We've had similar discussions like this in another thread Estebonrober. Statistical disparity doesn't necessarily indicate racism/discrimination. For example men commit crimes far greater than women but we don't claim that the justice system is sexist. There will be a disparate impact on different groups of people that doesn't necessarily mean that something racist is going on even though there is a racial impact. Class plays a big factor amongst black people, socio-economic factors need to be taken into consideration when doing comparisons between black and white people, I had a similar thing to say in the another thread on incarceration rates and the disparities that exist there between black and white people. Onto the article you linked to: What exactly is trying to be portrayed here? That black people who have a stable job and satisfactory income, good credit history and a sufficient deposit down are somehow being discriminated against simply because of the color of their skin? A bank is in the business of making money, why would their money be no good to the banks? Banks don't exist for charitable deeds as this article somehow bizarrely puts it in a roundabout way. Some points I'll make on the actual article: It makes perfect sense to me why a financial institution wouldn't loan to a single income that's based off contract work, which obviously wasn't a full time position because "Faroul got a full time job" after the initial denial of credit. Credit history means EVERYTHING when applying for a loan, especially a large home loan, banks will not go near you for even the tiniest bad credit score. And that was an unpaid bill, there could have been others that were paid late, I'm only speculating there, but I know how stringent banks can be after financial regulations were put in place after the GFC. Was it the half whiteness of her partner that got them over the line? It turns out the bank isn't anti-LGBTQ at least. They appear to be bitter and vindictive because they were "humiliated" by the bank for them simply being properly vetted like everybody else, they obviously expected special treatment for some reason. I'm not questioning on how they should feel emotionally about the experience, it can be very stressful and time consuming, but for them to claim that this is all due to systemic racism is absurd. The article is self defeating in so many ways... I don't like the idea of groups to be honest, I like to think for myself, tribalism is divisive and counter productive, I think groups can be beneficial in some instances, but not in the sense that you infer. It wasn't that it was impossible to answer your question, it's just that it wasn't worded as question, it was more of a jab, but now that you've rephrased it as an actual question I can attempt to answer it. I'd say the main ones being white privilege and inferring that because someone doesn't agree with the premise that "their all bad", that person is a "insert buzz word here". It's important to note that I am not saying that you or anyone else here hasn't got the right to question my motives or beliefs or anyone else's or that you cant' mock or make fun of my statements or other peoples (I do it from time to time myself to be honest, so guilty as charged), I have no problems with it and I'd encourage more of it if that's your method, but don't act surprised if nothing productive comes from the discussion or claim that "you resort to just picking apart word use and then conveniently never answer the question" when the question you asked was just a personal jab disguised as a question.