I am writing on the eve of the inauguration of a man who, like many wealthy white men before him, has ridden to power on the backs of the oppressed. I am writing as our Nation's most ugly, corrupt, and unjust legacies embody themselves corporeally, and take an open and unabashed seat of overt leadership. Again and again, I have contemplated what this means for a country.
None of the rhetoric that the president-elect soon-to-be president espouses is new, novel, unique, or surprising, although it is not normal and should never be normal. It is, however, business as usual, based on the United State's track-record. Just a bit more in-your-face. His mentalities and platforms are very firmly grounded in the inheritance of genocide, rape, theft, slavery, and entitlement that form the foundation of the United States. One look at our history should inform you of this. Indeed, you may already be aware of this if you pay one ounce of attention to the experiences of your fellow humans or if you are someone who experiences oppression. (1)
Those beloved founding fathers? I find most of them abhorrent in their treatment of those who did not possess a y-chromosome and did not have their same pale complexion. So, given all of that, this outcome is not shocking. If you are shocked, you need to educate yourself. It is, however, painful. Frankly, I have never expected much of anything from the White people of this country, very little from men, and much less from the wealthy. And least of all from the wealthy White man. It is a lot to expect, after all, that someone might inherently possess the qualities of human decency, empathy, and respect for life. (2)
Perhaps you can sense my exasperation. But in that exasperation, what I keep coming back to is this: in the test of a nation, we have failed. Many times over.
Over the past century, some people might argue that there have been strides forward. Steps towards a more equitable, fair, just, and compassionate society. Yet, for many oppressed peoples -- the many Native Nations and Native individuals, people of color, women, those who are LGBTQ+, those who are poor, those with disabilities: in summary, those who differ from the cis-gendered able-bodied white male -- those strides forward are perhaps more realistically framed as the marginal and incomplete concessions of a predominantly White, privileged class's violent, aggressive monopolization on equality. The many intersections of race, gender, sex, sexual identity, economic status, and ability all make the issue of power and privilege complex. However, terming these strides forward as "progress" is an outright lie, meant to convince that somehow the onus is on the oppressed to garner their own rights. Chris Rock (3) voiced this very well in 2014: "White people were crazy. Now they’re not as crazy. To say that black people have made progress would be to say they deserve what happened to them before." It is not on the oppressed to make themselves somehow more worthy of rights, dignity, and respect. It is on the oppressors to realize that they are acting like assholes. It is on those supporting the oppressors to stop supporting oppression.
Oppressors don't often have that realization voluntarily or independently, nor do those who are comfortable in such a system. (And so, usually, it is through the hard work and struggle of the oppressed themselves that rights are gradually wrested from the monopolizing grasp of the oppressing group rather than via some moral epiphany from the powerful.)
It is the nature of the oppressor to restrict such rights. To diminish, to belittle, to dehumanize, to other, to divide, to restrict, to bully, to deny, to perpetuate itself, to twist. To control the narrative. The fact that a disturbing majority of people lack an awareness of some of the most basic truths of American history (this land was stolen from its original inhabitants, genocide happened and continues today, North America had a long history and hundreds of cultures for many thousands of years, slavery happened until very recently and we are still dealing with its effects, women have been written out and treated as lessor, Andrew Jackson was a piece of shit, etc.) is testament to the control of that narrative. It does not excuse such behavior, but should serve as a warning that the status-quo is unlikely to be changed by those who benefit significantly from it. (4)
In fact, prior to the election, my thoughts were often on a question, as to whether my life and the lives of others would be valued. I got my answer (no, my life is not valued as a woman. In that, the resounding answer was that I am worthless. My skin color and able body, though, are still as valuable as ever.) The particularly disappointing thing is that, this time, the test was exceptionally easy. Which candidate supports the lives and liberty of all? I'd wager on the candidate whose slogan is "Stronger Together" rather than on the one who calls for a return to a time of slavery, praises a fascist Russian dictator, and would punish women for exercising control of their own bodies, as only a few examples. Hear me now: there is no question that Hillary Clinton was the ethical, compassionate, educated choice in this election. It was a very clear decision between the two candidates, not a lesser-of-two evils. Yet, across the spectrum, a distressing number of people demonstrated their lack of regard for the lives of others in either a) voting for trump and ignoring his words and actions b) willingly not voting or c) casting a foolish protest vote.
As an extension of this, in our election, we faced a test. We faced a test on the human-level of "will white people recognize the oppressive system which they support?" (Failed). We faced a test on the human-level of "will men recognize the oppressive system which they support?" (Failed) Mind you, these are not tests that one should fail.
And we also faced a more philosophical test: can this country claim legitimacy? (Failed)
Let me explain.
As much as I might disagree with some aspects of old, white, male philosophers, when we consider some of the figures at the fount of the "Nation" model, many cite back to Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Now, this citing is in itself an example of the perpetuation and glorification of oppressive forces. There have been countless people of color and women who have made major contributions to the philosophical discourse of nation, society, and the formative discourse on rights and civil liberties prior to Hobbes/Locke and after, but whose contributions have been suppressed or ignored in the telling of history while Hobbes and Locke are remembered. (5) Hobbes and Locke are remembered in part because of their historical privilege and empowered status. Both are very guilty in my mind of embracing patriarchal, racist, sexist, patronizing mentalities towards non-"Western" societies and especially towards people of color and Native peoples. And, as usual, towards women.
So I don't have a whole lot of faith that they would leap to my defense as a woman or that they'd enthusiastically defend someone unlike themselves. They're mostly preoccupied with white men when it comes to liberty. I bring them up here because many would claim that their works on the social contract and philosophies on liberty were formative in the development of the United States and its political sentiments. And in many ways, they were indeed influential. So, if we want to understand some of the underlying, basic concepts of our country in terms of its "philosophy" and legitimization for its existence, let's take a moment to discuss. (Plus, I've noticed that White folks, who arguably need to get this sort of discussion in their heads, only really like to listen to other White folks. Here are some old white dudes for you, White folks!)
In the 17th century, Hobbes outlined that in the state of nature all are equal. (6) And that in a "state of nature" (i.e. before the formation of a society or nation or community, etc.), the only right is the preservation of one's life. That's it. Nothing else. You have a right to your life. Subsequently, there are two guiding "laws of nature". These differ from literal laws as in rights or liberties. Again, the only inherent right is the preservation of one's life. Hobbes' laws of nature are rather guiding rules of human nature in the absence of legal laws or a society. The first: "every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it." The second: "that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself." Got it? Again, basically, the only right one truly has is to the preservation of their life, and then when we all get together and form a society or a nation or a community, it is with the contract of certain restrictions of rights (giving up the right to kill people, for example, which increases peace and reduces a state of "warre" i.e. war/conflict/strife). We do this with the human tendency towards peace (mostly out of self-interest) and with our contentedness based on being treated by others and treating others as we'd like to be treated. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Not long thereafter, John Locke expands on this to include the preservation of one's life, liberty, and property. (7)
But at the most very basic level, at the core of the justification for a country such as the United States, we've got this social contract that says if we lay down certain rights to come together (i.e. lay down the rights to all things), then it is with the guiding prescript of "so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself." That's why we're cool with it, that's what we'll be content with, since we like peace and we like equal treatment. Hobbes also goes on to describe how some rights are subsequently ceded to a sovereign authority (i.e. a government) to help preserve a state of peace. Many would agree that Hobbes starts to go overboard in his calls for absolute authority. At the premise, though, is that these rights are ceded for protection (the enhanced possibility of the preservation of ones' life via maintenance of peace) to a governing authority. Yet, this ceding of rights and political obligation to a sovereign authority ends when it endangers one's life.
So, remember the test? We currently live in a country which presently and historically has not accorded so much liberty against other men (people) as one would allow against oneself. The liberties of people of color, of women, and of many other marginalized and oppressed groups (read: not wealthy, cis-gendered white men) have been restricted to less than that of wealthy, cis-gendered white men. Again, it is important to remember intersectionality. But by and large, brown and black lives have been de-valued in this country in favor of white lives. Have been treated as lesser, and the rights (liberty) of those with pale skin have been and remain greater in practice across the board. Perhaps, in theory, all have the same liberties, perhaps in theory oppressed groups have liberties that would treat them as white men prefer to be treated. But that is not how things presently or historically have operated. That's not how our system operates now, or plans to operate. And when you look at literal law, often those liberties are unequal as well, writing unequal treatment into word.
On top of that, very often our governing authority places the lives of oppressed peoples in danger. It does so either directly, through law, and through force, and also in the embodiment of hateful rhetoric from one group against the existence of another group. (So, for example, when a president elect does not vehemently denounce the endorsement of the KKK, that would be the authority threatening the lives of people of color. Likewise when a vice-president elect endorses hateful rhetoric such as conversion therapy and anti-LGBTQ+ legislation known to jeopardize the lives of LGBTQ+ individuals).
This goes against the very premise of our social contract. It de-legitimizes it. (Not that a founding on land theft, genocide, rape, and slavery does not also, perhaps, de-legitimize the United States just a bit!)
Now, some aspects of entering a social contract are tacit or assumed. You're born into a country and you live there as a citizen, so guess what, you've probably accepted the social contract of that country. However, again, that contract assumes so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself as a primary stipulation for entering the contract. White folks, can you honestly say that this country accords so much liberty to people of color as it does to you? Men, can you honestly say that this country accords so much liberty to women as it does to you? Rich folks, can you honestly say that this country accords so much liberty to the poor or middle class as it does to you? Straight, cis-gendered folks, can you honestly say that this country accords so much liberty to LGBTQ+ individuals as it does to you? I could go on. (And if you answered yes to those rhetorical questions, then you need to listen to the experiences of those unlike yourself).
The United States is very literally violating the most basic prescript of the contract for its existence. The government to whom we have ceded some rights for the sake of protection as a sovereign authority -- guess what, again and again it puts the lives of many of its citizens in danger. Literally. When it incarcerates people of color for minor offenses? (Black men and native peoples, for example, are far overrepresented in prisons and are far more likely to experience police brutality). When a government-appointed or government-supported force shoots, strangles, or otherwise physically assaults someone unduly, unjustly, or excessively, someone it is sworn to protect? That is not according the same liberty as a white man would likely experience under the law. Nor is it protecting the lives of those it systematically discriminates against.
This is what I cannot move past: the United States has failed and continues to fail the test. This election was not only a test of the decency of the White-populace of this country and whether White people are still crazy (which, fyi, we failed. Still crazy. Still hateful. Still myopic). (8) It was also a test of the legitimacy of the United States over all. A nation that does not follow its most basic prescripts is not a Nation. It is an oppressive state. It is in a state of war, not in a state of peace.
If, over the next four years, those who are oppressed are particularly resistant, then remember that. Remember that each of us has an inherent right to the protection of our life, based on the founding principles of this country's philosophy. Remember that the president-elect outright embodies the illegitimacy I have discussed, that threat against lives and that unequal liberty. Past presidents and administrations have all failed as well. There is not a single president or administration, I would argue, that has truly upheld so much liberty against other men as she/he/they would allow other men against themselves and which has not placed black and brown lives, women's lives, LGBTQ+ lives, the lives of the differently-abled in danger, though some have done far better than others. If there are many of us who are exceptionally pissed that the president elect doesn't even attempt to uphold a façade of protection for lives unlike his own and equal liberty as he affords himself, know that anger is justified. Know that it has gone on long enough. Know that, even though other administrations might have failed, some at least were improving the systems. Even if marginally. The promises of the president elect donald trump do no such thing, in word, in action, or in intent.
Do not expect us to easily forgive or trust those who voted against our lives and liberty or did not care enough to vote at all when we were in jeopardy and needed your help. Do not expect us to submit quietly to a sovereign authority or governing authority who violates the safety of our lives. Do not expect us to submit quietly to a sovereign/governing authority, or to sign on to a contract, that does not respect the equality of its citizens. Do not expect us to contentedly follow a contract that is meant to protect us, too, and that has demonstrably failed to do so.
This is not normal. It has never been normal.
----------------------------------------------
Footnotes:
1: Not you, white dudes! Especially not you, rich cis-gendered white dudes. And white women, you best listen up too. If you disagree and think that White people are facing oppression, I'd like to engage in a productive and respectful conversation with you about privilege, bias, discrimination, oppression, racism, sexism, and history. There are also many great resources out there, written from the perspectives of those who live with and experience oppression in many forms. I'm happy to help guide you to the extent of your respectfulness and my ability.
2: True respect for life, not pro-life bullshit that reveres a bundle of cells, and then turns a blind-eye when a child is born, based on a criteria of skin color, sex, and privilege.
3: Chris Rock also demonstrated, unfortunately, the complexity of issues of race and sex in subsequent statements; when he hosted the Oscars, and made offensive jokes at the expense of Asian and Asian-American communities and belittled frustrations over unequal treatment of women in Hollywood. But his statements on progress nonetheless make a very important point.
4: This means you, white folks. This means you, men. This especially means you, rich white folks. (This means you too, white women, though I would've hoped you possessed slightly more empathy). You all benefit from systematic oppression. Lots of folks would love if ya'll had an ethical awakening and committed yourself to equality and equity! I'm not holding my breath. But I would be pleased to be proven wrong in my lack of faith in you for once.
5: For example, the Iroquois Confederacy is one of the oldest participatory democracies and the "founding fathers" and the U.S. constitution were both very clearly influenced by it and by the long traditions and existing systems of Native Nations, even though this continues to be overlooked or down-played in favor of Western (European) influences.
6: He uses the word "men", which is often used to refer to people or humans in general. But, given the time period, most likely he is thinking of male-identified and not in terms of "human", which always pisses me off as a woman, but let's continue.
7: The property introduction and philosophy, for me, is where things get especially frustrating with Locke because it has been used as a major legitimization for the theft of land in North America, and by Anglo- and Western colonizing forces in many parts of the world. Basically, Locke's property involves the input of "work." Because Anglo- and Western colonizers did not define Native peoples and Native Nations uses of the land as "work", this argument was used to justify that the land was up for the taking. All of which is a ridiculous and fraudulent justification on many levels.
8: I put this test on White people because an alarming 58% of white voters voted for trump in contrast to only 21% of "non-whites" for trump, a man and campaign that explicitly used racist, sexist language and whose platform and policies explicitly jeopardize equal liberty. There is no way you can convince me that it is ethically acceptable to have voted for trump. Men also failed this test. 53% of men voted for trump. (Here's the breakdown) I also put this test on the approximate 45% of eligible voters who did not vote. (Among that percentage, I want to clearly exempt those who were eligible to vote but were prevented from voting by restrictive or discriminatory voting laws or whose polling places were moved without warning, for example, or other forces against their will. The test is pointedly with those who willingly did not vote)
None of the rhetoric that the president-elect soon-to-be president espouses is new, novel, unique, or surprising, although it is not normal and should never be normal. It is, however, business as usual, based on the United State's track-record. Just a bit more in-your-face. His mentalities and platforms are very firmly grounded in the inheritance of genocide, rape, theft, slavery, and entitlement that form the foundation of the United States. One look at our history should inform you of this. Indeed, you may already be aware of this if you pay one ounce of attention to the experiences of your fellow humans or if you are someone who experiences oppression. (1)
Those beloved founding fathers? I find most of them abhorrent in their treatment of those who did not possess a y-chromosome and did not have their same pale complexion. So, given all of that, this outcome is not shocking. If you are shocked, you need to educate yourself. It is, however, painful. Frankly, I have never expected much of anything from the White people of this country, very little from men, and much less from the wealthy. And least of all from the wealthy White man. It is a lot to expect, after all, that someone might inherently possess the qualities of human decency, empathy, and respect for life. (2)
Perhaps you can sense my exasperation. But in that exasperation, what I keep coming back to is this: in the test of a nation, we have failed. Many times over.
Over the past century, some people might argue that there have been strides forward. Steps towards a more equitable, fair, just, and compassionate society. Yet, for many oppressed peoples -- the many Native Nations and Native individuals, people of color, women, those who are LGBTQ+, those who are poor, those with disabilities: in summary, those who differ from the cis-gendered able-bodied white male -- those strides forward are perhaps more realistically framed as the marginal and incomplete concessions of a predominantly White, privileged class's violent, aggressive monopolization on equality. The many intersections of race, gender, sex, sexual identity, economic status, and ability all make the issue of power and privilege complex. However, terming these strides forward as "progress" is an outright lie, meant to convince that somehow the onus is on the oppressed to garner their own rights. Chris Rock (3) voiced this very well in 2014: "White people were crazy. Now they’re not as crazy. To say that black people have made progress would be to say they deserve what happened to them before." It is not on the oppressed to make themselves somehow more worthy of rights, dignity, and respect. It is on the oppressors to realize that they are acting like assholes. It is on those supporting the oppressors to stop supporting oppression.
Oppressors don't often have that realization voluntarily or independently, nor do those who are comfortable in such a system. (And so, usually, it is through the hard work and struggle of the oppressed themselves that rights are gradually wrested from the monopolizing grasp of the oppressing group rather than via some moral epiphany from the powerful.)
It is the nature of the oppressor to restrict such rights. To diminish, to belittle, to dehumanize, to other, to divide, to restrict, to bully, to deny, to perpetuate itself, to twist. To control the narrative. The fact that a disturbing majority of people lack an awareness of some of the most basic truths of American history (this land was stolen from its original inhabitants, genocide happened and continues today, North America had a long history and hundreds of cultures for many thousands of years, slavery happened until very recently and we are still dealing with its effects, women have been written out and treated as lessor, Andrew Jackson was a piece of shit, etc.) is testament to the control of that narrative. It does not excuse such behavior, but should serve as a warning that the status-quo is unlikely to be changed by those who benefit significantly from it. (4)
In fact, prior to the election, my thoughts were often on a question, as to whether my life and the lives of others would be valued. I got my answer (no, my life is not valued as a woman. In that, the resounding answer was that I am worthless. My skin color and able body, though, are still as valuable as ever.) The particularly disappointing thing is that, this time, the test was exceptionally easy. Which candidate supports the lives and liberty of all? I'd wager on the candidate whose slogan is "Stronger Together" rather than on the one who calls for a return to a time of slavery, praises a fascist Russian dictator, and would punish women for exercising control of their own bodies, as only a few examples. Hear me now: there is no question that Hillary Clinton was the ethical, compassionate, educated choice in this election. It was a very clear decision between the two candidates, not a lesser-of-two evils. Yet, across the spectrum, a distressing number of people demonstrated their lack of regard for the lives of others in either a) voting for trump and ignoring his words and actions b) willingly not voting or c) casting a foolish protest vote.
As an extension of this, in our election, we faced a test. We faced a test on the human-level of "will white people recognize the oppressive system which they support?" (Failed). We faced a test on the human-level of "will men recognize the oppressive system which they support?" (Failed) Mind you, these are not tests that one should fail.
And we also faced a more philosophical test: can this country claim legitimacy? (Failed)
Let me explain.
As much as I might disagree with some aspects of old, white, male philosophers, when we consider some of the figures at the fount of the "Nation" model, many cite back to Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Now, this citing is in itself an example of the perpetuation and glorification of oppressive forces. There have been countless people of color and women who have made major contributions to the philosophical discourse of nation, society, and the formative discourse on rights and civil liberties prior to Hobbes/Locke and after, but whose contributions have been suppressed or ignored in the telling of history while Hobbes and Locke are remembered. (5) Hobbes and Locke are remembered in part because of their historical privilege and empowered status. Both are very guilty in my mind of embracing patriarchal, racist, sexist, patronizing mentalities towards non-"Western" societies and especially towards people of color and Native peoples. And, as usual, towards women.
So I don't have a whole lot of faith that they would leap to my defense as a woman or that they'd enthusiastically defend someone unlike themselves. They're mostly preoccupied with white men when it comes to liberty. I bring them up here because many would claim that their works on the social contract and philosophies on liberty were formative in the development of the United States and its political sentiments. And in many ways, they were indeed influential. So, if we want to understand some of the underlying, basic concepts of our country in terms of its "philosophy" and legitimization for its existence, let's take a moment to discuss. (Plus, I've noticed that White folks, who arguably need to get this sort of discussion in their heads, only really like to listen to other White folks. Here are some old white dudes for you, White folks!)
In the 17th century, Hobbes outlined that in the state of nature all are equal. (6) And that in a "state of nature" (i.e. before the formation of a society or nation or community, etc.), the only right is the preservation of one's life. That's it. Nothing else. You have a right to your life. Subsequently, there are two guiding "laws of nature". These differ from literal laws as in rights or liberties. Again, the only inherent right is the preservation of one's life. Hobbes' laws of nature are rather guiding rules of human nature in the absence of legal laws or a society. The first: "every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it." The second: "that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself." Got it? Again, basically, the only right one truly has is to the preservation of their life, and then when we all get together and form a society or a nation or a community, it is with the contract of certain restrictions of rights (giving up the right to kill people, for example, which increases peace and reduces a state of "warre" i.e. war/conflict/strife). We do this with the human tendency towards peace (mostly out of self-interest) and with our contentedness based on being treated by others and treating others as we'd like to be treated. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Not long thereafter, John Locke expands on this to include the preservation of one's life, liberty, and property. (7)
But at the most very basic level, at the core of the justification for a country such as the United States, we've got this social contract that says if we lay down certain rights to come together (i.e. lay down the rights to all things), then it is with the guiding prescript of "so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself." That's why we're cool with it, that's what we'll be content with, since we like peace and we like equal treatment. Hobbes also goes on to describe how some rights are subsequently ceded to a sovereign authority (i.e. a government) to help preserve a state of peace. Many would agree that Hobbes starts to go overboard in his calls for absolute authority. At the premise, though, is that these rights are ceded for protection (the enhanced possibility of the preservation of ones' life via maintenance of peace) to a governing authority. Yet, this ceding of rights and political obligation to a sovereign authority ends when it endangers one's life.
So, remember the test? We currently live in a country which presently and historically has not accorded so much liberty against other men (people) as one would allow against oneself. The liberties of people of color, of women, and of many other marginalized and oppressed groups (read: not wealthy, cis-gendered white men) have been restricted to less than that of wealthy, cis-gendered white men. Again, it is important to remember intersectionality. But by and large, brown and black lives have been de-valued in this country in favor of white lives. Have been treated as lesser, and the rights (liberty) of those with pale skin have been and remain greater in practice across the board. Perhaps, in theory, all have the same liberties, perhaps in theory oppressed groups have liberties that would treat them as white men prefer to be treated. But that is not how things presently or historically have operated. That's not how our system operates now, or plans to operate. And when you look at literal law, often those liberties are unequal as well, writing unequal treatment into word.
On top of that, very often our governing authority places the lives of oppressed peoples in danger. It does so either directly, through law, and through force, and also in the embodiment of hateful rhetoric from one group against the existence of another group. (So, for example, when a president elect does not vehemently denounce the endorsement of the KKK, that would be the authority threatening the lives of people of color. Likewise when a vice-president elect endorses hateful rhetoric such as conversion therapy and anti-LGBTQ+ legislation known to jeopardize the lives of LGBTQ+ individuals).
This goes against the very premise of our social contract. It de-legitimizes it. (Not that a founding on land theft, genocide, rape, and slavery does not also, perhaps, de-legitimize the United States just a bit!)
Now, some aspects of entering a social contract are tacit or assumed. You're born into a country and you live there as a citizen, so guess what, you've probably accepted the social contract of that country. However, again, that contract assumes so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself as a primary stipulation for entering the contract. White folks, can you honestly say that this country accords so much liberty to people of color as it does to you? Men, can you honestly say that this country accords so much liberty to women as it does to you? Rich folks, can you honestly say that this country accords so much liberty to the poor or middle class as it does to you? Straight, cis-gendered folks, can you honestly say that this country accords so much liberty to LGBTQ+ individuals as it does to you? I could go on. (And if you answered yes to those rhetorical questions, then you need to listen to the experiences of those unlike yourself).
The United States is very literally violating the most basic prescript of the contract for its existence. The government to whom we have ceded some rights for the sake of protection as a sovereign authority -- guess what, again and again it puts the lives of many of its citizens in danger. Literally. When it incarcerates people of color for minor offenses? (Black men and native peoples, for example, are far overrepresented in prisons and are far more likely to experience police brutality). When a government-appointed or government-supported force shoots, strangles, or otherwise physically assaults someone unduly, unjustly, or excessively, someone it is sworn to protect? That is not according the same liberty as a white man would likely experience under the law. Nor is it protecting the lives of those it systematically discriminates against.
This is what I cannot move past: the United States has failed and continues to fail the test. This election was not only a test of the decency of the White-populace of this country and whether White people are still crazy (which, fyi, we failed. Still crazy. Still hateful. Still myopic). (8) It was also a test of the legitimacy of the United States over all. A nation that does not follow its most basic prescripts is not a Nation. It is an oppressive state. It is in a state of war, not in a state of peace.
If, over the next four years, those who are oppressed are particularly resistant, then remember that. Remember that each of us has an inherent right to the protection of our life, based on the founding principles of this country's philosophy. Remember that the president-elect outright embodies the illegitimacy I have discussed, that threat against lives and that unequal liberty. Past presidents and administrations have all failed as well. There is not a single president or administration, I would argue, that has truly upheld so much liberty against other men as she/he/they would allow other men against themselves and which has not placed black and brown lives, women's lives, LGBTQ+ lives, the lives of the differently-abled in danger, though some have done far better than others. If there are many of us who are exceptionally pissed that the president elect doesn't even attempt to uphold a façade of protection for lives unlike his own and equal liberty as he affords himself, know that anger is justified. Know that it has gone on long enough. Know that, even though other administrations might have failed, some at least were improving the systems. Even if marginally. The promises of the president elect donald trump do no such thing, in word, in action, or in intent.
Do not expect us to easily forgive or trust those who voted against our lives and liberty or did not care enough to vote at all when we were in jeopardy and needed your help. Do not expect us to submit quietly to a sovereign authority or governing authority who violates the safety of our lives. Do not expect us to submit quietly to a sovereign/governing authority, or to sign on to a contract, that does not respect the equality of its citizens. Do not expect us to contentedly follow a contract that is meant to protect us, too, and that has demonstrably failed to do so.
This is not normal. It has never been normal.
----------------------------------------------
Footnotes:
1: Not you, white dudes! Especially not you, rich cis-gendered white dudes. And white women, you best listen up too. If you disagree and think that White people are facing oppression, I'd like to engage in a productive and respectful conversation with you about privilege, bias, discrimination, oppression, racism, sexism, and history. There are also many great resources out there, written from the perspectives of those who live with and experience oppression in many forms. I'm happy to help guide you to the extent of your respectfulness and my ability.
2: True respect for life, not pro-life bullshit that reveres a bundle of cells, and then turns a blind-eye when a child is born, based on a criteria of skin color, sex, and privilege.
3: Chris Rock also demonstrated, unfortunately, the complexity of issues of race and sex in subsequent statements; when he hosted the Oscars, and made offensive jokes at the expense of Asian and Asian-American communities and belittled frustrations over unequal treatment of women in Hollywood. But his statements on progress nonetheless make a very important point.
4: This means you, white folks. This means you, men. This especially means you, rich white folks. (This means you too, white women, though I would've hoped you possessed slightly more empathy). You all benefit from systematic oppression. Lots of folks would love if ya'll had an ethical awakening and committed yourself to equality and equity! I'm not holding my breath. But I would be pleased to be proven wrong in my lack of faith in you for once.
5: For example, the Iroquois Confederacy is one of the oldest participatory democracies and the "founding fathers" and the U.S. constitution were both very clearly influenced by it and by the long traditions and existing systems of Native Nations, even though this continues to be overlooked or down-played in favor of Western (European) influences.
6: He uses the word "men", which is often used to refer to people or humans in general. But, given the time period, most likely he is thinking of male-identified and not in terms of "human", which always pisses me off as a woman, but let's continue.
7: The property introduction and philosophy, for me, is where things get especially frustrating with Locke because it has been used as a major legitimization for the theft of land in North America, and by Anglo- and Western colonizing forces in many parts of the world. Basically, Locke's property involves the input of "work." Because Anglo- and Western colonizers did not define Native peoples and Native Nations uses of the land as "work", this argument was used to justify that the land was up for the taking. All of which is a ridiculous and fraudulent justification on many levels.
8: I put this test on White people because an alarming 58% of white voters voted for trump in contrast to only 21% of "non-whites" for trump, a man and campaign that explicitly used racist, sexist language and whose platform and policies explicitly jeopardize equal liberty. There is no way you can convince me that it is ethically acceptable to have voted for trump. Men also failed this test. 53% of men voted for trump. (Here's the breakdown) I also put this test on the approximate 45% of eligible voters who did not vote. (Among that percentage, I want to clearly exempt those who were eligible to vote but were prevented from voting by restrictive or discriminatory voting laws or whose polling places were moved without warning, for example, or other forces against their will. The test is pointedly with those who willingly did not vote)
RSS Feed
