Mississippi Baptists press for new state flag

[robustheologian]

I love it...every step towards ridding the South of monuments and memorials to the racists is a good one. Can't wait to see what else is in store.

 

[Van]

I love it...every step towards ridding the South of monuments and memorials to the racists is a good one. Can't wait to see what else is in store.

Sounds like Christianity to me, change, discarding the bad, embracing the good...

 

[evenifigoalone]

Sounds good to me. I don't even care if someone wants to use a Confederate flag tbh, but at this point......why have the symbol on government stuff.

 

[JonC]

I know that's the flag in question, but why did Mississippi get rid of its old flag and adopt the one above?

What was wrong with the Mississippi flag before that one?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Ugly!

I dunno. The Islamo-Catholic Klansman in the center does intrigue. Or is that just the pope with an anti-COVID mask?

 

[JonC]

I love it...every step towards ridding the South of monuments and memorials to the racists is a good one. Can't wait to see what else is in store.

I personally do not care. I have never been offended by a word or a symbol. I say if the people in a state wants a flag thats up to them (just don't change the SC flag and I'm good).

The problem comes in when things get legit. You are in the Atlanta area, if you grew up there .... and are my age...you probably know there is a another side to the racist coin.

I was young in the 70's. During this time the area was fairly active in racist demonstrations (the kkk would march on the square one weekend, the black panthers the next). I was too young to get it. My father instilled in us and idea of human dignity that made the concept of racism foreign to me (we did not recognize race per se, and we have a multi-ethnic family).

The first time I became aware of racism was in the actions if a well known racist, at least in the Atlanta area. I can't remember the exact comments, but it was Jessie Jackson.

I am sure Jackson was able to justify racism based on his own expenses being a target of racism. Looking back I do not know he recognized the log in his eye (often we don't).

But that was the first time I glimpsed a concept of true hatred and racism. Afterwards I understood a little more of the protests. It was evil feeding upon itself- hatred birthing hatred and racism creating more racism.

African Americans are going to appreciate the removal of symbols of racism (the rebel flag is, among other things, a symbol of racism and hatred). I appreciate (or am ambivalent, depending on the issue) the removal of monuments.

But what happens if the "woke" really wakes up?

 

[robustheologian]

I personally do not care. I have never been offended by a word or a symbol.

You're a white male so I'm not surprised.

The first time I became aware of racism was in the actions if a well known racist, at least in the Atlanta area. I can't remember the exact comments, but it was Jessie Jackson.

I am sure Jackson was able to justify racism based on his own expenses being a target of racism. Looking back I do not know he recognized the log in his eye (often we don't).

As I said, considering the demographic you belong to, I'm sure you would be quick to identify a lot black leaders' talk as racist. Not surprised.

African Americans are going to appreciate the removal of symbols of racism (the rebel flag is, among other things, a symbol of racism and hatred).

Oh yes!! It's the continuation of the movement to make America great...despite the past 4 years of regression.

 

[JonC]

You're a white male so I'm not surprised.


As I said, considering the demographic you belong to, I'm sure you would be quick to identify a lot black leaders' talk as racist. Not surprised.


Oh yes!! It's the continuation of the movement to make America great...despite the past 4 years of regression.

The reason I do not care about moments and symbols is I am a big boy. I am not plagued by insecurities. People can fly a "kill whitie" flag for all I care.

I identify with one race, a chosen race of believers. Therein lies my loyalty and heritage.

I identify men who are racists as being racist regardless of ethnicity. Jessie Jackson is a racist, not because he was a black leader but because he was a racist who made racist comments. David Duke is not a racist because he is white, but because he is filled with hate towards another race.

Just because Jackson is/was a black leader does not make him less a racist any more than David Duke's skin makes him a racist. These men are racists because of their hearts, not the color of their skin or their work within a racial group.

We should not ignore racism regardless of the man who demonstrates the sin.

If we are going to have an honest discussion then the discussions need to be honest.

Your comments were not offensive, but they were phrased in a very racist manner. Why should racists be given a pass if their skin is brown? Why should racism be assumed (as you did with me) if the person Caucasian?

Do you see how it would be racist of me to say black men are slow to identify black racists?

Your statement that because I belong to a certain demographic you assumed I could identify racists within the black community is a racist statement.. it is just as racist as a police officer assuming a black man is a criminal. Perhaps that is your experience, perhaps it is a police officer's experience, perhaps it can even be defended with statistics. But it is still racism.

Jessie Jackson is the only black leader that I know is a racist. I do not assume people are racists any more than I assumed you would draw a the racist conclusion you offered here.

Racism is racism. Evil is not consigned to one race. It is a human problem.

I am not speaking of politics (as you have probably gathered, I am just as much anti-GOP as I am anti-DNC).

 

[JonC]

What we need are less black men, less white men, and more Christians (more people who have died to the flesh and are alive in Christ making up a single spiritual race).

The world will always identify with the the flesh. When it comes to issues of race the world will always be divided along those lines, at least to some extent. People will hold expectations and prejudices based on the flesh.

But Christians identify with Christ. My brethern are those who have the right to be called "children of God", who have died to the flesh and comprise a different race of people.

I feel sorry for Christians who adhere to racial identity (whether it is white or black heritage). One lie of the world is that culture is benign.

A Christian who would fight to keep a symbol on a flag at the risk of offending another person is a very poor Christian. A Christian who makes assumptions of others based on race is, likewise, a very poor Christian.

The reason Christians get caught up in "their rights", racial heritage, and movements like "black lives matter" is too often that Christ's Life matters to them too little.

 

[HatedByAll]

The rebel flag in Mississippi is strongly supported for one reason. Nothing to do with racism. It is because of school spirit. The Ole Miss Rebels are furiously supportive of their symbols of school spirit. They lost their Co. Reb, then their fight song. Their fans were fighting to hold on to the school's history. That is the real reason they kept the flag so long.

For years even many black males supported the flag because they were Ole Miss fans. If you don't understand that, you can't really understand what is driving the politics of Mississippi. Ole Miss fans supported the old state fan just because it had a part that was symbolic of the Ole Miss football team. That and they strongly resented being forced to change their schools mascot, fight song, and even the school's nick name.


Sent from my SM-G930R7 using Tapatalk

 

[robustheologian]

The reason I do not care about moments and symbols is I am a big boy. I am not plagued by insecurities. People can fly a "kill whitie" flag for all I care.

That's easy to say for you because you never lived in a country that celebrated your debasement.

I identify with one race, a chosen race of believers. Therein lies my loyalty and heritage.

That's good for you. Other people would love to but society won't let them only identify as "one race, a chosen race of believers."

I identify men who are racists as being racist regardless of ethnicity.

That seems to be the problem.

Just because Jackson is/was a black leader does not make him less a racist any more than David Duke's skin makes him a racist.

What?!? Thank God leaders are coming into power who know otherwise.

If we are going to have an honest discussion then the discussions need to be honest.

That's the issue. White men who have been the progenitors of racism want to be involved in the discussion so they use "reverse racism" or "black racism" as an excuse as to why they should have input into the discussion about racism when they really should just listen.

But it is still racism.

Says who? It is funny hearing people who have never experienced racism, claim to know what racism is. That's the same as people who have never been oppressed calling mask mandates oppressive.

 

[JonC]

That's easy to say for you because you never lived in a country that celebrated your debasement.


That's good for you. Other people would love to but society won't let them only identify as "one race, a chosen race of believers."


That seems to be the problem.


What?!? Thank God leaders are coming into power who know otherwise.


That's the issue. White men who have been the progenitors of racism want to be involved in the discussion so they use "reverse racism" or "black racism" as an excuse as to why they should have input into the discussion about racism when they really should just listen.


Says who? It is funny hearing people who have never experienced racism, claim to know what racism is. That's the same as people who have never been oppressed calling mask mandates oppressive.

There is no such thing as "reverse racism". When Jessie Jackson spoke of spitting in the food of any white person in line that was a racist act because it was an act against a person because of that person's race. Racism is racism. In Scripture we see racism in a minority people (with the first century Jewish misperception of being a "chosen race").

What you have done here is not racism as you have not acted on the racial prejudices you express on this forum. You merely express the racist ideologies you hold, and I would assert that it is your right as a human (perhaps not as a Christian) to hold those prejudices. Again, I am not offended but I would be interested in an honest discussion.

One does not have to experience racism to know what racism is. One does not have to be raped to know the definition of rape. Many times people who are the "victims" of racism allow that to color their world (because of their experiences they are less, not more, an authority as they start stereotyping others based on the other's race because of their experience. It is the molested child becoming the molester. What we see with many regarding "combating" racism is exactly this - the abused has become the abuser. Experience often clouds perception.

Your argument is a fallacy (a version of "an appeal to authority"). Regardless, I have experienced racism and your idea that because I am white I have not is a bit ignorant. We do not live on a national level. I have lived as a minority for most of my life (either work or literally in an area where I am a minority race).

But have I driven down the road worried that I would be shot by a police officer because of the color of my skin? No. (I have driven down the road concerned that I would be shot because of the color of my skin and friends have offered to go to a restaurant and pick pick up food for me because it is not safe for me to go into the restaurant because I am white). And I have never been a race that has the history of discrimination that the black race has in America. There are issues that need to be addressed - but racism is never the solution.

Society will not let me identify as "one race, a chosen race of believers" either. This is not unique to you or any race. The world identifies with race. Christians do not. To the world I am a "white male". To Christians I am a brother and of the same race.

I do not know about leaders coming into power. To me it looks like the same old powers that have run the country for a century. I do not place my faith in the powers of this world. I am apolitical and do not support any political party. Being a bit apart from the muck I can easily see racism in both parties. And neither speak for me because neither have adopted a Christian platform.

The problem with trying to exclude what others would say because of their race is that exclusion is itself racism (and yes, that is a racist statement). I do not know YOUR experiences. But at the same time you do not know MINE (although because you view the world through race you believe that you do know my view).

The problem with the issue at hand (flags and monuments) is that these symbols do represent racism, but they also represent an idea of heritage apart from racism. Since both are true I believe they should be removed if the people to whom they belong find them offensive. But you have to understand that those who look to heritage have created a romanticized picture of "southern heritage". You should be able to do that because you seem well versed in African-American "heritage". Very often the African-American culture looks to a romanticized version of their own heritage as well. It is not often recognized that it was African's that profited from slavery as they sold other Africans to the slavers.

There is a plantation home about two hours from Augusta. It is a type of "success story". In the mid to late 1800's the owner of the plantation (I can't recall his name) owned three plantations. He purchased the one in which he resided from the then governor of South Carolina. At that time he owned more slaves than any other person in South Carolina. He was a former slave who purchased his freedom (he had learned to work on cotton gins and earned a good income while a slave).

My point is that racism is not, nor has it ever been, restricted to race. It has always been an evil held by worldly men regardless of their race (even when white preachers were advocating slavery).

So the honest discussion has nothing to do with pretending racism can only be known by "the victim", or that black men are either by nature "not racist" or that experience justifies racism.

What you have to understand is that race, the color of one's skin" is superficial. It has nothing to do with one's capability to be racist or to experienced racism.

 

[robustheologian]

You merely express the racist ideologies you hold

Who's the one determining my "racist ideologies"?

And neither speak for me because neither have adopted a Christian platform.

I'm glad you can admit that...even though there are a bunch of people here fooled into the narrative of that they're apart of the "Christian right".

But have I driven down the road worried that I would be shot by a police officer because of the color of my skin? No. (I have driven down the road concerned that I would be shot because of the color of my skin and friends have offered to go to a restaurant and pick pick up food for me because it is not safe for me to go into the restaurant because I am white). And I have never been a race that has the history of discrimination that the black race has in America. There are issues that need to be addressed

I at least appreciate that you see this. But a lot of people here have their heads buried in the sand.

The problem with trying to exclude what others would say because of their race is that exclusion is itself racism (and yes, that is a racist statement).

Says who?

experience justifies racism.

I've never argued that.

A lot of what you are saying is your opinion. And it would be honest to at least admit that your perspective is schewed (even if just a little bit) considering your position.

 

[JonC]

Who's the one determining my "racist ideologies"?


I'm glad you can admit that...even though there are a bunch of people here fooled into the narrative of that they're apart of the "Christian right".


I at least appreciate that you see this. But a lot of people here have their heads buried in the sand.


Says who?


I've never argued that.

A lot of what you are saying is your opinion. And it would be honest to at least admit that your perspective is schewed (even if just a little bit) considering your position.

I agree with a lot that you say here.

Much of what you and I have posted is opinion. I have pointed out that your perspective is skewed and have allowed for the assumption that mine is not. That was not my intent.

Both of our perspectives are skewed. They are skewed by our experiences and the experiences (and perspectives) of others within our sphere of influence.

Please take the time to consider this (I apologize for the length) –

A man is pulled over by the police. The officer approaches the car with his weapon drawn telling the man to get out of the car. The man gets out, is searched and is handcuffed and placed in the back of the police car while the man’s car is searched. The man has no clue as to the reason he was pulled over. The officer unhandcuffs the man, explains he matched the description of someone waving a gun. The man is released and continues to his destination.

As a white man (who was not waving a gun) this did not bother me. I complied when told to get out of the car and just waited for the officer to tell me what was going on (this happened outside of Memphis just off I-40).

But if I were a black man things may have been different.

First, I would probably have been concerned that I was about to become a statistic – either falsely accused or shot by the police officer because I matched a profile. So I may not have complied so easily, which may have escalated to the point that I would have been a victim regardless.

Second, I would have most likely viewed the officer’s actions as an act of racism (it was a white police officer). Why did he come to my car with a weapon drawn? Why did he not explain the situation before ordering me out of the car? I may view this as a racist white police officer violating my rights because I was a black man.

But what if I were a police officer? I see a car and man that matches the description reported of a guy waving a gun threatening to kill people. Do I just ignore the vehicle and wait to see if the man starts waving a gun? Do I approach the vehicle unarmed and explain the situation without securing the man that matched the description of someone who had just been waving a gun around threatening to kill people? I would most likely be worried that I would become a statistic. Another police officer killed in the line of duty in Memphis TN.


You assumed that I had a particular perspective because I was a white man, but that was a racial assumption (it was based on the color of my skin, which is superficial and says nothing of my experience, character, or beliefs). Your assumptions of me are skewed and based on my race, not who I am. I am sure that I have in my mind a skewed picture of you – but they are not based on your race.

I have mostly lived in the south. But I have a multi-racial family. I have seen a police officer living across from my brother cuss out my 10 year old nephew telling him to go back to Mexico (his grandmother is Vietnamese and he has darker skin). I have not experienced that type of racism personally, so I cannot identify with how he felt.

I do not know what it is like to be a black man, particularly a black man that grew up expecting to be the target of racism. I do not know what it is like to be a police officer, knowing that if the person he is encountering is a black man his chances of being shot has increased.

But I do know what it is like to be a white man who is viewed by one race as being a racist because the color of my skin. I had a good friend from Nigeria. When I first met her she did not talk to me because she expected me to be a racist from stories that they were told before coming to America. For much of my life I have lived as a minority race (in the areas I either lived or worked).

So yes, my views are skewed by my experiences. I do not know what it is like to be a black man. And your views are skewed by your experiences. You do not know what it is like to be a white man. But more than that, white and black men do not have common experiences, ideologies, or beliefs. I have met white men who are racists. I have met black men who are racists.

We need to stop using racial identity, stop judging people based on the color of their skin and start looking to character. Until we are able to do that we can never address racial issues (and there are legitimate racial issues that need to be discussed - most more complex than simple racism).

 

[robustheologian]

You assumed that I had a particular perspective because I was a white man, but that was a racial assumption (it was based on the color of my skin, which is superficial and says nothing of my experience, character, or beliefs).

I agree with that there. It is a racial assumption. And while my experiences have shown me that my assumption in this matter is right a lot of the time, I wouldn't dare be arrogant enough to assume my assumption couldn't be wrong in this case.

I have to honestly admit that I'm instantly "triggered" when a non-minority uses the word racist in regards to a minority. First, because I feel "prejudiced" is a more appropriate word since I believe racism is a complex structure that minorities haven't had the "privilege" to build. Second, because this word has often been levied by whites as a way to deflect from acknowledging inherent biases of racism in a certain view they may be holding—a sort of "I know you are but what am I?"

So yes, my views are skewed by my experiences. I do not know what it is like to be a black man. And your views are skewed by your experiences. You do not know what it is like to be a white man. But more than that, white and black men do not have common experiences, ideologies, or beliefs.

I agree.

We need to stop using racial identity, stop judging people based on the color of their skin and start looking to character. Until we are able to do that we can never address racial issues (and there are legitimate racial issues that need to be discussed

I kind of agree but in reverse. The use of racial identity won't and can't stop (for the safety of a lot of black men and women) until we first address racial issues. I certainly don't believe the narrative that if we stop talking about racism, it will go away.

most more complex than simple racism).

I agree there.

I will have to concede that apart from the comments a many individuals here, I have found yours to be well-intentioned, thought-provoking, and open...and that I can definitely respect that. It's a breath of fresh air. While I do disagree with you on quite a bit, I understand and acknowledge your viewpoint.

 

[JonC]

Augusta is 65% Black and 29% White. Where I lived before moving here was the opposite (it was 64% White and 31% Black). There are interesting (to me) differences in cultures.

All of my friends here are Black. But I sometimes feel like an outsider when we have larger gatherings. It’s a bit hard for me to explain, so I’ll give an example – I was with a friend at his home for a cookout. As people came in someone decided to make me feel comfortable by adding a country song to the mix and making a note of inclusivity (it went from J Blackfoot to Garth Brooks or something). The funny thing is I do not like country music (I told them I’d be fine with The Grateful Dead or Maze…which are my favorites….and got an awkwardly shocked expression accompanied by the question “Maze with Frankie Beverly?”).

The example I gave was more a difference in cultural expectations rather than what I’d call “racism”. But we live in a country that is diverse.

Is the Rebel Flag a racist symbol of hate? Yes, absolutely. Is it a symbol for a culture absent from racism? Yes, of course it is…sweet tea and the Dukes of Hazzard. But being one does not make it not the other. People have the right to have their symbols, their flags, and their opinions. Christians have these liberties as well. But with a difference. For the world these liberties are something to take up as a personal right. For Christians these liberties are something to lay down for a brother.

 

[JonC]

I agree with that there. It is a racial assumption. And while my experiences have shown me that my assumption in this matter is right a lot of the time, I wouldn't dare be arrogant enough to assume my assumption couldn't be wrong in this case.

I have to honestly admit that I'm instantly "triggered" when a non-minority uses the word racist in regards to a minority. First, because I feel "prejudiced" is a more appropriate word since I believe racism is a complex structure that minorities haven't had the "privilege" to build. Second, because this word has often been levied by whites as a way to deflect from acknowledging inherent biases of racism in a certain view they may be holding—a sort of "I know you are but what am I?"


I agree.


I kind of agree but in reverse. The use of racial identity won't and can't stop (for the safety of a lot of black men and women) until we first address racial issues. I certainly don't believe the narrative that if we stop talking about racism, it will go away.


I agree there.

I will have to concede that apart from the comments a many individuals here, I have found yours to be well-intentioned, thought-provoking, and open...and that I can definitely respect that. It's a breath of fresh air. While I do disagree with you on quite a bit, I understand and acknowledge your viewpoint.

This is a complex issue so I’d be very surprised if we did agree on many things (particularly as by virtue of our race we have different perspectives and experiences). But I hope that we would be able to learn from each other.

I do not, for example, fully understand why individuals who are a minority (particularly Black Americans) would support the DNC as the DNC has typically been the ones benefiting from racial oppression and Black communities typically fare poorly under Democrat leadership.

But at the same time the DNC does recognize the consequences of past systemic racism (even if they were the cause) where the GOP often ignores racial implications and denies there is any disparity afflicting one race above another. At least there is acknowledgement, even if it offers no legitimate resolution.

On the other side I also do not understand why Christians support the GOP when it seems obvious to me that that party is nominalizing Christianity and using the Church as a political pawn. Like the DNC, the GOP offers a façade….a little “snake oil”…to gain power by giving Pro-Life Christians the pretense that the party will end abortion.

The truth is that the DNC knows that resolving racial issues would be to give up their power; and the GOP knows that ending abortion would be to give up theirs. The DNC capitalizes on racial inequality while the GOP capitalizes on immorality.

I guess that's why I'm apolitical. I believe that the solution to our current racial environment is in communities and interpersonal relationships, therefore beyond the capability of politics (especially at a national level). I do not know that the consequences of past racism can be undone. I don't fault people for trying, but it seems any action has problematic reactions. The only caveat I can think of is extending resources (which would be at a national level, or at least at a state level).

I do know this, though - ignoring the problem will not make it go away any more than detracting from the problem will make it go away.

 

[robustheologian]

I do not, for example, fully understand why individuals who are a minority (particularly Black Americans) would support the DNC

Black Americans support it mainly for the issue of racism. The DNC will admit that the sin and system of racism still exists, while the GOP will have their soon-to-be-fired vice president spout on national television that systematic racism doesn't exist.

The DNC will proudly proclaim and protect Black Lives Matter, while the GOP will retort "All Lives Matter" and condemn those who would dare say Black Lives Matter.

The DNC will support the tearing down of racist monuments while the GOP will seek to protect them.

Yes, while both parties have complex inconsistencies within their framework, for Black people, racism is a dealbreaker. And the mere fact that the GOP doesn't see it as such, is why Black people will support the DNC.

So in short, Black people support the DNC because Black Lives Matter. Whether they matter in practice or just theory to the DNC is a complex issue, but one can have a short conversation with the average Trump supporter and instantly see that Black lives don't matter to them in any way. What's funny is, if were apart of the GOP, I would think saying Black Lives Matter (without watering it down by following it with White Lives Matter or All Lives Matter) would gain me a bunch of supporters. But they also know, saying that would alienate their existing base since most of them don't believe that they do matter.

 

[JonC]

Black Americans support it mainly for the issue of racism. The DNC will admit that the sin and system of racism still exists, while the GOP will have their soon-to-be-fired vice president spout on national television that systematic racism doesn't exist.

The DNC will proudly proclaim and protect Black Lives Matter, while the GOP will retort "All Lives Matter" and condemn those who would dare say Black Lives Matter.

The DNC will support the tearing down of racist monuments while the GOP will seek to protect them.

Yes, while both parties have complex inconsistencies within their framework, for Black people, racism is a dealbreaker. And the mere fact that the GOP doesn't see it as such, is why Black people will support the DNC.

So in short, Black people support the DNC because Black Lives Matter. Whether they matter in practice or just theory to the DNC is a complex issue, but one can have a short conversation with the average Trump supporter and instantly see that Black lives don't matter to them in any way. What's funny is, if were apart of the GOP, I would think saying Black Lives Matter (without watering it down by following it with White Lives Matter or All Lives Matter) would gain me a bunch of supporters. But they also know, saying that would alienate their existing base since most of them don't believe that they do matter.

From my perspective systemic racism (against minorities) no longer exist. The reason may be in defining "systemic" (I do not draw much distinction between "systematic" and "institutionalized"). If we define it as inherit in the system (e.g.., Jim Crow laws) then they ceased to exist in theory in 1964 and in practice a few years later. So I do not view the complaint against Trump as being valid. The problem is not "systemic racism" but racism and complications that have carried over from past systemic racism.

For example, "redlining" is an example of systemic racism. It was banned in 1968 (it is not practiced today). BUT the effects of the past systemic racist practice is felt even today (50 years later). Systemic racism is easily removed as it is a matter of policy. Racism, however, has it's roots in the heart.

Looking at the DNC, it appears that they have enacted directly racist policies. They were the authors of Jim Crow laws, and to be honest I cannot see that they have moved much from that position.

Yes, in relation to the OP you do have Democrats who support tearing down statues and removing flags. I do not see how that helps, but if it helps people feel better about themselves or their community I'm fine with it. Tear 'em down. I'm not so sure we are supposed to make such images anyway. That said, monuments are very superficial. I had three friends who had rebel flag tattoos. Two of them are black. I do not think any of them had those tats removed.

But if the racial problems in our nation can be resolved, or even placated the smallest amount, by the removal of statues and flags then the racial issues can't be significant in the first place. Removing statues is, IMHO, merely a case of "acting out". It is a distraction from real issues, which is how to overcome racial injustices without becoming racially unjust.

 

[robustheologian]

The reason may be in defining "systemic" (I do not draw much distinction between "systematic" and "institutionalized").

My intention is to use "systemic" instead of "systematic". My table has gotten used to texting student about their assignments so it keeps using the word "systematic" and I just keep overlooking it.

From my perspective systemic racism (against minorities) no longer exist.

If we define it as inherit in the system (e.g.., Jim Crow laws) then they ceased to exist in theory in 1964 and in practice a few years later.

The problem is not "systemic racism" but racism and complications that have carried over from past systemic racism.

But we don't define it as just explicitly inherent. The "remaining racism and complications that have carried over" is the actual systemic racism.

For example, "redlining" is an example of systemic racism. It was banned in 1968 (it is not practiced today). BUT the effects of the past systemic racist practice is felt even today (50 years later).

Those aren't just effects, they are devices. There's a difference between policy-based racism and systemic racism. Systemic racism is the background for how certain racist activity, like redlining, could still exist after the policy of it was banned.

Removing statues is, IMHO, merely a case of "acting out".

Removing statues is the act of realizing some people's hearts are so wicked that racism will never leave it so we at least irk them by removing what they hold so dear...and at the same time promote a culture that doesn't glorify racism.

It is a distraction from real issues

People can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can address "real" issues, and tear down monuments.