I suspect that--in spite of our multiple disagreements--there is much that we agree about on this topic, Seriati. (I tend to be highly critical of the social sciences as a general rule.)
I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't agree about much of the topic. I love social sciences, but I'm cognizant at how easy it is to derive research results to support your pre-existing conclusions in the social sciences.
For instance: research into "systemic racism" seems to me to frequently ignore the fact that the negative cultural experiences of "black" people frequently lead to an attitude with a great deal of resentment of "white" people. "Systemic racism" research tends not only to ignore the fact that behaviors based on such resentment are in and of themselves indicative of a racist attitude, but often directly contradicts this obvious fact.
The biggest issue I have with this topic of research is the conversion of statistical disparity into "racism." Disparity is not racism. Disparity may be a result of racism, it also may not be.
It's appealing as an argument. Effectively, we look at a disparity in say professional basketball and try to decide if its the result of racism. If you look at the "classic" definition, it's hard to show that more black men being professional basketball players than our national demographics would expect is the result of racism.
However, social science is going to say disparity = racism. Accordingly, you have to explain it, and you come up with a compelling sounding story. Something like, there is a long standing racist history that caused certain races to be overrepresented in certain economic groups with less advantages that caused a disproportionate amount of interest in "getting out" of those circumstances. Professional basketball has been identified as a one way to "hit it big" and it generally is fun and doesn't require a lot of money to live the dream. Hockey isn't similarly adjusted because those same socio-economic factors prevented those from that economic strata from being able to play it. Ergo, the disparity in men's basketball is the result of a history of racist oppression, and accordingly, not because of purely economic factors, potential positive influences, or innate physical advantages. But is that really true? Did the statistical difference really prove it?
When it comes down to it, no matter where the disparity occurs, the same kind of "story telling" can be added to make a compelling argument. Different heights by race? Racist impact of economic stratification on healthy food options, and good medical care. Different obesity rate? Racist impact of food wastelands, and overwhelming impact of fast food targetting into certain communities. Different crime rates? Historic racism oppressing economic status, deliberate targeting by alcohol and firearms industry, etc.
It literally doesn't matter. There's always a story that can fit. But the thing is the "story" predates the "data" and it exists independently of the date. The trick is to convince people that evidence of a difference when coupled with a good story is a "proof". That's my point about racism requiring intent, and that being the missing part of the studies. That's part of the reason we use the word
racism as opposed to another term, and that's a big part of why they want to coopt the word to steal that power.
What the studies fail to do, is show that the data are caused by the "story." So they label it "systemic racism" and then claim they don't have to show it because, you know it's obvious against the "story" in the background.
Or maybe you can provide some examples of intentless racism?
Sure, that's easy. But I'll preface this by saying that what I'm not talking about is the idea of racism being defined as uneven results. I'm talking about actually applied negative treatment, but where it's not coming from any one person.
I think you are confused. Actual negative treatment without intent? That would be some kind of accident. It can come from multiple people - separate but equal wasn't just from one person, it was still actively racist (and is so totally different than "safe spaces" I promise, like really promise its soo different).
An example of this would be the War on Drugs, essentially a set of laws and girded by some bureaucratic institutions, which in my opinion had a definitely racist "intention" against black people.
You've kind of buried the ball on the challenge. How is the "War on Drugs" specifically racist against black people? Which parts? Are you talking about the much discuss difference in the sentences for crack and powder cocaine? Something else?
I put "intention" in quotes because in theory only a person can have an intention, but if one examines a non-human structure like a set of rules they can effectively have an intention (or the image of an intention) despite not being an embodied person. Now one might well argue that these rules were initially devised by racist humans to target black people, but it's certainly within plausible bounds that rules with racist "intentions" could result from people who didn't intend this result.
This is where you are confused. A rule against interracial marriage is one that is created by people with an express racist intention. The rule is inherently racist, though it's application could actually be race neutral (as it applies to all races equally). A rule that punished a black man for marrying a white woman but not a white man for marrying a black woman, would be racist on both factors.
A rule that said no one over six feet tall can marry a woman under 5'6" would almost certainly have a racial impact, but it's neither inherently racist nor racist in application. It's silly in all accounts. It could be racist if it was adopted specifically to target a group based on race, but only in that context. Much like minimum wage laws were expressly created to discriminate against black people and in that context were racist, but are neither racist inherently, nor racist in application as used today. They will have racial impacts and that doesn't change the fact.
But even if racist individuals were behind the creation of the rules, once created the rules exist on their own and are carried out by people not directly responsible for their inception; indeed even the "creators" may cease to be part of the picture past the point of creation. But we might recognize that perhaps at least the image of intent is necessary to call a person or structure racist, even if actual intent in a person isn't there.
When you're looking at a structural rule you should look at whether its being applied in a racist manner. This is literally why stopping people for "driving while black" is racist, but stopping people generally based on conduct is not and is okay. How the "generic" rule is applied is what's relevant. A rule that, for instance, requires those under 25 to pay higher insurance on cars, is blatantly discriminatory (not on race, but on age), but is also completely reasonable based on accident statistics even if its application to an individual driver is not fair. Those types of rules based on race have been virtually eliminated from our system and all we're dealing with are the uneven application versions. But the fact that "driving while black" is a thing DOES NOT MEAN that every black person stopped is stopped inappropriately.
This is one of the characteristics of a bureaucratic type of organization, actually, that it can have attributes that any individual part of it lacks, and where there is no one person to blame or to accuse on account of it.
True, but that's not what we're talking about. We are talking about a system that generates a different result based on your race and no other factor. if you can't identify - how - it's doing so then what are you identifying? Is it really a systemic fault, if it's a mystery? Fact is, even a "faceless" system isn't truly faceless, and you can identify where a specific decision "failed" if you dig.
What bureaucracies can do - if you let them - is hide the actual decision maker. But that is just a choice we make, we cede too much authority to arbitrary bureaucrats and I'd be happy to take it back.