An Endemically Racist Society

I wrote this post in response to DeepFriedUnicorn and any others who share in the belief that society in the United States is both 1. steeped in racism and 2. endemically racist. In this post, I contend that neither are true, and that the grounds on which one may protest and riot, in this respect, are unfounded.

First of all, it should not be contested that the case of George Floyd is incidental to a society run by men. It is the natural consequence of the existence of evil which is found, from time-to-time, among police. To suggest otherwise, or to suggest that this case is incidental to a society steeped in racism, would require evidence that lies far beyond what the facts of this case alone can tell. Yet, in the past week, Floyd's death has led many to believe that society in the United States is not only steeped in racism, but that it is endemically racist. On these grounds, evildoers have rioted in cities across America, resulting in night-long curfews, which have resulted in the law-abiding being quartered in their own homes while rioters run roughshod throughout the streets.

These riots are not an auspicious beginning to America's future, and, worst of all, they are symbolic of the destruction of a republic that has stood for over 200 years. In the past week, I have tried to avoid writing anything on this subject, and I have studiously avoided the news, but I knew my efforts were in vain when I received an alert from my mayor telling me that I must undergo curfew from 11:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. the following day. I have never been more angry in my life—it is one thing to speak with anarchists and those who would gladly see the "system" collapse at the expense of the country in which it operates, but it is entirely different to see these thoughts materialize in the attempted burning of St. John's Church, the throwing of Molotov cocktails at police cars, and the looting of small businesses.

Rioting and looting on the back of George Floyd's death only stains his memory, undermines the cause of an otherwise innocuous protest, and burdens businesses that are already struggling in the wake of COVID-19. Rioters have been able to justify their actions not only against small businesses, but also churches and the World War II Memorial, by re-affirming to themselves that the "system" which allows business owners—most of whom are of a minority status—to operate, is the same system under which Floyd was murdered. The only issue is that their argument presupposes the existence of a "system" that does not exist. They riot against it, they personify it, yet their failure to define the omnipresent "system" is precisely what allows them and hangers-on to realize their dreams of anarchy. Rather than blame the "system," they should blame themselves: you are to blame if you make bad decisions in life.

Protestors, on the other hand, respect the rule of law—even some members of the Black Lives Matter movement. Although I think they make an overwrought case as to the nature of America itself, I am able to muster a mutual sense of respect for them simply because they do not partake in this affront to human decency that the rioters would gladly prolong. Nevertheless, they are seriously mistaken because America is not steeped in racism, nor is it endemically racist; for this reason, their protests are by no means warranted. With respect to the existence of disproportionate rates of incarceration across racial lines, among other disparities, one need not look further than the principle which says that disparities do not imply discrimination, and in the absence of discrimination or racism, the grounds on which they protest are founded not in reality, but their desire for anarchy. With respect to their disdain for the United States, these feelings is misplaced, as America was founded on enlightened ideals that are reflected not only in the Constitution, but in the Federalist Papers among other documents and documentations of the founding era. To suggest otherwise would be to disregard this evidence and, by extension, reality. Look no further than the following extracts of literature from some Americans and other key figures of the era:

• The Declaration of Independence states clearly and unequivocally, "all men are created equal"; it does not say that some men are created equal, or that all white men, or all Americans, or all Christians are created equal. A quick review of literature from the period demonstrates conclusively that by "men" the revolutionary generation meant "mankind"; that is, humankind. See Thomas G. West, Vindicating the Founders: Race, Sex, Class, and Justice in the Origins of America (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997), chap. 3.
  
  
• Benjamin Franklin, speaking as president of the Pennsylvania Society of promoting and Abolition of Slavery, described slavery as "an atrocious debasement of human nature." See Benjamin Franklin, "An Address to the Public from the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, and the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage" (1789), in The Complete Works of Benjamin Franklin, ed. John Bigelow (New York: Putnam, 1904), 12:157-58. (oll.libertyfund.org/titles/franklin-the-works-of-benjamin-franklin-in-12-vols)
  
  
• Speaking at the Virginia Convention to ratify the proposed Constitution, Patrick Henry told a room filled with many fellow slaveholders: "Slavery is detested—we feel its fatal effects—we deplore it with all the pity of humanity....As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition....I repeat it again, that it would rejoice my very soul, that every one of my fellow beings was emancipated." See Henry, speaking to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 24, 1788, in Ratification of the Constitution by the States: Virginia (3), ed. John P. Kaminski et al., vol. 10 of The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution, ed. Merrill Jensen (Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1993). (1476-88, avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratva.asp)
  
  
• George Washington, a slaveholder, told a friend, "There is not a man living, who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of [slavery]." See George Washington to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786, in The Writings of George Washington, ed. Worthington Chauncey Ford (New York: Putnam's, 1891), 11:25. (oll.libertyfund.org/titles/washington-the-writings-of-george-washington-vol-i-1748-1757)
  
  
• John Adams told a correspondent in 1819 that he had held "the practice of slavery in abhorrence" through his entire life. See Adams to Robert Evans, June 18, 1819, Works of Adams, 380. (oll.libertyfund.org/titles/adams-the-works-of-john-adams-vol-1-life-of-the-author)
  
  
• Richard Wells publicly detested American slavery. In A Few Political Reflections, Wells excoriated his fellow Americans for their complicity in slavery and called on them to examine their "own conduct" relative to the institution. He asked: "whether we can reconcile the exercise of slavery with our professions of freedom, 'founded on the law of God and nature, and the common rights of mankind.'" Wells declared that "ALL the inhabitants of America [including slaves] are entitled to the privileges of the inhabitants of Great-Britain." See Wells, A Few Political Reflections, in Colonies to Nation, 393-96. (quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N10868.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext)
  
  
• Jefferson's first public statement on slavery was published in 1774, in A Summary View of the Rights of British-America, in which he denounced Lomg George III for vetoing American legislation attempting to end the African slave trade: "The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies, where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state. But previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa....preferring the immediate advantages of a few African corsairs to the lasting interests of the American states, and to the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice." See Jefferson, Summary View of the Rights of British-America, in Colonies to Nation, 234. (oll.libertyfund.org/titles/jefferson-the-works-vol-2-1771-1779)
  
  
• In his 1773 pamphlet An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements in America, on the Slavery of the Negroes in America, Benjamin Rush denounced "Slave-keeping" as an unmitigated "evil." See Benjamin Rush, An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements in America, on the Slavery of the Negroes in America (Philadelphia, 1773), 1-2, 19-20, 25-26. (quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N10229.0001.001/1:2?rgn=div1;view=fulltext)
  
  
• Thomas Jefferson was committed to the antislavery cause. In 1779, he authored a bill for the Virginia House of Burgesses that provided for gradual emancipation in Virginia. Five years later, he proposed (unsuccessfully) a law that would have banned slavery from the entire western territory of the United States. As president, he implored Congress to "withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights which have been so long continued on the unoffending inhabitants of Africa, and which the morality, the reputation, and the best interests of our country, have long been eager to proscribe." See Jefferson, Sixth Annual Message (1806), in Writings of Jefferson, 3:421. (avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jeffmes6.asp)

The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence that that Framers wrote provided all Americans, including slaves, with a standard by which to judge the actions not only of our government, but of individuals in the past, present, and future. And when we look to judge our government, it becomes evident that Thomas Jefferson, for example, only enabled slavery and owned slaves because he took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. In the context of the early republic, abolishing slavery was 1. not feasible and 2. would have resulted in outright war between the states. To preserve the Constitution and to preserve the Union, Jefferson was bound to the institution of slavery by the context of his time. If war broke out among states during the 18th century, the damage would have been irreparable. Seeing how the United States was invaded by Britain just three years after Jefferson left office, it was clearly not ready for war, just as it was not ready to abolish slavery, albeit totally incompatible with the Constitution and the principles on which America was founded.

There is nothing racist about the principles on which America was founded. The Constitution alone, without any amendments, would protect not only against slavery, but discrimination as well, if properly interpreted. For this reason, America is not steeped in racism, especially when compared to the existence of racism in every other country on the planet. Furthermore, America is not endemically racist because it was founded on enlightened principles that were influenced by, among others, John Locke. As they manifest in the Constitution, it is clear that only judicial activism and other seizures of power carried out in direct contravention to the structure and philosophical underpinnings of the Constitution could allow for something as egregious as slavery and discrimination to persist.

Well how about this white boy

fuck you

I ain't gonna argue directly, I'm just gonna leave this video for you to watch and then you can tell me your opinion on it.

https://www.facebook.com/NowThisPolitics/videos/2529359743953445/?t=0

Thank you for providing sources to your argument, I am curious if anyone can provide counterarguments to this

Written by Tribune Aquila, 03.06.2020 at 01:56

Eh k, you could have just replied to me.
You did just complain about the libs and shout no one cares.

The USA does have a history of racism and is pretty much its default set back, just like loyalist and nationalists over in Ireland. I mean, the USA did have a civil war about, pretty much the same shit and even this big huge movement that had way over 1mil people involved, the KKK...

It is a huge part of the history of the US, so obviously their would be ripple effects during the years of that said country...just like my country.

Also, tldr

Nice essay

This is not the site where you appload your thesis sir

Written by DeepFriedUnicorn, 03.06.2020 at 10:18

Written by Tribune Aquila, 03.06.2020 at 01:56

Eh k, you could have just replied to me.
You did just complain about the libs and shout no one cares.

The USA does have a history of racism and is pretty much its default set back, just like loyalist and nationalists over in Ireland. I mean, the USA did have a civil war about, pretty much the same shit and even this big huge movement that had way over 1mil people involved, the KKK...

It is a huge part of the history of the US, so obviously their would be ripple effects during the years of that said country...just like my country.

Also, tldr

The point is that there should not be ripple effects because their existence is totally illogical, and the way they manifest in riots is likewise totally illogical and unwarranted. I do not mind when people protest, seeing how that is consonant with the principles of America, but what they seek to accomplish through these protests and through rioting lacks one essential component: reason.

Also, this is not an essay, this is one page single spaced with 2pt font, and I didn't even delve into the notion of justice that libtards like yourself ground your dubious arguments of government expansionism in, or its supposed responsibility to members of a racial group

All these idiots are leaving photos of George Floyd dying are missing the point.

We don't think the cop was right, he should b locked up.

That said, blacks are not oppressed, we don't know if this was a racial encounter, and stop using supposed "oppression" to loot.
Black people need to understand that society and culture are in their favor, and to stop making excuses for their bs citing their ancestor's suffering

Written by Tribune Aquila, 03.06.2020 at 16:51

Written by DeepFriedUnicorn, 03.06.2020 at 10:18

Written by Tribune Aquila, 03.06.2020 at 01:56

Eh k, you could have just replied to me.
You did just complain about the libs and shout no one cares.

The USA does have a history of racism and is pretty much its default set back, just like loyalist and nationalists over in Ireland. I mean, the USA did have a civil war about, pretty much the same shit and even this big huge movement that had way over 1mil people involved, the KKK...

It is a huge part of the history of the US, so obviously their would be ripple effects during the years of that said country...just like my country.

Also, tldr

The point is that there should not be ripple effects because their existence is totally illogical, and the way they manifest in riots is likewise totally illogical and unwarranted. I do not mind when people protest, seeing how that is consonant with the principles of America, but what they seek to accomplish through these protests and through rioting lacks one essential component: reason.

Also, this is not an essay, this is one page single spaced with 2pt font, and I didn't even delve into the notion of justice that libtards like yourself ground your dubious arguments of government expansionism in, or its supposed responsibility to members of a racial group

Well. There is ripple effects. That's fact and the way of life.

Mob mentality led to riots and looting. And a good few criminals and people who take advantage.

Okay, I'm not a Libtard

Written by b2spirit, 03.06.2020 at 18:27

>blacks are not oppressed

It has been truly fascinating to see, on the internet, people who have previously justified the United States' lax gun controls on the basis of the necessity of an armed population to resist a tyrannical government to do an about-turn and suddenly decry violent expressions of dissent as illegitimate. Considering the coronavirus lockdown protests of the month before and the current round of protests now, both violent but occurring for very different reasons and involving different sections of American society, I think the vision of mass popular uprising against an oppressive government that right-libertarian supporters of the Second Amendment envision is, in the strongest sense of that phrase, a wish-fulfilling fantasy.

Anyways, responding to the actual topic at hand:

Written by Tribune Aquila, 03.06.2020 at 01:56

First of all, it should not be contested that the case of George Floyd is incidental to a society run by men. It is the natural consequence of the existence of evil which is found, from time-to-time, among police. To suggest otherwise, or to suggest that this case is incidental to a society steeped in racism, would require evidence that lies far beyond what the facts of this case alone can tell. Yet, in the past week, Floyd's death has led many to believe that society in the United States is not only steeped in racism, but that it is endemically racist. On these grounds, evildoers have rioted in cities across America, resulting in night-long curfews, which have resulted in the law-abiding being quartered in their own homes while rioters run roughshod throughout the streets.

It is my opinion that your view of why these protests are happening is deeply limited. For most people sympathetic to the protesters, George Floyd's death did not make them believe anything. It was already believed, for perfectly good reasons, that United States policing was deeply racist and Mr. Floyd's death was merely the spark that set off the fireworks. People are not out protesting the death of one particular man, they are protesting an institutional injustice of which Mr. Floyd just happened to be a highly visible example.

Written by Tribune Aquila, 03.06.2020 at 01:56

These riots are not an auspicious beginning to America's future, and, worst of all, they are symbolic of the destruction of a republic that has stood for over 200 years. [...] Rioting and looting on the back of George Floyd's death only stains his memory, undermines the cause of an otherwise innocuous protest, and burdens businesses that are already struggling in the wake of COVID-19.

There are, of course, people who are simply making noise for the sake of noise, and rioting for the sake of rioting. Since I don't think that there will be any disagreement from anyone on these forums that these people are the worst dregs of American society, I will for the moment exclude them from consideration and discuss only those rioters who are violently rioting as an extension of and in support of the protests. I will also acknowledge that the current protesters and people who are supportive of the protests are not a unified bloc and there consequently are radically differing opinions on whether violence as a means of protest is appropriate; as it so happens I am a part of the group that believes that it is not.

That being said, even if I disagree with their actions I can understand and am sympathetic to those who choose violence as a means of protest.

First of all, why is nonviolence good? I would argue that the reason that it is good for society to be nonviolent is because it gives people security. In a lawful society, disputes are resolved by law, and therefore people are reasonably assured that public authority will not punish them as long as they follow the law and that, even if they break the law, they will be punished only as prescribed by law. This frees the population to build their lives in confidence; they do not have to fear that their life will suddenly be turned upside-down by arbitrary actions from public authorities. This is why we resolve disputes peacefully and this is why nonviolence is good.

But for those people who do not feel that following the law makes them secure from public authority, what incentive do they have to remain nonviolent? If they already feel that they do not enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, why would they ever make an effort to uphold it?

Second, if peaceful protest and dialogue fail to accomplish anything, then what means do people have except force the issue by violence? When a man is denied the right to live the life he believes in, as the saying goes, he has no choice but to become an outlaw.

Written by Tribune Aquila, 03.06.2020 at 01:56

Rioters have been able to justify their actions not only against small businesses, but also churches and the World War II Memorial, by re-affirming to themselves that the "system" which allows business owners—most of whom are of a minority status—to operate, is the same system under which Floyd was murdered. The only issue is that their argument presupposes the existence of a "system" that does not exist. They riot against it, they personify it, yet their failure to define the omnipresent "system" is precisely what allows them and hangers-on to realize their dreams of anarchy. Rather than blame the "system," they should blame themselves: you are to blame if you make bad decisions in life.

An analogy that I like to make is a steam engine. A single molecule of water vapour charts a random path through chaotic Brownian motion, and physically speaking there is nothing wrong with seeing steam as a collection of individual water molecules each with its own velocity undergoing Brownian motion through collision with their immediate circumstances and neighbours. If you intend to fix a steam engine or even just understand why one isn't working, however, this view is extremely unhelpful; to do these things you need to view steam in the abstract, as a collective mass of substance that demonstrates collective behaviour.

So it is with human beings. An individual is unpredictable and in possession of some degree of free will, but people as a group behave in statistically-predictable ways in accordance with large-scale forces. The decision of whether or not to have a child, for example, is an extremely personal one made for extremely personal reasons, but I don't have to personally know a single European woman to confidently predict that Sweden will have a higher crude birth rate than the Netherlands next year.

The lives of people, just like the paths of water molecules, are determined to a fairly large degree by their environments. There is the obvious limitations of environment - one can't take a job that doesn't exist, marry a person one's never met, and so on - but environments also influence so-called individual choice. People are raised in a society and live by interacting with a society. Consequently, making a decision that is independent of social influences is no less absurd that making a decision that is independent of the decision-maker's own life. The United States doesn't force anyone to believe in any given religion, for example, but people who grew up under Christian parents tend to choose to be Christians more often than people who grew up under nonreligious parents. Clearly this "individual choice" is not truly individual, but is heavily influenced by incentives offered, cultural attitudes imbued, and personal experiences given by society to individuals. The choice of what religion to follow isn't the same choice for someone who grew up in a devout family as for someone who grew up in an atheist one.

In much the same way that abstract macroscopic features of steam like temperature and pressure are representative of real, individual, and microscopic environments of each water molecule and influence the path they chart through an engine, abstract macroscopic features of a society, such as racism in law enforcement, are representative of real, individual, and microscopic environments of each American resident and influence the path they chart through life.

This is what is meant by social system.

Written by Tribune Aquila, 03.06.2020 at 01:56

The Declaration of Independence states clearly and unequivocally, "all men are created equal"; it does not say that some men are created equal, or that all white men, or all Americans, or all Christians are created equal. A quick review of literature from the period demonstrates conclusively that by "men" the revolutionary generation meant "mankind"; that is, humankind. See Thomas G. West, Vindicating the Founders: Race, Sex, Class, and Justice in the Origins of America (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997), chap. 3.

[other quotations snipped for length considerations]

[more discussion of early American politicians also snipped for length considerations]

Are you generally in the habit of taking politicians at their word? That is a highly unhealthy habit and I would advise you to break it as soon as possible.

Even if we accept the dubious claim that the founding fathers of the United States did not believe in black inferiority, I think it is obvious that for a society to be racist, it is not required for any particular member of that society to hold racist opinions (although I will note that considerable numbers of Americans do in fact hold such opinions). For a society to be racist, it is only necessary that people behave in racist ways, whether or not they believe in racism.

Early American society was systematically biased against black people. There were real reasons why a black slave was less likely to become successful in the newly-independent United States than the white plantation owner he worked for, even if they were of equivalent strength of character. Therefore, early American society was racist. It doesn't matter whether a white plantation owner believed in racism or not, when he was perpetuating it by exploiting the labour of black slaves.

And this is what is most sinister about the social systems that you so casually dismiss. It's possible that the founding fathers of the United States genuinely believed in what they wrote. It is possible that they genuinely believed that slavery should be abolished. But many of them nonetheless continued to own slaves and lord over black people because in the society they lived in and the country they helped establish, it was highly profitable to own slaves and politically difficult to advocate for the abolition of slavery. With such economic and political incentives dangling in front of them, they freely chose to act in ways contrary to their conscience - and as a result millions of black people continued to suffer under horrifying conditions.

If this is understandable when it comes to early American leaders, I don't understand why so many conservatives find it difficult to understand this when it comes to people of the Information Age.

---

TL;DR: Examining people's behaviour independently from the social context in which that behaviour occurs is a pointless exercise in futility and people should stop doing it.

Written by International, 04.06.2020 at 04:58

Nice to see you and your common sense back nice chemistry/physics example as well

Edit: I would also like to point out that there seems to be a huge violence problem within the usa society. I'd say there are far too many problems within them