The history of the United States is one of duality. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, our nation was founded on the principles of equality in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, long before the founders of the newly declared state met in Philadelphia to espouse the virtues of self-determination and freedom that would dubiously provide a basis for a secessionary war, those same virtues were trampled upon and swept away with little regard.
Beneath the shining beacon of freedom that signaled the formation of the United States of America was a shadow of deception and duplicity that was ssential in creating the state. The HSS 280 class lexicon defines duality as a social system that results from a worldview which accepts inherent contradictions as reasonable because this is to the believers benefit. The early years of what would become the United States was characterized by a system of duality that subjugated and exterminated peoples for the benefit of the oppressors. This pattern of duality, interwoven into our culture, has created an dangerously racialized society.
From the first moment a colonist landed on these shores, truths that were self-evident were contingent on subjective interpretation. This discretionary application of rights and freedoms is the foundation upon which our racially stratified system operates on. English colonists, Africans, and Native Americans comprised the early clash of three peoples. Essentially economic interests, and namely capitalism, provided the impetus for the relationships that developed between the English colonists, the Africans, and the Native Americans.
The colonialization of North American by the British was essentially an economic crusade. The emergence of capitalism and the rise of trade throughout the 16th century provided the British with a blueprint to xpand its economic and political sphere. The Americas provided the British with extensive natural resources, resources that the agrarian-unfriendly British isles could not supply for its growing empire. When Britons arrived in North America, the indigenous population posed an economic dilemma to the colonists.
The Native Americans were settled on the land that the British colonists needed to expand their economic capacity. To provide a justificatory framework for the expulsion of Native Americans off their land, the English colonists created a ideology that suited their current needs. The attitude of Anglos toward the Native Americans began as one of ambivalence and reliance. When the English first arrived in North America, they needed the Indians to survive the unfamiliar land and harsh weather.
Once the English became acclimated to their surroundings and realized that the Indians were living on valuable land, it was only a matter of time before guns and shackles replaced treaties and handshakes. In the name of Christianity and capitalism, the English colonists quickly turned their backs on the short lived missionary zeal that characterized the early colonial period. Now, the savage Indians were iewed as unable to save themselves and extermination would be a worthy enterprise in the sight of the Lord.
The idea that one possesses a God-given right to mistreat others runs through much of Western culture and became especially acute in North America after the emergence of capitalism. For example, in New England many settlers rejoiced at the extraordinary death brought upon the Native American population by the introduction of epidemic diseases. It was viewed as a way of thinning out the population. In the world of the New Jerusalem, where a city was to be build upon a hill, such trite concerns were of little consequence for hose with divine providence.
Duality, and its means of placing the truth and its allied freedoms in the hands of the powerful, furnishes the chosen ones with wide latitude to create theoretical arguments that justify and perpetuate systemic arrangements of inequality. John Winthrop outlined his reasoning for the British right to North American land in terms of natural rights versus civil rights. Natural rights were those that men enjoyed in a state of nature (i. e. Native Americans). When some men began to parcel land and use tilled farming, they acquired civil rights (English colonists). Inevitably, civil rights took precedence over natural rights.
This method of thinking enabled privilege to the English and provided a justification for the institutional and systemic extermination of the indigenous people (Growth 83). Before addressing the subjugation of African-Americans by the English, I think it is important that I make an important theoretical point in my argument. All political systems are rational, in the sense that there is a logic and a thinking that guides those making the rules. White supremacy and its associated beliefs (Christianity, patriarchalism, etc) rovided the rationale for the creation of a system of duality that institutionalized racism.
Robert Smith writes about the inherent contradiction of espousing the self-evident equality of men and their God-given right to liberty while at the same time sanctioning genocide and slavery (Smith 8). The only way this incongruity could be remedied was to deny the fundamental humanity of those being oppressed. That negation of one group humanity by another is the crux of duality and a principle tenet of all forms of oppression and subjugation. To objectify a group of people provides an oppressor with a recourse for he actions one takes.
In the case of the United States, subjugated groups are often reduced to a stereotype that is not based in fact: Native Americans were wild savages; Africans were lascivious, lewd beings that engaged in bestiality with apes; Asians were sneaky, mysterious and not to be trusted. What is important is the stereotype fit an institutional definition that allows the group to be oppressed without self-reflection about ones perverse actions. Professor Turner mentioned in class the Sarte quote, To be a stone, you must make all around you stone.
And to act as a savage, one must make those around neself savages. To address the enslavement of Africans, it becomes necessary to once again look at the economics that fueled the decision to bring slavery to the United States. In capitalism, a driving force is to minimize costs and, as a result, maximize profits. The labor intensive tobacco and cotton fields presented the need for a low cost labor supply. Impelled by white supremacy, the English began to move away from the system of indentured servitude that characterized the early years of colonialization and towards slavery.
By definition slavery must be sanctioned by the society in which it xists and such approval is most easily expressed in written norms and laws. From the moment Africans set foot in North America, they faced a system that perpetuated and encouraged their enslavement. Throughout the 17th century, laws and regulations regarding slaves were becoming more explicit in their dehumanization. All questions of whether these men and women would be seen as such were erased with a number of legislations that sough to erase any ambiguities.
By 1705 the only real question remaining was what type of property the slave was to his captor.. Ringer writes by 1705, Virginia had rationalized, odified, and judicially affirmed it exclusion of blacks from any basic concept of human rights under the law (Ringer 67). Intrinsic to the subjugation of Africans was an ideology that reduced Africans to lesser beings. Reasoning behind this idea has gone from Christian beliefs to scientific evidence to current day beliefs in African-American laziness (an idea whose roots are as old as white supremacy) and the use of IQ tests as measures of innate intelligence.
What has stayed constant is a manipulation of the truth and a myopic self-interest by those parties with an interest in keeping privilege. White supremacy and it dualistic vision of society became institutionalized in colonial North America, emanating from the base and structure of society. The Civil War Amendments to the Constitution were no more than words on paper, with short lived legislative muscle. From the vision of Forty Acres and a Mule, the newly freed African-Americans moved on to sharecropping, lynchings, and segregation. The mid to late 19th century witnessed the beginning of Chinese migration to the United States.
Immediately, they were met by various laws and ordinances designed to restrict their economic, political, and social advancement. This was combined with racial commentaries that echoed those levied against Native Americans and Africans. The Chinese were heathen, morally inferior, savage, and childlike. The Chinese were also viewed as lustful and sensual. Often Chinese immigrants were depicted in cartoons with devil-like features and devious expressions. Economics also played an important role in the discrimination Chinese faced in the United States.
Chinese exclusion, a policy initiated in 1882, banned U. S. entry to Chinese laborers. After the U. S. acquisition of California in 1848, there arose a need for cheap labor, and Chinese locked there to work on the railroads. By 1867 they numbered 50,000; their number increased after the Burlingame Treaty of 1868, which permitted Chinese immigration but not naturalization. Anti-Asian prejudice and the competition with American workers led to anti-Chinese riots in San Francisco in 1877, then to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which banned Chinese immigration for 10 years.
Once again inherent contradictions were seen as reasonable because it was to the believers benefit. A scarcity of employment opportunities combines with prejudices to create a atmosphere of hatred and political blame irected toward the Chinese immigrants (The Heathen Chinese 230-240). Another case of dualistic application of justice towards the Asian-American community is the case of Japanese-American internment during the Second World War. In 1942, Lt. Gen. John L. De Witt rationalized the deportation of Japanese nationals and Japanese-Americans with A Jap is a Jap.
When second-generation Japanese-Americans in the nations ten concentration camps were drafted for the war effort for cannon fodder, outraged Japanese-Americans formed the Fair Play Committee to protest the conscription of those who were ot guaranteed the least bit of civil rights. In reply, the US government jailed those who refused to serve, questioning their loyalty and admonishing them for not embracing the opportunity to discharge the duties of citizenship. Perverse logic such as this often guides racist policies and the institutions they uphold in a dualistic society (Okihiro 118-20).
Latino Americans have faced similar obstacles other disadvantaged groups have endured within the United States system of duality. A prime example was the relations between the United States government and the island of Puerto Rico. When the Puerto Rican people joined the United States in its war against Spain, they were promised the blessings of the liberal institutions of our government. What they received was the Foraker Act, which made the island the first legally defined unicoroporated territory without any promise of statehood or protection of the Constitution.
Since the Northwest Ordinance of 1790, all previous conquered lands had been treated as colonist extensions of the United States, with the promise of eventual statehood. But for commercial and industrial interests, the island of Puerto Rico was enied this right of self-governance. Combine those interests with good old fashioned racism and you have a pretty damn punitive system. Beliefs such as that Puerto Ricans were inherently incapable of government for the people and by the people provided justification for an authoritarian system.
The inability to engage in effective self-government was based on theories of racial purity and proximity to the equator (Puerto Rico 947-1001). A contemporary issue that illustrates the relationship between individual attitudes about race and the consequences of institutional acism is the debate over affirmative action in admissions to institutes of higher education. The Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was the last definitive statement the Supreme Court has made on affirmative action in an educational setting.
It allowed race to be a factor in admissions to universities and colleges but forbid the use of quotas. In response to those that argued that the Constitution should be color-blind, Thurogood Marshall wrote in the Bakke decision, that for several hundred years Negroes have been discriminated against not as individual, but rather solely because of the color of their skins. While interpretation is widespread and diverse on what that decision actually meant, it has generally been interpreted as accepting the prevalence of institutional racism.
Justice Blackmun stated in his opinion that to overcome racism it may be necessary to take into account race, not in order to subjugate a race but for the purpose of ending subjugation (Smith 158). So the question I would like to address is the furor over so-called reverse racism brought on by affirmative actions programs. A conservative argument against these programs states that any program that addresses race is racist in nature. But the basic equation Professor Turner outlined in dealing with racism was: Power + Privilege + Prejudice = Racism.
Preconditions for racism include the ability to define the requirements of participation and the power to subordinate a certain disadvantaged group. In this academic framework, it is absurd to consider affirmative actions that seek to increase participation of African-American and other disadvantaged minorities in education racist because of the nature of the power and of the privilege relationships involved in these policies. Unfortunately, the individual view of racism, defined in arrow personal terms, has come to dominate the public debate.
No longer are politicians and the courts willing to address the institutional basis of racism. This brings me to the final point of the paper: Should public policy be color blind in a race conscious society? In The Truly Disadvantaged, William Julius Wilson brought to the forefront the crisis of the underclass. Robert Smith critiques Wilson for his lack of recognition of racism as a factor in perpetuating an underclass. Placing the blame for poverty and the underclass on economic causes, Wilson supports universal policy initiatives.
But this does not address the fact that African-American poverty is more severe than white poverty. And most importantly it does not address the structure of racism and, consequently, of poverty. Institutional racism is a problem that lies at the heart of the African-American underclass. In the American Dilemma , Gunner Myrdal defined the cumulative nature of discrimination, where discrimination in one area can result in discrimination in another and then another, creating what is commonly called the vicious cycle (Smith 160). Specific programs are needed to try to break this cycle.
A recent Cornell Review article, addressing affirmative action in the California school system, stated that African-American students were admitted to the universities with an average SAT score of 300 points below what the average white, accepted student achieved. While this article attacked affirmative action policies as unfair to white applicants, I think as a society we need to address the question of why there is a 300 point gap between the two groups. In Myrdals framework, it makes perfect sense to attack a link in the cycle, by providing an educational opportunity that will pay dividends in the long run.
In a 1965 speech to Howard University, Lyndon Johnson provided this argument for affirmative action programs to address institutional racism: We seek not just freedom but opportunity – not just legal equity but human ability – not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and as a result (Smith 160). Institutional racism is embedded in our society and will be most difficult to extricate because it involves a forfeiture of privilege. But the stakes are high and the consequences of inaction seem to be severe. Freedom is only the first step towards the establishment of true equality.