by Tyler Prochazka | Apr 4, 2018 | Opinion
The Basic Income Asia Pacific 2018 conference signaled a feeling of growing momentum of the basic income movement in Asia Pacific, particularly in Taiwan.
Over 100 attendees filled the two day conference in Taipei, along with thousands of viewers of the online livestream and simultaneous translations. The speaker roster this year featured an extensive list of international and Taiwanese scholars and personalities.
Enno Schmidt, the 2016 Swiss referendum leader, and Sarath Davala, the leader researcher for UNICEF’s Indian basic income trial, led the keynote speeches for day one and day two respectively.
Davala said he felt “electricity” during the conference.
“The UBI Asia Pacific Conference is an important milestone in the basic income movement. It is a high voltage moment that we in Asia will talk to our children about. The energy in the conference was amazing, and I was inspired to see young women and men from different universities in Taiwan all fired up about the idea of basic income,” Davala said.
Schmidt said it was clear the Taiwanese group had put in a lot of effort since last year’s conference.
“At this year’s UBI Asia Pacific Conference, it was noticeable that the UBI team had already been working for a full year. Sarath Davala from India gave a rousing speech, and Patrick Havermann from the United Nations Development Program in Asia would like to make the entire UN network available to spread the idea of the Basic Income,” Schmidt said.
Taiwanese media emphasized the conference’s focus on Taiwan’s recent changes to the referendum law, which has opened up the possibility for a basic income referendum in Taiwan.
Taiwan’s Digital Minister Audrey Tang opened the first day of the conference, noting that while she believes more research should be done on basic income in Taiwan, she supported the spirit of discussion at the conference.
“Indeed, to build a sound re-distribution mechanism to improve human welfare and equality — this is a timeless subject that needs continuous review and revisit,” Tang said.
The UN Development Program (UNDP) Asia Pacific Advisor Patrick Haverman, who has been leading an effort to work with regional governments to research basic income, opened the second day of the conference.
Haverman held a series of round-table discussions with Chinese scholars and officials on the possibility for a pilot program in China.
“In my work with UNDP, I have helped establish round-table meetings on basic income across the Asia Pacific with other UN agencies, academics, and government officials to start a discussion about UBI and explore the possibility of piloting an basic income project,” Haverman said. “The Basic Income Asia Pacific conference is good way to exchange information and to discuss how potentially UBI can address some of the most pressing challenges of our time, like inequality and automatization potentially taking over some of the current jobs.”
UBI Taiwan also presented the current state of their research on both days. The research group said their main focus is creating a framework for a universal Partial Basic Income (PBI) that would gradually phase into a full basic income over a decade. The English overview of their research can be found here.
The proposal would increase taxes by five percent of Taiwan’s GDP and could provide 3,000 NTD ($102 USD) to every Taiwanese citizen.
Jiaguan Su, UBI Taiwan’s Research Director, said the scholars who had met with the research team to discuss the national proposal were “impressed,” and that their main takeaway is that the proposal must emphasize the values of UBI.
“The most important lesson we took from the conference is we must promote the core values of UBI Taiwan through the national proposal. Namely, UBI is for everyone, not just a specific group of people. Our research should focus on this value in order to demonstrate UBI’s ability to promote democracy and human rights in Taiwan,” Su said.
Jason Hsu, a KMT (Nationalist Party) legislator in Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan, spoke at the first day of the conference. Taiwan media reported that Hsu is considering raising the subject of basic income with large Taiwanese companies.
James Davis, a Columbia University student and UBI Taiwan Field Research Director, interviewed Andrew Yang, the 2020 US presidential candidate running on a basic income platform for the conference. Yang is ethnically Taiwanese and said he was excited by the discussion of basic income in Taiwan.
“UBI Taiwan is fighting the good fight. I was honored to contribute to the BIAP conference because job automation has the potential to seriously hurt Taiwanese workers – and American workers – if universal basic income doesn’t become a reality soon,” Yang said.
Davis also interviewed Qin Gao for the conference, the Columbia University professor who has written a book on China’s cash transfer program, dibao. Gao is the director of China Center for Social Policy at Columbia. Gao noted the problems and stigmatization that arise from some of the means-testing conditions on China’s cash program.
Andy Stern, the former President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and former advisor to President Barack Obama, has been a consistent advocate of basic income in the United States and has provided advice and support to UBI Taiwan over the last several months.
“The clarity of UBI Taiwan’s vision and the tremendous work of its fellows is astounding. The time for universal basic income policies is now, not later. And the world is lucky to have UBI Taiwan on the vanguard of the global debate, designing UBI policy in practical, politically feasible ways,” Stern said.
National Chengchi University (NCCU) and National Taiwan University were the locations for the event this year. NCCU’s International Master’s Program in Asia Pacific Studies (IMAS) was the main organizer for the event. UBI Taiwan provided the volunteer team.
The U.S. State Department’s Critical Language Scholarship program provided a grant through its Alumni Development Fund to support the event to Prochazka, Elyse Mark, and Davis.
Tyler Prochazka, UBI Taiwan’s co-founder, was the director for the conference along with Dongyan Wu, UBI Taiwan’s Public Relations Director. Prochazka and Wu will appear on Taiwan television in April and May.
Ping Xu, UBI Taiwan’s co-founder, said she was excited by the results of the conference, particularly the connections made between different opinion leaders from around the region and within Taiwan.
“It was great success to have many influential opinion leaders from political, medical and social fields participate in the conference. This was a brand new milestone to help build the UBI movement in Taiwan,” Xu said.
Davala said the conference was a positive sign for the future of Taiwan’s UBI movement.
“UBI Taiwan, within a short period has been able to inspire and mobilize hundreds of students to stand up for an idea that is often dismissed as Utopian and impractical. Taiwan could very well be the first Asian country to go for a referendum on Unconditional Basic Income,” Davala siad.
The livestreams and simultaneous translation broadcasts can be found on UBI Taiwan’s Facebook. For the conference’s Twitter stream, go here.
by Karl Widerquist | Mar 28, 2018 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This essay was originally published in the USBIG NewsFlash in September 2009.
Many people believe that the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend is an idea ready to export—a model that should be copied around the world. Two U.S. Senators have gotten the idea that the Alaska model is ready to be copied, not by the country over which the U.S. Senate has jurisdiction but by Iraq instead.
Last January, John Ensign (Republican-Nevada) introduced the “Support for Iraq Oil Trust Act” of 2009. According to the official summary of the bill, it would force the U.S. State Department to present a plan for an oil trust fund (based on the Alaska model) to the Iraqi government, and it threatens to reduce U.S. aid to Iraq if the U.S. Secretary of State fails to do so.
The bill picked up one cosponsor, Senator Evan Bayh (Democrat-Indiana). No further action has been taken on the bill since it was referred to committee in January, and probably the bill will die in committee.
But the bill has received negative attention from press in the Persian Gulf region. Saadallah Fathi, writing for GulfNews.com (based in Dubai) sees the bill as an effort to pressure the Iraqi government to adopt a policy that is not well-suited for Iraq’s situation.
Whatever the value the Alaska model might have for Iraq, this bill is probably the wrong way to export the idea. The U.S. government could make a greater effort to lead by example. If the Alaska Permanent Fund is a model to be copied, the Senate might consider copying the model itself by creating a Federal U.S. Permanent Fund. Copying the model yourself seems much more reasonable than trying to influence someone else (a sovereign foreign government) to copy the model.
The United States is resource-rich. It has the potential to create a very large Alaska-style fund using taxes on resource exploitation, such as mining, drilling, forestry, carbon emissions, and real estate. If the senators are right that the Alaska-model is ready to be copied, they might consider implementing it first in their own jurisdiction.
-Karl Widerquist, Doha, Qatar, August 2009
For Saadallah Fathi’s article in the Gulf News, go to:
https://www.gulfnews.com/business/Comment_and_Analysis/10322760.html
by Guest Contributor | Mar 28, 2018 | Opinion
Written by Michael Laitman
Michael Laitman
Sadly, 33,000 Toys ‘R’ Us employees are about to be let go. They’ll pack that family vacation picture from their office wall in a brown cardboard box, take a toy or two for keepsakes, and, begrudgingly, go home. They will be joining a growing list of hundreds of thousands of people who are losing their jobs, not because they need to improve their performance or their work ethic, but simply because they are no longer needed.
More and more products are being manufactured using robots, which is more cost-effective for companies, as well as cheaper for consumers, who can order online with a swipe of a finger. Toys ‘R’ Us is only one example of the virtual-technological tsunami that is washing over the business world. It appears in the form giant corporations such as Amazon, Alibaba, Google and their trade partners, trampling every area of commerce possible: retail, banking, clothing, food, advertising and more. This wave doesn’t stop at the private sector; it’s washing away the public sector as well. For instance, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos and Jamie Dimon are already on a joint venture to reinvent healthcare.
While it may seem like a silent revolution, these changes promise a socio-economic earthquake the likes of which humanity has never seen before. The virtual-technological future is gradually taking over the very foundations of the global economy and businesses are having to adjust to the change. From small things like providing virtual collaboration training for their employees to implementing more efficient computing operations, technology is changing every industry.
It is becoming normal to talk about robots replacing human labor, but we still have not yet acknowledged the magnitude of this change. Many politicians, economists, and analysts are seeing this as another industrial revolution that comes with labor pains, giving birth to a whole slew of new professions, and are predicting that a newly booming economy will emerge as a result. The use of machinery is always needed in manufacturing circles, that is why universal mills, CNC machines, lathe machines, etc. are constantly evolving to assist in as many areas as possible, hopefully not to entirely take over jobs just yet. Machines play a huge part in this industry, no matter how they are used, so it is important for them to function as a unit and provide what is needed of them. When they have to be moved, fixed, or changed, the use of equipment like Custom Skates as well as other supplies, are needed to keep everything efficiently moving along.
Surely, this is an encouraging view, but it is based on a limited understanding of new technologies being developed at an exponential speed. Even today, we could automate 45% of the activities people are paid to perform in the U.S. with existing technologies.
It’s not about the advanced machinery that replaces our hands and feet at work. It’s about the artificial intelligence being developed to gradually replace human intelligence. AI will think creatively, produce, analyze, develop, program, and work many times more efficiently than the most gifted employee, all the while being many times cheaper and easy to operate.
Artificial intelligence can learn and self-upgrade much faster than a person’s ability to retrain, and will eventually replace human labor everywhere: scientists, doctors, programmers, designers, financial experts, human resource managers. Only a fraction of the workforce will be required to operate and calibrate the various smart machines and advanced software.
Let’s Revolutionize Society – Without the Pitchforks
If you can fathom the future of technology, you can immediately spot the upcoming social crisis. Masses will go into indefinite unemployment, and modern economics will have no answers for them. Current economic models can hardly deal with a 15% unemployment rate. What’s going to happen when we hit 30%, 40% and 50% unemployment? That is unaccounted for in current economics.
If we settle for positive thinking, hoping this upheaval will somehow result in a new booming economy, we run the risk of a mass unemployment crisis. If masses of people have no hope of providing for their basic necessities, they will not sit calmly at home. Without hope, people could default to violence, extremism and support of radical leaders who will offer economic safety in order to come to power, as we have seen in the past.
Alternatively, if we plan in advance, we can revolutionize society – without a revolution. The sooner we acknowledge the inevitable redesign of our socio-economic infrastructure, in a way that jobs will no longer exist in the same sense as before, we will come to grips with the necessity to provide for the basic needs of all members of society.
Whether we do it through some form of Universal Basic Income, or any other technical mechanism, we must understand that a change of social values is the core issue at hand: Every country’s leadership must acknowledge that looking out for the basic needs of every citizen-food, shelter, clothing, education and health-is their top priority.
But what will people give back to society? If only few man-hours will be necessary to maintain the machines, what will human beings do? They will be busy “being human,” which means developing themselves, their families, their societies and all that makes us human rather than robots.
The Real Driver of Technology Is Human Evolution
The so-called “technological revolution” is not accidental, and it’s not actually technological. It’s an evolutionary revolution. Its purpose is the evolution of human society. It will help us step out of the endless rat race, fueled by a material obsession that doesn’t actually make us happy; a chase around the clock that has created a society of little cogs in giant corporations, accumulating stress and rust, while losing touch with one another and ourselves.
Instead of investing our collective energy into working like machines, we could be engaging in the only work that makes humans different from machines. In a society freed from the cyclical chase for material acquisition, we would invest a large portion of our time on a daily basis, investigating, exercising, and developing the sense of the natural human connection that binds us together. One method to realize our potential as human beings at the workplace is to engage in a variety of activities that are not directly related to work. Let’s say you’re at an event hosted by Uniqueworld destination management companies or something similar, and you get a glimpse of how employers function outside of the office. This could give you an outlook on what all you can do as an employer that might benefit your company.
When masses of people are doing this regularly-as their new job-a new society will undoubtedly emerge. Its product will be the positive social energy required to preserve societal balance. It will be a society whose members’ daily work is to maintain the sense of unity and solidarity that prevent violence and extremism, allowing human beings to live together in productive peace.
This work can be done in unlimited creative ways, where people can apply their passion and desire, as long as they contribute to a warm social climate. But it has to start from fundamental training and education on the science of human connection, learning how positive social connections make us healthier, happier and better at everything we do.
Surely, all of the above sounds foreign in a world where we have been trained by advertisers to chase things we don’t need in order to impress people we can’t connect with. But when material needs are taken care of, human nature demands a deeper, more meaningful type of satisfaction. It’s no coincidence that happiness studies show time after time that healthy social relations are the number one predictor of human flourishing.
Our evolutionary social development pushes us to utilize our wiring for human connection, to distill it through constant work on our relationships, and evolve to a new social reality. Rather than competing with robots for an old school job, let’s make our job the only function that no robot will ever replace, and find the kind of happiness that money will never buy.
Michael Laitman is a Professor of Ontology, a PhD in Philosophy and Kabbalah, an MSc in Medical Bio-Cybernetics, and was the prime disciple of Kabbalist, Rav Baruch Shalom Ashlag (the RABASH). He has written over 40 books, which have been translated into dozens of languages.
Featured image from Wikipedia.
Editing by Dawn Howard
by Karl Widerquist | Mar 21, 2018 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This essay was originally published in the USBIG NewsFlash in August 2009.
If I use the phrase “lesson of 1938,” most people will probably think about Britain’s unsuccessful attempt to avoid war with Nazi Germany by giving away a piece of Czechoslovakia. There are important lessons in that event, but that’s not what I want to talk about.
1938 was also an important year in American economic history, and the economic lesson of that year is relevant to our handling of the global recession today. By 1937, the Great Depression had been going on for eight years. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs had been stimulating the economy for five years, and they began to show significant signs of working. Industrial production and national income were coming back up. Employment was going back down. The economy appeared to be just about out of the depression—
—and then—
Roosevelt and Congress decided to balance the budget. They raised taxes. They reduced government spending. They contracted the money supply and helped send the economy back into depression by 1938, and it remained in recession for three more years. Unemployment was still 10 percent when the United States entered World War II at the end of 1941. At that point, the government started spending massive amounts of money. They worried less about the budget deficit and more about spending what it takes to do the job. The depression disappeared almost overnight.
The economic lesson of 1938 is that the government cannot balance the budget during a major recession—even in the early stages of recovery. A depressed economy needs a stimulus. Although politicians usually won’t say it out loud, a stimulus often requires not only spending but deficit spending. One of the things that turn a financial crisis into a recession is that people and businesses stop spending in a reinforcing cycle. They can’t afford to spend because they’re not making money. They’re not making money because no one else is spending. Only the government has the size and budget flexibility to break the cycle. In a financial recession, concern for the government’s budget deficit can wait.
The government can get away with deficit spending because the government budget doesn’t work like an individual’s budget or even a corporation’s budget. Government creates the money supply; its spending is not limited to what it takes in or what it can borrow. If you or I spend more than we can get, we will go broke. The government doesn’t have to “get” money. It creates money. If the government creates too much money at any given time, it will overstimulate the economy and create inflation. If inflation becomes a problem, we can take action, by say, taxing some of that money back, but for now it is not a major concern. At a time like this, when resources are going unused because no one’s buying, the government as a lot of leeway to create and spend money without worry of inflation.
We should be more concerned with making sure that the direct beneficiaries of government stimulus are the people most in need. Too often the government stimulates the economy by helping corporations (such as investment banks, automobile manufacturers, and defense contractors), telling us that the stimulus will indirectly make its way to help those who actually need help.
A more effective way to stimulate the economy and help people is with universal programs. Universal healthcare or a universal basic income guarantee would be excellent ways to do so.
-Karl Widerquist, Doha, Qatar August 9, 2009
by Karl Widerquist | Mar 14, 2018 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This essay was originally published in the USBIG NewsFlash in May 2009.
The global recession has been spreading and deepening for nearly a year. It could become the worst downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and it has captured nearly all of the attention we, our media, and our leaders pay to economic issues. Perhaps we’re paying too much attention to it. I want to convince you in this editorial that a recession—even a major depression—is not an economic problem of the first magnitude. Our most pressing economic problems are distribution, and they exist whether we are in recession or not. Recessions appear to be a major problem primarily because we allow existing distributional problems to get worse during recessions.
To see my argument, imagine that you lived through the entire Twentieth Century. You were born on January 1st, 1900 and died exactly 100 years later on January 1st, 2000. During all of that time, you were a member of a representative American family of three with an income equal to the average U.S. income for a family of that size.
I have included figures below of average income per person and per family of three for the entire Twentieth Century. The appendix includes a table with the background data for these figures as well as some information about the percentage changes you’re looking it. Don’t fear all these numbers. I’ll just ask you to glance at it and take a closer look at a few important ones. These figures are “adjusted for inflation” meaning that they are reported in 2008 prices. It is notoriously difficult to adjust for inflation in a world in which the prices of different goods are changing at different rates, new products are being introduced, and old products are being discontinued. Adjusting for inflation is much more subjective than most economists let on, but these figures represent our best guess about how to do it.
Financially, your imaginary family did awfully well during the Twentieth Century. A simple glance at the graph shows that your family’s income goes up and down, but mostly up. Your family’s income started at about $20,000 in 1900. It rose sporadically to reach $136,000 in 1999. That an increase of more than 577 percent—almost six times what your family made the day you were born. In the early years you could not have afford a computer, television, and many things we now take for granted, but your family’s $20,000 income would have been more than enough to pay for a home, for food, and for clothing for the whole family. At no time in that 100 year period would your family have had any difficulty securing its basic needs, and you were able to consume many luxuries as well.
Figure 1: GDP per family of three for the Twentieth Century
THIS FIGURE FAILED TO UPLOAD.
Figure 2:
GDP per capita for the Twentieth Century
THIS FIGURE FAILED TO UPLOAD.
Your income didn’t rise every year; it fluctuated with the business cycle. Glance down the third column of the appendix table. That shows the percentage change in your income from year to year. The years when your income dropped (shown in bold) are the recession years. In the first half of the Twentieth Century, the business cycle was volatile. Your income could go down 9 percent one year and up 10 percent the next. But if you look at the graph, you see that the only downturn that looks terribly significant was the period of 1930-1933, when over four years your family’s income declined from by nearly 25% from $34,093 to $23,607.
You might be tempted to think that 1945-1947 was worse because your income declined by a greater percentage in a shorter time. To see that this isn’t so, you have to realize that there is a lot this table doesn’t show. I doesn’t show how hard you are working, how much you want to work, and what you’re working for. You had a great increase in your income during the years 1940-1945, but that was largely because you were working extra hard for the goal of winning the Second World War. The decline from 1945 to 1947 mostly reflects that you no longer needed to work so hard because the war was won. Your income in 1947 (after 3-years of decline) was still more than 25% percent higher than 1940 and 85% higher than in 1933. You were actually doing just fine in that year.
The depression was different. You didn’t want to work any less in those years, but as a representative American, you were unemployed 25% of the time in 1933. This would have been difficult for your family. You might have had to sell some of your luxuries or move into a smaller home. But your inflation-adjusted income was still more than 16 percent higher than when you were born. If you could feed, cloth, and house your family in 1900, you could do so in 1933 and you could have spent all of your additional income on luxuries that you couldn’t afford in 1900. As a representative American family, you were not in financial distress even in the depths of the Great Depression. There would have been no reason for a member of your family to stand in a bread line or head to California in search of work as a migrant farm laborer.
After 1950, the business cycle became even less of a problem for you and your family. You experienced the occasional 1 or 2 percent decline, but such a small decline would have been barely noticeable, especially with your income being 300% or 400% higher than a few decades earlier. The worst recessions such as in the mid 70s and early 80s caused less than a 3 percent drop in your income. That might have slowed your accumulation of savings or caused you to put off buying a new luxury for a year or two, but no more than that.
The current recession might well cause national income to drop by 6 percent this year. Suppose it goes on, and we experience a decline similar to the Great Depression, say lowering national income to 20 percent less than it was in 1999. That would bring the income of our representative American family down to $109,509—higher than in the boom year of 1987. That means, even if we suffer the worst depression since the 1930s, we will still have a greater technical capacity to feed, clothe, house, and provide luxuries our people than we did in the boom year of 1987. If we dealt with such a crisis sensibly, it would affect only our consumption of luxuries, not necessities.
These facts illustrate the point that I’m trying to make: if we keep in mind the truly important economic issues, recessions are something we can easily handle. The most important thing about your income is not whether it rises or falls by a few percentage points in a given year, but that’s all a recession is. The most important thing is not even that your income grows over time, although a growing income is always nice. Actually, the most important thing about your income is that it meets your needs.
Our main concern about the national economy should be same the same as each individual’s main concern about his or her own income. Before worrying about the bankers, or about the rise or fall of an abstract figure like GDP, we should ask ourselves: how can we secure food, housing, clothing, medical care, and education for everyone? Whether we are in a recession or not has little to do with our answer to that question. Going back to 1776, there has never been a time when America lacked the economic capacity to secure every citizen’s needs. Nor was there a time when it was even close. This fact is not unique to America. Economist Amartya Sen has found evidence that there has not been a famine in modern history in which any nation actually lacked the economic capacity to feed its citizens. Modern famines have all been caused by mal-distribution of plentiful resources.
Sen’s observation is true only for modern history, not for all of human history. The Norse in Greenland, the Mayan Empire, the Easter Islanders and other societies all apparently experienced episodes in which they simply could not feed their people. But these were environmental disasters, not financial depressions. Once we solve the important economic problems of how to secure our needs without screwing up our environment, even a severe depression means no more than a fluctuation in our accumulation of luxuries. Distribution of necessities is what is important, not a 10 percent fluctuation in our ability to produce luxuries. A recession is a trivial issue for the nation as a whole; it is a minor fluctuation in output. This could and should cause no more than a pause in our accumulation of luxuries.
Of course, what actually happens during recessions is significant: more people are in poverty; more people are homeless; more people lack their necessities; more people have reason to fear economic security. All of this is true, but it is only true because we allow it to happen. We had the technical capacity to eliminate economic deprivation in the recession years of 1982 and 1992 just as we did in the boom years of 1987 and 1999. We did not do solve these problems in boom years and we let them get worse in recession years. A recession cannot hurt anyone in a significant way unless we let it. The tragedy is that we let it.
-Karl Widerquist, begun in Reykjavik, Iceland, completed in Oxford, UK, May 2009
Appendix: GDP per capita and per family of three in constant 2008 dollars for the Twentieth Century
by Karl Widerquist | Mar 7, 2018 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This essay was originally published in the USBIG NewsFlash in February 2009.
Like millions of people around the world, I watched Obama’s inaugural last month and saw the panning shots of huge crowds against the backdrop of the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. This image made me think not only about Washington and Lincoln but also Martin Luther King, Jr. and the pictures of the crowds listening to his “I Have a Dream” Speech. The fact that that picture from the center of U.S. capital brings to mind those three names, shows how much the racial divide has affected U.S. history.
There is a line on the Washington Monument about a third of the way up to where the stone slightly changes colors. Tour guides say that this line is there because construction was halted during the Civil War, and builders couldn’t find a perfect match for the original stone when construction resumed. There is something fitting about that. Slavery disfigures Washington’s legacy. Washington made it clear that he knew slavery was wrong, as did Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and many other revolutionary leaders. But none of them found a way to put an end to it. Instead, they set us on a path that led to the Civil War, and to the racial divide that Lincoln and King dreamed of resolving.
With the election of Obama, the United States became the first majority-white nation to elect a black chief executive. I think most Americans of both parties are rightly proud of that. Ideally, there should be nothing special about electing a member of a minority group, but for more than two centuries, America chose all of its presidents because they were white men. This time we didn’t. Certainly, our willingness to put a black man in charge indicates that racism isn’t as strong as it was 50 years ago when few whites would accept a black in any position of authority over them. Maybe white racial identity will no never be a prerequisite for political success in the United States.
The election of a black president is probably the most significant in a long series of small victories in the struggle against racism in America, but it doesn’t mean racism is over. Familiar racist incidents are still happening. On election night three white supremacists set fire to a predominately African-American church in Massachusetts. On New Year’s Day, a police officer in California shot an unarmed black man who was being held down on the ground by another police officer. In three states, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, more than 85% of whites voted for the white candidate and more than 85% of blacks voted for the black candidate. Such racially polarized voting has to indicate a continuing problem with racism.
And, as Rev. Joseph Lowery reminded us in his benediction at Obama’s inaugural, oppression isn’t about any one group. It would not be a victory for equality if European-Americans lost all prejudice against African-Americans only to single out some other group such as Arab-Americans, women, gays, Muslims, or Jehovah’s Witnesses. But comparing the United States today to where it was 50 years ago, I think members of almost every group that has suffered from prejudice would say we have made significant progress.
How will we know when we have won? I’ll offer two thoughts. First, ask a member of the oppressed group. Ask many. Don’t tell anybody else when their problems are solved; let them tell you. Second, maybe oppression is over when we have no more ghettos. As long as children still grow up in large concentrations of poverty, despair, and danger, we still have oppressed people whatever their identity.
I think this is why Martin Luther King turned to the Poor People’s Campaign in the last year of his life. Nominal legal equality was largely achieved by the Civil Rights legislation of the mid-60s, and King recognized that economic and social barriers were now the main obstacle to real equality and freedom. King proposed a host of economic reforms, including a basic income guarantee, not to reduce—but to eliminate—poverty, because by then poverty was the greatest source of oppression in America. It remains so today.
I think we can celebrate an important achievement, but we should remember that we have lot more to do to build a society free from oppression.
-Karl Widerquist, Reading UK, January 2009
