[tptacek]

If you "solve racism", then redlining and white flight still exist? I mean, that's true in the sense that even after the next generation stops being overtly racist, there will still be a systemic bias against black people by dint of their parents and grandparents having been confined to disinvested neighborhoods. Other than that, I don't see how your rebuttal makes sense.

[nurspouse]

> If you "solve racism", then redlining and white flight still exist?

I think he means that it will be replaced by something else and the end results will be the same. A lot of problems we attribute to racism will be there due to some other cause. Problems have multiple sources, and solving one will not solve the problem. A common debate in society is precisely about how much of a given problem is due to racism. Some people assume it's very high, and others say it is just one amongst many.

[tptacek]

Right, but the comment above addressed that directly, and was met with a dismissive response. In fact: the roughest neighborhoods in cities like Chicago are a direct result of racism. It's not controversial or even disputable: you can look at a crime map, superimpose the redline boundaries, and see the correspondence immediately.

Is everything a result of racism? I have no idea. I kind of doubt it. But the comment above gave specific examples of things that impact us to this day that are clearly based on racism, and that won't be solved simply by a generational shift in attitudes (which has largely already occurred in the US).