), not cherry picking their worst or exaggerating their points, we can usually deconstruct which is appealing to reason/facts, and which to emotions/disinformation. Fortunately, the highly funded left has good, polished videos like thier best arguments on systemic (Institutional) racism and Charlie Kirk did a pretty good deconstruction of the flaws in their reasoning, and it's pretty easy for the non-gullible to see through the fundamental flaws of their argument. Their points are:

• Schools: are often funded by property taxes, so a rich school gets more money than poor schools. Semi-true, but outcomes aren't based on district money, and many black/poorer areas get more money per student (we over-compensate) and outcomes still don't improve (we've tried). The white/black divide doesn't follow incomes or school funding, and whites and asians in poorer schools often outperform blacks and latinos in richer ones, but blacks in poor schools that try, can outperform whites in good or worse neighborhoods.
• Wealth Disparity and Red-lining: they blame wealth disparity, and blame that on red-lining (who could buy property). The problem is that ended (legally) in the 1960's, it wasn't based on race (as they claim) but geo's/income, and Asians, Whites other immigrants and in those areas were able to overcome those barriers, why were blacks the only ones who couldn't? We inverted it in the 70's and since with special loans/benefits to minorities or opportunity zones, and didn't get significantly different outcomes for blacks.
• Colleges: they imply colleges could exclude blacks through "legal segregation", but this is false. There were black colleges since forever, and desegregation in colleges started in the 1940's with Brown vs. Education outlawing it in 1954. Since then we've had the opposite, special incentives and lowering of standards if you're black, while whites and Asians are given special penalties in college admissions and are still over-represented.
• Implicit bias: this is the idea that everyone is racist and they just don't know it. But there's never been any evidence that this is significant. It turns out that in sales and life, your charm, dress, speech, looks, and things unrelated to race, are far more significant to our success than any implicit biases that hurt all of us (not just blacks). So until they can show evidence that this matters, it's just a distraction.
• Resume filtering and black unemployment: there was a disputed and unrepeated Harvard Study that claimed to show that Black sounding names get fewer callbacks. But callbacks aren't conversions to hires, most academic studies can't be reproduced and are later debunked (and this one hasn't been). And right now the institutional racism actually favors the minorities. Black unemployment is higher -- but not if you normalize for income, education and degree type. And when you look at incomes of equally educated/experiences blacks or whites, there's no difference: blowing this hypothesis out of the water.
• Solutions: Pretend that Slavery and Jim Crow laws are responsible for black outcomes. In other words, ignore any responsibility of the individual, family or culture might have in black under-performance or criminality. Blacks are the only race that can't overcome their color -- which is completely disproven by black immigrants or black children raised in white or asian homes, which all outperform the black average. They want you also to ignore that public school failures have been part of the problem, as well as single parent families in the black community, welfare, gangs, and other things that hold people back far more than the problems they want you to focus on.

Better explanations for each of these problems are culture, family values, dual parent homes, gangs and discipline. So their argument is a fallacy and the problems are not primarily racism.

Details

There is no doubt that some schools outperform others. But that's far more based on culture, students, and community, than based the race of the participants. How do we know? Charter schools in black communities, or giving blacks school choice, generally means that the kids that choose those options perform better. So if you cared about the black students, you'd support School choice, right? Only the Democrats/left opposed those things that would lift black students out of those bad schools -- because they support the teachers unions, which oppose rewarding teachers based on merit or outcomes. Ultimately, this Democrat policy has done more to hurt blacks in education than anything racism could have done. But they won't bring it up, because agenda is more important than outcomes.

Relining is illegal - so the fallacy that something in the 1954's or 1960's is what causes a child's poor performance today, is not in touch with reality. According to U.S. census, from the 1940's to 1960's the fastest group for income and opportunity growth in America, in HISTORY of any group, was black Americans. Then we passed LBJ's Great Society which rewarded black women for having children out of wedlock (welfare)... and black single-parent families skyrocketed, their income growth slowed and black crime skyrocketed. The reason the left refuses to consider this, is because if you examine their past failures (the consequences of their policies) you might be less gullible on buying into their next one. It's almost like admitting that single parents earn less than two parent homes, is too hard for them... or worse, that recognizing that you get what you incentivize, is a foreign idea. That if you pay people to have kids without Dad's, that you might get more of it, is beyond their comprehension. If you mention any of that, their only response is calling you a racist for wanting to help the underlying problems which are individual and not systemic.

What is the single biggest indicator of your wealth? It isn't racism... it's back to parental incomes, which is based on having two parents instead of one, and smaller families -- which can devote more resources to each child (both money and attention). But you can't do that, if you're paying blacks to have large families without daddies. If you want to believe everything is about race, then you will ignore everything that is NOT about race, no matter how much better an explanation it is. The greatest thing that prevents poverty is two parent household.

Ignoring racial progress is required to be a good leftist. You can't admit the progress we made, or you'll be thrown out of the club. That means you can't admit real history, you have to live in an alternate reality that denies it. That's the only way you could prioritize their solutions, over more effective ones.

If we're systemically racist, then why do Asians and Indians outperform White nationally? Not only that, black foreigners or blacks raised by whites or Asians outperform blacks raised by black parents -- does being around whites or asians somehow change their skin color? How did Barack Obama get elected to the highest office, twice? (Besides the fact that he was raised by whites?). How are some of our highest paid entertainers and athletes and businessmen black? We know that there are barriers against individuals, but none of those barriers prevent success, as proven by the successes. A white kid with no legs, or being raised by meth-heads is likely going to have a far harder time in life than the child of a black lawyer or actor based -- so pretending it's all about race, means you must ignore all the bigger factors than race. And that's almost all of them. Racial biases exist, they just aren't as important as the many other advantages and disadvantages we face. But if you keep throwing race in people's face, or using at as excuse for failure, you're more likely to alienate others and be a failure. And most failures vote Democrat/left, which is the real agenda here.

Videos

Charlie Kirk's Deconstruction that shows all their premises are frauds, and they ignore better explanations for each. Viral act.tv video with the best arguments the left has to offer

📚 References Institutional Racism There's this fallacy invented and propagated by the far left (and part of Black Conspiracy Theology), meant to undermine America, called "Systemic Racism" (aka Institutional Racism): the idea that racism in ingrained into the culture and legal or corporate policies. While it is true that Democrat party was founded on Andrew Jackson and his Indian extermination campaigns, and Democrats created a lot of institutional racism with their KKK, Jim Crow laws, Woodrow Wilson, or in the 30's with FDR's New Deal, Social Security, Wagner Act (which excluded as many blacks as possible). Republicans have been trying to wipe it out since before the Civil War, and including the Republican civil rights acts of 1957, 1960 and 1964, the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. For my entire lifetime, there's pretty much nowhere for institutional racism to legally hide: every attempt is rooted out and eliminated. There is the exception of Democrats false flag of "affirmative action" (anti-majority racism). But with the exception of anti-white/asian policies, there are no policies (official or unofficial) that allow cops to assault civilians based on the color of their skin. Despite all recent evidence is that police abuse is actually less common against blacks (relative to murder rates), every time there happens to be a police (or civilian) abuse problem against someone who is black, the old leftist tropes are trotted out in order to divide us for political gain -- while similar assaults against Whites, Latinos or Asians are ignored. Once you get past the surface Fake victims like Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Michael Brown,. Finally, when an obvious abuse of power video came out (George Floyd) the nation was ready to burn, and the DNC and their operatives were there, flinging matches. The rioters, protestors, DNC operatives and their media all propagated the same lies (1) that this was an institutional problem (not individual) (2) that the officer wouldn't have equally abused a White, Asian, or Latino that was resisting arrest, in the exact same way (3) that justice was already being served against the perpetrator (Officer Derek Chauvin), without any marches, riots or looting necessary in the first place. Americans are united in that we all oppose abuse of power of any individual (Black or White), where the Democrats succeed in dividing us is that many don't believe the lie that this problem is systemically ingrained in our legal code, and that the solution is supporting violent radicals (and rioters). The reason these events are newsworthy is because of how rare they are.