You threw a lot in there but let's talk about the first two and maternal mortality rates. Otherwise this response would be far to long.
Stop and frisk... if stop and frisk is based on "race" rather than profiling, then it is clearly racist. So if the police stop 85 year old African American grandmothers and stop and frisk them, that would be outrageous. But as the grandfather of three either soon to be or already African American male teenagers, if stop and frisk reduces the risk of violence in a community, I am all for it as long as the profiling is based violent crime statistics.
Simply said, it is not racist to stop and frisk people who have a significantly higher chance of committing a violent crime regardless of their skin color. My son is white. When he was a teenage driver he got pulled over multiple times on Friday nights... the equivalent of "traffic stop and frisk". The police were clearly looking for substance abuse. He is not a user, in fact, he does not even drink alcohol. But was fine with him being pulled over, if that would reduce the number of drunk driver and substance abuse traffic deaths.
It is right to be outraged at racism. It is wrong to ignore the demographics that help law enforcement officers reduce crime. The City of Camden which was recently written up as a "progressive law enforcement agency" targeted "high risk" neighborhoods to deploy their law enforcement officers using zip code profiling... turns out they were operating in the same neighborhoods as before... but this time their methods was based on "zip code" crime rates rather than demographics but the two are almost perfectly correlated.
So is your claim that stop and frisk disproportionately targets black men including 65 year old black men... or that it targets the demographic groups that the FBI crime database identifies as disproportionately committing violent crime. If the 65 year old black men are being targeted then I am with you... but if young black men are being targeted, it relieves me that while inconvenient, it will keep my grandsons safer by reducing violent crime, which most often occurs between people of the same race. Here is the race profile for violent crime... but when you drill deeper it is even more dramatically tilted toward inner city young African American men living in poor neighborhoods and their primary victims are their African American neighbors... In fact, the victim of African American violence is another African American more than 62% of the time.
Trying to protect African Americans from being the victims of violent crime is not racist. Do some serious research and make the argument why you would not target law enforcement resources at the group most likely based on data. If you can prove any other group comes even close to committing the same level of violent crime and is being ignored by law enforcement officers... then I would be inclined to say that group should also be targeted.
https://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/
Now lest look a police disproportionately killing unarmed African American men and women. So how big do you thing that group is? The Washington Post keeps a database of all police shootings. Out of the more than 1000 people killed by police officers in I believe 2019, African Americans were twice as likely based on population statistics to killed. That is the number you read about, I think it is something like 26% of deaths at the hands of law enforcement officers are African Americans even though African Americans comprise less than 13% of the US population. But is that the right measure...
I would argue a better "proxy" is to measure deaths based on the either police encounters though this could be racially tilted if police target African Americans or violent crime (this being a better proxy as police are generally involved in dealing with violent crime, so if one "race" is involved in more violent criminal activity then it is natural to expect more people of that race will be killed.
Not everyone killed by police was involved in violent criminal activity, but it is a better proxy to measure racism against than pure race statistics. For example, if you look at the number of Amish people shot be police, I think the number is zero. They don't engage in violent crime and so they don't encounter the police. Does that mean the police are going out of their way to avoid Amish people or just that they have no reason to confront them.
When measured against this statistic the number of African American deaths at the hands of police officer is similar to other races.
But your point was "unarmed African Americans" not African American in general. Several detailed studies of every African American killed by police in 2019 came to the same conclusion... Around 3 African Americans were killed by police officers where there was no easy way to "rule out" racism. In other words, racism could have been a direct or contributing factor to the police officer's response.
Now that is three to many, but one proof of how few unarmed African Americans were killed by police is that most Americans actually recognize their names. How many unarmed white people killed by police can you name? Why are white people who outnumber African Americans not even worth being remembered if our country is racist, you would think they would be the group remembered and African Americans forgotten, if we were a racist country. It simply makes no sense.
But don't take my word for it. Thomas Sowell is one of the nation's leading "social" economists that studies "racism" based on evidence and not hyperbole. He simply could not find evidence of systemic racism by law enforcement towards African Americans. (See article below)
There will always be examples of individual racism by people of every race towards people of other races. But confusing individual racism with systemic racism is simply wrong and many of the beliefs people have are simply not supported by the data.
I do believe we have a history of systemic racism, but that history is not the same as what is going on now. We have made great strides from the time my mom grew up in Germany and was taught the value of racial purity to now where my two oldest children have African American spouses or significant others and my two younger children are biracial themselves. But perceptions often change slower than reality...
Final example, how many African Americans think Obama was the first "African American" President or that Kamala Harris is the first "African American" female Vice President? Neither were born into African American families... or grew up in African American homes... they both grew up in biracial homes and they are both examples of the New Americans... where diversity has transitioned from being something that occurs within one's community to something that occurs within one's own gene pool.
Now let's look at maternal mortality rates. I chose this because I ran a large OB/GYN group of more than 60 OB/GYNs. Below is the statistic you are referring to...
A total of around 700 women die annually as a result of pregnancy complications. But is race the reason... or is it do to something other than race? In other words is race a casual predictor suggesting inferior care given African American women because of their race or is something else the cause.
Well if you look at a related CDC study you find "poverty" is the reason and not race for higher infant mortality rates and I am confident from my experience that maternal mortality rates are directly linked to poverty.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00039818.htm
So the higher poverty rate among African American women is also directed correlated to how many women give birth out of wedlock. Having children out of wedlock and not finishing high school in combination are some of the single best predictors of poverty.
Again it is not "race", but rather cultural and economic factors that explain the high maternal mortality rate among African American women.
And herein lies the problem. To many people profit from perpetuating the idea that racism is the principal problem impacting African Americans even when study after study shows it is not. And the problem with allowing those "myths" to persist is that it creates a "victim" mentality among African Americans who feel it is not worth trying because the deck is stacked against them. Those beliefs make escape from poverty almost impossible.
But there are simply far to many "exceptions" to argue these myths about systemic racism remain true. No matter your race, if you complete college your chance of employment is the same. If you complete high school, attain a skill in college or vocational skill, avoid having children until you are married and your family's income is established, then your chance of living in poverty is about the same regardless of your skin color.
There are so many African American thought leaders who have made this point. Contrast that with African American leaders who rely on the political power that comes from declaring African Americans victims and you begin to realize the challenge. I have five bi racial grandchildren that whose parent either is African or Haitian. My message to them is that they should be proud of their biracial heritage and that they can be anything they want if they study hard enough... they are not victims.
I can't addressing one more point... on the voter suppression argument, if voter suppression were truly a significant national issue, then we would expect African American voters to disproportionately vote less than white voters, who aren't being suppressed. Another myth... African American voter turnout has often exceeded white voter turnout...
Now the truth. Several studies confirm African American voter turnout is not linked to suppression but rather "race"... of the candidates. In other words, African Americans turn out in higher numbers when an African American is on the ballot. The fact this is a bigger predictor of African American turnout suggests that when African American turnout drops because there is no African American on the ballot, it is not voter suppression, but rather lack of interest in the candidates.
So record turnout for Obama was triggered by Obama. If suppression were at work we would not have expected it to surge when the first President with African roots ran for office.
But the real scary thing is you believe so many of these myths... that you can repeat them without questioning their validity. Now in fairness, I am retired and have more time than most people to research issues...
Two of my favorite issues are: the status equal opportunity to America since all but one of my grandchildren are children of color and health care as a result of my career being in health care. I encourage to research both sides of an issue before you just assume what you are hearing is correct. You are being manipulated everyday by the media that is trying to influence how you vote. The media no longer focuses on presenting the facts for and against an opinion, but largely focuses on arguing their view...
Don't believe me... compare CNN and with Fox. If both were focused on the facts they should agree most of the time... How about the New York Post vs the New York Times... or the Washington Post vs Washington Examiner.
I am not looking for sympathy... I am looking for honesty... you can't fix the social and economic problems the poor of our country face if they are convinced they are victims of racism... rather than a poor education and a lack of parental involvement in their education... We will never defeat poverty by making people dependent on government, but only by helping them acquire the skills to enjoy a good life and escape poverty...
