This deserves an answer.
I think that there are structural imbalances in society that favour white, able bodied, heterosexual, cis gender people over others. I think this is due to that demographic being the majority in the U.K. I think it’s evidenced by over representation in the upper echelons of society and under represented in prisons. I think you can see that bias across a broad spectrum of disciplines and I think it is rooted in history and process and law and built on that supremacy. So when I say rebalanced I mean challenging existing structures and processes and perceptions to make sure that certain demographics do not get an unfair advantage.
What would you expect from a system built by and for white, able bodied, heterosexual, cis gender males over many hundreds of years? There have always been structural imbalances in society, and the more history we know, the more we think we know and understand about those imbalances. Where I think we differ is in our evaluation of the infallibility of our own perceptions.
Utopian impulses combined with religious fervor are a dangerous combination, and that's what I feel we are experiencing right now. I like to call it "fishing with dynamite." Chuck a hot stick into a lake filled with evil and watch the evil float to the surface. It's how we got here in both the short and the long term, to a large extent. The unstated problem is that we're all fish swimming in the same lake, evil or not. It is difficult for many to see fanatical religious tendencies that are not overtly connected to some deity when that deity does not have a face, but is instead an idea based in virtue. In this case the deity is "anti-racism", and the quest by some is to set up the conditions for a Year Zero when all will be put right by a just society by any means necessary. To oppose this in the current context is simply defined as racist. What do we do with racists? Up against the wall! Pol Pot nods.
My solution? Treat all people with respect and dignity within the parameters of my own life and set an example for those who see me in my daily life. I'm no activist. Patiently explain what I think if asked, like here, and encourage everyone to follow my example as described in the sentence above. When you hear someone say "I'm an activist" act as though you hear them say "I'm an evangelist" because that's what they are. We all serve somebody. What's your leviathan?
The contradiction here and my own hypocrisy being that I try in my own completely imperfect way to follow the example of Christ, history's most effective evangelist.
I think you are in the US. The electoral college is an example of this.
I am in the US, which is a Federal Republic of states with enumerated powers. All powers not explicitly given to the federal govt devolve to the states, and then by the laws of each individual state, to each local county/municipality and the people at large, defined by the Bill of Rights seen within the amendments to our constitution. The electoral college ensures that states cast votes for the chief officer of the executive branch of the federal government as states, not as a big bag of individual votes. Even at the beginning of the republic, we had large differences in population and size between states. To ensure that the smaller states were not disenfranchised by the sheer size of the larger states, our founding fathers devised the system we still see in operation, along with a process for altering the system in future. There is a process for adjusting this within the law. When the political will exists for this to happen within the system, this will change.
As constituted, many Americans believe themselves to be living in the greatest nation in history. Those who disagree see the first group as evil. I reference the '1619' project, as an example. Then we're back to dynamite and lakes if the intent is to change this via a revolutionary process, which I believe is the intention of many currently shaking down college town taverns and pulling down statues. Time will tell, as I say so often.
I’d like to understand whether you that racism (among other things) exists and what you would do to address that.
Does racism exist? Only a fool would say no. Every racist understands this, and we are all racists on some level no matter our race. As soon as our lizard brain evaluates what it sees, it jumps to a series of conclusions based on experience. Some attempt to justify these conclusions, some attempt to ameliorate them. I understand one thing from my lifelong experience with many Black friends of long standing. I do not engage in performative activity and ritual in the presence of Black people to impress upon them my virtue as a white ally. I understand that all this behavior is for my sole benefit, and these black friends are doing all they can to hold back on the eye roll and side eye to keep from embarrassing the poor fool engaging in this behavior. I just be me. No matter what, I will never be able to understand their lived experience completely enough to prescribe how to fix centuries of oppression for them. I respect their ability to make their own conclusions about me based on my everyday behavior. I am still trying to wrap my head around the notion of colorblindness = racism, but acknowledge that the idea of colorblindness is a fantasy we tell ourselves.
For a comprehensive definition of anti-racism as compiled by dedicated liberals with a lot of background in the technical study of the subject as presented in these times, I recommend this link. Anti-racism is a technical term, and what many activists mean when they use this term is not what many of us hear when we hear the term used. Read the material there to get a grasp of what these activists want.
What do I do to address this? Res ipsa loquitur. This post speaks for itself.
As I said earlier, 'rebalance' is a slippery, fungible concept. When I hear the word, I think of fishing with dynamite.
