Tag: Social Justice Warrior

James Baldwin and American Slavery: The Effects and Repercussions

By Joshua D. Glawson | United States

James Baldwin was one of the leading speakers during the Civil Rights movement for equal rights of Blacks in America. Although he eventually moved to France, he continued to travel to the U.S. to speak about race issues. He lived a life of segregation as being Black, a convert to the Nation of Islam, and as being a homosexual. France became a refuge for him in between speaking and writing on the Black struggles faced in America. He pushed the ideas of ‘Civil Rights,’ ‘Affirmative Action,’ and ‘Social Justice.’

It was often Baldwin’s criticism that no matter the increase of success stories in the U.S. for Black people, he felt that because of the origins, establishments of the former enslavement, and segregation of blacks, it was not possible to have equality. Retribution was never given by the U.S. after the freeing of slaves, and this was a sign of a lack of justice in the system that bore him.

Baldwin held a deeply seeded skepticism of people and thought it best to trust no one other than his own experiences (Baldwin, 8). This skepticism was most likely a symptom of Baldwin’s life experiences growing up in a racist society that treated him as being lesser of a human being than Whites for his being Black.  The sad thing is that this was a common thought among Blacks in the U.S. of Baldwin’s day. It was difficult to see the successes that even he had accomplished, and to be grateful for his growth as a person, due to the origins of his ancestry and their poor treatment. Beyond just his ancestors’ treatment as slaves, Baldwin had to live a life of mistreatment and often with a lack of ‘justice.’

As Frederick Douglass’ story pointed out the struggles of actually being a slave and becoming a self-made success, Baldwin’s story shows the backlash of the American system through an ongoing struggle with resentment as Baldwin’s lack of being treated as an equal to Whites. It had been around 70 years since Douglass had passed and Baldwin was still seeing the repercussions of slavery and the mistreatment of Blacks in America, especially in the Southern states. This racism in America had become extensively held conviction for most of the nation, and the culture was not shifting quickly enough for Baldwin and most Blacks at that time. Baldwin’s solution to the problem was to not run away completely, although he did move away to France, his solution was to write and speak out against the racist system, and society itself, and join the Civil Rights Movement in pursuit of ‘social justice’ and Affirmative Action.

A tenet of the Civil Rights Movement was that even forcing society with the coercion of the state was a step in the direction of ending racism and the mistreatment of Blacks in the U.S. Of course, the Civil Rights Movement was also fighting against the legally systematic racism such as that of Jim Crow laws of the South, which enforced segregation at public facilities and transportation. These laws chanted the idea of “separate but equal.” In contrast, Baldwin was in pursuit of ‘together and equal.’

Baldwin’s circle of influential people included Elijah Mohammad of the Nation of Islam. Unlike Elijah Mohammad, Baldwin rejected the idea that Whites were inferior to that of Blacks, and did not see them as being “devils” (Baldwin, 76). Baldwin also did not agree with continued segregation of Whites and Blacks in America, as he saw them as equals. Baldwin’s primary concern was to shape society’s view that Blacks and Whites are equal and should be treated as equals, both in society and by the state. His idea was to “free” White people from the delusion that Whites are superior, and this was the necessary step for ensuring Blacks’ equality and “freedom” from racism. His means of accomplishing this “freedom” were by writing, speaking, and pushing the judicial agenda of the Civil Rights Movement.

It is clear to see the frustration that most black people had in America during Baldwin’s time. They were forced to pay taxes and were still treated as being lesser in a society that treated Blacks as if they were not welcome. Many White businesses did not serve them, whether that be banks, restaurants, retail stores, etc. Everywhere they turned, they were harassed or their rights violated. These violated rights did not just occur within free society, they also occurred in the judicial system where ‘equality under the law’ and ‘justice’ were atypical for Blacks in America. Most Blacks, and people of color, thought the only solution was to force a systematic change in order to gain true equality.

From Thomas Jefferson to Frederick Douglass there were drastic changes made within the state to free the enslaved via the Thirteenth Amendment, grant equal citizenship for Blacks via the Fourteenth Amendment, and enforcing equal voting rights for black men via the Fifteenth Amendment. The fumbling of not ending slavery from the beginning of the U.S. by Jefferson and the Framers of the Constitution led to further victimization and a broken justice system for all. To abrogate the rights of one individual or group is to abrogate the rights of all, as ‘justice’ is the equality of treatment under the law.

The continuation of slavery in America reinforced racism in society and the state, while holding back the growth of those enslaved and the slave owners themselves. From the unbalanced foundation of the U.S. system, inequality and its repercussions were well established. Racism was then destined to take hold as it was then backed by the coercive clutches of government. Even with added Amendments, new laws to get around those were created and enforced. This is the difficulty of a democratic system which tyrannizes the minority by the vote of the majority, and racist laws are a prime example. The benefit of a democracy is that within it people tend to attempt, at least, to correct what was wrong, although it can be a rather slow process.

From Frederick Douglass to James Baldwin, prior to the Civil Rights Act, it does not appear there were many positive changes in the U.S. government system. In fact, racism and inequality persisted throughout both the South and North. This is another example of the dawdling of a democracy. Even after the Civil Rights Movement, racism towards Blacks continued and still exists today. The hesitations and reluctance of Thomas Jefferson are echoed throughout U.S. history until the days of James Baldwin. The repercussions of slavery and systematic racism are ongoing.

My position on slavery is that people are never born to be slaves. This is to say that I do not support the philosophical ideology of Aristotle on this particular matter. I do think that people, in general, have genetic predispositions for certain levels of mental capacities. Just as twin brothers can be born in the same family, with the same socioeconomic class and family, they can have different outcomes, skills, and abilities from each other. This is in part because they are individuals that can decide what to pursue, and also because there is evidence of their innate differences. These differences do not comfort the notion that one brother may or should enslave the other because of any hierarchical claims. One’s intelligence level is only compared to the other’s.

A system of ‘justice’ requires that all people be treated equally under the law, and the determinant of who is and who is not a ‘person’ is not the position of a government. Once there is room for subjectivity in law, the once balanced scales of ‘justice’ are disproportionate. From Jefferson’s ‘antiquation’ of law, or refusing to pass laws required to end slavery, led to ‘dispensation’ which is to say the system only allowed particular instances of ‘justice.’

From the time of Frederick Douglass, Amendments were added, but ‘subrogation’ was permitted, meaning that sub-clauses were provided by State and local governments to find ways out of upholding Federal laws. Finally, from the time of James Baldwin, ‘derogation’ of laws, or the removal of certain laws, was accomplished. Nevertheless, ‘abrogation,’ that is the destruction of ‘law’ and ‘justice’ persisted from the time of Jefferson through the time of Baldwin, and there is evidence that this continues today, all because of the subjectivity allowed into the legislation and judicial system.

Thomas Jefferson’s subjectivity of law was that he felt it necessary to allow government to decide through the voice of a democracy who was and who was not a ‘person.’ So, this continued injustices and slavery. James Baldwin’s subjectivity lied in his concept of ‘social justice,’ as that is by its very definition shaped by the situations and perceptions of a society. ‘Social justice’ is unbalanced and a perversion of ‘justice.’

Although Baldwin’s shared position with the Civil Rights Movement that public services should be shared equally among taxpaying citizens was a push for ‘justice,’ enforcing private businesses and people to provide equal services to Blacks was an attack against ‘justice’ through Affirmative Action. Baldwin’s concern was that the people behind the government system were immoral and that immorality was corrupting the system (Baldwin, 23, 47). I would suggest, then, that is evidence the system has too much subjective power, and the perfectibility of mankind through the coercion of the state is ignorant of empirical evidences contrary to that notion. To believe that it is noble to pursue such a goal in the face of evidence and the very nature of mankind, is utopian and naïve at best.

My position against Affirmative Action is that it is an overreach of government into society. I am aware that this view is not popular and often attacked. After all, Affirmative Action was implemented to attempt to rectify past injustices against Blacks and people of color. It was sort of a ‘reparation’ from slavery through to inequalities of Baldwin’s time. Nonetheless, I see racism as being a moral issue, not a legal issue. I think racism is a natural evil and inclination of the ignorant person, and it takes place universally. But forcing people through the proverbial gun of the government to be ‘ethical,’ does not create ethical people.

The Aristotelian approach here is that moral laws do not make moral people. In order for a person to make a moral decision, they must be free to do so. Simply being racist and not wishing to do business with someone is not a direct attack on someone, it is a personal choice of association and exchange. A free society allows for people to freely associate with whom they please; and in a free society there is a free market that would “correct itself,” like a democracy, in pursuit of the most dollars. A successful business would learn to accept any race, because if they do not, their competition surely will.

So, as a clarification, I do think racism is immoral, and slavery is one of the worst things one can do to another. I do not think a ‘just’ government should be able to regulate immoral behaviors that are of the ‘negative liberty’ type- that is liberties that do not infringe on the rights of others. I do think a ‘just’ government is required to prevent any ‘positive liberties’ which directly infringe on the rights of others. I also think government has the crucially imperative role of preventing and/or punishing those that harm others such as through acts of violence, theft, threats, death, and/or enslavement, etc.

Furthermore, I do not think an entire race is to be condemned because of the actions of a majority. Every action is performed by an individual as suggested by ‘praxeology’ or ‘methodological individualism,’ that is the study of the actions of individuals. Not all black people were enslaved, and not all white people were slave owners.

Some continue to push the notion that all white people in America are to be blamed, even to this day when no legalized slavery in the U.S. exists; this is a symptom of what happened, or a ‘repercussion’ as it were. Perhaps, there is no way to escape the transgenerational trauma that many Black people have from the horrific history of slavery. At least not until individuals, not acting in ‘collectivism,’ begin to stand up and make changes in their own lives in order to see the world for what it now is and what it can become. No matter the case of one’s ancestry, our individual thoughts and actions matter in the present, and we are each responsible for those.

From the establishment of slavery in the U.S. to the unwillingness to end it by Jefferson and others, the repercussions of such injustices were magnified the longer they took place. From Baldwin’s subjectivity of ‘social justice’ through the Civil Rights Movement and Affirmative Action, I can only imagine the continuation of injustices leading to furthering despotism in the U.S. for years to come. I am ever grateful that we no longer have slavery in this nation, and I am happy to see racist laws no longer existing as far as I am aware. To Thomas Jefferson, I am thankful for our nation. To Frederick Douglass I am thankful for the inspiration to pursue ‘Liberty,’ ‘Justice,’ and ‘Freedom.’ To James Baldwin, I am thankful for his desire of integration and charisma for change.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source.

Advertisements

Diversity is a Cash (Not a Sacred) Cow

By Glenn Verasco | United States

Here’s something that’s probably true: no two people experience the world the same way, and members of groups of races, genders, and sexual orientations are more likely to experience the world more similarly to each other than to members of other groups. Although it’s certainly debatable, let’s call this a fact and name it the ID Principle.

Based on my understanding of what today’s postmodernists believe, I imagine that they would accept the ID Principle enthusiastically.

By “today’s postmodernists,” I mean the individuals who are preoccupied with identity politics. This includes two opposing groups of activists. One group has their mind set on deconstructing institutions of power that are dominated by certain identities, especially straight, white men. They abhor the supposed over-representation of straight, white men in politics and the corporate world most fervently. Members of this group are often referred to as Social Justice Warriors.

White Nationalists and their ilk share the SJW philosophy, but are fighting for the other team. They see the diversification of “their” institutions as a threat and would prefer to keep them in the hands of individuals who share their identity.

While these groups appear to be diametrically opposed, they are actually one in the same. Both have a strong belief in collective identity and want some to dominate others. It’s obvious that they believe experience and identity are intertwined.

The difference between these two groups and me is that I don’t think the ID Principle is important or interesting. While White Nationalists and SJWs found their worldviews on the existence of collective identity, I list it near the bottom of things that matter to me. It is far more important that individuals raised in rigid, isolated communities still have the potential to break away from local norms and accomplish unique and extraordinary feats. That dissent and apostasy exist everywhere inspires me far more than that the masses are often frozen in a rut of groupthink.

This brings me to a paradigm that many powerful, modern-day institutions world refuse to entertain divergence from at all: is diversity a good thing?

From Silicon Valley to nearly every college campus in America, diversity and inclusion are presumed to be necessities in the creation of a positive and virtuous environment. Heads of departments tasked with pursuing greater diversity and inclusion are regularly paid six-figure salaries, illustrating how highly they value diversity

Former Google engineer James Damore famously challenged the methods used by diversity promoters in his workplace while simultaneously voicing support for diversityin general. He was subsequently fired in a high-profile manner. This too makes it obvious how dearly the pursuit of diversity is worshiped at Google and other powerful and influential establishments.

Rather than address the broad topic of whether diversity is good in general, I will aim my inquiry at a more precise target and try to think my way to the end of it: Does racial diversity have any inherent economic benefits? And when I say racial, I mean White, Black, Asian, and what have you. I don’t mean culture, religion, or anything else that is a result of our environments and societies. I’m talking about the fictional genetic groups that we are foolishly lumped into.

My short answer to this question is yes, racial diversity has inherent economic benefits.

Imagine the garment industry in a racially homogenous society. As an American living in Thailand, I have experienced something like this up close. When shopping for clothes, I rarely find anything that fits. An extra-large t-shirt in Thailand fits me like a medium back home. The selection of shoes I have to choose from is extremely limited as well although my size-11 feet don’t appear to be particularly gigantic. Boxer-briefs in my size are nowhere to be found, and it took me several weeks to procure a motorbike helmet that I could fit around my noggin.

Because of this, I wait for my annual trips to the US to do the bulk of my clothes shopping. The Thai baht I earn are converted into dollars, and those dollars return to America.

But what if there were a larger number of White and Black people here in Thailand? I imagine that one or more of several interesting things might happen:

  • A local manufacturer could notice opportunity in the marketplace and begin to make larger sizes available
  • Retailers could decide to import larger clothes from abroad and sell them locally
  • White and Black residents could start their own clothing lines

Any or all of these occurrences would bring about economic benefits:

  • More currency would be spent in Thailand
  • Thailand would become more attractive to foreign investors and visitors
  • Greater production of clothing, especially larger clothing, means merchants sell more materials used to make clothing and more jobs are subsequently created
  • A diversified supply means a more robust supply
  • The presence of new kinds of clothing can inspire innovation

The same story could be told in other major industries such as medicine.

I grow out my mustache every “Movember.” As a school teacher, I see it as a fun way to raise awareness for men’s health issues like testicular cancer. After I bit of research prior to one Movember in Thailand, I found that testicular cancer is far rarer among Asian and Black men than White men.

This likely means that Thai hospitals are less prepared to deal with testicular cancer patients than those in the US or Europe. With greater racial diversity, doctors and hospitals would probably be better prepared to deal with ailments that occur in different levels of frequency among the races. This would also benefit the individuals who suffer from health issues that are uncommon among their racial groups. Further positive effects could be accidental discoveries made when experimenting with medicines to treat a more diverse array of illnesses. Many medicines and other products are invented this way.

If my hypotheses are correct, racial diversity has real and inherent economic benefits.

SJW obsession with diversity ignores the actual benefits that diversity could bring about and instead focuses on belligerent social change. It is ironic that their crusade for diversity is for such petty ends when it could be pursued reasonably. And by pursuing diversity with hostile intentions, White Nationalist groups are better able to legitimize their claims that their race is under attack.

These same SJWs also promote a concept called intersectionality which argues that being in more than one minority group simultaneously (such as a black female or a homosexual immigrant) results in increased oppression and discrimination, which must be recognized.

I wish these SJWs would take their logic to its most extreme conclusion and realize that each individual belongs to infinite minority groups and is oppressed and discriminated against constantly as a result. If they realize that each of us is fighting a unique and arduous battle in the game of life, maybe they’ll notice that they are no better than the White Nationalists they hate, and maybe we’ll all learn to get along.

***

If you enjoyed this post, please follow me at www.howtocureyourliberalism.com. Also check out my podcast on iTunes  and like my Facebook page.