De jure Jim Crowe vs De facto whiteness

So for this series of articles it seemed to highlight a radical shift in the way racism is part of our current world. Racism is practice mixed with ideology, nowadays the overt practice of racism has decreased, but the ideology remains. On the contrary to Jim Crowe, a series of de jure laws passed with the institutionalized intent to protect the benefits of a dominant race and create a system of oppression for the non-dominant group. Most white people nowadays claim to be “colorblind”, but that’s not true and the data can reflect that. African Americans in the united state statistically have a lower net worth, education, pay, as well as housing opportunities minorities, especially African Americans often face higher levels of arrest and incarceration. As a results what we can see now is a more de facto segregation that conceived by manipulative and often sneaky means, such as not showing a house in a certain neighborhood to a black couple. Compared to Jim Crowe this new system is considered more Jim Crowe light, and much of the time those who either unwittingly or wittingly participate often take up legitimate reasons to cover up racist ones. Often this is to protect the interests of the dominant group. In the article they talked about how different scientists were analyzing date, referencing 3 different approaches. The white scientists thought because race was socially constructed and therefore could shift over time that it shouldn’t be involved in analysis and praxis. The second group took raw statistic such as SAT scores and crime statistics in different races as if it were just a race issue, but by not taking into account social differences that result in these skewed stats, the research means very little.  The last group acknowledges the differences in aspects but talks about social reality. Which means that people that certain things are simply reality for those who are effected by the racial or gender discrimination, perpetuated by people. On the other hand, racial ideology, which was talked about in the article, is the way the dominant race justifies the way things are for them or challenge non dominant races. This tends to result in the development of oppositional views among different racial minority groups. The other article attacked this same point but instead was able to view the world of sexism and racism from the view of a white women. This allowed me to looks at a few different perspectives, such as the white perspective from an objective view, as well as the female perspective. The article, in the middle, had a list of activities that white people could do without any problem and much of the time, black people could not do with as much ease. For example, being able to relate to your neighbors or national heritage. By reading all these points it put my life into perspective. I fully understand that I perceive and am effected by these in a radically different manner. This article was widely considered as the best teaching tool for anti racism because it puts the lives of white people, stuff that all white people can relate to, in perspective.