Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder
It absolutely is. It very explicitly was - via federal government policy - in the not too distant past and next to nothing has been done to level the playing field.
|
I think Sebby is applying a sort of rigorous intent test, where he's not comfortable calling something out as racist unless it's pretty clear that the intent was explicitly race-conscious. But there are so many ways in which government acts that might not have be designed specifically to disadvantage blacks, but do. For example, blacks tend to live in cities and in the South. Either way, the way that Senators and Representatives are picked underrepresents them. When designed, blacks were kept from voting altogether, so that wasn't the intent but it certainly is the continuing effect. Another, much more concrete (pun-intended) example: When the Robert Taylor Homes were built in Chicago, next to the Dan Ryan Expressway, it was a local government decision to build them as high-rises instead of more traditional buildings, and that decision was made (according to Nicolas Lemann's book) partly so that more of the federal money would go to the contractors. Assume that was the sole intent if you will and argue that it wasn't "racist," but the effects were what they were.
Which is to say, Sebby, that if it makes you uncomfortable to call something "racist" in the absence of the kind of incontrovertible evidence you want, you need to find another word to acknowledge pervasive, systemic, oppressive discrimination.
