Persisting inequalities : why the wealth, prosperity and behaviours of individuals and countries are trapped in a disparate paradox, and why there is seemingly nothing we can do about it.
 | ||
AARUSH LAL
In the midst of the repetitive cycle of lockdown life, newspaper headlines from around the world begin to fill with reports of an outrageous occurrence of inequality, and a lack of justice. A police officer has knelt down on another man’s neck, and maintained his act until the other died. One might shudder in horror, proclaim the unfairness of the event, yet might then look away, dismissing the act as an inevitable one. Yet, then protests start to come about, first small and intimate, yet then more peaceful marches and demonstrations, before an undeniably rapid swarm of countrywide events break out, and the realisation appears that something different is at play here.
The difference about George Floyd’s death was that it was in Minnesota, America’s tenth richest state, and one whose prosperity is growing. The difference was that it was carried out in a country where democratic institutions are in place, and promises of the government to protect the equality and freedoms of its citizens are in place. The difference was that it occurred in the open, in the public eye, without any attempt to cover it.
As followers of this event, we have been enlightened about the true state of inequalities which really exist in a country which promises its citizens inclusive political and economic institutions, consisting of pluralism and freedom of opportunity for all, a country which promises its immigrants the infamous hope of the ‘American Dream.’ The world has been grasped by the innateness of America’s racial inequality, an innateness which becomes more obvious when the situation of Amy Cooper is considered. Whilst jogging with her dog in a New York park, Ms Cooper acted to threaten a black gentleman that she would inform 911 that “an African- American man is threatening my life,”. The gentleman, Christian Cooper, had simply asked her to abide by the park’s rules, and place her dog on a leash. This blatantly race centred threat highlights the issue at stake perfectly; threats can be used to bring about discrimination between the US’s majority white population, and minority black population, and that the centre of these threats is the police force.
It has been claimed that no such issues about racial discrepancies exist by the US’s apparent experts, such as President Trump’s national security advisor Robert O’Brien, with his claim that no such “systematic racism” exists in the US police force, though he has conceded that some police officers, although “not all”, may obtain racist tendencies. Whilst his latter comment is one of an obvious nature, it seems to paradoxically disprove his former claim, as do the figures we have available to us. The research carried out by ‘the Economist’ has revealed that out of the 1,000 civilians killed by the US police force each year (which simultaneously presents the issue of police brutality against the masses, but that is an issue for another time), black men are three times more likely than their white counterparts to be staring down the event of a doomful end at the hands of the police. Perhaps even more strikingly, brutality at the hands of a police officer has been reported to be the sixth most prominent cause of death of African male figures. Inequalities in terms of the US police’s treatment of black figures is a growing issue, profound and undeniable.
A common response would blame such brutality and harsh treatment on the claim that more crimes are committed amongst or by black males, yet, even if such a claim was a true one, ultimately the discrepancies which exist between the livelihoods and living standards of America’s white and black populations help explain differences in crime rates. Ultimately, 20% of America’s black families have a negative net worth, whilst far less than 10% of the white families of the US have such a low net worth. Furthermore, the mean net housing wealth for white property owners stands at $215.8 thousand, compared to that of black owners being at less than half of this figure, at $94.4 thousand. Such discrepancies form a seemingly endless list.
Yet, an observer of these statistics could proclaim that such inequalities should reverse as time wears on; as a nation with high numbers of inclusive economic institutions (institutions which allow members of the populace to have a fair chance to become involved in economic activity due to high levels of economic pluralism), surely prosperity differences can just reverse if the country’s black minority contribute to the country’s economic activity. This is a plausible argument, yet is a solution which can not be stumbled upon for one reason: the actions of the US judicial and federal systems.
President Trump has recently commented that his leadership has done more to improve the rights and livelihoods of the US’s Black populace than Richard Nixon, and whilst an observation of the figures above suggests that the President’s proclamation is a mere attempt at propaganda, he does make a fair point about the successes of the Nixon administration. Following similar protests around the theme of racial discrepancies in 1968, strides were made by Nixon towards more equality, yet such strides were only possible due to the presence of strict liability in trials and hearings regarding racial inequalities. In a bid to quash protests, this procedure meant that any evidence signalling a sense of inequality or discrimination was enough to rule a case in favour of a Black accuser, such was the attempt to diminish racial discrimination. Such a firm approach to the suppression of inequalities can not be seen to be in place today, due to the presence of a legal system where an accusation of racial inequalities and discrimination must be supported by evidence of intent. It has therefore grown increasingly difficult for cases of racial discrimination and discrepancies to yield some form of justice. Ultimately, many of the inequalities mentioned above have remained firmly lodged in place.
This is a rather implicit example of the judicial system standing in the way of a move towards more equality. Yet, we can observe a more explicit one when observing the handing out of sentences. Research by the economist, supported by the Office of national statistics, has reported that US judges are willing to provide a harsher punishment to an accused black figure, compared to one handed out to a white counterpart, for the same crime. Such a fact offers a shocking account of the workings of the American legal system, with the reason offered being that judges are less confident of a Black figure’s ability to pay a fine, or to stay away from future crime. “Systematic racism”, as O’Brien put it, seems to work its way to the forefront of the system.
Such acts of judges have profound impacts in the long run. Black figures being placed in confinement for longer reduces their opportunity to provide for their families, leading to the statistic that whilst 26.5% of white children receive inheritance from their parents, the same can only be said for 7% of black children (source: Federal Reserve Statistics of Consumer Finances). The acts of judges are thus jeopardising the futures of the younger generations of the US’s black youth populace, pointing towards inevitable future inequalities. Further, according to the ‘fairness’ theory of political obligation, since the US government is clearly thus failing to provide the black minority with rights and freedoms, such as the basic constitutional one to a fair trial, then the case can be argued that members of the black community have no obligation to obey the state. Dissenting and protests will continue to swarm, arrests and unequal sentencing will continue, and the US is ultimately in a position where it is stuck in the same inequality spiral its legal system has put in place. With the deep- entrenchment of the values of the US’s judges, such an issue seems to be one with a simple conclusion- ever- persisting inequalities.
It is important to explore the protests which have been occurring in the UK as well, many against the slave trade put in place in the early days of the British empire. Most notably, a statue of a British politician involved in the ways of the trade, Cecil Rhodes, was protested profusely against outside Oriel College, Oxford. These events have awakened realisation of the damage caused by Britain in many countries previously part of its empire, with the heavily extractive institutions which were put in placed damaging the long term prosperity of many of these nations. In fact, the Durban conference of 2001 proclaimed that reparations in the field of hundreds of trillions are owed by Britain to African nations. The morally correct outcome can be perceived to be some financial aid being provided to these nations, allowing desperately large inequalities in wealth to be solved.
Yet, it is highly unlikely that such aid will bring about any change in the prosperity of that country’s citizens. The extractive institutions in place essentially mean that any financial aid will only contribute to the wealth of the powerful and already wealthy figures of these nations. It seems as though the best service we can provide to the nations we have perhaps impoverished is to change the political institutions in place- establish more pluralism and opportunities, and ultimately inclusive institutions, so that we can improve the prosperity of these areas. Yet, even this mode of service has its issues, with the key one being whether we have the right to change the institutions of these countries. We have permitted these nations independence, freedom from imperial rule. This leaves the question of whether they will be willing to allow exterior interference in their political affairs, resulting in their political institutions which benefit their rich, and thus hamper the prosperity of the poorer many, will persist.
We are in a world of major inequalities, both domestic, as in the instance of the United States, and between differing countries. Yet, racial measures, coupled with their precarious nature to the topic of involvement in the political institutions of other countries, indicates that these will be difficult to reverse. The Dean of Warwick in London, Professor Abhinay Muthoo, has commented that perhaps careful inter-temporal co-operation is required between individuals and groups (in the case of the US), and countries (in the case of the UK and its former colonies). Is such a measure attainable? At this point, with inequalities in wealth, prosperity and thus behavioural patterns of such a stark nature across nations, it seems as though we might have to settle with our current situation. A world of equality and ultimately fairness seems a figure of the imagination.
The difference about George Floyd’s death was that it was in Minnesota, America’s tenth richest state, and one whose prosperity is growing. The difference was that it was carried out in a country where democratic institutions are in place, and promises of the government to protect the equality and freedoms of its citizens are in place. The difference was that it occurred in the open, in the public eye, without any attempt to cover it.
As followers of this event, we have been enlightened about the true state of inequalities which really exist in a country which promises its citizens inclusive political and economic institutions, consisting of pluralism and freedom of opportunity for all, a country which promises its immigrants the infamous hope of the ‘American Dream.’ The world has been grasped by the innateness of America’s racial inequality, an innateness which becomes more obvious when the situation of Amy Cooper is considered. Whilst jogging with her dog in a New York park, Ms Cooper acted to threaten a black gentleman that she would inform 911 that “an African- American man is threatening my life,”. The gentleman, Christian Cooper, had simply asked her to abide by the park’s rules, and place her dog on a leash. This blatantly race centred threat highlights the issue at stake perfectly; threats can be used to bring about discrimination between the US’s majority white population, and minority black population, and that the centre of these threats is the police force.
It has been claimed that no such issues about racial discrepancies exist by the US’s apparent experts, such as President Trump’s national security advisor Robert O’Brien, with his claim that no such “systematic racism” exists in the US police force, though he has conceded that some police officers, although “not all”, may obtain racist tendencies. Whilst his latter comment is one of an obvious nature, it seems to paradoxically disprove his former claim, as do the figures we have available to us. The research carried out by ‘the Economist’ has revealed that out of the 1,000 civilians killed by the US police force each year (which simultaneously presents the issue of police brutality against the masses, but that is an issue for another time), black men are three times more likely than their white counterparts to be staring down the event of a doomful end at the hands of the police. Perhaps even more strikingly, brutality at the hands of a police officer has been reported to be the sixth most prominent cause of death of African male figures. Inequalities in terms of the US police’s treatment of black figures is a growing issue, profound and undeniable.
A common response would blame such brutality and harsh treatment on the claim that more crimes are committed amongst or by black males, yet, even if such a claim was a true one, ultimately the discrepancies which exist between the livelihoods and living standards of America’s white and black populations help explain differences in crime rates. Ultimately, 20% of America’s black families have a negative net worth, whilst far less than 10% of the white families of the US have such a low net worth. Furthermore, the mean net housing wealth for white property owners stands at $215.8 thousand, compared to that of black owners being at less than half of this figure, at $94.4 thousand. Such discrepancies form a seemingly endless list.
Yet, an observer of these statistics could proclaim that such inequalities should reverse as time wears on; as a nation with high numbers of inclusive economic institutions (institutions which allow members of the populace to have a fair chance to become involved in economic activity due to high levels of economic pluralism), surely prosperity differences can just reverse if the country’s black minority contribute to the country’s economic activity. This is a plausible argument, yet is a solution which can not be stumbled upon for one reason: the actions of the US judicial and federal systems.
President Trump has recently commented that his leadership has done more to improve the rights and livelihoods of the US’s Black populace than Richard Nixon, and whilst an observation of the figures above suggests that the President’s proclamation is a mere attempt at propaganda, he does make a fair point about the successes of the Nixon administration. Following similar protests around the theme of racial discrepancies in 1968, strides were made by Nixon towards more equality, yet such strides were only possible due to the presence of strict liability in trials and hearings regarding racial inequalities. In a bid to quash protests, this procedure meant that any evidence signalling a sense of inequality or discrimination was enough to rule a case in favour of a Black accuser, such was the attempt to diminish racial discrimination. Such a firm approach to the suppression of inequalities can not be seen to be in place today, due to the presence of a legal system where an accusation of racial inequalities and discrimination must be supported by evidence of intent. It has therefore grown increasingly difficult for cases of racial discrimination and discrepancies to yield some form of justice. Ultimately, many of the inequalities mentioned above have remained firmly lodged in place.
This is a rather implicit example of the judicial system standing in the way of a move towards more equality. Yet, we can observe a more explicit one when observing the handing out of sentences. Research by the economist, supported by the Office of national statistics, has reported that US judges are willing to provide a harsher punishment to an accused black figure, compared to one handed out to a white counterpart, for the same crime. Such a fact offers a shocking account of the workings of the American legal system, with the reason offered being that judges are less confident of a Black figure’s ability to pay a fine, or to stay away from future crime. “Systematic racism”, as O’Brien put it, seems to work its way to the forefront of the system.
Such acts of judges have profound impacts in the long run. Black figures being placed in confinement for longer reduces their opportunity to provide for their families, leading to the statistic that whilst 26.5% of white children receive inheritance from their parents, the same can only be said for 7% of black children (source: Federal Reserve Statistics of Consumer Finances). The acts of judges are thus jeopardising the futures of the younger generations of the US’s black youth populace, pointing towards inevitable future inequalities. Further, according to the ‘fairness’ theory of political obligation, since the US government is clearly thus failing to provide the black minority with rights and freedoms, such as the basic constitutional one to a fair trial, then the case can be argued that members of the black community have no obligation to obey the state. Dissenting and protests will continue to swarm, arrests and unequal sentencing will continue, and the US is ultimately in a position where it is stuck in the same inequality spiral its legal system has put in place. With the deep- entrenchment of the values of the US’s judges, such an issue seems to be one with a simple conclusion- ever- persisting inequalities.
It is important to explore the protests which have been occurring in the UK as well, many against the slave trade put in place in the early days of the British empire. Most notably, a statue of a British politician involved in the ways of the trade, Cecil Rhodes, was protested profusely against outside Oriel College, Oxford. These events have awakened realisation of the damage caused by Britain in many countries previously part of its empire, with the heavily extractive institutions which were put in placed damaging the long term prosperity of many of these nations. In fact, the Durban conference of 2001 proclaimed that reparations in the field of hundreds of trillions are owed by Britain to African nations. The morally correct outcome can be perceived to be some financial aid being provided to these nations, allowing desperately large inequalities in wealth to be solved.
Yet, it is highly unlikely that such aid will bring about any change in the prosperity of that country’s citizens. The extractive institutions in place essentially mean that any financial aid will only contribute to the wealth of the powerful and already wealthy figures of these nations. It seems as though the best service we can provide to the nations we have perhaps impoverished is to change the political institutions in place- establish more pluralism and opportunities, and ultimately inclusive institutions, so that we can improve the prosperity of these areas. Yet, even this mode of service has its issues, with the key one being whether we have the right to change the institutions of these countries. We have permitted these nations independence, freedom from imperial rule. This leaves the question of whether they will be willing to allow exterior interference in their political affairs, resulting in their political institutions which benefit their rich, and thus hamper the prosperity of the poorer many, will persist.
We are in a world of major inequalities, both domestic, as in the instance of the United States, and between differing countries. Yet, racial measures, coupled with their precarious nature to the topic of involvement in the political institutions of other countries, indicates that these will be difficult to reverse. The Dean of Warwick in London, Professor Abhinay Muthoo, has commented that perhaps careful inter-temporal co-operation is required between individuals and groups (in the case of the US), and countries (in the case of the UK and its former colonies). Is such a measure attainable? At this point, with inequalities in wealth, prosperity and thus behavioural patterns of such a stark nature across nations, it seems as though we might have to settle with our current situation. A world of equality and ultimately fairness seems a figure of the imagination.