The Tryth of Systemic Racism (Tryth=Truth & Myth) pt. 3
You can’t handle this truth!
Warning! This post will be longer than parts 1 & 2 on this topic. There’s a lot to cover to close out my argument on Capitalistic Epistemology, and I didn’t want to do a part 4. But upon further review, I have to. So I lied. Forgive me. There will be one more post after this that will tie everything together. So this post has some length but is necessary to make the claim I am making.
In part one of this topic, I introduced the conceptual framework I call Capitalistic Epistemology. In part two, I explained why systemic racism, a term connected to Capitalistic Epistemology, is hard to define. In this third post, I intend to make a more thorough case for Capitalistic Epistemology, and in the fourth post, I will discuss its consequences and how we are affected by them today.
In the first tryth, I defined Capitalistic Epistemology (CE) as “a conceptual framework that views the financial opportunity as the primary, and in some cases, sole evaluator of the validity of racial oppression. The “Unhindered” ability to make capital removes the sting of other hindrances/traumas in a person's life. And the failure to make capital is solely one’s excuse and portrayal of victimization.” This definition addresses how, in an American context, the issue has normalized itself, primarily, because we are in a country that thrives on Capitalism. Which I do not quarrel with. But the actual ideology is broader than its application in America.
Capitalistic Epistemology, more generally, sees capital (economic achievement) as a combination of blessing and worth. Worth is more common than blessing, as blessing denotes religious connotations. To be capitalistic means one values capital as a primary, perhaps the primary, solution to all problems. Mainly, because having money is a form of identity. It is about having worth that everyone universally sees as a desirable distinction. A capitalistic epistemologian doesn’t have to have capital themselves. They just see life through the lens of capital (money), and assume that those who have it are better off than those who don’t. On the surface, this doesn't seem like a problem to correct. Most people would rather have the problems that come with money over the issues that come with not having money. But the issue is that most people don't have the money but still have the ideology. And this creates a whole host of problems for society at large. As it did in societies that pre-date America’s existence.
A Biblical case for Capitalistic Epistemology (Luke 18:22-27)
In the Gospel of Luke, a wealthy young man asked Jesus how he can be saved. Jesus lists some of the Ten Commandments, to which the wealthy young man responds that he has obeyed all of them. It wasn't clear if this wealthy man was ignorant or arrogant, but his question and response to Jesus seemed genuine. At least until Jesus replies, and then we see a glimpse of capitalistic epistemology.
When Jesus heard this, he told him, "You still lack one thing: Sell all you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." After he heard this, he became extremely sad, because he was very rich. Seeing that he became sad, Jesus said, "How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." Those who heard this asked, "Then who can be saved?" He replied, "What is impossible with man is possible with God."
There are two moments in this scene that reveal capitalistic epistemology. The first is with the rich young man. In order to understand how it plays out, we have to make sure we are clear on what he is asking Jesus. Here was his question, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" This is the most important question anyone could ever ask. If for no other reason, it deals with eternal identity. That is, who a person truly is and what they are made for. Identity transcends life here on Earth. It's a question that is greater than all of the wealth in the world combined. Because, even if you had all of the world's wealth, the moment you take your last breath, that wealth will not be traveling with you. Capitol cannot save you. At best, it can show how much your faith was manifested in the way you used that wealth. The rich young man understood his question was deeper than this life on Earth. Or did he?
Jesus tells him to sell all he has and give it to the poor. A direct hit to the way the young man views his worth, both financially, and his humanity. Jesus also, appealing to the capitalistic nature of the young man, tells him that he will have treasure in heaven. Here's the logic, be poor now have wealth later. The rich young man did not take Jesus up on his offer. Capitalistic Epistemology kicks in. His identity is too tied to his financial prowess. The thought of separating with his capital is too much too bear. He says no with his sadness. His silence rejects Jesus and the promise of eternal wealth.
The second (CE) moment is seen in the disciples response. After Jesus explains that it is easier for a full sized camel to go through the tiny point of a sewing needle than for someone who is rich to get into Heaven, the disciples ask an unusual question, "Then who can be saved?" This question revealed something about their understanding of God and wealth. The disciples were confused at Jesus' statement because they assumed that rich Jews were blessed by God and were already going to Heaven. To them, the capital was a sign of God's favor, not a hindrance to be in God's presence. Capitalistic Epistemology (CE) meant the rich have favor from God, and will be with God in the afterlife. But Jesus says this couldn't be further from the truth. Capitalistic Epistemology blinded the disciples from seeing what really matters to God. And it did the same for the Christian settlers coming from England to America in the 13 colonies. A fact that is woefully misunderstood is that, America's great sin is not the sin of racism. Race and Class are the main branches on the tree, but they are not the root. Capitalistic Epistemology is the root.
American Chattel Slavery: The real root
When the English settlers arrived in America in 1607, the slaves, or rather, the indentured servants they brought with them were poor white people. These “slaves,” had restricted time constraints to their service. Most were on average five years, with land, money, and a gun, given to each white man when service was completed. The challenge was that the work was too strenuous for the white indentured servants that came to the new country from England. The Native Americans proved to be a formidable opponent for the English settlers and would not be easily enslaved. With a growing need of provision, and a knowledge that Africans were already a commodity in South America, and the West Indies, those in some of the colonies decided to try Africans. Their reputation to hard work preceded them. But the decision to bring in African slaves was not a decision based on race but on economic means.
Dr. Howard Zinn, in his book, "A People's History of the United States, 1492 to Present" says, "They (white land owners in the colonies) couldn’t force Indians to work for them, as Columbus had done. They were out numbered, and while, with superior fire arms, they could massacre Indians, they would face massacre in return. They could not capture them and keep them enslaved; the Indians were tough, resourceful, defiant, and at home in these woods, as the transplanted Englishmen were not.”
After explaining the difficultly of trying to get natives to work the land, he goes on to explain the logic of African slaves. “Black slaves were the answer. And it was natural to consider imported blacks as slaves, even if the institution of slavery would not be regularized and legalized for several decades. Because, by 1619, 1 million blacks had already been brought from Africa, to South America, and the Caribbean...Their helplessness made enslavement easier. The Indians were on their own land. The whites were in their own European culture. The blacks have been torn from their land and culture, forced into a situation with the heritage of language, dress, custom, family relations, was bit by bit obliterated except for the remnants that blacks could hold onto by sheer, extraordinary persistence.” Howard Zinn compared African slavery to American slavery, and said that one of the clear differences between the two was, “the frenzy for limitless profits that comes from capitalistic agriculture.” Race/racism, would play a significant role in the way slavery was instituted and viewed, but not at first.
Sylwia Mazur's, book "Slavery in New York at the beginning of the 17th century," makes a few well known but often forgotten observations. "Apart from the inhuman conditions black slaves had to suffer, one should emphasize that when Europeans began to settle the New World, African slaves were not a subject of their calculations. Nowadays slavery is considered in categories of racism. In the 17th and 18th centuries planters treated it mostly as a source of income. Their objective was to use slavery as a method of labour organization in order to produce such goods as sugar, tobacco, and cotton that could be sold overseas, not a system of white supremacy. In the seventeenth century North American English colonies, most of the slaves and “unfree laborers” were white."
Howard Zinn would also note, “There is evidence that where whites and blacks found themselves with common problems, common work, common enemy in their master, they behaved toward one another as equals. As one scholar of slavery, Kenneth stamp, has put it, Negro and white servants of the 17th century were “remarkably unconcerned about the visible physical differences. Blacks and whites worked together, and fraternized together. The very fact that laws had to be passed after a while to forbid such relations indicates the strength of that tendency. In 1661 a law was passed in Virginia that “in case any English servant shall run away in company of any Negroes” he would have to give special service for extra years to the master of the runaway Negro.”
Though African slavery was growing in the 17 century, the public sentiment was not the racist, white versus black dichotomy that we’ve come to know. Sylwia Mazur, again, is helpful in describing a non-racist public sentiment towards Africans. "Blacks' statuses differed and included free people, slaves and servants. Virginia law did not provide the condition of perpetual slavery and did not recognize Africans as a group different from the white indentured servants till 1661. Blacks exercised their rights and they were allowed to serve on juries as well as hold the property. A few of them owned white servants. The planters’ economic calculations were a significant issue in the colonies’ tendency to use full-scale slave labour. The price of an African for life was the same as a white indentured servant for ten years."
Why buy a white servant for ten years, when at the same price you can buy a black one for life? This is capitalistic epistemology at its finest. It was the logic when making decisions on what was best for slavery consumption. Did racism exist then? Sure. But it was not driving force of slavery. Nor was it the primary way blacks and whites interacted with each other. The primary color of slavery was not black. It was green. So what changed? How did race become the dominant trait of slavery in America?
"Planters were afraid of multiracial riots and it was also an argument supporting racial slavery. In the 17th century a severe racial division did not exist in the North American colonies and many black slaves, servants, and white indentured servants used to be involved in numerous conspiracies. Bacon’s Rebellion was the most significant of those conspiracies which developed into an uprising in 1676. Its objective was to press the colonial government to distribute Indian land. The conflict was expanded by demands for tax relief. Planter Nathaniel Bacon's army, consisting of whites and blacks, sacked Jamestown and the governor had to escape. The rebellion lasted for eight months until the rebels were defeated and disarmed. The planters offered concessions to the white freemen such as lifting taxes and allowing them to vote. It was a step forward towards racial slavery," Sylwia Mazur goes on to explain.
Howard Zinn is helpful here again, "“Only one fear was greater than the fear of black rebellion in the new American colonies. That was the fear that discontented whites would join black slaves to overthrow the existing order. In the early years of slavery, especially, before racism as a way of thinking was firmly ingrained, while white indentured servants were often treated as badly as black slaves, there was a possibility of cooperation. As Edmund Morgan sees it: There are hints that the two despised groups initially saw each other as sharing the same predicament. It was common, for example, for servants and slaves to run away together, steal hogs together, get drunk together. It was not uncommon for them to make love together. In Bacon’s Rebellion, one of the last groups to surrender was a mixed band of eighty negroes and twenty English servants. As Morgan says, masters, “initially at least, perceived slaves in much the same way they had always perceived servants … shiftless, irresponsible, unfaithful, ungrateful, dishonest….” And “if freemen with disappointed hopes should make common cause with slaves of desperate hope, the results might be worse than anything Bacon had done.” And so, measures were taken. About the same time that slave codes, involving discipline and punishment, were passed by the Virginia Assembly, Virginia’s ruling class, having proclaimed that all white men were superior to black, went on to offer their social (but white) inferiors a number of benefits previously denied them. In 1705 a law was passed requiring masters to provide white servants whose indenture time was up with ten bushels of corn, thirty shillings, and a gun, while women servants were to get 15 bushels of corn and forty shillings. Also, the newly freed servants were to get 50 acres of land. Morgan concludes: “Once the small planter felt less exploited by taxation and began to prosper a little, he became less turbulent, less dangerous, more respectable. He could begin to see his big neighbor not as an extortionist but as a powerful protector of their common interests.””
It was capital; money, economic means, and a distribution of power, that distinguished blacks and whites who were previously engaged in intimate relationships. Laws were passed that exclusively made black people the vagrants of American society that poor whites used to be called in England. It was then that the racist sentiments about slaves became more popular. It wasn't just the class of being poor that was looked down upon. Skin color rose as the strongest branch from the root of a capitalistic epistemology, that blinded both secular and Christian alike. Coupled with a warped hermeneutic of Genesis 9 and the curse of Ham being that Africans were cursed by God to be slaves indefinitely, the church was blind in its submission to the evil institution that chattel slavey was. Some in the church were so convinced that they weren't doing anything wrong in owning slaves. Despite the fact that others were calling slavery sinful, some Christian’s blindness was due to the fact that racism i.e. ethnic hatred, wasn't in their hearts towards the slaves. But a man can fall in love with a woman that's not his wife, and it be completely wrong. Even if he feels it strongly, it doesn't mean that he's right. And neither were the feelings of Christians who felt slavery was right because they didn’t hate the slaves. Which may have been the case. But what may also have been true is their love of money. In essence, the church chose Mammon over the Messiah. And over time, with significant indoctrination, greed, hatred, lies, torture, rape, and other evils, it became normal to think of black people, as not only deserving of this kind of treatment, but also slaves needing to be grateful to serve white people in this way. It's what Martin Luther King often described as, "black skin being a stigma to whites and other races." But make no mistake, CE is the underlying issue. It is the root, with race and class as its strongest branches.
In fact, if we examine closely the Black Codes that came immediately after the Civil War, as well as Jim Crow, we will see a pattern. Many of those "Laws" are really economic impediments set to prevent black people from making capital. If I were writing a larger treatment on this topic, I would venture to say that most of the southern outrage at the Emancipation, is not only that blacks are no longer enslaved to continue to make capital for whites. But that blacks are now free to make capital for themselves. The History Channel, on a special devoted to "The Black Codes" made this point. "First enacted in 1865 in states such as South Carolina and Mississippi, the black codes varied slightly from place to place but were generally very similar. They prohibited “loitering, vagrancy,” Claybrook says. “The idea was that if you’re going to be free, you should be working. If you had three or four Black people standing around talking, they were actually vagrant and could be convicted of a crime and sent to jail.” In addition to criminalizing joblessness for African Americans, the codes required Black people to sign annual labor contracts that ensured they received the lowest pay possible for their work. The codes contained anti-enticement measures to prevent prospective employers from paying Black workers higher wages than their current employers paid them. Failing to sign a labor contract could result in the offender being arrested, sentenced to unpaid labor or fined."
White people, particularly in the south, were doing everything they could to stop black people from being economically free. This stems from a long standing pathology towards black people that developed over the centuries of slavery in America. There was definitely opposition to slavery, but that comes as no surprise when we understand that blacks and whites did not initially have a widespread racial dynamic. Capital became the dividing line. That's my main point. I am not downplaying the role of racism. I just want it to be put in its proper place. Why? Because, as a society, we are still struggling with the racial dynamic and how racism is manifesting itself today. But my concern is that we are looking at the wrong thing, fighting over words and definitions etc. Wasting time, and giving up. So, in part 4, we'll look more closely at this phenomena. But not from the angle that you may be expecting. We're not going to focus on disparities in wealth and education. That's too predictable. We're going to look closely at how a capitalistic epistemology has robbed us all of the basic human traits of love, justice, and compassion. And it's been so subtle that we don't recognize it as clearly as we should. So in the final post on this topic, we will look closely at the consequences of Capitalistic Epistemology and the two main flaws that come from it.
Disagree with me, but do it with more than your feelings…
Don’t Forget to subscribe to get all the posts the moment they drop!!