The Many Faces of Systemic Racism

Imagine the pandemic is nothing more than an unpleasant memory. You’re walking through a bustling Times Square in New York City. Unavoidable images flash on immense screens, collectively forming a scene that looks like a science fiction prediction in which propaganda controls public thought. But in the moment, the advertisements feel electrifying. The word “love” pulsates on soda bottles. Entertainers dance seductively, their auto-tuned voices silent for the time being. As maskless citizens of various colors stream by, countless judgments are forming in their minds and yours. At any given moment, you might be labeled attractive, busted, roguish, or dull. You may see others as friendly, smart, scary, or whatever. In the space between those judgments, you judge yourself: Does my hair look like a rat’s nest in this wind? Could I have possibly been so stupid to ramble on so long in that meeting? Even as I write this, I’m making all kinds of assumptions about what you might be thinking.

We meander through this complex world, often appearing quiet and reserved, as our internal voices and electronic devices chatter like drugged monkeys. To compound the noise, acquaintances shower us with gossip. Yet, in the evening, when the day’s challenges have been set aside, it is possible to experience relative silence and wonder how judgmentalism became so pervasive.

Political candidates spend a lot of time and money to convince voters they are “good” and their opponents “bad,” which facilitates a national culture of name-calling. Some psychologists associate judgementalism with materialism. If you drive a beat-up car or live in a disheveled home, neighbors might label you “undesirable.” If you are so passe that you still have a flip phone, there’s a good chance someone is going to tag you with an “okay, Boomer” at some point.

The all-encompassing advertising industry insists that particular brands make you “appealing,” or “powerful.” Diet culture proposes that human bodies should not be so diverse, but conform to shapes consistent with beauty standards. If your curves aren’t as curvy as they’re supposed to be, where they’re supposed to be, companies encourage you to buy products or surgeries to put those curves in place, or at least, as a Healthline article suggests, learn “How to Fix a Flat Butt.” And if you have too many curves, you might have to starve yourself to fit in.

When judgmentalism meets fear of otherness, discrimination emerges. Like judgmentalism, discrimination is so common, you might think there were personal benefits to such behavior. There aren’t. While hating on others might offer a temporary ego boost, nobody can avoid the fact that people are different. A person determined to recoil from diversity in a diverse world will inevitably end up enslaved to fear. There’s enough evidence of that kind of paranoia to warrant a plethora of video segments, like Trevor Noah’s Kens and Karens: A Tribute to Unnecessarily Calling the Cops.

So why are so many people afraid of what they are not? Assailed from all directions by the viscous agents of hate, Martin Luther King rose above the fray and provided remarkable insight into human behavior: “There are many sincere white people in the South who privately oppose segregation and discrimination,” he said, “but they never take a public stand against it for fear of standing alone.”

Which begs the question: to what extent does fear of being judged and isolated from the pack sustain racism? A liberal who suggests that democratic leadership has supported the rise of oligarchy in the United States might be labeled “too radical” by the moderate masses. Or a “communist!” Ammon Bundy, an anti-government hero to libertarians and many conservatives, lost allies when he sided with the Black Lives Matter movement. Ultimately, it’s safer for people to do what they’re told rather than risk the perils of wandering off the beaten path.

If the people in charge of telling people what to do were to promote tolerance, generosity and independent thinking, then we might be living in an idyllic paradise, where fruit trees grow on apartment building balconies, citizens buzz around in clean energy aircrafts, and children of all ethnicities frolic together without fear.

But reality compels me to consider Stanley Milgram’s compliance studies conducted in 1960, which found that 65% of American subjects would obey orders to inflict extreme electric shock on others, simply because someone dressed authoritatively in a lab coat told them to do it.

Would similar results be replicated today? Actually, there is evidence that discrimination is exacerbated by people complying with discriminatory authorities. In 2016, the Trump team gained massive support for anti-immigration policies by repeatedly claiming that Mexicans were bringing all sorts of crime into America, despite statistics that showed rape, drug use, and overall crime were more rampant among Americans. Trump Administration officials including Stephen Miller and Mike Pompeo, along with popular groups like ACT America, successfully instigated anti-Muslim sentiment while glossing over the fact that domestic terrorist crimes committed by radical right white extremists exceed those of any other group. As the defeated Trump and his allies repeatedly referred to Covid-19 as the China virus, anti-Asian hate crimes escalated. Mike Pompeo claimed “enormous evidence” indicated the virus came from a Wuhan lab. He failed to provide even meager evidence. Yet his claim fed unfounded conspiracy theories about a biological coronavirus attack and gave millions of Americans a reason to blame American deaths on China and the Chinese instead of the U.S. government’s worldwide-worst pandemic response. (On January 31, 2021, eleven days after the Trump Administration’s term ended, Americans accounted for 4% of the world population, but 20% of all Covid-19 fatalities. The latter percentage improved slightly to 15% by September 28, 2021.) The latest investigation into the Chinese lab leak theory, prompted by the Biden Administration, yielded a similar absence of evidence.

Non-white demonization is not a new strategy. Nor is racism among American authorities. Former President Lyndon Johnson is chronicled as having repeatedly used the “n” word. Vietnamese-American soldiers reported being called the “g” word by their peers and superior officers, who perpetuated the perception of Vietnamese as sub-human. In 1964, J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI sent Martin Luther King a letter describing the civil rights leader as a “filthy, abnormal animal,” and in 1983, a hundred and twelve members of congress voted against establishing Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Inquiring minds will find additional examples.

Systemic racism continues to be a neglected issue. Statistics from the Department of Justice illustrate that nearly ten million blacks and whites were arrested in 2019. Only 27.5% of them were black. That same year, imprisoned blacks exceeded whites by 1.7%. Meanwhile, white law enforcement personnel who murder black citizens are frequently exonerated, Bowling Green Professor Philip Stinson and others have shown.

Solving any systemic problem starts with understanding its causes. From there, it’s a matter of education. Nationalism, commonly encouraged in school and film, essentially contends that residing upon a particular piece of land makes one superior to foreigners, which is a prejudiced premise.

Troubling historic trends can be obscured by blind nationalism as well. Yet the fact that many American presidents supported slavery remains relevant, because the paradigm they established hasn’t washed away completely. For centuries, children including George Washington were taught that people with dark skin did not deserve the same privileges God gave white people. The perception of slaves as inferior provided a convenient justification for those in the business of elevating themselves through the blood and sweat of suffering men, women and children. When abolition made free labor obsolete, debt slavery and cheap labor offered the means for owners to maximize profits and maintain prominence.

Today, as the wealth gap yawns, 80% of Americans carry debt. Exploiting the most production out of workers while paying the lowest wages possible continues to be a popular strategy among business owners. And it’s a strategy that gains support when voters believe certain people don’t deserve to be paid a living wage—people described by industry spokespeople as “lazy,” who need to “pull themselves up by the bootstraps.” In 2014, House Representative, Paul Ryan referred to a “. . . tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with.” The only evidence Ryan offered to support his claim that inner-city men were exceptionally lazy was a vague reference to Charles Murray, whose writings have backed white supremacist values. Pointing out Trump’s frequent racist statements has become decidedly cliché, although it is noteworthy that he was quoted by John O’Donnell as having said, “. . . laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”

Worker productivity increased 69.6% from 1979 to 2018, while hourly compensation rose only 11.6%, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Math reveals that even if Congress boosts the federal minimum wage from its current rate of $7.25 to the proposed $15 per-hour, it still won’t be enough for an individual working full time to afford expenses.

Acknowledging the many sources of discrimination is not easy because it requires circumventing common standards of behavior and communal thought. The idea that compliance can augment immorality may feel uncomfortable. Children are taught to obey authorities and few people want to believe that those charged to protect and serve sometimes do the opposite. Obviously, many authorities are helpful. However, information-age technology has documented a disturbing number of police officers exhibiting racist, domineering, and occasionally murderous behavior, which sets a malignant example for citizens. Notably, many republican leaders, and those who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, complied with the most powerful American authority’s repeatedly disproven claims that democrats stole the 2020 presidential election.

Similarly, it can be distressing to consider that something as common as judgmentalism might be a gateway drug to racism. A popular argument proposes things are simpler: judgments are just observations that improve one’s chances of survival. Few people would disagree that the decision to refrain from petting a hungry polar bear is based on a prudent judgment. Yet there’s a big difference between that sort of decision and assuming a human is dangerous or not based on skin color, or attire. Polar bears don’t bite because they’re white. Many modern judgments are based on preconceptions of how people should be rather than a survival instinct.

There are two sides to the materialism coin as well. The desire to fit in with fashion standards can be traced to a natural reproductive instinct, at least partially. In addition, things like gadgets provide a necessary outlet for entertainment in a stressful world. Yet, the more faith people place in objects and images, the less people acknowledge each other and the marvels beneath the skin. And when people judge themselves to fit in with materialist standards, children emulate. Self-judgment leads to external judgment, and the subsequent leap to discrimination is sadly simple, only necessitated by fears of otherness and isolation.

Materialism elicits additional undesirable consequences. The perception that “have mores” are more worthy than “have nots” has persuaded most of those that don’t have much to spend a lot of time trying to get more, while those that have more often can’t get enough. However, the pursuit of riches doesn’t leave time for much else.

People need food. People need water, shelter, security, health, and love. Maybe clothes. Almost everything else is a want. Could it be loneliness that causes people to worship what Dr. King called “the false gods of nationalism and materialism?” A 2011 study published in the Journal of Consumer Research drew such a link. But you don’t need science to see the sad and sometimes strange manifestations of loneliness: a Washington man has passionate romantic relationships with cars; a Pennsylvania woman plans to marry a carnival ride. Such objectophilia may seem laughable until you consider how many people are infatuated with things like smartphones, shoes, or shiny pieces of metal. Of course, those cannot give love, and without love, humans are vulnerable to hate.

End

References

https://www.healthline.com/health/flat-butt

https://www.complex.com/style/2015/03/affordable-brands-that-will-make-you-look-rich/oak

https://www.quora.com/I-starved-myself-for-a-month-because-I-hated-my-body-Now-Im-at-my-perfect-weight-Will-I-gain-weight-if-I-eat-2-apples-for-breakfast-cheese-on-bread-for-lunch-and-more-cauliflower-and-broccoli-for-dinner-I-used-to-eat-3-apples-and-vegetables

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240584401732193X

https://www.parent.com/why-being-judgmental-comes-naturally-and-how-to-curb-it/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-true-refuge/201406/self-judgment-compassion

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-wise-open-mind/200910/you-can-let-go-negative-self-judgments