By Steven J. Grisafi, PhD.
Can we agree upon a definition of racism? It appears to me that we cannot. Ask Google the question: What is racism? What you will find are definitions that include the distinction that the motivation for the discrimination is based upon a belief of inferiority for the victim of the discrimination. Do you really believe that the motive is always a belief of inferiority for the victim? Or is it merely discrimination upon being different? Do the Danes think the Italians are inferior to themselves so that they refuse to share European debt with the Italians? Or do they refuse to share debt because they (erroneously) believe the Italians to be profligate? It seems to me that a better definition of racism would be when a person makes all of his or her judgments regarding other persons based upon the other person’s race. This need not assume the inferiority of the other person. It merely assumes that the person is different in ways that cannot or won’t change. My point is that Americans call any instance of discrimination racism whenever it occurs between persons of different race. The reality is that the discrimination actually has a cultural basis. The person committing what is commonly called racism is actually making a cultural judgment regarding the other person. Why would one American perceive another as being culturally different? Because we insist upon it!
How much difference do the cultural distinctions of the Swedes make in comparison with those of the Italians? Or of the Germans in comparison to those of the Greeks? We do know that those differences appear to the Swedes and the Germans to be enough to make them unwilling to share debt. Isn’t everything just a matter of money? Yes, everything is just a matter of money because that is how we construct our societies. Money is the only form of compensation for transgression. I have struggled to understand why someone such as Prof. Syll of Malmoe University strongly opposes including Sweden within a European Union crafted in the manner of the United States of America. He refers to the European Union envisioned by persons such as me and President von der Leyden as an uberstate. In essence what he opposes is a government similar to our Federal government exerting authority over Sweden. Imagine Sweden as Pennsylvania and Italy as Alabama. Prof. Syll does not want Pennsylvania to share the same currency as Alabama. When Syrian refugees were flocking to Germany some Germans opposed this. Then the usual activists accused such persons of racism. But Syrians are no less Caucasians than Germans. A simple case of cultural discrimination was elevated to the level of abhorrent racism. The German activists were just mimicking the patterns they observe occurring here in the United States. It has become fashionable to scream racism at every perceived injustice.
George Floyd’s death had nothing to do with racism. A strong argument can be made that the police officers showed a callous indifference to the safety of the person in their custody. But it can also be argued that George Floyd resisted their lawful commands for him to sit in the patrol car. The police officers had strong reason to believe that George Floyd was acting erratically for reasons they could not understand. In their defense, they erroneously believed that because George Floyd could speak they thought he could also breathe. While I believe that this is a clear legal case for negligent homicide, the police officers did not seek to cause the death of George Floyd. This tragedy can be avoided by applying the simple solution I have suggested. But the subsequent destruction occurring in many cities throughout the United States must also be addressed.
Some may argue that we need more police sensitivity training. I do not. We have had decades of police sensitivity training along with the recruitment of many Black and Asian Americans into our police forces. If I am not mistaken, two to the police officers charged with the death of George Floyd are Asian Americans. One was present with Officer Lane when Mr. Floyd’s car was stopped and the other came as back-up with Officer Chauvin to assist when Mr. Floyd became uncooperative. Unfortunately, George Floyd’s death became yet another excuse to riot in America. This cannot continue. It has gone on like this throughout all six decades of my life and there is no change in sight. Arguing that you have the right to destroy the property of others when you perceive that yet another injustice has occurred only demonstrates that you do not wish to live under the rule of law. Having done so for more than six decades convinces me that you are not culturally acclimatized to a rule of law and may never be. So I propose that you be given the right to choose your own system of government: That you are to live solely by yourselves without interaction with those whom you believe are the cause of your dissatisfaction.
This brings us to the procedure through which America must be divided. I suppose many will oppose division of the United States into 3 or 4 four separate countries. I also suppose that many of those who would oppose any such division reside outside the United States and are not American citizens. Even if the subsequent nations created from this division agree to continue to participate in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization you can be sure that certain other nations who depend upon a powerful United States for their survival will strongly oppose this. Considering both their opposition and the internal opposition from numerous Americans who would argue that division is unacceptable, I believe that the complex solution is unlikely. But I support it. I believe it is consistent with the worldwide trend toward subsidiarity. As all things American transpire, so too would this occur through action of the individual States. The States must agree to allow for their dissolution. Within the 3 or 4 independent nations the States would no longer exist. As for the division of the wealth of the United States, personal wealth would remain intact as each individual moves to become a citizen of one of the new nations. Regarding the public wealth of the people, it would be divided proportionality to each new nation according to the number of persons who subscribe to become a citizen of each new nation: With one exception. To compensate for the injustice of slavery imposed upon most African Americans we would invert the ratio proposed in the Constitution itself. For all Americans who can demonstrate descendance from American Slaves each person would be counted as a nine-fifths person. Thus the African American nation would be apportioned a higher percentage of the public wealth of the United States than the actual percentage of the census count. Of course, all such things are subject to agreement by all parties involved.