Can we protest racism away? No, we can not. Should we protest at all? Yes of course we should. The right to peaceful assembly is a guarantee to all Americans. Violence isn't the answer, ever. I hear people likening today's rioting and looting to the American revolution. Those " patriot's " threw valuable tea into the harbor. Yes they did. Was it a parotitic thing to do? No, it was destruction of property and a crime. The crime was perpetrated against those the colonists felt where responsible for the injustice. In short, the British that were imposing taxes on that tea. They didn't rob, burn and loot their neighbors. Were they justified in doing that? Not really, it was still a criminal act. It was just one act that lead to what became known as the Boston Massacre. Varying accounts of that incident say it was five or seven people shot dead in the street by British soldiers. It was a peaceful protest! It wasn't the only thing but eventually lead to the American revolution. Ultimately 4,435 dead and 6,188 wounded. And, if you are an American, the birth of a new nation!
We all tend to think of the revolution as starting in 1775 but historians will tell you the revolutionary period begin in 1765 with the stamp act. It was with the passage of that act the colonists became enraged. Why was that? It costs a lot of money and affected their businesses. It was the first attempt at collecting taxes from everyone. Moreover the money was to be used, in part, to maintain British soldiers in the colonies. These troops were to maintain the peace between the colonists and the native Americans and catch smugglers. Thing was they acted more like wardens in a prison camp. A full decade later in 1775, with the shot heard round the world, the revolutionary war began and lasted until 1783. The revolutionary period didn't end until 1791 with the signing of the bill of rights. It was a revolution started by protests. It replaced a government.
Today we are witnessing protests against what? Systemic racism? That is the general theme, the narrative. Are the protestors justified in making such a claim? Well now that is where the discussion needs to begin, but it's an unfortunate reality that there can be no discussion. Those feeling the brunt of racism are the blacks. They cite slavery as the beginning of that and justifiably so. There can be no doubt about that. The institution of slavery existed in these united states for 89 years before being abolished altogether in 1865. It wasn't abolished by the emancipation proclamation however, it was abolished by the 13th amendment. And here we are 155 years later. Is it true that the white majority and the police force are in fact discriminating against blacks in a systemic fashion? Whereas the overall population of the United States is still a majority white that is projected to shift in 2044. Yes it is projected in twenty five years the whites will no longer be the majority in America. It won't be blacks however to gain that majority, it is projected to be the Hispanics. Will that have an effect of racism? I highly doubt that, just a shift in who is being marginalized. We do live in a society where the majority rules.
If you are the minority, especially the black minority, it is difficult to remember that it was the white majority that abolished slavery in America. In fact, white Americans fought white Americans to accomplish that goal. Historians have tried to gloss that over by citing other factors, most notably states rights, as the central cause of the civil war. Yes, you could say that but what right did those states want to retain? The right to own slaves! By the end of the war nearly 179,000 black soldiers served in the Union Army. Forty thousand died. They were fighting for what? Their freedom, and to free all slaves in the United States. Following the civil war the promise of forty acres of land to the freedman wasn't realized. The first case of systemic racism endorsed by the United States government. The man responsible was Andrew Johnson but the Congress of the United States shares equal responsibility having allowed the passage of that legislation. The freedman's' bureau was established during reconstruction. It is considered the first social program in the United States. It's purpose was to help the freed slaves, blacks and whites, yes there were white slaves too. After the first year a bill was introduced to renew that bureau and was vetoed by, you guessed it, Andrew Johnson. Congress did override his veto and the bureau continued to operate until 1868 at which time Congress passed a law closing it. By 1872 the only thing left was the education arm of that bureau.
The first legislative action that would appear to be prejudicial. The truth is, it was prejudicial! A war, loss of property, the loss of as many as 700,000 lives didn't prevent that from happening. Still since the 13th amendment there have been many pieces of legislation attempting to eradicate prejudice, or racism if you choose that term. In 1964 the civil rights act was signed into law. What does it say, at its' essence? It's against the law to discriminate. The object is to outlaw racism! It took a hundred years for the United States congress to vote on that. One hundred years. It's been 56 years since that was signed and prejudice still exists in our nation. Can we protest that away? No, we can not. All we can do is speak out in opposition. Violence will not eradicate that, isn't the civil war proof enough of that. Violence can destroy a nation. there is evidence enough of that throughout the history of man. Rulers overthrown, new governments established, new laws, new rules. But in each of these instances the new suffers from the same problems as the old. Prejudice, whether it is racial, economic, or spiritual still exists in the new society. Eventually there will be protests. The cycle will continue. The table turns. Those that fought and died to establish the new will one day face discrimination themselves, by those that feel just as justified, just as certain, just as positive that their cause is just! Protest, violence and revolution follows.
" Justice, it is the cry for justice that motivates man. Always has, always will.
Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace. Martin Luther King, Jr. "
Abraham Lincoln in his famous Gettysburg address questioned whether that nation or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. What was he talking about? He was talking about a nation founded on equality. He was aware of the inequities, aware just how wrong slavery is. He was aware, in the context of his time, of the powerful forces oppossing the abolition of that institution. Indeed, he was asking if the nation could survive. The southern states had seceded, dividing the nation, literally! It wasn't a metaphor for Lincoln, it wasn't something vague or a concept, it was reality! Would the nation survive? A nation founded on the premise that all men are created equal. A principle enshrined in it's founding documents. If we destroy this one, will the next survive? Or the bigger question is, will the next be founded on the same principles? And if it is what expectation of success should we hold? Success begins with a discussion, when can we start that?
We all tend to think of the revolution as starting in 1775 but historians will tell you the revolutionary period begin in 1765 with the stamp act. It was with the passage of that act the colonists became enraged. Why was that? It costs a lot of money and affected their businesses. It was the first attempt at collecting taxes from everyone. Moreover the money was to be used, in part, to maintain British soldiers in the colonies. These troops were to maintain the peace between the colonists and the native Americans and catch smugglers. Thing was they acted more like wardens in a prison camp. A full decade later in 1775, with the shot heard round the world, the revolutionary war began and lasted until 1783. The revolutionary period didn't end until 1791 with the signing of the bill of rights. It was a revolution started by protests. It replaced a government.
Today we are witnessing protests against what? Systemic racism? That is the general theme, the narrative. Are the protestors justified in making such a claim? Well now that is where the discussion needs to begin, but it's an unfortunate reality that there can be no discussion. Those feeling the brunt of racism are the blacks. They cite slavery as the beginning of that and justifiably so. There can be no doubt about that. The institution of slavery existed in these united states for 89 years before being abolished altogether in 1865. It wasn't abolished by the emancipation proclamation however, it was abolished by the 13th amendment. And here we are 155 years later. Is it true that the white majority and the police force are in fact discriminating against blacks in a systemic fashion? Whereas the overall population of the United States is still a majority white that is projected to shift in 2044. Yes it is projected in twenty five years the whites will no longer be the majority in America. It won't be blacks however to gain that majority, it is projected to be the Hispanics. Will that have an effect of racism? I highly doubt that, just a shift in who is being marginalized. We do live in a society where the majority rules.
If you are the minority, especially the black minority, it is difficult to remember that it was the white majority that abolished slavery in America. In fact, white Americans fought white Americans to accomplish that goal. Historians have tried to gloss that over by citing other factors, most notably states rights, as the central cause of the civil war. Yes, you could say that but what right did those states want to retain? The right to own slaves! By the end of the war nearly 179,000 black soldiers served in the Union Army. Forty thousand died. They were fighting for what? Their freedom, and to free all slaves in the United States. Following the civil war the promise of forty acres of land to the freedman wasn't realized. The first case of systemic racism endorsed by the United States government. The man responsible was Andrew Johnson but the Congress of the United States shares equal responsibility having allowed the passage of that legislation. The freedman's' bureau was established during reconstruction. It is considered the first social program in the United States. It's purpose was to help the freed slaves, blacks and whites, yes there were white slaves too. After the first year a bill was introduced to renew that bureau and was vetoed by, you guessed it, Andrew Johnson. Congress did override his veto and the bureau continued to operate until 1868 at which time Congress passed a law closing it. By 1872 the only thing left was the education arm of that bureau.
The first legislative action that would appear to be prejudicial. The truth is, it was prejudicial! A war, loss of property, the loss of as many as 700,000 lives didn't prevent that from happening. Still since the 13th amendment there have been many pieces of legislation attempting to eradicate prejudice, or racism if you choose that term. In 1964 the civil rights act was signed into law. What does it say, at its' essence? It's against the law to discriminate. The object is to outlaw racism! It took a hundred years for the United States congress to vote on that. One hundred years. It's been 56 years since that was signed and prejudice still exists in our nation. Can we protest that away? No, we can not. All we can do is speak out in opposition. Violence will not eradicate that, isn't the civil war proof enough of that. Violence can destroy a nation. there is evidence enough of that throughout the history of man. Rulers overthrown, new governments established, new laws, new rules. But in each of these instances the new suffers from the same problems as the old. Prejudice, whether it is racial, economic, or spiritual still exists in the new society. Eventually there will be protests. The cycle will continue. The table turns. Those that fought and died to establish the new will one day face discrimination themselves, by those that feel just as justified, just as certain, just as positive that their cause is just! Protest, violence and revolution follows.
" Justice, it is the cry for justice that motivates man. Always has, always will.
Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace. Martin Luther King, Jr. "
Abraham Lincoln in his famous Gettysburg address questioned whether that nation or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. What was he talking about? He was talking about a nation founded on equality. He was aware of the inequities, aware just how wrong slavery is. He was aware, in the context of his time, of the powerful forces oppossing the abolition of that institution. Indeed, he was asking if the nation could survive. The southern states had seceded, dividing the nation, literally! It wasn't a metaphor for Lincoln, it wasn't something vague or a concept, it was reality! Would the nation survive? A nation founded on the premise that all men are created equal. A principle enshrined in it's founding documents. If we destroy this one, will the next survive? Or the bigger question is, will the next be founded on the same principles? And if it is what expectation of success should we hold? Success begins with a discussion, when can we start that?
No comments:
Post a Comment