The “Discussion”
Underlying all political debate throughout US history lurks the fundamental question about the purpose of government. Is it 1) to serve the welfare of the populace by ensuring equal application of the law and performing other public functions that cannot be effectively provided by private parties (a government of, for, and by The People), or is it 2) to enable the rich and powerful to live and do as they please (a government of, for, and by “the Epstein Class”)?
While the first perspective (by definition) has the broadest appeal, the second perspective is in ascendancy now—and we must see this for what it is.
A Little History
Although it is true that human beings are inherently prone to tribalism, the definition of “my tribe” is fungible. The sense of White superiority over other races derives from European imperialists (armed by happenstance with actually superior technologies of seafaring, warfare, and others) as they encountered indigenous populations during their world explorations. In their minds, that feeling of superiority justified their exploitation of those peoples.
In North America and the Caribbean, attempts to fulfill early agricultural labor requirements began with the enslavement of the indigenous peoples. However, this failed largely because of European disease that decimated the local population.
The next worker population consisted of poor White indentured servants from Europe who committed to a term of servitude in exchange for ocean passage. But this required resupply as the terms of service expired and the freedmen moved west to make their fortunes on land that they stole and secured from the indigenous people. This created a group of independent White farmers inland from—and without a stake in—the wealthy plantations along the coast.
Partly because of proximity and exposure to European diseases, the African population proved to be hardy and durable. It was a perfect work force to charge the agricultural powerhouse. In addition, it was easily identifiable on sight and it propagated itself.
But “racism” as we know it was not inherent or automatic. In the Caribbean, some of the richest and cruelest slaveowners were of mixed blood who fled back to France after the slave revolts in Haiti. Alexander Hamilton was mixed race, and we whitewash this fact while we honor him as a heroic Founding Father. (This is not to suggest that he did not experience racism from his contemporaries; his race may be the reason that 1) he never stood for president, and 2) Aaron Burr found his superior intellect to be so insufferable. But his race has been erased for us.)
Maintaining Power
As demonstrated by the case of Haiti, slavery brought its own dilemma: the very engine of economic success in the South was also a growing hazard as the White masters feared revolt from a population that exceeded its own by numbers. They were trapped in a cycle of violence and fear of violence to maintain the “proper social order,” and the entire White population was enlisted in the oppressive exercise through shared fear.
Thus, the racism against American Blacks that kept them at the bottom of the social ladder was manufactured as a way to unify non-Blacks behind the White elite power structure. Use fear to divide a population of otherwise similar economic interests along race lines to maintain the elitist power. This was calcified during the Jim Crow South and perpetuated with the Police State’s War on Drugs. Other ethnic immigrants were accepted into American society at the rung above Blacks, and they notched up and assimilated with each successive immigrant wave. The common thread throughout has been fear of and oppression of the Black man.
The Discussion, Continued
Social divisions of any sort—and racial divisions are particularly easy to activate—serve to distract from the project of building a government of, for, and by The People and facilitate the enterprise of rigging the system in favor of the few rich and powerful. The treatment of the Epstein case is a clear illustration of the existence of such a protected class of people who can live and do as they please.
In order to reassert the first perspective, we must follow the example of Minneapolis and adopt the tripartite ideals of the French Revolution: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. (Leave the guillotine; take the slogan.)
It is all of a piece.