Tag Archives: communism

Why white privilege is the wrong battle to be waged in seeking equality and justice

Economics, News, Politics, , , , , , ,

There’s been a lot of talk lately involving the concept of “white privilege” and how quite often a Caucasian will misunderstand his or her benefits of being white while trying to appear just towards those who do not maintain the same generic status. Some examples are the #alllivesmatter versus #blacklivesmatter, which is often used as an erroneous argument of “I care about everyone, not just a particular race.” And then from there a whole diatribe is usually leveled on the idea that anyone who is born white exists in a world of privilege that others can never reach.

Some of it is correct, but in reality, people with diabolical purposes are using these arguments to create a false dichotomy, something I often equate to a framing issue rather than a normative one. Let me explain.

The argument is that someone born white has certain advantages that are not afforded to someone who was not. Examples include: Cops tend to shoot non-whites more than whites; whites are less likely to be convicted of crimes than are non-whites, a white male with a prison record is more likely to get a job than a non-white person with a prison record, etc. Many of these can be summed up in this comic about white privilege. What people don’t seem to understand when they post these kinds of arguments linking to this type of information is that it doesn’t mean what they think it means.

word means When someone makes that argument about white privilege, it is followed by an insinuation that those are actually benefits, rather than lucky brushes against much worse circumstances. The fact that I’m a white male should not then be met with “well, aren’t you lucky that you don’t get railroaded by the system by cops who might hate you.” It should be met with “cops shouldn’t be railroading anyone anywhere”. It’s like we’re already on top of a slippery slope that is continuing to force us back to unwanted situations rather than we should all be on a flat surface trying to make sure that no one creates the slippery slope in the first place.

This is why #alllivesmatter is not an adequate substitute for #blacklivesmatter. Sure, all lives matter, but all lives are not being targeted. Black lives are. Therefore, a movement to make sure that doesn’t happen became necessary. #Alllivesmatter creates an “issue” that doesn’t actually exist so that if that takes the other’s place, we’re left with the situation we stared with: People doing nothing because it doesn’t affect them.

So, what’s my point? Stop focusing on white privilege because that is not the problem. The problem is the opposite: Minority Disadvantage. THAT is the issue that should be dealt with rather than trying to create a wedge between those being oppressed and those who might actually care that there are people being oppressed. This is why Occupy Wall Street was such a powerful voice that quickly got squelched by those who feared its power. The real oppressors are the ones who actually do have the power, the one percenters who control manufacturing, media and even the police forces. Without turning this into some outdated communist manifesto, the problem is that the people who need to band together aren’t because the people creating the messages for them to follow have done so in a way that only creates an us versus them dynamic but in a way that never actually addresses what needs to be addressed.

So, how do you find answers in a civilization that is so blinded to its actual problems? Well, we could do what my grade school teachers always said: Start at the beginning. How did it happen? If we trace the time back hundreds of years, it’s not hard to figure out that the government we live under was created by rich people who wanted to continue being rich (meaning others would have to be poor). This isn’t the social model people constantly think we’re living under because that social model would actually look at the group of people around us as equal and in need of the same benefits as everyone else. We don’t live in that society. Sure, we pretend to, but when it comes down to it, a person who has little is going to always have little to none, whereas someone with much is probably going to end up with even more. That’s the civilization we live in.

How do you recognize that if you’re currently living within its infrastructure? I can conduct a simple experiment just by walking into a bar and talking to the first woman I see. In the US, the chances are that the conversation will hover on what my job is (and how much I make) before it turns into anything more interesting. I’ve had this same conversation in many other nations, and strangely enough, it was usually me that thought I had to bring up money as apart of what makes me be me. It took years to realize that the further away I moved from centralized capitalism, the less focus there was on income as what someone is worth.

So back to my original question. What steps should we take to lead to a future of equality and justice?

I hate to go all Socratic, but if you want justice what steps are you taking to actually achieve it? Do you hold conversations with people who aren’t like you? Do you comment when someone says things that lead to injustice and inequality? I’ve listened to conversations in mixed demographics where some people have said some awful things about people not present in the conversation. What I find interesting is how many people don’t say a thing, or even worse, escalate the conversation to even worse levels. Speaking up in these circumstances is difficult, and I’ve felt the tug almost every time I have done so. But what bothers me is how often those moments go unremarked, almost as if they’re okay.

The same thing is happening today in our political atmosphere. We have some politicians saying some awful things, and so few people are even casting a light on these moments other than to treat it as a news cycle rather than say: “Hey, by the way, there’s an awful racist running for office. Here’s what he said.” And even in the few circumstances where this has happened, the people listening are responding with the thought process of “yeah, but he’s better than those other guys.” If our canary in the mine is at this level, we’re going to be breathing some pretty toxic fumes sooner rather than later.

So, what’s the answer? Right now, I don’t perceive one because I think we’ve moved so far down this road that we’re not going to turn around. Sure, a nation can adjust, as many have before (I mean, face it, we aren’t ruled by divine kings any more, so eventually we can make huge changes), but I don’t see our current civilization all that anxious to try to make things better for everyone because until someone is scrounging for scraps in the gutter, people aren’t all that focused on change. And when you reach the gutter, people stop listening to you and wait for you to die. So, rational change isn’t to be expected.

Irrational change, however, is a different story. That’s the sort of punctuated equilibrium that no one ever sees coming. Unfortunately, we’re coming closer and closer to having that as our process of change, only because most other methods have fallen on deaf ears or were dismissed by people who are pretty happy with the limited value of the status quo.

But what do I know? If I was truly wise, I’d be a rich entrepreneur and well rewarded in the society in which I live. There’s a joke in there somewhere, if you look hard enough.

The Fourth Wave of Democracy and Why It Should Matter

Politics, , , , , , , , , , ,
Sometimes it takes a bit more than a flag

Years ago, political theorist Samuel Huntington postulated that the United States was the starting moment in popular freedom that he called the three waves of democratization. Essentially, his theory pointed out that governments moved from authoritative types to popular movements that eventually led to democratic institutions. The first wave was the initial American Revolution, which led to a number of others to follow, including the French Revolution. Then the second wave occurred shortly at the end of World War II, where all sorts of former colonies were given their freedom (or they just took it). Finally, the third wave was at the end of the communist period of expansion, culminating in the fall of the Berln Wall.

Huntington’s theory only predicted three waves, but it appears that we are finally hitting what could easily be considered the fourth wave of democratization, something that I’m sure Huntington would have concurred with, but had not predicted in his original supposition. With Yemen leading into Egypt, there stands to be a possibility that we’re about to see a resurgence of democracy efforts in the Middle East, something that, like most revolutionary movements, is rarely predicted correctly or even expected until it happens.

While it’s academic and fun to point these things out, there are some other lessons that follow from Huntington’s theory that we really should be focusing on because if we fail to recognize them, we run the risk of some pretty crappy circumstances happening, only because we failed to learn from history, a problem we’re quite capable of falling into on a regular basis.

First, it is important to recognize that with every wave comes a backlash, a resurgence in anti-democratization. This often happens because the “new” democracy realizes that not all is as green on the other side of the yard as one previously believed. In other words, just because you end up in a democracy doesn’t mean you end up with positive results in your economy and government. After the first wave, the French fell back into authoritarianism with Napoleon, and for many years, they fell back and forth between democracy and dictatorship. When the second wave occurred, there was a move from dictatorships to democracy and then a number of fights to keep governments from falling back into dictatorships and communism, such as with Greece and Italy. In the third wave, the back and forth happens on an almost daily basis, mainly because we’ve just recently left that time, and the events still sting upon us today.

This should be important to point out because if these new “democracies”, such as Egypt and Yemen (should they become democracies) have every strong possibility of falling into authoritian nightmares as well. People are fickle, and it doesn’t take much for them to decide they aren’t happy with the speed of their results.

So, what lessons should we take from this fact so that we understand the future? Well, first of all, we need to recognize that democracy is not always going to lead to wonderful circumstances. This means that if we embrace whatever countries emerge from the ashes, we need to be honest with them and let them know that things aren’t always so rosy in this atmosphere, and support them regardless of whatever means they decide are most important to them at that time.

Which brings us back to us. One of the biggest problems the United States has in the world is that we’re constantly struggling to support democracy and to support what’s best for the United States. For years, we supported dictators who fought against democracy mainly because those dictators were capable of providing economic and political benefits to the United States. We don’t have that luxury whenever we support the idea of democracy in the world. If we want to support emerging democracies, sometimes we have to understand that they’re not always going to be beneficial to the United States. While democracies don’t tend to go to war against each other, they also don’t have to emerge as the best of friends. We sometimes don’t understand that.

The very near future is going to be interesting because the United States has all sorts of different ways it can respond, and historically we’re not very good at responding in the best of ways. If we’re all for democracy for the world, we need to understand that some of those democracies might not be our friends. So we have to measure whether we our supporting the institution of democracy or our own best interests. Sometimes, the two are hand in hand; other times, they’re mutually exclusive.

Either way, there is a fourth wave that appears to be starting right now, and we have every opportunity to be a part of it or to stand on the side lines and watch it happen. But it’s going to happen regardless of whether or not we want it to happen. Standing in its way is like standing in front of a tank with a flower in your hand. It worked one time in China, but many times before it resulted in a dead villager and a smashed flower. What’s important is to know when to stand your ground and when to let the river flow down its natural channel.

Hopefully, we make the right choice this time around.