Thomas Sowell Disproves Systemic Racism in the US
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 8,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- 1,500
this is a debate about whether Thomas Sowell's famous arguments disprove the existence of Systemic Racism (in the US). Sowell has said that the disparities between minority and whites have existed for a long time, and cannot prove Systemic racism. This has been very problematic for my vast literature of evidence in favor of Systemic Racism, but I have managed to come up with a counter argument. Come support Thomas Sowell if you wish.
Burden of Proof is shared.
- “Systemic racism” can be defined as an infrastructure of rulings, ordinances or statutes promulgated by a sovereign government or authoritative entity, whereas such ordinances and statutes entitles one ethnic group in a society certain rights and privileges, while denying other groups in that society these same rights and privileges because of long-established cultural prejudices, religious prejudices, fears, myths, and Xenophobia’s held by the entitled group. In the year 2020, there exist no U.S. federal government or state government statutes or ordinances that will accommodate systemic racism.
- “Institutional racism” can be defined as the racial attitudes found in a ethnic group’s traditions, beliefs, opinions, and myths that are firmly ingrained in the very fiber of the ethnic group’s cultural paradigm, where such traditions, beliefs, opinions, and myths have been practiced and sustained for so long, that they are accepted as common facts, understood to be normal behavioral practices whereas, such practices in effect marginalize, and demonize the human worth of another ethnic group. Institutional racism has been practiced in American culture for so long by American Europeans and even American Africans that the foundations that keep racism socially perpetuated are now today expressed in common social traditions following socially accepted occurrences, and practiced as normal social behavior in the educational, governmental, political, and even religious arenas
- “If we are to examine discrimination and its consequences today, we cannot be as indiscriminate as the racists of the past or present. We must make distinctions—first as to some consistent meaning of the word “discrimination” and then in deriving criteria for determining when it applies.”
- “Economist and author Thomas Sowell told "Life Liberty & Levin" in an interview airing Sunday evening that the left's claim that America is beset by "systemic racism" has no definitive meaning and cannot be "tested" in any empirical manner.”
- However, systemic racism can also refer to broader social, economic, and political structures that perpetuate racial inequality, such as discriminatory practices in housing, education, employment, and criminal justice. These structures do not necessarily require explicit laws or policies, but are often embedded in societal norms and cultural attitudes.
- By its definition, systemic racism refers to the policies and practices of society.
Wouldn’t that be like someone arguing microevolution is the same as evolution. And disproving one is good enough to disprove the general idea of evolution?
I hate this. I am all but voting against myself, as con made almost the exact opening arguments I would make and also that I agree with. The numbers don't lie, intergenerational damage, etc. I'd just toss some jokes in there.
Pro on the other hand uses the spirit of debate to kritik the opposing case as a strawman. The debate setup implies that TS believes he disproved something, and the instigator is saying no he didn't. The problem here is that TS is a scientist who well defined exactly what he was disproving when claiming to have disproved it.
So we're left with disparity, and certainly institutional racism (separate from systemic racism), as seen with such examples as gentrification; but clearly not encoded systems as we see in other countries (the treatment of Native Americans could more easily prove systemic racism exists but they were not leveraged adequately to show more than coincidence).
A way con could have maintained traction would have been to embrace pro's definitions but focus on unwritten laws still being systemic problems. A good example of this is in Minnesota I think it was where they gave massive differences in punishment for cocaine use to blacks vs whites. As was, a competing definition to hold BoP was desperately needed.
bruh not only is none of that a rebuttal for anything sowell has said but he acknowledges that systematic racism exists. (Depending on what definition you use)
I feel like you have read critiques of portions of his works, without actually taking the time to read and engage with what he says.
Man that’s unfortunate. Guess I better solidify my definition some more
You're welcome. This one was pretty informative of someone I have not studied.
I of course think systemic racism is a large problem in the US; but you made TS' case compelling.
Thanks for the vote!
So regarding the definition issue...
I tell you I've got an elephant in the garage, you investigate and find no signs of such a large mammal in my garage; so conclude you've disproved that elephant.
It would be absurd for me either to insist you have not disproven elephants altogether, or that I didn't say /which/ garage. Were I to argue it's in another garage, I at that point should be able to indicate one containing said elephant to disprove the refutation or else the elephant will remain disproven. If I show one containing a hippo, while it's got much in common, it's still not an elephant.
this website couldnt contain all the debates it could have about thomas sowell and his writings and works
I say Pro in Round 3, but I mean *Con. My error.
Non sequitur gibberish.
the issue is that I want to focus on the "systemic" (relating to system), and people bring attention to the "grab of power" part and force it to require a Law in place, completely misinterpret the argument despite it having seven supports. clearly that's not going to work against the conspiracy folks.
ThoughtCo gets too excited and directly mentions Law as a part of the Systemic Racism at the very end, but it's not any explicit law that's making the Racism Systemic. Opponents hound on the single word "Law" to try to single handedly bring down the case, and that's just not favorable.
Your definition is utterly incomplete and comprehensible as it is/was originally written. Sir.Lancelot is correct when he rebutted you gave no actual/real/tangible definition of so-called system racism.
I’m trying to summarize it for disbelievers, since if it’s too complex they’ll ask me to prove all seven different composing parts the article mentions. If 20 pages of research couldn’t convince them, I think it’s more of an issue that I couldn’t make the framework simpler and easier to argue.
"Framework
By its definition, systemic racism refers to the policies and practices of society. Systemic racism can thus result from implicit biases, unequal access to resources and opportunities, and other systemic factors. The marginalization of persons of their race has grown to a pervasive and intrinsic level. This fulfills the idea of “systemic”. [F1] There doesn’t need to be any explicit laws that allow for systemic racism. "
THAT is NOT the definition of systemic racism.
You need to read the following:
https://www.thoughtco.com/systemic-racism-3026565
Create 5 spam debates. (Standard, not rated.)
Make them 2 Rounds, with 1 day of posting time. (Don’t forfeit any of them. You can send a one word response, but a forfeit means you will have to recreate the debate.)
Should have your voting abilities back within a couple of days to a week.
Thank you for the heads up. I like these topics, as you know, so I will follow and vote, if allowed.
You guys might be interested in following this one to vote later.
F1. https://www.today.com/tmrw/what-systemic-racism-t207878
GAP1. https://v.gd/racewealthgap
GAP2.https://heller.brandeis.edu/iere/pdfs/racial-wealth-equity/racial-wealth-gap/roots-widening-racial-wealth-gap.pdf
GAP3. narrowthegap.org/images/documents/Wealth-Gap---FINAL-COMPLETE-REPORT.pdf
GAP4. fee.org/articles/statistical-disparities-among-groups-are-not-proof-of-discrimination/
GAP5. Chachere, B. P. (1983). The economics of Thomas Sowell: A critique of markets and minorities. The Review of Black Political Economy, 12(2), 163-177.
SUM1. nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMms2025396
SUM2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1948550617751583
SUM3. raliance.org/6-companies-taking-action-to-confront-systemic-racism/
Wrong, Systemic Racism is not a claim, so it cannot be “disproved”.
Good to see you back.